Downloaded from http://iranpaper.

ir
http://www.itrans24.com/landing1.html

627

Bond strength in concrete filled built-up steel tube

columns with tab stiffeners
Clotilda Petrus, Hanizah Abdul Hamid, Azmi Ibrahim, and Joe Davylyn Nyuin

Abstract: Apart from strength and ductility, adequate bond between steel and concrete at the interface is important in con-
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by PURDUE UNIV LIB TSS on 12/28/14

crete filled steel tube (CFST) columns to ensure a composite action. One way of improving the bond strength of a CFST
column is introducing internal stiffeners. This paper presents an experimental investigation into the bond strength of a CFST
column with tab stiffeners by conducting a push out test. Twenty-one square specimens of sides 200 mm × 200 mm, fabri-
cated from 2 mm thick mild steel sheeting were tested in two series. The first series considered the variation in the tab spac-
ing along the stiffeners, namely 75, 100, 150, and 300 mm, while in the second series, the concrete cube compressive
strengths were 36, 40, and 50 MPa. The bond strength at the concrete–steel interface was found to increase with decreasing
tab spacing. In-filling the tubes with higher strength concrete had also resulted in an increase in the bond strength by up to
an average of 40%.
Key words: concrete filled tube, push out test, bond strength, stiffeners.
Résumé : En plus de la résistance et de la ductilité et afin de permettre une action mixte, il est important d’avoir une adhé-
rence adéquate entre l’armature et le béton dans les colonnes en tubes d’acier remplis de béton (CFST). Une manière d’amé-
liorer la force d’adhérence des armatures d’une colonne CFST est d’utiliser des raidisseurs internes. Cet article présente une
étude expérimentale sur la force d’adhérence des armatures d’une colonne CFST munie de raidisseursà languettes effectuée
au moyen d’une épreuve de contrainte par expulsion. Vingt-et-un échantillons carrés de 200 mm × 200 mm de côté compor-
For personal use only.

tant une armature fabriquée à partir de feuilles d’acier doux de 2 mm d’épaisseur ont été mis à l’épreuve en deux séries. La
première série tenait compte de la variation de l’espacement des languettes entre les raidisseurs, 75, 100, 150 et 300 mm,
alors que dans la deuxième série, les résistances à la compression des cubes de béton étaient de 36, 40 et 50 MPa. La force
d’adhérence des armatures augmentait avec la diminution de l’espace entre les languettes. Remplir les tubes d’un béton à ré-
sistance plus élevée a également permis d’accroître la force d’adhérence des armatures d’une moyenne pouvant atteindre
40 %.
Mots‐clés : tube rempli de béton, épreuve de contrainte par expulsion, force d’adhérence des armatures, raidisseurs.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]

1. Introduction mon method to evaluate bond strength in a CFST is by

conducting a push out test (Hunaiti 1991, 1996; Shakir-Khalil
Concrete filled steel tubular (CFST) columns are a compo-
1991; Mouli and Khelafi 2006; Xu et al. 2007; Petrus et al.
site structural system with excellent structural characteristics,
2008).
which results from the composite action provided by the steel
There are several types of stiffening methods available for
tube to the concrete core and vice versa. As a structural sys-
tem, a CFST column has a high load bearing capacity, excel- use in CFSTs. Welding longitudinal stiffeners on the inner
lent earthquake-resistance, good ductility, and high fire surfaces of the steel tube, inserting shear studs in the steel
resistance. Besides those, the steel tube can function as a per- tube, and introducing tie bars or restraining rods are the
manent formwork as well as reinforcement, resulting in a most common stiffening methods used in CFSTs. The longi-
more economical section (Sham and Saadeghvaziri 1997; tudinal stiffeners have been proven to effectively delay the lo-
Gourley et al. 2001; Shanmugam and Lakshmi 2001; Uy cal buckling of the tubes, increase the sectional capacity, and
2001; Hajjar 2002; Liu 2004; Petrus et al. 2007). As a com- improve the lateral confinement of the concrete core (Tao et
posite structure, good bonding between the steel and concrete al. 2005, 2007, 2008; Zhang et al. 2007; Abedi et al. 2008;
is also important in a CFST column besides strength and Dabaon et al. 2009). However, they did not significantly in-
ductility. Providing stiffeners on the internal sides of a CFST fluence the ductility of the stiffened CFST specimens. Weld-
is beneficial to the bond strength between the steel and con- ing shear studs (Shakir-Khalil 1991; Punchin et al. 2003)
crete interface, especially for a rectangular section. A com- only enhanced the ductility of square CFST columns, contri-
Received 13 August 2009. Revision accepted 1 March 2011. Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cjce on 1 June 2011.
C. Petrus, H. Abdul Hamid, A. Ibrahim, and J.D. Nyuin. Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah
Alam, Selangor, Malaysia.
Corresponding author: Clotilda Petrus (e-mail: clotilda166@ppinang.uitm.edu.my).
Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be received by the Editor until 31 October 2011.

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 38: 627–637 (2011) doi:10.1139/L11-030 Published by NRC Research Press
 Downloaded from http://iranpaper.ir
http://www.itrans24.com/landing1.html

628 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 38, 2011

Fig. 1. (a)–(d) Preparation sequence of the newly proposed stiffening method, built-up steel box column; (e) with two tab stiffeners and two
longitudinal stiffeners; and (f) with four longitudinal stiffeners used as control.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by PURDUE UNIV LIB TSS on 12/28/14

(e) (f)
For personal use only.

Table 1. Details of specimens for push out test in series 1 and 2.

Steel yield Concrete

strength, fy strength, fcu Tab spacing lt Interface
Series Specimen label (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (mm) length (mm) No. of tabs
1 SC(G1-1) 309 40 — 550 —
SC(G1-2) 309 40 — 550 —
SC(G1-3) 309 40 — 550 —
ST75(G1-1) 309 40 75 550 10
ST75(G1-2) 309 40 75 550 10
ST75(G1-3) 309 40 75 550 10
ST100(G1-1) 309 40 100 550 8
ST100(G1-2) 309 40 100 550 8
ST100(G1-3) 309 40 100 550 8
ST150(G1-1) 309 40 150 550 6
ST150(G1-2) 309 40 150 550 6
ST150(G1-3) 309 40 150 550 6
ST300(G1-1) 309 40 300 550 4
ST300(G1-2) 309 40 300 550 4
ST300(G1-3) 309 40 300 550 4
2 ST100(G2-1) 309 36 100 550 8
ST100(G2-2) 309 36 100 550 8
ST100(G2-3) 309 36 100 550 8
ST100(G3-1) 309 50 100 550 8
ST100(G3-2) 309 50 100 550 8
ST100(G3-3) 309 50 100 550 8
Note: For specimen designation, the letter S refers to the cross sectional shape and the following letter C or T refers to the
control specimen or the specimen with tab stiffeners. The subsequent number indicates the tab spacing. The letter G refers to the
concrete strength followed by a numeric character representing the different concrete strength. The subsequent numeric character
indicates the specimen number in a group of three samples.

buting nothing to the strength. Providing a set of four in- 2005; Baig et al. 2006; Cai and He 2006; Tao et al. 2008;
clined steel bars, tie bars or restraining rods onto the steel Cai and Long 2009). However, the layout of the tie bars or
sections enhanced the behaviour of square CFST columns the restraining rods complicates construction. Adequate stiff-
both in terms of ultimate strength and ductility (Hu et al. ening method is necessary to improve the performance of

Published by NRC Research Press

 Downloaded from http://iranpaper.ir
Petrus et al.
Fig. 2. Push out test set up and instrumentation.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by PURDUE UNIV LIB TSS on 12/28/14
Fig. 3. View of typical concrete core and tab stiffeners after push
out test.
For personal use only.
Crushed concrete around
the tab stiffener
Deformed tab stiffeners
square and rectangular CFST columns in terms of both
strength and ductility.
This paper presents an experimental investigation into the
bond carrying capacity of CFST stub columns with a novel
stiffening method using tab stiffeners. This stiffening method
aims to increase the bond strength and to overcome the short-
coming of weak concrete confinement at the centre of the
sidewalls of a rectangular steel tube.
2. Experimental program
The details of the preparation sequence of the proposed
stiffening method are as shown in Fig. 1. In total, there were
21 square section specimens with longitudinal and tab stiff-
eners prepared. The push out test was conducted to determine
the bond strength between the steel and concrete interface.
The primary parameters studied were the spacing of the tab
stiffeners and the compressive strength of the concrete.
All specimens were square in cross section with an overall
http://www.itrans24.com/landing1.html
629
width of 200 mm, a wall thickness of 2 mm, and an average
yield strength of 309 MPa. According to Eurocode 4 (2004)
inorder to avoid local buckling of steel, the slenderness of the
walls must satisfy the stipulated limiting value of B/t.
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
B 235
½1  52
t fy
where B is the greater overall dimension and t is the thick-
ness of the steel plate and fy is the yield strength of steel in
MPa. The calculated slenderness limit of all specimens using
eq. [1] was 54. Since the width-to-thickness ratio (B/t) of all
specimens in this study was 100, they were all considered as
thin-walled sections. A stiffening measure was taken to en-
hance the local buckling stress of the thin walled tubes. The
size of the stiffeners was determined using eq. [2], developed
by Tao et al. (2005):
w3:5 f
y;t
½2 Is;re ¼ 3:1  104 t4
t 280
where Is,re is the stiffeners rigidity requirement, w is the
width of the sub-panel plate, which can be taken approxi-
mately as, w = B/2, where B is the overall width of the tube
and fy,t is the yield stress of the tube material. For a
200 mm × 200 mm steel box tube, the minimum required
stiffener rigidity, Is,re was 3914 mm4. Hence, a stiffener of at
least 22.7 mm high and 4 mm thick was required. Therefore,
the dimension of the stiffener was chosen to be 25 mm high
and 4 mm thick, giving a rigidity of 5208 mm4.
2.1. Material properties
All specimens were fabricated from un-galvanized mild
steel sheeting with a measured thickness of 2 mm. The aver-
age yield strength of the steel tubes was 309 MPa, obtained
from three tension coupon tests. The compressive strengths
of the three batches of concrete used as the infill materials
were determined from three 150 mm cubes from each batch.
The average cube strength at an age of 28 days for the
batches of concrete were 36, 40, and 50 MPa.
Published by NRC Research Press
 Downloaded from http://iranpaper.ir
http://www.itrans24.com/landing1.html

630 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 38, 2011

Table 2. Results from specimens in series 1.

Concrete Bond
strength, fcu Tab spacing lt Failure load, N Average failure strength
Specimen label (N/mm2) (mm) No. of tabs (kN) load, N (kN) (MPa)
SC(G1-1) 40 — — 173
SC(G1-2) 40 — — 176 175 0.4
SC(G1-3) 40 — — 175
ST75(G1-1) 40 75 10 260
ST75(G1-2) 40 75 10 265 263 0.60
ST75(G1-3) 40 75 10 264
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by PURDUE UNIV LIB TSS on 12/28/14

ST100(G1-1) 40 100 8 249

ST100(G1-2) 40 100 8 284 262 0.60
ST100(G1-3) 40 100 8 253
ST150(G1-1) 40 150 6 220
ST150(G1-2) 40 150 6 192 227 0.52
ST150(G1-3) 40 150 6 268
ST300(G1-1) 40 300 4 222
ST300(G1-2) 40 300 4 208 215 0.49
ST300(G1-3) 40 300 4 *

Note: For specimen designation, the letter S refers to the cross sectional shape and the following letter C or T refers to the control specimen
or the specimen with tab stiffeners. The subsequent number indicates the tab spacing. The letter G refers to the concrete strength followed by a
numeric character representing the different concrete strength. The subsequent numeric character indicates the specimen number in a group of
three samples.
*
Problem in data acquisition.

2.2. Specimen preparations top of the specimen to allow the concrete core to travel dur-
For personal use only.

The built-up steel tube with two sides of longitudinal stiff-
eners and two sides of tab stiffeners was fabricated from mild
steel sheeting with a thickness of 2 mm according to the fab-
rication process shown in Fig. 1. First, the steel tube was cut
to the required width and length. Then the steel sheeting was
pressed to form a lipped equal angle section of 100 mm ×
100 mm wide (Fig. 1a) × 600 mm long with a 25 mm lip
length. Two pieces of the lipped angles were welded through-
out its length to form a lipped channel with longitudinal stiff-
eners (Fig. 1b). Tabs were then made by notching the lips
along the median line, slanting 50 mm downward with about
5 mm tolerance at the required spacing and folding them hor-
izontally in the right, and left directions alternately (Fig. 1c).
Finally, a square tube with two longitudinal stiffeners and
two tab stiffeners was produced by seam welding together
two pieces of lipped channels (Fig. 1d, Fig. 1e). Built-up
steel tubes with four longitudinal stiffeners were also fabri-
cated by seam welding four pieces of lipped angle sections
for comparison purposes (Fig. 1f).
Twenty-one built-up square hollow sections of sides
200 mm × 200 mm and 2 mm thick with stiffeners were pre-
pared for the push out test. Each specimen was 600 mm long,
and the length of the steel–concrete interface had been main-
tained at approximately 550 mm. Three specimens having
four longitudinal stiffeners were fabricated, to act as the con-
trol. The lower end of the specimens was stiffened by weld-
ing four 200 mm × 100 mm steel plates of 3 mm thickness
to avoid local buckling during testing. A tiny V notch of
7 mm deep was provided at the bottom of the tube to release
any trapped air during testing. Prior to concrete casting a
2 mm thick square flat plate of 250 mm × 250 mm was
welded to the base of the steel tube to support the wet con-
crete during casting. During casting, the specimens were
turned upside-down and filled with concrete in layers and vi-
brated to a height of 550 mm, leaving a 50 mm gap at the
ing testing. After casting, the specimens were left open to be
air-cured.
Four different tab spacings, namely 75, 100, 150, and
300 mm were considered. The tab stiffeners were cut and in-
clined in the direction of slip to obtain the best slip response
in terms of both strength and ductility. For identification pur-
poses, the sides with tab stiffeners were painted white at the
location of tab stiffeners. For each tab spacing, three hollow
specimens were filled with 40 MPa concrete. In addition, six
other specimens with 100 mm tab spacing were filled with
36 and 50 MPa concrete.
The push out test was carried out in two series, as detailed
in Table 1. The first series considered variations in tab spac-
ing, namely 75, 100, 150, and 300 mm centre-to-centre, ver-
tically. Three specimens were prepared for each tab spacing
and three more specimens with four straight longitudinal
stiffeners for the purpose of comparison. The second series
investigated the effect of in-filled concrete of different
strengths, namely 36, 40, and 50 MPa.
2.3. Test set-up and instrumentation
A 1000 kN capacity Universal Testing Machine was used
for the push out test. The set-up for the push out test is
shown in Fig. 2. A 50 mm thick steel loading block with
sides about 10 mm smaller than the internal dimension of
the specimen being tested was placed at the top end between
the specimen and the loading surface of the testing machine.
The steel loading block was provided with four grooves of
30 mm × 8 mm at its mid sidewalls to accommodate the
steel tube’s stiffeners and to ensure that the load was trans-
ferred only to the concrete core. Four 50 mm travel displace-
ment transducers were placed at the middle of each side of
the steel tube to measure the downward movement of the
concrete core with respect to the steel tube. Strain gauges
were mounted on the steel tubes at the locations of the tab

Published by NRC Research Press

 Downloaded from http://iranpaper.ir
http://www.itrans24.com/landing1.html

Petrus et al. 631

Table 3. Bond strength from push out test data by other researchers.

Description of Type of concrete, Type of steel, fy Bond strength

No. Author stiffeners fcu (MPa) (MPa) Section (MPa)
1 Shakir-Khalil (1991) 50 mm long M12 43.4, 44.5, 46.5 MS grade 43 Rectangular 0.83–3.6
grade 4.6 black (120×80×5)
bolts 39.4 Square 0.6–1.5
(150×150×5)
3.7 mm diameter, 45 Circular (168.3×5) 2.5–4
62 mm long
DN drive hilti
nails
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by PURDUE UNIV LIB TSS on 12/28/14

2 Shakir-Khalil (1993a) Hilti nails, grade 36–42.5 MS grade 43 Square (150×5 & 0.4, 0.8
in Gourley et al. 4.6 black bolts 200×5)
(2001) Circular (168.3×5)
3 Shakir-Khalil (1993b) Grade 4.6 black 38–44 MS grade 43 Rectangular 0.2–4
in Gourley et al. bolts (120×80×5)
(2001) Square (150×5)
Circular (168×5)
4 Shakir-Khalil (1994) Grade 4.6 black 22–54 NA Rectangular 0.2–0.53
in Gourley et al. bolts, grade 8.8 (150×100×5)
(2001) black bolts,
threaded bars.
5 Virdi and Dowling None 22–46.4 mild steel Circular (148×5.6 0.33–3
(1980) in Gourley & 306×10.16)
et al. (2001)
6 Morishita et al. None 19–33 253, 255 253 Circular (150×3.2 0.2–0.4
(1979a, 1979b) in (cold-formed & 165×3.6)
For personal use only.

Gourley et al. mild steel)

(2001) 18.8–33 260.8 Square (150×3.6) 0.15–0.30
33.5 260.8 Octagonal 0.15–0.30
(150×3.6)
7 Tomii et al. (1980) in steel tubes with 16.7, 22.5 (ex- Cold form mild Circular (150×3.2) 0.4–0.6 (check-
Gourley et al. checkered pansive); 20, steel. 252.54 ered), 0.2–0.4
(2001) inside walls 27 (ordinary); (smooth), (smooth)
17–46 (expan- 250.5 (check- Square (150×3.2) 0.4–0.49 (check-
sive), 21.1–34 ered) ered), 0.15–
(ordinary) 0.29 (smooth)
17–46 (expan- Octagonal 28 0.4–0.49 (check-
sive), 21.1–34 (150×3.2) ered), 0.15–
(ordinary) 0.29 (smooth)
8 Morishita and Tomii None 23, 27, 35 339.5–351.2 Square (150×4.2) 0.15 – 0.34
(1982) in Gourley (cold form
et al. (2001) mild steel)
9 Kilpatrick and Ran- self tapping screw 106 50.8 (cold form) Circular 0.01–0.79
gan (1999) in (101.6×2.4)
Gourley et al.
(2001)
10 Hunaiti (1991) battened at the 41.5–50.5 N/A C channel 0.55–0.88
top and bottom
at 2 sidewall
panels.
11 Hunaiti (1996) None 12.11 & 15.38 Square 0.1 & 0.08
(Foam (100×100×2) 0.72 & 0.45
Concrete)
(21.2 & 24.34) N/A 0.35 & 0.18
(Light weight 0.73 & 0.4
concrete)
36.44 & 38.56 Circular (100×3.4) 2.04 & 1.37
(Normal 1.61 & 0.96
concrete)
12 Mouli and Khelafi None 44.8 (NWC) 340 – 363 120×80×5 0.42–0.81
(2006) 36.7 (LWC) 150×100×5 0.43–0.84

Published by NRC Research Press

 Downloaded from http://iranpaper.ir
632
Table 3 (concluded).
Description of Type of concrete,
No. Author stiffeners fcu (MPa)
13 Xu et al. (2007) None Expansive
concrete
14 This paper Tab stiffeners 36
50
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by PURDUE UNIV LIB TSS on 12/28/14
stiffeners to record the strain distribution along the height of
the specimen. The push out testing procedure was adopted
from Eurocode 4 (2004) on tests of shear connectors with
slight modifications to suit the present CFST specimen.
Load was first applied in increments of up to 40% of the ex-
pected failure load and then cycled 25 times between 5 and
40% of the expected failure load. Subsequently, the load was
increased monotonically at a constant displacement rate of
0.01 mm/s until the test was terminated. The movement of
the concrete core was taken as the average of the four trans-
ducer readings. The load was applied through the steel block
to the concrete core, which would possibly move the core
vertically downward relative to the steel section once the
bond resistance at the concrete–steel interface is exceeded.
Testing continued until the concrete core slipped about
40 mm or more. An automatic control and data acquisition
For personal use only.
system (CDAS) operated through the testing machine soft-
ware (UTS010) was used to capture data continuously
throughout the test.
3. Experimental results and discussions
Several observations were recorded and evaluations made
from the experimental results of the push out test. These in-
cluded observation of the failure mechanisms and evaluation
of the bond carrying capacity and strain distribution along
the height of the tube. From the test results, the load carrying
capacity of the tab stiffeners was evaluated by determining
the bond strength at the steel–concrete interface. The results
were then compared with those of other researchers.
3.1. Failure mechanism
Failure mechanism is defined as the physical appearance
observed during and after testing. Some tested specimens
were selected to be cut open to see the damage to and defor-
mation of the concrete core and the tab stiffeners. At the ini-
tial stage of testing, it was observed that all specimens
suffered no sign of deformation. After about 5 mm slip, there
was a loud cracking sound indicating a lost of bond between
the steel and the concrete at the steel–concrete interface fol-
lowed by sudden drop in load. Evidence of local buckling
started to appear on the sides with tab stiffeners with contin-
ued loading. Generally, what started in the form of ripples as
small ripples in the lower part of a specimen grew and repli-
cates progressively upward. At excessive slip, the top edge of
the steel tube buckled outwardly with visible separation be-
tween the steel tube and concrete core. Generally, the sides
with the longitudinal stiffeners remained intact but those
with the tab stiffeners buckled.
This failure mechanism was consistent for the specimens
with 36 and 40 MPa concrete strength. However, for those
http://www.itrans24.com/landing1.html
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 38, 2011
Type of steel, fy Bond strength
(MPa) Section (MPa)
N/A Circular section 0.6–1.92
309 Square 0.4–0.6
(200×200×2)
0.84
with a concrete strength of 50 MPa, evidence of local buck-
ling was more visible. Buckling of the side walls in the vicin-
ity of the tab stiffeners might be due to stress concentration
and concrete crushing at the tab stiffeners. It was also noted
that evidence of buckling of the same side walls was more
glaringly obvious as the tab stiffener spacing became smaller.
The formation of ripples for the specimens with tab stiffeners
at 75 mm centre-to-centre occurred almost simultaneously on
the side walls at all the tab stiffener locations. This may be
due to the closer locations of crushed concrete as the tab
stiffener spacing become smaller.
To investigate the damage to the concrete core and the de-
formation of the tab stiffeners, some selected specimens were
cut open after the test. Figure 3 shows a typical appearance
of the specimen on the sides with tab stiffeners. It was ob-
served that the crushing of the concrete was only evident
around the tab stiffeners, indicating that the concrete core
failed before the tab stiffeners. With increasing slip, the con-
crete core continued to crack and eventually the bearing
strength of the tab stiffeners became fully exhausted causing
them to bend in the direction of the slip.
It was observed that the tab stiffeners also deformed along
with concrete crushing and they did to an inclination mostly
around their collars causing them to drop in the direction of
the concrete core movement. At this stage, evidence of buck-
ling of the steel tube started to show as the load was being
transferred from the concrete core to the steel tubes through
tab stiffeners. Once the concrete around the tab stiffeners
crushed, bonding between the steel tube and the concrete
core failed. Therefore, the resisting force was only offered by
the tab stiffeners, causing them to continue carrying high
compression and shear force simultaneously as the slip pro-
ceeded. At excessive slip, the tab stiffeners eventually failed,
deflecting in the direction of the slip once the bearing ca-
pacity was exceeded.
3.2. Bond strength
A summary of the results with the calculated bond
strengths of the specimens for series 1 is presented in Table 2.
The load carrying capacity of a tab stiffener was determined
by subtracting the average failure load of the specimen from
the control specimen, giving the average load carrying ca-
pacities of 88, 87, 52, and 40 kN for 10, 8, 6, and 4 numbers
of tab stiffeners per tube, respectively, or 10 kN on average
per tab stiffener. If this value is compared with the load car-
rying capacity of the M12 bolt used as a shear connecter in a
CFST (Shakir-Khalil 1991), the tab stiffener attains only
about 13% of that of the M12 bolt. However, the present
push out test results indicate that comparatively tab stiffeners
do contribute to the enhancement of the present bond resist-
ance at the steel–concrete interface.
Published by NRC Research Press
 Downloaded from http://iranpaper.ir
http://www.itrans24.com/landing1.html

Petrus et al. 633

Fig. 4. Force–slip curves for specimens with (a) 75 mm, (b) 100 mm, (c) 150 mm, and (d) 300 mm tab stiffener spacing and control.
(a) (b)
450
450
400 ST75(G1-1) 400
350 ST75(G1-2) 350

Force (kN)

Force (kN)
300 300 ST100(G1-3)
ST75(G1-3) ST100(G1-2)
250 250 ST100(G1-1)
SC(G1-3) SL(G1-3)
200 200
150 150
100 100
50
50
0
0
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by PURDUE UNIV LIB TSS on 12/28/14

0 10 20 30 40 50
0 10 20 30 40 50
Slip (m m )
Slip (m m)

(c) (d)
450 450
400 400
ST150(G1-3) 350
350

Force (kN)
Force (kN)

300 300
ST300 (G1-1)
ST150(G1-2) 250 ST300 (G1-2)
250 ST150(G1-1)
SC(G1-3)
SC(G1-3)
200 200
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Slip (m m ) Slip (mm)
For personal use only.

Fig. 5. (a) Force–slip curves for different tab spacing and (b) idealized force–slip curve for a CFST with tab stiffeners.
(a) (b)
450 residual strength
400
ST75(G1-2)
Pb
350
300 ST100(G1-3)
Force (kN)

Force (kN)

250 ST300(G1-2)
SC(G1-3)
200 I II III
150 Region I: microlocking
100 Region II: loss of bond
50 Region III: macrolocking
0 5 10 25
0 10 20 30 40 50 Slip (mm)
Slip (m m )

Fig. 6. Effect of tab spacing on bond strength. The bond strength at the interface between the steel and
0.7 the concrete was calculated from the equation
75 100
0.6 ½3 F b ¼ N=Po L
Bond strength (MPa)

150
300 where Fb is the bond carrying capacity at the steel–concrete
0.5
interface, N is the failure load applied to the specimen, Po is
0.4
the perimeter of the concrete–steel interface assuming a right
angled corner of the steel tube, and L is the concrete–steel
0.3 contact length.
The average bond strength of the control specimens was
0.2 0.4 MPa, which is equivalent to the design shear strength
0 75 150 225 300 value assumed in Eurocode 4 (2004) for a concrete filled rec-
Tab spacing (m m )
tangular hollow section. The rest of the specimens showed
significant improvement in the bond strength, recording a
bond strength as high as 0.6 MPa.
The results obtained from the push out test in this study
were then compared with data from previous researchers and

Published by NRC Research Press

 Downloaded from http://iranpaper.ir
http://www.itrans24.com/landing1.html

634 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 38, 2011

Table 4. Results from specimens in series 2.

Concrete
strength, fcu Tab spacing No. of Failure load, Average failure Bond strength
Specimen label (N/mm2) lt (mm) tabs N (kN) load, N (kN) (MPa)
ST100(G1-1) 40 100 8 249
ST100(G1-2) 40 100 8 284 262 0.60
ST100(G1-3) 40 100 8 253
ST100(G2-1) 36 100 8 260
ST100(G2-2) 36 100 8 245 261 0.60
ST100(G2-3) 36 100 8 280
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by PURDUE UNIV LIB TSS on 12/28/14

ST100(G3-1) 50 100 8 390

ST100(G3-2) 50 100 8 368 368 0.84
ST100(G3-3) 50 100 8 345
Note: For specimen designation, the letter S refers to the cross sectional shape and the following letter T refers to the specimen with tab
stiffeners. The subsequent number indicates the tab spacing. The letter G refers to the concrete strength followed by a numeric character
representing the different concrete strength. The subsequent numeric character indicates the specimen number in a group of three samples.

Fig. 7. Force–slip curves for different concrete strength. from the curves, marking the loss of initial bond between
500 the steel and the concrete after which de-bonding occurred
ST100(3-1)
ST100(3-3)
with a sudden loss of bond. At this stage, the specimens had
400
total bond loss but the concrete core did not travel downward
freely. The load continues to increase with increasing slip.
Force (kN)

ST100(2-3) The residual strength is derived from the resistance provided

300 ST100(2-2)
ST100(1-1)
by the tab stiffeners. At relatively large slip values, the walls
ST100(1-2) of the steel section in the vicinity of the tab stiffeners
200 buckled inwards, thus increasing the resistance to further
For personal use only.

slip. The residual strength is shown to be higher at smaller

100
0 strength, indicating increasing load bearing capacity of tab
0 10 20 30
Slip (mm)
are tabulated in Table 3. Push out tests on CFSTs with shear
connectors were conducted earlier by Virdi and Dowling
(1980) in Gourley et al. (2001), by means of self tapping
screws and later extended by Shakir-Khalil (1991), Shakir-
Khalil (1993, 1994a, 1994b) and Kilpatrick and Rangan
(1999) in Gourley et al. (2001), to include hilti nails, black
bolts, and threaded bars. Providing shear connectors has
been shown to improve the bond strength of CFSTs effec-
tively, with circular sections recording a higher bond strength
of up to 4 MPa as compared to 3.6 MPa on square and rec-
tangular sections. Generally, the bond strength obtained from
the push out test on specimens with tab stiffeners was higher
than those of un-stiffened specimens.
3.2.1. Force–slip curves
The force–slip behaviours of the test specimens with 75,
100, 150, and 300 mm tab spacings as compared to the con-
trol specimens are presented in Fig. 4. From the force–slip
relationships, taking the first peak loads to indicate bonding
strength of the specimens, those with the tab stiffeners are
shown to record greater strength than those without. The
force–slip relationships of the control specimens show that
little slip had taken place in the elastic region and that once
the initial bond failure set in, the concrete core traveled stead-
ily downward as slip progressed.
Typically, all specimens with the tab stiffeners reach their
ultimate bond loads at a slip of about 5 mm as evidenced
tab stiffener spacings. At about 25 mm slip, it is in the range
between 50 and 100 kN greater than the ultimate bond
40 50 stiffeners with the number of tab stiffeners. This is due to a
bigger area of resistance from the tab stiffeners as their spac-
ings get closer. However, the force–slip curves of the speci-
mens with 300 mm tab stiffener spacing are almost similar
to those of the control, an observation that reinforces the ar-
gument that residual strength is very much influenced by the
presence and spacing of the tab stiffeners on the steel tubes.
The force–slip curves in Fig. 4 are well explained using
the notion of microlocking and macrolocking introduced by
Virdi and Dowling (1980) in Gourley et al. (2001). The term
microlocking is used to describe the amount of bond, namely
the mechanical locking of the concrete with the irregularities
of the steel tube. Microlocking defines the ultimate bond
strength and the onset of the concrete core movement as a
whole. The concrete at the interface is crushed and the stiff-
ness decreases significantly at the ultimate bond strength.
Macrolocking occurs due to the non-unifomity of the tube, i.e.,
the lack of straightness or lack of roundness or by the pres-
ence of shear connectors. Macrolocking accounts for the fric-
tional resistance provided beyond the ultimate bond strength
and is illustrated by the remarkably parallel load deformation
slopes in the later stages of the curve.
Typical force–slip curve for the specimens with different
tab stiffener spacings are presented in Fig. 5a. All specimens
show a similar force–slip pattern, which in turn leads itself to
an idealized curve shown in Fig. 5b. The idealized curve rep-
resents the general behaviour, which is divided into three re-
gions, namely I, II, and III. Region I is the elastic part in
which microlocking takes place. At the microlocking stage,
both the steel tube surface and the tab stiffeners offer fric-
tional and load bearing resistance. The point when these

Published by NRC Research Press

 Downloaded from http://iranpaper.ir
http://www.itrans24.com/landing1.html

Petrus et al. 635

Fig. 8. Force–strain relationships of specimens with (a) 75 mm tab stiffener spacing and (b) 300 mm tab stiffener spacing.
(a) 400
(b) 400
150 150
1 1
350 350
2 75
300 3 75 300 300

4 75
Load (kN)

2
250

Load (kN)
5 75 250 100
100
200 50 200 50

150 1
150
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by PURDUE UNIV LIB TSS on 12/28/14

2
100 3 100 1
4
50 50
5 2
0
0
-1500 -1000 -500 0 500
-1500 -1000 -500 0 500
Average strain (micro-strain)
Average strain (micro-strain)

Fig. 9. Force–strain relationship of specimens filled with concrete strength: (a) 36 MPa and (b) 50 MPa.
(a) (b)
1 15
150
500
1 500 2 10
2 100
100
For personal use only.

3
100 100
400
3 400 4
Load (kN)

4 100 100
Load (kN)

100 5
300 50 300

200 200
1
1
2
100 2 100
3
3
4
0 4 0
-2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500
Average strain (micro-strain) Average strain (micro-strain)

resistances are overcome marks the ultimate bond strength
(Pb) of the specimens. At the ultimate bond strength, con-
crete at the tab stiffeners is crushed and the load drops as
shown in Region II. Meanwhile, Region III is the area where
macrolocking takes place. There is a remarkable load in-
crease after the slight drop of load with progressive concrete
core slip, provided by the load resistance of the tab stiffeners
beyond the ultimate bond strength.
3.2.2. Effect of tab stiffener spacing
The effect of tab stiffener spacing on the bond strength is
presented in terms of bond strength versus tab stiffener spac-
ing as shown in Fig. 6. It is clearly shown that bond strength
increases with decreasing tab stiffener spacing and it is at its
highest when the spacings are 75 and 100 mm centre-to-
centre. Therefore, a tab stiffener spacing of 100 mm centre-
to-centre was used in the subsequent experimental parametric
investigation.
3.2.3. Effect of concrete strength
Previous studies have shown that bond strength is also af-
fected by the type and strength of concrete. In the present
study, the effects of varying the concrete compressive
strength were investigated on specimens with 100 mm tab
spacing and the results are tabulated in Table 4. The average
bond strength for specimens with concrete compression
strengths of 36, 40, and 50 MPa are 0.60 MPa, 0.6 MPa,
and 0.84 MPa, respectively. Though there is no significant
difference between the specimens with concrete compression
strengths of 36 and 40 MPa, the improvement in the bond
strength with 50 MPa concrete is about 40% from those of
36 and 40 MPa, indicating the significant influence that the
concrete compressive strength has on the bond strength of a
composite section with tab stiffeners. Nevertheless, it is ob-
served that the strength of concrete has no influence on the
force–slip behaviour as both specimens produce similar
force–slip curves as shown in Fig. 7.

Published by NRC Research Press

 Downloaded from http://iranpaper.ir
636
3.3. Strain distribution
The force–strain relationships for specimens with a 75 mm
tab stiffener spacing (Fig. 8a) and a 300 mm tab stiffener
spacing (Fig. 8b) are recorded down the height of the speci-
mens and labelled 1 to 5 and 1 to 2, respectively. The graphs
revealed gradual increase in the strains from the top of the
specimens down to the base up until the peak load. There is
an obvious drop, and even a strain reversal at an excessive
slip prior to reaching the peak. This is due to the fact that at
high slip, the load is transferred from the concrete core to the
steel hollow section through the tab stiffeners, causing the
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by PURDUE UNIV LIB TSS on 12/28/14
strains near the base of the steel section to increase at a
much higher rate than near the top. The strain distributions
for specimens with a 300 mm tab stiffener spacing (Fig. 8b)
differ from those of smaller spacings. The strain is higher at
the bottom than it is at the top, up to about half of the ulti-
mate load. On the side wall where the upper tab stiffner is
located, the strain continues to increase almost linearly up to
the ultimate load while that of the lower remains almost con-
stant, after which there is a reversal of strain at a constant
rate. This shows that the load resistance is only offered by
the upper tab stiffeners at the microlocking phase. Therefore,
providing tab stiffeners at large spacings is not beneficial to
the improvement in the bond strength of the composite sec-
tions.
The force–strain relationships for specimens with a
For personal use only.
100 mm tab stiffener spacing filled with concrete compres-
sive strengths of 36 and 50 MPa are shown in Fig. 9. Gener-
ally, the distributions of strain along the steel tubes are very
similar for all specimens, exhibiting a linear response up to
the ultimate loads. However, the strain is higher in the steel
tube filled with a higher concrete strength. This is due to the
greater bond strength offered by the higher strength of the in-
filled concrete.
4. Conclusions
The bond strength of a square CFST column with the
newly proposed stiffening system incorporating on the inside
longitudinal stiffeners along two opposite side walls and tab
stiffeners along the other side walls was investigated in this
study. Push out tests were conducted to evaluate the effec-
tiveness of the tab stiffeners in improving the steel–concrete
bond strength. From the observations and results of the push
out tests on the 21 specimens, the following conclusions are
drawn.
1. Failure was typically precipitated by the crushing of the
concrete followed by buckling of the steel tube and finally
bending of the tab stiffeners in the direction of slip once
bearing capacity was exceeded.
2. The newly proposed stiffening system improved the bond
strength at the steel–concrete interface and the degree of
improvement increased with decreasing tab spacing. The
bond strength of the specimens with the tab stiffeners
spaced at 100 mm or closer was 50% higher than the con-
trol.
3. A tab stiffener spacing of 100 mm centre-to-centre is recom-
mended for future use since there was no significant im-
provement when the spacing was made closer to 75 mm.
4. Generally, the specimens with tab stiffeners exhibited some
residual strength in the range between 50 and 100 kN,
http://www.itrans24.com/landing1.html
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 38, 2011
recorded at about 25 mm slip, and the strength increases
with decreasing tab stiffener spacing.
5. The bond strength of the specimens with a 100 mm tab
stiffener spacing and 50 MPa concrete improved by about
40% over those of 40 and 36 MPa.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial sup-
port from the Higher Education Ministry (MOHE), Malaysia
and Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Malaysia under
the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS). Thanks to
VPN Engineering Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia for its contribution in
fabricating and supplying the steel materials. Appreciation to
all technicians in the concrete and heavy structures laborato-
ries at UiTM for their dedication and cooperation while as-
sisting in the experimental work.
References
Abedi, K., Ferdousi, A., and Afshin, H. 2008. A novel steel section
for concrete-filled tubular columns. Thin-walled Structures, 46(3):
310–319. doi:10.1016/j.tws.2007.07.019.
Baig, M.N., Fan, J., and Nie, J. 2006. Strength of concrete filled steel
tubular columns. Tsinghua Science and Technology, 11(6): 657–
666. doi:10.1016/S1007-0214(06)70248-6.
Cai, J., and He, Z.Q. 2006. Axial load behavior of square CFT stub
column with binding bars. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research, 62(5): 472–483. doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2005.09.010.
Cai, J., and Long, Y.-L. 2009. Local buckling of steel plates in
rectangular CFT columns with binding bars. Journal of Construc-
tional Steel Research, 65(4): 965–972. doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2008.07.
025.
Dabaon, M.A., El-Boghdadi, M.H., and Hassanein, M.F. 2009.
Experimental investigation on concrete-filled stainless steel
stiffened tubular stub columns. Engineering Structures, 31(2):
300–307. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.08.017.
Eurocode 4. (Editor). 2004. Design of composite steel and concrete
structures. Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings, BSI.
Gourley, B.C., Tort, C., Hajjar, J.F., and Schiller, P.H. 2001. A
synopsis of studies of the monotonic and cyclic behaviour of
concrete filled steel tube beam-columns. Structural Engineering
Report No. ST-010-4. Minneapolis, Minnesota Department of
Civil Engineering, Institute of Technology, 500 Pillsbury Drive
SE, University of Minnesota, MN 55455, USA.
Hajjar, J.F. 2002. Composite steel and concrete structural systems for
seismic engineering. Journal of Constructional Steel Research,
58(5–8): 703–723. doi:10.1016/S0143-974X(01)00093-1.
Hu, H.-T., Huang, C.-S., and Chen, Z.-L. 2005. Finite element
analysis of CFT columns subjected to an axial compressive force
and bending moment in combination. Journal of Constructional
Steel Research, 61(12): 1692–1712.
Hunaiti, Y.M. 1991. Bond strength in battened composite columns.
Journal of Structural Engineering, 117(3): 699–714. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(1991)117:3(699).
Hunaiti, Y.M. 1996. Composite action of foamed and lightweight
aggregate concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 8(3):
111–113. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(1996)8:3(111).
Liu, D. 2004. Behaviour of high strength rectangular concrete-filled
steel hollow section columns under eccentric loading. Thin-walled
Structures, 42(12): 1631–1644. doi:10.1016/j.tws.2004.06.002.
Mouli, M., and Khelafi, H. 2006. Strength of short composite
rectangular hollow section columns filled with lightweight
Published by NRC Research Press
 Downloaded from http://iranpaper.ir
Petrus et al.
aggregate concrete. Engineering Structures, 29(8): 1791–1797.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.10.003.
Petrus, C., Hanizah, A.H., Ibrahim, A., Nyuin, J.D., and Endut, M.Z.
2008. The behaviour of square thin walled steel CFT with tab
stiffeners. In International Conference on Construction and
Building Technology, 2008. pp. 191–202.
Petrus, C., Hanizah, A.H., and Ibrahim, A. 2007. Characteristics and
behaviours of CFT columns with high-strength materials. World
Engineering Congress 2007, 1. pp. 491–498.
Punchin, J., Krstulovic-Opara, N., and Brezac, B. 2003. High
Strength Lightweight Aggregate Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (HS-
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by PURDUE UNIV LIB TSS on 12/28/14
LWA FRC) filled steel tube columns for increased seismic
resistance. American Concrete Institute, 216: 33–48.
Shakir-Khalil, H. 1991. Bond strength in concrete-filled steel hollow
sections. International Conference on Steel & Aluminium
Structures Singapore, Elsevier Applied Science.
Sham, M., and Saadeghvaziri, M.Ala. 1997. State of the art of
concrete-filled steel tubular columns. ACI Structural Journal, 94(5):
558–571.
Shanmugam, N.E., and Lakshmi, B. 2001. State of the art report on
steel-concrete composite columns. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research, 57(10): 1041–1080. doi:10.1016/S0143-974X(01)
00021-9.
For personal use only.
http://www.itrans24.com/landing1.html
637
Tao, Z., Han, L.-H., and Wang, Z.-B. 2005. Experimental behaviour
of stiffened concrete-filled thin-walled hollow steel structural
(HSS) stub columns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research,
61(7): 962–983. doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2004.12.003.
Tao, Z., Han, L.H., and Wang, D.Y. 2007. Experimental behaviour of
concrete-filled stiffened thin-walled steel tubular columns. Thin-
walled Structures, 45(5): 517–527. doi:10.1016/j.tws.2007.04.003.
Tao, Z., Han, L.-H., and Wang, D.-Y. 2008. Strength and ductility of
stiffened thin-walled hollow steel structural stub columns filled
with concrete. Thin-walled Structures, 46(10): 1113–1128. doi:10.
1016/j.tws.2008.01.007.
Uy, B. 2001. Strength of short concrete filled high strength steel box
columns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 57(2): 113–
134. doi:10.1016/S0143-974X(00)00014-6.
Xu, C., Chengkui, H., Decheng, J., and Yuancheng, S. 2007. Push-
out test of pre-stressing concrete filled circular steel tube columns
by means of expansive cement. Construction & Building
Materials, 23(1): 491–497. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.10.
021.
Zhang, Y., Xu, C., and Lu, X. 2007. Experimental study of hysteretic
behaviour for concrete-filled square thin-walled steel tubular
columns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 63(3): 317–
325. doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2006.04.014.
Published by NRC Research Press