Design of CFST Column

University of Bahrain
College of engineering
Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture
Senior Project
CENG490
Numerical Modelling and Design of CFST Columns

using various Design Codes
By
Salman Salah Almajid
Ali Hassan AlNasser
Hesham Mohamed Abdulrahim
20094818
20092446
20092299
Supervised by
Dr. Esmat Kameshki
A report submitted to University of Bahrain

In Partial Fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Bachelor in Civil Engineering
January 2014
Abstract
Concrete Filled Steel Tube (CFST) columns were used in construction in the early 1900s.
However, the research into CFSTs did not begin until the 1960s. From that time onwards, several
studies were conducted on the CFSTs to fully understand their behavior with the aim of improving
their performance.
The proposed research presents two studies to investigate the effect of the main influencing factor
on the compressive behavior of circular CFST columns. The first study is conducted using finite
element analysis applying readymade software, ANSYS. The geometry of the columns were
developed using a supplementary software called SolidWorks to facilitate the modelling in
ANSYS. The second study is design of CFST columns according to the most commonly used
codes worldwide. The codes are the Euro code version is "BS EN1994-1-1", the American code
version is "American Institute for Steel Construction (LRFD) AISC 360-05" and the two
Australian codes which are "Australian Standard of concrete structures AS 3600-2001 and
Australian Standard of steel structures AS 4100-1998".
The main parameter of interest is the diameter-to-thickness ratio(). The samples used in this
research are all concentrically loaded stub columns to avoid moment failure.
In the design study, spreadsheets using Microsoft Excel were created to design CFST columns
according to the three codes. Detailed flow charts were prepared to show step by step design
procedures using all the codes.
The results of the numerical investigation and the design study were verified by comparing them
with those in the published literature. In addition, a comparative study was performed using the
three codes, as well as, with the numerical analysis results, ANSYS. The comparison was based
on the compressive capacity of the CFST columns. The variation in the results and their causes
were discussed.
Acknowledgement
First of all, we would like to thank Allah the almighty for his blessings that enabled us to submit
this project.
Then, our special gratitude goes to our advisor Dr. Esmat Kamashki for her tremendous support,
kindness and patience through the whole course of this senior project. Her background in steel
structural design was our guide before, through and hopefully after concluding our project.
Special thanks goes to our colleagues who are graduated now, engineer Ahmed and engineer
Hamza. They spent big efforts with us helping in modeling finite element samples for analysis.
Finally, our best thanks goes to our families. The biggest emotional supporters for us during this
project. Their emotional support helped us a lot to struggle throughout this project and finish it
with a highly motivational moods.
ii
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ i
Acknowledgement ....................................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ vi
List of tables ............................................................................................................................. viii
List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. ix
List of Symbols ........................................................................................................................... x
Euro Code (EC4) ..................................................................................................................... x
AISC Code (LRFD) ................................................................................................................ xi
Australian Code (AS) ............................................................................................................. xi
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 2
1.1.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of CFST column .......................................................... 4
1.2 Objective of the study ........................................................................................................... 6
Chapter 2 : Literature Review ......................................................................................................... 8
Chapter 3: Design using Euro code .............................................................................................. 12
3.1 Design steps using EC4 ....................................................................................................... 12
3.1.1 Design of composite columns (clause 6.7): .................................................................. 12
3.1.2 Design methods: ........................................................................................................... 12
3.1.3 Local buckling: ............................................................................................................. 12
3.1.4 Simplified method of design (clause 6.7.3): ................................................................. 13
3.2 Design Flow Chart using EC4 ............................................................................................. 19
3.3 Design Example using EC4................................................................................................. 20
3.3.1 Design strength: ............................................................................................................ 20
3.3.2 Limits of applicability of the simplified method: ......................................................... 21
3.3.3 Local buckling: ............................................................................................................. 21
3.3.4 Design checks at ultimate limits state: ......................................................................... 21
3.3.5 Check on limits of simplified method: ......................................................................... 22
3.3.6 Buckling resistance of the composite column in axial compression: ........................... 22
3.4 Spread Sheet Solver using EC4 ........................................................................................... 24
3.4.1 Keywords: ..................................................................................................................... 24
iii
3.4.2 Inputs: ........................................................................................................................... 24

3.4.3 Process and outputs: ..................................................................................................... 25
Chapter 4: Design using AISC/LRFD code .................................................................................. 29
4.1 Design steps using LRFD .................................................................................................... 29
4.1.1General provisions: ........................................................................................................ 29
4.1.2 Material Limitations (clause I1.2.): .............................................................................. 29
4.1.3 Axial member (clause I2): ............................................................................................ 29
4.2 Design Flow Chart using LRFD.......................................................................................... 32
4.3 Design Example using LRFD ............................................................................................. 33
4.3.1 Material limitation: ....................................................................................................... 33
4.3.2 Nominal axial compressive strength without consideration of length effects ........ 34
4.3.3 Euler buckling load ................................................................................................. 34
4.3.4 Factored nominal axial strength ......................................................................... 35
4.4 Spread Sheet Solver using LRFD........................................................................................ 36
4.4.1 Keywords: ..................................................................................................................... 36
4.4.2 Input: ............................................................................................................................. 36
4.4.3 Process and outputs: ..................................................................................................... 37
Chapter 5: Design using Australian code...................................................................................... 40
5.1 Design steps using A.S. ....................................................................................................... 40
5.1.1 Strength of Short Columns: .......................................................................................... 40
5.1.2 Australian standard concrete structures AS 3600-2001: .............................................. 40
5.1.3 Australian Standard Steel structures AS 4100-1998: ................................................... 42
5.2 Design Flow Chart using A.S. ............................................................................................. 47
5.3 Design Example Using A.S. ................................................................................................ 48
5.3.1 Standard AS 3600-2001 (concrete structure) ............................................................... 48
5.3.2 Standard AS 4100-1998 (steel structure)...................................................................... 49
5.3.3 Ultimate capacity .................................................................................................... 52
5.4 Spread Sheet Solver using A.S. ........................................................................................... 53
5.4.1 Key word: ..................................................................................................................... 53
5.4.2 Input: ............................................................................................................................. 53
5.4.3 Process and output: ....................................................................................................... 54
Chapter 6: Finite Element Analysis .............................................................................................. 58
iv
6.1 General ................................................................................................................................ 58

6.2 Model .................................................................................................................................. 58
6.3 Finite Element Mesh ........................................................................................................... 58
6.4 Boundary Conditions and Load Application ....................................................................... 59
6.5 Concrete-Steel tube interaction ........................................................................................... 60
6.6 Steps of Design.................................................................................................................... 61
6.6.1 Defining the analysis system ........................................................................................ 62
6.6.2 Entering the Engineering data ...................................................................................... 63
6.6.3 Modelling the Geometry ............................................................................................... 63
6.6.4 Assigning the properties, connections and mesh of the model..................................... 68
6.6.5 Setting up the Model..................................................................................................... 71
6.6.6 Setting up the solution .................................................................................................. 72
6.6.7 Viewing the results ....................................................................................................... 75
Chapter 7: Results and Discussion ................................................................................................ 77
7.1 Verification of the results .................................................................................................... 77
7.1.1 Verification of FEM results .......................................................................................... 77
7.1.2 Verification of Euro code (EC4) results ....................................................................... 78
7.1.3 Verification of American code (AISC/LRFD) results .................................................. 78
7.1.4 Verification of Australian code (AS) results ................................................................ 79
7.2 Comparison of the results.................................................................................................... 80
7.2.1 Comparison of the results for the three codes .............................................................. 80
7.2.2 Comparison of FEM results with the codes.................................................................. 81
Chapter 8: Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................. 84
8.1 Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 84
8.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 85
References ................................................................................................................................. 86
Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 89
List of Figures
Figure 1: Steel sections encased with concrete ............................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Steel Sections in-filled with concrete .............................................................................. 2
Figure 3: Cross-section of CFST column with rebars .................................................................... 3
Figure 4: Installation of CFST column during construction ........................................................... 4
Figure 5: Column buckling curves (based on figure 6.4, EC3) [18]............................................. 18
Figure 6: Excel keyword ............................................................................................................... 24
Figure 7:Material properties for concrete and steel ...................................................................... 24
Figure 8: Loads and geometric properties .................................................................................... 25
Figure 9: Cross-section properties ................................................................................................ 25
Figure 10: Material Limitation...................................................................................................... 26
Figure 11: Local buckling check................................................................................................... 26
Figure 12: Plastic resistance and effective flexural stiffness calculation ..................................... 26
Figure 13: Buckling resistance check ........................................................................................... 27
Figure 14: Excel keyword ............................................................................................................. 36
Figure 15: Material properties for concrete and steel ................................................................... 36
Figure 16: Loads and geometric properties .................................................................................. 37
Figure 17: Cross-section properties .............................................................................................. 37
Figure 18: Material limitation ....................................................................................................... 37
Figure 19: Compressive strength calculation ................................................................................ 38
Figure 20: Excel key word ............................................................................................................ 53
Figure 21: Material properties for concrete and steel ................................................................... 53
Figure 22: Loads and geometric properties .................................................................................. 54
Figure 23: Cross-section properties .............................................................................................. 54
Figure 24: Concrete calculation .................................................................................................... 55
Figure 25: Steel tube calculation................................................................................................... 55
Figure 26:Steel tube calculation.................................................................................................... 56
Figure 27: Total capacity and final check ..................................................................................... 56
Figure 28: Meshed CFST column in ANSYS .............................................................................. 59
Figure 29: CFST column with loading and base plate; force applied on the loading plate .......... 60
Figure 30: Seperation of Steel and concrete after the application of load .................................... 61
Figure 31: Steps of ANSYS design .............................................................................................. 62
Figure 32: Types of analysis systems in ANSYS Workbench ..................................................... 62
Figure 33: Engineering data source in ANSYS Workbench ........................................................ 63
Figure 34: Properties for concrete material in ANSYS Workbench............................................. 63
Figure 35: Solidworks new files interface .................................................................................... 64
Figure 36: Input parameters for cirles ........................................................................................... 64
Figure 37: Plan view of a steel tube .............................................................................................. 65
Figure 38: Extruded steel tube ...................................................................................................... 65
Figure 39: Extruded concrete core ................................................................................................ 66
Figure 40: Extruded steel plate ..................................................................................................... 66
Figure 41: parts of a column inserted in assemly file ................................................................... 67
vi
Figure 42: Command "Mate" properties ....................................................................................... 67

Figure 43: Finallized model using Solidworks ............................................................................. 68
Figure 44: Outline of ANSYS Mehcanical ................................................................................... 69
Figure 45: Defining the properties of each part in ANSYS Mechanical ...................................... 69
Figure 46: Properties of each part of the model in ANSYS Mechanical ...................................... 69
Figure 47: Contacts between each part of the model in ANSYS Mechanical .............................. 70
Figure 48: Details of the contact between Concrete Core and Steel tube in ANSYS Mechanical 70
Figure 49: Details of Mesh in ANSYS Mechanical...................................................................... 70
Figure 50: Setting up the model under Static Structural in ANSYS Mechanical ......................... 71
Figure 51: Details of force in ANSYS Mechanical ...................................................................... 71
Figure 52: Details of Fixed Support in ANSYS Mechanical ........................................................ 72
Figure 53: Details of Remote Displacement in ANSYS Mechanical ........................................... 72
Figure 54: Solution options in ANSYS Mechanical ..................................................................... 72
Figure 55: Equivalent (von-Mises) Stress in Ansys Mechanical .................................................. 73
Figure 56: Stress ratio in ANSYS Mechanical ............................................................................. 74
Figure 57: Stress Probe in ANSYS Mechanical ........................................................................... 75
vii
List of tables
Table 1: Comparison of Column Costs [4] ..................................................................................... 5
Table 2:Maximum values (d/t), (h/t) and (b/t) with fy N/mm2 (based on Table 6.3, EC4) [16] .. 13
Table 3: Buckling curves and member imperfections for composite columns(based on table 6.5,
EC4)[16] ....................................................................................................................................... 17
Table 4: Values of plate element yield slenderness limit (based on table 6.2.4, AS4100) [21] ... 43
Table 5 values of member section for kf = 1.0 (based on table 6.3.3(1), AS4100) [21] ............... 45
Table 6 values of member section constant (b) for kf < 1.0 (based on table 6.3.3(2),AS4100)[21]
....................................................................................................................................................... 46
Table 7: Verification of FE results................................................................................................ 77
Table 8: Verification of Euro code results .................................................................................... 78
Table 9: Verification of American code results ............................................................................ 79
Table 10: Verification of Australian code results ......................................................................... 79
Table 11: Comparison of the results with different codes ............................................................ 80
Table 12: Comparison of FE with the codes ................................................................................. 81
viii
List of Abbreviations
AISC
American Institute of Steel Construction
ANSI
American National Standards Institute
ASCE
American Society of Civil Engineers
ACI
American Concrete Institute
AS
Australian Standard
CFT
Concrete Filled Tube
CFST
Concrete Filled Steel Tube
EC4
Euro Code
FE
Finite Element
FEM
Finite Element Model
HSS
Hollow Structural Section
LRFD
Load and Resistance Factor Design
ix
List of Symbols
Euro Code (EC4)
Aa
Ac
As
Ea
Ecm
Es
(EI)eff
Ia
Ic
Is
Ke ,Ke,II
L
MEd
Ncr
NEd
Npl,Rd
Npl,Rk
b
d
e
fcd
fck
fsd
fsk
fy
h
t
tf
C
S
a, ao
c, co,
LT
Cross-sectional area of the structural steel section

Cross-sectional area of concrete
Cross-sectional area of reinforcement
Modulus of elasticity of structural steel
Secant modulus of elasticity of concrete
Design value of modulus of elasticity of reinforcing steel
Effective flexural stiffness for calculation of relative slenderness
Second moment of area of the structural steel section
Second moment of area of the uncracked concrete section
Second moment of area of the steel reinforcement
Correction factors to be used in the design of composite columns
Length; span; effective span
Design bending moment
Elastic critical normal force
Design value of the compressive normal force
Design value of the plastic resistance of the composite section to compressive normal
force
Characteristic value of the plastic resistance of the composite section to compressive
normal force
Width of the flange of a steel section width of slab
Clear depth of the web of the structural steel section; diameter of the shank of a stud
connector; overall diameter of circular hollow steel section; minimum transverse
Eccentricity of loading; distance from the centroidal axis of profiled steel sheeting to the
extreme fibre of the composite slab in tension
Design value of the cylinder compressive strength of concrete
Characteristic value of the cylinder compressive strength of concrete at 28 days
Design value of the yield strength of reinforcing steel
Characteristic value of the yield strength of reinforcing steel
Nominal value of the yield strength of structural steel
Overall depth thickness
Age; thickness
Thickness of a flange of the structural steel section
Factor parameter
Partial factor for concrete
Partial factor for reinforcing steel
Factor steel contribution ratio
235/ y , where fy is in N/mm2
Factors related to the confinement of concrete
Factors related to the confinement of concrete
Relative slenderness
Diameter (size) of a steel reinforcing bar; damage equivalent impact factor
Reduction factor for flexural buckling
Reduction factor for lateral torsional buckling
x
AISC Code (LRFD)

Ac
As
Asr
D
E
Ec
Ecm
EIeff
Es
Fy
Ic
Is
Isr
K
L
Pe
Pn
Po
fc'
t
wc
c
c
Area of concrete, in.2 (mm2)

Area of steel cross section, in.2 (mm2)
Area of continuous reinforcing bars, in.2 (mm2)
Outside diameter, in. (mm)
Modulus of elasticity of steel = 29,000 ksi (200 000 MPa)
modulus of elasticity of concrete = wc1.5, ksi
Modulus of elasticity of concrete at elevated temperature, ksi (MPa)
Effective stiffness of composite section, kip in.2 (N-mm2)
Modulus of elasticity of steel = 29,000 ksi (200 000 MPa)
Specified minimum yield stress of the type of steel being used, ksi (MPa). As used in this
Specification, yield stress denotes either
Moment of inertia of the concrete section, in.4 (mm4)
Moment of inertia of steel shape, in.4 (mm4)
Moment of inertia of reinforcing bars, in.4 (mm4)
Effective length factor
Length of the member, in. (mm)
Euler buckling load, kips (N)
Nominal axial strength, kips (N)
Nominal axial compressive strength without consideration of length effects, kips (N)
Specified minimum compressive strength of concrete, ksi (MPa)
Thickness of element, in. (mm)
Weight of concrete per unit volume (90 wc 155 lbs/ft3 or 1500 wc 2500 kg/m3)
Resistance factor for axially loaded composite columns
Safety factor for axially loaded composite columns
Australian Code (AS)

Ag
As
Ae
An
D
E
Es
G
I
Le
Lu
M1*,M2*
N*
Nuo
Nc
Ns
Gross area of a cross-section

The cross-sectional area of reinforcement
Effective area of a cross-section
Net area of a cross-section
The overall depth of a cross-section
Youngs modulus of elasticity, 200 103 MPa
The mean value of the modulus of elasticity of concrete at 28 days
Nominal dead load
Second moment of area of a cross-section
The effective length of column
The unsupported length of a column
The smaller and larger design bending moment respectively at the ends of a column
The axial compressive or tensile force on a cross-section
The ultimate strength in compression without bending; of an axially loaded cross-section
Nominal member capacity in compression
Nominal section capacity of a compression member
xi
Q
b
be
do
f'c
fy
kf
kb
kbo
le
Le/r
r
t
a
b
c
e
ey
n
Nominal live load

Width
Effective width of a plate element
Outside diameter of a circular hollow section
The characteristic compressive cylinder strength of concrete at 28 days
Yield stress used in design
Form factor for members subject to axial compression
Elastic buckling coefficient for a plate element
Basic value of kb
Effective length of a compression member
Geometrical slenderness ratio
Radius of gyration of a cross-section
Wall thickness of a circular hollow section
Compression member factor
Compression member section constant
Compression member slenderness reduction factor
Compression member factor
Slenderness ratio
Plate element slenderness
Plate element yield slenderness limit
Modified compression member slenderness
Capacity factor
xii
CHAPTER 1
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Introduction
Composite construction as we know it today was first used in the construction of a building and a
bridge in the U.S. over a century ago. The first forms of composite structures incorporated the use
of steel and concrete for flexural members, and the issue of longitudinal slip between these
elements was soon identified. Composite steelconcrete beams are the earliest form of the
composite construction method. In the U.S. a patent by an American engineer was developed for
the shear connectors at the top flange of a universal steel section to prevent longitudinal slip. This
was the beginning of the development of fully composite systems in steel and concrete.
Concrete-encased steel sections was used at the beginning to overcome the problem of fire
resistance and to ensure that the stability of the steel section was maintained throughout loading.
The steel section and concrete act compositely to resist axial force and bending moments.
Composite tubular columns were developed much later during the last century. They were used
because they provided permanent and integral formwork for a compression member and were
instrumental in reducing construction times and consequently costs. [1]
Thus, 2 types of steel-concrete columns were developed:
1. Steel section in-filled with concrete
2. Steel section encased with concrete
Figure 1: Steel sections encased with concrete
Figure 2: Steel Sections in-filled with concrete
Nowadays, the composite structural elements are increasingly used in tall buildings, bridges and
other types of structures. It is still based on the fundamental principle that steel is most effective
2
in tension and concrete is most effective in compression. Thus, the disadvantage of two materials
can be compensated for and the advantages can be combined, providing efficient structural system.
The steel-concrete composites are considered as an advantageous system for carrying large axial
load benefitting from the interaction between the concrete and the steel section. The steel section
reinforces the concrete to resist any bending moments, tensile and shear forces. The concrete in a
composite column reduces the potential for buckling of the steel section in addition to resisting
compressive loading.
Figure 3: Cross-section of CFST column with rebars
The use of composite columns, encased or in-filled, results in significant reduction of the column
size when compared to regular reinforced concrete columns needed to carry the same load. Hence,
considerable economic savings can be obtained. Also, the column size reduction is advantageous
where floor space is at a premium, such as in office blocks and car parkings. In addition, closely
spaced composite columns connected with spandrel beams can be used around the outsides of the
high rise buildings for lateral loads resistance by the tabular concept [2].
Figure 4: Installation of CFST column during construction
Concrete encased steel composite sections are favored for many seismic resistant structures. When
the concrete encasement cracks under severe flexural overloading, the stiffness of the section
reduces but the steel core provides shear capacity and ductile resistance to subsequent cycles of
overload. Additionally, the surface area of the enclosed steel sections is intact by the concrete
cover, thus required no painting and fireproofing costs.
Concrete filled steel tube (CFST) columns are favored for many earthquake resistant structures,
columns in high rise buildings, bridge piers subject to high strain rate from traffic and railways
decks. Concrete filled steel tubes necessitate supplementary fire resistant insulation if fire
protection of the structure is crucial. The CFST structures have better constructability because the
steel tubes can be used as the formwork and the shoring system for casting concrete in construction.
Moreover, CFSTs provide high compressive and torsional resistance about all axes when
compared with concrete encased steel composite sections [3].
1.1.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of CFST column

1. Maintenance Cost:
When exposed to air and humidity, the steel structures are vulnerable to corrosion, thus
they have to be painted periodically. This issue occurs in the case of CFST structures but
not in the case of encased concrete composite element, because the steel section is protected
by the surrounding concrete.
2. Buckling Failure:
The steel sections are considered economical because of their low strength to weight ratio.
However, with the increased slenderness of the steel column the carrying capacity
4
decreases because of the buckling failure domination. In the composite columns the
concrete delays the buckling when compressively loaded which enhances the capacity of
the element. Also, thinner steel section would be required in the presence of concrete thus
the cost is reduced.
3. Fireproofing Costs:
The steel sections has high load carrying capacity at normal range temperatures, but its
strength reduces immensely when exposed to high temperatures, thus fireproofing is
essential. This issue occurs in the case of CFST structures but not in the encased concrete
composite element because the steel section is protected by the surrounding concrete.
4. Construction:
The structural steel tube in the CFST acts as in-place framework. Fixing the steel tube for
casting concrete is much easier and less time consuming than fixing and removing frame
work. Also, the presence of steel tube minimizes the need for rebar fixing, which is one of
the most tedious works in the RC construction.
5. Ecology:
The reduction in wood consumption needed for the formwork is environmentally
advantageous. Also, it is much easier to reuse the concrete and the steel of CFST elements
compared to regular RC members.
6. Cost:
A comparison of typical costs of column construction has been compiled by Australian
consulting engineers, Webb and Peyton [4], and this is summarized in Table 1. This reveals
the competitive nature of the concrete- filled steel column when compared with
conventional reinforced concrete columns for buildings over 30 levels. This statistic will
be more favorable for concrete-filled steel columns in buildings of over 50 stories, which
are becoming common in many densely populated cities throughout the world.
Table 1: Comparison of Column Costs [4]
Type of
column
Relative
cost, 10
levels
Relative
cost, 30
levels
Concrete
Reinforced with steel
Concrete
erection
column
ConcreteEncased
Steel Strut
Tube
Steel Tube
Filled with
Full Steel
Filled with
Reinforced
Column
Concrete
Concrete
1.0
1.22
1.53
1.14
1.10
2.27
1.0
1.13
1.85
1.11
1.02
2.61
1.2 Objective of the study

1- Design of CFST columns using various codes to compute their compressive capacities. The
codes are:
Euro code "BS EN1994-1-1".
American code "American Institute for Steel Construction (LRFD) AISC 360-05".
Australian code "Australian Standard of concrete structures AS 3600-2001 and

Australian Standard of steel structures AS 4100-1998".
2- Develop a spreadsheet using Microsoft Excel for each one of the design codes to compute
the compressive capacity of CFST columns.
3- Prepare the geometry of CFST columns using SolidWorks and then linking them to
ANSYS to perform the rest of the finite element analysis process.
4- Verification and comparison of the results achieved in this study with those in the published
literature.
CHAPTER 2
Chapter 2: Literature Review

Test to investigate the axial strength of CFT columns have been performed on a variety of crosssectional shapes and D/t and L/D ratios. Furlong (1967) investigated 13 specimens with D/t ratios
ranging from 29 to 98. Results indicated that each component of the composite column resisted
load independent of each other, and consequently there was no increase in the load bearing capacity
due to the confinement of the concrete core [5].
Gardner and Jacobson (1967) investigated 22 composite columns with D/t ratios between 30 and
40. These results suggested that at ultimate load the steel tube was at failure but the concrete core
was not. However, an increased strain level was noted for the steel tube without local buckling,
suggesting that the concrete stabilized the tube wall [6].
Knowles and Park (1969) studied 12 circular and seven square columns with D/t ratios of 15, 22
and 59, and L/D ratios ranging from 2 to 21. Results indicated that the tangent modulus method
accurately predicted the capacity for columns with L/D ratios greater than 11 but was slightly
conservative for columns with small slenderness ratios. It was concluded that this larger than
expected capacity for composite columns with L/D < 11 was due to the increase of concrete
strength resulting from triaxial confinement effects. It was observed that for certain values of
longitudinal strain the concrete began to increase in volume due to microcracking, which induced
concrete confinement by the steel tube. This confinement increased the overall load-resisting
capacity of the CFT column. [7]
Tomii et al. (1977) investigated almost 270 circular, octagonal and square composite columns.
Values of D/t ranged from 19 to 75, and L/D ranged from 2 to 9. Results suggested that the postyield behavior for the vertical load may be characterized as either (1) strain-hardening; (2)
perfectly plastic; or (3) degrading stiffness type. Circular and many octagonal shapes were
classified as either Type 1 or 2, while some of the octagonal and all of the square cross sections
were categorized as Type 3. At high axial loads, concrete confinement was observed in the circular
and many octagonal cross sections, which explained the strain-hardening characteristics for these
specimens. [8]
Sakino et al. (1985) tested 18 circular specimens with D/t ratios ranging between 18 and 192. In
this investigation, three otherwise identical specimens were subjected to different load conditions.
Axial load was applied to the concrete and the steel tube simultaneously for the first specimen
group. The load was applied exclusively to the concrete core in the second specimen group, and
the load application was similar to this in the third group except the inside tube wall was greased
before casting the concrete. Results indicated that when the steel tube and the concrete core were
loaded simultaneously, the tube provided no confinement until post-yield behavior. In the concrete
loaded only specimens, some longitudinal stresses were noted in the steel tube even for the
columns with the greased wall. Therefore, regardless of the loading condition, the wall of the steel
tube appeared to be primarily in a biaxial stress state. Although test results indicated that the axial
stiffness of the concrete loaded only columns were about half that of the other CFTs tested, the
concrete loaded only columns obtained a greater yield and ultimate axial load capacity. [9]
Ellobody, et al. (2006) investigated the behavior and design of axially loaded circular CFST stub
columns through extensive computational studies performed using a Nonlinear Finite Element
code ABAQUS. The main goal of this research is to perform a parametric studies on the circular
CFST stub columns using the output data of the develop FE model. The data of the existing
experimental studies used in this paper covered a wide range of concrete cube strengths ranging
from 30MPa to 110MPa. Also, the column diameter to steel thickness ratio (Dt) ranged from 15
to 80. The CFST column strengths predicted by the computational analysis were compared to the
design strengths calculated using the European, Australian and American codes specifications. It
was found out that for the axially loaded CFST circular columns, the Australian and the American
Specifications are able to produce reliable limit state design when calibrated with the resistance
factor = 0.85. Also, the parametric study showed that the design strengths given by the European
Code are generally unconservative, while those of the Australian Standards and American
Specifications are conservative. [10]
Gupta, et al. (2007) performed experimental and computational studies on the behavior of axially
loaded circular concrete filled steel tubes columns. The experimental campaign consisted of eighty
one specimens which were concentrically loaded till failure. Also, the computational analysis was
performed using a Finite Element code ANSYS. The main objective of the developed nonlinear
finite element model was to investigate the load carrying mechanism of CFSTs. The four main
parameters investigated in this research are the diameter to thickness ratio (Dt), the grade of
concrete, the volume of fly ash in concrete mix and the length to tube diameter ratio (LD). The Dt
ratio ranged from 25 to 39 where different outer diameter and steel thickness were used. In
addition, design strength of 30MPa and 40MPa were used for the concrete infill of CFST
specimens It was observed that as the concrete strength increases the confinement effect of the
concrete infill decreases. Also, the energy absorbing capacity at a given deformation decreases
with the increase of fly ash up to 20%, but at 25% fly ash it increases again. Moreover, the slope
of the load verses deformation curves of the experimental data is found to be less than that of the
analytical model. [11]
Lama and Gardner (2008) investigated the compressive behavior of concrete filled stainless steel
columns with varying concrete infill strengths. They compared the compressive resistances of
these elements with the ones obtained from stainless steel hollow sections. Moreover, comparisons
were made with existing design rules based on Eurocode 4 and ACI-318. It was concluded that the
current design guidance in the codes can be safely used for concrete filled stainless steel tubes
despite being overly conservative especially for CHS. [12]
Kuranovas, et al (2009) presented a detailed analysis of existing experimental data of more than
1300 specimens of CFST. This huge number of specimens covered varies types of CFSTs such as
solid and hollow concrete core with rectangular and circular cross sectional areas with concentric
and eccentric axial loads applied with preloading and sustained load. The capacity of the tested
CFST samples were calculated using the approach suggested by EC4 in order to find the accuracy
of the predicted values compared with the actual ones. It was concluded that the design requirement
9
of CFST suggested in EC4 is a safe approach for determining the strength for all types of circular
CFST column studs given that the concrete infill strength is less than 100MPa. [13]
Roeder, et al (2010) presented a study which addresses combined axial and flexural loading and
determines the best models for predicting the stiffness and resistance of circular CFT. A database
of 122 test specimens was compiled and evaluated. The results indicate that the plastic stress
method is a simple yet effective method to predict the resistance of circular CFT components under
combined loading. These data show that current specifications provide inaccurate predictions of
the flexural stiffness, and a new stiffness expression is proposed. The proposed models permit
simple yet accurate predictions of stiffness and resistance and allow engineers to use CFT
components routinely in structural design. [14]
Liew, et al (2012) carried a test programme to investigate the performance of 27 axially loaded
column specimens, including 18 steel tubes infilled with ultra-high strength concrete (UHSC) of
compressive strength close to 200 MPa, 4 steel tubes infilled with normal strength concrete (NSC)
and 5 hollow steel tubes. Steel fibres were added into the UHSC to study their effect in enhancing
the ductility and strength. Concrete filled double-tube columns were also investigated for potential
application in multi-storey and high-rise constructions. Test results showed that UHSC filled
tubular columns achieved ultra-high load-carrying capacities, but they could become brittle after
the maximum load was attained. In addition, the ductility and strength of composite columns
infilled with UHSC was improved by applying load only on the concrete core, adding steel fibres
into the concrete core or increasing the steel contribution ratio. Comparison of test results with
Eurocode 4s predictions indicates that the Eurocode 4 method could be safely extended to predict
the compressive resistance of UHSC filled composite stub columns. On average, Eurocode 4
approach underestimated the resistance by 14.6% if the confinement effect was not considered and
by 3.5% if the confinement effect was considered for all the specimens involving UHSC. However,
to ensure sufficient ductility, it is recommended that a minimum steel contribution ratio of 0.30 or
1% steel fibres should be used. Furthermore, strength enhancement due to confinement effect
should be ignored in estimating the ultimate strength of concrete filled composite columns with
Class 3 steel sections. [15]
Abdalla (2012) presented an experimental study to investigate the effect of some the main
influencing factors on the compressive behavior of circular CFST columns. The parameters of
interest are mainly the concretes compressive strength, the diameter-to-thickness ratio (Dt) and
the loading rates. The testing program includes two concretes compressive strengths of 44MPa
and 60MPa, three (Dt) ratios of 54, 32, and 20, and two relatively low loading rates of 0.6 and 60
kN/sec. A nonlinear finite element (FE) numerical model using the commercial finite element
software ABAQUS was also developed and verified using the proposed experimental results. It
was found that the effect of (Dt) ratio on the compressive behavior of the CFST column was
greater than the effect of the other factors. In addition, the CFST specimens stiffness was greatly
influenced by the (Dt) ratio as compared to the influence of the concrete infill compressive
strength or the loading rate.
10
Chapter 3
11
Chapter 3: Design using Euro code

3.1 Design steps using EC4
3.1.1 Design of composite columns (clause 6.7):
BS EN1994-1-1 [16] in Clause 6.7 presents the design of composite columns and composite
compression members with concrete fully and partially encased H-sections, and concrete filled
rectangular and circular hollow sections. It is applicable to columns and compression members
with steel grades S235 to S460 and normal weight concrete of strength classes C20/25 to C50/60
In general, a composite column should be checked at the ultimate limit state for:
Geometric limits of various elements of the steel sections against local buckling under
compression.
Resistances of cross-sections and members to internal forces and moments.
Buckling resistance of the members, depending on their effective slenderness.
Local resistances to interfacial shear forces between the steel sections and the concrete.
Local resistances of the cross-sections at load introduction points.
3.1.2 Design methods:

The BS EN 1994-1-1 gives two methods for isolated composite columns in braced or non-sway
Frames:
1. General design method for composite columns applicable to both prismatic and nonprismatic members with either symmetrical or non-symmetrical cross-sections.
2. Simplified design method specifically developed for prismatic composite columns with
doubly symmetrical cross-sections.
The use of the simplified design method is presented in detail in this Chapter. It should be noted
that when the limits of applicability of this method are not satisfied, the general design method
should be used.
3.1.3 Local buckling:

The effects of local buckling may be neglected for a steel section fully encased and for other types
of cross-section provided the maximum values are not exceeded:
12
Table 2:Maximum values (d/t), (h/t) and (b/t) with fy N/mm2 (based on Table 6.3, EC4) [16]
3.1.4 Simplified method of design (clause 6.7.3):

3.1.4.1 General and scope (clause 6.7.3.1):
The scope of this simplified method is limited to members of doubly symmetrical and uniform
cross-section over the member length with rolled, cold-formed or welded steel sections. The
simplified method is not applicable if the structural steel component consists of two or more
unconnected sections. The relative slenderness should fulfill the following condition:
2.0
(1)
3.1.4.2 Limit of applicability of the design method:

In order to apply the simplified design method to design composite columns, it is necessary to
ensure all the following conditions are satisfied:
The composite column is doubly symmetrical and prismatic along its length.
The steel contribution ratio of the composite column is between 0.2 and 0.9.
13
The relative slenderness of the composite column , is smaller than 2.0
3.1.4.3 Compression resistances of cross-sections:

The plastic resistance of a composite cross-section in compression represents the maximum load
that can be applied to a short column which does not exhibit member buckling. It should be noted
that, in concrete-filled hollow sections, a higher compression resistance is achieved in the concrete
owing to the confinement provided by the hollow section. Moreover, further strength enhancement
is achieved in concrete-filled circular hollow sections owing to the development of circumferential
action in the circular hollow section.
3.1.4.4 Resistance of cross sections (clause 6.7.3.2):

The plastic resistance of a concrete-encased H-section or a concrete-filled rectangular or square
hollow section in compression is given by the sum of the resistances of the components in
compression determined as follows:
(2)
Where:
Aa, Ac and As are the cross-sectional areas of the steel section, the concrete and the reinforcing bars
respectively.
fyd, fcd and fsd are the yield strength of the steel section, the characteristic compressive strength of
the concrete and the yield strength of the reinforcing respectively.
fy, fck and fsk are the yield strength of the steel section, the characteristic compressive strength of
the concrete and the yield strength of the reinforcing respectively.
a, c and s are the material factors of the steel section, the concrete and the reinforcing steel
respectively.
c is the strength coefficient for concrete, which is equal to 1.0 for concrete-filled rectangular,
square or circular hollow sections, and 0.85 for fully or partially encased H-sections.
For concrete filled tubes of circular cross-section, account may be taken of increase in strength of
concrete caused by confinement provided that the relative slenderness does not exceed 0.5 and
e/d < 0.1, where e is the eccentricity of loading given by MEd / NEd and d is the external diameter
of the column. The plastic resistance to compression may then be calculated from the following
expression:
(3)
Where:
14
t is the wall thickness of the steel tube.

For members with e = 0 the values a = ao and c = co are given by the following expressions:
ao = 0,25 (3 + 2) (but 1,0)
(4)
co = 4,9 18,5 + 17 (but 0)
(5)
3.1.4.5 Effective flexural stiffness, steel contribution ratio and relative slenderness
(clause 6.7.3.3):
1. The steel contribution ratio is defined as:
(6)
Where:
Npl,Rd is the plastic resistance to compression
2. The relative slenderness for the plane of bending being considered is given by:
(7)
Where:
Npl,Rk is the characteristic value of the plastic resistance to compression, instead of the design
strengths, the characteristic values are used.
Ncr is the elastic critical normal force for the relevant buckling mode, calculated with the effective
flexural stiffness (EI)eff.
3.1.4.5 Critical buckling load:

It is important to evaluate the elastic critical buckling load, Ncr of the composite column which is
calculated as follows:
(8)
Where:
l is the buckling length of the column.
(EI)eff is the characteristic value of the effective flexural stiffness of the composite column, and it
is obtained by combining the flexural stiffness of various components of the cross-section:
15
(9)
Where:
Ke is a correction factor that should be taken as 0.6.
Ia, Ic, and Is are the second moments of area of the structural steel section, the un-cracked concrete
section and the reinforcement for the bending plane being considered.
Ea and Es are the moduli of elasticity of the steel section and the steel reinforcement respectively.
Ecm is the secant modulus of the concrete according to BS EN 1992-1-1.
In general, the buckling length, 1 of an isolated non-sway composite column may conservatively
be taken as its system length, L. Alternatively, the buckling length may be determined using Annex
E of BS EN 1993-1-1.
4.1.4.6 Column buckling curves:

For both principal axes of the column, it is necessary to verify that:
(10)
Where:
Npl,Rd is the plastic resistance of the composite section.
is the reduction factor due to column buckling, which is determined according to the relative
slenderness of the composite column, and an appropriate column buckling curve.
Three column buckling curves, as defined in BS EN 1993-1-l", are adopted. These curves may be
expressed mathematically by:
(11)
Where:
(12)
The factor c used to allow for different levels of both geometrical and mechanical imperfections
in the columns, and the values of c are 0.21, 0.34 and 0.49 for buckling curves a, b and c
respectively [17], as shown:
16
Table 3: Buckling curves and member imperfections for composite columns(based on table 6.5, EC4)
[16]
17
Figure 5: Column buckling curves (based on figure 6.4, EC3) [18]
18
3.2 Design Flow Chart using EC4
19
3.3 Design Example using EC4

Using the Eurocode, the following CFST is tested:
= 203
= 12.7
= 7592.632
= 24772.842
= 250 2
= 25 2
= 609
= 210 2
Partial safety factors:
= 1 steel
= 1.5 concrete
Cross-section properties:
(203 2 12.7)4
=
= 48.84 106 4
64
=
(203)4 (203 2 12.7)4
= 34.52 106 4
64
64
3.3.1 Design strength:

The strength of both steel and concrete should be factored to be used in
design as follows:
=
250
=
= 250 2
25
=
= 16.67 2
1.5
2.4.1.2 (BS EN
1994-2:2005)
20
3.3.2 Limits of applicability of the simplified

method:
1- The column is doubly symmetrical and uniform cross-section
over its length.
2- 0.2 ( ) 0.9
3- Slenderness ratio 2.0
3.3.3 Local buckling:

203
=
= 15.98
12.7
235
235
max ( ) = 90
= 90
= 84.6
250
15.98 < 84.6
3.3.4 Design checks at ultimate limits state:

3.3.4.1 Plastic resistance of the composite cross-section in
compression:
, = + 1.0 +
6.7.3.2 (1)
, = 7592.63 250 + 1.0 24772.84 16.67 + 0

, = 2311.12
3.3.4.2 Effective flexural stiffness of the composite crosssection:

() = + +
6.7.3.3 (3)
= 0.6
= 9500( + 8)
1
3
= 9500(25 + 8)
1
3
= 30471.58 2
() = 210000 34.52 106 + 0 + 0.6 30471.58 48.84 106

() = 8142.14. 2
3.3.4.3 Relative slenderness:

,
=
6.7.3.3 (2)
, = + 1.0 +
, = (7592.63 250 + 1.0 24772.84 25 + 0) 103
21
6.7.3.2 (1)
, = 2517.48
2 ()
=
2
= = 1.0 0.609 = 0.609
2 8142.14
=
= 216672.47
0.6092
2517.48
=
= 0.11
216672.47
For 0.5 < 0.1:
, = + (1 +

) +

6.7.3.2 (6)
= 0 = , =
= 0.25(3 + 2 ) = 0.25(3 + 2 0.11) = 0.81 1.0
2
= 409 18.5 + 17 = 409 18.5 0.11 17 0.112 = 3.07

0
, = (0.81 7592.63 250 + 24772.84
16.67 (1 + 3.07
12.7 250
) + 0) 103
203 25
, = 2743.62
3.3.5 Check on limits of simplified method:

7592.63 250
=
=
= 0.69
, 2743.62 103
6.7.1 (4)
Hence 0.2 0.9 is satisfied
6.7.3.1 (1)
Hence 2.0 is satisfied
3.3.6 Buckling resistance of the composite column

in axial compression:
,
=
1
2
+ 2
1.0
22
= 0.5[1 + ( 0.2) + ] , = 0.21

= 0.5[1 + 0.21(0.11 0.2) + 0.112 ] = 0.48
=
1
0.48 + 0.482 0.112
= 1.05 > 1.0
= 1.0
, = 1 2743.62
, = 2743.62
23
3.4 Spread Sheet Solver using EC4

A spreadsheet solver is developed using Microsoft Excel [19] to check the adequacy of any
CFST section using EC4. The user can input the dimensions of the section and load applied to
check where the section is adequate or not.
3.4.1 Keywords:
The solver is divided into 3 main parts and the cells background is chosen to identify what the
cell represents. The parts are:
1. Input (Green Background)
2. Process (Light Grey background)
3. Output (Light orange background)
Figure 6: Excel keyword
3.4.2 Inputs:
Figure 7:Material properties for concrete and steel
1. First, the user inserts the material properties of the concrete which are:
Characteristics value of the cylinder compressive strength at 28 days fck (N/mm2)
24
Partial factor for concrete c

Design value of the cylinder compressive strength of concrete fcd (N/mm2)
Secant modulus of elasticity of concrete Ecm (N/mm2)
2. Then, insert the material properties of the steel which are:
Nominal value of the yield strength of structural steel fy (N/mm2)
Partial factor for steel
Design value of the yield strength of structural steel fyd (N/mm2)
Modulus of elasticity of structural steel Ea (N/mm2)
Figure 8: Loads and geometric properties
3. After that, insert the design value of the compressive normal force Ned (KN)
4. Finally, insert geometric properties of the cross-section:
Diameter D (mm).
Thickness of steel t (mm).
Length of column L (mm).
3.4.3 Process and outputs:
Figure 9: Cross-section properties
1. First, the excel sheet calculates the cross-section properties of concrete and steel:
Cross-sectional area of the structural steel section Aa (mm2)
Second moment of area of the structural steel section Ia (mm4)
Cross-sectional area of the concrete section Ac (mm2)
Second moment of area of the un-cracked concrete section Ic (mm4)
25
Figure 10: Material Limitation
2. Then, the program checks the material limitation, whether they are valid or not, by checking
the following:
The steel contribution ratio falls between 0.2 and 0.9
The relative slenderness is less than or equal 2
Figure 11: Local buckling check
3. The design checks (at ultimate limit state):

a. The effects of local buckling: d/t less than or equal 90*(235/ fy) will be checked
Figure 12: Plastic resistance and effective flexural stiffness calculation
26
a. Plastic resistance of the composite cross-section in compression will be calculated Npl,Rd

(KN).
b. The effective flexural stiffness of the composite cross-section (EI)eff (KN.m2) as well.
Figure 13: Buckling resistance check
c. After that, the program determines the reduction factor for flexural buckling
d. At last, the program checks that the buckling resistance of the composite column in axial
compression multiplying by the reduction factor for flexural buckling Npl,Rd (KN) is
greater than or equal to the design value of the compressive normal force Ned (KN)
27
Chapter 4
28
Chapter 4: Design using AISC/LRFD code

4.1 Design steps using LRFD
The design of composite columns is presented by AISC [20] in chapter (I), which addresses
composite columns composed rolled or built-up structural steel shapes or HSS, and structural
concrete acting together, and steel beams supporting a reinforced concrete slab so interconnected
that the beams and the slab act together to resist bending. Simple and continuous composite beams
with shear connectors and concrete-encased beams, constructed with or without temporary shores,
are included.
4.1.1General provisions:
4.1.1.1 Nominal Strength of Composite Sections (clause I1.1.):
The code provides two methods for determining the nominal strength of composite sections: the
plastic stress distribution method and the strain compatibility method. The tensile strength of the
concrete shall be neglected in the determination of the nominal strength of composite members.
Plastic Stress Distribution Method is used in this study.
4.1.1.2 Plastic Stress Distribution Method (clause I1.1.1a.):

For the plastic stress distribution method, the nominal strength shall be computed assuming that
steel components have reached a stress of Fy in either tension or compression and concrete
components in compression have reached a stress of 0.85 fc'. For round HSS filled with concrete,
a stress of 0.95 fc' is permitted to be used for concrete components in uniform compression to
account for the effects of concrete confinement.
4.1.2 Material Limitations (clause I1.2.):

Concrete and steel reinforcing bars in composite systems shall be subject to the following
limitations:
Concrete compressive strength shall falls between 3 ksi (21 MPa) and 10 ksi (70MPa) for
normal weight concrete and between 3 ksi (21 MPa) and 6 ksi (42 MPa) for lightweight
concrete.
For the structural steel and reinforcement bars the minimum yield stress should not exceed 75
ksi (525 MPa).
4.1.3 Axial member (clause I2):

4.1.3.1 Filled Composite Columns (clause I2.2.):
4.1.3.1.1 Limitations (clause I2.2.a.):
To qualify as a filled composite column the following limitations shall be met:
1. The cross-sectional area of the steel HSS shall comprise at least 1 percent of the total composite
cross section.
29
2. The maximum D/t ratio for a round HSS filled with concrete shall be 0.15 E/Fy. Higher ratios
are permitted when their use is justified by testing or analysis.
4.1.3.1.2 Compressive Strength (clause I2.2.b.):
The design compressive strength c Pn, and allowable compressive strength, Pn/c, for axially
loaded filled composite columns shall be determined for the limit state of flexural buckling as
follows [21]:
c= 0.75 (LRFD) c = 2.00 (ASD)
(13)
(a) When Pe 0.44Po
(14)
(b) When Pe < 0.44Po
(15)
Where:
(16)
C2 = 0.85 for rectangular sections and 0.95 for circular sections
(17)
And where:
As = area of the steel section, in.2 (mm2)
Ac = area of concrete, in.2 (mm2)
Asr = area of continuous reinforcing bars, in.2 (mm2)
Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete = wc1.5, ksi
Es = modulus of elasticity of steel = 29,000 ksi (210 MPa)
= specified compressive strength of concrete, ksi (MPa)
Fy = specified minimum yield stress of steel section, ksi (MPa)
Fyr = specified minimum yield stress of reinforcing bars, ksi (MPa)
Ic = moment of inertia of the concrete section, in.4 (mm4)
Is = moment of inertia of steel shape, in.4 (mm4)
Isr = moment of inertia of reinforcing bars, in.4 (mm4)
K = the effective length factor determined in accordance with Chapter C
L = laterally unbraced length of the member, in. (mm)
wc = weight of concrete per unit volume (90 wc 155 lbs/ft3 or 1500 wc 2500 kg/m3)
Where:
EIeff = effective stiffness of composite section, kip-in.2 (N-mm2)
30
(18)
31
4.2 Design Flow Chart using LRFD

= 0.75
= 0.658
= 0.877 < 0.44
0.44
(I2.1b.I2-3)
(I2.1b.I2-2)
= + + 2
(I2.2b.I2-13)
2
2
(I2.1b.I2-5)
2 = 0.95
=1
= + + 3
(I2.2b.I2-14)
3 = 0.6 + 2
0.9 ;
0.01
+
+
(I2.2b.I2-15)
32
4.3 Design Example using LRFD

Using the LRFD, the following CFST is tested:
= 203 = 7.99
= 12.7 = 0.5
= 7592.632 = 11.772
= 24772.842 = 38.402
= 250 2 = 36.26
= 25 2 = 3.63
= 609 = 23.98
= 29000
= 1.5
is weight of concrete per unit volume and it is between 90 and
155 3
= 145 3
= 1451.5 3.63 = 3326.64
=
(7.99 2 0.5)4
= 117.194
64
(7.99)4 (7.99 2 0.5)4
= 82.874
64
64
4.3.1 Material limitation:

1- Normal weight concrete should be used with 10 3
Section I 1.2
= 3.63, therefore the limitation satisfied.

2- The specified minimum yield stress of structural steel and reinforcing
bars used in calculating the strength of a composite column shall not
exceed 75
= 36.26, therefore the limitation satisfied.
33
Section I 1.2
3- The cross sectional area of the steel HSS shall comprise at least 1% of
the total composite cross section.
Section I 2.2 a
0.01 50.17 = 0.502 < 11.77, therefore the limitation satisfied.

4- The maximum ratio for a round HSS filled with concrete shall be
0.15
Section I 2.2 a
7.99
=
= 15.98
0.5
0.15
29000
= 0.15
= 119.97
36.26
15.98 119.97, therefore the limitation satisfied.
4.3.2 Nominal axial compressive strength without

consideration of length effects
= + + 2
Eq (12-13)
2 = 0.95 for circular section
Section I 2.2 b
= 11.77 36.26 + 0 + 0.95 38.40 3.63 = 559.20
4.3.3 Euler buckling load

=
2
()2
Section I 2.5
Section I 2.4
= + + 3
3 = 0.6 + 2 (
) 0.9
+
Eq (12-15)
11.77
3 = 0.6 + 2 (
) = 1.069 > 0.9
11.77 + 38.4
3 = 0.9
= 29000 82.8 + 0 + 0.9 3326.64 117.19
= 2754094.05. 2
34
2 2754094.05
=
(1.0 23.98)2
= 47269.41
0.44
Section I 2.1
47269.41 0.44 559.2

47269.41 246.05
4.3.4 Factored nominal axial strength
( )
Therefore, = (0.658
Section I 2.1 d
559.2
= 559.2 (0.658(47269.41) )
= 556.44
= 0.75
Section I 2.1
= 0.75 556.44 = 417.33
35
4.4 Spread Sheet Solver using LRFD

CFST section using LRFD. The user can input the dimensions of the section and load applied to
4.4.1 Keywords:
Figure 14: Excel keyword
4.4.2 Input:
Figure 15: Material properties for concrete and steel
1. First, insert the material properties of the concrete which are:

Specified minimum compressive strength of concrete fc'(MPa)
Weight of concrete per unit volume (90 wc 155 lbs/ft3)
Specified minimum yield stress of the type of steel being used Fy (MPa)
Modulus of elasticity of steel = 29,000 ksi (200 000 MPa) Es
36
3. After that, insert the design value of the compressive normal force (KN).
Diameter D (mm).
Length of column L (mm).
4.4.3 Process and outputs:
Area of steel cross-section As (in2)
Moment of inertia of steel shape Is (in4)
Area of concrete cross-section Ac (in2)
Moment of inertia of the concrete section Ic (in4)
Figure 18: Material limitation
2. Then, the program checks the material limitation, whether they are valid or not, by checking
the following:
37
The Specified minimum compressive strength of concrete fc' (ksi) falls between 3 ksi
and 10 ksi
The minimum yield stress should not exceed 75 ksi
The cross-sectional area of the steel shall comprise at least one percent of the total
composite cross section.
The maximum D/t ratio shall be equal to 0.15 E/Fy
Figure 19: Compressive strength calculation
3. Now the program will calculate the available compressive strength by calculating:
Nominal axial compressive strength without consideration of length effects Po (kips)
Effective stiffness of composite section (EI)eff (kip.in2)
Euler buckling load, evaluated in the plane of bending Pe kips
Nominal axial strength Pn (kips)
4. At last, the program checks that the nominal axial strength multiplied by the resistance factor
for axially loaded composite columns cPn is greater than or equal to the design value of
the compressive normal force.
38
Chapter 5
39
Chapter 5: Design using Australian code

5.1 Design steps using A.S.
5.1.1 Strength of Short Columns:
The design of a concrete-filled steel column is presented in Australian code by using a combination
of the Australian Standard of concrete structures (AS 3600-2001) [22] and the Australian Standard
of steel structures (AS 4100-1998) [23]. Thus the ultimate axial force of a column can be
represented as:
[1] [24]
(19)
The Australian Standard for concrete structures, AS 3600, will not allow confinement, as it does
not treat the behavior of concrete-filled steel columns directly. The concrete contribution to
strength can be determined by using:
(20)
The steel strength can be determined from Eq:
(21)
If one combines the concrete and steel strengths, Nuc and Nus, respectively, from the AS 3600 and
AS 4100 analysis, the resulting ultimate axial strength can be written as:
(22)
5.1.2 Australian standard concrete structures AS 3600-2001:

5.1.2.1 Design of short column:
5.1.2.1.1 General (clause 10.3.1):
The design of short columns is presented by AS 3600-2001 in clause 10.6 and 10.7. Alternatively,
for short columns with small axial forces or small bending moments, the design is presented in
clause 10.3.2 and 10.3.3 respectively.
A column shall be deemed to be short where:
a) For a braced column:
(23)
40
b) For an unbraced column:

(24)
Where:
r the radius of gyration of the cross-sections determined in accordance with clause 10.5.2
M1*/M2* the ratio of the smaller to the larger of the design bending moments at the ends of the
column. The ratio is taken to be negative when the column is bent in single curvature and positive.
When the absolute value of M2* is less than or equal to 0.05DN*, the ratio shall be taken as 1.0.
Le the effective length, determined as following:
For the braced column restrained by flat slab floor, Lu

For the braced column restrained by beams, 0.9Lu
for a column designed in accordance with clause 10.2.2, Lu
5.1.2.1.2 Short braced column with small bending moments (clause 10.3.30:
The bending moments in a short interior column of a braced rectangular framed building structure
may be disregarded if:
The ratio of the longer to the shorter length of any two adjacent spans does not exceed 1.2
The loads are essentially uniformly distributed
The live load (q) doesnt exceed twice the did load (g)
The cross-section of the column is symmetrically reinforced
If all the condition is applied the design axial strength (Nu) is taken as not greater than (0.75Nu).
5.1.2.2 Slenderness:
5.1.2.2.1 General (clause 10.5.1):
The slenderness ratio (Le/r) of a column shall not exceed 120
5.1.2.2.2 Radius of gyration (clause 10.5.2):
The radius of gyration (r) shall be calculated for the gross concrete cross-section. For a rectangular
section, r may be taken as 0.3D, where D is the overall dimension in the direction in which stability
is being considered and for a circular cross-section, r may be taken as 0.25D
5.1.2.2.3 Calculation of Nuo (clause 10.6.3):
The ultimate strength in compression (Nuo) shall be calculated by assuming:
a) A uniform concrete compressive stress of 0.85 fc
b) A maximum strain in the steel and the concrete of 0.0025
41
5.1.3 Australian Standard Steel structures AS 4100-1998:

5.1.3.1 Design for axial compression (clause 6.1):
A concentrically loaded member subject to a design axial compression force (N*) shall satisfy both:
(25)
Where:
the capacity factor
Ns the nominal section capacity
Nc the nominal member capacity
5.1.3.2 Nominal section capacity (clause 6.2):

The nominal section capacity (Ns) of a concentrically loaded compression member shall be
calculated as follows:
(26)
Where:
kf the form factor given in Clause 6.2.2.
An the net area of the cross-section, except that for sections with penetrations or unfilled holes that
reduce the section area by less than 100{1 [fy/(0.85fu)]}%, the gross area may b used.
5.1.3.2.1 Form factor (clause 6.2.2):
(27)
Where:
Ae the effective area
Ag the gross area of the section.
The effective area (Ae) shall be calculated from the gross area by summing the effective areas of
the individual elements, whose effective widths are determined as following:
5.1.3.2.2 Effective width (clause 6.2.4):
The effective width (be) for a flat plate element shall be calculated as follows:
(28)
42
The effective outside diameter (de) for a circular hollow section shall be the lesser of:
(29)
Alternatively, the effective width (be) for a flat plate element may be obtained from the following:
(30)
Where kb is the elastic buckling coefficient for the element. For a flat plate element supported
along both longitudinal edges:
kbo = 4.0
And for a flat plate element supported along one longitudinal edge (outstand):
kbo = 0.425
The elastic buckling coefficient (kb) for the flat plate element shall be determined from a rational
elastic buckling analysis of the whole member as a flat plate assemblage.
Table 4: Values of plate element yield slenderness limit (based on table 6.2.4, AS4100) [23]
43
5.1.3.2.3 Plate element slenderness (clause 6.2.3):

The slenderness (e) of a flat plate element shall be calculated as follows:
(31)
Where:
b the clear width of the element outstand from the face of the supporting plate element, or the clear
width of the element between the faces of the supporting plate elements.
t the thickness of the plate.
For circular hollow sections, the element slenderness (e) shall be calculated as follows:
(32)
Where:
do the outside diameter of the section
t the wall thickness of the section.
5.1.3.3 Nominal capacity of a member of constant cross-section (clause 6.3.3):

(33)
Where:
Ns
= the nominal section capacity
= the member slenderness reduction factor
(34)
44
(35)
b = the appropriate member section constant

Table 5 values of member section for kf = 1.0 (based on table 6.3.3(1), AS4100) [23]
45
Table 6 values of member section constant (b) for kf < 1.0 (based on table 6.3.3(2),AS4100)
[23]
46
5.2 Design Flow Chart using A.S.
47
5.3 Design Example Using A.S.

Using the Australian standard, the following CFST is tested:
= 203
= 12.7
= 7592.632
= 24772.842
= 250 2
= 25 2
= 609
= 210 2
The Australian standard has a different methodology other than the
previous two standards. It requires to calculate the capacity of steel tube
and the concrete separately. So, starting with concrete section capacity the
following procedure will be followed:
5.3.1 Standard AS 3600-2001 (concrete structure)

5.3.1.1 Short column check
A column shall be deemed to be short where
For braced column, it should be classified as short column or slender. The
classification will be according to the condition:
25 60 (1 + ) (1
)
2
0.6
10.3.1
10.5
= 609 =
10.5.2
= 0.25 For circular cross-section

= 0.25 203 = 50.75
609
= 12 < 25
50.75

48
5.3.1.2 Calculation of (The ultimate strength in

compression):
The ultimate strength in compression for concrete section will be
determined according to the formula:
=
10.6.3
= 0.85
= 0.85
= 0.85 24772.84 25 103 = 526.42
5.3.2 Standard AS 4100-1998 (steel structure)

For the steel section capacity, the following procedure will be followed:
A concentrically loaded member subjected to design axial force ( ) shall
satisfy both:
< <
6.1
5.3.2.1 Nominal section capacity ( ):The nominal section capacity will be determined according to the formula:
=
6.2.1
The Form Factor ( ) will be determined according to the formula:

=
6.2.2
(2 ( 2)2 )
=
4
The effective outside diameter ( ) for a circular hollow section shall be
the lesser of:
= ( )
6.2.4
And
2
3
= (
)
49
The element slenderness ( ) shall be calculated as follows:
203 250
= ( ) (
)=(
)(
) = 15.98
250
12.7 250
6.2.3
= 82
Table 6.2.4
= 203
82
= 459.85 > 203
15.98
3 82 2
= 203 (
) = 48107.5 > 203
15.98
= 203
=
(2032 (203 2 12.7)2 )

= 7592.632
4
= = = 7592.632
=
=1
6.2.1
= = 7592.842
= 1 7592.84 250 103 = 1898.21
5.3.2.2 Nominal member capacity ( ):First, the effective length will be determined according to the formula:
=
6.3.2
= 1
4.6.3
Figure 4.6.3.2
= 1 = 609
Nominal capacity of a member of constant cross-section will be
determined according to the formula:
=
6.3.3
90 2
= [1 [1 ( ) ]]
(90) + 1 +
2
2 (90)
50
= +
= 0.00326( 13.5) 0
= ( ) ( )(
)
250
=
=
(4 ( 2)4 )
64
(2034 (203 2 12.7)4 )

= 34523111.734
64
34523111.73
=
= 67.43
7592.63
= (
=
=
609
250
) 1
= 9.03
67.43
250
2100( 13.5)
2 15.3 + 2050
2100(9.03 13.5)
= 4.71
9.032 15.3 9.03 + 2050
= 1.0 (Hot-formed CHS section)
Table 6.3.3 (1)
= 9.03 + (4.71 1) = 13.74

= 0.00326(13.74 13.5) = 0.0007 0
=
13.74 2
90
) + 1 + 0.0007
2(
13.74 2
90
= 21.97
2
90
= 21.97 [1 [1 (
) ]] = 0.999
21.97 13.74
= 0.999 1898.21 = 1896.645 1898.21

= 1896.645
51
5.3.3 Ultimate capacity

To choose the ultimate capacity in steel section, the lesser of these two
should be taken:
=
Table 3.4
= 0.80 ( )
= 0.80 1896.645
= 1517.316
6.1
= 0.80 1898.21
= 1518.57
, = 1517.316
Finally, the ultimate capacity of the whole section is the summation of the
ultimate capacity of concrete section and ultimate capacity of steel section.
So:
= +
= 526.42 + 1517.316 = 2043.739
52
5.4 Spread Sheet Solver using A.S.

CFST section using A.S. The user can input the dimensions of the section and load applied to
5.4.1 Key word:

Figure 20: Excel key word
5.4.2 Input:
Figure 21: Material properties for concrete and steel
1. First, insert the material properties of the concrete which are:

Fatigue strength corrected for concrete f'c (N/mm2)
Yield stress used in design fy (N/mm2)
Youngs modulus of elasticity, 200 103 E (N/mm2)
53
3. After that, insert the design value of the compressive normal force (KN).
Diameter D (mm).
Length of column Lu (mm).
5.4.3 Process and output:
Cross-sectional area of the structural steel section As (mm2)
Second moment of area of the structural steel section Is (mm4)
Cross-sectional area of the concrete section Ac (mm2)
2. Then the calculation will divide into two part: calculation for concrete and calculation for steel
tube as follow:
54
Figure 24: Concrete calculation
3. In the first part, the program will check whether the column is short or slender by checking
that the effective length Le over the radius of gyration is less than or equal 25 (for short
column).
4. Then the concrete compressive Strength will be calculated Nuc (KN).
Figure 25: Steel tube calculation
5. In the second part, the nominal section capacity Ns (KN) will be calculated by calculating
the following:
a. The section slenderness e
b. Plate element yield slenderness ey using table 6.2.4
c. The effective outside diameter for a circular hollow section de (mm)
d. The effective area of steel section Ae (mm2)
e. The gross area of the section Ag (mm2)
f. The form factor kf
55
Figure 26:Steel tube calculation
6. The nominal member capacity Nc (KN) will be calculated by calculating the following:
a. Effective length Le (mm)
b. The radius of gyration of steel section r (mm)
c. The modified member slenderness n
d. Compression member section constant b using Table 6.3.3(l)
e. Compression member factor a
f. Slenderness ratio
g. Compression member imperfection factor
h. Compression member factor
i. Compression member slenderness reduction factor c
7. After that, the program will determine the steel tube section capacity Nus (KN)
Figure 27: Total capacity and final check
8. The total capacity of the entire section Nu (KN) will be calculated by adding the concrete
compressive Strength Nus (KN) and the steel tube strength Nuc (KN).
9. Finally, the program will check whether the section is safe or not by checking that the applied
force is less than or equal to the section capacity.
56
Chapter 6
57
Chapter 6: Finite Element Analysis

6.1 General
Finite Element Analysis has been used in many previous researches to predict the behavior of
Concrete Filled Steel Tube (CFST) circular column when under load, using commercial finite
element software like ANSYS and ABAQUS. In this study, a finite element model is developed
to stimulate the behavior of CFST short column using ANSYS 14.0 software [25]. The type of
analysis used is a non-linear analysis. A number of 6 models were created to simulate the axial
capacity and failure modes of these models and to compare them with the parametric calculations
of the three codes.
The L/D ratio is 5, which is fixed for all the samples. Similarly, the compressive strength of the
concrete (fcu) and the yield strength of the steel tube (fy) were fixed. The value of fcu was chosen
as 20 N/mm2 and that of fy was 317 N/mm2. The samples were divided into 3 groups. Each group
have 2 samples with fixed length but different D/t ratio, which gives different wall thickness. The
first group have a length of 600 mm with D/t ratios of 55 and 10. The second group have a length
of 1800 mm with D/t ratios of 85 and 10. Whereas, the third group have a length of 3600 mm with
D/t ratios of 85 and 25.
In order to accurately predict the behavior of CFST column, the main three components of these
columns have to be modeled correctly. These components are the circular steel tube, the confined
concrete and the interface between the concrete and the steel tube. In addition to these parameters,
the loading and boundary condition, and the mesh size that provide accurate results with reasonable
computational time are also important in simulating the structure.
6.2 Model
The samples are modeled using the commercial software SolidWorks 2013 [26]. The reason
behind using SolidWorks instead of ANSYS to model the sample, is due to the complexity of
ANSYS in modelling and lack of a friendly user interface. Each part is drawn separately and the
combined using mate function.
The model is imported to ANSYS and assigned the material properties to each part of it. The
stiffness behavior of the steel tube and concrete core were assumed to be flexible.
6.3 Finite Element Mesh

ANSYS treats each element in the mesh separately and analyze it to find the forces in the element.
Thus, selecting the size of mesh is important to get an accurate result. A fine size mesh is selected.
The physics preference of the mesh is mechanical. The Automatic Method is used to generate the
mesh elements in the concrete core and the steel tube. This method selects the sizing of the mesh
based on the size of the section. The steel tube have been observed to have thin and small elements,
whereas, the concrete core have large elements.
58
Figure 28: Meshed CFST column in ANSYS
6.4 Boundary Conditions and Load Application

Following the testing procedures conducted by Giakoumelis and Lam [27] and Sakino et al. [9],
the top and bottom surfaces of the concrete-filled steel tube circular columns were fixed against
all degrees of freedom except for the displacement at the loaded end, which is the top surface, in
the direction of the applied load. This was done using remote displacement support for the top
surface and fixed support for the bottom surface.
A loading plate was installed at the top surface and a base plate at the bottom surface, to simulate
the experimental test.
The load is applied in the form of a point load at the center of the loading plate. The loading plate
displaces in the Y-direction only, which makes the concrete core and the steel tube displacing
uniformly.
59
Figure 29: CFST column with loading and base plate; force applied on the loading plate
6.5 Concrete-Steel tube interaction

There were two approaches to the concrete-steel tube interactions. The first approach is to assume
that the contact between the concrete core and the steel tube is a bonded contact. This means that
the steel tube cannot separate from the concrete core under the influence of a tensile force and the
concrete will hold the steel bonded to it. Also, the two contact elements are not allowed to penetrate
each other.
The second approach is to assume that the contact between the concrete core and the steel tube is
based on the friction of the two materials. The friction between the two faces of the materials is
maintained as long as the surfaces remain in contact. The coefficient of friction between the two
faces is taken as 0.25 in the analysis. The contact region allows the surfaces to separate under the
influence of a tensile force. However, the two contact elements are not allowed to penetrate each
other.
60
The second approach is more realistic and similar to experimental tests conducted by Shneider
[28] as it is seen that the steel tube bulges out at the center under load, thus separating from the
concrete surface, which is not possible in the first approach. Surprisingly, the second approach
gave higher capacity of the section by 105% to 120%. In this report, the second approach is used.
Figure 30: Seperation of Steel and concrete after the application of load
6.6 Steps of Design

The design of a finite element model and the analysis using ANSYS Workbench requires 7 main
steps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Defining the analysis system

Entering the engineering data
Modelling the Geometry
Assigning the properties, connections and mesh of the model
Setting up the model (Applying loads and assigning supports)
Setting up the solution
61
7. Viewing the results
Figure 31: Steps of ANSYS design
6.6.1 Defining the analysis system

The first step in the design is to define the type of system to be used. ANSYS solves each system
in a separate software. Choosing a different system will result in a different analysis software and
different tools, hence, it will give different results. Thus, defining the type of system is the most
crucial step.
Figure 32: Types of analysis systems in ANSYS Workbench
Since, CFST column is a static structure, Static Structural system is used.
62
6.6.2 Entering the Engineering data

This step involves entering the type of material to be used and its properties. The user can choose
the type of material from the Engineering Data source and modifies its properties. There are a
large number of materials to choose from. The materials chosen in this report are Concrete and
Structural Steel under General Materials. Then, the properties of each material are modified
based on sample to be analysed.
Figure 33: Engineering data source in ANSYS Workbench
Figure 34: Properties for concrete material in ANSYS Workbench
6.6.3 Modelling the Geometry

SolidWorks is a software made for drawing 3D sophisticated models. Its basic concept is to draw
each part of the model separately then assemble them in a one drawing. This software was used
to prepare the column models which are then tested using ANSYS because SolidWorks is more
user friendly than ANSYS. ANSYS is fully equipped to accept the assembled drawings.
63
Figure 35: Solidworks new files interface
There are 3 types of parts in each CFST model: steel tube, concrete core and steel plates that
cover the bottom and top of the column. Their procedure of drawing are the same. First of all, the
plane of drawing should be selected to draw the part which is the top plane in the case of the
columns. A circle is drawn on the plane. To draw the circle, the centroid and the radius of the
circle should be specified.
Figure 36: Input parameters for cirles
64
For the steel tubes, another circle should be drawn with the same centroid and the same radius
but subtracting the thickness of the steel wall.
Figure 37: Plan view of a steel tube
The part is then drawn in 3 dimensions. Here, the missed dimension is the depth. So by using the
command "Extrude", the part will be extruded. The command allows to insert the value of
extrude. The value in this case will be the length of the column.
Figure 38: Extruded steel tube
The same procedure is be followed for the other parts.
65
Figure 39: Extruded concrete core
Figure 40: Extruded steel plate
The resultant parts are then assembled in an assembly file. After establishing the file, the parts
should be inserted. The parts can be placed randomly.
66
Figure 41: parts of a column inserted in assemly file
In order to place each part in its appropriate place, the command "Mate" is used. This command
includes some options to relate surfaces of parts with other surfaces of different parts.
Figure 42: Command "Mate" properties
67
To make all parts in the same centroid for the vertical axis, the surrounding surface should be
selected and the mate command "Concentric" should be applied to them. For example, to bring
the concrete core inside the steel tube, the wall of the steel tube and the surrounding surface of
concrete core should be selected and the command should be applied to them. Also, to make
each part in its appropriate elevation, the plane surfaces that should be in the same level should
be selected and mate command "Coincident" should be applied to them. For example, to put the
plate on the top of the column, the bottom surface of the plate and the top surface of the column
should be selected and the command should be applied to them. Finally, the assembled model
will be ready to save and import in ANSYS to complete the other procedure.
Figure 43: Finallized model using Solidworks
6.6.4 Assigning the properties, connections and mesh of the model

By clicking Model in ANSYS Workbench, ANSYS takes the user to another software called
ANSYS Mechanical.
The outline of ANSYS Mechanical are Geometry, Coordinate Systems, Connection, Mesh and
Static Structural.
68
Figure 44: Outline of ANSYS Mehcanical
6.6.4.1 Model Properties

The user can enter the properties of each part of the model under Geometry.
Figure 45: Defining the properties of each part in ANSYS Mechanical
The stiffness behavior is assumed Flexible. The coordinate system is not changed. For the
Concrete Core, Concrete material is assigned to it. Whereas, for the Steel tube, base plate and
loading plate, Structural Steel material is assigned.
Figure 46: Properties of each part of the model in ANSYS Mechanical
6.6.4.2 Connection between different parts of the model

The types of contact between each part and the other are chosen. For the models prepared in this
study, there are 5 contacts. They are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Concrete Core and Loading Plate

Concrete Core and Base Plate
Concrete Core and Steel Tube
Steel Tube and Loading Plate
Steel Tube and Base Plate
The contact between the Steel tube and the Concrete core are assumed to be frictional with a
friction coefficient of 0.25. Whereas, the other parts are assumed to be bonded.
69
Figure 47: Contacts between each part of the model in ANSYS Mechanical
Figure 48: Details of the contact between Concrete Core and Steel tube in ANSYS Mechanical
6.6.4.3 Generating the mesh of the model

Under Mesh in ANSYS Mechanical, the details of mesh toolbox appears. In this study, a fine
mesh is used to give more accurate results. After choosing the details of the mesh, clicking on
Generate Mesh at the toolbar above, will create the mesh for the whole model.
Figure 49: Details of Mesh in ANSYS Mechanical
70
6.6.5 Setting up the Model

Setting up the model involves two main steps. They are:
1. Applying Loads
2. Assigning the supports
These steps can be found under Static Structural in ANSYS Mechanical software.
Figure 50: Setting up the model under Static Structural in ANSYS Mechanical
6.6.5.1 Applying Loads

In the models prepared, the force is in the form of unit load and is applied at the center of the
loading plate. This is achieved by clicking on loads and then choosing force as the type of load.
Details of the force dialog appears. In order to apply the force at the center of the loading plate,
the upper face of the loading plate is chosen and apply geometry is clicked. The force is applied
in Newton and the components of the force should be specified using the Global Coordinate
System. Since, the force is vertical and downwards, the force is applied in the Y component only,
with a negative value.
Figure 51: Details of force in ANSYS Mechanical
6.6.5.2 Assigning the Supports

For the base plate, it is assumed that it is fixed against any degree of freedom. Thus, fixed
support is chosen for the bottom face of the base plate, and is available under Supports in the
upper toolbar.
71
Figure 52: Details of Fixed Support in ANSYS Mechanical
For the Loading plate, it is assumed that it is fixed against any degree of freedom except for the
displacement in the Y component. This is achieved by choosing Remote displacement. The
Geometry selected is the upper face of the loading plate. The displacement of Y component is
chosen as free which means that it is free to move. Whereas, the displacement of X and Z
components is chosen as constant which gave the value 0. m. This means that it is fixed against
displacement in the X and Z components. The rotation about X, Y and Z components is similarly
chosen as constant, which gave the value 0. and means that it is fixed against rotation in all
the components.
Figure 53: Details of Remote Displacement in ANSYS Mechanical
6.6.6 Setting up the solution

This step involves what the user wants ANSYS to solve. In other word, what the user wants to
see in the solution. There are many types of solutions. The most important are stress, strain and
deformation.
Figure 54: Solution options in ANSYS Mechanical
In this study, 3 main solution tools were used.

1. Equivalent (von-Mises) stress
72
2. Stress Ratio
3. Stress Probe
6.6.6.1 Equivalent (von-Mises) stress

Equivalent stress is related to the principal stress by the equation:
[29]
Equivalent stress (also called von Mises stress) is often used in design work because it allows
any arbitrary three-dimensional stress state to be represented as a single positive stress value. It
shows the stresses in each element of the model irrespective of the material properties.
Figure 55: Equivalent (von-Mises) Stress in Ansys Mechanical
6.6.6.2 Stress ratio

Stress ratio is a tool which divides the stress in each element of the model by the strength of the
respective material. Thus, if the maximum stress ratio is less than or equal to 1, the stresses does
not exceed the strength of the material. Hence, the model is safe against the applied force. But, if
73
the maximum stress ratio is greater than 1, the stress exceeds the strength of the material making
the model unsafe against the applied force.
Figure 56: Stress ratio in ANSYS Mechanical
6.6.3 Stress probe

Stress probe is a tool that gives the user the maximum stress in a part of the model. Thus, if the
user selects the concrete core, it will give him the maximum stress in the concrete core only,
unlike equivalent stress which give the maximum stress for the whole model. If the maximum
stress probe for a part of the model is less than or equal to the strength of the material of the
respective part, then it is safe against the applied force. But, if the maximum stress probe is
greater than the strength of the material, then it is unsafe against the applied force.
74
Figure 57: Stress Probe in ANSYS Mechanical
6.6.7 Viewing the results

In order to view the results, the user have to click on the solve button in the top most toolbar.
This process takes a while and it depends on the size of the mesh, the contact between the parts
of the model and other parameters. It has been observed that it the contact between the steel tube
and concrete core is frictional it takes 10-30 times more in order to solve and analyze the
structure. Most of the models took between 15 minutes to 30 minutes to solve.
75
Chapter 7
76
Chapter 7: Results and Discussion

7.1 Verification of the results
In order to verify the results of the Finite Element analysis and the ones calculated using the three
available codes (American, Australian and Euro), they are compared with those available in the
published literature. Three sample were chosen to confirm the results.
7.1.1 Verification of FEM results

The finite element results were verified by comparing them with those published by Shneider [28].
The same sample sizes were taken as that of the paper. The steel strength is Fy=317 MPa and the
concrete strength is fc=20 MPa. The samples had constant L/D ratio of 5. The comparison results
are shown in Table 7.
Table 7: Verification of FEM results
Cross-Sectional Properties
Outer
Length
Wall
Diameter
As
Ac
As/Atotal
(L)
thickness L/D D/t
2
2
(D)
(mm ) (mm )
(%)
(mm)
(t) (mm)
(mm)
600
120
2.18
5
55
808
10502
7.14
1800
360
4.24
5
85 4734
97054
4.65
3600
720
8.47
5
85 18935 388216
4.65
Proposed FEM by
FE
Shneider
Analysis
[28]
PFE1
(kN)
PFE2
(kN)
491.6
3981.1
15904.3
535
3830
15100
PFE1/ PFE2
The results of the FE analysis in this report are very close to the results of the analysis by Shneider.
The ratio of the results of this report to that of Shneider ranges from 0.92 to 1.05. It can be seen
that in small sample sizes, the results of this report are less than that by Shneider, whereas for
larger sections, the results are greater than that by Shneider. Similarly, for higher As/Atotal ratio,
the results are less than that of Shneider.
The differences in the results are due to many reasons. The major reason is the type of mesh used.
In this report, the automatic method of defining the mesh is used. Whereas, in the study by
Shneider, two types of mesh were chosen, which are different for the steel and the concrete. The
steel tube was modeled using an 8-node shell element, with five degrees of freedom at each node.
The concrete core was modeled using 20-node brick elements, with three translational degrees of
freedom at each node.
Another reason is the software used in the analysis. Shneider used ABAQUS software, where as
in this report, ANSYS software was used. The ABAQUS software used was quite old. It was
released in 1994, whereas the ANSYS used was released in 2011. This 17 years difference may
have resulted in a lot changes in the way softwares analyses structures.
77
0.92
1.04
1.05
Lastly, the assumptions on which the analysis is based may be different. In this report, loading
plate and base plate were fixed at the top and bottom respectively. Schneider did not mention that
plates were fixed in the FEM but in his experimental tests, plates were fixed. Also, the value of
Modulus of Elasticity used was not mentioned.
7.1.2 Verification of Euro code (EC4) results

The Euro code results were verified by comparing them with those published in the literature by
E. Ellobody [10]. The same sample sizes were taken as that of the paper. Values of fcu and fy and
comparison results are shown in Table 8.
Table 8: Verification of Euro code (EC4) results
Material
Properties
Length
(L)
(mm)
300
300
300
Euro
Code
Outer Wall
Conc. Steel
Dia. thick.
As
Ac
As/Atotal
PEC1
D/t
fcu
fy
(D)
(t)
(mm2) (mm2)
(%)
(kN)
(MPa) (MPa)
(mm) (mm)
114
2.85 40
995
9212
9.75
30
343 792.12
114
2.07 55
728
9479
7.13
30
343 663.87
114
2.07 55
728
9479
7.13
50
343 780.70
E.
Ellobody
PEC2
(kN)
798.5
654.3
800.4
The results of the Euro code computation in this report were almost similar to that of Ellobody.
The ratio of the results in this report to that of Ellobody ranges from 0.98 to 1.01. This similarity
in the results confirms the results in this report. The reason for the similarities are due to the fact
that the same code is used (EN 1994-1-1:2001). These small differences are most likely due to
rounding errors in calculations.
7.1.3 Verification of American code (AISC/LRFD) results

The Euro code results were verified by comparing them with those published by Shneider [28].
The same sample sizes were taken as that of the paper. The steel strength is Fy=317 MPa and the
concrete strength is fc=20 MPa. The samples had constant L/D ratio of 5. The comparison of
results are shown in Table 9.
The results of the American code computation in this report were almost similar to that of Shneider.
The ratio of the results in this report to that of Shneider ranges from 0.96 to 1.00. This similarity
in the results verifies the results in this report.
The reason for the slight differences are due to the fact that the code used by Shneider is the Manual
of Steel Construction (LRFD) 1994 [30], whereas the code used in this report is the Manual of
Steel Construction (LRFD) 2006 [20]. The code used by Shneider is the older version of the
American code. In that code composite columns are treated similar to steel sections but with some
modifications of the properties of the steel section such as the slenderness ratio. Whereas, the code
78
Ratio
PEC1/
PEC2
0.99
1.01
0.98
used in this report is the latest version of the code which have a separate chapter for composite
column and different formulae.
Table 9: Verification of American code (AISC/LRFD) results
American
Shneider
Code
Length
(L)
(mm)
600
1800
3600
Outer
Dia.
(D)
(mm)
120
360
720
Wall
thick.
(t)
(mm)
2.18
4.24
8.47
L/D D/t
5
5
5
55
85
85
As
Ac
As/Atotal
(mm^2) (mm^2)
(%)
808
4734
18935
10502
97054
388216
7.14
4.65
4.65
Pcr1 (kN)
Pcr2 (kN)
520.5
3820.7
15275.5
523
3985
15938
Ratio
Pcr1/
Pcr2
1.00
0.96
0.96
Another reason for the differences is that Shneider did not mention the weight of concrete per unit
volume (wc) assumed in his calculation. The value of wc is required in determining the value of the
Modulus of Elasticity of concrete (Ecm). Thus, Ecm value changes and therefore the results are
effected.
7.1.4 Verification of Australian code (AS) results

The Australian code results were verified by comparing them with those published by E. Ellobody
[10]. The same sample sizes were taken as that of the paper. The values of fcu and fy and
comparison of results are shown in Table 10.
Table 10: Verification of Australian code results
Material
Properties
Outer Wall
Length
As/
Conc. Steel
Dia. thick.
As
Ac
(L)
D/t
Atotal
fcu
fy
(D)
(t)
(mm^2) (mm^2)
(mm)
(%) (MPa) (MPa)
(mm) (mm)
300
114
2.85
40
995
9212
9.75
300
114
2.07
55
728
9479
7.13
300
114
2.07
55
728
9479
7.13
30
343
30
343
50
343
Austral.
E.
Code
Ellobody
Nu1
(kN)
Ratio
Nu1/
Nu2 (kN) Nu2
507.76
529.5
0.96
441.29
443.2
1.00
602.43
572.2
1.05
The results of the Australian code computation in this report were close to those published by
Ellobody. The ratio of the results of this report to that of Ellobody ranges from 0.96 to 1.05.
79
The reason behind these differences are due to the fact that Ellobody uses the American Concrete
Institute standard (ACI) which was used as the Australian standard before the release of a separate
Australian standard. In this report, AS-4100 [23] was used for steel tube and AS-3600 [22] was
used for the concrete core. Thus, the results used in this report are using an updated standard with
different formulae.
7.2 Comparison of the results

7.2.1 Comparison of the results for the three codes
After verifying the results of the calculations in the three codes, six samples were taken and the
results of the load bearing capacity of the sections were compared. All the sections have a fixed
L/D ratio of 5. The values of fcu=20 N/mm2 and fy=317 N/mm2 were also fixed for all the sections.
The comparison results are shown in Table 11.
Table 11: Comparison of the various codes
Length
(L)
(mm)
600
600
1800
1800
3600
3600
Outer
Dia.
(D)
(mm)
120
120
360
360
720
720
Wall
thick.
(t)
(mm)
2.18
12.00
4.24
36.00
8.47
28.80
Euro
Code
American
Code
Australian
Code
As
(mm2)
Ac
(mm2)
As/Atotal
(%)
Npl,Rd
(kN)
Pcr (kN)
Nu (kN)
807
4072
4739
36644
18933
62538
10503
7238
97049
65144
388217
344612
7.13
36.00
4.66
36.00
4.65
15.36
434.9
1483.3
3028.3
13350
12105.6
27112.8
520.5
1632.2
3820.7
14689.8
15275.5
30179.8
383.2
1155.6
2851.6
10400
11401
21718
It has been found that the American code gave the highest compressive capacity in all the samples.
The Australian code gave the lowest compressive capacity in all the samples. Whereas, the Euro
code gave results between the American and the Australian code.
The large differences are due to many reasons. One of the reasons is the differences in the limits
of local buckling checks between the American and the Euro code. The American Standard limits
( 0.15 /) are generally greater than that of the Euro code limits ( 90 235/).
Another reason, is due to the increase in strength of concrete by confinement. The Euro code
mentions clearly how to deal with the confinement effect by providing a formula to check whether
the concrete confines for the sample size while in the American code the confinement effect was
not considered.
The difference in the equations between the codes resulted in the large differences in the capacities.
The calculation of the relative slenderness of the section is different in the three standards and their
limits are different. Similarly, the calculation of the effective stiffness of the composite section is
80
different in the Euro code than that for the others. Also, there is a reduction factor due to column
buckling in the Euro code, which is not found in the American code.
There is a difference in the limitation of the compressive strength of the concrete and the yield
stress of the steel; for the Euro code to that of the American code. For example, the compressive
strength of concrete in the Euro code should not exceed 50 MPa, whereas that of the American
code should range between 21 MPa and 70 MPa. Thus, Euro code cannot be used for high strength
concrete.
The Australian Standard cannot be compared directly with other standards, because as mentioned
previously that it does not have a separate formulas for composite sections, but it follows the same
procedure of ACI standard and uses steel code and concrete code to calculate the capacities of the
steel tube and the concrete core respectively. The Australian steel standard AS-4100 suggest a set
of slenderness limits that do not allow for the beneficial effect of local buckling. Also, the effect
of concrete confinement is ignored in the Australian standard.
From an economical point of view, the American gives the least conservative results (highest
capacity). This will give the cheapest section for the same capacity compared to the other
standards. On the other hand, the Australian standard will be the most expensive. Another
advantage of the American standard is that it provides small sections which provides more space
in the buildings.
7.2.2 Comparison of FEM results with the codes

The same six samples that were used to compare the three codes are used, with FEM results. The
comparison of the results are shown in Table 12.
Table 12: Comparison of FEM with the codes
Euro
Code
American
Code
Australian
Code
PFE/PEC
PFE/Pcr
PFE/Nu
492
1.13
0.94
1.28
1035
0.70
0.63
0.90
3981
1.31
1.04
1.40
10400
9633
0.72
0.66
0.93
15276
11401
15904
1.31
1.04
1.39
30180
21718
23506
0.87
0.78
1.08
600
Outer
Dia.
(D)
(mm)
120
Wall
thick.
(t)
(mm)
2.18
55
7.14
435
521
383
600
120
12.00
10
36.00
1483
1632
1156
1800
360
4.24
85
4.65
3028
3821
2852
1800
360
36.00
10
36.00
13350
14690
3600
720
8.47
85
4.65
12106
3600
720
28.80
25
15.36
27113
Length
(L)
(mm)
D/t
As/Atotal
(%)
PEC
(kN)
Proposed
FE
Analysis
Pcr (kN)
Nu (kN)
PFE (kN)
It has been observed that for a small thickness of the steel tube (small As/Atotal ratio) and large
concrete core diameter, the FEM results are generally greater than those obtained from the codes.
This shows that the codes results are conservative when it comes to small thickness of steel tube.
As the steel thickness increases, the FEM results decreases compared to the ones from the codes.
81
These variation are due to number of reasons. The selection of the mesh elements in FEM analysis
is performed using the automatic meshing in ANSYS. If different elements were chosen for the
steel tube, the results may have changed. Another reason, is due to the fact that the codes gives the
capacities of the section as a whole. It does not separate the capacity of steel from concrete. Thus,
it does not specify whether the failure occurs in concrete or steel. Whereas, in the FEM analysis it
clearly specifies where the failure occurs. In all the samples chosen, the failure occurred in the
concrete core. This is the reason behind the low value of compressive capacity obtained by the
FEM compared with the other codes, for large diameter of concrete and small steel tube thickness.
It has been observed that most of the results of the Australian standard are conservative compared
with those from FEM results. Whereas, the other codes yielded different results depending on the
steel thickness. Some samples results where conservative while the others gave higher values.
82
Chapter 8
83
Chapter 8: Conclusion and

Recommendations
8.1 Conclusion
In this research, the compressive capacity of the Concrete Filled Steel Tubes (CFST) columns
under axial compressive loads was investigated. Several codes of practices; the Euro Standard
(BS-EN1994-1-1-2004), the American Standard (AISC) and the Australian Standard (AS) which
is divided into two standards; (AS 4100-1998) and (AS 3600-2001), are investigated to estimate
the compressive capacity of CFST columns. The design according to standards is based on finding
the capacity of short column subjected to axial force only (concentric loading). The steps used to
design the column using the standards are explained in detail in separate chapters. A flow chart is
drawn to summarize the design steps and to make it easier for the reader to understand the
equations used. In addition to the design of the CFST column manually, a spreadsheet solver was
developed using Microsoft Excel software [19] for the three standards. The spreadsheet solver
helps the user to design and check the safety of any section of CFST column, by inserting few
input parameters.
In order to compare the results of the standards with actual results, finite element models were
simulated. The models were generated using SolidWorks software [26] and were then analysed
using ANSYS software [25]. An accurate finite element model for the analysis of normal concrete
filled compact steel tube circular stub column has been created.
For verifying the results, the results of FE and American standard were compared with the results
of Shneider [28], whereas the results of the Australian and Euro standard were compared with the
results of E. Ellobody [10].
The comparison between the various codes and the comparison of FEM results with the codes
were performed with respect to many factors. Some of them were capacity of the section, cost,
accuracy of results and equations used.
It has been found that the American code gave the highest compressive capacity in all the samples.
The Australian code gave the lowest compressive capacity (conservative results) in all the samples.
Whereas, the Euro code gave results between the American and the Australian code.
When comparing the FEM results with the codes, it has been observed that for a small thickness
of the steel tube (small As/Atotal ratio), the FEM results are generally greater than the other standards.
Which means that for the same section, FEM model shows that it can support greater axial load.
This implies that the codes results are conservative when it comes to small ratio of steel. As the
steel thickness increases, the FEM results decreases compared to the codes.
84
8.2 Recommendations
The following directions could be taken to extend this research, address some of the issues
encountered, and improve the quality of predictions provided by the FEM model:
1. Design of CFST column subjected to both axial compression and bending moment.
2. Use more standards in the design, like British standard, Chinese standard, Canadian standard
etc., for the sake of comparison.
3. Design other types of composite columns such as square hollow section, concrete encased
sections, and partially encased concrete sections.
4. Include shear connectors in the design.
5. Include reinforcement in the design.
6. Design the mesh element separately instead of using the automatic method found in ANSYS.
7. Design of a slender composite columns (high length/diameter ratio)
8. Perform experimental results and compare the results with the codes and FEM analysis.
9. Perform cost study to find the most economical section for a given load by preparing a
spreadsheet software.
10. Perform cost study to find the most economical type of column; composite column, steel
column and reinforced concrete column.
11. Find the effects of different Poissons ratio for the concrete infill in FEM analysis.
12. Design CFST columns with pin connected ends using FEM analysis and compare them with
fixed connections assumed in this study.
13. Compare the results in this study with the results of the load applied to the concrete core only.
85
References
[1] Brian Uy & J.Y. Richard Liew, "Composite SteelConcrete Structures," CRC Press LLC,
2003, p. 451.
[2] J. C. McCormac, Structural Steel Design, 4th ed., pearson prentice hall, 2007.
[3] S. H. Abdalla, "BEHAVIOR OF CONCRETE FILLED STEEL TUBE (CFST) UNDER
DIFFERENT LOADING CONDITIONS," American University of Sharjah, Sharjah,
United Arab Emirates, 2012.
[4] Webb, J. and Peyton, J.J., "Composite concrete filled steel tube columns," in The
Institution of Engineers Australian, Structural Engineering Conference, 1990.
[5] R. W. Furlong, "Strength of steel-encased concrete beam-columns," J. Struct. Div., ASCE,
vol. 93, no. 5, pp. 113-124, 1967.
[6] Gardner, N. J., and Jacobson, E. R., "Structural behavior of concrete filled steel tubes," ACI
J., vol. 64, no. 7, pp. 404-412, 1967.
[7] R. B. a. P. R. Knowles, "Strength of conrete-filled steel tubular columns," J. Struct. Div.,
ASCE, vol. 95, no. 12, pp. 2565-2587, 1969.
[8] M. Y. K. a. M. Y. Tomii, "Experimental studies on concrete filled steel tubular stub
columns under concentric loading.," Proc., Int. Colloquium on Stability of Struct. Under
Static and Dyn. Loads,, pp. 718-741, 1977.
[9] K. T. M. a. W. K. Sakino, "Sustaining load capacity of plain concrete stub columns by
circular steel tubes," Proc., Int. Spec. Conf. on Concrete-Filled Steel Tubular Struct., pp.
112-118, 1985.
[10] E. Y. B. a. L. D. Ellobody, "Behaviour of normal and high strength concrete-filled compact
steel tube circular stub columns," Journal of Constructional Steel Research, no. 62, pp.
706-715, 2006.
[11] Gupta, P. K., Sarda, S. M. and Kumar, M. S, "Experimental and computational study of
concrete filled steel tubular columns under axial loads," Journal of Constructional Steel
Research, no. 63, pp. 182-193, 2007.
[12] D. Lam and L. Gardner, "Structural design of stainless steel concrete filled columns,"
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, no. 64, pp. 1275-1282, 2008.
86
[13] Kuranovas, A., Goode, D., Kvedaras, A. K. and Zhong, S., "LOAD-BEARING
CAPACITY OF CONCRETE-FILLED STEEL COLUMNS," JOURNAL OF CIVIL
ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT, vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 21-33, 2009.
[14] Charles W. Roeder, Dawn E. Lehman, and Erik Bishop, "Strength and Stiffness of Circular
Concrete-Filled Tubes," JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, vol. 136, no. 12,
pp. 1545-1553, 2010.
[15] J.Y. Richard Liew and D.X. Xiong, "Ultra-High Strength Concrete Filled Composite,"
Advances in Structural Engineering, vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 1487-1503, 2012.
[16] European Committee for Standardization, "Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and
concrete structures Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings," in EUROPIAN
STANDARD, vol. 4, BS EN 1994-1-1:2004, 2004, pp. 1-122.
[17] Buick Davison & Graham W. Owens, Steel Designers' Manual, 7th ed., Wiley-Backwel,
2012.
[18] European Committee for Standardization, "Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 11: General rules and rules for building," in EUROPIAN STANDARD, BS EN 1993-11:2005, 2005, pp. 1-93.
[19] Microsoft Corporation, Microsoft Excel, 2013.
[20] AISC Committee on Manuals and Textbooks, "Specification for Structural Buildings Chapter I: Design of Composite Members," in Steel Construction Manual, American
Institute of Steel Construction, ANSI/AISC 360-05, 2006, pp. 77-89.
[21] D. K. Kim, "A database for composite columns," Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia,
2005.
[22] Committee BD-002, Australian Standard - Concrete Structures, Australia: Standards
Australia, AS 3600-2001, 2001.
[23] Standards Australia Committee, Australian Standard - Steel Structures, Australia:
Standards Australia, AS 4100-1998, 1998.
[24] Muhammad Naseem, FAN Jiansheng, NIE Jianguo, "Strength of Concrete Filled Steel
Tubular Columns," Tsinghua Science and Technology, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 657-666, 2006.
[25] ANSYS Workbench 2.0 Framework, 2011.
[26] SolidWorks Corporation, SolidWorks, 2013.
[27] Giakoumelis G, Lam D, "Axial capacity of circular concrete-filled tube," Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, vol. 7, no. 60, pp. 1049-1068, 2004.
87
[28] S. P. Shneider, "Axially Loaded Concrete-Filled Steel Tubes," Journal of Structural

Engineering, vol. 9, no. 128, pp. 1125-1138, 1998.
[29] ANSYS, inc, "ANSYS Mechanical Application user guide," 2011.
[30] ASCE, Manual of Steel Construction: Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD), 2nd
ed., vol. III, Chicago, 1994.
[31] AISC Committee on Manuals and Textbooks, "Specification for Structural Buildings Chapter I: Design of Composite Members," in Steel Construction Manual: Load and
Resistance Factor Design (LRFD), American Institute of Steel Construction, ANSI/AISC
360-05, 2006, pp. 77-89.
88
Appendix
89
Euro code verification

Sample 1: (L=300 mm, D=114 mm, t=2.85 mm)
90
91
92
American code verification

93
94
95
Australian code verification

96
97
98
Finite Element Verification

Force Applied
Equivalent Stress
Stress Ratio
99
Force Applied
Equivalent Stress
Stress Ratio
100
Force Applied
Equivalent Stress
Stress Ratio
101
Comparison between codes and FE

Euro code:
102
American code:
103
Australian code:
104
Finite Element:
Force Applied
Equivalent Stress
Stress Ratio
105
Euro code:
Sample 2: (L=600 mm, D=120 mm, t=12 mm)
106
American code:
107
Australian code:
108
Finite Element:
Force Applied
Equivalent Stress
Stress Ratio
109
Euro code:
110
American code:
111
Australian code:
112
Finite Element:
Force Applied
Equivalent Stress
Stress Ratio
113
Euro code:
114
American code:
115
Australian code:
116
Finite Element:
Force Applied
Equivalent Stress
Stress Ratio
117
Euro code:
118
American code:
119
Australian code:
120
Finite Element:
Force Applied
Equivalent Stress
Stress Ratio
121
Euro code:
122
American code:
123
Australian code:
124
Finite Element:
Force Applied
Equivalent Stress
Stress Ratio
125

Design of CFST Column

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Design of CFST Column

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

University of Bahrain

Numerical Modelling and Design of CFST Columns

A report submitted to University of Bahrain

3.4.2 Inputs: ........................................................................................................................... 24

6.1 General ................................................................................................................................ 58

Figure 42: Command "Mate" properties ....................................................................................... 67

American Institute of Steel Construction

American National Standards Institute

American Society of Civil Engineers

American Concrete Institute

Concrete Filled Tube

Concrete Filled Steel Tube

Finite Element Model

Hollow Structural Section

Load and Resistance Factor Design

Cross-sectional area of the structural steel section

AISC Code (LRFD)

Area of concrete, in.2 (mm2)

Australian Code (AS)

Gross area of a cross-section

Nominal live load

Figure 1: Steel sections encased with concrete

Figure 2: Steel Sections in-filled with concrete

Figure 3: Cross-section of CFST column with rebars

Figure 4: Installation of CFST column during construction

1.1.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of CFST column

1.2 Objective of the study

Euro code "BS EN1994-1-1".

Australian code "Australian Standard of concrete structures AS 3600-2001 and

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Chapter 3: Design using Euro code

3.1.2 Design methods:

3.1.3 Local buckling:

3.1.4 Simplified method of design (clause 6.7.3):

3.1.4.2 Limit of applicability of the design method:

The relative slenderness of the composite column , is smaller than 2.0

3.1.4.3 Compression resistances of cross-sections:

3.1.4.4 Resistance of cross sections (clause 6.7.3.2):

t is the wall thickness of the steel tube.

ao = 0,25 (3 + 2) (but 1,0)

co = 4,9 18,5 + 17 (but 0)

3.1.4.5 Critical buckling load:

4.1.4.6 Column buckling curves:

Figure 5: Column buckling curves (based on figure 6.4, EC3) [18]

3.2 Design Flow Chart using EC4

3.3 Design Example using EC4

(203)4 (203 2 12.7)4

3.3.1 Design strength:

3.3.2 Limits of applicability of the simplified

3.3.3 Local buckling:

3.3.4 Design checks at ultimate limits state:

, = 7592.63 250 + 1.0 24772.84 16.67 + 0

3.3.4.2 Effective flexural stiffness of the composite crosssection:

() = 210000 34.52 106 + 0 + 0.6 30471.58 48.84 106

3.3.4.3 Relative slenderness:

= 409 18.5 + 17 = 409 18.5 0.11 17 0.112 = 3.07

3.3.5 Check on limits of simplified method:

Hence 0.2 0.9 is satisfied

Hence 2.0 is satisfied

3.3.6 Buckling resistance of the composite column

= 0.5[1 + ( 0.2) + ] , = 0.21

= 1.05 > 1.0

3.4 Spread Sheet Solver using EC4

Figure 6: Excel keyword