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

net/publication/330533846

Comparative Performance Evaluation of Steel Column Building and Concrete

Filled Tube Column Building under Static and Dynamic Loading (Part b)

Article  in  Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering · January 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 144

3 authors, including:

Sejal P. Dalal Purvang Dalal

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Institute of Technology Dharmsinh Desai University
27 PUBLICATIONS   44 CITATIONS    20 PUBLICATIONS   51 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Improving TCP performance using RTT based Network State Classification View project

Displacement Based Design Methods View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sejal P. Dalal on 22 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering, Volume 11, No. 2, 2017

Comparative Performance Evaluation of Steel Column Building and Concrete

Filled Tube Column Building under Static and Dynamic Loading

Ankur Tailor 1), Sejal Dalal 2) and P.D. Dalal 3)

1)
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Institute of Technology, India. E-Mail: ank859@gmail.com
2)
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Institute of Technology, India. E-Mail: sejaldalal.civil@gmail.com
3)
Professor, Dharmsinh Desai Institute of Technology, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.

ABSTRACT
In this paper, an attempt has been made to check the feasibility of concrete-filled steel tube columns in terms
of both performance and cost. An actual building, which was designed for steel sections as per IS800:2007,
was selected as the study frame. All the columns of the study frame were then replaced by equivalent concrete-
filled steel tube columns (both square and circular). Seismic performance evaluation of both frames was then
carried out and compared. It was found that seismic performance of concrete-filled steel tube column frame
was better than that of steel frame under both static and dynamic loading. It also proved to be more economical
than steel frame.

KEYWORDS: Concrete-filled tube columns, Steel columns, Dynamic loading, Static loading, Time
history analysis.

INTRODUCTION
Concrete-filled steel tube columns have been
increasingly used all over the world due to their inherent
advantages, particularly because of their favourable
behaviour under seismic loads. The steel tube
effectively confines the concrete core, providing a
highly ductile response under compression and a high
energy absorption capacity (Oliveira, 2009). The
confinement introduced by the steel tube in the concrete
core is an important aspect of the structural behaviour of
concrete-filled steel tube columns.
The confinement effect in the first stages of loading
can be neglected, since the Poisson coefficient of the
concrete is smaller than the steel's coefficient.
Therefore, the steel tube expands faster than the concrete
Received on 29/10/2015.
Accepted for Publication on 18/12/2016.
core in the radial direction and the steel tube does not
restrain the concrete core. At this point, the steel tube is
subjected to compressive stresses, with no separation
between the tube and the concrete core. However, when
the applied load reaches the level of the uniaxial strength
of the concrete, micro-cracking of concrete is increased.
In this situation, the lateral expansion of the concrete
reaches its maximum, mobilizing the steel tube and
efficiently confining the concrete core. In this way, the
ultimate capacity of concrete-filled steel tube columns is
higher than the sum of the resistance of their
components, which are the steel tube and the concrete
core (Shanmugam and Lakshmi, 2001; Oliveira et al.,
2009; Sakino et al., 2004).
Only circular concrete-filled steel tube columns
present this gain of load capacity due to confinement
effect (Shams and Saadeghvaziri, 1997; Schneider,
1998; Shanmugam and Lakshmi, 2001). Square and
rectangular cross-sections do not show this behaviour.

- 309 - © 2017 JUST. All Rights Reserved.

Comparative Performance Evaluation of Steel… Ankur Tailor, Sejal Dalal and P.D. Dalal

The plane portions of the square section steel tube are  For beam-column member;
lk
not rigid enough to resist the internal pressures due to ≤ 30;
D
expansion of the concrete core. Therefore, only the where,
concrete in the centre and in the corners of the cross- lk = effective buckling length of member.
section is effectively confined. D = minimum depth of cross-section.

DESIGN METHODOLOGY 3. Ultimate Compressive Strength of a Concrete-

Filled Steel Tube Column
As there are no codes or guidelines available for the lk
For ≤ 4;
D
design of concrete-filled steel tube columns in India, in Ncu1 = cNcu + (1+η) sNcu
this section, design recommendations of concrete-filled lk
For 4 < ≤ 12;
D
steel tube columns attuned with the Indian Standard lk lk
Ncu2 = Ncu1 – 0.125 {Ncu1 – Ncu3 ( = 12)} ( – 4)
Code (IS800:2007) have been presented. It should be D D
lk
noted that the “standard for structural calculation of For 12 < ;
D
steel-reinforced concrete structures, 5th edition” of the Ncu3 = cNcr + sNcr
Architecture Institute of Japan (AIJ) (2001) has been
used as a reference. The following recommendations where,
were used for the design of concrete-filled steel tube Ncu1, Ncu2 and Ncu3=ultimate strengths of CFT column.
columns. lk = effective buckling length of member.
D = minimum depth of cross-section.
Recommendations for Design of Concrete-Filled η = 0 for square CFT column.
Steel Tube Columns η = 0.27 for circular CFT column.
The limiting value of compressive strength of cNcu =ultimate strength of concrete column.

concrete, “Fc” should be less than or equal to 60 N/mm2 sNcu =ultimate strength of steel tube column.

and the tensile strength of steel “σs” should be less than cNcr =buckling strength of concrete column.

or equal to 590 N/mm2. sNcr = buckling strength of steel tube column.

1. Limiting Value of Width to Thickness Ratio  Ultimate Compressive Strength (cNcu) of a Concrete
Column
 Rectangular or square; B ≤ 1.5 735
st √F cNcu = cA * cru * Fc

D 23500
 Circular; ≤ 1.5
st F where,
where, A =cross-sectional area of concrete column.
c
B = flange width of rectangular or square tube. Fc =design standard strength of filled concrete.
D = depth or diameter of circular tube.
cru =0.85: reduction factor for concrete strength.
t = wall thickness of steel tube.
 Ultimate Buckling Strength (cNcr) of a Concrete
F = allowable stress of steel, smaller than yield stress Column
and 0.7 times the tensile strength (N/mm2). cNcr = cA * cσcr
2. Maximum Effective Length (lk) of Concrete-
Filled Steel Tube Members where,
 for compression member; cσcr =critical stress of concrete column.
lk 2
≤ 50. For cλ1 ≤ 1; cσcr = cru * Fc
D 4
1+ cλ1 +1

- 310 -
Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering, Volume 11, No. 2, 2017

For 1< cλ1; cσcr = 0.83 exp {Cc (1- cλ1)} cru * Fc π2sE sI
sNE =
lk2
cλ
Cλ1 = cε u sλ = slenderness ratio of steel tube.
π
1
0.93 ( cru * Fc ) ⁄4 x 103
cε u = sE =Young’s modulus of steel tube.
Cc = 0.568 + 0.00612 Fc sI =cross-sectional moment of inertia of steel tube
cλ = slenderness ratio of concrete column. column.

 Ultimate Compressive Strength (sNcu) of a Steel Tube 4. Ultimate Bending Strength of a Concrete-Filled
Column
Steel Tube Beam-Column
sNcu = sA * Fs
Ultimate bending strength Mu of short concrete-
lk
filled steel tube beam-column ( < 12) subjected to axial
where, D
load Nu is calculated by the following equilibrium
sA =cross-sectionalarea of steel tube column.
equations:
Fs =design standard strength of steel tube. Nu = cNu + sNu
Mu = cMu + sMu
 Ultimate Buckling Strength (sNcr) of a Steel Tube where, the strengths appearing on the right sides of
Column
the equations are based on stress block.
For sλ1 ≤ 1;
Nu = ultimate axial load on column.
sNcr = sA * Fs
cNu= ultimate compressive strength of filled concrete
For 0.3 ≤ sλ1 < 1;
portion.
sNu = ultimate compressive strength of steel portion.
sNcr = {1-0.545 (sλ1 - 0.3)} sA * Fs
cMu= ultimate bending strength of filled concrete
For 1.3 ≤ sλ1;
sNE portion.
sNcr =
1.3 sMu= ultimate bending strength of steel portion.
where,
sλ F
sλ1 =
π sE

 For a Square Concrete-Filled Steel Tube Beam-Column

B Concrete Steel
st
0.85Fc s σy

xn
N.A

D cD

s σy

Figure (1): Stress block for ultimate bending strength for a square beam-column

cNu= 0.85 Fc xn cD where,

sNu= 2 (2xn1- 1) cD st sσy Fc = compressive strength of concrete.
3
cMu = {0.5 (1- xn1) xn1 cD } 0.85 Fc xn = neutral axis from the extreme compression fibre.
st
sMu = {(0.5 - ) D + 2 (1- xn1 xn1 cD } st sσy
2 2
D st = thickness of steel tube.

cD = width or depth of concrete section.

- 311 -
Comparative Performance Evaluation of Steel… Ankur Tailor, Sejal Dalal and P.D. Dalal

sσ y = yield stress of steel tube. where,

xn
xn1 = Fc = compressive strength of concrete.
cD

st = thickness of steel tube.

 For a Circular Concrete-Filled Steel Tube Beam- cD = diameter of concrete section.

Column sσy = yield stress of steel tube.
cD
2 xn
cNu = (θn - sin θn cos θn ) cσcB xn1 =
4 cD
st 1.56 st sσy
sNu = {β1 θn + β2 (θn – π)} (1- ) D st sσy cσcB = 0.85Fc +
cD D – 2 st
3
cD
3
cMu = sin θn cσcB θn= cos-1 (1-2xn1)
12
1 - st D 2
3
sMu = (β1 + β2 ) sin θn c D st sσ y
2

Concrete Steel
st σcB
c β1 sσy β1 = 0.89
β2 = 1.08
xn N.A

D cD

β2 sσy
Figure (2): Stress block for ultimate bending strength for a circular beam-column

The interaction chart shown in Figure 3 for For other grades of materials, similar diagrams can be
compression with bending has been procured by using prepared by using stress blocks. The ultimate capacity
stress blocks and equilibrium equations for the M25 of concrete-filled steel tube columns can be easily
grade of concrete and Fe345 grade of structural steel. calculated using such interaction curves.

Figure (3): N-M interaction chart for square and circular concrete-filled steel tube

- 312 -
Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering, Volume 11, No. 2, 2017

STUDY FRAME
An actual frame located at Vadodara City has been
selected for the study purpose. Plan of the building and
the numbering system adopted for beams and columns
are shown in Figure 4. Details of the building considered
are shown in Table 1. Concrete grade of M25 and
structural steel grade of Fe345 have been used. Dead
load and live load were considered as per IS875:1987
(part 1 and part 2). Lateral load was considered as per
IS1893: 2000. Designed sections of beams and columns
are shown in Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5. Steel sections are
designed as per IS 800:2007 and concrete-filled steel
tube columns are designed as per the recommendations
previously mentioned.

Table 1. Details of building

Storey number 20
Storey height 3m
Slab thickness 125 mm
Thickness of outer wall 230 mm
Thickness of inner wall 115 mm
Thickness of shear wall 230 mm
Earthquake zone (Z) III
Response reduction factor (R) 5
Soil type Medium

Figure (4): Plan of building and numbering system of beams and columns

- 313 -
Comparative Performance Evaluation of Steel… Ankur Tailor, Sejal Dalal and P.D. Dalal

Table 2. Details of beam sections

1-19 Storeys 20 Storeys
Beam Number Section Beam Number Section
B1 ISMB 250 B1 ISMB200
B2 ISMB 600 B2 ISLB400
B3 ISLB500 B3 ISLB400
B4 ISLB250 B4 ISLB200
B5 ISLB350 B5 ISLB275
B6 ISWB450 B6 ISLB350
B7 ISMB100 B8 ISLB250
B8 ISMB175 B9 ISLB100
B9 ISLB125 B10 ISLB75
B10 ISLB75 B11 ISLB200
B11 ISLB250 B12 ISLB200
B12 ISLB250 B13 ISLB100
B13 ISLB100 B14 ISLB250
B14 ISLB275 B15 ISLB175
B15 ISLB250 B16 ISLB175
B16 ISLB550 B18 ISLB350
B17 ISLB75
B18 ISLB550

Table 3. Details of steel column sections

1-5 6-10
Column No. Plate on Both Flanges (mm) Plate on Both Flanges (mm)
Storeys Storeys
C1-A ISHB 225-1 20 X 320 ISHB 225-1 16 X 320
C1-B ISHB 225-1 20 X 320 ISHB 225-1 16 X 320
C1-C ISHB 225-1 20 X 320 ISHB 225-1 16 X 320
C2 ISHB 250-1 40 X 400 ISHB 250-1 32 X 400
C3 ISHB 250-1 20 X 400 ISHB 250-1 16 X 400
C4 ISHB 225-1 25 X 320 ISHB 225-1 32 X 320
C5 ISHB 250-1 16 X 320 ISHB 200-1 12 X 250
11-15 16-20
Column No. Plate on Both Flanges (mm) Plate on Both Flanges (mm)
Storeys Storeys
C1-A ISHB 225-1 12 X 320 ISHB 225-1 -
C1-B ISHB 225-1 12 X 320 ISHB 225-1 -
C1-C ISHB 225-1 12 X 320 ISHB 225-1 -
C2 ISHB 250-1 20 X 320 ISHB 250-1 12 X 320
C3 ISHB 250-1 12 X 400 ISHB 250-1 -
C4 ISHB 225-1 12 X 320 ISHB 250-1 -
C5 ISHB 200-1 12 X 250 ISHB 250-1 -

- 314 -
Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering, Volume 11, No. 2, 2017

Table 4. Details of square concrete-filled steel tube column sections

Column No. 1-5 Storeys 6-10 Storeys 11-15 Storeys 16-20 Storeys
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
C1-A D = 325 & st = 6 D = 300 & st = 6 D = 250 & st = 6 D = 225 & st = 6
C1-B D = 325 & st = 6 D = 300 & st = 6 D = 250 & st = 6 D = 225 & st = 6
C1-C D = 325 & st = 6 D = 300 & st = 6 D = 250 & st = 6 D = 225 & st = 6
C2 D = 500 & st = 8 D = 400 & st = 8 D = 350 & st = 6 D = 250 & st = 6
C3 D = 400 & st = 6 D = 400 & st = 6 D = 225 & st = 6 D = 225 & st = 6
C4 D = 400 & st = 8 D = 350 & st = 6 D = 350 & st = 6 D = 300 & st = 6
C5 D = 300 & st = 6 D = 350 & st = 6 D = 300 & st = 6 D = 250 & st = 6

Table 5. Details of circular concrete-filled steel tube column sections

Column No. 1-5 Storeys 6-10 Storeys 11-15 Storeys 16-20 Storeys
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
C1-A D = 350 & st = 6 D = 300 & st = 6 D = 250 & st = 6 D = 225 & st = 6
C1-B D = 350 & st = 6 D = 300 & st = 6 D = 250 & st = 6 D = 225 & st = 6
C1-C D = 350 & st = 6 D = 300 & st = 6 D = 250 & st = 6 D = 225 & st = 6
C2 D = 600 & st = 6 D = 500 & st = 6 D = 400 & st = 6 D = 300 & st = 6
C3 D = 450 & st = 6 D = 400 & st = 6 D = 250 & st = 6 D = 225 & st = 6
C4 D = 400 & st = 6 D = 350 & st = 6 D = 300 & st = 6 D = 300 & st = 6
C5 D = 350 & st = 6 D = 300 & st = 6 D = 300 & st = 6 D = 300 & st = 6

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF STUDY base shear value is increased, as shown in Table 6,

FRAME BY STATIC ANALYSIS
Linear static analysis of the study frame was carried out
for the IS1983:2000 seismic loads using STAAD Pro
software. Time period of circular CFT frame and square
CFT frame is reduced by 1.02% and 7.4%, respectively,
compared to the steel frame. Thus, it becomes stiffer and
giving more lateral resistance than that of the steel
frame. Therefore, the displacement of concrete-filled
steel tube frame is less compared to that of the steel
frame. The maximum storey drift was due to earthquake
in X-direction, as shown in Figure 5. The concrete-filled
steel tube column (especially the square one) performed
better than the steel column in terms of lateral drift.

Table 6. Comparison of design parameters

Circular CFT
Structure Steel Column Square CFT Column
Column
Time Period (sec) for the 1st mode 3.92 3.88 3.63
Base Shear in X-dir. (kN) 1527.83 1562.01 1581.96
Base Shear in Y-dir. (kN) 1622.64 1665.61 1678.66

- 315 -
Comparative Performance Evaluation of Steel… Ankur Tailor, Sejal Dalal and P.D. Dalal

20
18 Storey Drift (mm)
16
14
12
Storey
10
8
6
4
2 STEEL CIRCULAR CFT
0 SQUARE CFT
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Figure (5): Comparison of maximum storey drift

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF THE km) of a structure of interest (Brown, 2008).

STUDY FRAME BY DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
Seismic evaluation of the study frame was carried
out by performing linear time history analysis using the
past recorded ground motion data. Severity and damage
potential of earthquake ground motion is depending on
ground motion parameters; i.e., magnitude, peak ground
motion and epicentral distance (Singh, 1995; Bommer,
2002; Ghobarah, 2004; Brown, 2008). Peak ground
motions include peak ground acceleration (PGA), peak
ground velocity (PGV) and peak ground displacement
(PGD). Of these, peak ground acceleration is the
parameter most often associated with severity of ground
motion (Singh, 1995).
Near-fault ground motions differ from ordinary
ground motions in a way that they often contain a long
period velocity pulse and permanent ground
displacement (Brown, 2008; Ghobarah, 2004). Another
factor for classifying ground motions as ‘near-fault’ is
the distance to the epicentre of the earthquake. The
epicentre should be within 10 miles (approximately 15
Therefore, near field ground motions with PGA
values ranging from 0.1g to 0.9g are selected for study,
such that the most critical structural behaviour under
very strong to violent earthquake (as per modified
Mercalli scale, intensity VII to IX) gets addressed and
hence the study is concentrated on these ground motions
only. One far field ground motion (Bhuj, 2001) and five
different near field ground motions (0 degree
component) which were used for the seismic evaluation
of the study frame are shown in Table 7. The ground
motions which have been used for time history analysis
in this study have been selected in such a way that the
analysis covers excitations ranging from low-intensity
to high-intensity earthquakes and from short-duration to
long-duration earthquakes.
To study the performance of the study frame under
dynamic loading, the parameters considered are:
acceleration response, displacement response,
maximum storey drift and maximum base shear.

- 316 -
Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering, Volume 11, No. 2, 2017

Table 7. Details of ground motions selected for study

Sr. Near-Fault Earthquake Recording Duration Magnitude PGD PGV PGA

No. Ground Motions Station (sec) (Mw) (m) (m/sec) (g)
1 January 26, 2001, Bhuj,
Ahmedabad 133.530 7.6 0.088 0.11 0.11
Gujarat, India
2 October 15, 1979, Imperial El Centro
39.420 6.5 0.765 0.98 0.37
Valley, California Array #5
3 October 15, 1979, Imperial El Centro
36.900 6.5 0.491 1.13 0.46
Valley, California Array #7
4 June 28, 1992, Landers, Lucerne
49.284 7.3 2.300 1.36 0.71
California Valley
5 January 17, 1994,
Newhall 60.000 6.7 0.381 1.19 0.72
Northridge, California
6 January 17, 1994,
Rinaldi 14.950 6.7 0.391 1.75 0.89
Northridge, California

ACCELERATION AND DISPLACEMENT RESPONSE AT ROOF JOINT

26 Jan, 2001 Bhuj, India (Ahmedabad)
3000
46.7, 2630.29
Acceleration (mm/s 2 )

2000

1000

-1000 STEEL
-2000 CIRCULAR CFT
45.88, -2650.11 45.885, -2605.6 SQ UARE CFT
-3000
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135

Time (Sec)

15 Oct, 1979 Imperia l Valley, California (El Centro Array #5)

5.98, 10710.72
12000
5.98, 10372.13
Acceleration (mm/s2 )

5.98, 9999.25
8000

4000

0
STEEL
-4000
CIRCULAR CFT
-8000
SQ UARE CFT
-12000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (Sec)

15 Oct, 1979 Imperial Valley, California (El Centro Array #7)

12000
Acceleration (mm/s 2 )

8000

4000

-4000
STEEL
-8000 8.1, -8094.16 CIRCULAR CFT
8.1, -8519.11
SQUARE CFT
8.08, -9736.59
-12000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (Sec)

- 317 -
Comparative Performance Evaluation of Steel… Ankur Tailor, Sejal Dalal and P.D. Dalal

June 28, 1992 Landers, California (Lucerne Valley)

16000
Acceleration (mm/s 2 )

15.684, 13213.22

8000

STEEL
-8000
CIRCULAR CFT
14.148, -13350.4 14.144, -13475.42 SQUARE CFT
-16000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Time (Sec)

January 17, 1994 Northridge, California (Newhall)

20000
Acceleration (mm/s 2 )

10000

STEEL
-10000
CIRCULAR CFT
6.12, -18155.16 6.12, -17191.85
SQUARE CFT
-20000 6.12, -17076.93
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (Sec)

January 17, 1994 Northridge, California (Rinaldi)

24000 3.89, 20177.9
3.9, 19231.22
Acceleration (mm/s 2 )

16000 3.91, 18990.82

8000

-8000 STEEL
CIRCULAR CFT
-16000
SQUARE CFT
-24000
0 3 6 9 12 15
Time (Sec)

Figure (6): Acceleration response at roof joint for different ground motions

26 Jan, 2001 Bhuj, India (Ahmedabad)

160 47.995, 154.4
47.97, 152.7
47.83, 121.1
Displacement (mm)

80

STEEL
-80
CIRCULAR CFT
SQ UARE CFT
-160
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (Sec)

15 Oct, 1979 Imperial Valley, California (El Centro Array #5)

2400

1600
Displacement (mm)

800

-800
8.92, -1631.2 STEEL
-1600 CIRCULAR CFT
9.3, -1749.6 9.32, -1763.1
SQ UARE CFT
-2400
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (Se c)

- 318 -
Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering, Volume 11, No. 2, 2017

15 Oct, 1979 Imperial Valley, California (El Centro Array #7)

2000
1600
1200
Displacement (mm)

800
400
0
-400
-800
STEEL
-1200
9.48, -1711.4 CIRCULAR CFT
-1600
9.7, -1733 SQUARE CFT
-2000 9.66, -1735.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (Se c)

June 28, 1992 Landers, California (Lucerne Valley)

2400
14.136, 1907.9
1600 14.112, 1874.5
13.856, 1593.5
Displacement (mm)

800

-800
STEEL
-1600 CIRCULAR CFT
SQUARE CFT
-2400
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (Sec)

January 17, 1994 Northridge, California (Newhall)

1200
6.34, 906.1
Displacement (mm)

800

400

-400 STEEL
-800 CIRCULAR CFT
12.4, -963.5 SQUARE CFT
12.36, -955
-1200
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (Sec)

January 17, 1994 Northridge, California (Rinaldi)

1200

800
Displacement (mm)

400

-400
STEEL
-800 2.78, -937.7 CIRCULAR CFT
2.785, -939.4
SQ UARE CFT
2.76, -945.6
-1200
0 3 6 9 12 15
Time (Sec)

Figure (7): Displacement response at roof joint for different ground motions

As observed from Figure 6, acceleration response is earthquake, acceleration of the equipment will be
higher in most of strong ground motions with very high directly affecting the acceleration of the frame and the
magnitudes. Therefore, if the structure is supporting response of the frame will be higher.
sensitive equipment and the motion imparted to the As observed from Figure 7, concrete-filled steel tube
equipment, concrete-filled steel tube frame seems to be (especially square one) frame proves to be better than
inefficient at places where seismic activity is higher. steel frame in terms of displacement response when
Because equipment also has its own motion, during an subjected to the earthquake with PGA ranging from 0.1g

- 319 -
Comparative Performance Evaluation of Steel… Ankur Tailor, Sejal Dalal and P.D. Dalal

to 0.7g (Newhall earthquake had 0.72g PGA). However,
in case of ground motions with higher PGA greater than
0.89g (Rinaldi, 1994), the steel frame gives better
performance than the square and circular concrete-filled
steel tube frame. Thus, it can be stated that in case of
PGA ranging from 0.1g to 0.7g with high-magnitude
ground motions, square concrete-filled steel tube is
preferable to avoid the ponding effect as well as to fulfil
the serviceability criteria in a better way.

26 Jan, 2001 Bhuj, India (Ahme dabad)

20
18 ST EEL
16 CIRCLULAR CFT
14
12 SQUARE CFT
Storey

10
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Inte r store y Drift (mm)

15 Oct, 1979 Impe rial Valle y, California (El Ce ntro Array #5)
20
18
16
14
12
Storey

10
8
6
4 ST EEL
CIRCLULAR CFT
2
SQUARE CFT
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Inte r s torey Drift (mm)

15 Oct, 1979 Impe rial Valle y, California (El Ce ntro Array #7)
20
18
16
14
12
10
Storey

8
6 ST EEL
4 CIRCLULAR CFT
2 SQUARE CFT
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Inte r Store y Drift (mm)

June 28, 1992 Lande rs, California (Luce rne Valle y)

20
18
16
14
12
10
Storey

8
6
ST EEL
4 CIRCLULAR CFT
2 SQUARE CFT
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Inte r Store y Drift (mm)

- 320 -
Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering, Volume 11, No. 2, 2017

January 17, 1994 Northridge, California (Newhall)

20
18
16
14
12
10
Storey

8
6 ST EEL
4 CIRCLU LAR CFT
2 SQUARE CFT
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Inte r Store y Drift (mm)

January 17, 1994 Northridge, California (Rinaldi)

20
18
16
14
12
10
Storey

8
6 ST EEL
4 CIRCLULAR CFT
2 SQUARE CFT
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Inter Storey Drift (mm)
Figure (8): Storey displacement for different ground motions

MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE STOREY displacement than steel frame at higher storeys

DISPLACEMENT (approximately above 5-6 storeys). Thus, square
concrete-filled steel tube is preferable in the design of
As observed from Figure 8, concrete-filled steel tube tall buildings and it also fulfils the serviceability criteria
(especially square one) frame gives less storey better than the steel frame.

MAXIMUM BASE SHEAR

26 Jan, 2001 Bhuj, India (Ahmedabad)
0.08
45.965, 0.061187734
0.06 45.96, 0.061926326
45.96, 0.060348511
0.04
Vb / W

0.02
0
-0.02 STEEL
CIRCULAR CFT
-0.04 SQUARE CFT
-0.06
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135
Time (Se c)

15 Oct, 1979 Imperial Valley, California (El Centro Array #5)

0.4 8.78, 0.34281386
8.78, 0.342990084
8.82, 0.324856938
0.2
Vb/W

0
STEEL
-0.2 CIRCULAR CFT
SQUARE CFT
-0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (Se c)

- 321 -
Comparative Performance Evaluation of Steel… Ankur Tailor, Sejal Dalal and P.D. Dalal

15 Oct, 1979 Imperial Valley, California (El Centro Array #7)

0.6
9, 0.406169433 9.02, 0.401544984
0.4
9.02, 0.396367412
0.2
Vb / W

-0.2 STEEL
CIRCULR CFT
-0.4
SQUARE CFT
-0.6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (Sec)

June 28, 1992 Landers, California (Lucerne Valley)

0.4
11.844, 0.290984808 STEEL
0.3 12.056, 0.278608038
12.076, 0.273337896 CIRCULAR CFT
0.2
SQUARE CFT
0.1
V b/W

-0.1

-0.2
13.952, -0.239237184 17.82, -0.245564493
-0.3 13.62, -0.283308026

-0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

January 17, 1994 Northridge, California (Newhall)

0.4

0.2
Vb / W

STEEL
-0.2 CIRCULAR CFT
5.7, -0.341545783
5.7, -0.355928102 SQUARE CFT
-0.4 5.7, -0.34410492
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (Sec)

January 17, 1994 Northridge, California (Rinaldi)

0.4

0.2
Vb / W

-0.2
STEEL
3.585, -0.435223584
-0.4 3.555, -0.453228115
CIRCULAR CFT
3.59, -0.450154696 SQUARE CFT
-0.6
0 3 6 9 12 15
Time (Sec)
Figure (9): Base shear in Y-direction

Maximum base shear was obtained in Y direction tube frame than in steel frame. As we know that base
and hence is presented here. Base shear in case of shear is related to weight and stiffness of the frame, it is
concrete-filled steel tube (especially square one) frame to be noted that stiffness of concrete-filled steel tube
is higher than in steel frame as shown in Figure 9. Thus, column is higher than that of steel column, because in
lateral resistance will be higher in concrete-filled steel this study only columns were replaced.

- 322 -
 Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering, Volume 11, No. 2, 2017

COST COMPARISON and structural steel with fabrication 80 /kg) was

In this section, cost comparison of the study frame
when designed as a steel frame and as a concrete-filled
steel tube frame is presented. As the beam section has
been kept the same for both frames, cost will differ due
to column sections only. Hence, only the cost of
columns has been compared. The rate of materials
currently prevailing in the market (Concrete 4500 /m3
considered. Cost comparison of columns is seen in
Tables 8, 9 and 10, showing that:
a) Circular concrete-filled steel tube frame will cost
approximately 44.7 lakh (38.6%) less than steel
frame.
b) Square concrete-filled steel tube frame will cost
approximately 27.3 lakh (23.6%) less than steel
frame.

Table 8. Cost of steel columns Table 9. Cost of circular CFT columns Table 10. Cost of square CFT columns
Storeys Cost (Rs) Storeys Cost (Rs) Storeys Cost (Rs)
1-5 3755097.6 1-5 2281484.84 1-5 2788092.72
6-10 3289372.8 6-10 1930501.39 6-10 2456640.72
11-15 2746780.8 11-15 1547970.86 11-15 1945285.47
16-20 1777651.2 16-20 1339871.76 16-20 1653660.72
Total cost 11568902.4 Total cost 7099828.87 Total cost 8843679.63

CONCLUSIONS than that of steel.

[4] If the structure is supporting sensitive equipment and
[1] Concrete-filled steel tube (especially square one)
frame performs better in terms of lateral
displacement and fulfils the serviceability criteria
better than steel frame for the selected study frame.
[2] Construction and connection of concrete-filled steel
tube are easier with square cross-section than with
circular cross-section.
[3] As a point of cost-effective assessment, concrete-
filled steel tube is better than steel, because the cost
of concrete-filled steel tube is comparatively less
the motion imparted to the equipment, concrete-
filled steel tube frame is not preferable in regions
where seismic activity is higher.
The present work indicates that the use of concrete-
filled steel tube columns has been consistently applied
in the design of tall buildings, as they provide good
performance under seismic loading and also provide
considerable economic advantage as compared to
conventional steel buildings.

REFERENCES Ghobarah, A. (2004). “Response of structures to near-fault

Bommer, Julian J., and Alejandro Martínez-Pereira. (2000).
“Strong-motion parameters: definition, usefulness and
predictability”. 12th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering.
Brown, Austin, and Saiid, M. (2008). “Investigation of near-
fault vs. far field ground motion effects on a sub-
standard bridge bent”. University of Nevada, Reno.
ground motion”. 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, August 1-6,
Paper No. 1031.
Ghosh, Barnali, and Bhattacharya, Subhamoy. (2008).
“Selection of appropriate input motion for foundation
design in seismic areas”. 14th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, October 12-17.

- 323 -
 Comparative Performance Evaluation of Steel…
IS 1893-2002, Part 1. (2002). “Indian standard code: criteria
for earthquake-resistant design of structures – general
provisions and buildings”. Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Delhi, India.
IS 800:2007. (2007). “General construction in steel: code of
practice”. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
Mohammad Shams, M., and Ala Saadeghvaziri (1997).
“State of the art of concrete-filled steel tubular
columns”. ACI Structural Journal, ACI 94 (5), 558-571.
Sakino, K., Nakahara, H., Morino, S., and Nishiyama, A.
(2004). “Behaviour of centrally loaded concrete-filled
steel-tube short columns”. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, 130 (2), 180-188.
Schneider, Stephen P. (1998). “Axially loaded concrete-
filled steel tubes”. Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, 124 (10), 112538.
- 324 -
View publication stats
Ankur Tailor, Sejal Dalal and P.D. Dalal
Shanmugam, N.E., and Lakshmi, B. (2001). “State of the art
report on steel concrete composite columns”. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, Elsevier Publication, 57
(10), 1041-1080.
Shosuke, Morino, and Keigo, Tsuda. (2003). “Design and
construction of concrete-filled steel tube column system
in Japan”. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering
Seismology, 4 (1), 51-71.
Singh, J.P. (1995). “Characterization of ground motion for
severity and damage potential”. NISEE, University of
California, Berkeley.
Walter Luiz Andrade de Oliveira, Silvana De Nardin, et al.
(2009). “Influence of concrete strength and
length/diameter on the axial capacity of CFT columns”.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65, Elsevier
Publication, 2103-2110.