Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/239347872

A unified formulation for hollow and solid concrete-filled steel tube


columns under axial compression

Article  in  Engineering Structures · April 2010


DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.12.031

CITATIONS READS

16 459

4 authors, including:

Min Yu Jianqiao Ye
Wuhan University Lancaster University
22 PUBLICATIONS   141 CITATIONS    167 PUBLICATIONS   1,767 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Laminated Composited View project

Composite riser modeling View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jianqiao Ye on 27 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1046–1053

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

A unified formulation for hollow and solid concrete-filled steel tube columns
under axial compression
Min Yu a,b , Xiaoxiong Zha a,∗ , Jianqiao Ye b,∗ , Chunyan She a
a
Shenzhen Graduate School, Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen 518055, China
b
Institute for Resilient Infrastructure, School of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK

article info abstract


Article history: On the basis of the theory of elasticity, a unified formulation is proposed in this paper to predict the
Received 5 January 2009 composite compressive strength of circular concrete-filled steel tube (CCFST) columns. The formula is
Received in revised form obtained from the analytic solution of an elastic composite cylinder under axial compression. The formula
21 October 2009
is further calibrated by introducing a number of correlation coefficients that are validated by test results.
Accepted 22 December 2009
Available online 13 January 2010
Furthermore, the stability factor of CCFST long columns under axial compression is derived on the basis of
the Perry–Robertson formula. The newly derived formulas of stability bearing capacity are applicable for
Keywords:
both hollow and solid CCFST columns, which is again validated through comparisons with experimental
S-CFST results. One of the important features of the new formulas is that they provide a unified formulation for
H-CFST both hollow and solid CCFST columns that relates the compressive strength or the stability capacity of a
Uniaxial compression CCFST column and a series of design parameters.
Composite compressive strength © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Stability factor
Stability bearing capacity

1. Introduction out tests on the bearing capacity of short concrete-filled steel tube
components; Wang [7], Zhong [1,8,9], Han [10,11] and Cai [12]
A solid concrete-filled steel tube (S-CFST) is a composite also reported their extensive tests on short and long concrete-
structure formed by casting concrete into a steel tube column [1]. filled steel tube components. In terms of theoretical investigations,
A centrifugal hollow concrete-filled steel tube (H-CFST) is a new as the mutual constraints provided by the concrete core and
type of composite structure formed by filling only a certain the steel face of a CCFST column, a composite action of both
thickness of concrete into a steel tube column [2]. A H-CFST has the steel and the concrete has to be considered for improved
not only the merits of a solid CCFST column, but also reduces the mechanical properties. A variety of theories were proposed on the
use of materials and hence its own weight. In comparison with basis of mechanics of materials, the observations and results from
columns made of only steel or concrete, the composite columns, laboratory tests and the approaches to deal with the constraints
both hollow and solid, show higher strength capacity, better between steel tube and concrete. Some of these theories have
seismic performance, enhanced fire-resistant properties and other been introduced in the design specifications and regulations,
advantages. In addition, modern manufacturing technology allows such as AIJ (1997) [13], EC4 (1996) [14], BS5400 (1979) [15],
the composite columns to be prefabricated in factories where the LRFD (1999) [16], DL/T 5085 (1999) [17] and ACI (1999) [18].
quality of the components can be rigorously controlled. All of these Reference [19] presents comparisons between these specifications.
contribute to the increasing usage of CCFST components in the From the above literature, it can be seen that the behavior of S-
modern construction industry. CFST has been well investigated, while the study on the H-CFST
is not sufficient and evidently required. A design simply using the
There has been extensive experimental and theoretical research
formula of S-CFST for H-CFST is often too conservative. From the
on solid concrete-filled steel tube components. Various design
viewpoint of mathematical modeling and continuity of material
specifications and technical regulations have been established.
properties, H-CFST and S-CFST components can be designed by
The experimental work includes that by Tomii [3], Schneider [4],
following a unified formula.
O’Shea and Bridge [5] and Giakoumelis and Lam [6], who carried
This paper presents a unified formulation for both hollow and
solid CCFST columns. The formulas are based on the mathematical
modeling of circular concrete-filled steel tube (CCFST) columns
∗ Corresponding author. using the theory of elasticity. Formulas are derived first to provide
E-mail addresses: Zhaxx@hit.edu.cn (X. Zha), j.ye@leeds.ac.uk (J. Ye). composite compressive strength from the analytic solution of
0141-0296/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.12.031
M. Yu et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1046–1053 1047

c
b
a CFST Steel pipe Concrete

Fig. 1. Sectional drawing of a circular CFST.

elastic deformation of the column under axial compression. The


analytic form of the compressive strength is then calibrated
by introducing a number of correlation coefficients that are
obtained by regression analysis of test data. On the basis of the
Perry formula, the paper also derives a unified stability factor
formula for both solid and hollow CCFST long columns under axial Step 1: uniaxial compression
compression.

2. Mathematical model of hollow and solid concrete-filled steel


tube column

Fig. 1 is the sectional drawing of a circular CFST, where a is


Step 2: Plane strain
the inside radius of the concrete; b is the radius of the interface
between the concrete and the steel; c is the outside radius of the
steel tube. The effective height of the column is L.
Considering composite action of the section, the mechanical
properties of the concrete-filled steel tube (CFST) depend on Fig. 2. Force decomposition diagram of CCFST.
the geometric parameters a, b, c and the materials properties.
For example, the two most important mechanical properties of
superimposition of the uniaxial pressures on the steel tube and
the composite section – i.e., the composite elastic modulus Esc
on the concrete. A general plane strain state is assumed for both
and composite yield strength fsc of the CFST – are functions of
a, b, c , Es , Ec , fs , fck , i.e., the steel and the concrete. Considering the composite action of
the axial forces and the plane strain assumption, the composite
{Esc , fsc } = f (a, b, c , Es , Ec , fs , fck ) (2.1) column can be taken as a superimposition of a steel tube and a
where, Es and Ec are, respectively, elastic modules of steel and concrete cylinder, as shown in Fig. 2, where the internal stresses
concrete. fs is the yield strength of steel. fck is the compressive at the steel–concrete interface are also shown.
strength of the concrete prism. For a given cylinder strength of
concrete fc0 , one must convert it to prism compressive strength [20]. 3.2. Elastic deformation of the CCFST column
The mechanical properties of the CFST column at normal
temperature, such as the bearing capacity N and stability factor ϕ , The analysis of the composite section shown in Fig. 2 can
etc., can also be expressed as a function of a, b, c , fsc , Esc , L, that is: be divided into the following two steps on the basis of linear
{N , ϕ, . . .} = f (a, b, c , L, fsc , Esc ). (2.2) superposition:

Eqs. (2.1) and (2.2) apply for both hollow and solid concrete- Step 1: Uniaxial compression state
filled steel tubes, where three cases are included: (a) when a = 0, Assume that the CFST is subject to a uniform compressive strain
the concrete-filled steel tube is solid; (b) when 0 < a < b, εzsc . As a result, the axial strains in the steel tube, εzs , and in the
the tube has a hollow concrete core and (c) when a = b, it concrete, εzc , are the same, i.e.,
is a hollow steel tube without any concrete. Eqs. (2.1) and (2.2)
assume that as long as the geometric parameters a, b, c , L and εzsc = εzs = εzc . (3.1)
the materials characteristics Es , Ec , fs , fck are given, the composite
elastic modulus Esc and strength fsc of the CFST at normal According to the generalized Hooke’s law, for the unrestrained
temperature can be uniquely defined. By this unified formulation, steel and concrete cylinders subjected to axisymmetric deforma-
a single solution can be found for solid concrete-filled steel tubes, tion,
hollow concrete-filled steel tubes and hollow steel tubes.
εrc = εθc = −νc εzsc
(3.2)
3. Elastic analysis of circular concrete-filled steel tube (CCFST) εrs = εθs = −νs εzsc
columns
where, r and θ denote radial and circumferential directions,
respectively. Thus, the radial displacements at the outside surface
3.1. Decomposition of a CCFST column
of the concrete cylinder, u1c , and the inside surface of the steel tube,
In order to determine the composite strength of a circular u1s are, respectively [21]:
concrete-filled steel tube (CCFST), elastic analysis is used first
to analyze the composite deformation of the CCFST under axial u1c = bεθc = −νc bεzsc
(3.3)
compression. The total axial pressure can be considered as the u1s = bεθs = −νs bεzsc .
1048 M. Yu et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1046–1053

The respective longitudinal stresses of the concrete, σc1 , and the 3.3. Simplification and further modification of the composite strength
steel, σs1 are: (equation given in Box II)

σc1 = Ec εzsc 3.3.1. A simplified formulation of the composite strength


(3.4)
σ =
1
ε .
Es zsc It can be seen from the equation given in Box II that the average
s
stress, σsc , over the cross section is a function of a, b, c , σs , σc ,
Step 2: Plane strain state where νc and νs are assumed constant in the elastic region. The
From the theory of elasticity, the radial displacements of a thick- form of the formula is too complicated to be used in practical
walled cylinder can be calculated analytically [22]. By using this design, with no indications as to how the formula can be linked
analytical solution, the radial displacements at the outside surface to the commonly used design parameters, such as steel ratio, etc.
This section will reformulate the equation given in Box II in terms
of the concrete cylinder, u2c , and the inside surface of the steel tube,
of these design parameters.
u2s are, respectively:
The average σsc defined in equation given in Box II is uniquely
" νc  # determined by five independent variables. The formula can be
b2 P 1 + 1−ν νc

reformulated using a different set of five variables by replacing a, b
u2c =− c 2
a + 1− b
E
(b2 − a2 ) b 1 − νc and c with three independent variables β , Ω and ξsc . Thus,
1−νc2
" νs  # (3.5) σsc = f (β, Ω , ξsc , σs , σc ) (3.10)
b2 P 1 + 1−ν νs

u2s =+ s 2
c + 1− b . in which β is the ratio between the cross sectional areas of steel
E
( c 2 − b2 ) b 1 − νs
1−νs2 and the entire section,
2 b2
Assume that the CCFST has a perfect concrete steel interfaces at i.e., β = AAs = A A+sA = cc 2 −
−a 2
, and is called ‘‘steel area ratio’’ in
sc s c
r = b. Thus, this paper. The ratio is directly related to the steel ratio, α = AAs , by
c
β = α/(1 + α).
u1c + u2c = u1s + u2s . (3.6) Ω is the ratio between the cross sectional areas of concrete and
the entire section enclosed by the steel tube; i.e., Ω = A A+cA =
Introducing Eqs. (3.3) and (3.5) into Eq. (3.6) yields the compressive c k
b2 −a2
stress at the interface; i.e., equation given in Box I. From the elastic b2
,
where Ak denotes the area of the hollow part of the section.
solution [22], the longitudinal stresses in the concrete, σc2 , and the The relationship between Ω and the hollow ratio, ψ , is Ω = 1 −ψ .
steel tube, σs2 , are: ξsc is the confining parameter of solid the concrete-filled steel
tube; i.e.,
2νc As σs c 2 − b2 σs
σc2 = − b2 P

(b2 − a2 ) ξsc = = × .
(3.7) (Ac + Ak ) σc b2 σc
2νs
σs2 = + 2 b2 P . Introducing β, Ω , ξsc , σs , σc into the equation given in Box II,

(c − b )
2
the analytical solution for the average stress of the concrete-filled
Hence, when the steel tube and the concrete act as a unit, the steel can be rewritten as the equation shown in Box III.
In order to calibrate the formula on the basis of test results,
longitudinal stresses in the concrete and the steel of the CCFST are,
the terms before the above independent design parameters are
respectively
replaced by four constants: A, B, C and D, respectively. The values
2νc of these constants will be determined by aggression analysis of test
σc0 = σc1 + σc2 = Ec εzsc − b2 P

results. The formula subject to aggression analysis is as follows.
( b2 − a2 )
(3.8)  
2νs Ω ξsc
σs = σ + σ =
0 1 2
ε +
Es zsc b P .
2

s s
(c 2 − b2 ) σsc = 1 + h   i 
AΩ + Bξsc + C σσc + D ξsc Ω (Ω + ξsc )
s
Replacing the stresses shown in Eq. (3.8) by an equivalent uniform
stress distribution, σsc , over the cross section of the CCFST yields × [(1 − β)σc + βσs ] . (3.11)
Asc σsc = Ac σc0 + As σs0 .
Thus, 3.3.2. Yield strength of the CCFST
Ac b 2 − a2 0
As c 2 − b2 0 In the above calculations, the average longitudinal stress was
σsc = σc0 + σs0 = 2 2
σc + 2 σs derived for elastic deformation. To obtain the composite strength
Asc Asc c −a c − a2 of the concrete-filled steel at yielding, it is assumed that yielding
b 2 − a2 2νc occurs in both the steel and the concrete; i.e., in Eq. (3.11), σs = fy
 
ε − 2 Ec zsc 2

= b P
c 2 − a2 b − a2 and σc = fck . At this instance, the average longitudinal stress
σsc calculated from Eq. (3.11) is then defined as the composite
c 2 − b2 2νs
 
E s εz + 2
sc 2

+ 2 b P yield strength fsc of the CCFST. The equation of the composite yield
c − a2 c − b2 strength of the concrete-filled steel tube is then:
b 2 − a2 c 2 − b2 2(νc − νs )b2
fsc = (1 + η) (1 − β)fck + β fy
 
= Ec εzsc + Es εzsc − P. (3.9) (3.12)
c2 − a2 c2 − a2 c2 − a2
where η is defined as the coefficient of enhanced confinement
Introducing the equation given in Box I into Eq. (3.9) results in the effect, and
following analytical solution for calculating the composite strength
Ω ξsc
of the concrete-filled steel in the elastic region shown in Box II, in η= h   i (3.13)
which σc = Ec εzc = Ec εzsc and σs = Es εzs = Es εzsc . AΩ + Bξsc + C
fck
+ D ξsc Ω (Ω + ξsc )
fy
M. Yu et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1046–1053 1049

−(νc − νs )εzsc
P = 1
(1 + νc ) (1 − 2νc )b2 + a2 − E (b21−c 2 ) (1 + νs ) (1 − 2νs )b2 + c 2
   
Ec (b2 −a2 ) s

Box I.

b 2 − a2 c 2 − b2 2(νc − νs )2 b2
σsc = σ +
2 c
σ +
2 s
c2 − a c2 − a c 2 − a2
!
1
× 1
(1 + νc ) (1 − 2νc )b2 + a2 − 1
(1 + νs ) (1 − 2νs )b2 + c 2
   
σc (b2 −a2 ) σs (b2 −c 2 )

Box II.

 
2(νc − νs )2 Ω ξsc
σsc = 1 + n h i o  [(1 − β)σc + βσs ]
σc
(1 + νc ) (1 − 2νc )ξsc + 2(1 − νs2 )Ω + σs (1 + νs ) − (1 + νc ) ξsc Ω [ξsc + Ω ]

Box III.

A f
in which, ξsc = (A +sAy )f , A, B, C and D are the four constants to be those calculated from Eq. (4.1) for both solid and hollow columns
c k ck
determined. with various geometric and material properties, from which a very
It is evident that Eq. (3.12) has a simple presentation, of which good agreement is observed. The test values of the ultimate axial
each term has clear physical identifications. (1 − β)fck + β fy compression for the comparisons in Table 1 and the tables in the
denotes a simple superimposition of strength; η is the coefficient following sections are taken directly from the references, where no
of the enhanced confinement effect that depends solely on the indication was given on how the forces were defined. A literature
cross sectional areas of the steel tube and the concrete once the review shows that there are various approaches to specify the
properties of the materials are specified. Compared with the yield ultimate compressive forces, but most of them defined the ultimate
strength formulas available in the literature [1], Eq. (3.12) also value, as below.
provides a unified formulation for steel tubes without any concrete 1. For a softening case, the ultimate force is defined as the peak
infill, hollow concrete-filled steel tubes and concrete cylinders value along the load–displacement or stress–strain curve;
without steel confinement. 2. For a hardening case, the ultimate value is taken near the
In the two special cases, Eq. (3.12) presents solutions for the turning point where hardening starts.
yield strength of a steel tube and a concrete cylinder, respectively.
The ultimate compressive force for a hardening case can be
That is
different if a different approach is used, but they should be
when Ω = 0 for a steel tube, η = 0, β = 1 and relatively close.
The average ratio of the experimental and the calculation
fsc = (1 + 0) (1 − 1)fck + 1 × fy = fy
 
values, Ntest /Nc , of the short column bearing capacity is 1.021 and
when ξsc = 0 for a concrete cylinder, β = 0, η = 0 and the variance is 0.011. It can be seen from the comparisons that the
analytical solutions obtained from the unified formula agree very
fsc = (1 + 0) (1 − 0)fck + 0 × fy = fck .
 
well with the available test and theoretical solutions.
The analytical predictions are further validated in Table 2 by
comparing with the test results that are completely independent
4. Unified formula of compressive strength of concrete-filled
to tests in [23,10,24]. The average ratio, Ntest /Nc , is 1.070 and the
steel tube (CFST)
variance is 0.007. Once again, satisfactory agreement is observed.
Eq. (3.12) presents the unified formula of yield strength of
a concrete-filled steel tube subject to axial compression. The 5. The stability factor of concrete-filled steel tube column
formula has four constant parameters to be determined. Standard under axial compression
aggression analysis is carried out on the basis of a rich collection
of test results [23,10,24] to statistically obtain estimated values of 5.1. Stability factor of concrete-filled steel tube column
A, B, C and D. The test results from 26 solid and 32 hollow short
concrete-filled steel tube columns are analyzed, from which the One of the most commonly used methods to calculate stability
following values are determined by a regression analysis and a factor of concrete-filled steel tube column is the Perry–Robertson
further modification for a better fitting by Origin-Pro. The values formula [27], as shown below.
of the four constants are: A = 2.0, B = 0.05, C = 0.2, D = −0.05. s
σT + (1 + ε)σe σT + (1 + ε)σe
 2
Thus, the unified formula of the yield strength of concrete-filled
σ0 = − − σT σe (5.1)
steel tube is 2 2
fsc = (1 + η) (1 − β)fck + β fy
 
(4.1) where, σ0 , σe and σT denote average stress, Euler stress and yield
Ω ξsc stress of material, respectively; ε is known as initial eccentricity
in which: η = h f
  i . and ε ≥ 0.
2.0Ω +0.05ξsc + 0.2 fck −0.05 ξsc Ω (Ω +ξsc )
y
The stability bearing capacity of a column can be calculated as
The ultimate axial force is calculated by multiplying the yield
follows:
strength from Eq. (4.1) with the cross sectional area of the column.
Table 1 compares the ultimate axial force obtained from tests with N = ϕσT A = σ0 A. (5.2a)
1050 M. Yu et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1046–1053

Table 1
Comparison of the analytical and the test results.
Type Ref. Explanation of Geometric parameters Basic material Ultimate Ratio
numbering parameters force
No. Numbering External diameter Steel thickness Concrete thickness Column height fy /MPa fck /MPa Cal Test Ntest /Nc
D /mm t /mm d /mm L /mm Nc /kN Ntest /kN

1 sc-1 164.0 3.8 78.2 520.0 342.0 30.5 1564 1650 1.06
2 sc-2 164.0 3.8 78.2 520.0 342.0 30.5 1564 1710 1.09
3 sc-3 164.0 3.8 78.2 520.0 342.0 30.5 1564 1600 1.02
4 sc-4 159.0 4.8 74.7 520.0 366.0 30.5 1806 1600 0.89
5 sc-5 159.0 4.8 74.7 520.0 366.0 30.5 1806 1700 0.94
6 sc-6 159.0 4.8 74.7 520.0 366.0 30.5 1806 1600 0.89
[23]
7 sc-7 159.0 5.2 74.3 520.0 379.0 30.5 1951 1800 0.92
8 sc-8 159.0 5.2 74.3 520.0 379.0 30.5 1951 1850 0.95
9 sc-9 159.0 5.2 74.3 520.0 379.0 30.5 1951 1700 0.87
10 sc-10 159.0 6.3 73.2 520.0 360.0 30.5 2136 2000 0.94
11 sc-11 159.0 6.3 73.2 520.0 360.0 30.5 2136 1950 0.91
12 sc-12 159.0 6.3 73.2 520.0 360.0 30.5 2136 2100 0.98
S-CFST 13 sccs1-2 152.0 1.7 74.4 500.0 270.0 58.4 1329 1498 1.13
14 sccs2-2 250.0 2.0 123.0 750.0 260.0 48.0 2888 3400 1.18
15 sccs3-2 178.0 9.0 80.0 360.0 283.0 36.7 2751 2671 0.97
16 sccs4-2 179.0 5.5 84.0 360.0 248.0 36.6 1922 2034 1.06
17 sccs5-2 174.0 3.0 84.0 360.0 266.0 34.6 1408 1642 1.17
18 sccs6-3 159.8 6.3 73.6 476.0 482.5 53.4 3095 2350 0.76
19 sccs7-4 115.9 4.9 53.1 350.0 309.5 53.4 1260 1174 0.93
[10]
20 sccs8-3 141.8 4.3 66.6 420.0 433.0 53.4 1945 1618 0.83
21 sccs9-3 141.8 3.9 67.0 337.0 357.7 53.4 1656 1150 0.69
22 sccs10-3 165.7 5.1 77.8 494.0 373.3 53.4 2449 2309 0.94
23 sccs11-1 133.1 4.5 62.1 397.0 324.3 53.4 1526 1535 1.01
24 sccs12-3 113.6 3.2 53.6 337.0 354.6 53.4 1070 1145 1.07
25 sccs13-1 111.3 2.0 53.7 339.0 354.6 53.4 847 894 1.06
26 sccs14-1 130.6 2.3 63.0 396.0 324.6 53.4 1116 1250 1.12

1 A-1 296.0 2.0 54.0 900.0 196.0 32.0 1834 2058 1.12
2 A-2 296.0 2.0 54.0 900.0 196.0 32.0 1834 2058 1.12
3 A-3 296.0 2.0 57.0 900.0 196.0 32.0 1889 2136 1.13
4 A-4 296.0 3.0 49.0 900.0 228.6 32.0 2131 2205 1.03
5 A-5 296.0 3.0 44.0 900.0 228.6 32.0 2032 2127 1.05
6 A-7 296.0 4.0 54.0 900.0 171.5 32.0 2211 2568 1.16
7 A-8 296.0 4.0 57.0 900.0 171.5 32.0 2265 2450 1.08
8 A-9 296.0 4.0 60.0 900.0 171.5 32.0 2316 2568 1.11
9 A1-1 296.0 2.0 63.0 900.0 196.0 34.1 2088 2391 1.15
10 A1-2 296.0 2.0 68.0 900.0 196.0 34.1 2174 2450 1.13
11 A1-3 296.0 2.0 73.0 900.0 196.0 34.1 2255 2587 1.15
12 A1-4 296.0 3.0 66.0 900.0 228.6 34.1 2528 2450 0.97
13 A1-5 296.0 3.0 71.0 900.0 228.6 34.1 2611 2646 1.01
14 A1-6 296.0 3.0 66.0 900.0 171.5 34.1 2293 2666 1.16
15 A1-7 296.0 4.0 66.0 900.0 171.5 34.1 2511 2840 1.13
16 A1-8 296.0 4.0 66.0 900.0 171.5 34.1 2511 2842 1.13
H-CFST [24]
17 A1-9 296.0 4.0 65.0 900.0 171.5 34.1 2494 2960 1.19
18 H3-a 165.5 4.8 57.9 500.0 248.7 26.4 1361 1363 1.00
19 H3-b 165.5 4.8 57.9 500.0 248.7 26.4 1361 1461 1.07
20 H3-c 165.5 4.8 53.4 500.0 248.7 26.4 1344 1336 0.99
21 H3-d 165.5 4.8 53.4 500.0 248.7 26.4 1344 1334 0.99
22 H3-e 165.5 4.8 40.4 500.0 248.7 26.4 1276 1187 0.93
23 H3-f 165.5 4.8 40.4 500.0 248.7 26.4 1276 1177 0.92
24 YL-1 200.0 2.9 22.7 600.0 300.0 57.5 1507 1570 1.04
25 YL-2 200.0 2.9 20.5 600.0 300.0 57.5 1446 1480 1.02
26 YL-3 200.0 2.9 20.5 600.0 300.0 57.5 1446 1530 1.06
27 YL-4 200.0 2.9 26.4 600.0 300.0 57.5 1604 1740 1.08
28 YL-5 200.0 2.9 22.7 600.0 300.0 57.5 1507 1500 1.00
29 YL-6 200.0 2.9 26.4 600.0 300.0 57.5 1604 1690 1.05
30 YL-7 200.0 4.7 24.0 600.0 240.0 57.5 1752 1695 0.97
31 YL-8 200.0 4.7 23.2 600.0 240.0 57.5 1732 1580 0.91
32 YL-9 200.0 4.6 26.3 600.0 240.0 57.5 1791 1778 0.99

Case (a): For a steel column, σT = fy , the Euler stress σe = πλ2E .


2
The stability factor is defined as
Thus,
N Aσ0 σ0
ϕ= = = . (5.2b) σe π 2E 1
AσT AσT σT = 2 = 2 (5.4)
σT λ fy λ̄
Substitution of Eq. (5.2b) into Eq. (5.1) yields: q
where λ̄ = πλ Ey and is called non-dimensional slenderness; λ is
f
v
the slenderness of the column defined by Euler equation.
1 + (1 + ε) σσe u 1 + (1 + ε) σσe 2 σ
u !
e
ϕ= T
− t T
− . (5.3) To take into account initial defects in the column, the initial
2 2 σT eccentricity ε̄ is introduced. The relationship between ε̄ and λ̄ can
M. Yu et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1046–1053 1051

Table 2
Further comparisons of analytical and the test results.
Type Ref. Explanation of Geometric parameters Basic material Ultimate Ratio
numbering parameters force
No. Numbering External diameter Steel thickness Concrete thickness fy /MPa f 0 c /MPa fck /MPa Cal Test Nc /Ntest
D /mm t /mm d /mm Ntest /kN Nc /kN

1 sc1 159.9 5.01 74.9 276.0 40.0 32.7 1 506 1 582 1.05
[25] 2 sc2 159.9 5.02 74.9 278.0 70.0 55.6 2 050 1 995 0.97
3 sc2 160.0 5.0 75.0 275.0 100.0 79.5 2 550 2 403 0.94
4 S30CS50B 165.0 2.8 79.7 363.3 48.3 1 662 1 744 1.05
5 S20CS50A 190.0 1.9 93.1 256.4 41.0 1 678 1 556 0.93
6 S16CS50B 190.0 1.5 93.5 306.1 48.3 1 695 1 739 1.03
7 S12CS50A 190.0 1.1 93.9 185.7 41.0 1 377 1 322 0.96
8 S10CS50A 190.0 0.9 94.1 210.7 41.0 1 350 1 303 0.97
9 S30CS80A 165.0 2.8 79.7 363.3 80.2 2 295 2 381 1.04
10 S20CS80B 190.0 1.9 93.1 256.4 74.7 2 592 2 473 0.95
[5] 11 S16CS80A 190.0 1.5 93.5 306.1 80.2 2 602 2 615 1.00
12 S12CS80A 190.0 1.1 93.9 185.7 80.2 2 295 2 407 1.05
13 S10CS80B 190.0 0.9 94.1 210.7 74.7 2 451 2 241 0.91
14 S30CS10A 165.0 2.8 79.7 363.3 108.0 2 673 2 935 1.10
15 S20CS10A 190.0 1.9 93.1 256.4 108.0 3 360 3 379 1.01
S-CFST 16 S16CS10A 190.0 1.5 93.5 306.1 108.0 3 260 3 378 1.04
17 S12CS10A 190.0 1.1 93.9 185.7 108.0 3 058 3 176 1.04
18 S10CS10A 190.0 0.9 94.1 210.7 108.0 3 070 3 168 1.03
19 CC4-A-2 149.0 3.0 71.5 308.0 25.4 21.5 941 971 1.03
20 CC4-A-4-1 149.0 3.0 71.5 308.0 40.5 33.1 1 064 1 159 1.09
21 CC4-A-4-2 149.0 3.0 71.5 308.0 40.5 33.1 1 080 1 159 1.07
22 CC4-A-8 149.0 3.0 71.5 308.0 77.0 61.2 1 781 1 610 0.90
23 CC4-C-2 301.0 3.0 147.5 279.0 25.4 21.5 2 382 2 629 1.10
24 CC4-C-4-1 300.0 3.0 147.0 279.0 41.1 33.6 3 277 3 438 1.05
25 CC4-C-4-2 300.0 3.0 147.0 279.0 41.1 33.6 3 152 3 438 1.09
26 CC4-C-8 301.0 3.0 147.5 279.0 80.3 63.8 5 540 5 522 1.00
27 CC4-D-2 450.0 3.0 222.0 279.0 25.4 21.5 4 415 5 069 1.15
28 CC4-D-4-1 450.0 3.0 222.0 279.0 41.1 33.6 6 870 6 944 1.01
29 CC4-D-4-2 450.0 3.0 222.0 279.0 41.1 33.6 6 985 6 944 0.99
30 CC4-D-8 450.0 3.0 222.0 279.0 85.1 67.6 11 665 12 213 1.05
31 CC6-A-2 122.0 4.5 56.5 576.0 25.4 21.5 1 509 1 655 1.10
32 CC6-A-4-1 122.0 4.5 56.5 576.0 40.5 33.1 1 657 1 771 1.07
33 CC6-A-4-2 122.0 4.5 56.5 576.0 40.5 33.1 1 663 1 771 1.07
34 CC6-A-8 122.0 4.5 56.5 576.0 77.0 61.2 2 100 2 052 0.98
35 CC6-C-2 239.0 4.5 115.0 507.0 25.4 21.5 3 035 3 429 1.13
36 CC6-C-4-1 238.0 4.5 114.5 507.0 40.5 33.1 3 583 3 890 1.09
[26]
37 CC6-C-4-2 238.0 4.5 114.5 507.0 40.5 33.1 3 647 3 890 1.07
38 CC6-C-8 238.0 4.5 114.5 507.0 77.0 61.2 5 578 5 044 0.90
39 CC6-D-2 361.0 4.5 176.0 525.0 25.4 21.5 5 633 6 088 1.08
40 CC6-D-4-1 361.0 4.5 176.0 525.0 41.1 33.6 7 260 7 266 1.00
41 CC6-D-4-2 360.0 4.5 175.5 525.0 41.1 33.6 7 045 7 237 1.03
42 CC6-D-8 360.0 4.5 175.5 525.0 85.1 67.6 11 505 10 526 0.91
43 CC8-A-2 108.0 6.5 47.5 853.0 25.4 21.5 2 275 2 768 1.22
44 CC8-A-4-1 109.0 6.5 48.0 853.0 40.5 33.1 2 446 2 882 1.18
45 CC8-A-4-2 108.0 6.5 47.5 853.0 40.5 33.1 2 402 2 851 1.19
46 CC8-A-8 108.0 6.5 47.5 853.0 77.0 61.2 2 713 3 050 1.12
47 CC8-C-2 222.0 6.5 104.5 843.0 25.4 21.5 4 964 6 254 1.26
48 CC8-C-4-1 222.0 6.5 104.5 843.0 40.5 33.1 5 638 6 654 1.18
49 CC8-C-4-2 222.0 6.5 104.5 843.0 40.5 33.1 5 714 6 654 1.16
50 CC8-C-8 222.0 6.5 104.5 843.0 77.0 61.2 7 304 7 617 1.04
51 CC8-D-2 337.0 6.5 162.0 823.0 25.4 21.5 8 475 10 045 1.19
52 CC8-D-4-1 337.0 6.5 162.0 823.0 41.1 33.6 9 668 11 044 1.14
53 CC8-D-4-2 337.0 6.5 162.0 823.0 41.1 33.6 9 835 11 044 1.12
54 CC8-D-8 337.0 6.5 162.0 823.0 85.1 67.6 13 776 13 849 1.01

be approximately taken as linear [28,29], i.e., slenderness is then defined as:


s
ε = ε̄ = kλ̄. (5.5) λ fsc
λ̄sc = (5.7)
π Esc
In which k is a constant coefficient. Substituting Eqs. (5.4) and
(5.5) into Eq. (5.3) yields: where
√ λ = L0 /isc , L0 is the effective length of the column, isc =
  Isc /Asc denotes gyration radius. Thus, for a concrete-filled steel
1
q
2 tube, Eq. (5.6) becomes,
ϕ= λ̄2 + kλ̄ + 1 − λ̄2 + kλ̄ + 1 − 4λ̄2 (5.6)
2λ̄2 1
 q
2

ϕsc = λ̄sc + ksc λ̄sc + 1 − λ̄sc + ksc λ̄sc + 1 − 4λ̄sc
2 2 2
where, when k ≥ 0 and λ̄ > 0, ϕ ≤ 1, and limλ̄→0 ϕ = 1. 2λ̄2sc

Case (b): For a concrete-filled steel tube working as a composite (5.8)


π 2 Esc
unit, σT = fsc and Euler stress σesc = λ2
. The non-dimensional where, ksc is a constant coefficient for the concrete-filled steel tube.
1052 M. Yu et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1046–1053

Table 3
Comparisons of the analytical and the test results for long and short CCFSTs.
Type Ref. Explanation of Geometric parameters Material Tests Calculation Ratio
numbering
No. Numbering External diameter Steel pipe thickness Concrete thickness Column height fy /MPa fck /MPa Ntest /kN φ Nc /kN Ntest /Nc
D /mm t /mm d /mm L /mm

1 GZSJ1-1 219.0 7.0 102.5 990 272.0 41.5 3 300 0.994 3 243 1.02
2 GZSJ1-2 219.0 7.0 102.5 990 272.0 41.5 3 350 0.994 3 243 1.03
3 GZSJ1-3 219.0 7.0 102.5 990 272.0 41.5 3 450 0.994 3 243 1.06
4 GZSJ2-1 219.0 7.0 102.5 1 200 275.0 40.1 3 350 0.992 3 213 1.04
5 GZSJ2-2 219.0 7.0 102.5 1 200 275.0 40.1 3 270 0.992 3 213 1.02
6 GZSJ2-3 219.0 7.0 102.5 1 200 275.0 40.1 3 380 0.992 3 213 1.05
7 GZSJ3-1 219.0 7.0 102.5 1 420 272.0 41.3 3 230 0.991 3 226 1.00
[30]
8 GZSJ3-2 219.0 7.0 102.5 1 420 272.0 41.3 3 420 0.991 3 226 1.06
9 GZSJ3-3 219.0 7.0 102.5 1 420 272.0 41.3 3 250 0.991 3 226 1.01
10 GZSJ4-1 219.0 7.0 102.5 1 640 274.0 42.2 3 200 0.989 3 264 0.98
11 GZSJ4-2 219.0 7.0 102.5 1 640 274.0 42.2 3 250 0.989 3 264 1.00
12 GZSJ4-3 219.0 7.0 102.5 1 640 274.0 42.2 3 350 0.989 3 264 1.03
S-CSFT 13 GZSJ5-1 219.0 7.0 102.5 2 000 274.0 40.6 3 160 0.986 3 202 0.99
14 GZSJ5-2 219.0 7.0 102.5 2 000 274.0 40.6 3 210 0.986 3 202 1.00
15 sc154-1 108.0 4.0 50.0 4 158 348.1 21.3 342 0.342 289 1.18
16 sc154-2 108.0 4.0 50.0 4 158 348.1 21.3 292 0.342 289 1.01
17 sc154-3 108.0 4.0 50.0 4 158 348.1 30.6 298 0.318 292 1.02
18 sc154-4 108.0 4.0 50.0 4 158 348.1 30.6 280 0.318 292 0.96
19 sc149-1 108.0 4.0 50.0 4 023 348.1 30.6 318 0.339 312 1.02
[31] 20 sc149-2 108.0 4.0 50.0 4 023 348.1 30.6 320 0.339 312 1.03
21 sc141-1 108.0 4.0 50.0 3 807 348.1 21.3 350 0.405 343 1.02
22 sc141-2 108.0 4.0 50.0 3 807 348.1 21.3 370 0.405 343 1.08
23 sc130-1 108.0 4.0 50.0 3 510 348.1 21.3 400 0.472 400 1.00
24 sc130-2 108.0 4.0 50.0 3 510 348.1 21.3 390 0.472 400 0.98
25 sc130-3 108.0 4.0 50.0 3 510 348.1 30.6 440 0.440 405 1.09

1 sc1-1 390.0 2.0 50.0 18 000 344.4 27.3 1 058 0.389 1 050 1.01
2 sc1-2 390.0 2.0 50.0 18 000 344.4 24.0 980 0.407 1 026 0.96
3 sc1-3 390.0 2.0 50.0 18 000 344.4 28.0 970 0.386 1 054 0.92
4 sc1-4 395.0 2.0 50.0 18 000 344.4 27.3 980 0.401 1 095 0.90
5 sc1-5 395.0 2.0 50.0 18 000 344.4 28.1 1 168 0.397 1 102 1.06
6 sc1-6 395.0 2.0 50.0 18 000 344.4 26.3 1 046 0.405 1 086 0.96
[1]
7 sc1-7 395.0 2.0 50.0 18 000 344.4 24.1 981 0.418 1 070 0.92
8 sc1-8 395.0 2.0 50.0 18 000 344.4 30.3 1 154 0.387 1 121 1.03
9 sc1-9 395.0 3.0 50.0 18 000 312.9 28.0 1 273 0.384 1 234 1.03
10 sc1-10 395.0 3.0 50.0 18 000 312.9 28.0 1 259 0.384 1 234 1.02
11 sc1-11 395.0 2.0 70.0 18 000 344.4 29.3 1 203 0.382 1 277 0.94
12 sc1-12 395.0 3.0 70.0 18 000 312.9 25.6 1 250 0.389 1 372 0.91
H-CSFT
13 sc2-1 165.5 4.35 52.0 510 249.0 23.3 1 336 0.997 1 213 1.10
14 sc2-2 165.5 4.35 52.0 510 249.0 23.3 1 334 0.997 1 213 1.10
15 sc2-3 165.5 4.35 52.0 1 170 249.0 26.9 1 235 0.992 1 269 0.97
16 sc2-4 165.5 4.35 52.0 1 170 249.0 26.9 1 254 0.992 1 269 0.99
17 sc2-5 165.5 4.35 52.0 1 830 249.0 31.1 1 176 0.986 1 332 0.88
18 sc2-6 165.5 4.35 52.0 1 830 249.0 31.1 1 176 0.986 1 332 0.88
[12]
19 sc2-7 165.5 4.35 52.0 2 490 249.0 36.9 1 112 0.975 1 415 0.79
20 sc2-8 165.5 4.35 52.0 2 490 249.0 36.9 1 078 0.975 1 415 0.76
21 sc2-9 165.5 4.35 52.0 3 160 249.0 20.3 882 0.964 1 124 0.78
22 sc2-10 165.5 4.35 52.0 3 160 249.0 20.3 887 0.964 1 124 0.79
23 sc2-11 165.5 4.35 52.0 4 800 249.0 35.2 853 0.701 996 0.86
24 sc2-12 165.5 4.35 52.0 4 800 249.0 35.2 871 0.701 996 0.87

From Section 2, a steel tube can be considered as a special case for type ‘b’ section in GB 50017 [29] and buckling curve ‘c’ in
of a concrete-filled steel tube by taking β = 1 for the solution of Eurocode 3 [28] are also plotted. From the comparisons, excellent
compressive strength. It is apparent that this is also the case in the agreement can be achieved by choosing k = 0.25, especially for a
buckling analysis, where limβ→1 ksc = k and limβ→1 λ̄sc = λ̄, then larger λ.
limβ→1 ϕsc = ϕ .
For a concrete-filled steel tube, the constant coefficient k is only 6. The unified formula for the stability bearing capacity of
related to the defects in the steel tube. Therefore the equivalent concrete-filled steel tube under axial compression
initial eccentricity decreases as the steel ratio β decreases, and
satisfies limβ→1 ksc = k and limβ→0 ksc = 0. Assume that the According to the above analysis, the stability bearing capacity
equivalent initial eccentricity is directly proportional to the steel of concrete-filled steel tube under axial compression can be
ratio β , i.e. calculated as follows:
ksc = kβ. (5.9) Step 1: Calculate the yield strength of a CCFST by:
 
Ω ξsc
5.2. Determination of coefficient k fsc = 1 + h   i 
2Ω + 0.05ξsc + 0. − 0.05 ξsc Ω (Ω + ξsc )
f
2 fck
y
The value of k is determined by plotting the stability factor
× (1 − β)fck + β fy .
 
against the slenderness, as shown in Fig. 3. In the figure, the curves (6.1)
M. Yu et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1046–1053 1053

results are available. A very good agreement was observed for


both the compressive strength and the stability analyses. The
comparisons showed that the new developed formulas provided
unified design equations for both solid and hollow columns.
Future work is needed to simplify the equations further so that
they can be adopted in design codes. Further development of the
formulas to include polygon CFST is also possible.

References

[1] Zhong ST. Research and application achievement of concrete-filled steel


tubular (CFST) structures. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press, China; 2006
[in Chinese].
[2] Kuranovas A, Kvedaras AK. Centrifugally manufactured hollow concrete-filled
steel tubular columns. J Civ Eng Manag 2007;13(4):297–306.
[3] Tomii M, Yoshimura K, Morishita Y. Experimental studies on concrete filled
steel tubular stub column under concentric loading. In: Proceedings of the
Fig. 3. The stability factor viz the non-dimensional slenderness for steel columns. international colloquium on stability of structures under static and dynamic
loads. Washington, USA: SSRC/ASCE; 1977. p. 718–41.
Step 2: Calculate the stability factor of the tube by [4] Schneider SP. Axially loaded concrete-filled steel tubes. J Struct Eng, ASCE
" 1998;124(10):1125–38.
[5] O’Shea MD, Bridge RQ. Design of circular thin-walled concrete filled steel
1
ϕsc = λ̄2sc + 0.25β λ̄sc tubes. J Struct Eng 2000;126(11):1295–303.
2λ̄2sc [6] Giakoumelis G, Lam D. Axial capacity of circular concrete-filled tube columns.
J Constr Steel Res 2004;60(7):1049–68.
[7] Wang YC. Tests on slender composite columns. J Constr Steel Res 1999;49:
q #
2 25–41.
+1 − λ̄ + 0.25β λ̄sc + 1
2
sc − 4λ̄
2
sc (6.2)
[8] Zhong ST, Xu GL. Behaviors of centrifugal hollow concrete filled steel tube
(H-CFST) stub columns under axial compression. J Harbin Inst Tech 2006;
38(9):1479–82.
where the slenderness ratio
s [9] Wang HW, Xu GL, Zhong ST. Study on influence of hollow ratio to bearing
capacity of H-CFST. Eng Mech 2007;24(10):112–8.
λ fsc
λ̄sc = , λ = L0 /isc [10] Han LH. Theoretical analyses and experimental researches for the behaviors
π Esc of high strength concrete filled steel tubes subjected to axial compression. Ind
Constr 1997;27(11):39–44 [in Chinese].
and the composite bending modulus [14], [11] Han LH. Tests on concrete filled steel tubular columns with high slenderness
ratio. Adv Struct Eng 2000;3(4):337–44.
Esc = (Ec Ic + Es Is ) /Isc . [12] Shao-Huai Cai, Wei-Pin Gu. Property and bearing capacity calculation of
hollow concrete-filled steel tube long columns. Struct Sci 1987;(4):11–20
Step 3: Calculate the stability bearing capacity of the tube by [in Chinese].
[13] AIJ. Recommendations for design and construction of concrete filled steel
N = ϕsc fsc Asc . (6.3) tubular structures. Tokyo (Japan): Architectural Institute of Japan; 1997.
[14] British standards institution. Eurocode 4, BS EN 1994-1-1:2004. Design of
In order to verify the effectiveness of the unified formula of the composite steel and concrete structures. Part 1.1: General rules and rules for
stability bearing capacity of concrete-filled steel tube under axial buildings. London. 2004.
compression, again comparisons are made between the calculated [15] British standard institute. BS5400, Part 5. Concrete and Composite Bridges;
Code of Practice for Design of Composite Bridges. London (UK); 1979.
solutions and available test results for both long and short columns
[16] Institution. AISC-LRFD. Load and resistance factor design specification for
under axial compression. The comparisons are shown in Table 3. structural steel buildings. 2nd ed. Chicago (USA): American Institute of Steel
It is observed that the average ratio of the test values and the Construction (AISC); 1999.
calculated values is 0.982, with a variance of 0.008. Very good [17] DL/T 5085-1999. Design rules of steel–concrete composite structure. 1999
[in Chinese].
agreement is evident.
[18] ACI 318-99. Building code requirements for structural concrete and commen-
tary. Farmington Hills (MI), Detroit (USA): American Concrete Institute; 1999.
7. Concluding remarks [19] Muhammad NB, Fan JS, Nie JG. Strength of concrete filled steel tubular
columns. Tsinghua Sci Technol 2006;11(6):657–66.
[20] CEB-FIP model code 1990. London: Thomas Telford Ltd.; 1993.
New analytical solutions have been presented in the paper for [21] Budynas RG. Advanced strength and applied stress analysis. 2nd ed. McGraw-
determining, respectively, yield strength and stability factor or Hill Science; 1998.
bearing capacity of circular solid and hollow concrete-filled steel [22] Sadd Martin H. Elasticity: Theory, applications, and numerics. Academic Press;
tube columns subject to axial compression. The formulas take into 2004.
[23] Li B, Hao RX. The analysis of concrete filled steel tube column carrying capacity.
account geometric and material properties of both the steel and J Baotou Univ Iron Steel Technol 2005;24(1):5–8 [in Chinese].
concrete. One of the unique features of the analytical solutions is [24] Zhong ST. Concrete-filled steel tubular (CFST) structures. third ed. Beijing:
that they provide a unified formulation for both solid and hollow Tsinghua University Press; 2003 [in Chinese].
CCFSTs. The formulas also have clear physical interpretations of all [25] Zeghiche J, Chaoui K. An experimental behaviour of concrete-filled steel
tubular columns. J Constr Steel Res 2005;61:53–66.
parameters that are all defined in the form of important design
[26] Kenji S, Hiroyuki N, Shosuke M, Isao N. Behavior of centrally loaded concrete-
parameters adopted in various design codes. filled steel-tube short columns. J Struct Eng 2004;130(2):180–8.
The new formulas were calibrated against test results by [27] Yong B. Marine structural design. Elsevier; 2003.
following a regression analysis, from which a number of constants [28] British Standards Institution. Eurocode 3. BS EN 1993-1-1:2005. Design of steel
structures. Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. London. 2005.
were calculated. Compared with a formula that is based on solely
[29] GB 50017-2003. Code of design of steel structures. Beijing: China Planning
theoretical derivation, the constants from the regression analysis Press; 2003 [in Chinese].
take into account, to some extent, any initial deficiencies of [30] LI B, Wen Y. Experimental study on bearing capacity of long concrete filled
materials, imperfections of the sections and abnormality of load steel tubular columns with axial compression. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2003;23(5):
130–3 [in Chinese].
conditions.
[31] Han LH, Jiang SF, Cao YQ, Yuan YS. Experimental studies on the behavior and
The calibrated formulas were further applied to analyze a group strength of very slender concrete filled steel tubular columns. Steel constr
of CCFST columns, including solid and hollow ones, of which test 1999;14(2):21–5 [in Chinese].