See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/241060220

A design method for concrete-filled, hollow section, composite columns

Article · November 1997

CITATIONS READS
26 2,357

2 authors, including:

Yong C Wang
The University of Manchester
307 PUBLICATIONS   5,349 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Probabilistic distributions for use in the fire safety design of residential buildings View project

Characterisation And Multi-Scale Modelling Of Aged Concrete Under Extreme Loading Conditions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yong C Wang on 20 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Paper: Wang/Moore
Paper
A design method for concrete-filled,
hollow section, composite columns I
Y.c. Wang, BEng, PhD, CEng, MIStructE
Building Research Establishment
D. B. Moore, BEng, PhD, CEng, MIStructE
Building Research Establishment
Synopsis
In this paper a simple design procedure is presented for concrete-
filled composite columns suitable for manual calculations, based
on the recommendations given in BS 5950for bare steel columns.
Also presented is a series of tests on slender concrete-jilled
composite columns subjected to double curvature bending. These
tests, together with acomprehensive range of published
experimental data on composite columns, are compared with the
proposed design procedure. The design procedure is also
compared with the traditional method given in BS 5400 and the
method described in Eurocode 4 Part l .l. The results of all of
these comparisons show that the proposed method is
conservative, gives results comparable with those predicted by
BS 5400 and EC4, and can be used for design purposes.Howevel;
the simplicity ofthe proposed method and the savings in design
time are perhaps the major factors in its favour.
Notation
In addition to the symbols defined in BS 5950: Part I, the following sym-
bols appear in this paper:
ocu is theconcretecube strength
fck is the concrete characteristic strength (EC4)
p is the moment ratio in the column
E,, is the concrete short-term secant modulus of elasticity (EC4)
Y is the material partial safety factor
x isthe column relative slenderness = (Nu/N,,)”z
e is the column eccentricity
E is the material Young’s modulus
I isthe cross-section second moment of inertia
N,, is the column Euler buckling resistance
Nu is the column squash resistance
Introduction
Concrete-filled composite columns consist of either a circular, square or a
rectangular hollow steel section with a concrete core. Fig 1 shows some
examples of this type of element. They have many architectural and struc-
tural advantages, for example:
- high load capacity with small cross-section dimensions
- inherent ductility and toughness
- speed of construction when used as part of a composite frame
- good fire resistance
- good visual appearance
Although there are some practical concerns, in particular the joints between
composite columns and other structural elements, their numerous advan-
tages make them very attractive in a variety of applications’. It is therefore
surprising that they are so rarely used in the UK.
There are a number of standards in the UK that can be used to design con-
crete-filled columns. Theseinclude BS 5400: Part 5’ (referred to as the ‘BS
5400 method,’ in this paper) and Eurocode 4: Purr 1.I’ (referred to as the
‘EC4 method’ in this paper). The recommendations given in BS 5400 are
based on the work of Basu & Somerville’, modified by Virdi & Dowling‘,
while the EC4method was influenced by the CIDECT research programme.
However, both methods are complex and diffkult to use and don’t readily
lend themselves to hand calculation. Although there is readily available
computer software based on these two approaches, for conceptual design
and to develop a clear understanding of their structural behaviour it is some-
times desirable to have a reasonably accurate and simple manual approach.
368
BS 5950: Part 1’ (referred to as the ‘BS 5950 method’) contains a design
procedure for steel columns that is safe, easy to use, and accepted by design-
ers in the UK. Although in its present form this procedure cannot be used
for the design of concrete-filled columns, this paper presents results which
show that, with a number of modifications, the BS 5950 method can be eas-
ily adapted to concrete-filled columns.
As part of the introduction and acceptance of Eurocode 4 in to the UK,
the Building Research Establishment commissioned Professor Anderson at
Warwick University to compare the recommendations forcomposite
columns in EC4 with those in BS 5400. From the results of these compar-
isons Anderson concluded that?
( 1 ) there is a significant discrepancy between the predictions from BS 5400
and EC4;
(2) this discrepancy is particularly large for slender columns with end
moments other than single curvature bending.
Unfortunately, because of the lack of experimental data on slender com-
posite columns, Anderson could not resolve this problem. A series of tests
on slender composite columns was therefore carried out by BRE to resolve
the reason for the discrepancy between the two Codes, to add to the avail-
able test data, and to help verify the proposed design method based on the
BS 5950 approach. The details of this test programme are described in full
in this paper.
These tests, together with a comprehensive range of published experi-
mental data on composite columns, are compared with the proposed
BS 5950-based design procedure. The design procedure is also compared
with the two most up-to-date and best supported methods given in BS 5400
and EC4. The results of all these comparisons show that the proposed
method is conservative, gives results comparable with those predicted by
BS 5400 and EC4, and can be used for design purposes. However, the sim-
plicity of the method and the savings in design time are perhaps the major
factors in favour of the new approach.
The proposed method
The proposed method is based on the recommendations given in BS 5950
for bare steel columns and is developed by replacing the properties of the
bare steel section with those of the composite section.
In BS 5950, two checks are necessary: a local capacity check and an
overall buckling check. For each check, either a simplified or a more
exact approach may be used. Equations for the four different combinations
in BS 5950 are as follows:
- Local capacity check using the simplified approach:
F M, M
+-+L51 ....(l)
AgP, MC, Mcy
Concrete
filled CHS Concrete
filled RHS
Fig 1. Typical examplesof concrete-filled hollow section
The Structural EngineerVolume 75INo 2 1 4 November 1997
 Paper: Wang/Moore

TABLE l - Summary of test results The composite cross-section properties to be used in the proposed method
are:

I
Major axis Minor axis
Test load analysis - the squash load Nu= A, py in eqn (1)
no. eccentricity moment eccentricity moment - the plastic bending moment capacities M,, and Mcyin eqns (1)and (5)
(mm) ratio (mm) ratio - (Test
W (FEW
- the compressive resistance P,, and Pcy in eqn (5)
The values of Nu,M,, and Mcycan be determined in accordance with the rec-
RHS2 I 0 1 - I 55 I 0 I 246 I 218
ommendations given in BS 5400: Part 5’.
RHS3 I 55 I 0 I 110 I 0 I 172 I 161 To calculate the values of P,, and Pcy,the composite cross-section is con-
RHS4 I 55 I 0 I 110 I -1 I 238 I 223 verted into an equivalent steel section. The area A, and the second moment
RHS5 I 55 I -1 I 110 I -1 I 251 I 236
of inertia I of the equivalent steel section are:
RHS6 I 55 I 0 I 55 I 0 I 234 I 211 4=- N u
0.67E, l r,
andI=I,+I,- ...
RHS7 I 55 I -1 I 0 I - I 520 I 360 P y s 1Y s E, 15
RHS7* 55 -1 0 - 530 520 where the subscripts ‘S’and ‘c’ refer to steel and concrete components in
the compositesection. I, is thesecond moment of inertia of the uncracked
RHS8 55 0 0 - 480 340 concrete component. The factor of 0.67 relates the uniform rectangular
RHS8* 55 0 0 - 480 431 stress block to the concrete cube strength and is also used in BS 5400:
*column effective length= 3.2m. Part j2.
Column buckling curve ‘a’ is used when determining the column com-
pressive resistance P,, and Pcyin eqn (5).
- Local capacity check using the more exact approach for plastic and
compact cross sections: Tests on slender composite columns
Test set-up
A column length of 4m was chosen because this is typical of the storey
....(2) height in multistorey buildings. A hot-rolled 120 x 80 x 6.3 rectangular hol-
low section was selected to give a relative slenderness of about l .O.
- Overall buckling check using the simplified approach: Loading tests were carried out in an Amsler compressive testing machine
with a maximum load capacity of 10 000kN. A calibration of the test
F m
mM My, machine by the manufacturer confirmed that the Amsler had an accuracy of
+-+--I1 ....(3) +- 1% at the lower end of its range between 0 and 200kN and +- 0.5%
Ag P, Mb Py z y
between 200 and 1000kN.
- Overall buckling check using the more exact approach: This series of tests included two columns bent about the minor axis, two
columns bent about major axis, and four columns subjected to biaxial bend-
mM,
mM ing. The eccentricities and moment ratios for all tests are listed in Table 1 .
+ L 5 1 ...(4)
MayMax Since the Amsler was not designed to apply eccentric loading, a set of
adapter endplates was manufactured and fixed to both ends of each column
For hollow section steel columns, lateral-torsional buckling does not occur. to form a simply supported column under double curvature bending. Fig 2
Therefore: shows a typical arrangement for a column end support condition.
F F
I-- I--
Instrumentation
M , = M,, 0.5F and May = Mcy -
&X &Y
0.5F
....(5) Since the objective of these tests was to obtain column strengths, only a few
l+- l+- strain gauges and displacement transducers were placed on each column to
P,, CY obtain test data which may be used by others to conduct more detailed
This paper adopts the more exact approach in the proposed method for con- analysis of the behaviour of these columns.
crete-filled composite columns. However, since the values of M,., and Mry Three different sections (two quarter points and the centre) on each col-
in eqn (3) are not available for composite sections, eqn (l) is adopted for umn were strain-gauged and at each section four strain gauges were placed
the local capacity check. Therefore, the proposed method uses eqn (1) for around the cross-section. Fig 3 shows the positions of the four strain gauges
local capacity check and eqn (4) for overall buckling check. at each section.

1OOOmm I

t t’
looomm
- 1
l l
I I
t
/ / / / / / / / / / / / ~ / / / / / / / / / / / / (a) Along column (b) Cross-section
Fig 2. Column end support Fig 3. Strain guuge locutions

The Structural EngineerVolume75/No 21 4 November1997 3 69

Paper: Wang/Moore
-50l Deflection (mm)
Fig 4 . Load deflection relationships: major axis
A total of 21 displacement transducers were used to measure the 3-
dimensional deflections at seven positions on each column. A general
arrangement of three LVDTs was adopted, and the 3-dimensional deflec-
tions along the three rectangular Cartesian co-ordinate directions are cal-
culated from the measured deflections along these three directions*.
Material properties
Grade 43A mild steel and C30 ordinary strength concrete were specified for
each test. However, the real strengths of the test materials were much high-
er than those given in eitherBS 5400 orEC4.
Four 10m steel hollow section columns from the same mill were cut into
eight columns of 4m in length. From one off-cut, four steel coupons were made
and tensile tests
were carried out in accordance with BS EN 10002-1:1990.The
average yield stress was found to be 370N/mm2, and this value was assumed
for all the columns. In total, 27, l00mm standard concrete cubes were cast
on the day the columns were cast. Three concrete cube tests were carried
out after 28 days for quality control. The average cube strength was
5 1N/mm2.Three concrete cube tests were also carried out on the day of each
column test after approximately 6 months. The cube strengths obtained on
the day of each column test were very consistent (difference being less than
1N/mm2), and the average cube strength of all 24 concrete cubes was
60N/mm2.
Test results
The results from the eight column tests are given in Table 1. Figs 4 and 5
show the lateral load-deflection curves measured at midheight for dis-
placements parallel to the column’s major and minor axis directions, respec-
tively, for all eight tests.
The failure mode for all columnswas elastic-plastic buckling about the
minor axis. Except for test 8, which buckled suddenly about the minor axis,
all other columns failed in a gradual manner and there was very little resid-
ual deflection in the columns when the loads were taken off. This is clear-
ly shown in Figs 4 and 5.
3 70
550 T
450
350
h
E--
-20
-50 l Deflection (mm)
Fig 5. Load deflection relationships: minoraxis
The failure load for test 4 was 238kN. During this test, the two half-spher-
ical bearings at one end of the column started to bear against each other after
initial column failure at large deflections, and therefore the results after this
load should be ignored.
, All eight columns were intended to be simply supported at both ends
about both axes. However, there was a variable degree of end restraint
owing to friction in the ball bearings. Since all columns failed by buckling
about the minor axis, the column strengths for tests 1-6 were not affected.
This is because there was substantial minor-axis bending moments in these
columns, and these bending moments overcame the frictional resistance in
the ball bearings.
Tests 7 and 8 were subjected only to major-axis bending moments. The
very low level of minor-axis bending moments from secondary effects was
not sufficient to overcome the frictional resistance. Therefore, there was
rotational restraint about the minor axis in each column. The result of this
additional restraint was to reduce the column effective length and to increase
its strength.
A finite element analysis computer program9was usedto estimate the col-
umn effective length ratio for these two columns. This computer program
has been developed to study the structural behaviour of steel/composite
frames under both the cold and fire conditions and has been extensively val-
idated against a large number of test results’. An effective length ratio of 0.8
was found to give analytical results in good agreement with the test results.
For comparison, the strengths for columns 1-6 were also predicted using the
computer program. All the predicted column strengths using the finite ele-
ment analysis are given in Table 1.
Comparison between various predictions and test results
In this section, the predicted column strengths using the following three
methods are compared with the test results:
- the proposed method
- the BS 5400 method
- the EC4 method
TheStructuralEngineerVolume 75/No 21 4 November1997
 Paper: Wang/Moore
~

TABLE 2 - Comparisons between predictions and test results,using Comparisons between predicted column strengths and test
measured material properties andpartial safety factors = l results
Sources of test results
A large number of concrete-filled steel circular (CHS) and square (SHS) hol-
low section, composite columns have been tested. Most of these test results
are included in a comprehensive report by Roik & Bergmann”. Columns
were subjected either to pure axial loading or single curvature bending.
More recently, Matsui et al” reported a series of similar tests. These tests
encompassed a variety of column sizes, column slenderness, steel and con-
crete material strengths, and levels of bending moment.
Tests on concrete-filled steel rectangular hollow section (RHS), com-
posite columns are rare. Shakir-Khalil & Zeghiche” and Shakir-Khalil &
Mouli” reported a series of tests on concrete-filled RHS columns with sin-
gle curvature bending moments. The authors’ eight tests are the only ones
RHS6 234 175 0.75 134 0.57 186 0.79 on slender concrete- filled composite columns under double curvature bend-
RHS7* 520 462 0.92 315 0.61 425 0.82 ing.
RHSP 480 419 0.87 281 0.58 420 0.88
Comparisonfor axially loaded composite columns, CHS and SHS sections
Ave. - - 0.77 - 0.58 - 0.76 Fig 6 presents the comparison between the predicted column strengths using
*Column effective length = 3.2m. the proposed method and the test results on axially loaded composite
columns. It shows that, for the range of column slenderness of practical
interest, the proposed method predicts column strengths which are in very
In the calculations, the average measured steel yield stress of 370N/mm2was good agreement with the test results. This suggests that the column buck-
used for all columns. The Young’s modulus of steel was assumed to be ling curve ‘a’can be used for composite columns. Comparisons between the
205kN/mm2. The measured concrete cube strength for all columns was predictions using the BS 5400 and the EC4 methods and the test results give
60N/mm2. This was used for calculating the column strength using the similar accuracy. Table3 gives a statistical summary for this comparison and
BS 5400 and the proposed method. The concrete initial modulus was shows a very good correlation between the proposed method and the two
27 OOON/mm2according to BS 5400.For calculations using EC4, concrete the existing design methods.
cube strength of 60N/mm2qualified as a C50/60 grade. Therefore, a charac-
teristic strength ofLk= 50N/mm2and a secant modulus of elasticity for short- Comparison for columns with single curvature bending,CHS and SHS
term loading of E,, = 37 OOON/mm2were used with the EC4 method. sections
The predicted column strengths from the three methods are given in The results of the comparison between the predicted column strengths using
Table 2 and they are compared with the test results. Table 2 shows that all the proposed method and the test results for CHS and SHS composite
three methods predict lower column strengths than the test results and are columns under single curvature bending are summarised in Fig 7. This fig-
therefore safe. For the eight columns, BS 5400 is most conservative. The ure ‘showsthat in most cases, the proposed method is conservative. Results
predicted column strengths from the proposed method are in reasonable in Table 3 suggest that, compared with the predictions using the proposed
agreement with the test results. As an indication of whether the accuracy of method, the predictions using BS 5400 and EC4 have a similar scatter as
the proposed method is acceptable, Table 2 shows that the proposed method indicated by the standard deviation but are slightly more accurate. On aver-
predicts results very similar to the EC4 method. age, the proposed method predicts column strengths that are about 8% and
1 1% lower than those predicted by using BS 5400 and EC4, respectively.
Further validationof the proposed approach An examination of the raw test data revealed that the proposed method
This validation study was carried out in two stages. First, the accuracy of predicted very low column strengths for very stocky columns and this
the proposed method is checked by comparing the predicted column reduced the overall accuracy of the method. The difference in predicted col-
strengths with available test results. Secondly, a systematic comparison umn strengths for very short columns is a direct result of the different N-M
between the predictions from the proposed method and those using interaction curves used in the three different methods.
BS 5400 and EC4 is carried out to check whether the proposed Fig 8 shows schematically the different interaction curves used in the
method is acceptable. three different methods. It is clear that, for a very short column with a high

1.2

-3
c

!?!
c
a.
c,
0
c

I
0 I I I I I I 1 t
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Column slenderness
Fig 6. Comparison betweenproposed method and tests: axial load

The Structural Engineer Volume 75INo 21 4 November 1997 371

Paper: Wang/Moore

l I I l I I
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Column slenderness
Fig 7. Comparison between proposedmethod and tests: single curvature bending

value of eccentricity, the difference in predicted axial strengths can be very For each section: six levels of eccentricity. The lowest level was for axial
large. loading, and the highest level of eccentricity resulted in
However, for columns of realistic length, the difference in predicted col- column failure in predominantly bending mode.
umn strengths using the three different methods becomes very small and the For eccentricity: three types of bending moment distribution of 13 = 1,0 and
predictions from the proposed method are very close to the test results. This -1.
trend is illustrated in Fig 7.
In all these calculations, the column height was 4m, and grade S355 steel
and C30/37 (EC4 term) concrete were used. The steel yield stress and
Comparison for concrete-filled, RHS composite columns
Young’s modulus were 355N/mm’ and 205kWmm’. The concrete cube
Fig 9 compares the predictions using the proposed method with the avail-
able test results. This figure indicates that the proposed method predicts col-
umn strengths in very good agreement with the test results. The results
given in Table 3 also suggest that the accuracy of the predictions using the 1
proposed method is very similar to those using EC4 and is better than those
using BS 5400.
0.E
Summary
Overall, the predicted column strengths from the proposed method are on
l
the safe side. These predictions are in reasonable agreement with the avail-
able test results, and the accuracy of these predictions is similar to the 0.E
BS 5400 and EC4 methods. In particular, column buckling curve ‘a’ can
be used for concrete-filled composite columns.

T
0.7
Systematic comparison between the proposed method and
BS 5400 and EC4
In this parametric study, the strengths of 216 columns were predicted
using all three methods. These columns consisted of the following arrange- 0.E
i I
ments:
12 steel sections: three SHS sections, three RHS sections and three RHS
sections bending about both the major and minor axes. 0.5
3
Each set of three sections represented the small, medium z
and large sections of each type. 1
0.4

TABLE 3 - Comparison between results~fromthe proposed method and

test results
0.3
Average Standard
Column type Design method
(prediction/test) deviation
I RS 5400 I 0.938 I 0.096 0.2
CHS & SHS,
EC4 0.96 1 0.121
axial load
BS 5950 I
0.946 0.098
BS 5400 0.835 0.136 0.1
CHS 8z SHS,
single curvature EC4 0.859 0.145
I
bending BS 5950 0.766 0. I60
.
0
~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~

BS 5400 0.788 0.176 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

RHS,
EC4 0.867 0.1 12 MIMcx (MIMcy)
all tests
BS 5950 0.142 0.884 Fig 8.N-M interuction c t m v s

3 72 The Structural Engineer Volume 75/No 21 4 November 1997

 Paper: Wang/Moore

1200- composite columns and is much easier to use than the methods given in
z“”1
h

Y / BS 5400 and EC4.

(3) The proposed method predicts column strengths in reasonable agreement
with test results and its accuracy is very similar to that of the BS 5400 and
EC4 methods.
(4) The correlation between the predictions using the proposed method and
those using the BS 5400 and EC4 methods is better than that between pre-
dictions using BS 5400 and EC4. Therefore, the accuracy of the proposed
method is acceptable.

0 200 400 600 800
Test result (kN)
Fig 9. Comparison between proposed method
and tests: RHS
strength and Young’s modulus were 37N/mm2 and 24 800N/mm2 for cal-
culations using BS 5400 and the proposed design method. For calculations
using the EC4 method, the concrete characteristic strength and short-term
Young’s modulus were 30N/mm2and 32 000N/mm2.All material safety fac-
tors were set to be unity.
Results from the parametric study
Only a summary of the results from this parametric study is given in Fig 10.
This figure shows the percentage distribution of three ratios: those of the pre-
dicted strengths using the BS 5400 and EC4 methods to that using the pro-
posed method, and the ratio of the predicted strength using EC4 to that using
BS 5400. Fig 10 indicates that the discrepancy in the predicted column
strengths between the proposed method and both the BS 5400 and EC4
methods is less than 10%(0.9- 1.1) in most cases. In addition, Fig 10 shows
a better correlation between the proposed method with either of the two
existing methods than between the two existing methods. Therefore, the
accuracy of the proposed method is acceptable.
Conclusions
This paper describes the development and validation of a simplified design
approach for concrete-filledcomposite columns. This method adapts the rec-
ommendations in BS 5950: Part 1’ for steel columns and is formed by
replacing the properties of the steel section with those of the composite sec-
tion, which may be determined in accordance with the recommendations
given inBS 5400: Part 5’. The findings of this paper may be summarised as
follows:
( 1 ) The well-accepted design method in BS 5950 forbare steel columns can
be adapted easily to concrete-filled composite columns.
(2) The proposed method gives a clear understanding on the behaviour of
References
1 . Bergmann, R., Matsui, C., Meinsma, C., and Dutta, D.: Design guide
for concrete-filled, hollow section columns under static and seismic
l I loading, CIDECT, Verlag TUV Rheinland, I995
1000 1200
2. ‘Design of composite bridges: use of BS 5400: Part 5: 1979 for
Department of Transport Structures’, London, Department of Trans-
port, December 1987
3. Basu, A. K., Somerville, W.: ‘Derivation of formulae for the design of
rectangular composite columns’, Proc. ICE, supplementary volume,
paper 7206S, 1969, pp233-280
4. Virdi, S., Dowling, P. J.: ‘The ultimate strength of composite columns
in biaxial bending’, Proc. ICE, 55, Part 2, March 1973, pp251-272
5. ‘Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures, Part
I . 1: General rules and rules for buildings’, Brussels, Commission of
European Communities, March I992
6. Anderson, D.: ‘Calibration of composite columns: Eurocode 4 and
British practice’, Report to Building Research Establishment, Depart-
ment of Environment, March 1992
7 . BS 5950 Structural use ($steelwork in building: Part I : Code of pruc-
tice for design in simple and continuous construction: hot rolled sec-
tions, London, British Standards Institution, 1990
8. Gibbons, C.: ‘The strength of biaxially loaded beam-columns in flex-
ibly connected steel frames’, PhD thesis, Department of Civil &
Structural Engineering, University of Sheffield, 1990
9. Wang,Y. C., Moore, D. B.: ‘Steel frames in fire: analysis’, Engineering
Structures, 17, No. 6, pp462-472, 1995
10. Roik, E. K., Bergmann, R.: ‘Report onEurocode4:Composite
columns’. Report EC4/6/89, University of Bochum, June 1989
11. Matsui, C., Tsuda, K., and Ishibashi, Y.: ‘Slender concrete-filled steel
tubular columns under combined compression and bending’, Proc.
4th Pacific Structural Steel Conference, Vol. 3, Steel-Concrete Compo-
site Structures, 1995, pp29-36
12. Shakir-Khalil, H., Zeghiche, J.: ‘Experimental behaviour of concrete-
filled rolled rectangular hollow-section columns’, The Structural
Engineel; 67, No. 19, October 1989, pp346-353
13. Shakir-Khalil, H., Mouli, M.: ‘Further tests on concrete-filled rectan-
gular hollow-section columns’, The Structural Engineer, 68, No. 20,
October 1990, pp405-413

0.35

<0.8 0.8-0.85
0.85-0.9
0.9-0.95
0.95-1.0 1.0-1.05 1.05-1.1 1.1-1.15 1.15-1.2 >1.2
Ratio of predicted strengths
Fig 10. Summary of parametric study results

TheStructural Engineer Volume 75/No 21 4 November 1997 373

View publication stats