See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230311080

Experimental behavior of transfer story

connections for high‐rise SRC structures under
seismic loading

Article in Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics · July 2011

DOI: 10.1002/eqe.1067

CITATION READS

1 35

4 authors:

Wei Wang Yiyi Chen

Tongji University Tongji University
51 PUBLICATIONS 230 CITATIONS 131 PUBLICATIONS 419 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Baiping Dong Roberto Leon

Lehigh University Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ…
9 PUBLICATIONS 39 CITATIONS 198 PUBLICATIONS 1,815 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Wei Wang on 31 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:961–975
Published online 22 November 2010 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/eqe.1067

Experimental behavior of transfer story connections for high-rise

SRC structures under seismic loading

Wei Wang1, 2, 3, ∗, † , Yiyi Chen1, 2 , Baiping Dong2 and Roberto T. Leon3

1 StateKey Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, People’s
Republic of China
2 Department of Structural Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, People’s Republic of China
3 School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 30332-0355, U.S.A.

SUMMARY
Results from an investigation aimed at assessing seismic behavior of transfer story connections for high-
rise building consisting of steel-reinforced concrete (SRC) frame and reinforced concrete (RC) core
tube are presented. Two types of transfer story connections were experimentally evaluated for adequate
strength, ductility and energy dissipation. For each type of connection, two large-scale subassembly tests
were carried out under monotonic and cyclic lateral displacement, respectively. Detailed observations and
behavior responses were obtained to contrast the differences between monotonic and cyclic performance
of the connections. Test results showed that the SRC column failed before connection collapse and that
loading types have little effect on the strength but greatly affect the failure modes and the ductility of
the connections. All specimens exhibited good properties for earthquake resistance since they all kept a
stable inelastic behavior up to the interstory drift demand suggested by the AISC Seismic Provisions.
Based on test observations, support stiffeners with appropriate width-to-thickness ratio and mechanical
connectors connecting bars with the steel plate are recommended for design purposes in order to achieve
more ductile and reliable seismic behavior of transfer story connections. Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley
& Sons, Ltd.

Received 20 January 2010; Revised 23 July 2010; Accepted 26 August 2010

KEY WORDS: connections; SRC column; transfer story; monotonic loads; cyclic loads; seismic test

1. INTRODUCTION

High-rise buildings are commonly found in densely populated cities. A typical structural solution
frequently adopted for this purpose is hybrid construction, in which a reinforced concrete (RC)
core tube is combined with steel-reinforced concrete (SRC) frame system. The SRC frame is
composed of SRC columns and steel beams. Strengthened stories comprising outriggers and belt
trusses are often employed in this hybrid structure in order to enhance structural lateral stiffness
and weaken the shear lag effect. Strengthened stories always function as transfer stories, because
they can redistribute the loads from closely spaced SRC columns above to widely spaced SRC
columns below so as to facilitate the architectural layout in providing large column-free open space
at the lower stories. The structural benefits gained by using SRC systems over RC or steel systems
have been overviewed by Roeder [1] and Morino [2]. However, the Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake

∗ Correspondence to: Wei Wang, State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University,
Shanghai 200092, People’s Republic of China.
† E-mail: weiwang@tongji.edu.cn

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

962 W. WANG ET AL.

in 1995 exposed weaknesses in high-rise SRC structures [3]. The most distinctive characteristic of
the damage caused by this earthquake was the concentration of damage at the transfer zone, which
caused a complete disappearance of a certain story in some cases. Similar damage was observed in
the SRC column at the transfer story from the full-web to the open-web steel. Therefore, similar
to the beam–column connection in a moment-resisting frame, the SRC transfer story connection
in a high-rise hybrid structure undoubtedly plays an important role when the structure is under
earthquake loading. The cyclic behavior study of transfer story connections will form a basis for
a rational seismic design of such structures.
SRC connection research was initiated by Wakabayashi [4, 5] in Japan. The cross-sectional
steel shapes used for the columns were mainly wide flange steel shapes. Twelve interior moment
connection specimens were tested, which were composed of either an SRC column or a RC column
with SRC beams. It was reported that longitudinal reinforcement buckled in the connection region
for some specimens, since no transverse reinforcement was provided in the connection. Three
specimens failed in shear in the connection, which was accompanied by yielding in the steel beam
panel zone. Minami and Nishimura [6] tested 30 beam–column subassemblages to evaluate the
shear behavior of interior, exterior and corner SRC moment connections. The specimens were
composed of a same-size SRC column, with an SRC beam of varying width. Continuity plates
were provided in the panel zone, but no transverse reinforcement was used in the connection.
The ratio of SRC beam width to SRC column width was reported to be an important factor for
the ultimate shear strength of the concrete. In recent years, Teraoka et al. [7] examined seven
specimens with a cross-H steel shape for columns with research mainly directed toward exam-
ining the effect of the diaphragm scheme proposed by the authors. Research on similar types
of SRC connections has also been conducted in the United States. Chou and Uang [8, 9] tested
two full-scale subassemblies with SRC columns and steel beams to evaluate the seismic perfor-
mance of the connection details. For ease of construction, continuity plates were eliminated and
less transverse reinforcement than that specified in the NEHRP seismic provisions was used in
the connection region. The reduced beam section was introduced to reduce the shear demand
on the connection. In addition, two doubler plates were placed away from the column web to
enhance the connection shear resistance. Test results showed that both specimens were able to
reach an interstory drift ratio in excess of 4%. The inner concrete strut could be mobilized in
the two-sided moment connection and an analytical model was developed for the concrete shear
force transfer mechanism in the connection of the second specimen. Parra-Montesinos et al. [10]
proposed a new connection design that would allow the use of fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC)-
encased steel truss members in earthquake-resistant RC framed construction. Various connection
schemes between the precast hybrid beams and RC columns were experimentally evaluated for
adequate moment and shear transfer during large displacement reversals. The connection compo-
nents are designed to remain elastic, forcing the inelastic activity to occur in the hybrid beam.
Test specimens constructed with newly developed connection details exhibited displacement capac-
ities exceeding 4.0% drift, with full hysteresis loops and good strength and stiffness retention
capacity.
Although much researches have been conducted on SRC connections during the past decades,
they were almost focused on beam–column connections. Up to now little work has been reported
on transfer story connections for high-rise SRC structures. Because of the lack of test and analytical
evidence, the seismic response of this special type of connection remains unclear and requires
further investigation.
It is the objective of this study to assess the seismic performance of transfer story connections
of high-rise SRC structures in areas where high seismic hazards must be considered. With the
support of the Sun Hung Kai Properties Ltd. and Tongji University, two connections of typical
configurations in a skyscraper with SRC magaframe has been selected and fabricated in 1:3 scale.
Experimental studies based on both monotonic and cyclic loading tests were conducted in the State
Key Laboratory for Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering of China in Shanghai. This paper
summarizes test results and provides an evaluation of connection performance of the specially
detailed transfer story joints.

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:961–975
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 EXPERIMENTAL BEHAVIOR OF TRANSFER STORY CONNECTIONS 963

Upper SRC column

Transfer story

Steel transfer truss

CC connection SRC megacolumn

TC connection

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 1. Location of transfer story connections in the prototype structure: (a) building model; (b) structural
skeleton and elevations; and (c) typical transfer story connections.

2. PROTOTYPE STRUCTURE AND TRANSFER STORY CONNECTIONS

In the prototype structure, SRC mega column was chosen for the columns at low elevation levels
(office stories) for its large capacity in strength and stiffness, and thus can easily satisfy a 24 m
column spacing requirements. While small SRC columns were arranged at high elevation levels
(hotel stories) with a 4.8 m column spacing. Transfer stories comprising outriggers and belt trusses
were employed to fulfill the basic design principle that there should be no lateral stiffness abruptness
between the two conjunctive stories. Figure 1(a) shows a photo of 1:30 scale high-rise building
model before shaking table test. Unfortunately, tests still have exposed weaknesses in the transfer
story, causing serious damage in the connections, which is adverse to the seismic performance of
the global structure due to the formation of weak story [11]. Because of the great importance of
transfer story to the overall performance of the building, two connections labeled as CC and TC
were chosen to be experimentally investigated in this paper, which can be regarded as the typical
SRC transfer story connections commonly used for this structure. Their locations in the prototype
high-rise structure are marked in Figure 1(b) and (c). In fact, the layout of the architecture finalized
the configuration of the transfer story connections. CC connection is characterized by joining SRC
column above the transfer story to the SRC megacolumn eccentrically, while TC connection is
characterized by making SRC column sitting on the top chord of the steel transfer truss. The
connection schemes were designed so that the force from the component above the connection
could be reliably transferred to the component beneath the connection. The upper SRC column
section has 17.4% reinforcement when both the steel section and rebars are included. SRC columns
with high steel volume ratio tend to exhibit the seismic behavior similar to the bare steel, i.e. they
have better ductility and more stable hysteretic energy dissipation than those SRC columns with
small steel volume ratio. The encasing concrete outside the steel shape in this column can be
additionally used for fireproofing.

3. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

3.1. Test specimens

An experimental program consisting of the tests of four subassembly specimens under large
displacement reversals was conducted to evaluate the seismic behavior of two types of transfer

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:961–975
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
964 W. WANG ET AL.

Table I. Characteristics of test specimens.

Upper component Lower component Lateral loading Axial compression
Specimen Connection type type type ratio
CC1 CC SRC column SRC column Monotonic 0.13
CC2 CC SRC column SRC column Cyclic 0.13
TC1 TC SRC column HSS truss Monotonic 0.13
TC2 TC SRC column HSS truss Cyclic 0.13

Upper SRC
column

Upper SRC column

SRC megacolumn
Support
Floor beam stiffeners Truss chord
Truss webs Truss webs

Figure 2. Geometry and dimensions of test specimens.

H266×150×16×20
H266×150×16×20
Cover plate
Megacolumn Doubler Stiffeners

Longitudinal bars

Weld
Longitudinal bars

Bars extending into megacolumn Weld Top surface

(a) (b) of truss chord

Figure 3. Connection details: (a) CC connection (b) TC connection.

story connections. Two specimens were designed to 1:3 scale for each prototype connection.
Table I provides characteristics of all specimens. Specimens CC1 and TC1 were ‘identical’ to
Specimens CC2 and TC2, respectively, except for subjecting to different loading protocols. Detailed
information about this program can be found elsewhere [12].
The geometry and dimensions of the specimens are shown in Figure 2. The connection details
are shown in Figure 3. The encased cross-sectional steel shape used for the upper SRC column
were wide flange sections, H266×150×16×20, as shown in Figure 3. The encased cross-sectional
steel shape used for lower SRC megacolumn was a cross-H section, XH466×266×8×10. The
XH466×266×8×10 section was composed of two H466×266×8×10 sections that intersected
perpendicularly at the mid-height of the webs. Shear studs were arranged along the steel column
to intensify composite action between steel and concrete. Square hollow sections (SHS) of size

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:961–975
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 EXPERIMENTAL BEHAVIOR OF TRANSFER STORY CONNECTIONS 965

266×266×16 mm were used for the top chord and diagonal web of steel transfer truss, and
rectangular hollow sections (RHS) of size 266×200×8×8 were used for the vertical web. The
upper SRC column section has a rebar volume ratio of 5.4% and a steel volume ratio of 12%, while
the SRC megacolumn section has a rebar volume ratio of 1.9% and a steel volume ratio of 4%.
For Specimens CC1 and CC2, the distinguishing feature is that the upper small column and
the megacolumn are connected with an eccentricity. A thick cover plate was first attached to the
top end of the encased steel section of the megacolumn. Complete joint penetration welds were
then used to connect the encased steel sections of upper column to the steel plate. No base plate
was set between the H-column and the cover plate. The quality inspection of the welds has been
made by ultrasonic testing. As the upper column was eccentric from the megacolumn as shown
in Figure 3(a), some longitudinal bars of upper column were butt welded to the steel cover plate
while others were directly anchored into megacolumn concrete. Similarly, some encasing concrete
of small column were placed on the top of the cover plate while others were cast together with the
megaclolumn concrete. Comparatively, for Specimens TC1 and TC2, the distinguishing feature is
that the upper small column sits on the top chord of belt truss. Therefore, complete joint penetration
welds connected the encased steel sections of upper column and all the longitudinal rebars to the
top surface of the truss chord. All encasing concrete were then placed on the truss chord. Moreover,
some stiffening details were added to the connection scheme, with doubler plate stiffeners offset
the column web over the connecting surface and two support stiffeners beneath the connecting
surface.

3.2. Material properties

All specimens have the same material with the corresponding prototype connection. The mechanical
properties of the steel plates and bars are listed in Table II. The average concrete strength on the
test day was approximately equal to 43 MPa for Specimens CC1 and CC2 and about 42 MPa for
Specimens TC1 and TC2.

3.3. Test setup and procedure

The test setup used for Specimens CC1 and CC2 is shown in Figure 4(a), while that used for
Specimens TC1 and TC2 is shown in Figure 4(b). The bottom ends of the specimens were fully
fixed on the foundation that extended to the base of the laboratory floor. For CC specimens, a
lateral support connected to the foundation and to strong reaction wall was set up in order to
prevent potential horizontal movement under large lateral forces. For TC specimens, three floor
beams were connected to the top chord of steel transfer truss. The basic idea behind this test setup
design is to simulate floor diaphragms, which are typically very stiff and strong in their own plane.
The lengths of the specimens were carefully adjusted to approximate the real state of internal
forces in the prototype connections as well as to facilitate test installation.
The loading condition of each specimen is shown in Table I. Specimens CC1 and TC1 were
subjected to monotonic lateral loading and Specimens CC2 and TC2 were subjected to cyclic
lateral loading, enabling direct comparison between them. All specimens have been tested up to
failure. At the beginning of the test, a compression of 1000 kN which is 13% of the upper SRC
column’s axial compressive capacity was first applied and maintained constant throughout the test.

Table II. Mechanical properties of steel plates and bars.

Young’s modulus Yield strength Tensile strength Elongation
Steel type E (×105 N/mm2 ) f y (N/mm2 ) f u (N/mm2 ) fu / f y  (%)
Column flange (t = 20 mm) 2.02 370 469 1.27 34
Column web (t = 16 mm) 1.93 399 546 1.37 30
Bar #14 — 489 632 1.29 —
Bar #10 — 494 627 1.27 —
Bar #8 — 490 637 1.30 —
Bar #6 — 485 637 1.31 —

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:961–975
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
966 W. WANG ET AL.

(a)

(b)

Figure 4. Test setup: (a) Specimens CC1 and CC2 and (b) Specimens TC1 and TC2.

8 100 8 110
Drift angle (%) / Force (x100kN)

Drift angle (%) / Force (x100kN)

80 Force Control Displacement control 90

6 6
Force Control Displacement control 70
60
4 4
Displacement (mm)

Displacement (mm)

40 50
2 2 30
20
10
0 0 0
-10
-2 -20 -2 -30
-40 -50
-4 -4
-60 -70
-6 -80 -6
-90
-8 -100 -8 -110
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36
(a) Cycle number (b) Cycle number

Figure 5. Cyclic loading history: (a) Specimen CC2 and (b) Specimen TC2.

For cyclic test, earthquake-induced displacements were simulated by displacing the top of the upper
column through a 1000 kN servo hydraulic actuator connected to the strong reaction wall. The
lateral cyclic loading history was carried out in accordance with the procedure shown in Figure 5.
In the early stage before the yielding of the outmost longitudinal reinforcement bars, Specimens

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:961–975
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 EXPERIMENTAL BEHAVIOR OF TRANSFER STORY CONNECTIONS 967

CC2 and TC2 were loaded under force control. Then displacement cycles of increasing magnitude
ranging between 0.5 and 5.8% story drift were applied with three cycles at each new drift level
until the failure of specimens. The definition of drift corresponded to story drift of upper SRC
column, calculated as the lateral column displacement divided by the column height. It is worthy to
be mentioned that a series of rollers were set between the vertical hydraulic jacks and the reaction
beam to avoid additional moments due to end restraint in the phase of large lateral deformation.
Applied lateral loads and displacements were monitored through a load cell and LVDT (linear
variable differential transformer) attached to the hydraulic actuator, respectively. Story drifts and
rotations were measured through displacement transducers, while strains in the outmost longitudinal
rebars, embedded column flanges and connection plates were monitored through linear and rosette
strain gauges. The same instrumentation arrangement has been adopted for two specimens of each
type of connection for the ease of comparison.

4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Response quantities for the test specimens are summarized in Table III, including maximum
moment Mmax , yielding moment of column flange M ys , yielding moment of outmost longitudinal
bars M yr and maximum plastic rotation  p,max at the end of the connection. The moment was
measured at the root of upper SRC column and computed by multiplying the lateral force by the
distance between loading point and the column end. In Table III the specimen maximum moments
Mmax are compared to the plastic moment strengths of upper SRC column section (M p ), upper
column only with the bare steel section (M ps ), and upper column with the bare steel section plus
steel bars (M psb ) , respectively. They are estimated by adopting plastic stress distribution methods
based on the assumptions of Section 5.1. From the table it can be seen that the plastic moment
capacity would increase 40% by using SRC section instead of the bare steel section. In addition,
strain hardening of the steel will compensate for the strength loss due to the concrete crushing, so
there is no sharp strength reduction after concrete crushed and the failure mode would be much
more ductile. In terms of section stiffness (EI), it would increase 58% by using SRC section instead
of the bare steel section due to the composite behavior.

4.1. Specimens CC1 and CC2

Specimens CC1 and CC2 were identical but CC1 was subjected to monotonic loading and CC2 to
cyclic loading in accordance with the loading procedure shown in Figure 5(a). For Specimen CC2,
minor flexural cracking was observed at 0.5% drift. First yielding of the outmost longitudinal bar
was observed during the cycles up to 1% drift, at which both the rebars and the encasing concrete
were contributing to the moment strength of the upper column. At larger displacement levels,
the contribution of the concrete in tension to moment strength was negligible. The attainment of
1.2% drift produced yielding in the flange of encased steel section. At this stage, the concrete
crack widened and started to propagate along the section depth. As the applied displacement was
further increased to 2.5% drift, it exhibited spalling of the concrete at the end of the column and
detachment from the cover plate, indicating poor interaction between them at that stage. At 3.4%
drift concrete crushed under the compression (see Figure 7(a)). Some bars buckled severely and
exposed outside (see Figure 7(b)), occurred with a subsequent slight loss of lateral strength in the

Table III. Performance of test specimens.

Mmax Mp M ps M psb M ys M yr Mc  p,max
Specimen (kN-m) (kN-m) (kN-m) (kN-m) Mmax /M p (kN-m) (kN-m) (kN-m) (rad)
CC1 936 703 503 586 1.33 580 559 186 0.052
CC2 864 703 503 586 1.23 560 547 186 0.034
TC1 859 703 503 586 1.22 622 599 341 0.077
TC2 908 703 503 586 1.29 602 599 341 0.036

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:961–975
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
968 W. WANG ET AL.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 6. Failure of Specimen CC1: (a) concrete cracking, peeling and detachment from the cover plate
at 2.5% drift; (b) concrete crushed at 3.4 % drift; and (c) buckling of steel bars at 6.5% drift.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 7. Failure of Specimen CC2: (a) concrete crushed at 3.4 % drift; (b) buckling of steel bars at 3.4%
drift; (c) and (d) fracture of column flanges and steel bars in both sides at 4.3% drift.

800
Concrete crushed
Mp
600
Initial yielding of bars
400 and column flange
Fracture of bars and
Minor cracking column flange
200
of concrete
P (kN)

-200
CC2 cyclic
-400 CC2 skeleton
CC1 monotonic
-600
Mp

-800
-10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%
Drift angle

Figure 8. Lateral force versus drift angle response for Specimens CC1 and CC2.

specimen. An attempt to attain three cycles at a drift of 4.3% failed due to fracture of outmost
longitudinal bars and column flange in tension and a loud ‘bang’ was heard (see Figure 7(c)
and (d)). This occurred during the second and the third excursion leading to a significant loss in
specimen strength. The maximum positive load resisted by the connection was 694 kN. Specimen
CC1 exhibited a very similar damage evolving process to CC2 up to 4.3% drift (see Figure 6(a)
and (b)). However, in the subsequent loading stage, the lateral drift increased continuously with
mild decrease in specimen strength until 6.5% drift was reached (see Figure 6(c)). Throughout the
test for CC1, no fracture of steel bars or column flange was observed and no noise was heard. The
maximum load in the positive direction resisted by the connection was 752 kN.
The lateral force (P)-drift responses obtained for two tests are presented in Figure 8. The vertical
axis P has been plotted against the interstory drift angle of the upper column, in which the lateral
displacement of lower SRC megacolumn was excluded. In addition, the skeleton of the hysteretic

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:961–975
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 EXPERIMENTAL BEHAVIOR OF TRANSFER STORY CONNECTIONS 969

curve for CC2 was also plotted in the figure for ease of comparison. The monotonic response of
Specimen CC1 was characterized by a steady growth of strength up to the peak force and then
decreased smoothly with a large propagation of plastic rotation until the unloading of the test.
While for the cyclic response of Specimen CC2, it exhibited a stable behavior with full hysteresis
loops before 4.3% drift. But the very last two cycles in the test presented a sudden and sharp
reduction of strength, corresponding to the physical collapse of the specimen due to the fracture
of column flange and bars. From the comparison, the initial rigidity from cyclic test can be found
almost identical to that from monotonic test before yielding and the two specimens nearly share
the same load levels of yielding and cracking. The ultimate resistance of CC1 is approximately
8% higher than CC2. The biggest difference between them is characterized by the sharp declining
of CC2’s drift angle contrasting to the well-extended drift angle of CC1, indicating that cyclic
loading procedure have adverse effect on the plastic rotational capacity of CC type connection.

4.2. Specimens TC1 and TC2

Specimens TC1 and TC2 were identical but TC1 was subjected to monotonic loading and TC2 to
cyclic loading in accordance with the loading procedure shown in Figure 5(b). For Specimen TC2,
minor flexural cracking was observed at 0.8% drift. First, yielding of the outmost longitudinal bar
was observed during the cycles up to 1.5% drift. The attainment of 1.8% drift produced yielding
in the flange of encased steel section. At this stage, strain readings indicated that some areas of the
truss chord below the column no longer remained elastic. In the following target drift levels, the
concrete crack widened. As the applied displacement was further increased to 3% drift, it exhibited
peeling in the concrete at the end of the column. From 4 to 4.8% drift some concrete blocks
crushed under the compression (see Figure 10(a)). When attempting to complete three cycles at a
drift of 5.7%, a loud ‘bang’ was heard at the third excursion. Reinforcing bars, column flange, and
adjacent stiffeners above the connection fractured in tension at this time, with some compressive
bars buckling and exposing outside (see Figure 10(b) and (d)). The supporting stiffener beneath
SRC column also buckled under the concentrated compression (see Figure 10(c)). This inevitably
led to a significant loss in specimen strength. The maximum positive load in the positive direction
resisted by the connection was 664 kN. Specimen TC1 demonstrated similar failure phenomena to
TC2 before 5.7% drift. However, the lateral drift increased in the subsequent loading stage, with
little decrease in specimen strength until the maximum stroke of the actuator (corresponding to
9.5% drift) was reached (see Figure 9). Throughout the test for TC1, no fracture of column flange
was observed and no noise was heard. The maximum positive load resisted by the connection was
628 kN.
Figure 11 shows the lateral force–drift responses of two specimens. The interstory drift is
determined as the lateral displacement detected at the loading point minus that detected at the top
face of lower steel truss. The monotonic response of Specimen TC1 was first represented by a
steady growth of strength up to the peak force. Afterwards, with the increase in drift amplitude,
the curve nearly leveled horizontally till the maximum stroke of the servo actuator. While for
the cyclic response of Specimen TC2, it exhibited a stable hysteretic behavior before 5.7% drift,
without any deterioration in stiffness and strength at an increasing number of cycles. At the last

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 9. Failure of Specimen TC1: (a) concrete cracking at 5.7% drift; (b) global deformation at 9.5%
drift; (b) fracture of bars at 9.5% drift; and (c) buckling of supporting stiffener at 9.5% drift.

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:961–975
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
970 W. WANG ET AL.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 10. Failure of Specimen TC2: (a) concrete crushed at 4.8% drift; (b) fracture of
steel bars at 5.7% drift; (c) buckling of supporting stiffener at 5.7% drift; and (d) fracture
of bars, column flange and stiffeners at 5.7% drift.

800
Concrete crushed
Initial yielding of bars
600 Mp
and column flange

400 Minor cracking

of concrete Fracture of bars,
column flange and
200
stiffeners
P (kN)

-200 TC2 cyclic

TC2 skeleton
-400 TC1 monotonic

-600 Mp

-800
-10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%
Drift angle

Figure 11. Lateral force versus drift angle response for Specimens TC1 and TC2.

loading cycle of the test, a sudden drop in the strength occurred, corresponding to the collapse
of the specimen. From the comparison, the initial rigidity from cyclic test can be found almost
identical to that from monotonic test before yielding and the two specimens nearly share the same
load levels of yielding and cracking. The ultimate resistance of TC1 is about 5% lower than TC2.
The main difference between two specimens is characterized by the sharp declining of TC2’s drift
angle soon after the peak loading contrasting to the well-extended drift angle of TC1, which also
indicated the deterioration in the plastic rotational capacity of TC type connection under cyclic
loading.

5. EVALUATION OF CONNECTIONS PERFORMANCE

5.1. Strength evaluation

Plastic stress distribution methods have been adopted in predicting the plastic capacity of the
SRC members. The plastic moment strength of the upper SRC column under axial compression
was estimated based on the following assumptions: (1) full compatibility between the embedded
steel and the RC, (2) only the concrete under compression are considered, no contribution from
tensile strength of concrete and (3) the encased steel section and the longitudinal bars are all in
the yielding stage, without strain-hardening effect being accounted for. Thus, the predicted value
of column strength was calculated using material properties obtained from the tensile coupon tests
described previously.

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:961–975
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 EXPERIMENTAL BEHAVIOR OF TRANSFER STORY CONNECTIONS 971

1200

900

M (kN-m)
600

300

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
p (rad)

Figure 12. Moment–plastic rotation response for CC1.

1200

900

600

300
M (kN-m)

-300

-600

-900

-1200
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
p (rad)

Figure 13. Moment–plastic rotation response for CC2.

Figures 8 and 11 show the predicted lateral forces at M p , for four specimens, respectively. As can
be seen, the predicted plastic strengths of the SRC column were lower than the ultimate strengths
of the connections in the experiment. It demonstrates that the failure mechanism is controlled by
the formation of the plastic hinges in the columns. It can be concluded that these two types of
transfer story connections satisfy the general seismic requirement that the members should fail
before connection failure.

5.2. Ductility evaluation

It is generally accepted that connection ductility determines the inelastic deformation capacity of
the structure. Thus, the plastic rotational capacity of the connection is used as the ductility measure
here. The moment–plastic rotation relationships for each specimen are given in Figures 12–15.
The plastic rotation  p was obtained by subtracting the contribution of the elastic rotation from
the total drift angle. Based on the curve that was achieved before fracture or falling to 80% of
maximum lateral strength, the plastic rotational capacity  p,max was determined and is listed in
Table III.
As can be seen from these figures, the plastic rotational capacity of all specimens exceeded the
3% rad required for special moment frames, which corresponded to about 4% rad total rotation.
The AISC Seismic Provisions [13] require a total story drift capacity of 0.04 rad prior to degrading
to 80% of the nominal beam capacity, while the FEMA design recommendations for steel frames
[14] require an inelastic story drift capacity for connections of 0.03 rad prior to degrading to 80%

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:961–975
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
972 W. WANG ET AL.

1200

900

M (kN-m)
600

300

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
p (rad)

Figure 14. Moment–plastic rotation response for TC1.

1200

900

600

300
M (kN-m)

-300

-600

-900

-1200
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
p (rad)

Figure 15. Moment–plastic rotation response for TC2.

of the nominal beam capacity. The 0.04 rad of total drift is comparable to about 0.03 rad of inelastic
drift. Hence, based on a comparison of specimen response with AISC Seismic Provisions and
FEMA recommendations, all specimens appear to be suitable for seismic-resistant design.

5.3. Energy dissipation

In order to identify the energy dissipating mechanism of the connections under cyclic loading,
Figure 16 shows the dissipated energy by Specimens CC2 and TC2 for the first cycle of every drift
amplitude. It can also be used to measure the plastic cumulative damage of the connections. The
energy dissipated by each specimen per cycle was calculated as the area enclosed by hysteretic loop.
As can be seen, the two specimens exhibited excellent energy dissipating capacity before brittle
failure, although TC2 dissipated more energy than CC2. Two curves in the figure displayed similar
trend: energy dissipation changed very slowly before the yielding of column flange. Hereafter,
energy dissipation augmented significantly with the increase in the story drift up to the fracture of
column flange, and then decreased sharply. From the graph it is reasonable to derive that inelastic
deformation of steel section and bars was the main energy dissipating mechanism. The plastic strain
energy accounted for the most part of the absorbed energy by the specimens. And the cumulative
plastic damage caused by strain concentration led to ‘brittle’ failure mode at the end of cyclic
tests, which was presented as a sharp drop of energy dissipating capacity.

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:961–975
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 EXPERIMENTAL BEHAVIOR OF TRANSFER STORY CONNECTIONS 973

12000
Specimen CC2

10000

Dissipated energy (kN-m)

Specimen TC2

8000 Fracture of column flange

6000

4000 Yielding of column flange

2000

0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36
Cycle number

Figure 16. Energy dissipated at different deformation stages.

6. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

6.1. Effect of encasing high-strength concrete

High-strength concrete has been adopted in the connections considered in this study. On the one
hand, weak interfacial bonding between the encasing concrete and the steel plate at the root of
upper SRC column may easily lead to the early detachment of them under tension, though high-
strength concrete has stronger bonding strength than common strength concrete. Meanwhile, it is
found from strength evaluation that encasing concrete contributed little to the moment resistance
of the specimens. On the other hand, the use of high-strength concrete will significantly lower the
column’s axial compression ratio, which is beneficial to the seismic response of the connections.
Thus, it would be on the safe side to consider axial resistance of encasing concrete while neglecting
its moment resistance for design purposes.

6.2. Effect of stiffeners of TC connection

Comparing maximum moments of CC and TC connection in the tests, the doubler stiffeners over
the connecting surface of Specimens TC1 and TC2 have no remarkable effect on the strength
improvement. While for the support stiffeners beneath TC connection, they functioned as ‘fuse’
elements. When the column lateral displacement was not very largely representing the case for
minor or moderate earthquake, the stiffeners increased the strength of the connections by enforcing
them. When the column lateral displacement became very large representing the case for major
earthquake, the stiffeners bucked under intensified compression, resulting in the stress release
near the connecting surface. It was demonstrated by the phenomenon that the concrete of TC
connections did not crush as severely as CC connections so as to exhibit a more stable post-peak
behavior shown in Figure 11. It can be concluded that the ‘fuse’ mechanism greatly improved the
deformability of transfer story connections and made the details more reliable for seismic design.
However, the width-to-thickness ratio of this stiffener should be cautiously determined.

6.3. Effect of connection fracture

In the cyclic tests of specimens CC2 and TC2, most column flange fracture or bar fracture occurred
close to the heat-affected zone (HAZ) of welds. Since the welding quality has been guaranteed by
ultrasonic inspection on all the welds, the reason of these fractures may be attributed to reduction
in toughness of the HAZ and local material deterioration due to inelastic cumulative damage under
high strain reversals. For designing transfer story connections to achieve more reliable seismic
performance, mechanical connectors are highly recommended to connect bars with the steel plate.
It will provide more ductile behavior than the scheme of direct welding.

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:961–975
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
974 W. WANG ET AL.

7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, experimental studies on two types of transfer story connections for high-rise SRC
structures under seismic loading were reported. Based on the monotonic and cyclic test results of
four subassembly specimens, the main conclusions are as follows:
(1) Typical failure modes of these connections included crushing of concrete, buckling or fracture
of steel bars, fracture of column flange and stiffeners over connecting surface and buckling
of support stiffeners beneath connecting surface. Among them, column flange fracture would
lead to the sharp loss in specimen strength.
(2) All specimens exhibited good properties for earthquake resistance since they all kept a
stable inelastic behavior up to the interstory drift demand as suggested by the AISC Seismic
Provisions. It was shown by strength evaluation that the plastic moment strength of SRC
column was lower than the maximum moment observed in the tests, thus preventing the
connections collapsing before member failure. Plastic deformation of steel section and bars
should be considered as the main energy dissipating mechanism of specimens.
(3) Loading types have significant effect on the failure modes and the ductility of transfer story
connections. The specimens under monotonic loading behaved much more ductile than the
cyclic loaded specimens. It was found that column flange and steel bars tended to fracture
more likely in the HAZ under cyclic loading, causing a significant decrease in the plastic
rotational capacity. On the other hand, the influence of cyclic loading on the connection
strength can be neglected.
(4) For design considerations, it would be on the safe side to consider axial resistance of encasing
concrete while neglecting its moment resistance. Significant improvement in ductility for TC
connection can be achieved through ‘fuse’ mechanism developed by the support stiffeners
with appropriate width-to-thickness ratio. Mechanical connectors are also highly recom-
mended to be used in connecting bars with the steel plate. They will provide more ductile
and reliable behavior for seismic design.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The presented work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China, Grant
No. SLDRCE 08-A-04, Shanghai Pujiang Program and the Natural Science Foundation of China
(51038008). Professor David A. Nethercot of Imperial College London provided technical advice for the
testing program. Technical helps from SLDRCE are greatly appreciated.

REFERENCES
1. Roeder CW. Overview of hybrid and composite systems for seismic design in the United States. Engineering
Structures 1998; 20(4):355–363.
2. Morino S. Recent developments in hybrid structures in Japan— research, design and construction. Engineering
Structures 1998; 20(4):336–346.
3. Azizinamini A, Ghosh SK. Steel reinforced concrete structures in 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake. Journal
of Structural Engineering 1997; 123(8):986–992.
4. Wakabayashi M, Minami K. Developments in composite and mixed construction: recent experimental studies on
the hysteretic characteristics of beam-to-column connections in composite structures. Proceedings of the U.S.A.–
Japan Seminar on Composite Structures and Mixed Structural Systems, Kato B, Lu LW (eds). Fritz Engineering
Laboratory, Lehigh University: Bethlehem, PA, U.S.A., 1980; 217–226.
5. Wakabayashi M. Design of Earthquake-Resistant Buildings. McGraw-Hill: New York, 1986.
6. Minami K, Nishimura Y. Hysteretic characteristics of beam-to-column connections in steel reinforced concrete
structures. Proceedings of 7th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey, vol. II, 1980;
305–308.
7. Teraoka M, Morita K, Sasaki S, Katsura D. Experimental study on simplified steel reinforced concrete beam–
column joints in construction technology. Steel and Composite Structures 2001; 1(3):295–312.
8. Chou CC, Uang CM. Cyclic performance of a type of steel beam to steel-encased reinforced concrete column
moment connection. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2002; 58:637–663.
9. Chou CC, Uang CM. Effects of continuity plate and transverse reinforcement on cyclic behavior of SRC moment
connections. Journal of Structural Engineering 2007; 133(1):96–104.

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:961–975
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 EXPERIMENTAL BEHAVIOR OF TRANSFER STORY CONNECTIONS 975

10. Parra-Montesinos GJ, Dasgupta P, Goel SC. Development of connections between hybrid steel truss–FRC beams
and RC columns for precast earthquake-resistant framed construction. Engineering Structures 2005; 27:1931–1941.
11. Lu XL, Lu WS, Zhou Y. Shaking table tests of a high-rise SRC megaframe-RC tube structures in Shanghai.
Report No. H20070201-552, Tongji University, Shanghai, 2008 (in Chinese).
12. Wang W, Dong BP, Chen YY. Experimental and analytical studies of two types of transfer story connections for
high-rise SRC megaframe-RC tube structures. Report No. TJSLS-2008-02, Department of Structural Engineering,
Tongji University, Shanghai, 2008 (in Chinese).
13. AISC. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction Inc.: Chicago,
IL, 2005.
14. FEMA. Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment-frame buildings. Report No. FEMA 350,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, 2000.

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2011; 40:961–975
DOI: 10.1002/eqe

View publication stats