Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 962983

www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

Experimental behaviour of stiffened concrete-filled

thin-walled hollow steel structural (HSS) stub
columns
Zhong Tao, Lin-Hai Han, Zhi-Bin Wang
College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Fuzhou University, Gongye Road 523, Fuzhou,
Fujian Province 350002, PR China
Received 14 June 2004; accepted 9 December 2004

Abstract
Test results on concrete-filled steel tubular stub columns with inner or outer welded longitudinal
stiffeners under axial compression are presented in this paper. The research was mainly focused on
square hollow section (SHS) columns; two rectangular hollow section (RHS) columns were also
tested. A longitudinal stiffener was provided on each side of the stiffened SHS column, while only
two stiffeners were welded to the longer sides of the stiffened RHS column. The main experimental
parameters considered were the height-to-thickness ratio and stiffener rigidity. In addition, empty
tubes with or without stiffeners, as well as unstiffened concrete-filled steel tubes were also tested
for comparison. Requirements for stiffener rigidity are developed by modifying a formula presented
in the literature. Existing theoretical model and design codes were used to predict the load versus
axial strain relationships and load-carrying capacities of the adequately stiffened composite sections
respectively; reasonable results were achieved.
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Concrete-filled steel tube; Concrete; Thin-walled; Stub columns; Axial compression; Stiffener; Steel
hollow section; Local buckling

Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 591 3716182; fax: +86 591 3737442.

E-mail address: taozhong@fzu.edu.cn (Z. Tao).

0143-974X/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2004.12.003

Z. Tao et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 962983

963

Nomenclature
Ac
Asc
As,s
As,t
B
bs
D
Ec
Es

Cross-sectional area of concrete

Sum of cross-sectional areas of steel tube and concrete (=As,t + Ac )
Cross-sectional area of steel stiffeners
Cross-sectional area of steel tube
Width of square or rectangular steel tube
Width of the steel stiffener
Height of rectangular steel tube
Concrete modulus of elasticity
Steel modulus of elasticity

fc
fck

Characteristic compressive concrete strength (=0.4 f cu )

Characteristic compressive strength of concrete ( f ck = 0.67 f cu for normal
strength concrete)
Characteristic cube strength of concrete
Characteristic compressive cylinder strength of concrete
Nominal average strength of the steel tube after filled with concrete
Yield strength of the stiffener
Yield strength of the steel tube
Moment of inertia of stiffener about its centroidal axis parallel to the panel
element
Length of column
Axial load
Experimental ultimate strength
Wall thickness of the steel tube
Thickness of the steel stiffener
Stress
Strain



A f
Confinement factor = As,tc f cks,t

fcu
fc
fscy
fs,s
fs,t
Is
L
N
Nu,e
t
ts

7/6

1. Introduction
The use of concrete filled steel tubular (CFT) columns has become increasingly popular
in civil engineering structures. In China, it is reported that more than thirty high-rise
buildings and two hundred arch bridges have been built due to their high strength and
ductility, as well as large energy-absorption capacity [1]. The enhancement of the CFT
columns in structural properties can be reached because the steel tube provides confinement
for the concrete, and the concrete core can prevent the inward buckling of the tube.

964

Z. Tao et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 962983

However, many studies have shown that the performance of a concrete-filled square
or rectangular steel tube is not as good as its circular counterpart [2,1]. This is
due to the fact that a square or rectangular steel tube cannot provide as much
confining pressure to the concrete core, and that local buckling is more likely to
occur [3,4]. With a large aspect ratio of section, the maximum axial strength of stub
columns is even less than the combination of the steel and concrete components due
to the effects of local buckling [5,6]. With the development of high strength steel,
it has become extremely attractive to use in thin-walled tubes when local buckling
is eliminated in a column design. Accordingly, adequate stiffening measures for
square or rectangular concrete-filled tubes are highly desirable when thin-walled tubes
are used.
In the past, the effects of longitudinal stiffeners on the behaviour of square CFT
stub columns have been experimentally studied by Ge and Usami [7] and Kwon et al.
[8]. The preliminary test results demonstrated the effectiveness of the stiffeners in delaying
local buckling of the tube. Compared with traditional CFT members, it is also expected
that the stiffened CFT columns will have higher shear strength, higher bond strength
between the steel tube and the concrete core, as well as higher fire resistance capacities
if the stiffeners are welded internally. However, only two stiffened stub columns were
included in the above-mentioned literature. Whilst Ge and Usami [7] reported that the
stiffened composite stub column had a lower section capacity than the combined capacity
of the components acting alone, Kwon et al. [8] concluded that its ultimate strength
had a higher section capacity than the sum of those of the concrete, the steel tube
and the stiffeners. It seems more experiments covering a wider range of parameters
should be carried out to verify these conclusions. Moreover, no research has been
conducted to evaluate the rigidity requirement on stiffeners, as well as their influences on
ductility.
In recent years, Fuzhou University in China has been engaged in research to determine
the strength and behaviour of concrete-filled thin-walled hollow steel structural (HSS)
columns. Both theoretical and experimental studies have been carried out, such as
Tao et al. [9], Han et al. [10], Han [11], Han and Yang [12], Han et al. [13], Han [1],
Han and Yao [14,15], Han et al. [16,17], Tao et al. [18]. The research results reported in
this paper are part of a wider study on concrete-filled thin-walled HSS columns.
This paper studies mainly the behaviour of stiffened concrete-filled square steel tubular
stub columns under concentric compression. The stiffeners are typically arranged as shown
in Fig. 1(b)(d). The primary parameters considered in the test program were the heightto-thickness ratio (D/t) of the steel tube and the stiffener rigidity. For comparison,
experiments were also conducted on empty tubes with or without stiffeners, as well as
unstiffened CFT columns. Moreover, a novel stiffening measure with longitudinal steel
stiffeners welded on the outer surfaces of the steel tube was also adopted in the test
program. This kind of stiffeners is easier to weld compared to the inner-welded ones,
and may be used when the aesthetic requirement is not highly emphasized or when
fireproof panels are used to protect the column from fire. The outer welded stiffeners
are especially suitable for cold-formed thin-walled tubes which are manufactured in the
factory.

Z. Tao et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 962983

965

Fig. 1. Test specimens: (a) unstiffened SHS; (b) inner stiffened SHS; (c) outer stiffened SHS (d) inner stiffened
RHS.

2. Experimental program
2.1. General
Nineteen specimens, including thirteen square CFT stub columns, two rectangular CFT
stub columns and four empty square steel stub columns, were tested to failure under
concentric compression.
According to design code AS 4100 [19], local buckling stress for a rectangular plate
subjected to uniaxial compression can be expressed as
f ol =

k
2 Es
12(1 s2 ) (b/t)2

(1)

where the elastic modulus E s can be taken as 200,000 MPa, Poissons ratio s can be
taken as 0.3, b and t are the width and the thickness of the steel plate, respectively, and
k is the buckling coefficient which depends on the boundary conditions. Based on finitestrip analysis, the value of k for a rectangular plate in contact with concrete has been
recommended by Bridge and OShea [20] and Uy and Bradford [21] as 9.99 and 10.31,
respectively. A value of 10 was used in this paper as the buckling coefficient (k) for steel
plates in a square or rectangular CFT column. If the yield strength ( f y ) of the plate is taken
as 234.3 MPa, the local buckling slenderness limit for structural steel can be determined
from Eq. (2):

k 2 E s
b

= 57.2
(2)
t
12(1 s2 ) f y
where is a reduction factor used to account for plate imperfections and residual
stresses [22]. For heavily welded tubes, it can be derived from the yield slenderness limits
specified in AS 4100 [19] as 0.651. This has been further developed by Uy [23]. According
to the local buckling slenderness limit determined from Eq. (2), the height-to-thickness
ratios (D/t) of tubes were chosen as 52, 76 and 100, respectively. It is therefore expected
that stiffening measures should be taken to compensate the local buckling effects of the
thin-walled tubes.

966

Z. Tao et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 962983

Table 1
Specimen labels, material properties and section capacities
No. Specimen
label
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

SCFT25-1
SCFT25-2
SCFT25-3
SCFT25-4
UCFT25
SS25
US25

B
D
L
D/t bs ts
(mm) (mm) (mm)
(mm)
249.9
248.0
248.7
248.6
249.0
249.5
250.0

35 2.5
35 2.0
25 2.5
35 2.5

35 2.5

Nue /N0 Stiffener

type

8932
7146
3255
8932

8932

50.1
50.1
50.1
50.1
50.1

3700
3530
3500
3620
3230
492
220

1.062
1.015
1.007
1.035
0.947
0.744
0.379

Inner
Inner
Inner
Outer
NA
Inner
NA

750
750
750
750
750
750
750

100
100
100
100
100
100
100

8
9
10

SCFT19-1 190.1 190.2 570

SCFT19-2 189.1 190.3 570
SCFT19-3 189.5 190.9 570

76
76
76

25 2.5 3255
25 2.0 2604
15 2.5 703

54.8
54.8
54.8

2250 2166 1.039

2240 2167 1.034
2195 2153 1.020

Inner
Inner
Inner

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

SCFT13-1
SCFT13-2
SCFT13-3
SCFT13-4
UCFT13
SS13
US13

390
390
390
390
390
390
390

52
52
52
52
52
52
52

20 2.5
20 2.0
15 2.5
20 2.5

20 2.5

1667
1333
703
1667

1667

54.8
54.8
54.8
54.8
54.8

1310
1300
1300
1270
1150
398
200

1.185
1.172
1.189
1.149
1.099
1.145
0.666

Inner
Inner
Inner
Outer
NA
Inner
NA

18
19

SCFT-R25 126.0 249.0 750

SCFT-R13 65.8 129.6 390

100
52

35 2.5 8932
20 2.5 1667

50.1
54.8

2010 1861 1.080

695 614 1.132

Inner
Inner

129.7
129.6
129.7
129.7
128.2
130.2
130.5

250.2
251.0
252.3
252.6
250.4
250.3
250.0

Is
f c
Nue N0
(mm4 ) (MPa) (kN) (kN)

130.5
130.5
130.2
130.5
129.1
131.4
130.9

3483
3478
3476
3497
3409
662
580

1105
1109
1094
1105
1047
347
300

Four types of steel tubes, shown as in Fig. 1 were fabricated, i.e. unstiffened square
tubes (Fig. 1(a)), inner stiffened square tubes (Fig. 1(b)), outer stiffened square tubes
(Fig. 1(c)) and inner stiffened rectangular tubes (Fig. 1(d)). The minimum stiffener rigidity
for each of the D/t series was determined from formulae presented by Rhodes [24]. Larger
stiffeners were also provided to determine the influence of stiffener rigidity on stiffening
effects. A summary of the specimens is presented in Table 1 where the measured section
sizes, material properties and D/t ratio are given. In Table 1, specimen designations
starting with a U refer to columns without stiffeners, and those starting with an S
refer to columns with stiffeners. Follows the U or S, the character S represents empty
steel tubes, and CFT represents concrete filled steel tubes. It should be noted that the
specimens of SCFT25-4 and SCFT13-4 are outer stiffened CFT columns as shown in
Fig. 1(c), and the specimens of SCFT-R25 and SCFT-R13 are rectangular CFT columns
as shown in Fig. 1(d). The length of the stub columns (L) was chosen to be three times
the height of the SHS or RHS columns to avoid the effects of overall buckling and end
conditions [1].
2.2. Material properties
All tubes were manufactured from mild steel sheet with a measured thickness of
2.5 mm. The stiffeners were fabricated from two kinds of mild steel sheet with thicknesses
of 2 and 2.5 mm respectively. The widths of the stiffeners ranged from 15 to 35 mm to
get a varied flexural stiffness. The material properties of the steel are shown in Table 2,

Z. Tao et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 962983

967

Table 2
Material properties of steel
Thickness
(mm)

Elastic modulus
(GPa)

Yield strength
(MPa)

Yield strain
(%)

Poissons
ratio

Ultimate strength
(MPa)

Ultimate strain
(%)

2
2.5

208
208

311.0
234.3

0.189
0.137

0.242
0.247

430.7
343.7

28.7
31.6

and were determined from tension tests on three coupons in each series. To fabricate a
specimen, four steel plates were cut. If stiffening was specified, the stiffeners were welded
on the plates with fillet welds. After that the four plates were tack welded into a square or
rectangular shape, and then welded with a single bevel butt weld along the corners to form
the tube.
The concrete used in the test program had a water/cement ratio of 0.38, made with
ordinary Portland cement. The mix proportions of the concrete were as follows: cement:
528 kg/m3 ; water: 201 kg/m3; sand: 585 kg/m3; and coarse aggregate: 1086 kg/m3. The
coarse aggregate was well graded with a maximum size of 15 mm. Two batches of concrete
with the same mix design were used to fill the steel tubes. To determine the compressive
strength of concrete, three 150 mm cubes and three standard cylinders (150 mm300 mm)
were cast from each batch of the concrete and cured in conditions similar to the related
specimens. The average cube strength ( f cu ) for each batch of concrete at the time of tests
was 59.8 and 61.8 N/mm2 respectively, while the average cylinder strength ( f c ) was 50.1
and 51.8 N/mm2 respectively. The average modulus of elasticity (E c ) of concrete was
found to be 35,100 N/mm2 .
2.3. Specimen preparation and test procedure
In the case of the CFT columns, the concrete was filled in layers and was vibrated by a
poker vibrator. These specimens were then placed upright to air-dry until testing. During
curing, a very small amount of longitudinal shrinkage occurred at the top of the columns. A
high-strength epoxy was used to fill this longitudinal gap so that the concrete surface was
flush with the steel tube at the top. Prior to testing, the top surfaces of the CFT specimens
were ground smooth and flat using a grinding wheel with diamond cutters. A ruler was
used to check for the flatness. This was to ensure that the load was applied evenly across
the cross-section and simultaneously to the steel and concrete.
A 5000 kN capacity testing machine was used for the compression tests of all specimens
as shown in Fig. 2. A computerized IMP data acquisition system was used for data logging.
To assure uniform compression, preliminary tests within the elastic range were conducted
by carefully adjusting the position of the specimen, based on the measurements of strain
gauges attached at the mid-height of the test specimen. The adjustment was terminated
until the difference between the measured strain and the average value was no more than
5%. In addition, two displacement transducers (see Fig. 2) were used to measure the axial
shortening during the tests. A load interval of less than one tenth of the estimated load
capacity was used. Each load interval was maintained for about 2 to 3 min.

968

Z. Tao et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 962983

Fig. 2. Test set-up.

3. Test results and discussion

Typical failure appearances of the test specimens are shown in Fig. 3, and the buckling
modes of the plate panel after collapse of these specimens are shown in Fig. 4. As expected,
the steel plates buckled alternately in convex and concave surfaces for the unstiffened steel
column, with the nodes at the corners of columns (Fig. 4(a)); and for the stiffened steel
column, the buckling did not occur at the stiffeners unless the stiffeners buckled (Fig. 4(b)).
For all steel columns, it was also observed during the experiment that the steel panels
buckled near the mid-height of the column. In the case of the CFT column, all the steel
panels buckled outward (Fig. 5(c)(e)). Local plate buckling occurred initially near the
upper end, because it is impossible to apply the load perfectly evenly across the crosssection of the upper end, although the above mentioned measure has been taken. Then
the steel plates buckled at different locations, including the central part of the specimen.
Finally, buckling deformations developed quickly at one of these locations, normally near
the mid-height of the column. It must be noted that for the buckling modes of the stiffened
composite columns, the stiffeners contributed to a great extent to the overall shape of the
buckling of columns even when stiffener rigidity was small. The steel plates in the stiffened
CFT specimens buckled later than those in the unstiffened CFT columns. However, the
smaller the stiffener rigidities, the earlier the stiffener buckled, thus affecting the stiffening
effects to some extent. Compared to the inner stiffened specimen, the plate panels buckled
earlier when outer stiffeners were used. The reason is that the buckling of the former
longitudinal stiffeners was delayed or even prevented by the filled-in concrete.
It was also observed that the plate buckling of all specimens with D/t ratios of 100
and 76 initially occurred before the maximum load was reached, as well as empty steel
tube US13 with a D/t ratio of 52. The larger the D/t ratio, the earlier the local buckling
occurred in each series. Although both specimens UCFT13 and SCFT25-1 had almost the

Z. Tao et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 962983

969

Fig. 3. Typical failure appearances of test specimens.

Fig. 4. Local buckling modes of test specimens: (a) steel column; (b) stiffened steel column; (c) CFT column;
(d) inner stiffened CFT column; (e) outer stiffened CFT column.

same width-to-thickness ratio for subpanel plates, it is quite interesting to note that plate
buckling of the specimen UCFT13 was initially observed after the maximum load was
reached, whereas specimen SCFT25-1 was to the contrary. The reason may be attributed
to residual stresses from welding of the stiffeners. This was once again confirmed by the
fact that the stiffened RHS columns buckled (local buckling) initially at the longer side.
The tested curves of load versus axial strain are shown in Fig. 5. The axial strain was
calculated from measured axial shortening divided by the overall length. The maximum
loads (Nue ) obtained in the test are summarized in Table 1. It can be seen that all the
curves tend to drop after peak load, but the specimen with larger D/t ratio drops more
quickly in each series.
In order to quantify the effect of stiffeners on section ductility, a ductility index (DI) is
defined in this paper as
85%
(3)
DI =
y
where 85% is the axial strain when the load falls to 85% of the ultimate load, and y is
equal to 75%/0.75, 75% is the axial strain when the load attains of 75% the ultimate load
in the pre-peak stage.
The ductility indexes (DI) so determined are plotted in Fig. 6 against the normalized
moment of inertia of stiffener (Is /Is,max ) for inner stiffened square CFT columns, where Is
is the moment of inertia of stiffener about its centroidal axis parallel to the panel element,

970

Z. Tao et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 962983

(a) SHS with D/t = 100.

(b) SHS with D/t = 76.

Fig. 5. Load versus axial strain curves.

and Is,max is the maximum moment of inertia of stiffener in the same D/t series. It can be
seen from Fig. 6 that Is does not significantly influence the ductility of the stiffened CFT
specimens, although a very slight drop is observed with the increasing of Is /Is,max . The
beneficial effect of stiffeners on ductility may be counteracted by the residual stresses from
welding of the stiffeners. The slight drop can be explained by the fact the ultimate strength
increase with the increase of Is /Is,max , thus inducing a decrease in the value of 85% .
In order to gain an insight into the effects of stiffening and local buckling, the ultimate
strength of a stiffened CFT column is estimated firstly using the sum of the section
capacities of concrete, the steel tube and the steel stiffeners, i.e.
N0 = f c Ac + f y,t As,t + f y,s As,s

(4)

Z. Tao et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 962983

971

(c) SHS with D/t = 52.

(d) RHS.
Fig. 5. (continued).

where Ac , As,t , As,s are the areas of the concrete, the steel tube and the steel stiffeners,
respectively; f y,t and f y,s are the yield strengths of the steel tube and the steel stiffeners
respectively; f c is the characteristic concrete strength, and can be calculated by the formula
presented in [25]:
7/6

f c = 0.4 f cu .

(5)

For steel columns or unstiffened CFT columns, Eq. (4) is also used to calculate N0 by
taking one or both of the cross-sectional areas of the concrete and the stiffeners as zero.
The predicted ultimate strength (N0 ) is compared in Table 1 with the experimental data
(Nue ). Tested ultimate strengths of specimens with different section configurations are
shown in Fig. 7 for specimens with a D/t ratio of 100 and 52, respectively. It can be seen
from Fig. 7 and Table 1 that the maximum loads and post-buckling strengths were almost

972

Z. Tao et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 962983

Fig. 6. Effect of stiffeners on ductility.

the same for unstiffened steel columns US25 and US13, although the former had larger
cross-sectional areas. On the other hand, the stiffened steel columns SS25 and SS13 had
much higher compression capacities than their unstiffened counterparts. This means that
longitudinal stiffeners were very effective against the local buckling of the plate panels. It is
also noted that the column SS25 has attained a maximum strength with an Nue /N0 ratio of
0.744 and has not developed its full strength, while the column SS13 has an Nue /N0 ratio
of 1.145 due to the effects of strain-hardening. It seems more stiffeners should be provided
to further reduce the width-to-thickness ratios of the subpanel plates, thus to increase the
ultimate strength of the column SS25.
Compared with the steel columns, the ultimate strength of the composite columns was
greatly increased because of the filled-in concrete. In the case of unstiffened composite
columns, it can be seen from Table 1 that Eq. (4) underestimates the load carrying capacity
of specimen UCFT13. This is due to the effect of concrete confinement which is not
considered in the model. However, it can also be seen that Eq. (4) overestimates the
load-carrying capacity of specimen UCFT25 because the effect of local buckling is not
considered in the model. In the case of stiffened composite columns, each specimen had
a higher ultimate strength than N0 , and the strength was also higher than that of the
unstiffened composite column. It is concluded that the longitudinal stiffeners can not only
delay the local buckling of the plate panel, but also improves the lateral confinement on the
concrete core and, thus enhances its strength. The smaller the height-to-thickness ratio of
the specimen, the more apparent the confinement enhancement.
It can also be seen from Table 1 and Fig. 7 that the outer stiffened specimens have
shown almost the same behaviour as the inner stiffened ones with the same size stiffeners.
However, the ultimate strength of the outer stiffened specimen was slightly lower than
that of the inner stiffened one in each series. As explained above, the local buckling of
longitudinal stiffeners in the latter specimens was delayed or even prevented by the filled-in

Z. Tao et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 962983

973

(a) D/t = 100.

(b) D/t = 52.

Fig. 7. Tested ultimate strengths of specimens with different section configurations.

concrete, and thus could exert their influences more effectively. Therefore, it is concluded
that the outer welded stiffeners should have higher flexural rigidity than the inner welded
ones.
4. Stiffener rigidity requirement
Fig. 8 shows the effect of stiffener rigidity on the load-bearing capacity of the stiffened
CFT column. In order to make meaningful comparisons, a normalized ultimate strength is

974

Z. Tao et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 962983

Fig. 8. Effect of moment of inertia of stiffener on normalized ultimate strength.

defined as follows:
Nn,ult =

Nue f y,s As,s

.
f c Ac + f y,t As,t

(6)

The above equation essentially subtracts the contribution of the longitudinal stiffeners
from the ultimate strength for a given column and then divides this number by the
contributions of the concrete core and the steel tube. It can be seen from Fig. 8 that the value
of Nn,ult does not increase with the increment of Is for stiffened composite specimens with
a nominal D/t ratio of 52. It seems that the flexural rigidity requirement of the stiffeners
in this case can be met with a minimum size of 15 2.5 mm. However, for stiffened
composite columns in other series, the value of Nn,ult does increase with the increment
of Is . This demonstrates the fact that the larger is the D/t ratio, the larger the rigidity
requirement of stiffeners.
By comparing the axial strain at the stiffenerplate juncture with the strain at the corner
of the tube, the relative support provided by different stiffener rigidities could be assessed
as pointed out in [26]. It was observed that the strain variations at these locations were
virtually the same for some specimens when they reached their ultimate strength. All
these specimens are shown in Table 3. Therefore, the stiffeners in these specimens can
be recognized as sufficiently strong to support the steel plates. In contrast, the strain at
the longitudinal stiffener of a specimen with a relatively small stiffener showed a strain
reversal tendency.
According to Desmond et al. [26], the requirement on stiffener rigidity was developed
for longitudinally stiffened compression elements of thin-walled members based primarily
on experimental results. The requirement (Is,ad ) is expressed as
100w/t
Is,ad
=
50
(w/t)a
t4

for 0.5(w/t)a w/t < 1.5(w/t)a

(7a)

No.

Specimen
label

Is
(mm4 )

Is,ad
(mm4 )

Is,re
(mm4 )

Nue
(kN)

NP /Nue

NACI /Nue

NAISC /Nue

NBS5400 /Nue

NEC4 /Nue

NDBJ /Nue

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

SCFT25-1
SCFT19-1
SCFT13-1
SCFT13-2
SCFT13-3
SCFT-R25
SCFT-R13

8932
3255
1667
1333
703
8932
1667

3677
2124
994
994
994
3677
994

8960
3429
909
909
909
8960
909

3700
2250
1310
1300
1300
2010
695

0.964
0.985
0.866
0.875
0.863
0.969
0.938

0.866
0.886
0.783
0.792
0.780
0.858
0.828

0.861
0.881
0.779
0.788
0.785
0.849
0.826

0.830
0.851
0.756
0.765
0.753
0.825
0.803

0.987
1.003
0.875
0.885
0.873
0.968
0.912

0.955
0.979
0.870
0.879
0.876
0.956
0.945

Z. Tao et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 962983

Table 3
Comparisons of experimental and predicted stiffener rigidities and ultimate strengths for specimens in this paper

975

976

Z. Tao et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 962983

257w/t
Is,ad
=
285
t4
(w/t)a

for w/t 1.5(w/t)a

(7b)

where w is the width of the subpanel plate,

 and can be taken approximately as b/2, b is the
overall width of the plate; (w/t)a = 580 fy,t , the unit of f y,t is MPa.
The above equation is simplified in [24] as:

w 2 f
y,t 4
Is,ad = 0.045
t .
(8)
t
280
Eq. (8) gives quite close prediction of the value of rigidity requirement on stiffeners
compared with that from Eq. (7).
The actual stiffener rigidities (Is ) and values calculated from Eq. (8) (Is,ad ) are listed in
Table 3 for those adequately stiffened specimens reported in this paper. As can be seen from
Table 3, all actually required stiffener rigidities are larger than the calculated values except
SCFT13-3. This can be explained from the confining mechanisms: the tube exerts confining
stress on the concrete core, and the counter-stress from the concrete core promotes the local
buckling of the steel tube. However, for the specimen with smaller D/t ratio, this effect
is counteracted because the stiffeners were embedded in the concrete, while the pushing
effect from concrete core is not significant. So the adequate rigidity required on stiffeners
is smaller than that determined from Eq. (8). According to the above analysis, Eq. (8) is
modified as follows

w 3.5 f
y,t 4
t .
(9)
Is,re = 3.1 104
t
280
The calculated values of Is,re are given in Table 3. As can be seen, Eq. (9) gives
reasonable results in predicting adequate rigidities required. It should be noted that Eq. (9)
can only be used for inner-welded stiffeners, more research should be conducted to evaluate
the rigidity requirement on outer-welded stiffeners.
Two stiffened SHS stub columns have been experimentally studied by Ge and Usami
[7] and Kwon et al. [8], respectively. A summary of the specimens is presented in Table 4
where the component areas, material properties and stiffener sizes are given. The actual
stiffener rigidities, as well as values calculated from Eqs. (8) and (9) are also listed in
Table 4. As can be seen from Table 4, the stiffener rigidities in [7] seem too small to meet
the rigidity requirements according to Eq. (8) or (9), while the stiffener sizes in [8] seem a
little too large. Therefore, specimens SC15-1 and SC15-2 reported in [8] can be recognized
as adequately stiffened specimens.
5. Prediction of load versus axial strain relationships using existing model
A theoretical model was developed in [10] for concrete-filled SHS stub columns,
columns and beam columns. The predicted load versus axial strain relationship is in good
agreement with stub column test results. As pointed out in [1], the model can also be used
for concrete-filled RHS stub columns. Therefore, the load versus axial strain relationships
for adequately stiffened stub columns in the current test are predicted using this model.
The comparison is shown in Fig. 9. The agreement between the predicted curves and the
tested ones appears generally good. The experimental failure loads (NP ) are summarized in

Z. Tao et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 962983

977

Table 4
Comparisons of experimental and predicted stiffener rigidities for specimens from independent experiments
Specimen t
D/t Ac
label
(mm)
(mm2 )

As,t
As,s
f c
f y,t
f y,s
bs ts
(mm2 ) (mm2 ) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (mm)

Is
Is,ad
Is,re
(mm4 ) (mm4 ) (mm4 )

(a) [7]
S75-C-1
S75-C-2

4.51
4.51

73.8 104,616 6030

73.8 104,850 6030

684
450

40.6
40.4

266
266

309
301

38 4.36 19,937 24,082 37,186

25 4.34 5,719 24,082 37,186

(b) [8]
SC15-1
SC15-2

3
3

74.3 46,549
74.3 46,549

2694
2694

540
540

22.05 235.2 235.2 45 3

22.05 235.2 235.2 45 3

22,781 4226
22,781 4226

6591
6591

Table 3. A mean ratio (NP /Nue ) of 0.923 is obtained with a COV (coefficient of variation)
of 0.053. As can be seen from Fig. 9 and Table 3, the experimental failure loads are in
general in excess of the determined values by the model. This could be explained by the
beneficial effect of the confinement enhancement from stiffeners. It can also be seen from
Fig. 9 that, for theoretical curves, the loads decrease gradually after the specimens have
attained their ultimate loads, unlike the experimental curves where the loads drop more
quickly at the point of peak loads. This phenomenon is more apparent when the tube
thickness becomes thinner. This is because the model presented in [10] is not calibrated
for thin-walled CFT columns. Therefore, more future research is required to modify the
model presented in [10], thus giving a more accurate prediction of load versus axial strain
relationships.
6. Load-carrying capacity prediction
There are several widely used design codes for calculating the capacity of CFTs, such
as ACI [27], AIJ [28], AISC [29], BS5400 [30], EC4 [31]. More recently, a new code
DBJ1351-2003 [32] was enacted by the construction department of Fujian province in
China. The design equations recommended in the codes mentioned above are applied to
calculate section capacities of adequately stiffened CFTs in this section. It must be noted
that these codes are not applicable to design thin-walled CFT columns. Therefore, the
width-to-thickness ratios for subpanel plates of the stiffened CFT column must be smaller
than the value determined from Eq. (2). At the same time, some necessary modifications
should be made to take the contribution of stiffeners into account. It should also be
noted that all partial safety factors have been taken as unity, as well as reduction factors
accounting for accidental eccentricities.
6.1. ACI and AIJ methods
ACI [27] and AIJ [28] gave the same equation to calculate nominal strength of CFT
short columns:
NACI = As f y + 0.85 Ac f c .

(10)

978

Z. Tao et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 962983

(a) SCFT25-1.

(b) SCFT19-1.
Fig. 9. Comparison of load versus axial strain curves between predicted and tests for adequately stiffened stub
columns.

For stiffened CFT stub columns in this paper, the term of As f y is replaced by As,t f y,t +
As,s f y,s .
The predicted strength using ACI [27] or AIJ [28] is compared with the current
experimental values of adequately stiffened specimens in Table 3. Ultimate strengths of
specimens listed in Table 4 are also predicted using Eq. (10) as shown in Table 5. As can
be seen from Tables 3 and 5, Eq. (10) underestimates the strength of stiffened CFT stub
columns except specimens S75-C-1 and S75-C-2 which were reported by Ge and Usami
[7]. The reasons for specimens S75-C-1 and S75-C-2 showing a lower strength maybe
twofold: first, the concrete may not have been properly poured into the tube according
to Ge and Usami [7]. Secondly, the stiffener sizes seemed too small to be fully effective

Z. Tao et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 962983

979

(c) SCFT13-1.

(d) SCFT-R25 and SCFT-R13.

Fig. 9. (continued).

as mentioned above. Therefore, the comparisons for specimens S75-C-1 and S75-C-2 are
ignored in the following sections.
A mean ratio (NACI /Nue ) of 0.831 is obtained for adequately stiffened CFT stub
columns with a COV (coefficient of variation) of 0.038. It seems that Eq. (10)
underestimates the strengths of the stiffened columns.
6.2. AISC method
The nominal strength for composite compression members is given as:
NAISC = As Fcr

(11)

980

Z. Tao et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 962983

Table 5
Comparisons of experimental and predicted ultimate strengths for specimens from independent experiments
No. Specimen
label

Nue (kN)

NP /Nue

NACI /Nue

NAISC /Nue

NBS5400 /Nue

NEC4 /Nue

NDBJ /Nue

1.073
1.030

1.205
1.158

1.211
1.164

0.841
0.813

0.924
0.893

0.915
0.884

(a) [7]
1
2

S75-C-1
S75-C-2

5030
5158

1.233
1.186

1.079
1.035

1.073
1.030
(b) [8]

3
4

SC15-1
SC15-2

1935
2001

0.930
0.899

0.844
0.816

0.841
0.813


2
F
where Fcr = (0.658c )Fmy (for stub column); c = rkmL Emy
; Fmy = f y +
m

0.85 f c (Ac /As ); E m = E s + 0.4E c (Ac /As ); E s is the modulus of elasticity of steel; E c is
the modulus of elasticity of concrete; rm is the radius of gyration of the tube.

I +I

s,s
where
For stiffened CFT stub columns in this paper: As = As,t + As,s ; rm = As,t
s,t +As,s
Is,t and Is,s are the moment of inertia about the minor axis of section for the tube and the
stiffeners, respectively.
The predicted strength using AISC [29] is compared with the experimental values in
Tables 3 and 5, where a mean of 0.825 is obtained for NAISC /Nue with a COV of 0.036. It
seems AISC [29] is a little more conservative than ACI [27] or AIJ [28].

6.3. BS5400 method

The cube strength of concrete ( f cu ) is used in BS5400 [30] to calculate the squash load
of composite cross section as:
NBS5400 = As f y + 0.675 Ac f cu .

(12)

For stiffened CFT stub columns in this paper, As fy is the same as that used in Eq. (12).
fcu is taken as 1.25 f c to calculate the values of NAIJ for specimens listed in Table 5 since
no cube strength of concrete was provided in the literature.
The predicted strength using BS5400 [30] is compared with the experimental values in
Tables 3 and 5. A mean ratio (NBS5400/Nue ) of 0.807 is obtained for adequately stiffened
CFT stub columns with a COV of 0.037. It can be seen that the predicted results from
BS5400 [30] are quite conservative.
6.4. EC4 method
The nominal strength for composite compression members is given as:
NEC4 = As f y + Ac f c .

(13)

The predicted strength using EC4 [31] is compared with the experimental values in
Tables 3 and 5. A mean ratio (NEC4 /Nue ) of 0.927 is obtained with a COV of 0.049. It can
be seen that EC4 [31] can predict the strength of the stub column with reasonable accuracy,

Z. Tao et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 962983

981

although Eq. (13) slightly underestimates the load carrying capacity when the D/t ratio is
equal to 52.
6.5. DBJ1351-2003 method
According to DBJ1351-2003 [32], a confinement factor ( ) is used to describe the
composite action between the steel tube and concrete as:
As,t fs,t
=
(14)
Ac f ck
where f ck is the compression strength of concrete. The value of f ck is determined using
67% of the compression strength of cubic blocks ( f cu ). The squash load of the composite
cross section is expressed as:
NDBJ = Asc f scy

(15)

where Asc is the sum of cross-sectional areas of the steel tube and the concrete core, given
by As,t + Ac . f scy is the nominal average strength of a square or rectangular steel tube after
filling with concrete, which is given by
f scy = (1.18 + 0.85 ) f ck .

(16)

For stiffened CFT stub columns in this paper, the contribution from stiffeners is
considered by adding a term of As,s f y,s to Eq. (15) as:
NDBJ = Asc f scy + As,s fy,s .

(17)

The predicted strength using Eq. (17) is compared with the experimental values in
Tables 3 and 5 where a mean of 0.918 is obtained for NDBJ /Nue with a COV of 0.042.
Generally good agreements are obtained.
7. Conclusions and recommended future research
Nineteen stub column specimens were tested to failure under concentric compression.
The following observations and conclusions can be drawn based on the research reported
in the paper:
(1) The sectional capacity of the composite stub columns can be increased when stiffeners
were provided.
(2) Generally, the longitudinal stiffeners can not only delay the local buckling of the plate
panel, but also improves the lateral confinement on the concrete core.
(3) It seems that no ductility improvement for stiffened CFT columns was observed in the
current test, and the increment of moment of inertia of stiffeners does not significantly
influence the ductility of the stiffened CFT specimens.
(4) The outer stiffened specimens have shown almost the same behaviour as the inner
stiffened ones, but the stiffeners should have higher flexural rigidities to ensure their
effectiveness.
(5) The larger the D/t ratio, the larger the rigidity requirement of stiffeners. The
requirement is developed by modifying a formula presented in the literature.
Reasonable results are achieved.

982

Z. Tao et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 962983

(6) For adequately stiffened thin-walled CFT stub columns, existing design codes, such
as ACI [27], AIJ [28], AISC [29], BS5400 [30], EC4 [31] and DBJ1351-2003 [32],
can be used to predict their load-carrying capacities with reasonable accuracy. The
local buckling effect can be ignored in the calculating process. Among them, EC4 and
DBJ1351-2003 give the best results.
(7) It was found that, in general, the existing design codes mentioned above underestimate
the strength of the adequately stiffened stub columns. Future study shall be directed to
give more accurate formulae in predicting the load-carrying capacities of the columns,
in which confinement enhancement effects from stiffeners should be considered.
Another suggested future research topic is to present a more accurate model in
predicting load versus axial strain relationships.

Acknowledgements
The research work reported herein was made possible by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China, the Science and Technology Project from the Construction
Department of Fujian Province and the Fujian Province Science and Technology Big
Project (Grant No. 2002H007); the financial support is highly appreciated.
References
[1] Han LH. Concrete filled steel tubular structures. Beijing: China Science Press; 2004 [in Chinese].
[2] Tomii M, Yoshimaro K, Morishita Y. Experimental studies on concrete filled steel tubular stub column
under concentric loading. In: Proceedings of the international colloquium on stability of structures under
static and dynamic loads. Washington: SSRC/ASCE; 1977. p. 71841.
[3] Bradford MA, Loh HY, Uy B. Local buckling of concrete-filled circular steel tubes. In: Composite
construction in steel and concrete IV. Banff (Alberta, Canada): ASCE; 2000. p. 56372.
[4] Bradford MA, Loh HY, Uy B. Slenderness limits for filled circular steel tubes. Journal of Constructional
Steel Research 2002;58(2):24352.
[5] Uy B. Local and post-local buckling of concrete filled steel welded box columns. Journal of Constructional
Steel Research 1998;47(12):4772.
[6] Uy B. Strength of concrete filled steel box columns incorporating local buckling. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE 2000;126(3):34152.
[7] Ge HB, Usami T. Structural of concrete-filled thin-walled steel box column: experiment. Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE 1992;118(11):303767.
[8] Kwon YB, Song JY, Kon KS. The structural behaviour of concrete-filled steel piers. In: Proceedings of 16th
congress of IABSE. 2000.
[9] Tao Z, Han LH, Zhao XL. Behaviors of square concrete filled steel tubes subjected to axial compression. In:
Proceedings of the fifth international symposium on structural engineering for young experts. 1998. p. 617.
[10] Han LH, Zhao XL, Tao Z. Tests and mechanics model for concrete-filled SHS stub columns, columns and
beamcolumns. Steel & Composite StructuresAn International Journal 2001;1(1):5174.
[11] Han LH. Tests on stub columns of concrete-filled RHS sections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research
2002;58(3):35372.
[12] Han LH, Yang YF. Analysis of thin-walled RHS columns filled with concrete under long-term sustained
loads. Thin-walled Structures 2003;41(9):84970.
[13] Han LH, Yang YF, Tao Z. Concrete-filled thin walled steel RHS beamcolumns subjected to cyclic loading.
Thin-walled Structures 2003;41(9):80133.
[14] Han LH, Yao GH. Behaviour of concrete-filled hollow structural steel (HSS) columns with pre-load on the
steel tubes. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2003;59(12):145575.

Z. Tao et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 962983

983

[15] Han LH, Yao GH. Experimental behaviour of thin-walled hollow structural steel (HSS) columns filled with
self-consolidating concrete (SCC). Thin-Walled Structures 2004;42(9):135777.
[16] Han LH, Tao Z, Huang H, Zhao XL. Concrete-filled double skin (SHS outer and CHS inner) steel tubular
beamcolumns. Thin-Walled Structures 2004;42(9):132955.
[17] Han LH, Tao Z, Liu W. Effects of sustained load on concrete-filled HSS (Hollow Structural Steel) columns.
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 2004;130(9):1392404.
[18] Tao Z, Han LH, Zhao XL. Behaviour of concrete-filled double skin (CHS inner and CHS outer) steel tubular
stub columns and beamcolumns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2004;60(8):112958.
[19] Australia Standard. AS4100-1998 steel structures. Sydney; 1998.
[20] Bridge RQ, OShea MD. Behaviour of thin-walled steel box sections with or without internal restraint.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1998;47(12):7391.
[21] Uy B, Bradford MA. Elastic local buckling of steel plates in composite steelconcrete members. Engineering
Structures 1996;18(3):193200.
[22] Bradford MA. Local and post-local buckling of fabricated box members. Civil Engineering Transactions,
Institution of Engineers, Australia 1985;CE27(4):391 6.
[23] Uy B. Local and post-local buckling of fabricated thin-walled steel and steelconcrete composite sections.
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 2001;127(6):66677.
[24] Rhodes J. Some thoughts on future cold-formed steel design rules. In: Rhodes J, Spence J, editors. Behaviour
of thin-walled structures. London: Elsevier Applied Science; 1984. p. 12542.
[25] Yu ZW, Ding FX. Unified calculation method of compressive mechanical properties of concrete. Journal of
Building Structures 2003;24(4):416 [in Chinese].
[26] Desmond TP, Pekoz T, Winter G. Intermediate stiffeners for thin-walled members. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE 1981;107(4):62747.
[27] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for reinforced concrete (ACI 318-99) and commentary
(ACI 318R-99). Detroit: American Concrete Institute; 1999.
[28] Architectural Institute of Japan. Recommendations for design and construction of concrete filled steel
tubular structures. October 1997 [in Japanese].
[29] AISC-LRFD. Load and resistance factor design specification for structural steel buildings. Chicago:
American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.; 1999.
[30] BS5400. Steel, concrete and composite bridges, Part 5, Code of practice for design of composite bridges.
London: British Standards Institution; 1979.
[31] Eurocode 4. Design of steel and concrete structures, Part1.1, General rules and rules for building. DD ENV
1994-1-1: 1996. London W1A2BS: British Standards Institution; 1994.
[32] DBJ1351-2003. Technical specification for concrete-filled steel tubular structures. Fuzhou (China): The
Construction Department of Fujian Province; 2003 [in Chinese].