Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105778

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijcard

New empirical methods for predicting flexural capacity and stiffness

of CFST beam
Ahmed W. Al Zand a, *, Wan Hamidon W. Badaruzzaman a, **, Wadhah M. Tawfeeq b
a
Smart and Sustainable Township Research Centre, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
b
Faculty of Engineering, Sohar University, Sohar, Oman

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

Article history: This paper presents new empirical methods to theoretically predict bending moment capacity (Mu) and
Received 21 May 2019 flexural stiffness values at the initial and serviceability levels (Ki and Ks) of concrete-filled steel tube
Received in revised form (CFST) composite beams. A wide range of results for Mu, Ki, and Ks covering various parameters of CFST
19 September 2019
beams are required to develop these empirical methods. Therefore, 144 numerical CFST models were
Accepted 21 September 2019
Available online xxx
developed in this study using finite element software. The adequacy of the newly developed empirical
methods was validated with the results obtained from previously reported experimental and numerical
studies conducted by other researchers. For example, using the new methods, mean values of 0.967 and
Keywords:
CFST beam
0.996 were achieved from the ratios of predicting Mu values to the previously reported values of the
Empirical method rectangular and circular CFST beams, respectively. The mean values were 1.074 and 1.050 from the
Numerical study predicted Ki, and Ks values, respectively. Furthermore, the results of these new methods were compared
Flexural stiffness with the results obtained by the most commonly used standards and methods in this field, namely, EC4,
Bending capacity AISC, AIJ, BS5400, and others.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Recently, structural engineers have become more interested in
investigating the flexural performance of concrete-filled steel tube
(CSFT) beams because of their potential use in modern structures
[1]. In Japan, in 1997, a railway bridge was designed and built using
a circular steel pipe girder filled with lightweight and normal
concrete [2]. Nakamura et al. [3] presented a study in 2002, which
recommended using CFSTs in future bridge projects. Kang et al.
(2007) [4] provide an experimental investigation that proves the
validity of using the CFST beams in composite floor systems. In
2015, Han et al. [5] experimentally investigated the flexural per-
formance of CFST beams used as top and bottom chords of a truss
structure for the Ganhaizi Bridge in China. Compared with the
corresponding conventional steel-tube beam, the CFST beam has
better energy absorption, ductility, bending capacity, and flexural
stiffness [1,3,6]. Therefore, in the past two decades, several studies
have experimentally investigated the flexural performance of the
CFST beam by considering various parameters, such as the shape
* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ahmedzand@ukm.edu.my (A.W. Al Zand), wanhamidon@ukm.
edu.my (W.H.W. Badaruzzaman).
and size of beam cross section, concrete strength, type of infill
materials, thickness of the tube, single and double skin tubes, type
of flexural loading, and strengthening performances [2e39].
Numerical analyses, such as the nonlinear finite element (FE)
method, have been extensively used in the structural engineering
field to provide approximate solutions for various structural prob-
lems. FE analyses provide reasonably accurate estimates of the real
structural behavior. This is because these analyses sufficiently
implement the fundamental design theories of structural problems
and properly represent the components of the structural members.
Researchers can use FE analyses to investigate additional parame-
ters, which would otherwise be difficult and expensive to investi-
gate experimentally. Therefore, many studies have numerically
investigated the flexural behavior of the CFST beam under different
loading scenarios [22,31e33,39e46]. They have reasonably pre-
dicted the actual performances of the corresponding CFST beams.
The ultimate bending moment capacity (Mu) values of CFST
composite beams can be theoretically predicted using the previ-
ously proposed methods [6,9,21,47,48]. It may be noted that very
limited empirical methods have been developed to predict the Mu
value of this type of beams. For example, the theoretical model of
standard GB50936-2014 [47] originally developed by Han [13] can
estimate the Mu values of the CFST beam (circular and rectangular
sections) by using two independent empirical equations (fscy and

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.105778
0143-974X/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 A.W. Al Zand et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105778

Nomenclature Le effective length of specimen, mm or m

M bending moment, kN.m.
Ac area of concrete core cross section, mm2 Mu ultimate bending moment (flexural bending
As area of steel tube cross section, mm2 capacity), kN.m.
AR ratio of concrete core cross section area, estimated MR ratio of concrete modulus of elasticity, estimated
from Ac/(As þ Ac) from Ec/(Es þ Ec)
B width of rectangular steel tube, mm Mu-p predicted ultimate bending moment capacity, kN.m.
COV coefficient of variation MV mean value
D diameter of circular steel tube/depth of rectangular r internal radius of concrete, mm
steel tube, mm t wall thickness of steel tube, mm
Ec modulus of elasticity for concrete, GPa Wscm section modulus for circular/rectangular tube
Es modulus of elasticity for steel, GPa section, m3
f compression stress of concrete at relevant strain (ε) Zccmp section modulus for circular/rectangular composite
value, MPa section, m3
fcu concrete cube compressive strength at 28 days, MPa gm flexural strength index
fco unconfined concrete cylinder compressive strength b flexural index (in current study)
at 28 days, MPa ε strain at relevant concrete compression stress (f)
fcc confined concrete strength, MPa value
fcomp nominal composite stress, MPa εt strain at relevant concrete tension stress (ft) value
fck characteristic concrete strength (0.67fcu), MPa εco strain at unconfined concrete compressive strength
fcr stress of concrete at cracking failure, MPa (fco) (0.003 in this study)
fscy yield strength of the composite section, MPa εcc strain at confined concrete compressive strength (fcc)
ft tensile stress of concrete at relevant strain (εt) value, εcu ultimate strain limit of confined concrete (¼ 11εcc in
MPa this study)
fu ultimate strength of steel, MPa εcr strain of concrete at ultimate cracking failure (fcr)
fy yield strength of steel, MPa εy yield strain of steel
Ic moment of inertia for concrete tube cross-section, εu ultimate strain of steel
mm4 x steel confinement factor (As.fy)/(Ac.fck)
Is moment of inertia for steel tube cross-section, mm4 li reduction factor for initial-level flexural stiffness of
Ki initial flexural stiffness of composite section, kN.m2 composite section (Ki)
Ks serviceability-level flexural stiffness of composite ls reduction factor for serviceability-level flexural
section, kN.m2 stiffness of composite section (Ks)
Ki-P predicted initial flexural stiffness of composite fi curvature value relevant to initial-level flexural
section, kN.m2 stiffness (Ki), 1/m
Ks-P predicted serviceability-level flexural stiffness of fs curvature value relevant to serviceability-level
composite section, kN.m2 flexural stiffness (Ks), 1/m

gm) in addition to the section modulus of the beam (Wscm). Besides,
Chitawadagi and Narasimhan (2009) [6] developed an empirical
method to estimate the Mu and curvature values at the ultimate
point of the circular CFST beam, which was validated with limited
experimental data. Furthermore, the effective flexural stiffness
values of CFST beams can be predicted theoretically by the existing
standards, such as EC4-2004 [48], AISC-2010 [49], AIJ-1997 [50],
and BS 5400-2005 [51]. The formulas used in these standards
predict the effective stiffness (EI) of the composite sections (steel
tube and concrete core). These formulas mainly use a single
reduction factor for the gross stiffness of the concrete part (Ec.Ic).
However, the empirical method developed by Han et al. [14] can
independently predict the flexural stiffness values of the CFST
beams at initial (Ki) and serviceability levels (Ks) based on esti-
mating the corresponding beam curvatures (fi and fi).
From the above literature review, it can be seen that there are
very limited studies that specifically adopt empirical methods for
predicting the ultimate bending moment and flexural stiffness
values of the CFST beam. Therefore, with an increasing need to use
CFST beams in composite structures, the goal of this study is to
develop additional empirical methods that can theoretically predict
the values of Mu, Ki, and Ks under static bending loads. The newly
developed empirical methods are different and more simplified
than the previously proposed methods. Furthermore, to produce a
high level of accuracy for the theoretical prediction, a wide range of
parameters of CFST beams were considered, and several numerical
and experimental results were used to establish the empirical
factors of the suggested methods. For this purpose, we developed
and analyzed 144 FE models in this study. We also analyzed the
previously reported results from 80 beams that were experimen-
tally tested by other researchers [6,8,9,13,14]. The results of the
proposed methods were validated with the results obtained from
previously reported experimental and numerical studies.
2. Numerical modeling
2.1. Development of finite element models
This section describes the FE modeling of CFST beams including
the loading scenario, boundary conditions, constitutive model of
materials, and surface interaction. All FE models were prepared and
analyzed by the ABAQUS software program [52].
2.1.1. Loading and boundary conditions
The typical boundary conditions and loading scenario of the
developed quarter 3D FE model are presented in Fig. 1 for both the
rectangular and circular models subjected to four-point bending
(two-point loads). A single line was placed under the tube flange to
represent the roller support, and the displacement/rotation option
was used for this purpose. The displacement load option available
 A.W. Al Zand et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105778
Fig. 1. Typical quarter 3D FE modeling for the CFST beams.
in the ABAQUS software was used to implement the actual flexural
loading procedure, where two-point loads are specified as
displacement points that can gradually increase downward starting
from zero until reaching the maximum value (¼75 mm in this
study). Owing to this loading scenario, the CFST beam models
deflect accordingly to simulate the real beam testing procedure in
the laboratory. The loading values of FE models can be recorded
from the force values at their supporting points. Furthermore, the
advantages of the sections symmetry option was used in the cur-
rent FE models to reduce the computational time, thus, only a
quarter of the full-sized model was adopted (see Fig. 1). This
technique has sufficiently represented the performance of the full-
sized models and has expedited the numerical analysis
[22,33,42,53].
2.1.2. Constitutive model of steel tube
Steel is generally known as an isotropic material, whose stress
and strain behaviors in tension and compression zones are iden-
tical. Therefore, the modulus of elasticity and Poisson's ratio of steel
were identified in the elasticeisotropic option, whereas the yield
stress and plastic strain values were identified in the
plasticeisotropic option. The constitutive model of the trilinear
stress versus strain relationship, which was suggested by Byfield
et al. [54], was used in this study (see Fig. 2).
2.1.3. Constitutive model of concrete
Generally, two failure mechanisms occur in concrete; it is
considered a brittle material (nonlinear behavior) that cracks when
tension stress is applied and gets crushed when compressive stress
3
Fig. 2. Trilinear stress-strain relationships of steel tube in the FE model.
is applied. Therefore, two independent stress-versus-strain re-
lationships were used to implement the failure mechanisms of
concrete under compression and tension stress. In the ABAQUS
software, the tensile and compressive behaviors of the concrete
model are represented in the “Concrete Damage Plasticity” option
[22,33,40e42]. However, concrete behaves in a linear manner up to
a certain limit in the elastic range, which means it can be consid-
ered an isotropic material. Therefore, the modulus of elasticity (Ec)
and Poisson's ratio (0.19) of the concrete model were identified in
the elasticeisotropic option.
The improvement in the compressive strength of concrete
owing to the confinement effects provided by the steel tube is
considered in the proposed FE models, thereby following the same
concept considered earlier in similar studies [40e46]. In this study,
the model proposed by Mander et al. [55] to predict the equivalent
stressestrain relationship of the confined concrete has been used
(see Fig. 3(a)). This model has been sufficiently adopted in several
similar numerical studies [45,56,57]. The equations used to esti-
mate the compressive strength of confined concrete and the cor-
responding strain [55] are numerically expressed as follows:
fcc ¼ fco : þ k1 f1 (1)
εcc ¼ εco :½1 þ k2 ð f1 = fco Þ (2)
where f1 represents the additional confining stresses created by the
steel tube on the surface of the concrete core, which can be ob-
tained as per the study of Hu et al. [57]. Based on previous studies
by Richart et al. [58], constants k1 and k2 were 4.1 and 20.5,
respectively. In general, parameters for modeling the uniaxial
stressestrain relationship of confined concrete adopted in the
proposed FE analysis were the same as used in previous studies
[41,45,56,57].
Fig. 3(b) shows the constitutive uniaxial curve of the tensile
stressestrain relationship for concrete modeling. The expression of
this curve was developed by Wang and Hsu [59], and it was
modified by Kmiecik and Kamin
ski [60]. As per the concept of this
curve, the linear stressestrain relationship increases up to the point
of cracking failure (fcr), at which point the curve descends gradually
nonlinearly and takes the shape of a parabola. This behavior is
expressed as follows:
fcr ¼ 0:31ðfc Þ0:5 (3)
4 A.W. Al Zand et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105778
Fig. 3. Stress-strain relationships of concrete in the FE model.
εcr ¼ fcr =Ec
ft ¼ Ec :εt For εt < εcr
ft ¼ fcr :ðεcr =εt Þ0:8 For εt  εcr
where, Ec ¼ 4733.(fc)1/2
2.1.4. Description of elements
The ABAQUS software provides several types of elements that
can model the steel tube and concrete parts of the developed FE
models for CFST beams. In the current numerical study, based on
several preliminary analyses for the developed FE models and
sufficient comparisons with the corresponding beams results
tested by other researchers, both the concrete and steel tube were
modeled using the C3D8R element type [22,33,57]. This element
type has a 3D solid shape with an 8-node linear brick and reduced
integration, and each node has six degrees of freedom and uses
bilinear interpolation.
2.1.5. Surface interactions description
One of the most important parameters in modeling CFST beams
is the interaction between the surfaces of the concrete and steel
tube. The contact interaction option was used to simulate in-
teractions between the mechanical surfaces, which was defined in
two phases: the geometrical and mechanical property phases. To
identify the geometric properties, surface-to-surface contact dis-
cretization was used, where the surface of the inner steel tube was
defined as the master surface (stiffer material) and the outer sur-
face of the concrete core was defined as the slave surface (weaker
material).
For the mechanical properties, the normal and tangential be-
haviors were selected to identify the contact interaction between
the inner surface of the steel tube and the outer surface of the
concrete core. The “Hard contact” option was selected to allow for
separation after contact to identify the normal mechanical
behavior, i.e., the case in which no contact pressure occurs along the
contact surfaces unless the slave nodes contact the master surface,
which usually begins to occur during the bending stage. For the
tangential mechanical behavior, the isotropic friction model known
as “Penalty” was selected to simulate the actual contact interaction
between the steel tube and concrete by using a specific value for the
friction coefficient. This was done because a slight slippage be-
tween the two surfaces in contact could occur during the high
bending stages at the mid-span even though no-slip failure was
recorded at the ends of the specimen in several experimental
(4) studies [9,13,22,35]. In general, many parameters could affect the
value of the friction coefficient, such as the type of infill concrete,
(5) dimensions of the tube, loading type/rate, and shape of the cross
section of the tube [22,41]. Therefore, this study used a friction
(6) coefficient of 0.75 between the steel tube and concrete surfaces,
which is the same value as used in a previous numerical study [22].
This value was provided only along the mid-span region of the CFST
FE model (the middle L/2 of model's length), while it was used full
(tie) interaction for the contacted surfaces along the rest of model's
length from both supports sides.
2.2. Convergence study
After all parameters were input and properties of the material
were identified, a convergence study was conducted to select a
suitable refined FE mesh for the model. Generally, using a signifi-
cant number of elements leads to accurate results; however, it also
results in a longer computational time for analysis. Therefore, a
sufficient converged solution for the FE models is when the
meshing size/number is limited after the resulting loading does not
change significantly at a certain limit of refinement. Fig. 4 shows
the results of the convergence study on the capacity of the bending
moment (Mu) versus the total number of elements used for the
quarter FE model's rectangular sections (R) and circular section (C)
while adopting the same CFST beam properties as tested in
Ref. [22].
2.3. Verifying FE models
The experimental results of the CFST specimens tested in pre-
vious studies [22,32,33] were used to verify the FE models devel-
oped in this study. Therefore, similar material properties of the
selected experimental specimens were used for the corresponding
FE models. Fig. 5 shows a comparison of the bending
momentedeflection relationships between the previously tested
CFST specimens and their corresponding FE models developed in
this study.
After confirming the adequacy of the developed FE models,
further models were built and analyzed to establish empirical
factors for the suggested theoretical formula in this study. A total of
144 CFST beam models were developed with rectangular and cir-
cular cross sections using various parameters, such as different
steel yield strengths, concrete compressive strengths, cross section
sizes, and steel tube thicknesses. The ranges of these parameters
are presented in Tables 1 and 2 for the rectangular and circular FE
models, respectively.
 A.W. Al Zand et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105778 5

Fig. 4. Convergence study for the 3D quarter FE models.

Fig. 5. Verify the moment - deflection relationships of the developed FE models.

3. Empirical methods to predict bending moment capacity
3.1. Development of empirical methods
The empirical methods proposed in this paper were established
based on several Mu values of the CFST beams obtained from the
analyses of the FE models and the experimental tests reported in
previous studies by other researchers. Results from 144 CFST FE
models, as well as 80 CFST experimental specimens [6,8,9,13,14],
were used. The fundamental method for predicting the moment
capacity of a composite section, i.e., multiplying section modulus
(Zcomp) by nominal composite stress (fcomp), is presented as follows:
Mu ¼ fcomp :Zcomp (7)

Zcomp ¼ Is ðD = 2Þ þ Ic ððD  2:tÞ = 2Þ for rectangular and circular sections (8)
6 A.W. Al Zand et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105778

Table 1
The range of parameters used to establish the flexural index-rectangular/square sections.

References D x B mm t mm fy MPa fcu MPa x Mu kN.m No. of models

Current 150  100 2.0e3.7 258e444 25-75 0.17-3.52 17.7e190.5 72

FE models 200  150
200  200
250  250
Lu and Kennedy [8] 152  152 4.8e9.5 377-432 40.5e47.2 1.72-4.21 71.3e283.8 12
254  152
152  254
Han [13] 120  120 2.93-5.86 293.8e330.1 27.3e40.0 1.2e3.49 17.8e42.61 16
150  120
120  90
150  90
120  60
Han et al. [14] 100  100 1.9-3.0 235-282 62.6e81.3 0.2-0.51 9.96-56.7 18
200  200
140  140
180  180

Table 2
The range of parameters used to establish the flexural index - circular sections.

References D mm t mm fy MPa fcu MPa x Mu kN.m No. of models

Current 165 2.0e6.0 258e444 25-75 0.25-3.53 19.48e475.8 72

FE models 225
350
400
Elchalakani et al. [9] 110 1.0e3.35 365-432 23.4 0.95-4.44 6.0e10.94 7
101.8
88.6
76.3
89.3
Han et al. [14] 100 1.9-3.0 235-282 51.5e81.3 0.2-0.62 7.33e40.6 18
140
180
200
Chitawadagi and Narasimhan [6] 44.5 1.25-2.0 250 27.8e51 0.61-2.1 0.74-3.16 9
57.2
63.5

 
b1 ¼ 1:12 ln x:2 þ AR þ 0:72 for rectangular sections
fcomp ¼ b: fcu (9) (11)
Therefore, the flexural index (b) values of the CFST beams given  
in Tables 1 and 2 can be estimated as follows: b1 ¼ 1:6 ln x:2 þ AR þ 0:8 for circular sections (12)

  b2 ¼ 0:51½lnðx þ 0:95Þ2 þ 2:2:lnðx þ 0:95Þ

b ¼ Mu Zcomp : fcu (10)
þ 0:1 for rectangular sections (13)
In general, it can suggest different forms of the empirical for-
mula for predicting the flexural bending capacity of the CFST beam
by using the statistical regression analysis. However, in addition to b2 ¼ 0:91½lnðx þ 0:85Þ2 þ 2:0:lnðx þ 0:85Þ
the wide range of data usually needed when developing empirical þ 0:48 for circular sections (14)
methods, the key to the accuracy of this type of theoretical method
Then, the final forms of the two suggested empirical methods to
depends on choosing the most effective independent variables that
predict the bending moment capacity (Mu-P) of the CFST beam can
can lead to establishing the sufficient form and empirical factors.
be shown as follows:
Therefore, in this study, two empirical methods are suggested for
different shapes of the cross section (circular and rectangular
MuP1 ¼ b1 : fcu :Zcomp (15)
shapes). The first method (Method 1) considers the effects of two
variables, namely, the steel confinement factor (x) and ratio of the
concrete cross section area to the total area of the composite sec- MuP2 ¼ b2 : fcu :Zcomp (16)
tion (AR). The second method (Method 2) considers only the effect
of the steel confinement factor (x). Figs. 6 and 7 show the rela-
tionship between b and the mentioned combination variables for
the CFST beams with rectangular and circular cross sections, 3.2. Verification of empirical methods
respectively. Therefore, by using regression analysis, the final forms
of the flexural index (b) formulas are shown as follows: The adequacy of the proposed methods for predicting Mu values
 A.W. Al Zand et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105778 7

Fig. 6. Flexural index vs. combined factors relationships- Rectangular section.

Fig. 7. Flexural index vs. combined factors relationships e Circular section.

of the CFST beams was verified by comparing them with the results
obtained from several experimental tests and FE analyses reported Wpcn ¼ ðD  2:tÞ: hn 2 (19)
previously in the literature. Particularly, the results of 54 rectan-
gular specimens and 37 circular specimens tested and analyzed by .
other researchers were used for the purpose of verification (see Wpa ¼ D3 6eWpc (20)
Tables 3 and 4). In addition, the Mu values predicted using the new
empirical methods (1 and 2) were compared with those predicted
by the formulas of the existing standards. Two standards Wpan ¼ D: hn 2  Wpcn (21)
commonly used in similar studies were used in the present com-
parison, namely, the Technical Code for Concrete-filled Steel .  
Tubular Structure (GB50936-2014) [47] and the standards of the hn ¼ ðAc : fck Þ ð2:D:fck Þ þ 4:t: 2: fy  fck (22)
European Committee for Standardisation (EC4-2004) [48]. The
details of these formulas are as follows: for rectangular sections
.
a) EC4 - 2004 Wpc ¼0:25 :ðB2:tÞ:ðD2:tÞ2 2 3: r 3 r 2 :ð4 pÞ:ð0:5: Dt rÞ
(23)
   
MuEC4 ¼ Wpa  Wpan : fy þ 0:5: Wpc  Wpcn : fck (17)
Wpcn ¼ ðB  2:tÞ:hn 2 (24)
where, for circular sections
.
. Wpa ¼0:25:B:D2 2 3:ðrþtÞ3 ðrþtÞ2 :ð4 pÞ:ð0:5:DtrÞWpc
Wpc ¼ ðD  2:tÞ3 6 (18) (25)
8 A.W. Al Zand et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105778

Table 3
Comparison between the predicted Mu values and the values obtained by others-rectangular/square sections.

No. Beam ID Mu kN.m Mu-EC4 Mu-EC4 Mu-GB Mu-GB Mu-P1 Mu-P1 Mu-P2 Mu-P2 References
/Mu /Mu /Mu /Mu

1 RS1 22.7 19.8 0.871 22.1 0.972 19.4 0.856 24.0 1.059 [23]
2 RS2 23.7 19.8 0.834 22.1 0.931 19.4 0.820 24.0 1.014
3 R 40.6 39.8 0.980 43.9 1.080 40.1 0.989 49.5 1.220 [22]
4 B01 81.8 67.8 0.829 73.1 0.894 73.3 0.896 91.6 1.120 [12]
5 B02 88.1 68.0 0.771 73.3 0.831 73.4 0.833 91.8 1.042
6 B03 98.4 70.6 0.717 79.8 0.811 87.6 0.890 100.3 1.019
7 B04 101.4 69.5 0.685 78.5 0.774 92.7 0.914 98.5 0.972
8 B05 170.7 138.2 0.809 154.0 0.902 151.7 0.888 188.4 1.104
9 B06 175.8 138.0 0.785 153.8 0.875 151.5 0.862 188.3 1.071
10 B07 181.7 143.0 0.787 164.3 0.904 162.9 0.896 206.0 1.134
11 B08 175.2 140.9 0.804 161.5 0.922 160.2 0.914 202.5 1.156
12 B09 215.5 167.2 0.776 194.3 0.901 192.2 0.892 242.0 1.123
13 B10 212.4 166.3 0.783 193.3 0.910 191.2 0.900 240.8 1.134
14 B11 219.8 170.4 0.775 203.6 0.926 201.6 0.917 250.5 1.140
15 B12 217.7 169.3 0.778 202.2 0.929 200.4 0.920 248.8 1.143
16 SB 41.2 34.9 0.848 39.0 0.946 39.4 0.956 48.4 1.175 [27]
17 HS6 27.9 21.7 0.777 23.0 0.823 23.4 0.838 29.0 1.041 [28]
18 HS12 42.4 34.1 0.805 36.3 0.856 37.4 0.882 45.1 1.065
19 NS6 62.6 48.1 0.768 48.5 0.775 55.9 0.893 60.7 0.970
20 NS12 103.5 87.6 0.846 92.3 0.892 98.4 0.951 111.5 1.077
21 NS18 153.0 138.1 0.903 149.4 0.976 168.7 1.103 174.7 1.142
22 BF2.5 9.9 7.2 0.731 9.1 0.925 10.2 1.035 10.7 1.086 [18]
23 BF3 10.9 8.1 0.743 10.4 0.950 10.9 0.996 12.6 1.150
24 BF4 17.2 10.0 0.580 13.1 0.761 15.0 0.870 16.6 0.966
25 SeBeN 15.2 11.9 0.782 13.6 0.891 15.8 1.037 15.7 1.030 [19]
26 SeBeC1 14.7 11.9 0.810 13.4 0.913 15.3 1.042 15.6 1.066
27 SeBeC2 14.3 11.8 0.828 13.3 0.926 14.9 1.043 15.6 1.087
28 SeBeC3 14.4 11.8 0.825 13.2 0.921 14.9 1.036 15.5 1.082
29 SeBeF1 14.6 11.9 0.815 13.3 0.915 15.1 1.038 15.6 1.071
30 SeBeF2 14.3 11.8 0.830 13.2 0.926 14.8 1.037 15.5 1.089
31 SeBeF3 13.6 11.8 0.867 13.1 0.964 14.7 1.075 15.5 1.137
32 B160-1 59.3 49.4 0.833 54.4 0.918 56.3 0.950 66.6 1.124 [29]
33 B160-2 59.5 49.4 0.830 54.4 0.915 56.3 0.947 66.6 1.120
34 B240-1 136.8 92.3 0.675 105.8 0.774 113.3 0.829 125.6 0.918
35 B240-2 144.9 92.3 0.637 105.8 0.730 113.3 0.782 125.6 0.867
36 B320-1 208.6 147.2 0.706 173.2 0.831 191.1 0.916 201.7 0.967
37 B320-2 203.3 147.2 0.724 173.2 0.852 191.1 0.940 201.7 0.992
38 CB 17.0 12.7 0.746 14.4 0.843 14.4 0.847 17.9 1.051 [30]
39 NCFST-1 94.0 87.1 0.927 107.9 1.148 103.0 1.096 128.0 1.362 [38]
40 NCFST-2 95.0 87.5 0.921 108.4 1.141 103.5 1.090 128.6 1.353
41 NCFST-3 92.5 87.2 0.943 107.8 1.165 103.0 1.114 128.0 1.383
42 OCFST-1 97.5 86.5 0.888 107.2 1.100 102.2 1.048 126.8 1.301
43 OCFST-2 99.0 87.5 0.883 108.4 1.095 103.3 1.043 128.2 1.295
44 OCFST-3 95.0 87.9 0.926 108.9 1.146 103.8 1.092 128.9 1.356
45 Rect. 27.9 27.5 0.987 29.3 1.050 27.8 0.995 34.1 1.221 [44]
46 31.7 29.4 0.928 32.1 1.011 32.3 1.018 39.9 1.258
47 35.1 30.7 0.876 35.0 0.999 36.1 1.028 42.7 1.217
48 36.6 31.3 0.855 36.5 0.998 38.7 1.057 43.6 1.192
49 39.0 32.1 0.822 39.0 1.001 44.7 1.146 44.8 1.149
50 Rect. 75.9 72.0 0.949 78.7 1.037 80.4 1.060 99.0 1.304
51 88.0 83.4 0.948 89.3 1.015 90.9 1.033 113.1 1.285
52 95.6 90.5 0.946 95.8 1.002 97.5 1.020 121.6 1.271
53 114.2 105.8 0.927 110.1 0.964 111.9 0.980 139.4 1.221
54 127.9 118.3 0.925 121.8 0.952 123.5 0.965 153.4 1.199
MV 0.825 0.937 0.967 1.131
COV 0.106 0.108 0.092 0.104

gm ¼ 1:1 þ 0:48lnðx þ 0:1Þ (29)

Wpan ¼ B: hn 2  Wpcn (26)

fscy ¼ ð1:14 þ 1:02:xÞ:fck (30)

.  
hn ¼ ðAc : fck Þ ð2: D : fck Þ þ 4 : t : 2 : fy  fck (27)
.
Wscm ¼ p:D2 32 (31)
b) GB 50936 - 2014
for rectangular sections

MuGB ¼ gm :Wscm :fscy (28) gm ¼ 1:04 þ 0:48lnðx þ 0:1Þ (32)

where, for circular sections
 A.W. Al Zand et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105778 9

Table 4
Comparison between the predicted Mu values and the values obtained by others e circular sections.

No. Beam ID Mu kN.m Mu-EC4 Mu-EC4/Mu Mu-GB Mu-GB/Mu Mu-P1 Mu-P1/Mu Mu-P2 Mu-P2/Mu References

1 CS 18.5 19.1 1.034 19.1 1.031 20.3 1.097 23.7 1.279 [23]
2 C 30.9 26.6 0.860 26.1 0.846 30.1 0.974 33.4 1.080 [22]
3 A-LC1-1-1 17.70 14.8 0.838 15.6 0.881 17.7 0.997 20.0 1.133 [31]
4 A-LC1-1-2 17.70 14.8 0.838 15.6 0.881 17.7 0.997 20.0 1.133
5 A-LC1-3-1 18.10 14.8 0.819 15.6 0.862 17.7 0.975 20.0 1.108
6 A-LC2-3-1 18.70 14.8 0.793 15.6 0.834 17.7 0.944 20.0 1.072
7 A-LC2-6-1 18.00 14.8 0.824 15.6 0.867 17.7 0.981 20.0 1.114
8 A-LC2-6-2 18.00 14.8 0.824 15.6 0.867 17.7 0.981 20.0 1.114
9 B-LC1-1-1 31.60 25.9 0.819 28.2 0.891 34.6 1.094 35.4 1.120
10 B-LC1-1-2 31.60 25.9 0.819 28.2 0.891 34.6 1.094 35.4 1.120
11 B-LC1-2-1 32.50 25.9 0.796 28.2 0.866 34.6 1.064 35.4 1.089
12 B-LC2-2-1 33.00 25.9 0.784 28.2 0.853 34.6 1.048 35.4 1.073
13 B-LC2-5-1 31.90 25.9 0.811 28.2 0.883 34.6 1.084 35.4 1.110
14 B-LC2-5-2 31.90 25.9 0.811 28.2 0.883 34.6 1.084 35.4 1.110
15 CS114-2.5-30 11.8 10.1 0.858 10.4 0.879 11.8 1.002 13.4 1.135 [35]
16 CS114-2.5-50 12.5 10.3 0.822 10.7 0.856 12.1 0.968 13.8 1.104
17 CS114-3.8-30 15.4 13.4 0.869 14.3 0.926 16.6 1.077 18.4 1.198
18 CS114-3.8-50 16.6 13.6 0.817 14.6 0.879 16.8 1.009 19.0 1.147
19 CS165-2.5-30 22.0 22.3 1.014 22.9 1.043 24.0 1.092 29.1 1.324
20 CS165-3.8-30 37.2 29.7 0.798 30.7 0.824 34.8 0.937 39.7 1.066
21 CS165-3.8-50 39.1 30.1 0.771 31.7 0.810 35.7 0.913 40.9 1.045
22 CBA-0 12.50 10.0 0.799 11.7 0.932 13.6 1.084 14.7 1.177 [25]
23 CBB-0 18.50 13.6 0.737 15.2 0.821 17.7 0.957 19.8 1.070
24 CBC-0 32.70 26.1 0.798 27.9 0.852 32.4 0.992 36.0 1.102
25 CBD-0 51.50 38.4 0.745 40.1 0.779 46.2 0.896 52.1 1.011
26 BCb0 29.40 25.6 0.870 25.5 0.866 29.1 0.991 32.6 1.108 [20]
27 BCb1-1 28.80 25.5 0.887 25.4 0.881 29.0 1.008 32.4 1.126
28 BCb1-2 28.70 25.5 0.890 25.4 0.884 29.0 1.012 32.4 1.130
29 BCb2-1 27.80 25.2 0.908 24.8 0.893 28.5 1.026 31.7 1.140
30 BCb2-2 27.50 25.2 0.918 24.8 0.902 28.5 1.037 31.7 1.153
31 CeBeN 11.72 8.3 0.706 8.8 0.754 10.8 0.919 11.1 0.946 [19]
32 CeBeC1 11.57 8.2 0.711 8.7 0.753 10.5 0.905 11.0 0.947
33 CeBeC2 11.56 8.2 0.708 8.6 0.746 10.3 0.889 10.9 0.940
34 CeBeC3 11.54 8.2 0.709 8.6 0.746 10.3 0.888 10.9 0.940
35 CeBeF1 11.51 8.2 0.713 8.7 0.753 10.4 0.902 10.9 0.948
36 CeBeF2 10.63 8.2 0.769 8.6 0.808 10.2 0.959 10.8 1.016
37 CeBeF3 10.60 8.2 0.770 8.6 0.807 10.1 0.956 10.8 1.018
MV 0.818 0.858 0.996 1.093
COV 0.091 0.076 0.065 0.076

independent variables, namely, steel confinement factor (x) and

fscy ¼ ð1:18 þ 0:85:xÞ:fck (33) ratio of concrete area of the composite cross section (AR).

.
Wscm ¼ B:D2 6 (34) 4. Empirical methods to predict effective flexural stiffness

The predicted Mu values were compared with the values ob-
tained from previous experimental and numerical studies, as pre-
sented in Tables 3 and 4, for CFST specimens with rectangular and
circular cross sections, respectively. In the present comparison, the
MVs from the ratio of Mu-EC4/Mu were approximately 0.825 and
0.818 for the specimens with rectangular and circular cross sec-
tions, respectively. The MVs from the ratio of Mu-GB/Mu were
approximately 0.937 and 0.858 for the specimens with rectangular
and circular cross sections, respectively. Furthermore, the sug-
gested empirical methods (1 and 2) achieved good prediction ac-
curacy for the Mu values of the CFST beams. Method 2
overestimated the existing Mu results. The MVs from the ratio of Mu-
P2/Mu were approximately 1.131 and 1.093 for the specimens with
rectangular and circular cross sections, respectively. However,
Method 1 achieved MVs of approximately 0.967 and 0.996 for the
specimens with rectangular and circular cross sections, respec-
tively, with sufficient COVs of 0.092 and 0.065. In addition, the
verifications of the new methods (1 and 2) are shown in Figs. 8 and
9 for the rectangular and circular beams, respectively. Based on the
above comparison, Method 1 achieved the best prediction values
for both the rectangular and circular CFST beams when compared
with the existing methods, including Method 2. This is attributed to
the fact that Method 1 considers the combined effects of two
4.1. Development of empirical methods
In this section, new empirical factors li and ls are established
and used as reduction factors for predicting the effective flexural
stiffness of the CFST beam, particularly at the concrete gross part
(Ec.Ic). These factors are required to estimate the values of flexural
stiffness at the initial and serviceability levels (Ki and Ks), respec-
tively. The results of 124 CFST beams were used for this purpose,
which consisted of 16 beams tested experimentally by Han [13], 36
beams tested by Han et al. [14], and 72 FE models developed and
analyzed in this study. The ranges of parameters and results for the
used rectangular and circular CFST beams and models are pre-
sented in Table 5. The following procedure was used to obtain the
actual li and ls values from the given Ki and Ks values of these 124
CFST beams:
Ki ¼ Es :Is þ li :Ec :Ic (35)
Ks ¼ Es :Is þ ls :Ec :Ic (36)
where, Ec ¼ 4733.(fc)1/2
Then, the corresponding li and ls values can be estimated as
follows:
10 A.W. Al Zand et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105778

Fig. 8. Verify the predicted Mu-P values with the existing results e Rectangular sections.

Fig. 9. Verify the predicted Mu-P values with the existing results e Circular sections.

Table 5
The range of parameters used to establish the li and ls.

Reference DxB or D t mm fy MPa fcu MPa x Ki kN.m2 Ks kN.m2 No. of models

mm

Current 150  100 2.0e5.0 258e444 25-75 0.26-3.53 847.6e2158.7 740.2e1862.5 72

FE models 165
Han [13] 120  120 2.93-5.86 293.8e330.1 27.3e40.0 1.21-3.49 485.0e1746.0 457.0e1265.0 16
150  120
120  90
150  90
120  60
Han et al. [14] 100  100 1.9-3.0 235-282 51.5e81.3 0.2-0.62 285.0e4233.0 235.0e3058.0 36
200  200
140  140
180  180
100
140
180
200

difficult to establish a direct relationship of empirical factors li and

li ¼ ðKi  Es :Is Þ = ð Ec :Ic Þ
ls ¼ ðKs  Es :Is Þ = ð Ec :Ic Þ
In general, the flexural stiffness of the CFST beam is affected
mainly by the size and shape of its cross sections and the moduli of
elasticity of the components of the beam. Consequently, it is
(37) ls with a particular parameter. Thus, after conducting several pre-
liminary analyses to address the parameters that have the most
effect on the performance of these factors, a relationship can be
(38)
deduced between these factors (li and ls) and the combined pa-
rameters. This study considered a combination of parameters,
namely, the steel confinement factor (x), concrete modulus ratio
 A.W. Al Zand et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105778 11

(MR), and concrete area ratio (AR) of the CFST beam. Figs. 10 and 11
show the relationships of the flexural stiffness reduction factor
versus the combined parameters at the initial level (li) and the
serviceability level (ls), respectively. However, using Eqs. (37) and
(38), a few of the established ls values are found to be slightly
lower than zero (negative values). This is because the stiffness
values (Ks) obtained from the existing experimental results were
lower than the corresponding estimated values of their steel gross
part (Es.Is). These estimated negative values were considered to be
zero in this study. Therefore, by using regression analysis for mul-
tiple variables, the suggested empirical factors (li and ls) can be
expressed as follows:
li ¼ 0:2:ðx þ 1Þ þ 4:6:lnðMR þ ARÞ 0:4 < li < 0:75
4.2. Verification of developed methods
The adequacy of the newly suggested empirical methods to
predict the Ki and Ks values has been verified by comparing the
predicted values with the results of 52 CFST beams (rectangular and
circular beams) tested experimentally by several researchers in the
existing literature. For the purpose of comparison, another five
different existing standards were also used to evaluate the flexural
stiffness values of these 52 beams, which are EC4-2004 [48], AISC-
2010 [49], AIJ-1997 [50], BS5400-2005 [51], and Han et al. [14]. The
forms of these theoretical formulas are presented as follows:
a) BS 5400 - 2005
(39)

KBS ¼ 0:95Es :Is þ 0:45Ec :Ic (43)

ls ¼ 0:1:ðx þ 1Þ þ 3:4:lnðMR þ ARÞ 0:15 < ls < 0:4 (40)
where, Ec ¼ 450 . fcu
The final forms of the new empirical methods to predict Ki and
Ks for both the rectangular and circular CFST beams can be pre-
b) EC4 - 2004
sented as follows:

KiP ¼ Es :Is þ li :Ec :Ic (41) KEC4 ¼ Es :Is þ 0:6:Ec :Ic ; (44)

where, Ec ¼ 9500.(fckþ8)1/3
KsP ¼ Es :Is þ ls :Ec :Ic (42)
c) AISC - 2010

Fig. 10. The reduction factor li vs. combined parameters relationship.

Fig. 11. The reduction factor ls vs. combined parameters relationship.

12 A.W. Al Zand et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105778

KAISC ¼ Es :Is þ C1:Ec :Ic ; (45) KiHan ¼ 0:2Mu =fi (47)

.
where, C1¼0.6 þ 0.2 (As/(As þ Ac))  0:9, Ec ¼ 4733.(fc)1/2
fi ¼ ½ð4:25bc þ 100:14Þ þ ð15:8bc þ 3:65Þ:x:ðbs Þ0:82
(48)
d) AIJ - 1997 ðEs :DÞ for circular sections

KAIJ ¼ Es :Is þ 0:2:Ec :Ic ; (46) .

fi ¼ ½ð10:64bc þ 91:18Þ þ ð8:66bc þ 5:93Þ:x:ðbs Þ0:82
(49)
where, Ec ¼ 4733.(fc/19.6)1/2 ðEs :DÞ for rectangular sections

e) Han et al., - 2006

KsHan ¼ 0:6Mu =fs (50)
As explained earlier, the empirical method developed by Han
et al. [13] can independently predict the flexural stiffness values of
Ki and Ks, which are presented as follows:

Table 6
Comparison between the predicted Ki and Ks values and the values obtained by others.

No. Beam ID KBS/Ki KBS/Ks KEC4/Ki KEC4/Ks KAISC/Ki KAISC/Ks KAIJ/Ki KAIJ/Ks Ki-Han/Ki Ks-Han/Ks Ki-P/Ki Ks-P/Ks References

1 CS 0.995 1.164 1.283 1.500 1.298 1.518 1.004 1.174 1.189 1.230 1.202 1.240 [23]
2 RS1 0.877 1.033 1.108 1.305 1.141 1.344 0.889 1.048 1.151 1.270 1.086 1.110
3 RS2 0.882 1.048 1.115 1.324 1.148 1.363 0.895 1.062 1.210 1.345 1.093 1.126
4 C 0.893 0.945 1.212 1.283 1.221 1.292 0.868 0.919 1.289 1.177 1.147 1.034 [22]
5 R 1.045 1.135 1.305 1.418 1.364 1.482 1.046 1.136 1.186 1.211 1.283 1.210
6 CBA-0 1.085 1.105 1.213 1.235 1.290 1.313 1.085 1.105 1.377 1.331 1.144 1.090 [25]
7 CBB-0 1.009 0.991 1.143 1.123 1.232 1.210 0.996 0.979 1.509 1.340 1.063 0.962
8 CBC-0 1.005 1.228 1.158 1.415 1.252 1.530 0.976 1.193 1.394 1.535 1.080 1.205
9 CBD-0 0.956 1.140 1.120 1.335 1.206 1.438 0.914 1.090 1.461 1.534 1.055 1.130
10 CB12 1.195 e 1.369 e 1.503 e 1.127 e 1.333 e 1.330 e [8]
11 CB13 1.102 e 1.276 e 1.390 e 1.053 e 1.290 e 1.232 e
12 CB15 1.037 e 1.205 e 1.308 e 0.995 e 1.164 e 1.162 e
13 CB22 1.163 e 1.275 e 1.349 e 1.165 e 1.107 e 1.202 e
14 CB31 1.163 e 1.341 e 1.488 e 1.090 e 1.415 e 1.283 e
15 CB33 1.125 e 1.302 e 1.441 e 1.060 e 1.383 e 1.244 e
16 CB35 1.028 e 1.193 e 1.318 e 0.971 e 1.253 e 1.138 e
17 CB41 1.219 e 1.365 e 1.482 e 1.191 e 1.275 e 1.272 e
18 CB45 1.144 e 1.286 e 1.391 e 1.123 e 1.202 e 1.200 e
19 CB52 1.120 e 1.266 e 1.379 e 1.076 e 1.322 e 1.223 e
20 CB53 1.005 e 1.148 e 1.240 e 0.978 e 1.239 e 1.104 e
21 CB55 0.999 e 1.145 e 1.232 e 0.976 e 1.210 e 1.099 e
22 CS114-2.5-30 0.961 1.139 1.286 1.524 1.264 1.498 0.986 1.168 1.440 1.465 1.104 1.177 [35]
23 CS114-2.5-50 1.015 1.204 1.342 1.592 1.335 1.584 1.024 1.215 1.556 1.566 1.164 1.235
24 CS114-3.8-30 0.975 1.259 1.210 1.561 1.225 1.581 1.009 1.303 1.361 1.561 1.064 1.260
25 CS114-3.8-50 1.040 1.239 1.280 1.525 1.311 1.561 1.065 1.268 1.528 1.602 1.127 1.228
26 CS165-2.5-30 1.061 1.164 1.539 1.688 1.462 1.604 1.077 1.181 1.359 1.245 1.309 1.246
27 CS165-3.8-30 1.061 1.203 1.406 1.595 1.387 1.573 1.089 1.236 1.714 1.665 1.201 1.234
28 CS165-3.8-50 1.107 1.219 1.451 1.596 1.449 1.594 1.119 1.232 1.819 1.693 1.251 1.240
29 eb1-1 0.743 0.909 0.892 1.090 0.965 1.180 0.693 0.847 1.142 1.292 0.872 0.922 [24]
30 eb1-2 0.734 0.902 0.880 1.082 0.953 1.171 0.684 0.841 1.063 1.209 0.861 0.915
31 eb2-1 0.729 0.836 0.874 1.003 0.946 1.086 0.679 0.779 1.224 1.300 0.855 0.848
32 eb2-2 0.743 0.876 0.891 1.051 0.965 1.138 0.692 0.817 1.287 1.405 0.872 0.889
33 eb3-1 0.794 0.958 0.952 1.149 1.031 1.244 0.740 0.893 1.060 1.183 0.932 0.972
34 eb3-2 0.793 0.974 0.952 1.168 1.030 1.265 0.739 0.908 1.045 1.187 0.931 0.988
35 BCb0 0.731 0.805 0.997 1.097 1.017 1.119 0.686 0.755 0.993 0.933 0.986 0.894 [20]
36 BCb1-1 0.754 0.826 1.032 1.130 1.051 1.150 0.711 0.778 1.011 0.945 1.018 0.920
37 BCb1-2 0.748 0.825 1.023 1.128 1.042 1.149 0.704 0.777 0.999 0.940 1.009 0.919
38 BCb2-1 0.766 0.837 1.069 1.168 1.073 1.172 0.738 0.806 1.028 0.965 1.035 0.945
39 BCb2-2 0.771 0.841 1.076 1.173 1.080 1.177 0.743 0.810 1.024 0.958 1.041 0.949
40 BSb0 0.790 0.841 1.010 1.076 1.043 1.110 0.765 0.815 0.882 0.846 0.955 0.885
41 BSb1-1 0.811 0.860 1.040 1.103 1.071 1.136 0.788 0.836 0.877 0.838 0.981 0.907
42 BSb1-2 0.817 0.871 1.048 1.117 1.080 1.151 0.795 0.847 0.895 0.858 0.989 0.918
43 BSb2-1 0.841 0.888 1.093 1.154 1.112 1.175 0.831 0.878 0.920 0.875 1.023 0.944
44 BSb2-2 0.835 0.892 1.085 1.159 1.104 1.180 0.825 0.881 0.919 0.884 1.016 0.948
45 CBC1 0.754 e 0.962 e 0.975 e 0.766 e 1.103 e 0.913 e [9]
46 CBC2 0.825 e 1.007 e 1.032 e 0.846 e 1.118 e 0.988 e
47 CBC3 0.848 e 1.027 e 1.053 e 0.871 e 1.179 e 0.998 e
48 CBC4 0.847 e 1.008 e 1.041 e 0.873 e 0.928 e 0.989 e
49 CBC5 0.851 e 1.004 e 1.036 e 0.878 e 0.924 e 0.997 e
50 bn 0.749 1.029 0.899 1.236 0.967 1.329 0.685 0.942 0.924 1.085 0.884 1.051 [26]
51 bc1 0.805 1.119 0.967 1.343 1.039 1.444 0.737 1.024 0.868 1.030 0.951 1.142
52 bs4 0.756 1.040 0.908 1.249 0.976 1.343 0.692 0.952 1.189 1.230 0.892 1.062
MV 0.925 1.010 1.135 1.277 1.188 1.320 0.904 0.985 1.194 1.217 1.074 1.050
COV 0.160 0.145 0.144 0.148 0.142 0.130 0.172 0.171 0.170 0.177 0.120 0.128
 A.W. Al Zand et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105778
Fig. 12. Verify the predicted flexural stiffness values (current method) with the existing results.
.
fs ¼ ½ð41:48bc þ 343:43Þ þ ð17:32bc þ 30:39Þ:x:ðbs Þ0:82 ðEs :DÞ
.
fs ¼ ½ð38:9bc þ 319:11Þ þ ð12:61bc þ 23:1Þ:x:ðbs Þ0:82 ðEs :DÞ
where, bs ¼ fy/345 and bc ¼ fcu/30.
Table 6 presents a comparison of the flexural stiffness results of
62 CFST beams obtained from the previously reported experi-
mental studies and the values predicted using the methods of the
mentioned standards including the method proposed in this study.
In general, standards EC4, AISC, and Han overestimated the
experimental flexural stiffness values at both levels (Ki and Ks).
Whereas, BS5400 and AIJ standards slightly underestimated these
values, particularly at the initial levels, where the MV values ob-
tained from the ratios of KBS/Ki and KAIJ/Ki were 0.925 and 0.904,
respectively. This is because BS5400 and AIJ use low reduction
factors of 0.45 and 0.2, respectively, for their stiffness value at the
concrete gross part (see Eqs. (43) and (46)). The best comparison
with the previously reported experimental results was achieved by
the newly suggested empirical methods, which marginally over-
estimated the values of Ki and Ks. The MV values obtained from the
ratios of Ki-P/Ki and Ks-P/Ks were 1.074 and 1.050, respectively, with
the lowest values of COVs being 0.120 and 0.128, as shown in Table 6
and Fig. 12. This is because the new methods considered the
combined effect of three independent variables (x, MR, and AR) in
addition to the effects of the moment of inertia and elastic modulus
of the parts of the composite beam. Furthermore, unlike the
existing standards methods of EC4, AISC, BS 5400, and AIJ, the new
methods can consider the reduction in the flexural stiffness of the
beam at the serviceability level, as considered in Ref. [14].
5. Conclusions
A wide range of parameters and results of CFST beams were used
in this study to develop new empirical formulas to theoretically
predict the flexural bending capacity (Mu) and flexural stiffness (Ki
and Ks) values of CFST beams under static loading. The conclusions
of the study can be summarized as follows:
13
for circular sections (51)
for rectangular sections (52)
 The flexural behavior of the rectangular and circular CFST beams
can be represented numerically using the FE software.
 Two empirical formulas in different simplified forms have been
suggested in this study for predicting the Mu values of the cir-
cular and rectangular CFST beams. The first method (Method 1)
considered the effects of two independent variables, namely, the
steel confinement factor (x) and ratio of the concrete area to the
overall area of the composite cross section (AR). Method 2
considered only the effect of the steel confinement factor (x).
 Generally, compared with the existing theoretical methods and
standards including the suggested Method 2, the new empirical
formula based on Method 1 achieved the best prediction of the
CFST beams' bending capacities, because it considered the
combined effects of two effective independent variables (x and
AR). Compared with the bending results of 91 CFST beams tested
previously by several researchers, Method 1 achieved the best
(amongst all mentioned methods) mean values of approxi-
mately 0.967 and 0.996 for the beams with rectangular and
circular cross sections, respectively, with sufficient coefficients
of variation equal to 0.092 and 0.065.
 Other new empirical formulas were developed to independently
predict the flexural stiffness values of CFST beams at the initial
and serviceability levels (Ki and Ks). Compared with the results
of the five existing standards (namely, EC4, AISC, AIJ, BS5400,
and Han et al. (2006)), the new methods achieved the best
predictions of the Ki and Ks values for the 52 specimens previ-
ously tested by other researchers. In addition to the effects of the
moments of inertia and elastic moduli of the parts of the beam
(EC4, AISC, AIJ, and BS 5400), the new method considered the
combined effects of three independent variables (x, MR, and AR).
 Finally, the new methods are developed for predicting the
flexural capacity and flexural stiffness values of CFST beams
under static bending loads and under normal weather condi-
tions. Therefore, further investigations are required to consider
the effects of varied environmental conditions and loading
14 A.W. Al Zand et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105778

scenarios, such as elevated temperature, offshore environment, [26] F.-Y. Liao, L.-H. Han, S.-H. He, Behavior of CFST short column and beam with
initial concrete imperfection: Experiments, J. Constr. Steel Res. 67 (2011)
and dynamic loads.
1922e1935.
[27] Z. Tao, L.-H. Han, L.-L. Wang, Compressive and flexural behaviour of CFRP-
Acknowledgements repaired concrete-filled steel tubes after exposure to fire, J. Constr. Steel
Res. 63 (2007) 1116e1126.
[28] A.D. Probst, T.H.-K. Kang, C. Ramseyer, U. Kim, Composite flexural behavior of
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support for the full-scale concrete-filled tubes without axial loads, J. Struct. Eng. 136 (2010)
postdoctoral research provided by Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia 1401e1412.
[29] W.-H. Wang, L.-H. Han, W. Li, Y.-H. Jia, Behavior of concrete-filled steel tubular
(project code No. MI-2018-010). stub columns and beams using dune sand as part of fine aggregate, Constr.
Build. Mater. 51 (2014) 352e363.
[30] A.A. Al-Shaar, M.T. Go €güş, Flexural behavior of lightweight concrete and self-
Appendix A. Supplementary data
compacting concrete-filled steel tube beams, J. Constr. Steel Res. 149 (2018)
153e164.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at [31] H. Lu, L.-H. Han, X.-L. Zhao, Analytical behavior of circular concrete-filled thin-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.105778. walled steel tubes subjected to bending, Thin-Walled Struct. 47 (2009)
346e358.
[32] M.C. Sundarraja, G. Ganesh Prabhu, Finite element modelling of CFRP jacketed
References CFST members under flexural loading, Thin-Walled Struct. 49 (2011)
1483e1491.
[33] A.W. Al Zand, W.H.W. Badaruzzaman, A.A. Mutalib, S.J. Hilo, Rehabilitation
[1] L.-H. Han, W. Li, R. Bjorhovde, Developments and advanced applications of
and strengthening of high-strength rectangular CFST beams using a partial
concrete-filled steel tubular (CFST) structures: Members, J. Constr. Steel Res.
wrapping scheme of CFRP sheets: experimental and numerical study, Thin-
100 (2014) 211e228.
Walled Struct. 114 (2017) 80e91.
[2] T. Hosaka, T. Umehara, S. Nakamura, K. Nishiumi, Design and experiments on
[34] M. Elchalakani, A. Karrech, M. Hassanein, B. Yang, Plastic and yield slender-
a new railway bridge system using concrete filled steel pipes, in: Composite
ness limits for circular concrete filled tubes subjected to static pure bending,
Construction-Conventional and Innovative International Conference, 1997,
Thin-Walled Struct. 109 (2016) 50e64.
pp. 367e372.
[35] F. Zhongqiu, J. Bohai, M. Hirofumi, A. Eizien, C. Jiashu, Flexural behavior of
[3] S.I. Nakamura, Y. Momiyama, T. Hosaka, K. Homma, New technologies of steel/
lightweight aggregate concrete filled steel tube, Advanced Steel Construction
concrete composite bridges, J. Constr. Steel Res. 58 (1) (2002) 99e130.
10 (2014) 385e403.
[4] J.-Y. Kang, E.-S. Choi, W.-J. Chin, J.-W. Lee, Flexural behavior of concrete-filled
[36] M. Dong, M. Elchalakani, A. Karrech, S. Fawzia, M.S.M. Ali, B. Yang, S.Q. Xu,
steel tube members and its application, International Journal of Steel Struc-
Circular steel tubes filled with rubberised concrete under combined loading,
tures 7 (2007) 319e324.
J. Constr. Steel Res. 162 (2019) 105613.
[5] L.H. Han, W. Xu, S.H. He, Z. Tao, Flexural behaviour of concrete filled steel
[37] S. Guler, D. Yavuz, Post-cracking behavior of hybrid fiber-reinforced concrete-
tubular (CFST) chord to hollow tubular brace truss: experiments, J. Constr.
filled steel tube beams, Constr. Build. Mater. 205 (2019) 285e305.
Steel Res. 109 (2015) 137e151.
[38] M.F. Javed, N.R. Sulong, S.A. Memon, S.K.-U. Rehman, N.B. Khan, Flexural
[6] M.V. Chitawadagi, M.C. Narasimhan, Strength deformation behaviour of cir-
behaviour of steel hollow sections filled with concrete that contains OPBC as
cular concrete filled steel tubes subjected to pure bending, J. Constr. Steel Res.
coarse aggregate, J. Constr. Steel Res. 148 (2018) 287e294.
65 (2009) 1836e1845.
[39] M.F. Javed, N.H.R. Sulong, S.A. Memon, S.K.U. Rehman, N.B. Khan, Experi-
[7] A.W. Al Zand, E. Hosseinpour, W.H.W. Badaruzzaman, The influence of
mental and numerical study of flexural behavior of novel oil palm concrete
strengthening the hollow steel tube and CFST beams using U-shaped CFRP
filled steel tube exposed to elevated temperature, J. Clean. Prod. 205 (2018)
wrapping scheme, Struct. Eng. Mech. 66 (2018) 229e235.
95e114.
[8] Y.Q. Lu, D.L. Kennedy, The flexural behaviour of concrete-filled hollow struc-
[40] R. Wang, L.-H. Han, J.-G. Nie, X.-L. Zhao, Flexural performance of rectangular
tural sections, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 21 (1994) 111e130.
CFST members, Thin-Walled Struct. 79 (2014) 154e165.
[9] M. Elchalakani, X.L. Zhao, R.H. Grzebieta, Concrete-filled circular steel tubes
[41] J. Moon, C.W. Roeder, D.E. Lehman, H.-E. Lee, Analytical modeling of bending
subjected to pure bending, J. Constr. Steel Res. 57 (2001) 1141e1168.
of circular concrete-filled steel tubes, Eng. Struct. 42 (2012) 349e361.
[10] S. Nakamura, T. Hosaka, K. Nishiumi, Bending behavior of steel pipe girders
[42] Y.-F. Yang, Modelling of recycled aggregate concrete-filled steel tube (RACFST)
filled with ultralight mortar, J. Bridge Eng. 9 (2004) 297e303.
beam-columns subjected to cyclic loading, Steel Compos. Struct. 18 (2015)
[11] M. Elchalakani, X.-L. Zhao, R. Grzebieta, Concrete-filled steel circular tubes
213e233.
subjected to constant amplitude cyclic pure bending, Eng. Struct. 26 (2004)
[43] Y.-F. Yang, Z.-C. Zhang, F. Fu, Experimental and numerical study on square
2125e2135.
RACFST members under lateral impact loading, J. Constr. Steel Res. 111 (2015)
[12] W.-M. Gho, D. Liu, Flexural behaviour of high-strength rectangular concrete-
43e56.
filled steel hollow sections, J. Constr. Steel Res. 60 (2004) 1681e1696.
[44] M.F. Javed, N.R. Sulong, S.A. Memon, S.K.U. Rehman, N.B. Khan, FE modelling of
[13] L.-H. Han, Flexural behaviour of concrete-filled steel tubes, J. Constr. Steel Res.
the flexural behaviour of square and rectangular steel tubes filled with normal
60 (2004) 313e337.
and high strength concrete, Thin-Walled Struct. 119 (2017) 470e481.
[14] L.-H. Han, H. Lu, G.-H. Yao, F.-Y. Liao, Further study on the flexural behaviour
[45] M.I. Alam, S. Fawzia, X. Liu, Effect of bond length on the behaviour of CFRP
of concrete-filled steel tubes, J. Constr. Steel Res. 62 (2006) 554e565.
strengthened concrete-filled steel tubes under transverse impact, Compos.
[15] L.-H. Han, H. Huang, Z. Tao, X.-L. Zhao, Concrete-filled double skin steel
Struct. 132 (2015) 898e914.
tubular (CFDST) beamecolumns subjected to cyclic bending, Eng. Struct. 28
[46] R. Wang, L.H. Han, C.C. Hou, Behavior of concrete filled steel tubular (CFST)
(2006) 1698e1714.
members under lateral impact: experiment and FEA model, J. Constr. Steel
[16] M. Hassanein, O. Kharoob, M. Taman, Experimental investigation of cemen-
Res. 80 (2013) 188e201.
titious material-filled square thin-walled steel beams, Thin-Walled Struct. 114
[47] Technical Code for Concrete Filled Steel Tubular Structures, China Architecture
(2017) 134e143.
& Building Press, Beijing, 2014. GB50936-2014.
[17] Y. Zhan, R. Zhao, Z.J. Ma, T. Xu, R. Song, Behavior of prestressed concrete-filled
[48] EC4. European Committee for Standardization, Design of Composite Steel and
steel tube (CFST) beam, Eng. Struct. 122 (2016) 144e155.
Concrete Structures e Part 1.1, General rules and rules for buildings, Brussels,
[18] S. Guler, A. Copur, M. Aydogan, Flexural behaviour of square UHPC-filled
2004.
hollow steel section beams, Struct. Eng. Mech. 43 (2012) 225e237.
[49] AISC, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, AISC, Chicago, IL, 2010.
[19] Y.-F. Yang, G.-L. Ma, Experimental behaviour of recycled aggregate concrete
[50] AIJ-, Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ). Recommendations for Design and
filled stainless steel tube stub columns and beams, Thin-Walled Struct. 66
Construction of Concrete Filled Steel Tubular Structures, 1997, 1997.
(2013) 62e75.
[51] BS5400. British Standard Institute, Steel, Concrete and Composite Bridges in
[20] Y.-F. Yang, L.-H. Han, Compressive and flexural behaviour of recycled aggre-
Part 5: Code of Practice for the Design of Composite Bridges, 2005. London
gate concrete filled steel tubes (RACFST) under short-term loadings, Steel
(UK).
Compos. Struct. 6 (2006) 257.
[52] ABAQUS, Abaqus Analysis User's Manual, Version 6.9, Dassault Syste mes,
[21] S. Arivalagan, S. Kandasamy, Flexural behaviour of concrete-filled steel hollow
2009, 2009.
sections beams, J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 14 (2008) 107e114.
[53] R. Feng, Y. Chen, J. Wei, J. Huang, J. Huang, K. He, Experimental and numerical
[22] A.W. Al Zand, W.H.W. Badaruzzaman, A.A. Mutalib, S.J. Hilo, Flexural behavior
investigations on flexural behaviour of CFRP reinforced concrete-filled stain-
of CFST beams partially strengthened with unidirectional CFRP sheets:
less steel CHS tubes, Eng. Struct. 156 (2018) 305e321.
experimental and theoretical study, J. Compos. Constr. 22 (2018), 04018018.
[54] M.P. Byfield, J.M. Davies, M. Dhanalakshmi, Calculation of the strain hardening
[23] A.W. Al Zand, W.H.W. Badaruzzaman, A.A. Mutalib, S.J. Hilo, The enhanced
behaviour of steel structures based on mill tests, J. Constr. Steel Res. 61 (2005)
performance of CFST beams using different strengthening schemes involving
133e150.
unidirectional CFRP sheets: an experimental study, Eng. Struct. 128 (2016)
[55] J.B. Mander, M.J. Priestley, R. Park, Theoretical stress-strain model for confined
184e198.
concrete, J. Struct. Eng. 114 (8) (1988) 1804e1826.
[24] Q.X. Ren, L.H. Han, D. Lam, W. Li, Tests on elliptical concrete filled steel tubular
[56] A. Bahrami, W.H. Wan Badaruzzaman, S.A. Osman, Investigation of concrete-
(CFST) beams and columns, J. Constr. Steel Res. 99 (2014) 149e160.
filled steel composite (CFSC) stub columns with bar stiffeners, J. Civ. Eng.
[25] Q.L. Wang, Y.B. Shao, Flexural performance of circular concrete filled CFRP-
Manag. 19 (3) (2013) 433e446.
steel tubes, Advanced Steel Construction 11 (2015) 127e149.
 A.W. Al Zand et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 164 (2020) 105778 15

[57] H.T. Hu, C.S. Huang, M.H. Wu, Y.M. Wu, Nonlinear analysis of axially loaded
concrete-filled tube columns with confinement effect, J. Struct. Eng. 129 (10)
(2003), 22-1329.
[58] F.E. Richart, A. Brandtzaeg, R.L. Brown, A Study of the Failure of Concrete
under Combined Compressive Stresses, University of Illinois at Urbana
Champaign, College of Engineering. Engineering Experiment Station, 1928.
[59] T. Wang, T.T.C. Hsu, Nonlinear finite element analysis of concrete structures
using new constitutive models, Comput. Struct. 79 (2001) 2781e2791.
[60] P. Kmiecik, M. Kamin
ski, Modelling of reinforced concrete structures and
composite structures with concrete strength degradation taken into consid-
eration, Archives of civil and mechanical engineering 11 (2011) 623e636.