Experimental Studies of Concrete Filled Stainless-Steel (CFSST) Columns.

Md. Abdul Bari, Md. Soebur Rahman

Abstract: ( Background and give an idea about whole paper) Concrete filled stainless
steel tubular (CFSST) column comprised of stainless steel ideally combines the full
potentiality of both stainless steel and concrete. It is superior to conventional CFST
column and steel structural systems in terms of durability, stiffness, strength, fire
resistance, corrosion resistance, ductility, energy absorption capacity, impact absorption
without fracturing due to excellent ductility, their strain hardening characteristics and
importantly aesthetical demand furthermore no form work is required. Stainless steel has
many desirable characteristics which can be exploited in a wide range of construction
works

This paper focused on experimental investigation on behavior of axially loaded concrete

filled stainless steel tube (CFSST) column by using medium to high grade stainless steel
thin wall tube and low to medium strength (30-60 MPa) concrete. The main variables
explored in the investigations are cross sections and strength of stainless steel and
concrete. In this study number of experimental analysis were carried out of stainless-steel
composite stub columns with displacement control concentric load. The studies found that
the performance of the CFSST columns was quite good and have the potential to be used
extensively as structural member. Comparisons of the test results also found good
agreements between predicted capacity and experimental results recent published from
reputed researcher.

I. INTRODUCTION

Application of stainless steel has opened a new arena of research and increasing
interest day by day in construction throughout the world. [1,2]. Composite column refers
to any compression member in which a steel element act compositely with concrete
element, so that both elements resist compressive force. In contrast to the encased
composite column the concrete filled column offers several significant advantages over
structural behavior of carbon steel structure. [3]. This is attributed to the fact that stainless
steel is extremely durable, has greater corrosion resistance and improved fire resistance,
and is easily maintained. Several previous projects to have utilized stainless steel include
the 300 m tall St Louis, Missouri, USA (1966), the 81 m tall Parliament House Flag Pole
in Canberra, Australia (1988), and the Hearst Tower at 959 Eight Avenue, New York
City, USA (2006). A more recent structural use of stainless steel is in the Stone cutters
bridge in Hong Kong which was completed in 2009. This bridge consists of two 298 m
high towers with their upper parts comprising of a stainless-steel section filled with
concrete. [4]. Due to the merits of stainless steel, it is evident that it has a very important
role to play in the future design of structures, particularly when architects and structural
engineers become more cognizant of the need for life cycle costing [5]. In the past,
extensive studies have been conducted on conventional concrete filled carbon steel
columns (CFST) and their behaviour has been well understood. Instead so far, few recent
studies have been carried out to investigate the behaviour of CFSST members and joints.
Notably investigations on the bond behaviour of CFSST [6–8], studies of members and
joints under various static loading conditions [9–22], under dynamic loading conditions
[23–26] and behaviour during fire [27,28], as well as few experimental studies also
conducted on various joints of CFSST member under static loading [29–31] and under
fire [32], on the other hand finite element (FE) analysis using the software ABAQUS
were performed by Ellobody and Young [33] and Ellobody [34] to analyze the nonlinear
behaviour of square CFSST stub columns and thin walled stiffened CFSST stub columns.
Stated research and studies are demonstrated that the performance of CFSST members
was quite good, even when stiffened thin-walled tubes were used.
Introduction (Hypothesis, attempt to discover, how to solve the prob)

OR
Introduction:
Application of stainless steel has opened a new arena of research and increasing interest
day by day in construction throughout the world. [1,2]. Composite column refers to any
compression member in which a steel element act compositely with concrete element, so
that both elements resist compressive force. In contrast to the encased composite column
the concrete filled column offers several significant advantages over structural behavior
of carbon steel structure. [3]. This is attributed to the fact that stainless steel is extremely
durable, has greater corrosion resistance and improved fire resistance, and is easily
maintained.

The main objective of this study is to investigate the behavior and design of concrete-
filled stainless steel tube columns. First to conduct an experimental testing program to
study and monitor the performance of a hollow and concrete-filled steel tubes with varing
compressive strengths of the concrete infill. Second, to validate the accuracy of the
available results and design codes of CFST as well as comparisons with the recently
published experimental results. Third, to develop nonlinear FE model using the
commercial software package ABAQUS The model would be taking into consideration
the nonlinear behavior of both steel and concrete. The finite element (FE) program
ABAQUS [19] was used in the analysis. The material nonlinearities of concrete and high
strength stainless steel tubes as well as concrete confinement were considered in the
analysis. Parametric study was conducted to investigate the effects of cross-section
geometry and concrete strength on the behavior and strength of the concrete-filled tube
columns. The column strengths obtained from the FE analysis were compared with the
design strengths calculated using the general design guides specified in the American
specifications [20,21] and Australian/New Zealand standards [22,23] for stainless steel
and concrete structures.

II.EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
An experimental investigation has been conducted to determine the failure behavior and
load carrying capacity of CFSST columns. The main variables in this test program were
the concrete compressive strength and cross sectional dimensions of the structural steel.
In this experiment the failure mode, load carrying capacity and deflection behavior
against concentric axial load is examined.
A. Description of Test Specimens
In this study the specimens of concrete filled stainless steel tubular (CFSST) columns
was prepared by using different grade of concrete and stainless steel. For this purpose, the
total 24 specimens have been tested experimentally for concentric axial load. There were
six sets of specimens each set is having four specimens, one hollow and three concrete-
filled. These columns were constructed with pre-casted section with 6 different cross
sections of stainless steel tubes by varying concrete strength (fc) of 30, 40 and 50 MPa.
The 2% proof stress ( 0.2 MPa) and ultimate nominal stress ( u MPa) of stainless steel
was taken 450 and 760 MPa respectively. The typical cross section of these columns is
illustrated in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 Typical sections of CFSST Columns

CFSST Column Test

The CFSST columns were tested in pure compression by an UTM (Universal testing
machine). The ultimate compressive load capacity of this machine is 2000 KN. The
columns test set-up is illustrated in Fig.2, which shows the general characteristics of the
testing platens and the instrumentation used in the testing. Axial load was applied to the
composite columns specimens at the rate of 5 KN/s. The digital reading of axial load and
lateral displacement were collected by using an electronic data acquisition system during
testing of each specimen. Displacement control was used for the loading with a rate of
0.2mm/min before the peak load was reached, after that the loading rate was set to be
0.6mm/min.
 Fig. 2 Typical Column Test Setup

TABLE I
GEOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE TEST SPECIMENS
Sl/ Specimen Set Depth Width Stainless steel Height Concrete Stainless Ratio
no Designation D (mm) B (mm) Thickness h mm area steel area As/Ac
t (mm) Ac (mm2) As (mm2)
1 SC50.8x50.8 50.8 50.8 1.5 152.4 2284.84 295.8 0.12946
2 SC63.5x63.5 63.5 63.5 1.5 190.5 3660.25 372 0.10163
3 SC7.26x76.2 76.2 76.2 1.5 228.6 5358.24 448.2 0.08365
4 SC101.6X50.8 101.6 50.8 1.5 304.8 4713.08 448.2 0.0951
5 SC76.2x50.8 76.2 50.8 1.5 228.6 3498.96 372 0.10632
6 SC101.6x76.2 101.6 76.2 1.5 228.6 7217.52 524.4 0.07266
7 SC_Dia_101.6 Dia =101.6 mm 1.5 304.8 7631.739 471.471 0.06178
8 SC_Dia_76.2 Dia =76.2 mm 1.5 228.6 3802.666 334.881 0.08807

Note: Each of the specimen set is comprises with one hollow and three concrete-filled
stub columns with different concrete strength (30, 40 & 50 MPa).

III. FE MODEL
A nonlinear 3D FE model was developed in this study to investigate the behavior and
strength of CFSST columns comprising with variety of geometry and material properties.
Both material and geometric nonlinearities were incorporated in the FE model. The
general-purpose finite element program ABAQUS version 6.14-1[40] was used in the
present study to build a FE model for CFSST columns. The stainless-steel thin wall
section in CFSST column is modeled with S4R shell element. The concrete core was
modeled using 8 node brick elements (C3D8R) with three translational degrees of
freedom at each node. Surface based interaction with a contact pressure model in the
normal direction and a coulomb friction model in the tangential directions to the surface
between the thin steel wall and core concrete has been used to simulate CFSST columns.
There is little or no slip between the steel tube and concrete since they are loaded
simultaneously. For this reason, the column's behaviour is not sensitive to the selection of
friction coefficient between steel and concrete. [36]. Friction coefficients of 0.25, 0.3 and
0.6 were used by Schneider [37], Lam et al. [36] and Han et al. [35], respectively. In the
current FE model, the surface-based interaction continued to be used to model the
concrete–stainless steel tube interface. A coefficient of friction between the stainless steel
tube and concrete was used 0.3, as surface of stainless steel is covered with a chemically
stable chromium oxide for good corrosion resistance.
 The Poisson's ratios for steel and concrete were taken as 0.3 and 0.2, respectively. These
values have been used widely in FE numerical simulation. Initial local imperfections and
residual stresses have apparent influence on the behaviour of hollow tubes. But the effects
of local imperfections and residual stresses are minimized by concrete filling, and may be
ignored, Tao et al. [39]. Loading was applied in a displacement control mode at the top of
column to simulate the axial loading condition. The ends of the column were fixed
against all degrees of freedom except for the vertical displacement at the top end. To
accelerate convergence, a top end was made rigid body with respect to reference point at
the center of the both end surface.

V. MATERIAL PROPERTIES FOR FE MODEL

Stainless steel and concrete are the materials used in FE model for numerical
investigation. Plastic properties for these materials shown in Table was used in the FE
model. Elasto-plastic material model is used to simulate the behaviour of square section
CFSST columns. The damage plasticity model in ABAQUS was used to simulate the
concrete material behaviour in the composite columns.

Stainless steel
To develop a suitable model for stainless steel is very crucial in modelling CFSST
columns since the material behaviour of stainless steel is quite different from that of
carbon steel. It is well known that the nonlinear stress (σ)–strain (ε) curves of stainless
steel is a “round house” type [17,22]. A number of stress (σ)–strain (ε) model has been
developed for stainless steels, they are only capable of accurate predictions either over a
limited starin range or for the tensile stress- strain behavior only. Quach et al.[41]
proposed a three stage full-range stress–strain model for stainless steels that can be used
both tensile and compressive strain as follows:

Where the Ramberg–Osgood expression was used for the range up to the 0.2% proof
stress
MATERIAL MODELLING OF CONCRETE

For a CFSST column under axial compression, the concrete core expands laterally and is
confined by the steel tube. This confinement is passive in nature, and can increase the
strength and ductility of concrete. This mechanism is well understood and is often
referred to as “composite action” between the steel tube and concrete [6]. It is believed
that the confined concrete is in a triaxial stress state and the steel is in a biaxial state after
interaction between the two components occurs. The concrete damaged plasticity model
available in ABAQUS was used. In this model, key material parameters including the
ratio of the second stress invariant on the tensile meridian to that on the compressive
meridian (Kc), dilation angle (ψ). Other parameters include the modulus of elasticity (Ec),
flow potential eccentricity (e), ratio of the compressive strength under biaxial loading to
uniaxial compressive strength (fb0/fc′), viscosity parameter and tensile behaviour of
concrete. For the FE model presented by Han et al. [6], constant values of 30°, 0.1, 1.16
and 2/3 were used for ψ, e, Kc and fb0/fc′, respectively. For modeling of concrete
following parameters are required.

A model proposed by Samani and Attard [28] is

used to describe the ascending curve OA of stress
strain curve:

Where x= ε/εc0 ; A=Ecεc0/fc ; B = [(A−1)2/0.55]-1

The strain at peak stress under uniaxial compression εc0

is calculated according to the relationship Fig -1

where fc′ is expressed in MPa.

The strain at Point B (εcc) for the concrete model is determined by the following equation
proposed by Samani and Attard [28]:

where fB is the confining stress provided to the concrete at Point B.

Circular Rectangular CFSST

CFSST
For the descending branch of the concrete model (BC) shown in Fig-1, an exponential
function proposed by Binici [30] was used, which is defined by:

In which fr is the residual stress as shown in Fig. 1; α and β are parameters determining
the shape of the softening branch. The expression for fr is proposed as:
Meanwhile, β can be taken as 1.2 and 0.92 for circular and rectangular columns,
respectively. It should be noted that fr, α and β cannot be derived from tests directly.

COMPARISON BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL AND NUMERICAL RESULTS

FE model of CFSST test specimens column has been developed and simulated
numerically for comparing the load deflection behavior of experimental data. The
specimens varied in their size and shape (Square, Rectangular and Circular) and material
properties (concrete strength 30, 40 and 50 MPa). Comparison between the experimental
and numerical load deflection behaviour and ultimate capacities of stated sections are
presented in the following sections.
Axial compressive strength, axial deformation and failure behavior were observed and
recorded for each CFSST columns specimen experimentally and numerically. The
experimental and numerical load deflection behavior of the column shown in Fig:
It was observed that FE model can predict the experimental behaviour of CFSST columns
with good accuracy in columns groups. However, the axial capacity and peak strain of
these columns obtained from the numerical analysis matched very well with the
corresponding experimental results.
The mean value of experimental-to-numerical peak load ratio, Pexp/Pnum and experimental-
to-numerical average axial strain at peak load, ɛexp/ɛnum, were compared for all groups of
columns. It is observed that the mean value and the standard deviation of the ultimate
load ratio and corresponding strain ratio of numerical and experimental results for the two
groups of test columns are reasonable. This indicates the excellent performance of the FE
model in predicting the ultimate capacity of FEC columns with three different strength of
concrete.
TABLE II
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF STAINLESS STEEL AND CORE CONCRETE OF TEST
SPECIMENS

Sl/no Specimens Properties of Concrete Properties of Stainless Steel

Designation Ec fc  E0 (MPa) 0.2 n
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
1 Hollow - - - 198000 470 3.5
2 C30 25743 30 0.2 198000 470 3.5
3 C40 29725 40 0.2 198000 470 3.5
4 C50 33234 50 0.2 198000 470 3.5

All the test specimens were designed to examine the behavior for concentric loading. CFSST
columns were constructed with normal strength concrete for investigating their behavior and
failure mode, as well as to evaluate their capacity against predicted capacity. Three types of
sectional dimensions were used to evaluate the effect of sectional dimension on the capacity
of CFSST column. Two types of concrete mix of 30 MPa and 40 MPa were used. Details of
geometric property and material property can be found in Table 3-1. CFSST column with
same sectional dimension and different concrete strength were tested to find out the effect of
concrete strength on the ultimate capacity of the CFSST. A hollow tube was tested to
compare the capacities with concrete filled tube of same dimension. Load carrying capacity
and failure behavior of these columns were determined individually.

Experimental and Numerical Behaviou of CFSST Column

SC_50.8x50.8 SC_63.5x63.5
Num_30_Mpa Num_40_Mpa Num_Hollow Num_30MPa
350000
Num_50_MPa Num_Hollow Num 40MPa Exp_Hollow
300000 Exp_Hollow Exp_30 Mpa 300000 Exp_40MPa Exp_30MPa
Exp_40_Mpa Exp_50_MPa
250000
Axial load (N)

250000
Axial Load (N)

200000
200000
150000
150000
100000
100000
50000
50000
0
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0 2 4 6 8 Deformation (mm)
Deformation (mm)
 SC_76.2x76.2 SC_76.2x50.8
Exp_Hollow Exp_30MPa 350000 Exp_Hollow Exp_30MPa
450000 Exp_40MPa Num_30MPa Exp_40MPa Num_30MPa
Num_40MPa Num_Hollow 300000 Num_40MPa Num_Hollow
400000
350000

Axial Load (N)

250000
Axial Load (N)

300000
200000
250000
200000 150000

150000 100000
100000
50000
50000
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Deformatio (mm) Deformatio (mm)

SC_101.2x50.8 SC_Dia_101.6
Exp_Hollow Exp_30MPa Exp Hollow Exp_30MPa
400000
Exp_40MPa Num_Hollow Exp_40MPa Num_Hollow
350000 Num_30MPa Num_40MPa Num_30MPa num_40MPa
700000
300000 600000
Axial Load (N)

Axial Load (N)

250000 500000
200000 400000
150000 300000

100000 200000

50000 100000

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 10 20 30 40

Deformation (mm) Deformation (mm)

Fig. 3 Experimental and Numerical Behaviour of Column Groups

TABLE III

COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL AND NUMERICAL RESULTS OF VARING CONCRETE STRENGTH

Ser Specimen Conc Peak axial load PExp/PNum Experimental Numerical Peak exp/num
No Designation Strength PExp(KN) PNumK(N) Peak load Strain load Strain
fc’ exp(µε) num (µε)
Hollow 123 127 0.969 6889 6561 1.049
30 MPa 183 189 0.968 6653 6168 1.0786
1 SC_50.8x50.8
40 MPa 188 208 0.904 6070 6457 0.940
50 MPa 224 243 0.922 6441 6272 1.027

Hollow 146 126 1.156 5578 5526 1.01

30 MPa 276 257 1.074 5521 5517 1.00
2 SC_63.5x63.5
40 MPa 293 289 1.014 6210 5935 1.046
50 MPa

3 SC_76.2x76.2 Hollow 156 172 0.907 4573 4486 1.019

 30 MPa 391 358 1.09 4736 4809 0.985
40 MPa 413 411 1.01 4956 4989 0.993
50 MPa

Hollow 133 132 1.007 4181 4097 1.021

30 MPa 242 254 0.953 4824 4729 1.020
4 SC_76.2x50.8
40 MPa 265 287 0.923 4773 4767 1.001
50 MPa

Hollow 150 121 1.239 3345 3451 0.969

30 MPa 330 298 1.107 3465 3403 1.018
5 SC_101.6x50.8
40 MPa 359 340 1.056 3561 3501 1.017
50 MPa

Hollow 204 170 1.20 5082 7921 0.642

30 MPa 537 444 1.209 15420 13201 1.168
6 SC_Dia_101.6
40 MPa 616 545 1.130 17986 5643 3.187
50 MPa

Numerical investigation data was compared with experimental data in Table III which presents the
maximum axial compressive load and corresponding strain of the experimental tests and numerical
analysis for all the specimens. From comparison it is experienced that the numerical models can
accurately predict the experimental axial compressive load and peak strain. The ratio of the
numerical loads to experimental capacities, Pexp /Pnum ranges from 0.92 to 1.07 and corresponding
standard deviation -----------------which indicates the excellent performance of FE model in
predicting the ultimate capacity of these FEC columns with six different shapes of steel and
strength concrete for concentrically loaded conditions. Again the ratio of the numerical -to-
experimental average axial strain at peak load, ɛnum /ɛexp ranges from 0.940 to 1.07 and the
corresponding standard deviations -------------------. Thereby it is obvious that the FE model
analysis are capable of predicting the ultimate capacity and peak strain of CFSST columns with
good accuracy.

Failure Modes
The failure modes for FEC columns were identified from FE analysis and compared with the failure
modes observed in the current experiment. Failure modes were captured manually for all the
specimens during the test. It
was observed that, the failure pattern varied mostly due to
change in cross section and slightly for change in concrete strength. The main failure was
at the corner due to bulging out of concrete in rectangular columns filled with concrete.
Again for circular sections, the main failure was buckling failure.

The failure pattern is described below according to the previously mentioned groups.
Failure pattern of column
SCN4B is shown in Fig. 8 (b). The local failure was observed
in few columns during experimental test. It was prevented
using FRP (2mm thick) at the top and bottom of the columns.
Experimentally, it is observed that concrete crushing occurred
before yielding of the steel plate. Similar failure behavior was
obtained in the nonlinear FE simulation of FEC columns under
axial loads. The principle stress in concrete and steel of FEC
column along 3-3 axis is shown in Fig. 8 (a).
VI. CONCLUSIONS
Experimental research on behaviour of six sizes (3xsquare, 2xrectangular and 1xcircular) short
CFSST columns subjected to short term axial load has been presented in this paper for three
different concrete strengths(30, 40 and 50 MPa). The complete experimental load-deflection
behavior of the composite column specimens has been attained in the study. This study also
conducted a nonlinear 3D FE analysis on the current experimental test specimens columns under
axial load. The inelastic material properties of stainless steel and concrete, longitudinal and
transverse reinforcement have been incorporated in the models. Nonlinear material behaviour for
concrete has been simulated in FE analysis. Geometric nonlinearities are also included in the
model. The composite column strengths, axial shorting at failure and failure modes of the columns
were predicted using FE model. The comparison between the experimental and numerical results
showed that the FE models predict the experimental behaviour of FEC columns under concentric
gravity loads with good accuracy. The developed model was used to isolate the contributions of
concrete and steel section individually for columns SCN4B and SRC1. It was found that concrete
carried about 57% and structural steel 28% axial load of the total capacity of FEC columns in both
the case. The effect of structural steel ratio on the behaviour of FEC columns was also studied.
The structural steel ratio was found to have significant effect on the strength and ductility of FEC
columns.

[19] ASCE. Specification for the design of cold-formed stainless steel

structural members. SEI/ASCE-8-02. Reston (VA): American Society of
Civil Engineers; 2002.
[20] ACI. Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary.
ACI 318-95. Detroit (USA): American Concrete Institute; 1995.
[21] AS/NZS. Cold-formed stainless steel structures. Australian/New Zealand
Standard, AS/NZS 4673:2001. Sydney (Australia): Standards Australia;
2001.
[22] Australian Standards AS3600. Concrete structures. AS3600-1994.
Sydney (Australia): Standards Australia; 1994.
 Geometric Properties of Experimental Specimens [9]

Mechanical Properties of Stainless Steel and Core Concrete [9]

References: [19] M.A. Dabaon,M.H. El-Boghdadi, M.F.
Hassanein, Experimental investigation on
[1] Mann AP. The structural use of
stainless steel. Struct Eng 1993;71(4):60–9. concrete-filled stainless steel stiffened
tubular stub columns, Eng. Struct. 31
[2] Gardner L. The use of stainless steel in (2009) 300–307.
structures. Prog Struct Eng Mater [20] E. Ellobody, M.F. Ghazy,
2005;7(2):45–55. Experimental investigation of eccentrically
loaded fibre reinforced concrete-filled
[3] Johansson M. Composite action and stainless-steel tubular columns, J. Constr.
confinement effects in tubular steel Steel Res. 76 (2012) 167–176
concrete columns. Ph.D. thesis. Goteborg [21] S. Tokgoz, Tests on plain and steel
(Sweden): Chalmers University of fiber concrete-filled stainless-steel tubular
Technology; 2002. columns,
J. Constr. Steel Res. 114 (2015) 129–135.
[4] Uy B. Stability and ductility of high
performance steel sections with concrete [22] Y. Chen, R. Feng, L. Wang, Flexural
infill. J Constr Steel Res 2008;64(7– behaviour of concrete-filled stainless steel
8):748–54. SHS and RHS tubes, Eng. Struct. 134
(2017) 159–171.
[5] Gardner L, Cruise RB, Sok CP,
Krishnan K, Ministro J. Life-cycle costing [23] F.Y. Liao, L.H. Han, Z. Tao, K.J.R.
of metallic structures, Engineering Rasmussen, Experimental behavior of
Sustainability. Proc ICE 2007;160(4):167– concrete-filledstainless-steel tubular
77. columns under cyclic lateral loading, J.
Struct. Eng. ASCE 143 (4) (2017)
[6] Z. Tao, T.Y. Song, B. Uy, L.H. Han, 04016219.
Bond behavior in concrete-filled steel
tubes, J. Constr. Steel Res. 120 (2016) 81– [24] F. Zhou, W. Xu, Cyclic loading tests
93. on concrete-filled double-skin (SHS outer
and CHS inner) stainless steel tubular
[7] Y. Chen, R. Feng, Y. Shao, X. Zhang, beam-columns, Eng. Struct. 127 (2016)
Bond-slip behaviour of concrete-filled 304–318.
stainless steel circular hollow section
tubes, J. Constr. Steel Res. 130 (2017) [25] M.R. Bambach, Design of hollow and
248–263. concrete filled steel and stainless-steel
tubular columns for transverse impact
[8] T.Y. Song, Z. Tao, L.H. Han, B. Uy, loads, Thin-Walled Struct. 49 (10) (2011)
Bond behavior of concrete-filled steel 1251–1260.
tubes at elevated temperatures, J. Struct.
Eng. ASCE 143 (11) (2017) 04017147. [26] M. Yousuf, B. Uy, Z. Tao, A.
Remennikov, J.R. Liew, Transverse impact
[9] B. Uy, Z. Tao, L.H. Han, Behaviour of resistance of hollow and concrete filled
short and slender concrete-filled stainless- stainless steel columns, J. Constr. Steel Res.
steel tubular columns, J. Constr. Steel Res. 82 (82) (2013) 177–189.
67 (3) (2011) 360–378.
[27] M. Yousuf, B. Uy, Z. Tao, A.
[10] D. Lam, L. Gardner, Structural design Remennikov, J.R. Liew, Impact behaviour
of stainless-steel concrete filled columns, J. of pre-compressedhollow and concrete
Constr. Steel Res. 64 (11) (2008) 1275– filled mild and stainless-steel columns, J.
1282. Constr. Steel Res. 96 (96) (2014) 54–68.

[11] B. Young, E. Ellobody, Experimental
investigation of concrete-filled cold-
formed high strength stainless steel tube
columns, J. Constr. Steel Res. 62 (5)
(2006) 484–492.
[12] 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.
[23] L.H. Han, F. Chen, F.Y. Liao, Z. Tao,
B. Uy, Fire performance of concrete filled
stainless steel tubular columns, Eng. Struct.
56 (2013) 165–181.
[28] Z. Tao, M. Ghannam, T.Y. Song, L.H.
Han, Experimental and numerical
investigation of concrete-filled stainless-
steel columns exposed to fire, J. Constr.
Steel Res. 118 (2016) 120–134.

[13] V.W.Y. Tam, Z.B.Wang, Z. Tao,
Behaviour of recycled aggregate concrete
filled stainless steel stub columns, Mater.
Struct. 47 (1–2) (2014) 293–310.
[14] Y.L. Li, X.L. Zhao, R.K.R. 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.
[29] Z. Tao, M.K. Hassana, T.Y. Song,
L.H. Han, Experimental study on blind
bolted connections to concrete-filled
stainless-steel columns, J. Constr. Steel
Res. 128 (2017) 825–838.
[30] R. Feng, B. Young, Tests of concrete-
filled stainless-steel tubular T-joints, J.
Constr. Steel Res. 64 (11) (2008) 1283–
1293.

[15] Y.L. Li, X.L. Zhao, R.K.R. 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.
[16] L.H. Han, Q.X. Ren, W. Li, Tests on
stub stainless steel-concrete-carbon steel
double skintubular (DST) columns, J.
Constr. Steel Res. 67 (3) (2011) 437–452.
[17] F. Wang, B. Young, L. Gardner,
Experimental investigation of concrete-
filled double skin tubular stub columns
with stainless steel outer tubes,
Proceedings of the 8th
InternationalConference on Steel and
Aluminum Structures. Hong Kong, China,
2016.
[18] Y. Ye, L.H. Han, T. Sheehan, Z.X. 2007;45(3):259–73.
Guo, Concrete-filled bimetallic tubes under
axial compression: experimental [35] Han LH, Yao GH, Tao Z. Performance
investigation, Thin-Walled Struct. 108 of
(2017) 321–332.
[31] R. Feng, B. Young, Behaviour of
concrete-filled stainless-steel tubular X-
joints subjected to compression, Thin-
Walled Struct. 47 (4) (2009) 365–374.
[32] T.Y. Song, Z. Tao, A. Razzazzadeh,
L.H. Han, K. Zhou, Fire performance of
blind bolted composite beam to column
joints, J. Constr. Steel Res. 132 (2017) 29–
42.
[33] Ellobody E, Young B. Design and
behaviour of concrete-filled cold-formed
stainless-steel tube columns. Eng Struct
2006;28(5):716–28.
[34] Ellobody E. Nonlinear behaviour of
concrete-filled stainless steel stiffened
slender tube columns. Thin-Walled Struct
concrete-filled thin-walled steel
tubesunder pure torsion. Thin-Walled
Struct2007;45(1):24–36.
 [36] Lam D, Dai XH, Han LH, Ren QX, Li
[28] Samani AK, Attard MM. A stress–
W. Behaviour of inclined, tapered and STS
strain model for uniaxial and confined
square CFST stub columns subjected to
concrete under compression. Eng Struct
axial load. Thin-Walled Struct 2012;54:94–
2012;41:335–49
105.
[29] De Nicolo B, Pani L, Pozzo E. Strain
of concrete at peak compressive stress for a
[37] Schneider SP. Axially loaded concrete-
wide range of compressive strengths.
filled steel tubes. J Struct Eng,
Mater Struct 1994;27(4):206–10.
ASCE1998;124(10):1125–38.
[30] Binici B. An analytical model for
stress–strain behavior of confined concrete.
Eng Struct 2005;27(7):1040–51.
[38] Rabbat B, Russell H. Friction
coefficent of steel on concrete or grout. J
Struct Eng,ASCE 1985;111(3):505–15.
[39] Tao Z, Uy B, Liao FY, Han LH.
Nonlinear analysis of concrete-filled square
stainlesssteel stub columns under axial
compression. J Constr Steel Res
2011;67(11):1719–32.
[40] ABAQUS. ABAQUS Standard User's
Manual, Version 6.14.1 Providence, RI
(USA): Dassault Systèmes Corp.; 2014 .
[17] Rasmussen KJR. Full-range stress-
strain curves for stainless steel alloys. J
Constr Steel Res 2003;59(1):47–61.
[22] Quach WM, Teng JG, Chung KF.
Three-stage full-range stress–strain model
for stainless steels. J Struct Eng, ASCE
2008;134(9):1518–27.
[6] Han LH, Yao GH, Tao Z. Performance
of concrete-filled thin-walled steel tubes
under pure torsion. Thin-Walled Struct
2007;45(1):24–36.
[41] Three-Stage Full-Range Stress-Strain Model
for Stainless Steels
W. M. Quach1; J. G. Teng2; and K. F. Chung3 . DOI: 10.1061/_ASCE_0733-
9445_2008_134:9_1518_
Literature Review
Research Subject
Significant Strength
enhancement at the corner
regions of cold formed
section.
Reference
L. Gardner, D.A. Nethercot,
JCSR. 60 (9) (2004) 1291–1318.
X.Q. Wang, Z. Tao, T.Y. Song, L.H.
Han. JCSR. 99 (8) (2014) 129–
139.
Wang et al.
Outcome
The strength enhancement of stainless steel at the corner
regions is 20-100% in terms of 0.2% proof strength compared
with the flat regions.
a decrease in the ultimate strain εu,c is observed for the corner
material of cold-formed hollow sections.
To predict σ–ε curves for corner regions of square/rectangular
tubes. This model expressed by Eq.

Effect of residual stress in Ashraf et al. and the residual stresses cause only a small reduction in initial
stress-strain curve Gardner and Nethercot stiffness but have little influence on the overall load
deformation response for a stainless steel column.

Jandera et al. the inclusion of residual stresses even led to a slight increase in
load carrying capacity.

Z. Tao, B. Uy, L.H. Han, Z.B. Wang, the residual stresses

Effect of Strain rate of
stainless steel
Thin-Walled Struct.
47 (12) (2009) 1544–1556.
Uy et al
may be ignored in modelling CFSST columns.
Much higher strain rate sensitivity is found in the stainless
steel material. Although the stainless steel showed much
higher ductility than the carbon steel, the elongation of the
stainless steel under the strain rate of 0.05 s−1 decreased
significantly compared with that under the stain rate of 0.005
s−1.

FABIG Technical Note 5, UK,

Thermal properties and
stress-strain behabiour of
stainless steel in fire.
Bond behavior of concrete-
filled stainless steel tube.
Due to the significant strain rate sensitivity and high ductility
1999.
of stainless steels, a high strain rate enhancement factor can be
used in design to take advantage of the increase in strength at
higher strain rates
Eurocode 3 stainless steel has a lower emissivity than
carbon steel. (0.4 and 0.7).
Stainless steel retains much higher strength at a comparatively
large deformation due to the effect of strain-hardening and
good ductility.
Tao et al (2016). Average surface roughness (Ra) value of a stainless steel tube
about a half of that of the carbon steel. For this reason, bond
strengths between the stainless steel tube and concrete in
CFSST columns decreased by 32% to 69% compared with the
bond strengths in conventional CFST columns.

Static performance of
concrete filled stainless
steel tubular column
Chen et al (2017). About 70% of the bond strength in a CFSST column is from the
interface friction force, whilst the remaining 30% of the bond
strength is contributed by the chemical adhesive force and the
mechanical interlock force
Uy et al The failure modes of CFSST columns are generally similar to
those of conventional carbon steel CFST columns. But due to
the increased ductility, the stainless steel composite columns
showed far higher capacity of axial deformation and larger
amplitudes of local outward bulges.

The stainless steel tube could provide better confinement for

its core concrete at the late loading stage compared with the
carbon steel tube in a CFST column.

The axial shortening of a CFSST can reach as high as 20%

without the observation of possible fracture of the stainless
steel tube due to the high ductility of stainless steel.

All the existing codes (AS 5100, American code ANSI/AISC

360-05 , Chinese code DBJ/T 13-51-2010 and Eurocode 4 )
underestimate the capacity by 47–67% for short columns
under compression and bending and about 11.1–25.5% for
slender columns, respectively.
Yang and Ma et al and Chen et al.
Circular and rectangular CFSST beams fail in a very ductile
manner. No tensile fracture in the tension zone observed,whilst
 local buckles appeared in the compression zone of beam at the
mid-span with crushing of concrete at the locations where the
stainless steel tube buckled.
Dynamic performance of Liao et al CFSST columns showed very plump lateral load versus lateral
concrete filled stainless deflection (P–Δ) responses, indicating a high energy dissipation
steel tubular column ability indicate tensile fracture was less likely to occur after the
application of the cyclic loading.

At a late loading stage CFST observed slight pinching effect not

found for the CFSST column.

Tao , Brian Uy, Fei-Yu Liaob, Lin-Hai Han (2011)

Tao , Brian Uy, Fei-Yu Liaob, Lin-Hai Han (2011) carried out Nonlinear analysis of
concrete-filled square stainless steel stub columns under axial compression. Concrete-filled
stainless steel tubes (CFSST) can be considered as a new and innovative kind of composite
construction technique, and have the potential to be used extensively in civil engineering.
This paper employs a nonlinear analysis of square CFSST stub columns under axial
compression. A three-dimensional nonlinear finite element (FE) model is developed using
ABAQUS, where nonlinear material behavior, enhanced strength corner properties of steel,
and initial geometric imperfections are included. Close agreement is achieved between the
test and FE results in terms of load-deformation response and ultimate strength. In light of
the numerical results, the behavior of stainless steel composite columns is compared with
that of carbon steel composite columns. A simple model is proposed to calculate the
ultimate strength of square CFSST stub columns.

Bambachn (2010)

Bambachn (2010) has done extensive research on design of hollow and concrete filled steel
and stainless steel tubular columns for transverse impact loads. In this paper the study is
done to investigate nominally identically sized stainless steel tubes, tested experimentally
under the same conditions. Comparisons between the performance of the two materials are
made. Both the steel and stainless steel tubular members, hollow and concrete filled, are
then modeled numerically. The FE models are validated against the experiments, and
subsequently extended to investigate the general behavior of such members when used as
columns or other axially load bearing structures. The influences of axial preload, rotational
restraint at the member ends, axial restraint, metal material properties and concrete filling,
are investigated. In particular, their effect on the capacity of the members to absorb
transverse impact energy. A general design procedure for metal tubular members with or
without concrete filling subjected to transverse impact is developed by the author in a
format aligned with current static structural steel specifications.