Engineering Structures 152 (2017) 335347

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Experimental and numerical investigation on the cyclic behavior

of RC beam column joints with EAF slag concrete
Flora Faleschini , Paolo Bragolusi, Mariano Angelo Zanini, Paolo Zampieri, Carlo Pellegrino
Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University of Padova, via F. Marzolo 9, 35131 Padova, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: An experimental and numerical study about exterior reinforced beam-column joints made with recycled
Received 1 February 2017 concrete containing Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) slag aggregate, and subject to horizontal reversed cyclic
Revised 8 August 2017 loading, is shown in this paper. Three real scale joints were tested under quasi-static cyclic loading, to
Accepted 12 September 2017
study the influence of EAF concrete use on the global behavior of the specimens, in terms of ultimate load,
hysteresis response and dissipated energy. The joints exhibited the same failure mode, which involved
the shear failure of panel joint and yielding of beam steel longitudinal bars. Then a numerical investiga-
Keywords:
tion was carried out, consisting of three-dimensional non-linear finite-element (FE) models, which were
Beam-column joints
EAF slag
validated with the experimental results. Lastly, a parametric study was carried out to understand the
Non-linear dynamic analysis effects of column axial load, beam longitudinal reinforcement bar amount and column transverse rein-
Finite element modeling forcement ratio. Results indicate that, in all the analyzed cases, the seismic performance of the joints
Recycled concrete made with EAF slag concrete is better than with conventional material.
Reinforced concrete 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Shear

1. Introduction achieve higher compressive and tensile strength if compared to a

The increasingly number of green concretes developed in the
last decades leads to the necessity of their validation in real scale
structural elements, under typical service load conditions, and at
ultimate limit states. Huge research was carried out aiming to ana-
lyze mechanical and durability-related properties of sustainable
cement-based material, including recycled aggregates [13] and
also supplementary cementing materials [46]. A significant liter-
ature was also devoted to study the environmental impacts of
these novel products, obtaining that huge amounts of carbon emis-
sion can be saved through their use [7,8]. Limited research was
instead aimed to study the structural behavior of real scale ele-
ments with this kind of materials: some remarkable works were
carried out by Ajdukiewicz and Kliszczewicz [9], Fathifazl et al.
[10], and Corinaldesi et al. [11]. Between commercially-available
recycled aggregates, recently some attention has been paid also
to Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) slag, a by-product of carbon steel pro-
duction. A considerable number of works analyzed its potential use
as coarse recycled aggregate in structural concrete, both studying
mechanical and durability properties of slag cement-based mix-
tures [1217]. Many papers have already demonstrated the overall
good mechanical properties of the slag, which allow concrete to
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: flora.faleschini@dicea.unipd.it (F. Faleschini).
reference mix [1820], when slag is volumetrically stabilized with
pre-treatment operations. Also elastic properties are typically
improved. Arribas et al. [21] demonstrated that a better Interface
Transition Zone (ITZ) is developed in EAF slag concrete than in con-
ventional mixtures, with reduced thickness, and enhanced cohe-
siveness, stiffness and strength. Concerning workability, typically
higher water demand is observed in mixtures containing EAF slag,
although fluid fresh concretes can be obtained through proper mix
design, using Water Reducing Admixtures (WRAs): Santamaria
et al. [22] recently proposed also a method to satisfactorily design
Self-Compacting Concretes (SCCs) prepared with EAF slag. Lastly, it
is significant to note that many works already demonstrated that
durability of concretes with EAF slag aggregates is comparable or
even superior than ordinary mixtures, even in aggressive environ-
ments, e.g. under wetting/drying, freezing/thawing conditions and
in presence of chlorides [1416,18].
However, also in this case, few research has been devoted, up to
now, at analyzing the structural behavior of real scale elements
made with this material. Pellegrino and Faleschini [23] tested RC
beams made with EAF concrete, with different longitudinal rein-
forcement ratio, under bending and shear failure, and compared
the ultimate load, deflection, cracks pattern and width with con-
ventional members, with same geometry and reinforcement
detailing. They obtained that the beams made with EAF concrete
attained higher ultimate load and displayed increased stiffness,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.09.022
0141-0296/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
336 F. Faleschini et al. / Engineering Structures 152 (2017) 335347

both under bending and shear ultimate states. Kim et al. [24] car- Table 1
ried out a limited experimental campaign about bond behavior on Concrete mix details (for 1 m3) and mechanical properties.

three flexural elements made with EAF concrete, obtaining better Mix C Mix E1 Mix E2
bond properties than in one conventional specimen made with Cement CEM II-A/L 42.5R (kg) 400 400 320
only natural aggregates. Kim et al. [25] evaluated also the behavior Water (kg) 180 180 160
of spirally confined elements made with EAF concrete and com- w/c 0.45 0.45 0.5
pared them to conventional specimens, obtaining similar strength NA 04 mm (kg) 812 992 1071
NA 416 mm (kg) 992
and ductility. Currently, according to the knowledge of the authors, EAF slag 416 mm (kg) 1142 1222
no other experimental campaigns about real scale elements made WRA (kg) 4.00 4.80 3.84
with EAF slag concrete have been carried out. Density (kg/m3) 2420 2710 2796
fc,cube 28 days (MPa) 48.7 60.6 54.9
fc,cube 120 days (MPa)a 49.0 62.0 55.5
2. Scope of the work fc,t (MPa) 3.59 4.25 3.45
Ec,s (GPa) 32.67 42.55 42.19
The limited knowledge about the influence of EAF slag use in a
Cured together with joints specimen, until time of testing.
real scale RC elements has induced the authors to study the behav-
ior of real scale beam-column joints subject to horizontal reversed
cyclic loading, about which no information is available in literature tion (T = 20 2 C; RH
95%). Mix C and Mix E1 were designed
up to now. A first document about the experimental behavior only with almost the same materials proportions, having the same w/
of RC exterior beam-column joints has been already prepared by c ratio (0.45), and a nominal cement dosage of 400 kg/m3. Mix E2
some of the authors [26]. There, three joints with the same geom- was designed instead with the aim to produce a more environmen-
etry and reinforcement detailing were casted, one with a reference tally sustainable concrete, which has a lower binder and WRA con-
concrete containing only natural materials, and two made with tent, and a higher w/c ratio than the previous. Hence, cement
recycled concrete with EAF slag as coarse aggregate. The experi- content was reduced by 80 kg/m3, which amount was established
mental campaign aimed to study the behavior of exterior joints on the basis of a previous work of some of the authors [18]. To
failing due to shear of panel joint and yielding of beam steel bars. ensure the same workability for this mix, w/c ratio was also varied,
This failure mode was selected to highlight the influence of con- to limit the amount of chemical admixtures. Some limited varia-
crete strength and EAF slag use: indeed, one of the most influencing tions in the mix design between Mix C and E1 were necessary to
parameters of this kind of failure mechanism is concrete compres- allow the latter to achieve the required workability, and they were
sive strength [27]. mainly related to WRA and fines content. All the concretes achieve
In this work, the results of the above experimental campaign the required target performances: concerning workability, the
were used to validate three-dimensional nonlinear finite-element Abrams cone method revealed almost the same slump for each
(FE) models, which where developed using ABAQUS code [28]. mix, ranging between 19 and 20 cm. Concrete compressive
Then, a parametric study was carried out aiming to analyze the strength at 28 days is always greater in slag concrete mixtures than
effects of column axial load, beam longitudinal reinforcement bar in the control: Mix E1, which has almost the same materials pro-
amount and column transverse reinforcement ratio, on joints hys- portions than the conventional, has a pronounced strength gain
teretic response, ultimate load and failure mode. Experimental- of about +24%. Tensile strength and elastic modulus are similarly
numerical comparison was considered very profitable for improv- enhanced in EAF concretes. Further three cubic specimens were
ing the knowledge of joints behavior: on one side, the number of tested after 120 days of ageing (corresponding to the time of joints
experimental tests is limited, due to practical constraints; on the testing) at atmospheric conditions: compressive strength is
other, numerical models alone cannot be used without the valida- slightly higher than at 28 days, but with a limited gain due to dif-
tion of experimental data. In this case, the numerical study allows ferent curing conditions. Additionally, an increase in fresh and
also to assess the behavior of seismically designed RC beam column hardened concrete density was obtained in slag concretes, because
joints with EAF slag concrete, in which the hierarchy of strength is of slag high specific weight.
respected and no shear hinges are developed in the panel joint. Concerning instead the characteristics of the deformed steel
This paper is hence intended to continue the first work of the reinforcement bars of B450 class, the average yielding stress of
authors [26], to better study the cyclic behavior of exterior RC the longitudinal bars is equal to fy = 555 MPa at a strain of ey =
beam-column joints made with EAF concrete, and subject to lateral 0.002; instead, the ultimate stress is fu = 639 MPa, at a correspond-
loads. A brief summary of the experimental campaign is reported ing strain of eu = 0.104. The characteristics of the stirrups are
along the text, to include the information required for a proper instead fy = 485 MPa at a strain of ey = 0.002, and fu = 629 MPa,
comprehension of the numerical investigation. at eu = 0.090.

3. Experimental campaign 3.2. Experimental methods: Test specimens and setup

3.1. Materials
Three specimens with the same geometry and reinforcement
detailing were casted, but with different concrete mixtures, two
containing EAF slag and one with natural aggregates only. The slag
was opportunely pre-treated before its use, through three-months
weathering at atmospheric conditions and one-week water spray-
ing, to reduce potential expansive phenomena [29].
Concrete mixtures details are listed in Table 1, within also the
hardened concrete properties. Target performances were to
achieve at least a S4 slump consistency class, and at least a cubic
compressive strength of 45 MPa after 28 days of standard matura-
One-way exterior joint geometry was chosen, due to practical
constrains in the laboratory. Requirements related to a low ductil-
ity class (CD B) were used for joints design at the ultimate limit
state (life safety) according to the Italian Building Code [30], to bet-
ter highlight the resisting mechanisms of concrete. With the same
aim, specimens were designed to achieve a beam-joint (BJ) failure.
Specimens dimension were: (a) beams with cross section
30  50 cm, length 250 cm; (b) columns with cross section
30  30 cm, and total height 410 cm. Fig. 1 shows the geometry
and reinforcement detailing of the joints.
Fig. 2a shows the test-setup: a horizontal load was applied at
the top of the column, with quasi-static displacement-controlled
 F. Faleschini et al. / Engineering Structures 152 (2017) 335347
Fig. 1. Specimens geometry and reinforcement details.
reversed cycles, following ACI 374.1-05 recommendations [31]; for
each displacement step, three full loading cycles were performed,
as shown in Fig. 2b. The first cycle lays within the elastic range,
and then testing continued gradually, increasing the displacement
value until reaching at least a drift ratio equal to 3.5% (#lim). Load
cycles were applied fixing a constant period, equal to 360 s. A ver-
tical load was applied at the top of the column too, and kept con-
stant and equal to 400 kN for all testing time, through an external
pre-compression system, avoiding P-D effects. This system aimed
to simulate gravity loads induced by upper floors in a prototype
framed structure.
Concerning the instrumentation used, three load cells measured
the applied forces on the top of the column (horizontal and axial
forces), and the reaction at the beam free end (shear on beam). Six-
teen linear potentiometers, two wire-transducers and eight linear
transducers were used to check relative and global displacements
and deformation of the specimens: their distribution is shown in
Fig. 3a. Seventeen strain gages were used instead to measure steel
reinforcement strains: of these, four were placed on the longitudi-
nal beam bars, two on beam stirrups, five on the longitudinal bars
of the column, and six on the hoops of the column, according to the
locations shown in Fig. 3b.
337
4. Numerical modeling
4.1. Geometry
The models developed in this work, which have been verified on
the experimental results reported in [26], and briefly summarized
in Section 5, take into account both geometrical nonlinearities and
materials inelasticity. The elements of the joints were modeled on
FEM ABAQUS 6.12 software [28], a general purpose non-linear
finite-element analysis program. A tri-dimensional hexahedral
solid element (C3D8R-type) was used for concrete, whereas two-
nodes linear 3D truss elements (T3D2-type) were used for steel
reinforcement bars. Specifically, for each joint, a total of 720 solid
and 3272 linear elements were adopted, reproducing the real
geometry of the specimens. The number of solid elements was cho-
sen according to a preliminary analysis, where mesh dimension
has been varied starting from a coarse to a fine one (up to 5640 ele-
ments), until the selection of the dimension which provided an
adequate accuracy in a reasonable computation time. Ideally, bond
strength between concrete and steel reinforcement should been
considered. However, a perfect bond between elements was con-
sidered in this study, as done also in [3234], and it was realized
338 F. Faleschini et al. / Engineering Structures 152 (2017) 335347

Fig. 2. (a) Test layout; (b) lateral load history.

Fig. 3. (a) Linear potentiometers and transducers disposition; (b) strain gage location.

through the embedded elements technique [28]. This choice was
justified by the fact that no relevant slip values were exhibited
by the experimental test modules during the text, until the last
load cycle.
Fig. 4 shows a FE illustration of the specimen: boundary condi-
tions, load pattern and elements geometry are representing the
actual conditions of the experimental tests. Rigid bodies were used
to realize the column base hinge, the beam free-end roller and the
reference point at column top, to control displacements. Loads
were applied at the rigid body on the top of the column: particu-
larly, the same time-step displacement cycle applied in the test
was used in the nonlinear dynamic analyses. Automatic time step-
ping was used to perform the analyses, which allows the time-step
4.2. Materials
4.2.1. Concrete
The elastic-plastic behavior of concrete under cyclic horizontal
load was represented using the concrete damage plasticity (CDP)
model [35]. This model, already implemented in ABAQUS, allows
the description of concrete inelastic behavior using the concepts
of isotropic damaged elasticity, together with isotropic tensile
and compressive plasticity, and it allows two failure modes: tensile
cracking and compressive crushing. The amount of plastic defor-
f
mation is controlled by the equivalent plastic strain in tension epl
t
f
and in compression ec . The constitutive equation of material with
pl

to be adjusted depending on the behavior of the Newton iteration scalar isotropic damage can be described as:
and the accuracy of the time integration. The Hilber-Hughes-Taylor
r 1  dDelo : e  epl Del : e  epl 1
time integration is used by default by the software [28].
 F. Faleschini et al. / Engineering Structures 152 (2017) 335347 339

Fig. 4. FE mesh of the specimens: (a) concrete; (b) steel reinforcement.

where r is the Cauchy stress tensor, d is the scalar damage variable,  ; ef

representing the stiffness degradation and ranging between 0
(undamaged) and 1 (totally damaged), e and epl are respectively
the total and the plastic strain tensors, Del0 is the initial elastic stiff-
ness tensor (undamaged) and lastly Del 1  dDelo is the degraded
elastic stiffness tensor. The effective stress tensor is expressed as:
d dr pl 4
and as it varies significant in the compression and tension zone, two
degradation values are defined, dc and dt, as shown in the stress
strain curves in Fig. 5. Lastly, the yield function, representing a sur-
face in the effective stress space, determinates the states of failures,
and it is expressed by:

r Del0 : e  epl 2 Fr; eg

pl 6 0 5

where Del0 is the initial elasticity matrix (undamaged), e and epl are The stressstrain relationship used to construct the uniaxial
respectively the total and the plastic strain tensors. Cauchy stress compressive stressstrain curve for concrete is a modified version
tensor is related to the effective stress tensor r
 through the scalar of the Popovics one [36], for high strength concretes [37], based on
degradation parameter (1  d): the experimental results on the specimens used for materials
characterization:
r 1  dr 3
nec =ec0
rec f c  nk 6
Stiffness degradation evolution is governed by a set of the effective
n  1 eecoc
 and hardening (softening) variables ef
stress tensor r pl :

Fig. 5. Stressstrain curves of concrete: (a) under compression; (b) under tension. adapted from [28]
340 F. Faleschini et al. / Engineering Structures 152 (2017) 335347

where k assumes a unitary value when ec 6 ec0 , otherwise: on the fictitious crack model [39], allows to reduce mesh-
  dependency, and it is already implemented in the software.
fc Hence the bi-linear model, which correlates stress r with cracks
k 0:67 7
77:5 opening w, and shown in Fig. 6, has been used. Fracture energy
Gf values were estimated as 80 J/m2 and 110 J/m2, respectively
and n Eci =Eci  Es , being Es f c =ec0 and Eci is the undamaged
for conventional and EAF slag concrete; these values were based
concrete elastic modulus. fc is the maximum concrete compressive
on experimental results obtained in a previous work of the
strength, at the strain value eco , which can be estimated as:
authors [40].
 
f c  20
eco 0:002 0:001 8
80 4.2.2 Steel
A combined isotropic-kinematic hardening model was used for
An exponential relation was used for the damage function in
steel modeling. The values of yielding and ultimate stress and
compression [38]:
strain were obtained by the experimental tests used for materials
dc 1  expk  epl
c 9 characterization. It should be recalled that different values were
assumed for longitudinal and transverse steel bars, according to
where eplc is concrete plastic strain and the parameter k was evalu-
the experimental observations reported in Section 3.1.
ated according to the experimental results obtained after compres-
sive strength test performed on the cylindrical specimens used for 5. Experimental results
materials characterization.
The fracture energy method was instead used to specify the This section briefly summarizes the results of the experimental
post-peak concrete tension failure behavior. This method, based campaign discussed in detail in [26], which were used to validate
the numerical models described in Section 4. Particularly, the mod-
els aimed to represent the structural behavior of the joints made
with Mix C and Mix E1, which have the same materials proportion
and are made respectively with conventional and EAF slag
concrete.
All the test modules displayed the so-called B + J failure, a
mixed mechanism in which diagonal cracking in the joint panel
was accompanied by flexural damage in the beam. This failure
type was obtained through testing joints with stiff beams, aim-
ing to highlight the influence of concrete properties on the over-
all structural response of the specimens. Fig. 7 shows the
cracked joint panels of each specimen at the end of the test,
which occurred after the yielding of steel reinforcement bars in
the beam, closed to the intersection with the column. It is worth
to note that specimens made with EAF concrete, and particularly
the one made with Mix E1, seemed more integer at the end of
the test, if compared to the conventional joint. They displayed
Fig. 6. Hillerborg bi-linear model (fctm = concrete mean tensile strength; Gf = - a reduced number of cracks, not only in the panel joint, but also
fracture energy). cracked region in the column was more confined, close to the

Fig. 7. B + J failure mechanisms after specimens testing: from [26].

 F. Faleschini et al. / Engineering Structures 152 (2017) 335347 341

beam intersection. This result is a consequence of the better Concerning the overall structural response, Fig. 8 shows the
mechanical properties of the EAF concretes, which have both hysteresis curves of tested specimens, with also the values of max-
higher compressive and tensile strength. imum attained load (Fmax) at displacement Dmax. Curves shape is

Fig. 8. Lateral loaddisplacement hysteretic response of the tested specimens.

342 F. Faleschini et al. / Engineering Structures 152 (2017) 335347

similar both in the positive (push condition) and negative (pull)
branch, even though some slight differences are due to possible
differences in reinforcement disposition. Particularly, the conven-
tional joint attained the maximum load in two different cycles in
the push (13th last cycle) and pull (12th cycle) condition, even
if at similar displacement values. Joints made with EAF slag con-
crete were characterized by a greater stiffness than the control
Mix C, and attained higher ultimate loads at reduced displacement,
always in the 12th cycle. The enhancement of maximum load in
both EAF slag specimens is about +7%, as a result of the improved
compressive strength if compared with the reference mix. Limited
deformation capacity was obtained by the joints, due to strength
reduction occurred as a consequence of panel joint cracking, which
is typical of this failure mode. At the last applied cycle, all the spec-
imens displayed a strength reduction of about 30% with respect to
the maximum load. This fast stiffness decay is due to the pinching
effect, which occurs in beam-column joints failing due to shear of
panel joint [41]. Pinching effect was also responsible for the limited
ability of joints to dissipate energy. However, according to the cal-
culated values of dissipated energy (Table 2), joints made with Mix
E1 and Mix E2 were capable to dissipate respectively +12% and +7%
energy, if compared to the conventional specimen, at the end of the
test. This is due to the higher lateral load capacity attained by the
joints made with slag concretes than the reference, directly related
to the better mechanical properties of this concrete, and particu-
larly to the higher concrete compressive strength, which is one of
the key influencing parameter of the shear strength in B + J failure
[27].
6. Experimental numerical comparison
The experimental behavior of joints made with Mix C and Mix E1
was used to validate the numerical models proposed in this work.
Fig. 9 shows the comparison between experimental and numerical
results, in terms of loaddisplacement hysteresis curves. A good
agreement was displayed between the two curves before the last
loading cycle: then, as the pinching effect occurs in the B + J failure,
a divergence was observed between experimental and numerical
results. This is due to the fact that a perfect bond was assumed
in the model between concrete and steel bars. Additionally, the
predicted model displayed a slightly stiffer behavior of the speci-
mens in the first displacement cycles. This discrepancy is due to
the fact that, in the practice, the roller and the pins used to realize
the test-setup are not ideal constraints, and at very low displace-
ment values, even very small backlash is not negligible. However,
it is worth noting that the model was able to capture the basic
damage mechanism and the failure mode; additionally, a low scat-
ter between the numerical and experimental ultimate load was
obtained. Indeed, the error between predicted numerical and
experimental maximum load in the push condition is respectively
3.24% and 0.31% for Mix C and Mix E1. In the pull condition the
error is instead 3.29% and 1.40% for Mix C and Mix E1 respec-

Table 2
Cumulated dissipated energy Ed.

Cycle No. Drift h (%) Displacement D (mm) Ed Mix C (kN mm) Ed Mix E1 (kN mm) Ed Mix E2 (kN mm)
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0.05 2 1.59 1.65 1.76
2 0.08 3 3.24 2.93 3.27
3 0.10 4 6.34 4.72 4.73
4 0.16 6 16.05 10.72 7.89
5 0.23 9 29.34 25.56 17.10
6 0.34 13 46.85 57.56 42.17
7 0.47 18 79.19 100.12 87.52
8 0.65 25 134.27 176.64 164.13
9 0.91 35 258.52 320.72 313.79
10 1.30 50 453.93 560.15 554.27
11 1.82 70 1211.00 996.22 991.22
12 2.60 100 2137.88 2484.02 2639.32
13 3.91 150 6466.19 7270.86 6904.23

Fig. 9. Comparison between experimental and numerical lateral loaddisplacement hysteretic curves.
 F. Faleschini et al. / Engineering Structures 152 (2017) 335347
tively. Fig. 10 shows the evolution of the damage in the joint made
with Mix E1: it started progressively in the beam, with the yielding
of longitudinal bars, and then it moves inside the panel joint. Then,
from the connection between the column and the beam, damage
progressively increased inside the panel, until its complete crack-
ing. Hence, the joint shear cracks, together with beam bars yield-
ing, ultimately caused the model to fail, in a similar manner to
that observed in the experiments.
The overall goodness of the model was also verified through
checking strain values in reinforcement bars, in some reference
points where it was monitored through the experimental instru-
mentation. For instance, strains in the longitudinal bars of the
beam (Mix E1), monitored through S1 and S3 gages, are compared
with the ones obtained from the model, and are shown in Fig. 11.
Also in this case the agreement between the numerical prediction
and the experimental observation is good until the last displace-
ment cycle applied; then, the perfect bond model fails to capture
the experimental behavior due to the pinching effect.
Once evaluated the overall goodness of the numerical model, a
parametric analysis was carried out aiming to analyze the effects of
some relevant parameters: axial load effect, longitudinal beam
reinforcement amount and column transverse reinforcement ratio.
Fig. 10. Damage evolution in Mix E1 specimen.
343
Other geometrical parameters, including the joint aspect ratio, and
material properties were maintained constant. The discussion of
the parametric analysis is herein reported.
6.1. Axial load effect
Column axial load is one of the main variables that influence the
behavior of exterior beam-column joints, and accordingly it is
object of several studies in literature [4245]. It is defined as the
ratio between the applied column axial load N and the product
between the gross cross-sectional area Ag of the column and con-
crete compressive strength fc:
m N=Ag  f c 10
During the experimental campaign, m was respectively equal to
0.12 and 0.095 in the joints made with Mix C and Mix E1. Then two
further levels of column axial loads were examined: m 0:15 and
m 0:25. Increasing this parameter up to a certain limit, in the cur-
rent situation of weak column-strong beam, it is obviously
expected that the column moment capacity improves, thus also
enhancing the joint shear strength. This occurs due to the fact that
the compression block depth increases with the column axial load.
344 F. Faleschini et al. / Engineering Structures 152 (2017) 335347

Fig. 11. Comparison between experimental and numerical strain in the longitudinal bars of the beam (Mix E1).

Particularly, looking at Fig. 12, it is worth noting that the ultimate where Vb and Vc are shear forces in the beam and in the column
load attained by the joint made with Mix E1 is higher than for Mix respectively, L is the beam span (here 213 cm), H is the column
C, for the same axial load. Increasingly levels of the axial load were height between the inflection points (here 384 cm), As and fs are
not analyzed here, being m 0:20:25 the indicated upper limits the area and the stress of the beam longitudinal reinforcement in
to achieve an optimum enhancement in strength [4647]. the tense zone, db is the beam effective depth and jdb is the inner
lever arm of the beam cross-section at the column interface. Then,
6.2. Beam longitudinal reinforcement effect the horizontal shear force Vjh in the joint panel can be calculated as:
!
The amount of beam longitudinal reinforcement is another fun-
L h2c jdb
V jh As  f s  V c As  f s 1  13
damental parameter affecting the response of RC exterior beam- H L
column subject to horizontal loads. Particularly, this variable influ-
In the case of shear failure, it is significant only when beam
ences the horizontal shear force of the joint panel, and thus the
yielding occurs (B+J), whereas it does not in the so-called J failure
failure mode. Indeed, from the global equilibrium equation of the
[48]. Accordingly, assuming that longitudinal beam reinforcement
specimen, it can be obtained (see Fig. 13):
yield (fs = fy), and also that jdb = 0.87db, and db = 0.9hb, and dividing
p
M b V b  L As  f s  jdb 11 by bj hc f c :
 
L hc =2 V jh As  f y h
Vc Vb 12 p  p 1  0:85 b SIj 14
H bj hc f c bj hc f c H

Fig. 12. Axial load effect on the lateral loaddisplacement response (envelope curves).
 F. Faleschini et al. / Engineering Structures 152 (2017) 335347 345

Fig. 13. Global equilibrium of an exterior RC beam column joint (pull condition).

Fig. 14. Beam longitudinal reinforcement influence on the lateral loaddisplace- Fig. 16. Column transverse reinforcement influence on the lateral loaddisplace-
ment response (envelope curves). ment response (envelope curves).

Fig. 15. Damage in Mix C and Mix E1 specimens (varying As amount).

346 F. Faleschini et al. / Engineering Structures 152 (2017) 335347
Table 3
Numerical analyses results, in terms of ultimate load.
Pmax,+(kN)
Mix C 77.10
Mix E1 80.30
Mix C m = 0.15 76.55
Mix E1 m = 0.15 82.81
Mix C m = 0.25 80.38
Mix E1 m = 0.25 89.89
Mix C As = 314 mm2 31.95
Mix E As = 314 mm2 33.00
Mix C Asc,w = 1256mm2 67.41
Mix E1 Asc,w = 1256mm2 72.04
Mix C Asc,w = 2512mm2 82.50
Mix E1 Asc,w = 2512mm2 89.02
where bj is the effective joint width defined in [49], hc is the column
cross-sectional height, and SIj is the joint shear index, directly cor-
related to the amount of longitudinal reinforcement in the beam
As. In the experimental case, the value of SIj is respectively 1.08
and 0.96, for the joint made with Mix C and Mix E1, indicating that
the joint shear demand is higher in the reference specimen.
Decreasing the amount of As, the value of SIj is lowered as well, until
reaching the change of failure mode, which moves from the panel
joint to the beam. Fig. 14 shows the loaddisplacement response
of the joints when As value changes from 1256 mm2 (4 / 20) to
314 mm2 (4 / 10), whereas Fig. 15 demonstrates how the joints
are damaged varying this parameter, if compared to the same con-
dition, at the end of the test, shown in Fig. 10.
6.3. Column transverse reinforcement ratio effect
The effect of the presence of an adequate column transverse
reinforcement in the panel joint region is quite well-known, as it
enhances the shear strength and rotational capacity of the joint.
This is due to the main functions of the transverse reinforcement,
which allows to transfer tension forces following diagonal cracking
of the joint and improves concrete confinement in the central
region of the specimen. Here the amount of column transverse
reinforcement Ac,w was varied, changing it from Ac,w = 1884 mm2
(6 hoops /10, 4 legged) in the experimental case, to Ac,w = 1256
mm2 (4 hoops /10, 4 legged) and Ac,w = 2512 mm2 (8 hoops /10,
4 legged). Results are shown in Fig. 16: as expected, the increase
in the amount of column transverse reinforcement enhances the
ultimate loads attained by the joints, even though the failure mode
does not change globally.
6.4. Summarizing remarks
Table 3 lists the results of the numerical analyses performed in
this work in terms of maximum attained load, both in the push (+)
and pull () load condition, for each configuration and steel bars
arrangement. According to the results of the parametric analysis
conducted here, it is possible to state that the minimum difference
between the loaddisplacement response of Mix C and Mix E1 spec-
imens is observed in the configuration with low amount of beam
longitudinal reinforcement. Indeed, in that case, the contribution
of concrete resisting mechanism is less significant than in B + J
and J failure modes, and a slight difference between the hysteretic
response of the two specimens is displayed. Hence it can be con-
cluded that, to highlight if there are any significant differences
between using two concretes prepared with two mix designs, it
is expected that a shear failure is more affected than a bending
one (e.g. in case of seismically-designed joints). Additionally, the
other simulations performed increasing concrete confinement
Pmax, (kN) D+ (%) D (%)
79.20
85.04 4.00 6.87
81.36
97.38 7.56 16.45
89.85
101.81 10.58 11.70
31.50
32.66 3.18 3.55
73.96
83.01 6.40 10.90
80.92
87.39 7.32 7.40
(varying m value, or the amount of transverse reinforcement in
the column) are also characterized by high difference between
the ultimate load attained by Mix C and Mix E1 specimens. This is
also observed when reducing conversely the amount of Asc,w, being
the resisting mechanism inside the panel joint highly affected due
to this variation.
7. Conclusions
This work investigates the experimental behavior of real scale
RC exterior beam-column joints subject to horizontal reversed cyc-
lic loading, made with different concretes, one including only nat-
ural aggregates and two with EAF slag as coarse aggregates. The
experimental observations allow to state that an enhanced behav-
ior was displayed by these latter specimens, due to the improved
properties of EAF concrete. It is worth to recall that EAF specimens
are characterized not only by a higher ultimate load if compared to
the conventional joint, but also they are able to dissipate more
energy. Then, the experimental results of Mix C and Mix E1, respec-
tively made with a conventional and EAF concrete, both having the
same percentages of components inside the mix, were used to val-
idate 3D FEM models. The numerical study carried out in this work
was performed to investigate in detail the effects of some test vari-
ables, including the axial load, and the amount of beam longitudi-
nal and column transverse reinforcement.
According to the results developed in this work, it is demon-
strated that the so-called B + J failure mode, which involves the
shear failure of the panel joint after the yielding of beam longitu-
dinal bars, allows to better observe the contribution of concrete
resisting mechanism on the overall structural response of the ele-
ment. Conversely, when the failure involves the flexural bending of
the beam (B failure), less differences in the ultimate attained load
are obtained between the conventional and EAF specimen. Con-
cerning the effect of the axial load, in the analyzed case, a positive
effect is observed, which enhances the loaddisplacement
response of the specimens. The same occurs for the amount of col-
umn transverse reinforcement, which improves concrete confine-
ment and at the same time improves the truss panel joint
resisting mechanism.
Further studies will focus on the effects of EAF concrete mix
design variations and their effect on the lateral load capacity of
such kind of joints.
Acknowledgements
The authors would gratefully to thank ZeroCentro Srl and Ital-
cementi Group SpA for supplying raw materials and for their finan-
cial support.
 F. Faleschini et al. / Engineering Structures 152 (2017) 335347 347

References [24] Kim S-W, Lee Y-J, Kim K-H. Bond behavior of RC beams with electric arc
furnace oxidizing slag aggregates. J Asian Architect Build Eng 2012;11
(2):35966.
[1] Etxeberria M, Mar A, Vzquez E. Recycled aggregate concrete as structural
[25] Kim S-W, Kim Y-S, Lee J-M, Kim K-H. Structural performance of spirally
material. Mater Struct 2007;40(5):52941.
confined concrete with EAF oxidising slag aggregate. Eur J Civ Environ Eng
[2] Kou S-C, Poon C-S. Properties of concrete prepared with crushed fine stone,
2013;17(8):65474.
furnace bottom ash and fine recycled aggregate as fine aggregates. Constr Build
[26] Faleschini F, Hofer L, Zanini MA, Dalla Benetta M, Pellegrino C. Experimental
Mater 2009;23(8):287786.
behavior of beam-column joints made with EAF concrete under cyclic loading.
[3] Pedro D, de Brito J, Evangelista L. Influence of the use of recycled concrete
Eng Struct 2017;139:8195.
aggregates from different sources on structural concrete. Constr Build Mater
[27] Kim J, LaFave JM. Key influence parameters for the joint shear behaviour of
2014;71:14151.
reinforced concrete (RC) beam-column connections. Eng Struct 2007;29
[4] Faleschini F, Zanini MA, Brunelli K, Pellegrino C. Valorization of co-combustion
(10):252339.
fly ash in concrete production. Mater Des 2015;85:68794.
[28] ABAQUS 6.12. Online documentation, Dassault Systmes Simulia Corp. 2012,
[5] Siddique R, Aggarwal P, Aggarwal Y. Influence of water/powder ratio on
Providence.
strength properties of self-compacting concrete containing coal fly ash and
[29] Manso JM, Polanco JA, Losaez M, Gonzlez JJ. Durability of concrete made
bottom ash. Constr Build Mater 2012;29:7381.
with EAF slag as aggregate. Cem Concr Compos 2006;28:52834.
[6] Silva P, de Brito J. Experimental study of the mechanical properties and
[30] DM 14/01/2008: Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni, 2008 (in Italian).
shrinkage of self-compacting concrete with binary and ternary mixes of fly ash
[31] ACI 374.1-05. Acceptance criteria for moment frames based on structural
and limestone filler. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
testing and commentary; 2104.
19648189.2015.1131200.
[32] Niroomandi A, Najafgholipour MA, Ronagh HR. Numerical investigation of the
[7] Faleschini F, Zanini MA, Pellegrino C, Pasinato S. Sustainable management and
affecting parameters on the shear failure of Nunductile RC exterior joints. Eng
supply of natural and recycled aggregates in a medium-size integrated plant.
Failure Anal 2014;46:6275.
Waste Manage 2016;49:14655.
[33] Alhaddad MS, Siddiqui NA, Abadel AA, Alsayed SH, Al-Salloum YA. Numerical
[8] Marinkovic S, Radonjanin V, Maleev M, Ignjatovic I. Comparative
investigations on the seismic behavior of FRP and TRM upgraded RC exterior
environmental assessment of natural and recycled aggregate concrete. Waste
beam-column joints. J Compos Constr 2012;16(3):30821.
Manage 2010;30(11):225564.
[34] Mahini SS, Ronagh HR. Web-bonded FRPs for relocation of plastic hinges away
[9] Ajdukiewicz AB, Kliszczewicz AT. Comparative tests of beams and columns
from the column face in exterior RC joints. Compos Struct 2011;93:246072.
made of recycled aggregate concrete and natural aggregate concrete. J Adv
[35] Lubliner J, Oliver J, Oller S, Oate E. A plastic-damage model for concrete. Int J
Concr Tech 2007;5(2):25973.
Solids Struct 1989;25(3):299326.
[10] Fathifazl G, Razaqpur AG, Isgor OB, Abbas A, Fournier B, Foo S. Flexural
[36] Popovics S. A numerical approach to the complete stress-strain curve for
performance of steel-reinforced recycled concrete beams. ACI Struct J
concrete. Cem Concr Res 1973;3(5):58399.
2009;106(6):85867.
[37] Shah AA, Ribakov. Recent trends in steel fibered high-strength concrete. Mater
[11] Corinaldesi V, Letelier V, Moriconi G. Behaviour of beam-column joints made
Des 2011;32:412251.
of recycled-aggregate concrete under cyclic loading. Constr Build Mater
[38] Lee J, Fenves GL. Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of structures. J Eng
2011;25(4):187782.
Mech 1998;124(8):892900.
[12] Manso JM, Gonzalez JJ, Polanco JA. Electric arc furnace slag in concrete. J Mater
[39] Hillerborg A. A model for fracture analysis. Report TVBM; Vol 3005. Division of
Civ Eng 2004;16:63945.
Building Materials LTH. Lund University; 1978.
[13] Papayianni I, Anastasiou E. Production of high-strength concrete using high
[40] Faleschini F, Pellegrino C. Concrete with EAF slag. Internal Report. University of
volume of industrial by products. Constr Build Mater 2010;24(8):14127.
Padova; 2011.
[14] Pellegrino C, Gaddo V. Mechanical and durability characteristics of concrete
[41] Sengupta P, Li B. Modified Bouc-Wen model for hysteresis behavior of RC
containing EAF slag as aggregate. Cem Concr Compos 2009;31(9):66371.
beam-column joints with limited transverse reinforcement. Eng Struct
[15] Pellegrino C, Cavagnis P, Faleschini F, Brunelli K. Properties of concretes with
2013;46:392406.
black/oxidizing electric arc furnace slag aggregate. Cem Concr Compos
[42] Paulay T, Park R, Priestley MJN. Reinforced concrete beam-column joints under
2013;37(1):23240.
seismic actions. ACI Struct J 1978;75(11):58593.
[16] Polanco JA, Manso JM, Setin J, Gonzlez JJ. Strength and durability of concrete
[43] Pantazopoulou S, Bonacci J. Consideration of questions about beam-column
made with electric steelmaking slag. ACI Mater J 2011;108(2):196203.
joints. ACI Struct J 1992;89(1):2736.
[17] Qasrawi H. The use of steel slag aggregate to enhance the mechanical
[44] Haach VG, De Cresce El Debs ALH, El Debs MK. Evaluation of the influence of
properties of recycled aggregate concrete and retain the environment. Constr
the column axial load on the behavior of monotonically loaded R/C exterior
Build Mater 2014;54:298304.
beamcolumn joints through numerical simulations. Eng Struct 2008;30
[18] Faleschini F, Fernndez-Ruz AM, Zanini MA, Brunelli K, Pellegrino C,
(4):96575.
Hernndez-Montes E. High performance concrete with electric arc furnace
[45] Li B, Siu-Shum Lam E, Wu B, Y-y Wang. Effect of high axial load on seismic
slag as aggregate: mechanical and durability properties. Constr Build Mater
behavior of reinforced concrete beam-column joints with and without
2015;101:11321.
strengthening. ACI Struct J 2015;112(6):71324.
[19] Gonzlez-Ortega MA, Segura I, Cavalaro SHP, Toralles-Carbonari B, Aguado A,
[46] Li B, Tran CTN, Pan T-C. Experimental and numerical investigations on the
Andrello AC. Radiological protection and mechanical properties of concretes
seismic behavior of lightly reinforced concrete beamcolumn joints. J Struct
with EAF steel slags. Constr Build Mater 2015;51:4328.
Eng 2009;135(9):100718.
[20] Maslehuddin M, Sharif AM, Shameem M, Ibrahim M, Barry MS. Comparison of
[47] Alaee P, Li B, Cheung PPC. Parametric investigation of 3D RC beamcolumn
properties of steel slag and crushed limestone aggregate concretes. Constr
joint mechanics. Mag Concr Res 2015;67(19):105469.
Build Mater 2003;17(2):10512.
[48] Park S, Mosalam KM. Experimental and analytical studies on reinforced
[21] Arribas I, Santamara A, Ruiz E, Ortega-Lpez V, Manso JM. Electric arc furnace
concrete buildings with seismically vulnerable beam-column joints. PEER
slag and its use in hydraulic concrete. Constr Build Mater 2015;90:6879.
Report, Berkeley, California, US: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
[22] Santamaria A, Orbe A, Losaez MM, Skaf M, Ortega-Lopez V, Gonzlez JJ. Self-
Center; 2012.
compacting concrete incorporating electric arc-furnace steelmaking slag as
[49] ACI 318-11 (2011) Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and
aggregate. Mater Des 2017;115:17993.
Commentary; 2011.
[23] Pellegrino C, Faleschini F. Experimental behavior of reinforced concrete beams
with electric arc furnace slag as recycled aggregate. ACI Mater J 2013;110
(2):197205.