ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title No. 119-S08
Cyclic Nonlinear Modeling Parameters for Unconfined
Beam-Column Joints
by Wael M. Hassan and Medhat Elmorsy
Nonlinear macro-models of concrete components are routinely used
for performance-based seismic assessment of existing “non-ductile”
buildings. Accurate test-calibrated models improve cost and time
effectiveness of rehabilitation. ASCE 41-17, the primary standard
in the United States for seismic assessment and rehabilitation,
offers nonlinear modeling parameters for concrete frame beams
and columns that were recently updated to reflect median esti-
mates (50% probability of exceedance). However, the ASCE 41-17
beam-column joint nonlinear modeling provisions are still based
on lower-bound estimates shown by many researchers to be highly
conservative. Moreover, existing literature backbone models are
not suitable for shear-critical “non-conforming” unreinforced
joints as they are mostly deterministic, non-sensitive to failure
mode, designed for reinforced joints, or calibrated based on small
unreinforced joint datasets. This paper proposes new probabilistic
nonlinear modeling parameters for shear-critical unconfined (unre-
inforced) beam-column joints based on a database of cyclic tests to
update the current ASCE 41-17 modeling parameters. Three alter-
natives for deformation modeling parameters are proposed, along
with two alternative expressions for residual shear capacity ratio.
The proposed models offer the analyst to select the desired prob-
ability of exceedance to enable consistent modeling criteria with
beams and columns in concrete frames to avoid nonlinear analysis
bias that is currently rendering joints unrealistically as the weakest
link in non-ductile frames, leading to unnecessary costly retrofits.
All the proposed models exhibited very good correlation with the
test database and verification dataset. The proposed models offer
immediate input to reduce the conservatism of the current seismic
assessment standards for unconfined beam-column joints, which
resulted from test scarcity at the time of their development.
Keywords: connections; cyclic backbone; existing buildings; non-ductile;
older concrete buildings; performance-based seismic; seismic assessment;
seismic evaluation; transverse reinforcement.
INTRODUCTION
Ductile seismic detailing requirements for reinforced
concrete structures were first introduced in the 1970s. The
Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1967 required shear rein-
forcement in concrete beam-column joints for the first
time; however, the UBC 1976 marks the turning point
from non-ductile to ductile reinforced concrete design
and construction in the United States.1 Older buildings
constructed prior to 1979 in the United States, and perhaps
worldwide, are susceptible to be seismically deficient. The
seismic deficiencies typically present in older buildings
include absence of joint transverse reinforcement, lack of
appropriate anchorage of beam longitudinal bars within the
joint, and lap splicing column bars immediately above top
slab level. Figure 1 depicts example earthquake-induced
damage of unconfined corner and interior beam-column
joints. Accurate seismic assessment techniques result in
ACI Structural Journal/January 2022
TECHNICAL PAPER
economic and effective rehabilitation. The ASCE/SEI 41-17
Standard5 is the primary U.S. standard for seismic eval-
uation and rehabilitation of existing buildings. Linear and
nonlinear assessment procedures are presented in ASCE
41-17, in which the nonlinear procedures typically employ
nonlinear macro-models for various structural components
for seismic assessment purposes.
The macro-models used in performance-based seismic
assessment (PBSA) of new and existing buildings through
nonlinear static and dynamic procedures typically employ
prescribed nonlinear cyclic backbone envelope curves. The
nonlinear modeling parameters and acceptance criteria for
concrete components are typically prescribed by ASCE
41-175 and ACI 369.1-17.6 The modeling parameters for
reinforced concrete frame columns have been updated
twice since the first publication of ASCE 41-17’s prede-
cessor, FEMA 356.7 The concrete beam modeling parame-
ters have recently been updated. The new updates for beams
and columns were based on 50% probability of exceedance
instead of the lower-bound parameters that were adopted by
FEMA 356 and ASCE 41-06.8,9 The shear strength provi-
sions of beam-column joints have recently been updated in
ACI 369-22 too (scheduled for release in 2022); however, the
nonlinear modeling parameters for joints are still presented
in ASCE 41 and ACI 369 as the original lower-bound values
that were first proposed in FEMA 356 and shown by Hassan2
and Hassan and Moehle10 to be highly conservative in many
cases. This inconsistency in nonlinear modeling parameters
between framing members and joints may render beam-
column joints as the weak links in nonlinear analysis models,
which does not resemble realistic deformation capacity and
triggers unnecessary and costly retrofit. The backbone of a
beam-column joint is typically a relationship between shear
stress and shear strain angle as shown in Fig. 1. In ASCE
41-17, the basic nonlinear modeling parameters are a, b,
and c, where a and b mark the loss of lateral and axial load
capacity measured from a yield point and parameter c is the
ratio of the residual load capacity to peak strength. A few test-
informed nonlinear macro-models, with cyclic backbones,
for beam-column joints are available in the literature.
However, these models were mostly deterministic, insen-
sitive to joint failure mode and either designed for rein-
forced joints or calibrated based on a very small number of
unreinforced joint cyclic tests. To the extent of the authors’
ACI Structural Journal, V. 119, No. 1, January 2022.
MS No. S-2020-382.R3, doi: 10.14359/51733139, received July 1, 2021, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2022, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion
is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
89
Fig. 1—Earthquake damage of beam-column joints: (a) corner joint, Izmit Turkey 1999 earthquake2 (photo: NISEE, UC
Berkeley3); (b) corner joints, Taiwan Chi-Chi 1999 earthquake7 (photo: NISEE, UC Berkeley3); (c) interior joints4; (d) ASCE
47-17 joint backbone model; and (e) adopted rotational spring model (Hassan2).
knowledge, no probabilistic nonlinear deformation modeling
parameters that are calibrated based on a statistically signif-
icant database and dedicated to unreinforced shear-critical
beam-column joints exist in the literature.
This paper presents two new probabilistic models for
nonlinear deformation parameters for shear critical beam-
column joints without transverse reinforcement. The
proposed models are intended to inform the upcoming
beam-column joint provisions updates of ASCE 41-17 in a
realistic and probabilistic manner, suitable for PBSA appli-
cations. Moreover, the paper further refines the deterministic
cyclic nonlinear macro-model by Hassan2 and Hassan and
Moehle10 to reflect probabilistic modeling parameters for
PBSA applications. All three models adopt rotational springs
to model the shear deformation and bond-slip deformation
of unreinforced beam-column joints. The first model is a
probabilistic regression-based model that offers modeling
expressions for plastic deformations and residual strength.
The regression-based model uses multi-linear regression to
correlate the beam-column joints modeling parameters to
the key design parameters. The second proposed model is
a modified step function ASCE 41 model that eliminates the
conservatism of the current model based on test results and
is tailored probabilistically for PBSA applications. In partic-
ular, the modified ASCE 41 model is designed to eliminate
the current ASCE 41 nonlinear modeling parameters bias in
the axial load ratio effect. The three models were based on
a database that is dedicated to unreinforced beam-column
joints. The database included only specimens experiencing
joint failure (J-Failure), as defined in Hassan and Moehle11
and Hassan et al.12 without beam or column failure. The
three models showed good correlation with test database. A
subset of the database, not used for model calibration, was
used to validate the developed models.
90
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The ASCE 41-17 nonlinear modeling provisions for
columns and beams have been recently updated to corre-
spond to 50% probability of exceedance. However, the
current ASCE 41 modeling parameters for beam-column
joints are still lower bound conservative values, which
creates nonlinear analysis bias that usually renders unrein-
forced joints as the weakest links in non-ductile frames trig-
gering unnecessary expensive retrofit. This paper proposes
new probabilistic nonlinear modeling parameters to update
the current ASCE 41 for unconfined/unreinforced beam-
column joints for performance-based seismic assessment
of existing buildings. The proposed models are based on a
test database dedicated to shear-critical unconfined beam-
column joints experiencing joint shear failure. The proposed
models offer fragility/probability of exceedance choices to
avoid nonlinear analysis bias. The proposed models offer
immediate input to seismic assessment standards to elim-
inate their current conservatism that resulted from lack of
laboratory tests at the time of their development.
EXISTING NONLINEAR JOINT MODELS
Several researchers proposed nonlinear constitutive cyclic
models for dynamic analysis of beam-column joints. Otani13
and Filippou and Issa14 adopted spring models that included
bond-slip behavior, but ignored joint shear deformations
within their overall models that were used for moment frame
analysis. Biddah and Ghobarah15 developed a joint element
that accounts for joint shear deformations and bar bond
slip for dynamic analysis of existing structures. The model
consisted of two rotational springs in series; one accounting
for joint shear distortion and the other accounting for bar
bond slip. The joint shear distortion model was a two-
dimensional panel with vertical and horizontal reinforcement
ACI Structural Journal/January 2022
that is based on the principals of the softened truss model
and the Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT).16 The
model was not calibrated using test data, only verified against
a small number of tests. Pampanin et al.17 suggested a single
zero-length moment rotation hinge that governs the rela-
tive rotation between beams and columns. They suggested
a backbone curve based on a relationship between principal
tensile stress and joint shear deformation. They suggested
performance-level-dependent shear strains for substandard
exterior joints for different damage states. However, they did
not relate shear strain angle to joint design parameters. Mitra
and Lowes18 developed an element for the simulation of inte-
rior beam-column joints. The element model consisted of
12 springs and a shear panel to simulate the shear and bond
behavior. The database used for calibration of the model
contained interior joints failing in beam flexural yielding
and/or joint shear failure. The vast majority of their database
joints included transverse reinforcement. They assumed that
shear is transferred through diagonal concrete struts and that
the shear response can be predicted using Mander’s confined
concrete model. The Celik and Elingwood19 model consid-
ered shear and bond-slip behavior of gravity load designed
(GLD) beam-column joints. They suggested a constitutive
model based on a quad-linear backbone curve and hyster-
esis rules. The constitutive model suggested only ranges for
shear strain angle for the four characteristic points without
relating any of the design parameters to the shear strain
capacities. Shin and LaFave20 developed a joint model for
reinforced interior beam-column joints that include at least
half the joint reinforcement required by ACI 318-02.21 An
analytical method was used to estimate the nonlinear hyster-
etic shear stress-strain response of beam-column joints based
on MCFT, while the hysteretic properties were represented
by an appropriate hysteresis model, calibrated based on test
results. Other models such as Youssef and Ghobarah22 and
Lowes and Altoontash23 used multi-springs to model beam-
column joints, but did not give direct recommendations for
a shear stress-strain backbone for the joint. Youssef and
Ghobarah22 suggested constitutive relations for the springs
in the model without giving numerical recommendations.
The model consisted of 26 translational springs. Lowes and
Altoontash23 suggested procedures for characterization of
behavior of their multi-spring model. The model was based
on the MCFT. Both Youssef and Ghobarah22 and Lowes
and Altoontash23 models were verified against limited test
datasets. Altoontash24 presented a simplified version of
Lowes and Altoontash’s model using four rotational springs
to simulate the bond behavior at beam and column inter-
face with the joint. Shear deformation was modeled using
another rotational spring. The shear spring used the same
constitutive relation as in Lowes and Altoontash.23
Anderson et al.25 proposed a trilinear backbone curve
and hysteresis rules for unreinforced joints. The model was
based on 11 unreinforced interior joints that experienced
different failure modes such as beam hinging, mixed beam
and joint failure, and joint shear failure. The model had only
an ascending branch and characterization of shear deforma-
tion was not fully addressed.
ACI Structural Journal/January 2022
Figure 2 depicts an assessment of existing beam-column
joint models that gave direct recommendations for the
backbone curve based on the cyclic testing database
developed in this study, as explained shortly. These models
are of Kim et  al.,26 Hassan2 (Hassan and Moehle10), Park
and Mosalam,27 Sharma et al.,28 Jeon et al.,29 De Risi et al.,30
Birely et al.,31 and Pantelides et al.32 The assessment is made
through plotting the relationship between test parameters
and model-predicted parameters. Each model is assessed
through its ability to capture the average of model-to-test
ratios (AVG) with minimum coefficient of variation (COV).
Kim et al.26 suggested a cyclic backbone curve for the
shear stress-strain behavior of reinforced and unreinforced
beam-column joints. Their backbone consisted of four key
points featuring a peak point and a post-peak point corre-
sponding to 10% strength loss. Their test database included
only seven unreinforced exterior and interior joint speci-
mens with shear strain data, so concerns about applicability
to unreinforced joints exist. They conducted a regression
analysis to determine the shear strain at peak strength. The
shear strain at other curve points was determined using
constant modification factors of shear strain at peak strength.
It should be noted that the model is compared to both inte-
rior and exterior joints as it was developed to cover both
types of joints. Hassan2 and Hassan and Moehle10 proposed
a nonlinear macro-model for shear and bond-slip behavior
of unreinforced exterior and corner beam-column joints in
older construction. This model presented hysteresis rule
recommendations based on the OpenSees Pinching4 mate-
rial model and covered both J-Failure and BJ-Failure type
joints. The model correlated well with test results and was
able to capture the hysteretic response of validation test
specimens; however, it did not cover interior joints. They
tested two modeling alternatives. The first alternative was
using one rotational spring to model both shear and bond-
slip behavior of the joint. The second alternative involved
two springs; one is for shear deformations and the other is
for bond-slip rotation. Both alternatives were validated using
finite element analyses and accurately captured the hyster-
etic performance. Hassan’s model will be further evaluated
in subsequent sections.
Park and Mosalam27 suggested a backbone relationship
for unreinforced exterior and corner joints. Their back-
bone consisted of four characteristic points corresponding
to initial joint cracking, either beam reinforcement yielding
or significant opening of joint shear crack, peak loading,
and residual strength. The model did not distinguish
J-Failure and BJ-Failure modes and was calibrated against
a limited dataset.
Sharma et al.28 suggested a backbone relationship for the
modeling of shear behavior of poorly detailed RC beam-
column joints. Their suggested spring model consisted
of two shear hinges and one rotational spring. The model
uses principal stress-shear deformation as an input param-
eter similar to the approach used by Pampanin et al.17 and
Priestley.33 The model was developed for anchorage length
of 6 in. (150 mm) and it cannot be directly used for other
anchorage lengths. Jeon et al.29 proposed a quad linear back-
bone relationship for the modeling of unreinforced interior
91
Fig. 2—Assessment of existing models’ nonlinear deformation parameters against current J-Failure unreinforced beam-column
joint test database. (Note: AVG and COV are for model-to-test ratios.)

92 ACI Structural Journal/January 2022

Fig. 3—Description of unconfined J-failure database and its filtration process.
and exterior joints. The model was calibrated using an exper-
imental database that contained both reinforced and unre-
inforced beam-column joints. The spring model included a
rotational spring for shear behavior and zero-length bar-slip
fiber section for bond-slip modeling. De Risi et al.30 also
suggested a backbone relationship for unreinforced exte-
rior joints. The database used for calibration of the model
contained both J and BJ failure modes. Only eight specimens
had the shear strain data.
Birely and Lowes31 suggested a bilinear relationship for
modeling joint flexibility. The suggested backbone included
only ascending branches and no post-peak response was
included. It should be noted that most of the tests used to
develop this model were for interior joints. Pantelides et al.32
proposed a model for exterior beam-column joints with
substandard details. The suggested backbone consisted of
four points and included post-peak degradation. The model
was calibrated using six exterior beam-column joints tested
by Pantelides et al.32 Favvata et al.34 suggested a trilinear
backbone curve with one rotational spring for modeling of
exterior beam-column joints. The model was verified against
12 beam-column joints. However, no calibration or recom-
mendations for the model parameters were suggested.
As shown herein, many finite element macro-models
have been proposed to model the behavior of beam-column
joints. Yet, the single rotational spring model is the simplest.
Hassan2 proposed using two springs suggesting backbone
curves for each spring; one for shear behavior and the other
for bond-slip behavior, which is the approach adopted in this
paper, as shown in Fig. 1. The model consists of a rotational
spring at the joint center with rigid links that span the joint
dimensions. The bond-slip rotational spring is located at the
beam/joint interface. This model is a simplified version of
the model used for steel panel zones developed by Krawin-
kler and Mohasseb,35 which was first adopted for reinforced
concrete joints by Alath and Kunnath.36 Moreover, the model
was validated by Celik and Ellingwood,19 Theiss,37 Favvata
et al.,34 and Hassan and Moehle10 for interior, exterior and
corner unreinforced beam-column joints under cyclic and
dynamic loading. For reinforced joints, the model was tested
by Burak38 under the effect of cyclic loading.
DATABASE DEVELOPMENT
Database construction
A test database of 108 unreinforced beam-column joint
tests with confirmed joint shear failure (J-failure) was
ACI Structural Journal/January 2022
established from the literature based on 48 test programs
covering the period of 1967 to 2020. The J-Failure mode
is the most representative of the joint shear behavior and
is considered the most collapse-critical and brittle failure
mode.2 Unfortunately, many researchers either do not
report joint shear strain data, or even do not measure them
during test. Accordingly, a subset of 26 unreinforced exte-
rior and corner joints2,27,32,39-45 and 10 unreinforced interior
joints,46-49 all with well-documented test joint shear strain
data was extracted from the global database to calibrate
models for the nonlinear modeling parameters a, b, and c. In
shear-critical J-Failure joints,2 beams and columns are rein-
forced such that direct joint shear strength is smaller than
joint shear demand at framing members’ yield; hence, the
failure is essentially concentrated as shear distress in the
joint without beam or column yielding. Thus, tests where
beam, column, or pull-out failures were observed were
excluded from the database. Several criteria described in
Hassan2 including crack pattern, peak shear strength, beam
reinforcement strains, and backbone and hysteresis loop
shapes were applied to confirm J-failure in the tested speci-
mens. The database joint subset used for regression analysis
in this paper is shown in Appendix A.* Figure 3 depicts the
description of the database and the filtration process. Due
to scarcity of well-documented shear-strain test results of
unreinforced joints, the test data subset used to design and
validate the models was relatively small (36 tests), yet statis-
tically significant. Furthermore, the model predictions were
further validated by several test shear-stress strain hysteresis
responses as presented in Appendix B and discussed shortly.
For exterior and corner joints in the database, concrete
cylinder strength ranged from 1204 to 6126 psi (8.30 to
42.2 MPa), joint aspect ratio (defined as the ratio between
beam depth to column depth) ranged from 0.83 to 2.0, and
axial load ratio (defined as the ratio between column axial
load to the uniaxial capacity of the section, P/fc′Ag) ranged
from 0 to 0.86. For interior joints in the database, concrete
cylinder strength ranged from 3020 to 8920  psi (20.8 to
61.5 MPa), joint aspect ratio ranged from 0.87 to 1.67, and
axial load ratio ranged from 0.10 to 0.24. Hassan2 showed
that, contrary to the common belief, corner joints are not
weaker than isolated exterior joints with no transverse
*
The Appendix is available at www.concrete.org/publications in PDF format,
appended to the online version of the published paper. It is also available in hard copy
from ACI headquarters for a fee equal to the cost of reproduction plus handling at the
time of the request.
93
spandrel beams confining both joint faces parallel to shear
stress. Accordingly, in this paper, exterior and corner joints
are lumped in mathematical formulations although they are
graphically displayed separately.
Data extraction criteria
A method used in ASCE 41-17 for cyclic nonlinear
modeling is used for defining the shear stress-strain backbone
curve. According to this method, backbone curve is plotted
by connecting points of peak displacement of the first cycle
of each amplitude group. Thereafter, the resulted backbone
curve is used for extraction of a, b, and c parameters from
each test. The a parameter marks the shear strain increment
beyond a yield point to the onset of lateral load capacity loss.
The definition of yield shear strain is controversial as, for an
unreinforced shear panel, there is no transverse reinforce-
ment to “yield”. Moreover, the effective yield point, even
in a reinforced joint, is controversial because the joint area
can be thought of either as a panel or an integrated part of
the subassembly that behaves differently from pure shear
panels, as experimentally shown by Hassan.2 Thus, in this
paper, the “yield” point will be referred to as the “pre-peak”
point. One of the methods for dealing with such a shear-crit-
ical component is to neglect pre-peak behavior and assume
one ascending branch, as shown in the dotted line in Fig. 1.
This type of behavior is characterized for brittle elements in
ASCE 41-17.1 However, based on observation of test results,
this approach was seen to be over-conservative. Moreover,
the current ACI 369.1-17 modeling parameters for beams
and columns were developed to have the conservatism in the
acceptance criteria not in modeling parameters.9 Thus, it was
decided not to adopt the one ascending branch approach and
instead attempt several methods for bilinearization of the
ascending branch (defining a “pre-peak” point). Three bilin-
earization methods were tested: 1) based on equal energy,
area under the curve, until the peak point; 2) based on the
effective modulus as recommended by Hassan2; 3) based
on effective shear modulus (treating the joint as a panel).
The first two approaches gave similar results, and the second
approach was adopted to define the “pre-peak” point of the
shear stress-strain relations. The a parameter was calculated
as (γ15% – γy) where γ15% is the shear strain at 15% strength
loss and γy is the yield shear strain taken as discussed earlier.
The 15% strength loss was chosen to represent ductility
inherent in the joints observed in the cyclic tests in the data-
base in the models, which is evident even in unreinforced
joints.2 Moreover, an attempt was made to perform regres-
sion on the a parameter based on shear strain corresponding
to peak strength, the scatter of the resulting regression model
was smaller when using the 15% peak strength loss.
The b parameter marks the shear strain at axial failure
of the beam-column joint measured from the yield point.
Unfortunately, few tests were continued to joint axial failure.
Thus, in tests that did not reach axial failure, the shear
strain at test termination was utilized given that the test is
continued beyond 25% shear strength loss. The c parameter
is defined as the residual joint shear strength at axial failure/
test termination.
94
DATA TRENDS
A sensitivity analysis is conducted to determine the key
influential parameters for the nonlinear modeling parameters
a, b, and c. As a start, the key design and loading param-
eters believed to influence the cyclic response as derived
from literature (Hassan and Moehle,11 Kim et al.,24 among
others) are tested first to investigate their possible effect on
joint shear strains and residual strength ratio. Subsequently,
the most significant design parameters were identified via
regression analysis as will be discussed in the next section.
These parameters are joint axial load ratio, joint aspect ratio,
square root of concrete strength and joint shear strength
coefficient. Figure 4 shows the variation of modeling param-
eters a and b with the four aforementioned design parame-
ters and permits some useful insights into the sensitivity of
a and b to these parameters. It is worth noting that Fig. 4
presents nonlinear parameters for exterior and corner joints
as one type of joints, based on Hassan’s2 findings; hence,
all charts are for exterior and corner joints. The figure also
shows the current ASCE 41-17 modeling parameters. It is
obvious from Fig. 4 that the current ASCE 41 modeling
parameters are quite conservative across the spectrum, or
lower-bound at best as the test values for those parameters
can reach many times, up to one-fold, those of ASCE 41.
It is noteworthy that a minimum threshold value of 20%
was used to define high axial load ratio as recommended
by Hassan and Moehle.11 From Fig. 4, axial load ratio and
concrete compressive strength seem to be inversely propor-
tional to modeling parameters a and b, when the axial load
ratio is higher than 20%, which is also supported by litera-
ture studies.50 However, for axial load ratios less than 20%,
no universal trend could be observed. Again, for high axial
load ratios, shear strains seem to be slightly increased with
a higher joint aspect ratio, although the correlation is not
strong; however, the shear strains seem not very dependent
on aspect ratio for low axial loads. The shear strains appear to
be decreasing with increased joint shear strength coefficient
for joints with high axial load, which is consistent with tests
by Hassan.2 The effect of design parameters on modeling
parameters might not be clearly visible at first glance at
Fig. 4 due to the involvement of parameters not shown in the
figure, but the parameters’ sensitivity was further confirmed
by regression analysis, as discussed shortly.
The current ASCE 41-17 and ACI 369.1-17 provisions
consider two design parameters for selecting modeling
parameters for unreinforced beam-column joints, namely the
axial load ratio and the level of joint shear stress demand,
but they do not explicitly distinguish J and BJ modes of
failure. Obviously, axial load has a negative effect on joint
shear strain capacity. However, the level of shear stress
demand affects shear strain capacity more pronouncedly if
the beams and columns are yielding, which is not the case
for all joints used in this database. If the beam or column
are not yielding, the level of shear stress demand contrib-
utes to concrete softening of the joint strut; however, the
effect is not very significant for J-Failure joints, as shown by
Hassan2 and Hassan and Moehle.11 This parameter was used
in some early research on beam-column joints and is a way
of characterizing the mode of failure. For a full discussion
ACI Structural Journal/January 2022
Fig. 4—Effect of key design parameters on a and b for exterior and corner joints. (Note: marker size is proportional to aspect
ratio; dashed and solid lines are ASCE 41-17 model for low and high axial load, respectively; 1√MPa = 12.04√psi.)
on failure mode classification and the influential parameters of variation of 0.15. A similar observation of weak correla-
in each failure mode, the reader is referred to Hassan.2 tion with the design parameters can be made regarding
For interior joints, a smaller test specimen subset with modeling parameter b (Fig. 5). The median b was 0.025 and
confirmed J-Failure and well-documented shear strain data the coefficient of variation was 0.17.
was extracted from the database to assess the nonlinear
modeling parameters for interior joints. Unlike exterior PROPOSED REGRESSION MODEL
and corner joints, weak correlation was observed between Exterior and corner joints modeling parameters
modeling parameters a and b and the key design parameters Discrete fixed values of the modeling parameters a and
as discussed earlier. For the a parameter, as can be seen from b in the current ASCE 41-17/ACI 369.1-17 are proposed to
Fig. 5, most of the data points appear to be centered about be replaced with regression-based expressions developed in
a median value with a narrow range of design parameters, this study (Eq. (1) and (3) for parameter a and Eq. (2) and (4)
suggesting many more tests are needed in this category of for parameter b). The regression-based equations used the
joints. The a median for the data was 0.016 with a coefficient four most influential parameters. The most significant design

ACI Structural Journal/January 2022 95

Fig. 5—Effect of key design parameters on a and b for interior joints. (Note: marker size is proportional to aspect ratio; solid
line is proposed regression model; 1√MPa = 12.04√psi.)
parameter subset is the subset with lowest probability for the
null hypothesis. The null hypothesis for a design parameter
here means removing the design parameter without affecting
the overall regression accuracy. It was found that axial load
ratio, joint aspect ratio αj, square root of concrete cylinder
compressive strength √fc′, and joint shear strength coefficient
γj are the most influential parameters affecting the shear strain
capacity of the joint and, in turn, the modeling parameters.
Moreover, other design parameters such as beam longitu-
dinal reinforcement were investigated. Beam longitudinal
reinforcement proved mathematically through regression
analysis to have minor effect on shear strain capacities if
the shear stress demand is already accounted for through the
96
joint shear strength coefficient in J-Failure joints, which is in
line with previous discussions. This conforms to the intent
of this study, which is to only consider J-Failure type joints.
Equations (1) to (4) are based on best-fit multiple linear
regression that corresponds to a probability of exceedance
of 50%. Probabilistic models reflecting different fragility/
probability of exceedance are addressed subsequently.
Strong correlation was observed among the test data and the
proposed equations; high R2 values of 0.94 and 0.88 were
observed for a and b, respectively. Statistical hypothesis
testing was implemented to check the models’ consistency
and ability to capture test joint deformations.
ACI Structural Journal/January 2022
 For shear strength calculated using the Hassan and depicts the variation of model to test values for parameters a
Moehle11 strut-and-tie model (STM) and b, respectively, with the four significant design param-
eters discussed earlier. Two models are assessed in Fig. 7—
hb  Vj 1  P the proposed regression model and the current ASCE 41-17/
a 

  f c  0 ACI 369.1-17 model. Again, the figures show the substan-
58hc  475 Aj f c 2600  48 Ag f c
tial conservatism of the current provisions. The proposed
(lb, in.) (1a) model is based on median values with approximately 50%
probability of exceedance and a recommendation of reduc-
hb  12V j 3  P tion factors to achieve a lower probability of exceedance.
a= + − f c′ − ≥0 This approach allows for probabilistic performance-based
58hc  475 Aj f c′ 650  48 Ag f c′
assessment based on the desired probability of collapse. This
(N, mm) (1b) approach is also consistent with the updated column and
beam modeling provisions that achieve the same reliability
 Vj for a chosen probability of exceedance for the components
hb 1  P
b= + − f c′ − ≥a of a moment frame; beams, columns, and beam-column
100hc  600 Aj f c′ 19, 400  72 Ag f c′ joints. It is worth noting that in some cases, the model over-
(lb, in.) (2a) estimates the test results, which is an expected statistical
result due to using median estimates in designing the model,
 Vj especially with shear strains due to the inherent high scatter
hb 1  P
b= + − f c′ − ≥a of test results. The authors reiterate that, consistent with ACI
100hc  50 Aj f c′ 1615  72 Ag f c′ 369-22 columns and beams approaches, the conservatism of
(N, mm) (2b) the approach is not intended to be in the modeling param-
eter calculation, but rather is in the acceptance criteria of
For empirical shear strength based on the ACI 369-22 different performance levels. The proposed model’s accu-
model (modified from Hassan and Moehle11) racy in contrast with the ASCE 41 model is clear from
Fig.  7. Similar trends are observed despite using different
shear strength models.
hb  Vj 1  P
a= + − f c′ − ≥0
63hc  513 Aj f c′ 2808  52 Ag f c′ Parameter c
(lb, in.) (3a) The parameter c represents the axial failure residual shear
capacity to joint shear strength ratio. Very few unconfined
beam-column joint tests are available with confirmed axial
hb  Vj 1  P
a= + − f c′ − ≥0 failure.2 A common practice of terminating the test program
63hc  40 Aj f c′ 234  52 Ag f c′ after a certain loss in lateral load without reaching the axial
failure of the joints is observed.2 To address this issue, the
(N, mm) (3b)
following approach has been adopted: in tests that were not
conducted until joint axial failure, the shear strain at the end
hb  Vj 1  P of the test was used, given that the test should go beyond 25%
b= + − f c′ − ≥a
102hc  600 Aj f c′ 19, 600  73 Ag f c′ shear strength loss. It was observed that the majority of tests
reached this certain range of strength loss and either axial
(lb, in.) (4a)
failure occurred, or test was terminated by the researcher.
The range for parameter c was between 0.4 and 0.7 for low
hb  Vj 1  P axial load and between 0.35 and 0.65 for high axial load.
b= + − f c′ − ≥a
102hc  50 Aj f c′ 1628  73 Ag f c′ The coefficient of variation for parameter c was 0.19 and 0.2
for low and high axial load tests, respectively. Accordingly,
(N, mm) (4b) a value of 0.60 (Eq. (5)) is proposed to represent the axial
failure residual shear capacity ratio. Hassan7 and Hassan and
The assessment of the proposed regression model for a Moehle51,52 proposed a model for axial failure. The Hassan2
and b parameters is shown in Fig. 6 and 7. Figure 6 shows model was modified by a factor of 1.11 to correspond to 50%
a comparison between test data and the proposed model probability of exceedance based on a dataset with confirmed
prediction. The figures display the mean plus and minus one axial failure (contains the same specimens used for a and
standard deviations (μ ± σ) for the model prediction. The b parameters and a few more specimens53-55) as shown in
average values of the ratios of proposed model parameters Eq. (6). The assessment of the Hassan2 model is shown in
to test parameters are 1.07 and 1.13 for a and b, respectively. Fig. 8. The model showed good correlation of test data with
The COVs of the proposed model to test data were 0.40 and COV of model-to-test data of 0.29. The variation of param-
0.55 for a and b, respectively. Four specimens not used in eter c with drift ratio at axial failure is shown in Fig. 8
developing the regression model were used for model vali-
dation. The four data points lay on the conservative side and c = 0.60 (5)
showed good correlation with the proposed model. The four
points are illustrated with red squares in Fig. 6. Figure 7

ACI Structural Journal/January 2022 97

Fig. 6—Proposed regression model (Eq. (1) to (4)) assessment of parameters a and b for exterior and corner joints. (Note: AVG
and COV are for model-to-test ratio.)
c = 1.11(1.1ALR – 0.03) (6)
Interior joint-modeling parameters
As previously discussed, the median test value for a
was 0.016 with a COV of 0.15. Accordingly, the median
value (Eq. (7)) is suggested to represent 50% probability of
exceedance. It is also noteworthy that the proposed model
for parameter a is approximately three times higher than
the current ASCE 41 value. Figure 5 shows the variation of
parameter a from cyclic tests with the design parameters and
a comparison to the proposed and ASCE 41 current values.
a = 0.016 (7)
For parameter b, the median was 0.025 and the COV was
0.17. Thus, the median value is recommended to update the
parameter b (Eq. (8)). The proposed design for parameter
b is 67% higher than the current ASCE 41 value. Figure 5
shows the variation of parameter b from cyclic tests with
the key design parameters and a comparison between the
proposed value and ASCE 41 current value.
b = 0.025 (8)
For parameter c, no axial failure was reported in the known
literature. Thus, the test termination lateral load was conser-
vatively used to represent test axial failure and, in turn,
parameter c. The range for parameter c for interior joints was
0.44 to 0.69. The COV for parameter c was 0.075. Accord-
ingly, a median value of c = 0.57 is proposed to represent the
axial failure residual shear capacity ratio in interior joints,
until more testing with confirmed axial failure becomes
available. Figure 8 shows the assessment of the proposed
model (Eq. (9)) against the test database.
98
c = 0.57 (9)
PROPOSED ASCE 41 MODIFIED MODEL
Observing the trends in the test data compared to the current
ASCE 41 modeling parameters, the ASCE 41 model conser-
vatism is clear and appears to be particularly biased with axial
load ratio. The bias increased with increasing axial load due
to absence of test data at the time of ASCE 41 provisions’
development. High axial loads are now well documented
by tests to negatively impact deformation capacity of beam-
column joints. Accordingly, the second proposed model is this
paper, is a simple modification of the current ASCE 41 based
on a simple axial-load-dependent multiplier to the current
ASCE 41 modeling parameters to best fit test data (Eq. (10)
and (11)). One problem is that for high axial load, the current
ASCE 41 suggests a zero value for parameter a for exterior
and corner joints which, when multiplied by K1 (Eq. (10)),
results also in zero, hence underestimating the test results
observed in the developed database. Therefore, a modification
is suggested to use a value of 0.001 instead of zero for param-
eter a in exterior and corner joints when using the proposed
modified ASCE 41 model in the case of high axial load. This
allows the K1 parameter to be effective and to represent the
test results more precisely. The AVG of the model-to-test ratio
was 1.06 and 1.09 for parameters a and b, respectively. The
COV for the model-to-test ratio for this model was 0.29 and
0.37 for parameters a and b, respectively. Figure 9 shows the
assessment of the proposed ASCE 41 model modification
with respect to test data. The a and b equations were calibrated
to correspond to 50% probability of exceedance
aProp. = K1aASCE (10)
bProp. = K2bASCE (11)
ACI Structural Journal/January 2022
Fig. 7—Variation of Eq. (1) to (4) regression model-to-test ratio with design parameters for parameters a and b for exterior
and corner joints using (a) and (c) Hassan and Moehle9 STM shear strength; and (b) and (d) ACI 369-22 shear strength model.
(Note: 1√MPa = 12.04√psi.)
where K1 and K2 are defined as Appendix B presents a subset of the model validations
against test results showing high predictability of the model
 P P of the overall subassembly performance. The model was
 2.13 + 19.1 f c′Ag
for
f c′Ag
< 0.2 further validated and used by other researchers for nonlinear

K1 =  (12) simulation and fragility assessment of non-ductile buildings,
3.09 + 16.5 P P (Jeon et al.29) among others, and was later adopted by the
for ≥ 0. 2
 f c′Ag f c′Ag seismic assessment guidelines FEMA P-201856 and NIST
GCR 17-917-46v3.57 Parameter a in this model is conserva-
 P P
1.65 + 13.3 f ′A for < 0.2 tively based on peak shear strength. The a and b parameters
 c g f c′Ag of Hassan2 model for J-failure joints are:
K2 =  (13)
3.96 − 2.92 P P For ALR ≥ 0.3
for ≥ 0.2
 f c′Ag f c′Ag
Vj
HASSAN2 BACKBONE MODEL a= − 0.002 (14)
 3α j 
The cyclic nonlinear backbone model developed by Aj Gc  0.14 −
Hassan2 (Hassan and Moehle10) based on secant shear  80 
modulus relationships for exterior and corner joints is b = a + 0.02 (15)
discussed in detail in Hassan2 and Hassan and Moehle10 and
validated using beam-column jot subassembly finite element For ALR < 0.3
simulations against the test results of various authors.

ACI Structural Journal/January 2022 99

Fig. 8—Assessment of parameter c of Hassan2 model (Eq. (6)) and proposed regression-based model (Eq. (5)) against axial
failure dataset; variation of dataset test parameter c with drift ratio at axial failure (bottom left).

Fig. 9—Assessment of proposed ASCE 41 modified model (Eq. (10) and (11)) for parameters a (left) and b (right) for exterior
and corner joints.

Vj effective yield point expressions. Thus, the yield strength was

a= − 0.002 (16)
 3α j 
Aj Gc  0.175 +
 40 
b = a + 0.025 (17)
The validation of parameters a and b of the Hassan2 model
against the current database test data are presented in Fig. 2.
For further validation of the three suggested models in this
paper, Appendix B presents example comparisons between
test shear stress-strain hysteresis responses and the proposed
regression model and modified ASCE 41 stress-strain back-
bone prediction. It also presents sample test shear stress-drift
hysteresis response compared to OpenSees finite element
simulation of joint subassemblies performed by Hassan2 using
his full backbone model. The regression model and the modi-
fied ASCE 41 model do not propose initial stiffness and the
taken as 90% of the peak strength as suggested by Hassan2
and the yield strain was obtained as presented earlier in the
“Data Extraction Criteria” section. For joint shear strength,
the test-reported value was used in Fig. A1(a) through (d) and
Hassan2 STM was used for Fig. A1(e) and (f).
PROPOSED MODELS’ PROBABILITY OF
EXCEEDANCE
The current research practice in developing modeling
parameters for nonlinear analysis is to adopt models with
50% probability of exceedance, which corresponds to
median estimates. Moment frame column provisions in
ACI 369.1-17 have been updated to reflect this approach.9
The ACI 369 beams’ nonlinear provisions are also updated in
ACI 369-22 using the same approach.58 Thus, for the consis-
tency of the modeling parameters and not to introduce bias

100 ACI Structural Journal/January 2022

Table 1—Model multipliers to achieve specific fragility/POE
Multiplier to achieve specific POE
Joint type Model Nonlinear parameter 50% POE 40% POE 30% POE 20% POE 10% POE 5% POE
a (Hassan and Moehle STM ) 11
1.00 0.89 0.78 0.68 0.56 0.48
a (ACI 369-22) 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.69 0.57 0.49
Regression
b (Hassan and Moehle STM11) 1.00 0.89 0.78 0.67 0.54 0.45
model
b (ACI 369-22) 1.00 0.87 0.75 0.63 0.50 0.41
c 1.00 0.94 0.87 0.79 0.69 0.62
a (Hassan and Moehle STM ) 11
0.65 0.58 0.52 0.46 0.38 0.33
Exterior
and Hassan2
a (ACI 369-22) 1.18 1.06 0.94 0.83 0.69 0.59
corner (Hassan and
b (Hassan and Moehle STM11) 0.77 0.69 0.61 0.51 0.43 0.36
Moehle10)
model b (ACI 369-22) 0.77 0.69 0.61 0.51 0.43 0.36
c 1.00 0.91 0.81 0.71 0.60 0.52
a 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.59 0.50
Modified
b 1.00 0.89 0.78 0.67 0.54 0.45
ASCE 41
c 1.00 0.94 0.87 0.79 0.69 0.62
a 1.00 0.91 0.84 0.77 0.68 0.60
Regression
Interior b 1.00 0.92 0.84 0.77 0.67 0.60
model
c 1.00 0.94 0.87 0.79 0.70 0.63

in nonlinear analysis for seismic assessment, beam-column
joints modeling parameters need to be developed similarly.
As was observed from cyclic tests, the current ASCE 41/ACI
369 modeling parameters for beam-column joints represent
at best a lower-bound conservative estimate.
The proposed regression equations (Eq. (1) to (4)) were
developed based on 50% probability of exceedance. The
fragility procedure described in FEMA P-5859 was used to
develop the lognormal distribution/fragility curves. This
procedure involves using a standard lognormal distribution
with added uncertainty that accounts for the test sample size,
the real loading conditions, and the real configuration in
which the components can be constructed in a real building,
which may be different from lab testing. The fragility/
lognormal distribution of model-to-test ratio of parameters
a and b was developed based on the proposed equations. A
suggested multiplier is proposed to modify the model to a
desired probability of exceedance (other than 50%) using
the developed lognormal distribution (Table 1). To calcu-
late those factors, an inverse process to the development of
lognormal distribution was conducted. The inverse process
used the developed distribution to get the model-to-test ratio,
and hence the modification factor, for a specific probability
of exceedance. Figure 10 shows the cumulative lognormal
distribution of the proposed regression model. Figure 11
depicts the fragility/cumulative lognormal distribution of
model-to-test ratios of the second proposed model (modified
ASCE 41, Eq. (10) to (13)) and the Hassan2 model. Although
they are deterministic, but the Hassan2 model’s parameters
a and b (Eq. (14) to (17)) seem consistent with 50% proba-
bility of exceedance (POE) of Hassan2 database, but slightly
deviate from that 50% POE of the current database. Thus,
the Hassan2 (Hassan and Moehle10) model is probabilisti-
cally extended herein by applying the proposed multipliers
in Table 1 to the respective backbone shear strain expres-
sions (Eq. (14) to (17)).
Figure 12 depicts the lognormal distribution of model-
to-test data of parameter c. The same modifications method
is applied to achieve certain probability of exceedance for
parameter c. The multipliers are summarized in Table 1. The
three models: the multilinear regression-based model, the
ASCE 41 modified model and the model by Hassan2 and
Hassan and Moehle10 are proposed to the ACI 369 and ASCE
41 committees for possible implementation to improve the
accuracy of the ASCE 41 nonlinear modeling parameters for
unreinforced beam-column joints.
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, beam-column joint probabilistic nonlinear
modeling parameters for performance-based seismic
assessment of concrete frames were proposed and vali-
dated. The new models were intended to remove current
ASCE 41 provisions’ conservatism and inconsistency in
developing modeling parameters for frame components;
namely beams, columns, and joints based on an up-to-date
joints test database. Based on the results of this study, the
following can be drawn:
• The current ASCE 41-17/ACI 369.1-17 nonlinear
modeling parameters for non-ductile beam-column
joints are conservative, with inconsistent probability
of exceedance.
• The existing non-ductile joint nonlinear models in the
literature were either deterministic, complicated, did not
recommend test-informed backbone curves, or did not
correlate well with the database developed in this study.
An exception is the model proposed by Hassan2 (Hassan
and Moehle10), which agreed well with the unreinforced
joints test database in this study; a probabilistic exten-
sion of the model is suggested herein.

ACI Structural Journal/January 2022 101

Fig. 10—Lognormal distribution of model-to-test ratio of parameters a and b of proposed regression model (Eq. (1) to (4) for
exterior and corner, and Eq. (7) and (8) for interior joints).

Fig. 11—Lognormal distribution of model-to-test ratio of parameters a and b for exterior and corner joints: proposed ASCE 41
modified model (Eq. (10) and (11)) and Hassan2 (Hassan and Moehle10) model (Eq. (14) through (17)).

Fig. 12—Lognormal distribution of model-to-test ratio of parameter c for Hassan2 model (Eq. (6)) and regression model
(Eq. (5)) for exterior and corner joints and regression model for interior joints (Eq. (9)).

102 ACI Structural Journal/January 2022

• This paper proposed several linear regression proba-
bilistic models for nonlinear simulation of non-ductile
beam-column joints in seismic analysis. The proposed
models showed good correlation with both original test
database and validation datasets.
• The approach described in Hassan2 is recommended to
characterize the effective yield point on the shear stress-
strain backbone. The peak strength or the 15% strength
loss point can be used to represent the loss of lateral
capacity for beam-column joints.
• Exterior and corner joints model had an average of
model-to-test ratio (AVG) was 1.07 and 1.13 for param-
eters a and b, respectively. The coefficient of variation
of model-to-test ratio (COV) was 0.40 and 0.55 for
parameters a and b, respectively.
• The interior joints model had an AVG model-to-test
ratio of 0.99 and 1.00 for parameters a and b, respec-
tively, while their COV was 0.15 and 0.17, respectively.
• The modified ASCE 41 model exhibited good accu-
racy. The AVG model-to-test ratio was 1.06 and 1.09
for parameters a and b, respectively, while COV of 0.29
and 0.37, respectively.
• For the parameter c, the average of model-to-test ratio
was 1.04 and 1.02 for exterior and interior joints, respec-
tively, while their COV was 0.19 and 0.15, respectively.
AUTHOR BIOS
ACI member Wael M. Hassan is an Associate Professor of Structural Engi-
neering at the University of Alaska, Anchorage, AK. He received his BS and
MS in civil engineering from Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt, and his MA in
applied mathematics and PhD in structural engineering from the Univer-
sity of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. He is a member of ACI Commit-
tees 369, Seismic Repair and Rehabilitation, and 374, Performance-Based
Seismic Design of Concrete Buildings; ACI Subcommittee 341-A, Earth-
quake Resistant Bridges-Columns; Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 441, Rein-
forced Concrete Columns, and a past member of ACI Committee 318, Struc-
tural Concrete Building Code. His research interests include large-scale
testing of concrete structures and seismic assessment and retrofit.
ACI member Medhat Elmorsy is a Research Assistant at the University
of Alaska. He received his BS in civil engineering from Mansoura Univer-
sity, Mansoura, Egypt. His research interests include seismic assessment of
existing buildings.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Partial funding provided by University of Alaska to conduct this study is
greatly appreciated.
NOTATION
Ag = column gross concrete area
Aj = joint nominal area taken as defined in ACI 352 and ACI 369.1-17
Section 4.2.3.2
ALR = axial load ratio; equals P/fc′Ag
fc′ = concrete cylinder compressive strength
Gc = shear modulus of concrete
P = applied axial load to column of beam-column joint subassembly
Vj = joint shear strength force
αj = joint aspect ratio, defined as ratio between beam overall depth hb
and column depth hc
γ = shear strain angle (radian)
γj = joint shear strength coefficient; equals Vj/√fc′Aj
μ = mean of data points
σ = sample standard deviation of data points
REFERENCES
1. Moehle, J. P., “Existing Reinforced Concrete Building Construction:
A Review of Practices and Vulnerabilities,” Structural Engineering Associ-
ation of Northern California Fall Seminar, Sacramento, CA, 1998.
ACI Structural Journal/January 2022
2. Hassan, W. M., “Analytical and Experimental Assessment of Seismic
Vulnerability of Beam-Column Joints without Transverse Reinforcement in
Concrete Building,” PhD dissertation, University of California at Berkeley,
Berkeley, CA, May 2011, 471 pp.
3. National Information Service for Earthquake Engineering (NISEE),
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center, University of California, Berkeley,
Berkeley, CA, 2010.
4. Pan, Z., “Modeling of Interior Beam-column Joints for Nonlinear
Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frames,” PhD dissertation, University of
Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2016.
5. ASCE/SEI 41-17, “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Build-
ings,” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2017.
6. ACI Committee 369, “Standard Requirements for Seismic Evalua-
tion and Retrofit of Existing Concrete Buildings (ACI CODE-369.1-17),”
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2017, 110 pp.
7. FEMA 356, “Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilita-
tion of, ” Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC, 2000.
8. Sivaramakrishnan, B., “Non-Linear Modeling Parameters for Rein-
forced Concrete Columns Subjected to Seismic Loads,” master’s thesis,
The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 2010.
9. Ghannoum, W. M., and Matamoros, A. B., “Nonlinear Modeling
Parameters and Acceptance Criteria for Concrete Columns,” Seismic
Assessment of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings, SP-297, K. J.
Elwood, J. Dragovich, and I. Kim, eds., American Concrete Institute, Farm-
ington Hills, MI, 2014.
10. Hassan, W. M., and Moehle, J. P., “A Cyclic Nonlinear Macro Model
for Numerical Simulation of Beam-Column Joints in Existing Concrete
Buildings,” 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon,
Portugal, Sept. 2012, pp. 24-28.
11. Hassan, W. M., and Moehle, J. P., “Shear Strength of Exte-
rior and Corner Beam-Column Joints without Transverse Reinforce-
ment,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 115, No. 6, 2018, pp. 1719-1727. doi:
10.14359/51702416
12. Hassan, W.; Park, S.; Lopez, R. R.; Mosalam, K. M.; and Moehle,
J.  P., “Seismic Response of Older-Type Reinforced Concrete Corner
Joints,” Proceedings, 9th US National and 10th Canadian Conference
on Earthquake Engineering: Reaching Beyond Borders, Toronto, ON,
Canada, 2010.
13. Otani, S., “SAKE-A Computer Program for Inelastic Response of
R/C Frames to Earthquakes,” Structural Research Series, No. 413, Univer-
sity of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 1974.
14. Filipou, F. C., and Issa, A., “Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete Frames Under Cyclic Load Reversals,” Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 1988,
134 pp.
15. Biddah, A., and Ghobarah, A., “Modelling of Shear Deformation
and Bond Slip in Reinforced Concrete Joints,” Structural Engineering and
Mechanics, V. 7, No. 4, 1999, pp. 413-432. doi: 10.12989/sem.1999.7.4.413
16. Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., “The Modified Compression-Field
Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear,” ACI Journal
Proceedings, V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 219-231.
17. Pampanin, S.; Magenes, G.; and Carr, A., “Modeling of Shear Hinge
Mechanism in Poorly Detailed R.C. Beam Column Joints,” 12th European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London, UK, 2002.
18. Mitra, N., and Lowes, L. N., “Evaluation, Calibration, and Verifi-
cation of a Reinforced Concrete Beam–Column Joint Model,” Journal
of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 133, No. 1, 2007, pp. 105-120. doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:1(105)
19. Celik, O. C., and Ellingwood, B. R., “Modeling Beam-Column
Joints in Fragility Assessment of Gravity Load Designed Reinforced
Concrete Frames,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, V. 12, No. 3, 2008,
pp. 357-381. doi: 10.1080/13632460701457215
20. Shin, M., and LaFave, J. M., “Testing and Modeling for Cyclic
Joint Shear Deformations in RC Beam-Column Connections,” 13th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada,
Aug. 1-6, 2004.
21. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary (ACI 318R-02),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2002, 443 pp.
22. Youssef, M., and Ghobarah, A., “Modelling of RC Beam-Column
Joints and Structural Walls,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, V. 5,
No. 1, 2001, pp. 93-111. doi: 10.1080/13632460109350387
23. Lowes, L. N., and Altoontash, A., “Modeling Reinforced-Concrete
Beam-Column Joints Subjected to Cyclic Loading,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 129, No. 12, 2003, pp. 1686-1697. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(2003)129:12(1686)
24. Altoontash, A., “Simulation and Damage Models for Performance
Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints.” PhD disserta-
tion, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2004.
103
 25. Anderson, M.; Lehman, D.; and Stanton, J., “A Cyclic Shear
Stress–Strain Model for Joints without Transverse Reinforcement,”
Engineering Structures, V. 30, No. 4, 2008, pp. 941-954. doi: 10.1016/j.
engstruct.2007.02.005
26. Kim, J.; LaFave, J. M.; and Song, J., “Joint Shear Behaviour of
Reinforced Concrete Beam–Column Connections,” Magazine of Concrete
Research, V. 61, No. 2, 2009, pp. 119-132. doi: 10.1680/macr.2008.00068
27. Park, S., and Mosalam, K. M., “Shear Strength Models of Exterior
Beam-Column Joints without Transverse Reinforcement,” Pacific Earth-
quake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley,
Berkeley, CA, 2009.
28. Sharma, A.; Eligehausen, R.; and Reddy, G. R., “A New Model to
Simulate Joint Shear Behavior of Poorly Detailed Beam–Column Connec-
tions in RC Structures under Seismic Loads, Part I: Exterior Joints,” Engi-
neering Structures, V. 33, No. 3, 2011, pp. 1034-1051. doi: 10.1016/j.
engstruct.2010.12.026
29. Jeon, J. S.; Lowes, L. N.; DesRoches, R.; and Brilakis, I., “Fragility
Curves for Non-Ductile Reinforced Concrete Frames That Exhibit Different
Component Response Mechanisms,” Engineering Structures, V. 85, 2015,
pp. 127-143. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.12.009
30. De Risi, M. T.; Ricci, P.; Verderame, G. M.; and Manfredi, G., “A
Nonlinear Macro Model for Numerical Simulation of Exterior RC Joints
without Transverse Reinforcement,” Second European Conference on
Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Istanbul, Turkey, Aug. 25-29,
2014.
31. Birely, A. C.; Lowes, L. N.; and Lehman, D. E., “A Model for The
Practical Nonlinear Analysis of Rineforced-Concrete Frames Including
Joint Flexibility,” Engineering Structures, V. 34, 2012, pp. 455-465. doi:
10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.09.003
32. Pantelides, C. P.; Hansen, J.; Nadauld, J.; and Reaveley, L. D.,
“Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Building Exterior Joints with
Substandard Details,” Technical Report PEER 2002-18, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA, 2002.
33. Priestley, M. J. N., “Displacement-Based Seismic Assessment of
Reinforced Concrete Buildings,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, V. 1,
No. 1, 1997, pp. 157-192. doi: 10.1080/13632469708962365
34. Favvata, M. J.; Izzuddin, B. A.; and Karayannis, C. G., “Modelling
Exterior Beam–Column Joints for Seismic Analysis of RC Frame Struc-
tures,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, V. 37, No. 13,
2008, pp. 1527-1548. doi: 10.1002/eqe.826
35. Krawinkler, H., and Mohasseb, S., “Effects of Panel Zone Defor-
mations on Seismic Response,” Journal of Constructional Steel Research,
V. 8, 1987, pp. 233-250. doi: 10.1016/0143-974X(87)90060-5
36. Alath, S., and Kunnath, S. K., “Modeling Inelastic Shear Deforma-
tion in RC Beam-column Joints,” Engineering Mechanics, Proceedings of
Tenth Conference, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO, V. 2,
1995, pp. 822-825.
37. Theiss, A. G., “Modeling the Earthquake Response of Older Rein-
forced Concrete Beam-Column Building Joints,” PhD dissertation, Univer-
sity of Washington, Seattle, WA, 2005.
38. Burak, B., “Analytical Verification of a Simplified Reinforced
Concrete Joint Model,” Proceedings of the 9th US National and 10th Cana-
dian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Toronto, ON, Canada, July
2010, pp. 25-29.
39. Kim, C. G.; Park, H. G.; and Eom, T. S., “Shear Strength of Exterior
Beam-Column Joints with Limited Ductility Details,” Journal of Struc-
tural Engineering, ASCE, V. 146, No. 2, 2020, p. 04019204. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002483
40. Helal, Y., “Seismic Strengthening of Deficient Exterior RC Beam-
Column Sub-Assemblages Using Post-Tensioned Metal Strips,” PhD
dissertation, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK, 2012.
41. Garcia, R.; Jemaa, Y.; Helal, Y.; Guadagnini, M.; and Pilakoutas, K.,
“Seismic Strengthening of Severely Damaged Beam-Column RC Joints
Using CFRP,” Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 18, No. 2,
2014, p. 04013048. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000448
104
42. Genesio, G., “Seismic Assessment of RC Exterior Beam-Column
Joints and Retrofit with Haunches Using Post-Installed Anchors,” PhD
dissertation, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany, 2012.
43. Choi, K. K.; Dinh, N. H.; and Kim, J. C., “Behaviour of Non-Seismic
Detailed Reinforced-Concrete Beam–Column Connections,” Proceedings
of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Structures and Buildings, V. 170,
No. 7, 2017, pp. 504-520. doi: 10.1680/jstbu.16.00201
44. Del Vecchio, C.; Di Ludovico, M.; Balsamo, A.; Prota, A.; Manfredi,
G.; and Dolce, M., “Experimental Investigation of Exterior RC Beam-
Column Joints Retrofitted with FRP Systems,” Journal of Composites
for Construction, ASCE, V. 18, No. 4, 2014, p. 04014002. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000459
45. Bedirhanoglu, I., “The Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns
and Joints with Low Strength Concrete under Earthquake Loads: An Inves-
tigation and Improvement,” PhD dissertation, Istanbul Technical Univer-
sity, Istanbul, Turkey, 2009.
46. Dhakal, R. P., and Pan, T. C., “Cyclic Behavior of Interior Beam-
Column Connections in Non-Seismic RC Frames at Different Loading
Rates,” Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand, 2006.
47. Melo, J.; Varum, H.; and Rossetto, T., “Cyclic Behaviour of Inte-
rior Beam–Column Joints Reinforced with Plain Bars,” Earthquake Engi-
neering & Structural Dynamics, V. 44, No. 9, 2015, pp. 1351-1371. doi:
10.1002/eqe.2521
48. Lehman, D.; Stanton, J.; Anderson, M.; Alire, D.; and Walker, S.,
“Seismic Performance of Older Beam-Column Joints,” 13th World Confer-
ence on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Aug. 1-6, 2004.
49. Liu, A., and Park, R., “Seismic Behavior and Retrofit of Pre-1970’s
As-Built Exterior Beam-Column Joints Reinforced by Plain Round Bars,”
Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, V. 34,
No. 1, 2001, pp. 68-81. doi: 10.5459/bnzsee.34.1.68-81
50. Hassan, W. M., and Moehle, J. P., “Experimental Assessment of
Seismic Vulnerability of Corner Beam-Column Joints in Older Concrete
Buildings,” Proceedings, 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engi-
neering, Lisbon, Portugal, Sept. 2012, pp. 24-28.
51. Hassan, W. M., and Moehle, J. P., “Seismic Strength Models for
Beam-column Joints in Existing Concrete Buildings,” Proceedings, 11th
Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Victoria, BC, Canada,
July 2015.
52. Hassan, W. M., and Moehle, J. P., “Quantification of Residual Axial
Capacity of Beam-column Joints in Existing Concrete Buildings under
Seismic Load Reversals,” Proceedings, 4th International Conference for
Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engi-
neering, COMPDYN 2013, June 2013.
53. Hassan, W. M.; Refaie, F. A.; and Belal, A., “Seismic Vulnerability
of Concrete Beam-column Joints in Older Construction under High Axial
Loads,” Proceedings, 16th European Conference on Earthquake Engi-
neering, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2018.
54. Hassan, W. M., and Bilal, A. A., “Seismic Retrofit of Shear Critical
Beam-column Joints in Existing Concrete Buildings,” 10th US National
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Anchorage, AK, 2014.
55. Refaie, F. A. I., and Hassan, W. M., “Effect of Loading History on
Seismic Performance of Non-Ductile Beam-Column Joints,” Proceedings,
11th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Los Angeles,
CA, 2018.
56. FEMA P-2018, “Seismic Evaluation of Older Concrete. Buildings
for Collapse Potential,” Federal Emergency Management Agency, Wash-
ington DC, 2018.
57. NIST GCR 17-917-46v3, “Guidelines for Nonlinear Structural
Analysis for Design of Buildings Part IIb –Reinforced Concrete Moment
Frames,” National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg,
MD, 2017.
58. Govindan, M., “Modeling Parameters for Reinforced Concrete
Beams Subjected to Cyclic Loading,” master’s thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, 2018.
59. FEMA P-58-1, “Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings,”
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC, 2018.
ACI Structural Journal/January 2022
 APPENDIX A
Unreinforced J-Failure “non-conforming” beam-column joint test database
Beam Column Test Results
Specimen 𝒇
Investigator Type 𝒄 bb hb Lb ρbot. ρtop ρt fy fyt s bc hc H ρl ρt fy fyt s Ncyc ALR γj δu δy δf δ15 DF a b
ID psi c
in. in. in. % % % psi psi in. in. in. in. % % psi psi in. psi0.5 % % % % % rad. rad.
EN35 Ext. 4554 13.8 18.9 113.4 0.68 1.20 0.41 78321 65122 7.87 13.8 13.8 120.5 2.53 0.57 82527 65122 6.69 3 0.00 6.66 2.47 1.42 5.42 3.28 2.30 0.0082 0.0372 0.51
Kim et al.39
EN50 Ext. 4554 13.8 18.9 113.4 0.68 1.20 0.41 78321 65122 7.87 19.7 19.7 120.5 2.43 0.33 82527 65122 6.69 3 0.00 6.95 2.51 2.07 6.85 3.79 1.83 0.0086 0.0351 0.42
JA3 Ext. 4554 10.2 15.8 57.09 0.77 0.77 0.37 80496 91374 5.91 10.2 10.2 92.5 2.38 0.42 80496 91374 5.91 3 0.11 7.34 1.51 0.84 5.35 2.71 3.22 0.0125 0.0237 0.49
Helal40 JB1 Ext. 4148 10.2 15.8 57.09 0.77 0.77 0.37 80496 91374 5.91 10.2 10.2 92.5 2.38 0.42 80496 91374 5.91 3 0.07 6.85 1.46 0.71 4.00 3.15 4.45 0.0174 0.0229 0.68
JC1 Ext. 4148 10.2 15.8 57.09 0.77 0.77 0.37 80496 91374 5.91 10.2 10.2 92.5 2.38 0.42 80496 91374 5.91 3 0.08 6.75 1.80 0.67 3.95 3.01 4.52 0.0143 0.0166 0.72
Garcia et al.41 JC2 Ext. 4641 10.2 15.8 53.94 0.77 0.77 0.25 79916 88763 5.91 10.2 10.2 94.5 2.38 0.41 79916 88763 5.91 3 0.07 6.65 1.42 0.60 3.88 2.74 4.61 0.0175 0.0351 0.55
JT1-1 Ext. 3684 11.8 15.8 66.93 0.79 0.79 0.23 81221 81221 7.87 11.8 13.8 127.2 1.79 0.31 81221 81221 5.91 2 0.00 9.00 3.20 2.32 3.72 3.44 1.48 0.0106 0.0143 0.68
JT3-1 Ext. 3988 11.8 15.8 66.93 0.79 0.79 0.23 81221 81221 7.87 11.8 13.8 127.2 1.79 0.31 81221 81221 5.91 2 0.00 5.80 2.25 1.45 3.86 3.50 2.42 0.0093 0.0126 0.65
Genesio42
JT4-1 Ext. 4090 11.8 15.8 66.93 0.79 0.79 0.23 81221 81221 7.87 11.8 13.8 127.2 1.79 0.31 81221 81221 5.91 2 0.00 6.01 2.06 1.61 3.62 3.39 2.11 0.0091 0.0108 0.69
JT5-1 Ext. 3568 11.8 15.8 66.93 0.38 0.38 0.23 78321 78321 7.87 11.8 13.8 127.2 1.79 0.31 78321 78321 5.91 2 0.00 5.82 2.14 1.45 3.77 3.34 2.30 0.0074 0.0085 0.64
Choi et al. 43 J1 Ext. 2901 7.87 11.8 72.83 0.43 2.55 0.70 55695 58740 5.91 11.8 11.8 78.7 2.53 0.58 55550 58740 5.91 2 0.00 10.7 2.14 1.45 3.77 3.34 2.30 0.0244 0.0246 0.85
Del Vecchio et al.44 T_C3 Ext. 2364 11.8 19.7 64.96 0.23 0.70 0.40 68661 7.87 11.8 11.8 133.9 0.90 0.28 68661 7.87 3 0.20 5.39 1.31 0.69 3.24 2.56 3.74 0.0235 0.0326 0.59
Unit 3 Ext. 4900 16.0 16.0 66.00 1.90 1.90 0.56 66500 62000 6.00 16.0 16.0 126.0 2.45 0.56 68000 62000 6.00 3 0.10 11.2 2.03 1.37 8.82 2.94 2.15 0.0128 0.0426 0.41
Unit 4 Ext. 4900 16.0 16.0 66.00 1.90 1.90 0.56 66500 62000 6.00 16.0 16.0 126.0 2.45 0.56 68000 62000 6.00 3 0.25 12.8 2.00 1.34 5.03 2.85 2.13 0.0097 0.0194 0.62
Pantelides et al.32
Unit 5 Ext. 4600 16.0 16.0 66.00 1.90 1.90 0.56 66500 62000 6.00 16.0 16.0 126.0 2.45 0.56 68000 62000 6.00 3 0.10 12.1 2.84 1.76 8.83 4.25 2.42 0.0120 0.0173 0.75
Unit 6 Ext. 4600 16.0 16.0 66.00 1.90 1.90 0.56 66500 62000 6.00 16.0 16.0 126.0 2.45 0.56 68000 62000 6.00 3 0.25 12.3 2.93 1.58 7.01 4.17 2.64 0.0103 0.0346 0.33
Park and Mosalam27 SP4-NS Cor. 3960 16.0 30.0 96.00 0.50 0.66 0.61 72750 73500 3.00 18.0 18.0 145.0 3.14 1.02 68300 73500 3.00 2 0.15 7.37 1.52 0.78 6.24 3.21 4.12 0.0188 0.0212 0.81
UJ1-EW Cor. 4300 16.0 18.0 104.0 1.39 1.76 0.71 72050 69500 3.00 18.0 18.0 120.0 3.14 1.02 68200 69500 3.00 1 0.31 12.4 2.21 0.87 9.76 3.57 4.11 0.0148 0.0260 0.65
UJ1-NS Cor. 4300 16.0 18.0 104.0 1.39 1.76 0.71 72050 69500 3.00 18.0 18.0 120.0 3.14 1.02 68200 69500 3.00 1 0.31 12.0 1.39 0.72 9.77 2.78 3.86 0.0107 0.0233 0.53
Hassan2 UJ2-EW Cor. 4430 16.0 30.0 104.0 0.66 0.83 0.61 68100 69500 3.00 18.0 18.0 120.0 3.14 1.02 77600 69500 3.00 1 0.45 8.85 1.35 0.64 3.42 2.40 3.77 0.0125 0.0240 0.64
UJ2-NS Cor. 4430 16.0 30.0 104.0 0.66 0.83 0.61 68100 69500 3.00 18.0 18.0 120.0 3.14 1.02 77600 69500 3.00 1 0.45 8.34 0.82 0.50 3.42 1.92 3.82 0.0069 0.0084 0.79
BJ1-EW Cor. 4410 16.0 18.0 104.0 1.39 1.76 0.71 72800 69500 3.00 18.0 18.0 120.0 3.14 1.02 72800 69500 3.00 1 0.45 10.3 1.37 0.90 3.45 2.91 3.23 0.0087 0.0184 0.49
JO1 Ext. 1204 9.84 19.7 53.54 0.64 0.64 0.54 48298 45689 3.94 9.84 19.7 118.1 1.28 0.36 48298 45689 5.91 1 0.13 6.74 4.04 0.67 10.87 6.32 9.49 0.0183 0.0287 0.72
JO6 Ext. 1204 9.84 19.7 53.54 0.64 0.64 0.54 48298 45689 3.94 9.84 19.7 118.1 1.28 0.36 48298 45689 5.91 1 0.00 5.67 3.69 1.54 10.20 7.09 4.61 0.0221 0.0359 0.61
Bedirhanoglu45
JO7 Ext. 1204 9.84 19.7 53.54 0.64 0.64 0.54 48298 45689 3.94 9.84 19.7 118.1 1.28 0.36 48298 45689 5.91 1 0.50 6.74 2.04 0.57 8.01 5.40 9.46 0.0130 0.0164 0.77
JW1 Ext. 1204 9.84 19.7 53.54 0.64 0.64 0.54 48298 45689 3.94 9.84 19.7 118.1 1.28 0.36 48298 45689 5.91 1 0.13 8.22 3.99 1.28 10.96 5.97 4.69 0.0273 0.0428 0.67
Dhakal and Pan46 QS2 Int. 4757 11.8 21.7 212.6 1.46 2.92 0.36 78030 52750 7.87 15.8 15.8 145.7 2.45 0.43 77972 52750 5.91 3 0.12 15.6 1.75 1.23 2.46 NR* 2.01 0.0151 0.87
IPA-1 Int. 3120 11.8 19.7 157.5 0.30 0.30 0.23 58700 59500 7.87 11.8 11.8 118.1 0.75 0.28 58700 59500 7.87 3 0.23 8.74 1.47 0.59 4.01 2.60 4.43 0.0161 0.0283 0.70
IPA-2 Int. 4480 11.8 19.7 157.5 0.30 0.30 0.23 58700 59500 7.87 11.8 11.8 118.1 0.75 0.28 58700 59500 7.87 3 0.16 8.27 1.99 0.72 3.98 2.95 4.09 0.0165 0.0259 0.71
IPB Int. 3550 11.8 19.7 157.5 0.30 0.30 0.23 58700 59500 7.87 11.8 11.8 118.1 0.75 0.28 58700 59500 7.87 3 0.20 8.34 1.98 0.63 4.00 2.99 4.75 0.0169 0.0212 0.73
Melo et al.47
IPE Int. 3070 11.8 19.7 157.5 0.15 0.30 0.23 58700 59500 7.87 11.8 11.8 118.1 0.75 0.28 58700 59500 7.87 3 0.24 8.17 2.47 0.73 3.98 2.92 3.98 0.0263 0.86
IPF Int. 3260 11.8 19.7 157.5 0.30 0.30 0.23 58700 59500 7.87 11.8 11.8 118.1 0.75 0.28 58700 59500 7.87 3 0.22 9.07 1.98 0.51 3.99 3.23 6.33 0.0167 0.0259 0.68
ID Int. 3020 11.8 19.7 157.5 0.30 0.30 0.23 67400 68200 7.87 11.8 11.8 118.1 0.75 0.28 67400 68200 7.87 3 0.24 10.3 2.00 1.13 3.98 2.51 2.22 0.0115 0.0252 0.68
PEER 1595 Int. 8920 16.0 20.0 160.0 16.0 18.0 85.50 3 0.10 16.8 0.0163 0.0183 0.76
Lehman et al.48
PEER 4150 Int. 4786 16.0 20.0 160.0 16.0 18.0 85.50 3 0.10 25.1 2.03 1.26 5.05 3.49 2.78 0.0188 0.0229 0.64
Liu and Park49 Unit 2 Int. 7092 11.8 15.8 138.0 0.68 1.36 0.07 46558 46122 15.0 11.8 18.1 126.0 1.97 0.16 46558 46122 9.06 2 0.12 13.4 2.16 1.04 6.56 4.25 4.08 0.0198 0.0355 0.58
J40 Ext. 2350 9.84 15.8 53.15 1.96 1.96 1.19 83397 83397 2.95 11.81 15.75 63 1.82 0.98 83397 83397 3.94 1 0.40 12.8 1.96 0.65 5.91 2.75 4.23
Hassan et al. 53
J60 Ext. 2321 9.84 15.8 53.15 1.96 1.96 1.19 83397 83397 2.95 11.81 15.75 63 1.82 0.98 83397 83397 3.94 1 0.60 11.5 1.30 0.78 2.98 2.02 1.55 0.028 0.86
Hassan and Bilal 54 J20 Ext. 3481 9.84 15.8 53.15 1.96 1.96 1.19 83397 83397 2.95 11.81 15.75 63 1.82 0.98 83397 83397 3.94 1 0.20 16.3 1.85 1.49 7.25 3.92 2.12 0.0015 0.0046 0.3
J45-C1 Ext. 2799 9.84 15.8 53.15 1.96 1.96 1.15 83397 83397 2.95 11.81 15.75 78.74 1.00 0.95 83397 83397 3.94 1 0.45 16.8 1.97 1.26 4.43 2.75 1.40 0.092 0.096 0.83
Refaie and Hassan 55
J45-C3 Ext. 2799 9.84 15.8 53.15 1.96 1.96 1.15 83397 83397 2.95 11.81 15.75 78.74 1.00 0.95 83397 83397 3.94 3 0.45 14.9 1.98 1.27 4.43 2.61 1.32 0.053 0.11 0.77

1
Database Table Legend
ℎ = Beam total height

𝑏 = Beam width

ℎ = Column total height

𝑏 = Column width

𝐿 = Beam on center span to loading point

𝐻 = Column height (between loading points)

𝜌 = Beam top reinforcement ratio

𝜌 . = Beam bottom reinforcement ratio

𝜌 = Transverse reinforcement volumetric ratio

𝜌 = Column longitudinal reinforcement ratio

𝑓 = Yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement

𝑓 = Yield strength of transverse reinforcement

𝑠 = Transverse reinforcement spacing

𝑁 = Number of displacement cycles per displacement amplitude

𝐴𝐿𝑅 = Axial load ratio defined as the axial force divided by axial strength of gross section (𝐴 𝑓 )

𝛾 = Joint shear strength coefficient; equals

𝛿 = Effective yield drift ratio

2
𝛿 = Drift ratio at peak strength

𝛿 = Maximum reached drift ratio

𝛿 = Drift ratio at 15% post-peak strength degradation

𝐷𝐹 = Displacement ductility factor calaculated as the drift at 15% post-peak strength degradation divided by the effective yield

drift ratio

REFERENCES

60. Wong, H. F., “Shear Strength and Seismic Performance of Non-Seismically Designed Reinforced Concrete Beam-column Joints.”

Doctoral Dissertation. Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, 2005.

3
1  APPENDIX B
2  Sample proposed models’ experimental validation

Shear Force (kN)

Regression model
(b) Modified ASCE 41
Regression model
(a) Modified ASCE 41
Shear strain (rad.)

Shear Force (kN)

Regression model
(c)
(d) Regression model

Shear strain (rad.)

Hassan7 Backbone Model Hassan7 Backbone Model
Eqs. 14-17 Eqs. 14-17

3 
(e) (f)

4 

5  Fig. A.1: Proposed model hysteretic response experimental validation; (a-d: joint shear stress-
6  strain response, regression and modified ASCE 41 models); (e-f): finite element simulation for
7  full joint subassembly using Hassan2 model); (a) exterior joint JO145, (b) corner joint U-J-1,
8  EW2, (c) interior joint PEER 415048, (d) exterior joint JW145, (e) exterior joint BS-L60, (f) corner
9  joint U-J-2, EW2.