Journal of Constructional Steel Research 64 (2008) 14731482

www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

Seismic behaviour of square CFT beamcolumns under

biaxial bending moment
Jiepeng Liu a, , Xuhong Zhou b , Sumei Zhang a
a School of Civil Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, 150090, China
b School of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China

Received 11 March 2007; accepted 11 January 2008

Abstract
This paper investigates the behaviour of square concrete-filled steel tubular (CFT) beamcolumns subjected to biaxial moment. Nine tests on
beamcolumns are reported here under a combined loading of constant axial load and cyclic lateral load applied at varying angles to the axis of
the cross-section, referred to as diagonal loading. The specimens were prepared in order to evaluate the influence of different parameters on
the overall structural response, their ductility and their energy dissipation ability; the parameters included the effects of axial load ratio, widthto-thickness ratio, concrete compressive strength, slenderness ratio and load angle on the moment strength. The experimental results indicate that
the ductility and energy dissipation ability of biaxially loaded square CFT columns decrease with increasing the axial load ratio. Their ductility
and energy dissipation ability was also observed to decrease as the concrete compressive strength increased while the ductility was barely affected
by the load angle. An increase in the load angle of biaxially bent square CFT beamcolumns led to a slight decrease of the moment strength.
Both EC4 and AIJ code provisions were shown to predict with reasonable accuracy the moment strength capacity observed in the tests, while the
ACI-predicted moment strength gave to slightly conservative values. On the other hand, the LRFD code provisions greatly underestimated their
moment strength.
c 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Concrete-filled steel tubular (CFT); Diagonal lateral load; Biaxial bending moment; Axial load ratio; Energy dissipation ability

1. Introduction
Concrete-filled steel tubular (CFT) structures are rapidly
emerging as one of the dominant structural systems in
the construction industry due to their high strength, easy
construction and excellent antiseismic performance [1,2]. CFT
members combine the advantages of both steel (high tensile
strength and ductility) and concrete (high compressive strength
and stiffness and relative cheapness). The steel tube serves as
a form for casting the concrete, which as a result, reduces the
construction cost. Once the composite action is established, the
steel tubular of CFT columns offer confinement to the concrete,
thus improving its compressive strength and ductility [24]. At
the same time, the concrete infill delays the local buckling of the
Corresponding address: PO Box 2551, 202 Haihe Road, Nangang District,
Harbin Institute of Technology (2th District), Harbin 150090, China. Tel.: +86
(0) 451 8628 2083; fax: +86 (0) 451 86282083.
E-mail address: liujp@hit.edu.cn (J. Liu).

c 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0143-974X/$ - see front matter
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2008.01.013

columns [5,6]. The use of steel at the perimeter of the section

is efficient as it provides the highest contribution of the steel to
the section second moment of area and flexural capacity [7].
Landmark use of the CFT system includes the 63-storey
Comerzbank building in Germany, which is the tallest building
in Europe, the 57-storey Two Union Square in the USA,
the 43-storey Casselden Place in Australia, the 68-story SEG
plaza in China and the 68-storey Hongkong Centre Edifice
in Hongkong, which is the worlds tallest building utilizing
CFT columns. In order to minimize the size of the structural
members, high strength concrete (HSC) should be used
for high-rise buildings as well as for bridges and offshore
platforms. Excellent mechanical performance and durability
is achieved using high-strength concrete and this results in
initial and long term cost reduction. However, HSC is more
brittle than conventional normal strength concrete. Therefore,
it cannot be used in engineering applications without special
consideration of its brittleness. Despite this, previous work has
shown that steel tubes filled with HSC can still lead to ductile

1474

J. Liu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 64 (2008) 14731482

Notations
Ac
As
D
f co
10
f cu
fy
L
Mu
MEC4
MAIJ
MACI
MLRFD
N
n0
P
Pu
t

area of the concrete of the cross-section;

area of the steel tubular of the cross section;
width of the steel tubular;
compressive strength of unconfined concrete;
100 mm concrete cubic strength;
yield strength of the steel tubular;
length of the column;
tested ultimate moment strength of the crosssection;
the moment strength predicted using EC4 code;
the moment strength predicted using AIJ code;
the moment strength predicted using ACI code;
the moment strength predicted using LRFD code;
applied axial load of the columns;
axial load ratio, n 0 = N /( f co Ac + f y As );
lateral load;
ultimate lateral load strength of the specimen;
thickness of the tubular;
lateral deflection of the column;

behaviour of the composite member and give large energy

absorption [7,8], a property which is especially necessary
in seismic regions. After many applications of CFT with
circular sections in high-rise buildings and bridges in China,
more attention is currently being devoted to CFT columns
with square sections whose shape is more suitable for simple
connection detail design and construction. In such columns
the axial load, namely the dead load resulting from the upper
structures, usually acts eccentrically producing an additional
bending moment which affects their load-carrying capacity.
Due to the randomness of seismic loading, it is also possible
that transverse loads are not applied in a plane parallel to the
square side over which the bending moment due to the eccentric
load acts.
Experimental studies on circular CFT columns under
a combination of flexure and axial compression have
been conducted by Forlong [9], Knows [10], Neogi [11],
Priestley [12], Elremaily [7], Boyd [13], Wang [14],
Morino [15]. Tests on rectangular CFT Columns subjected
to combined flexure and axial compression were reported by
Furlong [16], Rangan [17], Grauers [18], Varma [19] and
Han [20]. Analytical method for predicting the static and
cyclic behaviour of rectangular CFT beamcolumns have also
been proposed by Hajjar [21], Zhang [22], Zhong [2] and
Varma [19]. Research on the seismic behaviour of rectangular
CFT has mainly focused on uniaxial bending beamcolumns
for the moment with only very limited work on biaxial loaded
beamcolumns. For biaxial loaded square members, additional
complications arise when the applied moment does not coincide
with the square axis of the cross-section. Extensive research on
the behaviour of biaxial loaded reinforced concrete members
have been carried out in the past years. This work has shown
that the moment capacity of square section reinforced concrete
beamcolumns about the diagonal axis can be 20% less than

the square axis moment capacity [16,23]. Researches on the

difference between uniaxial and biaxial loaded square CFT
beamcolumns have not been reported.
The aim of this paper is to investigate the strength and
ductility of diagonally loaded square CFT beamcolumns filled
with normal strength and high strength concrete. As part of this
study, nine specimens were prepared and tested. The specimens
were subjected to a constant axial load, of 35%58% of the
axial load-bearing capacity of the columns, and a diagonal
cyclic transverse load. The effect of axial load ratio, widthto-thickness ratio, concrete compressive strength, slenderness
ratio and diagonal load angle on the moment strength, ductility
and energy dissipation ability of square CFT beamcolumns
under this loading regime was investigated in detail and the test
results recorded.
2. Experimental programme
2.1. Details of specimens
A total of nine square CFT beamcolumns, including five
specimens filled with normal and four with high strength
concrete, were tested as part of this study. The specimens
were subjected to a combination of constant axial load and
cyclic biaxial bending moment. Fig. 1 shows schematically the
experimental setup. Based on Fig. 1 it can be noted that the
column is under biaxial bending moment if the diagonal load
angle is between 0 and 45 , while 0 angle corresponds to
the uniaxial bending case. In order to reproduce the type of
restraint provided to a column in a real building frame, the test
specimens were fixed at their ends by rigid steel beams.
Table 1 shows the parameters of the specimens in the test
series. In particular, these are defined as follows: D was the
width of the square tube; t was the thickness of the tube; D/t
was the width-to-thickness ratio of the tube; L was the length of
10 was the 100 mm concrete cubic strength; f was
column; f cu
co
the uniaxial compressive strength of concrete obtained from
10 ; f was the yield strength of the steel tube; N was the
from f cu
y
applied axial load on the column; n 0 was the axial load ratio,
n 0 = N /(As f y + Ac f co ), where Ac and As were the crosssectional area of the concrete and steel tube, respectively; was
the diagonal load angle (0 45 ); Pu was the tested
ultimate lateral load strength of the columns. The concrete
10 was measured for each specimen on the day
cubic strength f cu
of the column test based on the results of three 100 mm cubic
specimens prepared from the same concrete batch used to fill
the member tested. The material properties of the steel tubes
were measured from the tension tests on three coupons in each
series.
2.2. Test setup and instrumentation layout
In the test procedure, the axial compressive load was applied
and maintained constant before the cyclic transverse (horizontal) load was applied. Fig. 2 shows schematically the test setup.
It consists of the rigid L beam and a movable truss system which
allows the L beam to move freely in vertical and horizontal directions with no rotation. This loading system guarantees the

1475

J. Liu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 64 (2008) 14731482

(a) Typical diagonal

bending moment
specimen.

(b) Diagonal load angle ( ).

(c) Schematic of tested

specimen.

Fig. 1. Schematic of beamcolumns under biaxial bending moment.

Fig. 2. Schematic of test setup.

Table 1
Parameters of test specimens
Specimen

D (mm)

t (mm)

D/t

L (mm)

10 (MPa)
f cu

f co (MPa)

f y (MPa)

N (kN)

n0

( )

Pu (kN)

CCFT1
CCFT2
CCFT3
CCFT4
CCFT5
HCFT1
HCFT2
HCFT3
HCFT4

150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150

2.65
2.65
4.82
2.65
2.65
4.78
2.89
2.89
2.89

56.6
56.6
31.1
56.6
56.6
31.4
51.9
51.9
51.9

1100
1100
1100
845
1100
1100
1100
1100
800

48.8
48.8
48.8
48.8
48.8
100.5
100.5
100.5
100.5

35.2
35.2
35.2
35.2
35.2
81.4
81.4
81.4
81.4

328
328
340
328
328
317
319
319
319

662
452
592
452
452
1300
1300
1000
1000

0.52
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.52
0.58
0.45
0.45

45
45
45
45
22.5
45
45
45
45

80.0
74.7
122.5
109.3
78.5
164.1
125.8
130.4
160.4

boundary condition of the columns. The axial load was applied

by two 1000 kN hydraulic jacks on which two 1000 kN pressure
transducers were positioned to measure the axial loads. The
lateral load was applied by a 630 kN MTS hydraulic actuator
system which was controlled by a computer. On the pressure
transducer and under the 1000 kN hydraulic jacks were the distribution beams that transfer the axial load to the specimen and

the reaction frame. Rollers were placed between the rigid beam
and the spreader beam so that the rigid L beam was able to
move freely with negligible friction. Since the moveable truss
system was not designed to bear the vertical or horizontal load,
the axial and horizontal load are resisted by the test specimen.
Fig. 3 shows the instrumentation layout for the specimens.
Seven linear variable differential transducers (LVDT) were used

1476

J. Liu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 64 (2008) 14731482

Fig. 3. Instrumentation layout.

during each test. The horizontal displacement of specimens was

measured by three horizontally placed LVDTs. Four LVDTs
were placed vertically to observe if the rigid beams of the
test specimen were fixed firmly enough during the test. The
axial load was applied before the cyclic lateral load. Twelve
longitudinal strain gauges were glued to the steel tubes at the
ends and at midheight of the columns and four hoop strain
gauges were bonded at the midheight of the columns. These
strain gauges enabled a check on whether the columns were
axially loaded during the application of the vertical axial load.
3. Results of the experiment
3.1. Failure mode
Fig. 4 shows the failure modes of three specimens. In all
nine columns, local buckling of the tube occurred after the
peak lateral load was reached. The steel element buckled at the
column ends where the moment reached its maximum value.
3.2. Lateral load versus lateral deflection (P) relationship
Fig. 5 shows the lateral load (P) versus lateral deflection
() responses for the normal strength concrete-filled tubular
(CCFT) columns. CCFT1 was not as ductile as CCFT2 due to
its higher axial load level despite all other parameters being
similar; also its energy dissipation ability was lower than the
one observed for CCFT2. This leads to the conclusion that the
ductility and energy dissipation ability of biaxially bent CCFT
beamcolumns decrease with an increase in their axial load
ratio.
The P hysteresis loop of CCFT3 is plumper than that of
CCFT2 due to the fact that the D/t ratio of CCFT3 was lower
than for CCFT2 despite the remaining parameters being similar.
CCFT2 and CCFT5 had the same parameters except the load
angle. The test results highlighted that the there is no obvious
difference between the energy dissipation ability of specimens
CCFT2 and CCFT5 despite their load angle being different,
i.e. 45 for CCFT2 and 22.5 for CCFT5.
Fig. 6 shows the lateral load (P) versus lateral deflection ()
responses for the high-strength concrete-filled tubular (HCFT)
columns. The load-deflection responses of HCFT1 and HCFT2

show that the ductility and energy dissipation ability of HCFT

columns under high axial load levels (n 0 > 0.5) was relatively
low.
The parameters of HCFT2 were the same as those of HCFT3
except that the axial load ratio of HCFT3 was less than that
of HCFT2. The test results indicate that the ductility and
energy dissipation ability of HCFT3 were better than the one
of HCFT2, denoting that the ductility and energy dissipation
ability of biaxially bent HCFT columns decrease with an
increase in the axial load ratio.
The parameters of HCFT3 were the same as those of HCFT4
except that HCFT3 was longer than HCFT4. The test results
indicate that the ductility and energy dissipation ability of
biaxially bent HCFT columns increased with an increase in
slenderness ratio.
The test results of CCFT and HCFT columns indicate that
the P hysteresis loops of CCFT columns are plumper
than those of HCFT columns, which denotes that the energy
dissipation ability of biaxially bent square CFT columns
decreased with an increase in concrete compressive strength.
4. Discussion of the test results
4.1. Comparison between the envelopes of CCFT columns
Fig. 7 shows the comparison between the envelopes of
CCFT1 and CCFT2. The parameters of CCFT1 and CCFT2
were the same except for the axial load ratio. The axial
load ratio of CCFT1 (0.52) was higher than that of CCFT2
(0.35). The ultimate lateral load strength (Table 1) of CCFT1
was 7.1% higher than that of CCFT2, while the ductility of
CCFT1 was much lower compared to that of CCFT2. The
test results indicate that normal strength concrete-filled square
tubular columns are not sufficiently ductile when subjected to
transverse seismic load when the axial load ratio is higher than
0.5. The lateral load strength was not obviously affected by the
axial load ratio when the axial load ratio was between 0.35 and
0.52 for biaxially bent CCFT columns. While the ductility was
obviously affected by the axial load ratio when the axial load
ratio was between 0.35 and 0.52.
Fig. 8 shows the comparison between the envelopes of
CCFT2 and CCFT3. The parameters of CCFT2 and CCFT3
were the same except that the D/t ratio of CCFT2 was higher
than that of CCFT3. It is obvious that the lateral load strength of
CCFT2 was less than that of CCFT3, while CCFT3 was not as
ductile as CCFT2; the possible reason was that as the axial load
of CCFT3 was higher than that of CCFT2, it produced higher
second-order effects.
Fig. 9 shows the comparison between the envelopes of
CCFT2 and CCFT4. The parameters of CCFT2 and CCFT4
were the same except that the column of CCFT2 was longer
than CCFT4. It is obvious that the lateral load strength of
CCFT4 was greater than that of CCFT2, while CCFT4 was not
as ductile as CCFT2; these test results indicate that the ductility
decreases with a decrease in slenderness ratio.

J. Liu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 64 (2008) 14731482

1477

Fig. 4. Failure modes of the specimens.

Fig. 10 shows the comparison between the envelopes of

CCFT2 and CCFT5. The parameters of CCFT2 and CCFT5
were the same except for the diagonal load angle which was
45 and 22.5 , respectively. There is no obvious difference on
the envelopes of CCFT2 and CCFT4 except that the lateral
load strength of CCFT4 (78.5 kN) was slightly higher than that
of CCFT2 (74.7 kN). The test results indicate that the lateral
load decreases slightly with an increase in diagonal load angle
(0 45 ), while the ductility of square CFT columns is
barely affected by the diagonal load angle.
4.2. Comparison between the envelopes of HCFT columns
Fig. 11 shows the comparison between the envelopes of
HCFT1 and HCFT2. The applied axial load during the test of
HCFT1 and HCFT2 was the same (1300 kN), while the lateral
load strength of HCFT1 was greater than that of HCFT2 despite
the D/t ratio of the former being less than that of HCFT2.
Neither HCHF1 nor HCFT2 were ductile enough due to the
high axial load level (0.52 and 0.58). The test results indicate
high-strength concrete-filled square tubular columns are not
sufficiently ductile under transverse seismic load if the axial
load ratio is greater than 0.5.
Fig. 12 shows the comparison between the envelopes of
HCFT2 and HCFT3. The parameters of HCFT2 and HCFT3
were the same except that the axial load ratio of HCFT2 (0.58)
was greater than that of HCFT3 (0.45). The lateral load strength
of HCFT3 was 3.65% higher than that of HCFT2, while the
ductility of HCFT3 was obviously higher than that of HCFT2.
The test results indicate that the lateral load strength was barely
affected by the axial load ratio when the axial load ratio was
between 0.45 and 0.58 for biaxially bent HCFT columns. It can
be concluded that the ductility is affected by the axial load ratio
when it varies between 0.45 and 0.58.
Fig. 13 shows the comparison between the envelopes of
HCFT3 and HCFT4. The parameters of HCFT3 and HCFT4
were the same except that HCFT3 was longer than HCFT4. It is
obvious that the lateral load strength of HCFT4 was higher than
that of HCFT3, while HCFT4 was not as ductile as HCFT3. The
test results indicate that the ductility decreases with a decrease
in slenderness ratio for HCFT columns.

4.3. Comparison between the envelopes of CCFT and HCFT

columns
Fig. 14 shows the comparison between the envelopes of
HCFT2 and CCFT1. The parameters of the two columns were
similar and only differed in their concrete compressive strength;
the lateral load strength increased with an increase in concrete
compressive strength. Neither HCFT2 nor CCFT1 was ductile
enough due to the high axial load ratio (0.58 and 0.52).
Fig. 15 shows the comparison between the envelopes of
HCFT4 and CCFT4. The parameters of the two columns were
similar and only differed in their concrete compressive strength;
the lateral load strength increased with an increase in concrete
compressive strength. HCFT4 was not as ductile as CCFT4 for
the reason that HCFT 4 was under higher axial load ratio (0.45)
and was filled with higher-strength concrete.
5. Comparison of experimental results with strength
predictions based on current code provisions
The experimental results in this paper were compared
with moment strength predictions based on current Eurocode
4 (EC4) [24], Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) [25],
American Concrete Institute (ACI) [26] and American Institute
of Steel Construction-Load and Resistance Factor Design
(LRFD) [27] code provisions for CFT columns. The width-tothickness ratio (D/t) of all test specimens have been reported
in Table 2 together with the relevant limiting values specified by
the current codes considered. In summary, The D/t ratio of test
specimens satisfied the width-to-thickness-ratio limit of current
code AIJ, ACI and LRFD code provisions. CCFT3 and HCFT1
satisfied the D/t limit of EC4 code provision, while CCFT1,
CCFT2, CCFT4, CCFT5, HCFT2, HCFT3 and HCFT4 violated
the D/t limit of EC4 code provisions.
Comparisons of the experimental moment strength of
test specimens with predictions based on the current codes
provisions are shown in Table 3, in which Mu is the
experimentally measured ultimate moment strength of the
columns. In Table 3, MEC4 , MAIJ , MACI and MLRFD are the
moment strength predicted using the current EC4, AIJ, ACI
and LRFD code provisions. The purpose of the comparisons
was to evaluate the accuracy of the current code provisions in

1478

J. Liu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 64 (2008) 14731482

(a) CCFT1 (D/t = 56.6, n 0 = 0.52, L = 1100, = 45 ).

(b) CCFT2 (D/t = 56.6, n 0 = 0.35, L = 1100, = 45 ).

(c) CCFT3 (D/t = 31.1, n 0 = 0.35, L = 1100, = 45 ).

(d) CCFT4 (D/t = 56.6, n 0 = 0.35, L = 845, = 45 ).

(e) CCFT5 (D/t = 56.6, n 0 = 0.35, L = 1100, = 22.5 ).

Fig. 5. Lateral loadlateral deflection response of common strength concrete-filled tubular (CCFT) columns.

J. Liu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 64 (2008) 14731482

(a) HCFT1 (D/t = 31.4, n 0 = 0.52, L = 1100, = 45 ).

(c) HCFT3 (D/t = 51.9, n 0 = 0.45, L = 1100, = 45 ).

1479

(b) HCFT2 (D/t = 51.9, n 0 = 0.58, L = 1100, = 45 ).

(d) HCFT4 (D/t = 51.9, n 0 = 0.45, L = 800, = 45 ).

Fig. 6. Lateral loadlateral deflection response of high strength concrete-filled tubular (HCFT) columns.

Fig. 7. Comparison between the envelopes of CCFT1 and CCFT2.

predicting the moment capacities of square CFT beamcolumns

under biaxial bending moment. The comparison results indicate

Fig. 8. Comparison between the envelopes of CCFT2 and CCFT3.

that although 6 test members in this paper violated the D/t limit
of EC4 code provisions, the EC4-predicted moment strength

1480

J. Liu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 64 (2008) 14731482

Fig. 9. Comparison between the envelopes of CCFT2 and CCFT4.

Fig. 11. Comparison between the envelopes of HCFT1 and HCFT2.

Fig. 10. Comparison between the envelopes of CCFT2 and CCFT5.

Fig. 12. Comparison between the envelopes of HCFT2 and HCFT3.

was reasonably accurate. The predicted moment strength with

AIJ code provisions was also reasonably accurate. The ACIpredicted moment strength was slightly conservative. The
LRFD code provisions greatly underestimate the moment
strength of square CFT beamcolumns under biaxial bending
moment. The average ratio of the tested moment strength to the
LRFD-predicted moment strength is as high as 1.99 and 3.34
for CCFT and HCFT columns respectively. The axial load ratio
of HCFT2 was the highest (0.58) in this paper, and the ratio of
the tested moment strength to the LRFD-predicted moment was
the highest (4.09). The axial load ratios of the CCFT members
in this paper were 0.52 for CCFT1 and 0.35 for the other four.
The axial load ratio of CCFT1 was the highest (0.52) among the
five CCFT columns, and the ratio of the tested moment strength
to the LRFD-predicted moment strength was the highest (2.57)
among the five CCFT columns. Conclusion can be drawn from
the above analysis that the higher axial load level, the more
conservative the LRFD-predicted moment strength. In LRFD
provisions, when the axial load is zero, no composite action
is assumed to occur and the moment capacity (at zero axial
load) is determined from a plastic stress distribution on the steel
section alone. Therefore the calculated moment strength for the

Fig. 13. Comparison between the envelopes of HCFT3 and HCFT4.

CFT cross-section will be relative conservative using the LRFD

axial load-bending moment interaction curve for the CFT crosssection.

1481

J. Liu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 64 (2008) 14731482

Table 3
Comparisons of the test results of test specimens with predictions based on the
current codes provisions
Specimen
CCFT
columns

CCFT1

Mu (kN m)

Mu
MEC4

Mu
MAIJ

Mu
MACI

Mu
MLRFD

46.82

1.07

1.21

1.31

2.57

0.95
1.05
1.13
0.97
1.03

0.96
1.07
1.14
0.98
1.07

1.02
1.15
1.21
1.04
1.15

1.81
1.56
2.16
1.85
1.99

0.07
1.07

0.11
1.23

0.12
1.29

0.39
3.00

1.06
1.06
1.04
1.06

1.19
1.08
1.05
1.14

1.17
1.19
1.09
1.18

4.09
3.13
3.15
3.34

0.01

0.08

0.08

0.51

CCFT2 46.07
CCFT3 69.77
CCFT4 49.22
CCFT5 48.83
Average Coefficient
of Variation
HCFT
columns

Fig. 14. Comparison between the envelopes of HCFT2 and CCFT1.

HCFT1

78.71

HCFT2 53.34
HCFT3 56.85
HCFT4 57.38
Average Coefficient
of Variation

diagonal cyclic lateral load. Conclusions from the investigation

presented in this paper are summarized as follows:

Fig. 15. Comparison between the envelopes of HCFT4 and CCFT4.

Table 2
Limit on D/t ratio according to current code provisions
Specimen
CCFT columns

HCFT columns

D/t
CCFT1
CCFT2
CCFT3
CCFT4
CCFT5
HCFT1
HCFT2
HCFT3
HCFT4

56.6
56.6
31.1
56.6
56.6
31.4
51.9
51.9
51.9

D/t limit
EC4
AIJ

ACI

LRFD

45.2
45.2
45.2
45.4
45.2
45.4
45.2
45.2
45.2

75.2
75.2
73.8
75.2
75.2
76.5
76.2
76.2
76.2

75.2
75.2
73.8
75.2
75.2
76.5
76.2
76.2
76.2

63.4
63.4
62.4
63.4
63.4
64.5
64.3
64.3
64.3

6. Summary and conclusions

The effects of axial load ratio, width-to-thickness ratio,
concrete compressive strength, slenderness ration and load
angle on the behaviour of biaxially bent square CFT
beamcolumns were studied by testing nine specimens. The
columns were subjected to combined constant axial load and

1. The ductility and energy dissipation ability of biaxially bent

CCFT and HCFT columns decreases with an increase in the
axial load ratio. Neither HCFT nor CCFT columns under
seismic biaxial bending moment are sufficiently ductile
when subjected to high axial load ratios, namely for n 0 >
0.5.
2. The moment capacity decreases as the width-to-thickness
ratio increases for both CCFT and HCFT columns subjected
to biaxial loading. The energy dissipation ability decreases
with an increase in width-to-thickness ratio for biaxially
bent CCFT columns. However, the width-to-thickness ratio
barely affects the energy dissipation ability of biaxially bent
HCFT columns.
3. The moment capacity of biaxially bent square CFT
beamcolumns increases with increase in concrete compressive strength, while an opposite trend was observed for their
ductility and energy dissipation ability.
4. The ductility and energy dissipation ability of biaxially bent
CCFT and HCFT columns increases with an increase in
slenderness ratio.
5. The ductility and energy dissipation ability of biaxially bent
square CFT beamcolumns are barely affected by diagonal
load angle while their moment capacity slightly decreases
with increase of the diagonal load angle.
6. These tests showed that the moment capacity of biaxially
bent square CFT columns can be predicted with reasonable
accuracy using the EC4 and AIJ code provisions. The
ACI-predicted moment capacity was slightly conservative
compared with the test results while the LRFD code
provisions greatly underestimated the capacity of square
CFT beamcolumns under biaxial bending moment.
Acknowledgements
The research reported here was financially supported by
National Natural Science Foundation of China (59808004)

1482

J. Liu et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 64 (2008) 14731482

and The Research Fund for the Doctoral Programme

of Higher Education (20030213045). Dr. Douglas Goode
provided some advice and some of the referenced papers were gained from the CFST column database website, http://web.ukonline.co.uk/asccs2, which is managed by
Dr. Goode.
References
[1] Shanmugam NE, Lakshmi B. State of the art report on steel-concrete
composite columns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2001;57:
104180.
[2] Shantong Zhong. The concrete-filled steel tubular structures. 1st ed.
Publishing Company of Tsinghua University; 1997.
[3] Zhang Sumei, Guo Lanhui, Ye Zaili, Wang Yuyin. Behavior of steel
tube and confined high strength concrete for concrete-filled RHS tubes.
Advances in Structural Engineering 2005;8(5):10116.
[4] Susantha KAS, Ge Hanbin, Usami Tsutomu. Uniaxial stressstrain
relationship of concrete confined by various shaoed steel tubulars.
Engineering Structures 2001;23:133147.
[5] Uy B. Local and post-local buckling of concrete filled steel welded
box columns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1998;47:
4772.
[6] Bradford MA. Design strength of slender concrete filled rectangular steel
tubes. ACI Structural Journal 1996;92:35564.
[7] Elremaily Ahmed, Azizinamini Atorod. Behavior and strength of circular
concrete-filled tubular columns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research
2002;58:156791.
[8] Ichinose LH, Watanabe E, Nakai H. An experimental study on creep of
concrete filled steel pipes. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2001;
57:45366.
[9] Furlong RW. Strength of steel-encased concrete beam columns. Journal
of Structural Division, ASCE 1967;93(ST5):13124.
[10] Knowles B, Park R. Strength of concrete filled steel tubular columns.
Journal of Structural Division, ASCE 1969;95(ST12):256587.
[11] Neogi PK, Sen HK, Chapman JC. Concrete-filled tubular steel columns
under eccentric loading. Structural Engineering Journal 1969;47(5):
18795.
[12] Priestley MJN, Park RJT. Concrete filled steel tubular piles under seismic
loading. In: The international speciality conference on concrete filled steel
tubular structures. 1985. p. 96103.

[13] Boyd Philip F, Cofer William F, Mclean David I. Seismic performance

of steel-encased concrete columns under flexural loading. ACI Structural
Journal 1995;92(3):35564.
[14] Wang Zhan, Zhen Yonghui. The hysteretic behavior of high
strength concrete filled steel tubular under compression and bending.
In: Proceedings of 6th ASCCS coference, Vol. 1. 2000. p. 599604.
[15] Morino Shosuke. Recent developments on CFT column systems
USJAPAN cooperative earthquake research program. In: Proceedings of
6th ASCCS coference, Vol. 1. 2000. p. 53138.
[16] Furlong RW. Ultimate strength of square columns under biaxially
eccentric loads. Journal of American Concrete Institute 1961;32(9):
112940.
[17] Rangan V, Joyce M. Strength of eccentrically loaded slender steel tubular
columns filled with high strength concrete. ACI Structural Journal 1992;
(November-December):67681.
[18] Grauers M. Composite columns of hollow steel sections filled with
high strength concrete. Ph.D. dissertation. Sweden: Division of Concrete
Structures, Chalmers University of Technology; 1993.
[19] Varma AH, Ricles JamesM, Sause Richard, Lu Le-Wu. Seismic behavior
and modeling of high-strength composite concrete-filled steel bube(CFT)
beamcoumns. Jorunal of Constructional Steel Rearch 2002;58:
72558.
[20] Han LH, Yang YF, Tao Z. Concrete-filled thin walled steel RHS
beamcolumns subjected to cyclic loading. Thin Walled Structures 2003;
41(9):80133.
[21] Hajjar JF, Gourley BC. A cyclic nonlinear model for concrete-filled tubes
cross-section strength. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1997;
122(11):132736.
[22] Zhang W, Shahrooz BM. Strength of short and long concrete filled tubular
columns. ACI Structural Journal 1999;(March-Appril):2308.
[23] Row DG, Paulay T. Biaxial flexure and axial load interaction in short
Rectangular reinforced concrete columns. Bulletin of the N.Z. Society for
Earthquake Engineering 1973;6(3):11021.
[24] Eurocode 4: Design of steel and concrete structures, part 1.1, general
rules and rules for buildings. Brussels (Belgium): European Committee
for Standardization; 1996.
[25] Structural calculations of steel reinforced concrete structures. Tokyo
(Japan): Architectural Institute of Japan; 1987.
[26] Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary, ACI
318-99. Farmington Hills (MI): American Concrete Institute; 1999.
[27] Load and resistance factor design. Chicago (IL): American Institute of
Steel Construction; 1994.