Hindawi

Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Volume 2022, Article ID 4626392, 14 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4626392

Review Article
Configuration Features and Calculation Mechanisms of the
Composite RC Column-Steel Beam (RCS) Joints: State of the Art

Liquan Xiong , Xingyue Pan, Zhen Jia, Zhengchao Guo, Linyan Li, and Jian He
Department of Civil Engineering, Chongqing Tree Gorges University, Chongqing 404020, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Liquan Xiong; xiongliquan2013@126.com

Received 14 June 2022; Revised 17 October 2022; Accepted 2 November 2022; Published 9 November 2022

Academic Editor: Piero Colajanni

Copyright © 2022 Liquan Xiong et al. Tis is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reinforced concrete and steel (RCS) composite moment frame structures consist of reinforced concrete (RC) columns and steel
(S) beams. Such systems combined with several advantages of the two structural members have larger structural stifness, lower
cost, and faster construction speed than the traditional concrete or steel frame system to be a particularly well viable alternative for
use in seismic risk regions. Te calculation of joint shear capacity is an essential step in seismic design. Tis study introduces the
typical confguration characteristics of the RCS connection and reviews the state of the art of the shear bearing capacity in terms of
failure models, shear distribution mechanisms, calculation mechanisms, and requirements given in the experimental and
theoretical study to provide reference and foundation for the subsequent study. Finally, the development of recommendations and
further research studies on seismic performance of RCS composite frames are provided.

1. Introduction concrete (SRC) structure performed well in the 1923 Kanto

earthquake, which made a contribution to the development
Te reinforced concrete and steel (RCS) composite structure of the prevalence of the composite system by the con-
consisting of reinforced concrete columns (RC), steel beams struction companies and occupants. Under this background,
(S), and concrete slabs with generally composite metal the RCS composite system was recommended to obtain the
decking have gained increasing interest in the seismic region long-span capabilities and cost savings compared with the
over the past decades. Compared with the conventional steel RC moment frames in high seismic zones [10–12].
or RC frame systems, the RCS composite frames using RC Compared with the members in the traditional steel or
rather than structural steel columns provide the superior reinforced concrete moment frame structures in the seismic
attributes of large span, light self-weight, good fre resis- design, a primary challenge for the composite RCS frames
tance, excellent lateral stifness, fast construction speed, and focused on the reliable junction among the steel beams and
excellent seismic performance [1–4]. Such systems are RC columns. Many researchers [1, 5, 7, 13–19] conducted a
particularly well viable alternative for use in mid-to-high- series of experimental programs to investigate the joint
rise buildings in low to moderate seismic risk regions and details, failure modes, shear strength, high strength concrete,
low-to mid-rise buildings in moderate to high seismic risk column-to-beam strength ratio, and axial force efect of the
regions [5, 6]. RCS connection. Te results of those specimens have been
Te RCS composite frames began to gain popularity in presented as follows: (1) the RCS joints with proper details
both the United States and Japan in the late 1970’s and early can provide stable, ductile, and predictable behavior under
1980’s, respectively. In the United States, this system reversed cyclic loading, (2) basic mechanics provides un-
replacing the steel columns of traditional steel moment derstanding of the internal shear mechanisms and the failure
frames can provide high axial compressive loads to satisfy modes that govern the RCS joint strength, and (3) the
the building height and lateral stifness (drift) criteria in utilization of the details in RCS joints can enhance the
engineering practice [7–9]. In Japan, the steel reinforced strength and stifness of subassemblies, which would reduce
2 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

the joint distortion and rigid body rotation to increase the According to those studies, the research progress of shear
capacity of shear resistance. To study the composite efects of bearing capacity formulas of the RCS joints focused on
RCS joint with the RC slab, extensive data [3, 19–25] indicate providing reference for the subsequent study.
that (1) the specimens following the strong column weak
beam criterion formed the plastic hinges at the beam ends 2. Configuration and Damage Features of the
and showed a good cyclic performance (Figure 1); (2) the
comparison of interior RCS subassemblies without the RC
RCS Joints
foor slab, the ultimate shear strength of the composite 2.1. Te Types of the RCS Joints. According to diferent
beam-slab sections was calculated, and 20% strength in- design phenomena, the RCS connections are classifed into
crease was seen in the specimen due to RC slab; (3) avoiding beam-through type and column-through type, as illustrated
the high compressive stresses by the involvement of cast in in Figure 2. For the beam-through type (Figure 2(a)), the
situ slab in the joint region resulted in the area of concrete steel beam which continuously passes through the RC
getting crushed near the corners of column, and guidelines column can eliminate welding at the maximum bending
and recommendations for the RCS connections with proper moment region or bolting the steel beam in the joint, and the
details, e.g., cover plates, band plates, and shear studs, were proper details can strengthen the RCS joint to provide very
necessary for seismic design; and (4) efective fange width of stable and ductile behavior under reversed cyclic loading
the composite beam-slab sections has a signifcant efect on (Figure 3). In general, the small steel column is encased in
the capacity of beam moment and equivalent elastic moment concrete and the face bearing plates were connected to the
of inertia values. To evaluate the behavior of the exterior RCS steel web panel. Te advantages of this RCS joint mainly
connections [17, 26–30], various details, such as end plates, include those as follows: (1) the steel beam was continuous
shear keys, and extended cover plates, and the shear strength through the RC column to mobilize the force transfer
models have been proposed. Additionally, the infuential mechanism between the steel and concrete to avoid the
factors of the RCS connections on the static performance fracture-critical joints and (2) the steel columns encased by
including the axial compression ratio, steel insert length, the reinforced concrete columns provide for an efcient vertical
thickness of end plate, and the column concrete grade was spread of the construction activity. Certainly, the details of
also studied. Tose results pointed out that RCS frames were the composite connection might cause the difculties in
suitable for getting recognized as an alternative to the high some ways of assembling reinforcement and casting the
seismic risk zones. Besides, the novel type RCS connection concrete in engineering practice. To ensure construction
weakening the extension beam end-joint was proposed to quality, the steel beam fanges can extend to the joint which
move the plastic hinge from the end of a beam to a weakened partly cuts of to keep the longitudinal reinforcement of the
point and a novel through-column type with the details of H column passing through the connection to facilitate casting
steel profle and plates in the joint which presented stable and vibrating the concrete [5]. As shown in Figure 2(a), the
seismic performance [31, 32]. major distinction of “through-beam” vs. “through-column”
To learn more about the cyclic performance of RCS type connections is that the steel fanges are interrupted at
moment frames in the building structures, a series of tests the joint to minimize the impact on construction. Trough-
have been conducted [33–39]. Te results reported that (1) column type connections combining conventional SRC
the frame structures with two joint details of through-beam concepts where encasing the end of the steel beam connected
type and through-column type had an excellent seismic to the concrete column have been the preferred detail in
performance, those of which presented the plastic hinge Japan. Additionally, the connection details include inner or
mechanisms that concentrated upon the end of steel beams outer diaphragms, cover plates, and a transverse stifener
and the bottom of RC columns to meet the strong-joint connected the steel panel zone to strengthen the strength
weak-component criterion; (2) the structure slightly dam- and ductility capacity of the RCS joints (Figure 3) [40, 41].
aged in frequent earthquake and presented the collapse However, the disadvantage of the connection with cutting
prevention level under rare earthquake to further validate the fange is that it might cause the reduction of bearing area
the reliability of this innovative system. However, the pre- in joint regions to decrease the stress transferring mecha-
viously mentioned studies clearly show that the mass of nisms [42, 43]. Te primary goal of these tests nearly focused
experimental studies for the RCS joints have been done in on validating specifc joint details instead of quantifying
comparison with the moment frames, and research studies the internal force transfer mechanisms of the joint (see
on the behavior of the overall frame structures will be Figure 4).
conducted further.
RCS connections subjected to large shear forces under
seismic loads are one of the key parts to form an efcient 2.2. Typical Joint Details. Te beam-column joints play a key
composite structure. Te objective of this study is frstly to role in a composite reinforced concrete column-to-steel
present the structural confguration features and failure beam frame system. Compared with the conventional
models of composite RCS connections. Additionally, the concrete or steel frame, the mechanical feature of RCS joints
state-of-the-art of shear bearing capacity models of the RCS shows a complex condition due to the unique connection
connections in terms of shear distribution mechanisms, between the steel beam and the reinforced concrete column.
calculation mechanisms, and requirements given in the Te previously mentioned studies clearly focused on the
experimental and theoretical study was introduced. design of the composite RCS beam-column connections,
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 3

200
150
100
50

P (kN)
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-100 -50 0 50 100
Δ (mm)
(a) (b)

Figure 1: Load-displacement curve (specimen 3) by Men et al. [3]: (a) specimen 3 and (b) load-displacement curve.

Steel beam Steel beam

RC Column RC Column
(a) (b)

Figure 2: RCS connections: (a) the beam-through type and (b) the column-through type.

Drif (% radian)
–7 –6 –5 –4 –3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
800
INUC (E)

400
Beam Shear (kN)

–400

–800
–210
–180
–150
–120
–90
–60
–30
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210

Displacement at Beam End (mm)

(a) (b)

Figure 3: Te behavior of beam-through type connections by Cheng and Chen [15]: (a) the failure mode and (b) force-displacement loops.

especially for the confgurations, to quantify the internal features of RCS connection details is shown in Figure 5. Te
force transfer mechanisms and maintain displacement details in Figures 5(a)–5(f ) are so-called “through-beam”
compatibility of the joints. 3D representation of the typical type connections. In Figure 5(a), face bearing plates (FBPs)
4 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

250 2.3. Failure Models of the RCS Joint

200
2.3.1. Typical Failure Models. According to the research of
150 Sheikh et al. [7, 46], the typical failure model of the RCS
100 connections is characterized by the panel shear failure and
50
vertical bearing failure, as shown in Figure 6. Tose failure
Shear (kN)

modes of RCS connections were accepted by the scholars in

0 this feld and ASCE Seismic Provisions [47]. From a series of
-50 tests on the behavior of internal RCS connections with
-100 proper details as mentioned previously, the characteristics of
the panel shear failure (Figure 6(a)) consisted of the yield of
-150
steel beam web, concrete cracking, and crushing, which are
-200 typically similar to the steel or reinforced concrete joints. A
-250 bearing failure (see in Figure 6(b)) occurs when the concrete
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
in the column regions adjacent to the beam fanges crushes
Story Drif Angle (×10-2rad.) due to high-bearing strains. At the same time, rigid body
BR/1 rotation of the steel beam in the joint located just above and
BR/2 below the steel fanges was presented. It is desirable for
bVy engineers to design RCS connections to possess a bearing
strength larger than shear strength in order to gain stable
Figure 4: Force-displacement loops of column-through type
connection by Kuramoto and Nishiyama [41]. ductile performance. As described, those details which in-
clude small steel column, band plates, shear studs, and
vertical joint reinforcements, as shown in Figure 5, are some
located at the face of the concrete column are fllet welded to means of strengthening for bearing strength in the joint.
the steel beam web and fanges to mobilize the shear re-
sistance of the concrete in the joint region. In general,
stirrups passing through the web of the steel beam were also 2.3.2. Other Failure Modes. Based on the results of exper-
used to stabilize the vertical column reinforcements and iments [1, 5], other failure modes of the interior RCS joints
constrain the concrete in the joint. In Figure 5(b), the exhibited local shear failure and joint-beam mixed failure
transverse beam was welded to the beam web orthogonally. from Figure 7. For simple construction, the steel beam
From Figure 5(c), we can see that FBPs can vary in width and fanges were partly cut of in the joint proposed by Men et al.
may be either in full height or split for fabrication ease, such [5]. Additionally, the specimens followed the design phi-
as broaden and extended face bearing plates (E-FBPs) to losophy of the strong-component weak-joint criterion to
avoid the concrete crushing in the high-bearing stresses zone evaluate the seismic performance. However, the local shear
located just above and below the steel beam fanges [7]. failure of the specimens 2 and 4 was observed since the
Additionally, the similar details include vertical reinforce- details could not confne concrete in the joint to carry
ments, shear studs, and band plates (Figure 5(d)) which tension forces associated with the compression feld
connected to the beam fanges are convenient to enhance the mechanism. As shown in Figure 7(a), the features of the local
vertical bearing strength in the continuous direction shear failure are a combination of panel shear failure and
[15, 17, 44, 45]. Figure 5(e) shows that cover plates wrapping vertical bearing failure. Te damage phenomena of those
around the RC column region constrained the concrete in specimens include the local yield of steel web, concrete
the core regions to form the excellent confnement condi- cracking in the joint, and the rigid body rotation of the steel
tions. Small steel columns, as shown in Figure 5(f ), are beam within the concrete column which resulted in concrete
welded to the beam fanges and embedded in the RC col- crushing along the margin of the steel fanges. At the same
umn, and these act as the erection columns to provide for an time, the similar failure features were recorded by other tests
efcient vertical support for construction and are also used [13, 49]. In general, the relative participation of each failure
for shear transfer purposes. Te details in Figures 5(g)–5(i) depends upon joint detailing, as discussed previously.
are so-called “through-column” type connections. However, from the behavior of those specimens, local shear
Figure 5(g)shows that the vertical stifener forms an octa- failure (Figure 7(a)) showed good seismic performance with
gon-shaped joint region encompassing the column to stable load versus displacement response, excellent strength,
simplify constructability. Tese stifener plates were feld and deformation capacity to meet the requirement for
welded to the extended FBPs by means of full penetration earthquake resistant structures.
welding. Joint detailing consisted of cover plates and a An example representative of tests with joint-beam
horizontal stifener to strengthen the joint region, as shown mixed failure shown by Lee et al. [1] on the details of
in Figure 5(h). Figure 5(i) is an example of hybrid detail, specimens include FBPs, transverse beams, and headed studs
combining conventional SRC concepts by encasing the inner according to the ASCE guidelines (ASCE 1994) [47]. Fur-
or outer diaphragm. It is noteworthy that these types of thermore, the closely spaced ties installed in the joint to
connection details can be used alone or in conjunction with protect the highly stressed bearing region support the strut-
each other to efectively mobilize joint force. and-tie action of the outer compression feld. Four interior
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 5

Stirrups

Transverse beam Extended face bearing plates

Face bearing plates
(a) (b) (c)

Band plates Cover plates Small steel column

(d) (e) (f )

Vertical stifener Cover plates Horizontal stifener Diaphragm

(g) (h) (i)

Figure 5: Typical features of joint detail by Nishiyama et al. [43]: (a) face bearing plates, (b) transverse beam, (c) extended face bearing
plates, (d) band plates, (e) cover plates, (f ) small steel column, (g) vertical stifener, (h) horizontal stifener, and (i) diaphragm.

Steel web Concrete Concrete

yield cracking Crushing

Concrete Gap
crushing RCSJ-2[48]

Specimen 1[5]

(a) (b)

Figure 6: Two types of joint failure models [1, 5, 46]: (a) panel shear failure and (b) vertical bearing failure.
6 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Concrete 180
crushing
90

P (kN)
0

-90
Panel
shear
-180
-80 -40 0 40 80
Specimen 2 [5] Δ (mm)

Failure model Hysteretic curves

(a)

1200
900
600
300
-5.7%
0
+6.3%
-300
-600
Panel
Shear -900
F16[1]
Yield -1200

-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Story drif ratio (rad.)
Failure model
Hysteretic curves
(b)

Figure 7: Other failure features: (a) local shear failure [5] and (b) joint-beam mixed failure [1].

beam column joints were designed with the strong column- 3. Shear Mechanisms of the RCS Joints
weak beam concept. Nevertheless, the unfavorable failure
mode of those specimens reported that the beam column 3.1. Force Distribution of the RCS Joints. Force distribution
connection became severely damaged and the plastic hinges of the interior RCS joints is illustrated in Figure 8. As
were developed until the end of testing due to the absence of shown in Figure 8, the forces of the joint include the
strengthening details to mobilize the shear mechanism of the bending moments, shear forces, and axial forces trans-
outer panel. Te damage features were similar to that of mitted from the RC column ends and the right and left sides
specimens OB1-1, OBJS1-1, and OBJS2-0 conducted by of the steel beams, which caused the joint region to be
Kanno [13]. Te characteristics of joint-beam mixed failure placed in a state of compression-bending-shear composite
consisted of the yield of steel web, the oblique concrete stress. Because of the small axial force of the steel beam,
cracks, and the fange fexural yielding which penetrated the they are generally negligible to simplify the force calcula-
joint panel (Figure 7(b)). Te reason for the joint-beam tion model. For the axial pressure of the column, although
mixed failure might be that the plastic hinge zone is spread some tested results indicated that the axial force has a
over a relatively large length rather than being concentrated certain infuence on the mechanical performance of the
at the column face because the shear strength of the joint is joint [13, 50], most of the current researches did not
equivalent to that of the fexural or local buckling capacity of consider the axial force. At the same time, this study as-
the steel beam. Meanwhile, the joint-beam mixed failure sumes that the bending moment and shear force from the
model seemed to be the limit state of the plastic hinge region right and left beam ends are equal, and the bending mo-
of the steel beam and local shear failure of the joint. Nev- ment and shear force from the upper and lower column
ertheless, these specimens had good strength and defor- ends are also equal.
mation capacity (Figure 7(b)) to be used for the low to According to the force equilibrium condition of the
moderate seismic design of RCS joints. Based on the interior RCS joints (see in Figure 8), the shear capacity Vjt in
mentioned failure models, the connection details of the RCS the core area of the joint can be obtained as
joints consisted of FBPs or E-FBPs, band plates, or shear Mbl + Mbr h
keys, and cover plates should be installed to transfer of Vjt � 􏼠1 − bw 􏼡, (1)
hbw hc − hb
member forces to satisfy in the design practice.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 7

b h Steel beam
Nc bf
Mc
Infection point Inner bj
Vc Vbr Nbr
element
Mbr d tf
j bp
Vjt
hc Nbl bo/2 dj

Mbl
Interior joint hb Vbl
FBP
Outer element RC column
bj
Efective joint region b
Efective joint width
Steel beam- RC column subassembly
Figure 8: Force transfer mechanisms of the interior RCS joint.

where Mbl and Mbr are the bending moments at the root of shear force is transferred horizontally from the beam fanges
the left and right beam, hb is the beam section height, hc is the into the compression feld due to the joint details of the
distance between the infection points of the upper and lower embedded small steel column, stifeners extended above and
column ends of the joint, hbw is the distance between the below the steel beam, shear studs, or reinforcements welded to
fanges of the steel beam, and hbw is equal to (hb − tf ), where tf the beam fanges. Te research results [1, 51] indicated that the
is the thickness of the steel fange. sum of the contributions of the steel web and inner concrete
strut is approximately 60% for the shear strength of RCS joints
and that of the outer concrete compression fled is approx-
3.2. Mechanisms for RCS Joint Shear Resistance imately 40%, respectively. Certainly, shear capacity of the
outer element in the joint region could decrease because the
3.2.1. Beam-Trough Type Joint. As shown in Figure 8, force diference depends on the absence of strengthening joint
transfer mechanisms of the beam-through type RCS joint details to mobilize the shear mechanism of the outer panel.
with the proper details indicated that the efective joint region
consisted of the inner element and outer element to meet the
bearing capacity and compatibility of deformation. Te width 3.2.2. Column-Trough Type Joint. As mentioned before (see
of FBPs, E-FBPs, steel fange, and studs determined that of in Figure 5), the details of column-through type joint gen-
inner element and the details of band plates, cover plates, and erally include cover plates, orthogonal steel web, and dia-
small steel column afected the outer element width in the phragm to keep the longitudinal reinforcement through the
joint, respectively. Based on the damage features of the ex- connection to simplify constructability; at the same time, the
perimental and fnite element models results [1, 2, 7, 16, 18], joint details also guarantee stress transferring mechanisms for
the load resistance mechanisms for joint shear capacity in the composite reinforced concrete and steel joint. According to
beam-through RCS joints is generally provided by three the experimental results by Kuramoto and Nishiyama [41],
mechanisms: steel web panel, inner concrete diagonal strut, four mechanisms for beam-through type joint shear resis-
and outer concrete compression feld, as shown in Figure 9. In tance are shown in Figures 10(a)–10(d). From Figures 10(a)
the RCS joints, the behavior of the steel web panel similar to and 10(b), the stress transferring mechanisms consisted of
that, in the steel frames is idealized as carrying pure shear steel web panel, concrete diagonal strut, and concrete hori-
stress over a portion of the joint region, as shown in zontal strut in the joint. Te steel web panel mechanism and
Figure 9(a), which is dependent on the location and distri- concrete diagonal strut mechanism formed in the inner el-
bution of vertical bearing stresses. Te inner concrete diag- ement are similar with those of the beam-through type joint.
onal strut in the inner element region is activated by Te concrete horizontal strut mechanism which transferred
squeezing the concrete between the steel beam fanges and the concrete compressive stresses through the inner element
FBPs or E-FBPs welded the steel beam fanges, as shown in to the outer element included concrete horizontal strut-1 and
Figure 9(b), which is similar to the mechanism model to resist concrete horizontal strut-2. Te frst one formed the concrete
shear in reinforced concrete connections. In general, the outer horizontal struts to mobilize compressive stresses from steel
concrete compression feld is composed of several com- beam fanges to FBPs in the outer panel (Figure 10(c)).
pression struts since horizontal reinforcements which welded Additionally, the second concrete horizontal strut mechanism
the steel web form a truss mechanism in the joint region was developed between the intersection point of the web
(Figure 9(c)), which was often used for establishing the panels in the core area of joints and the corner of cover plates
shear model in reinforced concrete beams. In addition, the and then mobilized the outer diagonal concrete struts, cover
concrete horizontal strut is developed in the region of column plates, and the bond stresses between reinforcing bars in the
concrete outside the steel beam fanges (Figure 9(d)). Since joint to contribute the shear capacity.
8 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 9: Mechanisms for beam-through type joint shear resistance: (a) steel web panel, (b) inner concrete diagonal strut, (c) outer concrete
compression feld, and (d) concrete horizontal strut.

4. Calculation Mechanism of the RCS Joint analysis, the shear capacity calculation formulas were
Shear Capacity recommended from the diferent countries standards and
many researchers, e.g., the American standard of ASCE, the
Te RCS joints subjected to large shear forces under seismic Japanese standard of AIJ, and the Chinese standard of JGJ
loads usually play a major role in the ultimate limit state of 138-2016, those of which indicated a noticeable diference
the capacity of whole frame structure. Terefore, the cal- to apply the seismic design. Te design guidelines of the
culation of joint shear capacity is an essential step in shear model were derived from two alternative seismic
seismic design. Based on experimental and theoretical design approaches, namely, the strength-based capacity
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 9

Cc Cc
Cb Tb Cb

C Cb
Tb C
Cb C
C
Tb Cb Cb

Cc Cc

(a) (b)
Cb Cr Tr Tcp Tcp
Tb
Tw
C
Cb Tb
Tw
Cb Tb C

Tr Cr Tcp Tcp

(c) (d)

Figure 10: Mechanisms for beam-through type joint shear resistance [41]: (a) steel web panel, (b) concrete diagonal strut, (c) concrete
horizontal strut-1, and (d) concrete horizontal strut-2.

design procedure and deformation-based capacity design where Vj is suitable for calculating the shear capacity of
procedure. Tis section systematically reviews the state of interior composite joint, Fysp and tsp are the yield strength
the art in the calculation formula and discusses the con- and thickness of the steel panel, jh is the efective web panel
tribution of the various components of the joint region to length associated with the external load imposed on the
the shear capacity of the RCS joint. Additionally, a com- joint, fc′ is the concrete compressive strength (MPa), bp and
parison between the outputs of the models was also bo are the FBPs width (inner element) and the efective width
conducted. of outer concrete panel (out element), h is the depth of
concrete column measured parallel to beam, Ash is the cross-
sectional area of reinforcing bars in each layer spaced at sh
4.1. American Calculation Methods. To learn about the be- through the beam depth, and Fysh is the yield strength of the
havior of the RCS joint, Sheikh et al. [7] performed a series of stirrups. In addition, to achieve the strong-joint weak-
tests on 15 two-thirds scale specimens under monotonic and component criterion, the details of E-FBPs or band plates
cyclic loading. Te results have shown that the internal shear rather than only installing the FBPs in the joints should be
mechanisms and modes of failure governed the joint used to attain the full plastic hinge of the steel beam ends
strength, and signifcant strength increases were achieved since the local concrete crushing would cause the unex-
using straightforward details, such as FBPs, small steel pected joint-beam mixed failure [1]. However, the shear
column, and shear studs. Based on the tested results, Dei- model was primarily based on experimental results obtained
erlein et al. [46] recommended a design model to calculate from testing of interior connections, and the accuracy of
the nominal strength of the interior composite beam-col- such design to calculate the strength of exterior and top RCS
umn joints. It is worth mentioning that the model provides subassemblies still remained skeptical. Te design provisions
the calculated nominal joint strength corresponding to of connections in RCS frames was only suitable for use in
measure values at 1% joint distortion. Based on the distinct low to moderate seismic risk zones.
failure modes and stress transfer mechanisms between an Kanno [13] performed tests on composite RCS subas-
inner and outer elements of the RCS joint, the model rec- semblies to evaluate the failure models, the detail features,
ognized that the joint behavior is characterized. Addition- and bearing strength. Based on those tested datum and the
ally, the American standard of ASCE [47] presented the ASCE specifcation [14], the shear model conducted by
guidelines for composite beam-column connection design Kanno and Deierlein [51] were used for those as follows: (1)
according to the joint shear strength mechanic model mainly address unique failure modes and stress transfer mecha-
proposed by Deierlein et al. [46], as shown in Figure 9. Te nisms in the interior joints and (2) extend the precious
shear resistance model consists of steel web panel, inner model to consider a broader set of connection details. To
diagonal concrete strut, and outer strut concrete compres- recognize the possibility of shear failure and bond failure in
sion fled, and the model for calculating the horizontal shear the outer element simultaneously with vertical bearing
strength of the interior joint is given as follows: failure in the inner panel, the revised strength model for the
􏽱�� 􏽱�� through-beam joints was proposed. Tis shear model pre-
h
Vj � 0.6Fysp tsp jh + 1.7 fc′bp h + 0.4 fc′bo h + 0.9Ash Fysh , (2) sented the signifcant diference between the failure of the
sh
10 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

inner element and the overall joint. Te shear calculation vertical column reinforcement. Compared with that of the
model consisting of the strength of inner and outer elements ASCE guidelines [47], the revised shear model modifed to
is calculated as follows: be better account for the joint failure model was applicable
for joint details, such as transverse beams and tie rein-
Vj � min􏼈Vswe , Vbe 􏼉 + min􏽮Vscf , Vb0 􏽯, forcement within the joint. Te minimum requirements of
􏽱�� the tie reinforcement might be relaxed to reduce the con-
Fysp tribution of shear strength. To ensure adequate deformation
Vswe � 􏼠 √� 􏼡tsp 0.8h + 1.65 fc′bi h,
3 capability and toughness necessary for seismic design, the tie
requirements, joint geometries, and strength resistance
Vbe � 0.47fc′bi h + Fy Ay , (3) factors of the composite RCS joints were needed to further
be studied.
􏼐Ash Fysh 0.9h􏼑 􏽱�� 􏽱�� To accurately predict the shear strength of exterior joints
Vscf � + 1.05 fc′bi h ≤ 1.65 fc′bi h, using the ASCE design guidelines, a new model to predict
sh
the shear force and stirrup and concrete strains at any level
􏽱�� of shear distortion in the beam-through RCS joints was
Vbo � 1.16 fc′φb xmr , presented by Parra-Montesinos and Wight [52]. Based on
the joint shear deformation level of 1.2% corresponding to
where Vswe and Vbe are the panel shear and vertical bearing
moderate damage and signifcant damage, the ultimate shear
strengths of the inner element, Vbo and Vscf are the strengths
strength of exterior and interior RCS connections would be
of the outer elements failing in bond and shear, respectively,
calculated for use in zones of high seismicity. Te model
bi is equal to the width of the inner element corresponding to
presented herein all the three mechanisms discussed pre-
the maximum widths of FBPs (bp) and steel fange (bf ) in
viously (see in Figure 9) according to diferent details and
Figure 9, Fy and Ay is the yield strength and total area of
contribution of the inner and outer concrete strut in the
vertical reinforcements welded the steel beam fanges, re-
joint. Te mechanic model of shear capacity similarly to that
spectively, φb is the total perimeter length of one set of the
of ASCE [47] is given as
reinforcing bars in the joint, and xmr is the center distance of

h
Vj � kw Fysp tsp √� + ki fc′ −0.0048fc′ + 1.13􏼁k1 k2 h 􏼐bf − tsp 􏼑 + ko fc′ −0.0048fc′ + 1.13􏼁k1 k2 k3 hbo , (4)
3

where kw is 0.9 and 0.8 for interior and exterior joints, According to the tested results of the beam-through RCS
respectively; ki and ko are strength factors of 0.21, 0.34, 0.32, roof level T-connections with details of FBPs and steel band
and 0.16 for interior and exterior joints, respectively; bf is the plates, ultimate horizontal joint shear strength was given by
width of the beam fange. k1, k2, and k3 listed in Table 1 are the contributions from the steel web panel and the inner and
strength factors. However, the three types of confnement outer diagonal strut [29]. Te shear force versus shear
which consisted of U-shaped stirrups, steel band plate, and distortion envelope responses of the RCS roof T-connections
cover plate were considered in this model and other details referred to that of Parra-Montesinos et al. [22]. Te shear
in the joint, such as small column and shear studs, were not strength equation can be can be determined as follows:
contributed.

Fysp
Vj � 0.8 √� tsp h + 0.29fc′ −0.0048fc′ + 1.13􏼁h 􏼐bf − tw 􏼑 + 0.5fc′ −0.0048fc′ + 1.13􏼁hbo , (5)
3

where bf is the width of steel beam fange, bo is the outer 4.2. Japanese Calculation Method. Based on a large number
panel width, bo � 12tbp, and tbp is the thickness of the steel of the interior beam-through type and column-through
band plate. However, it should be pointed out that the type joints from the analytical studies and the Japanese
applicable scope of this shear design equation is small as it standard of AIJ [53], the proposed shear design equation of
depends on the scope of the experimental data, and the RCS joints is given by Nishiyama et al. [43]. A comparison
predicted shear strength of the joint is questionable due to of the shear resistance mechanisms in the joint between the
severe bond stress degradation experienced by the column ASCE [47] and Nishiyama et al. [43] indicates that the
longitudinal bars. ultimate shear strength consisted of steel web panel, cover
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 11

Table 1: k1, k2, and k3 factors [52].

Factor Interior joint Exterior joint Joint details
1.0 1.0 FBPs and hoops
k1 1.2 1.1 FBPs and SBP
1.4 1.2 FBPs, SBP and hoops or SCP
k2 1.0/1.5 1.0/1.5 No transverse beams or transverse beams
1.1 1.1 FBPs and hoops
k3 1.3/1.5 1.3/1.5 SBP or hoops and SBP
2.0 2.0 SCP
Note. SBP � steel band plate; SCP � steel cover plate.

plates, transverse reinforcement, and concrete compres- Vj � Vs + Vn + +Vn′ + Vcp ,

sion in the joint region. Te failure mechanism of the RCS
subassemblies followed the weak beam-strong column Fysp tsp jh
criterion based on the working stress design method. Vs � √� ,
3
Te model for calculating the horizontal shear strength is
given as 􏽱��
Vn � 1.65 fc′bp h, (7)
c1 Aw σ wy 0.5Af σ fy
Qp � √� + √� + 0.25pw σ ry bc dmc + 0.04c2 c3 bc σ B δj Dc ,
3 3 􏽱�� Ash .Fysh
(6) Vn′ � 1.05 fc′bo h + 0.9h ,
sh
where Aw and Af are sectional area of steel web and cover
Fyc
plates, σ wy, σ fy, and σ ry are the yield stress of steel web, Vcp � 2α √� tc ,
cover plates, and transverse reinforcement, respectively, 3
Pw is the transverse reinforcement ratio in the joint region, where Vs, Vn, Vn’, and Vcp are the shear strength of steel
bc and Dc are the width and depth of the column, dmc is the beam web, inner element concrete, outer element external
maximum distance between tensile and compressive re- concrete, and cover plate, respectively, α is the strength
inforcement, σ B is the concrete compressive strength in the coefcient, and Fyc and tc are the thickness and yield stress
joint region, δj is a shape factor with values of the interior, of cover plate. Te test results indicated that the recom-
exterior and top-interior, and top-corner joints being 3.0, mended formulas are suitable to evaluate the shear
2.0, and 1.0, respectively, and c1, c2, and c3 are factors strength for the interior RCS connections. Compared with
depending on the details of the RCS joints (see in Figure 5), other models, the proposed equation focused on the
as shown in Table 2. Compared to other shear models mobilization coefcients for beam-column connections
originated from the ASCE guideline [47], the proposed and the shear contribution of the cover plates. Addi-
shear mode is suitable for the column-through type RCS tionally, the confning efect of the outer element concrete
joints to focus on the contribution of the cover pates and in the joint by the detail of cover plates was also con-
transverse reinforcement. Besides, the diference between sidered to fully understand the load transfer mechanism
the concrete damage mechanism and stress transferring [49].
mechanism predicted that joint shear strength was obvi-
ous. Te web panel mechanism consists of a steel web panel
and transfers shear stresses from steel beam fanges and RC 4.3. Chinese Calculation Methods. Te formula for the shear
columns (see in (6)). Te concrete mechanisms included capacity of steel reinforced concrete column-steel beam joints is
the concrete horizontal strut and diagonal strut mecha- specifed by the Chinese standard for design of composite
nism, which were considered in (6) according to the structures (JGJ 138-2016) [54]. Tis type of the joints can be
diferent details at the RCS joints. regarded as a special case of the interior beam-through type RCS
Based on the similar shear resistance mechanisms of the joint, which presented the small steel column as a detail that is
ASCE [47] and AIJ [53] specifcations, Choi et al. [6] embedded in the concrete column. Compared with that of the
proposed a new shear model to consider the contribution of ASCE guideline [47], the concrete resistance mechanism of the
detailed efect of shear keys, E-FBPs, transverse beams, and proposed shear model in the joint ignored the contribution of
cover plates in the interior RCS joints. Te calculation outer concrete compression feld to easily calculate the seismic
method for the shear capacity of the RCS joints can be given design. Te model is given by
as
12 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Table 2: Detail coefcients [43].

Factors Coefcient Detail of joint
0.8 With neither FBP nor cover plates
c1
0.9 With stirrups, FBP, or cover plate
0.8 With neither FBP nor cover plate
1.0 With stirrups, FBP, or cover plates
c2 1.1 Extended FBP or steel column and interior band plates
1.5 Exterior band plate, FBP and vertical reinforcement, and transverse stifeners
1.6 Diaphragms, wide FBP, and transverse stifeners
0.9 Without transverse beam
c3
1.0 Transverse beam

h0 − as′􏼁 experimental values to provide a reference for the RCS

Vj � 0.58Fysp tsp hw + 1.8ϕj ft bj hj + Fysh Ash , (8) composite system in the seismic design. However, the cal-
sh
culating accuracy of shear formulas for the RCS joint with
where hw is the height of steel web, ft is concrete axis tensile the RC slab was further studied due to the limitations of the
strength (MPa), ϕj is a shape factor, and the values are taken experimental specimens and fnite element simulation
to be 1.0, 0.6, and 0.3 for the interior joints, exterior and top- conditions.
interior joints, and top-corner joints, respectively, bj is the
efective joint length, which is equal to half the width of 5. Summary and Conclusions
column, hj is the column depth, h0 is the distance between
the resultant force of the tension fange and longitudinal Hybrid reinforced concrete columns (RC) and steel beams (S)
tension reinforcement to the compression edge of the moment frame structures have gained popularity in seismic
concrete section, and as′ is the concrete cover in the column. risk regions due to their efective combination of the ad-
Tis specifed shear model was applicable for the calculation vantages of the two structural members during the past
of the shear capacity of joints at diferent locations and joint several decades. Correspondingly, a signifcant amount of
types in the frame. Besides, the design formulas considered research studies on the performance and design approaches
the details of cover plates, band plates, and stirrups in the or guidelines of the RCS joints and whole frames have been
joint. However, the calculated values of Chinese standard of conducted by the scholars and engineers. Tis study has
JGJ 138-2016 [54] does not take into consideration the summarized representative recent research projects focusing
impact of the axial pressure in the RC column to meet the on shear capacity of the RCS joints: confguration features,
structural safety in engineering practice. failure models, mechanisms for joint shear resistance, and
To evaluate the shear capacity considering the efect of calculation formulas. According to the diferent detail features
axial compression ratio and RC slab width, Chu et al. [19] and design approaches of the RCS joints, the four typical
performed tests on six interior column-steel beam joints failure models consisted of panel shear failure, vertical bearing
with or without RC slabs. Te results presented that the failure, local shear failure, and joint-beam mixed failure. For
details of X-reinforcement at the joint had little efect on the the beam-through type RCS joints, three mechanisms for
shear capacity and the width and thickness of the RC slab joint shear resistance include steel web panel, inner concrete
might obviously increase the shear strength. At the same diagonal strut, and outer concrete compression feld. Te only
time, the RCS joint with the higher axial compression ratio diference compared with those of the beam-through type
showed a slight increase in the shear capacity. However, the joints is the concrete horizontal strut mechanism due to the
existing shear equations as mentioned before did not con- details of the cover plates and diaphragms. Finally, the
sider the efect of the RC slab on the shear capacity, which guidelines and recommendations of shear calculation for-
can facilitate to achieve the ideal shear failure mode in the mulas were recommended from the diferent countries
joint with the RC slab in engineering practical. Terefore, the standards and many researchers to provide a reference for the
shear model for calculating the shear capacity of the RCS designers and the researchers. Te limitations of this research
joints with the RC slab was proposed according to the include that (1)the types of joint details focused on the typical
Chinese standard of JGJ 138-2016 [54]. Te shear formula forms and other details, such as X-reinforcement, shear key,
can be obtained through the experimental results and fnite and PC stud, were less involved and (2) the standards and
element simulation as follows: recommendations of shear capacity calculation mainly con-
centrated on those of American, Japanese, and Chinese origin.
Fysp tsp hw h − as′􏼁
Vj � √� + 1.8αϕj ft bj hj + Fysh Ash 0 , However, from the existing research results of the RCS
3 sh (9) joints or moment frames, the specifc research studies on the
seismic design provisions of the RCS joints or moment
α � 0.232bs + 8.38hs + 2.272, frames still developed in the future include those as follows:
where αj is the infuence coefcient of the RC slab and bs and (i) Te number of tests on three dimensional joints
hs are the width and height of the RC slab, respectively. Te with the orthogonal beams and composite slab to be
proposed formula calculated values agreed well with the consistent with the engineering practice was limited.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 13

In addition, the local shear failure and joint-beam [6] Y. C. Choi, J. H. Moon, E. J. Lee, K. S. Park, and K. S. Lee,
mixed failure of the RCS joints are needed for “Development of a shear strength equation for beam–column
further study. connections in reinforced concrete and steel composite sys-
tems,” International Journal of Concrete Structures and Ma-
(ii) Te fnite element analysis on behavior of the RCS terials, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 185–197, 2017.
joints should be further enhanced due to the re- [7] T. M. Sheikh, G. G. Deierlein, J. A. Yura, and J. O. Jirsa,
strictions of laboratory, test equipment, specimen “Beam-column moment connections for composite frames:
number, and economic reasons. Finite element Part 1,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 115, no. 11,
analysis can be used as an efective mean to provide pp. 2858–2876, 1989.
a comprehensive and objective understanding of the [8] N. Baba and Y. Nishimura, “Seismic behavior of RC col-
shear calculation mechanisms, which is needed to umn—S beam moment frames,” in Proceedings of the 12th
be studied further. World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering (12WCEE), Auck-
land, New Zealand, February 2000.
(iii) Because of the test and theoretical study on the RCS [9] N. Baba and Y. Nishimura, “Stress transfer on through beam
structure systems are mainly the composite joints, type steel beam—reinforced concrete column joints,” Edited
the number of quasi-static, pseudo-dynamic, and by Y. Xiao and S. A. Mahin, Eds., in Proceedings of the 6th
shaking table test of RCS frames will be likely to be ASCCS Int. Conf. on Steel–Concrete Composite Structures,
considered for future study. vol. 2, pp. 1183–1190, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2000.
(iv) To improve the seismic performance and achieve [10] H. Kuramoto et al., “Structural performance of through
rapid return to occupancy under predetermined column type joints for composite RCS frames,” J. Struct.
levels of lateral load, the novel damage installations Constr. Eng., Architectural Institute of Japan, , vol. 514,
pp. 199–205, 1998.
in the RCS joints or whole frame systems consisting
[11] N. Sakaguchi, K. Yoshimatu, and Y. Masuda, “Compilation
of rocking devices, replaceable members, and self- based on data base on RCJ joint,” in Proceedings of the
centering mechanisms were developed; at the same Presentation at 5th JTCC Meeting of the U.S.–Japan Program,
time, the application and research of the relevant Japan, 1998.
damage characteristics and design guidelines of [12] H. Noguchi and K. Uchida, “Finite element method analysis
performance based design method were also of hybrid structural frames with reinforced concrete columns
evaluated. and steel beams,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 130,
no. 2, pp. 328–335, 2004.
[13] R. Kanno, Strength, deformation, and seismic resistance of joints
Conflicts of Interest between steel beams and reinforced concrete columns, Ph.D.
Te authors declare that they have no conficts of interest. Dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA, 1993.
[14] R. Kanno and G. G. Deierlein, “Design model of joints for RCS
frames,” in Composite Construction in Steel and concrete
Acknowledgments IVASCE, Reston, VA, USA, 2000.
[15] C. T. Cheng and C. C. Chen, “Seismic behavior of steel beam
Te study was supported by the Natural Science Foundation and reinforced concrete column connections,” Journal of
of Chongqing, China (Grant nos. cstc2019jcyj-msxmX0826) Constructional Steel Research, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 587–606, 2005.
and Science and Technology Research Program of [16] S. Alizadeh, N. K. A. Attari, and M. T. Kazem, “Experimental
Chongqing Municipal Education Commission (Grant nos. investigation of RCS connections performance using self-
KJQN201901214 and KJQN202001202). consolidated concrete,” Journal of Constructional Steel Re-
search, vol. 114, pp. 204–216, 2015.
References [17] X. H. Nguyen, Q. H. Nguyen, D. D. Le, and O. Mirza, “Ex-
perimental study on seismic performance of new RCS con-
[1] H. J. Lee, H. G. Park, H. J. Hwang, and C. S. Kim, “Cyclic nection,” Structures, vol. 9, pp. 53–62, 2017.
lateral load test for RC column–steel beam joints with sim- [18] A. Khaloo and R. Bakhtiari Doost, “Seismic performance of
plifed connection details,” Journal of Structural Engineering, precast RC column to steel beam connections with variable
vol. 145, no. 8, Article ID 4019075, 2019. joint confgurations,” Engineering Structures, vol. 160,
[2] W. Li, Q. N. Li, W. S. Jiang, and L. Jiang, “Seismic perfor- pp. 408–418, 2018.
mance of composite reinforced concrete and steel moment [19] L. S. Chu, Y. Tian, D. D. Li, Y. He, and H. Feng, “Shear
frame structures state-of-the-art,” Composites Part B., vol. 42, behavior of steel reinforced concrete column-steel beam joints
pp. 190–206, 2011. with or without reinforced concrete slab,” Journal of Building
[3] J. J. Men, L. Q. Xiong, J. C. Wang, and G. L. Fan, “Efect of Engineering, vol. 35, Article ID 102063, 2021.
diferent RC slab widths on the behavior of reinforced con- [20] M. N. Bugeja, Seismic behavior of composite moment resisting
crete column and steel beam-slab subassemblies,” Engineering frame systems, Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A&M University,
Structures, vol. 229, Article ID 111639, 2021. Austin, TX, USA, 1999.
[4] D. Dung Le, X. H. Nguyen, and Q. H. Nguyen, “Cyclic testing [21] M. N. Bugeja, J. M. Bracci, and W. P. Moore, “Seismic be-
of a composite joint between a reinforced concrete column havior of composite RCS frame systems,” Journal of Structural
and a steel beam,” Applied Sciences, vol. 10, no. 7, p. 2385, Engineering, vol. 126, no. 4, pp. 429–436, 2000.
2020. [22] G. J. Parra-Montesinos, X. Liang, and J. K. Wight, “Towards
[5] J. J. Men, Z. F. Guo, and Q. X. Shi, “Experimental research on deformation-based capacity design of RCS beam–column
seismic behavior of novel composite RCS joints,” Steel and connections,” Engineering Structures, vol. 25, no. 5,
Composite Structures, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 209–221, 2015. pp. 681–690, 2003.
14 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

[23] T. J. Lu, Z. Y. He, Z. W. Yu, and L. H. Xiao, “Experimental column to steel beam frames,” Journal of Building Engi-
research on seismic behavior of SC beam to RC column neering, vol. 45, Article ID 103475, 2022.
connection,” Journal of Building Structures, vol. 29, no. 1, [40] N. Sakaguchi, Strength and behavior of frames composed of
pp. 70–74, 2008, (in Chinese). Reinf. concrete columns and steel beams, Ph.D. Dissertation,
[24] J. H. Fan, H. Zhou, J. G. Nie, and Q. W. Li, “Experimental Kyoto Univ, Kyoto, Japan, 1992.
study on seismic performance of three-dimensional com- [41] H. Kuramoto and I. Nishiyama, “Seismic performance and
posite beam-to-column joints,” China Civil Engineering stress transferring mechanism of through-column-type joints
Journal, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 47–55, 2014, (in Chinese). for composite reinforced concrete and steel frames,” Journal
[25] L. Q. Xiong, J. J. Men, R. Y. Ren, and M. K. Lei, “Experimental of Structural Engineering, vol. 130, no. 2, pp. 352–360, 2004.
investigation on the seismic behavior of reinforced concrete [42] Y. Izaki, N. Imanaka, and M. Morota, “Experimental study on
column-steel beam subassemblies,” Steel and Composite reinforced concrete column to steel beam joints of tapered-
Structures, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 471–482, 2018. fange-type panels: part 2-evaluation of experimental results,”
[26] S. Iizuka, T. Kasamatsu, and H. Noguchi, “Study on the Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting, Structures
aseismic performances of mixed frame structures,” Journal of II 1988, pp. 1317-1318, Architectural Institute of Japan, Tokyo,
Structural and Construction Engineering (Transactions of AIJ), Japan, 1988.
vol. 62, pp. 189–196, 1997, [in Japanese]. [43] I. Nishiyama, H. Kuramoto, and H. Noguchi, “Guidelines:
[27] G. Parra-Montesinos and J. K. Wight, “Seismic response of seismic design of composite reinforced concrete and steel
buildings,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 130, no. 2,
exterior RC column-to-steel beam connections,” Journal of
pp. 336–342, 2004.
Structural Engineering, vol. 126, no. 10, pp. 1113–1121, 2000.
[44] E. J. Lee, J. H. Moon, and M. S. Lee, “Shear resistance con-
[28] H. Noguchi and K. Kim, “Shear strength of beam-to-column
tribution of constituent elements consisting RCS joint,”
connections in RCS system,” Proceedings of the Struct. Engrs.
Advances in Civil Engineering, vol. 2021, Article ID 3958247,
World Congr, Elsevier Science, Oxford, UK.
14 pages, 2021.
[29] L. B. Fargier-Gabaldón and G. J. Parra-Montesinos, “Behavior
[45] S. Alizadeh, N. K. A. Attari, and M. T. Kazemi, “Te seismic
of reinforced concrete column–steel beam roof level T-con- performance of new detailing for RCS connections,” Journal
nections under displacement reversals,” Journal of Structural of Constructional Steel Research, vol. 91, pp. 76–88, 2013.
Engineering, vol. 132, no. 7, pp. 1041–1051, 2006. [46] G. G. Deierlein, T. M. Sheikh, J. A. Yura, and J. O. Jirsa,
[30] Y. H. Ling, W. Zheng, Y. Li, L. Zhou, and J. Zhou, “Study on “Beam-column moment connections for composite frames:
seismic behavior of reinforced concrete column-steel beam Part 2,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 115, no. 11,
side joints,” Journal of Asian Architecture and Building En- pp. 2877–2896, 1989.
gineering, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 187–202, 2020. [47] Asce Task Committee on Design Criteria for Composite
[31] Z. H. Pan, Q. Si, Z. B. Zhou, Y. B. Zhang, Y. Zhu, and X Chen, Structures in Steel and Concrete, “Guidelines for design of
“Experimental and numerical investigations of seismic per- joints between steel beams and reinforced concrete col-
formance of hybrid joints with bolted connections,” Journal of umns,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 120, no. 8,
Constructional Steel Research, vol. 138, pp. 867–876, 2017. pp. 2330–2357, 1994.
[32] X. H. Nguyen, D. D. Le, and Q. H. Nguyen, “Static behavior of [48] Y. Yi, “Experimental research on seismic behavior of interior
novel RCS through-column-type joint: experimental and joint in the composite frame consisting of steel beam and
numerical study,” Steel and Composite Structures, vol. 32, reinforced concrete columns,” Master. dissertation,
pp. 111–126, 2019. Chongqing University, Chongqing, China, 2005.
[33] N. Baba and Y. Nishimura, “Seismic performance of S [49] Z. Z. Zhao, J. R. Qian, and X. B. Yang, “Experimental study on
beam–RC column moment frames,” Summaries of Technical behavior of reinforced concrete column-steel beam subas-
Papers of Annual Meeting, Structures II 1998, pp. 61–64, semblies,” Building Structure, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 69–73, 2006,
Architectural Institute of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, 1998. in Chinese.
[34] T. Yamamoto, T. Ohtaki, and J. Ozawa, “An experiment on [50] H. X. Shen, Research on static behavior of reinforced concrete
elasto-plastic behavior of a full-scale three-story two-bay column–steel beam (RCS) moment joints, Ph.D. Dissertation,
composite frame structure consisting of reinforced concrete Xi’an Universtiy of architecture and technology, Xi’an, China,
columns and steel beams [J],” AIJ Journal of Technology and 2007.
Design, vol. 6, pp. 111–116, 2000. [51] J. J. Men, H. J. Li, and X. D. Wang, “Research on shear bearing
[35] C. H. Chen, W. C. Lai, P. Cordova, G. G. Deierlein, and capacity of reinforced concrete column-steel beam composite
K. C. Tsai, “Pseudo-dynamic test of full-scale RCS frame: part joint,” Building Structure, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 74–78, 2015.
I-design, construction, testing,” American Society of Civil [52] G. Parra-Montesinos and J. K. Wight, “Modeling shear be-
Engineers Structures Congress, pp. 107–118, 2004. havior of hybrid RCS beam-column connections,” Journal of
[36] X. M. Liang and G. J. Parra-Montesinos, “Seismic behavior of Structural Engineering, vol. 127, no. 1, pp. 3–11, 2001.
reinforced concrete column-steel beam subassemblies and [53] Aij Composite Rcs Structures Sub-Committee, AIJ Design
frame systems,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 130, Guidelines for Composite RCS Joints, Architectural Institute of
no. 2, pp. 310–319, 2004. Japan, Tokyo, Japan, 1994.
[37] P. Cordova, Validation of the seismic performance of composite [54] Cmc (China Ministry of Construction), Code for Design of
Composite Structures, JGJ 138-2016, China Ministry of
RCS frames: full-scale testing analysis and seismic design, Ph.D.
Construction, Beijing, China, 2016.
Dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA, 2005.
[38] J. J. Men, Y. R. Zhang, Z. F. Guo, and Q. X. Shi, “Experimental
research on seismic behavior of a composite RCS frame,” Steel
and Composite Structures, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 971–983, 2015.
[39] X. Li, J. P. Liu, X. D. Wang, B. Dong, and Y. F Chen,
“Hysteretic behavior of circular tubed reinforced concrete