Engineering Structures 250 (2022) 113463

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Cyclic lateral loading test for composite columns with high-strength steel
angle cage
Hyeon-Jin Kim a, Hong-Gun Park a, *, Hyeon-Jong Hwang b, *
a
Dept. of Architecture and Architectural Engineering, Seoul National Univ, 1 Gwanak-ro, Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea
b
School of Architecture, Konkuk Univ, 120 Neungdong-ro, Seoul 05029, Republic of Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A composite column with prefabricated steel cage (PSRC column) has been developed for fast construction of
Composite column industrial buildings with large and long columns. For better constructability, the steel cage is prefabricated with
Prefabricated steel cage bolt-connected longitudinal steel angles and transverse steel plates, and steel forms (for casting concrete) can be
Steel angle
integrated with the steel cage. In the present study, to investigate the seismic performance of PSRC columns,
Transverse steel plate
Bolted connection
cyclic lateral loading tests were performed for a conventional concrete-encased steel (CES) column and five PSRC
Cyclic lateral loading test columns. The test results showed that the steel angles located at the corners of the cross section increased the
flexural strength and stiffness of columns. Further, the use of transverse Z-section plates alleviated spalling of
cover concrete, which increased the deformation capacity. The tested strength and deformation capacity agreed
with the predictions of existing models.

rigidity and verticality, temporary supports for erection and formwork

1. Introduction
As industry markets have grown fast, demand for large industrial
buildings (e.g., factories, power plants, and warehouses) has increased.
For large space (long span and large story height), such buildings are
typically built using long (10–20 m) columns with large section. Further,
in terms of constructability and serviceability, the recent trend requires
the following conditions: 1) fast construction for the early operation of
buildings; 2) limited floor vibration to prevent the malfunction of high-
tech equipment (i.e., high damping and stiffness); 3) off-site construc­
tion to reduce field work (e.g., prefabrication of reinforcement and
concrete); 4) fire proofing without additional work; and 5) low lifting
weight for crane capacity. Despite the increase of overall construction
cost, constructors and engineers put significant effort into meeting those
requirements. In the case of conventional CES column, requirements 1)
and 3) are not satisfied; concrete-filled steel tube (CFST) columns may
not satisfy 2), 4), and 5); and concrete-encased CFST columns do not
satisfy 5).
To satisfy such requirements, a prefabricated steel-reinforced con­
crete (PSRC) method has been developed [1–6]. In PSRC columns, steel
angles placed at the corners of the cross section are used for longitudinal
reinforcement, while transverse bars are externally welded to the steel
angles to form a prefabricated steel cage. As the steel cage provides high
become unnecessary, which improves constructability. Further, steel
beams can be connected to PSRC columns even before concrete place­
ment in the columns.
Originally, the steel cage method has been used for the exterior
strengthening of reinforced concrete (RC) columns. The use of corner
steel angles increased the flexural strength of the strengthened columns
[7–9]. In compression tests [10–14], the steel cage provided high
confinement to concrete, which increased the axial capacity of the
strengthened RC columns.
In existing studies for PSRC columns, steel angles were welded to
transverse bars or plates [1–3,15]. The structural advantages (e.g., in­
crease in axial and flexural strengths) of those columns were similar to
those of the steel angle-retrofitted RC columns. However, PSRC columns
with cover concrete were susceptible to early concrete spalling, partic­
ularly at the column corners where steel angles were placed. Based on
flexural test results, Eom et al. [1] recommended spacing of transverse
bars of 0.4 h (h = dimension of column cross section) for reliable bond
strength between steel angles and concrete. Otherwise, bond failure
occurred in the web concrete, which decreased the deformation capac­
ity. More strictly, Hwang et al. [3] recommended transverse bar spacing
of 0.375 h, based on their cyclic lateral loading test results.
In existing PSRC columns, the large number of welded joints between
steel angles and transverse bars incur large labor and cost for quality

* Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: parkhg@snu.ac.kr (H.-G. Park), hwanghj@konkuk.ac.kr (H.-J. Hwang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113463
Received 8 May 2021; Received in revised form 20 September 2021; Accepted 21 October 2021
Available online 2 November 2021
0141-0296/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H.-J. Kim et al. Engineering Structures 250 (2022) 113463

Nomenclature along the plate length

Lf distance between vertical LVDTs
Aae net section area of a steel angle ls shear span
Aag gross section area of a steel angle lp effective bearing length of transverse plate
Ab cross-sectional area of a bolt body lh distance from lateral loading point to the hinge of vertical
Abb bearing area of a bolt assembly actuator
Abp bearing area of a transverse plate Mn nominal flexural strength
Aet effective net area of a transverse plate N Axial compression force on column section
Ag area of gross column section Pn nominal lateral strength of column
Agv gross sectional area subjected to shear in a transverse plate Po maximum compressive strength
Ar total cross-sectional area of longitudinal reinforcing bars Pu tested peak strength
As total cross-sectional area of longitudinal steel sections Pup maximum post-peak strength considering second-order
Ant net area of transverse plate subjected to tension effect
Anv net area of transverse plate subjected to shear Ptest tested post-peak strength
Ash total cross-sectional area of transverse plates parallel to Pno shear demand resulting from nominal flexural strength
shear direction within spacing s Rb strength corresponding to bearing failure of the net section
Ast cross-sectional area of a transverse plate in transverse plate
b width of the cross section Re strength corresponding to tensile rupture of the net section
Bn nominal bond strength for a steel angle in transverse plate
Bno nominal bearing strength for a bolted connection Rn nominal tensile strength of transverse plate
Bu bond demand for a steel angle Rnb nominal shear strength of bolt body.
bo original length of width of a shear panel Rs strength corresponding to block shear rupture in transverse
c compressive depth of the cross section plate
d effective depth of the cross section Rt strength corresponding to tear-out failure in transverse
d1 and d2 deformed lengths of diagonal LVDTs plate
db diameter of reinforcing bar s spacing of transverse plates (or bolted connections)
dgv distance between bolt hole center and transverse plate end tp thickness of transverse plate.
along the plate length Vc contribution of concrete to shear strength
dh diameter of bolt hole Vn nominal shear strength
do original length of diagonals of a shear panel Vnr residual shear strength after flexural yielding
dnt clear distance between bolt hole and transverse plate edge Vs contribution of transverse reinforcement to shear strength
along the plate width Vtest tested peak strength (
dnv clear distance between bolt hole and transverse plate end Vu shear demand resulting from nominal flexural strength (
along the plate length β reduction coefficient for yield strength of transverse plate
ep minimum distance from bolt hole center to transverse plate γ pz shear deformation in plastic hinge zone
edge in the vertical direction to the plate length δ lateral drift ratio
Ec elastic modulus of concrete δo lateral drift ratio at peak strength
ED dissipated energy accumulated during load cycles δu ultimate drift ratio
Es elastic modulus of steel δy yield drift ratio
(EI)eff effective flexural stiffness of composite section Δ lateral displacement
f coefficient for effective shear area Δef displacement contribution of flexural deformation in
f1 and f2 displacements measured from vertical LVDTs elastic zone
Fy yield strength of longitudinal steel Δes displacement contribution of shear deformation in elastic
Fyh yield strength of transverse plate zone
Fu ultimate tensile strength of longitudinal steel Δpf displacement contribution of flexural deformation in
Fub tensile strength of bolt body plastic hinge zone
Fuh ultimate tensile strength of transverse plate Δps displacement contribution of shear deformation in plastic
fc’ compressive strength of concrete hinge zone
fy yield strength of longitudinal reinforcing bar εy yield strain of steel
fyh yield strength of transverse reinforcing bar ηc shear strength degradation factor for concrete
fu ultimate tensile strength of longitudinal reinforcing bar ηs shear strength degradation factor for transverse
fuh ultimate tensile strength of transverse reinforcing bar reinforcement
Gc shear modulus of concrete θpz flexural rotation over plastic hinge zone
he height of elastic zone λr limiting width-to-thickness ratio of steel angle
ho original length of height of a shear panel (nonsledner/slender)
hp height of plastic hinge zone μ displacement ductility
Ic moment of inertia of concrete section νc Poisson’s ratio for concrete
Ir moment of inertia of longitudinal rebar section ρs longitudinal steel ratio for wide flange section or angle
Is moment of inertia of longitudinal steel section section
Ky lateral yield stiffness ρr longitudinal rebar ratio
Lc clear distance between bolt hole and transverse plate end

2
H.-J. Kim et al.
control. Thus, recently, a bolt connection method has been adapted to
PSRC columns: steel angles and transverse steel plates (instead of
transverse bars) are connected by bolting (Fig. 1). For bolt connection,
tension-control bolts (twist-off type) are used for steel connection: nuts
and bolts are tightened from the outside of columns, using an automatic
bolting machine. When Z-section with a large area is used for transverse
plates, forms (for concrete casting) and brackets can be prefabricated
with the steel cage, which significantly reduces field work.
For PSRC columns with bolted transverse plates, Kim et al. [4,5]
performed concentric and eccentric axial loading tests. The test results
showed that, compared to flat plates for transverse reinforcement, Z-
section plates were effective in restraining spalling of the cover concrete,
which increased the axial deformation capacity. In flexural tests [6], the
tested strength of PSRC columns was greater than the flexural strength
predicted based on full composite action between steel angles and
concrete; the bolted connections, projected from the steel angle surface
(Fig. 1), provided adequate bond strength between steel angles and
concrete. Further, strain hardening of corner steel angles increased post-
yield strength of PSRC columns even after concrete crushing. However,
in steel angles subjected to flexural tension, stress concentration around
the bolt holes degraded the steel ductility, which caused fracture of steel
angles. Thus, for calculations of nominal compressive strength and
flexural strength, the net area of steel angles should be used (bolt holes
decrease the axial resistance of steel angles).
The existing tests on PSRC columns were conducted under mono­
tonic loading. However, to verify the earthquake resistance, cyclic
loading tests are required. Thus, in the present study, cyclic lateral
loading test was performed for PSRC columns with bolt-connected steel
cage to investigate the seismic performance, including the load-carrying
capacity, deformation capacity, and energy dissipation capacity. In
particular, high-strength steel angles (over 600 MPa) were applied for
high strength and less erection weight of steel cage. To verify the seismic
capacity of the PSRC columns, the test results of PSRC columns were
directly compared with those of conventional CES column which has
been verified by many researchers. The tested strength and deformation
capacity were compared with the predictions by existing design
methods, to investigate whether the existing design methods developed
for conventional RC columns are applicable to the design of PSRC
columns.
Fig. 1. PSRC column module.
3
Engineering Structures 250 (2022) 113463
2. Design strengths
In the proposed PSRC columns, the bolt connections not only transfer
forces between longitudinal steel angles and transverse steel plates, but
also provide bond strength between the steel angles and concrete [4–6].
Thus, the structural performance of PSRC columns is significantly
affected by the details of the bolt connections, and the strength of bolt
connections should be accurately estimated. Particularly, to ensure
ductile behavior for the earthquake design of PSRC columns, all possible
brittle failure modes at the bolt connections should be prevented to
develop yield strengths of longitudinal steel angles and transverse
plates.
2.1. Bond strength between steel angles and concrete
In PSRC columns, direct bearing between bolted connections (bolt
assemblies and transverse plates) and surrounding concrete can transfer
interfacial shear between steel angles and concrete [6] (Fig. 2a). Thus,
the bond strength Bn for a steel angle was defined as the nominal bearing
strength of the concrete for the limit state of concrete crushing.
Bn = Bno (2ls /s) (1)
where
′( )
Bno = 1.7fc Abb + Abp ⩽0.563Fub Ab (2)
where Bno = nominal bearing strength for a bolted connection (which
should not be taken greater than nominal shear strength Rnb
(=0.563FubAb = 113 kN) of the bolt (AISC 360 [16]); Fub and Ab =
tensile strength and cross-sectional area of the bolt body, respectively; ls
= shear span (Fig. 2); Abb = bearing area of a bolt assembly (sum of
projected area of head, nut, and washer, see Fig. 3h); and Abp = bearing
area of a transverse plate = lp × tp, in which lp and tp are the effective
bearing length and thickness of the transverse plate, respectively
(Fig. 2a). In Eq. (1), 2ls/s represents the number of the bolted connec­
tions within the shear span ls of a steel angle, considering two orthogonal
bolted connections within s (Fig. 2a). For the calculation of Abp, the
effective bearing length lp is defined as dh + 2ep, assuming that bearing
stress on the plate is distributed at 45◦ [17] (dh = diameter of bolt hole
H.-J. Kim et al. Engineering Structures 250 (2022) 113463

Fig. 2. Design of PSRC columns: (a) bond mechanism of steel angle; (b) failure modes of bolted connection between steel angle and transverse plate.

Fig. 3. Test specimens (unit: mm): (a)–(f) column specimens; and (h) details of bolt set.

4
H.-J. Kim et al. Engineering Structures 250 (2022) 113463

and ep = minimum distance from the hole center to the plate edge in the
vertical direction to the plate length, Fig. 2a).
2.2. Tensile strength of transverse plates
In PSRC columns, transverse plates resist tension force developed by
shear and lateral confinement. However, the early failure of bolted
connections could limit the tensile yield strength (Ro) of the transverse
plates [4,5]. Fig. 2b shows possible failure modes of the bolted
connection according to AISC 360 [16]: tensile rupture of the net section
(Re); bearing failure (Rb); tear-out failure (Rt); and block shear rupture
(Rs). Appendix A presents detailed equations for the limit states. The
nominal tensile strength Rn of transverse plates is defined as the smaller
of the failure strengths Ro, Re, Rb, Rt, and Rs. In general, the nominal
strength Rn is governed by failures of bolted connections (Re, Rb, Rt, and
Rs), rather than yielding of the gross section (Ro). Thus, for the evalua­
tion of shear strength and lateral confinement effect, the tensile strength
of transverse plates is limited: the yield strength was multiplied by a
reduction factor β.
β = Rn /Ro 1
2.3. Flexural and shear strengths
Basically, PSRC column was developed to improve constructability
of long and large reinforced concrete columns. Thus, the design of PSRC
column is similar to that of RC column: First, RC column is designed
using reinforcing bars concentrated at the corners of the cross section,
and the reinforcing bars can be replaced by steel angles and steel plates,
considering the material strengths.
The nominal flexural strength Mn of PSRC column specimens was
predicted using plastic stress distribution [16,17]: an uniform
compressive stress 0.85 fc’ (fc’ = compressive strength of concrete) of
concrete in compression zone, and yield stress of steel both in
compression and tension zones. The lateral confinement effect of the
steel cage on the core concrete was not considered because the speci­
mens were subjected to large flexural moment but limited axial
compression (23% of fc’ ). In steel angles, bolt holes decrease the cross-
sectional area. Thus, the net section area Aae of steel angle was used
[6] (Fig. 2).
The shear strength of PSRC columns can be provided by concrete and
shear reinforcement [16,17], neglecting the shear resistance of steel
angles with small sectional area: the nominal shear strength Vn is
determined as the sum of the contributions of concrete (Vc) and trans­
verse plates (Vs) [18].
Vn = Vc + Vs (4)
(
N
)√̅̅̅̅
Vc = 0.17 1 + f ’c bd (5)
14Ag
( )d
Vs = Ash βFyh (6)
s
where b and d = width and effective depth (i.e., distance from extreme
compression fiber to centroid of the tension steel angles) of the cross
section, respectively; N = axial compression force on column section; Ag
= area of gross column section; s = spacing of transverse plates; Ash =
(3) total cross-sectional area of transverse plates parallel to shear direction
within spacing s; and βFyh is the effective tensile strength of transverse
plates. Vc of Eq. (5) was defined according to ACI 318–14 [18]. On the
other hand, the latest version ACI 318–19 [17] significantly increased
the effect of axial compression force on Vc (refer to Table 2).
3. Test plan
3.1. Test specimens and material properties
Table 1 and Fig. 3 show the geometric and material properties of six
square column specimens for testing: a conventional CES specimen C1
and five PSRC specimens HF1, HF2, HZ2, NF2, and NZ2. In the name of
the PSRC specimens, the first letter indicates the grade of steel angles:
“H” for high strength and “N” for normal strength. The second letter
indicates the cross-sectional shape of transverse plates: “F” for flat sec­
tion (PL-40 × 3.2 mm) and “Z” for Z-section (Z-30 × 50 × 30 mm). The

Table 1
Properties of Column Specimens.
Specimens C1 HF1 HF2 HZ2 NF2 NZ2

Structural type CES PSRC PSRC PSRC PSRC PSRC

Cross section b × h, mm × mm 500 × 500 500 × 500 500 × 500 500 × 500 500 × 500 500 × 500
Concrete strength fc’ , MPa 39.9 39.9 39.9 39.9 39.9 39.9

Longitudinal steel H-140 × 138 × 8 × 9a 4-L-75 × 75 × 6b 4-L-75 × 75 × 6b 4-L-75 × 75 × 6b 4-L-75 × 75 × 9b 4-L-75 × 75 × 9b

Steel ratioe % 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.0 2.0
Gross section area, mm2 3,460 3,456 (=4 × 864) 3,456 (=4 × 864) 3,456 (=4 × 864) 5,076 (=4 × 1269) 5,076 (=4 × 1269)
Net section area, mm2 – 2,592 (=4 × 648) 2,592 (=4 × 648) 2,592 (=4 × 648) 3,780 (=4 × 945) 3,780 (=4 × 945)
Fy, MPa 470 (flange)/454 (web) 626 626 626 400 400
Fu, MPa 569 (flange)/571 (web) 661 661 661 599 599
Yield ratio Fu/Fy 1.21 (flange)/1.26 (web) 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.50 1.50

Longitudinal re-bar 4-D19 bars – – – – –

Steel ratioe % 0.5 – – – – –
fy, MPa 515 – – – – –
fu, MPa (fu/fy) 637 (1.24) – – – – –

Transverse reinforcements D10 bars PL-40 × 3.2c PL-40 × 3.2c Z-30 × 50 × 30d PL-40 × 3.2c Z-30 × 50 × 30d
Spacing s, mm 150 150 250 250 250 250
Total sectional area Ash, mm2 142 256 256 664 256 664
fyh or Fyh, MPa 447 320 320 357 320 357
fuh or Fuh, MPa (fuh/fyh or Fuh/Fyh) 674 (1.51) 456 (1.43) 456 (1.43) 407 (1.14) 456 (1.43) 407 (1.14)

Note: Fu and fu denote the ultimate tensile strengths of longitudinal steels (wide flange steel in CES; steel angles in PSRC), respectively; Fuh and fuh denote the ultimate
tensile strengths of transverse steel plates and deformed bars, respectively.
a
Wide flange steel section (Korean industrial standard): H-depth × width × web thickness × flange thickness.
b
Steel angle section: L-leg width × leg width × leg thickness.
c
Flat plate: PL-plate width × thickness (length = 390 mm).
d
Z-section plate: Z-bottom plate width × top plate width × middle plate width (length = 390 mm, thickness = 3.2 mm).
e
Area ratio of longitudinal steel or deformed bar section to gross column section.

5
H.-J. Kim et al. Engineering Structures 250 (2022) 113463

Table 2 and nominal tensile strength = 400 MPa) were welded to each flange of
Nominal Strengths of Test Specimens. H-140 × 138 × 8 × 9 steel at a spacing of 250 mm.
Specimens C1 HF1 HF2 HZ2 NF2 NZ2 Fig. 3c–g show the PSRC column specimens. In Specimens NF2 and
NZ2 (Fig. 3d–g), four steel angles of L-75 × 75 × 9 (As = 4 × 1,269 =
Nominal axial 10,480 10,530 10,530 10,530 10,340 10,340
strength Po (kN) 5,076 mm2, ρs = 2.0%, and Fy = 400 MPa) were used at four corners of
(=0.85 fc’ Ac + the cross section. The width-to-thickness ratio (=8.3) of the steel angle
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Fy As + fy Ar ) was less than the value of λr (= 0.45 Es /Fy = 10.1) of AISC 360 [16],
indicating that the steel angle section was not slender. The longitudinal
Nominal bond – 1,732 1,039 1,039 1,039 1,039 steel ratio of NF2 and NZ2 is close to that of actual PSRC columns
strength Bn (kN)
(typically, ρs = 2–3%).
lp (mm) – 58 58 58 58 58
Abp (mm2) – 185.6 185.6 185.6 185.6 185.6 To investigate the effect of high-strength steel angles, Specimens
Abb (mm2) – 772 772 772 772 772 HF1, HF2, and HZ2 (Fig. 3c–g) used higher-strength and thinner steel
Bn1 (kN) – 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 angles of L-75 × 75 × 6 (As = 4 × 864 = 3,456 mm2, ρs = 1.4%, and Fy =
Bond demand Bu 541 541 541 566 566 626 MPa). The steel angle section is of slender section (width-to-thick­
(kN) ness ratio = 12.5 > λr = 8.0). To compare H-group specimens (Po =
AagFy (kN) 541 541 541 508 508 10,530 kN) with N-group specimens (Po = 10,340 kN), the compressive
AaeFu (kN) 428 428 428 566 566
strength of H-group specimens was designed to be the same as that of N-
Bu (kN) – 541 541 541 566 566
Bn/Bu – 3.20 1.92 1.92 1.84 1.84 group specimens (Table 2). Thus, due to the higher strength of steel, ρs
(=1.4%) was less than that of NF2 and NZ2 (ρs = 2.0%). When high-
Nominal tensile 31.7 32.1 32.1 41.2 32.1 41.2 strength thin steel plates are used for steel angles, early buckling of
strength Rn of the steel angles and subsequent spalling of the cover concrete may occur
transverse
[19]. Nevertheless, due to early strain-hardening effect of high-strength
reinforcements
Ro (kN) 31.7 40.9 40.9 118.4 40.9 118.4 steel, the post-peak behavior (after spalling of the cover concrete) of
Re (kN) – 32.1 32.1 111.8 32.1 111.8 PSRC columns can be ductile [4,5].
Rb (kN) – 78.8 78.8 70.4 78.8 70.4 In HF1 (Fig. 3c and d), flat plates (PL-40 × 3.2, cross-sectional area
Rt (kN) – 56.9 56.9 50.8 56.9 50.8 = 128 mm2 each, length = 390 mm, and yield strength Fyh = 320 MPa)
Rs (kN) 37.5 37.5 41.2 37.5 41.2
were used for transverse reinforcement. The spacing was s = 150 mm
–
β = Rn/Ro 1.0 0.78 0.78 0.35 0.78 0.35
(=0.3 h), which was the same as the hoop bar spacing in C1. In HF2 and
Flexural strength 579 658 658 658 634 634 NF2 (Fig. 3d and e) with the same transverse plates, the spacing was
Mn (kN∙m) increased to s = 250 mm (=0.5 h), which was greater than the recom­
Shear demand Vu 290 329 329 329 317 317 mendation (=0.375 h) of Hwang et al. (2016). In HZ2 and NZ2 (Fig. 3f
(= Mn/ls) (kN)
and g), Z-section plates (Z-30 × 50 × 30, cross-sectional area = 332 mm2
Shear strength Vn 570 556 483 514 484 515
(kN) each, length = 390 mm, and Fyh = 357 MPa) were used at a spacing of s
Vc (kN) of ACI 384 373 373 373 374 374 = 250 mm which was the same as that of HF2 and NF2. The use of the Z-
318-14 section was intended to increase the lateral confinement to the core
Vc (kN) of ACI 570 553 553 553 555 555 concrete (i.e., about three times the lateral confining pressure provided
318-19
Vs (kN) 186 183 110 141 110 141
by transverse flat plates [5]) and to prevent premature spalling of the
Vn/Vu 1.97 1.69 1.47 1.56 1.53 1.63 cover concrete (i.e., [6]. Further, in actual PSRC columns, the Z-section
plate can be used for links between steel angles and forms for concrete
Note: Vn of specimens was calculated based on ACI 318–14 [18]; the definition of
placement: form-integrated PSRC columns (Fig. 1). For bolted connec­
Vs is the same for both ACI 318–14 and ACI 318–19 [17]; Vc in ACI 318–19 is
( √̅̅̅̅
N
) tions between the steel angles and transverse plates, tension-control
defined as Vc = 0.17 f ’c + bd . bolts (twist-off type, bolt diameter = 16 mm, and nominal tensile
6Ag
strength = 1,000 MPa, KS B 2819 (Korean Standard [20]) were used.
third letter refers to the spacing of transverse plates: “1” for s = 150 mm At the top of the columns, a square section bearing plate (width =
and “2” for s = 250 mm. In all specimens, the cross-sectional area (Ag) of 500 mm and thickness = 20 mm) with four embedded anchor bolts
the column was b × h = 500 mm × 500 mm, and the clear height from (diameter = 24 mm) was welded to the longitudinal steel to provide
the column base to the lateral loading point (i.e., shear span ls) was connections to the vertical loading actuator. Concrete footing (width ×
2,000 mm. thickness × height = 2,100 mm × 1,500 mm × 800 mm) was built at the
Fig. 3a and b show Specimen C1 (CES column). For longitudinal bottom of the columns. At the bottom of the footing, the longitudinal
steel, a wide flange section of H-140 × 138 × 8 × 9 (depth × width × steel was welded to an embedded bearing plate (width = 700 mm and
web thickness × flange thickness, cross-sectional area As = 3,460 mm2, thickness = 15 mm).
steel ratio ρs = 1.4%, yield strength Fy = 470 MPa for flange, and Fy = In the test specimens, the thickness of cover concrete (the distance to
454 MPa for web) was used at the center of the cross section. Four D19 the closest surface of transverse plates) was 40.5 mm for C1, 46.8 mm for
deformed bars (diameter db = 19.1 mm, total cross-sectional area Ar = 4 PSRC specimens with transverse PL-40 × 3.2 plates, and 20 mm for
× 287 = 1,148 mm2, rebar ratio ρr = 0.5%, and yield strength fy = 515 PSRC specimens with Z-30 × 50 × 30 plates. In actual PSRC columns
MPa) were placed at the four corners of the cross section. Thus, the total with large cross section, the cover thickness is designed to be 60–75 mm,
steel ratio was ρr + ρs = 1.9%, and the maximum compressive strength considering the minimum cover thickness (=25–76 mm) specified in ACI
Po (=0.85f’cAc + Fy As + fy Ar ) was the same as that of PSRC specimens 318 [17].
(Po = 10,480 kN for C1; 10,340–10,530 kN for PSRC specimens, The average concrete strength of concrete cylinders tested on the day
Table 2). D10 bars (db = 9.5 mm, cross-sectional area = 71 mm2 each, of column tests was fc’ = 39.9 MPa (diameter × height = 100 mm × 200
and yield strength fyh = 447 MPa) with 135◦ hook were used for mm, standard deviation = 1.2 MPa) (KS F 2405 [21]). For steel mate­
transverse reinforcement at a spacing of s = 150 mm (=0.3 h), which rials, three steel plate specimens for each steel section were tested under
was less than the requirement (=0.5 h) of design codes (intermediate- direct tension (KS B 0802 [22], Fig. 4). All steel materials, including the
moment frame of ACI 318, 2019; CES column of AISC 360 [16]). For high-strength L-75 × 75 × 6 angles, showed yield-plateau after yielding.
steel–concrete composite action, two headed studs (diameter = 16 mm Table 1 presents the average of the measured steel strengths, in which

6
H.-J. Kim et al. Engineering Structures 250 (2022) 113463

cover concrete thickness to the projected Z-section plates was only 20

mm, which was less than the cover requirement (25–75 mm) of ACI 318
[17]. Thus, in the calculation of Bn, the effective bearing area (Abp) of
the Z-section plates was conservatively estimated using the plate
thickness tp, neglecting the projected plate area (refer to Fig. 2a). As a
result, Bn of HZ2 and NZ2 with Z-section plates was the same as that of
HF2 and NF2 with the transverse flat plates (Table 2). Table 2 shows
that the nominal bond strengths (Bn = 1,039–1,732 kN) were much
greater than the bond demand (Bu = 541–566 kN). Such large extra
strength was intended to restrain bond degradation after spalling of the
cover concrete.

3.3. Loading and measurement

The test-setup for loading was designed to simulate the flexural

moment distribution and second-order effect (owing to axial force) in a
moment frame (Fig. 5). Using a vertical actuator that is capable of
Fig. 4. Stress–strain relationships of steel.
horizontal sliding, a uniform axial load of N = 2,300 kN (=0.23 Ag fc’ )
was applied to the top of the column, and, during cyclic lateral loading,
Fu, fu, Fuh, and fuh denote the ultimate tensile strengths of each steel. The the vertical loading axis was maintained. Thus, the columns were sub­
measured material strengths were used in calculations of the nominal jected to the secondary moment resulting from axial load and lateral
strengths of column specimens. displacement (i.e., second-order effect). Displacement-controlled lateral
load P was applied by a horizontal actuator located at 2,000 mm (=ls)
from the column base. Note that a hinge was placed at a height of 1,370
3.2. Nominal strengths of test specimens
mm (=lh) above the horizontal loading point. Thus, the second-order
effect was initiated at the hinge location, rather than at the horizontal
Table 2 shows the nominal strengths of the test specimens, predicted
loading point. The lateral loading plan followed the reversed cyclic
by Eqs. (1)–(6). The nominal tensile strengths Rn of the transverse plates
loading sequence of AISC 341 [23]: 6 cycles of loading at lateral drift
were 32.1 kN for the flat plate (PL-40 × 3.2) and 41.2 kN for the Z-
ratios of δ = ±0.375%, ±0.5%, and ±0.75%; 4 cycles at δ = ±1.0%; and
section plate (Z-30 × 50 × 30), which were determined by the failure
2 cycles at δ = ±1.5%, ±2.0%, and ±3.0%.
modes of net section rupture Re and block shear rupture Rs, respectively.
Lateral displacements of the specimens were measured at the lateral
These values were less than the yield strengths of the flat plate (Ro =
loading point using a draw-wire displacement sensor (Fig. 5). Flexural
40.9 kN) and the Z-section plate (Ro = 118.4 kN), respectively. Thus, the
and shear deformations at the plastic hinge zone were measured using
reduction factor β (=Rn/Ro) for the yield strength of transverse plates
linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs). The plastic hinge zone
was calculated as 0.78 (=32.1/40.9) for the flat plate, and 0.35 (=41.2/
was defined as 500 mm-distance from the column base (=hp, ASCE 41
118.4) for the Z-section plate (see Eq. (3)).
[24]). Strain gauges were used to measure strains of the longitudinal
To investigate the flexural strength of the column specimens, the
steel and transverse reinforcements.
nominal shear strength Vn of test specimens was designed to be greater
than the design shear demand Vu (=Mn/ls). In CES column C1, Vn was
4. Test results
calculated according to Eqs. (4)–(6) (contribution of wide flange steel to
shear strength was neglected, according to AISC 360 [16]). The shear
4.1. Lateral Load–Displacement relationship and failure modes
strength ratio Vn/Vu was 1.97 (Mn = 579 kN ⋅ m and Vn = 570 kN). In the
case of the PSRC columns, the nominal flexural strengths (Mn = 634–658
Fig. 6 shows the lateral load–drift ratio (P–δ) relationships of the
kN⋅m) were 9–14% greater than that of C1, due to the greater moment-
specimens. The lateral drift ratio was defined as δ = Δ/ls, in which Δ is
arm length of corner steel angles. In HF1 with s = 150 mm, the nominal
the lateral displacement at the lateral loading point. In the figure, the
shear strength Vn (=556 kN) was similar to that of C1 with the same
peak strength Pu is denoted as a circle, and the initial points of major
spacing (contribution of transverse steel to shear strength was Vs = 186
damages are denoted as points A–F. Fig. 7 shows the damage modes of
kN for C1, and 183 kN for HF1, Table 2). In the other PSRC specimens
concrete and steel at δ = 2.0%, and at the end of tests. Table 3 presents
with s = 250 mm, Vn was slightly less (=483–515 kN) due to the greater
the test results including the peak strength Pu, drift ratio δo corre­
spacing s (Vs = 110 kN for FB-40 × 3.2 and 141 kN for Z-30 × 50 × 30,
sponding to Pu, yield drift ratio δy, ultimate drift ratio δu, yield stiffness
Table 2). Nevertheless, Vn of the PSRC columns were greater than Vu
Ky, and drift ductility μ (=δu/δy). The yield drift ratio δy was calculated
(Vn/Vu = 1.47–1.69). Note that, due to the contribution of axial force, Vc
as Pu/(Kyls), in which Ky was defined as the slope corresponding to
of the specimens was greater than Vs (see Eq. (5)). In the latest ACI
0.60Pu (ASCE 41 [24]) (Fig. 6h). To evaluate the strength degradation
method (ACI 318–19 [17]), the Vc value is 48% greater (Table 2).
after Pu, contribution of the secondary moment (due to axial force N) to
To ensure composite action and flexural strength of the PSRC col­
the post-peak strength was considered (Fig. 6). Thus, the maximum post-
umns, bond failure between steel angles and concrete should be pre­
peak strength Pup was calculated as follows (see the definition of Pup in
vented until tensile resistance of the angles is fully developed. Thus, the
Fig. 6h):
bond demand Bu for a steel angle was defined as the greater of strengths
developed by the following limit states: yielding of the gross section Pup = Pu − N(δ − δo )le (7)
(=AagFy = 541 kN for HF1, HF2, and HZ2; 508 kN for NF2 and NZ2, in
which Aag = gross section area of a steel angle) and tensile rupture of the where le = (ls + lh)/ls, in which lh = distance from the lateral loading
net section (=AaeFu = 428 kN for HF1, HF2, and HZ2; 566 kN for NF2 point to the hinge of the vertical actuator (Fig. 5). Pup was presented as
and NZ2, in which Aae = net section area of a steel angle). When a Z- thin dotted lines in Fig. 6, while Fig. 8 presents the ratios of the tested
section plate is used for transverse reinforcement, the bond strength Bn post-peak loads to the maximum post-peak strength (Ptest/Pup, i.e., the
for a steel angle is expected to increase by the increased bearing (pro­ strength degradation ratio). The ultimate drift ratio δu was defined as the
jected) area to the concrete [4,5]. However, in the test specimens, the point where the post-peak load decreased to 75% of Pup (Fig. 6h).

7
H.-J. Kim et al. Engineering Structures 250 (2022) 113463

Fig. 5. Test setup for loading and measurement.

Fig. 6. Lateral load–drift ratio relationships of test specimens: (a) C1; (b) HF1; (c) HF2; (d) HZ2; (e) NF2; (f) NZ2; (g) envelope curves; and (h) definition of stiffness
and deformation capacity.

8
H.-J. Kim et al. Engineering Structures 250 (2022) 113463

Fig. 7. Damage modes of test specimens at: (a) δ = 2.0%; (b) end of test.

Table 3
Summary of Test Results.
Peak strength Drift ratio at Pu Yield drift ratio Ultimate drift ratio Yield stiffness Drift ductility Nominal strength Strength ratio
Pu (kN) δo (%) δy (%) δu (%) Ky (kN/mm) μ (=δu/δy) Pn (kN) Pu/Pn

Specimens Posi. Nega. Posi. Nega. Posi. Nega. Posi. Nega. Posi. Nega. Posi. Nega. Posi. Nega. Posi. Nega.

C1 241 − 245 1.38 − 1.44 0.54 − 0.46 1.47 − 1.99 22.5 26.5 2.75 4.32 237 − 234 1.02 1.05
HF1 324 − 307 1.24 − 1.39 0.52 − 0.53 2.59 − 2.89 31.3 28.9 5.01 5.45 281 − 276 1.16 1.11
HF2 293 − 306 1.28 − 1.24 0.55 − 0.51 1.98 − 1.98 26.9 30.0 3.63 3.88 280 − 282 1.05 1.09
HZ2 306 − 283 1.28 − 1.00 0.50 − 0.51 2.57 − 2.42 30.6 27.7 5.13 4.74 281 − 290 1.09 0.97
NF2 332 − 320 1.40 − 1.38 0.56 − 0.53 1.99 − 1.77 29.8 30.3 3.58 3.34 263 − 264 1.26 1.21
NZ2 324 − 319 1.40 − 1.39 0.54 − 0.56 3.00 − 2.44 30.2 28.7 5.60 4.39 263 − 263 1.23 1.21
Average of PSRC 316 − 307 1.32 − 1.28 0.53 − 0.53 2.43 − 2.30 29.8 29.1 4.59 4.36 273 − 275 1.16 1.12

Note: Yield drift ratio δy was calculated as Pu/(Kyls), in which Ky is secant stiffness corresponding to 0.60Pu [24]; Ultimate drift ratio δu was defined as the drift ratio
corresponding to post-peak 0.75Pup, in which Pup represents the post-peak strength estimated considering the second-order effect of axial force (see Eq. (7)).

Fig. 8. Post-peak strength degradation of test specimens: (a) C1; (b) HF1; (c) HF2; (d) HZ2; (e) NF2; and (f) NZ2.

In CES specimen C1 (Fig. 6a), due to axial force, the compressive +1.38% and –1.44%, respectively. After Pu, the load-carrying capacity
yielding (point B at δ = –0.72%) of longitudinal bars (fy = 515 MPa) decreased due to crushing of the cover concrete (point D in Fig. 6a;
occurred earlier than tensile yielding of the rebar (point A at δ = Figs. 7a and 8a), more significantly in the positive direction. Thus, the
+0.86%). The peak strengths of Pu = +241 and –245 kN occurred at δo = ultimate drift ratio of δu = +1.47 % in the positive loading direction was

9
H.-J. Kim et al.
less than δu = –1.99%. During cyclic loading, diagonal shear cracks were
not significant due to the large shear strength ratio (Vn/Vu = 1.97).
Further, local buckling of the longitudinal bars was not severe.
Compressive yielding of the wide flange steel section occurred at the end
of the test.
Fig. 6b–d show the test results of PSRC specimens HF1, HF2, and
HZ2 with high-strength steel angles of L-75 × 75 × 6 (slender section, Fy
= 626 MPa), respectively. Steel angles yielded at greater drift ratios than
that of C1; tensile yielding and compressive yielding of the steel angles
occurred at δ = 1.0–1.3 % (points A and B). The peak strength occurred
due to crushing of the cover concrete (at δo = 1.2–1.3%; point D): Pu =
+324 and –307 kN for HF1 (with transverse PL-40 × 3.2 plates of s =
150 mm); Pu = +293 and –306 kN for HF2 (with PL-40 × 3.2 of s = 250
mm); and Pu = +306 and –283 kN for HZ2 (with Z-30 × 50 × 30 of s =
250 mm). HF1, with smaller spacing of transverse plates, showed
greater peak strength and deformation capacity than those of HF2 and
HZ2. This result indicates that the spacing of the transverse plates
affected the peak strength and post-peak strength degradation,
increasing shear strength and lateral confinement. In HF2, spalling of
cover concrete was relatively severe due to the large spacing of trans­
verse flat plates (Fig. 7a and b). On the other hand, in HZ2, Z-section
plates restrained spalling of cover concrete, despite the same spacing s
(at δ = 2.0%, Fig. 7). Thus, the strength degradation was not significant
until δ = ±2.0% (Fig. 8b and d). The steel angles in HF2 and HZ2
showed local buckling (Fig. 7b). In HF1, due to the closely spaced
transverse plates, buckling of the steel angle did not occur despite the
slender section of the angle, and the concrete damage (at δ = 2.0%) was
less significant (Fig. 7a). Such failure modes affected the deformation
capacity: in HF1 and HZ2, the ultimate drift ratios (δu = +2.59% and
–2.89% for HF1; δu = +2.57% and –2.42% for HZ2) were greater than
that of HF2 (δu = ±1.99 %).
Fig. 6e and f show the test results of PSRC specimens NF2 and NZ2
with normal-strength steel angles of L-75 × 75 × 9 (non-slender section,
Fy = 400 MPa), respectively. Due to the lower yield strength of the steel
angles (but large section), compressive and tensile yielding of the angles
(at δ = 0.5–0.9%, points A and B) occurred earlier than those of H-group
specimens. The tested peak strengths (Pu = +332 and –320 kN for NF2;
Pu = +329 and –319 kN for NZ2) were slightly greater than those of H-
group specimens, although the predicted nominal strength was less (Pno
= 329 kN for H-group, Pno = 317 kN for N-group). This is because strain
hardening developed immediately after yielding at the net section of the
tension steel angles with bolt holes [25], and the post-yield strength of
columns continued to increase until cover concrete crushing (point D).
Further, the rate of strain hardening (i.e., stress-ascending slope under
repeated cyclic loading) was greater due to the greater yield ratio of the
normal strength steel angles (=Fu/Fy = 1.50 for normal strength L-75 ×
75 × 9; 1.06 for high strength L-75 × 75 × 6, Table 1, Fig. 4). Due to the
Z-section plates, the deformation capacity of NZ2 was greater than that
of NF2 (δu = +1.99% and –1.77% for NF2; δu = +3.00% and –2.44% for
NZ2). The post-peak strength degradation and failure modes of NF2 and
NZ2 were similar to those of HF2 and HZ2, respectively (Fig. 7b and
8c–f). However, due to the non-slender section of the angle, buckling of
the steel angle did not occur despite the large spacing (s = 250 mm) of
transverse plates. For all PSRC specimens, the bolted connections did not
fail.
The test results in Fig. 6b–f show that the overall behavior (strength
and deformation capacity) of specimens with high-strength steel was not
significantly different from that of specimens with normal-strength steel.
This result indicates that high strength steel of Fy = 626 MPa can be
successfully used for earthquake design of PSRC columns.
Fig. 6g shows the envelope curves of the specimens that connect the
peak displacements of each loading step [24]. In the PSRC specimens,
due to the corner steel angles, the lateral load-carrying capacity Pu and
yield stiffness Ky were 28 and 20% greater than those of C1, respectively
(Table 3). However, after the peak load Pu, concrete damage became
severe due to flexural compression and diagonal shear. Further, out-of-
10
Engineering Structures 250 (2022) 113463
plane deformation of steel angles accelerated spalling of the cover
concrete, particularly at the surface of the steel angles (in Fig. 7,
damaged cover concrete was intentionally eliminated for investigation).
Nevertheless, due to the greater strength contribution of steel angles, the
post-peak strength degradation was less than that of C1 (Fig. 8), which
increased the ultimate drift ratio δu and drift ductility μ by 37 and 27%,
respectively (Table 3).
Fig. 6g also shows the test result of an existing PSRC column spec­
imen C2 which used welded connections between steel angles and
transverse bars [3] (denoted as dotted lines). For C2, the cyclic loading
setup and applied axial force ratio (=0.224 Ag fc’ ) were similar to those of
the present study. Further, the steel angle section was the same as that of
HF1, but smaller column cross section (400 mm × 400 mm) and greater
shear reinforcement ratio (about twice the ratio of HF1) were used. The
peak strength (i.e., flexural strength) of C2 was less than that of the
present PSRC specimens, due to the smaller cross section. Despite the
difference in the connection method (i.e. welding or bolting), the failure
modes were similar, showing local buckling of steel angles and spalling
of cover concrete in the plastic hinge zone. However, the post-yield
behavior of C2 with welded connections was more ductile. The high
ductility of C2 is attributed not to the connection method, but to the
shear reinforcement ratio: In C2, the post-yield shear strength degra­
dation was alleviated due to the greater shear reinforcement ratio (see
section “Deformation Capacity”). This result indicates that the bolt
connection of the present specimens did not significantly affect the
overall behavior of the PSRC columns.
4.2. Crack pattern
Fig. 9 illustrates crack patterns of concrete in C1, HF1, HF2, and
HZ2, at the end of load cycles of 2.0%. Flexural cracks were distributed
within a half of the column height. In general, initial flexural cracks
were developed at the locations of transverse bars (for C1 in Fig. 9a) or
bolted connections (for PSRC in Fig. 9b–d). Thus, in the PSRC speci­
mens, the vertical spacing between flexural cracks was similar to the
spacing s of transverse plates. This is because the bond mechanism of
steel angles was developed by concrete bearing at the bolted connec­
tions, which caused stress concentration to the surrounding concrete
(refer to Fig. 2). Thus, concrete cracks were more pronounced in HF2
and HZ2 with the greater spacing s (=250 mm).
For all PSRC specimens (including NF2 and NZ2), diagonal shear
cracking occurred at drift ratios of 0.5–0.75%, where the inclination
angle of the shear cracks (with respect to column axis) was approxi­
mately 45◦ or larger. After flexural yielding of the columns (approxi­
mately at δ = 1.0%), additional shear cracking began to extend at a
reduced inclination angle: 41◦ for HF1; 23◦ for HF2; 41◦ for HZ2; 27◦ for
NF2; and 32◦ for NZ2, at minimum. The decrease of inclination angle
was more pronounced in the specimens with greater spacing (s = 250
mm). In NZ2 showing the greatest deformation capacity, shear cracking
was significant, and the shear crack angle was less than that of HZ2. The
change of shear crack angle is mainly attributed to the spalling and
crushing of concrete in the compression zone of the plastic hinge zone
(Fig. 9e): After concrete spalling in the plastic hinge zone, only the core
concrete is maintained without cover concrete. Thus, the diagonal strut
is connected to the compression zone that is shifted to the core concrete.
Thus, the angle of the diagonal strut (i.e. diagonal crack angle) is
decreased.
4.3. Energy dissipation capacity
∑
Fig. 10 shows the variation of dissipated energy ED accumulated
during loading cycles, in which ED indicates the area enclosed by a load
∑
cycle in the P–δ curve. In general, ED of the PSRC specimens was
greater than that of C1, due to the greater peak strength, yield stiffness,
and deformation capacity. In the PSRC specimens, HF1 (with smaller
H.-J. Kim et al. Engineering Structures 250 (2022) 113463

Fig. 9. Crack patterns at drift ratio of 2.0%: (a) C1; (b) HF1; (c) HF2; (d) HZ2; and (e) truss mechanism in plastic hinge zone.

θpz = (f1 − f2 )/Lf (8)

do
γ pz = [(d2 − do ) − (d1 − do ) ] (9)
2bo ho

where f1 and f2 = displacements measured from vertical LVDTs (Fig. 11);

Lf = distance between vertical LVDTs; bo, ho and do = original lengths of
width, height, and diagonals of a shear panel (bo and ho = 400 mm, do =
566 mm); and d1 and d2 = deformed lengths of diagonal LVDTs. The
contributions of θpz and γpz to the lateral displacement were calculated
as Δpf = θpz(ls –0.5hp) and Δps = γpzhp, respectively. In the remaining
region above the plastic hinge zone (i.e., elastic zone he in Fig. 11), the
elastic flexural and shear displacements Δef and Δes were calculated
based on the effective stiffness. In the calculation of Δef, the flexural
stiffness was defined as (EI)eff = EsIs + EsIr + 0.7EcIc (Ec and Es = elastic
moduli of concrete (=29.7 GPa) and steel (=200 GPa), respectively; Is, Ir,
Fig. 10. Cumulative energy dissipation. and Ic = moments of inertia of steel, rebar, and concrete sections,
respectively, ACI 318 [17]). In the calculation of Δes, the gross section
spacing s) and NZ2 (with transverse Z-section plates) showed the area was replaced by effective shear area (=Ag/f, in which f = 1.2),
∑ ∑
greatest values of ED . In HZ2, ED was slightly less than those of considering non-uniform shear stress distribution [27]. Thus, Δef and Δes
HF1 and NZ2, due to the buckling of the slender section steel angles. In were defined based on elastic theory, as follows:
HF2 and NF2 showing severe spalling of cover concrete (Fig. 7 (b)), the
Ph3e [2(he /ls ) + 3(le − 1) ]NΔh2e
energy dissipation capacity was less. Δef = + (10)
3(EI)eff 6(EI)eff

4.4. Contribution to lateral displacement Phe

Δes = ( ) (11)
Ag
The lateral displacement Δ of each specimen consists of those from Gc f

flexural and shear deformations. In the test specimens, the flexural

rotation (θpz) and shear deformation (γpz) were measured in the area where Gc = shear modulus of concrete = Ec/[2(1 + νc)], in which νc =
from the column base to 500 mm (i.e., plastic hinge zone hp in Fig. 11). Poisson’s ratio for concrete (=0.15). In Eq. (10), the second term
Here, θpz and γ pz were calculated as follows [26]:

11
H.-J. Kim et al.
Fig. 11. Contributions to lateral displacement: (a) C1; (b) HF1; displacement contribution of (c) flexural deformation; and (d) shear deformation.
represents the contribution of the secondary moment to Δef (see trape­
zoidal region in Fig. 5).
Fig. 11a and b show the ratios of the displacement components Δpf,
Δef, Δps, and Δes to the overall lateral displacements Δ measured from
the tests of C1 and HF1, respectively. Until δ = 0.5%, the sum of the
contributions agreed with the overall lateral displacement. However, as
the displacement increased, the sum of the contributions decreased due
to the slip deformation between steel and concrete. For all specimens,
Δpf showed the greatest contribution ratios: 68–74% in C1; 63–84% in
HF1. At δ ≥ 1.5%, the contribution ratio of the overall flexural defor­
mation (= (Δpf + Δef)/Δ) was 83–86% for C1; 85–93% for HF1. On the
other hand, until δ = 1.5%, the contribution of shear deformation was
12
Engineering Structures 250 (2022) 113463
negligible. At δ > 1.5%, shear contribution (Δps) in the plastic zone was
not included in the figure, because the shear deformation was not
properly measured due to the concrete damage in the plastic zone. Other
PSRC specimens showed similar trends.
Fig. 11c compares Δpf/Δ for the test specimens. In general, Δpf/Δ of
the PSRC specimens was greater than that of C1, particularly in the post-
peak behavior (at δ > 1.5%): Δpf/Δ of the PSRC specimens was 2–20%
greater than that of C1. This result indicates that in the PSRC specimens,
the steel cage experienced larger plastic deformation, thus providing
greater flexural contribution to the deformation capacity. Fig. 11d
compares (Δps + Δes)/Δ for the test specimens. Until δ = 1.0%, (Δps +
Δes)/Δ of the specimens showed small variation. At the peak strengths
H.-J. Kim et al.
(at δ = 1.5%), the shear contribution ratio of PSRC specimens
(=1.7–4.5%) was less than that of C1 (=5.0%), though the nominal
shear strengths of PSRC specimens were less than that of C1 (Table 2).
4.5. Strains of longitudinal and transverse steels
Fig. 12 shows strains of the longitudinal steels (rebar in C1; steel
angles in PSRC) measured in the positive direction. The longitudinal
strains were measured at 50, 100, and 150 mm distances above the
column base (denoted as bottom, middle, and top section in Fig. 12). In
C1 (Fig. 12a), until δ = 1.5%, strains (denoted as ●) at the bottom
section were slightly greater than those at the top (denoted as ◇), due to
the greater flexural moment. After δ = 1.5%, the opposite trend occurred
because concrete crushing occurred near the top section (Fig. 7 (a)).
Similarly in the PSRC specimens (Fig. 12b–f), strains at the bottom
section were maintained after concrete crushing (almost at δ = 1.5%),
while compressive strain (minus sign) at the top continued to increase
beyond the yield strain (εy = 0.0031 for L-75 × 75 × 6; 0.0020 for L-75
× 75 × 9). In particular, the compressive and tensile strains significantly
increased at the middle section (denoted as ▴) where the bolt holes were
placed. This is because stress concentration occurred at the bolt holes
(Fig. 2a). On the other hand, in HF2 and NF2, strain increase at the bolt
holes was relatively small, because in either case, their post-peak
strength degradation was significant (Fig. 8c and e).
Fig. 13 shows tensile strains of the transverse reinforcements. The
transverse reinforcements located at side face (denoted as ① in Fig. 13)
resisted tension force caused by shear force and lateral confinement.
However, the transverse reinforcements at front face (denoted as ② )
were primarily engaged in lateral confinement. In C1 (Fig. 13a), in the
positive loading direction, strains at front face were greater than those at
side face, despite the absence of shear action. In the negative loading
direction, the strain values at both faces were very small. These results
indicate that the transverse bars at side face did not significantly
contribute to shear resistance and confinement.
At side face (①
①) of the PSRC specimens, the strains at the top (400
mm above the column base) were greater than those at the bottom (100
mm above the column base). This is because shear cracking of concrete
Fig. 12. Strains of longitudinal steel in plastic hinge zone.
13
Engineering Structures 250 (2022) 113463
was more significant at the top section (i.e., more cracks passed through
the top section, Fig. 9). In general, the strains at side face gradually
increased, though the load-carrying capacity was degraded due to con­
crete crushing (approximately at δ = 1.5%). This result indicates that, as
shear resistance of the concrete decreased, the shear resistance
contributed by the transverse plates increased. In NZ2 (Fig. 13f), shear
cracking was the most significant due to the large deformation capacity.
Thus, the strain of the Z-section plate located at side face exceeded its
yield strain after δ = –2.0%. In HZ2 (Fig. 13d), due to the malfunction of
the strain gauge, the strain at front face could not be measured after δ =
±1.5%.
In HF1, HF2, and NF2 (Fig. 13b, c, and e), the transverse flat plates
located at front face (②②) showed yielding approximately at δ = +2.0%.
The post-yield strain was greater in HF1 with closely spaced transverse
plates. This result indicates that the steel cage, particularly in the
specimens with closely spaced of transverse plates, provided confine­
ment to concrete.
5. Comparison with existing design methods
5.1. Load-carrying capacity
In Fig. 6, thick dotted lines indicate the nominal strength Pn of the
specimens, which was calculated considering the secondary moment:
Pn = Pno − Nδle (12)
where Pno = Mn/ls.
Mn was calculated according to ACI 318–19 [17] and AISC 360 [16].
Table 3 shows the values of Pn at δ = δo (corresponding to Pu). In general,
for all specimens, the nominal strength underestimated the tested peak
strength. The strength prediction was relatively conservative, because in
the calculation of Pno, the strain hardening of steel angles was not
considered.
5.2. Deformation capacity
The test specimens failed due to concrete crushing after flexural
H.-J. Kim et al.
Fig. 13. Strains of transverse reinforcements in plastic hinge zone.
yielding. Existing studies [24,28–33] reported that the post-peak
strength of RC columns after flexural yielding is degraded due to shear
failure. This failure mode is pronounced under cyclic loading: cumula­
tive flexure-shear cracks and concrete spalling degrade the shear
contribution of concrete. Based on existing test results, Kim et al. [33]
proposed a shear strength degradation model for RC columns, modifying
the Priestley et al.’ model [29]: as displacement ductility increases,
nominal shear strength decreases in a linear manner (see Fig. 14).
Vnr = ηc Vc + ηs Vs (13)
where
⎧ Table 2). When Vu is less than Vs, flexure–compression failure occurs.
⎨ 1.0 for μ ≤ 2
ηc = (5 − μ)/3 for 2 < μ ≤ 5 , ηs = 1.0 (14)
⎩
0 for μ > 5
where Vnr = residual shear strength after flexural yielding; ηc and ηs =
shear degradation factors for the contributions of concrete and trans­
verse reinforcement, respectively; Vc and Vs are defined according to
Eqs. (5) and (6), respectively [33]. Following [28–30,33], Vs is set to
Fig. 14. Post-yield shear strength according to shear strength degrada­
tion curve.
14
Engineering Structures 250 (2022) 113463
remain uniform (ηs = 1) under cyclic loading.
Fig. 14 shows possible failure modes of RC (or PSRC) columns under
cyclic lateral loading. When shear demand Vu (=Pu resulting from
flexural strength) is greater than Vn, brittle shear failure without flexural
yielding occurs. In the case of Vs < Vu < Vn, shear failure occurs after
flexural yielding (post-yield shear failure; ductile shear failure), and
deformation capacity is defined at the intersection of the shear demand
Vu and post-yield shear strength Vnr. As the Vc/Vn ratio increases (i.e., as
the Vs/Vn ratio decreases), shear strength degradation becomes severe,
which decreases deformation capacity. This is the case for the present
study (Vc/Vn = 0.67 for C1; 0.67–0.77 for PSRC) (see Vc and Vn values in
In Fig. 15, shear strength degradation Vnr of the specimens was
calculated considering the second-order effect of axial force, as follows:
Vnr = ηc (μ)Vc + Vs − Nδle (15)
where μ = δ/δy, in which δy = tested yield deformation (Table 3). The
shear failure after peak strength was defined at the intersection point
(point A) between the tested peak (flexural) strength Vtest (=Pu) and Vnr.
The deformation capacity is defined as a point on the Vnr curve (after the
intersection point) corresponding to 0.75Pup (see Fig. 6h). Fig. 15
compares the test results with the predicted shear degradation curves. In
CES Specimen C1 (Fig. 15a), the tested deformation capacity was less
than the prediction. Due to the location of wide flange steel section, the
compression zone depth is greater. Thus, the maximum compressive
strain was larger, which caused early crushing failure. Note that in the
calculation of Vs, the contribution of wide flange steel (web steel) was
neglected [16]. In HF2 (Fig. 15c) and NF2 (Fig. 15e) (with the lowest
Vs), despite significant spalling of the cover concrete, the existing
strength degradation model reasonably predicted the tested deformation
capacities. In HF1 (Fig. 15b), HZ2 (Fig. 15d), and NZ2 (Fig. 15f), the
tested deformation capacity was greater than the prediction. This is
because the closely spaced transverse plates and Z-section plates
restrained spalling of the cover concrete, which alleviated strength
degradation due to shear.
Fig. 15g shows the Vnr curve of the existing PSRC column specimen
C2 with weld-connected steel cage [3]. Note that in C2, smaller column
cross section and greater shear reinforcement ratio were used. Due to the
high shear reinforcement ratio, the ratio of Vc to Vn (Vc/Vn = 0.27) was
significantly less, and Vs alone was greater than the tested shear demand
H.-J. Kim et al.
Fig. 15. Comparison of existing shear degradation model and test results: (a) C1; (b) HF1; (c) HF2; (d) HZ2; (e) NF2; (f) NZ2; and (g) C2 (Hwang et al. [3]).
Vu. For this reason, the overall behavior of C2 was determined by flex­
ural yielding, without shear strength degradation. Thus, the deforma­
tion capacity of C2 was greater than that of the present specimens.
In the present study, Vc was calculated according to ACI 318–14 [18]
(see Table 2). If ACI 318–19 [17] is used, Vc is much greater under axial
compression (see Table 2). Thus, the deformation capacity is
overestimated.
6. Summary and conclusions
In the present study, cyclic lateral load tests were performed for a
CES column (with wide flange section steel and longitudinal bars) and
five PSRC columns (with bolt-connected steel angle cage including high-
strength steel angles) to investigate the seismic performance. High-
strength steel was used for steel angles. Existing design methods were
used to predict the strength and deformation capacity of the PSRC col­
umns, and their prediction results were compared with the test results.
The major findings are summarized as follows:
1. In the PSRC specimens (longitudinal steel ratio = 1.4–2.0%), the
steel angles, which are located at the four corners of the cross section,
provided high flexural strength and stiffness. Thus, their structural
capacities were greater than those of the CES specimen (longitudinal
steel ratio = 1.9%): peak strength was 28% greater; yield stiffness
was 20% greater; deformation capacity (ultimate drift ratio) was
37% greater; ductility was 27% greater; and energy dissipation ca­
pacity was 54% greater. The main cause of strength degradation was
damage (crushing and spalling) of the cover concrete. The bolted
connections between the steel angles and transverse plates did not
fail.
15
Engineering Structures 250 (2022) 113463
2. The overall behavior (strength and deformation capacity) of PSRC
columns with high-strength steel was not significantly different from
that of specimens with normal-strength steel. This result indicates
that high-strength steel of Fy = 626 MPa can be successfully used for
earthquake design of PSRC columns.
3. In the PSRC specimens, the nominal flexural strength was predicted
according to ACI 318 [18] and AISC 360 [16], using the net section of
steel angles (due to bolt holes). The tested strengths were 3–24%
greater than the nominal strengths, even when high yield strength
(Fy = 626 MPa) and slender section (width-to-thickness ratio = 12.5)
were used for the steel angles.
4. When large spacing (s = 0.5 h) of transverse flat plates was used, the
PSRC specimens were susceptible to spalling of the cover concrete.
On the other hand, closely spaced flat plates (s = 0.3 h) and Z-section
plates (s = 0.5 h) for transverse reinforcement were effective in
restraining steel angle buckling and concrete spalling, which
increased the deformation capacity. This result indicates that the
transverse plates with bolted connections provided adequate tensile
resistance.
5. The deformation capacity of the columns was predicted using an
existing shear strength degradation model, which agreed with the
test results. However, to confirm its applicability, further studies are
needed for various failure modes that include shear failure (Vu > Vn)
and flexure–compression failure (Vu < Vs; case for high ductility
demand).
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Hyeon-Jin Kim: Methodology, Investigation, Data curation, Writing
H.-J. Kim et al. Engineering Structures 250 (2022) 113463

– original draft. Hong-Gun Park: Supervision, Conceptualization, Acknowledgement

Writing – review & editing, Project administration. Hyeon-Jong
Hwang: Methodology, Validation, Data curation, Writing – original
draft, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
The Institute of Engineering Research Institute of Construction and
Environmental Engineering at Seoul National University provided
research facilities for this work. This research was also supported by the
Korea Agency for Infrastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA) fun­
ded by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (No. 20AUDP-
B147683-06). The authors are grateful for the support of the authorities.

Appendix A. Strengths of bolted transverse plates

The strength of transverse plates with bolted connections is determined as the minimum of strengths for the following limit states: yielding of the
gross section (Eq. (A1)); tensile rupture of the effective net section (Eq. (A2)); bearing failure of the bolt holes (Eq. (A3); tear-out failures of the bolt
hole (Eq. (A4)); and block shear rupture (Eq. (A5)) (Fig. 2b).
Ro = Fyh Ast (A1)

Re = Fuh Aet (A2)

Rb = 3.0dh tp Fuh (A3)

Rt = 1.5Lc tp Fuh (A4)

Rs = 0.6Fuh Anv + Fuh Ant 0.6Fyh Agv + Fuh Ant (A5)

where Fyh and Fuh are yield and tensile strength of transverse plates, respectively; Ast and Aet are gross sectional area and effective net area of a
transverse plate, respectively (Aet = Ast − dhtp, tp = thickness of the transverse plate); Lc is clear distance between the hole and transverse plate end
along the plate length; Agv is gross sectional area subjected to shear (=dgv × tp, in which dgv is distance between the hole center and transverse plate
end along the plate length); Anv is net area subjected to shear (=dnv × tp, dnv is equal to Lc); and Ant is net area subjected to tension (=dnt × tp, in which
dnt is clear distance between the hole and the transverse plate edge along the plate width) (Fig. 2b).

References [15] Zheng W, Ji J. Dynamic performance of angle-steel concrete columns under low
cyclic loading-I: Experimental study. Earthq Eng Eng Vibr 2008;7(1):67–75.
[16] ANSI. Specification for structural steel buildings (AISC. Chicago, IL, USA: American
[1] Eom T-S, Hwang H-J, Park H-G, Lee C-N, Kim H-S. Flexural test for steel-concrete
Institute of Steel Construction; 2016. p. 360–416.
composite members using prefabricated steel angles. J Struct Eng (ASCE) 2014;140
[17] ACI. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318–19) and
(4):04013094. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000898.
commentary. American Concrete Institute; 2019.
[2] Kim C-S, Park H-G, Chung K-S, Choi I-R. Eccentric axial load capacity of high-
[18] ACI. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318–14) and
strength steel-concrete composite columns of various sectional shapes. J Struct Eng
commentary. American Concrete Institute; 2014.
(ASCE) 2014;140(4):04013091. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
[19] Kim C-S, Hwang H-J. Numerical investigation on load-carrying capacity of high-
541X.0000879.
strength concrete-encased steel angle columns. Int J Concr Struct Mater 2018;12:
[3] Hwang H-J, Eom T-S, Park H-G, Lee S-H. Axial load and cyclic lateral load tests for
11.
composite columns with steel angles. J Struct Eng (ASCE) 2016;142(5):04016001.
[20] KS. Sets of torque-shear type high tension bolt, hexagon nut and plain washer for
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001452.
structural joints (Korean Standard KS B 2819). Eumseong-gun (Chungcheongbuk-
[4] Kim H-J, Hwang H-J, Park H-G. Eccentric-axial-load test for composite columns
do, Korea): Korean Agency for Technology and Standards; 2016.
using bolt-connected steel angles. J Struct Eng 2020;146(9):04020178. https://doi.
[21] KS. Standard test method for compressive strength of concrete (Korean Standard
org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002699.
KS B 2405). Eumseong-gun (Chungcheongbuk-do, Korea): Korean Agency for
[5] Kim H-J, Hwang H-J, Park H-G, Kim D-K. Concentric axial load test for composite
Techonology and Standards; 2017.
columns using bolt-connected steel angles. Eng Struct 2020;214:110650. https://
[22] KS. Method of tensile test for metallic materials (Korean Standard KS B 0802).
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110650.
Eumseong-gun (Chungcheongbuk-do, Korea): Korean Agency for Technology and
[6] Kim H-J, Hwang H-J, Park H-G. Flexural testing for composite members with bolt-
Standards; 2018.
connected steel angles. Eng Struct 2021;230:111638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[23] ANSI/AISC. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings (AISC 341-16).
engstruct.2020.111638.
Chicago (IL): American Institute of Steel Construction; 2016.
[7] Nagaprasad P, Sahoo DR, Rai DC. Seismic strengthening of RC columns using
[24] ASCE/SEI. ASCE/SEI 41-13: Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings.
external steel cage. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2009;38(14):1563–86.
Virginia (USA): American Society of Civil Engineers; 2014.
[8] Li J, Gong J, Wang L. Seismic behavior of corrosion-damaged reinforced concrete
[25] Fisher JW. On the Behavior of Fasteners and Plates with Holes. Fritz Engineering
columns strengthened using combined carbon fiber-reinforced polymer and steel
Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, Lehigh University; 1964.
jacket. Constr Build Mater 2009;23(7):2653–63.
[26] Sittipunt C, Wood SL, Lukkunaprasit P, Pattararattanakul P. Cyclic behavior of
[9] Garzón-Roca J, Ruiz-Pinilla J, Adam JM, Calderón PA. An experimental study on
reinforced concrete structural walls with diagonal web reinforcement. ACI Struct J
steel-caged RC columns subjected to axial force and bending moment. Eng Struct
2001;98:554–62.
2011;33(2):580–90.
[27] Sozen M, Moehle J. Stiffness of reinforced concrete walls resisting in-plane shear.
[10] Cirtek L. RC columns strengthened with bandage—experimental programme and
Electric Power Research Inst.; 1993.
design recommendations. Constr Build Mater 2001;15(8):341–9.
[28] Ascheim M, Moehle J. Shear strength and deformability of RC bridge columns
[11] Adam JM, Ivorra S, Gimenez E, Moragues JJ, Miguel P, Miragall C, et al. Behaviour
subjected to inelastic cyclic displacements. 1992.
of axially loaded RC columns strengthened by steel angles and strips. Steel Compos
[29] Priestley M J Nigel, Verma Ravindra, Xiao Yan. Seismic shear strength of
Struct 2007;7(5):405–19.
reinforced concrete columns. J Struct Eng 1994;120(8):2310–29.
[12] Montuori R, Piluso V. Reinforced concrete columns strengthened with angles and
[30] Kowalsky MJ, Priestley MN. Improved analytical model for shear strength of
battens subjected to eccentric load. Eng Struct 2009;31(2):539–50.
circular reinforced concrete columns in seismic regions. Struct J 2000;97:388–96.
[13] Campione G. RC columns strengthened with steel angles and battens: experimental
results and design procedure. Pract Period Struct Des Constr 2013;18(1):1–11.
[14] Tarabia AM, Albakry HF. Strengthening of RC columns by steel angles and strips.
Alexandr Eng J 2014;53(3):615–26.

16
H.-J. Kim et al. Engineering Structures 250 (2022) 113463

[31] Sezen Halil, Moehle Jack P. Shear strength model for lightly reinforced concrete [33] Kim C-G, Park H-G, Eom T-S. Cyclic Load Test and Shear Strength Degradation
columns. J Struct Eng 2004;130(11):1692–703. Model for Columns with Limited Ductility Tie Details. J Struct Eng 2019;145(2):
[32] Biskinis DE, Roupakias GK, Fardis MN. Degradation of shear strength of reinforced 04018249. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002254.
concrete members with inelastic cyclic displacements. Struct J 2004;101:773–83.

17