ARTICLE IN PRESS

Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 11131128

www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Strength and ductility of stiffened thin-walled hollow steel structural

stub columns lled with concrete
Zhong Taoa,, Lin-Hai Hanb,c, Dong-Ye Wanga
a
College of Civil Engineering, Fuzhou University, Qi Shan Campus, 2 Xue Yuan Road, University Town, Fuzhou,
Fujian Province 350108, Peoples Republic of China
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, Peoples Republic of China
c
Key Laboratory of Structural Engineering and Vibration of China Education Ministry, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, Peoples Republic of China

Received 27 December 2006; received in revised form 13 January 2008; accepted 24 January 2008
Available online 10 March 2008

Abstract

It is generally expected that inner-welded longitudinal stiffeners can be used to improve the structural performance of thin-walled
hollow steel structural stub columns lled with concrete. Thirty-six specimens, including 30 stiffened stub columns and six unstiffened
ones, were tested to investigate the improvement of ductile behaviour of such stiffened composite stub columns with various methods.
The involved methods include increasing stiffener height, increasing stiffener number on each tube face, using saw-shaped stiffeners,
welding binding or anchor bars on stiffeners, and adding steel bres to concrete. It has been found that adding steel bres to concrete
is the most effective method in enhancing the ductility capacity, while the construction cost and difculty will not be increased
signicantly.
r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Concrete-lled steel tube (CFST); Ductility; Thin-walled; Stub columns; Axial compression; Stiffeners; Steel bre reinforced concrete (SFRC);
Binding bars; Anchor bars; Local buckling

1. Introduction
Concrete-lled steel tubular (CFST) columns have been
increasingly used in many modern structures, such as
dwelling houses, tall buildings, and arch bridges [13]. This
is due to the fact that the CFST columns have high
strength, high stiffness, and high ductility for full usage of
construction materials, that is, the steel tube can conne
the inlled concrete, and the concrete core can also restrain
local buckling of the tube.
In recent years, with the development of high strength/
performance steel, thin-walled steel tubes are becoming
more and more attractive to be used in engineering practice
provided local buckling is properly dealt with in a column
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 591 22865356;
fax: +86 591 22865355.
E-mail address: taozhong@fzu.edu.cn (Z. Tao).
design [3]. To cater for this requirement, lling the tubes
with concrete is a good choice.
In the past, many studies have shown that the
performance of a concrete-lled square or rectangular
hollow steel section is not as good as its circular counter-
part, and local buckling is more likely to occur for a square
or rectangular tube [48]. However, square and rectangular
CFST columns are still increasingly used in engineering
practice, for reasons of easy beam-to-column connection,
high moment capacities, and aesthetic consideration.
In order to improve the performance of the square or
rectangular thin-walled CFST columns, it is necessary to
take adequate stiffening measures [811]. One of the most
effective measures is to weld longitudinal stiffeners on the
inner or outer surfaces of the steel tubes. The effectiveness
of the stiffeners in delaying local buckling of the steel tubes
has been demonstrated by stub column tests presented in
[8,1113].

0263-8231/$ - see front matter r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tws.2008.01.007
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1114 Z. Tao et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 11131128

Nomenclature fy,t yield strength of steel tube

hs height of the steel stiffener
Ac cross-sectional area of concrete L length of column
As,s cross-sectional area of steel stiffeners N axial load
As,t cross-sectional area of steel tube Nue experimental ultimate strength
B overall width of square steel tube SI strength index
DI ductility index t wall thickness of steel tube
fc characteristic compressive concrete strength ts thickness of steel stiffener
0:4f 7=6
cu e strain
fcu characteristic cube strength of concrete o0 maximum initial imperfection
fy,s yield strength of steel stiffener

Tao et al. [8] conducted tests on 15 stiffened specimens,
where height-to-thickness ratio (D/t) of the tubes and the
stiffener rigidity were selected as the primary parameters.
At the same time, two empty tubes and two unstiffened
CFST stub columns were also tested for comparison. The
test results showed that the longitudinal stiffeners cannot
only delay the local buckling of the tubes, but also improve
the lateral connement on the concrete core. However,
since thin-walled tubes were used, the load versus axial
strain curves tended to drop quickly after peak loads had
been achieved. No obvious ductility improvement was
observed with the increment of stiffener rigidity.

Table 1
Specimen labels and section capacities

No. Specimen label B (mm) hs (mm) fy (MPa) fcu (MPa) Nue (kN) SI DI Remarks

1 UNC25a 250 342 67 4080 0.998 1.628 Unstiffened

2 UNC25b 250 342 67 4040 0.988 1.748
3 UNC19a 190 342 67 2480 0.996 1.677
4 UNC19b 190 342 67 2430 0.976 1.746
5 UNC25c 250 270 58.3 3495 1.021 1.665
6 UNC19c 190 270 58.3 2140 1.030 2.013
7 SSNC25-1a 250 35 342 67 4210 1.005 1.708 Single stiffener
8 SSNC25-2a 250 45 342 67 4525 1.073 1.625
9 SSNC25-3a 250 60 342 67 4732 1.110 1.584
10 SSNC25-1b 250 35 270 58.3 3550 1.013 1.637
11 SSNC25-2b 250 45 270 58.3 3850 1.092 1.733
12 SSNC25-3b 250 60 270 58.3 3740 1.051 2.040
13 SSNC19-1a 190 25 342 67 2620 1.023 1.854
14 SSNC19-2a 190 35 342 67 2730 1.054 1.834
15 SSNC19-3a 190 45 342 67 2860 1.092 1.922
16 SSNC19-1b 190 25 270 58.3 2270 1.064 2.192
17 SSNC19-2b 190 35 270 58.3 2245 1.041 2.710
18 SSNC19-3b 190 45 270 58.3 2280 1.046 2.063
19 DSNC25-1 250 35 342 67 4540 1.058 2.110 Double stiffeners
20 DSNC25-2 250 45 342 67 4630 1.065 1.867
21 DSNC25-3 250 60 342 67 4780 1.078 1.661
22 DSNC19-1 190 25 342 67 2900 1.101 2.048
23 DSNC19-2 190 35 342 67 2910 1.081 1.966
24 DSNC19-3 190 45 342 67 2940 1.069 2.003
25 SSNC25-S 250  270 58.3 3570 1.019 2.458 Single saw-shaped stiffener
26 SSNC19-S 190  270 58.3 2270 1.064 2.480
27 SSNC25-BB-150 250 35 270 58.3 3875 1.082 1.735 Single stiffener with binding bars
28 SSNC25-BB-100 250 35 270 58.3 3900 1.089 2.310
29 SSNC19-BB-100 190 25 270 58.3 2390 1.091 2.782
30 SSNC25-AB-100 250 35 270 58.3 3840 1.072 2.048 Single stiffener with anchor bars
31 SSNC19-AB-100 190 25 270 58.3 2365 1.080 2.340
32 SSFRC25a 250 35 342 69 4465 1.014 2.873 Steel bre reinforced concrete
33 SSFRC19a 190 25 342 69 2710 1.005 3.550
34 SSFRC25b 250 35 270 59.2 3630 1.000 2.744
35 SSFRC19b 190 25 270 59.2 2230 1.005 3.094
36 DSFRC19 190 25 342 69 2940 1.090 3.321
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Z. Tao et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 11131128 1115

Since ductility is always a big concern for structures in
regions of high seismicity, it seems more attention should
be directed to the problem of poor ductility of the thin-
walled CFST columns. This paper aims to study the
improvement of ductile behaviour of such stiffened
composite stub columns with various methods, including
increasing stiffener height, increasing stiffener number on
each tube face, using saw-shaped stiffeners, welding
binding or anchor bars on stiffeners, and adding steel
bres to core concrete. Based on the experimental results,
the effects of different measures on strength and ductility
are compared and discussed.
2. Experimental program
2.1. General
Thirty-six square CFST specimens, including 30 stif-
fened stub columns and six unstiffened ones, were tested to
failure under axial compression, where specimen details are

ts ts ts ts

hs t hs hs
t t hs t t

Binding bar Anchor bar

B B B B B

Fig. 1. Test specimens: (a) unstiffened specimens; (b) stiffened specimens with one stiffener on each face; (c) stiffened specimens with two stiffeners on each
face; (d) stiffened specimens with binding bars; and (e) stiffened specimens with anchor bars.

63 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 63 63 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 63

60 30 20
30 45 25
Edge for welding Edge for welding
726 546

Fig. 2. A schematic view of the saw-shaped stiffeners. (a) Stiffener used in specimen SSNC25-S and (b) Stiffener used in specimen SSNC19-5.

Table 2
Material properties of steel

Type Thickness or Elastic Yield strength Yield Poissons Ultimate Elongation

diameter (mm) modulus (GPa) (MPa) strain (%) ratio strength (MPa) percentage (%)

Steel plate I 2.5 203 270 0.136 0.303 346 30.6

Steel plate II 2.5 207 342 0.166 0.294 426 23.2
Steel bar 8 198 428 0.216 0.281 542 12.5

Table 3
Mix proportions and properties of concrete

Type Cement Water Sand Coarse aggregate Steel bres Cube strength, Modulus of elasticity,
(kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) fcu (MPa) Ec (MPa)

Normal 523 220 581 1077  58.3 35 900

concrete 527 201 589 1086  67.0 37 300
Steel bre 540 227 536 1049 158 59.2 36 400
reinforced 545 208 541 1058 158 69.0 37 700
concrete
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1116 Z. Tao et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 11131128

provided in Table 1. The overall width-to-thickness ratios
(B/t) of the tubes were chosen as 76 and 100, which are
the same as those of the specimens presented in [8].
Inner-welded stiffeners were provided with an aim to
compensate the local buckling effects of the thin-walled
tubes under axial compression. All stiffeners were designed
to have adequate rigidity based on requirement presented
in [8].
In order to improve the ductility of stiffened thin-walled
specimens, ve measures were involved: increasing stiffener
height (hs), increasing stiffener number on each tube face,
using saw-shaped stiffeners, welding binding or anchor

4 4

Imperfection

Imperfection
Dist e (mm

Dist e (mm
0 2 0 2
tub

tub
ance )

ance )
(mm)

(mm)
100 0 100 0
-2 -2
acro

acro
200 200
-4 -4
ss

ss
600 400 200 0 600 400 200 0
Distance along tube (mm) Distance along tube (mm)

4 4
Imperfection

Imperfection
Dist e (mm

Dist e (mm

0 2 0 2
tub

tub
ance )

ance )
(mm)

(mm)
100 0 100 0
-2 -2
acro

acro

200 200
-4 -4
ss

ss

600 400 200 0 600 400 200 0

Distance along tube (mm) Distance along tube (mm)

(1) Specimen UNC25a

4 4
Imperfection

Imperfection
Dist e (mm

Dist e (mm

0 2 0 2
tub

tub
ance )

ance )
(mm)

(mm)

100 0 100 0
-2 -2
acro

acro

200 200
-4 -4
ss

ss

600 400 200 0 600 400 200 0

Distance along tube (mm) Distance along tube (mm)

4 4
Imperfection

Imperfection
Dist e (mm

Dist e (mm

0 2 0 2
tub

tub
ance )

ance )
(mm)

(mm)

100 0 100 0
-2 -2
acro

acro

200 200
-4 -4
ss

ss

600 400 200 0 600 400 200 0

Distance along tube (mm) Distance along tube (mm)
(2) Specimen DSNC25-3

Fig. 3. Measured initial imperfection distributions. (a) Face 1, (b) face 2, (c) face 3 and (d) face 4.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Z. Tao et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 11131128 1117

bars on stiffeners, and adding steel bres to the core
concrete. Different specimen designations are used to
distinguish these stiffening measures as shown in Table 1,
where the letters UNC denote unstiffened specimens
[Fig. 1(a)]; SSNC denotes stiffened specimens with only
one stiffener welded on each tube face [Fig. 1(b)]; DSNC
denotes stiffened specimens with two stiffeners welded on
each tube face [Fig. 1(c)]; SSNC25-S and SSNC19-S
represent stiffened specimens with a saw-shaped stiffener
(shown in Fig. 2) welded on each tube face; BB denotes
stiffened specimens with stiffeners tied by binding bars
[Fig. 1(d)]; AB denotes stiffened specimens with stiffeners
anchored in concrete [Fig. 1(e)]; SSFRC and DSFRC
denote stiffened specimens with one and two stiffeners
welded on each tube face, respectively, and steel bre
reinforced concrete (SFRC) was used to ll the tubes. In
Table 1, the numbers of 25 and 19 in specimen labels
represent specimens with a nominal section width of 250
and 190 mm, respectively, and the sufx numbers of 150
and 100 represent that the vertical spacings between
binding bars or anchor bars are 150 and 100 mm,
respectively. The length of the CFST stub columns
(L) was chosen as three times the width of the square
section (B).
2.2. Material properties
Mild steel sheets with a measured thickness of 2.5 mm
were used in the construction of the tubes and stiffeners.
All these specimens were fabricated in two different
batches, and two kinds of mild steel sheets were used in
the fabrication. Tension tests on three coupons in each
series were conducted. The measured properties of the steel
obtained from these tests are given in Table 2.
Binding bars or anchor bars were fabricated using 8 mm
plain steel bars. The anchorage length for the anchor bars
was taken as 65 mm. The tensile properties of the steel bars
from tests are given in Table 2.

Fig. 4. Typical failure appearances of test specimens. (a) UNC25a, (b) SSNC25-2a, (c) DSNC25-2 and (d) SSFRC25a.

Fig 5. (a) Typical failure mode of the concrete and (b) typical failure modes of the stiffeners.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1118 Z. Tao et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 11131128

Four different concrete mixes were used in the test
program. They had a water/cement ratio of 0.38 and 0.42,
respectively, made with ordinary Portland cement. The
maximum size of coarse aggregate is 15 mm. Hooked-end
steel bres, which have an average length of 30 mm,
nominal diameter of 0.5 mm, and aspect ratio of 60, were
used to reinforce a concrete matrix. The bres with a
volume percentage of 2% corresponding to 158 kg/m3,
were distributed randomly in the concrete in the mixing
phase. To determine the compressive strength of concrete,
three 150 mm cubes were cast for each batch of concrete
and cured in conditions similar to that of the related
specimens. The physical properties of the concrete were
given in Table 3. The concrete cube strengths (fcu) for all
test specimens are shown in Table 1.
2.3. Specimen preparations
To fabricate a specimen, four steel plates were cut. If
stiffening was specied, the stiffeners were welded on the
plates with llet welds. After that, the four plates were tack

5000 4000
SSNC25-1a SSNC25-1b
4000 SSNC25-2a SSNC25-2b
3000
SSNC25-3a SSNC25-3b
3000 UNC25a
UNC25c
N (kN)

N (kN) 2000
2000

1000
1000

0 0
0 5000 10000 15000 0 5000 10000 15000
 (10-6)  (10-6)

3000 2500
SSNC19-1a
2500 SSNC19-2a 2000
SSNC19-3a
2000 UNC19b
1500
N (kN)

N (kN)

1500
1000
1000 SSNC19-1b
SSNC19-2b
500 500
SSNC19-3b
UNC19c
0 0
0 5000 10000 15000 0 5000 10000 15000
 (10-6)  (10-6)

5000 3000
DSNC25-1
4000 DSNC25-2 2500
DSNC25-3
2000
3000 UNC25a
N (kN)

N (kN)

1500
2000
1000 DSNC19-1
DSNC19-2
1000
500 DSNC19-3
UNC19b
0 0
0 5000 10000 15000 0 5000 10000 15000
 (10-6)  (10-6)

Fig. 6. Effect of stiffener height on load versus axial strain curves. (a) B 250 mm, fcu 67 MPa, single stiffener, (b) B 250 mm, fcu 58.3 MPa, single
stiffener, (c) B 190 mm, fcu 67 MPa, single stiffener, (d) B 190 mm, fcu 58.3 MPa, single stiffener, (e) B 250 mm, fcu 67 MPa, double stiffeners
and (f) B 190 mm, fcu 67 MPa, double stiffeners. (d Indicates local buckling occurred).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Z. Tao et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 11131128 1119

welded into a square shape, and then welded with a single
bevel butt weld along the corners to form the tube.
Geometric imperfections were observed in all specimens
after fabricated, which were measured at certain locations
along the centre line of each plate by using a vernier
caliper. The spacing between the measuring points was
selected to be 3550 mm. The absolute values of maximum
imperfection (o0) are 2.8 and 2.1 mm for the specimens
with a sectional width (B) of 250 and 190 mm, respectively.
Most of the o0/B ratios are within the tolerance of 0.01 for
fabricated square tubes specied in the Chinese Standard
GB50018-2002 [14]. Local imperfection distributions for
two typical specimens are shown in Fig. 3, where the
outward imperfections are shown in positive.
In preparing the composite specimens, the concrete
was lled in layers and was vibrated by a poker vibrator.
These specimens were then placed upright to air-dry until
testing. Prior to testing, the top surfaces of the CFST
specimens were ground smooth and at, using a grinding
wheel with diamond cutters. A steel plate with a thickness
of 12 mm was then welded to the top of each of those
specimens.

4800 4800
SSNC25-1a SSNC25-2a
DSNC25-1 DSNC25-2
3600 UNC25a 3600 UNC25a
UNC25b UNC25b
N (kN)

N (kN)
2400 2400

1200 1200

0 0
0 5000 10000 15000 0 5000 10000 15000
 (10-6)  (10-6)

5000 3000
SSNC25-3a
DSNC25-3 2500
3750 UNC25a
UNC25b 2000
N (kN)

N (kN)

2500 1500

1000 SSNC19-1a
1250 DSNC19-1
500 UNC19a
UNC19b
0 0
0 5000 10000 15000 0 5000 10000 15000
 (10-6)  (10-6)

3000 3000
SSNC19-2a
2500 DSNC19-2 2500
UNC19a
2000 UNC19b
2000
N (kN)

N (kN)

1500 1500

1000 1000
SSNC19-3a
DSNC19-3
500 500 UNC19a
UNC19b
0 0
0 5000 10000 15000 0 5000 10000 15000
 (10-6)  (10-6)

Fig. 7. Effect of stiffener number on each tube face on load versus axial strain curves. (a) B 250 mm, fcu 67 MPa, hs 35 mm, (b) B 250 mm,
fcu 67 MPa, hs 45 mm, (c) B 250 mm, fcu 67 MPa, hs 60 mm, (d) B 190 mm, fcu 67 MPa, hs 25 mm, (e) B 190 mm, fcu 67 MPa,
hs 35 mm and (f) B 190 mm, fcu 67 MPa, hs 45 mm. (d Indicates local buckling occurred).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1120 Z. Tao et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 11131128

2.4. Test setup and instrumentation
A 5000 kN capacity testing machine was used for the
compression tests on all stub column specimens. Four strain
gauges in the axial direction, mounted on the surfaces of the
specimen, were used for the specimen to measure strains at
the mid-height. Two linear variable displacement transducers
(LVDT) were used to measure the axial shortening during the
tests. A computerized IMP data acquisition system was used
for data logging. A load interval of less than one tenth of the
estimated load capacity was used. Each load interval was
maintained for about 23 min. To study the softening
response of the specimens, the loading was applied slowly
and continuously near and after the ultimate load.

4000 2400
SSNC25-S SSNC19-S
3200
1800
SSNC25-1b SSNC19-1b
2400
N (kN)

N (kN)
1200
1600

600
800

0 0
0 5000 10000 15000 0 5000 10000 15000
 (10-6)  (10-6)

Fig. 8. Effect of using saw-shaped stiffeners on load versus axial strain curves. (a) B 250 mm, fcu 58.3 MPa and (b) B 190 mm, fcu 58.3 MPa.
(d Indicates local buckling occurred).

4000 4000

3000 3000
N (kN)
N (kN)

2000 2000

1000 SSNC25-BB-150 1000 SSNC25-BB-100

SSNC25-BB-100 SSNC25-AB-100
SSNC25-1b SSNC25-1b
0 0
0 5000 10000 15000 0 5000 10000 15000
 (10-6)  (10-6)

2500

2000

1500
N (kN)

1000
SSNC19-BB-100
500 SSNC19-AB-100
SSNC19-1b
0
0 5000 10000 15000
 (10-6)

Fig. 9. Effect of welding binding or anchor bars on load versus axial strain curves. (a) B 250 mm, (b) B 250 mm and (c) B 190 mm. (d Indicates
local buckling occurred).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Z. Tao et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 11131128 1121

3. Experimental results and discussions
3.1. Test observations and failure modes
During the initial loading stage, the axial load was
approximately proportional to the axial strain. There was
no obvious change in the appearance of the specimens. For
those unstiffened specimens, the steel plates buckled when
the load attained 3040% of the maximum load in the pre-
peak stage. In contrast, the local buckling load for the
stiffened specimens was about 80% of the maximum load
when only one stiffener was welded on each tube face. For
those stiffened specimens with two stiffeners on each tube
face, the plate buckling initially occurred when the
maximum load was almost reached. It demonstrates the
fact that the local buckling of steel tubes can be effectively
postponed when the stiffener number increases. The dot
points in Figs. 610 show the approximate locations of
observed local buckling of the outer steel tubes. It can also
be found that other experimental parameters had only

4800 4000
SSNC25-1a SSNC25-1b
SSFRC25a SSFRC25b
3600 3000
N (kN)

N (kN)
2400 2000

1200 1000

0 0
0 5000 10000 15000 0 5000 10000 15000
 (10-6)  (10-6)

3000 2500
SSNC19-1b
SSNC19-1a
2500 2000 SSFRC19b
SSFRC19a
2000
1500
N (kN)

N (kN)

1500
1000
1000

500 500

0 0
0 5000 10000 15000 0 5000 10000 15000
 (10-6)  (10-6)

3000

2500

2000
N (kN)

1500

1000
DSNC19-1
500 DSFRC19

0
0 5000 10000 15000
 (10-6)

Fig. 10. Effect of adding bres to concrete on load versus axial strain curves. (a) B 250 mm, fcu 67(69) MPa, single stiffener, (b) B 250 mm,
fcu 58.3(59.2) MPa, single stiffener, (c) B 190 mm, fcu 67(69) MPa, single stiffener, (d) B 190 mm, fcu 58.3(59.2) MPa, single stiffener and
(e) B 190 mm, fcu 67(69) MPa, double stiffeners. (d Indicates local buckling occurred).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1122 Z. Tao et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 11131128

moderate inuence on the occurrence of local buckling. Typical failure appearances of the test specimens are
This is attributed to the fact that they have not changed the shown in Fig. 4. Local failure mechanism which is outward
width-to-thickness ratio of the subpanel plates. folding was observed. As expected, no apparent buckling

5000 5000

4000 4000

SSNC25-1b

SSNC25-2b

SSNC25-3b
Nue (kN)
Nue (kN)

3000 3000

UNC25c
SSNC25-1a

SSNC25-2a

SSNC25-3a
UNC25b
UNC25a

2000 2000

1000 1000

0 0

3000 3000

2400 2400
SSNC19-1a

SSNC19-2a

SSNC19-3a

SSNC19-1b

SSNC19-2b

SSNC19-3b
Nue (kN)

1800 1800
Nue (kN)
UNC19b

UNC19c
UNC19a

1200 1200

600 600

0 0

5000 3000

4000 2400
DSNC25-1

DSNC25-2

DSNC25-3

DSNC19-1

DSNC19-2

DSNC19-3
Nue (kN)

3000 1800
UNC25b
UNC25a

Nue (kN)

UNC19b
UNC19a

2000 1200

1000 600

0 0

Fig. 11. Effect of stiffener height on the ultimate strength. (a) B 250 mm, fcu 67 MPa, single stiffener, (b) B 250 mm, fcu 58.3 MPa, single
stiffener, (c) B 190 mm, fcu 67 MPa, single stiffener, (d) B 190 mm, fcu 58.3 MPa, single stiffener, (e) B 250 mm, fcu 67 MPa, double stiffeners
and (f) B 190 mm, fcu 67 MPa, double stiffeners.

5000 3000
hs=35mm hs=35mm
4800 hs=45mm hs=45mm
2850
hs=60mm hs=60mm
Nue (kN)

Nue (kN)

4600
2700
4400
2550
4200

4000 2400
0 1 2 0 1 2
Stifferner number on each tube face Stifferner number on each tube face

Fig. 12. Effect of stiffener number on each tube face on the ultimate strength. (a) B 250 mm, fcu 67 MPa and (b) B 190 mm, fcu 67 MPa.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Z. Tao et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 11131128 1123

occurred at the locations of the stiffeners. When the number on each tube face, using saw-shaped stiffeners,
stiffener number increased, the tube local buckling was less welding binding or anchor bars on the stiffeners, and
pronounced. Fig. 5(a) is a view of damaged concrete after adding bres to the concrete. It seems that all these
removal of partial outer steel tube. Concrete crushing can parameters have only moderate inuence on specimen
be found at the locations where severe tube buckling elastic modulus. The reason may be attributed to the fact
developed. Fig. 5(b) shows the typical failure modes of the that there was little interaction between the steel tube and
steel stiffeners. As can be seen, most of the stiffeners core concrete in the elastic stage, and the two components
twisted under the squeeze of the crushed concrete, and only worked independently in this stage. It can also be found
a few stiffeners were undamaged. from Figs. 610 that, the stiffening measures do affect the
load-carrying capacity or ductility of stiffened specimens to
3.2. Test results some extent.

The maximum loads (Nue) for all test specimens are 3.3. Effect of different parameters on load-bearing capacity
summarized in Table 1. The tested curves of load (N)
versus axial strain (e) are shown in Figs. 610. The axial In order to evaluate the effect of stiffening and local
strain was measured from strain gauges and LVDTs. Since buckling on the load-bearing capacity, a strength index (SI)
the strain gauges might not be able to give accurate strain is dened for the stiffened CFST columns as
values after the steel tubes buckled, the strain values from
SI N ue =f c Ac f y;t As;t f y;s As;s , (1)
the strain gauges were only used for plotting Ne curves
before the occurrence of tube buckling. After that, the axial where Ac, As,t, As,s are the areas of the concrete, the steel
strain was calculated from measured axial shortening tube and the steel stiffeners, respectively; fy,t and fy,s are the
divided by the overall length (L) to evaluate the post- yield strengths of the steel tube and stiffeners, respectively;
buckling behaviour of the test specimen. It can be seen that fc is the characteristic concrete strength, and given by f c
7=6
all the curves tend to drop after peak load. 0:4f cu [15].
Figs. 610 show the effect of different parameters on Ne For unstiffened CFST columns, Eq. (1) is also used to
curves. These parameters include stiffener height, stiffener calculate SI values by ignoring the third term in the
denominator on the right-hand side of Eq. (1). The
calculated SI values are presented in Table 1. As can be
4000 seen from Table 1, the SI values of unstiffened composite
columns are quite close to unity. It seems that the benecial
effect of connement improvement has been somewhat
3000
counteracted by the tube buckling. In the case of stiffened
composite columns, however, each specimen has a SI value
Nue (kN)

SSNC25-1b

SSNC25-S

2000 which is larger than unity since local buckling of steel tubes
SSNC19-1b

SSNC19-S

can be effectively postponed by stiffeners. Similar results

have been observed and reported in [8].
1000 Figs. 11 and 12 show the effects of stiffener height and
stiffener number on each tube face on the ultimate
strength, respectively. Compared to the unstiffened speci-
0 mens, the strength increases range from 2% to 20%. It
B/t=100 B/t=76
seems the ultimate strength increases with the increasing
Fig. 13. Effect of using saw-shaped stiffeners on the ultimate strength. of stiffener height or stiffener number. This is attributed to

4000 3000

2400
SSNC25-AB-100

SSNC25-BB-100

SSNC25-BB-150

3000
SSNC19-AB-100

SSNC19-BB-100
SSNC25-1b
Nue (kN)

Nue (kN)

1800
SSNC19-1b

2000
1200

1000
600

0 0

Fig. 14. Effect of welding binding or anchor bars on the ultimate strength. (a) B 250 mm, fcu 58.3 MPa and (b) B 190 mm, fcu 58.3 MPa.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1124 Z. Tao et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 11131128

the fact that local buckling of steel tube delayed somewhat bars can also be used to enhance connement on concrete
when the stiffener height or stiffener number increased, core.
thus the steel tube could provide more connement on the The effect of adding bres to concrete on the ultimate
concrete core. Another reason is that, the load carried by strength is illustrated in Fig. 15. As can be seen, the
the stiffeners increased with the increasing of stiffener ultimate strength increases slightly after adding bres to
height or stiffener number. It can also be found from the concrete except one set of specimens (SSNC19-1b and
Fig. 12 that, the strength increase for the specimens with SSFRC19b). The strength increase is due to the enhancing
two stiffeners on each tube face is less pronounced effect of bre addition [16].
compared to the specimens with only one stiffener on each
tube face when the stiffener height reaches 60 mm. 3.4. Effect of different parameters on ductility
Fig. 13 depicts the effect of using saw-shaped stiffeners
on the ultimate strength. No apparent strength enhance- In order to quantify the effect of different parameters on
ment is observed when saw-shaped stiffeners were used. It section ductility, a ductility index (DI), which has been
seems that the improvement on bond between the steel tube used in [8,17,18], is also used in this paper. DI is dened as
and concrete had no enhancing effect on the load-carrying 85%
capacity. DI , (2)
y
Fig. 14 shows the effect of welding binding or anchor
bars on the ultimate strength. It is found that, the ultimate where e85% is the axial strain when the load falls to 85% of
strength increases when binding or anchor bars were the ultimate load, and ey is equal to e75%/0.75, e75% is the
welded on the stiffeners. A slight increase in ultimate axial strain when the load attains of 75% the ultimate load
strength can be observed while the spacing of binding in the pre-peak stage.
bars changes from 150 to 100 mm. Similar test results Figs. 16 and 17 show the effect of stiffener height and
have been reported in [9,10]. Compared to those specimens stiffener number on each tube face on the ductility,
with anchor bars, the specimens with binding bars have respectively. It can be seen that the ductility for most
higher ultimate strength. However, the difference is not stiffened specimens increases slightly compared to those
signicant, which demonstrates the fact that the anchor unstiffened ones. However, the inuence of stiffener height

5000 4000

4000
3000
Nue (kN)

SSNC25-1b
SSNC25-1a

Nue (kN)

SSFRC25b
SSFRC25a

3000
2000
SSNC19-1b
SSFRC19b
SSNC19-1a
SSFRC19a

2000
1000
1000

0 0
B/t=100 B/t=76 B/t=100 B/t=76

3000

2000
Nue (kN)

DSNC19-1

DSFRC19

1000

0
B/t=76

Fig. 15. Effect of adding bres to concrete on the ultimate strength. (a) fcu 67(69) MPa, single stiffener, (b) fcu 58.3(59.2) MPa, single stiffener
and (c) fcu 67(69) MPa, double stiffeners.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Z. Tao et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 11131128 1125

3 3

2.4 2.4

DI 1.8 1.8

DI

SSNC25-1b

SSNC25-2b

SSNC25-3b
SSNC25-1a

SSNC25-2a

SSNC25-3a

UNC25c
UNC25b
UNC25a
1.2 1.2

0.6 0.6

0 0

3 3

2.4 2.4

SSNC19-1b

SSNC19-2b

SSNC19-3b
1.8 1.8

UNC19c
SSNC19-1a

SSNC19-2a

SSNC19-3a
DI

DI
UNC19b
UNC19a

1.2 1.2

0.6 0.6

0 0

3 3

2.4 2.4

1.8 1.8
DI

DI

DSNC19-1

DSNC19-2

DSNC19-3
DSNC25-1

DSNC25-2

DSNC25-3
UNC25b
UNC25a

UNC19b
UNC19a

1.2 1.2

0.6 0.6

0 0

Fig. 16. Effect of stiffener height on the ductility. (a) B 250 mm, fcu 67 MPa, single stiffener, (b) B 250 mm, fcu 58.3 MPa, single stiffener,
(c) B 190 mm, fcu 67 MPa, single stiffener, (d) B 190 mm, fcu 58.3 MPa, single stiffener, (e) B 250 mm, fcu 67 MPa, double stiffeners and
(f) B 190 mm, fcu 67 MPa, double stiffeners.

2.5 2.2
hs=35mm
hs=45mm 2
2 hs=60mm
1.8
DI
DI

1.6 hs=35mm
1.5
hs=45mm
1.4 hs=60mm

1 1.2
0 1 2 0 1 2
Stifferner number on each tube face Stifferner number on each tube face

Fig. 17. Effect of stiffener number on each tube face on the ductility. (a) B 250 mm, fcu 67 MPa and (b) B 190 mm, fcu 67 MPa.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1126 Z. Tao et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 11131128

is not statistically signicant. For the specimens with a the ductility increases greatly after bres were added in the
section width of 190 mm, more obvious ductility enhance- concrete. The increase of DI value ranges from 41.1% to
ment is observed when the number of the stiffeners welded 91.5%.
on each tube face increases. In general, increasing the From the above comparisons, it can be seen that adding
stiffener height or stiffener number on each tube face has bres to concrete are the most effective measures to
only moderate inuence on the ductility. The maximum improve the ductility of stiffened thin-walled CFST stub
increase on DI value is only 34.6%. columns. This is reasonable since about 6580% of the
Fig. 18 shows the effect of using saw-shaped stiffeners on ultimate strength of a thin-walled composite specimen in
the ductility. Ductility enhancement is observed with DI the current test was contributed by the concrete core.
value increases of 50.2% and 13.1% for specimens Hence, it is more effective to improve the performance of
SSNC25-1b and SSNC19-1b, respectively. It seems that concrete by adjusting its mix proportions, while the
the saw-shaped stiffeners can enhance the bond between construction cost and difculty will not be increased
the concrete and the steel tube, thus reduce the adverse signicantly. It should also be noted that, bre reinforced
effect of tube local buckling on the ductility. composite concrete columns also behave better in terms of
Fig. 19 shows the effect of welding binding or anchor re resistance [16]. This is an additional merit of adding
bars on the ductility. As can be seen from Fig. 19, the DI bres to concrete.
value increases with a range of 6.041.1% when the
binding or anchor bars were used. The specimen
SSNC25-BB-150 with a spacing of 150 mm between the 4. Conclusions
bars, has only a DI value increase of 6.0%. It seems the
binding bars are more effective in increasing ductility if the Thirty-six square thin-walled CFST stub columns were
spacing between bars is small enough. In this case, twist of tested to failure under axial compression. Five methods
stiffeners from squeeze of crushed concrete can be including increasing stiffener height, increasing stiffener
postponed or even eliminated. number on each tube face, using saw-shaped stiffeners,
Fig. 20 shows the effect of adding bres to concrete on welding binding or anchor bars, and adding bres to
the ductility. Due to the enhancing effect of bre addition, concrete, were used with an aim to improve the ductility of
the composite specimens. The following conclusions can be
drawn based on the experimental results of the study:
4

(1) Local buckling of steel tubes can be effectively

3 postponed with the increasing stiffener number.
(2) Different stiffening methods have only moderate
inuence on specimen elastic modulus.
(3) Increasing stiffener height and using saw-shaped
DI

2
stiffeners have only moderate inuence on the ultimate
SSNC19-S
SSNC19-1b
SSNC25-S

strength. The sectional capacity can be increased

SSNC25-1b

1 slightly when increasing stiffener number on each tube

face, welding binding or anchor bars on stiffeners, and
adding bres to concrete.
0 (4) All ve stiffening methods used in this paper have
B/t=100 B/t=76
potentials to improve the ductility of the stiffened stub
Fig. 18. Effect of using saw-shaped stiffeners on the ductility. columns to some extent. However, adding bres to

3 3

2.4
SSNC19-BB-100

2
SSNC19-AB-100
SSNC25-BB-100
SSNC25-AB-100

1.8
SSNC19-1b
SSNC25-BB-150

DI
DI

SSNC25-1b

1.2
1
0.6

0 0

Fig. 19. Effect of welding binding or anchor bars on the ductility. (a) B 250 mm, fcu 58.3 MPa and (b) B 190 mm, fcu 58.3 MPa.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Z. Tao et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 11131128 1127

4 4

3 3

DI
2
DI
2

SSNC19-1a

SSFRC19a
SSNC25-1a

SSNC19-1b

SSFRC19b
SSFRC25a

SSNC25-1b

SSFRC25b
1 1

0 0
B/t=100 B/t=76 B/t=100 B/t=76

3
DI

2
DSNC19-1

DSFRC19

0
B/t=76

Fig. 20. Effect of adding bres to concrete on the ductility. (a) fcu 67(69) MPa, single stiffener, (b) fcu 58.3(59.2) MPa, single stiffener,
(c) fcu 67(69) MPa, double stiffeners.

concrete is the most effective and reliable measure in
increasing the ductility capacity.
Acknowledgements
The research reported in this paper is part of Projects
50425823 and 50608019 supported by National Natural
Science Foundation of China, and Big Project supported
by Fujian Province Science and Technology (no.
2005H033), the Project of Fujian Province Start-Up Fund
for Outstanding Incoming Researchers; their nancial
support is highly appreciated.
References
[1] Han LH, Tao Z. Design codes and methods on concrete-lled steel
tubular structures in China. In: Proceedings of the international
symposium on worldwide trend and development in codied design
of steel structures, Singapore; 2006. p. 4674.
[2] Tao Z, Yu Q. New types of composite columnsexperiments, theory
and methodology. Beijing: Science Press; 2006 [in Chinese].
[3] Uy B. Novel composite steel-concrete systems incorporating high-
performance steels: applications, behaviour and design. In: Proceed-
ings of the ninth international symposium on structural engineering
for young experts. Fuzhou and Xiamen, China; 2006. p. 1120.
[4] Tomii M, Yoshimaro K, Morishita Y. Experimental studies on
concrete lled steel tubular stub column under concentric loading. In:
Proceedings of the international colloquium on stability of structures
under static and dynamic loads. SSRC/ASCE, Washington; 1977.
p. 71841.
[5] Bridge RQ, OShea MD. Behaviour of thin-walled steel box sections
with or without internal restraint. J Constr Steel Res 1998;47(12):
7391.
[6] Uy B. Strength of concrete lled steel box columns incorporating
local buckling. J Struct Eng ASCE 2000;126(3):34152.
[7] Han LH, Yao GH, Zhao XL. Tests and calculations of hollow
structural steel (HSS) stub columns lled with self-consolidating
concrete (SCC). J Constr Steel Res 2005;61(9):124169.
[8] Tao Z, Han LH, Wang ZB. Experimental behaviour of stiffened
concrete-lled thin-walled hollow steel structural (HSS) stub
columns. J Constr Steel Res 2005;61(7):96283.
[9] Huang CS, Yeh YK, Liu GY, Hu HT, Tsai KC, Weng YT, et al.
Axial load behavior of stiffened concrete-lled steel columns. J Struct
Eng ASCE 2002;128(9):122230.
[10] Cai J, He ZQ. Axial load behavior of square CFST stub column with
binding bars. J Constr Steel Res 2006;62(5):47283.
[11] Tao Z, Han LH, Wang DY. Experimental behaviour of concrete-
lled stiffened thin-walled steel tubular columns. Thin-Walled Struct
2007;45(5):51727.
[12] Ge HB, Usami T. Strength of concrete-lled thin-walled steel
box column: experiment. J Struct Eng ASCE 1992;118(11):
303654.
[13] Kwon YB, Song JY, Kon KS. The structural behaviour of concrete-
lled steel piers. In: Proceedings of 16th congress of IABSE, Iucerne,
Switzerland; 2000.
[14] GB50018-2002. Technical code of cold-formed thin-wall steel
structures, 2002 [in Chinese].
[15] Yu ZW, Ding FX. Unied calculation method of compressive
mechanical properties of concrete. J Build Struct 2003;24(4):416
[in Chinese].
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1128 Z. Tao et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 11131128

[16] Campione G, Mindess S, Scibilia N, Zingone G. Strength of hollow
circular steel sections lled with bre-reinforced concrete. Can J Civil
Eng 2000;27(2):36472.
[17] Lin ML, Tsai KC. Behaviour of double-skinned composite steel
tubular columns subjected to combined axial and exural loads. In:
Proceedings of the rst international conference on the steel and
composite structures, Pssan, Korea; 2001. p. 114552.
[18] Han LH. Tests on stub columns of concrete-lled RHS sections.
J Constr Steel Res 2002;58(3):35372.