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 force-
deformation 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, ρw 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 ≤ 0.3Agf’c, and
0.7EcIg for P ≥ 0.5Agf’c, 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 beam-
column 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
 As f y d 6 f ' P 
 c 
V n = k1 + λk 2  1+ 0.8 Ag (1)
s M 6 f '
A 
 Vd c g 

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, µ ≤ 2, k2 =
0.7 for µ ≥ 4 with linear variation between these limits (Fig. 2), λ = 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, µ 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 = λγ f c' A j (2)
where γ 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 beam-
column 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 beam-
column 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 s ρl ρw fyl fy f c′ P

mmm mmm mm mmm % % MPaa MPaa MPaa kN
2CLD12 Sezen and 457 394 147 305 2. 0.1 447 469 21.1 667
2CHD12 Moehle 457 394 147 305 2. 0.1 447 469 21.1 266
(2006)
2CLD12M 457 394 147 305 2. 0.1 447 469 21.8 667
3CLH18 Lynn and 457 381 147 457 3. 0.1 335 400 25.6 503
3SLH18 Moehle 457 381 147 457 3. 0.1 335 400 25.6 503
(1996)
2CLH18 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 457 381 147 457 3. 0.1 335 400 27.6 151
3CMD12 457 381 147 305 3. 0.1 335 400 27.6 151
3SMD12 457 381 147 305 3. 0.1 335 400 25.7 151
2D16RS Ohue et 200 175 400 50 2. 0.5 376 322 32.1 183
4D13RS al. (1985) 200 175 400 50 2. 0.5 377 322 29.9 183
H-2-1/5 Esaki 200 175 400 50 2. 0.5 363 370 23.0 161
HT-2-1/5 (1996) 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
U-7 Saatcioglu 400 375 100 120 2. 0.4 581 382 29.0 464
U-8 & Ozcebe 400 375 100 120 2. 0.5 581 382 33.5 107
(1989)
U-9 400 375 100 120 2. 0.5 581 382 34.1 163
40.033aE Wight and 152 254 876 127 2. 0.3 496 344 34.7 189
40.033E Sozen 152 254 876 127 2. 0.3 496 344 33.6 178
(1975)
25.033E 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 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 0
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, ρl = longitudinal steel ratio, ρw =
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
Specimen f c′ P Joint Joint rein.
'
MPa f * Ag
c bj (mm) hj (mm) s (mm)
#2 46.2 0.10 457 305 -
Clyde #4 41.0 0.25 457 305 -
et al. #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
applied, bj = joint width, hj = joint depth, s =joint reinforcement spacing

Table 3. FEMA 356 γ values for joint shear calculation

Value of γ
Interior joints Interior joint Exterior joint Exterior
with without with transverse joint Knee
ρ" transverse transverse beams without joint
beams beams transverse
beams
< 0.003 12 10 8 6 4
≥ 0.003 20 15 15 12 8
ρ " = 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* Vtest Vp,flexure Vn,shear Vn,FEMA Vtest

Observed** Predicted (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) /Vn,FEMA
2CLD12 3 3 315 297 271 271 1.17
2CHD12 3 1 359 285 400 285 1.26
2CLD12M 3 3 294 299 271 271 1.08
3CLH18 2 2 271 290 196 196 1.38
3SLH18 2 2 267 290 196 196 1.36
2CLH18 3 3 240 216 217 216 1.11
2SLH18 3 3 231 216 217 216 1.07
2CMH18 3 3 316 268 277 268 1.18
3CMH18 2 3 338 342 283 283 1.19
3CMD12 2 3 356 342 344 342 1.04
3SMD12 3 3 378 333 336 333 1.14
2D16RS 3 1 102 87 127 87 1.17
4D13RS 3 3 111 104 126 104 1.07
H-2-1/5 1 1 103 86 121 86 1.20
HT-2-1/5 1 1 102 81 117 81 1.26
H-2-1/3 1 1 121 92 149 92 1.32
HT-2-1/3 1 1 112 87 143 87 1.29
U1 1 3 275 233 258 233 1.18
U2 1 3 270 287 300 287 0.94
U3 1 1 268 279 459 279 0.96
40.033aE 3 3 96 92 122 92 1.04
40.033E 3 3 97 91 120 91 1.07
25.033E 2 3 87 84 114 84 1.04
00.033E 2 3 81 72 101 72 1.13
40.048W 3 1 95 88 114 89 1.07
00.048W 2 1 86 70 95 70 1.23
*: 1) flexure; 2) shear; 3) flexure-shear
**: Failure modes from PEER column database (http://maximus.ce.washington.edu/~peera1)
Table 5. Comparison of measured and calculated displacements of column specimens

Specimen Yield displacement (mm) Ultimate displacement (mm)

∆y,test ∆y,FEMA ∆y,test/∆y,FEMA ∆u,test ∆u,FEMA ∆u,test/∆u,FEMA
2CLD12 26.16 16.45 1.59 75.44 24.00 3.14
2CHD12 20.07 11.43 1.76 25.91 19.14 1.35
2CLD12M 26.92 16.32 1.65 84.58 23.90 3.54
3CLH18 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
2SLH18 12.95 9.56 1.35 60.96 18.40 3.31
2CMH18 16.51 13.44 1.23 30.48 21.65 1.41
3CMH18 22.61 16.57 1.35 30.48 23.94 1.27
3CMD12 19.56 16.57 1.18 45.72 23.94 1.91
3SMD12 22.61 16.72 1.35 45.72 24.05 1.90
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
HT-2-1/5 4.83 2.62 1.84 20.83 4.21 4.95
H-2-1/3 3.56 2.79 1.28 16.00 4.38 3.65
HT-2-1/3 4.83 2.79 1.73 20.07 4.39 4.57
U-7 17.02 4.11 4.14 53.09 9.79 5.42
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
40.033E 12.19 4.28 2.85 43.94 6.36 6.91
25.033E 11.94 3.95 3.02 31.50 6.14 5.13
00.033E 7.62 3.47 2.20 27.94 8.45 3.31
40.048W 14.48 4.73 3.06 48.51 6.67 7.27
00.048W 13.46 3.77 3.57 33.02 8.65 3.82
Table 6. Comparison of observed and predicted shear strengths of beam-column joints
Specimen Yield strength (kN) Maximum strength (kN)
Vy,FEMA Vy,test Vy,test/Vy,FEMA Vn,FEMA Vn,test Vn,test/Vn,FEMA
#2 472 229 0.49 472 847 1.80
Clyde #4 444 346 0.78 444 881 1.98
et al. #5 422 229 0.54 422 841 1.99
#6 440 244 0.55 440 828 1.88
1 473 363 0.77 473 424 0.90
Pantelides 3 480 408 0.85 480 836 1.74
et al. 4 480 376 0.78 480 952 1.98
5 463 679 1.47 463 872 1.88
6 463 378 0.82 463 888 1.92
SST-0 721 724 1.00 721 997 1.38
Hwang 01-B8 691 964 1.39 691 1255 1.82
et al. SST-3T3 730 855 1.17 730 1131 1.55
SST-2T4 741 862 1.16 741 1078 1.45
SST-1T44 750 837 1.12 750 1032 1.38

Table 7. Comparison of measured and calculated displacements of beam column joints

Specimen Yield rotation (rad) Ultimate rotation (rad)
θy,FEMA θy,test θy,test θu,FEMA. θu,test θu,test
/θy,FEMA /θu,FEMA
2 0.000287 0.000109 0.38 0.00529 0.00511 0.97
Clyde
4 0.000263 0.000256 0.97 0.00526 0.01425 2.71
et al.
5 0.000263 0.000498 1.89 0.00526 0.00475 0.90
6 0.000263 0.000315 1.20 0.00526 0.00725 1.38
1 0.000263 0.002000 7.60 0.00526 0.00200 0.38
Pantelides 3 0.000263 0.000400 1.52 0.00526 0.00600 1.14
et al. 4 0.000263 - - 0.00526 0.00725 1.38
5 0.000263 0.004000 15.21 0.00526 0.01750 3.33
6 0.000263 - - 0.00526 0.00833 1.58
SST-0 0.000299 0.000208 0.70 0.00530 0.00750 1.42
Hwang 01-B8 0.000297 0.001422 4.79 0.00530 0.00666 1.26
et al. SST-3T3 0.000300 0.001208 4.03 0.00530 0.01100 2.08
SST-2T4 0.000300 0.000250 0.83 0.00530 0.00287 0.54
SST-1T44 0.000302 0.001083 3.59 0.00530 0.00772 1.46
 Normalized
Force

Deformation
Figure 1. Generalized force-deformation relationship in FEMA 356.
k1

1.0

0.7 low
ductility
moderate
demand
ductility high
demand ductility
demand

2.0 4.0 displacement ductility, µ

Figure 2. Concrete contribution to shear strength as a function of displacement ductility

300 Vtest
0.8Vtest
200 0.7Vtest

100
lateral load (kN)

∆y ∆u ∆ug
−100

−200

−300

−150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150

lateral displacement (mm)

Figure 3. Experimental lateral load-displacement relation (Specimen 2CLD12 in Table 1)

 400
2CLD12 2CHD12
200
Lateral Load (kN)

Lateral Load (kN)

200

0 0

−200
−200
−400
−150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150 −50 0 50
Lateral displacement (mm) Lateral displacement (mm)

300 300
2CLD12M 3CLH18
200 200
Lateral Load (kN)

Lateral Load (kN)

100 100
0 0
−100 −100
−200 −200
−300 −300
−50 0 50 100 150 −100 −50 0 50 100
Lateral displacement (mm) Lateral displacement (mm)

300 300
2CLH18 2CMH18
200 200
Lateral Load (kN)

Lateral Load (kN)

100 100

0 0

−100 −100
Test data
−200 −200 FEMA 356 flexure
FEMA 356 shear
−300 −300
−100 −50 0 50 100 −50 0 50 100
Lateral displacement (mm) Lateral displacement (mm)

400 400
3CMH18 3CMD12
Lateral Load (kN)

Lateral Load (kN)

200 200

0 0

−200 −200

−400 −400
−100 −50 0 50 100 −100 −50 0 50 100
Lateral displacement (mm) Lateral displacement (mm)

Figure 4. Comparison of FEMA 356 column flexure and shear models with test data
 400 400
Lateral Load (kN) 3CMH18 3CMD12

Lateral Load (kN)

200 200

0 0

−200 −200

−400 −400
−100 −50 0 50 100 −100 −50 0 50 100
Lateral displacement (mm) Lateral displacement (mm)
400 150
3SMD12 4D13RS
100
Lateral Load (kN)

Lateral Load (kN)

200
50

0 0

−50
−200
−100

−400 −150
−100 −50 0 50 100 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30
Lateral displacement (mm) Lateral displacement (mm)
300
Figure 5. 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)
 2000
SST−0 01−B8
1000

0
0
Joint Shear Force (kN)

Joint Shear Force (kN)

−1000 −2000
−20000 −10000 0 10000 −10000 0 10000
2000 2000
SST−3T3 SST−2T4
1000 1000

0 0

−1000 −1000
−10000 0 10000 −10000 0 10000
2000 1000
SST−1T44 SL1
500
1000
0
0
−500
Joint Shear Force (kN)

Joint Shear Force (kN)

−1000 −1000
−10000 0 10000 −30000 −10000 0 10000 30000
1000 1000
SL2 SL4
500 500

0 0

−500 −500

−1000 −1000
−20000 0 20000 40000 −20000 0 20000 60000
test data FEMA 356 shear
Joint Shear Strain (µrad) Joint Shear Strain (µrad)

Figure 7. Comparison of FEMA 356 models with beam-column joint test data