SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF CFST AND CES COLUMNS
IN STEEL-CONCRETE COMPOSITE STRUCTURE
USING ETABS
Sriparna Singh1, Anjali Rai2, Vinayak Mishra3
1, 2,3
Civil Engineering Department, Institute of Engineering & Technology, Lucknow, India
Abstract:
Now days populations is increasing at a great pace and rates of land are getting higher in urban areas, this
generates an urge for high-rise buildings, tall structures, towers and blocks which will assist in utilizing the land
effectively. When the structure starts attaining stories, use of RCC in building increases the size of the members
along with dead load of the structure. This paves the way for an innovative and effective construction technique
that is Steel-Concrete Composite Construction. It consists of composite members which involves the bonding of
concrete and steel in such a manner that they act integrally as a single unit. It is the behaviour of this bond
between the concrete and steel that makes this construction peculiar. The composite structure includes composite
beams, composite columns and composite slab as the composite members. This study aims in comparing the
seismic behaviour of composite columns i.e. one model with concrete-filled steel tubular(CFST) columns in which
concrete is filled inside the hollowed steel sections and the other with concrete encased steel(CES) column
sections in which structural steel i.e. I-Section is fully encased with concrete along with other composite members.
Two models of G+20 story building situated in Lucknow (earthquake zone-3) are considered for seismic analysis.
Equivalent Static Method conforming to IS: 1893:2016, is performed using ETABS-2019 software. The two models
are compared on the basis of seismic parameters such as story displacement, story drift, story stiffness, base
shear, weight of the structure, story shear and time period. Results are compared by plotting graphs, which
concluded that for a particular loading the size of CFST columns was much lesser than CES columns and the
results did not have much variations. If economy is to be considered then CFST can be preferred over CES
columns.
Keywords— CES Columns, CFST Columns, Equivalent Static Method, ETABS, Seismic Analysis.
1. Introduction
Steel-Concrete (SC) composite construction has gained worldwide acceptance because of its excellent seismic
performance over conventional concrete. In China, all of the high-rise buildings that rise more than 300 m in
China are of a steel-concrete composite structure [1]. The primary advantage of a composite element is that when
the two materials are bonded together strongly in order to act as a single unit resulting in combining the properties
of both the material and thus performing better individually, when this occurs it is known as composite action. In
steel-concrete composite members, steel elements will be susceptible to local and lateral buckling and on the other
hand concrete is prone to tensile forces, creep and shrinkage. However, when the proper bonding of steel and
concrete element is fully attained, and the composite action occurs, these disadvantages will be put to rest which
79 | P a g e
is discussed in the next section. Also thermal expansion (coefficient of thermal expansion) of both, concrete and
steel being nearly the same [2]. Therefore, there is no induction of different thermal stresses in the section under
variation of temperature [2]. SC composite construction is more beneficial in resisting seismic forces and it costs
less, allows speed in construction and also provides good fire protection [3]. It is also believed to have more load
carrying capacity than any conventional concrete [4].
SC composite structure involves composite members such as composite beams, composite columns, composite
slab and shear connector. SC composite beam is a steel beam on which the RCC slab or slab with profiled sheet
decking or precast RCC slab rests and is connected by using shear connectors as shown in Fig.1. SC composite
column is a compression member in which the steel element is a structural steel section. There are mainly two
types of composite columns used in practice which are Concrete Encased, Concrete filled as shown in Fig.3, 4.
These are discussed in detail in the next section. SC composite slab is composed of profiled deck sheeting which
acts as formwork for pouring concrete slab as shown in Fig.3.
Fig. 1 Composite beam
Fig. 2 Composite slab
2. Composite Columns
Composite columns are assembled using various combination reinforced concrete and structural steel in order to
effectively utilize beneficial properties of both the material. The bare steel sections support the initial
construction loads, including the weight of structure during construction. Concrete is later cast around the steel
section, or filled inside the tubular sections. In a composite column both the steel and concrete would resist the
80 | P a g e
external loading by interacting together by bond and friction. Nowadays, composite columns are being used in
high rise building and bridge piers due to the fact that for these structure traditional concrete will provide bulky
sections due to increased size. With the use of composite columns along with composite decking and composite
beams it is possible to erect high rise structures in an extremely efficient manner. The lighter weight and higher
strength of steel permit the use of smaller and lighter foundations. The subsequent concrete addition enables the
building frame to easily limit the sway and lateral deflections. The major types of composite columns which are
commonly in practice are as follows:
a. Concrete-filled Steel Tubular (CFST) Columns
CFST columns are those in which a hollow steel tube is filled with concrete as shown in Fig. 3. Concrete-
filled steel tubular columns have been used for earthquake-resistant structures, bridge piers subject to impact
from traffic, columns to support storage tanks, decks of railways, columns in high-rise buildings and as piles
[5].This is due to the fact that the CFST columns possess high load bearing capacity both axially and laterally.
In CFST columns, the concrete adds strength and stiffness, whereas the steel tube provides the confinement.
Concrete, due to this confinement is triaxially restrained and is less vulnerable to shrinkage and acts integrally
with steel gaining higher compressive strength. Further, steel is now restrained to buckling away from
concrete, so less prone to buckling. A further advantage is, steel tube acting as a permanent formwork for
casting of concrete which will reduce the cost of shuttering.
Steel Element
(a) (b)
Concrete Element
Fig. 3: Concrete filled steel tubular (CFST) column (a) Circular CFST column (b) square CFST column
b. Concrete Encased Steel Columns
Steel
Concrete
Element
Fig. 4 Concrete encased steel columns
81 | P a g e
Concrete-encased steel structures are the ones which consist of different sections of steels generally I-sections
encased in concrete as shown in Fig. 4. Even these columns are used widely in the construction of medium
to high rise buildings. Under severe flexural overload, concrete encasement cracks resulting in reduction of
stiffness but the steel core provides shear capacity and ductile resistance to subsequent cycles of overload [5].
In CES columns, the steel section is restrained from the concrete encasement and thus the local buckling of
steel section is removed. Supplementary reinforcement in the concrete encasement prevents excessive
spalling of concrete both under normal load and fire conditions.
3. Equivalent Static Method
The equivalent static lateral force method is a simplified technique to substitute the effect of dynamic loading of
an expected earthquake by a static force distributed laterally on a structure for design purposes.. It is restricted to
single mode of vibration. The total applied seismic force V is generally evaluated in two horizontal directions
parallel to the main axes of the building. According to IS 1893:2016 [6], clause 7.6.1, the design base shear VB
along any principal direction of a building shall be determined by (1):
VB = AhW (1)
Where,
Ah = design horizontal acceleration coefficient (2) value using fundamental time period along the
considered direction of shaking as per clause 6.4.2 [7]
W = seismic weight of the building as per clause 7.4 [7]
4. Objective
The objective of this research is to:
a. Compare the seismic behaviour of Model 1 and Model 2 in terms of story displacement, story drift,
story stiffness, time period, base shear, total weight of the structure, and story shear of the following
two models:
• Model 1: CFST; Composite Structure with concrete-filled steel tubular columns along with
composite beams and slab.
• Model 2: CES; Composite Structure with concrete-encased steel columns along with
composite beams and slab.
5. Methodology
The two models are of G+20 storied building located in Lucknow; seismic zone III are modelled in ETABS-2019.
The load combinations and the seismic analysis done by Equivalent Static Method conforming to the provisions
of IS: 1893-2016 [6]. Other design considerations of composite structure conform to AISC 360-16[7] respectively.
The elevation and plan of model are shown in Fig.5, and other relevant data is tabulated in Table 1. The material
properties and shown in Table 2. The basic loading on all models of structures are kept same and all the loadings
are considered are mentioned in Table 3. The section properties of all the models are mentioned in Table 4.
Secondary beams are placed in both the model for the support of R.C.C. slab.
82 | P a g e
(a) (b)
Fig. 5 (a) 3-D elevation (b) Plan
Table 1 Model Details
PROPERTIES Model 1 & Model 2
Grade of concrete M25
Compressive Strength Of Concrete 25 N/mm2
Grade of Reinforcement HYSD Fe500
steel Steel Section Fe 250
Modulus of Elasticity for R.C.C 5000(fck)1/2 = 25000 N/mm2
Modulus of Elasticity for Steel 2.1 x 105 N/mm2
Brick Wall Density[8] 20 KN/m3
Table 2 Material Properties
PARAMETERS DIMENSIONS/VALUE
Plan Dimensions 36m x 25m
Spacing Of Bays in X-direction 4
Spacing Of Bays in Y-direction 5
No. of Stories G+20
Story Height 3m
Thickness Of wall 230 mm
Height Of parapet wall 1m
83 | P a g e
Table 3 Load Considerations
LOAD CALCULATIONS
Dead load Self weight
Typical Floors[9] 4 KN/m2
Live load on floors
Terrace[9] 1.5 KN/m2
Typical Floors 1 KN/m2
Floor finish load
Terrace 1.5 KN/m2
Load of walls on floor beams 20 x 0.25 x (3-0.4)= 13 KN/m
Load of parapet wall on terrace beams 20 x 0.25 x 1= 5KN/m
Seismic zone III
Zone factor 0.16
Response Reduction Factor 5
Seismic Parameters: As per IS
Importance factor 1.2
1893:2016[6]
Damping ratio 0.05
Fundamental natural time period: Composite 0.08h0.75
framed building
Table 4 Section Properties
MODEL-1 MODEL-2
PARAMETERS
CFST CES
ISMB 500 at periphery
ISMB 500 at periphery
Size of primary beams ISMB 300
ISMB 300
Size of secondary
ISLB 200 ISLB 200
beams
550mm x 550 mm
350mm x 350 mm steel
concrete section
Size of columns tube with thickness of
embedded with I section
18mm
of ISHB 450
110mm 110mm
Thickness of slab
Filled deck Filled deck
84 | P a g e
6. Results & Discussions
After the analysis of all the two models is performed, results are extracted from ETABS-2019 to present a
comparative study. The parameters considered for comparison are story displacement, story drift, story stiffness,
natural period, base shear, and story shear is considered and their variation in the form of graph is plotted.
6.1 Story Displacement
On comparing the results of CFST model and CES model for story displacement in X-direction, it was concluded
that story displacement in X-direction for CFST model has decreased by an average of 4.17%.
21
18
15
12
STOREY
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
DISPLACEMENT(mm)
CFST CES
Fig. 6 Comparison of story vs story displacement in X-direction
On comparing the results of CFST model and CES model for story displacement in Y-direction, it was concluded
that displacement in Y-direction for CES model has decreased by an average of 3.9%
21
18
15
STOREY
12
0
0 30 60 90 120 150
DISPLACEMENT(mm)
CFST CES
Fig. 7 Comparison of story vs story displacement in Y-direction
85 | P a g e
6.2 Story Drift
On comparing the results of CFST model and CES model for story drift in X-direction, it was concluded that drift
in X-direction for CES model is reduced by an average of 10.67%.
22
20
18
16
14
12
STORY
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
DRIFT (mm)
CFST CES
Fig. 8 Comparison of story vs story drift in X-direction
On comparing the results of CFST model and CES model for story drift in Y-direction, it was concluded that drift
in Y-direction for CES model has decreased by an average of 4.18%.
22
20
18
16
14
12
STORY
10
0
0 2 4 6 8
DRIFT (mm)
CFST CES
Fig. 9 Comparison of story vs story drift in Y-direction
86 | P a g e
6.3 Story Stiffness
On comparing the results of CFST model and CES model for story stiffness in X-direction, it was concluded that
stiffness for CES model has increased by an average of 20.13%.
21
18
15
12
STORY
0
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
STIFFNESS (KN/m)
CFST CES
Fig. 10 Comparison of story vs story stiffness in X-direction
On comparing the results of CFST model and CES model for story stiffness in Y-direction, it was concluded that
stiffness has increased for CES model by an average of 11.81%.
21
18
15
12
STORY
0
0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000
STIFFNESS (KN/m)
CFST CES
Fig. 11 Comparison of story vs story stiffness in Y-direction
87 | P a g e
6.4 Total Weight of The Structure
250000
220257.33
199214.64
200000
WEIGHT (KN)
150000
100000
50000
CFST CES
Fig. 1 Comparison of total weight of the structure
On comparing the results of CFST model and CES model total weight of the structure, it was concluded that
total weight of the structure of CFST model is reduced by an average of 9.55%.
6.5 Base Shear
3000 2776.81
2575.8063
2500
BASE SHEAR (KN)
2000
1500
1000
500
CFST CES
Fig. 23 Comparison of base shear
On comparing the results of CFST model and CES model base shear induced on the structure, it was concluded
that base shear of CFST model is reduced by an average of 7.23%.
6.6 Story Shear
400
350
STORY SHEAR
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
STORY
CFST CES
Fig. 34 Comparison of story vs story shear
88 | P a g e
On comparing the result of Fig. 12, it was concluded that the story shear in CFST model reduces by an average
of 7.9%
6.7 Time Period
4.5
4
TIME PERIOD (sec)
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
MODES
CFST CES
Fig. 45 Comparison of time period vs modes
On comparing the results of time period, it was concluded that the time period of CES model is reduced by an
average of 5.51%
7. Conclusion
From the results it is concluded that displacement in X direction for CFST model is higher and in Y-direction it
is lesser than CFST columns this abrupt variation is due to the orientation of the CES column. As the displacement
of CES is lesser, therefore the story drift in CFST columns is more than the CES columns. Story stiffness in both
X & Y direction shows a huge increment in case of CFST columns, this is because the equivalent area of CES
column is greater than CFST columns due to which amount of concrete is more in CES columns. For this basic
loading, when the equivalent area of CES columns was taken same as that of CFST model then the bottom columns
failed due to excessive beam to column capacity ratio. Therefore, for CES column increased section was
considered which had higher equivalent area in comparison to CES column. Due to this reason the weight of the
structure along with base shear has increased, as base shear depend on weight of the structure. Since the base
shear is more CES model therefore the distribution of base shear on each floor i.e. story shear is greater in CES
model. The time period in CES model is less than that of CFST model, which implies that it is more flexible to
oscillate back and forth when lateral forces act on the building. Overall, CES in spite of lesser cross section of
CFST, the behavior of CFST columns is appreciable over CES columns. If economy is to be considered then,
CFST can be preferred over CES columns, as it is able to gain sufficient stiffness of concrete and ductility of steel
which is required to resist the lateral forces effectively.
References
[1.] Chen, C., Wang, C., & Sun, H. (2014), ‘Experimental Study on Seismic Behavior of Full Encased Steel-
Concrete Composite Columns.’ Journal of Structural Engineering, Volume 140(6), June2014.
[2.] Panchal D.R., Marathe P.M., “Comparative Study of RCC, Steel and Composite (G+30 Story) Building”,
International Conference On Current Trends In Technology, Ahemdabad, 08-10 December 2011.
89 | P a g e
[3.] Thripthi, Ranjith A., Tanvi Rai A., Sahana Suresh (2021) ‘Comparative Study on Behaviour of
CFST and CES Columns Using ABAQUS Software’. In: Narasimhan M.C., George V., Udayakumar
G., Kumar A. (eds) Trends in Civil Engineering and Challenges for Sustainability. Lecture Notes in
Civil Engineering, Volume 99 Springer, Singapore, 2021.
[4.] Li L, Matsui C “Effects of axial force on deformation capacity of steel encased reinforced concrete beam-
column”, 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 30 January - 4
February 2000.
[5.] 5. Shanmugam, N. E., & Lakshmi, B. (2001). State of the art report on steel–concrete composite columns.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 57(10), 1041–1080. doi:10.1016/s0143-974x(01)00021-9
[6.] IS: 1893, Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures – general provisions for buildings, Part 1,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2016.
[7.] AISC: 360-16, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, an American National Standard, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., 2016.
[8.] IS 875(1987-Part 1), ―Code Of Practice For Design Loads(Other Than Earthquake)For Buildings And
Structures, Dead Loads, Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), New Delhi.
[9.] IS 875(1987-Part2), ― Code of Practice for Live Loads, Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), New Delhi.
[10.] IS: 11384, “Code Of Practice For Composite Construction In Structural Steel And Concrete” Bureau
Of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 1985.
90 | P a g e
