Structures 24 (2020) 754–765

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Numerical analysis of circular double-skin concrete-filled stainless steel T

tubular short columns under axial loading
Vipulkumar Ishvarbhai Patela, Qing Quan Liangb, , Muhammad N.S. Hadic
⁎

a
School of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, La Trobe University, Bendigo, VIC 3552, Australia
b
College of Engineering and Science, Victoria University, PO Box 14428, Melbourne, VIC 8001, Australia
c
School of Civil, Mining and Environmental Engineering, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Circular double-skin concrete-filled stainless-steel tubular (DCFSST) columns have the distinguishing feature of
Concrete-filled stainless steel tubes high resistance to corrosion so that they can be constructed by either normal concrete or seawater sea-sand based
Computational modeling concrete without corrosion. The numerical study of circular short DCFSST columns is very limited. This paper
Double-skin confinement presents the computational modeling and behavior of short DCFSST columns of circular sections loaded con-
Nonlinear analysis
centrically. A computational model is developed for simulating the structural behavior of concentrically loaded
Stainless steel
short circular DCFSST columns, taking into account the effects of the concrete confinement induced by the
double stainless-steel skins and significant strain hardening of stainless steel. The accuracy of the computational
modeling technique proposed herein is assessed by means of comparing computations with available experi-
mental data. The verified computational method is utilized to investigate the significance of geometric config-
urations as well as material strengths on the structural performance of circular DCFSST columns. The applic-
ability of the current design provisions for steel tubular columns filled with concrete to the design of circular
DCFSST columns is evaluated by comparisons against experimental and numerical results on DCFSST columns.
The comparative study shows that the present computational model and the design formula proposed by Liang
predict well the ultimate strengths of short DCFSST columns composed of circular tubes. The codified design
approaches in current design codes generally give conservative estimations of the strengths of circular DCFSST
stub columns.

1. Introduction
The seawater sea-sand based concrete could be used to fill the
carbon steel tubular hollow column to form a composite column. The
major concern for using seawater sea-sand based concrete in carbon
steel tubular composite columns is the corrosion of carbon-steel tubes
caused by the seawater sea-sand made concrete. The use of stainless
steel instead of carbon steel in composite columns made of seawater-
based concrete can overcome the corrosion problem. Double-skin con-
crete-filled stainless steel tubular (DCFSST) columns composed of cir-
cular sections as depicted in Fig. 1 not only have an excellent resistance
to corrosion but also have high bending stiffness, strength and ductility
[1]. Stainless steels display significant strain-hardening behavior
without a clear yield point, which should be recognized in the design
and nonlinear response simulation of DCFSST columns to achieve
economical designs. Both the circular internal and external stainless-
steel tubes produce lateral confinement to the concrete in a circular
DCFSST column [2,3]. As a result of this, the ductility and compressive
strength of the sandwiched concrete improve considerably. Design
methods based on carbon steel material models without considering
confinement effects significantly underestimate the load-carrying ca-
pacities of DCFSST circular columns. The design standards, such as
Eurocode 4 [4] and ANSI/AISC 360-16 [5], do not specify design rules
for designing DCFSST columns of circular sections because the suitable
design methods have not been derived from limited research works on
such composite columns. Therefore, further studies on the behavior of
DCFSST columns are much needed.
There has been an increasing amount of experimental studies on
circular double-skin concrete-filled steel tubular (DCFST) composite
short columns made of carbon steel tubes loaded axially [6–11]. The
DCFST columns are usually constructed by the river water and river-
sand based concrete. To reduce the usage of river-based constructional
materials, an experimental investigation of seawater and sea-sand
based DCFSST columns with the circular section under concentric

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Qing.Liang@vu.edu.au (Q.Q. Liang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.02.001
Received 28 August 2019; Received in revised form 3 January 2020; Accepted 2 February 2020
Available online 14 February 2020
2352-0124/ © 2020 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
V.I. Patel, et al.
Fig. 1. Cross-section of circular DCFSST column.
loading was conducted by Li et al. [1]. It was reported that the ductility
of DCFSST columns increased due to the addition of the internal
stainless-steel tube. In addition, the external stainless-steel tube was
subjected to a greater lateral strain than the inner one. The main reason
for this is that the inward expansion of sandwiched concrete was ba-
lanced by the hoop compression in the internal hollow tube. The test
results indicated that the DCFSST column had a greater energy ab-
sorption capacity than its hollow counterpart. The typical failure modes
of DCFSST columns included the outward local buckling of the internal
and external tubes and crushing of the sandwiched concrete at the
buckled regions. The sea-based constructional materials have been used
to construct concrete-filled stainless steel tubular (CFSST) composite
columns and their structural behavior has been experimentally in-
vestigated by a number of researchers [12–16]. The economic use of
stainless steel was proposed by Wang et al. [17] using an outer thin-
walled stainless steel tube and an inner high-strength carbon steel tube
in a DCFST column.
Numerical modeling techniques based on the finite and fiber ele-
ment methods have been utilized to determine the performance of
concentrically compressed short circular DCFST columns [18–24]. In
the numerical models given by Huang et al. [18] and Wang et al. [19],
the concrete confinement model for circular CFST columns was adopted
for the sandwiched concrete in DCFST composite columns. Hu and Su
[20] employed the Abaqus program to investigate the ultimate loads of
short circular DCFST columns loaded axially. Based on experimental
and finite element analysis results, Hu and Su [20] derived a confine-
ment model for estimating the lateral confining pressures on the
sandwiched concrete. Liang [3] developed strength degradation factors
that quantify the strength and ductility of sandwiched concrete in
DCFST columns of circular sections. The confinement model of Hu and
Su [20] and the strength degradation factors proposed by Liang [3]
were incorporated in the fiber-based mathematical model developed by
Liang [3], which has been shown to capture well the responses of short
and slender DCFST columns [20,24]. The Abaqus program was em-
ployed by Hassanein et al. [21] and Pagoulatou et al. [22] to model the
load-axial strain responses of circular short DCFST columns with an
outer stainless steel tube. A design equation considering concrete con-
finement and steel strain hardening was proposed by Hassanein et al.
[21], which estimated well the strengths of circular DCFST columns. Li
et al. [25] developed the axial load–strain relations for numerically
determining the behavior of DCFSST columns.
Limited research has been undertaken on the structural character-
istics of DCFSST columns loaded concentrically. This paper is concerned
with the computational modeling, behavior, and design of con-
centrically compressed circular short DCFSST columns. A computa-
tional model is developed, which can predict the load-axial strain
755
Structures 24 (2020) 754–765
Fig. 2. Typical fiber discretization of cross-section of circular DCFSST column.
responses of DCFSST stub columns made of circular stainless-steel tubes
loaded concentrically to failure. The model considers the confinement
induced by the double-skins on the sandwiched-concrete in addition to
the strain hardening of stainless steel. The fundamental behavior of
DCFSST stub columns with various parameters is investigated using the
validated computational model. The applicability of the design methods
given in current design codes and by Liang [3] to the design of circular
DCFSST columns is assessed by undertaking a comparative study
against experimental data. Throughout this paper, the abbreviation
DCFST column is used to represent double-skin concrete-filled carbon
steel tubular column whereas the abbreviation DCFSST column is used
to represent double-skin concrete-filled stainless steel tubular column.
2. Computational model based on the theory of fiber analysis
2.1. Theory
The computational model is proposed based on the theory of fiber
analysis, in which the cross-section of a circular DCFSST column is
meshed by many small fiber elements. The discretization technique
adopts the mathematical model proposed by Liang [3]. Fig. 2 presents
the typical fiber mesh for the cross-section of a circular DCFSST column.
In the fiber simulation, the sandwiched concrete and stainless-steel
tubes are discretized into layers through their thickness. Their dis-
cretization in the radial direction is undertaken based on the layer size
of the tube and the sandwiched concrete. The origin O of the coordinate
system coincides with the cross-section centroid. The coordinates and
area of each fiber element are calculated based on the mesh generated
in the discretization.
The computational model assumes that: (a) no slippage between the
stainless-steel tubes and the sandwiched concrete occurs, which implies
that the concrete and stainless-steel fibers are under the same axial
strain for each load increment; (b) the concrete confinement provided
by double-skins is explicitly considered in the constitutive model for
sandwiched concrete; (c) the influence of concrete creep and shrinkage
is ignored; (e) the column fails when the concrete compressive strain
exceeds the specified ultimate strain.
The material properties of stainless steel are given to stainless-steel
fibers and concrete fibers are provided with concrete properties. The
material uniaxial stress–strain laws are incorporated to compute the
fiber stress from axial strain. The internal axial force (P) is obtained by
integrating the fiber stresses over the entire cross-section as follows:
V.I. Patel, et al. Structures 24 (2020) 754–765

nso nsi nsc

P= so, i Aso, i + si, j Asi, j + sc, k Asc, k
i=1 j =1 k=1 (1)
where so, i , si, j and sc, k represent the stresses at the outer stainless steel,
internal stainless steel, and sandwiched-concrete element, respectively;
Aso, i , Asi, j and Asc, k are the areas of the outer stainless-steel tube, in-
ternal stainless-steel tube, and sandwiched concrete, respectively and
nso , nsi and nsc are the number of fiber elements in the outer stainless-
steel tube, internal stainless-steel tube, and sandwiched concrete, re-
spectively.

2.2. Computational procedure

The structural behavior of a concentrically compressed short

DCFSST column is characterized by its axial load–strain responses, from
which its ultimate axial strength and strain ductility performance can
be quantified. For a short DCFSST column subjected to increasing
concentric loading, the internal and external stainless-steel tubes as
well as the sandwiched concrete undergo the same axial strain. To Fig. 3. Three-stage stress–strain curve for stainless steel in axial compression.
capture the full axial load–strain responses of the column, the strain in
the axial direction is incrementally increased. For a given axial strain, tension can be expressed by the equations proposed by Ramberg and
the fiber element stresses are computed from the axial strain using the Osgood [28] and Rasmussen [29]. Quach et al. [30] developed a
stress–strain relations of concrete and stainless steel. The internal axial stress–strain model for stainless steels in compression and tension on
force (P) for the given strain is determined by the summation of the the basis of experimental results, in which the strain is expressed as a
fiber element stresses over the entire cross-section and is taken as the function of stress. Abdella et al. [31] formulated an inversion of the
axial load applied to the column. The complete load-axial strain curve is stress–strain laws for stainless steel proposed by Quach et al. [30]. The
obtained by repeating the above procedure until the stopping criteria inversion is convenient for implementation in numerical modeling of
specified is satisfied. The stopping criteria are that the axial load falls to stainless steel members. The inversed model given by Abdella et al. [31]
50% of the ultimate axial strength of the column or the axial strain together with formulas derived by Quach et al. [30] is incorporated in
exceeds the specified ultimate concrete strain [23]. the present computational model. The first stage of the stress–strain
relationship shown in Fig. 3 is expressed by
2.3. Ductility index and stainless-steel contribution ratio
E0 s [1 + C1 r C2 ]
s = for 0 s 0.2
1 + C3 r C4 + C1 r C2 (4)
The contribution of stainless steel tubes to the ultimate axial load
(Pu ) of a DCFSST short column can be calculated using the stainless-steel where r is the ratio of s 0.2 , the axial stress of stainless steel is denoted
contribution ratio, which is written by by s , s refers to the stainless steel strain at stress s , E0 denotes the
Pss elastic modulus of stainless steel, the stainless steel strain at 0.2 is re-
PIsc = presented by 0.2 , and the 0.2% proof stress is referred by 0.2 . The
Pu (2)
equation by Ramberg and Osgood [28] for predicting the 0.2% proof
in which PIsc denotes the stainless steel contribution, and Pss represents strain is
the ultimate axial strength of the hollow stainless steel tubular column.
0.2
The strength Pss is determined by setting the concrete cylinder strength 0.2 = + 0.002
E0 (5)
fc to zero in the fiber analysis [26].
The resistance of large plastic deformation without the reduction of In Eq. (4), the parameters C1, C2 , C3 , and C4 were proposed by Ab-
strength is known as the ductility of a short DCFSST column. The della et al. [31] as follows:
ductility index predicts the axial ductility of a circular short DCFSST
column subjected to concentric loading. The full load-axial strain curve C1 =
C2 1 (6)
of the DCFSST column is required to evaluate the ductility index, which
is defined as B1
C2 = 1 +
u (7)
PIsd =
y (3)
C3 = G0 (1 + C1) (8)
in which PIsd denotes the ductility index, u stands for the axial strain at
C4 = + G1 (9)
90% of the column ultimate axial load in the post-peak response of
load-axial strain curve and y is calculated by the ratio of 0.75 0.75, in where
which 0.75 represents the strain at 75% of the ultimate axial load in the
pre-peak response of load-axial strains of the short DCFSST column [3]. 1+ 1 + 4B1
=
2 (10)
3. Material constitutive relations G1 E0.2 (n + G0 )
B1 =
E0 (11)
3.1. Stainless steel
0.002E0
G0 =
Experiments indicate that stainless steel in compression exhibits 0.2 (12)
significantly higher strain hardening than in tension [26,27]. Fig. 3
represents the relationships of stress and strain for stainless steel ma- 0.2 E0.2 (n 1)
G1 =
terial in compression. The stress–strain behavior of stainless steel in 0.2 (13)

756
V.I. Patel, et al. Structures 24 (2020) 754–765

where E0.2 represents the tangent modulus corresponding to the stress

0.2 computed by
2.0 = 0.2
1+ ( 1.0
0.2 )
1 An2
1

E0 1
E0.2 =
1 + 0.002 nE0 0.2 (14)
1+ ( )( 0.2
E0
E0
E0.2
1 )( 1.0
0.2
1 ) An2
n2 B2
(30)
in which n denotes the strain-hardening exponent which is expressed by n2
2.0 0.2 1 1 2.0 0.2
2.0 = + 0.008 + ( 1.0 0.2 ) + 0.2
ln(20) E0.2 E0 E0.2 1.0 0.2
n=
ln( 0.2 0.01 ) (15) (31)
in which the 0.01% proof stress is denoted by 0.01. in which
The second stage of the stress–strain curve illustrated in Fig. 3 is
B2
expressed by using the following equation by Abdella et al. [31]: A=

E0.2 [1 + C5 r C6 ]
0.008 + ( )( 0.2
E0
1.0
0.2
1)(1 E0
E0.2 ) (32)
s = 0.2 + for 0.2 < s 2.0
1 + C7 r C8 + C5 r C6 (16) E0
0.2
B2 = 0.018 + 1
in which the parameters and r are expressed as E0 E0.2 (33)
= s 0.2 (17) The stainless steel stresses in the third-stage are computed from the
axial strain as follows:
s 0.2
r =
1.0 0.2 (18) A3 + B3 s
s = for s > 2.0
1 s (34)
where the 1.0% proof stress is denoted by 1.0 and corresponding strain
is represented by 1.0 . A3 = 2.0 (1 + 2.0 ) B3 2.0 (35)
The stress 1.0 and strain 1.0 are determined by using the following
equations of Quach et al. [30]: su (1 + su ) 2.0 (1 + 2.0 )
B3 =
su 2.0 (36)
0.662
1.0 = 0.2 + 1.085 where the ultimate strain and stress in compression are represented by
n (19)
su and su respectively. The equations of Quach et al. [30] are con-
1 1 1.0 0.2 sidered herein:
1.0 = 0.008 + ( 1.0 0.2 ) + + 0.2
E0 E0.2 E0.2 (20) su = ut (1 + ut )
2
(37)
The material parameters C5 , C6 , C7 and C8 in Eq. (16) proposed by 1
Abdella et al. [31] are computed by su =1
1+ ut (38)
1
C5 = in which the ultimate stress and strain in tension are denoted by ut and
C6 1 (21)
ut , respectively. Quach et al. [30] proposed the equations for predicting
ut and ut . For this numerical study, the values of ut and ut reported in

C6 = C8 +
ln(1 + A2 ) + ln ( ) H0
H2 the experimental studies of DCFSST columns are adopted.
ln ( 2.0
1.0
0.2
0.2 ) (22) 3.2. Sandwiched concrete

C7 = H0 (1 + C5) (23)
The concrete sandwiched by double tubes in a circular DCFST
C8 = 1 + H1 (24) column under increasing axial compression may expand laterally more
than the stainless steel tubes. As a result, the radial pressures between
in which the sandwiched concrete and the stainless-steel tubes exist. Liang [3]
(n2 1) 2 (H2 H0 ) pointed out that the sandwiched concrete is in a triaxial stress state, the
A2 = internal tube is subjected to biaxial compression and the external tube
(1 + n2 H0 ) (1 + n2 H2 ) (25)
is under biaxial stresses. Consequently, the sandwiched concrete may
be effectively confined by both the internal and external stainless steel
H0 =
0.008 + ( 1.0 0.2 ) ( 1
E0
1
E0.2 ) E0.2
tubes, providing that the depth-to-thickness ratios of the tubes are
1.0 0.2 (26) small. Fig. 4 shows the idealized stress–strain relationship of sand-
wiched concrete in DCFSST columns composed of circular tubes. The
H1 =
(n2 1) (H0 + 1) material constitutive model given by Mander et al. [32] for confined
1 + n2 H0 (27) concrete is employed to represent Part OA depicted in Fig. 4, which is
written by

H2 =
E0.2 ( 2.0
1.0
0.2
0.2 ) fcc ( c cc )
(28) c =
2.0 0.2 1+( c cc ) (39)
where the 2.0% proof stress is represented by 2.0 and its corresponding in which considers the concrete brittleness, and it was given by
strain is denoted by 2.0 . Quach et al. [30] proposed the material con- Carreira and Chu [33] as:
stant n2 , which is written as
Ec
=
E0.2 1.0 Ec (fcc cc ) (40)
n2 = 6.399 + 1.145
E0 0.2 (29)
where the sandwiched concrete axial stress is represented by c , the
The equations for predicting the stress 2.0 and strain 2.0 proposed by corresponding axial strain is denoted by c , the peak stress of double-
Quach et al. [30] are expressed as skin confined sandwiched concrete is represented by fcc , the strain is

757
V.I. Patel, et al. Structures 24 (2020) 754–765

c =
c f cc + (fcc c fcc ) ( cu
cu c
cc ) for cc < c cu

c f cc for c > cu (47)

where c reflects the effect of confinement on the post-yield response of

the concrete stress–strain behavior. It depends on both the tube dia-
meter-to-thickness ratios of Do to and Di ti . Liang [3] proposed the
equations for predicting the factor c :
1.0 for Do to 40
c = k3 for Do to > 40
0.0000339(Do to )2 0.010085(Do to ) + 1.349 for k3 < 0 (48)

in which k3 was given by Hu and Su [20] as

k3 = 1.73916 0.00862( ) 0.04731 ( ) 0.00036 ( )

Do
to
Di
ti
Do 2
to

+ 0.00134 ( )( ) 0.00058 ( )
Do Di Di 2
Fig. 4. Idealized stress–strain curve for sandwiched concrete confined by 0
to ti ti (49)
double-skins.
In Eq. (47), the concrete strain cu is determined by the expressions
proposed by Liang [3] based on experimental data as follows:
denoted by cc , and the pre-peak modulus is denoted by Ec , which is
obtained using the recommendation by ACI Committee 363R-92 [34]: 0.03 for Do / to 60
cu = 0.023 + 0.000175(100 Do to) for 60 < Do / to 100
Ec = 3320 c fc + 6900 (MPa) (41) 0.02 for Do / to > 100 (50)
where fc represents the compressive strength of the concrete cylinder,
and c the strength reduction factor considering the influence of con-
crete quality, loading rate, and column size on the actual strength of 4. Experimental verification
concrete in columns, proposed by Liang [3] as
0.135
The experimental results on concentrically loaded DCFSST stub
c = 1.85tc (0.85 c 1.0) (42) columns presented by Li et al. [1] were employed to verify the theo-
where tc denotes the thickness of the sandwiched-concrete shown in retical model. The dimensions of the cross-sections as well as material
Fig. 1 and it is determined as tc = Do 2 to Di 2 , in which Do and Di properties of the tested columns are reproduced in Table 1. The ex-
represent the diameters of the external and internal tubes, respectively, perimental ultimate axial load (Pu,exp ) was determined as either the first
and to stands for the outer tube thickness. peak load from the load-axial strain curve for the specimen with des-
The compressive strength (fcc ) and its corresponding strain ( cc ) of cending post-peak curve or the load at the axial strain of 0.05 for the
the sandwiched concrete confined by double-skins are estimated by the specimen exhibiting significant strain hardening behavior after the first
equations suggested by Mander et al. [32] with strength reduction peak load [1]. This method was also used in the nonlinear analyses of
factor c as follows: these specimens to determine their ultimate axial loads. The computed
ultimate axial loads (Pu . num) are compared against experimental
fcc = c fc + k1 frp (43) strengths in Table 1. The table clearly shows that the computer model
proposed generally calculates reasonably well the ultimate strengths of
frp
cc = c 1 + k2 the tested specimens. A 0.951 mean of Pu . num Pu . exp ratio is obtained. The
c fc (44) standard deviation (SD) was calculated as 0.078 and the coefficient of
variation (COV) was determined as 0.082.
in which frp is the lateral pressure on the sandwiched concrete; the
The predicted and experimental load-axial strain responses of
constants of k1 = 4.1 and k2 = 20.5 suggested by Richart et al. [35] are
Specimen 152 × 1.6–76 × 1.6-D are provided in Fig. 5 for comparison.
incorporated in the numerical model; the strain c at the stress fc is
determined using the equation provided by Liang [24] as follows: The computer model essentially predicts well the column initial axial
stiffness, the first peak load and the post-yield responses of the spe-
0.002 for fc 28 MPa cimen up to the axial strain of 0.16. However, when the axial strain is
fc 28 greater than 0.16, the experimental curve departs significantly from the
c = 0.002 + for 28 < fc 82 MPa
54000 computed one as shown in Fig. 5. This is likely due to the local failures
0.003 for fc > 82 MPa (45) of the specimen under large axial strains, including the local buckling of
the outer tube and concrete crushing which degraded the column
The formula derived by Hu and Su [20] for finding the lateral
strength. The calculated results of Specimen 168 × 3–50 × 1.6-D are
pressure ( frp ) on the concrete sandwiched by double tubes is adopted in
compared with measurements in Fig. 6. The predicted initial axial
the present computational model as suggested by Liang [3], which is
stiffness, first peak load and post-yield behavior of the specimen have a
expressed as
good agreement with test results. However, after the axial strain of
0.15, the measured curve departs slightly from the predicted responses.
frp = 8.525 ( ) 0.00897 ( ) + 0.00125 ( )
0.166
Do
to
Di
ti
Do 2
to The computed ultimate axial load is slightly higher than the test data.
+ 0.00246 ( )( ) 0.0055 ( ) This discrepancy might be attributed to the fact that the actual concrete
Do Di Di 2
0
to ti ti (46) strengths of the tested specimens were unknown, and the average
where ti denotes the thickness of the inner stainless steel tube as in- concrete strength was employed in the computer simulation.
dicated in Fig. 1. It should be noted that Eq. (46) is applicable to cir-
cular DCFSST columns with 20 Do to 100 and 15 Do to 55. 5. Fundamental behavior
The linear branches AB and BC of the concrete stress–strain re-
lationship illustrated in Fig. 4 are determined using the following The computational modeling technique proposed was employed to
equations: ascertain the influences of the sandwiched concrete strength, stainless-

758
V.I. Patel, et al. Structures 24 (2020) 754–765

Ref.

[1]
Pu, num

0.918
0.962
1.106
0.942
1.074
0.935
0.892
0.958
0.847
0.879
0.948
0.959
0.075
0.079
Pu,exp
Pu, num (kN)

1071

1399
1402
1147
1159
1083
535
610
656
850

771
Pu,exp (kN)

1569
1464
1354
1319
1142
583
634
593
902
997
825
E0i (GPa)

193.2
186.6

176.2
192.6
199.3
189.0
195
195
195
195

195

Fig. 5. Comparison of experimental and computational load–strain responses of

Specimen 152 × 1.6–76 × 1.6-D.
(MPa)

656.8
562.1
656.8
562.1
732.4
706.0
656.8
587.8
656.4
617.8
659.8
sui
(MPa)

376.5
228.9
376.5
228.9
398.9
353.3
376.5
259.2
226.0
281.2
314.5
0.2i
E0o (GPa)

186.6
186.6
192.6
199.3
189.0
189.0
190.3
190.3
190.3
190.3
189.6
(MPa)

706.0
706.0
656.4
617.8
659.8
659.8
615.8
615.8
615.8
615.8
653.1
Geometric and material properties and ultimate axial strengths of circular DCFSST short columns.

suo
(MPa)

Fig. 6. Comparison of experimental and computational load–strain responses of

353.3
353.3
226.0
281.2
314.5
314.5
281.5
281.5
281.5
281.5
304.0
0.2o

Specimen 168 × 3–50 × 1.6-D.

steel grades, and tube geometry on the fundamental behavior of short

f’c (MPa)

DCFSST columns composed of circular sections loaded axially.

42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42

5.1. Effect of sandwiched concrete strength

101.8 × 1.70

101.9 × 2.79
114.1 × 2.79
152.6 × 1.60
Di × ti (mm)

49.6 × 1.53
50.9 × 3.07
49.6 × 1.53
50.9 × 3.07
76.2 × 1.66

49.6 × 1.53
89.2 × 3.22

The significance of sandwiched concrete strength on the load-axial

strain responses, strain ductility index and stainless steel contribution
ratio were evaluated by means of undertaking numerical analyses on
Columns DC1-DC5 given in Table 2. The sandwiched concrete strengths
under consideration ranged from 40 MPa to 100 MPa. Fig. 7 shows the
calculated load-axial strain curves of DCFSST composite columns made
1.70
1.70
2.79
2.79
1.60
1.60
3.22
3.22
3.22
3.22
1.99
Do × to (mm)

of concrete with different strengths. As demonstrated, the ultimate load

×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×

and initial stiffness of DCFSST column are improved by increasing the

101.8
101.8
101.9
114.1
152.6
152.6
168.4
168.4
168.4
168.4
202.7

concrete strength. The percentage increases in the column ultimate

strengths are 12%, 30%, and 72%, respectively when increasing the
Coefficient of variation (COV)

concrete strength from 40 MPa to 50 MPa, 65 MPa and 100 MPa. The
152 × 1.6–101 × 1.6-D

Standard deviation (SD)

101 × 1.6–50 × 1.6-D

152 × 1.6–76 × 1.6-D

post-peak behavior of the axial load–strain curve becomes steeper due

203 × 2–152 × 1.6-D
101 × 1.6–50 × 3-D
101 × 3–50 × 1.6-D

168 × 3–50 × 1.6-D

168 × 3–101 × 3-D

168 × 3–114 × 3-D
114 × 3–50 × 3-D

168 × 3–89 × 3-D

to the use of higher strength concrete that has a brittle behavior. The
calculated strain ductility indices of the columns filled with concrete
having various strengths are given in Fig. 8. The higher concrete
Specimens

strength, the lower the strain ductility of the column. It is discovered

Table 1

Mean

that the strain ductility decreases more when increasing the concrete
strength from 40 MPa to 50 MPa than when increasing the concrete

759
V.I. Patel, et al. Structures 24 (2020) 754–765

Table 2
Circular DCFSST short columns employed in the parameter study.
Column Do × to (mm) Do to Di × ti (mm) Di ti 0.2o , 0.2i (MPa) suo , sui (MPa) E0o, E0i (GPa) no, ni f’c (MPa) PIsd PIsc

DC1 300 × 6 50 150 × 5 30 205 520 195 7.5 40 21.5 0.63

DC2 300 × 6 50 150 × 5 30 205 520 195 7.5 50 9.5 0.57
DC3 300 × 6 50 150 × 5 30 205 520 195 7.5 65 7.3 0.49
DC4 300 × 6 50 150 × 5 30 205 520 195 7.5 80 6.1 0.43
DC5 300 × 6 50 150 × 5 30 205 520 195 7.5 100 5.1 0.37
DC6 400 × 8 50 200 × 5 40 205 520 195 4 80 5.6 0.46
DC7 400 × 8 50 200 × 5 40 275 450 185 8.5 80 5.6 0.48
DC8 400 × 8 50 200 × 5 40 350 520 200 8.5 80 6.3 0.55
DC9 400 × 8 50 200 × 5 40 430 590 200 5.5 80 7.7 0.63
DC10 500 × 8 40 150 × 10 15 275 450 185 8.5 50 4.5 0.42
DC11 500 × 8 40 200 × 10 20 275 450 185 8.5 50 5.2 0.47
DC12 500 × 8 40 300 × 10 30 275 450 185 8.5 50 8.8 0.64
DC13 500 × 8 40 400 × 10 40 275 450 185 8.5 50 20.7 0.91
DC14 600 × 12 50 120 × 6 20 430 590 200 5.5 65 7.7 0.50
DC15 600 × 12 50 120 × 4 30 430 590 200 5.5 65 8.0 0.52
DC16 600 × 12 50 120 × 3 40 430 590 200 5.5 65 8.0 0.58
DC17 600 × 12 50 120 × 2.4 50 430 590 200 5.5 65 6.0 0.58
DC18 600 × 15 40 120 × 4 30 430 590 200 5.5 65 12.5 0.52
DC19 600 × 12 50 120 × 4 30 430 590 200 5.5 65 8.0 0.52
DC20 600 × 10 60 120 × 4 30 430 590 200 5.5 65 5.9 0.46
DC21 600 × 8.6 70 120 × 4 30 430 590 200 5.5 65 4.1 0.40
DC22 200 × 4 50 100 × 5 20 280 435 195 9 65 9.7 0.54

Fig. 7. Effect of concrete compressive strength on load-axial strain responses.

Fig. 9. Effect of concrete compressive strength on stainless steel contribution
ratio.

strength from 50 MPa to 100 MPa. The strain ductility index is 21.5,
9.5, 7.3, 6.1 and 5.1 for DCFSST column filled with 40 MPa, 50 MPa,
65 MPa, 80 MPa and 100 MPa, respectively. Fig. 9 represents the
contribution ratios of the stainless-steel tube in DCFSST columns having
various strengths of concrete. It would appear that increasing the
concrete strength considerably decreases the stainless-steel contribu-
tion ratio.

5.2. Effect of stainless steel grades

Stainless steels are usually classified into three grades in AS/NZS

4673:2001 [36] based on their different material properties for the
structural use, including duplex stainless steels, ferritic stainless steels
and austenitic stainless steels. The geometric configurations and ma-
terial strengths of Columns DC6-DC9 were employed to evaluate the
effect of stainless steel strength on their structural behavior. Fig. 10
compares the load-axial strain curves for columns that had different
stainless steel grades. As shown in the figure, the proof stress has a
Fig. 8. Effect of concrete compressive strength on strain ductility index.
slight influence on the initial axial stiffness of the column due to the
different elastic modulus of stainless steel grades given in Table 2. The

760
V.I. Patel, et al.
Fig. 10. Effect of stainless steel grades on the load-axial strain responses.
Fig. 11. Effect of stainless steel grades on strain ductility index.
Fig. 12. Effect of stainless steel grades on stainless steel contribution ratio.
column ultimate load increases by 30% when the duplex stainless steel
with 430 MPa proof stress is used instead of the austenitic stainless steel
having proof stress of 205 MPa. As indicated in Fig. 11, the strain
ductility index is not sensitive to the stainless steel proof stress ranged
from 205 MPa to 275 MPa, but significantly increases as the proof stress
increases from 275 MPa to 430 MPa. This is because the stainless steel
761
Structures 24 (2020) 754–765
with proof stresses ranged from 205 MPa to 275 MPa exhibits similar
stress–strain behavior. However, stainless steel with proof stresses
ranged from 275 MPa to 430 MPa has significant strain-hardening be-
havior, which contributes to the ductility of the DCFFST column. The
DCFSST column with a proof stress of 275 MPa has a ductility indicator
of 5.6 while the index becomes 7.7 when the 430 MPa stainless steel
grade is used. It is demonstrated in Fig. 12 that the contribution ratio of
the stainless-steel tube increases from 0.46 to 0.63 when increasing the
proof stress from 275 MPa to 430 MPa. The numerical predictions re-
veal that the duplex stainless steel Grade S31803 recommended in AS/
NZS 4673:2001 [36] should be used to improve the ultimate axial loads
and ductility of DCFSST columns.
5.3. Effect of Di Do ratio
The Di Do ratio is an important feature that markedly influences the
behavior of circular DCFSST columns. Columns DC10-DC13 given in
Table 2 were analyzed by using the developed computer model to assess
the significance of the Di Do ratio on their structural characteristics. The
Di Do ratio was ranged from 0.3 to 0.8 by altering the diameter of the
inner tube (Di) and all other parameters were not changed. Fig. 13
shows that the ratio of Di Do has a minor influence on the column initial
stiffness. However, the post-yield load-axial strain behavior is sig-
nificantly affected by the ratio of Di Do . The ductility of DCFSST col-
umns decreases with an increase in the Di Do ratio. The ultimate load
noticeably decreases as the Di Do ratio increases from 0.4 to 0.8. On the
other hand, the ductility indicator increases from 4.5 to 20.7 when
changing the ratio of Di Do from 0.3 to 0.8 as illustrated in Fig. 14.
Fig. 15 indicates that the ratio of stainless-steel contribution increases
from 0.42 to 0.91 as the Di Do ratio increases from 0.3 to 0.8, respec-
tively.
5.4. Effect of Di Do ratio
The effect of the internal stainless steel tube in terms of Di ti ratio
was investigated by analyzing Columns DC14-DC17 given in Table 2.
The different Di ti ratio was determined by altering the inner tube
thickness ti for the same inner tube diameter Di. The predicted load-
axial strain responses of DCFSST columns with the variation of Di ti
ratio have been plotted in Fig. 16. It can be seen that the initial axial
stiffness of the column is not sensitive to the variation of the ratio of
Di ti , but the column ultimate strength considerably decreases with an
increase in the Di ti ratio. The reason for this is that the double-skin
lateral confining pressure reduces as the ratio of Di ti increases. In-
creasing the ratio of Di ti from 20 to 30, 40 and 50 leads to the strength
reductions by 8.4%, 17.8% and 18.9%, respectively. The ductility
Fig. 13. Effect of Di Do ratio on load-axial strain responses.
V.I. Patel, et al.
Fig. 14. Effect of Di Do ratio on strain ductility index.
Fig. 15. Effect of Di Do ratio on stainless steel contribution ratio.
Fig. 16. Effect of Di ti ratio on load-axial strain responses.
indicators of the columns having various ratios of Di ti are shown in
Fig. 17. It is indicated that the strain ductility index increases slightly
when the ratio of Di ti is changed from 20 to 40. However, when the
ratio of Di ti is changed from 40 to 50, the ductility performance index
reduces from 8.0 to 6.0. The contribution ratios of the stainless-steel
tubes are provided in Fig. 18. The ratios of stainless-steel contribution
762
Structures 24 (2020) 754–765
Fig. 17. Effect of Di ti ratio on strain ductility index.
Fig. 18. Effect of Di ti ratio on stainless steel contribution ratio.
with the Di ti ratios of 20, 30, 40 and 50 are 0.49, 0.52, 0.58 and 0.58,
respectively.
5.5. Effect of Do to ratio
The nonlinear analyses on Columns DC18-DC21 given in Table 2
were undertaken and the numerical results obtained are presented in
Figs. 19–21. As demonstrated in Fig. 19, the initial stiffness of the
column is slightly influenced by the variation of the Do to ratio. The use
of a larger Do to ratio, however, markedly reduces the column ultimate
load. The column ultimate load decreases by18.9%, 21.6% and 21.8%,
respectively when increasing the Do to ratio from 40 to 50, 60 and 70.
The ratio of Do to has a remarkable influence on the post-peak responses
as indicated in Fig. 19. Fig. 20 presents the effects of Do to ratio on the
ductility indicators of DCFSST columns. As shown in Fig. 20, the duc-
tility indices of DCFSST columns having the Do to ratios of 40, 50, 60
and 70 are 12.5, 8.0, 5.9 and 4.1, respectively. The stainless steel
contribution ratio as presented in Fig. 21 slightly decreases with in-
creasing the Do to ratio. The stainless steel contribution ratio is slightly
affected by varying the Do to ratio 40 to 50. The stainless steel con-
tribution ratio reduces from 0.52 to 0.46 and 0.40 as the Do to ratio
increases from 50 to 60 and 70, respectively.
V.I. Patel, et al. Structures 24 (2020) 754–765

Fig. 19. Effect of Do to ratio on load-axial strain responses.

Fig. 22. Load-axial strain responses of DCFST and DCFSST columns.

structural characteristics of circular short DCFST and DCFSST columns.

The same geometry and yield strengths of both columns were employed
for the comparison purpose. The mathematical model given by Liang
[3] was utilized to determine the nonlinear load–strain response of
circular DCFST column. The predicted load–strain responses are given
in Fig. 22. Both columns have almost the same curve before attaining
their ultimate loads. However, the DCFSST column has a higher capa-
city than the DCFST column. The significant difference in the post-yield
behavior of nonlinear load–strain curves between DCFSST and DCFST
columns can be observed from Fig. 22. The energy absorption capacity,
which is the area under the load–strain curve, of a DCFSST column is
slightly greater than that of a DCFST column. The slope of the load–-
strain curve of a DCFST column after attending the peak load is found to
be steeper than that of a DCFSST column. This indicates that the
DCFSST column exhibits higher ductility than the DCFST column. The
reason for this is that stainless steel has more significant strain-hard-
ening behavior than carbon steel.
Fig. 20. Effect of Do to ratio on strain ductility index.

6. Current design models for CFST columns

There are several standards for the design of CFST composite short
columns composed of circular tubes including Eurocode 4 [4] and
ANSI/AISC 360-16 [5]. Nevertheless, these codes have not provided
guidelines for the design circular short DCFSST composite columns
loaded concentrically. The ultimate axial loads predicted using these
design standards are compared against experimental data to evaluate
their accuracy for the design of DCFSST columns.

6.1. Eurocode 4

The equation given in Eurocode 4 [4] is used for the design of

composite columns including concrete-encased sections, partially en-
cased sections, circular CFST columns and rectangular CFST columns.
For examining the applicability of Eurocode 4 [4] equation, the con-
finement effect on the strength calculations of circular CFST columns is
considered in Eurocode 4 [4]. For short DCFSST composite columns
Fig. 21. Effect of Do to ratio on stainless steel contribution ratio.
with circular section, the design expression given in Eurocode 4 [4] for
the design of short CFST circular columns is modified as follows:

to 0.2o
5.6. Comparison of DCFST and DCFSST columns Pu .EC4 = a Asi 0.2i + a Aso 0.2o + Asc fc 1 + c
Do fc (51)
As the stress–strain behaviors of carbon steel and stainless steel are where Asi and Aso are the cross-sectional areas of the internal and ex-
significantly different, the structural characteristics of DCFST and ternal steel tubes, respectively; Asc refers to the cross-sectional area of
DCFSST columns were investigated to evaluate their possible differ- sandwiched concrete. The steel strength reduction factor a and the
ences. Column DC22 given in Table 2 was used to compare the concrete strength factor c are determined by

763
V.I. Patel, et al. Structures 24 (2020) 754–765

Table 3
Comparison of computed ultimate axial loads with experimental results.
Specimens L (mm) Pu (kN) Eurocode 4 [4] AISC 316-16 [5] Liang [3]

Pu, EC 4 (kN) Pu, EC 4 Pu, AISC (kN) Pu, AISC Pu, Liang (kN) Pu, Liang
Pu Pu Pu

101 × 1.6–50 × 3-D 300 583 552 0.947 502 0.861 568 0.974
101 × 1.6–50 × 3-D 300 634 562 0.886 517 0.815 639 1.008
101 × 3–50 × 1.6-D 300 593 550 0.928 497 0.838 575 0.969
114 × 3–50 × 3-D 350 902 748 0.829 668 0.740 857 0.950
152 × 1.6–76 × 1.6-D 450 997 980 0.983 911 0.914 1069 1.072
152 × 1.6–101 × 1.6-D 450 825 828 1.004 802 0.972 797 0.966
168 × 3–50 × 1.6-D 450 1569 1526 0.972 1302 0.830 1489 0.949
168 × 3–89 × 3-D 450 1464 1393 0.952 1268 0.866 1494 1.020
168 × 3–101 × 3-D 450 1354 1263 0.933 1163 0.859 1252 0.924
168 × 3–114 × 3-D 450 1319 1206 0.914 1159 0.879 1227 0.931
203 × 2–152 × 1.6-D 400 1142 1157 1.013 1128 0.988 1095 0.959
DC1 900 3927 3764 0.958 3407 0.868 3997 1.018
DC2 900 4397 4225 0.961 3858 0.877 4472 1.017
DC3 900 5109 4919 0.963 4534 0.887 5184 1.015
DC4 900 5826 5616 0.964 5211 0.894 5896 1.012
DC5 900 6767 6546 0.967 6113 0.903 6846 1.012
DC6 1200 9405 9819 1.044 9062 0.964 9613 1.022
DC7 1200 10,319 10,825 1.049 9966 0.966 10,590 1.026
DC8 1200 11,267 11,917 1.058 10,934 0.970 11,637 1.033
DC9 1200 12,239 13,051 1.066 11,968 0.978 12,753 1.042
DC10 1500 15,388 13,954 0.907 12,510 0.813 15,303 0.995
DC11 1500 14,970 13,487 0.901 12,289 0.821 14,889 0.995
DC12 1500 12,959 11,833 0.913 11,288 0.871 12,961 1.000
DC13 1500 10,451 9149 0.875 9540 0.913 9897 0.947
DC14 1800 29,172 29,860 1.024 25,848 0.886 29,378 1.007
DC15 1800 26,722 29,633 1.109 25,551 0.956 27,366 1.024
DC16 1800 23,992 29,516 1.230 25,398 1.059 25,324 1.056
DC17 1800 23,651 29,445 1.245 25,305 1.070 25,217 1.066
DC18 1800 32,952 32,419 0.984 27,540 0.836 30,271 0.919
DC19 1800 26,722 29,633 1.109 25,551 0.956 27,366 1.024
DC20 1800 25,834 27,745 1.074 24,213 0.937 25,884 1.002
DC21 1800 25,775 26,411 1.025 23,272 0.903 25,306 0.982
DC22 600 2843 2583 0.909 2410 0.848 2893 1.018
Mean 0.991 0.901 0.999
Standard deviation (SD) 0.093 0.072 0.039
Coefficient of variation (COV) 0.094 0.080 0.039

a = 0.25(3 + 2 ¯ ) a 1 (52) 6.2. ANSI/AISC 360-16

c = 4.9 18.5 ¯ + 17 ¯ 2 c 0 (53) The design code ANSI/AISC 360-16 [5] completely ignores the well-
appeared concrete confinement in the calculations of the cross-section
where ¯ represents the relative slenderness of the DCFSST column,
capacity of short CFST circular columns. The design equation provided
which is defined as
in ANSI/AISC 360-16 [5] for CFST columns is slightly modified to
Npl . Rk predict the axial capacity of DCFSST columns as
¯=
Ncr (54) Pu .AISC = Asi 0.2i + Aso 0.2o + 0.95fc Asc (59)
where the squash load of the column cross-section Npl . Rk is calculated by
Npl . Rk = Asi 0.2i + Aso 0.2o + fc Asc (55) 6.3. Liang’s design model
In Eq. (54), the elastic critical buckling load Ncr is determined by
A simple design model for estimating the cross-section capacity of
2 (EI )
Ncr =
eff circular short DCFST composite columns was proposed by Liang [3].
L2 (56) The design model accounts for the effects of noticeable features in-
in which L is the column effective length and the effective bending cluding the strain-hardening and double-skin concrete confinement in
stiffness (EI )eff of a DCFSST column is estimated by the prediction of the cross-section strength. Liang’s design equation is
expressed as
(EI )eff = E0i Isi + E0o Iso + 0.6Ecm Isc (57)
Pu . Liang = si 0.2i Asi + so 0.2o Aso + ( c fc + 4.1frp ) Asc (60)
where E0i , E0o are the modulus of elasticity of the internal and external
stainless-steel tubes, respectively; the second moments of area of the where c and frp are calculated using Eqs. (42) and (46), respectively.
sandwiched concrete, the internal tube, the external tube are denoted Based on the stresses in the stainless steel tubes obtained from the ex-
by Isc , Isi , Iso respectively. The Young’s modulus of sandwiched concrete perimental and numerical results, the strain hardening parameters, si
Ecm is estimated by and so , are proposed as
0.3 0.118
fc + 8 Di
Ecm = 22000 si = 1.6029
10 (58) ti (61)

764
V.I. Patel, et al.
Do
0.299
so = 3.5245
to (62)
6.4. Applicability of current design models to DCFSST columns
The ultimate axial strengths of short DCFSST columns calculated by
the modified methods described in preceding sections are compared
against experimental data as well as computational results in Table 3, in
which Pu is the ultimate load obtained by either experiments or the
numerical model. The mean of the ultimate loads obtained from the
design method given in Eurocode 4 [4] to the experimental and nu-
merical values is 0.991. The approach specified in ANSI/AISC 360-16
[5] generally underestimates the column ultimate axial loads. The mean
of Pu . AISC Pu ratio is 0.901 with an SD of 0.072 and a COV of 0.080. This
is because the ANSI/AISC 360-16 [5] code does not account for the
confinement effect. The design model proposed by Liang [3] accurately
predicts the cross-section capacity of DCFSST columns. The reason for
this is that Liang’s model [3] takes into account the concrete confine-
ment induced by double-skins and steel strain hardening. The mean of
Pu . Liang Pu ratios predicted using Liang’s model is 0.999 with a 0.039 SD
and a 0.039 COV.
7. Conclusions
Circular double-skin concrete-filled steel tubular (DCFSST) columns
can be constructed by the concrete made of seawater and sea-sand
without corrosion. A computational model has been proposed in this
paper for computing the load-axial strain responses of such circular
DCFSST short columns loaded concentrically. The computer model
developed explicitly incorporates the double-skin confinement and
significant strain-hardening behavior of stainless steel in compression.
The established experimental results on circular DCFSST columns have
been used to validate the computational model. The proposed model
has been found to yield accurate predictions of the nonlinear load–-
strain behavior of DCFSST columns. The computer model has been
employed to ascertain the significance of various important features on
the structural behavior of DCFSST short columns.
The important concluding remarks are as follows:
(1) The ultimate strength and initial stiffness of short DCFSST columns
improve significantly as the concrete strength increases. However,
both ductility and stainless steel contribution ratios decrease when
increasing the concrete strength.
(2) The ultimate axial load of a DCFST column with the 430 MPa du-
plex stainless steel is higher than that with the 205 MPa austenitic
stainless steel. In addition, the stainless steel contribution and
ductility increase as the stainless steel proof strength increases.
(3) A DCFSST column with a larger Di Do ratio exhibits a lower ulti-
mate axial strength. However, its ductility and stainless steel con-
tribution increase as the Di Do ratio increases.
(4) The ultimate strength of DCFSST columns reduces with an increase
in the Di ti ratio. The stainless-steel contribution increases as the
Di ti ratio increases. The column ductility decreases with increasing
the Di ti ratio from 40 to 50.
(5) The larger the Do to ratio, the lower the column ultimate load. The
ductility and stainless steel contribution decrease as the Do to ratio
increases.
(6) The DCFSST column has a higher ultimate load, energy absorption
capacity and ductility than the DCFST column.
(7) The current design codes Eurocode 4 [4] and the model given by
Liang [3] accurately calculate the ultimate load of DCFSST col-
umns.
765
Structures 24 (2020) 754–765
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Li YL, Zhao XL, Singh Raman RK, Yu X. Axial compression tests on seawater and sea sand
concrete-filled double-skin stainless steel circular tubes. Eng Struct 2018;176:426–38.
[2] Zhao XL, Grzebieta R, Elchalakani M. Tests of concrete-filled double skin CHS composite
stub columns. Steel Compos Struct 2002;2(2):129–46.
[3] Liang QQ. Nonlinear analysis of circular double-skin concrete-filled steel tubular columns
under axial compression. Eng Struct 2017;131:639–50.
[4] Eurocode,. 4, Design of composite steel and concrete structures-Part 1–1: general rules and
rules for buildings. Brussels, Belgium: European Committee for Standardization, CEN; 2004.
[5] ANSI/AISC 360-16. Specification for structural steel buildings. Chicago (IL, USA):
American Institute of Steel Construction; 2016.
[6] Tao Z, Han LH, Zhao XL. Behaviour of concrete-filled double skin (CHS inner and CHS
outer) steel tubular stub columns and beam-columns. J Constr Steel Res
2004;60(8):1129–58.
[7] Han LH, Huang H, Tao Z, Zhao XL. Concrete-filled double skin steel tubular (CFDST)
beam-columns subjected to cyclic bending. Eng Struct 2006;28(12):1698–714.
[8] Uenaka K, Kitoh H, Sonoda K. Concrete filled double skin circular stub columns under
compression. Thin-Walled Struct 2010;48(1):19–24.
[9] Han LH, Ren QX, Li W. Tests on stub stainless steel-concrete-carbon steel double-skin
tubular (DST) columns. J Constr Steel Res 2011;67:437–52.
[10] Elchalakani M, Hassanein MF, Karrech A, Fawzia S, Yang B, Patel VI. Experimental tests
and design of rubberised concrete-filled double skin circular tubular short columns.
Structures 2018;15:196–210.
[11] Ekmekyapar T, Alwan OH, Hasan HG, Shehab BA, AL-Eliwi BJM. Comparison of classical,
double skin and double section CFST stub columns: experiments and design formulations.
J Constr Steel Res 2019;155:192–204.
[12] Young B, Ellobody E. Experimental investigation of concrete-filled cold-formed high
strength stainless steel tube columns. J Constr Steel Res 2006;62(5):484–92.
[13] Lam D, Gardner L. Structural design of stainless steel concrete filled columns. J Constr
Steel Res 2008;64(11):1275–82.
[14] Uy B, Tao Z, Han LH. Behaviour of short and slender concrete-filled stainless steel tubular
columns. J Constr Steel Res 2011;67(3):360–78.
[15] Li D, Uy B, Aslani F, Hou C. Behaviour and design of spiral-welded stainless steel tubes
subjected to axial compression. J Constr Steel Res 2019;154:67–83.
[16] Liao FY, Hou C, Zhang WJ, Ren J. Experimental investigation on sea sand concrete-filled
stainless steel tubular stub columns. J Constr Steel Res 2019;155:46–61.
[17] Wang F, Young B, Gardner L. Compressive testing and numerical modelling of concrete-
filled double skin CHS with austenitic stainless steel outer tubes. Thin-Walled Struct
2019;141:345–59.
[18] Huang H, Han LH, Tao Z, Zhao XL. Analytical behaviour of concrete-filled double skin
steel tubular (CFDST) stub columns. J Constr Steel Res 2010;66(4):542–55.
[19] Wang F, Han LH, Li W. Analytical behavior of CFDST stub columns with external stainless
steel tubes under axial compression. Thin-Walled Struct 2018;127:756–68.
[20] Hu HT, Su FC. Nonlinear analysis of short concrete-filled double skin tube columns
subjected to axial compressive forces. Mar Struct 2011;24(4):319–37.
[21] Hassanein MF, Kharoob OF, Liang QQ. Circular concrete-filled double skin tubular short
columns with external stainless steel tubes under axial compression. Thin-Walled Struct
2013;73:252–63.
[22] Pagoulatou M, Sheehan T, Dai XH, Lam D. Finite element analysis on the capacity of circular
concrete-filled double-skin steel tubular (CFDST) stub columns. Eng Struct 2014;72:102–12.
[23] Liang QQ. Analysis and design of steel and composite structures. Boca Raton and London:
CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group; 2014.
[24] Liang QQ. Numerical simulation of high strength circular double-skin concrete-filled steel
tubular slender columns. Eng Struct 2018;168:205–17.
[25] Li YL, Zhao XL, Raman RKS. Theoretical model for concrete-filled stainless steel circular
stub columns under axial compression. J Constr Steel Res 2019;157:426–39.
[26] Patel VI, Liang QQ, Hadi MNS. Concrete-filled stainless steel tubular columns. Boca Raton
and London: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis; 2018.
[27] Patel VI, Liang QQ, Hadi MNS. Nonlinear analysis of axially loaded circular concrete-
filled stainless steel tubular short columns. J Constr Steel Res 2014;101:9–18.
[28] Ramberg W, Osgood WR. Description of stress-strain curves by three parameters. NACA
Tech. Note No. 902; 1943.
[29] Rasmussen KJR. Full-range stress–strain curves for stainless steel alloys. J Constr Steel Res
2003;59(1):47–61.
[30] Quach WM, Teng JG, Chung KF. Three-stage full-range stress-strain model for stainless
steels. J Struct Eng 2008;134(9):1518–27.
[31] Abdella K, Thannon RA, Mehri AI, Alshaikh FA. Inversion of three-stage stress strain
relation for stainless steel in tension and compression. J Constr Steel Res
2011;67(5):826–32.
[32] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. J
Struct Eng 1988;114(8):1804–26.
[33] Carreira DJ, Chu KH. Stress-strain relationship for plain concrete in compression. ACI J
Proc 1985;82(6):797–804.
[34] ACI Committee 363. Report on high-strength concrete (ACI 363R-92). Farmington Hills,
MI: American Concrete Institute.
[35] Richart F, Brandtzaeg A, Brown RL. A study of the failure of concrete under combined
compressive stresses, Bulletin No. 26, Univ. Illinois Bull.; 1928.
[36] AS/NZS 4673-2001. Cold-formed stainless steel structures. Sydney: Australian/New
Zealand Standard; 2001.