applied

sciences
Article
Experimental Study of Steel Reinforced Concrete
(SRC) Joints
Isaac Montava *, Ramón Irles, Juan Carlos Pomares and Antonio Gonzalez
Departamento de Ingeniería Civil, Universidad de Alicante, 03080 Sant Vicent del Raspeig, Spain;
ramon.irles@ua.es (R.I.); jc.pomares@ua.es (J.C.P.); antonio.gonzalez@ua.es (A.G.)
* Correspondence: isaac.montava@ua.es; Tel.: +34-966-528-428




Received: 26 February 2019; Accepted: 9 April 2019; Published: 12 April 2019


Abstract: This research analyzes the solution of reinforced concrete joints reinforced with steel
sections, known as steel reinforced concrete (SRC). The aim is to verify the improvement of the ductile
characteristics of steel reinforced concrete structures compared to conventional reinforced concrete
structures. Another objective is to better understand the experimental behavior and thus be able to
perform numerical simulations adjusted with the experimental ones. In addition, the behavior of
reinforced concrete structures in all the bars with steel sections is compared with others in which
only the joints are reinforced to obtain more efficient and economical structures. All these objectives
have the main purpose of improving the behavior of structures against seismic loads. Five specimens
of concrete joints with reinforced with steel were tested with cyclic loads to analyze their behavior.
The strength superposition method can predict the shear strength. The results obtained confirm
the greater capacity of absorption of energy of the structures with sections of steel embedded
compared with the structures of conventional reinforced concrete, with greater ductility when facing
large displacements.

Keywords: steel reinforced concrete; beam-column joints; earthquake; reinforced concrete;

cross-sections; joint; reinforcement

1. Introduction
Steel reinforced concrete (SRC) joints, which are composed of reinforced concrete with a steel
section embedded inside, are a relatively new structural solution. The joint is the weak point when
experiencing seismic action. It is necessary to analyze whether adding reinforcement to this joint will
allow it to absorb a large amount of energy to avoid the failure of structures. A higher ductility means
greater energy absorption in the case of earthquakes, which increases the deformation that can be
achieved without the collapse of structures.
The Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) published the first regulation [1] in 1951 for designing steel
reinforced concrete structures. In 1967, Furlong [2] carried out the first studies of steel reinforced concrete
columns under bending and traction strength. The studies conducted since 1973 by Wakabayasi [3],
analyzed the behavior of SRC. This author presented a series of 10 tested cross-shaped specimens.
The conclusion was that in terms of design, the method for superposition, which adds the individual
resistance of steel, concrete and corrugated rods, was the most adequate for predicting the elastic
behavior of a section. The steel cross-section can replace part of the reinforcing bars of reinforced
concrete and it is able to dissipate greater energy than conventional reinforced concrete structures.
Mirmiran and Shahawy [4] studied the behavior of confined specimens subjected to static
compression loads and to load–unload cycles to evaluate the degradation of reinforcement by verifying
that the response was similar in both cases. Gioncu and Petcu [5,6] studied the rotation capacity of
double T steel beams and column-beam joints by a local plastic mechanism. They devised computer

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1528; doi:10.3390/app9081528 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1528 2 of 15

software determine the rotation capacity of beams, which they compared with experimental tests
to obtain consistent results. In these studies, standard beams were used in two types of structures:
continuous steel beams and rigid frameworks.
Chen et al. [7] conducted different studies with joint steel reinforced concrete. The results show
that SRC joints efficiently dissipated energy. The superposition method was able to accurately estimate
joint strength.
The research conducted by Tong et al. [8] analyzed the behavior of reinforced concrete steel beams
using cross-sections in H. In her thesis, Giménez-Carbó [9] analyzed reinforced concrete supports
strengthened with steel cross-sections. She performed a thorough literature review in the field of
reinforced concrete supports. Reinforcement with L-cross-section steel improves the resistance and
ductility of the element, which is a satisfactory solution for reinforcement concrete structures to improve
their behavior when experiencing earthquakes. In his thesis, Figueirido [10] studied the buckling
behavior of rectangular tubular steel cross-sections filled with high-strength concrete under an axial
load using a variable bending movement diagram. Chen et al. [11] investigated over 17 specimens with
different solutions of steel cross-sections for concrete. They were composed of L or T steel cross-sections
with reinforced concrete. Their force–displacement graphs are comparable to other numerical studies
carried out, such as those by Yan et al. [12], who analyzed the hysteretic curves and introduced the
attenuation coefficient to represent the effects of seismic damage. They proposed a model that considers
seismic damage and compared the model of hysteretic curves with experimental ones.
Chen et al. [13] used a conventional test frame with a loading–unloading cycle. Recent research,
such as that of Chen and Wu [14], have shown that high-strength reinforced concrete structures,
confined with tubular cross-sections and embedded steel cross-sections, display the best behavior.
In this paper, the main failure modes of columns were caused by bending. The latest break
occurred in the beam cross-section next to the joint, which is where most of the bending stress is
absorbed. The ductility coefficients were greater than 3, and are calculated as the quotient of the
displacement corresponding to the ultimate load and the displacement corresponding to the load of the
elastic limit. The constructive solution of the tubular cross-section for reinforcing joints is interesting
as the tubular cross-section can be filled with high-strength concrete in the workshop to appreciably
increase resistance and to improve the joint’s behavior. Steel reinforced concrete is a structural system
that has been used in many countries with high levels of seismic risk. The behavior of the reinforced
concrete structures, which incorporates a steel cross-section, improves the ductility of the section and
its capacity to absorb energy while protecting the steel structure from fire.
Therefore, the reinforcement of joints is very useful when there is high seismic risk as it will
considerably improve the structure’s overall ductility, particularly in buildings that should offer more
safety when earthquakes occur, such as hospitals, schools, congress centers, theaters, cinemas, etc.
One of the advantages of steel reinforced concrete is that the prefabrication of these joints reduces the
reinforcement of the concrete in the joint, which is usually a difficult element to build. In recent years,
there have been numerous scientific studies analyzing the behavior of steel reinforced concrete joints.
In [15] the authors investigate the corner-positioned reinforced concrete beam-column joints in
order to study their seismic behavior and to establish the strength in the case of failure of beam-column
joints. Santarsiero [16] proposes simple strengthening solutions created by Fibre Reinforced Polymers
(FRP) systems that are able to effectively improve seismic resistance. The performance characteristics
of four previously tested beam-column joints reinforced with different configurations are compared to
assess their capacity to endure extreme loading [17]. Gribniak et al. [18] investigates the mechanical
behavior of steel fiber-reinforced concrete (SFRC) beams that were internally reinforced with steel
bars and externally bonded with carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) sheets fixed by adhesive
and hybrid jointing techniques. Regarding the role of steel fibers, the effects of the addition of fibers
with different geometries and aspect ratios on the mechanical properties of SFRC might significantly
vary [19]. Recently, other studies, including [20] have analyzed the shear strength.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1528 3 of 15
3 of 15
3 of 15
2. Methodology
2. Methodology
2. Methodology
The tests were conducted using cycles of loading and unloading. Tests were performed on a joint
Thetests
The testswere
wereconducted
conductedusing
using cycles
cycles of loading andand unloading.
TestsTests were performed on a
between two beams and a column, in of loading
which a cyclic unloading.
loading–unloading were performed
test, with noon a joint
load in the
joint between
between two beams
twodirection,
beams and and a column, in which a cyclic loading–unloading test, with no load in
opposite wasa carried
column,outinon
which a cyclicinloading–unloading
the column order to obtain an test, with no load
understanding in the
of the joint’s
the opposite
opposite direction,
direction, waswaswas carried
carried out
out on theoncolumn
the column in order to obtain an understanding of the
behavior. The test repeated with differentinsections:
order to reinforced
obtain an understanding of thereinforced
concrete and steel joint’s
joint’s behavior.
behavior. The The
test test was repeated
was repeated with different
with different sections:
sections: reinforced
reinforced concrete
concrete and steel reinforced
concrete. The embedded cross-section was only in the joint (see Figure 1). and steel reinforced
concrete. The
concrete. Theembedded
embedded cross-section
cross-section was
was only
only in
in the
the joint
joint (see
(see Figure
Figure 1).
1).

Figure 1. Detail of the steel cross-section reinforcement only in the joints.

Figure 1.
Figure Detailof
1. Detail ofthe
thesteel
steelcross-section
cross-sectionreinforcement
reinforcement only
only in
in the
the joints.
joints.

Tests
Tests were
were carried
carried outout in the
in the loading
loading framework
framework of the
of the laboratory,
laboratory, which
which cancan apply
apply a maximum
a maximum
Tests
load of were
300 carried
kN out2).
(Figure in the loading framework of the laboratory, which can apply a maximum
load of 300 kN (Figure 2).
load of 300 kN (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Loading
Figure framework.
2. Loading framework.
Figure 2. Loading framework.
Specimens
Specimens were
weredesigned
designedwithwith
steelsteel
cross-sections
cross-sectionsto reinforce the joints
to reinforce of theofsingular
the joints pointspoints
the singular of
theofstructures
Specimens subjected
were to strong
designed withearthquakes.
steel Under
cross-sections earthquake
to reinforce action,
the an
joints asymmetric
the structures subjected to strong earthquakes. Under earthquake action, an asymmetric and cyclicof the and
singular cyclic
points
bending
of the
bendingmoment
structures
momentdiagram
subjected takes placeearthquakes.
to strong
diagram takes due todue
place the dynamic
toUnder effect of loading
earthquake
the dynamic ofand
action,
effect anunloading.
asymmetric
loading Theandbending
and unloading.cyclicThe
of abending
framework
bending moment against
diagramhorizontal
takes forces
place are
due distributed
to the according
dynamic effecttoofFigure
loading
of a framework against horizontal forces are distributed according to Figure 3. 3. and unloading. The
bendingTheThetested
of jointjoint
atested
framework corresponds
against to a T-joint
horizontal of a conventional
forces are framework
distributed accordingwith a
to point
Figure
corresponds to a T-joint of a conventional framework with a point load in the load
3. in the center,
which Themaytested joint
correspond corresponds
to
center, which may corresponda horizontalto
to aaorhorizontal
T-joint
verticalofload.
aorconventional
Given the
vertical load.framework
test frame’s
Given the with a pointcharacteristics,
characteristics,
test frame’s load in the
the T-shape
center,
wasthe which
chosen, may
which correspond
corresponds toa a horizontal
T-joint that or vertical
belongs to aload. Given
conventional the test
building
T-shape was chosen, which corresponds a T-joint that belongs to a conventional building frame’s characteristics,
structure frame.
thestructure
T-shape frame.
was chosen, which corresponds a T-joint that belongs to a conventional building
structure frame.
 4 of 15
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1528 44 of
of 15
15

Figure
Figure 3. 3. Typical
Typical bending
bending arrangement
arrangement in in
thethe event
event of of
anan earthquake.
earthquake.
Figure 3. Typical bending arrangement in the event of an earthquake.
Different
Different constructive
constructive solutions
solutions of framework’s
of the the framework’s representative
representative beamsubjected
beam were were subjected to a
to a cyclic
loading and unloading process to obtain an understanding of its real behavior in the elastic and plastica
Different
cyclic loading constructive
and unloadingsolutions of
process the
to framework’s
obtain an representative
understanding of itsbeam
real were
behaviorsubjected
in the to
elastic
cyclic
and loading
phases plastic and unloading
phases
up to breakage, upwhich process
to breakage, to obtain
which
was achieved anin
was
only understanding
achieved of less
its real
onlyassemblies.
less ductile in behavior
ductile
Load in the elastic
assemblies.
is introducedLoadas is
and plastic phases
introduced as imposed
a displacement up to breakage,
a displacement which
imposed
at the center was
at the
of the achieved
center
beam. The only in
ofdisplacement less
the beam. Thevaluesductile assemblies.
displacement
obtainedvalues Load is
obtained
are repeated
introduced
twice in the as
are repeated atwice
displacement imposed
in thecycles.
load–unload load–unload atcycles.
the center
They increased andof
They the beam.
increased
progressed andThe a displacement
inprogressed
parabola in values
a parabola
until obtained
until the
the maximum
are repeated twice
maximum displacement
displacement in the load–unload
of 3304).
of 330 mm (Figure cycles.
mm (Figure 4). They increased and progressed in a parabola until the
maximum displacement of 330 mm (Figure 4).
Displacement (mm).
Displacement (mm).

Nº de cycles.
Nº de cycles.
Figure Loading
4. 4.
Figure history
Loading in in
history displacement control.
displacement control.
Figure 4. Loading history in displacement control.
The arrangement of supports and the produced rotation do not allow larger deflections in the
The arrangement of supports and the produced rotation do not allow larger deflections in the
center.
TheThe tests that were
arrangement run corresponded
of supports to a symmetrical
and the produced rotation do bending
not allowdistribution in Figure
larger deflections in 5A.
the
center. The tests that were run corresponded to a symmetrical bending distribution in Figure 5A. The
The asymmetric
center. The tests distribution
that were run incorresponded
Figure 5A corresponds to tests bending
to a symmetrical similar todistribution
those run by Chen et5A.
al. [7].
asymmetric distribution in Figure 5A corresponds to tests similar to those run by in Figure
Chen et al. The
[7].
asymmetric distribution in Figure 5A corresponds to tests similar to those run by Chen et al. [7].
 5 of 15
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1528 5 of 15

5 of 15

(A) (B)
Figure5.5.(A)
Figure (A)Symmetric
Symmetricdistribution
distributionininthe
thejoint.
joint.(B)
(B)Asymmetric
Asymmetricdistribution
distributionininthe
thejoint.
joint.
(A) (B)
However,
However,the theabsorbed
absorbedenergy
energyisisthe
thesame
sameforforbending
bendingininthethesame
samedirection
directionthroughout
throughoutthe the
Figure 5. (A) Symmetric distribution in the joint. (B) Asymmetric distribution in the joint.
length
lengthofofthe
thebar
bar(Figure
(Figure5A),
5A),which
whichisisthe
thetested
testedcase,
case,and
andalso
alsothe
thesame
samefor
forbending
bendingwith
withthe
theinverted
inverted
sign
signfrom
fromthe
thejoint
joint(Figure
(Figure5B).
5B).Therefore,
Therefore,both
bothcases
casesare
arevalid
validfor
forsimulating
simulatingthethereal
realbehavior
behaviorofofaa
However, the absorbed energy is the same for bending in the same direction throughout the
structure affected by an earthquake.
structure affected by an earthquake.
length of the bar (Figure 5A), which is the tested case, and also the same for bending with the inverted
The
Theabsorbed
absorbedenergy
energyisiscalculated
calculatedas:
as:
sign from the joint (Figure 5B). Therefore, both cases are valid for simulating the real behavior of a
structure affected by an earthquake. W = λ·Z l M ( ) ( ) d (1)
The absorbed energy is calculated Was:= λ· ·M (x)·χ (x)·dx (1)
where W: total energy absorbed. e

λ: elastic coefficient, λ· M (
W =phase and) (
λ = 1 ) d (1)
where W: total energyλabsorbed.
= 1/2 in the elastic in the perfect plastic phase.
l: length.
where W: total energy absorbed.
elastic
λ:M(x): coefficient,
bending λ = 1/2 in the elastic phase and λ = 1 in the perfect plastic phase.
moment.
λ: elastic coefficient, λ = 1/2 in the elastic phase and λ = 1 in the perfect plastic phase.
l:χ(x): curvature.
length.
l: length.
The
M(x): bending curvature
bending moment.χ and bending moment M(x) have the same sign in each section regardless of the
M(x): moment.
direction
χ(x): of bending, which always results in a positive value.
curvature.
χ(x): curvature.
Figure 6 shows the hysteretic behavior of the specimens tested without (6A) and with (6B) load
The curvature χ and bending moment M(x) have the same sign in each section regardless of the
The curvature χ and bending moment M(x) have the same sign in each section regardless of the
inversion.
direction of bending, which always results in a positive value.
direction of bending, which always results in a positive value.
Figure 6 shows the hysteretic behavior of the specimens tested without (6A) and with (6B) load
Figure 6 shows the hysteretic behavior of the specimens tested without (6A) and with (6B)
inversion.
load inversion.

Figure 6. Graph with the tested hysteretic behavior without load inversion (A) and with load
inversion (B).
Figure 6. Graph with the tested hysteretic behavior without load inversion (A) and with load
Figure 6. Graph with the tested hysteretic behavior without load inversion (A) and with load
The force-displacement
inversion (B). graphs obtained in the tests of the load form part of those that can be
inversion (B).
obtained with load–unload cycles. The results are comparable to a bilinear behavior with a linear
The force-displacement graphs obtained in the tests of the load form part of those that can be
obtained with load–unload cycles. The results are comparable to a bilinear behavior with a linear
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1528 6 of 15

The force-displacement graphs obtained in the tests of the load form part of those that can 6 ofbe
15
obtained with load–unload cycles. The results are comparable to a bilinear behavior with a linear
elastic section and another plastic curved section. The loss of stiffness in (A) is less in the tests as the
damage caused when the load moves in the opposite direction (B) increases when the concrete at the
fractured by
other end of the section is fractured by pulling.
pulling.

3. Experimental Program

3.1. General Behavior

3.1. General Behavior
The
The designed
designedT-shaped
T-shapedspecimens
specimenswere tested
were in a Servosis
tested test frame
in a Servosis test(model
frame ME-406/30, Servosis,
(model ME-406/30,
Madrid,
Servosis, Madrid, Spain), which can apply a maximum force of 300 kN. The load can be applied or
Spain), which can apply a maximum force of 300 kN. The load can be applied as force/time as
displacement/time.
force/time or displacement/time.
The
The vertical
vertical load
load was
was applied
applied to
to each
each structural
structural specimen. The design
specimen. The design ofof specimens
specimens followed
followed the
the
guidelines
guidelines of code ACI 318-05 [21] and Eurocode 4 [22]. The purpose of this task was to understand
of code ACI 318-05 [21] and Eurocode 4 [22]. The purpose of this task was to understand
the
the strength
strength behavior
behavior ofof each
each solution
solution in
in the
the joints
joints with
with different
differentreinforcements.
reinforcements. (Figure
(Figure7).
7).

Framework of the tests run in the Department of Civil Engineering laboratory.

Figure 7. Framework laboratory.

Specimen
Specimen concrete
concretetests
testswere
wereconducted
conducted toto
know
know thethe
compression
compression strength of the
strength of concrete. The aim
the concrete. The
was to manufacture a structural concrete in the laboratory that is similar to that supplied
aim was to manufacture a structural concrete in the laboratory that is similar to that supplied in in construction
work. The objective
construction work. The of objective
the tests ofwas
thefor thewas
tests equipment to cause the
for the equipment to specimens to break. to
cause the specimens For this
break.
purpose, gray cement type CEM-42,5 was selected, in which the dose is similar to
For this purpose, gray cement type CEM-42,5 was selected, in which the dose is similar to the mixture the mixture of the
aggregate used inused
of the aggregate building concrete
in building plants.plants.
concrete
Each 3
Each specimen has a volume of about
specimen has a volume of about 360
360 dm
dm3 which,
which, along
along with
with the the six
six cylindrical
cylindrical testtest pieces
pieces
needed to check concrete strength, was estimated to be about 400 dm 33 of concrete. The concrete was
needed to check concrete strength, was estimated to be about 400 dm of concrete. The concrete was
manufactured 3 in a concrete mixer at the same dose.
manufactured with
with four
four mixes
mixes ofof 100
100 dm
dm3 in a concrete mixer at the same dose.
The
The characteristics of the materials used and
characteristics of the materials used and the
the results
results of
of the
the tests
tests cancan see
see inin Table
Table1.1.
Table 1. Properties of the materials used in the specimens.
Table 1. Properties of the materials used in the specimens.
Material Name Elastic Limit
Material Name Elastic limit LimitLimit of Break Tested
of break tested
Concrete HA-25/F/20/I Fck = 25 N/mm2 Fce = 3200 N/mm2
HA- Fck = 25 Fce = Fse
32,00 N/mm 2
Concrete
Reinforcing bars B-500-SD Fsk = 500 N/mm2 = 619 N/mm2
Steel section 25/F/20/I
HEB-100-S275 N/mm
Fak
2
= 275 N/mm2 Fae = 335 N/mm2
Reinforcing Fsk = 500 Fse = 619 N/mm2
B-500-SD
bars N/mm 2
Eight specimens were simulated (Figure 8). Specimens P01 and P02 served to confirm the feasibility
of the research line and to adjust HEB-100-
specimens P03 and
Fak P04
= 275with smaller
Fae cross-sections
= 335 N/mm2 (Figures 8 and 9)
Steel section
in order to ensure that they are better adapted to the
S275 N/mmmaximum
2 load of the test frame. Specimen P03
Eight specimens were simulated (Figure 8). Specimens P01 and P02 served to confirm the
feasibility of the research line and to adjust specimens P03 and P04 with smaller cross-sections
(Figures 8 and 9) in order to ensure that they are better adapted to the maximum load of the test
frame. Specimen P03 was a beam with a section of 30 x 25 cm and four reinforcing bars of a diameter
of 12 mm. The distance between supports was 3.3 meters.
 Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1528 7 of 15

was a beam with a section of 30 × 25 cm and four reinforcing bars of a diameter of 12 mm. The distance
between supports was 3.3 m. 7 of 15
7 of 15

Figure8.8. Cross-sections
Figure Cross-sectionsof
ofspecimens.
specimens.
Figure 8. Cross-sections of specimens.
The
The reaction
reaction force
force RR at
atthe
thebeam
beamends
endsisiscalculated
calculatedusing
usingEquation
Equation (2)(2) and
and the
thebeam
beambending
bending
The reaction
moment
moment at
at the force R surface
the column
column at the beam
surface Mb endsbe
Mb can
can beisobtained
calculated
obtained using
with
with Equation
Equation
Equation (3),(2)according
(3), and the beam
according to bending
to equilibrium
equilibrium
moment at the
conditions,
conditions, column
where
where surface
PPisisthe
theappliedMbload
applied canand
load be Lb
and obtained
Lbisisthe with Equation
thelength,
length,as (3), in
asindicated
indicated according
Figure9.9.to equilibrium
inFigure
conditions, where P is the applied load and Lb is the length, as indicated in Figure 9.
RR==0.50.5PP (2)
(2)
R = 0.5 P (2)
Mb = R x Lp (3)
Mb ==RRx×Lp
Mb Lp (3)(3)

Figure 9. Elevation view of specimens P03 and P04.

Figure
Figure9.9.Elevation
Elevationview
viewofofspecimens
specimensP03
P03and
andP04.
P04.
The specimen P04 had a steel section HEB 100 completely embedded, with the same reinforcing
The
barsThe specimen
specimen
of P03. P04
A steelP04 hadaembedded
had
section asteel
steelsection
section HEB
in aHEB 100completely
100
T-shape, completely
of embedded,
embedded,
two meters, withthe
with
in the longitudinal thesame
same reinforcing
partreinforcing
of the beam
bars
bars ofof P03.
P03. AA steel
steel section
section embedded
embedded in
in a a T-shape,
T-shape, of
of two
two meters,
meters, inin the
the longitudinal
longitudinal
and half a meter in the column, was introduced as reinforcement in the joint. The metallic profile part
part of
of the
the beam
beam
was
and
and half
half aa meter
meter inin the
the column,
column, was
was introduced
introduced as
as reinforcement
reinforcement inin the
the joint.
joint. The
The
an HEB 100. P05 had with no steel section, but had P04’s strength and large deflections. The specimen metallic
metallic profile
profile was
was
an
an HEB
HEB
P06, with100.
100. P05had
a P05
steel hadwith
with
section nosteel
no
HEB steelsection,
100 section,
IPN 140,butbuthad
was had P04’sstrength
P04’s
designed strength
to and
support and large
large
the deflections.
deflections.
bending Thespecimen
The
stress more specimen
efficiently
P06, with a steel section HEB 100 IPN 140, was designed
than the HEB if it is oriented according to its greater inertia. to support the bending stress more efficiently
than the HEB •if it P07a
is oriented
had a according
square hollowto itsprofile
greaterofinertia.
140 mm and 5 mm of thickness. This specimen
• P07a had ainsquare
cracked hollow profile
the transition of 140
between the mm and profile
hollow 5 mm of thickness.
and This specimen
the reinforced concrete
cracked in the transition between the hollow profile and the reinforced concrete
 Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1528 8 of 15
8 of 15

P06, with a steel section. First 100

section HEB the IPN
hollow140,profile was filled
was designed to with concrete
support and after
the bending hardening,
stress the rest
more efficiently
than the HEB if it ofisspecimen
oriented was executed.
according to its greater inertia.
• P07b. This specimen was made by testing the previous one and checking that the
• P07a had a square
plastic hollow profile of
hinge appears in 140
the mm and 5 between
transition mm of thickness.
the hollowThis specimen
profile cracked
and the in the
reinforced
transition between
concretethe hollowThis
section. profile and thezone
transition reinforced concrete with
was reinforced section.
twoFirst
20 mmthe hollow
diameter profile
bars
was filled with concrete
on both sidesand after hardening,
to ensure the rest
the crack near of specimen
to the joint. was executed.
• P07b. Thisconstruction
Different specimen was made by
solutions testing
of the the previous
representative oneof
beam and
thechecking
frameworkthat(see
theTable
plastic
2)hinge
were
appears
submitted to in the transition
a cyclic loading between the hollow
and unloading profile
process and thethe
to achieve reinforced
behaviorconcrete
in elasticsection. This
and plastic
transition
phases. The loadszonewerewasintroduced
reinforcedas with two 20 of
a function mm diameter bars
displacement on both
to time sides on
imposed to ensure the of
the center crack
the
beam,near to the joint.
as shown in figure 4.

Different construction solutions of the

Table 2. Table representative
summarizing beam
the tests of the
carried framework (see Table 2) were
out.
submitted to a cyclic loading and unloading process to achieve the behavior in elastic and plastic
Inertia Theoretical
phases. The loads wereBeam
introduced as a function of displacement to time
Distance Cross- Steel
imposed on the center of the
Maximum
beam, as shown in Figure 4. Lower Cross- Maximum Load
Specimen Typology Section between Section Weight Moment
Bars Section (kN)
(mm2) Supports ×104 (Kg/m) Mpl,Rd
Table 2. Table summarizing the tests (mm 4)
carried out. (kN·m)
P03 RC 300 × 250 4Φ12 - 3.30 m - - 50.96 67.90
P04 SRC 300 × 250 4Φ12 HEB-100 3.30 m 449.5 Theoretical
Beam Distance Inertia 20.40 Steel 95.20 126.93
Maximum Maximum
Specimen Typology Section Lower Bars+
2Φ16 Cross-Section between Cross-Section Weight
Moment Load (kN)
P05 RC (mm300
2 ) × 250 - 3.30 m
Supports ×-104 (mm4 ) - (Kg/m) 95.00 126.66
2Φ20 Mpl,Rd (kN·m)
P06 P03 SRC
RC 300 300
× 250× 250 4Φ12
4Φ12 IPN-140- 3.303.30
mm 573 - 14.40 - 79.3850.96 105.84
67.90
P04 SRC 300 × 250 4Φ12 HEB-100 3.30 m 449.5 20.40 95.20 126.93
× 250× 2502Φ16 +
140 × 140
P07aP05 RC
SRC 300 300 2Φ20
4Φ12 - 3.303.30
mm 780 - 20.50 - 95.29 95.00 126.66
127.05
P06 SRC 300 × 250 4Φ12 ×5
IPN-140 3.30 m 573 14.40 79.38 105.84
P07a SRC 300 × 250 4Φ12 140 ×× 140
140 140× 5 3.30 m 780 20.50 95.29 127.05
P07bP07b SRC
SRC 300 300
× 250× 250 4Φ12
4Φ12 140 × 140 × 5 3.30 mm
3.30 780 780 20.50 20.50 95.29 95.29 127.05
127.05
×5

3.2. Column
3.2. Column Compression
Compression Strength
Strength Prediction
Prediction of
of SRC
SRC Joints.
Joints.
According to
According to Eurocode
Eurocode 44 [22],
[22], the
the plastic
plastic compression
compression strength
strength of
of the
the sections
sections can
can be
be calculated
calculated
against axial
against axial load,
load, using
using Eqaution
Eqaution (4). The strength
(4). The strength superposition
superposition method
method was
was able
able to
to estimate
estimate the
the
SRC column compression strength.
SRC column compression strength.
Npl,Rd==Aa
Npl,Rd fy/γa +
Aafy/γa + Ac
Ac (0,85 fck/γc)) +
(0,85 fck/γc + As
As fsk/γs
fsk/γs (4)
(4)
where Aa, Ac and As indicate the respective areas of steel section, concrete and reinforcing bars; fy,
where Aa, Ac and As indicate the respective areas of steel section, concrete and reinforcing bars; fy, fck
fck and fsk indicate the axial strength limits of break testing of the materials; and γa, γc and γs indicate
and fsk indicate the axial strength limits of break testing of the materials; and γa, γc and γs indicate
the safety coefficients of the materials.
the safety coefficients of the materials.
3.3.
3.3. Bending
Bending Moment
Moment Strength
Strength Prediction
Prediction of
of SRC
SRC Joints.
Joints.
In
In the
the pre-break phase the
pre-break phase the section
section was
was plasticized
plasticized (Figure
(Figure 10).
10).

Figure 10. Tension state of pre-rupture of the specimen P04.

Figure 10. Tension state of pre-rupture of the specimen P04.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1528 9 of 15

Using the strength superposition method, Equation (5), the bending moment strength of the SRC
beam-column joint Mpl,Rd is:

Mpl,Rd = Wpa fy/γa + Wpc 0,85 fck/γc + Wps fsk/γs (5)

where Wpa, Wpc and Wps indicate the plastic module of steel section, concrete and reinforcing bars.

4. Experimental Results
The results that were obtained in the different tested specimens (see Table 3) were compared.
The strength and ductility of the P04 and P06 specimens, which respectively used HEB100 and IPN140
as the embedded steel cross-section, were remarkable. As the latter weighed less than the former,
the solution with IPN was more economical with proportional mechanical characteristics.
It is important to note that for strong deformations, the specimen P07b had considerably less
resistance than P04 due to the greater flexural efficiency of the HEB cross-section than the square tube.
The thickness of the HEB flanges is 10 mm compared to the 5 mm of the square tube so the HEB section
had better resistance against flange buckling.
The maximum load that each specimen was able to support was relevant data, but the maximum
deflection that it was able to reach and the ultimate load corresponding to that deflection were
more relevant.

Table 3. Summary of the displacements, moments and energy absorbed of the tested specimens.

Elastic Moment
Plastic Moment
Maxim Moment at Last of the Maximum Absorbed
Last of the Maximum
Specimen Deflection µ ∆µ/∆e Break Cross-Section Moment Energy
Cross-Section Load (kN)
∆µ (mm) (kN·m) Theoretical (kN·m) (kN·m)
(kN·m)
(kN·m)
P03 220 7.8 41.25 - - 55.00 14.65 73.33
P04 330 11.7 75.00 24.75 28.65 109.50 44.88 146.55
P05 220 7.8 41.25 - - 108.75 23.11 145.10
P06 280 10 75.00 22.52 26.23 97.50 38.84 130.72
P07a 170 6 82.50 30.52 36.28 123.75 35.10 165.15
P07b 350 12.5 82.50 30.52 36.28 116.25 47.99 155.20

The structural ductility (µ = ∆µ/∆e) was one of the most important indices for evaluating resistance
capacity against earthquakes. At the maximum deflection of specimen P04, the moment at break was
75 kN·m, which was almost three times the maximum moment that the cross-section resisted in a
plastic regime. hat section was able to resist higher deflections than the others tested. In specimen P03,
the last break was fast and fragile since the traction bars broke, which ultimately caused the structure
to break.
Specimen P04 was made as shown in Figure 11A. The reinforcement bars were located around the
steel cross-section. Finally, the steel bars and the steel cross-section were placed inside the framework
in a T shape.
The ultimate breakage of the beam could not be achieved despite the large deformations obtained,
since the plastic deformation of the steel section was very large (Figure 11B). The steel cross-section not
only provided high ductility to the joints of reinforced concrete but also allowed the structure to have a
plastic adaptation capacity.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1528 10 of 15
10
10ofof15
15

(A)
(A) (B)
(B)
Figure
Figure11.
Figure 11.Specimen
11. SpecimenP04
Specimen P04in
P04 inits
in itsexecution
its executionphase
execution phase(A)
phase (A)and
(A) andimage
and imageof
image ofthe
of thetested
the testedspecimen
tested specimenP04
specimen P04(B).
P04 (B).
(B).

In
In the
the pre-break
pre-breakphase the
phasethe entire
theentire section
entiresection
sectionwaswas plasticized.
plasticized. The
wasplasticized. The concrete
The concrete lost
concrete lost its
lost its tensile
tensile and
and
compression
compression resistant
resistant capacity,
capacity, and
and detached
detached from
from thethe section.
section. TheThe reinforcements
reinforcements
compression resistant capacity, and detached from the section. The reinforcements were plasticized werewere plasticized
plasticized and
and
andwere
were sectioned
sectioned
were and no
sectioned and no
nolonger
longer
and had
hadresistant
had resistant
longer capacity.
capacity.
resistant The
The metal
capacity. metal
metalprofile
Theprofile profilecontinued
continued to
to maintain
continued tomaintain aa
a certain
maintain
certain
certainstrength
strength capacitycapacity
strength with large
capacity with large
largedeformations
deformations
with due
due to its
deformations due to
toits
high high
highductility.
ductility.
its The
Theneutral
The neutral
ductility. axis
axiscontinued
axis continued
neutral to rise,
continued
to
to rise, especially if the reinforcement was plasticized, since to balance any increase in momentumitit
rise, especially
especially if the if the reinforcement
reinforcement was was plasticized,
plasticized, since to since
balance to balance
any any
increase in increase
momentum in momentum
it is necessary
is
isnecessary
to increase
necessarythe to
toincrease
increasethe
mechanical themechanical
arm arm
armof
of the internal
mechanical ofthe internal
forces,
the forces,
because
internal because
these
forces, these
cannot
because cannot
vary.
these vary.
Figures
cannot vary.12Figures
and 13
Figures
12
12and
showand 13
the show
showthe theforce–displacement
13force–displacement results
results of the
force–displacement of
tested
results the
thetested
testedspecimens.
ofspecimens. specimens.

12. Comparative graph

Figure 12.
Figure graph of the behavior
behavior of specimens P03,
P03, P04, P05
P05 and P06.
P06.
Figure 12.Comparative
Comparative graphofofthe
the behaviorofofspecimens
specimens P03,P04,
P04, P05and
and P06.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1528 11 of 15
11 of 15

11 of 15

Figure 13. Comparative graph of the behavior of the specimens P03, P04, P05 and P06 (in detail).
Figure 13. Comparative graph of the behavior of the specimens P03, P04, P05 and P06 (in detail).
Figure 13. Comparative graph of the behavior of the specimens P03, P04, P05 and P06 (in detail).
InInthe
theinitial
initialloading
loadingand andunloading
unloadingcyclescycles(shown
(showninindetail
detailininFigure
Figure12),12),the
thefirst
firstload
loadwaswaselastic
elastic
and the In the
secondinitial loading
unload wasand unloading
strikingly cycles
similar (shown
to the in
first detail
one asin Figure
no 12),
plastic the first
deformation load was
took elastic
place.
and the second unload was strikingly similar to the first one as no plastic deformation took place.
andThere
the second unloaddeformation
was strikingly similar to the firstaone as no plastic deformation took place. last
Therewas wasplastic
plastic deformationofofthe thematerial
materialand and areduction
reductionininthe thesection
sectionresistance
resistanceininthe the last
cycles Theretowas plastic deformation of the material and a reduction in the
areasection resistance in the last
cyclesdue due thethe
to elastic branch
elastic andand
branch another almost
another horizontal
almost plastic
horizontal plastic where the deformation
area where grew
the deformation
cycles
without due to the
the loadthe elastic
increasing. branch and another almost horizontal plastic area where the deformation
grew without load increasing.
grew without
Figure 14A,B theillustrates
load increasing.
how thethe
concrete in the upper partpart
of the critical section waswasdislodged by
Figure 14A,B illustrates how concrete in the upper of the critical
Figure 14A,B illustrates how the concrete in the upper part of the critical section was dislodged
section dislodged
the
by buckling reinforcements.
by the
the buckling reinforcements.
buckling reinforcements.
The
The bars were
werecompressed,
compressed,the theupper steel cross-section flange buckled and even the
thefirst broken
The bars
bars were compressed, the upper
upper steel
steel cross-section
cross-section flange
flange buckled
buckled andand eveneven
the first first
brokenbroken
stirrup
stirrup confined the compressed concrete. The concrete confined between the core of the web and the
stirrup confined the compressed concrete. The concrete confined between the core of the web and the the
confined the compressed concrete. The concrete confined between the core of the web and
flanges
flanges did notnot come loose, which ensured the friction bond between the twothe materialsmaterials
without having
flanges diddid not comecome loose,
loose, which
which ensured
ensured thefriction
the friction bond
bond between
between the twotwo materials without without
tohaving
design connectors
having to design
as
design connectors in other types
connectorsasasininother of mixed
othertypes
types structures.
ofof mixed
mixed structures.
structures.

(A)
(A) (B)
(B)
Figure14.
Figure 14.The
Thespecimen
specimen P06 at the end of the test (A) and a detail (B).
Figure 14. The specimen P06
P06at
atthe
theend
endofofthe
thetest
test(A)
(A)and
anda detail (B).
a detail (B).

The
The reinforcementbars
Thereinforcement
reinforcement barsof
bars ofofspecimen
specimenP07b
specimen P07b
P07b were
were
were thethe
the same
same
same asthose
those
asasthose of specimen
ofofspecimen
specimen P07a.P07a.
P07a. Specimen
Specimen
Specimen
P07b
P07b
P07b was
was createdafter
wascreated
created afterrealizing
after realizingthat
realizing thatthe
that theplastic
plastic
plastic hinge
hinge
hinge appeared
appeared
appeared prematurely
prematurely
prematurely inininthe
the thetransition
transition
transition between
between
between
the
the hollow
hollow cross-section
cross-section and
and the
the reinforced
reinforced concrete
concrete section
section while
while
the hollow cross-section and the reinforced concrete section while testing specimen P07a. testing
testing specimen
specimen P07a.P07a.
ItItwas
was verified
verified
verified thatthat
that
the the
the transition
transition
transition had
had had to
totobebebe carried
carried
carried outoutout properly
properly
properly for
forthe
for the the hinge
hinge
hinge toto to appear
appear
appear inin in
the
the the
joint
asjoint
joint
opposedas opposed
opposed to the
to the previous
to the previous previous test,inin
test,
test, in which which
which
this this
this
transition transition
transition
appeared appeared
appeared
at atwhere
at the
the point the
pointpoint
where
the where
the the
embedded
embedded
embedded cross-section
cross-section
cross-section ended. ended.
ended.
The transition at the edge of the tubular cross-section and the breakage of the specimen in the
section close to the joint was shown to be exactly the same as the previous specimens, except for
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1528 12 of 15

The transition at the edge of the tubular cross-section and the breakage of the specimen 12in of
the15
12 of 15
section close to the joint was shown to be exactly the same as the previous specimens, except for
specimen
specimen P07a. The concrete in the section near the joint was broken off, with almost the whole outer
specimenP07a.
P07a. The concrete in the section near the joint was broken off, with almost the whole outer
part
part having broken off in the most damaged zone (Figure 15).
part havingbroken
having brokenoffoffin
inthe
themost
mostdamaged
damagedzone
zone(Figure
(Figure15).
15).

(A)
(A) (B)
(B)
Figure 15.
Figure 15. Detail of specimen P07a, (A), and
and P07b,
P07b, (B).
(B).
Figure 15. Detail of specimen P07a, (A), and P07b, (B).

The
The reinforced bars broke while the stirrup opening and the top of the tubular cross-section
The reinforced
reinforced bars
bars broke
broke while
while the
the stirrup
stirrup opening
opening and
and the
the top
top of
of the
the tubular
tubular cross-section
cross-section
buckled
buckled although the concrete confined inside maintained a good appearance. The results can be seen
buckled although the concrete confined inside maintained a good appearance. Theresults
although the concrete confined inside maintained a good appearance. The resultscan
canbe
beseen
seen
in
in Figure
Figure 16.
16.
in Figure 16.

Figure 16. Comparative graph of the behavior of specimens P06, P07a and P07b.
Figure 16. Comparative graph of the behavior of specimens P06, P07a and P07b.
Figure 16. Comparative graph of the behavior of specimens P06, P07a and P07b.
The thickness of 5 mm for the tubular cross-section was insufficient and a thicker tubular
The
Thethickness
thickness of
of55mm for
mmthe the
thetubular
forjoint’s
tubular cross-section
cross-sectionwas
wasinsufficient
insufficient and aathicker tubular cross-
cross-section that increases ductility must be designed in future and
tests. thicker tubular cross-
section
section that increases
that17
increases the joint’s
the joint’s ductility
ductilitymust be designed
must be designed in future
in future tests.
tests.
Figure is a summary of the force–displacement envelope curves of the tested specimens P03,
Figure
Figure 17 is a summary of the force–displacement envelope curves of
ofthe tested specimens P03,
P04, P05, P0617andis aP7b,
summary
which of
werethe realized
force–displacement
to compare envelope curves
the results. Figures the tested
12 and 16specimens P03,
show the real
P04,
P04, P05,
P05,P06
P06 and
and P7b,
P7b, which
which were
were realized
realized to
tocompare
compare the
theresults.
results.Figures
Figures 12
12and
and 16
16show
show the
thereal
real
detailed data of the tests with loads and unloads.
detailed
detaileddata
dataofofthe
thetests
testswith
withloads
loadsand
andunloads.
unloads.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1528 13 of 15
13 of 15

Figure 17. Summary of the experimental results obtained in specimens P03, P04, P05, P06 and P07b
Figure 17. Summary of the experimental results obtained in specimens P03, P04, P05, P06 and P07b
(Fe = Maximum Experimental Force).
(Fe = Maximum Experimental Force).
The slope of the graph depends on the modulus of elasticity and this showed a clear increase in
The slope
the stiffness of of
thethe graph depends
specimen P04 steelonreinforced
the modulus of elasticity
concrete compared andto this
theshowed
specimen a clear
P03 increase
reinforced in
the stiffness of the specimen P04 steel reinforced concrete compared to the specimen
concrete. It can be observed that the stiffness is greater in the SRC joints than in the RC ones, depending P03 reinforced
concrete. It can be observed
on the cross-sectional area andthat the stiffness
the reinforced bars.is greater in the SRC joints than in the RC ones,
depending on the cross-sectional area and the reinforced
The energy absorbed by the structure is the area enclosed bars. by the abscissa and the curves of
the graph. The energy absorbed by the structure in specimenby
The energy absorbed by the structure is the area enclosed P04theisabscissa
21.77 kN·mand the curves
higher than ofthat
the
graph.
absorbed Theby energy
specimenabsorbed by the
P05 but withstructure in specimen
equal maximum P04 is 21.77
resistance, whichkN·m washigher
30.23 than
kN·mthat absorbed
greater than
by specimen
specimen P03. P05 but with equal maximum resistance, which was 30.23 kN·m greater than specimen
P03. Specimen P04 absorbed three times more energy than specimen P03 (with no embedded
Specimen P04
cross-section). Theabsorbed
ultimatethree times more
deformation wasenergy than specimen
appreciably greater P03 (with
in the SRC nostructures,
embedded which cross-
section). The ultimate deformation was appreciably greater in the SRC structures,
acted as steel structures in the deformations that came close to the break compared to the SR structures, which acted as steel
structures
whose ultimatein thebreak
deformations
was fragile.that came close to the break compared to the SR structures, whose
ultimate break was fragile.
5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
Based on the results obtained in the present article, the following conclusions are drawn:
Based on the results obtained in the present article, the following conclusions are drawn:
- -The
Theresults
resultsof ofusing
usingthe
theconventional
conventionaltest test frame
frame with
with a loading–unloading cycle are comparable
to those conducted with more complex
to those conducted with more complex frames in which frames in loads
whichhaveloadsbeenhave been with
applied appliedthe with
oppositethe
opposite direction.
direction.
- -The
Thespecimens
specimensofofSRC SRCshowed
showedimproved
improved resistance
resistance andand ductility
ductility compared
compared to specimens of
reinforced
reinforced concrete.
concrete. The specimens
The specimens of steelofreinforced
steel reinforced
concreteconcrete canvery
can reach reachhigh
verydeflections
high deflections
before
their before
collapse.their collapse.
- -For
Forhigh
high deformations,
deformations, a specimen
a specimen with with
a squarea square tube cross-section
tube cross-section has considerably
has considerably less
less resistance
resistance compared
compared to thetoHEBthe cross-section
HEB cross-sectiondue todue the to the greater
greater flexuralflexural efficiency
efficiency of thecross-section.
of the steel steel cross-
section.
The The specimen
specimen of reinforced
of steel steel reinforced
concreteconcrete with across-section
with a tubular tubular cross-section
with greaterwith greater
thicknesses
thicknesses
achieved achieved
the most the efficient
most efficient
ratio. ratio.
This This
would would
allow allow better
better appreciation
appreciation of the
of the advantage
advantage of
of confined
confined concrete.
concrete.
- -The
Thestudied
studiedtypology
typologywithwithonly
onlypartial
partial steel
steel cross-section
cross-section reinforcement
reinforcement is a very interesting
solution that can
solution thatbe incorporated
can to improve
be incorporated to improvereinforced concrete
reinforced structures’
concrete mechanical
structures’ mechanical behavior.
behavior.
- -The energy absorbed by the structure in the specimen with steel reinforced concrete is higher
The energy absorbed by the structure in the specimen with steel reinforced concrete is higher
than that
thanabsorbed
that absorbedby the byspecimen
the specimenwith with
reinforced concrete.
reinforced concrete.
- The crack pattern of all the specimens of steel reinforced concrete joints is quite similar to that
of reinforced concrete joints.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1528 14 of 15

- The crack pattern of all the specimens of steel reinforced concrete joints is quite similar to that of
reinforced concrete joints.
- The tubular cross-section with the concrete inside used to create the steel reinforced concrete has
better behavior in terms of bending strength. This is the normal situation against a seismic action.

Author Contributions: I.M. and R.I.; methodology, investigation, writing original and review, supervision; J.C.P.
and A.G.; investigation and writing review.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ). AIJ Standards for Structural Calculation of Steel Reinforced Concrete
Structures; Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ): Tokyo, Japan, 2001.
2. Furlong, R.W. Strength of Steel-Encased Concrete Beam Columns. J. Struct. Div. 1967, 93, 113–124.
3. Wakabayashi, M. Design of Earthquake-Resistant Buildings; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1986.
4. Mirmiran, A.; Shahawy, M. Behavior of concrete columns confined by fiber composites. J. Struct. Eng. 1997,
123, 583–590. [CrossRef]
5. Gioncu, V.; Petcu, D. Available rotation capacity of wide-flange beams and beam-columns Part 1. Theoretical
approaches. J. Constr. Steel Res. 1997, 43, 161–217. [CrossRef]
6. Gioncu, V.; Petcu, D. Available rotation capacity of wide-flange beams and beam-columns Part 2. Experimental
and numerical tests. J. Constr. Steel Res. 1997, 43, 219–244. [CrossRef]
7. Chen, C.C.; Lin, K.T. Behavior and strength of steel reinforced concrete beam–column joints with two-side
force inputs. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2009, 65, 641–649. [CrossRef]
8. Tong, L.; Liu, B.; Xian, Q.; Zhao, X.-L. Experimental study on fatigue behavior of Steel reinforced concrete
beams. Eng. Struct. 2016, 123, 247–262. [CrossRef]
9. Giménez Carbó, E. Estudio experimental y numérico de soportes de hormigón armado reforzados con
perfiles metálicos sometidos a esfuerzos de compresión simple. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Politécnica de
Valencia, València, Spain, 26 June 2007. (In Spanish).
10. Figueirido, D.H. Estudio experimental del pandeo de perfiles tubulares rectangulares de acero, rellenos de
hormigón de alta resistencia, bajo carga axial y diagrama de momentos variables. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad
Politécnica de Valencia, València, Spain, 10 February 2012. (In Spanish).
11. Chen, Z.; Xu, J.; Xue, J. Hysteretic behavior of special shaped columns composed of steel and reinforced
concrete (SRC). Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vibr. 2015, 14, 329–345. [CrossRef]
12. Yan, C.; Yang, D.; Ma, Z.J.; Jia, J. Hysteretic model of SRUHSC column and SRC beam joints considering
damage effects. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vibr. 2017, 50. [CrossRef]
13. Chen, C.-C.; Suswanto, B.; Lin, Y.-J. Behavior and strength of steel reinforced concrete beam-column joints
with single-side force inputs. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2009, 65, 1569–1581. [CrossRef]
14. Chen, S.; Wu, P. Analytical model for predicting axial compressive behavior of steel reinforced concrete
column. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2017, 128, 649–660. [CrossRef]
15. Bossio, A.; Fabbrocino, F.; Lignola, G.P.; Prota, A.; Manfredi, G. Design Oriented Model for the Assessment
of T-Shaped Beam-Column Joints in Reinforced Concrete Frames. Buildings 2017, 7, 118. [CrossRef]
16. Santarsiero, G. FE Modelling of the Seismic Behavior of Wide Beam-Column Joints Strengthened with CFRP
Systems. Buildings 2018, 8, 31. [CrossRef]
17. Kabir, M.R.; Alam, M.S.; Said, A.M.; Ayad, A. Performance of Hybrid Reinforced Concrete Beam Column
Joint: A Critical Review. Fibers 2016, 4, 13. [CrossRef]
18. Gribniak, V.; Tamulenas, V.; Ng, P.-L.; Arnautov, A.K.; Gudonis, E.; Misiunaite, I. Mechanical Behavior of
Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Beams Bonded with External Carbon Fiber Sheets. Materials 2017, 10, 666.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Iqbal, S.; Ali, A.; Holschemacher, K.; Bier, T.A. Mechanical properties of steel fiber reinforced high strength
lightweight self-compacting concrete (SHLSCC). Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 98, 325–333. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1528 15 of 15

20. Tran, M.-T.; Bui, Q.-B.; Sentosa, B.; Nguyen, N.-T.; Duong, T.-H.; Plé, O. Sustainable RC Beam-Column
Connections with Headed Bars: A Formula for Shear Strength Evaluation. Sustainability 2018, 10, 401.
[CrossRef]
21. ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI318-05) and Commentary
(ACI 318R-05); American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2005.
22. EN 1994-1-1: Eurocode 4: Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures; The European Union: Brussels,
Belgium, 2004.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).