Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 1–13

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

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

Review
Behavior of high-strength circular concrete-filled steel tubular (CFST) column
under eccentric loading
Seong-Hui Lee a , Brian Uy a , Sun-Hee Kim b , Young-Hwan Choi b , Sung-Mo Choi b,∗
a
School of Engineering, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith South DC, NSW 1797, Australia
b
Division of Architectural Engineering, School of Architecture and Architectural Engineering, University of Seoul, 90 Jeonnong-dong Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 130-743,
Republic of Korea

article info abstract

Article history: In this study, to estimate the behavior of a circular CFST column under eccentric loading, an experimental
Received 4 January 2010 test and fiber element analysis on 11 circular stub CFST column specimens were conducted. The parame-
Accepted 9 July 2010 ters of specimens were high strength steel (above Fy = 450 MPa) and concrete (fck = 31.5 MPa, 59 MPa),
diameter–thickness ratio (D/t = 25, 40, 60, 80, 100) and eccentric distance (e = 0D, 0.167D, 0.5D). The
Keywords: results from the experimental tests and fiber element analysis were compared with AISC (2005) [16], Eu-
Thin-walled circular CFST column
rocode 4 (1994) [18], and KBCS (2009) [17] to verify the suitability of the analysis in the codes. From the
Diameter–thickness ratio (D/t)
Local buckling
analysis results, it is considered that AISC [16], and KBCS [17] show good agreement for the circular CFST
Fiber element analysis column under eccentric loading and that Eurocode 4 [18] overestimates the load–moment relation of the
Load–moment relation circular CFST column under eccentric loading.
© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2
2. Fiber element analysis ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1. Stress–strain model of steel .................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
2.2. Stress–strain model of concrete ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2
2.2.1. Unconfined concrete (normal concrete) ............................................................................................................................................... 2
2.2.2. Confined concrete ................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.3. P–M relation analysis ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 4
2.4. Load–displacement (P–δ) relation and moment–curvature (M–Φ ) relation.................................................................................................... 4
3. Experimental test ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
3.1. Specimens .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4
3.2. Material properties ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4
3.3. Test method ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
3.4. Test results ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5
3.4.1. Stiffness and resistance .......................................................................................................................................................................... 5
3.4.2. Moment–curvature (M–Φ ) relation ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
3.4.3. Failure behavior ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
4. Analysis and comment....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
4.1. Ultimate resistance and stiffness according to diameter–thickness (D/t ) ........................................................................................................ 6
4.2. Buckling strength of circular CFST column .......................................................................................................................................................... 7
4.3. Ultimate moment according to diameter–thickness (D/t ) ................................................................................................................................ 8
4.4. Ductility according to concrete strength.............................................................................................................................................................. 9
4.5. Comparison of experiment and analysis results with Code AISC [16], Eurocode 4 [18], and KBCS [17].......................................................... 10
5. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 13
References........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13

1. Introduction
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 2210 2396; fax: +82 2 2248 0382. Recently, the height of buildings has been increased for the
E-mail address: smc@uos.ac.kr (S.-M. Choi). effective usage of limited land area and the high-rise buildings
0143-974X/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2010.07.003
2 S.-H. Lee et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 1–13

Table 1
Provisions of codes for circular CFST column.
Provisions AISC [16] Eurocode 4 [18] KBCS [17]
1999 2005 2005 2009

As _min 4% Ag 1% Ag 0.2Pu–0.9Pu 3% Ag 1% Ag
fck 21–55 MPa 21–70 MPa 20–50 MPa More than 21 MPa 21–70 MPa
Fymax 415
q MPa 440 MPa 355 MPa 415 MPa
q 440 MPa
0.15E 0.15E
D/tmax 8E
Fy Fy
90 235
F
8E
Fy Fy
y

require a variety of structural systems for the improvement of the
structural safety and space efficiency in structural planning. Also,
the increments of steel price and wages require research for the
reduction of construction costs. The application of the concrete
filled steel tubular (CFST) column using a thin walled steel plate
shows the flow at present. In general, in a CFST structure, the
concrete that is located in the core of the column prevents the
premature local buckling of the steel tube and the steel that is
located on the outside of the column offers the confinement effect
for the concrete core. The confinement effect increases the strength
of concrete. Many researchers [1–4] have reported that the CFST
column has superior strength, ductility, and energy absorption
over the steel column; that the CFST structure can save the cost of
construction because the steel tube serves as a cast for the concrete
and a support for the erection load; and that the CFST structure
offers an increase in the rentable area after the completion of
construction. Because of these advantages, the application of CFST
structures in high-rise buildings has increased. Generally, the thin
walled CFST column is divided into two types (square and circular).
These two types are different in the structural capacity on local
buckling and the confinement effect. In the square CFST column,
the confinement effect of the steel tube cannot be expected
because of the premature local buckling of the steel tube. However,
the circular CFST column can offer a superior confinement effect
because the steel tube causing the three-dimensional compressed
stress of the concrete during the local buckling of the steel tube
is retarded. The confinement effect increases the strength of the
circular CFST column. Recently, research of the thin-walled square
CFST column for local buckling resistance estimation has been
carried out by Uy [5,6], Liang [7], Zhong [8], and Tao [9]. Also,
research on thin-walled circular CFST columns for confinement
effect estimation for high strength steel or concrete have been
carried out by O’Shea [10], Elremaily [11], Giakoumelis [12],
Linag [13,14], and Chung [15]. In AISC [16] and KBCS [17], the
provisions have been revised (diameter–thickness ratio (D/t )) for
the application of thin-walled circular CFST columns as shown in
Table 1, but due to insufficient research data, the revision of the
code has progressed slowly.
The parameters of circular CFST column specimens set by ex-
isting researchers [O’Shea [10], Elremaily [11], Giakoumelis [12],
Sakino [19], Zeghiche [20], Yu [21], Beck [22], Liang [13,14]]
were diameter (D: 114–360 mm), thickness of steel tube
(t: 0.9–9.5 mm), diameter–thickness ratio (D/t: 17–221), yield
strength of steel tube (Fy : 176–853 MPa) and compression strength
of concrete (fck : 23–113 MPa). The confined concrete models pro-
posed by Hu [23] and Liang [13,14] were drawn from the specimens
with a diameter of less than 360 mm, though studies on circular
on eccentric load or eccentric distance. Accordingly, in this study,
an experimental test and a fiber element (FE) analysis on 11 circu-
lar stub CFST column specimens were conducted. The parameters
of the specimens were high strength steel (above Fy = 450 MPa)
and concrete (fck = 31.5 MPa, 59 MPa), diameter–thickness ra-
tio (D/t = 25, 40, 60, 80, 100) and eccentric distance (e = 0D,
0.167D, 0.5D). The results from the experiment test and fiber ele-
ment analysis were compared with AISC [16], Eurocode 4 [18], and
KBCS [17] to verify the suitability of the analysis in the codes.
2. Fiber element analysis
As fiber element analysis is a analysis method for the calculation
of resistance and displacement of a CFST column as strain variation,
the FE analysis use a section information of a unit section, which
is obtained by partition of the CFST column, and an equilibrium
condition. In this study, a fiber element (FE) program was devel-
oped using Fortran 95 for the purpose of estimation of the axial
load–displacement (P–δ) relation, moment–curvature (M–Φ ) re-
lation and load–moment (P–M ) relation of the specimens.
2.1. Stress–strain model of steel
The stress–strain relation of structural steel is divided into two
types in the presence of the yield plateau or not. The stress–strain
model in this study was determined from the coupon test of the
circular steel tube used in the specimens as shown in Table 2 and
Fig. 1, and the strain hardening part in the model was simplified
linearly.
2.2. Stress–strain model of concrete
The concrete strength of the circular CFST column in compres-
sion increases due to the confinement effect of the steel tube. Prior
research on confined concrete has been conducted by Hu [23],
Montoya [24], Ellobody [25], and Liang [13,14]. In this study, the
normal concrete model of Carreira and Chu [26] and the confined
concrete model of Hu [23] were used.
2.2.1. Unconfined concrete (normal concrete)
The stress of concrete in compression is assumed to be linear
up to a stress of 0.4fck . Beyond this point, stress is represented as a
function of strain according to Eq. (1).
fck γ (εc /εc0 )
σc = (1)
γ − 1 + (εc /εc0 )γ
where,
 fck 3
 
CFST columns with a diameter above 360 mm are very rare. Also,
the previous concrete models of Hu [23] and Liang [13,14] were not γ =   + 1.55, εc0 = 0.002.
32.4 
proved for a circular CFT column with large diameter and eccen-
The stress in tension is assumed to increase linearly relative
tric loaded circular CFT column. The CFST columns under eccentric
to strain until the concrete cracks, where the tensile stress (fct ) is
loading are designed so that the beam–column can endure an axial
used in the equation suggested by Montoya [24] as Eq. (2). After
force and bending moment simultaneously, and the design is com-
the concrete cracks, the tensile stresses decrease linearly to zero,
plex due to the interaction of the axial force and bending moment.
where the strain on zero stress is defined as 11εct . The stress–strain
Eurocode 4 [18] regulates that CFST columns cannot be expected
curve of unconfined concrete is represented as a thin line in Fig. 2.
to demonstrate the confinement effect under an eccentric distance
0.33
above D/10. However, AISC [16] and KBCS [17] have no provisions fct = 0.65fck . (2)
 S.-H. Lee et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 1–13 3

(a) Steel with yield plateau (SM490). (b) Steel without yield plateau (SM570).

Fig. 1. Stress–strain relation of steel.

Table 2
Stress–strain relation of steel.
Type E (GPa) A B C
Stress Strain Stress Strain Stress Strain

Steel with yield plateau (SM490) 210 Σy Ey Σy 10ε y σu 100ε y

Steel without yield plateau (SM570) 210 0.9σ y 0.9σ y/E Σy 0.005 σu 0.1

where,
 
fl
fcc = fc + k1 fl , εcc = εc 1 + k2
fc
k1 : 4.1, k2 : 20.5
k3 : 1 (21.7 ≤ D/t ≤ 40)
k3 : 0.0000339(D/t )2 − 0.010085(D/t ) + 1.3491
(40 ≤ D/t ≤ 150)
RE (Ro − 1) 1 εcc
R= − , RE = Ecc , Ro = 4, Rε = 4, r = 1
(Rε − 1)2 Rε fcc
fc : cylinder strength of unconfined concrete
εc : strain of unconfined concrete (0.003)
Fig. 2. Equivalent uniaxial stress–strain curves for unconfined and confined fcc : cylinder strength of confined concrete
concrete.
εcc : strain of confined concrete
fl : lateral compress stress by steel tube
2.2.2. Confined concrete
fl /fy = 0.043646 − 0.000832(D/t ) (21.7 ≤ D/t ≤ 47)
The full equivalent uniaxial stress–strain curve for confined
concrete proposed by Hu [23] is divided into three parts as shown fl /fy = 0.006241 − 0.0000357(D/t ) (47 ≤ D/t ≤ 150).
in Fig. 2. The first part (0–A) of the curve is initially assumed to
have an elastic range for the proportional limit stress. The value
2.3. P–M relation analysis
of the proportional limit stress is taken as 0.5 (fcc ), where the
initial Young’s modulus of confined concrete (Ecc ) is calculated
In the fiber element analysis, a circular CFST column section is
using Eq. (3) (ACI [27]). The second part (A–B) of the curve is
discretized into 10 mm fiber elements as depicted in Fig. 3. The
the nonlinear portion starting from proportional limit stress 0.5
ultimate resistance of the circular CFST column is calculated using
(fcc ) and proceeding to the confined concrete strength (fcc ). This
the material models of 2.1 and 2.2 for the longitudinal strain of each
part B–C of the curve can be determined from Eq. (4) [18], which fiber element. Then, a moment–curvature relation for each tenth
was proposed by Saenz [28]. The third part of the curve is the axial resistance (0Pu, 0.1Pu, 0.2Pu, . . . , 0.9Pu, Pu) is obtained as
descending part from the confined concrete strength (fcc ) to a shown in Fig. 4. The P–M relation is made by connecting the
value lower than or equal to the corresponding strain of 11εcc . ultimate moment (horizontal axis) corresponding to each axial
The stress–strain curve of confined concrete, which is calculated resistance (vertical axis) as shown in Fig. 5.
by Eqs. (3) and (4), is represented as a thick line in Fig. 2.
The coefficients used in Eq. (4) were decided by experimental 2.4. Load–displacement (P–δ) relation and moment–curvature
test in [28]. Also, the tensile strength of confined concrete is (M–Φ ) relation
considered as the same model with the unconfined tensile concrete
of Section 2.2.1. For the design of a beam–column under eccentric loading, a
p second order effect by lateral deflection and eccentric distance
Ecc = 4700 fcc MPa (3) must be considered as shown in Fig. 6. Though the influence of the
Ecc ε second order effect is minor in the stub column, for the purpose
f =    2  3 (4) of reduction of the influences of total length, when jig length is
1 + (R + RE − 2) εε − (2R − 1) ε
εcc
+R ε
εcc included, the second order effect was included in the analysis of
cc
4 S.-H. Lee et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 1–13
Fig. 3. Fiber element discretization of circular CFST column section.
Fig. 4. Moment–curvature (M–Φ ) relation.
specimens. In this study, the mid-span deflection equation which is
used in [29] was used in Eq. (5) to consider the second order effect,
where the lateral deflection of the member is assumed to be a sine
shape. First, this analysis method determines the curvature in the
equilibrium moment while increasing the strain (from 0 to 0.02)
of the eccentric loading point. Secondly, the axial load in the
curvature is calculated. Lastly, a moment–curvature relation and
an axial load–strain relation are drawn from the obtained strain,
the curvature, the axial load and the moment. A load–displacement
relation can be obtained from the multiplication of the strain and
the hinge distance (Lo ).
M 3.3. Test method
P =
e + um
L2o
 
e: Eccentric distance, um: mid-span deflection um = φ
π2
3. Experimental test
3.1. Specimens
In this study, eleven specimens as shown in Table 3 were planed
to estimate the behavior of the circular CFST stub column using
high strength materials (steel and concrete) and the effect of di-
ameter–thickness ratio (D/t ) on confinement. The parameters of
specimens are high strength steel (more than Fy = 450 MPa),
normal (31.5 MPa) and high strength (59 MPa) concrete, diame-
ter–thickness ratio (D/t = 25, 40, 60, 80, 100) and eccentric dis-
tance (e = 0D, 0.167D, 0.5D). The length (L) of specimens is 3D
and the length (Lo ) between the two hinges is L + 680 mm.
3.2. Material properties
To inspect the material properties of the steel tubes, three
samples were extracted from the same steel tube with each
specimen and were then tested. Concrete strength (fck ) was
Confined Concrete
P(kN)
Unconfined Concrete
M(kN.m)
Fig. 5. Axial load–moment (P–M ) relation.
Fig. 6. Schematic view of a beam–column.
obtained from the uniaxial compression test using the Φ 150 × 300
cylinder mold. Since the humidity in the atmospheric conditions is
different from humidity in the CFST column, the concrete cylinders
were cured for 28 days in water. Tables 4 and 5 show the coupon
test results of steel and the uniaxial compression test results of
concrete, respectively.
(5)
10,000 kN U.T.M. (Universal Test Machine) was used for the
. experimental test. Specimens were welded with two end-plates for
the connection of a knife edge and stiffeners for the prevention of
local stress concentration. Φ − 39 mm bolts (fy = 440 MPa) were
used to join the end-plate with a knife edge and fasten at 250 kN to
prevent it slipping between the end-plate and the knife edge. Four
displacement transducers (LVDT) were installed to measure lateral
deflection and vertical displacement, and seven wire strain gauges
(W.S.G.) were installed to measure the strain of the steel tube.
Fig. 7 shows the setting plan of the specimens and the completed
situation. The loading point was far away as the eccentric distance
from the column center. The loading speed was 0.05 mm/s and
loading continued until it reached 0.9Pu after ultimate load (Pu).
3.4. Test results
3.4.1. Stiffness and resistance
Table 6 shows the initial stiffness (K ), yield load (Py), the dis-
placement (δ y) at yield load, ultimate load (Pu), the displacement
(δ u) at ultimate load, and the displacement (δ0.9Pu ) at 0.9Pu af-
ter ultimate load. Each load and displacement was determined as
shown in Fig. 8. The displacement of specimens was calculated as
Eq. (6), using the data obtained from Lv 1 and Lv 2. In the calcula-
tion, the ratio of similitude on a triangle was used as Fig. 8; also,
 S.-H. Lee et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 1–13 5

Table 3
Specimens.
Specimens D (mm) t (mm) D/t L (mm) Lo (mm) Fy (MPa) Fu (MPa) fck (MPa) As (mm2 ) Ac (mm2 ) Loading point (•: center)

O49E24_30 240 6 40 720 1400 489 550 31.5 4,411 40,828 0.5D
O49C36_30 360 6 60 1080 1760 498 567 31.5 6,673 95,115 •
O49E36_30 360 6 60 1080 1760 498 567 31.5 6,673 95,115 0.167D
O49E48_30 480 6 80 1440 2120 468 539 31.5 8,935 172,021 0.5D
O49E60_30 600 6 100 1800 2480 517 578 31.5 11,197 271,547 0.5D
O49E24_60 240 6 40 720 1400 489 550 59 4,411 40,828 0.5D
O49E36_60 360 6 60 1080 1760 498 567 59 6,673 95,115 0.5D
O49E48_60 480 6 80 1440 2120 468 539 59 8,935 172,021 0.5D

O57C30_30 300 12 25 900 1580 479 631 31.5 10 857 59,828 •

O57E30_30 300 12 25 900 1580 479 631 31.5 10 857 59,828 0.5D
O57E48_30 480 12 40 1440 2120 489 638 31.5 17 643 163,312 0.5D

Table 4
Coupon test results of steel.
Steel types D (mm) t (mm) E (GPa) Fy (MPa) Fu (MPa) Yield ratio (%) Extension ratio (%)

240 6 202 489 550 0.88 30

360 6 202 498 567 0.88 29
SM490
480 6 203 468 539 0.87 34
600 6 202 517 578 0.90 29

300 12 202 479 631 0.76 35

SM570
480 12 202 486 638 0.76 35

Table 5
Uniaxial compression test results and arrangement ratio of concrete.
fck (MPa) Slump (cm) W /C (%) S /A (%) Weight per unit volume (kg/m3 )
W (water) C (cement) S (sand) G (aggregate) AD (compound material)

31.5 14 39.0 45.9 155 397 822 1013 2.73

59 – 26.7 45.6 165 525 93 709 873 0

Table 6
Experimental results.
Specimens K (kN/mm) Py (kN) δy Pu δu 0.9Pu() : 0.9Pu_cal δ0.9Pu () : δ0.9Pu−cal EAExp (kN) Mu EIExp (kN m2 ) Failure mode
(mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN m)

O49E24_30 446 930 2.09 1277 7.79 1173 (1149) 23.35 (26.86) 425,691 165 8538
O49C36_30 1717 5550 3.23 6888 11.96 6202 34.64 2749,877 – – LB (top)
O49E36_30 1110 3675 3.31 4294 8.98 3866 19.32 1980,320 288 30,184 LB (center)
O49E48_30 594 2445 4.11 3323 12.95 2991 35.37 1810,560 829 89,265 LB (center)
O49E60_30 531 3720 7.00 4590 15.42 4182 (4131) 43.11 (46.57) 1572,947 1457 187,629 LB (bottom)
O49E24_60 338 1245 3.68 1438 7.14 1294 18.60 394,256 179 7770
O49E36_60 421 2175 5.17 2537 12.59 2285 26.62 847,487 477 35,175 LB (center)
O49E48_60 575 3045 5.30 3895 14.12 3506 29.65 1056,434 972 81,539 LB (center)
O57C30_30 3558 6750 1.90 9823 7.42 – – 3323,093 – – (ML)
O57E30_30 649 2625 4.05 3683 18.50 3507 (3315) 37.86 (58.94) 903,482 596 28,069 LB (top)
O57E48_30 714 4725 6.62 5135 9.03 1133,178 1264 138,849 WF
LB: Local buckling of steel tube, WF: failure of welded part, ML: Machine capacity (stopped at 9800 kN).

the displacement of the knife edge is omitted. dLv 1 and dLv 2 are the
distances between LVDT and the loading point, respectively.
dLv 1 (Lv2 − Lv1 )
δ= + Lv 1 .
dLv 1 + dLv 2
The initial stiffness (K ) of specimens is an inclination from 0 to
Pu/3 as Fig. 9. The yield load (Py) is the point of intersection be-
tween the tangent line and the inclination of K /3 and the line
of initial stiffness (K ). The 0.9PuCal and δ0.9Pu_cal of the specimens
(O49E24_30, O49E60_30, O57E30_30) in which the experimen-
tal test was stopped before 0.9Pu after Pu were calculated from
the extension line to be connected from Pu to the last load point.
Then, 0.9PuCal and δ0.9Pu_cal are expressed in the parentheses in Ta-
ble 6. The load displacement (P–δ) in relation to each specimen
is illustrated in Fig. 10 along with the results of the fiber element
(6) analysis. In Fig. 10, the difference between the experimental curve
(solid line) and that predicted (dashed line) curve is caused from
the concrete models. Though the compared models do not corre-
spond exactly with experimental results, the comparison give a
trend on the confinement effect of concrete on specimens.
3.4.2. Moment–curvature (M–Φ ) relation
In the moment–curvature (M–Φ ) relation of specimens, the
moment (M ) is calculated by the multiplication of load (P ) and the
6 S.-H. Lee et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 1–13

(a) Setting plan. (b) Completed situation.

Fig. 7. Test setting.

eccentric distance (e + (Lv 3 − Lv 4)/2) in Eq. (7), where (Lv 3 −

Lv 4)/2 is the eccentric distance for the second order moment. The
curvature (Φ ) is calculated from Eq. (8) using the strains of ε 1 and
ε3 . The moment–curvature (M–Φ ) relation of each specimen is
presented in Fig. 11 with the flexural rigidity (EICal = Es × Is + Ec ×
Ic ) of the section and results of fiber element analysis. The initial
flexural rigidity (EIExp ) of specimens is an inclination between 0
and Mu/3.

Lv 3 − Lv 4
 
M =P× e+ (7)
2 Fig. 8. Calculation of displacement (δ).
ε3 − ε1
φ= . (8)
D

3.4.3. Failure behavior

The CFST column appeared to have local buckling in an outer
direction because of the filled concrete. In the experimental test,
O49C36_30 under central loading showed local buckling at the
upper part of the steel tube as shown in Fig. 12(a). O49E36_30,
O49E48_30, O49E36_60, and O49E48_60 under eccentric loading
showed local buckling at the middle compression part of the steel
tube as shown in Fig. 12(b) and (c). O49E60_30 and O57E30_30
showed local buckling at the lower and the upper compression part
of the steel tube, respectively. Also, in O49E24_30 and O49E24_60,
local buckling did not show until 0.9Pu after Pu. Meanwhile,
O57C30_30 could not be tested until after Pu because the machine
capacity was 10,000 kN, so O57C30_30 was tested up to 9823 kN.
Also, O57E48_30 showed a tear in the welded part between the
steel tube and the end plate as shown in Fig. 12(d), so the failure
behavior could not be surveyed.
4. Analysis and comment
4.1. Ultimate resistance and stiffness according to diameter–thickness
(D/t )
The ultimate resistance (Pu) of each specimen is presented
in Table 7 and Fig. 13 with the results (PuUcc , PuCc ) of the fiber
element analysis, where PuUcc is the ultimate resistance using the
unconfined concrete model, and PuCc is the ultimate resistance
Fig. 9. Decision of stiffness and resistance.
using confined concrete. In Fig. 13(a), a good agreement is shown
in the comparison between Pu and PuUcc of the specimens,
which have the eccentric distances of 0.5D, 0.167D respectively,
and the diameter–thickness ratio of 40–100. In Fig. 13(b), a
good agreement is shown in the comparison between Pu and
PuCc of the specimens (O49C36_30, O57C30_30) under central
loading. Also, the ultimate resistance (Pu) of O57E30_30 with a
diameter–thickness (D/t ) of 25 shows the increment of 28% in
comparison with PuUcc and the reduction of 18% in comparison
with PuCc . Accordingly, it is considered that for CFST columns
with a range of diameter–thickness ratios (D/t ) of 40–100, we
cannot expect a resistance increment by confinement effect under
eccentric distances of 0.5D and 0.167D, and that for a CFST column
with a diameter–thickness ratio (D/t ) of 25 we can expect the
partial confinement effect (about 28%).
 S.-H. Lee et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 1–13 7

(a) O49E24_30. (b) O49C36_30.

(c) O49E48_30. (d) O49E60_30.

(e) O49E48_60. (f) O57E48_30.

Fig. 10. Load–displacement relations.

Table 7
Ultimate resistance.
Specimens D/t E Pu (kN) PuUcc (kN) PuCc (kN) Pu/PuUcc Pu/PuCc

O49E24_30 40 0.5D 1277 1336 2,023 0.96 0.63

O49C36_30 60 – 6888 6231 7,115 1.11 0.97
O49E36_30 60 0.167D 4294 4158 5,898 1.03 0.73
O49E48_30 80 0.5D 3323 3376 4,372 0.98 0.76
O49E60_30 100 0.5D 4590 4879 6,217 0.94 0.74
O49E24_60 40 0.5D 1438 1437 2,454 1.00 0.59
O49E36_60 60 0.5D 2537 2613 3,943 0.97 0.64
O49E48_60 80 0.5D 3895 3982 5,656 0.98 0.69
O57C30_30 25 – 9823 6573 10,026 1.49 0.98
O57E30_30 25 0.5D 3683 2883 4,485 1.28 0.82
O57E48_30 40 0.5D 5135 5203 7,479 0.99 0.69

The stiffness (K ) of each specimen is presented in Table 8 and
Fig. 14 with the result (KUcc , KCc ) of the fiber element analysis,
where KUcc is the stiffness using the unconfined concrete model,
and KCc is the stiffness using confined concrete. In Table 8, the stiff-
nesses (KExp ) of O49C36_30 and O57C30_30, which are specimens
in central loading, show 0.89 and 0.82 respectively, compared with
KUcc . In Fig. 14, the dotted line is the trend line in the experiment
results of specimens with the eccentric distance of 0.5D. The trend
line shows that the stiffness of circular CFST columns with an ec-
centric distance of 0.5D decreases in KExp /KUcc = −0.00441(D/t )
+ 1.12471 when the diameter–thickness (D/t ) increases.
4.2. Buckling strength of circular CFST column
Bradford [30] suggested the section slenderness (λe) and non-
dimensional strength ratio (fu /fy ) relation as Eqs. (9) and (10)
8 S.-H. Lee et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 1–13

(a) O49E24_30. (b) O49E36_30.

(c) O49E48_30. (d) O49E60_30.

(e) O49E24_60. (f) O49E36_60.

(g) O49E48_60. (h) O57E30_30.

Fig. 11. Moment–curvature (M–Φ ) relation.

using the Rayleigh–Ritz method for the purpose of estimation of with the section slenderness (λe) and non-dimensional strength
a circular CFST column under central loading. Also, Bradford [30] ratio (fu /fy ) relation by Bradford [30]. In Fig. 15, the section
assumed that if the section slenderness (λe) is from 0 to 125, the slenderness (λe) of specimens (O49C36_30, O57C30_30) is 49 and
non-dimensional strength ratio (fu /fy ) is 1, and that if λe is larger 119, respectively. Also, the reduction of buckling strength is not
than 125, then fu /fy is decreased in Eq. (10). shown.
In this study, to estimate the buckling strength of specimens
under central loading, the ultimate strength (fu ) of specimens
  
d fy
was calculated using Eq. (11). Fig. 15 shows the comparison λe = (9)
t 250
 S.-H. Lee et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 1–13 9

(i) O57E48_30.

Fig. 11. (continued)

(a) Local buckling (the upper part of steel tube). (b) Local buckling (the middle part of steel tube).

(c) Local buckling (the lower part of steel tube). (d) Failure of welded part (O57E48_30).

Fig. 12. Failure behavior.

Table 8
Stiffness (K ).
Specimens D/t E KExp (kN/mm) KUcc (kN/mm) KCc (kN/mm) KExp /KUcc KExp /KCc

O49E24_30 40 0.5D 446 351 337 1.27 1.32

O49C36_30 60 – 1717 2176 1937 0.79 0.89
O49E36_30 60 0.167D 1110 1625 1432 0.68 0.78
O49E48_30 80 0.5D 594 659 597 0.90 1.00
O49E60_30 100 0.5D 531 799 714 0.66 0.74
O49E24_60 40 0.5D 338 395 375 0.85 0.90
O49E36_60 60 0.5D 421 587 546 0.72 0.77
O49E48_60 80 0.5D 575 769 714 0.75 0.81
O57C30_30 25 – 3558 4213 4355 0.84 0.82
O57E30_30 25 0.5D 649 634 649 1.02 1.00
O57E48_30 40 0.5D 714 924 885 0.77 0.81

fu λey 4.3. Ultimate moment according to diameter–thickness (D/t )

= (10)
fy λe
The ultimate moment (Mu) of each specimen is presented in
λey = 125 Table 9 and Fig. 16 with the results (MuUcc , MuCc ) of the fiber el-
ement analysis, where MuUcc is the ultimate moment using the
Pu − 0.85Ac fck unconfined concrete model, and MuCc is the ultimate moment us-
fu = . (11)
As ing confined concrete. In Fig. 16(a), a good agreement is shown in
10 S.-H. Lee et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 1–13

(a) Pu/PuUcc . (b) Pu/PuCc .

Fig. 13. Ultimate resistance as D/t.

Table 9
Ultimate moment.
Specimens D/t E Mu (kN m) MuUcc (kN m) MuCc (kN m) Mu/MuUcc Mu/MuCc

O49E24_30 40 0.5D 165 152 192 1.09 0.86

O49C36_30 60 – – – – – –
O49E36_30 60 0.167D 288 235 268 1.23 1.07
O49E48_30 80 0.5D 829 788 921 1.05 0.90
O49E60_30 100 0.5D 1457 1427 1669 1.02 0.87
O49E24_60 40 0.5D 179 166 226 1.08 0.79
O49E36_60 60 0.5D 477 459 593 1.04 0.80
O49E48_60 80 0.5D 972 936 1161 1.04 0.84
O57C30_30 25 – – – – – –
O57E30_30 25 0.5D 596 403 556 1.48 1.07
O57E48_30 40 0.5D 1264 1209 1574 1.04 0.80

Table 10
Ductility.
Specimens D/t E 1y δu δ0.9Pu δ u/δ y δ0.9Pu /δ y
O49E24_30 40 0.5D 2.09 7.79 26.86 3.74 12.87
O49C36_30 60 – 3.23 11.96 34.73 3.70 10.75
O49E36_30 60 0.167D 3.31 8.98 19.36 2.71 5.85
O49E48_30 80 0.5D 4.11 12.95 35.38 3.15 8.60
O49E60_30 100 0.5D 7.00 15.42 46.57 2.20 6.65
O49E24_60 40 0.5D 3.68 7.14 18.61 1.94 5.05
O49E36_60 60 0.5D 5.17 12.59 26.71 2.43 5.16
O49E48_60 80 0.5D 5.30 14.12 29.67 2.67 5.60
O57C30_30 25 – 1.90 7.42 – 3.91 –
O57E30_30 25 0.5D 4.05 18.50 58.94 4.57 14.56
O57E48_30 40 0.5D 6.62 9.03 – 1.36 –
Fig. 14. Stiffness according to D/t.

sidered that for CFST columns with a range of diameter–thickness

(D/t ) ratios of 40–100, we cannot expect a moment resistance in-
crement by the confinement effect in the eccentric distance of 0.5D
and that for a CFST column with diameter–thickness (D/t ) of 25 we
can expect a moment resistance increment by the confinement ef-
fect.

4.4. Ductility according to concrete strength

Table 10 shows the displacement (δ y) at yield load, the

Fig. 15. Buckling strength of circular CFST columns.
the comparison between Mu and MuUcc of the specimens, which
have an eccentric distance of 0.5D and diameter–thickness ratio
of 40–100. In Fig. 16(b), The ultimate moment (Mu) of O57E30_30
with a diameter–thickness (D/t ) of 25 shows good agreement with
MuCc . Additionally, the ultimate moment (Mu) of O49E36_30 with
a diameter–thickness (D/t ) of 60 under an eccentric loading of
0.167D shows the increment of 23% in comparison with MuUcc and
an increment of 7% in comparison with MuCc . Accordingly, it is con-
displacement (δ u) at ultimate load, and the displacement (δ0.9Pu )
at 0.9Pu after ultimate load. The ratios of δ u/δ y and δ0.9Pu /δ y
are presented in Table 10 and Fig. 17 to estimate the ductility
ratio. Fig. 17(a) shows that δ u/δ y of specimens using concrete of
fck = 30 MPa decreases in δ u/δ y = −0.02783(D/t ) + 5.11852
and that δ u/δ y of specimens using concrete of fck = 60 MPa
increases in δ u/δ y = −0.01814(D/t ) + 1.25786. Also, Fig. 17(b)
shows that δ0.9Pu /δ y of specimens using concrete of fck = 30 MPa
decreases as δ0.9Pu /δ y = −0.10571(D/t ) + 17.14671 and that
δ0.9Pu /δ y of specimens using concrete of fck = 60 MPa increases as
δ0.9Pu /δ y = 0.01366(D/t ) + 4.45243. Therefore, it is considered
that the ductility of circular CFST columns using lower strength
(30 MPa) concrete is higher than the ductility using higher strength
(60 MPa) concrete up to the diameter–thickness ratio of 80.
 S.-H. Lee et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 1–13 11

(a) Mu/MuUcc . (b) Mu/MuCc .

Fig. 16. Ultimate moment according to D/t.

(a) δ u/δ y. (b) δ0.9Pu /δ y.

Fig. 17. Ductility according to D/t.

4.5. Comparison of experiment and analysis results with Code Table 11

AISC [16], Eurocode 4 [18], and KBCS [17] Limitation of diameter–thickness ratio (D/t ) of code as steel yield strength (Fy ).

Fy (MPa) AISC [16] Eurocode 4 [18] KBCS [17]

The AISC [16], Eurocode 4 [18], KBCS [17] etc. codes regulate the E D/t D/t E D/t
application range on circular CFST columns as shown in Table 1. 235 134 90 128
AISC [16] deregulated from 4% to 1% for the steel area ratio, and 325 210 GPa 97 65 200 GPa 92
from 55 to 70 MPa p for concrete strength (fck ) and AISC-1999 440 72 48 68
deregulated from 8E /Fy to 0.15E /Fy for the diameter–thickness
(D/t ) ratio. The purpose of this was to allow the usage of a Table 12
thin-walled CFST column and high-strength materials (steel and The distinctions of codes in the test results.
concrete). In addition, KBCS [17] deregulated the steel area ratio, Specimens Eu AISC [16] KBCS [17]
concrete strength (fck ) and diameter–thickness (D/t ) ratio to the
O49E24_30 N.G O.K N.G
same level. O49C36_30 N.G O.K N.G
Eurocode 4 [18] regulated 2%–9% for the steel area ratio, 50 MPa O49E36_30 N.G O.K N.G
for the concrete strength (fck ) and 90 (235/Fy ) for the diame- O49E48_30 N.G O.K O.K
O49E60_30 N.G O.K O.K
ter–thickness ratio. Therefore, Eurocode 4 [18] is more conserva-
O49E24_60 N.G N.G N.G
tive than AISC [16] and KBCS [17]. However, it is expected that O49E36_60 N.G N.G N.G
Eurocode 4 [18] will be deregulated. Table 11 shows the limitation O49E48_60 N.G O.K O.K
of the diameter–thickness ratio of AISC [16], Eurocode 4 [18], and O57C30_30 O.K O.K O.K
KBCS [17] for the steel yield strength (Fy ). O57E30_30 O.K O.K O.K
O57E48_30 N.G O.K N.G
In AISC-1999, the method for substituting the concrete area
for the steel area was used in the load–moment relation and the
result was remarkably conservative. AISC [16] allowed the plastic the experimental results and fiber element results for specimens
stress distribution method that is similar to Eurocode 4 [18] and are presented with the codes in Fig. 18, where ‘‘Unconfined Con-
the strain-compatibility method. In this study, for the comparison crete’’ is the load–moment relation using the unconfined concrete
of test results and each code, a load and resistance factor or partial model, and ‘‘Confined Concrete’’ is the load–moment relation us-
safety factors were not considered. KBCS [17] is similar to AISC [16] ing confined concrete, respectively. Also, the distinctions of codes
if it is accepted that KBCS [17] considers a higher compressive in the test results are represented in Table 12.
strength (Po ), which is nominal axial compressive strength without AISC [16] was calculated by the plastic stress distribution.
consideration of length effects, by confinement than AISC [16] in O49C36_30 and O57E30_30, in which the diameter–thickness
the circular CFST column. Therefore, the AISC [16], KBCS [17] and ratio of each code is concluded under central loading, showing
Eurocode [18] codes were similar in the load–moment relation but the strength increment by the confinement effect. However,
AISC [16] is still more conservative than Eurocode 4 [18]. specimens which have diameter–thickness ratios from 40 to 100
In this study, to analyze the suitability of AISC [16], Eu- under an eccentric loading of 0.167D or 0.5D, showed good
rocode [18], and KBCS [17] for circular CFST column specimens, agreement with ‘‘Unconfined Concrete’’. It is considered that the
12 S.-H. Lee et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 1–13
(a) O49E24_30 (D/t = 40).
(d) O49E48_30 (D/t = 80).
(h) O49E48_60 (D/t = 80).
Fig. 18. Load–moment relations.
second order effect, which is considered for the total length effect,
is minor. Accordingly, it is considered that AISC [16] and KBCS [17]
show good agreement for the circular CFST column under eccentric
loading, but that Eurocode 4 [18] overestimates for the circular
CFST column under eccentric loading.
5. Conclusion
In this study, for the purpose of evaluation of circular CFST
columns using high strength steel or concrete, an experiment
test on 11 specimens was conducted. The parameters were high
strength steel (more than Fy = 450 MPa), normal (31.5 MPa)
concrete and high strength (59 MPa) concrete, diameter–thickness
ratio (D/t = 25, 40, 60, 80, 100) and eccentric distance (e = 0D,
0.167D, 0.5D). For estimation of the behavior of specimens,
resistance, stiffness and ductility, a fiber element analysis using
an unconfined concrete model [26] and confined concrete
model [23] was conducted. The results obtained through the
comparison of experimental results and the analysis results with
the codes [16,18,17] are as follows.
It is considered that a circular CFST column with a range of
diameter–thickness (D/t ) ratios of 40–100 cannot be expected
(c) O49E36_30 (D/t = 60).
(e) O49E60_30 (D/t = 100).
(k) O57E48_30 (D/t = 40).
to show a resistance and moment increment by the confinement
effect for eccentric distances of 0.5D, 0.167D. Also, it is considered
that a circular CFST column with a diameter–thickness (D/t ) of
25 can be expected to show the partial confinement effect (about
28%). The trend line on the experiment results of specimens
with the eccentric distance of 0.5D shows that the stiffness, axial
stiffness, and flexural rigidity of a circular CFST column with an
eccentric distance of 0.5D decreases according to the increment
of diameter–thickness (D/t ). The ductility of the circular CFST
columns using lower strength (30 MPa) concrete is higher than the
ductility of circular CFST columns using higher strength (60 MPa)
concrete up to a diameter–thickness ratio of 80. The load–moment
relation of specimens with the diameter–thickness ratio from 40
to 100 under eccentric loading of 0.167D or 0.5D showed good
agreement with ‘‘Unconfined Concrete’’.
It is considered that AISC [16] and KBCS [17] show good
agreement for the circular CFST column under eccentric loading,
but that Eurocode 4 [18] overestimates for the circular CFST
column under eccentric loading. Hereafter, to deregulate the code
for circular CFST columns, sufficient research is required on circular
CFST columns with large diameter–thickness ratios using high-
strength materials.
 S.-H. Lee et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 1–13
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Korea Research Foundation
Grant funded by the Korean Government (KRF-2008-357-D00283).
This work was supported by the Korea Science and Engineering
Foundation (KOSEF) Grant funded by the Korea government
(MOST) (No. 2009 06182004).
References
[1] Furlong RW. Strength of steel encased concrete beam–columns. ASCE Journal
1967;93:113–24.
[2] Knowles RB, Park R. Strength of concrete filled steel tubular columns. ASCE
Journal 1969;95:2565–87.
[3] Tomii M, Sakino K. Experimental studies on the ultimate moment of concrete
filled square steel tubular beam–column. Transactions of the Architectural
Institute of Japan 1977;275:55–63.
[4] Hajjar JeromeF, Gourley BrettC. Representation of concrete–filled steel the
cross-section strength. ASCE Journal 1996;122:1327–36.
[5] Uy Brian. Strength of concrete filled steel box columns incorporating local
buckling. Journal of Structural Engineering 2000;126:341–52.
[6] Uy Brian. Local and postlocal buckling of fabricated steel and composite cross
sections. Journal of Structural Engineering 2001;127:666–77.
[7] Liang QQ, Uy B. Theoretical study on the post-local buckling of steel plates in
concrete filled box columns. Computer & Structures 2000;75:479–500.
[8] Zhong Shan-Tong, Cheng Hong-Tao, Zhang Sui-Mei. The continuity of
behaviors for circular, square and octagonal forms for concrete filled steel
tube, CFST, members under axial compression. International Journal of Steel
Structures 2002;2:81–5.
[9] Tao Zhong, Han Lin-Hai, Wang Zhi-Bin. Experimental behaviour of stiffened
concrete–filled thin-walled hollow steel structural, HSS, stub columns. Journal
of Constructional Steel Research 2005;61:962–83.
[10] O’Shea MartinD, Bridge RussellQ. Design of circular thin-walled concrete filled
steel tubes. Journal of Structural Engineering 2000;126:1295–303.
[11] Elremaily Ahmed, Azizinamini Atorody. Behavior and strength of circular
concrete–filled tube columns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2002;
58:1567–91.
[12] Giakoumelis Georgios, Lam Dennis. Axial capacity of circular concrete–filled
tube columns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2004;60:1049–68.
[13] Liang QingQuan, Fragomeni Sam. Nonlinear analysis of circular concrete–filled
steel tubular short columns under axial loading. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 2009;65:2186–96.
13
[14] Liang QingQuan, Fragomeni Sam. Nonlinear analysis of circular concrete–filled
steel tubular short columns under eccentric loading. Journal of Constructional
Steel Research 2009.
[15] Chung Kyungsoo. Prediction of pre- and post- peak behavior of concrete–filled
circular steel tube columns under loads using fiber element method. Thin-
Walled Structures 2009.
[16] ANSI/AISC 360-05. Load and resistance factor design specification for steel
buildings. American Institution of Steel Construction; 2005.
[17] AIK. Korean Building Code for Structures. Korea; 2009.
[18] Eurocode 4. Design of composite steel and concrete structures. Part 1.1 general
rules and rules for buildings. 1994.
[19] Sakino K, Nakahara H, Morino S, Nishiyama A. Behavior of centrally loaded
concrete–filled steel-tube short columns. Journal of Structural Engineering
2004;130:180–8.
[20] Zeghiche J, Chaoui K. An experimental behavior of concrete–filled steel tubular
columns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2005;61:55–63.
[21] Yu Z, Ding F, Cai CS. Experimental behavior of concrete–filled steel tubualr
columns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2007;63:165–74.
[22] Beck AndreT, de Oliveira WalterLA, De Nardim Silvana, ElDebs AnaLHC.
Reliability-based evaluation of design code provisions for circular con-
crete–filled steel columns. Engineering Structures 2009;31:2299–308.
[23] Hu Hsuan-Teh, Huang Chiung-Shiann, Wu Ming-Hsien, Wu Wih-Min.
Nonlinear analysis of axially loaded concrete–filled tube columns with
confinement effect. Journal of Structural Engineering 2003;129:1322–9.
[24] Montoya Esneyder, Vecchio FrankJ, Sheikh ShamimA. Compression field
modeling of confined concrete: constitutive models. Journal of Materials in
Civil Engineering 2006;18:510–7.
[25] Ellobody Ehab, Young Ben, Lam Dennis. Behaviour of normal and high
strength concrete–filled compact steel tube circular stub columns. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 2006;62:706–15.
[26] Carreira D, Chu K. Stress–strain relationship for plain concrete in compression.
Journal of ACI Structural 1985;85:797–804.
[27] ACI. Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary. ACI
318–99. Detroit (USA): American Concrete Institute; 1999.
[28] Saenz LP. Discussion of ‘equation for the stress–strain curve of concrete’ by
P. Desayi and S. Krishnan. Journal of the American Concrete Institute 1964;61:
1229–35.
[29] Han Lin-Hai, Zhao Xiao-Ling, Tao Zhong. Tests and mechanics model for
concrete–filled SHS stub columns, columns and beam–columns. Steel and
Composite Structures 2001;1:51–74.
[30] Bradford MA, Loh HY, Uy B. Slenderness limits for filled circular steel tubes.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2002;58:243–52.