Construction and Building Materials 188 (2018) 1137–1148

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Displacement ductility of staged construction-steel tube-reinforced

concrete columns
Huang Yuan a,⇑, Huan-Peng Hong a, Huang Deng a, Yu Bai b
a
Hunan Provincial Key Lab on Damage Diagnosis for Engineering Structures, College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, People’s Republic of China
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia

h i g h l i g h t s

The mechanism of two types of ST-RC columns in a 15 storey building was explained.

An FE model was proposed for SC-ST-RC columns.

A simplified formula for displacement ductility of SC-ST-RC columns was developed.

The predictions of the proposed formula fitted well with a large number of test results.

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

Article history: The steel tube-reinforced concrete (ST-RC) column is consist of a concrete-filled steel tube embedded in
Received 4 May 2018 reinforced concrete. As an innovative type of composite structures, there is still a lack of information on
Received in revised form 13 August 2018 the behavior and ductility of ST-RC columns, particularly on staged construction-steel tube-reinforced
Accepted 21 August 2018
concrete (SC-ST-RC) columns. This paper studied the mechanism of two types of ST-RC columns in a
Available online 5 September 2018
15 storey building. A finite element (FE) model with proper material constitutive relationship was pro-
posed for SC-ST-RC columns subjected to combined axial compressive force and lateral loading. The
Keywords:
material nonlinearity and the interaction between steel tube and concrete were considered. The proposed
Nonlinear finite element analysis
Steel tube-reinforced concrete columns
FE model was able to predict the lateral stiffness, strength and deformation capacities of SC-ST-RC col-
Displacement ductility umns with a reasonable level of accuracy. Then, the effects of different parameters on displacement duc-
Staged construction tility were discussed in detail. Finally, a simplified formula for calculating the displacement ductility of
SC-ST-RC columns was developed based on the parametric analysis, the predictions of the proposed for-
mula fitted well with a large number of test results. Utilizing the proposed formula, the demand of dis-
placement ductility under different seismic design grade in current ST-RC specification was presented,
which may provide a useful reference for the seismic design of the SC-ST-RC structures.
Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The concrete-filled steel tubular (CFST) columns have been
widely used owing to their excellent composite action. Extensive
experimental and analytical studies have been conducted to inves-
tigate the behavior of the composite columns [1–12]. However, due
to the complicated joints connection, local buckling and poor fire-
resistant performance of CFST columns, a novel type of composite
column, named as steel tube-reinforced concrete (ST-RC) column,
has gained popularity in China. Up until now, more than forty
high-rise buildings that use the ST-RC columns have been con-
structed in earthquake-prone regions, with the tallest among them
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: huangy@hnu.edu.cn (H. Yuan).
over 330 m [13]. Fig. 1 gives a schematic view of three typical
cross-sections. The ST-RC column is composed of a concrete-
filled steel tube (CFST) embedded in a reinforced concrete column.
Generally, the CFST core utilizes high strength concrete to provide
enough axial compressive strength, while the peripheral RC
encasement utilizes normal or high strength concrete to resist
most of the lateral load [14].
Compared with conventional RC columns, the ST-RC columns
have higher compressive strength, ductility and deformation
capacity due to the presence of inner CFST. Apart from those
advantages, faster construction speed is expected since the inner
CFST column can be erected first to bear the construction load.
Compared with CFST columns, the ST-RC columns have easier
joints connection, better fire-resistant performance, and less quan-
tity of steel usage. The concrete inside and outside the steel tube

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.08.141
0950-0618/Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1138 H. Yuan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 188 (2018) 1137–1148
Concrete Transverse bar Concrete
Concrete core Concrete core
Longitudinal bar Longitudinal bar
Steel tube
Steel tube
(a)
Fig. 1. Typical steel tube-reinforced concrete (ST-RC) columns cross-sections. (a) Circular steel tube with square reinforced concrete; (b) Square steel tube with square
reinforced concrete; (c) Circular steel tube with circular reinforced concrete.
can be casted simultaneously after the placement of the steel tube
and the outside reinforcement during the construction, which is
called the non-staged construction ST-RC (NC-ST-RC) column. If
the CFST column and the floor slab are constructed first to a certain
story level so that the CFST core bears a greater portion of the axial
compressive load occurred in the initial stage of construction
(involves the construction and gravity load of the upper structure),
then the concrete outside the steel tube is casted upward from the
bottom story, as shown in Fig. 2. This is usually called the staged
construction process. This kind of column is referred to staged con-
struction ST-RC (SC-ST-RC) column in this paper.
In order to highlight the advantageous structural behavior of
SC-ST-RC columns, a comparison between SC-ST-RC columns and
NC-ST-RC columns was made using the fiber-section method
[15]. The example section was shown in Fig. 3, which was taken
from the section of a bottom column of a 15-story frame-shear wall
structure. The ST-RC column had a square cross-section of 600 mm
by 600 mm. The embedded steel tube had an outer diameter of
300 mm and a thickness of 5 mm (with a diameter-to-thickness
ratio of 60). The yield strength of the steel tube and rebars were
345 MPa and 335 MPa, respectively. The rebar ratio was 0.6%.
The outer concrete and the in-filled concrete had a compressive
strength of 38.5 MPa and 50.2 MPa, respectively. The value of the
N1
(a) Step I (b) Step II
Casting core Tying reinforcement
CFST bars
Fig. 2. Construction process of SC-ST-RC column.
Transverse bar Transverse bar
Concrete
Concrete core
Longitudinal bar
Steel tube
(b) (c)
total axial load was equal to 8021 kN for the ST-RC column at
the bottom story. The ratio of the total axial load to the axial
strength of the section was equal to 0.5. For the staged construc-
tion process, the outer concrete started to pour from the bottom
story after the CFST core and the floor slab were constructed to
the eighth story. This process resulted in an initial axial-
compressive load of N1 = 3208 kN , which represented the gravity
and working load of the bottom eight stories during construction,
on the CFST core at the bottom column. After the completion of
the building, the rest of the axial load, which was equal to
N2 = 4813 kN, was applied to the composite ST-RC section at the
bottom story.
The behavior of ST-RC sections with traditional and staged con-
struction process was compared in Fig. 3. The left side in Fig. 3
showed the strain distribution of the composite section with tradi-
tional construction process which meant that the CFST core and
the outer concrete column were casted simultaneously. While
the right side in Fig. 3 demonstrated the behavior of the SC-ST-
RC section. With the loading condition mentioned in the above
paragraph, the moment capacities of both sections were almost
identical, with 1132 kN.m and 1135 kN.m for traditional and
staged construction sections, respectively. The initial strain of the
CFST core with staged construction process was much higher than
N1 N1+N2
(c) Step III (d) Step IV
Casting peripheral Forming SC-ST-RC
concrete column
 H. Yuan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 188 (2018) 1137–1148 1139

Stage
Casting core
CFST

Casting
simultaneously

Stage
Casting outer
concrete

The moment capacity M 0=1132kN.m The moment capacity M 0=1135kN.m

CFST core εs1=1.2 10-3

Stage

N1=3208 kN
A xial load

CFST core CFST core Stage

Outer concrete εs2=1.63×10 -3
εc=0.72 10-3 Outer concrete εc2=0.43×10 -3

N1+N2=8021 kN N1+N2=8021 kN

Outer concrete εct=4×10 -3 εct=4×10 -3

εst=3.41×10 -3
Co mb in ed axial an d mo men t lo ad

εst=2.57×10 -3
CFST core
CFST core
Outer concrete

Curvature φ=0.0095 Curvature φ=0.0119

Extreme compressive strain Extreme compressive strain

equal to 0.004 equal to 0.004
M=1085 kN.m M=1090 kN.m

Fig. 3. Strain distribution in ST-RC section.

that with traditional process, which indicated that the CFST core
played an important role in bearing the total axial compressive
load. At the state of the extreme compressive strain equal to
0.004, the curvature of the composite section with staged construc-
tion process was greater than its counterpart by 25.3%. Therefore,
the staged casting process may provide an effective solution to
improve the ductility of the composite column subjected to com-
bined seismic and high axial load.
The ST-RC column has attracted more and more attention.
Much effort has been devoted to studying the behavior and design
of ST-RC column. In recent decades, several experiments [16–23]
were conducted to examine the hysteric behavior, cyclic bending
behavior and axial compressive behavior of ST-RC columns. Kang
et al. [19], Liu et al. [20], Nie et al. [21] performed experimental
research on NC-ST-RC columns subjected to axial compression. Ji
et al. [13–14], Qian et al. [22] investigated the seismic behavior
of NC-ST-RC columns. In view of the previous research, it should
be noted that almost all of this research was focused on the basic
behavior of NC-ST-RC columns, which may ignore the obvious
superiority of SC-ST-RC columns. There is still a lack of information
on the SC-ST-RC columns under axial and lateral loading. It indi-
cates a need for further research in this area.
Till now, the numerical studies of staged construction ST-RC
columns on ductility has rarely been reported, although some
studies have been reported on the seismic ductility of CFST mem-
bers [24–25]. This paper aims at investigate the seismic ductility of
SC-ST-RC columns. A numerically stable, FE-based model was pro-
posed first to directly assess the behavior of SC-ST-RC columns. The
model included the nonlinear behavior of inner confined concrete
and peripheral reinforced concrete, as well as the interface action
1140 H. Yuan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 188 (2018) 1137–1148
between the steel tube and concrete. The accuracy of the proposed
model was verified by the results of the tests. In addition, paramet-
ric studies were carried out to investigate the effects of six design
factors on the displacement ductility factor of SC-ST-RC columns.
These factors were: the axial force ratio, the confinement index
of the core CFST, the stirrup characteristic value, the composition
ratio, the outer diameter of the steel tube, and the longitudinal
reinforcement ratio. Then a simplified formula to predict the dis-
placement ductility factor of SC-ST-RC column was proposed and
validated by the numerical and experimental results. Utilizing
the proposed formula, the demand of displacement ductility under
different seismic design grade in current ST-RC specification was
calculated.
2. Modeling of SC-ST-RC columns
2.1. Element type, mesh and contact relation
The FE model of SC-ST-RC column mainly includes four compo-
nents, namely in-filled and peripheral concrete, steel tube and
reinforcement steel bars. Both the in-filled and peripheral concrete
were modelled by 8-node isoparametric solid elements C3D8R
(three degrees of freedom per node) with reduced integration rule
[26]. The geometrically nonlinear 4-node thick-shell element S4R
was used to model steel tubes [27]. The 2-node truss element
T3D2 was applied to model the longitudinal and transverse rein-
forcement steel bars [28].
There were two types of interfaces in the proposed FE model,
namely the concrete-to-tube interface and the concrete-to-bar
interface. The reinforcement steel bars were inserted into the
peripheral reinforced concrete by ‘‘Embed”. It has been shown that
σ ξ ξ0 C` σ σ
B
fscy
C ξ=ξ0 fcc
fscp A
D
ξ ξ0
0 εscp εscy ε 0
(a) Infilled concrete
Fig. 4. Stress-strain curves for different materials.
(a) Boundary condition
Fig. 5. Details of the FE model.
the bond-slip of the steel bars had little influence on the numerical
results [29]. It has been concluded by Huang et al. [30] that the
behavior of concrete filled double skin steel tubular stub columns
is not sensitive to the bond between the concrete and the inner
or outer steel tube. Therefore, the bond model of the contact
between steel tube and outer concrete is used the same as that
of the contact between steel tube and core concrete. For the inter-
face between concrete and steel tube, hard contact pair model was
applied. The nodes on the interfaces were connected through the
contact surfaces that require matching meshes on both sides of
the interfaces. These contact surfaces can model infinitesimal slid-
ing and friction [31]. In normal direction, the ‘‘Hard contact” was
specified for the interface, which allows separation of the inter-
faces in tension but no penetration of that in compression. In tan-
gent direction, the contact was simulated by the Coulomb friction
model, the friction coefficient used in the analysis was 0.6 as sug-
gested by Tao et al. [32]. The mesh convergence studies were con-
ducted to determine the optimal FE mesh that can provide both
relatively accurate solution and low computational time, the
appropriate mesh was shown in Fig. 5.
2.2. Constitutive models
The concrete was characterized by damaged plasticity model
(CDP model in ABAQUS), which involved the compressive strength
enhancement and post-peak softening behavior of concrete [32–
33]. In CDP model, the key material parameters include the dilation
angle (w); flow potential eccentricity (e); the ratio of the second
stress invariant on the tensile meridian to that on the compressive
meridian (Kc); and the ratio of the compressive strength (fb0/fc). In
current study, to simplify the calculation while maintain accuracy,
Steel
fy 0.01Es
Es
εcc ε 0 εy ε
(b) Outer concrete (c) Steel
RC encasement
In-filled
concrete
Steel tube
(b) Mesh detail
 H. Yuan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 188 (2018) 1137–1148 1141

the constant values of w = 30°, e = 0.1, Kc = 1.16 and fb0/fc = 2/3 were
used respectively, followed the FE model presented by Han et al.
[34]. These parameters have been widely accepted in FE numerical
simulation and showed good adaptability. Other key parameters
include the elastic modulus of concrete, Ec, was taken as
pffiffiffiffi
4730 f c (fc denotes the concrete compressive strength) according
to ACI 38-11 [35]; the Poisson’s ratio of concrete, mc, was taken
as 0.2.
For the compressive behavior of concrete, the stress–strain
model proposed by Han et al. [34] was used to represent the uni-
axial stress–strain relation of core concrete, as shown in Fig. 4(a);
the constitutive model proposed by Qian et al. [36] was applied
to the peripheral reinforced concrete, as shown in Fig. 4(b), more
details of the compressive stress-strain relationship can be found
in Han et al. [34] and Qian et al. [36] For the tensile behavior of
concrete, the method presented by Shen et al. [37] was adopted

Fig. 6. NC-ST-RC column specimens.

1142 H. Yuan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 188 (2018) 1137–1148

in the current study. The tensile response of concrete was assumed 2.3. Boundary condition and load protocol
to be linear until the tensile strength was reached, which was
2=3
taken as f t ¼ 0:26ð1:25f c Þ . Beyond this failure stress, the soften- The bottom surface of ST-RC columns was restrained against all
ing response was characterized by means of uniaxial stress-strain degrees of freedom using ‘‘Encastre” consolidation. In order to pre-
relationship. The following equations were used to define the ten- vent the out-of-plane deformation, the static lateral load was
sile behavior of concrete: applied with displacement control along the Y-axis and the X-
axis displacement of all nodes in the upper surface of ST-RC col-
When x 6 1 y ¼ 1:2x  0:2x6 ð1Þ umns were restrained. To avoid stress concentration, a reference
point for the applied lateral load was established at the top of
x the column. The reference point was connected with the nodes
When x > 1 y ¼ 2
ð2Þ
0:31f t ðx  1Þ1:7 þ x on the upper end of the FE model by ‘‘Coupling”.
The staged construction process was modelled by the ‘‘element
In which x ¼ eepc ; y ¼ ff c ; ep ¼ 43:1f t ðleÞ denotes the tensile strain deactivate” and ‘‘activate” options. Loading protocol and the
t

corresponding to the peak strength. boundary condition were shown in Fig. 5. The specific steps were
The stress-stain relationship of the steel was assumed to be the as follows:
bilinear elastic-plastic model [38,39], as shown in Fig. 4(c); the
Poisson’s ratio ms and the elastic modulus Es of the steel were 1) Deactivate the elements of the peripheral reinforced con-
assumed to be 0.3 and 206 GPa, respectively. crete and apply the first-stage axial force to the CFST core.

Table 1
Material properties and parameters of the specimen.

Specimen label fc,out fc,in fys fyl fyv s Source

(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (mm)
CCS1 37.4 50.9 354 391 293 63 Qian et al. [22]
CCS3 38.1 47.5 354 391 293 47
CC1 41.2 95.4 367 391 293 40 Kang et al. [19]
CC5 41.2 95.4 637 391 293 50

Note: fc,out, fc,in denote the compressive strength of outer and inner concrete, respectively; fys, fyl, fyv denote the yield strength of steel tube, longitudinal bar and transverse bar,
respectively.

Lateral force P (KN) Lateral force P (KN)

300 300

250 250

200 N 200 N

P P
150 150

Experiment (6.34) 100 Experiment (6.77)

100 z z
FE analysis (6.53) FE analysis (6.75)
y y
50 50
x x

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Horizontal displacement Δ(mm) Horizontal displacement Δ(mm)
(a) CCS1 (b) CCS3
Axial force P (KN) Axial force P (KN)
4000 3500

3500 3000
3000
2500
N N
2500
2000
2000
1500
1500 Experiment (2.82) Experiment (2.50)
z z
FE analysis (2.83) 1000 FE analysis (2.66)
1000
y y
500 500
x x
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Axial shortening Δ(mm) Axial shortening Δ(mm)
(c) CC1 (d) CC5
Fig. 7. The comparison of curves between analysis and experiment.
 H. Yuan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 188 (2018) 1137–1148
2) Activate the element of peripheral reinforced concrete and
apply the second-stage axial pressure to the composite ST-
RC column.
3) Apply lateral displacement load to the reference point.
3. Verification
As such a novel type of composite column, there are only a few
experiments carried out on NC-ST-RC columns. The published typ-
ical experiments were selected to verify the accuracy of the pro-
posed FE model. The dimension and reinforcement details were
shown in Fig. 6. Other parameters of the specimens were listed
in Table 1.
P
Pmax
15% drop
in strength
0 y
Fig. 8. Definitions of yield and ultimate displacements.
Fig. 9. Details of the reference specimen and loading program.
1143
Specimen CCS1 and CCS3 were subjected to combined axial
compressive and cyclic lateral loads. For simplicity, the displace-
ment controlled monotonic loading was applied in the FE analysis
because the backbone curve of the hysteretic results was similar to
the monotonically loaded force-displacement curve [38,40]. The
load-displacement curves of the FE models were compared with
the test results, as shown in Fig. 7(a) and (b). The load–displace-
ment curves of the FE model showed good agreement with the
experimental curves.
Specimen CC1 and CC5 were ST-RC columns under axial load.
Fig. 7(c) and (d) showed a comparison of axial load-strain curves
between the experimental and analytical results. Satisfactory
agreement was met for both specimens, which indicated that the
proposed FE model had an acceptable accuracy to predict the
behavior of ST-RC columns.
4. Parametric studies
4.1. Definition of displacement ductility factor
In order to quantify the deformation capacity of columns, it is
useful to define response indexes that quantitatively describe the
columns’ behavior. In seismic design, the inelastic deformation is
usually quantified by displacement ductility, numerous studies
regarding the displacement ductility have been reported before.
[41–49]. It is defined as:
Du
l¼ ð3Þ
Dy
where Du and Dy represent the ultimate displacement and yield dis-
placement, respectively. In this paper, the yield displacement Dy
was calculated using the method proposed by Tang et al. [50], as
shown in Fig. 8. The ultimate displacement Du was defined as the
1144 H. Yuan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 188 (2018) 1137–1148

post-peak displacement that corresponded to 85% of the peak load.
It is worth noting that a column is generally considered ductile if
the displacement ductility ranges from 4 to 6 in most codes [43].
The potential drawback in using the displacement ductility is a lack
of general acceptance to determine the ultimate displacement, par-
ticularly when the descending branch of the force-displacement
curve is flat. To circumvent the potential problem associated with
the definition of ultimate displacement, the maximum interstory
drift ratio v was suggested to determine the displacement at failure
respectively [52]; n is the confinement index of the CFST core which
is defined in Eq. (5) [53].
Fig. 10(a) showed the relationship between displacement duc-
tility factor and axial force ratio. The ductility decreased rapidly
with the increase of the axial force ratio. The main reason was that
with the increase of axial force, the initial concrete strain was clo-
ser to the crushing strain, which lead to earlier failure of the com-
posite column.

Du 4.2.2. Effects of composition ratios

v¼
h
In which h denotes the column height. This parameter consid-
ered both inelastic and elastic behavior. It is generally assumed
that an interstory drift ratio of about 4% represents a satisfactory
level of ductility [44].
To evaluate the validity of the proposed approach, the displace-
ment ductility factor of the four specimens (CCS1, CCS3, CC1, CC5)
based on proposed FE model were measured, as shown in Fig. 7.
4.2. Analysis for displacement ductility factor
Seven factors were selected to analyze their influences on the
ductility of SC-ST-RC columns, including the axial force ratio n,
the composition ratio m, the outer diameter of steel tube d, the lon-
gitudinal reinforcement ratioq, the confinement index n, the stir-
rup characteristic value k, and the slenderness ratio g. These
factors are critical in the design of ST-RC columns, according to
the technical specification for ST-RC column structure CECS 188:
2005 [51]. They are defined in the subsequent sections of the
paper.
Fig. 9 shows the geometries and reinforcement details of the
reference specimen. The reference specimen had a square cross
section of 400 mm by 400 mm and a height of 1200 mm, the outer
diameter and thickness of steel tube were 200 mm and 5 mm,
respectively. The yield strength of the reinforcement bars and the
steel tube were 335 MPa and 345 MPa, respectively. The in-filled
and outer concrete had a cylinder strength of 27.5 MPa and
35.9 MPa, respectively. In the parametric analysis, only one param-
eter was changed for each analyzed model compared with the ref-
erence model. The value of the parameters was listed in Table 2.
4.2.1. Effects of axial force ratio
The axial force ratio of the ST-RC column was defined as:
N
n¼
f co Aco þ f ci Aci ð1 þ 1:8nÞ
where n denotes the nominal axial force ratio, N is the axial com-
pressive load applied to the column; fco and Aco are the axial com-
pressive strength of peripheral concrete and cross-sectional area
of the outer RC encasement, respectively; fci and Aci denote the axial
compressive and cross-sectional area of the in-filled concrete,
ð4Þ The composition ratio [51] is defined as:
N1
m¼ ð6Þ
N
where N1 denotes the first-stage axial force applied to the encased
CFST column before the casting of peripheral reinforced concrete, N
denotes the total axial force for the entire cross-section after the
completion of construction. A composition ratio of zero corresponds
to traditional construction process. The upper limit of the composi-
tion ratio should be determined according to the axial capacity of
the CFST core.
Fig. 10(b) showed the displacement ductility factor versus com-
position ratio relationship. The ductility increased with the compo-
sition ratio. The displacement ductility factor increased by 14%
when the composition ratio changed from 0 to 0.45. The reason
was that as the composition ratio increased, the axial force carried
by peripheral reinforced concrete decreased which improved the
ductility of the SC-ST-RC columns.
4.2.3. Effects of outer diameter of steel tubes
Fig. 10(c) showed the displacement ductility factor versus the
outer diameter of steel tube relationship. With the increase of
the steel tube diameter, the ductility of the SC-ST-RC columns
shows a relatively large rise. The reason was that as the diameter
of inner concrete-filled steel tube increased, the area of concrete
confined by the steel tube became larger which resulted in increase
of the ductility of the SC-ST-RC columns. It is suggested that the
diameter of steel tube is no less than one third of the shorter length
of the composite section and 200 mm to take the advantage of
excellent performance in ductility and axial capacity of the CFST
core. Meanwhile, the thickness of outer concrete cover should be
no less than 100 mm to protect the CFST core from fire and corro-
sion. These two conditions specify the lower and upper limits of
the diameter of the steel tube [51].
ð5Þ 4.2.4. Effects of longitudinal reinforcement ratios
Fig. 10(d) showed the displacement ductility factor versus the
longitudinal reinforcement ratio relationship. The longitudinal
reinforcement ratio had a certain effect to improving the ductility
of SC-ST-RC columns. but the effect was insignificant. The bearing
capacity of the peripheral reinforced concrete can be enhanced and
its yielding can be postponed due to the increment of longitudinal

Table 2
Parameters of ductility analysis.

Parameters values
Axial force ratio: n 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Composition ratio: m 0 0.15 0.3 0.45 — — —
Outer diameter of the tube: d (mm) 75 100 125 150 — — —
Longitudinal reinforcement ratio (%): q 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 — —
Confinement index: n 0.81 0.96 1.11 1.28 1.44 — —
Stirrup characteristic value: k 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.17 — —
Slenderness ratio: g 2.5 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 — —
 H. Yuan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 188 (2018) 1137–1148 1145

10 10
n=0.4

D is placemen t du ctility
ρ=1.2%

Displacement ductility
8 8
θ=0.665
λ=0.1
6 6 η =3.0
factor

factor
m=0.3
4 ρ=1.2% 4
θ=0.665
2 λ=0.1 2
η =3.0

0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Axial force ratio Composition ratio
(a) Axial force ratio (b) Composition ratio

10 10
n=0.4
D is placemen t du ctility

m=0.3

Displacement ductility
8 8
ρ=1.2%
θ=0.665
6 λ=0.1 6
factor

factor
η =3.0
n=0.4
4 4
m=0.3
θ=0.665
2 2 λ=0.1
η =3.0
0 0
120 160 200 240 280 320 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Outer diameter of steel tubes (mm) Longitudinal reinforcement ratio(%)
(c) Outer diameter of steel tubes (d) Longitudinal reinforcement ratio
10 10
n=0.4
D is placemen t du ctility

Displacement ductility

8 m=0.3 8
ρ=1.2%
λ=0.1
6 η =3.0 6
factor
factor

4 4 n=0.4
m=0.3
ρ=1.2%
2 2
θ=0.665
η =3.0
0 0
0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Confinement index Stirrup characteristic value
(e) Confinement index (f) Stirrup characteristic value

10

n=0.4
Displacement ductility

8 m=0.3
ρ=1.2%
6 θ=0.665
factor

λ=0.1
4

0
2 3 4 5 6
Slenderness ratio
(g) Slenderness ratio
Fig. 10. Influence of different parameters on displacement ductility factor.
1146 H. Yuan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 188 (2018) 1137–1148
reinforcement ratio, which would improve the ductility of the ST-
RC column.
4.2.5. Effects of confinement indexes
The confinement index n specified in JGJ 3-2011 [53] can be cal-
culated as:
As f y
n¼ 0 ð7Þ
Ac f c
where, As and Ac are the cross-section areas of the steel tube and the
concrete core, respectively, fy is the steel tube yield strength, and fc0
is the concrete core compressive strength.
Fig. 10(e) showed the displacement ductility factor versus the
confinement index relationship. The ductility increased slightly
with the confinement index. The reason was that the confinement
effect of the steel tube on core concrete will be enhanced due to the
increment of confinement index, which correspondingly strength-
ened the axial stiffness and lateral rigidity of the core CFST [26].
Therefore, the reinforced concrete outside of the steel tube bears
less axial compressive force, which improved the deformation duc-
tility of column.
4.2.6. Effects of stirrup characteristic value
The stirrup characteristic value k specified in GB 50011-2010
[52] is calculated as:
ð2:754k þ 1:205Þð55:419q2 þ 22:635q þ 1:278Þð0:270n þ 2:166Þð0:346m þ 0:896Þ
l ¼ 0:769
ð1:680n þ 0:236Þð0:429g  0:287Þ
q f yv
k¼ v ð8Þ
fc
where fyv and fc denote the yield strength of transverse rein-
forcement and the compressive strength of the concrete respec-
tively; qv denotes the volumetric transverse reinforcement ratio
(the ratio of the volume of stirrups to that of the concrete confined
by stirrups).
Fig. 10(f) showed the displacement ductility factor versus the
stirrup characteristic value relationship. The ductility increased
with the stirrup characteristic value. This was because that the
confinement effect of the stirrups to the concrete enhances the
peak compressive strain of peripheral concrete, thereby improving
the deformability and ductility of the ST-RC columns. Therefore,
when designing the ST-RC structures, the stirrup characteristic val-
ues should be properly determined to improve the deformation
capacity of peripheral reinforced concrete.
4.2.7. Effects of slenderness ratio
In practical design, the slenderness ratio of ST-RC column gen-
erally ranges from 3 to 5 [54]. To investigate the effect of slender-
ness ratio on displacement ductility factor of ST-RC column, the
slenderness ratio including 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6 were adopted in the pro-
posed FE model. Fig. 10(g) showed the displacement ductility fac-
tor versus the slenderness ratio relationship. The displacement
ductility of ST-RC column declined with the increment of slender-
ness ratio. The reason is that the rigidity of ST-RC column
decreased when the slenderness ratio goes up. Additionally, the
ascending branch of the load-displacement curve becomes flat,
that is, the yield displacement increased dramatically while the
ultimate displacement increased relatively slightly. Therefore, the
slenderness ratio of ST-RC column should be properly determined
to keep the deformability of column.
5. Simplified design formula
Based on the analysis of displacement ductility factor men-
tioned above, the main factors that affects the ductility of SC-ST-
RC columns were axial force ratio n, the longitudinal reinforcement
ratio q, the confinement index n, the composition ratio m, the stir-
rup characteristic value k, and the slenderness ratio g. Therefore,
the formula to predict the displacement ductility factor is assumed
to be:
ðak þ bÞðcq2 þ dq þ eÞðf n þ gÞðqm þ rÞ
l¼A ð9Þ
ðjn þ kÞðxg þ yÞ
where: A, a, b, c, d, e, f, g, k, j, q, r, x, y are parameters to be evaluated.
Multivariate non-linear regression analysis was performed. The
weight of each parameter was iteratively determined according to
the significance of each factor:
A = 0.769, a = 2.754, b = 1.205, c = 55.419, d = 22.635, e = 1.278,
f = 0.27,
g = 2.166, k = 0.236, j = 1.680, q = 0.346, r = 0.896, x = 0.429,
y = 0.287.
Thus, the simplified formula of displacement ductility factor can
be determined as:
ð10Þ
In order to verify the accuracy of the formula, the predictions
from Eq. (10) were compared with the FE and experimental
results. Fig. 11 showed a comparison between the results
calculated by Eq. (10) and those of the FE models. The formula
predictions were in good agreement with the FE results.
Fig. 12 showed the comparison between the predictions of
Eq. (10) and the test results [13–14,22]. Again, the predictions
of the simplified design formula agreed well with a large num-
ber of test results, which confirmed the accuracy of the proposed
formula.
6. Recommendation for seismic design
As an important parameter to quantify the deformability of col-
umns, there is a lack of information regarding the prediction of dis-
placement ductility in practical design. To provide a useful
reference for the seismic design of the ST-RC structures, the
demand of displacement ductility under different seismic design
grade in specification CECS 188: 2005 [51] was calculated, the
details are shown below.
According to the specification: CECS 188: 2005 [51] for ST-RC
column, the minimum value of the key parameters including axial
force ratio n, the composition ratio m, the longitudinal reinforce-
ment ratio q, the confinement index n, and the stirrup characteris-
tic value k under seismic design grade ranging from Ⅰ to Ⅳ were
listed in Table 3.
The proposed formula given in Eq. (10) was based on
parametric analysis and verified by a set of experimental results.
 H. Yuan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 188 (2018) 1137–1148 1147

Table 4
The least value of displacement ductility, umin.

Parameters C40–C60 More than C60

Middle Corner Middle Corner
column column column column
Grade I 4.40 4.53 4.47 4.59
Grade II 3.83 3.94 3.88 4.00
Grade III 3.36 3.46 3.41 3.51
Grade IV 3.27 3.37 3.32 3.42

of a SC-ST-RC column were given, the corresponding displacement

ductility can be obtained by Eq. (10) and it is also easy to deter-
mine whether the value meets the requirements of specification.
The current study may give a favorable reference for the future
design and construction of ST-RC columns.

Fig. 11. Comparison of FE analytical and formula calculated results for displace- 7. Conclusions
ment ductility factor.

This paper analyzed the mechanism and displacement ductil-

ity of SC-ST-RC columns under combined axial force and
10 horizontal load. A FE model with proper material constitutive
relationship was proposed and verified for SC-ST-RC columns
D is placemen t du ctility f acto r s calcu lated b y

Mean: 0.945
8 DEV: 0.084
ex per im ental cu rv es
subjected to combined axial compressive force and lateral load-
+15% ing. The proposed FE model was able to predict the behavior of
SC-ST-RC columns with a reasonable level of accuracy. Based
on the results in this study, the following conclusion can be

-15%
drawn:
6

To improve the overall deformation capacity of the SC-ST-RC

columns, the key is to ensure the inner CFST and peripheral con-
4
crete encasement cooperate with one another to exert their
Ji and Kang (2014) respective advantages.
Ji and Zhang (2014)
The main factors affecting the displacement ductility factor of
2
Qian et al. (2009) SC-ST-RC columns include the axial force ratio, the confine-
ment index, the stirrup characteristic value, the composition
ratio and the longitudinal reinforcement ratio. It is useful to
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 optimize these five parameters during the design of SC-ST-RC
Displacement ductility factors calculated by proposed formula columns.

Furthermore, the simplified formula to predict the displace-
Fig. 12. Comparison of experimental and formula calculated results for displace- ment ductility factor of SC-ST-RC column was presented, and
ment ductility factor. the results computed by the proposed formula fit well with
the experimental results. By using the proposed formula, it is
favorable to determine the value of displacement ductility and
By utilizing the current formula, the least value of displacement whether the value meets the requirements of specification,
ductility, umin, under different condition was calculated on the when the basic parameters of a SC-ST-RC column were
basis of Table 3, as shown in Table 4. Once the basic parameters given.

Table 3
The least value of the key parameters in CECS 188: 2005 [51].

Parameters Grade I Grade II Grade III Grade IV

Axial force ratio: n 0.39 0.45 0.51 0.54
Composition ratio: m* 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60
Longitudinal reinforcement ratio: q**(for middle column) 1.0% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6%
Longitudinal reinforcement ratio: q**(for corner column) 1.2% 1.0% 0.9% 0.8%
Confinement index: n 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.40
Stirrup characteristic value: k 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.06
*
In specification CECS 188: 2005, the composition ratio, m, was not specifically required, it generally ranges from 0.3 to 0.6.
**
When the compressive strength of outer concrete is higher than C60 (the cubic compressive strength of concrete), the longitudinal reinforcement ratio of both middle and
corner column should be added 0.1%.
1148 H. Yuan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 188 (2018) 1137–1148
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by National Natural Science Founda-
tion of China (Grant No. 51478174) and the Fundamental Research
Funds for the Central Universities (2016HNDX). These supports are
gratefully acknowledged. Any opinions expressed in this paper are
those of the writers and do not reflect the views of the sponsoring
agencies.
References
[1] D.I. Samarakkody, D.P. Thambiratnam, T.H.T. Chan, et al., Differential axial
shortening and its effects in high rise buildings with composite concrete filled
tube columns, Constr. Build. Mater. 143 (2017) 659–672.
[2] M. Farahi, A. Heidarpour, X.L. Zhao, et al., Effect of ultra-high strength steel on
mitigation of non-ductile yielding of concrete-filled double-skin columns,
Constr. Build. Mater. 147 (2017) 736–749.
[3] Y.H. Wang, Y.F. Guo, J.P. Liu, et al., Experimental study on torsion behavior of
concrete filled steel tube columns subjected to eccentric compression, J.
Constr. Steel Res. 129 (2017) 119–128.
[4] A.Z. Zhu, L.L. Luo, H. Zhu, P, Experimental study on concrete-filled cold-formed
steel tubular stub columns, J. Constr. Steel Res. 134 (2014) 17–27.
[5] M. Mahgub, A. Ashour, D. Lam, et al., Tests of self-compacting concrete filled
elliptical steel tube columns, Thin-Walled Struct 110 (2017) 27–34.
[6] F. Xu, J. Chen, W. Jin, L, Experimental investigation of thin-walled concrete-
filled steel tube columns with reinforced lattice angle, Thin-Walled Struct. 84
(2014) 59–67.
[7] T. Ekmekyapar, B.J. Al-Eliwi, M, Concrete filled double circular steel tube
(CFDCST) stub columns, Eng. Struct. 135 (2017) 68–80.
[8] D.A. Aguirre, M.J. Kowalsky, J.M. Nau, et al., Seismic performance of reinforced
concrete filled steel tube drilled shafts with inground plastic hinges, Eng.
Struct. 165 (2018) 106–119.
[9] Y. Kawabata, Y. Ohya, E. Kato, et al., Experimental study on effectiveness of
retrofitting via normal strength concrete filling on damaged circular steel
tubes subjected to axial and horizontal loads, Constr. Build. Mater. 154 (2017)
1–9.
[10] C.H. Lee, H.K. Kang, S.Y. Kim, et al., Strain compatibility method for the design
of short rectangular concrete-filled tube columns under eccentric axial loads,
Constr. Build. Mater. 121 (2016) 143–153.
[11] Y. Lu, N. Li, S. Li, et al., Behavior of steel fiber reinforced concrete-filled steel
tube columns under axial compression, Constr. Build. Mater. 95 (2015) 74–85.
[12] X.S. Shi, Q.Y. Wang, X.L. Zhao, et al., Structural behavior of geopolymeric
recycled concrete filled steel tubular columns under axial loading, Constr.
Build. Mater. 81 (2015) 187–197.
[13] X.D. Ji, H.Z. Kang, X. Chen, et al., Seismic behavior and strength capacity of steel
tube-reinforced concrete composite columns, Earthq. Eng. Struct Dyn. 43
(2014) 487–505.
[14] X.D. Ji, M. Zhang, H.Z. Kang, et al., Effect of cumulative seismic damage to steel
tube-reinforced concrete composite columns, Earthq. Struct. 7 (2014) 179–
199.
[15] D. Huang, Y. Huang, et al., Researches on behavior of steel tube-reinforced
concrete columns, Earthq. Eng. Eng. Dyn. 36 (2017) 129–137.
[16] Kan Zhou, L.H. Han, Experimental performance of concrete-encased CFST
columns subjected to full-range fire including heating and cooling, Eng. Struct.
165 (2018) 331–348.
[17] J.M. Cai, J.L. Pan, Lu Cong, Mechanical behavior of ECC-encased CFST columns
subjected to eccentric loading, Eng. Struct. 162 (2018) 22–28.
[18] F.Y. Liao, L.H. Han, Tao Zhong, Behavior of composite joints with concrete
encased CFST columns under cyclic loading: experiments, Eng. Struct. 59
(2014) 745–764.
[19] H.Z. Kang, J.R. Qian, Experimental study on axial compressive capacity of high
strength concrete-filled steel tube composite columns, Building Structure. 6
(2011) 64–67.
[20] L.Y. Liu, Study on behavior of a new concrete-filled steel tube reinforced
concrete column under axial compression Master Dissertations, Fuzhou
University, Fuzhou, China, 2013.
[21] J.G. Nie, Y. Bai, C.S. Cai, New connection system for confined concrete columns
and beams. I: experimental study, J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 134 (2008) 1787–1799.
[22] J.R. Qian, H.Z. Kang, Experimental study on seismic behavior of high-strength
concrete-filled steel tube composite columns, J. Build. Struct. 30 (2009) 85–93.
[23] L.H. Han, F.Y. Liao, Z. Tao, et al., Performance of concrete filled steel tube
reinforced concrete columns subjected to cyclic bending, J. Constr. Steel Res.
65 (2009) 1607–1616.
[24] J.C.M. Ho, C.X. Dong, Improving strength, stiffness and ductility of CFDST
columns by external confinement, Thin-Walled Struct. 75 (2014) 18–29.
[25] Q.Q. Liang, Strength and ductility of high strength concrete-filled steel tubular
beam–columns, J. Constr. Steel Res. 65 (2009) 687–698.
[26] Z. Tao, Z.B. Wang, Q. Yu, Finite element modelling of concrete-filled steel stub
columns under axial compression, J. Constr. Steel Res. 89 (2013) 121–131.
[27] Y. Goto, P.K. Ghosh, N. Kawanishi, Nonlinear finite element analysis for
hysteretic behavior of thin-walled circular steel columns with in-filled
concrete, J. Struct. Eng. 136 (2010) 1413–1422.
[28] Huang Yuan, Yi Weijian, Hu Chao, Corroded reinforced concrete beams under
low-speed and low-cycle fatigue loads, Constr. Build. Mater. 186 (2018) 644–
651.
[29] V.K. Papanikolaou, A.J. Kappos, Numerical study of confinement effectiveness
in solid and hollow reinforced concrete bridge piers: methodology, Comput.
Struct. 87 (2009) 1427–1439.
[30] H. Huang, L.H. Han, Z. Tao, et al., Analytical behavior of concrete-filled double
skin steel tubular (CFDST) stub columns, Steel Constr. 66 (2010) 542–555.
[31] H.-T. Hu, C.-W. Chen, M.-Y. Huang, Nonlinear finite element analysis of CFT-to-
bracing connections subjected to axial compressive forces, Eng. Struct. 33
(2011) 1479–1490.
[32] T. Yu, J.G. Teng, Y.L. Wong, S.L. Dong, Finite element modeling of confined
concrete-II: plastic-damage model, Eng. Struct. 32 (2010) 680–691.
[33] U. Starossek, N. Falah, T. Lohning, Numerical analyses of the force transfer in
concrete-filled steel tube columns, Struct. Eng. Mech. 35 (2010) 241–256.
[34] L.H. Han, G.H. Yao, Z. Tao, Performance of concrete-filled thin-walled steel
tubes under pure torsion, Thin-Walled Struct. 45 (2007) 24–36.
[35] ACI318-11, Building code requirements for structural concrete and
commentary, American Concrete Institute, Detroit (USA), 2011.
[36] J.R. Qian, L.R. Cheng, D.L. Zhou, Behavior of axially loaded concrete columns
confined with ordinary hoops, J. Tsinghua Univ (Sci & Technol) 42 (2002)
1369–1373.
[37] J.M. Shen, C.Z. Wang, et al., Finite Element Method of Reinforced Concrete and
Limit Analysis of Plates and Shells, Tsinghua University Press, Beijing, 1993.
[38] L.H. Han, W.D. Wang, X.L. Zhao, Behavior of steel beam to concrete-filled SHS
column frames: finite element model and verifications, Eng. Struct. 30 (2008)
1647–1658.
[39] A.Y. Elghazouli, J.M. Castro, B.A. Izzuddin, Seismic performance of composite
moment-resisting frames, Eng. Struct. 30 (2008) 1802–1819.
[40] M.D. Denavit, J.F. Hajjar, Nonlinear seismic analysis of circular concrete-filled
steel tube members and frames, J. Struct. Eng. 138 (2010) 1089–1098.
_ Yüksel, Z. Polat, Yield state investigation of reinforced concrete frames from a
[41] I.
new point of view, Eng. Struct. 27 (2005) 119–127.
[42] Z.B. Wang, Z. Tao, L.H. Han, et al., Strength, stiffness and ductility of concrete-
filled steel columns under axial compression, Eng. Struct. 135 (2017) 209–221.
[43] F. Legeron, P. Paultre, Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Columns Under
Cyclic Flexure and Constant Axial Load, ACI Struct. J. 97 (2000) 591–601.
[44] ACI-ASCE Committee 441, High-strength concrete columns: state of the art,
ACI Struct. J. 94 (1997) 323–335.
[45] G. Minafò, F.D. Trapani, G. Amato, Strength and ductility of RC jacketed
columns: A simplified analytical method, Eng. Struct. 122 (2016) 184–195.
[46] R. Park, State-of-the-art report on ductility evaluation from laboratory and
analytical testing, in: Proc., 9th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering,
International Association for Earthquake Engineering (IAEE), Tokyo, 1988, pp.
605–616.
[47] M. Angelidi, A.P. Vassilopoulos, T. Keller, Ductility, recovery and strain rate
dependency of an acrylic structural adhesive, Constr. Build. Mater. 140 (2017)
184–193.
[48] T.H. Shih, C.C. Chen, C.C. Weng, et al., Axial strength and ductility of square
composite columns with two interlocking spirals, J. Constr. Steel Res. 90
(2013) 184–192.
[49] G. Campione, Strength and ductility of RC columns strengthened with steel
angles and battens, Constr. Build. Mater. 35 (2012) 800–807.
[50] J.R. Tang, Seismic Resistance of Joints in Reinforced Concrete Frames, Southeast
University Press, 1989.
[51] CECS 188, Technical Specification for Steel Tube-reinforced Concrete Column
Structure, China Planning Press, Beijing, China, 2005.
[52] GB 50010-2010, Code for Design of Concrete Structures, China Ministry of
Construction, Beijing, China, 2010.
[53] JGJ 3-2011, Technical Specification for Concrete Structures of Tall Building,
China Ministry of Construction, Beijing, China, 2011.
[54] Y.J. Jiang, X.G. Qiu, et al., Application of steel tube-reinforced concrete column
in a super high-rise building, Steel. Const. 28 (2013) 41–46.