Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 768781

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Rigidity estimation of embedded CFST column-to-beam connections

Haiqing Zhu a, Ying Li b,, Xiedong Zhang a
a
Wuhan University of Technology, Department of Road and Bridge Engineering, China
b
Wuhan University of Technology, Department of Ocean Engineering, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents a finite element analysis (FEA) of embedded concrete-filled steel tube (CFST) column-
Received 31 March 2017 to-beam connections subjected to combined axial-flexural loading. The proposed FEA model was verified
Revised 21 May 2017 by experimental results from previous research. The comparison and analysis show that the predicted
Accepted 17 June 2017
local damages, failure patterns, and load versus displacement curves were generally in good agreement
with the experimental observations. Several identified parameters were studied, including various con-
crete strengths, steel tube yield stresses, embedded lengths, and axial loading ratios. Based on the para-
Keywords:
metric study, provisions and methods to estimate the effective flexural stiffness of the composite
Concrete-filled steel tube (CFST)
Column-to-beam connection
columns were suggested, and simple equations to estimate the effective stiffness of the whole connection
Structural stiffness were proposed. In addition, the fracture strain captured in the cyclic loading test was greater than that
Embedded length captured in the uniaxial tensile test. The inelastic responses of the CFST connections can be recorded
Finite element analysis (FEA) using the FEA models, and the longitudinal strain can be used to define when tube tearing will occur,
while the plastic equivalent strain can be used to define where tube tearing will occur.
2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Concrete-filled steel tubes (CFSTs) have been utilized in civil
engineering for more than 100 years and have attracted increasing
attention in bridge construction projects, such as bridge piers and
arches. Because the steel tube not only works as a formwork but
also improves the compressive strength of the core concrete, CFST
members can be constructed more conveniently and are more duc-
tile under earthquake loading. CFST columns that serve as bridge
piers should be appropriately connected to the cap/foundation
beam. However, there are not sufficient provisions in standards
such as AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications [1], the 14th
edition of the American Institute for Steel Construction Steel
Design Manual (AISC) [2], and the Technical Specification for
Concrete-filled Steel Tubular Structures [3]. Limited studies have
focused on the design provisions for CFST column to cap beam
connections.
Hsu and Lin [4,5] proposed an embedded connection shown in
Fig. 1(a). There was a steel plate welded to the bottom of the tube,
and the plate was anchored to the base concrete via bolts. The CFST
columns were embedded into base concrete at 0.5D, 1.0D, and 1.5D
(where D is the outer diameter of the steel tube). The results
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: zhuhaiqing@whut.edu.cn (H. Zhu), liying@whut.edu.cn (Y. Li),
cfst_vip@163.com (X. Zhang).
indicated that the rigidity of the connections increased with the
embedded depth.
Lehman and Roeder [68] proposed a connection with an annu-
lar ring welded to the tube bottom, as shown in Fig. 1(b). The
experiments made a significant contribution to design provisions,
including the dimensions of the beam and the steel tube, the
embedded length, and beam thickness requirements to avoid
punching shear failure.
Kappes, Berry et al. [9,10] proposed an embedded connection
using U-bars to restrain transverse deformation of the tube. The
over-sized thickness of the steel tube ensured that the cap beam
cracked and was damaged before the tube was torn. The
multiple-layer U-bar specimen performed much better in cyclic
loading than did the one-layer U-bar specimen; U-bars postponed
the initial degradation and improved the moment capacity of the
connection.
These previous connections [1115], varying in diameter, thick-
ness, and embedded length, were implemented to study their
inelastic behavior, as shown in Fig. 2. The embedded lengths were
mainly between 0.5D-1.5D, the D/t ratios were mainly between 30
and 120, and the axial load ratios P=P0 were mainly between 0.03
and 0.3. In the statistics shown in Fig. 2, the CFST ending with a
square plate used square tube connections, the CFST ending with
a shear ring used circular tube connections, and the CFST with no
ending used circular tube connections. According to those experi-
ments, the critical embedded length for the CFST ending with a

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.06.041
0141-0296/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 H. Zhu et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 768781 769

Nomenclature

D Diameter of the circular tube or the width of the square P Axial load
0
tube P0 Ultimate cross sectional capacity, P 0 As f y 0:95Ac f c;col
H Height of loading point Fm Measured maximum reaction force
t Thickness of the steel tube Fp Predicted maximum reaction force
Le Embedded length of the CFST column Dm Measured initial tearing drift
fy Yield strength of the steel tube Dp Predicted initial tearing drift
0
f c;col Cylinder compressive strength of the infill concrete K Structural stiffness
0
f c;cap Cylinder compressive strength of the cap/foundation EIeff Effective flexural stiffness
beam concrete D Deflection
b Axial load ratio, b P=P0 a Rigidity coefficient

Fig. 1. CFT to concrete beam connections.

1.6 120 0.30

1.4
100 0.25
1.2
1.0 80 0.20
Le / D D/t P / P0
0.8 60 0.15
0.6
40 0.10
0.4
20 0.05
0.2
0.0 0 0.00
plate ring non plate ring non plate ring non
CFST ending type CFST ending type CFST ending type

Fig. 2. Distributions of the referenced experiments.

plate and shear ring were approximately 1.0D and 0.9D, respec-
tively, as determined by cone pullout failure.
Although previous experimental studies have determined the
critical embedded lengths for CFST column-to-beam connections,
reports on the rigidity of the connections are insufficient. The con-
nections rigidity can be improved by increasing the embedded
length, but the relationship between rigidity and embedded length
is unknown. Hence, systematic parametric analysis using the finite
element analysis (FEA) model is needed.
In this paper, part one presents the research background and lit-
erature review. In part two, an FEA model is proposed using ABA-
QUS software. The model is verified using both circular and square
CFST column-to-beam connections. In part three, additional tests
are conducted using the proposed model; these numerical studies
demonstrate that the parameters, such as the concrete strength,
steel yield stress, and embedded length, impact the rigidity of
the connection differently. In part four, the effective stiffness of
the CFST tubes and the flexural stiffness of the CFST column-to-
beam connections are estimated based on the provisions and the
numerical studies; furthermore, equations are deduced with rea-
sonable accuracy.
2. FEA method and verification
2.1. Introduction of the FEA model
2.1.1. Element and mesh sizes
Field-testing is the most effective method for study, but it is
costly and time-consuming. There are multiple studies of
concrete-steel composite members [1619] using numerical meth-
ods; these studies show that ABAQUS software performs well with
respect to nonlinear material behavior and loading responses.
For the research presented in this paper, ABAQUS/standard soft-
ware was used to develop a nonlinear FEA model to capture the
inelastic behavior of CFST connections subjected to a combination
of axial load and flexural load. Five specimens from different stud-
ies, including circular tube and square tube connections, were
770 H. Zhu et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 768781

selected to verify the FEA model. The specimen matrix is shown in
Table 1, and the finite model is shown in Fig. 3.
The FEA model can be divided into four parts: infill concrete,
cap/foundation concrete, steel tube, and reinforced bars. Previous
research [16] indicated that in ABAQUS software, both the three-
dimensional 8-node solid elements (C3D8R) and the shell elements
(SR4) had similar accuracy for thin-walled structures. In this
model, to present the contact details of the embedded segment,
C3D8R solid element was used for the steel tube and concrete.
The T3D2 truss element was used for the reinforced bars. Typical
continuum element sizes were 50 mm  50 mm for the global
model, 25 mm  25 mm for the contact area, and 10 mm  10 mm
for the local buckling region since these were the common mesh
sizes found in the literature [20,21]. The given mesh sizes provided
reasonable accuracy while permitting relatively rapid convergence.
2.1.2. Materials
The concrete damage plasticity (CDP) model was utilized to
describe the seismic behavior of concrete; the two-flats five-
segments line [22] was utilized to describe the relationship
between strain and stress. Because of the confined effect, both
the concrete and steel tube are under multi-axial stress states,
and the literature [2325] proved that this material definition
results in reasonable accuracy for the calculation. The damage
and failure for ductile metal method was used to define the behav-
ior of the steel tube. In this method, the plastic curve, fracture
strain, stress triaxiality and strain rate of the steel and the damage
type need to be defined [26,27]. Generally, users can select any
damage type form displacement damage evolution (DDE) and
energy damage evolution (EDE) when the damage initiation crite-
ria are satisfied. The default maximum degradation rule is also
used, which means that the elements are removed from the mesh
when maximum degradation occurs. The DDE defines damage as a
function of the total or the plastic displacement after damage ini-
tiation; the EDE defines damage in terms of the energy required
for failure after the initiation of damage.
In this paper, the fracture strain was set as 0.25 for high-strength
steel, as is common in previous experiments [11], and as 0.29 for
common-strength steel [12]. Because the steel tube is subjected
to both axial load and transverse moment, the triaxiality was set
to 0.333 [28]. Because the experiments were quasi-static tests,
the strain rate at fracture was 1.0. The DDE method was selected,
and the maximum displacement was 20 mm, that is, in the pro-
posed model, tube tearing is simulated by the following process.

Table 1
Summary of the selected specimens: dimensions, material properties and results comparison.

Experiment [Data resource] Specimen details Experimental and numerical results

0 0
D  H1 D/t Le/D f y (MPa) f c;col (MPa) f c;cap (MPa) b F m (kN) F p (kN) F m =F p Dm 2 (%) Dp 2 (%) Dm =Dp

1 [11] 508  1830 80 0.6 520 75.8 75.8 0.10 617.4 657.8 0.94 6.5 6.9 0.94
2 [11] 508  1830 80 0.9 520 75.8 75.8 0.10 747.3 778.4 0.96 8.3 8.4 0.99
3 [12] 508  1830 80 0.8 352 53.1 64.1 0.10 509.8 544.7 0.94 7.3 7.0 1.04
4 [13] 508  1830 80 0.9 379 56.9 69.3 0.10 608.1 574.1 0.85 7.0 6.8 1.03
5 [13] 508  1830 96 0.9 290 74.0 68.3 0.05 727.7 759.0 0.96 7.5 7.8 0.96
6 [4] 350  2200 50 0.5 324 35.4 24.3 0.15 223.1 236.0 0.95 n 6.0 n
7 [4] 350  2200 50 1.0 324 35.4 24.3 0.15 255.7 258.3 0.99 n 6.0 n
8 [4] 350  2200 50 1.5 324 35.4 24.3 0.15 249.9 260.1 0.96 n 6.0 n
1
D is the diameter of the circular tube and the width of the square tube.
2
Dm , Dp is the maximum drift of the cycle loop. There was no description of tearing onset drift in the literature [4].

Fig. 3. Finite element model.

 H. Zhu et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 768781 771

When the equivalent plastic strain reaches the fracture strain, the 2.1.3. Boundary and loading
elements begin to fracture, and when the displacement reaches The symmetric profile was constrained by a symmetry
20 mm, the elements are removed. Hence, tube tearing is observed. boundary. The bottom surface of the beam was constrained by

Fig. 4. Final state of the CFST column connections.

772 H. Zhu et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 768781

Specimen 1 Le=0.6D circular tube Specimen 2 Le=0.9D circular tube

800 800

Experimental results 600 Experimental results

600
FEA results FEA results

400 400

200 200

Force / kN
Force / kN

0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400

-600 -600

-800 -800
-0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Displacement / m Displacement / m

Specimen 3 Le=0.8D circular tube Specimen 4 Le=0.9D circular tube

800
800
600 Experimental results
600 Experient result
FEA results
FEA result
400
400
200
Force / kN

Force / kN
200
0
0
-200
-200
-400
-400
-600
-600
-800
-0.25-0.20-0.15-0.10-0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Displacement / m Displacement / m

Specimen 5 Le=0.9D circular tube Specimen 6 Le=0.5D square tube

300
800
Experimental results Experiental results
600 FEA results 200 FEA results

400
100
Force / kN

200
Force / kN

0 0
-200
-100
-400

-600 -200
-800
-300
-0.25-0.20-0.15-0.10-0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Displacement / m Displacement / m

Specimen 7 Le=1.0D square tube Specimen 7 Le=1.5D square tube

300 300
Experiental results
FEA results Experient result
200 200 FEA result

100 100
Force / kN
Force / kN

0 0

-100 -100

-200 -200

-300 -300
-0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Displacement / m Displacement / m

Fig. 5. Hysteretic curves comparison of test and FEA.

 H. Zhu et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 768781 773

all freedoms. The pressure load was applied to the top tip of the
CFST column to simulate the axial load. The lateral displacement
load was applied to the top tip, and amplitude loading was used
to simulate the ATC-24 loading protocol [7]. Surface-to-surface
contact was used to conduct the interaction between the steel tube
and concrete according to the literature [16,19,29]; the friction
coefficient was set as 0.35 in this model. Reinforcement bars were
embedded into the concrete.
Specifically, in ABAQUS, the CDP model does not effectively cap-
ture crack opening and closure during cyclic loading. To overcome
this limitation, a pre-cracking [30] approach was developed in
the CFST column, in which the infill concrete was modeled as
two separate parts at the pre-cracked surface. Hard contact was
used to transfer compressive stress at the contact interface when
the concrete was in compression, and separation was permitted
when the concrete was subjected to tensile deformation. The
pre-cracked surface was located at the point of maximum rota-
tion demand in the CFST column, which was taken at the location
where tearing developed in the steel tube in the experiments. The
location of the pre-crack is illustrated in Fig. 3.
2.2. Verification
2.2.1. Damage states
To assess the accuracy of the numerical model, comparisons of
the damage states and hysteretic curves were performed between
the experimental and numerical results. Local buckling occurred in
specimens 1 and 6, with significant cracking on the beam concrete.
Local buckling and tearing damage occurred in specimens 2, 3, 4, 5,
7 and 8, with slight cracking on the beam concrete. Fig. 4 shows the
final state of the connections; the proposed FEA model provides a
reasonable prediction of the local buckling and local tearing. The
shallow embedded connection suffers greater cap/foundation
beam damage than deep embedded connection. In addition, the
deep embedded connection is more likely to suffer tube tearing
damage than the shallow embedded connection. The proposed
model can predict the tearing damage of both circular and square
CFSTs.
In particular, in Fig. 4(a), it is clear that the concrete separated
from the steel tube and was raised from the interface. The maxi-
mum predicted concrete uplifting was approximately 25 mm.
The steel tube did not reach its tearing strain, but local buckling
was observed in the annular ring. In Fig. 4(c), the damage state
was similar to that in Fig. 4(a); no tearing was observed in the steel
tube, with obvious concrete uplifting in the beam. In Fig. 4(b) and
Fig. 4(d), tube tearing occurred; moreover, the tearing length and
tearing height captured by the FEA model were similar to those
observed in the experiments. Specimens 2, 3, 4, and 5 showed sim-
ilar damage states; the finial state of specimen 2 is plotted as an
example. Fig. 4(e) shows the deformation state of specimen 5 at
5% drift. At this drift level, the steel tube did not tear, and no signif-
icant cracking occurred in the beam concrete.
propagation. In addition, the buckling steel in the test contributes
to tensile resistance and compression resistance, and the uplifted
concrete contributes to compression resistance. The ductile dam-
age method used in the FEA model makes the stiffness and
strength of the elements degrade continually until fracture occurs,
and it cannot be regenerated. Hence, the reaction force would
decrease suddenly after elements are removed from the model.
However, according to the comparisons of damage occurrence
and the hysteretic curves, the FEA model has reasonable prediction
accuracy for the inelastic behavior of the embedded CFST column
connections. In addition, the values of F m =F p and Dm =Dp in Table 1
are approximately 1.0, which indicates that these FEA models per-
form well with respect to numerical prediction.
3. Parametric study
3.1. General theory
Embedded CFST columns are intended to approach a cantilever
with the cap/foundation beam. Fig. 6(a) is a cantilever member sub-
jected to a lateral load at the tip with a fully fixed end condition. The
system stiffness (K) can be defined as Eqs. (1) and (2). However, the
embedded CFST connections cannot reach the fully fixed end condi-
tion; the flexural stiffness of the embedded CFST connection should
be reduced from the fully fixed cantilever. A reasonable estimation
was reported in literature [2], but a more comprehensive study
should be conducted using parametric analysis.
Fig. 6(b) shows the embedded detail and the load resisting
mechanism for embedded column to cap/foundation connections.
Column loads are resisted by supporting the column face against
the cap/foundation concrete in the range of the embedment. There-
fore, the maximum elastic deflection is affected by the main
parameters, including the embedded length, strength of the cap/-
foundation concrete, strength of the column concrete, and yield
strength of the steel tube.
F KD 1
3EIeff
K 2
L3

2.2.2. Hysteretic curves

The true loading history, captured by a linear variable differen-
tial transformer (LVDT) sensor located at the loading point at the
top tip of the column, was applied to the FEA model. The reaction
force response was recorded by ABAQUS and was plotted using the
output history. Fig. 5 shows the comparison between the measured
and predicted force versus the displacement curves of the connec-
tions. In general, the FEA model predictions are in reasonably good
agreement with the test results. It should be mentioned that in the
final cycling loops, there is a gradual decrease in the experimental
force. However, a sharp decrease in the predicted force, because in
the FEA model the effective stiffness of the composite column
degrades because of element deletion rather than cracking Fig. 6. Load resisting mechanism in the embedded column connection.
774 H. Zhu et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 768781

3.2. Concrete strength (508 mm diameter for the circular tube, 350 mm  350 mm length
and width for the square tube). The embedded length was 0.6D,
A detailed parametric study was conducted to assess the elastic 0.7D, 0.8D, 0.9D, and 1.0D for the circular tube and 0.5D, 1.0D,
flexural stiffness of connections with typical section dimensions and 1.5D for the square tube. The cylinder compressive strength

Curvature / rad Curvature / rad

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16
1200 1200 500 500

M- curve
450 450
1000 C25 1000 M- curve
C40 400 400
C25
C50 C40
350 350

Moment / (kNm)
Moment / (kNm)
C60 C50
800 C70 800 C60
300 300
Force / kN

C70

Force / kN
250 250
600 600
200 200
Vary the concrete strength F- curve
400 400 150 150
Le=0.5D square tube C25
Vary the cap concrete strength
F- curve fy= 325MPa C40
Le=0.6D circular tube 100 100
C25 C50
fy = 415 MPa f'c.col= f'c.cap
200 C40 200 C60
f '
= 60 MPa C50 50 C70 50
c.col
C60
C70 0 0
0 0
-50 -50
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16
Displacement / m Displacement / m

Curvature / rad Curvature / rad

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16
1400 1400 500 500
450 450
1200 M- curve 1200 M- curve
C25 400 C25 400
C40 C40
1000 350 C50
C50 1000 350

Moment / (kNm)
C60
Moment / (kNm)

C60
C70 C70
300 300
Force / kN
Force / kN

800 800
250 250

600 600 200 200

Vary the concrete strength F- curve
150 Le=1.5D square tube 150
Vary the cap concrete strength C25
400 F- curve 400 fy= 325MPa
Le=0.9D circular tube C40
C25 100 ' ' C50 100
fy= 415 MPa C40 f c.col
=f c.cap
C60
200 f'c.col= 60 MPa C50 50 C70 50
C60 200
C70
0 0
0 0
-50 -50
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16
Displacement / m Displacement / m

Curvature / rad Curvature / rad

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16
800 800
1400 1400
700 M- curve 700
235MPa
1200 M- curve 1200 324MPa
Moment / (kNm)

290MPa 600 415MPa 600

Moment / (kNm)

415MPa 483MPa
1000 483MPa 1000 520MPa
520MPa 500 500
Force / kN

Force / kN

800 800 400 400

600 600 300 300

400 400 200 Vary the tube yield strength F- curve 200
Vary the tube yield strength F- curve Le=1.0D square tube 235MPa
Le=0.9D circular tube 290MPa 100 f'c.col=30MPa 324MPa
200 200 415MPa 100
f'c.col =60MPa 415MPa f'c.cap=25MPa
483MPa 483MPa
f'c.cap =50MPa 520MPa
520MPa 0 0
0 0

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16
Displacement / m Displacement / m

Fig. 7. Force-displacement response of the connections.

 H. Zhu et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 768781 775

Curvature / rad Curvature / rad

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16
1400 1400 500 500
450 450
1200 1200
M- curve M- curve
0.6D
400 0.5D 400
0.7D 1.0D

Moment / (kNm)
1000

Moment / (kNm)
0.8D 1000 350 1.5D 350
0.9D
1.0D 300 300

Force / kN
800 800
Force / kN

250 250
600 600 200 200

400 400 150 150

Vary column embedded length Vary column embedded length F- curve
F- curve 100 100
Circular tube connetion Square tube connection 0.5D
200 0.6D
fy= 415 MPa, 200 fy=324 MPa 1.0D
0.7D 50 50
f'c.col= 60 MPa 0.8D f'c.col=f'c.cap=25 MPa 1.5D
0 f'c.cap=50 MPa 0.9D 0
0 0
1.0D
-50 -50
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16
Displacement / m Displacement / m

Curvature / rad Curvature / rad

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16
1400 1400 500 500
450 450
1200 M- curve 1200 M- curve
0.05 400 0.05 400
0.10 0.15
1000 350
Moment / (kNm)

Moment / (kNm)
0.15 1000 0.20 350
0.20 0.30
300 0.40 300
Force / kN

Force / kN

800 800
250 250

600 600 200 200

150 Vary the axial load 150
F- curve
400 Vary the axial load F- curve 400 Le=1.0D square tube
Le=0.9D circular tube 0.05
0.05 100 '
0.15 100
0.10 f = 25MPa
f'c.col= 25MPa c.col
' 0.20
0.15 50 f =25MPa
200 f '
=25MPa 200 c.cap 0.30 50
c.cap 0.20
0.40
0 0
0 0
-50 -50
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16
Displacement / m Displacement / m
(a) Circular tube connections (b) Square tube connections
Fig. 7 (continued)

of the concrete ranged from 25 MPa to 70 MPa, the yield stress of 3.3. Steel yield strength
the steel was between 235 MPa and 520 MPa, and the axial
load ratio was between 0.05 and 0.40. The diagrammatic According to the parametric study of the steel yield stress f y , both
curves are shown in Fig. 7, and the numerical results are shown the flexural stiffness of the column EIeff and the stiffness K of the con-
in Table 2. nection are not sensitive to the tube steel yield stress. In addition to
In Fig. 7, the solid lines with symbols are the force-displacement the positive correlation between the maximum reaction force/mo-
response curves, which use the bottom and left axes. The curves ment and the yield stress, the slopes of the elastic segment are iden-
record the reaction force and displacement of the column tip (sec- tical. Furthermore, the tendencies of these curves are almost the
tion B). The slope of the F-D curve reflects the stiffness K 1 of the same.
entire connection. The dashed lines with symbols are the
moment-curvature response curves, which use the top and right 3.4. Embedded length of the CFST column
axes. The M-h curve F-D records the moment of the interface (sec-
tion A) and the curvature of the column tip (section B). The slope According to the parametric study of the embedded length Le ,
of the M-h curve reflects the effective flexural stiffness EIeff of the both the flexural stiffness of the column EIeff and the stiffness K
composite column. of the connection are sensitive to the embedded length. Under
0
According to the parametric study of concrete strength f c , the the critical embedded length (0.9D for circular tube connections,
flexural stiffness of the column EIeff is slightly sensitive to the con- 1.0D for square tube connections), the stiffness of the entire con-
crete strength, and the stiffness K of the connection is not sensitive nection increases with increasing embedded length; otherwise,
to the concrete strength. There is a positive correlation between the F-D and M-h curve will not increase with increasing embedded
the maximum reaction moment and the concrete strength, and length. For example, the curves of a circular tube connection with
the F-D curves are almost identical for each specimen. Le 1:0D are slightly different from the curves of a circular tube
776 H. Zhu et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 768781

Table 2-1
Parametric studies of circular CFST column connections.

No. fy 0
f c;col
0
f c;cap Le e b EIeff 1  107 N  m2 K
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
By AISC By ACI By AASHTO By [4] By FEA By FEA By Eq. a KK 12
provisions provisions provisions equations prediction prediction (2) K 2
EI1 EI2 EI3 EI4 EI5 K1

C1-1 415 60 30 0.6 0.36 0.1 13.20 7.47 15.03 9.48 7.85 2.64 3.85 0.69
C1-2 415 60 40 0.6 0.36 0.1 13.20 7.47 15.03 9.48 8.01 2.67 3.93 0.68
C1-3 415 60 50 0.6 0.36 0.1 13.20 7.47 15.03 9.48 8.01 2.69 3.93 0.68
C1-4 415 60 60 0.6 0.36 0.1 13.20 7.47 15.03 9.48 7.95 2.69 3.90 0.69
C1-5 415 60 70 0.6 0.36 0.1 13.20 7.47 15.03 9.48 8.05 2.71 3.95 0.69
C2-1 415 60 30 0.9 0.36 0.1 13.20 7.47 15.03 9.48 8.18 3.03 4.01 0.76
C2-2 415 60 40 0.9 0.36 0.1 13.20 7.47 15.03 9.48 8.23 3.03 4.04 0.75
C2-3 415 60 50 0.9 0.36 0.1 13.20 7.47 15.03 9.48 8.02 3.03 3.93 0.77
C2-4 415 60 60 0.9 0.36 0.1 13.20 7.47 15.03 9.48 8.11 3.05 3.98 0.77
C2-5 415 60 70 0.9 0.36 0.1 13.20 7.47 15.03 9.48 8.20 3.05 4.02 0.76
C3-1 290 60 50 0.9 0.25 0.1 13.20 7.47 15.03 9.48 8.52 3.50 4.18 0.84
C3-2 483 60 50 0.9 0.42 0.1 13.20 7.47 15.03 9.48 8.90 3.48 4.37 0.80
C3-3 520 60 50 0.9 0.45 0.1 13.20 7.47 15.03 9.48 8.39 3.03 4.12 0.74
C4-1 290 60 50 1.0 0.25 0.1 13.20 7.47 15.03 9.48 8.29 3.49 4.07 0.86
C4-2 415 60 50 1.0 0.36 0.1 13.20 7.47 15.03 9.48 8.27 3.49 4.06 0.86
C4-3 520 60 50 1.0 0.45 0.1 13.20 7.47 15.03 9.48 8.41 3.55 4.12 0.86
C5-1 415 60 50 0.7 0.36 0.1 13.20 7.47 15.03 9.48 7.93 3.01 3.89 0.77
C5-2 415 60 50 0.8 0.36 0.1 13.20 7.47 15.03 9.48 8.05 3.16 3.95 0.80
C5-3 415 60 50 1.0 0.36 0.1 13.20 7.47 15.03 9.48 8.27 3.49 4.06 0.86
C6-1 352 40 40 0.7 0.46 0.1 13.20 7.47 15.03 9.48 7.99 3.05 3.92 0.78
C6-2 352 70 70 0.7 0.26 0.1 13.20 7.47 15.03 9.48 8.29 3.19 4.07 0.78
C6-3 352 60 50 0.7 0.31 0.2 13.20 7.47 15.03 10.54 8.49 3.19 4.16 0.77
C6-4 352 60 50 0.7 0.31 0.3 13.20 7.47 15.03 11.61 8.44 3.24 4.14 0.78
C6-5 352 60 50 0.7 0.31 0.4 13.20 7.47 15.03 12.67 8.79 3.39 4.31 0.79
C7-1 352 60 50 0.8 0.36 0.10 13.20 7.47 15.03 9.48 8.08 3.14 3.96 0.79
C7-2 352 60 50 0.8 0.36 0.20 13.20 7.47 15.03 10.54 8.83 3.49 4.33 0.81
C7-3 352 60 50 0.8 0.36 0.30 13.20 7.47 15.03 11.61 8.69 3.47 4.26 0.81
C7-4 352 60 50 0.8 0.36 0.40 13.20 7.47 15.03 12.67 8.98 3.54 4.40 0.80
C8-1 415 60 50 0.9 0.36 0.05 13.20 7.47 15.03 8.95 7.73 2.96 3.79 0.78
C8-2 415 60 50 0.9 0.36 0.10 13.20 7.47 15.03 9.48 8.77 3.55 4.30 0.83
C8-3 415 60 50 0.9 0.36 0.15 13.20 7.47 15.03 10.01 9.36 3.85 4.59 0.84
C8-4 415 60 50 0.9 0.36 0.20 13.20 7.47 15.03 10.54 10.09 4.17 4.95 0.84

Table 2-2
Parametric studies of square CFST column connections.

No. fy 0
f c;col
0
f c;cap Le e b EIeff (1  107 N  m2 ) K
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
By AISC By ACI By AASHTO By [4] By FEA By FEA By Eq. a KK 12
provisions provisions provisions equations prediction prediction (2) K 2
EI1 EI2 EI3 EI4 EI5 K1

S1-1 324 25 25 0.5 1.10 0.15 5.71 4.04 6.17 4.67 3.68 1.26 1.74 0.72
S1-2 324 40 40 0.5 0.69 0.15 6.03 4.10 6.57 4.83 3.68 1.27 1.74 0.73
S1-3 324 50 50 0.5 0.55 0.15 6.18 4.12 6.75 4.90 3.78 1.28 1.79 0.71
S1-4 324 60 60 0.5 0.46 0.15 6.29 4.14 6.88 4.95 3.89 1.29 1.84 0.70
S1-5 324 70 70 0.5 0.39 0.15 6.36 4.16 6.97 4.98 3.91 1.30 1.85 0.70
S2-1 324 25 25 1.0 1.10 0.15 5.71 4.04 6.17 4.67 3.82 1.55 1.81 0.86
S2-2 324 40 40 1.0 0.69 0.15 6.03 4.10 6.57 4.83 3.86 1.55 1.83 0.85
S2-3 324 50 50 1.0 0.55 0.15 6.18 4.12 6.75 4.90 3.87 1.56 1.83 0.85
S2-4 324 60 60 1.0 0.46 0.15 6.29 4.14 6.88 4.95 3.91 1.57 1.85 0.85
S2-5 324 70 70 1.0 0.39 0.15 6.36 4.16 6.97 4.98 3.93 1.59 1.86 0.85
S3-1 324 25 25 1.5 1.10 0.15 5.71 4.04 6.17 4.67 3.83 1.71 1.81 0.94
S3-2 324 40 40 1.5 0.69 0.15 6.03 4.10 6.57 4.83 3.84 1.71 1.82 0.94
S3-3 324 50 50 1.5 0.55 0.15 6.18 4.12 6.75 4.90 3.85 1.71 1.82 0.94
S3-4 324 60 60 1.5 0.46 0.15 6.29 4.14 6.88 4.95 3.87 1.72 1.83 0.94
S3-5 324 70 70 1.5 0.39 0.15 6.36 4.16 6.97 4.98 4.00 1.72 1.90 0.91
S4-1 235 30 25 1.0 0.666 0.15 5.85 4.07 6.35 4.74 3.97 1.60 1.88 0.85
S4-2 324 30 25 1.0 0.919 0.15 5.85 4.07 6.35 4.74 3.95 1.60 1.87 0.85
S4-3 414 30 25 1.0 1.174 0.15 5.85 3.91 6.35 4.74 3.95 1.60 1.87 0.85
S4-4 483 30 25 1.0 1.37 0.15 5.85 3.91 6.35 4.74 3.95 1.60 1.87 0.85
S4-5 520 30 25 1.0 1.475 0.15 5.85 3.91 6.35 4.74 3.95 1.60 1.87 0.85
S5-1 324 25 25 1.0 0.55 0.05 5.71 4.04 6.17 4.52 3.88 1.53 1.84 0.83
S5-2 324 25 25 1.0 0.55 0.20 5.71 4.04 6.17 4.97 3.96 1.65 1.88 0.88
S5-3 324 25 25 1.0 0.55 0.30 5.71 4.04 6.17 5.41 4.01 1.62 1.90 0.85
S5-4 324 25 25 1.0 0.55 0.40 5.71 4.04 6.17 5.56 4.06 1.66 1.92 0.86
S6-1 324 25 25 1.5 0.55 0.05 5.71 4.04 6.17 4.52 3.80 1.58 1.80 0.88
S6-2 324 25 25 1.5 0.55 0.20 5.71 4.04 6.17 4.97 4.04 1.72 1.91 0.90
S6-3 324 25 25 1.5 0.55 0.30 5.71 4.04 6.17 5.41 4.12 1.80 1.95 0.92
S6-4 324 25 25 1.5 0.55 0.40 5.71 4.04 6.17 5.56 4.07 1.82 1.93 0.94
 H. Zhu et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 768781 777

xe7 xe7
13 6.0

Eq.(5)-0.6D Eq.(7)-0.6D
12 Eq.(5)-0.7D Eq.(7)-0.7D Eq.(5)-0.5D Eq.(7)-0.5D
Eq.(5)-0.8D Eq.(7)-0.8D 5.5 Eq.(5)-1.0D Eq.(7)-1.0D
Eq.(5)-0.9D Eq.(7)-0.9D Eq.(5)-1.5D Eq.(7)-1.5D
Eq.(5)-1.0D Eq.(7)-1.0D
11

(EI)5 5.0

10 (EI)5

4.5
9

4.0
8

7 3.5
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 xe7 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 xe7
(EI)2 for Eq.(5); (EI)4 for Eq.(7) (EI)2 for Eq.(5);(EI)4 for Eq.(7)
(a) Circular tube connections (b) Square tube connections
Fig. 8. Effective flexural stiffness comparison.

0.90 1.00

0.95
0.858
0.85 0.924
0.90
0.825
Le=0.6D 0.803 0.856
0.80 0.85
Le=0.7D
Le=0.8D Le=0.5D
0.779
Le=0.9D 0.80 Le=1.0D
Le=1.0D Le=1.5D
0.75 ave. of Le=0.6D ave. of Le=0.5D
ave. of Le=0.7D 0.75 ave. of Le=1.0D
ave. of Le=0.8D ave. of Le=1.5D
ave. of Le=0.9D 0.713
0.70 0.70
ave. of Le=1.0D
0.684
0.65
7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 xe7 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 xe7
Circular tube connection (EI)5 Square tube connection (EI)5
(a) Circular tube connections (b) Square tube connections
Fig. 9. The average a values of the specimens.

0.90 1.00

Testing points
Testing points 0.95 Fitting curve
0.85 Fitting curve

0.90

0.80
0.85

0.80
0.75

0.75

0.70
0.70

0.65 0.65
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75
Le/ D Le/ D

(a) Circular tube connections (b) Square tube connections

Fig. 10. Estimation of the connection rigidity.
778 H. Zhu et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 768781

connection with Le 0:9D; and those curves of square tube con- EIeff Es Is C 0 Ec Ic by Literature 4 7
nection with Le 1:5D are almost the same as the curves of a 0
square tube connection with Le 1:0D. where C 0:15 PP0 As
As Ac
< 0:9
A, E, and I are the area, elastic modulus, and moment of inertia
3.5. Axial load ratio of the section for the respective material. The subscripts c, s, and g
refer to the properties of the concrete, steel and gross concrete sec-
According to the parametric study of the axial load ratio b, both tions. The bd in Eq. (5) is usually 1.0.
the flexural stiffness of the column EIeff and the stiffness K of the From Table 2 the overall tendency is for the AASHTO and AISC
connection are sensitive to the axial load ratio. When the compos- provisions to predict a larger EIeff than the ACI and literature [4]
ite member bears higher b, the values of EIeff and K are greater. provisions. In addition, the FEA-predicted flexural stiffness is close
However, the increase rate of EIeff and K decelerates with increas- to the ACI and literature [4] results, providing evidence that the
ing rate of b. When b 0:4, the slopes of the F-D and M-h curves do FEA model has stable computing accuracy under different material
not increase distinctly from those of b 0:3. and loading conditions. Table 2 shows that the FEA-predicted flex-
ural stiffness increases slightly with increasing strength of the
cap/foundation concrete, and the axial load ratio increases with
4. Results and discussions
increasing embedded length.
To further investigate the effective flexural stiffness, a compar-
4.1. Prediction of structural stiffness
ison between different methods is shown in Fig. 8. For circular tube
connections, the ACI provision prediction is smaller than that of the
The flexural strength of the composite section is determined by
FEA results, and FEA prediction is smaller than that of the literature
the material and geometric properties of the column. The effective
[4]. Hence, this paper suggests taking the average of the ACI and lit-
flexural stiffness, EIeff , of a CFST connection is required to define the
erature [4] results to estimate the flexural stiffness of circular CFST
buckling capacity and to determine deflection; there is also signif-
columns. For square tube connections, both the ACI provisions and
icant variation in the design specifications, as shown in Eqs. (46).
literature [4] predict larger results than that of the FEA results.
Furthermore, Lehman, Roeder et al. [46] developed a more rea-
Hence, this paper suggests using the ACI provisions as a conserva-
sonable equation for circular CFST members, shown as Eq. (7).
tive estimate of the flexural stiffness of square CFST columns.
The equation was deduced from the AISC provisions and experi-
However, for embedded CFST column-to-beam connections, the
ments considering the axial load ratio.
embedded length is a significant parameter that affects the stiff-
EIeff Es Is C 3 Ec Ic by AISC Provisions 4 ness of the entire connection K and should be included in Eq. (2).
A statistical figure is presented in Fig. 9. The FEA-predicted flexural
where C 3 0:6 2AsAA
s
6 0:9
c
stiffness is shown on the X-axis, the value of a KK 12 is on the Y-axis,
0:2Ec Ig and the testing points are shown by embedded length. It is clear
EIeff Es Is by ACI Provisions 5
1 bd that the rigidity coefficient a increases with increasing embedded
! length. The effective structural stiffness K can be estimated using
E c Ac Eq. (8), and the rigidity coefficient a can be deduced from Fig. 10.
EIeff Es Is 0:4 Is by AASHTO Provisions 6 The numerical fitting function is given by Eq. (8).
As

Fig. 11. Strain path on the steel tube and damage status.
 H. Zhu et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 768781 779

Drift=0.41% 1.0
Drift=0.41%
1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

Height / m
Height / m

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0

-0.2 -0.2

-0.4 -0.4

-0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Longitudinal strain Equivalent plastic strain

Drift=1.5% 1.0
Drift=1.5%
1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

Height / m
Height / m

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0

-0.2 -0.2

-0.4 -0.4

-0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Longitudinal strain Equivalent plastic strain

Drift=4.5% 1.0
Drift=4.5%
1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
Height / m

Height / m

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0

-0.2 -0.2

-0.4 -0.4

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Longitudinal strain Equivalent plastic strain

Drift= 6.8% 1.0

Drift= 6.8%
1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
Height / m

Height / m

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0

-0.2 -0.2

-0.4 -0.4

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Longitudinal strain Equivalent plastic strain

Fig. 12. Longitudinal strain and PEEQ of the testing path.

3EIeff Figs. 9 and 10 show that even for sufficiently large embedded
Ka 8
L3 length (usually larger than the critical embedded length), the rigid-
ity of the connection does not reach that of a fully fixed cantilever,
where a 1:0.
 Le
a 6:693e0:165 0:864 6 3; circular tube connection: In the literature [2], the 3a of specimens U-05, U-10, and U-15
a 0:15L2e 0:511Le 0:495 6 3; square tube connection: are 2.13, 2.58, and 2.80, respectively. In this study, as shown in
780 H. Zhu et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 768781

Drift=-6.8% 1.0
Drift= -6.8%
1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
Height / m

Height / m
0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0

-0.2 -0.2

-0.4 -0.4

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Longitudinal strain Equivalent plastic strain

Drift= 8.5% 1.0

Drift= 8.5%
1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4
Height / m

Height / m
0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0

-0.2 -0.2

-0.4 -0.4

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Longitudinal strain Equivalent plastic strain

Fig. 12 (continued)

Table 2, the predicted 3a of S1-1, S2-1, and S3-1 are 2.16, 2.58, and
2.82, respectively, and from Eq. (8), the estimated 3a of embedded
0.5D, 1.0D, and 1.5D connections are 2.14, 2.57, and 2.77. Gener-
ally, the predicted 3a is in good agreement with the experimental
results.
4.2. Prediction of ductile tearing
When the lateral load or lateral displacement exceeds the elastic
threshold, inelastic response and elastic response occur alternately
under cyclic loading. It is difficult to detect when and where tube
tearing will occur. In addition, due to the strain hardening of the
metal material, the fracture strain captured in coupon tests cannot
be used as a signal of fracture under cyclic loading. However, frac-
ture strain can be determined using the proposed FEA model.
Fig. 11 provides a comparison of the measured and computed
buckling damage states for Test No. 1. Fig. 12 shows the computed
longitudinal and equivalent plastic strain (PEEQ) at various drift
levels for this specimen. A positive strain represents tensile strain,
and a negative strain represents compressive strain. The yield
strain and the ultimate tensile strain associated with fracture in
the material tension test are marked in the figures. The CFST con-
nection is in a multi-axial stress state during this analysis.
At low drift (under 1.5% drift), although the longitudinal strain
was non-zero, the PEEQ was zero, and no visible deformation was
observed. At 1.5% drift, slight visible buckling occurred in the steel
tube, and both the longitudinal strain and PEEQ of some elements
exceeded the yield strain. At low drift levels, the stress on the com-
pressive and tensile sides of the specimen was essentially symmet-
ric, as shown in the figure. At moderate drift (approximately 45%
drift), distinct out-of-plane buckling occurred on both sides of the
model, and the buckling peak reached a transverse displacement of
4t (where t is the thickness of the steel tube). This is relatively con-
sistent with the observed test results. The buckling regions of both
sides of were in a tensile stress state at the peak of the bulge, but
the non-buckling regions were in compression and tension, as
noted for the elastic behavior at smaller deformations. At this drift,
the longitudinal strain did not reach the fracture strain noted for
the tensile stress, but the PEEQ exceeded that strain. At large drift,
prior to initiation of tearing (positive 6.8% drift for this test), the
longitudinal strain of the elements, which were most likely to be
damaged, nearly reached the fracture stain, while the PEEQ of
those elements approached 1.0.
Tearing initiated at 6.8% drift, and the first elements were
removed from the model during these deformation cycles. This
observation suggests that the simulation provides a reasonable
representation of steel tearing and fracture. The longitudinal strain
on the east path exceeded the fracture strain first, while the PEEQ
exceeded 1.5 on the reverse cycle for this deformation.
The calculated fracture strain (0.62) under cyclic loading was
much larger than fracture strain captured in the coupon test
(0.275). These observations suggest that the longitudinal strain
can be used to estimate tearing onset to the steel tube, and the
PEEQ strain can be used to estimate the side or region where frac-
ture will first occur.
5. Conclusions
Embedded CFST column-to-beam connections subjected to
axial load and lateral load were studied numerically using a 3D
FEA model. Based on the study presented in this paper, the follow-
ing conclusions can be drawn:
 H. Zhu et al. / Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 768781
(1) The proposed FEA model can be used to predict the damage
states, local deformation, tube yield and tearing. In addition,
the hysteretic curves show good agreement with the exper-
imental results.
(2) The initial slope (EI) of the moment versus curvature curve
(M  h) of the composite column is sensitive to the embed-
ded length Le and axial load ratio b, slightly sensitive to
the concrete strength and not sensitive to the steel yield
stress. Based on this study, it is suggested to use the average
value of the ACI provisions and literature [4] equations to
estimate the effective flexural stiffness EIeff of circular CFST
columns. It is better to use the ACI provisions to estimate
the effective flexural stiffness EIeff of square CST columns.
(3) The initial slope (K) of the force versus deflection curve
(F  D) of the whole connection is sensitive to the embedded
length Le and axial load ratio b, slightly sensitive to the con-
crete strength and not sensitive to the steel yield stress.
Based on this study, a simple method for predicting the
effective structural stiffness K of circular and square CFST
column-to-beam connections was, proposed, and validation
indicated that the predictions using the simple method are
acceptable.
(4) The calculated longitudinal strain under cyclic loading at
tearing onset is approximately the fracture strain captured
in the coupon test. The fracture strain captured from the cyc-
lic loading test is larger than that captured from the axial
tensile test. The calculated longitudinal strain can be used
to predict when tube tearing will occur, and the plastic
equivalent strain can be used to predict where tube tearing
will occur.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (No. 51408450) and the China Scholarship Council (No.
201506950036) for the financial support. In addition, we are grate-
ful to the sponsor from the CFT GROUP of the University of Wash-
ington, especially the support and guidance from Professor Charles
Roeder, Professor Dawn Lehman, and Doctor Max Stephens.
References
[1] AASHTO. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification. Washington, D.
C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; 2012.
[2] AISC. Steel Construction Manual. American Institute of Steel Construction,
Chicago, IL, 14th ed.
[3] CECS 28: 2012. Technical specification for concrete-filled steel tubular
structures. (in Chinese).
[4] Hsu HL, Lin HW. Improving seismic performance of concrete-filled tube to base
connections. J Constr Steel Res 2006;62:133340.
[5] Hsu HL, Yu HL. Seismic performance of concrete-filled tubes with restrained
plastic hinge zones. J Constr Steel Res 2003;59:587608.
[6] Lehman DE, Roeder CW. Foundation connections for circular concrete-filled
tubes. J Constr Steel Res 2012;78:21225.
781
[7] Roeder CW, Lehman DE, Stephens MT. Concrete-filled steel tubes for
accelerated bridge construction. Transp Res Rec J Transp. Res. Board
2014;2406(1):4958.
[8] Stephens MT, Lehman DE, Roeder CW. Design of CFST column-to-
foundation/cap beam connections for moderate and high seismic regions.
Eng Struct 2016;122:32337.
[9] L. Kappers, M. Berry, J. Stephens. Performance of steel pipe pile-to-concrete cap
connections subject to seismic or high transverse loading: Phase III
confirmation of connection performance. FHWA/MT-13-001/8203, January
2013.
[10] J.E Stephens, L.R. McKittrick. Performance of steel pipe pile-to-concrete bent
cap connections subject to seismic or high transverse loading: Phase . FHWA/
MT-05-001/8144, March 2005.
[11] A.M. Kingsley. Experimental and analytical investigation of embedded column
base connections for concrete filled high strength steel tubes (Master thesis),
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Washington, USA (2005).
[12] J.R. Lee. Experimental investigation of embedded connections for concrete-
filled steel tube columns subjected to combined axial-flexural loading (Master
thesis), Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Washington, USA (2011).
[13] L.M. Berg. CFT column-to-cap beam connections for accelerated bridge
construction in seismic regions (Master thesis), Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, USA (2014).
[14] Moon J, Lehman DE, Roeder CW, Lee HE. Evaluation of embedded concrete-
filled tube (CFT) column-to-foundation connections. Eng Struct
2013;56:2235.
[15] Moon J, Roeder CW, Lehman DE, Lee HE. Analytical modeling of bending of
circular concrete-filled steel tubes. Eng Struct 2012;42:34961.
[16] Dai XH, Lam D, Jamaluddin N, Ye J. Numerical analysis of slender elliptical
concrete filled columns under axial compression. Thin-walled Struct
2014;77:2635.
[17] Duarte APC, Siva BA, Silvestre N, de Brito J, Julio E, Castro JM. Finite element
modeling of short steel tubes filled with rubberized concrete. Compos Struct
2016;150:2840.
[18] Ding FX, Yin GA, Wang LP, Hu D, Chen GQ. Seismic performance of a non-
through-core concrete between concrete-filled steel tubular columns and
reinforced concrete beams. Thin-walled Struct 2017;110:1426.
[19] Li GC, Liu D, Yang ZJ, Zhang CY. Flexural behavior of high strength concrete
filled high strength square steel tube. J Constr Steel Res 2017;128:73244.
[20] Yang YF, Wen Z, Dai XH. Finite element analysis and simple design calculation
method for rectangular CFSTs under local bearing forces. Thin-walled Struct
2016;106:31629.
[21] Alam MI, Fawzia S, Zhao XL. Numerical investigation of CFRP strengthened full
scale CFST columns subjected to vehicular impact. Eng Struct
2016;126:292310.
[22] Hai LH. Concrete filled steel tube structures-from theory to practice (2nd
Version). Beijing: China Science Press; 2007 (in Chinese).
[23] Tao Z, Ghannam M, Song TY, Hai LH. Experimental and numerical investigation
of concrete-filled stainless columns exposed to fire. J Constr Steel Res
2016;118:12034.
[24] Li W, Han LH. Seismic performance of CFST column to steel beam joints with
RC slab: Analysis. J Constr Steel Res 2011;67:12739.
[25] Tu YQ, Shen YF, Zeng YG. L.Y Ma. Hysteretic behavior of multi-cell T- shaped
concrete-filled steel tubular columns. Thin-walled Struct 2014;85:10616.
[26] ABAQUS online manual, Abaqus Analysis Users Guide: session 23.2.1.
[27] Hooputra H, Gese H, Dell H, Werner H. A comprehensive failure model for
crashworthiness simulation of aluminum extrusions. Int J Crashworthiness
2004;9(5):44963.
[28] Hopperstad OS, Borvik T, Langseth M, et al. On the influence of stress triaxiality
and strain rate on the behavior of a structural steel. Part. Experiments. Eur J
Mech A/Solids 2003;22:113.
[29] Qiu W, McCann F, Espinos A, Romero ML, Gardner L. Numerical analysis and
design of slender concrete-filled elliptical hollow section columns and beam-
columns. Eng Struct 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.10.024
(in press).
[30] Zhu HQ, Stephens MT, Roeder CW, Lehman DE. Inelastic response prediction of
CFST columns and connections subjected to lateral loading. J Constr Steel Res
2017;132:13040.