Engineering Structures 160 (2018) 408–418

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Seismic performance of precast RC column to steel beam connections with T

variable joint configurations
⁎
Alireza Khaloo , Rooholah Bakhtiari Doost
Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In the last decades, noticeable experimental and analytical investigations have been carried out on cast-in-place
Composite structures Reinforced Concrete column to Steel beam (RCS) connections, however rarely have been conducted on the
Precast RCS connections precast RCS. In this paper, test results of four half-scale interior precast RCS connections with variable joint
Joint shear resistance configurations are presented. The steel beams were connected to the precast column, using three specimens with
extended face bearing plates and one with extended cover plates, embedded in the connection zone. The flanges
of beams were strengthened with respect to scaled section, in order to increase the load transfer to the joint. All
samples were loaded under reversed displacement controlled condition. The failure mode, joint distortion,
lateral load capacity, stiffness retention, stiffness degradation and energy dissipation capacity were evaluated.
Presence of shear keys in the joint enhances strength and stiffness of subassemblies and reduces joint distortion.
Utilization of extended cover plates considerably reduces shear distortion and rigid body rotation and also
significantly increases shear resistance of the joint.

1. Introduction
Hybrid structures are often more economical than conventional
structural steel or reinforced concrete structures, because this system
realizes the most effective use of steel, reinforced concrete, and com-
posite members in a structural system due to inherent behaviour of
those materials. One of the composite systems that has gained popu-
larity over the last decades is RCS (Reinforced Concrete columns and
Steel beams) moment resisting frames. RC columns have advantages
over steel columns: they have good axial strength and lateral stiffness
and provide good energy dissipation capacity. On the other hand use of
steel beams instead of RC beams can reduce weight of construction
process, and eliminate formwork and supports in the construction, and
improve ductility of the structure.
Over the past decades, several researchers investigated the RCS
connections and indicated that RCS connections have excellent beha-
viour under reversal loading condition [1–5]. In 1994, ASCE Task
Committee on Design Criteria for Composite Structures in Steel and
Concrete [6], published guidelines for design of RCS connections.
Toyoshima et al. [7] have performed tests on interior, exterior and roof-
level RCS beam-column connections. Kuramoto and Nishiyama [8]
studied about RCS frames to investigate the structural performance and
the damping factors. Failure mode and seismic performance under
cyclic loading with different joint configurations were studied.
Exterior RCS connections with different aspect ratios and joint de-
tails, and RCS joints with carbon fiber wraps repair were tested re-
spectively at University of Michigan by Parra-Montesinos and Wight
[9]. Liang et al. [10] in Michigan University tested interior and exterior
RCS connections under cyclic loading, considering interaction of the
concrete slab and shear studs. Specimen design was based on “strong
column-weak beam” philosophy.
Nishiyama et al. [11] have developed Guidelines for “Steel-Concrete
Composite Structures for Seismic Design”. Fagier-Gabaldon [12] tested
two different forms of the RCS at University of Michigan: RC column
substantially wider than the steel beam and the roof level T-config-
uration. Cheng and Chen [13] experimentally and numerically studied
seismic performance of RCS connections with or without the floor slab.
Alizadeh et al. [14,15] investigated two interior RCS connections ex-
perimentally and numerically. Self-consolidating concrete that can
improve the constructability of RCS joints was used in both specimens.
Additional bearing plates (ABP) which cause an increase in bearing and
joint shear strength were used.
Extensive research carried out on the RCS connections during the
last decades, however little is known about the behaviour of precast
RCS connections despite of its improvements in construction speed and
quality control due to utilization of precast columns.
Two large-scale precast post-tensioned RCS subassemblies have
been tested under reversed cyclic loading by Wu et al. [16] at university

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Azadi Av., Tehran, Iran.
E-mail address: khaloo@sharif.edu (A. Khaloo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.01.039
Received 2 August 2017; Received in revised form 14 December 2017; Accepted 12 January 2018
0141-0296/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Khaloo, R. Bakhtiari Doost Engineering Structures 160 (2018) 408–418

Nomenclature Vceq equivalent column shear force due to Mexp

Vjd shear strength demand of the joints
Ai area enclosed by the first hysteretic loop Vjeq equivalent shear at joint due to nominal strength of beam
Ag column gross area and column
At elastic energy stored in an equivalent linear elastic system Vju ultimate horizontal joint shear strength based on test re-
Be elastic rotation of beam sults
Ce elastic rotation of column Vnb nominal shear strength of beam
Cp plastic rotation of column Vnc nominal shear strength of column
Fy yield strength of steel Z plastic modulus of scaled section of beam
Fu ultimate strength of steel bb steel beam width
JSD joint shear distortion f beam flange load determined from equilibrium equations
Lc column length fi internal forces of continuity plate calculated according to
Lb beam length the strain gage
Mb flexural moment in the beams at the face of connection fc′ concrete compressive strength
zone hb steel beam height
Mexp expected moment capacity of scaled sections of beams hc column width
Mnb nominal flexural strength of beam k1i stiffness measured during the first cycle performed at i%
Mnc nominal flexural strength of column drift
Mp nominal plastic flexural strength of scaled sections of k2i stiffness measured during the second cycle performed at i
beams % drift
RBR rigid body rotation tf steel beam flange thickness
Ry ratio of the expected yield stress to the specified minimum tw steel beam web thickness
yield stress ∝d stiffness degradation ratio
SE seating of connection sub-assemblage ∝r stiffness retention ratio
TJD total joint deformation γ joint shear distortion
Vb beam shear force θrbr beam rigid body rotation
Vc column shear force ξeq equivalent damping ratio

of Southern California. Strength, stiffness retention capacity, drift 2. Experimental program

ductility and post-yield deformation capacity were studied in their re-
search. This study was the continuation of the researches of Xiao et al.
[17] and Li et al. [18]. Chou et al. [19] tested a series of post-tensioned
RCS frame. The objectives of their studies were: progress of damage,
strength degradation of frame and evaluation of connection perfor-
mance.
There are two categories for RCS connections, (1) Beam through
type, and (2) Column through type. In beam through type, the steel
beam is continuous, whereas in column through type, the concrete
column is continuous.
In this paper, the results of an experimental program aiming to
study the seismic behaviour of precast moment resisting column
through type RCS connections are presented. Four half-scale specimens,
without the utilization of pre-stressing technology in the joints for ease
of construction, were experimented. The concrete column through type
horizontally prefabricated, facilitates embedment of transverse re-
inforcements and concrete placement at the joint, especially for or-
thogonal moment connection in the panel zone.
The objective of this research was to evaluate the behaviour of a
proposed joint. Therefore, beams were designed for higher strength
than scaled sections. Details of scaled sections and test sections are
given in “test specimens description”.
2.1. Test specimens description
In general, joints of RCS frames are designed to exhibit limited or no
inelastic deformations with most of the inelastic behaviour in the
structure localized at the ends of the structural steel beams. In this
research, however, the connections were designed such that a joint
failure would occur in order to determine its strength and stiffness. The
dimensions of the samples corresponded to nearly ½ of a full scale
beam-column subassembly. The subassemblies were scaled according to
large-scale connections using dimensional analysis. Therefore, the
performance of tested specimens provides ground for extension to full-
scale connections. It is shown in Table 1, that the test beam sections,
namely; thicknesses of web and flange are considered higher than the
design required dimensions in order to focus of connection maximum
tolerable capacity.
All samples consisted of a 1500 mm long precast RC column and two
1100 mm long steel beams connected to the extended face bearing
plates at the column faces. All four test specimens consisted of a
250 mm square precast column and two built-up steel beams with
150 mm depth. The flanges of the test beams were 80 mm wide and
12 mm thick. The use of thicker flanges compared to scaled section

Table 1
Prototype, scaled, and test sections specification.

hb (mm) bb (mm) tw (mm) tf (mm) hc (mm) Column longitudinal bar Column lateral bar

Prototype sections 300 150 7 10 50 12ϕ20a ϕ12@100,140

Scaled sections 150 75 3.5 5 25 12ϕ10a ϕ6@50,70
Test sections 150 80 8 12 25 8ϕ12b ϕ8@50,70

a
For 2-directional bending.
b
For 1-directional bending.

409
A. Khaloo, R. Bakhtiari Doost
beams leads to an increase in the moment capacity of the beam, al-
lowing the transfer of sufficient shear force in to the joint to cause in-
elastic deformation. This approach helps to observe the maximum
possible capacity of the proposed joint details, by concentrating on the
joint behaviour while beams and columns are designed relatively
stronger than the joint. The web of the built-up beams was 8 mm thick.
The design of connections were based on a five story residential re-
inforced concrete column with steel beam building, according to ACI
318-14 [20] and also AISC 341-10 [21] and AISC 360-10 [22] design
codes.
In the specimen PRCS1, two 250 mm × 8 mm extended face bearing
plates used that groove welded to the continuity plates parallel to the
beam flanges in the connection zone. Transverse reinforcement for the
PRC column was provided in accordance with chapter 18 of the ACI 318
Building code [20] for special moment frame. In order to transfer vertical
shear force of beam to column effectively, two shear keys (channel
60 × 6) welded to extended face bearing plates. The extended face bearing
plates was applied to transfer horizontal shear forces to the connection
zone, as shear keys. An Axial load equal to 7% of axial load capacity of
column (0.07fc′ Ag ) was applied with post-tensioned cables (see Table 2).
The specimen PRCS2 had the same joint configuration as PRCS1,
but four shear keys (channel 60 × 6) were fillet welded to the top and
bottom of the continuity plates to transfer horizontal shear force to the
connection zone effectively. The specimen PRCS3 was similar to spe-
cimen PRCS1, except that the axial load was increased to 15% of axial
load capacity of column. Four cover plates were used at all faces of
column in the specimen PRCS4 and the rest was the same as specimen
PRCS1 (see Fig. 1).
2.2. Test setup and loading pattern
The experimental setup used in this research is shown in Fig. 2. In
the experimental setup, the column and beam ends are pinned, simu-
lating inflection points at approximately column mid-high and beam
mid-span, respectively. The lateral load was applied by 140 kN hy-
draulic actuator connected to the top of the column at one tip and to a
reaction strong floor at other tip. In all samples, column axial load was
applied by two pre-stressing strands. Lateral displacement was applied
to each sample at the column top, with amplitudes ranging from 0.5%
drift (lateral displacement divided by column height) to 6.5% drift.
The loading protocol used in this study is shown in Fig. 3. Each cycle
of a new drift level was repeated to evaluate the loss of stiffness and
strength in the connections. Lateral displacement was applied to the
specimens in a quasi-static manner based on ATC-24 guideline [23].
2.3. Material properties
For all specimens, the measured concrete compressive strength was
30.2 MPa. All transverse and longitudinal reinforcements were ac-
cording to ASTM A615 grade 60 [24] and steel Beams, face bearing
plates, continuity plates, cover plates, shear keys were based on ASTM
Table 2
Specimen specification.
Specimen Joint configuration Axial load Joint confinementa
(%fc′ Ag )
PRCS1 Continuity plates & Extended 7 2 ϕ8
face bearing plates
PRCS2 Continuity plates & Extended 7 2 ϕ8
face bearing plates & Shear keys
PRCS3 Continuity plates & Extended 15 2 ϕ8
face bearing plates
PRCS4 Continuity plates & Extended 7 2 ϕ8
cover plates
a
According to special moment resisting frame.
410
Engineering Structures 160 (2018) 408–418
A572 grade 50 [25]. Table 3 shows the properties of steel plates and
reinforcements in detail.
2.4. Instrumentation
The lateral load and displacement applied to the samples at the top
of the column were monitored using a load cell and a Linear Variable
Differential Transformer (LVDT) attached to the hydraulic actuator,
respectively (Fig. 4a). Fifteen strain gages were used to measure strains
at selected positions, and some LVDTs were used to measure column
and beam rotations, and joint distortions (Fig. 4b).
The strain gages were located on the longitudinal and transverse
reinforcement, and on the continuity plates and steel beams (Fig. 5).
The LVDTs were connected to the RC column and steel beam and
connection zone.
3. Test results
3.1. Hysteretic response and cracking patterns
The lateral loads versus drift response are plotted in Fig. 6 which
shows the hysteretic responses of the specimens. Drift is measured by
dividing relative lateral displacement between the top and bottom of
column over the height of subassembly. First diagonal crack started at
the first cycle of 1.5% drift in PRCS1. A little concrete crushing under
the face bearing plates was observed at 2% drift. At 3% drift, the width
of first crack increased and several fine diagonal cracks crossed the joint
region. The diagonal cracks continued in top and bottom of the face
bearing plates at 4% drift and concrete crushing increased under the
face bearing plates. At 5% drift, the length and width of diagonal cracks
were considerably increased. In spite of the severe damage occurred in
the joint of PRCS1, no strength reduction was seen at 6.5% drift.
In PRCS2, and PRCS3 cracking pattern was similar to PRCS1,
however in PRCS2 no concrete crushing was observed at the face
bearing plates, and in PRCS3, two fine cracks initiated parallel to the
continuity plates at the joint and minor concrete crushing at the face
bearing plates.
In PRCS4, no diagonal crack was observed due to use of extended
cover plates. The flexural fine cracks started above the extended cover
plates at 1% drift. Several flexural cracks were observed above and
below extended cover plates at 2% drift. At ultimate (6.5%) drift, the
width and length of flexural cracks increased and column bending
failure occurred (see Fig. 7).
This research concentrated on behaviour of the proposed joints.
Therefore, beams were designed for higher strength than scaled section.
If plastic hinges of steel beams caused the failure, then much less
pinching effect in hysteretic curves could have been expected.
Moreover, it should be noted that the middle part of the hysteresis
curve is due to seating of connection sub-assemblage, which shows very
low stiffness. However, shortly after seating, the actual hysteresis curve
indicates considerable stiffness at the joint.
3.2. Enveloped lateral load capacity
The averaged push and pull lateral load envelope capacity of all
specimens is shown in Fig. 8. It can be seen that at ultimate drift angle,
8% increase in axial load of column (in PRCS3) led to 11% increase in
lateral load capacity with respect to PRCS1, and use of shear keys (in
PRCS2) and extended cover plates (in PRCS4) led to 31% and 76%
increase in lateral load capacity, respectively.
3.3. Stiffness retention
The stiffness retention capacity of the connections was measured by
normalizing the average secant stiffness for the first loading cycle at
each drift level to that calculated during the first cycle to 1.5% drift.
A. Khaloo, R. Bakhtiari Doost
Fig. 1. Details of specimens (a) PRCS1, PRCS3, (b) PRCS2, (c) PRCS4.
This is: ∝r = k1i/ k1(1.5%) where ∝r is the normalized stiffness, k1i is the
stiffness calculated during the first cycle carried out at i% drift and
k1(1.5%) is the stiffness determined during the first loading cycle carried
out at 1.5% drift. Normalized averaged push and pull stiffness versus
drift percents for all samples is shown in Fig. 9. At 6.5% drift, specimens
PRCS2, PRCS4 retained 68% and 72% of their stiffness at 1.5% drift
respectively, while specimens PRCS1 and PRCS3 kept 53% and 58% of
their stiffness at 1.5% drift. Thus, these data indicated that use of shear
keys and cover plates have significant influence on the stiffness
411
Engineering Structures 160 (2018) 408–418
retention capacity of PRCS junctions, and increase in axial load to 15%
of axial load capacity can also improve this characteristic.
3.4. Stiffness degradation
The stiffness degradation in the samples was evaluated by normal-
izing the measured secant stiffness during the second cycle to that
calculated during the first cycle at the same drift level. That is,
∝d = k2i/ k1i , where ∝d is the normalized stiffness, and k2i and k1i are the
A. Khaloo, R. Bakhtiari Doost Engineering Structures 160 (2018) 408–418

Fig. 2. Experimental setup.

average secant stiffness calculated during the second and first cycles at i
% drift, respectively. Fig. 10 depicts the normalized average push and
pull stiffness for all samples. As can be seen, the figure illustrates little
degradation of stiffness for all specimens and stiffness of PRCS4 con-
nection decreased by 8% at repeated cycle of 5% drift, that illustrate
better performance of this connection than others.

3.5. Damping ratio

Inelastic response of structures dissipates energy due to yielding and

viscous damping [26]. The equivalent damping ratio versus drift per-
cents for all samples is shown in Fig. 11.
The equivalent damping ratio, ξeq, was determined according to Eq.
(1):
Ai
ξeq =
4πAt (1)

where Ai is the area enclosed by the first hysteretic loop and At is the
elastic energy stored in an equivalent linear elastic system, respectively
[25]. The damping ratio for PRCS1, PRCS2 and PRCS3 increased from
5% to 17% almost at the same pace. The PRCS4 showed lower
Fig. 3. Loading protocol. equivalent damping ratio due to no significant yielding in steel cover
plate, and also maintaining elastic behaviour in connection zone.

Table 3
Steel plates and reinforcements strength. 3.6. Determination of drift components

Rebars Steel plates Whereas the beam and column shear deformations can be con-
sidered to be negligible, the drift components have been determined by:
ϕ8 ϕ10 12 mm 8 mm
(1) Joint shear deformation, (2) Beam rigid body rotation, (3) Beam
Fy (MPa) 412 427 361 356 rotation, and (4) Column rotation. The contribution of each component
Fu (MPa) 614 633 495 489 is shown in Fig. 12 for all specimens. The drift due to seating of con-
nection sub-assemblage is also included in the figure. Its influence re-
duces by increase in drift. The classic formulations are used to calculate

412
A. Khaloo, R. Bakhtiari Doost
Fig. 4. (a) Test specimen PRCS1 along with cyclic loading actuator and deformation
measuring devices, (b) The LVDTs connected to PRCS1.
Fig. 5. The strain gages attached to PRCS2.
the lateral displacement caused by the four components.
Share of column rotation is insignificant at drift of all specimens.
The drift contribution of PRCS1 and PRCS3 was similar, and as ex-
pected in PRCS2, contribution of beam rotation increased and con-
tribution of joint shear deformation and beam rigid body rotation de-
creased with respect to PRCS1. In PRCS1, PRCS2 and PRCS3
contribution of beam rotation decreased and share of joint shear de-
formation increased along with increase in drift from 0.5% to 6.5%.
This result confirmed that joint shear failure occurred in these samples
at ultimate drift. In PRCS4 the contribution of joint shear deformation
was below 2% due to relatively high stiff joint. Moreover extended
413
Engineering Structures 160 (2018) 408–418
cover plates, in PRCS4 decreased contribution of beam rigid body ro-
tation with respect to PRCS1. Above 2% drift, column plastic rotation
(Cp) contributed in drift component because of occurrence of flexural
crack in column.
3.7. Joint distortion
One of the most important parameters for evaluating the perfor-
mance of a beam-column joint is total joint deformation (TJD). Total
joint deformation consists of deformations caused by beam rigid body
rotation (θrbr) and shear distortion (γ) of connection. The rigid body
rotation and shear distortion of samples for various drift percents is
given in Table 4.
As can be seen γ and θrbr for PRCS2 and PRCS3 are lower than
PRCS1 by approximately 10% at ultimate drift angle. It is noticeable
that at 6.5% drift, in PRCS4 γ is as low as 2% and θrbr is 57% of PRCS1.
This result indicates that specimen PRCS4 is much stiffer than other
specimens and reveals that the extended cover plate plays an important
role not only on the strength increase but also on the enhancement of
the joint response and shear stiffness.
3.8. Load transfer mechanism at the joints
Extended face bearing plates and extended cover plates transfer and
distribute shear stresses from beams to the joint of the specimens.
Extended face bearing plates prevent bearing failure due to localization.
At ultimate drift, no concrete crushing was occurred in the regions of
high bearing stresses located just above and below the steel beam
flanges. Four channels were used in PRCS2 as shear keys. Fig. 13 shows
load transfer mechanism in the joint of specimen PRCS2 at ultimate
drift. In Fig. 13b, “f” is beam flange load determined from equilibrium
equations (Eq. (4)) and “f1”, “f2” and “f3” are internal forces of con-
tinuity plate at selected regions calculated according to the strain gage
results and indicated as fraction of “f”.
Better distribution of transferred load in the joint of PRCS2 than
PRCS1 led to reduction of bearing stress and beam rigid body rotation.
Shear strength in PRCS1, PRCS2, and PRCS3 is provided by inner and
outer concrete struts (Fig. 14). In PRCS2 the outer concrete struts (out
of extended face bearing plates) were mobilized effectively due to
presence of shear keys on the continuity plates.
The use of extended cover plates in PRCS4 provided excellent
concrete confinement at the joint that improved the strength of the
connection. Moreover the shear forces at the joint can be transferred to
the extended cover plates parallel to the beam that resulted in shear
strength increase.
3.9. Shear strength capacity of the joints
The nominal strength of beam and column and equivalent shear at
joint due to nominal strength of beam and column based on the ma-
terial properties is given in Table 5.
In Table 5, Mnb and Vnb are nominal flexural strength and nominal
shear strength of beam, respectively, Mnc and Vnc are nominal flexural
strength and nominal shear strength of column, respectively, and Vjeq is
equivalent shear at joint due to nominal strength of beam and column.
Comparison between equivalent shear at joint in Table 5 and nominal
shear strength of joint in Table 6 validates the joint failure in PRCS1,
PRCS2, and PRCS3.
Shear strength capacity of the joints is measured by the following
equilibrium equations according to Fig. 13 and Fig. 15:
∑ Mb
Vju = −Vc
hb−t f (2)
Vc Lc
Vc Lc = Vb Lb → Vb =
Lb (3)
A. Khaloo, R. Bakhtiari Doost Engineering Structures 160 (2018) 408–418

60
60

Lateral Load (kN)

Lateral Load (kN)
40 40

20 20

0 0
-100 -50 0 50 100 -100 -50 0 50 100
Displacement(mm) Displacement(mm)
-20 -20

-40 -40

-60 -60
(a) (c)

60
80
Lateral Load (kN)

60

Lateral Load (kN)

40

40
20
20
0
-100 -50 0 50 100 0
-100 -50 0 50 100
Displacement(mm)
-20 -20 Displacement(mm)

-40
-40

-60
-60
-80

-80 -100
(b)
(d)
Fig. 6. Lateral load-displacement hysteresis curves for specimens (a) PRCS1, (b) PRCS2, (c) PRCS3, (d) PRCS4.

Lb−hc ⎞ V L L −h calculated as follows:

Mb = Vb ⎛ = c c ⎛ b c⎞
⎝ 2 ⎠ Lb ⎝ 2 ⎠ (4)
∑ Mexp
Vjd = −Vceq
hb−t f (6)
2Mb Lc
Vju = −Vc = ⎡ (L −h )−1⎤ Vc
hb−t f ⎢ Lb (hb−t f ) b c ⎥
⎣ ⎦ (5) Mexp = 1.1Ry Mp (7)
where Vju is ultimate horizontal joint shear strength based on test re- Mp = ZFy (8)
sults, Mb is flexural moment in the beams at the face of connection
zone, Vc is column shear force equal to the applied lateral load at the where Vjd is shear strength demand of the joints, Mexp is expected
top of the column, Vb is beam shear force, Lc and Lb are length of moment capacity of scaled sections of steel beams at the face of con-
column and beam, respectively, hb and tf are steel beam height and nection zone, Vceq is equivalent column shear force due to Mexp calcu-
flange thickness, respectively, and hc is column width. lated based on equilibrium Eq. (4), Ry is ratio of the expected yield
Shear strength demand of the joints was calculated according to stress to the specified minimum yield stress, Mp is nominal plastic
summation of expected moment capacity of scaled sections of steel flexural strength of scaled sections of steel beams, Z and Fy are plastic
beams for special moment resisting frame according to AISC 341-10 modulus and yield strength of scaled section of beam, respectively. For
[21] and AISC 360-10 [22] design codes. The shear strength demand is scaled section of steel beams: Z = 72,515 mm3, Fy = 240 N/mm2, and

414
A. Khaloo, R. Bakhtiari Doost
Fig. 8. Averaged push and pull lateral load-displacement envelope curves of specimens.
Ry = 1.3 that leads to Vjd = 303 kN.
Shear strength demand and capacity of the joints for specimens are
presented in Table 6. Also the nominal shear strength of joint was
calculated according to Parra-Montesinos and Wight [27] and ACI 318-
14 [20] and are given in Table 6. ACI 318-14 [20] is applicable to
specimen PRCS1 and PRCS3 without shear keys on continuity plates.
415
Engineering Structures 160 (2018) 408–418
Fig. 7. (a) Cracking pattern in PRCS1 at 6.5% drift,
(b) Cracking pattern in PRCS2 at 3% drift. (c)
Cracking pattern in PRCS3 at 6.5% drift, (d)
Cracking pattern in PRCS4 at 6.5% drift.
Fig. 9. Averaged push and pull stiffness retention of specimens.
Presence of shear keys in PRCS2 increased shear strength of the joint. In
PRCS3, shear strength of the joint increased with respect to PRCS1, due
to axial load increase of 8%. It is noticeable that shear strength capacity
of joint in PRCS4 is greater than the value presented in Table 6, due to
no joint shear failure. As can be seen in Table 6 all specimens provided
considerable shear resistance and can be used for special moment re-
sisting frame in the earthquake-prone areas.
A. Khaloo, R. Bakhtiari Doost Engineering Structures 160 (2018) 408–418

Table 4
Summary of joint distortion of specimens.

PRCS1 PRCS2 PRCS3 PRCS4

Drift% θrbr γ θrbr γ θrbr γ θrbr γ

0.5 0.0016 0.0004 0.0008 0.0002 0.0011 0.0000 0.0004 0.0001

1.0 0.0029 0.0016 0.0023 0.0008 0.0029 0.0003 0.0013 0.0001
1.5 0.0046 0.0043 0.0040 0.0027 0.0045 0.0021 0.0028 0.0002
2.0 0.0060 0.0071 0.0054 0.0047 0.0060 0.0050 0.0040 0.0002
3.0 0.0090 0.0115 0.0078 0.0090 0.0087 0.0087 0.0058 0.0003
4.0 0.0125 0.0166 0.0105 0.0148 0.0120 0.0140 0.0068 0.0005
5.0 0.0169 0.0238 0.0148 0.0197 0.0161 0.0194 0.0125 0.0006
6.5 0.0221 0.0379 0.0195 0.0332 0.0205 0.0340 0.0126 0.0007
Fig. 10. Averaged push and pull stiffness degradation of specimens.

under quasi-static large displacement reversals was experimentally

evaluated. The performance of connections designed for occurrence of
joint failure was investigated. Based on the experimental results and
evaluations, the following conclusions were drawn:

Fig. 11. Equivalent damping ratios of the specimens.
4. Conclusions and recommendations
In this research, behaviour of four half-scale PRCS connections re-
presenting large-scale subassemblies with different joint configurations
(1) The four connections with different joint details including (a) ex-
tended face bearing plates (b) shear keys and (c) extended cover
plates, demonstrated stable hysteretic response and also provided
considerable joint shear strength.
(2) Increase in column axial load from 7% to 15% of column axial load
capacity increased lateral load capacity by 11% due to increase in
shear strength of the joint.
(3) Lateral load capacity in comparison with reference specimen
PRCS1, for specimen with shear keys (PRCS2) and for specimen
with extended cover plates (PRCS4) increased by 31% and 76%,
respectively.
(4) Presence of shear keys in specimen PRCS2 increased shear strength
of the joint at high drift level by 31% and retained its stiffness better

Fig. 12. Contribution of each component on the drift of specimens (a) PRCS1, (b) PRCS2, (c) PRCS3, (d) PRCS4.

416
A. Khaloo, R. Bakhtiari Doost Engineering Structures 160 (2018) 408–418

Fig. 13. (a) Joint forces, (b) Load transfer mechanism in joint of PRCS2.

Fig. 14. (a) Joint forces, (b) Inner strut, (c) Outer strut.

Table 5 Table 6
Nominal strength of beam and column and equivalent shear at joint. Shear strength capacity and demand of joints.

Specimen Vju shear strength Vjd shear strength Capacity/ Nominal Shear
capacity (kN) demand (kN) Demand Strength
(Experiment) (Calculated)
P&W (kN)
ACI318 (kN)

PRCS1 391 303 1.29 345 342

PRCS2 513 303 1.69 380 –
PRCS3 433 303 1.43 345 342
PRCS4 687 303 2.27 651 –

417
A. Khaloo, R. Bakhtiari Doost
Fig. 15. Equilibrium conditions in connections.
than specimen PRCS1 without shear keys. This enhancement in
behaviour is caused by effective mobilization of outer concrete
struts.
(5) Shear distortion of specimen PRCS4 with extended cover plates was
significantly reduced, due to its considerable joint rigidity with
respect to specimen PRCS1. The use of extended cover plates pro-
vided significant concrete confinement at the joint that increased
bearing strength of the connection and reduced beam rigid body
rotation. Moreover, shear resistance of extended cover plates par-
allel to the beam considerably increased shear strength of the joint.
Based on the experiments and evaluation of test results, connection
sub-assemblage with details similar to joint specimen PRCS4, including:
extended cover plates with vertical shear keys and stiffeners, continuity
plates and transverse reinforcements in joint which provided satisfac-
tory behaviour while preventing joint failure, is recommended. The
practical advantage is the ease of construction by using precast system.
Acknowledgments
Financial support of Iran National Science Foundation (INSF) and
Center of Excellence in Structures and Earthquake Engineering are
greatly appreciated. The authors are grateful to assistance of the
Structural Dynamics Strong Floor laboratory staff at Sharif University of
Technology (SUT).
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the
online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.01.039.
References
[1] Sheikh TM, Deierlein GG, Yura JA, Jirsa JO. Beam-column moment connections for
composite frames: Part 1. J Struct Eng 1989;115(11):2858–76.
418
Engineering Structures 160 (2018) 408–418
[2] Morota M, Izaka Y, Imanaka N, et al. Experimental study on reinforced concrete
column to steel beam joints of tapered-flange-type panels: part 1- outline of ex-
periments. In: Summaries of technical papers of annual meetings, Structures II
1988. Architectural Institute of Japan; 1988. p. 1315–6.
[3] Deierlein GG, Sheikh TM, Yura JA, Jirsa JO. Beam-column moment connections for
composite frames: Part 2. J Struct Eng 1989;115(11):2877–96.
[4] Sakaguchi N. Shear capacity of beam-column connection between steel beams and
reinforced concrete columns. J Struct Constr Eng Arcchit Inst Japan. 1991; 428:
69–78.
[5] Kannno R. Strength, deformation, and seismic resistance of joints between steel
beams and reinforced concrete columns. Doctor Dissertation presented to the
Faculty of Graduate School of Cornell University; 1993.
[6] ASCE Task Committee on Design Criteria for Composite. Structures in steel and
concrete, guidelines for design of joints between steel beams and reinforced con-
crete columns. J Struct Eng 1994;120(8):2330–57.
[7] Toyoshima M, Ozawa J, Yamamoto T. Composite framed structures composed of
steel beams and reinforced concrete columns: Part 3-exterior beam-column joints
Summaries of technical papers of annual meeting, structures II. Arch Inst Jpn
1995:943–4.
[8] Kuramoto H, Nishiyama I. Equivalent damping factor of composite RCS frames. U.
S.-Japan Cooperative Structural Research Project on Composite and Hybrid
Structures; 1998.
[9] Parra-Montesinos G, Wight JK. Seismic response of exterior RC column-to-steel
beam connections. J Struct Eng 2000;126(10):1113–21.
[10] Liang X, Parra-Montesinos GJ. Seismic behavior of reinforced concrete column-steel
beam subassemblies and frame systems. J Struct Eng 2004;130(2):310–9.
[11] Nishiyama I, Kuramoto H, Noguchi H. Guidelines: seismic design of composite re-
inforced concrete and steel buildings. J Struct Eng 2004;130(2):336–42.
[12] Fargier-Gabaldón LB. Seismic behavior of reinforced concrete column-to-steel beam
(RCS) connections with special configurations (Doctoral dissertation). USA: The
University of Michigan; 2005.
[13] Cheng C-T, Chen CC. Seismic behavior of steel beam and reinforced concrete
column connections. J Constr Steel Res 2005;61:587–606.
[14] Alizadeh S, Attari NK, Kazemi MT. The seismic performance of new detailing for
RCS connections. J Constr Steel Res 2013;91:76–88.
[15] Alizadeh S, Attari NK, Kazemi MT. Experimental investigation of RCS connections
performance using self-consolidated concrete. J Constr Steel Res 2015;114:204–16.
[16] Wu Y, Xiao Y, Anderson JC. Seismic behavior of PC column and steel beam com-
posite moment frame with posttensioned connection. J Struct Eng
2009;135(11):1398–407.
[17] Xiao Y, Anderson JC, Wu YT. Development of bolted end plate connections for steel
reinforced concrete composite structures. Adv Struct Steel, Concrete, Composite
Aluminum, ASSCCA 2003:23–5.
[18] Li X, Wu Y, Mao W, Xiao Y, Anderson JC, Guo Y. Bolted end plate connections for
steel reinforced concrete composite structures. Struct Eng Mech
2006;24(3):291–306.
[19] Chou CC, Chen JH. Tests and analyses of a full-scale post-tensioned RCS frame
subassembly. J Constr Steel Res 2010;66(11):1354–65.
[20] ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI
318M–14) and Commentary; 2014.
[21] American Institute of Steel Construction, Seismic provisions for structural steel
buildings. Standard ANSI/AISC 341-10, Chicago, IL, USA; 2010.
[22] American Institute of Steel Construction, Specification for structural steel buildings.
Standard ANSI/AISC 360-10, Chicago, IL, USA; 2010.
[23] Applied Technology Council, Guidelines for cyclic seismic testing of components of
steel structures. ATC-24, Redwood City, CA, USA; 1992.
[24] American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard Specification for Deformed
and Plain Carbon-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement. ASTM A615/A615M-12,
West Conshohocken, PA (USA); 2012.
[25] American society for testing and materials, standard specification for high-strength
low-alloy columbium-vanadium structural steel. ASTM A572/A572M-12. West
Conshohocken (PA, USA); 2012.
[26] Chopra AK. Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake en-
gineering. Prentice-Hall; 2001.
[27] Parra-Montesinos G, Wight JK. Modeling shear behaviour of hybrid RCS beam-
column connections. J Struct Eng 2001;127(1):3–11.