72

Concrete-lled steel tube columns under earthquake loads

J F Hajjar University of Minnesota, USA

Summary
Concrete-lled steel tubes (CFTs) have been used throughout the world in structures of varying heights and structural congurations, both in nonseismic and in high seismic zones. This review summarizes the behavior of circular and rectangular concrete-lled steel tube beamcolumns and braces, particularly focused on their behavior when subjected to cyclic seismic loading. It begins with a discussion of the monotonic behavior of CFTs subjected to axial, exural, and torsional loading, Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2000; 2: 7281 and summarizes the effects on CFT behavior of creep, shrinkage, composite action and residual stresses. The synopsis of monotonic behavior provides a basis for the subsequent discussion of research on the cyclic behavior of CFTs. The article concludes with a summary of publications in which current CFT design provisions are outlined for several non-seismic and seismic specications throughout the world.

Composite concrete-filled steel tubes (CFTs) have been used increasingly as columns and beamcolumns in braced and unbraced frame structures. Their use worldwide has ranged from compression members in low-rise, open-floor plan construction, using cold-formed steel circular or rectangular tubes filled with precast or cast-in-place concrete, to large-diameter cast-in-place members used as the primary lateral-resistance columns in multi-story braced and unbraced frames. Concretefilled steel box columns, fabricated from four welded steel plates, and concrete-filled steel fabricated circular pipes have been used in some of the worlds tallest structures[1,2]. In addition, concrete-filled steel box columns are commonly used as bridge piers throughout Japan[3]. Concrete-filled steel tube structural members have a number of distinct advantages over equivalent steel, reinforced concrete, or steel-reinforced concrete members. When used in composite CFT frames, consisting of steel I-girders framing into square, rectangular or circular CFTs using fully restrained (FR) or partially restrained (PR) connections, CFTs can
Abbreviations ACI = American Concrete Institute AISC = American Institute of Steel Construction AIJ = Architectural Institute of Japan

provide excellent monotonic and seismic resistance in two orthogonal directions and are well suited for resisting biaxial bending plus axial force[4**]. For seismic design, CFTs used as part of moment-resisting frames have a high strength-to-weight ratio due to confinement of the concrete and continuous bracing of the steel tube to delay local buckling, improved damping behavior in comparison to traditional steel frames[5], and enhanced ductility and toughness[4**,6**]. The steel lies at the outer perimeter where it performs effectively in resisting flexure as well as axial tension and compression, while the concrete forms an excellent core to help withstand compressive loading. The tubes serve as formwork in construction and their erection can precede the concrete by several stories, which decreases labor and material costs[7]. The cost of the member itself is less than steel and roughly equivalent to reinforced concrete on a strength per dollar basis for low- to medium-strength concrete. Recent research has also explored the use of highstrength concrete and/or steel with much success[812*]. With the use of high-strength concrete, CFTs are often stronger per square foot than
Terminology a = shear span D = depth/width of tube c = concrete compressive strength y = steel yield stress L = length of tube M = applied moment Mo = moment strength Mpo = moment strength N = applied axial force

ASCCS = Association for International Cooperation and Research in Steel Concrete Composite Structures BS = British Standard CFT = concrete-lled tube EC = Eurocode FR = fully restrained

LRFD

= Load and resistance factor design NEHRP = (US) National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program PR = partially restrained SECTR = cross-section strength analysis SSRC = Structural Stability Research Council

Nysc = P = Po = Q = R = t =

axial strength applied axial force axial strength shear force chord rotation thickness of tube

Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2000; 2: 7281

SITE RESPONSE AND VERTICAL SEISMIC ARRAYS

conventional reinforced concrete columns[7]. The smaller and lighter framework also places less of a load on the foundation. For seismic excitation, the cyclic response of CFTs and their connections provides full hysteresis loops with substantial energy dissipation[4**,6**,13,14**]. Strength and stiffness degradation does occur, particularly for CFTs in which the concrete dominates the behavior[6**,15*,16*]. However, the degradation tends to be both gradual and moderate, particularly for normal strength materials. Because of these advantages, a number of research projects are ongoing worldwide, including several on the seismic behavior of CFTs that have been initiated within the US and Japan as part of the National Science Foundations US/Japan Cooperative Research Program on Composite and Hybrid Structures. Fig. 1 shows the plan of one structural configuration that is considered a theme structure for composite CFT frames in this research program. Using multiple bays of composite CFT framing in each primary direction of a low- to medium-rise building provides seismic redundancy while taking full advantage of the two-way framing capabilities of CFTs. This discussion summarizes the state of research and practice on the seismic response of concrete-filled steel tubes. Steady progress in understanding the behavior of CFTs has been made during the past 40 years, and a vast amount of related research on the behavior of hollow structural sections has often complemented the research on CFTs. However, it is only in the past two decades that a substantial amount of research has been conducted on the cyclic response of CFTs for their use in seismic zones[18]. This discussion is largely focused on cold-formed circular pipes and square or rectangular tubes, both having a single longitudinal seam weld applied in the fabrication shop. The scope is limited to CFTs which are filled completely with concrete, and to CFTs which make no use of reinforcing bars or interior shear connectors. The behavior of concrete-filled box columns and large diameter, very thin concrete-filled fabricated circular pipes are not covered

73

comprehensively here; the reader is referred to refs[2,3,19], among others, for a discussion of these construction elements. Research on connections of steel I-girders to CFTs is also only briefly summarized.

Monotonic behavior of concrete-lled steel tubes (CFTs) AXIAL STRENGTH AND RIGIDITY
The monotonic behavior of CFTs has been studied extensively, both experimentally and analytically. The compressive axial strength of CFTs is governed by a combination of yielding of the steel and crushing of the concrete, while only the steel tube is effective for tensile axial loading. CFTs with length-to-depth (L/D) ratios below approximately 1015 typically fail near their cross-section strength. Intermediate length or long (slender) CFT columns are governed by flexural instability, usually involving at least some crushing of the concrete and yielding of the steel prior to buckling. Failure of CFTs having relatively low width-tothickness (D/t) ratios and low-to-moderate strength concrete typically occurs through a combination of yielding of the steel, local buckling of the steel, crushing of the concrete, and flexural buckling of the member as a whole if it has sufficient length. Ductile behavior generally results regardless of whether it is the steel or concrete which initiates inelasticity. Failure of thin-walled steel tubes (eg CFTs with tubes having a D/t ratio greater than approximately 60) or CFTs having high-strength concrete tends more towards local buckling of the steel tube combined with a shear failure of the concrete[8]. While the steel tube helps to delay shear failure of the concrete[10], this is still a more brittle mode of failure. Consequently, SSRC[20], AISC[21], and, for seismic design, NEHRP[22], along with most other CFT specifications throughout the world, currently specify a steel yield strength limit of the order of 380 MPa, a concrete strength limit of the order of 55 MPa, and limits on the D/t ratios of the steel tube so as to help to insure that some ductile yielding of the steel generally occurs prior to its local buckling or to crushing of the concrete. The initial Poissons ratio of concrete (approximately 0.15 to 0.25) is below that of steel (approximately 0.3)[23]. Thus, there is often little initial confinement of the concrete in a CFT. However, as the concrete begins to crush, it expands faster than the steel tube and becomes well confined at higher load levels. Circular sections can effectively develop circumferential tension to exert lateral pressure on the concrete, but the flat sides of rectangular sections provide less perpendicular pressure to restrain the expanding concrete[24]. The corners of rectangular tubes contribute primarily to the confinement, and this effect on strength is negligible, although the ductility of the CFT is enhanced. The manner in which the CFT is loaded also affects confinement. Loading the concrete alone tends to induce confinement at
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2000; 2: 7281

6.4 m 6.4 m 9.6 m 6.4 m 6.4 m Not to scale 6.4 m 6.4 m 6.4 m 6.4 m 6.4 m CFT beamcolumn Steel girder

Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of US/Japan theme structure for a low- to medium-rise two-way unbraced CFT composite framing system. Modied from ref.[17*]
Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

74
lower load levels than loading both materials simultaneously. In contrast, loading the steel alone, as may be done if a girder frames into a CFT with a simple connection, causes localized friction in the connection region, but confinement is not induced until sufficient load is shed to the concrete core. A discussion of the effects on compressive axial strength of loading both materials simultaneously versus applying the load directly to only one material may be found in refs[8,10,23]. The initial rigidity of concrete-filled steel tubes subjected to axial compression is complicated by the concrete core and the interaction between the two materials. For example, SSRC[20] proposed a modified elastic modulus that is the sum of the moduli of elasticity for the steel and concrete, with a reduction factor of 0.4 imposed on the initial modulus of the concrete to account for creep and tensile cracking. This has been adopted as a design recommendation in, for example, AISC[21]. Other authors have proposed summing the individual rigidities of each component material[25*], which generally matches better with experiments and is thus appropriate for representing initial axial stiffness in a linear or nonlinear analysis[15*]. Stability behavior of CFTs is summarized in ref.[26]. Considerable experimental research has been conducted on axial strength of CFTs having a wide range of D/t ratios, L/D ratios, and material strengths. A sampling of monotonic tests conducted on circular CFTs may be found in references[7,11*,23,2730*]. Axial strength of square and rectangular CFTs is discussed in refs[10,30*32].

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

70 MPa was used. Rotation capacity of both circular and rectangular CFTs from a wide range of tests conducted in Japan has been summarized by Toshiyuki et al[35], who also proposed formulas for predicting the rotation capacity of CFTs loaded in monotonic flexure. With respect to CFT behavior in shear, for a small shear span-to-depth, a/D, ratio (eg 0.81.0), diagonal shear cracking indicative of shear failure occurs in specimens that are also subjected to axial load. For shear span ratios of 2.0 to 3.0, columns begin to exhibit a flexure-type failure with plastic hinges forming largely at the specimen ends. Overall shear resistance decreases with an increase in the D/t ratio or an increase in the axial load ratio[6**,36]. The initial rigidity of a CFT in flexure depends to some degree on whether or not bond exists at the interface of the two materials and the end conditions of the CFT. Tests by Furlong[37] showed that specimens exhibited a lower rigidity than that calculated assuming plane sections remain plane in bending (ie that bond between the materials exists). However, the rigidities resulting from the tests of Prion & Boehme[8] and Lu & Kennedy[34] typically match best with analyses which assume perfect bond[15*].

BEAMCOLUMN STRENGTH
Several key parameters influence the behavior of CFT beamcolumns, including the D/t and L/D ratios of the member, as discussed above, as well as the compressive axial load ratio (P/Po, where Po is the axial strength of the CFT). The axial load ratio influences the peak moment strength, as illustrated by CFT interaction diagrams, which for short members exhibit increasing moment strength for low levels of axial compression, such that the maximum moment exceeds the nominal moment strength, Mo, in the presence of no axial force. Fig. 2 (after[38]) shows one quadrant of a schematic, normalized CFT crosssection diagram for two different material strengths. CFTs exhibit a wide range of normalized cross-section strength as a function of the material strengths and the

FLEXURAL STRENGTH AND RIGIDITY

For concrete-filled steel tubes subjected to flexure and shear, the steel contributes a large portion of the stiffness and strength since it lies at the periphery of the section where the material has the most influence. In general, CFT beams exhibit excellent ductility prior to failure when loaded in monotonic flexure. Beams containing normal strength materials and relatively stocky tubes typically fail through a combination of yielding of the steel tube in tension, buckling of the steel tube in compression, crushing of the concrete in compression, and eventually tearing of the steel tube in tension. A limited number of tests have been performed on CFTs under pure flexural bending since their primary application in the past has been as columns. Tests by Bridge[33] on rectangular CFTs bent both uniaxially and biaxially showed that the concrete core only provides about 7.5% of the capacity in member under pure bending. Lu & Kennedy[34] reported strength increases of the order of 1030% over rectangular hollow tubes, and they exhibited ductile failure modes. Both tests were conducted using normal concrete strengths. Similarly, circular CFT beams tested by Prion & Boehme[8] showed ductile behavior, even when concrete strength above
Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Fig. 2 Normalized CFT cross-section strength. Modied from ref.[38]

Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2000; 2: 7281

SITE RESPONSE AND VERTICAL SEISMIC ARRAYS

D/t ratio[38]. The axial load ratio also has an adverse effect on ductility. Large values of P/Po lead to rapid deterioration in moment strength and may lead to more brittle failures[35,39,40]. Experimental verification of a wide range of beamcolumn behavior of CFTs has been conducted by a number of researchers[18,41*], a selection of which includes Furlong[24,37], conducting some of the first beamcolumn tests on circular and square CFTs; Bridge[33], who included both uniaxial and biaxial flexure on relatively stocky square CFTs with normal strength materials; Shakir-Khalil and co-workers[4244] who tested relatively slender, rectangular (as opposed to square), CFTs in both strong and weak axis flexure; and Cederwall et al[9], who tested square CFTs having high-strength concrete and high L/D. These tests were conducted on CFTs subjected to eccentric loading (ie proportional loading). Non-proportional loading was used by Tsuda et al[40] on cantilever CFT beamcolumns. Tomii & Sakino[39] and Ichinohe et al[45] both applied constant axial force followed by four-point bending to subject the CFT to monotonic single curvature plus axial force. Tomii & Sakino[39] tested square CFTs, some of which were annealed, and Ichinohe et al[45] tested circular CFTs, some with highstrength concrete and annealed tubes.

75

strength. However, creep may contribute to differential shortening and shedding of load to the steel (thus potentially inducing local buckling), and shrinkage may contribute to initial cracking in the concrete[50].

BOND IN CFTS
A number of different types of push-out studies have been performed on circular and rectangular CFTs to characterize their load-slip relationship. Virdi & Dowling[51] performed some of the first bond tests and provided a description of the different mechanisms of bond in CFTs which lack internal shear connectors. Shakir-Khalil[52] performed a wide range of push-out tests on CFTs with and without internal shear connectors, and he characterized in detail the loadslip relation in CFTs without internal shear connectors. An approximately bilinear load-slip relation was seen in these tests, with little bond stiffness retained after bond breakage. Roeder[53] conducted experiments and analyses to verify that bond strength is larger in circular versus rectangular CFTs, and that it decreases with an increase in the D/t ratio. Relative to seismic excitation, Morishita et al[54,55] conducted cyclic tests on CFTs to investigate the cyclic bond characteristics. Pushout tests have typically shown a wide range of results with respect to bond strengths and stiffnesses of CFTs with no internal shear connectors. Alternately, tests have been conducted on CFTs with load applied to the steel tube through girders framing in with shear tabs. Such tests provide a realistic introduction of load into a CFT, and slip may be induced in these situations. Dunberry et al[56] and Shakir-Khalil[57] conducted such tests and documented the slip along the length of the CFT at various levels of loading. With respect to flexure, in both circular and rectangular CFTs, while some slip occurs between the steel tube and concrete core during bending, there is substantial contact between the two materials, and the behavior is largely composite, although the effect on ductility of loss of bond remains unclear[8,25*,34].

TORSIONAL STRENGTH AND RIGIDITY

Few tests of CFTs under torsional loading have been done. In the limited tests performed, concrete-filled steel tubes performed quite well under monotonic torsional loading. The steel tube itself is conducive to excellent torsional behavior. Torsional failure in a CFT is not abrupt or distinct, but is characterized by a large increase in torsional rotation at a fairly constant torque. The failure is due to a combination of spiral cracking in the concrete and tensile yielding of the steel[46]. The effect of axial load on the torsional response is for the most part detrimental, although for axial loads up to one-half of the ultimate axial load, an increase in the axial load sometimes results in a small increase in the member's torsional resistance[47]. Initial torsional rigidity of CFTs is usually taken to be that of the steel tube alone[47].

RESIDUAL STRESSES IN CFTS

The level of residual stresses in steel tubes is highly dependent upon the manufacturing process and the shape of the cross-section[58]. Due primarily to the cold-forming and welding processes, welded coldformed tubes will contain higher residual stresses than seamless tubes, and cold-formed rectangular tubes will have higher residual stresses than circular tubes. Longitudinal residual stresses produced in cold-formed steel tubes vary through the thickness[58], effectively rounding the stressstrain curve. For analysis, residual stresses are often accounted for indirectly in the steel constitutive model used in the analysis through calibration to stressstrain curves obtained from tests of hollow structural section tension coupon specimens, which retain these
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2000; 2: 7281

CREEP AND SHRINKAGE IN CFTS

Early tests performed by Furlong[24] showed that creep has an influential effect on the long-term behavior of CFTs, although the effect is somewhat mitigated by the tubular steel confinement. Nakai et al[48] obtained creep coefficients (the ratio of the final strain to the initial elastic strain) of about half of the value obtained for plain concrete. Furlong also found that slow loading rates could decrease the strength up to 15%, and that shrinkage of the CFTs may cause initial debonding, although the effect on the ultimate behavior of CFTs is generally minimal once deformation ensues. Terrey et al[49] concur that creep and shrinkage often will not adversely affect CFT
Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

76
residual stresses[16*,59]. Bridge[33] and Shakir-Khalil & Mouli[43] have also documented an increase in yield stress of the order of 20% in the corners of rectangular CFTs versus in the flanges.

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

beamcolumn subjected to cyclic loading, showing the load-deformation response of a square CFT beamcolumn tested by Sakino & Tomii[6**]. A schematic illustration of the test setup is shown in the inset. The specimen was subjected to a constant axial load,P = 0.3 Po (where Po = 528 kN is the CFT peak axial strength for this specimen), and a cyclic shear loading, Q, applied nonproportionally for three full cycles at each increasing increment of chord rotation, R, which was varied from 0.5% to 2.5%. The main behavioral features which can be observed in this experiment include the following[16*]. q Elastic unloading: CFTs unload such that the stiffness upon load reversal is nearly equal to the stiffness of an initially unloaded member. However, the elastic stiffness degrades somewhat due to the concrete crushing before reaching a stabilized value. q Decreasing zone of linear behavior: the size of the zone of approximate linear behavior in a CFT reduces with cyclic loading, mainly due to steel local buckling and concrete crushing, as well as to the reduction in size of the elastic zone of the steel material. Eventually, the zone of linear behavior stabilizes at a non-zero value. q Strength degradation: the maximum strength achieved within each hysteretic cycle degrades as cycling proceeds, due primarily to local buckling of the steel tube and to damage of the concrete. This strength degradation is minimal for thick-walled CFTs, and increases as the contribution of the concrete increases. q Bauschinger effect: the Bauschinger effect typically exhibited at the stress level by the steel tube is seen in Fig. 3 to propagate to the stress-resultant level of a CFT. q Gradual stiffness reduction: during a loading excursion, the stiffness of a CFT reduces gradually from its initial elastic value, due to both geometric and material nonlinearity, as evidenced in each half-cycle of loading in Fig. 3. q Bounding stiffness: CFTs exhibit a limiting bounding stiffness (of approximately zero stiffness), which may be seen most clearly in the last two hysteretic cycles in Fig. 3. The bounding stiffness evolves due to the stabilization of the steel tube, even after local buckling. To date, the primary cyclic testing of CFT beamcolumns has typically taken place in Japan. Sakino & Tomii[6**] and Sakino & Ishibashi[36] tested relatively short square CFT beamcolumns (L/D ranged from 2 to 6) in reverse curvature with constant axial force applied. Matsui & Tsuda[62] tested square cantilever CFTs cyclically to determine the benefits of adding concrete for a wide range of D/t ratios. Ichinohe et al[45] tested circular CFTs with high strength concrete subjected to single curvature plus constant axial force. Prion & Boehme[8] also cyclically tested circular CFTs in single curvature, with
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2000; 2: 7281

Cyclic behavior of concrete-lled steel tubes

This research on the monotonic behavior of CFTs provides the framework for a summary of the research which has been conducted on cyclic behavior of these composite columns. Relatively few tests have been conducted to study the cyclic behavior of axially loaded CFT specimens. The most notable tests in this regard have been Liu & Goel[60*] and Kawano & Matsui[61], who compared hollow and concrete-filled rectangular tubular braces. They showed that the addition of concrete delayed local buckling and increased the number of cycles to failure and the amount of energy dissipated. The concrete forces the buckling of the tube outward, which provides two advantages: q when buckling occurs, the distance between the top and bottom flanges of the steel tube increases rather than decreases (as it would without the concrete core) which prevents the section modulus from decreasing significantly, q the concrete tends to spread the local buckling over a larger region, mitigating severe strain concentrations which tend to cause cracking. Of course, in tension, only the steel effectively resists the axial force. Concrete-filled steel tube beamcolumns subjected to combined axial force plus uniaxial or biaxial flexure typically show very full hysteresis loops indicating large energy dissipation. Axial load has been found to have some effect on the flexure- and shear-carrying capacity of CFTs[6**,36], although CFT specimens subjected to a high axial load (eg P/Po = 0.5) still tend to show a stabilization of the hysteretic loops. Fig. 3 illustrates typical behavior of a CFT

Fig. 3 Cyclic load-deection behavior of a CFT beamcolumn. Modied from ref.[6**]

Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

SITE RESPONSE AND VERTICAL SEISMIC ARRAYS

relatively high D/t ratios. Japan continues to conduct a large amount of testing on CFT beamcolumns subjected to cyclic loading. Tsuda et al[40] conducted tests of circular and square CFT cantilevers. Fujimoto et al[63] are conducting some of the first experiments on CFTs subjected to non-proportional, variable axial force combined with cyclic reverse curvature bending. Tomii[64**] and Morino et al[17*] provide overviews of Japanese research on CFT behavior, analysis, and testing. Japanese researchers have also conducted 3-D cyclic tests of CFTs subjected to constant axial force and cyclic biaxial bending[4**]. These important tests have been conducted on square CFTs with stocky tubes and normal strength materials. Matsui[65*] and Kawaguchi et al[14**] have conducted portal frame tests consisting of built-up steel wide-flange girders framing rigidly into CFT beamcolumns, which are thus subjected to cyclic reverse curvature flexure plus constant axial force during the test. These tests consistently show that CFTs exhibit stable hysteretic behavior, although with some evidence of degradation as seen in Fig. 3. Failure occurred through a combination of concrete crushing, steel yielding and buckling, and in some cases eventual fracture in the steel tube in the regions of the plastic hinges. It should be noted that the majority of the tests of CFTs to date have been conducted on relatively small specimens, often 150 mm diameter or smaller. This is due to the load limits of the testing apparatus and the need to run the tests economically. Whether these results can be accurately extrapolated to the typically larger columns used in practice remains a pertinent and debatable question. Varma et al[12*] are currently conducting some of the first full-scale cyclic tests on cold-formed CFT beamcolumns (approximately 400 mm square) using high strength steel and concrete and subjected to axial force plus cyclic uniaxial flexure. A key component of the successful use of CFTs in seismic zones relates to the connection between steel Igirders and the CFT beamcolumns. Japanese researchers have conducted a wide range of cyclic CFT connection research (eg see Kawano & Matsui[13]). For fully restrained connections more typical of US connection topologies, the reader is referred to ongoing research discussed in Ricles et al[66] for square CFTs, and Azizinamini et al[67] and Schneider[68] for circular CFTs. Fig. 4 (after[66]) shows one potential, practical configuration for a fully restrained CFT connection, in this case a split-tee bolted connection which has shown excellent cyclic hysteretic response in laboratory tests[66]. Development of comprehensive nonlinear analysis methodologies for CFT beamcolumns subjected to cyclic loading has been conducted by relatively few researchers. Kawaguchi et al[69] and Inai & Sakino[70] have presented analyses of individual CFTs using distributed plasticity formulations which track the
Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

77

Fig. 4 Typical fully restrained connection of a steel I-girder-to-CFT beamcolumn: split-tee connection. Modied from ref.[66]

stressstrain response throughout the CFT crosssection at locations along the length of the member. Hajjar et al[15*,16*,38,71] formulated two finite elements, both suitable for simulating the cyclic seismic behavior of CFT beamcolumns as part of complete braced or unbraced frame structures. Both a concentrated plasticity[15*,38] and a distributed plasticity beam finite element[16*,71] were formulated for these analyses.

Design of concrete-lled steel tubes

A wide range of design provisions exist throughout the world, with the European Community, the US, Canada, Japan, China, Australia, New Zealand, and other countries all having design provisions for nonseismic and, where appropriate, seismic design of CFTs. A recent publication by ASCCS[72*] includes articles summarizing the derivations of the design equations in several of these countries. In addition to this publication, Picard & Beaulieu[73] have summarized CFT design provisions for Canada; Roik & Bergmann[74] have summarized Eurocode 4[75] provisions; and Wakabayashi[76] & Tsuda[77] have summarized the CFT design provisions of the AIJ[78]. The US design provisions are summarized in SSRC[20], AISC[21], Viest et al[25*], and for seismic loading, NEHRP[22]. Uy[2] and Mitani et al[79] have outlined the equations and compared the design provisions from several specifications from around the world. Fig. 5, from Mitani et al[79], shows a representative comparison of strength interaction for both circular and square CFTs from several international codes, including AISC[21], EC4[75], AIJ[78], ACI[80], and the British
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2000; 2: 7281

78
(a)
1.2 1.0 0.8 N/Nysc 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 M/Mpo 0.8 1.0 1.2 Europe & USA O381X6.9 L/D = 30 AIJ LRFD ACI EC4 BS SECTR

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS Conclusions

Over the past several decades, a wide range of research has been conducted on the monotonic and cyclic behavior of circular and rectangular concretefilled steel tube beamcolumns. Monotonic axial strength and combined axial and flexural strength have been researched extensively, and the number of tests on CFTs subjected to proportional and nonproportional cyclic loading is increasing steadily, including tests on 3-D subassemblages, portal frame structures, and full-scale specimens. Research has also initiated on the behavior of CFTs subjected to fire (see, for example, refs[85,86]), yet for maximum efficiency in construction, further work is needed to determine if it is possible to use CFTs that have adequate fire resistance using neither internal reinforcing bars nor external fire protection. Cyclic testing on CFT connection topologies specific to the construction practices of many regions of the world are also still in their early stages. CFTs have been used in a wide range of braced and unbraced frame structures throughout the world. However, the ongoing research will lead to much better non-seismic and seismic design provisions for CFT beamcolumns and their connections, and it is hoped that these structural members may eventually become ubiquitous within construction practice.

(b)
1.2 1.0 0.8 N/Nysc 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 M/Mpo 0.8 1.0 1.2 Europe & USA 300X300X6 L/D = 30 AIJ LRFD ACI EC4 BS SECTR

Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Professor Roberto T Leon, Georgia Institute of Technology, and Mr Brett C Gourley, Skilling, Ward, Magnesson & Barkshire, for their assistance with the research for this article; and Professor James M Ricles, Lehigh University, Professor I Mitani, Kobe University, and Professor A Kawano, Kyushu University, for providing two of the figures in this article.

Fig. 5 Comparison of design strength interaction diagrams for typical (a) circular(O) and (b) square ( )concrete-lled steel tube beamcolumns. Reproduced from ref.[79] with permission

Standard (BS)[81]. The loss of strength due to flexural buckling of longer CFTs is apparent in these figures. While the specifications compare reasonably well, the percentage differences are often high, even for the pure axial and moment strengths. In addition, Lundberg & Galambos[82*] have presented a statistical evaluation of the reliability index for CFTs designed according to the AISC LRFD specification[21] and have determined that the current design provisions are inadequate. Following this research, Aho & Leon[41*] conducted a comprehensive review of both US and Eurocode 4 design provisions and have proposed new design rules. They included a thorough experimental literature survey and have compared their design equation favorably to a comprehensive range of tests. In addition, Grimault & Janss[83] and OShea & Bridge[84] specifically focus on a summary of CFT local buckling provisions worldwide.

References and recommended reading

Papers of particular interest have been marked: * Special interest ** Exceptional interest
[1] Roeder CW. Overview of hybrid and composite systems for seismic design in the United States. Engineering Structures 1998: 20(46): 355363. [2] Uy B. Concrete-lled fabricated steel box columns for multistory buildings. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials 1998: 1(2): 150158. [3] Kitada T. Ultimate strength and ductility of state-of-the-art concretelled steel bridge piers in Japan. Engineering Structures 1998: 20(46): 347354. ** [4] Morino S, Kawaguchi J, Yasuzaki C et al. Behavior of concrete-lled steel tubular three-dimensional subassemblages. In: Easterling WS & Roddis WMK (eds) Composite construction in steel and concrete II. New York: ASCE. 1993. 726741.

This paper presents the results from an excellent set of three-dimensional experiments consisting of four steel I-girders framing orthogonally into a concrete-lled steel tube beamcolumn. Axial force is applied to the CFT, one pair of girders is subjected to static tip loading, and the orthogonal pair of girders is subjected to antisymmetric cyclic tip loading. The CFT is thus subjected to cyclic biaxial bending plus axial compression. The specimens are designed so that in some cases the CFT fails, and in others the connection fails (the girders remain elastic).

Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2000; 2: 7281

SITE RESPONSE AND VERTICAL SEISMIC ARRAYS

[5] Grifs LG. Composite frame construction. In: Dowling PJ, Harding JE & Bjorhovde R (eds) Constructional steel design: an international guide. London, UK: Elsevier Applied Science. 1992. 523553. ** [6] Sakino K & Tomii M. Hysteretic behavior of concrete lled square steel tubular beamcolumns failed in exure. Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute 1981: 3: 439446.

79

* [17] Morino S, Sakino K, Mukai A et al. USJapan cooperative earthquake research program on CFT column systems. Proceedings 5th International Colloquium on Stability of Metal Structures (North American Session) Future directions in stability: research and design. Bethlehem, Pennsylvania: Structural Stability Research Council. 1996. 8392.

This paper contains comprehensive test results of concrete-lled steel tube beamcolumns subjected to constant axial force plus cyclic uniaxial reverse curvature exure.
[7] Bridge RQ & Webb J. Thin walled circular concrete lled steel tubular columns. In: Easterling WS & Roddis WMK (eds) Composite construction in steel and concrete II. New York: ASCE. 1993. 634649. [8] Prion HGL & Boehme J. Beamcolumn behaviour of steel tubes lled with high strength concrete. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 1994: 21(2): 207218. [9] Cederwall K, Engstrom B & Grauers M. High strength concrete used in composite columns. In: 2nd International Symposium on Utilization of HighStrength Concrete. Detroit, Michigan: ACI. 1991. 195214. [10] Bergmann R. Load introduction in composite columns lled with high strength concrete. In: Grundy P, Holgate A & Wong W (eds) Tubular structures VI. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Balkema. 1994. 373380. * [11] O'Shea MD & Bridge RQ. Circular thin-walled tubes with high strength concrete inll. In: Buckner CD & Shahrooz BM (eds) Composite construction in steel and concrete III. New York: ASCE. 1997. 780793.

In the past 2030 years, Japanese researchers have conducted a large amount of monotonic and cyclic testing and analysis of concrete-lled steel tube beamcolumns and their connections to steel I-girders. This paper summarizes much of their more recent research.
[18] Gourley BC, Hajjar JF & Schiller PH. A synopsis of studies of the monotonic and cyclic behavior of concrete-lled tube beamcolumns. Structural Engineering Report No ST-93-5.2. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota. 1995. [19] Ge H & Usami T. Cyclic tests of concrete-lled steel box columns. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 1996: 122(10): 11691177. [20] Task Group 20, Structural Stability Research Council. A specication for the design of steelconcrete composite columns. Engineering Journal (AISC)1979: 16(4): 101115. [21] American Institute of Steel Construction. Load and resistance factor design specication for structural steel buildings. Chicago, Illinois: AISC. 1993. [22] National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program. Recommended Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for New Buildings. Part 1, Provisions. Part 2, Commentary. Washington DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Building Seismic Safety Council. 1997. [23] Gardner NJ & Jacobson ER. Structural behavior of concrete lled steel tubes. Journal of the American Concrete Institute 1967: 64(11): 404413. [24] Furlong RW. Strength of steel-encased concrete beamcolumns. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE 1967: 93(ST5): 113124. * [25] Viest IM, Colaco JP, Furlong RW et al. Composite construction: design for buildings. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1997.

These researchers have conducted a wide range of full-scale, monotonic tests, reported in several papers and reports including this one, on both circular and square concrete-lled steel tubes having high width-to-thickness ratios and high strength concrete. The effects of connement, geometric imperfections, and local buckling are reported in detail.
* [12] Varma AH, Ricles JM, Sause R et al. Behavior of high strength square CFT columns. In: Proceedings 6th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, Washington, 31 May4 June 1998. Oakland, California: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. 1998.

This book presents an excellent summary of the state-of-the-art of composite structures in general, and includes a short section on the behavior and design of concrete-lled steel tubes.
[26] Galambos TV (ed). Guide to stability design criteria for metal structures. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 1998. [27] Kloppel K & Goder W. Collapse load tests on concrete lled steel tubes and derivation of a design formula. 1957: Der Stahlbau 26(1): 110 (in German). [28] Salani HR & Sims JR. Behavior of mortar-lled steel tubes in compression. Journal of the American Concrete Institute 1964: 61(10): 12711283. [29] Gardner NJ. Use of spiral welded steel tubes in pipe columns. Journal of the American Concrete Institute 1968: 65(11): 937942. * [30] Matsui C, Tsuda K & Ishibashi Y. Slender concrete-lled steel tubular columns under combined compression and bending. In: Shanmugam NE & Choo YS (eds) Proceedings 4th Pacic Structural Steel Conference, 2527 October 1995, Singapore. Vol 3. New York: Pergamon, Elsevier Science. 1995: 2936.

This paper reports some of the rst tests that have been conducted at fullscale on concrete-lled steel tubes having high strength steel and concrete. The reported tests are for monotonic loading. Related cyclic tests are pending.
[13] Kawano A & Matsui C. New connections using vertical stiffeners between h-shaped beams and hollow or concrete-lled square tubular columns. In: Buckner CD & Shahrooz BM (eds) Composite construction in steel and concrete III. New York: ASCE. 1997. 172185. ** [14] Kawaguchi J, Morino S & Sugimoto T. Elastoplastic behavior of concrete-lled steel tubular frames. In: Buckner CD & Shahrooz BM (eds) Composite construction in steel and concrete III. New York: ASCE. 1997. 272281.

Results are reported for cyclic tests of portal frames consisting of steel I-girders framing rigidly into concrete-lled steel tube beamcolumns. In some tests, the CFTs are designed to fail, while in others the connection is designed to fail.
* [15] Hajjar JF, Gourley BC & Olson MC. A cyclic nonlinear model for concrete-lled tubes. I formulation. II verication. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 1997: 123(6): 736754.

This paper is one of several from Japanese researchers which provide interaction diagrams created from tests of CFTs of varying lengths subjected to combined axial force plus exure.
[31] Knowles RB & Park R. Strength of concrete lled steel tubular columns. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE 1969: 95(ST12): 25652587. [32] Knowles RB & Park R. Axial load design for concrete lled steel tubes. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE 1970: 96(ST10): 21252153. [33] Bridge RQ. Concrete lled steel tubular columns. Report No R283. Sydney, Australia: School of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney. 1976. [34] Lu YQ & Kennedy DJL. The exural behaviour of concrete-lled hollow structural sections. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 1994: 21(1): 111130. [35] Toshiyuki F, Noguchi T & Mori O. Evaluation of deformation capacity of concrete-lled steel tubular (CFT) beamcolumns. In: 3rd Joint Technical Coordinating Committee Meeting on Composite and Hybrid Structures, Hong Kong, 1214 December 1996. [36] Sakino K & Ishibashi H. Experimental studies on concrete lled square steel tubular short columns subjected to cyclic shearing force and constant axial force. Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering, Transactions of the Architectural Institute of Japan 1985: 353: 8189. [37] Furlong RW. Design of steel-encased concrete beamcolumns. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE 1968: 94(1): 267281. [38] Hajjar JF & Gourley BC. Representation of concrete-lled tube crosssection strength. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 1996: 122(11): 13271336. [39] Tomii M & Sakino K. Experimental studies on the ultimate moment of concrete lled square steel tubular beamcolumns. Transactions of the Architectural Institute of Japan 1979: 275: 5563.

This paper presents an efcient nite element for modeling concrete-lled steel tube beamcolumns subjected to static or dynamic loading. The formulation is based on a concentrated plasticity model that is geared for analyzing complete braced or unbraced composite CFT frame structures.
* [16] Hajjar JF, Molodan A & Schiller PH. A distributed plasticity model for cyclic analysis of concrete-lled steel tube beamcolumns and composite frames. Engineering Structures 1998: 20(46): 398412.

A nite element representing the detailed behavior of concrete-lled steel tube beamcolumns is presented in this work. The model accounts for slip between the steel and concrete, and tracks the cyclic stressstrain behavior throughout the cross-section and along the length of the CFT. The formulation may be used to model steel I-girders framing into CFTs either in subassemblages or in complete braced or unbraced composite CFT frames subjected to cyclic loading.

Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2000; 2: 7281

80
[40] Tsuda K, Matsui C & Mino E. Strength and behavior of slender concrete lled steel tubular columns. In: Stability problems in designing, construction and rehabilitation of metal structures Proceedings 5th International Colloquium on Structural Stability, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 57 August 1996. Bethlehem, Pennsylvania: Structural Stability Research Council. 1996. 489500. * [41] Aho MF & Leon RT. A database for encased and concrete-lled columns. Report No 97-01. Atlanta, Georgia: School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology. 1997.

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

* [60] Liu Z & Goel SC. Cyclic load behavior of concrete-lled tubular braces. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 1988: 114(7): 14881506.

This paper summarizes the results from cyclic experiments conducted on both hollow and concrete-lled tubular braces.
[61] Kawano A & Matsui C. Buckling behavior and aseismic properties of concrete-lled tubular members under cyclic axial loading. In: Buckner CD & Shahrooz BM (eds) Composite construction in steel and concrete III. New York: ASCE. 1997. 602615. [62] Matsui C & Tsuda K. Strength and behavior of concrete-lled steel square tubular columns with large widththickness ratio. In: Proceedings of the Pacic Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Wairakei, New Zealand, 58 August 1987. Vol 2. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering 1987: 19. [63] Fujimoto T, Nishiyama I, Mukai A et al. Test results of concrete lled steel tubular beamcolumns. In: 3rd Joint Technical Coordinating Committee Meeting on Composite and Hybrid Structures, Hong Kong, 1214 December 1996. ** [64] Tomii M. Ductile and strong columns composed of steel tube, inlled concrete and longitudinal steel bars. In: Wakabayashi M (ed) Proceedings 3rd International Conference on SteelConcrete Composite Structures, Fukuoka, Japan, 2629 September 1991. Tokyo: Association for International Cooperation and Research in SteelConcrete Composite Structures. 1991. 3966.

This report provides a comprehensive listing of available experimental test data on CFTs subjected to monotonic loading, summarizes current US and Eurocode design provisions, and proposes new, more comprehensive design procedures for CFTs within the context of the US specications. A thorough reliability assessment of the new design procedure versus test data is presented.
[42] Shakir-Khalil H & Zeghiche Z. Experimental behavior of concretelled rolled rectangular hollow section columns. The Structural Engineer 1989: 67(19): 346353. [43] Shakir-Khalil H & Mouli M. Further tests on concrete-lled rectangular hollow-section columns. The Structural Engineer 1989: 68(20): 405413. [44] Shakir-Khalil H. Tests on concrete-lled hollow section columns. In: Wakabayashi M (ed) Proceedings 3rd International Conference on SteelConcrete Composite Structures, Fukuoka, Japan, 2629 September 1991. Tokyo: Association for International Cooperation and Research in SteelConcrete Composite Structures. 1991. 8994. [45] Ichinohe Y, Matsutani T, Nakajima M et al. Elastoplastic behavior of concrete lled steel circular columns. In: Wakabayashi M (ed) Proceedings 3rd International Conference on SteelConcrete Composite Structures, Fukuoka, Japan, 2629 September 1991. Tokyo: Association for International Cooperation and Research in SteelConcrete Composite Structures. 1991. 131136. [46] Kitada T. Ductility and ultimate strength of concrete-lled steel members. In: Fukumoto Y & Lee GC (eds) Stability and ductility of steel structures under cyclic loading. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. 1992. 139148. [47] Lee G, Jishan X, An G & Zhang KC. Experimental studies on concrete-lled tubular short columns subjected under compression and torsion. In: Wakabayashi M (ed) Proceedings 3rd International Conference on SteelConcrete Composite Structures, Fukuoka, Japan, 2629 September 1991. Tokyo: Association for International Cooperation and Research in SteelConcrete Composite Structures. 1991. 143148. [48] Nakai H, Kurita A & Ichinose LH. An experimental study on creep of concrete lled steel pipes. In: Wakabayashi M (ed) Proceedings 3rd International Conference on SteelConcrete Composite Structures, Fukuoka, Japan, 2629 September 1991. Tokyo: Association for International Cooperation and Research in SteelConcrete Composite Structures. 1991. 5565. [49] Terrey PJ, Bradford MA & Gilbert RI. Creep and shrinkage in concrete-lled tubes. Grundy P, Holgate A & Wong W (eds) Tubular structures VI. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Balkema. 1994. 293298. [50] Oehlers DJ & Bradford MA. Composite steel and concrete structural members: fundamental behavior. New York: Pergamon Press, Elsevier Science. 1995. [51] Virdi PJ & Dowling KS. Bond strength in concrete-lled steel tubes. In: IABSE Periodica 3/1980, IABSE Proceedings P-33/80. 1980. 125139. [52] Shakir-Khalil H. Resistance of concrete-lled steel tubes to pushout forces. The Structural Engineer 1993: 71(13): 234243. [53] Roeder CW, Chmielowski R & Brown CB. Unpublished observations, 1998. [54] Morishita Y, Tomii M & Yoshimura K. Experimental studies on bond strength in concrete lled circular steel tubular columns subjected to axial loads. Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute 1979: 1: 351358. [55] Morishita Y, Tomii M & Yoshimura K. Experimental studies on bond strength in concrete lled square and octagonal steel tubular columns subjected to axial loads. Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute 1979: 1: 359366. [56] Dunberry E, LeBlanc D & Redwood RG. Cross-section strength of concrete-lled HSS columns at simple beam connections. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 1987: 14: 408417. [57] Shakir-Khalil H. Beam connections to concrete-lled tubes. In: Grundy P, Holgate A & Wong W (eds) Tubular Structures VI. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Balkema. 1994. 357364. [58] Sherman DR. Tubular members. In: Dowling PJ, Harding JE & Bjorhovde R (eds) Constructional steel design: an international guide. London, UK: Elsevier Applied Science. 1992. 91104. [59] Sully RM & Hancock GJ. Behaviour of cold-formed SHS beamcolumns. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 1996: 112(3): 326336.

This comprehensive paper summarizes the results from experiments and analyses on the monotonic and cyclic behavior of concrete-lled steel tubes, as conducted by Japanese researchers during the 1970s and 1980s.
* [65] Matsui C. Strength and deformation capacity of frames composed of wide ange beams and concrete lled square steel tubular columns. In: Proceedings 1st Pacic Structural Steel Conference, Auckland, New Zealand, 48 August 1986. Vol 2. Manukau City, New Zealand: New Zealand Heavy Engineering Research Association. 1986. 169181

This author and his colleagues have done a large amount of testing on concrete-lled steel tubes subjected to cyclic axial and exural loading, including the set of tests reported in this article, which include studies of portal frames consisting of steel I-girders framing rigidly into CFT beamcolumns and subjected to cyclic loading.
[66] Ricles JM, Lu LW & Peng SW. Cyclic behavior of CFT columnWF beam connections. In: Proceedings Annual Technical Session and Meeting, Toronto, Canada, 911 June 1997. Bethlehem, Pennsylvania: Structural Stability Research Council. 1997. 369390. [67] Azizinamini A, Shekar Y & Saadeghvaziri MA. Design of through beam connection detail for circular composite columns. Engineering Structures 1995: 17(3): 209213. [68] Schneider SP & Alostaz YM. Experimental behavior of connections to concrete-lled steel tubes. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1998: 45(3): 321352. [69] Kawaguchi J, Morino S & Ueda M. Analysis of elastoplastic behaviour of concrete-lled steel tubular three-dimensional subassemblages. In: Kitipornchai S, Hancock GJ & Bradford MA (eds) Structural Stability and Design: Proceedings International Conference on Structural Stability and Design, Sydney, Australia, 30 October1 November 1995. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Balkema. 1995. 295300. [70] Inai E & Sakino K. Simulation of exural behavior of square concrete lled steel tubular columns. In: 3rd Joint Technical Coordinating Committee Meeting on Composite and Hybrid Structures, Hong Kong, 1214 December 1996. [71] Hajjar JF, Schiller PH & Molodan A. A distributed plasticity model for concrete-lled steel tube beamcolumns with interlayer slip. Engineering Structures 1998: 20(8): 663676. * [72] Association for International Cooperation and Research in SteelConcrete Composite Structures. Concrete-lled steel tubes: a comparison of international codes and practices. Innsbruck, Austria, 18 September 1997, Tokyo: Association for International Cooperation and Research in SteelConcrete Composite Structures. 1997.

The papers in this seminar provide a summary of the state-of-the-art of design of concrete-lled steel tubes in many countries around the world, including Eurocode, the US, Japan, China, Australia and others.
[73] Picard A & Beaulieu D. Resistance of concrete-lled hollow structural sections. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 1997: 24(5): 785789. [74] Roik K & Bergmann R. Composite columns. In: Dowling PJ, Harding JE & Bjorhovde R (eds) Constructional steel design: an international guide. London, UK: Elsevier Applied Science. 1992. 443469. [75] Comit Europen de Normalisation. Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures (ENV 1994-1-1). Brussels: CEN. 1994.

Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2000; 2: 7281

SITE RESPONSE AND VERTICAL SEISMIC ARRAYS

[76] Wakabayashi M. Standards for the design of concrete encased-steel and concrete-lled tubular structures in japan. In: Proceedings USJapan Seminar on Composite Structures and Mixed Structural Systems, Gihodo Shuppan, Tokyo. 1980. 6984. [77] Tsuda K, Matsui C, Zien El Din H et al. Design method of slender concrete lled steel tubular columns steelconcrete composite structures. In: Javor T (ed) Proceedings 4th International Conference on SteelConcrete Composite Structures (Association for International Cooperation and Research in SteelConcrete Composite Structures) Kosice, Slovakia, 2023 June 1994. Bratislava, Slovakia: Expertcentrum. 1994. 8891. [78] Architectural Institute of Japan. Recommendations for the design and fabrication of tubular structures in steel. Tokyo: Architectural Institute of Japan. 1990. [79] Mitani I, Matsui C, Kawano A et al. Comparison of several codes for concrete lled tubular beamcolumns. In: Concrete-lled steel tubes: a comparison of international codes and practices. Innsbruck, Austria, 18 September 1997. Tokyo: Association for International Cooperation and Research in SteelConcrete Composite Structures. 1997. 125134. [80] American Concrete Institute. Building code requirements for reinforced concrete (ACI 318-89). Detroit, Michigan: American Concrete Institute. 1989. [81] British Standards Institution. BS 5400, Part 5, Concrete and composite bridges. London: British Standards Institution. 1979.

81

* [82] Lundberg JE & Galambos TV. Load and resistance factor design of composite columns. Structural Safety 1996: 18(23): 169177.

This report compares the strength predictions of US design specications with test results for concrete-lled steel tube beamcolumns subjected to monotonic loading. It shows large scatter in the strength predictions relative to tests, and recommends that more comprehensive design provisions for CFTs be developed.
[83] Grimault JP & Janss J. Reduction of the bearing capacity of concrete lled hollow sections due to local buckling. In: Proceedings European Convention for Constructional Steelwork Colloquium on Stability of Steel Structures, Preliminary Report. Liege, Belgium: European Convention for Constructional Steelwork. 1977. 175179. [84] O'Shea MD & Bridge RQ. The design for local buckling of concrete lled steel tubes. In: Proceedings IABSE Symposium on Composite construction conventional and innovative, 1618 September 1997, Innsbruck, Austria. Zurich, Switzerland: IABSE. 1997. 319324. [85] Lie TT & Irwin RJ. Fire resistance of steel columns lled with barreinforced concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 1996: 122(1): 3036. [86] Kodur VKR. Simplied design of concrete-lled hollow structural steel columns for re endurance. In: Proceedings 1998 National Steel Construction Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, 13 April 1998. Chicago, Illinois: AISC. 1998. 22-1-22-21.

Jerome F Hajjar PhD Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, 500 Pillsbury Drive SE, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, USA E-mail: hajjar@struc.ce.umn.edu

Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2000; 2: 7281