Articulo 1
Articulo 1
Articulo 1
Abstract: Investigation of the load transfer of concrete plugs to tubular steel piles subjected to tension and compression and cyclic loading has been conducted at Monash University over the past 3 years. The work presented in this paper reports on the results of the combination of pull-out, push-out, and cyclic loading tests carried out on 15 steel tube
specimens filled partially with reinforced concrete with variable lengths of embedment. The pull-out force was applied
through steel reinforcing bars embedded in the concrete plug, and push-out forces were applied through a thick top circular plate on the top of the concrete plug. Test results included the cyclic loading, ultimate pull-out and push-out
forces, slip of concrete plugs, and longitudinal and hoop strains along the piles for some specimens. The tests clearly
showed that average bond strength significantly exceeds expectations and is higher than the results of previous investigations using plugs without reinforcement. The test results also indicated that cyclic loading tests reduced the bond
strength due to the accumulation of damage to the plugpile interface. The push-out and pull-out tests conducted under
symmetric cyclic loading demonstrated that slip between the concrete plug and the steel tube increased with repeated
loading, and the rate of slip growth increased with an increase in the peak load.
Key words: tubular steel pile, reinforced concrete plug, bond, cyclic loading.
Rsum : Le transfert de charge des bouchons de bton aux pieux tubulaires en acier soumis des charges de tension,
de compression et cycliques a t tudi lUniversit Monash au cours des trois dernires annes. Le travail prsent
dans cet article examine les rsultats de la combinaison des essais darrachement, de contrainte par expulsion et de
chargement cyclique effectus sur 15 tubes dacier partiellement remplis de bton arm dont les longueurs dencastrement varient. La force darrachement a t applique des tiges darmature en acier encastres dans le bouchon de bton, et les contraintes par expulsion ont t appliques sur une plaque circulaire paisse reposant sur le bouchon de
bton. Les rsultats des essais comprennent le chargement cyclique, les forces limites darrachement et dexpulsion, le
glissement des bouchons de bton et les contraintes longitudinales et circonfrentielles le long les pieux pour certains
chantillons. Les essais montrent clairement que la rsistance moyenne du lien dpasse de manire significative les attentes et elle est suprieure aux rsultats des tudes antrieures utilizant des bouchons sans renforcement. Les rsultats
dessais montrent galement que les essais de chargement cyclique ont rduit la rsistance du lien en raison de laccumulation de dommages linterface bouchonpieu. Les essais de contrainte par expulsion et darrachements effectus
sous des chargements cycliques symtriques ont dmontr que le glissement entre le bouchon de bton et le tube en
acier augmente avec la rptition des charges et que le taux de glissement augmente avec la charge de pointe.
Mots cls : pieux tubulaires en acier, bouchon de bton arm, lien, charge cyclique.
[Traduit par la Rdaction]
Nezamian et al.
125
Introduction
The legs of platforms of many offshore and coastal structures are usually founded on tubular steel piles through reinforced concrete pile caps. Wave, wind, and earthquake loads
tend to induce compressive and uplift forces in the legs that
in turn subject the piles to cyclic compression and tension
loading. This transfer of forces takes place through a concrete plug embedded in the top of the steel pile. The resis-
Received 19 May 2004. Revision accepted 12 September 2005. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at http://cjce.nrc.ca
on 11 February 2006.
A. Nezamian.1 School of Civil and Chemical Engineering, RMIT University, City Campus, Melbourne, VIC 3001, Australia.
R. Al-Mahaidi and P. Grundy. Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Wellington Road, Clayton, VIC 3800,
Australia.
Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be received by the Editor until 30 June 2006.
1
doi:10.1139/L05-091
112
Fig. 1. Typical connection between a steel pile and a concrete pile cap. RL, reduced level.
Reinforcing
bars
Reinforcing bars
R10 rings
Bottom of
Dolphin
30
SECTION A - A
RL
300
plug
mm
Conc
rete
A
RL
Rak
e 1:3
e 1:3
Rak
Face of
mooring
dolphin
filled tube (CFT) members indicated that the maximum average bond stress capacity is somewhat smaller with longer
column lengths and larger diameter to thickness (D/t) ratios
and diameters due to the lack of the stiffness to enforce the
benefits of irregularity in the cross section.
Test results from the aforementioned studies showed that
the average bond stress for rectangular tubes was approximately 70% smaller than that for circular tubes and indicated that the influences of the steel tube aspect ratio (D/t)
and the ratio of concrete core length to depth (L/D) on the
bond strength are not completely understood.
The bond resistance of reinforced concrete plugs embedded in tubular steel piles under pull-out and push-out loadings has been investigated by Nezamian et al. (2001, 2003,
2002) and Al-Mahaidi et al. (1999). The pull-out bond
strength tested in specimens having a concrete plug
embedment length to tube inner diameter ratio of L/Di = 1
ranged from 4.3 to 6.2 MPa. It was not possible to determine
the pull-out bond strength for specimens with L/Di > 1 due
to yielding and rupture of the embedded steel bars, which
preceded the development of full bond strength. The pushout strength of reinforced concrete plugs embedded in tubular steel piles revealed capacities higher than those reported
by others. This was attributed, in part, to the presence of reinforcement in the plug and smaller concrete plug
embedment length to tube inner diameter L/Di compared
with the other reported investigations. Bond strengths of
from 2.0 to 7.3 MPa were achieved.
Nezamian et al.
50 mm
6 mm round bars
Ring Reinforcements
Concrete
40 MPa Compressive Strength
Length
600 mm
113
40 mm
6
24 mm deformed bars
8500 controller, which allowed load and displacement control and had programmable trapezoidal control waveforms,
which were utilized for the cyclic loading tests, controlled
the actuator. Displacement control was used for the pull-out
and push-out tests, and load control (with displacement limit
set) was used for all cyclic tests.
The monotonic tests (pull out and push out) were conducted at a displacement rate of 0.015 mm/s. The time taken
to reach the peak load was varied in the order of 510 min.
The cyclic tests were conducted with a symmetric triangular cyclic loading with no holding time at the peak load.
Wind and wave loading can be simulated using this load
protocol. For every cyclic test, the loading was repeated for
a predetermined number of cycles, with data continuously
recorded. The load range was then increased, and the new
loading was repeated, usually for the same number of cycles.
For the cyclic tests, the load versus time function was triangular. A typical function is shown in Fig. 4.
The type of tests on each specimen and the loading rates
and number of cycles per load range are summarized in Tables 2 and 3.
A string linear variable displacement transducer (LVDT)
was used to measure the relative movement (slip) between
the concrete core and the steel tube. Most of the test specimens were strain-gauged along the outer surface of the steel
tube within the length of the concrete plug. Both longitudinal and hoop direction gauges were used. The purpose of
these gauges was to determine from the axial stress in the
steel tube the distribution of shear stress along the contact
area. Additional strain gauges were used on the opposite
side of the tubes to establish whether the loading arrangement introduced significant eccentricity in the specimen.
Strain gauge arrangements are shown in Fig. 5.
It was decided to investigate the effect of cyclic loadings
on bond strength in two stages of experimental work. The
first stage focused on determination of the effect of the initial cyclic loading on the ultimate pull-out strength. The sec 2006 NRC Canada
114
Tube length,
Lp (mm)
Tube internal
diameter, Di (mm)
Tube wall
thickness, t (mm)
Concrete plug
length, Lconc (mm)
Lconc/Di
Di/t
S1.0D-1
S1.0D-2
S1.0D-3
S1.25D-1
S1.25D-2
S1.25D-3
S1.5D-1
S1.5D-2
S1.5D-3
S1.75D-1
S1.75D-2
S1.75D-3
S2.0D-1
S2.0D-2
S2.0D-3
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
222
222
222
222
222
222
222
222
222
222
222
222
218
218
218
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
13
13
13
222
222
222
278
278
278
333
333
333
389
389
389
444
444
444
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.75
1.75
1.75
2.00
2.00
2.00
20.2
20.2
20.2
20.2
20.2
20.2
20.2
20.2
20.2
20.2
20.2
20.2
16.8
16.8
16.8
Fig. 3. Cyclic loading test arrangements. LVDT, linear variable displacement transducer.
Load from the load cell
LVDT
Load Cell
Support stand
Strong Floor
F orce ( kN)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Time (s)
The magnitude of the cyclic load was decided based on approximately 0.25 and 0.40 of the static ultimate strength of
the specimens at 2 mm slip. This was followed by monotonic pull-out tests. A total of six successful tests were
conducted, including two monotonic tests to determine the
pull-out strength of the concrete plug and four pull-out tests
with initial symmetric cyclic loadings. Table 2 lists the peak
loads achieved and corresponding average bond strengths.
The slip values at peak load, initial type of cyclic loading
test, and age of the concrete on the test date are also tabulated. Average bond strength was calculated by dividing the
ultimate pull-out or push-out forces by the contact area of
steelconcrete.
Specimen S1.0D-1 failed at an ultimate pull-out strength
of 665 kN, followed by a push-out test, which resulted in an
ultimate push-out capacity of 525 kN. Specimen S1.5D-1
achieved a pull-out strength of 1000 kN at a slip of 1.7 mm.
This was followed by a push-out test, which resulted in an
ultimate push-out capacity of 1000 kN at a slip of 1.5 mm.
Specimens S1.0D-2 and S1.0D-3 were then initially subjected to 10 symmetric cycles of 150 kN followed by
another 10 symmetric cycles of 250 in tension and compression. This was followed by pull-out tests, which resulted
in ultimate loads of 711 and 405 kN for specimens S1.0D-2
and S1.0D-3, respectively. Specimen S1.5D-2 was initially
subjected to 10 symmetric cycles of 250 kN. This was followed by a pull-out test, which resulted in an ultimate load
of 500 kN. Specimen S1.5D-3 was initially subjected to 10
symmetric cycles of 250 kN followed by another 10 sym 2006 NRC Canada
Nezamian et al.
115
S1.0D-3
S1.5D-1
S1.5D-2
S1.5D-3
Type of test
Max. load
(kN)
Hold time
(min)
Avg. bond
strength (MPa)
Max. slip
(mm)
Cycle time
(min)
No. of
cycles
Concrete
age (days)
Pull out
Push out
Cyclic loading
Cyclic loading
Pull out
Cyclic loading
Cyclic loading
Pull out
Pull outa
Push outa
Cyclic loading
Pull out
Push out
Cyclic loading
Cyclic loading
Pull out
665
525
150
250
711
150
250
410
1000
1000
230
500
400
230
400
404
15
19
40
40
24
40
40
39
17
18
40
8
24
40
40
39
4.20
3.31
0.94
1.58
4.49
0.94
1.58
2.59
4.30
4.30
0.99
2.15
1.72
0.99
1.72
1.74
2.3
7.5
0.6
1.0
12.2
0.2
0.7
11.7
1.7
1.5
0.2
1.8
6.8
0.1
2.4
9.2
4
4
4
4
4
4
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
32
32
26
26
26
26
26
26
29
29
28
28
28
28
28
28
The maximum load was limited by the capacity of the loading system and does not correspond to ultimate strength response.
116
S1.25D-3
S1.75D-1
S1.75D-2
S1.75D-3
S2.0D-1
S2.0D-2
S2.0D-3
Type of test
Max.
load (kN)
Hold time
(min)
Avg. bond
strength (MPa)
Max. slip
(mm)
Cycle time
(min)
No. of
cycles
Concrete
age (days)
Push out
Pull out
Cyclic loading
Cyclic loading
Pull out
Cyclic loading
Pull out
Push out
Pull out
Cyclic loading
Cyclic loading
Cyclic loading
Cyclic loading
Cyclic loading
Cyclic loading
Cyclic loading
Cyclic loading
Cyclic loading
Pull out
Cyclic loading
Cyclic loading
Cyclic loading
Cyclic loading
Push outa
Pull outa
Cyclic loading
Cyclic loading
Cyclic loading
Cyclic loading
Cyclic loading
Pull out
Cyclic loading
Cyclic loading
Cyclic loading
Cyclic loading
443
460
260
310
439
245
540
395
330
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
431
150
200
225
250
1000
1000
500
550
600
600
600
479
200
250
300
350
51
36
20
20
20
7
12
7
12
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
16
9
20
20
20
14
60
40
44
40
5
5
30
2
20
20
20
5
2.29
2.38
1.34
1.60
2.27
1.26
2.79
1.45
1.21
0.37
0.46
0.55
0.65
0.74
0.83
0.93
1.01
1.11
1.59
0.55
0.74
0.83
0.93
3.29
3.29
1.64
1.81
1.97
1.97
1.97
1.57
0.66
0.82
0.99
1.15
2.75
24.50
1.05
7.95
24.10
8.02
20.90
7.48
12.00
0.12
0.17
0.23
0.30
0.37
0.56
0.84
1.67
14.80
1.37
0.03
2.16
7.72
18.60
1.89
1.24
1.75
2.95
2.97
3.25
16.00
16.70
0.54
1.43
2.97
30.80
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
10
5
1.75
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
3.50
11
7
1.25
1.25
7.25
5
5
5
1
403
403
404
404
404
409
409
410
410
716
716
716
716
716
716
716
716
716
717
717
717
717
717
703
703
703
703
703
703
703
710
713
713
713
713
The maximum load was limited by the capacity of the loading system and does not correspond to ultimate strength response.
Nezamian et al.
117
50
Specimen
S1.25D
Steel Tube
120
120
Steel Tube
Concrete Plug
SECTION A-A
50
444
600
50
50 40 40 40 40 40 44 40 40 40 40 40
Steel Tube
Concrete Plug
A
Specimen
S1.75D
50 40 40 40 40 68.5 40 40 40 40
388.5
600
Specimen
S1.5D
Steel Tube
Specimen
S1.0D
Steel Tube
33
600
Concrete Plug
37.5
277.5
A
60
600
50 40 40 40 40 40 40
600
Concrete Plug
60 30
75
333
75
Concrete Plug
32
222
40 40 40 40 30
Specimen
S2.0D
118
Fig. 6. Loadslip response in stage 1 of specimens (a) S1.0D-1, (b) S1.0D-2, (c) S1.0D-3, (d) S1.5D-1, (e) S1.5D-2, and (f) S1.5D-3.
800
(d)
1200
600
800
Force (kN)
Force (kN)
(a)
400
200
0
400
0
-400
-200
-800
-400
-600
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
(b)
-1200
-2.0
(e)
800
Force (kN)
Force (kN)
600
400
200
0.0
Slip (mm)
1.0
2.0
600
400
200
0
-200
0
-200
-400
-400
-2.0
-600
-8.0
0.0
2.0
(c)
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
Slip (mm)
0.0
2.0
(f)
500
400
300
Force (kN)
Force (kN)
-1.0
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Slip (mm)
8.0
10.0
12.0
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
-400
-500
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0 4.0
Slip (mm)
6.0
8.0
10.0
Nezamian et al.
119
400
300
200
F orce ( kN)
F orce ( kN)
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
-400
-500
100
0
-100
-200
-300
-400
-500
-5
10
Slip (mm)
15
20
25
-15
(b)
(b) 500
400
F orce ( kN)
F orce ( kN)
10
400
200
200
100
0
100
0
-100
-100
-200
-200
-300
-300
-400
-400
-5
10
Slip (mm)
15
20
-15
25
(c)
500
500
400
400
300
F orce ( kN)
(c) 600
F orce ( kN)
-5
Slip (mm)
300
300
300
200
100
0
-10
-5
0
Slip (mm)
10
15
200
100
0
-100
-100
-200
-200
-300
-300
-5
5
10
Slip(mm)
15
20
-10
0.054)
mm/cycle
-15
-10
-5
0
5
Slip (mm)
10
15
20
120
Fig. 10. Slip versus number of cycles for specimens (a) S1.0D,
(b) S1.75D-2, and (c) S2.0D-1.
(a)
(a)
0.6
P/Pu = 0.38
0.4
Sl i p (m m )
F orce ( kN)
1000
800
600
400
200
0
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
-1.5
P/Pu = 0.23
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
Slip (mm)
1.5
-0.8
0
10
Cycle number
(b)
400
1.0
300
0.5
200
100
P/Pu =0.57
P/Pu = 0.32
P/Pu =0.44
P/Pu = 0.25
P/Pu = 0.38
P/Pu = 0.51
P/Pu = 0.63
-1.0
9
Slip (mm)
12
15
18
-1.5
0
400
300
10
15
20
25
Cycle num ber
30
35
40
(c)
2.5
100
2.0
1.5
-100
1.0
Sl i p (m m )
200
F orce ( kN)
P/Pu = 0.70
-0.5
(c)
20
(b)
Sl i p (m m )
F orce ( kN)
500
15
-200
-300
-400
-15
-10
-5
0
Slip (mm)
10
15
P/Pu=0.50
0.5
0
-0.5
-1.0
P/Pu = 0.55
-1.5
- 2.0
10
Cycle number
15
20
Nezamian et al.
121
Type of test
Load (kN)
P/Pu
Positive slip
Negative slip
S1.0D-2
Symmetric
Symmetric
Symmetric
Symmetric
Symmetric
Symmetric
Symmetric
Symmetric
Symmetric
Symmetric
Symmetric
Symmetric
Symmetric
Symmetric
Symmetric
Symmetric
Symmetric
Symmetric
Symmetric
Symmetric
Symmetric
Symmetric
Symmetric
150
250
150
250
230
230
400
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
150
200
225
500
550
200
250
300
0.23
0.34
0.23
0.34
0.23
0.23
0.34
0.25
0.32
0.38
0.44
0.51
0.57
0.63
0.70
0.38
0.51
0.57
0.50
0.55
0.42
0.52
0.63
4.06
3.91
5.11
19.07
9.68
4.02
75.80
2.19
2.19
4.37
7.66
7.66
13.13
26.25
105.01
0.41
49.51
903.43
25.71
29.69
19.69
33.91
164.09
5.71
8.86
8.64
33.04
9.55
4.08
131.93
2.19
3.28
3.28
3.28
8.75
15.32
33.91
164.09
1.09
99.55
1000.91
33.36
33.91
17.50
26.25
91.89
S1.0D-3
S1.5D-2
S1.5D-3
S1.75D-2
S1.75D-3
S2.0D-1
S2.0D-3
cyclic
cyclic
cyclic
cyclic
cyclic
cyclic
cyclic
cycling
cycling
cycling
cycling
cycling
cycling
cycling
cycling
cycling
cycling
cycling
cycling
cycling
cycling
cycling
cycling
Fig. 11. Load range versus rate of slip growth. P, load; Pu, ultimate load; R2, coefficient of determination.
0
0.2
0.6
0.8
0.1
0.01
0.001
R2 = 0.3905
0.0001
122
Failure regime
Ultimate
strength (kN)
Cyclic ultimate
strength (kN)
Cyclic reduction
factor
Slip at peak
load (mm)
S1.0D-2
S1.0D-3
S1.25D-2
S1.25D-3
S1.5D-2
S1.5D-3
S1.75D-2
S1.75D-3
S2.0D-1
S2.0D-3
665
665
460
460
1000
1000
395
395
1000
479
711
410
439
540
500
404
300
250
600
350
1.07
0.62
0.95
1.17
0.50
0.40
0.76
0.63
0.60
0.73
12.2
11.7
24.1
20.9
1.8
9.2
14.8
18.6
16.0
18.6
Steel Tube
Concrete
Plug
Separation
due to the Poisson's effect
Concrete
Plug
Pull-out Force
Separation
due to the Poisson's effect
Steel Tube
Conclusions
strains of specimens S1.75D and S2.0D show very small
shear transfer between the concrete plug and the steel tube at
the bottom of the specimens and maximum shear transfer at
the top of the specimens due to the Poissons effect.
It should be noted that the steel tube was subjected to radial contact forces along an arbitrary circle of the tube. Because of the symmetry of such loading, every section normal
to the axis will remain circular, and the radius R will undergo a change R = y, varying along the length of the plug.
The radial displacement y can be regarded as deflection for a
longitudinal element of the tube, and hence it is seen that the
assumed loading will set up bending stresses in the longitudinal elements. This situation is analogous to the case of a
beam on an elastic foundation (Hetnyni 1964). It can be
seen that mechanical macro interlock mechanisms at the top
and bottom of specimens caused the radial pressure on the
steel tube. The differential of radial pressure along the steel
Nezamian et al.
123
Fig. 13. Longitudinal strain of specimens S1.0D (a) and S1.5D (c) at ultimate pull out and S1.75D-3 (e) and S2.0D (g) at ultimate push
out, and hoop strain of specimens S1.0D (b) and S1.5D (d) at ultimate pull out and S1.75D-3 (f) and S2.0D (h) at ultimate push out.
(b)
0.0004
0.0003
0.0003
0.0002
0.0002
0.0000
-0.0001
Hoo p Strain
( Microstrain)
(a)
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
-0.0001
-0.0001
-0.0001
-0.0002
-0.0002
-0.0003
-0.0003
-0.0004
-0.0004
0
50
100
150
200
Distance from the bottom of the plug (mm)
(d)
0.0007
0.0006
0.0005
0.0004
0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
0.0000
-0.0001
-0.0002
0.0000
-0.0001
Hoo p Strain
( Microstrain)
(c)
0
50
100
150
200
Distance from the bottom of the plug (mm)
-0.0001
-0.0002
-0.0002
-0.0003
0
50
100
150 200
250 300
Distance from the bottom of the plug (mm)
(f)
0.0002
0.0000
-0.0002
Hoo p Strain
( Microstrain)
(e)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Distance from the bottom of the plug (mm)
-0.0004
-0.0006
-0.0008
-0.0010
-0.0012
0.0005
0.0005
0.0004
0.0004
0.0003
0.0003
0.0002
0.0002
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
-50
50
150
250
350
Distance from the bottom of the plug (mm)
(h)
0.0000
0.0012
0.0010
-0.0005
Hoo p Strain
( Microstrain)
(g)
-50
50
150
250
350
Distance from the bottom of the plug (mm)
-0.0010
-0.0015
-0.0020
-0.0025
0.0008
0.0006
0.0004
0.0002
-0.0030
0.0000
-50
50
150
250
350
Distance from the bottom of the plug (mm)
450
(2) The push-out and pull-out tests conducted under symmetric cyclic loading demonstrated that slip between the
concrete plug and the steel tube increased with repeated
loading, and the rate of slip growth increased with an
increase in the peak load.
(3) Empirical relationships between the load and the rate of
slip growth for symmetric cyclic loading were obtained
from the experimental data as follows:
-50
50
150
250
350
Distance from the bottom of the plug (mm)
[1]
450
0.054)
mm/cycle
124
Fig. 14. Pulled out concrete plug from the steel tube: (a) complete plug, (b) top of plug, and (c) bottom of plug.
(a)
(b)
(c)
The main mechanism that is believed to have contributed to the bond strength in pull out was the dilation of
the concrete due to the wedging action exerted by the
deformed steel bars against the concrete layer between
the bars and the steel tube. This dilation increased the
contact pressure, which enhanced the friction resistance.
A secondary factor was the pronounced Poissons ratio
effect increasing the radial contact stress at the base of
the concrete plug.
(6) Further tests are required to account for variations in
some parameters such as steel tube diameter and aspect
ratio, concrete strength, and steel tube surface condition.
Tests are also needed using different cyclic load regimes. A more detailed investigation of the effect of
concrete shrinkage on the ultimate pull-out strength is
also required.
References
Al-Mahaidi, R., Grundy, P., and Bean, W. 1999. Pullout strength of
concrete plugs in tubular piles. In Proceedings of the 9th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Brest,
France, 30 May 4 June 1999. Edited by J.S. Chung, T. Matsui
and W. Koterayama. International Society of Offshore and Polar
Engineers, Cupertino, Calif. pp. 2429.
BSI. 1979. Steel, concrete and composite bridges: code of practice
for design of composite bridges. British Standard BS5400, British Standards Institution (BSI), London, UK.
ECS. 1994. Eurocode 4: adopted European prestandard EVN 19941-1:1992. European Committee for Standardization (ECS),
Brussels, Belgium.
Hetnyi, M. 1964. Beams on elastic foundation. University of
Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Morishita, Y., Tommil, L., and Yoshimura, K. 1979. Experimental
studies on bond strength in concrete filled steel tubular columns
subject to axial loads. Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute, 1: 359366.
Morishita, Y., Tommil, L., and Yoshimura, K. 1980. A method of
improving bond strength between steel tube and concrete core
cast in circular steel tubular columns. Transactions of the Japan
Concrete Institute, 2: 319326.
Nezamian, A., Al-Mahaidi, R., Grundy, P., and Bean, W. 2001.
Bond strength mechanisms in the pull out of concrete plugs in
tubular steel piles. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Mechanics of Structures, Materials and Systems,
MSMS 2001, Wollongong, Australia. pp. 6773.
Nezamian, A., Al-Mahaidi, R., Grundy, P., and OLoughlin, B.
2002. Push out strength of concrete plugs in tubular steel piles.
In Proceedings of the 12th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Kitakyushu, Japan, 2631 May 2002.
CD-ROM. International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, Cupertino, Calif. pp. 6065.
Nezamian, A., Al-Mahaidi, R., and Grundy, P. 2003. The effect of
cyclic loading on the bond strength of concrete plugs embedded
in tubular steel piles. In Advances in Structures: Proceedings of
the International Conference on Advances in Structures
(ASSCCA03), Sydney, Australia, 2225 June 2003. Edited by
G.J. Hancock, M.A. Bradford, T.J. Wilkinson, B. Uy and K.J.R.
Rasmussen. A.A. Balkema, Exton, Pa. pp. 11251131.
Nezamian, A., Al-Mahaidi, R., and Grundy, P. 2004. Finite element
analysis of concrete plugs embedded in tubular steel piles. In
Proceedings of the 14th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Toulon, France, 2328 May 2004. CD 2006 NRC Canada
Nezamian et al.
ROM. International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers,
Cupertino, Calif.
Roeder, C.W., Cameron, B., and Brown, C.B. 1999. Composite action in concrete filled tubes. ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, 125(5): 477484.
SAA. 1983. Carbon steel tubes for mechanical and structural use.
Australian Standard SAA-AS-1450, Standards Association of
Australia (SAA), Homebush, NSW, Australia.
SAA. 1993. Specification and methods of for packaged concrete
mix. Australian Standard SAA-AS-3648, Standards Association
of Australia (SAA), Homebush, NSW, Australia.
SAA. 1997. Portland and blended cement. Australian Standard
SAA-AS-3972, Standards Association of Australia (SAA),
Homebush, NSW, Australia.
Sakino, K., and Tomii, M. 1981. Hysteretic behaviour of concrete
filled square steel tube beamcolumns failed in flexure. Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute, 3: 439446.
125
Shakir-Khalil, H. 1991. Bond strength in concrete-filled steel hollow sections. In Composite Steel Structures: Recent Research
and Developments: Proceedings of the International Conference
on Steel and Aluminium Structures, Singapore. Edited by S.L.
Lee and N.E. Shanmugam. Elsevier Applied Science, London,
UK. pp. 157168.
Shakir-Khalil, H. 1993a. Push-out tests on concrete-filled steel hollow sections. The Structural Engineer, 71(13): 230233.
Shakir-Khalil, H. 1993b. Push-out tests on concrete-filled steel hollow sections. The Structural Engineer, 71(13): 234243.
Taplin, G. 1999. The behaviour of composite beams under repeated
loading. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Monash
University, Melbourne, Australia.
Virdi, K.S., and Dowling, P.J. 1975. Bond strength in concrete
filled circular steel tubes. CESLIC Report CC11, Civil Engineering Structures Laboratory, Imperial College, London, UK.