Journal of Constructional Steel Research 155 (2019) 260–272

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Flexural behavior of concrete-filled double skin steel tubes with a joint

Soon-Sub Eom a, Quang-Viet Vu a,b, Ji-Hun Choi a, Ho-Hoon Park a, Seung-Eock Kim a,⁎
a
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Sejong University, 98 Gunja-dong, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, 05006, South Korea.
b
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Vietnam Maritime University, 484 Lach Tray Street, Ngo Quyen District, Haiphong City, Viet Nam.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the present study, concrete-filled double skin steel tubes (CFDSTs) with a joint, which are lighter and more
Received 9 July 2018 economical than concrete-filled steel tubes (CFSTs), were developed. The CFDSTs are made of two steel tubes
Received in revised form 3 December 2018 of different diameters with concrete filling the space between them. The length, the outer and inner diameters
Accepted 15 December 2018
of a CFDST are 10 m, 914.4 mm, and 514.4 mm, respectively. Two types of shear connectors consisting of M16
Available online xxxx
and steel plate studs were used. A new type of connection in CFDSTs was developed to transfer the imposed
Keywords:
load effectively. Four different specimens were made to test all possible combinations of the two different
Concrete-Filled double Skin Tube shear connectors (M16 studs, steel plate studs) and joints. The bending performance of the CFDSTs was investi-
Composite tube gated through 4-point loading experiments and finite element analysis (FEA). Finally, a comparison of design
Finite element analysis predictions and experiment results was made for these tubes.
Joint © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Shear connector

1. Introduction
In recent years, concrete-filled double skin steel tubes, which not
only have the advantages of concrete-filled steel tubes (CFSTs) but
also supplement the weaknesses of CFSTs, have been developed. A
CFDST is a composite member containing two steel tubes with concrete
filling the space between them. CFDSTs are lighter but have better seis-
mic performance than CFSTs. Research studies related to CFDSTs have
been extensively undertaken. For instance, Han and Zhao [1] conducted
experimental research on beams, columns, and beams-columns made
of CFDSTs with various cross-sections. A series of tests on CFDSTs stub
columns and beam-columns were implemented by Zhong Tao et al.
[2]. Han [3–5] carried out experiment and analysis studies on CFDSTs
subjected to cyclic and long-term sustained loadings. Wang [6] and
Huang [7] performed an experimental investigation of CFDSTs under
collision and torsion loads, respectively. Regarding analytical studies,
Pagoulatou [8] studied the behavior of CFDST stub columns subjected
to concentric axial compression loads, and then he proposed a new for-
mula to evaluate the strength of CFDSTs in accordance with EC4 [9].
Hassanein [10] investigated the compressive behavior of CFDSTs with
various cross-sections. By performing a finite element analysis (FEA),
Huang [11] examined the influences of important parameters that de-
termine sectional capacities of CFDST stub columns. Recently, Liang
[12] suggested a mathematical model for the simulation of the perfor-
mance of high strength circular double-skin concrete-filled steel tubular
slender columns (DCFST) with high-strength concrete subjected to
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sekim@sejong.ac.kr (S.-E. Kim).
eccentric loads. The proposed model was validated by the experimental
results of DCFST slender columns reported in the literature.
Slips occur between steel and concrete during bending behaviors of
composite members. Numerous studies on shear connectors for
preventing slips and inducing composite actions have been carried
out. For example, Yoo SW et al. [13] studied the composite behavior of
T-type girders with studs. Zhenyu H et al. [14] and Yan JB et al. [15] eval-
uated the composite behavior of steel-concrete-steel sandwich compos-
ite structures with studs, while Zhenyu H et al. [16] developed a shear
connector in the form of a J-shaped hook. Although shear connectors
for composite actions of general composite members have been re-
ported in a lot of studies, research related to shear connectors in CFDSTs
are rare. Shimizu et al. [17] conducted experimental research on the
ultimate strength of CFDSTs with shear connectors using a deformed re-
inforcing bar, while Zhao et al. [18] investigated the behavior of large-
scale hybrid FRP – CFDSTs beams with headed shear studs. In these
studies, shear connectors were installed partially in the steel tubes but
not the entire steel tubes. The authors only studied the effect of one
type of shear connector on the ultimate strength of CFDSTs. Therefore,
the impact of various types of shear connectors placed in entire tubes
on the ultimate strength of CFDSTs should be investigated.
In addition, sizes of CFDSTs members vary upon the purposes of use.
Bulky CFDSTs are necessarily connected at the site because of transpor-
tation constraints. Unlike existing CFSTs, which can be easily connected
by welding outer steel tubes, connecting CFDSTs members through
welding is a significant challenge because inner steel tubes cannot be
welded. A new type of connection for CFDSTs, therefore, should be de-
veloped. However, no research has been done on the connection of
CFDSTs.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.12.012
0143-974X/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S.-S. Eom et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 155 (2019) 260–272 261

correspondingly 10 m, 914.4 mm, and 514.4 mm. The designed thick-

Notation
nesses of the outer and inner steel tubes were 8 mm and 6 mm, respec-
tively. The space between the outer and inner steel tubes was filled with
CFST Concrete-filled steel tube
200-mm-thick concrete.
CFSTs Concrete-filled steel tubes
CFDST Concrete-filled double skin steel tube
2.2. Design of shear connectors
CFDSTs Concrete-filled double skin steel tubes
FEA Finite element analysis
Two different shear connectors of M16 studs and steel plate studs
FE Finite element
were used to cause a composite action. On the cross-section of the
FRP Fiber reinforced polymer
tubes, sixteen studs were welded between the inner and outer steel
LVDT The linear variable displacement transducer
tubes, while along the longitudinal section of the tubes, studs were
εsu Ultimate strain of steel tubes
placed at 250 mm spacing to satisfy the requirement of the steel struc-
εc Strain corresponding to the ultimate stress of concrete
ture design standards. Details of plate stud dimensions are shown in
in compression
Fig.2.
εcu Ultimate strain of concrete in compression
The design procedure for the shear connector based on AASHTO
f'c Cylinder compressive strength of concrete
LRFD [19] as follows:
• Choose the type, dimensions and material properties of shear connec-
In the present study, CFDSTs, which are lighter and more tors: M16 or plate studs
cost-effective compared to CFSTs, were developed. A joint splicing two • Calculate the nominal shear force, P of the considered part indicated in
composite tubes was recommended. Experimental and finite element Fig. 3
analyses of composite tubes with and without joints were performed. h 0
i
Two different shear connectors of M16 and steel plate studs were P ¼ min As F y ; 0:85 f c Ac ð1Þ
employed. A comparison of ultimate loads between the design predic-
tions and the experiment results was implemented for the developed
CFDSTs under bending. In this research, only four specimens were tested
9600
with limited parameters. The influence of various parameters consisting
of the spacing of the connectors, the splice connection length, the thick- 175 37@250=9250 175
ness of the connection plate, etc. was not considered in this paper.
20

2. Design of concrete-filled double skin steel tubes

130

2.1. Design of composite tubes

20

CFDSTs in this study were designed as shown in Fig. 1. The length,

Fig. 2. Dimensions of plate studs.
the outer and inner diameters of the composite tubes were

10m

200 175 37@250=9250 175 200 Outer steel

t = 8mm Steel Plate
t = 6mm
200
914.4
200

Inner steel
t = 6mm

a) Composite tube with plate studs

10m

200 50 38@250=9500 50 200 Outer steel

t = 8mm Stud
M16*80
200
914.4
200

Inner steel
t = 6mm

b) Composite tube with M16 studs

Fig. 1. Drawing of composite tube members.
262 S.-S. Eom et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 155 (2019) 260–272

Considered Part It is noted that a large scale of composite tubes are necessarily con-
nected using joints at the site because of transportation constraints.
Each part of the composite tube filled with the concrete between the
shear connector inner and outer steel tubes is made in the factory. At the site, these
As
parts are groove-welded at the mid-joint (Fig. 4).
45° The design procedure for the joint based on AASHTO LRFD [19] is as
follows:
Ac
• Choose the dimensions and material properties of the joint.
Considered Part • Calculate the plastic moment of composite tubes without the joint,
Mp(tube) corresponding to Eurocode 4 [9] (EC4).
• The joint was designed to have a full plastic moment higher than com-
posite tubes. The plastic moment of the joint, Mp(joint) was given as
below:

Fig. 3. Partial details of the compositube considered for shear connector design. Mpðjo intÞ ¼ ZF y ð5Þ

when
• Compute the nominal shear resistance of a single shear connector, Qn
sffiffiffiffiffiffi
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi D E
0 ≤0:45 ð6Þ
Q n ¼ 0:5Asc f c Ec ≤Asc F u ð2Þ t Fy

• Determine the number of studs, n

P D3 −D3
n¼ ð3Þ where, Z is the plastic section modulus of the splice tube, Z ¼ o 6 t ;
ϕsc Q n
Do and Dt represent the outer and inner diameters of the splice tube, re-
spectively; D and t are the diameters and thicknesses of the outer and
• Calculate the spacing of studs, dstud inner splice tubes, correspondingly; E and Fy stand for elastic modulus
and yield strength of the splice tubes, respectively.
Ltube
dstud ¼ ð4Þ This design procedure was applied for both composite tubes with
2n
M16 and plate studs.

where, As and Fy are the cross-sectional area and yield strength of outer
tubes, respectively; fc’ and Ac represent the compressive strength and
area of the concrete in the considered part, correspondingly; Asc and
Fu are the cross-sectional area and minimum tensile strength of a stud
shear connector, respectively; ϕsc stands for the resistance factor for
shear connectors; Ltube is the length of the composite tubes.
The number and spacing of studs obtained from the considered part
can be used for the others part of the composite tube.
2.3. Design of joint
Since the inner steel tubes of the composite tubes cannot be welded,
joints were designed to splice two tubes as shown in Fig. 4. The devel-
oped joint was made of 32 mm thick steel and was 600 mm in length.
In addition, eight steel plates of 20 mm thickness were welded to the
joint to effectively transfer loads from the composite tube to the joint.
2.4. Material properties of composite tubes
Table 1 illustrates the material properties of the steel tubes and the
concrete used in the current study. The material properties of SM490
steel tubes were determined by tensile coupon tests. The tensile cou-
pons were extracted in the longitudinal direction of the steel tubes.
The coupons were tested in accordance with the Korean Standard KS
D 3515:2014 [20] using a displacement controlled testing machine.
Data on the concrete material properties were obtained by means of
concrete cylinder tests based on Korean Standard KS F 2405 [21].
These specimens were tested at 28 days after casting.
2.5. Design prediction of the ultimate load for composite tubes
The design prediction of the ultimate load for composite tubes is cal-
culated upon the nominal moment capacity of these tubes. The nominal

600

Splice Tube 50 200 100 200 50 Splice Tube

t = 32mm t = 32mm
A
176.2
200

PL 200*176.2*20T
PL 200*176.2*20T PL 200*200*20T Steel plate
914.4

100
PL 850.8*850.8*20T
200

20

Groove weld A Section A - A

Fig. 4. Detail of the joint.

 S.-S. Eom et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 155 (2019) 260–272 263

Table 1
Material properties of steel tubes and concrete.

No Composite tube types Item Yield strength Fy Ultimate strength Fy Compressive Strength f'c Young Modulus E
(Mpa) (Mpa) (MPa) (MPa)

1. Composite tubes with M16 studs Outer steel tube (8 mm) 486.5 533.9 – 205,000
Inner steel Tube (6 mm) 467.6 517.8 – 205,000
Joint (32 mm) 377.0 536.0 205,000
Concrete – – 48.9 –
2. Composite tubes with steel Outer steel tube (8 mm) 341.0 507.0 – 205,000
plate studs
Inner steel Tube (6 mm) 396.3 547.3 – 205,000
Joint (32 mm) 358.3 526.5 – 205,000
Concrete – – 47.3 –

moment capacity can be evaluated in line with such codes as ACI [22],
AISC [23], and EC4 [9]. In EC4 [9] and AISC [23], the strain compatibility
method (SCM) and the plastic stress distribution method (PSDM) were
recommended. The SCM of EC4 [9] and ACI [22] methods were almost
similar, but the assumptions about the compressive strength of concrete
were different. Besides, the PSDM of EC4 [9] was also similar to that of
AISC [23], but the concrete stresses were not the same (1.0f'c in EC4 [9]
and 0.95f'c in AISC [23]). In the design method, the PSDM of EC4 [9]
was employed to calculate the nominal moment capacity of the com-
posite tube.
The plastic moment of the composite tube was calculated based on
the plastic stress distribution, as shown in Fig. 5. The plastic neutral
axis of the composite tube with the M16 and steel plate studs was
246.4 mm and 225.88 mm from the top of the cross-section, respec-
tively. As a result, the corresponding nominal moment capacities of
the composite tube with M16 and steel plate studs were 4972.96 kN-
m and 3743.26 kN-m.
Assuming two loads were applied on the composite tubes as shown
in Fig. 6, the ultimate loads corresponding to the nominal moment ca-
pacity were calculated as 2340 kN and 1762 kN for the tube with M16
and steel plate studs, respectively.
3. Experiment
3.1. Specimen preparation
In this experiment, four different specimens were fabricated. With
each type of shear connector (M16 and plate studs), two specimens
were made with and without the joint. The specimens contained inner
and outer steel tubes as well as concrete filling the space between
tubes. The shear connectors were welded on these steel tubes as illus-
trated in Fig. 7. Details of the joint are presented in Fig. 8.
The test specimens were labeled according to the type of studs and
specimens, as displayed in Table 2. For instance, in the label CM-J, the

Fy fc'
177.06

26.31

Concrete
97

Fy Fy Fy
P.N.A
276.8
445.17

N.A

Fig. 5. Plastic stress distribution of composite tube based on EC4.

P/2 P/2

4.25 m 1.5 m 4.25 m

10 m

Mn

Fig. 6. Load condition.

264 S.-S. Eom et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 155 (2019) 260–272

Fig. 7. Detail of steel tubes.

tensile fracture was observed on the specimens. After the yielding of

steel tubes, the outward local buckling happened at the top compres-
sion part near the loading position, as illustrated in Fig. 10b.

3.3.1. Composite tubes with M16 studs

Fig. 11 shows the vertically applied load versus mid-span displace-
ment curves of the composite tubes with and without the joint, while
Table 3 indicates the ultimate loads of these tubes.
It is observed from Fig. 11 that there is only a slight difference of the
load-displacement curve between specimens CM-WJ and CM-J. The ul-
timate load of specimen CM-WJ is only 3.6% higher than that of speci-
men CM-J. Therefore, it can be concluded that the strength of
Fig. 8. Detail of fabricated joint.
composite tubes with the joint is similar to that without the joint.
Regarding the stresses measured in the test specimens, see Fig. 12
for the experimental load-stress curves of the composite tubes with
Table 2
and without the joint. The stress measured using strain gauges at the
Details of CFDST specimens.
bottom middle point of the specimen CM-WJ was 494.3 MPa at the ul-
No Specimen Outer tube Inner tube Length Stud Joint timate load state. In the case of specimen CM-J, the stress measured at
dimensions dimensions (mm) types
the bottom middle point was 119.5 MPa, and the stress at the location
(mm) (mm)
of 200 mm away from the edge of the joint was 494.5 MPa. Since the
1. CM-J 914.4 × 8 498.4 × 6 10,000 M16 Yes thickness of the joint was larger than that of the composite tube, the
2. CP-J 914.4 × 8 498.4 × 6 10,000 Plate Yes
3. CM-WJ 914.4 × 8 498.4 × 6 10,000 M16 No
stress at the joint was much lower than that witnessed in the composite
4. CP-WJ 914.4 × 8 498.4 × 6 10,000 Plate No tube. Furthermore, the measured stress of specimen CM-WJ was higher
than the yield strength (486.5 MPa); therefore, it can be concluded that
the composite tube failed due to the yielding of the steel. On the con-
first letter “C” denotes the composite tube, the second letter “M” indi-
trary, the stress of specimen CM-J did not exceed the yield strength
cates that the type of stud is M16, and the letter “J” refers to the compos-
(377 MPa); the joint was evaluated as having sufficient strength to con-
ite tube with the joint.
nect the composite tubes. However, specimen CM-J was still judged to
have failed due to the yielding of the composite tube adjacent to the
3.2. Experimental conditions joint.

4-point bending tests were conducted to evaluate the bending perfor-
mance of the composite tubes. The test arrangement of these tubes is
demonstrated in Fig. 9. The specimens were loaded by hydraulic jacks
with a loading capacity of 5000 kN. The loads were applied at the position
of 750 mm away from the center of the composite tube on both sides.
Loading and boundary pads (25 mm thick) were placed to prevent stress
concentration at the loading points and the supporting ends. Three
100 mm LVDTs were placed along the bottom of the specimens in a
pure bending segment to measure the mid-span vertical displacement
of the tube. Hinge and roller conditions were applied to the bottom of
the boundary pads. The bending experiments were carried out with dis-
placement control at the velocity of 2 mm per minute in the elastic region
and 4 mm per minute in the plastic region. Four different experiments
were conducted for the four specimens shown in Table 2.
3.3. Experimental results
Fig. 10 reveals the typical failure mode for the specimens. All the
specimens behaved in a ductile manner. Neither welding failure nor
3.3.2. Composite tubes with steel plate studs
The comparison between applied load and mid-span displacement
responses of the composite tubes with and without a joint is shown in
Fig.13, and the ultimate loads of these tubes are illustrated in Table 4.
Table 4 witnesses a 14.4% increase in the ultimate load of specimen
CP-J compared with that of the specimen CP-WJ. The reason is that
the plate stud in the specimen CP-WJ failed; therefore, the ultimate
load was suddenly reduced. While for the specimen CP-J, no stud was
placed at the joint length. Moreover, the joint was designed to have a
much higher strength compared with the strength of the specimen
with plate studs. As a result, the strength of the specimen without
joint (CP-WJ) are less than that of the specimen with joint (CP-J).
Fig. 14 indicates the experimental load-stress of composite
tubes with steel plate studs. At the ultimate load state, the stresses
measured at the bottom middle point of specimens CP-WJ and CP-
J were 342.1 MPa and 96.5 MPa, respectively. The stress measured
at 200 mm away from the joint edge of specimen CP-J was
343.5 MPa. It is worth noting that the stress at the joint was
much lower than that at the composite tubes since the joint
 S.-S. Eom et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 155 (2019) 260–272 265

1500

200 200
Loading Pad
50 P/2 600 P/2 50

914.4

Splice Boundary Pad

300 9400 300

10m

a) Section of a test specimen

b) Test arrangement of specimens

c) Roller support d) Hinge support

Fig. 9. 4- Point bending test of composite tubes.
266 S.-S. Eom et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 155 (2019) 260–272

Fig. 12. Experimental load-stress curves of composite tubes with M16 studs.

Fig. 10. Failure mode of the test specimen.

Fig. 13. Experimental load-displacement curves of composite tubes with steel plate studs.

efficient strength to connect the composite tubes. However, due

to the steel yielding of the composite tube adjacent to the joint,
this specimen was evaluated to have failed.

4. Finite element analysis

Fig. 11. Experimental load-displacement curves of composite tubes with M16 studs.
4.1. Finite element modeling

thickness was larger than that of the composite tubes. In addition,
it is clear that the measured stress of specimen CP-WJ was higher
than the yield strength (341 MPa); therefore, it can be concluded
that specimen CP-WJ has failed due to the yielding of the steel.
Opposingly, since the stress of specimen CP-J did not exceed the
yield strength (358.3 MPa), the joint was observed to have the
In this section, the commercial software ABAQUS [24] was used to
analyze 3D finite element models of CFDSTs. The element types, the ma-
terial models, the loading and boundary conditions were described.
Different element types, including solid, truss, and beam elements,
were employed for composite tube components. An 8-node solid ele-
ment (C3D8R) was used for the steel pads, the steel and concrete of

Table 4
Table 3 Ultimate load of composite tubes with steel plate studs.
Ultimate load of composite tubes with M16 studs.
No Specimen Ultimate load Pui/Pu2
No Specimen Ultimate load, Pu (kN) Pui/Pu1 Pu (kN)

1. CM-J 2359 1 1. CP-J 2164 1

2. CM-WJ 2444 1.036 2. CP-WJ 1863 1.144
 S.-S. Eom et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 155 (2019) 260–272
Fig. 14. Experimental load-stress curves of composite tubes with steel plate studs.
the composite tubes, whereas truss elements (T3D2) and beam ele-
ments (B31) were used to model the shear connectors of the M16
studs and plate studs, respectively, as shown in Fig. 15. By using sensi-
tivity analysis, the appropriate element mesh size of the finite element
model was found as 50 mm.
The interaction between concrete and steel tubes was modeled
using a surface-to-surface contact type available in the *CONTACT
PAIR option in ABAQUS [24]. Two kinds of surfaces, slave and master,
Fig. 15. Components and FE model of the composite tubes with joint.
267
were required to define this contact. In order to limit numerical errors,
the slave surface should be assigned for a softer material. For this reason,
the inner surface of steel tubes was assigned as master surfaces while
the outer surfaces of concrete were set as slave surfaces. The hard con-
tact was applied in the vertical direction to model the normal behavior
between the slave and master surfaces. The Coulomb friction model
with a friction coefficient of 0.1 was adopted to simulate the tangent be-
havior between the two surfaces. For the contact between the shear
connectors and the concrete, the truss and beam elements modeling
the M16 and plate studs, respectively, were assumed completely
bonded to the concrete and were simulated using the EMBEDDED op-
tion in ABAQUS [24]. In addition, the TIE option was used to model the
contact between the boundary pads and outer steel tubes, and also be-
tween the joint and composite tubes.
With regard to the concrete and steel material models, the stress-
strain curves of these materials are shown in Fig. 16. The bi-linear
stress-strain relationship was used to model the steel tubes with
the assumed value of εsu as 0.2, while the concrete material was
modeled using Tsai's Eq. [25] with the assumed values of εcand
εcuas 0.002 and 0.003, respectively. The concrete damaged plasticity
model proposed by Lubiner et at [26]. and by Lee and Fenves [27]
was used to model the inelastic response of concrete materials
under cyclic loading.
Fig. 17 describes the modeling of loading and boundary conditions of
the composite tubes in the four-point bending tests. The loading posi-
tions were 750 mm away from the center of the composite tubes on
both sides. To prevent the stress concentration at the load-loading
points and the supporting ends, the loading and boundary pads were
installed. The loads were applied in one row at the top middle of the
loading pad. The hinge and roller conditions were applied to the middle
point (reference point) of the boundary pad.
268 S.-S. Eom et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 155 (2019) 260–272

Fig. 16. Stress-strain curves for concrete and steel materials.

4.2. Finite element analysis results

4.2.1. Composite tubes with M16 studs

Fig. 18 shows the load-displacement curves of the composite tubes
with and without a joint. The ultimate load of the specimen CM-WJ
was evaluated as 2457 kN and that of the specimen CM-J as 2500 kN,
which was 1.75% higher than that of the specimen CM-WJ.
The load-stresses of the composite tubes are illustrated in Fig. 19, and
the stress distributions of these tubes are presented in Fig. 20. It is ob-
tained from the analyses that the stress of the steel at the bottom middle
point of specimen CM-WJ at the ultimate load was evaluated as
488.7 MPa, while that of specimen CM-J was 188.5 MPa, and the stress
of the outer steel tube 200 mm away from the joint was 491.4 MPa. In
Figs. 20 (a) and (b), it can be witnessed that there was a stress concentra-
Fig. 17. Details of loading and boundary pads.
tion at mid-span of the specimen without the joint. At this location, the
specimen CM-WJ failed due to the yielding of the steel tubes. However,

Fig. 18. Load-displacement curves of composite tubes with M16 studs. Fig. 19. Load-stress curves of composite tubes with M16 studs (FEA).
 S.-S. Eom et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 155 (2019) 260–272 269

Fig. 20. Stress distributions of composite tubes with M16 studs.

for the specimen with the joint, the stress focused around the locations 5. Comparison of experiment and analysis
adjacent to the joint and failure modes occurred at these locations but
not at the joint position. The conclusion to be drawn here is that the In this section, the results of the experiment and the FEA are com-
joint has sufficient strength to connect the two composite tubes. pared for the composite tubes with M16 and steel plate studs.

4.2.2. Composite tubes with steel plate studs
Based on the FEA results, the load-displacement curves of specimens
CP-WJ and CP-J are indicated in Fig. 21. The ultimate loads of specimens
CP-WJ and CP-J were 1788 kN and 2129 kN, respectively. Therefore,
there was a 16% increase in the ultimate load of the specimen with
the joint compared with that of the specimen without the joint.
Fig. 22 shows the load-stresses, and Fig. 23 reveals the stress distri-
butions of these two composite tubes. Based on these figures, the
same conclusion on the composite tubes with M16 studs could be
drawn for those with steel plate studs.
5.1. Composite tubes with M16 studs
Fig. 24 shows the load-displacement relationship of experiment, and
FEA of two specimens, CM-J and CM-WJ, whereas Table 5 presents the
comparison of ultimate loads obtained by the experiment, and analysis.
It can be seen in Fig. 24 that the load-displacement curves obtained from
the analyses were close to those obtained from the experiments for
these specimens. Moreover, as shown in Table 5, good agreement be-
tween the analysis and the experimental results was found with the
maximum difference of ultimate loads of only about 6%. For this reason,

Fig. 21. Load-displacement curves of composite tubes with steel plate studs. Fig. 22. Load-stress curves of composite tubes with steel plate studs (FEA).
270 S.-S. Eom et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 155 (2019) 260–272

Fig. 23. Stress distributions of composite tubes with steel plate studs.

Fig. 24. Comparison of load-displacement curves of composite tubes with M16 studs obtained from FEA and test results.

it can be concluded that the FE model provides accurate predictions for
the response of composite tubes without the joint.
5.2. Composite tubes with steel plate studs
For the composite tubes with steel plate studs, the load-
displacement of the experiment and the FEA is illustrated in Fig. 25,
while the comparison of ultimate loads obtained by the experiment
and analysis is shown in Table 6. It is clear from Fig. 25 that the
load-displacement curves obtained from the FEA well agreed with the
experimental results. In addition, as shown in Table 6, the difference
in ultimate strength between the FEA and experimental results was
minor. In other words, the FE model developed above is reliable, provid-
ing accurate predictions for the behavior of composite tubes having
steel plate studs.
6. Comparison of test strengths with design strengths

Table 5 In this section, a detailed comparison of ultimate loads obtained

Comparison of the experiment and analysis for composite tubes with M16 studs.
from the test with design predictions (EC4 [9] and AISC methods [23],
No Specimen Experiment, PuEXP (kN) FEA, PuFEA (kN) P uFEA
P uEXP
design methods suggested by Uenaka [28] and Han [29]) is presented
in Table 7. It is worth noting that design strengths predicted by using
1. CM-WJ 2444 2457 1.005
2. CM-J 2359 2500 1.06
Han's method [29] are slightly unconservative in comparison with the
test results. However, this method gives the most accurate prediction
 S.-S. Eom et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 155 (2019) 260–272 271

Fig. 25. Comparison of load-displacement curves of composite tubes with steel plate studs obtained from FEA and test results.

Table 6 • While the M16 studs did not fail, the steel plate studs failed under ul-
Comparison of the experiment and analysis for composite tubes with steel plate studs. timate load. Therefore, the M16 studs are more suitable than the steel
No Specimen Experiment, PuEXP (kN) FEA, PuFEA (kN) P uFEA plate studs.
P uEXP
• For the composite tubes with the joint, FEA and experiment results in-
1. CP-WJ 1863 1788 0.96
dicated that the joint has sufficient strength to connect these compos-
2. CP-J 2164 2129 0.984
ite tubes.
• Based on this study, it is concluded that the developed CFDST mem-
bers have sufficient flexural strength, and they can be used for
Table 7 construction.
Comparison of ultimate loads obtained from design predictions with test and FEA results.

Specimen PEXP PAISC P AISC

P EXP
PEC4 P EC4
P EXP
PUenaka P Uenaka
P EXP
PHan P Han
P EXP
Acknowledgements

CM-J 2359 2328 0.99 2340 0.99 2156 0.91 2376 1.01 This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of
CP-J 2164 1753 0.81 1762 0.81 1742 0.80 1886 0.87 Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government(MSIT No.
CM-WJ 2444 2328 0.95 2340 0.96 2156 0.88 2376 0.97 2018R1A2A2A05018524).
CP-WJ 1863 1753 0.94 1762 0.95 1742 0.93 1886 1.01

Mean 0.92 0.93 0.88 0.96 References

Cov 0.075 0.075 0.058
among all methods. On the other hand, the predictions offered by
Uenaka's method [28] are the most conservative since this method did
not take the effect of the concrete confinement into account. Both EC4
[9] and AISC [23] methods conservatively predict for test results. The
predictions recommended in accordance with AISC method [23] are
more conservative than the EC4 method [9] because this method as-
sumed that the concrete stress is 0.95f'c instead of 1.0f'c used in the EC4
method [9]. In summary, these above methods predicted quite accu-
rately the ultimate strengths for all specimens except CP-J. The reason
is that the effect of the joint was not taken into consideration in the de-
sign prediction.
7. Conclusions
In this study, concrete-filled double skin steel tubes with/without a
joint were developed. The flexural behavior and performance of four
different composite tubes were investigated through the experiment
and the analysis. The following conclusions were obtained.
• The accuracy of the developed FE model of the composite tubes was
verified because there exists an agreement between the experiment
and the FEA results. The model can be used for different-sized com-
posite tubes.
0.061
[1] Z. Tao, L.-H. Han, Behaviour of concrete-filled double skin rectangular steel tubular
beam–columns, J. Constr. Steel Res. 62 (2006) 16.
[2] Z. Tao, L.-H. Han, X.-L. Zhao, Behaviour of concrete-filled double skin (CHS inner and
CHS outer) steel tubular stub columns and beam-column, J. Constr. Steel Res. 60
(2004) 30.
[3] L.-H. Han, H. Huang, Z. Tao, et al., Concrete-filled double skin steel tubular (CFDST)
beam–columns subjected to cyclic bending, Eng. Struct. 28 (12) (2006) 1698–1714.
[4] L.-H. Han, Z. Tao, F.-Y. Liao, et al., Tests on cyclic performance of FRP–concrete–steel
double-skin tubular columns, Thin-Walled Struct. 48 (6) (2010) 430–439.
[5] L.-H. Han, Y.-J. Li, F.-Y. Liao, Concrete-filled double skin steel tubular (CFDST) col-
umns subjected to long-term sustained loading, Thin-Walled Struct. 49 (12)
(2011) 1534–1543.
[6] R. Wang, L.-H. Han, Z. Tao, Behavior of FRP–concrete–steel double skin tubular
members under lateral impact: experimental study, Thin-Walled Struct. 95 (2015)
363–373.
[7] H. Huang, L.-H. Han, X.-L. Zhao, Investigation on concrete filled double skin steel
tubes (CFDSTs) under pure torsion, J. Constr. Steel Res. 90 (2013) 221–234.
[8] M. Pagoulatou, T. Sheehan, X. Dai, et al., Finite element analysis on the capacity of
circular concrete-filled double-skin steel tubular (CFDST) stub columns, Eng. Struct.
72 (2014) 102–112.
[9] Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures. Part 1-1: General
rules and rules for buildings. , European Committee for Standardization, 2004 EN
1994-1-1.
[10] M. Hassanein, O. Kharoob, L. Gardner, Behaviour and design of square concrete-
filled double skin tubular columns with inner circular tubes, Eng. Struct. 100
(2015) 410–424.
[11] H. Huang, L.-H. Han, Z. Tao, et al., Analytical behaviour of concrete-filled double skin
steel tubular (CFDST) stub columns, J. Constr. Steel Res. 66 (4) (2010) 542–555.
[12] Q.Q. Liang, Numerical simulation of high strength circular double-skin concrete-
filled steel tubular slender columns, Eng. Struct. 168 (2018) 13.
[13] S.-W. Yoo, J.F. Choo, Evaluation of the flexural behavior of composite beam with
inverted-T steel girder and steel fiber reinforced ultra high performance concrete
slab, Eng. Struct. 118 (2016) 1–15.
272 S.-S. Eom et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 155 (2019) 260–272
[14] Z. Huang, J.R. Liew, Nonlinear finite element modelling and parametric study of
curved steel–concrete–steel double skin composite panels infilled with ultra-
lightweight cement composite, Constr. Build. Mater. 95 (2015) 922–938.
[15] J.-B. Yan, J.R. Liew, X. Qian, et al., Ultimate strength behavior of curved steel–
concrete–steel sandwich composite beams, J. Constr. Steel Res. 115 (2015)
316–328.
[16] Z. Huang, J.R. Liew, Structural behaviour of steel–concrete–steel sandwich compos-
ite wall subjected to compression and end moment, Thin-Walled Struct. 98 (2016)
592–606.
[17] M. Shimizu, F. Tatsumi, T. Ishikawa, et al., Experimental Study on Ultimate Strength
of Concrete Filled double Tubular Steel with Shear Connector, Int. J. Steel Struct. 13
(1) (2013) 6.
[18] J.L. Zhao, J.G. Teng, T. Yu, et al., Behavior of Large-Scale Hybrid FRP–Concrete–Steel
Double-Skin Tubular Beams with Shear Connectors, J. Compos. Construct. ASCE
(2016) 11.
[19] AASHTO LRFD, Design Specifications, 2012 1661.
[20] Rolled steels for welded structures. KS D 3515:2014, Korean Standards
Association2014.
[21] Standard test method for compressive strength of concrete. KS F 2405:2010. , Ko-
rean Standards Association, 2010.
[22] American Concrete Institute, "ACI 318," Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete and Commentary, Farmington Hills, 2014.
[23] Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. , American Institute of Steel Construction,
2010 ANSI/AISC 360-10.
[24] ABAQUS Analysis User's Manual version 6.14, Dassault Syst. (2014).
[25] W. T. Tsai, “Uniaxial compressional stress-strain relation of concrete,” J. Struct. Eng.
ASCE, Vol. 114, 9, pp. e, 1988.
[26] J. Lubliner, J. Oliver, S. Oller, et al., A plastic-damage model for concrete, Int. J. Solids
Struct. 25 (3) (1988) 28.
[27] J. Lee, G.L. Fenves, Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures, J.
Eng. Mech. ASCE 124 (8) (1998) 9.
[28] K. Uenaka, H. Kitoh, K. Sonoda, Concrete filled double skin tubular members sub-
jected to bending, Steel Compos. Struct. 8 (4) (2008) 297–312.
[29] L.H. Han, H. Huang, X.L. Zhao, Analytical behaviour of concrete-filled double skin
steel tubular (CFDST) beam-columns under cyclic loading, Thin-Walled Struct. 47
(2009) 13.