Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
1. Introduction et al. [5], Chen and Yeh [6], Tsai et al. [7], Chen et al. [8], El-Tawil
and Deierlein [9] and Dundar et al. [10], with an extensive review of
Composite columns are commonly used in tall buildings due most of these researches given by Shanmugam and Lakshmi [11].
to their high strength, full usage of materials, high stiffness and These tests were carried out on concrete encased steel compos-
ductility, toughness against seismic loads and significant savings ite columns having different slenderness ratios, different steel sec-
in construction time. Composite columns can be concrete encased tions and different concrete and steel strengths. On the other hand,
steel or concrete-filled steel sections. In addition to the aforemen- analytical studies on concrete encased steel composite columns
tioned advantages, concrete encased steel composite columns are have been performed by Furlong [12], Virdi and Dowling [13], Roik
gaining popularity due to the higher fire resistance compared to and Bergmann [14], Kato [15], Munoz and Hsu [16,17], and Chen
the conventional steel and concrete-filled steel tube columns that and Lin [18]. However, to date no detailed nonlinear 3-D finite ele-
require additional protection against fire. ment model was found in the literature highlighting the behaviour
Experimental investigations on concrete encased steel compos- of concrete encased steel composite columns. This is attributed
ite columns have been conducted by Anslijn and Janss [1], Mat- to the complexity of the concrete confinement, steel–concrete in-
sui [2], SSRC Task Group 20 [3], Mirza and Skrabek [4], Mirza terface, longitudinal reinforcement bar–transverse reinforcement
bar interface, and reinforcement bar–concrete interface as well
as the nonlinear constitutive stress–strain curves of the compos-
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +852 2859 2674; fax: +852 2559 5337. ite column components. Furthermore, current design rules speci-
E-mail address: young@hku.hk (B. Young). fied in the American Institute for Steel Construction AISC [19] and
0143-974X/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2010.08.003
212 E. Ellobody, B. Young / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 211–222
flange outstand. The partially confined concrete is taken from the columns were achieved by means of designed hinge assemblies. In
mid-width of each flange outstand to the centerlines of the longi- the finite element (FE) model, the hinge assemblies were modelled
tudinal reinforcement. Finally, the unconfined concrete is the re- as 40 mm deep rigid plates, which were allowed to rotate about the
maining external zone as shown in Fig. 3. axis of the plate, direction 2-2 in Fig. 3. The upper and lower end
The finite element modelling of the concrete encased steel com- plate nodes were connected to the matching specimen end nodes.
posite column was conducted step by step to ensure that all the The center of the outside surface of the bottom plate was restrained
model parts are properly connected. The model was developed in against all degrees of freedom while that of the top plate, the
six steps as shown in Fig. 3. Initially the longitudinal and transverse loading position, was allowed to displace in the vertical direction
reinforcement bars and the companion interfaces were modelled only, direction 3-3 in Fig. 3. The load was applied in increments and
(Step 1) followed by the unconfined concrete and companion inter- the nonlinear geometry was included in the analysis. The load was
face (Step 2), steel section and companion interface (Step 3), highly applied as a static concentrated load, which is identical to the real
confined concrete and companion interface (Step 4), partially con- situation in pin-ended columns.
fined concrete and companion interface (Step 5) and finally the up-
per and lower loading plates (Step 6). 2.4. Modelling of confined concrete
Ecc ε
f = 2 3 (4)
1 + (R + RE − 2) εε − (2R − 1) ε
εcc
+R ε
εcc
cc
where RE and R values are calculated from Eqs. (5) and (6), respec-
tively:
Ecc εcc
RE = (5)
fcc
RE (Rσ − 1) 1
Fig. 3. Modelling steps of concrete encased steel composite columns. R= − . (6)
(Rε − 1) 2 Rε
be obtained knowing the confinement factors for the highly and The constants Rσ and Rε are taken equal to 4 as recommended by
partially confined concrete zones as given by Chen and Lin [18]. The Hu and Schnobrich [30]. The first and second parts of the uniaxial
confinement factor for highly confined concrete varied from 1.1 to stress–strain curve of confined concrete were used for the highly
1.97 depending on the spacing between transverse reinforcement and partially confined concrete with different values of (fcc ) based
and structural steel shape. On the other hand, the confinement fac- on the confinement factors given by Chen and Lin [18].
tor for partially confined concrete varied from 1.09 to 1.5 as de- The third part of the confined concrete stress–strain curve
tailed in [18]. The confinement factors depend on the steel section is the descending part from the confined concrete strength (fcc )
shape and the spacing between transverse reinforcement bars (S ). to a value lower than or equal to rk3 fcc with the corresponding
The factors (k1 ) and (k2 ) are taken as 4.1 and 20.5, respectively, strain of 11εcc . The reduction factor (k3 ) can be calculated as
as given by Richart et al. [27]. Knowing (fl ), (k1 ) and (k2 ), the val- given by Mirza and Skrabek [4], which differentiates between the
ues of equivalent uniaxial confined concrete strength (fcc ) and the highly and partially confined concrete. The reduction factor (r )
Table 1
Specimen dimensions and material properties of concrete encased steel composite columns.
Test Dimensions Steel section Reinf. Material properties Ref.
B D kLe Concrete strength fys fyr
(mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
1 160 160 924 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 18.5a 306 376
2 160 160 2309 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 21.4a 298 376 [2,15]
3 160 160 3464 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 22.5a 304 376
A 165.1 177.8 229 UB 127 × 114 × 29.76 Fig. 1(a) 18b 248 376
B 165.1 177.8 1168 UB 127 × 114 × 29.76 Fig. 1(a) 18b 248 376 [3]
C 165.1 177.8 2083 UB 127 × 114 × 29.76 Fig. 1(a) 18b 248 376
SRC1 280 280 1200 H 150 × 150 × 7 × 10 Fig. 1(b) 29.5b 296 350
SRC2 280 280 1200 H 150 × 150 × 7 × 10 Fig. 1(b) 28.1b 296 350 [6,7]
SRC3 280 280 1200 H 150 × 150 × 7 × 10 Fig. 1(b) 29.8b 296 350
a
Denotes concrete cube strength.
b
Denotes concrete cylinder strength.
Table 2
Composite section dimensions and reinforcement details.
Test Composite section dimensions (mm) Reinforcement Ref.
b b1 b2 b3 b4 d d1 d2 d3 d4 Long. Transverse
No Ø S Ø
17 140 50 – – – 140 50 – – – – – – –
15 140 50 – – – 140 50 – – – – – – – [1,15]
12 140 50 – – – 140 50 – – – – – – –
21 140 50 – – – 140 50 – – – – – – –
1 100 30 19 11 – 100 30 19 11 – 4 6 75 4
2 100 30 19 11 – 100 30 19 11 – 4 6 75 4 [2,15]
3 100 30 19 11 – 100 30 19 11 – 4 6 75 4
the transverse reinforcement bars were 4 mm in diameter, with 150 × 150 × 7 × 10. The specimens had concrete cylinder strengths
detailed dimensions shown in Table 2. The yield stress of the rein- varying from 28.1–29.8 MPa and a steel yield stress of 296 MPa.
forcement bars (fyr ) was 376 MPa. The relative slenderness ratios The longitudinal reinforcement bars were 12 mm in diameter and
of the specimens varied from 0.26–1.29. the transverse reinforcement bars were 8 mm in diameter, with
Concrete encased steel composite columns tested by SSRC Task detailed dimensions shown in Table 2. The yield stress of the rein-
Group 20 [3], similar to that in [2,15], were with reinforcement bars forcement bars was 350 MPa. The specimens had different spacings
as shown in Fig. 1(a). Three specimens were used in the verification between transverse reinforcement bars of 140, 75 and 35 mm for
labeled A, B and C. The specimens had rectangular cross-sections specimens SRC1, SRC2 and SRC3, respectively, as shown in Fig. 6.
of 165.1 × 177.8 mm and different lengths varying from 924 mm The relative slenderness ratio of the specimens was kept constant
to 3464 mm. The structural steel section was Universal Beam UB at 0.19 which is of the stub column.
127 × 114 × 29.76. The specimens had a concrete cylinder strength
of 18 MPa and steel yield stress of 248 MPa. The longitudinal 3.2. Comparison of finite element results with test results
and transverse reinforcement bars were detailed in Table 2. The
yield stress of the reinforcement bars was 376 MPa. The relative The ultimate loads obtained from the tests (PTest ) and finite el-
slenderness ratios of the specimens varied from 0.06–0.59. ement analyses (PFE ) are compared in Table 3. The axial shorten-
The effect of the spacing between the transverse reinforcement ing and failure modes were also predicted by the finite element
bars on the behaviour of concrete encased steel composite columns model and summarized in Table 3. Generally, it can be seen that
was investigated in the tests conducted in [6,7]. The test speci- good agreement exists between test and finite element results for
mens had a general layout as shown in Fig. 1(b), with reinforce- most of the columns. A maximum difference of 11% was observed
ment details given in Table 2. The three specimens used in the between experimental and numerical results for column specimen
verification were labeled SRC1, SRC2 and SRC3. The specimens had 2 [2,15]. The mean value of PFE /PTest ratios is 0.97 with the cor-
square cross-sections of 280 × 280 mm and a constant nomi- responding coefficient of variation (COV) of 0.055, as shown in
nal length of 1200 mm. The structural steel section was H-shaped Table 3.
E. Ellobody, B. Young / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 211–222 217
Table 3
Comparison between test and finite element results.
Test [Ref.] λ Test EC4 AISC FE PFE /PTest PTest /PEC 4 PTest /PAISC
PTest Failure mode PEC 4 PAISC PFE eFE Failure mode
(kN) (kN) (mm)
17 [1,15] 0.25 2471 CC + SY 2163 2083 2367 3.40 CC + SY 0.96 1.14 1.19
15 [1,15] 0.48 2344 CC + SY 2019 1887 2271 6.34 CC + SY 0.97 1.16 1.24
12 [1,15] 0.70 2579 F 1815 1544 2539 11.4 F 0.98 1.42 1.67
21 [1,15] 0.74 2471 F 1919 1619 2495 6.56 F 1.01 1.29 1.53
1 [2,15] 0.26 996 CC + SY 951 921 1009 2.07 CC + SY 1.01 1.05 1.08
2 [2,15] 0.66 974 F 759 682 868 3.28 F 0.89 1.28 1.43
3 [2,15] 1.29 874 F 567 423 800 4.24 F 0.92 1.54 2.07
A [3] 0.06 1566 CC + SY 1360 1356 1708 5.07 CC + SY 1.09 1.15 1.15
B [3] 0.33 1370 CC + SY 1270 1248 1396 2.76 CC + SY 1.02 1.08 1.10
C [3] 0.59 1366 CC + SY 1076 1036 1231 2.72 CC + SY 0.90 1.27 1.32
SRC1 [6,7] 0.19 4220 CC + SY 3809 3655 4145 4.87 CC + SY 0.98 1.11 1.15
SRC2 [6,7] 0.19 4228 CC + SY 3723 3574 4033 4.67 CC + SY 0.95 1.14 1.18
SRC3 [6,7] 0.19 4399 CC + SY 3828 3672 4214 3.95 CC + SY 0.96 1.15 1.20
Mean – – – – – – – – 0.97 1.21 1.33
COV – – – – – – – – 0.055 0.117 0.211
Note: CC denotes Concrete Crushing, SY denotes Steel Yielding and F denotes Flexural buckling.
Fig. 6. Reinforcement layout in specimens SRC1, SRC2 and SRC3 having S1, S2 and
S3 of 140, 75 and 35 mm, respectively. Fig. 7. Deformed shape at failure for specimen 21 (Scale 1:50).
Table 4
Specimen dimensions and material properties of concrete encased steel composite columns in the parametric study.
Group Specimen Section Length Steel section Reinf. Concrete Steel Reinforcement
B×D kLe fc fys fus fyr fur
(mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
G3 S9 240 × 240 1000 H 140 × 140 × 7 × 12 – 110 275 430 376 460
S10 240 × 240 2000 H 140 × 140 × 7 × 12 – 110 275 430 376 460
S11 240 × 240 3000 H 140 × 140 × 7 × 12 – 110 275 430 376 460
S12 240 × 240 4000 H 140 × 140 × 7 × 12 – 110 275 430 376 460
G4 S13 160 × 160 1000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 30 275 430 376 460
S14 160 × 160 2000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 30 275 430 376 460
S15 160 × 160 3000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 30 275 430 376 460
S16 160 × 160 4000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 30 275 430 376 460
G5 S17 160 × 160 1000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 70 275 430 376 460
S18 160 × 160 2000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 70 275 430 376 460
S19 160 × 160 3000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 70 275 430 376 460
S20 160 × 160 4000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 70 275 430 376 460
G6 S21 160 × 160 1000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 110 275 430 376 460
S22 160 × 160 2000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 110 275 430 376 460
S23 160 × 160 3000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 110 275 430 376 460
S24 160 × 160 4000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 110 275 430 376 460
G7 S25 160 × 160 1000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 30 460 530 376 460
S26 160 × 160 2000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 30 460 530 376 460
S27 160 × 160 3000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 30 460 530 376 460
S28 160 × 160 4000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 30 460 530 376 460
G8 S29 160 × 160 1000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 70 460 530 376 460
S30 160 × 160 2000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 70 460 530 376 460
S31 160 × 160 3000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 70 460 530 376 460
S32 160 × 160 4000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 70 460 530 376 460
G9 S33 160 × 160 1000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 110 460 530 376 460
S34 160 × 160 2000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 110 460 530 376 460
S35 160 × 160 3000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 110 460 530 376 460
S36 160 × 160 4000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 110 460 530 376 460
G10 S37 160 × 160 1000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 30 690 760 376 460
S38 160 × 160 2000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 30 690 760 376 460
S39 160 × 160 3000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 30 690 760 376 460
S40 160 × 160 4000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 30 690 760 376 460
G11 S41 160 × 160 1000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 70 690 760 376 460
S42 160 × 160 2000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 70 690 760 376 460
S43 160 × 160 3000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 70 690 760 376 460
S44 160 × 160 4000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 70 690 760 376 460
G12 S45 160 × 160 1000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 110 690 760 376 460
S46 160 × 160 2000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 110 690 760 376 460
S47 160 × 160 3000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 110 690 760 376 460
S48 160 × 160 4000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 110 690 760 376 460
4. Parametric study and discussions summarized in Tables 1 and 2. On the other hand, the remaining
nine groups G4–G12 were with reinforcement bars as shown in
The verified finite element model was used to investigate the Fig. 1(a) and had the same cross-section dimensions as the test
effects of the concrete strength, column slenderness and structural specimens detailed in [2,15] and summarized in Tables 1 and 2.
steel yield stress on the behaviour and strength of reinforced and Each group had four column specimens having overall lengths of
unreinforced concrete encased steel composite columns. A total of 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 mm. It should be noted that the overall
48 columns were analyzed in the parametric study, and the dimen- column length L is equal to kLe for pin-ended columns, where Le
sions and material properties of the columns are summarized in is the effective buckling length and k is the effective length factor
Table 4. The columns were divided into 12 groups (G1–G12) and that is equal to 1.0 for pin-ended columns. The reinforcement bars
the relative slenderness ratios (λ) that were calculated based on in G4–G12 had a yield stress (fyr ) and ultimate stress (fur ) of 376
EC4 [20] varied from 0.2–1.82. The first three groups of columns and 460 MPa, respectively. The concrete strengths varied from nor-
G1–G3 were without reinforcement bars and had the same cross- mal to high strength concrete 30–110 MPa compressive cylinder
section dimensions as the test specimens detailed in [1,15] and strength (fc ). The structural steel also varied from normal to high
E. Ellobody, B. Young / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 211–222 219
where
and
with
Fig. 9. Effect of structural steel yield stress and concrete strength on the strength EIeff = Es Is + 0.5Er Ir + C1 Ec Ic (11)
of the composite columns of Groups G4–G12.
and
strength steel 275–690 MPa yield stress (fys ) and 430–760 MPa ul-
As
timate stress (fus ). The spacing between the transverse reinforce- C1 = 0.1 + 2 ≤ 0.3 (12)
ments (S ) in all the reinforced concrete encased steel composite Ac + As
column specimens of G4–G12 was taken as 75 mm. where As is the area of the structural steel section in (mm2 ), Ac
The concrete encased steel composite columns without rein- is the area of concrete in (mm2 ), Ar is the area of longitudinal
forcement bars of Groups G1, G2 and G3 had concrete strengths of reinforcement in (mm2 ), Ec is the modulus of elasticity of concrete
30, 70 and 110 MPa, respectively and the steel yield and ultimate in (MPa), Es is the modulus of elasticity of steel in (MPa), Er is
stresses of 275 and 430 MPa, respectively. Similarly, the composite the modulus of elasticity of reinforcement bars in (MPa), fc is the
columns with reinforcement bars of G4–G6 had the same concrete
compressive cylinder strength of concrete in (MPa), fys is the yield
strengths and the same steel yield and ultimate stresses as G1–G3.
stress of steel in (MPa), fyr is the yield stress of reinforcement bars
Groups G7–G9 and G10–G12 were identical to G4–G6 except with
in (MPa), Ic is the moment of inertia of concrete in (mm4 ), Is is the
the steel yield and ultimate stresses of (460 and 530 MPa) and (690
moment of inertia of structural steel in (mm4 ), Ir is the moment
and 760 MPa), respectively. The initial overall geometric imperfec-
of inertia of reinforcement bars in (mm4 ), k is the effective length
tion was taken as L/2000, where L is the column length.
factor and L is the column length.
The strength of the concrete encased steel composite columns
On the other hand, the unfactored design strengths (PEC 4 ) for
(PFE ), axial shortening at failure (eFE ) and failure modes were pre-
axially loaded concrete encased steel composite columns was
dicted using the developed finite element model as summarized in
calculated using the simplified method of design, Clause 6.7.3 of
Table 5. As expected, the higher the concrete and structural steel
strengths the higher the composite column strength. The com- the EC4 [20], based on the relative slenderness (λ) as follows:
bined failure mode of concrete crushing and structural steel yield- PEC 4 = χ Npl (13)
ing (CC + SY) was observed in the composite columns having a
relative slenderness ratio (λ) less than or equal to 0.59. On the where
other hand, the flexural buckling failure mode (F) was observed 1
in the composite columns having λ greater than 0.59. It should be χ= ≤1 (14)
noted that this limiting slenderness ratio is based on the column φ + [φ − λ¯2 ]0.5
2
Table 5
Comparison of column strengths and design strengths for concrete encased steel composite columns.
5.2. Comparison of column strengths with design strengths PFE /PAISC and PFE /PEC 4 ratios are 1.46 and 1.18, respectively, with
the corresponding coefficients of variation (COV) of 0.306 and
The composite column strengths obtained from the tests (PTest ) 0.164, respectively. The EC4 predictions were conservative for all
used in the verification of the FE model and the companion design the column specimens, except for S1, S27, S39 and S40, while the
strengths (PAISC and PEC 4 ) are compared in Table 3. The mean values AISC predictions were more conservative for all the specimens.
of PTest /PAISC and PTest /PEC 4 ratios are 1.33 and 1.21, respectively, The comparison between the composite column strengths ob-
with the corresponding coefficients of variation (COV) of 0.211 and tained using the finite element analysis and the design strengths
0.117, respectively. It is shown that the design strengths predicted were also plotted in Figs. 10–13 for the composite columns of
by the two specifications are conservative for the tested specimens, G1–G3, G4–G6, G7–G9 and G10–G12, respectively. Fig. 10 shows
with the AISC predications being more conservative than the EC4. the column strength–effective length relationships for the unrein-
Generally, similar results were obtained for the composite column forced composite column specimens of Groups G1, G2 and G3 hav-
strengths predicted using the finite element model and the design ing a structural steel yield stress of 275 MPa and concrete cylinder
predictions for the composite column specimens investigated in strengths (fc ) of 30, 70 and 110 MPa, respectively. It is shown
the parametric study, as shown in Table 5. The mean values of that the design strengths calculated using the EC4 were accurately
E. Ellobody, B. Young / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 211–222 221
Fig. 12. Comparison of FE strengths with design strengths for the composite
Fig. 10. Comparison of FE strengths with design strengths for the composite columns of groups G7, G8 and G9 (fys = 460 MPa).
columns of groups G1, G2 and G3 (fys = 275 MPa).
Fig. 13. Comparison of FE strengths with design strengths for the composite
Fig. 11. Comparison of FE strengths with design strengths for the composite
columns of groups G10, G11 and G12 (fys = 690 MPa).
columns of groups G4, G5 and G6 (fys = 275 MPa).
using the American Institute for Steel Construction AISC and [15] Kato B. Column curves of steel-concrete composite members. Journal of
Eurocode 4 for composite columns. Generally, it is shown that the Constructional Steel Research 1996;39(2):121–35.
[16] Munoz PR, Hsu CT. Behaviour of biaxially loaded concrete-encased composite
EC 4 accurately predicted the design strengths for the concrete en- columns. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1997;123(9):1163–71.
cased steel composite columns having a concrete cylinder strength [17] Munoz PR, Hsu CT. Biaxially loaded concrete-encased composite columns: de-
of 30 MPa and structural steel yield stresses of 275 and 460 MPa, sign equation. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1997;123(12):1576–85.
[18] Chen CC, Lin NJ. Analytical model for predicting axial capacity and behaviour
which are within the limits of the code; otherwise the predictions of concrete encased steel composite stub columns. Journal of Constructional
were generally conservative. The AISC predictions were quite con- Steel Research 2006;62:424–33.
servative for all the concrete encased steel composite columns. [19] AISC. Specification for structural steel buildings. American Institute for Steel
Construction. ANSI/AISC 360-05, Reston, Chicago, Illinois, USA; 2005.
[20] EC4. Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures - Part
References 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. London, UK: British Standards
Institution. BS EN 1994-1-1; 2004.
[1] Anslijn R, Janss J. Le calcul de charges ultimes des colonnes metalliques [21] ABAQUS standard user’s manual. Vol. 1, 2 and 3 Version 6.8-1, USA: Hibbitt.
enrobes de beton. C.R.I.F. Report MT89, Brussels; April 1974. Karlsson and Sorensen. Inc.; 2008.
[2] Matsui C. Study on elasto-plastic behaviour of concrete-encased columns [22] Sheikh SA, Uzumeri SM. Analytical model for concrete confinement in tied
subjected to eccentric axial thrust. Annual Assembly of Architectural Institute columns. Journal of Structural Division, ASCE 1982;108(12):2703–22.
of Japan, September 1979. p. 1627–8 [in Japanese]. [23] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress–strain model for confined
[3] SSRC Task Group 20. A specification for the design of steel-concrete composite concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1988;114(8):1804–26.
columns. AISC Engineering Journal 1979;(Fourth Quarter):101–15. [24] Ellobody E, Young B. Design and behaviour of concrete-filled cold-formed
[4] Mirza SA, Skrabek BW. Statistical analysis of slender composite beam–column stainless steel tube columns. Engineering Structures 2006;28(5):716–28.
strength. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1992;118(5):1312–31. [25] Ellobody E, Young B. Nonlinear analysis of concrete-filled steel SHS and RHS
[5] Mirza SA, Hyttinen V, Hyttinen E. Physical tests and analyses of composite columns. Thin-walled Structures 2006;44(8):919–30.
steel-concrete beam–columns. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1996; [26] ACI. Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary. ACI
122(11):1317–26. 318M-08. USA: American Concrete Institute; 2008.
[6] Chen CC, Yeh SC. Ultimate strength of concrete encased steel composite [27] Richart FE, Brandzaeg A, Brown RL. A study of the failure of concrete under
columns. In: Proceedings of the third national conference on structural combined compressive stresses. Bull. 185. Champaign, Illinois, USA: Univ. of
engineering; 1996. p. 2197–206 [in Chinese]. Illinois Engineering Experimental Station; 1928.
[7] Tsai KC, Lien Y, Chen CC. Behaviour of axially loaded steel reinforced concrete [28] Hu HT, Huang CH, Wu MH, Wu YM. Nonlinear analysis of axially loaded
columns. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Civil and Hydraulic Engineering concrete-filled tube columns with confinement effect. Journal of Structural
1996;8(4):535–45 [in Chinese]. Engineering, ASCE 2003;129(10):1322–9.
[8] Chen CC, Weng CC, Lin IM, Li JM. Seismic behaviour and strength of concrete [29] Saenz LP. In: Desayi P, Krishnan. S, editors. Discussion of ‘Equation for the
encased steel stub columns and beam–columns. Report No. MOIS 881012-1, stress–strain curve of concrete’. ACI Journal 1964;61:1229–35.
Architecture and Building Research Institute; 1999 [in Chinese]. [30] Hu HT, Schnobrich WC. Constitutive modeling of concrete by using nonasso-
[9] El-Tawil S, Deierlein GG. Strength and ductility of concrete encased composite ciated plasticity. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 1989;1(4):199–216.
columns. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1999;125(9):1009–19. [31] Ellobody E, Young B, Lam D. Behaviour of normal and high strength concrete-
[10] Dundar C, Tokgoz S, Tanrikulu AK, Baran T. Behavior of reinforced and filled compact steel tube circular stub columns. Journal of Constructional
concrete-encased composite columns subjected to biaxial bending and axial Steel Research 2006;62(7):706–15.
load. Building and Environment 2008;43:1109–20. [32] Giakoumelis G, Lam D. Axial capacity of circular concrete-filled tube columns.
[11] Shanmugam NE, Lakshmi B. State of the art report on steel-concrete composite Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2004;60(7):1049–68.
columns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2001;57:1041–80. [33] CEB. RC Elements under cyclic loading. Comite Euro-International Du Beton
[12] Furlong RW. Design of steel-encased concrete beam–columns. Journal of (CEB), Thomas Telford; 1996.
Structural Division, ASCE 1968;94(1):267–81. [34] EC3. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-1: General rules and rules
[13] Virdi KS, Dowling PJ. The ultimate strength of composite columns in biaxial for buildings. London, UK: British Standards Institution, BS EN 1993-1-1; 2005.
bending. Proceedings Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2 1973;55:251–72. [35] EC2. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1: General rules and
[14] Roik K, Bergmann R. Design method for composite columns with unsymmet- rules for buildings. London, UK: British Standards Institution, BS EN 1992-1-1;
rical cross-sections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1990;33:153–72. 2004.