Thin-Walled Structures 49 (2011) 53–65

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thin-Walled Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Eccentrically loaded concrete encased steel composite columns

Ehab Ellobody a,n, Ben Young b, Dennis Lam c
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
c
School of Engineering, Design and Technology, University of Bradford, UK

a r t i c l e in fo abstract

Article history: This paper presents a nonlinear 3-D finite element model for eccentrically loaded concrete encased steel
Received 22 March 2010 composite columns. The columns were pin-ended subjected to an eccentric load acting along the major
Received in revised form axis, with eccentricity varied from 0.125 to 0.375 of the overall depth (D) of the column sections. The
13 August 2010
model accounted for the inelastic behaviour of steel, concrete, longitudinal and transverse
Accepted 13 August 2010
reinforcement bars as well as the effect of concrete confinement of the concrete encased steel
Available online 9 September 2010
composite columns. The interface between the steel section and concrete, the longitudinal and
Keywords: transverse reinforcement bars, and the reinforcement bars and concrete were also considered allowing
Concrete encased steel the bond behaviour to be modelled and the different components to retain its profile during the
Composite columns
deformation of the column. The initial overall geometric imperfection was carefully incorporated in the
Eccentrically loaded
model. The finite element model has been validated against existing test results. The concrete strengths
Finite element
Modelling varied from normal to high strength (30–110 MPa). The steel section yield stresses also varied from
High strength normal to high strength (275–690 MPa). Furthermore, the variables that influence the eccentrically
Pin-ended loaded composite column behaviour and strength comprising different eccentricities, different column
Structural design dimensions, different structural steel sizes, different concrete strengths, and different structural steel
yield stresses were investigated in a parametric study. Generally, it is shown that the effect on the
composite column strength owing to the increase in structural steel yield stress is significant for
eccentrically loaded columns with small eccentricity of 0.125D. On the other hand, for columns with
higher eccentricity 0.375D, the effect on the composite column strength due to the increase in
structural steel yield stress is significant for columns with concrete strengths lower than 70 MPa. The
strength of composite columns obtained from the finite element analysis were compared with
the design strengths calculated using the Eurocode 4 for composite columns. Generally, it is shown that
the EC4 accurately predicted the eccentrically loaded composite columns, while overestimated the
moment.
& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and Dundar et al. [12], with extensive review of most of these
researches is given by Shanmugam and Lakshmi [13]. These tests
Composite column systems have become popular in tall were carried out on concentrically loaded and eccentrically
building construction due to combining the rigidity of reinforced loaded concrete encased steel composite columns having
concrete with structural steel sections. Composite columns may different slenderness ratios, different steel sections and different
be concrete encased steel columns or concrete-filled steel tube concrete and steel strengths.
columns. In addition to the advantages of composite columns, Analytical studies on concentrically loaded and eccentri-
concrete encased steel composite columns provide higher fire cally loaded concrete encased steel composite columns have
resistance compared to the conventional steel and concrete-filled been performed by Furlong [14], Virdi and Dowling [15], Roik
steel tube columns that require additional protection against fire. and Bergmann [16], Kato [17], Munoz and Hsu [18,19], and
Experimental investigations on concrete encased steel composite Chen and Lin [20]. Recently, Ellobody and Young [21] developed
columns have been conducted by Anslijn and Janss [1], a nonlinear 3-D finite element model investigating the beha-
Matsui [2], SSRC Task Group 20 [3], Morino et al. [4], Mirza and viour of axially concentric loaded concrete encased steel
Skrabek [5], Mirza et al. [6], Chen and Yeh [7], Tsai et al. [8], composite columns. The inelastic material properties of the
Chen et al. [9], El-Tawil and Deierlein [10], Al-Shahari et al. [11], composite column components, concrete confinement, initial
overall geometric imperfection, and the interface between
the composite column components were considered in the
n
Corresponding author. Tel./fax: + 20 40 3315860. model. The composite column strengths obtained from the
E-mail address: ehab_ellobody@tanta.edu.eg (E. Ellobody). finite element analyses were compared with the design

0263-8231/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tws.2010.08.006
54 E. Ellobody et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 49 (2011) 53–65

Nomenclature fyr yield stress of reinforcement bars

fur ultimate stress of reinforcement bars
Ac cross-sectional area of concrete fus ultimate stress of structural steel
Ar cross-sectional area of reinforcement bars Gf fracture energy of concrete
As cross-sectional area of structural steel h crack band width
B overall width of cross-section (smaller dimension) Ic moment of inertia of concrete
b1 reinforcement bar dimension Ir moment of inertia of reinforcement bars
b2 reinforcement bar dimension Is moment of inertia of structural steel
b3 reinforcement bar dimension k effective length factor
D overall depth of cross-section (larger dimension) L length of column
d1 reinforcement bar dimension Le effective length of column
d2 reinforcement bar dimension PEC4 unfactored design eccentric load calculated according
d3 reinforcement bar dimension to EC4
Ec Young’s modulus of concrete PFE eccentric column load obtained from finite element
Ecc Young’s modulus of confined concrete analysis
Ecm Secant modulus of concrete according to Eurocode 4 Po axial compressive resistance of column section
Er Young’s modulus of reinforcement bars PTest test strength
Es Young’s modulus of structural steel wc concrete density
F flexural buckling failure mode ucc Poisson’s ratio of confined concrete
FE finite element l relative slenderness ratio
fc unconfined compressive cylinder strength of concrete w factor for design strength using Eurocode 4
fcc confined compressive strength of concrete f factor for design strength using Eurocode 4

fcu unconfined compressive cube strength of concrete
lo factor for design strength using Eurocode 4
fl lateral confining pressure
a factor for design strength using Eurocode 4
fys yield stress of structural steel

strengths calculated using the American Institute for Steel compared with the design strengths calculated using the EC4 [23]
Construction AISC [22] and Eurocode 4 [23] for composite with detailed discussions.
columns. However, up-to-date, no detailed finite element model
was found in the literature highlighting the behaviour of
eccentrically loaded concrete encased steel composite columns 2. Summary of experimental investigation
including both the normal and high strength concrete and steel
materials. The tests on eccentrically loaded pin-ended concrete encased
Current design rules specified in the American Institute steel composite columns conducted by Al-Shahari et al. [11], SSRC
for Steel Construction AISC [22], American Concrete Institute Task Group 20 [3], and Morino et al. [4] were used to verify the
[24], and Eurocode 4 [23] are applicable to normal strength finite element model presented in this study. Tables 1 and 2
concrete classes C20/25–C50/60 and steel Grades S235–S460. summarize the measured dimensions and material properties of
In addition, the initial geometric imperfections, concrete confine- the tested specimens. The test specimens are well explained in
ment and bonding between the concrete encased steel composite [11] were lightweight aggregate concrete encased steel composite
column components are not sufficiently covered by the specifica- columns loaded eccentrically along the major axis as shown in
tions and the previous research. Furthermore, the design Fig. 1. Seven specimens were used in the verification denoted as
rules [22–24] were based on many assumptions and empirical BC1–BC7. The specimens had square cross-section (B  D) of
equations, especially for eccentrically loaded concrete encased 230 mm  230 mm and two different lengths of 2000 and
steel composite columns, that are applicable within the 3000 mm. The structural steel cross-sections used were HEA
limits given by these specifications. Extensive reviews of the 100 and HEA 140, as shown in Table 1. The specimens had
design guides [22–24] on concrete encased steel composite concrete cube strengths (fcu) varied from 13.7 to 28.2 MPa and
columns were presented by Weng and Yen [25] and Mirza and structural steel yield stresses (fys) varied from 307 to 337 MPa.
Lacroix [26]. The eccentricity along the major axis varied from 0.17 to 0.3 of the
The main objective of this study is to develop an efficient overall depth (D) of the sections. The details of the longitudinal
nonlinear 3-D finite element model to investigate the behaviour and transverse reinforcement were presented in Table 2. Simi-
of eccentrically loaded pin-ended concrete encased steel compo- larly, concrete encased steel composite columns conducted by
site columns. The model has accounted for the inelastic behaviour SSRC Task Group 20 [3] were loaded eccentrically with eccen-
of steel, concrete, longitudinal and transverse reinforcement bars tricity varying from 0.07D to 0.14D. Five specimens labeled as
and interfaces between these components, as well as the effect of BC8–BC12 were used in the verification. The specimens had
concrete confinement. The model was developed using ABAQUS rectangular cross-section of 165.1 mm  177.8 mm and different
[27] and was validated against existing test results. The study lengths varying from 726 to 2997 mm. The structural steel section
covered normal and high strength concrete and steel materials. was Universal Beam UB 127  114  29.76. The specimens had
The initial overall geometric imperfections were carefully in- concrete cylinder strength of 19.3 MPa and steel yield stress of
cluded in the finite element model. Parametric studies were 232 MPa. The longitudinal and transverse reinforcement bars
performed to investigate the effects of different eccentricities, used in the tests [3] were detailed in Table 2.
concrete strengths, and steel yield stresses on the strength and Finally, the test specimens detailed in [4] had the same
behaviour of the eccentrically loaded composite columns. The eccentricity along the major axis but with different lengths. Three
column strengths obtained from the finite element analysis were specimens used in the verification were labeled BC13–BC15. The
 E. Ellobody et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 49 (2011) 53–65 55

Table 1
Specimen dimensions and material properties of eccentrically loaded concrete encased steel composite columns.

Test Dimensions Steel section e/D Material properties Ref.

B (mm) D (mm) kL (mm) Concrete strength (MPa) fys (MPa) fur (MPa)

BC1 230 230 2000 H 100  96  5  8 0.3 20.5a 337 459

BC2 230 230 2000 H 100  96  5  8 0.3 13.7a 337 459
BC3 230 230 2000 H 140  133  5.5  8 0.3 20.5a 307 459
BC4 230 230 2000 H 140  133  5.5  8 0.3 28.2a 307 459 [11]
BC5 230 230 3000 H 140  133  5.5  8 0.3 28.2a 307 459
BC6 230 230 3000 H 100  96  5  8 0.17 20.5a 337 459
BC7 230 230 3000 H 100  96  5  8 0.17 13.7a 337 459

BC8 165.1 177.8 726 UB 127  114  29.76 0.11 19.3b 232 460
BC9 165.1 177.8 1156 UB 127  114  29.76 0.07 19.3b 232 460
BC10 165.1 177.8 2083 UB 127  114  29.76 0.11 19.3b 232 460 [3]
BC11 165.1 177.8 2997 UB 127  114  29.76 0.07 19.3b 232 460
BC12 165.1 177.8 2997 UB 127  114  29.76 0.14 19.3b 232 460

BC13 160 160 960 H 100  100  6  8 0.25 21.1a 345 460
BC14 160 160 2400 H 100  100  6  8 0.25 23.4a 345 460 [4]
BC15 160 160 3600 H 100  100  6  8 0.25 23.3a 345 460

a
Concrete cube strength.
b
Concrete cylinder strength.

Table 2
Composite section dimensions and reinforcement details.

Test Composite Section dimensions (mm) Reinforcement Ref.

b1 b2 b3 d1 d2 d3 Long. Transverse

No Ø S Ø

BC1 100 35 30 96 35 32 4 12 140 8

BC2 100 35 30 96 35 32 4 12 140 8
BC3 140 35 10 133 35 13.5 4 12 140 8
BC4 140 35 10 133 35 13.5 4 12 140 8 [11]
BC5 140 35 10 133 35 13.5 4 12 140 8
BC6 100 35 30 96 35 32 4 12 140 8
BC7 100 35 30 96 35 32 4 12 140 8

BC8 114.3 14.4 11 127 14.4 11 4 6 75 4

BC9 114.3 14.4 11 127 14.4 11 4 6 75 4
BC10 114.3 14.4 11 127 14.4 11 4 6 75 4 [3]
BC11 114.3 14.4 11 127 14.4 11 4 6 75 4
BC12 114.3 14.4 11 127 14.4 11 4 6 75 4

BC13 100 19 11 100 19 11 4 6 75 4

BC14 100 19 11 100 19 11 4 6 75 4 [4]
BC15 100 19 11 100 19 11 4 6 75 4

specimens had square cross-section of 160 mm  160 mm element library, as shown in Fig. 2. The elements have three
and different lengths of 960, 2400, and 3600 mm for BC13, degrees of freedom per node and suitable to all the column
BC14, and BC15, respectively. The structural steel section was components since local buckling of the structural steel is
H-shaped 100 mm  100 mm  6 mm  8 mm. The specimens had prevented by the surrounding concrete elements. The concrete
concrete cube strengths varying from 21.1 to 23.4 MPa and confinement was modelled by adopting Sheikh and Uzumeri [28]
structural steel yield stress of 345 MPa. The longitudinal and and Mander et al. [29] models on reinforced concrete columns.
transverse reinforcement bars of the tests [4] were detailed in The composite column can be divided into the highly confined
Table 2. concrete, the partially confined concrete and the unconfined
concrete zones, as shown in Fig. 2. Chen and Lin [20] evaluated the
confinement factors for the highly and partially confined concrete
3. Finite element modelling zones. The confinement zones were simplified, as adopted by
Mirza and Skrabek [5], by taking the highly confined concrete
3.1. Finite element type and mesh from the web of the steel section to the mid-width of each flange
outstand, the partially confined concrete from the mid-width of
The eccentrically loaded concrete encased steel composite each flange outstand to the centerlines of the longitudinal
column components were modelled using a combination of 3-D reinforcement, and finally the unconfined concrete is the
solid elements (C3D8 and C3D6) available in the ABAQUS [27] remaining external zone as shown in Fig. 2.
56 E. Ellobody et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 49 (2011) 53–65

P
e
Axis of bending

L/2

L/2
3
2

P
Undeformed shape Deformed shape Schematic diagram

Longitudinal bar Steel section

Transverse bar d2
d3
Axis of bending
d1 D

d3
Concrete
d2

b1
b2 b3 b3 b2
B
Column cross-section

Fig. 1. Eccentrically loaded concrete encased steel composite columns.

3.2. Eccentric load application while that of the top plate, the eccentric loading position, was
allowed to displace in the vertical direction only, direction 3–3 in
The eccentrically loaded concrete encased steel composite Figs. 1 and 2. The load was applied in increments and the
columns investigated in this study were pinned at both ends. The nonlinear geometry was included in the analysis. The load was
pin-ended conditions were achieved by allowing the loading end applied as a static concentrated load, as shown in Figs. 1 and 2.
plates to rotate about the axis of the plate in the line of application
of eccentric force, direction 2–2 in Figs. 1 and 2. The upper and
lower end plates nodes were connected to the matching specimen 3.3. Modelling of confined concrete
end nodes. Following the eccentric load application in the tests
[3,4,11], the restrained eccentric point on the outside surface of The highly confined concrete, partially confined concrete and
the bottom plate was restrained against all degrees of freedom unconfined concrete, as shown in Fig. 2, were modelled by
 E. Ellobody et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 49 (2011) 53–65 57

Partially confined concrete strength of the concrete. The softening stress–strain response,
Structural steel 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
Longitudinal bar
as 0.12 N/mm. The fracture energy divided by the crack band
Highly confined concrete width (h) was used to define the area under the softening branch
of the tension part of the stress–strain curve. The crack band
width was assumed as the cubic root of the volume between
integration points for a solid element, as recommended by
CEB [34].

Unconfined concrete 3.4. Material modelling of steel section and reinforcement bars

The stress–strain curves for the structural steel and the

reinforcement steel given in the EC3 [35] and EC2 [36],
respectively, were adopted in this study with measured values
of the yield stress (fys) and ultimate stress (fus) used in the tests.
The material behaviour provided by ABAQUS [27] (using the
PLASTIC option) allows a nonlinear stress–strain curve to be used.
The first part of the nonlinear curve represents the elastic part up
to the proportional limit stress with Young’s modulus of 200 GPa
and Poisson’s ratio of 0.3 were used in the finite element model.
3
3.5. Modelling of interfaces
2

1 The steel section–concrete, the longitudinal reinforcement

bar–transverse reinforcement bar, and the reinforcement bar–
concrete interfaces were modelled by interface elements (using
Fig. 2. Finite element model of concrete encased steel composite columns. the nCONTACT PAIR option) available within the ABAQUS [27]
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
adopting the same approach presented in [30–32]. The uncon- section and the reinforcement bars that are the slave surfaces. The
fined concrete cylinder compressive strength (fc) is taken equal to interface elements are formed between the master and slave
0.8(fcu), and fcu is the unconfined concrete cube compressive surfaces and monitor the displacement of the slave surface in
strength. The corresponding unconfined strain (ec) is taken as relation to the master surface. When the two surfaces remain in
0.003 as recommended by the ACI Specification [24]. The confined contact, the slave surface can displace relative to the master
concrete compressive strength (fcc) and the corresponding con- surface based on the coefficient of friction between the two
fined stain (ecc) were determined according to Mander et al. [29] surfaces, which is taken as 0.25 [30–32]. When the two surfaces
by knowing the lateral confining pressure (fl). The approximate are in contact, the forces normal to the master surface can be
value of (fl) can be obtained by knowing the confinement factors
for the highly and partially confined concrete zones as given by
Chen and Lin [20]. The confinement factor for highly confined Table 3
concrete varied from 1.10 to 1.97 depending on the spacing Comparison between test and finite element results.

between transverse reinforcement and structural steel shape. On

Test [Ref.] Test FE PFE/PTest
the other hand, the confinement factor for partially confined
concrete varied from 1.09 to 1.50 as explained in [20]. The PTest (kN) PFE (kN) Failure mode
confinement factors depend on the steel section shape and the
BC1 [11] 654 601 F 0.92
spacing between transverse reinforcement bars (S). The value of
BC2 [11] 558 511 F 0.92
the proportional limit stress is taken as 0.5(fcc) as given by Hu BC3 [11] 962 827 F 0.86
et al. [33]. While the initial Young’s modulus of confined concrete BC4 [11] 949 946 F 1.00
(Ecc) is reasonably calculated using the empirical Eq. (1) given by BC5 [11] 900 822 F 0.91
ACI [24] knowing the density of concrete (wc) in kg/m3. Poisson’s BC6 [11] 813 684 F 0.84
BC7 [11] 704 583 F 0.83
ratio (ucc) of confined concrete is taken as 0.2 [30–33]:
pffiffiffiffiffi BC8 [3] 1014 1043 F 1.03
Ecc ¼ w1:5
c 0:043 fcc MPa ð1Þ BC9 [3] 996 977 F 0.98
BC10 [3] 747 740 F 0.99
BC11 [3] 716 742 F 1.04
BC12 [3] 529 522 F 0.99
Concrete was modelled using the damaged plasticity model
implemented in the ABAQUS [27] standard and explicit material BC13 [4] 740 660 F 0.89
library. Under uniaxial compression the response is linear until BC14 [4] 504 530 F 1.05
the value of proportional limit stress is reached. Under uniaxial BC15 [4] 412 406 F 0.99
tension the stress–strain response follows a linear elastic
Mean – – – 0.95
relationship until the value of the failure stress. The tensile COV 0.077
– – –
failure stress was assumed to be 0.1 times the compressive
58 E. Ellobody et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 49 (2011) 53–65

transmitted between the two surfaces. When the two surfaces 4. Verification of finite element model
separate, the relative displacement between the two surfaces can
still be monitored but the forces normal to the master surface The developed finite element model for eccentrically loaded
cannot be transmitted. However, the two surfaces cannot concrete encased steel composite columns was verified against
penetrate each other. the test results detailed in [3,4,11]. The eccentric ultimate loads
obtained from the tests (PTest) and finite element analyses (PFE) are
compared in Table 3. The failure mode was also obtained by the
3.6. Modelling of initial overall (out-of-straightness) geometric finite element analysis and summarized in Table 3. Generally, it
imperfection can be seen that good agreement between the test and finite
element results for most of the eccentrically loaded columns. The
The buckling mode of the eccentrically loaded concrete mean value of PFE/PTest ratio is 0.95 with the coefficient of
encased steel composite column was obtained by carrying out variation (COV) of 0.077, as shown in Table 3.
Eigenvalue buckling analysis of the column with actual geometry The failure mode predicted from the finite element analysis for
and elastic material properties. Only the lowest buckling mode the eccentrically loaded concrete encased steel composite
(eigenmode 1) was used in the eigenvalue analysis. Since the columns was flexural buckling (F), as shown in Table 3. Fig. 3
buckling mode predicted by the ABAQUS [27] Eigenvalue analysis shows the deformed shape at failure for specimen BC5 [11]. It
is normalized to 1.0, the buckling mode was factored by can be seen that the predicted flexural buckling failure mode
the magnitude of the initial overall geometric imperfection, agrees well with the observed experimental failure mode for the
which is taken as L/2000 where L is the length of the pin-ended eccentrically loaded composite column. The principal stresses in
column. The factored imperfection buckling mode is inserted direction 3–3, refer to Figs. 1 and 2, were plotted together with
into the load displacement nonlinear analysis following the the deformed shape at failure for the eccentrically loaded column
eigenvalue prediction using the nIMPERFECTION option available BC5 [11] as shown in Fig. 3. It is shown that the maximum
in ABAQUS [27]. compressive stress was reached at the inner surface at the mid-

Upper loading plate

Tensile
stresses

Principal stress in
direction 3-3 (N/m2)

Concentration of
compressive stresses

Lower loading plate

Eccentric loading
Experimental [11] Numerical with stress contour
Fig. 3. Comparison of deformed shapes at failure for eccentrically loaded concrete encased steel composite column BC5.
 E. Ellobody et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 49 (2011) 53–65 59

height of the column, while the maximum tensile stress was Similarly, G4–G6, G7–G9, G10–G12, G13–G15, and G16–G18
reached at the outer surface at the mid-height of the column. The had the similar structural steel yield and ultimate stresses. All
data obtained from ABAQUS [27] have shown that the structural the eccentrically loaded column specimens had the same overall
steel did not reach its yield stress and the flexural buckling failure length (L) of 3000 mm. It should be noted that the effective length
mode was governed by the concrete elements at the maximum Le is equal to kL, where k is the effective length factor that is equal
stressed fibers. to 1.0 for pin-ended column. The reinforcement bars in G1–G18
had yield stress (fyr) and ultimate stress (fur) of 376 and 460 MPa,
respectively. The longitudinal reinforcement in G1–G9 was 4 bars
5. Parametric study and discussions of 12 mm diameter which is similar to the tests [11] with cover of
30 mm and the transverses reinforcement was 8 mm diameter
The verified finite element model was used in conducting with spacing between transverse reinforcements (S) 75 mm. On
extensive parametric studies. A total of 54 eccentrically loaded the other hand, longitudinal reinforcement in G10–G18 was 4
column specimens were analyzed having different eccentricities, bars of 6 mm diameter which is similar to the tests [3] with cover
overall cross-section dimensions, structural steel sections, con- of 14.4 mm and the transverse reinforcement was 4 mm diameter
crete strength and structural steel yield stresses. Tables 4 and 5 with S ¼75 mm. The initial overall geometric imperfection was
summarize the dimensions and material properties of the taken as L/2000, where L is the column length.
columns having square and rectangular cross-sections, respec- The eccentric concrete encased steel composite column load
tively. The columns were divided into 18 groups (G1–G18) and (PFE) and the companion moment at failure (MFE) as well as the
the eccentricities along the major axis varied from 0.125D to failure mode was predicted using the developed finite element
0.375D. The first nine groups G1–G9, as shown in Table 4, had model as summarized in Tables 6 and 7. Generally, the higher the
square cross-section (B  D) 230 mm  230 mm which is similar concrete strength and the structural steel yield stress, the higher
to the tests [11], while G10–G18, as shown in Table 5, had the composite column load and moment were obtained. In this
rectangular cross-section 165.1 mm  177.8 mm which is also study, the failure mode was flexural buckling (F) only, as shown in
similar to the tests [3]. Groups G1–G3, G4–G6, and G7–G9 had Tables 6 and 7.
eccentricities along the major axis of 0.125D, 0.25D, and 0.375D, The strengths of eccentrically loaded concrete encased steel
respectively. Similarly, G10–G12, G13–G15, and G16–G18 had the composite columns of Groups G1–G9, having a square cross-section
same eccentricities of 0.125D, 0.25D, and 0.375D, respectively. of 230 mm  230 mm and structural steel cross-section of HEA 140,
The structural steel used in G1–G9 was HEA 140 (H 140  133  were plotted against the concrete strength as shown in Fig. 4.
5.5  8) which is similar to the tests [11], while that in G10–G18 It can be seen that the relationships are approximately linear for the
was UB 127  114  29.76 which is also similar to the tests [3]. columns with small eccentricity 0.125D and the strength is
Each group had three column specimens having concrete increased with the increase in concrete strength and structural
cylinder strengths (fc) of 30, 70, and 110 MPa. Groups G1–G3 had steel yield stress. For the columns with eccentricity of 0.25D, the
structural steel yield stress (fys) of 275, 460, and 690 MPa and relationships are linear for the columns with structural steel yield
ultimate stress (fus) of 430, 530, and 760 MPa, respectively. stresses of 275 and 460 MPa, and the strength is increased with the

Table 4
Specimen dimensions and material properties of eccentrically loaded concrete encased steel composite square columns in the parametric study.

Group Specimen Section Length Steel section e/D Concrete Steel

B  D (mm) kL (mm) fc (MPa) fys (MPa) fus (MPa)

G1 S1 230  230 3000 H 140  133  5.5  8 0.125 30 275 430

S2 230  230 3000 H 140  133  5.5  8 0.125 70 275 430
S3 230  230 3000 H 140  133  5.5  8 0.125 110 275 430
G2 S4 230  230 3000 H 140  133  5.5  8 0.125 30 460 530
S5 230  230 3000 H 140  133  5.5  8 0.125 70 460 530
S6 230  230 3000 H 140  133  5.5  8 0.125 110 460 530
G3 S7 230  230 3000 H 140  133  5.5  8 0.125 30 690 760
S8 230  230 3000 H 140  133  5.5  8 0.125 70 690 760
S9 230  230 3000 H 140  133  5.5  8 0.125 110 690 760

G4 S10 230  230 3000 H 140  133  5.5  8 0.25 30 275 430
S11 230  230 3000 H 140  133  5.5  8 0.25 70 275 430
S12 230  230 3000 H 140  133  5.5  8 0.25 110 275 430
G5 S13 230  230 3000 H 140  133  5.5  8 0.25 30 460 530
S14 230  230 3000 H 140  133  5.5  8 0.25 70 460 530
S15 230  230 3000 H 140  133  5.5  8 0.25 110 460 530
G6 S16 230  230 3000 H 140  133  5.5  8 0.25 30 690 760
S17 230  230 3000 H 140  133  5.5  8 0.25 70 690 760
S18 230  230 3000 H 140  133  5.5  8 0.25 110 690 760

G7 S19 230  230 3000 H 140  133  5.5  8 0.375 30 275 430
S20 230  230 3000 H 140  133  5.5  8 0.375 70 275 430
S21 230  230 3000 H 140  133  5.5  8 0.375 110 275 430
G8 S22 230  230 3000 H 140  133  5.5  8 0.375 30 460 530
S23 230  230 3000 H 140  133  5.5  8 0.375 70 460 530
S24 230  230 3000 H 140  133  5.5  8 0.375 110 460 530
G9 S25 230  230 3000 H 140  133  5.5  8 0.375 30 690 760
S26 230  230 3000 H 140  133  5.5  8 0.375 70 690 760
S27 230  230 3000 H 140  133  5.5  8 0.375 110 690 760
60 E. Ellobody et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 49 (2011) 53–65

Table 5
Specimen dimensions and material properties of eccentrically loaded concrete encased steel composite rectangular columns in the parametric study.

Group Specimen Section Length Steel section e/D Concrete Steel

B  D (mm) kL (mm) fc (MPa) fys (MPa) fus (MPa)

G10 S28 165.1  177.8 3000 UB 127  114  29.76 0.125 30 275 430
S29 165.1  177.8 3000 UB 127  114  29.76 0.125 70 275 430
S30 165.1  177.8 3000 UB 127  114  29.76 0.125 110 275 430
G11 S31 165.1  177.8 3000 UB 127  114  29.76 0.125 30 460 530
S32 165.1  177.8 3000 UB 127  114  29.76 0.125 70 460 530
S33 165.1  177.8 3000 UB 127  114  29.76 0.125 110 460 530
G12 S34 165.1  177.8 3000 UB 127  114  29.76 0.125 30 690 760
S35 165.1  177.8 3000 UB 127  114  29.76 0.125 70 690 760
S36 165.1  177.8 3000 UB 127  114  29.76 0.125 110 690 760

G13 S37 165.1  177.8 3000 UB 127  114  29.76 0.25 30 275 430
S38 165.1  177.8 3000 UB 127  114  29.76 0.25 70 275 430
S39 165.1  177.8 3000 UB 127  114  29.76 0.25 110 275 430
G14 S40 165.1  177.8 3000 UB 127  114  29.76 0.25 30 460 530
S41 165.1  177.8 3000 UB 127  114  29.76 0.25 70 460 530
S42 165.1  177.8 3000 UB 127  114  29.76 0.25 110 460 530
G15 S43 165.1  177.8 3000 UB 127  114  29.76 0.25 30 690 760
S44 165.1  177.8 3000 UB 127  114  29.76 0.25 70 690 760
S45 165.1  177.8 3000 UB 127  114  29.76 0.25 110 690 760

G16 S46 165.1  177.8 3000 UB 127  114  29.76 0.375 30 275 430
S47 165.1  177.8 3000 UB 127  114  29.76 0.375 70 275 430
S48 165.1  177.8 3000 UB 127  114  29.76 0.375 110 275 430
G17 S49 165.1  177.8 3000 UB 127  114  29.76 0.375 30 460 530
S50 165.1  177.8 3000 UB 127  114  29.76 0.375 70 460 530
S51 165.1  177.8 3000 UB 127  114  29.76 0.375 110 460 530
G18 S52 165.1  177.8 3000 UB 127  114  29.76 0.375 30 690 760
S53 165.1  177.8 3000 UB 127  114  29.76 0.375 70 690 760
S54 165.1  177.8 3000 UB 127  114  29.76 0.375 110 690 760

Table 6
Comparison of FE and design predictions for eccentrically loaded concrete encased steel composite square columns.

Group Specimen EC4 Finite element analysis PFE/PEC4 MFE/MEC4

PEC4 (kN) MEC4 (kNm) PFE (kN) MFE (kNm) Failure mode

G1 S1 1285 91 1275 65 F 0.99 0.71

S2 1970 152 2038 115 F 1.03 0.76
S3 2575 212 2779 149 F 1.08 0.70
G2 S4 1520 119 1529 78 F 1.01 0.66
S5 2165 178 2293 128 F 1.06 0.72
S6 2790 245 3047 167 F 1.09 0.68
G3 S7 1680 142 1738 103 F 1.03 0.73
S8 2380 212 2540 152 F 1.07 0.72
S9 2980 279 3304 199 F 1.11 0.71
G4 S10 945 99 945 81 F 1.00 0.82
S11 1370 148 1408 112 F 1.03 0.76
S12 1650 179 1888 147 F 1.14 0.82
G5 S13 1140 128 1121 98 F 0.98 0.77
S14 1620 188 1588 132 F 0.98 0.70
S15 1900 219 2005 158 F 1.06 0.72
G6 S16 1315 158 1248 103 F 0.95 0.65
S17 1840 228 1697 150 F 0.92 0.66
S18 2180 269 2001 158 F 0.92 0.59
G7 S19 753 104 787 92 F 1.05 0.88
S20 972 133 1073 112 F 1.10 0.84
S21 1130 153 1431 149 F 1.27 0.97
G8 S22 910 132 931 111 F 1.02 0.84
S23 1200 174 1116 118 F 0.93 0.68
S24 1390 199 1439 150 F 1.04 0.75
G9 S25 1075 165 1052 134 F 0.98 0.81
S26 1445 224 1129 120 F 0.78 0.54
S27 1650 251 1446 151 F 0.88 0.60

Mean – – – – – – 1.02 0.73

COV – – – – – – 0.091 0.129
 E. Ellobody et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 49 (2011) 53–65 61

increase of the yield stress from 275 to 460 MPa. For the columns small eccentricity of 0.125D. On the other hand, for columns with
with structural steel yield stress of 690 MPa, the strength of the higher eccentricity 0.375D, the effect on the composite column
column with higher concrete strength 110 MPa was identical to strength due to the increase in structural steel yield stress is
that of the column with structural steel yield stress of 460 MPa and significant for column with concrete strengths lower than 70 MPa.
concrete strength 110 MPa. For the columns with higher eccen- Similarly, Fig. 5 also plotted the column strength–concrete
tricity of 0.375D, the relationship is linear for the columns with strength relationships for the columns of Groups G10–G18
structural steel yield stress of 275 MPa. For the columns with having a rectangular cross-section of 165.1 mm  177.8 mm and
structural steel yield stresses of 460 and 690 MPa, the strength is structural steel cross-section of UB 127  114  29.76. Unlike the
approximately identical to that of the columns with structural steel observations for the composite columns of G1–G9, the relation-
yield stress of 275 MPa and concrete strengths of 70 and 110 MPa, ships are approximately linear for all the columns and the
respectively. Generally, it can be concluded that the effect on the strength is increased with the increase in the structural steel
composite column strength owing to the increase in structural steel yield stress. This is possibly attributed to the relatively higher
yield stress is significant for eccentrically loaded columns with slenderness of the columns and the structural steel sizes.

Table 7
Comparison of FE and design predictions for eccentrically loaded concrete encased steel composite rectangular columns.

Group Specimen EC4 Finite element analysis PFE/PEC4 MFE/MEC4

PEC4 (kN) MEC4 (kNm) PFE (kN) MFE (kNm) Failure mode

G10 S28 883 53 900 37 F 1.02 0.70

S29 1235 83 1199 48 F 0.97 0.58
S30 1515 111 1518 62 F 1.00 0.56
G11 S31 1100 76 1176 56 F 1.07 0.74
S32 1445 111 1475 74 F 1.02 0.67
S33 1707 140 1784 84 F 1.05 0.60
G12 S34 1320 107 1411 86 F 1.07 0.80
S35 1655 147 1716 107 F 1.04 0.73
S36 1895 176 2001 124 F 1.06 0.70
G13 S37 698 61 678 52 F 0.97 0.85
S38 957 90 888 68 F 0.93 0.76
S39 1095 105 1064 69 F 0.97 0.66
G14 S40 888 87 881 71 F 0.99 0.82
S41 1146 119 1081 83 F 0.94 0.70
S42 1350 146 1283 98 F 0.95 0.67
G15 S43 1079 119 1073 98 F 0.99 0.82
S44 1340 156 1287 122 F 0.96 0.78
S45 1540 185 1430 125 F 0.93 0.68
G16 S46 570 65 576 59 F 1.01 0.91
S47 748 88 748 77 F 1.00 0.88
S48 830 98 907 94 F 1.09 0.96
G17 S49 750 94 737 75 F 0.98 0.80
S50 955 124 915 98 F 0.96 0.79
S51 1066 139 1066 112 F 1.00 0.81
G18 S52 923 127 918 112 F 0.99 0.88
S53 1128 161 1081 128 F 0.96 0.80
S54 1286 187 1175 132 F 0.91 0.71

Mean – – – – – – 0.99 0.75

COV – – – – – – 0.047 0.133

3500 2500
FE ( f ys = 275, e = 0.125D )
FE ( f ys = 690, e = 0.125D )
3000 FE ( f ys = 460, e = 0.125D ) FE ( f ys = 460, e = 0.125D )
FE ( f ys = 275, e = 0.125D ) 2000 FE ( f ys = 690, e = 0.125D )
2500 FE ( f ys = 690, e = 0.25D ) FE ( f ys = 690, e = 0.25D )
Eccentric load (kN)

Eccentric load (kN)

FE ( f ys = 460, e = 0.25D ) FE ( f ys = 460, e = 0.25D )

FE ( f ys = 275, e = 0.25D ) 1500
2000

1500
1000

1000 FE ( f ys = 690, e = 0.375D )

FE ( f ys = 690, e = 0.375D )
500 FE ( f ys = 275, e = 0.25D )
500 FE ( f ys = 460, e = 0.375D )
FE ( f ys = 275, e = 0.375D )
FE ( f ys = 275, e = 0.375D ) FE ( f ys = 460, e = 0.375D )
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Concrete strength (MPa) Concrete strength (MPa)

Fig. 4. Effect of concrete strength on the strength of eccentrically loaded Fig. 5. Effect of concrete strength on the strength of eccentrically loaded
composite columns of groups G1–G9. composite columns of groups G10–G18.
62 E. Ellobody et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 49 (2011) 53–65

6. Comparison with design guides moment using the EC4 (MEC4) was considerably higher than that
predicted from the finite element analysis. The mean values of
6.1. Design guides MFE/MEC4 ratio are 0.73 and 0.75 with the corresponding COV of
0.129 and 0.133, as shown in Tables 6 and 7, respectively. This is
The simplified design method given in the Eurocode 4 for attributed to the assumption of L/200 initial overall geometric
eccentrically loaded concrete encased steel composite columns imperfection given in the EC4, which provided a larger moment
was used in this study. The Eurocode 4 unfactored eccentric load compared with the moment obtained from the finite element
strength was based on the cross-section and column axial force- analysis using the value of L/2000.
bending moment strength interaction diagrams. The axial load- Figs. 6–11 show the comparison of eccentric column loads
bending moment interaction diagram of a cross-section was predicted from the finite element analysis and that calculated
approximated by a four-point polygon for bending applied about using the EC4 for groups G1–G3, G4–G6, G7–G9, G10–G12,
the major axis of the encased steel section. The four-point polygon G13–G15, and G16–G18, respectively. It can be seen that the
were determined using the assumptions that the structural steel
section and reinforcing steel bars were fully plasticized in tension
or compression on adjacent sides of the neutral axis with stress 3500
G3 (FE)
ordinates equal to their yield strengths and a rectangular
3000
compressive stress block with a stress ordinate of 0.85fc was G1 (FE)
distributed uniformly over the concrete area between the 2500 G2 (FE)

Eccentric load (kN)

compression face and the neutral axis.
The Eurocode 4 method for computing second-order effects in 2000
G1 (EC4)
columns requires the calculation of the resistance of a column
1500 G2 (EC4)
under pure axial compression (Po) using Eq. (2). Any point on the
G3 (EC4)
column axial force-bending moment strength interaction dia- 1000
grams represents a column subjected to an eccentric load lower
than the pure axial compression: 500

Po ¼ wNpl ð2Þ 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
where Concrete strength (MPa)
1
w¼   0:5 r 1 ð3Þ Fig. 6. Comparison of finite element analysis and EC4 strengths of groups G1–G3.

f þ f2 l2

with 2500
G6 (EC4)
2 G5 (FE)
f ¼ 0:5½1 þ aðllo Þ þ l  ð4Þ
2000
G6 (FE)

and G4 (FE)
Eccentric load (kN)

 1=2 1500
Le As fys þ 0:85Ac fc þ Ar fyr
l¼ ð5Þ G5(EC4)
p Es Is þ 0:6Ecm Ic þ Er Ir
1000
where Ecm is the secant modulus of elasticity of concrete in (MPa), G4(EC4)
Le is the effective length of the column, a and lo are the factors
given in Table 5 of the code and taken as 0.49 and 0.2, 500
respectively, for the concrete-encased steel composite columns
investigated. 0
The column bending moment strength (MEC4) was computed 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
from Eq. (6): Concrete strength (MPa)

MEC4 ¼ aM md Mpl ð6Þ Fig. 7. Comparison of finite element analysis and EC4 strengths of groups G4–G6.

where Mpl is the plastic bending moment resistance, md is the

bending factor, and aM is a coefficient taken as 0.9 for structural
2000
steels S235 and S355, but taken as 0.8 for S420 and S460.
G9 (EC4)
G8 (EC4)
6.2. Comparison with design guides G8 (FE)
1500
G9 FE
Eccentric load (kN)

The eccentric composite column load (PFE) and moment (MFE)

obtained from the finite element analysis were compared with 1000
the unfactored design eccentric column load and moment
calculated using EC4 [23] (PEC4 and MEC4), respectively, as shown G7 (EC4)
in Tables 6 and 7. The eccentric column loads obtained from the 500 G7 (FE)
finite element analysis and EC4 were also plotted in Figs. 6–11.
Looking at Tables 6 and 7, generally, it can be seen that the EC4
accurately predicted the eccentric column loads. The mean values 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
of PFE/PEC4 ratio are 1.02 and 0.99 with the corresponding
Concrete strength (MPa)
coefficients of variation (COV) of 0.091 and 0.047, as shown in
Tables 6 and 7, respectively. However, the calculated design Fig. 8. Comparison of finite element analysis and EC4 strengths of groups G7–G9.
 E. Ellobody et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 49 (2011) 53–65 63

2500 and low concrete strengths. This was not clearly predicted from
G12 (FE) the EC4.
G12 (EC4)
2000 The column axial load-bending moment interaction diagrams
G10 (EC4)
G11 (FE) specified in the EC4 were plotted for the eccentrically loaded
Eccentric load (kN)

concrete encased steel composite column investigated in the

1500
parametric study. Figs. 12–15 show some of the interaction

1000 G11 (EC4)

G10 (FE)
3000
S1 (FE)
500
S1 (EC4)
2500
EC4 interaction curve
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 2000

Axial load (kN)

Concrete strength (MPa)

Fig. 9. Comparison of finite element analysis and EC4 strengths of groups 1500
G10–G12.
1000

2000 500
G15 (EC4)
G15 (FE)
0
1500 G14 (EC4) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
G14 (FE)
Eccentric load (kN)

Moment (kNm)

Fig. 12. EC4 interaction curve for concrete encased steel composite column
1000
specimen S1.

G13 (EC4)
500 7000
G13 (FE)
S3 (FE)
6000 S3 (EC4)
0 EC4 interaction curve
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
5000
Concrete strength (MPa)
Axial load (kN)

Fig. 10. Comparison of finite element analysis and EC4 strengths of groups 4000
G13–G15.
3000

2000
1500

G18 (EC4) G18 (FE) 1000

G17 (FE)
G17 (EC4) 0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Eccentric load (kN)

1000
Moment (kNm)

Fig. 13. EC4 interaction curve for concrete encased steel composite column
G16 (FE)
specimen S3.
500 G16 (EC4)

3000
S19 (FE)
0 S19 (EC4)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 2500
EC4 interaction curve
Concrete strength (MPa)
2000
Axial load (kN)

Fig. 11. Comparison of finite element analysis and EC4 strengths of groups
G16–G18.
1500

EC4 accurately predicted the eccentric column loads for different 1000

eccentricities, normal and high strengths concrete, and normal

and high structural yield stresses that confirming the finite 500
element analysis predictions. However, slight discrepancy can be
observed in Figs. 7 and 8. As mentioned earlier, the finite 0
element analysis has shown that the effect on the composite 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Moment (kNm)
column strength owing to the increase in structural steel yield
stress is significant for eccentrically loaded columns with small Fig. 14. EC4 interaction curve for concrete encased steel composite column
eccentricity as well as for columns with higher eccentricity specimen S19.
64 E. Ellobody et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 49 (2011) 53–65

7000 References
S21 (FE)
6000 S21 (EC4)
[1] Anslijn R, Janss J. Le calcul de charges ultimes des colonnes metalliques
EC4 interaction curve
enrobes de beton. C.R.I.F., Report MT89, Brussels, April 1974.
5000 [2] Matsui C. Study on elasto-plastic behaviour of concrete-encased columns
subjected to eccentric axial thrust. Annual Assembly of Architectural Institute
Axial load (kN)

of Japan, September 1979. p. 1627–8 (in Japanese).

4000
[3] SSRC Task Group 20. A specification for the design of steel–concrete
composite columns. AISC Engineering Journal Fourth Quarter 1979:101–15.
3000 [4] Morino S, Matsui C, Watanabe H. Strength of biaxially loaded SRC columns.
In: Proceedings of the US/Japan joint seminar on composite and mixed
2000 construction. New York: ASCE; 1984. p. 185–94.
[5] Mirza SA, Skrabek BW. Statistical analysis of slender composite beam–column
strength. Journal of Structural Engineering—ASCE 1992;118(5):1312–31.
1000 [6] Mirza SA, Hyttinen V, Hyttinen E. Physical tests and analyses of composite
steel–concrete beam–columns. Journal of Structural Engineering—ASCE
0 1996;122(11):1317–26.
0 50 100 150 200 250 [7] Chen CC, Yeh SC. Ultimate strength of concrete encased steel composite
Moment (kNm) columns. In: Proceedings of the third national conference on structural
engineering, 1996. p. 2197–206 (in Chinese).
Fig. 15. EC4 interaction curve for concrete encased steel composite column [8] Tsai KC, Lien Y, Chen CC. Behaviour of axially loaded steel reinforced concrete
specimen S21. columns. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Civil and Hydraulic Engineering
1996;8(4):535–45. in Chinese.
[9] 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).
[10] El-Tawil S, Deierlein GG. Strength and ductility of concrete encased
diagrams plotted for column specimens S1 (e¼0.125D, fc ¼30 MPa composite columns. Journal of Structural Engineering—ASCE 1999;125(9):
and fys ¼ 275 MPa), S3 (e¼0.125D, fc ¼ 110 MPa and fys ¼ 275 MPa), 1009–19.
S19 (e¼0.375D, fc ¼30 MPa and fys ¼275 MPa), and S21 (e¼ [11] Al-Shahari AM, Hunaiti YM, Abu Ghazaleh A. Behaviour of lightweight
aggregate concrete-encased composite columns. Steel and Composite
0.375D, fc ¼110 MPa and fys ¼275 MPa), respectively. As men- Structures 2003;3(2):97–110.
tioned earlier, the discrepancy between the finite element and [12] Dundar C, Tokgoz S, Tanrikulu AK, Baran T. Behavior of reinforced and
EC4 predictions is attributed to the different value of initial concrete-encased composite columns subjected to biaxial bending and axial
load. Building and Environment 2008;43:1109–20.
overall geometric imperfection of the columns.
[13] Shanmugam NE, Lakshmi B. State of the art report on steel–concrete
composite columns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2001;57:
1041–80.
[14] Furlong RW. Design of steel-encased concrete beam–columns. Journal of
Structural Division—ASCE 1968;94(1):267–81.
7. Conclusions [15] Virdi KS, Dowling PJ. The ultimate strength of composite columns in biaxial
bending. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Part 2 1973;55:
The behaviour of eccentrically loaded pin-ended concrete 251–72.
[16] Roik K, Bergmann R. Design method for composite columns with unsymme-
encased steel composite columns has been investigated in this trical cross-sections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1990;33:153–72.
study. A nonlinear 3-D finite element model has been developed [17] Kato B. Column curves of steel–concrete composite members. Journal of
for the analysis of the columns. The model has accounted for the Constructional Steel Research 1996;39(2):121–35.
[18] Munoz PR, Hsu CT. Behaviour of biaxially loaded concrete-encased composite
inelastic material properties of steel, concrete, longitudinal, and columns. Journal of Structural Engineering—ASCE 1997;123(9):1163–71.
transverse reinforcement bars as well as the effect of concrete [19] Munoz PR, Hsu CT. Biaxially loaded concrete-encased composite columns:
confinement. The interface between the steel section and design equation. Journal of Structural Engineering—ASCE 1997;123(12):
1576–85.
concrete, the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement bars
[20] Chen CC, Lin NJ. Analytical model for predicting axial capacity and behaviour
and the reinforcement bars and concrete were also modelled. of concrete encased steel composite stub columns. Journal of Constructional
Furthermore, the initial overall geometric imperfection has been Steel Research 2006;62:424–33.
carefully included in the model. The composite column strengths [21] Ellobody E, Young B. Numerical simulation of concrete encased steel
composite columns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, in press,
and failure mode of the eccentrically loaded columns have been doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2010.08.003.
predicted using the finite element model. Generally, good [22] AISC. Specification for structural steel buildings. American institute for steel
agreement has been achieved between the experimental and construction, ANSI/AISC 360-05. Chicago, IL, USA: Reston; 2005.
[23] EC4. Eurocode 4: design of composite steel and concrete structures—Part 1-
numerical results. 1: general rules and rules for buildings. London, UK: British Standards
The developed model was used in a parametric study to Institution; 2004. BS EN 1994-1-1.
investigate the effects on the structural behaviour of the [24] ACI. Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary. ACI
318M-08. USA: American Concrete Institute; 2008.
eccentrically loaded composite columns owing to the change
[25] Weng CC, Yen SI. Comparisons of concrete-encased composite column
in the eccentricities, the column overall dimensions, the strength provisions of ACI code and AISC specification. Engineering
structural steel sizes, concrete strength and steel yield stress. Structures 2002;24:59–72.
Generally, it is shown that the effect on the composite column [26] Mirza SA, Lacroix EA. Comparative strength analyses of concrete-encased
steel composite columns. Journal of Structural Engineering—ASCE
strength owing to the increase in structural steel yield stress is 2004;130(12):1941–53.
significant for eccentrically loaded columns with small eccen- [27] ABAQUS standard user’s manual, vols. 1–3. USA: Hibbitt, Karlsson and
tricity of 0.125D. On the other hand, for columns with higher Sorensen, Inc; 2008. version 6.8-1.
[28] Sheikh SA, Uzumeri SM. Analytical model for concrete confinement in tied
eccentricity of 0.375D, the effect on the composite column columns. Journal of Structural Division—ASCE 1982;108(12):2703–22.
strength due to the increase in structural steel yield stress is [29] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress–strain model for
significant for columns with concrete strengths lower than confined concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering—ASCE 1988;114(8):
1804–26.
70 MPa. The composite column strengths obtained from the
[30] Ellobody E, Young B, Lam D. Behaviour of normal and high strength concrete-
finite element analyses were compared with the design filled compact steel tube circular stub columns. Journal of Constructional
strengths calculated using the Eurocode 4 for composite Steel Research 2006;62(7):706–15.
columns. Generally, it is shown that the EC4 accurately [31] Ellobody E, Young B. Design and behaviour of concrete-filled cold-formed
stainless steel tube columns. Engineering Structures 2006;28(5):716–28.
predicted the eccentric column load, while overestimated the [32] Ellobody E, Young B. Nonlinear analysis of concrete-filled steel SHS and RHS
moment. columns. Thin-Walled Structures 2006;44(8):919–30.
 E. Ellobody et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 49 (2011) 53–65 65

[33] Hu HT, Huang CH, Wu MH, Wu YM. Nonlinear analysis of axially loaded [35] EC3. Eurocode 3: design of steel structures—Part 1-1: general rules and rules
concrete-filled tube columns with confinement effect. Journal of Structural for buildings. London, UK: British Standards Institution; 2005. BS EN 1993-1-1.
Engineering—ASCE 2003;129(10):1322–9. [36] EC2. Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures—Part 1-1: general rules and
[34] CEB.. RC elements under cyclic loading. Thomas Telford: Comite Euro- rules for buildings. London, UK: British Standards Institution; 2004. BS EN
International Du Beton (CEB); 1996. 1992-1-1.