Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Received April 27, 2013; revised May 27, 2013; accepted June 5, 2013
Copyright 2013 Xinmeng Yu, Baochun Chen. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
ABSTRACT
Concrete filled steel tube structures have gained booming development in recent decades, especially in China. Simpli-
fied methods have been proposed in design codes, such as the Eurocode 4 (EC4) and the China engineering and con-
struction specification (CECS). In EC4, the confinement effect is reasonably related to slenderness and load eccentricity.
The CECS method is much straight forward in that the slenderness ratio and load eccentricity are treated as independent
reduction factors. To make use of the advantages of both the CECS and the EC4 methods, the CECS method is modi-
fied to consider the confinement effect associated with slenderness and load eccentricity. It is shown that the proposed
method can predict well the ultimate load capacity of circular section concrete filled steel tube columns.
Keywords: Concrete Filled Steel Tube Column; Ultimate Load Capacity; Simplified Method; Reduction Factor
where N 0EC 4 is the cross section resistance considering are not clear in CECS. This triggers the motive of this
the influence of confinement effect, which is related to research to develop a method which absorbs the merits of
load eccentricity and slenderness. these two methods: inheriting the simple framework of
the CECS method, but explicitly enriching the reduction
N 0EC 4 a Aa f y c Ac f c Ac f c 1 0.25c1 a (6) factors with the confinement characteristics prescribed in
the EC4.
where a and c are the steel strength reduction fac-
tor and concrete strength enhancement factor (due to 3. Development of a Simplified Method for
confinement effect), respectively, when e D 10 and UL Prediction of Circular CFST Columns
0.5 ; is the relative slenderness of the CFST
column. Otherwise, the strengthening effect is neglected. 3.1. The Cross Section Resistance of CFST
Columns
a a 0 1 a 0 10e D 1
(7) In limit equilibrium state, the steel tube reaches its ulti-
a 0 0.25 3 2 1 mate strength, i.e., gets yielded. From Equation (10), it is
known that the concrete strength is a function of lateral
t fy
c 1 c1 c1 c 2 1 10e D 0 pressure governed by the state of the steel tube. The UL
D fc (8) of the CFST column section is the maximum combina-
4.9 18.5 17 2 0 tion of the stresses in steel and concrete. It is assumed
c2
here that the stress distributions on the concrete section
is analogues to the column buckling resistance reduc- and the steel section are both uniform.
tion factor derived theoretically from a steel column with The stress distribution in a thin wall steel tube can be
initial out-of-straightness deflection at mid-height with a reasonably assumed to be planar. When the tube gets
little modification [7]. yielded, according to the Von Mises yield criterion, we
1 have
(7)
2 2 12 22 1 2 f y2 (12)
where is a parameter depending on internal reinforc- where 1 and 2 are principal stresses in axial and la-
ing bars. When the axial reinforcing ratio is no greater teral directions; f y is the yield strength of tube steel.
than 3%, Note n 2 , where n is the axial compressive
stress.
0.5 1 0.21 0.2 2 (8) It can be derived that
Apparently, the EC4 approach is different from CECS D D
2t p 2 p (13)
in that the load eccentricity is no longer an independent 2 2t
parameter, neither is the slenderness effect. Therefore, A 4t
the philosophy behind CECS and EC4 is different. In And a (14)
Ac D
addition, the stress-strain relationships of confined con-
crete are different. Substituting Equations (13) and (14) into Equation (12)
In CECS, a nonlinear restrained concrete property is and rearranging, we have
employed. A
2
A
n 1 f y2 3 c p 2 c p (15)
f ccCECS f c 1 1.5 p f c 2 p f c (9) a
A Aa
In EC4, the restraining effect can be expressed in the Therefore, at ultimate limit states, the load resistance
following form as prescribed in EC2 [8]. of the cross section can be expressed as
2
f ccEC 4 C1 C2 p f c A
(10) N 0 Ac f c C1 C2 p f c Aa
f y2 3 c p 2 pAc
Aa
where C1 and C2 depends on the lateral confinement
pressure, p. That is (16)
The maximum value of N0 requires
1.000 5.00 p f c for p 0.05 f c 2
f ccEC 4 (11) A
1.125 2.50 p f c for p 0.05 f c 3 Aa c p
dN 0
Ac C2 1 Aa 0 (17)
From the illustration above, it is clear that the CECS dp 2
A
method is much simpler. However, the effects of load f y2 c p 2
eccentricity and slenderness on the strength of concrete Aa
Therefore, at ultimate limit states, the lateral pressure 3.2. The Influence of Slenderness
on the concrete core is
In EC4, the relative slenderness, , is used to consider
p k f c (18) the influences of slenderness: 1) the confinement effect
where is the confinement effect factor, reduces with increase of ; 2) the stability decreases
with increase of . In CECS, these two mechanisms are
Aa f y Ac f c , and
combined together into a factor, lCECS , which is ob-
0.5 tained regressively from a large number of test data,
3 2 0.517 for p 0.05 f c adopting L D as a sole parameter, neglecting the con-
k 3 (19)
C 1 0.555 for p 0.05 f c figuration of D t and material properties; When
2
L D 20 , the UL of a CFST column is assumed to be
In engineering practice, such as in CFST bridges, governed by Euler buckling resistance.
0.09 , hence As mentioned above, both methods are calibrated from
k 0.517 (20) test data. The different treatment on the slenderness in-
fluence between EC4 and CECS makes in Equa-
It can be easily derived from Equations (16), (18) and tion (5) greater than lCECS in Equation (1). If the influ-
(20) that ence of on the confinement effect is considered, i.e.,
Ac e 0; 0 , then an equivalent parameter can be derived,
n 1 3k 3 f y 0.517 f c 0.792 f y (21)
Aa that is
And Ac f c a c 1 0.25c1 a
lEC 4 (24)
N 0 1.125 Ac f c 2.085 Aa f y Ac f c 1.125 2 (22) Ac f c 1 2 1 2
When eccentric loading and stability are not consid- The comparison of the stability reduction factors of
ered, i.e., e 0; 0 , Equation (5) can be simplified as EC4 (neglecting the limit of 0.5 ) and CECS is
shown in Figure 2. It can be seen from this figure that: 1)
N 0EC 4 Ac f c 1 1.975 Ac f c 1 2 (23) lEC 4 values (the dash curves) are approximately the
mirror of values (the solid curves) along the CECS
It can be seen from Equations (22) and (23) that the cross
curve; 2) D t has a significant influence on the reduc-
section resistance calculated using this proposed method
tion factor; 3) when L D reaches 20, the lEC 4 curves
is about 0.125 Ac f c greater than that obtained from EC4
go together, which indicates L D 20 is a divide for
method. This difference can be regarded as a conserva-
Euler buckling. Therefore, CECS and EC4 agree with
tive simplification in EC4. The comparison of the cross
each other again in this point, although the confinment
section resistances calculated by this method and CECS
effect is considered only when 0.5 .
and EC4 methods is shown in Figure 1. The difference
From Figure 2, it can be concluded that the influence
among three methods is not significant. It should be
of D t is significant and therefore should be consid-
pointed out that the CECS method is a conser-
ered in the reduction factor. By observing the sinusoidal
vative simplification from N 0 f c Ac 1 1.1 as
illustrated in [6]. 1
CECS EC4-A
EC4-B EC4-C
6 EC4-A1 EC4-B1
EC4-C1
Stability Reduction Factor
0.9
5
0.8
4
N 0/(Acfc)
0.7
3
3.3. The Effect of Load Eccentricity Figure 4. Comparison of the load eccentricity reduction fac-
tors of e , eEC 4 and eCECS .
As the confinement strengthening effect reduces with
eccentric loading, a reduction factor e is used to ac-
load eccentricity, the trend of reduction with eccentricity
count for this change. This factor in CECS can be used in
is similar. One compromise to this disagreement is to
a wide range of eccentricity conditions, as shown in
create an exponential function with both and e D
Equation (4), which stems from the M-N curve analysis
as its parameters, as given in Equation (27).
followed by curve fitting [6]. However, in EC4, the load
eccentricity induced influence is integrated into the cal- e
e exp m 1 2
(27)
culation of cross section resistance when e D 10 . D
Similar to lCECS , an equivalent factor, eEC 4 , can be The 1 2 in Equation (27) is taken from Equation
obtained by letting e 0; 0 . (23). The parameter m is used to calibrate curve fitting. It
1 2 9.75e / D 1 1 is found that when m 0.85 , the e agrees well with
eEC 4 both eEC 4 and eCECS , as shown in Figure 4.
1 2 1 2 2
1
e / D 0.1 e / D 0.2
(26) 4. The UL of CFST Columns Predicted by
Current Method
It is seen from Equation (26) that eEC 4 is a function
of both and e D . However, in CECS, only the ec- From previous derivation, it is therefore proposed that
centricity is considered (see Equation (4)). The compare- the UL of a CFST column to be predicted by
son of eEC 4 and eCECS is shown in Figure 4. in which
N L D 20
the e D is allowed to extend to 0.2. Although there is a Nu e l 0 (28)
huge difference between these two methods to deal with N cr L D 20
where N 0 , l and e can be calculated from Equa-
1
CECS tions (22), (25) and (27), respectively. When L D 20 ,
EC4-A1
EC4-B1
the UL is governed by the Euler buckling resistance.
0.9 EC4-C1
Stability Reduction Factor
Table 1. Comparison of the predicted and measured ultimate load resistances of eccentrically loaded concrete filled steel tube
columns.
UL (KN)
s.n. LDt fy (MPa)* fc (MPa) e (mm)
Test EC4** CECS Current
Note: *fc is converted from cubic strength by f c 0.67 f cube ; **The limit of relative slenderness in EC4 method, which is 0.5, is not considered.
1.2
specimen and test details can be found in [6]. Only the Ncurr/Nt
test results of specimens in Batch II are taken hereby.
The UL of the specimens predicted by current method as 1
well as those calculated using CECS and EC4 are com- 1 2 3 4 5 6
pared in Figure 5.
0.8
Again, the EC4 prediction is conservative and the
proposed method gives the best and smooth prediction
results. 0.6
Specimen Number
5. Conclusions
Figure 5. Comparison of the UL prediction of CFST col-
The UL of circular CFST columns can be predicted by umns by three different methods.
various simplified methods with different consideration
on confinement effect. These methods have their pros but cares less on the cross section parameters.
and cons. The EC4 method considers the influence of A simplified method is developed by inheriting the
load eccentricity and slenderness on the confinement simple framework of the CECS method, but enriching
effect. The CECS method is simple and straight forward, the slenderness and load eccentricity reduction factors
with cross section configuration influences in accordance Institute of Tokyo, Japan, 1997.
with those implied by the EC4 method, so as to enable [4] China Association of Engineering and Construction Stand-
finer tuning capability than in CECS. Therefore, the ardization-CECS 28:90, Specification for Design and
proposed method makes the best of both EC4 method Construction of Concrete Filled Steel Tubular Struc-
tures, China Planning Press, Beijing, 1991.
and CECS method.
The proposed method is derived from material pro- [5] The Electric Power Industry Standard of PRC: DL/T
perties in the limit equilibrium state, adopting the re- 5085-1999, Code for Design of Steel-Concrete Compos-
ite Structure, Issued by State Economic and Trade
strained concrete properties prescribed in EC2 and ex- Commission of PRC, 1999.
tending the boundary of load eccentricity and relative
[6] S. H. Cai, Modern Steel Tube Confined Concrete Struc-
slenderness limit in EC4. tures (Revised Edition), China Communications Press,
Validation against a series of tests shows that the pro- Beijing, 2007.
posed method can predict the UL of circular CFST col-
[7] J. Y. R. Liew and D. X. Xiong, Effect of Preload on the
umns with good accuracy. Axial Capacity of Concrete-Filled Composite Columns,
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 65, No. 3,
2009, pp. 709-722. doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2008.03.023
REFERENCES
[8] Eurocode 2 (EC2), Design of Concrete Structures, Part
[1] Eurocode 4 (EC4), Design of Composite Steel and Con- 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, Commis-
crete Structures, Part 1.1: General Rules and Rules for sion of European Communities, Brussels, 2004.
Buildings, Commission of European Communities, Brus-
[9] B. C. Chen, Z. J. Ou, L. Y. Wang and L. H. Han, Ex-
sels, 2004.
perimental Study on Carrying Capacity of Concrete Filled
[2] American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Man- Steel Tubular Column under Eccentrically Load, Journal
ual for Structural Steel Buildings: Load and Resistance of Fuzhou University-Natural Science Edition, Vol. 30,
Factor Design (LRFD), Chicago, 2005. No. 6, 2002, pp. 838-844.
[3] AIJ, Recommendations for Design and Construction of
Concrete Filled Steel Tubular Structures, Architectural
Nomenclatures Ia, Ic: Second moment of inertias of steel tube and con-
crete core section
Aa : Steel area of the cross section of CFST column
P: Lateral confinement pressure on concrete core
(mm2) rc: Radius of concrete core
Ac : Concrete area of the cross section of CFST col- l , e : Current stability reduction factor and load
umn (mm2) eccentricity reduction factor
D: Outer diameter of CFST column (mm) li , ei : Stability reduction factor and load eccentric-
e: Loading eccentricity (mm) ity reduction factor of method i
Ea, Ecm: Youngs Modulus of steel and secant modulus : A factor considering the influence of internal axial
of concrete reinforcing bars in EC4
EI eff : Bending stiffness of CFST column, : Stability reduction factor in EC4
EI eff Ea I a 0.6 Ecm I c : Relative slenderness,
N plR N cr Ac f c 1 N cr
L: Effective length of CFST column (mm)
N 0i : Cross section resistance of CFST column calcu- 1 , 2 : Principal stresses in axial and lateral direc-
tions
lated by method i
: Confinement effect factor, Aa f y Ac f c
Nui : Ultimate load capacity of CFST column calcu-
lated by method i a , c : Strength adjustment factors for steel and
N plR : Plastic resistance of the cross section of CFST concrete, respectively, in EC4
column, N plR Aa f y Ac f c
N cr : Euler buckling resistance of CFST column,
N cr 2 EI eff L2