ARTICLE IN PRESS

Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 1544–1556

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thin-Walled Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Analysis and design of concrete-filled stiffened thin-walled steel tubular

columns under axial compression
Zhong Tao a,b,, Brian Uy b, Lin-Hai Han c, Zhi-Bin Wang a
a
College of Civil Engineering, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou, Fujian Province 350108, PR China
b
School of Engineering, University of Western Sydney, Penrith South DC, NSW 1797, Australia
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Key Laboratory of Structural Engineering and Vibration of China Education Ministry, Beijing 100084, PR China

a r t i c l e in f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Longitudinal stiffeners are effective in improving the overall performance of concrete-filled square or
Received 22 August 2008 rectangular thin-walled steel tubular columns. This paper is concerned with the nonlinear analysis and
Accepted 22 May 2009 design of stiffened square stub columns under axial compression. The nonlinear analysis is performed
Available online 12 June 2009
using ABAQUS, a commercially available finite element (FE) program. Close agreement is shown
Keywords: between the test and predicted results in terms of the load-deformation curves and ultimate strength.
Concrete-filled steel tubes The column behaviour is investigated and discussed using this modelling. The limit of width-to-
Thin-walled thickness ratio for the sub-panels and the rigidity requirement for the stiffeners is discussed. The
Stub columns feasibility using existing design codes to predict the load-carrying capacities of the stiffened composite
Axial compression
columns is also dealt with in this paper.
Local buckling
& 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Stiffeners
Finite element analysis
Design

1. Introduction
With the development and application of high-strength or
high-performance steel in recent years, thin-walled steel tubes are
becoming increasingly attractive to be used in engineering
practice provided local buckling is properly dealt with in column
design. To cater for this requirement, filling the tubes with
concrete is highly preferred. The merits of concrete-filled steel
tubes (CFST) have been well-understood [1–3].
Compared with circular tubes, local buckling is, however, more
likely to occur for a square or rectangular tube even in-filled with
concrete [4–11]. To further improve the performance of thin-
walled square or rectangular CFST columns, longitudinal stiffeners
can be welded on the inner surfaces of the steel tubes (Fig. 1). The
stiffening effects have been demonstrated by test results of both
stub columns and beam-columns [6–11].
It is worth noting that, stiffeners may also be welded on the
outer surfaces of a steel tube. In this case, the stiffeners are easier
to be welded compared to the inner-welded ones, and may be
used when aesthetics requirement is not highly emphasized or
when fireproof panels are used to protect the column from fire [8].
 Corresponding author at: College of Civil Engineering, Fuzhou University,
Fuzhou, Fujian Province 350108, PR China. Tel.: +86 591 22865356;
fax: +86 591 22865355.
E-mail address: taozhong@fzu.edu.cn (Z. Tao).
Since heavy welding will be involved to fabricate a steel tube with
welded stiffeners, cold-formed steel sections may also be used to
reduce the welding costs as shown in Fig. 2. The hysteretic
behaviour of stiffened CFST columns with cross-sections as shown
in Fig. 2(c) has been investigated by Zhang et al. [11].
Using thin-walled tubes, poor ductility was generally achieved,
especially when high-strength concrete was used to fabricate the
stiffened composite specimens [8]. Therefore, a further test
program involving 48 specimens has been conducted recently
by the authors with an aim to improve the ductile behaviour of
such stiffened columns with various methods, including increas-
ing stiffener height, increasing stiffener number on each tube face,
using saw-shaped stiffeners, welding binding or anchor bars on
stiffeners, adding steel fibers to core concrete, and using low-
strength concrete. Thirty six test results have been reported by Tao
et al. [10], and the remaining tests will be given in this paper.
Since almost all tests carried out in the past were performed on
specimens with square sections, only square stiffened CFST stub
columns are dealt with in this paper. Numerical modelling can
provide better understanding of the behaviour of stiffened
columns. A continuing research on the nonlinear analysis of
square stiffened CFST stub columns under axial compression was
carried out. ABAQUS software is used to perform the finite
element (FE) analysis and to analyze the column behaviour.
At the present time, the practical application of CFST
construction is supported by many well-known national stan-
dards or recommendations [12], such as the American code AISC

0263-8231/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tws.2009.05.006
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Z. Tao et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 1544–1556 1545

Nomenclature Is Moment of inertia of stiffener about its centroidal axis

parallel to the panel element
Ac Cross-sectional area of concrete L Length of column
As Cross-sectional area of steel tube N Axial load
As,s Cross-sectional area of steel stiffeners ns Number of steel stiffener on each tube face
b Sub-panel plate width Nuc Calculated ultimate strength
B Width of square steel tube Nue Experimental ultimate strength
DI Ductility index SI Strength index
Ec Concrete modulus of elasticity t Wall thickness of steel tube
Es Steel modulus of elasticity ts Thickness of steel stiffener
fcu Characteristic cube strength of concrete e Strain
f0 c Characteristic compressive cylinder strength of con- eL Axial strain at the occurrence of local buckling
crete ey Yield strain of steel tube
fy Yield strength of steel tube ns Poisson’s ratio
fy,s Yield strength of steel stiffener s Stress
hs Height of steel stiffener o0 Amplitude of geometric imperfection

[13], British bridge code BS5400 [14], Chinese code DBJ13-51-
2003 [15] and Eurocode 4 [16]. However, there is no design code
that can be used specifically for the design of stiffened thin-walled
composite columns. Therefore, the topic of the design of such
innovative composite columns under axial compression will be
covered in this paper. The limit of width-to-thickness ratios (B/t)
for the sub-panels and the rigidity requirement for the stiffeners
is discussed. The feasibility using existing design codes, such as
AISC [13], BS5400 [14], DBJ13-51-2003 [15], and Eurocode 4 [16],
to predict the section capacities of the stiffened composite
columns is also dealt with, in which some necessary modifications
need to be made.
2. Further stub column tests
2.1. General
As presented by Tao et al. [10], effects of five different methods
including increasing stiffener height, increasing stiffener number
Stiffener Steel tube
Steel tube ts
hs
ts hs
t t
B
b coupons were conducted. The average steel properties are: elastic
b modulus Es ¼ 207 GPa, yield strength fy ¼ 338 MPa, yield strain
Concrete Stiffener
B B
Fig. 1. Cross-sections of concrete-filled stiffened thin-walled steel tubular
columns. (a) Square (b) Rectangle.
on each tube face, using saw-shaped stiffeners, welding binding or
anchor bars on stiffeners, and adding steel fibers to concrete, on
the ductility behaviour of the stub columns have been investi-
gated. It demonstrates that all these five stiffening methods have
potentials to improve the ductility to some extent, but adding
fibers to concrete is the most effective and reliable measure in
increasing the ductility capacity.
Further tests including eight stiffened stub columns and four
unstiffened ones, were performed under axial compression, where
specimen details are provided in Table 1. The overall width-to-
thickness ratio (B/t) of the square tubes was chosen as 100. The
main purpose of the tests was to investigate the effect of concrete
strength on the ductility behaviour of the stiffened stub columns.
Different specimen designations are used as shown in Table 1 to
distinguish these specimens, where the letters UNC denote
unstiffened specimens (Fig. 3(a)); SSNC denotes stiffened
specimens with only one stiffener welded on each tube face
(Fig. 3(b)); DSNC denotes stiffened specimens with two stiffeners
welded on each tube face (Fig. 3(c)); UFRC, SSFRC and DSFRC
represent unstiffened specimens and stiffened specimens with
one and two stiffeners welded on each tube face, respectively, and
steel fibre-reinforced concrete (SFRC) was used to fill the tubes.
The suffix letter of L or H in a specimen label represents that lower
strength concrete or higher strength concrete was used to
fabricate the specimen.
Mild steel sheets with a measured thickness of 2.5 mm were
H used in the construction of the tubes and stiffeners. The stiffeners
were chosen to have a height (hs) of 35 mm. Tension tests on three
Concrete ey ¼ 1960 me, ultimate strength fu ¼ 445 MPa, and ultimate strain
eu ¼ 268,000 me.
Four different concrete mixes were used in the test program.
They had a water/cement ratio of 0.48 and 0.7, respectively, made

Longitudinal
weld
Cold-formed Cold-formed Cold-formed
steel tube steel tube steel tube Longitudinal
weld
Longitudinal
weld

Concrete Concrete Concrete

Fig. 2. Other types of stiffened CFST columns using cold-formed steel sections.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1546 Z. Tao et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 1544–1556

Table 1
Specimen labels and section capacities.

No Specimen label B (mm) t (mm) hs (mm) fcu (MPa) o0 (mm) Nue (kN) DI SI

1 UNC-L 250 2.5 – 25.5 1.70 1993 4.93 0.967

2 UFRC-L 250 2.5 – 25.5 1.61 2020 9.14 0.980
3 SSNC-L 250 2.5 35 25.5 0.98 2282 4.99 1.051
4 SSFRC-L 250 2.5 35 25.5 0.97 2270 9.39 1.045
5 DSNC-L 250 2.5 35 25.5 0.90 2395 5.00 1.049
6 DSFRC-L 250 2.5 35 25.5 0.88 2500 13.36 1.095
7 UNC-H 250 2.5 – 50.8 1.63 3190 1.94 0.953
8 UFRC-H 250 2.5 – 51.2 1.82 3150 2.65 0.935
9 SSNC-H 250 2.5 35 50.8 0.99 3520 1.96 1.021
10 SSFRC-H 250 2.5 35 51.2 0.99 3610 2.71 1.039
11 DSNC-H 250 2.5 35 50.8 0.89 3865 1.96 1.088
12 DSFRC-H 250 2.5 35 51.2 0.85 3870 2.77 1.082

2.5 2.5

2.5
35
2.5 2.5
35

250 250 250

Fig. 3. Test specimens. (a) Unstiffened specimen, (b) Type I stiffened specimen, and (c) Type II stiffened specimen.

Table 2
Mix proportions and properties of concrete.

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

Normal concrete 293 205 803 1099 – 25.5 28,850

477 228 635 1060 – 50.8 34,650
SFRC 272 190 744 1019 157 25.5 28,930
452 216 602 1004 126 51.2 34,780

with ordinary Portland cement. The physical properties of the
concrete are given in Table 2. The maximum size of coarse
aggregate is 15 mm. Hooked-end steel fibers, 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. These fibers
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 CFST specimens. The concrete cube strengths
(fcu) for all test specimens are shown in Table 1.
The specimen fabrication process, test setup and instrumenta-
tion were all the same as those described by Tao et al. [10].
Geometric imperfections were observed in all steel tubes 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 35–50 mm. The
absolute values of maximum imperfection (o0) for all specimens
are presented in Table 1. Local imperfection distributions for a
typical specimen SSNC-L are shown in Fig. 4, where the outward
imperfections are shown in positive.
2.2. Test results and discussion
For unstiffened specimens, the steel plates buckled when the
load attained 30–40% of the maximum load in the pre-peak stage.
In contrast, the local buckling load for the stiffened specimens was
at 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. The dot points in
Fig. 5 show the approximate locations of observed local buckling
of the outer steel tubes. It once again demonstrates the fact that
the local buckling of steel tubes can be effectively postponed
when the stiffener number increases. Similar phenomenon has
been reported by Tao et al. [10]. It can also be found that the
change of concrete strength has only moderate influence on the
occurrence of local buckling.
Fig. 5 shows the effect of concrete strength on axial load (N)
versus axial strain (e) curves. It can be seen that more ductile
behaviour was achieved as lower strength concrete was used. To
quantify the effect of concrete strength on the section ductility, a
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Z. Tao et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 1544–1556 1547

Imperfection (mm)
Imperfection (mm)
4 4

Distance across
Distance across
0 0
2 2

tube (mm)
tube (mm)
83.3 0 83.3 0
166.7 -2 166.7 -2
250 -4 250 -4
600 400 200 0 600 400 200 0
Distance along tube (mm) Distance along tube (mm)

Imperfection (mm)

Imperfection (mm)
Distance across
4 4
Distance across

0 0
2 2

tube (mm)
tube (mm)

83.3 0 83.3 0
166.7 -2 166.7 -2
250 -4 250 -4
600 400 200 0 600 400 200 0
Distance along tube (mm) Distance along tube (mm)

Fig. 4. Measured initial imperfection distributions for a typical specimen (SSNC-L). (a) Face 1, (b) face 2, (c) face 3, and (d) face 4.

4000 4000
UNC-L SSNC-L
Axial laod N (kN)

Axial laod N (kN)

3000 3000
UNC-H SSNC-H

2000 2000

1000 1000

0 0
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000 0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000
-6
Axial strain  (×10 ) Axial strain  (×10-6)

4000
4000
UFRC-L
DSNC-L
Axial laod N (kN)

Axial laod N (kN)

3000 3000 UFRC-H

DSNC-H
2000 2000

1000 1000

0 0
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000 0 6000 12000 18000 24000 30000
-6
Axial strain  (×10 ) Axial strain  (×10-6)

4000 4500
SSFRC-L DSFRC-L
3600
Axial laod N (kN)

Axial laod N (kN)

3000 SSFRC-H DSFRC-H

2700
2000
1800
1000
900

0 0
0 6000 12000 18000 24000 30000 0 6000 12000 18000 24000 30000
-6
Axial strain  (×10 ) Axial strain  (×10-6)

Fig. 5. Effect of concrete strength on load versus axial strain curves. (a) No stiffener, normal concrete, (b) single stiffener, normal concrete, (c) double stiffeners, normal
concrete, (d) no stiffener, SFRC, (e) single stiffener, SFRC and (f) double stiffeners, SFRC.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1548 Z. Tao et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 1544–1556

15 15

12 12

9 9

DSFRC-L
DSFRC-H
SSFRC-H
SSFRC-L
DI
DI

UFRC-H
UFRC-L
SSNC-H

DSNC-H
6 6

UNC-H

DSNC-L
SSNC-L
UNC-L
3 3

0 0
No stiffener Single stiffener Double stiffeners No stiffener Single stiffener Double stiffeners

Fig. 6. Effect of concrete strength on ductility. (a) Specimens filled with normal concrete and (b) specimens filled with SFRC

ductility index (DI), which has been used by Tao et al. [8,10] is also
used in this paper. DI is defined as
85%
DI ¼
y
where e85% is the axial strain when the load falls to 85% of the
ultimate load, and ey is equal to e75%/0.75, e75% is the axial strain
when the load attains of 75% the ultimate load in the pre-peak
stage.
The DI values for all specimens are given in Table 1. As
expected, increasing the stiffener number on each tube face has
only a moderate influence on the ductility, whilst the DI value
increases significantly after fibers were added to the concrete [10].
This phenomenon has been explained by Tao et al. [10].
Fig. 6 shows the effect of concrete strength on the ductility.
Compared to specimens fabricated from higher strength concrete,
the DI values increased by 1.30–3.82 times for those tubes with
lower strength concrete infill. It is worth noting that the ductile
behaviour was even more satisfactory when steel fibers were
added to the lower strength concrete, as evidenced by specimens
SSFRC-L and DSFRC-L.
Based on the above test results and those presented by Tao et
al. [10], it can be concluded that adding fibers to concrete or
reducing the concrete strength can effectively increase the
ductility capacity of the thin-walled CFST columns. These two
measures may be applied jointly for structures in regions of high
seismicity. To further understand the seismic behaviour of the
stiffened composite columns, ongoing research by the authors
continues to investigate their cyclic behaviour. This will broaden
our knowledge of the innovative composite columns.
3. Nonlinear analysis
3.1. Model description
ABAQUS software [17] was used by Han et al. [18] for the finite
element analysis on CFST columns subjected to pure torsion. This
software was also used in this paper for the analysis of the
behaviour of stiffened square CFST stub columns under axial
compression. A brief introduction to the FE modelling is given as
follows. More details can be found in [18].
An elastic-plastic model with the Von-Mises yield criteria,
associated with the Prandtl–Reuss flow rule and isotropic strain
hardening, was used to describe the constitutive behaviour of the
steel. The damage plasticity model defined in ABAQUS/Standard
6.4 was used for the concrete in the analytical model. By using the
finite element method, strength enhancement at the state of
Symmetry
End plate
surface
(1)
Concrete
Steel tube
Symmetry
surface
Steel stiffener
Bottom symmetry
surface
Fig. 7. Typical finite element model.
triaxial loading can be achieved by the definition of the yielding
surface, and the description of the plastic behaviour comes from
the equivalent stress–strain relationship of core concrete [18]. For
concrete in tension, the tension softening behaviour of concrete
was defined [18].
The steel tube and the stiffeners were simulated by using 4-
node shell elements with reduced integration (S4R). The concrete
core and the end plate were modelled using 8-node brick
elements (C3D8R), with three translation degrees of freedom at
each node. The finite element mesh for a typical column is shown
in Fig. 7.
A surface-based interaction with a contact pressure model in
the normal direction and a Coulomb friction model in the
tangential directions to the surface between steel tube and core
concrete was used [18]. A friction coefficient of 0.25 was used in
the analysis. The contact surfaces can model infinitesimal sliding
and friction between the concrete core and steel tube, in which
either contact or separate are allowed but not to penetrate each
other.
Since thin-walled tubes were to be modelled, geometric
imperfections were included in the FE modelling. In general, the
distributions of local plate imperfections can be assumed similar
to the expected local buckling shape. According to this principal,
the local buckling shapes for concrete-filled steel tubular columns
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Z. Tao et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 1544–1556 1549

under axial compression recommended by Wright [19] were respectively, and defined by the equations
adopted.
  
For unstiffened tubes, the shape of the imperfections was o0 2mpx 2npy
o¼ 1  cos 1  cos (3)
assumed to be of the following form (Fig. 8(a)): 8 B L
  
o0 2mpx 2npy
o¼ 1  cos 1  cos (2)   
4 B L o0 2mpx 2npy
o¼ 1  cos 1  cos (4)
12 B L
where x and y are the lateral and axial coordinates, respectively,
from one end of the tube; B and L are the width and length of the where m and n in Eq. (3) are taken as 2 and 6, respectively, and
plate, respectively. For stub columns investigated in this paper, L is those in Eq. (4) are taken as 3 and 9, respectively. As shown from
taken as 3B; m and n are the numbers of the imperfection waves Fig. 8, no local buckling is assumed at the locations of the
along the lateral and axial directions, respectively, which are stiffeners. This is expected if the stiffeners have adequate rigidity,
taken as 1 and 3 for an unstiffened stub tube; o0 is the amplitude and demonstrated by the test results presented by Tao et al. [8,10].
of the imperfection, which is taken as 0.01B according to the Residual stresses due to fabrication may play a role in the
Chinese Standard GB50018-2002 [20]. performance of CFST columns. Research of residual stresses have
For stiffened tubes with one and two stiffeners on each tube shown that the maximum tensile residual stress (srt) occurs near
face, the imperfection shapes are assumed as in Fig. 8(b) and (c), the weld centreline and is typically near or at the yield strength fy
[21]. Test results also shown that the residual stress in compres-
sion (src) is about 15–25% of fy. For simplicity considerations, src
z
was taken as 0.2fy in FE modelling by Han [1] for welded
B B B rectangular tubes. This assumption is also used for welded
y columns in this paper. Moreover, tensile residual stress with a
value of fy is assumed to occur near the stiffener–plate junctions.
Typical idealized residual stress distributions for unstiffened and
B stiffened steel plates are shown in Fig. 9(a)–(c), respectively.
Due to symmetry, only one eighth of the stub column was
x analyzed. Symmetric boundary conditions were imposed on the
symmetric planes as shown in Fig. 7. Loading was applied in a
displacement control mode at the top end of the stub column to
z simulate the axial loading condition. Due to the nonlinear nature
of the modelling used, the well-known Newton–Raphson incre-
B B B mental-iterative solution method was used in the analysis.
y

1.4
B
10%
1.2
x 1
Nue / Nuc

z 0.8

B 0.6 −10% Kwon et al. [7]

B B
y Tao et al. [8]
0.4 Tao et al. [10]
Zhang et al. [22]
B 0.2
Tests in this paper

0
x 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Nue (kN)
Fig. 8. Imperfection assumed. (a) Unstiffened plate, (b) stiffened plate with one
stiffener, and (c) stiffened plate with two stiffeners. Fig. 10. Comparison between predicted and experimental ultimate strength.

σrt = fy σrt = fy σrt = fy

σrc = 0.2 fy σrc = 0.2 fy

σrc = 0.2 fy
B B B

Fig. 9. Residual stress distributions. (a) Unsiffened plate (b) stiffened plate with one stiffener, and (c) stiffened plate with two stiffeners.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1550 Z. Tao et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 1544–1556

3.2. Model verification
A comparison between the experimental results and FE results
was carried out to verify the finite element model. The predicted
ultimate strengths (Nuc) are compared with those obtained from
tests (Nue) in Fig. 10. A mean ratio (Nue/Nuc) of 1.043 is obtained
with a standard deviation of 0.054. It can be seen that the FE
modelling can predict the strength of the stiffened stub columns
with reasonable accuracy. The predicted axial load (N) versus axial
strain (e) curves are compared with the measured curves in Figs.
11 and 16. Due to page limitations, only part test curves are
randomly selected to present herein. More comparison results can

4000 2500
B×t=250 ×2.5mm; L=750 mm; Bx t=190 x 2.5mm; L=750 mm;
2000
3000 hs ×ts =35 ×2.5mm; fy =234.3 MPa hs x ts =25 x 2.5mm; fy =234.3 MPa
fc ′=50.1 MPa fc ′=51.8 MPa
1500
N (kN)

N (kN)
2000
1000
1000 Test [8] Test [8]
500
FE FE
0 0
0 10000 20000 30000 0 10000 20000 30000
-6 -6
ε (×10 ) ε (×10 )

5000 5000
B × t=250 × 2.5mm; L=750 mm; B×t=250 ×2.5mm; L=750 mm;
4000 4000
h s× t s=35 × 2.5mm; f y=342 MPa hs ×ts =35 ×2.5mm; fy =342 MPa
f cu =67 MPa fcu =67 MPa
3000 3000
N (kN)

N (kN)

2000 2000

1000 Test [10] 1000 Test [10]

FE FE
0 0
0 10000 20000 30000 0 10000 20000 30000
-6 -6
ε (×10 ) ε (×10 )

2500 5000
Test [22] Test [22]
2000 FE 4000 FE
N (kN)

N (kN)

1500 3000

1000 2000
B × t=200 × 1.25mm; L=595 mm; B × t=300 × 1.25mm; L=873 mm;
hs × ts =50 × 2.5mm; fy =373.1 MPa hs × ts =50 × 2.5mm; fy =373.1 MPa
500 1000
fcu=39.1 MPa fcu=43.4 MPa

0 0
0 2500 5000 7500 10000 0 2500 5000 7500 10000
ε (×10-6 ) ε (×10-6 )

3000 4500
2400 Test in this paper Test in this paper
3600
FE FE
N (kN)

N (kN)

1800 2700

1200 1800

600 900

0 0
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000 0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000
ε (×10-6 ) ε (×10-6 )

Fig. 11. Comparison of predicted versus experimental axial load-axial strain curves. (a) SCFT25-1, single stiffener [8]; (b) SCFT19-1, single stiffener [8]; (c) SSNC25-1a, single
stiffener [10]; (d) DSNC25-1, double stiffeners [10]; (e) SC200-3, single stiffener [22]; (f) SC300-3, single stiffener [22]; (g) SSNC-L, single stiffener; (h) DSNC-H, double
stiffeners.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Z. Tao et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 1544–1556 1551

3.3. Analysis and discussion

3.3.1. Failure modes

The finite element failure modes for typical unstiffened
column and stub columns stiffened with one and two stiffeners
on each tube face are shown in Fig. 12(a)–(c), respectively. The
parameters for these specimens are given in Fig. 16. In order to

20 n = 0.4
n = 0.8
n = 1.0
16 n = 0.8

Lateral deformation (mm)

After peak
n = 0.7

12

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Distance across tube (mm)

20 n = 0.4
n = 0.8
n = 1.0
n = 0.8
Lateral deformation (mm)

15 n = 0.7

10 After peak

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Distance across tube (mm)

20 n = 0.4
n = 0.8
n = 1.0
16 n = 0.8
Lateral deformation (mm)

n = 0.7
Fig. 12. Typical failure modes of thin-walled steel tubes. (a) Unstiffened CFST, (b)
stiffened CFST with one stiffener on each face, and (c) stiffened CFST with two
12
stiffeners on each face.

After peak
8
be found in [23]. The predicted failure modes are also compared
with those observed from the tests. Fig. 12 shows a comparison
between the numerical deformed shapes and the experimental 4
ones for three typical specimens presented by Tao et al. [10]. From
the above comparisons, it can be found that, generally, good
0
agreement is obtained between the predicted and test results. It
should be noted that no efforts have been made to model the 0 50 100 150 200 250
composite columns fabricated from SFRC since no equivalent Distance across tube (mm)
stress–strain relationship is currently available for confined SFRC. Fig. 13. Lateral deformation of steel tube plates under different load levels. (a)
Further research efforts are need to develop a suitable model to be Unsiffened plate (UNC25a), (b) stiffened plate with one stiffener (SSNC25-3a), and
used in FE analysis. (c) stiffened plate with two stiffeners (DSNC25-3).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1552 Z. Tao et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 1544–1556

compare with those from the tests, no symmetric boundary stiffened columns have higher serviceability benefits compared to
conditions were used in the column modelling. Fig. 13 shows the those unstiffened ones.
out-of-plane deformation of steel tube plates at the mid-height
under different axial load levels. The axial load levels are
3.3.2. Axial stress versus axial strain curves
represented by the axial load ratio n, which is defined as the
Fig. 14 shows the average axial stress (s) versus axial strain (e)
ratio of the applied load N to the peak load Nue.
curves of CFST, steel tube and concrete for typical unstiffened
It can be seen from Figs. 12 and 13 that, the stiffeners can
columns and stiffened columns with one and two stiffeners on
effectively restrain the out-of-plane deformation of the steel
each tube face, respectively. The curves were calculated with the
plates during the axial compression testing. The calculated
following parameters: B ¼ 250 mm, t ¼ 2.5 mm, hs ¼ 35 mm,
maximum deformation for the unstiffened plate is 3.7 mm when
ts ¼ 2.5 mm, L ¼ 750 mm, fy ¼ 345 MPa and f0 c ¼ 24 MPa, where
the composite member reaches its ultimate strength, whilst those
ts is the thickness of the steel stiffeners, and f0 c the cylinder
for the plates stiffened with one and two stiffeners on each tube
compressive strength.
face are 0.67 and 0.32 mm, respectively. Thus, the tube buckling is
It can be seen from Fig. 14 that, the load-carrying capacity of
less pronounced with the increasing of stiffener number, and the
steel tube increases with the increasing of stiffener number (ns).
Compared with the unstiffened tube, an increase of 24.0% and
31.7% in load-carrying capacity is achieved for the stiffened tubes
with an ns of 1 and 2, respectively. This is attributed to the fact
that the local buckling of steel tube delays somewhat when the
40
stiffener number increases, which is consistent with the test
results presented in this paper and those in [10]. Owing to the
32
increase of confinement on concrete, an increase of 3.5% and 5.9%
in load-carrying capacity is also achieved for the concrete in the
σ (MPa)

24 stiffened stub columns with an ns of 1 and 2, respectively. The

overall strength increase is 6.6% and 12.3% for the stiffened
No stiffener
16 columns with one and two stiffeners on each tube face,
Single stiffener respectively.
8 Double stiffeners
3.3.3. Effect of residual stresses
0 An analysis was undertaken for columns without residual
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 stresses and with residual stresses as shown in Fig. 9. The results
-6
ε (×10 ) show that a slight strength reduction effect is induced. However,
this effect can be ignored since only a very limited decrease in
stiffness and ultimate strength is induced. The strength decrease
300 is generally within 1%. The calculated effect of residual stress on
the Ne curve for specimen SSNC25-3a presented by Tao et al.
[10] is shown in Fig. 15. Although it is believed that the residual
200 stress often affect the behaviour of thin-walled hollow tubes, this
σ (MPa)

effect is not significant for a thin-walled composite column, since

most strength of the column is contributed by its concrete core.
No stiffener
100
Single stiffener 3.3.4. Effect of initial imperfections
As mentioned above, initial geometric imperfections can be
Double stiffeners
introduced into the FE modelling based on the assumed local
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 4500 No residual stress
-6
ε (×10 ) Longitudinal residual stress
3600
28

2700
21
N (kN)
σ (MPa)

14 1800
No stiffener

7 Single stiffener
900
Double stiffeners

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
0
-6
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
ε (×10 ) -6
ε (×10 )
Fig. 14. Axial stress versus axial strain curves. (a) CFST column, (b) steel tube, and
(b) concrete core. Fig. 15. Effect of residual stress on the composite column behaviour.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Z. Tao et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 1544–1556 1553

Table 3
Effect of initial imperfections.
5000
Test (UNC25a)
Column type Unstiffened column Stiffened column Stiffened column
FE with measured (UNC25a) (%) (SSNC25-3a) (%) (DSNC25-3) (%)
4000 imperfections
FE with assumed Strength reduction 13.6 6.7 4.6
imperfections (steel tube)
3000
N (kN)

Strength reduction 1.1 1.0 0.7

(concrete core)
Strength reduction 3.7 1.7 1.1
2000 (CFST)

1000 B×t=250 ×2.5mm; L=750 mm;

fy=342 MPa; fcu=67 MPa
4500 No imperfections
0
0 5000 10000 15000
With imperfections
-6
ε (×10 ) 3600

5000 2700
Test (SSNC25-3a)

N (kN)
FE with measured
4000 imperfections
FE with assumed
1800
imperfections
3000
N (kN)

900
2000

B×t=250 ×2.5mm; L=750 mm; 0

1000 hs×ts=60 ×2.5mm; fy=342 MPa 0 5000 10000 15000 20000
fcu=67 MPa -6
ε (×10 )
0
0 5000 10000 15000 Fig. 17. Effect of initial imperfections on the composite column behaviour.
-6
ε (×10 )
The effect of initial imperfections was analyzed for columns
5000 with or without initial imperfections considered. As expected, the
Test (DSNC25-3) initial imperfections have an impact on the ultimate strength of
FE with measured
columns fabricated from thin-walled tubes. Table 3 shows the
4000 imperfections strength reduction after taking the initial imperfection influence
FE with assumed into account for different components of typical three stub
imperfections
3000 columns presented by Tao et al. [10]. Based on the FE modelling,
N (kN)

the calculated effect of initial imperfections on the Ne curve for

specimen SSNC25-3a is shown in Fig. 17. As can be seen from Table
2000 3 and Fig. 17, the strength reduction is not significant compared to
B×t=250 ×2.5mm; L=750 mm;
thin-walled hollow tubes owing to the delaying effect of core
hs ×ts =60 ×2.5mm; f y=342 MPa
1000 concrete on the tube local buckling. At the same time, only a
fcu =67 MPa
limited decrease in ultimate strength of the concrete core is
observed, which is resulted from the confinement decrease after
0 taking the initial imperfections into account. Therefore, the effect
0 5000 10000 15000 of imperfections on the column strength is not significant. This is
-6
ε (×10 ) once again attributed to the fact that most of the ultimate
strength of a thin-walled composite specimen is contributed by its
Fig. 16. Axial load versus axial strain curves based on measured and assumed concrete core.
imperfections. (a) Unstiffened CFST, (b) stiffened CFST with one stiffener on each
face, and (c) stiffened CFST with two stiffeners on each face.

4. Design recommendations

buckling shapes as shown in Fig. 8. It should be mentioned that, 4.1. Width-to-thickness ratio of sub-panels
however, they are quite different from the measured imperfec-
tions, which are often randomly distributed as shown in Fig. 4. According to the design code AS 4100 [24], local buckling stress
The calculated Ne curves using assumed imperfections are for a rectangular plate subjected to uniaxial compression can be
compared with the curves based on measured imperfections in expressed as
Fig. 16. As can be seen, the difference is very small. So the results
based on the assumed imperfections are used in the finite element p2 Es k
f ol ¼ (5)
analyses. 12ð1  n2s Þ ðb=tÞ2
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1554 Z. Tao et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 1544–1556

where the elastic modulus Es can be taken as 200,000 MPa, 1.2

Poisson’s ratio ns can be taken as 0.3, b and t are the width and the Kwon et al. (2000)
thickness of the steel plate, respectively, and k is the buckling Tao et al. (2005)
coefficient which depends on the boundary conditions. Based on Tao et al. (2008)
1.1
finite-strip analysis, the value of k for a rectangular plate in
Current tests
contact with concrete has been recommended by Bridge and
O’Shea [4] and Uy and Bradford [25] as 9.99 and 10.31,
respectively. It can be seen that the recommended values are
1

SI
quite close. Therefore, the value of 10.31 is used in this paper as
the buckling coefficient (k) for steel plates in square CFST columns.
The local buckling slenderness limit for structural steel can be
determined from Eq. (6) 0.9
58
b pffi kp2 Es pffi 235
 a ½ ¼ 58 ½ (6)
t 12ð1  n2s Þf y fy
0.8
where a is a reduction factor used to account for plate 0 30 60 90 120 150
imperfections and residual stresses [26]. For heavily welded (b/t)⋅(fy/235)1/2
tubes, it can be derived from the yield slenderness limits specified
in AS 4100 [24] as 0.651. This has been further developed by Uy Fig. 18. Effect of b/t ratio on SI.
[27]. As can be found that the slenderness limit specified in Eq. (6)
is also quite close to that given in Eurocode 4 [16] with a value of
pffi
52 ½235=f y .
It should be noted that the value of coefficient k was originally 3
developed by Uy and Bradford [25] for unstiffened CFST columns.
Tao et al. (2008)
However, for a stiffened CFST column, this value should remain
valid for determining the width-to-thickness ratio (b/t) of sub- 2.5
Current tests
panels if the stiffeners can be recognised as sufficiently strong to
support the steel plates. 2 58
To evaluate the applicability of the slenderness limit specified
in Eq. (6) for stiffened CFST columns, a strength index (SI) is
εL / εy

defined herein as Nue/Nuc, where Nue and Nuc are the experimental 1.5
and calculated ultimate strength, respectively. If an assumption is
used that the steel yields before the concrete reaches its ultimate
1
stress state, the value of Nuc can be evaluated as

0 0.5
Nuc ¼ As f y þ As;s f y;s þ Ac f c (7)

0
where As, As,s, and Ac are the areas of the steel tube, the steel
0 30 60 90 120 150
stiffeners and the concrete, respectively; fy and fy,s are the yield
1/2
strengths of the steel tube and stiffeners, respectively; f0 c is the (b/t) ⋅ (fy/235)
concrete cylinder strength. If only concrete cube strengths (fcu) are
available, equivalent cylinder strengths can be determined Fig. 19. Effect of b/t ratio on eL/ey.
according to Chen et al. [28], where a table demonstrated the
approximate relationship of two types of concrete strengths was
given in Yu et al. [29]. 1.4
Based on the currently available test results for those
adequately stiffened CFST stub columns, i.e. satisfying the 1
requirement of stiffener rigidity, the effect of b/t ratio of sub-
panels on SI index is shown in Fig. 18. It is evident that the SI index 1.2
pffi
decreases with the increasing of the value of (b/t) ½f y =235. It can
also be seen from Fig. 18 that almost all SI values are larger than
pffi
unity when (b/t) ½f y =235 is smaller than 58, which demonstrates
SI

in a sense that the slenderness limit specified in Eq. (6) can also be 1
used to determine the b/t ratios for the sub-panels of stiffened
CFST columns. Ge and Usami (1992)

The axial strains (eL) at the occurrence of local buckling for Kwon et al. (2000)
0.8
stiffened CFST columns have been presented in this paper (Fig. 5) Tao et al. (2005)

and by Tao et al. [10]. Fig. 19 depicts the effect of b/t ratio of sub- Tao et al. (2008)

panels on eL/ey, where ey is the yield strain of steel tubes. As can be Current tests

seen, eL/ey decreases while the sub-panel ratio increases. The 0.6
smaller the value of eL/ey, the earlier the buckling of the steel tube 0 1 2 3 4
occured. It seems almost all tubes have yielded before the Is /Is,re
pffi
occurrence of local buckling when the value of (b/t) ½f y =235 is
lesser than 58. Fig. 20. Effect of stiffener rigidity on strength index (SI).

1.6
Normalized calculated strength
1.4
1.2
Nue /Nuc
1 1
0.8
−10%
0.6
0.4
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Test strength Nue (kN)
Fig. 21. Comparison between stub column test results and code predictions. (a) AISC (2005) and DBJ13-51-2003 (2003) and (b) BS5400 (2005) and Eurocode 4 (2004)
4.2. Stiffener rigidity requirement
To ensure the effectiveness of stiffeners, a requirement on
stiffener rigidity should be specified. Based on a formula
presented by Rhodes [30], regression analysis was applied and a
modified formula was put forward by Tao et al. [8] as follows:
 3:5
b fy 4
Is;re ¼ 3:1  104  t (8)
t 280
Fig. 20 shows the effect of stiffener rigidity on strength index. In
order to make a meaningful comparison, a normalized stiffener
rigidity Is/Is,re is used herein, where Is is the actual moment of
inertia of stiffener about its centroidal axis parallel to the panel
element. It can be seen from Fig. 20 that, almost all SI values are
larger then unity when the requirement on stiffener rigidity is
satisfied, which demonstrates that the stiffener rigidity
requirement based on Eq. (8) is appropriate.
4.3. Load-carrying capacity prediction
There are several widely used design codes for calculating
load-carrying capacities of CFSTs, such as AISC [13], BS5400 [14],
DBJ13-51-2003 [15] and Eurocode 4 [16]. Since these codes are not
applicable to design the stiffened CFST columns, some necessary
modifications should be made to take the stiffener contributions
into account. It should be noted that only test results in [7,8,10]
and this paper, which meet the requirements of b/t ratio of sub-
panels and stiffener rigidity, were included in the code compar-
isons.
Tao et al. [8] has presented the revised methods to calculate
ultimate compressive strength. Generally, an additional term of
As,sfy,s can be included. Therefore, the revision to Eurocode 4
method will result in a same formula as Eq. (7). Similar revisions
can also be made to design equations given in other codes [8].
The predicted section capacities (Nuc) using different design
codes are compared with the experimental values (Nue) in Fig. 21.
As can be seen, AISC and BS5400 give conservative predictions
with an average of 18.8% and 22.3% lower than the test results,
respectively. DBJ13-51-2003 and Eurocode 4 predict slightly lower
capacities than the test results (8.3% and 7.8% on average for
Eurocode 4 and DBJ13-51-2003, respectively). Therefore, these
codes with minor modifications can be used to predict the load-
carrying capacities.
5. Concluding remarks
This paper is concerned with the topics of the nonlinear
analysis and design of concrete-filled stiffened thin-walled steel
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Z. Tao et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 1544–1556 1555
1.6
Normalized calculated strength
10% 1.4 10%
1.2
N ue /N uc
0.8
AISC (2005) −10% BS5400 (2005)
0.6
DBJ13-51-2003 (2003) Eurocode 4 (2004)
0.4
5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Test strength Nue (kN)
tubular columns under axial compression. Further stub column
tests were conducted on these innovative columns. It demon-
strates that adding fibers to concrete or reducing the concrete
strength can effectively increase the ductility capacity. Both
measures may be applied jointly for structures in regions of high
seismicity.
Furthermore ABAQUS software is used in this paper for the
finite element analysis. A comparison of results calculated using
the model shows good agreement with test results. The load-
carrying capacity of steel tube and confinement on the concrete
core increases with the increasing of stiffener number. The effect
of residual stress on ultimate strength can be ignored. The
strength reduction from initial imperfections is less pronounced
with the increasing of stiffener number. Overall, the reduction
effect is not significant since most of the ultimate strength of a
thin-walled composite specimen is contributed by its concrete
core.
Finally, the limit of width-to-thickness ratio for the sub-panels
and the rigidity requirement for the stiffeners was discussed and
recommendations have been suggested. Existing design codes
with minor modifications, such as AISC, BS5400, DBJ13-51-2003
and Eurocode 4, were used to predict the load-carrying capacities
of the tested composite columns. It seems that DBJ13-51-2003
and Eurocode 4 predict the best prediction results.
Acknowledgements
The research work reported herein was made possible by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 50425823), the
Fujian Province Science and Technology Big Project (no.
2005H033). The financial support is highly appreciated.
References
[1] Han LH. Concrete filled steel tubular columns—Theory and practice. 2nd ed.
Beijing: Science Press; 2007 [in Chinese].
[2] Tao Z, Yu Q. New types of composite columns—Experiments, theory and
methodology. Beijing: Science Press; 2006 [in Chinese].
[3] Uy B, Patil SB. Concrete filled high strength steel box columns for tall
buildings: behaviour and design. The Structural Design of Tall Buildings
2006;5(2):75–94.
[4] Bridge RQ, O’Shea MD. Behaviour of thin-walled steel box sections with or
without internal restraint. Journal of Constructional Steel Research
1998;47(1-2):73–91.
[5] Uy B. Strength of concrete filled steel box columns incorporating local
buckling. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 2000;126(3):341–52.
[6] Ge HB, Usami T. Strength of concrete-filled thin-walled steel box column:
experiment. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1992;118(11):3036–54.
[7] Kwon YB, Song JY, Kon KS. The structural behaviour of concrete-filled steel
piers. In: Proceedings of 16th congress of IABSE, Iucerne, Switzerland, 2000.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1556 Z. Tao et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 1544–1556
[8] Tao Z, Han LH, Wang ZB. Experimental behaviour of stiffened concrete-filled
thin-walled hollow steel structural (HSS) stub columns. Journal of Construc-
tional Steel Research 2005;61(7):962–83.
[9] Tao Z, Han LH, Wang DY. Experimental behaviour of concrete-filled stiffened
thin-walled steel tubular columns. Thin-Walled Structures 2007;45(5):
517–27.
[10] Tao Z, Han LH, Wang DY. Strength and ductility of stiffened thin-walled
hollow steel structural stub columns filled with concrete. Thin-Walled
Structures 2008;46(10):1113–28.
[11] Zhang YC, Xu C, Lu XZ. Experimental study of hysteretic behaviour for
concrete-filled square thin-walled steel tubular columns. Journal of Con-
structional Steel Research 2007;63(3):317–25.
[12] Tao Z, Uy B, Han LH, He SH. Design of concrete-filled steel tubular members
according to the Australian Standard AS 5100 model and calibration.
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering 2008;8(3):197–214.
[13] ANSI/AISC 360-05. Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. Chicago,
Illinois, USA: American Institute of Steel Construction; 2005.
[14] BS5400. Steel, concrete and composite bridges, Part 5, Code of practice for the
design of composite bridges. London, UK; 2005.
[15] DBJ13-51-2003. Technical specification for concrete-filled steel tubular
structures. Fuzhou, China: The Construction Department of Fujian Province;
2003 [in Chinese].
[16] Eurocode 4. Design of composite steel and concrete structures, Part1.1,
general rules and rules for building. London: British Standards Institution;
2004 (BS EN 1994-1-1: 2004).
[17] Hibbitt, Karlson & Sorensen Inc. ABAQUS/Standard User’s Manual, Version
6.4.1, Hibbitt, Karlsson, & Sorensen, Inc., Pawtucket, RI., 2003.
[18] Han LH, Yao GH, Tao Z. Performance of concrete-filled thin-walled steel tubes
under pure torsion. Thin-Walled Structures 2007;45(1):24–36.
[19] Wright HD. Local stability of filled and encased steel sections. Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE 1995;121(10):1382–8.
[20] GB50018-2002. Technical code of cold-formed thin-wall steel structures;
2002 [in Chinese].
[21] Uy B. Concrete-filled fabricated steel box columns for multistorey buildings:
behaviour and design. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials
1998;1(2):150–8.
[22] Zhang YC, Chen Y. Experimental study and finite element analysis of square
stub columns with straight ribs of concrete-filled thin-walled steel tube.
Journal of Building Structures 2006;27(5):16–22 [in Chinese].
[23] Wang DY. Behaviour of concrete-filled stiffened thin-walled steel tubular
columns with square sections. Master’s Thesis, College of Civil Engineering,
Fuzhou University, 2007 [in Chinese].
[24] Standards Australia. AS4100-1998 Steel Structures, Sydney, Australia; 1998.
[25] Uy B, Bradford MA. Elastic local buckling of steel plates in composite
steel–concrete members. Engineering Structures 1996;18(3):193–200.
[26] Bradford MA. Local and post-local buckling of fabricated box members. Civil
Engineering Transactions, Institution of Engineers, Australia 1985;CE27(4):
391–6.
[27] Uy B. Local and post-local buckling of fabricated thin-walled steel and
steel–concrete composite sections. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE
2001;127(6):666–77.
[28] Chen ZY, Zhu JQ, Wu PG. High strength concrete and its application. Beijing:
Tsinghua University Press; 1996 [in Chinese].
[29] Yu Q, Tao Z, Wu YX. Experimental behaviour of high performance concrete-
filled steel tubular columns. Thin-Walled Structures 2008;46(4):362–70.
[30] Rhodes J. Some thoughts on future cold-formed steel design rules. In: Rhodes
J, Spence J, editors. Behaviour of thin-walled structures. London: Elsevier
Applied Science; 1984. p. 125–42.