Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 22–35

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

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

Evaluation of embedded concrete-filled tube (CFT)

column-to-foundation connections
Jiho Moon a, Dawn E. Lehman b,⇑, Charles W. Roeder b, Hak-Eun Lee a
a
School of Civil, Environmental & Architectural Engineering, Korea University, 5-1, Anam-dong, Sungbuk-gu, Seoul 136-701, South Korea
b
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-2700, USA

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

Article history: Concrete-filled tubes (CFTs) are effective structural components. Relative to conventional reinforced con-
Received 12 April 2012 crete components, they have higher strength-to-size efficiency and facilitate rapid construction. Yet they
Revised 15 April 2013 are not used frequently in US construction. The component response is well understood from extensive
Accepted 16 April 2013
experimental and analytical studies that have been conducted on CFT components themselves. There
remains a fundamental challenge of implementing these components in structural systems, which is
caused by the uncertainty of the connection design and performance. Relative to component research,
Keywords:
limited research has focused on the connections of CFT columns. A recent research effort has resulted
Concrete-filled tubes (CFTs)
Embedded connection
in a new embedded connection for a CFT column anchored into a reinforced concrete foundation. The
Composite structure connection is fully capable of transferring combined bending and axial loads and has sufficient deforma-
Minimum embedment depth bility to sustain multiple inelastic deformation cycles under extreme loading. In addition, the connection
Non-linear finite element analysis has unique features that facilitate constructability and rapid construction. However, the connection
design to date is solely based on experimental study, which evaluated a very limited range of design
parameters. A coordinated analytical study, using high-resolution continuum models, was undertaken
to investigate the unstudied parameters and develop appropriate design expressions, which is the subject
of this paper. An analytical model was developed and verified using the test results. The verified model
was then used to conduct a parametric study to enhance the understanding of the experimental behavior
and extend the test databases. Parameters studied included the embedment depth, diameter-to-thick-
ness (D/t) ratio, shear reinforcement ratio, strength ratio of the concrete in the footing and concrete infill,
and the axial load ratio. From the analysis results, the failure mechanisms were evaluated with respect to
the individual parameters. The results showed that an increase in embedment depth, D/t ratio, shear rein-
forcement ratio, the axial load ratio, or the ratio of the concrete strength in the footing relative to the con-
crete infill of CFT column increased the connection strength and could result in ductile yielding of the CFT
column, which is the desired response mode. Finally, the analysis and test results were combined to
develop a refined design equation for the required embedment depth.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Concrete-filled tubes (CFTs) are composite members, which
consist of a steel tube and concrete infill. CFTs used as building col-
umns and bridge piers have several advantages over conventional
structural components, including their strength-to-size efficiency
and facilitation of rapid construction.
The previous researches are heavily focused on the CFT compo-
nent response. Extensive experimental studies on CFT component
subjected to pure axial, pure bending, or combined axial-bending
loading have been conducted and the results are summarized by
Roeder et al. [1]. Other researchers have studied CFTs analytically
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 206 715 2108.
E-mail address: delehman@u.washington.edu (D.E. Lehman).
and developed models appropriate for simulating the CFT compo-
nent response [2–5].
However, only limited studies have focused on the connection
of the CFT component to adjacent components, such as the founda-
tion [6,7]. This limitation in the research has resulted in limiting
the use of CFT components in US construction. The connections
must be practical and economical. They must develop full compos-
ite flexural strength to achieve the benefits of CFT members as col-
umns or piers. Further, good ductility or inelastic deformation
capacity is required of these connections in moderate to high seis-
mic zones.
A recent testing effort has resulted in an efficient CFT column to
foundation connection, appropriate for both bridge and building
construction [6]. This connection is capable of transferring the full
composite resistance of the CFT column to the footing, while

0141-0296/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.04.011
 J. Moon et al. / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 22–35
sustaining inelastic deformation demands resulting from extreme
loading. The proposed connection is shown in Fig. 1a. Typically,
embedded CFT connections use a full base plate. Here, a steel annu-
lar ring is welded to the base of the steel tube to provide anchorage
of the column into the footing and to transfer the column forces
and moments into the foundation. Two types of construction
methods were explored: (1) monolithic and (2) isolated. For the
monolithic connection, the tube is temporarily supported while
the footing is cast around it to embed the steel tube and its annular
ring. The isolated connection casts the footing concrete prior to the
column concrete, thereby separating the reinforcing cage construc-
tion and the structural steel placement. The isolated connection is
fabricated using the following construction sequence: (1) cast the
footing with a void or recess formed by a corrugated steel tube
at the column location, (2) lower the CFT column into place, (3)
grout the column into place with fiber reinforced grout, and (4) fill
the column with self-consolidating low-shrinkage concrete.
Extensive experimental studies were conducted for these con-
nections [8–11]. The results show that the connections have two
different possible failure modes depending on the embedment
depth, as shown in Fig. 1b. Pullout failure may occur when the
embedment depth is not sufficient, while punching shear failure
might occur with shallow base depth below the CFT column. With
sufficient connection strength, both of these failure modes can be
suppressed thereby resulting in ductile yielding of the column,
which is the desired response mode. Therefore, it is critical to iden-
tify all parameters that influence the failure modes of the connec-
tion (Brittle pull-out failure or ductile failure of CFT pier or
column). The experimental research alone did not provide suffi-
cient study of all pertinent variables. Thus, a companion analytical
study was undertaken.
This paper presents non-linear finite element analysis of the
monolithic embedded connection for the CFT column to enhance
the understanding of the experimental results by demonstrating
the failure modes of the connection and by extending the exist-
ing test database through analysis of the parameters that have
not been tested such as large D/t ratio and high axial load ratio.
The analysis model was successfully verified. The verified model
Fig. 1. Proposed connection and failure modes of footing: (a) monolithic and isolated connections; and (b) possible failure modes of footing.
23
was used to investigate the effects of embedment depth, D/t ra-
tio, shear reinforcement, concrete strength ratio between the
footing and concrete infill of CFT column, and axial load ratio. Fi-
nally, a design equation for minimum embedment depth to en-
sure ultimate strength of the embedded connection was
evaluated.
2. Finite element model of embedded CFT connection
The analytical study was conducted using the general-purpose
finite element analysis program ABAQUS [12]. Fig. 2 shows an
example of finite element model of the CFT connection, column
and foundation. Because of symmetry, a half model of the speci-
men was used, which saved modeling and computing time. The
8-node solid (C3D8R), 4-node shell (S4R), and 2-node truss ele-
ment (T3D2) were used to model concrete, steel tube, and steel
reinforcement, respectively. The interface between concrete and
steel tube was separately modeled explicitly using the GAP ele-
ment that is provided by ABAQUS [12] to simulate the contact
behavior between the concrete and the steel tube. GAP elements
allow relative movement between the steel and concrete while
restricting penetration of one node into an adjacent one. The nor-
mal stresses generated in the GAP element result in shear stress
transfer between the steel and the concrete fill through friction.
Relative movement (slip) between the internal reinforcing bar
and the concrete was not modeled; the reinforcement was as-
sumed to be perfectly bonded, which was modeled using the
EMBEDED option in ABAQUS [12].
Fig. 3a shows the uniaxial stress–strain relationship of concrete
used in this study. The compressive stress–strain relationship pro-
posed by Saenz [13] was employed where it is assumed that the
stress–stain relationship is linear up to a stress of 0.5fc0 and the
maximum compressive strength, fc0 , is achieved when compressive
strain is 0.003. For the tensile stress–strain relationship of con-
crete, the curve proposed by Hsu and Mo [14] was adopted. Tensile
stress–strain relationship is linear uppto ffiffiffiffi stress at cracking of
concrete, fcr, where fcr is defined as 0.31 fc0 MPa [14] and the soft-
ening relationship is given by Eq. (1):
24 J. Moon et al. / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 22–35
Fig. 2. Components of the finite element model: (a) concrete infill and footing; (b) steel tube; (c) interface between infill and tube; and (d) reinforcing bar.
Fig. 3. Material models: (a) concrete; and (b) bare and embedded reinforcing bar.
ecr 0:4
fc ¼ fcr ð Þ when ec 6 ecr :
ec
In Eq. (1), ecr is strain at cracking of concrete. Inelastic behavior of
concrete was modeled using the concrete damaged plasticity model
proposed by Lee and Fenves [15] available in ABAQUS [12]. This
constitutive model uses a non-associated flow rule and is suitable
for simulation of the stress triaxially-dependent plastic hardening.
The dilation angle of the concrete, w, which is the measured angle
in the pq  plane where p  are the hydrostatic stress tensor
 and q
and Von-Mises equivalent effective stress tensor respectively, is
an important model parameter in the concrete damaged plasticity
model. The dilation angle, w, was approximated as 20° and 31°
for the concrete infill in the tube and the concrete in the footing,
respectively, based on the results of the previous research and para-
metric studies [4,15]
A tri-linear stress–strain relationship was used for the steel
in the tube. Young’s modulus, Es, was approximated as
200,000 MPa; and Poisson’s ratio, ts, was set as 0.3. The plastic pla-
teau terminates when strain of the steel, es, is equal to 10 times the
yield strain of the steel (10esy) and stress increases up to ultimate
strength of the steel, fu, which is achieved when the ultimate strain
of the steel, esu, is 0.1. The measured properties of the steel and
concrete were used to establish the material models when
available.
The average stress–strain relationship of reinforcing bar embed-
ded in concrete depends on the effective reinforcement ratio, and
can differ from the properties of bare reinforcing bar for low rein-
forcement ratios as shown in Fig. 3b [14]. The primary difference is
the lower effective yield stress below the yield stress of reinforcing
bar, fyr. In this study, the average stress–strain relationship of
embedded reinforcing bar proposed by Hus and Mo [14] was
ð1Þ
adopted, and it is given by
fr ¼ Er er when f r 6 fyr0 ðaÞ ð2Þ
fr ¼ ð0:91  2BÞfyr þ ð0:02 þ 0:25BÞEr er when f r > fyr0 ðbÞ
where
 1:5
1 fcr
fyr0 ¼ ð0:93  2BÞfyr ; and B ¼ : ð3Þ
q fyr
In Eq. (2), Er is young’s modulus of the reinforcing bar, fr and er
are the stress and strain in the reinforcing bar, respectively, and f’yr
is the reduced yield stress of embedded reinforcing bars. Eqs. (2)
and (3) are applicable for reinforcement ratios, q, larger than
0.15% [14]. Eqs. (2) and (3) were derived assuming the tensile
stress–stain relationship of the concrete can be expressed as Eq.
(1). The choice of the tensile stress–stain relationship of the con-
crete can affect the behavior of the concrete structure, and the
parametric study was performed for various types of the tensile
stress–strain relationship of the concrete in this study. From the re-
sults, combination of Eq. (1) with Eqs. (2) and (3) was adopted. The
details of the results of parametric study are shown in Section 3.4.
3. Verification of finite element model
3.1. Test overview
The model described above was verified using the test results.
Specifically, the results of the monolithically embedded connection
tests were compared with analytical results. Fig. 4 shows the
 J. Moon et al. / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 22–35
dimensions and reinforcement layout for the test specimens. A
spiral weld steel tube with a nominal yield strength of 480 MPa
was used in Specimens K1–K3. Specimens K1 and K2 are nominally
identical, in which Specimen K2 has shear reinforcement and Spec-
imen K1 does not. Specimen K3 has a deeper embedment depth. In
contrast to the K-series, the two remaining specimens used a tube
with a nominal steel strength of 345 MPa where spiral weld tube
was used for Specimen 1–50 and straight-seam weld tube was
used for Specimen 4–50.
The height of column above the footing was 1828.8 mm (72 in),
and the footing was 1930.4 mm (76 in.) in the direction of loading
by 1727.2 mm (68 in.) wide for these specimens. The depth of the
footing was 609.6 mm (24 in.). The diameter of tube was 508 mm
(20 in.) and the D/t ratio was 80 for all specimens, where D is exter-
nal diameter of CFT and t is the thickness of steel tube, respectively.
The size of the footing was determined through preliminary
analysis conducted by Kingsley [8]. Kingsley [8] conducted the fi-
nite element analysis with footing depths from 1.2D to 1.8D and
showed very little effect on the performance of the connection.
The 1.2D footing depth develops adequate shear and flexural resis-
tance and is proportional to footings used in practice. The flexural
reinforcing bar in the direction of loading consisted of No. 6 bars
spaced at 101.6 mm (4 in.) for all specimens, as shown in Fig. 4.
The flexural reinforcing bar in the direction perpendicular to load-
ing consisted of No. 4 bars spaced at 228.6 mm (9 in.) for Speci-
mens K1 and K2, while No. 6 bars spaced 101.6 mm (4 in.) for
Specimens K3, 1–50, and 4–50. The nominal area of No. 4 and 6
bars are 129 and 284 mm2 (0.20 and 0.44 in.2), respectively.
Specimen K1 had no shear reinforcement in the footing, while
No. 3 ties were uniformly used for Specimens K2, K3, 1–50, and
4–50 resulting in a 0.27% shear reinforcement ratio, qv, where
the nominal area of No. 3 bar is 71 mm2 (0.11 in.2). The material
properties and embedment depth of each specimen are summa-
rized in Table. 1. In Table 1, le represents the embedment depth.
The applied axial load was 0.1Po, where Po is the squash load and
is defined as 0.95fc0 Ac + fyAs where fy is yield stress of steel tube,
Ac and As are the areas of concrete infill and steel tube, respectively
[16].
3.2. Mesh convergence study including determination of friction
coefficient
Fig. 5a and b shows boundary condition and mesh geometries
that were used for the mesh convergence study, respectively. The
Fig. 4. Dimensions of test specimens.
25
nodes at the base of the footing were fully restrained, and the x
direction of the symmetric section was restrained as shown in
Fig. 5a. The distributed axial load was applied at the top of the
CFT on the concrete section using the pressure load option in ABA-
QUS [12]. Then, the distributed lateral displacement was applied
on the 1/4 perimeter of steel tube at the top of the CFT as shown
in Fig. 5a. A mesh convergence study was conducted using three
different mesh types as shown in Fig. 5b for K1, K2, and K3 speci-
mens where the friction coefficient was set as 0.35.
The results of the mesh convergence study are summarized in
Table 2. In Table 2, Mu,FEM and Mu,test represent the maximum flex-
ural capacity of the CFT column obtained from finite element anal-
ysis and test, respectively. The solutions vary a little for Mesh 1–3,
as shown in Table 2 (the maximum difference is 4% for K3 speci-
men). The differences of Mu,FEM/Mu,test between Mesh 2 and Mesh
3 were approximately less than 1% for all analysis models. Thus,
Mesh 3 was adopted for analysis in this study.
The friction coefficient between steel and concrete can range
from 0.3 to 0.6 [17]. To determine reasonable value of the friction
coefficient for the analysis, a parametric study was conducted for
K1, K2, and K3 specimen by varying the friction coefficient. The re-
sults of parametric study are summarized in Table 2. Three differ-
ent values of friction coefficient (0.25, 0.35, and 0.47) were studied.
The analysis results with a friction coefficient of 0.35 provided the
best results, as shown in Table 2 with an average discrepancy of
4.39%. This value was adopted for the analyses.
3.3. Model validation through comparison with previous test results
Fig. 6 compares the moment-drift relationships obtained from
tests with those obtained from finite element analysis. Table 3 also
compares analytical results with test results for the five specimens.
The dashed line in Fig. 6 represents the flexural strength of the CFT
column calculated from the plastic stress distribution method
(PSDM), Mu,PSDM [16]. Drift is defined as the lateral displacement
at the top of specimen divided by the column length above the
footing. It can be seen that the analysis results accurately predict
stiffness and strength. On average, the model simulated the exper-
imental results well. It should be noted that monotonic loading
was applied in this study, and post-peak behavior might not be
accurate, since post-peak strength loss is frequently caused by ini-
tiation of tearing of the steel tube, which are not included in the
model. However, the post-peak behavior has little effect the max-
26 J. Moon et al. / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 22–35

Table 1
Properties of verification models.

Test specimen Study parameter le/D fc0 ,CFT (MPa/ksi) fc0 ,FT (MPa/ksi) fy (MPa/ksi) fu (MPa/ksi)

K1 No shear reinforcement 0.6 75.8/11 75.8/11 525.7/76.3 602.2/87.4

K2 Shear reinforcement 0.6 75.8/11 75.8/11 525.7/76.3 602.2/87.4
K3 Embedment depth 0.9 71/10.3 71/10.3 525.7/76.3 602.2/87.4
1–50 Straight welded tube 0.8 59.9/8.7 75.8/11 337.6/49 413.4/60
4–50 Spiral welded tube 0.8 59.3/8.6 74.4/10.8 351.4/51 537.4/78

Fig. 5. Boundary condition and mesh for analysis model: (a) loading and boundary condition; (b) mesh for analysis model.

Table 2
Results of mesh convergence study and effect of friction coefficient.

Test specimen Mesh convergence study (F.C. = 0.35) Effect of friction coefficient
Mu,FEM/Mu,test Mu,FEM/Mu,test Mu,FEM/Mu,test Mu,FEM/Mu,test Mu,FEM/Mu,test Mu,FEM/Mu,test
(Mesh#1) (Mesh#2) (Mesh#3) (F.C.=0.25) (F.C.=0.35) (F.C.=0.47)
K1 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.86 0.96 1.05
K2 1.07 1.05 1.06 0.95 1.06 1.11
K3 0.93 0.97 0.97 0.93 0.97 0.98
Average discrepancy (%) 8.67 4.39 6.01

imum resistance estimate, which is the primary issue for evaluat-
ing strength of the CFT column-to-footing connection.
Specimens K1 and K2 exhibited pullout failure of the CFT col-
umn from the footing [8]. For Specimen K1 (le/D = 0.6, and
qv = 0%), tension yielding and local buckling of the tube above
the footing was not detected during the test. The theoretical pre-
dictions also showed that yielding was not developed and Mu,test/
Mu,PSDM is less than 1. The difference between the maximum resis-
tance obtained in the test and finite element analysis was 4% for K1
as shown in Table 3. Fig. 7 compares the crack formation of the
footing, which eventually led to pullout failure, in the experiment
and the analysis. In both the experiment and the analysis, cracks
radiating diagonally from the column are observed. The analysis
assumed that cracking initiated where the tensile equivalent plas-
tic strain is greater than zero, and the maximum principal plastic
strain is positive. The direction of the vector normal to the crack
plane is assumed to be parallel to the direction of the maximum
principal plastic strain [12]. Specimen K2 exhibited similar damage
pattern with larger strength than Specimen K1, as a result of the
additional vertical reinforcement that was placed in the footing.
The strength predicted by the finite element analysis was 6% larger
than the resistance measured in the test. The full flexural capacity
of the CFT column was developed for specimen K3 (le/D = 0.9, and
qv = 0.27%), 1–50 and 4–50(le/D = 0.8, and qv = 0.27%). Further-
more, large deformation demands were sustained without signifi-
cant strength deterioration for these specimens. For all three
specimens, local buckling of the tube occurred near the column
base. Very little damage to the footing was observed in either the
test or the analysis. Local buckling eventually led to tearing of
the tube, which limited the strength and deformability. Fig. 7
 J. Moon et al. / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 22–35 27

Fig. 6. Comparison of predicted and measured base moment vs. drift: (a) Specimen K1 (b) Specimen K2 (c) Specimen K3 (d) Specimen 1–50 and (e) Specimen 4–50.

Table 3
Comparison of analysis results with test results (verification model).

Test specimen Mu,PSDM (kN m) Mu,test (kN m) Mu,FEM (kN m) Mu,test/Mu,PSDM Mu,test/Mu,FEM Failure mode (test) Failure mode (FEM)
K1 1300.74 1135.42 1091.44 0.87 1.04 Footing failure Footing failure
K2 1300.74 1187.74 1257.58 0.91 0.94 Footing failure Footing failure
K3 1288.20 1451.37 1401.98 1.13 1.04 Local buckling Local buckling
1–50 890.52 1074.40 989.33 1.21 1.09 Local buckling Local buckling
4–50 913.23 996.32 1013.49 1.09 0.98 Local buckling Local buckling

Fig. 7. Simulated and observed damage patterns.

compared the shape of the local buckling observed in the test with finite element analysis were 9 and 2% for 1–50 and 4–50 speci-
that predicted in the analysis for K3, and significant similarity is mens, respectively.
noted. The difference between the test and the finite element anal- Taken as a whole, comparison of the simulation and experimen-
ysis was 4% for K3 specimen. The discrepancy between the test and tal results including the predicted response and damage modes
28 J. Moon et al. / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 22–35
such as cracking in the footing and local buckling of the tube indi-
cates that the finite element modeling approach provides an accu-
rate simulation.
3.4. Effect of reinforcing ratio on the tensile stress–strain relationship
of concrete
An accurate simulation of the tensile stress–strain response is
critical to an accurate analysis of some categories of reinforced
concrete components. In particular, sections with low levels of
reinforcement and low or no axial load exhibit stronger influences
from the tensile response. Generally, it is assumed that the tensile
strength of concrete is approximately between 8% and 10% of the
concrete compressive strength. The tensile response is modeled
linearly to the maximum tensile strength of the concrete; the
post-peak response is modeled with the tensile stresses decreasing
linearly to zero at a strain equal to 10 times the peak strain, that is
the strain corresponding to the maximum tensile strength of the
concrete [12].
In this conventional model, stress–strain curve of bare rebar is
often used. This conventional approach was compared with the
modeling approach used in this study, which includes the impact
of embedded reinforcing bars (Eqs. (1)–(3)) [14]. Fig. 8 shows the
effects of tensile stress–strain relationship of the concrete and
stress–stain curve of the reinforcing bar on the analysis results.
The cracking stress, fcr, is assumed to be 9% of fc0 for the conven-
tional method. It was found that both conventional method and
embedded-bar modeling approach used in this study provided
good results for Specimen K3 where minimal to modest footing
cracks occurred. However, the results were improved using the
embedded-rebar model for Specimen K2, which exhibited more
significant cracking. For this specimen, conventional method over-
estimated the strength, as shown in Fig. 8b; the embedded model-
ing approach resulted in predictions that agreed well with test
results. The results of embedding low levels of reinforcement in
concrete changes the overall curve of the bar, as shown in
Fig. 3b, and results in a larger strain corresponding to the yield
stress, which becomes more significant with decreases in the rein-
forcement ratio. As a result, combination of Eq. (1) with Eqs. (2), (3)
provided good results regardless of the failure modes of the CFT
column-to-foundation connection.
4. Parametric study
4.1. Variables for parametric study
A series of parametric studies were performed to investigate the
behavior of the embedded CFT foundation connection. Table 4 pro-
vides values for the key variables evaluated. A total of 56 models
Fig. 8. Effects of tensile stress–strain relationship of the concrete and stress–stain curve of the reinforcing bar on the analysis results: (a) K3 specimen; (b) K2 specimen.
were analyzed to study the impact of D/t ratio, embedment length,
le, shear reinforcement ratio, qv, the concrete compressive strength
ratio between the footing and infill of the CFT, fc0 ,FT/fc0 ,CFT, and axial
load ratio, P/Po. Specimen K3 shown in Fig. 4 served as the refer-
ence model. Nominal material strengths were used. As a result,
the concrete compressive strength of footing, fc0 ,FT, the concrete com-
pressive strength of the infill of CFT column, fc0 ,CFT, yield stress of steel
tube, fy, ultimate stress of the steel tube, fu, and yield stress of the rebar,
fyr, were 34.5, 34.5, 344.8, 482.7, and 413.7 MPa (5, 5, 50, 70, and 60 ksi),
respectively.
The embedment length ratio le/D was selected based on the re-
sults of the results of previous studies [8–11]. Previous results
show that the full flexural strength was observed for most test
specimens when embedment depth is larger than 80% of diameter
of CFT column. Thus, to evaluate the impact of the embedment
length ratio, le/D was varied from 0.6 to 0.9. For the base models
in Table 4, the following values of the key parameters were
studied:
 D/t ratios of 60, 80, 100, and 120.
 Concrete strength ratios, fc0 ,FT/fc0 ,CFT of 0.7, 1, 1.5, and 2.
 Shear reinforcement ratios, qv, of 0%, 0.15%, 0.27% and 0.5%.
 Axial load ratios, P/Po, of 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3.
 Column diameters, D, of 508, 762, and 1524 mm (20, 30, and
60 in.).
It should be noted that the footing dimension and total amount
of reinforcement were proportioned to D.
4.2. Evaluation of different failure mechanisms
Fig. 9 shows base moment-drift relationship for two different
failure modes. The x and y axes in Fig. 9(a) denote drift and normal-
ized flexural strength of the embedded connection, Mu,FEM/Mu,PSDM,
respectively. The value of Mu,PSDM is the theoretical flexural
strength of the CFT column calculated from plastic stress distribu-
tion method [16]. The model-naming scheme denotes the key vari-
ables studied. Results of two models are shown in Fig. 9, where
Model CFT60-0.6-0-1 had a D/t ratio of 60, embedment depth ratio
(le/D) of 0.6, shear reinforcing ratio of 0%, and a concrete strength
ratio of 1. In contrast, Model CFT80-0.9-0.27-1 has a D/t ratio of
80, embedment depth ratio (le/D) of 0.9, shear reinforcement (qv)
of 0.27%, and a concrete strength ratio of 1.
The results shown in Fig. 9 indicate two different failure modes
of the CFT connection. Model CFT60-0.6-0-1 has relatively larger
normalized flexural strength of CFT column than that of CFT80-
0.9-0.27-1. For Model CFT60-0.6-0-1, Mu,FEM/Mu,PSDM is 0.75 indi-
cating that the full flexural capacity of the CFT was not developed
while Mu,FEM was 13% larger than the theoretical flexural strength
 J. Moon et al. / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 22–35 29

Table 4 cracking initiates but is limited, resulting in ductile response. The

Base models for parametric study. initial crack formed at the tip of the annular ring with an angle
Model D (mm/in) D/t le/D qv (%) fc0 ,FT (Mpa/ksi) P/Po of approximately 45°. However, the cracking was much more lim-
CFT60-0.6-0.27-1 508/20 60 0.6 0.27 34.5/5 0.1
ited than Models CFT60-0.6-0-1, and the deformability of the sys-
CFT60-0.7-0.27-1 508/20 60 0.7 0.27 34.5/5 0.1 tem came from the extensive yielding of the steel tube in tension
CFT60-0.8-0.27-1 508/20 60 0.8 0.27 34.5/5 0.1 and compression, as shown in Fig. 10b. The results show that the
CFT60-0.9-0.27-1 508/20 60 0.9 0.27 34.5/5 0.1 shear capacity of the footing must be considered in the design to
Note: fy = 344.8 MPa (50 ksi); fu = 482.7 MPa (70 ksi); fyr = 413.7 MPa (60 ksi); and achieve full plastic action in the column resulting in maximum
fc0 ,CFT = 34.5 MPa (5 ksi) for all analysis models. drift capacity.

4.3. Evaluation of parameter impact

Mu,PSDM for Model CFT80-0.9-0.27-1, indicating that the model

The impact of each of the study parameters was assessed
achieved the desired response mode of column yielding. The key
through a series of parametric study. Fig. 11 shows the effect of
difference in these two models is the location of the initiation
D/t ratio, where D/t ratio is plotted on the x-axis. Three different
and progression of damage. For Model CFT60-0.6-0-1, the footing
parameters are used to assess the parameter impact and these
is severely damaged and pullout failure occurs, as illustrated in
parameters are plotted on the y-axis. The parameters were the nor-
Fig. 9b. For Model CFT80-0.9-0.27-1, inelastic action is sustained
malized strength ratio (Mu,FEM/Mu,PSDM) (Fig. 11a), the normalized
by the steel tube with yielding, and local buckling of steel tube
uplift of the footing where the uplift is normalized to H, the height
controls the strength of the specimen while mitigating footing
of the footing (Fig. 11b), and normalized out-of-plane deformation
damage because of the increased embedment depth.
(OPD) of the steel tube, where the OPD is normalized to the column
These differences are studied in more depth in Fig. 10. The dis-
diameter (Fig. 11c). Uplift and out-of-plane deformation of the
tribution of stresses and crack pattern of footing (middle section)
steel tube were measured at the interface between the CFT column
at 4% drift are shown in Fig. 10a and b for Models CFT60-0.6-0-1
and the footing in tension side, and at a height of 76.2 mm (3 in.)
and CFT80-0.9-0.27-1, respectively. When the embedment depth
above the footing on the compression side, respectively (see
was shallow without shear reinforcement (Model CFT60-0.6-0-1),
Fig. 9b for illustration of these key points). The following observa-
significant cracking was noted on the tension side of column in
tions are made: (1) The flexural strength ratio, Mu,FEM/Mu,PSDM, is
the footing; this cracking was severe and resulted in lost tensile
not impacted by the D/t ratio for well-anchored connections (e.g.,
resistance. Significant cracking permitted separation of the
le/D = 0.9), (2) The uplift is similarly constant for well-anchored
concrete infill and footing and resulted in increased compression
connections (e.g., le/D = 0.9), (3) The out-of-plane displacement in-
stresses at the bottom of the annular ring and interface between
creases significantly with D/t ratio, regardless of the anchorage
the CFT and footing in compression side, as shown in Fig. 10a. As
depth.
a result, a portion of the steel tube that was in compression had lo-
These figures also illustrate the impact of normalized embed-
cally yielded. In contrast, Model CFT80-0.9-0.27-1, which had ade-
ment depth on the response. Each connected line represents one
quate embedment depth and shear reinforcement, the footing
le/D ratio, as indicated by the symbols and the legends. In contrast

Fig. 9. Simulation results for models CFT60-0.6-0-1 and CFT80-0.9-0.27-1: (a) moment–drift relationships; and (b) damage modes.
30 J. Moon et al. / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 22–35

Fig. 10. Stress distributions and crack patterns for analysis models: (a) CFT60-0.6-0-1; and (b) CFT80-0.9-0.27-1 (Note: 1 ksi = 6.89 MPa).

Fig. 11. Effect of D/t ratio: (a) Mu,FEM/Mu,PSDM vs. D/t; (b) uplift/H vs. D/t; and (c) O.P.D/D vs. D/t.

to the D/t ratio, the embedment depth has a much more significant with increasing le/D, but this is expected since, for lower le/D ratios,
impact on the response. The flexural strength of the system re- the response of the system is controlled by damage in the footing
duces for lower le/D, while the uplift increases. The OPD decreases and therefore tube buckling is limited.
 J. Moon et al. / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 22–35 31

Fig. 12 shows the effect of concrete compressive strength ratio 5. Design of embedded CFT connection
of the footing and CFT column infill, fc0 ,FT/fc0 ,CFT. Larger fc0 ,FT/fc0 ,CFT ratio
results in a stronger concrete strength of the footing. Although this is An empirically-derived design equation to estimate the mini-
contrary to practice, the results show that a ratio of 1 is required to mum embedment depth, le, was proposed based on a series of test
achieve the flexural strength. Furthermore, Fig. 12 suggests that an in- results [8–11]. The expression was derived using geometry and
crease in fc0 ,FT/fc0 ,CFT ratio reduces the damage of the footing and is helpful equilibrium of the connection corresponding to pullout failure, as
to increase Mu,FEM/Mu,PSDM. This is a similar trend to that identified with depicted in Fig. 16. The tube is embedded a length le. The annular
increasing D/t ratio. Larger compressive capacity of the footing concrete ring has an outer diameter of Do. For the derivation of the design
also reduced the uplift (Fig 12b). The OPD increased with increasing the equation, shear stress angle b1 in the concrete footing is approxi-
strength ratio, since the larger footing strength encourages yielding and mated as 45°. (Note, this angle has been verified by the finite ele-
buckling of the steel tube. ment analysis, for which the crack that initiates on the tension side
The impact of the shear reinforcement on the response is shown of the column forms at an angle of approximately 45°.)
in Fig. 13. In all cases, models without shear reinforcement failed to Equilibrium in vertical direction is given by the following
achieve their flexural strength. For lower values of le/D, the impact equation:
of the shear reinforcement in the footing was more significant. For
example, the models with an le/D = 0.6 showed an increase in T s ¼ V c sin b1 : ð4Þ
strength with additional shear reinforcement; for models with lar- In the expression, Ts and Vc are the tensile force in the steel and
ger le/D ratio, the increase was less significant. shear force in the concrete, respectively. For an incremental angle
The effects of axial load ratio are summarized in Fig. 14. In gen- of Dc, Ts and Vc are given by
eral, Mu,FEM/Mu,PSDM was increased with increasing P/Po when Mu,-
FEM/Mu,PSDM is less than one (lower anchorage lengths with D le
T s ¼ Dc fs t and V c ¼ sc Dc ðD0 þ le cot b1 Þ: ð5Þ
significant impact of the footing response). For well-anchored 2 2 sin b1
models, increasing P/Po beyond 0.2 does not increase the strength
ratio. However, in all cases increasing P/Po reduced the uplift defor- Substituting Eq. (5) into Eq. (4) with b1 = 45°, shear stress of the
mation of the footing. In most cases, increasing P/Po increased the footing, sc, that is needed to develop stress of fs in steel tube can
OPD. be computed using Eq. (6).
In contrast to the expected response, for well-anchored models Dtfs
(le/D = 0.9), the OPD decreased with increasing values of P/Po. This sc ¼ 2
: ð6Þ
ðle þ D0 le Þ
trend is explored further by comparing two models with two dif-
ferent axial load ratios of 0.1 and 0.2 at 4% drift, as shown in It is noted that shear stress of the footing, sc, is the same with the
Fig. 15. The figure plots the maximum principle plastic strain gra- shear stress of the concrete in the footing since the shear reinforcing
dients that represent the cracking in the concrete infill and footing. bar is ignored in Eq. (6). To achieve full flexural strength of the CFT
The figure shows that the compressive region of the concrete infill column, the steel tube must fully yield, ideally reaching its ultimate
increases with an increase in the axial load ratio, suggesting that an strength, fu. Thus, the shear stress capacity, sc, was computed by
increased amount of concrete is engaged to sustain the combined substituting fu for fs in Eq. (6).
demands from tension and axial compressive loading (P). In addi- Significant variability exists in the shear stress capacity of the
tion, the arc of the tube engaged in sustaining the compressive concrete. For ffi reason, Lee [11] provided that sc should be smal-
this
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
force is also increased. The combination of these responses results ler than a fc;FT
0
to achieve full flexural capacity of the CFT column,
in decreasing the simulated OPD. However, additional displace- and a varies from 0.42 to 0.57 (MPa unit). However, that proposal
ment demand that may result in significant damage to the concrete was based on limited experimental data. In this study, this shear
infill accelerates buckling of the steel tube. This latter behavior has stress range was reexamined and calibrated by using results of
been observed by others [18]. It is also noted that the tensile parametric study as well as the experimental results. Fig. 17 shows
strains in some cracked region are very high in Fig. 15. This is be- the evaluation of design equation to estimate the minimum
cause that the slope of the tensile stress–strain curve is almost zero embedment depth. In Fig. 17, the x-axis is the normalized shear
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
when the tensile strain is large [approximately 0.01 from Eq. (1)]. stress, sc/ fc;FT
0
, where sc is calculated from Eq. (6) with fs equal
Thus, tensile strain could be dramatically increased even if the to fu. As expected, the results show that Mu,FEM/Mu,PSDM decreases
decrease in tensile stress is very small. Finally, the impact of the and uplift increases (equivalent to increased damage sustained
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
column diameter (D) was investigated by studying CFT columns by the footing) with increasing sc/ fc;FT 0
. Also, out-of-plane defor-
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
with diameters of 508, 762, and 1524 mm (20, 30, and 60 in.). mation of the steel tube increases with decreasing sc/ fc;FT 0
as
There was no impact on the response. shown in Fig. 17c, which also indicates that higher shear stress

Fig. 12. Effect of fc0 ,FT/fc0 ,CFT: (a) Mu,FEM/Mu,PSDM vs. fc0 ,FT/fc0 ,CFT; (b) Uplift/H vs. fc0 ,FT/fc0 ,CFT; and (c) O.P.D/D vs. fc0 ,FT/fc0 ,CFT.
32 J. Moon et al. / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 22–35

Fig. 13. Effect of qv: (a) Mu,FEM/Mu,PSDM vs. qv; (b) Uplift/H vs. qv; and (c) O.P.D/D vs. qv.

Fig. 14. Effect of P/Po: (a) Mu,FEM/Mu,PSDM vs. P/Po; (b) Uplift/H vs. P/Po; and (c) O.P.D/D vs. P/Po.

Fig. 15. Variation of crack patterns for different axial load ratio (4% drift).

in the footing limits the inelastic action in the tube, and potentially including regions of low and moderate seismicity, as indicated
changes the response mode from ductile yielding of the column to below.
brittle response of the connection. For regions of low and moderate seismicity
From the comparative study, test results of monolithically qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Dtfu
embedded connection and analysis results without shear reinforc- 2
6 a fc;FT
0 0
¼ 0:6 fc;FT MPa ð7:2 for psi unitÞ ðaÞ ð7Þ
ing bar provide a lower bound on the embedment depth. A linear ðle þ D 0 le Þ
regression was performed using these data (Linear Regression_1 For regions of high seismicity
in Fig. 17a). The value of Mu,FEM/Mu,PSDM was larger than 1 when qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Eq. (7a) is satisfied. These results are applicable to foundation Dtfu
2
6 a fc;FT
0 0
¼ 0:55 fc;FT MPa ð6:6 for psi unitÞ ðbÞ
designs for which ductility in the tube is not a design requirement, ðle þ D 0 le Þ
 J. Moon et al. / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 22–35 33

Fig. 16. Schematic view of footing resistance to cone pullout failure.

Fig. 17. Evaluation of design equation: (a) Mu,FEM/Mu,PSDM vs. sc/(fc0 ,FT)0.5; (b) Uplift/H vs. sc/(fc0 ,FT)0.5; and (c) O.P.D/D vs. sc/(fc0 ,FT)0.5.

Satisfaction of this minimum does not guarantee significant plastic respectively. Thus, this target strength ratio for high seismic region
action in the CFT column, since CFT column-to-foundation connec- may not be appropriate for the CFT column-to-foundation connec-
tion must be fully yielded and provide the significant inelastic tion that deviates from the profiles of test specimens used in this
deformation capacity. From the observation of the test and finite study, and the care should be taken to apply the proposed equation
element analysis results, it was found that the full strength of the for high seismic region.
CFT column was usually 10–20% larger than theoretical value. Full Scatter is observed in the data presented in Fig. 17. The simula-
plastic action occurred when Mu,test/Mu,PSDM is larger than 1.15. Ta- tions suggest that the shear reinforcement ratio and axial load ratio
ble 5 shows the summary of drift ductility, l, for the test results can reduce the required embedment depth. However, these factors
conducted [9–11], where drift ductility is defined as the ratio of were neglected in the derivation of Eq. (6). Eq. (8) was derived by
maximum amount of deflection (drift) divided by the amount of conducting a regression analysis of the results of parametric study.
deflection (drift) at yield. The yield point of these specimens was
Dtfu
defined as the point where the steel strain equals the yield strain ð1 þ qv Þ0:46 ð1 þ P=Po Þ0:51 sc;m ¼ 2
: ð8Þ
of the material. The maximum deformation was defined as the ðle þ D0 le Þ
point prior to 20% loss in lateral strength. On average, the drift duc- In Eq. (8), sc,m is the modified shear stress of the concrete in the
tility of the CFT column was 8.8. footing that is needed to develop stress of fu in steel tube, and qv
Thus, target strength ratio of CFT column-to-foundation con- is the shear reinforcement ratio in percent (%). In Eq. (8), the value
nection was selected as 1.15Mu,PSDM for more extreme loading. of qv never exceeds 0.3%, and the value of P/Po cannot exceed 0.2
Then, an alternative linear regression was conducted using analysis since little benefit of these parameters were observed for a well-an-
results with shear reinforcing bar and isolated embedded connec- chored CFT-footing connection from the analysis. The shear stress
tion test data (Linear Regression_2 in Fig. 17a), because the scatter range of embedded CFT connection was evaluated by using Eq. (8)
was considerably reduced when these data were used for regres- and the results are shown in Fig. 18. The variability in the prediction
q ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi The ratio of Mu,FEM/Mu,PSDM was larger than 1.15 when sc/
sion. was reduced by using Eq. (8). Similar with Eq. (7), the shear stress
0
fc;FT 6 0.55 (MPa unit). This value is recommended for high seis- range was evaluated and the results are given by
mic regions as described in Eq. (7b). It should be noted that target For regions of low and moderate seismicity
strength ratio of CFT column-to-foundation connection was qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
adopted as 1.15Mu,PSDM for high seismic region based on the test re- Dtfu
2
6 a fc;FT
0
sults shown in Table 5 since they show appropriate ductility level ðle þ D 0 le Þ
that show the plastic action. However, these tests have the clear
¼ 0:55ð1 þ qv Þ0:46 ð1 þ P=Po Þ0:51
limit about the details and material properties of tested specimens. qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
For example, D/t ratio and qv were limited to 80% and 0.27%, 0
 fc;FT MPa ð6:6 for psi unitÞ ð9aÞ
34 J. Moon et al. / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 22–35

Table 5
Drift ductility of the test specimens where Mu,test/Mu,PSDM P 1.15.

Test specimen D (mm/in.) le/D D/t fy (MPa/ksi) fc0 ,CFT (MPa/ksi) fc0 ,CFT/fc0 ,FT qv (%) P/Po Mu,test/Mu,PSDM l
W5 [9] 508/20 0.9 80 520.9/75.6 77.2/11.2 1 0.27 0.1 1.15 7.1
W6 [9] 508/20 0.75 80 520.9/75.6 81.3/11.8 1 0.27 0.1 1.22 8.3
C1 [10] 508/20 0.9 80 520.9/75.6 67.5/9.8 1 0.27 0.1 1.27 6.3
C2 [10] 508/20 0.9 80 520.9/75.6 66.8/9.7 1 0.27 0.1 1.30 7.3
C4 [10] 508/20 0.9 80 520.9/75.6 68.2/9.9 1 0.27 0.2 1.23 7.8
1–50 [11] 508/20 0.8 80 337.6/49 59.9/8.7 0.79 0.27 0.1 1.17 13.5
2–50 [11] 508/20 0.775 80 337.6/49 64.1/9.3 0.82 0.27 0.1 1.17 11.6
5–50 [11] 508/20 0.7 80 351.4/51 67.5/9.8 0.84 0.27 0.1 1.31 9.2
6–50 [11] 508/20 0.6 80 351.4/51 69.6/10.1 0.86 0.27 0.1 1.22 8.2

Fig. 18. Evaluation of modified design equation: (a) Mu,FEM/Mu,PSDM vs. sc,m/(fc0 ,FT)0.5; (b) Uplift/H vs. sc,m/(fc0 ,FT)0.5; and (c) O.P.D/D vs. sc,m/(fc0 ,FT)0.5.

For regions of high seismicity
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Dtfu
2
6 a fc;FT
0 parameters on the embedded foundation connection for the CFT
ðle þ D0 le Þ
¼ 0:47ð1 þ qv Þ0:46 ð1 þ P=Po Þ0:51
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
0
 fc;FT MPa ð5:7 for psi unitÞ:
Thus, the minimum embedment depth of the CFT connection can be
obtained by solving Eq. (9) to include the benefits of shear rein-
forcement and axial load. a in Eq. (9a) is amplified up to 0.68
(MPa unit) by introducing the shear reinforcement ratio of 0.3%
and axial load ratio of 0.2. In the case of a in Eq. (9b), a varies from
0.47 to 0.58 (MPa unit). Lee [11] suggested a is between 0.42 and
0.57 (MPa unit) and his proposed range for a is similar with that
from this study.
ACI 318 code [19] provides the critical failure shear force in Sec-
tion 11.2.1. Similarly with thus study, theq critical
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi shear stress spec-
ified in ACI [19] can be expressed as sc/ fc;FT 0
= Ck where C varies
from 2 to 4 (in psi unit) and k is 1 for normal concrete. This dimen-
sionless critical shear stress range was also plotted with analysis
results and test results, as shown in Figs 17 and 18. From the com-
parative study, it was found that ACI318 [19] give a conservative
value for pullout failure of the CFT column-to-foundation
connection.
6. Summary and conclusions
Concrete filled tubes offer substantial benefits over conven-
tional construction methods because of their inherent strength,
stiffness, stability all of which contribute to reduced labor and
material requirements. However, CFT components are seldom used
in part because there are few validated constructible connections.
Prior experimental studies have developed a feasible CFT-to-foun-
dation connection. However, the data were limited and the full
range of design parameters could not be evaluated.
This research extended those studies by conducting non-linear
finite element analyses to investigate the impact of salient design
columns. The finite element model was verified using measured re-
sponse and observed damage of prior test results, including crack-
ing of the footing and local buckling of the steel tube.
ð9bÞ The analytical study revealed two different failure modes, both
of which were observed in the testing. For models with shallow
embedment depths and insufficient shear reinforcement in the
footing, heavy cracking was observed adjacent to the tension side
of the CFT column in the footing and this cracking led to loss of
strength prior to development of the theoretical flexural strength.
In contrast, when the embedment depth was sufficiently deep and
shear reinforcement were provided, the steel tube fully yielded in
tension and compression; in that case the CFT column controlled
the response of the system with local buckling and yielding of
the tube.
With a validated model in hand, a parametric study was per-
formed to study the effects of D/t ratio, embedment length, shear
reinforcement ratio, concrete compressive strength ratio of the
footing and infill in the CFT, and axial load ratio. The analysis re-
sults showed that: (1) The embedment depth had the most dra-
matic impact on the response of the CFT column-to-footing
subassemblies, (2) The flexural strength ratio, Mu,FEM/Mu,PSDM, was
not impacted by the D/t ratio for well-anchored connections (e.g.,
le/D = 0.9) while D/t ratio had significant effect on the Mu,FEM/Mu,-
PSDM for shallow embedment depth (e.g., le/D = 0.6), (3) For models
with lower embedment depths, the impact of the shear reinforcing
bar was more significant, (4) An increase in fc0 ,FT/fc0 ,CFT ratio reduced
the damage of the footing and was helpful to increase Mu,FEM/Mu,-
PSDM, and (5) In general, Mu,FEM/Mu,PSDM was increased with increas-
ing P/Po when Mu,FEM/Mu,PSDM was less than one. However, for
well-anchored models, increasing P/Po beyond 0.2 did not increase
the strength ratio.
Two design equations to estimate the minimum embedment
depth were derived using the analytical results and previous test
 J. Moon et al. / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 22–35
data. From the results, the minimum embedment depth that guar-
antees full flexural strength of CFT column from plastic stress dis-
tribution method can be obtained by solving Eq. (7a). For regions of
high seismicity, Eq. (7b) is recommended. A modified design equa-
tion was proposed to include benefits of shear reinforcement and
axial load ratio as Eq. (9) and the scatter of analysis and test results
was reduced.
Acknowledgements
This work was completed partially with funding provided by
the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
through the project entitled, ‘‘Design of Bridge Foundations with
Steel Casings’’. Mr. Bijan Khaleghi is the WSDOT Bridge Design
Engineer and the coordinator of this project. The advice and finan-
cial support of the WSDOT is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Roeder CW, Lehman DE, Bishop E. Strength and stiffness of circular concrete
filled tubes. J Struct Eng ASCE 2010;136(12):1545–53.
[2] Hu HT, Huang CS, Wu MH, Wu YM. Nonlinear analysis of axial loaded concrete-
filled tube columns with confinement effect. J Struct Eng ASCE
2003;129(10):1322–9.
[3] Lu H, Han LH, Zhao XL. Analytical behavior of circular concrete-filled thin-
walled steel tubes subjected to bending. Thin-Walled Struct 2009;47:346–58.
[4] Moon J, Lehman DE, Roeder CW, Lee H-E. Analytical modeling of bending of
circular concrete-filled steel tubes. Eng Struct 2012;42:349–61.
[5] Moon J, Lehman DE, Roeder CW, Lee H-E. Strength of circular concrete-filled
tubes (CFT) with and without internal reinforcement under combined loading.
35
J Struct Eng ASCE; in press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
541X.0000788.
[6] Lehman DE, Roeder CW. Foundation connections for circular concrete-filled
tubes. J Construct Steel Res 2012;78:212–25.
[7] Pecce M, Rossi F. The non-linear model of embedded steel-concrete composite
column bases. Eng Struct 2013;46:247–63.
[8] Kingsley A. Experimental and analytical investigation of embedded column
base connections for concrete filled high strength steel tubes. MS thesis.
Seattle, WA: Univ. of Washington; 2005.
[9] Williams TS. Experimental investigation of high strength concrete filled steel
tubes in embedded column base foundation connections. Seattle, WA: Univ. of
Washington; 2006.
[10] Chronister A. Experimental investigation of high strength concrete filled steel
tubes in embedded column base foundation connections. MS thesis. Seattle,
WA: Univ. of Washington; 2007.
[11] Lee JR. Experimental investigation of embedded connections for concrete-
filled steel tube columns subjected to combined axial-flexural loading. MS
thesis. Seattle, WA: Univ. of Washington; 2011.
[12] ABAQUS. ABAQUS analysis user’s manual version 6.9-2 2009. Providence, RI,
USA: Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp.
[13] Saenz LP. Discussion of ‘equation for the stress-strain curve of concrete’ by P.
Desayi, and S. Krishnan. ACI J 1964;61:1229–35.
[14] Hsu TTC, Mo Y-L. Unified theory of concrete structures. 2nd ed. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.; 2010.
[15] Lee J, Fenves GL. Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete
structures. J Eng Mech ASCE 1998;124(8):892–900.
[16] AISC. Specifications for structural steel buildings, Chicago, IL; 2008.
[17] Baltay P, Gjelsvik A. Coefficient of friction for steel on concrete at high normal
stress. J Mater Civ Eng ASCE 1990;2(1):46–9.
[18] Marson J, Bruneau M. Cyclic testing of concrete-filled circular steel bridge piers
having encased fixed-base detail. J Bridge Eng ASCE 2004;9(1):14–23.
[19] ACI. Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary,
ACI318-11 2011, Farmington Hills, MI.