Next Article in Journal
Smart or Intelligent Assets or Infrastructure: Technology with a Purpose
Previous Article in Journal
Behavior of Ultra-High-Performance Concrete with Hybrid Synthetic Fiber Waste Exposed to Elevated Temperatures
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 13
Issue 1
10.3390/buildings13010128
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Design Model of Rectangular Concrete-Filled Steel Tubular Stub Columns under Axial Compression

by
Faesal Alatshan
1,2,
Siti Aminah Osman
1,*,
Abdelmajeed Altlomate
3,
Mohammed Alkair
2,
Roszilah Hamid
1 and
Fidelis Mashiri
4
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysia
2
Civil Engineering Department, College of Engineering Technology, Houn P.O. Box 61160, Libya
3
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Sirte University, Sirte P.O. Box 61160, Libya
4
School of Engineering, Design and Built Environment, Western Sydney University, Kingswood, NSW 2747, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2023, 13(1), 128; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13010128
Submission received: 8 October 2022 / Revised: 24 November 2022 / Accepted: 16 December 2022 / Published: 4 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Building Materials, and Repair & Renovation)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This research collected and summarized a total of 455 experimental tests of axially loaded square and rectangular concrete-filled steel tubular (CFST) stub columns. The recently published papers were used to evaluate the current design equations from four international standards, namely the American Concrete Institute (ACI) code, British Standard (BS5400), Chinese standard (BDJ13-51), and Eurocode 4 (EC4). It was found that the results obtained from the codes have appreciable differences and could be improved, especially for the specimens fabricated using high-resistance materials. Therefore, new empirical equations were proposed based on the four standard formulas and the wide range of previously available experimental data to provide more accurate estimations. The proposed equations could predict an average sectional capacity of only 0.1% lower than the experimental results, with better data scattering than the existing equation’s results.

1. Introduction

Concrete-filled steel tubular (CFST) elements were employed in the construction industry in the early 1900s. Nevertheless, the research investigations in CFST elements did not begin until the early 1960s. After that, many research studies were conducted to understand the behavior of CFST elements. Concrete-filled steel tubular (CFST) structures are increasing in popularity in many engineering applications, including high-rise buildings, bridge structures, supporting platforms of offshore structures and piles. As a consequence of its composite effects, the disadvantages of the two materials can be compensated for, and their advantages in CFST can be combined to provide efficient structural systems. CFST elements have the advantage of high mechanical strength, increased fire resistance, appropriate durability, energy absorption during earthquakes, and no formwork is needed compared to other concrete-steel composite structural elements. The core concrete works to prevent the steel tube from buckling inward. Meanwhile, the confinement of core concrete by the steel tube works to strengthen the mechanical properties of concrete. Consequently, adopting CFST columns results in a relatively small cross-sectional area with considerable economic savings [1,2,3].
CFSTs with regular cross-sections, such as circular, square and rectangular shapes, have been widely investigated [4], yet some research has been conducted on other cross-sectional shapes, for example, Chang et al. [5] conducted an experimental and numerical study to investigate the static axial performance of stiffened concrete-filled double-skin steel tubular (CFDST) stub columns with circular and square shapes. In addition, Rahnavard et al. [6,7] conducted experimental and numerical analysis on four different cross-section shapes of fabricated concrete-filled cold-formed steel (CF-CFS) short and long columns. For both long and short columns, it was found that the ultimate strengths of the concrete-filled columns were higher than that of hollow columns. This was attributed to the concrete’s role in resisting the buckling deformation of the steel sections. In addition, the results revealed that columns with square sections showed a higher load resistance than that of rectangular section columns. Not only the static behavior, but the seismic, impact, and blast performance of CFST elements has also been widely examined using different shapes and material strength, and the enhancement of the seismic behavior was clearly demonstrated by filling the columns with concrete [8,9].
Previous studies showed the complexity of the interaction relationship between the steel tube and the concrete core of the circular and rectangular CFST columns, during the various loading stages [10,11]. Meanwhile, it is well known that the performance of CFST circular cross-sections is better than square and rectangular sections in terms of concrete confinement and local buckling. Nevertheless, the square and rectangular sections are still increasingly utilized. These sections are easier to connect to other structural elements and have high bending stiffness and architectural appeal [1,12]. There are various modes of failure for the CFSTs depending on their material properties and geometric structure. Compared with the conventional type of concrete columns, the failure in the CFST column is delayed due to concrete confinement by the steel tube. Many other factors may affect the load-carrying capacity of the CFST column, which include cross-sectional shape, width-to-thickness ratio, and steel ratio. These parameters need to be re-investigated and compared with the wide range of available experimental results that have been carried out over the past few decades to improve the existing design equations and provide more accurate predictions.
Previously, a wide range of research efforts have been devoted to investigating the performance of CFST stub columns and have been compared with the design codes or with their own theoretical or numerical models [1,4]. These previous models typically exhibited good agreement with the experiments, particularly with the results used to develop the model, but it is unclear whether they will be able to make more accurate predictions than other experimental results. In other words, limited investigations have been carried out based on or to complement other researchers’ test results; nevertheless, looking at the full research picture is necessary so that conclusions are not drawn based on the very limited results of a limited number of research investigations.
Therefore, in this study, a comprehensive database was established to summarize the previous experimental results of square and rectangular CFST stub columns tested under axial compression. The database was employed to evaluate the applicability of the methods described by several international standards to predict the axial load capacity and propose more accurate design models. In addition, it is hoped that the new database will help researchers to compare their hypotheses with these comprehensive findings to achieve the best possible balance between the cost and safety of square and rectangular CFST stub columns.

2. Summary of the Test Database

A database consisting of 455 experimental CFST rectangular and square stub columns subjected to axial compression was collected from various experimental studies carried out by past researchers. A database of different shapes of CFSTs collected by Goode et al. [13] has been utilized in this study. The database summarizes a series of tests on 1819 CFST columns subjected to various types of load conditions. A total of 313 rectangular and square CFST stub columns were obtained from this database to be used in the study. To increase the range of the experimental data, 142 tests of CFST stub columns were also compiled from the other previous investigations. These are: Lam and Gardner, 2008 [14]; Ellobody and Young, 2006 [15]; Zhang et al., 2005 [16]; Uy et al., 2011 [17]; Sakino, 2004 [18]; Wang et al., 2014 [19]; Shakir-Khalil and J Zeghiche, 1989 [20]; Shakir-Khalil and M Moul, 1990 [21].
The following inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to set the boundaries for the database:
  • The columns considered must be tested under static axial compression loads.
  • The columns must have square or rectangular single-skin cross-sections.
  • The concrete core and the steel tube must be loaded simultaneously, as illustrated in Figure 1.
  • The column specimens were checked to ensure that they can be classified as short columns according to the EC4 in which L/b ≤ 4; where L is the specimen length and b is the section width [22].
  • Irrelevant CFST columns made of different materials such as stainless steel or aluminum were excluded.
  • The columns should not have internal steel reinforcements, shear connectors, or any types of stiffeners, etc.
The details of the collected test specimens in this new database are shown in Table A1, Appendix A.
Based on the wide range of specimens presented in the current database, Figure 2 displays a schematic view of the failure mechanism of rectangular CFST stub columns. It is well known that hollow steel columns exhibit both inward and outward buckling when subjected to axial loading, while as illustrated in Figure 2, only outward buckling occurs at the mid-height of concrete-filled steel tubular stub columns. This failure pattern is due to the support by concrete infill to the steel tube. Additionally, the presence of the steel tube around the concrete provides a confinement effect that delays the failure of the concrete core and makes it in a more ductile fashion. This interaction between the steel and concrete enhances the ultimate capacity of such columns compared to their counterparts of hollow steel tubes and reinforced concrete columns.
The range and distribution of the database contents concerning the geometric details, material strengths, and ultimate strengths are presented in Figure 3. It can be seen that the concrete strengths (f′c) of the database specimens range from 15 MPa to 120 MPa, and most of them have a value of f′c between 30 and 50 MPa. Additionally, the yield strength of the steel tube (fy) varies from 180 MPa to 840 MPa and mostly ranged between 180 and 300 MPa. The confinement factor [ξ = (As fy)/(Ac f’c)] is distributed between 0.2 and 10.5. Additionally, most of the included specimens have a steel ratio [ρ = As/Ac] between 2% and 20%, while just a few specimens have a larger ratio. The column width-to-steel thickness ratio (b/t) ranged from 10 to 135. The ultimate section capacity (Nu) varied from 190 to 15,000 KN.
Finally, all the specimens were such that the width (b) was from 50 mm to 324 mm, the height was from 100 mm to 2400 mm, and the steel thickness was from 1.2 mm to 9.7 mm. The details of the columns are provided in Table A1, Appendix A.
The compressive strength of concrete can be defined using different test methods depending on the standards used. Therefore, the Eurocode 2 standards [23] were used to convert between f’c and fcu [23], where f’c is the compressive strength of concrete obtained from 150 × 300 mm cylinder specimens, and fcu is the compressive strength of concrete obtained from a 150 mm cube.

3. Formulations of Current Design Codes

Different design codes provide different formulae for estimating and designing CFST stub columns under axial compression. Generally, the fundamental difference lies in the methods of determining the compressive strength of concrete. Four approaches from different international standards used in the United States, Japan, Europe, and China were compared to the results of the previously available data.

3.1. ACI Approach

The approach used to design the reinforced concrete sections has been adopted to calculate the axial capacity of CFST stub columns. American Concrete Institute ACI code [24] utilizes the same formulae for different cross-sections and does not consider the confinement effect.
The compressive capacity of CFST rectangular stub columns can be determined using Equation (1) according to the ACI code. As is shown in Equation (1), the design load based on ACI (NACI) is the summation of the ultimate axial sectional capacities of the concrete core and steel tube.
N A C I = A s f y + 0.85   A c   f c
where, As is the cross-sectional area of RHS steel, Ac is the cross-sectional area of the concrete infill.
The same approach was also adopted by the Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) [25] guidelines to predict the CFST stub column strength for square and rectangular hollow sections.

3.2. EC4 Approach

Australian standard (AS5100) [26] and Eurocode 4 [22] use the same formula, see Equation (2), to determine the section compressive capacity of CFST RHS stub columns. Similar to the ACI code approach, the EC4 design load capacity ( N E C 4 ) is calculated by summing up the section capacities of the concrete core and steel tube. However, the long-term effects are not considered.
N E C 4 = A s f y + A c f c

3.3. BS5400 Approach

Equation (3) is used by British standards (BS5400) [27] to predict the capacity of CFST short columns under axial compression. Equation (3) is similar to the EC4 formula. However, the British standard utilizes 15 × 15 × 15 cm concrete cubes to determine the compressive strength of concrete.
N B S = A s f y + A c f c u

3.4. DBJ13-51 Approach

A different approach is recommended by the Chinese standard (DBJ13-51) [28] to predict the load-carrying capacity of CFST stub columns. The standard takes concrete confinement by the steel tube into account by introducing the confinement factor (ξ0).
N D B J = ( A s + A c )     ( 1.18 + 0.85     ξ 0 ) f c k
ξ 0 = A s   f y A c   f c k
where fck is the characteristic cube compressive strength of concrete, and Equation (6) was used as a conversion relationship between fck and fcu [1].
fck = 0.67 fcu

3.5. Limitations of Current Design Codes

Despite the growing improvement in the properties of steel and concrete, international standards still limit the possibility of using very high-strength materials in CFST elements. For example, according to the Australian standard (AS/NZS 3678) [29], the limit values of yield stress (fy) for both steel plates and cold-formed tubes should be between 200 and 450 MPa. For the steel plates, hot-rolled and cold-formed tubes, the European standard (EN 10025) [30] and the Chinese standard (GB50017) [31] suggest different yield stress (fy) limits between 215 to 460 and 235 to 420 MPa, respectively. However, as shown in Figure 3b, in the newly proposed database, the yield strength of the steel tube (fy) ranged from 180 MPa to 840 MPa, and the value of fy mostly ranged between 180 and 300 MPa.
Different limitations of concrete compressive strength were also suggested in the international standards. In both AS5110 and EC4, the characteristic compressive cylinder strength at 28 days (f′c) ranges between 25 to 65 MPa and between 20 to 60 MPa, respectively. In BS5400 and DBJ13-51, the characteristic cube compressive strength at 28 days (fcu) should not be less than 20 and 30 MPa, respectively. While, as shown in Figure 3, the data of the existing experimental studies used in the proposed database covered a more comprehensive range of concrete strengths (f′c) from 15 MPa to 120 MPa (fcu ranges from 19 to 140).
This paper aims to participate in extending the limits allowed by the current design methods and suggests more comprehensive formulations.

3.6. Comparative Studies

In this section, the existing experimental results collected in the proposed database were compared with the predicted results using the previously mentioned international standards. This comparison was conducted to evaluate the applicability and accuracy of the standards. Figure 4 illustrates the relationship between the experimental and the predicted values of CFST short-column load-carrying capacity. Figure 4 also shows the mean, defined as the average ratio of the predicted capacity to the experimental strength, and the standard deviation (SD) of the ratio of the predicted capacity to the experimental strength. In this figure, the orange line shows the ideal results when the empirical results are identical to the experimental results. In other words, the further away the points are from this line means that they are more scattered and far from the correct results.
In general, and as expected, the predicted load-carrying capacities from the four codes have nearly the same trends compared to the experimental results. The BS5400 approach overestimates the capacity by 4% compared to the experimental data, while all other approaches underestimate the capacity. For instance, the DBJ13-51 approach predicts sectional capacities 2.8% lower than the experimental results, which have the most reliable mean value of predicted load-carrying capacity compared to the experimental results. However, the scatter of DBJ13-51 approach estimations is relatively high (SD = 0.142). The most faultless scatter was achieved by the ACI approach with standard deviations (SD) of 0.129, while the mean value was relatively higher at 13% lower than the experimental results. For the BS5400 and EC4 approaches, the standard deviation values of the predicted sectional capacities to the experimental results were 0.165 and 0.141, respectively. In light of these results, it can be seen that adjustments are required to make the standard predictions more accurate. These adjustments are discussed in the following sections.

4. New Design Models

In this section, two proposed approaches will be introduced to improve the existing equations to predict the load-carrying capacity of the CFST stub columns. The existing formulae were modified using correction factors to improve the mean, standard deviations, and variation coefficient (COV) of the results. The new proposed formulae were determined through regression analysis based on the 455 experimental tests.

4.1. The First Proposal to Modify the Existing Design Formulas

The same approach adopted by Lu and Zhao [32] and Hanoon et al. [33] has been used in this study. In order to improve the available equations for predicting the load axial carrying capacity of square and rectangular CFST stub columns. Some conditions are considered:
  • The equations must epitomize the experimental data as much as possible.
  • The expressions have to be similar to the existing expressions provided by the standards.
  • The formulae should be as simple as possible.
In the first design proposal, new correction coefficients (C1 and C2) were identified to develop the existing equations by improving the mean, standard deviations, and coefficient of variation. These new correction factors were introduced because the original equations described in Section 3 were originally proposed for the conventional column design. Whereas, these equations do not take into account the additional cross-sectional capacity increase due to the confinement effect provided by the steel tube to the concrete core of the CFST stub columns.
A programming code using Microsoft Excel VBA (Visual Basic for Applications) programing language was developed and used to calculate the correction coefficients of the first proposed equations. Figure 5 and Figure 6 illustrate the flowcharts of the algorithm used to design this programming code. As illustrated, the regression analysis approach was employed to correct the prediction for the stub columns based on the 455 experimental tests.
For the ACI code formula, and as illustrated in Equations (7) and (8), only one coefficient (C1) was targeted to be obtained to adjust the concrete capacity in the formula. At the same time, the steel section capacity (C2) was not modified and was assumed to be 1, as proposed in the code (Equation (1)).
C2 (Steel capacity) + C1 (Concrete capacity)
As fy + C1 Ac f’c        ACI
For the BS5400 and EC4 formulae, two coefficients (C1 and C2) were targeted to be found to adjust the concrete and steel capacity in the formulae.
C1Asfy + C2 Ac fcu      BS5400
C1Asfy + C2 Ac f’c       EC4
For the DBJ13-51 formula, due to the difference in the structure of the equations, two different coefficients (C1 and C2) have been targeted to adjust the formula, as shown in Equation (11).
( A s + A c ) · ( C 1   +   C 2 · ξ 0 ) · f ck
For all codes, the initial (ii) and final (if) values of the concrete and steel coefficients (C1 and C2) were taken as 0.1 and 5, respectively, and the accuracy of C1 and C2 (Δ) was taken as 0.01.
The first proposal of the modified formula for the four different codes can be expressed as:
Asfy + 0.86 Ac f’c    (KN)  ACI
1.01Asfy + 0.92 Ac fcu    (KN)  BS5400
1.1 As fy + 0.92 Ac f’c    (KN)  EC4
( A s + A c )   1.19   +   0.85   ξ 0      ( KN )      DBJ 13 - 51

Comparative Studies

As shown in Figure 7, the comparison between the first modified formula of the CFST load-carrying capacity to the experimental results shows a clear improvement in the performance of the four codes.
The most precise mean value (0.999) was achieved using Equation (13) derived from the BS5400 code. In contrast, the less accurate mean was obtained through the modified ACI approach (Equation (12)) and resulted in the same standard deviations of 0.129 as the existing code formulae.
It can be observed in Figure 7 that all approaches provide a better prediction for small section capacities, while the scatter increases as the section capacities increase. Therefore, effort needs to be invested in improving the proposed formulae by considering the magnitude of the sectional capacity. That is, the direction followed in the second proposed formula.

4.2. The Second Proposal to Modify the Existing Design Formulas

In order to improve the scatter of the results for higher section capacities, the second proposed formulation divides the capacity equations into two groups. Similar to the first modification approach, regression analysis was utilized to propose new equations of the four design equations. However, the second modification for the Chinese Standard was divided based on the confinement factor (ξ).
The same VBA code from the first medication proposal was utilized to perform the second proposal after developing it to divide the data into two groups using an iterative method to get the perfectas COV value of all Standards. The load-carrying capacities from the second proposal can be expressed as follows:
ACI
  N N   ( u ) = { A S   f y + A C f C   | < 1800 K N          A S   f y + 1.07   A C f C          A S   f y + A C f C   |   ≥ 1800 K N          A S   f y + 0.9   A C f C  
BS
  N N ( u ) = { A S   f y + A C f U   | < 2000 K N          1.23     A S   f y + 0.8   A C f C U A S   f y + A C f U   | ≥ 2000 K N           A S   f y + 0.7   A C f C U
EC4
  N N ( u ) = { A S   f y + A C f C   | < 2000 K N          A S   f y + 1.02   A C f C A S   f y + A C f C   | ≥ 2000 K N          A S   f y + 0.78     A C f C
DJ
N N ( u ) = { ξ , < 1.250          ( 1.2 + 0.85   ξ ) × F C K   ( K N ) ξ , ≥ 1.250          ( 1.5 + 0.75   ξ ) × F C K   ( K N )

Comparative Studies

Table 1 and Figure 8 illustrate the comparisons between the second proposed equations and the experimental results. Overall, the second proposed formulations give the predictions of mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation compared to the existing and first proposed equations. The mean values of the second approach ranged between 0.940 and 0.999, while the standard deviation ranged between 0.129 and 0.142, as shown in Table 1. The scatter of the second proposed equations for the British and Chinese approaches clearly becomes smaller; meanwhile, the mean values of all approaches have significantly improved compared to the experimental results. The improvement in the second modification approach can be obviously observed in Figure 9. The improvement in the predictions of the second modification equations can be attributed to the fact that the existing code equations were proposed for sections with maximum steel and concrete strengths of 450 MPa and 60 MPa, respectively. However, the behavior of higher grades of such materials is relatively different.

5. Conclusions

The main objective of this paper is to establish a new comprehensive database consisting of 455 experimental tests of axially loaded square and rectangular concrete-filled steel tubular (CFST) stub columns. The database contains specimens with a concrete core of compressive strengths ranging from normal- to high-strength concrete and steel yield strength ranging from normal to high-strength steel, and with a wide variety of width-to-thickness ratios, steel ratios, and confinement factors. The database was first used to assess the accuracy of four international codes for estimating the axial load capacity and then to suggest more accurate prediction approaches based on the regression analysis method of the collected data. The following conclusions made from this study can be drawn:
  • Despite the considerable number of experimental tests on CFST stub columns, it was found that fewer tests were performed on columns made using high-strength materials. In addition, the tests on large-scale columns were very limited and the majority of these tests were focused on CFST stub columns with small cross-sections.
  • All four codes provided a conservative prediction of CFST stub columns. The Chinese Standard (DBJ13-51) approach gave the most reliable mean value of the predicted load-carrying capacity to experimental results, while the best scatter was achieved by the ACI approach.
  • Better predictions have been generally achieved using the first modified equations of the CFST load-carrying capacity than that of the original four codes. The modified formula based on the BS5400 approach gave the most precise results. However, it was found that the first proposed equations mainly provide accurate predictions for small sectional capacities, while the scattering of the results increases with the increase in section resistance.
  • To improve the scatter of the results, other proposed equations were introduced. It was found that this second proposed approach can provide the most precise results compared to the existing and the first proposed formulas, especially the equation derived from the BS5400 code with a coefficient of variation (COV) of 0.1371.

Author Contributions

F.A.: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing; S.A.O.: Project administration, Supervision, Funding acquisition; A.A.: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis; M.A.: Data curation, Formal analysis; R.H.: Supervision; F.M.: Supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The resulted data of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Specimen Database

Table
Table A1. Summary of the collected database.
Table A1. Summary of the collected database.
NoName of Specimensb
(mm)		h
(mm)		t
(mm)		fy
(MPa)		f′c
(MPa)		L
(mm)		Nu
(KN)		Tested by
11142.1142.13.02255.149.2426.31360Zhang et al., 2005 [16]
22142.1142.13.02255.149.2426.31400
33143.1143.13.02255.149.2429.31150
44101.3101.34.97347.354.2303.91310
55103.6103.64.9347.354.2310.81340
661021024.97347.354.23061370
771421425.11347.354.24262160
881421425.08347.354.24262250
99141.4141.45.07347.354.2424.22280
1010141.5141.53.08255.166.2424.51920
1111142.4142.43.05255.166.2427.22060
1212141.6141.63.04255.166.2424.81960
1313103.5103.55.01347.366.2310.51500
1414102.1102.14.97347.366.2306.31330
1515101.9101.95.03347.366.2305.71440
1616142.3142.35.09347.366.2426.92520
1717142.4142.45.1347.366.2427.22610
1818139.1139.15.06347.366.2417.31700
1920126.21612.98255.154.24831580
2021126160.32.92255.154.2480.91560
2128101.6130.35.03347.354.2390.91580
2229102.3130.35.14347.354.2390.91600
2330102.3130.35.14347.354.2390.91640
2431136167.45.13347.354.2502.22510
2532135.3170.85.07347.354.2512.42470
2635125.1160.42.85255.166.2481.21855
2736125.61602.88255.166.24802030
2837125161.12.81255.166.2483.32040
2941102.7125.75.15347.366.2377.11840
3042120.41305.03347.366.23901820
3143120.7132.34.98347.366.2396.91725
3247137.1167.95.1347.366.2503.72600
3348133.2172.75.08347.366.2518.12700
34120 × 80 × 5801202.86386.334200950Shakir-Khalil and Zeghiche, 1989 [20]
35120 × 80 × 5801205386.330.7200900
36120 × 80 × 5801205384.730.7200910
37120 × 80 × 5801205384.734200900
38120 × 80 × 5801205343.333.2200900
39120 × 80 × 5801205343.334.8200920
40120 × 80 × 5801205357.534200902
41120 × 80 × 5801205357.532200900Shakir-Khalil and Mouli, 1990 [21]
42120 × 80 × 580120534132.8200920
43120 × 80 × 580120534135.8200950
44120 × 80 × 5801205362.532.7200955
45120 × 80 × 5801205362.531.42001370
46150 × 100 × 51001505346.735.61001210
47150 × 100 × 51001505346.735.62001340
48150 × 100 × 51001505346.735.81001200
49150 × 100 × 51001505346.735.82001300
50150 × 100 × 5100150534036.11001190
51150 × 100 × 5100150534036.12001320
52150 × 100 × 5100150534036.61001200
53CR4-A-21481484.3826225.42001153Sakino, 2004 [18]
54CR4-A-4-11481484.3826240.52001414
55CR4-A-4-21481484.3826240.52001402
56CR4-A-81481484.38262772002108
57CR4-C-22152154.3826225.42001777
58CR4-C-4-12152154.3826241.12002424
59CR4-C-4-22152154.3826241.12002393
60CR4-C-82152154.3826280.32003837
61CR4-D-23233234.3826225.42003367
62CR4-D-4-13233234.3826241.12004950
63CR4-D-4-23233234.3826241.12004830
64CR4-D-83243244.3826280.32007481
65CR6-A-21441446.3661825.42002572
66CR6-A-4-11441446.3661840.52002808
67CR6-A-4-21441446.3661840.52002765
68CR6-A-81441446.36618772003399
69CR6-C-22112116.3661825.42003920
70CR6-C-4-12112116.3661840.52004428
71CR6-C-4-22112116.3661840.52004484
72CR6-C-82112116.36618772005758
73CR6-D-23193196.3661825.42006320
74CR6-D-4-13193196.3661841.12007780
75CR6-D-4-23183186.3661841.12007473
76CR6-D-83193196.3661885.120010357
77CR8-A-21201206.4783525.42002819
78CR8-A-4-11201206.4783540.52002957
79CR8-A-4-21201206.4783540.52002961
80CR8-A-81191196.47835772003318
81CR8-C-21751756.4783525.42004210
82CR8-C-4-11751756.4783540.52004493
83CR8-C-4-21751756.4783540.52004542
84CR8-C-81751756.47835772005366
85CR8-D-22652656.4783525.42006546
86CR8-D-4-12642646.4783541.12007117
87CR8-D-4-22652656.4783541.12007172
88CR8-D-82652656.4783580.32008990
89CR4-A-4-32102105.4829439.12003183
90CR4-A-92112115.4829491.12004773
91CR4-C-4-32102104.527739.12002713
92CR4-C-92112114.527791.12004371
93CR6-A-4-32112118.8353639.12005898
94CR6-A-92112118.8353691.12007008
95CR6-C-4-32042045.9554039.12004026
96CR6-C-92042045.9554091.12005303
97CR8-A-4-31801809.4582539.12006803
98CR8-A-91801809.4582591.12007402
99CR8-C-4-31801806.682439.12005028
100CR8-C-91801806.682491.12005873
10111601603.4636364.82002011Wang, 2014 [19]
10221601603.4636364.82002333
10331601603.4636344.42001784
10441601603.4636344.42001812
10551601605.4335364.82002751
10661601605.4335364.82002791
107DF3114.3114.39.6325832.64062442Neogi and Chapman, 1969 [34]
108DF4114.9114.94.3925832.6406897
109scdz1-21201203.84330.116.7360882Wei and Han, 2000 [35]
110scdz1-31201203.84330.116.7360921.2
111scdz1-41201203.84330.126.43601080
112scdz1-51201203.84330.128.23601078
113scdz2-31401403.84330.129.34201499.4
114scdz2-41401403.84330.129.34201470
115scdz3-11201205.86321.116.13601176
116scdz3-21201205.86321.116.13601117.2
117scdz3-41201205.86321.128.23601460.2
118scdz3-51201205.86321.128.23601372
119scdz4-31401405.86321.129.34202009
120scdz4-41401405.86321.129.34201906.1
1212fp3-11001002284.632.4400588Zhang and Zhou, 2000 [36]
1222fp3-61001002284.632.4400656.6
1232fp3-221001002284.632.4400745
1242fp4-101001002284.632.4400705.6
1252fp4-141001002284.632.4400666.4
1262fp4-161001002284.632.4400696
1272fp4-231001002284.632.4400725
1282fp4-241001002284.632.4400745
1293fp3-251001003288.232.4400852
1303fp3-361001003288.232.4400892
1313fp3-81001003288.232.4400882
1323fp3-261001003288.232.4400931
1333fp3-51001003288.232.4400882
1343fp4-111001003288.232.4400891
1353fp4-171001003288.232.4400833
1363fp4-201001003288.232.4400872
1375fp3-41001005403.432.44001195
1385fp3-271001005403.432.44001068
1395fp3-281001005403.432.44001294
1405fp3-351001005403.432.44001274
1415fp3-291001005403.432.44001313
1425fp4-131001005403.432.44001294
1435fp4-181001005403.432.44001244.6
1445fp4-211001005403.432.44001323
1455fp4-301001005403.432.44001313
1465fp4-311001005403.432.44001274
1475fp4-321001005403.432.44001244.6
1484fp3-71001004239.832.44001019
1494fp3-91001004239.832.4400980
1504fp3-21001004239.832.4400882
1514fp3-331001004239.832.4400901.6
1524fp3-341001004239.832.4400980
1534fp4-151001004239.832.44001000
1544fp4-191001004239.832.4400970
1554fp4-351001004239.832.4400921.2
1564fp4-361001004239.832.4400960.4
1571A1001002.29194.232300497.4Tomii and Sakino, 1979 [37]
1581B1001002.29194.232300498
1592A1001002.2339.421.4300511
1602B1001002.2339.421.4300510
1614A1001002.99288.420.6300529
1623B1001002.99288.420.6300528
1634A1001004.25284.519.8300667
1644B1001004.25284.519.8300666
165272502508379335004870Grauers M, 1993 [38]
166282502508379915008300
167CR4A21481484.3826225.44441153Inai and Sakino, 1996 [39]
168CR4A4.11481484.3826240.54441414
169CR4A4.21481484.3826240.54441402
170CR4A81481484.38262774442108
171CR4C22152154.3826225.46451777
172CR4C4.12152154.3826241.16452424
173CR4C4.22152154.3826241.16452393
174CR4C82152154.3826280.36453837
175CR4D23233234.3826225.49693367
176CR4D4.13233234.3826241.19695950
177CR4D4.23233234.3826241.19694830
178CR4D83233234.3826280.39697481
179CR6A21441446.3661825.44322572
180CR6A4.11441446.3661840.54322808
181CR6A4.21441446.3661840.54322765
182CR6A81441446.36618774323399
183CR6C22112116.3661825.46333920
184CR6C4.12112116.3661840.56334428
185CR6C4.22112116.3661840.56334484
186CR6C82112116.36618776335758
187CR6D23193196.3661825.49576320
188CR6D4.13193196.3661841.19577780
189CR6D4.23183186.3661841.19547473
190CR6D83193196.3661885.195710357
191CR8A21201206.3661825.43602819
192CR8A4.11201206.4783540.53602957
193CR8A4.21201206.4783540.53602961
194CR8A81201206.47835773603318
195CR8C21751756.4783525.45254210
196CR8C4.11751756.4783540.55254493
197CR8C4.21751756.4783540.55254542
198CR8C81751756.47835775255366
199CR8D22652656.4783525.47956546
200CR8D4.12652656.4783541.17957117
201CR8D4.22652656.4783541.17957172
202CR8D82652656.4783580.37958990
203CR4A4.32102105.4829439.16303184
204CR4A92112115.4829491.16334775
205CR4C4.32102104.527739.16302714
206CR4C92112114.527791.16334372
207CR6A4.32112118.8353639.16335900
208CR6A92112118.8353691.16337010
209CR6C4.32042045.9554039.16124027
210CR6C92042045.9554091.16125305
211CR8A4.31801809.4582539.15406805
212CR8A91801809.4582591.15407405
213CR8C4.31801806.682431.15405030
214CR8C91801806.682491.15405875
215CR8-6-102002006.167811196006645Nakahara and Sakino, 1998 [40]
216CR8-3-102002003.177811196004910
217CR4-6-102002006.393101196004965
218CR4-3-102002003.093101196003899
219SC-32-803053058.9560110122014116Varma, 2000 [41]
220SC-480803053056.1660110122012307
221Sc-32-463053058.6259110122011390
222SC-48-463053055.8471110122011568
2231152.4152.44.4338946.23001906Lu and Kennedy, 1992 [42]
2242152.4152.48.9543245.43003307
2253152153.46.1737743.63003317
2264152.21539.0439447.23004208
227S10D-2A100.2100.22.1830025.7300609Yamamoto et al., 2000 [43]
228S20D-2A200.3200.34.3532329.66012230
229S30D-2A300.5300.56.139526.59025102
230S10D-4A100.1100.12.1830053.7300851
231S20D-4A200.1200.14.3532357.96013201
232S30D-4A300.7300.76.139552.29026494
233S10D-6A100.1100.12.1830061300911
234S20D-6A200.3200.34.3532363.76013417
2351 rc1-11001002.8622847.44300760Han and Yao, 2002 [44]
2362 rc1-21001002.8622847.44300800
2373 rc2-11201202.8622847.44360992
2384 rc2-21201202.8622847.443601050
2395 rc3-11001102.8622847.44330844
2406 rc3-21001102.8622847.44330860
2417 rc4-11351502.8622847.444501420
2428 rc4-21351502.8622847.444501340
2439 rc5-170902.8622847.44270554
24410 rc5-270902.8622847.44270576
24511 rc6-1751002.8622847.44300640
24612 rc6-2751002.8622847.44300672
24713 rc7-1901202.8622847.44360800
24814 rc7-2901202.8622847.44360760
24915 rc8-11051402.8622847.444201044
25016 rc8-21051402.8622847.444201086
25117 rc9-11151502.8622847.444501251
25218 rc9-21151502.8622847.444501218
25319 rc10-11201607.619447.444801820
25420 rc10-21201607.619447.444801770
255S3100.7100.79.640024.643011550Lam and Williams, 2004 [45]
256S41011019.640074.883002000
257S599.999.94.928924.64301800
258S699.899.84.930074.88300900
259S7100.1100.14.233327.76301700
260S81001004.233327.76302680
261S91001004.133377.762991130
262S10-g1001004.133377.76300970
263S121001004.133346.08301880
264S13-g99.999.9433346.08301830
265S141011019.640046.083021800
266S15-g99.899.84.828925.52302780
267S1699.799.74.728946.563011000
268S17-g99.799.74.7328979.123021050
269S1899.999.94.133379.123011130
270sssc-12002003303.546.86002458Han and Yao, 2004 [46]
271sssc-22002003303.546.86012594
272ssh-12002003303.546.86022306
273ssh-22002003303.546.86032284
274ssv-12002003303.546.86042550
275ssv-22002003303.546.86052587
27611991991.8192.427.77961403Zhang Z-G, 1984 [47]
27721971971.55192.427.77971413
27831991991.5192.427.77981362
27941991991.63192.425.47981163
28051981981.66192.425.67941310
28161991991.68192.425.67961110
28271991991.91246.727.67921360
28381991991.86246.727.67971417
28491991991.62246.727.67981360
285101981981.72246.725.77971210
286111991991.69246.725.77971160
287121991991.66246.725.87961065
288131501501.52246.737.1595905
289141491491.47246.737.45961000
290151501501.6246.737.4598950
291161481481.57246.725.8598660
292171491491.64246.725.9595710
293182002002.93256.427.67931764
294192012012.92256.427.67961760
295201981982.92256.427.67971760
296211991992.91256.425.87931546
297222002002.93256.425.97921560
298232002003.93256.425.97941509
299241991993.9927936.27962100
300252002003.9627936.47962100
301262002004.93294367962439
302272002004.92294367962465
303281491493.91279375981300
304291491493.96279375981340
305301491493.94279375971350
306311981985.66234.735.97962330
307321981985.96234.7367972800
308331981985.69234.736.57962190
309341501504.93294.936.95951645
310351501504.95294.936.95941630
311361501504.96294.936.95951650
312371991997.83238.335.77972700
313382002007.8238.335.77962590
3143999994.9294.937.1398960
3154099994.92294.937.4397980
3164199994.86294.937.9399900
317421491497.67238.336.65961845
318431491497.67238.336.65961850
319441491497.58238.336.65981750
3204598985.74234.737.9399950
3214699995.84234.737.9398950
3224799995.85234.738395850
3234899997.72238.3383961100
324491001007.78238.3383981050
3255099997.82238.3383971000
32612002005227246002061Lu et al., 1999 [48]
3272200200522728.86002530
3283200200522736.86002468
32943003005227249003621
3305300300522728.89004603
3316300300522736.89004872
332S-80-F-180.280.21.6279.932.9240353Guo Lanhui, 2006 [49]
333S-80-F-280.980.91.6279.932.9240347
334S-110-F-11101101.5279.932.9330510
335S-110-F-2109.8109.81.5279.932.9330522
336S-150-F-1149.3149.33.6279.941.84501771
337S-150-F-2149.3149.33.6279.941.84501785
338A11201205.830074.73601697Liu and Gho, 2005 [50]
339A21201205.8300923601919
3401A3-12002005.830074.76003996
3411A3-22002005.830074.76003862
3421A4-11001305.830074.73901601
3431A4-21001305.830074.73901566
3441A5-11001305.8300923901854
3451A5-21001305.8300923901779
3461A6-11702205.830074.76603684
3471A6-21702205.830074.76603717
3481A9-11201204495563601739
3491A9-21201204495563601718
3501A12-11301304495563901963
3511A12-21301304495563901988
352C1-198.2100.34.1855056.63001490Liu et al., 2003 [51]
353C1-2100.6101.54.1855056.63001535
354C2-1101.1101.24.1855065.73001740
355C2-2100.4100.74.1855065.73001775
356C3181.2182.84.1855056.65403590
357C4180.4181.84.1855065.75404210
358R1-1120120449558.43601701Liu, 2005 [52]
359R1-2120120449558.43601657
360R4-1130130449558.43902020
361R4-2130130449558.43902018
362R7-1108108449577.63201749
363R7-2108108449577.63201824
364R10-1140140449577.64202752
365R10-2140140449577.64202828
366R11-1125160449577.64802580
367R11-2125160449577.64802674
36843101.3101.34.97347.349.43001310Ye Zaili, 2001 [53]
36945103.6103.64.9347.349.43001340
370461021024.97347.349.43001370
371231421425.11347.349.44202160
372271421425.08347.349.44202250
37329141.4141.45.07347.349.44202280
37496142.1142.13.02255.144.94201360
37597142.1142.13.02255.144.94201400
37669142.1142.12.01305.144.94201328
37770142.1142.12.01305.144.94201364
37871140.9140.92.02305.144.94201280
379105103.5103.55.01347.358.63001500
380106102.1102.14.97347.358.63001330
381113101.9101.95.03347.358.63001440
382161142.3142.35.09347.358.64202520
383162142.4142.45.1347.358.64202610
384130143.2143.22.03305.158.64201990
385133142.3142.32.01305.158.64201855
386156140.5140.52305.158.64201780
387127141.5141.53.08255.158.64201920
388134142.4142.43.05255.158.64202060
389129141.6141.63.04255.158.64201960
390159149.1149.15.06347.358.64201700
39193143.1143.13.02255.144.94201150
39222101.6130.35.03347.349.43901580
39338102.3130.35.14347.349.43901600
39439102.3130.35.14347.349.43901640
39585120.2166.32.94255.149.44801580
39686126.21612.98255.149.44801580
39788126160.32.92255.149.44801560
3984136.1167.45.13347.349.44802510
3995135.3170.85.07347.349.45102470
400136102.7125.75.15347.358.63901840
401150120.41305.03347.358.63901820
402151102.7132.34.98347.358.63901725
403160122.5157.12.01305.158.64801800
404163119161.92305.158.64801740
405135125.1160.42.85255.158.64801855
406137125.61602.88255.158.64802030
407152125161.12.81255.158.64802040
408153137.1167.95.1347.358.64802600
409154133.2172.75.08347.358.64802700
41060122.7160.22.03305.149.44801400
41162119.4160.12.01305.149.44801420
41265124.3161.52305.149.44801320
413S-150-F-1149.3149.33.63283.631.74481771Guo et al., 2006 [54]
414S-150-F-2149.3149.33.63283.631.74481785
415S-150-CF-1 o149.1149.13.69283.631.74481409
416S-150-CF-2 o1491493.59283.631.74481370
417S-150-C-1 c148.6148.63.67283.631.74481433
418S-150-C-2 c149.4149.43.64283.631.74481399
419S-120-P2 s1201202.6534021.9360778

References

  1. Zhao, X.-L.; Han, L.-H.; Lu, H. Concrete-Filled Tubular Members and Connections; Spon Press: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  2. Abdalla, S.H. Behavior of Concrete Filled Steel Tube (CFST) Under Different Loading Conditions; American University of Sharjah: Sharjah, United Arab Emirates, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  3. Wang, Z.; Liu, Z.; Zhou, X. Experimental Investigation of Special-Shaped Concrete-Filled Square Steel Tube Composite Columns with Steel Hoops under Axial Loads. Materials 2022, 15, 4179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Alatshan, F.; Osman, S.A.; Hamid, R.; Mashiri, F. Stiffened concrete-filled steel tubes: A systematic review. Thin-Walled Struct. 2020, 148, 106590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Chang, Z.H.; Azmi, M.R.; Yatim, M.Y.M. Behaviour of Concrete-Filled Double Skin Tubular Short Column with Plate Stiffeners Welded Intermittently under Axial Compression. Buildings 2022, 12, 567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rahnavard, R.; Craveiro, H.D.; Lopes, M.; Simões, R.A.; Laím, L.; Rebelo, C. Concrete-filled cold-formed steel (CF-CFS) built-up columns under compression: Test and design. Thin-Walled Struct. 2022, 179, 109603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rahnavard, R.; Craveiro, H.D.; Simões, R.A.; Laím, L.; Santiago, A. Buckling resistance of concrete-filled cold-formed steel (CF-CFS) built-up short columns under compression. Thin-Walled Struct. 2022, 170, 108638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Luo, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Chen, Y.; Lin, X.; Yan, J. Experimental Studies on Seismic Performance of UHPSFRC-Filled Square Steel Tubular Columns. Buildings 2022, 12, 798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dabbagh, N.M.R.; Wan Badaruzzaman, W.H.; Al Zand, A.W.; Kazemzadeh Azad, S.; Uy, B.; Azmi, M.R.; Alatshan, F. A systematic review on CFST members under impulsive loading. Thin-Walled Struct. 2022, 179, 109503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Xu, B.; Wang, L.; Xiang, C.; Han, Z. Analysis of Buckling Deformation for the Side Plate of Rectangular CSFT Column Based on Plate Theory with Bi-Axial Loads. Buildings 2022, 12, 626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Alatshan, F.; Osman, S.A.; Mashiri, F.; Hamid, R. Explicit Simulation of Circular CFST Stub Columns with External Steel Confinement under Axial Compression. Materials 2020, 13, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Han, L.-H.; Li, W.; Bjorhovde, R. Developments and advanced applications of concrete-filled steel tubular (CFST) structures: Members. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2014, 100, 211–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Goode, C.D. ASCCS Database of Concrete-Filled Steel Tube Columns. Available online: https://www.bradford.ac.uk/sustainable-environments/asccs/columns-database/ (accessed on 21 December 2022).
  14. Lam, D.; Gardner, L. Structural design of stainless steel concrete filled columns. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2008, 64, 1275–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ellobody, E.; Young, B. Design and behaviour of concrete-filled cold-formed stainless steel tube columns. Eng. Struct. 2006, 28, 716–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhang, S.; Guo, L.; Ye, Z.; Wang, Y. Behavior of Steel Tube and Confined High Strength Concrete for Concrete-Filled RHS Tubes. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2005, 8, 101–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Uy, B.; Tao, Z.; Han, L.-H. Behaviour of short and slender concrete-filled stainless steel tubular columns. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2011, 67, 360–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sakino, K.; Nakahara, H.; Morino, S.; Nishiyama, I. Behavior of Centrally Loaded Concrete-Filled Steel-Tube Short Columns. J. Struct. Eng. 2004, 130, 180–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wang, W.-H.; Han, L.-H.; Li, W.; Jia, Y.-H. Behavior of concrete-filled steel tubular stub columns and beams using dune sand as part of fine aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 51, 352–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Shakir-Khalil, H.; Zeghiche, J. Experimental behaviour of concrete-filled rolled rectangular hollow-section columns. Struct. Eng. 1989, 67, 346–353. [Google Scholar]
  21. Shakir-Khalil, H.; Mouli, M. Further tests on concrete-filled rectangular hollow-section columns. Struct. Eng. 1990, 68, 405–413. [Google Scholar]
  22. EN 1994-2: Eurocode 4; Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures-Part 2: General Rules and Rules for Bridges. European Committee for Standardisation: Brussels, Belgium, 1994.
  23. EC:2. 1-1; Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures: Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. British Standards Institution: London, UK, 2004.
  24. ACI:318; Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete and Commentary. American Concrete Institute International: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2011.
  25. Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ); Standards for Structural Calculation of Steel Reinforced Concrete Structures. Architectural Institute of Japan: Tokyo, Japan, 2001.
  26. AS AS5100; 2-2004, Bridge Design—Part 2: Design Loads. Standards Australia: Sydney, Australia, 2004.
  27. BSI BS5400; Steel, Concrete and Composite Bridges, Part 5, Code of Practice for the Design of Composite Bridges. British Standard Institution: London, UK, 2005.
  28. DBJ:13-51; Technical Specification for Concrete-filled Steel Tubular Structures. The Construction Department of Fujian Province: Fuzhou, China, 2003.
  29. 3678, A.N.; Structural Steel—Hot-Rolled Plates, Floorplates and Slabs. Australian/New Zealand Standard. Standards Australia: Sydney, Australia, 1996.
  30. EN:10025; Hot Rolled Products of Structural Steels, Part 6: Technical Delivery Conditions for Flat Products of High Yield Strength Structural Steels in the Quenched and Tempered Condition. The European Standard EN: Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
  31. GB:50017; Code for Design of Steel Structures. National Standard of P. R. China: Beijing, China, 2003.
  32. Lu, Z.-H.; Zhao, Y.-G. Suggested empirical models for the axial capacity of circular CFT stub columns. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2010, 66, 850–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hanoon, A.N.; Al Zand, A.W..; Yaseen, Z.M. Designing new hybrid artificial intelligence model for CFST beam flexural performance prediction. Eng. Comput. 2022, 38, 3109–3135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Neogi, P.; Sen, H.; Chapman, J. Concrete-filled tubular steel columns under eccentric loading. Struct. Eng. 1969, 47, 187–195. [Google Scholar]
  35. Zhuobin, W.; Linhai, H. RESEARCH ON THE BEARING CAPACITY OF EARLY-STRENGTH CONCRETE FILLED SQUARE STEEL TUBE. In Proceedings of Composite and Hybrid Structures: Proceedings of the Sixth ASCCS International Conference on Steel-Concrete Composite Structures, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 22–24 March 2000; p. 395.
  36. Zhang, S.; Zhou, M. Stress-strain behavior of concrete-filled square steel tubes. In Proceedings of the 6th ASCCS Conference, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 22–24 March 2000; pp. 403–409. [Google Scholar]
  37. Tomii, M.; Sakino, K. Experimental studies on the ultimate moment of concrete filled square steel tubular beam-columns. Trans. Archit. Inst. Jpn. 1979, 275, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Grauers, M. Composite Columns of Hollow Steel Sections Filled with High Strength Concrete; Chalmers University of Technology: Gothenburg, Sweden, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  39. Inai, E.; Sakino, K. Simulation of flexural behavior of square concrete filled steel tubular columns. In Proceedings of the 3rd Joint Technical Coordinating Committee Meeting, US-Japan Cooperative Research Program, Phase 5: Composite and Hybrid Structures, Hong Kong, 12–14 December 1996. [Google Scholar]
  40. Nakahara, H.; Sakino, K. Axial compressive and uniform bending tests of high strength concrete filled square steel tubular columns. In Proceedings of the 5th Pacific Structural Steel Conference, Seoul, Korea; pp. 943–948.
  41. Varma, A.H. Seismic Behavior, Analysis, and Design of High Strength Square Concrete Filled Steel Tube (CFT) Columns; Lehigh University: Bethlehem, PA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  42. Lu, Y.Q.; Kennedy, D.L. The Flexural Behaviour of Concrete-Filled Hollow Structural Sections; 0315-1468; University of Alberta: Edmonton, AB, Canada, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  43. Yamamoto, T.; Kawaguchi, J.; Morino, S. Experimental study of scale effects on the compressive behavior of short concrete-filled steel tube columns. In Proceedings of the United Engineering Foundation Conference on Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete IV (AICE). Banff, Canada, 28 May–2 June 2000; pp. 879–891. [Google Scholar]
  44. Han, L.-H.; Yao, G.-H. Tests on stub columns of concrete-filled RHS sections. J. Constr. Steelwork 2002, 58, 353–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lam, D.; Williams, C.A. Experimental study on concrete filled square hollow sections. Steel Compos. Struct. 2004, 4, 95–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Han, L.-H.; Yao, G.-H. Experimental behaviour of thin-walled hollow structural steel (HSS) columns filled with self-consolidating concrete (SCC). Thin-Walled Struct. 2004, 42, 1357–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhang, Z. Experimental Research on Short Filled Concrete Square Steel Tube Columns under Axial Compressive Load; Harbin University of Technology: Harbin, China, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  48. Xilin, L.; YuYong, C.Y. Studies on the Behavior of Concrete-filled Rectangular Tubular Short Column: I Eexperiment. Build. Struct. 1999, 10, 008. [Google Scholar]
  49. Guo, L. Theoretical and Experimental Reearch on the Behavior of Concrete-Filled Rectangular Hollow Section Steel Tubes; Harbin Institute of Technology: Harbin, China, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  50. Liu, D.; Gho, W.-M. Axial load behaviour of high-strength rectangular concrete-filled steel tubular stub columns. Thin-Walled Struct. 2005, 43, 1131–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Liu, D.; Gho, W.-M.; Yuan, J. Ultimate capacity of high-strength rectangular concrete-filled steel hollow section stub columns. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2003, 59, 1499–1515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Liu, D. Tests on high-strength rectangular concrete-filled steel hollow section stub columns. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2005, 61, 902–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zaili, Y. Conpressive Behavior of high-Strength Concrete-Filled Square and Rectangular Steel Tubes; Harbin Institute of Technology: Harbin, China, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  54. Guo, L.; Zhang, S.; Kim, W. Behaviour of concrete-filled square hollow section (SHS) steel tubes under different loading conditions. In Proceedings of the Eigth International Conference for ASCCS, Harbin, China, 12–15 August 2006; pp. 83–90. [Google Scholar]
Buildings 13 00128 g001 550
Figure 1. Test specimens.
Figure 1. Test specimens.
Buildings 13 00128 g001
Buildings 13 00128 g002 550
Figure 2. Schematic failure modes of rectangular CFST columns.
Figure 2. Schematic failure modes of rectangular CFST columns.
Buildings 13 00128 g002
Buildings 13 00128 g003a 550Buildings 13 00128 g003b 550
Figure 3. Distribution of test database in terms of (a) concrete strength, (b) steel strength, (c) confinement factor, (d) steel ratio, (e) width-to-steel thickness ratio and (f) ultimate section capacity.
Figure 3. Distribution of test database in terms of (a) concrete strength, (b) steel strength, (c) confinement factor, (d) steel ratio, (e) width-to-steel thickness ratio and (f) ultimate section capacity.
Buildings 13 00128 g003aBuildings 13 00128 g003b
Buildings 13 00128 g004a 550Buildings 13 00128 g004b 550
Figure 4. Comparison of the carrying capacity predictions of the different formulations.
Figure 4. Comparison of the carrying capacity predictions of the different formulations.
Buildings 13 00128 g004aBuildings 13 00128 g004b
Buildings 13 00128 g005 550
Figure 5. ACI first proposal flowchart.
Figure 5. ACI first proposal flowchart.
Buildings 13 00128 g005
Buildings 13 00128 g006 550
Figure 6. BS5400, EC4 and DBJ13-51 first proposal flowchart.
Figure 6. BS5400, EC4 and DBJ13-51 first proposal flowchart.
Buildings 13 00128 g006
Buildings 13 00128 g007 550
Figure 7. Performance of the first modified approach of the standard formulations.
Figure 7. Performance of the first modified approach of the standard formulations.
Buildings 13 00128 g007
Buildings 13 00128 g008 550
Figure 8. Performance of the second proposal of the standard formulations.
Figure 8. Performance of the second proposal of the standard formulations.
Buildings 13 00128 g008
Buildings 13 00128 g009 550
Figure 9. Comparison between the coefficient of variation of the existing and the proposed design approaches.
Figure 9. Comparison between the coefficient of variation of the existing and the proposed design approaches.
Buildings 13 00128 g009
Table
Table 1. Comparisons of square and rectangular CFT stub column capacity produced using different equations with the experimental results.
Table 1. Comparisons of square and rectangular CFT stub column capacity produced using different equations with the experimental results.
MeanSDCOV
ACI0.8670.1290.1488
BS1.040.1650.1587
EC40.9380.1410.1503
DJ0.9720.1420.1461
ACI first proposal0.8720.1290.1479
BS5400 first proposal0.9990.1530.1532
EC4 first proposal0.9470.140.1478
DBJ13-51 first proposal0.9760.1420.1455
ACI second proposal0.940.1290.1372
BS5400 second proposal0.9990.1370.1371
EC4 second proposal0.9920.1340.1351
DBJ13-51 second proposal0.9910.1420.1433
SD, Standard deviation. COV, coefficient of variation.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Alatshan, F.; Osman, S.A.; Altlomate, A.; Alkair, M.; Hamid, R.; Mashiri, F. Design Model of Rectangular Concrete-Filled Steel Tubular Stub Columns under Axial Compression. Buildings 2023, 13, 128. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13010128

AMA Style

Alatshan F, Osman SA, Altlomate A, Alkair M, Hamid R, Mashiri F. Design Model of Rectangular Concrete-Filled Steel Tubular Stub Columns under Axial Compression. Buildings. 2023; 13(1):128. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13010128

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alatshan, Faesal, Siti Aminah Osman, Abdelmajeed Altlomate, Mohammed Alkair, Roszilah Hamid, and Fidelis Mashiri. 2023. "Design Model of Rectangular Concrete-Filled Steel Tubular Stub Columns under Axial Compression" Buildings 13, no. 1: 128. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13010128

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop