Hindawi

Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Volume 2022, Article ID 4626392, 14 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4626392

Review Article
Configuration Features and Calculation Mechanisms of the
Composite RC Column-Steel Beam (RCS) Joints: State of the Art

Liquan Xiong , Xingyue Pan, Zhen Jia, Zhengchao Guo, Linyan Li, and Jian He
Department of Civil Engineering, Chongqing Tree Gorges University, Chongqing 404020, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Liquan Xiong; xiongliquan2013@126.com

Received 14 June 2022; Revised 17 October 2022; Accepted 2 November 2022; Published 9 November 2022

Academic Editor: Piero Colajanni

Copyright © 2022 Liquan Xiong et al. Tis is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reinforced concrete and steel (RCS) composite moment frame structures consist of reinforced concrete (RC) columns and steel
(S) beams. Such systems combined with several advantages of the two structural members have larger structural stifness, lower
cost, and faster construction speed than the traditional concrete or steel frame system to be a particularly well viable alternative for
use in seismic risk regions. Te calculation of joint shear capacity is an essential step in seismic design. Tis study introduces the
typical confguration characteristics of the RCS connection and reviews the state of the art of the shear bearing capacity in terms of
failure models, shear distribution mechanisms, calculation mechanisms, and requirements given in the experimental and
theoretical study to provide reference and foundation for the subsequent study. Finally, the development of recommendations and
further research studies on seismic performance of RCS composite frames are provided.

1. Introduction concrete (SRC) structure performed well in the 1923 Kanto

Te reinforced concrete and steel (RCS) composite structure
consisting of reinforced concrete columns (RC), steel beams
(S), and concrete slabs with generally composite metal
decking have gained increasing interest in the seismic region
over the past decades. Compared with the conventional steel
or RC frame systems, the RCS composite frames using RC
rather than structural steel columns provide the superior
attributes of large span, light self-weight, good fre resis-
tance, excellent lateral stifness, fast construction speed, and
excellent seismic performance [1–4]. Such systems are
particularly well viable alternative for use in mid-to-high-
rise buildings in low to moderate seismic risk regions and
low-to mid-rise buildings in moderate to high seismic risk
regions [5, 6].
Te RCS composite frames began to gain popularity in
both the United States and Japan in the late 1970’s and early
1980’s, respectively. In the United States, this system
replacing the steel columns of traditional steel moment
frames can provide high axial compressive loads to satisfy
the building height and lateral stifness (drift) criteria in
engineering practice [7–9]. In Japan, the steel reinforced
earthquake, which made a contribution to the development
of the prevalence of the composite system by the con-
struction companies and occupants. Under this background,
the RCS composite system was recommended to obtain the
long-span capabilities and cost savings compared with the
RC moment frames in high seismic zones [10–12].
Compared with the members in the traditional steel or
reinforced concrete moment frame structures in the seismic
design, a primary challenge for the composite RCS frames
focused on the reliable junction among the steel beams and
RC columns. Many researchers [1, 5, 7, 13–19] conducted a
series of experimental programs to investigate the joint
details, failure modes, shear strength, high strength concrete,
column-to-beam strength ratio, and axial force efect of the
RCS connection. Te results of those specimens have been
presented as follows: (1) the RCS joints with proper details
can provide stable, ductile, and predictable behavior under
reversed cyclic loading, (2) basic mechanics provides un-
derstanding of the internal shear mechanisms and the failure
modes that govern the RCS joint strength, and (3) the
utilization of the details in RCS joints can enhance the
strength and stifness of subassemblies, which would reduce
2 Mathematical Problems in Engineering
the joint distortion and rigid body rotation to increase the
capacity of shear resistance. To study the composite efects of
RCS joint with the RC slab, extensive data [3, 19–25] indicate
that (1) the specimens following the strong column weak
beam criterion formed the plastic hinges at the beam ends
and showed a good cyclic performance (Figure 1); (2) the
comparison of interior RCS subassemblies without the RC
foor slab, the ultimate shear strength of the composite
beam-slab sections was calculated, and 20% strength in-
crease was seen in the specimen due to RC slab; (3) avoiding
the high compressive stresses by the involvement of cast in
situ slab in the joint region resulted in the area of concrete
getting crushed near the corners of column, and guidelines
and recommendations for the RCS connections with proper
details, e.g., cover plates, band plates, and shear studs, were
necessary for seismic design; and (4) efective fange width of
the composite beam-slab sections has a signifcant efect on
the capacity of beam moment and equivalent elastic moment
of inertia values. To evaluate the behavior of the exterior RCS
connections [17, 26–30], various details, such as end plates,
shear keys, and extended cover plates, and the shear strength
models have been proposed. Additionally, the infuential
factors of the RCS connections on the static performance
including the axial compression ratio, steel insert length, the
thickness of end plate, and the column concrete grade was
also studied. Tose results pointed out that RCS frames were
suitable for getting recognized as an alternative to the high
seismic risk zones. Besides, the novel type RCS connection
weakening the extension beam end-joint was proposed to
move the plastic hinge from the end of a beam to a weakened
point and a novel through-column type with the details of H
steel profle and plates in the joint which presented stable
seismic performance [31, 32].
To learn more about the cyclic performance of RCS
moment frames in the building structures, a series of tests
have been conducted [33–39]. Te results reported that (1)
the frame structures with two joint details of through-beam
type and through-column type had an excellent seismic
performance, those of which presented the plastic hinge
mechanisms that concentrated upon the end of steel beams
and the bottom of RC columns to meet the strong-joint
weak-component criterion; (2) the structure slightly dam-
aged in frequent earthquake and presented the collapse
prevention level under rare earthquake to further validate
the reliability of this innovative system. However, the pre-
viously mentioned studies clearly show that the mass of
experimental studies for the RCS joints have been done in
comparison with the moment frames, and research studies
on the behavior of the overall frame structures will be
conducted further.
RCS connections subjected to large shear forces under
seismic loads are one of the key parts to form an efcient
composite structure. Te objective of this study is frstly to
present the structural confguration features and failure
models of composite RCS connections. Additionally, the
state-of-the-art of shear bearing capacity models of the RCS
connections in terms of shear distribution mechanisms,
calculation mechanisms, and requirements given in the
experimental and theoretical study was introduced.
According to those studies, the research progress of shear
bearing capacity formulas of the RCS joints focused on
providing reference for the subsequent study.
2. Configuration and Damage Features of the
RCS Joints
2.1. Te Types of the RCS Joints. According to diferent
design phenomena, the RCS connections are classifed into
beam-through type and column-through type, as illustrated
in Figure 2. For the beam-through type (Figure 2(a)), the
steel beam which continuously passes through the RC
column can eliminate welding at the maximum bending
moment region or bolting the steel beam in the joint, and the
proper details can strengthen the RCS joint to provide very
stable and ductile behavior under reversed cyclic loading
(Figure 3). In general, the small steel column is encased in
concrete and the face bearing plates were connected to the
steel web panel. Te advantages of this RCS joint mainly
include those as follows: (1) the steel beam was continuous
through the RC column to mobilize the force transfer
mechanism between the steel and concrete to avoid the
fracture-critical joints and (2) the steel columns encased by
reinforced concrete columns provide for an efcient vertical
spread of the construction activity. Certainly, the details of
the composite connection might cause the difculties in
some ways of assembling reinforcement and casting the
concrete in engineering practice. To ensure construction
quality, the steel beam fanges can extend to the joint which
partly cuts of to keep the longitudinal reinforcement of the
column passing through the connection to facilitate casting
and vibrating the concrete [5]. As shown in Figure 2(a), the
major distinction of “through-beam” vs. “through-column”
type connections is that the steel fanges are interrupted at
the joint to minimize the impact on construction. Trough-
column type connections combining conventional SRC
concepts where encasing the end of the steel beam connected
to the concrete column have been the preferred detail in
Japan. Additionally, the connection details include inner or
outer diaphragms, cover plates, and a transverse stifener
connected the steel panel zone to strengthen the strength
and ductility capacity of the RCS joints (Figure 3) [40, 41].
However, the disadvantage of the connection with cutting
the fange is that it might cause the reduction of bearing area
in joint regions to decrease the stress transferring mecha-
nisms [42, 43]. Te primary goal of these tests nearly focused
on validating specifc joint details instead of quantifying
the internal force transfer mechanisms of the joint (see
Figure 4).
2.2. Typical Joint Details. Te beam-column joints play a key
role in a composite reinforced concrete column-to-steel
beam frame system. Compared with the conventional
concrete or steel frame, the mechanical feature of RCS joints
shows a complex condition due to the unique connection
between the steel beam and the reinforced concrete column.
Te previously mentioned studies clearly focused on the
design of the composite RCS beam-column connections,
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 3

200
150
100
50

P (kN)
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-100 -50 0 50 100
Δ (mm)
(a) (b)

Figure 1: Load-displacement curve (specimen 3) by Men et al. [3]: (a) specimen 3 and (b) load-displacement curve.

Steel beam Steel beam

RC Column RC Column
(a) (b)

Figure 2: RCS connections: (a) the beam-through type and (b) the column-through type.

Drif (% radian)
–7 –6 –5 –4 –3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
800
INUC (E)

400
Beam Shear (kN)

–400

–800
–210
–180
–150
–120
–90
–60
–30
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210

Displacement at Beam End (mm)

(a) (b)

Figure 3: Te behavior of beam-through type connections by Cheng and Chen [15]: (a) the failure mode and (b) force-displacement loops.

especially for the confgurations, to quantify the internal features of RCS connection details is shown in Figure 5. Te
force transfer mechanisms and maintain displacement details in Figures 5(a)–5(f ) are so-called “through-beam”
compatibility of the joints. 3D representation of the typical type connections. In Figure 5(a), face bearing plates (FBPs)
4 Mathematical Problems in Engineering
250
200
150
100
50
Shear (kN)
0 this feld and ASCE Seismic Provisions [47]. From a series of
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Story Drif Angle (×10-2rad.)
BR/1
BR/2
bVy
Figure 4: Force-displacement loops of column-through type
connection by Kuramoto and Nishiyama [41].
located at the face of the concrete column are fllet welded to
the steel beam web and fanges to mobilize the shear re-
sistance of the concrete in the joint region. In general,
stirrups passing through the web of the steel beam were also
used to stabilize the vertical column reinforcements and
constrain the concrete in the joint. In Figure 5(b), the
transverse beam was welded to the beam web orthogonally.
From Figure 5(c), we can see that FBPs can vary in width and
may be either in full height or split for fabrication ease, such
as broaden and extended face bearing plates (E-FBPs) to
avoid the concrete crushing in the high-bearing stresses zone
located just above and below the steel beam fanges [7].
Additionally, the similar details include vertical reinforce-
ments, shear studs, and band plates (Figure 5(d)) which
connected to the beam fanges are convenient to enhance the
vertical bearing strength in the continuous direction
[15, 17, 44, 45]. Figure 5(e) shows that cover plates wrapping
around the RC column region constrained the concrete in
the core regions to form the excellent confnement condi-
tions. Small steel columns, as shown in Figure 5(f ), are
welded to the beam fanges and embedded in the RC col-
umn, and these act as the erection columns to provide for an
efcient vertical support for construction and are also used
for shear transfer purposes. Te details in Figures 5(g)–5(i)
are so-called “through-column” type connections.
Figure 5(g)shows that the vertical stifener forms an octa-
gon-shaped joint region encompassing the column to
simplify constructability. Tese stifener plates were feld
welded to the extended FBPs by means of full penetration
welding. Joint detailing consisted of cover plates and a
horizontal stifener to strengthen the joint region, as shown
in Figure 5(h). Figure 5(i) is an example of hybrid detail,
combining conventional SRC concepts by encasing the inner
or outer diaphragm. It is noteworthy that these types of
connection details can be used alone or in conjunction with
each other to efectively mobilize joint force.
2.3. Failure Models of the RCS Joint
2.3.1. Typical Failure Models. According to the research of
Sheikh et al. [7, 46], the typical failure model of the RCS
connections is characterized by the panel shear failure and
vertical bearing failure, as shown in Figure 6. Tose failure
modes of RCS connections were accepted by the scholars in
tests on the behavior of internal RCS connections with
proper details as mentioned previously, the characteristics of
the panel shear failure (Figure 6(a)) consisted of the yield of
steel beam web, concrete cracking, and crushing, which are
typically similar to the steel or reinforced concrete joints. A
bearing failure (see in Figure 6(b)) occurs when the concrete
4 5
in the column regions adjacent to the beam fanges crushes
due to high-bearing strains. At the same time, rigid body
rotation of the steel beam in the joint located just above and
below the steel fanges was presented. It is desirable for
engineers to design RCS connections to possess a bearing
strength larger than shear strength in order to gain stable
ductile performance. As described, those details which in-
clude small steel column, band plates, shear studs, and
vertical joint reinforcements, as shown in Figure 5, are some
means of strengthening for bearing strength in the joint.
2.3.2. Other Failure Modes. Based on the results of exper-
iments [1, 5], other failure modes of the interior RCS joints
exhibited local shear failure and joint-beam mixed failure
from Figure 7. For simple construction, the steel beam
fanges were partly cut of in the joint proposed by Men et al.
[5]. Additionally, the specimens followed the design phi-
losophy of the strong-component weak-joint criterion to
evaluate the seismic performance. However, the local shear
failure of the specimens 2 and 4 was observed since the
details could not confne concrete in the joint to carry
tension forces associated with the compression feld
mechanism. As shown in Figure 7(a), the features of the local
shear failure are a combination of panel shear failure and
vertical bearing failure. Te damage phenomena of those
specimens include the local yield of steel web, concrete
cracking in the joint, and the rigid body rotation of the steel
beam within the concrete column which resulted in concrete
crushing along the margin of the steel fanges. At the same
time, the similar failure features were recorded by other tests
[13, 49]. In general, the relative participation of each failure
depends upon joint detailing, as discussed previously.
However, from the behavior of those specimens, local shear
failure (Figure 7(a)) showed good seismic performance with
stable load versus displacement response, excellent strength,
and deformation capacity to meet the requirement for
earthquake resistant structures.
An example representative of tests with joint-beam
mixed failure shown by Lee et al. [1] on the details of
specimens include FBPs, transverse beams, and headed studs
according to the ASCE guidelines (ASCE 1994) [47]. Fur-
thermore, the closely spaced ties installed in the joint to
protect the highly stressed bearing region support the strut-
and-tie action of the outer compression feld. Four interior
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 5

Stirrups

Transverse beam Extended face bearing plates

Face bearing plates
(a) (b) (c)

Band plates Cover plates Small steel column

(d) (e) (f )

Vertical stifener Cover plates Horizontal stifener Diaphragm

(g) (h) (i)

Figure 5: Typical features of joint detail by Nishiyama et al. [43]: (a) face bearing plates, (b) transverse beam, (c) extended face bearing
plates, (d) band plates, (e) cover plates, (f ) small steel column, (g) vertical stifener, (h) horizontal stifener, and (i) diaphragm.

Steel web Concrete Concrete

yield cracking Crushing

Concrete Gap
crushing RCSJ-2[48]

Specimen 1[5]

(a) (b)

Figure 6: Two types of joint failure models [1, 5, 46]: (a) panel shear failure and (b) vertical bearing failure.
6 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Concrete 180
crushing
90

P (kN)
0

-90
Panel
shear
-180
-80 -40 0 40 80
Specimen 2 [5] Δ (mm)

Failure model Hysteretic curves

(a)

1200
900
600
300
-5.7%
0
+6.3%
-300
-600
Panel
Shear -900
F16[1]
Yield -1200

-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Story drif ratio (rad.)
Failure model
Hysteretic curves
(b)

Figure 7: Other failure features: (a) local shear failure [5] and (b) joint-beam mixed failure [1].

beam column joints were designed with the strong column-
weak beam concept. Nevertheless, the unfavorable failure
mode of those specimens reported that the beam column
connection became severely damaged and the plastic hinges
were developed until the end of testing due to the absence of
strengthening details to mobilize the shear mechanism of the
outer panel. Te damage features were similar to that of
specimens OB1-1, OBJS1-1, and OBJS2-0 conducted by
Kanno [13]. Te characteristics of joint-beam mixed failure
consisted of the yield of steel web, the oblique concrete
cracks, and the fange fexural yielding which penetrated the
joint panel (Figure 7(b)). Te reason for the joint-beam
mixed failure might be that the plastic hinge zone is spread
over a relatively large length rather than being concentrated
at the column face because the shear strength of the joint is
equivalent to that of the fexural or local buckling capacity of
the steel beam. Meanwhile, the joint-beam mixed failure
model seemed to be the limit state of the plastic hinge region
of the steel beam and local shear failure of the joint. Nev-
ertheless, these specimens had good strength and defor-
mation capacity (Figure 7(b)) to be used for the low to
moderate seismic design of RCS joints. Based on the
mentioned failure models, the connection details of the RCS
joints consisted of FBPs or E-FBPs, band plates, or shear
keys, and cover plates should be installed to transfer of
member forces to satisfy in the design practice.
3. Shear Mechanisms of the RCS Joints
3.1. Force Distribution of the RCS Joints. Force distribution
of the interior RCS joints is illustrated in Figure 8. As
shown in Figure 8, the forces of the joint include the
bending moments, shear forces, and axial forces trans-
mitted from the RC column ends and the right and left sides
of the steel beams, which caused the joint region to be
placed in a state of compression-bending-shear composite
stress. Because of the small axial force of the steel beam,
they are generally negligible to simplify the force calcula-
tion model. For the axial pressure of the column, although
some tested results indicated that the axial force has a
certain infuence on the mechanical performance of the
joint [13, 50], most of the current researches did not
consider the axial force. At the same time, this study as-
sumes that the bending moment and shear force from the
right and left beam ends are equal, and the bending mo-
ment and shear force from the upper and lower column
ends are also equal.
According to the force equilibrium condition of the
interior RCS joints (see in Figure 8), the shear capacity Vjt in
the core area of the joint can be obtained as
Mbl + Mbr h
Vjt � 􏼠1 − bw 􏼡, (1)
hbw hc − hb
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
Infection point Inner
element
hc
Mbl
Interior joint hb
Efective joint region
Steel beam- RC column subassembly
Figure 8: Force transfer mechanisms of the interior RCS joint.
where Mbl and Mbr are the bending moments at the root of
the left and right beam, hb is the beam section height, hc is the
distance between the infection points of the upper and lower
column ends of the joint, hbw is the distance between the
fanges of the steel beam, and hbw is equal to (hb − tf ), where tf
is the thickness of the steel fange.
3.2. Mechanisms for RCS Joint Shear Resistance
3.2.1. Beam-Trough Type Joint. As shown in Figure 8, force
transfer mechanisms of the beam-through type RCS joint
with the proper details indicated that the efective joint region
consisted of the inner element and outer element to meet the
bearing capacity and compatibility of deformation. Te width
of FBPs, E-FBPs, steel fange, and studs determined that of
inner element and the details of band plates, cover plates, and
small steel column afected the outer element width in the
joint, respectively. Based on the damage features of the ex-
perimental and fnite element models results [1, 2, 7, 16, 18],
the load resistance mechanisms for joint shear capacity in the
beam-through RCS joints is generally provided by three
mechanisms: steel web panel, inner concrete diagonal strut,
and outer concrete compression feld, as shown in Figure 9. In
the RCS joints, the behavior of the steel web panel similar to
that, in the steel frames is idealized as carrying pure shear
stress over a portion of the joint region, as shown in
Figure 9(a), which is dependent on the location and distri-
bution of vertical bearing stresses. Te inner concrete diag-
onal strut in the inner element region is activated by
squeezing the concrete between the steel beam fanges and
FBPs or E-FBPs welded the steel beam fanges, as shown in
Figure 9(b), which is similar to the mechanism model to resist
shear in reinforced concrete connections. In general, the outer
concrete compression feld is composed of several com-
pression struts since horizontal reinforcements which welded
the steel web form a truss mechanism in the joint region
(Figure 9(c)), which was often used for establishing the
shear model in reinforced concrete beams. In addition, the
concrete horizontal strut is developed in the region of column
concrete outside the steel beam fanges (Figure 9(d)). Since
7
b h Steel beam
Nc bf
Mc
bj
Vc Vbr Nbr
Mbr d tf
j bp
Vjt
Nbl bo/2 dj
Vbl
FBP
Outer element RC column
bj
b
Efective joint width
shear force is transferred horizontally from the beam fanges
into the compression feld due to the joint details of the
embedded small steel column, stifeners extended above and
below the steel beam, shear studs, or reinforcements welded to
the beam fanges. Te research results [1, 51] indicated that the
sum of the contributions of the steel web and inner concrete
strut is approximately 60% for the shear strength of RCS joints
and that of the outer concrete compression fled is approx-
imately 40%, respectively. Certainly, shear capacity of the
outer element in the joint region could decrease because the
diference depends on the absence of strengthening joint
details to mobilize the shear mechanism of the outer panel.
3.2.2. Column-Trough Type Joint. As mentioned before (see
in Figure 5), the details of column-through type joint gen-
erally include cover plates, orthogonal steel web, and dia-
phragm to keep the longitudinal reinforcement through the
connection to simplify constructability; at the same time, the
joint details also guarantee stress transferring mechanisms for
composite reinforced concrete and steel joint. According to
the experimental results by Kuramoto and Nishiyama [41],
four mechanisms for beam-through type joint shear resis-
tance are shown in Figures 10(a)–10(d). From Figures 10(a)
and 10(b), the stress transferring mechanisms consisted of
steel web panel, concrete diagonal strut, and concrete hori-
zontal strut in the joint. Te steel web panel mechanism and
concrete diagonal strut mechanism formed in the inner el-
ement are similar with those of the beam-through type joint.
Te concrete horizontal strut mechanism which transferred
the concrete compressive stresses through the inner element
to the outer element included concrete horizontal strut-1 and
concrete horizontal strut-2. Te frst one formed the concrete
horizontal struts to mobilize compressive stresses from steel
beam fanges to FBPs in the outer panel (Figure 10(c)).
Additionally, the second concrete horizontal strut mechanism
was developed between the intersection point of the web
panels in the core area of joints and the corner of cover plates
and then mobilized the outer diagonal concrete struts, cover
plates, and the bond stresses between reinforcing bars in the
joint to contribute the shear capacity.
8 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 9: Mechanisms for beam-through type joint shear resistance: (a) steel web panel, (b) inner concrete diagonal strut, (c) outer concrete
compression feld, and (d) concrete horizontal strut.

4. Calculation Mechanism of the RCS Joint
Shear Capacity
Te RCS joints subjected to large shear forces under seismic
loads usually play a major role in the ultimate limit state of
the capacity of whole frame structure. Terefore, the cal-
culation of joint shear capacity is an essential step in
seismic design. Based on experimental and theoretical
analysis, the shear capacity calculation formulas were
recommended from the diferent countries standards and
many researchers, e.g., the American standard of ASCE, the
Japanese standard of AIJ, and the Chinese standard of JGJ
138-2016, those of which indicated a noticeable diference
to apply the seismic design. Te design guidelines of the
shear model were derived from two alternative seismic
design approaches, namely, the strength-based capacity
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
Cc
Cb Tb
Cb
Tb Cb
Cc
(a)
Cb
Tw
Cb
Tw
Cb
(c)
Figure 10: Mechanisms for beam-through type joint shear resistance [41]: (a) steel web panel, (b) concrete diagonal strut, (c) concrete
horizontal strut-1, and (d) concrete horizontal strut-2.
design procedure and deformation-based capacity design
procedure. Tis section systematically reviews the state of
the art in the calculation formula and discusses the con-
tribution of the various components of the joint region to
the shear capacity of the RCS joint. Additionally, a com-
parison between the outputs of the models was also
conducted.
4.1. American Calculation Methods. To learn about the be-
havior of the RCS joint, Sheikh et al. [7] performed a series of
tests on 15 two-thirds scale specimens under monotonic and
cyclic loading. Te results have shown that the internal shear
mechanisms and modes of failure governed the joint
strength, and signifcant strength increases were achieved
using straightforward details, such as FBPs, small steel
column, and shear studs. Based on the tested results, Dei-
erlein et al. [46] recommended a design model to calculate
the nominal strength of the interior composite beam-col-
umn joints. It is worth mentioning that the model provides
the calculated nominal joint strength corresponding to
measure values at 1% joint distortion. Based on the distinct
failure modes and stress transfer mechanisms between an
inner and outer elements of the RCS joint, the model rec-
ognized that the joint behavior is characterized. Addition-
ally, the American standard of ASCE [47] presented the
guidelines for composite beam-column connection design
according to the joint shear strength mechanic model mainly
proposed by Deierlein et al. [46], as shown in Figure 9. Te
shear resistance model consists of steel web panel, inner
diagonal concrete strut, and outer strut concrete compres-
sion fled, and the model for calculating the horizontal shear
strength of the interior joint is given as follows:
􏽱�� 􏽱��
h
Vj � 0.6Fysp tsp jh + 1.7 fc′bp h + 0.4 fc′bo h + 0.9Ash Fysh ,
sh
9
Cc
Cb
C Cb
Tb C
C
C
Cb
Cc
(b)
Cr Tr Tcp Tcp
Tb
C
Tb
Tb C
Tr Cr Tcp Tcp
(d)
where Vj is suitable for calculating the shear capacity of
interior composite joint, Fysp and tsp are the yield strength
and thickness of the steel panel, jh is the efective web panel
length associated with the external load imposed on the
joint, fc′ is the concrete compressive strength (MPa), bp and
bo are the FBPs width (inner element) and the efective width
of outer concrete panel (out element), h is the depth of
concrete column measured parallel to beam, Ash is the cross-
sectional area of reinforcing bars in each layer spaced at sh
through the beam depth, and Fysh is the yield strength of the
stirrups. In addition, to achieve the strong-joint weak-
component criterion, the details of E-FBPs or band plates
rather than only installing the FBPs in the joints should be
used to attain the full plastic hinge of the steel beam ends
since the local concrete crushing would cause the unex-
pected joint-beam mixed failure [1]. However, the shear
model was primarily based on experimental results obtained
from testing of interior connections, and the accuracy of
such design to calculate the strength of exterior and top RCS
subassemblies still remained skeptical. Te design provisions
of connections in RCS frames was only suitable for use in
low to moderate seismic risk zones.
Kanno [13] performed tests on composite RCS subas-
semblies to evaluate the failure models, the detail features,
and bearing strength. Based on those tested datum and the
ASCE specifcation [14], the shear model conducted by
Kanno and Deierlein [51] were used for those as follows: (1)
address unique failure modes and stress transfer mecha-
nisms in the interior joints and (2) extend the precious
model to consider a broader set of connection details. To
recognize the possibility of shear failure and bond failure in
the outer element simultaneously with vertical bearing
failure in the inner panel, the revised strength model for the
through-beam joints was proposed. Tis shear model pre-
(2) sented the signifcant diference between the failure of the
10
inner element and the overall joint. Te shear calculation
model consisting of the strength of inner and outer elements
is calculated as follows:
Vj � min􏼈Vswe , Vbe 􏼉 + min􏽮Vscf , Vb0 􏽯,
􏽱��
Fysp
Vswe � 􏼠 √� 􏼡tsp 0.8h + 1.65 fc′bi h,
3 capability and toughness necessary for seismic design, the tie
Vbe � 0.47fc′bi h + Fy Ay , (3)
􏼐Ash Fysh 0.9h􏼑 􏽱�� 􏽱��
Vscf � + 1.05 fc′bi h ≤ 1.65 fc′bi h,
sh
􏽱��
Vbo � 1.16 fc′φb xmr ,
where Vswe and Vbe are the panel shear and vertical bearing
strengths of the inner element, Vbo and Vscf are the strengths
of the outer elements failing in bond and shear, respectively,
bi is equal to the width of the inner element corresponding to
the maximum widths of FBPs (bp) and steel fange (bf ) in
Figure 9, Fy and Ay is the yield strength and total area of
vertical reinforcements welded the steel beam fanges, re-
spectively, φb is the total perimeter length of one set of the
reinforcing bars in the joint, and xmr is the center distance of
h
Vj � kw Fysp tsp √� + ki fc′ −0.0048fc′ + 1.13􏼁k1 k2 h 􏼐bf − tsp 􏼑 + ko fc′ −0.0048fc′ + 1.13􏼁k1 k2 k3 hbo ,
3
where kw is 0.9 and 0.8 for interior and exterior joints,
respectively; ki and ko are strength factors of 0.21, 0.34, 0.32,
and 0.16 for interior and exterior joints, respectively; bf is the
width of the beam fange. k1, k2, and k3 listed in Table 1 are
strength factors. However, the three types of confnement
which consisted of U-shaped stirrups, steel band plate, and
cover plate were considered in this model and other details
in the joint, such as small column and shear studs, were not
contributed.
Fysp
Vj � 0.8 √� tsp h + 0.29fc′ −0.0048fc′ + 1.13􏼁h 􏼐bf − tw 􏼑 + 0.5fc′ −0.0048fc′ + 1.13􏼁hbo ,
3
where bf is the width of steel beam fange, bo is the outer
panel width, bo � 12tbp, and tbp is the thickness of the steel
band plate. However, it should be pointed out that the
applicable scope of this shear design equation is small as it
depends on the scope of the experimental data, and the
predicted shear strength of the joint is questionable due to
severe bond stress degradation experienced by the column
longitudinal bars.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
vertical column reinforcement. Compared with that of the
ASCE guidelines [47], the revised shear model modifed to
be better account for the joint failure model was applicable
for joint details, such as transverse beams and tie rein-
forcement within the joint. Te minimum requirements of
the tie reinforcement might be relaxed to reduce the con-
tribution of shear strength. To ensure adequate deformation
requirements, joint geometries, and strength resistance
factors of the composite RCS joints were needed to further
be studied.
To accurately predict the shear strength of exterior joints
using the ASCE design guidelines, a new model to predict
the shear force and stirrup and concrete strains at any level
of shear distortion in the beam-through RCS joints was
presented by Parra-Montesinos and Wight [52]. Based on
the joint shear deformation level of 1.2% corresponding to
moderate damage and signifcant damage, the ultimate shear
strength of exterior and interior RCS connections would be
calculated for use in zones of high seismicity. Te model
presented herein all the three mechanisms discussed pre-
viously (see in Figure 9) according to diferent details and
contribution of the inner and outer concrete strut in the
joint. Te mechanic model of shear capacity similarly to that
of ASCE [47] is given as
(4)
According to the tested results of the beam-through RCS
roof level T-connections with details of FBPs and steel band
plates, ultimate horizontal joint shear strength was given by
the contributions from the steel web panel and the inner and
outer diagonal strut [29]. Te shear force versus shear
distortion envelope responses of the RCS roof T-connections
referred to that of Parra-Montesinos et al. [22]. Te shear
strength equation can be can be determined as follows:
(5)
4.2. Japanese Calculation Method. Based on a large number
of the interior beam-through type and column-through
type joints from the analytical studies and the Japanese
standard of AIJ [53], the proposed shear design equation of
RCS joints is given by Nishiyama et al. [43]. A comparison
of the shear resistance mechanisms in the joint between the
ASCE [47] and Nishiyama et al. [43] indicates that the
ultimate shear strength consisted of steel web panel, cover
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 11

Table 1: k1, k2, and k3 factors [52].

Factor Interior joint Exterior joint Joint details
1.0 1.0 FBPs and hoops
k1 1.2 1.1 FBPs and SBP
1.4 1.2 FBPs, SBP and hoops or SCP
k2 1.0/1.5 1.0/1.5 No transverse beams or transverse beams
1.1 1.1 FBPs and hoops
k3 1.3/1.5 1.3/1.5 SBP or hoops and SBP
2.0 2.0 SCP
Note. SBP � steel band plate; SCP � steel cover plate.

plates, transverse reinforcement, and concrete compres- Vj � Vs + Vn + +Vn′ + Vcp ,

sion in the joint region. Te failure mechanism of the RCS
subassemblies followed the weak beam-strong column
criterion based on the working stress design method.
Te model for calculating the horizontal shear strength is
given as
c1 Aw σ wy 0.5Af σ fy
Qp � √� + √� + 0.25pw σ ry bc dmc + 0.04c2 c3 bc σ B δj Dc ,
3 3
(6)
where Aw and Af are sectional area of steel web and cover
plates, σ wy, σ fy, and σ ry are the yield stress of steel web,
cover plates, and transverse reinforcement, respectively,
Pw is the transverse reinforcement ratio in the joint region,
bc and Dc are the width and depth of the column, dmc is the
maximum distance between tensile and compressive re-
inforcement, σ B is the concrete compressive strength in the
joint region, δj is a shape factor with values of the interior,
exterior and top-interior, and top-corner joints being 3.0,
2.0, and 1.0, respectively, and c1, c2, and c3 are factors
depending on the details of the RCS joints (see in Figure 5),
as shown in Table 2. Compared to other shear models
originated from the ASCE guideline [47], the proposed
shear mode is suitable for the column-through type RCS
joints to focus on the contribution of the cover pates and
transverse reinforcement. Besides, the diference between
the concrete damage mechanism and stress transferring
mechanism predicted that joint shear strength was obvi-
ous. Te web panel mechanism consists of a steel web panel
and transfers shear stresses from steel beam fanges and RC
columns (see in (6)). Te concrete mechanisms included
the concrete horizontal strut and diagonal strut mecha-
nism, which were considered in (6) according to the
diferent details at the RCS joints.
Based on the similar shear resistance mechanisms of the
ASCE [47] and AIJ [53] specifcations, Choi et al. [6]
proposed a new shear model to consider the contribution of
detailed efect of shear keys, E-FBPs, transverse beams, and
cover plates in the interior RCS joints. Te calculation
method for the shear capacity of the RCS joints can be given
as
Fysp tsp jh
Vs � √� ,
3
􏽱��
Vn � 1.65 fc′bp h, (7)
􏽱�� Ash .Fysh
Vn′ � 1.05 fc′bo h + 0.9h ,
sh
Fyc
Vcp � 2α √� tc ,
3
where Vs, Vn, Vn’, and Vcp are the shear strength of steel
beam web, inner element concrete, outer element external
concrete, and cover plate, respectively, α is the strength
coefcient, and Fyc and tc are the thickness and yield stress
of cover plate. Te test results indicated that the recom-
mended formulas are suitable to evaluate the shear
strength for the interior RCS connections. Compared with
other models, the proposed equation focused on the
mobilization coefcients for beam-column connections
and the shear contribution of the cover plates. Addi-
tionally, the confning efect of the outer element concrete
in the joint by the detail of cover plates was also con-
sidered to fully understand the load transfer mechanism
[49].
4.3. Chinese Calculation Methods. Te formula for the shear
capacity of steel reinforced concrete column-steel beam joints is
specifed by the Chinese standard for design of composite
structures (JGJ 138-2016) [54]. Tis type of the joints can be
regarded as a special case of the interior beam-through type RCS
joint, which presented the small steel column as a detail that is
embedded in the concrete column. Compared with that of the
ASCE guideline [47], the concrete resistance mechanism of the
proposed shear model in the joint ignored the contribution of
outer concrete compression feld to easily calculate the seismic
design. Te model is given by
12
Table 2: Detail coefcients [43].
Factors Coefcient
0.8
c1
0.9
0.8
1.0
c2 1.1
1.5 Exterior band plate, FBP and vertical reinforcement, and transverse stifeners
1.6
0.9
c3
1.0
h0 − as′􏼁
Vj � 0.58Fysp tsp hw + 1.8ϕj ft bj hj + Fysh Ash , (8)
sh
where hw is the height of steel web, ft is concrete axis tensile
strength (MPa), ϕj is a shape factor, and the values are taken
to be 1.0, 0.6, and 0.3 for the interior joints, exterior and top-
interior joints, and top-corner joints, respectively, bj is the
efective joint length, which is equal to half the width of
column, hj is the column depth, h0 is the distance between
the resultant force of the tension fange and longitudinal
tension reinforcement to the compression edge of the
concrete section, and as′ is the concrete cover in the column.
Tis specifed shear model was applicable for the calculation
of the shear capacity of joints at diferent locations and joint
types in the frame. Besides, the design formulas considered
the details of cover plates, band plates, and stirrups in the
joint. However, the calculated values of Chinese standard of
JGJ 138-2016 [54] does not take into consideration the
impact of the axial pressure in the RC column to meet the
structural safety in engineering practice.
To evaluate the shear capacity considering the efect of
axial compression ratio and RC slab width, Chu et al. [19]
performed tests on six interior column-steel beam joints
with or without RC slabs. Te results presented that the
details of X-reinforcement at the joint had little efect on the
shear capacity and the width and thickness of the RC slab
might obviously increase the shear strength. At the same
time, the RCS joint with the higher axial compression ratio
showed a slight increase in the shear capacity. However, the
existing shear equations as mentioned before did not con-
sider the efect of the RC slab on the shear capacity, which
can facilitate to achieve the ideal shear failure mode in the
joint with the RC slab in engineering practical. Terefore, the
shear model for calculating the shear capacity of the RCS
joints with the RC slab was proposed according to the
Chinese standard of JGJ 138-2016 [54]. Te shear formula
can be obtained through the experimental results and fnite
element simulation as follows:
Fysp tsp hw h − as′􏼁
Vj � √� + 1.8αϕj ft bj hj + Fysh Ash 0 , However, from the existing research results of the RCS
3 sh (9)
α � 0.232bs + 8.38hs + 2.272,
where αj is the infuence coefcient of the RC slab and bs and
hs are the width and height of the RC slab, respectively. Te
proposed formula calculated values agreed well with the
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
Detail of joint
With neither FBP nor cover plates
With stirrups, FBP, or cover plate
With neither FBP nor cover plate
With stirrups, FBP, or cover plates
Extended FBP or steel column and interior band plates
Diaphragms, wide FBP, and transverse stifeners
Without transverse beam
Transverse beam
experimental values to provide a reference for the RCS
composite system in the seismic design. However, the cal-
culating accuracy of shear formulas for the RCS joint with
the RC slab was further studied due to the limitations of the
experimental specimens and fnite element simulation
conditions.
5. Summary and Conclusions
Hybrid reinforced concrete columns (RC) and steel beams (S)
moment frame structures have gained popularity in seismic
risk regions due to their efective combination of the ad-
vantages of the two structural members during the past
several decades. Correspondingly, a signifcant amount of
research studies on the performance and design approaches
or guidelines of the RCS joints and whole frames have been
conducted by the scholars and engineers. Tis study has
summarized representative recent research projects focusing
on shear capacity of the RCS joints: confguration features,
failure models, mechanisms for joint shear resistance, and
calculation formulas. According to the diferent detail features
and design approaches of the RCS joints, the four typical
failure models consisted of panel shear failure, vertical bearing
failure, local shear failure, and joint-beam mixed failure. For
the beam-through type RCS joints, three mechanisms for
joint shear resistance include steel web panel, inner concrete
diagonal strut, and outer concrete compression feld. Te only
diference compared with those of the beam-through type
joints is the concrete horizontal strut mechanism due to the
details of the cover plates and diaphragms. Finally, the
guidelines and recommendations of shear calculation for-
mulas were recommended from the diferent countries
standards and many researchers to provide a reference for the
designers and the researchers. Te limitations of this research
include that (1)the types of joint details focused on the typical
forms and other details, such as X-reinforcement, shear key,
and PC stud, were less involved and (2) the standards and
recommendations of shear capacity calculation mainly con-
centrated on those of American, Japanese, and Chinese origin.
joints or moment frames, the specifc research studies on the
seismic design provisions of the RCS joints or moment
frames still developed in the future include those as follows:
(i) Te number of tests on three dimensional joints
with the orthogonal beams and composite slab to be
consistent with the engineering practice was limited.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
In addition, the local shear failure and joint-beam
mixed failure of the RCS joints are needed for
further study.
(ii) Te fnite element analysis on behavior of the RCS
joints should be further enhanced due to the re-
strictions of laboratory, test equipment, specimen
number, and economic reasons. Finite element
analysis can be used as an efective mean to provide
a comprehensive and objective understanding of the
shear calculation mechanisms, which is needed to
be studied further.
(iii) Because of the test and theoretical study on the RCS
structure systems are mainly the composite joints,
the number of quasi-static, pseudo-dynamic, and
shaking table test of RCS frames will be likely to be
considered for future study.
(iv) To improve the seismic performance and achieve
rapid return to occupancy under predetermined
levels of lateral load, the novel damage installations
in the RCS joints or whole frame systems consisting
of rocking devices, replaceable members, and self-
centering mechanisms were developed; at the same
time, the application and research of the relevant
damage characteristics and design guidelines of
performance based design method were also
evaluated.
Conflicts of Interest
Te authors declare that they have no conficts of interest.
Acknowledgments
Te study was supported by the Natural Science Foundation
of Chongqing, China (Grant nos. cstc2019jcyj-msxmX0826)
and Science and Technology Research Program of
Chongqing Municipal Education Commission (Grant nos.
KJQN201901214 and KJQN202001202).
References
[1] H. J. Lee, H. G. Park, H. J. Hwang, and C. S. Kim, “Cyclic
lateral load test for RC column–steel beam joints with sim-
plifed connection details,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
vol. 145, no. 8, Article ID 4019075, 2019.
[2] W. Li, Q. N. Li, W. S. Jiang, and L. Jiang, “Seismic perfor-
mance of composite reinforced concrete and steel moment
frame structures state-of-the-art,” Composites Part B., vol. 42,
pp. 190–206, 2011.
[3] J. J. Men, L. Q. Xiong, J. C. Wang, and G. L. Fan, “Efect of
diferent RC slab widths on the behavior of reinforced con-
crete column and steel beam-slab subassemblies,” Engineering
Structures, vol. 229, Article ID 111639, 2021.
[4] D. Dung Le, X. H. Nguyen, and Q. H. Nguyen, “Cyclic testing
of a composite joint between a reinforced concrete column
and a steel beam,” Applied Sciences, vol. 10, no. 7, p. 2385,
2020.
[5] J. J. Men, Z. F. Guo, and Q. X. Shi, “Experimental research on
seismic behavior of novel composite RCS joints,” Steel and
Composite Structures, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 209–221, 2015.
13
[6] Y. C. Choi, J. H. Moon, E. J. Lee, K. S. Park, and K. S. Lee,
“Development of a shear strength equation for beam–column
connections in reinforced concrete and steel composite sys-
tems,” International Journal of Concrete Structures and Ma-
terials, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 185–197, 2017.
[7] T. M. Sheikh, G. G. Deierlein, J. A. Yura, and J. O. Jirsa,
“Beam-column moment connections for composite frames:
Part 1,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 115, no. 11,
pp. 2858–2876, 1989.
[8] N. Baba and Y. Nishimura, “Seismic behavior of RC col-
umn—S beam moment frames,” in Proceedings of the 12th
World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering (12WCEE), Auck-
land, New Zealand, February 2000.
[9] N. Baba and Y. Nishimura, “Stress transfer on through beam
type steel beam—reinforced concrete column joints,” Edited
by Y. Xiao and S. A. Mahin, Eds., in Proceedings of the 6th
ASCCS Int. Conf. on Steel–Concrete Composite Structures,
vol. 2, pp. 1183–1190, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2000.
[10] H. Kuramoto et al., “Structural performance of through
column type joints for composite RCS frames,” J. Struct.
Constr. Eng., Architectural Institute of Japan, , vol. 514,
pp. 199–205, 1998.
[11] N. Sakaguchi, K. Yoshimatu, and Y. Masuda, “Compilation
based on data base on RCJ joint,” in Proceedings of the
Presentation at 5th JTCC Meeting of the U.S.–Japan Program,
Japan, 1998.
[12] H. Noguchi and K. Uchida, “Finite element method analysis
of hybrid structural frames with reinforced concrete columns
and steel beams,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 130,
no. 2, pp. 328–335, 2004.
[13] R. Kanno, Strength, deformation, and seismic resistance of joints
between steel beams and reinforced concrete columns, Ph.D.
Dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA, 1993.
[14] R. Kanno and G. G. Deierlein, “Design model of joints for RCS
frames,” in Composite Construction in Steel and concrete
IVASCE, Reston, VA, USA, 2000.
[15] C. T. Cheng and C. C. Chen, “Seismic behavior of steel beam
and reinforced concrete column connections,” Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 587–606, 2005.
[16] S. Alizadeh, N. K. A. Attari, and M. T. Kazem, “Experimental
investigation of RCS connections performance using self-
consolidated concrete,” Journal of Constructional Steel Re-
search, vol. 114, pp. 204–216, 2015.
[17] X. H. Nguyen, Q. H. Nguyen, D. D. Le, and O. Mirza, “Ex-
perimental study on seismic performance of new RCS con-
nection,” Structures, vol. 9, pp. 53–62, 2017.
[18] A. Khaloo and R. Bakhtiari Doost, “Seismic performance of
precast RC column to steel beam connections with variable
joint confgurations,” Engineering Structures, vol. 160,
pp. 408–418, 2018.
[19] L. S. Chu, Y. Tian, D. D. Li, Y. He, and H. Feng, “Shear
behavior of steel reinforced concrete column-steel beam joints
with or without reinforced concrete slab,” Journal of Building
Engineering, vol. 35, Article ID 102063, 2021.
[20] M. N. Bugeja, Seismic behavior of composite moment resisting
frame systems, Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A&M University,
Austin, TX, USA, 1999.
[21] M. N. Bugeja, J. M. Bracci, and W. P. Moore, “Seismic be-
havior of composite RCS frame systems,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, vol. 126, no. 4, pp. 429–436, 2000.
[22] G. J. Parra-Montesinos, X. Liang, and J. K. Wight, “Towards
deformation-based capacity design of RCS beam–column
connections,” Engineering Structures, vol. 25, no. 5,
pp. 681–690, 2003.
14
[23] T. J. Lu, Z. Y. He, Z. W. Yu, and L. H. Xiao, “Experimental
research on seismic behavior of SC beam to RC column
connection,” Journal of Building Structures, vol. 29, no. 1,
pp. 70–74, 2008, (in Chinese).
[24] J. H. Fan, H. Zhou, J. G. Nie, and Q. W. Li, “Experimental
study on seismic performance of three-dimensional com-
posite beam-to-column joints,” China Civil Engineering
Journal, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 47–55, 2014, (in Chinese).
[25] L. Q. Xiong, J. J. Men, R. Y. Ren, and M. K. Lei, “Experimental
investigation on the seismic behavior of reinforced concrete
column-steel beam subassemblies,” Steel and Composite
Structures, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 471–482, 2018.
[26] S. Iizuka, T. Kasamatsu, and H. Noguchi, “Study on the
aseismic performances of mixed frame structures,” Journal of
Structural and Construction Engineering (Transactions of AIJ),
vol. 62, pp. 189–196, 1997, [in Japanese].
[27] G. Parra-Montesinos and J. K. Wight, “Seismic response of
exterior RC column-to-steel beam connections,” Journal of
Structural Engineering, vol. 126, no. 10, pp. 1113–1121, 2000.
[28] H. Noguchi and K. Kim, “Shear strength of beam-to-column
connections in RCS system,” Proceedings of the Struct. Engrs.
World Congr, Elsevier Science, Oxford, UK.
[29] L. B. Fargier-Gabaldón and G. J. Parra-Montesinos, “Behavior
of reinforced concrete column–steel beam roof level T-con-
nections under displacement reversals,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, vol. 132, no. 7, pp. 1041–1051, 2006.
[30] Y. H. Ling, W. Zheng, Y. Li, L. Zhou, and J. Zhou, “Study on
seismic behavior of reinforced concrete column-steel beam
side joints,” Journal of Asian Architecture and Building En-
gineering, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 187–202, 2020.
[31] Z. H. Pan, Q. Si, Z. B. Zhou, Y. B. Zhang, Y. Zhu, and X Chen,
“Experimental and numerical investigations of seismic per-
formance of hybrid joints with bolted connections,” Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, vol. 138, pp. 867–876, 2017.
[32] X. H. Nguyen, D. D. Le, and Q. H. Nguyen, “Static behavior of
novel RCS through-column-type joint: experimental and
numerical study,” Steel and Composite Structures, vol. 32,
pp. 111–126, 2019.
[33] N. Baba and Y. Nishimura, “Seismic performance of S
beam–RC column moment frames,” Summaries of Technical
Papers of Annual Meeting, Structures II 1998, pp. 61–64,
Architectural Institute of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, 1998.
[34] T. Yamamoto, T. Ohtaki, and J. Ozawa, “An experiment on
elasto-plastic behavior of a full-scale three-story two-bay
composite frame structure consisting of reinforced concrete
columns and steel beams [J],” AIJ Journal of Technology and
Design, vol. 6, pp. 111–116, 2000.
[35] C. H. Chen, W. C. Lai, P. Cordova, G. G. Deierlein, and
K. C. Tsai, “Pseudo-dynamic test of full-scale RCS frame: part
I-design, construction, testing,” American Society of Civil
Engineers Structures Congress, pp. 107–118, 2004.
[36] X. M. Liang and G. J. Parra-Montesinos, “Seismic behavior of
reinforced concrete column-steel beam subassemblies and
frame systems,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 130,
no. 2, pp. 310–319, 2004.
[37] P. Cordova, Validation of the seismic performance of composite
RCS frames: full-scale testing analysis and seismic design, Ph.D.
Dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA, 2005.
[38] J. J. Men, Y. R. Zhang, Z. F. Guo, and Q. X. Shi, “Experimental
research on seismic behavior of a composite RCS frame,” Steel
and Composite Structures, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 971–983, 2015.
[39] X. Li, J. P. Liu, X. D. Wang, B. Dong, and Y. F Chen,
“Hysteretic behavior of circular tubed reinforced concrete
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
column to steel beam frames,” Journal of Building Engi-
neering, vol. 45, Article ID 103475, 2022.
[40] N. Sakaguchi, Strength and behavior of frames composed of
Reinf. concrete columns and steel beams, Ph.D. Dissertation,
Kyoto Univ, Kyoto, Japan, 1992.
[41] H. Kuramoto and I. Nishiyama, “Seismic performance and
stress transferring mechanism of through-column-type joints
for composite reinforced concrete and steel frames,” Journal
of Structural Engineering, vol. 130, no. 2, pp. 352–360, 2004.
[42] Y. Izaki, N. Imanaka, and M. Morota, “Experimental study on
reinforced concrete column to steel beam joints of tapered-
fange-type panels: part 2-evaluation of experimental results,”
Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting, Structures
II 1988, pp. 1317-1318, Architectural Institute of Japan, Tokyo,
Japan, 1988.
[43] I. Nishiyama, H. Kuramoto, and H. Noguchi, “Guidelines:
seismic design of composite reinforced concrete and steel
buildings,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 130, no. 2,
pp. 336–342, 2004.
[44] E. J. Lee, J. H. Moon, and M. S. Lee, “Shear resistance con-
tribution of constituent elements consisting RCS joint,”
Advances in Civil Engineering, vol. 2021, Article ID 3958247,
14 pages, 2021.
[45] S. Alizadeh, N. K. A. Attari, and M. T. Kazemi, “Te seismic
performance of new detailing for RCS connections,” Journal
of Constructional Steel Research, vol. 91, pp. 76–88, 2013.
[46] G. G. Deierlein, T. M. Sheikh, J. A. Yura, and J. O. Jirsa,
“Beam-column moment connections for composite frames:
Part 2,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 115, no. 11,
pp. 2877–2896, 1989.
[47] Asce Task Committee on Design Criteria for Composite
Structures in Steel and Concrete, “Guidelines for design of
joints between steel beams and reinforced concrete col-
umns,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 120, no. 8,
pp. 2330–2357, 1994.
[48] Y. Yi, “Experimental research on seismic behavior of interior
joint in the composite frame consisting of steel beam and
reinforced concrete columns,” Master. dissertation,
Chongqing University, Chongqing, China, 2005.
[49] Z. Z. Zhao, J. R. Qian, and X. B. Yang, “Experimental study on
behavior of reinforced concrete column-steel beam subas-
semblies,” Building Structure, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 69–73, 2006,
in Chinese.
[50] H. X. Shen, Research on static behavior of reinforced concrete
column–steel beam (RCS) moment joints, Ph.D. Dissertation,
Xi’an Universtiy of architecture and technology, Xi’an, China,
2007.
[51] J. J. Men, H. J. Li, and X. D. Wang, “Research on shear bearing
capacity of reinforced concrete column-steel beam composite
joint,” Building Structure, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 74–78, 2015.
[52] G. Parra-Montesinos and J. K. Wight, “Modeling shear be-
havior of hybrid RCS beam-column connections,” Journal of
Structural Engineering, vol. 127, no. 1, pp. 3–11, 2001.
[53] Aij Composite Rcs Structures Sub-Committee, AIJ Design
Guidelines for Composite RCS Joints, Architectural Institute of
Japan, Tokyo, Japan, 1994.
[54] Cmc (China Ministry of Construction), Code for Design of
Composite Structures, JGJ 138-2016, China Ministry of
Construction, Beijing, China, 2016.