4.7 Article

Tests of concrete-filled high strength steel RHS and SHS beams

Journal

THIN-WALLED STRUCTURES
Volume 185, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tws.2023.110567

Keywords

Beam; Concrete; Four-point bending tests; High strength steel; Structural design; Tubular

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper investigates the behavior of concrete-filled high strength steel tubular (CFHSST) beams through experimental tests. The results show that filling high strength steel tubes with concrete significantly improves their moment capacity and ductility. The suitability of current design provisions for CFHSST sections subjected to bending is also evaluated.
This paper presents an experimental investigation of concrete-filled high strength steel tubular (CFHSST) beams. A total of 35 four-point bending tests were conducted, covering high-strength steel square and rectangular hollow sections with nominal 0.2% proof stresses of 700 MPa and 900 MPa. Each high strength steel tubular section was filled with concrete materials of strengths equal to 40, 70 and 110 MPa, respectively. Hollow steel tubes were also tested for comparison purpose. Moment capacity of the test specimens was measured, and ductility of the test specimens was calculated, in order to evaluate the structural benefit associated with the composite action between the two materials. It was shown that both moment capacities and ductility of the CFHSST beams were significantly increased compared to the corresponding hollow sections without concrete infill. It should be noted that the very high strength steel material of 900 MPa is not covered in any design provisions. The current design equations were derived based on normal steel and concrete grades. The suitability of the current design rules, including American Specification (AISC) and European Code (EC4), was assessed for concrete-filled high strength steel tubular sections subjected to bending.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available