Structures Congress 2015 1032

P-M Interaction Equations for Design of CFT Beam-Columns

Zhichao Lai1; Amit H. Varma2; and Lawrence G. Griffis3

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1
School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, 550 Stadium Mall Drive, West Lafayette, IN
47907. E-mail: laiz@purdue.edu
2
School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, 550 Stadium Mall Drive, West Lafayette, IN
47907. E-mail: ahvarma@purdue.edu
3
Structures Division, Walter P. Moore and Associates, Inc., Chase Tower 221 West 6th St., Suite
800, Austin, TX 78701. E-mail: lgriffis@walterpmoore.com

Abstract

Concrete-filled steel tube (CFT) beam-columns are categorized as compact, noncompact

or slender depending on the tube slenderness ratio (width-to-thickness b/t or D/t ratio, λ) and the
slenderness limits (λp, λr, and λlimit) specified by the AISC 360-10. The behavior and strength of
CFT beam-columns depend on the tube slenderness ratio (λ), material strength ratio (Fy/f’c), axial
load ratio (α) and member length-to-depth ratio (L/B or L/D). In previous articles, the authors
have presented results of numerical investigations evaluating the effects of these four parameters,
and developed P-M interaction equations for designing noncompact and slender CFT beam-
columns. This paper evaluates the applicability of the developed design equations for: (i)
designing compact CFT beam-columns, and (ii) estimating the available strengths of CFT
members in frames designed using the direct analysis method. The applicability for designing
compact CFT beam-columns is evaluated by comparing the P-M interaction curves resulting
from the developed equations with those calculated using the plastic stress distribution method
specified by AISC 360-10. The applicability for the direct analysis method is evaluated by
comparing the available strengths estimated using the developed equations with demands
calculated by conducting second-order elastic analysis using MASTAN2 (V3.3).

INTRODUCTION

Concrete-filled steel tube (CFT) members consist of rectangular or circular steel tubes
filled with concrete. These members optimize the use of steel and concrete materials, as
compared to steel or reinforced concrete members. For example, the steel tube provides
confinement to the concrete infill; while the concrete infill delays the local buckling of the steel
tube. As an innovative and efficient structural component, CFT members are widely used around
the world in various types of structures. For example, CFT members are used as columns in
composite braced frames in: (i) the Two Union Square building in Seattle, Washington, (ii)
Casselden Place project in Melbourne, Australia, (iii) Taipei 101 tower in Taipei, Taiwan, and
(iv) Commerzbank in Frankfort, Germany. CFT members are also used as compression chords in
composite bridges, for example, in: (i) the Yajisha bridge in Guangzhou, China, (ii) Chunnan
Napu bridge in Zhejiang, China, (iii) Pudong Canal bridge in Shanghai, China, (iv) Wuxia
Changjiang bridge in Chongqing, China, and (v) Shinsaikai bridge in Sasebo, Japan.
CFT members are categorized as compact, noncompact or slender depending on the

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2015

 Structures Congress 2015 1033

governing slenderness ratio (width-to-thickness b/t or D/t ratio, λ) of the steel tube and the
slenderness limits (λp, λr, and λlimit) specified by AISC 360-10 (2010), as shown in Table 1. The
authors have presented the development of these slenderness limits in detail elsewhere in Lai et
al. (2014b) and Lai and Varma (2015). As shown in Table 1, the slenderness limits (λp, λr, and
λlimit) vary depending on the loading (axial compression or flexure) acting on the CFT member.
For CFT members subjected to both axial compression and flexure, the smaller (more
conservative) of the two slenderness limits for axial compression and flexure will govern.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

For a CFT member, if the governing tube slenderness ratio (λ) is less than or equal to λp,
the member is classified as compact; if the governing tube slenderness ratio is greater than λp but
less than or equal to λr, the member is classified as noncompact; if the governing tube
slenderness ratio is greater than λr, the member is classified as slender. The tube slenderness
ratio is also limited to a maximum permitted value λlimit due to: (i) the lack of experimental data
for CFTs with such slender steel tubes, and (ii) potential issues with deflections and stresses in
the slender tube walls due to concrete casting pressures and other fabrication processes.

Table 1. Slenderness limits for CFT members

Width-to- λp λr λ limit
Loading Description of Element Thickness Compact/ Noncompact/ Maximum
Ratio Noncompact Slender Permitted
Steel tube walls of Es Es Es
Rectangular CFT b/t 2.26 3.00 5.00
Fy Fy Fy
Axial Members
compression 0 . 15 E s 0 . 19 E s 0 . 31 E s
Steel tube wall of
D/t
Circular CFT Members Fy Fy Fy

Flanges of Rectangular Es Es Es
b/t 2.26 3.00 5.00
CFT Members Fy Fy Fy

Webs of Rectangular Es Es Es
Flexure h/t 3.00 5.70 5.70
CFT Members Fy Fy Fy

Steel tube wall of 0 . 09 E s 0 . 31 E s 0 . 31 E s

D/t
Circular CFT Members Fy Fy Fy

BACKGROUND

Prior research on CFT beam-columns has focused on members with compact sections.
Research on noncompact and slender CFT beam-columns has been limited. Due to this lack of
research, AISC 360-10 provides Equations 1 and 2 for developing P-M interaction curves and
designing noncompact and slender CFT beam-columns.

Pr Pr 8 Mr
When ≥ 0 .2 + ≤ 1.0 (1)
φc Pn φc Pn 9 φb M n
Pr Pr Mr
When < 0.2 + ≤ 1.0 (2)
φc Pn 2φc Pn φb M n

In these equations, Pr is the required axial compressive strength, Mr is the required flexural

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2015

 Structures Congress 2015 1034

strength, Pn is the nominal axial strength, Mn is the nominal flexural strength, and φc is the
resistance factor for compression (φc=0.75). The calculations of Pn and Mn for CFT members are
specified in the AISC 360-10.
As discussed by the authors in Lai et al. (2014b) and Lai and Varma (2015), the AISC
360-10 design equations (Equations 1 and 2) are extremely conservative in estimating the
strengths of noncompact and slender CFT beam-columns. There are two primary reasons for this
over-conservatism. The first reason is that the AISC 360-10 design equations are conservative
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

for estimating the axial and flexural strength of noncompact and slender CFT columns and
beams. The second reason is that the bilinear interaction curve for steel wide flange members has
been specified for composite CFT beam-columns, which is extremely conservative because it
does not account for the beneficial influence of axial compression on concrete cracking and its
contribution to the flexural strength.
The behavior and strength of CFT beam-columns depends on several parameters, such as
the tube slenderness ratio (λ), material strength ratio (Fy/f’c), axial load ratio (α) and member
length-to-depth ratio (L/B or L/D). For example, the tube slenderness ratio (λ) governs the local
buckling behavior of the steel tube. The axial load ratio (α) has significant influence on the
associated flexural behavior and strength. When the axial load ratio (α) is low, i.e., below the
balance point on the P-M interaction curve, flexural behavior dominates the response. When α is
high, i.e., above the balance point, axial compression behavior dominates the response. The
initial imperfections and member length along with the applied axial loading govern the effects
of secondary moments on flexural strength of the beam-column.
Comprehensive parametric analyses were conducted by the authors using benchmarked
finite element method (FEM) models to investigate the effects of these parameters. It was found
that for length-to-depth ratio (L/D or L/B) up to 20, the shape of the P-M interaction curve for
CFT beam-columns is governed primarily by the relative strength ratio, ξ (as defined in Equation
5). The relative strength ratio (ξ) combines the effects of both the tube slenderness ratio (λ) and
material strength ratio (Fy/f’c). Using the results from the parametric analyses, the bilinear P-M
interaction curve specified by the AISC 360-10 to design noncompact and slender CFT beam-
columns were improved to Equations 3 and 4 as follows:
Pr Pr 1 − β1 M r
When ≥ β1 + ≤ 1.0 (3)
φc Pn φc Pn β 2 φb M n

Pr 1 − β 2 Pr Mr
When < β1 + ≤ 1.0 (4)
φc Pn β1 φc Pn φb M n
where,
As Fy
ξ= (5)
Ac f c'
For rectangular CFT beam-columns, β1 = 0.17ξ −0.4 (6)
When, ξ ≥ 0.5, β 2 = 1.06ξ −0.11
(7-1)
When, ξ < 0.5, β 2 = 0.90ξ −0.36 (7-2)

For circular CFT beam-columns, β1 = 0.27ξ −0.4 (8)

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2015

 Structures Congress 2015 1035

When, ξ ≥ 0.5, β 2 = 1.10ξ −0.08 (9-1)

When, ξ < 0.5, β 2 = 0.95ξ −0.32 (9-2)
Equations 6-8 are applicable to noncompact and slender rectangular CFT beam-columns,
and Equations 9-11 are applicable to noncompact and slender circular CFT beam-columns. The
equations for β2 were further simplified for design by using linear relationships. For example,
Equation 7 was simplified to Equation 10, and Equation 9 was simplified to Equation 11.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

For rectangular CFT beam-columns, β 2 = 2 − 2ξ ≥ 1.0 (10)

For circular CFT beam-columns, β 2 = 1.8 − 1.6ξ ≥ 1.0 (11)
Figure 1(a) shows an example of the bilinear interaction curve (solid line A-D-B)
obtained using the developed equations. As shown, only three anchor points are required to
define the interaction curve: Point A is the axial compressive strength (Pn), Point B is the
flexural strength (Mn), and Point D is the balance point, which corresponds to the largest increase
in flexural strength. Both Pn and Mn can be calculated using the AISC 360-10. Point D is defined
by calculating the two parameters β1 and β2, where β1 is defined in Equations 6 and 8, and β2 is
defined in the more accurate equations (Equations 7 and 9) or the simplified equations
(Equations 10 and 11).
The conservatism of the updated design equations for designing noncompact and slender
CFT beam-columns have been verified by the authors in Lai et al. (2014a). This paper extends
that work by evaluating: (i) the applicability of the developed equations for designing compact
CFT beam-columns, and (i) the applicability of the developed P-M interaction equations for
estimating the available strengths of CFT members in frames designed using the direct analysis
method.
This paper evaluates the applicability of the developed equations for compact CFT beam-
columns by comparing the P-M curves estimated using the developed equations with those
calculated using the plastic stress distribution method in AISC 360-10. This paper also evaluates
the applicability of the developed P-M equations for direct analysis method by comparing the
available strengths estimated using the developed equations with the demands obtained from
second-order elastic analysis conducted using MASTAN2 (Ziemian and McGuire, 2007).

P/Pn P/Pn
A A

True interaction curve A’ Cross-section strength

Interaction curve C η = A/ A’
developed using
Equations 3 and 4 Member strength C’
D D
D’

B M/Mn B M/Mn
(a) (b)
Figure 1. P-M interaction curves obtained using: (a) the developed equations (Equations 3 and 4)
and (b) the plastic stress distribution method by the AISC 360-10

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2015

 Structures Congress 2015 1036

EVALUATION FOR COMPACT CFT BEAM-COLUMNS

The current AISC Specification (AISC 360-10) provides the plastic stress distribution
method to calculate the P-M interaction curve (as shown in Figure 1(b)) for compact CFT
members. This method results in interaction curves similar to those shown in Figure 1 (b). The
cross-section interaction curve (the solid line A-C-D-B) is first obtained by calculating the four
anchor points using the plastic stress distribution method: Point A is cross-section axial
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

compressive strength (Pno); Point B is the flexural strength (Mn); Point C corresponds to a plastic
neutral axis location that results in the same flexural strength as Point B, but including axial
compression; and Point D (which is also called the balance point) corresponds to an axial
compressive strength of one half of that determined for Point C. The member interaction curve
(the dashed line A-C-D-B) is then obtained by applying the same member slenderness reduction
factor (η) to points A, C and D. The slenderness reduction factor (η) is defined as the ratio of the
member axial compressive strength (Pn) to the cross-section axial compressive strength (Pno).
The P-M interaction curves for compact CFT beam-columns were developed using: (i)
the developed equations (Equations 3 and 4), and (ii) the plastic stress distribution method
specified by the AISC 360-10. Both P-M curves were compared to evaluate the applicability of
the developed equations to compact beam-columns. CFT members with both rectangular and
circular sections were selected for the evaluation. For these members, the tube slenderness ratio
(λ) was set equal to the largest value possible for compact sections, i.e., at compact/noncompact
limit (λp), and the member length-to-depth ratio was set equal to 20. For both rectangular and
circular CFT members, nine comparisons were made with three steel yield stress values (Fy =
317 MPa, 421 MPa, and 525 MPa) and three concrete compressive strength values (f’c = 21 MPa,
45 MPa, and 70 MPa). The changes in the steel yield stress (Fy) or concrete compressive strength
(f’c) resulted in the changes of the material strength ratio (Fy/ f’c) and relative strength ratio (ξ).
Table 2 summarizes the details of the selected CFT members. These details include the tube
width (B or D), thickness (t), tube slenderness ratio (b/t or D/t), slenderness coefficient (λcoeff)
obtained by dividing the governing slenderness ratio with Es Fy , steel yield stress (Fy),
concrete compressive strength (f’c), and the relative strength ratio (ξ).

Table 2(a). Details of rectangular CFT members Table 2(b). Details of circular CFT members
B t Fy f' c D t Fy f' c
No. b/t λ coeff ξ No. D/t λ coeff ξ
(mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa)
1 202.8 3.5 56.8 2.26 317 21 1.08 1 298.9 5.3 56.8 0.09 317 21 1.12
2 203.9 4.0 49.3 2.26 421 21 1.66 2 302.5 7.1 42.8 0.09 421 21 2.02
3 204.8 4.4 44.1 2.26 525 21 2.32 3 306.2 8.9 34.3 0.09 525 21 3.19
4 202.8 3.5 56.8 2.26 317 45 0.51 4 298.9 5.3 56.8 0.09 317 45 0.52
5 203.9 4.0 49.3 2.26 421 45 0.78 5 302.5 7.1 42.8 0.09 421 45 0.94
6 204.8 4.4 44.1 2.26 525 45 1.08 6 306.2 8.9 34.3 0.09 525 45 1.49
7 202.8 3.5 56.8 2.26 317 70 0.32 7 298.9 5.3 56.8 0.09 317 70 0.34
8 203.9 4.0 49.3 2.26 421 70 0.50 8 302.5 7.1 42.8 0.09 421 70 0.60
9 204.8 4.4 44.1 2.26 525 70 0.70 9 306.2 8.9 34.3 0.09 525 70 0.96

Figure 2 compares the P-M interaction curves for rectangular compact CFT members.
Similarly, Figure 3 compares the P-M interaction curves for circular compact CFT members. In
these figures, the abscissa represents the normalized M/Mn ratio, and the ordinate represents the
normalized M/Mn ratio, where P (or M) is the available axial compressive strength (or the

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2015

 Structures Congress 2015 1037

available flexural strength) estimated using the developed equations or the plastic stress
distribution method. Three interaction curves are compared in each plot: the dashed lines with
rectangular maker (labeled as “AISC 360-10”) represents the interaction curves obtained using
the plastic stress distribution method specified by the AISC 360-10, the dashed lines with
triangular maker (labeled as “Precise Eq.”) represents the interaction curves obtained using the
developed equations with β2 calculated using the precise equations (Equations 7 and 9), and the
solid lines with rectangular maker (labeled as “Simplified Eq.”) represents the interaction curves
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

obtained using the developed equations with β2 calculated using the simplified equations
(Equations 10 and 11).
Figures 2 and 3 indicate that the developed equations (both the more precise and
simplified) conservatively estimate the beam-column strength for compact CFT members. This
observation can be explained by the original development of the interaction equations (Equations
3 and 4): these two equations idealize the true interaction curve as shown in Figure 1(a), and
were developed using results from comprehensive parametric studies conducted using
benchmarked FEM models (as explained in detail in Lai et al., 2014a).
In order to further confirm this conservatism, additional beam-column analyses for the
member No.4 with both rectangular and circular sections were conducted (as representative
examples) using the benchmarked FEM models developed by the authors in Lai et al. (2014a)
and Lai and Varma (2015b). Figure 4 (a) and Figure 4(b) show the comparisons of the P-M
interaction curves developed from the 3D FEM analyses with those using the developed
equations. In these two figures, the abscissa is normalized by the flexural strength Mf (obtained
from FEM analyses) and the ordinate is normalized by the axial strength Pf (obtained from FEM
analyses). These two figures further confirm the conservatism of the developed equations for
estimating the strengths (P-M interaction) of compact CFT beam-columns.

AISC 360-10 AISC 360-10

P AISC 360-10 P
A' Precise Eq. P A' Precise Eq.
Simplified Eq. A' Precise Eq. Simplified Eq.
Simplified Eq. C'
C'
C'
D'
D' D'
No.1 (ξ = 1.08) No.4 (ξ = 0.51) No.7 (ξ = 0.32)
B M B M B M
AISC 360-10 AISC 360-10 AISC 360-10
P P P
A' Precise Eq. A' Precise Eq. A' Precise Eq.
Simplified Eq. Simplified Eq. Simplified Eq.
P/Pn

C'
C'
C'
D' D'
D'
No.2 (ξ = 1.66) No.5 (ξ = 0.78) No.8 (ξ = 0.50)
B M B M B M
AISC 360-10 AISC 360-10 AISC 360-10
P P P
A' Precise Eq. A' Precise Eq. A' Precise Eq.
Simplified Eq. Simplified Eq. Simplified Eq.

C'
C'
C' D'
D'
No.3 (ξ = 2.32) D' No.6 (ξ = 1.08) No.9 (ξ = 0.70)
B M B M B M

M/Mn
Figure 2. P-M interaction curves obtained for compact rectangular CFT members

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2015

 Structures Congress 2015 1038

Figures 2 and 3 also indicate that the degree of conservatism for the simplified equations
is greater than that of the more precise equations. This observation can be explained using Figure
5, which shows the comparisons of the values of β2 (which represents the M/Mn ratio) with
varying relative strength ratios (ξ) for both rectangular and circular CFT members. In Figure 5,
the dashed lines (labeled as “Precise Eq.”) represent the cases where β2 was calculated using the
more accurate equations (Equations 7 and 9), while the solid lines (labeled as “Simplified Eq.”)
represent the cases where β2 was calculated using the more simplified equations (Equations 10
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and 11). Figure 5 indicates that for both rectangular and circular CFT members, the β2 values
calculated using the simplified equations are smaller than that calculated using the more accurate
equations, especially when the relative strength ratio (ξ) is about 0.5. This explains the
observation made from Figures 2 and 3 that the simplified equations are more conservative.
AISC 360-10 AISC 360-10 AISC 360-10
P P P
A' Precise Eq. A' Precise Eq. A' Precise Eq.
Simplified Eq. Simplified Eq. Simplified Eq.
C'
C'
C'
D'
D'
D'
No.1 (ξ = 1.12) No.4 (ξ = 0.52) No.7 (ξ = 0.34)
B M B M B M
AISC 360-10 AISC 360-10 AISC 360-10
P P P
A' Precise Eq. A' Precise Eq. A' Precise Eq.
Simplified Eq. Simplified Eq. Simplified Eq.
P/Pn

C'
C'
C'
D' D'
No.2 (ξ = 2.02) D'
No.5 (ξ = 0.94) No.8 (ξ = 0.60)
B M B M B M
AISC 360-10 AISC 360-10 AISC 360-10
P P P
A' Precise Eq. A' Precise Eq. A' Precise Eq.
Simplified Eq. Simplified Eq. Simplified Eq.

C'
C'
C'
D' D'
No.3 (ξ = 3.19) D' No.6 (ξ = 1.49) No.9 (ξ = 0.96)
B M B M B M
M/Mn
Figure 3. P-M interaction curves obtained for compact circular CFT members

1.2 FEM 1.2 FEM

1 Precise Eq. 1 Precise Eq.
Simplified Eq. Simplified Eq.
0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
P/Pf P/Pf
0.4 0.4
D'
0.2 0.2

0 0
0 0.5 M/Mf 1 1.5 0 0.5 M/M 1 1.5
f

(a) Rectangular (b) Circular

Figure 4. Comparisons of the interaction curves obtained from the FEM analyses and the
developed equations

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2015

 Structures Congress 2015 1039

2.0 2.0
Precise Eq. Precise Eq.
Simplified Eq. Simplified Eq.
1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0
β2

β2
0.5 0.5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.0 0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
ξ ξ
(a) Rectangular (b) Circular
Figure 5. Comparisons of the β2 with varying relative strength ratio (ξ) for CFT members

EVALUATION FOR DIRECT ANALYSIS METHOD

AISC 360-10 specifies the direct analysis method as the preferred approach to address
stability requirements for designing steel structures. In this method, the strength demands are
determined from second-order elastic analysis of the structure that implicitly considers: (i) all
second order P-Δ and P-δ effects, (ii) geometric imperfections, and (iii) stiffness reduction due to
inelasticity. Researchers such as Denavit (2012) have evaluated and validated the application of
the direct analysis method for the design of structural frames with compact CFT members. This
method can be extended to frames with noncompact or slender CFT members. However, the
applicability of the developed P-M interaction equations (Equations 3 and 4) for estimating the
available strengths of noncompact and slender CFT members in frames designed using the direct
analysis method needs to be evaluated.
This applicability was evaluated by comparing the available strengths estimated using the
developed equations with the strength demands obtained from second-order elastic analysis. CFT
members with both rectangular and circular sections with the maximum permitted slenderness
(5.00 for rectangular members and 0.31 for circular members) were selected for the evaluation.
Table 3 summarizes the details of these cross-sections. For both rectangular and circular CFT
members, three length-to-depth ratios were used. For example, the L/B ratios for rectangular CFT
member were 3, 10, and 20; and the L/D ratios for circular CFT members were 6.7, 13.3, and 20.
As a result, a total of six members were selected and evaluated. All of these six members have
also been analyzed using benchmarked FEM models, as presented by the authors in Lai et al.
(2014a).

Table 3. Details of the CFT cross-sections

Cross B (or D) t b/t (or Fy f'c Ec
λcoeff ξ
section (mm) (mm) D/t) (MPa) (MPa) (GPa)
Rectangular 198.7 1.4 139.9 5.00 253.0 47.6 32.4 0.153
Circular 292.3 2.0 146.2 0.31 431.0 66.2 38.2 0.182

The second-order elastic analyses used to calculate the required strengths (or demands)
were conducted using the analysis software MASTAN2 developed by Ziemian and McGuire
(2007). In these analyses: (i) global sinusoidal shape imperfection with the magnitude of L/1500
was implemented; (ii) the reduced stiffness (EIDA) proposed by Denavit (2012) was used, as

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2015

 Structures Congress 2015 1040

defined in Equation 12; and (iii) the first order forces obtained from the FEM analysis presented
elsewhere by the authors (Lai et al., 2014a) were applied, as shown in Figure 6. These first order
forces represent the axial loads and moments that resulted in the failure (i.e., reach of strength or
capacity) of the members in the analyses. In Equation 12: τb is the stiffness reduction parameter
and is defined as 0.8, Es is the steel elastic modulus, Ec is concrete elastic modulus, Is is the
moment of inertia of the steel tube, Ic is the moment of inertia of the concrete infill, As is the
cross-section area of the steel tube, and Ag is the cross-section area of CFT members.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

EIDA = 0.8τbEIeff (12-2)

EIeff = EsIs + C3EcIc (12-2)
As
C3 = 0.45 + 3 ≤ 0.9 (12-3)
Ag
Figure 7 shows the comparisons of the available strengths (solid lines) estimated using
the developed equations (with β2 calculated using the simplified equations) with the strength
demands (solid dots) obtained from second-order elastic analysis. As shown, the strength
demands are always greater than the available strengths. This means that the developed P-M
interaction equations, when used in the direct analysis, are able to conservatively estimate the
available strengths of noncompact and slender beam-columns. The comparisons for the case
when the available strengths are estimated using the developed equations with β2 calculated
using the more exact equations (Equations 7 and 9) are similar to what Figure 7 presents, and are
therefore not presented here for brevity.

Figure 6. Example of the second-order analysis

CONCLUSION

P-M interaction equations (Equation 3 and 4) for design noncompact and slender CFT
beam-columns were developed by the authors in a previous paper (Lai et al., 2014a). The current
paper evaluated the applicability of the developed design equations for: (i) designing compact
CFT beam-columns and (ii) estimating the available strengths of CFT members in frames
designed using the direct analysis method.
The applicability of the developed equations for compact CFT beam-columns were
evaluated by comparing the P-M curves estimated using the developed equations with those
developed using the plastic stress distribution method in AISC 360-10. The evaluations

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2015

 Structures Congress 2015 1041

confirmed the conservatism of the developed equations (both the more precise equations and the
simplified equations) for designing compact CFT beam-columns.
The applicability for the direct analysis method was evaluated by comparing the available
strengths estimated using the developed equations with the required strength (demands)
calculated by conducing second-order elastic analysis using MASTAN2 (V3.3). It was found that
the developed P-M equations are applicable and conservative for estimating the available
strengths of noncompact and slender CFT members in frames designed using the direct analysis
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 06/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

method.
1.2 1.2 1.2
Strength demands Strength demands Strength demands
1 1 1

0.8 0.8 0.8

P/Pn

P/Pn

P/Pn
0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

Availabe strengths Availabe strengths Availabe strengths
0.2 0.2 0.2

0 0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 1 2 3 4
M/Mn M/Mn M/Mn
(a) Rectangular
1.2 1.2 1.2
Strength demands Strength demands Strength demands
1 1 1
Availabe strengths
0.8 0.8 0.8
P/Pn

P/Pn

P/Pn
0.6 0.6 0.6
Availabe strengths Availabe strengths
0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0 0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 2 4 6 8 10
M/Mn M/Mn M/Mn
(b) Circular
Figure 7. Comparisons of the available strengths with the strength demands

REFERENCES

AISC (2010). Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, ANSI/AISC, American Institute of
Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
Denavit, M. D. (2012). “Characterization of Behavior of Steel-Concrete Composite Members
and Frames with Applications for Design.” Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, Urbana, IL.
Lai, Z., and Varma, A. H. (2014a). “Analysis and design of noncompact and slender concrete-
filled steel tube (CFT) beam-columns.” Proceedings of the Annual Stability Conference
Structural Stability Research Council, SSRC, Toronto, Canada.
Lai, Z., Varma, A. H., and Zhang, K. (2014b). “Noncompact and slender rectangular CFT
members: experimental database, analysis, and design.” Journal of Constructional Steel
Research, 101(10), 455–468.
Lai, Z., and Varma, A. H. (2015). “Noncompact and slender circular CFT members:
experimental database, analysis, and design.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research,
106 (3), 220-223.
Ziemian, R. D., and McGuire W. (2007), MASTAN 2, Version 3.3, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
Hoboken, NJ.

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2015