Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105765

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijcard

Assessment of high-strength concrete encased steel composite

columns subject to axial compression
Binglin Lai a, J.Y. Richard Liew a, *, Akshay Venkateshwaran a, Shan Li a,
Mingxiang Xiong a, b
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, National University of Singapore, E1A-07-03, 1 Engineering Drive 2, 117576, Singapore
b
School of Civil Engineering, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China

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

Article history: This paper investigates the axial load capacity of concrete encased steel composite stub columns with
Received 20 May 2019 high strength concrete and steel materials. A total of 14 column specimens with varying material
Received in revised form strengths and different steel section shapes were tested under concentric compression load. The test
3 August 2019
results revealed that the design methods in EN 1994-1-1 and JGJ 138-2016 overestimate the axial load
Accepted 13 September 2019
Available online 13 November 2019
capacity of high strength concrete encased steel columns. Adding a small percentage of steel fiber in the
high strength concrete was found to improve the compression resistance of the composite section. A new
test database consisting of 51 partially encased composite sections and 82 fully encased composite
Keywords:
Axial capacity
sections was established, covering a wide range of section geometric and material grades. Parametric
Concrete confinement study was then carried out to assess current design methods in predicting the axial capacity of such
Concrete encased steel columns composite columns with respect to material strengths, steel contribution ratio, reinforcement ratio,
High strength concrete section slenderness ratio, confined concrete area ratio, and concrete confinement efficiency. The effec-
High strength steel tiveness of concrete confinement in partially encased composite column was evaluated and a simplified
Spalling method was proposed to compute the enhanced concrete strength based on regression analysis. For fully
concrete encased composite columns, a concrete strength reduction factor was proposed to be used with
EN 1994-1-1 to predict the compression resistance. Design recommendation was made considering the
early cover spalling of high strength concrete and the material compatibility between steel and concrete
in composite column design.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction column connection details [1]. FEC columns outperform Concrete

Concrete Encased Steel (CES) composite columns has been of
interest for many researchers due to its excellent structural per-
formance under both static and seismic loading conditions. The
application of such columns can be found in basement construction
of high-rise buildings and metro railways stations in which such
columns are used to resist the dynamic load due to train movement.
As shown in Fig. 1, CES columns can be divided into two categories:
Fully Encased Composite (FEC) column and Partially Encased
Composite (PEC) column. FEC column generally has the similar
geometric configurations to conventional Reinforced Concrete (RC)
column except for the presence of steel section, which can be H-
shaped, cruciform-shaped and even consists of several steel sec-
tions depending on specific structural requirement or the beam
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ceeljy@nus.edu.sg (J.Y.R. Liew).
Filled Tubular (CFT) members in terms of fire and corrosion resis-
tance as the steel section is completely covered by concrete. It is
experimentally validated by Zhu et al. [2] and Wang et al. [3] that
steel section can greatly improve the shear resistance of the com-
posite columns. For PEC column, concrete is filled in between the
steel flanges. As the steel flange is not externally restrained by the
concrete, additional check is needed on the plate slenderness ratio
to avoid local buckling.
With the advancement of material technologies, high strength
and ultra-high strength concrete have become commercially
available, which motivates the utilization of high strength materials
in composite columns [4e7]. High strength concrete has been
proven to work well with high strength steel in CFT members based
on previous experimental research [8e10]. As such, a new design
guide [11] was proposed to extend the current EN 1994-1-1 method
to C90/105 concrete and S550 steel for CFT members. However, CES
columns behaves in a different manner compared with CFT

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.105765
0143-974X/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 B. Lai et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105765

Fig. 1. Concrete encased steel composite columns with different types of steel sections.

counterpart. Without continuous and sufficient confinement effect,
CES columns always fail by concrete crushing. Therefore, due to the
concerns on the inherent brittleness of high strength concrete and
the scarcity of relevant experimental work, current design codes,
including EN 1994-1-1 [12], AISC 360-16 [13] and JGJ 138-2016 [14],
all placed a restriction on the use of high strength material. Based
on previous studies carried out by Lai et al. [15], which employs
C100 concrete and S355 steel, high strength CES columns have been
successfully applied in several buildings in Singapore. As shown in
Fig. 2, CES columns are adopted in the basement construction,
resisting the high compression force from the superstructure above
the ground level. Sufficient concrete cover must be provided to the
steel section to achieve minimum 3 h fire rate for such basement
columns.
Some experimental work has been conducted to study the
structural behaviour of CES columns, including the axial perfor-
mance of stub columns [16e27], slender columns under concentric
or eccentric compression [28e32], biaxial bending [33,34],
combining constant axial force and transverse loading [35,36], as
well as cyclic loading [37e39]. Most of these tests focused on
normal concrete. Apart from experimental works, some numerical
simulations were also carried out by Lai et al. [40], Ellobody et al.
[41], El-Tawil & Deierlein [42] and Liu et al. [43], which uses
advanced technique to perform cross-section analysis and member
stability analysis considering material and geometric non-
linearities. Among the above-mentioned research, the axial per-
formance has attracted much attention, and some analytical
models were proposed to assess the concrete confinement effect

Fig. 2. Concrete Encased Steel (CES) composite columns used in top down construction.
 B. Lai et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105765 3

Fig. 3. Concrete encased steel composite columns: (a). Different concrete confinement regions; (b) Spalling of concrete cover.

[44e46] based on the modification of confinement model devel-
oped by Mander et al. [47] for RC columns. Most of these models
divide concrete regions into unconfined, partially confined and
highly concrete regions. As illustrated in Fig. 3(a), concrete cover
outside stirrups is regarded as unconfined concrete, and the con-
crete region within steel flanges is categorized as highly confined
region, in which the confining pressure is provided by the lateral
reinforcement and the steel section. The remaining zone is partially
confinement region, which is bounded by stirrups and locates
outside steel section. Considering the non-uniform distribution of
confining pressure, effective confined area is incorporated by
assuming the arch action between two adjacent longitudinal bars
and the tips of steel flanges, with the initial tangential angle of 45
.
Zhao et al. [45] and Chen & Wu [46] proposed the stress-strain
relations of concrete based on different confining conditions, and
the biaxial stress state of structural steel section is also considered
to generate the constitutive law of steel in the axial direction.
Despite the existence of confinement effect validated by Chen &
Lin [44] in normal strength CES stub columns, recent experimental
study conducted by Zhu et al. [16] revealed that steel section greatly
affects the lateral expansion of concrete and hence the confinement
model derived from RC columns may not be applicable for high
strength CES stub columns. Tests done by Huang et al. [22] also
showed that the squash load predicted by EC4 method is higher
than the test results when the high strength concrete
(fc ¼ 109 MPa) was used.
Early cover spalling was observed by Eid et al. [48] in high
strength concrete columns. As illustrated in Fig. 3(b), the spalling of
concrete cover prevents the cross-section reaching the full plastic
resistance and results in a lower-than-expected load resistance.
Same phenomenon was also observed by Foster et al. [49], and it is
believed that cover spalling is an inevitable consequence of the
placement of steel reinforcements but become noticeable when
high strength concrete is used. For normal strength concrete, the
effect of cover spalling may be disguised by the strength
enhancement due to concrete confinement effect [50]. As an
effective technique to minimize the brittleness of high strength
concrete, steel fibers has been used in CFT members [8,51] and RC
members [50,52]. It was discovered that the addition of steel fiber
did not significantly improve the compressive performance of high
strength CFT columns [8,51], but it helped to address the vulnera-
bility to premature cover spalling for high strength RC columns
[50,52].
So far, no design guideline allows for the use of high strength
materials in CES columns, and there is no unified approach to
predict the axial load capacity for a wide range of material

Fig. 4. Concrete encased steel composite sections used in the experimental program.
4 B. Lai et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105765

Table 1
Geometric and material properties of test specimens.

Specimen B  D (mm) b  h  tw  tf (mm) L (mm) fc (MPa) fys (MPa) fus (MPa) fyr (MPa) Vf (%)

S500-C90-SP90-H 280  280 180  180  10  18 700 95.9 590 657 578 0
S500-C90-SP60-H 280  280 180  180  10  18 700 88.7 590 657 578 0
S500-C90-SP60-C 280  280 80  180  10  18 700 92.9 590 657 578 0
S500-C90SF-SP60-H 280  280 180  180  10  18 700 93.2 590 657 578 0.5
S500-C130-SP90-H 300  300 200  200  10  18 700 136.6 590 657 578 0
S500-C130-SP60-H 300  300 200  200  10  18 700 135.3 590 657 578 0
S500-C130-SP60-C 300  300 100  200  10  18 700 132.8 590 657 578 0
S500-C130SF-SP60-H 300  300 200  200  10  18 700 126.6 590 657 578 0.5
S690-C90-SP60-H 260  260 160  160  10  18 600 94.6 739 863 578 0
S690-C90SF-SP60-H 260  260 160  160  10  18 600 93.6 739 863 578 0.5
S690-C130-SP60-H 260  260 160  160  10  18 600 127.4 739 863 578 0
S690-C130SF-SP60-H 260  260 160  160  10  18 600 128.7 739 863 578 0.5
S690-C130-SP60-C 260  260 70  160  10  18 600 136.4 739 863 578 0
S690-C130SF-SP60-C 260  260 70  160  10  18 600 134.6 739 863 578 0.5

Note: fc, fys, fus and fyr refer to concrete compressive cylinder strength, steel section yield strength, steel section ultimate strength and yield strength of longitudinal rein-
forcement bars, respectively. Vf refers to the fiber content by volume.

strengths. Besides, literature survey of previous research indicates a
conflict viewpoint over whether concrete confinement effect or
concrete cover spalling shall be incorporated in the prediction,
especially when high strength concrete is used. To address the
research gaps outlined in the above, this paper investigates the
axial load capacity of CES stub columns from the perspective of
design, inclusive of both FEC columns and PEC columns. This paper
starts with a brief summary of experimental program, followed by
the comparison between test results and analytical results pre-
dicted by EN 1994-1-1 and JGJ 138-2016. Then a statistic study is
carried out based on the database including 51 PEC column data
and 82 FEC column data. Finally, a formula is proposed to assess the
confinement effect of PEC columns and recommendations are put
forward for the design of FEC columns with high strength concrete
and high strength steel.
2. Summary of experimental program
2.1. Specimens and materials
A total of 14 CES stub column specimens were tested using the
2000-ton actuator test frame in NUS Structural Lab. The test spec-
imens include two concrete grades of C90 and C130 and two steel
grades of S500 and S690. As shown in Fig. 4, rectilinear stirrups
were adopted and spaced at either 90 mm or 60 mm interval, giv-
ing the volumetric ratio of stirrups rv ranging from 1.33% to 2.35%.
Several specimens were reinforced with 0.5% micro steel fibers by
volume, aiming to overcome the potential cover spalling issue as
mentioned before.
The specimen details are shown in Table 1. Different cross-
sectional dimensions are designed to cater for the capacity of test
machine. For specimens with S500 steel section, the column height
is set to be 700 mm, while the specimens with S690 steel are
600 mm high. The actual concrete compressive strength was ob-
tained by testing the 100  200 mm cylinders at the same day of
column test. As reported in Table 1, the actual compressive strength
of C90 concrete ranges from 88.7 MPa to 95.9 MPa, and that of C130
concrete ranges from 126.6 MPa to 136.6 MPa. The yield strength of
steel section is taken as the minimum value of web and flange plate.
For S500 steel section, the yield strength reaches 590 MPa and for
S690 it is 739 MPa, both of which exceed the material strength limit
stipulated in EN 1994-1-1.

Fig. 5. Test setup and instrumentation: (a) reaction frame; (b) 2000 tons actuator; (c) Test setup and instrumentation.
 B. Lai et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105765 5

Fig. 6. Typical failure patterns of test specimens.

Each specimen is designated with a string of letters and specimen with S500 steel section and C130 concrete mixed with
numbers, which begins with steel grade, followed by concrete 0.5% steel fiber, the clear spacing of stirrups is 60 mm, and the steel
grade and stirrup spacing, and end with the shape of steel section. section is H-shaped.
For example, the label “S500-C130SF-SP60-H” refers to the The compression machine and test setup is shown in Fig. 5. A

Fig. 7. Load-axial shortening curves of test specimens.

6 B. Lai et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105765

Table 2
Comparison between test result of this experimental program and analytical prediction using EN 1994-1-1 and JGJ 138-2016.

Specimen rv (%) NEC4 (kN) NJGJ (kN) NTest (kN) NTest/NEC4 NTest/NJGJ

S500-C90-SP90-H 1.44 10,943 10,747 9611 0.878 0.894

S500-C90-SP60-H 2.15 10,520 10,299 9926 0.944 0.964
S500-C90-SP60-C 2.15 11,085 10,839 10,156 0.916 0.937
S500-C90SF-SP60-H 2.15 10,784 10,579 11,241 1.042 1.063
S500-C130-SP90-H 1.33 15,130 15,094 12,003 0.793 0.795
S500-C130-SP60-H 1.99 15,042 15,001 12,862 0.855 0.857
S500-C130-SP60-C 1.99 15,606 15,453 13,569 0.869 0.878
S500-C130SF-SP60-H 1.99 14,451 14,375 13,253 0.917 0.922
S690-C90-SP60-H 2.35 10,574 10,277 9327 0.882 0.908
S690-C90SF-SP60-H 2.35 10,526 10,226 10,601 1.007 1.037
S690-C130-SP60-H 2.35 12,233 12,034 10,317 0.843 0.857
S690-C130SF-SP60-H 2.35 12,300 12,105 11,284 0.917 0.932
S690-C130-SP60-C 2.35 12,951 12,745 10,796 0.834 0.847
S690-C130SF-SP60-C 2.35 12,861 12,649 10,947 0.851 0.865
Mena 0.896 0.911
St.dev 0.065 0.070

Table 3
Specimen details of partially encased columns.

Ref. Specimen designation Structural steel section (b  h  tw  tf) Stirrup spacing Longitudinal bars As/Ac Ar/Ac d fc fy,s fy,r Cross-section Type

Type Size Class mm % % MPa MPa MPa

[53] SRC-1-2-1 Ca 170  360  20  20 1 e e 33.02 0.00 0.76 35 280 e A

SRC-1-2-2 C 170  360  20  20 1 e e 33.02 0.00 0.80 27 280 e A
SRC-1-2-3 C 170  360  20  20 1 e e 33.02 0.00 0.75 36.7 280 e A
SRC-2-2 C 166  366  16  25 1 e e 33.59 0.00 0.80 28.2 285 e A
SRC-3-2 C 175  357  25  26 1 e e 34.06 0.00 0.81 27.3 285 e A
SRC-4-2 C 160  370  10  30 1 e e 32.13 0.00 0.77 27.7 235 e A
SRC-5-2 C 180  350  30  10 1 e e 33.14 0.00 0.78 27.7 235 e A
SRC-6-2 C 180  370  30  20 1 e e 42.29 0.00 0.78 36.6 235 e A
SRC-7-2 C 160  350  10  20 1 e e 24.00 0.00 0.68 38.5 280 e A
SRC-8-2 C 140  360  20  25 1 e e 37.33 0.00 0.81 29.7 280 e A
SRC-9-2 C 208  360  20  16 1 e e 29.70 0.00 0.78 28.3 280 e A
SRC-1-3 C 170  360  20  20 1 e e 33.02 0.00 0.80 36.7 380 e A
SRC-2-3 C 166  366  16  25 1 e e 33.59 0.00 0.80 38.1 380 e A
SRC-3-3 C 175  357  25  26 1 e e 34.06 0.00 0.80 38.1 380 e A
SRC-4-3 C 160  370  10  30 1 e e 32.13 0.00 0.79 38.9 355 e A
SRC-5-3 C 180  350  30  10 1 e e 33.14 0.00 0.79 38.9 355 e A
SRC-6-3 C 180  370  30  20 1 e e 42.29 0.00 0.83 36.7 355 e A
SRC-7-3 C 160  350  10  20 1 e e 24.00 0.00 0.76 36.7 380 e A
SRC-8-3 C 140  360  20  25 1 e e 37.33 0.00 0.81 38.9 380 e A
SRC-9-3 C 208  360  20  16 1 e e 29.70 0.00 0.78 38.9 380 e A
[45] SRC-A-1 C 160  330  10  10 3 e e 15.87 0.00 0.63 47.4 437 e A
SRC-A-2 C 160  330  10  10 3 e e 15.87 0.00 0.57 64.7 460 e A
SRC-B-1 C 170  360  20  20 1 e e 33.02 0.00 0.79 47.4 457 e A
SRC-B-2 C 170  360  20  20 1 e e 33.02 0.00 0.75 64.7 508 e A
SRC-B-3 C 170  360  20  20 1 e e 33.02 0.00 0.81 45.7 515 e A
SRC-C-2 C 110  330  10  10 1 e e 15.00 0.00 0.62 47.4 437 e A
[54] PEC-1 C 60  150  3  6 1 100 e 14.88 0.00 0.64 25 257 e B
PEC-2 C 60  150  3  6 1 100 4d14 14.88 4.06 0.53 25 257 297 B
PEC-3 C 60  150  3  6 1 100 4d14 14.88 4.06 0.53 25 257 297 B
[27] A-04 C 112  450  10  14 1 e e 19.84 0.00 0.77 28.44 416 e C
A-06 C 168  450  10  14 1 e e 16.87 0.00 0.75 28.14 416 e C
A-08 C 224  450  10  14 3 e e 16.00 0.00 0.74 28.14 416 e C
A-10 C 280  450  10  14 3 e e 16.06 0.00 0.74 28.14 416 e C
[55,56] H3 H 400  400  8  8 4 120 e 6.29 0.00 0.33 60 394 e D
H4 H 400  400  8  8 4 200 e 6.29 0.00 0.33 58.9 394 e D
H5 H 400  400  8  8 4 400 e 6.29 0.00 0.32 61.7 394 e D
[57] C2 H 450  450  9.7  9.7 4 225 e 6.81 0.00 0.48 32.7 370 e D
C3 H 450  450  9.7  9.7 4 337.5 e 6.81 0.00 0.48 32.4 370 e D
C4 H 450  450  9.7  9.7 4 450 e 6.81 0.00 0.48 31.9 370 e D
C5 H 450  450  9.7  9.7 4 225 e 6.81 0.00 0.46 34.3 370 e D
C6 H 450  450  6.35  6.35 4 337.5 e 4.38 0.00 0.37 32.7 374 e D
C7 H 450  450  6.35  6.35 4 300 e 6.68 0.00 0.48 31.9 374 e D
[58] C8 H 600  600  12.88  12.88 4 600 e 6.78 0.00 0.46 34.2 360 e D
C9 H 600  600  12.91  12.91 4 600 e 6.79 0.00 0.46 34.2 360 e D
C10 H 600  600  12.81  12.81 4 300 e 6.74 0.00 0.45 34.2 360 e D
C11 H 600  600  9.71  9.71 4 600 e 5.04 0.00 0.37 34.2 345 e D
C12 H 600  600  12.86  12.86 4 300 e 6.77 0.00 0.46 34.2 360 e D
[59] P1 H 125  131  3.18  3.18 4 95 4d8 7.95 1.34 0.32 55 323 569 E
P1R H 125  131  3.18  3.18 4 95 4d8 7.95 1.34 0.32 55 323 569 E
P2 H 125  131  3.18  3.18 4 63 12d4.2 7.93 1.12 0.32 55 323 600 F
P2R H 125  131  3.18  3.18 4 63 12d4.2 7.93 1.12 0.32 55 323 600 F
a
Where “C”, “H”, “I” denote steel section with Cruciform shape, H-shape and I-shape, respectively.
Table 4
Specimen details of fully encased columns.

Ref Specimen designation Cross-section (mm) Structural steel section Main bars Transverse bars d As/Ac fc fy,s fy,r fy,h Steel fiber Cross-section type

Type Size Configuration Type % MPa MPa MPa MPa

[16] C-I-M40 200  200 I H68  100  4.5  7.6 12d10 D6.5@40 Ma 0.10 3.76 93 254 427 335 0 A
C-I-M60 200  200 I H68  100  4.5  7.6 12d10 D6.5@60 M 0.10 3.76 93 254 427 335 0 A
C-I-R40 200  200 I H68  100  4.5  7.6 12d10 D6.5@40 R 0.10 3.76 93 254 427 335 0 B
C-I-R60 200  200 I H68  100  4.5  7.6 12d10 D6.5@60 R 0.10 3.76 93 254 427 335 0 B
C-þ-M40 200  200 C 2H68  100  4.5  7.6 12d10 D6.5@40 M 0.18 7.90 94 254 427 335 0 C
C-þ-M60 200  200 C 2H68  100  4.5  7.6 12d10 D6.5@60 M 0.18 7.90 94 254 427 335 0 C
C-þ-M80 200  200 C 2H68  100  4.5  7.6 12d10 D6.5@80 M 0.18 7.90 94 254 427 335 0 C
C-þ-R40 200  200 C 2H68  100  4.5  7.6 12d10 D6.5@40 R 0.18 7.90 94 254 427 335 0 D
C-þ-R60 200  200 C 2H68  100  4.5  7.6 12d10 D6.5@60 R 0.18 7.90 94 254 427 335 0 D
[17] SRC1 280  280 H H150  150  7  10 12d16 D8@140 R 0.31 5.58 29.5 296 350 453 0 E
SRC2 280  280 H H150  150  7  10 12d16 D8@75 R 0.32 5.58 28.1 296 350 453 0 E
SRC3 280  280 H H150  150  7  10 12d16 D8@35 R 0.31 5.58 29.8 296 350 453 0 E
SRC4 280  280 C 2H175  90  5  8 12d16 D8@140 R 0.37 6.42 29.8 345 350 453 0 F

B. Lai et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105765

SRC5 280  280 C 2H175  90  5  8 12d16 D8@75 R 0.37 6.42 29.8 345 350 453 0 F
SRC6 280  280 C 2H175  90  5  8 12d16 D8@35 R 0.38 6.42 29.5 345 350 453 0 F
SRC7 280  280 I H150  75  5  7 12d16 D8@140 R 0.17 2.41 28.1 303 350 453 0 B
SRC8 280  280 I H150  75  5  7 12d16 D8@75 R 0.18 2.41 26.4 303 350 453 0 B
SRC9 280  280 I H150  75  5  7 12d16 D8@140 R 0.17 2.41 28.1 303 350 453 0 B
SRC10 280  280 I H150  75  5  7 12d16 D8@75 R 0.17 2.41 29.8 303 350 453 0 B
[18] CSRC1 400  400 H H150  150  7  10 12d16 D8@100 M 0.21 2.54 26.88 301.7 356.7 340 0 G
CSRC2 400  400 H H150  150  7  10 12d16 D8@100 M 0.18 2.54 35.2 301.7 356.7 340 0 G
CSRC3 400  400 H H150  150  7  10 12d16 D8@200 M 0.18 2.54 35.2 301.7 356.7 340 0 G
CSRC4 400  400 H H150  150  7  10 12d16 D8@100 M 0.25 3.28 26.88 296.7 356.7 340 0 G
CSRC5 400  400 H H150  150  7  10 12d16 D8@100 M 0.21 3.28 35.2 296.7 356.7 340 0 G
[19] src1 280  280 C 2H175  90  5  8 4d16 D8@140 R 0.40 6.28 23.9 274 453 606 0 F
src2 280  280 C 2H175  90  5  8 4d16 D8@100 R 0.41 6.28 23.5 274 453 606 0 F
src3 280  280 C 2H175  90  5  8 12d16 D8@100 R 0.34 6.42 21.8 274 453 606 0 F
src4 280  280 C 2H175  90  5  8 12d16 D8@100 R 0.32 6.42 25.3 274 453 606 0 F
src5 280  280 C 2H160  50  3.2  4.5 4d16 D8@190 R 0.20 2.45 26 271 453 606 0 F
src6 280  280 C 2H160  50  3.2  4.5 4d16 D8@140 R 0.20 2.45 26.3 271 453 606 0 F
src7 280  280 C 2H160  50  3.2  4.5 12d16 D8@140 R 0.16 2.50 25 271 453 606 0 F
src8 280  280 C 2H160  50  3.2  4.5 4d16 D8@100 R 0.20 2.45 26.6 271 453 606 0 F
src9 280  280 C 2H160  50  3.2  4.5 12d16 D8@100 R 0.16 2.50 24.6 271 453 606 0 F
src10 280  280 C 2H160  50  3.2  4.5 12d16 D8@100 R 0.16 2.50 24.3 271 453 606 0 F
[20] C4 200  200 I S.I$B No.10 4d12 D8@200 R 0.24 2.75 18.48 240 400 320 0 H
C9 200  200 I S.I$B No.10 4d12 D8@100 R 0.24 2.75 18.48 240 400 320 0 H
[21] GJ-1 300  300 H H200  200  8  12 8d12 D8@100 R 0.23 7.49 104.2 368.7 503.6 486 0 I
GJ-2 300  300 H H200  200  8  12 8d12 D8@100 R 0.23 7.49 102.6 368.7 503.6 486 0 I
GJ-3 300  300 H H200  200  8  12 8d12 D8@75 R 0.21 7.49 115.2 368.7 503.6 486 0 I
GJ-4 300  300 H H200  200  8  12 8d12 D8@50 R 0.23 7.49 105.3 368.7 503.6 486 0 I
GJ-5 300  300 H H200  200  8  12 8d12 D8@50 R 0.20 7.49 126.9 368.7 503.6 486 0.3%ma I
GJ-6 300  300 H H200  200  8  12 8d12 D8@50 R 0.19 7.49 130.3 368.7 503.6 486 0.4%m I
GJ-7 300  300 H H200  200  8  12 8d12 D8@50 R 0.19 7.49 135.7 368.7 503.6 486 0.5%m I
[22] C50e0 240  240 H H154.4  161.8  8  11.5 8d16 D6@150 R 0.38 9.08 51.1 363 356.8 339.4 0 I
C100e0 240  240 H H154.4  161.8  8  11.5 8d16 D6@150 R 0.24 9.08 109.3 363 356.8 339.4 0 I
C100F 240  240 H H154.4  161.8  8  11.5 e e e 0.23 8.81 123.8 363 0 0 1%m J
Authors C10 250  250 H H154.4  161.8  8  11.5 e e e 0.26 8.06 101.3 381 0 0 0.5%h þ 0.5%m J
C20 250  250 H H154.4  161.8  8  11.5 e e e 0.24 8.06 111.6 381 0 0 1.0%h þ 0.5%m J
C20A 250  250 H H154.4  161.8  8  11.5 e e e 0.25 8.06 107.4 381 0 0 1.0%h J
C30 250  250 H H154.4  161.8  8  11.5 e e e 0.23 8.06 120.4 381 0 0 1.5%h þ 0.5%m J
C50-S120-SF0 240  240 H H152.9  157.6  6.5  9.4 8d13 D10@120 R 0.33 7.16 52.3 375 550 510 0 I
C120-S120-SF0 240  240 H H152.9  157.6  6.5  9.4 8d13 D10@120 R 0.19 7.16 125.6 375 550 510 0 I
C120-S90-SF0 240  240 H H152.9  157.6  6.5  9.4 8d13 D10@90 R 0.19 7.16 125.6 375 550 510 0 I
C120-S60-SF0 240  240 H H152.9  157.6  6.5  9.4 8d13 D10@60 R 0.19 7.16 125.6 375 550 510 0 I
(continued on next page)

7
Table 4 (continued )

8
Ref Specimen designation Cross-section (mm) Structural steel section Main bars Transverse bars d As/Ac fc fy,s fy,r fy,h Steel fiber Cross-section type

Type Size Configuration Type % MPa MPa MPa MPa

C120-S120-SF5 240  240 H H152.9  157.6  6.5  9.4 8d13 D10@120 R 0.18 7.16 126.7 375 550 510 0.5%m I
C120-S60-SF5 240  240 H H152.9  157.6  6.5  9.4 8d13 D10@60 R 0.18 7.16 126.7 375 550 510 0.5%m I
C120-S60-SF0-C 240  240 C 2H70  140  10  12 8d13 D10@60 R 0.26 10.95 125.6 380 550 510 0 K
[23] DH-TI-75 600  600 C 2H175  350  6  9 12d29 D13@75 R 0.25 3.00 34.6 437 439 472 0 F
DH-TI-90 600  600 C 2H175  350  6  9 12d29 D13@90 R 0.25 3.00 34.6 437 439 472 0 F
DH-SP-60 600  600 C 2H175  350  6  9 16d25 D13@60 SP 0.25 3.00 34.6 437 451 472 0 L
DH-SP-75 600  600 C 2H175  350  6  9 16d25 D13@75 SP 0.25 3.00 34.6 437 451 472 0 L
DH-SP-95 600  600 C 2H175  350  6  9 16d25 D13@95 SP 0.25 3.00 34.6 437 451 472 0 L
DH-SP-115 600  600 C 2H175  350  6  9 16d25 D13@115 SP 0.25 3.00 34.6 437 451 472 0 L
[24] HSRC-SP1 D411 C 2H120  206  12  12 20d10 D10@50 SP 0.54 8.24 37 517 426 426 0 M
HSRC-SP2 D411 C 2H120  206  12  12 20d10 D10@50 SP 0.54 8.24 37 517 426 426 0 M
[25] SRC4 600  600 C 2H100  220  6  9 12d25 D13@125 SP þ M 0.16 1.72 32.3 386 469 463 0 N
SRC5 600  600 C 2H175  350  6  9 12d25 D13@150 SP þ M 0.24 2.98 32.3 386 469 463 0 N
SRC6 600  600 C 2H175  350  6  9 12d25 D13@125 SP þ M 0.24 2.98 32.3 386 469 463 0 N

B. Lai et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105765

[26] SCN4A 100  100 H H20  20  5  5 4d8 D6@50 R 0.22 2.62 27 350 470 415 0 H
SCN4B 100  100 H H25  25  5  5 4d8 D6@50 R 0.27 3.43 27 350 470 415 0 H
SCH6A 150  150 H H30  30  5  5 4d8 D6@75 R 0.14 1.83 41 350 470 415 0 H
SCH6B 150  150 H H45  45  5  5 4d8 D6@75 R 0.20 2.88 41 350 470 415 0 H
[27] SRC-1A-HP3-28 560  560 C 2H168  450  10  14 4d25 D10@110 R 0.48 6.04 28.14 416 436 337 0 O
SRC-1A-HP3-42 560  560 C 2H168  450  10  14 4d25 D10@110 R 0.48 6.04 28.14 416 436 433 0 O
SRC-1A-HP4-28 560  560 C 2H168  450  10  14 4d25 D13@110 R 0.48 6.04 28.14 416 436 302 0 O
SRC-1A-HP4-42 560  560 C 2H168  450  10  14 4d25 D13@110 R 0.48 6.04 28.14 416 436 426 0 O
SRC-3A-HP4-42 560  560 C 2H168  450  10  14 12d25 D13@110 M 0.44 6.12 28.14 416 436 426 0 P
SRC-1B-HP3-28 670  670 C 2H168  450  10  14 4d25 D10@110 R 0.40 4.14 28.14 416 436 337 0 O
SRC-1B-HP3-42 670  670 C 2H168  450  10  14 4d25 D10@110 R 0.40 4.14 28.14 416 436 433 0 O
SRC-1B-HP4-28 670  670 C 2H168  450  10  14 4d25 D13@110 R 0.40 4.14 28.14 416 436 302 0 O
SRC-1B-HP4-42 670  670 C 2H168  450  10  14 4d25 D13@110 R 0.40 4.14 28.14 416 436 426 0 O
SRC-3B-HP4-42 670  670 C 2H168  450  10  14 12d25 D13@110 M 0.37 4.17 28.14 416 436 426 0 P
a
Where “M”, “R”, “SP” denote multiple stirrup, rectilinear stirrup, and spiral stirrup, respectively. “h” and “m” denotes hook-end fiber and micro straight fiber, respectively.
 B. Lai et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105765
Fig. 8. Geometric configurations of partially encased steel composite columns reported in literature [27,45,53e59].
mega-shape short steel column attached to the actuator was used
to transfer the load to specimens. Concentric compression was
ensured by adjusting the specimen location until the readings of
the 4 LVDTs roughly coincide with each other. Displacement-
controlled mode was employed in the loading process and pre-
loading was applied up to 20% of predicted maximum load. Actual
loading was then applied with a rate of 0.2e0.3 mm/min, and the
test terminated when the stirrup failed and the concrete crushed
severely.
2.2. Test results
The typical failure modes are shown in Fig. 6. Specimens with
high strength plain concrete C90 or C130 exhibit similar failure
mode, which is characterised by premature spalling of concrete
cove, followed by the local bucking of longitudinal reinforcement
bars, outward bending or even fracture of lateral reinforcement
bars, and the crushing of the concrete enclosed by stirrups. For the
fiber reinforced composite columns, spalling of concrete cover was
not apparently observed. Several longitudinal, horizontal and di-
agonal cracks initiated and propagated on the concrete surface and
the steel fibers were pulled out from the cracks. The observed
phenomenon was similar to those reported by Huang et al. [22] on
their physical tests on the fiber reinforced CES column without
reinforcement bars.
The load-axial shortening behaviour is plotted in Fig. 7. It can be
seen that most specimens behave in a ductile manner with a very
smooth transition from the ascending branch to the post-peak
behaviour. For some specimens with cruciform steel section, the
residual strength even reaches comparable to the peak load. The
comparison between the specimens with concrete C90 and C130
indicates that the former exhibit a more ductile post-peak behav-
iour. Addition of steel fibers enhances both the ultimate load and
residual strength, but this effect is more pronounced for specimens
with C90 concrete. Since this study mainly aims to evaluate the
axial load capacity from experimental and statistical analysis, the
detailed information of strain development in steel and concrete is
not discussed here.
The maximum load obtained from the load-displacement curve
9
is compared with analytical predictions using EN 1994-1-1 and JGJ
138-2016. Both design codes adopt similar conception to predict
the axial load capacity by summing the compression resistance of
each material component. The difference lies in the treatment of
reduction factor to account for unfavourable conditions under pure
compression scenario. The formulae in the two design codes are
given in Eqs. (1) and (2).
EN 1994  1  1 NEC4 ¼ 0:85Ac fc þ As fys þ Ar fyr (1)


JGJ 138  2016 NJGJ ¼ 0:9 Ac fc þ As fys þ Ar fyr (2)
where Ac, As and Ar refer to area of concrete, steel section and
longitudinal reinforcement bars, respectively.
The comparison between the test and predicted results is given
in Table 2. EN 1994-1-1 and JGJ 138-2016 give very similar pre-
diction, although the value of NTest/NEC4 is slightly lower than NTest/
NJGJ. For all specimens with C130 concrete, the predicted capacity
are all higher than the test results, and adding 0.5% steel fiber still
generates overestimation. This indicates that the 0.5% steel fiber
may not be sufficient to overcome the brittleness of C130 concrete.
Comparing the specimens with C90 and C130 concrete, the former
generally has a higher ratio of test to predicted result, and the same
trend is also observed for test specimens with S500 and S690 steel,
which reveals the material compatibility issues between high
strength concrete and high strength steel. This issue will be further
elaborated in the statistical analysis.
3. Statistical analysis
3.1. Database of test results
This section assesses the accuracy of the current design method
in predicting the compression resistance of CES columns, and per-
forms parametric study to identify key parameters that affect the
accuracy of the predictions. A database is established based on
available test data from the literature. A total of 51 test data on PEC
columns and 82 test data on FEC columns were summarized in
10 B. Lai et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105765

Fig. 9. Geometric configurations of fully encased steel composite columns reported in literature [16e27].

Fig. 10. Two types of steel fibers used in fibe-reinforced CES columns.
 B. Lai et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105765
Fig. 11. Comparison between test results and analytical results predicted by EN 1994-1-1 and JGJ 139-2016.
Fig. 12. Evaluation of axial capacity of partially encased composite columns based on
section classification of structural steel.
*
Where “C þ 1” denotes Class 1 cruciform section, “C þ 3” denotes Class 3 cruciform
section, “H þ 4” denotes Class 4H-section.
Fig. 13. Width and thickness of steel flange and steel web.
Tables 3 and 4, respectively. It shall be noted that only the double
symmetric CES stub columns subjected to pure compression are
included in the database. The cross-section configurations of
collected specimens varied widely as sketched in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9. It
can be seen that some PEC columns are internally reinforced with
longitudinal reinforcement bar and stirrups [54e59], while some
are just infilled with plain concrete [27,45,53] without any
11
reinforcement.
As for the FEC columns, a total of 16 cross-section types were
reported from previous research. Some are reinforced with recti-
linear stirrups [16,17,19e23,26,27], some have multiple stirrups
with cross ties [16,18,27]. The specimens tested by Liang et al. [23]
and Shih et al. [25] were heavily reinforced with more than one
types of stirrups as depicted in Fig. 9 (L) & (N), resulting in signif-
icant strength enhancement due to confinement effect. Huang et al.
[22] investigated the behaviour of fiber reinforced CES columns
without reinforcement bars, and Chen et al. [24] studied the axial
response of circular CES columns with spiral stirrups.
Some unpublished tests previously conducted by the authors
are also summarized in Table 4, which consists of 11 test data on
CES columns with and without steel fiber. Two types of steel fibers
are used, and the close up view is given in Fig. 10. The hook-end
fiber is 60 mm long with 0.9 mm diameter, and the micro steel fi-
ber is 13 mm in length with very small diameter of 0.16 mm. The
experimental program reported in this paper adopted the micro
steel fibers as shown in Fig. 10(b).
As plotted in Fig. 11, the comparisons between the test result and
analytical result indicate that both EN 1994-1-1 and JGJ 138-2016
predict the axial load capacity of CES columns with same level of
accuracy, although the former is a bit closer to test result for both
PEC and FEC columns. The following study will only focus on EN
1994-1-1 for the ease of analysis. Since PEC and FEC columns
behave in quite different manner and the key design parameter also
differs, the statistical analysis will be undertaken separately so as to
provide more reliable and specific conclusions.
3.2. Evaluation on partially encased composite (PEC) columns
3.2.1. Axial load capacity
As PEC column is filled with concrete within steel flanges, only
the web component is fully restrained by concrete encasement,
whereas the flanges are susceptible to outward local buckling un-
less a certain requirement of width to thickness ratio is fulfilled. As
listed in Table 3, according to EN 1993-1-1 [60], all the PEC columns
with H-section are categorized into Class 4 section, while cruciform
sections have either Class 1 or Class 3 steel section. Fig. 12 dem-
onstrates that most specimens with Class 4 steel section cannot
reach the EC4 predicted axial capacity, indicating that the load
carrying capacity of PEC columns may be restricted by the elastic
local buckling of slender steel section.
12 B. Lai et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105765

Fig. 14. Influence of different parameters on the accuracy of EN 1994-1-1 prediction for partially encased columns.

3.2.2. Parametric study sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

As the load-carrying capacity of PEC columns is affected by
several design parameters, this section provides some design
guidance by evaluating NTest/NEC4 with the variation of material
strength, steel area ratio As/Ac, steel contribution ratio d, as well as
the width to thickness ratio of steel flange bf/tf and steel web hw/tw.
According to EN 1994-1-1, steel contribution ratio is calculated as:
d ¼ Asfys/NEC4. As for the width to thickness ratio of steel section, EN
1994-1-1 stipulated the following limitations as Eq. (3):
2bf þ tw 235
 44 (3)
tf fy
where the definition of bf, tf, hw and tw are illustrated in Fig. 13. Since
most specimens in Table 3 have steel yield strength about 400 MPa,
and the thickness of web and flange are almost identical, the width
to thickness ratio of flange (bf/tf) for all specimens can be approx-
imately calculated as 16.36 for the ease of further comparative
study.
Since current test data only covers the concrete compressive
strength ranging from 25 MPa to 65 MPa and steel yield strength
within 235 MPa to 515 MPa, no apparent tendency is observed in
 B. Lai et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105765
Fig. 15. comparison between the test result and analytical predictions using the effective width of Class 4 section: (a) Effective width method in EN 1993-1-5; (b) Comparison.
Fig. 16. Effective confined region and confining mechanism of partially encased
composite columns.
Fig. 14(a, b) regarding the effect of material strength variation on
the accuracy of EC4’s predictions. From Fig. 14(c, d), with the in-
crease of steel area ratio As/Ac from 0.05 to 0.4, the ratio of test to
EC4’s prediction also display an increasing trend, indicating that
steel section may plays a major role on the load carrying capacity of
PEC columns. On the other hand, higher steel area ratio always
generates higher level of concrete confinement effect, which results
in concrete strength enhancement and leads to higher axial load
capacity accordingly. This similar trend is observed for the steel
contribution ratio. The higher the steel contribution ratio, the
higher the capacity is attained. Different from the effect of steel area
ratio, width to thickness ratio of steel flange and web exhibit a
negative effect. As indicated from Fig. 14(e), violating the EC4
requirement calculated from Eq. (3) always results in NTest/NEC4
<1.0, suggesting that local buckling of steel section must be
considered for PEC column, otherwise it should be avoided by
13
ensuring the width to thickness ratio is within the Class 3 section
range.
As EC4 does not provide any explicit solution for PEC columns
with slender steel section (Class 4), the concept of effective cross-
section is adopted here following the same procedure specified in
EN 1993-1-5 [61]. As illustrated in Fig. 15(a), the effective area of
steel flange is determined by incorporating a reduction factor r. The
full equations are available in EN 1993-1-5, Clause 4.4 [61].
Adopting the effective width method, conservative estimation can
be attained except for a few outliers as plotted in Fig. 15(b). The
local buckling of steel section occurs at 55% of maximum load as
reported by Pereira et al. [59], thus leading to the unexpected low
capacity, which may attribute to the initial imperfections existed in
the steel sections. Nevertheless, the remaining test data reported in
[55,57,58] indicates the conservative prediction, revealing that the
effective width method shall be used to predict the axial load ca-
pacity of PEC columns with slender steel section.
3.2.3. Evaluation of concrete confinement effect
As seen from Figs. 12 and 14, some test results are much higher
than EC4 prediction by 30%, which may result from confinement
effect provided by steel sections. As sketched in Fig. 16, the effective
confined area of PEC columns is considered to be the zone bounded
by parabolas connecting two adjacent flange tips [44e46,53]. It is
believed that both the steel flange and web contribute to the
confining pressure acting on concrete. Steel flange can be viewed as
a cantilever that deflects outward freely due to lateral deformation
of concrete. The intersection of flange and web functions as a rigid
component thus a bending moment will be generated to resist the
expansion of concrete. Steel web is under biaxial stress state as a
result of axial compression and lateral tension caused by the con-
crete expansion. Therefore, the width to thickness ratio of both
steel flange and web is believed to exert certain effect on the
concrete confinement efficiency. In additions, steel area ratio, steel
contribution ratio can also affect confinement effect as demon-
strated in Fig. 14.
Assuming steel section reaches the yield strength at maximum
load, the confined compressive strength fcc can be back-calculated
by substituting NTest into Eq. (1). The strength enhancement ratio
fcc/fc is plotted as functions of steel area ratio (As/Ac), steel contri-
bution ratio (d), and the width to thickness ratio of steel flange (bf/
tf) and web (hw/tw). It is observed from Fig. 17 that using Class 4
steel section is unfavourable as fcc/fc is always <1.0, in which case
PEC columns may fail by steel section elastic buckling instead of
concrete crushing. Excluding the outliers highlighted in Fig. 17(a),
the trend line is plotted to give the best fit of each data distribution.
14 B. Lai et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105765

Fig. 17. Relations of confinement effect with different parameters.

In order to improve confinement effect, both the steel area ratio and !0:25  0:27
steel contribution ratio shall be increased, while the width to fcc bf hw
thickness ratio of steel section must be restricted. ¼ 1:24e1:95As =Ac þ 0:04e1:3d  0:03  1:45
fc tf tw
Based on the regression analysis of collected data, a formula is
proposed to evaluate the confinement effect for PEC columns as (4)
below Eq. (4): As shown in Fig. 18, good agreement is reached between test
results and analytical predictions using the proposed model. It
should be noted that this model is derived from test date with
concrete compressive strength within 25 MPa to 65 MPa and steel
yield strength within 235 MPa to 515 MPa, beyond this limitation
the proposed formulae shall be re-evaluated.

3.3. Evaluation on fully encased composite (FEC) columns

3.3.1. Axial load capacity

Different from PEC columns, FEC column is not susceptible to
local buckling due to the fully restraint of concrete encasement. A
general comparison between test and design prediction is given in
Fig. 19. FEC columns with cruciform steel section have excellent
load-carrying capacity compared with I-section and H-section.
Another useful technique to improve the load capacity is to change
the configuration of lateral reinforcement. Fig. 19(b) indicates that
using multiple stirrups with cross-ties or spiral hoops can lead to
much higher resistance.

Fig. 18. Comparison between the fcc/fc from physical test and fcc/fc from proposed 3.3.2. Parametric study
model. As indicated in Fig. 20(a, b), using high strength materials
 B. Lai et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105765
Fig. 19. Evaluation of axial capacity of fully encased composite columns based on: (a) Steel section shape; (b) Configuration of stirrups.
always lead to overestimation on the axial load capacity. For FEC
columns with concrete compressive strength <50 MPa, the average
ratio of test to prediction is 1.13, however it drops down to 0.95
when concrete strength increase beyond 50 MPa. Similar trend is
also observed with the increase of steel yield strength. The aver-
aged NTest/NEC4 is 1.07 and 0.90 for normal strength steel and high
strength steel beyond 550 MPa. Other parameters, including steel
areas ratio, steel contribution ratio, longitudinal reinforcement
ratio and confined area ratio (ratio of core concrete area to gross
area), are graphically illustrated in Fig. 20(cef). It is interesting to
find that increasing steel area ratio results in the decrease of NTest/
NEC4, which is completely different from the findings on PEC col-
umns. Nevertheless, it may not be prudent to conclude the negative
correlation between As/Ac and the axial load capacity, since all test
data differs a lot in other parameters, which may disguise the effect
of As/Ac. As for the other three parameters, no clear tendency is
observed due to the scattered data distribution.
Fig. 20(g) demonstrates that the increase of stirrup volumetric
ratio does not bring about the increase of NTest/NEC4, which may
attribute to the large variation of concrete strength. Since high
strength concrete requires higher confining ratio to overcome the
inherent brittleness [62], a non-dimensional confinement index
rvfyh/fc proposed by Razvi & Saatcioglu [62] is adopted here for
more appropriate assessment. As indicated from Fig. 20(h), this
confinement index clearly displays a positive correlation with NTest/
NEC4, thus it shall be viewed as a critical criterion to judge the
design of transverse reinforcement, especially for FEC columns
with high strength concrete. This index will be further analysed in
the following subsection.
3.3.3. Evaluation of concrete strength reduction coefficient
Based on current confinement models for CES composite section
[42,44e46], concrete at different zones exhibits quite different
constitutive laws. The maximum stress of unconfined and confined
concrete does not occur simultaneously, and hence the axial ca-
pacity cannot be directly predicted unless the full range load-
deformation relation is generated, which is beyond the scope of
this study and also not practical for design implementation. Addi-
tionally, the early cover spalling observed in high strength concrete
may also offset the benefit brought by concrete confinement effect.
As sketched in Fig. 21, cover spalling occurs due to the formation of
weak plane between the concrete core and concrete cover. Core
concrete is confined by the stirrups whereas the concrete cover
expands outward without any restraint. Consequently, the concrete
cover will delaminate from the specimens and results in a loss of
capacity. Another source of cover spalling may be the bending of
15
longitudinal reinforcement bars [52]. Once the interfacial crack is
initiated, core concrete applies certain lateral force to the main bars.
Combining with the second-order effect induced by axial force,
longitudinal bars tend to buckle outward, which further exacerbate
cover spalling.
In order to provide insightful guidance from design purpose, and
make the design prediction on the safe side, confinement effect is
neglected in this paper, although it really helps to improve the post-
peak ductility and residual strength [16]. Based on the review of
international building codes, the axial load capacity of CES columns
can be generalized below in Eq. (5):
0 0
NPre ¼ acc Ac fc þ As fys þ Ar fyr (5)
where acc is the concrete strength reduction coefficient associated
with concrete grade and other factors inclusive of size effect, long
term effect, and the difference between in-place concrete and
concrete cured in standard cylinder moulds, etc. fy0 refers to the
effective strength of high strength steel, which can be determined
following the material compatibility criterion as illustrated in
Fig. 22. It shall be noted that the concrete axial strain corresponding
to peak stress is capped at 0.0028 according to EN 1992-1-1 [63],
and hence the effective strength will be lower than the yield
strength when high strength steel over 550 MPa is used.
Substituting the NPre in Eq. (5) with test result NTest, acc can be
back calculated. As plotted in Fig. 23, acc decreases with the in-
crease of concrete compressive strength. The value 0.85 adopted by
EN 1994-1-1 [12] and AISC 360-16 [13] is conservative for concrete
strength below 50 MPa, but apparently it is not feasible for high
strength concrete exceeding 90 MPa. The equations stipulated in
building code CSA-A23.3 [64], NZS 3101 [65], AS 3600 [66], ACI ITG-
4.3R [67] and proposed by Awati & Khadiranaikar [68], Kim et al.
[69] are summarized in Table 5. Although most of these models
place limitations on concrete strength range, they are still used here
for comparison purpose.
Among these models, CSA-A23.3 [64] gives the most conserva-
tive estimations, but it seems to be overly conservative for normal
strength concrete. Other models can predict the normal strength
CES columns with sufficient margin of safety, but they generate
overestimations when concrete compressive strength is beyond
90 MPa, so more reduction is needed to give conservative predic-
tion. To this end, following the form of reduction factor given by
Liew et al. [11], a new formula is proposed in Eqs. (12) and (13) to
evaluate the axial capacity of CES columns as an extension of EN
1994-1-1. Since EN 1994-1-1 limits the maximum concrete grade at
C50, the new proposed formulae introduces a coefficient h to
16 B. Lai et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105765

Fig. 20. Influence of various parameters on the accuracy of EN 1994-1-1 prediction for fully encased composite columns.
 B. Lai et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105765
Fig. 21. Mechanism of spalling of concrete cover.
Fig. 22. Determination of effective strength of high strength steel.
Fig. 23. Comparison of acc values from tests with predictions from (a) design codes; (b) analytical models [68,69] and proposed method.
17
account for the brittleness of concrete with compressive strength
exceeding 50 MPa.
acc ¼ 0:85h (12)
. . .
 1:0  ðf  50Þ 200 50N mm2 < fc  90N mm2
c
h¼ .
0:8 fc > 90N mm2
(13)
As the research on CES columns with ultrahigh strength con-
crete is still limited, it is not advisable to impose excessive reduc-
tion on concrete compressive strength just in order to make all the
test data in Fig. 23(b) fall above the propose method. Based on the
previous research on high strength and ultrahigh strength concrete
conducted by Liew et al. [11], h shall be kept constant at 0.8 when
concrete strength exceeding 90 MPa.
As observed from Fig. 23, for some specimens with concrete
C120/C130, acc falls below the prediction of all models in Table 5
and the proposed method as well, which indicates that CES col-
umn with such high strength concrete may not present the desired
excellent axial load capacity, despite the significant cost input to
produce high strength concrete. Based on the current usage of high
strength concrete in high-rise buildings, the maximum concrete
grade in CES columns shall be conservatively capped at C100, and
the corresponding structural steel grade shall be limited to S550
based on the material compatibility criterion illustrated in Fig. 22.
Beyond this limit the material strength cannot be fully developed,
thus the increase in the cost of production does not bring about
proportional increase in the axial capacity.
The relation between acc and the confinement index rsfyh/fc is
plotted in Fig. 24, which can be written as acc ¼ 0.6(rvfyh/fc)0.184
based on the fitting of data distribution. For fully encased steel
columns with high strength concrete, increasing the volumetric
ratio of transverse reinforcement is helpful to increase the load-
carrying capacity and make the best use of high strength mate-
rials. Reducing the stirrup bar spacing, using spiral hoops, and
changing the arrangement of stirrups from rectilinear configuration
to multiple configuration are all applicable from the statistical
analysis mentioned above. Since the practical range of transverse
reinforcement volumetric ratio is restricted to cater for concreting
casting issue, another technique is to employ higher grade
confining steel, which is proved to be effective in confining high
strength concrete columns [62].
18 B. Lai et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105765

Table 5
Formulae of acc in different design codes and analytical models.

Design codes Equations

CSA-A23.3 [64] acc ¼ 0.85  0.0015fc  0.67 20 MPa  fc  80 MPa (6)


NZS 3101 [65] 0:85 fc  55 MPa (7)
acc ¼
0:85  0:004ðfc  55Þ  0:75 55 MPa  fc  70 MPa

AS 3600 [66] acc ¼ 1  0:003fc (8)

0:72  acc  0:85
8
ACI ITG-4.3R [67] < 0:85 fc  55 MPa (9)
acc ¼ 0:85  0:0022ðfc  55Þ 55 MPa  fc  124 MPa
:
0:7 fc > 124 MPa

Analytical models

Awati and Khadiranaikar [68] 0:85 fc  70 MPa (10)
acc ¼
0:85  0:002ðfc  70Þ  0:75 70 MPa  fc  120 MPa

Kim et al. [69] 0:85 fc  69 MPa (11)
acc ¼
0:85  0:003ðfc  69Þ  0:75 fc > 69 MPa

Fig. 24. Coefficient acc as a function of confinement index rsfyh/fc.
4. Conclusions
Fourteen high strength CES stub columns were tested under
pure compression. The tests results were added into a database
consisting of additional 51 partially encased composite columns
and 82 fully encased composite to perform statistical analysis and
evaluate their axial load capacity. Existing design methods in EN
1994-1-1 and JGJ 138-2016 were assessed through the parametric
study. Key parameters affecting the predictions were identified
accordingly. Finally, an empirical equation was developed to esti-
mate the concrete confining effect. Design recommendation for
concrete encased steel composite columns was then proposed. The
findings reported in this paper support the following conclusions:
1. Current design methods in EN 1994-1-1 (EC 4) and JGJ 138-2016
cannot be used, without modification, to predict the axial load
capacity of concrete encased composite columns with high
strength concrete (C90/C130) and high strength steel (S500/
S690). The higher the material strength, the less conservative is
the codes’ prediction.
2. Adopting a closer spacing of stirrup reinforcement with 2%
volumetric ratio and adding 0.5% steel fiber enable the concrete
encased steel composite columns with C90 concrete and S500/
S690 steel section to reach or exceed the EC4’s predicted axial
capacity. However, for the tested specimens with C130 concrete,
the predicted load is still not conservative compared to the test
results, and higher dosage of steel fibers is needed to improve
the axial capacity of CES stub columns with very high strength
concrete.
3. For partially encased stub columns with concrete compressive
strength ranging from 25 to 65 MPa and steel yield strength
within 235 to 515 MPa, the key parameters affecting the design
prediction are steel area ratio, steel contribution ratio, as well as
the slenderness ratio of steel sections. Class 4 steel section
should be avoided for partially encased composite section un-
less the local buckling of the flange plate is accounted for by
using the effective width concept.
4. Based on the regression analysis, a simplified equation is pro-
posed to assess the confinement effect of partially encased
composite section, which takes into account of steel area ratio,
steel contribution ratio, width to thickness ratio of steel flange
and web, and good agreement with test results is observed.
5. Adopting cruciform steel section and stirrups with cross-ties or
spiral hoops enhances the axial load capacity of fully encased
composite sections. EC4’s method gives conservative estimation
of the composite sections made of normal strength steel section
and concrete with compressive strength up to 50 MPa.
6. A non-dimensional confinement index rvfyh/fc parameter is
proposed to evaluate the axial load capacity of fully encased
steel composite sections, especially when high strength con-
crete is used. In order to make the best use of high strength
concrete, higher volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement is
required or higher strength stirrup bars may be used.
7. In view of the brittleness of high strength concrete, the
maximum concrete grade allowed in concrete encased steel
composite columns shall be conservatively capped at C100, and
the corresponding structural steel grade shall be limited to S550
based on the material compatibility criterion. Further research is
needed to address the brittleness and early spalling of high
strength concrete for its application in concrete encased steel
composite columns.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the support provided by
Building & Construction Authority in Singapore under project grant
R-302-000-168-490. JFE Steel Corporation and Yongnam Engi-
neering & Construction are also greatly acknowledged for supply-
ing and preparing the test specimens.
References
[1] T. Bogdan, M. Chrzanowski, Mega columns with several reinforced steel
profileseexperimental and numerical investigations, in: Proceedings of the
12th International Conference on Advances in Steel-Concrete Composite
 B. Lai et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105765
Structures, ASCCS 2018, 2018 Jun 5, pp. 267e274.
[2] M. Zhu, J. Liu, Q. Wang, X. Feng, Experimental research on square steel tubular
columns filled with steel-reinforced self-consolidating high-strength concrete
under axial load, Eng. Struct. 32 (8) (2010) 2278e2286.
[3] Q. Wang, D. Zhao, P. Guan, Experimental study on the strength and ductility of
steel tubular columns filled with steel-reinforced concrete, Eng. Struct. 26 (7)
(2004) 907e915.
[4] M. Khan, B. Uy, Z. Tao, F. Mashiri, Behaviour and design of short high-strength
steel welded box and concrete-filled tube (CFT) sections, Eng. Struct. 147
(2017) 458e472.
[5] L.H. Han, C.C. Hou, X.L. Zhao, K.J. Rasmussen, Behaviour of high-strength
concrete filled steel tubes under transverse impact loading, J. Constr. Steel
Res. 92 (2014) 25e39.
[6] N. Saleh, A. Ashour, D. Lam, T. Sheehan, Experimental investigation of bond
behaviour of two common GFRP bar types in highestrength concrete, Constr.
Build. Mater. 201 (2019) 610e622.
[7] M. Khan, B. Uy, Z. Tao, F. Mashiri, Concentrically loaded slender square hollow
and composite columns incorporating high strength properties, Eng. Struct.
131 (2017) 69e89.
[8] M.X. Xiong, D.X. Xiong, J.Y.R. Liew, Axial performance of short concrete filled
steel tubes with high-and ultra-high-strength materials, Eng. Struct. 136
(2017) 494e510.
[9] M.X. Xiong, D.X. Xiong, J.Y.R. Liew, Behaviour of steel tubular members infilled
with ultra high strength concrete, J. Constr. Steel Res. 138 (2017 Nov 1)
168e183.
[10] M.X. Xiong, D.X. Xiong, J.Y.R. Liew, Flexural performance of concrete filled
tubes with high tensile steel and ultra-high strength concrete, J. Constr. Steel
Res. 132 (2017) 191e202.
[11] J.Y.R. Liew, M.X. Xiong, D.X. Xiong, Design of concrete filled tubular beam-
columns with high strength steel and concrete, Structures 8 (2016) 213e226.
[12] EN 1994-1-1, Eurocode 4: Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures-
Part 1-1, General Rules and Rules for Buildings, 2004.
[13] ANSI/AISC 360-16, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, American
Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Chicago, USA, 2016.
[14] JGJ 138-2016, Code for Design of Composite Structures, Ministry of Housing
and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China, China, 2016
(In Chinese).
[15] B.L. Lai, J.Y.R. Liew, T.Y. Wang, Buckling behaviour of high strength concrete
encased steel composite columns, J. Constr. Steel Res. 154 (2019) 27e42.
[16] W.Q. Zhu, G. Meng, J.Q. Jia, Experimental studies on axial load performance of
high-strength concrete short columns, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Struct. Build. 167
(9) (2014) 509e519.
[17] C.C. Chen, S.C. Yeh, Ultimate strength of concrete encased steel composite
columns, in: Proceedings of the Third National Conference on Structural En-
gineering, 1996, pp. 2197e2206 (in Chinese).
[18] Y. Liu, Z.X. Guo, P.H. Xu, L.P. Jia, Experimental study on axial compression
behavior of core steel reinforced concrete columns, J. Build. Struct. 36 (4)
(2015) 68e74 (in Chinese).
[19] K.C. Tsai, Y. Lien, C.C. Chen, Behaviour of axially loaded steel reinforced con-
crete columns, J. Chin. Inst. Civil Hydraul. Eng. 8 (4) (1996) 535e545 (in
Chinese).
[20] K.Z. Soliman, A.I. Arafa, T.M. Elrakib, Review of design codes of concrete
encased steel short columns under axial compression, HSRC J. 9 (2013)
134e143.
[21] Y. Du, Liew J.Y.R. Qi Honghui, Experimental study on behaviours of high
strength concrete encased columns, in: 9th International Conference on Steel
and Aluminium Structures (ICSAS19) Bradford, UK, 3e5, July, 2019,
pp. 979e990.
[22] Z. Huang, X. Huang, W. Li, Y. Zhou, L. Sui, J.Y.R. Liew, Experimental behaviour
of very high-strength concrete-encased steel composite column subjected to
axial compression and end moment, in: Proceedings of the 12th International
Conference on Advances in Steel-Concrete Composite Structures, ASCCS 2018,
2018 Jun 5, pp. 323e329.
[23] C.Y. Liang, C.C. Chen, C.C. Weng, S.Y. Yin, J.C. Wang, Axial compressive
behavior of square composite columns confined by multiple spirals, J. Constr.
Steel Res. 103 (2014) 230e240.
[24] S.W. Chen, P. Wu, Q. Liu, Z.X. Hou, L.B. Qiu, Studies on axially compressed SRC
column using Q460 high strength steel, in: In the 8th International Conference
on Behavior of Steel Structure in Seismic Area, 2015, pp. 131e132.
[25] T.H. Shih, C.C. Chen, C.C. Weng, S.Y. Yin, J.C. Wang, Axial strength and ductility
of square composite columns with two interlocking spirals, J. Constr. Steel
Res. 90 (2013) 184e192.
[26] M.S. Rahman, M. Begum, R. Ahsan, Comparison between experimental and
numerical studies of fully encased composite columns, World Acad. Sci. Eng.
Technol. 10 (6) (2016 Apr 1) 762e769.
[27] C.C. Chen, C.C. Tao, S.C. Yang, W.M. Tsai, Experimental stress-strain behavior
of the concrete confined by cross-H steel cross-sectional shape, J. Chin. Inst.
Civil Hydraul. Eng. 22 (4) (2010) 423e434 (in Chinese).
[28] G.T. Zhao, C.H. Wang, C.Y. Gao, C.X. Wang, Experiment study on the capacity of
SRC long column subjected to eccentric compression, J. Baotou Univ. Iron Steel
Technol. 25 (4) (2006) 384e400 (in Chinese).
[29] Q. Yu, Z.D. Lu, Research on the static performance of eccentric steel reinforced
concrete column, Build. Struct. 39 (6) (2009) 34e38 (in Chinese).
[30] D.J. Han, K.S. Kim, A study on the strength and hysteretic characteristics of
steel reinforced concrete columns-in the case of columns loaded eccentrically,
J. Archit. Inst. Korea 11 (4) (1995) 183e190 (in Korean).
19
[31] C.S. Kim, H.G. Park, K.S. Chung, I.R. Choi, Eccentric axial load testing for
concrete-encased steel columns using 800 MPa steel and 100 MPa concrete,
J. Struct. Eng. 138 (8) (2012) 1019e1031.
[32] C.S. Kim, H.G. Park, K.S. Chung, I.R. Choi, Eccentric axial load capacity of high-
strength steel-concrete composite columns of various sectional shapes,
J. Struct. Eng. 140 (4) (2013), 04013091.
[33] P.R. Munoz, C.T. Hsu, Behavior of biaxially loaded concrete-encased composite
columns, J. Struct. Eng. 123 (9) (1997) 1163e1171.
[34] C. Dundar, S. Tokgoz, A.K. Tanrikulu, T. Baran, Behaviour of reinforced and
concrete-encased composite columns subjected to biaxial bending and axial
load, Build. Environ. 43 (6) (2008) 1109e1120.
[35] S.A. Mirza, V. Hyttinen, E. Hyttinen, Physical tests and analyses of composite
steel-concrete beam-columns, J. Struct. Eng. 122 (11) (1996) 1317e1326.
[36] T. Naka, K. Morita, M. Tachibana, Strength and hysteretic characteristics of
steel-reinforced concrete columns, Trans. AIJ 250 (1997) 47e58 (in Japanese).
[37] J.M. Ricles, S.D. Paboojian, Seismic performance of steel-encased composite
columns, J. Struct. Eng. 120 (8) (1994) 2474e2494.
[38] C. Campian, Z. Nagy, M. Pop, Behavior of fully encased steel-concrete com-
posite columns subjected to monotonic and cyclic loading, Procedia Eng. 117
(2015) 439e451.
[39] W. Zhu, J. Jia, J. Gao, F. Zhang, Experimental study on steel reinforced high-
strength concrete columns under cyclic lateral force and constant axial load,
Eng. Struct. 125 (2016) 191e204.
[40] B. Lai, J.Y. Liew, S. Li, Finite element analysis of concrete-encased steel com-
posite columns with off-center steel section, in: Proceedings of the 12th In-
ternational Conference on Advances in Steel-Concrete Composite Structures,
ASCCS 2018, 2018 Jun 5, pp. 297e303.
[41] E. Ellobody, B. Young, D. Lam, Eccentrically loaded concrete encased steel
composite columns, Thin-Walled Struct. 49 (1) (2011) 53e65.
[42] S. El-Tawil, G.G. Deierlein, Strength and ductility of concrete encased com-
posite columns, J. Struct. Eng. 125 (9) (1999) 1009e1019.
[43] S.W. Liu, Y.P. Liu, S.L. Chan, Advanced analysis of hybrid steel and concrete
frames: part 1: cross-section analysis technique and second-order analysis,
J. Constr. Steel Res. 70 (3) (2012) 26e36.
[44] C.C. Chen, N.J. Lin, Analytical model for predicting axial capacity and behavior
of concrete encased steel composite stub columns, J. Constr. Steel Res. 62
(2006) 424e433.
[45] X. Zhao, F. Wen, T.M. Chan, S. Cao, Theoretical stressestrain model for con-
crete in steel-reinforced concrete columns, J. Struct. Eng. 145 (4) (2019),
04019009.
[46] S. Chen, P. Wu, Analytical model for predicting axial compressive behavior of
steel reinforced concrete column, J. Constr. Steel Res. 128 (2017) 649e660.
[47] J.B. Mander, M.J. Priestley, R. Park, Theoretical stress-strain model for confined
concrete, J. Struct. Eng. 114 (8) (1988) 1804e1826.
[48] R. Eid, K. Kovler, I. David, W. Khoury, S. Miller, Behavior and design of high-
strength circular reinforced concrete columns subjected to axial compres-
sion, Eng. Struct. 173 (2018) 472e480.
[49] S.J. Foster, J. Liu, S.A. Sheikh, Cover spalling in HSC columns loaded in
concentric compression, J. Struct. Eng. 124 (12) (1998) 1431e1437.
[50] S.J. Foster, M.M. Attard, Strength and ductility of fiber-reinforced high-
strength concrete columns, J. Struct. Eng. 127 (1) (2001) 28e34.
[51] A. Le Hoang, E. Fehling, B.L. Lai, D.K. Thai, N. Van Chau, Experimental study on
structural performance of UHPC and UHPFRC columns confined with steel
tube, Eng. Struct. 187 (2019) 457e477.
[52] S.J. Foster, On behavior of high-strength concrete columns: cover spalling,
steel fibers, and ductility, ACI Struct. J. 98 (4) (2001) 583e589.
[53] X. Zhao, H. Qin, Y.Y. Chen, Experimental study on constitutive model of steel
confined concrete in SRC columns with cruciform steel section, J. Build. Struct.
35 (4) (2014) 268e279 (in Chinese).
[54] M. Ebadi Jamkhaneh, M.A. Kafi, Experimental investigation of octagonal
partially encased composite columns subject to concentric and eccentric
loading, J. Rehabil. Civil Eng. 7 (1) (2019) 113e126.
[55] B.S. Prickett, R.G. Driver, Behaviour of partially encased composite columns
made with high performance concrete, in: Structural Engineering Report no
262. Dept of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, AB,
Canada, 2006.
[56] M. Begum, R.G. Driver, A.E. Elwi, Behaviour of partially encased composite
columns with high strength concrete, Eng. Struct. 56 (2013) 1718e1727.
[57] R. Tremblay, B. Massicotte, I. Filion, R. Maranda, Experimental study on the
behaviour of partially encased composite columns made with light welded H
steel shapes under compressive axial loads, in: Proc., 1998 SSRC Annual
Technical Meeting, 1998, pp. 195e204.
[58] T. Chicoine, R. Tremblay, B. Massicotte, J.M. Ricles, L.W. Lu, Behavior and
strength of partially encased composite columns with built-up shapes,
J. Struct. Eng. 128 (3) (2002) 279e288.
[59] M.F. Pereira, S. De Nardin, A.L. El Debs, Structural behavior of partially encased
composite columns under axial loads, Steel Compos. Struct. 20 (6) (2016)
1305e1322.
[60] EN 1993-1-1, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures-Part 1-1. General Rules
and Rules for Buildings, 2005.
[61] 1993-1-5, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures-Part 1-5. Plated Structural
Elements, 2006.
[62] S.R. Razvi, M. Saatcioglu, Strength and deformability of confined high-strength
concrete columns, ACI Struct. J. 91 (6) (1994) 678e687.
[63] EN 1992-1-1, Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures-Part 1e1. General
Rules and Rules for Buildings, 2004.
20 B. Lai et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105765

[64] Canadian Standard Association (CSA) A23.3, Design of Concrete Structures,
Mississauga, Canada, 2014.
[65] Standard New Zealand (NZS) 3101, Concrete Structure Standard, Part 1- the
Design of Concrete Structures, New Zealand, 2006.
[66] AS (Australian Standard), Concrete structures, in: AS 3600-2009, Australia
Standard, Sydney, Australia, 2009.
[67] ACI (American Concrete Institute) Innovation Task Group (ITG), 4.3 R-07,
Report on Structural Design and Detailing for High Strength Concrete in
Moderate to High Seismic Applications, American Concrete Institute, 2007.
[68] M. Awati, R.B. Khadiranaikar, Behavior of concentrically loaded high perfor-
mance concrete tied columns, Eng. Struct. 37 (2012) 76e87.
[69] S. Kim, H.C. Mertol, S. Rizkalla, P. Zia, A. Mirmiran, Behavior of high-strength
concrete rectangular columns, in: Seventh International Congress on Ad-
vances in Civil Engineering, 2006 Oct 11, pp. 1e10.