See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/279897620

Design of Concrete-Filled Steel Tubular Members According to the Australian

Standard AS 5100 Model and Calibration

Article  in  Australian Journal of Structural Engineering · January 2008

DOI: 10.1080/13287982.2008.11464998

CITATIONS READS

50 2,731

4 authors, including:

Professor Zhong Tao Brian Uy

Western Sydney University UNSW Sydney
200 PUBLICATIONS   7,947 CITATIONS    303 PUBLICATIONS   8,654 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Lin-Hai Han
Tsinghua University
382 PUBLICATIONS   14,909 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Geopolymer concrete and its applications View project

Develop fly ash-based spray-applied fire-resistive materials View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Professor Zhong Tao on 29 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This is an electronic version of an article published in Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, which is
available online at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13287982.2008.11464998
Tao, Z., Brian, U. Y., Han, L. H., & He, S. H. (2008). Design of concrete-filled steel tubular members according to the
Australian Standard AS 5100 model and calibration. Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, 8(3), 197-214.

Design of concrete-filled steel tubular members according to

the Australian Standard AS 5100 model and calibration

Zhong Tao
University of Western Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia,
and Fuzhou University, Fuzhou, Fujian Province, China

Brian Uy
University of Western Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Lin-Hai Han and Shan-Hu He

Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

SUMMARY
Procedures given in the Australian bridge design standard AS 5100 (Standards Australia, 2004) for

the design of concrete-filled steel tubular (CFST) columns, beams and beam-columns are presented

and described briefly in this paper. A wide range of experimental data from two currently available

test databases (2194 test results altogether) is used to evaluate the applicability of AS 5100 in

calculating the strength of CFST members. Some other existing design codes, such as the Japanese

code AIJ (1997), American code AISC (2005), British bridge code BS 5400 (2005), Chinese code

DBJ 13-51-2003 (2003) and Eurocode 4 (2004), are also compared with the test results in this paper.

From the comparisons, useful information is provided for future possible revision of AS 5100 and

for the suggestion that this model be used for building construction.

Keyword: concrete-filled steel tubes; AS 5100; design codes; beams; columns; beam-columns; load

capacity; design
1 INTRODUCTION

In recent times, concrete-filled steel tubular (CFST) members have been widely used in civil

engineering in Australia and other countries (Uy, 2000; Han, 2007). Several examples of such

engineering practice in Australia include: the Latitude building and Market City in Sydney, the

Casselden Place and the Commonwealth Centre in Melbourne, Riverside Office and Myer Centre in

Adelaide, and the Forrest Centre, Exchange Plaza and Westralia Square in Perth (Uy and Patil,

2006).

Figure 1 shows the Latitude building in Sydney during construction. This building has been

completed in 2005 and exists on George Street on the World Square Site and is directly adjacent to

Sydney’s Chinatown at Haymarket. It is a landmark building which was designed by Hyder

Consulting and constructed by Multiplex. The building has a total height of 222 m over 45 floors

and has some very innovative features in its design. The building uses twin composite columns on

the perimeter frame, using 508 mm diameter steel tubes filled with 80 MPa concrete. The building

has required the design of 7 metre deep transfer trusses using large diameter steel tubes filled

concrete and large high strength steel boxes filled with concrete (Chaseling, 2004; Australian Steel

Institute, 2004).

The practical application of CFST construction is now supported by many well-known national

standards or recommendations, such as the Japanese code AIJ (1997), American code AISC

(American Institute of Steel Construction, 2005), British bridge code BS5400 (British Standards

Institution, 2005), Chinese code DBJ 13-51-2003 (2003) and Eurocode 4 (2004). Research and

practice of CFST members and structures has also led to the development of these design codes.

2
In 2004, a new version of the Australian bridge design standard AS 5100 (Standards Australia, 2004)

for bridge design was issued, where design guidance for composite columns (including CFST

columns) was incorporated. The aim of this paper is to provide useful information for future

possible revision of AS 5100 and for the suggestion that this model be used for building

construction. To fulfill this task, procedures given in AS 5100 for the design of CFST columns,

beams and beam-columns are firstly presented and described briefly. In order to evaluate the

applicability of AS 5100 in calculating the strength of CFST members, a wide range of

experimental data from two currently available test databases (2194 test results altogether) are used

for comparison. Effects of different parameters, such as steel strength, concrete strength and section

slenderness on the accuracy of the strength predictions are discussed. This is to check the possibility

of relaxing the limitations specified in AS 5100. The above-mentioned existing design codes, such

as the Japanese code AIJ (1997), American code AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction,

2005), British bridge code BS 5400 (British Standards Institution, 2005), Chinese code DBJ

13-51-2003 (2003) and Eurocode 4 (2004) are also compared with the test results in this paper. For

simplicity, these codes are to be referred to as “AIJ”, “AISC”, “BS 5400”, “DBJ 13-51-2003” and

“EC4” in the following.

2 AS 5100 PROVISIONS

2.1 General specifications

The Australian Standard AS 5100 was prepared by the Standards Australia Committee BD-090,

Bridge Design, to supersede HB 77.6-1996, Australian Bridge Design Code. Seven parts are

included in AS 5100 with objectives to provide nationally acceptable requirements for the design of

road, rail, pedestrian and bicycle-path bridges, the specific application of concrete, steel and

composite construction, and the assessment of the load capacity of existing bridges. Part 6 of the
3
standard AS 5100 is concerned with the design of steel and composite construction, in which

procedures are given for the design of concrete-filled circular and rectangular hollow steel

members, which take account of the composite action between the various components forming the

cross-section. The specifications in AS 5100 related to the design of CFST members are described

briefly as follows.

In AS 5100, it is specified that the steel tube should be fabricated from steel with a maximum yield

stress of 350 MPa. The elastic modulus of steel (E) is given as 200,000 MPa by AS 5100. The

selection of wall thickness (t) should ensure that the plate element slenderness (e) is less than the

yield slenderness limit (ey). The value of e for rectangular hollow sections (RHS) is calculated as

(h / t ) f y / 235 , where h is the overall height of a RHS, fy is the characteristic yield strength of the

steel. For circular hollow sections (CHS), the slenderness (e) is given as (d o / t )( f y / 235) , where

do is the outside diameter of a CHS. The yield slenderness limit (ey) for CHSs is equal to 82, while

slightly different values of ey (35, 40 and 45) are specified for RHSs experienced different

fabrication process. The larger the residual stress remaining in the section, the smaller the ey is. For

lightly welded (longitudinally) tubes or cold formed sections, a moderate value of 40 is used for ey.

It should be noted that the yield slenderness limit specified in AS 5100 for CFST members is

virtually the same as those for hollow steel sections, that is, the beneficial effects from concrete

restraint is neglected.

Concrete with normal density and strength is recommended in AS 5100 to fill the steel tubes. The

characteristic compressive cylinder strengths (fc) of the standard strength grades of concrete are 25,

32, 40, 50 and 65 MPa, respectively. The maximum aggregate size is 20 mm. As far as the concrete

modulus of elasticity (Ec) is concerned, a similar formula presented in AISC is recommended in AS

4
5100 as follows:

E c   1.5  0.043 f c  (1)

where  is the concrete density taken as not less than 2400 kg/m3 for normal weight concrete.

A steel contribution factor s is specified in AS 5100 with an allowed range from 0.2 to 0.9, where

s is defined as the ratio of the contribution of the steel section (Asfy) to the total axial capacity

(Nus). The above notation of  and As, as well as the calculation method of Nus will be given in the

following section.

In AS 5100, it is suggested that reinforcement is not normally required in CFST compression

members. Also, almost all currently available tests were carried out without steel reinforcement

used. Therefore, the contribution from reinforcement is omitted in the following review of design

methods.

2.2 Members subjected to axial compression

2.2.1 Ultimate section capacity

To calculate the section capacity under axial compression, an assumption was used that the steel

yields before the concrete reaches its ultimate stress state. Thus, the ultimate section capacity (Nus)

for rectangular CFST members can be calculated by summing up the axial load capacities of the

tube and the concrete. This leads to

N us  As f y   c Ac f c ' (2)

where As and Ac are the areas of the steel tube and the core concrete, respectively;  and c are the

capacity factors for steel and concrete respectively, given as 0.9 and 0.6 in AS 5100 for section

capacity.

5
For a circular CFST member, the benefits of the increase in concrete strength due to confinement may

be taken into account if the relative slenderness of the member (r) is not greater than 0.5, and the

load eccentricity (e) under the greatest design bending moment is not greater than do/10. Otherwise,

Nus should be calculated using Eq. (2). If the benefits of confinement is taken into account, Nus may be

calculated as follows:

 1tf y 
N us  As 2 f y   c Ac f c ' 1   (3)
 do fc ' 

in which, 1 and 2 are coefficients used to reflect the confinement benefit which are dependent on

the relative slenderness (r) and load eccentricity (e). The coefficient of 2 is used to account for the

strength reduction of the steel because of the circumferential tensile strains in the steel induced by

confining the concrete, while the coefficient of 1 is used for the concrete to reflect the strength

increase from the tube confinement. The calculation formulae for 1 and 2 are given in Clause

10.6.2.2 of AS 5100: Part 6.

From the above introduction, it can be seen that the formula for calculating the ultimate section

capacities is virtually the same as those suggested in EC4 except different values have been used for

the capacity factors.

2.2.2 Ultimate member capacity

Like many other codes, a slenderness reduction factor c is introduced in AS 5100 to reflect the

basic relationship between strength and stability for an axially loaded column, as follows:

  
2 
90
 c   1  1     (4)

    

where  and  are coefficients related to the relative slenderness (r). r is defined herein as

N s / N cr , in which Ns is determined according to Eq. (2) or (3) with  and c taken as 1.0, and Ncr
6
is the elastic critical load. The expression for Ncr is given as Eq. (5), where (EI)e is the effective

flexural stiffness determined according to Eq. (6), and Le is the effective length of a composite

compression member.

 2 ( EI ) e
N cr  2
(5)
Le

(EI)e=EIs+cEcIc (6)

In Eq. (6), Is and Ic are the second moment of areas of the steel section and the uncracked concrete

section respectively, and  and c herein are also taken as 1.0.

After the slenderness reduction factor c is determined from Eq. (4), the member capacity of a

composite column can be expressed as:

N uc   c N us  N us (7)

2.3 Members under combined compression and bending

In AS 5100, strengths of CFST beams and beam-columns should be calculated on the basis of

rectangular stress blocks, assuming that the maximum concrete compressive stress is (cfc) and the

maximum steel stress is (fy). An interaction curve based on the plastic resistance analysis can be

obtained as shown in Figure 2(a). It should be noted that both  and c are taken as 0.9 for a

composite member subjected to combined axial and flexural actions.

To verify the resistance of a beam-column subjected to compression and uniaxial bending, the

following criterion should be satisfied:

Mx*0.9Mrx (8a)

My*0.9Mry (8a)

where Mx* and My* are the design bending moments about the principal major x-axis and minor
7
y-axis, respectively; Mrx and Mry are the section moment capacities reduced by the effect of axial

compression, slenderness and imperfection (see Figure 2(a)). In Figure 2(a), Mdx and Mdy are the

total moment capacities of the section when the design axial force N* is acting on the section; n is a

factor for the interaction curve, given by c(1+m)/4; m is the ratio of the smaller to the larger end

bending moments taken as positive when the member is bent in reverse curvature.

In order to simplify the design process, the full curved interaction curve shown in Figure 2(a) may

be approximated by the polygon joining the five points A, B, C, D and E, as shown in Figure 2(b).

These points are determined as follows:

(1) Point A is defined by the nominal axial capacity (Nus) of the member without bending.

(2) Point B is defined by the nominal section moment capacity (Msx or Msy) of the member.

(3) Point C is determined by moving the neutral axis determined for point B to a new position

equidistant from the centroid, but on the other side of the centroid, and parallel with its previous

position. Therefore, the stresses in the section with the neutral axis in this position will create a

moment equal to that derived from point B, i.e. Msx or Msy, but with a compression load equal to the

axial load in that part of the section between the neutral axis positions for points B and C.

(4) Point D is determined by placing the neutral axis at the centroid of the section. At this location,

the axial load in the section is half that for point C, and the moment is a maximum.

(5) Point E is any point approximately mid-way between points A and C, determined with the

neutral axis approximately mid-way between its location for point C and the edge of the section

which is in tension when determining point C.

In determining the value of Mrx or Mry, the second order moment Mp due to imperfections

(imperfection moment) of the column can be determined using the simplified interaction curve

8
shown in Figure 2(b). By reading off the horizontal distance representing the imperfection moment

as shown in Figure 2(a), the moment resistance of the composite column under combined

compression and bending may then be evaluated.

It should be noted that, the benefits of the confining stresses on the concrete may be considered to

determine the plastic compressive stress for circular members in accordance with Section 2.2.1. It

should also be noted that the above methodology generally follows that presented in the last version

of Eurocode 4 (1994). To simplify the design process, point E in Figure 2 (b) has been removed in

the new version of Eurocode 4 (2004).

Due to page limitations, the design procedures given in other standards are not presented herein.

More details and limitation provisions for them can be found in Chung and Matsui (2005) and

Zhang et al. (2007).

3 COMPARISONS BETWEEN TEST AND PREDICTED CAPACITIES

3.1 Brief introduction to test databases

Over the last few decades, numerous tests have been carried out on CFST members. A database was

established by Goode (2006) recently, in which 1792 test results from 92 references were included.

These test results can be accessed via the website: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/asccs2 (ASCCS, 2007).

In this paper, 1575 test results from Goode’s database, including 918 for circular specimens and 657

for rectangular specimens (square sections mainly) are used to perform the code comparisons. The

other test results in this database have been discarded because they are not relevant to this study.

Apart from the test results in Goode’s database, another database developed by Wu (2006) contains

1514 experimental results from 104 references, where some of them have not been included in

9
Goode’s database, especially for 81 tests on beams. No test results on beams are available in

Goode’s database. After merging the two databases, 1232 and 962 test results (2194 altogether)

from 130 references on circular and rectangular specimens respectively are used in this paper. The

ranges of the test properties are given in Table 1. It should be noted that in some references no

concrete cylinder strength (fc) was available. Instead, a compressive strength (fcu) of 150 mm cubes

was reported. In general, fc can be taken as 0.8fcu for normal strength concrete, but this relationship

is not quite applicable for high-strength concrete (Chen et al., 1996; Mansur and Islam, 2002).

Therefore, equivalent cylinder strengths (fc) were determined according to Chen et al. (1996),

where a table demonstrating the approximate relationship of two types of concrete strengths can be

found in Yu et al. (2008). This relationship is quite close to that given by Mansur and Islam (2002).

3.2 Strength comparison

When comparing design calculations with the tests, the material partial safety factors specified in all

design codes has been taken as unity. At the same time, all code limitations are ignored with a

purpose to check the feasibility of those design codes in predicting the load-carrying capacities of

the test specimens. In the following sections, ‘stub column’ is defined as a short member (Le/do or

Le/b≤4, b is the section width of a rectangular tube) under axial compression to determine section

capacity, while ‘column’ is defined as a long one (Le/do or Le/b>4) under axial compression where

the slenderness effect is expected to be considered. ‘Beam-column’ is defined as a member

subjected to the combined action of compression and flexure. It is worth noting that, the

classification standards for short and long columns in different codes are quite different. Some of

them are very complex to follow, and in some codes a slenderness reduction factor is applicable

even for a very short column. Therefore, the above rather simple criterion used by Goode (2006) is

also adopted in this paper.

10
In order to better reflect the deviations of code predictions from the experimental results, the 15%

and 15% error bounds are depicted in figures presented in the following sub-sections. It is worth

noting that this is not a criteria used to assess the acceptability of prediction accuracy. Generally, a

reliability analysis should be performed based on a regional reliability standard to accomplish this

task (Han, 2007).

3.2.1 Section capacity under axial compression

Currently available test results are 484 and 445 for circular and rectangular stub columns,

respectively. Figure 3 shows the comparison between experimental ultimate strength Nue and

predicted strength Nuc using AS 5100 for circular stub columns. Table 2 also shows both the mean

value () and the standard deviation () of the ratio of Nue/Nuc for all the strength predictions. As

can be seen, a generally good agreement is achieved with an average value () of 1.037 and a

standard deviation () of 0.139. In the test databases, some tests were performed on specimens with

a rather large diameter. In order to illustrate more clearly, those tests are compared in Figure 3(b),

which demonstrates that AS 5100 is also applicable in this circumstances without apparent size

effect observed.

Comparison results from other design codes are given in Figures 4 and Table 2, which clearly show

that AISC is quite conservative in its prediction and BS 5400 gives slightly (3.4%) higher capacities

on average than the test results. For clarity, the test results for those specimens with large diameters

are not given in Figure 4. The agreement of the measured and predicted strengths is generally good.

Figure 5 compares the test strength (Nue) with the calculated strength (Nuc) using different design

codes for rectangular stub columns. All codes give accurate predictions except that AISC and BS

11
5400 underestimates the strength as much as 15% on average (Table 2). At the same time, all

predictions have smaller variations compared to those for circular stub columns. This may be

attributed to the fact that a lot of circular specimens did not show a strain softening behaviour, thus

different definitions of ultimate strength have been applied by different authors.

3.2.2 Column member capacity

Figures 6 and 7 show the comparisons between test results (Nue) and code predictions (Nuc) for

circular and rectangular columns, respectively. It seems that AISC and BS 5400 give the most

conservative prediction results. As far as AS 5100 is concerned, its predictions are generally

accurate, but it underestimates the load-bearing capacity of circular columns (16% lower on

average). The same trend is found for the predicted results from EC4. The reason is attributed to the

fact that no confinement effect is considered for columns with a relative slenderness r greater than

0.5. In fact, the apparent concrete confinement can still be expected even for a very slender circular

column (Han et al., 2002).

Figure 8 compares the calculated strength of column members based on different code provisions.

Test results reported by Matsui et al. (1995) are shown as dots in this Figure. Parameters for the

circular specimens are as follows: do=165.2 mm, t=4.08 mm, fy=353 MPa, fc=40.9 MPa; while

those for the square ones are: b=149.8 mm, t=4.27 mm, fy=412 MPa, fc=31.9 MPa. From the

comparisons, it seems that all curves are close and generally agree with the test results, except that

BS 5400 gives an obvious conservative prediction for square columns. Also, there are apparent

discrepancies amongst predictions for circular columns when the relative slenderness r is less than

0.5.

12
3.2.3 Beam-column member capacity

The comparisons between predicted load-bearing capacities (Nuc) and test results (Nue) are

illustrated in Figures 9 and 10 for circular and rectangular beam-columns, respectively. It has been

demonstrated that AISC gives the most conservative results for circular beam-columns (=1.385,

=0.467), and BS 5400 does that for rectangular beam-columns (=1.300, =0.278). All codes

except BS 5400 give less conservative predictions for rectangular members than for circular ones.

The predictions from AS 5100 are quite close to those from EC4, which demonstrates that they are

quite accurate in predicting load-bearing capacities for circular beam-columns, but overestimate

those of rectangular beam-columns (4-5% on average). It seems that the assumed rectangular stress

blocks are less valid for rectangular beam-columns.

To illustrate the differences among the code predictions more clearly, the predicted axial load (N)

versus moment (M) interaction curves using different methods are compared in Figure 11 with the

test results of circular members obtained by Matsui et al. (1995). The section properties are the

same as those of the columns given before (Figure 8 (a)). As can be seen from Figure 11, there are

considerable discrepancies amongst predictions from different codes. For shorter members, AS

5100 and EC4 give accurate predictions. As the slenderness increases, they tend to overestimate the

strength compared to the test results reported by Matsui et al. (1995). Overall, DBJ 13-51-2003

gives the best prediction in this comparison.

3.2.4 Beam moment capacity

The moment capacities (Muc) predicted using the six design codes are compared with test results

(Mue) shown in Figures 12 and 13 for circular and rectangular beams, respectively. The ratios of

Mue/Muc for all codes are presented in Table 2. As can be seen, all predicted results are conservative

13
overall. AIJ and AISC give the most conservative predictions due to ignoring the concrete

contribution. AS 5100, EC4 and DBJ give the best predictions for both circular and rectangular

beams.

3.3 Discussion

For design purposes, all codes have provided some limitations on material strengths and section

slenderness. However, many tests have been conducted to date beyond those limitations, which

makes it possible to check the possibility of relaxing those limitations. The following sections

discuss this topic for AS 5100.

3.3.1 Effect of steel strength

Figure 14 shows the effect of steel strength (fy) on the prediction accuracy of AS 5100. Table 3

provides the mean values () and the standard deviations () of measured to calculated strength

ratios for test specimens with fy larger than 350 MPa. From the comparisons, it can be seen that

there is a decrease of 2-3% in  except circular beam-columns with a decrease of 5% and circular

beams with an increase trend. But all mean values are still above unity except those for

beam-columns.

3.3.2 Effect of concrete strength

The effect of concrete strength (fc) on the prediction accuracy of AS 5100 is shown in Figure 15.

For test specimens with fc larger than 65 MPa, the mean values () and the standard deviations ()

of measured to calculated strength ratios are presented in Table 3. From Figure 15 and Table 3, it

seems that the effect of concrete strength on circular specimens is different from that on rectangular

specimens. For circular specimens, a decrease of 3-6% in the mean value  is found. In the case of

rectangular specimens, only a decrease of 4% is found for stub columns while an increase of 3-4%
14
is found for columns, beam-columns or beams. Once again, all mean values of measured to

calculated strength ratios are above or near unity except those for beam-columns.

3.3.3 Effect of section slenderness

Figure 16 illustrates the effect of section slenderness (e) on the prediction accuracy of AS 5100.

Table 3 provides the mean values () and the standard deviations () of measured to calculated

strength ratios for test specimens with section slenderness beyond the allowed values given in AS

5100. Though different yield slenderness limits have been specified for RHSs, only the middle

value of 40 is used herein to analyze the data for simplicity considerations. It can be seen from

Figure 16 that, there is a declining trend of the measured to calculated strength ratios as e

increases. For circular specimens, a decrease of about 5% in the mean value  is found when e is

larger than 82. However, only 1-2% in the mean value  is found for rectangular members when e

is larger than 40. It can also be seen from Table 3 that, all mean values of measured to calculated

strength ratios are above or near unity except those for beam-columns. This demonstrates the fact

that there is a tendency to relax the limitation of section slenderness.

4 CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, the AS 5100 approach to the design of concrete-filled steel tubular members has been

described briefly. 2194 test results from two currently available test databases are used to evaluate

the design approach of AS 5100. Some other existing design codes are also compared with the test

results. The following conclusions may be made within the present scope of investigation:

(1) The approach in AS 5100 gives generally accurate predictions, thus it is also possible to be used

for building construction. However, it should be noted that it overestimates the strength of

rectangular beam-columns by 5% on average.

15
(2) After ignoring all code limitations and taking material partial safety factors as unity, there are

considerable differences amongst different code predictions. The predicted results using AS

5100 are quite close to those from EC4.

(3) All three factors of steel strength, concrete strength and section slenderness slightly affect the

prediction accuracy, but the comparisons still indicate a tendency to relax the limitations of AS

5100. This relaxation will allow a designer to use higher strength materials and to design

composite members with larger section slenderness.

(4) Additional concrete confinement at higher slenderness ratios can be expected for circular

columns. This beneficial effect may be considered in a column design.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research work has been partially supported by the International Research Initiatives Scheme

provided by the University of Western Sydney.

REFERENCES

ANSI/AISC 360-05, 2005, Specification for structural steel buildings, American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ), 1997, Recommendations for design and construction of
concrete filled steel tubular structures, Japan (in Japanese).

ASCCS, 2007, Database of Concrete-Filled Steel Tube Columns (online:

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/asccs2).

Australian Steel Institute, 2004, “Latitude reaches skyward in steel: Construction technology at its
best”, Steel Australia, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 10-12.

BS 5400, 2005, Steel, concrete and composite bridges, Part 5, Code of practice for the design of
composite bridges, British Standards Institution, London, UK.

16
Chaseling, C. 2004, “Star attraction”, Modern Steel Construction, Vol. 44, No.12, pp.36-42.

Chen, Z. Y., Zhu, J. Q., Wu, P. G. 1996, High strength concrete and its application, Tsinghua
University Press, Beijing, China (in Chinese).

Chung J., Matsui, C. 2005, “SRC standards in Japan and comparison of various standards for CFT
columns”, International Journal of Steel Structures, Vol. 5, No.4, pp.315-323.

DBJ 13-51-2003, 2003, Technical specification for concrete-filled steel tubular structures, The
Construction Department of Fujian Province, Fuzhou, China (in Chinese).

Eurocode 4, 2004, Design of composite steel and concrete structures, Part1.1, General rules and
rules for Building, BS EN 1994-1-1: 2004, British Standards Institution, London, UK.

Eurocode 4, 1994, Design of composite steel and concrete structures, Part1.1, General rules and
rules for Building, DD ENV 1994-1-1: 1996, British Standards Institution, London, UK.

Goode, C. D. 2006, “A review and analysis of over one thousand tests on concrete filled steel tube
columns”, Proceedings of 8th international conference on steel-concrete composite and hybrid
structures, Harbin, China, pp. 17-23.

Han, L. H. 2000, “Tests on concrete filled steel tubular columns with high slenderness ratio”,
Advances in Structural Engineering-An International Journal, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 337-344.

Han, L. H. 2007, Concrete filled steel tubular structurestheory and practice, China Science Press,
Beijing, China (in Chinese).

Mansur, M. A., Islam, M. M. 2002, “Interpretation of concrete strength for nonstandard specimens”,
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 151-155.

Matsui, C., Tsuda, K., Ishibashi, Y. 1995, “Slender concrete filled steel tubular columns under
combined compression and bending”, Proceedings of the 4th Pacific Structural Steel Conference,
Vol. 3, Steel-Concrete Composite Structures, Singapore, pp. 29-36.

Standards Australia, 2004, AS5100.6-2004 Bridge design, Part 6: Steel and composite construction,
Sydney, Australia.

Uy, B. 2000, “Strength of concrete filled steel box columns incorporating local buckling”, Journal
of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 126, No. 3, pp. 341-352.
17
Uy, B., Patil, S. B. 2006, "Concrete filled high strength steel box columns for tall buildings:
Behaviour and design", The Structural Design of Tall Buildings, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 75-94.

Wu, F. Y. 2006, Compressive behaviour of recycled concrete-filled steel tubes, Master's thesis,
College of Civil Engineering, Fuzhou University, China (in Chinese).

Yu, Q., Tao, Z., Wu, Y. X. 2008, “Experimental behaviour of high performance concrete-filled steel
tubular columns”, Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 362-370.

Zhang, S. M., Ma, X. B., Goode, C. D. 2007, "Comparison between Chinese and three worldwide
codes for circular-filled steel tube members", Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on
Steel and Composite Structures, Manchester, UK, pp. 633-638.

18
Tables and Figures
Captions for Tables

Table 1: Summary of test properties.

Table 2: Comparison results of code predictions with test results.
Table 3: Comparison results for tests beyond the limitations of AS 5100.

Captions for Figures

Figure 1: Latitude, Sydney (2005).
Figure 2: Interaction curve for CFST members subjected to combined compression and bending.
Figure 3: Comparison between test results and predictions using AS 5100 (circular stub columns).
Figure 4: Comparison between test results and predictions using other codes (circular stub
columns).
Figure 5: Comparison between test results and code predictions (rectangular stub columns).
Figure 6: Comparison between test results and code predictions (circular columns).
Figure 7: Comparison between test results and code predictions (rectangular columns).

Figure 8: Column strength based on different code provisions.

Figure 9: Comparison between test results and code predictions (circular beam-columns).

Figure 10: Comparisons between test results and code predictions (rectangular beam-columns).

Figure 11: Comparison of predicted interaction curves with test results by Matsui et al. (1995).

Figure 12: Comparison between test results and code predictions (circular beams).
Figure 13: Comparison between test results and code predictions (rectangular beams).
Figure 14: Effect of steel strength on the prediction accuracy of AS 5100.
Figure 15: Effect of concrete strength on the prediction accuracy of AS 5100.
Figure 16: Effect of section slenderness on the prediction accuracy of AS 5100.

19
Tables

Table 1: Summary of test properties.

do (h) fy f c No of
Section type Member type e No of tests
(mm) (MPa) (MPa) references

Stub column 48-1020 13-237 186-853 10-110 484 39

Column 25-500 9-192 178-682 10-96 420 28
Circular
Beam-column 76-200 17-198 186-433 18-114 304 19
Beam 34-300 23-196 262-436 23-82 24 4
Stub column 60-400 13-181 192-835 12-103 445 34
Column 60-360 19-163 217-550 10-94 234 25
Rectangular
Beam-column 76-323 18-94 205-761 18-103 226 20
Beam 100-306 22-115 194-750 19-88 57 7

Table 2: Comparison results of code predictions with test results.

Section Member AS 5100 AIJ AISC BS 5400 DBJ 13-51-2003 EC4

type type            
Stub
1.037 0.139 1.097 0.154 1.275 0.199 0.966 0.150 1.155 0.149 1.048 0.139
column
Column 1.163 0.170 1.115 0.177 1.195 0.172 1.130 0.302 1.080 0.189 1.133 0.162
Circular
Beam-
0.997 0.146 1.138 0.211 1.385 0.467 1.185 0.234 1.078 0.161 1.004 0.160
column
Beam 1.194 0.151 1.422 0.323 1.422 0.323 1.236 0.281 1.204 0.213 1.194 0.151
Stub
1.062 0.123 1.061 0.123 1.150 0.138 1.169 0.147 1.037 0.125 1.061 0.123
column
Column 1.049 0.120 1.036 0.127 1.130 0.133 1.195 0.161 1.092 0.161 1.030 0.124
Rectangular
Beam-
0.952 0.134 1.041 0.138 1.278 0.305 1.300 0.278 1.076 0.192 0.966 0.138
column
Beam 1.141 0.146 1.306 0.196 1.306 0.196 1.188 0.158 1.164 0.160 1.141 0.146

20
 Table 3: Comparison results for tests beyond the limitations of AS 5100.

e>82 (Circular)
Section Member fy>350 MPa fc>65 MPa
or e>40 (Rectangular)
type type
No of tests   No of tests   No of tests  
Stub
213 1.024 0.130 153 0.994 0.115 161 0.996 0.105
column
Column 141 1.137 0.135 13 1.102 0.081 58 1.085 0.151
Circular
Beam-
45 0.947 0.100 55 0.944 0.112 31 0.957 0.072
column
Beam 2 1.320 0.058 4 1.383 0.088 10 1.322 0.083
Stub
166 1.038 0.104 64 1.020 0.088 237 1.044 0.124
column
Column 65 1.011 0.118 36 1.093 0.146 141 1.039 0.125
Rectangular
Beam-
82 0.929 0.140 55 0.988 0.115 113 0.951 0.129
column
Beam 28 1.121 0.088 4 1.172 0.092 2 1.021 0.045

21
Figures

Figure 1: Latitude, Sydney (2005).

22
 N N

A
Nus Interaction curve Nus
for the cross-section E Interaction curve
Nuc(=cNus)
for the cross-section
N*
Mrx or Mry C

nNus D

B
o Mdx Msx M o Msx (or Msy) M
(or Mdy) (or Msy)
(a) (b)

Figure 2: Interaction curve for CFST members subjected to combined compression and bending.

2 2
Normalized calculated strength

Normalized calculated strength

1.5 15% 15%

1.5
N ue/N uc

N ue/N uc

1 1

0.5 15% 0.5 15%

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 5000 12000 19000 26000 33000
Test strength N ue (kN) Test strength N ue (kN)

(a) (b)

Figure 3: Comparison between test results and predictions using AS 5100 (circular stub column).

23
 2 2
Normalized calculated strength

Normalized calculated strength

1.5 15% 1.5 15%
N ue/N uc

N ue/N uc
1 1

0.5 15% 0.5 15%

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Test strength N ue (kN) Test strength N ue (kN)

(a) AIJ (b) AISC

2 2
Normalized calculated strength

Normalized calculated strength

1.5 15% 1.5 15%

N ue/N uc

N ue/N uc

1 1

0.5 15% 0.5 15%

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Test strength N ue (kN) Test strength N ue (kN)

(c) BS 5400 (d) DBJ 13-51-2003

2
Normalized calculated strength

1.5 15%
N ue/N uc

0.5 15%

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Test strength N ue (kN)

(e) EC4

Figure 4: Comparison between test results and predictions using other codes (circular stub

columns).

24
 2 2
Normalized calculated strength

Normalized calculated strength

1.5 15% 1.5 15%
N ue/N uc

N ue/N uc
1 1

0.5 15% 0.5 15%

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Test strength N ue (kN) Test strength N ue (kN)

(a) AS5100 (b) AIJ (EC4)

2 2
Normalized calculated strength

Normalized calculated strength

1.5 15% 1.5 15%

N ue/N uc

N ue/N uc

1 1

0.5 15% 0.5 15%

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Test strength N ue (kN) Test strength N ue (kN)

(c) AISC (d) BS 5400

2
Normalized calculated strength

1.5 15%
N ue/N uc

0.5 15%

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Test strength N ue (kN)

(e) DBJ 13-51-2003

Figure 5: Comparison between test results and code predictions (rectangular stub columns).

25
 2 2
Normalized calculated strength

Normalized calculated strength

1.5 15% 1.5 15%
N ue/N uc

N ue/N uc
1 1

0.5 15% 0.5 15%

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Test strength N ue (kN) Test strength N ue (kN)

(a) AS5100 (b) AIJ

2 2
Normalized calculated strength

Normalized calculated strength

1.5 15% 1.5 15%

N ue/N uc

N ue/N uc

1 1

0.5 15% 0.5 15%

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Test strength N ue (kN) Test strength N ue (kN)

(c) AISC (d) BS 5400

2 2
Normalized calculated strength

Normalized calculated strength

1.5 15% 1.5 15%

N ue/N uc

N ue/N uc

1 1

0.5 15% 0.5 15%

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Test strength N ue (kN) Test strength N ue (kN)

(e) DBJ 13-51-2003 (f) EC4

Figure 6: Comparison between test results and code predictions (circular columns).

26
 2 2

Normalized calculated strength

Normalized calculated strength
N ue/N uc 1.5 15% 1.5 15%

N ue/N uc
1 1

0.5 15% 0.5 15%

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Test strength N ue (kN) Test strength N ue (kN)

(a) AS5100 (b) AIJ

2 2
Normalized calculated strength

1.5 15% Normalized calculated strength 1.5 15%

N ue/N uc

N ue/N uc

1 1

0.5 15% 0.5 15%

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Test strength N ue (kN) Test strength N ue (kN)

(c) AISC (d) BS 5400

2 2
Normalized calculated strength

Normalized calculated strength

1.5 15% 1.5 15%

N ue/N uc

N ue/N uc

1 1

0.5 15% 0.5 15%

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Test strength N ue (kN) Test strength N ue (kN)

(e) DBJ 13-51-2003 (f) EC4

Figure 7: Comparison between test results and code predictions (rectangular columns).

27
 2500 Test results 2000 Test results
AS 5100 AS 5100
AIJ AIJ
Ultimate strength (kN) 2000 1600

Ultimate strength (kN)

AISC AISC
BS 5400 BS 5400
DBJ 13-51-2003 DBJ 13-51-2003
1500 EC4 1200 EC4

1000 800

500 400

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Relative slenderness  r Relative slenderness  r

(a) Circular section (b) Square section

Figure 8: Column strength based on different code provisions.

28
 2 2

Normalized calculated strength

Normalized calculated strength
N ue/N uc 1.5 15% 1.5 15%

N ue/N uc
1 1

0.5 15% 0.5 15%

0 0
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000
Test strength N ue (kN) Test strength N ue (kN)

(a) AS5100 (b) AIJ

2 2
Normalized calculated strength

1.5 15%
Normalized calculated strength 1.5 15%
N ue/N uc

N ue/N uc

1 1

0.5 15% 0.5 15%

0 0
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000
Test strength N ue (kN) Test strength N ue (kN)

(c) AISC (d) BS 5400

2 2
Normalized calculated strength

Normalized calculated strength

1.5 15% 1.5 15%

N ue/N uc

N ue/N uc

1 1

0.5 15% 0.5 15%

0 0
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000
Test strength N ue (kN) Test strength N ue (kN)

(e) DBJ 13-51-2003 (f) EC4

Figure 9: Comparison between test results and code predictions (circular beam-columns).

29
 2 2

Normalized calculated strength

Normalized calculated strength
N ue/N uc 1.5 15% 1.5 15%

N ue/N uc
1 1

0.5 15% 0.5 15%

0 0
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000
Test strength N ue (kN) Test strength N ue (kN)

(a) AS 5100 (b) AIJ

2 2
Normalized calculated strength

Normalized calculated strength

15% 15%
1.5 1.5
N ue/N uc

N ue/N uc

1 1

0.5 15% 0.5 15%

0 0
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000
Test strength N ue (kN) Test strength N ue (kN)

(c) AISC (d) BS 5400

2 2
Normalized calculated strength

Normalized calculated strength

1.5 15% 1.5 15%

N ue/N uc

N ue/N uc

1 1

0.5 15% 0.5 15%

0 0
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000
Test strength N ue (kN) Test strength N ue (kN)

(e) DBJ 13-51-2003 (f) EC4

Figure 10: Comparisons between test results and code predictions (rectangular

beam-columns).

30
 2500 Test results 2500 Test results
AS 5100 AS 5100
AIJ AIJ
2000 AISC 2000 AISC

Axial load N (kN)

BS 5400 BS 5400
Axial load N (kN)

DBJ 13-51-2003 DBJ 13-51-2003

1500 EC4 1500 EC4

1000 1000

500 500

0 0
0 15 30 45 60 0 15 30 45 60
Moment M (kN m) Moment M (kN m)

(a) r=0.18 (b) r=0.35

2500 Test results 2500 Test results

AS 5100 AS 5100
AIJ AIJ
2000 AISC 2000 AISC
Axial load N (kN)

BS 5400 Axial load N (kN) BS 5400

DBJ 13-51-2003 DBJ 13-51-2003
1500 EC4 1500 EC4

1000 1000

500 500

0 0
0 15 30 45 60 0 15 30 45 60
Moment M (kN m) Moment M (kN m)

(c) r=0.51 (d) r=0.80

1500 Test results 1000 Test results

AS 5100 AS 5100
AIJ AIJ
1200 AISC 800 AISC
Axial load N (kN)

Axial load N (kN)

BS 5400 BS 5400
DBJ 13-51-2003 DBJ 13-51-2003
900 EC4 600 EC4

600 400

300 200

0 0
0 15 30 45 60 0 15 30 45 60
Moment M (kN・m) Moment M (kN m)

(e) r=1.22 (f) r=1.82

Figure 11: Comparison of predicted interaction curves with test results by Matsui et al. (1995).

31
 2 2

Normalized calculated strength

Normalized calculated strength
M ue/M uc 1.5 15% 1.5 15%

M ue/M uc
1 1

0.5 15% 0.5 15%

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
Test strength M ue (kN) Test strength M ue (kN)

(a) AS 5100 (EC4) (b) AIJ (AISC)

2 2
Normalized calculated strength

1.5 15% Normalized calculated strength 1.5 15%

M ue/M uc

M ue/M uc

1 1

0.5 15% 0.5 15%

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
Test strength M ue (kN) Test strength M ue (kN)

(c) BS 5400 (d) DBJ 13-51-2003

Figure 12: Comparison between test results and code predictions (circular beams).

32
 2 2

Normalized calculated strength

Normalized calculated strength
1.5 15% 1.5 15%
M ue/M uc

M ue/M uc
1 1

0.5 15% 0.5 15%

0 0
0 60 120 180 240 300 0 60 120 180 240 300
Test strength M ue (kN) Test strength M ue (kN)

(a) AS 5100 (EC4) (b) AIJ (AISC)

2 2
Normalized calculated strength

1.5 15%
Normalized calculated strength 1.5 15%
M ue/M uc

M ue/M uc

1 1

0.5 15% 0.5 15%

0 0
0 60 120 180 240 300 0 60 120 180 240 300
Test strength M ue (kN) Test strength M ue (kN)

(c) BS 5400 (d) DBJ 13-51-2003

Figure 13: Comparison between test results and code predictions (rectangular beams).

33
 2 2
fy=350 MPa fy=350 MPa
Normalized calculated strength

Normalized calculated strength

1.5 15% 1.5 15%

1 1

0.5 15% 0.5 15%

Stub column Column Stub column Column
Beam-column Beam Beam-column Beam
0 0
180 360 540 720 900 180 360 540 720 900
Steel yield strength f y (MPa) Steel yield strength f y (MPa)

(a) Circular section (b) Rectangular section

Figure 14: Effect of steel strength on the prediction accuracy of AS 5100.

2 2
fc=65 MPa
Normalized calculated strength

Normalized calculated strength

fc=65 MPa

1.5 15% 1.5 15%

1 1

0.5 15% 0.5 15%

Stub column Column Stub column Column
Beam-column Beam Beam-column Beam
0 0
0 30 60 90 120 0 30 60 90 120
Concrete cylinder strength f c (MPa) Concrete cylinder strength f c (MPa)

(a) Circular section (b) Rectangular section

Figure 15: Effect of concrete strength on the prediction accuracy of AS 5100.

2 2
e=82 e=40
Normalized calculated strength

Normalized calculated strength

1.5 15% 1.5 15%

1 1

0.5 15% 0.5 15%

Stub column Column
Stub column Column
Beam-column Beam
Beam-column Beam
0 0
0 44 88 132 176 220 0 40 80 120 160 200
Section slenderness e Section slenderness

(a) Circular section (b) Rectangular section

Figure 16: Effect of section slenderness on the prediction accuracy of AS 5100.

34

View publication stats