Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tabe20

An analytical model computing the flexural

strength and performance of the concrete
columns confined by both transverse
reinforcements and steel sections

Dinh Han Nguyen & Won-Kee Hong

To cite this article: Dinh Han Nguyen & Won-Kee Hong (2020) An analytical model computing
the flexural strength and performance of the concrete columns confined by both transverse
reinforcements and steel sections, Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 19:6,
647-669, DOI: 10.1080/13467581.2020.1775603

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2020.1775603

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group on behalf of the Architectural
Institute of Japan, Architectural Institute of
Korea and Architectural Society of China.

Published online: 21 Jun 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1091

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tabe20
JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING
2020, VOL. 19, NO. 6, 647–669
https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2020.1775603

BUILDING STRUCTURES AND MATERIALS

An analytical model computing the flexural strength and performance of the

concrete columns confined by both transverse reinforcements and steel
sections
Dinh Han Nguyen and Won-Kee Hong
Department of Architectural Engineering, Kyung Hee University, Yongin, Republic of Korea

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

An analytical model was developed that accounted for double confinement provided by both Received 21 November 2019
transverse reinforcements and wide flange steel sections in the compression zone. This study Accepted 14 May 2020
also found that the amount of confinements was very sensitive to the post-yield behavior of KEYWORDS
the composite columns, especially when the buckling in compression region occurred. The Double confining effects;
nominal moment capacity and post-yield structural behavior of the composite columns were steel columns encased in
then calculated. The results were verified by comparison to numerical nonlinear finite element structural concrete;
analysis results. The model was also verified experimentally. The post-yield behavior of the confinement by steel
composite columns obtained from previous experimental studies and nonlinear finite element sections; equivalent
analysis based on concrete plasticity agreed well with those of the analytical results presented confinement factors; non-
in this study, demonstrating a reliable and fast evaluation of the post-yield behavior of the linear finite element analysis
composite actions. Fracture criteria for the concrete encasing steel columns under axial and
lateral loads were also proposed based on the confinement offered by the steel sections
encased in concrete. The new concept engaged in the estimation of the flexural strength of
concrete columns confined by encased steel sections added innovations to the state of the art
in the body of knowledge and advancement of the composite frames.

1. Introduction and research significance
1.1. Previous research and objectives
The use of steel-concrete composite columns, which com­
bine the individual merits of the two materials, has
increased significantly in recent years. Many studies
have been performed to explore the post-yield behavior
of steel columns encased in structural concrete (Brettle
1973; Bridge and Roderick 1978; Furlong 1974; Mirza and
Skrabek 1992; El-Tawil and Deierlein 1999; Mirza,
Hyttinen, and Hyttinen 1996). (Chen and Lin 2006) con­
ducted a study to explore the axial compressive capacity
of composite stub columns. More importantly, the
emphasis of this modeling established stress–strain rela­
tionships for concrete confined by lateral reinforcement
and by various structural steel sections of the composite
columns. However, this model was proposed only for the
estimation of the axial strength of columns without
considering lateral forces, and is not able to predict the
strength of the composite columns when flexural
moments are applied.
A nonlinear three-dimensional finite element and fiber
element models were proposed to simulate the inelastic
behavior of mega SRC columns (Zhang, Zhao, and He
2012; Lu et al. 2013; Lu, Yin, and Jiang 2014; Zhang et al.
2012). They found that the steel ratio and axial compres­
sion ratio have significant effects on the seismic perfor­
mance of mega SRC columns. Nonlinear analysis program
was also developed based on fiber model to analyze the
flexural behavior of steel-reinforced concrete (SRC) col­
umns under axial and bilateral loading, finding that the
flexural capacity is underestimated when the concrete
confinement was not properly considered (Jiang, Li, and
Zhu 2017). Recently, interesting studies of composite
short columns with high-strength concrete encasing
steel were published. Lai, Liew, and Xiong (2019)

CONTACT Won-Kee Hong hongwk@khu.ac.kr Department of Architectural Engineering, Kyung Hee University, Yongin 446-701, Republic of Korea
This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group on behalf of the Architectural Institute of Japan, Architectural Institute of Korea and
Architectural Society of China.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
648 D. H. NGUYEN AND W.-K. HONG

investigated the axial compressive behavior of high-
strength Concrete Encased Steel (CES) composite short
columns. The structural performance was explored
including failure pattern, load-carrying capacity, load-
deformation response and post-peak ductility based on
major parameters affecting the ultimate strength of com­
posite columns such as concrete strength, spacing of
transverse reinforcement bars, and the inclusion of steel
fibers in the high-strength concrete. They found that the
failure mode of CES columns with high concrete strength
C120 is caused by concrete cover spalling, which trig­
gered a sudden drop of compression capacity once the
peak resistance was reached. Zhu, Meng, and Jia (2014)
performed an experimental investigation on the axial
load performance of steel-reinforced high-strength con­
crete short columns. They found that stirrups affected
ductility and residual strength of columns, but not the
peak strength whereas structural steel influenced the
peak, residual strength and ductility of columns. They
concluded that the effect of structural steel on ductility
is more obvious when the effective confinement index is
larger. Lai, Liew, and Wang (2019) tested three long
Concrete Encased Steel (CES) column specimens made
of high-strength concrete C100 and S355 H-section under
axial compression, providing an insight into the buckling
behavior of high strength (CES) columns. Their nonlinear
finite element analyses also predicted the buckling resis­
tance and trace the load-displacement behaviour of these
columns. Lai, Liew, and Le Hoang (2019) presented an
experimental program studying a structural behaviour of
high-strength Concrete Encased Steel (CES) composite
columns, finding that steel contribution ratio played
a dominant role in the ductility, whereas increasing
hoop reinforcement ratio and adding steel fiber has neg­
ligible effect. They also proposed a simplified formula to
evaluate ductility of high-strength CES columns.
Hong et al. (2015) presented a “modified strain
compatibility approach” for a broad range of yield
and load limit states which was limited to the frame
without axial loads. This approach also did not con­
sider the confining effect provided by steel sections
to accurately predict the nominal flexural capacity,
leading to inaccurate predicted strengths of the
composite frames. Analytical investigations of inelas­
tic behavior, particularly to understand the concrete
confinement effect from the steel flanges of con­
crete-encased steel columns with both axial and lat­
eral loads at concrete strains of 0.003, were reported
by El-Tawil and Deierlein (1999). In their approach,
a steel section was discretized into many small
regions in order to use the fiber method, and each
region represents a fiber of material running long­
itudinally along the member (Figure 1). In a statistical
analysis of slender composite column strength
(Mirza, Hyttinen, and Hyttinen 1996) subdivided con­
crete into three types: unconfined concrete outside
the lateral ties, highly confined concrete between the
steel web and flanges, and partially confined con­
crete located inside the lateral ties but outside the
influence of the steel section.

Figure 1. Two simplified zones with concrete stress-strain profiles and axial and lateral forces. (a) Concrete confined by stirrups
and a steel section (Parabolic arching formed by the longitudinal bars and structural steel section El-Tawil and Deierlein 1999). (b)
Strains, stresses, and corresponding force components at the maximum lateral load limit state for the column introduced by (Chen
and Lin 2006) with 30% axial load column capacity (hoop spacing = 75 mm).
 JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING
However, neither the work of (El-Tawil and Deierlein
1999) nor (Mirza, Hyttinen, and Hyttinen 1996) quanti­
fied the beneficial residual strength provided by the
steel flanges in concrete strains between 0.003 and
0.01 when both axial and lateral loads were applied
with considering confining effects provided by wide
steel sections, although they stated that the presence
of a large steel core provided the advantage of provid­
ing residual strength after concrete crushing, leading
to improved ductility.
1.2. Methodology for prediction of in-elastic
structural behavior of steel-concrete composite
columns
Prediction of the flexural strength of steel columns
encased in structural concrete has conventionally
accounted for a single confining effect offered by
transverse reinforcements. The flexural strengths of
the composite columns were relatively well predicted
for concrete strains up to 0.003 when the confine­
ments of concrete provided by a wide flange steel
section in the compression zone were not considered.
However, the flexural strengths of the composite col­
umns were significantly underestimated at large con­
crete strains without considering concrete confined by
wide flange steel sections in the compression zone.
The aim of this study is to present an analytical
model for predicting the nonlinear in-elastic structural
behavior of steel-concrete composite columns that
accounts for concrete confined by both transverse
reinforcements and steel sections. Additional confin­
ing effects provided by the wide flange of the steel
section were divided into zones; a highly confined
region and a partially confined region. These zones
were idealized with the equivalent confining factor.
The proposed analytical model was based on the cur­
vatures obtained through the appropriate equivalent
confinement factors, Ke, which were derived from the
concrete confined by both transverse reinforcements
and wide flange steel sections. This study presents an
analytical model that considers the confining effects
provided by the steel flange, and the results demon­
strate post-yield behavior similar to that observed
experimentally. The fracture criteria and strength with
ductility of composite columns were determined with
the analytical model accounting for the inelastic stress-
strain response of concrete proposed by (Mander,
Priestley, and Park 1988). The change in composite
column behavior for varying nominal compression
strength of concrete is considered, as is the concrete
confinement by reinforcing bar ties. The analytical
model was based on the elasto-plastic in tension and
elasto-buckling of rebars and steels in compression.
The buckling in compression region degrading com­
posite columns was considered in the computational
model developed in this study, demonstrating post-
649
yield structural behavior similar to that reported by (El-
Tawil and Deierlein 1999). Internal loads exerted from
rebars and steel sections were calculated. The analysis
is limited to short columns, and thus slenderness
effects are not considered. The proposed analytical
model made predictions based on the double confin­
ing effects, and its results were compared to experi­
mental results and finite element analysis results.
Rebars were assumed to buckle and lose their strength
as a result of local buckling in the compression zone
when the concrete cover reaches peak strength.
Mathematical expressions were derived for the com­
posite columns based on strain compatibility and were
used to estimate the neutral axis and flexural moment
strength interactions with axial forces. The equivalent
confinement factor, Ke, was introduced to model the
two concrete zones confined by the steel flange and
hoops and can evaluate the influence of the wide
flange of the steel section on the concrete confine­
ment. The equivalent confining factors for highly con­
fined and partially confined regions were determined,
and idealized to account for the confinement provided
by the wide steel flange in the constitutive material
properties. The flexural load carrying capacity and
post-yield behavior were examined at both the yield
limit and maximum load limit states and were vali­
dated by previously published experimental data and
numerical results from a nonlinear finite element
analysis.
2. Analytical model of the concrete confined
by hoops and wide-flange steel sections based
on the equivalent confining factors
2.1. Equivalent confining factors
Parabolic arching was assumed for the area of the
effectively confined concrete core by the reinforcing
bars (Mander, Priestley, and Park 1988; Sheikh and
Uzumeri 1982). In Figure 1(a), concrete was subdivided
into the three types by Mirza, Hyttinen, and Hyttinen
(1996), including an unconfined concrete region out­
side the parabolic arching formed by the longitudinal
bars, a highly confined region inside the arching
formed by the steel section, and a partially confined
region located outside the highly confined concrete
region but inside the parabolic arching formed by the
longitudinal bars.
In this study, these zones are simplified as two
zones based on equivalent confined zone and
unconfined zone, as shown in Figure 1(b). Arching
similar to that suggested by Mirza and Skrabek
(1992), El-Tawil and Deierlein (1999) and Chen and
Lin (2006) was idealized as straight to form
a concrete region confined by the structural steel
section. The confinement factors (Kp and Kh) shown
in Equations (1) and (2) were defined by (Chen and
650 D. H. NGUYEN AND W.-K. HONG
Figure 2. Concrete stresses – strain relationships for zones based on equivalent confining factors (based the confined Mander
curves).
Lin 2006) for the partially and highly confined con­
crete, respectively. However, there was no equa­
tions were provided to calculate Kp and Kh. Chen
and Lin (2006) found the Kp and Kh values which
make their analytical model match the experimental
results. In the present analytical model, the concrete
stress–strain relationships in Figure 2 was proposed
to define the equivalent confining factor (refer to
Equation (3)), idealizing a highly confined region
and a partially confined region. In Equations (1–3),
the equivalent confining factors accounted for the
confinements provided by the transverse reinforcing
steels and the wide steel flange.
fcc ¼ Kp fco
fcc ¼ Kh fco
fcc ¼ Ke fco
Ke was determined by trial method. The different Ke
values were tried until the calculated results matched
the test results.
Figure 3. Stress–strain relations in compression and tension (Chen and Lin 2006). (a) Longitudinal reinforcing bar in (b) Structural
steel in the compression zone (Chen and Lin 2006).
2.2. Constitutive models considering buckling of
the longitudinal bars and structural steel
Chen and Lin (2006) found the buckling strain of rein­
forcing bar and steel from the experimental results.
A constitutive model for the longitudinal reinforcing
rebars in the compression zone, shown in Figure 3(a),
was suggested by (Bayrak and Sheikh 2001) based on
the load-carrying capacity and inelastic buckling of the
longitudinal rebars under the compression observed
experimentally. The longitudinal bar under the com­
pression reached the yield strength followed by a yield
plateau. The stress of the rebars began to degrade
when the axial strain of the rebars reached εco, which
(1) corresponds to the peak compressive stress, fco, of the
unconfined concrete. It was assumed that spalling of
the concrete cover caused the rebars to buckle and
(2) lose their strength when the concrete cover reached
the peak strength. The stress of the rebars decreased to
20% of its yield strength when the axial strain reached
(3) a value of four times εco, and remained constant after
that. A stress–strain relationship similar to that for the
longitudinal rebars was also employed to model the
structural steel section, as shown in Figure 3(b). The
local buckling of the elements such as the flanges of
 JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 651

the structural steel section was assumed to occur when
the partially confined concrete reached a crushing
strength. Stress degradation was assumed to occur
after the axial strain reached εcc,p, which represents
the crushing of the partially confined concrete. The
post-peak strength of the steel sections decreased to
the 20% of its yield strength when the axial strain
reached four times εcc,p. An elasto-plastic constitutive
relationship was used to model the longitudinal rein­
forcing steels and steel sections of the composite
members subjected to a flexural bending moment in
block, indicated by c2 in Figure 1(b), which illustrates
the two idealized zones which includes the unconfined
concrete zone (refer to green regions in Figure 1(b),
Equations (4) and (5)) and equivalent confined con­
crete zone (refer to orange region in Figure 1(b),
Equation (6)), when 30% axial load of column capacity
was exerted.
For the unconfined concrete (green region of Figure
1(b)), the compressive forces on the concrete block are
given by based on the Mander curve;
0

the tension zone. Cc1 ¼ α1 � c1 � B1 � fc (4)

0
C 0c1 ¼ α01 � c2 � B2 � fc (5)
3. Analytical model of the confinement by
transverse reinforcements and wide flange For the equivalent confined concrete (orange region of
steel sections Figure 1(b)), based on the Mander curves;

3.1. Formulation of the analytical model Cc2 ¼ α2 � c2 � B2 � f 0cc (6)

The geometric configuration of the steel column encased
in the structural concrete is found in Figure 1(a), and the
Appendix contains additional notations and dimensions
of the section.
Figure 1(b) shows the neutral axes satisfying the
equilibrium of a section based on the two simplified
zones, along with concrete stress-strain profiles.
A formulation of the analytical model was performed
at the maximum load and ultimate load limit states.
The nominal flexural strength was calculated at the
maximum limit state, whereas the ultimate flexural
strength was obtained when the substantial contribu­
tion of the concrete was lost.
The compressive concrete blocks and the neutral axes, c1
and c2, in which the depth of each compressive concrete
block was obtained from the neutral axis, c1. The com­
pressive concrete blocks c2, the mean stress factors αi
and the centroid factors yi were shown in the Appendix.
The equilibrium equations are given in Equations (7)
and (8), from which the neutral axis, c1 ; is calculated.
Faxial þ Cc þ FRcompression þ Fsteelcompression ¼ FRtension þ Fsteeltenstion
(7)
or
Faxial ¼ FRtension þ Fsteeltenstion Cc FRcompression
Fsteelcompression ; (8)

The internal forces contributed by the structural com­

3.2. Maximum load limit state ponents of the section for the tension are as follows:
Concrete compressive forces for the two zones, includ­
FRtension ¼ Ar3 � Er � εr3 þ Ar4 � fyR
ing the unconfined concrete zone (green regions in d3 c1
Figure 1(b), Equations (4) and (5)) and the equivalent ¼ Ar3 � Er � εyS � þ Ar4
h þ ds c1 0:5tf 2
confined concrete zone (orange region in Figure 1(b), � fyR
Equation (6)) were calculated, where c1 (Figure 1(b)) is
(9)
the neutral axis of the section at the maximum load
limit state. The depth of the compressive concrete
Fsteeltenstion ¼ 0:5 � As4 � fs4 þ As5 � fyS
block is indicated by c2 (Figure 1(b)), which represents
¼ 0:5��
� ½ðh þ ds c1 tf 2 Þ � tw �� �
the equivalent zone confined by the steel section. h þ ds c1 t f 2
The relationships between the compressive con­ � εyS � � Es þ b f
h þ ds c1 0:5tf 2
crete blocks and the neutral axes, c1 and c2 , are also � tf � fyS
established in Equations (6) and (A1). These equations
(10)
are based on the Mander confining curve. The mean
stress factors (α) and centroid factors (γÞare derived in The internal forces contributed by the structural com­
Equations (A2) through (A4) and (A5) through (A7) in ponents of the section for the compression based on
appendix, respectively. Equations (11) through (13) are as follows:

Cc ¼ α1 � c1 � B1 � fc0 α01 � c2 � B2 � fc0 þ α2 � c2

3.3. Maximum load limit state with 30% axial � B2 � fcc0
load column capacity (11)

The equivalent zone confined by the steel section was

FRcompression ¼ ðAr1 þ Ar2 Þ � fyR (12)
determined by the depth of the compressive concrete
652 D. H. NGUYEN AND W.-K. HONG
Fsteelcompression ¼ ðAs1 þ As2 Þ � fyS þ 0:5 � As3 � fyS
¼ ðAs1 þ As2 þ 0:5As3 Þ � fyS
¼ ½bf � tf 1 þ ð2c1 2ds h tf 1 0:5tf 2 Þ
� tw þ 0:5 � ðh þ ds c1 0:5tf 2 Þ � tw � � fyS
¼ ½bf � tf 1 þ ð1:5c1 1:5ds 0:5h tf 1
0:75tf 2 Þ � tw � � fyS
The nominal moment strength at the maximum load
limit state can be obtained using Equation (14):
Mnominal¼ MR=centroid þ Msteel=centroid MConc=centroid ;
Finally, the flexural moment capacities provided by the
structural components with respect to the centroid are as
follows:
MR=centroid ¼ Ar3 � Er � εr3 � ðd3 dc Þ þ Ar4 � fyR
� ðd4 dc Þ Ar1 � fyR � ðd1 dc Þ Ar2
� fyR � ðd2 dc Þ ¼ Ar3 � Er � εyS
d3 c1
� � ðd3 dc Þ þ Ar4
h þ ds c1 0:5tf 2
� fyR � ðd4 dc Þ Ar1 � fyR � ðd1 dc Þ
Ar2 � fyR � ðd2 dc Þ
Msteel=centroid ¼ 0:5 � As4 � fs4 � ðds4 dc Þ þ As5
� fyS � ðds5 dc Þ As1 � fyS
� ðds1 dc Þ As2 � fyS � ðds2 dc Þ
0:5 � As3 � fyS � ðds3 dc Þ ¼ 0:5
� ½ðh þ ds c1 tf 2 Þ � tw �
�� � �
h þ ds c1 tf 2
� εyS � � Es
h þ ds c1 0:5tf 2
� ðds4 dc Þ þ bf � tf � fyS � ðds5
� established in the present model. The axial load–strain
bf � tf 1 � fyS � ðds1 dc Þ
þ ð2c1 2ds h tf 1 0:5tf 2 Þ � tw
� fyS � ðds2 dc Þ þ 0:5
� ðh þ ds c1 0:5tf 2 Þ
� for the hoop spacings of 140 mm (29.5 MPa), 75 mm
� tw � fyS � ðds3 dc Þ
MConc=centroid ¼ α1 � c1 � B1 � f 0c � ðγ1 � c1 dc Þ α01
� c2 � B2 � fc0 � ðγ0 1 � c2 þ x1 dc Þ
þ α2 � c2 � B2 � fcc0
� ðγ2 � c2 þ x1 dc Þ
The neutral axis and the corresponding nominal
moment capacity of a concrete section encasing the
steel sections with the application of the axial loads
were calculated based on the computation algorithm
(Figure 4) when the concrete sections are confined by
the hoops and the steel sections. This algorithm auto­
matically analyzed entire sections from the top to the
bottom of the composite section to locate the neutral
axis of the section based on the iterations indicated in
the flow chart. The internal loads exerted from the
rebars and the steel sections for the given sections
were also calculated to design the composite sections.
More than 1.3 billion global and local sub-iterations
were performed for each analysis, taking less than
(13) 10 min per column member using a desktop computer,
to produce highly accurate neutral axes. The results
including the nominal moment capacity and post-yield
structural behavior of the composite columns were
verified by the comparison to the numerical nonlinear
(14) finite element analysis results considering concrete
damaged plasticity.
4. Influence of the confining effect by steel
sections on the steel columns encased in
structural concrete
4.1. Verification analysis; study of (Chen and Lin
2006) with wide flanges steel sections and axial
loads
(Chen and Lin 2006) tested the concrete encased steel
composite column specimens with the wide flange
(15) steel sections, as shown in Figure 5. The axial load–
strain relationships published by (Chen and Lin 2006)
are compared to the results of this study in Figure 6 for
the varying compressive strains. The axial strengths
predicted by the present analytical model of this
study agreed well with the experimental and analytical
data reported by (Chen and Lin 2006).
The analytical model in this study is based on an
equivalent confining effect predicted for both the pre-
peak and post-peak behavior. The degradation model
for the longitudinal bars and structural steel was well
dc Þ
relationships corresponding to Lines 1&2, 4&5 and 6&7
in Figure 6 illustrate values at which the two studies
had strong correlations. The confining factors (Kh and
Kp) were 1.23 and 1.08, 1.24 and 1.22, and 1.5 and 1.5
(28.1 MPa), and 35 mm (29.8 MPa), respectively. These
(16)
confining factors were idealized as 1.105, 1.23 and 1.5,
respectively, as shown in Figure 2. However, the axial
load–strain relationship that was obtained based on an
equivalent confining factor of 1.0 (Line 8 in Figure 6)
exhibited considerable differences, indicating that the
confining factors should be adjusted to account for the
(17)
strength that is estimated based on the confining effect
provided by the steel section. The test data (refer to
Legend 3 in Figure 6) published by (Chen and Lin 2006)
were in relatively good agreement with their analytical
results and with the results of the model proposed in
this study. The present study located the neutral axis
depth exerted by both axial load and moment whereas
the experimental and analytical investigation of (Chen
 JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 653

Figure 4. Computation algorithm and analytical equations used to calculate the nominal flexural moment capacity.

Figure 5. Test specimens of concrete encased steel composite columns with a wide flange steel section (Chen and Lin 2006).

Figure 6. Verification analysis of axial load–strain relationships for concrete with hoop spacings of 140 mm (29.5 MPa, SRC1), 75 mm
(28.1 MPa, SRC2), and 35 mm (29.8 MPa, SRC3) and equivalent confining factors; columns tested by Chen and Lin (2006) (Figure 5).
654 D. H. NGUYEN AND W.-K. HONG
and Lin 2006) based on axial loads only was not able to
find neutral axis due to the absence of the lateral loads.
4.2. Verification analysis; study of (El-Tawil and
Deierlein 1999) with the wide flanges steel
sections and axial/lateral loads
4.2.1. Verification analysis column S-08-L with axial
and lateral load combinations; highly (100 mm) and
lightly (320 mm) confined columns with
strength = 28 MPa
(El-Tawil and Deierlein 1999) performed a numerical
analysis on the sections having a steel ratio of As/Ag
= 0.08 (denoted as S-08) and low strength (28 MPa,
denoted as L), medium strength (69 MPa, M) and high
strength (110 MPa, H) concrete, as shown in Figure 7(a,
b). In Figure 7(a), a transverse hoop reinforcement of
16 mm in diameter with four branches was placed at
100 mm for the concrete with f’c = 28 and 69 MPa, and at
75 mm for the concrete with f’c = 110 MPa in accordance
with the seismic provisions in AISC/LRFD for the special
moment frames. The transverse reinforcement in Figure
7(b) consisted of 16 mm diameter ties spaced at 320 mm
in accordance with the non-seismic standard ACI 318
requirements. The analytical results for the concrete
strength (28 MPa) obtained by this study (refer to
Legend 2 of Figure 8(a-1,a-2)) are compared to the
data published by (El-Tawil and Deierlein 1999) for the
axial loads of 30% of Pu/Pn and 60% of Pu/Pn as shown in
Figure 8(a-1) and (a)-(2) where the good correlations for
both the highly and lightly confined columns were also
exhibited up to the concrete strain of 0.01 for the axial
loads of a 60% of Pu/Pn. In Figure 8(a-1), the moment–
strain relationships obtained from the finite element
analysis considering the damaged concrete plasticity
were also well correlated with that predicted by the
Figure 7. Composite columns S-08 (El-Tawil and Deierlein 1999). (a) Details of Seismic Hoop Reinforcement for S-08. (Hoop spacing @
100 mm (highly confined) for concrete with f’c = 28 and 69 MPa, and @ 75 mm for 110 MPa). (b) Prototype composite columns S-08 (Hoop
spacing @ 320 mm (lightly confined) for non-seismic standard).
proposed analytical model for the axial loads of 30% of
Pu/Pn.
4.2.2. Verification analysis column with the axial
and lateral load combinations; highly (100 mm) and
lightly (320 mm) confined columns with
strength = 69 MPa and 110 MPa
Good correlations for the highly confined columns
with a medium concrete strength (M = 69 MPa) at
both the axial load ratios (30% and 60% of Pu/Pn)
similar to those obtained from the low concrete
strength (L = 28 MPa) are presented in Figure 8(b-1,
b-2). Relatively good correlations were exhibited by
the lightly confined columns at 30% and 60% of Pu/Pn
axial loads up to the strain of 0.01, as can be seen in
Figure 8(b-1,b-2). The moment–strain relationship for
the column with a concrete strength of 110MPa (H) is
shown in Figure 8(c) which was similar to one observed
from the column with concrete strength of 69 MPa.
4.2.3. P-M diagram
For the columns tested by (El-Tawil and Deierlein 1999)
(refer to Figure 7), the P-M interaction diagrams (refer to
Figure 8(a-3,b-3,c-3)) obtained by the analytical model of
this study were compared with those calculated by the
AISC, ACI codes and (El-Tawil and Deierlein 1999). For the
lightly confined columns (hoops at 320 mm) having
a compressive concrete strength of 28 MPa shown in
Figure 8(a-3), the present study demonstrates the axial-
moment interaction diagram similar to that of both the
ACI code and (El-Tawil and Deierlein 1999); the model
proposed in this study correlated with that by the ACI
code better than those of the (El-Tawil and Deierlein 1999)
in the regions with low axial loads. The present study
demonstrates the P-M interaction diagrams similar to
the P-M interaction diagrams obtained by the ACI code
 JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 655

Figure 8. Failure criterion of the column described in Figure 7(a) based on the confined concrete by both rebars and encased steel
section; columns tested by El-Tawil and Deierlein (1999). (a) Verification analysis column S-08-L with axial and lateral load combinations;
highly (100 mm) and lightly (320 mm) confined columns with strength = 28 MPa. (b) Verification analysis column S-08-M with axial and
lateral load combinations; highly (100 mm) and lightly (320 mm) confined columns with strength = 69 MPa. (c) Highly (75 mm) and lightly
(320 mm) columns S-08-H of 110 MPa strength. (d) P-M diagram for highly confined columns (100 mm) of 28 MPa. (e) Influence of axial
load ratio (Pu/Pn) on the moment–curvature relationships for highly (100 mm) confined composite columns with low concrete strength
(28 MPa). (f) Influence of the confining effects vs. concrete strength.

for the lightly confined columns (hoops at 320 mm) hav­
ing a compressive concrete strength of 69 and 110 MPa
for the entire axial loads as can be seen in Figure 8(b-3,
c-3); better correlation with the ACI code was found by
the present model than one provided by (El-Tawil and
Deierlein 1999) when a compressive concrete strength of
69 and 110 MPa were used.
4.2.4. P-M diagram for highly confined columns
(100 mm) of 28 MPa
The P-M interaction diagrams calculated by the AISC,
ACI (El-Tawil and Deierlein 1999) and the presents study
for the wide flange steel section are compared in Figure
8(d-1) where the P-M interaction diagrams for the highly
confined (hoops at 100 mm) columns (28MPa strength),
656 D. H. NGUYEN AND W.-K. HONG
(Continued).
identifying the influence of the confining effect by steel
sections (refer to Legend 5 of Figure 8(d-1)) was pre­
sented. As can be seen with the P-M diagram derived for
a concrete strength of 28 MPa indicated by Legend 4 of
Figure 8(d-1), it was demonstrated by the P-M diagram
that both the models by (El-Tawil and Deierlein 1999)
and the present study demonstrate a good correlation
with that of the ACI when the confining effect provided
by the steel sections was not considered (refer to Ke
= 1.055). However, the P-M diagram calculated by the
ACI and (El-Tawil and Deierlein 1999) was slightly under­
estimated when the confining effect provided by the
steel sections was considered (refer to Ke = 1.7) as
shown in the P-M diagram for the highly confined
columns represented by Legend 5 of Figure 8(d-1).
This is because that the P-M diagram calculated by the
ACI did not consider the confining effect provided by
the steel sections.
4.2.5. Influence of the axial load ratio (Pu/Pn) on the
moment–curvature relationships for the highly
(100 mm) confined composite columns with the low
concrete strength (28 MPa)
The effect of the axial loads ratio (Pu/Pn) on the
moment–curvature relationships of the highly con­
fined composite columns with the 100 mm spaced
 JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING
(Continued).
hoops and a concrete strength (L = 28 MPa) is illu­
strated in Figure 8(e). This figure provides the failure
criterion of the column described in Figure 7(a)
based on the confined concrete by both the rebars
and the encased steel section for the wide strain
range. The composite columns can be designed in
the consideration of the confining effects by the
both confining components based on this graphical
assistance to determine the performance-based
structural capacity of the composite concrete col­
umns encasing the steel sections. The confining
657
effects became less influential as concrete strength
increased, as shown in Figure 8(f).
5. Nonlinear finite element analysis
5.1. Three-dimensional FE model for
steel-concrete composite column
The finite element (FE) model was discretized based on
C3D8 R solid elements, as shown in Figures 9 and 10.
A fine mesh of 9 mm was used for the fixed end of the
658 D. H. NGUYEN AND W.-K. HONG
(Continued).
column while a coarse mesh of 18 mm was used at all
other locations (refer to Figure 9(a)). A symmetric mod­
eling technique (SXM = U1 = UR2 = UR3 = 0) was
employed in this study to reduce the number of
degrees of freedom (DOF), as well as to enhance the
solution accuracy of the analysis. The embedded
model was used for the stirrups. The stirrups were
considered as the elements that embedded in the
concrete (called host region). In the first step of the
analysis, the FE model was loaded with an axial load
equivalent to 30% of the axial capacity (P0) of the
composite column introduced by (Chen and Lin
2006). Then, a constant lateral load controlled by the
displacement was exerted at a height of 1.2 m (see
Figure 9(b)) until the steel-concrete column reached
failure. In Figure 10, the interactions between the con­
crete, reinforcing bars, and steel were modeled based
on the cohesive contacts and tie constraint method
available in ABAQUS User’s Manual (Dassault Systèmes
Simulia Corp 2014). The two surfaces, the master and
slave surfaces, were chosen as depicted in Figure 10.
The surfaces of the H-steels and reinforcing bars were
defined as master surfaces, whereas the concrete sur­
face was defined as a slave surface. The yield strengths
of the H-steel and rebars were 296 MPa and 350 MPa,
respectively. The nonlinear concrete behaviors were
 JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING
(Continued).
(Continued).
investigated based on a concrete damage plasticity
model. The constitutive relationships for the concrete
material were established based on the unconfined
stress-strain curve suggested by (Mander, Priestley,
and Park 1988). The concrete compressive strength
was defined as 28 MPa, while the tensile strength of
the concrete was assigned a value of 2.8 MPa. The
dilation angle, viscosity, eccentricity, fb0/fc0 ratio, and
Kc parameters were assigned of 30°, 0.003, 0.1, 1.16,
and 0.6667, respectively. The 30° dilation angle was
also selected based on the recommendations in
659
a study published by (Malm 2006). Both the dilation
angle and the eccentricity were incorporated into the
non-associative Drucker-Prager (DP) formulation,
which is given in Equation (18);
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
GðσÞ ¼ ð�σt0 tanψÞ2 þ q �2 p �tanψ (18)
where ψ is the dilation angle measured in the
p-q plane at high confining pressures. σto is the uniax­
� is the hydrostatic pressure, q
ial tensile stress, p � is the
von Mises equivalent effective stress, and � is the
660 D. H. NGUYEN AND W.-K. HONG

Figure 9. Three-dimensional FE model developed for use with the composite column: elements and discretization. (a) FEA meshes.
(b) Application of axial loads on symmetric model. (c) Constitutive relations with concrete damaged plasticity (CDP); scalar damage
variables (Hong 2019).

(Continued).

eccentricity of 0.1. A viscosity value of 0.003 was
assigned to lower the plastic degradation of the con­
crete material, leading to a better convergence.
Figure 9(c) shows the constitutive relationship of con­
crete in uniaxial tension and compression with the
concrete damaged plasticity (CDP), where the scalar stiff­
ness degradation variables for compression and tension
defined by dc and dt, respectively. Readers are referred to
Abaqus manual (Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp 2014)
for details of descriptions. In Figure 9(c), the damage
 JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 661

(Continued).

Figure 10. Modeling of reinforcing bars and steels in steel–concrete composite members; tie modeling technique (Nzabonimpa
2018).

parameters for full, half, and 10% degradations were
illustrated in the concrete damaged plasticity model of
the unconfined concrete (compressive strength of 21
MPa) proposed by Kent and Park. The softening of con­
crete in the compression region began from the end of
the linear region (equivalent to 0.4 f’c) whereas the
damages in the tension region initiated after the concrete
reached its maximum tensile stress, σt0, which is equiva­
lent to 1/10 of the compressive strength of concrete, σcu.
Abaqus manual for details of descriptions can be also
referred.
5.2. Non-linear finite element analysis with the
concrete damaged plasticity (CDP)
(Chen and Lin 2006) tested the wide flange steel columns
encased in the structural concrete depicted in Figure 5.
662 D. H. NGUYEN AND W.-K. HONG

The geometric and material properties of these compo­

site columns and the material properties used in the
analytical modeling are summarized in Tables 1 and 2.
(Chen and Lin 2006) stated that the confining effect was
enhanced by the structural steel, indicating that the con­
finement factor (Kh) for the highly confined concrete, and
the confining stress on the core concrete was influenced
by the shape of the structural steel section. The present
study performed a numerical investigation of the pro­
posed frames using a finite element analysis (FEA) that
accounts for the concrete plasticity to explore the confin­
ing effects of the wide flange steel. An earlier study (Hu,
Hong, and Park 2017) identified the nonlinear FEA para­
meters for predicting the structural behavior of the steel
sections encased in structural concrete.

5.3. P-M interaction diagram based on the double

confinement
5.3.1. Strain evolutions
The analytical model presented in this section considered
both the axial load and moment, capable of determining
changes in the neutral axis depth due to the lateral loads,
while the model suggested by Chen and Lin (2006), based
on the axial loads only, was not able to consider changes
in the neutral axis depth changed by the lateral loads for
their experimental and analytical investigation. Figure 11
(a) shows the axial force-moment (P-M) interaction dia­
gram for the columns with a compressive strength of 28.1
MPa (column introduced by Chen with a hoop spacing of
75 mm) accounting for the double confinement provided
by both transverse reinforcements and a wide flange steel
section in the compression zone. In the P-M interaction
diagrams (Figure 11(a)), the strains evolved between
0.001 and 0.01 with an equivalent confining factor (Ke,
obtained from the average of Kh and Kp) of 1.23. The
equivalent confining factor (Ke) of 1.23 provided the

Table 1. Geometric properties of the composite columns.

Composite columns section, mm x mm DxB 280 x 280
Height of concrete column, mm D 280
Width of concrete column, mm B 280
Depth of H-steel section, mm h 150
Width of H-steel section, mm bf 150
Web thickness of H-steel section, mm tw 7
Flange thickness of H-steel section, mm tf 10 Figure 11. P-M diagrams for strain evolutions (equivalent con­
Rebar diameter, mm Ø 15.96 fining factors) with a hoop spacing of 75 mm, EL-PL for rebar &
steel except EL-buckling for rebar in compression columns with
compressive strength of 28.1 MPa tested by (Chen and Lin 2006)
(Figure 5, SRC2). (a) P-M diagrams for concrete with a hoop
Table 2. Material properties. spacing of 75 mm and concrete strains between 0.001 and 0.01.
Concrete compressive strength, MPa f’c 28.1 (b) Concrete strain of 0.001. (c) Concrete strain of 0.002. (d)
Yield strength of rebar, MPa fyR 350 Concrete strain of 0.003. (e) Concrete strain of 0.005. (f) Concrete
Yield strength of steel, MPa fyS 296
strain of 0.007. (g) Concrete strain of 0.01.
 JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING
axial and flexural strengths similar to those obtained
using Kh (1.24) and Kp (1.22), for a hoop spacing of
75 mm, shown in Figure 11(a).
5.3.2. Fracture criteria
The fracture criteria were presented at the ultimate
limit state. A strain level of 0.01 was established as
the ultimate limit state, and it was recommended
that the performance limit of the composite col­
umns can be evaluated at this limit state. The
selected P-M interaction diagrams are shown in
Figure 11(b–g). The P-M diagram showing the inter­
action between the axial force and moment inter­
action decreased for a concrete strain greater than
0.003 because the degradation of the concrete
strength commenced at a concrete strain of 0.003
(Figure 2). In Figure 11(b–g), the P-M diagrams for
the columns with equivalent confining factors are
compared to those for the columns that did not
consider the confinement provided by the wide
steel flange for the concrete strains of 0.001, 0.002,
0.003, 0.005, 0.007 and 0.01. The strengths provided
by an equivalent confining factor of 1.23 were com­
pared with those obtained when the equivalent
confining factors was fixed at 1.0. The fracture cri­
teria based on the flexural strengths of the compo­
site columns with zero axial load well correlated
with the finite element results for the concrete
strains less than 0.005 (Figure 11(b–e)). However,
the flexural strengths were considerably underesti­
mated for the larger concrete strains (Figure 11(f,g))
when the confinement provided by the wide flange
steel section in the compression zone was not con­
sidered. This became more apparent at concrete
strains greater than 0.003 (Figure 11(d)) when axial
forces increased. This underestimation of the com­
posite columns was observed where there were
considerable differences between the strength esti­
mated by accounting for the confining effect pro­
vided by the steel section and the strength
estimated while ignoring the confinement from
the steel section. The degree of underestimation
increased with increasing the axial loads on the
Table 3. Flexural capacities of the columns tested by Chen and Lin (2006) at the maximum and design load and
design load limit states (εc = 0.003) with 30% axial load column capacity, Ke;1.105 (140 mm, 29.5 MPa); 1.23 (75 mm,
28.1 MPa); and 1.5 (35 mm, 29.8 MPa).
Maximum load/concrete Maximum moment/con­
Ke strain crete strain
(a) Elasto-plastic (steel + rebar) in both tension and compression, confined Mander curve
Run1 1.00 158.1 kN/0.0040 189.7 kN.m/0.0040
Run2 1.105 163.8 kN/0.0046 196.6 kN.m/0.0046
Run3 1.23 167.6 kN/0.0054 201.1 kN.m/0.0054
Run4 1.50 173.1 kN/0.0060 207.7 kN.m/0.0060
(b) Elasto-plastic (steel + rebar) and EL-buckling for rebar in compression, confined Mander curve
Run1 1.00 153.6 kN/0.0036 184.3 kN.m/0.0036
Run2 1.105 157.5 kN/0.0040 189.0 kN.m/0.0040
Run3 1.23 160.0 kN/0.0042 191.8 kN.m/0.0042
Run4 1.50 164.2 kN/0.0040 197.0 kN.m/0.0048
663
composite columns, as shown in Figure 11. The
flexural capacities at the maximum load and design
load limit states (εc = 0.003) with a 30% axial load
column capacity are presented in Table 3. In Table 3
(b), the 5% decrease of the flexural strength was
observed based on the equivalent confining factor
of 1.5 at maximum load limit state when the buck­
ling for the rebars in compression is considered.
6. Fracture criteria based on the
three-dimensional P-M interaction diagrams
6.1. Three-dimensional P-M diagrams and the
fracture criteria
Three-dimensional P-M diagrams are presented in
Figure 12 for the column proposed by (Chen and Lin
2006) (Figure 5), where the three axes represent the
axial force, the moment and the compressive concrete
strains in the extreme fiber. Fracture surfaces are identi­
fied for the strains between 0.001 and 0.01 shown in
Figure 11(a). The material properties, dimensions and
geometry used in the construction of the three-
dimensional P-M diagrams in Figure 12(a,b) were iden­
tical to the test specimen used in Figure 5. The hoops
spaced at 75 mm with the double confinement based
on the equivalent confining factors provided by both
the transverse reinforcements and the wide flange steel
section in the compression zone was considered in the
three-dimensional P-M diagrams. In the FEA model, an
elasto-buckling relationship for the rebar in compres­
sion was implemented whereas the elasto-plastic rela­
tionship for both the rebars and steel sections in tension
was used. The buckling model introduced in Figure 3(a)
was implemented to account for the compressive frac­
ture of the rebars due to the flexural bending of the
sections. For the concrete strains between 0.001 and
0.01, the equivalent confining factors of 1.5, 1.23 and
1.105 for the hoop spacings of 35 mm, 75 mm and
140 mm, respectively, were found to reflect the confine­
ment effect due to the wide steel flange. The analytical
fracture curves with the confining effects by the steel
Design load (concrete Design moment (concrete
strain = 0.003) strain = 0.003)
153.7 kN 184.4 kN.m
154.6 kN 185.5 kN.m
155.0 kN 186.0 kN.m
156.8 kN 188.2 kN.m
152.0 kN 182.3 kN.m
152.8 kN 183.4 kN.m
153.3 kN 184.0 kN.m
155.2 kN 186.2 kN.m
664 D. H. NGUYEN AND W.-K. HONG
Figure 12. Three-dimensional fracture surfaces; columns with compressive strength of 28.1 MPa tested by Chen and Lin (2006)
(Figure 5, SRC2). (a) Three-dimensional P-M diagrams (b) Moment-concrete strain (axial) relationships.
section were consistent with the FEA results, as shown
in Figure 11. Figure 12(a,b) illustrates the evolution of
the fracture criteria for the strains from 0.001 to 0.01.
The moment–curvature relationships for the columns
proposed by (Chen and Lin 2006) for the varied com­
pressive concrete strains (curvatures) and the axial loads
are presented in Figure 12(a,b) with results that account
for the confining effects (Ke = 1.23) by the steel sections.
The moment-concrete strain relationships were
obtained for the specified axial loads. The moment-
concrete strain relationships were well compared to
the nonlinear finite element analysis accounting for
the concrete damage plasticity with no axial loads. The
finite element model used in Figure 12(a,b) considers
elasto-plastic for rebars and steel sections except for
implementing rebar bucking in compression zone, ver­
ifying the evolution of the fracture criteria. The
P-M diagrams shown in Figure 11(b–g) are summarized
in the three-dimensional P-M diagrams shown in Figure
12(a) and moment-concrete strain (axial) relationships
shown in Figure 12(b). The flexural moment capacity
from the finite element study were well compared with
those from the analytical model developed in this study
for the strain ranges between 0.001 and 0.01 when were
no axial loads.
6.2. Influence of the confining effect by the steel
section with the buckling of rebars
In Figure 13, the concrete strains were evaluated at
the extreme fiber in the compressive concrete
region. The influence of the axial load and the
confining effects provided by the steel sections on
the flexural strength of the composite columns
were evaluated. In Figure 13(a), the influence of
the confinement provided by steel sections was
identified at varying curvatures and axial loads
with considering the buckling of the rebars. As
seen by comparing the moment–strain relationships
indicated by Legends 4/5, and 6/7 in Figure 13(a)
where the rebar bucking in the compression zone
was considered, the flexural strength substantially
decreased for the strains greater than ones corre­
sponding to the maximum flexural strength when
the confinement effect was neglected. In Figure 13
(b), influence of the rebar buckling was identified at
varying compressive concrete strains and axial
loads. It is worth noting in Figure 13(b) that, the
flexural moment capacity of the composite sections
degraded rapidly as the axial load increases as
shown in the flexural moments indicated by
Legends 2 and 3 for 30% axial loads and by
Legends 6 and 7 for 60% axial loads, respectively,
when the rebar bucking in the compression was
considered. This tendency became even more sig­
nificant as the axial load increases. However, the
differences were no longer significant for the flex­
ural moments indicated by Legends 2 and 3 with­
out the axial loads. The curvature–strain
relationships shown in Figure 13(c) demonstrate
that the curvatures were underestimated when the
confinement effects of the steel sections were
ignored. The analytical model was well verified by
the nonlinear FEA analysis, as illustrated in Figure
13(a–c).
 JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 665

Figure 13. Moment–curvature relationships for results that either account for or ignore the confining effects from steel sections
encased in columns with compressive strength of 28.1 MPa tested by Chen and Lin (2006) (Figure 5, SRC2). (a) Influence of
confining effect by steel section with buckling of rebars (EL-PL for both rebar & steel except EL-buckling for rebar in compression)
(moment vs. concrete curvature). (b) Influence of rebar buckling with confining effect by steel section (hoop spacing 75 mm). (c)
Curvature vs. compressive concrete strains identifying the influence of confining effect by steel sections (EL-PL for both rebar &
steel except EL-buckling for rebar in compression).

6.3. Idealized equivalent confining factors for the 7. Conclusions

double confinement
The equivalent confining factors do not vary relative to
the compressive concrete strains, as shown in Figure
14(a). The equivalent confining factors are idealized in
Figure 14(b) as a function of the hoop spacing. The
equivalent confining factors decreased with increasing
the hoop spacing distance, suggesting that the confin­
ing factor was approximately 1.5 at a hoop spacing of
35 mm decreasing to 1.1 at a hoop spacing of 140 mm.
Traditionally, the investigation of the confinement
effect offered by the steel sections has not received
an appropriate amount of attention. This may cause
an underestimate of the flexural load bearing capa­
city of steel columns encased in structural concrete
at the ultimate limit state, leading to conservative
estimation of their performance-based capacity. The
confining effects of the steel sections should not be
ignored for the strains greater than 0.003 when the
666 D. H. NGUYEN AND W.-K. HONG
Figure 14. Idealized equivalent confining factors for the double confinements without lateral loads; columns with a compressive
strength of 28.1 MPa tested by Chen and Lin (2006) (Figure 5, SRC2). (a) Equivalent confining factors at varying concrete strains. (b)
Equivalent confining factors with varying hoop spacing.
axial loads are applied. The moment–curvature rela­
tionships accounting for the confining effects by the
steel sections obtained with the proposed analytical
model agreed well with the results of the FEA study
at limit states including the yield, maximum load
and ultimate load limit state. The following conclu­
sions were drawn from the present analytical and
experimental studies.
7.1. Analytical model based on the equivalent
confining factors
The analytical model in which the concrete con­
finements provided by the rebars and steel sec­
tions were implemented was developed to obtain
the interactions between the moments and axial
forces based on the concrete confinements by the
rebars and steel sections. The equivalent confining
factors accounting for the double confinement
were idealized based on the concrete encased
steel composite columns with a wide flange steel
having different hoop spacings (35 mm, 75 mm
and 150 mm) tested by (Chen and Lin 2006). The
equivalent confining factor decreased to 1.105 at
a hoop spacing of 140 mm from a value of 1.5 at
a hoop spacing of 35 mm for the specimen
described by (Chen and Lin 2006). The equivalent
confining factors decreased with increasing hoop
spacing, indicating that the confinement by the
steel section was less influential as the hoop spa­
cing increased. The equivalent confining factors
did not change for the concrete strains between
0.001 and 0.01. The more reliable relationships
between the confining effects and the spacing of
hoop reinforcements need to be obtained based
on the additional test data. The equivalent confin­
ing factors (Ke,) introduced to consider the con­
finements provided by steel sections were verified
with FEA.
7.2. Performance and the fracture surfaces of the
concrete columns encasing steel sections
The elasto-buckling constitutive relationships for the
rebar and steel sections in the compression, and the
elasto-plastic relationship in the tension were imple­
mented. The concrete was modeled based on the
confined Mander constitutive equations, whereas the
unconfined constitutive equation was used to repre­
sent the concrete outside the hoop rebars. It seemed
that the amount of the confinements was very sensi­
tive to the post-yield behavior of the composite col­
umns, especially when the buckling in the
compression region degraded the columns. The buck­
ling of both the rebars and steel sections was consid­
ered in the computation developed in this study,
which demonstrated the post-yield structural behavior
similar to that reported by (El-Tawil and Deierlein
1999). The flexural strengths at the large strain levels
were significantly underestimated without considering
the confining effects provided by the steel sections
when the axial forces were applied. This tendency
became more significant when the buckling of the
rebars and steel sections in the compression zone
occurred. The traditional P-M diagrams under the
axial force and moments were recommended to be
modified for the concrete strains greater than 0.003
to account for the confinement provided by the wide
steel flange. This study showed how the accurate pre­
diction of the flexural strength and performance of the
composite columns encasing steel sections at the ulti­
mate limit state were performed based on the confine­
ment offered by the steel sections encased in concrete.
For the highly axially loaded columns, the flexural
strengths substantially different from those based on
no consideration of the confinements offered by the
encased steel sections occurred in the range of the
concrete strains between 0.003 and 0.01. It was note­
worthy that, for the highly confined columns, ACI code
(El-Tawil and Deierlein 1999) can underestimate the
 JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 667

P-M diagram at the large concrete strains when the
confining effects provided by the steel sections were
ignored. The design application and the use of the
confinement offered by the encased steel sections
should be implemented based on the accurate perfor­
mance of the steel-concrete composite columns. This
study presented the fracture surfaces of the columns
based on the interaction of the moments with axial
forces. The analytical model takes into consideration of
the confinement by the transverse hoops and the steel
sections with wide flanges. The constitutive relation­
ships of the composite columns based on the appro­
priate confining factors determined by the double
confining effect were verified with the nonlinear finite
element analysis considering the concrete plasticity.
Nomenclature
Ari area of rebar layer i (i=1-4), mm2;
Asi area of part i of H-steel section, mm2;
B width of the concrete section, mm;
Bi width of unconfined, equivalent confined
concrete area (i =1 - 2), mm;
ci height of concrete compression zone of
unconfined, equivalent confined concrete
area (i =1 - 2), mm;
Cci compressive force given by unconfined,
equivalent confined concrete area (i=1,2),
kN;
C’c1 compressive force given by equivalent
confined concrete area inside, kN;
D height of the concrete section, mm;
di distance from rebar layer i (i=1-4) to top of
concrete section, mm;
dc distance from centroid to top of the con­
crete section, mm;
ds distance from top flange of H-steel to top of
the concrete section, mm;
dsi distance from the force given by the part i of
H-steel to top of the concrete section, mm;
Es Young’s modulus of steel, MPa;
Er Young’s modulus of rebar, MPa;
Fri force given by rebar layer i (i=1,4), kN;
Fsi force given by part i of H-steel section
(i=1,4), kN;
εcmi strain at fiber of unconfined, equivalent
confined concrete area (i =1- 2);
εyR yield strain of rebar;
εyS yield strain of steel;
εri strain of rebar layer i (i=1-4);
εsi strain respect to part i of H-steel section;
fyR yield strength of rebar, MPa;
fyS yield strength of steel, MPa;
f’c compressive strength of unconfined con­
crete, MPa;
f’cc compressive strength of equivalent con­
fined concrete, MPa;
fc1 concrete compressive stress in term of con­
crete strain of unconfined area, MPa;
fc2 concrete compressive stress in term of con­
crete strain of equivalent confined area,
MPa;
h depth of H-steel section, mm;
Kh confinement factors for highly confined
concrete;
Kp Confinement factors for partially confined
concrete;
Ke confinement factors for equivalent con­
fined concrete;
tf1 top flange thickness of H-steel section, mm;
tf2 bottom flange thickness of H-steel section,
mm;
tw web thickness of H-steel section, mm;
x1 distance from the edge of the concrete
equivalent confined areas to the top of
the concrete section, mm;
w width of H-steel section, mm;
αi stress factors for the concrete areas i (i=1,2);
α’1 Stress factors for the concrete areas inside;
σt0 uniaxial tensile stress, MPa;
γi centroid factor for the concrete areas
i (i=1,2);
γ’ 1 centroid factor for the concrete areas
inside;
� eccentricity;
fb0 initial equibiaxial compressive yield stress
of concrete, MPa;
fc0 initial uniaxial compressive yield stress of
concrete, MPa;
Kc the ratio of the second stress invariant on
the tensile meridian;
G(σ) non-associated plastic flow potential,
Druker-Prager formulation;
�, q
p � the plane in which plastic potential func­
tion is defined;
ψ dilation angle.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by the Basic Science Research
Program through the National Research Foundation of
Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (NRF
−2016R1D1A1A02937558). This work was also supported by
the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant
funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No.
2019R1A2C2004965).
Notes on contributors
Dinh Han Nguyen is currently enrolled as a Ph.D. candidate in
the Department of Architectural Engineering at Kyung Hee
University, Republic of Korea. His research interest includes
precast composites structures.
Dr. Won-Kee Hong is a Professor of Architectural Engineering
at Kyung Hee University. Dr. Hong received his Master’s and
Ph.D. degrees from UCLA, and he worked for Englelkirk and
Hart, Inc. (USA), Nihhon Sekkei (Japan) and Samsung
Engineering and Construction Company (Korea) before join­
ing Kyung Hee University (Korea). He also has a professional
engineering license from both Korea and the USA. Dr. Hong
has more than 30 years of professional experience in struc­
tural engineering. His research interests include a new
approach to construction technologies based on value
668 D. H. NGUYEN AND W.-K. HONG
engineering with hybrid composite structures. He provided
many useful solutions to issues in current structural design
and construction technologies as a result of his research that
combines structural engineering with construction technol­
ogies. He is the author of numerous papers and patents both
in Korea and the USA. Currently, Dr. Hong is developing new
connections that can be used with various types of frames
including hybrid steel–concrete precast composite frames,
precast frames and steel frames. These connections would
contribute to the modular construction of heavy plant struc­
tures and buildings as well. He recently published a book
titled as “ Hybrid Composite Precast Systems: Numerical
Investigation to Construction” (Elsevier).
References
Bayrak, O., and S. A. Sheikh. 2001. “Plastic Hinge Analysis.”
Journal of Structural Engineering 127 (9): 1092–1100.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2001)127:9(1092).
Brettle, H. J. 1973. “Ultimate Strength Design of Composite
Columns.” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE 99: 1931–1951.
Bridge, R. Q., and J. W. Roderick. 1978. “Behavior of Built-up
Composite Columns.” Journal of the Structural Division,
ASCE 104: 1141–1155.
Chen, C. C., and N. J. Lin. 2006. “Analytical Model for Predicting
Axial Capacity and Behavior of Concrete Encased Steel
Composite Stub Columns.” Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 62 (5): 424–433. doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2005.04.021.
Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp. 2014. “ABAQUS Analysis
User’s Manual 6.14-2.” Providence, RI.
El-Tawil, S., and G. G. Deierlein. 1999. “Strength and Ductility
of Concrete Encased Composite Columns.” Journal of
Structural Engineering 125 (9): 1009–1019. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(1999)125:9(1009).
Furlong, R. W. 1974. “Concrete Encased Steel Columns-design
Tables.” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE 100: 1865–1882.
Hong, W. K. 2019. Hybrid Composite Precast Systems:
Numerical Investigation to Construction. Woodhead
Publishing, Elsevier.
Hong, W. K., Y. Lee, S. Kim, S. I. Kim, and Y. J. Yun. 2015. “Analytical
Investigation of Hybrid Composite Precast Beams with
Modified Strain Compatibility for Entire History of Nominal
Flexural Capacity.” The Structural Design of Tall and Special
Buildings 24 (13): 835–852. doi:10.1002/tal.1214.
Hu, J. Y., W. K. Hong, and S. C. Park. 2017. “Experimental
Investigation of Precast Concrete Based Dry Mechanical
Column–column Joints for Precast Concrete Frames.” The
Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 26 (5): e1337.
doi:10.1002/tal.1337.
Jiang, H., Y. Li, and J. Zhu. 2017. “Numerical Simulation of
Mega Steel Reinforced Concrete Columns with Different
Steel Sections.” The Structural Design of Tall and Special
Buildings 26 (1): e1304. doi:10.1002/tal.1304.
Lai, B., J. R. Liew, and A. Le Hoang. 2019. “Behavior of High
Strength Concrete Encased Steel Composite Stub Columns
with C130 Concrete and S690 Steel.” Engineering Structures
200: 109743. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109743.
Lai, B., J. R. Liew, and T. Wang. 2019. “Buckling Behaviour of
High Strength Concrete Encased Steel Composite
Columns.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research 154:
27–42. doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.11.023.
Lai, B., J. R. Liew, and M. Xiong. 2019. “Experimental Study on
High Strength Concrete Encased Steel Composite Short
Columns.” Construction and Building Materials 228: 116640.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.08.021.
Lu, X., X. Lu, H. Guan, W. Zhang, and L. Ye. 2013. “Earthquake-
induced Collapse Simulation of a Super-tall Mega-braced
Frame-core Tube Building.” Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 82: 59–71. doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2012.12.004.
Lu, X., X. Yin, and H. Jiang. 2014. “Experimental Study on
Hysteretic Properties of SRC Columns with High Steel
Ratio.” Steel and Composite Structures 17 (3): 287–303.
doi:10.12989/scs.2014.17.3.287.
Malm, R. 2006. “Shear Cracks in Concrete Structures
Subjected to In-plane Stresses.” PhD diss., KTH Royal
Institute of Technology
Mander, J. B., M. J. N. Priestley, and R. Park. 1988. “Theoretical
Stress–strain Model for Confined Concrete.” Journal of
Structural Engineering 114 (8): 1804–1826. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804).
Mirza, S. A., V. Hyttinen, and E. Hyttinen. 1996. “Physical Tests
and Analyses of Composite Steel–concrete Beam–columns.”
Journal of Structural Engineering 122 (11): 1317–1326.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1996)122:11(1317).
Mirza, S. A., and B. W. Skrabek. 1992. “Statistical Analysis of
Slender Composite Beam–column Strength.” Journal of
Structural Engineering 118 (5): 1312–1332. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(1992)118:5(1312).
Nzabonimpa, J. D. 2018. “Development of Lego-type Column-to-
column Connections.” PhD diss., Kyung Hee University.
Sheikh, S. A., and S. M. Uzumeri. 1982. “Analytical Model for
Concrete Confinement in Tied Columns.” Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE 108: 2703–2722.
Zhang, S. A., Z. Z. Zhao, and X. G. He. 2012. “Flexural Behavior of
SRC Columns under Axial and Bilateral Loading.” Applied
Mechanics and Materials 166: 3383–3390. Trans Tech
Publications Ltd. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.166-
169.3383.
Zhang, W. K., X. Lu, X. Z. Lu, L. P. Ye, and J. R. Qian. 2012.
“Collapse Simulation for a Super-Tall Mega-braced Frame
Core-tube Building.” In 15thWorld Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Lisboa, Portugal.
Zhu, W. Q., G. Meng, and J. Q. Jia. 2014. “Experimental Studies
on Axial Load Performance of High-strength Concrete
Short Columns.” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers-Structures and Buildings 167 (9): 509–519.
doi:10.1680/stbu.13.00027.
 JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 669

c2 ¼ c1 x1 ; x1 ¼ 26:06mm (A1)

Equations (A2)–(A4) and (A5)–(A7) were provided to evaluate

the mean stress factors (α) and centroid factors (γ) for the two
zones, respectively. These equations are based on the
Mander confining curve.
The mean stress factors (α) for the two zones are obtained
by;
εcm1
ò0 fc1 dεc
α1 ¼ (A2)
fc0 εcm1
εcm2
ò0 fc1 dεc
α01 ¼ (A3)
fc0 εcm2
εcm2
ò0 fc2 dεc
α2 ¼ (A4)
fcc0 εcm2

The centroid factors ðγÞ are given as;

Figure A1. Geometric configuration of the steel column εcm1
ò0 εc fc1 dεc
encased in the structural concrete. γ1 ¼ 1 εcm1 (A5)
εcm1 ò 0 fc1 dεc
εcm2
Appendix γ01 ¼ 1
ò0 εc fc1 dεc
(A6)
εcm2
εcm2 ò 0 fc1 dεc
Equation (A1) establishes the relationships between the
compressive concrete blocks and the neutral axes, c1 and εcm2
ò0 εc fc2 dεc
c2, in which the depth of each compressive concrete block γ2 ¼ 1 εcm2 (A7)
was obtained from the neutral axis, c1, as follows: εcm2 ò 0 fc2 dεc