SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF COMPOSITE RCS FRAME SYSTEMS

By Michael N. Bugeja,1 Student Member, ASCE, Joseph M. Bracci,2 Member, ASCE,

and Walter P. Moore Jr.,3 Honorary Member, ASCE

ABSTRACT: This paper presents the results of an experimental investigation into the seismic performance of
a composite moment resisting frame system that consists of reinforced concrete columns (with an embedded
steel shape for erection purposes) and composite steel beam-reinforced concrete slab sections. Quasi-static re-
versed cyclic loading was performed on six two-thirds-scale subassemblage specimens. Various detailing options
were evaluated to provide full moment connection in both orthogonal framing directions at the beam-column
joints. With appropriate joint detailing, specimens exhibited a desirable beam plastic hinge mechanism with
stable hysteretic response. Composite beam sections maintained near full composite behavior beyond code based
drift limits with good energy dissipation characteristics and were able to undergo large plastic rotation magni-
tudes. This framing system may represent a viable alternative for low-to-mid-rise structures in high seismic risk
zones.

INTRODUCTION the beam-column joint in both orthogonal lateral loading di-

Composite RCS moment frame systems typically consist of
reinforced concrete (RC) columns, which may have a small
embedded I-shape for erection purposes, and structural steel
beams (U.S.-Japan Planning Groups 1992). Using RC rather
than structural steel columns can result in significant material
cost savings, increased inherent structural damping, and sig-
nificantly increased lateral stiffness of the building (Griffis
1986; Viest et al. 1997). To date, RCS frame systems of this
type have been used mainly in high-rise building applications.
In high-rise steel and composite RCS building design, it is not
customary to design the beams in the lateral force resisting
system for composite steel beam-RC slab behavior, even
though the slab is present. One of the main reasons for this is
that these beams are relatively deep, resulting in the slab hav-
ing an insignificant influence on beam stiffness and strength
(Leon et al. 1998). With respect to low-to-mid-rise construc-
tion, an RC slab could have a significant influence on the
composite beam-slab behavior because the steel beams may
not be significantly deep compared to the slab. Enforcing com-
posite action between the slab and beam may allow for a sig-
nificant reduction in the steel beam size while maintaining
equivalent moment strength and stiffness (Bracci et al. 1999).
There is, however, little experimental data available on the
performance of composite beam-slab sections under the large
inelastic strain reversals that would be expected during a sig-
nificant seismic event (NEHRP 1997).
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The objective of the current research program is to evaluate
the design, constructability, and seismic performance of an al-
ternative structural framing system consisting of RC columns
and composite steel beam-RC slab sections. The structural
characteristics that are closely investigated in the experimental
testing program include contributions of the RC slab on beam
plastic hinging behavior during reversed cyclic loading and
joint detailing options to develop full moment connection at
1
Struct. Engr., Robert Bird & Partners, Sydney, Australia.
2
Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Texas A&M Univ., College Station,
TX 77843-3136.
3
Deceased; formerly, Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Texas A&M Univ.,
College Station, TX.
Note. Associate Editor: Brad Cross. Discussion open until September
1, 2000. To extend the closing date one month, a written request must
be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript for this
paper was submitted for review and possible publication on December
16, 1998. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering,
Vol. 126, No. 4, April, 2000. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/00/0004-0429–
0436/$8.00 ⫹ $.50 per page. Paper No. 19884.
rections. The ratio of steel beam depth to slab thickness used
in the test specimens was typical of low-to-mid-rise construc-
tion.
PREVIOUS RESEARCH
In an attempt to identify the in-plane behavior of composite
RCS beam-column joint connections, a comprehensive testing
program was conducted at the University of Texas at Austin
(Deierlein et al. 1989; Sheikh et al. 1989) on 15 two-thirds-
scale, cruciform-shaped specimens. Specimens consisted of a
single structural steel beam passing through an RC column
(without a slab), and were tested under both inelastic mono-
tonic and cyclic loading conditions. Two joint failure modes
were identified as panel shear failure and vertical bearing fail-
ure. Panel shear failure is similar to joint shear failure mech-
anisms in structural steel or RC joints; however, in composite
RCS joints both the structural steel and RC elements partici-
pate in joint shear resistance. Vertical bearing failure occurs
when concrete in the column directly above and below the
steel beam is crushed, allowing rigid body rotations of the
beam within the RC column (Sheikh et al. 1989). Based on
this work, a task committee of the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE 1994) developed a guideline for designing
composite joints between steel beams and either RC or com-
posite steel-concrete columns.
Kanno (1993) extended this research by investigating the
behavior of similar composite beam-column joints (again with
no slab) during inelastic reversed cyclic loading, considering
various factors such as subassemblage failure modes, joint fail-
ure modes, joint detailing, column axial load, concrete com-
pression strength, and concrete bearing strengths of the col-
umns and joint. These studies demonstrated that composite
beam-column joints can be detailed such that their perform-
ances during seismic loading are comparable to those of seis-
mically designed steel and RC beam-column joints.
Various researchers in Japan [e.g., Sakaguchi et al. (1988),
Nishiyama et al. (1998), and Uchida and Noguchi (1998) con-
ducted extensive studies on composite construction as part of
the U.S.-Japan cooperative research program on composite and
hybrid construction. The Architectural Institute of Japan re-
leased a design standard (Design 1994) based on the results
of these studies. The procedures for calculating joint strengths
are similar to the ASCE guidelines (ASCE 1994). Although
the Architectural Institute of Japan standard contains a wide
variety of joint configurations that are not covered in the
ASCE guidelines, most of these joint details are impractical
for use in the United States.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 2000 / 429
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
To achieve the research objectives stated earlier, quasi-static
reversed cyclic loading was performed on six, two-thirds-
scale, subassemblage specimens. The overall specimen ge-
ometry and loading configuration are shown in Fig. 1. The
specimens consisted of 3.2 m (10.5 ft) long structural steel
beams that were framed in two orthogonal directions, upon
which rested a 3.2 m (10.5 ft) square RC slab. The structural
steel beams consisted of W310⫻33 (W12⫻22) sections and
were composed of ASTM A 572 Grade 50 steel. The beams
were framed into a 2.8 m (9 ft) high, RC column that was 380
mm (15 in.) square. In one direction the steel beam was con-
tinuous through the RC column (hereafter referred to as the
continuous direction). In the other direction (discontinuous di-
rection) the beams were connected to the joint using various
detailing arrangements, further details of which will be given
later. Stiffner plates [called face bearing plates (FBPs)] were
fillet welded to all beams at the beam-joint interface to mo-
bilize the shear resistance of the concrete in the joint region.
All welds used E70XX electrodes and were sized to develop
the full strength of the connecting element.
The RC slab was cast on Vulcraft 1.5 VLR composite metal
decking, with a maximum overall slab thickness of 90 mm
(3.5 in.). Composite action between the slab and beam was
enforced by stick welding 19 mm (0.75 in.) diameter, 76 mm
(3 in.) long headed shear studs to the top flange of the steel
beams through the metal decking. Twenty studs were used on
each beam (between the column and edge of slab), spaced an
average of 76 mm (3 in.) on center. The number of shear studs
was chosen as that required for full composite action as given
in the AISC design specifications (Manual 1994). The slab was
reinforced with 10 mm diameter (#3) ASTM A 615 Grade 60
reinforcing bars spaced an average distance of 153 mm (6 in.)
apart (Fig. 1). The amount of reinforcement placed in the slab
was equal to a reinforcement ratio of about 0.5%, compared
to 0.075% specified by the Steel Deck Institute specifications
(Specifications 1989) for shrinkage and crack control for com-
posite metal deck slabs. This amount of reinforcement was
included to increase the negative bending strength and stiffness
of the composite beam section. The AISC design specification
(Manual 1994) allows any developed reinforcement within the
effective slab width to contribute to the beam’s negative bend-
ing strength. Material strengths are given in Table 1.
All specimens had RC columns that were intentionally de-
signed to enforce strong column-weak beam behavior accord-
ing to the seismic provisions of ACI 318 (‘‘Building’’ 1995).
The ratio of nominal column-to-beam strength in the speci-
mens using measured material properties and assuming full
composite beam-slab behavior was about 1.8.

Individual Specimen Descriptions

Specimens #1 and #2 were designed to extend the work
performed by researchers studying the in-plane joint behavior
of RCS systems. Member design and joint detailing was made
in accordance to current RCS joint design guidelines (ASCE
1994) to produce a joint panel shear failure and a joint vertical
bearing failure, respectively, for specimens #1 and #2 in the
continuous beam direction. Fig. 2(a) shows the joint detailing
arrangements for specimens #1 and #2. The beams that were
framed in the discontinuous direction were connected to the
joint with a bolted shear tab and seat angle arrangement. The
shear tabs were 229 ⫻ 90 ⫻ 10 mm (9 ⫻ 3.5 ⫻ 0.375 in.)
and were connected by 19 mm (0.75 in.) diameter bolts spaced
76 mm (3 in.) apart. The angles were 178 ⫻ 102 ⫻ 13 mm
(7 ⫻ 4 ⫻ 0.5 in.) and were connected by 19 mm (0.75) di-
ameter bolts spaced 51 mm (2 in.) apart (the same dimension
angles and shear tabs were used on all specimens). Negative
moment strength and stiffness of the composite beam-slab sec-
tions were provided by the reinforcement in the RC slab and
four headed shear studs [spaced 76 mm (3 in.) on center]
welded to the top flanges of the discontinuous steel beams
within the column region transmitting top flange forces. Both
specimens had joint transverse reinforcement that consisted of
overlapping cross-ties that passed through predrilled holes in
the beam webs. Specimen #1 had vertical joint reinforcement

TABLE 1. Measured Material Strengths

Strength [MPa (ksi)]a
Specimens Specimens Specimens
Element #1 and #2 #3 and #4 #5 and #6
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Beams 380 (55) 345 (50) 345 (50)
Plates and angles 310 (45) 365 (53) 365 (53)
␾22-mm bars 552 (80) 552 (80) 552 (80)
␾10-mm bars 517 (75) 517 (75) 517 (75)
Column concrete 59 (8.5) 35 (5.0) 33 (4.8)
Slab concrete 45 (6.5) 24 (3.5) 33 (4.8)
a
Yield strength for steel elements, 28-day compressive strength for
concrete elements.
FIG. 1. Experimental Test Setup

430 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 2000


FIG. 2. Specimen Joint Detailing
(reinforcing bars welded directly to the beam flanges) on the
top and bottom of the continuous beam to enhance the vertical
bearing strength of the joint in the continuous direction. Spec-
imen #2 had a doubler plate plug welded to the web of the
continuous beam in the joint region (effectively doubling the
thickness of the web in this region) for enhanced joint panel
FIG. 2. (Continued )
shear strength. Thus, according to the design guidelines spec-
imens #1 and #2, in the continuous direction, should have
experienced a joint panel shear failure and a vertical bearing
failure, respectively, using design material strengths.
Specimens #3 and #4 were designed to simplify construct-
ability and increase joint strength. One of the main construct-
ability problems in RCS systems is the detailing of transverse
reinforcement in the beam-column joint region. To eliminate
such reinforcement, specimen #3 [Fig. 2(b)] utilized joint de-
tailing that consisted of bent plates to form a square joint re-
gion with the same dimensions as the column, and specimen
#4 [Fig. 2(c)] used flat plates to form an octagon-shaped joint
region encompassing the column. These plates were field
welded to the FBPs and beam flanges by means of full pen-
etration welding. In addition, band plates were fillet welded
above and below the beam to strengthen the joint region
against vertical bearing failure by providing confinement to
the concrete in the critical bearing zones.
Specimens #5 [Fig. 2(d)] and #6 [Fig. 2(e)] were designed
to further simplify constructability and improve joint behavior.
Four important detailing aspects were changed from specimen
#4: (1) Utilize bent FBPs that are fillet welded to the beam in
only the web region; (2) fillet weld joint plates to the bent
FBPs in the field for construction simplicity, plate alignment,
and easier weld detailing; (3) tack weld band plates above and
below the beams in the joint region; and (4) enhance discon-
tinuous beam negative moment strength and stiffness by trans-
mitting top flange forces through the joint using a bolted top
angle. By welding the bent FBPs in the web regions of the
beams only, the FBPs will avoid stresses from the beam
flanges during hinging, and the beam flanges will not experi-
ence stress concentrations nor heat affected zone ductility
problems at this location. The bent FBPs and fillet welded joint
plate region can, therefore, be primarily utilized to confine the
concrete within the joint region and enforce the concrete to
develop a complete joint strut mechanism in resisting shear
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 2000 / 431
force demands. A similar philosophy was taken for the band
plates by only using tack welds; however, in retrospect they
should have been fully welded to the beam flanges for in-
creased stiffness. The enlarged octagon-shaped joint region has
several beneficial effects on the joint including an enhanced
joint bearing zone at the column face and reduced joint de-
mands by relocating beam flexural hinging away from the col-
umn face regions. Also, extra slab reinforcement was added to
these specimens in the critical bearing zone adjacent to the
column [Fig. 1(a)].

Testing Procedure
The experimental test setup (Fig. 1) consists of two 490 kN
(110 kips) hydraulic actuators applied at the beam ends to FIG. 3. Joint Instrumentation
simulate lateral loading and a pneumatic cylinder to apply a
constant column axial load of 890 kN (200 kips) (near 10%
of the column’s nominal axial capacity). Simulated lateral
loading was applied by pushing and pulling on the framing
beams in either the continuous or discontinuous directions,
while restraining the top and bottom of the column (pinned
connections). Beam end actuators were operated in displace-
ment control to apply quasi-static, reversed cyclic loading to
the specimen using incremental displacement amplitudes (two
cycles at each displacement amplitude). Displacement ampli-
tudes are represented in terms of drift angle demands as de-
fined in Fig. 1(b). Specimens #1, #2, #3, and #5 were first
tested in the continuous beam direction (actuators applied to
continuous beams) until a reduction in specimen strength was
observed. At this testing stage, specimens were expected to
develop significant yielding and concrete cracking, as well as
deforming beyond the code drift limits for the life safety per-
formance level; however, specimens would not develop a large
degree of concrete crushing and would still possess significant
reserve strength (loading was halted at this level so that the
discontinuous framing direction could be evaluated). The spec-
imen was then rotated 90⬚ in the test setup, and the specimen
was loaded to failure in the discontinuous direction. Specimen
#4 was first tested in the discontinuous beam direction until a
reduction in specimen strength was observed and then loaded
to failure in the continuous beam direction. Specimen #6 was
loaded to failure in the continuous beam direction and then
loaded to failure in the discontinuous beam direction.

Specimen Behavior
Although the performance of all six specimens will be dis-
cussed, the measured response for specimens #2, #5, and #6
will only be shown. The results from these three specimens
highlight important response characteristics that were observed
in the testing program. The instrumentation used for the
component deformation measurements that follow is shown in
Fig. 3. FIG. 4. Specimen #2 Response
Fig. 4 shows the measured response for specimen #2 in both
the continuous and discontinuous loading directions. The
graph labeled ‘‘Total’’ displays the averaged force-drift angle ␦Support ⫹ ␦Column = (␪5 ⫹ ␪6)L /2 (3)
data measured at the points of load application at the ends of
␦Joint = [(␪2 ⫹ ␪3) ⫺ (␪5 ⫹ ␪6)]L /2 (4)
each beam (as recorded by the load cells and displacement
transducers of the hydraulic actuators). The other three graphs ␦Beam = ␦ Total ⫺ ␦Joint ⫺ (␦Support ⫹ ␦Column) (5)
show the response from each of the structural components of
the specimen (‘‘Column and Support,’’ ‘‘Joint,’’ and where ␪2, ␦3, ␦5, and ␪6 = measured rotations (rad) by clinom-
‘‘Beam’’), which make up the ‘‘Total’’ response. The force eters shown in Fig. 3; L = distance from point of load appli-
and drift angle values were calculated as follows: cation to joint center [1,372 mm (54 in.)]; and ␦ Total = dis-
placement measured at left beam end (measured by the
Force = (FLeft ⫺ FRight)/2 (1) actuator).
Drift Angle = 100␦/L (2) It should first be noted that through monitoring specimen
damage accumulation and rotations of the columns at the joint
where FLeft and FRight = left and right actuator forces, respec- interface and at the supports, columns of all specimens re-
tively; and ␦ = ␦Support ⫹ ␦Column, ␦Joint, ␦Beam, or ␦ Total, in which mained elastic throughout the testing procedure. The hysteretic
432 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 2000
behavior observed in the ‘‘Column and Support’’ graph was
due to the flexibility of the supporting frames (some small
movement of the supporting frame with respect to the labo-
ratory strong floor was visually observed) and rotational resis-
tance in the supports at the top and bottom of the column.
Specimens #1 and #2 performed in a similar manner. In the
continuous beam direction, the predominate inelastic behavior
occurred due to beam flexure, with minor inelastic joint re-
sponse. In the discontinuous beam direction, the beams re-
mained essentially elastic, and all damage occurred in the joint
region. Specimens #1 and #2 were originally designed to ex-
perience joint failure mechanisms when tested in the contin-
uous direction. Concrete cylinder tests revealed a higher than
expected compressive strength. After the joint strengths were
recalculated using the higher compressive strength value, it
was found that the joint panel shear and vertical bearing
strengths of specimen #1 were approximately equal to the
composite beam flexural strength, and the calculated joint
panel shear strength of specimen #2 was less than that of the
composite beam flexural strength. Both specimens, however,
experienced predominately beam yielding when tested in the
continuous direction. The ASCE Task Committee guidelines
(1994) that were used to calculate the joint strengths do not
take into account the effect of the RC slab, nor the transverse
beams. It may be that the presence of the slab and transverse
beams increased the effective joint width such that a larger
concrete strut mechanism developed to resist joint shear
forces.
Because the steel beams are not continuous through the RC
column in the discontinuous direction, elongation of the joint
may occur. Elongation is defined in this paper as when the
beams on either side of the joint rotate independently due to
flexibility in the connections (i.e., bolt slip) and is calculated
as follows:
Elongation = ␪2 ⫺ ␪3 (6) FIG. 6. Specimen #5 Response
Both specimens #1 and #2 experienced significant rotational
deformations of this type when tested in the discontinuous the FBPs away from the column face ensured that the plastic
direction. Fig. 5 displays the measured elongation during the hinges form in the composite beam-slab sections for both spec-
discontinuous direction test of specimen #2. imens in both loading directions. The length of the plastic
Specimens #3 and #4 included joint plates to ease con- hinge zone was observed to be about 1.5 times the depth of
structability and enhance joint performance. In the continuous the composite slab-girder section. Comparing the measured
direction, both specimens developed a beam hinging mecha- joint elongation response for the discontinuous direction of
nism with essentially elastic joint response. In the discontin- specimens #2 and #5 (Fig. 5) demonstrates the improved per-
uous direction, specimen #3 failed in the joint region due to formance of the octagonal joint detail with an additional top
bearing and elongation mechanisms, whereas for specimen #4, angle flange connection.
beam hinging occurred. The octagonal joint region of speci- The graphs labeled ‘‘Left’’ and ‘‘Right’’ (Figs. 7–9) display
men #4 outperformed the square joint region of specimen #3. the moment-rotation response for the left- and right-side com-
Specimens #5 and #6 utilized an octagonal joint detail sim- posite beam-slab sections, respectively. The moment was cal-
ilar to specimen #4. Specimen #6 had a discontinuous beam culated as the actuator force (FLeft or FRight) multiplied by the
on only one side of the joint—simulating an exterior connec- horizontal distance between the point of load application and
tion. Both specimens developed a beam hinging mechanism the FBP. The beam rotation was calculated as follows:
when tested in both the continuous and discontinuous direc-
tions (Fig. 6 shows the response from specimen #5). Locating Rotation = ␪1 ⫺ ␪2 (for left beam) (7)
Rotation = ␪3 ⫺ ␪4 (for right beam) (8)
The solid horizontal lines on the graphs indicate the cal-
culated plastic moment strengths of the composite beam-slab
sections (using measured material properties) for different ef-
fective slab widths bf. For positive bending, the concrete
within the effective flange width acts in compression; for neg-
ative bending, the concrete is cracked and the reinforcement
within the effective flange width acts in tension. An effective
slab width bf = 1,500 mm (60 in.) corresponds to an effective
slab width of one-quarter of the beam span length as specified
in the AISC design code (Manual 1994); bf = 380 mm (15 in.)
corresponds to an effective slab width equal to the width of
FIG. 5. Joint Elongations for Specimens #2 and #5 (Discontin- the column; and bf = 0 mm is representative of the steel beam
uous) alone. The continuous direction of specimen #6 had a slab only
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 2000 / 433
 FIG. 7. Beam Moment-Rotation for Specimen #2 FIG. 9. Beam Moment-Rotation for Specimen #6

TABLE 2. Comparison of Experimental and Calculated Elastic

Stiffnesses

Specimen Experimentalc
number
(#) Directiona P/Nb Uncorrected Correctedd Calculatedc,e
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
2 C P 105 ⫻ 10⫺6 145 ⫻ 10⫺6 220 ⫻ 10⫺6
2 C N 67 ⫻ 10⫺6 81 ⫻ 10⫺6 95 ⫻ 10⫺6
2 D P 99 ⫻ 10⫺6 133 ⫻ 10⫺6 220 ⫻ 10⫺6
2 D N 62 ⫻ 10⫺6 74 ⫻ 10⫺6 95 ⫻ 10⫺6
5 C P 101 ⫻ 10⫺6 153 ⫻ 10⫺6 215 ⫻ 10⫺6
5 C N 87 ⫻ 10⫺6 123 ⫻ 10⫺6 95 ⫻ 10⫺6
5 D P 91 ⫻ 10⫺6 131 ⫻ 10⫺6 215 ⫻ 10⫺6
5 D N 84 ⫻ 10⫺6 117 ⫻ 10⫺6 95 ⫻ 10⫺6
6 C P 82 ⫻ 10⫺6 113 ⫻ 10⫺6 195 ⫻ 10⫺6
6 C N 60 ⫻ 10⫺6 75 ⫻ 10⫺6 84 ⫻ 10⫺6
6 D P 72 ⫻ 10⫺6 95 ⫻ 10⫺6 215 ⫻ 10⫺6
6 D N 66 ⫻ 10⫺6 85 ⫻ 10⫺6 95 ⫻ 10⫺6
a
Continuous (C) or discontinuous (D) loading direction.
b
Positive (P) or negative (N) bending.
c
Equivalent moment of inertia (m4).
FIG. 8. Beam Moment-Rotation for Specimen #5 d
Corrected for shear deformations.
e
Using measured material properties.
on one side of the beam, giving it a maximum effective width f
Cracked.
of 940 mm (37.5 in.).
Excluding the continuous direction of specimen #6 (exterior
configuration), it appears from strain gauges on the slab bars steel beam and slab reinforcement) was taken to be 200,000
and analytical strength calculations in both positive and neg- MPa (29 ⫻ 106 psi), and for the concrete was calculated as
ative bending that the effective slab width bf is equal to the 4,700 ( f ⬘)
c
1/2
[57,000( f c⬘)1/2] (‘‘Building’’ 1995), where f c⬘ is the
full effective slab width given in the AISC design specifica- concrete compressive strength taken from cylinder test data
tions. (Manual 1994). Where a slab was present on only one [measured in MPa (psi)]. The concrete slab was transformed
side of the steel beam (continuous direction of specimen #6), into an equivalent area of steel for calculating the moments of
the effective flange width was equal to column width for pos- inertia. The effect of shear deformations was accounted for in
itive bending. The discontinuous directions of specimens #5 obtaining the corrected experimental values (i.e., the uncor-
and #6 did not reach this strength value; however, this can be rected values assume all deformations are due to flexure). The
partially attributed to the damage (minor slab spalling) caused shear area used in the shear deformation calculations was
during the continuous direction test. The continuous direction taken as the area of the web of the steel beam [2.06 ⫻ 10⫺3
of specimen #2 achieved a maximum positive moment m2 (3.2 in.2)]. The relatively short length of the beams in the
strength that was slightly below the AISC calculated value. test specimens resulted in a significant amount of (calculated)
Recall, however, that this specimen was not tested to complete shear deformation—resulting in the noticeable differences be-
failure. If testing was continued to higher displacement levels, tween the uncorrected and corrected experimental moment of
this specimen may have achieved higher moment strength val- inertia values. The corrected experimental moment of inertia
ues. A strong case can, therefore, be made for the above state- values for positive bending were approximately equal to 70%
ment of the effective slab width being equal to the AISC value. of the calculated values (based on gross section properties with
Equivalent elastic moment of inertia values for the com- an effective flange width equal to the AISC value), with the
posite beam-slab sections were obtained from the measured exception of the discontinuous direction of specimen #6 (hav-
test data and compared with calculated values (Table 2). For ing a slab on only one side of the column reduced the force
the calculated values, Young’s modulus for the steel (both the transfer mechanism). The negative bending values, based on
434 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 2000
cracked concrete sections and slab reinforcement within the
full effective flange width, show a good correlation for all
specimens except #6.
RESULTS
In specimens with enhanced joint detailing (specimens #5
and #6), maximum composite beam-slab moments were
reached at a specimen drift angle of approximately 2.5%, with
the RC slab showing little or no damage at this level. At spec-
imen drift angle levels above 3.5%, the slab began to deteri-
orate, and the flanges and web of the steel beam began to
buckle—reducing the observed moment strength. The ASCE
7-95 design load standard (‘‘minimum’’ 1995) specifies a max-
imum allowable story drift of 2.5% of the story height under
seismic loading for the life safety performance level. The re-
sults presented here demonstrate that these RCS subassembla-
ges easily meet this requirement. The specimens tested had an
aspect ratio between inflection points of 1.0 (beam span to
column span). In most real building structures, beam spans are
longer than column spans (aspect ratio between inflection
points of 1.5–2.0). It can be shown that the imposed drift
angle demands for the specimen tests would correspond to
larger interstory drift percentages; thus, the results presented
herein are conservative.
For the purposes of composite beam design, the following
recommendations regarding the effective flange width are
made based on the experimental results. For positive and neg-
ative bending strength, the effective flange width is equal to
the value specified by AISC (Manual 1994), except for the
case where there is a slab on only one side of the beam. In
this case, the effective flange width is equal to the column
width for positive bending (no change for negative bending).
In terms of positive bending stiffnesses, take 70% of the cal-
culated stiffness using the same effective flange widths as
above. For negative bending, include the reinforcement within
the AISC effective flange width if a slab is present on both
sides of the beam. When a slab is on only one side of the
beam, the contribution of the reinforcement to negative bend-
ing stiffness should be ignored. For the purpose of elastic anal-
ysis, rather than attempt to assign different stiffnesses to those
regions of the beams in positive versus negative bending, it is
recommended that a constant stiffness equal to the average of
the positive and negative bending stiffnesses be assigned to
the entire member.
The enlarged joint detail used in specimens #5 and #6 was
capable of transmitting increased shear forces, and the joint
plates were able to provide confinement to the joint region and
allow the formation of a strut mechanism without the need for
cumbersome joint reinforcement.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper presented an alternative structural framing sys-
tem for low-to-mid-rise construction in high seismic risk areas.
This system consists of RC columns with an embedded steel
shape for erection purposes and composite steel beam-RC slab
(on composite metal decking) beam sections.
The experimental testing presented demonstrates that with
appropriate joint detailing, the developing mechanism during
seismic loading can be enforced in the composite beam-
slab sections away from the column face. These composite
beam sections are capable of developing plastic hinges that
dissipate energy in a stable hysteretic fashion under large
plastic rotations. The composite beams maintained near full
composite beam behavior beyond code based drift limits. Rec-
ommendations for the design of these beams were given.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research forms part of the U.S.-Japan Cooperative Earthquake
Research Program for Composite and Hybrid Structures. Funding was
provided by the National Science Foundation (Grant No. CMS-9632442
through Dr. S. C. Liu), the Texas Engineering Experiment Station, and
Department of Civil Engineering at Texas A&M University, College Sta-
tion, Tex. These generous supports are gratefully acknowledged. The writ-
ers are also grateful to the reviewers for their useful comments and sug-
gestions.
APPENDIX I. REFERENCES
ASCE Task Committee on Design Criteria for Composite Structures in
Steel and Concrete. (1994). ‘‘Guidelines for design of joints between
steel beams and reinforced concrete columns.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE,
120(8), 2330–2357.
Bracci, J. M., Moore, W. P., and Bugeja, M. N. (1999). ‘‘Seismic design
and constructability of RCS special moment frames.’’ J. Struct. Engrg.,
ASCE, 125(4), 385–392.
‘‘Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary.’’
(1995). ACI 318, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Mich.
Deierlein, G. G., Sheikh, T. M., Yura, J. A., and Jirsa, J. O. (1989).
‘‘Beam-column moment connections for composite frames: Part 2.’’ J.
Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 115(11), 2877–2896.
Design guidelines for composite RCS joints. (1994). H. Kuramoto, S.
Mehanny, and G. Deierlein, translators, Composite RCS Structures
Subcommittee, Architectural Institute of Japan, Tokyo.
Griffis, L. G. (1986). ‘‘Some design considerations for composite-frame
structures.’’ AISC/Engrg. J., Second Quarter, 59–64.
Kanno, R. (1993). ‘‘Strength, deformation, and seismic resistance of
joints between steel beams and reinforced concrete columns,’’ PhD
dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.
Leon, R. T., Hajjar, J. F., and Gustafson, M. A. (1998). ‘‘Seismic response
of composite moment-resisting connections. I: Performance.’’ J. Struct.
Engrg., ASCE, 124(8), 868–876.
Manual of steel construction—load and resistance factor design (LRFD).
(1994). American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago.
‘‘Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.’’ (1995).
ASCE 7-95. ASCE, New York.
‘‘NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new build-
ings and other structures: Part 1—Provisions and Part 2—Commen-
tary.’’ (1997). Publ. Nos. 302 and 303, Federal Emergency Manage-
ment Agency, Washington, D.C.
Nishiyama, I., Itadani, H., and Sugihiro, K. (1998). ‘‘Bi-directional seis-
mic response of reinforced concrete column and structural steel beam
subassemblages.’’ Proc., Struct. Engrg. World Conf., Elvesier Sciences,
New York.
Sakaguchi, N., Tominaga, H., Murai, Y., Takase, Y., and Shuto, K. (1988).
‘‘Strength and ductility of steel beam-RC column joint.’’ Proc., 9th
World Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Vol. 4, 713–718.
Sheikh, T. M., Deierlein, G. G., Yura, J. A., and Jirsa, J. O. (1989).
‘‘Beam-column moment connections for composite frames: Part 1.’’ J.
Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 115(11), 2858–2876.
Specifications and commentaries for composite steel floor deck. (1989).
Steel Deck Institute, Canton, Ohio.
Uchida, K., and Noguchi, H. (1998). ‘‘Nonlinear three-dimensional finite
element analysis of RCS frame.’’ Proc., 5th Joint Tech. Coordinating
Com. Meeting, U.S.-Japan Cooperative Earthquake Research Program
on Composite and Hybrid Structures, Tokyo.
U.S.-Japan Planning Groups—Joint Planning Workshop. (1992). ‘‘Rec-
ommendations for U.S.-Japan cooperative research program—phase 5
composite and hybrid structures.’’ Tech. Rep. No. UMCEE 92-29, Uni-
versity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Viest, I. M., Colaco, J. P., Furlong, R. W., Griffis, L. G., Leon, R. T., and
Wyllie, L. A. (1997). Composite construction design for buildings.
ASCE/McGraw Hill, New York.
APPENDIX II. NOTATION
The following symbols are used in this paper:
b = horizontal distance between actuators;
bf = effective flange width;
FLeft, FRight = left and right actuator forces, respectively;
f c⬘ = 28-day concrete compressive strength;
h = vertical distance between column pin supports;
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 2000 / 435
 L = distance from point of load application to center of ␦Joint = beam end displacement caused by joint deforma-
joint; tions;
␦ = displacement; ␦Support = beam end displacement caused by support defor-
␦Beam = beam end displacement caused by beam deforma- mations;
tions; ␦ Total = total beam end displacement measured by actuators;
␦Column = beam end displacement caused by column defor- and
mations; ␪1–8 = clinometer measurement.

436 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 2000