Structural Design Tall Build - 2024 - Lu - Seismic Behavior of Reduced Beam Section Joints Considering Concrete Floor

Received: 11 February 2023 Revised: 4 December 2023 Accepted: 28 December 2023
DOI: 10.1002/tal.2092
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Seismic behavior of reduced beam section joints considering

concrete floor effect
Shengcan Lu 1 | Liang Luo 2 | Xiangxi Han 3 | Anqi Liu 4
1
School of Civil Engineering and Architecture,
Wuyi University, Jiangmen, China Summary
2
Key Lab of Structures Dynamic Behavior and This study investigates the seismic impact of concrete floors on reduced beam
Control of the Ministry of Education, Harbin
Institute of Technology, Harbin, China section beam-to-column joints through four quasi-static cyclic tests. We examine
3
Key Laboratory of Beibu Gulf Offshore mechanical properties, failure modes, and processes against specific criteria. Addi-
Engineering Equipment and Technology,
tionally, we analyze hysteretic response, energy dissipation, stiffness, capacity, and
Education Department of Guangxi Zhuang
Autonomous Region, Beibu Gulf University, stress–strain mechanisms. Moreover, the ABAQUS platform was used to reproduce
Qinzhou, Guangxi, China
the specimen nonlinear finite element model to compare and analyze the test results.
4
Minzhi Subdistrict Office of Longhua District,
Shenzhen, China
The results showed that the specimens exhibit excellent energy dissipation capacity
and ductility (with a coefficient of 5.00); the column-bar connection characteristics
Correspondence
Liang Luo, Key Lab of Structures Dynamic
affect the maximum capacity and plastic hinge behavior in the reduced beam area.
Behavior and Control of the Ministry of The reduced section of beam's upper flange could not improve the overall seismic
Education, Harbin Institute of Technology,
Harbin 150090, China.
performance of the joint. The observed failure sequence is as follows: concrete floor
Email: 21b933073@stu.hit.edu.cn cracking, beam flange yielding, reinforcement fracture, lower flange yielding in the
reduced beam area, and overall joint failure. This sequence confirms that the joint ful-
Funding information
Jiangmen Basic and Theoretical Science fills the design criteria of a “strong column-weak beam” by achieving the target of
Research Science and Technology Plan Project,
plastic hinge outward movement.
Grant/Award Number: 2023JC01024;
National Natural Science Foundation of China,
Grant/Award Number: 52201304; Guangxi KEYWORDS
Natural Science Foundation, Grant/Award bearing capacity, concrete floor effect, failure modes, plastic hinge, reduced beam
Number: 2019GXNSFAA185044; section joint, stiffness
Fundamental Research Funds for Wuyi
University, Grant/Award Number: BSQD2218
1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N
Steel structures are commonly used in earthquake-prone areas for their robust strength and ductility. Connections in steel frame structures, often
made through welding or H-shaped steel sections, play a crucial role. Plastic deformation at the beam end and connection members is thought to
dissipate energy during earthquakes. Reports from the 1994 Northridge and 1995 Kobe earthquakes revealed brittle fractures at beam-to-column
connections in steel buildings, this raised concerns,1–5 leading to questioning the reliability of current connection methods and proposing alterna-
tives. Various countries' seismic design codes emphasize the “strong column–weak beam, strong connection-weak member” design concept.
Scholars proposed two research directions to meet seismic design requirements: strengthening the connection area and weakening the beam
section.6–14 Strengthening involves enhancing the connected member's strength by increasing flange width and adding cover plates, ribs, and
haunches.15–17 While effective, it complicates the structure, raises costs, and reduces ductility. Weakening the beam section achieves the design
concept by reducing beam flange width and web dimensions. This significantly improves joint ductility and rotation capacity while reducing struc-
tural costs. However, altering beam section parameters leads to varying seismic joint performance.
The reduced beam section simplifies the joint structure and eases construction. It weakens the beam flange, as depicted in Figure 1. Under
earthquake loads, the resistance bending moment in this zone equals the seismic demand. This zone enters the plastic stage first, forming a plastic
hinge. This hinge is away from the beam-to-column weld, reducing stress at the weld and preventing brittle failure. Plastic hinges occur where the
Struct Design Tall Spec Build. 2024;e2092. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tal © 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1 of 24
https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.2092
15417808, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tal.2092 by Indian Institute Of Tech - Roorkee, Wiley Online Library on [11/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 of 24 LU ET AL.
f
c
R
a b
hb
FIGURE 1 Reduced beam section joint.
Beam in reduced area Bending capacity of beam(M u)
Bending capacity
Design moment
0 L
FIGURE 2 Reduced beam section joint design principle.
M/Mu ratio is highest in the structure. The resistance moment Mu is evenly distributed along the beam length. Seismic load-induced bending
moment M is triangularly distributed along the beam length, as shown in Figure 2. Meeting design requirements involves ensuring the M/Mu ratio
in the reduced beam section is greater than other beam sections, allowing it to lead in forming the plastic hinge and achieving outward movement
for the entire joint.
In light of the advantages of reduced beam section joints, a considerable number of scholars have conducted extensive research on the joints
and proposed the corresponding design suggestions and processes.18–30 Mohamad and Kiarash31 carried out experimental research and numerical
analysis on the double reduced beam section joint. Taking the second reduced beam section zone as an auxiliary fuse, the redistribution of mutual
stress and energy consumption characteristics between the two weakened sections were discussed, and the design method of the reduced beam
section joint was proposed. Aboozar and Seyed32,33 proposed a tubular web reduced beam section joint, which involves welding a steel pipe along
the beam web direction, replacing the conventional weakened area of the reduced beam section joint. Cyclic loading tests demonstrated that this
connection facilitates the outward movement of the plastic hinge, enhancing joint deformation ability. The presence of a tubular element in the
plastic hinge zone improves out-of-plane stiffness and transverse torsional stability of the beam. Chen and Jing34,35 introduced a novel buckling
restrained reduced beam section (RRBS) connection. The buckling restraint device is placed outside the reduced beam section to prevent large
local buckling of the flange and web during compression, enhancing seismic performance. Experimental results demonstrate the device's
LU ET AL. 3 of 24
effectiveness in restraining local buckling of the reduced beam section, providing excellent ductility (up to 6.0%). The flexural capacity increases
with higher load amplitudes. The hysteretic curve of the connection with the buckling restraint device remains relatively stable, highlighting its
favorable performance.
Scholars predominantly focus on the reduced beam section joints and their connection forms, neglecting the influence of concrete floors, a
practical factor enhancing stiffness and strength but limiting out-of-plane instability. Including concrete floors complicates the joint's mechanical
behavior under cyclic load, making it more intricate than bare joints. To thoroughly explore seismic performance and mechanical mechanisms with
concrete floor influence, we design four specimens with varied reduced beam section parameters for quasi-static cyclic loading tests. We meticu-
lously analyze how different design parameters impact failure modes, stiffness, bearing capacity, and energy consumption of the joints. Addition-
ally, we employ the ABAQUS nonlinear finite element software to analyze and verify the test specimens.
2 | EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
2.1 | Prototype frame
To reflect the mechanical properties of the actual composite concrete floor structure, a five-story steel frame system with a reduced beam
section joint, located in Guangzhou, was designed based on the Chinese seismic code.6 The specific dimensions of the prototype building and the
position of the selected test specimens are shown in Figure 3. The design seismic acceleration was 0.1 with a basic period of 0.35 s, and the prob-
ability of 50 years was 10%. The dead load (DL) and live load (LL) were 2 and 6 kN/m2, respectively. The steel support system restricted the out-
of-plane deformation of the structure.
2.2 | Design of the test specimens
The members of the reduced beam section joint are designed in line with the following criteria based on the seismic design code and standards of
the steel structure:
(1) The position (a) and the length (b) of the reduced section of the beam are obtained by using Equations (1) and (2), as shown in Figure 1.
a ﬃ ð0:5 0:75Þ bf , ð1Þ
b ﬃ ð0:65 0:85Þ db , ð2Þ
4. 2 4. 2 4. 2 4. 2
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
(a) Plan view (E) Elavation view

Test specimen
FIGURE 3 The specific dimensions of the prototype frame.
4 of 24 LU ET AL.
where bf and db are the width and height of the beam, respectively.
(2) Calculation of the beam flange reduced depth. Assuming c = 0.2bf, the plastic resistance moment (Mpb) of the full section and the plastic
resistance moment (Mpr) of the section where the reduced beam section joint is most weakened are calculated. Moments Mpb and Mpr are calcu-
lated by using Equations (3) and (4). The weakening radius (Ry) of the reduced section is obtained by using Equation (5).
Mpb ¼ Wpb fyb , ð3Þ
Mpr ¼ Cpr Ry Wpr fyb , ð4Þ
4c2 þ b2
Ry ¼ : ð5Þ
8c
When the bending moment (Mf) of the column and beam section is smaller than the plastic resistance moment (Mpr) of the reduced section,
the design meets the requirements; otherwise, the value of c should be increased, but less than or equal to 0.25bf.
(3) The yield moment (Myf) of the beam and column section is obtained by using Equations (6) and (7). The shear force of the column
section is calculated by using Equation (8).
Myf ¼ Cy Mf , ð6Þ
1
Cy ¼ , ð7Þ
Cpr Wpr =Wr
Mf
Vf ¼ 2 þ Vg , ð8Þ
l hc
where Wpr and Wr are the effective plastic and elastic section modulus of the plastic hinge region, respectively; l is the span, hc is the column
height, and Vg is the shear force generated by gravity.
Considering concrete floor mechanical properties and design criteria, we reference the non-exact similarity design methodology for steel
nodes. Exact similarity is challenging between experimental ratios and prototype projects. The main goal is to maintain the basic consistency of
variables in this paper. (the beam parameter tbf, the column parameter tcw with the connection parameters td, ρs, etc.). Four specimens (TA1, TA3,
TB1, and TB3) were designed for cyclic loading tests, including two reduced beam section connections with weakened upper and lower flanges
and two other reduced beam section connections with weakened lower flanges. The main objective of the tests was to discuss the weakening
depth (c) of the reduced beam section connections and the effect of whether the reinforcement was connected to the strut or not on the perfor-
mance and damage mode of the whole connection. The specified details of the reduced beam section joint are shown in Figures 4 and 5. The
dimensions of the members are shown in Table 1. All columns and beams of the specimens were Q345B and Q235B grade steel, respectively.
The columns and beams were hot-rolled I-steel sections. The floors, beams, and columns were 1250 500 20, H200 150 6 9, and
H250 250 9 14 in size, respectively. The length of the beams was 1100 mm, and the height of the column was 1540 mm. C40 concrete
was used to pour the floor slab. HRB400 and HPB300 grade reinforcement were adopted for the longitudinal and horizontal reinforcement of the
floor, respectively. The studs were welded on the center line of the beam flange along the length direction. The diameter and length of the stud
rod were 15.76 and 90 mm, respectively. Meanwhile, the diameter and length of the stud head were 28.8 and 8.1 mm, respectively. The yield
strength of the bolt was 340 MPa, the tensile strength was 370 MPa, and the elongation was 16%.
2.3 | Material properties
According to the criterion of the sampling test in the steel members and products,36 the material of the test specimens was carried out, and the
samples were extracted from the various locations of the specimens. The samples include the concrete block, steel column flanges and web, steel
beam flanges and web, studs, and reinforcements. Take four test steel samples and six test concrete samples at each position and the mean value
of the test samples for the final results. The dimension details of the steel and concrete samples are shown in Figure 6a,b, respectively. The steel
sample tensile and concrete sample compression test results are shown in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. The results of the steel samples include
yield strength (fy), ultimate strength (fu), Young's modulus (E), and elongation (A). The results of concrete samples include compression strength
(fc). These results supply the guide for the cyclic loading test and nonlinear finite element analysis of the specimens.
LU ET AL. 5 of 24
FIGURE 4 The reduced beam section joint (on-site).
Slab
Column
Beam Stud
500
1250
(a) Front view (b) Vertical view
FIGURE 5 Details of the specimens (unit: mm).
TABLE 1 The details of the specimens.
Reduced depth of Reduced depth of Whether the reinforcement is

Specimen Beam section Column section upper flange lower flange welded with the column?
TA1 H200 150 6 9 H250 250 9 14 37.5 37.5 Yes
TA3 0 37.5 Yes
TB1 37.5 37.5 No
TB3 0 37.5 No
6 of 24 LU ET AL.
15
14
(a) Steel test samples (b) Concrete test samples
FIGURE 6 Material test (unit: mm).
TABLE 2 Result of steel tensile test.
Sample fy (MPa) fu (MPa) E (GPa) A (%)

Beam flange 257.2 426.9 201 31.20
Beam web 267.1 437.4 203 30.20
Column flange 372.99 531.12 192 27.13
Column web 392.83 545.6 194 24.89
Stud 255 465 210 16
Steel bar 400 540 200 7.5
TABLE 3 Result of concrete compression test.
Sample No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 No.5 No.6 Mean

Axial pressure (kN) 976.0 801.6 706.0 778.0 832.0 967.0 793.4
Compression strength fc (MPa) 43.4 35.6 31.4 34.6 37.0 43.0 35.3
2.4 | Test setup
The cyclic loading test of the four composite joints was carried out at the State Key Laboratory, Subtropical Building Science, South China Univer-
sity of Technology. The load test device and measurement of the test are shown in Figure 7. The figure shows the important members of the
device with various colors and is marked with (1–10) numbers. The composite joints were placed in the reaction frame (2), which was fixed and
connected with the ground beam (4) through the ground anchor bolt. The column was connected up and down by a one-way hinge (5) that can
limit out-of-plane deformation. The cyclic vertical load was applied by connecting the Mechanical Testing and Simulation MTS actuator (1) (A 150
ton, ±250 mm) fixed on the reaction frame with the beam end clamp (10) to make the floor (7) work together with the steel beam embedded with
studs (6). The top of the column was connected with a hydraulic jack (3) and a loading bar (9) to limit lateral deformation, while an axial pressure
with an axial compression ratio of 0.3 was applied. A mount of strain gauges and displacement meters (8) were arranged at the key positions of
the stress and deformation to capture the specimens during the cyclic loading.
2.5 | Loading procedure
The displacement loading procedure recommended by the American seismic code was adopted in this test, as shown in Figure 8. The loading was
controlled by the story drift ratio, and the loading test process was divided into two stages. Firstly, a 2000kN hydraulic jack on the column top
was used to apply axial pressure on the column top, with an axial pressure ratio of 0.3, and remained constant. Secondly, a pseudo-static recipro-
cating load was exerted at the end of the beam by using the vertical displacement loading procedure. Six cyclic loadings were applied with top
LU ET AL. 7 of 24
(a) Diagrams of loading and measurement. (b) Site experiment photos.
FIGURE 7 Test setup schematic and site plan layout.
10
8%
8 7%
6 6%
5%
4%
4 3%
2%
Rotation(%)
2 0.375% 0.5% 0.75% 1% 1.5%

0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Cycles(n)
FIGURE 8 Displacement controlled test procedure.
story drift ratios of 0.375%, 0.5%, and 0.75% and a loading speed of 0.0167%/min. Thereafter, four cyclic loadings were applied with a top-story
drift ratio of 1.0%. Two cycles with top story drift ratios of 1.5%, 2.0%, and 3.0% were applied until 8% or the test failure, and the loading speed
was 0.4%/min. The load was stopped when one of the following conditions was met: (1) the load decreased below 85% of the peak load; (2) the
column buckled; and (3) breakage and serious buckling deformation occurred in the beam and column.
2.6 | Instrumentation
According to the purpose of the test, displacement gauges and force transducers were arranged to measure the forces and deformations at the
beam and column ends. A large number of strain gauges and claws are also arranged to monitor the stress changes of the various parts, mainly
including the stress and strain distribution at the beam end and flange at the reduced beam section joint, the shear deformation of the column
web, the stress distribution near the shear studs, the steel bar stress distribution in the floor, and the concrete crack development. The specific
distribution of the strain gauges and claws is shown in Figure 9. The data and pictures are transmitted to the computer through the image and
data acquisition system for real-time monitoring and analysis.
8 of 24 LU ET AL.
Claw strain gauge

Strain gauge
1 2 3 4 5
W1 W2 W3 W4 W5
(a) Web of beam and column (b) Reduced beam flange
1 2 3 4 5
(c) Beam flange (d) Rebars
FIGURE 9 Arrangement of strain gauges.
3 | EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 | Failure criterion
To discuss the seismic performance and failure mode of the specimen, the primary task is to determine each performance point according to the
capacity curve of the specimen and the corresponding failure criteria. According to Huang et al., Park, and Lu and Wang,37–39 the methods for
determining the structural failure criteria mainly include the bearing capacity method and the displacement control method. In this work, the bear-
ing capacity control method is used to determine the yield point of the specimen, including the graphic, area, and R. Park (RP) methods. The aver-
age value of the three methods is taken as the final yield point of the specimen. The failure point of the specimen is 85% of the peak point
according to the capacity curve of the specimen. The three methods are shown in Figure 10. Additional details are provided in the study of Lu
and Wang40,41 published earlier by the author.
3.2 | Failure modes and observation
1. Specimen TA1
Specimen TA1 had weakened upper and lower flanges at the beam end, with steel bars welded to the column. Vertical cyclic load was applied
at the beam end. In the initial loading stage, no evident damage occurred, and the bearing capacity curve increased linearly. Yielding story drift
(θ = 0.8%–0.9%) resulted in concrete floor cracks. Crack numbers increased significantly at θ = 1.0%. At 2%–3% drift, a large inclined crack
appeared on one side of the floor. Steel bars were then noisily pulled off. No apparent damage to the steel beam was observed, but the web's
oxide layer started falling off (Figure 11a). Strain gauge data indicated the beam web entered the yield stage. At θ = ±4%, slight buckling occurred
at the lower flange's reduced beam section, with no significant web damage (Figure 11b). Severe buckling without fracture occurred at θ = ±5%–
±6%, while the upper flange retained its original stress state (Figure 11c,d). The test terminated due to severe buckling of the beam flange. The
specimen's failure process: concrete floor crack-beam flange yielding-steel bar fracture-lower flange buckling of the reduced beam section. These
modes demonstrated compliance with the strong column–weak beam failure mechanism and excellent energy dissipation capacity.
LU ET AL. 9 of 24
S2
A C A B
Q Q
Q
A
B
S1
(a) Graphic method (b) Area method (c) RP method
FIGURE 10 Performance division methods of the structure.
(a) =3.0% (b) =4.0%
(c) =5.0% (d) =6.0%
FIGURE 11 Failure process of specimen TA1.
2. Specimen TA3
Specimen TA3 had weakened lower flanges at the beam end, welded with the column. Initially, no damage was evident during loading. How-
ever, subtle cracks appeared on the concrete floor at θ = ±0.75%, growing as loading progressed to θ = 1.0%–1.5%. Other parts remained
undamaged. Steel bars on the floor broke with noise, and fish lines on the beam web indicated yield. At θ = 2.0%–3.0%, a large inclined crack
formed on the concrete floor side, with slight buckling of the beam web and lower flange (Figure 12a). The capacity curve showed a gradual
10 of 24 LU ET AL.
(a) 3.0% (b) 4.0%
(c) 5.0% (d) 6.0%
FIGURE 12 Failure process of specimen TA3.
decline. Severe buckling occurred at θ = 4.0%–5.0% (Figure 12b,c). At θ = 6.0%, excessive buckling at the lower flange led to a complete fracture
of the reduced beam section (Figure 12d), terminating the test. Upper flanges maintained yield energy consumption, aligning with the strong
column–weak beam mechanism in the failure mode.
3. Specimen TB1
The lower and upper flanges of the reduced beam section zone of specimen TB1 were weakened, and the steel bars were not welded with
the column. The specimen had no obvious damage at the initial stage of loading. A crack gradually appeared with the increase in load. When the
specimen was loaded to θ = +1.5%, the concrete crack was slightly enlarged. When the story drift ratio was θ = 2.0%–3.0%, a large inclined
crack appeared on one side of the concrete floor, the crack on the other side changes was not obvious, and the web was slightly buckled and
deformed according to the data monitor (Figure 13a). When the load was θ = ±4.0%, the reduced beam section of the lower flange and web buck-
led. The upper flanges of the beam remained in the energy consumption stage (Figure 13b). During the last loading test (θ = 5.0%–6.0%), severe
buckling occurred at the lower flange of the reduced beam section zone, but no obvious fracture was observed. The web was cracked at the place
where it contacts the reduced beam section zone of the lower flange (Figure 13c,d). During the whole process, the failure of the specimen was as
follows: concrete floor crack-beam flange yielding-lower flange buckling of reduced beam section-web crack.
4. Specimen TB3
Specimen TB3 had weakened upper flanges in the reduced beam section, with non-welded steel bars to the column. Initially, no damage was
observed during the initial loading. At a story drift ratio of θ = +1.5%, inclined cracks appeared on the concrete floor side, and the beam web
LU ET AL. 11 of 24
(a) =3.0% (b) =4.0%
(c) 5.0% (d) 6.0%
FIGURE 13 Failure process of specimen TB1.
started to yield. Upon reaching θ = +2.0%, numerous cracks emerged on the floor and the lower flange of the reduced beam section slightly
buckled. Progressing to θ = 3.0%, severe buckling occurred at the lower flange, and the web exhibited buckling and slight bulging to one side (see
Figure 14a). Further loading to θ = 4.0%–5.0% led to severe buckling of the dog bone at the lower flange, with the web buckling, bulging, and
cracks forming in the deepest part of the reduced beam section (see Figure 14b,c). At θ = 6.0%, the reduced beam section completely failed,
resulting in specimen destruction (see Figure 14d). Throughout, the upper flange showed no noticeable failure, and beam-column welds remained
undamaged. The entire specimen exhibited the failure mode of a strong column–weak beam.
The tests on the four specimens revealed that the lower flange of the reduced beam section began to buckle at a loading story drift ratio of
approximately 3%. Specimens TA3 and TB3 ultimately failed due to fractures in the lower flange and web of the reduced beam section. However,
TA1 and TA3 did not experience fracture failure; instead, their bearing capacity significantly decreased due to severe buckling. Throughout load-
ing, plastic hinges formed in the reduced beam section of all specimens, with minimal damage to the upper flange.
In summary, testing four reduced beam section joints with floor slabs showed that damage mainly occurred in the weakening flanges, while
weld joints remained intact. Plastic hinges formed in the reduced beam section, achieving the desired outward displacement. Despite concrete
cracks and some pinch shrinkage in the energy consumption curve during the transition from forward to reverse loading, overall deformation and
energy consumption capacity remained satisfactory. Observations during the test process revealed plastic hinge formation around +30 mm load-
ing, concentrated in the reduced beam section, with no plastic hinge formation at the beam-column weld joints.
3.3 | Hysteretic response
Figure 15 displays the hysteretic behavior of four specimens during cyclic loading tests. All specimens exhibit significant hysteresis, showcasing
excellent seismic performance with efficient energy dissipation. Plastic hinges form in the reduced beam section zone, allowing rotations exceed-
ing 5%, indicating robust rotation capacity. In all test specimens, the upper half of the hysteretic curve is complete. However, large cracks on the
concrete floor hinder immediate force transmission, leading to a pinch phenomenon in the lower right part of the curves.
12 of 24 LU ET AL.
(a) =3.0% (b) =4.0%
(c) 5.0% (d) 6.0%
FIGURE 14 Failure process of specimen TB3.
Comparing groups A (specimens: TA1 and TA3) and B (specimens: TB1 and TB3), both show similar maximum load values for concrete com-
pression. Yet, under forward loading with a 2% story drift ratio, group A exhibits a larger maximum load value than group B due to the distinct
steel bar and column welding conditions. However, after a 3% story drift ratio, steel bars in group A fracture, and subsequent hysteresis curves
match those of group B. Specimens TA1 and TA3, as well as TB1 and TB3, demonstrate identical hysteretic curves, suggesting little influence on
specimen performance and whether the upper flange's reduced beam section is weakened or not.
3.4 | Strain analysis
Buckling failure occurred at the lower flange of the reduced beam section in all test specimens, while the upper flange remained unaffected. Strain
data from the lower flange at load levels of ±1%, ±2%, ±3%, ±4%, and ±5% were extracted for analysis, as depicted in Figure 9b.
Figure 16 illustrates the strain distribution along the beam length of the TA1 specimen's lower flange under various load levels. In Figure 16a,
the +1% and +2% curves are similar. At +3%, the No. 3 strain gauge shifts from negative to positive, indicating buckling in the reduced beam sec-
tion. At +4% and +5%, the No. 4 strain gauge exhibits severe buckling. In reverse loading (Figure 16b), the No. 3 strain gauge significantly
changes at 3%, while others remain similar.
For test specimen TA3, Figure 17 displays the strain distribution along the beam length. Under cyclic loading, θ = +1.0% and θ = +2.0%
strains show minimal difference, with the No. 3 strain gauge registering the maximum negative peak. At θ = +2.0%, the No. 3 strain gauge
abruptly changes, indicating buckling in the reduced beam section (Figure 17b). This behavior is consistent during reverse loading at θ = 3.0%,
with the No. 3 strain gauge consistently at the maximum value (Figure 17b).
In Figure 18, the strain distribution of test specimen TB1's lower flange along the beam length direction is presented. During pre-loading in
specimens TA1 and TA3, strain values abruptly change at +3% load (Figure 18a). Strain No. 2 surpasses No. 3 from +3% to +5%. Under reverse
load, strain gauge No. 3 steadily increases, reaching the maximum during loading (Figure 18b).
LU ET AL. 13 of 24
(a) TA1 (b) TA3
(c) TB1 (d) TB3
FIGURE 15 The hysteresis curve of each specimen.
(a) Positive direction loading (b) Negative direction loading
FIGURE 16 Strain distribution of lower flange of TA1 specimen.
Figure 19 depicts the strain distribution of test specimen TB1's lower flange. Similar strain distribution occurs at +10 and +20 mm positive
loads, with a sudden change at +30 mm, aligning with other specimens' behavior. Under reverse load, No. 3 strain gauge values rise with load
increase, reaching the overall maximum.
Analyzing the strain data, the strain curve remains constant at ±10 and ±20 mm loads, indicating no significant buckling failure. At +30 mm
load, the No. 3 strain curve exhibits a noticeable mutation, indicating the reduced beam section zone enters the buckling stage. After buckling,
No. 2, 3, and 4 strain gauges show sudden changes, while gauges 1 and 5 remain consistent, signifying plastic hinge formation in the reduced
beam section zone and no hinges at both ends, aligning with test specimen failures.
14 of 24 LU ET AL.
FIGURE 17 Strain distribution of lower flange of TA3 specimen.
FIGURE 18 Strain distribution of lower flange of TB1 specimen.
FIGURE 19 Strain distribution of lower flange of TB3 specimen.
3.4.1 | Energy dissipation
The energy dissipation capacity of a structure is an important index to evaluate its performance under earthquake loads. During the earthquake,
the seismic energy is inputted into the structure in the form of waves. Then, the structure needs to dissipate energy through the interaction and
LU ET AL. 15 of 24
FIGURE 20 Schematic diagram of energy consumption calculation.
deformation of its components. Different materials and structural forms lead to varying energy dissipation capacities. To study the differences in
energy dissipation capacities, the cumulative energy consumption (Ec) and energy consumption of each load level (Ee) are used to evaluate the
energy consumption capacity of the test specimens, as illustrated in Equations (9)–(11).
Ee ¼ 2πξe , ð9Þ
X
Ec ¼ Ee , ð10Þ
1 SABC þ SCEB
ξe ¼ , ð11Þ
2π SOAD þ SOEF
where ξe is the equivalent damping coefficient; SABC, SCEB, SOAD, and SOEF are the areas of curves ABC, CEB, OAD, and OEF, respectively, as
shown in Figure 20.
Cumulated energy dissipation (Ec) and cyclic energy dissipation (Ee) increase with loading stages, indicating excellent and stable energy dissi-
pation in the specimens, as depicted in Figure 21. Energy dissipation steadily rises with the loading level, totaling between 90 and 120 kJ. Test
specimen TB3 shows 15.5 kJ dissipation per level, while test specimen TA1 has the largest total energy dissipation, 1.2 times that of TB1. Com-
paring TA1 and TA3, the energy dissipation growth trend is consistent. The upper flange weakening in the reduced beam section minimally
impacts the overall joint's energy dissipation capacity. Contrasting TA3 and TB3, the connection status of steel bars in the floor and column has
little effect on overall joint energy dissipation. The primary energy dissipation occurs after concrete cracks, and the steel bars connected with the
column break during this phase.
3.4.2 | Stiffness
Under the cyclic load, when the same peak load is maintained, the displacement of the peak point increases with the increase in the number of
cycles, which is called stiffness degradation. Secant stiffness is typically used to evaluate the degradation of the overall stiffness of the steel struc-
ture specimens. The calculation of secant stiffness is shown in Equation (12).

Mj þ þMj
K j ¼ , ð12Þ
θj þ þθj
where Mi is the bending moment at the peak point of the i-th cyclic load, and θi is the rotation of the peak point of the i-th cycle load.
Figure 22 illustrates the stiffness degradation curves for the four test specimens. The secant stiffness of all specimens decreases with the
load, primarily due to concrete floor cracking, floor steel bar fracture, and buckling failure in the reduced beam section area during cyclic loading.
Comparing the data in Figure 22, test specimens TA1 and TA3 exhibit the highest initial secant stiffness. However, the rate of decrease of secant
16 of 24 LU ET AL.
18 140
TA1
16 TA3 120 TA1
TB1 TA3
14 TB1
TB3 100
12 TB3
80
10
Ec(KJ)
Ee(KJ)
8 60
6 40
4 20
2
0
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(%) (%)
FIGURE 21 Energy consumption calculation.
24000
20000 TA1
TA3
16000 TB1
TB3
Kj(kN·m/rad)
12000
8000
4000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(%)
FIGURE 22 Stiffness degradation curve.
stiffness increases with the increase in loads, suggesting that the steel bar-column connection enhances initial secant stiffness to some extent.
Specifically, TA3's initial secant stiffness is 470 Nm/rad higher than TA1, and TB3's is 450 Nm/rad higher than TB1. This indicates that reducing
the flange in the reduced beam section zone diminishes overall stiffness. Beyond a 3% load, the zone buckles, and stiffness reduction follows a
consistent trend.
3.5 | Bearing capacity and ductility
Specimens' bearing capacity, derived from hysteretic behavior curves, reveals strength and stiffness degradation post-loading (Figure 23). Strength
increases with rotation increment, indicating stable mechanical behavior until the final test stage. Slight differences in test values result from vary-
ing welding conditions between steel bars and columns, with group A exhibiting higher strength than group B. Notably, steel bars break when the
story drift ratio reaches 3%, with subsequent hysteresis curves remaining consistent.
Table 4 illustrates the performance points of the specimens, including the yield point, peak point, failure point, limit point, and ductility coeffi-
cient, which were calculated by the bearing capacity curves based on the failure criteria (Section 3.1). The failure point is the point at which the
bearing capacity of the test specimen decreases to 85% of the peak value. Meanwhile, the limit point is the point at which the test is terminated.
The ductility coefficient (μ) can be calculated by the failure and yield deformation as calculated by μ = θf/θy. The specimens can sustain the maxi-
mum rotation deformation (θ) of the tests from 0.772% to 6%, and the average values of yield deformation (θy) of the specimens are 0.92%, which
are approximately 2.3 times [θy] = 0.4%, respectively. In the equation above, [θy] is the proposed yield rotation deformation of the steel frame
structures.32 The average values of the failure rotation (θu) of the specimens are from 3.0% to 6.0%, which are approximately 1.5–3 times [θu]
LU ET AL. 17 of 24
150
TA1
100 TA3
TB1
50 TB3
M (kN·m)
-50
-100
-150
-200
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
(%)
FIGURE 23 Bearing capacity curves of the specimens.
TABLE 4 Bearing capacity and ductility.
Yield point Peak point Failure point Limit point
Specimen Direction θy (%) Fy θp (%) Fp θu (%) Ff θl (%) Fl Ductility (μ)

TA1 + 0.814 109.70 1.242 123.77 3.183 105.75 6.067 66.06 4.006
0.954 136.57 2.539 158.53 6.024 129.81 6.056 112.36 6.328
TA3 + 0.772 107.27 1.436 120.10 3.182 102.08 6.044 64.89 4.124
0.995 142.60 3.387 171.72 5.247 146.12 6.056 78.39 4.716
TB1 + 0.857 91.78 2.345 102.38 4.548 87.174 6.044 71.01 5.312
1.071 150.69 3.281 178.78 5.578 154.00 6.067 132.93 5.236
TB3 + 0.861 100.09 2.009 112.84 3.623 95.057 6.051 61.71 4.214
1.032 141.19 3.474 165.39 5.616 139.33 6.076 53.70 5.489
= 2.0%. In the equation above, [θu] is the proposed ultimate rotation of the steel frame structures. The values of [θy] and [θu] are shown in the
red brackets in Table 4. The ductility coefficient of the specimens is approximately 5.00, indicating that the specimens exhibited excellent plastic
deformation ability and reliable ductility.
4 | NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
4.1 | Numerical modeling
A 3D finite element model is constructed in ABAQUS42 to analyze and verify seismic behavior. The model comprises columns, beams, studs, steel
bars, and a concrete floor. We use C3D8R elements and structured grid technology for efficiency. Beam, column, concrete floor, and stud grid
sizes are 10, 10, 5, and 5 mm, respectively, with four layers in the thickness direction (Figure 24a).
The finite model's boundary condition mirrors the specimens (Figure 24b). The axial force at the column top aligns with the test, applied at an
axial compression ratio of 0.3. A displacement cyclic load is applied at the beam's end. The model incorporates five contact types: beam-column,
column-concrete floor, beam-concrete floor, concrete floor-steel rebar, and column-steel rebar. The “Tie” command ties beam-column, beam-
concrete floor, and column-steel rebar contacts. The “Embed” command embeds steel rebar-concrete floor contact. Other contract surfaces use
“surface-surface” commands with Normal hard and tangential Coulomb contracts.
The finite model shares the same boundary condition as the specimens, depicted in Figure 24b. The test specimen's column top experiences
an axial force matching the test applied at an axial compression ratio of 0.3. A displacement cyclic load is directed at the beam's end. The finite
model involves five contact types: beam-column, column-concrete floor, beam-concrete floor, concrete floor-steel rebar, and column-steel rebar.
18 of 24 LU ET AL.
Rp1
Boundary condition
(U1=U2=U3=R1=R2=0)
Disp load
Rp1
Boundary condition
Rp3 (U1=U2=U3=R1=R2=0)
(a) Mesh of the parts (b) Boundary condition
FIGURE 24 ABAQUS model of the test specimen.
The “Tie” command secures the contact between the beam-column, beam-concrete floor, and column-steel rebar. The “Embed” command inte-
grates the steel rebar and concrete floor contact, while other surfaces employ the “surface-surface” command, featuring Normal hard and tangen-
tial Coulomb contact.
Material properties, derived from test results (Table 2), include steel, steel bar, and concrete. A tri-linear model assesses the stress–strain rela-
tionship, considering steel members' hardening effect (Figure 25). Fracture characteristics of the weld and steel member aren't considered in the
finite model.
The steel rebar adopts the elastic modulus value from concrete structure design codes. Concrete uses a plastic damage model with specific
parameters. Concrete strength conversion aligns with material property test results (Section 2.3), detailed in Equations (13)–(15).
f c ¼ αc f cu , ð13Þ
f t ¼ 0:385 f 0:55
cu , ð14Þ
105
Ec ¼ , ð15Þ
2:2 þ 34:7=f cu
where fcu is the cube compressive strength of concrete, fc is the axial compressive strength of concrete, and ft is the axial tensile strength of con-
crete. The axial tensile and compressive strength and elastic modulus of concrete are obtained by using Equations (13)–(15), as shown in Table 5.
To comprehensively compare and analyze the seismic performance of the specimens, in addition to calculating the specimens related to
experiments, the specimens without floor slabs were also calculated. However, when there was no floor slab, the connection types between
Group A specimens and Group B specimens were consistent. Therefore, Group A specimens without floor slabs were selected for calculation,
named TA1-NF and TA3-NF, respectively. All parameters are consistent with those with floor slabs.
4.2 | Comparative analysis of the skeleton curve
Figure 26 shows a comparison diagram of the skeleton curves obtained by the test and the finite element model. The figure shows that the test
results and the finite element model fit well in the process of reverse loading because the concrete floor plays a combined role of compression in
the reverse loading, indicating that the selected concrete damage constitutive model is reasonable.
By comparing and analyzing the ABAQUS models of specimens TA1 and TA3 with TA3-NF and TA3-NF, it can be seen that the changing
trend of the specimen capacity curve is basically consistent (see Figure 26a,b). However, it is found that the concrete floor significantly improves
the stiffness of the overall joint, but reduces the non-linear deformation capacity. The maximum bearing capacity in the positive and negative
directions deviated due to the reduced section regions of specimens TA1-NF and TA3-NF gradually entering yield or buckling as the load
increased. Meanwhile, the bearing capacity of specimens TA1-NF and TA3-NF was significantly lower than that of the specimens with a concrete
LU ET AL. 19 of 24
y st
0 y u
FIGURE 25 Constitutive model of steel.
TABLE 5 Concrete material parameters.
fcu (N/mm ) 2
fc (N/mm2) ft (N/mm2) Ec (N/mm2)
35.30 26.83 2.73 31,416
floor. When subjected to positive loading in the last stage, the concrete floor gradually exits the working state, resulting in a decrease in the
inelastic deformation capacity of the overall joint with a concrete floor.
The comparison of test and finite element results in groups A and B revealed differences in peak values. Group A exhibited asynchronous cur-
ves due to early-stage oblique cracks in the steel bars of the concrete floor, leading to reinforcement failure in the test. Finite element simulation
could not fully replicate steel bar failure, resulting in disparities between finite element and test results. The positive skeleton curves of TB1 and
TB3 indicated a 9% increase in TB3's bending capacity over TB1. However, TB3's ductility decreased by 20%, suggesting that weakening the
upper flange improves joint strength to some extent but significantly reduces ductility.
4.3 | Analysis of the development process of plastic hinge
Figure 27 depicts finite element analysis results for test specimen TA1. At a 3% load, the initial yield occurs at the lower flange of the beam, enter-
ing the plastic stage in the reduced beam section zone. With a 4% load, the yield area at the lower flange expands, forming an evident plastic
hinge region in the reduced beam section. At a 5% load, the web in the reduced beam section yields mostly, with slight yielding at the upper
flange. The overall plastic hinge area development is gradual, spreading from the reduced beam section zone of the lower flange to the web's mid-
dle. Throughout this stage, stress at the column–beam weld area remains low, aligning with test results.
The comparison of the ABAQUS calculation results of Group A shows that the reduced beam section joint also can fully realize the mecha-
nism of plastic hinge outward movement, meeting the design criteria of strong columns and weak beams. By comparing the stress nephogram
(see Figures 27–30), it can be seen that there is a significant difference in the order of floor failure of the specimens when considering the con-
crete floor. Without considering the concrete floor, severe plastic deformation first occurs at the reduced section area before the overall joint fail-
ure, while considering the concrete floor, the concrete floor first fails, followed by yielding or buckling in the reduced section area. This effectively
affects the development process of beam failure. Therefore, by comparing the specimens, it is once again verified that this study has practical
value and significance.
Figure 30 illustrates the analysis of test specimen TA3. At 3% load, the lower flange yields, but the web does not. Plasticity initiates only in
the reduced beam section of the lower flange. At 4% load, a part of the web connected to the lower flange's dog bone reaches yield stress, for-
ming an evident plastic hinge. At 5% load, a large area of the lower flange's dog bone and its connected web yield, while the upper flange does
not. The overall plastic hinge development aligns with TA1.
In Figure 31, the analysis of test specimen TB1 is presented. At 3% load, a small area at the lower flange's dog bone yields, but the web does
not reach yield stress. At 4% load, the lower flange's dog bone yields extensively, and the connected web yields in a smaller area; the upper flange
LU ET AL.
8
6
4
2
(d) TB3
(%)
(b) TA3
0
ABAQUS
-2
TEST
-4
-6
150
100
50
-50
-100
-150
-200
M (kN·m)
Comparison of finite element and test skeleton curves.

6
4
Plastic hinge development of specimen TA1.

2
(c) TB1
(%)
0
(a) TA1
ABAQUS
-2
TEST
-4
-6
150
100
50
-50
-100
-150
-200
FIGURE 26
FIGURE 27
20 of 24
M (kN·m)
LU ET AL. 21 of 24
(a) =3.0% (b) =4.0% (c) =5.0%
FIGURE 28 Plastic hinge development of specimen TA1-NF.
FIGURE 29 Plastic hinge development of specimen TA3-NF.
FIGURE 30 Plastic hinge development of specimen TA3.
remains below the yield stress. At 5% load, the lower flange's dog bone and its connected web yield widely, while the upper flange's dog bone
yields in a smaller area. The plastic hinge concentrates in the lower flange's dog bone and the web's lower half, gradually spreading towards the
middle of the web, consistent with the test results.
22 of 24 LU ET AL.
FIGURE 31 Plastic hinge development of specimen TB1.
FIGURE 32 Plastic hinge development of specimen TB3.
Figure 32 depicts specimen TB3 analysis results. At 3% load, a small yield area appears, and the web does not reach yield stress. At 4%, the
lower flange's dog bone yields more, and the connected web yields slightly, while the upper flange shows minimal change. With a 5% load, the
lower flange's dog bone and connected web yield extensively, while the upper flange experiences a minor stress change. Plastic hinge mainly
forms in the lower flange's dog bone and the web's lower half, spreading gradually towards the web's middle, aligning with test conclusions.
Comparing results from all four specimens and finite element calculations, the yield order, development, and plastic hinge trend align with test
and finite element outcomes, affirming the model's effectiveness in this study.
5 | C O N CL U S I O N S
In this work, the following conclusions can be drawn from the comparative analysis of the low circumferential reciprocal tests and finite element
analysis of the reduced beam section joints with concrete floors.
1. In the tests on four specimens, the weld remained intact during damage, allowing the formation of a plastic hinge in the reduced beam
section for outward movement. Hysteresis curves showed pinching due to concrete fracture. Considering the impact of floor reinforcement
welding on joint capacity, it is crucial to preserve upper flange strength in the reduced beam section for plastic hinge formation and avoid
welding reinforcement to the column.
LU ET AL. 23 of 24
2. The failure process of the specimen was that concrete floor crack, beam flange yielding, lower flange buckling of reduced beam section, web
crack, and failure of the specimen. This indicated that the specimens met the “strong column-weak beam mechanism” design requirements.
3. In light of the failure criterion, the average values of yield deformation (θy) of the specimens are 0.92%, which is equal to 2.3 times [θy]
= 0.4%. The average values of the failure rotation (θu) of the specimens are from 3.0% to 6.0%, which are approximately 1.5–3 times [θu]
= 2.0%. Hence, the specimen performed well in hysteresis behavior, with a ductility coefficient u = 5.00, indicating that the specimens
exhibited excellent plastic deformation ability and reliable ductility.
4. The failure modes and mechanical of the specimens of the ABAQUS model performed well in agreement with quasi-static cyclic test results,
especially in the elastic and elastoplastic loading stages, indicating that this method could be used to study the various parameter's effects on
the seismic behavior of specimens.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was sponsored by Jiangmen Basic and Theoretical Science Research Science and Technology Plan Project (2023JC01024); the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (52201304); the Guangxi Natural Science Foundation (2019GXNSFAA185044); and the Fundamental
Research Funds for Wuyi University (grant no. BSQD2218).
DATA AVAI LAB ILITY S TATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
RE FE R ENC E S
[1] A. Whittaker, Struct. Des. Tall Build. 1998, 17, 897. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1794(199812)7:4<263::AID-TAL118>3.0.CO;2-B
[2] D. K. Miller, Eng. Struct. 1998, 20, 249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(97)00031-X
[3] H. Krawinkler, Earthq. Eng. 1998, 29, 285. https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.29.4.229-241
[4] W. M. Chi, J. Struct. Eng. 2000, 129, 88. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2000)126:1(88)
[5] GB/50011-2010 Standard for Design of Steel Structure, Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People's Republic of China, Architecture
and Building Press, Beijing, China. (in Chinese) 2010.
[6] FEMA-355D State of the art report on connection performance. Prepared by the SAC Joint Venture for the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington D.C. 2000.
[7] FEMA-355C State of the art report on systems performance of steel moment frames subject to earthquake ground shaking. Prepared by the SAC
Joint Venture for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C. 2000.
[8] ANSI/AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings American Institute of Steel Construction; Chicago, IL, USA. 2016.
[9] M. Hassani Sokhtesaraei, M. Ghassemieh, S. R. Mirghaderi, J. Struct. Steel 2019, 1398(26), 91.
[10] C. E. Sofias, D. T. Pachoumis, J. Constr. Steel Res 2020, 2020(171), 106151.
[11] A. Yeganehfar, B. Mehrparvar, S. F. Haddad, J. Constr. Steel Res 2020, 2020(169), 106012.
[12] R. Li, B. Samali, Z. Tao, M. D. K. Hassan, Eng. Struct. 2017, 1(136), 329.
[13] M. Valente, C. A. Castiglioni, A. Kanyilmaz, Eng. Struct 2017, 131, 275.
[14] M. Valente, C. A. Castiglioni, A. Kanyilmaz, J. Constr. Steel Res 2017, 128, 498.
[15] M. Saravanan, R. Goswami, G. S. Palani, Int.J.Steel Struct 2018, 3, 868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-018-0035-9
[16] N. Fanaie, S. S. Faegh, F. Partovi, J. Constr. Steel Res 2019, 160, 510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.06.003
[17] D. K. Pham, C. H. Pham, S. H. Pham, G. J. Hancock, J. Constr. Steel Res 2020, 165, 105889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.105889
[18] M. Liu, M. Liang, Q. Ma, P. Wang, C. Ma, J. Constr. Steel Res 2020, 2020(164), 105794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr
[19] T. Al-Dafafea, S. Durif, A. Bouchaïr, E. Fournely, J. Constr. Steel Res 2019, 2019(154), 149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.11.026
[20] K. D. Tsavdaridis, C. Pilbin, C. K. Lau, Int. J. Steel. Struct 2017, 2017(7), 677.
[21] S. Erfani, V. Akrami, J. Earthq. Eng 2017, 21(7), 1090.
[22] S. Momenzadeh, M. T. Kazemi, M. H. Asl, Int. J. Steel. Struct 2017, 17(2), 413.
[23] M.-A. Morshedi, K.-M. Dolatshahi, S. Maleki, J Constr Steel Res 2017, 2017(138), 283.
[24] K. Boushehri, K. D. Tsavdaridis, G. Cai, J. Construct. Steel Res. 2019, 2019(161), 416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.07.009
[25] A. Imanpour, S. Torabian, S. R. Mirghaderi, Eng. Struct. 2010, 2019(191), 23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.04.023
[26] H. Qiao, Y. Chen, J. Wang, J. Construct. Steel Res. 2020, 2020(175), 106358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2020.106358
[27] N. Fanaie, Z. Nadalipour, O. S. Sarkhosh, F. S. Safaei, J. Build. Eng. 2021, 2021(43), 102563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.0102563
[28] M. Ghassemieh, S. S. Hassani, S. R. Mirghaderi, J. Construct. Steel Res 2021, 2021(177), 106472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2020.106472
[29] L. Qi, R. T. Leon, M. R. Eatherton, J. L. Paquette, J. Construct. Steel Res. 2021, 2021(177), 106436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2020.106436
[30] S. Paul, S. K. Deb, J. Build. Eng. 2022, 2022(46), 103688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103688
[31] M. A. Morshedi, K. M. Dolatshahi, S. Mleki, J. Constructio. Steel Res. 2017, 2017(138), 283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.07.013
[32] A. Nadi, A. Saleh, A. Ayazi, Proc. Instit. Civil Eng. Struct. Build. 2021, 2021(18), 1. https://doi.org/10.1680/jstbu.20.00199
[33] A. Saleh, S. R. Mirghaderi, S. M. Zahrai, J. Construct. Steel Res. 2016, 2016(117), 214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2015.10.02
[34] C. Liu, J. Wu, L. Xie, J. Construct. Steel Res. 2021, 181(2021), 106622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2021.106622
[35] H. Qi, S. Hu, P. Wang, X. Xue, C. Shan, W. Li, K. Wang, J. Li, Structures 2022, 2022(43), 1259.
[36] GB/T2975-2018 Steel and steel products-Location and preparation of samples and test pieces for mechanical testing, PRC, M., Chinese Standard, Stan-
dardization Administration Press, Beijing, China, 2018 (in Chinese).
[37] M. Huang, Y. H. Liu, D. C. Sheng, Comput. Geotechnics 2011, 2011(38), 341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2010.12.005
24 of 24 LU ET AL.
[38] R. Park, State of the art report ductility evaluation from laboratory and analytical testing, Proceedings of Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engi-
neering, Tokyo, Kyoto, Japan 1998.
[39] S. C. Lu, Z. Wang, KSCE J Civil Eng 2022, 4(1662), 1.
[40] S. C. Lu, Z. Wang, Structures 2021, 2021(33), 3495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.06.049
[41] S. C. Lu, Z. Wang, Structures 2022, 2022(36), 1032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.12.064
[42] ABAQUS. Analysis user's manual I_V. Version 6.14. USA: ABAQUS, Inc., Dassault Systemes, 2014.
How to cite this article: S. Lu, L. Luo, X. Han, A. Liu, Struct Design Tall Spec Build 2024, e2092. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.2092

Structural Design Tall Build - 2024 - Lu - Seismic Behavior of Reduced Beam Section Joints Considering Concrete Floor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Structural Design Tall Build - 2024 - Lu - Seismic Behavior of Reduced Beam Section Joints Considering Concrete Floor

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structural Design Tall Build - 2024 - Lu - Seismic Behavior of Reduced Beam Section Joints Considering Concrete Floor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received: 11 February 2023 Revised: 4 December 2023 Accepted: 28 December 2023

Seismic behavior of reduced beam section joints considering

Shengcan Lu 1 | Liang Luo 2 | Xiangxi Han 3 | Anqi Liu 4

FIGURE 1 Reduced beam section joint.

Beam in reduced area Bending capacity of beam(M u)

2.1 | Prototype frame

2.2 | Design of the test specimens

a ﬃ ð0:5 0:75Þ bf , ð1Þ

b ﬃ ð0:65 0:85Þ db , ð2Þ

(a) Plan view (E) Elavation view

Mpb ¼ Wpb fyb , ð3Þ

Mpr ¼ Cpr Ry Wpr fyb , ð4Þ

2.3 | Material properties

FIGURE 4 The reduced beam section joint (on-site).

(a) Front view (b) Vertical view

FIGURE 5 Details of the specimens (unit: mm).

TABLE 1 The details of the specimens.

Reduced depth of Reduced depth of Whether the reinforcement is

(a) Steel test samples (b) Concrete test samples

FIGURE 6 Material test (unit: mm).

TABLE 2 Result of steel tensile test.

Sample fy (MPa) fu (MPa) E (GPa) A (%)

TABLE 3 Result of concrete compression test.

Sample No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 No.5 No.6 Mean

2.4 | Test setup

2.5 | Loading procedure

(a) Diagrams of loading and measurement. (b) Site experiment photos.

FIGURE 7 Test setup schematic and site plan layout.

2 0.375% 0.5% 0.75% 1% 1.5%

Claw strain gauge

(a) Web of beam and column (b) Reduced beam flange

(c) Beam flange (d) Rebars

FIGURE 9 Arrangement of strain gauges.

3 | EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 | Failure criterion

3.2 | Failure modes and observation

(a) Graphic method (b) Area method (c) RP method

FIGURE 10 Performance division methods of the structure.

(a) =3.0% (b) =4.0%

(c) =5.0% (d) =6.0%

FIGURE 11 Failure process of specimen TA1.

(a) 3.0% (b) 4.0%

(c) 5.0% (d) 6.0%

FIGURE 12 Failure process of specimen TA3.

(a) =3.0% (b) =4.0%

(c) 5.0% (d) 6.0%

FIGURE 13 Failure process of specimen TB1.

3.3 | Hysteretic response

(a) =3.0% (b) =4.0%

(c) 5.0% (d) 6.0%

FIGURE 14 Failure process of specimen TB3.

3.4 | Strain analysis

(a) TA1 (b) TA3

(c) TB1 (d) TB3

FIGURE 15 The hysteresis curve of each specimen.

(a) Positive direction loading (b) Negative direction loading

FIGURE 16 Strain distribution of lower flange of TA1 specimen.

(a) Positive direction loading (b) Negative direction loading