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

net/publication/236019293

Seismic Performance of Composite RCS Special Moment Frames

Article  in  KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering · April 2013

DOI: 10.1007/s12205-013-1431-5

CITATIONS READS

13 920

3 authors:

Bahman Farahmand Azar Hosein Ghaffarzadeh

University of Tabriz University of Tabriz
42 PUBLICATIONS   647 CITATIONS    63 PUBLICATIONS   583 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Nima Talebian
Bond University
15 PUBLICATIONS   80 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Buckling-Restrained Butterfly-shaped link Steel Plate Shear Walls (BBLSPSWs) View project

harmonic balance View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nima Talebian on 02 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2013) 17(2):450-457 Structural Engineering
DOI 10.1007/s12205-013-1431-5
www.springer.com/12205

Seismic Performance of Composite RCS Special Moment Frames

Bahman Farahmand Azar*, Hosein Ghaffarzadeh**, and Nima Talebian***
Received December 16, 2010/Accepted May 31, 2012

···································································································································································································································

Abstract

Composite Reinforced Concrete-Steel (RCS) frames which consist of Reinforced Concrete (RC) columns and Steel (S) beams
were represented to combine the advantages of pure RC and steel frames. This system permits the primary steel beam to run
continuous through the reinforced concrete column. This paper evaluates seismic performance of RCS frames based on FEMA-356,
considering plastic rotations as acceptance criteria. The effect of joint deformations on overall behavior of RCS frames is studied
through nonlinear static analysis (Pushover) that is performed in OpenSees software. It is concluded that the RCS joint behavior
increases lateral load capacity of frame. Additionally, 3 RC frames are compared to RCS frames with columns similar to those of RC
frames. The results show a great improvement on overall behavior since steel beams is used instead of RC beams.
Keywords: Reinforced Concrete-Steel (RCS) frames, seismic performance, composite frames, FEMA-356
···································································································································································································································

1. Introduction
Reinforced Concrete-Steel (RCS) composite moment resisting
frames that consist of Reinforced Concrete (RC) columns and
Steel (S) beams have gained increasing attention in the past 30
years. RCS frames possess several advantages from structural,
economical and construction view points compared to either
traditional RC or steel frames. In fact, the advantages of each
material are combined to form efficient structural systems. From
the construction view point, these systems are usually built by
first erecting a steel skeleton, which allows the performance of
different construction tasks along the height of the building.
Using RC instead of steel columns leads to material cost savings
and increased lateral stiffness. Furthermore, composite floors are
lighter than RC floors leading to reduction in the weight of the
buildings, foundation costs and inertial forces. This system takes
advantage of the long-span capabilities of steel beams to provide
column-free space. Another advantage of this composite system
is shorter construction time. Additionally the steel beam runs con-
tinuous through the concrete column thereby eliminating the need
to interrupt the beam at the column face. In fact, this type of con-
nection detail avoids welding in the panel zones (Griffis, 1986).
A primary challenge in design of RCS frames was the connec-
tion between steel beam and RC column. The results of experi-
mental studies have shown that RCS joints have excellent strength
and stiffness (Sheikh et al., 1987; Deierlein et al., 1988; Kanno,
1993). In 1994, ASCE published design guidelines for composite
RCS joints in low to moderate seismic regions (ASCE, 1994),
and then, research work has been focused on the development of
design guidelines for composite connections in RCS frames
located in zone of high seismicity (Parra-Montesinos et al.,
2001), that has led to update 1994 ASCE guidelines for design of
joints between steel beams and reinforced concrete columns.
In this paper, FEMA 356 (FEMA 356) criterion is used to
evaluate seismic performance of RCS frames. In addition to,
influence of beam-column RCS joint behavior on overall
response of RCS frames is investigated. Three RCS frames are
modeled and Pushover analysis is performed in OpenSees
software considering RCS joint behavior, and is compared to
RCS frames with rigid beam-column connections. Finally, RC
frame is compared to RCS frame and influence of steel beam on
lateral load capacity is studied (by substituting steel beams for
RC beams).
2. Design and Modeling Procedure
A large number of connection details have been proposed for
RCS connections. This makes the applicability of RCS
construction difficult since design recommendations need to be
available for each joint detail. The joint detail shown in Fig. 1, is
a standard detail for RCS connections and consists of: (1) Face
Bearing Plates (FBP) used to mobilize the concrete regions
between the beam flanges; (2) two-part U-shaped stirrups
passing through holes in the steel web panel; (3) Steel Band
Plates (SBP) wrapping around the column regions just above and
below the steel beam. These band plates are connected to the

*Associate Professor, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz 5166616533, Iran (E-mail: b-farahmand@tabrizu.ac.ir)
**Assistant Professor, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz 5166616533, Iran (Corresponding Author, E-mail: ghaffar@tabrizu.ac.ir)
***Researcher, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz 5166616533, Iran (E-mail: talebian.s.e@gmail.com)

− 450 −
 Seismic Performance of Composite RCS Special Moment Frames
Fig. 1. RCS Joint Detail
beam flanges through stiffeners.
In RC and steel beam-column connections, the main type of
deformation is given by panel shear deformations. In fact, two
main failure modes have been identified in RCS connections: (1)
panel shear failure, and (2) bearing failure (ASCE, 1994). A
panel shear failure leads to significant diagonal cracking of the
concrete panels and yielding of the steel web panel in the joint
region. A bearing failure causes crushing of the concrete regions
adjacent to the steel beam flanges. A panel shear failure generally
triggers a bearing failure, but a bearing failure does not always
cause a shear failure (Kanno, 1993).
In 2002, a full-scale three-story three-bay composite RCS
frame, was conducted in the NCREE laboratory in Taipei,
through international collaboration between researchers in
Taiwan and the United States, in order to provide a unique data
set to validate both computer simulation and seismic design for
RCS frames. The analytical models used to simulate the test
through inelastic time history analyses were conducted with
OpenSees and simulation results were compared to the measured
frame response (Cordova, 2005). In order to verify analysis
results of this study, Cordova’s method was accepted and the
mentioned test frame was modeled in OpenSees and results
were compared to Cordova’s simulation. Good agreement was
obtained between results.
In this paper, composite RCS joints have been designed using
updated ASCE Guidelines (Cordova, 2005). The joint detail
shown in Fig. 1 is used for composite joints. The joints are repre-
sented with an OpenSees joint2D element that is able to model
the finite size and joint kinematics. The deformations and failure
mechanisms of the composite joint are represented by two
material springs in series. Joint panel shear is governed by very
fat hysteretic loops and modeled with steel material model in
OpenSees. The joint bearing deformation exhibits a lot of pinch-
ing and is modeled using a hysteretic material model.
The reinforced concrete columns and the steel beams are
designed following provisions for members in RC or steel frames.
In fact, they are generally designed as they would be in a con-
ventional RC or steel moment frame. As in all special moment
frames, the design of RC columns is controlled by the Strong
Column-Weak Beam (SCWB) criterion. The updated SCWB
Vol. 17, No. 2 / March 2013 − 451 −
criteria for RCS frames is proposed as follows (Cordova, 2005):
∑ Mc
------------ > 1 (1)
∑ Mg*
where ∑ Mc is sum of nominal flexural strengths of the RC
columns framing into the joint and ∑ Mg* is sum of the expected
beam strengths. Eq. (1) uses the definition of column strength
from ACI 318-02 (2002). The column flexural strength should
be calculated considering the factored axial load (according to
the load combinations in IBC 2003) that would be result in the
lowest flexural strength. The expected beam strength is calculated
based on AISC seismic provisions (2002).
The RC column and steel beams are modeled in OpenSees by
nonlinear Beam-Column Fiber Elements. Fiber sections are inte-
grated along the member and consist of steel, confined concrete
and unconfined concrete uniaxial material models.
3. Definition of Connection Components
“Through-beam” and “through-column” connections are two
types of RCS joints. In through-beam detail, steel beams runs
continuous through the concrete column. In through-column
connection, the beam flanges are interrupted at the column faces
to accommodate longitudinal reinforcements and to facilitate the
placement of concrete in the RCS joints. In this study, through-
beam RCS joints are used.
According to the updated ASCE guidelines, as a minimum, all
RCS joints have Face Bearing Plate (FBP) stiffeners within the
beam depth, with a width at least equal to the flange width. These
FBPs greatly increase the joint strength and improve the overall
joint behavior by providing the required confinement to develop
the inner concrete strut. The requirements of the thickness of the
FBPs to resist the nominal shear strength of the inner concrete
strut, Vicn, are (Sheikh et al., 1987):
3
tp ≥ ----------- ( Vicn – bf tw Fyw ) (2)
bf Fup
3Vicn
tp ≥ --------------
- (3)
2bf Fup
Vicn bf
tp ≥ 0.2 -------------
- (4)
Fyp dw
where Fyp and Fup are nominal yield strength and ultimate
strength of bearing plate. dw and tw are depth and thickness of
beam web. The minimum thickness requirement for FBP is
considered as tp ≥ bf /22. The updated guidelines specify the
thickness requirements for the steel band plates as follows:
3 1
tbp ≥ ⎛ -------⎞ ⎛ -------------------⎞ Von (5)
⎝ Fup⎠ ⎝ 2dbp + bf ⎠
4Von dbp
tbp ≥ 0.2 ----------------- (6)
Fybp h
 Bahman Farahmand Azar, Hosein Ghaffarzadeh, and Nima Talebian

where Von is outer panel shear strength. Fyp and Fup are nominal Table 1. Summary of Column and Beam Strength with Correspond-
yield strength and ultimate strength of band plate. dbp and tbp are ing SCWB Ratios (kN·m)
depth and thickness of the band plate. ∑ Mc SCWB
The effective joint width is equal to summation of the inner Frame Ext. Int. ∑ Mg* Ext Int
columns columns Joints Joints
panel width and outer panel width. The inner panel width is
1st 589.96 728.05 731.89 1.61 0.99
considered equal to the beam flange width. For the case of using 3
2nd 494.17 728.05 675.51 1.46 1.07
Steel Band Plates (SBPs) as in current study, the outer panel width story
3rd 494.17 590.7 485.84 1.01 0.60
is equal to bo = 2/3h ≤ b-bf (h = height of the concrete column, b
1st 876.35 1159.87 939.79 1.86 1.23
= width of concrete column, bf = width of beam flange). If the
2nd 653.75 974.49 939.79 1.39 1.03
band plates replace the ties within the bearing region, the maxi- 5
3rd 589.96 876.35 854.35 1.38 1.02
mum outer panel width is controlled by the stiffness of the band story
4th 539.10 650.78 675.51 1.59 0.96
plate and should be taken as bo = 12tbp ≤ b-bf (tbp = thickness of
5th 539.10 539.10 485.84 1.10 0.55
band plate). The shear strength of the inner panel is summation
1st 1373.37 2006.66 1161.99 2.36 1.72
of the capacities of the steel web panel and the inner diagonal 2nd 1169.10 1612.29 1161.99 2.01 1.38
concrete strut in accordance with updated guidelines which 3rd 974.49 1487.12 1161.99 1.67 1.27
accounts for the differences between interior and exterior joints 4th 974.49 1258.76 1161.99 1.67 1.08
(Cordova, 2005). Vertical bearing strength of the inner panel of 5th 803.36 1258.76 1049.14 1.53 1.19
10
the joint acts over the inner panel width of the joint and is story 6th 803.36 1055.82 1049.14 1.53 1.00
effective in joint vertical moment capacity. The strength of the 7th 539.10 1055.82 939.86 1.14 1.12
outer concrete strut is effective in joint panel shear capacity. This 8th 539.10 869.19 731.96 1.47 1.18
strength depends on the differences due to interior versus exterior 9th 488.21 653.75 618.78 1.57 1.05
joint configuration. As stated earlier, main failure modes of RCS 10th 488.21 590.70 426.39 1.14 0.69
connections are panel shear failure and bearing failure. The shear
strength provided by the inner concrete strut, the steel web panel
and the outer concrete strut are combined to provide the moment 5% damping ratio.
capacity of the joint in panel shear. The inner vertical bearing is The frames are assigned to seismic group I and seismic design
also combined with the outer panel shear strength to provide the category D. The response modification factor for RCS frames is
joint vertical bearing moment capacity. As previously mentioned, considered R=8, based on IBC 2003 for special moment frames.
the joints are simulated with an OpenSees joint2D element that is Columns are designed based on ACI 318-02 Code (ACI 2002)
able to model the finite size and joint kinematics. The deformations while beams are designed based on AISC-LRFD (AISC-LRFD
of the composite joint (panel shear failure and bearing failure) 1999). The frames are predesigned using the program ETABS
are represented by two material springs in series. considering that the joints are rigid. Once the frames are designed,
they are modeled with program OpenSees to evaluate their seismic
4. Case Study Frames and Analysis response. These models include the joint model described in Part
2 of this paper. The columns of modeled RCS frames are
Three regular RCS frames with three bays are considered checked to meet the SCWB criterion presented in section 2. The
which their configurations are shown in Fig. 2. The frames are numerical values of SCWB ratios are presented in Table 1. Drift
designed for a highly seismic region. The seismic design of frames control of designed RCS frames should be performed in accord-
followed the International Building Code 2003 (IBC, 2003), ance with ASCE 7-05 section 12.8.6:
assuming the frames are located in site class D and stiff soil, with c
mapped spectral accelerations of Ss = 1.5 g and S1 = 0.72 g for ∆ = ----d ( δ e( i + 1) – δe(i ) ) ≤ ∆a = 0.02h (7)
I
( δe(i + 1) – δ e(i) ) 0.02I
------------------------------- ≤ ------------ (8)
h cd
where δ is elastic displacement computed under strength-level
design earthquake forces and Cd is the deflection amplification
factor. For special moment resisting frames, Cd is assigned as
value of 5.5. I is the importance factor and h is the story height.
For all used frames, drift control is presented in Table 2.

5. Seismic Performance Evaluation

The FEMA 356 is used to assess the seismic performance of

Fig. 2. Frames’ Configuration the three RCS frames based on the nonlinear static analysis.

− 452 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Seismic Performance of Composite RCS Special Moment Frames

Table 2. Drift Control of RCS Frames

Frame Drift m=0.02I/Cd Drift ≤ m
1st 0.002461 0.0036 O.K.
3 story 2nd 0.003471 0.0036 O.K.
3rd 0.002701 0.0036 O.K.
1st 0.002276 0.0036 O.K.
2nd 0.003025 0.0036 O.K.
5 story 3rd 0.003502 0.0036 O.K.
4th 0.003359 0.0036 O.K.
5th 0.002159 0.0036 O.K.
1st 0.002183 0.0036 O.K.
2nd 0.003251 0.0036 O.K.
3rd 0.003534 0.0036 O.K.
4th 0.003442 0.0036 O.K.
5th 0.00358 0.0036 O.K. Fig. 3. Comparison of Load Pattern
10 story
6th 0.003513 0.0036 O.K.
7th 0.003448 0.0036 O.K.
8th 0.003341 0.0036 O.K.
9th 0.003056 0.0036 O.K.
10th 0.001711 0.0036 O.K.

Structural performance levels in FEMA 356 include Immediate

Occupancy (IO), Life Safety (LS), Collapse Prevention (CP).
Structures at IO should have only minor damage.
Structures at LS may have sustained significant damage, but
still provide an appreciable margin against collapse. Structures at
CP are expected to remain standing, but with little margin against
collapse. In FEMA 356, the Basic Safety Objective (BSO) is
defined as LS performance for the Basic Safety Earthquake 1
(BSE-1) earthquake hazard level and CP performance for the
BSE-2 earthquake hazard level. BSE-1 is defined as the smaller
of an event corresponding to 10% probability of exceedance in
50 years (10% in 50 years) and BSE-2 which is the 2% proba-
bility of exceedance in 50 years (2% in 50 years) event. For these
three frames plastic rotations are considered as acceptance crite-
rion to assess structural performance for BSE-1 (LS performance
level). According to FEMA 356 two different load distribution
patterns should be considered in pushover analysis. The results
of 3 story frame are shown for both triangular and uniform load
pattern in Fig. 3 (the result of other frames are as same as 3 story
frame). The uniform load pattern results in higher stiffness and
capacity in comparison with the triangular distribution as ex-
pected. Therefore, the triangular load pattern is considered to
evaluate the overall behavior of three RCS frames. Pushover
analysis is carried out for each frame using triangular load pattern
and capacity curves are shown in Fig. 4. The target displacement
Fig. 4. Capacity Curves of RCS Frames
is obtained from the following equation:
T2
δt = c0 c1 c2 c3 sa -------e-2 g (9)
4π
where c0 is the first mode contribution coefficient which its
appropriate value is chosen based on number of stories in FEMA
356 (Table 3-2) as specified in Table 3. c1 is the system’s inelastic
displacement correction factor that is considered equal to 1 for Te
Ts. c2 is the coefficient for the effect of stiffness reduction upon
displacement that is obtained from Table 3-3 in FEMA 356 as
specified in Table 3. Since RCS frames are special moment
frames, for Life Safety performance level c2 is considered equal
to 1. c3 is the post yield stiffness factor that is equal to 1 for
buildings with positive post-yield stiffness as three modeled
frames. Te is effective period and sa is response spectrum accel-

Table 3. Performance Point Specifications & Yield Strength of RCS Frames

Frame C0 C1 C2 C3 Sa Te (S) δ t (m) Vy (kN)* Vt (kN)**
3 Story 1.3 1 1 1 0.98 0.730 0.1718 1010.67 1201.28
5 Story 1.4 1 1 1 0.70 1.028 0.2570 1741.66 1879.63
10 Story 1.5 1 1 1 0.46 1.548 0.4146 2616.00 2752.00
*Yield strength of RCS frames
**Base shear corresponding to target displacement

Vol. 17, No. 2 / March 2013 − 453 −

 Bahman Farahmand Azar, Hosein Ghaffarzadeh, and Nima Talebian

eration, at the effective fundamental period that is here calculated Table 6. Maximum Plastic Rotations, for 10 Story Frame
based on IBC 2003 design response spectrum corresponding to V=2752 kN
Story
10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (10% in 50 years). Beams θy 6θy INT. Column EXT. Column
The target displacement of case study RCS frames is presented 1st 0.0060 0.0046 0.0276 0.0080 0.0103
in Table 3. Base shear corresponding to target displacement is 2nd 0.0062 0.0046 0.0276 0.0026 0.0032
distributed in each frame. Ultimately, plastic rotations of elements 3rd 0.0068 0.0046 0.0276 0.0023 0.0027
(steel beams and RC columns) are calculated to evaluate seismic 4th 0.0070 0.0046 0.0276 0.0020 0.0022
performance. 5th 0.0076 0.0049 0.0294 0.0017 0.0019
Based on FEMA 356 the rotation at yield (θy) for steel beams 6th 0.0071 0.0049 0.0294 0.0015 0.0017
in flexure is obtained from: 7th 0.0080 0.0054 0.0324 0.0013 0.0015
8th 0.0087 0.0066 0.0396 0.0016 0.0018
ZF l
θy = -------------
ye b
- (10) 9th 0.0097 0.0066 0.0396 0.0019 0.0021
6EIb 10th 0.0105 0.0075 0.0450 0.0020 0.0021
where Z is plastic section modulus, Fye is expected yield strength
of the material, lb is beam length, E is elastic modulus and Ib is For 3 story frame, the base rotations in the 1st story columns
moment of inertia. All beam sections in the three RCS frames experience the most significant plastic rotations in all columns
satisfy h/tw ≤ 418/ Fye and bf/2tf ≤ 52/ Fye ; so based on FEMA and maximum plastic rotation of beams happens in third story. In
356, θy is rotation limit for IO, 6θ y for LS and 8θ y for CP 5 Story frame, the maximum plastic rotations in columns happen
performance levels. For RC columns controlled by flexure, in the first story (base rotations). In 10 story frame, the base
FEMA 356 limits are determined according to the parameters V/ rotations in the 1st story columns experience the most significant
bWd fc and P/Agfc and conforming condition, for structural per- plastic rotations in all columns and in the upper stories they even
formance levels and for P/Agfc ≤ 1 and V/bWd fc ≤ 3, plastic remain below 0.4%. Therefore all the RC columns stay within
rotation limits is 0.005 for IO and is 0.015 for LS. The member life safety performance level up to the target displacement. The
plastic rotations at the target displacement are shown in Tables 4, maximum plastic rotations in steel beams are below 6θy and all
5 and 6. the beams satisfy the BSO of LS.

Table 4. Maximum Plastic Rotations, for 3 Story Frame 6. Effect of Joints on Overall Behavior
V=1201 kN
Story
Beams θy 6θy INT. Columns EXT. Columns Connection regions are typically modeled as rigid zones in
1st 0.0100 0.0066 0.039 0.0102 0.0110 structural analysis of RC frames but in RCS frames could affect
2nd 0.0106 0.0066 0.039 0.0042 0.0051 response and their influence should not be ignored. In order to
3rd 0.0113 0.0075 0.045 0.0030 0.0040 evaluate the effect of joints deformations on the seismic behavior
of RCS frames three RCS frames are modeled with rigid joints.
Table 5. Maximum Plastic Rotations, for 5 Story Frame Pushover analysis is done and capacity curves of them are com-
V=1879 kN pared to RCS frames including the modeling of composite joints.
Story
Beams θy 6θy INT. Columns EXT. Columns The results are shown in Fig. 5.
1st 0.0068 0.00541 0.0325 0.0077 0.0086 As shown in Fig. 5, RCS frames show higher lateral capacity
2nd 0.0094 0.00541 0.0325 0.0041 0.0057 than frames with rigid joints, and as the number of story in-
3rd 0.0110 0.00594 0.0356 0.0070 0.0076 creases, the difference between capacities increases, too. Frames
4th 0.0090 0.00662 0.0397 0.0047 0.0053 with rigid joints have sharper elastic-to-inelastic transition curves
5th 0.0080 0.00751 0.0450 0.0030 0.0032 and steeper response in elastic range. Comparison of fundamen-

Fig. 5. Effect of Joint Behavior on Frame Response

− 454 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Seismic Performance of Composite RCS Special Moment Frames

Fig. 6. Effect of Joint Behavior on Interstory Drift

Table 7. Comparison of Fundamental Elastic Period of Frames Table 8. Comparison of 1st Story Interior Columns Section
Fundamental Elastic Period Number of Story RCS Frame RC Frame
Number of Story
Composite RCS Joint Rigid Joint 3 C50×50 C55×55
3 0.69 0.65 5 C60×60 C70×70
5 0.98 0.95 10 C75×75 C90×90
10 1.5 1.48
Table 9. Comparison of Fundamental Elastic Period of Frames
tal elastic period of frames is represented in Table 7. Although Fundamental Elastic Period
Number of
there is not significant difference in elastic period, effect of joint Story Frame With
RCS Frame RC Frame RCS
Similar Columns
on response is remarkable.
3 0.69 0.57 0.63
In order to evaluate effect of joint behavior on story drifts, Loma 5 0.98 0.81 0.89
Prieta record is selected and scaled to represent a probability of 10 1.5 1.37 1.42
exceedance of 10%/50 years to compare drifts. The results are
shown in Fig. 6. As can be observed, the maximum interstory
drift is almost the same in 3 story frame, but at the first and third to those of RC frames. Comparison of fundamental elastic period
floor, the story drift increases. For the 5 story frame, when RCS of frames is represented in Table 9.
connections are modeled as rigid joints, the maximum drift is Results of pushover analysis are shown in Figs. 7, 8 and 9. As
1.45%. On the other hand, if RCS joint is included in the model, the number of story increases, the difference between capacities
the maximum drift increases to 1.89% that is an increase of up to also increases. Initial stiffness of RC frames are more than RCS
30%. Similarly, in the 10 story frame, the maximum interstory frames with the same columns of RC frame and have sharper
drift increases from 1.03% to 1.25% when connection flexibility elastic-to-inelastic transition curves, but in the plastic range RCS
is considered in the analysis that is an increase of up to 20%. frames show higher capacity. Capacity of RC frames significantly
Consequently, RCS joints lead to higher lateral capacity and increases due to steel beams. This shows that combining the a-
larger drifts due to flexibility of RCS joints. dvantages of using steel beams in flexure (rather than RC beams
and problems that occur since cracking) with RC columns in
7. Influence of Steel Beams on Overall Behavior compression, improves seismic behavior.
Increase in lateral capacity due to steel beams, depends on
3 RC special moment frames are designed with design as-
sumptions considered for 3 RCS frames. In RC frames, SCWB
criteria based on ACI 318-02, is proposed as:
∑ Mc
------------ ≥ ( 6 ⁄ 5 ) (11)
∑ Mg
where ΣMc is the sum of moments at the faces of the joint
corresponding to the nominal flexural strength of the columns
framing into that joint and ΣMg is the sum of moments at the
faces of the joint corresponding to the nominal flexural of the
girders framing into that joint. As mentioned before, by substitut-
ing steel beams for RC beams weight of the frames reduce and
thus size of columns decrease. Comparison of 1st story interior
columns section is represented in Table 8.
To investigate influence of steel beams on frame response, 3
RC frames are compared to 3 RCS frames with columns similar Fig. 7. Effect of Steel Beams on Frame Response

Vol. 17, No. 2 / March 2013 − 455 −

 Bahman Farahmand Azar, Hosein Ghaffarzadeh, and Nima Talebian
Fig. 8. Effect of Steel Beams on Frame Response
Fig. 9. Effect of Steel Beams on fRame Response
these factors: 1) Increase due to steel beams 2) increase due to
joints behavior between steel beams and RC columns. Conse-
quently, in order to determine joint contribution, pushover analysis
should be performed in three cases with similar columns (RC
frame, RCS frame with columns similar to those of RC frame
along with RCS frame with the same columns and rigid joint
without including RCS joint modeling) as shown in Fig. 10 for
ten story frame. Therefore, contribution of steel beams and RCS
joint in lateral capacity can be determined. For the elastic zone,
increase in capacity is determined based on the yield shear. For
the plastic zone, it is specified based on the limited drift for the
LS performance level, 2%, in FEMA 356. Contribution of Joints
and steel beams in capacity increase is shown in Table 10. Joints
contribution exceeds steel beams contribution in yield shear
(elastic zone) and final capacity (plastic zone). As the number of
story increases, steel beams contribution in yield shear increases
but its contribution in final capacity is almost constant. On the
other hand, joints contribution in yield shear decrease but it is
constant in final capacity. This shows the flexibility and ductility
of RCS joints rather than ordinary RC joints and implies their
effect on frame behavior is significant.
− 456 −
Fig. 10. Capacity Curves for 10 Story Frames, Response
Table 10. Steel Beams and RCS Joints Contribution
Steel Beams RCS Joints
Frames
Yield shear Final Capacity Yield shear Final Capacity
3 story 17% 46% 83% 54%
5 story 33% 42% 67% 58%
10 story 43% 43% 57% 57%
8. Conclusions
In this paper, seismic performance evaluation of RCS frames
based on nonlinear static analysis is presented according to FEMA
356. The seismic evaluation of three RCS frames based on
FEMA 356, shows that Basic Safety Objective (BSO) is satisfied
for the 10% in 50 years (LS performance level). From pushover
analysis, it is found that RCS frames show higher load capacity
and better seismic behavior, when RCS joint modeling is consid-
ered in the analysis. From the analytical investigation, it is also
found that joint deformations in RCS frames could lead to signi-
ficant increase in maximum interstory drift, and thus connection
flexibility and its effect on frame response should be considered
in the analyses of these hybrid systems. Comparison between RC
frames and RCS frames with similar columns, shows that Initial
stiffness of RC frames are more than RCS frames but final
capacity of RCS frames are significantly more than RC frames
and contribution of joint in capacity increase exceeds steel beams
contribution both in elastic and plastic zones.
References
American Concrete Institute (ACI) (2002). Building code require-
ments for structural concrete, ACI 318-02, ACI Committee 318,
Farmington Hills, Mich.
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC-LRFD) (1999). Load &
resistance factor design, Chicago, Ill.
ASCE Task Committee on Design Criteria for Composite Structures in
Steel and Concrete (1994). “Guidelines for design of joints between
steel beams and reinforced concrete columns.” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 120, No. 8, pp. 2330-2357.
Cordova, P. P. and Deierlein, G. G. (2005). Validation of the seismic
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Seismic Performance of Composite RCS Special Moment Frames

performance of composite RCS frames: full-scale testing, analytical
modeling, and seismic design, PhD Dissertation, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University.
Deierlein, G. G., Yura, J. A., and Jirsa, J. O. (1988). Design of moment
connections for composite framed structures, PMFSEL Report No.
88-1, University of Texas at Austin.
Griffis, L. G. (1986). Some design considerations for composite-frame
structures, AISC/Engrg. J., Second Quarter, pp. 59-64.
International Code Council (ICC), International Building Code (IBC
2003) (2003). Falls Church (VA).
Kanno, R. (1993). Strength, deformation, and seismic resistance of
joints between steel beams and reinforced concrete columns, PhD
Dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.
Parra-Montesinos, G. and Wight, J. K. (2001). “Modeling shear behavior
of hybrid rcs beam-column connections.” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 127, No. 1, pp. 3-1.
Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings
(FEMA 356) (2000). Prepared by american society of civil engineers
for the federal emergency management agency, Washington, D.C.
Sheikh, T. M., Yura, J. A., and Jirsa, J. O. (1987). Moment connections
between steel beams and concrete columns, PMFSEL Report No.
87-4, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.

Vol. 17, No. 2 / March 2013 − 457 −

View publication stats