INTRODUCTION

Beam-column joint is a critical part of earthquake resistant structure due to its specific energy
dissipation mechanism, thus requiring detailed study and observation of its behavior.
For capacity design, the focus is to select a non-brittle failure mode for each critical
structural component.
Consequently, RC structure should be controlled such that shear and compression failure do
not occur, since these types of failure are brittle failure.
Unfortunately, shear and compression failure may occur if the beam column joint is not
properly designed.
Therefore, the beam column joint should be designed so that cracks and damage on bonding
should be avoided, since it may cause strength and stiffness degradation at the joint panel for
reversed loading and elastic deformation.
 Various methods have been developed for beam column joint confinement, such as
conventional joint shear reinforcement, and composite structures using Concrete-filled tube
(CFT) column.
The CFT provides continuous confinement for the core and serves as a cast for the concrete
column.
Literature review shows that there is limited number of studies on the behavior of beam-
column joint with RC beam and rectangular steel in-filled concrete (composite) column under
seismic loading, particularly experimental studies. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to
understand the behavior of such connection. The result can be used as an alternative for
earthquake resistant structures.
CASE STUDY
In this study, the behavior of beam column connection was observed, in which
the column is a steel concrete composite and the beam is a regular reinforced
concrete (RC).
Two regular methods for detailing of the beam column connection were
exercised, first, by inserting the beam reinforcement through the steel casing,
and second, by welding the beam reinforcement to the steel casing.
The second method was evaluated since it is commonly found in practice. The
result shows that the detail of connection affected the performance of the
beam-column connection greatly.
SPECIMENS
Specimen 1 (BU-1) is a conventional RC beam column connection, and was
designed for exterior joint for Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF). This
specimen was used as a benchmark specimen.

Specimen BU-2 is a RC beam-composite column joint with beam

reinforcements inserted to the joint through the steel casing.

Specimen BU-3 is similar to BU-2, but the reinforcements were welded on the
steel casing.
SPECIMEN DETAILS
DETAILING
DETAILING
TEST SET-UP
The test setup is given in Figure 2 and consists of:
Loading frame Dartec Limited M9500 with loading capacity of 1000 kN
Data logger to record measurement from load cell, strain gauges, and LVDT
Linear Variable Displacement Transducers (LVDT), to measure displacements
occurred at the specimens and at the loading frame during experiment
Strain gauges, installed on beam longitudinal rebar, beam transverse rebar,
column longitudinal rebar, and joint transverse rebar. For composite column,
strain gauges were also installed on the steel casing similar to the locations for
the conventional joint.
LOADING
Quasi-static reversed cyclic loading was applied to the specimens in increments,
downward for compression and upward for tension, using load control system.

In this study, initial loading was set at 75% of the estimated yield load to avoid
early collapse of beam elements.

The load sequence for each specimen is given in Figure 3.

LOAD-DISPLACEMENT CURVE
CRACK PATTERN

The crack pattern for BU-1 and BU-2 is almost similar, especially for beam region . For
beam, the crack propagation area occurred at the column face, creating a plastic hinge.
Specimen BU-1 showed that beam suffered significant damage with spalling of concrete
cover. The damage for column in BU-1 was in the form of diagonal crack, due to the diagonal
strut formed in the joint.
However, the crack did not occur for the composite column. For BU-2, the damage mostly in
the form of separation of RC beam from the composite column with a gap of about 10 mm,
and the crack width for the plastic hinge area is approximately 3 mm. The beam on BU-2 did
not have spalling since it is not monolith as in BU-1.
BU-3 developed a different crack pattern compared to the other specimens. Cracks on beam
are somewhat limited compared to BU-1 or BU-2. However, the RC-beam showed separation
from the composite column with a significant gap of 17 mm. The separation was due to the
fact that the element did not have flexural behavior as in BU-1.
The plastic hinge expected for earthquake resistant structure did not occur for this specimen.
ENERGY DISSIPATION
Energy dissipation represents the ability of structures to dissipate energy through yield mechanism
in plastic hinge regions. Yield mechanism will develop nicely if the plastic hinge has enough
ductility so that plastic deformation can occur prior to collapse.
The amount of energy dissipation due to cyclic loading can be calculated from the area of hysteretic
loop from the load displacement relationship.
Table 2 presents the energy dissipation time history in each cycle for all specimens. The behavior of
BU-1 and BU-2 is comparable with very close values while BU-3 shows different behavior.
Based on the experiments, the dissipated energy for both BU-1 and BU-2 is almost similar, although
the amount is 6.64 percent higher for BU-1.
This means that BU-1 can dissipate energy better than BU-2 through yield mechanism. The result
also revealed that BU-3 has the smallest dissipated energy, estimated to be 28.6 percent of BU-1.
Therefore, BU-3 has poor performance in dissipating energy.
MOMENT-CURVATURE
As presented in Figure 8, the experimental results show that BU-1 and BU-2

have similar moment curvature relationship, confirming that the elastic

behavior of these specimens is comparable.

Conversely, BU-1 and BU-3 show different curve pattern in elastic condition.

The maximum curvature for BU-3 is smaller than BU-1 since the maximum

load for BU-3 is less than BU-1.

CONCLUSION
Based on the results from the experimental study of RC beam-composite column joint, several

conclusions can be obtained.

The behavior of specimen BU-2 is comparable to BU-1 and satisfies the criteria for earthquake
resistant structure for ductility and dissipation energy aspects. In contrast, specimen BU-3 shows
poor performance compared to other specimens.

The dissipation energy for specimens BU-1 and BU-2 only varied by 6.64%, while BU-3

shows the lowest dissipation energy with the difference of 71.36% compared to BU-1.

However, the ductility level for all three specimens is similar.

For structures with composite column, the beam reinforcements should be inserted to the joint
through the steel casing as in BU-2 specimen. Connection with beam reinforcement welded to

the steel casing as in BU-3 is not recommended and should be avoided in practice.