Sep. 2013, Volume 7, No. 9 (Serial No. 70), pp.

1080-1091
Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, ISSN 1934-7359, USA

DAVID

PUBLISHING

Evaluation of Current Design Practices on Estimation of

Axial Capacity of Concrete Encased Steel Composite
Stub Columns: A Review
Amiya Kumar Samanta1 and Amit Paul2
1. Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Durgapur 713209, India
2. Durgapur Projects Ltd., Durgapur 713201, India
Abstract: This paper presents the design assessment of concrete encased I-sections composite column based approaches given in
Eurocode, ACI Code, BS Code and AISC-LRFD. This study includes comparison of various design parameters and evaluation of
design strength based on the procedures predicted in the various codes of practices. A practical example has been assumed and
calculation has been shown to evaluate their potentiality in understanding in predicting the potentiality of various procedures. The
obtained results based on the methods varies widely, because of the different design considerations adopted by the different codes. As
such, they have hardly considered the effect of confinement of the concrete due to the presence of longitudinal reinforcements as well as
lateral ties. The study has attempted to throw light on critical review and their potentiality in assessing the strength of such concrete
encased composite column under purely axial loads.
Key words: Concrete encased, structural steel, composite column, design philosophy.

1. Introduction
A composite column is a compression member
which may either be made up of a structural steel
sections encased by concrete or concrete filled in
hollow circular/rectangular steel tube. A few such
cross-sections are shown in Fig. 1. These compression
members are extensively used in the construction of tall
building under a specified time frame in the developing
countries over the last few decades. It has got a few
advantages over the conventional reinforced concrete
construction: (1) due to its higher strength and stiffness,
cross-sectional area reduces; (2) reduces material
consumption and project execution time; (3) inherent
ductility resulting in suitability for earthquake loading;
and (4) provides good fire resistance. As a result, it is
becoming increasingly popular in the construction
industry particularly in foreign countries, those having
Corresponding author: Amiya Kumar Samanta, M.Tech.,
Ph.D., research field: structural engineering. E-mail:
aksnitd@gmail.com.

a definite design guideline based on their individual

codes of practice and advanced construction
techniques/equipments. But in India, it is still not
adopted, in general, in spite of the efforts from various
ends due its lack of design guideline or code of practice.
This study presents a critical review of knowledge base
on concrete encased steel I-section composite columns.
The discussion is mainly focused on the behavior of
stub columns based on various codes of practice and a
comparison.
Several commonly used methods, which are
available at present for designing such composite
columns, include Eurocode 4 (EC4): Part 1.1, BS 5400:
Part 5, ACI 318 and AISC-LRFD specifications. The
objective of this presentation is to assess the suitability
of current design methods as per the mentioned codes
of practice for evaluating the ultimate compressive
strength of concrete encased steel I-section composite
column and to recommend design guidelines in Indian
perspective. The differences in the design capacities
following the above codes of practice are highlighted

Evaluation of Current Design Practices on Estimation of Axial Capacity of

Concrete Encased Steel Composite Stub Columns: A Review

Fully encased Partially encased

RHS

Circular

(a) Concrete encased sections (b) Concrete filled hollow

sections
Fig. 1

Typical composite column sections.

and compared. Design calculations are carried out for

typical cross-section(s) to mention their similarities
and differences. An attempt has also been made to
include other parameters which are not yet included in
those procedures for better understanding and
prediction of its behavior in the conclusion.

2. Past Researches
Past works have been carried out both
experimentally as well as numerically to study the
ultimate strength of concrete encased steel composite
column. Furlong [1] and Lundberg and Galambos [2]
described AISC-LRFD and ACI Code method for
encased composite column design with example
calculation and highlighted some of the differences in
their design philosophies. LRFD procedure is easier to
apply because it employs specific formulas for strength
values compared to ACI method. Although ACI Code
procedure requires tedious computations, but it is
applicable to cross sections of any shape and it appears
to be unnecessarily conservative for slender composite
columns. The LRFD procedure offers the most
appropriate method for designing concentrically
loaded slender composite columns.
The study reported in Mirza [3] investigated the
effects of different variables on the variability of the
ultimate strength of steelconcrete composite
columns in which steel shapes are encased in concrete.
The ultimate strength of a number of typical composite
columns was studied in terms of the ratio of
theoretical strength based on an accurate description
of strength and probability distributions of variables
affecting the strength to a nominal strength based on

1081

design expressions of the ACI Code. This was done to

non-dimensionalization of strength and to simplify the
comparison of strength for different columns. The
major conclusions drawn from the analysis of results
reported in this study are: (1) The residual stresses play
an appreciable role in the strength of composite
columns; (2) The concrete confinement provided by
the lateral ties produces a beneficial effect on the
strength of composite columns; (3) The specified
concrete strength, end eccentricity ratio and
slenderness ratio are the major parameters affecting the
variability of composite column strength.
Tawil et al. [4] had produced an interactive computer
program COSBIAN (composite section blaxial
ananlysis) for modeling biaxial bending of encased
composite steel-concrete columns to analytically
investigate the inelastic behavior based on the fiber
element method. The nominal uniaxial and biaxial
bending strengths were calculated according to
ACI-318 and LRFD specifications and compared with
fiber element analysis results. ACI-318 nor the LRFD
provisions explicitly consider any increase in the
strength or ductility of concrete due to transverse ties,
confinement effects were not included in the fiber
analyses. It was concluded that: (1) Overall, the
ACI-318 design method models the behavior more
realistic than the LRFD method; (2) For both short and
slender columns the ACI-318 strengths were slightly
unconservative (up to 8% and 10%, respectively)
compared to the fiber element results; (3) For short
columns, the LRFD strengths were up to 41%
conservative compared to the fiber results, but for
slender columns with large steel ratios (L/r = 40 and
As/Ag = 16%) the LRFD and fiber strengths were fairly
close.
Muoz and Hsu [5] proposed a set of unified design
equations and moment interaction curves to predict the
ultimate load capacity of short and slender
concrete-encased composite columns under purely
axial load as well as uniaxial/biaxial bending, which
utilizes the design parameters of both ACI and

1082

Evaluation of Current Design Practices on Estimation of Axial Capacity of

Concrete Encased Steel Composite Stub Columns: A Review

AISC-LRFD methods. They have carried a calculation

based on modified radius of gyration, modified
modulus of elasticity, modified allowable stress and
modified critical stress of the composite section, which
takes care of the presence of concrete and rebars while
assessing the strength of the whole section. The authors
concluded that it evaluates very accurate results in
regard to the assessment of encased composite columns
when compared with experimental results by the
different researchers.
Tawil and Deierlein [6] has reviewed design criteria
for concrete encased composite columns with emphasis
on seismic behavior and the use of high-strength
concrete. Strength and ductility of composite columns
have been studied using a fiber analysis technique that
accounts for the inelastic stress-strain response of steel
and concrete. The change in composite column
behavior as a function of the ratio of structural steel to
gross column area, the nominal compression strength
of concrete and concrete confinement by reinforcing
bar ties have also been studied. The author has limited
the discussion to short columns where slenderness
effects are not considered. The author has shown large
differences in the nominal strengths for combined axial
compression and bending calculated according to the
ACI and the AISC-LRFD specifications for concrete
encased composite columns, and this discrepancy
increases as the concrete strength increases.
Wang [7] carried out tests to calibrate EC4 against
BS 5400 for slender composite columns and assess the
accuracy of a new design method for composite
columns, based on BS 5950. In the new method, two
equations are satisfied: a local capacity check and a
global buckling check. Max and May are the reduced
column maximum buckling moments, in the presence
of the axial load N, about the major and minor axis,
respectively. The author has made comparisons
between three different methods using concrete of
grade M25/30 and low strength steel of grade Fe275
and predicted column strengths with test result and
concluded that all the codes were conservative and

have similar overall accuracy.

Narayanan and Usha [8] in their lecture note
highlighted that a composite column may be designed
for ultimate limit state for the most unfavorable load
combination. It is said that although local bucking of
steel section reduces, overall bucking must be allowed
for together with second order effects in slender
columns. A reduction in flexural stiffness due to
cracking of the concrete in the tension area should also
be considered. They proposed a design method based
on EC4 and European bucking curves, of course using
the design/material parameters from relevant Indian
code of practice.
Saw and Liew [9] presented the design assessment of
encased I-sections and CFT columns based on the
approaches given in Eurocode 4: Part 1.1, BS 5400:
Part 5 and AISC-LRFD which includes studies on the
design parameters, comparison of the nominal strength
predicted by the three codes and comparison of the
predicted strengths with the available test results.
Shanmugam and Lakshmi [10] presented the state of
art review on steel-concrete composite columns
including the behavior of short and slender composite
columns. A detailed discussion on the effect of local
buckling, bond strength, confinement of concrete,
seismic behavior and secondary stresses on composite
columns were presented. Neither the ACI-318 nor the
AISC-LRFD
provisions
explicitly
consider
confinement effects on strength or ductility of member.
ACI provisions for calculating the strength interaction
between axial and flexural effects are essentially the
same as those for reinforced concrete column, whereas
AISC-LRFD are based on the bilinear interaction
formulae which have the same form as those of steel
columns. In the above design methods, flexural
stiffness is underestimated and confining effect of the
steel tube on the concrete core is ignored. Code
provisions in BS 5400 are based on limit state design
with loading factors and material safety factors. The
ultimate moment is calculated from plastic stress
distribution over the cross-section, and an

Evaluation of Current Design Practices on Estimation of Axial Capacity of

Concrete Encased Steel Composite Stub Columns: A Review

approximation for the interaction curve for axial load

and moment is used. This method is applicable to
symmetrical sections only and restricted to the range of
sections catered for in the European buckling curves.
Zhong and Chen [11] presented a new simplified
superposition design method for concrete encased
composite columns subjected to biaxial bending
recommended
by
the
Chinese
YB9082-97
Specification along with the design examples.
Comparisons made between the two methods in the
determination of load carrying capacities of rectangular
cross sections with symmetrically placed H-shaped and
box-shaped structural steel indicate that the simplified
method appears to be conservative on all
cross-sectional cases studied, but display different
overall accuracies on cross sections with different
structural steel shapes and different load eccentricities.
Weng and Yen [12] calculated design strength of
concrete-encased composite column based on the
design provisions of ACI-318 (1999) and AISC-LRFD
(1993) and investigated the difference between these
two approaches. The study indicates that the predicted

The work of Mirza and Lacroix [14] compares the

strengths of 150 physical tests from the published
literature for rectangular encased composite columns in
the published literature with the strengths calculated
from selected computational procedures and also
compares computational procedures with ACI 318-02,
AISC-LRFD and EC4. The columns were braced and
pinned at both ends and subjected to short-term loads,
producing pure axial force, axial force combined with
symmetrical single-curvature bending, or pure bending.
An improvement over the procedure of ACI 318-02
was also suggested.
Chen and Lin [15] analytically investigated concrete
encased steel stub columns for predicting axial
compressive capacity considering unconfined concrete,
partially and highly confined concrete by the
longitudinal rebar, lateral ties and structural steel
section in the composite cross section including
post-peak strength. Compressive strength of partially
confined concrete is given by Eq. (1) and highly
confined concrete by Eq. (2):
'
(1)
f cp K p f
co

capacities based on the ACI-318 approach are about

8%-25% closer to the test results than those based on
the AISC-LRFD approach. It is concluded that in
general, as compared with the test results, the ACI-318
approach is found to be more accurate than the
AISC-LRFD approach in predicting the capacities of
encased composite columns. For concrete-encased
composite columns with steel ratio ranging from 2% to
12%, this comparative study reveals that the ACI-318
approach shows better strength predictions than that of
the AISC-LRFD.
Tikka and Mirza [13] have examined around 12,000
isolated square composite columns and assessed EI
value provided by ACI building code used for the
design of steel encased concrete composite columns. A
new nonlinear equation for EI has been developed for
use in design of slender composite columns subjected
bending and it has been proposed as an alternative to
the existing ACI EI equations.

1083

f ch K

'

(2)

co

whereas compressive strength of unconfined concrete

same as the concrete compressive strength

measured from the cylinder test. Kp and Kh are defined
as confinement factors for partially and highly
confined concrete. On the basis of strain compatibility
and constitutive relationships, they suggested
expression for the estimation of analytical axial load
and a simplified squash load (without considering
confinement effect) to predict the axial compressive
capacity for a stub column, but without considering the
length factor or the slenderness effect.
A generic fiber model algorithm has been presented
by Charalampakis and Koumousis [16] for the efficient
analysis of arbitrary composite sections under biaxial
bending and axial load. The geometry of the cross
section has been described by multi-nested curvilinear
polygons. The proposed method addressed towards
construction
of
moment-curvature
diagrams,

1084

Evaluation of Current Design Practices on Estimation of Axial Capacity of

Concrete Encased Steel Composite Stub Columns: A Review

calculation of the ultimate strength and determination

of the deformed state of the cross section under given
external loads.
Ellobody and Young [17] presented a nonlinear 3D
FE (finite element) model in Abaqus for pin-ended
axially loaded concrete encased steel composite
columns with an objective to understand the structural
response and modes of failure of the columns and to
assess the composite column strengths against current
design codes. The details of nonlinear material model
have been presented exclusively. The study covered
slender, non-slender, stub and long concrete encased
steel composite columns for concrete strength 20-110
MPa and steel yield stresses 275-690 MPa. It has been
shown that the increase in structural steel strength has a
small effect on the composite column strength for the
columns having higher relative slenderness ratios due
to the flexural buckling failure mode. The composite
column strengths obtained from the FE analysis was
compared with the design strengths calculated using
the AISC and EC4 for composite columns. Generally,
it is shown that the EC4 accurately predicted the design
strength for the concrete encased steel composite
columns having a concrete cylinder strength of 30 MPa
and structural steel yield stresses of 275 MPa and 460
MPa, which are in the limits of the code, which
otherwise, was generally conservative.
Ellobody and Young [18] investigated a nonlinear
3D FE model for concrete encased steel composite
columns with pin-ends and eccentric load acting along
the major axis. The columns were pin-ended subjected
to an eccentric load acting along the major axis (e =
0.125-0.375 D). The model was prepared in Abaqus
and it considered material non-linearity of structural
steel, concrete, longitudinal and transverse
reinforcement bars including the concrete confinement
effect and bond/interaction behavior. It has been shown
that the effect on the composite column strength due to
the increase in structural steel yield stress is significant
for eccentrically loaded columns with small
eccentricity of 0.125 D. On the other hand, for columns

with higher eccentricity 0.375 D, the effect on the

composite column strength due to the increase in
structural steel yield stress is significant for columns
with concrete strengths lower than 70 MPa. The
strength of composite columns calculated on the basis
of FE analysis was also compared with the design
strengths calculated using the EC4 & AISC Code for
composite columns.
Narayanan and Kayanraman [19] had compiled the
INSDAG (Institute of Steel Development and Growth)
guide for the structural use of steelworks I buildings.
The guide book is based on limit state of design which
has been derived from BS 5950, EC4 and IS800-2007.
This book includes method of design of concrete
encased steel composite, concrete filled steel tubes
about which IS 800 is absolutely silent and in a sense it
is most useful in Indian context, too. It uses some of
stipulations from foreign codes which is being
modified with some new set of values of partial safety
factors. That is why the authors have chosen a model
described in the next section and wishes to compare the
design strength values as described by the previous
investigators and codes of practice.

3. Model Description
A 150 mm wide 200 mm deep and 1,250 mm long
model section has been proposed for calculation. The
details of the section are shown in Fig. 2. The structural
steel I-shape section is a fabricated one made up of
flange plate 50 mm 8 mm and web plate 84 mm 5
mm encased by concrete and additionally reinforced
with four longitudinal steel corner bars as well as
lateral ties. The said cross-section has been chosen with
a view that its axial capacity does not exceed 100 t. The
experimental set-up existing in the department is
limited to 100 t.
The grade of concrete mix, structural steel and
reinforcements are M25, Fe410 and Fe415,
respectively. The slenderness ratio is 8.34, which is a
short column. Four 10 mm diameters steel bars are
provided for longitudinal covering (1.047%) and 8 mm

1085

Evaluation of Current Design Practices on Estimation of Axial Capacity of

Concrete Encased Steel Composite Stub Columns: A Review

diameter stirrups are given at maximum 150 mm

spacing. The material and geometrical properties are
shown in Table 1, which has been used in the
calculation unless and until specified in particular.
In most of the cases/codes, calculations have been
which defined as
done using the concrete strength
compressive strength obtained from the standard 150
mm diameter by 300 mm high cylinder tests. In general,
the author derives the concrete compressive strength

Eq. (3) from the 150 mm cube tests:

(3)
Hence to calculate the concrete compressive
cylinder strength from the concrete compressive cube
strength [14], the following Eq. (4), in this case, for Eq.
(5) has been used:
0.76
25,

0.2 log
0.78

0.8f

(4)
(5)

Fig. 2

Sectional properties of concrete encased composite column.

Table 1 Geometrical and material properties used.

Item description
Gross section

Concrete grade M25

Structural steel
grade Fe410

Rebar
grade Fe415

Property
Overall section
Gross c/s area
Minimum M.I.

Notation
bdL
Ag (mm2)
Ig (mm4)

Net area of concrete

Ac (mm2)

Minimum M.I.
Comp. cube strength
Comp. cylinder strength
Modulus of elasticity
Area of structural steel
Minimum M.I.
Ratio of structural steel
Modulus of elasticity
Yield stress
Area of rebar
Minimum M.I.
Rebar ratio
Modulus of elasticity
Yield stress

Ic (mm4)
fck (MPa)
fc (MPa)
Ec (MPa)
Ass (mm2)
Iss (mm4)
ss (%)
Ess (MPa)
fys (MPa)
Ars (mm2)
Irs (mm4)
rs (%)
Ers (MPa)
fyr (MPa)

Magnitude
Remarks
150 200 1,250 L = 1,250
30,000
5.625 107
Unconfined concrete (Acu) = 19,908
28,466
Partially confined (Acp) = 6,057
Highly confined (Ach) = 2,501
5.544 107
25
fck = fcu
20
0.8
25,000
Ec = 5,000
1,220
Flange 50 8, Web 84 5
167,542
4.07
2 105
250
fu = 410
314
10-4nos.
638,136
1.05
2 105
360
fu = 415

1086

Evaluation of Current Design Practices on Estimation of Axial Capacity of

Concrete Encased Steel Composite Stub Columns: A Review

4. Review of Design Methodology

4.1 Approach by Chen and Lin [15]
The analytical axial load Eq. (6):
(6)
where, f and A stands for stress and area, subscript s
and r stands for structural steel and rebar, u, p and h
stands for unconfined, partially confined and highly
confined concrete, respectively. Choosing the material
properties as described in Table 1 and assuming
confinement factors Kp = 1.2, Kh = 1.4 for concrete
grade M25, stress of the partially confined concrete
Eq. (7), stress of the highly confined concrete Eq. (8):
1.2 20 = 24.0 MPa
(7)
1.4

20 = 28.0 MPa

(8)

Hence,
= (250 1,220+ 360 314 + 20 19,908 +24
6,057 + 28 2,501)N = 1,032 kN

(9)

The squash load was derived as Eq. (10):

0.85

(10)

where, fys is the yield strength of the structural steel, fys

is the yield strength of the longitudinal bar, Ac is the
total area of the concrete. Choosing the same materials,
having yield stress in structural steel Eq. (11), yield
stress of the longitudinal bars Eq. (12), characteristic
stress in concrete Eq. (13):
fys = 250 MPa
(11)
(12)
fyr = 0.87 fy = 360 MPa
(13)
fc = 0.8 25 = 20 MPa
Psquash = 0.85 (0.8 25) 28,466 + 250 1,220
+ 360 314 = 902 kN

(14)
It may be noted that the Panalysis is dependent on
confinement factors, which is again dependent on
details, spacing of lateral ties and both Panalysis as well
as Psquash are factored/ultimate loads. Hence based on
the expressions, design axial working load may be
derived using a factor (= 1.5) as 902/1.5 = 601 kN.
4.2 Approach by Mirza and Lacroix [14]
Mirza and Lacroix [14] calculated strength of
composite columns in pure axial compression using
three international standards: (1) ACI318-02; (2)
AISC-LRFD; (3) Eurocode 4 and compared them with

published experimental results. In all cased pin ended

column has been considered with minor axis bucking in
the following applications of various codes.
4.2.1 ACI318-02
It specifies maximum axial load (upper limit Pn) =
.
with = 0.85 and Eq. (15):
0.85
(15)
where, Ag is gross area of column cross section, Ass and
Ars are the area of structural steel and rebars, fc is the
cylinder strength of concrete, fyss and fyrs are the yield
strength of structural steel and rebars, respectively. The
authors get Eqs. (16) and (17):
Po = 0.85 20 28,466 + 250 1,220 +
360 314 = 902 kN

(16)
(17)
It also specifies maximum axial load for pin ended
column (lower limit Pc) = 2EI/l2 with minimum EI =
(0.2 EcIg + EsIss) where modulus of elasticity of
concrete Eq. (18):
P0 = 0.85 902 = 767 kN

Ec= 57,000
Hence:

ksi = 4,733

Mpa = 31,167

(18)

EI = 0.2 21,167 5.625 107 +

2 105 167,542 = 2.72 1,011

(19)
Pc = 2.72 10 /1,250 N = 1,716 kN (20)
2

11

for short-term loading. If cracking and nonlinearity is

taken into account in the calculation of EI as per
Mirza-Tikka (1999), then the authors get Eq. (21):
0.3
0.3

0.2

0.2
0

0.8

21,167

5.625

10

167,542

4.85 10
0.8 2 10 167,542 638,136
(21)
However, considering the lower EI design axial
capacity will be the lesser of Pn and Pc, i.e., 767 kN.
4.2.2 AISC-LRFD
It procedures uses axial capacity for pin ended
column Eqs. (22) and (23):
0.658
for
1.5
(22)
.

for

1.5

(23)

where, Eq. (24) with modified modulus of elasticity Eq.

(25), modified yield strength Eq. (26):
.

(24)

1087

Evaluation of Current Design Practices on Estimation of Axial Capacity of

Concrete Encased Steel Composite Stub Columns: A Review
0.2

(25)

/
0.7

0.6

(26)

and modified radius of gyration rm = 0.3 times least

lateral dimension of composite section. With rm = 0.3
150 = 45 mm and other equations:
Em = 2 105 + 0.2 21,677 28,466/1,220 = 301,110 MPa (27)
fmy = 250 + 0.7 360

+ 0.6 20

,
,

0.393

(29)

(30)

The composite column slenderness parameter Eq. (49)

with Eq. (50):

and for:
1.5
1,220

595

680 kN

and modified critical stress for composite section is

calculated as Eq. (45) or Eq. (46):
0.658
for
1.5
(45)
(46)
with modified allowable stress of composite section by
LRFD as Eq. (47), modified modulus of elasticity for
composite section Eq. (48):
/
/
/
(47)
/
/
/
(48)

= 595 MPa (28)

ACI and AISC-LRFD methods, the design axial

capacity (without bending moments) of a composite
. , where nominal axial
column is given by
.
,
being gross sectional area
strength

0.877/

for

1.5

4.2.3 Eurocode 4

(49)

It defines the resistance of the column under pure

.
where reduction
axial compression as

/ .

coefficient:
(31)
(32)

1/
0.5 1

0.2

0.49 and nondimensional

imperfection factor
slenderness ratio:

(33)

as modified radius of gyration for composite section

satisfying
0.3 , where b = least dimension of
column cross section, k1 = 0.60, k2 = 0.80, k3 = 0.80,
4,733
and k4 = 1.5. With
the properties of Table 1:

0.85

767 kN

20

28,848 5.625
10 167,542
1.44

Pc =

28,848 MPa

10

167,542

63,8136

0.49 0.29

1/ 0.564

1.44

10

0.29

0.2

0.564
0.953

0.29
0.29

767

0.6

0.564
0.953

731 kN

(41)
(42)
(43)
(44)

4.3 Approach by Muoz and Hsu [5]

Approach by based on the design parameters of both

33.83

20

,
,

250

(51)

45

1,220

28,466 /30,000

(36)
(37)
(38)
(39)
(40)

150

10 314

1.5

41,065 MPa

0.8
,

360

22.53 MPa

638,136

10 /1,250 N = 9,128 kN
7679,128

0.5 1

(35)

0.8

9,500

0.3

With the equations in the following:

9,500

21,167 MPa and

(34)

Pc =

0.8

(50)

/ .

0.275

21,667

(52)
0.8

(53)
(54)

for:
1.5,

22.53 0.658
30,000
0.85

21.83
655

21.83 MPa (55)

655 kN

557 kN

(56)

4.4 Approach by Tikka and Mirza [13]

Tikka and Mirza [13] used ACI building code
procedures along with an projection of ultimate axial
capacity of concrete encased steel column using a new

1088

Evaluation of Current Design Practices on Estimation of Axial Capacity of

Concrete Encased Steel Composite Stub Columns: A Review

equation for EI as an alternative to the existing ACI EI

equation. Assuming minor axis post-buckling failure
criteria and from an extensive regression analysis they
proposed the short-term effective flexural stiffness Eq.
(57), Where dimensionless reduction factor for
concrete Eq. (58):
(57)
0.47

3.5

30 ,
eccentricity ratio , slenderness ratio
reinforcement ratio
1% , structural steel ratio
4%, dimensionless reduction factor for structural
steel
= dimensionless reduction factor for
longitudinal rebar
= 0.8. With minimum

0.1,
1,250 150 8.33, the authors get Eq.
(59) and with with modulus of elasticity of concrete
Eqs. (60) and (61):
0.47

3.5

0.003

1
0.1
1 9.5 0.1
8.33 0.315

4,733
0.315

21,167

(59)
(60)

21,167 MPa

28,848 5.625

10

167,542

(61)
Considering the smaller one, the design capacity
becomes 767 kN.
0.8

10 167,542

386,808

1.08

10

4.5 Approach by Ellobody and Young [17]

Ellobody and Young [17] calculated strength of
composite columns in pure axial compression using
two international standards: (1) AISC-LRFD; (2)
Eurocode 4 and compared them with 3D FE model in
ABAQUS:
(1) The unfactored design strengths (PAISC) for
axially loaded concrete encased steel composite
columns calculated based on column slenderness as Eq.
(62) for Eq. (63) and Eq. (64) for Eq. (65):
0.658

(62)
(63)
(64)
(65)

0.44
0.877
0.44

where, the authors get:

0.85

0.1

(66)

0.3

(67)
(68)
(69)

where, A = respective area (mm ), E = modulus of

elasticity (MPa), I = MI (mm4) and f = respective
cylinder/yield stress (MPa). With the material
properties from the equations:

(58)

0.003

0.5

0.1
2

10 167,542

21,167

5.625

3.128

10

250
0.85

638,136

3.128

/ 1,250

1,220
20

0.5

10

0.44

0.181

(71)
(72)

10
1,976

360

28,466

(70)

0.181

314

(73)
(74)
(75)

902 kN

902

397

0.658

745 kN

(2) On the other hand, as per EC4 the unfactored

design strengths (PEC4) for axially loaded concrete
encased steel composite columns was calculated using
the simplified method of design, based on the relative
slenderness () as Eq.(76):
.
(76)
where, Eq. (77) with Eq. (78) and relative slenderness
Eq. (79):
.
1
(77)
0.5 1 0.49
0.2
(78)
.

(79)

where, Ecm is the secant modulus of elasticity of

concrete in MPa for short-term loading, Le is the
effective length of the composite column. With:

9,500

0.85
,

(81)

.
,

,
,

0.356
0.5 1

0.49 0.356

0.2

0.356

0.602
0.356 .
250
360
1,220
314
1.1
1.15
698 kN
28,846 0.85 .

0.602

(80)

28,848 MPa

(82)
0.602 (83)
0.92 (84)
(85)

1089

Evaluation of Current Design Practices on Estimation of Axial Capacity of

Concrete Encased Steel Composite Stub Columns: A Review
0.92

698

(86)

642 kN

As per their proposed method, based on Eurocode 4

and relevant IS Code of practice, the following partial
safety factors are assumed. Partial safety factors for
structural steel a, reinforcement s, concrete c and
Concrete for determination of effective stiffness c* are
1.15, 1.15, 1.5 and 1.35, respectively. For concrete
grade M25, concrete modulus of elasticity Eq. (87):
Ecm= 5,00025 = 25,000 MPa
(87)
For short term loading, effective flexural stiffness of
composite column Eq. (88), where Ecd = Ecm/c*.
0.8
(88)
The elastic critical buckling load Eq. (89), and
plastic resistance of the encased section Eq. (90):
/
(89)
0.85
(90)
Plastic resistance of the cross-section to compression
(with a = c= s= 1.0) is the following Eq. (91). Non
dimensionalized slenderness parameter computed in
the plane of buckling is , Eq. (92):
(91)
=
/
(92)
Assuming imperfection factor for buckling about
minor axis is the following Eq. (93), reduction factor
for column buckling is the following Eq. (94):
y = 0.34, = 0.5 1
0.2
(93)
/

(94)
Buckling load of a column under pure axial
compression:
(95)

103 MPa

Ecd = 25,000/1.35 = 19.23

= 2.0

10 167,542
10

5.54

/ =
1,220

10 = 9.83

9.83
250
1.15

250

28,466

0.8
10

11

(96)
19.23

(97)

10 /1,250 = 621 kN (98)

28,466

314
1,220

638,136

0.85

= 701 kN
20

314

(101)
Assuming imperfection factor for buckling about
minor axis is Eqs. (102) and (103), reduction factor is
Eq. (104), axial capacity is Eq. (105):
y = 0.34
(102)
= 0.5
1 0.34
0.385 0.2
0.385 = 0.605 (103)
=

4.6 Approach by Narayanan and Usha [8]

Slenderness parameter Eq. (101):

20
1.5

0.605

= 919621 = 0.385

0.605

0.385

0.932

As per the INSDAG guide authored by Narayanan

and Kayanraman [19], the plastic resistance of an
encased steel section, i.e., so called squash load is
given by Eq. (106) and its example Eq. (107):
(106)
.

(107)

and
stand for cross sectional area of
where, ,
steel section, the concrete and reinforcing steel
,
and
are the yield
respectively;
strength of the steel section, the characteristic
compressive strength(cylinder) of the concrete and
yield strength of reinforcing steel respectively; (fck)cu is
the characteristic compressive strength (cube) of the
concrete;
is the strength co-efficient for concrete
and is equal to 0.85 for fully or partially restrained
concrete encased steel section. For fully encased
section, local buckling of steel section check is not
required provided cover to the flange is neither less
than 40 mm nor one sixed of the least lateral dimension.
The buckling resistance of a column is derived from
non-dimensionalised column buckling curve (which
also takes care of both residual stress and geometric
.
imperfection) as
, where the reduction factor
( ) is derived on the basis of non-dimensionalised
slenderness ratio:
.

415 = 919 kN

(100)

(105)

4.7 Approach by Narayanan and Kayanraman [19]

(99)

= 0.932 (104)

701 = 653 kN

(108)

which is limited to 0.8 for non-sway column and 0.5 for

sway column. For short term loading, effective flexural
stiffness of composite column is given by:

1090

Evaluation of Current Design Practices on Estimation of Axial Capacity of

Concrete Encased Steel Composite Stub Columns: A Review

(109)

0.8

Ecm/c*

where, Ecd =
(The factor 0.8 is an empirical
multiplier). This method also uses IS 800-2007 for the
estimation of axial capacity of composite column.
Using the properties of materials as in Table 1, the
authors have Eq. (110), The elastic critical buckling
load Pcr (Eq. (110)):
= 2.0
10

2.0

10

10

167,542
3.078

5.544

.
11

638,136 = 3.078
/ =

0.8

10 N-mm
10 /1,250

(111)

10 N

=1.944

(110)

Plastic resistance of the encased section:

0.85
284,66
=

0.85

1,220
314

= 873,810 1.944

= 686 kN (112)
10

= 0.67 (113)

With y = 0.49, the authors have Eq. (114):

= 0.5 1
0.670

0.2

0.2
0.670

= 0.5
= 0.8396

0.49

(114)

Reduction factor:
0.8396

0.8396

0.670

= 0.743 (115)

Buckling load of a column (member) under pure

axial compression:
= 0.743 686 510 kN
(116)

5. Comparison of Axial Capacity

Chen and Lin [15] evaluated the factored capacity of
concrete encased steel column and is purely based on
Table 2

analytical method considering force-deformation

relationship of all the individual components. It also
takes care of confinement effect of concrete which
needs experimental verification. Hence the said
capacity can not be assumed to be safe for the purpose
of design. Tikka and Mirza [13] assumes the upper
bound value of ACI building code as the capacity of the
column. Mirza and Lacroix [14] and Ellobody and
Young [17] derived the values. A comprehensive list of
design capacities derived as above have been enlisted
in Table 2, purely on the basis of AISC and EC4 codes
and the estimated capacity is unfactored ones. Muoz
and Hsu [5] although described a new method using
equivalent sectional properties and stress parameters, it
evaluated the capacity much on conservative end.
Narayanan and Usha [8] used EC4 provision
extensively and justifies the capacity using limit state
concept by incorporating the partial safety factors for
all the components and plastic resistance of the
section indirectly. In this connection, this method
seems to be comparative in Indian context, which
incorporates latest revisions in relevant code of
practice for steel construction practices. Narayanan
and Kayanraman [19] has described the same method
following EC4 as previous one but incorporates an
empirical factor c* = 7.55 to derive effective elastic
flexural strength.

Comparison of Paxial.

Sl. No. Reference

1

Chen and Lin [15]

Mirza and Lacroix [14]

Muoz and Hsu [5]

Tikka and Mirza [13]

Ellobody and Young [17]

6
7

Narayanan and Usha [8]

Narayanan and Kayanraman [19]

Notation

Remarks

Magnitude (kN)
1,032
902
767
680
729

2.02
1.77
1.50
1.33
1.43

557

1.09

767
745
642
653
510

1.50
1.46
1.26
1.28
1.00

Factored capacity
Unfactored capacity
New method based on ACI &
AISC-LRFD
Using modified EI value

New method based on EC4

INSDAG guide 2003 & IS800-2007

Evaluation of Current Design Practices on Estimation of Axial Capacity of

Concrete Encased Steel Composite Stub Columns: A Review

6. Conclusions
This paper presents a review on methods of design
based on approaches given in the current version of
Eurocode, ACI Code and AISC-LRFD and their
assessment for concrete encased composite column
under subjected to only axial load. It includes
comparison of various design process/parameters and
evaluation of design strength based on the procedures
predicted in the various codes of practices. A practical
I-section has been assumed and calculation has been
shown using the methods discussed to evaluate their
potentiality in understanding and predicting the
strength of fully encased composite column section. It
has been found that the evaluated strength varies
widely and their acceptability in Indian context is also
difficult. As per the INSDAG procedure, which is
again based on the foreign code EC4, seems to derive
the axial capacity of composite column much oan
conservative side. Also the limits in slenderness ratio
for which axial capacities are derived varying widely.
Hence there is a need for analytical as well as
experimental verification of similar models including
various parametric studies so that a rational and
practical approach may be adopted in Indian codes of
practice.

References
[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

R.W. Furlong, Column rules of ACI, SSLC and LRFD

compared, Journal of Structural Engineering 110 (11)
(1984) 2820-2823.
J.E. Lundberg, T.V. Galambos, Load and resistance factor
design of composite columns, Structural Safety 18 (2-3)
(1996) 169-177.
S.A. Mirza, Parametric study of composite column
strength variability, Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 14 (2) (1989) 121-137.
S.E. Tawil, C.F. Sanz-Picn, G.G. Deierlein, Evaluation
of ACI 318 and AISC (LRFD) strength provisions for
composite beam-columns, Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 34 (1) (1995) 103-123.
P.R.
Muoz, C.T.T.
Hsu, Biaxially loaded
concrete-encased composite columns: Design equation, J.
Struct. Engrg. 123 (12) (1997) 1576-1585.

[6]

[7]
[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

1091

S.E. Tawil, G.G. Deierlein, Strength and ductility of

concrete encased composite column, Journal of Structural
Engineering 132 (10) (1999) 1590-1602.
Y.C. Wang, Tests on slender composite columns, Journal
of Constructional Steel Research 49 (1) (1999) 25-41.
R. Narayanan, P. Usha, Steel-Concrete Composite
Columns, Refresher Course on Composite Construction
Using Structural Steel (Jan. 17-21, 2000) at Jadavpur
University, Kolkata Organized by Institute for Steel
Development & Growth (INSDAG), India, 2000.
H.S. Saw, J.Y.R. Liew, Assessment of current methods for
the design of composite columns in buildings, Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 53 (2) (2000) 121-147.
N.E. Shanmugam, B. Lakshmi, State of the art report on
steel-concrete
composite
columns,
Journal
of
Constructional Steel Research 57 (10) (2001) 1041-1080.
J.H. Zhong, S.F. Chen, Evaluation of simplified
superposition design method for composite columns, in:
The Third International Conference on Advances in
Steel Structures (ICASS02), Hong Kong, 2002, pp.
559-566.
C.C. Weng, S.I. Yen, Comparisons of concrete-encased
composite column strength provisions of ACI code and
AISC specification, Engineering Structures 24 (1) (2002)
59-72.
T.K. Tikka, S.A. Mirza, Nonlinear EI equation for slender
composite columns bending about the minor axis,
Journal of Structural Engineering 132 (10) (2006)
1590-1602.
S.A. Mirza, E.A. Lacroix, Comparative strength analyses
of concrete-encased steel composite columns, J. Struct.
Engrg. 130 (12) (2004) 1941-1953.
C.C. Chen, N.J. Lin, Analytical model for predicting axial
capacity and behavior of concrete encased steel composite
stub columns, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62
(5) (2006) 424-433.
A.E. Charalampakis, V.K. Koumousis, Ultimate strength
analysis of composite sections under biaxial bending and
axial load, Advances in Engineering Software 39 (11)
(2008) 923-936.
E. Ellobody, B. Young, Numerical simulation of concrete
encased steel composite columns, Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 67 (2) (2011) 211-222.
E. Ellobody, B. Young, Eccentrically loaded concrete
encased steel composite columns, Thin-Walled Structures
49 (1) (2011) 53-65.
R. Narayanan, V. Kalyanraman, The Structural Use of
Steel Works in Buildings, Indian Institute of Technology
Madras and Institute of Steel Development and Growth
(INSDAG), India, 2003.