Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 2334–2352

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruc

Design, testing and analysis of high ductile partial-strength

steel–concrete composite beam-to-column joints
a,*
Walter Salvatore , Oreste S. Bursi b, Daniele Lucchesi a

a
Department of Structural Engineering, University of Pisa, Via Diotisalvi 2, 56126 Pisa, Italy
b
Department of Mechanical and Structural Engineering, University of Trento, Trento, Italy

Received 8 April 2004; accepted 18 March 2005

Available online 9 September 2005

Abstract

Steel–concrete composite structures, owing to their high capacity for prefabrication and rational use of materials can
provide high levels of performance in terms of ductility and dissipation energy, while at the same time containing
construction costs. Modern codes for frame structures in seismic areas allow high ductility structures to be conceived,
without however providing designers with detailed specifications or prescriptions for designing partial-strength beam-
to-column joints. This paper illustrates the methods that were conceived for the design of exterior and interior partial-
strength beam-to-column joints in view of the construction of moment-resisting frame structures of ductility class high
(DCH), where inelastic phenomena occur precisely in column web panel zones and beam-to-column connections. Suc-
cessively, three-dimensional finite element models of an exterior and an interior joint subjected to horizontal loading are
presented. The models take into account the non-linear material properties of columns, end plates, reinforced concrete
slabs and reinforcing bars which represent critical points of joint performance. Then, the paper presents the basic joint
modelling and its calibration on substructures tested experimentally. Finally, some parametric analyses focussing on the
influence of a composite slab with strong and weak strength on the joint performance are illustrated.

2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Seismic design; Steel–concrete composite structure; High ductility moment-resisting frame; Partial-strength beam-to-col-
umn joint; Cyclic loading; Rotational capacity

1. Introduction design that offers high dissipation behaviour without sig-

1.1. The steel–concrete composite solution in seismic
design and its advantages
Modern structures can achieve good performances
under earthquake loading through the so-called ductile
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: walter@ing.unipi.it (W. Salvatore).
nificant loss of strength.
However, the adoption of steel–concrete composite
solutions in design practice, which is convenient from
both a structural and a construction viewpoint with re-
spect to steel structures, has to date been precluded by
the lack of suitable construction solutions. In fact, Euro-
code 8 [1] sets general principles for designing earth-
quake resistant composite structures and imposes
precise constructional and performance rules; but it does
not furnish adequate information on the associated

0045-7949/$ - see front matter
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2005.03.028
 W. Salvatore et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 2334–2352
Nomenclature
ft tensile strength of the concrete
0
fbc biaxial compressive strength of concrete
Gf specific fracture energy of concrete
F reaction force of a substructure
Hc height of a column
Mcolumn.up moment of a column above a joint
Mcolumn.down moment of a column below a joint
M
gravity bending moment due to dead loads
MRd.b design resisting moment of a beam
MRd.c design resisting moment of a column
MRd.conn design resisting moment of a partial-
strength connection
Mþ Rd.conn sagging design resisting moment of a partial-
strength connection
M
Rd.conn hogging design resisting moment of a par-
tial-strength connection
Vc mean value of shear force in a column web
panel
Vcolumn.up shear stress resultant in the column above
a joint
Vcolumn.down shear stress resultant in the column
below a joint
Vwp.Ed shear stress resultant in a column web panel
Vwp.Ed.eff effective shear stress resultant in a column
web panel
construction solutions and design methods, for which it
often refers designers to codes and regulations about
structures in non-seismic areas [2].
Moreover, the use of composite columns or beams al-
lows the erection of buildings of considerable height,
without need for bracing. In fact, global and local sec-
ond-order effects are limited owing to the increase of
stiffness due to concrete with respect to steel structures.
Finally, the introduction of partial-strength beam-to-
column joints for seismic loading where hysteretic en-
ergy can be developed, can guarantee the formation of
global dissipative frame mechanisms, while at the same
time avoiding unwanted storey or local mechanisms.
1.2. Finite element modelling of beam-to-column joints
Lee and Lu [3] studied composite beam-to-column
joint substructures by means of the ADINA software
[4]. In detail, a two-step approach was used. First a
three-dimensional (3D) elastic analysis of a composite
joint including the beam was carried out to determine
the effective width, or more properly, the effective
breadth of the slab. Then, a two-dimensional (2D)
inelastic analysis of the joint substructure was done to
study the effects of the composite action both in the slab
2335
Vwp.Rd design shear strength of a column web panel
d nominal bolt diameter
fy yield stress of base material
fub ultimate tensile stress of a bolt material
t end plate thickness
L beam length
zeq mean value of a lever arm of a connection
zþeq lever arm of a connection for sagging bend-
ing moment
z

eq lever arm of a connection for hogging bend-
ing moment
D control displacement
d beam deflection at midspan
csp shear distortion of a column web panel
/ reinforcing bar diameter
hright rotation of a joint on the right-hand side
hb rotation of a beam
hc rotation of a column in the web panel zone
hconn.right rotation of a connection on the right-hand
side
hf rotation of a column
hp rotation capacity of a plastic hinge region
and in the column web panel zone. The concrete model
took cracking and crushing into account by strain soft-
ening while confinement was considered for concrete
bearing against the column. This approach implies that
the effective breadth of the slab does not greatly differ
between elastic and inelastic regimes.
Hajjar et al. [5] proposed a 3D modelling of interior
beam-to-column composite connections with angles by
means of the ABAQUS code [6]. The details of the steel
connections were highly discretized by means of eight-
noded solid elements including welds. As the concrete
model of ABAQUS was not used owing to convergence
problems, the material properties in tension and in com-
pression were assigned on the basis of an elastic stress
distribution.
Doneaux modelled exterior beam-to-column com-
posite joints with and without transverse beam [7] by
using mainly thin shell elements of the FE programme
CASTEM 2000 [8]. In detail, the slab was modelled with
multi-layered thin shells; the concrete model combined a
Rankine fixed crack model for tension and an elasto-
plastic law with Drucker–Prager criteria for compres-
sion; and shear connectors were modelled by means of
beam elements. The author conducted a parametric
study on the influence of the presence of a transverse
2336 W. Salvatore et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 2334–2352
beam, of the properties of the shear connectors and of
the resistance of the slab.
3D finite element models based on solid and shell ele-
ments available in ABAQUS [6], respectively, and alter-
natively, one-dimensional (1D) models relying on
layered beam-column elements [9] were adopted by
Bursi and Ferrario [10] to investigate several analysis
and modelling issues in composite joints, composite
beams and moment-resisting (MR) frames. All these mod-
els took into account the non-linear behaviour of con-
crete, of structural steel, of stud shear connectors and of
steel–concrete force-slip relationships, showing that the
performance of composite beams with full and partial
shear connection and full and partial-strength joints was
satisfactory both in terms of strength and of ductility.
Though there are many studies dealing with compu-
tational aspects of composite beam-to-column joints
under seismic loading, there are few publications de-
voted to modelling and analysis issues of partial-
strength joints [11]. In detail, we are interested in the
seismic performance of partial-strength composite joints
that fully exploit the proper transfer mechanisms from
the slab to the column.
2. Seismic design of exterior and interior
partial-strength beam-to-column joints
2.1. Design solutions
The proposed solution for beam-to-column joints
combines the prefabrication capacity of steel–concrete
composite structures with their high ductility [2]. The
joint is made up of full shear connection composite
beams using IPE steel profiles, connected with studs to
Concrete slab Studs
Rebars
Ribbed steel
sheeting Steel profile
Fig. 1. Steel–concrete composite beam.
a concrete slab of 150 mm total thickness and cast on
a ribbed steel sheeting, as illustrated in Fig. 1. TRW Nel-
son headed studs for the beams have a shank diameter
of 19 mm and a mean height of 127 mm. By using a
TRW Nelson welding system a mean welded height of
4 mm has been obtained. The properties of headed studs
are given in Table 4. Columns consist of partially en-
cased HEB steel profiles, guaranteeing significant struc-
tural efficiency with respect to static and seismic loads
and to fire resistance. In order to avoid concrete detach-
ment, the steel profile must be adequately connected to
the reinforced concrete core by the headed studs so that
the behaviour of the system is effectively composite.
TRW Nelson headed studs have a shank diameter of
19 mm and a mean height of 83 mm. The adopted solu-
tion avoids any welding of reinforcing bars, as shown in
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. Partially encased composite column.
Seismic Steel Rebars
150
32
Critical Length
300
Main
Beam
60
Thin EndPlate 15 Secondary
Beam
Steel Column
280
Fig. 3. Vertical section of the interior joint (dimensions in mm).
 W. Salvatore et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 2334–2352
Secondary beam
131
25
Main beam
150
B-B
25
Steel Column
Column Web Stiffner
120
Fig. 4. Horizontal section of the interior joint.
The beam-to-column joint has been designed to pro-
vide adequate structural performance under both mono-
tonic and cyclic loading. To this aim, we chose a
relatively thin end-plate connection as to Fig. 3, allow-
ing predictable and efficient performance under seismic
action.
On the basis of constructional considerations and of
the favourable seismic behaviour of column web panels
[2], the joint solution adopted relies on naked steel col-
umns. As shown in Fig. 3, the reinforced concrete
encasement is interrupted at the connection; a pair of
stiffening plates, set horizontally and welded to the col-
umn, guarantees full use of the web panelsÕ inelastic
capabilities. In this respect see also Fig. 4.
The column stirrups, external to the central area of
the joint but within the critical length, are arranged
according to Eurocode 8 [1] as shown in Fig. 3.
The exterior joint is designed using the same concept
with the exception of the concrete slab, which has been
cantilevered on the exterior side to anchor adequately
the longitudinal reinforcement, as illustrated in Fig. 5.
2.2. The seismic design
For moment-resisting, MR, frame structures, the
maximum structural ductility is achieved through the
formation of global mechanisms [12–14]. To this end,
we must guarantee sufficient overstrength of the col-
umns satisfying the relation:
X X
M Rd.c P 1.3  M Rd.b ð1Þ
P
where M Rd.c is the sum of resisting moments of col-
umns corresponding
P Pto the full development of design
values; M Rd.b ¼ M Rd.conn is the sum of resisting
moments of the beam corresponding to the sum of the
resisting moment of the partial-strength beam-to-col-
umn connections.
Moreover the ductile behaviour of joints is guaran-
teed by defining an appropriate hierarchy of strengths
for each component. In this respect and with reference
to sagging moments, the end-plate and the column
2337
B-B 270
Seismic steel rebars
150
Critical Length
Main
beam
135
Steel Column
220
Seismic steel
rebars
Fig. 5. Vertical section of the exterior joint.
flange under bending, as well as the column web panel
in shear, have to be considered ductile components,
while the concrete slab under compression and the bolts
under tension are assumed to be brittle.
With regard to hogging moments, steel reinforcing
bars under tension and, once again, the end-plate and
the column flange under bending, as well as the column
web panel subjected to shear forces, are considered duc-
tile components, while beam flanges under compression
are assumed to be brittle. Brittle failure of bolts in
tension, before yield of the end-plate and/or of the
column flange, can be easily averted by satisfying the
following relation:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
t 6 0.36  d  fub =fy ð2Þ
where t is the thickness of the end plate, d and fub are,
respectively, the nominal diameter and ultimate tensile
stress of the bolt material; and fy is the yield stress of base
material of the considered component [15]. For the
remaining components, the capacity design, according
to Tables 1 and 2, respectively, is followed. We must also
ensure that the joint possesses adequate resistance and
rotational capacity. As far as resistance is concerned,
the column web panel must resist shear stresses acting
when the global frame mechanism forms, that is
2338 W. Salvatore et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 2334–2352

Table 1
Joint capacity design for sagging bending moment
Component (1) (2) (3)
ðþÞ
End-plate and column flange in bending (1) – FRd.2 P 1.3FRd.1 F Rd.1 ¼ F Rd.3
Concrete slab in compression (2) FRd.2 P 1.3FRd.1 – FRd.2 P 1.3FRd.3
ðþÞ
Web panel in shear (3) F Rd.1 ¼ F Rd.3 FRd.2 P 1.3FRd.3 –
Note: The value of FRd.3 includes the contribution due to yielding of column flanges.

Table 2
Joint capacity design for hogging bending moment
Component (1) (2) (3)
ðþÞ
Reinforcing bars and I bolt-row in tension (1) – FRd.2 P 1.3FRd.1 F Rd.1 ¼ F Rd.3
Beam flange in compression (2) FRd.2 P 1.3FRd.1 – FRd.2 P 1.3FRd.3
ðþÞ
Web panel in shear (3) F Rd.1 ¼ F Rd.3 FRd.2 P 1.3FRd. –
Note: The value of FRd.3 includes the contribution due to yielding of column flanges.

!
V wp.Ed M
Mþ
< 1.0 ð3Þ V wp.Ed.eff ¼ 0.8  Rd.conn
þ Rdþ.conn
V c ð5aÞ
V wp.Rd

Z eq Z eq

where Vwp.Ed is the shear stress resultant acting on the or also

web panel due to external actions and Vwp.Rd is the de-
sign shear resistance of the web panel, which has to be M

Rd.conn
Mþ

Rd.conn
2  M grav
determined according to EN 1993-1 [15]. V wp.Ed.eff ¼
þ þ
Vc ð5bÞ
Z eq Z eq
By assuming that column sections with zero moment
are located at mid-height and that ultimate moments are
reached in partial-strength joints, one gets the force sys-
tem shown in Fig. 6. For equilibrium
X X
M Rd.conn ¼ M Rd.c ð4Þ

By assuming a uniform distribution of shear stresses in

δ
the panel, we can write

0.5L 0.5L
MColumn.Up
Fig. 7. Deformed configuration of a sub-frame.

VColumn.Up VWP,Rd
Table 3
+ -
MRd.Conn MRd.Conn Design and actual yield strength
Design yield Measured
strength yield strength
(N/mm2) (N/mm2)
Beam flange (IPE300 S235) 235 370
Beam web (IPE300 S235) 235 313
Column flange 235 341
VColumn.Down (HEB280/260 S235)
Column web 235 300
MColumn.Down (HEB280/260 S235)
End plate (S235) 235 383
Reinforcing bars (B450C) 450 537
Fig. 6. Internal actions on a column web panel at the ultimate
Concrete (Class 25/30) 25 35
limit state.
 W. Salvatore et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 2334–2352 2339

Table 4
Joint details
Interior joint Exterior joint
Beam IPE 300 IPE 300
Column HEB 280 HEB 260
Slab thickness 150 mm 150 mm
End-plate thickness 15 mm 15 mm
Sheeting Brollo EGB 210 Brollo EGB 210
Bolt M24 10.9 M24 10.9
Stud on beam 500 3/16 · 3/4 500 3/16 · 3/4
Stud on column 300 1/4 · 3/4 300 1/4 · 3/4
Steel mesh / 6 @ 150 mm / 6 @ 150 mm
Longitudinal additional rebars 4 / 12 (2 for each side) 4 / 12 (2 for each side)
Transverse additional rebars 6 / 12 for each side 5 / 12 for beam side 2 / 12 for the extended side

Table 5
longitudinal seismic rebars
Joint details
Element Exterior/interior joint

80
Beams and columns S235 J0, EN 10025
End plates S235 J0, EN 10025
Slab and encasement C30/35, EN 206-1 wire fabric

380
Sheeting S 250 G, EN 10147
Bolts 10.9 class, ENV 1993.1-8
Steel mesh B450-C, EN 10080
Additional rebars B450-C, EN 10080

where M


Rd.conn and M Rd.conn are the ultimate strength of
seismic transverse rebars
the connection for hogging and sagging bending
moments; z
þ
eq and zeq are lever arms in the connection
for negative and positive bending moments; M
gravity
defines the bending moment due to dead loads and Vc
120 80 70

Fig. 9. Lay-out of the reinforcements of an exterior joint.

80

25 150
240

25
15,4

Full Penetration Weld

Bolt Ø24
80

Full Penetration Weld

280

300

170
420
120
240

104,7

50

= 420 x 200 x 15 50 100 50

80

200 Full Penetration Weld

280 280 280

Bolt Ø24

Fig. 8. Rebars and mesh lay-out of an interior joint. Fig. 10. Geometrical details of an end plate.
2340 W. Salvatore et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 2334–2352

40

40
1192

1192
150

150
3040

3040
300
570 570 30 1600 15 260 270
1628

2175
1400

1328
30

30

Fig. 11. Substructure of an exterior joint tested at the University of Pisa.

40
1232

1192
150
150

3040
300

560 280 560

1400
30 1605 280 1605 30
1658

3550
1328
30

Fig. 12. Substructure of an interior joint tested at the University of Pisa.

 W. Salvatore et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 2334–2352 2341

represents the mean value of the shear force in the col-
umn web panel at the ultimate limit state,
þ

V column.up þ V column.down M Rd.conn þ M grav
Vc ¼ ¼ z
þzþ
ð6Þ
2 H c
eq eq
2
where Hc is the height of the column and Vcolumn.up and
Vcolumn.down are, respectively, the shear stress resultant
in the column above and below the joint.
With regard to rotational capacity, every joint must
be able to develop the necessary plastic rotation upon
formation of a global mechanism. Eurocode 8 [1] pre-
scribes that the rotational capacity hp of plastic hinge re-
gions, defined as hp = d/0.5L, see Fig. 7, where L is the
beam length and d is the beam deflection at midspan,
should be greater than 35 mrad for structures of ductil-
ity class high (DCH), and 25 mrad for structures with
ductility class medium (DCM) and behavioural coeffi-
cient q > 2. Such values must be obtained for cyclic
loads with a reduction in strength and/or stiffness of less
than or equal to 20%, and must be corroborated by
experiments.
The final joint design was developed using a specially
modified component method [11]. Details of the
mechanical and geometry characteristics of the two
beam-to-column joints are given in Tables 3–5. Figs. 8
and 9 show the arrangement of the additional steel re-
bars, diameter / = 12 mm, in the inner and outer joint,
respectively, whereas Fig. 10 illustrates the geometric
characteristics of the end plate.
400

Reaction moment [kN m]

300

∆ 200

100

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
3500

a Rotation ϑ [mrad]

1000

750
Shear force [kN]

500

2000 2000
250
Fig. 13. Test scheme for an interior joint: quasi-static mono-
tonic loading. 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
b Angular distortion γsp [mrad]

θf
400
Reaction moment [kN m]

θconn.right
γ SP 300

200
θb.right
θb.left θleft θright
100
θc

Reference
Axes θconn.left 0
0 10 20 30 40 50
c Rotation ϑconn [mrad]

θf Fig. 15. Monotonic response of an exterior joint: (a) moment

vs. joint rotation; (b) shear force vs. panel rotation; (c) moment
Fig. 14. Definition of rotations for an interior joint. vs. connection rotation.
2342 W. Salvatore et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 2334–2352

2.3. Considerations on material properties
Production standards set strict lower limits for yield
stress, but they leave the designer with nearly complete
Mechanism 1
Bending Moment
freedom as to upper limits. European standard ENV
206 [16] on concrete production does not require, for
instance, control of the maximum resistance, just as
in the case of EN 10025 [17] for structural steels.
Eurocode 8 [1], on the other hand, recommends that
actual yield stress of steel be such as to not modify
the location of plastic hinge regions considered during
design. In the case of beam-to-column joints under
study, all materials were preliminarily checked. Re-
sults, reported in Table 3, confirm the extremely wide
scatter of resistance values that can be obtained in

tie practice.
For these reasons, the capacity design criterion of
partial-strength joints included taking into account a

rebars rebars
300

Reaction moment [kN m]

200

100
Sagging Moment

0
tie
-100

-200
rebars -50 -25 0 25 50
a Rotation ϑ [mrad]

1000
Shear force [kN]

750
Mechanism 2

500
Bending Moment

strut 250
tie

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
b Angular distortion γ sp [mrad]
rebars
rebars 300
Reaction moment [kN m]

200
Sagging Moment

strut
100
tie
0

-100
rebars
-200
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
c Rotation ϑconn [mrad]

Fig. 16. Mechanisms and mechanical models reproducing the Fig. 17. Monotonic response of an interior joint: (a) moment
column-concrete slab normal stress transfer of an interior (after vs. joint rotation; (b) shear force vs. panel rotation; (c) moment
Annex C of Eurocode 8 [1]). vs. connection rotation.
 W. Salvatore et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 2334–2352
certain scatter of material properties. As a result, actual
material properties provided in Table 3, did not alter the
location of yielding regions enforced through the rela-
tionships set in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
3. Main experimental results
3.1. Test set-up
Full-scale substructures representing exterior and
interior joints, see Figs. 11 and 12, respectively, were
subjected to monotonic tests at the Laboratory for
Materials and Structures Testing of the University of
Pisa [18].
Monotonic tests were carried out according to the
scheme sketched in Fig. 13, controlling the top displace-
ment D [20]. On the basis of the achieved results, the
resistance corresponding to the maximum displacement
imposed and the rotational capacity of joints were
checked.
Fig. 18. Monotonic response of an interior joint: (a) column
web panel angular distortion; (b) connection deformation.
2343
The joint behaviour of substructures was summarized
by means of moment–rotation relationships. As shown
in Fig. 14, the joint rotation on the right-hand side is
given by
hright ¼ hb.right
hf ð7Þ
in which hb.right represents the rotation of the beam at
the end plate level and hf denotes the rotation of the col-
umn. Besides the joint rotation hright defined in Eq. (7),
the measuring apparatus allows the following rotations
to be estimated:
hconn.right ¼ hb.right
hc ð8Þ
csp ¼ hc
hf ð9Þ
viz., the connection rotation on the right-hand side
hconn.right and the shear angular distortion csp of the
column web panel, respectively, where hc defines the
Fig. 19. Monotonic response of an interior joint: (a) concrete
slab crushing; (b) column sliding with respect to the concrete
slab.
2344 W. Salvatore et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 2334–2352

column rotation in the panel zone. Analogous defini- z
þ

tions hold for the joint and the connection of the left-
hand side.
It is evident from Eq. (5) that the panel shear Vwp.Ed.eff
depends on the lever arms z
þ
eq and zeq and therefore,
assumptions have to be made in order to represent the
relevant experimental data; hereafter, we follow partially
the approach proposed in [19]. As regards the hogging
moment M
Rd.conn , we assume that the resulting upper
force is located at the level of the longitudinal reinforcing
bars, in order to define z
eq . For the sagging moment
Mþ Rd.conn , we assume that the resulting force is located
at the mid-height of the concrete slab. These assumptions
about the mean value of the lever arm of the connection
zeq entail in Eq. (5):
eq þ zeq
zeq ¼ ð10Þ
2
a value of 402 mm.
3.2. Exterior joint
The overall responses in terms of moment–rotation
and shear-panel angular distortion relationships of an
exterior joint are reported in Fig. 15. The response was
characterized by inelastic phenomena activated in the
end plate, the column flanges, the column web panel in
shear, the longitudinal reinforcing bars and the concrete
slab; while the transversal reinforcing bars, depicted in
Fig. 9, exhibited elastic behaviour. A large reduction
in shear strength at about 12 mrad was due to the

Fig. 20. 3D FE model of an exterior joint under sagging bending for an interstorey drift of about 3.4%: (a) deformed configuration and
distribution of minimum principal stresses; (b) deformed configuration and distribution of shear strains.
 W. Salvatore et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 2334–2352
limited ductility of mechanism 1 activated in the con-
crete slab [1], causing early failure of the concrete slab
in compression. In particular according to Fig. 16,
mechanism 1 refers to the direct contact of the concrete
to the column flange; while mechanism 2 entails a trans-
verse force applied by two inclined struts pushing
against the concrete encasement of the column [1].
Moreover, the composite joint could exhibit plastic rota-
tion greater than the 35 mrad required for composite
joints in frames of ductility class DCH [1].
3.3. Interior joint
The corresponding responses in terms of moment–
rotation and shear-panel angular distortion relation-
ships for an interior joint are illustrated in Fig. 17. Again
inelastic phenomena, activated in the end plate, in col-
umn flanges and in the column web panel subject to
shear forces, allowed plastic joint rotation greater than
35 mrad to be achieved.
The joint showed very high ductility, balancing well
the inelastic resources of the column web panel and of
the connection as shown in Fig. 18a and b, respectively.
Also in this case, strut and tie mechanisms in the con-
crete, foreseen by Eurocode 8 [1] as shown in Fig. 16,
were not fully activated. In fact, the failure of mecha-
nism 1 occurred at about 14 mrad, see Figs. 17b and
19a in this respect, also causing an overload of mecha-
nism 2, with consequent slip of the column with respect
to the concrete slab, as illustrated in Fig. 19b.
4. Analysis of joints with 3D FE models
In view of the parametric analysis of steel–concrete
composite joints, which will be presented in the next sec-
tion, we set up 3D FE models using the ABAQUS soft-
ware [6] and the ADINA software [4] for the exterior
and the interior joint, respectively.
4.1. Material, FE model and calibration of an exterior
joint
Material models exploited for 3D elements are those
available in the ABAQUS code [6]. Elasto-plastic simu-
lations of composite substructures are performed by
means of a macro-level approach for concrete fracture,
in which the plain concrete is assumed to be an equiva-
lent isotropic continuum. The material model for con-
crete is developed within the framework of the theory
of plasticity [6]. Though it does not predict explicitly
crack initiation and evolution, as does the companion
model based on the coaxial rotating crack formulation,
without doubt it is more robust from a computational
standpoint. In detail, the pressure-dependent Drucker–
Prager yield criterion formulated in stress space is
2345
adopted. The two material constants are linked to the
Mohr–Coulomb constants, viz., the cohesion and the
angle of internal friction, by matching the fictitious ten-
sile strength ft and the biaxial compressive strength fbc0 of
concrete according to transformation formulae [21].
Moreover, a non-associated flow rule is exploited. The
strain-hardening behaviour of concrete is governed by
means of the stress–strain law of concrete in uniaxial
compression or uniaxial tension, complemented with
appropriate post-peak softening rules. In particular,
the tension-softening behaviour of concrete, related to
its progressive fracturing or tension-stiffening behaviour
owing to the presence of reinforcements, is reproduced
with exponential decay curves [22]. Confining effects,
due to transversal reinforcements and profiled-steel
sheeting, are considered in the compression regime
using the model due to Mander et al. [23]. The concrete
model does not embody the specific fracture energy Gf,
to overcome mesh-dependent results [24]. However, as
the concrete slab is moderately reinforced both in the
longitudinal and transversal direction, the mesh-depen-
dency is small [6].
Longitudinal reinforcing bars in the slab are assumed
to be of a hardening elasto-plastic material and are
100
Numerical analysis
80
Applied force [kN]
Experimental response
60
40
20
0
0 40 80 120
a Displacement [mm]
80
Numerical analysis
Applied force [kN]
60 Experimental response
40
20
0
0 40 80 120
b Displacement [mm]
Fig. 21. Monotonic applied force vs. top displacement of an
exterior joint: (a) experimental and predicted response under
sagging bending; (b) experimental and predicted response under
hogging bending.
2346 W. Salvatore et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 2334–2352

modelled using discrete two-noded beam elements. The
discrete representation of the reinforcements is adopted
because the influence of bond-slip may be of interest.
Therefore, dimensionless bond-link elements are
adopted to connect concrete and steel nodes. In detail,
the bond stress-slip relation is modulated according to
the law proposed in [22]. Friction between the steel bars
and the concrete slab is not modelled because it has a lit-
tle influence on substructure responses. Data relevant to
constitutive laws can be found in [25].
The deformed configuration of the 3D model of an
exterior joint is depicted in Fig. 20a. In detail, solid
elements C3D8R [6] with eight nodes and reduced inte-
gration are used for steel beam, concrete slab, steel

Fig. 22. 3D FE model of an interior joint under sagging moment for an interstorey drift of about 3%: (a) deformed configuration and
distribution of minimum principal stresses; (b) deformed configuration and distribution of shear stresses in steel elements.
 W. Salvatore et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 2334–2352
column and the concrete core in the column. Conversely,
solid elements C3D4 with four nodes are employed in
transition zones of the concrete slab and of the beam-
to-column joint, as illustrated in Fig. 20a and b, respec-
tively. The ribbed steel sheeting has been considered
fully connected to concrete; beam elements B31 are em-
ployed to model reinforcing bars in a discrete manner,
while non-linear spring elements SPRING2 are adopted
to trace the behaviour of connectors in extension and
shear as well as the bond-slip between the slab and the
rein- forcing bars. Relevant data regarding connector
stiffness derives from experiments [26]. Contact surfaces
reproducing hard contact in the normal direction and
both sticking and slipping conditions in the tangential
direction, with CoulombÕs friction are exploited in
several part of the model. The friction coefficient is
assumed equal to 0.2. The model is made up of 67,537
solid elements, 1035 beam elements and 36 spring
elements.
FE analyses conducted with ABAQUS [6] consider
two steps: (i) the bolt prestressing of the end plate with
an applied force of 250 kN; (ii) the application of a
monotonic displacement at the column top taking into
account geometric non-linearities [6].
Both Fig. 21a and b show some comparisons regard-
ing the substructure specimens in a monotonic regime
subjected to sagging and hogging bending, respectively,
in terms of applied force vs. top displacement. The mate-
rial model adopted for concrete has limited the possibil-
ity of tracing the sudden strength reduction of the
substructure under sagging moment depicted in
Fig. 21a. However, the material model clearly identifies
in Fig. 20a the high stress level in the front of the column
flange relevant to the strut of mechanism 1 of Eurocode
8 [1] and the low stress level associated with the strut of
mechanism 2. 3D analyses indicate that transversal re-
bars illustrated in Fig. 9 remain in the elastic range. Both
shear panel and end plate yielding is evident from
Fig. 20b.
Conversely, one may observe a good agreement be-
tween prediction and experimental data for the substruc-
ture subjected to hogging bending.
4.2. Material, FE model and calibration of an interior
joint
The numerical model of the interior joint was assem-
bled by means of ADINA 8.0.2 software [4]. Half struc-
ture, representing the test specimen of on interior joint,
shown in Fig. 12, is reproduced by means of 3D solid
elements for steel profiles, concrete and bolts, 3D beam
elements for steel rebars, and spring elements for studs
connecting steel beam and concrete slab, as illustrated
in Fig. 22a and b, respectively. In this case too, the
ribbed steel sheeting was considered fully connected to
the concrete.
2347
On the symmetry plane appropriate kinematic re-
straints are applied; the contact between concrete slab
and composite column and between end-plate and
column is modelled by using suitable contact surfaces
whose formulation is based on Lagrange multi-
pliers [4]. Coulomb friction coefficient between surfaces
was assumed equal to 0.2. The model has 41,000
solid elements, 1650 beam elements and 100 spring
elements.
The stress–strain behaviour of structural steel is mod-
elled by a multi-linear elastic–plastic law, to take into ac-
count hardening effects, while an elastic-perfectly plastic
law models the steel of reinforcing bars. A linear force–
displacement relationship is adopted for the spring ele-
ments reproducing the connection between the concrete
slab and the upper steel flange of the beam.
The yield surface of concrete is described by means of
a Drucker–Prager material model, with tension cut-off
and cap hardening based on the Drucker–Prager yield
condition [27]. The law depends on two material param-
eters that define the yield function [4,19], calibrated on
the basis of the tensile and compression strengths of
concrete, taking into account the confining effects of
the transverse rebars on concrete in the compressed
zone. Data relevant to constitutive laws can be found
in [28].
FE analyses carried out with ADINA [6] considered
two steps: (i) the bolt prestressing of the end plate with
an applied force of 250 kN; (ii) the application of a
monotonic displacement at the column top taking into
account geometric non-linearities [4].
Fig. 23 shows the comparison, in terms of applied
force vs. top displacement, between the experimental
and numerical results of the monotonic test. The mate-
rial model adopted for concrete limited the possibility
of tracing the sudden strength reduction of the substruc-
ture. Nonetheless, the high stress level in the front of the
column flange, relevant to the strut of mechanism 1 of
160
Numerical analysis
Applied Force [kN]
120
Experimental Response
80
40
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Displacement [mm]
Fig. 23. Experimental and predicted response of the monotonic
applied force vs. top displacement of an interior joint.
2348 W. Salvatore et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 2334–2352

Fig. 24. Distribution of minimum principal stresses of an exterior joint under sagging bending for an interstorey drift of about 3.4%:
(a) full activation of mechanism 1; (b) full activation of mechanism 2; (c) full activation of mechanisms 1 and 2.

Eurocode 8 [1] was clearly identified as illustrated in of the end plate is evident from the strain distribution
Fig. 22a. Full yielding of the shear panel and yielding of Fig. 22b.
 W. Salvatore et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 2334–2352
5. Parametric analyses and design considerations
5.1. Preliminary remarks
In order to investigate in an approximate manner the
seismic performance of partial-strength composite joints
a parametric analysis was performed conducting all sim-
ulations under monotonic loading. In this way, the enve-
lope of the cyclic response could be examined. In the
analyses three cases are considered referring to the trans-
fer of the bending moment between the composite beam
and the composite column shown schematically in
Fig. 16: (a) only mechanism 1 active; (b) only mecha-
nism 2 active; (c) both mechanisms 1 and 2 active.
The analyses were carried out moving the transversal
rebars away from the column flanges by about 150 mm,
but still allowing the potential activation of the strut and
tie mechanism 2. In fact, reinforcing bars close to the
column flanges as shown in Figs. 8 and 9 can induce a
strengthening of mechanism 1, owing to confining ef-
fects; on the other hand, they can be subjected to heavy
local effects at large interstorey drifts owing to col-
umn movement. Preliminary analyses showed that the
global strength of both exterior and interior joints re-
mains unchanged when moving rebars away from the
column.
A detailed discussion of the parametric numerical
analysis follows.
5.2. Exterior joint
In order to fully activate mechanism 1 for case (a),
the friction of contact surfaces between the concrete of
the slab and the one of partially encased column was re-
moved. The corresponding distribution of minimum
principal stresses is illustrated in Fig. 24a. An attentive
reader may observe the full activation of mechanism 1
and the small values of principal stresses corresponding
to mechanism 2. The corresponding force–top displace-
ment curve of the substructure illustrated in Fig. 11 is re-
ported in Fig. 25. As expected, such analytical response
is very close to the one employed to reach the experi-
mental result shown in Fig. 21a.
In order to fully activate the mechanism 2 relevant
to case (b), the nodes between the concrete of the slab
and the concrete of the column have been connected,
eliminating the hard contact between the concrete slab
and the inner column flange. The relevant distribution
of principal stresses is illustrated in Fig. 24b. The acti-
vation of mechanism 2 is evident with small values of
principal stresses corresponding to mechanism 1. The
related force–top displacement curve is illustrated in
Fig. 25. The analytical response is stronger than the
one corresponding to mechanism 1 as concrete in-
volved in compression struts of mechanism 2 is 41.4%
larger; and the compression struts are fully effective
2349
as no hogging moment acts on the other side of the
exterior joint.
As regards case (c), both the connection of nodes be-
tween the concrete of the slab and the concrete of the
column as well as the hard contact between the concrete
of the slab and the inner column flange, have been acti-
vated. The full activation of mechanisms 1 and 2 has
been achieved, as shown by the principal stress distribu-
tion of Fig. 24c. Both mechanisms cause stiffening and
strengthening of the exterior joint as illustrated in
Fig. 25. Though the activation of mechanisms 1 and 2
is the most favourable design situation, it has to be
understood that these mechanisms do not have the same
stiffness, mechanism 1 exhibiting a greater stiffness than
mechanism 2; therefore, it is not easy to benefit from the
strength of both mechanisms. Nonetheless, the full acti-
vation of mechanism 2 is the most favourable for the
exterior joint.
5.3. Interior joint
In order to fully activate mechanism 1 for the interior
joint, see case (a), the friction of contact surfaces be-
tween the concrete of the slab and the partially encased
column has been removed. The corresponding distribu-
tion of minimum principal stresses in the concrete slab
is illustrated in Fig. 26a. We can observe the full activa-
tion of mechanism 1, with no contribution by mecha-
nism 2. The corresponding force–top displacement
curve of the substructure illustrated in Fig. 12 is in
Fig. 27.
In order to fully activate mechanism 2 for case (b),
the nodes between the concrete of the slab and of the
column have been connected. The distribution of princi-
pal stresses is illustrated in Fig. 26b that shows the acti-
vation of mechanism 2 with no contribution by
mechanism 1. The related force–top displacement curve
is reported in Fig. 27. Interaction phenomena between
the two sides of the concrete slab can be observed in
Fig. 26b. Such interaction is responsible for the strength
120
Applied force [kN]
Mechanism 1 and 2
80 Mechanism 2
Mechanism 1
40
0
0 40 80 120
Displacement [mm]
Fig. 25. Monotonic applied force vs. top displacement of an
exterior joint under sagging bending: numerical response for
different activations of mechanisms 1 and 2.
2350 W. Salvatore et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 2334–2352

Fig. 26. Mechanical models and distribution of minimum principal stresses in the concrete slab of an interior joint under sagging
bending for an interstorey drift of about 3%: (a) full activation of mechanism 1; (b) full activation of mechanism 2; (c) full activation of
mechanisms 1 and 2.

reduction associated with mechanism 2 with respect to As far as case (c) is concerned, both the connection of
the strength of mechanism 1. the nodes between the concrete of the slab and the
 W. Salvatore et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 2334–2352
160.0
Mechanisms 1 and 2
Applied force [kN]
120.0
80.0 Mechanism 2
40.0
0.0
0.0 50.0 100.0
Displacement [mm]
Fig. 27. Monotonic applied force vs. top displacement of an
interior joint: numerical responses for different activations of
mechanisms 1 and 2.
concrete of the column as well as the hard contact
between the concrete of the slab and the inner column
flange have been enforced.
The full activation of mechanisms 1 and 2 has been
achieved as shown by the principal stress distribution
of Fig. 26c, causing stiffening and strengthening of
the joint as illustrated in Fig. 27. Nevertheless, it is
not straightforward to benefit from the strength of
both mechanisms owing to the inherent difference of
stiffness.
6. Conclusions and perspectives
The objective of this study has been the investigation
of the seismic performance of exterior and interior par-
tial-strength beam-to-column joints, in view of the con-
struction of moment-resisting frame structures of
ductility class high, where inelastic phenomena occur
in beam-to-column joints and column bases.
Two substructures in which the global mechanisms
are obtained by localizing dissipative phenomena in
beam-to-column connections and in column web panels
have been designed and tested under monotonic loading,
demonstrating their satisfactory performance in terms of
strength and ductility.
The 3D finite element analysis of composite substruc-
tures under monotonic loading has allowed the compos-
ite joints to be calibrated; some inelastic phenomena
characterizing their behaviour, such as the distribution
of longitudinal stresses in the composite slab around
the composite columns and the distribution of stresses
in the column web panel and flanges, to be understood.
Moreover, the analyses have demonstrated the adequacy
of 3D FE models based on the smeared crack approach
in the case of monotonic analyses.
The parametric analyses conducted both on exterior
and interior joints have revealed that the full activation
of mechanisms 1 and 2 in the concrete slab causes stiff-
ening and strengthening of joints. This represents the
2351
most favourable design situation also due to a substan-
tial increase of the effective breadth. Nonetheless, the
aforementioned mechanisms do not have the same stiff-
Mechanism 1
ness, mechanism 1 exhibiting a greater stiffness than
mechanism 2. Therefore, it is not easy to benefit from
the strength of both mechanisms. For the exterior joint
the full activation of mechanism 2 is the mot favourable
design situation, while for the interior joint mechanism 1
seems to be more effective, owing to the interaction phe-
nomena between the two parts of the composite slab.
150.0 200.0
The reinforcing bars close to the column flange exhi-
bit a strain level reduction when they are moved away
from the inner column flange; and such reduction is
not reflected in a reduction of stiffness and strength of
a beam-to-column joint.
Finally, the simulation and implementation in FE
codes of the deteriorating behaviour of dissipative com-
ponents of the analysed joints, by means of robust hys-
teretic models, deserves further studies.
Acknowledgements
The results presented in this work were carried out in
the framework of the European research project ECSC
7210-PR-250, for which the authors are grateful. How-
ever, opinions expressed in this paper are those of the
writers and do not necessarily reflect those of the
sponsors.
The authors are grateful to Mr. Simone Cavallini and
Mr. Luciano Pagni, technicians of the Laboratory for
Materials and Structures Testing of the University of
Pisa, for arrangement and testing of substructures.
References
[1] prEN 1998-1. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for
earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic
actions and rules for buildings. CEN, European Commit-
tee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, 2002.
[2] Braconi A, Caramelli S, Cioni P, Salvatore W. Earth-
quake-resistant composite steel–concrete frames: some
constructional considerations. In: Proceedings of the
international conference on metal structures, ICMS 2003.
University of Miskolc, Hungary, 2003.
[3] Lee S-J, Lu L-W. Cyclic load analysis of composite
connection subassemblages. In: Bjorhovde, Colson, Hajjar,
Stark, editors. Connections in steel structures II. Pitts-
burgh: AISC; 1991. p. 209–16.
[4] ADINA users manual, release 8.0.2. ADINA R&D Inc.,
Watertown, USA, 2002.
[5] Hajjar J, Leon R, Gustafson M, Shield C. Seismic response
of composite moment-resisting connections. II: Behaviour.
J Struct Eng, ASCE 1998;124(8):877–85.
[6] ABAQUS userÕs manual—version 6.2.4. Hibbit, Karlsson
& Sorenson, Pawtucket, RI, 2001.
2352 W. Salvatore et al. / Computers and Structures 83 (2005) 2334–2352
[7] Doneaux C. Parametric study of the behavior of composite
beams in joints to exterior columns. In: Proceedings of the
fourth international conference STESSA 2003. Behaviour
of steel structures in seismic areas, Naples, Italy, 2003. p.
293–8.
[8] Millard A. CASTEM 2000, Guide dÕutilisation. Rapport
CEA 93/007, Saclay, France, 1993.
[9] Campbell S, Powell GH, Prakash V. DRAIN-3DX Base
program description and user guide. Report No. UCB/
SEMM-94/07, 1994.
[10] Bursi OS, Ferrario F. Computational models for the low-
cycle fatigue behaviour of composite members and joints.
In: Progress in civil and structural engineering comput-
ing. Stirling: Saxe-Coburg Publications; 2003. p. 119–48.
[11] Braconi A, Bursi O, Ferrario F, Salvatore W. Seismic
design of beam-to-column connections for steel–concrete
composite moment resisting frames. In: Proceedings of the
fourth international conference STESSA 2003. Behaviour
of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas, Naples, Italy, 2003. p.
253–60.
[12] Bursi OS, Salvatore W. Structural characterization of a
partial-strength semi-rigid beam-to-column steel–concrete
composite joint: mechanical models and experimental
results. Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete V.
The Kruger National Park Conference Centre Berg-en-
Dal, Mpumalanga, South Africa, 2004.
[13] Salvatore W, Bursi OS, Caramelli S, Haller M, Zandonini
R. Seismic design and pseudo-dynamic characterization of
a high ductile steel–concrete composite moment-resisting
frame. In: Proceedings of the composite construction in
steel and concrete V, The Kruger National Park Conference
Centre Berg-en-Dal, Mpumalanga, South Africa, 2004.
[14] Bursi OS, Caramelli S, Fabbrocino G, Pinto AV, Salvatore
W, Taucer F, et al. Pseudo-dynamic testing of a 3D full-
scale high ductile steel–concrete composite MR frame
structure at ELSA. In: Proceedings of the 13th world
conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver (BC),
Canada, Paper No. 507, 2004.
[15] prEN 1993-1. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Part
1: General rules for buildings. CEN, 2000.
[16] ENV 206. Concrete—performance, production, placing
and compliance criteria. CEN, European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, 1990.
[17] EN 10025. Hot rolled products of non-alloys structural
steel. Technical delivery conditions, CEN, European
Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, 1993.
[18] University of Pisa et al. Applicability of composite
structure to sway frames. ECSC Project no. 7210-PR-250,
Eur Report, European Community, 2004.
[19] Lee S-J, Lu L-W. Cyclic tests of full-scale composite joint
subassemblages. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1989(8):1977–
98.
[20] Technical Committee 13, Recommended testing proce-
dures for assessing the behaviour of structural steel
elements under cyclic loads. ECCS, No. 45, 1986.
[21] Chen WF. In: Plasticity in reinforced concrete. New
York: McGraw-Hill; 1982. p. 270.
[22] Stevens NJ, Uzumeri SM, Collins MP, Will GT. Consti-
tutive model for reinforced concrete finite element analysis.
ACI Struct J 1991;88(1):49–59.
[23] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress–
strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng, ASCE
1988;114(8):1804–26.
[24] Hilleborg A, Modéer M, Peterson PE. Analysis of crack
formation and crack growth in concrete by means of
fracture mechanics and finite elements. Cem Concr Res
1976:773–82.
[25] Ferrario F, Analysis and modelling of the seismic behav-
iour of high ductility steel–concrete composite structures,
Ph.D. thesis, University of Trento, 2004.
[26] Aribert JM, Lachal A. Cyclic behaviour of the shear
connection component in composite joints. In: Proceedings
of the third international conference STESSA, Montreal,
Balkema, 2000. p. 105–12
[27] Bathe KJ. Finite element procedures. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall; 1996.
[28] Braconi A, Partial strength beam-to-column joints for
seismic resistant high ductile steel–concrete composite
frame structures, Ph.D. thesis (in Italian), University of
Pisa, 2004.