BEHAVIOR OF BIAXIALLY LOADED CONCRETE-ENCASED

COMPOSITE COLUMNS

By Pedro R. Munoz; Member, ASCE, and Cheng-Tzu Thomas Hsu/ Fellow, ASCE

ABSTRACT: This paper reports the experimental test results of four small-scale concrete-encased I-shape steel
columns subjected to biaxial bending moments and axial compressive load in single curvature. The composite
colu~ s~cimens, on: short and three slender, had a square cross section. The effects of the eccentrically
apphed axIal compressIve force, slenderness of the cross section, different material properties of concrete and
steel, and load-deflection and moment-curvature behavior on the maximum load capacity of a composite column
were examined. The test results were compared with the analytical results of the maximum load capacity obtained
from a numerical analysis. Th~ numerical analysis uses the finite differences method to establish the relationship
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northeastern Univ Library on 09/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

between curvature and defleCtion. A computer program to perform the numerical analysis is used for the case
of composite columns. The comparative results indicate that the analytical method and computer program used
to model and analyze the composite column specimens can accurately predict the maximum load capacity and
deformation behavior of a pinned-ended biaxially loaded concrete-encased steel column with axial compressive
load in single curvature.

INTRODUCTION few experimental tests on biaxially loaded slender concrete-

encased composite columns are available.
An experimental investigation of the behavior of concrete-
encased I-shape steel columns under biaxial bending and axial EXPERIMENTAL TESTS
compressive loads is presented. The primary objective of this
investigation is to examine and study the effect of a monoton- The experimental testing program included four symmetri-
ically increasing and eccentrically applied compressive short- cally reinforced small-scale composite column specimens.
time axial load on the ultimate strength, load-deflection, and Specimen MCI was a short column, while specimens MC2,
moment-curvature relationship of four small-scale models of MC3, and MC4 were long columns. Each specimen consisted
concrete-encased I-shape steel columns. The composite col- of a structural steel I-shape section encased by concrete and
umn specimens were tested at the New Jersey Institute of additionally reinforced with four longitudinal steel corner bars.
Technology (NJIT) during 1991 and 1992. The specimens The composite column specimens had very small cross-section
were tested in a vertical position with both ends pinned and dimensions, 63.5 X 63.5 mm (2 1/2 X 2 1/2 in.) and a rela-
were deflected in single curvature by an eccentrically applied tively large slenderness ratio, one of them with lir = 42.7 and
axial compressive load at the top of the specimens. The main the other three with lir = 64 (based on gross section). The
variables considered in the experimental investigation were overall length of the specimens were 0.8128 m (32 in.) for the
concrete compressive strength/:, tensile strength of reinforc- short column and 1.2192 m (48 in.) for the long columns. Due
ing steel h, slenderness ratio, and eccentricity of the applied to the limitation of maximum height of approximately 1.25 m
load. (4 ft) of column specimens that could be tested in a vertical
Extensive experimental testing on composite columns with position using the hydraulic testing machine from MTS Sys-
concrete-encased steel shapes was carried out at several re- tems Corp., the writers decided to build small-scale concrete-
search institutions throughout the world. In the early 19OOs, encased steel column specimens that would be of a slenderness
Emperger (1907), Talbot and Lord (1912), and Mensch (1917) ratio such that they could be considered long or slender col-
reported tests on composite columns containing steel and iron umns. The overall dimensions and cross section details of the
reinforcement. Faber (1956) and Stevens (1965) performed composite column specimens are given in Fig. 1. Small-scale
tests on concrete-encased composite columns under eccentri- models of reinforced concrete beam-columns subjected to
cally applied compressive loads. Furlong (1967, 1983) con- combined bending and axial compressive loads were done in
ducted a vast amount of research and proposed design methods the past by Harris et al. (1966) at Cornell University, Hog-
for short and slender composite columns. nestad (1951) at University of Illinois, and Faucher (1966) at
Bondale (1966) presented test results of concrete-encased Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). It was shown
built-up steel sections under eccentric loading. Test results of from the experimental testing results of small-scale models of
short and slender eccentrically loaded composite columns were reinforced concrete structures that accurate prediction and
reported by Jones and Rizk (1963), Varghese (1961), Watanabe agreement between the structural model and the prototype
(1966), Bridge and Roderick (1978), Basu (1982), Taylor et could be achieved, leading the writers to believe that similitude
al. (1983), Roik and Hanswille (1984), Suzuya and Kawana of small-scale models and prototypes of composite columns
(1984), Matsui et al. (1982), Roik et al. (1987), and Abel- may also be obtained.
Sayed and Chung (1987), among some other researchers. Very
MATERIALS AND SPECIMEN FABRICATION
'Proj. Engr.. Paul Beck Associates, P.A.• Struct. Engrs., 122 Parish Dr.•
Wayne. NJ 07470. The basic materials used to build the small-scale composite
'Prof.• Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., New Jersey Inst. of Techno\.. column specimens were normal weight microconcrete, smooth
323 Martin L. King Jr. Blvd.• Newark. NJ 07102. and deformed longitudinal reinforcing bars, smooth longitu-
Note. Associate Editor: W. Samuel Easterling. Discussion open until dinal structural steel I-shaped bars, and smooth lateral wires.
February 1. 1998. To extend the closing date one month. a written request
The column specimens were cast horizontally inside a form-
must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript for
this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on February work made out of 19.05 mm (3/4 in.) thick precut pieces of
20, 1996. This paper is part of the Jour1lll1 of Structural Engineering. plywood. Microconcrete has been successfully used in the past
Vol. 123, No.9. September. 1997. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445197/0009- to build small-scale structural models. Best (report, 1967) at
1163-11711$4.00 + $.50 per page. Paper No. 12646. University College in London tested reinforced mortar plate
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 1 SEPTEMBER 1997/1163

J. Struct. Eng. 1997.123:1163-1171.

 Each composite column specimen had a 63.5 X 63.5 mm (2
2 1/2"
kW 1114" I"xl"
r-shapped
1/2 X 2 1/2 in.) square cross section with both ends enlarged
to a 127 X 127 mm (5 X 5 in.) square bracket, 127 mm (5
in.) long to accommodate the point of application of the ec-
centrically applied axial compressive load. The brackets were
1/4" bar bar
~ At heavily reinforced to avoid premature splitting of the concrete
at the ends of the column and to properly transfer the axial
compressive load to the specimen cross section. The structural
steel I-shape had a 6.35 mm (1/4 in.) thick square plate of the
same size of the bracket welded at each end to serve as a
receiving plate for the loading mechanism of the hydraulic
testing machine. Diagonal No.3, 9.525 mm (3/8 in.) diameter
bars were welded to the end plate and the I-shape bar to add
more rigidity to the bracket.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northeastern Univ Library on 09/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

TEST SETUP AND INSTRUMENTATION

The column specimens were prepared for testing by attach-
ing small circular brass plates (mechanical strain gauge points)
to two normal surfaces of the column. Two sets of six brass
Section A-A plates were mounted at the midheight of two perpendicular
faces of each specimen with a gauge length of 152.4 mm (6
in.) as shown in Fig. 1. These brass plates were used as ref-
erence points to measure the surface axial deformations, which
were later used to calculate the axial strains and the curvatures
ISOMETRIC with respect to the main bending axis of the column. A 76.2
FIG. 1. Composite Column Specimen DImensions and Cross mm (3 in.) diameter, 38.1 mm (1 112 in.) thick beveled plate
SectIon was glued to the endplate of the column specimen with a cy-
lindrical ball placed between the column specimen and the
and shells having thickness of from 10.16 to 5.08 mm (215 to testing machine to allow for rotation of the column ends. The
115 in.). Size effects of small-scale reinforced concrete beams calculated unit weight of the composite column specimens was
were reported by Litle and Paparoni (1966). The microcon- approximately 2,323 kg/m3 (145 Ib/fe). Each column specimen
crete for the column specimens tested by the writers was ob- was placed in a vertical position between the loading heads of
tained by mixing high-early-strength Portland Cement Type III the 445 kN (100 kips) maximum load capacity servo-con-
conforming to the ASTM C150, fine aggregate consisting of trolled testing machine from MTS Systems Corporation, Min-
washed and dried fine sand, coarse aggregate consisting of a nesota. A mechanical device with a dial indicator and two
mixture of a very small rounded and crushed gravel with a sliding conical points was used to take the initial readings
maximum size of 2.381 mm (3/32 in.) obtained by gradation between each pair of the mechanical strain gauge points. Lat-
of gravel that passed the USA standard testing sieve (screen eral displacements of the column specimens were measured
No.8), conforming to the ASTM specification No. E-ll, max- using dial gauges installed at top, bottom, and midheight of
imum opening = 2.381 mm (0.0937 in.), and tap water. the column and along the two bending axes of the cross sec-
The size of the aggregate for the mix had to be carefully tion.
selected to obtain a gradation that would provide a concrete
encasement around and inside the steel bars most suitable for TEST PROCEDURE
the small-scale specimens. Several trial mixes were attempted
The axial compressive load was applied to the specimen by
before obtaining one that would be the most appropriate for
a servo-controlled hydraulic testing machine in predetermined
the final specimens. The microconcrete mix design was done
increments of axial load. The digital readings of axial load,
in conformity with the ACI Standard 211.1-81 and following
longitudinal strain, and midheight lateral displacements, and
the recommended guidelines for microconcrete mix design by
one reading for each one of the six pairs of strain gauge points,
Tsui and Mirza (1969). Five control cylinders 76.2 X 152.4
located at the two outer perpendicular sides of the column
mm (3 X 6 in.) were taken from each batch of microconcrete
specimen, centered at the midheight and spaced 152.4 mm (6
that was used to build each composite column specimen. The
in.) apart vertically and 19.05 mm (3/4 in.) horizontally, as
average compressive strength of the control cylinders for each
shown in Fig. 1, were recorded during testing. Each one of
column specimen was found to be 36.77 MPa (5,332 psi) for
the column specimens was loaded continuously and observa-
MCl, 30.97 Mpa (4,491 psi) for MC2, 25.83 MPa (3,745 psi)
tions were made at each load stage to detect the initiation of
for MC3, and 27.51 MPa (3,989 psi) for MC4. Four different any visible cracks on the tensile faces of the specimen, or
types of longitudinal steel reinforcement were used to build
concrete spall-off or buckling of the reinforcing bars. The
the composite column specimens. Smooth and deformed No. maximum axial load and strain rate values were recorded di-
2, 6.35 mm (1/4 in.) diameter steel bars were used as second- rectly from the memory of the testing machine. After the max-
ary longitudinal reinforcement at the four corners of the col-
imum axial load was attained, increasing lateral midheight dis-
umn cross section. Hot-rolled and cold-rolled structural steel placement started to take place at an increased rate of axial
I-shape bars of 25.4 (width) X 25.4 (depth) X 2.39 mm flange
strain as well as decreasing readings of axial load. Usually,
and web thickness (1 X 1 X 3/32 in.) were used as the main the test was stopped when the reinforcing bar had been buck-
longitudinal reinforcement of the composite column specimen led.
at the centerline of the cross section.
The I-shape steel section was obtained by taking a solid TEST RESULTS
square steel bar of 25.4 X 25.4 mm (1 X 1 in.) into a milling
machine to remove square portions of the solid section from The data collected for each specimen from the dial gauges,
both sides of the steel bar until obtaining the desired I-shape. mechanical strain gauges, and the digital readings of axial load
1184/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 1997

J. Struct. Eng. 1997.123:1163-1171.

 LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVE FOR MC1 load..deflection and moment-curvature experimental test results
(x and y direction)
7~-----------------T30 for column specimen MCI are presented in Fig. 2. The max-
imum experimental axial loads obtained for the specimens
28
26 tested are presented in Table 1. Observation to the values of
24 load and displacements from Fig. 2 revealed that the descend..
5····..·····..·..·····..···· ., 22 ing branch of the load-displacement curve for the column
'2S: 4
x..dlrection 20 Z'
18 ;g
specimen tested was attained.
" 16
~ 3 ~:.!~~.~~............................................................... 14 ~ ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS AND FAILURE MODES
o 12....J
.:l
2
1 Kip =4.45 kN -....................................... 8
10 A set of photographs of the composite column specimens
after test are shown in Fig. 3. In the large deflection range,
1 Inch. = 25.4 mm. 6
..- - - ..-.................................................. 4 the deflection corresponding to the weak axis increases, and
Experimental 2 the deflection in the other direction ceases to increase or some-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northeastern Univ Library on 09/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) O.._-----,.----r----r------,----+O times decreases due to the second order P-B effect. It appears
o 5 10 15 20 25 that the column in the large deflection range or in its final
DEFLECTION (mm)
load-deformation stage behaves like a member being subjected
to uniaxial bending alone about the weak axis. The type of
MOMENT·CURVATURE CURVE FOR MC1 failure observed for the column specimens at the time of test-
(x and y direction)
14,--------------------,.1.6 ing was typically that of crushing of concrete on the inside
corner of the column (the corner on the concave side of the
............................................................................... 1.4 column) with some noticeable cracking on the tensile faces of
the column on the convex side. The behavior of each one of
the composite column specimens under biaxial bending mo-
ments and axial compressive load can be summarized as fol-
lows.

Behavior of Column Specimen MC1

Specimen MCI showed minor hairline cracks starting to
appear at a load level of about 50% maximum load on the
......................................................................................................................................................... 0.2
tensile or convex side of the specimen. Beyond the maximum
Experimental

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

CURVATURE (xO.0001/mm)

FIG. 2. Experimental Load-Deformation and Moment-Curva-

ture Curves for Column Specimen MC1

TABLE 1. Comparative Results for Specimens Tested by Writ-

ers
Balanced' Eccentricity of
Eccentricity axial load
(mm) (mm)
P, p.
Column B bx B by Bx By (kN) (kN) P,IP.
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
MCI 43.10 48.16 38.10 38.10 28.17 30.26 0.931
MC2 45.84 51.10 31.75 31.75 26.48 27.39 0.967
MC3 50.22 93.68 25.40 25.40 29.06 29.84 0.974
MC4 48.10 86.41 38.10 38.10 22.03 21.49 1.025
"Prom analytical interaction diagram of composite section.

and stroke values were processed and plotted for study and
comparison with the results obtained from a computer analy-
sis. The lateral displacement of the column specimens at mid-
height points were calculated by d = d; - do, where d; = the
dial gauge reading taken at each stroke increment, and do =
the initial dial gauge reading at the time before the first stroke
increment. The axial strain values used to calculate the cur-
vature of the column specimen about the two major axes, X
and Y, were determined by £ = (L; - Lo)/Lo, where L; = length
of the mechanical strain gauge points at each loading stage,
and Lo = length of the mechanical strain gauge points at the
initial loading stage or zero loading. The curvature for each
column specimen was calculated by determining the slope of
the strain values across the cross section. The linear regression
method was used to obtain the strain distribution values along FIG. 3. Photographs of Column Specimens MC1, MC2, MC3,
the column cross section for each loading stage. Plots of the and MC4 after Experimental Test

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 1997/1165

J. Struct. Eng. 1997.123:1163-1171.

 load level, major cracks started to appear on the convex side tic stability analysis of composite beam-columns under differ-
of the specimen and at locations near the middle of the col- ent load and end conditions. The writers found that very few
umn. As the axial load started to drop and the lateral displace- computational methods used in the past provided theoretical
ment increased, concrete on the concave side of the column results that went past and beyond the analytical ultimate
started to spall off. At this time the test was terminated, the strength of the columns under study, and the reported load-
comer bar on the concave side was noticed to have buckled, deflection and moment-curvature graphs did not show a clearly
but the ties were not broken. Two dial gauges measuring the marked descending branch.
lateral displacements around the middle of the column had to A computer program to obtain the ultimate strength of com-
be reset due to the dislocation resulting from the concrete posite columns with both ends pinned and laterally restrained
spall-off. against sidesway under combined static biaxial bending and
axial loads in single curvature was implemented by the writers.
Behavior of Column Specimen MC2 The analytical method used to develop the computer program
is based on the numerical integration technique originally de-
Specimen MC2 showed hairline cracks starting to appear at veloped by Hsu (1974) with modifications and adaptations in-
a load level of about 30% of the maximum load on the convex
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northeastern Univ Library on 09/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

troduced by Wang and Hsu (1992), Tsao and Hsu (1993), and
side and the dial gauges had to be reset at a load level right finally by Munoz (1994) to study the behavior of composite
beyond the maximum load. A premature formation of crushing columns. A segmental subdivision of the column length is used
of the concrete near the top bracket started to appear, possibly to determine the complete load-moment-curvature-deflection
due to a misalignment of the top and bottom eccentricities that (P-M-<\>-8) for both short and slender columns. The load-de-
could have created an unsymmetrical pinned-ended condition. formation behavior includes the ascending and descending
branches of the loaded column under study. The column cross
Behavior of Column Specimen MC3 section is divided into a number of small square or rectangular
Specimen MC3 showed hairline cracks starting to appear at areas for which the conditions of equilibrium and strain com-
a load level of about 40% of the maximum load. Signs of patibility must be satisfied at the nodal points using the secant
concrete crushing started to appear on the concave side of the modulus of elasticity for the concrete elements. The second-
specimen at a load level near the maximum load. Dial gauges order effects due to the deformed shape of the composite col-
were reset at the maximum load level stage and final concrete umn under load are included in the analysis. The numerical
crushing near the middle of the column height disabled some technique adopted in the computer method is based on the
of the dial gauges measuring the lateral displacements. The incremental deflection approach, where an assumed deflection
test was then terminated. value is specified at a selected joint in a specified direction,
the corresponding equilibrium loads to the specified deflection
Behavior of Column Specimen MC4 are calculated, and the conditions of strain compatibility and
equilibrium are then satisfied along the column length. The
Specimen MC4 showed hairline cracks starting to appear at procedure successfully carries out the results when the as-
a load level of about 40% of the maximum axial load. Dial sumed deflection values accurately match the computed de-
gauges had to be reset at a load level close to the maximum flection values within certain allowable limits. An iterative
load and later at load levels in the descending branch. No procedure to solve a system of nonlinear equations is used to
strain measurements of the steel bars and the steel shape were obtain the solution of the nonclosed form of the second-order
taken for the column specimens tested in the present experi- equations generated by the finite difference method with ex-
mental investigation. tremely rapid convergence. The iteration process achieves the
The four composite column specimens presented a zone maximum load in the ascending branch and proceeds with the
around the midheight of the specimen where concrete crushed, descending branch up to failure.
indicating a typical compression failure of the column in the
compression side. Fig. 3 shows a photograph of the composite Basic Assumptions
specimens after testing. The results obtained from the experi-
mental tests of the four composite column specimens provide The computer analysis is based on the following assump-
valuable information to help in understanding the load-deflec- tions: plane sections remain plane during and after bending;
tion and moment-curvature behavior of short and slender com- the stress-strain relationships for the composite column mate-
posite columns. rials are known; the tensile and compressive strengths of con-
crete are well defined; strain softening of concrete is consid-
COMPUTER ANALYSIS ered and steel is being modeled as an elastic-inelastic material;
the effect of creep and any tensile stresses due to shrinkage
Several computational methods have been used previously are neglected; perfect bond exists between concrete and steel;
to study the nonlinear behavior of biaxially loaded composite the twisting effects and the axial and shear deformations are
columns. A general method to calculate the ultimate strength negligible; the column does not buckle locally before the ul-
of biaxially loaded composite columns with restrained ends, timate load is achieved; the column segments are considered
based on the well-known Newton-Raphson iterative technique to be straight at zero loading and each segment curvature var-
to solve a system of nonlinear equations was presented by ies linearly along the segment under increasing loading con-
Virdi and Dowling (1976). Morino et al. (1984) used a sim- ditions; the member does not have any initial deflection or
plified approach based on an assumed deflected shape of the curvature before it is subjected to a monotonic loading path;
column in the x- and y-directions, given by cosine functions. and the effect of residual stresses in the structural steel section
Lachance (1982) used a numerical integration procedure to is not included.
determine the deflected shape and maximum load of a built-
up composite column identical to that used by Roderick and METHOD OF ANALYSIS AND
Rogers (1969). Roik and Bergmann (1982) and Roik and FUNDAMENTAL EQUATIONS
Schwalbenhofer (1989) used iterative techniques based on an
incremental force approach and use of the secant modulus of The deflected shape of a biaxially loaded composite column
elasticity to calculate the cross-section stiffness matrix. Met- may be approximated by a series of interconnected linear
wally (1988) presented a numerical method to perform inelas- segments undergoing lateral linear displacements and angu-
1166 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 1997

J. Struct. Eng. 1997.123:1163-1171.

 lar deformations with respect to both the x- and y-axis. The stress-strain relationship has been used for concrete in com-
moment-curvature-thrust relationship is evaluated using the pression. Munoz (1994) presented the range of values of cr e
cross-sectional secant stiffness matrix approach for biaxial for the different values of £e corresponding to the unconfined,
bending as it was proposed by Wang and Hsu (1992). The confined, and highly confined conditions of the concrete ele-
generalized force {F} and deformation {D} vectors may be ments in compression and the stress-strain relationship for con-
expressed as follows: crete in tension, which is defined as a "linear brittle."

IFI={E} IDI={t} (la,b)

MATRIX FORMULATION OF ANALYTICAL METHOD
The basic equations of equilibrium for the axial load P and
the biaxial bending moments M x and My are given in terms of
The externally applied eccentric axial load P produces bend- the stress resultants of all the elements
ing moments M x and My at a given section along the column
by the following equations:
P == L cr dA; Mx == L cry dA; My == L crx dA (5a-c)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northeastern Univ Library on 09/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

M x == P(ey + v); My == P(ex + u) (2a,b)

The displacements of the column joints are assumed to be substituting the stress-strain relationship crt == (E.)t£t in terms
small, so that the total curvature in the two major bending of the secant modulus of elasticity we obtain
planes labeled as <l>x and <l>y can be represented in the form of n
second derivatives of the displacements as follows:
P == 2: (E.)t£tat (6)
<1>, == -ilu/ax 2 ; <l>y == -a 2 v/ay 2 (3a,b) t-I

n n
The resultant strain distribution corresponding to the cur-
vatures <l>x, <l>y, and the axial compressive strain ~ is assumed Mx == 2: (E.)tEtatYt;
k-l
My == 2: (E.)tEtatXt
,t_l
(7a,b)

to be uniformly distributed over each element k of the cross

section and can be expressed in the following form: The centroidal strain value at each small element of the
cross section £t can be expressed as a linear strain relationship
(4) based on the assumption that plane sections remain plane dur-
The resultant stress distribution at each element k is ob- ing biaxial bending. By substituting the value of £t into the
tained by using the material properties of the corresponding basic equilibrium (7), one obtains the following equation in a
element k. The idealized stress-strain curves and relationship matrix form:
for the reinforcement steel and concrete are expressed in the

{P} == [81188 [Eo]

12
following generalized form: cr == f(£). The stress-strain rela- M, 8
822 8813] <1>, (8)
21 23
tionship of structural steel and reinforcing steel bar is assumed My 832 833 <l>y
31
to be an elastic-inelastic piece-wise linear relationship for pur-
poses of the analysis. The concrete has been subdivided into where 8 11 , 8 12 == 8210 8 13 == 8 310 8 22 , and 8 33 and are expressed
three types: the unconfined concrete elements outside the lat- in terms of the secant modulus of elasticity E•.
eral ties, the confined or partially confined concrete elements For a short column, the moment-curvature-thrust relation-
inside the lateral ties but outside the boundaries of the struc- ship may be obtained (8) and the second-order effect of the
tural steel shape, and the highly confined concrete elements lateral deflection of the column segments may be considered
inside the boundaries of the structural steel shape as shown in negligible. For a slender column with biaxial bending mo-
Fig. 4. A combination of Hsu (1974) and Park et al. (1982) ments, axial compressive load, and pinned ends, the final
bending moments at each end of the column can be expressed
y as a summation of the externally applied bending moment plus
Confined or Putial1y the additional bending moment due to the P-D.. effect. The
xk confined concrete
Coordinates of moment-curvature-thrust relationship for a slender may be
'=1 element k then written in a matrix form as follows:
(xk 'yk)

Yk X
{
P(eyP+ v) } == [811
821 8
12
822 8813]
23
{Eo}
<1>, (9)
Latmlties pee, + u) 831 832 833 <l>y
Higbly confined

iilil::~
The moment-curvature-thrust relationship for the overall
slender column becomes a nonlinear system of equations that
L
requires an iterative procedure to obtain a solution of the final
r---I--- Point "5" displacements and internal forces. The second-order partial de-
(columnjoint) rivatives of the joint displacements are expressed in terms of
~=i=+---t-- Original line of the finite difference operators and the curvatures of each col-
actionoflhe umn segment. The computer program provides the ultimate
Axial Load
axial load and bending moments at each iteration cycle and
end (typ.) 0 X the axial deformation and the lateral displacements at each
j=n+1
y~ joint of the segmented column for every load level. The com-
puter program for composite columns was coded in FOR-
(joints) TRAN 77 and may be used to study composite sections with
symmetrically placed steel rebars and structural steel shapes.
The writers introduced a more refined model of the stress-
strain relationship of concrete by considering different types
FIG. 4. Blaxlally Loaded Segmented Column with Restrained of confinement for the concrete surrounding the steel shape
Ends and Typical Composite Column Cross Section and the steel bars.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 1997/1167

J. Struct. Eng. 1997.123:1163-1171.

 COMPUTER ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITE COLUMN LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR MC1
(x • direction)
SPECIMENS MC1, MC2, MC3, AND MC4 7,.-------;-------------r
3O
The four composite column specimens MC1, MC2, MC3, 28
26
and MC4 were analytically modeled as shown in Fig. 4. Ma- 24
terial properties for each one of the element types were input 5·..· _. . 22
according to the appropriate stress-strain relationship of con-
crete and steel. The results obtained from the computer anal- 1 4 ~~~ ~~ ~
16 ~
ysis are presented in Table 1. The test failure loads are com- Experimental
~ 3 .. _ _ __ 14 0
pared to the ultimate loads calculated by the computer model,
and they show very good agreement. These comparative good 9 1kip = 4.45 kN ~~ ...J
2 _ _ _ _ _ _ - 6
results confirm the accuracy and validity of the proposed com-
1 Inch. • 25.4 mm.
puter model to predict the ultimate load of a pin-ended com- 1 . .. _ _ _ _.._ __._.._ __ _........ 4
posite column under biaxial bending and axial compressive 2
<a)
loads. Plots of the load-deflection and moment-curvature an-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northeastern Univ Library on 09/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 · 0 - - -.....5---....,10~·---1.-5---2O...----2+50
alytical results obtained from the theoretical computer model
for column specimen MC1 are presented in Fig. 5. The com- DEFLECTION (mm)
parative plots of the load-displacement and moment-curvature
curves of the analytical and experimental results obtained for LOAD·DEFLECTION CURVES FOR MC1
specimen MC1 are presented in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively. (y • direction)
The plots of the comparative analytical and experimental load- 7.---------,.--------------.....-30
deflection and moment-curvature curves for the other three 28
..·· · ·· ·..· · · _·..·-- ·26
specimens, MC2, MC3, and MC4, all showed the ascending
part up to the maximum recorded and analytical computed 24
· ..· · ·..·22
value of axial load and a clearly marked descending branch.
With the exception of specimen MC2, for which dial gauge !g, 4 -. _ _..__
AA~.
_ _ _ _ _ _
20
__. 18 ~
reading problems were experienced during testing, the other Expertmental 16 ~
two slender specimens, MC3 and MC4, were observed to pro- ~ 3 ..__ _.._._ _ _ - _ _ _ _. 14 9
vide a pattern of load deflection and moment curvature that .:.I
2 ..._ _-_ -
1 kip - 4.45 kN
_ _.-..__.._-_.._ _..__.__.._. 8
~~
was very accurately predicted by the computer model pre-
....................................._._
1 inch. =25.4 mm. _ - _._-_.__
6
4
LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVE FOR MC1
(x and y direction) 2
O......---.....----...----,----r-----+O

::J
(b)
7.------.--.:r-----------T3O o 5 10 15 20 25
28 DEFLECTION (mm)

.
6 =::~ ~ 28
24 FIG. 6. Comparative Load-Deflection Curves (x and y Direc-
5 _... .. 22 tions) for Column Specimen MC1
! x..clrec1lon 20
g, 4 .. _ _..-.......................... 18 ~
sented by the writers. As it was expected for the three slender
y..clrectlon 16 9
~ 3 14 a specimens, MC2, MC3, and MC4, an increased value of the
eccentricity of the applied axial load produced a decrease in
-J 1 Kip = 4.45 kN ~~ ..;J
2 _ ~ _ 6 the value of the maximum axial load and an increase of the
1 inch. =25.4 mm. 6 maximum lateral displacement at the midheight of the speci-
1 .._ .._._.._ _._ _ _ _._ _ -._-_ _ _ 4 mens.
Analytical 2
<a) 0......- - - - , . - - - - , - - - - - , - - - - - , - - - - - + 0 COMPUTER ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITE COLUMNS
o 5 10 15 20 25
DEFLECTION (mm) TESTED BY VIRDI ET AL. (1973)
Virdi and Dowling (1973) presented the results of ultimate
MOMENT·CURVATURE CURVE FOR MC1 loads and lateral deflections of nine pinned-ended composite
(x and y direction) columns tested under axial loads and biaxial bending in single
14.------------------T1.6 curvature. The nine composite columns A-I, tested by Virdi
and Dowling (1973), had a 254 X 254 mm (10 X 10 in.)
._.._. 1.4 square cross section reinforced with a 152.4 X 152.4 mm X
'?E 23.4 kg/m (6 in. X 6 in. X 15.7 lb/ft) structural steel section
'C encased in 50.8 mm (2 in.) of concrete and four 12.7 mm (1/2
.~ ~ in.) diameter rebars, one at each corner and with a 19.05 mm
g, § (3/4 in.) clear cover. The results of the ultimate load obtained
~
!Zw 6 .__ _.._._-_ ; ..~~~~;~: :
y..dlrectlon
~ ..;..~:.;; ~~:~~._ ..__.._
0.8
0.6 ffi by the writers' computer method are presented in Table 2. In
::Ii Table 2, P test is the ultimate test load by Virdi and Dowling
0 ......._ __ _ _ __._ - __ _.._ -... ::Ii
::Ii 4 (1973), P XY is the analytical ultimate load by Virdi and Dowl-
0.4 0
1 Inch. = 25.4 mm. ing's method (1973), and P NJIT is the analytical ultimate load
2 _.._ _ _._ _.._ __ 0.2 ::Ii
by the writers' computer program.
Analytical
(b)
00 2 3 4 5 6 COMPUTER ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITE COLUMNS
CURVATURE (xO.OOO1/mm) TESTED BY MORINO ET AL. (1984)
FIG. 5. Analytical Load-Deflection and Moment-Curvature Morino et al. (1984) presented the experimental results of
Curves for Column Specimen MC1 biaxially loaded composite columns. Concrete-encased wide
1168/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER 1997

J. Struct. Eng. 1997.123:1163-1171.

 MOMENT-CURVATURE CURVES FOR MC1 TABLE 3. Comparative Results for Specimens Tested by Mor-
(x • direction) Ino et al. (1984)
14~----------------,.1.6
P.XP PNJ1T
..._. __.._ _.._.._.._ _.._•._.._.._ _ 1.4 Column (kN) (kN) P••pIPNJIT P.xp/P.hOO
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5)
'C 10
~ 6 _ .
.. -.--

_ ..~
- -.-- -.•...-.-- -.-

.__.._.._.._._. 1
. 1.2
I~ A4-00
A4-30
A4-45
499.91
513.44
518.83
469.74
487.32
513.49
1.064
1.053
1.01
0.952
0.98
0.862
~ ~ 0.6

! :..
A4-60 524.25 538.81 0.971 1.00
~ A4-90 740.44 573.16 1.299 0.833
.__.__.._._.._._~_~.~~~~~_~.~~~?3 k~:~"2. ::: ~ B4..00
B4-30
371.04
392.62
340.02
359.92
1.092
1.091
0.99
0.944
1 inch. - 25.4 mm. B4-45 389.64 381.19 1.022 1.00
2 - - - . -...-.---'-.-.--.------.-..- 0.2 B4-60 436.41 413.32 1.056 0.971
B4-90 503.56 496.13 1.015 0.98
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northeastern Univ Library on 09/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

C4-00 274.61 229.26 1.198 0.99

2 345 6 C4-30 283.55 259.66 1.092 0.99
CURVATURE (xO.OOO1/mm) C4-45 304.47 277.50 1.098 1.00
C4..60 340.29 303.13 1.111 0.943
C4..90 411.94 393.20 1.047 1.031
MOMENT·CURVATURE CURVES FOR MC1 D4-00 206.39 167.54 1.232 0.935
(y • direction)
04-30 200.96 179.60 1.111 1.01
14~-----------------r1.6
D4-45 209.11 191.35 1.093 0.943

"::=~~~--=- :: j
04-60 219.96 210.04 1.047 0.971
04-90 287.87 275.10 1.046 1.01
A8·00 344.34 329.03 1.046 1.042

&
rr::;.
'is.
6 \.
AneIyac.I
.-.-.-.-..-----.--.-.--.--..--..-...-....
1 c.
~
A8-30
A8-45
A8-60
377.05
378.78
447.67
351.28
367.79
393.69
1.073
1.03
1.136
0.98
0.99
0.917
A8..90 520.83 489.10 1.064 0.99
._......_.. _._~
ffi
~
6 _ ..

~ ~i~:~: ~~:.~ ~_.m_~_.

4 ! .

.._..__._......._..... ..

...- - -
. .:..
1 inch. = 25.4 mm.
- - -..- ..- ..-..-
..

_ _ ::
-
..__ 0.6 )C

-...... 0.2
B8-00
B8-30
B8-45
B8-60
B8·90
260.19
263.62
294.32
328.45
418.03
256.00
268.56
285.38
313.64
405.13
1.016
0.981
1.031
1.047
1.032
1.053
1.031
1.00
0.98
1.01
2 C8..00 179.60 173.77 1.033 1.042
C8-30 176.49 182.05 0.969 1.075
(b) 0.....---.---..--r--...,....---.,------"T---±70 C8-45 195.36 194.78 1.003 1.00
o 2 3 4 5 6
CURVATURE (xO.OOO1/mm) C8-60 194.11 215.56 0.901 1.099
C8·90 296.19 292.68 1.012 1.053
FIG. 7. Comparative Moment-Curvature Curves (x and y DI- D8·00 139.64 130.65 1.068 1.042
rections) for Column Specimen MC1 D8-30 117.35 136.62 0.859 1.075
D8..45 146.67 145.69 1.007 1.053
D8-60 158.42 160.96 0.984 1.064
TABLE 2. Comparative Results for Specimens Tested by Vlrdl
D8-90 221.83 193.66 1.145 1.075
and Dowling (1973)
mean 1.0550 0.998
P._ Pxy P NJ1T standard deviation 0.0779 0.055
Column (kN) (kN) (kN) P_IPxy P....IPNJ1T
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
A 1,256.02 1,328.91 1,277.46 0.945146 0.9831 puter model and the experimental and theoretical values ob-
B 647.95 684.37 655.53 0.946775 0.9884 tained by Morino et al. (1984) together with the comparative
C 473.50 458.64 433.63 1.032408 1.0919 ratio of the analytical load to test load are shown in Table 3.
D 927.07 1,070.52 1,049.38 0.865994 0.8835 An excellent agreement between the theoretical and experi-
E 573.19 580.56 556.64 0.987293 1.0298 mental ultimate loads is obtained. Most of the computed loads
F 418.67 405.58 385.58 1.032283 1.0858
G 667.89 526.70 546.37 1.268081 1.2223
are below the experimental maximum load, giving a lower
H 353.88 376.38 347.90 0.965802 1.0172 bound solution for the biaxially loaded column specimens
I 294.07 286.41 258.18 1.026731 1.1389 tested, which is considered conservative and safe from the
mean 0.998097 1.04072 practical point of view and for design purposes.
standard deviation 0.094 0.086
COMPUTER ANALYSIS OF COLUMNS TESTED BY
BRIDGE ET AL. (1978)
flange steel sections were used. The column specimens had a
160 X 160 mm (6.3 X 6.3 in.) concrete square cross sections Built-up composite columns were used in the USA since the
encasing rolled steel H-sections of 100 X 100 X 6 X 8 mm very early 1900s. Experimental tests were carried out by some
(4 X 4 X 0.236 X 0.315 in.) and four comer deformed bars investigators such as Emperger (1907) and Mensch (1917),
of 6 mm (0.236 in.) diameter and rectangular ties of 4 mm among others. The concentric and eccentrically loaded built-
(0.157 in.) diameter evenly spaced at a pitch of 150 mm (6 up sections consisted of two or more rolled steel sections or
in.). The writers' computer program was used to study the channels and angles latticed or battened together encased by
behavior of the four types of column specimens: A4, A8, B4, concrete. The writers' computer method is used to model and
B8, C4, C8, 04, and 08. Three experimental parameters were obtain the maximum axial load capacity of uniaxially and bi-
varied for the tested column specimens: (a) the slenderness axially loaded built-up composite columns such as the ones
ratio; (b) the eccentricity of the applied axial compressive tested by Bridge and Roderick (1978) at the Sydney University
load; and (c) the angle location of the applied load. The results in Australia. All the column specimens had the same cross
of the maximum load capacity obtained from the writers' com- section, consisting of two C3 X 5 steel channels encased in
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING I SEPTEMBER 1997 I 1169

J. Struct. Eng. 1997.123:1163-1171.

 TABLE 4. Comparative Results for Specimens Tested by strated in this paper. The computer method can be used to
Bridge and Roderick (1978)
analyze the strength and deformation behavior of both short
L ex ey Pt.... PNJ1T and slender columns and also of concentrically, uniaxially, and
Column (m) (mm) (mm) (kN) (kN) P,.... IPNJ1T biaxially loaded composite columns. The computer method
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) can also be used to study a great variety of composite cross
CCI 2.13 0.0 0.0 1,201.50 1,164.70 1.04 sections including circular, square, and rectangular tubular
CC2 2.13 0.0 20.32 872.20 921.82 0.95 cross sections filled with concrete. From the computer analysis
CC3 2.13 0.0 38.10 707.55 680.41 1.04 of the four column specimens, MC1, MC2, MC3, and MC4.
CC4 2.13 38.1 0.0 520.65 398.54 1.31 tested by the writers, it is noted that none of the column spec-
CC5 2.13 15.34 13.34 703.1 734.03 0.96 imens had any steel elements yielding throughout the complete
CC8 3.05 0.0 20.32 654.15 754.54 0.87 loading condition. Instead, concrete material failure occurred
CC9 3.05 0.0 38.10 489.50 518.91 0.94
CClO 3.05 0.0 20.32 667.50 709.86 0.94 at a load level close to the maximum axial load. At that point
some of the unconfined concrete elements at the extreme side
mean 1.006
standard deviation 0.126
of the most compressed area of the cross section had failed
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northeastern Univ Library on 09/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

under compression. Finally, the writers found that the finite

difference method in combination with the secant stiffness ma-
TABLE 5. Comparative Results for Specimens Tested by Tay- trix used to solve the system of nonlinear equations proved to
lor et al. (1983) be an effective tool to accurately predict the ultimate strength
e. A••t Aheo PNJ1T of biaxially loaded composite columns, converged very rapidly
Column BxT (mm) (kN) (kN) (kN) Pl••t/Plneo A••/PNJ1T to a solution, and with the incremental strain procedure, pro-
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) vided the complete load-deflection and moment-curvature
cn bl x tl 0.0 2.611.17 2,102.80 2,531.12
1.242 1.032 curves, including the descending branch.
CT2 bl X tl 8.0 2,291.04 1,524.70 2,242.04
1.502 1.021
CT3 bl x tl 40.0 1,338.60 791.34 1,209.11
1.692 1.107
CT4 b2 X t2 10.0 4,251.93 2,837.28 4,279.43
1.499 0.993
CT5 b2 X t2 30.0 3,094.40 1,949.86 3,211.34
1.587 0.963 APPENDIX I. REFERENCES
CT6 b3 x t3 12.0 5,065.44 3,695.68 5,090.80
1.370 0.995
cn b3 x t3 25.0 4,433.98 3,098.40 4,467.80
1.431 0.993 Abel-Sayed, G., and Chung, K. (1987). "Composite cold-fonned steel
CT8 bl X tl 0.0 2,540.15 2,262.02 2,567.87
1.122 0.989 concrete columns." Can. J. Civ. Engrs., Ottawa, Canada, 14(3),295-
mean 1.431 1.010 301.
standard deviation 0.093 0.0382 Basu, A. K. (1982). "Restrained composite columns in uniaxial bend-
ing." Proe., J. Constr. Steel Res., 2(3), 2-10.
Note: bl X tl = 152.4-by-355.6 mm (6 X 14 in.), b2 X t2 = 203.2-by-431.8
mm (8 X 17 in.), b3 X t3 = 254.0-by-406.4 mm (10 X 16 in.). Bondale, D. S. (1966). "Column theory with special reference to com-
posite columns." Consulting Engr., London, U.K., 30(7), 72-77;
30(8), 43-48; 30(9),68-70.
Bridge, R. Q., and Roderick, J. W. (1978). "Behavior of built-up com-
concrete, Table 4 presents the obtained analytical maximum posite columns." J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 104(7), 1141-1155.
axial load capacity values for each column, together with the Emperger, F. V. (1907). "Welche statische Bedeutung hat die Einbe-
comparative results with the test loads, tonierungeiner Eisensaule." Beton Eisen, Berlin, Gennany, 172 -174
(in Gennan).
Faber, O. (1956). "Savings to be affected by the more rational design of
COMPUTER ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITE COLUMNS encased stanchions as a result of recent full size tests." The Struet.
TESTED BY TAYLOR ET AL. (1983) Engr., London, U.K., 34(3), 88-109.
Faucher, Y. (1966). "Experimental study of the ultimate load bearing
Taylor et al. (1983) presented the results of tests done on a capacity of hinged reinforced concrete columns," MS thesis, Dept. of
new type of composite column subjected to concentric com- Civ. Engrg., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge,
pressive load and to uniaxial bending and axial compressive Mass.
loads, The new type of composite column proposed by Taylor Furlong, R. W. (1967). "Strength of steel-encased concrete beam-col-
et al. (1983) is of an unusual cross section, consisting of two umns." J. Struet. Div., ASCE, 93(10),113-124.
Furlong, R. W. (1983). "Comparison of AISC, SSLC, and ACI speci-
channels joined together using welded battens and filled with fications for composite columns." J. Struet. Div., ASCE, 109(9),
concrete to form a rectangular shaped cross section. Nine 1784-1803.
large-scale composite columns of the type described were Harris, H. G., Sabnis, G. M., and White, R. N. (1966). "Small scale
tested by Taylor et al. (1983) at the University of Manchester, direct models of reinforced and prestressed concrete structures." Rep.
U.K., in 1983. The new type of composite column specimens No. 326, Dept. of Struct. Engrg., Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.
were analyzed by the writers' computer program, The columns Hognestad, E. (1951). "A study of combined bending and axial load in
reinforced concrete members." Bulletin 399, Engineering Experiment
were subjected to axial compressive load (Cn and CT8) and Station, University of l1Iinois, Urbana, 111.
to uniaxial bending about the minor axis (CT2. CT3. CT4, Hsu, C. T. T. (1974). "Behavior of structural concrete subjected to biaxial
CT5, CT6, and CD). The comparative results are shown in flexure and axial compression," PhD thesis, McGill University, Mon-
Table 5. The ultimate loads predicted by the authors' computer treal, Canada.
program show an excellent degree of accuracy with the ex- Jones, R., and Rizk, A. A. (1963). "An investigation of the behavior of
perimental maximum axial load. encased steel columns under load." The Struct. Engr., London, U.K.,
41(1), 21-33.
Lachance, L. (1982). "Ultimate strength of biaxially loaded composite
CONCLUSIONS sections." J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 108(10),2313-2329.
Litle, W. A., and Paparoni, M. (1966). "Size effect in small scale models
The analytical and experimental results of biaxially loaded of reinforced concrete beams." ACI J., 63(11), 1191-1204.
composite columns indicate that the factors that most influence Matsui, C., Morino, S., et aJ. (1982). "Restraining effect of reinforced
the strength and curvature of a particular composite column concrete portion on the local buckling of steel section in SRC bearn-
specimen are the ultimate compressive strength of concrete columns." Abstracts of the Annu. Congr. of AIJ, 2237 - 2238 (in Japa-
and its corresponding maximum compressive strain. The shape nese).
Mensch, J. L. (1917). "Tests on columns with cast iron core." ACI Proe.,
of the concrete stress distribution had minor effects on the 13.
ultimate strength and behavior of the columns under study. Metwally, A. (1988). "Slender composite bearn-columns." J. Struet.
The validity of the writers' computer method to study com- Engrg., ASCE, 114(10), 2254-2267.
posite columns of different cross sections has been demon- Morino, S., Matsui, C., and Watanabe, H. (1984). "Strength of biaxially

1170 I JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING I SEPTEMBER 1997

J. Struct. Eng. 1997.123:1163-1171.

 loaded SRC columns." Proc., U.S./Japan Joint Seminar on Composite ak = cross-sectional area of small element k;
and Mixed Constr., ASCE, New York, N.Y., 185-194. B = width of cross section;
Mui\oz, P. R. (1994). "Behavior of biaxially loaded concrete-encased dA = small differential element area of cross section;
composite columns," PhD dissertation, New Jersey Institute of Tech-
nology, Newark, N.J.
e. = eccentricity of axial load along x-axis;
Park, R., Priestley M. J. N., and Gills, W. D. (1982). "Ductility of square
ey = eccentricity of axial load along y-axis;
confined concrete columns." J. Struct. Diy., ASCE, 108(4),929-950. E = modulus of elasticity of concrete in compression;
c
Roderick, J. w., and Rogers, D. F. (1969). "Load-carrying capacity of E, = modulus of elasticity of steel;
simple composite columns." J. Struct. Diy., ASCE, 95(2), 209-228. (E,>t = secant modulus of elasticity of element k;
Roik, K., and Bergmann, R. (1982). "Zur Traglastberechnung von Ver- f, = modulus of rupture of concrete;
bundstiitzen." Der Stahlbau, Berlin, Germany, 51 Jahrgang, Heft I, f, = specified yield stress of steel;
8-16 (in German). f: = compressive strength of concrete after 28 d;
Roik, K., and Hanswille, G. (1984). "Studies of load introduction in h = length of column segment;
composite columns with encased I-sections." Stahlbau, Berlin, Ger- L = column length;
many, 53(12), 353-358.
Roik, K., and Schwalbenhofer, K. (1989). "Experimental and theoretical M = bending moment;
examinations on the plastic behavior and the rotation capacity of com- M. = bending moment about x-axis;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Northeastern Univ Library on 09/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

posite beam-columns." Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn Verlag jar Architektur My = bending moment about y-axis;
und technische Wissenschaften. Stahlbau, 58, Berlin, Germany. P = axial load;
Roik, K., Diekmann, C., and Schwalbenhofer, K. (1987). "Composite p. = maximum axial load from computer analysis;
columns with steel fiber reinforced concrete." Bauingenieur, 62(4), PNIIT = maximum axial load from writers' computer program;
179-182. P, = maximum axial load from experimental testing;
Stevens, R. F. (1965). "Encased stanchions." The Struct. Engr., London,
U.K.,43.
P tlteo = maximum axial load from Morino and Taylor's theoret-
ical analysis;
Suzuya, J., and Kawana, H. (1984). "Experimental studies on steel re-
inforced concrete beam-columns." Tohoku Kogyo Daigaku Kiyo, 1(4), Pxy = maximum axial load from Virdi and Dowling analysis;
23-40. r = radius of gyration of cross section;
Talbot, A. N., and Lord, A. R. (1912). "Tests of columns: an investigation Su = element of secant stiffness matrix;
of the value of concrete as reinforcement for structural steel columns." u, v = lateral deflections along x- and y-axis, respectively;
Engrg. Experimental Station Bull. No. 56, University of Illinois, Ur- x, y = coordinates of cross-section point in x-y plane;
bana, III. Xl> Yk = coordinates of cross-section element k in x-y plane;
Taylor, R., Shakir-Khalil, H., and Yee, K. M. (1983). "Some tests on a 8 = lateral deflection of cross section;
new type of composite column." Proc., Inst. of Ciy. Engrs., Part 2, E = strain at point of cross section;
Technical Note 355, 283-296.
Tsao, W. H., and Hsu, C. T. T. (1993). "A non-linear computer analysis
Ec = concrete compressive strain;
of biaxially loaded L-shaped slender reinforced concrete columns. " Int. Ek = strain at element k of cross section;
J. Compo and Struct., 49(4), 579-588. E, = tensile strain of concrete;
Tsui, S. H., and Mirza, M. S. (1969). "Model microconcrete mixes." Ey = tensile strain of steel;
Struct. Concrete Series No. 23, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. Eo = strain at coordinate origin of cross section;
Varghese, P. C. (1961). "Ultimate strength of encased steel members 9 = angular direction of neutral axis;
subjected to combined bending and axial loads." J. Instn. of Ciy. cr = stress at point in cross section;
Engrs., India, XLI(6), Pt. I, 225-237. crk = stress at element k of cross section;
Virdi, K. S., and Dowling, P. J. (1973). "The ultimate strength of com- <I> = curvature;
posite columns in biaxial bending." Proc.• Instn. of Ciy. Engrs., Part
2,251-272.
<1>. = curvature with respect to M,; and
Wang, G., and Hsu, C. T. T. (1992). "Complete biaxial load-deformation <l>y = curvature with respect to My.
behavior of reinforced concrete columns." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE,
118(9), 2590-2609. Subscripts
Watanabe, Y. (1966). "A study of the strength of axially loaded com-
posite columns made with steel H-sections embedded in concrete." = number of segments along column length;
Trans., Arch. Inst. of Japan (in Japanese). j = number of joints along column length;
k cross-section element number;
APPENDIX II. NOTATION n = number of cross-section elements and column segments;
and
The following symbols are used in this paper: s = joint number along deflected column length.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 1 SEPTEMBER 1997/1171

J. Struct. Eng. 1997.123:1163-1171.