Concrete-Filled Steel Tube Columns Encased

with Thin Precast Concrete

Hong-Gun Park, M.ASCE 1; Ho-Jun Lee 2; In-Rak Choi 3; Sung-Bae Kim 4; and Sung-Soon Park 5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 08/06/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: An experimental study was performed to investigate the axial-flexural load-carrying capacity of concrete-filled steel tube columns
encased with thin precast concrete (PC). Six eccentrically loaded columns and one concentrically loaded column were tested. To prevent the
premature failure of the concrete encasement, various reinforcement details such as studs, steel fiber, welded wire mesh, and cross ties were
used. The maximum axial loads of the specimens agreed with the strengths predicted by current design codes, although in some specimens,
the load-carrying capacity decreased immediately after the peak strength owing to early spalling of the concrete encasement. On the basis of
the test results, the use of fiber-reinforced concrete is recommended to increase the ductility of columns by restraining the spalling of the
concrete encasement. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001303. © 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Composite column; Concrete-filled steel tube; Concrete encasement; Precast concrete; Metal and composite structures.

Introduction
Recently, the use of large columns has increased in the construction
of wholesale stores and warehouse buildings that have large spans
and story heights. In the construction of such large columns, the
use of conventional reinforced concrete may not be economical
because of the difficulties in the rebar fabrication and form-work.
Furthermore, the use of precast concrete (PC) columns may also not
be advantageous because of difficulties in the transportation and
lifting of the large-weight columns.
Alternatively, hollow PC columns, with reduced weight, can be
used for the construction of such large columns. After erecting the
hollow PC column on the construction site, concrete can be filled
into the hollow core. In manufacturing, however, because of the
requirement of crossties, it is difficult to install and remove the
inner form that is required to form the hollow section. Consid-
ering the difficulty of the use of an inner form, a permanent thin
steel tube can be used for the hollow PC column (Fig. 1). In the
concrete-encased-and-filled tubular column (CEFT column), cross-
ties are not necessary, and the thin steel tube can be used as a struc-
tural element, resisting member forces. Furthermore, the concrete
encasement can develop additional strength and stiffness, providing
local buckling restraint and fire resistance to the steel tube. Because
1
Professor, Dept. of Architecture and Architectural Engineering,
Seoul National Univ., 1 Gwanak-ro, Seoul 151-744, Korea. E-mail:
parkhg@snu.ac.kr
2
Graduate Student, Dept. of Architecture and Architectural Engineer-
ing, Seoul National Univ., 1 Gwanak-ro, Seoul 151-744, Korea (corre-
sponding author). E-mail: hojun1032@gmail.com
3
Senior Researcher, Building Structure Research Group, POSCO
Global R&D Center, 100 Songdogwahak-ro, Incheon 406-840, Korea.
E-mail: inrak@hotmail.com
4
Manager, The Naeun Structural Engineering Co. Ltd., 21 Yangpyeong-
ro, Seoul 150-105, Korea. E-mail: withksb@hanmail.net
5
General Manager, SHINSEGAE E&C, 180 Jangchungdan-ro, Seoul
100-391, Korea. E-mail: sungspark@paran.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 17, 2014; approved on
February 4, 2015; published online on April 6, 2015. Discussion period
open until September 6, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural En-
gineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/04015056(11)/$25.00.
of the local buckling restraint, a relatively thin steel tube can
be used.
CEFT columns have been used in Japan for many decades, and
several relevant studies have been conducted. Table 1 summarizes
the previous tests for rectangular CEFT columns. In early studies,
small-scale specimens with relatively low hollowness ratios (the
ratio of the hollow section to the gross section area) were tested.
Yamada et al. (1981) performed cyclic loading test for a small
scale CEFT column (gross section ¼ 160 × 160 mm; steel tube
section ¼ 100 × 100 mm; hollowness ratio = 39%; axial load
ratio = 0.3). Matsui et al. (1998) performed an axial load test
for a CEFT column (gross section ¼ 250 × 250 mm; steel tube
section ¼ 150 × 150 mm; hollowness ratio = 36%). Han et al.
(2009) performed cyclic loading tests for small scale CEFT col-
umns (gross section ¼ 150 × 150 mm; steel tube section ¼
50 × 50 mm; hollowness ratio = 11%; axial load ratios = 0, 0.3,
and 0.6). Because of the low hollowness ratio, the structural per-
formance of the specimens was more similar to that of concrete-
encased steel columns (CES columns) than to concrete-filled steel
tubular columns (CFT columns).
Miyauchi et al. (2010) performed a cyclic loading test for
CEFT columns with a relatively high hollowness ratio (gross
section ¼ 420 × 420 mm; steel tube section ¼ 300 × 300 mm;
hollowness ratio = 51%; axial load ratios = 0.07 and 0.21). The
test specimens showed excellent performance in terms of load-
carrying capacity and deformation capacity. To avoid early spalling
of the concrete encasement, very closely spaced transverse ties
were used (D5, diameter = 5 mm; vertical spacing s ¼ 60 mm).
Currently, design codes do not provide provisions for the details
of CEFT columns, such as the minimum thickness of the concrete
encasement, maximum hollowness ratio, and spacing of transverse
bars. In the design examples given in the Architectural Institute of
Japan standard (AIJ 2014), the concrete encasement thickness is
20% of the gross section width, which corresponds to a hollowness
ratio of 36%.
In the present study, concentric and eccentric axial load tests
were performed on CEFT columns. In the design of test specimens,
the following aspects required by engineers and construction com-
panies were considered: (1) the weight of the hollow section sig-
nificantly affects the economy of the construction method (lifting
weight and transportation); thus, to reduce the weight of the hollow

© ASCE 04015056-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2015, 141(12): 04015056

 of the concrete encasement was 70 mm, which was determined
considering (1) the cover concrete thickness and rebar arrangement;
and (2) the minimum thickness to prevent cracking during handling
and shipping. The hollowness ratios of the cross sections were ap-
proximately 50% for the eccentrically loaded columns and 40% for
the concentrically loaded column. In the case of full-size prototype
columns (gross section ¼ 760 × 760 mm or 960 × 960 mm), the
hollowness ratio can be increased to 73% and 67% if the same
thickness of the concrete encasement (70 mm) is used.
The steel tube was a built-up section of 340 × 340 mm for the
eccentrically loaded specimens and 240 × 240 mm for the con-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 08/06/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Cross section of proposed composite column
section, relatively large hollowness ratios were used, using thin
concrete encasement; (2) for economy, thin steel tube (thickness
t ¼ 6 mm, width-to-thickness ratio b=t ¼ 38.0 and 54.7) was used;
(3) to verify the load-carrying capacity of the columns under high
axial loading, concentric axial load or eccentric axial load with
low eccentricity was used; (4) relatively large specimens (gross
section ¼ 480 × 480 mm) were used; and (5) the structural perfor-
mance of CEFT columns depends strongly on the integrity between
the concrete-filled steel tube and the concrete encasement. Thus,
various connection details (including the details of the concrete
encasement) were tested to assess their effect on the integrity and
structural performance of the columns.
Test Program
Test Specimens
The test specimens were half-scale models of prototype CEFT
columns with a cross section of 760 × 760 mm or 960 × 960 mm.
Six eccentrically loaded specimens, C1–C6, and a concentrically
loaded specimen, C7, were prepared for testing. Table 2 and Fig. 2
show the parameters and details of the test specimens. The major
test parameters were the reinforcement details of the concrete
encasement to restrain early spalling of the concrete encasement.
Furthermore, the effects of the axial load eccentricity and column
length were also studied.
In the eccentrically loaded specimens, the dimensions of the
cross section were 480 × 480 mm. On the other hand, the dimen-
sions of the cross section of the centrically loaded specimen, C7,
were reduced to 380 × 380 mm, considering the loading capacity of
universal testing machine (UTM). In all the specimens, the thickness
centrically loaded specimen. The thickness of the steel tube was
t ¼ 6 mm. The width-to-thickness ratio of the steel tube for
C1–C6 waspb=t ¼ ffi54.7, which slightly exceeded the limitation
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
(λp ¼ 2.26 Es =Fy ) of the compact section for CFT columns
specified in American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/AISC
360 (AISC 2010). In C7, the ratio was b=t ¼ 38.0, which belongs
to the compact section.
Fig. 3 shows the eccentrically loaded columns. The axial load
eccentricity of C1–C6, except C2, was e ¼ 60 mm, corresponding
to an eccentricity ratio e=D ¼ 0.125. The eccentricity of C2 was
e ¼ 180 mm (e=D ¼ 0.375). The effective length (length between
the top and bottom hinges) of C1–C6, except C3, was Le ¼
2,880 mm, including the rigid zones and knife edges. According
to Eurocode 4 [European Committee for Standardization (CEN)
2004], the relative slenderness of the specimens ranged from λ̄ ¼
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
0.27 to 0.29, in which λ̄ ¼ Pno =Pcr [Pno in Eq. (3)]; Pcr ¼
π2 EI eff =L2e ; and EI eff ¼ Es I s þ Er I r þ 0.6Ec I c . The net column
length, excluding the rigid zones and the knife-edges, was
Lc ¼ 1,360mm. To evaluate the slenderness effect of the com-
posite column, the effective length of C3 was increased to Le ¼
4,320 mm (Lc ¼ 2,800 mm). The corresponding relative slender-
ness was λ̄ ¼ 0.41. In the concentrically loaded column, C7, the
net column length and the effective length (length between the top
and bottom loading plates) were Lc ¼ 1,050 and Le ¼ 1,500 mm,
respectively.
In the Japanese standard (AIJ 2014), the lateral reinforcement
ratio, ρh , of conventional ties for concrete-encased steel tubes is
specified as ρh ≥ 0.2%, in which ρh ¼ Ah =ðdsÞ; Ah is the sectional
area of ties; d is the thickness of the concrete encasement, and
s is vertical spacing of ties. In the test specimens, the lateral
reinforcement ratios were ρh ¼ 0.85% (s ¼ 120 mm) and 0.42%
(s ¼ 240 mm). The spacing was one-fourth and one-half of the
cross-section dimension, and was 1.7 and 3.4 times the thickness
of the concrete encasement, respectively.

Table 1. Test Parameters of Previous Studies

Yamada et al. (1981) Matsui et al. (1998) Han et al. (2009) Miyauchi et al. (2010)
Test program of previous studies (Japan) (Japan) (China) (Japan)
Square CEFT specimens 1EA 1EA 3EA 3EA
Loading Axial (0.33)+lateral Axial Axial (0,0.3,0.6)+lateral Axial (0.07,0.21)+lateral
cyclic cyclic cyclic
Gross section (mm) 160 × 160 250 × 250 150 × 150 420 × 420
Tube section (thickness, area ratio) 100 × 100 mm 150 × 150 mm 50 × 50 mm 300 × 300 mm
(3.2 mm, 4.8%) (3.2 mm, 3.0%) (2.7 mm, 2.3%) (9.5 mm, 6.3%)
Thickness of concrete encasement (mm) 30 50 50 60
Hollowness ratio (%) 39 36 11 51
Longitudinal bars (area ratio) 4-D10 (1.1%) 4-D6 (0.2%) 4-D10 (1.3%) 12-D6 (0.3%)
Transverse ties (area ratioa, s=D) Φ6 at 80 mm D6 at 65 mm Φ6 at 100 mm D5 at 60 mm
(1.18%, 1=2) (0.98%, 1=3.8) (0.64%, 1=1.5) (0.55%, 1=7)
Note: Ah = sectional area of transverse ties; d = thickness of concrete encasement; s = spacing of ties.
a
ρh ¼ Ah =ðdsÞ.

© ASCE 04015056-2 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2015, 141(12): 04015056

 Table 2. Properties of Test Specimens
Test parameters C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
Details for concrete encasement FRC + Stud Stud Stud WWM U-cross tie U-cross tie Stud
Dimensions of cross section D × D (mm) 480 × 480 480 × 480 480 × 480 480 × 480 480 × 480 480 × 480 380 × 380
Thickness of concrete 70 (50%) 70 (50%) 70 (50%) 70 (50%) 70 (50%) 70 (50%) 70 (40%)
encasememnt (mm) (hollowness ratio)
Eccentricity e (mm) (eccentricity ratio e=D) 60 (0.125) 180 (0.375) 60 (0.125) 60 (0.125) 60 (0.125) 60 (0.125) 0
Effective length Le (mm) 2,880 (0.27) 2,880 (0.27) 4,320 (0.41) 2,880 (0.27) 2,880 (0.29) 2,880 (0.27) 1,500b
(relative slenderness λ̄a)
Concrete encasement FRC Ordinary Ordinary Ordinary Ordinary Ordinary Ordinary
Concrete strength fck;e (MPa) 28.7 37.5 37.5 37.5 31.7 24.3 38.7
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 08/06/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Longitudinal bars 4-D16 4-D16 4-D16 8-D25 4-D16 4-D16 4-D16

8-D13 8-D13 8-D13 8-D13 8-D13 8-D13
Bar yield strength Fyr (MPa) 489 489 489 308 496 496 489
518 518 518 473 473 518
Bar area ratio (%) 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.8 0.9 0.9 1.5
Axial load contribution δe c (%) 41 46 46 48 38 38 55
Filled concrete strength fck;f (MPa) 21.9 21.1 21.1 21.1 31.7 24.3 21.9
Steel tube (mm) 340 × 340 × 6 340 × 340 × 6 340 × 340 × 6 340 × 340 × 6 340 × 340 × 6 340 × 340 × 6 240 × 240 × 6
Yield strength Fy (MPa) 409 409 409 409 442 387 409
Width-to-thickness ratio b=t 54.7 54.7 54.7 54.7 54.7 54.7 38.0
Area ratio (%) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.9
Ties D10 at 120 D10 at 120 D10 at 120 WWMd D10 at 120 D10 at 240 D10 at 120
Yield strength (MPa) 443 443 443 500 496 496 443
Area ratio (%) 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.56 0.85 0.42 0.85
Studs Φ13 at 240 Φ13 at 240 Φ13 at 240 — — — Φ13 at 240
U-cross ties — — — — D10 at 240 D10 at 240 —
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
a
Relative slenderness λ̄ ¼ Pno =Pcr , where Pno = nominal plastic resistance of composite section given by Eq. (3); and Pcr ¼ π2 EI eff =L2e using EI eff ¼
Es I s þ Er I r þ 0.6Ec I c (CEN 2004).
b
Length of the specimen itself.
c
Axial load contribution of concrete encasement δ e ¼ ð0.85f ck;e Ac;e þ Fyr Ar Þ=ð0.85f ck;e Ac;e þ Fyr Ar þ Fy As þ 0.85f ck;f Ac;f Þ.
d
Welded Wire Mesh, grid of 50 × 50 mm and bar diameter of 5 mm.

Fig. 2. Details of test specimens: (a) C1, C2, C3; (b) C4; (c) C5, C6

In specimens C2, C3, and C7, shear studs were welded to the were placed at the corners of the cross section. D10 bars
exterior surface of the steel tube to restrain early spalling of the (diameter ¼ 10 mm; Ah ¼ 71 mm2 ) were used for the ties. The
concrete encasement. Fig. 2(a) shows the details of C2 and C3. vertical spacing was s ¼ 120 mm. Instead of a 135° hook anchor-
Four longitudinal D16 bars (diameter ¼ 16 mm; Ar ¼ 199 mm2 ) age, a 90° hook lap splice was used for the ties because of the

© ASCE 04015056-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2015, 141(12): 04015056


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 08/06/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Test setup for eccentrically loaded specimens
interference with the steel tube. Two studs (diameter ¼ 13 mm;
length ¼ 40 mm) were welded at each face of the steel tube.
The vertical spacing of the studs was 240 mm. The cover concrete
thickness for the studs and ties was 30 mm. In addition to the four
corner longitudinal rebar, two longitudinal D13 bars (diameter ¼
13 mm; Ar ¼ 127 mm2 ) were used at each side of the cross
section. The D13 bars were tack-welded to the studs to prevent
buckling of the rebar and to provide better resistance to the concrete
spalling. In the concentrically loaded column, C7, the reinforce-
ment details of the concrete encasement were the same as those
of C2 and C3, although the dimensions of the cross section were
smaller.
The details of C1 were almost the same as those of C2.
However, steel fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) was used to re-
strain the premature spalling of the thin concrete encasement. The
aspect ratio of the hooked steel fiber was 60 (diameter ¼ 0.5 mm;
length ¼ 30 mm). The volumetric ratio was limited to 0.8%
for concrete workability in the thin concrete encasement. In
the concrete-encased steel tube specimen tested by Yamashita
et al. (2005), the steel fiber ratio of the concrete encasement
was 1.0%.
The details of C4 were the same as those of C2 except for the
rebar details of the concrete encasement. The concrete encasement
of C4 was reinforced by dense and fine-welded wire mesh (WWM;
bar diameter ¼ 5 mm; grid dimensions ¼ 50 × 50 mm). To pro-
vide a bond between the concrete encasement and steel tube,
two D25 longitudinal rebars (diamete r ¼ 25 mm; Ar ¼ 507 mm2 )
were welded intermittently to each side of the steel tube [Fig. 2(b)].
The WWM was then tack-welded to the longitudinal rebar. The
longitudinal rebar can increase the flexural capacity of the column
and provide buckling resistance for the steel tube after spalling of
the concrete encasement.
In C5, the steel tube, longitudinal bars, and transverse ties were
the same as those of C2. However, instead of using studs, U-shaped
ties, which penetrate through the steel tube, were used to connect
the concrete encasement to the inner filled concrete. To insert the
U-cross ties through the steel tube, holes of 16-mm diameter were
drilled in the steel tube. The U-shaped ties were D10 bars, and the
© ASCE 04015056-4
J. Struct. Eng., 2015, 141(12): 04015056
vertical spacing was 240 mm, which was the same as the spacing of
the studs in C1, C2, C3, and C7. The embedded length inside the
filled concrete was 160 mm. The vertical spacing of the perimeter
ties in the concrete encasement was s ¼ 120 mm.
The properties of C6 were the same as those of C5, including
the U-shaped ties. However, the vertical spacing of the perimeter
ties in the concrete encasement was increased to twice that of C5,
i.e., s ¼ 240 mm.
Material Strengths
The material properties of the concrete, steel, and rebar are
presented in Table 2. All the values indicate the average of results
obtained from three tension or compression tests. Tensile coupons
of steel plates and rebar were taken from the same sheets and rebar
used in the specimens. The maximum size of coarse aggregate was
limited to 19 mm, considering the thickness of the concrete encase-
ment. The compressive strengths of concrete cylinders were mea-
sured on the day of testing.
In C1 with FRC, compressive strengths of concrete encasement
(FRC) and filled concrete were f ck;e ¼ 28.7 and f ck;f ¼ 21.9 MPa,
respectively. In C2, C3, and C4 with ordinary concrete, the com-
pressive strengths of the concrete encasement and filled concrete
were fck;e ¼ 37.5 and fck;f ¼ 21.1 MPa, respectively. In C5 and
C6 with U-cross ties, the same concrete strength was used for both
the concrete encasement and the filled concrete. The compressive
strengths were fck;e ¼ f ck;f ¼ 31.7 MPa in C5 and fck;e ¼ fck;f ¼
24.3 MPa in C6. In C7, the concentrically loaded specimen, com-
pressive strengths of the concrete encasement and filled concrete
were f ck;e ¼ 38.7 and f ck;f ¼ 21.9 MPa, respectively. In C1,
C2, C3, C4, and C7, the yield strength of the steel tube was
Fy ¼ 409 MPa. On the other hand, the steel yield strengths were
Fy ¼ 442 MPa in C5 and Fy ¼ 387 MPa in C6.
The thin concrete encasement contributes greatly to the axial
load and moment capacities of the specimens when plastic stress
distribution is assumed. The axial load contribution of the concrete
encasement, including the longitudinal bars, was estimated as
38–48% in C1–C6 and 55% in C7 (Table 2).
Test Setup
Fig. 3 shows the test setup of the eccentrically loaded columns
C1–C6. To provide accurate hinge conditions in the direction of
eccentricity, knife edges were used at the top and bottom of the
specimens. On the other hand, in the case of concentrically loaded
specimen C7, axial load was applied directly by the UTM, without
using knife edges. The axial force was controlled by a vertical dis-
placement of 0.01 mm=s for the eccentrically loaded specimens
and 0.005 mm=s for the concentrically loaded specimen.
Fig. 3 also shows the instruments for measurement. Four
LVDTs were used to measure the vertical displacements at the
corners of the end plates, and two LVDTs were used to measure
the horizontal displacements at the center of the column.
Strain gauges were used to measure the strains of the steel tube
and rebar.
Test Results
Load-Displacement Relationship
Fig. 4 shows the axial load-displacement relationships of the spec-
imens. The vertical axis indicates the magnitude of axial load,
and the horizontal axis indicates the midheight transverse deflec-
tion for C1–C6 and the axial shortening for C7. The testing was
J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 08/06/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Axial load-displacement relationships of specimens: (a) C1; (b) C2; (c) C3; (d) C4; (e) C5; (f) C6; (g) C7

terminated when the axial load decreased to 70% of the peak load.
In the Figs. 4(a–g), the main events related to the damage of the
specimens are indicated as A–F.
The test results including the peak axial load Pmax , yield dis-
placement Δy , and maximum displacement Δmax are summarized
in Table 3. Following the recommendation of Park (1988), the yield
displacement was defined by the secant stiffness corresponding
to 75% of the peak load as shown in Fig. 5. The maximum displace-
ment was defined as the postpeak displacement that corresponded
to 80% of the peak load. Specimens C1, C4, C5, and C6, with
an eccentricity ratio of e=D ¼ 0.125, reached the peak load
at transverse deflection of Δ ¼ 4.33–6.08 mm. However, in C3,
the transverse deflection at the peak load was increased to Δ ¼
12.07 mm owing to the larger column length. In C2, with the
higher eccentricity ratio of e=D ¼ 0.375, the transverse deflec-
tion at the peak load was Δ ¼ 8.99 mm. In the concentrically
loaded specimen C7, the axial shortening at the peak load was
Δ ¼ 3.20 mm.
Fig. 4(a) shows the test result of C1, in which steel FRC was
used for the concrete encasement in addition to the conventional
ties (s ¼ 120 mm) and studs. The load-carrying capacity decreased
gradually after the peak load, showing ductile behavior, indicating
that FRC with high toughness could be used when high ductility is
required for the seismic design of columns.
Figs. 4(b and c) show the test results of C2 and C3, in which
ordinary reinforced concrete and studs were used for the concrete
encasement. In the case of C3, unlike C1, the load-carrying capac-
ity decreased quickly after the peak load as a result of early spalling

Table 3. Test Results

Maximum load Yield displacement Maximum displacement
Ductility,
Specimens Pmax (kN) Δ (mm)a ϕ (1=m) Δy (mm)a ϕy (1=m) Δmax (mm)a ϕmax (1=m) μϕ ¼ ϕmax =ϕy
C1 6,844 6.08 0.00644 2.92 0.00345 18.89 0.01790 5.19
C2 4,195 8.99 0.00979 6.68 0.00761 15.89 0.01622 2.13
C3 6,883 12.07 0.00515 7.82 0.00341 19.74 0.00772 2.26
C4 7,674 5.65 0.00585 3.59 0.00393 10.85 0.00980 2.49
C5 7,730 5.91 0.00649 4.09 0.00437 13.41 0.01379 3.15
C6 6,269 4.33 0.00522 2.52 0.00330 7.01 0.00778 2.35
C7 8,322 3.20 — 2.17 — 4.07 — —
a
Midheight transverse deflection for C1–C6 and axial shortening for C7.

© ASCE 04015056-5 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2015, 141(12): 04015056


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 08/06/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Definitions of yield and maximum displacements
of the concrete encasement. After spalling of the concrete encase-
ment, the load-carrying capacity of C3 decreased further because
of the second-order effect of the slender column. Also, in C7 sub-
jected to pure axial loading [Fig. 4(g)], the load-carrying capacity
decreased quickly after the peak load. However, in C2, with greater
eccentricity, the decrease in strength was not significant. This is
because in C2 subjected to a smaller axial load, the strength con-
tribution of the concrete encasement was less than that of C3
and C7.
Fig. 4(d) shows the test result of C4 using welded wire mesh
for the concrete encasement. Like C3 and C7, the load-carrying
capacity of C4 decreased quickly after the peak load as a result
of spalling of the concrete encasement.
Fig. 4(e) shows the test result of C5, in which conventional ties
(s ¼ 120 mm) and U-cross ties were used. Owing to the greater
strength of the steel plate and the filled concrete, the peak load
was the greatest among the eccentrically loaded specimens. Despite
the high peak load, the load-carrying capacity did not quickly de-
crease after the peak load. In C6, in which conventional ties of spac-
ing s ¼ 240 mm and U-cross ties were used, the peak load was
significantly less than that of C5 because of the lower material
strengths. Despite the lower peak load, the load-carrying capacity
decreased immediately after the peak load because of premature
spalling of the concrete encasement and subsequent buckling of
longitudinal rebar. These results indicated the importance of the
spacing of conventional ties in restraining early concrete spalling
and rebar buckling.
Fig. 6. Failure modes of specimens at the end of the test
© ASCE 04015056-6
J. Struct. Eng., 2015, 141(12): 04015056
Failure Modes
The major damage events A–F of the test specimens are presented
in Fig. 4. Fig. 6 shows the failure modes of the specimens at the end
of the test. The damage occurred at different locations in the spec-
imens: at the bottom of the column in C1 and C5; at the top of the
column in C2 and C6; and at the center of the column in C3, C4,
and C7. In the damage or failure region, local buckling of the steel
tube was observed after testing. The spalling of the concrete
encasement is not clearly visible in Fig. 6 because the specimens
were wrapped with thin plastic sheets during testing.
In C1, the sequence of the damage modes was B (compressive
cracking); C (yielding of compressive tube flange); F (spalling
of concrete encasement); A (tensile cracking); E (yielding of ties).
Although premature compressive cracking occurred in the cover
concrete, the load-carrying capacity continued to increase, as
shown in Fig. 4(a). Owing to the effect of FRC, many fine cracks
developed in the damaged region [Fig. 7(a)], and yielding of the ties
occurred after a relatively large inelastic deformation. After remov-
ing the concrete encasement, local buckling was observed in both
the longitudinal rebar and steel plates.
In C2, with ordinary concrete and a greater eccentricity, the se-
quence of the damage modes was A (tensile cracking); C (yielding
of compressive tube flange); B (compressive cracking); F (spalling
of concrete encasement); D (yielding of tensile tube flange). In C3,
with greater column length, the sequence of the damage modes was
C (yielding of compressive tube flange); B (compressive cracking);
F (spalling of concrete encasement); A (tensile cracking). In C7,
subjected to a concentric axial load, the sequence of the damage
modes was C (yielding of compressive tube flange); B (compres-
sive cracking); F (spalling of concrete encasement). In C7, because
of the smaller axial deformation and compactness of the steel plate
(b=t ¼ 38.0), local buckling of the longitudinal rebar and steel tube
was not seen clearly even after the end of the test.
In C4, reinforced with welded wire mesh in the concrete encase-
ment, the sequence of the damage modes was the same as that of
C3, except that transverse bars of the WWM yielded after spalling
of the concrete encasement. As shown in Fig. 6, because of the
dense WWM, the cover concrete was delaminated over a large part
of the column surface. After the end of the test, fracture and local
buckling were observed in the WWM [Fig. 7(b)].
In C5, with U-cross ties, the damage mode was similar to that of
C4. In C6, which had U-cross ties and a greater vertical spacing of
ties (s ¼ 240 mm), delamination of the concrete encasement oc-
curred suddenly. As shown in Fig. 7(c), the concrete encasement
was damaged significantly at the corners of the cross section,
J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 08/06/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Damage after removal of the cover concrete: (a) C1; (b) C4; (c) C6

and local buckling of the longitudinal rebar occurred. This result where ϕy and ϕmax = yield curvature and maximum curvature,
again indicates the importance of the spacing of the ties to restrain respectively, which correspond to the yield and maximum displace-
the buckling of the longitudinal bars. ments (Table 2). In Fig. 8, the maximum curvature and ductility of
C1 with steel fiber-reinforced concrete were ϕmax ¼ 0.01790 and
Moment-Curvature Relationships of Specimens μϕ ¼ 5.19, which were the highest among the specimens. The duc-
tility of C2 and C3 was the lowest, μϕ ¼ 2.13 and 2.26, respec-
Fig. 8 shows the moment M-curvature ϕ relationships of eccentri- tively. In C4, having WWM and longitudinal rebar welded to
cally loaded specimens C1–C6. The vertical axis indicates the the steel tube, the ductility μϕ ¼ 2.49 was similar to that of C2
moment capacity at the midheight section, which was estimated
and C3. The ductility of C5 and C6 with U-cross ties were μϕ ¼
considering a second-order effect
3.15 and 2.35, respectively.
M ¼ Pðe þ ΔÞ ð1Þ
Strains of the Ties
where M = moment at the midheight section; P = axial load;
Fig. 9 shows the strains of the ties measured at different heights of
e = initial eccentricity; and Δ = measured lateral deflection at
the columns. In the eccentrically loaded specimens, three strains
the midheight section. The horizontal axis refers to the average
were measured in the compression side of the cross section: at
curvature over the length of the specimen, which was calculated
as ϕ ¼ ðΔt − Δc Þ=ðlbÞ, where Δt and Δc = displacements of the the top, middle, and bottom of the column. The vertical axis in-
vertical LVDTs measured at the tension side and the compression dicates the locations of the strain gauges, and the horizontal axis
side, respectively (Fig. 3). The original length of the vertical indicates the measured strains at 45% of the peak strength, the
LVDTs was l ¼ 2,060 mm (net column length 1,360 mm þ 2 × peak strength, and 80% of the peak strength. Crack patterns of
rigid end length 390 mm − 2 × end plate thickness 40 mm) for the compression surface at the end of the test are also shown in
C1, C2, C4, C5, and C6, and l ¼ 3,500 mm for C3. The horizontal the figure.
distance between the two LVDTs on the compression and tension In all specimens, as the deformation increased, the strains of
sides was b ¼ 1,200 mm. In the calculation of the curvature, the the ties increased. Particularly, after the peak load, the strains in-
strains measured from the strain gauges in the longitudinal rebar creased significantly in C1, C4, and C5, exceeding the yield strain.
and steel tube at the midheight section could be used. However, The strains showed the greatest values in the region of concrete
in the present study, the strains were not used because they were crushing.
not readable in large inelastic deformations because of local
buckling.
As shown in Fig. 8, specimen C1 maintained a uniform moment
capacity after yielding, showing relatively large ductility. C2, with a
greater eccentricity, showed the greatest moment capacity (M max ¼
789 kN · m) among the specimens. In all specimens, the shapes
of the moment-curvature relationships were similar to those of the
axial load-displacement relationships. The moment capacity of all
specimens except C1 and C5 decreased quickly after the peak
strength because of the spalling of the concrete encasement. How-
ever, the residual moment capacity was maintained by the concrete-
filled steel tube.
To evaluate the postpeak behavior of the specimens, the curva-
ture ductility μϕ was estimated, as follows:

ϕmax
μϕ ¼ ð2Þ
ϕy Fig. 8. Moment-curvature relationships of specimens C1–C6

© ASCE 04015056-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2015, 141(12): 04015056

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 08/06/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Strains of the ties: (a) C1; (b) C2; (c) C4; (d) C5; (e) C6

Predictions of Current Design Codes
Axial-Flexural Capacity
To examine the applicability of current design codes to the test
specimens, the test peak strengths were compared with the predic-
tions of American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318 (2011), ANSI/
AISC 360 (AISC 2010), Eurocode 4 (CEN 2004), and AIJ (2014).
For the prediction, the properties of the concrete, steel, and rebar
measured from the material tests (Table 1) were used. The tensile
contribution of the concrete was neglected. The stress-strain rela-
tionships of the steel and rebar were assumed to be elastic/perfectly
plastic.
In the strain compatibility method of ACI 318 (2011) and ANSI/
AISC 360 (AISC 2010), the axial-flexural capacity of a cross
section is calculated using linear strain distribution and the ultimate
compressive strain of concrete (equal to 0.003). For the compres-
sive stress of concrete, Whitney’s rectangular stress block was used.
The concrete stress blocks of the filled concrete and the concrete
encasement were defined differently, considering the different
concrete strengths, as shown in Fig. 10.
Eurocode 4 (CEN 2004) and Method 2 of ANSI/AISC 360
(AISC 2010) use plastic stress distribution. In the plastic stress dis-
tribution method, the compressive stress distribution of concrete is
assumed as a stress block with 0.85f ck , and uniform yield strengths
are used for both rebar and steel tube. For a simple and conservative
design, Method 1 of ANSI/AISC 360 (AISC 2010) uses the axial
load P-moment M relationship with two linear lines, assuming an
equivalent steel column.
Exclusively, the AIJ (2014) standard includes a design method
for concrete-encased-and-filled tubular columns (CEFT columns).
As shown in Fig. 11, the P-M relationship of a cross section is
calculated by superposing the plastic strengths of the concrete
encasement, steel tube, and core concrete. For simplicity, the core
concrete is assumed to contribute only to the axial strength, neglect-
ing any contribution to the flexural strength.
Fig. 12 shows the P-M relationships of the specimens pre-
dicted by the current design codes. Generally, the plastic stress dis-
tribution method showed the greatest strength, and Method 1 of
ANSI/AISC 360 (AISC 2010) showed the lowest. The AIJ (2014)
standard prediction is close to the strain compatibility method. The
predictions of the strain compatibility method agreed with the
test strengths of all the specimens. Method 1 of ANSI/AISC 360

Fig. 11. Axial load-moment relationship of AIJ SRC provision

Fig. 10. Equivalent stress blocks of concrete (adapted from AIJ 2014)

© ASCE 04015056-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2015, 141(12): 04015056

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 08/06/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Axial load-moment relationships of specimens: (a) C1; (b) C2, C3; (c) C4; (d) C5; (e) C6

(AISC 2010) significantly underestimated the test strengths be-
cause of the relatively small contribution of the steel section.
The AIJ (2014) standard slightly underestimated the test strength
of the specimens with the low eccentricity ratio e=D ¼ 0.125 (C1,
C3–C6), by neglecting the flexural contribution of the core con-
crete. The plastic stress distribution method overestimated the test
strength of C2 with greater eccentricity (e=D ¼ 0.375).
For the strength prediction of C7, the nominal compressive
strength Pno was calculated as follows:
Pno ¼ 0.85f ck Ac þ Fy As þ Fyr Ar ð3Þ
defined at the peak load of the composite section. Following the
definition of Mirza and Tikka (1999), the test results at the peak
load were used to evaluate the effective flexural stiffness of the test
specimens.
In the test specimens, it was assumed that a bending action oc-
curred only in the column part, and the rigid ends and knife edges
have infinite flexural stiffness. Considering the effect of the rigid
ends and knife edges, the midheight deflection Δ was calculated as
follows (Fig. 13):
Δ ¼ y0 þ yc ð4Þ

where f ck = cylinder strength of the concrete; Fy and Fyr = yield

strength of the steel tube and longitudinal rebar, respectively;
and Ac , As , and Ar = cross-sectional area of the concrete, steel tube,
and longitudinal rebar. In the calculation, a reduction factor of 0.85
was used for both the filled concrete and concrete encasement.
Fig. 4(g) compares the test result and the prediction. The peak
strength of the test was 19% higher than the predicton, primarily
because the compressive strength of concrete was underestimated
by using the factor of 0.85 in Eq. (3).

Effective Flexural Stiffness

In the design of columns, effective flexural stiffness is required
to evaluate the buckling strength and the second-order effect.
Fig. 13. Deformed shape of eccentrically loaded specimens
In Mirza and Tikka (1999), the effective flexural stiffness was

© ASCE 04015056-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2015, 141(12): 04015056

 Table 4. Effective Flexural Stiffness of Specimens
Code predictions C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 Average (%)
Test result 5.49 6.57 8.23 6.62 6.40 6.93 —
ACI 318 (2011) 5.18 (94%) 5.41 (82%) 5.41 (66%) 5.41 (82%) 5.33 (83%) 5.07 (73%) 80
ANSI/AISC 360 (AISC 2010) 5.34 (97%) 5.54 (84%) 5.54 (67%) 5.87 (89%) 5.47 (85%) 5.24 (76%) 83
Eurocode 4 (CEN 2004) 8.40 (153%) 8.93 (136%) 8.93 (108%) 9.51 (144%) 8.73 (136%) 8.14 (117%) 133

where Δ = midheight deflection at the peak load; y0 = lateral de- where Ec , Es , and Er = elastic modulus of concrete, steel, and
flection at the end of the column part; and yc = midheight deflection rebar, respectively; I c , I s , and I r = second-order moment of inertia
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 08/06/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of the column part measured from its end positon. Assuming that
the flexural stiffness of the column part is uniform as EI ¼ EI eff
in the entire length of the column part, y0 and yc were estimated
using the theory of elastic stability as follows:
ð1 − cos kLc ÞkL0 e
y0 ¼
sin kLc þ ðcoskLc − 1ÞkL0
 
kL
yc ¼ sec c − 1 ðe þ y0 Þ ð6Þ
2 Fig. 14 shows the ratio of the code predictions to the test results.
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where k ¼ Pmax =EI eff ; Lc = net column length (2,800 for C3 and
1,360 mm for the other specimens); and L0 = total length of the
rigid end and knife-edge (760 mm). Using Eqs. (4)–(6), the effec-
tive flexural stiffness, EI eff , of the specimens corresponding to the
test peak load and deflection was calculated.
The estimated effective flexural stiffnesses are presented in
Table 4. The effective flexural stiffness ranged from EI eff ¼ 54,900
(C1) to 82,300 kN · m2 (C3). Despite the same sectional profiles,
the effective flexural stiffness of C3 (EI eff ¼ 82,300 kN · m2 ) was
significantly higher than that of C2 (EI eff ¼ 65,700 kN · m2 ). This
is because C2 was subjected to tensile cracking of the concrete
encasement at peak load owing to the higher eccentricity, which
reduced the contribution of the concrete encasement to flexural
stiffness.
The effective flexural stiffness of composite members is defined
in Eqs. (7)–(9) by current design codes ACI (2011), AISC (2010),
and CEN (2004), respectively, as follows:
EI eff ¼ 0.2Ec I g þ Es I s
EI eff ¼ Es I s þ 0.5Er I r þ c1 Ec I c
EI eff ¼ 0.9ðEs I s þ Er I r þ 0.5Ec I c Þ
Fig. 14. Predictions of effective flexural stiffness by current design
codes
of concrete, steel, and rebar, respectively; and c1 ¼ 0.1 þ 2As =
ðAc þ As Þ ≤ 0.3.
Table 4 compares the effective flexural stiffness estimated from
the test results and the predictions from the current design codes
[Eqs. (7)–(9)]. ACI 318 (2011) and ANSI/AISC 360 (2010) under-
ð5Þ estimated the test results by 20% and 17%, on average, respec-
tively. However, Eurocode 4 (CEN 2004) overestimated the test
results by 33%, on average. This is because in Eq. (9), the contri-
bution of the concrete is greater than that of the other design codes.
The ratios of C1 were the highest because the peak load occurred at
a large transverse deflection of Δ ¼ 6.08 mm. On the other hand,
the ratios of C3 and C6 were relatively low. This result indicates
that C3 and C6 failed because of early delamination of the concrete
encasement.
Conclusions
Axial load tests were performed to evaluate the axial-flexural
strength of concrete-filled tubular columns with thin concrete
encasement (CEFT columns). The present study focused on the de-
tails of the concrete encasement, which is vulnerable to premature
spalling under high axial load. The major results of the present
study are summarized as follows:
• In all specimens, the peak strengths agreed with the predictions
of the strain compatibility method (maximum compressive
strain of concrete = 0.003). After the peak strength, the axial
ð7Þ load-carrying capacity decreased as a result of spalling of the
concrete encasement. However, the residual moment capacity
of the specimens was maintained because of the effect of the
ð8Þ
concrete-filled steel tube.
• In specimens C2 and C3, where conventional ties (vertical spa-
ð9Þ cing s ¼ 120 mm) and shear studs were used for the concrete
encasement, spalling of the concrete encasement occurred im-
mediately after the peak load. Thus, the ductility was limited.
• In specimen C1, the steel fiber-reinforced concrete, which was
used for the concrete encasement (in addition to the ties and
shear studs), effectively restrained spalling of the concrete en-
casement in the postpeak behavior. The welded wire mesh (C4)
and U-cross ties (C5 and C6; vertical spacing s ¼ 240 mm) were
not as effective as the steel fiber-reinforced concrete in restrain-
ing early concrete spalling.
• In specimen C6, as the vertical spacing of the ties increased to
s ¼ 240 mm (the requirement for conventional composite col-
umns), early concrete spalling and rebar buckling occurred im-
mediately after the peak load. This result indicates that in CEFT
columns, the spacing of ties should be decreased, considering
the thin concrete encasement.
• The effective flexural stiffness of the composite columns was
compared with the predictions of current design codes. ACI
318 (2011) and ANSI/AISC 360 (AISC 2010) underestimated
the effective flexural stiffness of the test specimens by 20% and

© ASCE 04015056-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2015, 141(12): 04015056

 17% on average, respectively. However, Eurocode 4 (CEN
2004) overestimated the test results by 33% on average. The
evaluation of the flexural stiffness is limited to short-term load-
ing effect. Further studies are required to evaluate long-term
loading effect on the flexural stiffness.
These conclusions are limited to the specimens tested in the
present study. To confirm these conclusions, further studies need
to be performed. Further, under cyclic loading, CEFT columns
are expected to be more vulnerable to the premature spalling of
the concrete encasement. Thus, the seismic performance of CEFT
members needs to be verified under cyclic lateral loading.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 08/06/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Acknowledgments
This research was financially supported by Shinsegae E&C.
Authors are also grateful to grants from the High-Tech Urban
Development Program (09 R&D A01) and the R&D Policy Infra
Program (Code 11-Technology Standardization-09-01), funded by
the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport (MOLIT) of the
Korean Government.
References
ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2011). “Building code requirements
for structural concrete and commentary.” ACI 318-11, Farmington Hills,
MI.
AIJ (Architectural Institute of Japan). (2014). “Standard for structural cal-
culation of steel reinforced concrete structures.” Tokyo (in Japanese).
© ASCE 04015056-11
J. Struct. Eng., 2015, 141(12): 04015056
AISC. (2010). “Specification for structural steel building.” ANSI/AISC
360-10, Chicago.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). (2004). “Design of
composite steel and concrete structures.” Eurocode 4, Brussels.
Han, L., Liao, F., Tao, Z., and Hong, Z. (2009). “Performance of concrete
filled steel tube reinforced concrete columns subjected to cyclic bend-
ing.” J. Constr. Steel Res., 65(8–9), 1607–1616.
Matsui, C., Tsuda, K., and Mori, T. (1998). “Limiting width (diameter)-
thickness ratio of tubes of composite steel tube and concrete columns
with encased type section.” J. Struct. Constr. Eng., (503), 157–163
(in Japanese ).
Mirza, S. A., and Tikka, T. K. (1999). “Flexural stiffness of composite
columns subjected to major axis bending.” ACI Struct. J., 96(1),
19–28.
Miyauchi, Y., Fukuhara, T., Hiroshige, T., and Muto, K. (2010). “Seismic
behavior of reinforced concrete covered CFT structural elements: Part 1.
Performance of columns.” Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual
Meetings, AIJ, Tokyo, 1359–1360 (in Japanese).
Park, R. (1988). “State-of-the-art report on ductility evaluation from labo-
ratory and analytical testing.” Proc., 9th World Conf. on Earthquake
Engineering, Vol. 8, International Association for Earthquake Engineer-
ing (IAEE), Tokyo, 605–616.
Yamada, M., Kawamura, K., and Okamoto, H. (1981). “A study on elasto-
plastic flexural deformation and failure modes of various types of
composite steel tubes under axial compression.” Res. Rep. Kinki
Branch, 27(1), 337–340 (in Japanese).
Yamashita, K., Fujimoto, Y., Lim, S., and Rokugou, K. (2005). “Bending
failure behavior and crack properties of steel tubes covered with
multiple-crack-type concrete.” Proc., Japan Concrete Institute (JCI),
27(1), 301–306 (in Japanese).
J. Struct. Eng.