zakir m.tech project presentation

A Presentation on AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION ON THE BEHAVIOUR OF CONCRETE FILLED

STEEL TUBULAR COLUMNS AND FRAMES

prepared by MOHAMMED ZAKIR ALI

USN : BI13CSE13Under the guidance of

B S PUTTEGOWDAAssistant professor

BANGALORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,

BENGALURU.

CONTENTS: -

1. Introduction 2. Literature review 3. Objectives 4. Experimental programme 5. Experimental results 6. Scope of the project 7. References

Introduction:- Use of composite members. Use of concrete filled steel tubes.

Advantages of CFST.

Disadvantages of CFST.

Energy absorption capacity of CFST.

Various cross section for CFST

General CFST cross sectional shapes

Typical non prismatic CFST columns

Distinctive failure modes of column

Behaviour of CFST

Literature review:1. N. Jamaluddin, D Lam, X.H. Dai and J. Ye (2013)

Behaviour of CFST columns under axial compression which are elliptical in

shape.

26 column specimens.

The parameters are column lengths, sectional sizes and infill concrete strength.

The cross sections they have used are 150 x 75 x 4mm and 200 x 100 x 5mm

4 series of column specimens they have tested.

Concrete of compressive strength of 30MPa, 60MPa and 100MPa have been

used.

The axial load carrying capacity was varying from 71% to 136%.

2. Abdelmaseeh Bakos and Gailan Jibrael (2014)

Axial load carrying capacity of thin walled HSS stub columns filled with

waste glass concrete.

They have tested a total of 23 specimens.

The replacement of fine aggregate and coarse aggregate with waste glass

was 25% each.

The cross sections are 100mm x 100mm x 1mm thickness and 75mm x

75mm x 1mm thickness.

Results showed the strength of CFST filled with normal concrete and waste

glass concrete were almost same.

3. Shehdeh Ghannam, Hamid R. Al-Ani and Orabi Al-Rawi (2010)

Comparative study of load carrying capacity of steel tubular columns filled with light

weight concrete and normal concrete.

They have tested eight full scale rectangular cross sectional columns which were filled

with light weight concrete and normal concrete.

The cross sections are 200mm x 100mm x 5mm and 150mm x 90mm x 3mm.

The effective lengths of the columns were 2000mm and 2250mm.

Experiments showed that columns having length of 2000mm filled with normal concrete

and light weight concrete carried an axial load of 1417kN and 1048kN respectively.

Columns having length of 2250mm with normal concrete and light weight concrete

carried an axial load of 1356kN and 1103kN.

4. J. Zeghiche and K.Chaoui (2004)

Behaviour of CFST columns.

They have tested a total of 27 CFST columns.

They have used circular steel tube used having an external diameter of 160mm with

5mm wall thickness.

The lengths of columns were varying from 2m to 4m in an increment of 500mm.

Concrete of compressive strength of 40MPa, 70MPa and 100MPa have been used.

Three sets of columns were tested.

The experimental ultimate loads were varying from 1261kN for axially loaded column

filled with 40MPa concrete to 2000kN for axially loaded columns filled with 100MPa.

The experimental ultimate loads were varying from 1697kN to 963kN for single and

double curvature bending.

5. Muhammad Naseem, FAN Jiansheng and NIE Jianguo (2006)

Behaviour of short CFT columns which are axially loaded in compression.


They have used circular and square steel tubular columns.

The lengths of columns were varying from 2m to 4m in an increment of 500mm.

The circular columns of diameter equal to 160mm carried a maximum axial load of

1153kN, whereas the columns of diameter equal to 111.25mm carried a maximum

axial load of 526kN.

The square columns of side 125.66mm carried a maximum axial load of 595kN,

whereas the columns of side length equal to 87.38mm carried a maximum load of

450kN.

The experimental results were in good agreement with the ACI and LRFD code.

6. Lanhui, Sumiem, Wha-Jung and Gianluca Ranzi (2007)

Behaviour of circular hollow steel tubes and circular tubes filled

with concrete.


They have used a total of four series of specimens.

All the specimens were loaded axially till failure of the specimens.

Series 1 specimens carried 143.6kN, series 2 specimens carried

141.77kN, series 3 specimens carried 175.77kN and series 4

carried 227.87kN.

7. E K Mohanraj, S Kandasamy and A Rajaraman

Behaviour of CFST beams under seismic forces.

They have tested a total of 20 specimens with compressive strength of concrete being

20MPa.

The cross section of beam was 91.5mm x 91.5mm and 113.5mm x 113.5mm and having a

length of 1200mm.

The average ultimate load of the Concrete Filled Tubular Beam for cross section of

91.5mm x 91.5mm was found to be 142.38kN compared to 96kN taken by the hollow steel

tubular beams.

The average ultimate load of the Concrete Filled Steel Tubular beam of cross section

113.5mm x 113.5mm was found to be 419.05kN compared to 226kN carried by the hollow

steel tubular beams.

The increment was found to be varying from 49% to 94%.

8. Arivalagan and Kandasamy (2009)

Energy absorption capacity of composite beams.

They have tested a total of nine specimens, three were hollow, three were filled with

nominal mix concrete and three were filled with fly ash concrete.

They have used rectangular hollow section of size 100mm x 50mm x 3.2mm thickness .

The compressive strengths of nominal mix concrete and fly ash concrete are 37MPa

and 35MPa respectively.

The results showed that there was increment in the ultimate moment carrying capacity

by 28-36% and 20-28% for steel tubes filled with nominal mix concrete and fly ash

concrete.

The energy absorption capacity for steel tubes filled nominal mix concrete and fly ash

concrete was increased by 53% and 49% when compare to hollow steel tubes.

Objectives:

To study the behaviour of CFST and HST columns in axial compression.

To determine the axial load carrying capacity of CFST and HST columns.

To compare the experimental results of CFST with AISC-LRFD 2005 and Eurocode-4.

To study the flexural behaviour of CFST and HST frames.

To determine the axial load carrying capacity of CFST and HST frames.

To compare the experimental results of CFST and HST frames.

FLOW CHARTCUTTIN

GFABRICATION

APPLICATION

OF EPOXYPREPAR

ATION OF

CONCRETE

PLACING OF

CONCRETE

APPLICATION

OF CURING COMPO

UND

TESTING OF

SPECIMENS

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

COMPARISION WITH AISC-LRFD-

2005 AND

EUROCODE-4

Experimental Programme:-Materials used are :1. Hollow steel tubular section2. Nitowrap 410 (epoxy)3. Cement4. Fine aggregate5. Coarse aggregate6. Steel bars 7. Water8. Curing compound

Details of column specimens: All the steel tubes have same c/s as 145mm X 82mm X 4.8mm.

A total of 18 columns were tested (6 HST and 12 CFST).

2 HST and 2 CFST columns of height 0.5m were tested

for axial compression loading.

2 HST and 2 CFST columns of height 1m were tested for

axial compression loading.

2 HST and 2 CFST columns of height 1.5m were tested

for axial compression loading.

Details of frame specimens : A total of nine frames were tested for two point loading

test (3 HSTF and 6 CFSTF).

Each frame the column height of 1m and beam span of

1m.

The connection of joint between beam and column will be

simple connection.

3 frames are empty ie…without any infill concrete.

3 frames each are filled with M20 and M40.

Properties of the basic materials• Hollow steel tubes: It confirms to IS-4923:1997

Table 2:Dimensions and geometrical properties of RHS

Table 3:Mechanical Properties of Cold Formed Steel Section

Fig 1: Cross section of the Hollow Steel Tubes

• Cement: OPC 53 grade cement confirming to IS 12269:1987 is used in the current investigation. Table 4: Properties of Cement

• Fine aggregate: Manufactured sand confirming to IS-383:1970 belonging to zone II is used in the current investigation.

Table 5: Properties of Manufactured sand

• Coarse aggregate: Crushed stone aggregates confirming to IS 383:1970 were used as coarse aggregates. The maximum size of crushed stone dust was 12.5mm. The specific gravity of crushed stone aggregate used was found to be 2.63 and the water absorption was found to be 0.72%.

• Chemical admixture: The chemical admixture basically used in the concrete for current experimental investigation is a high performance super plasticizer which is derived from carboxylic ether.

Table 6: Characteristics of Master Glenium Sky 8630

•

Concrete: The concrete used in the current experimental investigation was produced in the Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) plant. Two grades of concrete M20 and M40 were used. Both the concrete had collapsible slump so that concrete can easily flow into the steel tube by its own.

• Curing compound: The curing compound used in the current experimental investigation was basically based the membrane curing theory. The curing compound used is MasterKure 181 which is a non degrading, membrane forming liquid basically derived from the acrylic resin.

Table 7: Characteristics of MasterKure 181

• Epoxy: The epoxy which is used in the current experimental investigation is Nitobond EP. This is basically used for bonding the two adjoining surfaces. This epoxy used acts as bonding agent between the concrete which is inside the tube and internal surface of hollow steel tube.

Table 8: Characteristics of Nitobond EP

Fig 2: Mixing of hardener and base of epoxy

Fig 3: Hollow steel tubes sections of 6m long pieces

Before After

Fig 4: Gas cutting of 6m long pieces

Fig 5: Gas cutting of top portion for frames

Fig 6: Welding of joints using angle section

Fig 7: Application of epoxy to the inner surfaces of frames

Figure 8: Finishing to the concrete exposed surfaces of frames and column

Figure 9: CFST columns before and after application of curing compound

Figure 10:Test set up of HST and CFST Column for axial loading

Fig 11: Test set up of CFST Column for axial loading

2. For the short columns of 1m and 1.5m

Fig 12: Test set up of CFST frames

3. For the CFST frames

Fig 13: Checking the levels

Experimental Results

Sl. No Axial Load (kN)

Strain Gauge Reading (mm)

Axial Strain Mid height Deflection (mm)

1 749.48 0.084 0.000420 1.885

1. Hollow Steel Tubular Column (HSTC-01)Table 9: Test results of HSTC-01

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 4500

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Strain (µϵ)

Loa

d in

kN

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 20

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Deflection in mm

Loa

d in

kN

Fig 14: Failure of Hollow Steel Tubular Column




1 757.33 0.083 0.000415 1.897

2. Hollow Steel Tubular Column (HSTC-02)Table 10: Test results of HSTC-02

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 4500

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Strain (µϵ)

Loa

d in

kN

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 20

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Deflection in mm

Loa

d in

kN




1 912.33 0.415 0.002075 10.756

3. Concrete Filled Steel Tubular Column (CFSTC-01)Table 11: Test results of CFSTC-01

0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 22500

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Strain (µϵ)

Loa

d in

kN

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Deflection in mm

Loa

d in

kN




1 884.86 0.398 0.001990 10.495


0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 22500

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Strain (µϵ)

Loa

d in

kN

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Deflection in mm

Loa

d in

kN




1 1020.24 0.298 0.001490 7.956


0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 17500

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

Strain (µϵ)

Loa

d in

kN

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

Deflection in mm

Loa

d in

kN

Fig 15: Failure of CFSTC-03 due to local buckling near mid height




1 1059.48 0.279 0.001395 7.621


0 250 500 750 1000 1250 15000

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

Strain (µϵ)

Loa

d in

kN

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

Deflection in mm

Loa

d in

kN

Hollow Steel Tubular Column (HSTC-03 to HSTC-06)Table 15: Test results of HSTC-03 to HSTC-06

Sl. NoSpecimen

Designation Height of Column (m)

Ultimate Axial Compressive Load

(kN)

1 HSTC-03 1.0 688.66

2 HSTC-04 1.0 680.81

3 HSTC-05 1.5 608.22

4 HSTC-06 1.5 622.94

Fig 16: Failure of the HST column due to overall buckling

Hollow Steel Tubular Column (HSTC-05 to HSTC-12) Table 16: Test results of HSTC-05 to HSTC-12

Sl. No

Specimen Designation

Height of Column (m)

Grade of concrete infilled

Ultimate Axial Compressive Load (kN)

1 HSTC-05 1.0 M20797.55

2 HSTC-06 1.0 M20808.34

3 HSTC-07 1.0 M20819.14

4 HSTC-08 1.0 M20830.91

5 HSTC-09 1.5 M40725.94

6 HSTC-10 1.5 M40741.64

7 HSTC-11 1.5 M40755.37

8 HSTC-12 1.5 M40769.10

Fig 17: Failure of the CFST column of 1.5m length due to overall buckling

Comparison of Test Results with Codes1. Design Method of AISC-LRFD 2005

2. Design Method of Eurocode 4 (EC4)

Table 17: Comparison of experimental ultimate loads and design ultimate loads

Serial No

Specimen Designation

Experimental Ultimate Load(PEXP)

(kN)

Predicted Design Load byAISC-LRFD-2005 Eurocode-4

PLRFD (kN) PEXP/PLRFD PEC4 (kN) PEXP/PEC4

1 CFSTC-1 884.86 752.08 1.18 787.03 1.12

2 CFSTC-2 912.33 752.08 1.21 787.30 1.16

3 CFSTC-3 1020.24 883.33 1.15 943.21 1.08

4 CFSTC-4 1059.48 883.33 1.20 943.21 1.12

5 CFSTC-5 797.55 719.22 1.11 752.40 1.06

6 CFSTC-6 808.33 719.22 1.12 752.40 1.07

7 CFSTC-7 819.14 840.81 0.97 895.41 0.91

8 CFSTC-8 830.91 840.81 0.99 895.41 0.93

9 CFSTC-9 725.94 667.62 1.09 705.26 1.03

10 CFSTC-10 741.64 667.62 1.11 705.26 1.05

11 CFSTC-11 755.64 774.45 0.98 826.65 0.9112 CFSTC-12 769.10 774.45 0.99 826.65 0.93

Test Results of all CFST Frames

1. Hollow Steel Tubular Frame (HSTF-01) Table 18: Test results of HSTF-01

Sl. No Load (kN) Vertical Deflection of frame (mm)

Left quarter Mid span Right quarter1 225.0 5.895 7.359 5.945

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

Mid span deflection in mm

Loa

d in

kN

Fig 18: Connection failure of the HSTF



Left quarter Mid span Right quarter

1 230.0 6.611 7.779 6.619

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250


Loa

d in

kN




1 220.0 5.895 7.021 5.945

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250


Loa

d in

kN

4. Concrete Filled Steel Tubular Frame (CFSTF-01-M20) Table 21: Test results of CFSTF-01-M20



1 270.0 6.118 7.191 6.121

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300


Loa

d in

kN

Figure 19: Failure of the joint and top portion of beam of the frame CFSTF-01-M20




1 280.0 5.778 6.791 5.785

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300


Loa

d in

kN




1 275.0 6.089 7.155 6.095

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300


Loa

d in

kN


Sl . No Load (kN) Vertical Deflection of frame (mm)


1 325.0 5.799 6.821 5.8007

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80

255075

100125150175200225250275300325350


Loa

d in

kN

Figure 20: Failure of the connection between beam and column of frame

Figure 21: Failure of the beam of the frame due to crushing of concrete




1 330.0 5.649 6.641 5.641

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 70

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

350


Loa

d in

kN




1 350.0 6.595 7.752 6.582

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90

255075

100125150175200225250275300325350375


Loa

d in

kN

Concluding Remarks

• The axial load carrying capacity of CFST columns was increased by

19.3% and 38% for M20 and M40.

17.3% and 22.2% for M20 and M40.

19.7% and 24.3% for M20 and M40.

• The average ultimate load carrying capacity of Concrete Filled Steel Tubular

frames was increased by

22.5% and 48.9% for M20 and M40.

• The theoretical axial load carrying capacity of Concrete Filled Steel

Tubular columns evaluated in accordance with AISC-LRFD 2005 and

Eurocode 4 were found to be in best agreement.

• The maximum percentage variation for experimental results and theoretical results

of axial load carrying capacity of CFST columns evaluated in accordance with

AISC-LRFD 2005 was around 21%.

Eurocode 4 was around 16%.

• Although there was some variation in the results between the experimental and

theoretical results, but the experimental results were on the conservative side.

• The failure of the CFST columns of height 0.5m was basically due to the local

buckling near the mid height compare to the failure of Hollow Steel Tubular

columns which failed due to inward local buckling near the ends.

• The failures of the CFST columns of height 1.0m and 1.5m were basically due to

the overall buckling which was very much similar in case of Hollow Steel Tubular

columns.

• The failure of Hollow Steel Tubular frames was mainly due to the failure of the

connection between the column and beam of the frames.

• The failure of CFST frames was due to the combined failure of the connection

between the beam and column of the frame and crushing of concrete for the beam

at the compression face.

• The results of the current investigation also showed that catastrophic failure in case

of CFST columns and frames was considerably very less.

• All in all, the CFST column and frames performed better compare to the Hollow

Steel Tubular columns and frames. Hence it can replace the conventional RCC

composite constructions.

Scope for Future Investigation• The axial load carrying capacity of CFST columns can be studied by

varying the thickness of steel, area, geometric shape etc so as to know the

behaviour of CFST cross sections.

• In the current investigation, static axial loading was applied, the behaviour

of CFST columns with eccentric loadings, lateral loadings and dynamic

loading should be studied so as to know behaviour of CFST columns under

earthquake forces.

• Full scale CFST column models should be tested so as to know the exact

behaviour of CFST columns under the given conditions of loadings.

• The CSFT columns with stiffeners should be checked so that the bond

failure between concrete and steel is prevented.

• The connections between the beam and columns of CFST frames should be

checked with either bolting or riveting so as to know which one will be

better.

• The CFST frames should be tested for lateral forces and dynamic forces so

as under better particularly the earthquake response of CFST frames.

• Full scale CFST frame models should be tested so as to know the exact

behaviour of CFST frames.

• The CFST columns and frames should be tested for long term loadings also

so that the exact behaviour of structure during its service life can be

determined.

• The behaviour of CFST members should be checked particularly during

the fire and extreme climatic conditions.

REFERENCES• N. Jamluddin, D. Lam, X.H. Dai and J.Ye (2013),”An experimental study on elliptical

concrete filled columns under axial compression”, Journal of constructional steel research, issue 87, pp 6-16.

• Abdelmaseeh Bakos Keryou and Gailan Jibrael Ibrahim (2014), “Axial load carrying capacity of thin walled HSS stub columns filled with waste glass concrete”, IJERSTE, vol 3, issue 5, pp 101-111.

• Shedeh Ghannam, Hamid R. Al-Ani and Orabi-Al-Rawi, “Comparative study of load carrying capacity of steel tube filled light weight concrete and normal concrete”, Jordan journal of civil engineering, vol 4, issue 2, 2010, pp 164-169.

• J.Zeghiche and K.Chaoui, “An experimental behaviour of concrete filled steel tubular columns”, Journal of constructional steel research, issue 61, 2005, pp 53-66.

• Muhammad Naseem Baig, FAN Jiansheng and NIE Jianguo, “Strength of concrete filled steel tubular columns”, Tsinghua science and technology, vol 11, issue 6, 2006, pp 657- 666.

• Lanhui Guo, Sumei Zhang, Wha-Jung Kim and Gianluca Ranzi, “Behaviour of hollow steel tubes and steel tubes filled with concrete”, Science direct (www.elsevier.com), issue 45, 2007, pp 961-973.

• E K Mohanraj, S Kandasamy and A Rajaraman “Seismic behaviour of concrete filled steel tubular beams”, 35th conference on OUR WORLD IN CONCRETE AND STRUCTURES, 2010.

• Arivalagan and Kandasamy, “Energy absorption capacity of composite beams”, Journal of engineering science and technology, vol 2, issue 1, 2009, pp 145-150.

http://www.elsevier.com/

• IS 383: 1970, Specification for Coarse And Fine Aggregates From Natural Sources for

Concrete.

• IS 12269: 1987, Specification for 53 Grade Ordinary Portland Cement.

• IS 4923: 1997, Hollow Steel Sections for Structural Use-Specification.

• IS 1786: 1985, Specification for High Strength Deformed Steel Bars and Wires for Concrete

Reinforcement.

• AISC, Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural Steel Buildings,

American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, 1999.

• AISC, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of Steel

• Construction, Chicago, IL, 2005

• Johnson R. P. and Anderson D, Designers’ Handbook to Eurocode 4, Tomas

• Telford, London, 1993, pp 182.

THANK YOU

zakir m.tech project presentation

Engineering