Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 211–222

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

Numerical simulation of concrete encased steel composite columns

Ehab Ellobody a , Ben Young b,∗
a
Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt
b
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong

article info abstract

Article history: This paper investigates the behaviour of pin-ended axially loaded concrete encased steel composite
Received 15 January 2010 columns. A nonlinear 3-D finite element model was developed to analyse the inelastic behaviour of steel,
Accepted 10 August 2010 concrete, longitudinal and transverse reinforcement bars as well as the effect of concrete confinement
of the concrete encased steel composite columns. The interface between the steel section and concrete,
Keywords: the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement bars, and the reinforcement bars and concrete were also
Concrete encased steel
considered that allowed the bond behaviour to be modeled and the different components to retain
Composite columns
Finite element
their profile during the deformation of the column. Furthermore, the initial overall (out-of-straightness)
Modelling geometric imperfection was carefully incorporated in the model. The finite element model has been
High strength validated against published experimental results. The main objective of the study was to understand the
Pin-ended structural response and modes of failure of the columns and to assess the composite column strengths
Structural design against current design codes. The study covered slender, non-slender, stub and long concrete encased
steel composite columns. The concrete strengths varied from normal to high strength (20–110 MPa). The
steel section yield stresses also varied from normal to high strength (275–690 MPa). Furthermore, the
variables that influence the composite column behaviour and strength comprising different slenderness
ratios, concrete strength and steel yield stress were investigated in a parametric study. It is shown that the
increase in structural steel strength has a small effect on the composite column strength for the columns
having higher relative slenderness ratios due to the flexural buckling failure mode. The composite column
strengths obtained from the finite element analysis were compared with the design strengths calculated
using the American Institute for Steel Construction AISC and Eurocode 4 for composite columns. Generally,
it is shown that the EC 4 accurately predicted the design strength for the concrete encased steel composite
columns having a concrete cylinder strength of 30 MPa and structural steel yield stresses of 275 and
460 MPa, which are in the limits of the code, which otherwise, was generally conservative. The AISC
predictions were quite conservative for all the concrete encased steel composite columns.
© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Composite columns are commonly used in tall buildings due
to their high strength, full usage of materials, high stiffness and
ductility, toughness against seismic loads and significant savings
in construction time. Composite columns can be concrete encased
steel or concrete-filled steel sections. In addition to the aforemen-
tioned advantages, concrete encased steel composite columns are
gaining popularity due to the higher fire resistance compared to
the conventional steel and concrete-filled steel tube columns that
require additional protection against fire.
Experimental investigations on concrete encased steel compos-
ite columns have been conducted by Anslijn and Janss [1], Mat-
sui [2], SSRC Task Group 20 [3], Mirza and Skrabek [4], Mirza
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +852 2859 2674; fax: +852 2559 5337.
E-mail address: young@hku.hk (B. Young).
0143-974X/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2010.08.003
et al. [5], Chen and Yeh [6], Tsai et al. [7], Chen et al. [8], El-Tawil
and Deierlein [9] and Dundar et al. [10], with an extensive review of
most of these researches given by Shanmugam and Lakshmi [11].
These tests were carried out on concrete encased steel compos-
ite columns having different slenderness ratios, different steel sec-
tions and different concrete and steel strengths. On the other hand,
analytical studies on concrete encased steel composite columns
have been performed by Furlong [12], Virdi and Dowling [13], Roik
and Bergmann [14], Kato [15], Munoz and Hsu [16,17], and Chen
and Lin [18]. However, to date no detailed nonlinear 3-D finite ele-
ment model was found in the literature highlighting the behaviour
of concrete encased steel composite columns. This is attributed
to the complexity of the concrete confinement, steel–concrete in-
terface, longitudinal reinforcement bar–transverse reinforcement
bar interface, and reinforcement bar–concrete interface as well
as the nonlinear constitutive stress–strain curves of the compos-
ite column components. Furthermore, current design rules speci-
fied in the American Institute for Steel Construction AISC [19] and
212 E. Ellobody, B. Young / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 211–222

Nomenclature εc Unconfined concrete strain

εcc Confined concrete strain
Ac Cross-sectional area of concrete
εt Tensile strain
Ar Cross-sectional area of reinforcement bars
υcc Poisson’s ratio of confined concrete
As Cross-sectional area of structural steel
λ Relative slenderness ratio
B Overall width of cross-section (smaller dimension)
χ Factor for design strength using Eurocode 4
b Reinforcement bar dimension
φ Factor for design strength using Eurocode 4
b1 Reinforcement bar dimension
λ¯o Factor for design strength using Eurocode 4
b2 Reinforcement bar dimension
α Factor for design strength using Eurocode 4
b3 Reinforcement bar dimension
b4 Reinforcement bar dimension
C1 Factor for flexural stiffness of concrete
Eurocode 4 [20] are applicable to normal strength concrete classes
CC Concrete crushing failure mode
C20/25 to C50/60 and steel Grades S235 to S460.
D Overall depth of cross-section (larger dimension)
The main objective of this study is to develop an efficient non-
d Reinforcement bar dimension
linear 3-D finite element model to investigate the behaviour of pin-
d1 Reinforcement bar dimension
ended axially loaded concrete encased steel composite columns.
d2 Reinforcement bar dimension
The model has carefully considered the inelastic behaviour of steel,
d3 Reinforcement bar dimension
concrete, longitudinal and transverse reinforcement bars and in-
d4 Reinforcement bar dimension
terfaces between these components, as well as the effect of con-
Ec Young’s modulus of concrete
crete confinement. The model was developed using ABAQUS [21]
Ecc Young’s modulus of confined concrete
and was validated against published experimental results. The
Ecm Secant modulus of concrete according to Eurocode
study covered normal and high strength concrete and steel ma-
4
terials. The initial overall geometric imperfections were carefully
Er Young’s modulus of reinforcement bars
included in the finite element model. Parametric studies were per-
Es Young’s modulus of structural steel
formed to investigate the effects of different concrete strengths,
EI eff Effective flexural stiffness
slenderness ratios and steel yield stresses on the strength and be-
eFE Axial shortening at failure
haviour of the composite columns. The column strengths obtained
F Flexural buckling failure mode
f Equivalent uniaxial stress from the finite element analysis were compared with the design
fc Unconfined compressive cylinder strength of con- strengths calculated using AISC [19] and EC4 [20] with detailed
crete discussions.
fcc Confined compressive strength of concrete
fcu Unconfined compressive cube strength of concrete 2. Finite element modelling
fl Lateral confining pressure
fys Yield stress of structural steel 2.1. Modelling approach
fyr Yield stress of reinforcement bars
fur Ultimate stress of reinforcement bars The concrete encased steel composite columns investigated in
fus Ultimate stress of structural steel this study comprises of four components, steel section, longitu-
Gf Fracture energy of concrete dinal reinforcement bars, transverse reinforcement bars and con-
h Crack band width crete, as shown in Fig. 1. Earlier researches by Sheikh et al. [22] and
Ic Moment of inertia of concrete Mander et al. [23] on reinforced concrete columns have shown that
Ir Moment of inertia of reinforcement bars confinement provided by the reinforcement bars creates two zones
Is Moment of inertia of structural steel in the concrete column. The two zones are the internal effectively
k Effective length factor confined concrete core and the external ineffectively confined con-
k1 Coefficient for confined concrete crete, which consists of the concrete cover and assumed parabolic
k2 Coefficient for confined concrete concrete portions between the reinforcement bars, as shown in
k3 Coefficient for confined concrete Fig. 2.
L Length of column In concrete encased steel composite columns, concrete confine-
Le Effective length of column ment is provided by the steel section and the reinforcement bars,
PAISC Unfactored design strength calculated according to as shown in Fig. 2. The confinement depends on many factors in-
AISC cluding the steel section shape, the diameter, layout, spacing and
PEC 4 Unfactored design strength calculated according to number of the longitudinal reinforcement bars as well as the di-
EC4 ameter and spacing of the transverse reinforcement bars. In ad-
PFE Column strength obtained from finite element dition to these parameters, yield stresses of the steel section and
analysis reinforcement bars as well as concrete strength would affect the
Po Plastic compressive resistance of column section concrete confinement. The composite column can be divided into
Pe Elastic critical buckling load three main zones that include the highly confined concrete, par-
PTest Test strength tially confined concrete and unconfined concrete zones, as shown
R Coefficient for confined concrete in Fig. 2. Chen and Lin [18] effectively used the same approach
RE Coefficient for confined concrete [22,23] in their analytical study, which was conducted using differ-
Rε Coefficient for confined concrete ent steel section shapes and different reinforcement layouts, and
Rσ Coefficient for confined concrete evaluated the confinement factors for the highly and partially con-
SY Structural steel yielding failure mode fined concrete zones. The confinement zones can be simplified, as
r Reduction factor for confined concrete adopted by Mirza and Skrabek [4], by adjusting the parabolic zones
ε Equivalent uniaxial strain into rectangular zones. In this study, the highly confined concrete
is taken from the web of the steel section to the mid-width of each
 E. Ellobody, B. Young / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 211–222 213

(a) With reinforcement. (b) With reinforcement. (c) Without reinforcement.

Fig. 1. Concrete encased steel composite columns investigated in this study.

Fig. 2. Confinement zones in concrete encased steel composite columns.

flange outstand. The partially confined concrete is taken from the
mid-width of each flange outstand to the centerlines of the longi-
tudinal reinforcement. Finally, the unconfined concrete is the re-
maining external zone as shown in Fig. 3.
The finite element modelling of the concrete encased steel com-
posite column was conducted step by step to ensure that all the
model parts are properly connected. The model was developed in
six steps as shown in Fig. 3. Initially the longitudinal and transverse
reinforcement bars and the companion interfaces were modelled
(Step 1) followed by the unconfined concrete and companion inter-
face (Step 2), steel section and companion interface (Step 3), highly
confined concrete and companion interface (Step 4), partially con-
fined concrete and companion interface (Step 5) and finally the up-
per and lower loading plates (Step 6).
columns were achieved by means of designed hinge assemblies. In
the finite element (FE) model, the hinge assemblies were modelled
as 40 mm deep rigid plates, which were allowed to rotate about the
axis of the plate, direction 2-2 in Fig. 3. The upper and lower end
plate nodes were connected to the matching specimen end nodes.
The center of the outside surface of the bottom plate was restrained
against all degrees of freedom while that of the top plate, the
loading position, was allowed to displace in the vertical direction
only, direction 3-3 in Fig. 3. The load was applied in increments and
the nonlinear geometry was included in the analysis. The load was
applied as a static concentrated load, which is identical to the real
situation in pin-ended columns.
2.4. Modelling of confined concrete

The highly confined concrete, partially confined concrete and

2.2. Finite element type and mesh
The concrete encased steel composite column components
were modeled using a combination of 3-D solid elements (C3D8
and C3D6) available in the ABAQUS [21] element library. The
elements have three degrees of freedom per node and suit all the
column components since local buckling of the structural steel is
limited by the surrounding concrete elements. Different mesh sizes
were tried to choose a reasonable mesh that provides both reliable
results and less computational time. It is found that an average
mesh size of 1 (length): 1 (width): 2.5 (depth), for most of the
elements, can achieve accurate results.
2.3. Boundary conditions and load application
The concrete encased steel composite columns investigated in
this study were pinned at both ends. In the tests, the pin-ended
unconfined concrete, as shown in Fig. 3, were modeled adopt-
ing the same approach presented in Ellobody and Young [24,25].
Fig. 4(a) shows equivalent uniaxial presentation for the compres-
sive stress–strain curves of both unconfined and confined concrete,
where fc is the unconfined concrete cylinder compressive strength
which is equal to 0.8(fcu ), and fcu is the unconfined concrete cube
compressive strength. The corresponding unconfined strain (εc ) is
taken as 0.003 as recommended by the ACI Specification [26]. The
confined concrete compressive strength (fcc ) and the correspond-
ing confined strain (εcc ) can be determined from Eqs. (1) and (2),
respectively, proposed by Mander et al. [23].
fcc = fc + k1 fl (1)
 
fl
εcc = εc 1 + k2 (2)
fc
where fl is the lateral confining pressure imposed by the steel sec-
tion and the reinforcement bars. The approximate value of (fl ) can
214 E. Ellobody, B. Young / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 211–222
Fig. 3. Modelling steps of concrete encased steel composite columns.
be obtained knowing the confinement factors for the highly and
partially confined concrete zones as given by Chen and Lin [18]. The
confinement factor for highly confined concrete varied from 1.1 to
1.97 depending on the spacing between transverse reinforcement
and structural steel shape. On the other hand, the confinement fac-
tor for partially confined concrete varied from 1.09 to 1.5 as de-
tailed in [18]. The confinement factors depend on the steel section
shape and the spacing between transverse reinforcement bars (S ).
The factors (k1 ) and (k2 ) are taken as 4.1 and 20.5, respectively,
as given by Richart et al. [27]. Knowing (fl ), (k1 ) and (k2 ), the val-
ues of equivalent uniaxial confined concrete strength (fcc ) and the
(a) Compression.
Fig. 4. Response of concrete to uniaxial loading.
corresponding confined strain (εcc ) can be determined using
Eqs. (1) and (2).
To define the full equivalent uniaxial stress–strain curve for
confined concrete as shown in Fig. 4(a), three parts of the curve
have to be identified. The first part is the initially assumed elastic
range to the proportional limit stress. The value of the proportional
limit stress is taken as 0.5(fcc ) as given by Hu et al. [28], while the
initial Young’s modulus of confined concrete (Ecc ) is reasonably
calculated using the empirical equation (3) given by ACI [26]. The
Poisson’s ratio (υcc ) of confined concrete is taken as 0.2 [24,25,28].
Ecc = 4700 fcc MPa.

(3)
The second part of the curve is the nonlinear portion starting
from the proportional limit stress 0.5(fcc ) to the confined concrete
strength (fcc ). This part of the curve can be determined from Eq. (4)
which is a common equation proposed by Saenz [29]. This equation
is used to represent the multi-dimensional stress and strain values
for the equivalent uniaxial stress and strain values. The unknowns
of the equation are the uniaxial stress (f ) and strain (ε ) values
defining this part of the curve. The strain values (ε ) are taken
between the proportional strain, which is equal to (0.5fcc /Ecc ), and
the confined strain (εcc ) which is corresponding to the confined
concrete strength. The stress values (f ) can be determined from
Eq. (4) by assuming the strain values (ε ).
Ecc ε
f =    2  3 (4)
1 + (R + RE − 2) εε − (2R − 1) ε
εcc
+R ε
εcc
cc
where RE and R values are calculated from Eqs. (5) and (6), respec-
tively:
Ecc εcc
RE = (5)
fcc
RE (Rσ − 1) 1
R= − . (6)
(Rε − 1) 2 Rε
The constants Rσ and Rε are taken equal to 4 as recommended by
Hu and Schnobrich [30]. The first and second parts of the uniaxial
stress–strain curve of confined concrete were used for the highly
and partially confined concrete with different values of (fcc ) based
on the confinement factors given by Chen and Lin [18].
The third part of the confined concrete stress–strain curve
is the descending part from the confined concrete strength (fcc )
to a value lower than or equal to rk3 fcc with the corresponding
strain of 11εcc . The reduction factor (k3 ) can be calculated as
given by Mirza and Skrabek [4], which differentiates between the
highly and partially confined concrete. The reduction factor (r )
(b) Tension.
 E. Ellobody, B. Young / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 211–222 215

was introduced by Ellobody et al. [31], based on the experimental

investigation conducted by Giakoumelis and Lam [32], to account
for the effect of different concrete strengths. The value of r is taken
as 1.0 for concrete with a cube strength (fcu ) equal to 30 MPa, while
the value of r is taken as 0.5 for concrete with fcu greater than or
equal to 100 MPa. Linear interpolation is used to determine the
value of r for concrete cube strengths between 30 and 100 MPa.
Concrete was modeled using the damaged plasticity model
implemented in the ABAQUS [21] standard and explicit material
library. The model provides a general capability for modelling plain
and reinforced concrete in all types of structures. The concrete
damaged plasticity model uses the concept of isotropic damaged
elasticity, in combination with isotropic tensile and compressive
plasticity, to represent the inelastic behaviour of concrete. The
model assumes that the uniaxial tensile and compressive response
of concrete is characterized by damaged plasticity. Under uniaxial
compression the response is linear until the value of proportional
limit stress is reached. Under uniaxial tension the stress–strain
response follows a linear elastic relationship until the value of the
failure stress. The tensile failure stress was assumed to be 0.1 times
the compressive strength of concrete. The softening stress–strain
response, past the maximum tensile stress, was represented by a
linear line defined by the fracture energy and crack band width.
The fracture energy Gf (energy required to open a unit area of
crack) was taken as 0.12 N/mm as recommended by the CEB [33]
and ABAQUS manual [21]. The fracture energy divided by the crack
band width (h) was used to define the area under the softening
branch of the tension part of the stress–strain curve, as shown
in Fig. 4(b). The crack band width was assumed as the cubic root
of the volume between integration points for a solid element, as
recommended by CEB [33]. Fig. 4 shows the response of concrete
to uniaxial loading in compression and tension used in this study.
2.5. Material modelling of steel section and reinforcement bars
The stress–strain curves for the structural steel and the rein-
forcement steel given in the EC3 [34] and EC2 [35], respectively,
were adopted in this study with measured values of the yield stress
(fys ) and ultimate stress (fus ) used in the tests. The material be-
haviour provided by ABAQUS [21] (using the PLASTIC option) al-
lows for a nonlinear stress–strain curve to be used. The first part
of the nonlinear curve represents the elastic part up to the propor-
tional limit stress with Young’s modulus of 200 GPa and Poisson’s
ratio equal to 0.3 used in the finite element model.
2.6. Modelling of interfaces
The steel section–concrete, the longitudinal reinforcement bar–
transverse reinforcement bar, and the reinforcement bar–concrete
interfaces were modelled by interface elements (using the
*CONTACT PAIR option) available within the ABAQUS [21] element
library. The method requires defining two surfaces that are the
master and slave surfaces. The master surface within this model is
defined as the concrete surface surrounding the steel section and
the reinforcement bars that are the slave surfaces. The interface
elements are formed between the master and slave surfaces and
monitor the displacement of the slave surface in relation to the
master surface. When the two surfaces remain in contact, the
slave surface can displace relative to the master surface based
on the coefficient of friction between the two surfaces, which is
taken as 0.25 [24,25,31]. When the two surfaces are in contact, the
forces normal to the master surface can be transmitted between
the two surfaces. When the two surfaces separate, the relative
displacement between the two surfaces can still be monitored but
the forces normal to the master surface cannot be transmitted.
However, the two surfaces cannot penetrate each other.
Fig. 5. Buckling mode (Eigenmode 1) for concrete encased steel composite column.
2.7. Modelling of initial overall geometric imperfection
The buckling mode of the concrete encased steel composite col-
umn was obtained by carrying out eigenvalue buckling analysis
of the column with actual geometry and elastic material proper-
ties. Only the lowest buckling mode (Eigenmode 1) was used in
the eigenvalue analysis. Since the buckling mode predicted by the
ABAQUS [21] eigenvalue analysis is normalized to 1.0, the buckling
mode was factored by the magnitude of the initial overall geomet-
ric imperfection, which is taken as L/2000 where L is the length of
the pin-ended column. The value (L/2000) is an average measured
value in the tests [1–3,6,7]. Fig. 5 shows the overall imperfection
buckling mode for a concrete encased steel composite column. The
factored imperfection buckling mode is inserted into the load dis-
placement nonlinear analysis following the eigenvalue prediction
using the *IMPERFECTION option available in ABAQUS [21].
3. Verification of finite element model
3.1. Test results
The finite element model of pin-ended axially loaded concrete
encased steel composite columns developed in this study was ver-
ified against various tests detailed in Anslijn and Janss [1], Mat-
sui [2], SSRC Task Group 20 [3], Chen and Yeh [6] Tsai et al. [7] and
Kato [15]. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the measured dimensions and
material properties of the tested specimens. The test specimens de-
tailed in [1,15] were on concrete encased steel composite columns
without reinforcement bars, as shown in Fig. 1(c). Four specimens
were used in the verification numbered 17, 15, 12 and 21. The spec-
imens had a square cross-section (B × D) of 240 × 240 mm and
different lengths varying from 1282–3485 mm. The structural steel
section was H-shaped 140 × 140 × 7 × 12 mm. The specimens
had concrete cube strengths (fcu ) varying from 29.2–35.1 MPa and
steel yield stresses (fys ) varying from 276–380 MPa. The relative
slenderness ratios (λ), calculated based on EC4 [20], varied from
0.25–0.74, while the test specimens detailed in [2,15] were on con-
crete encased steel composite columns with reinforcement bars, as
shown in Fig. 1(a). Three specimens were used in the verification
numbered 1, 2 and 3. The specimens had square cross-sections of
160 × 160 mm and different lengths varied from 924–3464 mm.
The structural steel section was H-shaped 100 × 100 × 6 ×
8 mm. The specimens had concrete cube strengths varying from
18.5–22.5 MPa and steel yield stresses varying from 298–306 MPa.
The longitudinal reinforcement bars were 6 mm in diameter and
216 E. Ellobody, B. Young / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 211–222

Table 1
Specimen dimensions and material properties of concrete encased steel composite columns.
Test Dimensions Steel section Reinf. Material properties Ref.
B D kLe Concrete strength fys fyr
(mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)

17 240 240 1282 H 140 × 140 × 7 × 12 – 29.2a 276 376

15 240 240 2488 H 140 × 140 × 7 × 12 – 33.6a 276 376 [1,15]
12 240 240 3478 H 140 × 140 × 7 × 12 – 35.1a 293 376
21 240 240 3485 H 140 × 140 × 7 × 12 – 32.0a 380 376

1 160 160 924 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 18.5a 306 376
2 160 160 2309 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 21.4a 298 376 [2,15]
3 160 160 3464 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 22.5a 304 376

A 165.1 177.8 229 UB 127 × 114 × 29.76 Fig. 1(a) 18b 248 376
B 165.1 177.8 1168 UB 127 × 114 × 29.76 Fig. 1(a) 18b 248 376 [3]
C 165.1 177.8 2083 UB 127 × 114 × 29.76 Fig. 1(a) 18b 248 376

SRC1 280 280 1200 H 150 × 150 × 7 × 10 Fig. 1(b) 29.5b 296 350
SRC2 280 280 1200 H 150 × 150 × 7 × 10 Fig. 1(b) 28.1b 296 350 [6,7]
SRC3 280 280 1200 H 150 × 150 × 7 × 10 Fig. 1(b) 29.8b 296 350
a
Denotes concrete cube strength.
b
Denotes concrete cylinder strength.

Table 2
Composite section dimensions and reinforcement details.
Test Composite section dimensions (mm) Reinforcement Ref.
b b1 b2 b3 b4 d d1 d2 d3 d4 Long. Transverse
No Ø S Ø

17 140 50 – – – 140 50 – – – – – – –
15 140 50 – – – 140 50 – – – – – – – [1,15]
12 140 50 – – – 140 50 – – – – – – –
21 140 50 – – – 140 50 – – – – – – –

1 100 30 19 11 – 100 30 19 11 – 4 6 75 4
2 100 30 19 11 – 100 30 19 11 – 4 6 75 4 [2,15]
3 100 30 19 11 – 100 30 19 11 – 4 6 75 4

A 114.3 25.4 14.4 11 – 127 25.4 14.4 11 – 4 6 75 4

B 114.3 25.4 14.4 11 – 127 25.4 14.4 11 – 4 6 75 4 [3]
C 114.3 25.4 14.4 11 – 127 25.4 14.4 11 – 4 6 75 4

SRC1 150 65 34 31 88 150 65 34 31 88 12 12 140 8

SRC2 150 65 34 31 88 150 65 34 31 88 12 12 75 8 [6,7]
SRC3 150 65 34 31 88 150 65 34 31 88 12 12 35 8

the transverse reinforcement bars were 4 mm in diameter, with
detailed dimensions shown in Table 2. The yield stress of the rein-
forcement bars (fyr ) was 376 MPa. The relative slenderness ratios
of the specimens varied from 0.26–1.29.
Concrete encased steel composite columns tested by SSRC Task
Group 20 [3], similar to that in [2,15], were with reinforcement bars
as shown in Fig. 1(a). Three specimens were used in the verification
labeled A, B and C. The specimens had rectangular cross-sections
of 165.1 × 177.8 mm and different lengths varying from 924 mm
to 3464 mm. The structural steel section was Universal Beam UB
127 × 114 × 29.76. The specimens had a concrete cylinder strength
of 18 MPa and steel yield stress of 248 MPa. The longitudinal
and transverse reinforcement bars were detailed in Table 2. The
yield stress of the reinforcement bars was 376 MPa. The relative
slenderness ratios of the specimens varied from 0.06–0.59.
The effect of the spacing between the transverse reinforcement
bars on the behaviour of concrete encased steel composite columns
was investigated in the tests conducted in [6,7]. The test speci-
mens had a general layout as shown in Fig. 1(b), with reinforce-
ment details given in Table 2. The three specimens used in the
verification were labeled SRC1, SRC2 and SRC3. The specimens had
square cross-sections of 280 × 280 mm and a constant nomi-
nal length of 1200 mm. The structural steel section was H-shaped
150 × 150 × 7 × 10. The specimens had concrete cylinder strengths
varying from 28.1–29.8 MPa and a steel yield stress of 296 MPa.
The longitudinal reinforcement bars were 12 mm in diameter and
the transverse reinforcement bars were 8 mm in diameter, with
detailed dimensions shown in Table 2. The yield stress of the rein-
forcement bars was 350 MPa. The specimens had different spacings
between transverse reinforcement bars of 140, 75 and 35 mm for
specimens SRC1, SRC2 and SRC3, respectively, as shown in Fig. 6.
The relative slenderness ratio of the specimens was kept constant
at 0.19 which is of the stub column.
3.2. Comparison of finite element results with test results
The ultimate loads obtained from the tests (PTest ) and finite el-
ement analyses (PFE ) are compared in Table 3. The axial shorten-
ing and failure modes were also predicted by the finite element
model and summarized in Table 3. Generally, it can be seen that
good agreement exists between test and finite element results for
most of the columns. A maximum difference of 11% was observed
between experimental and numerical results for column specimen
2 [2,15]. The mean value of PFE /PTest ratios is 0.97 with the cor-
responding coefficient of variation (COV) of 0.055, as shown in
Table 3.
 E. Ellobody, B. Young / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 211–222 217

Table 3
Comparison between test and finite element results.

Test [Ref.] λ Test EC4 AISC FE PFE /PTest PTest /PEC 4 PTest /PAISC
PTest Failure mode PEC 4 PAISC PFE eFE Failure mode
(kN) (kN) (mm)

17 [1,15] 0.25 2471 CC + SY 2163 2083 2367 3.40 CC + SY 0.96 1.14 1.19
15 [1,15] 0.48 2344 CC + SY 2019 1887 2271 6.34 CC + SY 0.97 1.16 1.24
12 [1,15] 0.70 2579 F 1815 1544 2539 11.4 F 0.98 1.42 1.67
21 [1,15] 0.74 2471 F 1919 1619 2495 6.56 F 1.01 1.29 1.53
1 [2,15] 0.26 996 CC + SY 951 921 1009 2.07 CC + SY 1.01 1.05 1.08
2 [2,15] 0.66 974 F 759 682 868 3.28 F 0.89 1.28 1.43
3 [2,15] 1.29 874 F 567 423 800 4.24 F 0.92 1.54 2.07
A [3] 0.06 1566 CC + SY 1360 1356 1708 5.07 CC + SY 1.09 1.15 1.15
B [3] 0.33 1370 CC + SY 1270 1248 1396 2.76 CC + SY 1.02 1.08 1.10
C [3] 0.59 1366 CC + SY 1076 1036 1231 2.72 CC + SY 0.90 1.27 1.32
SRC1 [6,7] 0.19 4220 CC + SY 3809 3655 4145 4.87 CC + SY 0.98 1.11 1.15
SRC2 [6,7] 0.19 4228 CC + SY 3723 3574 4033 4.67 CC + SY 0.95 1.14 1.18
SRC3 [6,7] 0.19 4399 CC + SY 3828 3672 4214 3.95 CC + SY 0.96 1.15 1.20
Mean – – – – – – – – 0.97 1.21 1.33
COV – – – – – – – – 0.055 0.117 0.211
Note: CC denotes Concrete Crushing, SY denotes Steel Yielding and F denotes Flexural buckling.

Fig. 6. Reinforcement layout in specimens SRC1, SRC2 and SRC3 having S1, S2 and
S3 of 140, 75 and 35 mm, respectively. Fig. 7. Deformed shape at failure for specimen 21 (Scale 1:50).

Three failure modes for concrete encased steel composite

columns were identified from the finite element analysis and
confirmed in the tests as summarized in Table 3. The failure
modes are concrete crushing (CC), structural steel yielding (SY)
and flexural buckling (F). The three modes can be easily identified
by examining the stresses of the concrete and structural steel
elements against the measured material strengths. The first two
modes, CC and SY, occur simultaneously, with yielding of the steel
flange occurring first followed by concrete crushing, for columns
with low relative slenderness ratios (λ) up to 0.59. On the other
hand, the flexural buckling failure mode occurred for specimens
with λ varying from 0.66–1.29. In the concrete crushing failure
mode, the concrete fails in compression with the structural steel
reaching its yield stress, while in the flexural buckling mode, the
concrete fails in tension before the steel reaches its yield stress.
Fig. 7 shows the deformed shape at failure for specimen 21 [1,15].
It can be seen that the predicted flexural buckling failure mode
agrees well with the known failure mode for pin-ended axially
loaded slender columns.
Fig. 8 shows the principal stress distribution in direction 3-3 in
the composite stub column 17. The deformed shape at failure is
also captured as shown in Fig. 8. The predicted failure mode using Fig. 8. Deformed shape and stress contour at failure for specimen 17 (Scale 1:50).
the finite element model was a combination of concrete crushing
and steel yielding (CC + SY), which was also observed in the
tests [1,15]. Both the structural steel and concrete reached its yield compressive stress was concentrated near the composite column
stress and compressive strength, respectively. It is shown that the ends under the loading plate.
218 E. Ellobody, B. Young / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 211–222

Table 4
Specimen dimensions and material properties of concrete encased steel composite columns in the parametric study.
Group Specimen Section Length Steel section Reinf. Concrete Steel Reinforcement
B×D kLe fc fys fus fyr fur
(mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)

G1 S1 240 × 240 1000 H 140 × 140 × 7 × 12 – 30 275 430 376 460

S2 240 × 240 2000 H 140 × 140 × 7 × 12 – 30 275 430 376 460
S3 240 × 240 3000 H 140 × 140 × 7 × 12 – 30 275 430 376 460
S4 240 × 240 4000 H 140 × 140 × 7 × 12 – 30 275 430 376 460

G2 S5 240 × 240 1000 H 140 × 140 × 7 × 12 – 70 275 430 376 460

S6 240 × 240 2000 H 140 × 140 × 7 × 12 – 70 275 430 376 460
S7 240 × 240 3000 H 140 × 140 × 7 × 12 – 70 275 430 376 460
S8 240 × 240 4000 H 140 × 140 × 7 × 12 – 70 275 430 376 460

G3 S9 240 × 240 1000 H 140 × 140 × 7 × 12 – 110 275 430 376 460
S10 240 × 240 2000 H 140 × 140 × 7 × 12 – 110 275 430 376 460
S11 240 × 240 3000 H 140 × 140 × 7 × 12 – 110 275 430 376 460
S12 240 × 240 4000 H 140 × 140 × 7 × 12 – 110 275 430 376 460

G4 S13 160 × 160 1000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 30 275 430 376 460
S14 160 × 160 2000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 30 275 430 376 460
S15 160 × 160 3000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 30 275 430 376 460
S16 160 × 160 4000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 30 275 430 376 460

G5 S17 160 × 160 1000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 70 275 430 376 460
S18 160 × 160 2000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 70 275 430 376 460
S19 160 × 160 3000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 70 275 430 376 460
S20 160 × 160 4000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 70 275 430 376 460

G6 S21 160 × 160 1000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 110 275 430 376 460
S22 160 × 160 2000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 110 275 430 376 460
S23 160 × 160 3000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 110 275 430 376 460
S24 160 × 160 4000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 110 275 430 376 460

G7 S25 160 × 160 1000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 30 460 530 376 460
S26 160 × 160 2000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 30 460 530 376 460
S27 160 × 160 3000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 30 460 530 376 460
S28 160 × 160 4000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 30 460 530 376 460

G8 S29 160 × 160 1000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 70 460 530 376 460
S30 160 × 160 2000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 70 460 530 376 460
S31 160 × 160 3000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 70 460 530 376 460
S32 160 × 160 4000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 70 460 530 376 460

G9 S33 160 × 160 1000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 110 460 530 376 460
S34 160 × 160 2000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 110 460 530 376 460
S35 160 × 160 3000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 110 460 530 376 460
S36 160 × 160 4000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 110 460 530 376 460

G10 S37 160 × 160 1000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 30 690 760 376 460
S38 160 × 160 2000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 30 690 760 376 460
S39 160 × 160 3000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 30 690 760 376 460
S40 160 × 160 4000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 30 690 760 376 460

G11 S41 160 × 160 1000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 70 690 760 376 460
S42 160 × 160 2000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 70 690 760 376 460
S43 160 × 160 3000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 70 690 760 376 460
S44 160 × 160 4000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 70 690 760 376 460

G12 S45 160 × 160 1000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 110 690 760 376 460
S46 160 × 160 2000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 110 690 760 376 460
S47 160 × 160 3000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 110 690 760 376 460
S48 160 × 160 4000 H 100 × 100 × 6 × 8 Fig. 1(a) 110 690 760 376 460

4. Parametric study and discussions
The verified finite element model was used to investigate the
effects of the concrete strength, column slenderness and structural
steel yield stress on the behaviour and strength of reinforced and
unreinforced concrete encased steel composite columns. A total of
48 columns were analyzed in the parametric study, and the dimen-
sions and material properties of the columns are summarized in
Table 4. The columns were divided into 12 groups (G1–G12) and
the relative slenderness ratios (λ) that were calculated based on
EC4 [20] varied from 0.2–1.82. The first three groups of columns
G1–G3 were without reinforcement bars and had the same cross-
section dimensions as the test specimens detailed in [1,15] and
summarized in Tables 1 and 2. On the other hand, the remaining
nine groups G4–G12 were with reinforcement bars as shown in
Fig. 1(a) and had the same cross-section dimensions as the test
specimens detailed in [2,15] and summarized in Tables 1 and 2.
Each group had four column specimens having overall lengths of
1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 mm. It should be noted that the overall
column length L is equal to kLe for pin-ended columns, where Le
is the effective buckling length and k is the effective length factor
that is equal to 1.0 for pin-ended columns. The reinforcement bars
in G4–G12 had a yield stress (fyr ) and ultimate stress (fur ) of 376
and 460 MPa, respectively. The concrete strengths varied from nor-
mal to high strength concrete 30–110 MPa compressive cylinder
strength (fc ). The structural steel also varied from normal to high
 E. Ellobody, B. Young / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 211–222 219

classes C20/25 to C50/60 and steel Grades S235 to S460. The

unfactored design strengths (PAISC ) for axially loaded concrete
encased steel composite columns calculated based on column
slenderness are as follows:
[  ]
Po
PAISC = Po 0.658 Pe
when Pe ≥ 0.44Po (7)

PAISC = 0.877Pe when Pe < 0.44Po (8)

where

Po = As fys + Ar fyr + 0.85Ac fc (9)

and

Pe = π 2 (EIeff ) / (kL)2 (10)

with
Fig. 9. Effect of structural steel yield stress and concrete strength on the strength EIeff = Es Is + 0.5Er Ir + C1 Ec Ic (11)
of the composite columns of Groups G4–G12.
and
strength steel 275–690 MPa yield stress (fys ) and 430–760 MPa ul-  
As
timate stress (fus ). The spacing between the transverse reinforce- C1 = 0.1 + 2 ≤ 0.3 (12)
ments (S ) in all the reinforced concrete encased steel composite Ac + As
column specimens of G4–G12 was taken as 75 mm. where As is the area of the structural steel section in (mm2 ), Ac
The concrete encased steel composite columns without rein- is the area of concrete in (mm2 ), Ar is the area of longitudinal
forcement bars of Groups G1, G2 and G3 had concrete strengths of reinforcement in (mm2 ), Ec is the modulus of elasticity of concrete
30, 70 and 110 MPa, respectively and the steel yield and ultimate in (MPa), Es is the modulus of elasticity of steel in (MPa), Er is
stresses of 275 and 430 MPa, respectively. Similarly, the composite the modulus of elasticity of reinforcement bars in (MPa), fc is the
columns with reinforcement bars of G4–G6 had the same concrete
compressive cylinder strength of concrete in (MPa), fys is the yield
strengths and the same steel yield and ultimate stresses as G1–G3.
stress of steel in (MPa), fyr is the yield stress of reinforcement bars
Groups G7–G9 and G10–G12 were identical to G4–G6 except with
in (MPa), Ic is the moment of inertia of concrete in (mm4 ), Is is the
the steel yield and ultimate stresses of (460 and 530 MPa) and (690
moment of inertia of structural steel in (mm4 ), Ir is the moment
and 760 MPa), respectively. The initial overall geometric imperfec-
of inertia of reinforcement bars in (mm4 ), k is the effective length
tion was taken as L/2000, where L is the column length.
factor and L is the column length.
The strength of the concrete encased steel composite columns
On the other hand, the unfactored design strengths (PEC 4 ) for
(PFE ), axial shortening at failure (eFE ) and failure modes were pre-
axially loaded concrete encased steel composite columns was
dicted using the developed finite element model as summarized in
calculated using the simplified method of design, Clause 6.7.3 of
Table 5. As expected, the higher the concrete and structural steel
strengths the higher the composite column strength. The com- the EC4 [20], based on the relative slenderness (λ) as follows:
bined failure mode of concrete crushing and structural steel yield- PEC 4 = χ Npl (13)
ing (CC + SY) was observed in the composite columns having a
relative slenderness ratio (λ) less than or equal to 0.59. On the where
other hand, the flexural buckling failure mode (F) was observed 1
in the composite columns having λ greater than 0.59. It should be χ= ≤1 (14)
noted that this limiting slenderness ratio is based on the column φ + [φ − λ¯2 ]0.5
2

specimens investigated in the parametric study. with

The effect of the structural steel yield stress and the concrete
strength on the strength of the reinforced concrete encased steel φ = 0.5[1 + α(λ̄ − λ̄o ) + λ¯2 ] (15)
composite columns of G4–G12 was investigated and shown in
and
Fig. 9. It is shown that the increase in structural steel strength has
a small effect on the composite column strength for the reinforced  12
As fys + 0.85Ac fc + Ar fyr

Le
composite columns having λ greater than or equal to 0.89 due λ̄ = (16)
to the predicted flexural buckling failure mode. The use of high π Es Is + 0.6Ecm Ic + Er Ir
strength steel in stub columns would increase the composite where Ecm is the secant modulus of elasticity of concrete in (MPa),
column strength significantly. Le is the effective length of the column, α and λ̄o are the factors
given in Table 5.3 of the specification and taken as 0.49 and 0.2,
5. Comparison with design guides respectively for the concrete-encased steel composite columns
investigated.
5.1. General The unfactored design strengths calculated using the AISC
(PAISC ) and EC 4 (PEC 4 ), for all the concrete encased steel composite
The strengths of the concrete encased steel composite columns columns investigated in this study, were compared with the test
obtained using the finite element analysis (PFE ) and the tests and finite element results. The design strengths of the tested
used in the verification (PTest ) are compared with the unfactored specimens used in the verification of the finite element model
design strengths predicted using the American Institute for Steel are shown in Table 3, while that calculated for the composite
Construction AISC [19] and Eurocode 4 [20] for composite columns. column specimens investigated in the parametric study are shown
The specifications are applicable to normal strength concrete in Table 5.
220 E. Ellobody, B. Young / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 211–222

Table 5
Comparison of column strengths and design strengths for concrete encased steel composite columns.

Group Specimen λ EC4 AISC FE PFE /PEC 4 PFE /PAISC

PEC 4 PAISC PFE eFE Failure mode
(kN) (kN) (kN) (mm)

G1 S1 0.20 2510 2416 2485 2.69 CC + SY 0.99 1.03

S2 0.40 2256 2156 2428 4.81 CC + SY 1.08 1.13
S3 0.60 1978 1784 2081 5.10 F 1.05 1.17
S4 0.79 1672 1368 1717 4.77 F 1.03 1.26
G2 S5 0.24 4243 4117 4341 3.38 CC + SY 1.02 1.05
S6 0.48 3707 3549 3910 5.61 CC + SY 1.05 1.10
S7 0.71 3101 2771 3417 6.49 F 1.10 1.23
S8 0.95 2463 1960 2801 6.30 F 1.14 1.43
G3 S9 0.27 5926 5787 6151 3.81 CC + SY 1.04 1.06
S10 0.54 5044 4839 6000 7.34 CC + SY 1.19 1.24
S11 0.81 4036 3592 4840 7.81 F 1.20 1.35
S12 1.08 3049 2364 3884 5.10 F 1.27 1.64
G4 S13 0.30 1157 1127 1341 3.36 CC + SY 1.16 1.19
S14 0.59 960 894 1039 3.03 CC + SY 1.08 1.16
S15 0.89 737 608 798 3.11 F 1.08 1.31
S16 1.19 535 362 614 2.80 F 1.15 1.70
G5 S17 0.35 1857 1822 2220 3.94 CC + SY 1.20 1.22
S18 0.70 1455 1353 1599 4.52 F 1.10 1.18
S19 1.05 1025 824 1229 2.72 F 1.20 1.49
S20 1.41 699 465 997 2.82 F 1.43 2.14
G6 S21 0.4 2524 2492 2838 3.79 CC + SY 1.12 1.14
S22 0.79 1872 1744 2140 4.39 F 1.14 1.23
S23 1.19 1232 962 1747 3.23 F 1.42 1.82
S24 1.59 809 541 1476 3.65 F 1.82 2.73
G7 S25 0.34 1490 1451 1639 2.66 CC + SY 1.10 1.13
S26 0.68 1182 1070 1273 3.60 F 1.08 1.19
S27 1.02 845 643 833 3.38 F 0.99 1.30
S28 1.37 582 362 614 2.80 F 1.05 1.70
G8 S29 0.38 2175 2133 2596 4.04 CC + SY 1.19 1.22
S30 0.77 1639 1496 1827 4.18 F 1.11 1.22
S31 1.15 1099 827 1247 2.83 F 1.13 1.51
S32 1.54 728 465 1050 3.00 F 1.44 2.26
G9 S33 0.42 2829 2791 3472 4.73 CC + SY 1.23 1.24
S34 0.85 2024 1858 2412 4.59 CC + SY 1.19 1.30
S35 1.27 1286 962 1787 3.47 F 1.39 1.86
S36 1.69 830 541 1455 3.53 F 1.75 2.69
G10 S37 0.39 1888 1831 2143 3.46 CC + SY 1.14 1.17
S38 0.78 1412 1231 1407 4.29 F 1.00 1.14
S39 1.17 939 644 845 3.60 F 0.90 1.31
S40 1.56 620 362 614 2.80 F 0.99 1.70
G11 S41 0.42 2557 2503 3046 4.04 CC + SY 1.19 1.22
S42 0.84 1836 1633 1993 4.62 F 1.09 1.22
S43 1.26 1169 827 1278 4.06 F 1.09 1.55
S44 1.68 756 465 1050 3.00 F 1.39 2.26
G12 S45 0.45 3196 3149 3534 3.49 CC + SY 1.11 1.12
S46 0.91 2190 1971 2449 4.23 F 1.12 1.24
S47 1.36 1339 962 1790 3.59 F 1.34 1.86
S48 1.82 851 541 1455 3.53 F 1.71 2.69
Mean – – – – – – – 1.18 1.46
COV – – – – – – – 0.164 0.306

5.2. Comparison of column strengths with design strengths
The composite column strengths obtained from the tests (PTest )
used in the verification of the FE model and the companion design
strengths (PAISC and PEC 4 ) are compared in Table 3. The mean values
of PTest /PAISC and PTest /PEC 4 ratios are 1.33 and 1.21, respectively,
with the corresponding coefficients of variation (COV) of 0.211 and
0.117, respectively. It is shown that the design strengths predicted
by the two specifications are conservative for the tested specimens,
with the AISC predications being more conservative than the EC4.
Generally, similar results were obtained for the composite column
strengths predicted using the finite element model and the design
predictions for the composite column specimens investigated in
the parametric study, as shown in Table 5. The mean values of
PFE /PAISC and PFE /PEC 4 ratios are 1.46 and 1.18, respectively, with
the corresponding coefficients of variation (COV) of 0.306 and
0.164, respectively. The EC4 predictions were conservative for all
the column specimens, except for S1, S27, S39 and S40, while the
AISC predictions were more conservative for all the specimens.
The comparison between the composite column strengths ob-
tained using the finite element analysis and the design strengths
were also plotted in Figs. 10–13 for the composite columns of
G1–G3, G4–G6, G7–G9 and G10–G12, respectively. Fig. 10 shows
the column strength–effective length relationships for the unrein-
forced composite column specimens of Groups G1, G2 and G3 hav-
ing a structural steel yield stress of 275 MPa and concrete cylinder
strengths (fc ) of 30, 70 and 110 MPa, respectively. It is shown
that the design strengths calculated using the EC4 were accurately
 E. Ellobody, B. Young / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 211–222 221

Fig. 12. Comparison of FE strengths with design strengths for the composite
Fig. 10. Comparison of FE strengths with design strengths for the composite columns of groups G7, G8 and G9 (fys = 460 MPa).
columns of groups G1, G2 and G3 (fys = 275 MPa).

Fig. 13. Comparison of FE strengths with design strengths for the composite
Fig. 11. Comparison of FE strengths with design strengths for the composite
columns of groups G10, G11 and G12 (fys = 690 MPa).
columns of groups G4, G5 and G6 (fys = 275 MPa).

has been developed. The inelastic material properties of steel, con-

predicted for specimens with fc of 30 MPa. The difference between
crete, longitudinal and transverse reinforcement bars as well as
the predicted composite column strengths using the FE analysis
the effect of concrete confinement have been carefully incorpo-
and the EC4 increases with the increase of fc to 70 and 110 MPa, for
rated in the model. The interface between the steel section and
which the values are outside the EC4 limits. Once again, the AISC
concrete, the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement bars and
predictions are quite conservative for all the composite columns of
the reinforcement bars and concrete were also modelled, allow-
G1–G3. Similar conclusions could be derived from Figs. 11–13 that
ing the bond behaviour to be modelled and the different compo-
plotted the column strength–effective length relationships for the
nents to retain their profile during the deformation of the column.
reinforced composite column specimens of groups G4–G6, G7–G9
Furthermore, the initial overall geometric imperfection has been
and G10–G12, respectively, having structural steel yield stresses of
carefully included in the model. The composite column strengths,
275, 460 and 690 MPa, respectively. It should be noted that the de-
axial shortening at failure and failure modes of the columns have
sign strengths calculated using the EC4 were accurately predicted
been predicted using the finite element model. The comparison be-
for specimens with fys of 275 and 460 MPa. The difference between
tween the experimental and numerical results has shown that the
the predicted composite column strengths using the FE analysis
model can accurately predict the behaviour of concrete encased
and the EC4 increases with the increase of the structural steel yield
steel composite columns. The study covered slender, non-slender,
stress fys to 690 MPa, for which the value is again outside the EC4
stub and long, normal and high strength structural steel, and nor-
limits. On the other hand, the AISC predictions were quite conser-
mal and high strength concrete encased steel composite columns.
vative for all the composite columns of G4–G12. It should be noted
The developed model was used in a parametric study to in-
that the comparison with the codes outside their range of appli-
vestigate the effects on the structural behaviour of the com-
cation is intended. This is to assess the applicability of the current
posite columns owing to the change in the column slenderness
codes to cover a wider range of material properties.
ratios, concrete strength and steel yield stress. It is shown that
the increase in structural steel strength has a small effect on the
6. Conclusions composite column strength for the columns having higher relative
slenderness ratios due to the flexural buckling failure mode. The
A nonlinear 3-D finite element model, for the analysis of pin- composite column strengths obtained from the finite element
ended axially loaded concrete encased steel composite columns, analyses were compared with the design strengths calculated
222 E. Ellobody, B. Young / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 211–222
using the American Institute for Steel Construction AISC and
Eurocode 4 for composite columns. Generally, it is shown that the
EC 4 accurately predicted the design strengths for the concrete en-
cased steel composite columns having a concrete cylinder strength
of 30 MPa and structural steel yield stresses of 275 and 460 MPa,
which are within the limits of the code; otherwise the predictions
were generally conservative. The AISC predictions were quite con-
servative for all the concrete encased steel composite columns.
References
[1] Anslijn R, Janss J. Le calcul de charges ultimes des colonnes metalliques
enrobes de beton. C.R.I.F. Report MT89, Brussels; April 1974.
[2] Matsui C. Study on elasto-plastic behaviour of concrete-encased columns
subjected to eccentric axial thrust. Annual Assembly of Architectural Institute
of Japan, September 1979. p. 1627–8 [in Japanese].
[3] SSRC Task Group 20. A specification for the design of steel-concrete composite
columns. AISC Engineering Journal 1979;(Fourth Quarter):101–15.
[4] Mirza SA, Skrabek BW. Statistical analysis of slender composite beam–column
strength. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1992;118(5):1312–31.
[5] Mirza SA, Hyttinen V, Hyttinen E. Physical tests and analyses of composite
steel-concrete beam–columns. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1996;
122(11):1317–26.
[6] Chen CC, Yeh SC. Ultimate strength of concrete encased steel composite
columns. In: Proceedings of the third national conference on structural
engineering; 1996. p. 2197–206 [in Chinese].
[7] Tsai KC, Lien Y, Chen CC. Behaviour of axially loaded steel reinforced concrete
columns. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Civil and Hydraulic Engineering
1996;8(4):535–45 [in Chinese].
[8] Chen CC, Weng CC, Lin IM, Li JM. Seismic behaviour and strength of concrete
encased steel stub columns and beam–columns. Report No. MOIS 881012-1,
Architecture and Building Research Institute; 1999 [in Chinese].
[9] El-Tawil S, Deierlein GG. Strength and ductility of concrete encased composite
columns. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1999;125(9):1009–19.
[10] Dundar C, Tokgoz S, Tanrikulu AK, Baran T. Behavior of reinforced and
concrete-encased composite columns subjected to biaxial bending and axial
load. Building and Environment 2008;43:1109–20.
[11] Shanmugam NE, Lakshmi B. State of the art report on steel-concrete composite
columns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2001;57:1041–80.
[12] Furlong RW. Design of steel-encased concrete beam–columns. Journal of
Structural Division, ASCE 1968;94(1):267–81.
[13] Virdi KS, Dowling PJ. The ultimate strength of composite columns in biaxial
bending. Proceedings Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2 1973;55:251–72.
[14] Roik K, Bergmann R. Design method for composite columns with unsymmet-
rical cross-sections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1990;33:153–72.
[15] Kato B. Column curves of steel-concrete composite members. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 1996;39(2):121–35.
[16] Munoz PR, Hsu CT. Behaviour of biaxially loaded concrete-encased composite
columns. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1997;123(9):1163–71.
[17] Munoz PR, Hsu CT. Biaxially loaded concrete-encased composite columns: de-
sign equation. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1997;123(12):1576–85.
[18] Chen CC, Lin NJ. Analytical model for predicting axial capacity and behaviour
of concrete encased steel composite stub columns. Journal of Constructional
Steel Research 2006;62:424–33.
[19] AISC. Specification for structural steel buildings. American Institute for Steel
Construction. ANSI/AISC 360-05, Reston, Chicago, Illinois, USA; 2005.
[20] EC4. Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures - Part
1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. London, UK: British Standards
Institution. BS EN 1994-1-1; 2004.
[21] ABAQUS standard user’s manual. Vol. 1, 2 and 3 Version 6.8-1, USA: Hibbitt.
Karlsson and Sorensen. Inc.; 2008.
[22] Sheikh SA, Uzumeri SM. Analytical model for concrete confinement in tied
columns. Journal of Structural Division, ASCE 1982;108(12):2703–22.
[23] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress–strain model for confined
concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1988;114(8):1804–26.
[24] Ellobody E, Young B. Design and behaviour of concrete-filled cold-formed
stainless steel tube columns. Engineering Structures 2006;28(5):716–28.
[25] Ellobody E, Young B. Nonlinear analysis of concrete-filled steel SHS and RHS
columns. Thin-walled Structures 2006;44(8):919–30.
[26] ACI. Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary. ACI
318M-08. USA: American Concrete Institute; 2008.
[27] Richart FE, Brandzaeg A, Brown RL. A study of the failure of concrete under
combined compressive stresses. Bull. 185. Champaign, Illinois, USA: Univ. of
Illinois Engineering Experimental Station; 1928.
[28] Hu HT, Huang CH, Wu MH, Wu YM. Nonlinear analysis of axially loaded
concrete-filled tube columns with confinement effect. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE 2003;129(10):1322–9.
[29] Saenz LP. In: Desayi P, Krishnan. S, editors. Discussion of ‘Equation for the
stress–strain curve of concrete’. ACI Journal 1964;61:1229–35.
[30] Hu HT, Schnobrich WC. Constitutive modeling of concrete by using nonasso-
ciated plasticity. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 1989;1(4):199–216.
[31] Ellobody E, Young B, Lam D. Behaviour of normal and high strength concrete-
filled compact steel tube circular stub columns. Journal of Constructional
Steel Research 2006;62(7):706–15.
[32] Giakoumelis G, Lam D. Axial capacity of circular concrete-filled tube columns.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2004;60(7):1049–68.
[33] CEB. RC Elements under cyclic loading. Comite Euro-International Du Beton
(CEB), Thomas Telford; 1996.
[34] EC3. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-1: General rules and rules
for buildings. London, UK: British Standards Institution, BS EN 1993-1-1; 2005.
[35] EC2. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1: General rules and
rules for buildings. London, UK: British Standards Institution, BS EN 1992-1-1;
2004.