Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 472–483

www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

Axial load behavior of square CFT stub column with binding bars
Jian Cai ∗ , Zhen-Qiang He
Department of Civil Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510641, China

Received 8 March 2005; accepted 28 September 2005

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the axial load behavior of square concrete filled steel tubular (S-CFT) stub columns with binding bars provided
to improve the mechanical behavior of S-CFT columns. Ten specimens with binding bars and 5 specimens without binding bars were tested to
examine the effects of width-to-thickness ratios and binding bars on ultimate strength, stiffness and ductility of S-CFT columns. A method for
calculating ultimate strength is proposed based on a constitutive model of confined concrete and a simplification corresponding to this method is
conducted. Finally, the method proposed in this paper is verified with experimental results in this test program and data from other experiments.
Corresponding values of ultimate strength calculated by EC4(1996) and GJB(2000) are given respectively for comparison. For S-CFT stub
columns with binding bars, the results predicted by the method proposed herein agree well with the experimental results while that predicted by
the methods of EC4(1996) and GJB(2000) scatter from the experimental results; for S-CFT without binding bars, the results given by the three
methods mentioned above are all reasonable.
c 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Square CFT stub column; Binding bars; Ultimate strength; Load-bearing capacity

1. Introduction
Square concrete filled steel (CFT) columns are used
gradually more and more as one of the main structural elements
for resisting both vertical and lateral loads in multistory and tall
building columns due to their advantages compared to circular
CFT columns such as: (1) the cross-section shape agreeing well
with the design need of the architecture plane of buildings; (2)
more convenient construction measures at beam–column joints
resulting in easy connection and less cost; (3) large moment
of inertia of cross-section which leads to higher capacity of
resisting lateral load. However, the axial load-bearing capacity
of square CFT columns is lower than that of circular CFT
columns because of the little effect of concrete confinement.
It is commonly known that circular CFT columns have
high strength, ductility and large energy absorption owing to
their consistently symmetrical confinement on a concrete core
supplied by a steel tube under axially compressive loading, in
which state the concrete core is subjected to three-dimensional
compression so that the unit axial strength of concrete is
enhanced greatly. The effect is shown in Fig. 1. But for square
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 020 87112437; fax: +86 020 87112437.
E-mail address: cvjcai@scut.edu.cn (J. Cai).
CFT columns, it is not the case. Zhang [1] investigated the
stress distribution in the cross-section of stub square CFT
columns with a finite element method and found that effective
confinement of concrete lies in the corner regions, decreases
quickly beyond these regions and eventually vanishes at the
center of the side walls as the hoop tension developed along
the side walls is not constant. Furlong [2] conducted a test
on 13 specimens with width-to-thickness ratio D/t ranging
from 29 to 98. Results showed that confinement of the concrete
core contributed nothing to the load-bearing capacity. Knowles
and Park [3] investigated 12 circular and 7 square composite
columns with D/t of 15, 22 and 59, and L/D ratios > 11.
It was concluded that the confinement of the concrete core
contributed only to increasing the overall load-bearing capacity
of the short circular CFT columns owing to the increase of
concrete strength resulting from tri-axial confinement effect.
Tomii et al. [4] investigated about 270 circular, octagonal and
square CFT columns. Concrete confinement was observed in
circular and many octagonal specimens at high axial loads, but
square tubes provided very little confinement of the concrete
because the wall of the square tube resisted the concrete
pressure by plate bending, instead of the membrane-type
hoop stresses. Schneider [5] tested 3 circular, 5 square and 6
rectangular specimens with D/t ratios ranging from 17 to 47,

0143-974X/$ - see front matter 

c 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2005.09.010
 J. Cai, Z.-Q. He / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 472–483 473

Nomenclature
Aa area of steel cross-section
As area of binding bar (steel bar)
Ac area of concrete cross-section
D width of square steel tube
Ea elastic modulus of steel
Es elastic modulus of steel bar
Ec elastic modulus of concrete
f cu characteristic 28-day cubic strength of concrete Fig. 1. Stresses in circular CFT column.
f ck characteristic strength of concrete defined as
f ck = 0.67 f cu
f ay yield strength of steel
fy yield strength of steel bar
as transverse space of binding bar arrangement
bs longitudinal space of binding bar arrangement
ds diameter of binding bar
t wall thickness of steel tube
L length of steel tube
Nno nominal strength of the composite columns,
defined as Nno = f ay Aa + fck Ac
Nuc predicted ultimate strength of composite columns
Nue experimental ultimate strength of composite
columns
φ1 strength coefficient of steel
φ2 strength coefficient of concrete
σ stress Fig. 2. Cross-sections of square CFT columns with different stiffened
ε strain measures. (a) Normal cross-section; (b) with stiffened strips; (c) with shear
studs; and (d) with inclined tie bars.
ξ constraining factor (= fay Aa /( f ck Ac ))
ζ constraining factor of binding bar effects of longitudinal stiffeners on the strength could be
(= f y As /( f ck as bs )) expected in both the steel column and concrete-filled column
because of stiffening effects against the buckling mode of the
and L/D ratios of 4.3(4.4), 4.8 and 4.0. A finite element method plate panels and the stiffeners sharing the axial load. But this
with program ABAQUS was applied to nonlinear analytical method also causes a severe strength loss after local buckling
modeling. It was shown that circular steel tubes offered much occurred. Lin et al. [8] adopted the approach of welding shear
more post-yield axial ductility than square or rectangular studs (shown in Fig. 2(c)). It was found that the shearing studs
tube sections. All circular tubes were classified as strain- did enhance the ductility of square CFT columns though they
hardening, while only the small D/t ratios, approximately contributed nothing to strength. The two stiffening schemes
D/t < 20, exhibited strain-hardening characteristics for mentioned previously primarily aim at enhancing the strength
square or rectangular tubes. Significant confinement was not of the steel tube and the bond of interface between the steel
present for most specimens until the axial load reaches almost tube and concrete core except for improving the concrete
92% of the yield strength of the column. Furthermore, the confinement. Shear studs are used as shear connectors to ensure
square and rectangular tube walls, in most cases, did not offer reliable stiffness of the composite cross-section even in the
significant concrete core confinement beyond the yield load region of elastic behavior [9]. Huang et al. [10] proposed a new
of the composite column. Local wall buckling for square and stiffening scheme of welding a set of four inclined steel bars
rectangular tubes occurred earlier than that for circular tubes. Li (so-called tie bars) at regular spacing along the longitudinal axis
et al. [6] studied experimentally 14 square specimens including of the steel tube to actively strengthen the confinement of the
6 CFT, 2 square steel tube and 6 plain concrete columns. Results concrete core provided by the steel tube (shown in Fig. 2(d)).
indicated that square CFT stub columns exceeded the nominal According to their study, the tie bars help enhancing the
load-bearing capacity in a range of 5%–30% due to the concrete behavior of square CFT columns in terms of ultimate strength
confinement even though the D/t ratios were large. and ductility. However, the layout of tie bars is complicated
To improve the behavior of square CFT columns, some for construction due to its inclined setting in cross-section and
stiffening measures have been proposed. Ge and Usami [7] stress may concentrate severely at the joins of tie bars and steel
adopted the method of welding a longitudinal steel strip on plate.
the internal surface of a steel tube (as shown in Fig. 2(b)). Aiming at overcoming the shortcoming of weak concrete
The experimental results indicated that the significant stiffening confinement at the center of side walls of square steel tubes,
474 J. Cai, Z.-Q. He / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 472–483
Fig. 3. (a) Test setup; and (b) test specimens.
a novel stiffening scheme is presented herein and the scheme
involves level orthotropic binding bars arranged at spacings
along the longitudinal axis of the steel tube. The typical
stiffener arrangement is displayed in Fig. 3(b). In order to
obtain an optimization of concrete confinement, the amount of
binding bars can be conveniently adjusted to match with the
steel plate and the concrete core by varying the binding bars’
level and longitudinal spacing.
To investigate the effect of the proposed stiffening scheme,
a test was carried out on 15 square CFT stub columns,
including 10 with binding bars and 5 without as contrast.
The primary parameters considered in this test program are
as follows: (1) width–thickness ratio B/t; (2) level spacing as
and longitudinal spacing bs of the binding bars; (3) diameters
of binding bars; and (4) strength of steel tube. These factors
were experimentally investigated to assess their influence on
ultimate strength, initial stiffness, and ductility. Finally, a
method is proposed and verified herein for calculating the
ultimate strength of S-CFT stub columns under axial loading.
2. Experimental program
The square steel tubes were fabricated by welding together
four pieces of flat plates. Before assembling the tube, holes on
the steel plates were made by drilling where the binding bars are
arranged. Each binding bar joins together with the steel tube
through two square stiffening steel plates on its two ends by
welding, which is detailed in Fig. 4. The material properties of
the steel tubes were obtained from tensile tests of coupons taken
from each batch of steel plates before manufacturing. Properties
of all specimens are summarized in Table 1.
The compression tests were carried out in a 15 000 kN
universal testing machine shown in Fig. 3. Average longitudinal
Fig. 4. Detail of binding bar construction.
strains were obtained from four linear variable differential
transducers that measured axial shortenings between the two
end plates. The wire strain gages were located as shown in
Fig. 3(b) to measure level and vertical strains of the steel panels
nearby the two ends and at the middle of the tubes. Two gages
were used to measure the tension strain in binding bars arranged
at the middle of the specimens. All data were collected by an
Automatic-Switching-Box.
Axial loads were applied to the specimen at a rate
of 100 kN/min in the initial elastic stage. After the
load–displacement curve came to a bifurcation from a straight
line, it was turned to a displacement–load control at a rate
of 0.5 mm/min. It was controlled by computer automatically
during the two loading stages.
3. Experimental results and discussion
3.1. Load–deformation relationship and failure mode
It was observed that the specimen C1 failed in the early
loading stage because of a sudden blowout of one of the seam
welds at corners that formed the steel tube due to welding
deficiencies so that the result obtained is not true, which tells us
 J. Cai, Z.-Q. He / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 472–483 475

Table 1
Properties for square concrete-filled steel tube components

Test Specimen D × t × L (mm) as × bs × ds (mm) D/t f ay f sy f ck Nue Nno Nue /Nno Nuey /Nuen
no. (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (kN) (kN)
1 C1 300 × 6 × 1500 — 50 382.5 344.45 39.82 – – – –
2 C2 300 × 6 × 1500 150 × 150 × 14 50 382.5 344.45 39.82 6600 6002 1.100 –
3 C3 300 × 6 × 1500 100 × 150 × 14 50 382.5 344.45 39.82 8654 6002 1.442 –
4 C4 300 × 4 × 1500 — 75 341.93 344.45 39.82 5300 5015 1.057 1.000
5 C5 300 × 4 × 1500 150 × 150 × 14 75 341.93 344.45 39.82 6243 5015 1.245 1.178
6 C6 300 × 4 × 1500 100 × 150 × 14 75 341.93 344.45 39.82 7255 5015 1.447 1.369
7 C7 300 × 8 × 1500 — 37.5 387.98 344.45 39.82 5600 6837 0.819 1.000
8 C8 300 × 8 × 1500 150 × 150 × 14 37.5 387.98 344.45 39.82 7878 6837 1.152 1.407
9 C9 300 × 8 × 1500 100 × 150 × 14 37.5 387.98 344.45 39.82 8170 6837 1.195 1.459
10 C10 300 × 12 × 1500 — 25 345.04 344.45 39.82 6588 7803 0.844 1.000
11 C11 300 × 12 × 1500 150 × 150 × 14 25 345.04 344.45 39.82 8436 7803 1.081 1.281
12 C12 300 × 12 × 1500 100 × 150 × 14 25 345.04 344.45 39.82 9749 7803 1.245 1.480
13 C13 300 × 6 × 1500 — 50 292.48 344.45 39.82 4370 5367 0.814 1.000
14 C14 300 × 6 × 1500 150 × 150 × 14 50 292.48 344.45 39.82 6140 5367 1.144 1.405
15 C15 300 × 6 × 1500 150 × 150 × 16 50 382.5 365.49 39.82 7375 6002 1.229 1.272
Note: — means no binding bars available.

the same. Moreover, the ultimate strength and corresponding

Fig. 5. Typical local buckling of steel tube wall: (a) specimen C4 and (b)
specimen C5.
that it is important for square CFT formed by welding that the
quality of welds be guaranteed to ensure failure is not owing
to cracks of the weld seam. Thus the result of C1 is removed
and not included herein. The failure of the other specimens was
caused by local and post-local buckling, whose typical modes
are shown in Fig. 5.
The measured ultimate strength of each specimen is given in
Table 1. The test load (N) versus average longitudinal strain
(ε) curves are shown in Fig. 6. The test load (N) is plotted
against hoop strain (εh ) at the center (noted as “cent” following
the serial number) and that at the extreme (noted as “extr”
following the serial number) of the side wall of the steel tube at
mid-span of specimens in Fig. 7, while the test load (N) against
strain (εs ) at the end (noted as “#1”) and at the middle (noted
as “#2”) of the binding bar in Fig. 8.
strain of specimens increase while the spacing of binding
bars decreases. Compared with the specimens without binding
bars in Table 1, the specimens with binding bars have higher
ultimate strengths, which are beyond the nominal strength
in a top range of about 40%–50%, owing to the binding
bars constraining the lateral deformation of the steel tube and
concrete core more effectively. It is clearly shown in Fig. 8
that the binding bars contribute to improving the axial-loaded
behavior of square CFT columns. The tension strain of binding
bars develops gradually with the load increasing and almost all
reaching its yield strain while the load reaches a peak value.
Fig. 7 also shows that the hoop strain of steel tubes develops
more quickly and sufficiently with the spacing of binding bars
decreasing, which means that confinement of the concrete core
is strengthened and leads to an increase of the ultimate strength
of specimens. However, for the specimens without binding
bars, the hoop strain of steel tubes develops inadequately even
though the load reaches an ultimate value. In this case, the
confinement of concrete is very weak and can be ignored. It is
considered that there exists no interaction between the concrete
core and steel tube and the two components of the column work
respectively.
3.3. Thickness of steel tube
Fig. 6(g)–(h) show that the thickness of the steel tube has
an important influence on axial load behavior of square CFT
stub columns. With the thickness of steel tube increasing,
i.e. the D/t ratio decreasing, the ultimate strength and the
corresponding strain increases and the columns become more
ductile.

3.2. Binding bars 3.4. Yield strength of steel

It can be observed from Fig. 6(a)–(e) that ultimate strength It can be seen in Fig. 6(f) that the higher yield strength of
of the specimens with binding bars is higher than that of the steel helps in improving the ultimate strength of a specimen,
specimens without binding bars as the other parameters are but the value of improvement is quite small. The specimens
476 J. Cai, Z.-Q. He / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 472–483

(a) Varial parameter: as (t = 6 mm). (b) Varial parameter: as (t = 4 mm).

(c) Varial parameter: as (t = 8 mm). (d) Varial parameter: as (t = 12 mm).

(e) Varial parameter: ds . (f) Varial parameter: strength of steel.

(g) Varial parameter: t (as = 150 mm). (h) Varial parameter: t (as = 100 mm).

Fig. 6. Axial load (N ) versus average longitudinal strain (ε).

C14 and C2 are in usage of steel with yield strengths of
292.48 N/mm2 and 382.50 N/mm2 respectively. The ultimate
strength of C2 is only somewhat higher than that of C14 in
about 7%. It implies that the yield strength of steel contributes
nothing to the confinement of concrete and the increase of
ultimate strength is not owing to the confinement of concrete
but the increase of the yield strength of steel only. Both cross-
sections containing steel ratios ρa , defined as Aa /(Aa + Ac ),
are 7.84%, that is in a normal range of engineering in practice.
4. Confinement effects of binding bars
The confinement effects of binding bars on the behavior of
CFT stub columns with binding bars can be summarized in two
aspects as follows.
 J. Cai, Z.-Q. He / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 472–483 477

Fig. 7. Axial load (N ) versus hoop strain of steel tube (εh ).

4.1. Constraining lateral deformation of concrete core where the second part on the right hand side indicates the
contribution of binding bars to lateral pressure on concrete,
The interaction among the components of CFT stub column which shows that the lateral confining stress of the concrete
with binding bars is illustrated in Fig. 9. Assuming that a core fl increases while the spacing as and bs decreases.
separate part with the depth along the longitudinal axis is equal
to the longitudinal spacing of binding bars (bs ), it can result 4.2. Effect on local buckling of steel tube
from Fig. 9 according to the equilibrium of forces as follows


 D The local buckling of a steel plate of the CFT column with
fl bs (D − 2t) − σh bs · 2t − − 1 Fs = 0 (1) or without binding bars is shown in Fig. 10. The concrete in-fill
as
Fs = E s εs As . (2) is considered as a rigid medium, restraining the free formation
of buckles and forcing them to form away from the concrete.
Substituting Eq. (2) into Eq. (1) produces He et al. [11] applied an energy formulation to calculate the
D−as As critical stress in a plate assuming that the displacement is a
σh + E s εs
fl =
2t as bs cosine function. The critical stress is expressed as
. (3)
D/(2t) − 1
2
π 2 Ea t
It was observed from Fig. 8 that the binding bars yielded when σcr = k (5)
the specimens came to ultimate strength. So Eq. (3) can be 12(1 − µ2 ) b
rewritten as where the buckling parameter k is given by
D−as As

σh fy 2 6
fl =
2t as bs
+ (4) k= + 6φ + 4
2
(6)
D/(2t) − 1 D/(2t) − 1 3 φ2
478 J. Cai, Z.-Q. He / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 472–483

(a) C2. (b) C3.

(c) C5. (d) C6.

(e) C8. (f) C9.

(g) C11. (h) C12.

Fig. 8. Axial load (N ) versus tension strain of binding bar (εs ).

in which the wavelength parameter φ is defined as: φ = a/b.
It is observed that the half wavelength of local buckling
a is nearly equal to the width b [12]. So it is reasonable to
assume a = b for specimens without binding bars. Substituting
a = b into Eq. (6) results in k = 10.67. But for specimens
with binding bars, it can be observed from this experiment
that all of the buckling takes place at the spacing between two
adjacent rows of level binding bars. It is considered clamped
where the rows of level binding bars are located, i.e., a = bs .
For specimens with binding bars in this experimental program,
 J. Cai, Z.-Q. He / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 472–483
(i) C14.
Fig. 8. (continued)
Fig. 9. Lateral confinement of concrete.
bs = D/2 and b = D. Applying bs = D/2 and b = D to
Eq. (5) results in k = 19.67, which is 1.84 times that of
specimens without binding bars. It indicates that the local
buckling of the steel plate can be delayed or even avoided by
an appropriate longitudinal spacing of binding bars.
5. Calculation of ultimate strength
5.1. Primary methods in current codes and specifications
Methods for calculating the ultimate strength of normal-
sectioned square CFT stub columns under axial compressive
loading are included in many current codes and specifications
such as AIJ [13], EC4 [14], LRFD [15] and GJB4142-
2000 [16]. The confining effect of the steel tube on the
concrete core is ignored in the methods of AIJ, EC4 and
LRFD. GJB4142-2000 takes into account the contribution of
the confinement effect to the ultimate strength of square CFT
stub columns, regarding the concrete in-fill and the steel tube
in a column as an entity and taking into account concrete
confinement with the so-called constraining factor ξ . The
ultimate strength can be expressed as
Nu = Asc f scy
Asc = Aa + Ac
fscy = (2.212 + Bξ + Cξ ) fck 2
where B = 0.1381 f y /235 + 0.7646; C = −0.0727 f ck /20 +
0.0216.
The formulae described above also do not consider the
contribution of binding bars to the ultimate strength of CFT
columns with binding bars. A new method is proposed for
predicting the ultimate strength of CFT stub columns with
binding bars in Section 5.2 based on the experimental results.
479
(j) C15.
(a) Local buckling for steel plate of CFT column without binding bars.
(b) Local buckling for steel plate of CFT column with binding bars.
Fig. 10. Local buckling for steel plates of CFT column.
5.2. Model
It is noted that the methods existing in Ref. [13–15] assume
that the steel tube is in a state of uniaxial compressive stress
and the concrete obtains its uniaxial ultimate strength while
steel yields. Actually the steel tube is subjected to lateral
compression after the Poisson’s ratio of concrete exceeds that of
steel in the upward loading stage, which leads to the steel tube
being in a state of hoop tension and longitudinal compression
and the concrete core being in a triaxial compressive state.
(7) The longitudinal compressive strength of the concrete core
(8) increases due to such a triaxial compression state. However,
(9) the increase in concrete strength outweighs the reduction in
the yield strength of steel in vertical compression due to
the confinement tension needed to contain the concrete [17].
The formulae for calculating the strength of square CFT stub
columns with binding bars are expressed as
Nu = Aa fa + Ac f cc (10)
where f a is the longitudinal strength of steel and fcc the
longitudinal strength of concrete.
480 J. Cai, Z.-Q. He / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 472–483

Then, from Eq. (13) the confinement effectiveness coefficient is

given by
 

 n
(as /D)2 tan θ bs tan θ 2
ke = 1 − 1− . (20)
i=1
6 2(D − 2t)

It is found that the initial tangent angle θ is mainly sensitive

to level spacing of binding bars. Based on a linear regression, a
Fig. 11. Effectively confined regions for square CFT with binding bars. simple form of expression is taken as
π
θ= (13 + 9.2as /100) (rad). (21)
In order to determine f cc , the constitutive model of confined 180
concrete proposed by Mander et al. [18] is modified and applied It is shown that specimens with binding bars failed in post-
herein. The ultimate uniaxial strength of confined concrete is local buckling mode. The steel yielded as this type of column
given by reached ultimate strength, supposed to obey the Von Mises
   criteria given by
7.94 f l fl
f cc = f ck −1.254 + 2.254 1 + −2 (11) f a2 − f a σh + σh2 = f ay
2
. (22)
fck f ck
For the local buckling strength of a steel plate f b in CFT
where fl is equivalent lateral confined stress, given herein by columns, Ge and Usami [19] proposed a relationship as
fl = ke fl (12) fb 1.2 0.3
= − 2 ≤ 1.0 (23)
f ay R R
in which fl
is calculated from Eq. (4). The confinement
effectiveness coefficient ke is divided into ke1 , the level which is ensured by keeping R ≥ 0.85; where R is the
confinement effectiveness coefficient, and ke2 , the longitudinal width–thickness ratio parameter, defined as
confinement coefficient, i.e.  
D 12(1 − ν 2 ) f ay
R= . (24)
ke = ke1 · ke2 (13) t 4π 2 Ea

where ke1 and ke2 take the form [18] as Then from Eq. (23), the stress states of steel tubes can be
determined in the two cases as follows.
ke1 =
Ae1
(14) For R ≥ 0.85
Acc1 applying fa = fb to Eqs. (23) and (22) results in
Ae2

ke2 = (15) 1.2 0.3
Acc2 fa = − 2 f ay (in compression) (25)
R R

where Ae1 and Ae2 are the level area of an effectively confined
f a − 4 f ay
2 −3f2
a
concrete core and longitudinal area of an effectively confined σh = (in tension). (26)
concrete core, while Acc1 and Acc2 are the level area of a 2
concrete core and the longitudinal area of a concrete core For R < 0.85, the effects of local buckling can be
respectively. The arching action shown in Fig. 11 is assumed ignored [19]. Sakino et al. [20] deduced a relationship between
to occur in the form of a second-degree parabola with an initial stress coefficient au and bu , which represent hoop stress to yield
tangent angle θ . So that Ae1 and Acc1 are given by strength of steel ratio and longitudinal stress to yield strength
of steel ratio respectively, based on a large number of results

n
[(D − 2t)/(D/as )]2 tan θ
Ae1 = (D − 2t)2 − (16) of experiments for circular CFT short columns. The value of
i=1
6 coefficients au and bu given as −0.19 and 0.89 respectively
are adopted herein to assume the value of hoop stress and
Acc1 = (D − 2t)2 (17)
longitudinal stress for steel in the case of R < 0.85. Therefore,
and applying Eqs. (16) and (17) to Eq. (14) produces σh and f a are expressed as follows
  σh = 0.19 f ay (in tension) (27)
 n
(as /D)2 tan θ
ke1 = 1 − . (18) f a = 0.89 f ay (in compression). (28)
i=1
6

Similarly it can be deduced that 5.3. Simplification of the method proposed

bs tan θ 2 The method presented above is somewhat complicated and a

ke2 = 1− . (19)
2(b − 2t) simplification is proposed below.
 J. Cai, Z.-Q. He / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 472–483 481

Fig. 12. φ1 –R relationship. (a) Relationship of φ2 and ζ .

Assumed that Eq. (10) can be expressed alternatively as

Nu = φ1 f ay Aa + φ2 f ck Ac (29)
where φ1 and φ2 are the strength coefficient of steel and that of
concrete, defined as
fa fcc
φ1 = , φ2 = . (30)
f ay f ck
Based on the regression of data from this experiment program
which is shown in Fig. 12, φ1 is given as (b) Relationship of φ2 and R.

0.89 R < 0.85
φ1 = (31)
0.897R −0.7407 R ≥ 0.85.
It is found that the uniaxial strength of concrete filled
in a square steel tube with binding bars primarily depends
on the constraining factor of the binding bars ζ and the
width-to-thickness ratio parameter R. Fig. 13(a) shows that
there exists an almost linear relationship between φ2 and ζ .
Fig. 13(b) presents a nonlinear relationship of φ2 and R when
the constraining factor of the binding bars is equal to zero
(meaning specimens without binding bars arranged). Based on
a double nonlinear regression through the data in Table 1, the
strength coefficient of steel φ2 is given by
φ2 = 1.039R −0.0861(7.3836ς + 1.0588).
5.4. Verification
The predicted ultimate strengths of S-CFT stub columns
with or without binding bars calculated by Eqs. (10) and
(29) respectively are given in Table 2. To make a comparison,
the extensive experimental data from other research such as
Chen [21] and Han and Tao [22] are adopted and results
predicted by the methods of EC4 and GJB4142-2000 are also
given in Table 2. For specimens with binding bars tested in
this program, the results predicted by the formulae proposed
herein agree well with that of experiments with mean value and
covariance of Nuc /Nue given as 1.037 and 0.008 respectively.
Both the value of the mean and the covariance predicted by the
simplified method are somewhat larger with the mean value and
covariance as 1.060 and 0.012 respectively. EC4 gives a mean
of Nuc /Nue as 0.912 while GJB 1.044. Both of the covariances
given by EC4 and GJB are somewhat large with the value of
0.024 and 0.031 respectively owing to the two methods cannot
take into account the contribution of binding bars and thus
result in the covariance being relatively larger. For the normal-
sectioned S-CFT stub columns from Han and Tao [22], the two
Fig. 13. Relationship of φ2 and z (or R).
methods proposed in this paper can also give reasonable results
as those of EC4 and GJB do.
6. Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn based on the results
of this study:
(1) Under axial loading, normal-sectioned square CFT stub
columns without stiffening measures are prone to failing
in local buckling, whose ultimate strength, plastic
deformability and ductility are relatively low. The main
(32)
reason is that the concrete confinement is not consistent
along the side walls of the steel tube and only exists in
the corner regions. The effect of confinement is very weak
and usually neglected. The potential load-bearing capacity
is not adequately in usage in this type of column.
(2) The proposed stiffening scheme improves the axial load
behavior of square CFT columns mainly on two aspects.
One is that the concrete confinement beyond the corner
regions is improved since the transverse deformation of
the concrete core is constrained by the binding bars. The
other is that the elastic local buckling of a steel plate
can be delayed or even avoided through an appropriate
longitudinal spacing of binding bars owing to the local
buckling only taking place between the two adjacent rows
of level binding bars.
(3) The spacing and diameter of binding bars have an important
influence on ultimate strength and plastic deformability of
square CFT columns with binding bars. With spacing of
binding bars decreasing and the diameter of binding bars
increasing, the ultimate strength and corresponding strain
of specimens with binding bars increase remarkably and the
post load–strain curve decreases slowly.
 482
Table 2
Comparison among ultimate strengths from prediction and experiment for square CFT columns with or without binding bars
No. Specimen B × t × L (mm) as × bs × ds (mm) ξ f ay (MPa) f ck (MPa) Nue (kN) Formulae proposed in Formulae simplified EC4(1996) [14] GBJ(2000) [16] Resource
this paper in this paper
Nuc (kN) Nuc /Nue Nuc (kN) Nuc /Nue Nuc (kN) Nuc /Nue Nuc (kN) Nuc /Nue
1 C1 300 × 6 × 1500 — 0.625 292.48 39.82 5800 5852 1.009 4543 0.857 5367 0.925 6268 1.081
2 C2 300 × 6 × 1500 150 × 150 × 14 0.817 382.50 39.82 6600 6622 1.003 6015 0.964 6002 0.909 6946 1.052
3 C3 300 × 6 × 1500 100 × 150 × 14 0.817 382.50 39.82 8654 8209 0.949 6751 0.931 6002 0.694 6946 0.803
4 C4 300 × 4 × 1500 — 0.477 341.93 39.82 5300 5293 0.999 5460 0.941 5015 0.946 5894 1.112
5 C5 300 × 4 × 1500 150 × 150 × 14 0.477 341.93 39.82 6243 6243 1.000 5395 1.235 5015 0.803 5894 0.944
6 C6 300 × 4 × 1500 100 × 150 × 14 0.477 341.93 39.82 7255 7037 0.970 6887 1.122 5015 0.691 5894 0.812
7 C7 300 × 8 × 1500 — 1.129 387.98 39.82 5600 6745 1.204 7237 1.096 6837 1.221 7797 1.392
8 C8 300 × 8 × 1500 150 × 150 × 14 1.129 387.98 39.82 7878 7722 0.980 7327 0.994 6837 0.868 7797 0.990 This paper
300 × 8 × 1500 100 × 150 × 14

J. Cai, Z.-Q. He / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 472–483

9 C9 1.129 387.98 39.82 8170 7997 0.979 7977 0.922 6837 0.837 7797 0.954
10 C10 300 × 12 × 1500 — 1.572 345.04 39.82 6588 8571 1.301 7129 1.273 7803 1.184 8704 1.321
11 C11 300 × 12 × 1500 150 × 150 × 14 1.572 345.04 39.82 8436 9239 1.095 8601 1.092 7803 0.925 8704 1.032
12 C12 300 × 12 × 1500 100 × 150 × 14 1.572 345.04 39.82 9749 9772 1.002 9338 1.143 7803 0.800 8704 0.893
13 C13 300 × 6 × 1500 — 0.625 292.48 39.82 4370 4411 1.009 7744 1.176 5367 1.228 6268 1.434
14 C14 300 × 6 × 1500 150 × 150 × 14 0.625 292.48 39.82 6140 6184 1.007 9191 1.090 5367 0.874 6268 1.021
15 C15 300 × 6 × 1500 150 × 150 × 16 0.817 382.5 39.82 7375 7308 0.991 9915 1.017 6002 0.814 6946 0.942

16 C1 300 × 10 × 1500 150 × 150 × 14 1.581 366.86 34.34 7695 8293 1.078 8391 1.090 6948 0.903 7737 1.005
[21]
17 GZ02a 300 × 10 × 1500 150 × 150 × 14 2.410 357.72 21.96 6634 7012 1.057 7174 1.081 5871 0.885 6371 0.960

Mean 1.037 1.060 0.912 1.044

COV 0.008 0.012 0.024 0.031

18 sczs1-1-1 120 × 3.8 × 360 — 1.69 330.1 27.3 882 915 1.037 909.4 1.031 928 1.052 886.8 1.005
19 sczs1-1-2 120 × 3.8 × 360 — 1.479 330.1 31.2 882 964 1.093 965.2 1.094 977 1.108 927.5 1.052
20 sczs1-1-3 120 × 3.8 × 360 — 1.479 330.1 31.2 921.2 964 1.047 965.2 1.048 977 1.061 927.5 1.007
21 sczs1-1-4 120 × 3.8 × 360 — 0.936 330.1 49.3 1080 1194 1.105 1224 1.133 1206 1.117 1123 1.040
22 sczs1-1-5 120 × 3.8 × 360 — 0.879 330.1 52.5 1078 1234 1.145 1270 1.178 1246 1.156 1158 1.075
23 sczs1-2-1 140 × 3.8 × 420 — 2.437 330.1 16 940.8 964 1.025 921.6 0.980 964 1.025 945.8 1.005
24 sczs1-2-2 140 × 3.8 × 420 — 2.334 330.1 16.7 921.6 976 1.060 935.3 1.015 976 1.059 954.9 1.036
25 sczs1-2-3 140 × 3.8 × 420 — 0.714 330.1 54.6 1499.4 1646 1.098 1678 1.119 1641 1.094 1495 0.997
26 sczs1-2-4 140 × 3.8 × 420 — 0.714 330.1 54.6 1470 1646 1.120 1678 1.141 1641 1.116 1495 1.017
27 sczs2-1-1 120 × 5.9 × 360 — 2.462 321.1 30 1176 1188 1.010 1183 1.006 1216 1.034 1159 0.985
[22]
28 sczs2-1-2 120 × 5.9 × 360 — 2.462 321.1 30 1117.2 1188 1.063 1183 1.059 1216 1.088 1159 1.037
29 sczs2-1-3 120 × 5.9 × 360 — 2.863 321.1 25.8 1195.6 1138 0.952 1125 0.941 1167 0.976 1123 0.940
30 sczs2-1-4 120 × 5.9 × 360 — 1.407 321.1 52.5 1460.2 1453 0.995 1493 1.023 1479 1.013 1382 0.946
31 sczs2-1-5 120 × 5.9 × 360 — 1.407 321.1 52.5 1372 1453 1.059 1493 1.089 1479 1.078 1382 1.007
32 sczs2-2-1 140 × 5.9 × 420 — 3.793 321.1 16.3 1342.6 1273 0.948 1216 0.906 1284 0.956 1283 0.956
33 sczs2-2-2 140 × 5.9 × 420 — 0.791 321.1 18.3 1292.6 1306 1.010 1252 0.969 1315 1.018 1299 1.005
34 sczs2-2-3 140 × 5.9 × 420 — 1.132 321.1 54.6 2009 1912 0.952 1947 0.969 1914 0.952 1768 0.880
35 sczs2-2-4 140 × 5.9 × 420 — 1.132 321.1 54.6 1906.1 1912 1.003 1947 1.022 1914 1.004 1768 0.928
36 sczs2-3-1 200 × 5.9 × 600 — 2.36 321.1 17.6 2058 2162 1.050 2012 0.978 2094 1.018 2021 0.982
37 sczs2-3-2 200 × 5.9 × 600 — 2.36 321.1 17.6 1960 2162 1.103 2012 1.055 2094 1.069 2021 1.031

Mean 1.044 1.038 1.050 0.997

COV 0.003 0.005 0.003 0.002

Note: — means specimen without binding bars.
 J. Cai, Z.-Q. He / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 472–483
(4) Ultimate strength predicted by the methods proposed in this
paper is reasonable for square CFT stub columns with or
without binding bars, while that calculated by EC4(1996)
and GJB(2000) scatters quite a bit from the experimental
results of square CFT stub columns with binding bars owing
to not considering the contribution of binding bars.
Acknowledgements
The work described in this paper is part of the project
entitled “Research on behavior of abnormal-shaped CFT stub
columns”, funded by Natural Science Key Foundation of
Guangdong Province in China under Grant No. 012356. This
support is sincerely appreciated. Additionally, special thanks to
Xing Chen, senior engineer in Arch. & Civil Design Research
Institute of Guangdong, for his skilled assistance.
References
[1] Zhang ZG. Analysis of mechanism and load-bearing capacity of square
concrete-filled steel under axial load. China Ind Constr 1989;11:2–8
[in Chinese].
[2] Forlong RW. Strength of steel-encased concrete beam–columns. J Struct
Div, ASCE 93(5):113–24.
[3] Knowles RB, Park R. Strength of concrete-filled steel tubular columns.
J Struct Div, ASCE 95(12):2565–87.
[4] Tomii M, Yoshimura K, Morishita Y. Experimental studies on concrete
filled steel tubular stub columns under concentric loading. In: Proc.,
int. colloquium on stability of structure under static and dynamic loads.
p. 718–41.
[5] Schneider SP. Axially loaded concrete-filled steel tubes. J Struct Eng
1998;124(10):1125–38.
[6] Li XL, Yu Y et al. Study on behavior of square concrete-filled steel
under axial load: experiment. China Build Struct 1999;(10):41–3 [in
Chinese].
483
[7] Ge HB, Usami T. Strength of concrete-filled thin-walled steel box column:
experiment. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1992;118(11):3036–54.
[8] Lin TI, Huang CM, Chen SY. Concrete-filled tubular steel columns
subjected to eccentric axial load. J Chin Inst Civil Hydraulic Eng 1993;
5(4):377–86 [in Chinese].
[9] Kitada T. Ultimate strength and ductility of state-of-the-art concrete-filled
steel bridge piers in Japan. Eng Struct 1998;20(4–6):347–54.
[10] Huang CS, Yeh YK et al. Axial load behavior of stiffened concrete-filled
steel columns. J Struct Eng, ASCE 2002;128(9):1222–30.
[11] He BK, Yang XB, Zhou TH. Theoretical analysis on local buckling
behavior of concrete filled rectangular steel tube column subjected to axial
force. J Xi’an Univ of Arch & Tech (Natural Science Edition) 2002;34(3):
210–3 [in Chinese].
[12] Uy B. Local and post-local buckling of concrete-filled steel welded box
columns. J Constr Steel Res 1998;47(1–2):47–72.
[13] Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ). Recommendations for design and
construction of concrete filled steel tubular structures. October 1997.
[14] EC4. Design of steel and concrete structures, Part1, 1, general rules and
rules for building. DD ENV 1994-1-1:1996. London WI A2BS: British
Standards Institution.
[15] AISC. Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD). Specification for
structural steel buildings. Amer Inst Steel Constr, 25(4):2–16.
[16] GJB4142-2000, 2001. Technical specifications for early-strength model
composite structures. Peking, China [in Chinese].
[17] Shanmugam HE, Lakshmi B. State of the art report on steel–concrete
composite columns. J Constr Steel Res 2001;(57):1041–80.
[18] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress–strain model for
confined concrete. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1988;114(8):1807–26.
[19] Ge HB, Usami T. Strength analysis of concrete filled thin-walled steel box
columns. J Constr Steel Res 1994;30:259–81.
[20] Sakina K, Nakahara H et al. Behavior of centrally loaded concrete-filled
steel-tube short columns. J Struct Eng, ASCE 2004;130(2):180–8.
[21] Chen DM. Foundational study on mechanic behavior of abnormal-shaped
CFT columns with binding bars. MS thesis. Guangzhou (China): South
China University of Technology; 2000.
[22] Han LH, Tao Z. Study on behavior of concrete filled square steel tube
under axial load. China J Civ Eng 2001;34(2):17–25 [in Chinese].