Jerome F. Hajjar - Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering - Northeastern University

Table of Experimental Studies on Axially Loaded Column Tests

General Information

Reference	Experiment Synopsis	Number of Tests	Loading Method	Results Reported	Main Parameters	Comments
Bridge 1976	Square pin-ended eccentrically loaded CFTs (experiment theory)	8 CFTs (ecc.)	Incr. loading to failure Ends offset equally (single curvature) Biaxial bending (inclination of axis: 0°, 30°, 45°)	P vs. δ (exp., calc.) M-φ-P curves P_y, P_u, P_o, P_u/P_o, P_y/P_o	λ e Inclination of loading axis	Excellent paper -- very clear and detailed
Gardner 1968	Short and long columns w/ spiral welded tubes	17 CFTs 2 HTs	Concentric loading to failure	Manufacturing ε, ε_circum P vs. ε, P vs. ε_circum ACI & NBC P_a, P_u, P_o, P_cr	Type of tubing D/t L	Through examination of residual stresses
Gardner and Jacobson 1967	Short and long CFT columns (experimental vs. theoretical)	32 CFTs	Concentric loading to failure	P_o, P_u several allowable calcs incl. ACI, NBC, Klöppel('57), & author's own K (author's "lateral restraint factor") vs. P/P_u	End conditions D/t	Discussion by Furlong and Knowles followed (1968)
Kawano and Matsui 1988	Cyclic axial loading of CFT braces	10 CFTs 10 HTs	Cyclically applied axial load at both ends Displacement controlled loading with either large or small amplitude	P vs. λ P vs. δaxial Energy absorption (CFT, HT) H vs. Δ (K-braced frames with HT and CFT braces)	HT vs. CFT λ axial load amplitude
Kitada, Yoshida, and Nakai 1987	Short CFT columns subjected to axial compression	14 CFTs	3 cases: load steel only, concrete only, & both mat'ls simultaneously	σ_sl/f_y vs. σ_sc/f_y for steel tubes P vs. ε_circum, P vs. δ_axial P_u (exp. vs. calc.)
Knowles and Park 1969	Short and long columns w/ spiral welded tubes	17 CFTs 2 HTs	Concentric loading to failure	Manufacturing ε, ε_circum P vs. ε, P vs. ε_circum ACI & NBC P_a, P_u, P_o, P_cr	End conditions D/t	Discussion by Furlong and Knowles followed (1968)
Knowles and Park 1970	Design eqns. developed and compared w/ tests by author and others	111 CFTs (previous tests)	N.A.	P_o, P_u, P_u/P_o for all tests	Parameters vary with author	Test of the authors' proposed formulas
Matsui and Kawano 1988	Monotonic and cyclic loading of trusses with CFT and HT chords	1 CFT and 1 HT (monotonic) 1 CFT and 1 HT (cyclic)	Monotonic uniform moment applied at the ends Constant axial load and cyclically applied lateral load applied at the top	M vs. θ P vs. δ_axial H vs. Δ	HT vs. CFT
Neogi, Sen, and Chapman 1969	Elasto-plastic behavior of pinned eccentrically and concentrically loaded CFTs (exp. vs. theor.)	18 CFTs (ecc.) C:cold-drawn(8) M:mild, hot-finish(10)	Eccentricity varied by moving top end of column laterally (single curvature) Short duration, constant loading	P vs. ε (exp, calc) P vs. δ, M vs. δ (exp, calc) Selected load ratios using: P_u, P_y, 'exact' calc. load, calc. cos method (Neogi & others)	Type of tubing D/t L/D e
Salani and Sims 1964	Seamless mortar-filled columns	17 Mortar-filled Tubes 9 HTs	Concentric Slow loading in equal increments	P vs. ε P vs. v, P vs. E_c Comparison: P_u, P_cr	D CFT vs. HT	Mortar-filled
Zhong and Miao 1988	Short CFT columns subjected to axial compression	11 CFTs	Concentrically-applied load	σ vs. ε P vs. ε	L/D ratio Steel ratio End conditions	Mostly theoretical
Zhong-qiu, Boi-Hai, Lei, Wen-Jie	Axial behavior of CFT columns to measure bucking load	33 CFTs	Axial Compression	*N (kN) vs. ε	λ f (concrete) *ultimate load (N)	Greater slenderness ratio will result in a lower bearing capacity and increasingly higher plastic deformation rate
Han, Zheng, He, Tao	Curved & Traditional CFT under axial compressive load	18 CFTs	Axial Compression	*N (kN) vs. ε	λ u0 *Shape	None
Liu and Geol 1988	Cyclic load behavior of CFT bracing	6 CFTs (brace) 3 HTs (brace)	Rectangular, pinned frame loaded laterally w/ diagonal brace put in alternate compression & tension	P/P_y vs. δaxial P/P_y vs. # of cycles (vary D/t) 1st buckling load (exp, theor) Load histories Energy absor. (CFT, HT)	HT vs CFT f'_c D/t λ	Good failure descr. Steel fibers used in 3 of the concr. mixes to vary f'_c
Wei, Luo, Lai, Varma	Circular high strength CFST short columns under axial loading.	87 previous tests, 20 new tests, 107 total tests.	Axial Compression	Pexp	Diameter to thickness ratio, Fy, f'c	After comparing results from the old and new tests, it was found that the Japanese Code provided the most accurate estimation for cross-sectional strength.

Specimen Information

Reference	Length (L)(in)	L/D	Eccentricity(in)	Residual Stresses(ksi)	Initial Out-Of-Straightness(in)	End Conditions
Bridge 1976	83.9, 120.1	10.65, 15.25, 20.33	0, 1.50, 2.52	N.A	0.011-0.055	Pinned-pinned (rocker bearings) Expansive mortar endcap (for equal load distribution)
Gardner 1968	CFT: 12.0, 72.0, 84.0 HT: 68.0 Leff = L + 6.0	1.8-12.8	N.A.	Incorporated into f_y	N.A.	Pinned-pinned (long cols) Pinned-fixed (short)
Gardner and Jacobson 1967	6, 8, 9.5, 12, 24, 41.34, 60, 66	2, 8, 8.7, 11, 15, 20	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	Pinned-pinned (long cols.) Pinned-fixed (short)
Kawano and Matsui 1988	L = 16.2-97.4 λ = 19.9-119.5	6.81-40.88	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	Pinned-pinned
Kitada, Yoshida, and Nakai 1987	9.94	2.21	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	Fixed-fixed Loading through bearing plates
Knowles and Park 1969	CFT: 12.0, 72.0, 84.0 HT: 68.0 Leff = L + 6.0	1.8-12.8	N.A.	Incorporated into f_y	N.A.	Pinned-pinned (long cols) Pinned-fixed (short)
Knowles and Park 1970	Leff = 10.0-91.0	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	Pinned-pinned (knife edge) Uniaxial bending Ends capped such that both mat'ls were loaded
Matsui and Kawano 1988
Neogi, Sen, and Chapman 1969	C: 55.5, 67.5, 80.0; M: 131.0	11.1-23.7	C: 0.25-0.88; M: 1.25-1.88	N.A.	0.022-0.224
Salani and Sims 1964	L_eff = 33.86-90.95 λ = 36.9-114.1	8.68-20.80	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	Pinned-pinned
Zhong and Miao 1988	see L/D	2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	Pinned-pinned: (2 knife hinges; 1 knife, 1 plate hinge; 1 spherical, 1 pl hinge; or 2 pl. hinges)
Zhong-qiu, Boi-Hai, Lei, Wen-Jie	19.5-64.96	None	None	None	None
Han, Zheng, He, Tao	22.8-67.7	15.1	.3-1.2	None	None	Welded (square cross-section), Cold Formed (Circle)
Liu and Geol 1988	λ = 58-100	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	Welded gusset plates, weld and plate strength 33% > steel tube
Wei, Luo, Lai, Varma	7.9-53.15	1.2-31.7	N/A	N/A	N/A	Stiffened end plates welded to the bottom end of the short columns

Cross Section Information

Reference	Tube Dimensions	Steel Properties	Concrete Properties
Bridge 1976	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 5.91 × 5.91, 7.87 × 7.87 (square) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.256, 0.394 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 20.0, 23.1	N.A. F_y= 36.8-46.3 ksi	f'_c= 4.38-5.48 ksi
Gardner 1968	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 6.62-6.66 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.104, 0.142, 0.197 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 34-64	Spiral welded F_y= 28.6-48.3 ksi	No cylinder test done (avg. max stress = 5.925)
Gardner and Jacobson 1967	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 3, 4, 4.75, 6 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.067-0.194 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 30-48	Cold-drawn seamless finish- annealed F_y= 52.7-91.9 ksi	f'_c= 3.0-6.3 ksi
Kawano and Matsui 1988	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 2.38 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.091 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 26.3	Cold-formed, mild steel F_y= 48.5 ksi	f'_c= 4.75, 4.98, 5.08 ksi
Kitada, Yoshida, and Nakai 1987	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 4.5 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.118, 0.177, 0.197 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 22.9, 25.4, 38.1	Welded seam & seamless F_y= 40.5-52.6 ksi	f'_c= 2.50, 4.96 ksi
Knowles and Park 1969	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 6.62-6.66 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.104, 0.142, 0.197 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 34-64	Spiral welded F_y= 28.6-48.3 ksi	f'_c= 2.6-5.3 ksi
Knowles and Park 1970	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 1.0-14.0 (circular) 4 × 4, 5 × 5 (square) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.035-0.502 Diameter/thickness (D/t): N.A.	N. A. F_y= 36.9-87.8 ksi	f'_c= 2.94-9.60 ksi
Matsui and Kawano 1988
Neogi, Sen, and Chapman 1969	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: C: 5.0; (circular), M: 5.5, 6.625 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.064-0.384 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 14.4-78.1	Seamless M: mild, hot-finish, gr.16; C: cold-drawn F_y= 25.0-40.4 ksi	f_cu= 4.64-12.10 ksi
Salani and Sims 1964	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 3.75, 4.75, 8.5 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.079-0.472 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 7.9-60.5	F_y= 38.3-57.3 ksi	f'_c= 2.94-4.32 ksi
Zhong and Miao 1988	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 4.27 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): N.A. Diameter/thickness (D/t): N.A.	N.A. Stress determined analytically	f'_c= 4.35, 5.80
Zhong-qiu, Boi-Hai, Lei, Wen-Jie	Diameter: 4.5-6.4 (Depth)*(Width): .09-.13 D/t: 33-66	43.3 ksi	4.9 ksi
Han, Zheng, He, Tao	Diameter: 2.5 Thickness: .09 D/t: 26.6	Fy: 39.1-46.1 ksi	8.7 ksi
Liu and Geol 1988	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 6 × 3, 4 × 2 (rectangular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.188, 0.125, 0.25 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 14, 30	A500 gr. B, coldformed F_y= 54, 60 ksi	f'_c= 4, 6, 8 ksi
Wei, Luo, Lai, Varma	D: 3.93 (in)-21.6 (in), t: .003 (in)-.66 (in), D/t: 8.4-220.9	26.7 (ksi)-167.2 (ksi)	3.7 (ksi)-26.8 (ksi)