Author Summary
Gregory G. Deierlein is a research As mixed steel-concrete con-
assistant at the University of Texas,
Gregory G. Deierlein Austin, where he completed a doc-
torate degree in structural engineer-
ing in May 1988. He has a Master
of Science degree from the Univer-
sity of California, Berkeley and a
Bachelor of Science degree from
Design of Cornell University.
Prior to graduate study at the
Composite University of Texas, Deierlein
Connections worked as a structural engineer
with the firm of Robertson, Fowler
Between Steel Beams and Associates, P.C. in New York
City. He was involved with the
and Reinforced design of the 72-story Bank of
Concrete Columns China building in Hong Kong and
the Meyerson Symphony Center in
Dallas. Through work on these and
other projects, he has significant
design experience in structural
steel, reinforced concrete and com-
posite structures. His professional
experience also includes computer
modeling of tall and long-span
structures and review of wind engi-
neering reports for tall buildings.
Deierlein is a registered profes-
sional engineer in New York and a
member of ASCE and ACI. He is
currently involved in research
related to structural steel and com-
posite building systems.
The following authors also contributed to this
paper: James Jirsa, professor, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Texas at Austin; Tauqir
Sheikh, engineer, CBM Engineers, Inc., Houston;
and Joseph A. Yura, professor, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Austin.
13-1
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
struction becomes more prevalent
in building design, structural engi-
neers are detailing systems with
unprecedented degrees of interac-
tion between structural steel and
reinforced concrete. Recent litera-
ture reveals the need for design
guidelines in several areas related
to composite structural systems.
One such area is the detailing of
moment connections in composite-
framed structures. In this context,
the composite frame consists of
steel beams and reinforced con-
crete or composite columns. Typi-
cally, such a frame forms the
perimeter tube in tall buildings
where the floor framing is compos-
ite metal deck on steel beams.
Based on research conducted at
the University of Texas, this paper
addresses the design of connec-
tions between steel beams and
concrete (or composite) columns.
The presentation is divided into four
areas. First, a brief overview on the
development of the composite
frame provides understanding of
the design problem. Second, the
composite connection is described
in detail with particular emphasis on
the basic mechanisms controlling
the strength of the joint. Third,
experimental results are presented
from 17 rds-scale joint speci-
mens. The aim of these tests is to
gain understanding of the connec-
tion by examining the effect of vari-
ous joint details on the strength and
stiffness of the connection. Finally,
factors related to construction and
inspection of the connection are
presented.
This research was sponsored by
the NSF, AISC and CBM Consulting
Engineers of Houston.
 DESIGN OF COMPOSITE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN STEEL BEAMS
AND REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMNS

Gregory Deierlein, Tauqir Sheikh

Joseph Yura, James Jirsa

Increasingly, engineers are designing composite and mixed building systems of steel and concrete
to produce more efficient structures than either material alone could afford. Composite systems
derive their economy by exploiting to best advantage differences in material and construction
characteristics of structural steel and reinforced concrete. Recent literature has pointed out
need for information regarding interaction of structural steel and reinforced concrete in com-
(1,2,3)
posite and mixed structures. In particular, questions related to behavior and detailing of
the steel-concrete interface in connections and members need to be answered.

This paper addresses the design and behavior of moment connections between steel beams and
reinforced concrete or composite columns. Such connections are typically used in composite
framed structures which are described herein as background to the connection study. Informa-
tion on the composite joint behavior is based on an experimental research project conducted at
the University of Texas at Austin. This presentation focuses on describing the internal mech-
anisms which govern joint stiffness and strength and how certain steel details best mobilize
concrete in the joint region.

BACKGROUND
Composite Frame

The composite beam-column connection is an integral part of the so called composite frame
which in this report refers to a frame consisting of steel beams and reinforced concrete or
composite columns. Composite frames have been used as the lateral force system in buildings
where the typical floor framing consists of steel beams supporting a slab on metal deck. To date
composite frames have been employed for buildings in the 40 to 70 story range a few of which
are described below. Typically, such structures are built by erecting a steel frame in which
light steel erection columns are later encased by reinforced concrete columns. In most cases the
steel erection advances roughly 10 stories ahead of the concrete columns. This construction se-
quence is an integral ingredient for the economy of composite framed structures as one designer
notes, "Besides the economy of materials, composite structures have the advantage of speed of
construction by allowing a vertical spread of the construction activity so that numerous trades
(1)
can engage simultaneously in the construction of the building."

Composite framed structures are more cost effective in taller buildings where columns represent
a larger portion of the structural cost. Column costs are greater in tall structures where columns
carry large gravity and overturning forces. Also column sizes may be increased to add stiffness,

13-2
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
thereby reducing lateral drifts and wind induced motion. Under axial loads reinforced concrete
columns offer roughly an 8 to 11 times cost savings over structural steel columns in terms
(1)
of strength and stiffness. Relative savings is not as dramatic between steel and reinforced
concrete beams due to higher reinforcing steel, formwork and shoring costs. Composite frames
utilize concrete to its best advantage in columns while steel beams are used to simplify and speed
construction. Along with increased stiffness offered by concrete columns, superior damping
properties of concrete over steel offers further improvement of the dynamic response in tall
buildings. Finally, the attractiveness of concrete columns increases as higher strength concrete
becomes more readily available.

Several examples of buildings incorporating the composite beam-column joint are described
below. The Three Houston Center Gulf Tower(4) is a 52 story building which uses a composite
perimeter frame as the sole lateral load system. In this case the frame consists of W36 spandrel
beams and composite columns with embedded W14 steel columns. The 49 story First City
Tower,(4) also in Houston, uses composite frames together with concrete shear walls for the
lateral system in one direction and coupled concrete shear walls linked by steel beams in the
orthogonal direction. In this instance the moment connection between the steel link beam
and the concrete shear wall poses a similar detailing problem to the composite beam-column
connection. Two buildings where composite connections are used on larger scales are the 73
story InterFirst Plaza of the Dallas Main Center and the 57 story Norwest Center building
in Minneapolis. The InterFirst Plaza (5) uses a composite connection between W36 beams
and 6 ft square composite columns in Vierendeel frames which double as both lateral wind
and gravity resisting systems. In the Norwest Center (6) W36 beams frame a steel Vierendeel
system into four massive 14 ft by 8 ft composite columns.

Composite Joint

In applications where the composite frame serves primarily as a lateral load system the beam
column detail must transfer large unbalanced moments between the steel beams and composite
columns. Figure la shows the classic deflected shape of a structural frame subjected to lateral
loading. The load distribution in such a frame is characterized by inflection points near the
midpoint of the beams and columns with the maximum moments occurring at the connection.
In Fig. 1b an interior joint is extracted from the frame and shown with the resulting beam
and column forces acting on the connection. The primary concern in connection design is to
develop shear mechanisms in the joint panel which resolve the beam moments and shears into
the resisting column forces.

Proper connection design should insure satisfactory response of the structure under both service
and ultimate conditions. At service loads the joint should have adequate stiffness so as to
limit wind and earthquake induced drifts to satisfactory levels. The connection must also resist

13-3
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
ultimate design loads at reasonable levels of deformation. The ultimate connection design forces
may be factored service loads as in the case of wind loading, or forces associated with hinging of
adjacent beams which provide an upper bound on connection forces for seismic loading. Joint
deformations should be controlled at ultimate loads to prevent excessive building drift which
could lead to lateral instability.

The current state of practice for design of composite beam-column joints relies heavily on indi-
vidual designer's judgement based on existing knowledge of reinforced concrete and structural
steel joint design. In the U.S. there has been little published research directly related to the
composite beam-column joints considered in this paper. The closest applicable research and
standards are those addressing embedded steel shapes used as brackets in precast concrete
construction.

In Japan a type of composite construction called Steel Reinforced Concrete (SRC) construction
has been popular for many years and has generated considerable research on composite joint
design. In addition, the Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) has published standards for SRC
structures (7) which include connection design recommendations. However, due to several basic
differences between composite systems evolving in the U.S. and Japan, much of the Japanese
work is not directly applicable to the composite joint configuration addressed by this report.
Traditional SRC structures consists of frames where both the steel beams and columns are
encased in reinforced concrete. More recently SRC systems are emerging where the steel beam
is not encased, however, the AIJ standard requires the moment capacity of the encased steel
( 7)
column and steel beam to not differ by a factor greater than 2 This requirement is contrary
to U.S. practice where the steel erection column is small relative to the steel beam and the
reinforced concrete provides most of the column moment capacity. Sheikh W and Wakabayashi
(9)
present reviews of pertinent Japanese research in SRC structures.

EXPERIMENTAL TEST PROGRAM

Owing to the lack of applicable research for the type of composite beam-column connections
used in U.S. practice, an experimental research program was conducted at the Ferguson Struc-
tural Engineering Laboratory at the University of Texas. The primary objective of this research
is to gain understanding of the composite joint's behavior and identify internal mechanisms
which control the joint capacity. The experimental tests focus on the effect of various joint
details on the connection response with particular emphasis towards identifying details which
increase participation of concrete in the joint region. A total of 17 two-third scale joint speci-
mens were built and tested in two phases of the project. Detailed description of the tests and
results are reported by Sheikh (8) and Deierlein.(10) The intent of this paper is not to summarize
and document the experiments, but rather to use the results in describing the joint behavior.

13-4
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
The experimental program is described only sofar as to provide the necessary background to
understand the results discussed herein.

Test Setup and Specimen Description

The experimental setup is shown in Fig. 2. The test specimens consist of cruciform shaped
planar connections which are loaded so as to replicate the joint forces described previously in
Fig. 1. Loads are applied quasi-statically through hydraulic rams which push up on one beam
and pull down on the opposite beam with equal loads. Along with monitoring the load and joint
deformations, internal strains are measured in the steel and concrete with electronic resistance
strain gages.

The joint geometry and reinforcing bar layout shown in Fig. 3 are similar for all test specimens.
The concrete columns and steel beams are designed to insure failure in the joint region. Of
course, this philosophy, used for experimental purposes, is opposite to design practice where
preferably failure occurs in the members. Horizontal tie reinforcement in the joint is provided
following the ASCE-ACI committee recommendations (11) for reinforced concrete joints sub-
jected to seismic loads. The main test variable involves modifying the structural steel details
in order to examine their effect on behavior. These details which are discussed subsequently
consist of stiffeners and other attachments to the steel beam.

Specimen Response

Typical plots of the connection's load-deformation response are shown in Fig. 4. The verti-
cal axis indicates the applied beam shear which is proportional to moments adjacent to the
connection. The Total Joint Distortion (TJD) on the horizontal axis measures angular change
between the beam and column sections adjacent to the connection. A joint distortion of 1%
equals a 0.01 radian rotation between the beam and column. In a frame such a rotation would
contribute a 1% (H/100) inter-story drift. In the first phase of the project, nine of the 17
test specimens were loaded monotonically to roughly 4% TJD in each direction. In the second
phase the remaining 8 specimens were loaded according to the following agenda of reverse cyclic
loading: two full cycles to 1% TJD, two full cycles to 2% TJD, and a final half cycle to 4%
TJD. In Fig. 4 the second cycles to 1% and 2% TJD are omitted for clarity.

From the monotonic response several observations are made. First, the joint is fairly ductile
as evidenced by the response plateau which flattens out past 1% TJD but continues picking
up load through 4% TJD. This response repeats in the reverse loading direction. The load
resisted at 1% TJD is chosen as the basis for comparison between tests and for developing
strength design guidelines. Based on a service load equal to one half of the nominal design
capacity defined at 1% TJD the service deformations are roughly 0.2% TJD. This level of
service load deformation corresponds to values reported for reinforced concrete and welded

© 2003 by American Institute of13-5

Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
 (8,10)
structural steel joints. Indicated on the plot is the stage where hairline cracks first are
visible on the concrete surface. These cracks which are described subsequently, begin opening
at loads slightly less than the anticipated service loads. Also indicated on the plot is the point
at which the steel web panel yields inside the joint. Web yielding at approximately 70% of the
ultimate load indicates the degree to which the concrete mechanisms carry joint shear after the
steel web capacity is exhausted.
The cyclic response reveals that the composite joint is fairly tough and shows good behavior
for seismic applications. After 4 full load cycles (two to 1% TJD and two to 2% TJD) the
connection continues to carry at least 75% of the load initially carried at the given deformations.
Additionally, based on the areas enclosed by the hysteretic loops the average equivalent viscous
damping for the connections is 18% of critical damping. The modest strength loss and damping
coefficients are both within the range of behavior reported for reinforced concrete joints detailed
for seismic loads. (12) Finally, evident from visual comparison of the two plots is that the
monotonic response curve is very similar to the failure envelope for the cyclic response.

Concrete Cracking
Typical crack patterns are shown in Figs. 5a through 5d. In these figures the initial loading is
applied such that the top beam flange is in tension on the left and compression on the right,
and vice-versa for the bottom flange. Figure 5a shows cracking at the anticipated service load.
It should be noted that the hairline cracks are highlighted with black marker and in actuality
are not as visible as they appear. Cracking on the column face indicates formation of diagonal
compression struts through which the concrete resists joint shear. Also, cracks near the top
left beam flange indicate tendency of the flange to push through the column. Figure 5b shows
cracking at 1% TJD, corresponding to the deformation where the nominal joint design capacity
is defined. At this load the steel web panel has typically yielded after which only the concrete
shear mechanisms pick up additional load. Typical crack widths measure less than 1/16 inch
at this stage. In Fig. 5c the joint has undergone one complete cycle to 1% TJD. As expected,
cracking patterns formed in the two loading directions are fairly symmetric. Finally, in Fig. 5d
the joint has been loaded through two complete cycles to 1% TJD and two cycles to 2% TJD.
Comparing Figs. 5c and 5d the primary difference is that more cracks have opened between
those previously formed and the crack widths have increased up to 1/8 inch. At the stage
shown in Fig. 5d concrete cover in the joint region is on the verge of spalling off.

COMPOSITE JOINT BEHAVIOR

The composite joint behavior depends in large part how individual details mobilize the inter-
nal mechanisms which resolve unbalanced beam moments into the columns. The joint shear
mechanisms may be distinguished between those occurring in the inner and outer panel regions

13-6
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
defined in Fig. 6. Distinction between the regions reflects a vertical crack plane (denoted a-
b-c-d in Fig. 6) which forms on each side of the steel beam in the test specimens. The crack
forms as the steel beam and the inner concrete panel tend to rotate as a rigid body inside the
column.

Concrete damage in the connection region reflects the concrete's role in carrying joint shear
forces. The damage described herein was noted through dissection of several test specimens
which had been subjected to reverse cyclic loading. The inner panel concrete exhibited extensive
micro-cracking directed along each of the joint panel diagonals. The cracks suggests that a
compression strut forms along the joint panel diagonal which shortens under shear deformations.
This compression strut mechanism strengthens the steel web in a similar but opposite manner
as the tension field mechanism which carries the post buckling load in slender webs of plate
girders. The outer panel concrete showed varying degrees of damage in specimens with different
joint details. Typically, the damage is proportional to the connection strength, indicating a
greater participation of concrete in resisting the joint forces. The crack pattern suggests that
the outer concrete panel carries joint shear through a compression field (or truss) mechanism
which is discussed below.

Steel Web Panel

Figure 7 shows the steel web panel which is one of the three joint shear mechanisms. Asso-
ciated with this mechanism are the concrete bearing stress blocks above and below the beam
flanges. Also, shown in the figure is vertical joint reinforcement which provides one method
of strengthening the connection when concrete bearing failure controls the design. Vertical
joint reinforcement consists of reinforcing bars or rods which are mechanically attached to the
steel beam, and thereby transfer both tension and compression directly between the beam and
column. The vertical force resultant formed by the concrete bearing zone and vertical joint
reinforcement establishes the effective shear region of the steel panel. The length of this region
(shown shaded in Fig. 7) determines the steel panel's joint shear capacity. The shear capacity
is calculated using equations developed for structural steel connections similar to those given
in the AISC-LRFD specification.(13)

Concrete Compression Strut

The compression strut shown in Fig. 8 is the mechanism by which the inner concrete panel
resists joint shear. Essential to formation of the strut are stiffener plates which bear against
the concrete as the joint panel deforms. One way of considering the participation of joint shear
mechanisms is by visualizing the beam flanges pushing through the joint region due to axial
flange forces on each side of the joint. Attachments such as the stiffener plates bear on the
concrete and thereby resist flange movement. Also, shown in Fig. 8 are concrete bearing zones

13-7
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
and vertical joint reinforcement which serve similar roles for the concrete strut as for the steel
panel in Fig. 7. The concrete strut model shown in Fig. 8 is similar to the model applied to
(11)
reinforced concrete joints in the 1985 ASCE-ACI Committee 352 recommendations.

Several configurations of stiffener plates (Fig. 9) may be used to mobilize the inner panel
concrete with varying degrees of effectiveness. The most effective location for the stiffeners is
at the face of the concrete column where a concrete strut develops across the full column width.
As noted in Fig. 9, in this location the stiffeners are referred to as Face Bearing Plates (FBP).
The stiffeners may also be inset from the column face so as to align with the flanges of a steel
column. The inset plates are not as effective in mobilizing the concrete panel, and as indicated
by the test results, the inset plates contribute roughly 70% of the strength obtained with the
FBPs. As shown in Fig. 9, the stiffener plates may be wider than the beam flange so as to
increase the concrete strut width. Also, the stiffener plates may be split at the center in order
to reduce fabrication costs incurred by fit up of full height stiffeners.

Inner Panel Strength

Figure 10 summarizes selected tests results which demonstrate the relative strength contributed
by the steel web panel and concrete compression strut for various joint details. The loads in
Fig. 10 are expressed in relative percentages to the capacity of Specimen 2 which is assigned a
benchmark value of 100%. Specimen 1 consists of a plain beam passing through the reinforced
concrete column. In this case there is little concrete participation since friction and adhesion
are the only means of transferring horizontal load between the beam flanges and concrete. In
Specimen 2 where FBPs mobilize the compression strut the concrete contributes roughly an
equal amount as the steel web. Similar specimens which used split FBPs and plates of varying
thickness showed no significant difference in behavior, and hence, effectiveness of bearing plates
between the flanges does not appear sensitive to the plate's transverse bending stiffness. Spec-
imen 3 is identical to Specimen 2 except that the FBPs are 1.5 times wider and project beyond
the beam flange width. The increased strength of the concrete panel indicates that within the
range tested, the compression strut contribution is approximately proportional to the bearing
plate width. In Specimen 4 thick steel web doubler plates are added in the joint region so as
to preclude web yielding and hence eliminate joint shear failure in the panel region. In this
case failure occurs by concrete crushing above and below the beam flanges thus providing a
measure of the bearing zone capacity. Specimen 4 shows that Specimens 1, 2 and 3 failed in
joint shear before the concrete bearing capacity was exceeded. In Specimen 5 Dywidag bars
are attached to the flange as vertical joint reinforcement to strengthen the concrete bearing
zone. Steel doubler plates (thinner than those used in Specimen 4) and FBPs are also used
in Specimen 5 to increase the joint shear capacity above that governed by concrete bearing.
Specimen 5 failed by joint shear at a load 22% higher than Specimen 4, thus demonstrating the
effectiveness of vertical joint reinforcement. The test also confirmed that as expected the web

13-8
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
doubler plates increased the steel panel strength in proportion to their thickness. Finally, as
shown in Fig. 10, a portion of the joint shear capacity of Specimen 5 is attributed to the outer
compression field region, the behavior of which is discussed next.

Concrete Compression Field

Joint shear forces are carried in the outer panel by a concrete compression field which as
shown in Fig. 11 is essentially a truss mechanism consisting of concrete compression struts and
horizontal tension ties. Equations governing the shear strength of the compression field are
similar to those used for shear calculations in reinforced concrete beams where portions of the
strength derive from both concrete and reinforcing steel components.

Two important questions related to the compression field contribution are, first, what are the
mechanisms which transfer horizontal joint shear from the beam flanges to the outer panel
and, second, how effective are various joint details in developing such transfer mechanisms?
The horizontal compression struts shown in section AA of Fig. 11 provide one means by which
shear forces are transferred into the outer panel. As shown in the figure, struts form through
bearing against the steel erection column which transfers force from the beam flange. At the
outer end of the struts, transverse column ties resist outward thrust and drag shear forces into
the vertical compression field. As shown in Fig. 11 closely spaced transverse ties above and
below the beam are required to effect this transfer. These ties provide the additional benefit of
confining concrete in the highly stressed bearing region adjacent to the flanges.

The various steel details shown in Fig. 12 may be used to form the horizontal transfer struts
whereby the outer panel is mobilized. The steel column detail which is the same as that shown
in Fig. 11 is perhaps the most common since steel erection columns are often present. In the
extended Face Bearing Plate (FBP) scheme plates are attached above and below the flanges at
the column face. This detail results in greater participation of the outer panel than the steel
column since the struts form at the column face and thereby have more distance in which to fan
out. As shown in Fig. 12, extended FBPs usually require stiffeners in order to keep the bearing
plates to a reasonable thickness. Welded shear studs offer a third means of transferring force
between the flanges and concrete. Finally, acting in a similar manner to shear studs, vertical
joint reinforcement also provides a means of horizontal load transfer, thus explaining the outer
panel mobilization previously noted in Specimen 5.

Outer Panel Strength

The relative strengths for details where the outer panel contributes to the connection capacity
are shown in Fig. 13. Specimen 1 and 2 in which the outer panel does not participate are
repeated from Fig. 11 for reference. Like the previous examples each specimen derives the
basic portion of its strength from the steel web panel which has roughly the same strength in

13-9
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
all cases. Specimen 6 consists of a plain steel beam with fifteen 1/2 x 4 in. (5 rows of 3) shear
studs welded to each flange. In this case the inner panel contribution is small since like Specimen
1 described previously, friction and adhesion are the only means of transferring horizontal force
into concrete between the flanges. Outside the flanges the studs provide an effective means of
transferring load into the outer panel, the result being that the total capacity for Specimen 6 is
about the same as for Specimen 2. Specimen 7 is the same as Specimen 6 except that FBPs are
added between the flanges. The inner and outer panel participation provided by the FBPs and
shear studs is roughly the sum of what each of these individual details provide in Specimens
2 and 6. This observation indicates that strength gains achieved by inner and outer panel
mobilization are additive with each other. This additive property is not true for strength gains
by details which mobilized the same region of concrete. For example, the strength increase due
to shear studs and the steel column are not additive since each detail mobilizes the same region
of the outer concrete panel. In Specimen 8 a W5 steel column welded to the beam flanges
provides mobilization of the outer panel. As shown in Fig. 13, for the given specimen geometry
the column provides roughly the same participation of the outer panel as the shear stud detail.
Finally, in Specimen 9 the extended FBPs result in the largest contribution of the outer panel.
This result is expected following the previous discussion of how the different details provide
more effective formation of the horizontal transfer struts (Fig. 11). In Specimen 9 the outer
panel contribution accounts for roughly 44% of the total capacity.

The relative strengths of Specimens 1 and 9 in Fig. 13 indicate that the with relatively simple
detailing an increase in capacity of 200% is achieved. Also, the strength of Specimen 9 (FBP,
Extd. FBP) exceeds that of Specimen 4 (FBP, Web Dblr. PL), thus revealing, that the
additional outer panel capacity is not limited by the concrete bearing zone against the flanges.
This is true because where the outer panel is mobilized the effective joint width and, hence,
concrete bearing zone width increase. Also, the extended FBPs provide additional confinement
to the concrete in the bearing zone thereby increasing the concrete crushing stress.

COMPOSITE JOINT DESIGN

An important result of the composite joint research is in demonstrating that relatively simple
details can produce beam- column joints with considerable strength. Based on the test results
design models have been developed by Sheikh (8) and Deierlein (10) by which to calculate the
composite connection strength. These models address aspects of behavior related to the joint
shear mechanisms described in this paper. The design guidelines by Deierlein also discuss the
analysis of joint configurations other than the planar cruciform connection presented herein.

Figure 14 shows a representative full size joint detailed using Deierlein's recommendations (10)
to resist joint forces associated with plastic hinging in the steel beam adjacent to the joint. The
W27 X 235 (A36) steel beam requires roughly 2% longitudinal reinforcement in the column

13-10
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
in order for the nominal moment capacity of the column to exceed that of the beam by 20%.
Thus, this example represents a case where the connection force requirement is fairly large. As
shown in Fig. 14 the required joint strength is satisfied by a relatively simple detail consisting
of FBPs together with a W8 steel (erection) column.

SUMMARY

Composite and mixed systems are gaining popularity in applications where they offer more cost
effective solutions than either structural steel or reinforce concrete alone. Composite framed
structures consisting of steel beams and reinforced concrete (or composite) columns offer an
attractive design solution for lateral force systems in office buildings ranging between 40 to 70
stories.

As is often the case with innovations in engineering, advances in composite and mixed steel-
concrete construction are pioneered by designers and contractors well ahead of academic re-
search. An area of needed research addressed in this paper is the design and behavior of
composite beam-column connections. An experimental research project conducted at the Uni-
versity of Texas addresses this topic. In this paper results of this research are incorporated in
a presentation of the composite joint behavior.

CONCLUSIONS

The primary consideration in composite connection design is in evaluating the participation of

three available joint shear mechanisms. The steel web and concrete compression strut mecha-
nisms carry shear forces in the inner panel region of the joint. The concrete compression field
carries shear in the outer panel region. In addition to failure by joint shear, high concrete bear-
ing stresses adjacent to the beam flanges may govern the connection strength. Vertical joint
reinforcement attached to the steel beam is shown to be effective for increasing the capacity
where concrete bearing governs.

In general, substantial gains in joint strength result using relatively simple connection details
which mobilize concrete in the joint region. Face bearing stiffener plates attached inside the
beam flanges mobilize the concrete compression strut with a resulting strength increase of 70%
over the plain steel beam. The contribution of the compression strut is roughly proportional
to the bearing plate width. Finally, inset web stiffeners are only 70% as effective as the face
bearing plates in mobilizing the inner panel concrete.

Strength gains of 60% to 130% above the plain steel beam are obtained in test specimens
by details which mobilize the compression field in the outer concrete panel. An important
consideration for the outer panel is how effectively steel details form horizontal struts which
transfer shear into the compression field. Extended face bearing plates produce the most

13-11
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
effective transfer and result in the 130% gain noted above. The steel column and shear stud
details are somewhat less effective and result in 60% increases. The experiments show that
strength gains obtained by mobilization of the inner and outer concrete panels are additive
with each other. One such specimen where both the inner and outer panels are mobilized
showed a total strength increase of 200% above the plain beam.
Based on the test specimen responses, composite joints demonstrate ductile behavior with rel-
atively good toughness and reliability. Sheikh (8) and Deierlein (10) have developed analytic
models to calculate the joint strength. Designed using these models a representative connec-
tion example shows that fairly modest composite joint details transfer large connection forces
confirming that such connections offer an attractive design alternative for current and future
applications.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
CBM Consulting Engineers of Houston and the American Institute of Steel Construction pro-
vided funds to initiate the research. Additional funding by the National Science Foundation
provided the bulk of support for the experiments conducted at the Ferguson Structural Engi-
neering Laboratory at the University of Texas. The second author, Tauqir Sheikh, initiated
the research based on his design experience in mixed steel-concrete structures.

REFERENCES

1. Griffis, L., "Some Design Considerations for Composite-frame Structures," AISC Engineering
Journal, Second Quarter 1986.

2. Iyengar, H., "Recent Developments in Mixed Steel-Concrete Systems," Composite and Mixed
Construction; Proceedings of the U.S./Japan Joint Seminar, Edited by C. Roeder, ASCE,
1985.

3. Lu, L.; Kato, B., "Seminar Summary and Research Needs," Composite and Mixed Construc-
tion, ASCE, 1985.

4. Moore, W., Gosain, N.,"Mixed Systems, Past Practices, Recent Experience and Future
Direction," Composite and Mixed Construction, ASCE, 1985.

5. Rastorfer, D., "William J. LeMessurier's Super-tall Structures: A search for the ideal," Arch-
itectural Record, Jan. 1985.

6. Leon, R., "Instrumentation of The Norwest Center - Minneapolis," Unpublished Report,

University of Minnesota, 1987.
7. Minami, K.,"Beam to Column Stress Transfer in Composite Structures," Composite and
Mixed Construction, ASCE, 1985.

13-12
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
 8. Sheikh, T.,"Moment Connections Between Steel Beams and Concrete Columns," Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, 1987.

9. Wakabayashi, M.,"Recent Developments for Composite Buildings in Japan," Composite and

Mixed Construction, ASCE, 1985.

10. Deierlein, G.,"Design and Behavior of Moment Connections for Composite Framed Struc-
tures," Ph.d. dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Austin,
1988.

11. ACI-ASCE Committee 352,"Recommendations for Design of Beam-Column Joints in Mono-

lithic Reinforced Concrete Structures," Report ACI 352 R-85,1985.

12. Kitayama, K., Otani, S. & Aoyama, H., "Earthquake Resistant Design Criteria for Reinforced
Concrete Interior Beam-Column Joints," Proceedings- Pacific Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Wairakei, New Zealand, 1987.

13. AISC, Load and Resistance Factor Design, Manual of Steel Construction, First Edition,
1986.

13-13
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
Figure 1a - Frame Under Lateral Load Figure 1b - Interior Joint

Figure 2 - Experimental Test Setup

13-14
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
 Figure 3 - Test Specimen Reinforcement

Figure 4 - Typical Load vs. Deformation Response

13-15
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
13-16
Figure 5a - Cracking at Service Loads Figure 5b - Cracking at 1% TJD

© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.

This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
13-17
Figure 5c - Cracking After 1st 1% TJD Cycle Figure 5d - Cracking After 2nd 2% TJD Cycle

© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.

This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
 Figure 6 - Joint Panel Regions

Figure 7 - Steel Web Panel Figure 8 - Concrete Compression Strut

13-18
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
 Figure 9 - Inner Panel Steel Details

Figure 10 - Relative Joint Capacities (inner panel details)

13-19
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
 Figure 11 - Concrete Compression Field

Figure 12 - Outer Panel Steel Details

13-20
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
Figure 13 - Relative Joint Capacities (outer panel details)

Figure 14 - Example Joint Detail

13-21
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.