Composite steel beam database for seismic design and performance assessment of composite-steel moment-resisting frame systems

  • Hammad El Jisr
  • Ahmed Elkady
  • Dimitrios G. LignosEmail author
Original Research


This paper discusses the development of a publicly available database of composite steel beam-to-column connections under cyclic loading. The database is utilized to develop recommendations for the seismic design and nonlinear performance assessment of steel and composite-steel moment-resisting frames (MRFs). In particular, the sagging/hogging plastic flexural resistance as well as the effective slab width are assessed through a comparison of the European, American and Japanese design provisions. The database is also used to quantify the plastic rotation capacity of composite steel beams under sagging/hogging bending. It is found that the Eurocode 8-Part 3 provisions overestimate the plastic rotation capacities of composite beams by 50% regardless of their web slenderness ratio. Empirical relationships are developed to predict the plastic rotation capacity of composite steel beams as a function of their geometric and material properties. These relationships can facilitate the seismic performance assessment of new and existing steel and composite-steel MRFs through nonlinear static analysis. The collected data underscores that the beam-to-column web panel zone in composite steel beam-to-column connections experience higher shear demands than their non-composite counterparts. A relative panel zone-to-beam resistance ratio is proposed that allows for controlled panel zone inelastic deformation of up to 10 times the panel zone’s shear yield distortion angle. Notably, when this criterion was imposed, there was no fracture in all the examined beam-to-column connections.


Composite steel beam database Seismic performance assessment Composite floors Plastic rotation capacity Panel zone shear resistance 



This study is based on work supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Project No. 200021_169248). The financial support is gratefully acknowledged. Any opinions expressed in the paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of sponsors. The authors would like to sincerely thank Prof. Masayoshi Nakashima, Prof. Tomohiro Matsumiya, Prof. Roberto Leon, Prof. Gregory G. Deierlein, Prof. Gilberto Mosqueda, Dr. Paul Cordova, and Dr. Maikol Del Carpio for providing test data for the development of the composite steel beams database.


  1. AIJ (2010a) Recommendation for limit state design of steel structures, 3rd edn. Architectural Institute of Japan, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  2. AIJ (2010b) Design recommendations for composite construction, 2nd edn. Architectural Institute of Japan, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  3. AISC (2016a) Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, ANSI/AISC 341-16. American Institute for Steel Construction, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  4. AISC (2016b) Specification for structural steel buildings, ANSI/AISC 360-16. American Institute for Steel Construction, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  5. AISC (2016c) Prequalified connections for special and intermediate steel moment frames for seismic applications, ANSI/AISC 358-16. American Institute for Steel Construction, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  6. Aoki H, Masuda M (1985) Statistical investigation on mechanical properties of structural steel based on coupon tests. J Struct Const Eng Arch Inst Jpn 358:94–105Google Scholar
  7. Araújo M, Macedo L, Castro JM (2017) Evaluation of the rotation capacity limits of steel members defined in EC8-3. J Constr Steel Res 135:11–29. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Asada H, Matoba H, Tanaka T, Yamada S (2015) Retrofit effects for composite beams—study on seismic retrofit of beam-to-column connection using supplemental H-section haunches Part 2. J Struct Constr Eng AIJ 80:1479–1487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. ASCE (2017) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings: ASCE standard ASCE/SEI 41-17. American Society of Civil Engineers, RestonGoogle Scholar
  10. Braconi A, Finetto M, Degee H et al (2013) Optimising the seismic performance of steel and steel-concrete structures by standardising material quality control (OPUS). European Commission, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  11. Bursi OS, Gramola G (2000) Behaviour of composite substructures with full and partial shear connection under quasi-static cyclic and pseudo-dynamic displacements. Mater Struct 33:154–163. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bursi O, Haller M, Lennon T et al (2009) Prefabricated composite beam-to-column filled tube or partially reinforced-concrete-encased column connections for severe seismic and fire loadings. European Commission, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  13. Castro JM, Elghazouli AY, Izzuddin BA (2007) Assessment of effective slab widths in composite beams. J Constr Steel Res 63:1317–1327. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Castro JM, Dávila-Arbona FJ, Elghazouli AY (2008) Seismic design approaches for panel zones in steel moment frames. J Earthq Eng 12:34–51. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. CEN (2004a) EN 1998-1: Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  16. CEN (2004b) EN 1994-1-1: Eurocode 4: design of composite steel and concrete structures—part 1-1: general rules and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  17. CEN (2005a) EN 1998-3: Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 3: assessment and retrofitting of buildings. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  18. CEN (2005b) EN 1993-1-1: Eurocode 3: design of steel structures—part 1-1: general rules and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  19. CEN (2005c) EN 1993-1-8: Eurocode 3: design of steel structures—part 1-8: design of joints. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  20. Chatterjee S, Hadi AS (2015) Regression analysis by example, 5th edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  21. Chen S-J, Chao YC (2001) Effect of composite action on seismic performance of steel moment connections with reduced beam sections. J Constr Steel Res 57:417–434. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cheng C-T, Chen C-C (2005) Seismic behavior of steel beam and reinforced concrete column connections. J Constr Steel Res 61:587–606. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cheng C-T, Chan C-F, Chung L-L (2007) Seismic behavior of steel beams and CFT column moment-resisting connections with floor slabs. J Constr Steel Res 63:1479–1493. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ciutina AL, Dubina D (2003) Influence of column web stiffening on the seismic behaviour of beam-to-column joints. In: Proceedings of Stessa, pp 269–275Google Scholar
  25. Civjan S, Engelhardt M, Gross J (2001) Slab effects in SMRF retrofit connection tests. J Struct Eng 127:230–237. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cordova PP, Deierlein G (2005) Validation of the seismic performance of composite RCS frames: full-scale testing, analytical modeling, and seismic design. The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Del Carpio M, Mosqueda G, Lignos D (2014) Hybrid simulation of the seismic response of a steel moment frame building structure through collapse. University at Buffalo, BuffaloGoogle Scholar
  28. Du Plessis DP, Daniels JH (1972) Strength of composite beam-to-column connections. Fritz Engineering Laboratory, Lehigh University, BethlehemGoogle Scholar
  29. Elkady A, Lignos DG (2014) Modeling of the composite action in fully restrained beam-to-column connections: implications in the seismic design and collapse capacity of steel special moment frames. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43:1935–1954. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Elkady A, Lignos DG (2015) Effect of gravity framing on the overstrength and collapse capacity of steel frame buildings with perimeter special moment frames. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44:1289–1307. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Englehardt M, Fry G, Jones M, et al. (2000). Behavior and design of radius-cut reduced beam section connections, Report Bo. SAC/BD 00/17, SAC Joint Venture, Sacramendo, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  32. Fardis MN (2018) Capacity design: early history. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. Google Scholar
  33. Fujisawa K, Ichinohe Y, Sugimoto M, Sonoda M (2013) Statistical study on mechanical properties and chemical compositions of SN Steels. In: Summary of technical papers of annual meeting. Architectural Institute of Japan, pp 699–700Google Scholar
  34. Hartloper A, Lignos D (2017) Updates to the ASCE 41-13 provisions for the nonlinear modeling of steel wide flange columns for performance-based earthquake engineering. In: The 8th European conference on steel and composite structures. Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  35. Jones SL, Fry GT, Engelhardt MD (2002) Experimental evaluation of cyclically loaded reduced beam section moment connections. J Struct Eng 128:441–451. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kanno R (2016) Advances in steel materials for innovative and elegant steel structures in Japan—a review. Struct Eng Int 26:242–253. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kim KD, Engelhardt MD (2002) Monotonic and cyclic loading models for panel zones in steel moment frames. J Constr Steel Res 58:605–635. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kim S-Y, Lee C-H (2017) Seismic retrofit of welded steel moment connections with highly composite floor slabs. J Constr Steel Res 139:62–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kim Y-J, Oh S-H, Moon T-S (2004) Seismic behavior and retrofit of steel moment connections considering slab effects. Eng Struct 26:1993–2005. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kishiki S, Kadono D, Satsukawa K, Yamada S (2010) Consideration of composite effects on elasto-plastic behavior of panel zone. J Struct Constr Eng AIJ 75:1527–1536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Krawinkler H (1978) Shear in beam-column joints in seismic design of steel frames. Eng J 15:82–91Google Scholar
  42. Krawinkler H (2009) Loading histories for cyclic tests in support of performance assessment of structural components. In: The 3rd international conference on advances in experimental structural engineering. San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  43. Lee C-H, Jeon S-W, Kim J-H, Uang C-M (2005) Effects of panel zone strength and beam web connection method on seismic performance of reduced beam section steel moment connections. J Struct Eng 131:1854–1865. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lee CH, Jung JH, Kim SY, Kim JJ (2016) Investigation of composite slab effect on seismic performance of steel moment connections. J Constr Steel Res 117:91–100. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Leon R (1990) Serviceability of composite floors. In: Proceedings of the 1990 national steel construction conference. AISC, p 18Google Scholar
  46. Leon R, Alsamsam I (1993) Performance and serviceability of composite floors. In: Structural engineering in natural hazards mitigation. ASCE, pp 1479–1484Google Scholar
  47. Leon RT, Hajjar JF, Gustafson MA (1998) Seismic response of composite moment-resisting connections. I: performance. J Struct Eng 124:868–876. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lignos DG, Krawinkler H (2011) Deterioration modeling of steel components in support of collapse prediction of steel moment frames under earthquake loading. J Struct Eng 137:1291–1302. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lignos DG, Krawinkler H (2013) Development and utilization of structural component databases for performance-based earthquake engineering. J Struct Eng 139:1382–1394. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lignos DG, Hikino T, Matsuoka Y, Nakashima M (2013) Collapse assessment of steel moment frames based on E-Defense full-scale shake table collapse tests. J Struct Eng 139:120–132. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lu L, Xu Y, Zheng H (2017) Investigation of composite action on seismic performance of weak-axis column bending connections. J Constr Steel Res 129:286–300. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mele E (2002) Moment resisting welded connections: an extensive review of design practice and experimental research in USA, Japan and Europe. J Earthq Eng 06:111–145. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nakashima M, Roeder C, Maruoka Y (2000) Steel moment frames for earthquakes in United States and Japan. J Struct Eng 126:861–868. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nakashima M, Matsumiya T, Suita K, Liu D (2005) Test on full-scale three-storey steel moment frame and assessment of ability of numerical simulation to trace cyclic inelastic behaviour. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35:3–19. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nakashima M, Matsumiya T, Suita K, Zhou F (2007) Full-scale test of composite frame under large cyclic loading. J Struct Eng 133:297–304. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nam T, Kasai K (2012) Study on shake table experimental results regarding composite action of a full-scale steel building tested to collapse. In: 9th international conference on urban earthquake engineering/4th Asia conference on earthquake engineering. Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, pp 1111–1116Google Scholar
  57. Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN (2001) Deformations of reinforced concrete members at yielding and ultimate. Struct J 98:135–148Google Scholar
  58. PEER/ATC (2010) Modeling and acceptance criteria for seismic design and analysis of tall buildings. Applied Technology Council (ATC), Redwood CityGoogle Scholar
  59. Ricles JM, Fisher JW, Lu L-W, Kaufmann EJ (2002) Development of improved welded moment connections for earthquake-resistant design. J Constr Steel Res 58:565–604. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Roeder CW (2000) State of the art report on connection performance. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  61. Roeder CW (2002) General issues influencing connection performance. J Struct Eng 128:420–428. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Shin S, Engelhardt MD (2013). Cyclic performance of deep column moment frames with weak panel zones. In: Advances in structural engineering and mechanics (ASEM13), Jeju, KoreaGoogle Scholar
  63. Suita K, Yamada S, Tada M et al (2008) Collapse experiment on four-story steel moment frame: part 2. In: The 14th world conference on earthquake engineering. BeijingGoogle Scholar
  64. Sumner EA, Murray TM (2002) Behavior of extended end-plate moment connections subject to cyclic loading. J Struct Eng 128:501–508. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tagawa Y, Kato B, Aoki H (1989) Behavior of composite beams in steel frame under hysteretic loading. J Struct Eng 115:2029–2045. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tremblay R, Tchebotarev N, Filiatrault A (1997) Seismic performance of RBS connections for steel moment resisting frames: influence of loading rate and floor slab. In: Proceedings of StessaGoogle Scholar
  67. Uang C-M, Yu Q-S, Noel S, Gross J (2000) Cyclic testing of steel moment connections rehabilitated with RBS or welded haunch. J Structure Engineering 126:57–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yamada S, Satsukawa K, Kishiki S et al (2009) Elasto-plastic behavior of panel zone in beam to external column connection with concrete slab. J Struct Constr Eng AIJ 74:1841–1849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zhang X, Ricles J, Lu L-W, Fisher J (2004) Development of seismic guidelines for deep-column steel moment connections. Lehigh University, BethlehemGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Architecture Civil and Environmental EngineeringÉcole Polytechnique Fédérale de LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations