BEHAVIOUR OF CONCRETE FILLED STAINLESS STEEL TUBULAR

(CFSST) COLUMN UNDER AXIAL COMPRESSIVE LOAD.

Md. Abdul Bari, Md. Soebur Rahman

ABSTRACT
Concrete filled stainless steel tubes (CFSST) has gained attention to the structural engineers in
the construction industry. CFSST considered as a comparatively new and innovative kind of
composite structure due to enhanced mechanical properties compared to mild steel such as
higher strength and ductility, corrosion resistance, aesthetic, better fire resistance and low
maintenance cost. Stainless steel demonstrates different stress- strain (-) response without a
well-defined yield stress with significant strain hardening. Therefore, traditional elastic-
perfectly plastic material model could not capture the actual behaviour of stainless steel leading
to a conservative prediction of the capacity. This paper presents a detailed experimental and
numerical study on the compressive behaviour of stainless steel concrete-filled steel tubular
columns subjected to concentric loading. Numerical models are developed using general
purpose finite element (FE) software ABAQUS and have been validated using the experimental
data as well as available recently published test results. The developed FE models include both
material and geometric nonlinearities, enhanced corner strength properties, initial
imperfections and residual stresses. The FE models predict the experimental load-deformation
curve, ultimate strength and failure modes with good accuracy. Once the FE modelling is
validated, a detailed parametric study is conducted to generate more results to investigate the
compressive behaviour of stainless steel concrete-filled steel tubular columns. The parametric
study includes varying concrete strength and sections with different stainless steel grade, as
well as variations in load eccentricity and column slenderness ratio. Finally, the numerical
results are compared with the existing AISC and EC4 guidelines, which clearly shows the
conservative nature of code predictions.

I. INTRODUCTION
Application of stainless steel in construction industry has opened a new arena of research
and increasing interest day by day throughout the world. [1]. Composite column refers to any
compression member in which a steel element acts compositely with concrete element, so that
both elements resist compressive force [3]. In contrast to the encased composite column the
concrete filled column offers several significant advantages over structural behavior of carbon
steel structure. 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 192 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 behavior 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.

II.EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
An experimental investigation was conducted to assess the compressive response, 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 0.2% 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

B. 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 Height Concrete Stainless Ratio
no Designation D (mm) B (mm) steel h mm area steel area As/Ac
Thickness Ac (mm2) As (mm2)
t (mm)
1 SC50.8x50.8 50.8 50.8 1.5 152.4 2284.84 295.8 0.1294
2 SC63.5x63.5 63.5 63.5 1.5 190.5 3660.25 372 0.1016
3 SC7.26x76.2 76.2 76.2 1.5 228.6 5358.24 448.2 0.0836
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 0.1063
6 SC101.6x76.2 101.6 76.2 1.5 228.6 7217.52 524.4 0.0726
7 SC_Dia_101.6 Dia =101.6 mm 1.5 304.8 7631.739 471.47 0.0617
8 SC_Dia_76.2 Dia =76.2 mm 1.5 228.6 3802.666 334.88 0.0880

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.

IV. 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 CFSST columns. The damage plasticity
model in ABAQUS was used to simulate the concrete material behaviour in the composite
columns.

A. Materials Modeling of 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 strain 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:
Note: Where the Ramberg–Osgood expression was used for the range up to the 0.2% proof
stress.

B. 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

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.
 V. COMPARISON BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL AND NUMERICAL RESULTS

FE model of CFSST test specimen’s 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 subsequent 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: 3.

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.

TABLE-III

Experimental and Numerical Behavior 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
Exp_Hollow Exp_30 Mpa 300000 Exp_40MPa Exp_30MPa
300000
Exp_40_Mpa Exp_50_MPa
250000

Axial load (N)

250000
Axial Load (N)

200000
200000
150000
150000
100000
100000
50000
50000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
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
400000 800000
Exp_Hollow Exp_30MPa Exp Hollow Exp_30MPa

Exp_40MPa Num_Hollow Exp_40MPa Num_Hollow

300000 600000
Axial Load (N)

Axial Load (N)

Num_30MPa Num_40MPa Num_30MPa num_40MPa

200000 400000

100000
200000

0
0
0 5 10 15 20
0 10 Deflection
20 (mm) 30 40
Deflection (mm)

Fig. 3 Experimental and Numerical Behaviour of Column Groups

 TABLE IV
COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL AND NUMERICAL RESULTS OF VARING
CONCRETE STRENGTH.

Ser Specimen Conc Peak axial load PExp/P Experimental Numerical exp/
No Designation Strength PExp PNum Num Peak load Peak load num
f c’ (KN) (KN) Strain exp(µε) Strain
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 191 206 0.927 6070 6457 0.940
50 MPa 224 241 0.926 6441 6272 1.027

Hollow 137 126 1.087 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

Hollow 158 171 0.925 4573 4486 1.019

30 MPa 391 358 1.09 4736 4809 0.985
3 SC_76.2x76.2
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 266 287 0.926 4773 4767 1.001
50 MPa

Hollow 132 121 1.09 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 177 173 1.02 11429 12802 0.893

30 MPa 478 444 1.076 12685 13201 0.961
6 SC_Dia_101.6
40 MPa 552 535 1.032 12278 9250 1.327
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 to experimental capacities, Pexp /Pnum ranges from 0.93 to 1.07 and
corresponding standard deviation 0.062 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 0.083. 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.
COMPARISON OF RECENTLY PUBLISHED EXPERIMENTAL AND FE MODELS
TABLE-V
GEOMETRICAL AND MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF TEST SPECIMENS ( Tao
et al-2011)
Sl Specimens Dimension Properties of Stainless Properties of Concrete
no Designation (Square Steel
(Tao et al) Column) BxtxL Ec fc  E0 0.2 n
(mm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
1 S20-50x3-A 51x2.85x150 21795 21.5 0.2 207900 440 8.2

2 S20-100x5-A 101x5.05x300 21795 21.5 0.2 202100 435 7

3 S30-100x3-A 101x2.85x300 27765 34.9 0.2 195700 358 8.3

4 S30-150x3A 152x2.85x450 27765 34.9 0.2 192600 268 6.8

5 SHS1C40 150.5x5.83x450 32084 46.6 0.2 194000 497 3

6 SHS-5-C60 100x4.9x300 34216 53 0.2 180000 458 3.7

TABLE-VI
COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL (Tao) AND NUMERICAL (Self) RESULTS OF
VARING CONCRETE STRENGTH

Ser Specimen Conc Peak axial PExp/P Exp Peak Num Peak exp/
No Designation Strength load Num load Strain load Strain num
fc’(MPa) Pexp PNum exp(µε) num (µε)
(KN) (KN)
1 S20-50x3-A 21.5 363 378 0.960 10000 10300 0.969
2 S20-100x5-A 21.5 1360 1290 1.054 9800 9500 1.018
3 S30-100x3-A 34.9 764 791 1.056 4630 4900 1.017
4 S30-150x3-A 34.9 1078 1203 0.892 1700 4000 0.425
5 SHS1C40 46.6 2745 3029 0.906 10000 10000 1.000
6 SHS-5-C60 53 1565 1499 1.044 7700 8300 0.928
 S20-50x3-A (51x2.85x150) S20-100x5-A (101x5.05x300)
500 FE (Self) FE (Tao) Tao Exp Tao FE Tao Experinment Self
1600

400 1400
Axial Load(KN)

1200

Axial Laod KN
300 1000
800
200
600
400
100
200
0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
Strain Axial Strain

S30-100x3-A (100x2.85x300) S30-150x3-A(152x2.85x450)

Tao FE Self FE Self FE Tao Exp Tao FE
1000 1400
1200
800 Axial Load (KN)
Axial Load KN

1000
600 800
600
400
400
200 200

0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Axial Stain Axial Strain

SHS-1C40 (100x2x300) 2000

SHS-5-C60 (100x4.9x300)
3500 Tao Exp Self FE Tao FE Self FE Tao Exp

3000
Axial Load (KN)

1500
Axial Load (KN)

2500
2000 1000
1500
500
1000
500
0
0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
0 0.01 Axial0.03
0.02 Strain
0.04 0.05 0.06 Axial Strain

Fig-4. Experimental (Tao et ai) and Numerical Behaviour of Column Groups

VI. FAILURE MODES

The failure modes of CFSST 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. Experimentally, it is observed that
concrete crushing occurred before yielding of the stainless steel plate. Similar failure behavior
was obtained in the nonlinear FE simulation of CFSST columns under axial loads. The common
failure pattern is shown in Fig.

Square CFSST Column Circular CFSST Column

Fig.-5. Experimental Failure Pattern

Square CFSST Column Circular CFSST Column

Fig.-6, Numerical Failure Pattern

VI. CONCLUSIONS

Experimental analysis 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 CFSST columns under concentric gravity loads with good accuracy.
[1] Zhong Tao, Brain Uy, Fei-Yu Liao, Lin_hai Han , Non linear analysis of concrete filled
square stainless steel stub column under axial compression.

[3] M.A. Dabaon, M.H El Bodhdadi, M.F. Hassanein. Experimental investigation on concrete
filled stainless steelnstiffened tubular stub 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 (2009)
[2] Gardner L. The use of stainless steel in 300–307.
structures. Prog Struct Eng Mater [20] E. Ellobody, M.F. Ghazy, Experimental
2005;7(2):45–55. investigation of eccentrically loaded fibre
reinforced concrete-filled stainless-steel
[3] Johansson M. Composite action and tubular columns, J. Constr. Steel Res. 76
confinement effects in tubular steel (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) 81–93. [24] F. Zhou, W. Xu, Cyclic loading tests on
concrete-filled double-skin (SHS outer and
[7] Y. Chen, R. Feng, Y. Shao, X. Zhang, CHS inner) stainless steel tubular beam-
Bond-slip behaviour of concrete-filled columns, Eng. Struct. 127 (2016) 304–318.
stainless steel circular hollow section tubes,
J. Constr. Steel Res. 130 (2017) 248–263. [25] M.R. Bambach, Design of hollow and
concrete filled steel and stainless-steel
[8] T.Y. Song, Z. Tao, L.H. Han, B. Uy, tubular columns for transverse impact loads,
Bond behavior of concrete-filled steel tubes Thin-Walled Struct. 49 (10) (2011) 1251–
at elevated temperatures, J. Struct. Eng. 1260.
ASCE 143 (11) (2017) 04017147.
[26] M. Yousuf, B. Uy, Z. Tao, A.
[9] B. Uy, Z. Tao, L.H. Han, Behaviour of Remennikov, J.R. Liew, Transverse impact
short and slender concrete-filled stainless- resistance of hollow and concrete filled
steel tubular columns, J. Constr. Steel Res. stainless steel columns, J. Constr. Steel Res.
67 (3) (2011) 360–378. 82 (82) (2013) 177–189.

[10] D. Lam, L. Gardner, Structural design [27] M. Yousuf, B. Uy, Z. Tao, A.

of stainless-steel concrete filled columns, J. Remennikov, J.R. Liew, Impact behaviour
Constr. Steel Res. 64 (11) (2008) 1275– of pre-compressedhollow and concrete filled
1282.
 mild and stainless-steel columns, J. Constr.
[11] B. Young, E. Ellobody, Experimental Steel Res. 96 (96) (2014) 54–68.
investigation of concrete-filled cold-formed
high strength stainless steel tube columns, J. [23] L.H. Han, F. Chen, F.Y. Liao, Z. Tao,
Constr. Steel Res. 62 (5) (2006) 484–492. B. Uy, Fire performance of concrete filled
[12] Y.F. Yang, G.L. Ma, Experimental stainless steel tubular columns, Eng. Struct.
behaviour of recycled aggregate concrete 56 (2013) 165–181.
filled stainless steel tube stub columns and
beams, Thin-Walled Struct. 66 (2013) 62– [28] Z. Tao, M. Ghannam, T.Y. Song, L.H.
75. Han, Experimental and numerical
investigation of concrete-filled stainless-
[13] V.W.Y. Tam, Z.B.Wang, Z. Tao, steel columns exposed to fire, J. Constr.
Behaviour of recycled aggregate concrete Steel Res. 118 (2016) 120–134.
filled stainless steel stub columns, Mater.
Struct. 47 (1–2) (2014) 293–310. [29] Z. Tao, M.K. Hassana, T.Y. Song, L.H.
Han, Experimental study on blind bolted
[14] Y.L. Li, X.L. Zhao, R.K.R. Singh, S. connections to concrete-filled stainless-steel
Al-Saadi, Experimental study on seawater columns, J. Constr. Steel Res. 128 (2017)
and sea sand concrete filled GFRP and 825–838.
stainless-steel tubular stub columns, Thin-
Walled Struct. 106 (2016) 390–406. [30] R. Feng, B. Young, Tests of concrete-
filled stainless-steel tubular T-joints, J.
[15] Y.L. Li, X.L. Zhao, R.K.R. Singh, S. Constr. Steel Res. 64 (11) (2008) 1283–
Al-Saadi, Tests on seawater and sea sand 1293.
concrete filled CFRP, BFRP and stainless-
steel tubular stub columns, Thin-Walled [31] R. Feng, B. Young, Behaviour of
Struct. 108 (2016) 163–184. concrete-filled stainless-steel tubular X-
joints subjected to compression, Thin-
[16] L.H. Han, Q.X. Ren, W. Li, Tests on Walled Struct. 47 (4) (2009) 365–374.
stub stainless steel-concrete-carbon steel
double skintubular (DST) columns, J. [32] T.Y. Song, Z. Tao, A. Razzazzadeh,
Constr. Steel Res. 67 (3) (2011) 437–452. L.H. Han, K. Zhou, Fire performance of
[17] F. Wang, B. Young, L. Gardner, blind bolted composite beam to column
Experimental investigation of concrete- joints, J. Constr. Steel Res. 132 (2017) 29–
filled double skin tubular stub columns with 42.
stainless steel outer tubes, Proceedings of
the 8th InternationalConference on Steel [33] Ellobody E, Young B. Design and
and Aluminum Structures. Hong Kong, behaviour of concrete-filled cold-formed
China, 2016. stainless-steel tube columns. Eng Struct
2006;28(5):716–28.
[18] Y. Ye, L.H. Han, T. Sheehan, Z.X.
Guo, Concrete-filled bimetallic tubes under [34] Ellobody E. Nonlinear behaviour of
axial compression: experimental concrete-filled stainless steel stiffened
investigation, Thin-Walled Struct. 108 slender tube columns. Thin-Walled Struct
(2017) 321–332. 2007;45(3):259–73.

[35] Han LH, Yao GH, Tao Z. Performance

[28] Samani AK, Attard MM. A stress– of concrete-filled thin-walled steel
strain model for uniaxial and confined tubesunder pure torsion. Thin-Walled
concrete under compression. Eng Struct Struct2007;45(1):24–36.
2012;41:335–49
 [29] De Nicolo B, Pani L, Pozzo E. Strain
of concrete at peak compressive stress for a
wide range of compressive strengths.
Mater Struct 1994;27(4):206–10.
[30] Binici B. An analytical model for
stress–strain behavior of confined concrete.
Eng Struct 2005;27(7):1040–51.
[36] Lam D, Dai XH, Han LH, Ren QX, Li
W. Behaviour of inclined, tapered and STS
square CFST stub columns subjected to axial
load. Thin-Walled Struct 2012;54:94–105.
[37] Schneider SP. Axially loaded concrete-
filled steel tubes. J Struct Eng,
ASCE1998;124(10):1125–38.

[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 Reference Outcome
Significant Strength L. Gardner, D.A. The strength enhancement of stainless steel
enhancement at the Nethercot, at the corner regions is 20-100% in terms of
corner regions of JCSR. 60 (9) 0.2% proof strength compared with the flat
cold formed section. (2004) 1291–1318. regions.

a decrease in the ultimate strain εu,c is

X.Q. Wang, Z. observed for the corner material of cold-
Tao, T.Y. Song, formed hollow sections.
L.H. Han. JCSR.
99 (8) (2014) 129– To predict σ–ε curves for corner regions of
139. square/rectangular
tubes. This model expressed by Eq.
Wang et al.

Effect of residual Ashraf et al. and the residual stresses cause only a small
stress in stress-strain Gardner and reduction in initial
curve 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. the residual stresses
Wang, may be ignored in modelling CFSST
Thin-Walled columns.
Struct.
47 (12) (2009)
1544–1556.
Effect of Strain rate Uy et al Much higher strain rate sensitivity is found in
of stainless steel 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
FABIG Technical under the stain rate of 0.005 s−1.
Note 5, UK, 1999.
Due to the significant strain rate sensitivity
and high ductility 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
Thermal properties Eurocode 3 stainless steel has a lower emissivity than
and stress-strain carbon steel. (0.4 and 0.7).
behabiour of Stainless steel retains much higher strength
stainless steel in fire. at a comparatively large deformation due to
the effect of strain-hardening and good
ductility.
Bond behavior of Tao et al (2016). Average surface roughness (Ra) value of a
concrete- filled stainless steel tube about a half of that of the
stainless steel tube. carbon steel. For this reason, bond strengths
between the stainless steel tube and concrete
in CFSST columns decreased by 32% to 69%
Chen et al (2017). compared with the bond strengths in
conventional CFST columns.

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
Static performance Uy et al The failure modes of CFSST columns are
of concrete filled generally similar to those of conventional
stainless steel carbon steel CFST columns. But due to the
tubular column 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
Yang and Ma et al compression and bending and about 11.1–
and Chen et al. 25.5% for slender columns, respectively.

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 Liao et al CFSST columns showed very plump lateral
performance of load versus lateral deflection (P–Δ)
concrete filled responses, indicating a high energy
stainless steel dissipation ability indicate tensile fracture
tubular column 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.

E0 C8 2.0 2.0 H0 A2 n2 B2 fy
Respected - Panel members, Instructor, my supervisor and experts on particular
subject. Assalamualykum and good afternoon.
At the very outset of my presentation I would like to take the privilege to express my
sincere gratitude and thanks to MIST authority and all concern to give me the opportunity to
present in front of you. The aim of this presentation is to apprise you about the behavior of
CFSST column under axial compression and get your suggestion, guide line and very
valuable comments to enrich my paper.
The presentation would be unfolded as the sequence flashed on screen:
 Introduction ( In short).
 Advantages of concrete-filled stainless steel tubular (CFSST) column.
 (Few) Literature Review.
 Research Significance.
 Objective of the Research.
 Possible Outcome.
 Methodology (Of Research).
 Comparison among experimental numerical and code predicted capacity.
 Future works (Parametric study).
You all know
Recently the interest of using concrete filled tube (CFT) is accelerating in modern
construction practice throughout the world, particularly in Australia and the Far East (East
Asia: China, Japan, North/South Korea, Taiwan). The term ‘composite column’ refers to a
compression member in which the steel and concrete elements act compositely. The role of
the concrete core in a composite column is not only to resist compressive forces but also to
reduce the potential for buckling of the steel member.
(Few typical sections of composite columns as shown in the slide)
A concrete-filled stainless steel tubular (CFSST) member consists of stainless steel tube of
square, rectangular, circular or any other reasonable cross-section filled with plain or
reinforced concrete.
(Here in slide few typical sections of CFSST is shown)

ADVANTAGES:

CFSST columns has got lot of advantages over CFST and conventional reinforced column
few of them as follows:
a. It combines the full potentiality of both stainless steel and concrete for static
and cyclic load resistance properties.
b. It provides more strength, extremely durable and easily maintained.
c. More ductile than carbon steel.
d. (Its offer) Better energy and impact absorption resistance or delay local
buckling.
 e. It provides a good combination of corrosion resistance, weldability, forming
and fabrication properties.
f. (It has got) Improved fire resistance up to 1100°C.
g. (It presents better) Aesthetic exposed surface.
h. Significant savings in column size, lead to additional floor space.
i. (and Finally) No formwork.

Literature Review:

Recently published number of renowned papers have been consulted to investigate the
behavior of CFSST members. The following notes on those papers are presented here for
your kind information/consumption:

(You very well know) Currently, stainless steel square or rectangular sections are mainly
formed by cold rolling and there is significant strength enhancement at the corner regions of
cold-formed sections and this effect is more in stainless steel.
According to L Gardner and Nethercot:
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.
As well as findings from Wang & Tao:
Decrease in the ultimate strain εu,c is observed for the corner material of cold-formed
hollow sections.
Effect of residual stress in stress-strain curve:
According to Ashraf et al. and Gardner and Nethercot:
The residual stresses cause only a small reduction in initial stiffness but have little influence
on the overall load deformation response for a stainless steel column.
and Tao concluded that: The residual stresses may be ignored in modelling CFSST columns.

Strain rate of stainless steel, According to Uy et al :

Much higher strain rate sensitivity is found in the stainless steel material. Although the
stainless steel showed much higher ductility than the carbon steel.
FABIG (Fire and Blast information Group) Technical Note 5, UK, 1999:
Due to the significant strain rate sensitivity and high ductility 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
Thermal properties and stress-strain behaviour of stainless steel in fire: According to
Eurocode-3 :
Stainless steel retains much higher strength at a comparatively large deformation due to the
effect of strain-hardening and good ductility.
Bond behavior of concrete- (filled stainless steel tube) According to Tao et al:
Average surface roughness (Ra) value of a stainless steel tube about a half of that of the
carbon steel accordingly bond strengths in CFSST columns decreased by 32% to 69%.
According to Chen et al (2017): About 70% of the bond strength is the contribution of
interface friction force, remaining 30% from chemical adhesive force and the mechanical
interlock force.

Static performance of concrete filled stainless steel tubular column: (Uy et al):

The failure modes similar to the CFST. But due to the higher ductility, CFSST shown 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.

The axial shortening as high as 20% without fracture due to the high ductility.

Yang and Ma et al and Chen et al:

Circular and rectangular CFSST member 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.

Dynamic performance of concrete filled stainless steel tubular column, (Liao et al):

CFSST columns provide very wide (plump) lateral load versus lateral deflection (P–Δ)
responses, indicating a high energy dissipation and less likely to tensile fracture to occur
after the application of the cyclic loading.

Research Significance:

 (we all know, Still) CFSST structural applications and research is quite limited. (so
need to exploit in this particular field).

 Limited study has been conducted with varying different mechanical and geometric
parameters.

 Hardly found any study on CFSST column with high strength concrete in combination
with different grade of steel.

 Existing codes (AISC/ANSI & KBC) restrict the strength of materials (for CFT) 𝑓′𝑐 =21-
70 MPa and fy =525/650 Mpa. ( ANSI- American National Standard Institute & AISC-
American Institute of steel construction.
  (So far it is observed that) Existing Code prediction capacity is much conservative.

 (Need to find accurate) influencing parameters affecting the capacity of CFSST

column.

 Formulation of equation to predict the cross sectional capacity of CFSST column.

Objectives

 To develop a nonlinear 3D finite elements models of CFSST using ABAQUS.

 To determine the influence of mechanical and geometric properties on the

behavior and strength of CFSST columns.

 To propose a prediction formula for sectional capacity of CFSST column based on

existing design codes of conventional CFST column.

Possible Outcome:

 Provide a comprehensive idea about the behaviour and axial load carrying capacity.

 Develop a formula to calculate the capacity of CFSST column.

 It may help to take the advantages of using CFSST column for the construction of
bridges and high-rise buildings.

 This study may also guide a sustainable design concept in seismic prone and coastal
areas.

Methodology:

 Preparation of specimens of (CFSST) columns by using different grade of concrete

and shape & size of columns.

 Examine the behaviour (load carrying capacity, failure behaviour, deflection

pattern) of 24 CFSST by applying concentric load with UTM.( Universal Testing
Machine)

 Developing numerical FE model by using ABAQUS-6.14.

 Validating numerical models against available recently published experimental

results and own experimental result.

 Parametric study of CFSST

 Concrete strength (fc ) and steel grade. ( Compresssive str ,std cylinder 6
inch, 28 days str.)
  Cross section and wall thickness.
 Column slenderness ratio, and
 Load eccentricity ratio

 Comparison of numerical results with code predicted capacities of the CFSST

columns.

Element Selection: ( For finite element modeling)

 CFSST columns are consist of two different materials such as stainless steel tube
and concrete.

 Concrete core is modeled with 8-noded brick element (C3D8R).

 Stainless Steel tube was modeled with 4-node shell element (S4R).

 Mesh convergence studies were conducted to determine optimal FE mesh with

accuracy and low computational time.

Interaction: (between core concrete and thin wall surface)

 Surface-to-surface contact is used to simulate interaction between stainless steel

tube & concrete where steel and concrete is considered as master surface & slave
surface respectively.

 Hard contact is considered in the normal direction allowing separation after

contact.

 Coulomb friction model is considered in the tangential direction with friction

coefficient, f=0.25. (But for the conventional steel the value is appx 0.6)

Material Modeling:

(For Concrete)
 Damage plasticity model is used to simulate concrete material behaviour.

 Modulus of elasticity of concrete is obtained from equation, 𝐸𝑐 = 4700√𝑓′𝑐

(MPa).
 Tensile strength of concrete is taken as 0.1𝑓′𝑐 .
 Tensile softening response of concrete is obtained by means of fracture energy.
 Two-stage Ramberg-Osgood material model used and then converted into the
format of true stress and log plastic strain.
Materials modeling has been done by following the expression as stated in screen that is
first expression for stainless steel, according to Ramberg Osgood full range stress strain
curve is modeled.
Damage plasticity model of confined concrete, an equivalent stress-strain model
expression has been proposed by Han et al. as shown in the second expression.

Applying load and solution technique for CFSST model is as;

Application of concentric load in accordance with the condition of:

Eccentric load is applied in accordance with:

Findings:
 The FE models were capable to predict the experimental capacity of CFSST columns
with good accuracy.
 The ultimate axial capacity of CFSST columns depends on:

 Concrete strength (fc ) and stainless steel grade.

 Confinement effect of core concrete (Thin wall thickness).
 Slenderness ratio.
 Eccentricity of axial loading.
 Column depth width ratio
 AS5100, AISC, DBJ/T and EC4 code prediction capacity was found mostly to be
conservative compared the experimental and FE results.
Outcome:
 Load versus axial strain
 Eccentricity versus section capacity
 Column width, thickness (B/t) ratio versus section capacity
 Slenderness versus section capacity
 Concrete compressive strength versus sectional capacity.
 Code prediction versus FE load carrying capacity.
 Failure pattern comparison.
Allowable Stress Design (ASD) method is based on the principle that stresses developed in the
structural members should not exceed a certain fraction of elastic limit. It does not take into account
the Plastic and Strain Hardening stages of material; hence, it becomes overly conservative in certain
situations.

Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) method, is based on the principle that strength
(resistance) of various materials is scaled down by some factors while the applied loads are scaled up
by some factors, and thereby the structural elements are designed using reduced strength and
increased loads.

Von Mises Stress IS NOT a stress, it is a measure of energy density which is essentially calculates
the distortion energy density at a particular point in the system. This is useful in ascertaining failure
in ductile materials.

It is a 3-dimentional state of stress and realistic. Suppose an object which is under tension
and also under twist and consider an element inside that component there is not only tension
but also compression and shear stress are acting. In such scenario failure of material occur
less than the yield strength of the material.

If a member having very small slenderness ratio, it is called as compact section. The section with
small slenderness ratio can attain its plastic moment at the time of loading. This cross section is
classified as compact.

For the members with larger slenderness ratio, the compression web or flange buckles before it
attains the plastic moment capacity. The cross section is classified as noncompact.

For the sufficiently larger slenderness ratio, the local buckling causes the failure before the yield
stress of the material is reached. The cross section is classified as slender.

Slenderness in structural engineering, is a measure of the propensity of a column to buckle.

Slenderness ratio = effective length of column / least radius of gyration.

A quasi-static load is time dependent but is "slow" enough such that inertial effects can be ignored.

Carbon steel typically exhibits linear elastic behaviour up to the yield stress and a plateau before strain
hardening, stainless steel has a more rounded response with no well-defined yield stress.

David A Nethercot is Professor of Civil Engineering and Head of Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at Imperial College London
 Leroy Gardner is a Senior Lecturer in Structural Engineering in the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at Imperial College London.

Xian qiao Wang. Associate Professor, College of Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, University of
Georgia.

Professor Zhong Tao Western Sydney University

Lin-Hai Han Professor of Structural Engineering, Tsinghua University is a major research university in
Beijing,

Tian Yi Song Western Sydney University, Australia.

Google scholar
David A Nethercot is Professor of Civil Engineering and Head of Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering at Imperial College London

Leroy Gardner is a Senior Lecturer in Structural Engineering in the Department

of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Imperial College London

Xian qiao Wang. Associate Professor, College of Engineering, Mechanical

Engineering, University of Georgia
Professor Zhong Tao Western Sydney University

Lin-Hai Han Professor of Structural Engineering, Tsinghua University is a major

research university in Beijing,

Tian Yi Song Western Sydney University, Australia

Seminar Paper.
Respected Chairman, Board of -----, Instructor, my supervisor and very knowlegable
presents Assalamualykum and ------.
At the very out set I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincer gratitude and
thanks to MIST authority and the Board to give me the opportunity present my papers also
be aval here inspite of your busy schedule.
sincere gratitude to my thesis supervisor Professor Dr. Raquib Ahsan, for his logical guidance,
quick response and continuous moral as well as financial support throughout the course of
study.
express my gratitude and heartiest thanks to respected defence committee members Professor
and Head Dr. Ahsanul Kabir, Professor Dr. Md. Shafiul Bari, Dr. Major Md. Soebur Rahman
for their valuable advices and help in reviewing this thesis.

. ADVANTAGES:
CFSST columns has got lot of advantages over CFST and conventional reinforced column
stated as follows:
a. It combines the full potentiality of both stainless steel and concrete for static
and earthquake resistance properties.
b. It provides more strength, extremely durable and easily maintained.
c. More ductile than carbon steel.
d. Better energy/impact absorption resistance or delay local buckling.
e. It provides a good combination of corrosion resistance, weldability, forming
and fabrication properties.
f. Improved fire resistance up to 1100°C.
g. aesthetic exposed surface.
h. Significant savings in column size, lead to additional floor space.
i. No formwork.

Literature Review:
Number of recent renowned papers have been consulted to investigate the behavior of
CFSST members. The following notes on those papers are presented here for your kind
consumption:

Introduction: Recently the use of CFSST Stress-strain behaviour of carbon steel and
There has been an accelerating interest in the use of stainless steel
Concrete filled tubes (CFT) in modern construction
practice throughout the world, particularly in The stress-strain behaviour of stainless steel
Australia and the Far East (East Asia: China, Japan, differs from that of carbon steels in a number of
North/South Korea, Taiwan). The term ‘composite respects. The most important difference is in
column’ refers to a compression member in which the the shape of the stress-strain curve. Whereas
steel and concrete elements act compositely. The role carbon steel typically exhibits linear elastic
behaviour up to the yield stress and a plateau
of the concrete core in a composite column is not
before strain hardening, stainless steel has a
only to resist compressive forces but also to reduce
more rounded response with no well-defined
the potential for buckling of the steel member. yield stress (see Figure).
The main objective of this research is to investigate
the compressive behaviour of composite stainless
steel concrete filled columns with varying concrete
infill strengths & sectional properties. Comparisons
are made with own experimental results and also
compare with available recently published results of
reputed researchers. Furthermore a design
expression based on EC4, ASIC..

Finite element modelling of concrete-filled steel

stub columns under axial compression
Zhong Tao a,⁎, Zhi-Bin Wang b,c, Qing Yu c

Four-node shell elements with reduced integration

(S4R) and 8-node brick elements with three
translation degrees of freedom at each node
(C3D8R) were used to model the steel tube and
concrete core, respectively.
– S4R • Uniformly reduced integration to avoid
shear and membrane locking.
S4R is a robust, general-purpose element that is
suitable for a wide range of applications.
4-node doubly curved thin or thick shell, reduced
integration, hourglass control, finite membrane
strains.
Continuum shell elements are three-dimensional
stress/displacement elements for use in modeling As the stiffness of stainless steel decreases
structures that are generally slender, with a shell- as the stress level increases, deflections are
greater that those for carbon steel members. It
like response but continuum element topology.
Mesh convergence studies were conducted to
determine optimal FE mesh that provides relatively
accurate solution with low computational time. It
was found that the aspect ratio of elements has
neglectable influence on the N–ε curves if this ratio
is smaller than 3. Therefore, element size in the
axial direction was selected as 2.5
times that in the lateral direction.
Surface-to-surface contact is usually used for the
interaction simulation of the steel tube and
concrete.
“Hard contact” in the normal direction can be
specified for the interface, which allows the
separation of the interface in tension and no
penetration of that in compression.
The tangent contact can be simulated by the
Coulomb friction model. 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 [8]. Friction
coefficients of 0.25, 0.3 and 0.6 were used by
Schneider [9], Lam et al. [8] and Han
et al. [6], respectively.
It has been well documented that initial local
imperfections and residual stresses have apparent
influence on the behaviour of hollow tubes. For CFST
stub columns, however, the effects of local
imperfections and residual stresses are minimized
by concrete filling, and were therefore ignored in the
current FE simulation. This was confirmed by the
research conducted by Tao et al. [5],
Boundary condition:
Local buckling of the steel tube is more likely to be
initiated at the ends, which may affect the overall
performance of the specimen. the top and bottom
surfaces of the steel tube and concrete can be fixed
against all degrees of freedom except for the
Stainless steels can absorb considerable
impact without fracturing due to their excellent
ductility and their strain-hardening
characteristics.
The material modulus of stainless steels
reduces with increasing stress, unlike that of
carbon steels which is constant
The residual stresses arising from fabrication
are higher in stainless steel than in carbon
steels.
is therefore necessary to use a reduced
modulus to predict the behaviour of members
in which high stresses occur.
Quasi- Static load: A static load is time
independent. A dynamic load is time
dependent and for which inertial effects
cannot be ignored. A quasi-static load is time
dependent but is "slow" enough such that
inertial effects can be ignored. Note that a
load quasi-static for a given structure (made of
some material) may not be quasi-static for
another structure (made of a different
material).
Mesh Convergence:
FEM and other numerical methods are meant
to provide an engineering analysis that takes
into account much greater detail—something
that would be impractical with hand
calculations. FEM divides the body into smaller
pieces, enforcing continuity of displacements
along these element boundaries.
Affects accuracy is mesh convergence. This is
related to how small the elements need to be
to ensure that the results of the finite element
analysis are not affected by changing the size
of the mesh.
In finite element modeling, a finer mesh
typically results in a more accurate solution.
However, as a mesh is made finer, the
computation time increases. How can you get
a mesh that satisfactorily balances accuracy
and computing resources?
Keep refining the mesh until you see no
difference in FEA results.
displacement at the loaded end (clamped end
condition). The result obtained is the same as that of
the model with end plates and/or stiffeners. The
rotational degrees of freedom for both ends of the
steel tube, however, are not restrained, which is
referred to as pinned end condition. In most cases,
the boundary conditions have very minor influence
on N–ε or N–Δ curves. But some influence can be
observed for square columns, especially when
compact tubes are used. Fig. 1
To consider the global imperfections, an eigenvalue
buckling analysis was carried out first. The
distribution of the overall imperfections was defined
to be in the form of the lowest buckling mode. The
imperfection amplitude was taken as L/1000. N–ε
curves of this specimen with various L/D
ratios are shown in Fig. 2. It is found that the
ultimate strength decreases significantly when the
L/D ratio increases from 1 to 1.5.
This is owing to the fast diminishing end effects.
When L/D ratios lie in the range of 2–5, very close
N–ε curves are obtained. Once the L/D ratio exceeds
5, obvious lateral deflection will develop and the
ultimate strength begins to decrease again. Since
L/D ratios reported in the past for almost all CFST
stub columns are in the range from 2 to 5, the global
imperfections can be ignored in a simulation.
Nonlinear analysis of concrete-filled square
stainless steel stub columns under axial
compression
Zhong Tao a,⁎ , Brian Uy a, Fei-Yu Liao b,c, Lin-Hai
Han b
Loading was applied in a displacement control
mode at the top of a stub column to simulate the
axial loading condition. The ends of the stub
column were fixed against all degrees of freedom
except for the vertical displacement at the top end.
To accelerate convergence, a top end plate was
added as shown in Fig. 1(a). Due to the nonlinear
nature of the modelling, the well-known Newton–
Raphson incremental iterative
solution method was used in the analysis.
Figure 14.13: Arc-Length Approach with Full
Newton-Raphson Method is a graphical
representation of the arc-length method. Writing
the proportional loading factor λ in an incremental
form at substep n and iteration i yields:
The nonlinear analysis of CFSST columns under
axial compression is based on the fiber
element method. The following assumptions are
made in the fiber element formulation:
• The bond between the stainless steel tube and the
concrete core is perfect.
• The passive confinement provided by the
stainless steel tube increases the
compressive strength and ductility of the concrete
core.
• The stress and strain of fibers are uniformly
distributed on the cross-section.
• Strain hardening of stainless steels in
compression is considered.
• Failure occurs when the concrete fiber strain
reaches the maximum axial strain.
• Local buckling of the stainless steel tube is not
considered.
• The effects of concrete creep and shrinkage are not
considered.
behavior of circular CFSST short columns under
axial loading. Uy et al. [10] reported that
CFSST short columns undergone large plastic
deformations with significant strain hardening.
The tests of CFSST short columns were stopped
before failure occurred owing to the large
plastic deformation. Tests indicated that CFSST
short columns exhibited very good ductility
and the axial strain of CFSST short columns under
axial compression could be up to 0.2.
Therefore, the ultimate axial strain (ε cu ) was
taken as 0.2 in the nonlinear analysis in the
following parametric study.
Allowable Stress Design (ASD) method is
based on the principle that stresses developed
in the structural members should not exceed a
certain fraction of elastic limit. It does not take
into account the Plastic and Strain Hardening
stages of material; hence, it becomes overly
conservative in certain situations.
Load and Resistance Factor
Design (LRFD) method, is based on the
principle that strength (resistance) of various
materials is scaled down by some factors while
the applied loads are scaled up by some factors,
and thereby the structural elements are
designed using reduced strength and increased
loads. The strength of materials considered for
design is the ultimate strength, which results in
utilization of elastic, plastic and strain

Fig: Arch length approach with full Newton – Rapson
method.
2.2.3. Confined concrete
The damage plasticity model provided in the
material library of ABAQUS [18] was used for the
core concrete in the analytical model.
By using the finite element method, strength
enhancement at the state of triaxial loading can be
achieved by the definition of the yielding surface,
and the description of the plastic behaviour coming
from the equivalent stress–strain relationship of
the confined
concrete.
CORNER MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Currently, the majority of stainless steel square or
rectangular hollow sections are formed by cold
rolling. Therefore, only CFSST there is significant
strength enhancement at the corner regions of
cold-formed sections, and this effect is even more
pronounced than carbon steel [25,26]. It is
reported that the strength enhancement is
commonly between 20% and 100% in terms of
0.2% proof strength compared with the flat
regions [27].
Initial imperfections
RESIDUAL STRESSES cause only a small reduction
in initial stiffness but have little influence on the
overall load-deformation response for a
stainless steel column. A similar conclusion has
been reached in the investigation by Ellobody and
Young [30], where measured residual stresses
were used in the FE modelling. It is expected that
the influence of residual stresses will be further
minimised for a CFST column by concrete filling.
This beneficial influence has been demonstrated in
previous investigations [20,31].
hardening stages of material thereby giving
economical and safe design consistently.
Thus, LRFD method has a more rational
approach as compared to ASD method and
that’s why LRFD has largely replaced ASD in
design of RCC and Steel Structures.
Von Mises Stress.
Von Mises Stress IS NOT A stress, it is a
measure of energy density. As energy density
has the same unit as Stress, von Mises is called
Stress. von Mises essentially calculates what is
known as the distortion energy density at a
particular point in the system. This is useful in
ascertaining failure in ductile materials.
It is a 3-dimentional state of stress and
realistic. Suppose an object which is under
tension and also under twist and consider
an element inside that component there is
not only tension but also compression and
shear stress are acting. In such scenario
failure of material occur less than the yield
strength of the material so if we use
maximum principal stress theory then in
real world failure occur before reaching
yield stress.
Compact, Non-Compact, Or Slender.
The cross sectional shape of the compression
members are divided as compact, non-
compact, or slender. It is done based on the
ratio between the breadth and thickness of the
plate members. All cross sections of the
compression member can be divided solely
based on the type of steel used and dimension
of the cross section.
The slenderness ratio is major factor that
Hence, the residual stresses are not included in the influences the flexural capacity of the braced
following analysis to improve the computation
efficiency. beams.

If a beam has very small slenderness ratio, it is

called as compact section. The section with
small slenderness ratio can attain its plastic
moment at the time of loading. This cross
section is classified as compact.

For the members with larger slenderness ratio,

the compression web or flange buckles before
it attains the plastic moment capacity. The
cross section is classified as noncompact.

For the sufficiently larger slenderness ratio,

the local buckling cause the failure before the
yield stress of the material is reached. The
cross section is classified as slender.

Compact section width to thickness ratio

smaller than 2.26*√(E/Fy).

Non compact section width to thickness ratio falls

in range of 3*√(E/Fy).to 5*√(E/Fy).

Slender section whose width to thickness ratio

exceeds 3*√(E/Fy) lower limit or smaller to equal of.
5*√(E/Fy) upper limit is to be used.

Concrete compressive strength limit in KBC 2016

and AISC/ANSI 360-16 the lower and upper limit
(for CFT) 21-70 MPa and the max yield strength of
structural steel in column not to exceeds 650 MPa
and in AISC/ANSI max yield str of structural steel &
reinforcement steel is 525 MPa and 550 MPa
Respectively.

SLENDERNESS

In structural engineering, slenderness is a

measure of the propensity of a column
to buckle.
Slenderness ratio = effective length of
column / least radius of gyration
SR is used to find whether the column
is long or short

If SR is less than 12 , then the column

is short subjected to crushing failure

If SR is greater than 12, then the

column is long which fails by buckling

Area radious of gyration=√I/A

Mass radious of gyration=√I/m