Abstract
This paper is a further study on the flexural behaviour of concrete-filled steel tubes based on the former work presented by Han [Han LH. Flexural behaviour of concrete-filled steel tubes. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2004;60(2):313–37]. A total of 36 composite beam specimens filled with self-consolidating concrete (SCC) were tested. The main parameters varied in the tests are: (1) sectional types (circular and square); (2) steel yielding strength (from 235 to 282 MPa); (3) the ratio of tube diameter (or width) to wall thickness, D / t (from 47 to 105), and (4) the ratio of shear span to depth (from 1.25 to 6). Comparisons are made with predicted beam capacities using the existing methods, such as AIJ-1997 [Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ). Recommendations for design and construction of concrete filled steel tubular structures. 1997], AISC-LRFD-1999 [AISC. Load and resistance factor design specification for structural steel buildings. Chicago: American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.; 1999], BS5400-1979 [British Standard Institute: BS5400, Part 5, Concrete and composite bridges. 1979], EC4-1994 [Eurocode 4. Design of composite steel and concrete structures, Part 1.1: General rules and rules for buildings (together with United Kingdom National Application Document). DD ENV 1994-1-1:1994. London W1A2BS: British Standards Institution; 1994] and the method proposed by Han [Han LH. Flexural behaviour of concrete-filled steel tubes. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2004;60(2):313–37]. Applied calculation formulae of moment versus curvature curves and the flexural stiffness of concrete-filled steel tubular (CFST) beams are presented, based on the mechanics model of Han [Han LH. Flexural behaviour of concrete-filled steel tubes. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2004;60(2):313–37]. Comparisons are made with predicted beam flexural stiffness using different methods, such as AIJ-1997, AISC-LRFD-1999, BS5400-1979, EC4-1994 and the method proposed in this paper. Comparisons are also made between the simplified model and the mechanics model, and generally good agreement is achieved.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
