Engineering Structures 299 (2024) 117100

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Experimental study on seismic behavior of RC column-steel beam joints

with whole column-section diaphragm
Yuchen Tao a, b, Siyuan Feng a, Yuanzhang Yang a, Jun Ye a, Weijian Zhao a, b, *
a
College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
b
Center for Balance Architecture, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310000, China

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

Keywords: RC column–steel beam (RCS) frame is one of the most popular hybrid structural systems. Multiple types of RCS
RC column – steel beam joints have been proposed in the last few decades. To avoid undesirable bearing failure, complicated strength­
Beam – column joint ening details were required in RCS joints, which caused difficulties in construction. This study proposed a whole
Whole column section diaphragm
column-section diaphragm type RCS joint with simple details. Compared to most RCS joints, the steel web was
Face bearing plates
Joint shear strength
cut off at the beam-column interface in the proposed joint, which facilitated the arrangement of stirrups and
concrete casting. Moreover, the bearing failure could be avoided since the bearing area of concrete was enlarged
and the local bearing stress decreased, requiring no additional strengthening details. To investigate the seismic
performance of the proposed RCS joint and the impacts of strengthening configurations, four interior joint
specimens were designed, fabricated, and tested under cyclic loading. In addition, joint strengths were calculated
using the existing methods. The test results showed that joint shear failure occurred in all specimens. The
concrete within the hole in the diaphragm has limited influence on joint behavior. The force in flanges could be
fully transferred to concrete through the dowel action of longitudinal reinforcements and friction between the
diaphragm and concrete. The ductility of joints was significantly improved due to the confinement provided by
face bearing plates (FBPs). The orthogonal FBPs could greatly increase the shear resistance of the joint. The
predictions for joint shear strengths following the current calculation methods were significantly conservative. It
confirmed that adequate shear capacity could be obtained although the simplified details were used. The con­
clusions of this research can provide a reference for the engineering application of the RCS hybrid frame.

1. Introduction
RC column–steel beam (RCS) frame structure is a hybrid structure,
capitalizing on the advantages of steel and concrete. RC columns have
great compressive performance and stability, with the cost being lower
than the steel ones. Whilst, steel beams can effectively increase the span
of a building and reduce the self-weight. Moreover, both the steel beams
and RC columns can be prefabricated in the factory to speed up the
construction process. Due to its economic rationality, RCS hybrid
structures had gained popularity with the development of construction
industrialization [1,2].
RCS joints are critical to the performance of framed structures. Due
to the interaction of steel plates and concrete, the failure mode and force
transferring mechanism are more complicated than traditional full steel
or full RC beam-column connections. In the mid-1980s, a few re­
searchers investigated the failure modes of RCS joints [3,4]. Two types
of failure modes were identified through the test results: shear failure
and bearing failure. Shear failure was characterized by the yielding of
steel web and significant concrete spalling in the joint. Bearing failure
can be characterized by the large rigid body rotation of the steel beam
caused by the crushing of concrete above and below the beam flange.
Although both mechanisms can be observed at the same time, bearing
failure should be avoided due to its poor ductility and energy dissipation
ability.
Typical RCS joints can be divided into two types: beam-through type
and column-through type (see Fig. 1). Extensive experimental studies
have been conducted based on these two types of joints in the past few
decades. Previous studies focused on the resistance of RCS joints under
high seismic demand and the effectiveness of strengthening details.
Several widely used strengthening details have been proposed, such as
face bearing plates (FBPs) [5], cover plates [6], transverse beams [7,8]
and steel band plates [8].

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zhaoweijian@zju.edu.cn (W. Zhao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.117100
Received 11 May 2023; Received in revised form 23 September 2023; Accepted 28 October 2023
Available online 3 November 2023
0141-0296/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Tao et al.
Previous studies concluded that novel RCS connections can be
strengthened to meet seismic demand, but at the same time, multiple
combinations of strengthening methods led to poor constructability and
the unified design method was difficult to develop. More recently, some
researchers tended to investigate the novel RCS joints with simplified
details. Alizadeh et al. [9,10] proposed a new joint with additional
bearing plates to increase the bearing capacity. Khaloo [11] investigated
a novel precast joint. The steel web in the joint was replaced by two
channel steel to ease concrete pouring. Lee et al. [12] designed several
RCS connections with simplified details based on ASCE guidelines. The
shape of the stirrups was modified so that the holes in the steel web to let
stirrups pass were not required. A precast post-tensioned RCS connec­
tion was proposed by Wu et al. [13], in which steel beams were con­
nected to precast concrete columns by high-strength rods. Li et al. [14]
proposed novel demountable RCS connections to achieve disassembling
and recycling of the structure members. The damaged components can
be easily replaced after an earthquake. Ou et al. [15,16] developed new
beam-through RCS joints using high-strength concrete and column bars.
Spiral stirrups were proposed to provide confinement for joints. Large-
scale test results showed the proposed joints were applicable to high
seismic zones.
Although multiple types of RCS joints were proposed, some draw­
backs of force transferring and constructability still need to be further
improved. The bearing failure commonly observed in traditional beam-
through connections requires additional strengthening details, such as
steel band plates attached to the beam flange, resulting in construct­
ability issues. In column-through type connections, the cover plates may
experience out-of-plane deformation, which leads to difficulty in
transferring of beam moment to the column. In addition, horizontal
casting was hard to achieve in the factory due to the presence of cover
plates and steel web. Those typical problems restrict the further appli­
cation of most RCS joints.
To address the existing shortcomings, this paper proposed a new
whole column-section diaphragm type RCS connection, as shown in
Fig. 2. The constructability of the joint was improved due to its simple
details. The steel web was cut off at the beam-column interface, which
was convenient for concrete casting and arrangement of joint stirrup.
More importantly, the undesirable bearing failure could be avoided. The
bearing area of the concrete adjacent to the beam flanges was enlarged
and the bearing stress of concrete could be reduced.
For this new type of RCS connection, the joint behavior and influence
of various configurations could not be fully understood based on the
previous research experience. Moreover, existing design methods may
be unsuitable for proposed joints. Thus, further experimental investi­
gation is essential. The objective of this research was to evaluate the
seismic behavior of the proposed joint and the impacts of different de­
tails. Four interior RCS joint specimens were designed and tested under
cyclic loading. Test results were evaluated using several typical calcu­
lation methods. The conclusions of this research can provide a reference
Fig. 1. Typical connection type:(a) beam-through (b) column-through.
2
Engineering Structures 299 (2024) 117100
for the engineering application of the RCS hybrid frame.
2. Test programs
2.1. Specimens design and fabrication
Four 2/3-scale specimens were designed in this research. All the
specimens were designed to achieve joint failure before beam failure or
column failure so that the failure mechanism and the joint strength
could be revealed. As shown in Fig. 3, the specimens consisted of a
concrete column with a 400 mm square section and a steel beam with a
section of 320 × 175 × 10 × 18 mm (depth × flange width × web
thickness × flange thickness). The beam flanges were widened within a
distance of 240 mm near the column surface. The distance between in­
flection points of the column was set as 1800 mm and it was 3000 mm
for the beam.
The longitudinal reinforcements in each column consisted of twelve
22 mm diameter HRB400 rebars representing a reinforcement ratio of ρg
= 2.85 %. For stirrups in the joint, the ASCE guidelines published in
1994 for the design of RCS joints [17] required As / (bsh) ≥ 0.4 %, where
As is the cross-sectional area of stirrups in each layer (4 × 50.3 mm2) and
b is column width (400 mm). To obtain the joint shear failure mode, a
joint stirrup ratio of 0.5 % which is close to the requirement was used in
this test.
Four specimens were designed including base specimen Jbase, J-NO
without concrete pouring hole, J-B with face bearing plates (FBPs), and
J-BB with orthogonal FBPs. The parameters of four specimens are listed
in Table 1. Joint details and the actual beams are shown in Figs. 4 and 5.
Specimen Jbase was designed as a base to evaluate the effects of three
design configurations. A circle hole with a diameter of 160 mm was cut
in the center of the diaphragm. The concrete filled in the hole can be
regarded as a horizontal shear key to transfer the horizontal force in the
beam flange.
Specimen J-NO was similar to specimen Jbase, except for the circle for
concrete pouring was canceled. No additional means were provided for
the transfer of flange forces to the concrete. This specimen was designed
to investigate the effectiveness of concrete shear key, compared to
specimen Jbase.
For specimen J-B, FBPs with a size of 284 × 175 × 10 mm (depth ×
width × thickness) were double-side fillet welded to the beam to
mobilize the loading transfer within the joint. In addition, confinement
for joint regions could be provided by FBPs. The geometry and rein­
forcement arrangement was identical for J-B and Jbase.
The specimen J-BB had the same joint configuration as J-B, but two
orthogonal FBPs were single-side fillet welded to the steel beam. This
specimen can be regarded as the spatial type of J-B since FBPs should be
attached to the beam in both directions for the interior beam-column
joint.
During the manufacturing, the precast I-shape section beams were
Y. Tao et al. Engineering Structures 299 (2024) 117100

Fig. 2. Whole column-section diaphragm type RCS joint.

2.2. Test setup and loading pattern

The test setup designed for this research is shown in Fig. 6. The top
and bottom of the column were pinned with one-direction rotating
support. The axial force was applied on the top surface by a 2000kN
range hydraulic jack. Vertical cyclic loading was applied on the ends of
the beam by two 500 kN range actuators following the loading pattern
shown in Fig. 7, with the positive loading direction defined as the north
beam pulled and the south beam pushed. Before the cyclic loading
process, the axial force was first applied on the top of the column.
Displacement control was adopted for each drift level during the loading
process. Each cycle of drift level was repeated after 0.25 % drift. The
loading process finished when the applied load dropped to 50 % of the
peak load.

2.3. Instrumentations measurements

A pair of measurement frames were fixed to the inflection points of

Fig. 3. Geometry and reinforcement arrangement of test specimens.
first manufactured in the steel member factory and transported to the
precast concrete member factory. All concrete columns were cast hori­
zontally. After the stirrups in the joint core were placed, the longitudinal
reinforcements were passed through the holes, and reinforcement cages
were tied. Then, steel formworks were assembled. Finally, the concrete
was cast and cured until the test day.
the column. As given in Fig. 8, the displacement transducers were fixed
on the measurement frames and the specimens to obtain the displace­
ment of the loading point, the rotation of beams and columns, the rigid
body rotation of beams, and the joint shear deformation. The strain
gauges were attached to the stirrups in the joints, longitudinal re­
inforcements, diaphragms, and orthogonal FBPs. The arrangements will
be illustrated in Section 3.3.
2.4. Material properties
The concrete strength was tested on the day after testing following
the Chinese code GB/T 50081-2019 [18]. The average concrete strength
of standard concrete cubes (150 × 150 × 150 mm) was measured as

Table 1
Parameters of specimens.
Jbase J-NO J-B J-BB

Parameter Base No pouring hole FBP orthogonal FBP

Connection Pouring hole Φ160mm – Φ160mm
Stirrup 4-D8@100 (pjw = 0.50 %; HRB400)
FBP – t10
orthogonal FBP – t10
Beam Section 320 × 175 × 10 × 18 mm
Column Section 400 × 400 mm
Longitudinal bar 12-D22 (pg = 2.85 %)
Stirrup 4-D8@60 (pcw = 0.96 %)
Axial load ratio (N/fc′ Ag ) 0.17

3
Y. Tao et al. Engineering Structures 299 (2024) 117100

Fig. 4. Joint details: (a) Jbase (b) J-NO (c) J-B (d) J-BB.

Fig. 5. Actual steel beams: (a) Jbase (b) J-B (c) J-BB.

56.0 MPa and the average corresponding strength for concrete cylinders
(150 × 150 × 300 mm) was 45.4 MPa [19]. The properties of re­
inforcements and steel plates, shown in Table 2, were obtained by tensile
testing.
3. Test results
3.1. Cracking patterns and hysteretic response
The joint shear failure occurred in all four specimens and severe
damage was exhibited at the end of the test. The cracking patterns of
specimens are shown in Fig. 9. The typical concrete cracks were iden­
tical for all specimens. Diagonal shear cracks started on the joint face at
the first cycle at 0.5 % drift for both loading directions. The cracking
load was about 112–135kN. The angle between the first crack and the
horizontal direction was about 47–49 degrees. Column flexural cracks
occurred at about 20–25 cm height from the beam flange at approxi­
mately 1.0 % drift and were not related to the overall behavior of the
joint.
The base specimen Jbase reached its maximum load at 1.5 % drift. As
the test continued, the intersection of some diagonal concrete led to the
spalling of the concrete in the center of the joint. When loading to 2.0 %
drift, the width of diagonal cracks became larger, exceeding a width of 1
mm. On the tension side of the beam flange, the column has separated
from the diaphragm and a gap of 2 mm width can be observed. As shown
in Fig. 10, the hysteresis curve shows some pinching behavior due to the

4
Y. Tao et al.
Fig. 6. Test setup: (a) sketch (b) photo.
Fig. 7. Loading pattern.
diagonal cracking in the joint region. The joint region deteriorated
rapidly at the 2nd cycle of 2.0 % drift and the applied load dropped
below 50 % of peak load at the end of the test of 3.0 % drift. The
extensive spalling of concrete in the joint region was observed and the
reinforcements were visible. However, the concrete adjacent to the
diaphragm was nearly undamaged.
The cracking pattern and failure mode of specimen J-NO without
pouring hole were nearly identical to those of specimen Jbase. In addi­
tion, the hysteretic curves of those two specimens were similar, as shown
in Fig. 10, except for the applied load at each drift for specimen J-NO
being slightly lower. The concrete in the circle hole was not effective in
improving the seismic of the joint. It can be concluded that the force in
flanges could be fully transferred to concrete through the dowel action
of longitudinal reinforcements and friction between diaphragm and
concrete.
For specimen J-B with FBPs, the cracking propagation was similar to
Jbase before 2.0 % drift. Different from specimen Jbase, only a 5 % drop in
5
Engineering Structures 299 (2024) 117100
applied load was observed compared to peak load at 3.0 % drift, rep­
resenting the amount of damage in the joint reduced. At 4.0 % drift ratio,
severe concrete spalling occurred in the joint region and the applied load
decreased by approximately 20 % of the previous drift. A significant gap
of approximately 5 mm width, between the diaphragm and the sur­
rounding concrete was noticed at 5.0 % drift. The loading process ended
when the loads decreased to below 50 % peak load at 6.0 % drift ratio.
No obvious deformation for FBPs was observed at the end of the test.
Both the joint shear damage and bearing crushing were more severe
compared to Jbase since J-B was loaded to a larger drift. However, rapid
strength degradation like Jbase disappeared and excellent ductility was
revealed in hysteretic response.
For specimen J-BB with orthogonal FBPs, crack propagation in the
center of the joint panel was unable to be observed due to the orthogonal
FBPs. At 2.0 % drift, multiple diagonal cracks were noticed in the joint
region, the maximum width being 1.5 mm, while the specimen reached
peak load. At 3.0 % drift, the concrete in the joint started to spall and
bearing crushing of concrete was observed adjacent to the diaphragm.
Meanwhile, the crack of the welds between the orthogonal FBPs and
diaphragm was observed. The welds between orthogonal FBPs and
diaphragm fully fractured at 4.0 % drift. As shown in Fig. 10, the hys­
teretic curves of J-B and J-BB were almost coincident after 4.0 % drift,
representing the behavior of J-BB was similar to J-B. Nearly all of the
concrete cover in the joint was loose at the end of the test. In this
specimen, more column flexural cracks were recorded due to greater
applied load.
3.2. Envelope curves
The load–displacement envelopes for four specimens were plotted in
Fig. 11. When the base specimen Jbase and J-NO without pouring hole
was loaded beyond 1.5 %, the strength decreased rapidly. Specimen J-B
and J-BB exhibited a good drift capacity of 4.0 % drift until the applied
load decreased to 80 % of the peak load.
The peak loads and corresponding drift are listed in Table 3. The
strength of base specimen Jbase and J-NO without pouring hole were
close, representing the joint strength was not improved using the con­
crete shear key. Compared to Jbase, the peak load increased by less than
Y. Tao et al.
Fig. 8. Displacement transducers arrangement:(a) attached to measurement frames (b) attached to specimen.
Table 2
Material properties of steel.
Steel Application Yield strength fy/MPa
D8 stirrup 484
D22 Longitudinal bar 426
t10 Beam web, FBP 361
t18 Beam flange 356
3 % for J-B. According to previous research [3], the maximum capacity
of a joint with FBPs increased beyond 60 % than a joint without FBPs.
For the specimen in literature [3], the width of FBP was equal to the
beam width and the beam width was less than 1/2 of the column width.
It indicated that force transferring within the joint varied with joint
details. For the joint consisted of a plain steel beam in literature [3], it
has no means other than friction and adhesion to transfer horizontal
force from the beam flange to concrete. When FBPs were welded be­
tween the beam flanges, the tension force in the flange was transferred
through FBPs as bearing stress. Nevertheless, for the proposed RCS joint
in this research, the dowel action of longitudinal reinforcement and
friction between the diaphragm and concrete has been proven to be
sufficient to transfer the force in the flange. Thus the FBPs were less
effective in the proposed whole column-section diaphragm type RCS
joint. For specimen J-BB, the orthogonal FBPs provided additional shear
resistance to the joint and approximately 21 % enhancement for shear
strength was obtained compared to J-B.
3.3. Stiffness of specimens
It can be observed that initial stiffness was similar for all four spec­
imens in Fig. 11. To quantify the stiffness of specimens, the secant
stiffness was calculated as follows:
|P+ | + |P− |
Ks =
|Δ+ | + |Δ− |
where P+ and P- are peak loads at each drift level for positive and
negative direction, respectively; Δ+ and Δ- are corresponding loading
displacements.
The average stiffness of four specimens is approximately 25.2 kN/
mm at 0.25 % drift. After joint shear cracks occurred (0.5 % drift), J-BB
showed the highest stiffness. At 1.0 % drift ratio, Specimen J-BB
exhibited a 14 % increase in stiffness compared to another three speci­
mens, as shown in Table 3. It was mainly due to the confinement pro­
vided by FBPs and orthogonal FBPs, which controlled the growth of
diagonal cracks in the joint and thus, increased the stiffness of the
specimens.
Engineering Structures 299 (2024) 117100
Ultimate strength fu/MPa Elastic module Es/MPa Elongation/%
5
634 2.10 × 10 –
603 2.00 × 105 –
516 1.99 × 105 24.2
559 1.99 × 105 21.3
3.4. Energy dissipation
The energy dissipated by the specimens can be evaluated directly in
terms of the area of the hysteretic hoops. Total dissipated energy before
3.0 % drift for each specimen was listed in Table 3. It can be seen that
specimen J-NO without pouring hole dissipated more energy than
specimen Jbase, although the applied load of specimen J-NO was lower. It
indicated that specimen J-NO exhibited more inelastic activity, which
led to wider hysteresis loops. In addition, the total amount of energy
dissipated before 3.0 % drift increased by 24 % and 34 % for specimen J-
B and J-BB respectively, compared to Jbase (see Table 3). This was mainly
due to the greater applied load of specimen J-B and J-BB at 3.0 % drift.
3.5. Strength degradation
Strength degradation represents the reduction of the load capacity of
specimens at the same displacement level under cyclic loading. The
strength degradation factor in this test can be defined as λi = P2i /P1i ,
where P1i and P2i are peak load for the first cycle and second cycle at i
drift level. The strength degradation factors are depicted in Fig. 12. For
positive and negative loading directions, the factors were nearly iden­
tical. For specimen Jbase and J-NO, the strength degradation factor
initiated to decrease rapidly after 1.5 % drift, and dropped to only 0.7 at
2.0 % drift. The downward trends of the degradation factors of J-B and J-
(1) BB were similar. The strength of the second cycle maintained approxi­
mately 80 % of the first cycle at 5.0 % drift. The strength retention
ability of J-B and J-BB was significantly enhanced due to the presence of
FBPs.
3.6. Measured strains
Typical strain developments of the specimens were analyzed in this
section. Fig. 13(a) and (b) show the strain developments of stirrups in
the joint of specimen Jbase. In Fig. 13(a), the pre-cracking behavior was
represented by negligible strain due to the small tensile stress for the
first two displacement levels. After the first crack formed (100kN), the
tensile stress was primarily resisted by the stirrup, leading to an increase
6
Y. Tao et al.
Fig. 9. Cracking patterns:(a) Jbase (b) J-NO (c) J-B (d) J-BB.
in measured strain. After the joint region was completely cracked, the
strain response was characterized by a linear increase for positive
loading direction and yielding on the peak load point at 1.5 % drift. In
addition, the behaviors of the inner leg and outer leg were comparable,
indicating the shear stress was uniformly distributed over the joint
width. It should be mentioned that the response of this stirrup of Jbase
was representative of the behavior observed in the rest three specimens.
Based on the assumed direction of diagonal cracks, several strain
gauges were attached to the top and bottom stirrup at the corner of the
joint. It can be observed in Fig. 13(b) that a significant increase in the
strain of the stirrup at the corner was observed until 2.0 % drift, while
the applied load had decreased. This was related to the crack propaga­
tion phenomenon. The width of the diagonal shear crack was wider in
the center of the joint but narrower at the corner after cracks occurred.
Therefore, the stirrup in the middle of the joint suffered more shear
stress at the early stage. After the yielding of the middle stirrup, part of
the shear stress was transferred to the stirrups at the corner.
Fig. 14(a) and (b) show the load–strain curves of the longitudinal
reinforcements above the top flange of the steel beam in specimen Jbase
and specimen J-B with FBPs. Linear elastic responses for longitudinal
reinforcements were observed during the test process. Similar trends can
be obtained for the rest specimens. Bond deterioration first appeared at
approximately 1.5 % drift for Jbase, when tension strain was recorded in
the longitudinal reinforcement although the reinforcement was located
in the column compression zone (positive loading direction). After 1.5 %
drift, the tension strain slightly increases for compressive reinforcement
and the growth of tension stain ceased at 3.0 % drift. For specimen J-B,
bond deterioration initiated at 1.0 % drift. At 3.0 % drift, the rein­
forcement tension strain measured in the column compression zone was
beyond 1/3 of that measured when the rebar was in the column tension
7
Engineering Structures 299 (2024) 117100
zone.
The strain of the steel beam flange at different locations was obtained
to study the transfer of forces from the beam flange to the joint region.
Fig. 15 presents the distribution of strain in the beam flange for spec­
imen Jbase and specimen J-NO without pouring hole. Yield strain was not
reached in the steel beam flange during the loading process, even for
specimen J-BB with the maximum beam load. For specimen Jbase, the
strain in the diaphragm in the mid-depth of the column declined by
about 60 % of the edge of the column (tension side) before 1.5 % drift. It
indicated that most of the force in the flange had been already trans­
ferred to the joint over half of the depth. For specimen J-NO, a smaller
tension strain in the diaphragm in the mid-depth of the column was
recorded as well as the edge of the tension side. It is mainly due to the
weakening of the section caused by the circle hole in the center of the
diaphragm. The tensile stress concentrated near the pouring hole,
leading to higher tensile strain.
Fig. 16 shows the development of shear strain of orthogonal FBPs in
J-BB. The shear strain was calculated using the data measured by the
rosette attached to the center. The orthogonal FBPs yielded at approxi­
mately 3.0 % drift and then the shear strain gradually decreased since
the welds fractured. The shear force could not be fully transferred to
orthogonal FBPs after the 3.0 % drift. The shear strength of specimen J-
BB could have increased if the welds did not fracture.
3.7. Displacement analysis
3.7.1. Joint shear deformation
Joint shear deformation in the test specimens can be determined
using the data measured by the diagonal transducers attached to the
joint face [20]. Typical joint shear force - shear deformation responses of
Y. Tao et al. Engineering Structures 299 (2024) 117100

Fig. 10. Hysetertic curves for specimens.

Table 3
Test results of specimens.
Specimen Direction Pmax/ DRmax Ks_0.25/ Ks_1.0/ Etotal_3.0/
kN /% (kN/ (kN/ (kN•m)
mm) mm)

Jbase (+) 236.4 1.5 24.5 14.4 376.9

(− ) − 232.9 − 1.5

J-NO (+) 231.7 1.5 25.7 13.7 426.2

(− ) − 222.1 − 1.5

J-B (+) 242.7 1.5 25.3 14.3 467.5

(− ) − 241.8 − 1.5

J-BB (+) 295.1 2.0 25.4 16.1 503.9

(− ) − 292.3 − 2.0

Fig. 11. Envelope curves for specimens.
specimens are shown in Fig. 17. Shear deformation less than 0.001 rad
was measured before 0.5 % drift when the joint was uncracked. Speci­
mens showed a stable response up to 1.0 % drift. When a beam
displacement of 1.5 % drift was attained approximately 0.01 rad was
measured, which corresponded to moderate damage in the joint. When
the applied load was reversed a significant loss of shear stiffness was
observed, as indicated by the increase in shear deformation from 0.01 to
0.014 rad. Large diagonal cracks and spalling of concrete were noticed
after the peak load was attained, which led to a significant increase in
joint shear deformation. When the displacement was loaded beyond 1.5
% drift, the anchor bolt of the measuring point for diagonal transducers
loosened due to severe joint damage. This led to a larger measured result
than the actual value or asymmetric in hysteretic response. The overall
response for joint shear deformation of J-NO without pouring hole is
similar to Jbase. For specimen J-B with FBPs, a smaller shear deformation
of 0.0065 was measured at 1.5 % drift due to the effect of confinement
provided by FBPs. For specimen J-BB, the joint shear deformation was
unable to obtained due to the malfunction of diagonal transducers.

8
Y. Tao et al.
Fig. 12. Strength degradation of specimens.
3.7.2. Rigid body rotation
Rigid body rotation (RBR) of the steel beam inside the joint normally
occurs in RCS frame systems. This rotation is due to the bearing stress of
the beam flange on the surrounding concrete and the slip of column bars.
Beam RBR can be calculated through the data obtained by transducers
Fig. 13. Strain development of stirrups in the joint of specimen Jbase: (a) middle of the joint (b) diagonal direction.
Fig. 14. Longitudinal reinforcement strain development: (a) Jbase (b) J-B.
9
Engineering Structures 299 (2024) 117100
CBR1 and CBR2 shown in Fig. 8(b) [21].
Fig. 18 shows the load-beam RBR response of different specimens.
The beam RBR of specimen J-NO without pouring hole was similar to
base specimen Jbase, which was not provided in this paper. The devel­
opment of beam RBR of Jbase and J-B with FBPs was similar before 1.5 %
drift. For lateral loads leading to low concrete bearing stress, the RBR of
the steel beam was less than 0.005 rad. At 3.0 % drift, beam RBR of Jbase
was calculated as 0.007 rad, indicating less increase during the post-
peak stage. At the same drift level, beam RBR of J-B has increased to
0.011 rad. With the visible pull-out of the longitudinal bars from the
joint on the tension side of the column, the gap between the diaphragm
and column became wider, leading to the increase of beam RBR. How­
ever, unlike the traditional beam-through joint, no significant gap
caused by vertical bearing was observed during the test process.
The beam RBR of J-BB with orthogonal FBPs was plotted in Fig. 17(b)
for comparison with J-B. The difference between the beam RBR of the
two specimens for each drift level was less than 10 %. The applied load
had a limited effect on the beam RBR.
3.7.3. Displacement contribution
The contributions to the story drift of each mechanism are discussed
in this section. Four primary mechanisms can be concluded: (1) beam
deformation, (2) column deformation, (3) joint shear deformation and
(4) rigid body rotation. During the test process, no inelastic deformation
for beam and column components occurred thus only elastic deforma­
tion was counted. The contributions of beam and column deformation
were calculated as the same method given in literature [20]. The classic
Y. Tao et al. Engineering Structures 299 (2024) 117100

Fig. 15. Strain distribution of steel beam flange: (a) Jbase (b) J-NO.

the contribution of shear deformation was taken as the difference of the

total drift minus the rest components. For J-BB, the measured joint shear
deformation was unreliable due to the malfunction of transducers. Thus,
the measured joint shear deformation of specimen J-BB is replaced by
the difference from the first drift ratio.
The share of column deformation is insignificant for all specimens.
Beam deformation contributed the largest portion until loading up to
0.5 % drift. After that, the contribution of total joint deformation,
including shear deformation and RBR, increased beyond the contribu­
tion of beam deformation. The shear deformation increased rapidly after
1.5 % drift due to the severe shear damage, and correspondingly, the
portion for the rest mechanism reduced. For drift up to 3.0 % drift, joint
shear deformation represented more than 70 % of the total drift, while
the contribution of beam RBR was approximately 23 %. A similar drift
contribution of J-NO without pouring hole could be observed in Fig. 19
(b).
As shown in Fig. 19(c), the growth speed of joint shear deformation
was considerably slower than Jbase in the post-peak stage due to the
confinement of FBPs. The reduction portion of shear deformation was
Fig. 16. Shear strain development of orthogonal FBPs in specimen J-BB.
mainly replaced by RBR, thus the total joint deformation remained
nearly the same as Jbase. At the end of the test (6.0 % drift), the
formulations were used to evaluate the displacement caused by the joint
contribution of joint shear deformation was approximately 57 %. This
shear deformation and rigid body rotation [21]. The contributions of
result confirmed that joint shear failure occurred in J-B. For J-BB with
each component for the specimens are shown in Fig. 19. It should be
orthogonal FBPs, the drift contribution of each component was similar
noted that after 1.5 % drift, the measured value of joint shear defor­
to J-B, except for the contributions of beam deformation increased due
mation was inaccurate due to the severe damage in the joint. Therefore,
to the higher applied loads.

Fig. 17. Joint shear force - shear deformation relationships of specimens: (a) Jbase (b) J-B.

10
Y. Tao et al. Engineering Structures 299 (2024) 117100

Fig. 18. Load-beam RBR relationships of specimens.

Fig. 19. Displacement contributions of specimens: (a) Jbase (b) J-NO (c) J-B (d) J-BB.

4. Strength evaluation capacity of the joint.

In this test, all the specimens experienced joint shear failure. Several 4.1. Joint shear strength
existing calculating methods for RCS joints were adopted to evaluate the
joint shear strength. Moreover, the bearing strength was calculated The joint shear strength was evaluated according to the method
based on the method proposed by Kanno [4] to verify the bearing including Kanno method [4], Parra method [22], and Nishiyama

11
Y. Tao et al. Engineering Structures 299 (2024) 117100

Table 4
Joint shear strength equations.
Kanno [4] Parra [22] Nishiyama [23]

Vj Vj = Vw + Vci + Vs Vj = Vw + Vc Vj = Vw + Vc + Vs + Vp
√̅̅̅ √̅̅̅
Vw 0.6fyw tw jh 0.9fyw tw hc / 3 C1 Aw fyw / 3
√̅̅̅̅
Vc Vci = 0.3fci
′ bh 0.04C2 C3 bc hc fc′ J δ
Vci = 1.65 f′c bi h i c
√̅̅̅̅ Vco = 0.3fco
′ b h
o c
Vco = 1.05 f′c bo h + 0.9Ash fysh hc /sh
√̅̅̅̅
≤ 1.65 f′c bo h
Vs – – 0.25pw fysh bc dmc
√̅̅̅
Vp – – 0.5Af fyf / 3

terms of the beam loads. As shown in Table 5, the predicted shear

Fig. 20. Inner and outer concrete element.
strengths were 54 –83 % of the test results, indicating that shear
strengths were underestimated when the above three methods were
adopted. Significant discreteness of predictions of different methods was
observed. The calculation errors of Kanno and Parra methods were both
greater than 60 %. It was mainly due to the contribution of the outer
concrete element was underestimated for the situation that no addi­
tional shear key was attached to the diaphragm. In addition, the con­
tributions of orthogonal FBPs were not considered in Kanno and Parra
method.
The results of Nishiyama method were relatively accurate, with an
error of approximately 20 %. It can be attributed to the unique coeffi­
cient for the diaphragm in the concrete term. Moreover, the shear ca­
pacity of orthogonal FBPs could be assessed using the calculation
method for cover plates. The orthogonal FBPs contributed approxi­
mately 21 % to joint shear strength. The calculation results of existing
methods indicated that adequate shear resistance can be obtained for the
proposed joint although the simple details were used. However, suitable
evaluation methods for the proposed joint need to be further studied.

method [23]. The calculation equations are given in Table 4. Vw, Vc, Vs,
4.2. Joint bearing strength
and Vp are shear strengths provided by steel web, concrete, transverse
reinforcement, and cover plates. Vci and Vco are strengths of the inner
Based on the method proposed by Kanno [4], it is assumed that the
element and outer element. For the details of the parameters refer to
bearing strength is determined through a standard stress block model
corresponding literature.
shown in Fig. 21. The bearing strength can be calculated as:
Among these three methods, both Kanno method and Parra method
were proposed based on the traditional beam-through RCS connection. Ccn ⋅xcn
Vb,bf = (8a)
The contribution of concrete was divided into inner element and outer (Lb − hb Lb /Lc )
element (see Fig. 20). In Parra method, FBPs within the beam depth
were needed to transfer moment as a minimum requirement. Thus, this Ccn = 0.85fb β1 (hc /2)bj (8b)
method was unsuitable for specimen Jbase and J-NO connection since no
FBPs were attached to the beam. According to Nishiyama, the concrete xcn = (1 − β1 )hc (8c)
component was not divided into separate parts. The shear strength of
whole column-section diaphragm RCS joints can be decomposed into where Vb,bf is beam shear force corresponding to bearing failure; Ccn is
concrete, transverse reinforcements and orthogonal FBPs. Several co­ concrete bearing resistance; 0.85fb is effective concrete strength and fb
efficients in the equations for steel web and concrete parts varied with of 52.2 MPa was used for calculation; β1 is stress block depth coefficient
different joint configurations. calculated as 0.76; bj is effective joint width taken as the diaphragm
Table 5 compares the test strengths and the predicted strengths in

Table 5
Evaluation of test strength.
Specimens Test Joint sheara Joint
results bearing
Kanno Parra Nishiyama

Jbase 236.4 126.41 – 196.30 272

J-NO 231.6 126.41 – 196.30 272
J-B 246.0 200.72 133.93 196.30 272
J-BB 295.1 200.72 (0 %) 160.72 248.84 (21 %) 272
(0 %)
Mean value of 0.64 0.54 0.83 1.09
prediction to test
results
a
Contribution of orthogonal FBPs to shear strength in parentheses. Fig. 21. Vertical bearing load transfer mechanisms.

12
Y. Tao et al.
width of 400 mm; xcn is distance between the center of two stress blocks.
As shown in Table 5, the beam shear force corresponding to bearing
failure was 272kN calculated by the above equation. The bearing
strength was 11–15 % greater than the shear strength for the specimens,
except specimen J-BB with orthogonal FBPs. The maximum beam load
of 295kN for specimen J-BB was about 8 % higher than 272 kN for the
bearing mechanism. The applied load exceeded the predicted strength
for bearing failure. However, joint shear failure can be confirmed based
on the observation of severe joint damage. In addition, most of the drift
was developed by joint shear deformation. Although the joint shear
resistance increased through the strengthening configurations, the
bearing failure mode still could be avoided. It was mainly due to the
decrease in local bearing stress when the bearing area was enlarged
using a whole column-section diaphragm.
5. Conclusions
In this research, a whole column-section diaphragm type RCS beam-
column joint was proposed to avoid undesirable bearing failure with
consideration of constructability. To investigate its seismic performance
and the influences of different strengthening details, four interior RCS
joint specimens were designed and tested under cyclic loading. The test
results and evaluations were summarized as follows:
(1) All the specimens experienced shear failure mode characterized
by the severe crushing of concrete and yielding of stirrups in the
joint. Horizontal concrete shear key has limited impact on the
joint performance, indicating that the force in flanges could be
fully transferred to concrete through the dowel action of longi­
tudinal reinforcements and friction between the diaphragm and
concrete.
(2) The two specimens with FBPs exhibited better drift capacity. The
improved ductility could be attributed to the confinement pro­
vided by FBPs. Different from the previous research, a negligible
increase in ultimate strength was observed for J-B compared to
Jbase. The main reason for this was the dowel action of longitu­
dinal bars and friction between the diaphragm and concrete were
sufficient to transfer the force in flanges to concrete. Thus, the
FBPs in specimen J-B were less effective.
(3) The peak load of J-BB increased by 21 % compared to J-B since
orthogonal FBPs provided shear resistance for the joint. The shear
strength of J-BB could have increased if the welds between the
orthogonal FBPs and diaphragm did not fracture.
(4) Compared to specimen Jbase, the joint shear deformation devel­
oped with lower paces for specimen J-B and J-BB. The reduction
part of joint shear deformation contributed to total drift was
replaced by beam rigid body rotation.
(5) The predictions for joint shear strengths following the existing
current calculation methods were significantly conservative,
indicating adequate shear resistance could be obtained although
simplified joint detail was used in the proposed RCS joint. Suit­
able design methods for the proposed RCS joint need to be further
investigated.
(6) Bearing failure mode can be avoided in the proposed joint
although the joint shear strength was enhanced by strengthening
details. The whole column-section diaphragm increased the
bearing area, which led to a reduction in local bearing stress.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Yuchen Tao: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing,
Visualization, Data curation, Investigation. Siyuan Feng: Data curation,
Investigation. Yuanzhang Yang: Writing – review & editing, Visuali­
zation. Jun Ye: Investigation, Visualization. Weijian Zhao:
13
Engineering Structures 299 (2024) 117100
Conceptualization, Supervision, Project administration, Funding
acquisition.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgement
The research presented in this paper was funded by the Fundamental
Research Funds of Central Universities (2020QNA4029). The research
was also supported by the Center for Balance Architecture of Zhejiang
University.
References
[1] Deierlein GG, Noguchi H. Overview of U.S.-Japan research on the seismic design of
composite reinforced concrete and steel moment frame structures. J Struct Eng
2004;120(1):361–7.
[2] Tao Y, Zhao W, Shu J, Yang Y. Nonlinear finite-element analysis of the seismic
behavior of RC column-steel beam connections with shear failure mode. J Struct
Eng 2004;147(10):4021160.
[3] Sheikh TM. Moment connections between steel beams and concrete columns. The
University of Texas at Austin; 1987. PhD thesis.
[4] Kanno R. Strength, deformation, and seismic resistance of joints between steel
beams and reinforced concrete columns. Cornell University; 1993. PhD Thesis.
[5] 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.
[6] Kuramoto H, Nishiyam I. Seismic performance and stress transferring mechanism
of through-column-type joints for composite reinforced concrete and steel frames.
J Struct Eng 2004;130(2):352–60.
[7] Cheng C-T, Chen C-C. Seismic behavior of steel beam and reinforced concrete
column connections. J Constr Steel Res 2005;61(5):587–606.
[8] Parra-Montesinos G, Wight JK. Seismic response of exterior RC column-to-steel
beam connections. J Struct Eng 2000;126(10):1113–21.
[9] Alizadeh S, Attari NKA, Kazemi MT. Experimental investigation of RCS connections
performance using self-consolidated concrete. J Constr Steel Res 2015;114:204–16.
[10] Alizadeh S, Attari NKA, Kazemi MT. The seismic performance of new detailing for
RCS connections. J Constr Steel Res 2013;91:76–88.
[11] Khaloo A, Bakhtiari Doost R. Seismic performance of precast RC column to steel
beam connections with variable joint configurations. Eng Struct 2018;160:408–18.
[12] Lee H-J, Park H-G, Hwang H-J, Kim C-S. Cyclic lateral load test for RC column-steel
beam joints with simplified connection details. J Struct Eng 2019;145(8):
04019075.
[13] Wu Y, Xiao Y, Anderson JC. Seismic behavior of PC column and steel beam
composite moment frame with posttensioned connection. J Struct Eng 2009;135
(11):1398–407.
[14] Li W, Ye H, Wang Q, Liu H, Ding T, Liu B. Experimental study on the seismic
performance of demountable RCS joints. J Build Eng 2022;49:104082.
[15] Ou Y-C, Nguyen NVB, Wang W-R. Seismic shear behavior of new high-strength
reinforced concrete column and steel beam (New RCS) joints. Eng Struct 2022;265:
114497.
[16] Ou Y-C, Joju J, Lai B-C, Wang J-C. Development and seismic performance
evaluation of New high strength reinforced concrete column and steel beam (New-
RCS) joint. Eng Struct 2023;288:116186.
[17] ASCE Task Committee on Design Criteria for Composite Structures in Steel and
Concrete. Guidelines for design of joints between steel beams and reinforced
concrete columns. J Struct Eng 1994; 120(8): 2330–57.
[18] GB/T 50081-2019 Standard for test methods of concrete physical and mechanical
properties: [S]. Bejing: Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Construction of the
people’s Republic of China; 2019 [in Chinese].
[19] Sabnis GM, Mirza SM. Size effect in model concretes. J Struct Div 1979;105(6):
1007–20.
[20] Park H-G, Hwang H-J, Lee C-H, Park C-H, Lee C-N. Cyclic loading test for concrete-
filled U-shaped steel beam–RC column connections. Eng Struct 2012;36:325–36.
[21] Parra-Montesinos G. Seismic Behavior, Strength and Retrofit of Exterior RC
Column-To-Steel Beam Connections. University of Michigan; 2000. PhD Thesis.
[22] Parra-Montesinos G, Wight JK. Modeling shear behavior of hybrid RCS beam-
column connections. J Struct Eng 2001;127(1):3–11.
[23] Nishiyama I, Kuramoto H, Noguchi H. Guidelines: seismic design of composite
reinforced concrete and steel buildings. J Struct Eng 2004;130(2):336–42.