Moment Curvature Curve

Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 313–337
www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr
Flexural behaviour of concrete-filled steel tubes

Lin-Hai Han
College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Fuzhou University, Gongye Road 523, Fuzhou, Fujian
Province 350002, PR China
Received 3 January 2003; received in revised form 28 August 2003; accepted 28 August 2003
Abstract
This paper develops a mechanics model that can predict the behaviour of concrete-filled
hollow structural section (HSS) beams. A form of unified theory, where a confinement factor
(n) was introduced [Steel Compos. Struct.—Int. J. (2001) 1(1) 51] to describe the composite
action between the steel tube and filled concrete, is used in the analysis. A series of concrete-
filled square and rectangular tube beam tests were carried out. The main parameters varied
in the tests were the depth-to-width ratio (b) from 1 to 2, and tube depth to wall thickness
ratio from 20 to 50. The load vs. lateral deflection relationship was established for concrete-
filled HSS beams both experimentally and theoretically. The predicted curves of load vs.
mid-span deflection are in good agreement with the presented test results. Formulas which
should be suitable for incorporation into building codes are developed for calculating the
moment capacity of concrete-filled HSS beams. Comparisons are made with predicted beam
capacities and flexural stiffness using the existing codes, such as AIJ-1997, BS5400-1979,
EC4-1994, and LRFD-AISC-1999.
# 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Concrete-filled steel hollow sections; Beams; Design; Hollow sections; Mechanics model;
Flexural strength; Flexural stiffness
1. Introduction
Concrete-filled hollow structural sections (HSS) are widely used in building con-
struction [1]. In the past, although there were a large number of research studies on
the behaviour of concrete-filled HSS columns and beam-columns, such as Furlong
[2], Gardner and Jacobson [3], Ge and Usami [4], Han [5,6], Han et al. [7], Kato

Tel.: +86-591-7892459; fax: +86-591-3737442.
E-mail address: hanlinhai@fzu.edu.cn (L.-H. Han).
0143-974X/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2003.08.009
314 L.-H. Han / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 313–337
Nomenclature
As steel cross-sectional area

Ac concrete cross-sectional area
Asc cross-sectional area of the composite section, given by As þ Ac
B width of rectangular steel tube
D depth of rectangular steel tube, or outer diameter of circular steel tube
Ec concrete modulus of elasticity
Es steel modulus of elasticity
fcu characteristic 28-day concrete cube strength
fck characteristic concrete strength
0
fc characteristic concrete cylinder strength
fscy yield strength of the composite section
fsy yield strength of the steel tube pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
i radius of gyration of the composite section, given by Isc =Asc
Isc moment of inertia for composite cross-section
Ki initial section flexural stiffness of the composite beam
Ks serviceability-level section flexural stiffness of the composite beam
L effective buckling length of column in the plane of bending
M moment
Mu ultimate strength of composite beams
Muc predicted moment capacity
Mue maximum test moment
t wall thickness of the steel tube
Wscm section modulus of the composite beams, given by B3/6 for composite
beams with square sections; given by BD2/6 and B2D/6 about major
(x–x) and minor (y–y) axes, respectively, for composite beams with
rectangular sections; given by pD3/32 for composite beams with circu-
lar sections
a steel ratio (¼ As =Ac )
b depth-to-width ratio of RHS sections, given by D/B
r stress
e strain
n confinement factor ð¼ ðAs fsy Þ=ðAc fck ÞÞ
/ curvature
cm flexural strength index
[8], Kilpatrick and Rangan [9], Knowles and Park [10], Matsui et al.[11], Neogi
et al. [12], O’Shea and Bridge [13]; Prion and Boehme [14]; Rangan and Joyce [15];
Schneider [16]; Shakir-Khalil and Mouli [17], Tomii et al. [18], Uy [19,20]; Varma
et al. [21], Wang [22], and etc., there is relatively little research reported on the flex-
ural behaviour of concrete-filled HSS beams.
L.-H. Han / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 313–337 315
Furlong [2] tested one concrete-filled steel SHS beam with diameter-to-width
ratio of 32. He found that the value of flexural strength from the capacity of steel
tube alone was about 49% lower than that of the specimen tested.
Prion and Boehme [14] conducted four concrete-filled steel CHS beams with
diameter-to-thickness ratio of 89.4, and concrete cylinder strength of 73 MPa. It
was found that the beam specimens failed in a very ductile manner.
Uy [19] reported five beam tests on concrete-filled steel SHS. The test specimens
were selected for examining the effects of different width-to-wall thickness ratios
(from 40 to 100), and different concrete cylinder strength (38 and 50 MPa). The
tests showed that all beam members had a significant yielding plateau, and thus
exhibited adequate ductility. As part of a program on the strength of beam-col-
umns, Uy [20] reported three beam tests on concrete-filled high-strength steel SHS.
Lu and Kennedy [23] performed 12 beam tests on concrete-filled steel SHS and
RHS. The test specimens were selected for examining the effects of different depth
to width ratios, and different values of shear span to depth. The tests showed that
the ultimate flexural strength of the composite beams is increased by about 10–30%
over that of bare steel sections, depending on the relative proportions of steel and
concrete. The flexural stiffness is also enhanced. It was found that the slip between
the steel and concrete was not detrimental. Formulae for the flexural strength of
concrete-filled steel SHS and RHS beams were suggested. Fully plastic stress blocks
with the concrete at its maximum cylinder strength were used in the analysis.
As part of a program on the strength of concrete-filled steel SHS beam-columns,
Tomii and Sakino [24] performed eight specimens with zero axial loads. The width-
to-thickness ratio ranged from 23.5 to 45.
Elchalakani et al. [25] presented an experimental investigation of the flexural
behaviour of circular concrete-filled steel tubes subjected to large deformation pure
bending, where D=t ¼ 12 110. It was found that in general, void filling of the steel
tube enhances strength, ductility and energy absorption especially for thinner sections.
From the above review, it can be found that there is significant research work on
the flexural behaviour of concrete-filled HHS beams; however, there still exists
areas that need to be studied further:
1. A mechanics model for the analysis of the flexural behaviour for concrete-filled
HHS beams need to be developed, the composite action between the steel tube
and the concrete core should be considered.
2. The differences of the predicted beam capacities and flexural stiffness using the
existing codes, such as AIJ [26], BS5400 [27], EC4 [28], and LRFD-AISC [29],
need to be illustrated.
3. Simplified model with reasonable accuracy for the calculations on the flexural
strength of the beams need to be developed.
The main objectives of this paper were thus fourfold: firstly, to report a series of
tests on composite beams. Secondly, to develop a mechanics model that can predict
the behaviour of concrete-filled hollow structural section beams. Thirdly, to
develop formulas for the calculation of the moment capacity of the concrete-filled
HSS beams, such formulas should be suitable for incorporation into building
codes. And finally, to illustrate the differences of the predicted beam capacities and
flexural stiffness using the existing codes, such as AIJ-1997 [26], BS5400-1994 [27],
EC4-1994 [28], and LRFD-AISC-1999 [29].
2. Experimental investigations
A total of 16 concrete-filled steel SHS and RHS beam specimens were tested.
Fig. 1 shows the sectional details and dimensions of the specimens. A summary of
the specimens is presented in Table 1 where the section sizes and material proper-
ties are given. The specimens were designed with a wide range of width-to-depth
ratio (from 1 to 2) was achieved. The tube depth to wall thickness ratio ranged
from 20 to 50. All the specimens were 1100 mm in length.
The tubes were manufactured from mild steel sheet. The tubes with four plates
were cut from the sheet, tack welded into a square or rectangular shape and then
welded with a single bevel butt weld at the corners. The ends of the steel tubes
were cut and machined to the required length. The insides of the tubes were wire
brushed to remove any rust and loose debris present. The deposits of grease and
oil, if any, were cleaned away. Each tube was welded to a square steel base plate of
10 mm thickness.
Strips of the steel tubes were tested in tension in accordance with the Chinese
standard related to metal materials. Three coupons were taken from each of the
Fig. 1. Beam specimen details and dimensions.

Table 1
Specimen labels, material properties and moment capacities
Number Specimen Sectional dimension b (D/B) fcu (MPa) fsy (MPa) Kie (kN m2) Kse (kN m2) Mue (kN m) Muc (kN m) Muc =Mue
label D B t (mm)
1 RB1-1 &-120 120 3:84 1 27.3 330.1 896 890 29.34 28.3 0.966
2 RB2-1 &-120 120 3:84 1 35.2 330.1 960 840 30.16 28.8 0.955
3 RB2-2 &-120 120 3:84 1 35.2 330.1 1002 894 32.25 28.8 0.893
4 RB2-3 &-120 120 3:84 1 35.2 330.1 856 852 31.69 28.8 0.909
5 RB3-1 &-120 120 5:86 1 31.3 321.1 1356 1224 40.90 39.8 0.972
6 RB3-2 &-120 120 5:86 1 31.3 321.1 1409 1265 41.54 39.8 0.957
7 RB4-1 &-120 120 5:86 1 40 321.1 1360 1116 41.43 40.3 0.972
8 RB4-2 &-120 120 5:86 1 40 321.1 1184 1160 42.61 40.3 0.945
9 RB5-1 &-150 120 2:93 1.25 34.5 293.8 1607 1037 31.4 28.7 0.914
10 RB5-2 &-150 120 2:93 1.25 34.5 293.8 1746 1106 31.4 28.7 0.914
11 RB6-1 &-120 90 2:93 1.33 34.5 293.8 749 598 21.1 16.4 0.777
12 RB6-2 &-120 90 2:93 1.33 34.5 293.8 722 613 20.2 16.4 0.812
13 RB7-1 &-150 90 2:93 1.67 34.5 293.8 1216 879 28.4 24.1 0.849
14 RB7-2 &-150 90 2:93 1.67 34.5 293.8 1269 953 29.4 24.1 0.847
15 RB8-1 &-120 60 2:93 2 34.5 293.8 489 469 18.4 13.4 0.728
16 RB8-2 &-120 60 2:93 2 34.5 293.8 485 457 17.8 13.4 0.753
L.-H. Han / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 313–337
317
steel sheets; from these tests, the average yield strength of the steel tube (fsy) of
each specimen is listed in Table 1. The modulus of elasticity of the tubes was found
to be approximately 200,000 MPa.
A type of concrete, with a compressive cube strength (fcu) at 28 days of 30
MPa, was designed. The mix proportions of the concrete were as follows:
cement: 457 kg/m3; water: 206 kg/m3; sand: 608 kg/m3; and coarse aggregate:
1129 kg/m3.
The concrete was filled in layers and was vibrated by a poker vibrator. The spe-
cimens were placed upright to air-dry until testing. During curing, a very small
amount of longitudinal shrinkage of 1.2 mm or so occurred at the top of the
beams. A high-strength epoxy was used to fill this longitudinal gap so that the con-
crete surface was flush with the steel tube at the top.
For each batch of concrete mixed, three 150 mm cubes were also cast and cured
in conditions similar to the related specimens. The modulus of elasticity (Ec) of
concrete is 26,700 MPa. The average cube strength of each specimen at the time of
tests is listed in Table 1.
The experimental study was able to determine not only the maximum moment
capacity of the specimens, but also to investigate the failure pattern up to and
beyond the ultimate load.
It had been found by Lu and Kennedy [23] that the ratio of shear span to depth,
varying from 1.03 to 5.05, had almost no effect on the moment–curvature diagram
and the test-to-predicted moment ratio. Thus, the shear span to depth ratio is
selected as 1.67–2.1 for the current tests. A four point bending rig was used to
apply the moment (see Fig. 2a). The in-plane displacements were measured at loca-
tions along the specimen by three displacement transducers. Eight strain gauges
were used for each specimen to measure strains at the mid-span. Fig. 2b gives a
general view of the test setup. A load interval of less than one-tenth of the esti-
mated load capacity was used. Each load interval was maintained for about 2–3
Fig. 2. Arrangement of beam tests.

Fig. 3. Typical failure mode of the composite beams.
min. At each load increment, the strain readings and the deflection measurements
were recorded. All specimens were loaded to failure.
The tested specimens failed in a very ductile manner. No tensile fracture was
observed on the tension flange. Typical failure modes of the steel tube are shown in
Fig. 3. The measured bending moment vs. mid-span deflections are given in Fig. 4.
Typically measured bending moment vs. extreme fibre compressive and tensile
strains are shown in Fig. 5. The measured strains were used to determine the bend-
ing curvature. Typical moment (M) vs. curvature (/) graphs are shown in Fig. 6.
The moment vs. curvature diagrams show that there is an initial elastic response,
then inelastic behaviour with gradually decreasing stiffness, until the ultimate
moment is reached asymptotically. For practical considerations, the moment corre-
sponding to the maximum fibre strain of 0.01 was defined as the
moment capacity (Mu) of the composite beam in this paper. It was found that after
Fig. 4. Load vs. mid-span deflection of beam specimens.

Fig. 5. Moment vs. extreme fibre strains at mid-height of beam specimens.
the maximum fibre strain reaches 0.01, the moment tends to stabilize. The moment
capacities (Mue) of the current specimens determined are listed in Table 1.
A careful examination of the test results revealed that, in general, the moment
vs. curvature relationship goes into an inelastic stage at 20% of the moment
capacity (Mu), so the initial section flexural stiffness (Ki) was defined as the secant
stiffness corresponding to a moment of 0.2 Mu. The moment vs. curvature response
was also used to determine the serviceability-level section flexural stiffness (Ks). Ks
was defined as the secant stiffness corresponding to the serviceability-level moment
of 0.6 Mu [21]. The initial section flexural stiffness (Kie) and the serviceability-level
Fig. 6. Typical moment (M) vs. curvature (/) relations of the beam specimens.
Fig. 7. Specimen height vs. mid-span lateral deflection curves.
section flexural stiffness (Kis) of the tested specimens so determined are listed in
Table 1.
Because of the infill of concrete, the tested CFST beams behaved in a relatively
ductile manner and testing proceeded in a smooth and controlled way. Fig. 7
shows a typical deflection curve of a tested specimen under flexure. The enhanced
structural behaviour of the beams can be explained by the establishment of ‘‘com-
posite action’’ between the steel tube and the concrete core.
3. Mechanics models
3.1. Material properties
Stress vs. strain relations for the steel and concrete of concrete-filled steel HSS
hollow sections presented in Han et al. [7,30] were used for the analysis of the com-
posite beams in this paper.
A typical stress–strain curve for steel can consist of five stages as shown in Fig. 8.
Detailed expressions were given in Han et al. [7].
A typical stress–strain curve for the confined concrete with fck ¼ 41 MPa is
shown in Fig. 9, where the confinement factor (n) is defined as:
As fsy
n¼ ð1Þ
Ac fck
Fig. 8. Typical stress–strain curves for steel.

Fig. 9. r vs. e relations of concrete core. (a) For concrete-filled CHS. (b) For concrete-filled SHS.
in which As is the cross-sectional area of the steel tube, Ac is cross-sectional area of

the concrete core, fsy is the yield stress of the outer steel tube, and fck is the com-
pression strength of concrete. The value of fck for normal strength concrete is
determined using 67% of the compression strength of cubic blocks. Detailed
expressions are given in Han et al. [7,30].
It can be seen from Fig. 9 that the higher the confinement factor (n), the higher
the compression strength of confined concrete. It can also be seen from Fig. 9 that
the higher is n, the more ductile is the confined concrete. The confinement factor (n),
to some extent, represents the ‘‘composite action’’ between steel tubes and concrete.
3.2. Mechanics model for the composite beams
A member subjected to bending moment (M) is shown in Fig. 10, where um is

the mid-span deflection.
The fabrication of concrete-filled steel SHS or RHS beams involves welding
which introduces residual stresses due to the cooling of the weld and the tensile
stresses generated at the weld region. Fig. 11 shows a typical residual stress distri-
bution for a steel plate of a beam that has been fabricated with four steel plates
and a longitudinal fillet weld [31]. The test results of residual stresses on steel plates
for concrete-filled steel SHS columns were summarized by Uy [31], where they were
shown to be about 15–25% of the yielding stress in compression. The average value
of 20% of the yielding stress in compression is selected in the analysis in this paper.
The moment (M) vs. mid-span deflection (um) relations can be established based
on the following assumptions:
1. The stress–strain relationship for steel given in Fig. 8 is adopted for both ten-
sion and compression. The stress–strain relationship for concrete given in Han
et al. [7,30] is adopted for compression only. The contribution of concrete in
tension is neglected.
2. Original plane cross-sections remain plane.
3. The effect of shear force on deflection of members is omitted.
4. The deflection curve of the member is assumed as a sine wave.
5. Residual stress distribution for a steel plate of a concrete-filled steel SHS or
RHS beam as shown in Fig. 11 is used in the analysis.
According to assumption no. 4, the deflection (u) of the member can be expres-
sed as:
p
u ¼ um sin z ð2Þ
L
where, um is the mid-span deflection, L is the length of the member and z is the
horizontal distance from the left support as defined in Fig. 10.
Fig. 10. A schematic view of a beam.

Fig. 11. Residual stress distribution across plate of steel box column.
The curvature (/) at the mid-span can be calculated as:

p2
/¼ um ð3Þ
L2
The strain distribution is shown in Fig. 12, where e0 is the strain along the geo-
metrical centre line of the section. The term ei is the strain at the location yi as
defined in Fig. 12. Along the line with y ¼ yi , the section can be divided into two
kinds of elements (dAsi for steel tube and dAci for concrete, respectively) with unit
depth. The strain at the centre of each element can be expressed as:
ei ¼ eo þ / yi ð4Þ
The stress at the centre of each element (rsi for steel tube and rci for concrete) can
be determined using the stress–strain relationship given in Han et al. [7,30]. The
internal moment (Min) and axial force (Nin) can be calculated as:
X
Min ¼ ðrsi dAsi yi þ rci dAci yci Þ ð5Þ
i
X
Nin ¼ ðrsi dAsi þ rci dAci Þ ð6Þ
i
According to the equilibrium condition,
Min ¼ Mapplied ð7Þ
Nin ¼ 0 ð8Þ
From the above equations, the load vs. mid-span deflection relations can be estab-
lished for the composite beams.
To consider the effects of thin steel plate in excess of compact plate, local buckling
could be incorporated in the current model by using a method adopted by Uy [19].
Fig. 12. Distribution of strains. (a) Rectangular section. (b) Circular section.
The model used for determining the effective width (be) of a steel plate is given as:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
be rol
¼a ð9Þ
b ry
where b ¼ steel plate width; a ¼ factor to account for residual stresses and initial
imperfections; rol ¼ local buckling stress; and ry ¼ steel yield stress [32].
The predicted moments are compared with the current experimental values in
Table 1, where a mean of 0.885 and coefficient of variation (COV) of 0.08
obtained.
The predicted curves of load vs. lateral deflection are compared in Figs. 4, 13–16
with experimental curves. A generally good agreement is obtained between the pre-
dicted and tested curves.
Fig. 13. Examples of comparisons: moment (M) vs. mid-span deflection (um) curves [19].
4. Simplified models
4.1. Flexural strength
For convenience of analysis, flexural strength index (cm) is defined in this paper.
It is expressed as:
Mu
cm ¼ ð10Þ
Wscm fscy
in which Mu is the moment capacity of the composite beams; Wscm is the section
modulus of the compsite beams, given by B3 =6 for composite beams with square
sections; given by BD2 =6 and B2 D=6 about major (x–x) and minor (y–y) axes,
respectively, for composite beams with rectangular sections; given by (pD3)/32 for
composite beams with circular sections; fscy is the ‘‘nominal yielding strength’’ of
the composite sections [7,33], is given by
For concrete-filled steel SHS and RHS : fscy ¼ ð1:18 þ 0:85 nÞ fck ð11aÞ
For concrete-filled steel CHS beams : fscy ¼ ð1:14 þ 1:02 nÞ fck ð11bÞ
The flexural strength index (cm) so determined according to the mechanics model
described above is plotted in Fig. 17 against the confinement factor (n). It can be
seen from Fig. 17 that cm increases when the confinement factor (n) increases.
Fig. 14. Examples of comparisons: moment (M) vs. curvature (/) curves [23].
Using the relations between the flexural strength index (cm) and the confinement
factor (n) that determine it, the following formula for the flexural strength index
(cm) can be obtained by using regression analysis method, i.e.
For concrete-filled steel SHS and RHS beams:

rm ¼ 1:04 þ 0:48 lnðn þ 0:1Þ ð12aÞ
For concrete-filled steel CHS beams:
rm ¼ 1:1 þ 0:48 lnðn þ 0:1Þ ð12bÞ
Fig. 15. Examples of comparisons: moment (M) vs. mid-span deflection (um) curves [24].
According to Eq. (10), the flexural capacity of the composite beam (Mu) can be
given by
Mu ¼ cm Wscm fscy ð13Þ
in which, Wscm can be given by DB2 =6 and BD2 =6 for concrete-filled steel RHS
beams about major (x–x) and minor (y–y) axes, Wscm ¼ pD3 =32 for concrete-filled
steel CHS beams.
Fig. 16. Comparisons of moment (M) vs. mid-span deflection (um) curves [14].
Fig. 17. cm vs. n relations. (a) Square and rectangular beams. (b) Circular beams.
The validity limits of Eq. (13) are: D ¼ 100 2000 mm; a ¼ 0:04 0:2; fsy ¼
200 500 MPa and fck ¼ 20 80 MPa.
It should be noted that Eq. (13), the tube diameter range being 2000 mm was
based on numerical simulation due to the difficulties in testing such a large size
specimen.
4.2. Comparison of moment capacity of the composite section
The moment capacities predicted using the following five design methods are
compared with the beam test results obtained in the current tests and those from
Lu and Kennedy [23], Uy [19,20], Tomii and Sakino [24], Prion and Boehme [14],
and Elchalakani et al.[25]:
– AIJ [26]
– BS5400 [27]
– LRFD [28]
– Eurocode 4, part 1 [29]
– The proposed method in this paper.
In all design calculations, the material partial safety factors were set to unity.
Predicted section capacities (Muc) using the different methods are compared with
51 experimental results (Mue) in Table 2. Table 2 shows both the mean value and
the standard deviation (COV) of the ratio of Muc/Mue for the different design meth-
ods. The results in this table clearly show that all the methods are conservative.
Overall, AIJ (1997) and LRFD-AISC (1999) gave a moment capacity about 20%
lower than that of test, BS5400 (1979) gave a moment capacity about 12% lower
than that of test. EC4 (1994) and the proposed method in this paper gives a mean
value of 0.903 and 0.903, a COV of 0.124 and 0.106, respectively, predicted about
10% lower capacity than the test results, is the best predictor, and thus are accept-
able for the calculation of the moment capacity of concrete-filled HSS beams.
4.3. Flexural stiffness
The formulae for the flexural stiffness of the composite sections in the different
codes described above are listed as follows:
1. AIJ [26]
Ke ¼ Es Is þ 0:2 Ec Ic ð14Þ
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where Es ¼ 205; 800 MPa; Ec ¼ 21; 000 fc0 =19:6 MPa.
2. BS5400 [27]
Ke ¼ Es Is þ Ec Ic ð15Þ
where Es ¼ 206; 000 MPa;Ec ¼ 450 fcu MPa.
3. Eurocode 4, part 1 [28]
Ke ¼ Es Is þ 0:6Ec Ic ð16Þ
1=3
where Es ¼ 206; 000 MPa;Ec ¼ 9500 ðfck þ 8Þ MPa.
4. LRFD [29]
Ke ¼ Es Is þ 0:8Ec Ic ð17Þ
pffiffiffiffi
where Es ¼ 199; 000 MPa; Ec ¼ 4733 fc0 MPa.
Table 2
Comparisons between predicted beam strengths and test results
Number Sectional dimension fck Mue LRFD (1999) AIJ (1997) BS5400 (1979) EC4 (1994) Formula (13) Test data
(mm) (MPa) (kN m) resources
Muc Muc = Muc Muc = Muc Muc Muc =Mue Muc Muc = Muc
(kN m) Mue (kN m) Mue (kN m) (kN m) (kN m) Mue (kN m)
1 &-120 120 3:84 18.3 29.34 25.7 0.875 25.82 0.880 27.82 0.948 28.03 0.955 26.62 0.907 Current
2 &-120 120 3:84 23.6 30.16 25.7 0.851 25.82 0.856 28.26 0.937 28.52 0.946 27.06 0.897 test
3 &-120 120 3:84 23.6 32.25 25.66 0.796 25.82 0.801 28.26 0.876 28.52 0.884 27.06 0.839
4 &-120 120 3:84 23.6 31.69 25.66 0.810 25.82 0.815 28.26 0.892 28.52 0.900 27.06 0.854
5 &-120 120 5:86 22 40.90 37.83 0.925 37.99 0.929 40.32 0.986 39.19 0.958 41.46 1.014
6 &-120 120 5:86 22 41.54 37.83 0.911 37.99 0.915 40.32 0.971 39.19 0.943 41.46 0.998
7 &-120 120 5:86 26.8 41.43 37.83 0.913 37.99 0.917 40.72 0.983 39.78 0.960 41.65 1.005
8 &-120 120 5:86 26.8 42.61 37.83 0.888 37.99 0.892 40.72 0.956 39.78 0.934 41.65 0.977
9 &-150 120 2:93 23.1 31.4 24.13 0.768 24.4 0.777 27.8 0.885 28.28 0.901 26.6 0.847
10 &-150 120 2:93 23.1 31.5 24.13 0.766 24.4 0.775 27.8 0.883 28.28 0.898 26.6 0.844
11 &-120 90 2:93 23.1 21.1 14.68 0.696 14.81 0.702 16.58 0.786 23.81 1.128 16.27 0.771
12 &-120 90 2:93 23.1 20.2 14.68 0.727 14.81 0.733 16.58 0.821 23.81 1.179 16.27 0.805
13 &-150 90 2:93 23.1 28.4 20.34 0.716 20.6 0.725 23.36 0.823 16.83 0.593 23.36 0.823
14 &-150 90 2:93 23.1 29.4 20.34 0.692 20.6 0.701 23.36 0.795 16.83 0.572 23.36 0.795
15 &-120 60 2:93 23.1 18.4 11.65 0.633 11.79 0.641 13.04 0.709 13.24 0.720 13.99 0.760
16 &-120 60 2:93 23.1 17.8 11.65 0.654 11.79 0.662 13.04 0.733 13.24 0.744 13.99 0.786
17 &-152 152 4:8 63.2 73.6 60.71 0.825 61.07 0.830 68.22 0.927 69.08 0.939 66.16 0.899 [23]
18 &-152 152 4:8 41 75.1 60.71 0.808 61.07 0.813 67.83 0.903 68.64 0.914 65.44 0.871
19 &-152 152 4:8 35.8 71.3 60.71 0.851 61.07 0.857 67.68 0.949 68.46 0.960 65.17 0.914
20 &-152 152 9:5 62.4 146.5 125.2 0.855 113.1 0.772 133.2 0.909 120.2 0.820 152.1 1.038
21 &-254 152 6:4 60.8 210.7 161 0.764 162.6 0.772 187.6 0.890 191.4 0.908 197.2 0.936
22 &-254 152 6:4 51.2 210.7 161 0.764 162.6 0.772 187 0.888 190.8 0.906 196.2 0.931
23 &-254 152 6:4 47.2 207.6 161 0.775 162.6 0.783 186.7 0.899 190.5 0.917 195.6 0.942
24 &-254 152 9:5 56.8 283.8 232 0.817 244.2 0.860 270.5 0.953 273.7 0.964 304.5 1.073
25 &-254 152 9:5 44.9 282.2 232 0.822 244.2 0.865 269.4 0.955 272.4 0.965 303.2 1.075
26 &-152 254 6:4 64 144.7 112.6 0.778 113 0.781 124.7 0.862 125.5 0.868 118.2 0.817
27 &-152 254 6:4 38.8 146.7 112.6 0.768 113 0.770 124.1 0.846 124.9 0.851 116.2 0.792
28 &-152 254 6:4 33.5 142.9 112.6 0.788 113 0.790 123.8 0.867 124.6 0.872 115.6 0.809
(continued on next page)
331
Table 2 (continued )
332
Number Sectional dimension fck Mue LRFD (1999) AIJ (1997) BS5400 (1979) EC4 (1994) Formula (13) Test data
(mm) (MPa) (kN m) resources
Muc Muc = Muc Muc = Muc Muc Muc =Mue Muc Muc = Muc
(kN m) Mue (kN m) Mue (kN m) (kN m) (kN m) Mue (kN m)
29 &-126 126 3 40.3 27.9 20.43 0.732 20.59 0.738 23.99 0.860 24.33 0.872 23.8 0.853 [19]
30 &-156 156 3 40.3 42.4 31.61 0.746 31.91 0.753 37.72 0.890 38.27 0.903 37.79 0.891
31 &-186 186 3 26.1 62.6 45.2 0.722 45.73 0.731 53.11 0.848 53.95 0.862 50.42 0.805
32 &-246 246 3 31 103.5 79.72 0.770 80.91 0.782 96.64 0.934 98.01 0.947 96.59 0.933
33 &-306 306 3 31 153 124 0.810 126.2 0.825 152.4 0.996 154.4 1.009 156.4 1.022
29 &-100 100 2:29 24 7.15 6.36 0.890 6.42 0.898 7.45 1.042 7.55 1.056 7.32 1.024 [24]
30 &-100 100 2:27 21.6 10.98 9.91 0.903 10 0.911 11.19 1.019 11.43 1.041 10.37 0.944
31 &-100 100 2:98 20.6 14.01 12.17 0.869 12.25 0.874 13.46 0.961 13.6 0.971 12.76 0.911
32 &-100 100 4:25 18.6 18.33 16.62 0.907 16.7 0.911 17.85 0.974 17.91 0.977 18.13 0.989
33 &110 110 5 24.5 66 62.06 0.940 62.33 0.944 64.52 0.978 64.31 0.974 70.07 1.062 [20]
34 &160 160 5 24.5 141 135.2 0.959 136.0 0.965 142.9 1.014 143.6 1.019 138.8 0.985
35 &210 160 5 26.1 228 236.4 1.037 238.3 1.045 254.5 1.116 257.1 1.128 233.6 1.025
36 v-152 1:65 58.4 19.9 9.77 0.491 10.02 0.504 12.22 0.614 13.81 0.694 14.2 0.714 [14]
37 v-152 1:65 58.4 17.9 9.77 0.546 10.02 0.560 12.22 0.683 13.81 0.772 14.2 0.793
38 v-152 1:65 58.4 20.8 9.77 0.470 10.02 0.482 12.22 0.588 13.81 0.664 14.2 0.683
39 v-152 1:65 58.4 19 9.77 0.514 10.02 0.527 12.22 0.643 13.81 0.727 14.2 0.747
40 v-109:9 1 19.5 7.6 4.74 0.624 4.89 0.643 5.36 0.705 5.81 0.764 5.88 0.774 [25]
41 v-110:4 1:25 19.5 9.1 5.96 0.655 6.1 0.670 6.73 0.740 7.14 0.785 7.22 0.793
42 v-110:9 1:5 19.5 11 7.18 0.653 7.33 0.666 8.04 0.731 8.47 0.770 8.57 0.779
43 v-101:83 2:53 19.5 11.33 9.11 0.804 9.21 0.813 9.83 0.868 10.25 0.905 11.71 1.034
44 v-88:64 2:79 19.5 10.86 8.89 0.819 8.97 0.826 9.59 0.883 9.71 0.894 9.68 0.891
45 v-76:32 2:45 19.5 6.92 5.55 0.802 5.6 0.809 5.99 0.866 6.07 0.877 6.3 0.910
46 v-89:26 3:35 19.5 10.47 10.19 0.973 10.27 0.981 10.8 1.032 11.03 1.053 11.69 1.117
47 v-60:65 2:44 19.5 3.78 3.58 0.947 3.61 0.955 3.79 1.003 3.85 1.019 3.91 1.034
48 v-76:19 3:24 19.5 9.87 7.87 0.797 7.92 0.802 8.33 0.844 8.4 0.851 8.17 0.828
49 v-60:67 3:01 19.5 4.75 4.09 0.861 4.11 0.865 4.33 0.912 4.34 0.914 4.74 0.998
50 v-33:66 1:98 19.5 0.9 0.88 0.978 0.88 0.978 0.93 1.033 0.92 1.022 0.93 1.033
51 v-33:78 2:63 19.5 1.17 1.18 1.009 1.18 1.009 1.24 1.060 1.22 1.043 1.12 0.957
Mean value 0.794 0.800 0.886 0.903 0.903 –
Standard deviation (COV) 0.125 0.123 0.115 0.124 0.106 –
The predicted initial section flexural stiffness (Kic) of the composite beams using
the different methods is compared with the current experimental results and the
results reported by Lu and Kennedy [23] (Kie) in Table 3. Table 3 shows both the
mean value and the standard deviation (COV) of the ratio of Kic/Kie for the differ-
ent design methods. The results in this table clearly show that all the methods of
BS5400 (1979), EC4 (1994) and LRFD-AISC (1999) are un-conservative. Overall,
BS5400 (1979), EC4 (1994) and LRFD-AISC (1999) gave an initial section flexural
stiffness about 15–18% higher than that of test. The AIJ (1997) method gives a
mean of 0.962 and a COV of 0.133, predicted a slightly lower stiffness than the test
results, is the best predictor.
Predicted serviceability-level section flexural stiffness (Ksc) of the composite beam
using different methods is compared with the current experimental results (Kse) in
Table 4. Table 4 shows both the mean value and the standard deviation (COV) of
the ratio of Ksc/Kse for the different design methods. The results in this table show
that all the methods of BS5400 (1979), EC4 (1994) and LRFD-AISC (1999) gave
the serviceability-level section flexural stiffness about 20–25% higher than that of
test. The AIJ (1997) method gives a mean value of 1.035 and a COV of 0.078, pre-
dicted a slightly higher stiffness than the test results, and is the best predictor.
5. Conclusions
The following observations and conclusions can be drawn based on the limited
research reported in the paper.
(1) Because of the infill of concrete, the tested concrete-filled steel SHS and RHS
beams behaved in a relatively ductile manner and testing proceeded in a
smooth and controlled way. The enhanced structural behaviour of the columns
can be explained in terms of ‘‘composite action’’ between the steel tube and the
concrete core.
(2) The predicted load vs. lateral deflection curves for the composite beams have
been found in good agreement with experimental values. The predicted
maximum strength of beams agrees well with the tested values.
(3) Simplified methods for the calculations of the moment capacities of the com-
posite beams have been proposed based on the mechanics model in this paper.
(4) The moment capacity of concrete-filled HSS beams could be conservatively
predicted by using the recommendations of AIJ (1997), BS5400 (1979), EC4
(1994), LRFD-AISC (1999), and the proposed model in this paper. Overall,
AIJ (1997) and LRFD-AISC (1999) gave a moment capacity about 20% lower
than that of test, BS5400 (1979) gave a moment capacity about 12% lower than
that of test. EC4 (1994) and the proposed method predicted about 10% lower
capacity than the test results, are the best predictor.
(5) The initial section flexural stiffness (Ki) and the serviceability-level section flex-
ural stiffness (Ks) of the composite beams were defined in this paper. It was
found that all the methods of BS5400 (1979), EC4 (1994) and LRFD-AISC
Table 3 334
Comparisons between predicted initial section flexural stiffness (Kic) and test results
Number Sectional dimension (mm) fsy fck Kie (kN AIJ (1997) BS5400 (1999) EC4 (1994) LRFD–AISC (1999) Test data
(MPa) (MPa) m2) resources
Kic (kN Kic =Kie Kic (kN Kic =Kie Kic (kN Kic =Kie Kic (kN Kic =Kie
m2) m2) m2) m2)
1 &-120 120 3:84 330.1 18.3 896 886 0.989 992 1.107 1052 1.174 1038 1.158 Current test
2 &-120 120 3:84 330.1 23.6 960 894 0.931 1038 1.081 1067 1.111 1071 1.116
3 &-120 120 3:84 330.1 23.6 1002 894 0.892 1038 1.036 1067 1.065 1071 1.069
4 &-120 120 3:84 330.1 23.6 856 894 1.044 1038 1.213 1067 1.246 1071 1.251
5 &-120 120 5:86 321.1 21 1356 1253 0.924 1370 1.010 1401 1.033 1382 1.019
6 &-120 120 5:86 321.1 2 1409 1254 0.890 1370 0.972 1401 0.994 1382 0.981
7 &-120 120 5:86 321.1 26.8 1360 1261 0.927 1406 1.034 1413 1.039 1412 1.038
8 &-120 120 5:86 321.1 26.8 1184 1261 1.065 1406 1.188 1413 1.193 1412 1.193
9 &-150 120 2:93 293.8 23.1 1607 1227 0.764 1527 0.950 1595 0.993 1623 1.010
10 &-150 120 2:93 293.8 23.1 1746 1227 0.703 1527 0.875 1595 0.914 1623 0.930
11 &-120 90 2:93 293.8 23.1 749 574 0.768 684 0.916 709 0.949 715 0.957
12 &-120 90 2:93 293.8 23.1 722 574 0.798 684 0.951 709 0.986 715 0.994
13 &-150 90 2:93 293.8 23.1 1216 993 0.817 1215 0.999 1265 1.040 1283 1.055
14 &-150 90 2:93 293.8 23.1 1269 993 0.783 1215 0.957 1265 0.997 1283 1.011
15 &-120 60 2:93 293.8 23.1 489 431 0.881 502 1.027 518 1.059 520 1.063
16 &-120 60 2:93 293.8 23.1 485 431 0.889 502 1.035 518 1.068 520 1.072
17 &-152 152 4:8 389 47 2073 2392 1.154 3161 1.525 2914 1.406 3195 1.541 [23]
18 &-152 152 4:8 389 42.8 2209 2335 1.057 3068 1.389 2820 1.276 2968 1.344
19 &-152 152 4:8 389 41.2 2332 2318 0.994 3034 1.301 2793 1.198 2902 1.244
20 &-152 152 9:5 432 46.9 3478 4007 1.152 4594 1.321 4406 1.267 4550 1.308
21 &-254 152 6:4 377 46.7 9506 10565 1.111 14221 1.496 13029 1.371 14323 1.507
22 &-254 152 6:4 377 45.2 9763 10454 1.071 14068 1.441 12846 1.316 13880 1.422
23 &-254 152 6:4 377 44.3 10639 10405 0.978 13969 1.313 12761 1.199 13684 1.286
24 &-254 152 9:5 394 46.2 12017 14266 1.187 17497 1.456 16422 1.367 17323 1.442
25 &-254 152 9:5 394 43.8 12719 14137 1.111 17272 1.358 16206 1.274 16809 1.322
26 &-152 254 6:4 377 47.1 4177 4601 1.101 5819 1.393 5430 1.300 5856 1.402
27 &-152 254 6:4 377 42.1 4575 4497 0.983 5646 1.234 5258 1.149 5442 1.190
28 &-152 254 6:4 377 40.5 4578 4470 0.976 5590 1.221 5214 1.139 5334 1.165
Mean value 0.962 1.171 1.147 1.182 –
Standard deviation (COV) 0.133 0.198 0.140 0.177 –
Table 4
Comparisons between predicted serviceability-level section flexural stiffness (Ksc) and test results
Number Sectional dimension (mm) fsy fck Ksc AIJ (1997) BS5400 (1999) EC4 (1994) LRFD–AISC
(MPa) (MPa) (kN m2) (1999)
Ksc Ksc =Kse Ksc Ksc =Kse Ksc Ksc =Kse Ksc Ksc =Kse
(kN m2) (kN m2) (kN m2) (kN m2)
1 &-120 120 3:84 330.1 18.3 890 886 0.995 992 1.115 1052 1.182 1038 1.166
2 &-120 120 3:84 330.1 23.6 840 894 1.064 1038 1.236 1067 1.270 1071 1.275
3 &-120 120 3:84 330.1 23.6 894 894 1.000 1038 1.161 1067 1.193 1071 1.198
4 &-120 120 3:84 330.1 23.6 852 894 1.049 1038 1.218 1067 1.252 1071 1.257
5 &-120 120 5:86 321.1 21.98 1224 1253 1.024 1370 1.119 1401 1.144 1382 1.129
6 &-120 120 5:86 321.1 21.98 1265 1254 0.991 1370 1.083 1401 1.107 1382 1.093
7 &-120 120 5:86 321.1 26.8 1116 1261 1.130 1406 1.260 1413 1.266 1412 1.265
8 &-120 120 5:86 321.1 26.8 1160 1261 1.087 1406 1.212 1413 1.218 1412 1.217
9 &-150 120 2:93 293.8 23.1 1037 1227 1.183 1527 1.473 1595 1.538 1623 1.565
10 &-150 120 2:93 293.8 23.1 1106 1227 1.109 1527 1.381 1595 1.442 1623 1.467
11 &-120 90 2:93 293.8 23.1 598 574 0.959 684 1.144 709 1.185 715 1.196
12 &-120 90 2:93 293.8 23.1 613 574 0.936 684 1.116 709 1.156 715 1.167
13 &-150 90 2:93 293.8 23.1 879 993 1.130 1215 1.382 1265 1.439 1283 1.459
14 &-150 90 2:93 293.8 23.1 953 993 1.042 1215 1.275 1265 1.328 1283 1.346
15 &-120 60 2:93 293.8 23.1 469 431 0.919 502 1.070 518 1.105 520 1.109
16 &-120 60 2:93 293.8 23.1 457 431 0.943 502 1.098 518 1.134 520 1.138
Mean value 1.035 1.209 1.247 1.253
Standard deviation (COV) 0.078 0.120 0.129 0.147

335
(1999) are un-conservative in predicting the values of Ki and Ks. The AIJ
(1997) method predicted a slightly lower stiffness value of Ki and a slightly
higher value of Ks than those of test results, and thus is acceptable for the cal-
culation of the flexural stiffness of concrete-filled steel SHS and RHS beams.
Acknowledgements
The research work reported herein was made possible by the Fujian Province
Science and Technology Big Project (2002H007), and the financial support is
highly appreciated. The authors also express special thanks to Dr. Tao Zhong and
Dr. You-Fu Yang for their assistance in the experiments.
References
[1] ASCCS. Concrete filled steel tubes-a comparison of international codes and practices. ASCCS Sem-
inar, Innsbruck, Austria, 1997.
[2] Furlong RW. Strength of steel-encased concrete beam-columns. Journal of Structural Division,
ASCE 1967;93(ST5):113–24.
[3] Gardner J, Jacobson R. Structural behaviour of concrete filled steel tubes. ACI Journal of Structural
Division 1967;64-38:404–13.
[4] Ge HB, Usami T. Strength analysis of concrete-filled thin-walled steel box columns. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 1994;30:607–12.
[5] Han LH. Concrete filled steel tubular structures. Peking, China: China Science Press; 2000 [in Chi-
nese].
[6] Han LH. Tests on stub columns of concrete-filled RHS sections. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research—An International Journal 2002;58(3):353–72.
[7] Han LH, Zhao XL, Tao Z. Tests and mechanics model of concrete-filled SHS stub columns, col-
umns and beam-columns. Steel & Composite Structures—An International Journal 2001;1(1):51–74.
[8] Kato B. Column curves of steel-concrete composite members. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 1996;39(2):125–35.
[9] Kilpatrick AE, Rangan BV. Tests on high-strength composite concrete columns. Research Report
No. 1/97, School of Civil Engineering, University of Technology Western Australia, 1997.
[10] Knowles RB, Park R. Strength of concrete filled steel tubular columns. Journal of Structural
Division, ASCE 1969;95(ST12):2565–87.
[11] Matsui C, Tsuda K, Ishibashi Y. Slender concrete filled steel tubular columns under combined
compression and bending. Structural Steel, PSSC95, Foruth Pacific Structural Steel Conference,
Steel—concrete composite structures, vol. 3. 1995, p. 29–36.
[12] Neogi PK, Sen HK, Chapman JC. Concrete filled tubular steel columns under eccentrical loading.
Journal of Structural Engineering 1969;47(5):187–95.
[13] O’Shea MD, Bridge RQ. Behaviour of thin-walled box sections with lateral restraint. Department
of Civil Engineering Research, The University of Sydney, Report No. R739, 1997.
[14] Prion HGL, Boehme J. Beam-column behaviour of steel tubes filled with high strength concrete.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 1994;21:207–18.
[15] Rangan BV, Joyce M. Strength of eccentrically loaded slender steel tubular columns filled with
high-strength concrete. ACI Structural Journal 1991;89(6):676–81.
[16] Schneider SP. Axially loaded concrete-filled steel tubes. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE
1998;124(10):1125–38.
[17] Shakir-Khalil H, Mouli M. Further tests on concrete-filled rectangular hollow-section columns.
Structural Engineer 1990;68(20):405–13.
[18] Tomii M, Yashimaro K, Morishita Y. Experimental studies on concrete filled steel tubular stub col-
umn under concentric loading. Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Stability of Struc-
tures under Static and Dynamic Loads. Washington: SSRC/ASCE; 1977, p. 718–41.
[19] Uy B. Strength of concrete filled steel box columns incorporating local buckling. Journal of Struc-
tural Engineering, ASCE 2000;126(3):341–52.
[20] Uy B. Strength of short concrete filled high strength steel box columns. Journal of Constructional
Steel Research 2001;57(2):113–34.
[21] Varma AH, Ricles JM, Sause R, Lu LW. Seismic behaviour and modeling of high-strength com-
posite concrete-filled steel tube (CFT) beam-columns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research
2002;58(5–8):725–58.
[22] Wang YC. Tests on slender composite columns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research
1999;49:25–41.
[23] Lu YQ, Kennedy DJL. The flexural behaviour of concrete-filled hollow structural sections. Cana-
dian Journal of Civil Engineering 1994;21(1):111–30.
[24] Tomii M, Sakino K. Elasto-plastic behaviour of concrete filled square steel tubular beam-columns.
Transactions of Architectural Institute of Japan 1979;280:111–20.
[25] Elchalakani M, Zhao XL, Grzebieta RH. Concrete-filled circular steel tubes subjected to pure
bending. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2001;57(11):1141–68.
[26] Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ). Recommendations for design and construction of concrete
filled steel tubular structures. October 1997.
[27] British Standard Institute: BS5400. Part 5, Concrete and composite bridges, 1979.
[28] Eurocode 4. Design of composite steel and concrete structures, part 1.1: general rules and rules for
buildings (together with United Kingdom National Application Document). DD ENV 1994-1-
1:1994. London W1A2BS: British Standards Institution; 1994.
[29] AISC. Load and resistance factor design specification for structural steel buildings. Chicago: Amer-
ican Institute of Steel Construction Inc; 1999.
[30] Han LH, Huo JS. Concrete-filled HSS columns after exposure to ISO-834 standard fire. Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE 2003;129(1):68–78.
[31] 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.
[32] Australian Standard AS4100. Steel structures. Strathfield, Australia, 1998.
[33] Han LH, Yao GH. Effects of pre-stress in the steel tube on the behavior of concrete-filled steel
tubular beam-columns. China Journal of Civil Engineering 2003;36(4):8–18 [in Chinese].

Moment Curvature Curve

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Moment Curvature Curve

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moment Curvature Curve

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60 (2004) 313–337

Flexural behaviour of concrete-ﬁlled steel tubes

As steel cross-sectional area

Fig. 1. Beam specimen details and dimensions.

Fig. 2. Arrangement of beam tests.

Fig. 3. Typical failure mode of the composite beams.

Fig. 4. Load vs. mid-span deﬂection of beam specimens.

Fig. 5. Moment vs. extreme ﬁbre strains at mid-height of beam specimens.

Fig. 7. Specimen height vs. mid-span lateral deﬂection curves.

3.1. Material properties

Fig. 8. Typical stress–strain curves for steel.

in which As is the cross-sectional area of the steel tube, Ac is cross-sectional area of

A member subjected to bending moment (M) is shown in Fig. 10, where um is

Fig. 10. A schematic view of a beam.

The curvature (/) at the mid-span can be calculated as:

According to the equilibrium condition,

Min ¼ Mapplied ð7Þ

4.1. Flexural strength

For concrete-ﬁlled steel SHS and RHS beams:

4.2. Comparison of moment capacity of the composite section

4.3. Flexural stiﬀness

Standard deviation (COV) 0.078 0.120 0.129 0.147

You might also like