Journal of Constructional Steel Research 98 (2014) 146–157

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Mechanical performance of stirrup-confined concrete-filled steel tubular

stub columns under axial loading
Fa-xing Ding a, Changjing Fang a, Yu Bai b, Yong-zhi Gong a,⁎
a
School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan Province 410075, PR China
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents an experimental comparison between concrete-filled square steel tubular stub columns con-
Received 26 December 2013 fined by internal loop or spiral stirrups, traditional square concrete-filled steel tubular stub columns (CFT), and
Accepted 11 March 2014 inner stiffened square concrete-filled steel tubular stub columns. In total 11 specimens were prepared and loaded
Available online 3 April 2014
concentrically in compression to failure. From the experimental results, the superior mechanical performance of
stirrup-confined CFT to stiffened CFT was first demonstrated and the effects of different configurations of confine-
Keywords:
Stirrup confinement
ment (such as internal stiffeners, hoops and stirrups) on the ultimate load-bearing capacity were clarified.
Concrete-filled square steel tubular column ABAQUS was used to establish 3D finite element models for the CFT and stirrup-confined CFT stub columns
Experimental study under axial compression, in order to understand the contribution made by loop or spiral stirrup confinement
Ultimate bearing capacity to the improvement of overall mechanical performance. Further, a simplified approach was developed to esti-
Ductility coefficient mate the ultimate bearing capacity of stirrup-confined CFT stub columns, with consideration of the confinement
effects offered by both square steel tube and stirrups. The predicted results showed satisfactory agreement with
the experimental and numerical results.
© 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction
Modern buildings feature with high-rise, long-span and heavy loads,
requiring higher load-bearing capacity of columns. Nowadays, steel re-
inforced concrete columns are widely used in structural construction,
although steel reinforcements appear unable to provide effective con-
straint to the concrete in columns. Moreover, construction processes in-
volving steel axial reinforcements and stirrups require considerable
time and labor. Circular concrete-filled steel tubular stub columns
(CFT) have been developed that provide sufficient constraint from
steel tube to concrete and have reduced construction time. In such col-
umns compressive strength and ductility are greatly improved, but flex-
ural rigidity and flexural capacity are comparatively low and, in
particular, the column's joint construction is complex. With square
and rectangular CFT columns the joint construction is easier but the
confining effect from steel tube to concrete is relatively weak before
the ultimate bearing capacity is reached. Therefore the bearing capacity
and ductility of such columns are not effectively developed.
Work has been done to improve the bearing capacity and ductility of
square CFT columns by setting stiffeners [1–4], binding bars or welding
studs [5] inside the steel tube (i.e. stiffened CFT columns). Experimental
results demonstrate that these configurations of stiffened CFT stub
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 731 2656540; fax: +86 731 2655536.
E-mail address: gyzcsu@aliyun.com (Y. Gong).
columns can enhance the confinement effect on core concrete and can
prevent the steel tube from premature failure caused by local buckling,
thereby increasing the bearing capacity and ductility of the columns.
According to the results presented in [2] with a concrete strength of
50 MPa and a ratio of 100 for the sectional width to wall thickness of
steel tube (B/t), the bearing capacity of stiffened CFT columns increases
on average by 12% and the ductility increases moderately by only 1.2%
after introducing stiffeners. The confinement effects provided by the
steel tube or lateral reinforcements and the improved load-carrying ca-
pacity of the concrete core have also been well investigated, for example
through theoretical modeling using a continuum mechanics method in
[4], in which, however, only the ultimate state was considered.
The improved mechanical performance of stiffened CFT stub col-
umns with internal stiffeners, binding bars or welding studs reported
in the literature suggests that stirrup-confined concrete-filled square
steel tubular (stirrup-confined CFT) columns, as a new type of steel-
concrete composite member, may display excellent bearing capacity
and ductility. In such a configuration, tangential annular stirrups, in
the form of loop or spiral stirrups, are placed within the rectangular
steel tube to enhance the confinement effect on concrete. Square stir-
rup-confined CFT columns may present the following advantages:
(1) Compared with steel reinforced concrete columns, load-bearing
capacity and ductility may be considerably improved and con-
struction time and labor may be reduced because of the saving
of formwork.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.03.005
0143-974X/© 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 F. Ding et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 98 (2014) 146–157 147

(3) Compared with normal square CFT columns, as the square steel
Symbols tube mainly constrains concrete at the corners, tangential loop
or spiral stirrups within stirrup-confined CFT columns can con-
a Average value fine the central concrete as compensation. Therefore, improved
Ac Cross-sectional area of core concrete bearing capacity and ductility are expected and the convenient
Ac1 Area of core concrete constrained by both square steel joint construction remains.
tube and annular stirrups
Ac2 Area of core concrete constrained by annular stirrups Experimental investigations of three square CFT stub columns, two
only square stiffened CFT stub columns and six square stirrup-confined CFT
Ac3 Area of core concrete constrained by square steel tube stub columns under axial compression are reported in this paper.
only Three forms of internal confinement – tangential annular stirrups,
Ac4 Unconstrained area of core concrete inner welding spiral stirrups and inner contacting spiral stirrups – are
Acor Area of core concrete enclosed by stirrups examined and their performances are compared. With the assistance
As Cross-sectional area of steel tube of nonlinear finite element software ABAQUS, 3D finite element analysis
Ass0 Area of equivalent steel tube from stirrups is conducted on the stirrup-confined CFT stub columns under axial com-
B Width of the square section pression and validated by experimental results. In this way, the contri-
b Width of core concrete bution of the loop or spiral stirrup confinement to the improvement of
d Sectional diameter of stirrups mechanical performance is clarified. Based on both experimental and
DI Ductility index numerical results, a simplified approach is developed to estimate the ul-
Es Elastic modulus of steel timate bearing capacity of stirrup-confined CFT stub columns for design
Est Strengthening modulus of steel purposes. This simplified approach is also applicable to traditional CFT
fc Uniaxial compressive strength of concrete columns and the calculated results compare well with experimental
f′c Compressive strength of concrete cylinders data reported in the literature.
ft Yield strength of stirrups
fs Yield strength of steel 2. Experimental investigation
fsc Ultimate strength of CFT column
k Coefficient of lateral pressure 2.1. Specimens and materials
L Height of specimens
N Axial load In total 11 specimens were designed in this study, the nominal dimen-
Nu Axial ultimate bearing capacity sion of each specimen being 250 (B) mm × 4 (t) mm × 750 (L) mm,
Nu1 Ultimate load-bearing capacity of stirrup-confined CFT where B is the width of the square section, t is the wall thickness of the
stub columns from FE results steel tube and L is the height of the specimen. Details such as the layout
Nu2 Ultimate load-bearing capacity of stirrup-confined CFT of confinement and specimen number are shown in Table 1. The square
stub columns from Eq. (12) steel tubes were molded by bending Q235 steel plates into grooves and
Nu3 Ultimate load-bearing capacity of stirrup-confined CFT then welding the two half-sections. Butt welds were used according to
stub columns from Eq. (13) the standard GB/\-2003 [6] and it was also necessary to ensure that the
N0u Ultimate load-bearing capacity of stirrup-confined CFT ends of the steel grooves (as the sites of welding) were smooth after
stub columns from experimental results welding.
S Spacing of stirrups Specimen SST1 was traditional square concrete-filled steel tubular
t Wall thickness of steel tube stub columns. Steel stiffeners were used as internal confinements for
σ Axial stress of stirrups specimen SST2 (see Table 1), made of the same material as the square
σi Equivalent stress of steel steel tube. φ8 steel reinforcing bars were used for stirrups as the internal
σL,ci Axial compressive stress of area Aci where i corresponds confinement in specimens SST3 to SST5, as well as the axial frame bars
to 1–4 in specimen SST3. The construction sequence of the confining bars in
σL,s Axial compressive stress of steel tube specimen SST3 was first to make a reinforcement cage by welding annu-
σr,c1 Radial concrete stress caused by stirrups lar stirrups at the same spacing of 50 mm to four axial reinforcements.
σr,c2 Radial concrete stress caused by steel tube The formed reinforcement cage was then place into the square steel
σθ,s Tensile transverse stress of steel tube tube. Only three of the inner contacting spiral stirrups at both ends of
εCFT Strain at peak point of average load-steel vertical strain specimens SST4 were spot welded to the steel tube; the other
curve of CFT stub columns contacting spiral stirrups with the same spacing of 40 mm were free
ε0.85 Strain when experimental bearing capacity is decreased to interact with the inner wall of the steel tube. The welding spiral stir-
to 85% of ultimate value rups of specimen SST5 were spot welded to the inner wall of the steel
εL Axial strain of column tube as shown in Table 1 with the same spacing of 50 mm. Three iden-
εθ,s Tensile transverse strain of steel tube tical specimens (coded A, B and C) were examined for SST1; for each of
εi Equivalent strain of steel the other specimen forms (SST2 to SST5), two identical specimens were
εy Yield strain of steel examined, coded A and B. In actual construction, square steel tubes con-
εst Hardening strain of steel fined by inner contacting spiral stirrups (SST4) may be more attractive
εu Ultimate strain of steel as the inner contacting spiral stirrups are more convenient for construc-
tion in practice than the other types of stirrups (SST3 and SST5).
For better observation of deformation and local failure of the steel
tubes, brown paint was sprayed on the outer surface of the steel tubes
and grids of 50 mm × 50 mm were drawn on the painted surface. Con-
(2) Compared with circular CFT columns, the axial bearing capacity crete was poured from the top of the specimens, and carefully vibrated
and ductility of square stirrup-confined CFT columns may be using a vibrator to distribute the concrete evenly inside the tube. Finally
slightly lower, but the flexural capacity and flexural stiffness the upper and lower surfaces were smoothed to form the stirrup-
are higher and the issue of complex joint construction is avoided. confined CFT column cross-sections as shown in Table 1. In company
148 F. Ding et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 98 (2014) 146–157

Table 1
Cross-sections of specimens.

Specimen number SST1 SST2 SST3 SST4 SST5

Specimen cross-section

Note: The three stirrups at both ends of specimens SST4 were spot welded to the steel tube and the other stirrups were free to interact with the inner wall of the steel tube. The stirrups of
specimen SST5 were all spot welded to the inner wall of the steel tube.

with the specimen preparation, concrete standard cubes and prism
specimens were prepared and cured in the same condition as the con-
crete used in stirrup-confined CFT column specimens. After one
month of curing, the concrete surface of the column specimens was
slightly lower than that of the steel tube. Therefore, a small amount of
concrete mixed with epoxy resin binder was used to fill the gap and en-
sure that both surfaces were at the same level. Finally, two 10 mm-thick
steel cover plates were bonded at each end of the stirrup-confined CFT
column specimens to ensure that the steel tube and core concrete
shared loads from the initial loading stage. C40 commercial concrete
was used in this study, of which ordinary Portland cement strength
was 42.5 MPa, slump was 42 mm and the maximum diameter of coarse
sand and aggregate was 18 mm. Materials used for per cubic meter of
concrete were 420 kg cement, 320 kg sand, 1201 kg crushed rock and
168 kg water.
Before the column experiments, the mechanical properties of con-
crete cubic and prism specimens were tested according to the corre-
sponding standard methods. To prepare standard coupon specimens,
4 mm-thick steel plates and φ6 steel bars were used; tensile tests
were carried out according to the standard GB/T228-2002 [7]. The
resulting material properties of the steel plates and bars are shown in
Table 2. 150 mm × 150 mm × 150 mm concrete cubes were tested in
compression for the cubic strength fcu according to the standard [8] and
the results are summarized in Table 2. 100 mm × 100 mm × 300 mm
prism concrete specimens were tested for elastic modulus Ec and
Poisson's ratio vc and the results are also given in Table 2.
Fig. 2 shows the actual experimental setup. Specimens were placed
within the loading frame and sat directly on the strong floor. The com-
pressive load was applied from the top of the specimen using a load con-
trol mode. The load was increased at the step of 1/10 of the ultimate
load in the elastic stage and at the step of 1/20 of the ultimate load in
the elastic–plastic stage. Each loading step took 3–5 min. When the
ultimate load was approached, specimens were loaded slowly and con-
tinuously until final failure.
3. Experimental results and discussion
3.1. Load-deformation responses and failure modes
In the early stage of loading, all the specimens were in an elastic
stage, indicated by the linear responses of the load-vertical displace-
ment and load-vertical strain curves. For all the specimens, before the
load reached 30% of ultimate load, the circumferential tensile strain of
the steel tube was very low (less than 0.01%), suggesting that both
steel tube and concrete were in axial compression during this stage.
For all the specimens, when the imposed load reached 60%–70% of
the ultimate load, steel started to yield and the load-vertical strain
curves demonstrated elastic–plastic behavior. In this stage, local buck-
ling of the steel tube 10–20 cm below the top of the column was noticed,

2.2. Experimental setup and instrumentation

Compressive experiments on stub column specimens were conduct- S3 S2 S1

ed using a 500-ton triaxial stress testing machine in the Civil Engineer-
ing Safety Science Laboratory of Central South University. To accurately
measure the deformation, six strain rosettes (S1 to S6) were installed at LVDT2 Strain LVDT1
the mid-height of two opposite side surfaces and two LVDTs (L1 and L2) rosette
L2 L1
were installed at the same height of the other two opposite side sur-
faces, as shown in Fig. 1. Load-strain curves were acquired by a
DH3818 static strain measurement system and load-deformation
S6 S5 S4
curves were acquired from electronic transducers and data acquisition
Cross-section
system.
of square CFT
Table 2
Mechanical properties of concrete, steel tube and steel bar.

Material fs(fc)/MPa fu(fcu)/MPa Es(Ec)/MPa vs(vc)

Steel plate 327.7 460.3 2.08 × 105 0.29

Steel bars 363.5 500.9 2.01 × 105 0.25
Concrete 29.5 40.4 3.08 × 104 0.23
Fig. 1. Experimental instrumentation for all specimens.
 F. Ding et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 98 (2014) 146–157
Fig. 2. Experimental setup for all specimens.
as shown in Fig. 3. The axial stiffness decreased considerably and the
measured vertical and circumferential load-steel strain curves showed
significant nonlinear responses (see Fig. 4).
When the ultimate load was approached, the lateral deformation of
the square steel tube increased rapidly. After that, the load-bearing ca-
pacity of the specimens decreased rapidly and the loading process was
terminated because of the excessive lateral deformation. Fig. 3 shows
the failure mode of all the tested specimens. Among them, butt weld
failure occurred within specimens SST1-C and SST2-A, as further illus-
trated in Fig. 5. It was observed that for specimen SST2-A, butt weld fail-
ure occurred after the peak load, while specimen SST1-A failed before
the peak load was reached because of a sudden blowout of the butt
weld that formed the steel tube due to welding deficiencies. So the re-
sult of SST1-C obtained is not true, which tells us that it is important
to guarantee the quality of square CFT columns formed by welding to
ensure failure is not owing to cracks of the weld seam. Thus the result
of SST1-C is removed and not included herein.
When the reference square CFT stub columns (specimen SST1) were
loaded to about 60% of the ultimate load, visible local buckling appeared
near to the upper end of the specimens due to the end effect. With a fur-
ther increase of the imposed load, outward local buckling appeared at
different locations of the specimens and buckling in the middle devel-
oped the most rapidly. For the axially-loaded square stiffened CFT stub
columns (SST2), no visible local buckling appeared until the imposed
load reached 80% of the ultimate load. This was obviously later than in
Fig. 3. Summary of typical failure modes of all specimens.
149
the ordinary CFT stub columns. For the axially-loaded square stirrup-
confined CFT stub columns (SST3), local buckling was not observed
until ultimate bearing capacity was approximately reached and the in-
crease of buckling deformation at failure stage was not as significant
as in the CFT and stiffened CFT specimens. This observation demonstrat-
ed that local buckling could be alleviated by setting annular stirrups. The
confinement effect of annular stirrups in SST3 specimens was better
than that of the internal stiffeners in SST2 specimens.
3.2. Bearing capacity
Fig. 6 shows the experimental results of ultimate bearing capacity
for all the specimens. The average values are also provided for each col-
umn type. In comparison to the CFT columns (specimens SST1-A/B/C),
the ultimate bearing capacity of the SST2 specimens was not improved
(but with a slight decrease of 1.7%) although internal stiffeners were
used within the steel tube and this led to a further 14.5% increase of
the steel ratio, which is determined as the ratio value of the cross-
sectional area of steel tube plus reinforcement bars to the cross-
sectional area of concrete.
For the square CFT stub columns with inner loop stirrups (specimens
SST3) and spiral stirrups (specimens SST4 and SST5), the inner stirrups
and steel tube provided a double constraint to the core concrete. There-
fore the bearing capacity of these columns was significantly improved,
as shown in Fig. 6. With the same spacing of stirrups, specimens SST3
with annular stirrups and specimens SST5 with spiral stirrups showed
similar ultimate load-bearing capacities — 3453 kN for the former and
3485 kN for the latter. An average of 13.7% increase of steel ratio in
stirrup-confined columns (SST3, SST4 and SST5) yielded an average
improvement of 21% in bearing capacity. Moreover, the decrease in
bearing capacity that occurred after the ultimate state was reached
slowed down, as shown in Fig. 7(c)–(e). The residual load bearing
capacity was more than 80% of the ultimate bearing capacity.
Specimens SST4 with inner contacting spiral stirrups and specimens
SST5 with inner welding spiral stirrups showed similar ultimate load-
bearing capacities — 3519 kN for the former and 3485 kN for the latter.
It should be noted that the inner contacting spiral stirrups of specimens
SST4 presented three more loops than those of specimens SST5 because
of misplacement during construction. This could be the reason for their
slightly higher ultimate bearing capacity than that of the SST5 specimens.
3.3. Ductility
To investigate the effect of different types of inner confinement on
the ductility of specimens, a ductility index (DI), which has been used
in [1–3,18], is also adopted in this study and the corresponding ductility
index is defined as follows:
ε0:85
DI ¼ ð1Þ
εy
where ε0.85 is the axial strain when the load falls to 85% of the ultimate
load, and εy is equal to ε0.75/0.75, ε0.75 is the axial strain when the load
attains 75% of the ultimate load in the pre-peak stage.
Fig. 8 shows the ductility coefficients calculated by Eq. (1) for all the
specimens, where a larger value of DI indicates a slower process of load
reduction after the ultimate state, i.e. superior ductile performance. In
this figure, the influence of different types of internal confinement on
DI can be identified. The specimens with confinement within steel
tubes generally showed improved ductility in comparison to CFT col-
umns (specimens SST1), with an average DI value of 1.526. However,
CFT columns with stiffeners (specimens SST2) showed a similar DI
value (1.993) as that of SST1. According to experimental results, CFT col-
umns with inner contacting spiral stirrups (specimens SST4) demon-
strated the highest DI value of 3.261, this result suggesting that the
confinement consisting of inner contacting spiral stirrups was the
150 F. Ding et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 98 (2014) 146–157

4000 4000
SST1-A SST2-A
3500 3500

Axial load N (kN)

Axial load N (kN)
3000 3000
2500 2500
2000 2000
1500 1500 tested mid-point curve
tested mid-point curve
1000 tested end point curve 1000 tested end point curve
finite element mid-point curve finite element mid-point curve
500 500 finite element end point curve
finite element end point curve
0 0
-0.010 -0.005 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 -0.010 -0.005 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
Tensile transverse strain of steel tube ε θ ,s Axial strain ε L Tensile transverse strain of steel tube ε θ ,s Axial strain ε L

4000 4000
SST3-A
3500 3500 SST4-A

Axial load N (kN)

Axial load N (kN)

3000 3000
2500 2500
2000 2000
1500 1500
tested mid-point curve tested mid-point curve
1000 tested end point curve 1000 tested end point curve
500 finite element mid-point curve finite element mid-point curve
500
finite element end point curve finite element end point curve
0 0
-0.010 -0.005 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 -0.010 -0.005 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
Tensile transverse strain of steel tube ε θ ,s Axial strain ε L Tensile transverse strain of steel tube ε θ ,s Axial strain ε L

4000
3500 SST5-A
Axial load N (kN)

3000
2500
2000
1500
tested mid-point curve
1000 tested end point curve
finite element mid-point curve
500
finite element end point curve
0
-0.010 -0.005 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
Tensile transverse strain of steel tube ε θ ,s Axial strain ε L

Fig. 4. Comparison of load-strain curves between FE modeling and experimental results for specimens SST-1-5A.

most efficient way to improve the ductile performance of square CFT adopted for the square steel tubes of all specimens and for the stiffening
columns. ribs of specimens SST2. Moreover, 9-node Simpson integration was
adopted along the thickness of shell elements to ensure accuracy of cal-
4. Finite element (FE) modeling culation. Steel reinforcement bars in specimens SST3, SST4 and SST5
were modeled by beam elements (Beam). To model the core concrete
4.1. FE models and loading plate for all specimens, 8-node reduced integral format
3D solid elements were used, and the surface of loading plate was
FE models were established using ABAQUS/Standard6.4 [9]. In these
models, 4-node reduced integral format shell elements (S4R) were
3500

3000
Axial load N (kN)

2500

2000
SST1-Average

SST5-Average
SST2-Average

1500
SST4-Average
SST3-Average
SST1-A
SST1-B

SST2-B
SST2-A

1000
SST3-A

SST5-B
SST3-B

SST5-A
SST4-B
SST4-A

500

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Fig. 5. Butt weld failure of specimens SST1-C and SST2-A. Fig. 6. Comparison of ultimate bearing capacity for all specimens.
 F. Ding et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 98 (2014) 146–157 151

a 4000
b 4000
3500 3500
Axial load N (kN)

Axial load N (kN)

3000 3000
2500 2500
2000 2000
1500 1500
SST1-A SST2-A
1000 1000
SST1-B SST2-B
500 500
finite element finite element
0 0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Axial strain ε L Axial strain ε L

c 4000
d
4000
3500
3500
Axial load N (kN)

3000

Axial load N (kN)

3000
2500
2500
2000
2000
1500
1500
1000 SST3-A
SST3-B 1000 SST4-A
500
finite element 500 SST4-B
0 finite element
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Axial strain ε L
Axial strain ε L

e 4000

3500

3000
Axial load N (kN)

2500

2000

1500

1000 SST5-A
SST5-B
500
finite element
0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Axial strain ε L

Fig. 7. Comparison of load and strain curves between FE modeling and experimental results for all specimens (a) SST1 columns, (b) SST2 columns, (c) SST3 columns, (d) SST4 columns, and
(e) SST5 columns.

defined as rigid to ensure that the deformation of the upper and lower between steel tube and loading plate. A pure master–slave surface con-
surfaces of steel tube and concrete was the same. A structured meshing tact was adopted for the constraint between steel tube (master surface)
option with a mesh size of 40 mm was adopted, and the resulting FE and concrete (slave surface).
model is shown in Fig. 9 (for specimens SST4 and SST5 as examples). The following non-dimensional mathematical form for the stress–
Smaller mesh sizes were also tried and the results were consistent. strain relationship of concrete under uniaxial compression was pro-
A tie constraint may couple two separate surfaces together so that no posed in [10]:
relative motion occurs between them. Therefore, the tie option was
adopted for the constraint between concrete and loading plate. Steel re- 8 2
inforcing bars in the form of stirrups were embedded in the concrete at kx þ ðm−1Þx >
>
< x ≤1
specified positions, as in the specimens. Shell-to-solid coupling is a y¼ 1 þ ðk−2Þx þ mx2 ð2Þ
surface-based technique for coupling shell elements (steel tube) to >
> x
: x N1
solid elements (loading plate) and it was adopted for the constraint α 1 ðx−1Þ2 þ x
152 F. Ding et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 98 (2014) 146–157

3.5 where k is the ratio of the initial tangent modulus to the secant modulus
at peak stress and equals to 9:1f cu −4=9 . m is a parameter that controls
3.0 the decrease in the elastic modulus along the ascending branch of the
axial stress–strain relationship and equals to 1.6(k − 1)2. For a
Ductility index DI

2.5 concrete-filled steel tubular stub column, parameter α1 can be taken

2.0
a) Stress comparison between loop and
1.5 spiral stirrups

SST3-Average

SST5-Average
SST4-Average
SST2-Average
SST1-Average

1.0

SST5-A
400

SST4-A

SST5-B
SST4-B
SST1-A

SST3-A
SST3-B
SST2-A
SST2-B
SST1-B
SST1-C

0.5
320

Axial stress σ (MPa)

0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 240

Fig. 8. Comparison of ductility index DI for all specimens.

160

80 SST-B
SST-C
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
Axial strain εL

b) Stress comparisons between square CFT

columns and square annular stirrups-confined
CFT columns
420 SST-A mid-point
steel axial stress SST-A end point
350 SST-B mid-point
Axial stress σ (MPa)

SST-B end point

280

210

140
SST-A concrete
steel transverse stress SST-B concrete
70

0 concrete axial stress

0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020

Axial strain εL

c) Stress comparisons between square CFT

columns and square spiral
CFT columns
420 SST-A mid-point
steel axial stress SST-A end point
350 SST-C mid-point
Axial stress σ (MPa)

SST-C end point

280

210

140
SST-A concrete
steel transverse stress SST-C concrete
70

0 concrete axial stress

0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020

Axial strain εL
Fig. 9. FE models after meshing (a) FE model of half height, (b) loading plate element,
(c) steel tube element, (d) concrete element, (e) spiral stirrup element, and (f) loop stirrup Fig. 10. Comparisons of stress-axial strain curves between calculated and experimental re-
element. sults for specimens SST-A, B and C.
 F. Ding et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 98 (2014) 146–157 153

Ratio of axial stress at ultimate state

1.2 0.3 0.4 0.3
to yielding strength σ L,s / fs 1.0
a=0.78

0.3
0.8

0.6

0.4
0.4
end point of steel tube 18 groups
0.2 1/4 point of steel tube 18 groups
mid-point of steel tube 18 groups
0.0

0.3
20 40 60 80 100
Ultimate strength f sc (MPa)

Fig. 11. Relationship between ultimate strength and ratio of axial stress of steel tube at
ultimate state to its yield strength. Fig. 13. Simplified stress distribution within mid-section for stirrup-confined CFT stub
column.

as 0.15. The Poisson ratio vc of concrete was assumed to be 0.2. Eq. (2) is
able to describe the stress–strain relationship of concrete with strengths Because of the symmetry of cross-sections, only half of a section
ranging from 20 MPa to 140 MPa and validated by experimental results was analyzed for the axially-loaded stirrup-confined CFT stub columns.
in [10]. To model the decrease of load-bearing capacity of specimens, load
An elasto-plastic model, considering Von Mises yield criteria, was applied through increments of displacement and both material
Prandtl–Reuss flow rule, and isotropic strain hardening, was used to de- and structural nonlinearities were considered and solved using the
scribe the constitutive behavior of steel. The expression for the stress– incremental-interactive method in ABAQUS.
strain relationship of steel is as follows [10]:
4.2. Comparisons and discussion
8
>
> Eε εi ≤εy
< s i
fs εy bεi bεst The comparison of experimental and modeling load-axial strain
σi ¼ : ð3Þ
> f s þ ζ Es ðεi −εst Þ
> εst bεi ≤ε u curves (from gages S1 and S2, see Fig. 1) is shown in Fig. 7. Good agree-
:
fu εi Nεu ment was found in general and the discrepancies between experimental
and predicted ultimate load-bearing capacity were less than 11.1% for
all the specimens. The decreasing stage of load-axial strain curves was
also well described, as demonstrated in Fig. 7.
Fig. 4 shows the comparison between experimental and modeling
results of both load-axial strain curves and load-transverse strain curves
at mid-point (S2 and S5) and endpoint (S1, S3, S4 and S6) of the middle
section of square CFT stub columns and square stirrup-confined CFT
stub columns. Good agreement between experimental and FE modeling
results was found in the elastic stage, as demonstrated in Fig. 4. In the
elastic–plastic stage, strain values became large and increased very
fast. This caused differences between modeling and experimental
curves; however the maximum discrepancy was still less than 20%.

4.3. Parametric analysis

The validated FE modeling approach was further used to investigate

Fig. 12. Stress contours at mid-section for CFT and stirrup-confined CFT stub columns.
the interaction between square steel tube, stirrups and core concrete
under axial compression, with consideration of the different parameters
of loop and spiral stirrups.
The dimensions of the stirrup-confined CFT stub columns with loop
stirrups (SST-B) were as follows: column length L = 750 mm, width of
square section B = 250 mm, space between tangential stirrups S =
50 mm, concrete strength fcu = 60 MPa, yield strength of steel fs =
345 MPa, steel thickness t = 6 mm, diameter of stirrups d = 8 mm,
and yield strength of stirrups ft = 335 MPa. The parameters of the CFT
columns with spiral stirrups (SST-C) were the same as those of the
SST-B columns. The ordinary CFT columns (SST-A) without any internal
confinement were modeled with the same overall sectional area and the
same steel ratio as in SST-C and SST-B, resulting in greater wall thickness
of the steel tube (6.76 mm).
Fig. 10(a) shows the resulting stress–strain curves of the internal
loop stirrup at the center point of mid-section for SST-B and of the spiral
stirrup for SST-C. Fig. 10(b) shows the resulting axial stress–strain
curves and transverse stress–strain curves of steel at the mid-point
154 F. Ding et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 98 (2014) 146–157

Table 3
Geometric properties and characteristics of specimens.

Specimen B × t/mm L/mm fcu/MPa Steel tube fs/MPa stiffener stirrup Nu/kN Steel ξIncrease Nu Increase DI Stiffener width × Stirrup
number fs/MPa fs/MPa ratio percentage percentage thickness/mm spacing/mm
ξ

SST1-A 249.6 × 3.70 750 40.4 324.3 / / 3131 0.062 / / 1.445 / /

SST1-B 251.0 × 3.75 / / 2832 0.063 / / 1.810 / /
SST1-C 251.1 × 3.73 / / 2677 0.062 / / 1.324 / /
SST2-A 251.1 × 3.75 327.7 / 2782 0.071 13.5% −3.4% 2.329 30.25 × 3.73 /
SST2-B 250.6 × 3.80 / 2880 0.072 15.5% 0% 1.656 30.38 × 3.81 /
SST3-A 251.0 × 3.73 / 363.5 3547 0.070 12.9% 23.2% 1.613 / 50
SST3-B 250.1 × 3.73 / 3358 0.069 11.6% 16.6% 2.672 / 50
SST4-A 249.0 × 3.68 / 3573 0.072 15.1% 24.1% 3.416 / 40
SST4-B 249.4 × 3.75 / 3465 0.073 16.9% 20.3% 3.376 / 40
SST5-A 249.5 × 3.73 / 3530 0.070 12.8% 22.6% 1.866 / 50
SST5-B 249.4 × 3.70 / 3440 0.070 12.8% 19.4% 2.223 / 50

Note: The axial frame bars of SST3 were only set for constructional function and so they were not listed in Table 3.

(S2 and S5) and at the endpoint (S1, S3, S4 and S6) of the mid-section
for SST-A and SST-B, and the axial stress–strain curves of concrete at
the mid-section for SST-A and SST-B. Fig. 10(c) shows the resulting
axial stress–strain curves and transverse stress–strain curves of steel
at the mid-point (S2 and S5) and at the endpoint (S1, S3, S4 and S6)
of the mid-section for SST-A and SST-C, and the axial stress–strain
curves of concrete at the mid-section for SST-A and SST-C. The trans-
verse stress of the steel tube developed more significantly in specimens
SST-C, indicating that a more efficient confinement effect was provided
through the loop stirrups in SST-B.
A range of parameters such as concrete strength, steel ratio, steel
yield strength, diameter of stirrups and yield strength of stirrups was
further investigated using FE modeling. For each structure form (SST-
A, or B, or C), 18 FE models were investigated, covering the parameters
of steel strength from 235 MPa to 420 MPa, concrete strength from 30
MPa to 90 MPa, thickness of steel tubes from 3 mm to 9 mm, diameter
of stirrups from 6 mm to 8 mm, and yield strength of stirrups from
235 MPa to 335 MPa. Those values of parameters were commonly
used in engineering practice. When the modeling results of load–
displacement responses reached the ultimate state (i.e. maximum
load-bearing capacity), axial stress at three points of the steel tube
(endpoint, 1/4 point and mid-point of middle section) was obtained
and the relationship between axial stress-yield strength ratio and the
specimen's ultimate strength (fsc = Nu/B2) is shown as Fig. 11, where
σL,s is the axial stress of the steel tube.
It can be identified from Fig. 11 that when square stirrup-confined
CFT stub columns reach their ultimate strength, the average value of
the ratio of the steel tube's axial compressive stress to yield stress is:
σ L;s ¼ 0:78f s :
Based on Von Mises yield criterion, the tensile transverse stress (σθ,s)
of the steel tube can be obtained as:
σ θ;s ¼ 0:33f s :
Eqs. (4) and (5) can be used to assist a determination of the ultimate
bearing capacity, as presented in the following section.
5. Design approach
5.1. Model simplification
The stress contours at the ultimate state for specimens SST-A and
SST-B were extracted from the FE modeling and are shown in Fig. 12.
According to the stress contours shown in Fig. 12 the stress distribution
of square CFT columns is simplified in Fig. 13. This is completed based on
stress distribution and the superposition principle of the concrete sec-
tion at the ultimate state, where Ac1 is the area constrained by both
square steel tube and annular stirrups, Ac2 is the area constrained by an-
nular stirrups only, Ac3 is area constrained by square steel tube only, and
Ac4 is the unconstrained concrete area. As well, B is the length of the
steel tube, t is the thickness of the steel tube and b is the width of core
concrete, as shown in Fig. 13. The length of unconstrained area Ac4 is ap-
proximately 0.4b according to the stress contours in Fig. 12. In this way,
the following relationships can be obtained:
8
< Ac1 þ Ac2 þ Ac3 þ Ac4 ¼ Ac
A þ Ac2 ¼ Acor ð6Þ
: c1
Ac1 þ Ac3 ¼ 0:75Ac
where Ac = (B − 2 t)2 and Acor = π(B / 2 − t − d)2.
5.2. Formulation
ð4Þ
The next endeavor was to transform the reinforcing stirrups into a
circular steel tube with equivalent wall thickness. So that the core
concrete Acor enclosed by stirrups does not change, the inner diameter
d of the equivalent steel tube is defined to be the same as that of the an-
nular stirrups. Considering that the introduced equivalent steel tube
ð5Þ presents the same steel ratio as that of the reinforcing stirrups, the sec-

Table 4
Comparisons of FE results, predicted results based on Eqs. (12) and (13) and experimental results of ultimate load-bearing capacity of stirrup-confined CFT stub columns.

Specimen number Experimental value Nu1/kN Nu2/kN Nou/Nu1 Nou/Nu2

Nou/kN
Finite element Eq. (12) Finite element Eq. (12)

SST3-A 3547 3437.4 3495.5 1.032 1.015

SST3-B 3358 3191.3 3440.4 1.052 0.976
SST4-A 3573 3444.3 3488.4 1.037 1.024
SST4-B 3456 3463.9 3521.5 1.000 0.984
SST5-A 3530 3315.2 3445.4 1.065 1.025
SST5-B 3440 3347.0 3450.6 1.028 0.997
 F. Ding et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 98 (2014) 146–157 155

tional area Ass0 of the equivalent steel tube is calculated by the following Substituting Eqs. (4)–(10) into Eq. (11), Nu can be obtained as
Eq. (7)
Nu ¼ f c Ac þ 1:7f t Ass0 þ 1:2 f s As : ð12Þ
π2 d2 ðB−2t−2dÞ
Ass0 ¼ : ð7Þ
4S
For axially-loaded square CFT stub columns, the calculation formula
of the ultimate bearing capacity can be simplified as
As shown in Fig. 13, the relationship of radial concrete stress caused
by stirrups (σr,c1) and yield strength of stirrups (ft) at the ultimate state
can be given as Nu ¼ f c Ac þ 1:2f s As : ð13Þ

f t Ass A comparison of Eqs. (12) and (13) suggests that the improvement
σ r;c1 ¼ : ð8Þ
2Acor of the square stirrup-confined CFT stub columns due to internal stirrups
is attributable to the improvement of the ultimate bearing capacity of
Similarly, based on the stress equilibrium at the ultimate state, the the concrete confined by stirrups. Moreover, the confining effect of stir-
relationship of radial concrete stress caused by the square steel tube rups is more significant than that of the steel tube, due to a larger coef-
(σr,c2) and the transverse stress of the steel tube (σθ,s) can be expressed ficient (1.7).
as
5.3. Comparisons
2tσ θ;s
σ r;c2 ¼ : ð9Þ
b Table 4 lists the comparisons between the results of load-bearing ca-
pacity calculated by Eq. (12) (i.e. Nu2) and FE modeling (Nu1) and the ex-
Therefore, considering the lateral confinement stresses, the axial perimental results (N0u) for all the stirrup-confined CFT specimens. The
compressive stress of core concrete in the four regions (see Fig. 13) average FE modeling values of the ratios of N0u to Nu1 is 1.036 with a dis-
can be expressed as persion coefficient of 0.021, and the average ratios of N0u to Nu2 is 1.003
8   with a dispersion coefficient of 0.021. Therefore, the proposed formula
>
> σ ¼ f c þ k σ r;c1 þ σ r;c2
>
< L;c1 is in good agreement with experimental results.
σ L;c2 ¼ f c þ kσ r;c1 : ð10Þ The FE modeling results of ultimate load-bearing capacity from the
>
> σ L;c3 ¼ f c þ kσ r;c2
>
: parametric analysis are compared with those calculated using Eq. (12)
σ L;c4 ¼ fc and shown in Fig. 14. Satisfactory agreement can be observed with the
maximum discrepancy less than 10%.
From the FE analysis results in Fig. 10, it can be shown that when the The proposed Eq. (13) as the case for normal CFT stub columns with-
axial stress of the square steel tube reaches its peak, the axial compres- out internal stirrups is used for comparison with FE analysis for predic-
sive strength of the steel tube σL,s is almost constant at the ultimate state tion of the ultimate load-bearing capacity of CFT stub columns with the
for both square CFT and square stirrup-confined CFT columns. As a re- parameters considered in the parametric analysis. As shown in Fig. 15,
sult, it can be concluded that the mechanical responses of the steel the maximum discrepancy is less than 10%.
tube would not be further affected by the confinement of annular stir- Table 5 summarizes several formulas developed in the literature and
rups and the ratio of the axial compressive strength σL,s of the steel standards [12–17] for prediction of the ultimate load-bearing capacity
tube to its yield strength fs, and the ratio of the transverse stress σθ,s of axially-loaded square CFT stub columns. Among these, both
of the steel tube to its yield strength fs, are almost constant for Eqs. (15) and (17) were developed based on the simple superposition
both axially-loaded square CFT and square stirrup-confined CFT stub of steel strength and concrete strength. In Eq. (18), concrete strength
columns. was improved to concrete cylinder compressive strength because of
The ultimate bearing capacity Nu of axially-loaded square stirrup- the confinement effect from the steel tube. In both Eqs. (14) and (16),
confined CFT stub columns can therefore be expressed as: the ultimate bearing capacity was improved with the consideration of
the confinement effect from the steel tube. Therefore, the calculation re-
Nu ¼ σ L ;c1 Ac1 þ σ L ;c2 Ac2 þ σ L ;c3 Ac3 þ f c Ac4 þ σ L;s As : ð11Þ sults of Eqs. (15) and (17) could be relatively conservative.
Ultim ate bearing capacity from Eq.(12) N (kN)

Ultimate bearing capacity from Eq.(13) Nu3 (kN)

9000 16000
u2

7500
12000 115%
6000
110%
8000
100%
4500

4000 100%
3000

1500 0
1500 3000 4500 6000 7500 9000 0 4000 8000 12000 16000
Ultimate bearing capacity from FE results N u1 (kN) Ultimate bearing capacity from FE results Nu1 (kN)

Fig. 14. Comparison of calculated results of ultimate bearing capacity (Nu2) using Eq. (12) Fig. 15. Comparison of calculated results of ultimate bearing capacity (Nu3) using Eq. (13)
with results from FE modeling (Nu1). with results from FE modeling (Nu1).
156 F. Ding et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 98 (2014) 146–157

Table 5
Formulas sourced from the literature and standards for ultimate bearing capacity of CFT stub columns.

References Formulation

Eq. (14) Lin-Hai Han [12] Nu = fscyAsc ; fscy = (1.18 + 0.85ξ)fck (14)
where ξ = fsAs/(fckAc); fck = 0.67fcu
0
Eq. (15) ACI (2005) [13] N u ¼ f s As þ 0:85f c Ac (15)
AIJ (2008) [14]
   
Eq. (16) AISC-LRFD (1999) [15] N u ¼ F cr As ; F cr ¼ 0:658λc2 F my for λc ≤1:5; F cr ¼ 0:877=λc 2 F my for λc N1:5;
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 0
(16)
λc ¼ ðL=r m πÞ• F my =Em ; F my ¼ f y þ 0:85f c ðAc =As Þ; Em ¼ Es þ 0:4Ec ðAc =As Þ
Eq. (17) BS5400 (2005) [16] Nu = fsAs + 0.675fcuAc (17)
0
Eq. (18) EC4 (2004) [17] N u ¼ f s As þ f c Ac (18)

Note: The relationship between fc′ and concrete compressive strength fcu is fc′ = 0.4 f7/6
cu [11].

Eq. (13) and the formulas in Table 5 were evaluated based on the ul-
timate bearing capacity of three axially-loaded square CFT stub columns
(presented in Table 3) and relevant experimental results of 79 such
columns obtained from the literature worldwide [18–25]. These exper-
imental data cover a large range of parameters of geometry and me-
chanical properties, such as 20.8 b B/t b 70.7, 30 MPa b fcu b 116 MPa,
190 MPa b fs b 767 MPa. Other factors such as low concrete strength,
over-large width-thickness ratio of steel tube and different loading se-
quences on concrete and steel tube were not considered. The ultimate
load-bearing capacities predicted using the formulas in Table 5 and
Eq. (13) are compared to those experimental results in Table 6, where
the ratios are average values of predicted results divided by the corre-
sponding experimental results. It can be concluded from Table 6 that
the formulation proposed by Han et al. [12] and Eq. (13) developed in
the current study have the highest accuracy, and the slight underesti-
mations by Eq. (13) for the experimental results reported in reference
[12] leave predictions on the safe side.
6. Conclusions
This paper presents an experimental study of axially-loaded square
stirrup-confined CFT stub columns in comparison to traditional square
CFT stub columns and square stiffened CFT stub columns, as well as FE
modeling and parametric study of both CFT and stirrup-confined CFT
stub columns. Based on the comparisons among experimental, numeri-
cal and predicted results, the following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) For square CFT columns with different internal confinements in
addition to the steel tube, internal stiffeners effectively enhanced
ductility but there was limited improvement of ultimate load-
bearing capacity. Square stirrup-confined CFT stub columns
with internal loop and spiral stirrups effectively alleviated the
local buckling of square steel tube, thereby improving both ulti-
mate bearing capacity and ductility.
(2) FE analysis of axially-loaded square stirrup-confined CFT stub
columns showed good accordance with experimental results.
Therefore it is possible to predict the load-strain curves of the
steel tube and the overall load–displacement responses, even in
the post-failure process. FE modeling results also clarified that
built-in spiral stirrups produced a better confinement effect
than other strengthening methods such as stiffeners, with the
same steel reinforcement ratio.
(3) A simplified approach was proposed to predict the ultimate bear-
ing capacity of stirrup-confined CFT columns. The predicted re-
sults compared well with those from experiments and FE
modeling. Such comparisons were demonstrated for stirrup-
confined CFT columns with a large range of parameters covering
different concrete strengths, steel ratios, steel yield strengths,
diameters of stirrups and yield strengths of stirrups.
(4) The simplified approach developed in the current study was also
able to predict the ultimate bearing capacity of normal CFT col-
umns. The simplified approach displayed similar accuracy to for-
mulas reported in the literature and in standards, albeit with a
slight underestimation that left the predictions on the safe side.
Acknowledgment
This research work was financially supported by the Program for
Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University
(PCSIRT), Grant No. IRT1296, the Program for New Century Excellent
Talents in University, Grant No. NCET-11-0508, the National Key

Table 6
Average values and dispersion coefficients for ratios of ultimate load-bearing capacity between predicted and experimental data.

Specimen quantity and reference Characteristic value Eq. (13) Eq. (14) Eq. (15) Eq. (16) Eq. (17) Eq. (18)

4 [18] Average value 1.064 1.080 1.222 1.227 1.257 1.263

Dispersion coefficient 0.035 0.034 0.041 0.041 0.042 0.042
6 [19] Average value 0.949 0.965 1.084 1.090 1.129 1.084
Dispersion coefficient 0.045 0.050 0.056 0.056 0.058 0.056
8 [20] Average value 0.992 0.992 1.139 1.149 1.136 1.054
Dispersion coefficient 0.035 0.029 0.041 0.049 0.039 0.033
8 [21] Average value 0.915 0.957 1.083 1.045 1.079 0.968
Dispersion coefficient 0.046 0.046 0.055 0.048 0.054 0.047
8 [22] Average value 0.955 0.936 1.093 1.100 1.091 1.006
Dispersion coefficient 0.053 0.099 0.065 0.066 0.066 0.075
24 [23] Average value 1.076 1.011 0.919 0.916 0.878 1.027
Dispersion coefficient 0.070 0.055 0.050 0.052 0.054 0.067
5 [24] Average value 0.958 0.998 1.111 1.060 1.113 1.061
Dispersion coefficient 0.116 0.101 0.142 0.148 0.142 0.148
16 [25] Average value 1.002 1.031 1.140 1.147 1.219 1.040
Dispersion coefficient 0.044 0.052 0.054 0.055 0.059 0.060
This paper 3 Average value 0.912 0.948 1.036 1.020 1.023 0.941
Dispersion coefficient 0.067 0.069 0.067 0.071 0.073 0.068
All 82 Average value 1.003 0.997 1.059 1.055 1.067 1.039
Dispersion coefficient 0.060 0.043 0.085 0.089 0.110 0.087
 F. Ding et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 98 (2014) 146–157
Technology R&D Program, Grant No. 2011BAJ09B02, and the National
Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant No. 51308550.
References
[1] Tao Z, Uy B, Han LH, Wang ZB. Analysis and design of concrete-filled stiffened thin-
walled steel tubular columns under axial compression. Thin-Walled Struct
2009;47(12):1544–56.
[2] Zhao XL, Hancock GJ. Tests to determine plate slenderness limits for cold-formed
rectangular hollow sections of grade C450, steel construction. Australian Institute
of Steel Construction, 25 (4); 1991. p. 2–16.
[3] Tao Z, Han LH, Wang DY. Strength and ductility of stiffened thin-walled hollow steel
structural stub columns filled with concrete. Thin-Walled Struct 2008;46(10):1113–28.
[4] Bai Y, Nie J, Cai CS. New connection system for confined concrete columns and
beams. II: theoretical modeling. ASCE J Struct Eng 2008;134(12):1800–9.
[5] Cai J, He ZQ. Axial load behavior of square CFT stub column with binding bars. J
Constr Steel Res 2006;62(5):472–83.
[6] GB50017-2003. Design of steel structures [S]. Beijing: China Planning Press; 2003
[in Chinese].
[7] GB/T228-2002. Metallic materials-tensile testing at ambient temperatures [S]. Bei-
jing: Standards Press of China; 2002 [in Chinese].
[8] GB/T50081-2002. Standard for method of mechanical properties on ordinary con-
crete[S]. Beijing: China Building Industry Press; 2002 [in Chinese].
[9] Hibbitt, Karlson, Sorenson. Abaqus version 6.4: theory manual, users' manual, verifi-
cation manual and example problems manual [M]. Hibbitt, Karlson, Sorenson Inc.;
2003
[10] Faxing DING, Xiaoyong YING, Linchao ZHOU, Zhiwu YU. Unified calculation method
and its application in determining the uniaxial mechanical properties of concrete[J].
Front Arch Civ Eng China 2011;5(3):381–93.
[11] Fa-xing Ding, Zhi-wu Yu, Yu Bai, Yong-zhi Gong. Elasto-plastic analysis of circular
concrete-filled steel tube stub columns[J]. J Constr Steel Res 2011;67(10):1567–77.
[12] Han Lin-Hai, Yao Guo-Huang, Zhao Xiao-Ling. Tests and calculations for hollow
structural steel(HSS) stub [J]. J Constr Steel Res 2005;61(9):1241–69.
157
[13] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for reinforced concrete and com-
mentary (ACI 318R-05) [S]. Detroit: American Concrete Institute; 2005.
[14] Architectural Institute of Japan. Recommendations for design and construction of
concrete filled steel tubular structures[S]. Tokyo (Japan): Architectural Institute of
Japan; 2008.
[15] AISC-LRFD. Load and resistance factor design specification for structural steel build-
ings. 2nd ed. Chicago, US: American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC); 1999.
[16] BS5400. Steel, concrete and composite bridges (Part 5. Code of practice for design of
composite bridges) [S]. London: British Standards Institution; 2005.
[17] Eurocode 4. Design of steel and concrete structures. Part 1.1. General rules—structural
fire design. ENV 1994-1-2[S]. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization;
2004.
[18] Han LH. Tests on stub columns of concrete-filled RHS sections. J Constr Steel Res
2002;58(3):353–72.
[19] Han LH, Yao GH. Experimental behaviour of thin-walled hollow structural steel
(HSS) columns filled with self-consolidating concrete (SCC). Thin-Walled Struct
2004;42(9):1357–77.
[20] Liu D. Tests on high-strength rectangular concrete-filled steel hollow section stub
columns. J Constr Steel Res 2005;61:902–11.
[21] Uy B. Strength of concrete filled steel box columns incorporating local buckling. J
Struct Eng ASCE 2000;126(3):341–52.
[22] Liu D, Gho W-M. Axial load behaviour of high-strength rectangular concrete-filled
steel tubular stub columns. Thin-Walled Struct 2005;43(8):1131–42.
[23] Han LH, Yao GH, Zhao XL. Tests and calculations of hollow structural steel (HSS) stub
columns filled with self-consolidating concrete (SCC). J Constr Steel Res
2005;61(9):1241–69.
[24] Schneider SP. Axially loaded concrete-filled steel tubes. J Struct Eng ASCE
1998;124(10):1125–38.
[25] Sumei Zhang, Lanhui Guo, Zaili Ye, Yuyin Wang. Behavior of steel tube and con-
fined high strength concrete for concrete-filled RHS tubes. Adv Struct Eng
2005;8(5):101–16.