Technical Paper

Impact Behaviour and Design of Hollow and Concrete Filled Mild

Steel Columns
Mohammad Yousuf
PhD Candidate, School of Engineering, University of Western Sydney, NSW, Australia

Brian Uy
Professor and Head of School, School of Engineering and
Director, Civionics Research Centre, University of Western Sydney, NSW, Australia

Zhong Tao
Associate Professor, School of Engineering, University of Western Sydney, NSW, Australia

Alex Remennikov
Associate Professor, School of Civil, Mining and Env. Engineering, University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia

Richard Liew
Professor and Director, Hazard, Risk and Mitigation Programme
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore

ABSTRACT
This paper presents the behaviour of hollow and concrete-filled mild steel tubular columns under
static and impact loading. A comprehensive test program has been carried out recently at the
University of Western Sydney and the University of Wollongong to investigate the performance of
mild steel hollow and concrete filled steel tube (CFST) columns subjected to static as well as impact
loading. At the same time, steel impact property tests using a Split Hopkinsons Pressure Bar (SHPB)
were conducted at Hunan University, China. These test results are also reported in this paper. This
paper also reports details and results from a numerical model using ABAQUS to simulate those static
and impact experiments. A non-linear finite element modelling explicit time domain dynamic
approach has been used for the simulation. The main objective of this paper is to compare the
performance of experimental results with numerical results for mild steel hollow and CFST columns
and to provide design guidance. Moreover, the behaviour of in-filled tubes under impact loading is
also compared with that of hollow sections. Generally, a reasonable level of agreement has been
observed between the numerical and experimental results.
Keywords: Mild steel; Concrete-filled steel tube (CFST); Numerical simulation; Impact loading; Split
Hopkinsons Pressure Bar (SHPB).

1. Introduction
In recent times, there has been an increased interest for engineers to develop designs to withstand impact and
blast loadings, particularly for critical infrastructure protection throughout the world. It has been observed
that impact loads are becoming an important factor in the design of many infrastructure projects. Impact load
design is an important aspect of structural design because consideration of this greatly reduces the hazards to
life and limits property damage of structures. Furthermore, in recent years, there has been a change in the
techniques of how columns are designed. The main reason is to increase the available floor space and one
way in which the column dimensions can be reduced to create more available floor space is to increase the
column strengths. The use of mild steel in composite columns is not new but concrete filled steel tubes are a
relatively newel and underutilized concept. There has been a growing interest in the past few decades among
the engineering community to understand the response of reinforced concrete structures subjected to extreme
loads due to blast and impact.

Although these severe transient impact loads are rare in occurrence for most structures, their effect can result
in catastrophic and sudden structural failure. Very limited research has been undertaken on concrete filled
mild steel columns under impact loading. One of the first studies into the impact resistance of structural
members was performed by Simms [1], The paper compared the relationship between the static load
capacity and impact load capacity of reinforced concrete beams, and determined the energy capacity of the
beams. He used data that was obtained from the static testing to predict the impact capacity of the beams
based on the relationship for the energy absorbed in bending by E = WH where E is energy, W is work and
H is the height. The paper concluded that the theoretical impact load could be approximated by a static load
analysis of a beam. Mays and Smith [2], presented the effect of a structure subjected to blast load. They
explained that it is important to take into account the behaviour of individual structural elements and access
the implications the failure of such an element may have on the stability of the entire structure. They
reported to provide sufficient ductility to enable the element to deflect by an allowable degree in the design
of blast-load resisting structural elements. They considered the steel as displaying a linear stress-strain

relationship up to the yield point beyond which it can strain significantly without any significant increase in
stress and, when a concrete member is dynamically loaded it deforms until such a time as the strain energy
of the member is developed adequately enough to balance the energy delivered by the blast or impact.
Sukontasukkul et al. [3], noted that concrete strength under impact loading shows different behaviour from
that under static loading. In particular, the concrete material behaves in a more brittle manner, and increases
in strength, toughness, and modulus of elasticity were found as the rate of loading increased. Remennikov
and Kaewunruen [4] investigated the design and construction of structures to withstand blast and impact
loads based on experimental data derived from laboratory testing. Currently there are no engineering
standards that would govern the design of structural elements for blast and impact loads. In their paper, a
series of falling weight impact tests on conventionally designed reinforced concrete columns are described.
They have established that conventional reinforced concrete columns are likely to experience shear failure
under transverse impact loads. They also noted that the dynamic reaction force in columns could be
enhanced by a factor up to 2.0 under high-velocity impacts with the input energy-absorbed deformation
energy factor of about 0.6. An extensive experimental investigation of solid rectangular steel and aluminium
beams under transverse impacts was performed by Liu and Jones [5], and Yu and Jones [6] the beams were
impacted with low velocity and large mass at different positions along the beam span. Analytical
investigations on solid metal beams date back to Parkes [7] who developed a rigid perfectly- plastic solution
to beam impact which included the effects of travelling plastic hinges, however this neglected the effects of
finite transverse displacements. The solution is thus valid only for infinitesimal transverse displacements and
as such ignores axial membrane effects. In the previously mentioned studies the beam cross-section in all
cases was a solid rectangular metal section.

A number of studies have investigated steel circular hollow section beams under local quasi-static transverse
loads, which result in both local indentations and global beam bending. Notable experimental investigations
include Thomas et al. [8], Watson et al. [9, 10], Soreide and Amdahl [11], Soreide and Kavlie [12] and
Goudie [13], and theoretical investigations by Soares and Soreide [14], de Oliveira et al. [15], Wierzbicki
and Suh [16] and Ellinas and Walker [17]. Further experimental and analytical studies and a summary of
some relevant literature is provided by Reid and Goudie [18]. A large number of studies related specifically

to tubular steel members used in the offshore structures industry subjected to localized damage have been
reported, where the emphasis is on determining the residual capacity of tubular members after a localized
dent has been applied. Zeinoddini et al. [19-21] also included axial pre-load in experimental, numerical and
analytical studies of transverse impacts on circular hollow members. Only a small number of studies have
investigated steel hollow section beams under local transverse impact loads, and have been performed on
circular hollow sections. Jones et al. [22] reported an extensive series of experiments on clamped circular
tubes under transverse impact loads at various points along the span, as did Chen and Shen [23] and Shen
and Chen [24]. The impact velocities ranged up to 14 m/s in the Jones study and up to 11 m/s in the Chen
and Shen studies. Analytical studies by Jones and Shen [25] of the experiments in [22] provided rigid-plastic
solutions using exact parabolic interaction curves of the locally deformed sections. A number of studies have
also included the effects of internal pressure on the transverse impact response of circular hollow section
beams, including Jones and Birch [26], Shen and Shu [27] and Ng and Shen [28].

Hollow and concrete filled steel hollow sections subjected to transverse impacts from accidental or
intentional impacts or explosive events; such as ship impacts in offshore structures, vehicle impacts on
infrastructure and safety, protective or security structures, or impacts resulting from accidental or intentional
explosive events on infrastructure, offshore and mining structures. There have been a number of
investigations on the quasi-static, cyclic flexural behaviour and flexural impact behaviour of concrete filled
steel tubular structures conducted by Elchalakani et al. [29], Hajjar [30], Han [31,32], Uy [33], Lu and
Kennedy [34] and Zhao and Grzebieta [35]. The main objective of this study is to develop an accurate
numerical model to investigate the behaviour of hollow and concrete filled square tube columns. The finite
element program ABAQUS was used for this investigation. The effect of concrete strength and concrete
confinement were used in this investigation. The numerical results were verified against the experimental
results conducted by Yousuf and Uy et al [36].
2. Specimen Preparation
2.1 Concrete Mix Components and Column Section

A nominal concrete strength of 25 MPa after 28 days of casting was selected for the concrete mix which was
a standard product: ST25-20-SF. The course aggregate was of maximum 20 mm in size and the fine
aggregate was local river sand conforming to AS 1379 [37]. The measured mean strength at 28 days of 41
MPa for three samples, considerably higher than the specified nominal strength.The column section
composed of a 100mm100mm5mm Square Hollow Section (SHS) of mild steel. The steel was Grade
C350LO, demonstrating a nominal yield strength of 350 MPa and tensile strength of 430 MPa.

2.2 Support Conditions & Column Length

The supports consisted of a pin at one end and a roller at the other. The loading rate was 5mm/min ensuring
a quasistatic loading condition for static loading test. A schematic of the test setup is shown in Figure 2. For
the mild steel, each column was 2860 mm long. The column effective length of 2500 mm was taken as the
clear distance between the two supports.

2.3 Preparation of Specimens

The steel columns were comprised of cold-formed square sections. For the concrete filled steel sections the
columns were placed upright and the concrete was poured and vibrated downwards into the columns. Plastic
sheeting was then placed over the ends of the poured specimens, which were left to properly cure. The end
conditions were left uncapped; during the test no adverse slip between the steel and concrete infill was
noticed. In total, twelve cylinder moulds of 100 mm diameter and 200 mm height as well as three
rectangular moulds of 150 mm x 150 mm section and 500 mm height were filled with concrete from the
middle of each mix in three equal layers.

3. Materials Testing Procedure and Results

3.1 Material Properties due to Static Condition
The tensile capacity of the mild steel was tested under conditions specified in AS 1391 [38]. The samples
were taken from the faces of the square hollow sections. The mean yield strength for the mild steel was 441
MPa, with an average ultimate strength of 481 MPa. Squat columns were cut out of the hollow steel sections

and were tested in order to obtain the compressive strength properties of the steel materials. The sections
were 100 mm x100 mm x 5 mm and 100 mm height. The computed compressive yield stress of the mild
steel was 386 MPa. The unconfined compressive strength of the concrete was tested periodically in
accordance with AS 1012.9 [39]. In total, ten cylinders were tested over a period of 76 days, with four tests
performed in conjunction with the static and impact test-day. An average value of 41 MPa was calculated for
the 28 test days after casting. The concrete rupture test was performed in accordance with AS 1012.11 [40].
The values obtained were not used directly in the theoretical analysis in this research. However, they were
conducted for completeness such that an in-depth numerical analysis can be comprehensively calibrated and
compared. The average value of modulus of rupture was found to be 5.3 MPa. The indirect tensile (Brazil)
test was used to determine the tensile capacity of the concrete. Tensile testing was performed to allow for
future validation by a numerical analysis using a complete set of material properties. The average tensile
strength was found to be 4.09 MPa; testing was performed in accordance with AS 1012.10 [41]. Figure 3
The idealised bi-linear stress-strain relationship was used in this study for mild steel. It had a linear elastic
range from zero to the yield strain (y), plastic range from y to 11y and strain hardening range from 11y to
23y. The strain is then kept constant until the maximum strain is reached at 167y [42].

3.2 Material Properties due to Impact Condition

The impact capacity of steel and concrete samples was tested using a Split Hopkinsons Pressure Bar
(SHPB) facility under specified condition at Hunan University, China. This test involves a rectangular
compression wave being introduced into the input bar from the striker, the wave then propagates through the
bar into the specimen where some of the pressure is transmitted into the output bar and some is reflected
back into the input bar. The yield strength and ultimate strength of mild steel samples was found to be 450
MPa and 520 MPa respectively and the compressive strength of concrete was found to be 56 MPa.

4. Finite Element Model

4.1 General

There are three main parameters that need to be considered to simulate the actual behaviour of hollow and
concrete filled square steel tube columns, as shown in Figure 1. These parameters are the steel tube, the
confined concrete and the contact between the concrete and the steel tube. In addition to these parameters,
the element type and mesh size that offer accurate results with reasonable computational time is also
important in simulating the composite column behaviour model.

4.2 Finite Element Type and Mesh

Eight node solid linear brick elements, using reduced integration with hourglass control C3D8R were used
to model the buckling behaviour of the steel tube. The C3D8R element provides accurate solution for most
thin walled steel applications. The element allows for transverse shear deformation, which is important in
simulating these elements. The element also accounts for finite strain and is suitable for large strain analysis.
A fine mesh of three-dimensional eight node solid elements (C3D8R) was used to simulate the concrete in
filled model also, mesh sensitivity analysis was this learned out. Different mesh sizes have been evaluated
to define the most suitable mesh that provides both accurate results and less computational time. It was
found that a mesh size of 12.5 mm x 12.5 mm for most of the elements, can achieve accurate results, this is
reliable for their simulation.

4.3 Boundary Conditions and Load Application

The following testing procedures as shown in Figure 2 were used to conduct the analysis. The experimental
tests have been learnt out as a simply supported beam and the same procedure has been used in the
numerical model. The left and right end of the hollow and concrete-filled square steel tube columns were
restrained as a simply supported condition against all degrees of freedom except for the displacement at the
loaded point, which is the midpoint of the column, in the direction of the applied load. The whole column
was modelled as shown in Figure 4. In the static analysis the load was applied as a static uniform load using
displacement control at each node of the loaded midpoint, which is identical to the experimental
investigation. In the impact analysis the load was applied using a loading hammer at each node of the loaded
midpoint, which is also identical to the experimental investigation.

4.4 Material Modelling of Steel Tube

The measured stressstrain curves in Figure 3 for square steel tubes of 100 mm nominal external depth with
5 mm nominal plate thickness were used. The experimental measured yield stress (fy) was 441MPa, as
shown in Table 1. The main parameters for the tri-linear stressstrain curves are the experimental measured
yield stress (fy), the ultimate stress (fu) and the ultimate strain (u). The material behaviour provided by
ABAQUS (using the*PLASTIC option) allows for a nonlinear stress-strain curve to be used. The first part of
the nonlinear curve represents the elastic part up to the proportional limit stress with measured values of
Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio equal to 0.3 as used.

4.5 Modelling of Loading Hammer

The numerical model of the loading hammer comprises three main components. The first part of the loading
hammer comprises the indentor numerical model. The indentor has been modelled as a disc of 100mm
diameter with 50 mm height. Eight node solid elements with reduced integration were used, type C3D8R
have been used for the indentor and a similar mesh size was used. A relatively fine mesh has been
considered in the transverse direction of the indentor. The second part of the loading hammer is associated
with the impact load cells. A total number of two load cells were used of 25 mm diameter and 50 mm height.
In the experiments, two fabricated small load cells, consisting of two steel rings were located between the
indentor and the weight element. Full bridge circuits of short length strain gauges were used on these load
cells for monitoring the impact load. The third part in the loading hammer is the weight component of the
striker. A block of 1000 x 100 x 750 mm3 of solid elements with reduced integration, type C3D8R has been
used as the weight component with the density of 7800 kg/m3 in the numerical model. The weight block has
been located above the load cell elements (Figure 8). The density of the weight block has been adjusted to
provide a total mass of 592 kg including the weight of the load cells and the indentor.

4.6 Modelling of Confined Concrete

It is recognised to the early failure of the columns due to local buckling of steel tubes. Local buckling can
occur for large B/t ratios. On the other hand, concrete-filled square steel tube columns with a value of B/t
ratio offer significant confinement for the concrete. In this analysis, the concrete strength is significantly

improved and the concrete model can be expected to confine concrete models. It is anticipated to develop a
confined concrete model and compare it with that of experimental results. Figure 6 shows equivalent
uniaxial presentation for the stress-strain curves of both unconfined and confined concrete, where fc is the
unconfined concrete cylinder compressive strength which is equal to 0.8(fcu), and fcu is the unconfined
concrete cube compressive strength. The corresponding unconfined strain (c) is taken as 0.003 as
recommended by the ACI Specification [43]. The confined concrete compressive strength (fcc) and the
corresponding confined strain (cc) can be determined from Eqs. (1) and (2), respectively, proposed by
Mander et al. [44]

 =
 + 
 ,

(1)


 =  1 +   ,

(2)

Where fl is the lateral confining pressure imposed by the steel tube. The lateral confining pressure (fl)
depends on the B/t ratio and the steel tube yield stress (fy). The approximate value of (fl) can be interpolated
from the measured values proposed by Hu et al. [45]. The factors (k1) and (k2) are taken as 4.1 and 20.5,
respectively proposed by Richart et al. [46]. To define the full equivalent uniaxial stress-strain curve for
confined concrete as shown in Fig. 9, three parts of the curve have to be identified. The first part of the curve
is the initially assumed elastic range to the proportional limit stress is taken as 0.5(fcc) proposed by Hu et al.
[45]. The Poissons ratio (cc) of confined concrete is taken as 0.2.
 = 4700
 MPa

=

(3)
 

        

! =
!=

(4)

 



(5)

 " 
# 

(6)

The second part of the curve is the nonlinear portion starting from the proportional limit stress 0.5(fcc) to the
confined concrete strength (fcc). This part of the curve can be determined from Eq. (4) proposed by Saenz
[47]. The strain values () are taken between the proportional strain, which is equal to (0.5fcc/Ecc), and the
confined strain (cc), which is corresponding to the confined concrete strength. The stress values (f) can be
easily determined from Eq. (4) by assuming the strain values (). The constants R and R are taken equal to

4 as given by Hu and Schnobrich [48]. The third part of the confined concrete stressstrain curve is the
descending part from the confined concrete strength (fcc) to a value lower than or equal to rk3fcc with the
corresponding strain of 11cc. The reduction factor (k3) depends on the D/t ratio and the steel tube yield stress
(fy). The approximate value of k3 can be considered from empirical equations proposed by Hu et al. [45],
where a wide range of D/t ratio from 21.7 to 150 was proposed. The value of r is taken as 1.0 for concrete
with cube strength (fcu) equal to 30 MPa and the value of r is taken as 0.5 for concrete with fcu greater than or
equal to 100MPa, as proposed by Tomii [48] and Mursi and Uy [49]. Linear interpolation was used to
determine the value of r for concrete cube strength between 30 and 100MPa.
The yielding part for the confined stressstrain curve of concrete, that is the part after the proportional limit
stress, is preserved by the Drucker-Prager yield criterion model which is available in the ABAQUS [50]
material library. The model was used to express the yield surface and flow potential parameters for materials
subjected to triaxial compressive stresses. The two parameters (*DRUCKER PRAGER and *DRUCKER
PRAGER HARDENING) were used to outline the yield stages of confined concrete. The linear Drucker
Prager model was used with the associated flow and isotropic rule. The material angle of friction (b) and the
ratio of flow stress in tri-axial tension to that in compression (K) are taken as 20 and 0.8, respectively, as
suggested by Hu et al. [45].

4.7 Modelling of concretesteel tube interface

The contact between the steel tube and the concrete is modelled by interface elements. The interface
elements consist of two matching contact faces of steel tube and concrete elements. The self-contact is
considered between the steel and concrete contact in the ABAQUS model. The coefficient of friction
between the two faces is not considered in the analysis. The interface element permits the surfaces to be
discrete under the influence of tensile force. However, both contact elements are not allowed to penetrate
each other.

5. Verification of Finite Element Model

5.1 Experimental Results

Recent experimental investigations on hollow and concrete-filled square tubes due to static and impact load
conducted by authors. The measured dimensions and material properties due to static and impact condition
are summarised in Table 1. The test specimens had an outer depth (D) and thickness (t) of 100 mm and 5
mm respectively. The effective length of specimen was taken as 2500 mm for all columns. The nominal
external depth to thickness (D/t) ratio of the steel tubes was 25.0.

5.1.1 Static Test Results

The static testing involved a 3-point bending test, with the sections simply supported over a 2500 mm span.
In total six (top, bottom & side) strain gauges were used to monitor strains in each specimen in the
longitudinal direction. The strain gauges are specified as accurate to 10,000. The summary of static test
results are shown in Table3.
The load-deflection curves due to static load for the two specimen types are shown in Figure 9. For mild
steel the effect of the concrete infill shows a slightly higher stiffness and a more ductile failure. Multiple
strain gauges were used in the static test, applied at mid-span. The strain gauges recorded the changing strain
at the top, bottom and side of the columns. Figure 10 shows that for mild steel hollow sections the strain at
the side increases negatively (compression) as the moment reaches its peak. For the concrete filled columns
the side strain increased positively (tension) as shown in Figure 11. Both the graphs indicate different stress
profiles for the hollow and concrete filled sections.

5.1.2 Impact Test Results

The testing apparatus consisted of a 592kg drop hammer being released at a height of 650mm above the mid
span of the specimen. The support conditions were kept similar to the static testing. Post-yield strain gauges
were used in the testing, with a specified accuracy of up to 20,000. The strain gauge was located on the
underside of the columns longitudinally placed in the direct centre. Laser deflection systems were used at the
quarter point of the specimens, with the mid-span deflections measured using a wire potentiometer. They
provided a comparison for the accuracy of the results and also gave an indication of the curvature of the
column. The results from both the laser deflections and the wire potentiometers were similar and
proportional for all tests. Two accelerometers were used in the testing, one at the mid-span and one at the

quarter point. The peak accelerations were in the order of 2,500-5,000 m/s2. The summary of impact test
results are shown in Table 4.
The initial peak and the area termed mean residual load are illustrated in Figure 12 and 13. The area
underneath the load-deflection graphs can be calculated to give an indication of the energy absorption,
which is approximately equal to the impact energy. Impact energy can be calculated through a simple
potential energy calculation using Equation 7.

PE = mgh

[7]

In this set of experiments the mass of the drop hammer was 592kg, with a drop height of 650mm, giving PE
equal to 3,775J. All sections approximately absorbed the same amount of potential energy. The load vs.
deflection graphs for the relative sections are shown in Figure 12 and 13.

5.2 Comparison of Finite Element Results with Experimental Results

A comparison between the experimental results and finite element results was performed to verify the finite
element model shown in Table 5. The ultimate moment due to static and impact conditions obtained from
the experiment (Mue) and finite element model (Mum) using ABAQUS [50] as well as the load deflection
curves and deformed shapes after failure have been examined. A comparison of the ultimate moment of the
hollow and concrete-filled square steel tube columns found experimentally and numerically using the finite
element model is shown in Table 5. It can be seen that good agreement has been reached between both
results for most of the columns. A maximum difference of 3% was observed between experimental and
numerical results for column specimens of hollow tube due to both static and impact loading. Figure 14 and
15 plotted the load-deflection behaviour of hollow and concrete-filled steel tube specimens due to static
load. The experimental load-deflection behaviour was compared with the numerical predictions and good
agreement has been achieved. The specimens had a nominal concrete compressive cube strength of 41 MPa,
a nominal depth of 100mm and a nominal plate thickness of 5.0 mm. The hollow column strength due to
static load predicted using the finite element analysis was 46 kN at a deflection of 29 mm compared with the
experimental values of 47 kN and 48 mm. Figures 17 and 21 plotted the load-time behaviour of hollow and
concrete-filled steel tube specimens respectively due to impact loading. It can be noted that, in both cases for

hollow and concrete-filled columns the experimental load-time curve is very similar to that of the finite
element results. Figures19 and 23 show the impact load-deflection behaviour of hollow and concrete-filled
steel tube specimens respectively. The deformed shapes of the columns after failure observed from the
impact tests were also compared with the finite element analysis predictions. The ABAQUS viewer [50] has
been used to plot the deformed shapes for all columns. Figures 16,18, 20 and 22 show the deformed shapes
of the columns observed numerically for both hollow and concrete filled column specimens due to impact
loading.

6. Comparison of Finite Element Results with Experimental and Theoretical Results

6.1

Impact Capacity

Impact capacity is a function of the load-time history and is related more closely with energy absorption than
with a maximum measured load. In measuring the static capacity of a section the load is gradually increased
until a maximum load is reached and is denoted as the capacity. To assess the impact moment capacity, a
concrete filled mild steel column was examined. From the plot of load vs. time shown in Figure 21, looking
at the first 1ms, it could be justifiably argued that the impact load capacity of the column is around 320kN;
as the time progresses the capacity becomes more difficult to specify completely. After a certain
continuation the drop hammer and column began moving succinctly and no separation occurred, thus
providing a semi-constant load value close to the static capacity. This continued until the column reached a
maximum deflection and all kinetic energy was absorbed. This paper estimates the impact load capacity as a
weighted average value using the peak loads from the initial section of the load vs. time graphs; in other
words, the values before the column and load cell become coalesce and the deformation is similar in form to
the post-yield static condition. Table 6 summarises the capacities for the various columns found using this
method of assessment.

6.2 Dynamic Increase Factor

The dynamic increase factor is defined as the ratio of the impact moment capacity with that of the static
moment capacity. A summary of the dynamic increase factors are provided in Tables 7 and 8 those were
found by experimentally and numerically respectively.
It can be seen that the hollow sections exhibit a smaller dynamic increase when compared with the
corresponding concrete filled sections. It is worthwhile mentioning that the dynamic increase factor was
very close for both cases of experimentally and numerically analysis. Steel has also been found to provide a
higher dynamic increase; however, this is not a reflection of the members impact performance, but merely
an indication of the relative increase in relation to static loading.

6.3 Comparisons with Predicted Designs

A comparison of the predicted values compared with the experimental values of the moment capacities for
the various sections is provided in Table 9. It can be seen that for the static load condition the predicted
capacities provided relatively accurate results, with the mild steel hollow sections found to be up to 2%
overconservative. The comparisons for the hollow and filled columns subjected to impact loading were
found to be overconservative by up to 35%.

6.4 Failure Modes

All of the hollow columns failed by local buckling well before any form of global failure was observed. The
effect of concrete infill was to cause significant reduction in local buckling effects. Figure 24 demonstrates
the local buckling failure of the steel hollow tube experimentally and numerically under impact loading.
Figure 25 illustrates the global deformation of the concrete filled structures under impact loading; this
clearly shows the difference in local buckling modes between the hollow and concrete filled columns. This
good agreement was found between the experimental and numerical deformed shapes of the columns.

7. Conclusions
This paper has investigated the capacity of hollow and concrete filled mild steel sections subjected to both
static and impact loading. In total, four columns were tested, subjected to varying conditions. The results

indicated adequate performance of concrete filled steel structures in terms of energy absorption and ductility.
The confined concrete has been modelled accurately. The idealised stress-strain curves of steel were used to
simulate the actual material properties. The comparison between the finite element results and the
experimental results of the columns showed good agreement in predicting the behaviour and strength of the
columns. The column strength, load-deflection curves and deformed shapes of the column have been
predicted using the finite element model and generally compared well with the experimental results.
The study was undertaken to compare the design strengths calculated using the Australian Standard AS4100
with the experimental values. It is shown that the design strengths calculated using AS4100 are accurate and
conservative except the concrete filled sections due to impact loading. The results also indicated that the
hollow sections failed by local buckling well before global failure occurred, and the effect of concrete infill
in mild steels greatly enhanced the resistance to local buckling.

8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the technical staff at the laboratories of the University of Western Sydney,
the University of Wollongong and the Hunan University (China), for assisting in the conduct of the
experiments. This project was sponsored by the Australian Research Council; and this support is also
gratefully acknowledged.
Table 1: Materials properties for mild steel & concrete due to Static condition
Testing

Mild Steel (MPa)

Concrete

Parameter

Flat

Corner

MPa

Young Modulus

201,570

207,749

19,562

Yield Stress

441

544

Ultimate Stress

481

580

41

Table 2: Material properties for mild steel & concrete due to Impact condition
Testing

Mild Steel (MPa)

Concrete

Parameter

Flat

Corner

MPa

Yield Stress

450

555

Ultimate Stress

520

627

56

Table 3: Summary of static test results

Mild Steel
Hollow
Filled
40.16
41.15
28.81
24.45
25.01
25.72
-2784
-1962
85
329
2887
2644
47.46
60.37
47.84
138.61
29.66
37.73
-4719.47
224.229
9429.854
0.84
0.68
1.66
5.67

Ratio

Ultimate

Yield

Square Column
Load (KN)
Deflection (mm)
Moment(KNm)
Strain-Top ()
Strain-Side ()
Strain-Bottom ()
Load (KN)
Deflection (mm)
Moment(KNm)
Strain-Top ()
Strain-Side ()
Strain-Bottom ()
Mye/Mue
=u/y

Table 4: Summary of the impact test results

Mild Steel
Hollow
Filled

Square Column

Initial Peak (KN)

112.31
320.65
Mean Residual Load (KN)
33.67
49.37
Capacity* (KN)
60.68
90.53
Corresponding Moment(KNm)
37.93
56.58
Maximum Deflection (mm)
112.2
87.23
Residual Deflection (mm)
87.7
56.87
Maximum Strain ()
13,999
26,052
Maximum Acceleration (m/s2)
2,619
5,104
*Dynamic capacity is a non-singular value and this reference to capacity should be used in conjunction with section
6.1 Impact capacity.
Table 5: Comparison of experimental with FE moment
Square Column

Mild Steel

Moment
KN-m

Ultimate
Ratio

Static
Hollow

Impact

Filled

Hollow

Filled

37.9

56.6

Mue (Experiment)

29.66

37.73

Mum(Model)

28.74

40.16

36.7

57.6

Mue/Mum

1.03

0.94

1.03

0.98

Table 6: Measured impact load capacity using weighted average assessment

Square Column
Measured Load Capacity (KN)

Mild Steel
Hollow
60.7

Filled
90.5

Table 7: Experimentally dynamic increase factors

Static Moment Capacity Mue(KNm)

Impact Moment Capacity Muie(KNm)
Dynamic Increase Factor (Muie/Mue)

Mild Steel
Hollow Filled
29.66
37.73
37.9
56.6
1.28
1.5

Table 8: Numerically dynamic increase factors

Static Moment Capacity Mum(KNm)

Impact Moment Capacity Muim(KNm)
Dynamic Increase Factor (Muim/Mum)

Mild Steel
Hollow Filled
28.74
40.16
36.7
57.6
1.28
1.4

Table 9: Comparison of predicted with experimental

Ulti
mate

Square Column

Ratio

Mu(KNm)
Mue(KNm)
Mue/Mu

Mild Steel
Static
Impact
Hollow Filled Hollow Filled
29.12
37.82
36.39
41.93
29.66
37.73
37.9
56.6
1.35
1.02
1.0
1.04

Fig. 1 . Typical concrete filled steel tube (CFST) section (t is steel wall thickness)

Figure 2 - Schematic diagram of test setup

u
y

Fig.3. Idealised stressstrain relationship for mild steel

Figure 4 Finite element mesh for CFT column

Load cell

Figure 5: View of FE model used for simulating the experimental impact test

Fig.6. Equivalent uniaxial stress-strain curves for confined and unconfined concrete.

Figure 7 - Photo of static test setup, UWS

Figure 8 - Photo of impact test setup, UoW

Load-Deflection for M S Hollow & CFT

MSHollow_Expt

MSCFT_Expt

Load (kN)

80
60
40
20
0
0

50

100

150

Deflection (mm)

Figure 9 - Static load-deflection curve for MS hollow and Concrete-Filled

Moment-Strain for MSHollow_Static

Top Strain

Bottom Strain

Side Strain

Moment (kNm)

40
30
20
10
0

-10000

-5000

5000

10000

15000

20000

Strain ()
Figure 10 - Static Moment-Strain curve for MS hollow

Moment (kNm)

Moment-Strain for MSCFT_Static

Top
Side
Bottom
40
30
20
10
0
-20000

-10000

0
Strain ()

10000

20000

Figure 11 - Static Moment-Strain curve for MS Concrete Filled

Load-Deflection for MSH_Impact

MSHollow_Expt
150
Initial Peak

Load (KN)

100
Mean Residual Load

50

0
0

50
100
Deflection (mm)

150

Fig.12. Load-deflection curve for MS hollow tube due to impact load.

Load-Deflection for MS CFT_Impact

MSCFT_Expt

400

Load (KN)

300
200
100
0
-100

20

40

60

80

100

Deflection (mm)

Fig.13. Load-deflection curve for MS CFT due to impact load.

Load-Deflection for MS Hollow Static

MSHollow_Expt

MSHollow_Model

50

Load (KN)

40
30
20
10
0
0

50

100

150

200

Deflection (mm)

Fig.14. Comparison of experimental and finite element model of load-deflection curve for MS hollow tube due to static
load.

Load-Deflection for MS CFT Static

MSCFT_Expt

MSCFT_Model

70
60
Load (KN)

50
40
30
20
10
0
0

50

100

150

Deflection(mm)

Fig.15. Comparison of experimental and finite element model of load-deflection curve for MS CFT due to static load.

Fig.16. FE Model for MS Hollow tube after impact load

Time - Load for MSHollow_Impact
MSHollow_Expt

MSHollow_Model

125

Load (kN)

100
75
50
25
0
0

0.05

Time (s)

0.1

0.15

Fig.17. Comparison of experimental and finite element model of load-time curve for MS Hollow tube due to impact
load.

Fig.18. FE Model for MS Hollow tube with deflected shape after impact load

Load-Deflection for MSHollow_Impact

Load (KN)

MSHollow_Expt

MSHollow_Model

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0

50

100

150

Deflection (mm)

Fig.19. Comparison of experimental and finite element model of load-deflection curve for MS Hollow tube due to
impact load.

Fig.20. FE Model for MS CFT after impact load

Load-Time for MSCFT_Impact

Load (kN)

MSCFT_Expt

MSCFT_Model

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

Time (s)
Fig.21. Comparison of experimental and finite element model of load-time curve for MS CFT due to impact load.

Fig.22. FE Model for MS CFT with deflected shape after impact load.
Load-Deflection for MSCFT_Impact
MSCFT_Expt

MSCFT_Model

400

Load (KN)

300
200
100
0
0

20

40

Deflection (mm)

60

80

100

Fig.23. Comparison of experimental and finite element model of load-deflection curve for MS CFT due to impact load.

(a)

(b)

Figure 24 - Local buckling effects for MS Hollow after impact load: (a) Experimental (b) Model

(a)

(b)

Figure 25 - Local buckling effects for MS CFT after impact load: (a) Experimental (b) Model

REFFERENCES
[1] Simms, L.G (1945). Actual and Estimated Impact Resistance on Some Reinforced-Concrete Units Failing in
Bending, Journal of the Institute of Civil Engineers 4: 163-179.
[2] Mays G.C. and Smith P.D. (1995), Blast Effects on Buildings, Thomas Telford, London.
[3] Sukontasukkul P, Mindess S, Banthia NP. 2004. Effect of loading rate on damage of concrete. Cement and
Concrete Research 34: 2127-2134.
[4] Remennikov, A.M. & Kaewunruen, S (2006). Impact Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Columns:
experimental Studies and Design Considerations.19th Australasian Conference on the Mechanics of
Structures and Materials, Nov 29-Dec 1.
[5] Liu JH, Jones N. Experimental investigation of clamped beams struck transversely by a mass. Int J Impact
Eng 1987;6:30335.
[6] Yu J, Jones N. Further experimental investigations on the failure of clamped beams under impact loads. Int J
Solids Structures 1991;27(9):111337.
[7] Parkes EW. The permanent deformation of an encastre beam struck transversely at any point in its span.
Proc Instn Civ Engrs 1958;10:227304.
[8] Thomas SG, Reid SR, Johnson W. Large deformations of thin-walled circular tubes under transverse loading
I: An experimental survey of the bending of simply supported tubes under a central load. Int J Mech Sci
1976;18:32533.
[9] Watson AR, Reid SR, Johnson W. Large deformations of thin-walled circular tubes under transverse
loading III: Further experiments on the bending of simply supported tubes. Int J Mech Sci 1976;18:5019.
[10] Watson AR, Reid SR, Johnson W, Thomas SG. Large deformations of thinwalled
circular tubes under transverse loading II: Experimental study of the crushing of circular tubes by
centrally applied opposed wedge-shaped indenters. Int J Mech Sci 1976;18:38797.
[11] Soreide TH, Amdahl J. Deformations characteristics of tubular members with reference to impact loads
from collisions and dropped objects. Norw Marit Res 1982;10:312.
[12] Soreide TH, Kavlie D. Collision damage and residual strength of tubular members in steel offshore
structures. In: Shell structures: Stability and strength. Elsevier; 1985. p. 185220.
[13] Goudie K. Experimental study of the gross deformation of tubular beams. M.Sc. Thesis. England;
University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, 1986.
[14] Soares CG, Soreide TH. Plastic analysis of laterally loaded circular tubes. J Struct Div, ASCE
1983;109:45167.
[15] de Oliveira J, Wierzbicki T, Abramowicz W. Plastic behaviour of tubular members under lateral
concentrated loading. Nor. Veritas Tech. Rep. 82-0708; 1982.
[16] Wierzbicki T, Suh MS. Indentation of tubes under combined loading. Int J Mech Sci 1988;30:22948.
[17] Ellinas CP, Walker AC. Damage on offshore tubular bracing members. IABSE Colloquium on Ship
collisions with bridges and offshore structures. Copenhagen; 1983 p. 253261.
[18] Reid SR, Goudie K. Denting and bending of tubular beams under local loads. In: Wierzbicki, Jones, editors.
Structural failure. John Wiley; 1989. p. 33164.
[19] Zeinoddini M, Harding JE, Parke GAR. Effect of impact damage on the capacity of tubular steel members

of offshore structures. Marine Struct 1998;11(45): 14158.

[20] Zeinoddini M, Harding JE, Parke GAR. Dynamic behaviour of axially pre-loaded tubular steel members of
offshore structures subjected to impact damage. Ocean Eng 1999;26:96378.
[21] Zeinoddini M, Parke GAR, Harding JE. Axially pre-loaded steel tubes subjected to lateral impacts: An
experimental study. Inter J Impact Eng 1999;27:66990.
[22] Jones N, Birch SE, Birch RS, Zhu L, Brown M. An experimental study on the lateral impact of clamped
mild steel pipes. Proc Instn Mech Engrs, Part E: J Proc Mec Eng 1992;206:11127.
[23] Chen KS, Shen WQ. Further experimental study on the failure of fully clamped steel pipes. Int J Impact
Eng 1998;21(3):177202.
[24] Shen WQ, Chen KS. An investigation on the impact performance of pipelines. Int J Crashworthiness
1998;3(2):191209.
[25] Jones N, Shen WQ. A theoretical study of the lateral impact of fully clamped pipelines. Proc Instn Mech
Engrs, Part E: J Proc Mec Eng 1992;206:12946.
[26] Jones N, Birch RS. Influence of internal pressure on the impact behavior of steel pipelines. Trans ASME J
Press Vessel Technol 1996;118:46471.
[27] Shen WQ, Shu DW. A theoretical analysis on the failure of unpressurized and pressurized pipelines. Proc
Instn Mech Engrs, Part E: J Proc Mech Eng 2002; 216:15165.
[28] Ng CS, Shen WQ. Effect of lateral impact loads on failure of pressurized pipelines supported by
foundation. Proc Instn Mech Engrs, Part E: J Proc Mech Eng 2006;220:193206.
[29] Elchalakani M, Zhao XL, Grzebieta RH. Concrete-filled circular steel tubes subjected to pure bending. J
Construct Steel Res 2001;57(11):114168.
[30] Hajjar J. Concrete-filled steel tube columns under earthquake loads. J Progress Struct Engng Mater
2000;2(1):110.
[31] Han LH. Flexural behaviour of concrete-filled steel tubes. J Construct Steel Res 2004;60(2):31337.
[32] Han LH, Lu H, Yao GH, Liao FY. Further study on the flexural behaviour of concrete-filled steel tubes. J
Construct Steel Res 2006;62:55465.
[33] Uy B. Strength of concrete filled steel box columns incorporating local buckling. J Struct Eng, ASCE
2000;126(3):34152.
[34] Lu YQ, Kennedy DJL. The flexural behaviour of concrete-filled hollow structural sections. Can J Civil Eng
1994;21(1):11130.
[35] Zhao XL, Grzebieta R. Void-filled SHS subjected to large deformation cyclic bending. J Struct Eng, ASCE
1999;125(9):10207.
[36] Yousuf. M, Uy B, Remmnikov. A, Tao. Z. Experimental behaviour of concrete-filled stainless column
under impact loading. 8th International conference on shock and impact load on structures , SI2009.
[37] Australian Standard (2007). Specification and supply of concrete, AS 1379-2007, Australia.
[38] Australian Standard (2007). Metallic materials: Tensile testing at ambient temperature, AS 1391-2007,
Australia.
[39] Australian Standard (1999). Method of testing concrete: Determination of the compressive strength of
concrete specimen, AS 1012.9-1999, Australia.
[40] Australian Standard (2000). Method of testing concrete: Determination of the modulus of rupture of

concrete specimen, AS 1012.11-2000, Australia.

[41] Australian Standard (2000). Method of testing concrete: Determination of indirect tensile strength of
concrete cylinders (Brazil or splitting test), AS 1012.10-2000, Australia.
[42] Uy. B, Local and pos-local buckling of concrete-filled steel welded box columns. J of const steel research
1998;47:47-72.
[43] ACI. Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary. ACI 318-99, American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, USA, 1999.
[44] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stressstrain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng,
ASCE 1988;114(8): 180426.
[45] Hu HT, Huang CS, Wu MH, Wu YM. Nonlinear analysis of axially loaded concrete-filled tube columns
with confinement effect. J Struct Eng, ASCE 2003;129(10):13229.
[46] Richart FE, Brandzaeg A, Brown RL. A study of the failure of concrete under combined compressive
stresses. Bull. 185. Champaign, IL, USA: University of Illinois Engineering Experimental Station; 1928.
[47] Saenz LP. Discussion of Equation for the stressstrain curve of concrete by Desayi, P. and Krishnan, S. J
Am Concrete Inst 1964;61: 122935.
[48] Tomii M. Ductile and strong columns composed of steel tube, infilled concrete and longitudinal steel bars.
Special volume. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on steelconcrete composite
structures. Fukuoka, Japan:Association of Steel-Concrete Structures; 1991. p. 3966.
[49] Mursi M, Uy B. Strength of concrete filled steel box columns incorporating interaction buckling. J Struct
Eng, ASCE 2003;129(5): 62639.
[50] ABAQUS Standard Users manual. Version 6.10. USA 2010.