Engineering Structures 185 (2019) 141–158

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Finite element model for the interface between steel and concrete of CFST T
(concrete-filled steel tube)
Dinh Han Nguyena, Won-Kee Honga, , Hyo-Jin Koa, Seong-Kyum Kimb
⁎

a
Department of Architectural Engineering, Engineering College, Kyung Hee University, 1732 Deogyeong-daero, Giheung-gu, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea
b
Research Institute for Mega Structures, Korea University, Engineering Building, 145 Anam-Ro, Seongbuk-Gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This study aims to provide numerical formulation of the behavior of the compact concrete-filled steel tubes
Strain compatibility (CFSTs) based on constraints with the tie model permitting the two regions to fuse together. This study defined
Concrete confinement effect the interface between steel tubes and concrete cores with tie parameters allowing only rotation at the interface.
Flexural strength of concrete-filled square steel Nonlinear finite element analyses were performed to explore the influence of tie and slip models on the flexural
tube
strength of concrete-filled steel tube members, resulting in improved predictions when the confinement provided
Constraint
Tie model
by a steel tube was modeled with tie element. The passive confinement provided by the steel tube was hindered
Slip model by the difference in the Poisson’s ratio between the steel tube and concrete when slip elements allowed for
infinitesimal movement between a concrete core and steel shell. The numerical results were also consistent with
results obtained by the modified strain compatibility-based simplified methods in which no relative motion was
assumed between the steel tube and concrete core. The numerical results were well correlated with test data and
codes supplied by prior researchers when the test specimens in which relative movement at interface between
concrete core and steel jacket was infinitesimal or relative movement between interface between concrete core
and steel jacket was not allowed for CFTs with shear connectors. Improved predictions by the tie model de-
monstrated higher accuracy compared with that of the slip models.

1. Introduction
1.1. Motivation of the study
Concrete-filled steel tube (CFST) columns are widely used in the
construction industry owing to their structural resistance to lateral
loads. The steel members used in CFST columns exhibit high tensile
strength and ductility, while the concrete members impart high com-
pressive strength and stiffness. Numerous experimental and analytical
studies have been performed on CFST columns [1–19]. Ge and Usami
[3] carried out an experimental test on the strength and deformation of
concrete filled square columns. Six test specimens subjected to cyclic
compressive forces were loaded to failure. The experimental findings
showed that the concrete-filled composite columns exhibited high
strength and high ductility. Schneider [8] conducted another study of
the structural strength of CFST columns. The purpose of the study by
Schneider [8] was to compare the ultimate strength of their test spe-
cimens to the current specifications governing the design of the con-
crete-filled steel tube columns. Schneider [8] concluded that circular
tubes were preferable over square or rectangular cross-sections because
of their substantial post-yield strength and stiffness due to better con-
finement provided by the circular tube. O’Shea and Bridge [13] sug-
gested several design methods aiming to provide a conservative esti-
mation of the strength of circular thin-walled concrete-filled steel
columns under various types of loading conditions O’Shea and Bridge
[13]. Elremaily et al. [17] stated that the procedure of designing a CFST
column using the code of American Concrete Institute [20] was sig-
nificantly different from the procedure recommended by the American
Institute of Steel Construction’s (AISC) [21] Load and Resistance Factor
Design [22] for an identical column, owing to the traditional separation
between structural steel design and reinforced concrete design. Design
code Eurocode 4 [23] estimated the bearing capacity of an element
assuming full plastic stress distribution. Eurocode 4 did not provide a
specific design equation for calculating the flexural strength of CFSTs
and rather proposed the application of the rigid-plastic theory for ul-
timate moment performance. Gourley and Hajjar [24], Zhang and
Shahrooz [25], and Inai and Sakino [26] proposed analytical models to
predict the strength of rectangular CFST beam–columns. In these
models, it was assumed that confinement increased the ductility of the
concrete core rather than the strength. However, Hajjar et al. [14]

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hongwk@khu.ac.kr (W.-K. Hong).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.01.068
Received 11 August 2018; Received in revised form 31 December 2018; Accepted 13 January 2019
0141-0296/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D.H. Nguyen et al.
Nomenclature
c concrete compressive stress
co maximum compressive stress of concrete
t0 maximum tensile stress of concrete
c0 strain corresponding to the maximum compressive stress
of concrete
c concrete strain
b width of the steel tube (outside to outside), mm
c neutral axis, mm
εsy yield strain of steel
εc concrete compressive strain
Es Young’s modulus of steel, MPa
Ec Young’s modulus of concrete, MPa
outlined the geometrically nonlinear formulation of the interlayer slip
between the steel tube and concrete core. Hajjar et al. [14] presented
cyclic constitutive models, including details of the calibration of the
models, to account for behavior specific to CFST beam–columns, per-
mitting infinitesimal sliding and friction between the concrete core and
steel tube. Schnabl et al. [27] analytically addressed the interlayer
formulations between the steel tube and concrete core, investigating the
effect of interface compliance on buckling behavior of CFST columns.
For circular CFST columns, their analytical results agreed well with
experimental buckling loads if at least one among longitudinal and
radial interfacial stiffness is high. In the present study, numerical and
analytical models were proposed to determine the strains of the com-
posite elements when the steel tube and concrete were tied together. In
modified strain compatibility-based approach, the proportional re-
lationships with the strain of the concrete (εc), re-bar, and steel mem-
bers enabled accurate prediction of the strains produced for all the
structural components at the pre-yield limit state, yield limit state,
maximum load limit state, and failure limit state [28–31]. These for-
mulations assumed that the concrete and steel were completely at-
tached to each other, resulting in a plastic stress state for concrete and
steel in their ultimate state. Test data obtained by Zhang and Shahrooz
[32], and the design codes of AISC and EC4 at the maximum load limit
state were well compared with the numerical results, demonstrating
higher accuracy were sought from using the tie model than using the
slip models.
1.2. Research significance and objective
The objective of this study was to define the interface of CFST be-
tween the steel tube and concrete core, recommending an appropriate
constraint model for the interface when relative movement at interface
between concrete core and steel jacket was infinitesimal or those of
CFSTs with shear connectors installed on the surfaces of the steel tube
and embedded in the concrete where relative movement between in-
terface between concrete core and steel jacket was not allowed. Better
prediction of the flexural strength of the proposed CFST flexural
members was presented by models using constraint surfaces, than al-
lowing for sliding between the concrete core and steel tube. The dif-
ference in the Poisson’s ratio between the steel tube and concrete pre-
vented the passive confinement of concrete core provided by the steel
tube when infinitesimal movement between a concrete core and steel
shell was allowed by slip elements. A behavior of the compact concrete-
filled steel tubes (CFSTs) based on constraints with the tie model per-
mitting the two regions to fuse together was numerically formulated in
this study. The rotation at the interface was allowed between the con-
tact (steel tubes and concrete cores) when tie parameters were
142
Engineering Structures 185 (2019) 141–158
Fy yield strength of steel, MPa
f′cc compressive strength of confined concrete based on
Mander, MPa
f′c compressive strength of unconfined concrete, MPa
h depth of the steel tube, mm
Mn nominal moment capacity, kN·m
Mext flexural strength of the specimens measured in prior ex-
periments, kN·m
tw web thickness of the steel tube, mm
t′f top flange thickness of the steel tube, mm
tf bottom flange thickness of the steel tube, mm
α the mean stress factor
γ the centroid factor
implemented. The numerical results based on nonlinear finite element
analyses provided consistent results obtained by the modified strain
compatibility-based methods in which no relative motion was assumed
between the steel tube and concrete core. An influence of tie models on
the flexural strength of concrete-filled steel tube members was well
correlated with test data in the literature including the experimental
data presented by Lu and Kennedy [33], Zhang and Shahrooz [32], and
Uy [12]. The results indicated that the tie model provided better esti-
mates to the experimental results, especially for those of the test spe-
cimens in which relative movement at interface between concrete core
and steel jacket was infinitesimal or those of test specimens with shear
connectors where relative movement between interface between con-
crete core and steel jacket was not allowed. The stress and strain con-
tours of the section at the maximum load and ultimate load limit states
showed strength reduction caused by separation with slip model be-
tween the interfaces. The occurrence of the convergence problems
taking place in the nonlinear modeling of such members is also ex-
pected to be reduced. This study contributed to the understanding of
the bending behaviour of the concrete-filled members for the accurate
and fast design of the concrete-filled members where there was natu-
rally no slippage taking place at the interface. This study will help
engineers understand the structural performance, leading to accurate
design of the concrete-filled members.
2. Numerical investigation based on non-linear finite element
analysis
2.1. Finite element modeling
2.1.1. Modeling of concrete and steel tube interface
The present study explored the use of the tie and slip contact
properties between concrete and steel tubes. The interactions between
concrete and steel tube are defined based on the following: (1) the tie
technique in which separation is prohibited between the two contacted
surfaces shown in Fig. 1(a), and (2) the slip model in which separation
is permitted between the concrete and steel tube. The proposed tie
model was straightforward and provided enhanced results compared to
models with interlayer slip properties (hard contacts in the normal di-
rection) between the concrete and steel tube. “Hard contact” in the
normal direction is generally specified for the interface, which allows
the separation of the interface in tension and no penetration of that in
compression by applying penalty stiffness. The nonlinear penalty stiff-
ness with a nonlinear pressure-overclosure relationship which increases
from the initial stiffness (10% of the initial stiffness) to the final
stiffness (denoted as 10 Kin ) was implemented for defining hard contact
in the normal direction. However, the tangent contact is simulated by
D.H. Nguyen et al. Engineering Structures 185 (2019) 141–158

(a) Interaction properties

(b) FEA model based on Zhang’s specimen

(c) Stress-strain curves of concrete and steel materials used in FE models (Zhang’s specimen)
Fig. 1. Finite element (FE) model of concrete-filled steel tubes (CFSTs).

143
D.H. Nguyen et al.
the friction coefficients, assuming there is little or no slip between the
steel tube and concrete. For this reason, the behaviour of CFST columns
is not sensitive to the selection of friction coefficient between steel and
concrete [34]. Friction coefficients of 0.25, 0.3 and 0.6 were used by
Schneider [8], Lam et al. [34] and Han et al. [35], respectively. The
ascending and descending parts of the concrete constitutive relation-
ships proposed by Samani and Attard [36], Binici [37] were im-
plemented, respectively. The observations indicated that FE model
based on the tie model was consistent with the test data, establishing
the accuracy in terms of predicting the structural performance of the
CFST columns.
2.1.2. Element descriptions
The solid body of the CFST was divided into small elements that
were 10 mm in dimension. A fine mesh was used to ensure accurate
analysis. It is noteworthy that the number of DOFs was significantly
reduced with the use of C3D8R [38] shown in Fig. 1(b), resulting in
rapid computation of the FE models. Alternatively, elements of type
R3D4 (linear quadrilateral elements) [38] were selected to model a
rigid body upon which a lateral load was exerted. The average numbers
of nodes and elements in the FE models were 161, 069 and 134, 064,
respectively. The material properties used to calibrate FE models are
summarized in Fig. 1(c) and Table 1-1.
2.1.3. Modeling the interlayer between steel jacket and concrete core
The level of longitudinal stress and strain of concrete in the com-
pression region based on the slip and tie model for the interlayer were
obtained numerically and are depicted in Fig. 2(a). The strains were
similar for both the tie and slip models until the concrete stress for the
slip model decreased at approximately 0.0023 in which the unconfined
Kent–Park model for concrete was used (see Fig. 1(c)). The stresses and
strains of compressive concrete based on the interlayer for the tie model
increased until it attained a strain of 0.0033, indicating that the steel
jacket provided an additional confining effect to the concrete core by
tying a steel tube with the concrete core. No decrease was observed in
the stress or strain when a confined concrete model proposed by Samani
and Attard [36], Binici [37] was used. The stress and strain of the steel
tube with the tie model in the compression region similar to ones for the
slip model were demonstrated as presented in Fig. 2(b), indicating that
the behavior of the steel jacket was not influenced by the type of
contact model. In Fig. 2(c), the tie model yielded nominal moment
strength values similar to the test results obtained by Zhang and
Shahrooz [32]. The numerical investigation is summarized in Tables 1
and 2, where the nominal moment strength values of the test data by
various researchers are compared with both the finite element analyses
based on concrete plasticity and strain compatibility based on the
simplified method. They demonstrate that the tie model provided re-
sults closer to the test data than to those estimated by the slip model.
2.2. Contact behavior of a concrete filled tube at maximum load and
ultimate load limit state
In Fig. 3, the stress and strain contours of the section at the max-
imum load and ultimate load limit states are compared between the tie
and slip models for the specimen introduced by Zhang and Shahrooz
[32]. The maximum loads occurred at the strokes of 18 mm and 23 mm
for the tie and slip models, respectively. Higher compressive strains in
the vertical direction were observed with the tie model, leading to a
flexural moment closer to the test data than that calculated based on the
slip model for both the maximum load (Fig. 3(a), (c), and (d)) and ul-
timate load limit states (Fig. 3(b), (c), and (d)). The stresses of the steel
jacket in the Z-direction with the tie model were observed to be mar-
ginally higher than those with the slip model for both the maximum
load and ultimate load (Fig. 3(c)). The stress in the Z-direction (vertical
144
Engineering Structures 185 (2019) 141–158
direction) that occurred in the concrete core with the tie model were
also higher than that obtained with the slip model shown in the mag-
nified stress-strain diagram of concrete core in the Z-direction
(Fig. 3(d)). The neutral axes shown in Fig. 3(a) and (b), indicating
compression zones calculated based on the slip model, were smaller
than those calculated based on the tie model for both the limit states;
this resulted in an underestimation of the flexural moment values when
calculated with the slip models. In Fig. 3(a) and (b), the web face of the
steel tube was separated by 0.35 mm and 9 mm from the concrete core
at the fixed end of the CFST frame at the maximum load and ultimate
load limit states, respectively. Stresses of the steel jacket in the X-di-
rection with tie and slip models were observed for both the maximum
load (Fig. 4(a)) and ultimate load (Fig. 4(b)). In Fig. 4(b) at ultimate
load limit state, stresses and strains are higher in the web face of the
steel tube separated from the concrete core with slip model than in the
steel tube that was not separated from the concrete core with tie model.
Compressive strains in concrete core with slip model were also found
larger than strains obtained by tie element. In the tie model, no se-
paration was observed between the steel tube and concrete core either
at the maximum load or at the ultimate load limit states; however,
separation was observed at the ultimate load limit state when slips were
allowed at the interlayer. However, stresses and strains of the flange
face of steel jacket along the Y direction with the tie model were ob-
served to be higher than those in the flange face of the steel tube with
slip model for both the maximum load (Fig. 5(a) and (c)) and ultimate
load (Fig. 5(b) and (c)). The higher flexural strength was contributed by
the tie model than by slip model. Fig. 5(c) depicts that stresses in the Y-
direction as large as 150 MPa, corresponding to a strain of 0.001, were
observed in the flange face of the steel tubes for the tie model; stresses
as large as 70 MPa were observed in the steel tubes for the slip model.
The stress of the concrete core increased with the tie model in a manner
similar to that with the slip model for up to 0.003; after this point, the
stress with the tie model increased more rapidly than that with the slip
model, contributing to the higher flexural strength of the CFST member.
This was because a separation of 0.35 mm between the web face of steel
tube and concrete core with the slip model at the maximum load state
(Fig. 5(a)) retarded progression of the flexural strength of the CFST
member. At the ultimate load state with the slip model, the concrete
core was separated from the web face of the steel tube by 9 mm along
the parallel direction of loading, as depicted in Fig. 5(b). However, with
the tie model, the separation between the steel tube and concrete core
was not noticeable, as depicted in Fig. 5(a) and (b). The stresses of the
concrete core in the Y-direction were approximately 18 MPa and
13 MPa for the tie and slip models, respectively (Fig. 5(d)), demon-
strating the higher contribution provided by concrete with the tie
Table 1-1
Material properties of the selected tested specimens.
Test specimen Concrete Steel
Zhang’s model (1997) [32] f c =41.7 MPa f y =370 MPa
Section: 254 × 254 × 8 mm E = 30,350 MPa E = 205,000 MPa
Poisson’s ratio:0.16 Poisson’s ratio:0.3
Lu and Kennedy’s model (1994) f c =46.2 MPa f y =394 MPa
[33] E = 31,946 MPa E = 205,000 MPa
Section: 254 × 152 × 9.5 mm Poisson’s ratio:0.16 Poisson’s ratio:0.3
Uy’s model (2000) [12] f c =38 MPa f y =300 MPa
Section: 246 × 246 × 3 mm E = 28,973 MPa E = 205,000 MPa
Poisson’s ratio: 0.16 Poisson’s ratio:0.3
Han (2004) [43] f c =23.6 MPa f y =330 MPa
Section: 120 × 120 × 3.84 mm E = 22,833 MPa
E = 205,000 MPa
Poisson’s ratio:0.16 Poisson’s ratio:0.3
Tamii and Sakino (1979) [42] f c =18.6 MPa f y =284 MPa
Section: 100 × 100 × 4.25 mm E = 20,270 MPa E = 205,000 MPa
Poisson’s ratio: 0.16 Poisson’s ratio:0.3
D.H. Nguyen et al. Engineering Structures 185 (2019) 141–158

(a) Compressive concrete

(b) Longitudinal stress–relationship of tensile steel tube

(c) Moment–displacement relationship; FEA of Zhang’s specimen

Fig. 2. Nominal flexural moment capacity (Longitudinal direction).

model. The web face of steel tube based on the slip model was pushed
outward in the Y-direction with significant separation from the concrete
core, as apparent in the element toward the fixed end in Fig. 5(b).
Discontinuities in strain were also observed with the slip model owing
to differences in the Poisson’s ratio between the steel tube and concrete;
the initial Poisson’s ratio of concrete was 0.17, and the Poisson’s ratio
for steel was 0.25. With the slip model, when loads were applied in-
itially, confinement effects were not provided because steel expanded in
the off direction at a higher rate than that of concrete, less contributing
to the flexural strength of the CFST than with tie model.

145
D.H. Nguyen et al. Engineering Structures 185 (2019) 141–158

Table 1-2
Comparison of experimental and analytical results of concrete-filled square steel tube.
Authors Mext [kN-m] Mn
Mext

AISC Eurocode 4 SC
(Confinement) (Confinement)
Un-confinement Confinement
(K value)

Tomii and Sakino (1979) [42] 7.2 1.037 1.048 1.044 1.082 (1.810)
11 1.027 1.038 1.025 1.091 (2.215)
14 0.964 0.974 0.962 1.032 (2.503)
18.3 0.973 0.981 0.969 1.050 (3.050)

Lu and Kennedy (1994) [33] 73.6 0.941 0.952 0.936 0.990 (2.106)
75.1 0.917 0.927 0.911 0.967 (2.180)
71.3 0.963 0.974 0.956 1.017 (2.212)
146.5 0.902 0.910 0.904 0.986 (3.104)
210.7 0.887 0.899 0.879 0.944 (1.843)
210.7 0.884 0.897 0.876 0.942 (1.863)
207.6 0.896 0.909 0.887 0.955 (1.875)
283.8 0.950 0.962 0.933 1.025 (2.257)
282.2 0.951 0.963 0.933 1.028 (2.296)
144.7 0.862 0.869 0.864 0.887 (1.838)
146.7 0.846 0.852 0.847 0.872 (1.907)
142.9 0.867 0.873 0.867 0.894 (1.931)

Zhang and Shahrooz (1997) [25] 318 0.949 0.948 0.949 1.005 (2.150)

Uy (2000) [12] 27.9 0.868 0.860 0.875 0.900 (1.663)

42.4 0.898 0.890 0.905 0.924 (1.536)
62.6 0.856 0.848 0.861 0.889 (1.653)
103.5 0.941 0.933 0.947 0.964 (1.433)
153 1.003 0.996 1.009 1.022 (1.350)

Han (2004) [43] 29.34 0.876 0.955 0.938 1.019 (2.831)

30.16 0.852 0.946 0.929 1.001 (2.579)
32.25 0.796 0.884 0.869 0.937 (2.579)
31.69 0.810 0.900 0.884 0.953 (2.579)
40.9 0.925 0.958 0.951 1.034 (3.206)
41.54 0.911 0.943 0.936 1.018 (3.206)
41.43 0.913 0.960 0.951 1.029 (3.00)
42.61 0.888 0.934 0.924 1.001 (3.00)

Average value 0.914 0.934 0.926 0.985

(Error ratio) (8.6%) (6.6%) (7.4%) (1.5%)

3. Simplified method based on tied surfaces
3.1. Analytical prediction based on modified strain compatibility based on
tied model
The proposed modified strain compatibility-based design approach
in this study enabled an accurate calculation of the location of the
neutral axis and the nominal moment capacity at each load limit state
and between the limit states for concrete-filled square steel tubes.
Additionally, the individual moment contributions of the composite
sections, including the steel sections, concrete, and reinforcing steel,
were obtained for the optimal design of a CFST. The modified strain
compatibility-based method using a stress–strain constitutive relation-
ship of concrete proposed by Karthik and Mander [39] considering the

Table 2
Comparison between analytical and test results of the selected CFST specimens; tie vs. slip.
Test results, Mext FEA results, Mn Error in % with respect to test data Mn
(Maximum load limit state) (Maximum load limit state) Mext

Zhang’s model (1997) [32] 318.0 kN·m Tie model 326.0 kN·m 2.5% larger 1.025
Section: 254 × 254 × 8 mm Slip model 298.3 kN·m 6.2% smaller 0.938
Lu and Kennedy’s model (1994) [33] 283.8 kN·m Tie model 282.4 kN·m 0.5% smaller 0.995
Section: 254 × 152 × 9.5 mm Slip model 264.9 kN·m 6.7% smaller 0.933
Uy’s model (2000) [12] 103.5 kN·m Tie model 109.0 kN·m 5.3% larger 1.053
Section: 246 × 246 × 3 mm Slip model 93.6 kN·m 9.6% smaller 0.904
Han (2004) [43] 30.2 kN·m Tie model 30.1 kN·m 0.1% smaller 0.999
Section: 120 × 120 × 3.84 mm
Tamii and Sakino (1979) [42] 18.3 kN·m Tie model 18.7 kN·m 2.2% larger 1.022
Section: 100 × 100 × 4.25 mm Slip model 17.9 kN·m 2.2% smaller 0.978
Li et al. (2018) [40] 64.6 kN·m Tie model 65.7 kN·m 1.7% larger 1.017
Section: 150 × 150 × 4 mm Slip model 56.1 kN·m 13.2% smaller 0.868
Average value Tie models 1.85% 1.0185
(Error ratio) Slip models 7.58% 0.9242

146
D.H. Nguyen et al. Engineering Structures 185 (2019) 141–158

(a) Stress and strain contours at maximum load limit state; comparison between tie and slip model

(b) Stress and strain contours at ultimate load limit state; comparison between tie and slip model

(c) Stresses in the steel tube; compression side

Fig. 3. Numerical investigation in Z-direction.

147
D.H. Nguyen et al. Engineering Structures 185 (2019) 141–158

(d) Stresses in concrete core; compression side

Fig. 3. (continued)

effects of both confined and unconfined concrete were implemented for 1 (2c t f) 1
f (b 2tw )(c t f) + t f b c Ec + {t f (c t f )} c Es
estimating the flexural capacity of a rectangular CFST. This im- 2 cc 2(c tf ) 2
plementation is described in Fig. 6 [32] which depicts the design
parameters of a CFST section provided by Zhang and Shahrooz [32]. 1 (h c t f ) 2
= tw c Es + t f b
h c 2 ( tf
) c Es
Design parameters, including material properties and member dimen- 2 (c t f ) (c t f ) (1)
sions, were provided. The definitions are available in the nomenclature
section. 1
f (b 2tw ) c 2 + { f c t f (b 2tw ) + t f b c Es t f tw c Es
2 cc
1 2
+ tw (h t f ) c Es + t f b c Es } c + { f c (b 2tw ) t f t f 2b c Es
3.2. Equilibrium of the section 2
2
+t f tw c Es (h t f ) 2tw c Es t f b (2h t f ) c Es} = 0 (2)
In Fig. 8, the stress distributions with stress levels of the CFTs for
each limit state are described by a nomenclature shown in Fig. 7. One Mn =
1
f (b 2tw )(c t f )2 1
2
neutral axis among all of the possible neutral axes and corresponding 2 cc 3
stress states of the sections was found to satisfy the equilibrium equa- (2c t f) tf 1
tion. The corresponding stress state of the sections was then obtained + t fb c Es c + (t f c t f c Es )(c tf )
2(c tf ) 2 3
from the pre-yield state, yield limit states, maximum load limit states,
and one failure limit state. Only one stress field yields correct neutral
axis which enabled accurate analysis and design. +
1
tw
(h c t f )2
c Es + t f b
h c 2 ( tf 2
) c Es
3 (c t f ) (c t f )
(3)

3.3. Pre-yield limit state
The locations of the neutral axis were determined based on itera-
tions; the equilibrium equations of the stress fields of a concrete section
confined by steel tubes were formulated. A neutral axis was present in a
tube web (W), as depicted in Fig. 8(a)-(1) [31], when all the sections
were elastic. Eq. (1) is the equilibrium equation in terms of the neutral
axis (c) obtained from Fig. 8(a)-(1). The quadratic equation to calculate
the neutral axis (c) is, thereby, formulated in Eq. (2). Finally, the
nominal moment capacity of the CFST for the section shown in
Fig. 8(a)-(2) was established with respect to neutral axis (c) found in Eq.
(2), and expressed by Eq. (3) for the pre-yield limit state [31]. All de-
sign variables were introduced in nomenclature.
Table 3 summarizes the locations of the neutral axis and the nom-
inal capacity obtained through iterations of strain as the concrete strain
increased, indicating that the area of the compressive stress–strain
curve increased as the neutral axes shifted down toward the tension
face.
3.4. Yield limit state
The equilibrium equation at yield limit state was established in Eq.
(4) based on Fig. 8(b)-(1) in which the yield limit state is defined with
equilibrium of the section. The tensile strain of the tube flange center
must reach 0.00180488 ( sy = Fy /Es , Fy=370.0 MPa) for the tube
flange to become partially plastic as indicated by the black color; this

148
D.H. Nguyen et al. Engineering Structures 185 (2019) 141–158

(a) Stress and strain contours (X-direction) at maximum load limit state; comparison between tie and slip model

(b) Stress and strain contours (X-direction) at ultimate load limit state; comparison between tie and slip model
Fig. 4. Numerical investigation in X-direction.

corresponds to the strain of outer fiber of the tube flange became 1 (c t f)

f (b 2tw )(c t f) + t f b sy Es
0.00185626. A strain of 0.00132824 at the extreme fiber of the com-
pressive concrete was obtained. In Eq. (5) [31], a quadratic equation in
2 cc
( h c
tf
2 )
terms of the neutral axis (c) was formulated to find the neutral axis and 1 t f (c t f )2
+ t fb sy Es + tw sy Es
the neutral axis was calculated to be 110.57 mm for the yield limit state
when the inner face of the steel tube attained its elastic limit. Eq. (6)
2 h( c
tf
2 ) (h c
tf
2 )
tf
[31] is established to calculate the nominal moment capacity of the (h c tf ) 1 2
CFST with respect to neutral axis found from Eq. (5) and Fig. 8(b)-(2) = Awp Fy + Awny sy Es + Awny sy Es

for the yield limit state. Table 4 presents the contributions of the ten- (h c
tf
2 ) 2 h ( c
tf
2 )
sion, compression, and flexural moment capacity of each structural (h c t f )2
component at the yield limit state. + tw sy Es
(h c
tf
2 ) (4)
tf tf
Here, Awny = b 2 , Awp = b 2 .

149
D.H. Nguyen et al. Engineering Structures 185 (2019) 141–158

(a) Stress and strain contours (Y-direction) at maximum load limit state; comparison between tie and slip model

(b) Stress and strain contours (Y-direction) at ultimate load limit state; comparison between tie and slip model
Fig. 5. Numerical investigation in Y-direction.

1 1 tw 1 (c t f) t f
f cc (b 2tw ) c 2 + f cc (b 2t w ) h + + t fb sy Es Mn = f (b 2tw )(c t f )2 + t f b sy Es c
(h )
2 2 2 cc tf
3 c 2
2
2t f tw sy Es + bt f sy Es + 2tw (h tf ) sy Es c 1 t t 2 (c t f )3
f f
+ t fb sy Es c + tw sy Es

+
1
f cc (b 2t w ) t f h
tw 1
(t f ) 2 b sy Es + tw (t f ) 2
sy Es
2 h ( c
tf
2 ) 3 3 h c (tf
2 )
2 2 2 t (h c tf ) 3t f
f
+ Awp Fy h c + Awny sy Es h c
(h )
2
1 tw 1 tw 1 tf 4 c
tf 4
bt f Fy h bt f h sy Es sy Es 2
2 2 2 2 2 2
tf
1 2 2t f
tw (h tf )2 sy Es =0 + Awny sy Es h c
(5) 2 h ( c
tf
2 ) 3
2
2 (h c t f )
+ tw sy Es (h c tf )
3
(
h c
t
2
f
) (6)

150
D.H. Nguyen et al. Engineering Structures 185 (2019) 141–158

(c) Stresses in the steel tube; compression side

(d) Stresses in the concrete core; compression side

Fig. 5. (continued)

3.5. Maximum load limit state

The maximum load limit state was defined as the point when the
strain at the extreme fiber of the compressive concrete attained 0.003,
as indicated in Fig. 8(c)-(1) [31] which shows the strain and stress
distribution of the section. Fig. 8(c)-(2) also presents the equilibrated
internal forces for the maximum load limit state. The stress status was
examined through the entire section to find the neutral axis of the
CFSTs. Both the tensile and compressive flanges were completely
plastic, and both the tensile and compressive webs were partially plastic
as indicated by the black color in Fig. 8(c). Eq. (7) [31] represents the
equilibrium equation at the maximum load limit state based on
Fig. 8(c)-(1) in the proposed modified strain compatibility approach.
Similarly, in Eq. (8), a quadratic equation was formulated to find the
Fig. 6. Design parameters by Zhang and Shahrooz [32]

151
D.H. Nguyen et al. Engineering Structures 185 (2019) 141–158

Fig. 7. Nomenclature of stress status.

Fig. 8. Flexural strength of the CFT section.

location of the neutral axis (c, 76.3 mm), whereas Eq. (9) was used to Here,
calculate the nominal moment capacity(Mn ) with respect to neutral axis
(76.3 mm) found from Eq. (8) and Fig. 8(c)-(2). sy sy
A wp = 2tw 1 (c tf ) , A wny = 2tw (c tf ) ,
c c
1
f cc (b 2tw )(c t f ) + A f Fy + A wp Fy + A wny Es sy
2
1 Awp = 2tw d c
sy
(c tf ) tf , and Awny = 2tw
sy
(c tf )
= Af Fy + Awp Fy + Awny Es
2
sy
(7) c c

152
D.H. Nguyen et al. Engineering Structures 185 (2019) 141–158

Fig. 8. (continued)

sy c tf
fcc (b 2tw )(c t f ) + Af Fy + 2tw 1 (c t f ) Fy Mn = f cc (b 2tw )(c tf ) c tf + A f Fy c
c 2 2
2
sy sy sy sy sy
+ tw Es (c tf ) = Af Fy + 2tw d c (c tf ) t f Fy + tw Fy (c tf ) 1 (c tf ) 1 +
c c c c c
2
sy
2 2 sy tf
+ tw (c t f ) Es fcc (b 2t w ) + tw Es sy (c tf ) + Af Fy d c
c 3 c 2
2 2
sy
2
sy sy 2 sy
+ tw Es + 2tw 1 Fy + tw Fy d c (c tf ) tf + tw Es sy (c tf )
c c c 3 c

2 (9)
sy sy
+ 2tw Fy 1 + tw Es c
c c Table 5 presents the contributions with regard to the tension,
compression, and flexural moment capacity of each structural compo-
fcc (b 2t w ) t f Af Fy nent considering the confining effect of concrete at the maximum load
limit state. In Table 1-2, the proposed flexural moment capacity based
2 on modified strain compatibility is compared with the test data and FEA
sy sy
+ 2tw 1 Fy t f + tw Es t f + Af Fy solutions.
c c
2
+ 2tw d 1
sy
t f Fy tw
sy
Es t f 4. Verification of the numerical investigation
c c

(8) 4.1. Flexural behavior of concrete-filled square steel tube with eccentric
loads

The test setup shown in Fig. 9(a) was presented in the work of Li

153
D.H. Nguyen et al. Engineering Structures 185 (2019) 141–158

Fig. 8. (continued)

Table 3 concrete which are tied together, only allowing rotations at interfaces.
Locations of neutral axis and nominal capacity as concrete strains increased for It is worth noting that damping factor of 0.0002 had to be applied to
pre-yield limit state. meshes with slip model to overcome the convergence problem occurred
Iterations εc α β c (mm) Mn (kN·m) from the beginning of the run. Concrete constitutive relationship pro-
posed by Han et al. [35] shown in curve by Legend 2 of Fig. 9(c) and
1 0.0001 0.027 0.668 104.93 17.19 steel sections with elasto-hardening properties was implemented. Malm
2 0.0005 0.127 0.675 105.65 84.89
[41] suggested the use of dilation angles between 30° and 40° for the
3 0.0007 0.174 0.678 106.01 118.13
4 0.001 0.240 0.683 106.53 167.26 numerical investigations of reinforced concrete structures. The dilation
angle of 40° was implemented to obtain moment-displacement re-
lationships shown in Fig. 9(d), where moment-displacement relation-
et al. [40]. The details of the specimen and loading conditions can be ships of the present numerical study are well compared with test data.
found in this paper. The present authors performed numerical in- The Fig. 9(d) presents moment-displacement relationships obtained
vestigation of the specimen tested by Li et al with tie element modeling with implementing three viscosities, 0.001, 0.003, and 0.005, for con-
interface between steel tube and concrete core, and compared it with crete. All of the three results demonstrated flexural strength closer to
that of hard contact (slip model). In Fig. 9(b), finite element meshes are the test data than those with slip model (hard contact with penalty
depicted with contact surfaces between steel tube and embedded stiffness). The numerical parameters used in the finite element analysis

Table 4
Contributions of tension, compression, and flexural moment capacity at yield limit.
Yield limit state Compression Tension Total

Concrete Steel Sub total Steel Sub total

Flange Web Flange Web

Flexural capacity kN 335.3 570.4 221.9 1127.6 740.9 386.7 1127.6 2281.4
Ratio (%) 14.9 25.3 9.8 50 32.9 17.1 50 100
kN·m 22.94 60.83 15.18 99.0 103.34 34.93 138.3 237.2
Ratio (%) 9.7 25.6 6.4 41.7 43.6 14.7 58.3 100

154
D.H. Nguyen et al. Engineering Structures 185 (2019) 141–158

Table 5
Contributions of tension, compression, and flexural moment capacity at maximum load limit state.
Maximum load limit state Compression Tension Total

Concrete Steel Sub total Steel Sub total

Flange Web Flange Web

Flexural capacity kN 866.0 746.2 257.6 1869.8 746.2 1123.6 1869.8 3739.7
Ratio 23.2% 20.0% 6.9% 50% 20.0% 30% 50% 100%
kN·m 20.9 36.8 6.0 63.8 146.8 109.1 255.9 319.7
Ratio 6.5% 11.5% 1.9% 20% 45.9% 34.1% 80% 100%

considering concrete damaged plasticity were shown in the legends of
Fig. 9(d) where concrete strain of 0.01 and strains at yield and max-
imum load limit states are indicated. The accuracies of the numerical
investigation with tie and slip models are also compared in Table 2,
where the overall numerical analysis with tie interface demonstrated
better accuracy than that with slip model (hard contact in normal di-
rection).
4.2. Comparison of experimental and analytical results of concrete-filled
square steel tube under pure bending
Table 1-2 presents the flexural strengths of specimens measured in
prior experiments (Mext ), as well as those calculated using the equations
of each design code and the modified strain compatibility-based design
approach (Mn ) at the maximum load limit state. Additionally, the
flexural strength ratios ( )
Mn
Mext
between the flexural strengths (Mn )
indicated in the AISC [21] and EC4 [23] design codes and the flexural
strengths measured in prior experiments (Mext ) were referenced from
the reports of each study. Flexural strengths obtained from the finite
element analysis based on concrete plasticity were also compared with
the strengths obtained from the modified strain compatibility-based
simplified methods (Mn ) in which no relative motion between the steel
tube and concrete core was assumed when the two separate surfaces
were tied together. The referenced flexural strength ratio between the
flexural strengths measured in the prior experiments and the flexural
strengths calculated from code( ) was 1.0. A flexural strength ratio
Mn
Mext
lower than 1.0( M n < 1) indicated that the values estimated in ac-
M
ext
cordance with the aforementioned design code were conservative.
However, if the flexural strength ratio was larger than 1.0 ( Mn
Mext )
>1 ,
the values were overestimated compared to the actual measurements
observed in prior experiments. The flexural strength ratio of the mod-
ified strain compatibility ratio proposed without consideration of the

Fig. 9. Experimental and numerical behaviour of eccentrically loaded high strength concrete filled high strength square steel tube stub columns.

155
D.H. Nguyen et al.
Fig. 9. (continued)
confinement effects of concrete ( ) was correlated with the strengths
Mn
Mext
indicated by AISC (2011a, b) and EC4 (2004) codes. However, the ra-
tios were less accurate than those calculated using the strain compat-
ibility based method with confined concrete. The AISC (2011a, b) ap-
proach did not consider the confinement effects of concrete for
rectangular CFSTs. The Eurocode 4 (2004) also did not offer stress and
strain values at each limit state as accurately as the proposed values
obtained based on the compatibility of the strain, although the method
considered the confinement effects of concrete for CFSTs. In this study,
finite element analysis based on concrete plasticity was performed to
explore an appropriate model for predicting the flexural strength of
CFSTs. A maximum flexural strength of 326 kN·m was numerically
obtained via the FEA tie model, while 298 kN·m was obtained via the
FEA slip model, which permitted slippage between the steel tube and
concrete core. Both the tie and slip models in the FEA did not consider
the confinement effects of concrete. A moment strength of 318 kN·m
obtained by Zhang and Shahrooz [32] provided a more effective com-
parison with that calculated through the FEA with the tie model. Mo-
ment capacities of 320 kN·m (Fig. 10) and 302 kN·m via the simplified
strain compatibility was calculated with and without confining effects,
respectively. The accuracy of the two interface models in this study is
compared in Table 1-2; here, the tie model provided a better correlation
156
Engineering Structures 185 (2019) 141–158
compared with the test data measured from all the selected specimens
of prior researchers. In Table 2, the average error ratio was 1.85% when
the tie model was used in the finite element analysis, which reached up
to 7.58% with the slip model based on the test data of prior researchers.
Slip models were more vulnerable than tie model to some numerical
instability with ABAQUS runs of this study. Fig. 10 verifies the FEA tie
model by the test data attained by the prior researchers including Zhang
and Shahrooz [32]. The flexural strengths based on tie model were
better predicted than by those based on slip model.
5. Conclusions
This study provided numerical difference between the tie and slip
models at the steel/concrete interface of the concrete-filled tubular
flexural members. A large number of experimental tests in literature
were compared with those obtained by a proposed numerical model.
The tie modeling leads to better accuracy in predicting the behavior of
CFSTs.
5.1. Verification of using tie model by test data
In numerous studies, including those by Hajjar et al. [14] and Hu
D.H. Nguyen et al.
Fig. 10. Verification of the FEA tie model by test data.
et al. [19], slip surfaces were used to permit infinitesimal sliding (or
separation) and friction between a concrete core and steel tube at the
contact surfaces. The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy
of the interface model between a steel tube and concrete core based on
non-linear finite element analysis. The influence of the tie and slip
models on the flexural strengths of square CFST columns was explored
by comparing numerical results with test data obtained from prior re-
searchers, the AISC and EC4 design codes and the modified strain
compatibility-based design approach (Mn ) at the maximum load limit
state. Parameters for non-linear finite element analysis with these two
models were recommended with their constituent material properties.
In this study, a model obtained by tying two separate surfaces together
was successfully used to model the constraint between the two mate-
rials. The results estimated by tie model were then verified through test
data obtained by multiple investigations of Zhang and Shahrooz [32],
Lu and Kennedy [33], and Uy [12]. The experimental results were
demonstrated to more effectively correlate with the numerical results
provided by the tie model. No separation between the steel tube and
concrete core was observed when the tie model was used at both the
maximum load and ultimate load limit states based on non-linear finite
element analysis with concrete damaged plasticity. However, separa-
tion was observed when slips were permitted at the interlayer between
the steel jacket and concrete core. The web face of the steel tube was
separated by 0.35 mm and 9 mm perpendicular to the loading direction
at the fixed end of the CFST frame at the maximum and ultimate load
limit states, respectively. Slippage is not also permitted between the
two materials, especially when shear anchors are installed on the sur-
faces of the steel tube and embedded in the concrete; therefore, there
was no relative motion between the steel tube and concrete core. In
Table 2, an average error ratio of 7.58% was obtained with the slip
model, whereas a mild error of 1.85% was observed when the tie model
was used in the finite element analysis of the test specimens explored by
prior researchers.
5.2. Justification of using tie model
Tomii and Sakino [42] derived analytical moment-thrust-curvature
curves which can be close-fitting by the approximate equations. In their
study, the separation between concrete core and steel tube due to the
157
Engineering Structures 185 (2019) 141–158
shrinkage of encased concrete was prevented by using expansive ce-
ment containing 15 percent of expansive component, resulting in the
complete bond between concrete core and steel tube. Lu and Kennedy
[33] also concluded that slip between the steel and concrete was not
detrimental even though shear-span-to depth ratios as low as 1 were
tested. The present study of the authors justified the use of the tie
elements for interface between steel and concrete core which was im-
plemented in the present finite element model. The use of tie elements
in numerical analysis resulted in no detrimental effect on CFST mem-
bers similar to that by slippage effect as Lu and Kennedy [33] dis-
covered.
In the study of Zhang and Shahrooz [32], experimental behaviors of
the concrete filled metal tube were well compared with those of ana-
lytical investigation based on strain compatibility which assumed per-
fect bond at the interface between metal tube and embedded concrete,
indicating that no slippage at the interface was observed during the test
even if studs were not provided. In the study of the present authors,
numerical analysis (finite element analysis) based on an interface with
tie constraints presented results different from those with slip interface.
Fig. 10 demonstrates that finite element analysis predicted CFST per-
formance similar to that shown in test data provided by the previous
studies including one by Zhang and Shahrooz [32] when the interface
between concrete and metal tube was numerically modeled by ties. The
slip model at the interface did not numerically predict the structural
behavior as accurately as the tie model did. It is because of that the
effect of slippage was not negligible in the numerical investigation if the
slip elements were used in FEA to model the interface, as can been seen
in Fig. 5(b). The web face of the steel tube was separated by 9 mm
perpendicular to the loading direction at the fixed end of the CFST
frame at the ultimate load limit states. Slippage is not negligible be-
tween the two materials when slip elements are used in numerical
study.
The model proposed in this study will move towards to extending
and exploring CFST flexural members integrated with steel sections to
enhance ductility for better seismic performance. The modeling tech-
nique defining interactions introduced in this study will be im-
plemented to investigate the influence of composite actions between
steel jacket-concrete-encased steel sections on the overall flexural ca-
pacity of the CFST.
D.H. Nguyen et al.
References
[1] Furlong RW. Strength of steel-encased concrete beam columns. J Struct Div
1967;93:113–24.
[2] Knowles RB, Park R. Strength of concrete filled steel tubular columns. J Struct Div
1969;95:2565–87.
[3] Ge H, Usami T. Strength of concrete-filled thin-walled steel box columns: experi-
ment. J Struct Eng 1992;118:3036–54.
[4] Ge HB, Usami T. Strength analysis of concrete-filled thin-walled steel box columns. J
Constr Steel Res 1994;30:259–81.
[5] Boyd PF, Cofer WF, Mclean DI. Seismic performance of steel-encased concrete
columns under flexural loading. Struct J 1995;92:355–64.
[6] Bradford MA. Design strength of slender concrete-filled rectangular steel tubes. ACI
Struct J 1996;93:229–35.
[7] Shams M, Saadeghvaziri MA. State of the art of concrete-filled steel tubular col-
umns. Struct J 1997;94:558–71.
[8] Schneider SP. Axially loaded concrete-filled steel tubes. J Struct Eng
1998;124:1125–38.
[9] Kitada T. Ultimate strength and ductility of state-of-the-art concrete-filled steel
bridge piers in Japan. Eng Struct 1998;20:347–54.
[10] Roeder CW, Cameron B, Brown CB. Composite action in concrete filled tubes. J
Struct Eng 1999;125:477–84.
[11] Zhang W, Shahrooz BM. Strength of short and long concrete-filled tubular columns.
Struct J 1999;96:230–8.
[12] Uy B. Strength of concrete filled steel box columns incorporating local buckling. J
Struct Eng 2000;126:341–52.
[13] O'Shea MD, Bridge RQ. Design of circular thin-walled concrete filled steel tubes. J
Struct Eng 2000;126:1295–303.
[14] Hajjar JF, Molodan A, Schiller PH. A distributed plasticity model for cyclic analysis
of concrete-filled steel tube beam-columns and composite frames. Eng Struct
1998;20:398–412.
[15] Elchalakani M, Zhao XL, Grzebieta RH. Concrete-filled circular steel tubes subjected
to pure bending. J Constr Steel Res 2001;57:1141–68.
[16] Bradford MA, Loh HY, Uy B. Slenderness limits for filled circular steel tubes. J
Constr Steel Res 2002;58:243–52.
[17] Elremaily A, Azizinamini A. Behavior and strength of circular concrete-filled tube
columns. J Constr Steel Res 2002;58:1567–91.
[18] Huang CS, Yeh YK, Liu GY, Hu HT, Tsai KC, Weng YT, et al. Axial load behavior of
stiffened concrete-filled steel columns. J Struct Eng 2002;128:1222–30.
[19] Hu HT, Huang CS, Wu MH, Wu YM. Nonlinear analysis of axially loaded concrete-
filled tube columns with confinement effect. J Struct Eng 2003;129:1322–9.
[20] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-
95) and Commentary (ACI 318R-95). Detroit (MI): American Concrete Institute;
1995.
[21] AISC. Steel construction manual 14th, ANSI/AISC 360-10 specification for struc-
tural steel buildings. Chapter I design of composite members. Chicago: American
Institute of Steel Construction AISC; 2011.
[22] Load and resistance factor design. Chicago (IL): American Institute of Steel
Construction; 1994.
[23] Eurocode 4. Design of composite steel and concrete structures. Part I: General rules
and rules for buildings. Brussel: British Standards; 2004.
158
Engineering Structures 185 (2019) 141–158
[24] Gourley BC, Hajjar JF. Cyclic nonlinear analysis of three-dimensional concrete-
filled steel tube beam-columns and composite frames; 1994. Rep. No. ST-94, 3.
[25] Zhang W, Shahrooz BM. Comparison between ACI and AISC for concrete-filled
tubular columns. J Struct Eng 1999;125:1213–23.
[26] Inai E, Sakino K. Simulation of flexural behavior of square concrete filled steel
tubular columns. Proc., 3rd Joint Technical Coordinating Committee Meeting, US-
Japan Cooperative Research Program, Phase 5: Composite and Hybrid Structures.
Arlington, Va: National Science Foundation; 1996.
[27] Schnabl S, Jelenić G, Planinc I. Analytical buckling of slender circular concrete-
filled steel tubular columns with compliant interfaces. J Constr Steel Res
2015;115:252–62.
[28] Hong WK, Kim JM, Park SC, Kim SI, Lee SG, Lee HC, et al. Composite beam com-
posed of steel and pre-cast concrete (Modularized Hybrid System, MHS) Part II:
analytical investigation. Struct Des Tall Spl Build 2009;18:891–905.
[29] Hong WK, Park SC, Lee HC, Kim JM, Kim SI, Lee SG, et al. Composite beam com-
posed of steel and precast concrete (modularized hybrid system). Part III: applica-
tion for a 19-storey building. Struct Des Tall Spl Build 2010;19:679–706.
[30] Hong WK, Lee Y, Kim S, Kim SI, Yun YJ. Analytical investigation of hybrid com-
posite precast beams with modified strain compatibility for entire history of nom-
inal flexural capacity. Struct Des Tall Spl Build 2015;24:835–52.
[31] Ko HJ. Experimental and analytical investigation of rectangular concrete filled steel
tubular columns based on strain compatibility [Master thesis] Kyung Hee
University; 2014.
[32] Zhang W, Shahrooz BM. Analytical and experimental studies into behavior of
concrete-filled tubular columns. Cincinnati Infrastructure Institute, University of
Cincinnati; 1997. Report No. UC-CII 97/01.
[33] Lu YQ, Kennedy DL. The flexural behaviour of concrete-filled hollow structural
sections. Can J Civ Eng 1994;21:111–30.
[34] Lam D, Dai XH, Han LH, Ren QX, Li W. Behaviour of inclined, tapered and STS
square CFST stub columns subjected to axial load. Thin-Walled Struct
2012;54:94–105.
[35] Han LH, Yao GH, Tao Z. Performance of concrete-filled thin-walled steel tubes
under pure torsion. Thin-Walled Struct 2007;45(1):24–36.
[36] Samani AK, Attard MM. A stress–strain model for uniaxial and confined concrete
under compression. Eng Struct 2012;41:335–49.
[37] Binici B. An analytical model for stress–strain behavior of confined concrete. Eng
Struct 2005;27(7):1040–51.
[38] Dassault Systèmes. ABAQUS Analysis User's Manual 6.14-2. Providence, RI, USA:
Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp.; 2014.
[39] Karthik MM, Mander JB. Stress-block parameters for unconfined and confined
concrete based on a unified stress-strain model. J Struct Eng 2010;137:270–3.
[40] Li G, Chen B, Yang Z, Feng Y. Experimental and numerical behaviour of eccen-
trically loaded high strength concrete filled high strength square steel tube stub
columns. Thin-Walled Struct 2018;127:483–99.
[41] Malm R. Shear cracks in concrete structures subjected to in-plane stresses [Doctoral
dissertation]. KTH; 2006.
[42] Tomii M, Sakino K. Experimental studies on the ultimate moment of concrete filled
square steel tubular beam-columns. Trans Archit Inst Jpn 1979;275:55–65.
[43] Han LH. Flexural behaviour of concrete-filled steel tubes. J Constr Steel Res
2004;60(2):313–37.