http://www.paper.edu.

cn

Comparison between Chinese and three worldwide codes for circular

concrete-filled steel tube members
Sumei Zhang & Xinbo Ma
Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China
C.D. Goode
The University of Manchester, UK

ABSTRACT: The characteristics and approaches of the design methods for circular concrete-filled steel tube
(CCFST) members in three Chinese codes (JCJ 01-89 code, CECS code, DL/T 5085-1999 code) and three
typical worldwide codes (American LRFD (99) code, European Eurocode 4 (94), Japanese AIJ (97) code), are
introduced and compared. The limitations prescribed by each code are summarized and discussed. The load-
carrying capacity calculated by each code is analyzed and compared with 1060 tests (including 775 compres-
sive columns and 285 beam columns collected from a wide range of references), both excluding and including
the limitations prescribed by each code, and the results discussed.

1 INTRODUCTION 2 DESIGN METHODS FOR CCFST

Circular concrete-filled steel tubes (CCFST) have
many advantages over other forms of construction
for columns and other compression members. The
steel confines the concrete protecting it and enhanc-
ing its load carrying capacity. Other advantages are
its toughness and plasticity, its good fire resistance,
its convenience of construction, all of which pro-
mote economical building (Zhong 2003). As a new
structural form CCFST are being used more widely
in tall buildings, large span bridges and other com-
plex structures. To facilitate its use design codes
have been developed in many countries, based on re-
search and the design philosophy used in each coun-
try.
In China, three codes for designing CCFST struc-
tures are currently used, which were issued by the
Chinese National Structural Materials and Industry
Bureau (JCJ 01-89), the Association of Chinese En-
gineering Construction Standardization (CECS
28:90 and CECS 104:99) and the Chinese State
Economic and Trade Commission (DL/T 5085-
1999) respectively. These three codes are denoted as
CHN-JCJ 01-89, CHN-CECS and CHN-DL/T
5085 in sequence in this paper. In addition, other
three worldwide codes are presently used in USA,
Europe and Japan, which were issued by the Ameri-
can Institute of Steel Construction (AISC-LRFD
(1999)), European Committee for Standardization
(Eurocode 4 (1994)) and the Architectural Institute
of Japan (AIJ (1997)) respectively. They are denoted
as AISC-LRFD (99), Eurocode 4 (94) and
JAN-AIJ (97) in this paper.
COMPRESSIVE COLUMNS IN DIFFERENT
CODES
In CHN-JCJ 01-89 and CHN-CECS codes, the ulti-
mate strength of a short column (corresponding to
the peak point of stress-strain curve derived from
the experiment) is defined as the load-carrying ca-
pacity of the cross section. In CHN-DL/T 5085
code, the load-carrying capacity of a cross section is
defined by limiting the longitudinal deformation,
which often equals 3000 in the stress-strain curve.
The AISC-LRFD (99) code adopts the plastic
strength of the whole cross section without allowing
for confinement. Eurocode 4 (94) code also adopts
the plastic strength of the whole cross section modi-
fied by enhancement factors () obtained from ex-
perimental results in order to include the confining
effect between steel tube and core concrete. JAN-
AIJ (97) code adopts a simple superposed strength
after considering the confining effect.
Different approaches are used in the processes of
building up the formulae for calculating the strength
of the cross section. In CHN-JCJ 01-89 and CHN-
CECS codes, the formulae were built up by super-
posing the separate cross sectional strength of steel
tube and core concrete based on the confining the-
ory and experiments. In CHN-DL/T 5085 code, the
whole CCFST cross section was regarded as a kind
of new composite material, based on this composite
material the formulae were built up using numerical
analysis and experiments from which the composite
material properties were derived. This method is
innovative and is called the unified theory in

China. The AISC-LRFD (99) codes formulae were
built up by simply superposing the plastic cross sec-
tional strength of the two separate parts. In Eurocode
4 (94) the simple superposed formulae for cross sec-
tional strength, after being amended according to the
experimental results to allow for confinement, were
adopted. The formulae in JAN-AIJ(97) code were
called Superposed method based on numerical
analysis and experiments.
Thus five codes all use the simple superposed
form of steel and core concrete parts, with or with-
out enhancement factors for the effect of confine-
ment. So the formula for calculating the load-
carrying capacity of a cross section N0 can all be
written in the form of N0 = fsAs+ kfcAc, where fs, fc
are strengths of steel tube and concrete respectively
and As, Ac the cross-sectional areas of steel tube and
concrete respectively. The coefficient k is called
the enhanced coefficient of concrete strength.
From this formula, it can be seen that in most of the
codes, the confining effect is considered by increas-
ing the concrete strength based on the assumption
that the steel tube will not reduce its stress when it
reaches its yield point during the loading process. In
the CHN-DL/T 5085 code such form cannot be used
because the cross section was regarded as a unified
composite material in building up the formulae al-
though the confining effect was considered in decid-
ing the stress-strain relations of this composite ma-
terial. In addition, CHN-CECS and CHN-DL/T
5085 codes use a confining coefficient (), defined deformation of beam specimen not to exceed 1/50
as = (1.5Asfy)/(Acfcuk) (where fcuk is the 150mm
cube compressive strength of concrete), as an impor-
tant parameter for defining the characteristics of ma-
terials and geometry.
Overall buckling will reduce the load-carrying ca-
pacity of slender columns. The general method for
considering the influence of slenderness, as in CHN-
JCJ 01-89, CHN-CECS, CHN-DL/T 5085 and Euro-
code 4 (94) codes, is by multiplying the cross sec-
tional strength by a buckling coefficient, less 1.0,
which can be obtained from buckling curves. There
are differences in prescribing the buckling curves in
the different codes. In the three Chinese codes the
buckling curves are obtained from theoretical analy-
sis and experiments. In the European Eurocode 4
(94) the buckling curves are those which have been
prescribed for steel columns in Eurocode 3. In the
American AISC-LRFD (99) code CCFST composite
members are regarded as pure steel members with
the formulae for calculating CCFST slender columns
using the relative formulae for pure steel columns
given in the same code. For the geometrical charac-
teristics of the composite cross section, such as the
moment of inertia and area, only the external steel
tube is taken into account. However, for aspects of
rigidity and the mechanical characteristics, such as
strength and elastic modulus of the composite cross
section, the influence of the core concrete must be
http://www.paper.edu.cn
considered. In the Japanese code JAN-AIJ(97), the
columns with L/D greater than 4.0 and less than 12
are classified as medium length columns, while
the columns with L/D greater than 12 are classified
as slender columns. For slender columns, the load-
carrying capacity is calculated by superimposing the
bearing capacities of the steel part and the concrete
part, the influence of slenderness must be considered
during the computing of the strength of each part.
For medium length columns, the formula is a lin-
ear equation between the strength when the length-
to-diameter ratio L/D equals 4 and when it is 12.
3 DESIGN METHODS FOR CCFST BEAM
COLUMNS IN DIFFERENT CODES
In CHN-JCJ 01-89 code, Eurocode 4 (94) and JAN-
AIJ (97) code for short and medium length beam
columns (L/D12), the load-carrying capacity of
CCFST under pure bending adopts the plastic bend-
ing strength of a cross section. The shape of internal
stress distributions is assumed as rectangular while
the concrete strength in the tensile zone are ne-
glected. In CHN-CECS code, the design formula for
load-carrying capacity of CCFST under pure bend-
ing is an empirical equation derived from two beam
specimens which were loaded by two concentrated
loads on the one-third points along the span of each
beam. The load-carrying capacity of CCFST under
pure bending is defined by restricting the mid-span
the length of beam span. In CHN-DL/T 5085 code,
the whole CCFST cross section is regarded as a kind
of new composite material according to the unified
theory. The load-carrying capacity of CCFST under
pure bending in this code is defined as the moment
whose maximum strain of outer fiber reached
10000 according to the moment-curvature rela-
tions derived from numerical analysis and experi-
ments. In AISC-LRFD (99) code and JAN-AIJ (97)
code for slender columns (L/D>12), only the bend-
ing strength of the outer steel tube is defined as the
load-carrying capacity of CCFST under pure bend-
ing. The only difference between these two codes is
that the former adopts the elastic strength while the
latter adopts the plastic strength. So this method for
the AISC-LRFD (99) code must be more conserva-
tive. In addition, it should be noted that the load-
carrying capacities of CCFST under pure bending in
CHN-CECS code and JAN-AIJ (97) code are influ-
enced by the length-diameter ratio (L/D).
For a CCFST beam column, a typical real mo-
ment-compression (M-N) interaction curve is a pro-
truding curve. Different ways for simplifying the M-
N interaction curves provide different design meth-
ods for cross-sectional strength of CCFST beam col-
umns in different codes.

In CHN-JCJ 01-89 code and for the short beam
columns in JAN-AIJ (97) code, the shape of the sim-
plified cross sectional interaction curve calculated
by the parametric equations is similar to the real pro-
truding interaction curve. The shape of the cross sec-
tional interaction curve simplified by CHN-CECS
code, CHN-DL/T 5085 code and AISC-LRFD (99)
code is two straight lines, which does not exhibit the
real protruding interaction curve. It should be noted
that the design formulae for the pure steel beam col-
umns were adopted directly for the CCFST beam
columns by AISC-LRFD (99) code. In Eurocode 4
(94), the real cross sectional interaction curve can be
used or simplified as four straight lines linked be-
tween five characteristic points. The values of M
and N at these points are easy to be obtained accord-
ing to the assumed initial stress distributions on the
cross section. The shape of the simplified cross sec-
tional interaction curves in Eurocode 4 (94) can ex-
hibit the characters of a protruding curve. For the
CCFST slender beam columns in JAN-AIJ (97)
code, the simplified cross sectional interaction curve
is obtained by superposing the M-N cross sectional
interaction curves for the steel tube and core con-
crete. The shape of interaction curve for the steel
tube is a straight line while for concrete it is a pro-
truding curve thus the shape of the simplified cross
sectional interaction curves by this method can also
exhibit the characters of the real protruding curve.
For the design formulae in above codes the more
similar to the real protruding curve for the simplified
interaction curve is the more complex the design
formulae. The cross sectional M-N interaction curve
calculated by each code can be referred to Figure
2(a).
Table 1. Comparison of the limitations prescribed in different codes.
Item CHN- CHN- CHN-
JCJ 01-89 CECS DL/T 5085
fcuk (MPa) 30~50 30~80 30~80
fy (MPa) 235~345 235~420 235~390
D/t 20~90(235/fy) 20~100
s 0.04~0.16 0.04~0.20
0.03~3.0
* Where fcuk is the 150mm cube compressive strength of concrete; fy is the yield strength of steel tube; As, Ac are areas of steel tube
and concrete respectively; s is the steel ratio defined as s = As/Ac in CHN-CECS and CHN-DL/T 5085 codes but s = As/(Ac+ As)
in CHN-JCJ 01-89 and AISC-LRFD(99) codes; E is the elastic modulus of steel tube. is the confining coefficient defined as
=1.5Asfy/(Acfcuk) in CHN-CECS and CHN-DL/T 5085 codes.
5 COMPARISON OF THE RESULTS
CALCULATED BY DIFFERENT CODES
5.1 Comparison of CCFST compressive columns
Figure 1 shows a comparison of the load-carrying
capacities Nu calculated by different codes compared
with changes of the length-diameter ratio (L/D). The
http://www.paper.edu.cn
For slender CCFST beam columns, the same ap-
proach is used in all six codes to consider the influ-
ences of slenderness ratio and P- secondary effect
in building up the formulae for buckling strength.
The influence of slenderness is allowed for by sub-
stituting the cross-sectional compressive strength by
buckling compressive strength. The influence of the
P- secondary effect is considered by multiplying
the applied bending moment by an amplification
factor, in which the distribution of moment along
the beam column is also considered, although values
are different in each code.
4 COMPARISON OF THE LIMITATIONS IN
DIFFERENT CODES
Different limitations on the compressive strength of
concrete, steel yield strength, diameter-to-thickness
ratio, steel ratio and confining coefficient are pre-
scribed by the different codes. These limitations are
compared and summarized in Table 1. In this Table
the concrete strength in the different codes has been
converted to 150 mm cube strength fcuk and all units
have been converted to SI units because each coun-
try uses the compressive strength of concrete based
on a specimen with different dimensions. The Chi-
nese codes use 150 150 300 mm prism strength
(fck ); the European and American codes use 150
300 mm cylinder strength (fcyl ); the Japanese code
uses 100 200 mm cylinder strength (fcylj ). The
relationship between cube, prism and cylinder
strengths have been taken, in Table 1, as: fck = 0.67
fcuk and fcyl = 0.8 fcuk, the relationship between fcylj
and fcyl have been taken as: fcylj = 1.04 fcyl, referring
to (Sun & Sakino 2000).
AISC- Euro- JAN-
LRFD(99) code4 (94) AIJ(97)
26~65 25~60 66.5
415 235~355 235~353
(8E/fy) 90(235/fy) 35280/ fy
0.04
parameters chosen for calculation satisfy the limita-
tions prescribed by each code (listed in Table 1).
It can be seen from Figure 1 that the trend of Nu -
L/D curves calculated by different codes is similar;
Nu decreases with the increase of L/D. Although the
calculated results have obvious differences for short
columns the differences decrease with the increase
 http://www.paper.edu.cn

of L/D until, for slender columns, the results calcu-
lated by the different codes are very similar. The
main reason for this is that overall buckling plays
the most important role on the slender columns.
When L/D is less than 12, the results calculated by
CHN-JCJ 01-89 code are generally the largest and
this phenomenon is more obvious in the elastoplastic
region. When L/D is greater than 12 but less than 25
the results calculated by CHN-DL/T 5085 code are
usually the largest and this phenomenon is more ob-
vious in the elastoplastic region. The greatest differ-
ence in the strength calculated by each code for
short columns (L/D < 4) is reflecting the different
methods of allowing for confinement in the codes.

25000 60000
CHN-JCJ 01-89 CHN-JCJ 01-89
CHN-CECS 50000 CHN-CECS
20000 CHN-DL/T 5085 CHN-DL/T 5085
AISC-LRFD(99) AISC-LRFD(99)
Eurocode 4 (94) 40000 Eurocode 4 (94)
JAN-AIJ (97) JAN-AIJ (97)
N u (kN)

N u (kN)
15000
30000
10000
20000
D = 800mm t = 11.49mm D = 800mm t = 22.04mm
5000 f y = 235MPa f cuk = 30MPa f y = 355MPa f cuk = 50MPa
10000
s =0.06 = 0.703 s =0.12 = 1.317
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
(a) Length-diameter ratio L /D (b) Length-diameter ratio L /D

Figure 1. Comparison of Nu calculated by the different codes for two specified columns.

5.2 Comparison of CCFST beam columns
Figure 2 shows a comparison of the interaction
curves of axial load Nu and bending moment Mu
calculated by different codes under the variations of
length-diameter ratio L/D. The parameters of the
CCFST beam columns in this comparison are: D =
800mm, t = 22mm, fy = 345MPa, fcuk = 40MPa, s =
0.12 and = 1.548. All these parameters satisfy the
limitations prescribed by each code listed in Table 1.
Except for the CHN-CECS code which is still
composed of two obvious straight lines, the shapes
of the Nu-Mu interaction curves calculated by the
other five codes changed from non-linear curves to
linear curves with the increase of L/D. This phe-
nomenon indicates that the problem of buckling be-
comes the main factor for the very slender columns.
For short beam columns (L/D 4) the results cal-
culated by CHN-CECS code are the largest with the
American AISC-LRFD (99) code well below the

50000 45000
CHN-JCJ 01-89 CHN-JCJ 01-89
CHN-CECS CHN-CECS
37500 CHN-DL/T 5085
40000 CHN-DL/T 5085
AISC-LRFD(99) AISC-LRFD(99)
Eurocode 4 (94) Eurocode 4 (94)
30000 JAN-AIJ (97)
JAN-AIJ (97)
N u (kN)
N u (kN)

30000
22500
20000
15000

10000
7500

0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
M u (kNm) M u (kNm)

(a) L/D = 4 (cross-sectional strength) (b) L/D = 7.5

 http://www.paper.edu.cn

40000 20000
CHN-JCJ 01-89 CHN-JCJ 01-89
35000 CHN-CECS CHN-CECS
CHN-DL/T 5085 16000 CHN-DL/T 5085
30000 AISC-LRFD(99) AISC-LRFD(99)
Eurocode 4 (94) Eurocode 4 (94)
25000 JAN-AIJ (97) JAN-AIJ (97)

N u (kN)
12000
N u (kN)

20000

15000 8000

10000
4000
5000

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
M u (kNm) M u (kNm)

(c) L/D = 15 (d) L/D = 30

Figure 2. Comparison of Nu -Mu interaction curves calculated by different codes.

others because it does not consider the confining ef-
fect of the steel tube to enhance the strength. For
medium length beam columns (4 < L/D 12) there
are still large differences between the codes in the
axial load permitted at the same applied moment.
The differences between the codes decrease as they
become more slender, L/D > 15. It should be noted
that the CHN-CECS code requires a large reduction
in moment capacity as slenderness increases
whereas the other codes show no reduction in pure
moment capacity with slenderness.
6 COMPARISON BETWEEN RESULTS
CALCULATED BY THE DIFFERENT CODES
AND THE EXPERIMENTAL DATA
A database contains 1060 experimental tests on
CCFST members, which includes 775 experimental
tests on CCFST compressive columns from 40
worldwide references and 285 experimental tests on
CCFST beam columns from 9 worldwide references,
was built up by the author (referring to Ma 2005 and
Ma 2006). Another database of over one thousand
tests on both circular and rectangular CCFST col-
umns, with and without moment, can be viewed on
the website: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/asccs2 was
established by Dr. Goode (Goode 2006), where the
test results are also compared with Eurocode 4 (94)
predictions. During the process of comparison the
different reduced coefficients of material used,
which are called material partial safety factors in
some codes, were taken as unity. The material data
use the given experimental data directly. The limita-
tions required by the codes (Table 1) have not been
considered and all tests have been included.
6.1 Comparison of CCFST compressive columns
Table 2 shows the statistical results of the Nu /Ntest
ratio calculated by each code for CCFST compres-
sive column tests, where Nu is the load-carrying ca-
pacity calculated by the code and Ntest is the corre-
sponding test data from the references. The table
gives the average value () and standard deviation
(). It should be noted that the number of tests re-
corded under the CHN-JCJ 01-89 code is smaller
than the other codes because the formulae provided
by this code are not applicable when the steel ratio is
larger than 0.20.
For all 775 compressive column tests the average
values for each code are less than 1.0. The results
calculated by CHN-JCJ 01-89 code are closest to the
experimental values with = 0.982, followed by
CHN-CECS, CHN-DL/T 5085, Eurocode 4 (94) and
JAN-AIJ (97) codes in sequence. The results calcu-
lated by AISC-LRFD (99) code are still much lower
than the experimental values with = 0.767. For
tests which satisfy the limitations (listed in Table 1)
incorporated into each code. It will be seen that
these limitations exclude many tests yet the average
Nu /Ntest and standard deviation of this ratio differ
only slightly from these values when all tests are
considered. This would imply that the restrictions
imposed by the codes should be reconsidered by
code committees and could be extended to cover a
wider range of the parameters.

Table 2. Statistical results of Nu /Ntest ratio calculated by each code for CCFST compressive tests.
Item CHN-JCJ 01-89 CHN-CECS CHN-DL/T5085 AISC-LRFD(99) Eurocode 4 (94) JAN-AIJ(97)

All tests No.=696 No.=775 No.=775 No.=775 No.=775 No.=775
0.982 0.176 0.952 0.153 0.952 0.190 0.767 0.127 0.926 0.152 0.852 0.136
Tests with No.=214 No.=456 No.=453 No.=469 No.=357 No.=417
limitations 1.015 0.169 0.975 0.146 0.958 0.168 0.760 0.123 0.910 0.150 0.843 0.132
* Where is the average value and is the standard deviation, of the ratio Nu/Ntest. No. is the number of tests for calculation.

6.2 Comparison of CCFST beam columns
Table 3 shows the statistical results of the Nu /Ntest
ratio calculated by each code for CCFST compres-
sive tests, where Nu is the eccentric load-carrying
capacity calculated by the code and Ntest is the corre-
sponding test data from the references. The table
also gives the average value () and standard devia-
tion ().
For all 285 beam column tests the average val-
ues for each code are less than 1.0. The results cal-
culated by JAN-AIJ (97) code are closest to the ex-
perimental values with = 0.919, followed by CHN-
DL/T 5085, Eurocode 4 (94), CHN-JCJ 01-89, and
Table 3. Statistical results of Nu /Ntest ratio calculated by each code for CCFST beam columns.
Item CHN-JCJ 01-89 CHN-CECS
All tests No.=285 No.=285
0.866 0.148 0.865 0.132
Tests with No.=120 No.=232
limitations 0.898 0.151 0.872 0.126
* Where is the average value and is the standard deviation, of the ratio Nu/Ntest. No. is the number of tests for calculation.
7 CONCLUSIONS
This paper covered three Chinese codes and three
typical worldwide codes for circular concrete-filled
steel tube (CCFST) compressive columns and beam
columns, compared the design methods the strength
calculated by them with 1060 tests which include
775 compressive columns and 285 beam columns.
Based on this the following conclusions were drawn:
1. The characteristics and methods for the design
of CCFST members are, in many aspects, different
in the different codes. The main factor that leads to
differences for calculating the load-carrying capacity
of compressive column by each code is attributed to
how the confining effect of the steel tube was taken
into account. On the other hand the main factor that
leads to differences for calculating the load-carrying
capacity of beam column by each code is attributed
to how the pure bending strength was defined and
how the real M-N interaction curves from numerical
analysis or experiments were simplified. The limita-
tions prescribed by different codes are also different.
2. For short and medium length CCFST compres-
sive columns, whose length-diameter ratios are less
than 12, the load-carrying capacities calculated by
CHN-JCJ 01-89 code are generally the largest. For
slender compressive columns, whose length-
diameter ratios are more than 12, the load-carrying
capacities calculated by CHN-DL/T 5085 code are
generally the largest. For short CCFST beam col-
umns (L/D 4) the results calculated by CHN-
CECS code are the largest with the American AISC-
http://www.paper.edu.cn
CHN-CECS codes in sequence. The results calcu-
lated by AISC-LRFD (99) code are much lower than
the experimental values with = 0.735. For tests
which satisfy the limitations (listed in Table 1) in-
corporated into each code. It will be seen that there
is also very little difference between the results
when all tests are considered and the results when
only those tests which satisfy the code limitations
(Table 3) are considered. Only in Eurocode 4 (94)
and JAN-AIJ (97) code does the average move very
slightly down, that is in a safer direction, when these
limitations are imposed; thus it might be possible to
ease the code limitations.
CHN-DL/T5085 AISC-LRFD(99) Eurocode 4 (94) JAN-AIJ(97)
No.=285 No.=285 No.=285 No.=285
0.900 0.152 0.735 0.116 0.870 0.190 0.919 0.148
No.=238 No.=250 No.=249 No.=250
0.909 0.153 0.739 0.112 0.857 0.121 0.913 0.130
LRFD (99) code well below the others. For medium
length beam columns (4 < L/D 12) there are still
large differences between the codes but these de-
crease as they become more slender.
3. For CCFST compressive columns, comparing
the load-carrying capacities calculated by each of
the six codes with 775 experimental data the re-
sults calculated by the CHN-JCJ 01-89 code were
closest to the experimental data and they were also
slightly (2%) conservative. All the other codes were
slightly more conservative with the AISC-LRFD
(99) code the most conservative predicting strengths.
For CCFST beam columns, comparing the load-
carrying capacities calculated by each of the six
codes with 285 experimental data, the JAN-AIJ (97)
code gave closest agreement with tests while the
AISC-LRFD (99) code also gave very safe results
and may be too conservative.
4. For all codes there was very little difference be-
tween the results when all tests were considered and
the results when tests were omitted which did not
satisfy the limitations imposed by a code. Thus it
might be possible to relax the code limitations.
REFERENCES
AIJ (1997). Recommendations for design and construction of
concrete filled steel tubular structures. Architectural Insti-
tute of Japan.
AISC-LRFD (1999). Load and Resistance Factor Design
specification for structural steel building. American Insti-
tute of Steel Construction.

Chinese Engineering Construction Standardization standard
(CECS 28:90). Specification for design and construction of
concrete-filled steel tubular structures. Beijing: Chinese
Planning Press, Beijing. (in Chinese)
Chinese Engineering Construction Standardization standard
(CECS 104:99). Specification for design and construction
of high-strength concrete structures. Beijing: Chinese
Planning Press. (in Chinese)
Chinese Electric Power Industry standard (DL/T 5085-1999).
Code for design of steel-concrete composite structure. Bei-
jing: Chinese Electric Power Press. (in Chinese)
Chinese National Structural Materials and Industry Bureau
standard (JCJ 01-89). Specification for design and con-
struction of concrete-filled steel tubular structures. Shang-
hai: Press of Tongji University. (in Chinese)
Eurocode 4 (1994). Design of composite steel and concrete
structures, Part 1.1:General rules and rules for buildings.
Brussels: European Committee for Standardization.
Goode, C. D., 2006.A review and analysis of over one thou-
sand tests on concrete filled steel tube columns. Proceed-
http://www.paper.edu.cn
ings of 8th international conference on steel-concrete com-
posite and hybrid structures, Harbin, August 2006: 17-23.
Ma, X.B. & Zhang, S.M. 2005. Comparison of design methods
of load-carrying capacity of compressive members of CFST
in typical codes worldwide. Journal of Harbin Institute of
Technology, SP2: 96-99,136. (in Chinese)
Ma, X.B., Zhang, S.M. & Goode, C.D. 2006. Comparison of
design methods for circular concrete filled steel tube beam
columns in different codes. Proceedings of 8th international
conference on steel-concrete composite and hybrid struc-
tures, Harbin, August 2006: 30-37.
Sun, Y.P. & Sakino, K.J. 2000. Simplified design method for
ultimate capacities of circularly confined high-strength
concrete columns. The ACI special publication, SP193,
September: 561-578.
Zhong, S.T. 2003. The concrete-filled steel tubular structures
(Third edition). Beijing: Press of Tingshua University. (in
Chinese)