Seismic Behavior of Mixed Structure with Steel Frame above Concrete Frame

Xilin LU Jie ZHANG Jingjing WANG

Professor Civil Engineer Ph. D Student
Tongji University Tongji University Tongji University
Shanghai, China Shanghai, China Shanghai, China
lxlst@tongji.edu.cn Jiezhang000@gmail.com wangjingjingtu@gmail.com

Summary
The mixed structural system that utilizes distinct steel or concrete sub-structures above or below
each other has already found its way in some significant buildings around the world. However, the
dynamic behavior of this system, especially under seismic excitations, is still not fully understood.
Therefore, a twelve-story mixed frame configured with a steel sub-structure on a RC (Reinforced
Concrete) sub-structure (S/RC mixed frame) was designed and tested along with a comparative
twelve-story RC frame on the shaking table at Tongji University. The seismic behavior of the
system was then assessed through the analyses on the dynamic responses under the recorded
seismic excitations.

Keywords: Mixed structure; RC frame; Steel frame; Shaking table test; Dynamic response;
Seismic behavior.

1. Introduction
The mixed structural system defined by CTBUH (Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat)
refers to the system that utilizes distinct steel or concrete sub-structures above or below each other.
This system, especially that the steel sub-structures stand on concrete sub-structures (S/RC system),
shows advantages on architectural layout and structural mechanism.
Steel frames generally exhibit higher strength but lower lateral stiffness in comparison with
concrete frames. Higher strength allows larger structural span and space architecturally which is
seen on the upper stories in S/RC system substituting steel sub-structure for RC sub-structure.
Besides, as frame structures deform in a shear-dominant mode, S/RC system just adapts to the
decreased demand of drifts along the structural height upwards in terms of the reduction of the
lateral stiffness due to the variation of structural material.
Nevertheless, since S/RC system varies in the distributions of mass, stiffness, and damping
behavior along the height, its mechanical behavior, especially the dynamic behavior, may not be
derived from that of regular structural system with uniform material. Moreover, the studies on the
dynamic behavior are still preliminary although the S/RC mixed system has been adopted in some
significant buildings around the world, such as Burj Khalifa, Shanghai world financial center etc.
[1]. It is becoming crucial to understand the dynamic behavior of S/RC system.
Therefore, one S/RC frame with four-story steel sub-structure on eight-story concrete sub-structure
along with a comparative twelve-story concrete frame was designed in accordance with China
Building Code. The shaking table test was then conducted at Tongji University. Based on the test
observations and analysis, the seismic behavior was evaluated, and the suggestions were proposed
in this paper for the design and construction of the mixed structural system.
2. Test preparation
Figure 1 shows the details of the twelve-story RC frame [2]. Equivalent configuration (Cross
section and reinforcement detailing) is assigned to every floor for the sake of simplicity. The RC
sub-structure, lower seven stories of the S/RC frame as showed in figure 2, has the same
configuration. In accordance with China Building Code the eighth story adopts composite columns
between lower RC columns and upper steel columns [3]. This story is termed transfer story of the
mixed system. Four steel stories are set on the top as the steel sub-structure.

Steel column Steel beam

SRC column RC beam

RC column RC beam
Fig.1 Twelve-story RC frame Fig.2 Twelve-story S/RC frame

The S/RC frame consists of RC columns of rectangular cross-sections and steel columns of
I-shaped cross-section separately. Both of the two sub-structures, thus, exhibit different lateral
stiffness in two directions. The strong axis of RC columns is set in X-direction along with the weak
axis of upper steel columns; the weak axis of RC columns and the strong axis of steel columns are
arranged in Y direction. Distinct distributions of lateral stiffness are derived along structural height
in the two directions. The arrangement in X direction demonstrates the S/RC system with a soft
body standing on a rigid base, while Y direction represents the mixed system with approximately
similar lateral stiffness for adjacent stories.
In order to avoid sharp variations of lateral stiffness and ensure effective transfer of lateral force, a
setup of transfer story is suggested and the limits of stiffness ratio between adjacent stories are
specified in China Building Code [3~4]. The stiffness of one story should be no less than 70% of
the stiffness of its lower story [4]. The equation 1 manifests that the transfer story should be
designed with the bending stiffness between its lower concrete story and upper steel story [3].
Ignoring the shear deformation of columns, bending stiffness could represent the lateral stiffness of
the story.
(EI)t=0.4~0.6[(EI)RC+(EI)S] (1)
where (EI)t, (EI)RC and (EI)S denote the total bending stiffness of the columns in transfer story, RC
story and steel story respectively.
Figure 3 exhibits the distribution of bending stiffness along structural height and the ratios between
the stories. It is signified that the configuration in Y direction meets the requirement specified by
the code. The frame is then recognized as a regular frame in terms of stiffness configuration in this
direction. However, it’s sometimes quite difficult to meet the requirement of lateral stiffness
specified by the building code since one main reason to adopt steel sub-structure is the application
of large or super large space on the upper stories. Thus, the configuration in X direction featuring a
sharp reduction of lateral stiffness represents the mixed system with steel sub-structure of super
large space. As seen in figure 3a, the first two ratios both breach the limit of 70% while the last one
lies in the range of 40% to 60% as given in the equation 1 with respect to the transfer story.

12 12
Story

Story
10 10

8 8

楼层
6
(EI)t/(EI)RC=0.55 6 (EI)t/(EI)RC=0.87
(EI)S/(EI)t=0.17 (EI)S/(EI)t=0.74
4 4
[(EI)RC+(EI)S]/(EI)t=0.51 [(EI)RC+(EI)S]/(EI)t=0.53
2 2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

109 N*mm2 109 N*mm2

(a) Stiffness distribution in X direction (b) Stiffness distribution in Y direction
Fig.3 Distribution of bending stiffness along structural height

Being set seismic protection level of 7-degree and damping ratio of 2%, a prototype S/RC frame
was analyzed through response spectrum method. The derived inter-story drifts as in figure 4 are
less than 1/300 and 1/550 for the steel stories and the concrete stories respectively.

(a) Drifts in X direction (b) Drifts in Y direction

Fig. 4 Distribution of Drift Ratio on Pre-analyses

Prior to the design of the test frame, scaling ratios are identified as 1/10 and 1/2.78 for length and
elastic modulus based on the property of available materials before the other ratios are derived.
Figure 2 exhibits the S/RC mixed frame in testing and the loading cases are listed in table 1.
Table 1 Loading cases for shaking table tests

Testing Group Load Case PGA(g) Record Direction Prototype PGA(g)

/ 1 0.07 White_Noise1 X/Y /
I 2~7 0.090 EL/KB/SHW X/Y 0.035
/ 8 0.07 White_Noise2 X/Y /
II 9~14 0.258 EL/KB/SHW X/Y 0.10
/ 15 0.07 White_Noise3 X/Y /
III 16~21 0.517 EL/KB/SHW X/Y 0.20
/ 22 0.07 White_Noise4 X/Y /
IV 23~28 1.0 EL/KB/SHW X/Y 0.40
/ 29 0.07 White_Noise5 X/Y /
S/RC system generally includes three parts (upper Steel part/middle SRC part/lower RC part) along
the height; the connections are believed to be the crucial part for the transfer of lateral force. Some
measures as showed in figure 5 are then proposed and implemented to avoid the pre-mature damage
of the connections. In the lower connections between RC and SRC columns, the cut-off points of
the shaped steels are set at the mid-height of the concrete beams to reduce the influence of stiffness
variation as much as possible.
Additional stirrups

50mm
(Cut-off height)
30mm

60mm
Fig.5 Detailing of transfer story

The upper ends of the shaped steels are welded to the steel columns in the upper connections
followed by the placement of high strength mortar. In addition, three stirrups as circled in figure 5
are arranged side by side to improve the integrity of the connections in accordance with the
measures used in mixed beams [5-6].

3. Test results
3.1 Test observations
Despite the distinct distributions of stiffness in two directions, the frame exhibits similar
observations and same yield mechanism in both directions. Cracking is not observed until the
testing group III with peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.517g. The cracks as showed in figure 6
originate from the end of the beams connected with the composite columns in the transfer story.
With the progression of loading, these bending cracks expand and gradually extend through the
height of the beams.

Fig.6 Bending cracks at the end of beams connected to composite columns

These bending cracks are also observed from the second to fourth story in later loading cases as
showed in figure 7. Proceeding testing, transverse cracks showed in figure 8 emerge at the bottom
of the columns in the second floor. As the column hinges occur, the frame becomes a hinge system
in consequence. The mixed frame, by and large, exhibits a yield mode of beam hinge.
In addition, no cracks are noticed at the cut-off point of the shaped steel; the measure for fixing the
shaped steel at the cut-off point proves valid in keeping the integrity of the joints between RC and

Fig.7 Cracks of beams at 2nd and 4th floor

Fig.8 Cracks at the bottom of columns on 2nd floor

SRC columns.
In contrast with the cracking at the first and the second floors of the twelve-story RC frame [2], the
S/RC frame starts cracking at the end of beams on the stories with sharp stiffness variation. Figure 9
demonstrates the demand of rotation in shear-mode deformation and flexural-mode deformation.
The decrease in stiffness increases the rotation, θcu, for the upper column while little variation is
induced for the rotation, θcd, at the lower end of the joint. Therefore, both the shear-mode
deformation (θb=θcu+θcd) and the flexural-mode deformation (θb=θcu-θcd) of the beam connected to
the joint see an increment in the rotation demand of the beam according to the rotation balance in
Μ cu/θcu
Μ cu/θcu

Μ b/θb Μ b/θb

Μ cd/θcd Μ cd/θcd
θb=θcu +θcd θb=θcu −θcd
(a) Shear-mode deformation (b) Flexural-mode deformation

Fig.9 Deformations at the transfer joints

the joint.
The mixed system first cracks at the stories where stiffness varies. These cracks usually appear
much earlier and develop more seriously than in the RC system due to the sharp variation of
stiffness. Thus there comes the suggestion that the variation of lateral stiffness should be limited in
some range for the adjacent stories.
If the variation of lateral stiffness exceeds the requirement of limit, e.g. a super large space on the
upper floors, some measures, such as setting up two or more transfer stories, might be an applicable
solution for that. In addition, the rotation capacities need to be strengthened in response to the large
demand of rotation at the end of the beams on the stories with stiffness variation.

3.2 Dynamic characteristics

The transfer functions are acquired from white noise responses, and then used to derive the natural
frequencies of the S/RC frame as listed in table 2.
Table 2 Modal frequency of S/RC frame
Frequency Direction WN1 WN 2 WN 3 WN 4 WN 5
X 4.48(100%) 4.20(94%) 3.92(88%) 2.8(63%) 1.96(44%)
1st mode
Y 5.32(100%) 4.76(89%) 4.20(79%) 2.52(48%) 1.96(37%)
X 9.52(100%) 8.68(91%) 7.84(83%) 6.33(66%) 5.04(53%)
2nd mode
Y 12.88(100%) 11.48(89%) 10.36(81%) 8.4(65%) 6.44(50%)
After the testing group I, the fundamental frequency decreases roughly 10% in both directions and
the frame is still considered elastic. The following excitations in the testing group II lead a 20%
reduction in the frequency and cause a repairable damage. Although the frequency further decreases
40% and 60% on the testing group III and testing group IV separately, the frame still stands erectly
within the safety requirement.
3.3 Dynamic responses
3.3.1 Displacement responses
Figure 10 shows the drift ratios of the S/RC frame for testing group I, II and III. The frame exhibits
distinct deformation characteristics in two directions due to the different distributions of lateral
stiffness. The responses showed in figure 10a manifest that the sharp variation contributes to the
larger rotations of the joints and causes the flexural-mode deformation on the upper stories.
Figure 10b presents the distribution of drift ratios in Y-direction. Since the frame shows a relatively
even variation of lateral stiffness as showed in figure 3b, the frame exhibits a shear-mode
deformation along the height. The maximum ratio is in the first steel story in elastic phase, and
transfers to the SRC story due to the serious damage and stiffness reduction occurs in this story in
the following loading. Among the different records, SHW wave produces the largest responses since
it shows a predominant period closest to fundamental period of the frame.
For the mixed system with variations in the lateral stiffness, mass and damping behavior along the
structural height, a two-oscillator model is proposed for the preliminary analysis on the dynamic
behavior. The theoretic solution to the dynamic equation signifies that the upper oscillator exhibits
extreme responses when the vibration frequency is identical to the fundamental frequency of the
upper sub-structure. Furthermore, maximum responses happen if upper sub-structure, lower
sub-structure and input signal share the same frequency [7].
The two-oscillator model is then applied to the responses in X direction as showed in figure 10a.
Since the fundamental period of upper sub-structure in the direction is closer to the predominant
period of KB wave and EL wave than SHW wave, the frame shows augment of responses in the
steel stories under the excitations of KB wave and EL wave while relatively even responses of
SHW wave along the height. This reveals that, in the preliminary phase, the mixed structure should
be designed with the fundamental period of upper sub-structure far away from the characteristic
period of the site to avoid excessive amplification of the responses on the top stories.

12 12 12

10 10 10

8 8 8
Story

Story

Story
6 EL(LD__I__X) 6 EL(LD__II__X) 6 EL(LD__III__X)
KB(LD__I__X) KB(LD__II__X) KB(LD__III__X)
4 SHW(LD__I___X) 4 SHW(LD__II___X) 4 SHW(LD__III___X)

2 2 2

0 0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 10
Drift(‰ ) Drift(‰ ) Drift(‰ )

SRC column
12 12 12

10 10 10

8 8 8
Story

Story

Story
6 EL(LD__I__Y) 6 EL(LD__II__Y) 6
KB(LD__I__Y) KB(LD__II__Y) EL(LD__III__Y)
4 SHW(LD__I__Y) 4 SHW(LD__II__Y) 4 KB(LD__III__Y)
SHW(LD__III__Y)
2 2 2

0 0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 5 10 15
Drift(‰ ) Drift(‰ ) Drift(‰ )

(b) Drifts in Y direction

Fig.10 Drift ratios of S/RC frame
12 12 12

10 10 10

8 8 8
Story

Story

Story

6 6 6

4 4 4
S/RC frame(EL__LD__I) S/RC frame(KB__LD__I) S/RC frame(SHW__LD__I)
2 RC frame(EL__LD__I) 2 RC frame(KB__LD__I) 2 RC frame(SHW__LD__I)

0 0 0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Displacement ratio Displacement ratio Displacement ratio

12 12 12

10 10 10

8 8 8
Story

Story
Story

6 6 6

4 4 4
S/RC frame(EL__LD__II) S/RC frame(KB__LD__II) S/RC frame(SHW__LD__II)
2 RC frame(EL__LD__II) 2 RC frame(KB__LD__II) 2 RC frame(SHW__LD__II)

0 0 0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Displacement ratio Displacement ratio Displacement ratio

12 12 12

10 10 10

8 8 8
Story

Story

Story

6 6 6

4 4 4
S/RC frame(EL__LD__III) S/RC frame(KB__LD__III) S/RC frame(SHW__LD__III)
2 RC frame(EL__LD__III) 2 RC frame(KB__LD__III) 2 RC frame(SHW__LD__III)

0 0 0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Displacement ratio Displacement ratio Displacement ratio

Fig.11 Displacement responses of S/RC and RC frame (X direction)

Figure 11 compares the displacement responses of S/RC and RC frames. The RC frame shows a
shear-mode deformation along height while a flexural-mode deformation is observed for the S/RC
frame. The differences of the two curves become larger from the transfer story while the responses
remain roughly identical in the lower concrete stories. It also proves that two-oscillator model is
more practical than one-oscillator model for the preliminary analysis of the mixed system.

12 12 12

10 10 10

8 8 8
Story

Story

Story
6 6 6

4 4 4

S/RC frame(KB__LD__I) S/RC frame(SHW__LD__I)

2 S/RC frame(EL__LD__I) 2 2
RC frame(KB__LD__I) RC frame(SHW__LD__I)
RC frame(EL__LD__I)
0 0 0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 1 2 3 4 5
Acceleration ratio Acceleration ratio Acceleration ratio

12 12 12

10 10 10

8 8 8
Story

Story
Story

6 6 6

4 4 4

2 2 S/RC frame(KB__LD__II) 2
S/RC frame(EL__LD__II) S/RC frame(SHW__LD__II)
RC frame(KB__LD__II) RC frame(SHW__LD__II)
RC frame(EL__LD__II)
0 0 0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Acceleration ratio Acceleration ratio Acceleration ratio

12 12 12

10 10 10

8 8 8
Story

Story
Story

6 6 6

4 4
4

2 S/RC frame(KB__LD__III)
2 S/RC frame(EL__LD__III) 2
RC frame(KB__LD__III) S/RC frame(SHW__LD__III)
RC frame(EL__LD__III) RC frame(SHW__LD__III)
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Acceleration ratio 0 1 2 3 4 5
Acceleration ratio Acceleration ratio

Fig.12 Acceleration responses of S/RC and RC frame (X direction)

3.3.2 Acceleration responses

Figure 12 contrasts the acceleration responses between the S/RC frame and the comparative RC
frame. Due to the influence of high-modes, both frames exhibit local augment in the midst of the
structure. The increases occur at the transfer story for the S/RC frame and at the fourth to sixth story
for the RC frame respectively.
Larger responses are observed at the upper steel sub-structure of S/RC frame, especially under the
excitation of EL wave in testing group I, EL wave and KB wave in testing group II, and EL wave,
KB wave and SHW wave in testing group III. This augment could be explained with the
two-oscillator model as well.
The predominant period of EL wave ranges from 0.4s to 0.6s and thus covers the fundamental
period of the upper sub-structure. As a result, the EL wave brings about larger responses of the
upper steel sub-structure in testing group I according to the dynamic solution of the two-oscillator
model as showed in the graph at the upper left of figure 12.
Through testing group II and III, damages accumulate around the transfer story, and the natural
period of the upper sub-structure is enlarged. KB wave and SHW wave therefore excite larger
responses on the upper sub-structure in the following loading cases due to their longer predominant
periods.
Therefore, in terms of acceleration response, the mixed frame shall be designed with the
fundamental period of upper sub-structure far away from both the fundamental period of lower
sub-structure and the characteristic period of the site soil. A three-oscillator model will definitely be
a more accurate way to predict the response of mixed system in preliminary phase.

4. Conclusions
Based on the shaking table tests of an S/RC mixed frame and a comparative RC frame, the seismic
behavior of the mixed frame was discussed in this paper. The main conclusions are summarized as
follows:
1) S/RC mixed frame exhibits rotation demand at the joints with the variation of lateral stiffness.
These rotations originate from the bending cracking at the end of the beams connected to the joints
and lead to the flexural-mode deformation in the upper sub-structure.
2) S/RC frame shows larger displacement and acceleration responses in the upper sub-structure than
RC frame, and little differences are observed for the responses in the lower sub-structure.
3) A two-oscillator model is suggested for the dynamic analysis of the mixed system because of the
variations of lateral stiffness, mass and damping behavior in the midst of height. As derived from
the tests results, the upper sub-structure will exhibit excessive amplification in responses if the
fundamental period of the upper sub-structure falls in the predominant period of the input seismic
record. Therefore, the fundamental period of the upper sub-structure should be far away from the
predominant period of the site soil as much as possible to effectively reduce the responses on upper
stories.

5. Acknowledgements
Funding for this research was provided by National Natural Science Foundation of China
(90815029, 51021140006).

References:
[1] LU X. L. Seismic Theory and Application to Complex High-rise Buildings [M], 2007,
Beijing: Science Press.
[2] LU X. L., LI P. Z., CHEN Y. Q. Benchmark test of a 12-story reinforced concrete frame
model on shaking table [R], 2004, State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil
Engineering, Tongji University.
[3] Technical Specification of Steel-Reinforced Concrete Structures (YB9082-2006) [S].
Beijing: Metallurgical Industry Press.
[4] Code for Seismic Design of Buildings (GB50011-2001) [S]. 2002, Beijing: China
Architecture & Building Press.
[5] HARUKAZE T., BABA N., NISHIMURA Y., Stress Transfer from Steel Member to
Reinforced Concrete Member [J]. Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting,
Architectural Institute of Japan, 2006. C1: 1107-1108.
[6] SAKIHAMA H, NISHIHARA H, SUZUKI H. Experiment on Mixed-Structure Beam with
both End of RC or SRC and Center of S [J]. Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual
Meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan, 2002. C1: 1055-1056.
[7] CLOUGH, R. W., PENZIEN, J. Dynamics of Structures [M], 2003, Computers & Structures,
Inc., Berkeley, California.