## 4 Experimental Results and Analysis
### Strain Analysis  
The yielding points detected from the strain gage and rosette data are reported on the moment-drift envelope curves in Figure 11. It was observed that the yielding of the steel at the same position in two specimens occurred at different levels of loading. All the points where the strain gauges and rosettes were glued yielded between 1% and 2.5% drift for specimen SC1 and between 1.5% and 4% drift for specimen SC2. This is to say that the two plates added in specimen SC2 changed the force transfer mechanism from the steel beam to the RC column via the embedded steel profile. In both specimens, the first yielding took place at the location of rosette 1 (at 0.88% drift for SC1 and 1.38% drift for SC2). The use of two additional plates increased the steel area that was under tension due to the force transmission from the upper flange of the steel beam to the web of the embedded steep profile. In particular, even after the first yielding, the specimens behaved linearly. This is an advantage of the proposed hybrid joint detail that allows for the formation of plastic hinges within the steel parts to dissipate energy without any impact on the global behavior of the joint. The yielding of the web panel in shear was detected by rosette R2 at 1.71% drift for SC1 and 2.57% for SC2 (see Table 3). It is noted that after the yielding of the steel web panel in shear, the specimen resistance almost no longer increased. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Pull**} & **SC1** & **SC1** & **SC2** & **SC2** & \multirow{2}{*}{**Push**} & **SC1** & **SC1** & **SC2** & **SC2** \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-10}  & **Cycle 1** & **Cycle 2** & **Cycle 1** & **Cycle 2** & & & **Cycle 1** & **Cycle 2** \\ \hline
**Drift (\%)** & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Joint-Bending Moment (kNm)**} & **Drift (\%)** & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Joint-Bending Moment (kNm)**} \\ \hline
0.25 & 129.7 & 131.4 & 137.1 & 134.7 & \(-0.25\) & \(-124\) & \(-120.2\) & \(-132.3\) & \(-131.8\) \\
0.5 & 244.1 & 246.4 & 253.5 & 246.1 & \(-0.5\) & \(-233.3\) & \(-230\) & \(-244.6\) & \(-242.4\) \\
0.75 & 342.8 & 339.4 & 353.7 & 346.9 & \(-0.75\) & \(-327.6\) & \(-324.5\) & \(-346.4\) & \(-343.4\) \\
1 & 419.9 & 415.9 & 448.4 & 443.6 & \(-1\) & \(-408\) & \(-404.2\) & \(-437.2\) & \(-427.4\) \\
1.25 & 492 & 485.5 & 526.5 & 516.3 & \(-1.25\) & \(-479.3\) & \(-474.2\) & \(-517.2\) & \(-505.1\) \\
1.5 & 560.9 & 556.7 & 593.8 & 587.3 & \(-1.5\) & \(-544\) & \(-540.2\) & \(-588.5\) & \(-584.3\) \\
1.75 & 624.2 & 622.3 & 666.6 & 660.7 & \(-1.75\) & \(-608.7\) & \(-602.6\) & \(-651.4\) & \(-645.8\) \\
2 & 669.8 & 656.4 & 727.8 & 719.7 & \(-2\) & \(-653\) & \(-644.1\) & \(-703.2\) & \(-695.3\) \\
2.25 & 699.2 & 684.7 & 774.9 & 768.5 & \(-2.25\) & \(-680.1\) & \(-669.9\) & \(-751.3\) & \(-744.7\) \\
2.5 & 718.4 & 704.4 & 812.9 & 793.7 & \(-2.5\) & \(-704.8\) & \(-694.3\) & \(-794.1\) & \(-775.6\) \\
3 & 749.6 & 723.2 & 867.9 & 841.8 & \(-3\) & \(-723.2\) & \(-710.2\) & \(-849.3\) & \(-823.9\) \\
3.5 & 762.3 & 749.5 & 901.3 & 883.6 & \(-3.5\) & \(-743.9\) & \(-733.4\) & \(-877.5\) & \(-860.6\) \\
4 & 779.2 & 755.1 & 915.9 & 899.4 & \(-4\) & \(-757.2\) & \(-742.1\) & \(-892.6\) & \(-876.6\) \\
4.5 & 772 & 753.1 & 923.4 & 908.1 & \(-4.5\) & \(-751.2\) & \(-736.1\) & \(-904.7\) & \(-886.6\) \\
5 & 768 & 749.6 & 927.3 & 914.8 & \(-5\) & \(-747.6\) & \(-728.7\) & \(-910.6\) & \(-896.5\) \\
5.5 & 762.7 & 748.5 & 924.7 & 906.8 & \(-5.5\) & \(-731.9\) & \(-718.7\) & \(-905.1\) & \(-887.5\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Summary of the test results. Figure 11: Load–drift envelope curves and the yielding points. The experimental results concerning the yielding of the rebars (points T1 and D1 in Figure 6) in the joint region showed the efficiency of the additional plates. For instance, the yielding occurred earlier in SC1 at these positions.