Composite Structures 202 (2018) 82–88

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Comparison of steel-concrete composite column and steel column T

⁎
Piotr Lacki, Anna Derlatka , Przemysław Kasza
Czestochowa University of Technology, Dąbrowskiego 69, 42-201 Częstochowa, Poland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The aim of the work was numerical analyses of a steel-concrete composite column and a steel column. An
Steel-concrete composite column internal column 3.60 m in length was considered. The column was on the second storey of a six-storey building
Steel reinforced concrete column designed for retail and services. The column was subjected to compression and uniaxial bending. The existing
Steel steel column was made from a welded H-profile. In the first stage of the work, the composite column was
FEM
designed as an alternative to the existing steel column using the analytical method. A steel reinforced concrete
column with a steel H-profile was selected. The second part of the work consisted in modelling the steel and
composite columns. The geometries, loads and boundary conditions used in simulations of the columns were the
same as in the analytical calculations. Numerical analysis was carried out using the ADINA System based on the
finite element method. In the steel column, the stresses and displacements were considered. In the composite
column, the stresses in the steel and concrete elements, the stresses distributions in the reinforcement bars and
displacements of the whole column were evaluated.

1. Introduction
Steel-concrete composite columns are new composite members.
They are widely used due to their high load-bearing capacity, full usage
of materials, high stiffness and ductility and large energy absorption
capacity as pointed out by the authors of Refs. [1,2]. The steel re-
inforced concrete (SRC) member (Fig. 1a), also known as the concrete
encased composite member, is the result of filling the empty space in a
steel H-profile with concrete [3].
Combining reinforced concrete (RC) and structural steel sections
provides several advantages over traditional reinforced concrete and
steel members. The concrete provides fire resistance to the steel section
and restrains the steel member from buckling [4,5]. Applying steel-
concrete composite columns has a beneficial impact on the course and
values of concrete strains in relation to reinforced concrete columns.
However, SRC columns require longitudinal and transverse reinforce-
ment to prevent the concrete from spalling while being subjected to
axial load, fire, or an earthquake [6]. A well-confined concrete core is
vital for the column to develop a satisfactory plastic hinge rotation
capacity. On the other hand, the reinforcement cage in SRC columns
creates difficulty in concrete casting of the beam-column connections
[7,8].
As presented in pracach [9–15], concrete-filled steel tube (CFST)
columns (Fig. 1b) are also a primary type of composite columns. They
can reduce the time of construction by eliminating formwork and re-
inforcement. CFST column-walls can be quite flexible in shapes, so that
they can be easily fit into all kinds of designs [16,17]. However, the
local buckling is always a major concern in the design of concrete-filled
thin-walled steel tube columns.
As presented in papers [18,19], in order to increase the confinement
of concrete and make concrete casting easy in SRC columns, replacing
the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement by a thin-walled steel
tube (tubed SRC) is proposed. The tube is placed at the perimeter of the
cross section and it terminate near the beam-column joint. In paper
[20], two types of tubed SRC column (c,d) are distinguished: circular
tubed SRC (CTSRC) and square tubed SRC (STSRC).
To date only a few 3-D finite element models have been found in the
literature highlighting the behaviour of concrete encased steel compo-
site columns. The authors of Ref. [21] investigated the behaviour of pin-
ended axially loaded concrete encased steel composite columns. A
nonlinear 3-D finite element model was developed to analyse the in-
elastic behaviour of steel, concrete, longitudinal and transverse re-
inforcement bars as well as the effect of concrete confinement. The
main objective of study [22] was to present an efficient nonlinear 3-D
finite element model to analyse concrete encased steel composite col-
umns at elevated temperatures. Paper [23] presents the carrying ca-
pacity of the column in the form of a steel round tube filled with con-
crete depending on the ways of loading. A small number of publications
of composite columns FEM models provide the basis for an analysing of
such columns. In Ref. [24], a three dimensional elasto-plastic finite
element formulation was employed to investigate the strength de-
gradation of reinforced concrete piers wrapped with steel plates which

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: aderlatka@bud.pcz.czest.pl (A. Derlatka).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.11.055
Received 27 September 2017; Received in revised form 13 November 2017; Accepted 20 November 2017
Available online 21 November 2017
0263-8223/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Lacki et al.
Fig. 1. Examples of composite columns sections: a) steel reinforced concrete (SRC), b) Concrete Filled Steel Tube (CFST), c) square tubed SRC (STSRC), d) circular tubed SRC (CTSRC).
corrode at the pier base.
A challenge in the numerical calculations is to take into account
material cracking. In this paper, the fracture model described in Ref.
[25] was applied. Literature gives different ways to take into account
the material’s fracture. One of the noteworthy comments of crack
analysis is presented in Ref. [26], in which a homogeneous elastic,
orthotropic solid containing three equal collinear cracks, loaded in
tension by symmetrically distributed normal stresses were considered.
Authors of Ref. [27] determined the fundamental solutions for an un-
bounded, homogeneous, orthotropic elastic body containing an ellip-
tical hole subjected to uniform remote loads. The aim of the study [28]
is elaboration of a new testing method and estimation of the fracture
toughness in Mode III of concretes with F fly-ash (FA) additive.
83
Composite Structures 202 (2018) 82–88
Fig. 2. Internal forces in analysed column.
Fig. 3. Cross-section of: a) steel column, b) steel reinforced
concrete column.
2. Goal and scope of work
The aim of the work was to perform numerical analysis of a steel
column and a steel reinforced concrete column. The numerical analysis
was carried out using the ADINA System based on the finite element
method. In the steel column, the stresses and displacements were con-
sidered. In the composite column, the stresses in the steel and concrete
elements, the forces distributions in the reinforcement bars and dis-
placements of the whole column were evaluated.
In the first stage of the work, the composite column was designed as
an alternative to the existing steel column using an analytical method.
The existing steel column in the building was made from a welded, steel
S235 H-profile (Fig. 3a).
The internal column of the length 3.60 m was considered. The
column was on the second storey of a six-storey building designed for
P. Lacki et al.
retail and services (Fig. 2). The column was subjected to compression
and uniaxial bending. Based on the load combination, the axial force
was NEd = 2045.1 kN, while the bending moment was
MEd = 180.27 kNm.
The choice of composite column construction was contributed to the
fact that several years ago a tram line was built near the renovated
building. Tramway traffic causes additional vibration in the construc-
tion of buildings. Composite columns have a higher energy absorption
capacity than steel columns.
Based on the analytical calculations according to Ref. [29], a steel
reinforced concrete column with the following cross-section was ob-
tained (Fig. 3):
– HEB 260 steel profile made from steel S235
– 4 reinforcement bars 12 mm in diameter made from A-IIIN RB500W
steel
– C30/37 concrete material
The resistance in compression calculated analytically amounted
90%, whereas the resistance in combined compression and uniaxial
bending was 50%.
The analytical calculations according to standard PN-EN 1994-1-1
[29] do not take into account stretching of the concrete or stress dis-
tribution in the reinforcement. Additionally, standard [29] does not
explicitly define any method of calculating the displacement of the
composite column. Column displacement can only be determined by
the numerical model using the finite element method.
3. Numerical model
The second part of the work consists in modelling the steel and
composite columns. The geometries, loads and boundary conditions of
the columns were used as in the analytical calculations.
3D-solid, 27-node finite elements were used for the steel profiles in
both columns and concrete. Truss, 3-node finite elements were used for
the reinforcement bars. The model was loaded with axial force
NEd = 2045.1 kN and a pressure of 0.464 MPa (Fig. 4) acting on the
lateral surface of the column. The pressure was intended to reflect
bending moment MEd = 180.27 kNm acting on the supports.
The steel column model has 4104 3-D solid elements. The composite
column model has 23,292 3-D solid elements and 2112 truss elements.
The calculations are performed in 10 time steps.
A plastic isotropic material model with the following parameters:
84
Composite Structures 202 (2018) 82–88
Fig. 4. Column models with load and boundary conditions:
a) steel column, b) steel reinforced concrete column.
– Density ρ = 7850 kg/m3
– Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.3
– Modulus of elasticity Ea = 210 GPa
– Yield strength fy = 235 MPa
– Ultimate tensile strength fu = 360 MPa
– Elongation A5 = 25%
was used for the steel profiles made from S235 structural steel.
A plastic isotropic material model with the following parameters:
– Density ρ = 7850 kg/m3
– Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.3
– Modulus of elasticity Es = 205 GPa
– Yield strength fsk = 500 MPa
– Ultimate tensile strength fu = 550 MPa
– Elongation A5 = 10%
was used for the reinforcement bars made from A-IIIN RB500W steel.
A model with the following parameters:
– Density ρ = 2500 kg/m3
– Tangent modulus at zero strain Ecm = 32 GPa
– Uniaxial cut-off tensile stress fctm = 2.9 MPa
– Uniaxial maximum compressive stress (SIGMAC) fcm = 38 MPa
– Uniaxial compressive strain at SIGMAC εc1 = 2.2‰
– Uniaxial ultimate compressive stress fck = 30 MPa
– Uniaxial ultimate compressive strain εcu2 = 3.5‰
was used for the C30/37 concrete material.
The basic concrete material model characteristics are [25]:
– Tensile cracking failure at a maximum, relatively small principal
tensile stress
– Compression crushing failure at high compression
– Strain softening from compression crushing failure to an ultimate
strain, at which the material totally fails
4. Results
Results for the steel and composite columns are presented in
Table 1.
The principal stresses distribution (Fig. 5) shows that compression
stresses prevail in the steel column. The maximum compression stress is
321 MPa. It is located at the head of the column, on the outer surface of
P. Lacki et al. Composite Structures 202 (2018) 82–88

Table 1
Results for steel and composite columns.

Time step Column X-displacement, mm Y-displacement, mm Z-displacement, mm Stress XX, MPa Stress YY, MPa Stress ZZ, MPa Principal stress,
MPa

1 Steel −0.3 −0.00 −0.2 −33.9 −11.1; 8.8 −10.2; 2.4 −37.4; 10.5
Composite, steel part −0.1 −0.00 −0.1 −179.1; 54.7 −7.6; 5.2 −23.2; 11.2 −33.4; 24.0
Composite, concrete part −15.34; 0.7 −5.0; 0.7 −3.6; 2.4 −5.2; 3.0

2 Steel −0.6 −0.01 −0.4 −67.0 −21.9; 17.4 −20.1; 4.8 −68.9; 18.0
Composite, steel part −0.2 −0.00 −0.2 −34.9; 8.4 −16.7; 12.2 −52.3; 27.8 −72.1; 54.0
Composite, concrete part −31.6; 1.6 −10.3; 1.4 −7.4; 2.6 −10.1; 2.7

3 Steel −0.8 −0.02 −0.6 −100.1 −32.7; 26.1 −30.0; 7.1 −102.9; 27.0
Composite, steel part −0.4 −0.01 −0.3 −53.9; 12.9 −26.4; 19.3 −82.3; 44.2 −111.8; 75.0
Composite, concrete part −48.1; 2.4 −15.7; 2.2 −11.1; 2.6 −14.74; 2.5

4 Steel −1.1 −0.03 −0.8 −133.3 −43.5; 34.7 −39.9; 9.5 −137.0; 37.5
Composite, steel part −0.5 −0.01 −0.5 −72.6; 17.4 −36.2; 25.8 −111.6; 59.5 −151.2; 105.0
Composite, concrete part −64.1; 3.0 −21.3; 2.9 −14.4; 2.6 −18.63; 3.0

5 Steel −1.4 −0.03 −1.0 −166.4 −54.4; 43.4 −49.8; 11.8 −171.1; 45.0
Composite, steel part −0.6 −0.01 −0.6 −91.3; 21.7 −46.1; 32.1 −140.0; 74.4 −190.2; 150.0
Composite, concrete part −82.5; 3.7 −26.9; 2.8 −17.4; 2.5 −22.4; 3.5

6 Steel −1.7 −0.04 −1.2 −199.6 −65.2; 52.1 −59.7; 14.2 −205.1; 52.5
Composite, steel part −0.7 −0.02 −0.7 −109.5; 26.0 −55.6; 38.3 −166.8; 89.4 −228.2; 180.0
Composite, concrete part −100.4; 4.3 −32.7; 2.8 −19.8; 2.3 −25.7; 4.0

7 Steel −1.9 −0.05 −1.4 −232.8 −76.0; 60.8 −69.7; 16.5 −239.2; 60.0
Composite, steel part −0.9 −0.02 −0.8 −127.0; 30.0 −64.3; 44.4 −190.3; 104.4 −263.9; 180.0
Composite, concrete part −118.6; 5.3 −38.6; 2.7 −21.8; 3.6 −28.5; 5.0

8 Steel −2.2 −0.06 −1.6 −266.0 −86.9; 69.5 −79.6; 18.9 −273.3; 75.0
Composite, steel part −1.0 −0.02 −1.0 −144.9; 34.1 −74.7; 50.7 −216.9; 120.0 −297.2; 210.0
Composite, concrete part −137.3; 6.3 −44.7; 3.2 −23.8; 2.9 −32.1; 5.0

9 Steel −2.5 −0.06 −1.8 −299.4 −97.6; 78.2 −89.6; 21.3 −307.7; 90.0
Composite, steel part −1.1 −0.02 −1.1 −161.7; 43.3 −90.4; 58.0 −233.0; 136.9 −313.8; 280.0
Composite, concrete part −156.4; 7.4 −50.9; 3.6 −26.3; 3.8 −35.0; 6.0

10 Steel −2.8 −0.07 −2.0 −325.0 −106.0; 86.9 −103.4; 24.6 −367.5; 105.0
Composite, steel part −1.2 −0.03 −1.2 −179.1; 54.7 −107.3; 65.0 −248.1; 152.0 −331.4; 240.0
Composite, concrete part −175.9; 8.6 −57.2; 4.5 −28.3; 3.3 −37.0; 6.0

the flange, which is not loaded by pressure. The tensile stresses are on
the outer surface of the flange on which the transverse load of the
column is acting. The maximum tensile stress of 90 MPa is on this
flange.
As shown in Fig. 6, the largest displacements with respect the X and
Z axes of the steel column are Δlx = 2.1 mm and Δlz = 2.8 mm. The
locations of the largest displacements are presented in Fig. 6.
The principal stresses distribution in the concrete material (Fig. 7)
shows that the principal compressive stresses are on most of the column
surface. The maximum compression stress is 24 MPa. The maximum
value is located at the base of the column, on the opposite side of the
applied pressure. The tensile stresses in the concrete element are at the
ends of the columns, on the applied pressure side. The maximum tensile
stress is 4 MPa.

Fig. 5. Distribution of principal stresses in steel column,

MPa.

85
P. Lacki et al. Composite Structures 202 (2018) 82–88

Fig. 6. Steel column displacements with respect X and Z

axes, mm.

Fig. 7. Distribution of principal stresses in concrete of

composite column, MPa.

Fig. 8. Distribution of principal stresses in HEB profile of

composite column, MPa.

86
P. Lacki et al.
Compressive stresses prevail in the HEB profile (Fig. 8). The max-
imum compressive stress (201 MPa) is at the column head, on the outer
surface of the flange, which is not loaded by pressure. The maximum
tensile stress (201 MPa) is in the corner between the flange and the
web.
The distribution of axial stresses in the reinforcement (Fig. 9) shows
that the reinforcement bars are compressed, which is due to the nature
of the work of the column. In contrast, the binders are stretched because
during compression of the column, the column strives to increase the
cross-section, which in consequence leads to stretching of the extreme
fibres.
The displacement of the composite column can only be determined
by the numerical model, since the PN 1994–1-1 standard [29] does not
define the method of calculation. The maximum displacements with
respect to the X and Z axes of the analysed column are Δlx = 1.2 mm i
Δlz = 1.3 mm (Fig. 10).
87
Composite Structures 202 (2018) 82–88
Fig. 9. Distribution of axial stresses in reinforcement of
composite column, MPa.
Fig. 10. Composite column displacements with respect X
and Z axes, mm.
5. Discussion
After loading the existing steel column, the compressive stress of
321 MPa exceeds the steel yield strength of 235 MPa. Therefore, chan-
ging the structure of the column is suggested.
In the designed composite column, the maximum compressive stress
of 25 MPa in the concrete material is less than the compressive strength
of the concrete. In analytical calculations, the stretching of concrete is
omitted. By contrast, the numerical model provides real stress. The
maximum stretching value of 4 MPa exceeds the tensile strength of
2.9 MPa. Exceeding the tensile strength will result in scratches when the
maximum load is reached.
The maximum compressive and tensile stresses in the steel section
of the composite column are 201 MPa, which is 86% of the yield
strength. This proves compatibility with the analytical calculations of
the load carrying capacity.
P. Lacki et al.
One of the advantages of steel-concrete composite columns is the
small displacement compared to a steel column. The displacement of
the steel column relative to the Z axis was 2.1 mm, while the dis-
placement of the column to the Z axis was 1.3 mm. The difference is due
to the fact that in the composite column the displacement of the
buckling steel is limited by the steel profile.
6. Conclusions
– Due to the boundary conditions and way of loading, the con-
centration of stresses in the steel and composite columns is at the
base and the head of the column.
– Changing the structure of the steel column is suggested because after
loading this column, the stresses of 321 MPa will exceed the yield
strength of 235 MPa.
– The load carrying capacity analytically calculated for the steel re-
inforced concrete column amounted 90%.
– Based on numerical analysis, the stresses in the steel section of the
composite column were 201 MPa, which corresponded to 86% of the
yield strength.
– The numerical model takes into account stretching of the concrete.
The tensile stresses in the concrete in the base and the head of the
column exceed the tensile strength resulting in the appearance of
scratches.
– The steel reinforced concrete column is stiffer than the steel one and
undergoes less displacement (Δlx = 1.2 mm, Δlz = 1.3 mm).
References
[1] Feng P, Cheng S, Bai Y, Ye L. Mechanical behavior of concrete-filled square steel
tube with FRP-confined concrete core subjected to axial compression. Compos
Struct 2015;123:312–24.
[2] Yu T, Lin G, Zhang SS. Compressive behavior of FRP-confined concrete-encased
steel columns. Compos Struct 2016;154:493–506.
[3] Karimi K, Tait MJ, El-Dakhakhni WW. Testing and modeling of a novel FRP-encased
steel–concrete composite column. Compos Struct 2011;93(5):1463–73.
[4] Lacki P, Nawrot J, Derlatka A. Numerical analysis of segment of steel-concrete
bridge girder loaded by dead load. Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Częstochowskiej.
Budownictwo 2017;172(22):204–12.
[5] Piquer A, Hernández-Figueirido D. Protected steel columns vs partially encased
columns: fire resistance and economic considerations. J Constr Steel Res
2016;124:47–56.
[6] Oh M-H, Ju Y-K, Kim M-H, Kim S-D. Structural performance of steel-concrete
composite column subjected to axial and flexural loading. JJABE 2006;5(1):153–60.
[7] Zhou X, Yan B, Liu J. Behavior of square tubed steel reinforced-concrete (SRC)
88
Composite Structures 202 (2018) 82–88
columns under eccentric compression. Thin Walled Struct 2015;91:129–38.
[8] Chen C-C, Chen C-C, Hoang TT. Role of concrete confinement of wide-flange
structural steel shape in steel reinforced concrete columns under cyclic loading. Eng
Struct 2016;110:79–87.
[9] Gao S, Xu M, Zhang D. Parametric study on ductility behavior of partially concrete-
filled steel box-section bridge piers. Harbin Gongye Daxue Xuebao/J Harbin Inst
Technol 2014;46(12):89–95.
[10] Zhang D, Gao S, Gong J. Seismic behaviour of steel beam to circular CFST column
assemblies with external diaphragms. J Constr Steel Res 2012;76:155–66.
[11] Zhang D, Zhang S, Gao S. Hysteretic behaviour of circular CFST column to steel
beam joints with external diaphragms. Harbin Gongye Daxue Xuebao/J Harbin Inst
Technol 2011;43:229–32.
[12] Fakharifar M, Chen G. Compressive behavior of FRP-confined concrete-filled PVC
tubular columns. Compos Struct 2016;141:91–109.
[13] Qian W-W, Li W, Han L-H, Zhao X-L. Analytical behavior of concrete-encased CFST
columns under cyclic lateral loading. J Constr Steel Res 2016;120:206–20.
[14] Wang K, Yuan S-F, Chen Z-X, Zhi H-X, Shi G-L, Cao D-F. Experimental study on
hysteretic behavior of composite frames with concrete-encased CFST columns. J
Constr Steel Res 2016;123:110–20.
[15] Xu W, Han L-H, Li W. Seismic performance of concrete-encased column base for
hexagonal concrete-filled steel tube: experimental study. J Constr Steel Res
2016;121:352–69.
[16] Wang Z-B, Tao Z, Han L-H, Uy B, Lam D, Kang W-H. Strength, stiffness and ductility
of concrete-filled steel columns under axial compression. Eng Struct
2017;135:209–21.
[17] Liu J-Q, Han L-H, Zhao X-L. Performance of concrete-filled steel tubular column-
wall structure subjected to ISO-834 standard fire: experimental study and FEA
modelling. Thin Walled Struct 2017;120:479–94.
[18] Qi H, Guo L, Liu J, Gan D, Zhang S. Axial load behavior and strength of tubed steel
reinforced-concrete (SRC) stub columns. Thin Walled Struct 2011;49(9):1141–50.
[19] Zhou X, Liu J. Seismic behavior and strength of tubed steel reinforced concrete
(SRC) short columns. J Constr Steel Res 2010;66(7):885–96.
[20] Gan D, Guo L, Liu J, Zhou X. Seismic behavior and moment strength of tubed steel
reinforced-concrete (SRC) beam-columns. J Constr Steel Res 2011;67(10):1516–24.
[21] Ellobody E, Young B. Numerical simulation of concrete encased steel composite
columns. J Constr Steel Res 2011;67(2):211–22.
[22] Young B, Ellobody E. Performance of axially restrained concrete encased steel
composite columns at elevated temperatures. Eng Struct 2011;33(1):245–54.
[23] Małek E, Kupina M. Carrying capacity of the short axially compressed column in the
form of steel round tube filled with concrete depending on the ways of loading. In:
Biliński T, editor. Konstrukcje Zespolone. 2011. p. 165–74. Zielona Góra.
[24] Gao S, Ni J, Zhang D, Ge H. Strength degradation of reinforced concrete piers
wrapped with steel plates under local corrosion. Steel Compos Struct
2017;24(6):753–65.
[25] Theory and modeling guide: Volume I: ADINA solids & structures. ADINA R & D Inc.
[26] Sadowski T, Craciun EM, Răbâea A, Marsavina L. Mathematical modeling of three
equal collinear cracks in an orthotropic solid. Meccanica 2016;51(2):329–39.
[27] Craciun E-M. Prestressed orthotropic material containing an elliptical hole. Adv
Struct Mater 2016;60:327–36.
[28] Golewski GL, Sadowski T. The fracture toughness the K IIIc of concretes with F fly
ash (FA) additive. Constr Build Mater 2017;143:444–54.
[29] Eurokod 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures. Part 1-1: General
rules and rules for buildings. (PN-EN 1994-1-1).