Structures 37 (2022) 32–43

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Behavior of eccentrically loaded circular tubed steel-reinforced concrete

short columns using high-strength concrete
Xuanding Wang a, b, Jiepeng Liu a, b, Xiang Li a, b, *, Y. Frank Chen c
a
School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, China
b
Key Laboratory of New Technology for Construction of Cities in Mountain Area (Chongqing University), Ministry of Education, Chongqing 400045, China
c
Department of Civil Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, Middletown, PA 17057, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The tubed steel reinforced-concrete (TSRC) column is a compression member composed of a thin-walled steel
Tubed steel-reinforced concrete (TSRC) tube filled with the structural steel shape-reinforced concrete, in which the steel tube is disconnected at the
High-strength concrete (HSC) beam-column connections while providing a strong lateral restraint to the core concrete. To access the structural
Eccentric compression
behavior of circular TSRC (referred as “CTRSC”) column using the HSC, a total of 11 short column specimens
Failure mode
Design method
with the cubic concrete strength of 81.4 MPa were tested under the eccentric compression. The load eccentricity
and the diameter-to-thickness ratio of steel tubes were considered as the key parameters; and their influences on
the failure mode, load-bearing capacity, and deformation characteristics were investigated. The experimental
results indicate that the failure sections of the test specimens strongly depend on the load eccentricity and the use
of steel tube improves the ductility of HSC and ensures the composite action between the concrete and the
structural steel shape. A simplified calculation method for the resistance of eccentrically loaded CTSRC columns
is proposed, which gives satisfactory predictions when compared with the test results and the theoretical model.

1. Introduction
In the recent decade, the high-strength concrete (HSC) has been
increasingly used in high-rise buildings [1,2] and large-span bridges [3]
due to its distinctive characteristics of great stiffness, high strength, and
good corrosive resistance. However, due to the brittle nature of HSC,
current available design codes in the world are restrictive on the use of
such high concrete strength. Some limiting concrete strengths are: 50
MPa in Eurocode 4 [4]; 69 MPa in ANSI/AISC 360-16 [5]; and 65 MPa in
the Chinese code GB 50010-2010 [6]. The improvement of lateral
confinement is an effective way to improve the ductility of concrete [7].
In conventional reinforced concrete (RC) columns, stirrups are
commonly used to provide the confinement, especially in the potential
plastic hinge zones [8,9]. Mander et al. [8] proposed a concrete
stress–strain model for the stirrup confined concrete and demonstrated
the improved ductility of concrete provided by the passive confinement
of stirrups. However, when using the HSC, more confinement to the
concrete core is needed by reducing the stirrup spacing, which will in­
crease the construction difficulty and the risk of premature concrete
spalling. Filling the HSC in a steel tube to form a composite structural
member is another way to improve the ductility of HSC due to the higher
confining stresses from the outer steel tube [10–12]. Concrete-filled steel
tube (CFST) columns are the most common composite columns which
have been widely used in high-rise buildings [2,13,14]; while in the last
decade, a novel composite column known as steel tube confined con­
crete (STCC) or tubed concrete column was proposed and has since
drawn the attention from many researchers [12,15]. The main differ­
ence between the STCC column and the traditional CFST column lies in
the end condition. As shown in Fig. 1, the axial load of a CFST column is
carried by both the concrete and the steel tube (Fig. 1 (b)); while in a
STCC column, the axial load is only applied to the concrete core at the
column end with the steel casing carrying no direct load (Fig. 1 (a)). As
such, the STCC column is unlikely to buckle locally, thus improving the
lateral confinement and ductility.
The STCC column was first investigated by Gardner and Jacobson
[16] as a contrasting CFST specimen where only the concrete core was
loaded, followed by Johansson et al. [17] and Fam et al. [18]. Their
studies all indicated that the end loading condition had little influence
on the axial strength of columns due to the friction between the concrete
and the steel tube, while the development of confining stresses in the
steel tube of STCC columns was quite different from CFST columns. To
further enhance the tube confinement to the concrete core, O’Shea et al.
[19] studied the behavior of unbonded tubed concrete columns where a

* Corresponding author at: School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, China.
E-mail address: lxzmz@cqu.edu.cn (X. Li).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.12.072
Received 17 November 2021; Received in revised form 22 December 2021; Accepted 27 December 2021
Available online 5 January 2022
2352-0124/© 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Institution of Structural Engineers.
X. Wang et al. Structures 37 (2022) 32–43

Notation N Applied axial load to the specimen

N0 Axial load bearing load capacity
A Cross-sectional area of column Nd Design axial load
Ac Cross-sectional area of concrete Np Peak axial load
As Cross-sectional area of steel shape Ntest Measured peak load
B Width of cross section Np, ACI Eccentric resistance predicted by the ACI code
bs Flange width of steel shape Np, EC4 Eccentric resistance predicted by the EC4 code
D Diameter of column Np, T Eccentric resistance predicted by the theoretical model
dd Diameter of a shear stud Np, S Eccentric resistance predicted by proposed simplified
e Load eccentricity model
Ec Elastic modulus of concrete Nu Eccentric resistance
fco Unconfined concrete strength rle Load eccentricity ratio
fcu, 150 Cubic concrete strength rle_t Calculation factor
fcc Confined concrete strength t Wall thickness of steel tube
fcu Ultimate compressive strain of concrete tf Flange thickness of steel shape
fel Equivalent confining stress tw Web thickness of steel shape
fty Yield stress of steel tube αs Ratio of steel shape area to gross concrete area
fs Yield strength of steel shape αt Ratio of steel tube area to gross concrete area
hs Height of steel shape σ Stress of steel tube
hd Length of a shear stud σv Longitudinal stress of steel tube
k1 Calculation factor σh Transverse stress of steel tube
k2 Calculation factor σz Equivalent stress of steel tube
k3 Calculation factor μ Ductility ratio
kcu Modified factor of concrete strength δ Lateral deflection
L Length of a CTSRC column δp Lateral deflection at the peak point
Md Design bending moment δu Lateral deflection at the ultimate point

friction-resistant material was applied to the inner surface of the steel
tube to maximize the confinement effect. Tomii et al. [10] were the first
introducing the tubed concrete in place of the traditional reinforced
concrete with the intent to improve the shear strength of the edge col­
umns supporting shear walls and the short columns restrained by
spandrel walls. Since then, the performance of STCC has been exten­
sively studied with promising results [20,21]. Recently, Xiong el al. [22]
studied experimentally on the tubed concrete members with high- and
ultra-high-strength materials and proposed the relevant design recom­
mendations. Nematzadeh et al. [23] revealed that the effects between
the active and passive confinements on the modulus of steel tube-
confined concrete stub columns were different. Guo et al. [24] studied
experimentally on the axial behavior of stub columns confined by the
stainless steel tube. It was indicated that the axial stress of the steel tube
contributed to the axial load capacity. In addition, the disconnected steel
tube can also significantly enhance the uniaxial strength and ductility of
short columns using the ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC), as
reported by Hoang et al. [25]. In terms of the post-fire behavior, Yang
et al. [26] proposed a simplified design method for the residual capacity
of the reinforced concrete confined by circular steel tube, based on ISO
834 standard [27].
In practical projects, the steel tube in a STCC column is disconnected

(a) Steel tube confined concrete (b) Concrete-filled steel tube

Fig. 1. Comparison between steel tube confined concrete and concrete-filled steel tube columns.

33
X. Wang et al.
at beam-column joints; thus the tube carries no direct axial load and is
unlikely to buckle locally; but the concrete core generally needs to be
reinforced by reinforcing bars or a structural steel shape to ensure the
flexural stiffness. The STCC member with reinforcing structural steel
shape is generally called tubed steel-reinforced concrete (TSRC) column
[28]. Some preliminary investigations on TSRC columns have been
conducted. Qi et al. [29] studied the axial load behavior and strength of
TSRC columns and indicated that the TSRC columns had higher axial
load capacity than conventional steel reinforced concrete (SRC) col­
umns. Wang et al. [30] and Yan et al. [31] studied the behavior of TSRC
columns subjected to eccentric compression and established the axial
load versus moment interaction diagrams for these columns. They found
that the stud shear connectors had virtually no influence on failure
modes and that the ultimate compressive strain of confined concrete was
improved. Abdullah et al. [32] investigated the shear behavior of square
TSRC columns experimentally and proposed the shear strength equation
for such columns based on both the test and analytical results. More
recently, the frame structures containing circular TSRC columns and
steel beams were experimentally and numerically investigated by Li
et al. [33]. It was found that the deformability of the frame failed in
column plastic hinge mode did not decrease significantly because of the
appropriate cyclic behavior of TSRC columns. With the advantages of
mechanical performance, TSRC columns have been successfully used in
some practical projects in China. For instance, Zhongke Building,
located in Chongqing, China, is a frame-core tube structure using cir­
cular TSRC columns, which demonstrates that the TSRC structure pos­
sesses the advantages of less labor required and high degree of
prefabrication and standardization.
Previous studies have demonstrated that the outer thin-walled steel
tube could significantly improve the load-bearing capacity and ductility
of core concrete, suggesting that the use of HSC would be suitable for
TSRC columns. However, most researches done have focused on the
cyclic behavior of TSRC columns or the eccentric behavior of the square
TSRC columns with normal-strength concrete (fco < 65 MPa) and rela­
tively small load eccentricity ratio (rle < 30%), as listed in Table 1. Few
studies have been conducted on the eccentrically loaded behavior of
TSRC short columns with circular cross-sections and HSC. In addition,
the design method for such columns is still unclear. To access the
eccentric behavior of TSRC columns using the HSC and under a large
load eccentricity ratio (rle = 20.8%–83.3%), this study carried out an
experimental and theoretical analysis on 11 circular TSRC (CTSRC)
short columns, in which the effects of load eccentricity (e = 25 mm–100
mm) and diameter-to-thickness ratio (D/t = 100–150) were investi­
gated. Calculation methods for determining the eccentric resistance of
the CTRSC short columns with HSC are presented and discussed. In
addition, to simplify the calculation, a design formula in the GB 50936-
2014 [34] is modified and proposed, which gives satisfactory pre­
dictions when compared with the test and the theoretical results.
Table 1
Existing studies on TSRC columns.
References Number of specimens Loading mode Column shape
Zhou et al. [28] 8 Cyclic load Circular and square
Qi et al. [29] 29 Axial load Circular and square
Wang et al. [30] 12 Eccentric load Square
Yan et al. [31] 8 Eccentric load Square
Liu et al. [35] 3 Cyclic load Square
Gan et al. [36] 4 Cyclic load Circular and square
Zhou et al. [37] 7 Cyclic load Circular
Li [38] 6 Cyclic load Square
Note: D/t is the diameter-to-thickness ratio for circular section; B/t is the width-to-thickness ratio for square section; n is the axial load ratio; e is the load eccentricity;
and rle = 2e/B (for square sections) or 2e/D (for circular sections) is the load eccentricity ratio.
34
Structures 37 (2022) 32–43
2. Experimental program
2.1. Specimens
Eleven circular TSRC (CTRSC) short column specimens were pre­
pared and tested to failure under eccentric compression. All columns
have the same length-to-diameter ratio (L/D) of 3.0 with D = 240 mm or
300 mm. The design of the specimens with smaller cross-sectional
diameter D = 240 mm was intended to study the behavior of CTSRC
columns under larger load eccentricity ratio (rle = 83.3%) with the same
range of load eccentricity (e) values for all specimens (i.e., e =
25.0–100.0 mm) due to the same loading device adopted (Section 2.3).
Namely, three rle values of 20.8%, 41.7%, and 83.3% were selected for
240 mm-diameter specimens; while four rle values of 41.7%, 50.0%,
58.3%, and 66.7% were chosen for 300 mm-diameter specimens. Re­
searches on TSRC columns have indicated that the circular steel tube had
more effective confinement to the concrete core than the square one
[29,36]. Therefore, in this study relatively thin-walled steel tubes with
D/t = 100–150 were utilized, where the 200 mm-diameter specimens
had the D/t value of 120 and the 300 mm-diameter specimens were
divided into two groups according to the D/t ratio: (1) D/t = 100; and (2)
D/t = 150. Two types of H-shape steel shapes were inserted as rein­
forcement in the concrete core: 150 mm × 100 mm × 7.5 mm × 5.5 mm
(height × flange width × web thickness × flange thickness) for the 240
mm-diameter specimens; and 175 mm × 175 mm × 9.5 mm × 6.8 mm
for the 300 mm-diameter specimens. The arrangement of shear studs
was according to JGJ/T 471-2019 [39], which stipulates that the dis­
tance between adjacent shear studs shall be within 6ds to 300 mm (ds
being the shank diameter of shear studs); and the distance between the
shear studs and the outer steel tube shall be larger than 15 mm.
Therefore, a single row of shear studs were installed on each flange of
the steel shape longitudinally with the even spacing of 200 mm for the
240 mm-diameter specimens; while two longitudinal rows of shear studs
on each flange were used for the 300 mm-diameter specimens. Table 2
lists the specimen details, in which D and L are respectively the diameter
and length of column, t is the thickness of steel tube, αt is the ratio of
steel tube area to gross concrete area, αs is the ratio of steel shape area to
gross concrete area (less than 7.5% according to JGJ/T 471-2019 [39]),
hs and bs are respectively the height and flange width of steel shape, tf
and tw are respectively the flange and web thickness of steel shape,
@200 × 1 and @200 × 2 denote respectively one and two rows of shear
studs evenly installed on each flange of the steel shape with a spacing of
200 mm, and hd and dd are respectively the length and diameter of shear
studs. Each specimen is given a designation. As an illustration, the
designation “CS-240-2-25” denotes the circular tubed steel-reinforced
concrete (CTSRC) column with D = 240 mm, t = 2 mm, and e = 25.0
mm.
Fig. 2 shows the geometry of test specimens, in which the circular
steel tube is filled with HSC; while the HSC is reinforced by an embedded
steel shape only (i.e., no reinforcing bars at all). The circular steel tubes
were fabricated using the rolling cold-formed plain steel plates and butt
seaming. To prevent a failure, the weld seam was strengthened by a steel
D/t or B/t fco (MPa) n rle (%)
D/t = 75 and B/t = 66 56.4 0.3–0.5 –
D/t = 70–100 and B/t = 50–100 59.4 – –
100–133 61.1 – 0–25.0
100–133 61.1 – 0–25.0
100 45 0.2–0.4 –
D/t = 75 and B/t = 66 56.4 0.3–0.5 –
120 79.5 0.3–0.5 –
120 70.4 0.3–0.5
X. Wang et al. Structures 37 (2022) 32–43

Table 2
Details of the test specimens.
Specimens e (mm) L (mm) D (mm) rle (%) t (mm) αt (%) αs (%) hs (mm) bs (mm) tf (mm) tw (mm) Studs hd (mm) dd (mm)

CS-240-2-25 25.0 720 240 20.8 2 3.3 5.3 150 100 7.5 5.5 @200 × 1 30 10
CS-240-2-50 50.0 720 240 41.7 2 3.3 5.3 150 100 7.5 5.5 @200 × 1 30 10
CS-240-2-100 100.0 720 240 83.3 2 3.3 5.3 150 100 7.5 5.5 @200 × 1 30 10
CS-300-2-62.5 62.5 900 300 41.7 2 2.7 6.5 175 175 9.5 6.8 @200 × 2 30 10
CS-300-2-75 75.0 900 300 50.0 2 2.7 6.5 175 175 9.5 6.8 @200 × 2 30 10
CS-300-2-87.5 87.5 900 300 58.3 2 2.7 6.5 175 175 9.5 6.8 @200 × 2 30 10
CS-300-2-100 100.0 900 300 66.7 2 2.7 6.5 175 175 9.5 6.8 @200 × 2 30 10
CS-300-3-62.5 62.5 900 300 41.7 3 4.0 6.5 175 175 9.5 6.8 @200 × 2 30 10
CS-300-3-75 75.0 900 300 50.0 3 4.0 6.5 175 175 9.5 6.8 @200 × 2 30 10
CS-300-3-87.5 87.5 900 300 58.3 3 4.0 6.5 175 175 9.5 6.8 @200 × 2 30 10
CS-300-3-100 100.0 900 300 66.7 3 4.0 6.5 175 175 9.5 6.8 @200 × 2 30 10

Fig. 2. Geometry of test specimens (unit: mm).

plate of 50 mm (width) × 2 mm (thickness). The steel tube was termi­ sufficient confinement to the concrete core, even with the use of high-
nated at 100 mm away from the column ends, with a girth gap of 10 mm. strength concrete [15,37]. Therefore, the steel tube with strength
As suggested by other researchers [28,36], shear studs should be used in grade Q235 [43] was adopted, i.e., fty = 314 MPa for 2 mm-thick tubes
CTRSC columns to prevent the possible bond failure between the con­ and 330 MPa for 3 mm-thick ones.
crete and the steel shape; and the size of the shear studs used is 10 mm
(shank diameter) × 30 mm (height) [39]. To prevent the local 2.3. Test set-up and instrumentation layout
compression failure, the column ends were reinforced by stiffener rings;
and the ends of the steel shape were strengthened by welding stiffeners, In the eccentric loading test, the vertical monotonic load was
as shown in Fig. 2. imposed through a 5000 kN hydraulic compression machine consisting
of a hydraulic jack and a three-way flat hinge, as shown in Fig. 3. The
vertical loading was applied at a rate of 3 kN/s in the elastic stage as the
2.2. Material properties
displacement was relatively small. Once the stiffness degradation on the
load versus deformation curve became apparent, the loading was
Concrete cubes of 150 mm × 150 mm × 150 mm and concrete prisms
applied according to the displacement-control method, with the
of 150 mm × 150 mm × 300 mm were cast and cured under the same
displacement rate set as 2 mm/min. The required load eccentricity was
condition as the test specimens to determine respectively the cubic
ensured by adjusting the relative position of knife plate and V-block
strength (fcu,150) and elastic modulus (Ec) of concrete [40]; and as a
(Fig. 3a). As for the instrumentation layout, four linear variable differ­
result fcu,150 = 81.4 MPa and Ec = 41822 MPa. The equivalent cylinder
ential transformers (LVDTs) fixed on the ground were used to record the
strength (fco) of 65 MPa was calculated based on fcu,150 and the con­
axial shorting of columns and three LVDTs were installed along the
version factors specified in the CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 [41]. The
specimen span to monitor the deflections. To investigate the strain
mechanical properties of steel shape and circular steel tube were
variations on a steel tube, four pairs of strain gauges were attached to the
determined using testing tensile coupons [42]. As a result, the yield
outer surface of the steel tube at the mid-height of the column.
strength of steel shape is 261 MPa for the sections with bf (flange width)
= 150 mm and 233 MPa for those with bf = 175 mm. Previous studies
[15,31,33,37] indicated that with the D/t value of 100–150, the circular
steel tube with normal yield strength (e.g., fty < 350 MPa) could provide

35
X. Wang et al.
Fig. 3. Testing machine and instrumentation.
3. Experimental results
3.1. Failure modes
The failure phenomena of selective specimens CS-240-2-25, CS-240-
2-50, and CS-240-2-100, as shown in Fig. 4, are used to explain the effect
of load eccentricity (e). For specimens with e = 25.0 mm, the failure
occurred near the mid-span of the column, where the transverse cracks
were unevenly distributed in the tension region and the steel tube
bulged outward in the compression region. Concrete crushing was also
found in the compression region where the steel tube bulged. By
contrast, flexural cracks mainly appeared in the gap region for speci­
mens with larger e = 100.0 mm, while the concrete aside from the region
stayed intact and no local buckling of steel tube was observed. The
reason is that under small e (i.e., e = 25.0 mm and 50.0 mm), the column
failed due to the local compression damage of concrete. The confine­
ment at column ends is higher than that at the mid-span of the column
because of the less bonding and friction between the steel tube and
enclosed concrete at the column ends than those at the mid-span of the
column; and as such the concrete near the mid-span of the column is
more likely to fail under compression. However, under larger e (i.e., e =
100.0 mm), since the column failed in flexural mode and the encased
steel shape could not provide an effective bending resistance due to the
weak anchoring at column ends (i.e., because one of the end plate was
installed after the concrete pouring, the encased steel shape being not
welded to the end plate), the failure of column mainly occurred in the
gap region. With the flexural failure in CTSRC columns under cyclic
lateral loads, the failure of column gap region was also found previously
by the authors [33,37], as shown in Fig. 5. However, for the above
specimens, the failure in the gap region was due to the greater bending
moment at the column ends rather than the insufficient anchorage of the
encased steel shape. As shown in Fig. 4(a) and 4(b), no bonding cracks
appeared between the steel shape and the concrete; and the steel shape
exhibited similar deformation mode to the column concrete. Therefore,
the failure mode of all specimens can be characterized as a flexural one,
36
Structures 37 (2022) 32–43
and the combined effect of the circular steel tube and shear studs ensures
the composite action between the concrete and the steel shape.
Specimens CS-300-2-X and CS-300-3-X also failed in flexural manner
as shown in Fig. 6. No bonding cracks appeared between the steel shape
and the concrete, especially for Specimen CS-300-2-100 (thinner steel
tube of t = 2 mm), which demonstrates the effective confinement pro­
vided by the thin-walled circular steel tube. The failure occurred near
the mid-span of the column for specimens with e = 62.5 mm and it
shifted to the gap region for specimens with e = 75.0–100.0 mm; while
the concrete aside for the gap region was generally in good condition
with no obvious damage. Combined with failure phenomena shown in
Fig. 4, it appears that the failed section of CTSRC columns under
eccentric compression is related to the load eccentricity, and it is more
likely to be in the gap region for relatively large load eccentricity (e.g., e
= 100.0 mm). Fig. 6(c) and (d) show respectively the failure phenomena
of Specimens CS-300-2-100 (D/t = 150 implying the thinner steel tube)
and CS-300-3-100 (D/t = 100 implying the thicker steel tube). As seen,
despite of the thickness of steel tube, the maximum crack width and
concrete crushing phenomena were similar.
3.2. Load versus deformation curves
Fig. 7 shows the eccentric load (N) versus mid-height lateral
deflection (δ) curves for all test specimens. Each curve is generally
comprised of three loading stages: elastic, elastic–plastic, and descend­
ing. Specimens with a smaller load eccentricity had relatively higher
initial stiffness and displayed longer elastic stage. Although HSC was
used in all specimens, the N-δ curves still exhibited ductile behavior as
the eccentric loads dropped slowly in the load descending stage. The
yielding of steel tubes was determined based on the stress analysis re­
sults presented in Section 3.3, as indicated by circular red dots shown in
Fig. 7. As seen, except for Specimens CS-300-2-100 and CS-300-3-100
(with larger e = 100.0 mm), the steel tube yielded before the peak
load. Table 3 lists the specimens’ mechanical properties obtained from
the N-δ curves, in which Np and δp are respectively the eccentric load and
X. Wang et al. Structures 37 (2022) 32–43

Local buckling
Local buckling Concrete crashed Cracks

(a) CS-240-2-25

Cracks
Local buckling

(b) CS-240-2-50

Cracks

(c) CS-240-2-100
Fig. 4. Failure phenomena of Specimens CS-240-2-X.

mid-height displacement corresponding to the peak point; δu is the mid-
height displacement corresponding to 85% of the peak load; and μ is the
ductility ratio defined as: μ = δu /δy where δu is the ultimate displace­
ment and δy is the displacement at the yield point determined by the
Park method [44]. In particular, the initial stiffness and load-bearing
capacity of Specimens CS-240-2-X decreased respectively by 58.4%
and 64.9% when e increased from 25.0 mm to 100.0 mm; and μ also
decreased by 32.2% due to the more localized failure in the column gap
region. As aforementioned, the embedded steel shape was not welded to
the end plates, thus contributing to the decreasing of deformability

37
X. Wang et al.
Cracks
Concrete crushing
(a) CTSRC column under cyclic lateral loads
[37]
Fig. 5. Column gap region failure in previous studies.
especially when the flexural deformation was prevalent at the column
ends. In practical applications, the CTSRC short columns will behave
more ductile as the anchorage length of steel shapes is sufficient. With e
= 62.5–87.5 mm, the specimens with lower D/t = 100 generally had
higher bearing capacity (>7.6%) and deformability (>8.6%) than those
with D/t = 150. However, when e = 100.0 mm, the effect of D/t on μ
appeared not obvious as the failure of column was due to the insufficient
anchorage of steel shape.
It should be noted that although the localized failure in the column
gap region happened for specimens with large eccentricity (e.g., CS-240-
100) due to the insufficient anchorage of encased section steel at the end
of the test, however, the lateral deflection versus column height curves
were approximately in the shape of half-sine wave before the peak load.
Therefore, it can be considered that the bearing capacity of these spec­
imens is accurate while the ductility of the specimens is lower due to the
unexpected failure mode (i.e., localized failure in the column gap
region).
3.3. Load versus stress curves of steel tubes
Based on the measured strains, the elastic–plastic method described
in Reference [45] was used to analyze the stress states of steel tubes.
Since the failure of specimens with e > 75.0 mm occurred at the column
ends where the steel tube strains were not available, only the load (N)
versus stress (σ) curves for specimens with smaller load eccentricity (e =
25.0 mm and 62.5 mm) are presented in Fig. 8 where σv and σh are
respectively the longitudinal stress and transverse stress of the steel tube
and σ z is the equivalent stress for determining the yield of steel tube,
expressed by:
√̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
2
σz = (σv − σ h )2 + σ 2v + σ2h (1)
2 where fel is the equivalent confining stress and fty is the yield stress of
Similar stress development trends are noted in Fig. 8 for specimens
with e = 25.0 mm and 62.5 mm. In particular, for the steel tube of
Specimen CS-240-2-25 in the compression region (Fig. 8(a)), the
maximum transverse stress was less than 30 MPa when the eccentric
load was less than 0.5Np; while the longitudinal stress increased
apparently to 317.0 MPa. Beyond the peak load, the transverse stress
increased rapidly to 302.5 MPa due to the plastic expansion of core
concrete; while the longitudinal stress decreased obviously to 22.0 MPa
with the steel tube in tension as the bond stresses and frictional forces,
induced due to the bonding and slip between the steel and the concrete
in the longitudinal direction and the radial pressure at their interface,
were compromised and the steel tube bulged outward. Although the σv
38
Structures 37 (2022) 32–43
Cracks
Cracks
Concrete crushing
(b) CTSRC frame test [33]
and σh values changed obviously when the eccentric load surpassed
0.9Np, the σz value basically remains unchanged. Fig. 8(c) and 8(d) show
the stress states of the steel tubes in tension region. It was found that
both σ v and σh were in tension and increased gradually with an
increasing N. In particular, the increase of σ v was more obvious for
specimen with larger e = 62.5 mm due to the larger deflection at the
mid-height of column, resulting in the yielding of steel tubes. By
contrast, the σz value of specimens with e = 25.0 mm was small due to
the slow development of σ v and σ h.
4. Sectional strength of CTSRC columns under eccentric
compression
Compared with conventional steel reinforced concrete (SRC), the
TSRC uses an outer thin-walled steel tube to replace stirrups for
enhancing the confinement effect. Therefore, the CTSRC specimens can
be regarded as a special SRC column and the plastic stress distribution
method for SRC columns specified in the ACI [46] and EC4 [4] codes
may be adopted. With the confinement of steel tube, the HSC in a CTSRC
column exhibits a higher strength. However, the existing design pro­
visions for SRC columns do not consider the confinement effect provided
by steel tubes and will certainly yield conservative strength for CTSRC
columns. Hence, to fully utilize the material strength and better predict
the sectional strength, the plain concrete strength (fco) is modified to the
confined concrete strength (fcc) based on the model proposed by Liu
[15], as expressed by Eqs. (2) and (3):
fcc = fco + 5.1fel (2)
2tfty
fel = (3)
D
steel tube.
The calculated sectional strengths using the modified design method
are listed in Table 4. For direct comparison, the code-specified strength
reduction factor and the material safety factor were not considered. As
indicated, the average bearing capacity predicted by the EC4 code is 8%
higher than the test results, while the ACI code underestimates the
strength by 14% but with a smaller discrepancy.
Since the plastic stress distribution method is rather complicated and
thus inconvenient for practical designs. The Chinese code GB 50936-
2014 [34] specifies a design method for CFST columns, in which the
relationship between the column section and the bearing capacity is
directly established to simplify the design process. In this study, design
X. Wang et al. Structures 37 (2022) 32–43

Local buckling Cracks Cracks

Cracks

e = 62.5 mm e = 75.0 mm e = 87.5 mm

(a) Specimen CS-300-2-X with e from 62.5mm to 87.5mm

Concrete crushing
Local buckling
Cracks

e = 75.0 mm e = 87.5 mm
(b) Specimen CS-300-3-X with e from 75.0 mm to 87.5 mm

Cracks

Cracks

(c) CS-300-2-100 (d) CS-300-3-100

Fig. 6. Failure phenomena of Specimens CS-300-2-X and CS-300-3-X.

method specified in the GB 50936-2014 was adopted with the param­

N0 = Afcc + As fs (5)
eters modified based on a regression analysis on sectional strength cal­
culations of CTSRC short columns under eccentric compression,
4bf tf hs fs 4
described as follows: rlet = + (6)
αfcc AD 3π

⎧
⎪ fcc Ac (rle_t + 1)k1 rle rle_t − k1 rle
⎪
⎪ + N0 0⩽rle ⩽k2 rle_t
⎨ 2rle_t (k1 rle + 1) rle_t (k1 rle + 1)
Nu = [ ] ( ) (4)
⎪
⎪ k3 αfcc Ac (rle_t + 1) rle_t − k3 rle_t − k3 1
⎪
⎩ k4 + N0 − 0.15 k2 rle_t < rle ⩽5
2rle_t rle_t k1 rle + 1

39
X. Wang et al. Structures 37 (2022) 32–43

Fig. 7. Load versus mid-height lateral displacement curves.

distribution method adopted considering the actual stress distribution of

Table 3
concrete in the compression zone and the improved ultimate compres­
Mechanical properties of test specimens.
sive strain (fcu) due to the confinement effect (Eqs. (9) and (10)). Note
Specimens D/t e (mm) Np (kN) δp (mm) δu (mm) μ that the theoretical calculation method gives more accurate predictions
CS-240-2-25 120 25.0 3417 1.10 5.14 4.68 in comparison with the test results and was hence used to verify the
CS-240-2-50 120 50.0 2348 1.81 8.23 4.55 proposed simplified design formula, as indicated in Table 4 (e.g., mean
CS-240-2-100 120 100.0 1198 2.37 7.51 3.17 Np, T / Ntest value = 0.97 with a relatively small standard deviation =
CS-300-2-62.5 150 62.5 3821 1.75 5.58 3.19
CS-300-2-75 150 75.0 3271 2.08 6.05 2.90
0.047) as well as in Fig. 9. However, the calculation processes of the
CS-300-2-87.5 150 87.5 2615 2.50 7.55 3.02 theoretical model are more complex than the aforementioned design
CS-300-2-100 150 100.0 2285 2.51 9.31 3.72 methods (i.e., the ACI and EC4 codes). As seen, the simplified formula
CS-300-3-62.5 100 62.5 4145 1.40 9.66 6.88 can reasonably predict the eccentric load resistance of a CTSRC column.
CS-300-3-75 100 75.0 3519 2.28 6.03 2.65
CS-300-3-87.5 100 87.5 3157 2.47 10.24 4.14 εcu = 10− 5 [(740 − 3kcu )ln(0.5fel + 1) + 300 − 2kcu ] (9)
CS-300-3-100 100 100.0 2403 3.16 7.93 2.51

kcu = fco − 20 (10)

k3 =
k1 k2 rlet
(7) where kcu is a modified factor of concrete strength.
k1 k2 rlet + 1 Realizing the small amount of test data, 215 additional cases
( ) considering 3 concrete compressive strengths (fco = 40 MPa, 50 MPa,
k4 =
1
− 0.15 − 1
(8) and 60 MPa), 3 yield strengths of steel shape (fs = 300 MPa, 400 MPa,
k1 k2 rlet + 1 and 500 MPa), 3 yield strengths of steel tube (fty = 300 MPa, 400 MPa,
and 500 MPa), 3 diameter-to-thickness ratios (D/t = 80, 120, and 160)
where Ac is the cross-sectional area of concrete; rle_t is a calculation
and 3 heights of steel shape (hs = 260 mm, 360 mm and 460 mm) were
factor; N0 is the axial load bearing capacity [29]; As is the cross-sectional
analyzed using the theoretical calculation method to further verify the
area of steel shape; A is the cross-section area of column; fs is the yield
simplified formula, with the results presented in Fig. 10. As noted, the
strength of steel shape; and k1, k2, and k3 are the calculation factors
mean Np, S / Np, T value (i.e., X value) is 0.948 with a standard deviation
(with k1 = 1.0 and k2 = 2.1).
(i.e., S value) of 0.094, indicating that the proposed simplified formula
In practical applications, the load eccentricity e is first obtained from
yields satisfactory predictions.
the design axial force Nd and bending moment Md, i.e., e = Md/Nd. Then,
the eccentric load resistance Nu is calculated by Eq. (4) based on the
5. Conclusions
sectional parameters (e.g., bf, tf, and hs). Fig. 9 shows a comparison of Nu
versus 2e/D (i.e., rle) curves for all test specimens, where the theoretical
In this study, 11 CTSRC columns using HSC were tested under
calculation method is based on Wang [47] with the plastic stress
eccentric compression, considering the main parameters of load

40
X. Wang et al. Structures 37 (2022) 32–43

Fig. 8. Load versus steel tube stresses curves of typical specimens.

Table 4
Calculated results.
Specimens Ntest Np, ACI Np, EC4 Np, T Np, S Np, ACI / Ntest Np, EC4 / Ntest Np, T / Ntest Np, S / Ntest

CS-240-2-25 3417 2986 3588 3222 3102 0.87 1.05 0.94 0.91
CS-240-2-50 2348 2027 2602 2305 2213 0.86 1.11 0.98 0.94
CS-240-2-100 1198 1008 1225 1130 1047 0.84 1.02 0.94 0.87
CS-300-2-62.5 3821 3084 3959 3471 3427 0.81 1.04 0.91 0.90
CS-300-2-75 3271 2667 3460 3059 3001 0.82 1.06 0.94 0.92
CS-300-2-87.5 2615 2328 2999 2673 2613 0.89 1.15 1.02 1.00
CS-300-2-100 2285 2053 2581 2321 2259 0.90 1.13 1.02 0.99
CS-300-3-62.5 4145 3417 4312 3933 3772 0.82 1.04 0.95 0.91
CS-300-3-75 3519 2966 3778 3460 3341 0.84 1.07 0.98 0.95
CS-300-3-87.5 3157 2567 3242 2986 2914 0.81 1.03 0.95 0.92
CS-300-3-100 2403 2252 2766 2562 2529 0.94 1.15 1.07 1.05
Average value 0.86 1.08 0.97 0.94
Standard deviation 0.041 0.049 0.047 0.052

eccentricity and the diameter-to-thickness ratio of steel tube. To simplify
the calculation of eccentric load resistance of CTSRC columns, a modi­
fied design formula based on the GB 50936-2014 is proposed. From this
study, the following primary findings are offered:
(1) The failure mode of all CTSRC columns with HSC is characterized
as a bending failure mode. With the increase of load eccentricity,
the failed section of column shifts from the mid-height to column
ends. Unexpected localized failure occurred for the specimens
with load eccentricity ratio rle ≥ 66.7% due to the insufficient
anchorage of the encased steel shape. Therefore, in practical sit­
uations the anchorage of an encased steel shape should be suffi­
ciently provided to ensure the eccentric behavior of TSRC
columns especially under the large load eccentricity ratio. The
combined effect of circular steel tube and shear studs ensures the
composite action between the concrete and the steel shape.
(2) The larger eccentricity results in the lower elastic stiffness and
load capacity of CTSRC short columns. The deformability of
column decreases with an increasing load eccentricity, due to the
more localized failure in the column gap region and the insuffi­
cient anchorage of encased steel shape.
(3) Compared with specimens with D/t = 150, the load bearing ca­
pacity and deformability of specimens with D/t = 100 improve by
more than 7.6% and 8.6%, respectively. However, the failure
modes are slightly affected, especially when the load eccentricity
e > 87.5 mm.
(4) The proposed simplified calculation method for the eccentric load
resistance for CTSRC columns gives satisfactory predictions in
comparison with the test and theoretical results.

41
X. Wang et al. Structures 37 (2022) 32–43

Fig. 9. Comparison of Nu versus 2e/D curves.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

35000
Xuanding Wang: Writing – review & editing, Investigation, Data
28000 curation, Methodology, Funding acquisition. Jiepeng Liu: Conceptual­
ization, Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition. Xiang Li:
Writing – original draft, Investigation, Data curation, Methodology. Y.
Np, T(kN)

21000
Frank Chen: Writing – review & editing, Supervision.

14000
Declaration of Competing Interest

7000 X = 0.948 The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
S = 0.094 interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
0 the work reported in this paper.
0 7000 14000 21000 28000 35000
Np, S(kN) Acknowledgements
Fig. 10. Comparison of predicted results between the simplified formula and
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided
the theoretical method.
by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.
51890902, 51908086, and U20A20312).

42
X. Wang et al. Structures 37 (2022) 32–43

References [24] Guo L, Liu Y, Fu F. Behavior of axially loaded circular stainless steel tube confined
concrete stub columns. Thin-Walled Struct 2019;139:66–76.
[25] Hoang AL, Fehling E, Lai B, Thai D-K, Chau NV. Experimental study on structural
[1] Lai Z, Varma AH. High-strength rectangular CFT members: database, modeling,
performance of UHPC and UHPFRC columns confined with steel tube. Eng Struct
and design of short columns. J Struct Eng 2018;144(5):04018036. https://doi.org/
2019;187:457–77.
10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002026.
[26] Yang H, Liu FQ, Gardner L. Post-fire behavior of slender reinforced concrete
[2] Han L-H, Li W, Bjorhovde R. Developments and advanced applications of concrete-
columns confined by circular steel tubes. Thin-Walled Struct 2015;87:12–29.
filled steel tubular (CFST) structures: members. J Constr Steel Res 2014;100:
[27] ISO (International Organization for Standardization). Fire resistance tests –
211–28.
Elements of building construction – Part 11: Specific requirements for the
[3] Huang W, Lai Z, Chen B, Xie Z, Varma AH. Concrete-filled steel tube (CFT) truss
assessment of fire protection to structural steel elements. ISO 834-11:2014,
girders: experimental tests, analysis, and design. Eng Struct 2018;156:118–29.
Switzerland. 2014.
[4] Eurocode 4. Design of composite steel and concrete structures - Part 1-1: General
[28] Zhou X, Liu J. Seismic behavior and strength of tubed steel reinforced concrete
rules and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization; 2004.
(SRC) short columns. J Constr Steel Res 2010;66(7):885–96.
[5] ANSI/AISC 360-16. Specification for structural steel buildings. Chicago, Illinois,
[29] Qi H, Guo L, Liu J, Gan D, Zhang S. Axial load behavior and strength of tubed steel
USA: American Institute of Steel Construction; 2016. p. 360–416.
reinforced-concrete (SRC) stub columns. Thin-Walled Struct 2011;49(9):1141–50.
[6] GB 50010-2010. Code for design of concrete structures. China Building Industry
[30] Wang X, Liu J, Zhou X. Behaviour and design method of short square tubed-steel-
Press. 2010. (in Chinese).
reinforced-concrete columns under eccentric loading. J Constr Steel Res 2016;116:
[7] Saadatmanesh H, Ehsani MR, Li MW. Strength and ductility of concrete columns
193–203.
externally reinforced with fiber composite straps. ACI Struct J 1994;91(4):434–47.
[31] Yan B, Zhou X, Liu J. Behavior of circular tubed steel-reinforced-concrete slender
[8] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined
columns under eccentric compression. J Constr Steel Res 2019;155:342–54.
concrete. J Struct Eng 1988;114(8):1804–26.
[32] Ali Abdullah J, Sumei Z, Jiepeng L. Shear strength and behavior of tubed
[9] Richart FE, Brandtzaeg A, Brown RL. A study of the failure of concrete under
reinforced and steel reinforced concrete (TRC and TSRC) short columns. Thin-
combined compressive Stresses. University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign,
Walled Struct 2010;48(3):191–9.
Engineering Experimental Station, Bulletin; 1928.
[33] Li X, Liu J, Wang X, Dong B, Chen YF. Cyclic behavior of circular TSRC column to
[10] Tomii M, Sakino K, Xiao Y, Watanabe, K. Lateral load capacity of reinforced
steel beam frames. J Constr Steel Res 2021;184:106788. https://doi.org/10.1016/
concrete short columns by steel tube. Proceeding of the international specialty
j.jcsr.2021.106788.
conference on concrete filled steel tubular structures, Harbin, China; 1985.
[34] GB 50936-2014. Technical code for concrete filled steel tubular structures. China
[11] Sun Y, Sakino K, Yasuda K, Aklan A. Earthquake-resisting performance of R/C
Building Industry Press, Beijing. 2014. (in Chinese).
columns confined by square steel tubes: Part 2 Effects of wall thickness of steel
[35] Liu J, Ali Abdullah J, Zhang S. Hysteretic behavior and design of square tubed
tube. J Struct Constr Eng 2000;65(531):133–40.
reinforced and steel reinforced concrete (STRC and/or STSRC) short columns.
[12] Zhou XH, Liu JP. Application of steel-tubed concrete structures in high-rise
Thin-walled Struct 2011;49(7):874–88.
buildings. Int J High-Rise Build 2019;8(3):161–7.
[36] Gan D, Guo L, Liu J, Zhou X. Seismic behavior and moment strength of tubed steel
[13] Wei J, Luo X, Lai Z, Varma AH. Experimental behavior and design of high-strength
reinforced-concrete (SRC) beam-columns. J Constr Steel Res 2011;67(10):
circular concrete-filled steel tube short columns. J Struct Eng 2020;146(1):
1516–24.
04019184.
[37] Zhou X, Zang X, Wang X, Liu J, Frank Chen Y. Seismic behavior of circular TSRC
[14] Zhou X, Liu J, Wang X, Liu P, Chung K-F, Wei W. Structural performance and
columns with studs on the steel section. J Constr Steel Res 2017;137:31–6.
compression resistances of thin-walled square CFST columns with steel lining
[38] Li X, Zhou XH, Liu JP, et al. Shear behavior of short square tubed steel reinforced
tubes. J Struct Eng 2021;147(7). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
concrete columns with high-strength concrete. Steel and Comp Struct 2019;32(3):
541X.0003069.
411–22.
[15] Liu J, Teng Y, Zhang Y, Wang X, Chen YF. Axial stress-strain behavior of high-
[39] JGJ/T 471-2019. Technical standard for steel tube confined concrete structures.
strength concrete confined by circular thin-walled steel tubes. Constr Build Mater
China Building Industry Press, Beijing. 2019. (in Chinese).
2018;177:366–77.
[40] Gb/T 50081. Standard for test method of mechanical properties on ordinary
[16] Gardner NJ, Jacobson ER. Structural behavior of concrete filled steel tubes. ACI
concrete. Beijing: China Building Industry Press; 2002. in Chinese.
Struct J 1967;64(7):404–13.
[41] Comité Euro-International du Béton/Federation Internationale de la Precontrainte
[17] Johansson M, Gylltoft K. Mechanical behavior of circular steel-concrete composite
(CEB-FIP). CEB-FIP model code 1990 CEB bulletin d’Information. London: Thomas
stub columns. J Struct Eng 2002;128(8):1073–81.
Telford; 1993.
[18] Fam A, Qie FS, Rizkalla S. Concrete-filled steel tubes subjected to axial compression
[42] GB/T 228-2010. Metallic materials – tensile testing – Part 1: Method of test at room
and lateral cyclic loads. J Struct Eng 2004;130(4):631–40.
temperature. Standards Press of China, Beijing. 2010. (in Chinese).
[19] O’Shea MD, Bridge RQ. Design of circular thin-walled concrete filled steel tubes.
[43] GB 50017-2017. Code for design of steel structures. China Building Industry Press,
J Struct Eng 2000;126(11):1295–303.
Beijing. 2017. (in Chinese).
[20] Mcateer P, Bonacci JF, Lachemi M. Composite response of high-strength concrete
[44] Tang JR. Seismic resistance of joints in reinforced concrete frames. Southeast
confined by circular steel tube. ACI Struct J 2004;101(4):466–74.
University Press; 1989.
[21] Han L-H, Yao G-H, Chen Z-B, Yu Q. Experimental behaviours of steel tube confined
[45] Cheng G, Zhou X, Liu J, Chen YF. Seismic behavior of circular tubed steel-
concrete (STCC) columns. Steel Composite Struct 2005;5(6):459–84.
reinforced concrete column to steel beam connections. Thin-Walled Struct 2019;
[22] Xiong M-X, Xiong D-X, Liew JYR. Axial performance of short concrete filled steel
138:485–95.
tubes with high- and ultra-high- strength materials. Eng Struct 2017;136:494–510.
[46] ACI 318-11. Building code requirements for structure concrete and commentary.
[23] Nematzadeh M, Fazli S, Naghipour M, Jalali J. Experimental study on modulus of
USA: American Concrete Institute; 2011.
elasticity of steel tube-confined concrete stub columns with active and passive
[47] Wang XD. Study on the behavior and strength of TRC and TSRC columns. Harbin:
confinement. Eng Struct 2017;130:142–53.
Harbin Institute of Technology; 2017. in Chinese.

43