Journal of Constructional Steel Research 157 (2019) 426–439

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Theoretical model for concrete-filled stainless steel circular stub columns

under axial compression
Y.L. Li a, X.L. Zhao a,⁎, R.K. Singh Raman b,c
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
b
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
c
Department of Chemical Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia

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

Article history: Experimental studies on concrete-filled stainless steel (SS) circular stub columns (in the form of fully filled and
Received 7 January 2019 double-skin) have been reported in the last 10 years, but there is still a lack of theoretical model to predict the
Received in revised form 22 February 2019 complete load-axial strain curve of such stub columns under axial compression. This study presents a load-
Accepted 6 March 2019
axial strain model for concrete-filled SS tubes, which takes account of the interaction between the encasing
Available online 18 March 2019
tube and concrete core. A dilation model is first proposed in which the dilation rate is expressed as a function
Keywords:
of axial strain and outer tube diameter-to-thickness ratio. The theory of metal plasticity in the form of deforma-
Concrete-filled stainless steel stub column tion type is adopted to calculate the bi-axial stresses in the SS outer tube. The SS inner tube is assumed to be under
Theoretical model uni-axial compression and continuous strength method (CSM), which is suitable for strain hardening material
Dilation such as SS, is adopted. The effect of SS tube buckling on reducing the axial stress and confining stress is considered
Plasticity of SS in the model. Numerical procedures are proposed to generate the complete load-axial strain curve which involve
Load-axial strain curve an incremental process. Finally, the predicted load-axial strain curves are compared with the experimental re-
sults obtained by the authors and other researchers, and a good agreement is achieved.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction load-strain curves of SS CFSTs could be either strain hardening or strain

In recent decades, austenitic stainless steel (SS) is increasingly ap-
plied in structural engineering due to its advantages of superior corro-
sion resistance and high toughness (i.e., combination of strength and
ductility). Concrete-filled SS circular stub columns, in the form of fully
filled or double skin (Fig. 1), are an attractive structural form with im-
proved capacity and ductility by utilising the advantages of SS and con-
crete [1]. The encasing SS tube could provide confinement effect on the
core concrete and the in-filled concrete could prevent or delay the buck-
ling of SS tube. Compared to concrete fully filled SS tube (CFST), con-
crete filled double-skin SS tube (CFDST) has reduced self-weight and
higher bending stiffness [2]. SS exhibits a round-shape stress-strain
curve without an obvious yielding plateau, which leads to a different
structural behaviour from conventional concrete-filled carbon steel
tubes [3].
Several experimental studies ([4–10]) have been conducted on cir-
cular SS stub CFSTs under axial compression and the major findings
are: (1) the failure modes of SS CFSTs are similar to those of carbon
steel CFSTs (e.g., tube buckling and elephant foot); (2) SS CFSTs exhibit
higher ductility and residual strength than carbon steel CFSTs; (3) the
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ZXL@monash.edu (X.L. Zhao).
softening, which depends mainly on the confinement effects. Currently,
no design codes are available for SS CFSTs. The design codes
(e.g., AS5100 [11], ACI318 [12] and EC4 [13]), which are applied for car-
bon steel, provided much conservative estimation on the ultimate ca-
pacity of SS CFSTs [6,7]. On the other hand, only few studies
(i.e., [8–10]) were reported for concrete-filled double-skin SS tubes
(SS as both inner and outer tubes), and it was found that the cross-
sectional slenderness of inner SS tube could greatly affect the post-
peak behaviour of SS CFDSTs. Formulas were also proposed in Li et al.
[10] to predict the ultimate capacity of concrete-filled SS tubes.
The theoretical load-axial strain model is of great significance in the
structural design (determination of ultimate state), the nonlinear finite
element analysis, and the development of more sophisticate models,
such as the models for beams and beam-columns. Currently, there is
no theoretical model for SS CFSTs or CFDSTs, but several models
(e.g., [14–20]) have been proposed for carbon steel CFSTs. Sakino et al.
[19] assumed a constant hoop stress in steel tube, which is far smaller
than the yield strength due to a biaxial stress state. In Sakino's model,
the interaction between concrete and steel tube was not considered
and the dilation model was not needed. Most of the other models
(e.g., [14,15,20]) proposed dilation models as a function of confining
stress. Plasticity theory (e.g., Prandtl-Reuss equations in incremental
form) was adopted in these models to estimate the stresses in steel

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.03.010
0143-974X/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 Y.L. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 157 (2019) 426–439 427

Nomenclature

a Parameter defining the dilation model

Ac Cross-sectional area of concrete
Ai Cross-sectional area of inner tube
Ao Cross-sectional area of outer tube
D Outer diameter of CHS
Di Outer diameter of inner tube
Do Outer diameter of outer tube
E Elastic modulus of SS
Ec Elastic modulus of concrete
fc′ Unconfined concrete strength
fcc′ Confined concrete strength Fig. 1. Cross-sections of concrete-filled SS circular stub columns.
fl Confining stress acting on concrete core
fy Yield stress of SS (0.2% proof stress)
fyi Yield stress of inner tube
fyo Yield stress of outer tube
G Shear modulus
K Bulk modulus
n Constant in Ramberg-Osgood model
N Axial load
NCFST Predicted ultimate capacity of CFST
NCFDST Predicted ultimate capacity of CFDST
Nmin Minimum load after reaching Nu and before reaching 5% axial
strain
Nt Experimental ultimate capacity
Nu Ultimate capacity
r Coefficient accounting for the brittleness of concrete Fig. 2. Schematic dilation rate-axial strain relationships.
t Thickness of CHS
ti Thickness of inner tube
to Thickness of outer tube
Δεc Axial strain increment
ε0 Yielding strain of CHS (=fy/E)
εc Axial strain
εc,b Buckling strain of SS tube
εcc Axial strain of confined concrete at fcc′
εco Axial strain of unconfined concrete at fc′
εe Effective strain
εh Hoop strain
εLB Ultimate strain of CHS
ηCFDST Reduction factor for confining stress of CFDST
ηCFST Reduction factor for confining stress of CFST
ηi Reduction factor for axial stress of inner tube
ηi,0.05 Reduction factor for axial stress of inner tube at 0.05 axial
strain
ηo Reduction factor for axial stress of outer tube
Fig. 3. Relationship between dilation rate and axial strain.
ηo,0.05 Reduction factor for axial stress of outer tube at 0.05 axial
strain
λc Cross-section slenderness of CHS
λo Cross-section slenderness of outer tube
μ Dilation rate
ν Poisson's ratio of SS
ξ Confinement factor
σc Axial stress in concrete
σe Effective stress
σh Hoop stress
σl Axial stress of outer tube
σli Axial stress of inner tube
ϕ Scalar function representing the hardening of material

tube by assuming steel as an elastic and perfectly plastic material

[14,15] or an elastic and linear hardening material [20]. However, by
reviewing these models, it is found that the stresses in a steel tube are
very sensitive to the strains. In other words, a minor inaccuracy in Fig. 4. Determination of factor a.
428 Y.L. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 157 (2019) 426–439
Fig. 5. Comparison of predicted and experimental axial strain at given lateral strains of
actively confined concrete.
predicting the strains of steel tube could lead to a huge error in stress
prediction and the inaccurate stress could in turn cause a higher inaccu-
racy in strain prediction. When applying these models, convergence
problem also occurred for some specimens. Furthermore, the stress-
strain relationship of SS is characterised as elastic non-linear hardening,
which is another reason for different structural behaviour when com-
pared with carbon steel CFSTs.
In this paper, a theoretical model, which accounts for the interaction
between SS tube and core concrete, was proposed for concrete filled SS
tubes (both CFSTs and CFDSTs) to fill the above mentioned knowledge
gaps. A dilation model (hoop-axial strain relationship) was firstly pro-
posed, which was a pre-requisite for developing the load-strain
model. The stresses in SS tubes were calculated by plasticity theory
with appropriate consideration of SS tube buckling. Based on the
existing model for actively confined concrete and the path-
independence assumption [21], the stress in concrete was determined.
The load carried by the column was then obtained and the load-strain
curve was generated through an incremental process. Finally, the accu-
racy of the proposed model was examined by experimental results from
a wide range of literature.
2. Dilation model
The confinement type of concrete under constant confining stress is
defined as “active confinement”. If the confining stress increases gradu-
ally along the loading process, this kind of confinement is generally
called “passive confinement”. For example, when concrete is confined
Fig. 6. Axial stress-axial strain (σl-εc) curves and hoop stress-hoop strain (σh-εh) curves in
SS tube (S114–C).
Fig. 7. Stress history in SS tube by plasticity theory.
by fiber reinforced polymer (FRP), the hoop stress in FRP was found
[22] to increase linearly with the increase of hoop strain of FRP. If con-
crete is confined by SS tube, the nonlinearity, biaxial stress state and
plasticity of SS further complicate the problem.
Dilation rate (μ) is defined as the tangent slope of the hoop-axial
strain (εh − εc) curves as expressed in Eq. (1).
dεh
μ¼− ð1Þ
dεc
Because of deformation compatibility, the hoop strain of concrete is
same as the hoop strain of the outer tube and the later could be exper-
imentally measured by the strain gauges attached on the surface of the
outer tube. The typical μ-εc relationships of unconfined, SS confined, ac-
tively confined and FRP confined concrete are schematically plotted in
Fig. 2 based on the experimental data of [23–26]. The shape of μ-εc
curves greatly differs from each other due to the different confinement
types. In the initial loading process, SS tube tends to separate from con-
crete due to its larger Poisson's ratio (0.3 for steel and 0.2 for concrete).
With the increase of hoop stress, the increase of the dilation rate of SS
slows down. During the late stage of loading process, the dilation rate
of SS is higher than that of FRP because SS is in a plastic state.
By assessing the available experimental data of CFSTs, it is found that
the relationship between dilation rate and axial strain could be repre-
sented by a single-parameter function in logarithm form:


εc
μ ¼ a  ln þ 1 þ 0:3 ð2Þ
εco
Fig. 8. Performance of continuous strength method on predicting the ultimate strain of
CHS from [8–10].
 Y.L. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 157 (2019) 426–439 429

Fig. 9. Reduction factor caused by SS outer tube buckling.

Fig. 12. Verification of the prediction for ηCFST and ηCFDST at 0.05 axial strain.

of steel tube leads to a higher ξ but the confinement effect is probably

Fig. 10. Illustration of Nmin and Nu.
reduced as steel tube with higher fyo is more prone to buckling. The
Do-to-to ratio is adopted in the present study to represent the degree
of confinement and the relationship between a and Do/to is shown in
Eq. (3) and Fig. 4, which is determined by regression analysis on the ex-
perimental data of CFSTs (excluding specimens 152x1.6-F and 203x2-F)
from Li et al. [10].

a ¼ 0:0505  ðDo =t o Þ0:5164 ð3Þ

where a is the parameter governing the shape of μ-εc/εco curve and εco is
the axial strain of unconfined concrete at its strength (fc′). If εco is not It is necessary to mention that the proposed model does not directly
available from experimental data, εco can be approximated as 0:000937 correlate the dilation property to confining stress, which differs from
qffiffiffiffiffi most of the existing dilation models for actively confined [29], FRP
0
f c (fc′ in MPa) as suggested by Popovics [27]. The value of a could be
4

obtained by a regression analysis. An example of the regression analysis

is shown in Fig. 3, in which the experimental data of specimens 50x3-F
and 168x3-F is adapted from Li et al. [10].
Generally, a higher confinement could lead to a lower value of a. For
carbon steel CFSTs, confinement factor (ξ = fyoAo/fc′/Ac, where fyo is
yielding stress of outer tube, Ao is cross-sectional area of outer tube, fc′
is unconfined concrete strength, Ac is cross-sectional area of concrete)
is widely adopted to represent the confinement effect [28]. However, ξ
may not be suitable for SS CFSTs because SS has a round-shape stress-
strain relationship with substantial strain hardening and the buckling
of steel tube is not considered in ξ. Based on the definition, a higher fyo

Fig. 11. Relationship of ηo,0.05 and λo. Fig. 13. Flowchart of numerical procedures.
430 Y.L. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 157 (2019) 426–439

Table 1 proposed dilation model is based on CFSTs with uniform confinement,

Details of concrete fully filled SS tubes (CFSTs). but this model is also applicable for CFDSTs if simplifying the non-
Data source Specimen Do to fyo L fc′ Nt uniform confinement in the annular concrete as uniform confinement.
(mm) (mm) (MPa) (mm) (MPa) (kN) It is also assumed that the dilation property of ordinary Portland cement
Li et al. [10] 50x1.6-F 49.6 1.53 376.5 150 42.0 209 concrete is similar to seawater and sea sand concrete since NaCl in the
50x3-F 50.9 3.07 228.9 150 42.0 244a later mainly affects the durability. The proposed dilation model could
76x1.6-F 76.2 1.66 398.9 230 42.0 388 be applied to ordinary Portland cement concrete filled SS tubes. The ver-
89x3-F 89.2 3.22 259.2 270 42.0 548a
ification of the proposed dilation model will be presented in Section 5.2,
101x1.6-F 101.8 1.70 353.3 300 42.0 617
101x3-F 101.9 2.79 226.0 300 42.0 610 which shows a good accuracy for both CFSTs and CFDSTs.
114x3-F 114.1 2.79 281.2 350 42.0 831
152x1.6-F 152.6 1.60 314.5 450 42.0 1050 3. Behaviour of SS tube
168x3-F 168.4 3.22 281.5 450 42.0 1635
203x2-F 202.7 1.99 304.0 600 42.0 1787
Li et al. [8] S101-C 101.2 2.83 324.4 400 31.4 729a
3.1. Stresses in SS tube
S114-C 113.9 2.88 270.3 400 31.4 800a
S165-C 168.2 3.15 280.1 400 31.4 1522 3.1.1. Hoop stress in SS outer tube
Li et al. [9] S50-C 50.9 3.07 228.2 150 35.8 235a Based on the force equilibrium, the hoop stress (σh) in encasing SS
S101-C 101.9 2.79 225.7 400 35.8 570a
outer tube could be derived from the confining stress (fl) acting on the
S114-C 114.1 2.79 280.7 400 35.8 766a
S165-C 168.4 3.22 281.1 400 35.8 1449 concrete core, as expressed in Eq. (4).
Lam and CHS104x2-C30 104.0 2.00 412.0 300 31.0 699
Gardner [7] CHS104x2-C60 104.0 2.00 412.0 300 49.0 901 σ h ¼ f l ðDo −2t o Þ=ð2t o Þ ð4Þ
CHS114x6-C30 114.3 6.02 266.0 300 31.0 1254a
CHS114x6-C60 114.3 6.02 266.0 300 49.0 1340a where Do and to is the outer diameter and thickness of SS outer tube re-
Tam et al. [4] CS-0 168.9 2.86 339.6 510 41.2 1708
spectively. Teng et al. [21] proposed a hoop-axial strain (εh − εc) rela-
CS-100 170.6 2.86 339.6 510 37.8 1573
Yang and Ma [5] C-S-N 120.0 1.77 286.7 360 50.6b 823 tionship for FRP confined concrete, as shown in Eq. (5), in which the
Uy et al. [6] C30-50x1.2A 50.8 1.20 291.0 150 30.0 151a confining stress is the only variable.
C30-50x1.6A 50.8 1.60 298.0 150 30.0 187a
(
 
) !
C30-100x1.6A 101.6 1.60 320.0 300 30.0 494 εc −εh 0:7 −εh fl
C30-127x1.6A 127.0 1.60 274.0 400 30.0 763 ¼ 0:85 1 þ 0:75 − exp −7  1þ8 0 ð5Þ
C30-150x1.6A 152.4 1.60 279.0 450 30.0 931 εco εco ε co fc
C30-200x2.0A 203.2 2.00 259.0 500 30.0 1525
a
Load at 5% axial strain is taken as Nt; where fc′ is unconfined concrete strength and fl is confining stress. The
b
Calculated from cubic compressive strength (fcu = 63.4 MPa) by fc′ = 0.4fcu7/6 (Ding validity of Eq. (5) has been proved by existing literature, such as Jiang
et al. [17]). and Teng [24], Lim and Ozbakkaloglu [30] and Xiao et al. [31]. The accu-
racy of Eq. (5) for predicting the axial strain of actively confined con-
confined [21] or carbon steel confined concrete [14]. The main reason is crete is assessed by the experimental data from Lim and Ozbakkaloglu
that the bi-axial stresses in SS tube is sensitive to the strains determined [23] and Candappa et al. [32], in which the confining stress ranged
by dilation model. Due to the interaction between confining stress and from 4 MPa to 25 MPa. Fig. 5 shows a comparison of the predicted and
hoop-axial strain relationship, iteration is needed to determine the experimental axial strain at given lateral strains and the prediction
hoop-axial strain relationship and convergence problem may occur for error is generally b20%. Therefore, Eq. (5) is applicable for both actively
some specimens. Therefore, a “global” factor (i.e., Do/to) is used to gov- and FRP-confined concrete. Since the confining stress provided by the
ern the dilation property of SS confined concrete. The derivation of the SS tube increases nonlinearly during the loading process, this kind of

Table 2
Details of concrete filled double-skin SS tubes (CFDSTs).

Data source Specimen Do (mm) to (mm) fyo (MPa) Di (mm) ti (mm) fyi (MPa) L (mm) fc’ (MPa) Nt (kN)

Li et al. [10] 101x1.6-50x1.6-D 101.8 1.70 353.3 49.6 1.53 376.5 300 42.0 583
101x1.6-50x3-D 101.8 1.70 353.3 50.9 3.07 228.9 300 42.0 634
101x3-50x1.6-D 101.9 2.79 226.0 49.6 1.53 376.5 300 42.0 593
101x3-50x3-D 101.9 2.79 226.0 50.9 3.07 228.9 300 42.0 681a
114x3-50x1.6-D 114.1 2.79 281.2 49.6 1.53 376.5 350 42.0 804
114x3-50x3-D 114.1 2.79 281.2 50.9 3.07 228.9 350 42.0 891a
152x1.6-50x1.6-D 152.6 1.60 314.5 49.6 1.53 376.5 450 42.0 1055
152x1.6-76x1.6-D 152.6 1.60 314.5 76.2 1.66 398.9 450 42.0 997
152x1.6-101x1.6-D 152.6 1.60 314.5 101.8 1.70 353.3 450 42.0 825
152x1.6-101x3-D 152.6 1.60 314.5 101.9 2.79 226.0 450 42.0 882
168x3-50x1.6-D 168.4 3.22 281.5 49.6 1.53 376.5 450 42.0 1569
168x3-76x1.6-D 168.4 3.22 281.5 76.2 1.66 398.9 450 42.0 1470
168x3-89x3-D 168.4 3.22 281.5 89.2 3.22 259.2 450 42.0 1464
168x3-101x1.6-D 168.4 3.22 281.5 101.8 1.70 353.3 405 42.0 1332
168x3-101x3-D 168.4 3.22 281.5 101.9 2.79 226.0 450 42.0 1354
168x3-114x3-D 168.4 3.22 281.5 114.1 2.79 281.2 450 42.0 1319
203x2-50x3-D 202.7 1.99 304.0 50.9 3.07 228.9 400 42.0 1653
203x2-76x1.6-D 202.7 1.99 304.0 76.2 1.66 398.9 400 42.0 1658
203x2-101x3-D 202.7 1.99 304.0 101.9 2.79 226.0 400 42.0 1625
203x2-152x1.6-D 202.7 1.99 304.0 152.6 1.60 314.5 400 42.0 1142
Li et al. [8] S114-S50-C 114.5 2.87 270.3 47.9 2.73 306.8 400 32.9 909a
S165-S101-C 167.8 3.18 280.1 101.2 2.80 324.4 400 32.9 1409
Li et al. [9] S114-S50-C 114.1 2.79 280.7 50.9 3.07 228.2 400 39.4 852a
S165-S101-C 168.4 3.22 281.1 101.9 2.79 225.7 400 39.4 1314
a
Load at 5% axial strain is taken as Nt.
Y.L. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 157 (2019) 426–439 431

Fig. 14. Verification of dilation model for CFSTs.

432 Y.L. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 157 (2019) 426–439

Fig. 14 (continued).

confinement should lay between the two extreme cases of linearly in-
creasing confinement (i.e., FRP confinement) and rigid plastic confine- E
G¼ ð7Þ
ment (i.e., active confinement). In conclusion, Eq. (5) could be applied 2ð1 þ ν Þ
to SS confined concrete. As hoop (εh) and axial (εc) strains have been de-
termined by the proposed dilation model in Section 2, fl, which is the E
only unknown variable in Eq. (5), could be determined. Then, the K¼ ð8Þ
3ð1−2ν Þ
hoop stress (σh) in SS tube could be calculated by Eq. (4).
As mentioned before, during the initial loading stage, since the
3 εe
Poisson's ratio of SS is larger than that of concrete, a small negative con- ϕ¼ ð9Þ
2 σe
fining stress (i.e., separation tendency between SS tube and concrete)
may be calculated by Eq. (5). In this case, fl is assumed as zero and this pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
assumption has little effect on the precision of the predicted load- σe ¼ σ h 2 þ σ l 2 −σ h σ l ð10Þ
strain curve.
where G is shear modulus, K is bulk modulus, E is elastic modulus of SS, ν
3.1.2. Axial stress in SS outer tube is Poisson's ratio, ϕ a scalar function representing the hardening of ma-
Because the thickness of SS outer tube is relatively much smaller terial, σe is effective stress and εe is strain at σe. The σe-εe relationship is
than the size of a specimen, SS tube is assumed to be under the bi- the same as the stress-strain response of SS coupons under uni-axial
axial stress state of axial compression and hoop tension. Due to the elas- tension. If the experimental data is not available, constitutive model
tic non-linear hardening behaviour of SS, a theory of plasticity is needed for SS under uni-axial tension should be adopted, such as Ramberg-
to determine the axial stress (σl) in SS outer tube. Osgood model (AS/NZS 4673 [34]) or Rasmussen model ([35]). As indi-
Based on the deformation theory of plasticity, Hencky stress-strain cated by Li et al. [10], the difference of the stress-strain curves predicted
relationship (introduced in [33]) is adopted for SS and the hoop strain by these two models was insignificant. For simplicity, Ramberg-Osgood
can be expressed as: model is used in the present study:

 !n
1 2σ h −σ l 1 σe σe
εh ¼ þϕ  þ  ðσ h þ σ l Þ ð6Þ εe ¼ þ 0:002 ð11Þ
2G 3 9K E fy

Fig. 15. Comparison of predicted and experimental CFST hoop strain at axial strains of 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.03, 0.04 and 0.05: (a) axial strain is obtained by LVDTs; (b) axial strain is obtained
by strain gauges.
 Y.L. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 157 (2019) 426–439 433

where fy is yielding stress of SS and n is a constant, set as 7.5 if experi- (εc,b) of SS tube in a CFST or CFDST is the same as the ultimate strain
mental data are unavailable [34]. (εLB) of a circular hollow sectional tube (CHS).
As the hoop strain (εh) and hoop stress (σh) have been determined Gardner and Theofanous [38] proposed the continues strength
in the previous sections, axial stress (σl) is the only unknown parameter method (CSM) for materials exhibiting high extent of strain hardening,
in Eqs. (6)–(11). Since σl could not be directly solved, a numerical such as SS. The ultimate strain of CHS could be determined by empirical
method is needed and a “trial-and-error” concept is adopted in this formulas:
paper. σl increases in a small increment (e.g., 0.1 MPa). If εh calculated
from (σh, σl) is close enough (e.g., error ≤ 1%) to εh pre-determined in εLB 0:18
¼ 1:24þ1:70λ ð13Þ
Section 2, σl is the stress in SS tube at hoop strain of εh and hoop stress ε0 λc c

of σh. The axial strain (εl) in SS tube could also be determined by the
Hencky equiation [33]:


1 2σ l −σ h 1 2Et
εl ¼ þϕ  þ  ðσ h þ σ l Þ
2G 3 9K
Because of the deformation compatibility, the axial strain of speci-
men (εc) is equal to the axial strain of SS tube (εl). During the calcula-
tion, it is found that the values of εc and εl are not exactly the same
probably due to the different calculation methods. However, the differ-
ence is b15% and εl was not needed in the present study in developing
the load-strain model for concrete filled SS tubes.
An example of the stress-strain curves of SS tubes in CFST specimens
is shown in Fig. 6, in which the uni-axial tensile stress-strain curve of SS
is also plotted. As expected, the stresses in SS tube under bi-axial stress
state is much lower than the corresponding stress obtained from uni-
axial tension. During the initial loading stage, the stress development
in axial direction is faster than that in hoop direction. The hoop tensile
stress increases continuously, but decrease was observed for axial com-
pressive stress. Because specimen 114x3-F and 165x3-F have almost the
same material properties (fy = 281.2 MPa and 281.5 MPa for 114x3-F
and 165x3-F respectively), for a given yielding surface, the specimen
that has a higher σh would have a lower σl. Fig. 7 plots the axial-hoop
stress history of SS tubes in three typical CFST specimens with different
yield stresses and different tube diameters. Due to the strain hardening,
after entering plasticity, the yield surface of SS changes subsequently.
Different εh − εc relationships, which is controlled by Do/to, could lead
to different loading paths (i.e., ratios of σl-to-σh). Except the very com-
pact section of 50x3-F, the hoop stress in SS tube is generally less than
the yield stress but it is still much larger than the hoop stress specified
in Sakino et al. [19] for carbon steel CFST, which is 0.19fyo.
3.1.3. Axial stress in SS inner tube
Theoretically speaking, the SS inner tube in a CFDST is under bi-axial
stress state of axial compression and hoop compression. However, due
to the lack of experimental data, it is still a challenge to accurately
derive the hoop stress in SS inner tube. In the present study, it is
assumed that the SS inner tube behaves similarly to circular hollow
sectional tube (CHS) under uni-axial compression before reaching its
buckling. After buckling, the axial stress in SS inner tube (σli) keeps
constant to consider the beneficial effect of in-filled concrete. This as-
sumption was also adopted for concrete filled FRP double-skin tubes
[36,37] and showed acceptable accuracy. The stress-strain curve of
CHS could be obtained by continues strength method (CSM [38]). De-
tails of applying CSM into SS inner tube could be found in the authors'
previous paper [37].
3.2. Buckling of SS tube
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 
3 1−ν2 ðD−t Þf y
λc ¼ ð14Þ
ð12Þ
ε0 ¼ f y =E ð15Þ
where λc is the cross-sectional slenderness of CHS, D is the outer diam-
eter of CHS, t is the thickness of CHS, fy is the yield stress, E is elastic
modulus of SS, ν is Poisson's ratio of SS, εLB is the ultimate strain of
CHS, and ε0 is the yielding strain of CHS. A comparison between the pre-
dicted and experimental εLB/ε0 is shown in Fig. 8, in which the experi-
mental data is adapted from [8–10]. It is found that the prediction is
lower for CHSs with λc b 0.04 but accurate for λc ≥ 0.04. In the future,
if more data are available, the coefficients in Eq. (13) could be further
refined.
3.2.2. Effect of buckling on the axial stress of SS outer tube
A reduction factor (ηo) is introduced to account for the effect of
buckling on the axial stress of SS outer tube. The expression for ηo is
given in Eq. (16) as a function of axial strain (εc):
8
< 1; if ε c ≤εc;b
ηo ¼ 1−ηo;0:05   ð16Þ
: 1−  lgε c − lgεc;b ; if εc Nεc;b
lg0:05− lgεc;b
where εc,b is the buckling strain of SS outer tube, which could be deter-
mined from Section 3.2.1 (εc,b = εLB), and ηo,0.05 is the reduction factor
at axial strain of 0.05. Before the occurrence of buckling, ηo is equal to
1 (i.e., no reduction). After SS tube is buckled, ηo is assumed to decrease
gradually in a logarithm trend (see schematic view in Fig. 9).
As shown in Eq. (16) and Fig. 9, ηo,0.05 has to be specified before cal-
culating ηo. During an experiment, it is impossible to extract the load
carried by outer SS tube and ηo,0.05 cannot be directly measured. In
this paper, the reduction factor ηo,0.05 is assumed to be in an analogy
with the load drop of CFST after peak load:
N min
ηo;0:05 ¼ ð17Þ
Nu
where Nmin is the minimum load of CFST after reaching the peak load
(Nu) and before the axial strain of 0.05. Fig. 10 illustrates the definition
of Nmin and Nu on load-axial strain (N-εc) curves with strain hardening
or strain softening natures. If the load carried by a CFST (e.g., 50x3-F)
does not drop within the 0.05 axial strain, ηo,0.05 is taken as 1. The au-
thors' previous study [10] indicated that Nmin/Nu for CFSTs is closely cor-
relate to the slenderness ratio of SS outer tube (λo). Therefore, ηo,0.05
could be written as a function of λo:

3.2.1. Buckling strain

ηo;0:05 ¼ minf1; 1:0454−0:0023λo g ð18Þ
In Li et al.'s experiments [10], the plastic buckling of SS tube was ob-
served as “elephant foot” failure mode and axial strain reversing was re-
corded by strain gauges. Currently, none of the existing models Do f yo
λo ¼ ð19Þ
accounted for the effect of steel tube buckling on the load carried by car- t o 250
bon CFSTs. This section will discuss the effect of buckling on the axial
and hoop stresses in SS tubes and incorporation of this effect into the The constants in Eq. (18) were determined by regression analysis on
load-strain model. It is conservatively assumed that the buckling strain the experimental data from Li et al. [10] as shown in Fig. 11.
434 Y.L. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 157 (2019) 426–439

Fig. 16. Verification of dilation model for CFDSTs.

3.2.3. Effect of buckling on the axial stress of SS inner tube
Similarly, a reduction factor ηi is introduced to consider the effect of
SS inner tube buckling on its axial stress in a CFDST specimen. The deter-
mination of ηi is the same as that for SS outer tube (Eqs. (16)–(19)) ex-
cept the subscript “o” is replaced by “i” to represent the inner tube.
3.2.4. Effect of buckling on the confining stress
The confining stress acting on the concrete core would be reduced if
the effect of SS tube buckling is considered. The reduction factor for the
confining stress in a CFST is proposed as:
ηCFST ¼ ηo
For a CFDST, the buckling of SS inner tube could further reduce the
confinement effect and the confining stress reduction factor is written
as Eq. (21) by the concept of “superposition”.
ηCFDST ¼ ηo þ ηi −1 ð21Þ
where ηo and ηi are calculated according to Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 re-
spectively. If ηCFST and ηCFDST at 0.05 axial strain is analogous to Nmin/
Nu of CFST and CFDST specimens, Eqs. (20)–(21) could be verified by
the experimental data of Nmin/Nu from Li et al. [10]. Fig. 12 shows that
the predictions are in good agreement with the experimental results
with mean of 1.00 and 0.97 for CFST and CFDST respectively.
It is necessary to emphasize that due to the difficulty in experimen-
ð20Þ tally extracting the stresses (or loads) in SS tubes from a concrete-filled
SS tube specimen, the effects of SS tube buckling on reducing the axial
stress and confining stress could not be directly measured by experi-
ments. The present study assumes that the reduction factors (i.e., ηo,
Y.L. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 157 (2019) 426–439 435

Fig. 17. Predicted load-axial strain curves for CFSTs.

436 Y.L. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 157 (2019) 426–439
ηCFST and ηCFDST) at 0.05 axial strain are in an analogy with the overall
load drop of the column after reaching peak load (i.e., Nmin/Nu). The ver-
ification of the proposed load-axial strain model, which will be
discussed in Section 5.3, indicates that the concept of “analogy” is
reasonable.
4. Load-axial strain model
4.1. Stress in confined concrete
The load-axial strain model is established on the assumption that the
stress state of SS confined concrete at a given axial strain is the same as
the state of the actively confined concrete with the same confining pres-
sure (i.e., stress path independence assumption). The stress-strain rela-
tionship of confined concrete has been well established by existing
studies (e.g., [21,30,39,40]). One of the most widely used stress-strain
models will be briefly introduced in this section and more details of de-
riving the model could be found in the relevant literature.
At a given confining stress (fl), the ultimate stress of concrete (fcc′) is
determined by Eq. (22) [21]:
0 0
f cc ¼ f c þ 3:5 f l
and the axial strain at fcc′ is predicted by Eq. (23) [24]:
0 !1:2 1
f complete load-axial strain curve for concrete-filled SS tube will be
ε cc ¼ εco  @1 þ 17:5 0l A ð23Þ
fc
After knowing fcc′ and εcc, the stress-strain (σc-εc) relationship of
confined concrete is established as Eqs. (24) and (25) [27]:
0
f cc ðε c =εcc Þr
σc ¼
r−1 þ ðεc =εcc Þr
Ec
r¼ 0 ð25Þ
Ec − f cc =εcc
where r is a coefficient accounting for the brittleness of concrete
(Carreira and Chu [41]) and Ec is the elastic modulus of concrete. If ex-
qffiffiffiffiffi
0 activated slag based seawater and sea sand concrete (SWSSC) was
perimental data is unavailable, Ec is equal to 4730 f c (ACI 318–11
[12]) where fc′ is in MPa.
Different from CFSTs, the concrete in CFDSTs is under non-uniform
confinement (the hoop stress and radial stress are different). Neverthe-
less, for simplicity purpose, this paper assumes that the annular con-
crete in a CFDST is still under uniform confinement with confining
stress of fl, which is determined from Section 3.1.1. Therefore, this
stress-strain model will be applied for both CFSTs and CFDSTs in the
present study.
4.2. Load carried by concrete-filled SS tube
The load carried by CFST and CFDST could be calculated by Eqs. (26)
and (27) respectively:
NCFST ¼ Ac σ c þ ηo Ao σ l
NCFDST ¼ Ac σ c þ ηo Ao σ l þ ηi Ai σ li
where Ac, Ao, Ai is the cross-sectional area of concrete, outer tube and
inner tube respectively, σc is the stress in concrete, σl is the axial stress
in SS outer tube, σli is the axial stress in SS inner tube, and ηo and ηi are
reduction factors accounting for the buckling of SS tubes.
4.3. Numerical procedures
In the present study, compressive stress and strain are defined as
positive unless otherwise specified. As demonstrated in Li et al. [10],
concrete filled SS tubes exhibited excellent ductility and the axial strain
could reach as large as 0.2 or more. Because very large deformation of
columns (e.g., axial strain N5%) is unlikely to happen in real structures,
this paper defines the ultimate strain to be 0.05 for a meaningful
comparison.
The generation of the load-axial strain curve needs an incremental
process, and the numerical procedures are illustrated by the flowchart
presented in Fig. 13. Firstly, an initial value is set for the axial strain
(εc). The hoop strain (εh) is determined by the proposed dilation
model in Section 2 and corresponding hoop stress in SS outer tube is cal-
culated by Eqs. (4)–(5). Next, the axial stress in SS outer tube (σl) is cal-
culated by the plasticity theory for SS. The effective confining stress
(ηCFSTfl for CFST and ηCFDSTfl for CFDST) is then determined by Eqs. (5),
(20)–(21). After finding the effectively confining stress, the axial stress
in confined concrete could be determined by the existing model as in-
troduced in Section 4.1. If the specimen is a CFDST, the axial stress in
SS inner tube should be obtained by the continuous strength method in-
troduced in Section 3.1.3. Finally, the load carried by the specimen is cal-
ð22Þ
culated by summing up the loads individually shared by SS outer tube,
concrete and SS inner tube (if applicable). The above procedures are re-
peated by a finite increment of axial strain (e.g., Δεc = 0.01%) until
reaching the pre-specified “cutting-off” axial strain (i.e., 5%) and the
developed.
5. Verification of proposed model
5.1. Experimental data
A wide range of experimental data ([4–10]) was collected in order to
ð24Þ
evaluate the performance of the proposed theoretical model for
concrete-filled SS tubes. Details of the fifty-four circular stub columns
under axial compression are listed in Table 1 and 2 respectively for
CFSTs and CFDSTs. The unconfined concrete strength of the specimens
ranges from 30.0 MPa to 50.6 MPa and the yield stress of SS tube varies
from 225.7 MPa to 412 MPa. The length of the specimen (L) is two to
four times of the outer tube diameter, which ensures that the end effect
and global buckling are negligible. In the authors' test [8–10], alkali-
used and it is believed that the short-term mechanical properties of
SWSSC are similar to these of conventional ordinary Portland cement
concrete [42]. Recycled aggregates were adopted for specimen CS-100
in Tam et al. [4] and their study indicated that the influence of the
types of aggregates is insignificant. Details of specimen preparation,
test setup and experiment observation could be found in the relevant
references ([4–10]).
5.2. Dilation curves
5.2.1. Fully filled tubes (CFSTs)
A total of ten CFST specimens from [10] was used to assess the per-
formance of the proposed dilation model. A comparison of the predicted
and experimental hoop-axial strain curves is shown in Fig. 14 and the
hoop strains at some selected axial strains (i.e., 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.03,
ð26Þ
0.04 and 0.05) are plotted in Fig. 15. For the experimental results, the
hoop strain is obtained from the horizontal strain gauges fixed at the
ð27Þ mid-height of the column, and the axial strain is either from the vertical
strain gauges at mid-height (denoted as “SG”) or equal to the end short-
ening divided by the specimen length (denoted as “LVDT”).
Generally, the axial strains obtained from strain gauges and LVDTs
are similar. Plastic buckling would occur for some specimens with slen-
der cross-sections (e.g., 152x1.6-F, 203x2-F) and folds were formed on
 Y.L. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 157 (2019) 426–439 437

Fig. 18. Predicted load-axial strain curves of CFDSTs.

SS tubes (refer to the experimental observation in [10]). In this case, the
axial strain is over-estimated by LVDTs. If the folds happen to form at
the places where strain gauges are located, the strain gauge readings
are no longer reliable. Strictly speaking, if the buckling of SS tube hap-
pens, it is hard to accurately obtain the hoop-axial strain curves by ex-
periments. Nevertheless, as shown in Fig. 14, the predicted curves
display a good agreement with the experimental curves if excluding
the strain data obviously affected by SS tube buckling (e.g., 152x1.6-F,
203x2-F). Fig. 15 indicates that the prediction errors are generally
b20%. Therefore, it could be concluded that the proposed dilation
model is capable of predicting the hoop-axial strain relationship of
CFSTs.
5.2.2. Double-skin tubes (CFDSTs)
The experimental strain data of CFDSTs from [10] was adopted to
verify the proposed dilation model. Comparisons of the predictions
and test results are shown in Fig. 16, in which the axial strain is obtained
from LVDTs. The specimens having the same outer tubes are presented
in the same graph. In the present study, the dilation model only depends
on the properties of SS outer tube and the predicted dilation curve for a
CFDST is the same as that of the corresponding CFST. In Fig. 16, the pre-
dicted buckling strain of outer SS tube (by continues strength method in
Section 3.2.1) is plotted as the dash-dot lines. The curves for CFDSTs are
terminated at the predicted occurrence of SS inner tube buckling as the
strain data are no longer reliable due to buckling.
As shown in Fig. 16, the inner void in a CFDST somewhat affects the
hoop-axial strain relationship but the trend is not clear from the limited
experimental data. This study ignores the effect of inner void on the di-
lation properties of CFDSTs and the same dilation model is applied for
both CFSTs and CFDSTs. Due to the reason mentioned in Section 5.2.1,
the buckling of SS tubes contributes to an over-estimation of the axial
strain especially for CFDSTs with large void ratio, such as specimen
152x1.6-101x1.6-D. Generally, the prediction shows acceptable accu-
racy if excluding the strain data after SS tube buckling.
438 Y.L. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 157 (2019) 426–439
Fig. 19. Prediction of ultimate capacity.
It is necessary to mention that the dilation model does not account
for the effect of SS tube buckling due to the difficulty to measure
the “real” strains in buckled SS tubes, which are expected to represent
the strains in concrete. However, the effects of SS tube buckling on the
load-axial strain curves of columns are explicitly considered by intro-
ducing the reduction factors for the axial stress in SS tube and the con-
fining stress (Section 3.2).
5.3. Load-axial strain curves
5.3.1. Fully filled tubes (CFSTs)
Comparisons of the predicted and experimental load-axial strain
curves of CFSTs are given in Fig. 17 and the details of the specimens
are listed in Table 1. The experimental curves are replotted from the fig-
ures presented in the relevant references ([4–10]). Generally, good ac-
curacy is achieved by the proposed theoretical model. The predicted
initial stiffness is lower for some specimens (e.g., 50x1.6-F, CHS104x2-
C30) and the possible reason is that the load was not simultaneously ap-
plied on the SS tube and concrete during the early loading stage of an
experiment.
5.3.2. Double-skin tubes (CFDSTs)
Since the experimental data for SS-concrete-SS double-skin tubes
was not found in published literature, only the authors' experiments
Fig. 20. Prediction of capacity at 5% axial strain.
([8–10]) are adopted to verify the proposed model for CFDSTs. Compar-
isons of the predicted and experimental curves are presented in Fig. 18
and the specimen details are listed in Table 2. Fig. 18 indicates that the
prediction to be quite good for specimens with compact cross-sections
(i.e., low values for Do/to and Di/ti), in which the buckling effect is less
significant. For specimens with slender cross-sections (e.g., 203x2-
152x1.6-D), the predicted curves are in good agreement with experi-
mental curves before reaching peak load. However, in the post-peak
regions, experimental results exhibit a steeper load drop than predic-
tions. Two reasons may contribute to this over-estimation: (1) the re-
duction factor for axial stress in SS tube (ηo and ηi) is assumed to
decrease in a logarithmic way; (2) the concept of superposition
(Eq. (21)) was adopted to consider the effects of both outer and inner
tube buckling on the reduction of confining stress. Nevertheless, the
overall performance of the theoretical model is satisfactory for CFDSTs.
5.4. Ultimate capacities
In order to quantitatively assess the accuracy of the proposed theo-
retical model. Figs. 19 and 20 respectively summarize the predicted
and experimental ultimate capacities and the capacities at 5% axial
strain. Details of the specimens ([4–10]) are shown in Tables 1 and 2,
which include thirty CFSTs and twenty-four CFDSTs from the authors'
and other researchers' experiments. As shown in Fig. 19, the model
shows excellent performance in predicting the ultimate capacity, with
the average prediction-to-experiment ratios of 1.00 and 1.02 and coeffi-
cient of variance (COV) of 0.07 and 0.04 for CFSTs and CFDSTs respec-
tively. The capacity at 5% axial strain could be regarded as a
representation of the post-peak behaviour. The prediction for CFSTs is
still accurate, whereas slight over-estimation is observed for CFDSTs
(mean = 1.08 and COV = 0.08). The possible reasons have been ex-
plained in Section 5.3.2.
6. Conclusions
A theoretical load-axial strain model was proposed for concrete
filled SS circular stub columns (both fully filled and double-skin)
under axial compression. The performance of the model was assessed
by a wide range of the existing experimental data. Because some param-
eters in the model were obtained from regression analysis on experi-
mental data with concrete strength of 42 MPa, the application of the
proposed model should be limited to normal strength concrete. The va-
lidity range for the yield stress of SS varies from 226 MPa to 377 MPa
and the outer tube diameter-to-thickness ratio varies from 17 to 102.
The following conclusions could be drawn.
(1) A dilation model was proposed as a pre-requisite for developing
the load-strain model. The relationship between dilation rate and
Do/to was determined and the predicted dilation curves agreed
well with the experimental curves.
(2) The bi-axial stresses in SS outer tube were calculated by the the-
ory of plasticity (deformation theory). The SS inner tube was as-
sumed under uni-axial compression and continuous strength
method was applied to determine its axial stress.
(3) The effects of SS tube buckling on reducing the axial stress in SS
tubes and the confining stress were properly accounted and re-
duction factors were implemented into the theoretical model.
(4) The predicted load-axial strain curves are generally in good
agreement with the experimental curves obtained by the au-
thors and other researchers. The average ratio of the predicted-
to-experimental ultimate capacity was 1.00 and 1.02 for CFSTs
and CFDSTs respectively. Slight over-estimation was observed
for the post-peak brunch of load-axial strain curves for some
CFDSTs with slender cross-sections.
 Y.L. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 157 (2019) 426–439
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for the financial support provided by the
Australian Research Council through the ARC Discovery Grant
(DP160100739).
References
[1] L.-H. Han, C.-Y. Xu, Z. Tao, Performance of concrete filled stainless steel tubular
(CFSST) columns and joints: summary of recent research, J. Constr. Steel Res. 152
(2019) 117–131.
[2] X.L. Zhao, L.H. Han, Double skin composite construction, Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater. 8
(3) (2006) 93–102.
[3] L. Gardner, The use of stainless steel in structures, Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater. 7 (2)
(2005) 45–55.
[4] V.W. Tam, Z.-B. Wang, Z. Tao, Behaviour of recycled aggregate concrete filled stain-
less steel stub columns, Mater. Struct. 47 (1–2) (2014) 293–310.
[5] Y.-F. Yang, G.-L. Ma, Experimental behaviour of recycled aggregate concrete filled
stainless steel tube stub columns and beams, Thin-Walled Struct. 66 (2013) 62–75.
[6] B. Uy, Z. Tao, L.-H. Han, Behaviour of short and slender concrete-filled stainless steel
tubular columns, J. Constr. Steel Res. 67 (3) (2011) 360–378.
[7] D. Lam, L. Gardner, Structural design of stainless steel concrete filled columns, J.
Constr. Steel Res. 64 (11) (2008) 1275–1282.
[8] Y.L. Li, X.L. Zhao, R.K. Raman Singh, S. Al-Saadi, Experimental study on seawater and
sea sand concrete filled GFRP and stainless steel tubular stub columns, Thin-Walled
Struct. 106 (2016) 390–406.
[9] Y.L. Li, X.L. Zhao, R.K. Raman Singh, S. Al-Saadi, Tests on seawater and sea sand
concrete-filled CFRP, BFRP and stainless steel tubular stub columns, Thin-Walled
Struct. 108 (2016) 163–184.
[10] Y.L. Li, X.L. Zhao, R.K. Singh Raman, X. Yu, Axial compression tests on seawater and
sea sand concrete-filled double-skin stainless steel tubes, Eng. Struct. 176 (2018)
426–438.
[11] AS/NZS5100.6, Bridge Design - Steel and Composite Construction, Standards
Australia, Sydney, 2017.
[12] ACI318-11, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2011.
[13] EN1994-1-1, Eurocode 4: Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures - Part
1–1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, 2004.
[14] M. Lai, J. Ho, A theoretical axial stress-strain model for circular concrete-filled-steel-
tube columns, Eng. Struct. 125 (2016) 124–143.
[15] J. Teng, Y. Hu, T. Yu, Stress–strain model for concrete in FRP-confined steel tubular
columns, Eng. Struct. 49 (2013) 156–167.
[16] Y. Huang, J. Xiao, C. Zhang, Theoretical study on mechanical behavior of steel con-
fined recycled aggregate concrete, J. Constr. Steel Res. 76 (2012) 100–111.
[17] F.-X. Ding, Z.-W. Yu, Y. Bai, Y.-Z. Gong, Elasto-plastic analysis of circular concrete-
filled steel tube stub columns, J. Constr. Steel Res. 67 (10) (2011) 1567–1577.
[18] K. Choi, Y. Xiao, Analytical studies of concrete-filled circular steel tubes under axial
compression, J. Struct. Eng. 136 (5) (2009) 565–573.
[19] K. Sakino, H. Nakahara, S. Morino, I. Nishiyama, Behavior of centrally loaded
concrete-filled steel-tube short columns, J. Struct. Eng. 130 (2) (2004) 180–188.
439
[20] M. Johansson, The efficiency of passive confinement in CFT columns, Steel Compos.
Struct. 2 (5) (2002) 379–396.
[21] J.G. Teng, Y.L. Huang, L. Lam, L.P. Ye, Theoretical model for fiber-reinforced polymer-
confined concrete, J. Compos. Constr. 11 (2) (2007) 201–210.
[22] J.G. Teng, L. Lam, Behavior and modeling of FRP-confined concrete: a state-of-the-art
review, Spec. Publ. 238 (2006) 327–346.
[23] J.C. Lim, T. Ozbakkaloglu, Investigation of the influence of the application path of
confining pressure: tests on actively confined and FRP-confined concretes, J. Struct.
Eng. 141 (8) (2015), 04014203.
[24] T. Jiang, J.G. Teng, Analysis-oriented stress–strain models for FRP–confined concrete,
Eng. Struct. 29 (11) (2007) 2968–2986.
[25] A. Mirmiran, M. Shahawy, Dilation characteristics of confined concrete, Mech.
Cohesive-Frictional Mater. 2 (3) (1997) 237–249.
[26] Y.L. Li, J.G. Teng, X.L. Zhao, R.K. Singh Raman, Theoretical model for seawater and sea
sand concrete-filled circular FRP tubular stub columns under axial compression,
Eng. Struct. 160 (2018) 71–84.
[27] S. Popovics, A numerical approach to the complete stress-strain curve of concrete,
Cem. Concr. Res. 3 (5) (1973) 583–599.
[28] L.-H. Han, G.-H. Yao, X.-L. Zhao, Tests and calculations for hollow structural steel
(HSS) stub columns filled with self-consolidating concrete (SCC), J. Constr. Steel
Res. 61 (9) (2005) 1241–1269.
[29] I. Imran, S. Pantazopoulou, Experimental study of plain concrete under triaxial
stress, ACI Mater. J. 93 (6) (1996) 589–601.
[30] J.C. Lim, T. Ozbakkaloglu, Unified stress-strain model for FRP and actively confined
normal-strength and high-strength concrete, J. Compos. Constr. 19 (4) (2015),
04014072.
[31] Q. Xiao, J. Teng, T. Yu, Behavior and modeling of confined high-strength concrete, J.
Compos. Constr. 14 (3) (2010) 249–259.
[32] D. Candappa, J. Sanjayan, S. Setunge, Complete triaxial stress-strain curves of high-
strength concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 13 (3) (2001) 209–215.
[33] W.-F. Chen, A.F. Saleeb, Constitutive Equations for Engineering Materials: Elasticity
and Modeling, Elsevier, 1994.
[34] AS/NZS4673:2001, Cold-Formed Stainless Steel Structures, Standards Australia, Syd-
ney, 2001.
[35] K.J. Rasmussen, Full-range stress–strain curves for stainless steel alloys, J. Constr.
Steel Res. 59 (1) (2003) 47–61.
[36] Y. Wong, T. Yu, J. Teng, S. Dong, Behavior of FRP-confined concrete in annular sec-
tion columns, Compos. Part B 39 (3) (2008) 451–466.
[37] Y.L. Li, X.L. Zhao, R.K. Singh Raman, Load-strain model for concrete-filled double-
skin circular FRP tubes under axial compression, Eng. Struct. 181 (2019) 629–642.
[38] L. Gardner, M. Theofanous, Discrete and continuous treatment of local buckling in
stainless steel elements, J. Constr. Steel Res. 64 (11) (2008) 1207–1216.
[39] F.E. Richart, A. Brandtzaeg, R.L. Brown, A Study of the Failure of Concrete under Com-
bined Compressive Stresses, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, College of
Engineering. Engineering Experiment Station, 1928.
[40] J.B. Mander, M.J. Priestley, R. Park, Theoretical stress-strain model for confined con-
crete, J. Struct. Eng. 114 (8) (1988) 1804–1826.
[41] D.J. Carreira, K.-H. Chu, Stress-strain relationship for plain concrete in compression,
ACI J. 82 (6) (1985) 797–804.
[42] Y.L. Li, X.L. Zhao, R.K. Singh Raman, S. Al-Saadi, Thermal and mechanical properties
of alkali-activated slag paste, mortar and concrete utilising seawater and sea sand,
Constr. Build. Mater. 159 (2018) 704–724.