EVALUATION OF FEMA 356 MODELS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMNS

AND BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS

H. Sezen1, and F. Alemdar2
ABSTRACT
This study investigates the accuracy of FEMA 356 shear and flexure modeling procedures for
reinforced concrete (RC) columns and beam-column joints with poorly detailed or insufficient
reinforcement. Following the FEMA 356 guidelines, generalized flexure and shear forcedeformation relations were developed and compared with the experimental data from 26 column
specimens and 17 beam-column joint specimens. Specifically, the measured and predicted
responses were compared and evaluated: at yield displacement and the corresponding lateral
load, lateral load and displacement at ultimate, and at axial load failure. In general, while the
FEMA 356 models predict the lateral strength of columns reasonably well, they underestimate
the shear strength of beam column joints. The predicted initial stiffness and deformations at both
yield and ultimate are conservative for columns.
Introduction
This study was initiated to examine the accuracy of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
Prestandard, FEMA 356 (2000) models in capturing the behavior of lightly reinforced concrete
columns and beam-column joints. This research is timely because a large number of reinforced
columns and beam-column joints with insufficient strength or deformation capacity are in use
today in seismic regions, placing many structures and people at risk in the event of a major
earthquake. Most of these structures were designed and constructed before the seismic code
provisions and detailing requirements were changed significantly in the early 1970s. The
majority of columns and beam-column joints investigated in this study represents columns and
beam-column joints in existing structures, and do not meet the current code requirements.
According to the classifications provided in FEMA 356 document, these are the columns and
beam-column joints with non-conforming details.
The test columns used in this research were chosen from the database compiled by Sezen (2002).
The detailed description of damage, failure mechanisms, and digital lateral load-displacement
relations were available for the 26 column specimens used in this study. Table 1 identifies key
parameters of the test columns, all of which were subjected to cyclic lateral load reversals and
had apparent shear distress at failure. The column aspect ratio or shear span-to-depth ratio, La/d
varies between 2.0 and 4.0, and the transverse reinforcement index, w fy/ f c varies between 0.01
and 0.12. Columns were tested by shearing a full-length column in double curvature, or by
loading one or a double cantilever in single curvature. Three test specimens, 3SLH18, 2SLH18
and 3SMD12 in Table 1, had short lap splices near the bottom of the column. Details of the
1

Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodetic Science, The Ohio State
University, 470 Hitchcock Hall, 2070 Neil Ave, Columbus, OH 43210-1275
2
Graduate Student Researcher, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodetic Science, The
Ohio State University, 470 Hitchcock Hall, 2070 Neil Ave, Columbus, OH 43210

specimens, test setups, and reported load-deformation relations can be found in Sezen (2002).
The beam-column joint specimens used in this research were chosen from the database compiled
by Alemdar (2007). Table 2 identifies the critical test parameters of beam-column joints needed
to construct the FEMA response envelopes. The 14 specimens listed in Table 2 are exterior
beam-column joints. Three additional interior beam-column joints, SL1, SL2 and SL4 tested by
Shin and LaFave (2004), are also used to evaluate the FEMA 356 model. Both exterior and
interior beam-column joints used in this study failed in shear. Details of the specimens, test
setups, and load-deformation relations can be found in the corresponding references listed in
Table 2.
FEMA 356 Flexure Model
The procedures outlined in the FEMA 356 document provide guidelines to develop nonlinear
lateral force-deformation relations for RC members. For columns and beam-column joints with
strength limited by flexure, the load-displacement model follows the general relation shown in
Fig.1, where lateral force is normalized with respect to the yield force. For a given column or
beam-column joint, in order to generate a relationship as shown in Fig. 1, the initial stiffness; the
displacement, y or lateral load, Vy at yielding (Point B); and/or the lateral load at flexure failure,
Vp (Point C); the plastic rotation angles a and b, and the residual strength ratio, c need to be
determined.
The initial stiffness or the slope of line AB in Fig. 1 is defined considering flexural and shear
deformations for columns. Flexural rigidity, kEcIg is defined equal to 0.5EcIg for P 0.3Agfc, and
0.7EcIg for P 0.5Agfc, with a linear variation in between (Ec = modulus of elasticity of
concrete, Ig = gross moment of inertia, and Ag = gross cross sectional area). Shear stiffness for
rectangular cross sections is defined as 0.4EcAg. The initial stiffness is not defined for beamcolumn joints clearly in the FEMA 356 prestandard. The shear rigidity for beam-column joints is
assumed to be 0.4EcAg by considering that the shear rigidity for both beams and columns are
specified as 0.4EcAg and by assuming that the beam-column joints are part of the columns or
beams. The plastic rotation angles a and b depend on the axial load, nominal shear stress, and
reinforcement details. The residual strength ratio, c is equal to 0.2.
The flexural strength is calculated for expected material strengths (i.e., measured steel and
concrete strengths for test specimens) using the procedures outlined in the ACI 318 code (2005).
It may be argued that the maximum plastic moment, Mp should be used to define point C, instead
of the moment capacity, Mn based on the ACI 318 rectangular compressive stress block
assumption. Considering that the purpose of FEMA 356 document is to provide simple
guidelines to generate a force-deformation relationship as in Fig. 1, the moment capacity Mn is
used in this study. It is also possible to increase Mn by 25% assuming that the longitudinal steel
strength can be equal to 1.25fy at ultimate as suggested in Chapter 21 of the ACI 318 code.
However, the detailed moment-curvature analysis of the columns included in this study showed
that the difference between the ACI moment capacity Mn and the plastic moment capacity Mp
was very small, not justifying a 25% increase in Mn. FEMA 356 requires that the slope from
point B to C to be zero or 10% of the initial slope. In this study, the slope is assumed to be zero.
FEMA 356 Shear Model
In the FEMA 356 document, the shear strength of columns is defined by Eq. 1

V n = k1

As f y d
s

6 f '

c
+ k 2
1+
0.8 Ag
'
M

6
f
A
c g
Vd

(1)

where k1 = 1 for transverse steel spacing less than or equal d/2, k1 = 0.5 for spacing exceeding
d/2 but not more than d, k1 = 0 otherwise; k2 = 1 for displacement ductility demand, 2, k2 =
0.7 for 4 with linear variation between these limits (Fig. 2), = 1 for normal-weight
concrete; M and V = moment and shear at section of maximum moment; the value of M/Vd
(=La/d) is limited to 2 La/d 3. The displacement ductility demand, is defined as the ratio of
yield displacement, y (at point B) to ultimate displacement (at point C).
The FEMA 356 document recommends Eq. 2 for the calculation of nominal shear strength of
beam-column joints according to the general procedures of ACI 318.
Vn = f c' A j
(2)
where is the nominal strength coefficient as defined in Table 3, Aj is the effective horizontal
joint area defined as the product of the column dimension in the direction of loading and the
joint width equal to the smaller of 1) column width, or 2) beam width plus the joint depth, or 3)
twice the smaller perpendicular distance from the longitudinal axis of the beam to the column
side.
Lateral Force-Deformation Relations and Implications
Fig. 3 shows the cyclic load-deformation relation for a column specimen with poor
reinforcement details (e.g., with 90-degree hooks at the end of the hoops) tested by Sezen
(2002). Yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement is evident by a reduction in the lateral load
stiffness at a displacement of approximately 25 mm in both loading directions. For the nine
columns tested by Saatcioglu and Ozcebe (1989) and Wight and Sozen (1975), no experimental
yield displacement was reported. For those columns, the yield displacement is estimated using
the procedure illustrated in Fig. 3, where y,test is assumed to occur at the intersection of a
horizontal line corresponding to the maximum lateral load with a secant drawn to intersect the
lateral load-displacement relation at 70% of the maximum lateral load. For all columns listed in
Table 1, the ultimate displacement indicating significant reduction in lateral load resistance,
u,test was defined as the maximum measured displacement at which the lateral load drops to 80%
of the maximum applied lateral load. Continued deformation cycles typically result in loss of
axial-load-carrying capacity at a maximum displacement, ug as identified in Fig. 3.
The maximum lateral strength of the column, Vtest reported in Table 4 is defined as the largest
lateral force measured in either loading direction. The FEMA 356 flexure and shear models are
compared with the experimental data in Figs. 4 and 5 for 12 of the columns considered in this
study. The maximum flexure and shear strengths predicted from FEMA 356 models (as reported
in Table 4) are based on the observation that the maximum lateral strength is typically reached at
a displacement ductility less than 2.0 following the flexural yielding (Figs. 4 and 5). Then, the
maximum lateral strength, Vn,FEMA reported in Table 4 is the smaller of Vp,flexure (=Mn,ACI/La) and
Vn,shear (from Eq. 1). The mean ratio of measured lateral strength, Vtest to strength predicted by
FEMA 356, Vn,FEMA is 1.15. This is an indication that FEMA 356 models can predict the
maximum strength of columns reasonably well, if both flexure and shear strengths are evaluated
together.

Using the FEMA 356 flexure and shear models for columns, an attempt was made to classify the
critical failure mechanism. The failure modes predicted in Table 4 are defined as: 1) flexure
dominated, if the flexure strength was significantly lower than the shear capacity; 2) shear
dominated, if the shear strength was found to be significantly lower than the flexure capacity; 3)
flexure-shear mode, if the shear and flexure strengths were very close. This classification may
have a significant impact on determination of expected failure mechanism and the rehabilitation
method to be used.
The measured yield and maximum shear strength of beam-column joints, Vy,test and Vtest are
reported in Table 6. The FEMA 356 models are compared with the experimental data in Figs. 6
and 7 for 9 exterior and 3 interior beam-column joints. The FEMA 356 model overestimates the
shear strength of all beam-column joints. The mean ratio of measured shear strength of external
beam-column joints, Vn,test to strength predicted by FEMA 356, Vn,FEMA is 1.69 with a standard
deviation of 0.32. The mean ratio of measured to predicted yield rotations for the exterior joints
listed in Table 6 was 3.55 with a very large deviation. As shown in Table 7, the reported
experimental yield and ultimate rotations as well as corresponding simplified FEMA 356
predictions varied widely.
The displacements at first yielding, y and at ultimate, u calculated following the guidelines
provided in the FEMA 356 document are compared with experimental data in Table 5 for
columns. FEMA 356 procedures consistently underestimate both yield and ultimate
displacements for columns. The mean ratio of observed displacements to calculated
displacements at yield (y,test/y,FEMA) and at ultimate (u,test/u,FEMA) are 2.06 and 3.88,
respectively. It appears that both the initial stiffness and plastic rotation angle estimates provided
in the FEMA 356 document are conservative for the columns considered in this paper. The
discrepancy is probably because the FEMA 356 model does not consider slip of longitudinal
reinforcement from the beam-column connections. The FEMA 356 model could be improved by
including this additional flexibility. Comparison of test data and models in Figs. 4 and 5 indicate
that, in general, the estimated displacements at axial-load-failure (ug in Fig. 3) are also
significantly less than the actual apparent values. It should be noted that the models estimate the
overall response reasonably for a few columns such as 2CHD12, 2CMH18, and 3CMH18.
FEMA 356 flexure and shear models estimate that none of the 12 columns would fail in shear
after the flexural capacity is reached (Figs. 4 and 5). In other words, no flexure model crosses the
inclined or reduced portion of the shear model, indicating that the columns would either fail in
shear (flexure model crosses shear model at a low displacement ductility) or fail in flexure
(flexure model does not cross the shear model). If the initial stiffness and deformation models in
FEMA 356 are improved, it may be possible to see several columns failing in shear after
development of flexural strength as reported by the researchers.
Conclusions
The FEMA 356 flexure and shear models were used to predict the behavior of lightly reinforced
or poorly detailed 26 RC columns and 17 beam-column joints. Based on the comparison of
models and test data, the following can be concluded.
The maximum lateral strengths of columns were predicted relatively accurately using the
combination of flexure and shear models. The discrepancies between the predicted and measured

strengths will improve if the initial stiffness or the deformation predictions are improved. The
predicted failure mechanisms for columns did not compare well with the reported experimental
data, partially because of the problems associated with initial stiffness or deformation
predictions. In all cases, the initial stiffness and the corresponding yield displacement, and the
displacement at ultimate were underestimated for column specimens. The initial stiffness
estimates can be improved by including the effect of longitudinal bar slip in the flexure model.
The predicted maximum shear strength of exterior beam-column joints were too conservative.
The shear strength factor for exterior beam-column joints in ACI 318 code is two times the
corresponding values in the FEMA 356 standard for the same type of joints used in this research.
ACI 318 shear strength calculations are more accurate by considering the joints investigated in
this research (Type 2 joints according to ACI 318). The maximum shear strength of interior
beam-column joints are reasonable well predicted by considering the three specimens. Further
research should be conducted to evaluate the accurateness of FEMA model for interior beamcolumn joints since the number of the test specimens is not adequate to have a conclusive
remark. The predicted strength degradation (i.e., drop between C and D in Figure 1) do not
represent the actual behavior of most beam-column joints considered here. The overall beamcolumn joint behavior and the associated maximum shear strength and plastic rotations (at yield
and ultimate) were predicted poorly. Beam-column joint test data reported by different
researchers also varied widely.
References
ACI 318. 2005. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. ACI Committee 318, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan.
Alemdar F. 2007. Behavior of Existing Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints. Master Thesis. The
Ohio State University.
Clyde, C., Pantelides, C.P., and Reaveley, L.D., July 2000. Performance-Based Evaluation of Exterior
Reinforced Concrete Buildings Joints for Seismic Excitation. PEER Report, No. 2000/05. Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
Esaki F., 1996. Reinforcing Effect of Steel Plate Hoops on Ductility of R/C square Columns. Eleventh
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Pergamon, Elsevier Science Ltd., Paper No. 196.
FEMA 356, 2000. NEHRP Guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency
Management Agency. Washington DC.
Hwang, S.J., Lee,H.J., Liao,T.F., Wang, K.C., and Tsai, H.H., 2005. Role of Hoops on Shear Strength of
Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints. ACI Structural Journal. Vol.102 No:3, pp.445-453
Lynn, A. C., Moehle J. P., Mahin S. A., and Holmes W. T., 1996. Seismic Evaluation of Existing
Reinforced Concrete Columns, Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
Vol. 12, No. 4, November 1996, 715-739.
Ohue M., Morimoto H., Fujii S., and Morita S., 1985. The Behavior of R.C. Short Columns Failing in
Splitting Bond-Shear Under Dynamic Lateral Loading. Transactions of the Japan Concrete
Institute. Vol. 7. pp. 293-300
Pantelides, C.P., Hansen, J.,Nadauld, J., and Reaveley, L.D., May 2002. Assessment of Reinforced
Concrete Building Exterior Joints with Substandard Details. PEER Report, No. 2002/18. Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
Saatcioglu M., and Ozcebe G., 1989. Response of reinforced concrete columns to simulated seismic
loading. ACI Structural Journal. Vol. 86, No.1, Jan.-Feb. 1989. pp. 3-12
Sezen H. 2002. Seismic Behavior and modeling of reinforced concrete building columns. Ph.D. Thesis.
University of California, Berkeley. http://peer.berkeley.edu/~sezen/Files/thesis/

Sezen H., and Moehle J. P., November-December 2006. Seismic Tests of Concrete Columns with Light
Transverse Reinforcement. ACI Structural Journal. Vol. 103, No: 6, pp. 842-849
Shin, M., and Lafave,J.M., 2004. Thirteenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver,
B.C., Canada, Paper No. 0301.
Wight J. K., and Sozen M. A., 1975. Strength decay of RC columns under shear reversals. Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE. Vol. 101, No. ST5, May 1975, pp. 1053-1065

Table 1.

Dimensions, material properties and other details for column specimens

Specimen

Reference b
d
La
mmm mmm mm

s
mmm

fy
fyl
f c
MPaa MPaa MPaa

P
kN

457

394

147

305

2.

0.1

447

469

21.1

667

457

394

147

305

2.

0.1

447

469

21.1

266

457

147

305

2.

0.1

147

457

3.

0.1

447
335

469
400

21.8
25.6

667

457

394
381

457

381

147

457

3.

0.1

335

400

25.6

503

457

381

147

457

2.

0.1

335

400

33.1

503

2SLH18

457

381

147

457

2.

0.1

335

400

33.1

503

2CMH18

457

381

147

457

2.

0.1

335

400

25.7

151

3CMH18

457

381

147

3.

0.1

335

400

27.6

151

3CMD12

457

381

147

457
305

3.

0.1

335

400

27.6

151

3SMD12

457
200

381

147

305

3.

0.1

335

400

25.7

151

175

400

50

2.

0.5

376

322

32.1

183

200

175

400

50

2.

0.5

377

322

29.9

183

200

175

400

50

2.

0.5

363

370

23.0

161

200

175

400

75

2.

0.5

363

370

20.2

161

H-2-1/3

200

175

400

40

2.

0.6

363

370

23.0

269

HT-2-1/3

200

175

400

60

2.

0.6

363

370

20.2

236

400

375

100

120

2.

0.4

581

382

29.0

464

400

375

100

120

2.

0.5

581

382

33.5

107

400

375

100

120

2.

0.5

581

382

34.1

163

152

254

876

127

2.

0.3

496

344

34.7

189

152

254

876

127

2.

0.3

496

344

33.6

178

152

254

876

127

2.

0.3

496

344

33.6

111

00.033E

152

254

876

127

2.

0.3

496

344

32.0

40.048W

152

254

876

89

2.

0.4

496

344

26.1

178

00.048W

152

254

876

89

2.

0.4

496

344

25.9

2CLD12
2CHD12

Sezen and
Moehle
(2006)

2CLD12M
3CLH18 Lynn and
3SLH18 Moehle
(1996)
2CLH18

2D16RS
4D13RS
H-2-1/5
HT-2-1/5

U-7
U-8
U-9
40.033aE
40.033E
25.033E

Ohue et
al. (1985)
Esaki
(1996)

Saatcioglu
& Ozcebe
(1989)
Wight and
Sozen
(1975)

503

Notation: b = column width, d = depth to centerline of tension reinforcement, La = shear span (= length,
L for cantilevers; =L/2 for double curvature columns), s = hoop spacing, l = longitudinal steel ratio, w =
transverse steel ratio, fyl = longitudinal steel yield strength, fy = transverse steel yield strength, f c =
concrete strength, P = applied axial load

Table 2.

Dimensions, material properties and other test parameters for beam-column joints
f c

Specimen

MPa

P
f * Ag
'
c

Joint
bj (mm)

hj (mm)

Joint rein.
s (mm)

#2
46.2
0.10
457
305
#4
41.0
0.25
457
305
#5
37.0
0.25
457
305
#6
40.1
0.10
457
305
1
33.1
0.10
406
406
Pantelides
3
34.0
0.10
406
406
et al.
4
31.6
0.25
406
406
5
31.7
0.10
406
406
6
31.0
0.25
406
406
Hwang
SST-0
67.3
0.017
420
420
et al.
01-B8
61.8
0.018
420
420
SST-3T3
69.0
0.016
420
420
97
SST-2T4
71.0
0.016
420
420
146
SST-1T44
72.8
0.015
420
420
293

Notation: f c = concrete strength, P = applied axial load, Ag = column area where the axial load is
Clyde
et al.

applied, bj = joint width, hj = joint depth, s =joint reinforcement spacing

Table 3.

FEMA 356 values for joint shear calculation

"

Interior joints
with
transverse
beams

< 0.003
0.003

12
20

Value of
Interior joint Exterior joint Exterior
without
with transverse joint
transverse
beams
without
beams
transverse
beams
10
8
6
15
15
12

Knee
joint
4
8

" = volumetric ratio of horizontal confinement reinforcement in the joint, knee joint = self-descriptive
(with transverse beams or not)

Table 4.

Comparison of observed and predicted failure modes and shear strengths of columns

Specimen

Failure mode*
Observed**
Predicted

Vtest
(kN)

Vp,flexure
(kN)

Vn,shear
(kN)

Vn,FEMA
(kN)

Vtest
/Vn,FEMA

2CLD12

315

297

271

271

1.17

2CHD12

359

285

400

285

1.26

2CLD12M
3CLH18

294

299

271

271

1.08

271

290

196

196

1.38

3SLH18

267

290

196

196

1.36

2CLH18

240

216

217

216

1.11

2SLH18

231

216

217

216

1.07

2CMH18

316

268

277

268

1.18

3CMH18

338

342

283

283

1.19

3CMD12

356

342

344

342

1.04

3SMD12

378

333

336

333

1.14

2D16RS

102

87

127

87

1.17

4D13RS

111

104

126

104

1.07

H-2-1/5

103

86

121

86

1.20

HT-2-1/5

102

81

117

81

1.26

H-2-1/3

121

92

149

92

1.32

HT-2-1/3

112

87

143

87

1.29

U1

275

233

258

233

1.18

U2

270

287

300

287

0.94

U3

268

279

459

279

0.96

40.033aE

96

92

122

92

1.04

40.033E

97

91

120

91

1.07

25.033E

87

84

114

84

1.04

00.033E

81

72

101

72

1.13

40.048W

95

88

114

89

1.07

00.048W

2
1
86
70
95
70
*: 1) flexure; 2) shear; 3) flexure-shear
**: Failure modes from PEER column database (http://maximus.ce.washington.edu/~peera1)

1.23

Table 5.

Comparison of measured and calculated displacements of column specimens

Specimen

2CLD12
2CHD12

Yield displacement (mm)

y,test
y,FEMA
y,test/y,FEMA

26.16
20.07

Ultimate displacement (mm)

u,test
u,FEMA
u,test/u,FEMA

16.45

1.59

75.44

24.00

3.14

11.43

1.76

25.91

19.14

1.35

84.58

23.90

3.54

2CLD12M
3CLH18

26.92

16.32

1.65

19.05

14.60

1.30

30.48

22.50

1.35

3SLH18

15.75

14.60

1.08

29.21

22.50

1.30

2CLH18

14.99

9.56

1.57

76.20

18.40

4.14

9.56

1.35

60.96

18.40

3.31

13.44

1.23

30.48

21.65

1.41

16.57

1.35

30.48

23.94

1.27

16.57

1.18

45.72

23.94

1.91

45.72

24.05

1.90

2SLH18
2CMH18
3CMH18
3CMD12

12.95
16.51
22.61
19.56

3SMD12

22.61

16.72

1.35

2D16RS

7.87

2.23

3.53

27.43

4.01

6.84

4D13RS

6.10

2.75

2.22

14.73

4.34

3.39

H-2-1/5

4.06

2.59

1.57

20.07

4.19

4.79

2.62

1.84

20.83

4.21

4.95

2.79

1.28

16.00

4.38

3.65

2.79

1.73

20.07

4.39

4.57

53.09

9.79

5.42

HT-2-1/5
H-2-1/3
HT-2-1/3

4.83
3.56
4.83

U-7

17.02

4.11

4.14

U-8

14.99

6.08

2.47

42.93

8.12

5.29

U-9

16.00

5.51

2.90

44.96

7.73

5.82

40.033aE

7.62

4.26

1.79

31.75

6.35

5.00

4.28

2.85

43.94

6.36

6.91

3.95

3.02

31.50

6.14

5.13

3.47

2.20

27.94

8.45

3.31

48.51

6.67

7.27

33.02

8.65

3.82

40.033E
25.033E
00.033E

12.19
11.94
7.62

40.048W

14.48

4.73

3.06

00.048W

13.46

3.77

3.57

Table 6.

Comparison of observed and predicted shear strengths of beam-column joints

Specimen

Clyde
et al.

Pantelides
et al.

Hwang
et al.

Table 7.

#2
#4
#5
#6
1
3
4
5
6
SST-0
01-B8
SST-3T3
SST-2T4
SST-1T44

Yield strength (kN)

Vy,test/Vy,FEMA
Vy,FEMA Vy,test
229
0.49
472
346
0.78
444
229
0.54
422
244
0.55
440
363
0.77
473
408
0.85
480
376
0.78
480
679
1.47
463
378
0.82
463
724
1.00
721
964
1.39
691
855
1.17
730
862
1.16
741
837
1.12
750

Maximum strength (kN)

Vn,FEMA
Vn,test
Vn,test/Vn,FEMA
847
1.80
472
881
1.98
444
841
1.99
422
828
1.88
440
424
0.90
473
836
1.74
480
952
1.98
480
872
1.88
463
888
1.92
463
997
1.38
721
1255
1.82
691
1131
1.55
730
1078
1.45
741
1032
1.38
750

Comparison of measured and calculated displacements of beam column joints

Specimen

Yield rotation (rad)

y,test
y,test
y,FEMA
/y,FEMA

2
Clyde
et al.

Pantelides
et al.

Hwang
et al.

4
5
6
1
3
4
5
6
SST-0
01-B8
SST-3T3
SST-2T4
SST-1T44

0.000287
0.000263
0.000263
0.000263
0.000263
0.000263
0.000263
0.000263
0.000263
0.000299
0.000297
0.000300
0.000300
0.000302

0.000109
0.000256
0.000498
0.000315
0.002000
0.000400
0.004000
0.000208
0.001422
0.001208
0.000250
0.001083

0.38
0.97
1.89
1.20
7.60
1.52
15.21
0.70
4.79
4.03
0.83
3.59

Ultimate rotation (rad)

u,FEMA.
u,test
u,test
/u,FEMA

0.00529
0.00526
0.00526
0.00526
0.00526
0.00526
0.00526
0.00526
0.00526
0.00530
0.00530
0.00530
0.00530
0.00530

0.00511
0.01425
0.00475
0.00725
0.00200
0.00600
0.00725
0.01750
0.00833
0.00750
0.00666
0.01100
0.00287
0.00772

0.97
2.71
0.90
1.38
0.38
1.14
1.38
3.33
1.58
1.42
1.26
2.08
0.54
1.46

Normalized
Force

Deformation
Generalized force-deformation relationship in FEMA 356.

k1

Figure 1.

1.0
0.7 low
ductility
demand

moderate
ductility
demand

2.0

lateral load (kN)

Figure 2.

high
ductility
demand

4.0

displacement ductility,

Concrete contribution to shear strength as a function of displacement ductility

300

Vtest

200

0.7Vtest

0.8Vtest

100
0
y

100

ug

200
300
150

Figure 3.

100

50
0
50
lateral displacement (mm)

100

150

Experimental lateral load-displacement relation (Specimen 2CLD12 in Table 1)

200

Lateral Load (kN)

Lateral Load (kN)

400

2CLD12

200
150 100 50
0
50
100
Lateral displacement (mm)

200
100
0
100
200

50

50

100

200

200
100
0
100
200

300
100

200

200

50
0
50
Lateral displacement (mm)

0
200

50
0
50
Lateral displacement (mm)

100

100

2CMH18

100
0
100

Test data
FEMA 356 flexure
FEMA 356 shear

200
50

50

100

Lateral displacement (mm)

400

200

Figure 4.

100

100

3CMH18

400
100

300

50
0
50
Lateral displacement (mm)

Lateral Load (kN)

400

3CLH18

100

300

2CLH18
Lateral Load (kN)

300

200

50
0
50
Lateral displacement (mm)

300
100

150

Lateral displacement (mm)

Lateral Load (kN)

300
2CLD12M

300

Lateral Load (kN)

200

400

150

Lateral Load (kN)

Lateral Load (kN)

300

2CHD12

3CMD12

200
0
200
400
100

50
0
50
Lateral displacement (mm)

100

Comparison of FEMA 356 column flexure and shear models with test data

Lateral Load (kN)

200
0
200
400
100
400

Lateral Load (kN)

400

3CMH18

50
0
50
Lateral displacement (mm)

200
0
200

300

Figure 5.

50
0
50
Lateral displacement (mm)

200
0
200

150

3SMD12

400
100

3CMD12

400
100

100

Lateral Load (kN)

Lateral Load (kN)

400

100

50
0
50
Lateral displacement (mm)

100

4D13RS

100
50
0
50
100
150
30

20 10
0
10
20
Lateral displacement (mm)

30

Comparison of FEMA 356 column flexure and shear models with test data

Figure 6. Comparison of FEMA 356 models with beam-column joint test data (Clyde et al. 2000)

1000

2000

SST0

2000

20000 10000

10000

SST3T3

1000
0
1000
2000

10000

Joint Shear Force (kN)

Joint Shear Force (kN)

0
1000

01B8

2000
2000

10000

10000

SST2T4

1000
0
1000

10000

10000

10000

1000

SST1T44

500

1000

SL1

1000
1000

10000

10000

SL2

500
0
500
1000

500
1000
30000
1000
SL4
500

10000 0 10000

30000

0
500

20000

20000 40000

test data
Joint Shear Strain (rad)
Figure 7.

Joint Shear Force (kN)

Joint Shear Force (kN)

1000

20000 0 20000

60000

FEMA 356 shear

Joint Shear Strain (rad)

Comparison of FEMA 356 models with beam-column joint test data