Structural Engineering Research Frontiers 2007 ASCE

Evaluation of FEMA 356 Models for Reinforced Concrete Columns

and Beam-Column Joints
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 08/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

H. Sezen, and F. Alemdar

Halil Sezen, Ohio State University, Dept of Civil Eng., Columbus, Ohio, sezen.1@osu.edu
Firat Alemdar, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, firatalemdar@yahoo.com

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, w fy/ f c
varies between 0.01 and 0.12. Columns were tested by shearing a full-length column in double
curvature, or by loading one or a double cantilever in single curvature. Three test specimens,

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

Structural Engineering Research Frontiers
 Structural Engineering Research Frontiers 2007 ASCE

3SLH18, 2SLH18 and 3SMD12 in Table 1, had short lap splices near the bottom of the column.
Details of the 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
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 08/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

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
Figure1, 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 Figure 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 Figure 1 is defined considering flexural and
shear deformations for columns. Flexural rigidity, kEcIg is defined equal to 0.5EcIg for P
0.3Agfc, and 0.7EcIg for P 0.5Agfc, with a linear variation in between (Ec = modulus of
elasticity of concrete, Ig = gross moment of inertia, and Ag = gross cross sectional area). Shear
stiffness for rectangular cross sections is defined as 0.4EcAg. The initial stiffness is not defined
for 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 Figure 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.

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

Structural Engineering Research Frontiers
 Structural Engineering Research Frontiers 2007 ASCE

FEMA 356 SHEAR MODEL

In the FEMA 356 document, the shear strength of columns is defined by (1)
6 f '
As f y d c P
V n = k1 + k 2 1+ 0.8 A g (1)
s M 6 f '
A
Vd c g
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 08/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

where k1 = 1 for transverse steel spacing less than or equal d/2, k1 = 0.5 for spacing exceeding d/2
but not more than d, k1 = 0 otherwise; k2 = 1 for displacement ductility demand, 2, k2 = 0.7
for 4 with linear variation between these limits, = 1 for normal-weight concrete; M and V =
moment and shear at section of maximum moment; the value of M/Vd (=La/d) is limited to 2
La/d 3. The displacement ductility demand, is defined as the ratio of yield displacement, y
(at point B) to ultimate displacement (at point C).
The FEMA 356 document recommends (2) for the calculation of nominal shear strength
of beam-column joints according to the general procedures of ACI 318.
Vn = f c' A j (2)
where is the nominal strength coefficient, 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

Figure 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 Figure 2, 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 Figure 2.
The maximum lateral strength of the column, Vtest reported in Table 3 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 Figure 3 for 4 of the columns considered in
this study. The maximum flexure and shear strengths predicted from FEMA 356 models (as
reported in Table 3) 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 (Figure 3). Then,
the maximum lateral strength, Vn,FEMA reported in Table 3 is the smaller of Vp,flexure (=Mn,ACI/La)
and Vn,shear (from (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

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

Structural Engineering Research Frontiers
 Structural Engineering Research Frontiers 2007 ASCE

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 3 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
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 08/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

method to be used.
The measured yield and maximum shear strength of beam-column joints, Vy,test and Vtest
are reported in Table 4. The FEMA 356 models are compared with the experimental data in
Figure 4 for 3 exterior and 1 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 4 was 3.55 with a very large deviation. As shown in Table 5, the
reported experimental yield and ultimate rotations as well as corresponding simplified FEMA
356 predictions varied widely.
FEMA 356 flexure and shear models estimate that none of the 4 columns would fail in
shear after the flexural capacity is reached (Figure 3). 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. The initial stiffness estimates can be improved by including the effect of longitudinal
bar slip in the flexure model.
The predicted maximum shear strengths 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

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

Structural Engineering Research Frontiers
 Structural Engineering Research Frontiers 2007 ASCE

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
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 08/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

[1] ACI 318. 2005. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. ACI Committee 318, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan.
[2] Alemdar F. 2007. Behavior of Existing Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints. Master Thesis. The Ohio
State University.
[3] 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.
[4] 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.
[5] FEMA 356, 2000. NEHRP Guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency
Management Agency. Washington DC.
[6] 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
[7] 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.
[8] 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
[9] 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.
[10] 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
[11] 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/
[12] 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
[13] Shin, M., and Lafave,J.M., 2004. Thirteenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C.,
Canada, Paper No. 0301.
[14] 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

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

Structural Engineering Research Frontiers
 Structural Engineering Research Frontiers 2007 ASCE

Specimen Reference b d La s l w fyl fy f c P

mmm mmm mm mmm % % MPa MPa MPa kN
2CLD12 Sezen and 457 394 147 305 2.5 0.1 447 469 21.1 667
Moehle 147 0.1 266
2CHD12 457 394 305 2.5 447 469 21.1
(2006)
2CLD12M 457 394 147 305 2.5 0.1 447 469 21.8 667
3CLH18 Lynn and 457 381 147 457 3.0 0.1 335 400 25.6 503
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 08/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3SLH18 Moehle 381 147 3.0 0.1 335 400 25.6 503
457 457
(1996)
2CLH18 457 381 147 457 2.0 0.1 335 400 33.1 503
2SLH18 457 381 147 457 2.0 0.1 335 400 33.1 503
2CMH18 457 381 147 457 2.0 0.1 335 400 25.7 151
3CMH18 457 381 147 457 3.0 0.1 335 400 27.6 151
3CMD12 457 381 147 305 3.0 0.1 335 400 27.6 151
3SMD12 457 381 147 305 3.0 0.1 335 400 25.7 151
2D16RS Ohue et 200 175 400 50 2.0 0.5 376 322 32.1 183
4D13RS al. (1985) 200 175 400 50 2.7 0.5 377 322 29.9 183
H-2-1/5 Esaki 200 175 400 50 2.5 0.5 363 370 23.0 161
HT-2-1/5 (1996) 200 175 400 75 2.5 0.5 363 370 20.2 161
H-2-1/3 200 175 400 40 2.5 0.6 363 370 23.0 269
HT-2-1/3 200 175 400 60 2.5 0.6 363 370 20.2 236
U-7 Saatcioglu 400 375 100 120 2.4 0.4 581 382 29.0 464
U-8 & Ozcebe 400 375 100 120 2.4 0.5 581 382 33.5 107
(1989)
U-9 400 375 100 120 2.4 0.5 581 382 34.1 163
40.033aE Wight and 152 254 876 127 2.4 0.3 496 344 34.7 189
40.033E Sozen 152 254 876 127 2.4 0.3 496 344 33.6 178
(1975)
25.033E 152 254 876 127 2.4 0.3 496 344 33.6 111
00.033E 152 254 876 127 2.4 0.3 496 344 32.0 0
40.048W 152 254 876 89 2.4 0.4 496 344 26.1 178
00.048W 152 254 876 89 2.4 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, l = longitudinal steel ratio, w = transverse steel
ratio, fyl = longitudinal steel yield strength, fy = transverse steel yield strength, f c = concrete strength, P = applied
axial load

TABLE 1 - DIMENSIONS, MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND OTHER DETAILS FOR COLUMN SPECIMENS

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

Structural Engineering Research Frontiers
 Structural Engineering Research Frontiers 2007 ASCE

Specimen f c P Joint Joint rein.

'
MPa f c * Ag 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 -
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 08/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

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 2 DIMENSIONS, MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND OTHER TEST PARAMETERS FOR BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS

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

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

Structural Engineering Research Frontiers
 Structural Engineering Research Frontiers 2007 ASCE

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
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 08/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

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 3 - COMPARISON OF OBSERVED AND PREDICTED FAILURE MODES AND SHEAR STRENGTHS OF COLUMNS

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 4 - COMPARISON OF OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SHEAR STRENGTHS OF BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

Structural Engineering Research Frontiers
 Structural Engineering Research Frontiers 2007 ASCE

Specimen Yield rotation (rad) Ultimate rotation (rad)

y,FEMA y,test y,test u,FEMA. u,test u,test
/y,FEMA /u,FEMA
2
0.000287 0.000109 0.38 0.00529 0.00511 0.97
Clyde
et al. 4 0.000263 0.000256 0.97 0.00526 0.01425 2.71
5 0.000263 0.000498 1.89 0.00526 0.00475 0.90
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 08/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

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

TABLE 5 - COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND CALCULATED DISPLACEMENTS OF BEAM COLUMN JOINTS

Normalized
Force

Deformation

FIGURE 1 - GENERALIZED FORCE-DEFORMATION RELATIONSHIP IN FEMA 356.

300 Vtest
0.8Vtest
200 0.7Vtest
lateral load (kN)

100

y u ug
100

200

300

150 100 50 0 50 100 150

lateral displacement (mm)

FIGURE 2 - EXPERIMENTAL LATERAL LOAD-DISPLACEMENT RELATION (SPECIMEN 2CLD12 IN TABLE 1)

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

Structural Engineering Research Frontiers
 Structural Engineering Research Frontiers 2007 ASCE

400
2CLD12 2CHD12
200
Lateral Load (kN)

Lateral Load (kN)

200

0 0

200
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 08/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

200
400
150 100 50 0 50 100 150 50 0 50
Lateral displacement (mm) Lateral displacement (mm)
400 150
3CMD12 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)

150
FIGURE 3 - COMPARISON OF FEMA 356 COLUMN FLEXURE AND SHEAR MODELS WITH TEST DATA

FIGURE 4 - COMPARISON OF FEMA 356 MODELS WITH BEAM-COLUMN JOINT TEST DATA

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

Structural Engineering Research Frontiers