Eccentric-Axial-Load Test for Composite Columns

Using Bolt-Connected Steel Angles

Hyeon-Jin Kim 1; Hyeon-Jong Hwang 2; and Hong-Gun Park 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Raipur" on 09/13/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: For better structural performance and constructability, a concrete-encased steel column that uses a steel cage prefabricated with
bolt connections was developed. The steel cage consists of longitudinal steel angles and transverse steel plates. As a fundamental verification
of the proposed column, an eccentric-axial-load test was performed on eight composite column specimens. Test parameters included column
type (i.e., conventional concrete-encased steel column versus proposed column), shape and spacing of transverse plate, and axial load eccen-
tricity. The test results showed that, owing to the high flexural stiffness of the steel angles placed at the corners of the cross section, the axial
strength and ductility of the proposed column were greater than those of the conventional composite column using a wide flange steel section
at the center of the cross section, particularly in the large eccentricity of axial load. Z-section plates and closely spaced flat plates used for
transverse reinforcement provided better lateral confinement to the concrete, thereby increasing the load-carrying capacity of the proposed
columns. In general, existing design methods safely predicted the axial-flexural capacities of the specimens. Nonlinear numerical analysis
was performed to verify test results. The numerical analysis results agreed with the test results in terms of yield stiffness, peak strength, and
postpeak strength degradation. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002699. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Steel-concrete composite column; Steel angle; Transverse steel plate; Bolt connection; Prefabrication; Eccentric axial
loading.

Introduction
Traditionally, for the construction of building structures, RC or
steel construction has been used considering the relative advantages
of cost and constructability. In terms of fast construction and low
labor intensity, steel construction using fabricated construction
methods is more advantageous than traditional RC construction.
On the other hand, RC construction is advantageous in terms of
economy, integrity (high stiffness and damping), and fire protec-
tion. However, recently, some owners of high-tech industrial build-
ings with large and long columns (10–20 m long) have required
stricter conditions: fast construction, no field work related to rebar
placement and forms, no extra work for fire protection, low vibra-
tion (for vibration-sensitive equipment), and low crane lift weight. In
this case, traditional RC, precast concrete, steel, concrete-encased
steel (CES), and concrete-filled steel tube (CFT) columns satisfy
only some of the requirements.
To satisfy all requirements, a prefabricated steel-reinforced con-
crete (PSRC) column has been developed. Fig. 1(a) shows the sec-
tional configuration and advantages of the PSRC column. In existing
PSRC columns, vertical steel angles placed at corners of the cross
section are weld-connected to transverse reinforcing bars. Because
1
Graduate Student, Dept. of Architecture and Architectural Engineer-
ing, Seoul National Univ., 1 Gwanak-ro, Seoul 08826, Korea. ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2800-0873. Email: bultanun2@gmail.com
2
Assistant Professor, School of Architecture, Konkuk Univ., 120
Neungdong-ro, Seoul 05029, Korea (corresponding author). Email:
hwanggun85@naver.com
3
Professor, Dept. of Architecture and Architectural Engineering, Seoul
National Univ., 1 Gwanak-ro, Seoul 08826, Korea. ORCID: https://orcid
.org/0000-0002-1383-7403. Email: parkhg@snu.ac.kr
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 10, 2019; approved on
February 6, 2020; published online on June 25, 2020. Discussion period
open until November 25, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
the steel cage is prefabricated at the factory, field rebar work is
unnecessary. Compared to conventional CES columns (with a steel
area at the center of the cross section), corner steel angles can im-
prove lateral confinement to the core concrete and the flexural capac-
ity of the column. Forms for concrete casting can be prefabricated
with the steel angle cage, which significantly reduces field form
work. The cover concrete can provide fire resistance and restrain
premature buckling of steel angles. Compared to CFT columns, extra
field works related to fire protection are not required. More impor-
tantly, the damping coefficient, which is critical for vibration-
sensitive equipment in high-tech industrial buildings, is greater.
In fact, steel cage methods using steel angles were originally
used for external strengthening of existing RC columns (i.e., steel
jacketing). Ramirez (1996), Poon (1999), Cirtek (2001), Adams
et al. (2007), Montuori and Piluso (2009), Campione (2013),
Tarabia and Albakry (2014), and Belal et al. (2015) performed
compression tests to investigate the effects of steel angles and trans-
verse plates on the axial load-carrying capacity of columns. The test
results showed that a steel cage was effective at increasing the axial
strength and ductility of columns. In particular, closer spacing or
larger transverse plates could improve structural performance
because it increased lateral confinement.
Eom et al. (2014), Hwang et al. (2016), and Kim et al. (2014)
performed structural tests for PSRC columns having weld connec-
tions between steel angles and transverse rebars. The results of a
pure compression test (Hwang et al. 2016) and flexural test (Eom
et al. 2014) showed that axial and flexural strengths were greater
than those of conventional CES columns (using wide flange steel at
the center of the cross section). However, in the flexural test, the
steel angle subjected to high axial tension was vulnerable to brittle
fracture, particularly at the location of weld connections. Further,
when the vertical spacing of transverse bars exceeded half of the
column dimension, bond failure between steel angles and concrete
occurred. In eccentric loading tests performed by Kim et al. (2014),
high-strength steel (tensile strength of 800 MPa) was used for steel
angles. The test results showed that the cover concrete failed earlier

© ASCE 04020178-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020178

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Raipur" on 09/13/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
Fig. 1. PSRC columns: (a) advantages; and (b) geometric configurations of concrete-encased composite columns.
than yielding of the steel angle, but the axial load-carrying capacity
increased even after spalling of concrete owing to the higher strength
contribution of steel angles. Zheng and Ji (2008) performed cyclic
lateral loading tests for nine PSRC columns using weld-connected
transverse steel plates. Their test results showed that, as the steel
plate (volume) ratio increased, the ductility and energy dissipation
capacity of the specimens increased. The strength of the specimens
was significantly degraded owing to the buckling of steel angles,
particularly after cover concrete failure.
The existing PSRC method using weld connections has the
following disadvantages: (1) thermal deformation and low ductility
of steel angles due to the high temperature of welding, (2) low bond
resistance between steel angles and concrete, and (3) laborious
work and quality control of weld fabrication. This study developed
a new PSRC column method using bolt connections to improve
constructability and structural performance [Fig. 1(b)]. In this
method, transverse steel plates are bolt-connected to steel angles.
The use of bolt connections, construction speed can be faster, qual-
ity control is easier, and bolt assemblies (bolt head and nut) pro-
jected from steel angle surfaces can increase the bond strength
between steel angles and concrete.
For the application of PSRC columns, structural performances
should be verified under various loading conditions. In this study,
to verify the axial-flexural capacity of a PSRC column, eccentric-
axial-loading tests were performed for PSRC columns and
conventional CES columns. Structural performances, including
load-carrying capacity, deformation capacity, and effective flexu-
ral stiffness of specimens, were evaluated and compared with pre-
dictions of existing design methods and nonlinear numerical
analysis. Owing to the limited number of specimens, a parametric
study was performed to further investigate the effect of various
design parameters on the structural performance.
Test Plan
Test Specimens
Table 1 and Fig. 2 show the geometric and material properties
of two conventional CES column specimens and six PSRC column
specimens. Test parameters were as follows: vertical spacing of
transverse reinforcement (s ¼ 150 or 250 mm), section type of
transverse steel plates (flat or Z-section), and eccentricity ratio
of axial load (e=h ¼ 0.1 and 0.3, e = distance between loading axis
and column centroid, and h = dimension of column cross sec-
tion, Fig. 3).
© ASCE 04020178-2
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020178
(b)
In the names of specimens, the first letter, C or P, indicates CES
columns or PSRC columns, respectively; the second letter, L, H, or
Z, indicates low confinement (s ¼ 250 mm), high confinement
(s ¼ 150 mm), or confinement by Z-section transverse plates
(s ¼ 250 mm), respectively; the third character, 1 or 3, indicates
the eccentricity of axial load ¼ 0.1 or 0.3, respectively. Dimensions
of the cross section were b × h ¼ 500 × 500 mm. The net height of
the columns (excluding supplementary instrumentation, Fig. 3) was
Hc ¼ 2,150 mm. To prevent local damage at column ends, the top
and bottom concrete of the specimens was strengthened by rectan-
gular steel tube B-524 × 524 × 12 (height ¼ 200 mm), bearing
steel plates (thickness ¼ 40 mm), and four triangular stiffeners
(thickness ¼ 20 mm) between plates (Fig. 3). For concrete casting,
five casting holes (one 200-mm-diameter hole at the center of the
column section, four 20-mm-diameter holes at the corners) were
made in top bearing plates. To assure a flat surface at the top of the
column, high-strength epoxy (nonshrinkage) was grouted through
these holes 3 weeks after concrete casting.
In the conventional CES specimens CH-1 and CH-3, a wide
flange steel section of H-140 × 140 × 8 × 10 (depth × width ×
web thickness × flange thickness, Fig. 2) and four D19 longitudi-
nal bars (diameter ¼ 19.1 mm and cross-sectional area ¼ 284 mm2
each) were used at the center and corners of the cross section, re-
spectively. D10 hoop bars (diameter ¼ 9.5 mm and cross-sectional
area ¼ 71 mm2 ) were used at a vertical spacing of s ¼ 150 mm
ð¼ 0.3hÞ. For integrity between the wide flange steel and concrete,
four-headed studs (diameter ¼ 16 mm, length ¼ 120 mm, and
nominal tensile strength ¼ 400 MPa) were welded to the flange at
a vertical spacing of 250 mm (Fig. 2).
In the PSRC specimens, four steel angles of L-75 × 75 × 9
(Fig. 2) were placed at the corners of the cross section, and
the steel angles were welded to the top and bottom bearing plates.
The area ratio of the steel angle section to the column cross sec-
tion (= steel ratio) was ρs ¼ 2.0%, identical to the sum of the wide
flange section steel (ρs ¼ 1.5%) and longitudinal bars
(ρr ¼ 0.5%) in the CES specimens (Table 1). Transverse steel
plates were connected to the steel angles using tension control
bolts [twist-off type, diameter of bolt body ¼ 16 mm, and nomi-
nal tensile strength¼ 1,000 MPa, KS B2819 (KS 2016)]. In PH-1
and PH-3, transverse flat plates (FB-40 × 3.2 in Fig. 2, length ¼
390 mm and cross-sectional area ¼ 128 mm2 each) were placed
at a vertical spacing of s ¼ 150 mm ð¼ 0.3hÞ which was the same
as the hoop bar spacing of the CES specimens. In PL-1 and PL-3,
the spacing of transverse plates was increased to s ¼ 250 mm
½¼ 0.5h corresponding to maximum spacing of AISC 360 (AISC
2016)]. In PZ-1 and PZ-3, Z-section plates (Z-30 × 50 × 30 in
J. Struct. Eng.
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Raipur" on 09/13/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 1. Properties of test specimens

Specimen CH-1 CH-3 PH-1 PH-3 PL-1 PL-3 PZ-1 PZ-3

© ASCE
Column type CES CES PSRC PSRC PSRC PSRC PSRC PSRC
Load eccentricity, e (mm) 50 (0.1) 150 (0.3) 50 (0.1) 150 (0.3) 50 (0.1) 150 (0.3) 50 (0.1) 150 (0.3)
(eccentricity ratio e=h)
Longitudinal steel H-140 × 140 × 8 × 10a H-140 × 140 8 × 10a L-75 × 75 × 9b L-75 × 75 × 9b L-75 × 75 × 9b L-75 × 75 × 9b L-75 × 75 × 9b L-75 × 75 × 9b
Steel ratioc (%) 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Yield strength, Fy (MPa) 502 502 378 378 378 378 378 378
Tensile strength, Fu (MPa) 567 567 551 551 551 551 551 551
Longitudinal rebar 4-D19 4-D19 — — — — — —
Steel ratioc (%) 0.5 0.5 — — — — — —
Yield strength, Fy (MPa) 554 554 — — — — — —
Tensile strength, Fu (MPa) 648 648 — — — — — —
Transverse reinforcements D10 D10 FB-40 × 3.2d FB-40 × 3.2d FB-40 × 3.2d FB-40 × 3.2d Z-30 × 50 × 30e Z-30 × 50 × 30e
Sectional area (mm2 ) 71 71 128 128 128 128 332 332
Vertical spacing (mm) 150 150 150 150 250 250 250 250
Yield strength, Fy (MPa) 565 565 353 353 353 353 353 353
Tensile strength, Fu (MPa) 686 686 489 489 489 489 489 489
Connection of transverse 135° anchorage 135° anchorage M16 M16 M16 M16 M16 M16
reinforcements tension-control tension-control tension-control tension-control tension-control tension-control
bolt bolt bolt bolt bolt bolt
Tensile strength, Rn (kN) 40.1 40.1 34.4 34.4 34.4 34.4 40.9 40.9
Strength ratio, β ¼ Rn =Ro f 1.0 1.0 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.35 0.35
a
Wide flange section: H-depth × width × web thickness × flange thickness.
b
Equal legs-angle section: L-leg width × legwidth × leg thickness.
c
Area ratio of longitudinal steel or rebar section to gross column section.
d

04020178-3
Flat-section plate: FB-plate height × thickness (length ¼ 390 mm).
e
Z-section plate: Z-bottom plate height × topplate height × transverse plate height (length ¼ 390 mm, thickness ¼ 3.2 mm).
f
Ro = yield strength of transverse reinforcements (kN).

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020178

J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Raipur" on 09/13/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Test specimens (unit: millimeters).

Fig. 2 and length ¼ 390 mm) were used for transverse reinforce-
ment. The use of such Z-section plates makes it possible to use
steel angles to prefabricate forms (for concrete), which signifi-
cantly improves the constructability. In addition, the large axial
and flexural rigidities of the Z-section plates can improve the con-
finement effect. The spacing of the Z-section plates was
s ¼ 250 mm, which was the same as that of the PL specimens.
To ensure concrete casting quality (filling), particularly in the
region under Z-section plates, an injection nozzle for concrete
was placed at the bottom of the column. The void was then filled
with concrete from the bottom to the top. For better dispersion of
concrete, vibration work was also conducted.
In PSRC columns, to provide lateral confinement and shear re-
sistance, failure of bolt connections between steel angles and trans-
verse plates should be prevented. The nominal tensile strength Rn
of the transverse plates was defined as the minimum strength of
failure modes specified in AISC 360 (AISC 2016): (A) yielding
of gross section, (B) tensile rupture of effective net section, (C)
bearing of tear-out failures of bolt hole, (D) block shear rupture
of bolt hole, and (E) shear failure of bolt. Appendix I presents fail-
ure modes and detailed equations. In the PSRC specimens, the
tensile strength Rn was calculated as 34.4 kN for transverse flat
plates and 40.9 kN for Z-section plates. These values were close
to the yield strength of D10 hoop bars (Rn ¼ 40.1 kN) in
the CES specimens. An eccentric axial load of e=h ¼ 0.1 ðe ¼
50 mmÞ was applied to Specimens CH-1, PH-1, PL-1, and PZ-1.
An eccentric axial load of e=h ¼ 0.3ðe ¼ 150 mmÞ was applied to
Specimens CH-3, PH-3, PL-3, and PZ-3.
Materials and Test Method
The compressive strength of concrete measured on the day of the
column tests was fc0 ¼ 23 MPa. Table 1 shows the yield and tensile
strengths of steel. The yield and tensile strengths of longitudinal
steel were Fy ¼ 378 MPa and Fu ¼ 551 MPa for steel angles
(L-75 × 75 × 9 in PSRC), Fy ¼ 502 MPa and Fu ¼ 567 MPa
for wide flange steel (H-140 × 140 × 8 × 10 in CES), and fy ¼
554 MPa and fu ¼ 648 MPa for longitudinal reinforcing bars
(D19 in CES). For direct comparison of the PSRC and CES spec-
imens, the properties of the longitudinal steels should be identical.
However, since the number and shape of steel sections were differ-
ent, it was difficult to design two different steel sections with an

© ASCE 04020178-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020178

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Raipur" on 09/13/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Test setup (unit: millimeters).
identical steel grade and steel area. Considering the available steel
grade and thickness, steel with a yield strength of 502 MPa was
used for CES specimens and one with a yield strength of 378 MPa
was used for PSRC specimens. However, the steel area of the PSRC
specimens was greater than that of the CES specimens (2.0% and
1.5%, respectively) (Table 1). Considering both steel yield strength
and steel area, the nominal axial strength of columns was not sig-
nificantly different (P0 of PSRC ¼ 6,710 kN versus P0 of CES ¼
7,310 kN).
The properties of transverse reinforcements were Fy ¼
353 MPa and Fu ¼ 489 MPa for steel plates (FB-40 × 3.2 and
Z-30 × 50 × 30 in PSRC) and f y ¼ 565 MPa and fu ¼ 686 MPa
for hoop bars (D10 in CES). The measured strengths of the con-
crete, steel, and reinforcing bars were used to predict the axial-
flexural capacity of the specimens and in the nonlinear numerical
analysis.
Fig. 3 shows the setup for the eccentric-axial-load tests. Axial
load was applied to column specimens through a 10-MN-capacity
universal testing machine equipped with specially manufactured
test beds. To provide load eccentricity and a hinge boundary con-
dition, a supplementary instrument with a knife edge was bolt-
connected to bearing plates placed at the top and bottom of the
specimens (see details of the instrumentation in Fig. 3). Using
the knife edge, hinge joints were created: The lateral displacements
of the column top and bottom were restrained while eccentric axial
loading was applied to the column. Using the instruments, the ef-
fective height (= laterally unbraced length) between the top and
bottom hinge joints was increased to H e ¼ 2,970 mm ðHc ¼
2,150 mmÞ. The axial load was applied under a displacement con-
trol of 0.01 mm=s. The axial displacement δ of the column spec-
imens was measured by four vertical LVDTs (V1–V4) located at
the four corners of the column, while the lateral displacement Δm at
the midheight of the column was measured by two horizontal
LVDTs (V5 and V6). Strains of longitudinal steel and transverse
reinforcements were measured using uniaxial strain gauges
installed at the midheight of the column.
© ASCE 04020178-5
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020178
Test Results
Axial Load–Strain Relationship
Fig. 4 shows the axial load–strain (P–ε) relationships of the spec-
imens. In the figure, the main damage to the specimens is indicated
as Points A, B, and C. Initial cracking of concrete (Point B) was
visually observed in a video and pictures. Yielding of steel (Point
A) was determined based on the strain measured from the strain
gauges. Initial spalling of cover concrete (Point C) was defined
as a point corresponding to a sudden increase in lateral displace-
ment. In the axial load–strain (P–ε) relationships, the axial strain ε
was calculated by dividing the axial shortening δ by the net column
height Hc ¼ 2,150 mm. The axial shortening δ along the loading
axis was calculated as follows (Fig. 3):
δ ¼ δ m þ Δδ ð1Þ
where δm = axial shortening along central axis = ðδ c þ δ t Þ=2;
Δδ = axial shortening corresponding to given eccentricity =
ðδ c − δt Þðe=DL Þ; δc = average of displacements (V1 and V2)
(Fig. 3) measured at side of loading point; δ t = average of displace-
ments measured at opposite side of loading point (V3 and V4, neg-
ative for tensile displacement); and DL = horizontal distance
between LVDTs (¼ 584 mm) (Fig. 3).
Table 2 shows the test results on peak strength Pu , axial strain εo
corresponding to the peak strength, yield stiffness K y , and ultimate
strain εu . In Fig. 4(i), yield stiffness K y was defined as the slope
between the origin and the 0.75Pu point [ACI 374.2R (ACI 2013)].
To evaluate the deformation capacities of the specimens, the ulti-
mate strain εu was defined as the postpeak strain corresponding to
0.75Pu (Eom et al. 2014; Hwang et al. 2016).
Figs. 4(a and e) show the test results of CES Specimens CH-1
and CH-3 using D10 hoop bars (s ¼ 150 mm), respectively. CH-1,
with an eccentricity ratio of e=h ¼ 0.1, showed a peak strength of
Pu ¼ 6,309 kN at an axial strain of εo ¼ 0.0016. The peak strength
J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Raipur" on 09/13/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
(d)
(g)
Fig. 4. Axial load–strain relationships of specimens: (a) CH-1; (b) PH-1; (c) PL-1; (d) PZ-1; (e) CH-3; (f) PH-3; (g) PL-3; (h) PZ-3; and (i) definition
of stiffness and deformation capacity.
was developed after compressive yielding of the longitudinal
bars (Point A). After peak strength was reached, the load-carrying
capacity significantly decreased due to the brittle failure of the
cover concrete (Point C). Ultimately, the deformation capacity was
εu ¼ 0.0021 [Fig. 4(a)]. In CH-3, which has the same structural
detail as CH-1, because of the greater eccentricity ratio (e=h ¼
0.3), the peak strength decreased to Pu ¼ 3,091 kN (at εo ¼
0.0020), and the ultimate strain increased to εu ¼ 0.0024. The
damage pattern of CH-3 was similar to that of CH-1.
Figs. 4(b and f) show the test results of PSRC Specimens
PH-1 and PH-3 using transverse flat plates (FB-40 × 3.2) of
s ¼ 150 mm. After compressive yielding of the steel angles
(Point A), PH-1 and PH-3 showed peak strengths (Pu ) of
5,951 kN (at εo ¼ 0.0014) and 3,967 kN (at εo ¼ 0.0017), respec-
tively. In the case of PH-1 (e=h ¼ 0.1), the peak strength was
slightly less than that of CES Specimen CH-1. This is because
the yield strength (Fy ¼ 378 MPa) of steel angles was less than
that of the wide flange section steel (Fy ¼ 502 MPa) and longitu-
dinal bars (Fy ¼ 554 MPa) in the CES specimens (Table 1). On
the other hand, in PH-3, which had a greater eccentricity ratio
(e=h ¼ 0.3), the peak strength was greater than that of CH-3,
though the steel angle had a lower yield strength. In greater eccen-
tricity, the steel angles located at the corners of the cross section
were more effective at resisting flexural moment. After peak
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020178
(b) (c)
(e) (f)
(h) (i)
strength was achieved, the load-carrying capacity decreased due
to spalling of the cover concrete (Point C). The deformation
capacities (εu ) of PH-1 and PH-3 were 0.0024 and 0.0030, respec-
tively, greater than those of CH-1 and CH-3.
Fig. 4(c) shows the results of PL-1 with transverse flat plates
FB-40 × 3.2 of s ¼ 250 mm ðe=h ¼ 0.1Þ. Vertical cracking of the
cover concrete (Point B) occurred at the top of the column before
compressive yielding of steel angles (Point A). Owing to the lower
lateral confinement, peak strength Pu ¼ 5,029 kN, corresponding
strain εo ¼ 0.0011, and ultimate strain εu ¼ 0.0021 were the lowest
in specimens with e=h ¼ 0.1. However, as a result of early failure of
the cover concrete, postpeak strength degradation was not signifi-
cant. In the case of PL-3 with the same structural detail as that of
PL-1 [Fig. 4(g)], an accidental biaxial moment (axial displacements
measured from V1 and V4 were 3.5 and 3.4 mm greater than those of
V2 and V3, respectively) was applied due to specimen-fabrication
error (i.e., initial crookedness), which decreased the yield stiffness
and peak strength (Pu ¼ 3,019 kN at εo ¼ 0.0019) of the specimen.
After cover concrete spalling (Point C), postpeak softening behavior
was similar to those of the PSRC specimens with the same eccen-
tricity ratio. The deformation capacity was εu ¼ 0.0043. Compared
to high confinement Specimens PH-1 and PH-3 (s ¼ 150 mm), the
peak strengths of PL-1 and PL-3 (s ¼ 250 mm) were 15% and 24%
less, respectively.
04020178-6 J. Struct. Eng.
 Table 2. Test results and predictions
Test results Predictions
ACI 318 AISC 360 Eurocode 4
Numerical analysis
Pu εo Ky εu
Specimens (kN) (mm=mm) (kN=mm) (mm=mm) Pn (kN) Pu =Pn Pn (kN) Pu =Pn Pn (kN) Pu =Pn K y (kN=mm) Pnum (kN) Pu =Pnum
CH-1 6,309 0.0016 2,201 0.0021 5,222 1.21 5,310 1.16 5,495 1.15 2,662 5,459 1.16
PH-1 5,951 0.0014 2,231 0.0024 4,984 1.19 4,859 1.22 5,251 1.13 2,651 5,510 1.08
PL-1 5,029 0.0011 2,385 0.0021 4,984 1.01 4,859 1.03 5,251 0.96 2,617 5,420 0.93
PZ-1 5,422 0.0018 2,084 0.0032 4,984 1.09 4,859 1.12 5,251 1.03 2,662 5,500 0.99
CH-3 3,091 0.0020 992 0.0024 2,848 1.09 3,186 0.97 2,917 1.06 1,234 2,807 1.10
PH-3 3,967 0.0017 1,242 0.0030 3,171 1.25 3,099 1.28 3,323 1.19 1,361 3,338 1.19
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Raipur" on 09/13/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

PL-3 3,019 0.0019 901 0.0043 3,171 0.95 3,099 0.97 3,323 0.91 1,357 3,289 0.92
PZ-3 3,444 0.0016 1,274 0.0044 3,171 1.09 3,099 1.11 3,323 1.04 1,358 3,333 1.03

Figs. 4(d and h) show the test results on PSRC Specimens PZ-1
and PZ-3 with transverse Z-section plates (Z-30 × 50 × 30) of
s ¼ 250 mm. Compared to PL specimens with the same spacing
of transverse reinforcement, peak strengths of PZ-1 and PZ-3 were
increased by 8% and 14% ðPu ¼ 5,422 kN at εo ¼ 0.0018 and
Pu ¼ 3,444 kN at εo ¼ 0.0016), respectively. Further, deformation
capacities εu ¼ 0.0032 (PZ-1) and 0.0044 (PZ-3) were the greatest
in specimens with the same eccentricity ratio. This result indicates
that the confinement effect of the Z-section plate was more effective
than that of transverse flat plates. The damage pattern was similar to
those of other specimens.
In PSRC Specimens PH-1 and PL-1 with e=h ¼ 0.3, despite
the lower yield strength of steel, the yield stiffness (K y ¼ 2,231
and 2,385 kN=mm) was slightly greater than that of CH-1
(K y ¼ 2,201 kN=mm), due to corner-located steel angles. In PZ-1,
which shows a large axial strain εo , the stiffness was slightly less. In
an eccentricity of e=h ¼ 0.3, except for PL-3 (K y ¼ 901 kN=mm),
which was subjected to accidental biaxial moment, the stiffness
increase of the PSRC specimens was much greater [K y ¼ 1,242
and 1,274 kN=mm for PH-3 and PZ-3, respectively; K y ¼
992 kN=mm for CH-3]. Numerical analysis results shown in
Table 2 confirmed this result (see the section “Nonlinear Numerical
Analysis”).
In all test specimens, concrete cracking preceded yielding of
steel angles. However, if higher-strength concrete is used, steel
yielding may precede concrete cracking.
Failure Modes
Fig. 5(a) shows crack distributions in the concrete at the end of
the test. In the figure, the left-hand side of the column indicates
the compression zone at the side of the loading point. In spec-
imens with e=h ¼ 0.1, vertical and horizontal cracks were dis-
tributed in the surface of the column. Although the damage
was mostly observed at the upper region of the specimens, con-
crete cracking was initiated in the center region of the speci-
mens. Owing to the low eccentricity, tensile cracks were not
clearly seen in the opposite side of the loading point (tension
side of column). In specimens with a greater eccentricity ratio
(e=h ¼ 0.3), tensile cracks were distributed along the column
height. This type of failure mode was particularly pronounced
in CES Specimen CH-3. On the other hand, in the PSRC

(a) (b)

Fig. 5. Crack distribution of specimens at end of test: (a) front face; and (b) compression surface.

© ASCE 04020178-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020178


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Raipur" on 09/13/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 6. Local deformations of steel at end of test.
specimens, tensile cracking was not as significant as in CH-3.
This result indicates that corner-located steel angles provided
large flexural rigidity.
Fig. 5(b) shows the crack distribution at the compression surface
of the columns. In the CES specimens, spalling of the cover con-
crete occurred, showing horizontal cracks in the compressive sur-
face. On the other hand, in the PSRC specimens, vertical cracking
and subsequent spalling were concentrated at the corners of the
cross section where steel angles were located. This result indicates
that, owing to the smooth surface of the steel angles, concrete spall-
ing was caused by bond failure between the steel angles and cover
concrete (Kim et al. 2014; Eom et al. 2014; Hwang et al. 2016).
On the other hand, in PSRC Specimens PZ-1 and PZ-3, concrete
(a) (b)
(e) (f)
Fig. 7. Longitudinal strain distributions at midheight of specimens: (a) CH-1; (b) PH-1; (c) PL-1; (d) PZ-1; (e) CH-3; (f) PH-3; (g) PL-3; and (h) PZ-3.
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020178
spalling was relatively limited until the end of the test because the
transverse Z-section plates provided good confinement to the cover
concrete.
Fig. 6 shows local deformations of the longitudinal bar, steel
angle, and transverse reinforcements (steel plates in PSRC, rebars
in CES). In the CES specimens, local buckling occurred in the lon-
gitudinal bars located at the compression side, and the transverse
bars did not fail. In the PSRC specimens, the steel angles and trans-
verse plates showed lateral deformations due to lateral expansion of
the core concrete subjected to axial compression. However, local
buckling of steel angles occurred only in Specimens PZ-1 and
PZ-3, which showed large inelastic deformations (Fig. 4). For
all PSRC specimens, the bolt connections between the steel angles
and the transverse plates did not fail.
Longitudinal Strain Distribution
Fig. 7 shows longitudinal strain distributions at 0.45 Pu (elastic
state) and Pu in the cross section at the midheight of the specimens.
Using measured strains of longitudinal bars and steels, the longi-
tudinal strains of the extreme concrete fiber were estimated by lin-
ear interpolation, and a neutral axis depth was calculated. The
figure shows that the test results (solid lines) agreed with numerical
the analysis results (dotted lines) (see the section “Nonlinear
Numerical Analysis”). In specimens with e=h ¼ 0.1 [Figs. 7(a–d)],
the whole section was in compression owing to the small eccentric-
ity. On the other hand, in specimens with e=h ¼ 0.3 [Figs. 7(e–h)],
tensile strain was developed in the tension side. The neutral axis
depths at Pu ðcp ¼ 311–329 mmÞ of the PSRC specimens were
10%–16% greater than that of CH-3 (cp ¼ 284 mm). This result
agreed with the tensile crack patterns of the specimens, as shown
in Fig. 5(a).
In all PSRC specimens except PL-1, strains of the extreme com-
pression fiber corresponding to Pu were εcp ¼ 0.0024–0.0028
(minus sign in Fig. 7), similar to the strains from the numerical
analysis (0.0025–0.0030) [Figs. 7(b, d, and f–h)]. Only in PZ-1
was the strain εcp ¼ 0.0028 greater than the predicted one
(εcp ¼ 0.0025) because the axial strain εo of the column corre-
sponding to Pu was increased due to the confinement effect of
(c) (d)
(g) (h)
04020178-8 J. Struct. Eng.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Raipur" on 09/13/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a) (b)
Fig. 8. Strains of transverse reinforcements in specimens with
(a) e=h ¼ 0.1; and (b) e=h ¼ 0.3.
the Z-section plates [Figs. 4(d) and 7(d)]. On the other hand, in
PL-1, which used transverse flat plates, the strain εcp ¼ 0.0018
was significantly less than the predicted one (εcp ¼ 0.0025) owing
to early failure of the cover concrete [Fig. 7(c)].
Strain of Transverse Reinforcements
Fig. 8 shows the tensile strains (plus sign) of transverse reinforce-
ments (hoop bars in CES; transverse plates in PSRC) measured at
the compression side. The rebar strain of CH-3 was excluded in the
figure because of a malfunction of the strain gauge. In general, the
strain behavior was similar until peak strength was developed for
the columns. However, after peak strength, the strains of PH-1 and
PH-3 increased more rapidly than those of PL-1 and PL-3, respec-
tively. This is because, after cover concrete spalling, the core con-
crete in PH-1 and PH-3 was highly confined by closely spaced
transverse plates. In PZ-1 and PZ-3, the transverse Z-section plates
showed the least strain owing to their large sectional area. In par-
ticular, the strain of PZ-3 was uniform after the peak strength
because the damage was concentrated at the top of the column.
Evaluation of Structural Capacity
Axial Load-Carrying Capacity
The load-carrying capacities of the specimens were predicted using
existing design methods, such as ACI 318 (ACI 2019), AISC 360
(a) (b)
Fig. 9. Axial load–flexural moment relationships at midheight sections.
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020178
(AISC 2016), and Eurocode 4 (CEN 2004a). The nominal com-
pressive strength Pn corresponding to the eccentricity ratio was de-
termined from the P–M relationship (Fig. 9). In the calculation of
Pn , the following assumptions were used: (1) the stress–strain re-
lationships of longitudinal steels (rebars and wide flange section
steel in CES; steel angle in PSRC) are elastic-perfectly plastic;
(2) the tensile strength of concrete can be neglected; and (3) a re-
duced effective section of steel angles due to bolt holes can be used.
Appendix II presents the detailed equations.
The horizontal dotted lines in Fig. 4 indicate nominal compres-
sive strengths Pn of specimens. Table 2 presents the values of Pn
and the ratios of the test results to the predicted ones (Pu =Pn =
strength ratio). For the CES specimens, the strength ratios of
CH-1 and CH-3 were 1.21 and 1.09 for ACI 318 (ACI 2019),
1.19 and 0.97 for AISC 360 (AISC 2016), and 1.15 and 1.06
for Eurocode 4 (CEN 2004a), respectively. For PSRC specimens
with e=h ¼ 0.1, the strength ratios were Pu =Pn ¼ 1.01–1.19 for
ACI 318, 1.03–1.22 for AISC 360, and 0.96–1.13 for Eurocode
4. In the case of PSRC specimens with e=h ¼ 0.3 (except
PL-3), strength ratios were increased slightly to Pu =Pn ¼ 1.09–
1.25 for ACI 318, 1.11–1.28 for AISC 360, and 1.03–1.19 for
Eurocode 4, respectively. These are comparable to or greater than
those of the CES specimens. In PL-3, owing to the effect of acci-
dental biaxial moment, the test results of PL-3 (Pu =Pn ¼
0.91–0.97) was slightly less than predicted. In general, the test re-
sults on the PSRC columns were greater than the predictions of the
existing design methods.
P-M Relationship
Fig. 9 shows the P–M relationships of the existing design methods.
For the CES specimens, in a range of axial load level of 0.2–0.5Pn
(Points C and D in Fig. 13 of Appendix II), the flexural strength
predicted from the plastic stress distribution method [AISC 360
(AISC 2016)] was 6%–17% greater than that from the strain com-
patibility method [ACI 318 (ACI 2019) and Eurocode 4 (CEN
2004a)]. This is because, in the strain compatibility method, the gross
section of the center-located steel (wide flange section) did not yield
even at large flexural deformation. On the other hand, in the PSRC
specimens, the P–M relationships of the existing design methods
were similar, regardless of assumptions on stress distribution. De-
spite the lower yield strength of the steel angles, the maximum flexu-
ral strength predictions (e.g., Point D of Fig. 13 in Appendix II) of
the PSRC specimens were 5%–24% (23% for ACI, 5% for AISC,
and 24% for Eurocode 4) greater than those of the CES specimens.
In Fig. 9, the test results (P–M m ) were compared with predic-
tions using existing design methods. In the calculation of flexural
(c) (d)
04020178-9 J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Raipur" on 09/13/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 10. Numerical models for specimens: (a) geometric model; and (b) concrete model.

moment Mm at the midheight of the column, the second-order
effect (i.e., P-delta effect) was considered as follows:
Mm ¼ Pðe þ Δm Þ
In the CES specimens, although the center-located wide flange
steel (yield strain ¼ 0.0025) did not yield at the peak strength
[Fig. 7(e)], test strengths (solid circle) exceeded the P–M relation-
ships of the existing design methods. In the PSRC specimens,
except for PL-1 and PL-3, the test strengths were greater than
the predictions. In PL-1 and PL-3 with low confinement, the test
strengths were slightly less than the P–M relationship under Euro-
code 4 (CEN 2004a).
Effective Flexural Stiffness
To consider the second-order effect in the design of composite col-
umns, existing design methods require effective flexural stiffness
EI eff as defined by Eqs. (3)–(5):
EI eff ¼ 0.2Ec I c þ Es I s ðACI 318Þ
EI eff ¼ C1 Ec I c þ Es I s þ Er I r ðAISC 360Þ
EI eff ¼ 0.9ð0.5Ec I c þ Es I s þ Er I r Þ ðEurocode 4Þ
where Ec , Es , and Er = elastic modulus of concrete, steel, and
longitudinal bar, respectively; I c , I s , and I r = second-order
moment of inertia of concrete, steel, and longitudinal bar, respec-
tively, with respect to the centroid of the column section; and
C1 ¼ 0.25 þ 3ðAs þ Ar Þ=ðAc þ As þ Ar Þ ≤ 0.7 [in Eq. (4)], in
which Ac , As , and Ar = sectional area of concrete, steel, and lon-
gitudinal bar, respectively.
Test results were used to estimate the effective flexural stiffness
ð2Þ EI eff . Using the measured lateral displacement Δm at the mid-
height of the column, EI eff can be calculated from the compati-
bility equation as follows [Fig. 10(a)]:
Δ m ¼ y o þ ym ð6Þ
where yo = lateral displacement at the column end =
kHo ðΔm þ eÞ sinðkH c =2Þ; and ym = lateral displacement measured
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi to its end = ½ðΔm þ eÞð1 − cosðkH c =2Þ, in
from columnpmidheight
which k ¼ P=EI eff and H o = height of steel instrumentation
(¼ 410 mm) (see Fig. 3). The equations for yo and ym were derived
using the theory of elastic stability, assuming that the supplemen-
tary instrumentation at the ends of the column had infinite stiffness.
To evaluate the EI eff of the specimens, test results Δm and Pð¼
Pu Þ corresponding to peak strength were used (Mirza and
Tikka 1999).
ð3Þ Table 3 compares effective flexural stiffness of specimens cal-
culated from test results and existing design methods. In CES spec-
ð4Þ imens, test results were estimated as EI eff ¼ 58,200 kN × m2
for CH-1 and 46,000 kN × m2 for CH-3. In the PSRC specimens,
ð5Þ the test results on EI eff ranged from 49,600 to 80,400 kN × m2 .
Their average value (¼ 61,600 kN × m2 ) was 18% greater than that
of the CES specimens (¼ 52,100 kN × m2 ) due to corner-located
steel angles. In then PSRC specimens, the EI eff of PZ-1 (e=h ¼
0.1) was the least due to the relatively large Δm . This is because Pu
was developed at a higher deformation due to the better confine-
ment effect provided by the Z-section plates. In PH-1 and PH-3

Table 3. Effective flexural stiffness of specimens (103 kN × m2 )

CES column PSRC column
Mean (%) Mean (%)
(standard (standard
Specimen CH-1 CH-3 deviation) PH-1 PH-3 PL-1 PL-3 PZ-1 PZ-3 deviation)
Test result at 58.2 (6.1) 46.0 (10.9) — 80.4 (4.0) 73.7 (8.6) 55.6 (5.0) 51.0 (10.6) 49.6 (6.2) 59.0 (9.4) —
Pu (Δm , mm)
ACI 318 (ACI 26.1 (45%) 26.1 (57%) 51% (0.060) 47.9 (60%) 47.9 (65%) 47.9 (86%) 47.9 (94%) 47.9 (97%) 47.9 (81%) 80% (0.139)
2019)
AISC 360 47.2 (81%) 47.2 (103%) 92% (0.108) 59.1 (73%) 59.1 (80%) 59.1 (106%) 59.1 (116%) 59.1 (119%) 59.1 (100%) 99% (0.171)
(AISC 2016)
Eurocode 4 62.7 (108%) 62.7 (136%) 122% (0.144) 74.8 (93%) 74.8 (101%) 74.8 (134%) 74.8 (147%) 74.8 (151%) 74.8 (127%) 126% (0.217)
(CEN 2004a)
Numerical 54.5 (94%) 47.4 (103%) 98% (0.048) 67.2 (84%) 68.5 (93%) 68.7 (123%) 69.7 (137%) 69.7 (141%) 68.4 (116%) 116% (0.211)
analysis at
Pnum

© ASCE 04020178-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020178

 with high confinement (s ¼ 150 mm), EI eff was the greatest in the
PSRC specimens with the same eccentricity.
Compared to the test results, AISC 360 (AISC 2016) showed the
best accuracy (92% for CES, 99% for PSRC, on average). On the
other hand, ACI 318 (ACI 2019) significantly underestimated
the test results on the CES specimens by 49% on average. This
is because in Eq. (3), the stiffness contribution of the longitudinal
bars was neglected. In the PSRC specimens, the average of EI eff
was 80% of the test results. Eurocode 4 (CEN 2004a) overestimated
the test results of the CES and PSRC specimens by 22% and 26%
on average, respectively.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Raipur" on 09/13/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Nonlinear Numerical Analysis
To investigate the effect of steel angles and transverse reinforce-
ments on structural capacity, nonlinear numerical analysis (or fiber
analysis) was performed considering three conditions used in the
section “Evaluation of Structural Capacity”: (1) elastic-plastic
behavior of longitudinal steel, (2) negligible tensile strength of con-
crete, and (3) reduced area of steel angles due to bolt holes. The
concrete area was divided into a confined zone and an unconfined
zone [Fig. 10(b)]. For confined concrete, the stress–strain relation-
ship proposed by Légeron and Paultre (2003) was used. Effective
confining pressure (lateral pressure acting on concrete exerted by
transverse reinforcements) was calculated considering the effective
confined area of the composite section [Figs. 1(a) and 10(b)]. In
particular, the maximum strength of the transverse plates was lim-
ited by the failure strength of the bolt connection (Rn in Table 1).
For unconfined cover concrete, the stress–strain model proposed by
Cusson and Paultre (1995) was used. The strain corresponding to
the compressive strength of unconfined concrete was defined
according to Wee et al. (1996). For steel angles, a postbuckling
behavior model proposed by Morino et al. (1986) was included
in the bilinear stress–strain relationship of steel angles. The onset
strain of plate local buckling εbs was defined according to Kim
and Hwang (2018), in which εbs was assumed to be greater than the
strain corresponding to peak stress of unconfined concrete (i.e., cover
concrete provides lateral restraint to steel angle buckling).
To consider the second-order effect, the numerical method pro-
posed by Kim et al. (2012) was used. The lateral deformation shape
of the column was idealized as a cosine curve [¼ Δm cosðπx=Hk Þ,
where x = distance from midheight of column, H k = effective
height after deformation, Fig. 10(a)]; lateral displacement Δm
and curvature [¼ Δm ðπ=Hk Þ2 ] at the midheight section were deter-
mined using iterative calculations so that the moment-equilibrium
condition [Eq. (2)] was satisfied.
Comparison to Test Results
Fig. 4 presents the axial load–strain (P–ε) relationship of speci-
mens resulting from numerical analysis as a dotted line. Table 2
presents the strength ratios of test results to numerical analysis
Pu =Pnum . In general, the axial load behavior from the numerical
analysis agreed with that of the test results. In CES Specimens
CH-1 and CH-3, the test strengths were 16% and 10% greater than
the numerical predictions, respectively [Figs. 4(a and d)]. This is
because additional confinement effects of steel flanges and headed
studs were neglected in the material model of the confined concrete.
In the PH and PZ specimens, test strengths Pu were 99%–119% of
Pnum . In PL specimens, test strengths were slightly less than Pnum
(Pu =Pnum ¼ 0.93 and 0.92) [Figs. 4(c and g)].
Fig. 4 presents contributions of the cover concrete, confined
core concrete, longitudinal steel, and longitudinal bars to the axial
load capacity of the column as dotted lines with circled letters U, C,
© ASCE 04020178-11
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020178
S, and R, respectively. The contributions were calculated using
the resultant internal (axial) force of each structural component
at the midheight of the column. In specimens with e=h ¼ 0.1
[Figs. 4(a–d)], postpeak strength decreased, mainly due to the
strength degradation of the core and cover concrete (C and U in
Fig. 4). In the PSRC specimens, owing to the lower yield strength
of steel, the contributions of steel angles at Pu ð¼ 864–870 kN; SÞ
was 28% less than the sum of contributions of longitudinal bars and
wide flange section steel in CH-1 (¼ 1,210 kN, R and S, respec-
tively). However, steel angles increased the effective confined area
of the core concrete (Fig. 1). For this reason, the contribution of
core concrete of 3,104–3,255 kN was 6%–12% greater than
that of CH-1 (¼ 2,916 kN). In specimens with e=h ¼ 0.3
[Figs. 4(e–h)], despite the lower yield strength of steel, the contri-
butions of steel angles (¼ 359–383 kN, S) in the PSRC specimens
were greater than the sum of the longitudinal bars (¼ 72 kN, R) and
wide flange section steel (¼ 236 kN, S) in CH-3. This is because
the neutral axis depth (or compressive section area) at Pu was
increased owing to the large flexural resistance of the corner-
located steel angles [Figs. 7(f–h)]. For this reason, in the PSRC
specimens, the sum of contributions of core and cover concrete
of 2,876–2,966 kN, C and U, respectively, was 17%–21% greater
than that of CH-3 (¼ 2,457 kN). Consequently, except for PL-3
subjected to accidental biaxial moment, the axial load-carrying
capacity and the yield stiffness were increased (Table 2).
In Fig. 9, the P–M m relationships of the test results and numeri-
cal analysis are denoted as thin solid lines and thin dotted lines,
respectively. The P–M m relationship from the numerical analysis
agreed with the test results. For the PSRC specimens, the axial-
flexural capacity of the numerical analysis (dotted circle) was com-
parable to or greater than the P–M interaction curves of the existing
design methods. In particular, the numerical analysis agreed with
the prediction of Eurocode 4 (CEN 2004a).
The effective flexural stiffness EI eff of the specimens was esti-
mated based on numerical analysis results Δm and Pnum . In the
CES specimens, EI eff from the numerical analysis agreed with
the test results (98% of test results on average) (Table 3). On
the other hand, in the PSRC specimens, EI eff was overestimated
by 16% on average.
Parametric Study
The number of specimens tested in this study was limited. Thus,
to investigate the effect of various design parameters, a parametric
study was performed on the PSRC columns (b × h ¼ 500×
500 mm) with steel angles and CES columns with a wide flange
steel section. Design parameters were the concrete strength
(fc0 ¼ 25, 50, 75, and 100 MPa), thickness of cover concrete
(tc ¼ 25, 50, 75, and 100 mm), yield strength of steel angles
(Fy ¼ 400, 600, 800, and 1,000 MPa), width-to-thickness ratio
(ba =ta ¼ 6.2, 8.3, 10.7, and 13.6 under the same steel ratio), steel
ratio (ρs ¼ 2%, 4%, 6%, and 8% under the same) of steel angles,
spacing (s ¼ 125, 250, 375, and 500 mm), yield strength of trans-
verse reinforcement (Fyh ¼ 200, 400, 600, and 800 MPa), thick-
ness of transverse reinforcement (flat plates), eccentricity ratio of
axial load (e=h ¼ 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, and 1.0), and effective length of
columns (or unbraced length He ¼ 3, 4, 5, and 6 m). Fig. 11
shows the design parameters of the control specimen, which
are the same as those of the test specimens, except for concrete
strength (¼ 50 MPa) and thickness of transverse plates
(¼ 7 mm).
Fig. 11 shows the axial load–strain (P–ε) relationships accord-
ing to the design parameters. The figures also show the points
indicating the maximum contribution of unconfined concrete,
J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Raipur" on 09/13/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
(c)
(e)
Fig. 11. Results of parametric study on various design parameters: (a) concrete (PSRC); (b) steel angle (PSRC); (c) transverse reinforcement (flat
plates) (PSRC); (d) eccentricity (PSRC); and (e) PSRC versus CES column.
confined concrete, and steel angles to the axial strength. In
Fig. 11(a), as concrete strength increases, the axial strength of
the columns increases, but ductility decreases. Unlike the test spec-
imens using low strength concrete, for high-strength concrete, steel
yielding occurs before crushing of the unconfined concrete. The
low ductility of a specimen with high-strength concrete is attributed
to the brittleness of the high-strength concrete.
Fig. 11(b) shows the effect of steel angles on the PSRC column.
The use of high-yield-strength steel does not affect the peak
strength, but it does increase ductility. As the yield strain of
high-strength steel increases, the peak strength is determined by
crushing of the unconfined concrete rather than the yield strength
of the steel. After the peak strength, increasing the stress of the
high-strength steel delays strength degradation caused by crushing
of the concrete. As the steel ratio ρs increases, both the strength and
ductility increase owing to the higher contribution of steel angles
not only to axial resistance but also to lateral confinement. When
the area of steel is maintained, the width-to-thickness ratio ba =ta of
the steel angles does not significantly affect the axial load behavior.
This is because a high ba =ta ratio gives both the positive effect of
high lateral confinement and the negative effect of local buckling.
Fig. 11(c) shows the effect of transverse reinforcement. The
effect of spacing on the ductility of the columns was greater than
those of yield strength and thickness. This is because, owing to the
© ASCE 04020178-12
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020178
(b)
(d)
high strength of transverse reinforcement, the lateral confinement
effect is determined by the spacing. Further, a smaller spacing of
transverse plates increases both the effective area of the confined
concrete and the lateral restraint on the local buckling of the steel
angles. Such an effect is more pronounced in the specimen with
lower eccentricity e=h ð¼ 0.1Þ (i.e., high compression). In the case
of axial load eccentricity [Fig. 11(d)], a higher e=h ratio decreases
strength and increases ductility.
The results of the parametric study in Figs. 11(a–d) showed that
the concrete strength, yield strength, and steel ratio of the steel
angles and the spacing of the transverse plates had a significant
effect on the axial strength and ductility of PSRC columns. Thus,
Fig. 11(f) compares the behaviors of the CES and PSRC columns
for the influential parameters: concrete strength, yield strength, and
steel ratio of longitudinal steel. The behavior trends of the CES
columns are similar to those of the PSRC columns. However, ow-
ing to the lower flexural capacity and lower contribution of con-
fined concrete, the axial strength of the CES columns is less
than that of the PSRC columns.
Summary and Conclusions
Eccentric-axial-load (eccentricity ratio e=h ¼ 0.1 and 0.3) tests
were performed to verify the structural capacities of PSRC columns
J. Struct. Eng.
 using bolt-connected steel angles. Two conventional CES columns
and six PSRC columns were tested. Load-carrying capacity, defor-
mation capacity, and failure mode were evaluated and compared
with predictions from existing design methods. From nonlinear
numerical analysis and parametric study, the effects of various de-
sign parameters (including test and analysis parameters) on struc-
tural capacity were investigated. The main conclusions drawn are
as follows:
1. In the PSRC specimens, axial-flexural capacity could be reliably
predicted by AISC 360 and ACI 318 regardless of assumptions
on stress distribution (plastic or strain-compatible stress distri-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Raipur" on 09/13/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
bution). In PSRC specimens with transverse flat plates of s ¼
150 mm (except for PL-3, which was subjected to accidental
initial crookedness), owing to early spalling of the cover con-
crete, the load-carrying capacity was slightly less than that pre-
dicted on the basis of Eurocode 4.
2. In PSRC specimens with a low eccentricity ratio (e=h ¼ 0.1),
the axial load-displacement relationship was similar to that of
the CES specimens, while the ductility was slightly greater
in the PSRC specimens. When the eccentricity was increased
to e=h ¼ 0.3, owing to the large flexural resistance of
corner-located steel angles, the axial strength, yield stiffness,
and deformation capacity of the PSRC specimens (except for
PL-3) were 11%–28%, 21%–25%, and 27%–86% greater than
those of the CES specimens, respectively, though the PSRC
specimens had a lower yield strength of steel.
3. In the PSRC specimens, cover concrete spalling was the main
cause of strength degradation. The spalling was attributed to
bond failure between steel angles and concrete. Z-section
plates used for transverse reinforcement were effective in
restraining spalling of cover concrete. For this reason, the
load-carrying capacity and deformation capacity of the col-
umns increased.
4. In the PSRC specimens, because of the corner-located steel an-
gles, the effective flexural stiffness was 18% (on average)
greater than that of the CES specimens. The flexural stiffness
predicted by AISC 360 agreed with the test results.
5. Nonlinear numerical analysis confirmed that, in PSRC columns
with a large eccentricity ratio (e=h ¼ 0.3), the contributions of
steel angles and concrete increased, which increased the axial
strength and stiffness of the columns.
6. The results of the parametric study showed that under eccentric
axial loading, the peak strength of the PSRC columns was sig-
nificantly increased by high-strength concrete and the large area
of the steel angles. However, the use of high-strength concrete
decreased the ductility of the columns. On the other hand, the
use of high-strength steel did not increase peak strength, but it
did increase ductility. Regarding the lateral confinement effect
of transverse plates on the ductility of the columns, close spac-
ing was more effective than the yield strength and thickness of
the plates.
The number of specimens tested in the present study was lim-
ited. Thus, further eccentric-axial-load tests should be performed to
investigate the effects of various design parameters, including high-
strength concrete, thickness and yield strength of transverse plates,
and bond failure between steel angles and concrete. Further, various
tests are required to verify the structural capacities of the proposed
composite column: (1) concentric-axial-load tests to verify com-
pressive strength and lateral confinement effects, (2) shear-flexural
tests to verify flexural strength and bond strength between steel
angles and concrete, and (3) cyclic lateral loading tests to verify
seismic performance including energy dissipation capacity and de-
formation capacity.
© ASCE 04020178-13
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020178
Fig. 12. Details of bolt connection between steel angle and transverse
plate.
Appendix I. Bolt Connection Strength According to
AISC 360
To consider bolt-connection failures in the design of transverse
plates, AISC 360 (AISC 2016) provides failure strengths corre-
sponding to the following limit states (Fig. 12): (A) yielding of
gross section Ro ¼ Fy Ag , (B) tensile rupture of effective net sec-
tion Re ¼ Fu Ae , (C) bearing or tear-out failures of bolt hole
Rbh ¼ 1.5Lc tp Fu < 3.0dh tp Fu , (D) block shear rupture Rbs ¼
0.6Fu Anv þ Fu Ant ≤ 0.6Fy Agv þ Fu Ant , and (E) shear failure of
bolt Rs ¼ 0.563Fnb Ab , where Fy and Fu are the yield and tensile
strength of the transverse plates, respectively; Ag and Ae are the
gross-sectional area and effective net area of the transverse
reinforcement [Ae ¼ Ag dh tp ; dh = diameter of bolt hole
(¼ 18 mm); tp = thickness of transverse plates (¼ 3.2 mm)];
Lc = clear distance between hole and plate end in direction of ten-
sion force; Agv = gross-sectional area subjected to shear (¼ dgv × tp
in Fig. 12); Anv = net area subjected to shear (¼ dnv × tp ); Ant = net
area subjected to tension (¼ dnt × tp ); Fnb = nominal tensile
strength of bolt; and Ab = sectional area of bolt body
(¼ 201 mm2 , diameter of bolt body ¼ 16 mm). The available ten-
sile strength Rn of the transverse plates can be determined as the
minimum of failure strengths (A–E).
Appendix II. Load-Carrying Capacity According to
Existing Design Methods
In ACI 318 (ACI 2019) and Eurocode 4 (CEN 2004a), the P–M
relationship of a composite section is obtained using the strain com-
patibility method assuming a linear strain distribution at the cross
section. In ACI 318, the ultimate compressive strain of the concrete
is assumed to be εcu ¼ 0.003, and a rectangular equivalent stress
block (¼ 0.85fc0 ) is used for the concrete in the compressive zone
of the cross section. In Eurocode 4, the stress–strain relationships
of the steel, reinforcing bar, and concrete are defined according to
Eurocode 2 (CEN 2004b) and Eurocode 3 (CEN 2005). For
simplification, the time effect and initial geometric imperfections
(i.e., initial crookedness) were not considered.
In AISC 360 (AISC 2016), the nominal compressive strength Pn
of a concrete-encased composite column is determined considering
inelastic flexural buckling as follows: Pn ¼ P0 × 0.658ðP0 =PcrÞ (for
P0 ≤ 2.25Pcr ), in which Pcr = elastic buckling strength ¼
π2 ðEI eff Þ=ðLe Þ2 and Le = effective unbraced length ¼ 1.0He .
As shown in Fig. 13, the P–M relationship is simplified as four
performance points using plastic stress distribution. Points A
and B indicate the maximum compressive strength P0 and pure
flexural strength M n of the column section, respectively, and
J. Struct. Eng.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "National Institute of Technology, Raipur" on 09/13/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 13. P–M relationship for PSRC columns according to AISC 360.
Point C indicates the compressive force corresponding to the flexu-
ral strength of M n . Point D is determined as the flexural moment
M max corresponding to Pnc =2. The P–M relationship (Points
A 0 –D 0 ) was obtained by multiplying the compressive strength of
each of Points A–D by a slenderness reduction factor λ ½¼ Pn =
P0 ¼ 0.658ðP0 =Pcr Þ .
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code generated or used during the
study are available from the corresponding author by request.
Acknowledgments
The Institute of Engineering Research, Institute of Construction
and Environmental Engineering, at Seoul National University
provided research facilities for this work. This research was also
supported by the Korea Agency for Infrastructure Technology Ad-
vancement (KAIA) funded by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure
and Transport (19AUDP-B106327-05). The authors are grateful for
the support of these authorities.
References
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2013. Guide for testing reinforced con-
crete structural element under slowly applied simulated seismic loads.
ACI 374.2R. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2019. Building code requirements for
structural concrete and commentary. ACI 318. Farmington Hills, MI:
ACI.
Adam, J. M., S. Ivorra, E. Giménez, J. J. Moragues, P. Miguel, C. Miragall,
and P. A. Calderón. 2007. “Behaviour of axially loaded RC columns
strengthened by steel angles and strips.” Steel Compos. Struct. 7 (5):
405–419. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2007.7.5.405.
AISC. 2016. Specification for structural steel buildings. ANSI/AISC 360.
Chicago: AISC.
Belal, M. F., H. M. Mohamed, and S. A. Morad. 2015. “Behavior of
reinforced concrete columns strengthened by steel jacket.” HBRC J.
11 (2): 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2014.05.002.
Campione, G. 2013. “RC columns strengthened with steel angles and bat-
tens: Experimental results and design procedure.” Pract. Period. Struct.
© ASCE 04020178-14
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020178
Des. Constr. 18 (1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943
-5576.0000125.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). 2004a. Design of
composite steel and concrete structures. Eurocode 4. Brussels,
Belgium: CEN.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). 2004b. Design of con-
crete structures. Eurocode 2. Brussels, Belgium: CEN.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). 2005. Design of steel
structures. Eurocode 3. Brussels, Belgium: CEN.
Cirtek, L. 2001. “RC columns strengthened with bandage: Experimental
programme and design recommendations.” Constr. Build. Mater.
15 (8): 341–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-0618(01)00015-0.
Cusson, D., and P. Paultre. 1995. “Stress-strain model for confined high-
strength concrete.” J. Struct. Eng. 121 (3): 468–477. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1995)121:3(468).
Eom, T. S., H. J. Hwang, H. G. Park, C. N. Lee, and H. S. Kim. 2014.
“Flexural test for steel-concrete composite members using prefabricated
steel angles.” J. Struct. Eng. 140 (4): 04013094. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000898.
Hwang, H. J., T. S. Eom, H. G. Park, and S. H. Lee. 2016. “Axial load and
cyclic load tests for composite columns with steel angles.” J. Struct.
Eng. 142 (5): 04016001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943
-541X.0001452.
Kim, C. S., and H. J. Hwang. 2018. “Numerical investigation on load-
carrying capacity of high-strength concrete-encased steel angle col-
umns.” Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 12 (1): 11. https://doi.org/10
.1186/s40069-018-0238-7.
Kim, C. S., H. G. Park, K. S. Chung, and I. R. Choi. 2012. “Eccentric axial
load testing for concrete-encased steel columns using 800 MPa steel and
100MPa concrete.” J. Struct. Eng. 138 (8): 1019–1031. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000533.
Kim, C. S., H. G. Park, K. S. Chung, and I. R. Choi. 2014. “Eccentric axial
load capacity of high-strength steel-concrete composite columns of
various sectional shapes.” J. Struct. Eng. 140 (4): 04013091. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000879.
KS (Korean Standard). 2016. Sets of torque-shear type high tension bolt,
hexagon nut and plain washer for structural joints. KS B2819. Eu-
mseong-gun, Chungcheongbuk-do: KS.
Légeron, F., and P. Paultre. 2003. “Uniaxial confinement model for normal
and high-strength concrete columns.” J. Struct. Eng. 129 (2): 241–252.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2003)129:2(241).
Mirza, S. A., and T. K. Tikka. 1999. “Flexural stiffness of composite col-
umns subjected to major axis bending.” ACI Struct. J. 96 (1): 19–28.
https://doi.org/10.14359/592.
Montuori, R., and V. Piluso. 2009. “Reinforced concrete columns strength-
ened with angles and battens subjected to eccentric load.” Eng. Struct.
31 (2): 539–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.10.005.
Morino, S., C. Matsui, and S. Yoshikai. 1986. “Local buckling of steel
elements in concrete encased columns.” In Vol. 2 of Proc., Pacific
Structural Steel Conf., 319–335. Auckland, New Zealand: Heavy
Engineering Research Association.
Poon, E. D. 1999. Effect of column retrofitting on the seismic response of
concrete frames, 162. Montreal: Dept. of Civil Engineering and Applied
Mechanics, McGill Univ.
Ramirez, J. L. 1996. “Ten concrete column repair methods.” Constr. Build.
Mater. 10 (3): 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-0618(95)00087
-9.
Tarabia, A. M., and H. F. Albakry. 2014. “Strengthening of RC columns by
steel angles and strips.” Alexandria Eng. J. 53 (3): 615–626. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.aej.2014.04.005.
Wee, T. H., M. S. Chin, and M. A. Mansur. 1996. “Stress-strain relationship
of high-strength concrete in compression.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 8 (2):
70–76. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(1996)8:2(70).
Zheng, W., and J. Ji. 2008. “Dynamic performance of angle-steel
concrete columns under low cyclic loading. I: Experimental study.”
Earthquake Eng. Eng. Vibr. 7 (1): 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s11803-008-0768-0.
J. Struct. Eng.