WELCOME

TO OUR PRESENTATION
ON
A REVIEW ON CONCRETE FILLED
STEEL TUBES COLUMN(CFST)
MILITARY INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Presented By:
Md.Asraful Hoque ………….0418110014
Ayesha Akhter……………….0420110009
Mardia Mumtaz…………… . 0420110006
CFST column is the clever combination of steel and concrete.
Where ,
Concrete core gives
• Stiffness
• Compressive strength of tubular column
And reduces the potential for inward local buckling
Steel tube works as
 longitudinal and lateral reinforcement
 Resists tension, bending moment and shear
ADVANTAGE OF CONCRETE FILLED STEEL TUBES (CFST)
Design Flexibility
Durable
High Flexural Modulus to Carry Demanding Loads
High Impact Strength
Heat Resistance
Creep Resistance
Superior Thermal Stability
Better cost stability than commodities
 Performance of different types of columns

Various Types of CFST Columns:

• Composite column systems
• Reinforced composite column systems
• Concrete-filled double skin tubes (CFDST)
• Reinforced Concrete-filled double skin tubes (CFDST)
• Concrete-encased CFST columns
• Stiffened CFST columns
COMPOSITE COLUMN SYSTEMS 5
 6
CONCRETE-FILLED DOUBLE
SKIN TUBES (CFDST)
REINFORCED CONCRETE-FILLED 7
DOUBLE SKIN TUBES (CFDST)
CONCRETE-ENCASED CFST COLUMNS 8
 9
STIFFENED CFST COLUMNS
AXIAL COMPRESSIVE 10
BEHAVIOR OF CFST COLUMN
 COMPARISSION BETWEEN CFST COLUMN VS RC COLUMN
Subject to compare
Steel Ratio
Description
By comparing cross section we have found that steel ratio of CFST column is 11
more than RC column.
Shrinkage and Creep Shrinkage and creep of concrete are much smaller than ordinary reinforced
concrete.
Construction advantages a. Formwork is not required as the steel tube acts as permanent formwork thus
saving costly and time consuming formwork
b. Casting of concrete is done by pumping method, which saves both the
manpower and constructional cost and time.
c. For cut and bending RC column needs skilled worker by comparing with it
CFST columns are simple to fabricate and construct so do not need skilled
worker.

Column size The column size of CFST column is smaller than RC column so that usable floor
area and visibility is increased.

Weight CFST columns are lighter than RC column.

For this reason-
 Foundation cost is reduced.
 Resulting Earthquake force is reduced.
 Safe for seismic regions.
 Brittle failure can be prevented.
Amount of concrete Useable concrete core of CFST column is 10% of the total volume of concrete.
Lesser concrete and steel is needed when we compare it with RC column due to
carbon foot print reduction.
 COMPARISSION BETWEEN CFST COLUMN VS STEEL COLUMN
Subject to compare Description 12
Corrosion reduce CFST column exhibit better corrosion resistance capability
ability than steel column.

Seismic behaviors Better than that of Steel column.

Span length The span of frame beam 7-8m even more can be used as
steel beams are used as beams.

Dimension and 1. The dimension of CFST column is nearly with the

weight outline dimension of a steel column. Hence, the space
occupied by CFST column is not more than that of a
steel column making it equivalent in terms of space and
the density of concrete is one-third of the density of
steel. Thus, the weight of CFST column does not more
than that of a steel column.

Amount of Steel CFST columns use approximately half the steel in

comparison with a steel column.
Fig: Schematic failure modes of steel tube, concrete and CFST under
tension, bending and torsion.
fig: Typical failure modes of CFST column.
 Design CODE Review of CFST Column
 Maximum design of CFST column was done by either Euro code 4 or AISC-
LRFD 2005 though different design regulations were produced for various
cross-sections of CFST structures though different design regulations were
produced for various cross-sections of CFST structures.
 In China and Japan, the standard for designing the composite columns is based
on a simple method of superposition that uses the allowable stresses of the
materials or then working stress method.
 ACI-318 adopts the traditional reinforced concrete approach.
 AS 36001994 also uses the concept of reinforced concrete design
 AISC-LRFD 2010, ACI 2014 and (Wang et al. 2016) codes are also used
 AISC-LRFD (2010) presented best prediction with a mean of 0.99 and
Standard deviation of 0.04. EC4 and ACI (2014) predicted higher capacity
than the experimental results about 8% and 2% respectively; whilst Wang et
al. (2016) predicted highest 12% higher capacity of all the methods analyzed
 Current design rules for CFST columns are specified in AISC-LRFD (2010),
ACI 318R (2014), EC-4 (1994), British standard BS 5400 (2005) and
Canadian Standard Association CSA (2009).
By comparing the maximum Predicted guidelines and limitations
percentage variation for
experimental results and
theoretical results according to
International Journal of
Constructive Research in Civil
Engineering (IJCRCE) (Volume 2,
Issue 2, 2016, PP 11-17 ISSN 2454-8693
(Online) www.arcjournals.org) of
axial
load carrying capacity of CFST
columns evaluated in accordance
with
AISC-LRFD 2005 was around
21%.
Euro code 4 was around 16%.
Historical Development
Short term
Static performance
Long term
Seismic
Dynamic performance
Impact load

Fire Under fire

CFST Column
Post fire
Design guideline Engineering practice

Durability service life prediction

Pre load on steel tube

Construction issue
Imperfections of core
Theoretical research concrete

Framework of research on CFST structures

Many studies have been carried out to investigate the behavior of CFST columns subjected to various types of
loadings.
Furlong (1967), studied the behavior of concrete filled
Knowles and Park et al (1969), steel tubular columns subjected to
Neogi et al (1969) and Tomii et al (1977) concentric compression
Result :
The compressive strength enhances due to concrete confinement and the yield strength of steel tube decreases due to
the development of hoop stresses in the steel tube.
Knowles and Park (1969)
proposed a value of 44 for KL/r (the ratio of effective length to radius of gyration) approximately equal to L/D of
12. Above this value confinement does not occur.
Bridge et al (1995) have agreed with a slenderness ratio equal to 15 as this boundary.
Uy (2001) investigated the effect of local buckling due to geometrical imperfections and residual stresses .
Zhang et al. (1994) Did experiment on concrete filled steel tube to predict
Zhao et al.( 1999, 2002) flexural behavior.
Han et al.( 2004)

Result :
filling of steel hollow tube with concrete increased the flexural strength
Same as,
To evaluate the seismic performance of embedded CFT column-base connections, experiments
carried out by Moon et al. 2013
Cui et al 2015 aimed to study the shear behavior of exposed column bases. The main parameters
considered were the number of anchor rods, position of anchor rods and the level of axial and
lateral loading.
It was observed that, the current design approach underestimated the shear resistance of the
connection.

Figure : Composite Connection - Previous studies.

 20
EXPOSED AND EMBEDDED CONNECTION
 21
EXPOSED AND EMBEDDED CONNECTION
FINDINGS OF EXPOSED AND EMBEDDED CFST 22
COLUMN TO FOUNDATION CONNECTION

 The failure pattern of exposed connection was mainly due to

yielding of anchor bolts where as in embedded connection
specimens, the failure was due to inelastic buckling of the CFST
column. All the specimens achieved a ductile behaviour with
minimum damage of concrete foundation.
 The load- displacement response of the exposed specimen showed
pinched shape. All the embedded specimens showed spindle shape.
 The axial load applied did not affect the behviour of the column
foundation connection.
 Gaps in The Research Area

• CFST sections have not been used as part of frames

• . No study of the behavior of CFST column connected to CFST beams is available. It has been
observed from the literature review that relatively few researchers have performed finite
element analysis of square/rectangular CFST sections.
• More studies are required for the development FEM methods. The behavior of composite
frames is not fully understood hence the requirement for accurate and reliable analysis of a
composite frame is very clear.
• Though many studies are available for CFST composite frames in which CFST columns and
steel beams are part the frame, very limited research is available in literature where CFST
members beam and columns are used as part of CFST composite frame.
As conclusion we can say,
In the world ,the use of steel buildings is still at infancy stage. The cost factor is the main
influencing factor behind. It can be concluded that in today’s scenario, when green
buildings have become the focus of designers, CFST structures can be a better alternative
to traditional structures of concrete and steel structures due to their abundant advantages.

In the upcoming version of Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC 2016) the design
guidelines for CFST columns are included which is adopted from AISC (2005)
specifications. The applicability of these design provisions in the construction
environment of Bangladesh needs to be explored though The main drawback of CFST
column is compactness of concrete around the beam to column connection specially in
case of inner and through type diaphragms. For remedy self-compacting concrete can be
used.
 25

THANK YOU