Table of Experimental Studies on Axially Loaded Column Tests

General Information

Reference	Experiment Synopsis	Number of Tests	Loading Method	Results Reported	Main Parameters	Comments
Klöppel and Goder 1957	Concentrically loaded CFTs and HTs	104 tests	N.A.	P vs. various σ's and ε's in both concr. and steel (tabular & graphical)		Individual tests tabulated by load increment (very detailed)
Salani and Sims 1964	Seamless mortar-filled columns	17 Mortar-filled Tubes 9 HTs	Concentric Slow loading in equal increments	P vs. ε P vs. v, P vs. Ec Comparison: Pu, Pcr	D CFT vs. HT	Mortar-filled
Gardner and Jacobson 1967	Short and long CFT columns (experimental vs. theoretical)	32 CFTs	Concentric loading to failure	Po, Pu several allowable calcs incl. ACI, NBC, Klöppel('57), & author's own K (author's "lateral restraint factor") vs. P/Pu	End conditions D/t	Discussion by Furlong and Knowles followed (1968)
Gardner 1968	Short and long columns w/ spiral welded tubes	17 CFTs 2 HTs	Concentric loading to failure	Manufacturing ε, εcircum P vs. ε, P vs. εcircum ACI & NBC Pa, Pu, Po, Pcr	Type of tubing D/t L	Through examination of residual stresses
Knowles and Park 1969	Concentric and eccentric loading w/ KL/r (experiment, theoretical)	28 CFTs (18 conc., 10 ecc.) 30 HTs (20 conc., 10 ecc.)	Offset one end of column to produce eccentricity Uniaxial bending	σ vs. ε, σ vs. E, σ vs. λ (HTs concrete cores) Pu/Po (HT, CFT) Pu, Mu, Pu/Po, Mu/Mo (HT, CFT) Pu/Po vs. Mu/Mo (HT, CFT)	Type of tubing D/t L/D e
Neogi, Sen, and Chapman 1969	Elasto-plastic behavior of pinned eccentrically and concentrically loaded CFTs (exp. vs. theor.)	18 CFTs (ecc.) C:cold-drawn(8) M:mild, hot-finish(10)	Eccentricity varied by moving top end of column laterally (single curvature) Short duration, constant loading	P vs. ε (exp, calc) P vs. δ, M vs. δ (exp, calc) Selected load ratios using: Pu, Py, 'exact' calc. load, calc. cos method (Neogi & others)	Type of tubing D/t L/D e
Knowles and Park 1970	Design eqns. developed and compared w/ tests by author and others	111 CFTs (previous tests)	N.A.	Po, Pu, Pu/Po for all tests	Parameters vary with author	Test of the authors' proposed formulas
Bridge 1976	Square pin-ended eccentrically loaded CFTs (experiment theory)	8 CFTs (ecc.)	Incr. loading to failure Ends offset equally (single curvature) Biaxial bending (inclination of axis: 0°, 30°, 45°)	P vs. δ (exp., calc.) M-φ-P curves Py, Pu, Po, Pu/Po, Py/Po	λ e Inclination of loading axis	Excellent paper -- very clear and detailed
Kitada, Yoshida, and Nakai 1987	Short CFT columns subjected to axial compression	14 CFTs	3 cases: load steel only, concrete only, & both mat'ls simultaneously	σsl/fy vs. σsc/fy for steel tubes P vs. εcircum, P vs. δaxial Pu (exp. vs. calc.)
Zhong and Miao 1988	Short CFT columns subjected to axial compression	11 CFTs	Concentrically-applied load	σ vs. ε P vs. ε	*L/D ratio Steel ratio End conditions	Mostly theoretical
Liu and Geol 1988	Cyclic load behavior of CFT bracing	6 CFTs (brace) 3 HTs (brace)	Rectangular, pinned frame loaded laterally w/ diagonal brace put in alternate compression & tension	P/Py vs. δaxial P/Py vs. # of cycles (vary D/t) 1st buckling load (exp, theor) Load histories Energy absor. (CFT, HT)	HT vs CFT f'c D/t λ	Good failure descr. Steel fibers used in 3 of the concr. mixes to vary f'c
Kawano and Matsui 1988	Cyclic axial loading of CFT braces	10 CFTs 10 HTs	Cyclically applied axial load at both ends Displacement controlled loading with either large or small amplitude	P vs. λ P vs. δaxial Energy absorption (CFT, HT) H vs. Δ (K-braced frames with HT and CFT braces)	HT vs. CFT λ axial load amplitude
Matsui and Kawano 1988	Monotonic and cyclic loading of trusses with CFT and HT chords	1 CFT and 1 HT (monotonic) 1 CFT and 1 HT (cyclic)	Monotonic uniform moment applied at the ends Constant axial load and cyclically applied lateral load applied at the top	M vs. θ P vs. δaxial H vs. Δ	HT vs. CFT
Shakir-Khalil and Zeghiche 1989	Concentric and eccentric loading of rectangular CFTs	1 CFT (conc.) 6 CFTs (ecc.) Additional squash load and bond strength tests performed	Cols tested horizontally Equal end eccentricities Incremental loading Tests: 1 axial, 4 uniaxial (2 maj.,2 min.), 2 biaxial	δ (x and y directions) P vs. ε, P vs. δ, P vs. e/D M vs. φ (varying P/Po) Pu, Po, Mu Bond tests: Pu, bond strength	L/D λ e	Bond test & squash load test conducted (see summary) Detailed tabulation
Cederwall, Engstrom, and Grauers 1990	Eccentrically loaded rectangular CFT columns	19 CFT (ecc.) 19 short col. tests	Axial load applied eccentrically to failure Load applied to steel, concrete, and both mat'ls	P vs. δ Pu, Po Po/Pu vs. Pco/Pso	t fy f'c e method of load application
Shakir-Khalil and Mouli 1990	Concentric and eccentric loading of rectangular CFTs	1 CFT (conc.) 8 CFT (ecc.) 9 Short col tests Bond strength tests	Cols tested horizontally Equal end eccentricities Incremental loading Tests: 1 axial, 1 uniaxial, 7 biaxial	ε distribution at mid-length δ (x and y directions) P vs. ε, P vs. δ, P vs. e/D Pu, Po for short columns Pu, Mu	L/D λ e	Extension of Shakir-Khalil,'89
Cai 1991	Eccentrically loaded CFT columns	27 CFTs	Eccentric axial load 18 cols: ecc. at one end, single curvature 9 cols: opposite eccs., double curvature	Pu, Pu/Po	λ e/(concr. radius) β
Luksha and Nesterovich 1991	Large diameter CFTs under axial compression	30 CFTs 10 HTs	N.A.	Po, Py % shrinkage	D t	Variables not well defined
Masuo et al. 1991	Concentric testing of lightweight concrete CFTs	26 CFTs: 18 lightweigh, 6 normal weight	Concentrically-applied load	σ-ε relations for steel & concr. initial δ P vs. δ curves Pu, Pu/Po Pu/Po vs. slenderness factor (see paper for definition)	D/t Slenderness ratio	Several detailed P-δ curves Very thorough tests, highly detailed and documented
Nakai, Kurita, and Ichinose 1991	Study on creep and drying shrinkage of CFTs	4 CFTs 2 plain concr. (3 creep tests, 3 shrinkage tests)	Concentrically-applied load	εconcr vs. time (both tests) P vs. time (creep test) Creep coefficients Evaluated visco-elastic parameters (for theoretical)	Time	Creep and shrinkage tests conducted simultaneously for 160 days
Sakino and Hayashi 1991	Concentrically loaded stub columns	7 CFTs 5 HTs	Concentrically-applied load	σ vs. ε εcircum/ε vs. ε P vs. ε Po, Py, Pu	D/t f'c	Paper attempted to estimate the strain hardening effect as well as triaxial confinement
Tsuji, Nakashima, and Morita 1991	Axial compression of short CFTs	3 CFTs	Concentrically-applied load	ε vs. εcircum ν vs. ε P vs. ε P vs. ε (exp. vs calc.)	t	Tests conducted to check validity of analytical formulation
Rangan and Joyce 1992	Eccentrically loaded slender columns w/ high-strength concr.	9 CFTs	Axial load offset by eccen. Equal end eccentricities Single curvature	P vs. ε P vs. δ Pu, Po, Pu/Po	λ e	Compared to results by Neogi, Sen, Chapman
Bridge and Webb 1993	Axial compressions of thin-walled CFTs and HTs	2 CFTs 2 HTs	Concentrically-applied, incremental loading Loaded into post-ultimate region	P vs. εconcr P vs. δaxial Pu, Po	HT vs. CFT	Tests performed for high-rise construction project
Matsui, Tsuda, and El Din 1993	Axial compression of square CFTs with varying lengths and eccentricities	24 CFTs 6 HTs	Concentrically and eccentrically applied Slow loading near ultimate load Loaded into post-ultimate region	P vs. δlateral Pu Pcr vs λ for various eccentricities	λ e CFT vs. HT	Compared to AIJ design formulas
Tsuda, Matsui, and Mino 1996	Series I-Concentrically land eccentrically axially slender CFTs	48 CFTs (24 circ., 24 sq.) 12 HTs	Concentrically and eccentrically applied axial load on CFT’s Concentric load only on steel tubes	P vs. δ (lat. defl.) M vs. P Mu vs. Pu (inter. diagrams)	Magnitude of eccentricity buckling length-section depth ratio (kL/D)
Kawano and Matsui 1997	Cyclic and axial loading of circular CFTs and HTs	5 HTs 44 CFTs	Concentric axial loading Displacement-controlled	P vs δaxial nc, nb vs. ε W / Py × δy vs. ε nc vs. L/D W vs. L/D	CFT vs HT L/D, D/t Loading pattern	Energy absorption and fracture of steel tube
Kilpatrick and Rangan 1997	Eccentric loading of circular CFTs in double and single curvature	24 CFTS (ecc.) 1 CFT (conc.)	Eccentric axial loading Displacement-controlled	P vs. e P vs. δ (lat. defl.)	magnitude and direction of eccentricity
Bergmann 1994	Concentrically loaded circular and square CFT with different load introduction	16	Load introduction was varied, load on entire crosssection, all of conc., small area of conc. Concentric axial load applied until failure	P vs. d	Section shape and size Load introduction Length
O'shea and Bridge 1997a	Concentric and eccentric loading of circular HTs and concentric loading of circular CFTs filled with unbonded concrete	7 HTs (conc.) 5 CFTs (conc.) 10 HT (ecc.)	Concentric load only on steel tube Displacement-controlled with incremental small displacements	σ-ε relations for stl. & conc. Residual stress distribution P vs. εaxial & σsl vs. εaxial (εcircum & ε) vs. εaxial Pu Mu vs. Pu (inter. diagrams) Plate buckling curves Lateral imperf. of the steel tube walls	CFT vs. HT D/t Loading type (BS, BSC, E1, E2) Magnitude of eccentricity	Effect of internal restraint on local buckling behavior
O'shea and Bridge 1997b	Concentric loading of square box HTs and square box CFTs filled with unbonded and bonded concrete	17 CFTs (conc.) 12 HTs (conc.)	Concentric load only on hollow tube Displacement-controlled Incremental small displacements	σ-ε relations for stl. & conc. Residual stress distribution P vs. εaxial & σsl vs. εaxial εaxial vs. δ (lat. defl.) Pu Plate buckling curves Lateral imperf. of the steel tube walls Buckled shapes (anal.&exp.)	CFT vs. HT L/D, D/t Loading type (BS, BSU, CS)	Effect of internal restraint on local buckling behavior.
O'shea and Bridge 1997c	Concentric and eccentric loading of circular CFTs with unbonded and bonded high strength concrete	33 CFTs (conc.) 7 CFTs (ecc.)	Displacement-controlled with incremental small displacements (CFTs with moderate strength concrete) Force-controlled with slow loading near ultimate load (CFTs with high strength concrete)	σ-ε relations for stl. & conc. P vs. εaxial (εcircum & ε) vs. εaxial Pu Residual stress distribution Mu vs. Pu (inter. diagrams) Lateral imperf. of the steel tube walls Stl. reduction and conc. enhance. due to confinement	f’c D/t, Loading type (CS, CL, E1, E2) Magnitude of eccentricity	Effect of concrete confinement on cross section strength
O'shea and Bridge 1997d	Concentric and eccentric loading of circular CFTs with unbonded and bonded high strength concrete	18 CFTs (conc.) 7 CFTs (ecc.)	Force-controlled with slow loading near ultimate load	σ-ε relations for stl. & conc. P vs. εaxial (εcircum & ε) vs. εaxial Pu Residual stress distribution Mu vs. Pu ( inter. diagrams ) Lateral imperf. of the steel tube walls Stl. reduction and conc. enhance. due to confinement	f’c D/t Loading type(CS,CL, E1, E2) Magnitude of eccentricity	Effect of confinement on cross section strength
Shakir Khalil and Al-Rawdan 1997	Concentric & eccentric loading of full-scale rectangular CFTs	11 CFTs (conc.) 11 CFTs (ecc.)	Cols tested horizontally Equal end eccentricities Incremental loading	δ and axis of failure for each member P vs. δ Pu, Po Pa from BS5400, BS5940, ratios Pu/Pa	L/D λ ex ey	BS5400 & BS5940 are the current British standards
Schneider 1998	Monotonic axial loading of circular, square and rectangular CFTs	14 CFTs	Concentric axial loading Force-controlled	P vs. δaxial Py vs. λ Py vs. D/t P vs. Ps P vs. εcircum/ε	D/t Cross-sectional shape	Results compared with AISC-LRFD (1994)
Han and Yan 2000	Monotonic axial loading of slender circular CFTs and HTs	11 CFTs 4 HTs	Concentric axial loading	P vs. δ (lat. defl.) Pa, Pu	CFT vs. HT f’c
Zhang and Zhou 2000	Monotonic axial loading of CFTS	36 CFTS	Concentric axial loading	P vs. ε P vs. εcircum fcc/f’c vs. σr/f’c	D/t fy	Degree of confinement compared with literature
Han and Yan 2001	Monotonic loading of square CFTs	20 CFTs stub col. 8 CFTs (conc.) 21 CFTs (ecc.)	Stub Cols.: Concentric loading, force-controlled Cols: Eccentric axial loading, force-controlled	P vs. εaxial Pu P vs. δ (lat. defl.) Pa vs. Pu Mu vs. Pu (interaction diagrams)	ξ (stub cols.: 1.08-5.64, bmcols & cols : 1.07- 3.27) f'c D/t Mag. of eccentricity Slenderness
Johansson and Gylltoft 2002	Short circular CFT columns subjected to axial compression with different methods of application	9 CFTS 4 HTs	Concentric loading on either steel only, concrete only, entire section	P vs. δ	Load application HT/CFT
Ghannam, Jawad, and Hunaiti 2004	Monotonic loading of rectangular, square, and circular CFTs with normal and lightweight concrete	36 CFTs 9 HTs	Concentrically applied load	P vs. δ P vs. mid height disp.	section size and shape normal weight/light weight/no concrete slenderness
Giakoumelis and Lam 2004	Short circular CFT columns subjected to axial compression	13 CFTs 2 HTs	Concentrically applied load	P vs. δ P vs. ε Concrete enhancement factor vs. f′c P vs. f′c	f′c bond (some columns greased)
Gupta, Sarda, and Kumar 2007	Concentrically loaded circular CFT columns until failure	72 CFTs 9 Hollow circular tubes	Concentrically applied load	Load vs. Deformation Load vs. Compression Energy vs. Compression % Confinement vs. % Flyash	D/t L/D
Guo et al. 2007	Monotonic behavior of steel only loaded unbonded square CFTs	12 CFTs 12 HTs	Concentrically applied load	P vs. δ P vs. ε	D/t CFT/HT
Uy 2008	8 CFTs	Concentric axial load	P vs. δ P vs. ε	High Performance Steel Stainless Steel
Liew and Xiong 2009	Preload effect on the axial resistance of CFTs	8 CFTs	Preloaded with pre-stressing strands Axial Load	Predicted Load vs. Test Results P vs. &delta	L fy β (Preload Ratio)

Specimen Information

Reference	Length (L)(in)	L/D	Eccentricity(in)	Residual Stresses(ksi)	Initial Out-Of-Straightness(in)	End Conditions
Klöppel and Goder 1957	Leff = 33.86-90.95 λ = 36.9-114.1	8.68-20.80	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	Pinned-pinned
Salani and Sims 1964	60.0	20-60	N.A.	Steel tubes annealed to remove stresses	N.A.	Fixed-fixed
Gardner and Jacobson 1967	6, 8, 9.5, 12, 24, 41.34, 60, 66	2, 8, 8.7, 11, 15, 20	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	Pinned-pinned (long cols.) Pinned-fixed (short)
Gardner 1968	CFT: 12.0, 72.0, 84.0 HT: 68.0 Leff = L + 6.0	1.8-12.8	N.A.	Incorporated into fy	N.A.	Pinned-pinned (long cols) Pinned-fixed (short)
Knowles and Park 1969	concentric: 9-68 (λ =7.76-60.2) eccentric 32, 44, 56	2.60-22.67	0.30, 1.00 (initial) 0.50-1.45 (at failure)	N.A.	N.A.	Pinned-pinned (knife edge) Stub col: fixed ends Ends packed w/ cardboard-uniform load on both mat'ls
Neogi, Sen, and Chapman 1969	C: 55.5, 67.5, 80.0; M: 131.0	11.1-23.7	C: 0.25-0.88; M: 1.25-1.88	N.A.	0.022-0.224
Knowles and Park 1970	Leff = 10.0-91.0	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	Pinned-pinned (knife edge) Uniaxial bending Ends capped such that both mat'ls were loaded
Bridge 1976	83.9, 120.1	10.65, 15.25, 20.33	0, 1.50, 2.52	N.A	0.011-0.055	Pinned-pinned (rocker bearings) Expansive mortar endcap (for equal load distribution)
Kitada, Yoshida, and Nakai 1987	9.94	2.21	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	Fixed-fixed Loading through bearing plates
Zhong and Miao 1988	see L/D	2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	Pinned-pinned: (2 knife hinges; 1 knife, 1 plate hinge; 1 spherical, 1 pl hinge; or 2 pl. hinges)
Liu and Geol 1988	λ = 58-100	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	Welded gusset plates, weld and plate strength 33% > steel tube
Kawano and Matsui 1988	L = 16.2-97.4 λ = 19.9-119.5	6.81-40.88	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	Pinned-pinned
Matsui and Kawano 1988	L = 47.9 λ = 59	28.67	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	Pinned-pinned (monotonically loaded trusses) Cantilever (cyclically loaded trusses)
Shakir-Khalil and Zeghiche 1989	108.7 Leff = 115.7-126.4	23.0	ex = 0.0, 0.94, 2.36 ey = 0.0, 0.63, 1.57	N.A.	Acknowledged as possible error	Pinned-pinned Crossed knife edges (free biaxial rotat.) End plates (0.6 in. thick) welded to tube
Cederwall, Engstrom, and Grauers 1990	118	25	0.39, 0.79	N.A.	N.A.	Pinned-pinned
Shakir-Khalil and Mouli 1990	Leff = major : 126.4 minor: 115.7 Short col tests: 3.9, 7.9	Major: 21.4, 26.75 Minor: 29.5, 36.7	ex = 0.0-2.95 ey = 0.0-1.97	N.A.	Acknowledged as possible error	Pinned-pinned Crossed knife edges (free biaxial rotat.) End plates (0.6 in. thick) welded to tube
Cai 1991	26.2-117.7	5.24-19.30	0.79, 1.57, 2.36, 3.94	N.A.	N.A.	Pinned-pinned Stiff 1 in. cap plates
Luksha and Nesterovich 1991	18.8-120.5	3.0	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	Fixed-fixed
Masuo et al. 1991	45.3-189.0	6.0-18.0	N.A.	N.A.	Initial defl. = L/2000 at mid-height	Pinned-pinned (cylindrical bearings)
Nakai, Kurita, and Ichinose 1991	39.4 (1 m)	6.05	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	Fixed-fixed
Sakino and Hayashi 1991	14.2	2.0	N.A.	Steel tubes annealed to remove stresses	N.A.	Pinned-fixed
Tsuji, Nakashima, and Morita 1991	9.0	2.0	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	Pinned (spherical)-fixed
Rangan and Joyce 1992	Leff = 31.8-91.4	8.0-22.9	0.39, 1.18	N.A.	N.A.	Pinned-pinned End plates on rollers
Bridge and Webb 1993	29.5	3.0	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	Pinned (spherical seat)-fixed Ends plastered to ensure flush loading
Matsui, Tsuda, and El Din 1993	23.6, 47.2, 70.9, 106.3, 141.7, 177.2	4, 8, 12, 18, 24, 30	0, 0.98, 2.95, 4.92	N.A.(yield stress measured by 0.2% offset)	N.A.	Pinned (spherical seat)- eccentricity imposed by moving bearing plate
Tsuda, Matsui, and Mino 1996	Noted values are kL; 26.0-195.1, 23.6-177.2	kL/D; 4, 8, 12, 18, 24, 30(same for both)	0-4.06 (circular) 0-4.92 (square)	N.A.	N.A.	Pinned-pinned: Specimens are loaded through hemispherical oil film bearing at each end
Kawano and Matsui 1997	10.0, 12.8, 33.8, 71.3	5, 10, 20	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	Pinned-pinned
Kilpatrick and Rangan 1997	85.6	21.4	-1.97-1.97	N.A.	N.A.	Pinned-pinned : The ends were clamped to knife-edge assemblages
Bergmann 1994	40 160	4 - 22.8	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	Fixed-Fixed Wood plates between ends of column and loading head
O'shea and Bridge 1997a	22.7, 26.2	3.5	0.28-0.83	6.37-51.96 (bending) 11.40- 47.30 (membrane)	N.A.	Fixed (conc.): Ends attached to grooved plates filled with low temperature metal Pinned-pinned (ecc.): Eccentricity provided through thick endplates with an offset half round
O'shea and Bridge 1997b	8.4-38.0	0.8, 1.2, 1.7, 2.3, 2.9, 3.5	N.A.	7.70-22.24	N.A.	Fixed: Ends attached to grooved plates filled with low temperature metal
O'shea and Bridge 1997c	22.7, 26.2	3.5	0.28-0.82	6.37-51.96 (bending) 11.4-47.30 (membrane)	N.A.	Ends were ground flat and the top loading plate had a hemi-spherical head (conc.) Pinned-pinned (ecc.): eccentricity provided through thick endplates with an off-set half round
O'shea and Bridge 1997d	22.7, 26.2	3.5	0.26-0.67	6.37-51.96 (bending) 11.40-47.30 (membrane)	N.A.	Ends were ground flat and the top plate had a hemispherical head (conc.) Pinned-pinned (ecc.): eccentricity provided through thick endplates with an off-set half round
Shakir Khalil and Al-Rawdan 1997	Leff = major: 126-187 minor: 116-193 short col: 3.9, 5.9, 7.9	Major: 21.3-31.7 Minor: 29.5-49.0	ex = 0.24, 0.59, 1.77, 2.95 ey = 1.18	N.A.	Acknowledged as possible error	Pinned-pinned Crossed knife edges (free biaxial rotat.) End plates (0.6 in. thick) welded to tube
Schneider 1998	see L/D	4.0-4.8	N.A.	Steel tubes annealed to remove stresses	N.A.	Pinned-pinned through spherical bearings
Han and Yan 2000	138.2-163.7	32.5-38.5( λ = 130-154)	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	Pinned-pinned through loading plate with triangular wedge inserted into the grooved endplate.
Zhang and Zhou 2000	N.A.	3-4	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.
Han and Yan 2001	see L/D	3 (stub cols.) λ= 45-75 (cols)	0-3.15	N.A.	N.A.	Stub cols.: Thick, stiff endplates welded to the tube Cols.: pinned ends through loading plate with triangular wedge inserted into the grooved endplate
Johansson and Gylltoft 2002	25.6	4.09	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	Fixed-Fixed Both ends bearing on loading plate
Ghannam, Jawad, and Hunaiti 2004	78.75-98.43	15-20	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	Pinned-Pinned
Giakoumelis and Lam 2004	11.8	2.62	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	Fixed-Fixed
Gupta, Sarda, and Kumar 2007	13.4	3.0, 3.8, 7.2	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	Both ends bearing on loading plate
Guo et al. 2007	9.4 – 23.6	3.0	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	Fixed-Fixed (stiffeners welded to ends in accordance with Chinese design)
Uy 2008	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	Fixed-Fixed
Liew and Xiong 2009	68.0 - 121.2	7.9-14.1	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	Fixed-Fixed (Ends attached to steel plate to obtain uniform loading)

Cross Section Information

Reference	Tube Dimensions	Steel Properties	Concrete Properties
Klöppel and Goder 1957	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 3.75, 4.75, 8.5 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.079-0.472 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 7.9-60.5	N.A. Fy= 38.3-57.3 ksi	f'c= 2.94-4.32 ksi
Salani and Sims 1964	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 1, 1.5, 2, 2.75, 3 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.035, 0.065, 0.109 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 28.6-46.2	Cold-drawn seamless finish-annealed Fy= 76 ksi	f'c= 3.35-4.95 ksi (Mortar)
Gardner and Jacobson 1967	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 3, 4, 4.75, 6 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.067-0.194 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 30-48	Cold-drawn seamless finish- annealed Fy= 52.7-91.9 ksi	f'c= 3.0-6.3 ksi
Gardner 1968	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 6.62-6.66 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.104, 0.142, 0.197 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 34-64	Spiral welded Fy= 28.6-48.3 ksi	f'c= 2.6-5.3 ksi
Knowles and Park 1969	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 3.25, 3.5 (circular), 3.0 × 3.0 (square) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.23, 0.055 (circular), 0.132 (square) Diameter/thickness (D/t): 15.2, 59.1 (circular), 22.6-22.9 (square)	Hot-finish mild seamless (cir), welded (sq) Fy= 58, 70 ksi (cir), 47 ksi (square)	No cylinder test done (avg. max stress = 5.925)
Neogi, Sen, and Chapman 1969	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: C: 5.0; (circular), M: 5.5, 6.625 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.064-0.384 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 14.4-78.1	Seamless M: mild, hot-finish, gr.16; C: cold-drawn Fy= 25.0-40.4 ksi	fcu= 4.64-12.10 ksi
Knowles and Park 1970	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 1.0-14.0 (circular) 4 × 4, 5 × 5 (square) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.035-0.502 Diameter/thickness (D/t): N.A.	N. A. Fy= 36.9-87.8 ksi	f'c= 2.94-9.60 ksi
Bridge 1976	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 5.91 × 5.91, 7.87 × 7.87 (square) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.256, 0.394 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 20.0, 23.1	N.A. Fy= 36.8-46.3 ksi	f'c= 4.38-5.48 ksi
Kitada, Yoshida, and Nakai 1987	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 4.5 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.118, 0.177, 0.197 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 22.9, 25.4, 38.1	Welded seam & seamless Fy= 40.5-52.6 ksi	f'c= 2.50, 4.96 ksi
Zhong and Miao 1988	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 4.27 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): N.A. Diameter/thickness (D/t): N.A.	N.A. Stress determined analytically	f'c= 4.35, 5.80
Liu and Geol 1988	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 6 × 3, 4 × 2 (rectangular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.188, 0.125, 0.25 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 14, 30	A500 gr. B, coldformed Fy= 54, 60 ksi	f'c= 4, 6, 8 ksi
Kawano and Matsui 1988	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 2.38 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.091 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 26.3	Cold-formed, mild steel Fy= 48.5 ksi	f'c= 4.75, 4.98, 5.08 ksi
Matsui and Kawano 1988	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 2.39 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.083 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 28.9	Cold-formed, mild steel Fy= 48.5 ksi	f'c= 4.98
Shakir-Khalil and Zeghiche 1989	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 4.72 × 3.15 (rectangular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.197 Diameter/thickness (D/t): major axis: 24, minor axis: 16	Rolled, grade 43 Fy= 49.8-56.0 ksi	fcu= 5.80-6.53
Cederwall, Engstrom, and Grauers 1990	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 4.72 × 4.72 (square) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.197, 0.315 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 15, 24	N.A. Fy= 44.1-63.7 ksi	f'c= 5.65-14.90 ksi
Shakir-Khalil and Mouli 1990	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 5.91 × 3.94, 4.72 × 3.15 (rectangular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.197 Diameter/thickness (D/t): maj. axis: 24, 30, minor axis: 16, 20	Rolled, grade 43 Fy= 49.3-52.6 ksi	fcu= 5.18-5.87
Cai 1991	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 6.5 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.197 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 33.2	N.A. Fy= 40.2-45.5 ksi	f'c= 5.05, 7.45 ksi
Luksha and Nesterovich 1991	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 6.25-40.15 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.20-0.52 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 31.4-105.8	Electronically welded Fy= 42.3-56.8 ksi	f'c= 2.18-6.67 ksi
Masuo et al. 1991	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 7.51, 10.53 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.236, 0.276 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 32, 38	Cold-formed Fy= 73.3, 66.8 ksi	f'c= Light: 8.11 ksi Normal: 7.01 ksi
Nakai, Kurita, and Ichinose 1991	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 6.5 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.0, 0.177, 0.197 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 33.0, 36.7	N.A. Fy= 60.7, 63.9 ksi	f'c= 4.04 ksi
Sakino and Hayashi 1991	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 6.85, 7.00, 7.05 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.118, 0.217, 0.354 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 20, 32, 58	Annealed Fy= 36.0, 38.6, 41.1 ksi	f'c= 3.21, 3.47, 6.33, 6.59 ksi
Tsuji, Nakashima, and Morita 1991	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 4.5 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.138, 0.177 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 25.4, 32.7	Mild steel Fy= 49.2, 50.8 ksi	f'c= 4.84 ksi
Rangan and Joyce 1992	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 4 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.063 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 64	N.A. Fy= 31.6 ksi	f'c= 9.77 ksi
Bridge and Webb 1993	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 9.8 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.079 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 124	N.A. Fy= 37.7 ksi	f'c= 8.63 ksi
Matsui, Tsuda, and El Din 1993	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 6.12 × 6.12 (square) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.177 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 33.3	Cold-formed from mild steel plate Fy= 66	f'c= 4.6-5.0 ksi
Tsuda, Matsui, and Mino 1996	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 6.51 (circular), 5.91 × 5.91 (square) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.161 (circular), 0.168 (square) Diameter/thickness (D/t): 40.4, 35.2	Mild steel; STK400 (circular), STKR400 (square) Fy= 51.2 ksi (circular), 59.8 ksi (square)	f'c= 4.62 ksi(circular), 5.93 ksi(square)
Kawano and Matsui 1997	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 2.38, 4.00 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.043-0.214 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 18.6-53.1	Cold-formed STK400 Fy= 44.8-61.2 ksi	f'c= 4.37, 6.69 ksi
Kilpatrick and Rangan 1997	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 4 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.094 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 42.3	Cold-formed Fy= 59.5	f'c= 13.92
Bergmann 1994	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: Circ: 12.75, 20, Sqaure: 7, 10.25 Wall Thickness (t) (in): Circ: 0.22, 0.25, Square: 0.25, 0.28 Diameter/thickness (D/t): Circ: 58, 80, Square: 28, 36.6	Fy= 51 ksi (most specimens) 34 ksi (one specimen)	f'c= 13.4 ksi
O'shea and Bridge 1997a	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 6.50, 7.48 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.034-0.111 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 58.5-220.9	Cold-rolled, Hot-rolled, Cold-drawn Fy= 26.9, 29.5, 30.6 ksi(Cold-rolled) 37.2, 44.4 ksi(Hot-rolled) 52.7 ksi(Cold-drawn)	f'c= 6.89 ksi
O'shea and Bridge 1997b	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 3.15 × 3.15, 4.72 × 4.72, 6.30 × 6.30, 7.87 × 7.87, 9.45 × 9.45, 11.02 × 11.02 (square) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.084 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 37.3-130.7	Mild steel plate Fy= 40.9 ksi	f'c= 2.41-3.13 ksi
O'shea and Bridge 1997c	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 6.50, 7.48 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.034-0.111 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 58.5-220.9	Cold-rolled, Hot-rolled, Cold-drawn Fy= 26.9, 30.7 ksi(Cold-rolled), 37.2, 44.4(Hot-rolled) 52.7 (Cold-drawn)	f'c= 5.54-11.63 ksi
O'shea and Bridge 1997d	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 6.50, 7.48 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.034-0.111 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 58.5-220.9	Cold-rolled, Hot-rolled, Cold-drawn Fy= 26.9, 30.6 ksi (Cold-rolled) 37.2, 44.4 ksi (Hot-rolled) 52.7 ksi (Cold-drawn)	f'c= 11.18-16.00 ksi
Shakir Khalil and Al-Rawdan 1997	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 5.91 × 3.94 (rectangular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.197 Diameter/thickness (D/t): major axis: 30 minor axis: 20	Rolled, grade 43 Fy= 48.0-53.4 ksi	f'c= 5.42-6.16 ksi
Schneider 1998	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 5.51 (circular) 5.00 × 5.00 (square) 5.98 × 2.99 , 5.98 × 4.02 (rectangular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.118-0.294 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 17.0-50.8	Cold-formed Fy= 41.3-77.9 ksi	f'c= 3.45, 4.42 ksi
Han and Yan 2000	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 4.25 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.177 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 24	N.A. Fy= 50.5 ksi	fcu= 4.61,6.79
Zhang and Zhou 2000	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 3.94 × 3.94 (square) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.079-0.197 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 20-50	N.A. Fy= 34.8-58.5 ksi	fcu= 5.87
Han and Yan 2001	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 4.72 × 4.72, 5.51 × 5.51, 7.87 × 7.87 (square) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.151, 0.231 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 20.5-36.5	N.A. Fy= 46.6, 47.9 ksi	f'c= 1.54-5.31 ksi
Johansson and Gylltoft 2002	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 6.25 Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.189 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 33.1	Fy= 62.8 ksi	f'c= 9.35 ksi
Ghannam, Jawad, and Hunaiti 2004	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 7.87 × 3.94, 5.51 × 5.51, 5.90 × 3.54, 3.94 × 3.94, 6.50, 4.33 Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.075-0.197 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 20-57.9	Fy= 34.8-53.1 ksi	f'c= 4.84 ksi (normal wt) 1.45 ksi (lightweight)
Giakoumelis and Lam 2004	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 4.49 Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.148-0.198 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 22.9-30.5	Fy= 49.7-52.9 ksi	f'c= 4.5-15.2 ksi
Gupta, Sarda, and Kumar 2007	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 1.86, 3.51, 4.43 (circular) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.07, 0.11, 0.11 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 25.283, 32.598, 38.948	Fy= 4.35, 5.80 ksi	f'c= 52.2 ksi
Guo et al. 2007	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 3.14-7.88 Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.063 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 50-125	Two L shaped plates welded to form square Fy= 40.6 ksi	f'c= 5.6 ksi
Uy 2008	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 3.94 (SS), 4.3 (HPS) Wall Thickness (t) (in): 0.197 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 20 (SS), 21.8 (HPS)	Fy= 65 ksi (HPS), 32 ksi (SS)	f'c= N.A.
Liew and Xiong 2009	◌: diam. (D) □: depth (D) x width: 8.62 Wall Thickness (t) (in): .25 Diameter/thickness (D/t): 34.5	Hot-rolled circular tubes Fy= 57.0, 58.7 ksi	f'c= 5.1-16.1 ksi