TECHNICAL NOTES

Overview of U.S.–Japan Research on the Seismic Design of

Composite Reinforced Concrete and Steel Moment Frame
Structures
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 02/04/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Gregory G. Deierlein, F.ASCE,1 and Hiroshi Noguchi, M.ASCE2

Abstract: Extensive research over the past 15 years has led to improved models and criteria for seismic design of composite steel–
concrete moment frames and their components. Much of this research has been conducted through the U.S.–Japan Cooperative Research
Program on Composite and Hybrid Structures. Research on reinforced concrete and steel moment frame structures includes 共a兲 tests and
analyses of over 50 composite beam–column connections, 共b兲 tests and analyses of two composite frames, and 共c兲 performance-based
seismic design and simulation studies of prototype composite frame buildings. These projects, together with prior research, demonstrate
that composite frames can be designed with seismic deformation capacity and toughness comparable to traditional steel or reinforced
concrete construction.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2004兲130:2共361兲
CE Database subject headings: Composite structures; Framed structures; Steel construction; Concrete construction; Seismic design;
Research.

Introduction
One of the four thrust areas of the U.S.–Japan Cooperative Re-
search Program on Composite and Hybrid Structures concerns the
seismic design of moment frames consisting of reinforced con-
crete 共RC兲 columns and steel 共S兲 beams—the so-called composite
RCS frames. Composite RCS frames can provide cost-effective
alternatives to traditional steel or reinforced concrete framing sys-
tems, however, their use in high seismic regions has been hin-
dered by a lack of comprehensive design criteria and experience
with the systems. The coordinated U.S.–Japan research has
helped to develop improved seismic design models and criteria
for RCS systems through a broad investigation involving 共1兲 tests
and analyses of RCS beam–column connection subassemblies,
共2兲 tests and analyses of RCS moment frames, 共3兲 seismic design
studies and simulations of RCS building systems, and 共4兲 devel-
opment of design guidelines.
In the United States, RCS moment frame construction was
introduced during the late 1970’s and 1980’s as a variation of
conventional steel frames in mid- to high-rise buildings. These
composite systems resemble conventional steel frame construc-
tion except that the steel columns are replaced by high strength
reinforced concrete with the incentive to reduce material cost
共Griffis 1992兲. Innovative construction sequencing and connec-
tion detailing add to the attractiveness of RCS construction. In
Japan, RCS frames developed as an alternative to conventional
reinforced concrete construction for low-rise office and retail
buildings 共Yamanouchi et al. 1998兲. Here, steel beams are utilized
to permit long span floor framing and to minimize field labor,
while still achieving the material cost savings provided by rein-
forced concrete columns. Another contributing factor to RCS de-
velopment in Japan is the prevalence of another type of composite
construction called, steel reinforced concrete 共SRC兲, which be-
came popular after SRC structures performed well in the 1923
Kanto earthquake. While both SRC and RCS combine structural
steel and reinforced concrete, there are significant differences in
the two methods, which are reflected in construction methods and
design codes for the two systems. In SRC frames, steel beams and
steel columns are both encased in concrete, essentially forming a
complete steel frame encased in a complete concrete frame,
whereas in modern RCS construction bare steel beams act in se-
ries with reinforced concrete columns.

1
Professor and Director, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering
Center, Terman Engineering Building, Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA
94305-4020. E-mail: ggd@stanford.edu
2
Professor, Dept. of Architecture, Chiba Univ., Yayoi, Inage, Chiba
263-0022, Japan. E-mail: noguchi@archi.ta.chiba-u.ac.jp
Note. Associate Editor: Joseph M. Bracci. Discussion open until July
1, 2004. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. To
extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be filed with
the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this technical note was
submitted for review and possible publication on September 24, 2002;
approved on August 25, 2003. This technical note is part of the Journal
of Structural Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 2, February 1, 2004. ©ASCE,
ISSN 0733-9445/2004/2-361–367/$18.00.
Connection Behavior and Design
In general, the design of steel beams and reinforced concrete col-
umns in RCS frames follows established practice for conventional
steel or reinforced concrete construction. Therefore, much of the
research emphasis has been on the design and behavior of the
composite RCS beam–column connections, which pose unique
challenges that are not addressed by traditional design standards.
During the 1980’s and early 1990’s, over 400 RCS connection
subassemblies were tested in Japan, and 36 were tested in the
United States. Many of these early Japanese tests were of propri-

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004 / 361

J. Struct. Eng., 2004, 130(2): 361-367

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 02/04/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Examples of reinforced concrete and steel beam–column connection details
etary details, which are interesting but of limited research value
since they were primarily intended as proof tests and were not
designed to interrogate internal force transfer mechanisms in the
joint. Through the U.S.–Japan Cooperative Research Program
about 56 more connection subassemblies were tested to fill
knowledge gaps for certain connection configurations and force–
transfer mechanisms. Researchers with the Building Contractors
Society of Japan 共BCS 1998兲 have compiled much of these test
data in an electronic database.
Examples of the wide variety of RCS connection details,
which have been investigated, are shown in Fig. 1. Details 1–7
are so-called ‘‘through-beam’’ type connections where the beam
runs continuous through the joint. By not interrupting 共splicing兲
the beam at the point of maximum moment at the column face,
the through-beam details avoid the fracture-critical joints that are
of concern in conventional steel construction. Details 8 –11 are
‘‘through-column’’ type, where the beam flanges are interrupted at
the joint, so as to minimize the impact on the column reinforcing
bar arrangement and to facilitate concrete placement in the joint.
Detail 12 is an example of hybrid detail, combining conventional
SRC concepts by encasing the end of the steel beam where it
connects to the concrete column. Through-beam type connections
have been the preferred detail in the United States, whereas both
types have been used in Japan. Apart from the major distinction
of ‘‘through-beam’’ versus ‘‘through-column’’ type connections,
the chief differences among the details of Fig. 1 lie in attachments
of various stiffener plates, cover plates, and bearing plates, which
act together with reinforcing bars to mobilize force transfer be-
tween the steel and concrete.
362 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004
J. Struct. Eng., 2004, 130(2): 361-367
A summary of composite joint subassemblies, which were
tested through the U.S.–Japan program and prior National Sci-
ence Foundation supported research, is presented in Table 1. In-
cluded are 63 tests of through-beam connections and 21 tests of
through-column connections. Among these, 12 tests were of
three-dimensional space–frame configurations, where beams
were loaded in the two orthogonal directions. The test specimens
are roughly one-half to two-thirds of full scale, with typical RC
column sizes ranging from 300 to 500 mm square and W-shaped
steel beam sizes from 250 to 450 mm deep. Tests were generally
conducted under cyclic loading to simulate forces and deforma-
tions induced by earthquake effects. Several of the tests included
axial loading of the RC columns to represent gravity loads and
earthquake-induced overturning. Typical yield strengths of steel
beams were F y ⫽345 MPa (50 ksi) and concrete compression
strengths ranged from f ⬘c ⫽30 to 100 MPa 共4 to 15 ksi兲. A few test
specimens had fiber-reinforced concrete in the joint region. Nogu-
chi and Kim 共1997 and 1998兲 conducted detailed three-
dimensional nonlinear finite element simulations to supplement
the tests and examine internal force transfer mechanisms.
Overall, the tests show that, when properly detailed to mobi-
lize internal force transfer mechanisms, RCS connections provide
reliable strength and ductility for seismic design. For research
purposes to understand the internal force transfer mechanisms,
most of the connection test assemblies were intentionally de-
signed to fail in the joint. This is counter to design practice where
the joints are typically designed to be stronger than the beams. In
order to fail the joints, the test specimens often had specially
 Table 1. Summary of Composite Joint Tests
Organization Test description References
Building Research Institute 10 planar, through-column joints Kuramoto and Noguchi 共1997兲
Building Contractors Society 6 three-dimensional, through-column joints Nishiyama et al. 共1998, 2000兲
Kuramoto and Nishiyama 共2004兲

Chiba Univ. 6 planar through-beam joints Kuramoto and Noguchi 共1997兲

5 planar through-column joints Noguchi and Kim 共1997, 1998兲

Osaka Institute of Technology 6 planar through-beam joints, investigation of specific internal Baba and Nishimura 共2000b兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 02/04/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

force transfer mechanisms

Univ. of Michigan 15 through-beam joints 共9 exterior configurations, Parra-Montesinos et al. 共2000a,b, 2001a,b, 2003兲
4 with composite slab, and 2 post-earthquake repairs兲
Liang et al. 共2004兲

Texas A&M 6 three-dimensional through-beam joints, with composite slab Bugeja et al. 共1999, 2000兲
Bracci et al. 共1999兲
Eshe et al. 共1999兲

U.C. San Diego 2 planar tests of steel beams to composite column Chou and Uang 共2002兲
with reduced beam sections

Cornell Univ.a 19 through-beam joints Kanno et al. 共1993, 1997兲

a
Univ. of Texas 17 through-beam joints Sheikh et al. 共1989兲
Deierlein et al. 共1989兲
a
Connection tests at Univ. of Texas and Cornell Univ. were conducted prior to the formal U.S.–Japan cooperative program, but are included here since
they formed the basis of the first design guidelines 共ASCE Task Committee 1994兲 in the United States.

fabricated beams with thick flanges and thin webs, which pro-
vided large moment capacity while limiting the joint panel shear
strength. Studies show that when using standard rolled W-shaped
beams, fairly simple joint details are sufficient to develop joint
strengths that force inelastic hinging into the steel beam adjacent
to the joint. These points are important to keep in mind as the
observations made below are for cases where the joint is inten-
tionally weaker than the beam and damage to the RCS joint is
more extensive than is expected to occur in actual buildings sub-
jected to strong earthquakes.
Even when designed to force all inelastic action into the joint,
the RCS subassemblies exhibit reliable strength, stiffness, ductil-
ity, and energy dissipation, which is at least on par with seismi-
cally detailed connections for traditional steel or reinforced con-
crete construction. Shown in Fig. 2, for example, is the hysteretic
load-deformation response of two RCS joints with band plates.
The joint detail in both tests is similar to that of detail 4 of Fig. 1,
except that these test specimens did not have stirrups in the joint.
The response in Fig. 2共a兲 is of a specimen where inelastic defor-
mations occurred in the joint; whereas the response in Fig. 2共b兲 is
for a specimen where the majority of inelastic action occurs
through beam hinging. In general, for specimens with inelastic
action in the joint 关e.g., Fig. 2共a兲兴, the connection damage begins
with diagonal cracking and localized crushing due to beam bear-
ing at joint shear deformations of roughly 0.005 rad to 0.007 rad,
followed by steel web and/or cover panel yielding at 0.01–0.015
rad 共corresponding to drift ratios of about 0.02兲. Maximum
strength is typically reached at joint deformation angles of about

Fig. 2. Typical reinforced concrete and steel through-beam-type connection test response 共a兲 exterior configuration with inelastic deformations
in joint 共Parra-Montesinos and Wight 2000a兲; 共b兲 interior configuration with beam hinging 共Liang and Parra-Montesinos 2004兲

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004 / 363

J. Struct. Eng., 2004, 130(2): 361-367

 0.02–0.03 rad, which correspond to drift ratios of 0.03–0.04. Be-
yond this, the joint subassemblies experience gradual strength and
stiffness degradation under cyclic loading to maximum drift ratios
of 0.04 –0.05. The maximum imposed deformations were usually
limited by the experimental apparatus, rather than by any sudden
change in connection response. In tests with beam proportions
more representative of design practice, where the forces imposed
on the joints are limited by beam hinging 关Fig. 2共b兲兴, the subas-
semblies exhibit similar response to well-detailed steel connec-
tions where, at large deformations, the strength degrades gradu-
ally due to local flange and web buckling in the plastic hinge
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 02/04/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
region with only modest damage to the beam–column joint.
In addition to general understanding of internal force transfer
mechanisms and validation of design models, the tests offer de-
tailed insights into the following configuration and design param-
eters:
• Tests confirm that axial column compression tends to improve
the joint behavior by resisting concrete flexural and shear
cracking and, thereby, increasing the joint strength and stiff-
ness. This observation is based on connection tests with ap-
plied column loads up to about 30% of the column crushing
strength 共Nishiyama et al. 1998, 2000兲, supplemented by other
data 共e.g., Kanno and Deierlein 1993兲, which suggest that
compression has a positive effect for forces up to 70% of the
column crushing strength.
• Comparisons between moderate- and high-strength concrete
indicate that standard design equations and detailing rules
apply equally well to joints with concrete compression
strengths up to 100 MPa 共the maximum concrete strength in-
vestigated兲.
• Tests of alternative configurations show that the differences in
behavior between interior and exterior joints are not as signifi-
cant as for reinforced concrete joints, but there are modest
differences in joint shear strength that need to be considered in
design 共Nishiyama et al. 1998, 2000; Parra-Montesinos et al.
2000a,b, 2001a,b兲. Tests of corner details 共with the RC column
only below the beam兲 demonstrate the need for special details
to transfer vertical tension from the beam into the longitudinal
column bars 共Nishiyama et al. 1998, 2000兲.
• Data from three-dimensional tests 共Nishiyama et al. 1998,
2000兲 show that joint strengths are not very sensitive to differ-
ences in two- versus three-dimensional loading, e.g., unidirec-
tional in-plane, unidirectional diagonal, and two-component
orbital loading. Compared to unidirectional in-plane and diag-
onal loading, the orbital loading reduced the maximum
strength by about 10% and increased pinching in the hysteretic
response.
• Subassembly tests with floor slabs provide data on slab par-
ticipation where the increase in ultimate strength 共for the slab
loaded in compression兲 was significant. Tests of planar speci-
mens indicate that the effective slab participation at the beam–
column joint can be taken as the sum of the slab steel in
negative bending combined with compression bearing over the
column width 共Liang et al. 2004兲. Tests of space frame con-
nections indicate that the effective slab width is larger than the
column width due to force transfer from the slab to the column
through bearing and torsion of orthogonal beams 共Bracci et al.
1999; Bugeja et al. 1999, 2000; Nishiyama et al. 1998, 2000兲.
In such cases, the effective slab width is roughly equal to that
calculated using standard provisions for composite steel beams
共e.g., such as those in Chap. I of the AISC-LRFD Specification
1999兲.
• Tests by several researchers demonstrate that the transverse
364 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004
J. Struct. Eng., 2004, 130(2): 361-367
reinforcement in the connection could be significantly reduced
from values specified in current design guidelines 共e.g., ASCE
1994兲, or in some cases eliminated, while still achieving ac-
ceptable seismic performance. This was especially true for de-
tails with band plates above and below the joint 共detail 4 in
Fig. 1兲, where the band plates provided confinement to critical
bearing regions and, by restraining large diameter longitudinal
bars, to the entire joint 共Kanno and Deierlein 1993, 1997;
Parra-Montesinos et al. 2000a,b, 2001a,b; Noguchi and Kim
1997, 1998兲. Additionally, tests with fiber concrete and epoxy
carbon fiber bands showed promise to reduce or eliminate tie
reinforcement requirements in the joint 共Parra-Montesinos
et al. 2000a,b, 2001a,b兲.
Reinforced Concrete and Steel Joint Design
Guidelines
Test results for RCS connections have demonstrated the general
robustness of the connections and identified practical details 共face
bearing plates, vertical joint reinforcement, web doubler plates,
etc.兲 to enhance the strength and stiffness of the connection. Mod-
els to calculate the strength and stiffness of RCS joints have been
previously proposed 共Deierlein et al. 1989兲 and synthesized into
guidelines by a task committee of the ASCE Committee on Com-
posite Construction 共ASCE 1994兲. Through new data and under-
standing developed through the U.S.–Japan Cooperative Re-
search, the ASCE guidelines have been validated for seismic
design and several proposals have been made for improvements
to these guidelines 共e.g., Parra-Montesinos et al. 2001a, 2003;
Kanno and Deierlein 1997, 2002; Kuramoto and Nishiyama 2004;
Kuramoto 1996兲. Among the more important improvements and
revisions are those suggested for 共a兲 reduced requirements for
transverse ties in joints, 共b兲 modifications to address interior ver-
sus exterior joints, and 共c兲 performance-based requirements to
limit expected deformations and damage.
Frame Behavior and System Analysis
Frame Tests
Two RCS frames were tested and analyzed as part of the U.S.–
Japan program—one at the Osaka Institute of Technology 共Baba
and Nishimura 2000a兲 and the second at Chiba University 共Nogu-
chi and Uchida 2004兲. Both are one-third scale planar frames with
two bays, two stories, and through-beam type RCS connections.
In the Chiba frame the predominant failure mechanism was beam
hinging, whereas in the Osaka frame the predominant mechanism
was joint shear yielding and column hinging.
Shown in Fig. 3 is an overview of results from the Osaka
frame test by Baba and Nishimura 共2000a兲. This frame was de-
signed with the plastic strength of the beams roughly equal to the
calculated shear strength of the joints, with the goal to investigate
the interaction between frame and connection response. Columns
were designed with nominal flexural strengths about 1.24 times
that of the steel beams. Axial column loads equal to about 10–
20% of the column compressive strengths were applied and held
constant, while cyclic lateral loading was applied to the top story.
Overall, the frame performed quite well, with the connections
performing better than intended. Visible damage began at a drift
ratio of 0.003 with flexural cracking near column bases. At a drift
ratio of 0.01 there was extensive flexural cracking near column
bases, flexural cracking above and below beam-column joints,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 02/04/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Results of reinforced concrete and steel frame test 共Baba and Nishimura 2000a兲
some localized concrete crushing below joints at interior connec-
tion, and shear yielding of steel web panels in connections at
second floor. At a drift ratio of 0.02 共see the cracking pattern in
Fig. 3兲, there was flexural yielding of column reinforcement at
base and the frame reached its calculated mechanism strength,
P u . The frame continued to pick up about 10% more base shear
until the maximum strength was reached at a drift ratio of about
0.04. The strength dropped off slightly at a drift ratio of 0.05, at
which point the loading apparatus reached its maximum displace-
ment capacity and the test was stopped.
Finite element analyses of both the Osaka and Chiba frame
tests demonstrate that the nonlinear pushover analyses can predict
the frame behavior and progression of damage. Noguchi and
Uchida 共2004兲 modeled the frames with continuum elements, in-
cluding discrete nonlinear modeling of reinforcing bars, concrete,
and bond slip. The analyses captured the frame response well and
provided insights on localized deformations and internal force-
transfer mechanisms that were not readily observable in the tests.
Trial Design Studies of System Performance
Several teams of investigators developed trial designs of RCS
frames modeled after a theme building devised for the U.S.–
Japan Program. The objectives of the trial design studies were to
exercise proposed seismic design provisions for RCS systems and
then, through nonlinear analyses, evaluate the performance of
these systems. The trial design studies contrasted space-frame and
perimeter framing systems, steel and composite 共RCS兲 frames,
and buildings of varying heights. Apart from the design implica-
tions for RCS systems, the studies provided opportunities to ad-
vance the state of the art in applying nonlinear analysis methods
for performance-based earthquake engineering. Examples of this
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004 / 365
J. Struct. Eng., 2004, 130(2): 361-367
research are summarized by Mehanny et al. 共2001, 2002兲, Bracci
et al. 共1998兲, Bugeja et al. 共1999兲, and Noguchi et al. 共1998兲.
One example of these studies is a six-story building designed
by Mehanny et al. 共2002兲 using provisions of the International
Building Code 共ICC 2000兲. Sited in a high seismic region, the
building is designed for an equivalent lateral base shear ratio of
roughly 13% gravity, resulting in a frame with 600-mm-square
reinforced columns and 400– 610 mm deep W-shaped steel
beams. Comparative studies with steel framed buildings indicate
that the beam sizes are roughly the same in both types of systems
and that the main differences lie in the column and connection
designs. Since the reinforced concrete columns generally have a
larger stiffness to strength ratio than steel columns, the RCS
frames tend to be controlled more by minimum strength require-
ments and less by seismic drift requirements, as compared to steel
frames. Seismic performance assessments of the trial designs
using nonlinear static and dynamic time history analyses revealed
large variations in static over strengths 共the ratio of the static
inelastic limit point to the design strength兲 for alternative framing
configurations designed according to the same criteria. Results of
this sort from Mehanny et al. 共2002兲, and the other studies cited
previously, suggest areas of needed improvements to current
building code requirements for seismic design of moment frame
systems.
Reinforced Concrete and Steel System Design
Standards
In the United States, seismic design criteria for composite frames
are distributed amongst several codes and standards 共Deierlein
2000兲. General seismic loading and design requirements are in-
cluded in the International Building Code 共ICC 2000兲, which ref-
 erence Part II of the AISC Seismic Provisions 共2002兲 for specific
detailing requirements for composite special moment frames. The
AISC Seismic Provisions, in turn, reference underlying require-
ments for reinforced concrete and steel structures 共ACI 2002;
AISC 1999兲. Specific guidance on the design of RCS beam-
column connection design is available in the ASCE guidelines
mentioned previously 共ASCE 1994兲. Technical committees of all
these organizations are continuing work to update these criteria
and guidelines based on the research findings of the U.S.–Japan
Program.
In Japan, requirements for composite SRC structures have
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 02/04/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
been available for several years 共AIJ 1987兲, but these do not
address RCS systems. As described by Nishiyama and Kuramoto
共2004兲, work conducted through the U.S.–Japan program has re-
sulted in the development new seismic design guidelines for RCS
buildings. These provisions include requirements that outline ma-
terial requirements, overall design principles, detailed models and
requirements for beam-column joints, and general principles for
analysis and design. The provisions are implemented through a
two-step design procedure, consisting of an allowable stress and
ultimate load check, along the lines currently employed in Japan
for other materials and framing systems. Work is continuing to
develop a performance-based design approach that employs non-
linear pushover analysis and capacity spectrum concepts 共Kura-
moto et al. 2000兲.
Concluding Remarks
Research conducted through the U.S.–Japan Program on RCS
structures provides valuable information on the behavior of com-
posite connections, members, and systems. These data and the
resulting seismic design guidelines help enable the use of RCS
frames as cost-effective and reliable alternatives to conventional
steel and reinforced concrete construction. The analytical and sys-
tems design research conducted under the U.S.–Japan Program
have also advanced the development of new performance-based
earthquake engineering concepts.
Acknowledgments
The writers would like to acknowledge the contributions by many
investigators from Japan and the United States, many of whom
are identified through the referenced papers and reports. Research
conducted in the United States was primarily supported by the
Earthquake Hazards Mitigation Program of the National Science
Foundation under the direction of Dr. Chi Liu. In Japan, support
was provided by the Building Research Institute of the Ministry
of Construction along with university and industry groups.
References
American Concrete Institute 共ACI兲. 共2002兲. Building code requirements
for structural concrete, ACI-318-02, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Mich.
Architectural Institute of Japan 共AIJ兲. 共1987兲. ‘‘AIJ standards for calcu-
lation of steel reinforced concrete structures.’’ Architectural Institute
of Japan, Tokyo 共original in Japanese, but English translation avail-
able from AIJ兲.
American Institute of Steel Construction 共AISC兲. 共1999兲. Load and resis-
tance design specification for structural steel buildings, 2nd Ed.,
American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago.
366 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004
J. Struct. Eng., 2004, 130(2): 361-367
American Institute of Steel Construction 共AISC兲. 共2002兲. Seismic provi-
sions for structural steel buildings, American Institute of Steel Con-
struction, Chicago.
American Society of Civil Engineers 共ASCE兲. 共1994兲. ‘‘Guidelines for
design of joints between steel beams and reinforced concrete col-
umns.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 120共8兲, 2330–2357.
Baba, N., and Nishimura, Y. 共2000a兲. ‘‘Seismic behavior of RC column to
S beam moment frames.’’ Proc., 12WCEE, Paper Ref. 0352, 6 pp.
Baba, N., and Nishimura, Y. 共2000b兲. ‘‘Stress transfer on through beam
type steel beam-reinforced concrete column joints.’’ Proc., 6th ASCCS
Int. Conf. on Steel–Concrete Composite Structures, Y. Xiao and S.
Mahin, eds., 2, 753–760.
Bracci, J. M., Atahan, A. O., and Kunnath, S. K. 共1998兲. ‘‘Analytical
modeling of composite SRC structural frame systems.’’ ACI SP-174,
197–212.
Bracci, J. M., Moore, W. P., Jr., and Bugeja, M. N. 共1999兲. ‘‘Seismic
design and constructability of RCS special moment frames.’’ J. Struct.
Eng., 125共4兲, 385–392.
Bugeja, M., Bracci, J. M., and Moore, W. P. 共1999兲. ‘‘Seismic behavior of
composite moment resisting frame systems.’’ Tech. Rep. No. CBDC-
99-01, Dept. of Civil Eng., Texas A & M Univ., 193 pp.
Bugeja, M., Bracci, J. M., and Moore, W. P. 共2000兲. ‘‘Seismic behavior of
composite RCS frame systems.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 126共4兲, 429– 436.
Building Codes and Standards 共BCS兲. 共1998兲. ‘‘Compilation based on
data base on RCJ joint.’’ Sakaguchi, N., Yoshimatu, K., Masuda, Y.,
Iizuka, S., and Miyano, Y., Presentation at 5th JTCC Meeting of the
U.S.–Japan Program.
Chou, C. C., and Uang, C. M. 共2002兲. ‘‘Cyclic performance of a type of
steel beam to steel-encased reinforced concrete column moment con-
nection.’’ JCSR, 58共5-8兲, 637– 663.
Deierlein, G. G. 共2000兲. ‘‘New provisions for the seismic design of com-
posite structures.’’ Earthquake Spectra, 16共1兲, 163–178.
Deierlein, G. G., Sheikh, T. M., Yura, J. A., and Jirsa, J. O. 共1989兲.
‘‘Beam–column moment connections for composite frames: Part 2.’’
J. Struct. Eng., 115共11兲, 2877–2896.
Esche, C. D., Bracci, J. M., and Moore, W. P. 共1999兲. ‘‘Joint strength in
RCS frames.’’ Tech. Rep. No. CBDC-99-02, Dept. of Civil Eng., Texas
A & M Univ., 131 pp.
Griffis, L. G. 共1992兲. ‘‘Composite frame construction.’’ Constructional
steel design—An Int. guide, P. Dowling, J. Harding, and R. Bjorhovde,
eds., Elsevier Applied Science, New York, 523–554.
International Code Council 共ICC兲. 共2000兲. International building code,
International Code Council, BOCA, Country Club Hills, Ill.
Kanno, R., and Deierlein, G. G. 共1993兲. ‘‘Strength, deformation, seismic
resistance of joints between steel beams and reinforced concrete col-
umns.’’ Struct. Eng. Rep. No. 93-6, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y.
Kanno, R., and Deierlein, G. G. 共1997兲. ‘‘Seismic behavior of composite
共RCS兲 beam–column joint subassemblies.’’ Composite construction in
steel and concrete III, ASCE, New York, 236 –249.
Kanno, R., and Deierlein, G. G. 共2002兲. ‘‘Design model of joints for RCS
frames.’’ Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete IV, ASCE
Reston, Va., 947–958.
Kuramoto, H. 共1996兲. ‘‘Seismic resistance of through column type con-
nections for composite RCS systems.’’ Proc., 11 WCEE, Paper No.
1755, Elsevier Science.
Kuramoto, H., and Nishiyama, I. 共2000兲. ‘‘Equivalent damping factor of
composite RCS frames.’’ SP 196-6, ACI, Farmington Hills, Mich.,
109–123.
Kuramoto, H., and Nishiyama, I. 共2004兲. ‘‘Seismic performance and
stress transferring mechanism of through-column-type joints for com-
posite reinforced concrete and steel frames.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 130共2兲,
352–360.
Kuramoto, H., and Noguchi, H. 共1997兲. ‘‘An overview of Japanese re-
search on RCS systems.’’ Proc., ASCE Structures Congress XV,
ASCE, Reston, Va., 716 –720.
Liang, X., and Parra-Montesinos, G. J. 共2004兲. ‘‘Seismic behavior of
reinforced concrete column-steel beam subassemblies and frame sys-
tems.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 130共2兲, 310–319.
 Mehanny, S. S. F., Cordova, P., and Deierlein, G. G. 共2002兲. ‘‘Seismic
design of composite moment frame buildings—Case studies and code
implications.’’ Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete IV,
ASCE, Reston, Va., 551–563.
Mehanny, S. S. F., and Deierlein, G. G. 共2001兲. ‘‘Seismic damage and
collapse assessment of composite moment frames.’’ J. Struct. Eng.,
127共9兲, 1045–1053.
Nishiyama, I., Itadani, H., and Sugihiro, K. 共1998兲. ‘‘Bidirectional seis-
mic response of reinforced concrete column and structural steel beam
subassemblies.’’ Proc., Struct. Engineers World Congress, ASCE, Re-
ston, Va., Paper Ref. T177-2, 8 pp.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 02/04/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Nishiyama, I., Kuramoto, H., Itadani, H., and Sugihiro, K. 共2000兲. ‘‘Bi-
directional behavior of interior, exterior, and corner joints of RCS
system.’’ Proc., 12 WCEE, Paper No. 1911/6/A, 8 pp.
Nishiyama, I., Kuramoto, H., and Noguchi, H. 共2004兲. ‘‘Guidelines: Seis-
mic design of composite reinforced concrete and steel buildings.’’ J.
Struct. Eng., 130共2兲, 336 –342.
Noguchi, H., and Kim, K. 共1997兲. ‘‘Analysis of beam–column joints in
hybrid structures.’’ Proc., ASCE Structures Congress XV, ASCE, Re-
ston, Va., 726 –730.
Noguchi, H., and Kim, K. 共1998兲. ‘‘Shear strength of beam-to-column
connections in RCS system.’’ Proc., Struct. Engineers World Con-
gress, ASCE, Reston, Va., Paper Ref. T177-3, 7 pp.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004 / 367
J. Struct. Eng., 2004, 130(2): 361-367
Noguchi, H., and Uchida, K. 共2004兲. ‘‘Finite element method analysis of
hybrid structural frames with reinforced concrete columns and steel
beams.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 130共2兲, 328 –335.
Parra-Montesinos, G., Liang, X., and Wight, J. K. 共2003兲. ‘‘Towards
deformation-based capacity design of RCS beam–column connec-
tions.’’ Eng. Struct., 25共5兲, 681– 690.
Parra-Montesinos, G., and Wight, J. K. 共2000a兲. ‘‘Seismic behavior,
strength, and retrofit of exterior RC column-to-steel beam connec-
tions.’’ UMCEE 00-09, Dept. of CEE, Univ. of Michigan.
Parra-Montesinos, G., and Wight, J. K. 共2000b兲. ‘‘Seismic response of
exterior RC column-to-steel beam connections.’’ J. Struct. Eng.,
126共10兲, 1113–1121.
Parra-Montesinos, G., and Wight, J. K. 共2001a兲. ‘‘Modeling shear behav-
ior of hybrid RCS beam–column connections.’’ J. Struct. Eng.,
127共1兲, 3–11.
Parra-Montesinos, G., and Wight, J. K. 共2001b兲. ‘‘Seismic repair of hy-
brid RCS beam–column connections.’’ ACI Struct. J., 98共5兲, 762–
770.
Sheikh, T. M., Deierlein, G. G., Yura, J. A., and Jirsa, J. O. 共1989兲.
‘‘Beam–column moment connections for composite frames: Part 1.’’
J. Struct. Eng., 115共11兲, 2858 –2876.
Yamanouchi, H., Nishiyama, I., and Kobayashi, J. 共1998兲. ‘‘Development
and usage of composite and hybrid building structure in Japan.’’ ACI
SP-174, 151–174.