Sunteți pe pagina 1din 13

Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 850862

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

Suggested empirical models for the axial capacity of circular CFT stub columns
Zhao-Hui Lu a , Yan-Gang Zhao b,
a

School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Central South University, 22 Shaoshannan Road, Changsha 410075, China

Department of Architecture, Kanagawa University, 3-27-1 Rokkakubashi, Kanagawa-ku, Yokohama 221-8686, Japan

article

info

Article history:
Received 4 August 2008
Accepted 24 December 2009
Keywords:
Composite columns
Concrete
Steel
Circular tubes
Design
Capacity

abstract
In this paper, a total of 250 experimental tests of axially loaded circular concrete-filled steel tube (CFT)
stub columns, published in the literature was summarized. The applicability of the current design codes
such as ACI, Australian Standards, AISC, AIJ, Eurocode 4, DL/T and some available empirical models
proposed by various researchers for calculating the axial capacity of circular CFT stub columns was
examined using these experimental data. Based on the investigations, four new empirical models for
predicting the axial capacity of circular CFT stub columns are proposed. The comparisons between
the experimental results and the predictions of these models show that the proposed empirical
models provide a direct, compact, and efficient representation of the ultimate strength of circular CFT
stub columns made with not only normal strength but also high strength steel tubes and concrete.
Finally, the limiting values of the maximum effective length, the compressive strength of concrete,
the yield strength of steel tubes and the diameter-to-thickness for circular CFT stub columns with
respect to the present empirical models are suggested. It is expected that engineers can easily use the
present empirical models to estimate the axial capacities of circular CFT stub columns for engineering
designs.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Concrete-filled steel tubular (CFT) columns are being more
widely used in the construction of high-rise buildings, bridges,
subway platforms, and barriers. Their usage provides excellent
static and earthquake-resistant properties, such as high strength,
high ductility, high stiffness, and large energy-absorption capacity.
CFT columns provide the benefits of both steel and concrete: a steel
tube surrounding a concrete column not only assists in carrying the
axial load but also confines the concrete. Furthermore, it eliminates
the permanent formwork, which reduces construction time, while
the concrete core takes the axial load and prevents or delays local
buckling of the steel tube.
With the advent of high-strength steel and the production
of high-strength concrete using conventional materials with
careful quality control, high-strength CFT columns are both
technically and economically feasible. However, they are scarcely
adopted in the construction industry, mainly due to the lack of
understanding of their structural behavior and reliable design
recommendations [1]. The present design codes, such as AIJ
[2,3], AISC [4], Eurocode 4 [5], and DL/T [6] have some limitations
in applications concerning the materials strength and the
diameter (width)-to-thickness ratio of circular (square) tubes. For

Corresponding author. Tel.: +81 45 481 5661x3483; fax: +81 45 481 5360.
E-mail address: zhao@kanagawa-u.ac.jp (Y.-G. Zhao).

0143-974X/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2009.12.014

illustration, details of the limitations for circular CFT columns


are shown in Table 1, where fcyl,100 and fcyl,150 correspond to the
concretes compressive strength obtained from cylinder tests of
100 200 mm and 150 300 mm specimens, respectively; fcu,150
denotes the concretes compressive strength with 150 mm cube
tests; fy is the yield strength of the steel tube; F is the smaller of
yield stress and 0.7 times the tensile strength; and Es is the elastic
modulus of the steel tube (=2.1 105 MPa). There is uncertainty
as to whether they can be used for circular CFT stub columns with
a higher material strength and higher diameter-to-thickness ratios
than those stipulated in the codes or not.
On the other hand, a large number of theoretical and
experimental studies on circular CFT stub columns with highstrength concrete or high-strength steel or high diameter-tothickness ratio has been done, and several empirical models have
been proposed to predict the axial capacity of stub circular CFT
columns in the last few years [e.g., [713]]. These models usually
show good agreement with some experiments, especially with the
results used for the model development, but there is uncertainty
as to whether they can provide satisfactory predictions or not in
many other cases.
Therefore, the main objective of the present paper is to evaluate
the applicability of the methods described in the codes and
empirical formulae proposed by various researchers for computing
the axial capacities of circular CFT stub columns and if necessary, to
propose simple modifications. Available experimental data of stub
circular CFT columns made with normal strength as well as high
strength steel tubes and concrete published in the literature are
used for this purpose.

Z.-H. Lu, Y.-G. Zhao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 850862

851

Table 1
Limitations of applications of concerning the materials strength and diameter-to-thickness ratio of circular steel tubes in some available design rules for CFT columns.

Limitations of yield strength of steel tube (MPa)


Ranges of compressive strength of normal weight concrete
(MPa)
Limitations of diameter-to-thickness ratio of circular steel
tube

AIJ [2,3]

AISC [4]

Eurocode 4 [5]

DL/T [6]

235 fy 355
fcyl,100 58.8

fy 525
21 fcyl,150 70

235 fy 390
30 fcu,150 80

1.5 (23500/F )

0.15 (Es /fy )

235 fy 460
20 fcyl,150 50 or
25 fcu,150 60
90 (235/fy )

20100

2. Summary of experimental data


Recently, Goode [14] has compiled a series of databases,
available on the Internet, documenting 1819 CFT tests. However,
a careful comparison of the database of circular CFT stub columns
with those published in the original literature reveals that although
the compressive strength of concrete of some specimens were
obtained through 100 mm cube test or 150 mm cube test or
100 200 mm cylinder test, the concrete strengths of all the
specimens are deemed by Goode [14] as obtained from the 150
300 mm cylinder test. This will have significant effects on the
predicted results. Therefore a database of circular CFT stub columns
is compiled in this section.
The experimental data from a relatively large number of
specimens are considered in this study. These are:
Gardner and Jacobson [15], 12 tests; Luksha and Nesterovich
[16], 10 tests; OShea and Bridge [9], 12 tests; Sakino and
Hayashi [17], 12 tests; Kato [18], 12 tests; Saisho et al. [8], 29
tests; Yamamoto et al. [19], 13 tests; Sakino et al. [11], 36 tests;
Yu et al. [20], 28 tests; Giakoumelis and Lam [10], 8 tests; Zhang
and Wang [21], 36 tests; Han et al. [12], 26 tests; and Tan [13], 16
tests.
The type of loading application as illustrated in Fig. 1, was used
in all the 250 experimental specimens, in which the steel tube
and concrete are loaded simultaneously. In Fig. 1, D is the external
diameter, t is the wall thickness of the steel tube, and L is the length
of the CFT column. Table 2 summarizes the measured dimensions,
material properties, and ultimate strength of the tested specimens,
in which fcu,100 denotes the concretes compressive strength
obtained from 100 mm cube tests, the compressive yield stress
of steel tube scy is defined as the stress corresponding to an
offset strain of 0.2%, and the tensile yield stress of steel tube sy is
obtained from tensile coupon tests (for the case of the steel having
no clear yield plateau, it corresponds to the stress at 0.2% offset).
The ultimate axial capacities of the circular CFT stub columns
obtained from experiments (Ntest ) correspond to the maximum
(peak or limit points) of the axial load-shortening curves, and are
not limited by a strain limitation. Important characteristics of the
selected specimens are summarized as follows.
(1) The yield strength of the steel tube fy (defined by scy or
sy ) ranged from 185.7 to 853.0 MPa, while the compressive
strength (150 300 mm cylinder test) of concrete from 15.0
to 130.2 MPa.
(2) The tube diameter varied from 60 to 1020 mm and the tube
thickness varied from 0.86 to 13.25 mm.
(3) The diameter-to-thickness (D/t ) ratio of the specimens ranged
from 16.7 to 220.9 and local buckling did not occur in any
specimen.
(4) Relatively short length of specimens (the length-to-diameter:
from 1.99 to 3.52) were used to ensure that they would be stub
columns with a small slenderness effect and would not fail in
overall buckling.
It should be noted that different test standards are used to
define the compressive strength of concrete by the researchers,
which are specified clearly in Table 2. The conversion relations
between fcyl,150 and fcu,150 , proposed by Eurocode 2 [22] are shown
in Table 3. The conversion relationship between fcyl,150 and fcyl,100

Fig. 1. Illustration of load applied to the entire section of circular CFT stub columns.

can be expressed as [23]:


fcyl,150 = 0.96fcyl,100 .

(1)

The similar conversion relationship between fcu,150 and fcu,100 is


used in this study, i.e., fcu,150 = 0.96fcu,100 .
3. Available formulae for axial capacity of circular CFT stub
columns
For completeness, a brief review of the determination of the
axial capacity of circular CFT stub columns using the methods
described in the codes or empirical relations proposed by various
researchers is presented as follows. In all the design calculations,
the resistance factors and material partial factors are set to one.
3.1. The ACI [24] and Australian Standards [25,26]
The ACI [24] and Australian Standards (AS) [25,26] use the same
formula for calculating the ultimate axial capacity of the circular
CFT stub columns. Neither of these specifications has taken into
account the concrete confinement and the interaction between the
concrete core and steel tube. The equation for axial capacity of a
circular CFT stub column, NACI /AS is given as:
NACI /AS = 0.85fcyl,150 Ac + fy As

(2)

where Ac = the cross-sectional area of the concrete; and As = the


cross-sectional area of the steel tube.
3.2. Giakoumelis and Lam [10]
A modification for the ACI [24] and AS [25,26] equation has
been proposed by Giakoumelis and Lam [10]. A new coefficient
was suggested to take into account the effect of the concretes
confinement on the axial load capacity of circular CFT stub
columns. In this case, a revised equation is given as follows
NGL = 1.3fcyl,150 Ac + fy As .

(3)

3.3. The AISC [4]


The AISC [4] composite column design method has different
equations for the cross sectional strength depending on whether
the columns are encased composite columns or filled composite
columns. For the circular CFT columns, the AISC [4] allows for an
increase of the usable concrete stress to account for the beneficial
effects of the restraining hoop action arising from transverse
confinement. This is accomplished by increasing the multiplier of
the first term of Eq. (2) from 0.85 to 0.95. Therefore, the cross-

852

Z.-H. Lu, Y.-G. Zhao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 850862

Table 2
Measured specimen dimensions, material properties and axial capacities (Circular CFT stub columns).
No. of
specimens

Name of
specimens

Dimensions

Material properties

L (mm)

L/D

33.1
33.1
29.7
29.5
29.5
48.1
49.7
31.0
31.1
44.9
45.6
44.9

203.3
203.3
241.3
241.4
241.4
304.8
304.9
304.9
304.9
152.3
152.3
152.4

2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.99
1.99
1.99

34.1
31.2
34.4
34.1
29.6
25.9
20.9 (fcyl , 150)
42.0
43.4
25.0
40.9
25.9

605.1
605.1
451.6
451.6
451.6
415.1
415.1 (sy )
633.4
633.4
363.3
363.3
363.3

1112
1067
1200
1200
1112
1200
1200
2908
2913
355
434
372

5.07
7.00
7.61
8.44
10.21
11.60
8.30
8.93
9.64
13.25

31.4
90.0
82.8
74.6
61.7
54.3
86.7
91.8
105.8
77.0

447.0
1890.0
1890.0
1890.0
1890.0
1890.0
2160.0
2460.0
3060.0
3060.0

3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00

41.5
36.0
35.0
34.5
38.4 (fcyl , 150)
46.0
15.0
45.0
16.9
28.9

381.5
291.4
349.5
350.0
323.3 (sy )
347.2
312.0
331.0
336.0
368.7

2230
16650
18000
18600
20500
24400
15000
33600
30000
46000

D (mm)

t (mm)

101.7
101.7
120.8
120.8
120.8
152.6
152.6
152.6
152.6
76.4
76.5
76.4

3.07
3.07
4.06
4.09
4.09
3.18
3.07
4.93
4.90
1.70
1.68
1.70

159.0
630.0
630.0
630.0
630.0
630.0
720.0
820.0
1020.0
1020.0

D/t

Axial
capacity Ntest
(kN)

Concrete
compressive
strength (MPa)

Tested by

Yield strength
of steel tube
fy (MPa)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

3
4
8
9
10
13
14
15
16
19
22
23

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

SB1
SB2
SB3
SB4
SB5
SB6
SB7
SB8
SB9
SB10

23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

S30CS50B
S20CS50A
S16CS50B
S12CS50A
S10CS50A
S30CS80A
S20CS80B
S16CS80A
S12CS80A
S30CS10A
S20CS10A
S12CS10A

165.0
190.0
190.0
190.0
190.0
165.0
190.0
190.0
190.0
165.0
190.0
190.0

2.82
1.94
1.52
1.13
0.86
2.82
1.94
1.52
1.13
2.82
1.94
1.13

58.5
97.9
125.0
168.1
220.9
58.5
97.9
125.0
168.1
58.5
97.9
168.1

580.5
663.5
664.5
664.5
659.0
580.5
663.5
663.5
662.5
577.5
660.0
660.0

3.52
3.49
3.50
3.50
3.47
3.52
3.49
3.49
3.49
3.50
3.47
3.47

48.3
41.0
48.3
41.0
41.0 (fcyl , 150)
80.2
74.7
80.2
80.2
108.0
108.0
108.0

363.3
256.4
306.1
185.7
210.7 (sy )
363.3
256.4
306.1
185.7
363.3
256.4
185.7

1662
1678
1695
1377
1350
2295
2592
2602
2295
2673
3360
3058

OShea and
Bridge [9]
(12 tests)

35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46

L-20-1
L-20-2
H-20-1
H-20-2
L-32-1
L-32-2
H-32-1
H-32-2
L-58-1
L-58-2
H-58-1
H-58-2

178.0
178.0
178.0
178.0
179.0
179.0
179.0
179.0
174.0
174.0
174.0
174.0

9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00

19.8
19.8
19.8
19.8
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
58.0
58.0
58.0
58.0

360.0
360.0
360.0
360.0
360.0
360.0
360.0
360.0
360.0
360.0
360.0
360.0

2.02
2.02
2.02
2.02
2.01
2.01
2.01
2.01
2.07
2.07
2.07
2.07

22.2
22.2
45.4
45.4
22.1 (fcyl , 100)
23.9
43.7
43.7
23.9
23.9
45.7
45.7

283.0
283.0
283.0
283.0
249.0 (sy )
249.0
249.0
249.0
266.0
266.0
266.0
266.0

2120
2060
2720
2730
1410
1560
2080
2070
1220
1220
1640
1710

Sakino and
Hayashi [17]
(12 tests)

47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58

C04LB
C06LB
C08LB
C12LB
C04MB
C06MB
C08MB
C12MB
C12MBH
C06HB
C08HB
C12HB

301.5
298.5
298.4
297.0
301.5
298.5
298.4
297.0
301.3
298.5
298.4
297.0

4.50
5.74
7.65
11.88
4.50
5.74
7.65
11.88
11.59
5.74
7.65
11.88

67.0
52.0
39.0
25.0
67.0
52.0
39.0
25.0
26.0
52.0
39.0
25.0

904.5
895.5
895.2
891.0
904.5
895.5
895.2
891.0
903.9
895.5
895.2
891.0

3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00

27.7
27.7
27.7
27.7
35.6 (fcyl , 100)
32.3
35.5
35.6
35.6
82.4
82.4
82.4

381.2
399.8
384.2
347.9
381.2 (sy )
399.8
384.2
347.9
471.4
399.8
384.2
347.9

3851
4537
4919
5909
4547
5125
5821
7222
8594
7938
8388
9388

Kato [18]
(12 tests)

sectional strength, P0,AISC is given by


P0,AISC = 0.95fcyl,150 Ac + fy As .

Gardner and
Jacobson [15]
(12 tests)

Luksha and
Nesterovich [16]
(10 tests)

computed by
(4)

In reality, P0,AISC is the nominal, zero length strength (i.e., plastic


capacity of the section). Therefore, the nominal axial capacity of
a circular CFT stub column, NAISC included with length effects is

NAISC = P0,AISC 0.658

p

0,AISC
pe



(Pe 0.44P0,AISC )

(5)

where Pe is the elastic buckling load. According to AISC [4], Pe is


given by

Z.-H. Lu, Y.-G. Zhao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 850862

853

Table 2 (continued)
No. of
specimens

Name of
specimens

Dimensions

Material properties

L/D

Concrete
compressive
strength (MPa)

Yield strength
of steel tube
fy (MPa)

33.9
33.9
34.0
50.2
50.2
50.2
50.2
50.2
59.1
59.1
59.1
34.0
34.0
34.3
50.2
50.2
50.2
59.1
59.1
59.1
59.1
34.3
34.0
34.0
50.2
50.2
59.1
59.1
59.1

304.8
304.8
304.8
419.4
419.4
419.4
419.4
419.4
419.4
419.4
419.4
304.8
304.8
304.8
419.4
419.4
419.4
419.4
419.4
419.4
419.4
304.8
304.8
304.8
419.4
419.4
419.4
419.4
419.4

3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00

117.0
117.0
135.6
117.0
117.0
135.6
135.6
135.6
135.6
135.6
135.6
62.4 (fcyl , 100)
62.4
62.4
57.3
57.3
57.3
62.4
70.8
70.8
70.8
25.4
27.7
29.4
25.4
27.7
27.7
27.7
27.7

377.3
377.3
377.3
341.0
341.0
341.0
341.0
341.0
462.6
462.6
462.6
377.3 (sy )
377.3
377.3
341.0
341.0
341.0
462.6
462.6
462.6
462.6
377.3
377.3
377.3
341.0
341.0
462.6
462.6
462.6

1117
1195
1185
2067
1960
2087
2048
2077
2175
2136
2165
921
921
901
1323
1391
1313
1558
1577
1577
1626
676
715
715
931
950
1098
1107
1078

Saisho et al. [8]


(29 tests)

3.02
3.07
3.05
6.66
10.34
3.04
3.03
6.63
10.35
3.04
3.05
6.65
10.38

33.6
33.2
33.4
32.5
30.8
33.5
33.4
32.6
30.8
33.5
33.3
32.5
30.7

304.2
305.7
305.4
649.2
954.9
305.1
303.9
649.2
954.9
305.7
304.5
649.2
955.5

3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00

23.2
23.2
23.2
24.3
24.2
40.2
40.2 (fcyl , 100)
38.2
39.2
51.3
51.3
46.8
52.2

371.0
371.0
371.0
452.0
331.0
371.0
371.0 (sy )
452.0
339.0
371.0
371.0
452.0
339.0

660
649
682
3568
6565
800
742
4023
7933
877
862
4214
8289

Yamamoto
et al. [19]
(13 tests)

2.96
2.96
2.96
2.96
2.96
2.96
2.96
2.96
2.96
2.96
2.96
2.96
4.54
4.54
4.54
4.54
4.54
4.54
4.54
4.54
4.54
4.54
4.54
4.54
6.47
6.47
6.47

50.4
50.3
50.3
50.5
101.5
101.4
101.4
101.5
152.0
152.0
152.0
152.0
26.9
26.8
26.8
26.8
52.5
52.5
52.4
52.4
79.4
79.4
79.3
79.4
16.7
16.8
16.7

447.0
447.0
447.0
447.0
903.0
900.0
900.0
903.0
1350.0
1350.0
1350.0
1350.0
366.0
366.0
366.0
366.0
717.0
714.0
714.0
714.0
1083.0
1083.0
1080.0
1080.0
324.0
327.0
324.0

3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00

25.4
40.5
40.5
77.0
25.4
41.1
41.1
80.3
25.4
41.1
41.1
85.1
25.4
40.5 (fcyl , 100)
40.5
77.0
25.4
40.5
40.5
77.0
25.4
41.1
41.1
85.1
25.4
40.5
40.5

308.0
308.0
308.0
308.0
279.0
279.0
279.0
279.0
279.0
279.0
279.0
279.0
576.0
576.0 (scy )
576.0
576.0
507.0
507.0
507.0
507.0
525.0
525.0
525.0
525.0
853.0
853.0
853.0

941
1064
1080
1781
2382
3277
3152
5540
4415
6870
6985
11665
1509
1657
1663
2100
3035
3583
3647
5578
5633
7260
7045
11505
2275
2446
2402

t (mm)

S-30.1
S-30.2
S-30.3
S-50.1
S-50.2
S-50.3
S-50.4
S-50.5
S-60.1
S-60.2
S-60.3
H-30.1
H-30.2
H-30.3
H-50.1
H-50.2
H-50.3
H-60.1
H-60.2
H-60.3
H-60.4
L-30.1
L-30.2
L-30.3
L-50.1
L-50.2
L-60.1
L-60.2
L-60.3

101.6
101.6
101.6
139.8
139.8
139.8
139.8
139.8
139.8
139.8
139.8
101.6
101.6
101.6
139.8
139.8
139.8
139.8
139.8
139.8
139.8
101.6
101.6
101.6
139.8
139.8
139.8
139.8
139.8

3.00
3.00
2.99
2.78
2.78
2.78
2.78
2.78
2.37
2.37
2.37
2.99
2.99
2.96
2.78
2.78
2.78
2.37
2.37
2.37
2.37
2.96
2.99
2.99
2.78
2.78
2.37
2.37
2.37

88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100

C10A-2A-1
C10A-2A-2
C10A-2A-3
C20A-2A
C30A-2A
C10A-3A-1
C10A-3A-2
C20A-3A
C30A-3A
C10A-4A-1
C10A-4A-2
C20A-4A
C30A-4A

101.4
101.9
101.8
216.4
318.3
101.7
101.3
216.4
318.3
101.9
101.5
216.4
318.5

101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127

CC4-A-2
CC4-A-4-1
CC4-A-4-2
CC4-A-8
CC4-C-2
CC4-C-4-1
CC4-C-4-2
CC4-C-8
CC4-D-2
CC4-D-4-1
CC4-D-4-2
CC4-D-8
CC6-A-2
CC6-A-4-1
CC6-A-4-2
CC6-A-8
CC6-C-2
CC6-C-4-1
CC6-C-4-2
CC6-C-8
CC6-D-2
CC6-D-4-1
CC6-D-4-2
CC6-D-8
CC8-A-2
CC8-A-4-1
CC8-A-4-2

149.0
149.0
149.0
149.0
301.0
300.0
300.0
301.0
450.0
450.0
450.0
450.0
122.0
122.0
122.0
122.0
239.0
238.0
238.0
238.0
361.0
361.0
360.0
360.0
108.0
109.0
108.0

59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87

Tested by

L (mm)

D (mm)

D/t

Axial
capacity Ntest
(kN)

Sakino et al. [11]


(36 tests)

(continued on next page)

854

Z.-H. Lu, Y.-G. Zhao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 850862

Table 2 (continued)
No. of
specimens

Name of
specimens

Dimensions

Material properties

D (mm)

t (mm)

D/t

L (mm)

L/D

Concrete
compressive
strength (MPa)

Axial
capacity Ntest
(kN)

Tested by

Yield strength
of steel tube
fy (MPa)

128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136

CC8-A-8
CC8-C-2
CC8-C-4-1
CC8-C-4-2
CC8-C-8
CC8-D-2
CC8-D-4-1
CC8-D-4-2
CC8-D-8

108.0
222.0
222.0
222.0
222.0
337.0
337.0
337.0
337.0

6.47
6.47
6.47
6.47
6.47
6.47
6.47
6.47
6.47

16.7
34.3
34.3
34.3
34.4
52.1
52.0
52.0
52.0

324.0
666.0
666.0
666.0
666.0
1011.0
1011.0
1011.0
1011.0

3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00

77.0
25.4
40.5
40.5
77.0
25.4
41.1
41.1
85.1

853.0
843.0
843.0
843.0
843.0
823.0
823.0
823.0
823.0

2713
4964
5638
5714
7304
8475
9668
9835
13776

137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164

G4-1a
G4-1b
G4-1c
G4-1d
G2-2a
G2-2b
G4-2a
G4-2b
G4-2c
G4-2d
G4-2e
G2-3a
G2-3b
G2-3c
G4-3a
G4-3b
G4-3c
G2-4.5a
G2-4.5b
G2-4.5c
G4-4a
G4-4b
G4-4c
G2-6a
G2-6b
G2-8a
G2-8b
G2-8c

165.0
165.0
165.0
165.0
151.0
151.0
165.0
165.0
165.0
165.0
165.0
149.0
149.0
149.0
165.0
165.0
165.0
151.0
151.0
151.0
165.0
165.0
165.0
159.0
159.0
159.0
159.0
159.0

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.00
4.00
4.00
6.00
6.00
8.00
8.00
8.00

165.0
165.0
165.0
165.0
75.5
75.5
82.5
82.5
82.5
82.5
82.5
49.7
49.7
49.7
55.0
55.0
55.0
33.6
33.6
33.6
41.2
41.2
41.2
26.5
26.5
19.9
19.9
19.9

500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
500.0

3.03
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.31
3.31
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.36
3.36
3.36
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.31
3.31
3.31
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.14
3.14
3.14
3.14
3.14

91.8
91.8
91.8
91.8
87.1
87.1
91.8
91.8
91.8
91.8
91.8
87.1 (fcu , 100)
87.1
87.1
91.8
91.8
91.8
87.1
87.1
87.1
91.8
91.8
91.8
87.1
87.1
87.1
87.1
87.1

338.0
338.0
338.0
338.0
405.0
405.0
338.0
338.0
338.0
338.0
338.0
438.0 (sy )
438.0
438.0
338.0
338.0
338.0
438.0
438.0
438.0
338.0
338.0
338.0
405.0
405.0
438.0
438.0
438.0

1773
1430
1372
2038
2132
1933
2244
2381
2077
1930
1920
2337
2394
2361
2567
2714
2734
2743
2572
2727
2704
2773
2832
2957
3099
3173
3267
3330

Yu et al. [20]
(28 tests)

165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172

C3
C4
C7
C8
C9
C11
C12
C14

114.4
114.6
114.9
115.0
115.0
114.3
114.3
114.5

3.98
3.99
4.91
4.92
5.02
3.75
3.85
3.84

28.7
28.7
23.4
23.4
22.9
30.5
29.7
29.8

300.0
300.0
300.5
300.0
300.5
300.0
300.0
300.0

2.62
2.62
2.62
2.61
2.61
2.62
2.62
2.62

31.4
93.6
34.7
104.9 (fcu , 150)
57.6
57.6
31.9
98.9

343.0
343.0
365.0
365.0 (sy )
365.0
343.0
343.0
343.0

948
1308
1380
1787
1413
1067
998
1359

Giakoumelis and
Lam [10]
(8 tests)

173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195

L-A-1-92h
L-A-2-99h
L-A-3-98h
L-B-1-85h
L-B-2-88h
L-B-3-89h
L-C-1-87h
L-C-2-101h
L-C-3-30h
L-E-1-15h
L-E-2-25h
L-E-3-13h
M-A-1-97h
M-A-2-100h
M-A-3-95h
M-B-1-20h
M-B-2-26h
M-B-3-90h
M-C-1-120h
M-C-2-96h
M-C-3-86h
M-E-1-21h
M-E-2-27h

167.4
167.3
167.5
138.9
139.0
139.5
139.9
139.9
139.9
133.4
133.2
133.4
167.0
167.1
167.8
138.6
138.9
138.6
140.3
140.0
139.7
133.4
133.2

3.32
3.35
3.33
3.29
3.29
3.37
3.58
3.54
3.48
5.21
5.06
5.23
3.37
3.33
3.33
3.31
3.36
3.30
3.62
3.60
3.61
5.17
5.03

50.4
49.9
50.3
42.2
42.2
41.4
39.1
39.5
40.2
25.6
26.3
25.5
49.6
50.2
50.4
41.9
41.3
42.0
38.8
38.9
38.7
25.8
26.5

503.0
502.0
503.0
419.0
419.0
419.0
416.0
421.0
419.0
396.0
397.0
398.0
503.0
503.0
504.0
418.0
420.0
420.0
418.0
418.0
420.0
396.0
396.0

3.00
3.00
3.00
3.02
3.01
3.00
2.97
3.01
2.99
2.97
2.98
2.98
3.01
3.01
3.00
3.02
3.02
3.03
2.98
2.99
3.01
2.97
2.97

50.8
50.8
50.8
44.6
44.6
44.6
44.6
44.6
44.6
46.5
46.5
46.5
70.6
70.6
70.6
62.5
62.5
62.5 (fcu , 100)
61.4
61.4
61.4
70.6
70.6

354.0
354.0
354.0
332.0
332.0
332.0
325.0
325.0
325.0
351.0
351.0
351.0
354.0
354.0
354.0
332.0
332.0
332.0
325.0 (sy )
325.0
325.0
351.0
351.0

1704
1668
1700
1140
1220
1180
1222
1242
1300
1612
1580
1640
2075
2105
2055
1480
1520
1500
1582
1582
1540
1810
1770

Zhang and
Wang [21]
(36 tests)

Z.-H. Lu, Y.-G. Zhao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 850862

855

Table 2 (continued)
No. of
specimens

Name of
specimens

Dimensions

Material properties

D (mm)

t (mm)

D/t

L (mm)

L/D

Concrete
compressive
strength (MPa)

Axial
capacity Ntest
(kN)

Tested by

Yield strength
of steel tube
fy (MPa)

196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208

M-E-3-23h
H-B-1-310h
H-B-2-309h
H-B-3-312h
H-D-1-311h
H-D-2-308h
H-D-3-324h
H-E-1-322h
H-E-2-306h
H-E-3-323h
H-F-1-307h
H-F-2-313h
H-F-3-314h

133.2
138.9
138.7
139.0
159.3
160.2
159.3
133.3
133.4
133.1
133.3
133.1
133.1

5.07
3.28
3.28
3.29
5.36
5.01
5.07
5.10
5.20
5.04
5.43
5.44
5.43

26.3
42.3
42.3
42.2
29.7
32.0
31.4
26.1
25.7
26.4
24.5
24.5
24.5

397.0
420.0
418.0
418.0
477.0
476.0
478.0
396.0
396.0
397.0
397.0
397.0
397.0

2.98
3.02
3.01
3.01
2.99
2.97
3.00
2.97
2.97
2.98
2.98
2.98
2.98

70.6
77.1
77.1
77.1
77.1
77.1
77.1
77.1
77.1
77.1
77.1
77.1
77.1

351.0
332.0
332.0
332.0
356.0
356.0
356.0
351.0
351.0
351.0
392.0
392.0
392.0

1835
1688
1680
1628
2480
2440
2460
1930
1955
1955
1820
1915
1930

209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234

CA1-1
CA1-2
CA2-1
CA2-2
CA3-1
CA3-2
CA4-1
CA4-2
CA5-1
CA5-2
CB1-1
CB1-2
CB2-1
CB2-2
CB3-1
CB3-2
CB4-1
CB4-2
CB5-1
CB5-2
CC1-1
CC1-2
CC2-1
CC2-2
CC3-1
CC3-2

60.0
60.0
100.0
100.0
150.0
150.0
200.0
200.0
250.0
250.0
60.0
60.0
100.0
100.0
150.0
150.0
200.0
200.0
250.0
250.0
60.0
60.0
150.0
150.0
250.0
250.0

1.87
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.87
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00

32.1
32.1
53.5
53.5
80.2
80.2
107.0
107.0
133.7
133.7
30.0
30.0
50.0
50.0
75.0
75.0
100.0
100.0
125.0
125.0
30.0
30.0
75.0
75.0
125.0
125.0

180.0
180.0
300.0
300.0
450.0
450.0
600.0
600.0
750.0
750.0
180.0
180.0
300.0
300.0
450.0
450.0
600.0
600.0
750.0
750.0
180.0
180.0
450.0
450.0
750.0
750.0

3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00

85.2
85.2
85.2
85.2
85.2
85.2
85.2
85.2
85.2
85.2
85.2
85.2 (fcu , 150)
85.2
85.2
85.2
85.2
85.2
85.2
85.2
85.2
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0

282.0
282.0
282.0
282.0
282.0
282.0
282.0
282.0
282.0
282.0
404.0
404.0
404.0 (sy )
404.0
404.0
404.0
404.0
404.0
404.0
404.0
404.0
404.0
404.0
404.0
404.0
404.0

312
320
822
845
1701
1670
2783
2824
3950
4102
427
415
930
920
1870
1743
3020
3011
4442
4550
432
437
1980
1910
4720
4800

Han et al. [12]


(26 tests)

235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250

GH1-1
GH1-2
GH2-1
GH2-2
GH3-1
GH3-2
GH3-3
GH4-1
GH4-2
GH4-3
GH5-1
GH5-2
GH5-3
GH6-1
GH6-2
GH6-3

125.0
125.0
127.0
127.0
133.0
133.0
133.0
133.0
133.0
133.0
127.0
127.0
127.0
108.0
108.0
108.0

1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
3.50
3.50
3.50
4.70
4.70
4.70
7.00
7.00
7.00
4.50
4.50
4.50

125.0
125.0
63.5
63.5
38.0
38.0
38.0
28.3
28.3
28.3
18.1
18.1
18.1
24.0
24.0
24.0

438.0
438.0
445.0
445.0
465.0
465.0
465.0
465.0
465.0
465.0
445.0
445.0
445.0
378.0
378.0
378.0

3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50

116.0
116.0
116.0
116.0
116.0
116.0
116.0
116.0 (fcu , 150)
116.0
116.0
116.0
116.0
116.0
106.0
106.0
106.0

232.0
232.0
258.0
258.0
352.0
352.0
352.0
352.0 (sy )
352.0
352.0
429.0
429.0
429.0
358.0
358.0
358.0

1275
1239
1491
1339
1995
1991
1962
2273
2158
2253
3404
3370
3364
1535
1578
1518

Tan [13]
(16 tests)

Table 3
Conversion relations between fcyl,150 and fcu,150 [22].
fcyl,150 (MPa)
fcu,150 (MPa)

12
15

2 (EI )eff 1
Pe =
(KA LA )2

16
20

20
25

25
30

30
37

35
45

40
50

(6a)

C3 = 0.6 + 2

(6b)

KA = the effective length factor; LA = laterally unbraced length


of the column; Is and Ic = moment of inertia of steel tube and

in which

(EI )eff 1 = Es Is + C3 Ec1 Ic

45
55

50
60

As
Ac + As

55
67

0.9.

60
75

70
85

80
95

90
105

(6c)

856

Z.-H. Lu, Y.-G. Zhao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 850862

concrete core, respectively; Ec1 = the modulus of elasticity of


concrete = 4730 (fcyl,150 )1/2 MPa (normal weight concrete); and
(EI )eff 1 = effective stiffness of composite section.

3.7. Goode and Narayanan [7]

3.4. AIJ [2,3]

the following equation to consider the confining effect of circular


CFT stub columns.

According to AIJ [2,3], the ultimate compressive strength of


an axially loaded circular CFT stub column, NAIJ is calculated by
Eq. (7).

NGN = 0.85fcyl,150 Ac +

NAIJ = 0.85fcyl,100 Ac + (1.0 + )fy As

(lk /D 4)

(7)

where lk = effective length of a CFT column; and = the


confinement factor = 0.27.
According to Eq. (7), the improvement of load carrying capacity
due to the composite action is denoted by the confinement factor
, which is independent of the strength of the materials and the
dimensions of the columns.
3.5. Sakino et al. [11]

At the viewpoint of the use of the two coefficients (i.e., c and


a ) seems rather arbitrary [14], Goode and Narayanan [7] proposed

NSK = U fcyl,100 Ac + (1.0 + )fy As

Asc = As + Ac

3.6. Eurocode 4 [5]


The Eurocode 4 [5] determines the resistant capacity of a
circular CFT stub column by adding the contribution of the
steel tube and the concrete core and the confinement effect
is considered. The strength of the concrete is increased by the
coefficient c because the concrete has a higher strength when
a triaxial state of stress occurs. The strength of the steel tube is
decreased by a because the effective yield stress of the steel is
reduced by the hoop stresses. The axial load capacity is given by


NEC 4 =

1 + c

fy

D fcyl,150

fcyl,150 Ac + a fy As

(9)

fy Ac .

(12)

The Chinese code DL/T [6] for axially loaded concrete-filled steel
circular hollow-section stub columns treats the composite section
as one material with a total area of Asc and the corresponding
nominal yielding strength of fscy . A confinement factor, is
introduced to describe the composite action between the steel tube
and the filled concrete. The axial load capacity of circular CFT stub
columns, NDL/T is given by:
NDL/T = fscy Asc

where U = a reduction factor introduced to take the scale effect


0.112
into consideration = 1.67D
; and Dc = the diameter of the
c
concrete core.

(D 2t )

3.8. The Chinese code DL/T [6]

Sakino et al. [11] introduced a reduction factor U to consider


the scale effect on the compressive strength of concrete and the
modification for AIJ [2,3] equation was proposed as:
(8)

6t

(13)

in which
(14a)

fscy = (1.212 + B + C )fck


2

fy
+ 0.974
235
fck
C = 0.1038
+ 0.0309
20
As fy
B = 0.1759

Ac fck

fck = 0.67fcu,150

(14b)
(14c)
(14d)
(14e)
(14f)

where = the confinement factor; Asc = the area of composite


section; fscy = the nominal yielding strength of the composite
section; and fck = the characteristic concrete strength.
3.9. Han et al. [12]

c = 4.9 18.5 + 17 2 (c 0)
(a 1.0)
a = 0.25(3 + 2)
s

(10a)

To make the Chinese code DL/T [6] easier to use for calculating
the section capacity of circular CFT stub columns, a simplified
model is proposed by Han et al. [12].

(10b)

NHAN = (1.14 + 1.02 )fck Asc

(10c)

in which Asc , , and fck are given by Eqs. (14a), (14e) and (14f),
respectively, and the validity range of Eq. (15) is: 0.1 < < 5.

in which

NplR
Ncr

NplR = fy As + fcyl,150 Ac
Ncr =

(10d)

2 (EI )eff 2

(10e)

l2

(EI )eff 2 = Es Is + Ke Ec2 Ic

(10f)

where c = the coefficient of confinement for the concrete;


a = the coefficient of confinement for the steel tube; = relative
slenderness; l= buckling length of the CFT column; Ec2 = elastic
modulus of concrete = 22000 [(fcyl,150 + 8)/10]0.3 MPa; (EI )eff 2 =
the effective flexural stiffness for calculation of relative slenderness; and Ke = a correction factor = 0.6.
= 0, the sectional capacity (the zero length
Particularly, when
strength), P0,EC 4 can be simplified as


P0,EC 4 =

1 + 4.9

fy

D fcyl,150

fcyl,150 Ac + 0.75fy As .

(11)

(15)

4. Comparative studies
4.1. Slenderness effects of AISC and Eurocode 4 specifications
In order to understand the effect of slenderness on the predicted
ultimate axial strength of circular CFT stub columns using AISC
and Eurocode 4 provisions, a comparative study of predictions of
the 250 experimental specimens with and without considering the
effect of slenderness is conducted. Two cases i.e., both ends having
full fixity or no fixity are considered as the follows:
Case 1: The effective length of the column is taken as one-half of
the column length for full fixity;
Case 2: The effective length of the column is taken as one time of
the column length for no fixity.
The ratios of the predicted results by using the AISC provisions
considering the effect of slenderness for the 250 experimental tests

Z.-H. Lu, Y.-G. Zhao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 850862

(a) The ratio of predictions of Case 1 to zero length strength.

857

(b) The ratio of predictions of Case 2 to zero length strength.

Fig. 2. Illustration of effect of slenderness on the predicted ultimate axial strength of circular CFT stub columns using AISC provisions.

to those without considering the effect of slenderness (zero length


strength) are shown in Fig. 2(a) and (b) respectively for Case 1 and
Case 2. It can be observed from Fig. 2 that there is little effect of
slenderness on the predicted ultimate axial strength of circular CFT
stub columns using AISC provisions (the relative differences are
less than 1%) and thereinafter for the AISC specification, the axial
capacity of a circular CFT stub column is approximated by using the
zero length strength i.e., Eq. (4).
Fig. 3(a) and (b) illustrate the ratios of predictions of Eurocode
4 considering the effect of slenderness for the 250 experimental
tests to those without considering the effect of slenderness (zero
length strength). One can see from Fig. 3(a) and (b) that there is a
significant effect of the slenderness on the predicted ultimate axial
strength of circular CFT stub columns using Eurocode 4 provisions
(the relative differences are about 7.4% for case 1 and 13.5% for
Case 2). The ratios of predictions of Case 1 to those of Case 2 is
depicted in Fig. 3(c), the relative difference is about 7.2% between
the two cases. Nevertheless, because the complete information
with respect to the manner in which the loads were applied to the
ends of the entire 250 test specimens (such as the columns loaded
with both ends fixed or hinged and thickness of end plate), are
not available in the literature, the effective length of the columns
is assumed to be the same as the column length in the following
comparison studies.
4.2. Comparison of tests results with those predicted by the available
formulations
The ratios of axial capacities obtained from the stub column
tests to the predictions using the different methods as mentioned
in the previous section for the 250 experimental tests are depicted
in Fig. 4, together with the concretes compressive strength,
yield strength of steel tube and D/t ratio of the experimental
tests. In Figs. 4 (d),(g),(i), and (k), the specimens with a material
strength or D/t ratio beyond the limitations of the corresponding
design codes are clearly marked. For overall comparisons, the
mean, standard deviation, maximum, minimum, and the difference
between maximum and minimum of the ratios for the different
design methods are listed in Table 4.
Fig. 4 and Table 4 reveal the following:
(1) Generally, for the CFT specimens with a material strength or
D/t ratio beyond the limitations of the design codes such as
AIJ [2,3], AISC [4], Eurocode [5] and DL/T [6], the predictions
by the corresponding design methods have almost the same
trend as those in the limitations of design codes. However,
the variations of the predictions apparently become larger.
The predictions of all the four codes for the CFT stub columns
made with higher D/t ratio than the upper limit of the AIJ
specifications (e.g., specimens No. 138 and 139) are generally
much larger than the test results. This may be due to the
effect of lock buckling, which on the other hand means that
the limiting values for circular CFT stub columns mentioned

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

in AIJ [2,3] are appropriate. Great differences between the


predictions of all the four codes for some specimens made
with very high-strength concrete and test results are found
(e.g., the predictions are larger than test results for specimens
No. 65, 66, and 67; while for specimens No. 245, 246, and 247,
the predictions are much smaller than the test results). The
reason may be that, there is a larger randomness for highstrength concrete and the effects of steel hardening may exist
when the D/t ratio is very small. The differences between
the test results of specimens with very high-strength steel
tubes (e.g., specimen No. 125136) and the predictions of
the codes are relative small, which means the effects of steel
hardening in these cases are slightly less significant. Although
the composite action is considered in the DL/T [6] equations,
it gave smaller predictions than those of ACI [24] for some
specimens, particularly with very high-strength steel tube
(e.g., specimen No. 125, 126, 127, and 128), which seems to be
a shortcoming of the DL/T [6] equations.
ACI [24] and AS [25,26] give a sectional capacity about 31.1%
lower than the experimental results, mainly due to the fact that
the composite action between the steel tube and the concrete
core was not considered. As an improved model for ACI [24]
and AS [25,26], the equation proposed by Giakoumelis and
Lam [10] predicts better results in the mean value, but the
scatter becomes larger.
Although the beneficial confining effect has been taken into
consideration in the design code of AISC [4], still it provides
conservative results. The sectional capacity is about 23.2%
lower than the experimental results.
AIJ [2,3] predicts a sectional capacity about 14.3% lower than
the measured ultimate strengths. A reduction factor was
introduced to consider the scale effect in the improved version
suggested by Sakino et al. [11], but still it underestimates the
test results.
Although DL/T [6] gives section capacity about 6.8% lower than
the measured ultimate strengths, the scatter of the predictions
is very large (standard deviation = 0.123 and the difference
between maximum and minimum = 0.817). The scatter of
the predictions of the simplified formula proposed by Han
et al. [12] becomes smaller, but it gives more conservative
results (about 11.5% lower than the test results).
Eurocode 4 [5] gives the best results with a mean and
standard deviation of the ratios of 1.020 and 0.105 respectively.
However, the computation is relative complex. Although
Goode and Narayanan [7] proposed a simplified equation,
the predictions become worse (mean = 1.084 and standard
deviation = 0.118).

In view of the foregoing, it is desirable to propose new and


simple analytical formulae to predict the axial capacity of circular
CFT stub columns made with not only normal strength but also
high strength concrete and steel tubes.

858

Z.-H. Lu, Y.-G. Zhao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 850862

(a) The ratio of predictions of Case 1 to zero


length strength.

(b) The ratio of predictions of Case 2 to zero


length strength.

(c) The ratio of predictions of Case 1 to


those of Case 2.

Fig. 3. Illustration of the effect of slenderness on the predicted ultimate axial strength of circular CFT stub columns using Eurocode 4 provisions.
Table 4
Comparisons of circular CFT stub column strengths obtained from experiments with the predictions of existing models and new proposals.
The ratios of test results to the predictions of existing models and new proposals
Mean

Standard deviation

Maximum

Minimum

MaximumMinimum

AIJ [2,3]
Sakino et al. [11]
New proposal 1

1.143
1.084
1.003

0.113
0.102
0.100

1.488
1.406
1.317

0.871
0.795
0.747

0.617
0.611
0.570

AISC [4]
ACI [24]; AS [25,26]
Giakoumelis and Lam [10]
New proposal 2

1.232
1.311
1.025
1.002

0.134
0.134
0.146
0.099

1.665
1.750
1.468
1.299

0.844
0.933
0.636
0.771

0.821
0.817
0.832
0.528

Eurocode 4 [5]
Goode and Narayanan [7]
New proposal 3

1.020
1.084
1.022

0.105
0.118
0.100

1.419
1.411
1.353

0.779
0.816
0.773

0.640
0.595
0.580

DL/T [6]
Han et al. [12]
New proposal 4

1.068
1.115
1.002

0.123
0.106
0.096

1.603
1.371
1.241

0.786
0.844
0.745

0.817
0.527
0.496

5. New proposals for the axial capacity of circular CFT stub


columns
The following conditions are considered in the new proposals
for predicting the axial capacity of circular CFT stub columns:
(1) The equations should represent the experimental data as
accurately as possible.
(2) The formulae should be as simple as possible and easily usable
in any analysis.
(3) The expressions are similar to the existing ones in the
corresponding current design codes so that engineers can
readily make use of them in the practice of engineering design.
From the existing formulations for axial capacity of circular CFT
stub columns, presented in the earlier sections we can see that
three different definitions of compressive strength of concrete, i.e.,
fcyl,150 , fcyl,100 , and fcu,150 are used. For this reason and considering
all the desirable conditions above, four new and simple empirical
models, developed from AIJ [2,3], ACI [24], AS [25,26], AISC [4],
Eurocode 4 [5], and DL/T [6], are proposed in this study.

Here, the value of the augmentation factor k1 is determined


as 0.4 by a regression analysis based on the 250 experimental
tests described previously, as shown in Fig. 5. Therefore, the new
proposal improved from AIJ [2,3], NNew1 is expressed as
NNew1 = fcyl,100 Ac + 1.4fy As .

(18)

5.2. New proposal 2: Empirical formula improved from ACI [24]


(AS [25,26], AISC [4])
Similar to the new proposal 1, the new proposal for the ACI/AS
equation and the AISCs zero length strength, NNew2 can be
expressed as
NNew2 = fcyl,150 Ac + (1.0 + k2 )fy As

(19)

where k2 is an augmentation factor.


The value of the augmentation factor, k2 is determined by a
regression analysis based on the 250 experimental tests, as shown
Fig. 6 (k2 = 0.47). Therefore, the revised equation is proposed as
follows:

5.1. New proposal 1: Empirical formula improved from AIJ [2,3]

NNew2 = fcyl,150 Ac + 1.47fy As .

Assuming the plastic resistance of the composite section, NPR , is


given by Eq. (16).

5.3. New proposal 3: Empirical formula developed from Eurocode 4 [5]

NPR = fcyl,100 Ac + fy As .

(16)

Due to the composite action between the concrete and steel


tubes, the axial capacity of a circular CFT stub column is generally
different from its plastic resistance. Similar to the design method
of AIJ [2,3], the difference between the axial capacity predicted by
the new proposal, NNew1 and the plastic resistance is assumed as
a function of the axial strength of the steel tube (=fy As ), i.e.,
NNew1 = fcyl,100 Ac + (1.0 + k1 )fy As
where k1 is an augmentation factor.

(17)

(20)

According to Eq. (9), the axial capacity of a circular CFT stub


column predicted by Eurocode 4 [5], NEC 4 can be rewritten as

NEC 4 = 1 + c

fy

D fcyl,150

+ (a 1)

As

fy

Ac fcyl,150

fcyl,150 Ac + fy As .
(21)

Since
As
Ac

D2 /4 [(D 2t )/2]2
4(D t )t
t
=
4 .
2
2
[(D 2t )/2]
(D 2t )
D

(22)

Z.-H. Lu, Y.-G. Zhao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 850862

859

Fig. 4. Comparison of experimental results with results predicted by the existing models.

Then, Eq. (21) can be expressed as

NEC 4 = 1 + (c + 4a 4)

fy

D fcyl,150

2 16.5 + 3.9)
NEC 4 = 1 + (17


fcyl,150 Ac + fy As .

Substituting Eqs. (10a) and (10b) in Eq. (23), one obtains

(23)

fy

D fcyl,150

fcyl,150 Ac + fy As . (24)

According to Eqs. (10c)(10f), there is a variety of factors


of circular CFT stub columns,
affecting the relative slenderness
such as the effective length of the column, the effective flexural

860

Z.-H. Lu, Y.-G. Zhao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 850862

Fig. 5. The augmentation factor k1 for the experimental specimens.

Fig. 8. The regression analysis of the function of the confinement factor .

Similarly, g ( ) is determined by a regression analysis based on


the 250 experimental tests described previously, as shown in Fig. 8
and it is expressed as
g ( ) = 1.3 + 1.1 .

(27)

Therefore, a new empirical formula improved from DL/T [6] and


Han et al. [12], NNew4 is proposed as
NNew4 = (1.3 + 1.1 )fck Asc .
5.5. Verification of the proposed empirical models

Fig. 6. The augmentation factor k2 for the experimental specimens.

Fig. 7. The relative slenderness of the experimental specimens.

stiffness of composite section, the strength of the concrete and


the steel tubes, the thickness of the steel tube and the external
is taken as 0.152. This
diameter of the column. In this paper,
value results from regression analysis of the 250 experimental tests
described previously, as shown in Fig. 7. Therefore, the proposed
empirical formula for predicting the ultimate strength of circular
CFT stub column developed from Eurocode 4 [5], NNew3 is given
as


NNew3 =

1 + 1.8

fy

D fcyl,150

fcyl,150 Ac + fy As .

(28)

(25)

5.4. New proposal 4: Empirical formula improved from DL/T [6]

In order to verify the present formulae, the ratios of the axial


capacities obtained from the stub column tests to the predictions
using the proposed empirical models are shown in Fig. 9 and the
mean, standard deviation, maximum, minimum, and the difference
between maximum and minimum of the ratios for the different
new proposals are also listed in Table 4. It can be observed from
Fig. 9 and Table 4 that the new proposals provide a direct, compact,
and efficient representation of the ultimate strength of circular CFT
stub columns.
Due to the fact that the models of AIJ [2,3], ACI [24] (AS [25,26],
AISC [4]), and Han et al. [12] predict conservative results compared
with the test results, new coefficients obtained from the regression
analysis are proposed for the AIJ equation in the new proposal 1,
for the ACI/AS equation and the AISCs zero length strength in the
new proposal 2 and for Han et al.s model in the new proposal 4,
respectively. Therefore, the predictions of the new proposal 1, 2,
and 4 are effectively improved which can be observed from Figs. 4
and 9 and Table 4.
From Eqs. (9) and (25), Figs. 4 and 9 and Table 4, one can
easily observe that although the new proposal 3 is much more
simple than the Eurocode 4 [5] provisions, it predicts almost the
same results as those predicted by Eurocode 4 provisions. This
may be explained as follows: although there is significant effect
of slenderness on the predicted ultimate axial strength of circular
CFT stub columns using Eurocode 4 provisions, but as the mean
of the entire 250 stub column
value of the slenderness effect ()
specimens is adopted in the new proposal and the scatter of the
slenderness effect is very small (standard deviation = 0.033, see
Fig. 7), the new proposal can provide almost the same predictions
as those of Eurocode 4 provisions.

Based on the researches of DL/T [6] and Han et al. [12], the new
equation for predicting the axial capacity of a circular CFT stub
column, NNew4 may be expressed as the following equation.

5.6. Suggested limitations of material strength and D/t ratios for the
proposed empirical models

NNew4 = g ( )fck Asc

It can be observed from Eqs. (18), (20), (25) and (28) that, the
ultimate axial strength of circular CFT stub columns predicted by
the proposed empirical models can be considered as the sectional

in which g ( ) is a function of .

(26)

Z.-H. Lu, Y.-G. Zhao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 850862

861

Fig. 9. Comparison of experimental results with predictions of the new proposals.

capacities (zero length strength), i.e., the slenderness effect is


not included. It is therefore necessary to give a definition of a
stub column in the present models, i.e., the maximum effective
length of a circular CFT stub column should be limited so that
the length effect (overall buckling effect) may be ignored. As the
nominal ratios of effective length to diameter of the 250 CFT stub
columns varied from 2 to 3.5 and the present empirical models are
developed based on these experimental specimens, therefore, the
effective length (buckling length) of a circular CFT stub column, lk
is limited to:
lk /D 3.5.

(29)

From the comparisons of predictions of the proposed empirical


models with the test results, it can be observed that the new
proposals provide a direct, compact, and efficient representation
of the ultimate strength of circular CFT stub columns made
from normal- or high-strength steel tubes filled with normalor high-strength concrete. Thus, the following limitations for the
compressive strength of normal weight concrete (fcyl,150 , or fcu,150 ,
or fcyl,100 , MPa) and yield strength of steel tube (fy , MPa) are
suggested in the proposed empirical models.
20 MPa fcyl,150 130 MPa;
or 25 MPa fcu,150 150 MPa;
21 MPa fcyl,100 135 MPa.
235 MPa fy 850 MPa.

or
(30)
(31)

Although the proposed empirical models can provide good


predictions for all the 250 circular CFT stub columns, the
predictions of the experimental specimens with D/t ratios beyond
the upper limits of D/t ratios predicted by AIJ [2,3] are generally
larger than those obtained from tests. This can be observed from
Fig. 4(c) and Fig. 9. From a conservative viewpoint, the suggested
limiting values of D/t ratios for circular CFT columns in the present
models are similar as those in AIJ [2,3] and for simplicity, the
variable F (see Table 1) is replaced by the yield strength of steel
tube. The revised formula is then given by
D/t 1.5 (23500/fy ).

(32)

6. Summary and conclusions


Using the available experimental data, the applicability of the
current design codes such as ACI [24], AS [25,26], AISC [4], Eurocode
4 [5], AIJ [2,3], DL/T [6] and some available empirical models proposed by various researchers for calculating the axial capacity of

circular CFT stub columns was evaluated. The database used herein
covered cases with normal- or high-strength steel tubes filled with
normal- or high-strength concrete. From the investigation of the
present study, the following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) For the circular CFT stub columns with a material strength
or diameter-to-thickness ratio beyond the limitations of the
design codes such as AIJ, AISC, Eurocode 4 and DL/T, the
predictions by the corresponding design methods have almost
the same trend as those in the limitations of the design codes.
However, the variations of the predictions apparently become
larger.
(2) The upper limits of the strength of steel tubes and the concrete
compressive strength for circular CFT stub columns in AIJ, AISC,
Eurocode 4, and DL/T can be improved. The upper limits of the
diameter-to-thickness ratio in AISC, Eurocode 4, and DL/T may
also be improved as those in AIJ.
(3) Four new empirical models corresponding to AIJ, AISC (ACI, AS),
Eurocode 4, and DL/T specifications for calculating the axial
capacity of circular CFT stub columns are proposed. Comparisons between the experimental results and the predictions of
these formulae show that the proposed empirical models provide a direct, compact, and efficient representation of the ultimate strength of circular CFT stub columns made with not only
normal strength but also with high strength steel tubes and
concrete.
(4) The limiting values of the maximum effective length, the
compressive strength of the concrete, the strength of the
steel tube and the diameter-to-thickness for circular CFT stub
columns with respect to the present empirical models are
suggested. It is expected that engineers can easily use the
present empirical models to estimate the axial capacities of
circular CFT stub columns for engineering design.
Acknowledgements
This study is partially supported by the start-up funds from
Central South University, the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research
(Tokubetsu Kenkyuin Shorei-hi) from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) (No: 19.07399) and the Joint Research
Fund for Overseas Chinese, Hong Kong and Macao Young Scholars
(No. 50828801) from the National Natural Science Foundation of
China. The support is gratefully acknowledged. Beneficial discussion with Prof. X.F. Wang at the Shenzhen University, Prof. H.B. Ge
at Meijo University and Dr. G.D. Hatzigeorgiou at Democritus University of Thrace are gratefully acknowledged. Finally, the writers
wish to thank the reviewers of this paper for their critical comments and suggestions.

862

Z.-H. Lu, Y.-G. Zhao / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 850862

References
[1] Liu D. Test on high-strength rectangular concrete-filled steel hollow section stub columns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2005;61(7):
902911.
[2] AIJ. Recommendations for design and construction of concrete filled steel
tubular structures. Tokyo (Japan): Architectural Institute of Japan; 1997
[in Japanese].
[3] AIJ. Standards for structural calculation of steel reinforced concrete structures
5th ed. Tokyo (Japan): Architectural Institute of Japan; 2001 [in Japanese].
[4] AISC. Load and resistance factor design (LRFD) specification for structural
steel buildings. Chicago (IL, USA): American Institute of Steel Construction;
2005.
[5] Eurocode 4. Design of composite steel and concrete structures. Part 1.1,
General rules and rules for buildings. EN 1994-1-1. European Committee for
Standardization: British Standards Institution; 2004.
[6] DL/T. Chinese design code for steel-concrete composite structures. In: DL/T
5085-1999. Beijing (China): Chinese Electricity Press; 1999 [in Chinese].
[7] Goode CD, Narayanan R. Design of concrete filled steel tubes to EC4. In: International conference on composite construction-conventional and innovative.
1997. p. 125.
[8] Saisho M, Abe T, Nakaya K. Ultimate bending strength of high-strength
concrete filled steel tube column. Journal of Structural and Construction
Engineering, AIJ 1999;523:13340 [in Japanese].
[9] OShea MD, Bridge RQ. Design of circular thin-walled concrete filled steel
tubes. Journal of the Structural Engineering, ASCE 2000;126(16):1295303.
[10] Giakoumelis G, Lam D. Axial capacity of circular concrete-filled tube columns.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2004;60(7):104968.
[11] Sakino K, Nakahara H, Morino S, Nishiyama I. Behavior of centrally loaded
concrete-filled steel-tube short columns. Journal of the Structural Engineering,
ASCE 2004;130(2):1808.
[12] Han LH, Yao GF, Zhao XL. Experiment behavior of thin-walled hollow structural steel (HSS) stub columns filled with self-consolidating concrete (SCC).
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2005;61(9):124169.
[13] Tan K. Analysis of formulae for calculating loading bearing capacity of steel
tubular high strength concrete. Journal of Southwest University of Science
and Technology 2006;21(2):710. [in Chinese].

[14] Goode CD. ASCCS database of concrete-filled steel tube columns. 2007.
Available Online: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/asccs2/.
[15] Gardner NJ, Jacobson ER. Structural behavior of concrete-filled steel tubes.
ACI Journal 1967;64(7):40412.
[16] Luksha LK, Nesterovich AP. Strength testing of larger-diameter concrete filled
steel tubular members. In: Proceeding of the 3rd international conference on
steelconcrete composite structures. 1991. p. 6770.
[17] Sakino K, Hayashi H. Behavior of concrete filled steel tubular stub columns
under concentric loading. In: Proceeding of the 3rd international conference
on steel-concrete composite structures. 1991. p. 2530.
[18] Kato B. Compressive strength and deformation capacity of concrete-filled
tubular stub columns (Strength and rotation capacity of concrete-filled
tubular columns, Part 1). Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering,
AIJ 1995;468:18391 [in Japanese].
[19] Yamamoto T, Kawaguchi J, Morino S. Experimental study of the size effect
on the behaviour of concrete filled circular steel tube columns under axial
compression. Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering, AIJ 2002;
561:23744 [in Japanese].
[20] Yu Z, Ding F, Lin S. Researches on behavior of high-performance concrete
filled tubular steel short columns. Journal of Building Structure 2002;23(2):
417 [in Chinese].
[21] Zhang S, Wang Y. Failure modes of short columns of high-strength concrete filled steel tubes. China Civil Engineering Journal 2004;37(9):110 [in
Chinese].
[22] Eurocode 2. Design of concrete structuresPart 11: General rules and rules
for buildings. EN 1992-1-1. European Committee for Standardization: British
Standards Institution; 2004.
[23] Rashid MA, Mansur MA, Paramasivam P. Correlations between mechanical
properties of high-strength concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering
ASCE 2002;14(3):2308.
[24] ACI. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-05) and
commentary (ACI 318R-05). Farmington Hills (MI, USA): American Concrete
Institute; 2005.
[25] Australian Standards. Steel structures, AS4100-1998. Sydney (Australia):
Standards Association of Australia; 1998.
[26] Australian Standards. Concrete structures, AS3600-2001. Sydney (Australia):
Standards Association of Australia; 2001.