Monotonic Loading Tests of Ring-Beam Connections for

Steel Reinforced Concrete Columns and RC Beams

Peng Pan 1; Xuchuan Lin 2; Alexandre Lam 3; Haowen Chen 4; and Lieping Ye 5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 06/05/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Many types of connections between steel reinforced concrete (SRC) columns and reinforced concrete (RC) beams have been
proposed. These connections are usually difficult to design and complex to construct. This study proposes a new ring-beam connection for
SRC columns and RC beams. The force transfer mechanism is as follows. The shear forces and bending moments of the RC beams are first
transferred to the ring-beam connections and then to the SRC columns. A series of monotonic bending and shear tests was carried out to verify
the applicability and effectiveness of the new ring-beam connections for use in structures. These connections were of two different types:
orthogonal and nonorthogonal. Ring-beam connections with appropriate designs are shown to satisfy the strong connection/weak beam
requirement. Finally, simple design methods for the longitudinal reinforcements and stirrups of the different elements are proposed based
on the test and analysis results. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000911. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Beams; Connections; Concrete columns; Laboratory tests; Design; Metal and composite structures.

Introduction CFT columns are important for composite structures. However,

Composite structures are widely used in high-rise buildings, and an
appropriate design of the beam-to-column connection is a key issue
in practice (Wei 2006; Industry Standard of People’s Republic of
China 2002). In composite structures, most of the beam-to-column
connections link steel beams and composite [e.g., steel reinforced
concrete (SRC) or concrete filled tube (CFT)] columns. Many
studies have been conducted to investigate the behavior of such
connections. Azizinamini et al. (1995) proposed a type of con-
nection in which the beam completely passes through a column
without welding of the steel beam or connecting elements directly
to the steel tube of the composite column. Schneider and Alostaz
(1998) studied through-column and through-beam connections
by conducting both experiments and numerical simulations. The
through-column connections use stiffeners to connect steel beams
to CFT columns, whereas the through-beam connections make the
beams pass directly through the panel zone and use other embedded
elements for enhancement.
Reinforced concrete (RC) beams are commonly used in com-
posite structures in China. This is mainly because RC has better
fire resistance and durability, and is less expensive than steel.
This means that connections between RC beams and SRC or
1
Associate Professor, Key Laboratory of Civil Engineering Safety
and Durability of China Education Ministry, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Tsinghua Univ., Beijing 100084, China (corresponding author). E-mail:
panpeng@tsinghua.edu.cn
2
Postdoctoral Fellow, Earthquake Research Institute, Univ. of Tokyo,
Yayoi 1-1-1, Bunkyo, Tokyo 113-0032, Japan.
3
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua Univ.,
Beijing 100084, China.
4
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua Univ.,
Beijing 100084, China.
5
Professor, Key Laboratory of Civil Engineering Safety and Durability
of China Education Ministry, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua Univ.,
Beijing 100084, China.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 23, 2012; approved on
July 3, 2013; published online on July 5, 2013. Discussion period open
until May 2, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, ©
ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/04013092(11)/$25.00.
few studies have been conducted so far. A new connection for a
CFT column and an RC beam was proposed, and verification tests
were conducted by Cai et al. (2000). In this connection, four strong
steel bars are placed vertically; the longitudinal reinforcements are
welded to the bars in the panel zone, and steel brackets are welded
to the outside surface of the tube to strengthen the CFT column.
Further research along this line was carried out by Nie et al.
(2008), who proposed an improved connection system in which
the reinforcements of the RC beams penetrate the CFT column
(Bai et al. 2008).
Although previous work demonstrated several kinds of connec-
tions between RC beams and SRC columns or CFT columns that
may be used to achieve acceptable performance, most of these
methods require complicated fabrication, welding, and hole drill-
ing. Because the connection is the key component in the transition
zone and is critical for the overall strength and stiffness of the struc-
ture, a detailed study of better methods to make the connection is
very important.
In this paper, a novel ring-beam connection is proposed for SRC
columns and RC beams. This construction was recently used in a
steel frame concrete core wall structure located in Beijing. The
authors conducted a series of monotonic tests to examine the appli-
cability and effectiveness of this type of ring-beam connection;
based on the test results, the authors suggest simple design methods
for these connections.
Configuration and Characteristics of the Ring-Beam
Connection
As shown in Fig. 1, the new SRC column-RC beam ring-beam
connection consisted of a frame column, a ring-beam, and frame
beams. The part of the column above the ring-beam is a square steel
tube column filled with concrete within a certain height, whereas
the part of the column below the ring-beam is an SRC column,
using the previous square steel tube as reinforcement. The longi-
tudinal reinforcements and stirrups of the ring-beam are first
assembled around the column and form a steel meshwork to
which the longitudinal reinforcements of the RC frame beam

© ASCE 04013092-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng. 2014.140.

 Square steel tubular column Square steel tubular column

Ring-beam connection Ring-beam connection

RC beam RC beam

SRC column SRC column

(a) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 06/05/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(c) (d)

Fig. 1. Configurations of ring-beam connections: (a) orthogonal ring-beam connection; (b) nonorthogonal ring-beam connection; (c) orthogonal
ring-beam connection; (d) nonorthogonal ring-beam connection

and the lower part of the SRC column are anchored. Finally, the Table 1. Purpose of Tests and Connection Types of the Different
structure is filled with concrete. The force-transferring mechanism Specimens
is as follows. Shear forces and bending moments of the RC beams Specimen Connection
are first transferred to the ring-beam connections and then to the number type Experimental purpose
SRC columns. This novel ring-beam connection has the advantage
D-ZW Orthogonal Test the bending capacity of orthogonal
of easy construction, avoiding complex fabrication and hole drill- ring-beam connections
ing. A high-rise building was recently constructed in Beijing using D-XW Nonorthogonal Test the bending capacity of
the new ring-beam connection adopted in this project. Photographs nonorthogonal ring-beam connections
showing on-site construction details are given in Figs. 1(c and d). D-ZJ Orthogonal Test the shear capacity of orthogonal
ring-beam connections
D-XJ Nonorthogonal Test the shear capacity of
Experimental Study nonorthogonal ring-beam connections

Specimens and Initial Assembly

To investigate the mechanical behavior of the ring-beam connec-
tion, four specimens with a reduced scale of 1∶2 were prepared
using components similar to those used for the construction of the
real structure. The specimens were divided into two groups based
on the different connection types used in the building. The first
group contained two orthogonal ring-beam connections [Fig. 1(a)],
whereas the second group contained two nonorthogonal ring-
beam connections [Fig. 1(b)]. Monotonic bending and shear tests
were performed for each type of connection. In the tests, vertical
loads were applied to the tops of the columns to simulate the
effects of gravity while forces were exerted on the beams to re-
present the effects of shear and bending. Specimen numbers, con-
nection types, and their corresponding experimental purposes are
listed in Table 1.
The construction and reinforcement plans of the SRC column
are shown in Fig. 2. The reinforcement plans of the ring-beams
and frame beams for the orthogonal connection specimens (D-ZW
and D-ZJ) and nonorthogonal connection specimens (D-XW and
D-XJ) are shown in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively. The design of the
nonorthogonal ring-beam connection was the same as that of the
orthogonal ring-beam connection, except that the steel cross section
was rotated 45°. To examine the strong connection/weak beam
requirement, the area ratios of longitudinal reinforcements in
the ring-beam and in the frame beam were 3∶2 for orthogonal
ring-beam connections and 4∶3 for nonorthogonal ring-beam
connections. Specifically, the stirrup ratio of the orthogonal and
nonorthogonal ring-beam connections was no less than that in
the close region of the frame beam. Furthermore, studs were
configured on the surface of the steel tube within the connection
according to the construction requirement.
The longitudinal bars of the beam were anchored in the
ring-beam using 90° hooks (Fig. 5). According to Chapter 12.5
of ACI-318 (ACI 2008), the required development length can be
calculated as follows:
For specimens D-ZW and D-ZJ, the diameter is db ¼ 14 mm
.
pffiffiffiffiffi
ldh ¼ 0.24ψe f y db λ fc0
.
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
¼ 0.24 × 1.0 × 442 × 14 1.0 × 0.85 × 40.0 ¼ 255 mm
ð1Þ
lhk ¼ 16db ¼ 16 × 14 ¼ 224 mm ð2Þ

© ASCE 04013092-2 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng. 2014.140.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 06/05/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Details of SRC column for orthogonal ring-beam connection; all dimensions in mm

Fig. 3. Details of orthogonal ring-beam connection

© ASCE 04013092-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng. 2014.140.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 06/05/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Details of nonorthogonal ring-beam connection

db Table 2. Comparison between Provided and Required Development

Lengths of Beam Bars
4db
Critical D-ZW and D-ZJ D-XW and D-XJ
section lhk Comparison Provided Required Provided Required
12db
lhk 210 mm 224 mm 180 mm 192 mm
ldh 230 mm 255 mm 144 mm 192 mm
ldh

Fig. 5. Anchorage of the beam longitudinal bars in the ring-beam lhk ¼ 16db ¼ 16 × 12 ¼ 192 mm ð4Þ

For specimens D-XW and D-XJ, the diameter is db ¼ 12 mm The development lengths in this study were not sufficient be-
.
pffiffiffiffiffi cause the space is limited to anchor the beam longitudinal bars
ldh ¼ 0.24ψe fy db λ f c0 in the 1∶2 reduced-scale specimens. The comparison between
.
the provided and required lengths is shown in Table 2. It is found
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
¼ 0.24 × 1.0 × 389 × 12 1.0 × 0.85 × 40.0 ¼ 192 mm that the provided development length in D-ZW and D-ZJ is 10%
smaller than the required, whereas the provided value in D-XW and
ð3Þ D-XJ is 25% smaller than the required.

© ASCE 04013092-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng. 2014.140.

 Loading Arrangement 3,100 kN and gave an axial compression ratio of 0.3 for the column.
The ratio was calculated as N=ðfc Ac þ fssy Ass þ f sy As Þ, where
Fig. 6(a) shows the test setup for both the bending and shear tests.
N is the axial force;f c , fssy , f sy are the design strengths of the
The specimen was placed onto the base beam of the reaction frame,
concrete column, steel square tubes, and longitudinal steel rein-
and three oil jacks, a 500-ton jack and two 60-ton jacks, were used
forcements, respectively; and Ac , Ass , and As are the cross-sectional
to exert vertical loads on the specimen. The 500-ton jack in the
areas of the concrete column, steel square tube, and longitudinal
middle provided a constant vertical load onto the top of the column
steel reinforcements, respectively. The two 60-ton jacks, which
to simulate the effects of the axial force. The axial force was
were located symmetrically about the center line of the column,
pushed the beams down to produce shear or bending effects in
the beams. The distance from the beam loading point to the center-
500t
line of the column, denoted as L in Fig. 6(a), was 1,750 mm for the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 06/05/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

bending tests [Fig. 6(b)] and 775 mm for the shear tests [Fig. 6(c)].
Vertical forces were symmetrically applied onto the two beam load-
ing points. The 60-ton jacks are conventional oil jacks, and their
movements were manually controlled by carefully monitoring the
displacement of the loading points in the tests. To guarantee that the
specimens are loaded symmetrically, the same oil pressure was
60t 60t applied to the two jacks so that the forces of the two jacks were
800

identical at all times during the tests.

600

Measurements
L L To study the connections, displacements and strains in the struc-
tures are measured. Displacement transducers were placed beneath
800

Specimen
South North the beam loading points, at the interface between the frame beam
and ring-beam, alongside the steel square tube, and at the bottom of
the SRC column (Fig. 7). Strain gauges were placed on longitudinal
reinforcements and on the stirrups of frame and ring-beams to ob-
(a) tain steel strain diagrams and determine whether the beams yielded
(Fig. 8). The strain on the steel square tube was also measured using
strain gauges. Because of the large number of strain gauges, only
some representative ones are shown.

Material Properties
The mechanical properties of the materials were obtained before
the monotonic tests. Average yield stresses of reinforcements
are shown in Table 3. Square steel tubes were made of Q345B,
14-mm-thick steel plate with an average yield stress of 337 MPa.
Stress tests on 150-mm concrete cubes, which were cast at the same
time as the model ring-beam connections, were performed on the
day of the experiment, and the average compressive strengths are
listed in Table 4.

(b) Estimating Yield Strength

Yield of the frame beam is preferred according to the strong
connection/weak beam and strong shear and weak bending design
philosophies. Yield of the frame beam is defined as taking place
once any of the longitudinal steel reinforcements in tension reaches
its maximum yield stress. The estimated yield-bending moment of
the frame beam is calculated using the yield stresses of the steel

lb lrb

D1 D2

D3 D4
D5 D6
(c)

Fig. 6. Test setup: (a) sketch; (b) photo for D-ZW; (c) photo for D-ZJ Fig. 7. Displacement transducer layout for the ring-beam connection

© ASCE 04013092-5 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng. 2014.140.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 06/05/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Placement of strain gauges on longitudinal reinforcements of beams and ring-beam connection

80
Table 3. Average Yield Stresses of Reinforcement
Reinforcement
diameter (mm) 6 8 12 14 60

Load (kN)
Strength grade HPB235 HPB235 HRB335 HRB400 Yield point
Average yield stress (MPa) 407 333 389 442 40

South End
20 North End
Table 4. Average Axial Compressive Strengths of Concrete (MPa)
Element Specimen 0
number Beam Column Ring beam 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement (mm)
D-ZW 38.6 44.1 38.6
D-ZJ 39.8 44.9 39.8 Fig. 9. Load-displacement curves at beam ends (D-ZW)
D-XW 39.6 44.3 39.6
D-XJ 40.6 45.2 40.6
Load-displacement curves at two beam-loading points (north
and south ends) were obtained, and for each specimen, the curve
Table 5. Estimates of Yield Load at Loading Point of one loading point finished at a smaller displacement than the
Estimated yield Distance to section Corresponding other. This was because the two jacks worked from the same source
moment of frame between ring beam yield load at of oil pressure. Once failure occurred on one side, displacement at
Specimen beam (kN·m) and frame beam (mm) loading point (kN) the other side could not increase further.
D-ZW 89.9 1,318 68.2
D-XW 90.0 1,376 65.4
Bending Resistance and Failure Modes
D-ZJ 90.0 343 252.5
D-XJ 90.1 401 224.6 Fig. 9 shows the load-displacement curves at the beam ends of the
orthogonal specimen D-ZW, plotted from the data of the monotonic
bending test. The yield load was 67 kN (indicated by an arrow in
reinforcements obtained from the material tests. The yielded sec- Fig. 9), which is very close to the yield load estimated from the
tion is expected to be located at the interface between the ring-beam yield moment capacity of the frame beam. Table 6 summarizes the
and the frame beams. Once the yield moment of the frame beam is condition of the reinforcements and stirrups at the end of the tests
given, the corresponding yield loads at the loading points, which for all specimens. The longitudinal reinforcements of the RC beams
will be used for comparison between test results and computations had yielded, whereas those in the ring-beam were still elastic.
in the following sections, can easily be obtained. The estimated Moreover, the strain of the longitudinal reinforcement at point B2
yield moments of the frame beams and the corresponding yield in the ring-beam was significantly lower than the strain at point B1
loads at the loading points are shown in Table 5. in the frame beam (Fig. 8). This strain was also far from the yield
strain of the reinforcement. Therefore, the anchorage of the beam
longitudinal reinforcement in the ring-beam was effective, and the
Analysis of Experimental Results tensile force could be properly transferred. Cracking appeared at
the junctions between the frame beams and the ring-beam (Fig. 10),
The test results provide a lot of information about the applicability whereas no cracking or yielding appeared in the core area of the
and effectiveness of ring-beam connections subjected to bending connection, which indicates that the new ring-beam connection sat-
moments and shear forces. Detailed analysis of these results is in isfied the strong connection/weak beam requirement. The force
the following sections. To satisfy the design requirements, the lon- transfer mechanism and the development of cracks will be dis-
gitudinal reinforcements and stirrups of the frame beam for each cussed in later sections.
specimen are supposed to yield before those of the ring-beam, Fig. 11 shows the load-displacement curves at the beam ends of
so that strong connection/weak beam requirement is achieved. the nonorthogonal specimen D-XW. Yield was first observed in the

© ASCE 04013092-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng. 2014.140.

 Table 6. Yielding of Reinforcements and Stirrups
Frame beam Ring beam
Specimen Longitudinal
number reinforcement Stirrup Longitudinal reinforcement Stirrup
D-ZW Yielded Did not yield Inner-ring slightly yielded Did not yield
D-XW Did not yielded Did not yield Outer-ring longitudinal reinforcement yielded at the interface between Did not yield
north frame beam and ring beam
D-ZJ Yielded Yielded Did not yield Did not yield
D-XJ Did not yielded Did not yield Outer-ring longitudinal reinforcement yielded at the interface between Did not yield
south frame beam and ring beam
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 06/05/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Details of local failure (D-ZW) Fig. 12. Details of local failure (D-XW)

80
of the short anchorage length, the inner-ring longitudinal reinforce-
ment did not function adequately, and the outer one was over-
loaded. For full-scale specimens, attention must be paid to the size
60
of the ring-beam so that it can fully meet the requirements for
Load (kN)

anchorage. When the anchorage requirements are met, the nonor-

Yield point
40 thogonal ring-beam connection should also satisfy the strong
connection/weak beam requirement.
South End
20 North End

Shear Capacity and Failure Modes

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 Fig. 13 shows load-displacement curves at the south and north
Displacement (mm) beam ends of the orthogonal specimen D-ZJ, obtained from the
monotonic shear test. From the strain-gauge measurements, yield
Fig. 11. Load-displacement curves at beam ends (D-XW) was first observed in the longitudinal reinforcement of the frame
beam at a load of 220 kN, which was 12% smaller than the yield

outer-ring longitudinal reinforcement at a load of 65 kN (indicated 300

by an arrow in Fig. 11), which is also very close to the yield load
estimated from the yield moment capacity of the frame beam. The 250
curves for this nonorthogonal specimen are different from those of 200
Load (kN)

specimen D-ZW. The load decreased immediately after the yield

point. This phenomenon was primarily caused by the yield of the 150
ring-beam longitudinal reinforcement and the insufficient anchor-
age of the beam longitudinal bars in the 1∶2 reduced-scale speci- 100 South End
North End
men. As a result, many cracks appeared at the junctions between
50
the frame beams and the ring-beam (Fig. 12), and the longitudinal
reinforcement of the frame beam had significant slippage in the 0
joint zone. As shown in Table 6, in specimen D-XW, the longitu- 0 5 10 15 20 25
dinal reinforcement of the frame beam and the outer-ring lon- Displacement (mm)
gitudinal reinforcement almost yielded, whereas the inner-ring
Fig. 13. Load-displacement curves at beam ends (D-ZJ)
longitudinal reinforcement was still elastic. Therefore, as a result

© ASCE 04013092-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng. 2014.140.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 06/05/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 14. Details of local failure (D-ZJ)
load estimated from the yielding moment capacity of the frame
beam. The reduction in the bending strength was caused by the
large shear force. When yield was observed in the stirrups of
the frame beam at the ultimate load of 250 kN, load decreased
immediately because of shear failure. Although the longitudinal
reinforcement and stirrup of the frame beam yielded, those of
the ring-beam remained elastic (Table 6). The yield load of the
south frame beam was a little bit lower than the load of the north
one, so the vertical displacement at the south end was larger in
this experiment. Fig. 14 shows the details of local failure, in which
large cracks appeared at the junctions between the frame beams and
the ring-beam.
Load-displacement curves at the south and north beam ends
of the nonorthogonal specimen D-XJ were determined from the
monotonic shear test, and are plotted in Fig. 15. The yield load
was 200 kN, which is 9% smaller than the yield load estimated
from the yielding moment capacity of the frame beam. The curves
for specimen D-XJ were similar to those for specimen D-XW
(Fig. 11), showing that the anchorage problem still existed. Details
of local failure are shown in Fig. 16. Large cracks appeared around
the part of the ring-beam near the frame beam.
A bending failure mode (in which the longitudinal reinforce-
ments yielded) was observed for the shear tests, although a shear
failure mode was expected. Therefore, the actual shear capacity was
higher than the observed yield load (orthogonal 220 kN; nonor-
thogonal 200 kN), and much higher than the maximum shear
measured in the bending tests (orthogonal 67 kN; nonorthogonal
65 kN). The ring-beam satisfied the strong-shear and weak-bend
design requirement.
250
200
Load (kN)
150
100
South End
North End
50
0
0 5 10 15 20
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 15. Load-displacement curves at beam ends (D-XJ)
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng. 2014.140.
Fig. 16. Details of local failure (D-XJ)
Plastic Hinge Lengths
The plastic hinge length of the frame beam grows when the bending
moment increases. It can be estimated based on the measured yield
moment and the moment distribution along the frame beam. In the
bending tests, the maximum plastic hinge length for specimen
D-ZW was 157 mm, which was approximately 40% of the beam
depth, whereas that for specimen D-XW was zero. The zero plastic
hinge length for specimen D-XW was caused by the yield of the
longitudinal steel reinforcements in the ring-beam.
The average bond stress between points B1 and B2 are esti-
mated based on the measured strain data. Specimens D-ZW and
D-ZJ presented yield in the frame beam longitudinal bars; the aver-
age bond stress at the moment of yield was 5.9 and 5.6 MPa in
D-ZW and D-ZJ, respectively.
Beam and Ring-Beam Rotations
The rotations from the frame beam and the ring-beam can be esti-
mated using the test results. The ring-beam rotation Rrb and frame
beam rotation Rb were obtained as follows:
Rrb ¼ ðd4 − d1 Þ=lrb ð5Þ
Rb ¼ ðd3 − d4 Þ=lb − Rrb ð6Þ
where d1 , d3 , and d4 = vertical displacements (downward is defined
as positive) measured by the displacement transducers D1, D3,
and D4, respectively; lrb = distance from the outside surface of
the steel tube to the edge of the ring-beam; and lb = length of the
beam, as shown in Fig. 7. Load-rotation relationships of the ring-
beam and frame beams are shown in Fig. 17. The rotation of the
frame beam grew much faster than that of the ring-beam when the
crack initiated at the top side of the junction between the frame
beam and the ring-beam at the load of 20 kN in the bending tests
and 70 kN in the shear tests.
The beam rotation and ring-beam rotation increased signifi-
cantly at the same moment when the beam longitudinal reinforce-
ment yielded, because yield occurred at the junction of the beam
and ring-beam. The specimen D-ZJ (shear test), in which the ring-
beam distorted primarily by shear, was able to avoid strength deg-
radation up to a large rotation of 0.025 rad.
Details of Force Transfer Mechanism
Fig. 18 shows the strains at the longitudinal reinforcements,
obtained from strain gauges at points B1 and B2 (Fig. 8).
04013092-8 J. Struct. Eng.
 80
250

60 200

Load (kN)
Load (kN)
150
40
Beam (D-ZW)
Beam (D-ZJ)
RingBeam(D-ZW) 100
RingBeam (D-ZJ)
20 Beam (D-XW)
50 Beam (D-XJ)
RingBeam (D-XW) RingBeam (D-XJ)
0 0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0 0.01 0.02 0.03
(a) Rotation (rad) (b) Rotation (rad)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 06/05/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 17. Load-rotation relationships of beam and ring-beam for specimens: (a) D-ZW and D-XW; (b) D-ZJ and D-XJ

0.002 0 0
0.025 B1 B2 East West
B1 B2 East West
-0.0001 -0.0001
0.02 0.0015
-0.0002 -0.0002

Strain
Strain
Strain

0.015
Strain

-0.0003 -0.0003
0.001
0.01 -0.0004 -0.0004
0.0005 -0.0005 -0.0005
0.005 0 20 40 60 0 10 20 30
(a) Displacement (mm) (b) Displacement (mm)
0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
(a) Displacement (mm)
(b) Displacement (mm) Fig. 19. Strain on steel tube at center of panel zone: (a) D-ZW;
(b) D-ZJ
0.025 0.002
B1 B2 B1 B2
0.02
0.0015
the studs. The strain became stable after yield occurred in the
0.015
Strain
Strain

0.001 beam longitudinal reinforcements.

0.01
0.0005
0.005
0 0
0 10 20 30
(c) Displacement (mm)
(d)
Fig. 18. Strain of longitudinal reinforcement: (a) D-ZW; (b) D-XW;
(c) D-ZJ; (d) D-XJ
Figs. 18(a and c) are for specimens D-ZW and D-ZJ, respectively.
The figures show that the strains in the longitudinal reinforcements
at point B1 are significantly larger than those at point B2, which
is located inside the ring-beam connection; in fact, the strains at
point B2 are almost zero, which indicates a very effective force
transfer mechanism between the beam longitudinal reinforcement
and the ring-beam. Figs. 18(b and d) are for specimens D-XW and
D-XJ, respectively. In these figures, the strains of the longitudinal
reinforcements at point B1 are 50–110% larger than those at
point B2, which is also located inside the ring-beam connection.
This difference arises because point B2 in specimens D-XW and
D-XJ is located between the first and second (counting from the
outside) longitudinal reinforcements of the ring-beam, whereas
in specimens D-ZW and D-ZJ, point B2 is inside the third longi-
tudinal reinforcement. Therefore, the strain at point B2 in speci-
mens D-XW and D-XJ is significantly larger than that in
specimens D-ZW and D-ZJ.
Fig. 19 shows the strains of the strain gauges glued onto the steel
tube at the center of the panel zones. Figs. 19(a and b) are for spec-
imens D-ZW and D-ZJ, respectively. The strain was approximately
−0.0002 when the column initially sustained the axial force. As the
loads at the beam-loading points increased, the strains on the steel
tube increased, which indicates that the shear forces from the
beams were, to some extent, transferred to the steel tubes through
Development of Cracks
0 5 10 15 20
This section discusses in detail the development of cracks in the
Displacement (mm) specimens. For specimen D-ZW, cracking began at the top side
of the junction between the frame beams and the ring-beam at a
load of 19 kN and extended to the ring-beam. The maximum width
of the main cracks was 0.2 mm at a load of 35 kN, 0.3 mm at 55 kN,
and 0.5 mm at 60 kN. Small cracks were observed in the frame
beams close to the junction area. The final appearance of the speci-
men, showing the cracks, is given in Fig. 10.
For specimen D-XW, cracking also began at the top side of the
junction between the frame beams and the ring-beam at a load of
20 kN and extended to the ring-beam. The maximum width of the
main cracks was 0.1 mm at a load of 30 kN, 0.25 mm at 40 kN,
0.4 mm at 50 kN, and 0.6 mm at 60 kN. Small cracks were also
observed in the frame beams close to the junction area. Fig. 12
shows specimen D-XW after the test.
For specimen D-ZJ, minor cracks began at the top side of the
junction between the frame beams and the ring-beam at a load of
70 kN and extended to the ring-beam. The shear crack, which
formed right at the interface between the ring-beam and frame
beam, had the largest crack width. The crack width was 0.1 mm at
a load of 100 kN, 0.3 mm at 170 kN, and 0.5 mm at 200 kN. Fig. 14
shows the specimen after testing.
For specimen D-XJ, the cracking was similar to that in D-ZJ,
but the same maximum crack size occurred at smaller loads. Minor
cracks formed at the top side of the junction between the frame
beams and the ring-beam at a load of 55 kN and extended to the
ring-beam. The shear crack, which initiated right at the interface
between the ring-beam and frame beam, again had the largest
width. The crack width was 0.1 mm at a load of 80 kN, 0.3 mm
at 140 kN, and 0.5 mm at 170 kN. The final appearance of the
specimen is given in Fig. 16.

© ASCE 04013092-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng. 2014.140.

 Simple Design Method
The test results confirm that the new ring-beam connection, orthog-
onal or nonorthogonal, can fulfill the strong connection/weak beam
requirement. In this section, some simple design methods are sug-
gested to obtain a ring-beam connection with adequate strength.
Checking Calculation of Longitudinal Reinforcement
Because the ring-beam is the key to transferring force, it must not
fail before the longitudinal reinforcement anchored in it has failed.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 06/05/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The connection should be designed to fulfill the strong connection/
weak beam component requirement. Based on the direct force-
transferring mechanism, Lu and Li (2003) proposed a method for
checking bending capacity of the SRC column-RC beam ring-beam
connection. Taking a similar approach, the authors propose Eq. (7)
to calculate the bending capacity of the new ring-beam connection
(Fig. 20)
T r1 cos θ1 þ T r2 cos θ2 ¼ βT b ð7Þ
where T r1 and T r2 = combined force of the ring-beam pulling
reinforcement on each side of the column; θ1 and θ2 = angles be-
tween the directions made by T r1 and T r2 with the axis of the frame
beam; T b = combined force of the frame beam pulling reinforce-
ment; and β = strong connection/weak component coefficient,
which should be set to comply with seismic design codes for
building structures.
Taking the ring-beam of this experiment as an example, the
weakest cross section of the ring-beam should be calculated first.
Both the upper reinforcement and lower reinforcement of the ring-
beam could be under tension, so they should be checked separately.
Furthermore, the area of longitudinal reinforcements in the ring-
beam should be greater than the area in the frame beam. In addition,
the anchorage length of the frame beam longitudinal reinforcement
should be in accordance with construction requirements.
A sample calculation for specimens D-ZW or D-ZJ is as follows:
the total cross-sectional area of the pulling longitudinal reinforce-
ments at the top side of the ring-beam, Art ¼ 462 mm2 , and the
measured yield stress of the reinforcement, Fry ¼ 442 MPa. The
total cross-sectional area of the pulling longitudinal reinforce-
ments at the top side of the frame beam, Abt ¼ 616 mm2 , and the
measured yield stress of the reinforcements Fby ¼ 442 MPa. The
forces of the ring-beam pulling the reinforcement on both sides of
the column can be obtained from Eq. (8)
T r1 ¼ T r2 ¼ Art Fy ¼ 462 × 442 ¼ 204,018 N ð8Þ
The resistive force exerted by the ring-beam longitudinal
reinforcements is
T r1 cos θ1 þ T r2 cos θ2 ¼ 294,727 N ð9Þ
Fig. 20. Tensile forces on reinforcements: (a) orthogonal connection; (b) nonorthogonal connection
© ASCE 04013092-10
J. Struct. Eng. 2014.140.
where
cos θ1 ¼ cos θ2 ¼ 210=291 ¼ 0.722 ð10Þ
The resistive force exerted by the frame beam longitudinal
reinforcements is
T b ¼ Abt Fy ¼ 616 × 442 ¼ 272,272 N ð11Þ
For the specimen, the ratio of resistive forces of the ring-beam
and the frame beam is
ðT r1 cos θ1 þ T r2 cos θ2 Þ=T b ¼ 1.08 ð12Þ
Note that only the top reinforcements are checked here because
the top and bottom reinforcements are identical for both ring-beam
and frame beam. In the laboratory tests, in which the material
strength was measured accurately, the ratio of 1.08 was successful
in guaranteeing the strong connection/weak component target.
However, a larger value may need to be used in real design practice,
in which material strength may be more variable.
Another sample calculation for specimens D-XW or D-XJ is the
total cross-sectional area of the pulling longitudinal reinforcements
at the top side of the ring-beam, Art ¼ 462 mm2 , and the measured
yield stress of the reinforcements, Fry ¼ 442 MPa. The total cross-
sectional area of the pulling longitudinal reinforcements at the top
side of the frame beam, Abt ¼ 792 mm2 , and the measured yield
stress of the reinforcements, Fby ¼ 389 MPa. The forces of the
ring-beam pulling reinforcement on both sides of the column
can be obtained as
T r1 ¼ T r2 ¼ Art Fy ¼ 462 × 442 ¼ 204,018 N ð13Þ
The resistive force exerted by the ring-beam longitudinal
reinforcements is
T r1 cos θ1 þ T r2 cos θ2 ¼ 288,525 N ð14Þ
where
pffiffiffi
cos θ1 ¼ cos θ2 ¼ 2=2 ¼ 0.707 ð15Þ
The resistive force exerted by the frame beam longitudinal
reinforcements is
T b ¼ Abt Fy ¼ 792 × 389 ¼ 308,088 N ð16Þ
The ratio of resistive forces of the ring-beam and the frame
beam is
ðT r1 cos θ1 þ T r2 cos θ2 Þ=T b ¼ 0.94 ð17Þ
As for specimens D-XW or D-XJ, the strong connection/weak
component coefficient is 0.94, meaning that the reinforcement in
J. Struct. Eng.
 the ring-beam in this case is insufficient. This calculation procedure
shows why yield first occurred in the longitudinal reinforcement of
the ring-beam.
Checking Calculation on Stirrup
Based on the configuration of the stirrups and the test results, the
stirrup ratio per unit volume in the ring-beam should be no less than
that in the near region of the frame beam to produce a strong con-
nection. The shear forces acting on the frame beam are transferred
from the ring-beam to the concrete part of the SRC column, so
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 06/05/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
studs on the steel surface should be configured according to the
construction requirements.
Conclusions
The SRC column-RC beam connections have a wide range of
applications in frame structures and frame/shear wall structures.
However, most existing connections are difficult to design and
complex to fabricate. Based on an actual building and on similar
laboratory samples, a novel SRC column-RC beam ring-beam con-
nection is proposed in this paper. To investigate the applicability
and effectiveness of this new ring-beam connection, two orthogonal
and two nonorthogonal specimens at a reduced scale of 1∶2 were
tested under monotonic bending and shear tests. Major findings of
this study are as follows:
1. The new SRC column-RC beam ring-beam connection can
satisfy the strong connection/weak component requirement.
2. Simple design methods were suggested. Designers must pay
special attention to the ratio of areas of longitudinal reinforce-
ments in the ring-beam and in the frame beam, the anchorage
length of the frame beam longitudinal reinforcement, the stir-
rup ratio per unit volume in the different elements, and the
configuration of studs.
3. The behavior of the ring-beam connection is associated with
bond behavior, development length of bars in concrete, shear-
transfer mechanisms between concrete and structural steel,
and the behavior of RC beams in flexure and shear and
© ASCE 04013092-11
J. Struct. Eng. 2014.140.
confinement. Better understanding of these aspects is needed
before these new connections can be applied more extensively.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from the
National Key Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) un-
der grant No. 2012CB026204, from the Natural Science Founda-
tion of China under grant Nos. 51178250 and 51261120377, and
from the Tsinghua Univ. of China under grant No. 2010Z01001.
References
ACI. (2008). “Building code requirements for reinforced concrete.” ACI
318, Detroit, Michigan.
Azizinamini, A., Shekar, Y., and Saadeghvaziri, M. A. (1995). “Design
of through beam connection detail for circular composite columns.”
Eng. Struct., 17(3), 209–213.
Bai, Y., Nie, J., and Cai, C. S. (2008). “New connection system for confined
concrete columns and beams. II: Theoretical modeling.” J. Struct. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:12(1800), 1800–1809.
Cai, J., Yang, C., Su, H., and Wu, Y. (2000). “Experimental study on joints
of concrete filled steel tubes with piercing reinforcing bar hidden
bracket.” J. South China Univ. Technol., 28(5), 105–109.
Industry Standard of People’s Republic of China. (2002). “Technical speci-
fication for concrete structures of tall building.” JGJ3-2002,
Ministry of Construction, P. R. China.
Lu, X., and Li, X. (2003). “Experimental study on ring beam connections
located outside the concrete filled rectangular steel tubular columns.”
J. Build. Struct., 24(1), 7–13.
Nie, J., Bai, Y., and Cai, C. S. (2008). “New connection system for confined
concrete columns and beams. I: Experimental study.” J. Struct. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:12(1787), 1787–1799.
Schneider, S. P., and Alostaz, Y. M. (1998). “Experimental behavior of
connections to concrete-filled steel tubes.” J. Constr. Steel Res.,
45(3), 321–352.
Wei, Y. (2006). “Research on seismic performance and design method of
outside steel frame-concrete core wall structure.” Ph.D. thesis, Tsinghua
Univ., Beijing.
J. Struct. Eng.