Jeon Dissertation 2013

AFTERSHOCK VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF
DAMAGED REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS
IN CALIFORNIA
A Thesis
Presented to
The Academic Faculty
by
Jong-Su Jeon
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy in the
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology

August, 2013
Copyright © 2013 by Jong-Su Jeon

AFTERSHOCK VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF
DAMAGED REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS
IN CALIFORNIA
Approved by:
Dr. Reginald DesRoches, Advisor Dr. Ioannis Brilakis, Co-advisor

School of Civil and Environmental Department of Engineering
Engineering University of Cambridge
Dr. Laura N. Lowes Dr. Zhigang Peng

Department of Civil and Environmental School of Earth and Atmospheric
Engineering Sciences
University of Washington, Seattle Georgia Institute of Technology
Dr. Yang Wang

School of Civil and Environmental
Engineering
Date Approved: [June 7, 2013]

I would like to dedicate this research to my wife Min Jung and my son Inhae.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express deep gratitude and sincere thanks to my co-advisor, Dr. Reginald
DesRoches and Dr. Ioannis Brilakis, whose invaluable advice, encouragement, and
guidance made the successful completion of this research possible. I am also thankful to
my thesis committee Dr. Laura Lowes, Dr. Zhigang Peng, and Dr. Yang Wang, for their
valuable suggestions and contributions. Additionally, I thank Professor Joseph M. Bracci
of Texas A&M University, who shared the experimental results for the shake-table test.
I have been very fortunate to be surrounded by very talented and friendly fellow
graduate students. I would like to give my special thanks to my former and current
officemates, Mr. Timothy Wright, Dr. Abdollah Safieezadeh, Dr. Karthik Ramanathan,
Mr. Pablo Vega Behar, and Ms. Laura Schultz for all the encouragement and support
over the last four years. Special thanks are extended to the research team members of Dr.
Stephanie Paal and Mr. Cal Bearman writing research papers and sharing their research
results so that I integrate their outputs into my research.
I am thankful to my mother Gapyeon Im, my father Junggyu Jeon, my sisters
Youngok Jeon, Heeok Jeon, Junghee Jeon, and my brother Jongsang Jeon for their
unconditional love, encouragement, and support, without which I would not be here
today. No words can explain how grateful I am and how fortunate I feel.
I would like to express by deepest and most heartfelt gratitude to my wife Min
Jung and my son Inhae. This experience has required a lot of personal sacrifice from Min
Jung, including financial, physical, and emotional. It was more than I had right to ask but
iv
something she was willing to give. To her and him I not only give my thanks but also my
love.
Also, I would like to thank the agency which funded my graduate studies and this
work. The material presented in this research is based upon work supported by the
National Science Foundation under Grant Numbers CMMI-1000700. Any opinions,
findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the
author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................x
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiii
SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................xx
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................1
1.1 Problem Description and Motivation ...................................................................1
1.2 Research Objectives .............................................................................................7
1.3 Dissertation Outline ..............................................................................................8
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF THE STATE OF THE ART .....10
2.1 Significance of Aftershocks ...............................................................................10
2.2 Existing Mainshock and Aftershock Fragility Assessment ................................14
2.2.1 Review of fragility assessment for mainshock .........................................14
2.2.2 Existing fragility assessment for aftershock .............................................17
2.3 Modeling Critical Components in RC Frames ...................................................20
2.3.1 Shear-dominated column model ...............................................................20
2.3.2 Beam-column joint model ........................................................................27
2.4 Summary ............................................................................................................36
CHAPTER 3: ANALYTICAL MODELING TECHNIQUE OF RC FRAME

COMPONENTS ......................................................................................38
3.1 Modeling Flexure Behavior of Columns and Beams .........................................42
3.1.1 Analytical model .......................................................................................42
3.1.2 Validation of analytical model ..................................................................44
3.2 Modeling Shear Behavior of Columns ...............................................................46

vi
3.2.1 Analytical model .......................................................................................46
3.2.2 Validation of analytical model ..................................................................48
3.3 Modeling Non-Ductile Beam-Column Joints .....................................................53
3.3.1 Joint shear failure model ...........................................................................54
3.3.2 Empirical joint bond failure model ...........................................................57
3.3.3 Validation of analytical model for subassemblages .................................61
3.3.4 Validation of analytical model for scale model frame ..............................69
3.4 Modeling Ductile Beam-Column Joints .............................................................74
3.5 Summary ............................................................................................................82
CHAPTER 4: DESCRIPTION, MODLEING, AND RESPONSE OF RC

BUILDINGS.............................................................................................83
4.1 Description of Typical RC Building Frames in California ................................83
4.1.1 Non-ductile RC frames .............................................................................84
4.1.2 Ductile RC frames ....................................................................................85
4.1.3 Selection of analyzed RC frames ..............................................................87
4.2 Analytical Frame Model .....................................................................................89
4.2.1 Overall modeling technique ......................................................................89
4.2.2 Proposed joint shear strength model .........................................................95
4.2.3 Model limitations ....................................................................................110
4.3 Seismic Response of RC Frames ......................................................................111
4.3.1 Pushover analysis ....................................................................................112
4.3.2 Nonlinear time history analysis ..............................................................116
4.4 Summary ..........................................................................................................127
CHAPTER 5: FRAMEWORK FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AFTERSHOCK

FRAGILITY CURVES .........................................................................129
5.1 Aftershock Fragility Formulation .....................................................................131
vii
5.1.1 Classical fragility function ......................................................................131
5.1.2 Aftershock fragility function ..................................................................132
5.2 Stochastic Analytical Frame Models ................................................................134
5.3 A Suite of Ground Motions ..............................................................................136
5.3.1 Optimal intensity measure in classical PSDM ........................................138
5.3.2 Selection of mainshock and aftershock ground motion suite .................142
5.4 Mainshock-Aftershock Analysis ......................................................................143
5.4.1 Characterization of initial damage states ................................................143
5.4.2 Simulating damaging earthquakes ..........................................................151
5.4.3 Mainshock-aftershock analysis ...............................................................153
5.5 Development of Aftershock Fragility Curves ..................................................156
5.5.1 Probabilistic aftershock demand models (PADMs)................................156
5.5.2 Capacity limit state .................................................................................157
5.5.3 Aftershock fragility curves .....................................................................159
5.6 Impact of an Aftershock Ground Motion Suite Selection ................................160
5.7 Summary ..........................................................................................................165
CHAPTER 6: AFTERSHOCK FRAGILITY ASSESSMENT OF RC FRAMES ..166
6.1 Choice of RC Frames for Aftershock Fragility Assessment ............................167
6.2 Accounting for Collapsed Simulations.............................................................169
6.3 Probabilistic Aftershock Demand Models........................................................170
6.3.1 Non-ductile RC frames ...........................................................................171
6.3.2 Ductile RC frames ..................................................................................176
6.4 Aftershock Fragility Curves .............................................................................179
6.4.1 Impact of initial damage states ...............................................................182
6.4.2 Impact of modeling characteristics .........................................................188
viii
6.4.3 Comparison of RC frames ......................................................................198
6.4.4 Simulation method of damaging earthquakes .........................................203
6.4.5 Sensitivity analysis for degrading slope in joint shear model ................206
6.5 Summary ..........................................................................................................208
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK ..........................................210
7.1 Summary and Conclusions ...............................................................................210
7.2 Research Impact ...............................................................................................215
7.3 Recommendations for Future Work .................................................................216
APPENDIX A: ANALYTICL RESULTS OF FRAME’S COMPONENTS ...........218
APPENDIX B: FRAME DESIGN INFORMATION ................................................266
APPENDIX C: DATABASE OF NON-DUCTILE AND DUCTILE BEAM-

COLUMN JOINTS ...............................................................................271
APPENDIX D: AFTERSHOCK FRAGILITY CURVES ........................................297
REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................312
VITA................................................................................................................................336
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Column dimension and detailing requirements in US building codes...............40
Table 3.2 Design attributes of non-ductile and ductile RC frame components .................40
Table 3.3 Comparison of experimental and analytical maximum shear force for flexure-
critical columns ..................................................................................................46
Table 3.4 Collected shear-dominated column database .....................................................51
Table 3.5 Comparison of experimental and analytical maximum shear force for flexure-
shear-critical columns ........................................................................................53
Table 3.6 Comparison of experimental and analytical maximum lateral force for non-
ductile beam-column joint subassemblages .......................................................63
Table 3.7 Modeling parameters of Pinching4 material for non-ductile exterior joints .....67
Table 3.8 Modeling parameters of Pinching4 material for non-ductile interior joints ......68
Table 3.9 Comparison of maximum responses from experiment and analysis .................71
Table 3.10 Comparison of experimental and analytical maximum lateral force for ductile
beam-column joint subassemblages...................................................................76
Table 3.11 Modeling parameters of Pinching4 material for ductile exterior joints ...........79
Table 3.12 Modeling parameters of Pinching4 material for ductile interior joints ...........80
Table 4.1 Representative building geometries for non-ductile frames ..............................85
Table 4.2 Design assumptions of the archetype ductile frames .........................................86
Table 4.3 Representative building geometries for ductile frames .....................................86
Table 4.4 List of RC frames ...............................................................................................88
Table 4.5 Material properties with different frame types ..................................................88
Table 4.6 Analytical frame model with different modeling techniques ............................91
Table 4.7 Number of experimental non-ductile joint database ..........................................98
Table 4.8 Range of predictor variables for non-ductile beam-column joint database .....100
x
Table 4.9 Stepwise linear regression for non-ductile joint strength model .....................101
Table 4.10 Number of experimental ductile joint database .............................................104
Table 4.11 Range of experimental ductile beam-column joint database .........................104
Table 4.12 Stepwise linear regression for ductile joint strength model ...........................107
Table 4.13 Summary of pushover analysis results...........................................................113
Table 4.14 Maximum seismic response parameters for OMF-4S frame .........................119
Table 4.15 Maximum seismic response parameters for SMF-8P frame ..........................124
Table 5.1 Structural modeling uncertainties ....................................................................136
Table 5.2 Comparison of characteristic property measures for various IMs ...................141
Table 5.3 Summary of damage progression for flexure-dominated columns ..................146
Table 5.4 Summary of damage progression for shear-dominated columns.....................148
Table 5.5 Initial damage states for flexure-dominated columns under low axial load ....150
Table 5.6 Initial damage states for flexure-dominated columns under high axial load ...150
Table 5.7 Initial damage states for shear-dominated columns under low axial load .......150
Table 5.8 Initial damage states for shear-dominated columns under high axial load ......151
Table 5.9 Description of HAZUS-MH (FEMA 2003) ....................................................158
Table 5.10 Capacity limit state model for maximum interstory drift ..............................158
Table 6.1 Analytical frame models for aftershock fragility assessment ..........................168
Table 6.2 Number of collapsed simulations ....................................................................170
Table 6.3 PADMs with different IDSs for analytical frame models of OMF-4S frame .173
Table 6.4 PADMs with different IDSs for analytical frame models of OMF-8S frame .175
Table 6.5 PADMs with different IDSs for OMF-4P and OMF-8P frames (joint shear) 176
Table 6.6 PADMs with different IDSs for analytical frame models of SMF-4P frame ..177
Table 6.7 PADMs with different IDSs for analytical frame models of SMF-8P frame ..178
Table 6.8 Aftershock fragilities for non-ductile RC analytical frame models .................180
xi
Table 6.9 Aftershock fragilities for ductile RC analytical frame models ........................181
Table 6.10 Difference in median values with different IDSs for OMF-4S frame ...........185
Table 6.11 Difference in median values with different IDSs for SMF-8P frame ............187
Table 6.12 Difference in median values with different modeling techniques for OMF-4S
frame ................................................................................................................191
Table 6.13 Difference in median values with different modeling techniques for OMF-8S
frame ................................................................................................................193
Table 6.14 Difference in median values with different modeling techniques for SMF-4P
frame ................................................................................................................195
Table 6.15 Difference in median values with different modeling techniques for SMF-8P
frame ................................................................................................................197
Table A.1 Comparison of experimental and analytical maximum shear force for flexure-
shear-critical columns ......................................................................................226
Table A.2 Comparison of experimental and analytical maximum lateral force for non-
ductile exterior beam-column joint subassemblages .......................................232
Table A.3 Comparison of experimental and analytical maximum lateral force for non-
ductile interior beam-column joint subassemblages ........................................239
Table A.4 Comparison of experimental and analytical maximum lateral force for ductile
exterior beam-column joint subassemblages ...................................................248
Table A.5 Comparison of experimental and analytical maximum lateral force for ductile
interior beam-column joint subassemblages ....................................................264
Table C.1 Experimental non-ductile beam-column joint database ..................................272
Table C.2 Experimental ductile beam-column joint database .........................................281
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Damage progression before and after the Kocaeli aftershock ............................2
Figure 1.2 Building damage after the Emilia earthquake ....................................................3
Figure 1.3 Research project overview .................................................................................5
Figure 2.1 Column shear models employing the MCFT ...................................................23
Figure 2.2 Limit state material used to model shear failure ..............................................25
Figure 2.3 Analytical model developed by LeBorgne .......................................................26
Figure 2.4 Existing beam-column joint models .................................................................35
Figure 3.1 Reinforcing details of non-ductile and ductile RC frames ...............................41
Figure 3.2 Potential failure modes in non-ductile RC frames ...........................................41
Figure 3.3 Analytical flexure models of columns and beams ............................................42
Figure 3.4 Effective stiffness determination ......................................................................44
Figure 3.5 Comparison between experimental and analytical force-drift hysteresis loops
for flexure-critical columns ...............................................................................45
Figure 3.6 Modeling flexure-shear-critical column ...........................................................47
Figure 3.7 Comparison between experimental and analytical force-drift hysteresis loops
for flexure-shear-critical columns ......................................................................52
Figure 3.8 Typical reinforcing details in non-ductile beam-column joints .......................54
Figure 3.9 Analytical model of a beam-column joint subassemblage ...............................54
Figure 3.10 Proposed backbone curve of joint shear stress-strain relationship .................55
Figure 3.11 Structural geometry and force equilibrium around a joint .............................56
Figure 3.12 Constitutive model proposed by Lowes and Altoontash ................................57
Figure 3.13 Backbone curve of joint shear failure model and bond failure model ...........58
Figure 3.14 Equilibrium for bond failure model ................................................................59
xiii
Figure 3.15 Comparison of experimental and predicted joint shear strength ....................60
Figure 3.16 Comparison between hysteretic responses of experiment and analysis for
non-ductile exterior joints with joint shear failure.............................................64
non-ductile exterior joints with joint bond failure .............................................65
non-ductile interior joints ..............................................................................66
Figure 3.19 Geometry and reinforcement details of the structure .....................................69
Figure 3.20 Input motion (1952 Taft earthquake scaled to 0.2g) .....................................70
Figure 3.21 Comparison of floor displacement time histories of experiment and analysis
.......................................................................................................................72
Figure 3.22 Comparison of story shear force time histories of experiment and analysis ..73
Figure 3.23 Typical reinforcing details in ductile beam-column joints .............................74
ductile exterior joints .........................................................................................77
ductile interior joints ..........................................................................................78
Figure 4.1 Ratio of gravity to lateral tributary areas for a space and perimeter frame
systems ...............................................................................................................84
Figure 4.2 MCE ground motion spectrum at the Los Angeles site ....................................86
Figure 4.3 Design information of 4-story non-ductile space frame (OMF-4S) ................88
Figure 4.4 Design information of 4-story ductile perimeter frame (SMF-4P) .................89
Figure 4.5 Overall analytical frame model ........................................................................94
Figure 4.6 Experimental joint shear strength vs. predictor variables for non-ductile joints
...........................................................................................................................99
Figure 4.7 Comparison of experimental and predicted joint shear strength for non-ductile
joints.................................................................................................................101
Figure 4.8 Diagnostic residual plots for non-ductile joint database ................................103
Figure 4.9 Experimental joint shear strength vs. predictor variables for ductile joints ...105
xiv
Figure 4.10 Comparison of experimental and predicted joint shear strength for ductile
joints.................................................................................................................108
Figure 4.11 Diagnostic residual plots for ductile joint database ......................................109
Figure 4.12 Pushover analysis results for non-ductile 4-story space frame (OMF-4S)...115
Figure 4.13 Pushover analysis results for ductile 8-story perimeter frame (SMF-8P) ....116
Figure 4.14 Ground motion used for illustration of seismic responses ...........................117
Figure 4.15 Comparison of interstory drift time histories for OMF-4S frame ................118
Figure 4.16 Column shear force-story drift hysteresis in the first story for OMF-4S frame
.........................................................................................................................120
Figure 4.17 Overall, shear, and flexure responses in the first story for OMF-4S-CS model
.........................................................................................................................121
Figure 4.18 Joint rotational moment-rotation relationship in the second floor for OMF-4S
frame ................................................................................................................123
Figure 4.19 Comparison of interstory drift time histories for SMF-8P frame .................125
Figure 4.20 Column shear force-story drift hysteresis in the second story for SMF-8P
frame ................................................................................................................126
Figure 4.21 Joint rotational moment-rotation relationship in the second floor for SMF-8P-
JS model ...........................................................................................................127
Figure 5.1 Graphical representation of aftershock fragility framework ..........................130
Figure 5.2 Response spectra for each set in the Baker suite ............................................137
Figure 5.3 Classical PSDMs for IMs: PGA and PGV .....................................................141
Figure 5.4 Sufficiency of PGV with respect to magnitude and distance .........................141
Figure 5.5 Probability density function (PDF) of PGV ...................................................143
Figure 5.6 Damage progression of flexure-dominated columns ......................................145
Figure 5.7 Damage progression of shear-dominated columns.........................................147
Figure 5.8 Damaging earthquakes (IDA).........................................................................152
Figure 5.9 Damaging earthquakes (CPO) ........................................................................153
xv
Figure 5.10 Mainshock-aftershock sequences with various mainshocks corresponding to
IDSs .................................................................................................................155
Figure 5.11 Aftershock responses accounting for the polarity of an aftershock ground
motion ..............................................................................................................155
Figure 5.12 Probabilistic aftershock demand model (PADM) ........................................157
Figure 5.13 Illustrations of aftershock fragility curves ....................................................160
Figure 5.14 Inappropriate PADMs and crossover fragility .............................................161
Figure 5.15 Illustrations of aftershock fragility curves with a bilinear PADM model ....163
Figure 5.16 A suite of aftershock ground motions ..........................................................164
Figure 5.17 Illustrations of appropriate PADMs and aftershock fragility curves

.........................................................................................................................164
Figure 6.1 PADMs for undamaged OMF-4P frame with column shear ..........................168
Figure 6.2 PADMs with different IDSs for analytical frame models of OMF-4S frame 172
Figure 6.3 PADMs with different IDSs for analytical frame models of OMF-8S frame 174
Figure 6.4 PADMs with different IDSs for OMF-4P and OMF-8P frames (joint shear)
.........................................................................................................................175
Figure 6.5 PADMs with different IDSs for analytical frame models of SMF-4P frame .177
Figure 6.6 PADMs with different IDSs for analytical frame models of SMF-8P frame .178
Figure 6.7 Illustration of relative change in median values .............................................179
Figure 6.8 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for OMF-4S-JS model ........183
Figure 6.9 Median values of aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for OMF-4S
frame ................................................................................................................184
Figure 6.10 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for SMF-8P-JS model .......186
Figure 6.11 Median values of aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for SMF-8P
frame ................................................................................................................187
Figure 6.12 Median values of aftershock fragility curves with different modeling
characteristics for OMF-4S frame ...................................................................190
characteristics for OMF-8S frame ...................................................................193
xvi
characteristics for SMF-4P frame ....................................................................195
characteristics for SMF-8P frame ....................................................................197
Figure 6.16 Comparison of median values for RC frames with joint shear ....................199
Figure 6.17 Comparison of median values for RC frames with joint shear ....................201
Figure 6.18 Comparison of median values for RC frames with joint rigid offset model ......
.........................................................................................................................202
Figure 6.19 Imposed roof drift history and associated base shear-roof drift hysteresis ........
.........................................................................................................................204
Figure 6.20 Comparison of aftershock fragility curves using IDA and CPO approaches
.........................................................................................................................205
Figure 6.21 Comparison of median values with different IDSs using IDA and CPO
approaches .......................................................................................................205
Figure 6.22 Joint shear models with different degrading behaviors ................................206
Figure 6.23 Aftershock fragility curves for joint shear models with different degrading
behavior ...........................................................................................................207
Figure A.1 Comparison between experimental and analytical force-drift hysteresis loops
for flexure-shear-critical columns ....................................................................219
Figure A.2 Comparison between hysteretic responses of experiment and analysis for non-
ductile exterior joints with joint shear failure ..................................................227
ductile exterior joints with joint bond failure ..................................................231
ductile interior joints ........................................................................................233
Figure A.5 Comparison between hysteretic responses of experiment and analysis for
ductile exterior joints .......................................................................................240
Figure A.6 Comparison between hysteretic responses of experiment and analysis for
ductile interior joints ........................................................................................249
Figure B.1 Design information of 4-story ductile perimeter frame (SMF-4P) ...............266
Figure B.2 Design information of 8-story ductile perimeter frame (SMF-8P) ...............267
xvii
Figure B.3 Design information of 4-story non-ductile space frame (OMF-4S) .............268
Figure B.4 Design information of 4-story non-ductile perimeter frame (OMF-4P) .......268
Figure B.5 Design information of 8-story non-ductile space frame (OMF-8S) .............269
Figure B.6 Design information of 8-story non-ductile perimeter frame (OMF-8P) .......270
Figure D.1 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for OMF-4S-RO model .....298
Figure D.2 Median values of aftershock fragility curves for OMF-4S-RO model ..........298
Figure D.3 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for OMF-4S-JS model .......299
Figure D.4 Median values of aftershock fragility curves for OMF-4S-JS model ...........299
Figure D.5 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for OMF-4S-JB model .......300
Figure D.6 Median values of aftershock fragility curves for OMF-4S-JB model ...........300
Figure D.7 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for OMF-4S-CS model ......301
Figure D.8 Median values of aftershock fragility curves for OMF-4S-CS model ..........301
Figure D.9 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for OMF-4S-JCS model.....302
Figure D.10 Median values of aftershock fragility curves for OMF-4S-JCS model .......302
Figure D.11 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for OMF-8S-JS model .....303
Figure D.12 Median values of aftershock fragility curves for OMF-8S-JS model .........303
Figure D.13 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for OMF-8S-CS model ....304
Figure D.14 Median values of aftershock fragility curves for OMF-8S-CS model ........304
Figure D.15 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for OMF-8S-JCS model...305
Figure D.16 Median values of aftershock fragility curves for OMF-8S-JCS model .......305
Figure D.17 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for OMF-4P-JS model .....306
Figure D.18 Median values of aftershock fragility curves for OMF-4P-JS model .........306
Figure D.19 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for OMF-8P-JS model .....307
Figure D.20 Median values of aftershock fragility curves for OMF-8P-JS model .........307
Figure D.21 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for SMF-4P-RO model ....308
xviii
Figure D.22 Median values of aftershock fragility curves for SMF-4P-RO model ........308
Figure D.23 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for SMF-4P-JS model ......309
Figure D.24 Median values of aftershock fragility curves for SMF-4P-JS model ..........309
Figure D.25 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for SMF-8P-RO model ....310
Figure D.26 Median values of aftershock fragility curves for SMF-8P-RO model ........310
Figure D.27 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for SMF-8P-JS model ......311
Figure D.28 Median values of aftershock fragility curves for SMF-8P-JS model ..........311
xix
SUMMARY
Although the knowledge and technology of seismic analysis and seismic risk assessment
tools have rapidly advanced in the past several decades, current seismic design codes and
damage estimation methods ignore the effect of successive earthquakes on structures. In
light of recent strong seismic events, mainshock-damaged structures are shown to be
more vulnerable to severe damage and collapse during subsequent events. The increase in
vulnerability during aftershocks results in the likelihood of increased damage and loss-of-
life and property.
After a major earthquake, structural engineers must assess whether mainshock-
damaged buildings can be re-occupied or not, with due consideration to the threat of
aftershocks. The outcome of this post-earthquake inspection is utilized to quantifiably
judge the current status of structures (so-called building tagging). This tagging criterion
is closely related to the evaluation of the residual capacity of damaged buildings as well
as the computation of the probability of being in a damage state after an aftershock
(aftershock fragility). The increased vulnerability estimation associated with the
additional damage plays a significant role in assessing potential losses to facilitate crucial
decision making such as emergency response mobilization, inspection priority, recovery
strategy, and re-occupancy decision. The main objective of this research is to develop a
probabilistic framework for accounting for these increased vulnerabilities in terms of the
extent of damage associated with mainshock ground motions. Aftershock fragility curves
are developed accounting for both the uncertainty from the seismic hazard and the
uncertainty from the structural capacity. This proposed approach also allows for the
xx
inherent variability, such as modeling characteristics associated with the design codes,
present in non-ductile and ductile reinforced concrete frames found in California.
xxi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Problem Description and Motivation
damage estimation methods neglect the effect of multiple earthquakes on structures.
However, in light of recent strong seismic events (the 1994 Northridge earthquake, USA,
Hauksson and Jones 1995; the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake, Turkey, USGS 2000; the 2010
Haiti earthquake, DesRoches et al. 2011; the 2010 Darfield and 2011 Christchurch
earthquakes, New Zealand, Smyrou et al. 2011; the 1997 Umbria-Marche earthquake,
Italy, Decanni et al. 2000; the 2012 Emilia earthquake, Italy, Decanini et al. 2012), all of
which were followed by many aftershocks, damaged structures are shown to be more
vulnerable to severe damage and collapse. The increased vulnerability from aftershocks
significantly threatens the safety of occupants in these structures. In addition, a
mainshock-damaged structure may be incapable of resisting the excitation of a strong
aftershock, not only increasing the risk of major damage or building collapse but also
causing the additional loss of life and property. Moreover, because of this potential for
larger aftershock ground motions, even buildings that have suffered minimal damage
during the mainshock may have some likelihood of being damaged as a result of the
occurrence of an aftershock. Mainshock-damaged buildings are even more susceptible to
accumulated damage associated with aftershocks because their reduced structural
1
caapacity exaccerbates the threshold
t off the ground motion inteensity neededd to cause fuurther
damage (Yeo
o and Cornelll 2005).
USGS
S (2000) rep
ported that the
t 1999 K
Kocaeli earthhquake with a mainshocck of
moment
m magn
nitude (Mw) 7.4 on Augu
ust 17 had an aftershockk of Mw 5.9 oon Septembeer 13,
which
w is the largest mag
gnitude afterrshock at thaat time. This aftershockk killed 7 peeople,
in
njured at least 239 peoplle, and causeed dozens off buildings too collapse inn three citiess near
th
he epicenter.. Figure 1.1 shows a buiilding in Göölcük before and after it collapsed dduring
an
n Mw 5.9 aftershock
a on
o Septembeer 13. The building w
was slightly damaged byy the
mainshock
m (iinundation of the firstt story), annd was fullyy collapsedd by the sm
maller
afftershock. Another
A docu
umented exaample is the Mw 6.0 Emiilia, Italy earrthquake onn May
20 2012, whicch had two large

l aftersh
hocks of Mw greater thann 5.0 within 660 hours.
(a) After maainshock of Mw 7.4 (Aug

g. 17) (bb) After afteershock of Mw 5.9 (Sep. 13)
Figure 1.1
1 Damage progression
p beefore and afteer the Kocaelii aftershock (U
USGS 2000)
Decan
nini et al. (2012)
( havee reported tthat the daamage of thhe Town haall in
Sant’Agostino observed on the afternoon of M

May 21 is m
more pronounnced than m
media
2
reeports; thus, the 20th aftternoon afterrshock has iincreased the collapse. F
Figure 1.2 sshows
th
he Town halll damaged by the afterrshock. The aftershock sequences ccaused 16 deeaths,
350 injuries, and approx

ximately 14,000 homel ess (reporteed on May 29) whereaas the
mainshock
m caaused seven deaths, 50 injuries, andd 4,500 hom
meless (reporrted on Mayy 21).
These
T historical evidencees again emp
phasize the ddirect impliccations of afftershocks oon the
in
ncreased vulnerability off buildings.
Figu
ure 1.2 Buildiing damage after the Emiliia earthquake (Decanin et aal. 2012)
Decan
nini et al. (2
2000) inform
med that the 1997 Umbriia-Marche eearthquake w
with a
mainshock
m off Mw 5.7 on
n September 26 with tw
wo large afterrshocks; thee second eveent of
Mw 6.0 took place appro

oximately nin
ne hours aftter the mainnshock and tthe third eveent of
Mw 5.7 occurrred on Octo

ober 14. Thee earthquakees appeared somewhat aanomalous inn that
th
he aftershock
k is equally
y strong and
d even strongger than thee first eventt. This sequeences
nces; the deaath toll approoximately stands at ten, some

caaused many considerable consequen
150 people were

w injured, the damag
ge was estim
mated at 3.5 billion dolllars, about 226000
houses (aboutt one third available

a in the
t area) weere unsafe, aand more thaan 1300 buildings
3
are collapsed or seriously damaged. These earthquake sequences alert people to the
potential occurrence of equally strong or even stronger aftershocks.
As alluded to earlier, in spite of increased interest in the damage accumulation
associated with multiple earthquakes (mainshock-aftershock sequences), most of current
seismic performance evaluation and seismic risk assessment tools deal with risk
associated with a mainshock event only. These classical tools disregard the additional
damage associated with aftershocks. This limitation is associated with large computation
burdens, lack of additional damage data through post-earthquake inspection associated
with aftershock events with low frequency but high consequence, and many parameters
that are related to the cumulative damage potential and make the analysis complicated
such as structural period elongation, aftershock ground motion intensities, and maximum
and residual structural responses following a mainshocks. Nevertheless, recent advances
in knowledge of analytical tool and enhancement of computer performance have
alleviated the above difficulties.
In order to overcome the existing limitations above in post-earthquake inspection,
performance evaluation, and risk assessment in an aftershock environment, a
collaborative research project has been conducted by faculty and graduate students at the
Georgia Institute of Technology and the University of Washington and funded by the
National Science Foundation (NSF). The overarching goal is to develop and validate an
automated framework for assessing the damage state and evaluate the seismic risk
assessment of reinforced concrete (RC) buildings. Very briefly, the project includes three
parts, as illustrated in Figure 1.3; machine-vision based structural element and damage
detection for rapid post-earthquake inspection (Zhu 2012, German 2013), damage
4
characterization associated with component (member) response based on the extensive
investigation of available experimental data in the literature (Bearman 2012), and the
development of aftershock fragility assessment framework for building systems (this
research). Adjacent research parts are interconnected in order to establish a link between
observed damage state and member performance state and to link the member response
corresponding to drift ratio and initial damage state as a result of mainshocks for
generating characterized aftershock fragility curves. As the last portion of this project,
this research will propose the framework for the aftershock vulnerability assessment of
RC buildings by utilizing the results obtained from the preceding work.
Machine-Vision Damage Detection RC Column Experiment Aftershock Fragility Assessment

On-site video frames Column recognition RC experimental data Component vs. system vulnerability
Camera
Damage element
RC column response
Fragility curves ATC-20 tagging
90
Column shear (kips)
Unit 1 of Tanaka 1 GREEN Tag:

Damage detection 60 and Park (1990) 0.9 Safe for Entry
0.8 Earthquake has not significantly
DS
30 0.7 0 affected the safety of the building
P[LS|Sa-T1 , DSi ]
0.6 DS1
YELLOW Tag:
0 0.5 DS
2 Requires Further Inspection
0.4 Poses some risk from damage but
DS3
-30 0.3 not imminent threat to life-safety
DS
-60 Experiment 0.2 4
RED Tag:
0.1 DS5
Simulation 0 Unsafe
-90 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Posing an imminent threat
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 Sa-T1 (g) to life-safety
Drift (%)
Figure 1.3 Research project overview
After a major earthquake, structural engineers must assess whether mainshock-
damaged buildings can be re-occupied or not, with due consideration to the threat of
aftershocks. The outcome of this post-earthquake inspection is utilized to quantifiably
5
judge the current status of structures (so-called building tagging). This building tagging
criterion is closely related to the evaluation of the residual capacity of damaged buildings
(but survived) as well as the computation of the probability of being in a damage state
after an aftershock (aftershock fragility). The aftershock fragility, the most common
emerging tool in seismic risk assessment, is specifically a conditional probability that
determines the likelihood that a damaged structure will meet or exceed a specified level
of damage (limit state), given an aftershock intensity measure and a mainshock-damaged
condition, with the aftershock ground motions hazard at the site of interest. As proved in
mainshock fragility curves by Ranf et al. (2007), employing these aftershock fragility
curves to help streamline reconnaissance efforts can effectively reduce the duration of the
functional assessment stage of recovery. Furthermore, the outcome of these aftershock
fragility curves plays a significant role in assessing potential losses to facilitate crucial
decision making such as emergency response mobilization, inspection priority, and re-
occupancy decision. Moreover, in the case of the successive occurrences of multiple
earthquakes in a short time period, the repair time is not enough to assess the residual
capacity of structures by a post-earthquake reconnaissance team.
As shown, aftershock fragility curves can serve many important roles. However,
if they are to be effectively used in the activities, it is imperative that reliable aftershock
fragility curves are available. Structural engineers or other decision makers must have
confidence in the results before they will use it. After all, this research aims at developing
the aftershock fragility curves for non-ductile and ductile RC frames typical to California,
the highest seismic region in the United States. The aftershock fragility curves are
generated using detailed analytical frame models and back-to-back nonlinear time history
6
analyses. Additionally, the procedure should simulate the extent of existing damage
linked with post-earthquake inspection or experimental data to investigate the damage
accumulation and associated increased vulnerability of the structures due to aftershock
events.
1.2 Research Objective
The importance of aftershock consideration for conducting probabilistic seismic risk
assessment is identified in the previous section. The ultimate objective of this research is
to develop a framework for the aftershock fragility assessment of typical RC building
frames that can estimate their increased vulnerabilities related to aftershocks and the
associated economic loss and repair cost. Prior to computing the aftershock fragility
relation, the visible damage estimation of softened structures after mainshocks must be
conducted to link these damage states with engineering demand parameters on the basis
of damage progression observed in existing experimental column tests. Accordingly,
these identified member-level damage information is employed in order to characterize
initial damage states associated with mainshocks employed in the aftershock fragility
assessment framework. The specific activities that will be completed as part of this
research are as follows:
1. Identify the most common RC building types in compliance with older and
modern design codes in California.
2. Develop the analytical modeling technique for RC components which can capture
potential failure modes. The accurate and detailed analytical models enable
7
reliable probabilistic assessment that can identify the structural response and
damage progression with visual damage descriptions.
3. Simulate damaging earthquakes (mainshocks) that can represent the damage
conditions of the frames. The different drift levels associated with the seismic
response of RC members are utilized to generate mainshock ground motions by
which the members experience the damage conditions corresponding to these
drifts.
4. Perform mainshock-aftershock analyses for each mainshock-aftershock-frame
pair to monitor the engineering demand parameter: incremental dynamic
analysis–nonlinear time history analysis and cyclic nonlinear pushover analysis–
nonlinear time history analysis. For aftershock analyses, the NTHA approach is
employed to account for realistic ground motions that may happen at site of
interest.
5. Develop and compare probabilistic aftershock demand models and aftershock
fragility curves with different initial damage states. The analytical results can
quantitatively and efficiently estimate the increased vulnerability of damaged
frames.
1.3 Dissertation Outline
The dissertation is organized into seven chapters with the following contents:
Chapter 2 summarizes existing research on mainshock-aftershock responses of
structures, classical and aftershock fragility curves, and analytical modeling techniques.
8
Chapter 3 describes extensive details about the modeling strategies for critical
components of RC building frames such as flexure and shear behavior of columns and
ductile and non-ductile beam-column joints. Model validations are performed for
experimental data available in literature.
Chapter 4 provides building design information and associated analytical frame
model. The deterministic responses are presented to provide insight into the response of
frame components.
Chapter 5 lays out the framework for the generation of aftershock fragility curves
for RC building frames. Details are provided regarding the multi-phase framework:
construction of stochastic frame models accounting for material uncertainties, selection
of mainshock and aftershock ground motion suites, characterization of initial damage
states, formulation of probabilistic aftershock demand models, definition of capacity
model, and computation of aftershock fragility function.
Chapter 6 presents the applicability of the proposed framework described in
Chapter 5 to different building types and analytical frame model models. For each
analytical frame model, aftershock fragility curves are compared for different mainshock-
damaged conditions associated with initial damage states. Subsequently, the aftershock
fragility curves are compared for various analytical frame models and building types.
Chapter 7 presents the conclusions from the present research, along with
providing impacts of the work and suggestions for future research.
9
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF THE STATE OF THE ART
This chapter summarizes and critically appraises the impact of aftershocks on structures,
previous studies in the development of aftershock fragilities of structures, and the
primary concept and analytical techniques of typical (mainshock) fragility functions and
analytical modeling techniques that are prerequisite conditions for computing the fragility
curves for aftershocks.
2.1 Significance of Aftershocks
In spite of increased interest in the effect of multiple earthquakes (mainshock-aftershock
sequences), very few studies have investigated the seismic performance of structures
under multiple earthquakes. The subsequent paragraphs present a review of some studies
addressing incremental damage on structures as a result of aftershock ground motions.
A pioneering analytical study of nonlinear single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF)
systems under repeated ground motions was conducted by Mahin (1980). To assess the
effect of the accumulation of damage, the author performed mainshock-aftershock
analyses for elasto-perfectly plastic SDOF models using the 1972 Managua earthquake,
which had two large aftershocks. The mainshock with the peak ground acceleration (PGA)
of 0.351g induced significant inelastic deformations in the system. The first aftershock
(PGA = 0.120g) had relatively little effect while the second aftershock (PGA = 0.277g)
caused large inelastic deformations, more than doubling displacement ductility. Similarly,
energy dissipations were increased. The author proved that aftershocks can substantially
10
increase structural damage and the accumulation of damage led to collapse during
aftershocks.
Aschheim and Black (1999) proposed the hysteretic pinching model of SDOF
oscillators for concrete and masonry wall buildings to assess the effect of prior
earthquake damage on their peak displacement responses. Their work was conducted as a
part of the ATC-43 project of the Applied Technology Council. The SDOF model
accounted for the strength of the oscillator, period of vibration, and extent of prior
damage. The ground motions used in the study were 18 pairs of repeated ground motions
containing varied frequency content, duration, and the presence or absence of near-field
forward directivity effects. However, their work is limited because prior damage was
represented as only a reduction in initial stiffness under the assumption that residual
displacements are negligible. This assumption may underestimate overall deformations in
real situations, especially for weakened structures due to strong mainshocks.
Amadio et al. (2003) investigated the dependence of damage accumulation
associated with repeated seismic actions. Their work was motivated by the considerable
damage to historical architecture caused by the 1997 Umbria-Marche earthquake in Italy
(Decanini et al. 2000). The authors analyzed a series of SDOF systems with different
hysteretic models and a multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) system for a 3-story, 2-bay
steel moment-resisting frame subjected to repeated ground motions. Their analytical
results indicated that multiple earthquakes can imply a considerable accumulation of
damage and a significant reduction in the q-factor which accounts for the inelastic energy
dissipation of the structure. However, as the authors themselves acknowledged, their
11
work cannot be examined exhaustively since they accounted for only one natural and two
artificial ground motions.
Lee and Foutch (2000) proposed a systematic evaluation approach that allows the
design professional to estimate the performance of damaged SMRFs subjected to sets of
Los Angeles (LA) ground motions (developed as a part of the SAC project) representing
different hazard levels. The authors utilized back-to-back identical accelerograms for
mainshock-aftershock analysis to compute the confidence level that a building will meet
the given performance. This identical mainshock-aftershock event, however, is highly
unlikely to happen. To alleviate the conservative occurrence, Li and Ellingwood (2007)
employed the approach of Sunasaka and Kiremidjian (1993) to generate aftershock
ground motion ensembles that might lead to additional damage by scaling a set of LA
ground motions by a factor obtained from the aftershock hazard near Eureka, California.
The authors considered two cases for assembling mainshock-aftershock sequences:
identical and randomized mainshock-aftershock sequences. For both cases, aftershock
ensembles were scaled. Their study indicated that the former case leads to larger peak
story drift demand in MDOF systems as compared to the latter case. This finding may be
attributed to the same frequency contents of mainshock and aftershock earthquakes.
Hazigiorgiou and Liolios (2010) performed an extensive parametric study on the
inelastic behavior of eight low- and mid-rise RC planar frames under 45 strong repeated
ground motions consisting of five real and 40 artificial sequences. The authors indicated
that multiple earthquakes gave rise to an increased displacement demand associated with
a significant damage accumulation, and they claimed that traditional seismic design
procedures should be reevaluated. Faisal et al. (2013) subsequently examined the
12
influence of repeated earthquakes on the maximum story ductility demands of three-
dimensional RC frames. After selecting 20 far-field ground motions, the authors
assembled single, double, and triple events as input ground motions. Double and triple
events increased 1.4 and 1.3 times maximum story ductility demand when compared to
single events.
Ruiz-García and Negrete-Manriquez (2011) evaluated the impact of 14 as-
recorded mainshock-aftershock sequences (far-field and near-fault) on peak and residual
drift demands in three steel moment-resisting frames. The authors found that the
frequency characteristics of the mainshock-aftershock sequences, such as the
predominant period of ground motion and the bandwidth, are weakly correlated through
statistical observation. Additionally, the authors demonstrated that the effect of
aftershocks during performance-based assessment of existing structures should be
accounted for using as-recorded mainshock-aftershock sequences instead of artificial
sequences. However, the lack of as-recorded sequences that can lead to initial and
additional damage may have a limitation in performing the probabilistic seismic risk
assessment of structures through numerous analyses.
The studies reviewed above have demonstrated that mainshock-aftershock
sequences can increase maximum and permanent deformation demands on structures.
This result can be deduced from using sufficiently larger aftershock ground motions that
can cause additional damage on structures. Additionally, due to the lack of as-recorded
successive earthquakes inducing damage accumulation, artificial mainshock-aftershock
sequences randomly paired have been widely used for the evaluation of residual capacity
and increased demand of damaged structures.
13
2.2 Existing Mainshock and Aftershock Fragility Assessment
This section provides the extension of mainshock (classical) fragility formulation into
aftershock fragility through an in-depth review of seismic risk assessment framework for
mainshocks.
2.2.1 Review of fragility assessment for mainshock
The seismic risk assessment framework developed for mainshocks can be expressed by
the total probability theorem (Ellingwood et al. 2007), as presented in equation (2.1):
P[Loss > c ] = (2.1)
∑∑∑ P[Loss > c | DS = ds ]P[DS = ds | LS ]P[LS | IM = im]P[IM = im]

im LS ds
where IM denotes the intensity measure of earthquake ground motions, im is the
realization of the intensity measure, P[LS|IM = im] is the probability of reaching a
structural limit state (LS) conditioned on a given level of IM = im, P[DS = ds|LS] is the
probability of damage state (DS) conditioned on limit state (LS), and P[Loss > c|DS = ds]
is the probability that the loss exceeds c conditioned on a given level of DS = ds.
As shown in equation (2.1), loss assessment requires an integrated approach for
dealing with seismic hazard (P[IM = im]), structural response (P[LS|IM = im]), the
relation between structural response and damage (P[DS = ds|LS]), and the link between
damage and economic loss (P[Loss > c|DS = ds]). The term P[LS|IM = im] is referred to
as the fragility, which is the conditional probability of reaching a structural limit state LS,
which may range from loss of function to incipient collapse, given the occurrence of a
particular level of intensity im. Such a margin can be utilized to evaluate structural
14
deficiencies identified during an inspection or condition assessment and can provide a
measure to assess if the observed deficiencies might be expected to affect the system risk
significantly (Wen et al. 2004).
Seismic vulnerability assessment procedures can be classified into three
approaches based on post-earthquake surveys, expert opinion (ATC 1985), and analytical
simulations. The observation-based procedures (Gulkan and Sozen 1999, Yucemen et al.,
2004, Rossetto and Elnashai 2003, Shinozuka et al., 2000) can incorporate the damage
data collected in historic events into fragility functions. However, these empirical
fragilities have some limitations such as the lack of sufficient damage data, discrepancies
in the damage assessments following a seismic event, variation in the ground motion
intensities at the damage sites dependent on the earthquake source. The ATC-13 report
(ATC 1985) introduced the expert opinion to develop fragility curves for civil
infrastructure subjected to seismic demand to alleviate the limited observational data
from the San Fernando earthquake. However, the reliability of the fragilities is
questionable in that the fragilities are subjective and the associated degree of
conservatism is unknown (Rossetto and Elnashai 2003). Due to the drawbacks of
observation- and expert-based approaches, recent approaches have relied on analytical
simulations through which the relation between structural responses and ground motion
intensities is established.
When performing the simulation-based fragility assessment, the widely used
analytical techniques are nonlinear time history analysis (NTHA) (Celik and Ellingwood
2008, Jeong et al. 2012, Singhal and Kiremidjian 1996, Mosalam et al. 1997, Kwon and
Elnashai 2006) and incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) (Kirçil and Polat 2006, Haselton
15
et al. 2011, Liel et al. 2011, Barkhordary and Tariverdilo 2011) developed by
Vamvatsikos and Cornell (2002). Both approaches are more reliable yet computationally
intensive techniques than nonlinear static pushover (NSP) approach. Although the
fragility approaches by the researchers differed slightly, the fundamental concepts were
the same.
NTHA provides the flexibility to account for analytical models with hysteretic
material characteristics and geometric nonlinearities and requires numerous ground
motions with various levels of their intensities to establish a relationship between the
intensities and their associated seismic responses. The method is referred to as a cloud
approach (Baker and Cornell 2006) that enables probabilistic seismic demand analysis
(PSDA). This method has a great advantage of being compatible with a closed form
solution and it can reduce the computational expense of the estimation compared to
NTHA. However, it includes the pre-assumption about the probability distribution of the
demand model.
On the other hand, IDA is a promising analysis technique that provides
comprehensive seismic design and capacity prediction capability through a series of
NTHAs under a multiply scaled suite of ground motions. Unlike NTLHA, IDA can be
referred to as a stripe approach (Baker and Cornell 2006) where ground motions are
incrementally scaled and analysis is performed at different hazard levels. The stripe
approach can offer the transition of the structural response from elastic to inelastic
behavior, finally leading to global dynamic instability and the accurate and reliable
estimates of the global collapse capacity of the structure. However, this approach requires
more structural analyses than the cloud approach (NTHA) where the responses are
16
demanded at different levels of intensities. Additionally, the assumption about scaling
ground motions, namely no change in the frequency content of ground motions, can
produce unrealistic ground motion records that may not be representative of the seismic
hazard in the region.
Because the extensive investigation on the development of fragility curves for
mainshocks is beyond the scope of this research, this section addressed only the primary
concept of the fragility function and analytical techniques which will be employed in the
generation of fragility curves for aftershocks.
2.2.2 Existing fragility assessment for aftershock
Although seismic fragility assessment for mainshocks has been fully developed by
researchers, studies on probabilistic seismic risk assessment of structures subjected to
multiple earthquakes are as yet scarce. These limited studies (Li and Ellingwood 2007,
Bazzuro et al. 2006, Maffaei et al. 2008, Luco et al. 2004, Ryu et al. 2011, Uma et al.
2011) were performed using the formulation of fragility functions for mainshocks and
analysis techniques mentioned in the previous section. A few studies on the probabilistic
risk assessments for aftershocks are reviewed below.
Li and Ellingwood (2007) developed a demand model accounting for the seismic
responses of a SMRF building during aftershocks with different aftershock magnitudes
and performed the comparison of the demand models with different ground motion suites:
mainshocks, replicated mainshock-aftershock sequences, and randomly paired
mainshock-aftershock sequences. The authors indicated that the amplitude and frequency
content of the aftershocks have a significant impact on the structural damage patterns
17
through the comparison of replication and randomization cases in that, under the
randomization case, the damage pattern changed as a result of the aftershocks unlike the
replication case. Additionally, the authors found the probability for which the aftershock
causes large additional damage is small if the initial damage by the mainshock is small.
However, the probability of reaching a damage state was computed using a suite of
aftershock ground motions developed with different aftershock magnitudes regardless of
the extent of damage developed by the mainshock.
Bazzurro et al. (2006) proposed a parameterized pushover load analysis approach
to develop the aftershock fragility curves of steel frames for capacity limit states ranging
from the onset of damage to building collapse directly related to post-earthquake building
occupancy status called tagging. The output of this method can be derived using an initial
NSP for a mainshock and the later subsequent NSPs for aftershocks. This method
exploited the knowledge of the nonlinear static behavior of a specific building under
incremental lateral loads to estimate its nonlinear dynamic response expected for
different levels of ground motion intensities. The authors entered the NSP curve for each
damage state into the SPO2IDA tool (Vamvatsikos and Cornell 2006) for inferring
dynamic response and then developed aftershock collapse fragility curves for identifying
the building condition after earthquakes. Maffei et al. (2008) subsequently identified
potential difficulties that structural engineers would encounter in using the procedure
described in the work of Bazzurro et al. (2006). This method is much less
computationally intensive, and thus provides the structural engineers with the rapid
assessment of building vulnerability to collapse. However, this method did not account
for the effect of cyclical degradation (stiffness and strength degradation), which may
18
increase the seismic demand, in that NSP are performed up to a roof drift associated with
a damage state, and then followed by unloading to zero base shear.
Following the previous studies, Luco et al. (2004) computed the residual capacity
of a mainshock-damaged structure to compare static and dynamic analysis techniques.
They found that the static analysis approach (Bazzuro et al. 2006) underestimated the
median residual capacity compared to the dynamic analysis technique (back-to-back
NTHAs for randomized mainshock-aftershock sequences) for the structure severely
damaged after a mainshock, which experienced large inelastic deformation associated
with the degradation in strength and stiffness. Based on the results of the back-to-back
dynamic analyses, the authors proposed a calibrated static approach to determine the
reliable residual capacity of the damaged building. However, the calibration cannot be
performed without the results of back-to-back NTHAs. Therefore, a more refined static
approach without additional efforts is needed.
More recently, Ryu et al. (2011) proposed a methodology for developing collapse
fragilities for mainshock-damaged buildings. For this purpose, a sequence of IDAs for
mainshock and aftershock ground motions was utilized to establish the collapse fragility
functions for a SDOF system representing a typical New Zealand 5-story RC moment
frame building. The mainshock-damaged condition of the SDOF system was realized
using IDA. The proposed approach can include uncertainty in mainshock responses for a
given post-mainshock damage state and uncertainty in limit states, and it helps structural
engineers to assess whether a damaged building can continue to be occupied after a
mainshock. As a companion study of Ryu et al. (2011), Uma et al. (2011) compared
aftershock fragility curves of New Zealand and US RC buildings employing the approach
19
of Ryu et al. (2011). For this purpose, SDOF systems including the effect of cyclic
deterioration were considered, and a set of damage state thresholds are employed under
the assumption of lognormal distribution of the fragility curves. More recently,
Raghunandan et al. (2012) computed the damage transition probabilities from a specific
damage state in a first event to the damage state in a second event along with the
aftershock fragility function of a SDOF system for a New Zealand RC building by using
the relation obtained from Ryu et al. (2011). However, these SDOF models will not yield
accurate results, and this approximation suffers from the inability to capture damage
localized in different components of a structure, primarily the joints and columns.
For the generation of the aftershock fragility functions of buildings, the recent
studies (Luco et al. 2004, Ryu et al. 2012, Uma et al. 2011) employed the stripe approach
(IDA) to compute the fragility curves with initial damage states associated with
mainshocks while Li and Ellingwood (2007) utilized the cloud method (NTHA) to
develop the curves with a magnitude of aftershock ground motions. This research will
utilize the cloud approach for aftershock analyses, which can involve realistic ground
motions and can readily draw the probability of being in a damage state from the closed
form, along with the consideration of existing damage conditions induced by mainshocks.
2.3 Modeling Critical Components in RC Frames
2.3.1 Shear-dominated column model
RC columns designed or constructed prior to 1970’s are highly prevalent in the United
States and around the world. Flexure-dominated columns experience comparable inelastic
large deformations, retain shear and axial load capacities large deformations, and fail
20
during large lateral loads by rebar fracture and buckling, concrete crushing, and/or lateral
instability. However, shear-dominated columns fail in shear and exhibit dramatic strength
and stiffness degrading behavior until axial collapse occurs because of their inadequate
reinforcement details. Once this shear failure is triggered before or after flexural yielding,
their shear and deformation capacities are gradually lost. Existing column’s shear failure
models are presented with commentary on their advantages and disadvantages.
Early attempts to describe the shear failure model of columns are found in the
work of Otani and Sozen (1972), Spacone et al. (1996), Zeris and Mahin (1991). To
capture the occurrence of shear failure, they modified nonlinear flexure elements such
lumped plasticity or fiber section elements through a post-processing without explicitly
accounting for shear behavior. Although the post-processing can capture the detection of
column’s shear failure, it cannot estimate appropriate inelastic shear deformations and
degrading behavior.
Continuum finite elements have been developed to capture the degrading behavior
after shear failure (Kaneko et al. 2001, Ozbolt et al. 2001, Shing and Spencer 2001).
Although these models can accurately address shear deformations in frame, they require
significant computation effort for modeling larger structures under seismic excitations.
Alternatively, the most popular technique for simulating the shear response of
existing columns is the addition of a shear spring in series with flexure elements
(Pincheira et al. 1999, Lee and Elnashai 2001, Sezen and Chowdhury 2009), as shown in
Figure 2.1. The above researchers employed the modified compression field theory
(Vecchio and Collins 1986, hereafter MCFT) to define the backbone curve of the shear
spring. To incorporate nonlinear behavior in shear, Pincheira et al. (1999) added a zero-
21
length shear spring that can account for the strength and stiffness degradation with
increasing deformation amplitude. Although their model yielded satisfactory results and
properly includes the effects of strength decay, they used a small fictitious positive
stiffness on the descending branch of the backbone to circumvent the convergence issue
within the existing solution algorithm, resulting in a force unbalance at each increment
whenever strength degradation occurs. Additionally, the procedure can be very
computationally intensive and may not predict the dynamic characteristics of a softening
structure. Lee and Elnashai (2001) also utilized the MCFT to establish the backbone
curve of a spring and developed hysteretic rules including the variation of column axial
loads. Although their shear model can capture the hysteretic response of columns with a
relatively flat yield plateau, it did not address the post-peak degrading slope of the
backbone curve. Sezen and Chowdhury (2009) developed the hysteretic model including
the flexure-shear-axial interaction based on the backbone curve obtained from the MCFT,
and also employed the bond-slip model developed by Sezen and Moehle (2003).
Although their model provided reasonable strength degrading behavior, the overall
response was not predicted well in many cycles mainly because the sum of experimental
component displacements did not match the total experimental displacement.
Furthermore, the MCFT only predicts the backbone curve of shear model up to the point
of maximum strength, and therefore requires additional assumptions for defining the
shear strength degradation.
22
Elastic subelement Rotational spring Cubic elastoplastic element
i j
Shear spring Joint element incorporating
L the new curve type
for hysteretic shear modeling
(a) Pincheira et al. (1999) (b) Lee and Elnashai et al. (2001)
Flexural spring
Zero-length slip
V
rotation spring
Zero-length slip
spring spring
(c) Sezen and Chowdury (2009)
Figure 2.1 Column shear models employing the MCFT
A few shear strength models (Watanabe and Ichinose 1992, Aschheim and
Moehle 1992, Sezen 2002) are useful for estimating the column shear strength as a
function of deformations. However, they do not provide a reliable estimate of the drift
capacity at shear failure (Elwood and Moehle 2005). Current design philosophy (ATC
1996 and ASCE 2000) reported that drift capacity models are an essential contributor for
displacement-based design for existing building structures. A limited number of drift
capacity models are reviewed for columns experiencing flexural yielding prior to shear
failure. Pujol et al. (1999) proposed a drift capacity model for shear-dominated columns,
which established a conservative estimate of the maximum drift ratio through the
statistical evaluation of an experimental database of 92 columns with both circular and
rectangular cross sections. However, the database includes columns with transverse
23
reinforcement ratios exceeding 0.01, which is used in ductile frames. To provide a better
estimate of drift capacity at shear failure, Elwood and Moehle (2005) proposed an
empirical drift capacity model by using a database of 50 flexure-shear-critical RC
columns with configurations representative of those used in pre-1970s building
construction.
Using the drift capacity model of Elwood and Moehle (2005), Elwood (2004)
developed a new material model (limit state material) that can identify a shear failure
associated with column shear and column’s total deformation. Figure 2.2 illustrates a
shear spring in series with a nonlinear beam-column element. Flexural deformation is
concentrated in the beam-column element, and shear deformation is delivered by the
shear spring. To define the constitutive relationship for the shear spring, the hysteretic
uniaxial material with strength degradation (called limit state material) was utilized
available in OpenSees (McKenna et al. 2010). The limit state material has a predefined
trilinear backbone curve and five parameters to define pinching and stiffness degradation.
The limit state material traces the behavior of the beam-column element and changes the
backbone of the material model to include strength degradation once the response of the
beam-column element exceeds a predefined limit state surface (limit curve). Analytical
predictions of a three-column frame show a good correlation with experimental results
from shake table tests by Elwood and Moehle (2003). However, a significant change in
the structure once a limit curve is reached enables the limit state material to be
particularly sensitive to any variability in the limit curve. Additionally, a limited number
of comparison studies with experimental results make it difficult to accurately model the
limit curve.
24
V
Shear limit curve
V
After failure is detected
θ2
Flexural and slip Kdeg
deformations from
beam-column element only
Vres
max(θ1,θ2) Before failure is detected Δshear
Flexure deformation behavior Force deformation behavior

θ1 for beam-column element for shear spring
Figure 2.2 Limit state material used to model shear failure (Elwood 2004)
LeBorgne (2012) extended the model of Elwood (2004) to estimate the lateral
strength degrading behavior of RC columns prone to shear failure. Figure 2.3 shows the
analytical model of flexure-shear-critical columns developed by LeBorgne (2012).
LeBorgne (2012) developed a rotation-based shear failure model while Elwood (2004)
proposed a drift-based shear failure model. The shear model triggers shear failure once
either a shear capacity or a plastic hinge rotation capacity is reached. The shear model
can account for cyclic shear damage up to complete loss of lateral strength and stiffness.
Once shear failure is detected, a zero-length shear spring with a trilinear backbone curve
linked in series with beam-column elements modifies its constitutive properties to
consider pinching and strength and stiffness degradation. The constitutive properties were
determined through linear regressions for pinching parameters extracted from
experimental data. The author compared analytical predictions and experimental results
for shear-dominated columns. Although the shear model offers very effective and
25
accurate results, the direct use of this shear model in the current version of OpenSees
(McKenna et al. 2010) is not possible and instead, two dynamic link libraries are required
to use the shear model (LeBorgne 2012). Furthermore, its applicability to full frames has
not been addressed for dynamic analysis, and dynamic instability remains questionable.
A review of previous research on the shear behavior of older columns indicates
that a reliable column shear failure model should be accurate, computationally efficient
and compatible with existing software programs in order to conduct numerous nonlinear
dynamic analyses. However, none of the column shear models reviewed above meets all
three of those requirements. Due to its computational efficiency and compatibility with
OpenSees (McKenna et al. 2010), the column shear model, developed by Elwood (2004),
will be used in this research.
Zero-length
Zero-length
bar slip
fiber-section
Plastic hinge
Shear spring
L/2
Flexural
fiber-section
L/2
Plastic hinge
Zero-length
Figure 2.3 Analytical model developed by LeBorgne (2012)
26
2.3.2 Beam-column joint model
A joint shear model that can account for the cyclic strength and stiffness deterioration is
critically important to this research. This section reviews existing joint shear strength
models and monotonic or hysteretic joint shear models.
2.3.2.1 Joint shear strength model
Hwang and Lee (1999, 2000) developed a softened strut-and-tie model to predict RC
joint shear strength for both interior and exterior beam-column joints. The softened strut-
and-tie model is based on the strut-and-tie concept and derived to satisfy equilibrium,
compatibility, and constitutive relationship for cracked reinforced concrete. Although the
analytical predictions for joint shear strength are well-correlated with experimental
results for 63 exterior and interior beam-column joints, the proposed approach became
more complicated by introducing these principles of mechanics in contrast to the
simplicity of the strut-tie-model. The database includes specimens with governing failure
modes of beam flexural failures, joint shear failures with and without beam yielding and
regardless of joint transverse reinforcement.
Attaalla (2004) suggested an analytical equation to estimate joint shear strength
for interior and exterior beam-column joints. The proposed equation reflects most
significant parameters that influence the joint behavior (such as axial forces in the beam
and column, horizontal and vertical joint reinforcement ratios, and geometry), and it
accounts for the compression-softening phenomenon associated with cracked reinforced
concrete. For the model validation, 69 exterior and 61 interior beam-column joints are
27
used, all of which are specimens experiencing joint shear failures with or without beam
yielding.
Shiohara (2004) proposed a mathematical model to determine the joint shear
strength of interior, exterior, and knee beam-column joints. The quadruple flexural
resistance within a joint panel played an important role in defining joint shear failures.
Joint shear strength was calculated from force equilibrium in four rigid segments within
the joint panel. However, the model validation based on experimental results was not
provided.
Park and Mosalam (2012b) proposed a strut-and-tie model to predict the joint
shear strength of exterior beam-column joints without transverse reinforcement which
experienced joint shear failures with and without beam yielding. The proposed joint shear
strength model accounted for joint aspect ratio and beam reinforcement ratio. Although
their model can predict the joint shear strength for non-ductile exterior and corner joints
well, their proposed formulation cannot be applied to interior or roof joints. In order to
overcome the limitation of the applicability to other joint types, Park and Mosalam (2013)
modified the joint shear strength model proposed by Park and Mosalam (2012) by
multiplying the formulation for exterior joints by the shear strength ratio, which is the
ratio of joint shear strength coefficient for other three types of joints (interior, roof, and
knee joints) to the exterior joint shear strength coefficient. Although analytical
predictions provide reasonable results through the comparison of those and experiments,
actual joint strength coefficient ratio based experimental observation is different.
Kim and LaFave (2009) proposed the statistical joint shear strength model by
using a Bayesian method based on 136 and 18 experimental beam-column
28
subassemblages with and without joint transverse reinforcement, respectively, which are
specimens experiencing joint shear failures. For ductile joints, they constructed the joint
shear strength model by performing a step-wise removal process to extract key
parameters among ten parameters (spacing ratio, ratio of recommended to provided
amount of joint transverse reinforcement, ratios of beam depth to column depth and beam
width to column width, joint transverse reinforcement index, beam reinforcement index,
joint eccentricity, in-plane and out-of-plane geometry, concrete compressive strength).
Additionally, for non-ductile joints (without joint transverse reinforcement), a
probabilistic joint strength model was established by modifying that for ductile joints
because none of the included parameters in the proposed equation for ductile cases
should be taken as zero. The ductile joint shear strength model provides reliable estimates
while the non-ductile joint shear strength model should be improved because of the
limited size of non-ductile joint in the database.
Hassan (2011) suggested an empirical bond strength model to evaluate the joint
shear strength for exterior and corner joints with the short embedment length of beam
bottom reinforcement. The bond strength equation includes axial load, beam bar diameter,
cover to bar diameter, cover to bar diameter ratio, and the presence of transverse beams
to improve existing bond strength models. Using the proposed equation and equilibrium,
the equivalent joint shear strength associated with bond failure was derived and compared
with 21 experimental results. The mean and coefficient of variation of the ratio of
experimental and calculated joint shear strength coefficient are 0.94 and 0.14,
respectively. The proposed equation is only applicable for the case of pullout failure
before rebar yielding.
29
2.3.2.2 Modeling joint shear behavior
Alath and Kunnath (1995) modeled the joint shear deformation with a rotational spring
model with degrading hysteresis. The joint panel was represented by introducing four
rigid links, as illustrated in Figure 2.4(a). The backbone curve of the joint shear stress-
strain relationship was determined empirically, while the cyclic response was captured
using a hysteretic model calibrated by experimental cyclic response. The model was
validated through the comparison of experimental and analytical response of a non-
ductile interior beam-column joint subassemblage.
Youssef and Ghobarah (2001) proposed a joint element in which two diagonal
translational springs linking the opposite corners of the panel zone simulate the joint
shear deformation, as shown in Figure 2.4(b). The backbone curve of the joint was
defined using the MCFT. To account for the effect of bar-slip within the joint and
concrete crushing at the joint perimeter, three translational springs at each joint face were
used. The analytical model was validated using the experimental results of ductile and
non-ductile exterior beam-column joints. The model requires a large number of
translational springs and a separate constitutive relationship for each spring, which may
not be available and restrict its applicability.
Lowes and Altoontash (2003) proposed a four-node 12-DOF joint element that
consists of eight zero-length bar slip springs, four interface shear springs, and a panel that
deforms only in shear, as illustrated in Figure 2.4(c). Because of limited research on the
bond-slip data of full-scale frames or beam-column joint subassemblages, back the
monotonic and cyclic response of the bar stress-slip relationship were developed from
experimental studies of anchorage-zone specimens and based on the assumption that
30
bond stress within the joint is constant or piecewise constant. To define the backbone
curve of the shear panel, the MCFT was utilized. The cyclic response of the panel zone
was modeled by a highly pinched hysteresis relationship, deduced from the experimental
results of Stevens et al. (1991). A relatively stiff elastic load-deformation response was
assumed for the interface-shear elements.
Mitra and Lowes (2007) subsequently evaluated the model developed earlier by
Lowes and Altoontash (2003) by comparing the simulated response with the
experimental response of beam-column joint subassemblages. The experimental data
used for the model validation included interior specimens with at least a minimal amount
of joint transverse reinforcement. Therefore, the model may not capture the hysteretic
response for joints with little or no joint transverse reinforcement. Mitra and Lowes (2007)
demonstrated that in joints with low amounts of transverse reinforcement, shear is
transferred primarily through a compression strut, a mechanism, which is stronger and
stiffer than predicted by the MCFT.
Altoontash (2004) simplified the model proposed by Lowes and Altoontash (2003)
by introducing a model consisting of four zero-length bar-slip rotational springs located
at beam- and column-joint interfaces and a zero-length joint rotational spring at an
internal node. Figure 2.4(d) represents an idealization of the model. The constitutive
relationship of the shear panel follows the model of Lowes and Altoontash (2003). To
alleviate the limitation of the MCTF for joints with no transverse reinforcement, the
calibration of constitutive parameters was still required. Altoontash (2004) modified the
beam or column fiber sections to represent the bar pull-out mechanisms based on the
assumption that the development length is adequate to prevent complete pullout.
31
However, this assumption is not necessarily true for joints with discontinuous beam
bottom reinforcement. The validation was performed for interior beam-column joint
subassemblages tested by Walker (2001) and a 0.7 scale two-story RC frame tested by
Tsai et al. (2001).
Figure 2.4(e) illustrates an idealization of the joint model developed by Shin and
LaFave (2004). The joint model consists of four rigid elements located along the edges of
the panel zone connected via hinges and three nonlinear rotational springs embedded in
one of the four hinges. These rotational springs are used to simulate the inelastic behavior
of joint core under shear loading. To describe the nonlinear response associated with bar-
slip and the plastic hinge in the beams, supplementary rotational springs are placed
between the beam ends and the joint. The MCFT was utilized to determine the moment
curvature relationship of the three nonlinear springs attached in parallel to capture the
joint shear behavior and the bond-slip rotational springs were calibrated following the
model of Morita and Kaku (1984). The analytical predictions were compared with the
experimental results of ductile RC interior beam-column joint subassemblages.
The aforementioned joint models (Youssef and Ghobarah 2001, Lowes and
Altoontash 2003, Mitra and Lowes 2007, Altoontash 2004, Shin and LaFave 2004) were
developed employing the MCFT to define the backbone curve of a joint panel. However,
the review of the previous models demonstrates that the MCFT approach is not
appropriate to predict the shear strength for non-ductile joints with insufficient joint
transverse reinforcement. Additionally, LaFave and Shin (2005) demonstrated that the
MCFT may underestimate the joint shear strength for such joints. Therefore, the MCFT
32
can provide the reasonable estimate of joint shear strength for ductile joints while the
application of the MCFT to non-ductile joints requires additional modifications.
Celik and Ellingwood (2008) developed a non-ductile joint model based on the
experimental determination of joint panel shear stress-strain relationship, with inclusion
of the bond stress of insufficient beam bottom reinforcement anchorage. Following the
model of Alath and Kunnath (1995), the joint model was constructed. The backbone
curve of the joint is a quad-linear curve consisting of four key points: concrete cracking,
member yielding, ultimate, and residual conditions. Thus, this proposed approach is
limited to the case when shear failure occurs after beam yielding. Ordinates on the
backbone curve of the joint were computed through moment-curvature analyses for
members adjacent to the joint. Then, the joint shear strength was adopted as the smallest
of experimental and analytical values. Furthermore, the damage pinching parameters of
the joint were not addressed, and therefore their model underestimates the joint shear and
overall deformation for the case of joints experiencing a highly pinched hysteresis.
Sharma et al. (2011) proposed a principal tensile stress-shear deformation
relationship to simulate the shear behavior for non-ductile exterior joints with different
reinforcement details. As presented in Figure 2.4(f), the joint panel consists of one joint
rotational spring in the beam region and two joint shear springs in the column portion.
The beam and columns were modeled as lumped plasticity elements. Using the principal
tensile stresses proposed by Priestley (1997), the authors assumed separate principal
tensile stress-shear deformations for exterior joints with beam bottom reinforcement bent-
in and straight with short embedment, respectively. In particular, the latter was intended
to simulate the bond failure associated with the pullout action of discontinuous beam
33
bottom reinforcement. The model validation was performed for non-ductile exterior
beam-column joint assemblages with different types of beam bottom reinforcement.
However, their model can only be applied to exterior beam-column joints.
Anderson et al. (2008) proposed a monotonic and cyclic shear stress-strain model
for joints without transverse reinforcement tested by Walker (2001) and Alire (2002).
The model replicated cyclic degradation in strength and stiffness and energy dissipation
of the unloading and reloading branches. The model can provide accurately the hysteretic
response of the joint for various displacement histories, joint shear stress demands, and
concrete compressive strength. Because the model was developed without using existing
software programs, the proposed approach is not suitable for modeling large structures.
From the literature review above, the mechanics-based or empirical-based joint
model is limited to a specific joint type (interior or exterior as well as non-ductile or
ductile). Therefore, a unified joint shear model that can be simply and properly applied to
various joint types is required when creating the analytical frame model.
34
shear spring
pin joint
rigid
rigid
joint spring concrete & elements
steel springs elastic beam-
column element
(a) Alath and Kunnath (1995) (b) Youssef and Ghobarah (2001)
element
column
zero-length inelastic
internal node rotational joint rotational
bar-slip spring
shear spring springs
external node
shear beam
panel element
zero-length rigid internal

interface interface plane multi-ploint
shear spring rigid external frame elements constraints
interface plane
(c) Lowes and Altoontash (2003) (d) Altoontash (2004)
three joint rotational

rotational spring springs in parallel
joint rotational spring
for bond-slip
beam
(elastic)
joint shear
spring
rotational & shear
spring for beam
(elasto-plastic)
rigid link
rotational
column
spring for hinge rotational & shear

plastic hinge spring for column
(e) Shin and LaFave (2004) (f) Sharma et al. (2011)
Figure 2.4 Existing beam-column joint models
35
2.4 Summary
This chapter first reviewed literature addressing the effect of aftershocks on structures in
terms of their increased demand and vulnerability under multiple earthquakes. Following
the analytical study of Mahin (1980), several studies demonstrated that aftershocks might
imply a considerable accumulation of damage and that a thorough understanding of the
impact of aftershock can be achieved through numerous mainshock-aftershock sequences.
To investigate additional damage after aftershocks, aftershock ground motions should
produce additional damage. Although as-recorded (real) mainshock-aftershock sequences
can reflect real seismic responses, they cannot significantly increase peak and permanent
drift demands in some cases. These insufficient as-recorded data have led researchers to
employ artificial mainshock-aftershock sequences when performing the seismic risk
assessment of structures. Among the artificial sequences, mainshock-aftershock
sequences randomly assembled provided more accurate estimates compared to identical
sequences. For these reasons, randomly paired mainshock-aftershock sequences will
serve as input motions for the development of aftershock fragility curves.
More recently, efforts to achieve a probabilistic risk assessment for aftershocks
have been performed by few researchers. Aftershock fragility curves can be developed by
thoroughly understanding the fundamental concept and simulation techniques for
mainshock (typical) fragility functions. Most existing aftershock fragility curves given a
mainshock response have been generated only by the stripe approach (IDA) for SDOF
systems. However, the stripe method can have limitations such as computational expense
and the use of unrealistic aftershock ground motions, and the SDOF models cannot
provide accurate results as well as localized failure modes. Therefore, this research will
36
employ a cloud method for MDOF models that is comparable with a closed form of
aftershock fragility function and that reflects feasible ground motions.
The appropriate prediction of the analytical models is an essential prerequisite for
the reliable estimate of seismic performance and risk assessment of RC frames. For this
purpose, existing analytical modeling techniques for frame’s critical components such as
shear-dominated columns and beam-column joints are finally reviewed, and their merits
and shortcomings are discussed. For shear-dominated columns, the column shear model
developed by Elwood (2004) will be employed by sufficiently validating the model for
numerous specimens. Additionally, for beam-column joints, a unified joint model will be
proposed by modifying the joint shear model developed by Anderson et al. (2008), so it
can be applied to all different types of joints. These models will be incorporated in the
finite element models of RC frames in subsequent aftershock fragility analyses.
37
CHAPTER 3
ANALYTICAL MODELING TECHNIQUE OF RC FRAME
COMPONENTS
The earliest seismic provisions in the United States were introduced following the 1906
San Francisco earthquake (Popov 1994). This provision is intended to account for the
effect of earthquakes and wind force using a lateral pressure of 1.4 kPa. Following the
1933 Long Beach earthquake, the concept of seismic lateral forces proportional to mass
was incorporated into practice. Since 1933, the building code provisions have been
considerably evolved to incorporate improvements in earthquake engineering and seismic
risk assessment, especially in response to experiences during major earthquakes in
California such as the 1971 San Fernando, the 1989 Loma Prieta, and the 1994
Northridge earthquakes. In order to improve the seismic resistance and to ensure ductile
failure, these seismic design codes had accounted for minimum lateral design force
requirements as well as the detailing requirements. For example, Table 3.1 shows the
evolution of design philosophies for columns (Sezen 2002). This change in the seismic
code requirements can result in the distinct difference in the structural capacities of non-
ductile and ductile structures. Table 3.2 summarizes the design attributes of non-ductile
and ductile RC components, and Figure 3.1 illustrates the reinforcing details of the two
frames. The ductile frames are designed to have sufficient deformation capacities and
energy dissipation capabilities of components while the non-ductile frames can infer
unpredictable partial damage and collapse associated with little or no consideration of
seismic resistance. These insufficient reinforcement details can cause shear failure or lap-
38
splice failure in columns, joint shear failure or bond failure due to discontinuous beam
bottom reinforcement in joints, premature column failure owing to the design concept of
weak column-strong beam. Figure 3.2 shows types of possible brittle failures in the non-
ductile frames. Therefore, a thorough understanding of design attributes based on the
time of building design or construction are required for the establishment of analytical
models for critical components. These analytical models should capture the inelastic
behavior of these components to reduce the (epistemic) uncertainties in seismic risk
assessment. Furthermore, all analytical models are implemented in an open source,
object-oriented software framework, OpenSees (McKenna et al. 2010).
This chapter presents the analytical modeling techniques for critical RC
components such as the flexure and shear behavior in columns and the joint shear
behaviors of non-ductile and ductile beam-column joints. Furthermore, the analytical
models are validated through the comparison with experimental results available in the
literature.
39
Table 3.1 Column dimension and detailing requirements in US building codes (Sezen 2002)
1961 UBC (ICBO 1961) ACI 318-71 (1971) ACI 318-02 (2002)
Minimum width (bc) 254 mm NA 254 mm or 0.4dc
Minimum depth (dc) 305 mm NA 305 mm
ρ (longitudinal) 0.01 ≤ ρ ≤ 0.08 0.01 ≤ ρ ≤ 0.06 0.01 ≤ ρ ≤ 0.06
• Smallest of 16ϕb, • Smallest of 16ϕb, • Smallest of 152 mm
48ϕb-tie, and minimum 48ϕb-tie, minimum and 6ϕb
Tie spacing dimension dimension
in the middle • Smallest of 254 mm
and dc/2 for ductile
columns
• Smallest of 16ϕb,
48ϕb-tie, minimum
Tie spacing • Smallest of 102 mm
NA dimension
in the end and bc/2
• dc/4 for ductile
columns
Hooks NA 135º hook 135º hook
Failure mode brittle brittle and ductile ductile
Table 3.2 Design attributes of non-ductile and ductile RC frame components

Non-ductile component Ductile component
Beam • May have discontinuous bottom • Continuous bottom longitudinal
longitudinal reinforcement in joints reinforcement in joints, sufficient
and no top reinforcement in the middle development length
• Relatively wide transverse • Shear capacity design, transverse
reinforcement with 90º hooks reinforcement with 135º hooks
Column • Weak column-strong beam: soft story • Strong column-weak beam
failure mode, column hinging • Adequate lap-splice in longitudinal
• Short lap-splice in longitudinal reinforcement
reinforcement • Shear capacity design, closely spaced
• Widely spaced transverse transverse reinforcement with 135º
reinforcement with 90º hooks hooks
Beam-column • No or little transverse reinforcement • Sufficient transverse reinforcement
joint • Inadequate anchorage length of • Continuous bottom beam
bottom beam reinforcement Reinforcement
Slab-column • Flexure • Continuous slab bottom reinforcement
connection • No flat slab
40
No joint sheaar
Beam No top a mid-span reinforcemen
p-reinforcing at nt Widely
spaced
Column
ties
Short lap Widely spaaced ties

Inadequuate
lap splicce
(a)) Non-ductilee frame

Top bars withh lap Joint shear
splice at mid--span reinforcemennt Splice at
a
Beam
mid-heigght
Column
Long lap Closely
Closely sp
paced ties
spaced
ties
(b) Ductile frrame
Figure 3.1 Reinforcing

R deetails of non- ductile and duuctile RC fram
mes
3 Potential failure
Figure 3.2 f modes in non-ductille RC frames
41
3.1 Modeling Flexure Behavior of Columns and Beams
3.1.1 Analytical model
Figure 3.3 illustrates the analytical models of columns and beams dominated by flexure.
The columns are modeled as an elastic element in the middle and two fiber section beam-
column elements in the plastic hinge region(s) while the beams are modeled as a
beamWithHinges element (Scott and Fenves 2006) that is composed of three parts: two
plastic hinge zones (fiber section) at the ends of the element and a linear elastic region
(effective stiffness) in the middle of the element. Different elements are utilized for the
columns and the beams to capture a stable inelastic behavior in columns and reduce
computational time under static or dynamic analysis when analyzing large building
structures.
Pc
V aaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaa
beamWithHinges element
aaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaa
Pc Column
Elastic
V section Confined Unconfined
concrete concrete
Elastic beam- aaaaaa
column element aaaaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa
Fiber aaaaaa
aaaaaa
section aaaaaa
aaaaaa
Node Displacement-based aaaaaa
Longitudinal aaaaaa
aaaaaa
beam-column
Lp
element reinforcement
Beam
(a) Columns (b) Beams (c)’Fiber sections
Figure 3.3 Analytical flexure models of columns and beams
42
For both components, the plastic hinge length Lp is assumed to be the
corresponding section depth. All fiber sections used in columns and beams consist of
unconfined (cover) and confined (core) concrete properties assigned to the fibers together
with a precise location of the longitudinal reinforcement. Both unconfined and confined
concrete can be modeled using Concrete02 to account for their tensile behavior. The
model of Mander et al. (1988) includes the enhanced compressive strength and ductility
of the core concrete associated with the confinement factor. Additionally, the longitudinal
reinforcement is represented using Steel02 based on the Giuffré-Menegotto-Pinto model
(Menegotto and Pinto 1983) to include isotropic strain hardening. Additionally, the
effective width of the slab can be calculated following the recommendation of ACI318-
02 (2002).
The effective stiffness of elastic materials in columns and beams are calculated by
the recommendation in ASCE/SEI 41 (Elwood et al. 2007), as shown in Figure 3.4. For
columns with axial load factor (defined as the axial load, Pc on a column divided by its
cross-sectional area, Ag and concrete compressive strength, fc, ALF = Pc/Agfc) ≤ 0.1, the
modification factor is 0.3 while for columns with ALF ≥ 0.5, the factor 0.7. Otherwise,
the factor is computed by linear interpolation between 0.3 and 0.7. For all beams, the
factor is 0.3. This work has recommended that the lower bound stiffness modification
factor be taken equal to 0.3 to reduce the risk of underestimating shear forces in columns
sharing lateral load with other components, and that by inference it can be applicable to
beams.
43
1
0.9
Modification factor ( EIeff/EIg)

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
ALF = P /A f
c gc
Figure 3.4 Effective stiffness determination of Elwood et al. (2007)
3.1.2 Validation of analytical model
For the validation of the analytical models, six specimens experiencing the ductile
behavior are selected, which are available in the literature (Unit 4 of Ang et al. (1981),
NC-4 of Azizinamini et al. (1988), Unit 6 of Saatcioglu and Ozcebe (1989), Unit 1 of
Tanaka and Park (1990), BG-3 of Saatcioglu and Grira (1999), and Unit 9 of Park and
Paulay (1990)). The experimental data are obtained from the PEER structural
performance database (Berry et al. 2004). A detailed description of specimen
configuration and loading method can be found in the references. Figure 3.5 shows the
comparison of the experimental and analytical shear force-drift results for columns with
flexure-dominated behavior. In general, the overall behavior shows excellent correlation
with regard to strength, stiffness, and energy dissipation. Table 3.3 indicates the
maximum column shear forces obtained from experiment and analysis. It is indicated that
the maximum shear forces from analyses show a good agreement with the experimental
measurements (less than 5% difference). Therefore, the analytical models can accurately
provide the inelastic behavior of columns dominated by flexure.
44
400 1200
300
800
200
Column shear (kN)

Column shear (kN)
400
100
0 0
−100
−400
−200
−800
−300 Experiment Experiment
Simulation Simulation
−400 −1200
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(a) Unit 4 (Ang et al. 1981) (b) NC-4 (Azizinamini et al. 1988)
400 400
300 300
200 200
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)

100 100
0 0
−100 −100
−200 −200
−300 Experiment −300 Experiment

−400 −400
−12 −9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9 12 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(c) Unit 6 (Saatcioglu and Ozcebe 1989) (d) Unit 1 (Tanaka and Park 1990)
200 900
150
600
100
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)
300
50
0 0
−50
−300
−100
−600
−200 −900
−9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(e) BG-3 (Saatcioglu and Grira 1999) (f) Unit 9 (Park and Paulay 1990)
Figure 3.5 Comparison between experimental and analytical force-drift hysteresis loops for
flexure-critical columns
45
Table 3.3 Comparison of experimental and analytical maximum shear force for flexure-critical
columns
Maximum shear force (kN)
Specimens Difference (%)
Experiment Analysis
Unit 4 (Ang et al. 1981) 338 326 -3.6
NC-4 (Azizinamini et al. 1988) 966 960 -0.7
Unit 6 (Saatcioglu and Ozcebe 1989) 343 342 -0.1
Unit 1 (Tanaka and Park 1990) 334 318 -4.6
BG-3 (Saatcioglu and Grira 1999) 164 158 -3.9
Unit 9 (Park and Paulay 1990) 786 797 +1.4
3.2 Modeling Shear Behavior of Columns
3.2.1 Analytical model
Flexure-shear-critical columns are modeled as two fiber section beam-column elements,
an elastic element, two zero-length bar-slip fiber section elements associated with the
effect of bond slip at the end of columns, and a shear spring, as implemented in Figure
3.6. The fiber section beam-column elements and an elastic element are modeled in the
same way as the flexure dominant columns. To account for the bar slip at the end of a
column, the constitutive law of the longitudinal reinforcement is modified from a stress-
strain relationship to a stress-slip relation to employ the zero-length element. The slip-
strain relationship is presented by Sezen (2002):
ε y f yφb slip (3.1)

slip = , ue = 0.9 f c , SFslip =
8ue εy
where εy is the longitudinal reinforcement yield strain, fy the longitudinal reinforcement
yield stress (MPa), db the diameter of longitudinal reinforcement (mm), fc the concrete
compressive strength (MPa), ue the elastic bond stress (MPa), and SFslip the scale factor.
By multiplying the strains of steel and concrete by the scale factor (SFslip), modified
46
concrete and steel stress-slip relationship is employed in the zero-length fiber section
element.
Shear force (V)

Vn
Le=0
Zero-length
bar-slip Kdeg
fiber-section
Vres
Shear Displacement-
Lp
spring based beam- Shear deformation (Δshear)
column element Shear response
Shear force (V)

Kunload
Elastic beam-
L−2Lp
column element
Flexure deformation (Δflex)

Flexure response
Failure detected Shear limit curve
Displacement-
Shear force (V)
Lp
based beam-
column element
Ktdeg
Zero-length
Le=0
bar-slip Δs Δa
fiber-section
Total deformation (Δtotal=Δflex+Δshear)
Total response
Figure 3.6 Modeling flexure-shear-critical column
To describe the shear behavior in the columns, the limit state material developed
by Elwood (2004) is employed. Once the column’s total response exceeds a
predetermined shear failure surface (so-called limit shear curve), its shear response
follows the constitutive law of the limit shear curve to include pinching and strength and
stiffness degradation. The limit shear curve consists of the column shear capacity (Vn),
the degrading slope (Kdeg), and residual shear strength (Vres), as indicated in Figure 3.6.
47
After shear failure is detected, the degrading slope of the total response (Ktdeg) can be
computed in equation (3.2) (Elwood 2004):
Vn (3.2)
t
K deg =
Δa − Δs
where Δa the displacement calculated under the axial load at the time of shear failure, and
Δs the displacement at the onset of shear failure. If Ktdeg is determined, the degrading
flexibility of the shear spring (1/Kdeg) can be calculated by subtracting the flexural
flexibility (1/Kunload) from 1/Ktdeg. Additionally, Δa can be obtained from equation (3.3)
(Elwood 2004):
Δa 4 1 + tan 2 θ (3.3)
=
L 100 tan θ + P( s / Av f yt d cc tan θ )
where L is the length of column, dcc the depth of column core from centerline to
centerline of transverse reinforcement, s the spacing of transverse reinforcement, Av the
area of transverse reinforcement, fyt the yield strength of transverse reinforcement, P the
axial load on the column, and θ the critical crack angle from horizontal (assumed to be
65°). A detailed description of the limit state material (limit shear curve) can be found in
Elwood (2004).
3.2.2 Validation of analytical model
As mentioned in Chapter 2, Elwood (2004) did not address the validity of the column
shear model under reversed cyclic pushover loadings. To overcome this drawback, this
research performs the validation of the shear model of Elwood (2004) by comparing
48
analytical and experimental results for shear-dominated columns available in the
literature.
The shear failure model in the current version of OpenSees can be triggered only
when a drift at the initiation of shear failure is above 0.01. Therefore, to model some
shear-dominated columns detected below a drift of 0.01, the source code can be modified
using a smaller value than 0.01. Furthermore, the shear force at shear failure (shear
strength, Vn) can be determined from the equation of ACI318-02 (2002) or ASCE 41-06
(Elwood et al. 2007). However, if the shear strength calculated from these equations is
larger than the plastic shear force or smaller than the yielding shear force obtained from a
flexure analysis (without a shear spring), the overall behavior would not appropriately
capture the drop in load-carrying capacity associated with a shear failure for flexure-
shear-critical columns. The shear spring remains elastic and the simulated results would
be the same as a model without a shear spring. Therefore, this research utilizes a shear
force obtained from the flexure analysis (without a shear spring model) near the
experimental shear strength to capture the shear behavior. The equation for the shear
force at shear failure (Vn) in the source code can be also modified because there is no
variation in axial force on a column under monotonic and reversed cyclic static pushover
loadings. Moreover, for simplicity, the unloading stiffness is assumed to be the stiffness
modification factor of 0.5 described in the previous section, in the model validation.
To verify the analytical model for the flexure-shear-critical columns, a database of
42 flexure-shear-critical specimens are collected from PEER database or other
experimental work available in the literature and are simulated in OpenSees (McKenna et
al. 2010). Table 3.4 depicts the collected database for these columns, which does not
49
include specimens experiencing the shear failure before flexure yielding in order to
ensure the applicability of the model of Elwood (2004). Figure 3.7 shows the comparison
of experimental and analytical hysteretic responses for six specimens in order to examine
the accuracy of the shear model with different configurations of column tests: double
curvature (DC), cantilever (C), and double ended columns (DE). A detailed description of
test configuration, material properties, and loading conditions can be found in the
references. The comparison plots for all 42 specimens can be found in Appendix A.
Although the hysteretic rules of the shear model result in slightly higher stiffness and
strength than experimental results for some cases, the analytical shear model can
appropriately capture the degrading slope and cyclic deterioration regardless of the
configuration of column specimens. Moreover, Table 3.5 presents the maximum column
shear forces from experiment and analysis for these six specimens. It is demonstrated that
the maximum shear force from analysis shows a good agreement with the experimental
measurements (less than 5% difference). Therefore, the shear model can adequately
predict the overall strength and stiffness of the response.
50
Table 3.4 Collected shear-dominated column database
Test fc fyt bc hc dc s L P Vn,exp
Reference Specimen ρw
type (MPa) (MPa) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (kN) (kN)
Sezen (2002) Specimen 1 DC 21.1 476 457 457 392 305 2946 0.0017 667 315
Specimen 4 DC 21.8 476 457 457 392 305 2946 0.0017 667 295
Lynn et al. (1996) 3CLH18 DC 25.6 400 457 457 393 457 2946 0.0007 503 277
3SLH18 DC 25.6 400 457 457 393 457 2946 0.0007 503 270
2SLH18 DC 33.1 400 457 457 397 457 2946 0.0007 503 229
2CMH18 DC 25.5 400 457 457 397 457 2946 0.0007 1512 305
3CMH18 DC 27.6 400 457 457 393 457 2946 0.0007 1512 328
3CMD12 DC 27.6 400 457 457 393 305 2946 0.0017 1512 355
3SMD12 DC 25.5 400 457 457 393 305 2946 0.0017 1512 365
Ohue et al. (1985) 2D16RS DC 32.2 316 200 200 175 50 800 0.0057 183 98
4D13RS DC 29.9 316 200 200 175 50 800 0.0057 183 110
Esaki (1996) H-2-1/5 DC 23.0 364 200 200 175 50 800 0.0052 184 108
HT-2-1/5 DC 20.2 364 200 200 175 75 800 0.0052 162 106
H-2-1/3 DC 23.0 364 200 200 175 40 800 0.0065 307 118
HT-2-1/3 DC 20.2 364 200 200 175 60 800 0.0065 269 116
Nagasaka (1982) HPRC19-32 DC 21.0 344 200 200 180 20 600 0.0141 294 113
Ono et al. (1989) CA025C DC 26.3 426 200 200 170 70 600 0.0081 265 130
CA060C DC 26.3 426 200 200 170 70 600 0.0081 635 137
Mostafaei et al. (2009) No. 5 DC 28.5 410 300 300 260 50 750 0.0043 540 322
Ousalem et al. No. 4 DC 13.5 384 300 300 260 75 900 0.0028 365 170
(2002) No. 8 DC 18.0 384 300 300 260 75 900 0.0028 486 204
No. 12 DC 18.0 384 300 300 260 75 900 0.0028 324 220
Ousalem et al. No. 14 DC 26.1 410 300 300 260 50 900 0.0043 540 300
(2003) No. 15 DC 26.1 410 300 300 260 50 900 0.0086 540 356
No. 16 DC 26.1 410 300 300 260 50 600 0.0043 540 339
Saatcioglu and U1 C 26.1 470 350 350 305 150 1000 0.0030 0 276
Ozcebe (1989) U2 C 30.2 470 350 350 305 150 1000 0.0030 600 279
U3 C 34.8 470 350 350 305 75 1000 0.0060 600 271
Ikeda (1968) 43-H-3 DE 19.6 563 200 200 173 100 500 0.0028 78 152
44-H-4 DE 19.6 563 200 200 173 100 500 0.0028 78 142
45-H-5 DE 19.6 563 200 200 173 100 500 0.0028 157 164
46-H-6 DE 19.6 563 200 200 173 100 500 0.0028 157 158
62-L-4 DE 19.6 477 200 200 173 100 500 0.0028 78 115
63-L-5 DE 19.6 477 200 200 173 100 500 0.0028 157 137
64-L-6 DE 19.6 477 200 200 173 100 500 0.0028 157 139
Kokusho (1964) 81-1C32 DE 21.5 332 200 200 170 100 500 0.0033 157 178
372-2C12 DE 19.9 353 200 200 170 100 500 0.0033 157 143
373-2C22 DE 20.4 353 200 200 170 100 500 0.0033 157 177
Takeda and 115-085A56 DE 20.6 342 300 300 248 56 700 0.0084 494 560
Yoshioka (1970) 118-085A80 DE 20.6 342 300 300 248 56 700 0.0084 706 563
139-12AA56 DE 19.6 371 300 300 248 40 450 0.0118 494 758
140-12AA80 DE 19.6 371 300 300 248 40 450 0.0118 706 754
51
400 300
300
200
200
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)

100
100
0 0
−100
−100
−200
−200
−400 −300
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(a) Specimen 1 (Sezen 2002) (b) 3CLH18 (Lynn et al. 1996)
150 200
150
100
100
Column shear (kN)
50 Column shear (kN)

50
0 0
−50
−50
−100
−100
Experiment −150
Experiment
−150 −200
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(c) H-2-1/3 (Esaki 1996) (d) No. 4 (Ousalem et al. 2002)
300 200
150
200
100
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)
100
50
0 0
−50
−100
−100
−200
Experiment −150 Experiment
−300 −200
−9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(e) U2 (Saatcioglu and Ozcebe 1989) (f) 81-1C32 (Kokusho 1964)
Figure 3.7 Comparison between experimental and analytical force-drift hysteresis loops for
flexure-shear-critical columns
52
Table 3.5 Comparison of experimental and analytical maximum shear force for flexure-shear-
critical columns
Maximum shear force (kN)
Specimens Difference (%)
Experiment Analysis
Specimen 1 (Sezen 2002) 315 306 -2.9
3CLH18 (Lynn et al. 1996) 277 275 -0.6
H-2-1/3 (Esaki 1996) 118 122 +3.3
No. 4 (Ousalem et al. 2002) 170 170 +0.3
U2 (Saatcioglu and Ozcebe 1989) 279 273 -2.0
81-1C32 (Kokusho 1964) 178 175 -1.5
3.3 Modeling Non-Ductile Beam-Column Joints
Beam-column joints can be classified into two groups following the recommendation of
ASCE41-06 (Elwood et al. 2007); a joint is ductile if hoops are spaced at less than the
half of column depth within the joint, and otherwise, a joint is non-ductile.
The main deficiencies in older RC buildings are inelastic mechanisms that are not
suitable for ductile response and inadequate detailing of yielding components, including
beam column joints. The specific joint details and resulting deficiencies vary depending
on the local construction practices. The most common deficiencies are lack of joint
transverse reinforcement and insufficient anchorage of beam bottom longitudinal
reinforcement in joints. Figure 3.8 shows typical reinforcing details in non-ductile beam-
column joints that can be found in the work of Moiser (2000) and Kunnath et al. (1995)
for older RC buildings in California and the Central and Southern United States,
respectively. Non-ductile joints with the design details in Figures 3.8(a) and 3.8(c) and
those in Figures 3.8(b) and (c) may undergo significant joint shear and bond failure,
respectively, during more severe earthquakes. Therefore, the analytical model should
predict these potential failure modes associated with the reinforcing details in joints.
53
No or little transverse reinforcement No or little transverse reinforcement
Short embedment length Short embedment length
(a) Interior (Type A) (b) Interior (Type B) (c)’Exterior (Type A) (d) Exterior (Type B)
Figure 3.8 Typical reinforcing details in non-ductile beam-column joints
3.3.1 Joint shear failure model
To describe the shear behavior of beam-column joints, this research employs the joint
model developed by Alath and Kunnath (1995). The joint panel can be represented as
four rigid offsets with one zero-length rotational spring, as depicted in Figure 3.9. Other
parts of beam-column joint subassemblages are modeled in the same manner as columns
and beams.
P
Moment
Δ, V Pinching4
material
Rotation
Displacement-based
beam-column element Joint rotational spring
(fiber section)
Rigid link
beamWithHinges Unconfined concrete
aaaaaaaaaa aaaaa
aaaaaaaaaa aaaaa
aaaaaaaaaa aaaaa
aaaaaaaaaa aaaaa
aaaaa
aaaaaaaaaa aaaaa
aaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaa aaaaa
aaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaa
Longitu- aaaaa
aaaaa
aaaaa
aaaaaaaaaa aaaaa
Elastic element dinal rebar
Confined concrete
Column Beam
Figure 3.9 Analytical model of a beam-column joint subassemblage
54
Anderson et al. (2008) proposed the backbone curve of the joint shear stress-strain
relationship for non-ductile interior joints based on the experimental work of Walker
(2001) and Alire (2002), which is a quad-linear curve and can be simply implemented to
other specimens. This research employs the model of Anderson et al. (2008) up to the
third point on the curve, but modifies the fourth point based on experimental observations.
Figure 3.10 shows the modified backbone curve of the joint shear stress-strain
relationship. The first and second points are fixed, and the ordinates on the third and
fourth points (vj,max and vj,res) can be determined from experimental joint shear strength.
Residual joint stress (vj,4) is defined as 20% of joint shear strength (vj,3) in order to
alleviate convergence issues. Thus, the unknowns are the abscissas on the third and four
points (γj,max and γj,res), which are also determined from experimental observations.
(γj,2, vj,2)=
Joint shear stress (vj)
(0.006, 0.95vj,max) (γj,3, vj,3=vj,max)
(γj,1, vj,1)
=(0.00043, 0.48√fcj)
(γj,4, vj,4)=(γj,res, 0.2vj,max)
Joint shear strain (γj)
Figure 3.10 Proposed backbone curve of joint shear stress-strain relationship
Once the backbone curve of the joint shear stress-strain relationship is determined,
the equivalent joint rotational moment-rotation relationship can be computed from the
from the structure geometry and force equilibriums (Figure 3.11):
55
v j Aj (3.4)
Mj = , θ j= γ j
(1 − b j / Lb ) / jd b − α / Lc
where Mj is the joint rotational moment, vj the joint shear stress, hc the depth of the
column, bj the effective width of the joint panel calculated from ACI 352R-02 (2002), Aj
the joint area (Aj = hc∙bj), Lb the total length of the left and right beams, Lc the total length
of the top and bottom columns, j the internal moment arm factor (assumed to be 0.875 in
this study), db the effective depth of the beam, α a constant equal to 2 for the top floor
joints and 1 for the others, θj the joint rotation, and γj the joint shear strain. Since the joint
rotation is the angle change between the two adjacent edges of the panel zone, the joint
rotation equals the joint shear strain. A detailed derivation of the equation can be found in
work of Celik and Ellingwood (2007).
P1
P1 Mc1
Vc
Vc Tb1 Cb2
jdb
Vb1 Vb2
hj
Cb1 Tb2
Lc/2
Vc
Mc2
P
bj 2
Vb1 Vb1 P1
Mc1
Lc/2
Vc
Vb2
Mb1
hj
Vc Mb2
Vb1
Vc
P2 Mc2
Lb/2 Lb/2 P
bj 2
(a) Geometry of subassemblage (b) Force equilibrium of joint panel
Figure 3.11 Structural geometry and force equilibrium around a joint
56
The joint rotational spring is modeled using the Pinching4 material developed by
Lowes and Altoontash (2003) available in OpenSees (McKenna et al. 2010). As shown in
Figure 3.12, the material model can be defined as a response backbone, an unload-reload
path, and three damage rules: unloading stiffness degradation, strength degradation, and
reloading strength degradation. A detailed formulation for damage index can be found in
the work of Lowes and Altoontash (2003).
Load
(dmax, f(dmax))
(ePd3, ePf3)
(ePd2, ePf2)
(ePd1, ePf1)
(*, uForceP·ePf3) (ePd4, ePf4)

(rDispP·dmax, rForceP·f(dmax))
(rDispN·dmin, rForceN·f(dmin)) Deformation
(eNd4, eNf4) (*, uForceN·eNf3)
(eNd1, eNf1)
(eNd3, eNf3) (eNd2, eNf2)

(dmin, f(dmin))
Figure 3.12 Constitutive model proposed by Lowes and Altoontash (2003)
3.3.2 Empirical joint bond failure model
Beam-column joints with short embedment length of beam bottom reinforcement within
joints may undergo unpredictable brittle failure under more severe earthquakes, that is,
premature bond pullout failure at less than 50% of the actual joint shear capacity directly
related to the embedded length, as shown in Figure 3.13. In order to account for the
reduced shear strength associated with the insufficient embedment length, this research
utilizes the empirical bond strength model of Hassan (2011), which was developed
57
through the experimental observations of 21 specimens with no beam yielding. The bond
strength model includes influential parameters such as column axial load (P), beam
reinforcement diameter (ϕb), ratio of cover to reinforcement diameter (c/ϕb), presence of
transverse beams, as expressed in equation (3.5):
1/ 4 (3.5)
⎛ P ⎞ c
τ max = 1.1⎜ ⎟ f c Ψs Ω
⎜f A ⎟ φb
⎝ c g⎠
where τmax is the concrete average bond stress capacity of discontinuous beam bottom
reinforcement, the reinforcement factor, Ψs is the reinforcement factor; Ψs = 1 for ϕb ≥ 19
mm and Ψs = 1.25 for ϕb ≤ 19 mm), and Ω is the transverse beam confinement factor; Ω =
1 for exterior joints with no transverse beam; Ω = 1.12 for exterior joints with one
transverse beam; Ω = 1.20 for exterior joints with two transverse beams. c/ϕb is the
minimum of bottom and side concrete cover-to-rebar diameter ratio measuring cover to
rebar centroid, which is less than 2.5.

Shear stress (vj)
Joint shear failure
Bond failure
Shear strain (γj)
Joint shear failure
Figure 3.13 Backbone curve of joint shear failure model and bond failure model
58
Using the structure geometry and force equilibriums, as illustrated in Figure 3.14,
the equivalent shear strength associated with insufficient embedment length can be
calculated in equation (3.6):
Ts ⎡ (1 + 0.5hc / lb ) jd b ⎤ (3.6)
v j ,max = ⎢1 − ⎥
Aj ⎣ Lc ⎦
where
Ts = nb l spπφbτ max (3.7)
and Ts is the tension force in beam longitudinal reinforcement corresponding to pullout
failure, nb the number of beam longitudinal reinforcement, lbsp the embedment length
within a joint, ϕb the diameter of the reinforcement, and lb the beam length measured
from the face of column to the face of column to the end of beam for subassemblages or
the mid-span of beam for frames.
Vc
Vb
db
Lc
Ts
lsp
lb
Vc
hc
Figure 3.14 Equilibrium for bond failure model
59
Figure 3.15 shows the comparison of experimental and predicted equivalent joint
shear strength (Hassan 2011). The mean and COV of the predicted-to-experimental shear
strength ratio are 1.099 and 0.161, respectively. These values indicate that the empirical
bond strength model provides reasonable estimates for joints with insufficient anchorage.
In this research, the reduced equivalent joint shear strength is converted into the
equivalent joint rotational moment using equation (3.4) to utilize the Pinching4 material
in OpenSees (McKenna et al. 2010).
v /v
Experimental joint shear strength (MPa)
3.5 j,max,pred j,max,exp
3 Mean=1.099
2.5 COV=0.161
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Predicted joint shear strength (MPa)
Figure 3.15 Comparison of experimental and predicted joint shear strength (Hassan 2011)
Experimental studies have suggested that bond slip causes additional rotation at
the end of beams. However, Leon (1989) demonstrated that the boundary conditions of
the subassemblages different from those of the indeterminate frame lead to a large
amount of the slip in the experiment. For the intermediate frame, such slip would not
likely occur. Additionally, Hoffman et al. (1992) mentioned that bond slip is very small
60
and usually is difficult to visually detect during the testing of indeterminate frames. Thus,
the additional rotation as a result of the bond slip can be reduced in the analysis for RC
frames. For this reason, this research did not account for the supplementary rotation
introduced by the bond slip at the end of beams.
3.3.3 Validation of analytical model for subassemblages
To examine the validity of the joint shear and bond failure model for non-ductile beam-
column joints, a database of 28 exterior and 35 interior beam-column joint
subassemblages are gathered from experimental work available in the literature and are
analyzed in OpenSees (McKenna et al. 2010). The database includes two failure modes:
joint shear failure (a total of 57 specimens) and joint bond failure (a total of 6 specimens),
and consists of specimens without and with transverse beams orthogonal to joints.
Additionally, it is composed of specimens exhibiting joint shear failure before and after
member (beam or column) yielding and joint bond failure.
The validation is performed based on experimental results to extract the
parameters of backbone and hysteretic rules (Pinching4 material) so that those parameters
can be adequately employed in modeling RC frames. Figure 3.16, Figure 3.17, and Figure
3.18 depict the comparison of experimental and analytical results for three groups: six
exterior joints with joint shear failure, five exterior joints with joint bond failure, and six
interior joints with joint shear failure, respectively. From these figures, it can be seen that
the analytical results are well-correlated with experimental results with regard to strength,
stiffness, and energy dissipation. In some specimens, the analytical model overestimates
initial stiffness. This may be attributed to bond slip in members adjacent to a joint, which
61
is not taken into account in this research. It is, however, qualitatively clear that the
comparison improves at higher deformation levels. Additionally, Table 3.6 summarizes
the maximum lateral forces obtained from experiment and simulation for 17 specimens.
From the table, good agreement is observed between the analytical predictions and the
experimental results within a reasonable margin of 10 %. The joint bond failure model
has a relatively large difference in maximum joint shear strength because the joint shear
strength is calculated using the bond strength model of Hassan (2011). All of 63
comparison plots can be found in Figure A.2, Figure A.3, and Figure A.4 (Appendix A).
Table 3.7 and Table 3.8 present the modeling parameters of the Pinching4
material for non-ductile exterior and interior beam-column joints, respectively, which are
extracted from the model validation described above. These values are examined
separately for exterior and interior joints. The mean value of these parameters will be
utilized when simulating structures in a probabilistic risk assessment.
62
Table 3.6 Comparison of experimental and analytical maximum lateral force for non-ductile
beam-column joint subassemblages
Joint Failure Maximum lateral force (kN) Difference
Specimens
type mode Experiment Analysis (%)
Exterior Joint Unit 5 (Clyde et al. 2000) 267 266 -0.4
shear T1 (Ghobarah and Said 2002) 115 117 +1.9
failure JO (Ilki et al. 2011) 68 69 +1.7
B0 (Karayannis et al. 2008) 58 63 +7.7
Unit 6 (Pantelides et al. 2002) 198 196 -1.3
F1 (Tsonos and Papanikolaou 2003) 68 64 +1.8
Exterior Joint 2.5 2.6 +4.0
Exterior (Aycardi et al. 1994)
bond (-5.7)§ (-5.3) (-6.9)
failure 61 60 -0.9
T-BS3 (El-Amoury 2004)
(-95) (-87) (-8.4)
91 99 +8.1
Unit 1 (Pantelides et al. 2002)
(-194) (-195) (+0.4)
126 127 +0.4
Unit 2 (Pantelides et al. 2002)
(-188) (-192) (+2.1)
48 49 +2.2
SP-1 (Sasmal et al. 2011)
(-86) (-82) (-5.4)
Interior Joint PEER09 (Alire 2002) 416 390 -6.1
shear OH (Goto and Joh 1996) 132 132 +0.4
failure AL1 (Li et al. 2009) 53 52 -1.8
JE-1 (Ohwada 1977) 22 22 -0.9
RC (Ota et al. 2000) 318 301 -5.3
PEER22 (Walker 2001) 359 350 -2.7
§ A value in paparenthesis indicates the maximum lateral force in the negative direction.
63
300 150
200 100
Beam−tip load (kN)

Lateral load (kN)
100 50
0 0
−100 −50
−200 −100
Experiment Experiment
−300 −150
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 −90 −60 −30 0 30 60 90
Drift (%) Beam−tip displacement (mm)
(a) Unit 5 (Clyde et al. 2000) (b) T1 (Ghobarah and Said 2002)
80 80
60 60
40 40
Lateral load (kN)

Shear force (kN)
20 20
0 0
−20 −20
−40 −40

−80 −80
−12 −9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9 12 −80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80
Drift (%) Displacement (mm)
(c) JO (Ilki et al. 2011) (d) B0 (Karayannis et al. 2008)

240 75
180
50
120
Lateral load (kN)
Shear force (kN)
25
60
0 0
−60
−25
−120
−180 −50
−240 −75
−9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9 −8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(c) Unit 6 (Pantelides et al. 2002) (f) F1 (Tsonos and Papanikolaou 2003)
Figure 3.16 Comparison between hysteretic responses of experiment and analysis for non-ductile
exterior joints with joint shear failure
64
6 100
75
4
50

Lateral force (kN)
2
25
0 0
−25
−2
−50
−4
−6 −100
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
(a) Exterior (Aycardi et al. 1994) (b) T-BS3 (El-Amoury 2004)

150 150
100 100
50 50
Lateral load (kN)
Lateral load (kN)

0 0
−50 −50
−100 −100
−150 −150

−250 −250
−12 −9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9 12 −12 −9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9 12
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(c) Unit 1 (Pantelides et al. 2002) (d) Unit 2 (Pantelides et al. 2002)
100
75
50
Shear force (kN)
25
−25
−50
−75 Experiment
Simulation
−100
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
Displacement (mm)
(e) SP-1 (Sasmal et al. 2011)
exterior joints with joint bond failure
65
600 150
400 100
Column shear (kN)
Story shear (kN)

200 50
0 0
−200 −50
−400 −100
−600 −150
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
Drift (%) Story drift (%)
(a) PEER09 (Alire 2002) (b) OH (Goto and Joh 1996)

80 30
60
20
40
Story shear force (kN)
Column shear (kN)

10
20
0 0
−20
−10
−40
−20
−80 −30
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 −9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(c) AL1 (Li et al. 2009) (d) JE-1 (Ohwada 1977)

400 450
300
300
200
Column shear (kN)
Story shear (kN)
150
100
0 0
−100
−150
−200
−300
−400 −450
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
Story drift (%) Drift (%)
(e) RC (Ota et al. 2000) (f) PEER22 (Walker 2001)
interior joints
66
Table 3.7 Modeling parameters of Pinching4 material for non-ductile exterior joints
Reference Speci- Failure Joint shear Pinching damage parameters†
men § strain (×10-3)
mode rDisp rForce uForce αK1 αD1 αF1
γj,3 γj,4 Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos Neg
Clyde et al. Unit 2 J 12 40 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 -0.15 -0.15 0.50 0.60 0.00
(2000) Unit 4 J 10 40 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.15 -0.10 -0.10 0.80 0.50 0.00
Unit 5 J 10 30 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.15 -0.10 -0.10 0.80 1.00 0.00
Unit 6 J 12 40 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 -0.15 -0.15 0.50 0.60 0.00
Ghobarah and Said
T1 BJ 20 54 0.15 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.40 0.05
(2002)
‡
Ilki et al. (2011) JO J 20 116 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.25 0.00
JOP J 20 116 0.20 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.20 0.00
Karayannis et al. A0 BJ 20 89 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.30 0.05
(2008) B0 BJ 20 84 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.40 0.45
C0 BJ 20 84 0.25 0.30 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.30 0.20
Liu (2006) RC-1 BJ 10 91 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.40 0.05
Pantelides et al. Unit 3 J 20 89 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.05
(2002) Unit 4 J 20 60 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.40 0.10
Unit 5 J 20 80 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 -0.15 -0.10 1.00 0.40 0.05
Unit 6 J 20 89 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 -0.15 -0.10 1.00 0.40 0.05
Tsonos and F1 J 10 90 0.15 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.20 0.10
Papanikolaou F2 BJ 20 89 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.10 0.05
(2003) L1 J 15 84 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.20 0.00
Tsonos (2007) G1 J 20 140 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.25 0.05
Wong (2005) BS-L J 20 66 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.20 -0.20 -0.20 1.20 0.50 0.00
BS-OL J 20 89 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.20 -0.20 -0.20 1.20 0.20 0.00
BS-U J 15 89 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 -0.20 -0.20 1.20 0.20 0.10
JA-NN03 BJ 20 66 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 -0.20 -0.20 1.20 0.30 0.10
Aycardi et al. (1994) Exterior‡ J, A 20 100 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.20 -0.05 -0.05 0.80 0.20 0.10
El-Amoury (2004) T-SB3 J, A 10 44 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.20 0.00
Pantelides et al. Unit 1 J, A 10 80 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.60 0.00
(2002) Unit 2 J, A 10 80 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.60 0.00
Sasmal et al. (2011) SP-1 J, A 15 66 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.40 0.00
Mean 16 77 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.18 -0.06 -0.06 0.94 0.38 0.06
COV 0.32 0.31 0.18 0.20 0.19 0.26 1.37 1.40 0.19 0.49 1.63
§ J, BJ, CJ, and A refer to joint shear failure without member yielding, joint shear failure after
beam yielding, and joint shear failure after column yielding, bond failure associated with short
embedment length, respectively.
† rDisp, rForce, and uForce are the ratio of maximum deformation at which reloading begins,
ratio of envelope force corresponding to maximum deformation at which reloading begins, and
ratio of monotonic strength developed upon loading, respectively. αKi, αDi, and αFi are coefficients
for unloading stiffness degradation, reloading stiffness degradation, and strength degradation,
respectively. For all specimens, [αK2, αK3, αK4, αK5] = [0.00, 0.10, 0.00, 0.95], [αD2 αD3 αD4 αD5] =
[0.00, 0.15, 0.00, 0.95], [αF2 αF3 αF4 αF5] = [0.0, 0.32, 0.10, 0.25].
‡ Specimen with two transverse beams
67
Table 3.8 Modeling parameters of Pinching4 material for non-ductile interior joints
men § strain (×10-3)
mode rDisp rForce uForce αK1 αD1 αF1
Alire (2002) PEER0995 BJ 20 89 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.40 0.00
PEER1595 BJ 20 100 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.40 0.10
PEER4150 J 20 100 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.40 0.40
Aycardi et al. (1994) Interior‡ BJ, A 20 100 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.20 0.00
Hakuto et al. (2000) O4 BJ 20 89 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.30 0.00
O5 BJ 20 89 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.40 0.10
Goto and Joh (1996) J-OH J 15 102 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.40 0.05
Lee et al. (2010) JI0 J 15 89 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.40 0.10
Li et al. (2002) A1 J 20 89 0.27 0.27 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.40 0.30
M1 BJ 20 89 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Li et al. (2009) AS1‡ J 20 94 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.30 0.00
AL1‡ J 20 107 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.30 0.35
AS2‡ J 20 100 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.35 0.05
AL2‡ J 20 107 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.00
Ohwada (1970) NO1 J 10 72 0.30 0.30 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.35 0.05
Ohwada (1973) P2 J 20 140 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.35 0.05
Ohwada (1977) JO-1 J 20 140 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.40 0.05
JE-1 J 20 260 0.30 0.35 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.40 0.05
Ota et al. (2004) RC BJ 20 107 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.30 0.05
Owada (1984) LJO-6‡ CJ 15 89 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.20 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.35 0.05
LJXY-6‡ CJ 15 275 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.35 0.05
LJXY-7‡ CJ 15 275 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.35 0.05
LJXY-8‡ CJ 20 116 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.35 0.05
Owada (2000) JO-5 J 20 157 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.30 0.10
JXY-3‡ CJ 20 212 0.30 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.30 0.10
Pimanmas &
J0 J 15 89 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.30 0.00
Chaimahawan (2010)
Walker (2001) PEER14 BJ 20 89 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.40 0.10
CD1514 BJ 20 100 0.13 0.13 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.10 0.00
CD3014 BJ 20 100 0.13 0.13 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.10 1.00
PADH14 BJ 20 100 0.13 0.13 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.10 1.00
PEER22 BJ 20 89 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.40 0.20
CD3022 BJ 20 100 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.10 0.60
PADH22 BJ 20 89 0.13 0.13 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.10 1.00
Wang and Hsu (2009) Ko-JI1 J 15 73 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.40 0.30
Ho-JI1 J 20 89 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.20 0.10
Mean 19 117 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.33 0.18
COV 0.14 0.46 0.29 0.29 0.25 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.47 1.57
†, §, and ‡ are the same as non-ductile exterior joints
68
3.3.4 Validation of analytical model for a scale model frame
In order to investigate the applicability of the analytical models mentioned in the
previous sections to a full frame model, this research selects a one-third scale model
frame tested by Bracci et al. (1992) that can represent the most common RC building
designed for only gravity loads without seismic provisions in accordance with ACI 318-
89 (1989). Figure 3.19 illustrates the geometry of the model frame used in the
experimental work of Bracci et al. (1992). This non-ductile RC frame has inadequate
column shear capacity due to a lack of confinement and poor reinforcement details, lap
splice of column reinforcement in its potential plastic hinge regions, and weak joints due
to limited shear capacity associated with little or no joint transverse reinforcement and
inadequate anchorage of bottom beam reinforcement. Further details on the material
properties and reinforcement details can be found in the reference.
8˝ 3@6΄=18΄ 8˝
19΄-4˝
8˝ 3@6΄=18΄ 8˝
2΄
6˝
3@4΄=12΄
All columns 2˝ slab

4˝×4˝
10΄
6΄
A B thickness
All beams
3˝×6˝
2΄
Rigid base
8˝
(a) Elevation (b) Plan

B C
4#D4 2#D5 #12-ga @2˝ 3#D4 #12-ga @2˝
2-3/4˝ 2˝
2˝
2-2/3˝ 2-2/3˝
2˝
2˝
4˝
#11-ga #11-ga
4˝
4˝
2#D4 2#D4
2˝ 2˝ C
4˝
4˝
B #11-ga
A A 4˝ 3˝ 3˝
A-A B-B C-C
Section A Section B
(c)’Reinforcement details
Figure 3.19 Geometry and reinforcement details of the structure (Bracci et al. 1992)
69
Following the analytical modeling approach mentioned in the previous sections,
the analytical model of the scale model frame is built in OpenSees (McKenna et al. 2010).
The exterior and interior joint shear strength is determined from the companion exterior
and interior subassemblages tested by Aycardi et al. (1994). In addition, the reduced joint
shear strength as a result of insufficient anchorage in a joint is calculated using the bond
strength model of Hassan (2011). The calibration is performed controlling the pinching
damage parameters to obtain its appropriate responses. Moreover, the shear behavior of
columns is not accounted for in the model validation because the companion columns
conducted by Aycardi et al. (1994) seems to be dominated by flexure response. For
dynamic analysis, lumped mass at every connection is employed based on the load
combination 1.05D (dead load) and 0.25L (live load), and the 2% Rayleigh damping in
the first two modes is used. An eigenvalue analysis revealed a fundamental period of
approximately 0.67 seconds. This is a very dominant mode in that it activates 87 percent
of its mass. Furthermore, the input motion is the 1952 Taft earthquake, N21E component
scaled to 0.2g, as presented in Figure 3.20 (Bracci et al. 1992).
0.3
0.2
Acceleration (g)
0.1
−0.1
−0.2
−0.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (sec)
Figure 3.20 Input motion (1952 Taft earthquake scaled to 0.2g)
70
Figures 3.21 and Figure 3.22 depict the comparison of story displacement and
story shear force time history responses of the Bracci et al. (1992) experiment with those
of the simulation, respectively. Table 3.9 shows the comparison of maximum story
displacement and maximum shear force for each story obtained from experiment and
analysis. The maximum third story (roof) displacement for analysis shows a good
agreement with the experimental measurement less than 3% difference while the
maximum first story displacement has a considerable difference. This significant
difference may be attributed to the application of the same joint shear strength to joints at
different floor levels. However, all the story displacement time histories appropriately
capture the response period. Additionally, the amplitude decays after a peak value of the
story displacement response near 5 seconds, as shown in Figure 3.21. However, the
amplitude increases between 18 and 23 seconds. It is attributable to the deterioration in
unloading and reloading strength and stiffness during this time period. The analytical
model accurately captures the strength and stiffness degradation of the experimental
structure. Although the analytical results slightly underestimate the story shear forces
(particularly, 10% difference in maximum base shear), as presented in Figure 3.22, the
overall shear force response accurately predicted the actual response.
Table 3.9 Comparison of maximum responses from experiment and analysis

Story Maximum story displacement (mm) Maximum story shear force (kN)
Experiment Analysis Diff. (%) Experiment Analysis Diff. (%)
Third 34 34 + 2.3 25 29 14.7
Second 29 26 -11.7 41 37 -11.0
First 16 12 -29.9 55 50 - 9.0
71
40
Experiment
30 Simulation
20
Displacement (mm)
10
0
−10
−20
−30
−40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (sec)
(a) 4th floor

40
Experiment
30 Simulation
20
Displacement (mm)
10
0
−10
−20
−30
−40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (sec)
(b) 3rd floor

40
Experiment
30 Simulation
20
Displacement (mm)
10
0
−10
−20
−30
−40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (sec)
(c) 2nd floor
Figure 3.21 Comparison of floor displacement time histories of experiment and analysis
72
80
Experiment
60 Simulation
40
Story shear (kN)

20
0
−20
−40
−60
−80
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (sec)
(a) 3rd story

80
Experiment
60 Simulation
40
Story shear (kips)
20
0
−20
−40
−60
−80
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (sec)
(b) 2nd story

80
Experiment
60 Simulation
40
Base shear (kN)
20
0
−20
−40
−60
−80
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (sec)
(c) 1st story
Figure 3.22 Comparison of story shear force time histories of experiment and analysis
73
3.4 Modeling Ductile Beam-Column Joints
For ductile RC frames, beam-column joints are often modeled with rigid joint zones.
However, Shin and LaFave (2004) argued that the joint regions are not rigid, but
experience significant shear deformations that can contribute greatly to global
deformation. Therefore, the analytical model must predict the inelastic behavior of
ductile beam-column joints. As mentioned before, this research defines a beam-column
joint with joint transverse reinforcement spaced at less than the half of column depth as a
ductile joint, as illustrated in Figure 3.23.
Joint transverse reinforcement
(a) Interior (b) Exterior
Figure 3.23 Typical reinforcing details in ductile beam-column joints
Analytical modeling procedures follow the same as those for non-ductile beam-
column joints except for joint bond failure. To investigate the propriety of the analytical
joint shear model for ductile beam-column joints, a database of 44 exterior and 89
interior beam-column joint subassemblages are collected from experimental work
available in the literature and are simulated in OpenSees (McKenna et al. 2010). The
74
database includes specimens experiencing joint shear failure before and after beam
yielding, specimens without and with transverse beams orthogonal to joints.
The validation is performed based on experimental results, especially
experimental joint shear strength, in order to extract the modeling parameters of the
Pinching4 material that can be adequately used for analyzing RC frames. Figure 3.24 and
Figure 3.25 present the comparison of experimental and analytical results for exterior and
interior beam-column joints, respectively. From these figures, it is indicated that the
analytical results match well with experimental results in terms of strength, stiffness, and
energy dissipation. In some specimens, the analytical model overestimates initial stiffness
which may be attributed to bond slip, which is not included in this study. It is, however,
qualitatively clear that the prediction improves at higher deformation levels. Additionally,
Table 3.10 indicates the maximum lateral forces from experiment and simulation for 12
specimens. It is indicated that the maximum shear forces from analyses shows a good
agreement with the experimental results (less than 5% difference). All of 133 comparison
plots can be found in Figure A.5 and Figure A.6 (see Appendix A).
Table 3.11 and Table 3.12 show the modeling parameters of the Pinching4
material for ductile exterior and interior beam-column joints, respectively, which are
extracted from the model validation described above. These values are examined
separately for exterior and interior joints. Like the case of non-ductile beam-column joins,
the mean value of these parameters will be used for analyzing ductile RC frames in a
probabilistic risk assessment.
75
Table 3.10 Comparison of experimental and analytical maximum lateral force for ductile beam-
column joint subassemblages
Joint Failure Maximum lateral force (kN) Difference
Specimens
type mode Experiment Analysis (%)
Exterior Joint 1B (Ehsani and Wight 1985) 147 155 +5.1
shear B3 (Fujii and Morita 1991) 64 64 -0.1
failure NO12 (Kaku and Asakusa 1991) 43 43 -0.2
RC-2 (Nishiyama et al. 1989) 71 71 +0.3
S6 (Tsonos et al. 1992) 58 56 -3.7
JA-NY15 (Wong 2005) 88 91 +3.3
Interior Joint SP1 (Inoue et al. 1990) 326 328 +0.6
shear J-6 (Oka and Shiohara 1992) 266 262 -1.4
failure NO1 (Takamori et al. 2006) 1308 1291 -1.3
S1 (Teng and Zhou 2003) 117 114 -2.4
NO08 (Teraoka 1997) 268 259 -3.4
NO3 (Yoshino et al. 1997) 49 51 +2.3
76
200 75
150
50
100

Lateral load (kN)
25
50
0 0
−50
−25
−100
−150 −50
−200 −75
−150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
Displacement (mm) Beam−tip displacement (mm)
(a) 1B (Ehsani and Wight 1985) (b) B3 (Fujii and Morita 1991)
60 90
40 60
Beam shear (kN)

Beam shear (kN)
20 30
0 0
−20 −30
−40 −60
−60 −90
−90 −60 −30 0 30 60 90 −150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150
Displacment (mm) Displacment (mm)
(c) NO12 (Kaku and Asakusa 1991) (d) RC-2 (Nishiyama et al. 1989)
75 100
75
50
50
Applied shear (kN)
Lateral force (kN)
25
25
0 0
−25
−25
−50
−50 −75
−75 −100
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 −75 −50 −25 0 25 50 75
Displacement (mm) Displacment (mm)
(c) S6 (Tsonos et al. 1992) (f) JA-NY15 (Wong 2005)
Figure 3.24 Comparison between hysteretic responses of experiment and analysis for ductile
exterior joints
77
400 300
300
200
Beam shear (kN) 200
Story shear (kN)

100
100
0 0
−100
−100
−200
−300 −200
−400 −300
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
(a) SP1 (Inoue et al. 1990) (b) J-6 (Oka and Shiohara 1992)
1500 150
1000 100
Story shear (kN)
Story force (kN)

500 50
0 0
−500 −50
−1000 −100
−1500 −150
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
Story drift (%) Story drift (%)
(c) NO1 (Takamori et al. 2006) (d) S1 (Teng and Zhou 2003)
300 60
200 40
Column shear (kN)
100
Story shear (kN)
20
0 0
−100 −20
−200 −40
−300 −60
−9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8
(e) NO08 (Teraoka 1997) (f) NO3 (Yoshino et al. 1997)
Figure 3.25 Comparison between hysteretic responses of experiment and analysis for ductile
interior joints
78
Table 3.11 Modeling parameters of Pinching4 material for ductile exterior joints
men § strain (×10-3) rDisp rForce uForce αK1 αD1 αF1
mode
Chen and Chen (1999) JC BJ 20 180 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.05
Ehsani and HL11 J 20 157 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.25 0.05
Alameddine (1991) LL11 J 20 212 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.10 0.05
LL14 BJ 20 212 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.10 0.05
LH14 BJ 20 212 0.35 0.35 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.15 0.05
Ehsani et al. (1987) NO4 BJ 20 140 0.25 0.30 0.25 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.25 0.05
NO5 BJ 20 107 0.20 0.20 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.05
Ehsani and Wight 1B J 20 94 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 -0.20 -0.20 1.00 0.20 0.15
(1985) 2B J 20 94 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.23 -0.20 -0.20 1.20 0.10 0.20
3B BJ 20 94 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 -0.20 -0.20 1.20 0.10 0.05
5B J 20 140 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.10 0.05
6B BJ 20 140 0.25 0.25 0.40 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.05
Fujii and Morita B1 J 20 140 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.25 0.05
(1991) B2 J 20 140 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.25 0.05
B3 J 20 116 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.35 0.05
B4 J 20 140 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.35 0.05
Ishida et al. (1996) A-0 J 20 180 0.20 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.35 0.05
A-0-F BJ 20 140 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.35 0.05
Joh et al. (1989) LO-NO J 20 157 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.05
HH-NO J 20 157 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.05
LO-N96 J 20 157 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.05
HH-N96 J 20 157 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.05
Joh et al. (1992) NRC-J5 J 20 340 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.25 0.05
NRC-J10 BJ 20 157 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.15 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.35 0.05
NRC-J13 BJ 20 212 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.25 0.05
Kaku and Asakusa NO03 BJ 20 980 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.05
(1991) NO05 BJ 20 180 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.30 0.05
NO06 BJ 20 260 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.15 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.05
NO09 BJ 25 245 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.05
NO11 BJ 25 245 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.05
NO12 BJ 20 260 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.15 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.05
Kanada et al. (1984) U41L BJ 15 131 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.15 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.35 0.05
Lee and Lee (2000) EJ+0.0 J 20 180 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.35 0.05
EJ+0.1 J 20 80 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.60 0.05
Nishiyama et al.(1989) RC-2 BJ 20 180 0.25 0.30 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.30 0.05
Takeuchi et al. (2003) O-5 J 15 95 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.30 0.05
Tsonos (2007) A1 BJ 20 140 0.25 0.25 0.45 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.20 0.05
Tsonos et al. (1992) S1 BJ 20 340 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.10 0.05
S2 BJ 20 127 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.20 0.05
S6 J 20 100 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.15 0.05
S6' BJ 20 100 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.15 0.05
F2 J 20 100 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.15 0.05
Wong (2005) JA-NY03 BJ 20 180 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.15 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.30 0.05
JA-NY15 BJ 20 260 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.30 0.05
Mean 20 185 0.26 0.25 0.20 0.21 -0.01 -0.01 1.00 0.24 0.06
COV 0.08 0.74 0.13 0.16 0.38 0.25 -3.74 -3.74 0.05 0.46 0.48
79
Table 3.12 Modeling parameters of Pinching4 material for ductile interior joints
mode
Durrani and Wight X1 BJ 20 140 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.10 0.00
(1985) X2 BJ 20 212 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.10 0.00
X3 BJ 20 260 0.35 0.25 0.35 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.05 0.00
Endoh et al. (1991) HLC BJ 20 260 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.30 0.00
LA1 J 20 260 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.30 0.00
Fujii and Morita A1 J 20 140 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.25 0.05
(1991) A3 J 20 157 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.30 0.05
A4 J 20 157 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.20 0.05
Goto and Joh (1996) HH J 15 131 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.40 0.05
Goto and Joh (2003) LM-60 BJ 20 260 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.30 0.05
LM-125 BJ 20 260 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.30 0.05
HM-60 BJ 20 260 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.30 0.05
HM-125 BJ 20 260 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.30 0.05
HH-125 BJ 20 260 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.20 0.05
Hiramatsu et al. (1995) S1 BJ 20 260 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.35 0.05
Inoue et al. (1990) SP1‡ BJ 20 212 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.25 0.10
SP2 BJ 20 180 0.20 0.20 0.40 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.30 0.05
Ishida et al. (2001) CN BJ 20 260 0.20 0.25 0.22 0.20 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.30 0.05
ES‡ BJ 20 260 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.30 0.05
Jinno et al. (1991) NO1 BJ 20 260 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.40 0.05
NO2 J 20 260 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.40 0.05
NO3 BJ 20 180 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.40 0.05
NO4 BJ 20 180 0.15 0.15 0.25 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.35 0.05
NO5 BJ 20 180 0.15 0.15 0.30 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.40 0.05
NO6 BJ 20 180 0.15 0.15 0.30 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.40 0.05
NO7 BJ 20 180 0.15 0.15 0.30 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.40 0.05
NO8 BJ 20 180 0.15 0.15 0.30 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.40 0.05
Joh et al. (1991a) JXO-B1 BJ 20 140 0.25 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.25 0.05
JXO-B5 BJ 20 157 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.25 0.05
Joh et al. (1991b) JXO-8MH BJ 20 140 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.25 0.05
Kaku et al. (1993) J31A BJ 20 116 0.15 0.15 0.25 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.40 0.05
Kamimura et al. (2004) NN.1 BJ 20 260 0.40 0.40 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.20 0.05
Kashiwazaki et al. (1992) MKJ-1 BJ 20 260 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.20 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.10 0.05
Kitayama et al. (1991) J1‡ BJ 20 260 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.45 0.05
Kitayama et al. (2000) PB1 BJ 20 260 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.20 0.05
PNB2 BJ 20 180 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.25 0.05
PNB3 BJ 20 180 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.30 0.05
Kurose et al. (1991) J1 BJ 30 130 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.45 0.05
Kusuhara et al. (2004) JE-0 BJ 20 140 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.50 0.05
JE-55 BJ 20 140 0.25 0.30 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.30 0.05
Lee et al. (2009) J1 J 20 180 0.25 0.30 0.25 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.25 0.05
Matsumoto et al. B-0 BJ 20 157 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.25 0.05
(2010) B-5 BJ 20 260 0.15 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.25 0.05
J-0 J 20 140 0.25 0.23 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.32 0.05
J-5 J 20 140 0.25 0.23 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.25 0.05
Morita et al. (2004) M1 J 20 212 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.20 0.05
M6 J 20 212 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.20 0.05
80
Table 3.12 Modeling parameters of Pinching4 material for ductile interior joints (continued)
mode
Noguchi and OKJ-1 BJ 25 105 0.30 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.25 0.00
Kashiwazaki (1992) OKJ-4 BJ 25 123 0.20 0.20 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.25 0.00
OKJ-5 J 25 135 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.35 0.00
OKJ-6 J 25 105 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.25 0.00
Ohwada (1970) No. 2 J 20 260 0.25 0.35 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.20 0.05
Ohwada (1977) JO-2 J 20 260 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.45 0.05
Oka and Shiohara J-1 BJ 20 116 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.35 0.00
(1992) J-6 J 20 116 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.35 0.00
J-8 BJ 15 119 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.35 0.00
J-10 J 20 116 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.35 0.00
Ozaki et al. (2010) NO1 BJ 20 180 0.20 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.25 0.05
NO2 BJ 20 157 0.20 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.25 0.05
Raffaelle and Wight SP1 BJ 20 260 0.35 0.35 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.20 0.05
(1992) SP2 BJ 20 260 0.35 0.35 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.25 0.05
SP3 BJ 20 260 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.15 0.05
SP4 BJ 20 260 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.25 0.05
Shin and LaFave SL1‡ BJ 20 260 0.40 0.40 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.15 0.05
(2004) SL2‡ BJ 20 260 0.35 0.35 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.25 0.05
SL4‡ BJ 20 260 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.20 0.05
Shinjo et al. (2009) B-1 BJ 20 89 0.15 0.15 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.30 0.05
J-1 J 20 76 0.15 0.15 0.35 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.35 0.05
BJ-1 J 20 80 0.15 0.15 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.35 0.05
Takamori et al. (2006) NO1 BJ 20 127 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.25 0.05
NO2 BJ 20 116 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.25 0.05
NO3 BJ 20 127 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.25 0.05
Teng and Zhou (2003) S1 BJ 20 260 0.40 0.40 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.25 0.07
S2 BJ 20 260 0.40 0.40 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.25 0.05
S5 BJ 20 260 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.25 0.05
Teraoka (1997) NO01 J 15 131 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.30 0.05
NO04‡ J 15 131 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.30 0.05
NO07‡ BJ 15 145 0.30 0.30 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.20 0.00
NO08‡ BJ 15 164 0.30 0.30 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.35 0.00
NO09‡ J 15 131 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.35 0.05
NO10‡ J 15 131 0.25 0.25 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.35 0.05
NO35‡ BJ 15 131 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.40 0.05
NO36‡ BJ 15 131 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.40 0.05
Yashito et al. (1996) No. 1 BJ 20 180 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.05
No. 3 BJ 20 157 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.35 0.05
No. 4 J 20 157 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.30 0.05
Yoshino et al. (1997) NO1 BJ 20 260 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.35 0.05
NO3 BJ 20 212 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.35 0.05
Zaid et al. (1999) S3 BJ 20 140 0.30 0.35 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.30 0.05
Mean 20 187 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.29 0.04
COV 0.11 0.32 0.25 0.25 0.32 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.29 0.46
81
3.5 Summary
This chapter presents the analytical modeling techniques for RC frame’s critical
components associated with the design codes, particularly their reinforcing details.
Analytical models of RC frame’s primary components that can account for shear in the
columns and shear or bond in the joints of RC frames are employed, modified, and
developed, following a review of existing models. For shear-dominated columns, the
shear model developed by Elwood (2004) is employed. To resolve the drawback of the
model, this research proves the applicability of the model to experimental columns
subjected to reversed cyclic pushover loadings. The shear model is validated using the
results from experimental shear-dominated columns available in the literature. For beam-
column joint models, the model from Anderson et al. (2008) is utilized with
modifications to the degrading slope in order to construct the backbone curve of the joint
shear stress-strain relationship. Since this model was developed for non-ductile interior
joints, this research shows the applicability of the model to other joint types such as non-
ductile exterior joints, ductile exterior and interior joints by comparing experimental
results with analytical predictions. Additionally, reduced joint shear strength associated
with bond slip is accounted for by using the bond strength model developed by Hassan
(2011) for non-ductile joints with discontinuous beam bottom reinforcement. Finally,
hysteric rules including the effect of cyclic deterioration are extracted in comparison to
experimental results in order to apply them to the frame model. Application of the
proposed column shear model and beam-column joint model for seismic demand
analyses of RC frames demonstrates the importance of capturing the shear behavior of
the components accurately in assessing their seismic performance.
82
CHAPTER 4
DESCRIPTION, MODELING, AND RESPONSE OF RC BUILDINGS
The seismic risk assessment of a building inventory in a region requires the selection of
sample buildings that are representative of design and construction practices in that
region as well as accurate finite element models for numerical simulations of these
buildings. The sample buildings selected in the research are the most common types of
non-ductile and ductile RC buildings designed or constructed in California. Based on
building information in accordance with the design codes and analytical modeling
techniques mentioned in Chapter 3, high fidelity analytical frame models accounting for
geometric and material nonlinearities are utilized in this research in order to achieve
reliable fragility assessments. The ability to capture the inelastic behavior of critical
components is dictated by the fidelity and robustness of the model. The evaluation of
seismic performance for these frames is finally conducted using the NSP and the NTHA
in terms of local and global demands.
4.1 Description of Typical RC Building Frames in California
Liel (2008) and Haselton (2006) proposed a series of building frames in terms of building
height, lateral force resisting system, and design requirements to perform the seismic risk
analysis for non-ductile RC frames (ordinary moment frames, OMF) and ductile RC
frames (special moment frame, SMF), respectively. The building frames are
representative of common older and modern building types in California. The researchers
accounted for important key design parameters that can considerably affect seismic
83
performance such as the plastic rotation capacity of members, strength and stiffness of
members, and deformation capacity of system. Among many design variables was the
ratio of tributary areas for gravity and lateral loads, as illustrated in Figure 4.1. Perimeter
frames have lateral force resisting frames on the exterior of the building and a flat-slab
floor system while space frames have moment-resisting frames along every column line.
Space frame (Agravity/Alateral=1.0) Perimeter frame (Agravity/Alateral=0.16)
Gravity tributary area Lateral tributary area
Figure 4.1 Ratio of gravity to lateral tributary areas for a space and perimeter frame systems
(Haselton 2006)
4.1.1 Non-ductile RC frames
Liel (2008) identified a set of archetypes to evaluate the seismic risk assessment of older
RC frame structures. This author presented a set of 26 archetypical non-ductile RC
frames that can be representative of typical office buildings in California. Each non-
ductile frame was designed according to the requirements of the 1967 Uniform Building
Code (UBC), which represents the state of seismic design in California between 1950 and
1975 (ICBO 1967). The 1967 UBC equivalent lateral load procedure for seismic design
was used to determine the required design base shear for seismic zone 3, the highest
84
seismic zone at the time, which included most of California. In addition, the same
material strengths were used in designing all the frames: 27.6 MPa concrete and 414 MPa
steel for both longitudinal and transverse reinforcement. All members were designed to
be 15% stronger than the minimum requirement in the code. Other modeling assumptions
are similar to those by Haselton (2006) which will be explained in the next section. Table
4.1 presents typical building footprint sizes for the various buildings in the analysis. All
frames have 7.62 m bay spacing.
Table 4.1 Representative building geometries for non-ductile frames (Liel 2008)
Building story Story height (first, upper) Plan dimensions
2~4 story 4.572 m, 3.962 m 38.100 m × 53.340 m
8~12 story 4.572 m, .3.962 m 38.100 m × 38.100 m
4.1.2 Ductile RC frames
Haselton (2006) presented the class of RC ductile frames designed by current building
code provisions of the 2003 IBC (ICC 2003), ASCE 7-02 (ASCE 2002), and ACI 318-02
(ACI 2002) to ensure the ductile behavior which prevents or delays unpredictable failure
or even sudden collapse under seismic events. Each ductile frame was designed for a high
seismic site in California (soil class Sd, Sms = 1.5g, and Sm1 = 0.9g) corresponding to
NEHRP soil category D. The maximum considered earthquake (MCE) used in building
code design (ICC 2003) is depicted in Figure 4.2. The general design assumptions used in
the design process for the ductile frames are indicated in Table 4.2. Practicing engineers
reviewed all relevant design assumptions to ensure consistency with common design
practice. The author also assumed that the governing failure mode is side-sway collapse
Based on the design assumptions, the author developed a matrix of 30 archetypical
designs for six building heights (1~20 stories), two bay widths (6.096 m and 9.144 m),
85
perimeter and space frames, and three foundation fixities. Moreover, Table 4.3 indicates
typical building footprint sizes for various buildings used in the work of Haselton (2006).
Further details on the design information can be found in the reference.
Table 4.2 Design assumptions of the archetype ductile frames (Haselton 2006)
Design parameter Design assumption
Beam stiffness 0.5EIg
Column stiffness 0.7 EIg for all axial load levels
Slab consideration Slab not included in stiffness/strength design
Joint stiffness Elastic joint stiffness
Conservatism applied in element flexural and 1.15 of required strength
shear strength design
Conservatism applied in joint strength design 1.0 of required strength
Conservatism applied in strong-column Expected ratio of 1.3 (instead of 1.2)
weak-beam design
2
1.8
Spectral acceleration, S (g)
1.6
a
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Period, T (sec)
Figure 4.2 MCE ground motion spectrum at the Los Angeles site
Table 4.3 Representative building geometries for ductile frames (Haselton 2006)
Building story Story height (first, upper) Plan dimensions
1~4 story 4.572 m, 3.962 m 36.576 m × 54.864 m
8~20 story 4.572 m, .3.962 m 36.576 m × 36.576 m
86
4.1.3 Selection of analyzed RC frames
In this research, 4-story and 8-story RC frames representative of low- and mid-rise
buildings are chosen in a series of non-ductile and ductile RC frames. Non-ductile RC
frames used in this research include space and perimeter frame system because the
former is more typical of office buildings and the latter was constructed in the form of
flat-slab gravity systems that can be found in industrial facilities. On the contrary, for
ductile frames, perimeter frame systems are selected because they are typical of ductile
RC frame structures that are mainly found in office buildings and industrial facilities.
Additionally, space frames are not taken into account because they would be expected to
respond in a more ductile fashion to earthquake loading. Table 4.4 lists RC frames to be
analyzed. Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4 provide the primary design features for an example
of non-ductile and ductile RC frames selected in this research, respectively. Figure B.1
through Figure B.6 in Appendix B show design information for all frames selected in this
research. Table 4.5 also summarizes the material properties of six RC frames. Each RC
frame will be modeled to various analytical frame models (i.e., joint rigid offset model,
joint shear or bond model, column shear model, joint and column shear model) using the
associated design information in the figures in order to assess the influence of modeling
assumptions and governing failure modes on seismic performance, particularly
deformation demand. The frame models will be discussed in the next section.
87
Table 4.4 List of RC frames
Type Frame ID No. of stories System Design ID number Reference
Non-ductile OMF-4S 4 Space ID3004 Liel (2008)
frame OMF-4P 4 Perimeter ID3003
OMF-8S 8 Space ID3016
OMF-8P 8 Perimeter ID3015
Ductile SMF-4P 4 Perimeter ID1003 Haselton (2006)
frame SMF-8P 8 Perimeter ID1011
Table 4.5 Material properties with different frame types

Type Frame ID Concrete compressive strength (MPa) Steel yield strength (MPa)
st
1 story column Other columns Beam Nominal Expected
Non-ductile OMF-4S 27.6 27.6 27.6 414 MPa 462 MPa
frame OMF-4P 27.6 27.6 27.6 414 MPa 462 MPa
OMF-8S 27.6 27.6 27.6 414 MPa 462 MPa
OMF-8P 27.6 27.6 27.6 414 MPa 462 MPa
Ductile SMF-4P 48.3 34.5 34.5 414 MPa 462 MPa
frame SMF-8P 41.4 34.5 34.5 414 MPa 462 MPa
0.0125
0.0193
0.0055
0.0125
0.0193
0.0055
0.0125
0.0193
0.0055
508
508
224
508
508
224
508
508
224
Floor 5
Design base shear
h (mm) = 508 508 508 508 = 0.068g, 440 kN
Story 4
b (mm) = 508 508 508 508

ρtot = 0.0280 0.0120 0.0120 0.0280 fć,beams = 27.6 MPa
ρsh = 0.0022 0.0015 0.0015 0.0022 fć,cols.upper = 27.6 MPa
0.0205
0.0044
0.0205
0.0044
0.0205
0.0044
0.0115
0.0115
0.0115
s (mm) = 254 254 254 254 fć,cols.lower = 27.6 MPa

508
508
224
508
508
224
508
508
224
Floor 4
fy,rebar.nom. = 414 MPa
h (mm) = 508 508 508 508
Story 3
b (mm) = 508 508 508 508

ρtot = 0.0280 0.0190 0.0190 0.0280
ρsh = 0.0022 0.0015 0.0015 0.0022
0.0065
0.0135
0.0028
0.0065
0.0135
0.0028
0.0065
0.0135
0.0028
s (mm) = 254 254 254 254

660
508
300
660
508
300
660
508
300
Floor 3
h (mm) = 508 508 508 508
Story 2
3,962 mm
b (mm) = 508 508 508 508

ρtot = 0.0280 0.0280 0.0280 0.0280
= 0.0073
= 0.0143
= 0.0028
= 0.0073
= 0.0143
= 0.0028
= 0.0073
= 0.0143
= 0.0028
ρsh = 0.0022 0.0028 0.0028 0.0022

= 660
= 508
= 300
= 660
= 508
= 300
= 660
= 508
= 300
s (mm) = 254 254 254 254

Floor 2
h (mm)
b (mm)
h (mm)
b (mm)
h (mm)
b (mm)
s (mm)
s (mm)
s (mm)
h (mm) = 508 508 508 508

Story 1
4,572 mm
ρsh
ρsh
ρsh
ρ´
ρ´
ρ´
ρ
b (mm) = 508 508 508 508

ρtot = 0.0390 0.0280 0.0280 0.0390
ρsh = 0.0029 0.0028 0.0028 0.0029
s (mm) = 254 254 254 254
Grade beam column height = 610 mm Basement column height = 0 mm

7,620 mm
Figure 4.3 Design information of 4-story non-ductile space frame (OMF-4S) (Liel 2008)
88
0.0048
0.0060
0.0029
0.0048
0.0060
0.0029
0.0048
0.0060
0.0029
610
813
127
610
813
127
610
813
127
Floor 5
Design base shear
h (mm) = 762 965 965 762 = 0.092g, 1717 kN
Story 4
b (mm) = 813 813 813 813
ρtot = 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 fć,beams = 34.5 MPa
0.0093
0.0108
0.0039
0.0093
0.0108
0.0039
0.0093
0.0108
0.0039
610
813
127
610
813
127
610
813
127
Floor 4
h (mm) = 762 965 965 762
Story 3
b (mm) = 813 813 813 813

ρtot = 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100
ρsh = 0.0061 0.0080 0.0080 0.0061
0.0100
0.0048
0.0100
0.0048
0.0100
0.0048
0.0115
0.0115
0.0115
s (mm) = 102 89 89 102
610
813
127
610
813
127
610
813
127
Floor 3
h (mm) = 762 965 965 762
b (mm) = 813 813 813 813
Story 2
3,962 mm
ρtot = 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100
= 0.0108
= 0.0123
= 0.0051
= 0.0108
= 0.0123
= 0.0051
= 0.0108
= 0.0123
= 0.0051
ρsh = 0.0085 0.0112 0.0112 0.0085
= 610
= 813
= 127
= 610
= 813
= 127
= 610
= 813
= 127
s (mm) = 89 89 89 89
Floor 2
h (mm)
b (mm)
h (mm)
b (mm)
h (mm)
b (mm)
s (mm)
s (mm)
s (mm)
h (mm) = 762 965 965 762
Story 1
4,572 mm
ρsh
ρsh
ρsh
ρ´
ρ´
ρ´
ρ
ρ
b (mm) = 813 813 813 813
ρtot = 0.0210 0.0160 0.0160 0.0210
ρsh = 0.0085 0.0112 0.0112 0.0085
s (mm) = 89 89 89 89

6,096 mm
Figure 4.4 Design information of 4-story ductile perimeter frame (SMF-4P) (Haselton 2006)
4.2 Analytical Frame Model
4.2.1 Overall modeling technique
The analytical models used by Liel (2008) and Haselton (2006) were developed using
lumped plasticity elements for columns and beams. Each column or beam consists of one
elastic element and a nonlinear zero-length rotational spring at the end of the member.
The rotational spring includes monotonic and cyclic inelastic behavior without explicitly
modeling extra components. This approach can capture the accurate global response of
columns, but it cannot account for the shear behavior in columns and the effect of axial-
flexure interaction in columns. Additionally, this approach cannot determine where
inelastic action will occur in multi-story frames. Therefore, this research employs the
fiber section beam-column elements that can capture structural member response such as
89
the interaction of axial force with bending moment, the hardening or softening behavior
of materials, and the effect of transverse confinement in RC columns and beams.
Moreover, for shear-dominated columns, the addition of a shear spring series with flexure
elements can provide the stiffness and strength degradation for shear-dominated columns.
To investigate the seismic performance and increased vulnerability of RC frames
selected in the previous section with different governing failure modes, analytical frame
models are suggested and are analyzed with different modeling techniques, as listed in
Table 4.6. For non-ductile frames, each frame model with joint shear model (XXX-XX-
JS) is selected as a baseline frame model in this research. For the 4-story space frame
(OMF-4S), five different analytical frame models are chosen in order to identify the
effect of joint shear (JS), joint bond (JB), column shear (CS), and coupled joint and
column shear (JCS) models on frames. For other frames, three analytical frame models
are selected: joint shear (JS), column shear (CS), and coupled joint and shear (JCS)
models. For ductile frames, each perimeter frame is created for two failure modes, such
as joint rigid offset and joint shear failure models, in order to take the inelastic behavior
of joints into consideration.
90
Table 4.6 Analytical frame model with different modeling techniques
Type System No. of stories Frame model Modeling technique
Non-ductile Space 4 OMF-4S-RO Joint rigid offset
OMF-4S-JS Joint shear failure
OMF-4S-JB Joint bond failure
OMF-4S-CS Column shear failure
OMF-4S-JCS Joint and column shear failure
Space 8 OMF-8S-JS Joint shear failure
OMF-8S-JC Column shear failure
OMF-8S-JCS Joint and column shear failure
Perimeter 4 OMF-4P-JS Joint shear failure
OMF-4P-JC Column shear failure
OMF-4P-JCS Joint and column shear failure
Perimeter 8 OMF-8P-JS Joint shear failure
OMF-8P-CS Column shear failure
OMF-8P-JCS Joint and column shear failure
Ductile Perimeter 4 SMF-4P-RO Joint rigid offset
SMF-4P-JS Joint shear failure
Perimeter 8 SMF-8P-RO Joint rigid offset
SMF-8P-JS Joint shear failure
Figure 4.5 illustrates the overall analytical frame model including the modeling
techniques for RC frame’s components. All components are modeled in the same manner
as described in Chapter 3. All frames have a slab thickness of 203 mm and the effective
width of the slab calculated from the provision of ACI318-02 (2002). Based on tributary
areas, gravity loads are assigned to distributed loads on beams and all mass is lumped at
beam-column connections. Figure 4.1 depicts the determination of the gravity and lateral
tributary areas for space and perimeter frames. For the space frame, an interior moment
frame resists the gravity loads and lateral loads. Unlike these space frames, the perimeter
frame resists lateral loads and interior columns carries only gravity loads. In this system,
P-Delta effects are accounted for using a combination of gravity loads on the perimeter
frame and gravity loads on a fictitious (leaning) column. Additionally, the gravity loads
on the leaning column can be calculated by subtracting the gravity load portion on
91
internal columns from the lateral tributary area (half of the plan view of the frame) and all
the mass corresponding to the lateral tributary area is assigned only to the perimeter
frame. The floor dead load and mass was determined based on the load combination
1.05D (D = 175psf) + 0.25L (L = 25psf). For the perimeter frame system, the truss
elements connecting the perimeter frame to the leaning column behave only axially and
have a span length equal to the half of the beam span length. The elastic column element
has the moment of inertia and cross-sectional area approximately two orders of
magnitude greater than the internal columns to account for the effect of all the gravity
columns. Zero-length elements connect the columns to the truss elements, behave as
rotational springs, and have an extremely small stiffness value so that the leaning column
does not carry any moment. The base of the leaning column is modeled as a pin.
A remarkable finding from the frame design is that columns designed in non-
ductile frames were expected to yield before failing in shear because they have taller
story heights, as Liel (2008) herself acknowledged. In general, sudden brittle failures
(shear failure prior to yielding) have typically been observed in short columns. Thus, the
column shear model developed by Elwood (2004) can be utilized to describe the flexure-
shear behavior. As mentioned in Chapter 3, employing the shear strength equation of the
ACI or ASCE provisions cannot appropriately ensure the flexure behavior prior to
detecting shear failure (brittle failure before reaching the flexure yielding). Additionally,
the shear strength formulation developed by Elwood (2004) in the source code is very
difficult to suitably predict a shear force at shear failure. To alleviate this inappropriate
implementation, this research performs an NSP for each column flexure model (without a
shear spring) to find shear force at yielding condition. The initiation of shear failure is
92
assumed to lie between shear forces at yielding and maximum condition for the column
model without a shear spring. The degrading slope of total response (Ktdeg) can be
calculated from the onset of shear failure and axial limit drift in equation (3.3). Then, the
final shear behavior of the column with a shear spring is identified through static and
reversed cyclic pushover analyses.
A crucial modeling technique is the determination of joint shear strength for non-
ductile and ductile beam-column joints. In Chapter 3, the validation of analytical models
is performed by employing experimental joint shear strength on the backbone curves.
However, these experimental observations cannot be utilized when creating full frame
models. Thus, a reliable estimation for joint shear strength is required to build analytical
frame models. To determine the shear strength for beam-column joints, this research
proposes the probabilistic joint shear strength model for non-ductile and ductile joints
through the statistical method based on experimental observations. All other modeling
parameters are represented using their median values obtained from the validation work
in Chapter 3. The detailed description on the joint shear strength will be discussed in the
next sections. Furthermore, for the bond failure model in Table 4.6, the embedment
length within a joint is assumed to be 152 mm following the minimum requirement of
ACI 315-63 (ACI 1963), which is used to calculate reduced joint shear strength
associated with inadequate anchorage.
93
For only perimeter frame
Elastic beam-column
Displacement-based element
beam-column element Truss element
(fiber section)
(Nstory-1)@H2
Joint rotational spring Moment release
Rigid offset
Leaning (P-Δ)
column
beamWithHinges
H1
Pinned
Fixed base base
3@Lb Llean
Pinching4
Shear force
Limit state
Moment
Unconfined concrete
material material
aaaaaa aaaa
aaaaaa aaaa
aaaaaa
aaaaaa aaaa
aaaaaa aaaa
aaaaaa Rebar aaaa
aaaa
Rotation Shear
Confined concrete deformation
Column Beam
Fiber section Joint rotational spring Column shear spring
Joint Shear Shear Joint

spring spring spring spring
Rigid offset Joint shear or bond Column shear Joint & column shear
Figure 4.5 Overall analytical frame model
94
4.2.2 Proposed joint shear strength model
Kim and LaFave (2009) proposed the statistical joint shear strength model by using a
Bayesian method based on 136 and 18 experimental ductile and non-ductile
subassemblages, respectively. Additionally, the authors constructed the joint shear
strength model by performing a step-wise removal process to extract key parameters
among ten parameters (spacing ratio, ratio of recommended to provided amount of joint
transverse reinforcement, ratios of beam depth to column depth and beam width to
column width, joint transverse reinforcement index, beam reinforcement index, joint
eccentricity, in-plane and out-of-plane geometry, concrete compressive strength). The
basic formulation with ten parameters can be expressed in equation (4.1):
β1 β2 β3 β4 β5 (4.1)
⎛ s pro ⎞ ⎛ Ash, pro ⎞ ⎛ bb ⎞ ⎛ hb ⎞ ⎛ e⎞
v j ,max = β0 ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜1 − ⎟⎟ JI β6 BI β7 JP β8 TB β9 f cj β10
⎜s ⎟ ⎜A ⎟
⎝ req ⎠ ⎝ sh , req ⎠ ⎝ bc ⎠ ⎝ hc ⎠ ⎝ bc ⎠
where spro/sreq and Ash,pro/ Ash,req are the ratio of the spacing and cross-sectional area of
joint transverse reinforcement provided to that required in ACI 352R-02 (2002),
respectively; bb/bc and hb/hc are the ratio of beam width to column width and beam depth
to column depth, respectively; e is the joint eccentricity between beams and columns; JI
is the joint transverse reinforcement index which is defined as the product of the
volumetric joint transverse reinforcement ratio (ρj) and the joint transverse reinforcement
yield stress (fyj) divided by the joint concrete compressive strength (fcj); BI is the beam
reinforcement index which is defined as the product of the beam longitudinal
reinforcement ratio (ρj) and the beam longitudinal reinforcement yield stress (fyb) divided
by the beam concrete compressive strength (fcb); JP is a parameter for describing in-plane
95
geometry (1 for interior, 0.75 for exterior, and 0.5 for knee joints); TB is the joint
confinement factor (1.0 for subassemblages with 0 or 1 transverse beams and 1.2 for
subassemblages with 2 transverse beams); and βi (i = 1,…,10) is a coefficient.
A remarkable feature in equation (4.1) is that the formulation does not account for
the effect of column axial load on joint shear strength. In fact, there is no consensus
within the research community as to the effect of axial load (Mitra 2007). It has been
argued that axial load enhances the joint shear capacity by confining the joint core
(Kitayama et al. 1987) and by equilibrating part of an inclined compressive strut that
forms in the joint associated with joint shear action (Paulay 1989, Park and Mosalam
2012). However, it has also been concluded that column axial load influences the
deformation but not the joint shear strength (Meinheit and Jirsa 1977, Fujii and Morita
1991, Kitayama et al. 1991, Bonacci and Pantazopoulou 1993). Because of this
ambiguous conclusion, the impact of the column axial force on joint shear strength is not
accounted for in this research. Moreover, the effect of column longitudinal reinforcement
is not included following the work of Kim and LaFave (2009).
With the basic predictor variables proposed by Kim and LaFave (2009), a
multiple linear regression that is employed to represent the relationship between a
response (dependent) variable and several predictor (independent) variables in a log-
transformed space is performed to establish a non-ductile or ductile joint shear strength
model. To determine significant key parameters among possible predictor variables, step-
wise regressions are performed until a satisfactory model is found. Moreover, to identify
key predictor variables in the joint shear strength model, an analysis of variance
(ANOVA) test is performed in a log-transformed space. In the ANOVA test, the F-
96
statistic tests the claim that there is no significant relationship between predictor variables
and single response variable (null hypothesis) while the t-statistic tests the claim that
there is no relationship between an individual predictor variable and a response variable
(null hypothesis). If a p-value is less than a particular significance level, it is customary to
reject the null hypothesis. For the F-statistic, at the p-value less than the significant level,
at least one of coefficients (βi) in the model is significant whereas for the t-statistic, at the
p-value less than the significant level, the predictor variable is significant. Therefore,
stepwise linear regressions are performed until the model satisfies the condition that the
p-value for all predictor variables in the t-statistic is less than the significance level.
Conventionally, a reasonable significant level is 0.05 or less. This research uses a 0.05
significance level to determine influencing predictor variables.
Before accepting the output from the multiple linear regression analysis, it is
essential to identify whether a linear regression model is appropriate as well as to
examine whether the variance of the error terms is constant (Neter et al. 1996). These
tasks can be achieved by examining a scatter-plot of the residuals against fitted values
and against a predictor variable with the horizontal zero line. If the residuals fall within a
horizontal band centered around zero in the plots, the model displays no systematic
tendencies (e.g., curvilinear, non-constant variance) to overestimate or underestimate the
value of the independent variables. Moreover, a normal probability plot is constructed in
order to investigate the normality of the distribution of the residuals. If the points in the
plot lie approximately on a straight line, the distribution of the residuals can be regarded
as normal. These examinations provide the appropriateness of the linear regression model.
97
4.2.2.1 Non-ductile beam-column joint
The database collected by Kim and LaFave (2009) is not enough for non-ductile beam-
column joints to appropriately estimate their joint shear strength. Therefore, in order to
propose a reliable joint shear strength model for non-ductile beam-column joints, this
research collects data from 265 existing experimental tests exhibiting joint shear failure
with or without member yielding. The database consists of 155 and 13 exterior
subassemblages with 0/1 and 2 transverse beams, respectively, and 66 and 27 interior
subassemblages with 0/1 and 2 transverse beams, respectively, as shown in Table 4.7.
However, the database does not include the joint eccentricity and knee joints for non-
ductile joints because of lack of experimental data. Table C.1 in Appendix C provides a
detailed description of the database.
Table 4.7 Number of experimental non-ductile joint database

Number of transverse beams
Joint type Summation
0 1 2
Exterior 125 30 13 168
Interior 63 3 27 93
Total 261
This research utilizes basic predictor (exploratory or independent) variables
suggested by Kim and LaFave (2009) to develop the joint shear strength model. For non-
ductile joints, variables related to joint transverse reinforcement (spro/sreq, Ash,pro/Ash,req, JI)
are removed from the basic predictor variables. Figure 4.6 depicts the plots of joint shear
strength against predictor variables for the database. Table 4.8 summarizes the minimum,
maximum, mean, standard deviation (SD), and coefficient of variation (COV) for
experimental joint shear strength and each predictor variable in the database.
98
14 14
, MPa)
Exterior Exterior
Exp. joint shear stength (vj,max,exp, MPa)

12 Interior 12 Interior
j,max,exp 10 10
Exp. joint shear stength (v
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Concrete compressive strength (fcj, MPa) Beam reinforcement index (BI)
(a) Concrete compressive strength (fcj) (b) Beam reinforcement index (BI)
14 14
Exterior Exterior

10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
In−plane joint geometry factor (JP) Out−of−plane joint geometry factor (TB)
(c) In-plane joint geometry (JP) (d) Out-of-plane joint geometry (TP)
14 14
Exterior Exterior
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Beam width to column width ratio (bb/bc) Beam depth to column depth ratio (hb/hc)
(e) Beam to column width ratio (bb/bc) (f) Beam to column depth ratio (hb/hc)
Figure 4.6 Experimental joint shear strength vs. predictor variables for non-ductile joints
99
Table 4.8 Range of predictor variables for non-ductile beam-column joint database
vj,max,exp
fcj (MPa) BI JP TB hb/hc bb/bc
(MPa)
Minimum 1.18 8.30 0.05 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.33
Maximum 12.32 100.80 0.78 1.00 1.20 2.00 1.50
Mean 5.56 31.94 0.22 0.84 1.03 1.33 0.87
SD 2.10 11.83 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.28 0.15
COV 0.40 0.38 0.67 0.16 0.07 0.21 0.17
With six basic predictor variables, a stepwise multiple linear regression analysis
in a log-transformed space is performed in order to propose a non-ductile joint shear
strength model, as expressed in equation (4.2):
v max (MPa) = 0.586(TB)

0.774
(BI )0.495 (JP)1.250 ( f cj )0.941 (4.2)
To examine significant predictor variables affecting the joint shear strength model
in equation (4.2), and ANOVA test is also performed in a log-transformed space. Table
4.9 shows the intercept, coefficients, p-value corresponding to each coefficient in the t-
statistic, p-value in the F-statistic, and the square root of the mean variance of residuals
(RMSE). Thus, it is indicated that the first four variables are significant predictor
variables in the model in that all the p-values in F-statistic and in t-statistic approach to
zero. From this statistical observation, two variables such as hb/hc and bb/bc are
insignificant predictor variables. Moreover, R2 and adjusted R2 are 0.858 and 0.859,
respectively.
Joint shear strengths computed from equation (4.2) in the database are compared
with experimental joint shear strengths, as shown in Figure 4.7. The mean value and
coefficient of variation (COV) of predicted-to-experimental joint shear strength ratio are
100
1.011 and 0.148, respectively. It is indicated that the proposed joint shear strength model
for non-ductile joints provides reasonable predictions.
Table 4.9 Stepwise linear regression for non-ductile joint strength model
Predictor variables Coefficient t-statistic p-value
ln(fcj) 0.941 31.873 0.000
ln(BI) 0.495 24.210 0.000
ln(JP) 1.250 17.457 0.000
ln(TB) 0.774 5.155 0.000
ln(hb/hc) 0.034 0.724 0.470
ln(bb/bc) -0.009 -0.171 0.865
Intercept = -0.534 RMSE = 0.152 F = 386.921, p-value = 3.242×10-107
14
v /v
j,max,pred j,max,exp
12
Mean=1.011
10 COV=0.148
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Figure 4.7 Comparison of experimental and predicted joint shear strength for non-ductile joints
To look through the aptness of the multiple linear regression model, the scatter-
plots of the residuals against the fitted values and against the predictor variable are
described. Figure 4.8(a) depicts the residual plot against the fitted values (ln(vj,max,pred))
while Figure 4.8(b) through Figure 4.8(e) contain the residual plot against four significant
101
predictor variables such as ln(fcj), ln(BI), ln(JP), ln(TB), respectively. Since the scatter-
plots do not exhibit any systematic pattern, the multiple linear model is appropriate.
Additionally, a normal probability plot in Figure 4.8(f) appears approximately linear
(although slight divergence in the tails of the plot is witnessed), and thus the distribution
of the residuals can be referred to as normal. Therefore, these examinations prove the
aptness of the non-ductile joint strength model in equation (4.2). In conclusion, the non-
ductile joint shear strength model obtained from the structure geometry and material
properties can be utilized for constructing the backbone curves of non-ductile beam-
column joints in RC frames.
102
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
Residual
Residual
0 0
−0.2 −0.2
−0.4 −0.4
−0.6 −0.6
−0.8 −0.8
−1 −1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
ln(vj,max,pred) ln(fcj)
(a) Residual plot against ln(vj,max,pred) (b) Residual plot against ln(fcj)
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
Residual
0 Residual 0
−0.2 −0.2
−0.4 −0.4
−0.6 −0.6
−0.8 −0.8
−1 −1
−3 −2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 −0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1
ln(BI) ln(JP)
(c) Residual plot against ln(BI) (d) Residual plot against ln(JP)
1 0.4
0.8 0.3
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.2 0.1
Residual
Residual
0 0
−0.2 −0.1
−0.4
−0.2
−0.6
−0.8 −0.3
−1 −0.4
−0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
ln(TB) Normal score
(e) Residual plot against ln(TB) (f) Normal probability plot of residuals
Figure 4.8 Diagnostic residual plots for non-ductile joint database
103
4.2.2.2 Ductile beam-column joint
Using the same procedure as for non-ductile beam-column joints, a ductile joint shear
strength model is proposed based on experimental investigations with a wide range of
design parameters. For this purpose, this research collects data from 454 existing
experimental tests exhibiting joint shear failure with or without beam yielding. The
database consists of 158 and 14 exterior subassemblages with 0/1 and 2 transverse beams,
respectively, and 231 and 51 interior subassemblages with 0/1 and 2 transverse beams,
respectively, as presented in Table 4.10. The database collected in this research is more
abundant than that of Kim and LaFave (2009) except for knee joints. The database does
not include knee joints for ductile joints. Table C.2 provides a detailed description of the
database. Unlike non-ductile beam-column joints, a total of ten parameters are used to
develop a ductile joint shear strength model. Figure 4.9 shows the plot of joint shear
strength against ten predictor variables. Table 4.11 summarizes the minimum, maximum,
mean, SD, and COV for experimental joint shear strength and each predictor variable.
Table 4.10 Number of experimental ductile joint database

Number of transverse beams
Joint type Summation
0 1 2
Exterior 144 14 14 172
Interior 204 27 51 282
Total 454
Table 4.11 Range of experimental ductile beam-column joint database

vj,max,exp fcj s Ash
JI BI JP TB hb/hc 1–e/bc bb/bc
(MPa) (MPa) ratio ratio
Min. 2.92 13.44 0.01 0.07 0.75 1.00 0.80 0.69 0.39 0.25 0.03
Max. 24.65 182.0 0.44 0.68 1.00 1.20 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.87 4.30
Mean 8.72 42.76 0.08 0.24 0.91 1.03 1.12 0.98 0.74 0.84 0.54
SD 3.88 23.59 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.19 0.06 0.13 0.37 0.40
COV 0.50 0.68 0.84 0.56 0.12 0.07 0.19 0.06 0.17 0.49 0.31
104
30 30

Exterior Exterior

Interior Interior
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 40 80 120 160 200 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Concrete compressive strength (fcj, MPa) Beam reinforcement index (BI)
(a) Concrete compressive strength (fcj) (b) Beam reinforcement index (BI)
30 30
Exterior Exterior

Interior Interior
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
Joint tranverse reinforcement index (JI) In−plane joint geometry factor (JP)
(c) Joint transverse reinforcement index (JI) (d) In-plane joint geometry (JP)
30 30
Exterior Exterior
Interior Interior
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
Out−of−plane joint geometry factor (TB) Beam width to column width ratio (bb/bc)
(e) Out-of-plane joint geometry (TP) (f) Beam to column width ratio (bb/bc)
Figure 4.9 Experimental joint shear strength vs. predictor variables for ductile joints
105
30 30

Exterior Exterior
Interior Interior
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
Beam depth to column depth ratio (h /h ) Eccentricity factor (1−e/b )
b c c
(g) Beam to column depth ratio (hb/hc) (h) Eccentricity factor (1–e/bc)
30 30

Exterior Exterior
Interior Interior
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 1 2 3 4 5
Spacing ratio (spro/sreq) Ash ratio (Ash,pro/Ash,req)
(i) Spacing ratio (spro/sreq) (j) Ash ratio
Figure 4.9 Experimental joint shear strength vs. predictor variables for ductile joints (continued)
Given ten predictor variables employed in the work of Kim and LaFave (2009), a
stepwise multiple linear regression analysis in a log-transformed space is carried out in
order to construct a ductile joint shear strength model, as presented in equation (4.3):
0.280 0.125 (4.3)

⎛ e⎞ ⎛ bb ⎞
v max ( MPa) = 1.113( JI )
0.078
⎜⎜1 − ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (TB ) (BI ) 1.103 0.342
(JP) ( f cj )
1.509 0.796
⎝ bc ⎠ ⎝ bc ⎠
To identify influential predictor variables establishing the joint shear strength
model in equation (4.3), an ANOVA test is also performed in a log-transformed space.
106
Table 4.12 shows the intercept, coefficients, p-value corresponding to each coefficient in
the t-statistic, p-value in the F-statistic, and RMSE. Therefore, it can be concluded that
the first five variables and the seventh and eighth variables are significant predictor
variables in the model in that all the p-values in F-statistic and in t-statistic are less than a
significance level of 0.05. From this statistical observation, three variables such as hb/hc,
spro/sreq, and Ash,pro/Ash,req are insignificant predictor variables. For the final model, R2 and
adjusted R2 are 0.913 and 0.912, respectively.
Table 4.12 Stepwise linear regression for ductile joint strength model
Predictor variables Coefficient t-statistic p-value
ln(fcj) 0.796 55.692 0.000
ln(JI) 0.078 8.413 0.000
ln(BI) 0.342 25.390 0.000
ln(JP) 1.509 33.966 0.000
ln(TB) 1.103 11.759 0.000
ln(hb/hc) 0.088 1.930 0.054
ln(1–e/bc) 0.280 2.611 0.009
ln(bb/bc) 0.125 2.860 0.004
ln(spro/sreq) -0.009 -0.527 0.598
ln(Ash,pro/Ash,req) -0.014 -0.629 0.530
Intercept = 0.108 RMSE = 0.123 F = 668.622, p-value = 5.937×10-107
Joint shear strength calculated from equation (4.3) is compared with experimental
joint shear strength, as shown in Figure 4.10. The mean value and COV of predicted-to-
experimental joint shear strength ratio are 1.007 and 0.122, respectively. It can be
indicated that the proposed joint shear strength model for ductile joints offers appropriate
estimates.
107
30
vj,max,pred/vj,max,exp

25 Mean=1.007
COV=0.122
20
15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 4.10 Comparison of experimental and predicted joint shear strength for ductile joints
To confirm the appropriateness of the multiple linear regression model, the
scatter-plots of the residuals against the fitted values and against the predictor variable
are investigated. Figure 4.11(a) presents the residual plot against the fitted values
(ln(vj,max,pred)) whereas Figures 4.11(b) through Figure 4.11(h) show the residual plot
against four significant predictor variables such as ln(fcj), ln(JI), ln(BI), ln(JP), ln(TB),
ln(1–e/bc), ln(bb/bc), respectively. Moreover, a normal probability plot constructed in
Figure 4.11(i) indicates that the distribution of the residuals can be referred to as normal
in that the pattern is approximately linear. Therefore, these investigations prove the
appropriateness of the ductile joint strength model in equation (4.3). As a result, the
ductile joint shear strength model computed from the structure geometry and material
properties can be employed for creating the backbone curves of ductile beam-column
joints in RC frames.
108
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
Residual
Residual
0 0
−0.2 −0.2
−0.4 −0.4
−0.6 −0.6
−0.8 −0.8
−1 −1
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 2 3 4 5 6
ln(v ) ln(fcj)
j,max,pred
(a) Residual plot against ln(vj,max,pred) (b) Residual plot against ln(fcj)
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
Residual
Residual
0 0
−0.2 −0.2
−0.4 −0.4
−0.6 −0.6
−0.8 −0.8
−1 −1
−6 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 −3 −2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0
ln(JI) ln(BI)
(c) Residual plot against ln(JI) (d) Residual plot against ln(BI)
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
Residual
Residual
0 0
−0.2 −0.2
−0.4 −0.4
−0.6 −0.6
−0.8 −0.8
−1 −1
−0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
ln(JP) ln(TB)
(e) Residual plot against ln(JP) (f) Residual plot against ln(TB)
Figure 4.11 Diagnostic residual plots for ductile joint database
109
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
Residual
Residual
0 0
−0.2 −0.2
−0.4 −0.4
−0.6 −0.6
−0.8 −0.8
−1 −1
−0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 −1.2 −0.9 −0.6 −0.3 0 0.3
ln(1−e/b ) ln(b /b )
c b c
(g) Residual plot against ln(1–e/bc) (h) Residual plot against ln(bb/bc)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Residual
−0.1
−0.2
−0.3
−0.4
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
Normal score
(i) Normal probability plot of residuals
Figure 4.11 Diagnostic residual plots for ductile joint database (continued)
4.2.3 Model limitations
The inelastic analytical frame models represent an idealization of real structures
including their structure geometry, material properties, and reinforcing details with some
simplifying assumptions. The model assumptions are presented below.
(1) Bond slip associated with members adjacent to a joint, particularly joints with
discontinuous beam bottom reinforcement, is neglected. Although the analytical
predictions slightly overestimate the initial stiffness related to the effect of bond
110
slip, as shown in the model validation, the effect of bond slip can be reduced in
real structures (indeterminate frames).
(2) Bond slip at the column-footing or column-beam connections is neglected, unlike
the model validation for shear-dominated columns. However, in the frame model,
column longitudinal reinforcement is assumed to be adequately embedded in
well-compacted concrete so that its yield strength can be developed reliably
without associated deformations, such as slip or pullout.
(3) Lap-splices at the bottom of columns are ignored. Some shear-dominated columns
involved in the model validation have insufficient lap-splice length at the bottom
of the columns. From the model validation in Chapter 3, it can be indicated that
even column models without the lap-splice model can appropriately capture the
overall inelastic behavior of such columns.
(4) The effect of gravity columns in perimeter frame systems is not considered.
(5) Foundation and floor diaphragms are assumed to be rigid (i.e., no flexibility).
4.3 Seismic Response of RC Frames
The evaluation of seismic demand is performed through NSP and NTHA. The monotonic
NSP is conducted to identify the drift capacity (roof and interstory), lateral strength (base
shear), and potential failure mechanisms of frames. On the other hand, NTHA is carried
out to investigate the maximum and residual drift capacities (interstory) and hysteretic
behavior of members. All material properties are used following the work of Liel (2008)
and Haselton (2006).
111
4.3.1 Pushover analysis
Monotonic nonlinear pushover analyses (NSP) are performed in order to examine the
global load-deformation relationship for the analytical frame models. All NSPs are
carried out using the lateral load pattern recommended in ASCE 7-05 (2005):
w x hxk (4.4)
Cx = n
∑w h
i =1
i i
k
where Cx is the normalized load at floor level x, wi and wx are the proportion of the total
effective seismic weight of the structure (W) located or assigned to level i and x,
respectively; hi and hx are the height from the base to level i and x; and k is an exponent
related to the structure period. k is equal to 1 for structures with a period of 0.5 sec or less;
k is equal to 2 for structures with a period of 2.5 sec or more; and for structures with a
period between 0.5 and 2.0, k can be determined by linear interpolation between 1 and 2.
The NTHAs are performed for all RC frames listed in Table 4.6. In this research,
failure is defined as when there is a 20% reduction in the maximum base shear. However,
SMF-4P-RO does not reach a failure point (20% reduction in the maximum base shear).
In this case, the failure point is defined at a roof drift of 4.5%. Additionally, one plot
shows the pushover results with different modeling variables. Table 4.13 summarizes the
maximum base shear, roof and interstory drifts at the maximum base shear and at failure,
and story level at which maximum interstory drift occurs, for all analytical frame models.
The story level of the maximum interstory drift can offer insight into the global failure
mechanism in a frame. Moreover, it can be indicated from the table that most analytical
frame models would be expected to fail in the second story, unlike those without joint
112
modeling. This finding is attributed to the relatively larger difference between joint shear
capacities in the second and third floor calculated from equation (4.2) or equation (4.3).
The pushover analysis results for a non-ductile frame (OMF-4S) and a ductile frame
(SMF-8P) are discussed below.
Table 4.13 Summary of pushover analysis results

At maximum base shear At failure
Frame model Base shear Roof Maximum story Base shear Roof Maximum story
(kN) drift (%) Drift (%) Failure (kN) drift (%) Drift (%) Failure
OMF-4S-RO 1423 1.44 1.82 1st 1138 3.72 8.49 1st
OMF-4S-JS 989 1.89 2.45 2nd 791 3.62 4.95 2nd
OMF-4S-JB 942 2.00 2.65 2nd 753 3.40 4.71 2nd
OMF-4S-CS 1394 1.29 1.54 1st 791 1.61 2.64 1st
OMF-4S-JCS 987 1.96 2.64 2nd 790 3.03 4.85 2nd
OMF-8S-JS 1419 1.73 2.36 5th 1128 2.99 4.30 4th
OMF-8S-CS 1630 1.58 2.16 3rd 1304 4.37 7.33 2nd
OMF-8S-JCS 1418 1.73 2.36 5th 1134 2.29 3.16 5th
OMF-4P-JS 1667 1.72 2.05 2nd 1332 3.37 4.09 3rd
OMF-4P-CS 2231 1.39 1.62 2nd 1784 2.88 3.60 2nd
OMF-4P-JCS 1662 1.72 2.05 2nd 1329 3.34 4.05 3rd
OMF-8P-JS 2163 1.37 1.85 4th 1726 2.59 4.17 4th
OMF-8P-CS NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
OMF-8P-JCS NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SMF-4P-RO 2947 1.14 1.58 2nd 2739 4.50 6.88 2nd
SMF-4P-JS 2875 1.35 1.80 2nd 2297 4.34 6.66 2nd
SMF-8P-RO 2180 0.57 0.96 2nd 1743 2.22 4.67 2nd
SMF-8P-JS 2122 0.84 1.21 2nd 1696 2.18 4.26 2nd
§ NA means not applicable.
4.3.1.1 Non-ductile 4-story space frame (OMF-4S)
Figure 4.12(a) presents the comparison of base shear-roof drift relationships with five
different modeling variables for the OMF-4S frame: rigid offset model, joint shear model,
bond failure model, column shear model, and joint and column shear model. OMF-4S-
RO (joint rigid offset) model has the greatest initial stiffness, the highest maximum base
shear, and lower roof drift at maximum base shear because the model behaves in a ductile
113
manner. OMF-4S-CS (column shear) model has the same pushover curve as the joint
rigid offset model until a roof drift of around 2%, but lower maximum base shear than the
joint rigid offset model because the column shear failure is initiated prior to reaching
their maximum shear force. After reaching the maximum base shear, the pushover curve
is suddenly dropped because of the dramatic loss of lateral capacity in the first story
columns. OMF-4S-JS (joint shear), OMF-4S-JB (joint bond), and OMF-4S-JCS (joint
and column shear) models had lower initial stiffness and lower maximum base shear
(about 30% reduction) than frame models without a joint model as a result of the spread
of inelastic action into the joints. Because of the reduced joint shear strength associated
with bond slip in the exterior joints, OMF-4S-JB model shows a reduction of 5% in the
maximum base shear in comparison to the frame models with joint shear failure. OMF-
4S-JCS model follows the same pushover curve as OMF-4S-JS model until a roof drift of
around 3%, and then the pushover curve abruptly decreases due to the dramatic loss of
lateral resistance in all the second story columns. The column shear failure occurs at a
higher drift than for OMF-4S-CS model. It can be explained that the column shear failure
is delayed due to the reduced column shear force associated with the concentration of
inelastic behavior in the joints. Figure 4.12(b) shows the comparison of the maximum
interstory drift distributions along the frame height at maximum base shear and at failure
with five different modeling variables. OMF-4S-RO and OMF-4S-CS models have the
first story failure mechanism while others have the second story failure mechanism. This
is attributable to a relatively large difference between joint shear capacities in the second
and third floor.
114
1500 at max base shear at failure
4 4
1200
Base shear, Vbase (kN)
3 3
Story level
900
600 2 2
Rigid offet
Joint shear
300 Joint bond
Column shear 1 1
Joint/column shears
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 0 3 6 9
Roof drift, θroof (%) θmax (%) θmax (%)
(a) Base shear-roof drift relationship (b) Interstory drift distribution
Figure 4.12 Pushover analysis results for non-ductile 4-story space frame (OMF-4S)
4.3.1.2 Ductile 8-story perimeter frame (SMF-8P)
Figure 4.13(a) show the comparison of base shear-roof drift curves with and without joint
shear for the SMF-8P frame. The analytical frame model with joint (JS) has lower initial
stiffness, lower higher maximum base shear, and less ductile at higher levels of roof drift
than the joint rigid offset model (RO) due to the spread of inelastic action into the joints.
Both frame models keeps falling sharply (due to P-Δ effect) after reaching the maximum
base shear. The joint shear model brings about the relatively small reduction in the
maximum base shear, but the significant increase in the post-cracking stiffness (from
cracking to maximum), resulting in the considerable deformation demand. Additionally,
due to the pinching effect of the joints, the joint shear model would have much smaller
energy dissipation capacity than the rigid offset model when performing the cyclic
pushover analysis. Figure 4.13(b) presents the comparison of the maximum interstory
drift distributions along the story level at maximum base shear and at failure with and
115
without joint shear for the SMF-8P frame. All the frame models would be expected to
have the second story failure mechanism.
2500 at max base shear at failure

8 8
7 7
2000
Base shear, Vbase (kN)
6 6
Story level
1500 5 5
4 4
1000
3 3
500 2 2
Rigid offet
Joint shear 1 1
0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 0 2 4 6
Roof drift, θ (%) θ (%) θ (%)
roof max max
(a) Base shear-roof drift relationship (b) Interstory drift distribution
Figure 4.13 Pushover analysis results for ductile 8-story perimeter frame (SMF-8P)
4.3.2 Nonlinear time history analysis
In order to investigate the seismic response of analytical frame models under a seismic
excitation with different modeling techniques, NTHAs are performed for a non-ductile
frame (OMF-4S) and a ductile frame (SMF-4P). The seismic response is illustrated using
a single ground motion from a suite of ground motions developed by Baker et al. (2011)
which will be explained in Chapter 5. The selected ground motion has a moment
magnitude of 6.53, a hypocentral distance of 29.5 km, and a duration of 39.3 sec. The
ground motion also has a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.375g and its five percent
damaped response spectrum is presented in Figure 4.14.
116
0.6 1.5
0.4
Spectral acceleration, S (g)

1.2
Ground acceleration (g)
a
0.2
0.9
0
0.6
−0.2
0.3
−0.4
−0.6 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (sec) Period, T (sec)
(a) Ground acceleration time history (d) Spectral acceleration (5% damping)
Figure 4.14 Ground motion used for illustration of seismic responses
4.3.2.1 Non-ductile 4-story space frame (OMF-4S)
Figure 4.15 shows the comparison of interstory drift time histories with different
modeling techniques for the OMF-4S frame. Table 4.14 summarizes the maximum
response parameters with regard to interstory drifts and column shear forces for different
analytical frame models. It can be indicated that the maximum interstory drift occurs in
the first story level for the analytical frame models without joint modeling such as OMF-
4S-RO and OMF-4S-CS models, but it takes place in the second story level for the
analytical frame models with joint modeling. In particular, OMF-4S-JCS model has the
largest value of a maximum interstory drift of 4.3% as well as a residual interstory drift
of 1.7% in the second story as a result of the effect of coupling the inelastic responses of
joints and columns. This larger residual drift demand might have the potential for more
damage to the frame under a subsequent ground motion (aftershock). Moreover, a
remarkable finding is the reduction in the column shear force for frame models with joint
117
shear or bond modeling when compared to those without joint modeling. It may be
attributed to the concentration of inelastic action in joints.
4.5 4.5
3 3
Interstory drift (%)

1.5 1.5
0 0
Rigid offet Rigid offet
−1.5 Joint shear −1.5 Joint shear
Joint bond Joint bond
−3 Column shear −3 Column shear
Joint/column shears Joint/column shears
−4.5 −4.5
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) First story (b) Second story
4.5 4.5
3 3
1.5 1.5
0 0
Rigid offet Rigid offet
−1.5 Joint shear −1.5 Joint shear
Joint bond Joint bond
−3 Column shear −3 Column shear
Joint/column shears Joint/column shears
−4.5 −4.5
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
(c) Third story (d) Fourth story
Figure 4.15 Comparison of interstory drift time histories for OMF-4S frame
118
Table 4.14 Maximum seismic response parameters for OMF-4S frame
Interstory drift (%) Maximum story shear (kN)
Frame model Story
Maximum Residual Exterior Interior
OMF-4S-RO 1st 2.14 0.30 445 375
(rigid offset) 2nd 1.26 0.07 284 481
3rd 1.29 0.02 274 330
4th 1.18 0.02 274 241
OMF-4S-JS 1st 2.56 0.10 310 329
(joint shear) 2nd 2.90 0.01 199 321
3rd 2.60 0.08 190 252
4th 1.44 0.07 219 211
OMF-4S-JB 1st 2.68 0.07 299 325
(joint bond) 2nd 3.18 0.08 198 337
3rd 2.87 0.19 192 255
4th 1.53 0.15 219 206
OMF-4S-CS 1st 2.24 0.30 417 371
(column shear) 2nd 1.27 0.02 283 475
3rd 1.30 0.01 275 328
4th 1.18 0.02 240 238
OMF-4S-JCS 1st 2.50 0.05 300 327
(joint and column 2nd 4.29 1.70 199 300
Shear) 3rd 2.54 0.15 200 251
4th 1.57 0.07 214 207
To examine the inelastic response of columns, the second column shear force-
total drift relationships in the first story for four different analytical frame models are
depicted in Figure 4.16: with joint rigid offset (RO), joint shear (JS), joint bond (JB), and
column shear (CS). The OMF-4S-JCS model is not exhibited in this figure because more
severe damage is observed in the second story. In Figure 4.16(b) and Figure 4.16(c), the
shear force-drift hysteresis for the analytical frame models including joint shear or bond
(OMF-4S-JS and OMF-4S-JB) are almost identical, but OMF-4S-JB model has larger
drift demand. These frame models have more energy dissipation capacity than OMF-4S-
RO model in Figure 4.16(a) and a 12% reduction of maximum shear force as a result of
redistribution of internal forces adjacent to the joints when compared to those without
119
joint modeling. In Figure 4.16(d), the initial and degraded column stiffness is observed
after shear failure. Prior to shear failure, the overall response follows the flexural
hysteretic behavior of the fiber beam-column element since the response is almost
identical to OMF-4S-RO model. After detecting shear failure, the shear deformations
dominate the overall response of the column and the pinched hysteretic response of the
shear spring model leads to the additional stiffness and strength degradation, as presented
in Figure 4.17. This figure shows the overall, shear, and flexure hysteretic responses in
the first story columns for the analytical frame model including the column shear model
(OMF-4S-CS). It can be shown that the fourth column experiences only flexural behavior
while others suffer shear failure. While the estimated flexure and overall drifts are similar
for the interior and exterior columns, the observed shear drifts for the interior columns
are greater than those for the exterior column; maximum shear drifts for the interior and
exterior column are 0.7% and 1.04%, respectively. The larger shear drifts might cause a
greater loss of shear strength for the interior columns since the shear response
significantly affects the overall response after the initiation of shear failure.
400 400 400 400
200 200 200 200

Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)
0 0 0 0
−200 −200 −200 −200
−400 −400 −400 −400

−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
Total drift (%) Total drift (%) Total drift (%) Total drift (%)
(a) OMF-4S-RO (b) OMF-4S-JS (c) OMF-4S-JB (d) OMF-4S-CS
Figure 4.16 Column shear force-story drift hysteresis in the first story for OMF-4S frame
120
600 600 600 600
1st column (C1) 2nd column (C2) 3rd column (C3) 4th column (C4)
Column shear (kN) 300 300 300 300
0 0 0 0
−300 −300 −300 −300
−600 −600 −600 −600

−4 −2 0 2 4 −4 −2 0 2 4 −4 −2 0 2 4 −4 −2 0 2 4
Total drift (%) Total drift (%) Total drift (%) Total drift (%)
(a) Total response
600 600 600 600
1st column (C1) 2nd column (C2) 3rd column (C3) 4th column (C4)
Column shear (kN)
300 300 300 300
0 0 0 0
−300 −300 −300 −300
−600 −600 −600 −600

−4 −2 0 2 4 −4 −2 0 2 4 −4 −2 0 2 4 −4 −2 0 2 4
Shear drift (%) Shear drift (%) Shear drift (%) Shear drift (%)
(b) Shear response
600 600 600 600
st nd rd th
1 column (C1) 2 column (C2) 3 column (C3) 4 column (C4)
Column shear (kN)
300 300 300 300
0 0 0 0
−300 −300 −300 −300
−600 −600 −600 −600

−4 −2 0 2 4 −4 −2 0 2 4 −4 −2 0 2 4 −4 −2 0 2 4
Flexure drift (%) Flexure drift (%) Flexure drift (%) Flexure drift (%)
(c) Flexure response
Figure 4.17 Overall, shear, and flexure responses in the first story for OMF-4S-CS model
121
Comparison of the joint moment-rotation response for the analytical model frames
with joint modeling is undertaken to investigate the effect of joint behavior on the failure
model of the frame. Figure 4.18 depicts the joint rotational moment-rotation hysteresis
for exterior and interior beam-column joints in the second floor with different analytical
frame models: OMF-4S-JS, OMF-4S-JB, and OMF-4S-JCS models. The hysteresis for
the interior joint in OMF-4S-JS model in Figure 4.18(a) is almost identical to that in
OMF-4S-JB model in Figure 4.18(b), but its maximum rotation demand decreases by
approximately 7%. Both interior joints have reached their maximum joint shear strength
and have experienced the degrading behavior. However, it can be indicated from Figure
4.18(c) that the interior joint for OMF-4S-JCS model has less rotation demand when
compared to that for OMF-4S-JS model and does not attain the maximum joint shear
strength. This observation can be explained that the rotation demand dose not reach the
rotation corresponding to its joint shear capacity due to the degrading shear behavior in
the interior column. On the other hand, the exterior joint for OMF-4S-JS model in Figure
4.18(d) is almost the same hysteresis as that for OMF-4S-JCS model in Figure 4.18(f).
Unlike these two models, the exterior joint hysteresis for OMF-4S-JB model exhibits
inelastic joint behavior in the first quadrant as a result of the reduced joint shear strength
due to the short embedment length of 152 mm. Furthermore, all the three models have
similar maximum rotation demand in the third quadrant.
122
1200 1200 1200
Moment (kN−m) 800 800 800
Moment (kN−m)
Moment (kN−m)
400 400 400
0 0 0
−400 −400 −400
−800 −800 −800
−1200 −1200 −1200

−0.03−0.02−0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 −0.03−0.02−0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 −0.03−0.02−0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03
Rotation (rad) Rotation (rad) Rotation (rad)
(a) OMF-4S-JS (interior) (b) OMF-4S-JB (interior) (c) OMF-4S-JCS (interior)

1200 1200 1200
800 800 800

Moment (kN−m)
Moment (kN−m)
Moment (kN−m)
400 400 400
0 0 0
−400 −400 −400
−800 −800 −800
−1200 −1200 −1200

−0.03−0.02−0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 −0.03−0.02−0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 −0.03−0.02−0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03
Rotation (rad) Rotation (rad) Rotation (rad)
(d) OMF-4S-JS (exterior) (e) OMF-4S-JB (exterior) (f) OMF-4S-JCS (exterior)
Figure 4.18 Joint rotational moment-rotation relationship in the second floor for OMF-4S frame
4.3.2.2 Ductile 8-story perimeter frame (SMF-8P)
Figure 4.19 presents the comparison of interstory drift time histories with and without
joint shear modeling for the SMF-8P frame. The response period is slightly elongated due
to joint shear, and the increase in drift associated with the effect of joint shear is obvious.
In particular, differences in the drift response with and without shear become significant
after 7 sec at which time the maximum responses are experienced in all columns.
Additionally, lower story columns experience a considerable residual drift after the
123
maximum responses as a result of the effect of joint shear. It indicates that columns are
subjected to higher drift demands due to joint shear (approximately 25% higher in the
second story), hence more damage would be expected to occur. Table 4.15 indicates the
maximum response parameters in terms of interstory drifts and column shear forces for
the analytical frame models without and with joint shear. It can be indicated that the
maximum interstory drift occurs in the second story level for both analytical frame
models. As is the case of the OMF-4S frame, it can be found from the table that there is a
reduction in the column shear force for the analytical frame model with joint shear when
compared to that without joint shear. It may be attributed to the spread of inelastic action
into joints.
Table 4.15 Maximum seismic response parameters for SMF-8P frame

Interstory drift (%) Maximum story shear (kN)
Frame model Story
Maximum Residual Exterior Interior
SMF-8P-RO 1st 3.16 0.08 873 1109
(rigid offset) 2nd 3.48 0.03 529 1167
3rd 2.66 0.10 517 790
4th 1.47 0.11 375 672
5th 0.67 0.05 319 567
6th 0.45 0.01 397 539
7th 0.36 0.01 297 494
8th 0.20 0.00 174 313
SMF-8P-JS 1st 4.99 1.85 699 974
(joint shear) 2nd 5.28 2.05 564 873
3rd 3.59 1.51 413 781
4th 1.91 0.70 340 693
5th 0.91 0.22 379 560
6th 0.72 0.08 316 461
7th 0.45 0.04 259 335
8th 0.25 0.03 171 278
124
6 6
4 4

2 2
0 0
−2 −2
−4 Rigid offet −4 Rigid offet

Joint shear Joint shear
−6 −6
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
(a) First story (b) Second story

6 6
4 4

2 2
0 0
−2 −2

−6 −6
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
(c) Third story (d) Fourth story

1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
−0.5 −0.5

−1.5 −1.5
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
(e) Fifth story (f) Sixth story

1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
−0.5 −0.5

−1.5 −1.5
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
(g) Seventh story (h) Eighth story
Figure 4.19 Comparison of interstory drift time histories for SMF-8P frame
125
To investigate the influence of joint shear on columns, the column shear-drift
responses in the second story for the analytical frame models with and without joint shear
are depicted in Figure 4.20. The drift demand dramatically increases (52% higher) and
the maximum column shear force decreases (14% lower) as a result of the effect of joint
shear. Additionally, joint shear results in the considerable permanent deformation and
pinched hysteresis that might significantly affect the seismic response of the frame
subjected to a repeated ground motion. Figure 4.21 shows the rotational moment-rotation
relationship for interior and exterior joints in the frame model. It can be indicated that the
interior and exterior joints experience the maximum joint strength and pronounced
pinched hysteresis.
1200 1200
800 800
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)
400 400
0 0
−400 −400
−800 −800
−1200 −1200
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
Total drift (%) Total drift (%)
(a) SMF-8P-RO (b) SMF-8P-JS
Figure 4.20 Column shear force-story drift hysteresis in the second story for SMF-8P frame
126
3000 2000
1500
2000
Moment (kN−m) 1000
Moment (kN−m)
1000
500
0 0
−500
−1000
−1000
−2000
−1500
−3000 −2000
−0.04 −0.03 −0.02 −0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 −0.04 −0.03 −0.02 −0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Rotation (rad) Rotation (rad)
(a) Interior joint (b) Exterior joint
Figure 4.21 Joint rotational moment-rotation relationship in the second floor for SMF-8P-JS
model
4.4 Summary
This chapter presents the selection of non-ductile and ductile RC frames designed by Liel
(2008) and Haselton (2006) in accordance with the design code provisions, respectively.
Those frames are typical of office buildings and industrial facilities in California and two
different lateral load resisting systems: space frames and perimeter frames. This research
selects the most typical RC frames amongst those designed by the authors. In order to
investigate the collapse mechanism of these frames with different analytical modeling
techniques, this research regards joint shear, joint bond, and column shear failure as
modeling variables. The analytical frame models are created in OpenSees (McKenna et al.
2010) with incorporation of the analytical modeling approach presented in Chapter 3. The
perimeter frame system is modeled by adding the leaning columns to account for P-Δ
effect. For the shear model developed by Elwood (2004), the behavior of older columns
should ensure their flexure yielding since they have taller height. Additionally, the joint
model developed by Anderson et al. (2008) presented in the model validation has the
127
limitation that this model is developed based on experimental joint shear strength. Thus,
the joint shear strength model for non-ductile and ductile beam-column joints is proposed
in order to ensure the applicability of this joint model to analytical frame models. Each
joint strength model is obtained though the statistical method based on collected
experimental results available in the literature. Finally, the seismic performance for these
analytical frame models is evaluated through the pushover analysis and nonlinear time
history analysis. The analytical models with joint shear increase the drift demand and
reduce the maximum shear force and initial stiffness as a result of the spread of inelastic
action into joints. The analytical frame model with joint shear and column shear is the
most vulnerable in that it has a sudden drop of lateral load resistance in pushover analysis
and the largest maximum and residual deformation in both analyses.
128
CHAPTER 5
FRAMEWORK FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AFTERSHOCK
FRAGILITY CURVES
This chapter outlines the framework which is selected in the development of analytical
aftershock fragility curves for RC frames in order to account for the damage
accumulation and increased vulnerability for those frames. The framework adopted here
is composed of independent modules linked by pinch point variables such as intensity
measures (IM) and engineering demand parameters (EDPs). Most existing aftershock
fragility curves are developed using a stipe approach (incremental dynamic analysis
(IDA)) for aftershock analyses while this research generate the aftershock fragility curves
employing a cloud approach (nonlinear time history analysis (NTHA)) for aftershock
analyses in order to account for realistic aftershock ground motions that can
representative of the specific region. Figure 5.1 illustrates a schematic of the framework
and its essential components such as the suite of mainshock and aftershock ground
motions, probabilistic analytical frame models, characterization of initial damage states
associated with mainshock ground motions, mainshock-aftershock analyses, probabilistic
aftershock demand models (PADMs), capacity limit states, and aftershock fragility
formulation.
129
Frame
Newsamples
Ground (N = 100): A suite of ground motions by Baker et al. (160 pairs)
Capacity limit state
Motion
Latin Suitesampling
hypercube
(160(pairs) Intensity measure distribution
fc, fy, ζ) Slight
P[LS|EDPas]
Mainshock suite (N = 100) Aftershock suite (N = 100) Moderate
Extensive
Complete
EDPas
N (=100) mainshock-aftershock-frame (MS-AS-F) pairs
Demand model (PADM)
Simulation 1: MS5-AS65-F1
IDS0 IDS1
ln(EDPas)
ln(EDPas)
Damaging
F1 earthquake Aftershock ln(IMas) ln(IMas)
(mainshock) (NTHA)
AS65
IDS2 IDSn
ln(EDPas)
ln(EDPas)
Undamaged A) or B) Mainshock-damaged Aftershock-damaged
ln(IMas) ln(IMas)
A) IDA approach Initial damage states (IDSi, i=1,...,n) B) CPO approach

where n = the number of IDSs of interest MS5b)
Scaling
ground motion Correlation between Scaling Aftershock fragility
visible damage displacement Slight damage Moderate damage
MS5a) & member response
P[LS|IMas]
P[LS|IMas]
Input acceleration Input displacement IDS0 IDS0
IDS1 IDS1
IDS2 IDS2
IDSn IDSn
IMas IMas
Extensive damage Complete damage
P[LS|IMas]
P[LS|IMas]
Simulation 100: MS41-AS11-F100 IDS0 IDS0
IDS1 IDS1
(Mainshock-aftershock analysis) IDS2 IDS2
IDSn IDSn
►N simulations for each IDS IMas IMas
Figure 5.1 Graphical representation of aftershock fragility framework
130
5.1 Aftershock Fragility Formulation
5.1.1 Classical fragility function
As mentioned in Chapter 2, (typical) seismic fragility is explicitly expressed as a
conditional probability that gives the likelihood that a structure will reach or exceed a
specified level of damage for a given ground intensity measure (IM). To derive the
fragility function, a probabilistic seismic demand model (PSDM) that relates the seismic
median demand to the IM is employed using NTHA. The relationship between the
demand and IM can be expressed in the power form (Cornell et al. 2002, Ellingwood et al.
2007), as given in equation (5.1):
S D = a ⋅ IM b (5.1)
where SD is the median value of the demand as a function of an IM, parameters a and b
can be computed by a linear regression analysis of ln(SD) on ln(IM) obtained from
simulations. The dispersion (βD|IM) accounting for the uncertainty in the relation is
estimated based on equation (5.2):
∑ [ln(d ) − ln(a ⋅ IM )]b 2 (5.2)

β D|IM = i
N −2
where N is the number of simulations. Finally, the PSDM, probability that the D exceeds
d conditioned on the IM can be computed as in equation (5.3):
⎡ ln(d ) − ln( S D ) ⎤ (5.3)

P[ D ≥ d | IM ] = 1 − Φ ⎢ ⎥
⎣⎢ β D|IM ⎦⎥
131
Similarly, the probability that the structural capacity (C) is less than d can be
written as in equation (5.4):
⎡ ln(d ) − ln(SC ) ⎤ (5.4)

P[C < d | IM ] = Φ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ βC ⎦
where SC and βC are the median value and dispersion of the structural capacity associated
with the limit state. With the formulation of the seismic demand and structural capacity,
the fragility function can be represented as in equation (5.5):
⎡ ln(S / S ) ⎤ (5.5)
P[ D > C | IM ] = Φ ⎢ D C ⎥
⎢ β D|IM + β C2
2 ⎥
⎣ ⎦
5.1.2 Aftershock fragility function
Unlike classical fragility, aftershock fragility is a conditional probability that determines
the likelihood that a damaged structure will meet or exceed a specified level of damage,
given an aftershock intensity measure (IMas) and an initial damage state (IDS) associated
with the mainshock in order to reflect the increased vulnerability of structures. This
aftershock fragility function can be estimated by developing a probability distribution for
the aftershock demand conditioned on the IMas. Modifying the power function of a
classical demand model proposed by Cornell et al. (2002), an aftershock demand model
can be computed as in equation (5.6):
S D ,as = a ⋅ IM as
b (5.6)
132
where SD,as is the median value of the aftershock demand model as a function of the IMas,
and a and b are constants estimated using a regression analysis for the aftershock demand
model in the log-transformed space (so-called PADM). The dispersion (βD|IMas) is
estimated using equation (5.7):
∑ [ln(d ) − ln(a ⋅ IM ]
b 2 (5.7)
)
β D|IMas = i as
N −2
With the addition of the initial damage state as a result of mainshocks, the
aftershock fragility curves can be obtained as in equation (5.8):
⎡ ln(S / S ) ⎤ (5.8)
P[ D > C | IM as , IDS ] = Φ ⎢ D ,as C
⎥
⎢ β D|IMas + β C2 ⎥
2
⎣ ⎦
The following is a brief summary of the basic procedure for computing the
aftershock fragility curves, as shown Figure 5.1:
1. Generate N statistical samples of a subject frame. These samples can be generated
by sampling on significant modeling parameters. Thus, N nominally identical but
statistically significant frame samples are generated through Latin hypercube
sampling (LHS) (McKay et al. 1979).
2. Assemble a suite of N ground motions that can be applicable to the area of interest.
3. Generate N mainshock damaging earthquakes that can simulate the mainshock-
damaged conditions of structures corresponding to predefined IDSs. Two
approaches to describe the damaging earthquakes are suggested in this research;
133
(1) NTHA within IDA and (2) cyclic pushover analysis approach (CPO). This
research focuses mainly on the former.
4. Randomly assemble N frame-mainshock-aftershock pairs, and then perform back-
to-back nonlinear time history analyses for each frame-mainshock-aftershock pair.
Alternatively, the mainshock analysis can be replaced by CPO. Key seismic
responses are monitored along with the IMas. In this research, maximum interstory
drift is chosen as the seismic demand in the development of fragility curves.
5. Generate a PADM, a linear regression of the aftershock demand-intensity
measure pairs in the log-transformed space.
6. Develop an aftershock fragility curves with various initial damage states using
equation (5.8).
5.2 Stochastic Analytical Frame Models
Uncertainty in the demand placed on RC frames can be categorized into two groups,
specifically aleatoric and epistemic. Alreatoric uncertainty is related to inherent
randomness in the occurrence of seismic events and is essentially irreducible. The limited
historical data leads to statistical error in the estimates of the aleatoric uncertainty. In
contrast, epistemic uncertainty associated with a lack of knowledge and assumptions in
modeling techniques can generally be reduced with additional information and more
comprehensive analysis (Ellingwood and Wen 2005). The uncertainty related to the
recorded ground motions in the suite is conventionally referred to as aleatory in nature
associated with the inherent randomness in the seismological mechanisms. Uncertainty in
structural and material properties is account for in this research.
134
Uncertainties in modeling parameters such as concrete compressive strength (fc),
steel yield strength (fy), structural damping (ξ) are included in this research. These
parameters that can affect the member or system capacity are inherently random, and the
randomness can be modeled by random variable based on experimental results (Wen et al.
2004). The concrete compressive strength and steel yield strength are assumed to be
described by normal and lognormal probability distributions, respectively (Healy et al.
1980, MacGregor et al. 1983, Bartlett and MacGregor 1996). Additionally, the properties
of construction material such as concrete and steel evolve over time. The mean value (μ)
of concrete strength is defined following the work of Liel (2008) and Haselton (2006):
27.6 MPa for non-ductile frames and 34.5~48.3 MPa for ductile frames. The coefficient
of variation (COV) for the concrete compressive strength is assumed following the work
of Healy et al. (1980). The COV is determined in accordance with concrete strength and
concrete quality dependent on placement and field curing. The mean value of the steel
yield strength is the expected value of 462 MPa for both non-ductile and ductile frames
(Liel 2008, Haselton 2006), and its COV is also assumed to be 0.08 following the work
of Healy et al. (1980). Furthermore, the impact of damping is very important in dynamic
analysis. The damping ratio is assumed to be described by a lognormal probability
distribution (Healy et al. 1980, Celik and Ellingwood 2010). The mean value and COV of
damping ratio are considered those used in the RC frames designed by Liel (2008) and
Haselton (2006). Table 5.1 summarizes the probability distributions for each of the above
parameters.
To capture the uncertainty in the modeling parameters listed in Table 5.1,
statistically significant yet nominally identical frame models are developed by sampling
135
across the range of these parameters using Latin hypercube sampling (LHS) technique
(Mckay et al. 1979). The LHS provides a more efficient sampling scheme to cover the
probability space of the random variables when compared to pure random sampling using
naïve Monte Carlo simulation (Celik and Ellingwood 2010). Each independent analytical
frame model is then randomly paired with one (for classical fragilities) or two (for
aftershock fragilities) of ground motions identified in the next section.
Table 5.1 Structural modeling uncertainties

Random
Mean COV Distribution References Frame
variables
Concrete 27.6 MPa 0.176 Normal Healy et al. (1980) Non-ductile
Strength (fc) 34.5 MPa 0.151 Ductile
41.4 MPa 0.136 Ductile
48.3 MPa 0.126 Ductile
Steel yield 462 MPa 0.080 Lognormal Healy et al. (1980) Both
Strength (fy)
Damping ratio 0.065 0.600 Lognormal Haselton (2007) Ductile
(ξ) 0.050 0.600 Liel (2008) Non-ductile
5.3 A Suite of Ground Motions
Assembling a suite of ground motions that can appropriately represent the seismic hazard
is crucial to developing fragility curves applicable to RC frames spread over a wide
geographic area. The suite of ground motions must contain a wide range of IMs expected
in the area interest based on seismic hazard analysis. For this purpose, this research
selects a suite of ground motions developed by Baker et al. (2011) that can be utilized to
analyze a variety of structures potentially located in active seismic regions such as
California. The suite includes 120 pairs of broad-band ground motions with the
distribution of response spectra associated with moderately large earthquakes at small
distances and 40 pairs of ground motions with strong velocity pulses expected at sites
136
experiencing near-fault directivity. The suite of ground motions consists of four sets: Set
1A (broad-band, magnitude (Mw) = 7, distance to rupture (Rrup) = 10 km, soil site), Set
1B (broad-band, Mw = 6, Rrup = 25 km, soil site), Set 2 (broad-band, Mw = 7, Rrup =10 km,
rock site), and Set 3 (pulse-like, near-fault). Each set is composed of 40 pairs of ground
motions. Figure 5.2 illustrates the response spectra in logarithmic scale for each set in the
ground motions developed by Baker et al. (2011). A detailed description of the suite can
be found in the reference.
(a) Set 1A (b) Set 1B
(c) Set 2 (d) Set 3
Figure 5.2 Response spectra for each set in the Baker suite
137
In this research, 100 ground motions that can represent the original ground motion
suite are re-assembled in order to reduce the time-consumption of the runs. For this
purpose, an optimal IM is defined in the classical PSDM analyses with an assumption
that an optimal IM for the PADM follows that for the classical PSDM. If an inappropriate
IM is selected from the classical PSDM, the resulting PADM might be worse because
mainshock-damaged structures have a variety of residual deformation that can
significantly influence maximum response in aftershock analyses. Mainshock ground
motions are extracted using the probability distribution of the defined IM, and then a
suite of aftershock ground motions is obtained using the IM.
5.3.1 Optimal intensity measure in classical PSDM
The choice of an optimal IM to correlate with structural damage is very important. The
optimal IM can provide the accuracy of the demand model in estimating seismic demand
as well as the reasonable estimate of vulnerability of structures in case of the dependence
of the uncertainty associated with the demand model on an IM. Shafieezadeh et al. (2012)
probed into the properties of an optimal IM: efficiency, practicality, proficiency, and
sufficiency. Efficiency is commonly used to establish the superiority of an IM. An
efficient IM not only reduces the amount of variability in the demand parameter for a
given IM, but also keeps it constant over the entire range of the selected IM. An efficient
IM is commonly referred to a lower value of the dispersion (βD|IM). Sufficiency is the
property where an IM is independent of earthquake characteristics such as magnitude
(Mw) and distance (R). It can be quantified by the p-value which is a measure of the
probability that the points in a scatter-plot of residuals against a variable lie on a straight
138
line. By definition, p-value is the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis which is the
independence of IM from Mw or R. If the p-value obtained from a linear regression of the
residuals (εd|IM) from the PSDM against Mw or R is greater than the significance level
(here, 5%), Mw or R is not statistically significant, and thus an IM is sufficient.
Additionally, practicality is a measure of the dependence of the demand on the IM and its
good indicator is the slope (b). A higher value of b indicates that the IM is more practical.
Finally, proficiency is a composite measure of efficiency and practicality. It is obtained
by substituting equation (5.1) into equation (5.3) and then by rearranging terms in the
formulation as below:
⎡ ln(d ) − ln a ⎤ (5.9)
⎢ ln( IM ) − b ⎥
P[ D ≥ d | IM ] = Φ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ζ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
where
β D|IM (5.10)
ζ =
b
where ζ is the modified dispersion and a measure of proficiency. A lower value of ζ
indicates a more proficient IM. Additionally, the coefficient of determination (R2) not
only proves the power law assumption of the PSDM, but also strengthens the
characteristic of efficiency and proficiency. Therefore, an optimal IM would be
determined by smaller values of βD|IM and ζ, larger values of b and R2 and larger p-value
than the significance level. A detailed description of these properties can be found in
Shafieezadeh et al. (2012).
139
These properties will be utilized to determine the most optimal IM for the RC
frames selected in this research. This research focuses on determining an optimal IM
among structure-independent IMs in order to employ the identical suite of mainshock and
aftershock ground motions to all types of building structures with the design variables
such as non-ductile and ductile frames, space and perimeter frames, frame heights. For
this purpose, 160 ground motion (randomly selected from two horizontal components)-
frame pairs are analyzed for OMF-4S-JS model and then classical PSDM are constructed
in terms of structure-independent IMs and maximum interstory drift (θmax). The candidate
IMs are peak ground acceleration (PGA), peak ground velocity (PGV), peak ground
deformation (PGD), Arias intensity (Ia), cumulative absolute velocity (CAV), and
spectral acceleration at period 1.0 sec (Sa-1s). Table 5.2 presents the comparison of the
characteristic properties for the six IMs. In terms of efficiency and proficiency, PGV is
the most optimal IM. CAV is the most practical IM followed by Sa-1s and PGV. Therefore,
it can be concluded that PGV is the most optimal IM in terms of the above properties.
Figure 5.3 presents a sample PSDM for maximum interstory drift using PGA and PGV as
the IM. Moreover, sufficiency is achieved by investigating the p-values for the candidate
IMs with respect to Mw and R. Based on the significance level (0.05), PGV and Sa-1s is all
sufficient. Sa-1s is the most sufficient with respect to Mw while PGV is the most sufficient
with respect to R. Figure 5.4 shows the linear regression on the residuals for θmax with
respect to Mw and R. The plots clearly display that the best fit lines are almost horizontal
thereby demonstrating the sufficiency. Therefore, PGV will be a means to provide the
suite of mainshock and aftershock ground motions as well as to develop the aftershock
fragility curves for the RC frames.
140
Table 5.2 Comparison of characteristic property measures for various IMs
Efficiency, Practicality, Proficiency Sufficiency (p-value)
IM 2
βD|IM b ζ R Mw R (km)
PGA (g) 0.637 0.989 0.655 0.615 0.000 0.438
PGV (m/s) 0.316 0.991 0.319 0.906 0.103 0.844
PGD (m) 0.511 0.686 0.745 0.753 0.000 0.000
Ia (m/s) 0.503 0.637 0.799 0.761 0.470 0.019
CAV (m/s) 0.598 1.205 0.497 0.662 0.000 0.000
Sa-1s (g) 0.397 0.993 0.400 0.050 0.543 0.147
3 3
2 ln(θ )=1.537 +0.989× ln(PGA) 2 ln(θ )=1.339 +0.991× ln(PGV)

max max
R2 =0.614,β =0.639 R2 =0.906,β =0.316
D|IM D|IM
1 1
)
)
0 0
max
max
ln(θ
ln(θ
−1 −1
−2 −2
−3 −3
−4 −4
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1
ln(PGA) ln(PGV)
(a) PGA (b) PGV
Figure 5.3 Classical PSDMs for IMs: PGA and PGV
0.9 0.9
p−value =0.844
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
Residuals, ε|PGV
Residuals, ε|PGV
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Magnitude, M Distance, R (km)
(a) Magnitude (Mw) (b) Distance (R)
Figure 5.4 Sufficiency of PGV with respect to magnitude and distance
141
5.3.2 Selection of mainshock and aftershock ground motion suite
PGV enables an appropriate suite of mainshock and aftershock ground motions. This
assembled suite can reduce the time-consumption of the runs, but represent the original
ground motion suite. For the suite of mainshock ground motions, 25 ground motions for
each set will be re-assembled in this research. To obtain the suite of 100 mainshock
ground motions used for simulating the finite element frame models, the distribution of
PGV for each set is assumed to be lognormal, as presented in Figure 5.5, and the LHS
technique is also exploited to extract the random samples of PGVs. Finally, ground
motions with PGV values chosen are close to those sampled from the distribution. In
these figures, λPGV and ζPGV are the parameters of the lognormal distribution, which
means that these parameters are, respectively, the mean and standard deviation of
ln(PGV). These selected ground motions are gradually scaled until a member experiences
the IDSs corresponding to maximum interstory drifts.
The choice of aftershock ground motions are considered in company with
PADMs and aftershock fragility curves. Therefore, selecting the suite of aftershock
ground motions will be discussed in detail in Section 5.6 after explaining how to develop
the PADMs and aftershock fragility curves.
142
10 10
Lognormal Lognormal
8 λPGV=−1.192 8 λPGV=−2.658
ζ =0.605 ζ =0.54
PGV PGV
Frequency
Frequency
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
PGV (m/s) PGV (m/s)
(a) Set 1A (b) Set 1B

10 10
Lognormal Lognormal
8 λPGV=−1.656 8 λPGV=−0.439
ζ =0.594 ζ =0.502
PGV PGV
Frequency
Frequency
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 0 1 2 3
PGV (m/s) PGV (m/s)
(c) Set 2 (d) Set 3
Figure 5.5 Probability density function (PDF) of PGV
5.4 Mainshock-Aftershock Analysis
5.4.1 Characterization of initial damage states
As defined in the formulation of aftershock fragility function, evaluating the aftershock
risk assessment of structures necessitates the investigation of the extent of damage caused
by mainshocks. This assessment can be achieved by establishing the relationship between
observed damage patterns and response mechanisms for RC frame members. To identify
the characteristics of the damage patterns associated with the specific response
mechanisms and how these damage patterns evolve due to earthquakes, Bearman (2012)
143
investigated a database of RC column tests (Sezen 2002, Bae 2005) and test images
(Eberhard et al. 2010, Sedra et al. 2010, PEER 2011). FEMA 306 (1998) asserted that
information about the performance characteristics of a building frame can be derived
from the estimation of drift demand that mainshocks (damaging earthquakes) placed on
it. The effort is consistent with the report of FEMA 306 (1998), and thus, from this
observation, the author established the relationship between the maximum drift and
visible damage for flexure- and shear-dominated RC columns. Additionally, the author
accounted for the effect of axial load on columns to identify the associated drift capacity
with each stage of the damage progression. In each stage, a value of drift capacity for a
column under low axial load was specified as well as that under high axial load. The
critical axial load factor (ALF = Pc/fcAg) was identified as 0.5 such that any ALF equal to
or above this value was regarded as high (HAL), and any value below this value was
referred to as a low axial load (LAL).
Figure 5.6(a) and Figure 5.6(b) illustrate the damage progression of flexure-
dominated columns under low and high axial load, respectively, tested by Bae (2005). In
the testing, several photos were obtained and associated with certain points on the lateral
load-drift hysteresis of each specimen. This information helps to postulate the correlation
between visible damage and the existing state of the column. As shown in figures, the
column under low axial load is less drift capacity than that under low axial load. Based
on this information, Bearman (2012) proposed the typical damage progression with
respect to visually perceived damage and associated maximum drift capacity, as indicated
in Table 5.3. In addition to flexure-dominated columns, the damage progression of shear-
dominated columns under low and high axial load tested by Sezen (2002) are depicted in
144
Figure 5.7(a) and Figure 5.7(b), respectively. In the same manner as flexure-dominated
columns, Bearman (2012) also suggested the typical damage progression in terms of
visible damage description and associated maximum drift capacity, as shown in Table 5.4.
S24-4UT F2 & F3 F4 F5
F6 & F7
F8
F1
F4 F5
F6 & F7 F8
F4: Initial concrete spalling, F5: Concrete spalling exposing longitudinal steel,
F6 & F7: Longitudinal bar buckling and crushing of core concrete, F8: Longitudinal bar fracture
(a) Under low axial load (ALF = 0.20)
S17-3UT
F2 & F3 F4 F5
F1 F6 & F7
F8
F4 F5
F6 & F7 F8
F4: Concrete spalling on flexural and side faces, F5: Concrete spalling exposing longitudinal steel,
F6 & F7: Longitudinal bar buckling and crushing of core concrete, F8: Longitudinal bar fracture
(b) Under high axial load (ALF = 0.50)
Figure 5.6 Damage progression of flexure-dominated columns (Bae 2005)
145
Table 5.3 Summary of damage progression for flexure-dominated columns (Bearman 2012)
Drift (%)
Damage state Damage description
LAL HAL
F1: Flexural cracking • Top and bottom 1/3 of column 0.30 0.50
• Perpendicular to column axis
• Span width of column
• Uniformly spaced
• Initially hairline cracks (≤ 0.1 mm)
• Prior to spalling ≈ 2.5 mm (HAL) and 5.0
mm (LAL) at maximum displacement
F2: Longitudinal cracking • Top and bottom 1/3 of column 1.00 0.75
• Parallel to column axis
• Prior to spalling ≈ 4 mm
F3: Shear cracking • Top and bottom 1/3 of column 1.00 0.75
• At 35 to 65° angle from the horizontal
• Initially hairline cracks (≤ 0.1 mm)
• Prior to spalling ≈ 5 mm (HAL) and 10 mm
(LAL) at maximum displacement
F4: Initial concrete spalling • Initially occur at top and bottom ¼ of ends 1.50 0.75
• Complete spalling ≈ bc from ends
F5: Concrete spalling and • Initially exposed at bc/2 from ends 2.00 1.00
exposing longitudinal rebar • Exposed length ≈ bc
F6: Longitudinal rebar buckling • Initially occur at ≈ bc/2 from ends 4.50 3.00
• Total buckling length ≈ bc/2
F7: Crushing of core concrete • Same location as bar buckling 4.50 3.00
F8: Longitudinal rebar fracture • Same location as bar buckling 6.00 3.50
F9: Loss of lateral load- 4.00 2.00
carrying capacity
F10: Loss of axial load- 6.00 4.50
carrying capacity
§ bc = column width, LAL = low axial load, and HAL = high axial load
146
Specimen 1
S2 S3.0 & S3.1
S1
S3.2
S3.3 S1 & S2 S3.0 & S3.1
S3.2 S3.3
S1 & S2: Flexural and shear craking, S3.0 & S3.1: Widening and localization of shear cracking,
S3.2: Concrete spalling on side faces, S3.3: Longitudinal bar buckling
(a) Under low axial load (ALF = 0.15)
Specimen 2
S2
S1 S3.1
S2 S3.1
S3.2, S3.3 & S3.4
S3.2 S3.3 & S3.4
S2: Shear craking, S3.1: Widening and localization of longitudinal cracking on side face, S3.2: Concrete spalling
on side face, S3.3 & S3.4: Longitudinal bar buckling and core crushing after loss of load carrying capacity
(b) Under high axial load (ALF = 0.60)
Figure 5.7 Damage progression of shear-dominated columns (Sezen 2002)
147
Table 5.4 Summary of damage progression for shear-dominated columns (Bearman 2012)
Drift (%)
Damage state Damage description
LAL HAL
S1: Flexural and longitudinal • Same as flexure-dominated columns (HAL) 0.25 0.25
cracking for F1 and F2 except as noted
• Flexural cracks prior to S3 ≈ 1.3 mm
• Longitudinal cracks prior to S3 ≈ 2.5 mm
S2: Shear cracking • Same as flexure-dominated columns (HAL) 0.50 0.50
for F3 except as noted
• May occur at any height
S3.0: Widening and localization • May occur at any height 2.00 1.75
of shear cracks • At 35 to 65° angle from the horizontal
• Prior to spalling ≈ 7.6 mm (HAL) and 12.7
mm (LAL) at residual condition
S3.1: Longitudinal cracking • May run the entire height of column 2.50 1.75
on side faces • Meet localized shear cracks near edge
• Prior to spalling ≈ 2.5 mm at residual
condition
S3.2: Concrete spalling • Possible spall shape: triangle where shear 2.50 1.75
on side faces and longitudinal cracks meet, parallelogram
encompassing primary shear crack
• Edges of spall are at 35 to 65° angle from
the horizontal
S3.3: Longitudinal rebar • May occur at any height 2.50 1.75
buckling
S3.4: Crushing of core concrete • Typically occur with bar buckling 2.50 1.75
S3.5: Loss of lateral load- 2.50 1.75
carrying capacity
S3.6: Loss of axial load- 4.50 1.75
carrying capacity
§ LAL = low axial load and HAL = high axial load
Using the maximum drifts associated with the onset of damage states presented in
Table 5.3 and Table 5.4, initial damage states (IDSs) as a result of mainshocks are
defined, as presented in Table 5.5 through 5.8 for shear- and flexure-dominated columns
under low and axial load. As indicated in tables, the number of damage states is reduced
148
and the description of initial damage states is rearranged in accordance with the
associated maximum drifts. For the definition of the finial initial damage state, visible
damage states is linked with unobservable damage states such as loss of lateral and axial
load-carrying capacity (F9 and F10 for flexure-dominated columns and S3.5 and S3.6 for
shear-dominated columns). For example, in the case of flexure-dominated columns, IDS5
(under low axial load) or IDS4 (under high axial load) are established as one damage state
for F6, F7, and F9 because the experimental data demonstrate that the loss of lateral load-
carrying capacity (F9) is associated with longitudinal rebar buckling (F6) and core
crushing (F7). Additionally, IDS6 (under low axial load) or IDS5 (under high axial load)
are combined as a damage state for F8 and F10 because the experimental data indicate
that the loss of axial load-carrying capacity (F10) is attributed to longitudinal rebar
fracture (F8). Moreover, for shear-dominated columns, an unobservable initial damage
state indicating longitudinal rebar yielding is added because of the large difference of
maximum drift between previous (0.5%) and following damage state (2.0% for low axial
load case or 1.75% for high axial load case). The experimental data indicate that
longitudinal rebar yielding was generally observed at a drift of 1.0%.
The initial damage states for flexure- and shear-dominated columns are
incorporated to simulate the mainshock-damaged condition of ductile and non-ductile RC
frames, respectively. This condition is accomplished by generating damaging earthquakes
(i.e., the effect of mainshock) by which a member experiences an initial damage state
predefined). Furthermore, the axial load factor for the analytical frames selected in this
research remains below 0.5, and therefore, this research adopts the initial damage states
for flexure- and shear-dominated columns under low axial load (Table 5.5 and Table 5.7)
149
to characterize the mainshock-damaged condition of the frames. Additionally, IDS6,
which is regarded as the structural collapse, is not account for because this research
focuses on structures that survived after mainshock events.
Table 5.5 Initial damage states for flexure-dominated columns under low axial load (ALF < 0.5)
Maximum
IDS Damage state
drift (%)
IDS1 Flexural cracking (F1) 0.30
IDS2 Longitudinal and shear cracking (F2, F3) 1.00
IDS3 Initial concrete spalling (F4) 1.50
IDS4 Concrete spalling and exposing longitudinal rebar (F5) 2.00
IDS5 Longitudinal rebar buckling, crushing of core concrete, loss of lateral
4.50
load-carrying capacity (F6, F7, F9)
IDS6 Longitudinal rebar fracture, and axial load-carrying capacity (F8,
6.00
F10)
Table 5.6 Initial damage states for flexure-dominated columns under high axial load (ALF ≥ 0.5)
Maximum
IDS Damage state
drift (%)
IDS1 Flexural cracking (F1) 0.50
IDS2 Longitudinal and shear cracking, initial concrete spalling (F2, F3, F4) 0.75
IDS3 Concrete spalling and exposing longitudinal rebar (F5) 1.00
IDS4 Longitudinal rebar buckling, crushing of core concrete, loss of lateral
3.00
load-carrying capacity (F6, F7, F9)
IDS5 Longitudinal rebar fracture, loss of axial load-carrying capacity (F8,
3.50
F10)
Table 5.7 Initial damage states for shear-dominated columns under low axial load (ALF < 0.5)
Maximum
IDS Damage state
drift (%)
IDS1 Flexural and longitudinal cracking (S1) 0.25
IDS2 Shear cracking (S2) 0.50
IDS3 Relatively widened shear cracking (reinforcement yielding) 1.00
IDS4 Widening and localization of shear cracks (S3.0) 2.00
IDS5 Longitudinal cracking on side faces, concrete spalling on side faces,
crushing of core concrete, and loss of lateral load-carrying capacity 2.50
(S3.1, S3.2, S3.3, S3.4, S3.5)
IDS6 Loss of axial load-carrying capacity (S3.6) 4.50
150
Table 5.8 Initial damage states for shear-dominated columns under high axial load (ALF ≥ 0.5)
Maximum
IDS Damage state
drift (%)
IDS1 Flexural and longitudinal cracking (S1) 0.25
IDS2 Shear cracking (S2) 0.50
IDS3 Relatively widened shear cracking (reinforcement yielding) 1.00
IDS4 Widening and localization of shear cracks, longitudinal cracking on
side faces, concrete spalling on side faces, crushing of core concrete,
1.75
and loss of lateral and axial load-carrying capacity (S3.0, S3.1, S3.2,
S3.3, S3.4, S3.5, S3.6)
5.4.2 Simulating damaging earthquakes
In order to quantify the influence of damaging earthquakes on the response of RC frames,
two approaches may be taken; the first simulates the damage caused by the damaging
earthquake (modeling a mainshock-damaged structure), and the second generated the
damaging earthquakes (simulating a damaging ground motion). FEMA 307 (1998)
adopted the first approach by modifying the force-deformation relationship of a SDOF
oscillator. However, this approach cannot capture the localized damage of element levels
associated with the limitation of SDOF models. Therefore, this research proposes
approaches that can generate the effect of mainshocks (damaging earthquakes) on the
global and local responses of RC frames, as a part of the above second approach. Two
approaches are suggested employing the definition of initial damage states mentioned in
the previous section in this research; (1) IDA approach and (2) CPO (hypothetical
mainshocks) approach in Figure 5.8 and Figure 5.9, respectively. Both approaches enable
the simulation of the damaging earthquakes to cause the specified initial damage states.
The estimation of these damage states can be quantitatively obtained by monitoring the
interstory drift of the frames. As presented in the figures, the main difference between
two the former is whether ground motions or imposed deformations is scaled to obtain
151
the damaging earthquakes. The first approach is capable of capturing the dynamic
characteristics, thereby resulting in a range of residual deformations, by adopting real
ground motions as mainshocks. However, the IDA approach requires many efforts to
obtain damaging earthquakes so that a RC frame attains the initial damage state. On the
other hand, the second approach can be easily applied and much less computationally
intensive by applying hypothetical ground motions rather than real ground motions for
the mainshock analysis. The CPO approach requires the assumptions of a pushover load
pattern and constant residual deformation. The pushover lateral load pattern is followed
by ASCE 7-05 (2005), and the input drift history is adopted as the general wave form
used in the experimental tests. The roof drift gradually increases up to a maximum
interstory drift level and then deceases to the assumed residual drift that is defined as the
drift at zero base shear. The residual deformation can be assumed to the mean or median
value of residual deformations obtained from the approach or a value calculated from the
equation of Bearman (2012) who proposed the relationship between maximum and
residual drift for columns.
IDS1
Acc.
IDS2
Acc.
IDSn
Acc.
Scaling ground motion
Figure 5.8 Damaging earthquakes (IDA)
152
Scaling input drift
IDS1
Drift
ASCE7 load pattern
IDS2
Drift
IDSn
Drift
Figure 5.9 Damaging earthquakes (CPO)
5.4.3 Mainshock-aftershock analysis
Ground motions or input drifts obtained from IDA or CPO approach play a role in a suite
of mainshocks with different initial damage states for mainshock-aftershock analyses.
While mainshock analysis is performed by one of the two approaches, aftershock analysis
is accomplished by conducting nonlinear time history analysis (NTHA). Each mainshock
ground motion or input drift (hypothetical mainshock) is randomly paired with an
aftershock ground motion in addition to a stochastic analytical frame model. For each
mainshock-aftershock-frame, back-to-back nonlinear time history analysis is performed
to monitor key seismic responses (here, interstory drifts) and aftershock intensity
measures (here, PGV). Figure 5.10 illustrates a mainshock-aftershock sequence (IDA) for
each initial damage state (IDS). In general, a mainshock can be classified as an
earthquake with the highest magnitude or intensity while foreshocks and aftershocks are
quakes that occur before and after a larger one in the same location. As shown in the
figure, a seismic event that is followed by a larger earthquake in the same area can be
classified as a foreshock-mainshock sequence. When the first earthquake is larger than
153
the subsequent events, it can be classified as a mainshock-aftershock sequence. However,
in this research, first and second earthquakes are referred to as mainshock and aftershock
ground motions, regardless of their relative magnitudes or intensities. For each back-to-
back dynamic analysis, a frame will be subjected to an identical aftershock ground
motion following different mainshocks to investigate how the extent of damage
associated with mainshocks affects the seismic response of the frame under a future
aftershock ground motion. Moreover, to stabilize the response after mainshock analysis,
extra ground acceleration whose magnitudes are zero over the time period of 10 sec is
added between mainshock and aftershock ground motions. Furthermore, both positive
and negative factors of aftershock ground motions (or their progress direction) are
applied to mainshock-damaged frames because aftershock maximum responses depend
on the polarity of aftershock ground motions (Ryu et al. 2011), as shown in Figure 5.11.
The figure indicates that the maximum drift for negative factor in aftershock analysis is
approximately 1.4 times as high as that for positive factor. If this polarity is not
accounted for in aftershock analysis, more severely damaged frames might have less
seismic demand than less damaged ones. Therefore, this factor should be taken into
account when performing aftershock fragility assessment.
154
Mainshock Extra Aftershock
IDS3
10 sec
IDS4
IDS5
Figure 5.10 Mainshock-aftershock sequences with various mainshocks corresponding to IDSs
0.310g 1.319 %
Positive
0.841g
1.793 %
Negative
Mainshock ground motion
0.310g
Aftershock ground motion Aftershock response
Figure 5.11 Aftershock responses accounting for the polarity of an aftershock ground motion
155
5.5 Development of Aftershock Fragility Curves
Aftershock fragility curves can be achieved by using PADMs with the addition of
capacity limit states predetermined. This section describes the PADMs, capacity limit
states, and aftershock fragility curves.
5.5.1 Probabilistic aftershock demand models (PADMs)
Global response (interstory drift) is selected as an EDP in this research because of limited
data of localized damage description for joint or column shear failure. Interstory
responses are monitored in mainshock-aftershock analyses. As mentioned in Section 5.1,
given the assumed lognormal distribution of aftershock seismic demand, a linear
regression of the demand-aftershock intensity measure pairs in the log-transformed space
(PADM), determines the median, the dispersion (βD|IMas), slope, intercept, and coefficient
of determination (R2), as illustrated in Figure 5.12. In this research, this PADM relates
the aftershock IM (i.e., peak ground velocity (PGVas)) to the EDP (i.e., the maximum
interstory drift (θmax,as)). The PADM is computed for each initial damage state i (i =
1,…,n) presented in Table 5.5 and Table 5.7 for ductile and non-ductile RC frames,
respectively, where n is the number of initial damage states of interest.
156
b
N(ln(SD),βD|IMas)
βD|IMas
fD(d)
ln(D)
βD|IMas
ln(SD) = ln(a) + b·ln(IMas)

ln(a)
ln(IMas)
Figure 5.12 Probabilistic aftershock demand model (PADM)
5.5.2 Capacity limit state
HAZUS-MH (FEMA 2003) has provided the qualitative damage descriptions with four
limit states (slight, moderate, extensive, and complete), as presented in Table 5.9. These
damage descriptions can be integrated with quantitative engineering demand parameters
seismic events (so-called damage-EDP relationship). To establish this damage state-drift
relationship, the work of Bearman (2012) is employed in the same manner as the
characterization of initial damage states. By linking seismic demands (drift) with damage
descriptions, four limit states can be determined for non-ductile and ductile RC frames, as
indicated in Table 5.10. Under the assumption that a limit state follows a lognormal
distribution, these drifts obtained from the damage estimation are adopted as the median
values (SC) of capacity limit states. Additionally, the dispersion (βC) of all limit states is
assumed to be 0.30 in this research. Those two parameters will be utilized to develop
aftershock fragility curves. Although different analytical frame models have different
limit states, the same limit states are used in this research to compare and identify the
157
probability of being in a damage state and the median value of aftershock fragility curves
under an identical condition.
Table 5.9 Description of HAZUS-MH (FEMA 2003)

Limit state Damage description
Slight • Flexural or shear type hairline cracks in some beams and columns near joints
or within joints
Moderate • Most beams and columns exhibit hairline cracks.
• Some of ductile frame components have reached yield capacity indicated by
larger flexural cracks and some concrete spalling.
• Non-ductile frames components may exhibit larger shear cracks and spalling.
Extensive • Some ductile frame components have reached their ultimate capacity indicated
by large flexural cracks, spalled concrete and rebar buckling.
• Non-ductile frame components may have suffered shear failures or bond
failures at reinforcement splices, or broken ties or rebar buckling in columns
which may result in partial collapse.
Complete • Structure is collapsed or in imminent danger of collapse associated with the
brittle failure of non-ductile frame or loss of frame stability.
Table 5.10 Capacity limit state model for maximum interstory drift (%)
Slight Moderate Extensive Complete
Frame type SC βC SC βC SC βC SC βC
Non-ductile 0.4 0.3 0.9 0.3 2.5 0.3 4.5 0.3
Ductile 0.5 0.3 1.0 0.3 4.5 0.3 6.0 0.3
158
5.5.3 Aftershock fragility curves
With the aftershock probabilistic seismic demand models described in Section 5.5.1 and
the limit state models determined in Section 5.5.2, it is necessary and possible to develop
the aftershock fragility curves with different initial damage states (IDSs) for non-ductile
and ductile RC frames. This is achieved in closed form using equation (5.8), where SD,as
and SC are is the median value of the aftershock demand and chosen limit states.
Substituting equation (5.6) into equation (5.8) and rearranging the formulation, equation
(5.8) can be expressed as equation (5.11):
⎡ ln(IM as ) − ln(λas ) ⎤ (5.11)

P[ LS | IM as , IDS ] = Φ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ β as ⎦
where
⎡ ln(S C ) − ln(a) ⎤ (5.12)

λas = exp⎢ ⎥
⎣ b ⎦
and
(5.13)
β D2|IMas + β C2
β as =
b
where λas is defined as the median value of the aftershock intensity measure for the
selected capacity limit state (LS) (slight, moderate, extensive, complete), so-called the
median value of the aftershock fragility curve, a and b are the regression coefficients of
the PADM, and βas is the dispersion of the aftershock fragility curve.
159
Figure 5.13 illustrates the aftershock fragility curves with different capacity limit
states for undamaged and damaged RC frames using equation 5.11, equation 5.12, and
equation 5.13.
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
P[LS|IMas]
P[LS|IMas]
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 Slight 0.3 Slight
0.2 Moderate 0.2 Moderate
Extensive Extensive
0.1 0.1
Complete Complete
0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
IM IM
as as
(a) Undamaged frame (IDS0) (b) Damaged frame (IDS4)
Figure 5.13 Illustrations of aftershock fragility curves
5.6 Impact of an Aftershock Ground Motion Suite Selection
As mentioned in Section 5.3.2, aftershock ground motions are carefully selected together
with PADMs and aftershock fragility curves. To examine the impact of aftershock
ground motions on structural responses, for simplicity, an analytical frame model without
the variability of material uncertainties is subjected to one mainshock ground motion and
different aftershock ground motions (a total of 360 simulations) with two different initial
damage states: undamaged (IDS0) and damaged (IDS5) conditions. Then, the PADMs are
developed, as shown in Figure 5.14(a). It can be indicated that, in the case of the
damaged condition (IDS5), the single linear regression model for the entire range of data
in a log-transformed space does not provide an appropriate fit of the data. The plotted
160
values for IDS5 are almost constant in the range of lower PGVas (smaller magnitude
aftershocks) because the final response depends mainly on large magnitude mainshocks
compared to aftershocks (no or little aftershock effects). As illustrated in Figure 5.14(b),
the linear regression fit for the mainshock-damaged structures (IDS5) results in crossover
fragility curves that slightly or moderately damaged structures associated with
mainshocks may have higher probabilities of being in a certain damage state at the higher
IMas than severely damaged structures.
3
Crossover fragility
2
1
ln(θmax,as)
−1
−2
−3 Undamaged (IDS )
0
Damaged (IDS )
5
−4
−5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1
ln(PGVas)
(a) Linear PADMs (b) Crossover fragility
Figure 5.14 Inappropriate PADMs and crossover fragility
To capture the scatter-plot in the whole range of IMas and avoid the crossover
fragility curves, a bilinear model of PADM can be employed by minimizing the residuals
between actual and fitted values (Ramamoorthy et al. 2006, Shafieezadeh 2011). The
bilinear model can offer better results with regard to the reduction in the dispersion and
increase in the determination of coefficient. However, most fragility curves have been
developed employing the linear demand model for a practical use. For this purpose,
161
Ramamoorthy et al. (2006) proposed a continuous fragility curve over the entire range of
intensity measures by using a nonlinear least square regression. However, the coefficients
of the demand model (modified single linear regression) such as the intercept and the
slope extracted from the continuous fragility curve might be different from those from the
single linear regression. Thus, the continuous fragility curve might lose the inherent trend
in the scatter-plot of demand against intensity measure.
The bilinear model obtained from the data in Figure 5.15(a) can consist of an
almost a relatively lower sloped line for the first branch and a sloped line for the second
branch in that the first branch can is the best fit line for data with no or little aftershock
effect. Figure 5.15(b) presents the resulting aftershock fragility curves with the bilinear
model. It can be demonstrated that the contribution of the first branch is small while that
of the second brand governs the fragility function in the whole range of aftershock
intensity measures. Therefore, to preserve the inherent properties of the linear best fit for
practical applications, this research excludes aftershock ground motions with smaller
magnitudes that cannot affect the aftershock responses. Since the aftershock ground
motions should result in additional damage to structures, ground motions with PGV
values less than 0.140 m/s are removed. Then, an aftershock ground motion suite can be
re-assembled from the remaining ground motions (210 out of 320 ground motions). As is
done in the selection of mainshock ground motions, an aftershock ground motion suite (a
total of 100) is assembled from the distribution of PGV for the remainder by using the
LHS technique (Mckay et al. 1979). Figure 5.16 depicts the response spectra for a suite of
aftershock ground motions obtained through the above procedure for all analyzed RC
frame models. The suite of aftershock ground motions developed for a frame might not
162
be appropriate for other frame type. However, it can be argued that an identical suite of
aftershock ground motions can be utilized for different frame type because the most
influential component that affects aftershock demand is the variability of the ground
motion (Ellingwood et al. 2007, Kwon and Elnashai 2006). This assumption will be
proved through the resulting aftershock fragility curves for different analytical frame
models in Chapter 6.
3 1
0.9
2 0.8
0.7
ln(θmax,as)
1 0.6
P[LS|PGVas]
0.5
0 0.4
0.3 Slight
−1 0.2 Moderate
Extensive
0.1
Complete
−2 0
−5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
ln(PGVas) PGVas (m/s)
(a) Bilinear PADM (b) Resulting aftershock fragility curves
Figure 5.15 Illustrations of aftershock fragility curves with a bilinear PADM model
With the appropriate selection of mainshock and aftershock ground motion suites,
the PADMs and aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs are generated for the
stochastic finite element models, as shown in Figure 5.17. These results explain the
increased vulnerability of damaged members that experience the cyclic strength and
stiffness deterioration under mainshock-damaged conditions. The resulting aftershock
fragility curves cannot exhibit crossover fragilities, thereby indicating that more severely
damaged structures as a result of mainshocks have higher probabilities of being in a
163
damage state over the entire range of intensity measures. Furthermore, if the number of
ground motions is relatively small, it is recommended that the bilinear model of a PADM
be utilized for developing aftershock fragility curves.
Figure 5.16 A suite of aftershock ground motions
2.5 1
2 0.9
0.8
P[Extensive|PGV , IDS]
1.5
0.7
as
1
ln(θmax,as)
IDS0(No damage) 0.6 IDS (No damage)

0
0.5 IDS1(θmax,ms=0.25%) 0.5 IDS (θ =0.25%)
1 max,ms
0 IDS2(θmax,ms=0.50%) 0.4 IDS2(θmax,ms=0.50%)
IDS3(θmax,ms=1.00%) 0.3 IDS3(θmax,ms=1.00%)
−0.5
IDS4(θmax,ms=2.00%) 0.2 IDS4(θmax,ms=2.00%)
−1 0.1
IDS5(θmax,ms=2.50%) IDS5(θmax,ms=2.50%)
−1.5 0
−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
ln(PGV ) PGV (m/s)
as as
(a) PADM (b) Aftershock fragility (extensive)
Figure 5.17 Illustrations of appropriate PADMs and aftershock fragility curves
164
5.7 Summary
This chapter describes the analytical procedure for the development of aftershock
fragility curves for RC frames. Unlike existing aftershock fragility assessment (stripe
approach (IDA)), the framework is developed using a cloud method (NTHA) for
aftershock analysis to account for realistic ground motions that can occur at the site of
interest. This procedure consists of creating the stochastic analytical models accounting
for modeling uncertainties, selecting a suite of mainshock and aftershock ground motions,
simulating damaging earthquakes associated with the characterization of initial damage
states, performing mainshock-aftershock analyses, computing PADMs, and generating
aftershock fragility curves. Particularly, the mainshock-damaged condition of structures
can be accomplished by correlating visible damage with member response based on the
observation of existing experimental column tests and by generating mainshock ground
motions through IDA or CPO approach. Furthermore, the aftershock fragility function is
developed by modifying the classical fragility function and by assuming the lognormal
distribution of aftershock demand and capacity limit state. An important finding is that
ground motions with smaller aftershock intensity do not significantly affect the final
responses for mainshock-damaged structures. Therefore, aftershock ground motions that
can cause the additional damage to structures should be selected. Although the suite of
aftershock ground motions is developed for a frame model, this suite will provide
reasonable results for other structure types because the most influential component that
affects the seismic demand is the variability of the ground motion. This assumption will
be proved through the resulting aftershock fragility curves for different analytical frame
models in Chapter 6.
165
CHAPTER 6
AFTERSHOCK FRAGILITY ASSESSMENT OF RC FRAMES
This chapter presents the application of the proposed framework for aftershock fragility
assessment described in Chapter 5 to different types of RC frames mentioned in Chapter
4 in order to develop quantitative evaluation tools for their accumulated damage and
increased vulnerability associated with aftershock ground motions. These estimations of
additional damage plays a significant role in assessing potential losses to facilitate crucial
decision making such as emergency response mobilization, inspection priority, recovery
strategy, and re-occupancy decision. Aftershock fragility curves that relate the probability
of meeting or exceeding a particular limit state given an imposed aftershock intensity
demand will be a means to quantify the increased vulnerability of structures in the post-
mainshock probabilistic risk assessment.
Following the aftershock assessment framework mentioned in the previous
chapter, this research develops and compares probabilistic aftershock demand models
(PADMs) and aftershock fragility curves for the most common RC building frames in
California with different building types, building heights, and analytical frame models
associated with potential failure mechanism. Additionally, this research generates the
PADMs and aftershock fragility curves with different mainshock-damaged conditions of
the RC frames associated with initial damage states (IDSs) and compares the probability
of being in a certain damage state or median value of fragility curves to investigate how
the extent of initial damage due to mainshock ground motions affects the additional
damage due to aftershock ground motions.
166
6.1 Choice of RC Frames for Aftershock Fragility Assessment
To reduce computational efforts in aftershock fragility assessment, this research selects
analytical frame models from those chosen in Chapter 4, listed in Table 6.1. For all frame
models, the joint shear model is selected as the baseline frame model to investigate the
difference in the median values of the resulting aftershock fragility curves for different
RC frames. In the case of non-ductile RC frames, the OMF-4S frame has five different
analytical frame models accounting for their potential failure modes: joint rigid offset,
joint shear or joint bond, column shear, and both concurrent joint and column shear. The
OMF-8S frame has three different analytical frame models with the joint shear model,
column shear, and joint and shear model. Additionally, this research does not include the
effect of column shear in non-ductile perimeter frames with four stories and eight stories
(OMF-4P and OMF-8P frames) because a lot of simulations for these frames would fail
even in nonlinear time history analyses under the undamaged condition of these frame
models with column shear, as illustrated in Figure 6.1 which shows the scatter-plot of
maximum interstory against intensity measure in a log-transformed space for undamaged
OMF-4P frames with column shear model. Their vulnerability is associated with their
inherent characteristic such as P-Δ effects. To account for the large number of collapsed
simulations, a binary regression model (will be explained in the next section) is
introduced because the linear regression model in equation 5.1 or equation 5.6 does not
include this behavior (Ellingwood et al. 2010). Additionally, to utilize the linear
regression model, the aftershock ground motion suite developed in Chapter 5 should be
reselected for these frames. In this process, because reselected aftershock ground motions
can cause the increased seismic demand for more fragile frame model (concurrent joint
167
and column shear model is the most fragile), the reselection should be carefully
conducted. Therefore, this research will not consider these analytical frame models
without allowing additional efforts. In the case of ductile RC frames, this research takes
account of two analytical frame models with and without joint shear in the fragility
generation to examine the difference in the aftershock demands for frames with and
without joint shear.
Table 6.1 Analytical frame models for aftershock fragility assessment

Frame Type No. of stories Frame model Modeling description
Non-ductile Space 4 OMF-4S-RO Joint rigid offset
OMF-4S-JS Joint shear
OMF-4S-JB Joint bond
OMF-4S-CS Column shear
OMF-4S-JCS Joint and column shear
8 OMF-8S-JS Joint shear
OMF-8S-CS Column shear
OMF-8S-JCS Joint and column shear
Perimeter 4 OMF-4P-JS Joint shear
8 OMF-8P-JS Joint shear
Ductile Perimeter 4 SMF-4P-RO Joint rigid offset
SMF-4P-JS Joint shear
Perimeter 8 SMF-8P-RO Joint rigid offset
SMF-8P-JS Joint shear
12 12
10 10
8 8
)
ln(θmax,as)
max,as
6 6
ln(θ
4 4
θ = 10 % θ = 10 %
max,as max,as
2 2
0 0
−2 −2
−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 −2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1
ln(PGV ) ln(PGV )
as as
(a) Column shear model (b) Joint and column shear model
Figure 6.1 PADMs for undamaged OMF-4P frame with column shear
168
6.2 Accounting for Collapsed Simulations
The seismic demand model requires the consideration of collapsed simulations that have
unrealistically large demand values or the convergence issue in the numerical algorithms
since the plot of maximum drift and intensity measure data for ground motions that result
in a dynamic instability on the frame model cannot be accounted for in the linear
regression model presented in equation (5.1) or equation (5.6). To include the collapsed
simulations, Ellingwood et al. (2010) and Baker and Cornell (2006) recommended the
usage of a binary regression analysis (logistic regression). It can be achieved by combing
the possibilities of collapse or no collapse using the total probability theorem. In other
words, P[D ≥ d |IM = im1] can be explicitly expressed as the probability of collapse given
im1 (logistic regression) plus the probability of non-collapse given im1 (linear regression),
where im1 is a specific intensity measure. A detailed description can be found in the work
of Baker and Cornell (2006).
Ellingwood et al. (2010) performed fragility analyses for steel frames with
partially restrained beam-column connections, and their simulation results showed that
two out of 40 ground motions (5%) caused the collapse of structures. The authors
mentioned that a small portion of collapsed simulations significantly affects the binary
regression. As a result, following the recommendation of Ellingwood et al. (2010), this
research removes the collapsed simulations leading to dynamic instability from the
demand-intensity measure pairs obtained from the simulations. Table 6.2 shows the
number of collapsed simulations and number of simulations used in the generation of
PADMs and aftershock fragility curves for the frame models listed in Table 6.1. To
compare the fragility results with different modeling techniques for each frame, the
169
number of simulations included in the fragility assessment is unified for each frame. It
can be indicated that the portion of collapsed simulations for all frame models lies within
around 5%.
Table 6.2 Number of collapsed simulations

No. of No. of No. of simulations used
Frame Type Frame model
stories collapses for aftershock fragilities
Non-ductile Space 4 OMF-4S-RO 0
OMF-4S-JS 0
OMF-4S-JB 1 96
OMF-4S-CS 3
OMF-4S-JCS 4
8 OMF-8S-JS 1
OMF-8S-CS 2 97
OMF-8S-JCS 3
Perimeter 4 OMF-4P-JS 6 94
8 OMF-8P-JS 4 96
Ductile Perimeter 4 SMF-4P-RO 0
99
SMF-4P-JS 1
Perimeter 8 SMF-8P-RO 0
99
SMF-8P-JS 1
6.3 Probabilistic Aftershock Demand Models
Mainshock-aftershock analyses (back-to-back nonlinear time history analyses) are
performed for 100 mainshock-aftershock-frame pairs under the suite of mainshock and
aftershock ground motions discussed in Chapter 5 in order to monitor key responses (here,
maximum interstory drifts). Then, probabilistic aftershock demand models (PADMs) are
generated for analytical frame models listed in Table 6.1, in terms of initial damage states
representing different mainshock-damaged conditions. The aftershock demand model
equations are presented in tabular form for the transformed state space.
Because of the very nature of the model formats, specific discussion of the
aftershock demand models is difficult. Comparison of analytical frame models and frame
170
types are best performed using aftershock fragility curves. Therefore, in this section, the
aftershock demand models are presented without an associated description. Furthermore,
as mentioned in Chapter 5, the IDA approach is primarily utilized to simulate mainshock
ground motions needed in the generation of the aftershock demand models in order to
account for the dynamic characteristics in mainshock analyses.
6.3.1 Non-ductile RC frames
6.3.1.1 Non-ductile 4-story space frame (OMF-4S frame)
Figure 6.2 shows the PADMs with different modeling techniques for the OMF-4S frame:
OMF-4S-RO (joint rigid offset), OMF-4S-JS (joint shear), OMF-4S-JB (joint bond),
OMF-4S-CS (column shear), and OMF-4S-JCS (joint and column shear). The initial
damage states chosen in this research are six different damage states corresponding to
maximum interstory drift: no initial damage (IDS0), 0.25% (IDS1), 0.50% (IDS2), 1.0%
(IDS3), 2.0% (IDS4), and 2.5% (IDS5). As indicated in Figure 6.2(a) and Figure 6.2(b),
the PADMs are almost identical from IDS0 to IDS2 because most structural components
remain elastic under these mainshock ground motions. These PADMs do not affect the
resulting aftershock fragility curves. On the other hand, the difference between IDS3 and
IDS4 is significant because of the inelastic behavior (i.e., cyclic strength and strength
deterioration) of components due to mainshocks. Therefore, for other frame models,
PADMs with IDS0, IDS3, IDS4, and IDS5 are developed in this research. Table 6.3
presents the aftershock demand models with different IDSs for each analytical frame
model of the OMF-4S frame.
171
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
ln(θmax,as)
ln(θmax,as)
IDS (No damage) IDS (No damage)
0 0
0.5 IDS1(θmax,ms=0.25%) 0.5 IDS1(θmax,ms=0.25%)
0 IDS (θ =0.50%) 0 IDS (θ =0.50%)
2 max,ms 2 max,ms
−0.5 IDS (θ =1.00%) −0.5 IDS (θ =1.00%)

3 max,ms 3 max,ms
IDS (θ =2.00%) IDS (θ =2.00%)
4 max,ms 4 max,ms
−1 −1
−1.5 −1.5
−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 −2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1
ln(PGV ) ln(PGV )
as as
(a) OMF-4S-RO (joint rigid offset) (b) OMF-4S-JS (joint shear)

2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
ln(θmax,as)
0.5 ln(θmax,as) 0.5
0 IDS0(No damage) 0 IDS0(No damage)
−0.5 IDS3(θmax,ms=1.00%) −0.5 IDS3(θmax,ms=1.00%)

IDS (θ =2.00%) IDS (θ =2.00%)
4 max,ms 4 max,ms
−1 −1
IDS (θ =2.50%) IDS (θ =2.50%)
5 max,ms 5 max,ms
−1.5 −1.5
−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 −2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1
ln(PGV ) ln(PGV )
as as
(c) OMF-4S-JB (joint bond) (d) OMF-4S-CS (column shear)

2.5
1.5
1
ln(θmax,as)
0.5
0 IDS0(No damage)
−0.5 IDS (θ =1.00%)

3 max,ms
IDS4(θmax,ms=2.00%)
−1
IDS (θ =2.50%)
5 max,ms
−1.5
−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1
ln(PGVas)
(e) OMF-4S-JCS (joint and column shear)
Figure 6.2 PADMs with different IDSs for analytical frame models of OMF-4S frame
172
Table 6.3 PADMs with different IDSs for analytical frame models of OMF-4S frame
Frame model IDS PADM R2 βD|PGVas
OMF-4S-RO IDS0 ln(θmax,as) = 0.921 + 0.799 × ln(PGVas) 0.590 0.345
(rigid offset) IDS1 ln(θmax,as) = 0.922 + 0.799 × ln(PGVas) 0.590 0.345
IDS2 ln(θmax,as) = 0.929 + 0.796 × ln(PGVas) 0.587 0.346
OMF-4S-JS IDS0 ln(θmax,as) = 1.168 + 0.971 × ln(PGVas) 0.648 0.371
(joint shear) IDS1 ln(θmax,as) = 1.166 + 0.966 × ln(PGVas) 0.648 0.369
OMF-4S-JB IDS0 ln(θmax,as) = 1.216 + 0.971 × ln(PGVas) 0.652 0.379
(joint bond) IDS3 ln(θmax,as) = 1.266 + 0.951 × ln(PGVas) 0.664 0.355
OMF-4S-CS IDS0 ln(θmax,as) = 1.005 + 0.862 × ln(PGVas) 0.580 0.381
(column shear) IDS3 ln(θmax,as) = 1.055 + 0.866 × ln(PGVas) 0.590 0.374
OMF-4S-JCS IDS0 ln(θmax,as) = 1.359 + 1.118 × ln(PGVas) 0.648 0.428
(joint and IDS3 ln(θmax,as) = 1.462 + 1.135 × ln(PGVas) 0.638 0.443
column shear) IDS4 ln(θmax,as) = 1.717 + 1.173 × ln(PGVas) 0.664 0.433
173
Figure 6.3 presents the PADMs with different modeling techniques for the OMF-8S
frame: OMF-8S-JS (joint shear), OMF-8S-CS (column shear), and OMF-8S-JCS (joint
and column shear), summarized in Table 6.4.
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
ln(θmax,as)
ln(θmax,as)
IDS (No damage)

0
0.5 IDS1(θmax,ms=0.25%) 0.5
0 IDS (θ =0.50%) 0 IDS0(No damage)

2 max,ms
−0.5 IDS (θ =1.00%) −0.5 IDS (θ =1.00%)

3 max,ms 3 max,ms
IDS (θ =2.00%) IDS4(θmax,ms=2.00%)
4 max,ms
−1 −1
IDS (θ =2.50%) IDS (θ =2.50%)
5 max,ms 5 max,ms
−1.5 −1.5
−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 −2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1
ln(PGV ) ln(PGVas)
as
(a) OMF-8S-JS (joint shear) (b) OMF-8S-CS (column shear)

2.5
1.5
1
ln(θmax,as)
0.5
0 IDS0(No damage)
−0.5 IDS (θ =1.00%)

3 max,ms
IDS4(θmax,ms=2.00%)
−1
IDS (θ =2.50%)
5 max,ms
−1.5
−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1
ln(PGVas)
(c) OMF-8S-JCS (joint and column shear)
Figure 6.3 PADMs with different IDSs for analytical frame models of OMF-8S frame
174
Table 6.4 PADMs with different IDSs for analytical frame models of OMF-8S frame
OMF-8S-JS IDS0 ln(θmax,as) = 1.176 + 0.989 × ln(PGVas) 0.736 0.312
OMF-8S-CS IDS0 ln(θmax,as) = 1.129 + 0.933 × ln(PGVas) 0.606 0.396
(column shear) IDS3 ln(θmax,as) = 1.193 + 0.962 × ln(PGVas) 0.638 0.382
OMF-8S-JCS IDS0 ln(θmax,as) = 1.168 + 1.110 × ln(PGVas) 0.709 0.375
(joint and IDS3 ln(θmax,as) = 1.216 + 1.120 × ln(PGVas) 0.700 0.387
column shear) IDS4 ln(θmax,as) = 1.383 + 1.163 × ln(PGVas) 0.739 0.365
6.3.1.3 Non-ductile 4- and 8-story perimeter frames (OMF-4P and OMF-8P frames)
Figure 6.4(a) and Figure 6.4(b) show the PADMs for the OMF-4S frame and the OMF-
8S frame with joint shear, respectively, presented in Table 6.5.
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
ln(θmax,as)
ln(θmax,as)
0.5 0.5
−0.5 IDS3(θmax,ms=1.00%) −0.5 IDS3(θmax,ms=1.00%)

−1 −1
−1.5 −1.5
−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 −2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1
ln(PGVas) ln(PGVas)
(a) OMF-4P-JS (joint shear) (b) OMF-8P-JS (joint shear)
Figure 6.4 PADMs with different IDSs for OMF-4P and OMF-8P frames (joint shear)
175
Table 6.5 PADMs with different IDSs for OMF-4P and OMF-8P frames (joint shear)
OMF-4P-JS IDS0 ln(θmax,as) = 1.599 + 1.121 × ln(PGVas) 0.709 0.369
OMF-8P-JS IDS0 ln(θmax,as) = 1.361 + 1.169 × ln(PGVas) 0.768 0.335
6.3.2 Ductile RC frames
For ductile RC perimeter frames, the initial damage states chosen in this research are six
different damage states corresponding to maximum interstory drift: no initial damage
(IDS0), 0.30% (IDS1), 1.0% (IDS2), 1.5% (IDS3), 2.0% (IDS4), and 4.5% (IDS5). As
described in the previous section, IDS0 through IDS2 is expected to remain almost elastic
behavior in mainshock analyses, and therefore four damage states are selected in this
research: IDS0, IDS3, IDS4, and IDS5.
6.3.2.1 Ductile 4-story perimeter frame (SMF-4P frame)
Figure 6.5(a) and Figure 6.5(b) presents the PADMs for the SMF-4P frame with and
without joint shear, respectively, indicated in Table 6.6.
176
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
ln(θmax,as)
ln(θmax,as)
0.5 0.5
−0.5 IDS (θ =1.50%) −0.5 IDS (θ =1.50%)

3 max,ms 3 max,ms
IDS (θ =2.00%) IDS (θ =2.00%)
4 max,ms 4 max,ms
−1 −1
−1.5 −1.5
−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 −2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1
ln(PGV ) ln(PGV )
as as
(a) SMF-4P-RO (rigid offset) (b) SMF-4P-JS (joint shear)
Figure 6.5 PADMs with different IDSs for analytical frame models of SMF-4P frame
Table 6.6 PADMs with different IDSs for analytical frame models of SMF-4P frame
SMF-4P-RO IDS0 ln(θmax,as) = 0.839 + 0.861 × ln(PGVas) 0.568 0.399
SMF-4P-JS IDS0 ln(θmax,as) = 0.936 + 0.879 × ln(PGVas) 0.608 0.375
Figure 6.6(a) and Figure 6.6(b) illustrate the PADMs for the SMF-8P frame with and
without joint shear, respectively, summarized in Table 6.7.
177
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
ln(θmax,as)
ln(θmax,as)
0.5 0.5
0 0
IDS0(No damage) IDS0(No damage)
−0.5 −0.5
IDS (θ =1.50%) IDS (θ =1.50%)
3 max,ms 3 max,ms
−1 −1
IDS (θ =2.00%) IDS (θ =2.00%)
4 max,ms 4 max,ms
−1.5 −1.5
−2 −2
−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 −2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1
ln(PGV ) ln(PGV )
as as
Figure 6.6 PADMs with different IDSs for analytical frame models of SMF-8P frame
Table 6.7 PADMs with different IDSs for analytical frame models of SMF-8P frame
SMF-8P-RO IDS0 ln(θmax,as) = 0.711 + 1.071 × ln(PGVas) 0.658 0.413
SMF-8P-JS IDS0 ln(θmax,as) = 0.873 + 1.162 × ln(PGVas) 0.706 0.402
IDS5 ln(θmax,as) = 1.622 + 0.714× ln(PGVas) 0.567 0.334
178
6.4 Aftershock Fragility Curves
Using the probabilistic aftershock demand models (PADMs) obtained in Section 6.4.1 in
addition to the capacity limit states indicated in Section 5.5.2, the aftershock fragility
curves are generated for non-ductile and ductile RC frames under their different
mainshock-damage conditions. The aftershock fragility functions can be easily computed
in a close form, presented in equation (5.11) through equation (5.13). The aftershock
fragility curves developed in this research can provide not only the increased
vulnerability associated with damage accumulation under mainshock-aftershock
sequences but also insight into their relative vulnerability of RC frames with different
modeling techniques corresponding to the design codes. This task can be easily achieved
by evaluating the relative change in the median values of the aftershock fragility curves
indicated in equation (5.12). A positive change indicates a less vulnerable structure while
a negative change indicates a more vulnerable structure. Figure 6.7 presents an
illustration of the relative change in the median values. For all RC frames, the joint shear
model is selected as the reference frame model.
More fragile
(negative change)
Less fragile
(positive change)
λas,IDS5 λas,IDS0
Figure 6.7 Illustration of relative change in median values
179
Table 6.8 and Table 6.9 present the median values (λas) and dispersions (ζas) of the
resulting aftershock fragility curves for non-ductile and ductile RC frame models,
respectively, in terms of the limit states, initial damage states, modeling characteristics,
and frame types). Their relative vulnerability can be expressed as the difference in the
median values while the shape of the curves can be governed by the dispersions. As the
dispersion increases, the slope of the curves decreases. In the tables, the dispersion of the
curves, for all limit damage state in each row, is the identical, because the same
dispersion in all the capacity models assumed in Section 5.5.2. The impact of initial
damage states, modeling characteristics, and simulation methods for damaging
earthquakes on the aftershock fragility curves will be discussed in the subsequent sections.
Table 6.8 Aftershock fragilities for non-ductile RC analytical frame models

Median values (λas) Dispersion
Frame model IDS
Slight Moderate Extensive Complete (ζas)
OMF-4S-RO IDS0 0.100 0.277 0.994 2.073 0.572
(rigid offset) IDS1 0.100 0.276 0.993 2.073 0.573
IDS2 0.098 0.272 0.984 2.059 0.575
IDS3 0.095 0.262 0.934 1.941 0.562
IDS4 0.067 0.196 0.758 1.652 0.569
IDS5 0.057 0.168 0.661 1.455 0.559
OMF-4S-JS IDS0 0.117 0.270 0.772 1.413 0.491
(joint shear) IDS1 0.116 0.268 0.773 1.420 0.492
IDS2 0.115 0.265 0.754 1.378 0.485
IDS3 0.106 0.249 0.730 1.354 0.483
IDS4 0.084 0.201 0.604 1.139 0.456
IDS5 0.073 0.177 0.540 1.026 0.452
OMF-4S-JB IDS0 0.119 0.267 0.741 1.333 0.483
(joint bond) IDS3 0.104 0.241 0.696 1.281 0.482
IDS4 0.085 0.200 0.589 1.097 0.459
IDS5 0.078 0.183 0.534 0.989 0.441
OMF-4S-CS IDS0 0.108 0.276 0.902 1.784 0.562
(column shear) IDS3 0.103 0.262 0.852 1.680 0.554
IDS4 0.081 0.200 0.631 1.220 0.552
IDS5 0.066 0.160 0.484 0.915 0.550
OMF-4S-JCS IDS0 0.131 0.270 0.673 1.139 0.467
(joint and IDS3 0.123 0.251 0.618 1.038 0.472
Column shear) IDS4 0.106 0.212 0.505 0.834 0.449
IDS5 0.091 0.185 0.452 0.754 0.456
180
Table 6.8 Aftershock fragilities for non-ductile RC analytical frame models (continued)
Frame model IDS
OMF-8S-JS IDS0 0.121 0.274 0.769 1.394 0.438
(joint shear) IDS1 0.120 0.273 0.769 1.395 0.439
IDS2 0.116 0.267 0.759 1.385 0.441
IDS3 0.114 0.258 0.724 1.311 0.442
IDS4 0.100 0.228 0.644 1.170 0.421
IDS5 0.085 0.202 0.600 1.124 0.434
OMF-8S-CS IDS0 0.112 0.266 0.796 1.494 0.533
(column shear) IDS3 0.112 0.259 0.750 1.382 0.505
IDS4 0.096 0.218 0.614 1.115 0.468
IDS5 0.081 0.186 0.530 0.967 0.481
OMF-8S-JCS IDS0 0.131 0.273 0.685 1.164 0.433
(joint and IDS3 0.125 0.259 0.644 1.089 0.437
column shear) IDS4 0.116 0.233 0.562 0.931 0.406
IDS5 0.108 0.215 0.512 0.844 0.405
OMF-4P-JS IDS0 0.106 0.219 0.544 0.919 0.424
(joint shear) IDS3 0.099 0.202 0.494 0.828 0.416
IDS4 0.080 0.167 0.419 0.713 0.391
IDS5 0.069 0.146 0.377 0.65 0.402
OMF-8P-JS IDS0 0.142 0.285 0.683 1.130 0.385
(joint shear) IDS3 0.122 0.251 0.618 1.040 0.376
IDS4 0.096 0.205 0.533 0.925 0.379
IDS5 0.081 0.178 0.481 0.851 0.394
Table 6.9 Aftershock fragilities for ductile RC analytical frame models

Frame model IDS
SMF-4P-RO IDS0 0.169 0.378 2.165 3.023 0.580
(rigid offset) IDS3 0.105 0.258 1.805 2.618 0.555
IDS4 0.075 0.200 1.673 2.511 0.595
IDS5 0.012 0.044 0.792 1.376 0.967
SMF-4P-JS IDS0 0.157 0.345 1.909 2.648 0.547
(joint shear) IDS3 0.139 0.291 1.451 1.973 0.479
IDS4 0.113 0.246 1.329 1.835 0.494
IDS5 0.025 0.073 0.733 1.139 0.758
SMF-8P-RO IDS0 0.269 0.515 2.097 2.743 0.451
(rigid offset) IDS3 0.128 0.299 1.872 2.658 0.464
IDS4 0.108 0.250 1.552 2.202 0.451
IDS5 0.023 0.072 0.885 1.430 0.671
SMF-8P-JS IDS0 0.260 0.472 1.721 2.205 0.407
(joint shear) IDS3 0.174 0.343 1.492 1.977 0.386
IDS4 0.141 0.289 1.372 1.849 0.405
IDS5 0.039 0.103 0.848 1.268 0.584
181
6.4.1 Impact of initial damage states
To address the impact of the extent of damage as a result of mainshocks on the aftershock
responses of RC frames (different mainshocks and identical aftershocks), the aftershock
fragility curves are developed for analytical frame models across different initial damage
states and compared in terms of the median values. For this purpose, the OMF-4S frame
and SMF-8P-frame selected for non-ductile and ductile frames, respectively, are
discussed in this section. Appendix D shows the comparison of aftershock fragility
results developed for all the analytical frame models.
Aftershock fragility curves are developed for five analytical frame models created for the
OMF-4S frame under various mainshock-damaged conditions defined as the initial
damage states (IDSs): OMF-4S-RO, OMF-4S-JS, OMF-4S-JB, OMF-4S-CS, and OMF-
4S-JCS models. Figure 6.8 illustrates the comparison of aftershock fragility results with
different IDSs across all the four limit damage states for OMF-4S-JS model chosen as the
reference frame model. As depicted in the figure, as the extent of damage associated with
mainshocks is more severe, the probability of being in a damage (limit) state given an
intensity measure (PGVas) increases for all limit states over the entire range of PGVas (no
crossover fragility), thereby resulting in the increased vulnerability of structures
subjected to multiple earthquakes. Additionally, the aftershock fragility curves for IDS0
through IDS2 are almost identical, because the members remain elastic under these
mainshock ground motions, as indicated in the PADM generation.
182
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
P[Moderate|PGVas, IDS]
P[Slight|PGV , IDS]
0.7 0.7
0.6 IDS0(No damage) 0.6 IDS0(No damage)
as

0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
PGVas (m/s) PGVas (m/s)
(a) Slight damage state (b) Moderate damage state

1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
P[Complete|PGVas, IDS]
0.7 0.7
as

0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
(c) Extensive damage state (d) Complete damage state
Figure 6.8 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for OMF-4S-JS model
The plot of median values across four limit states is presented in Figure 6.9. As
mentioned before, the comparison is performed by evaluating the relative change in the
median value of the aftershock fragility curves in Table 6.10. The relative change is
computed on the basis of the value for undamaged condition (IDS0). It can be observed
that, for all frame models, there is a pronounced reduction in the median values at the
higher levels of initial damage states due to mainshocks. In contrast, there is a slight
reduction in the median values at the lower levels. This finding is attributable to the
183
increased aftershock demand associated with the inelastic behavior of the members
subjected to mainshock ground motions.
2.1 2.1
IDS0 IDS0
1.8 IDS 1.8 IDS
1 1
IDS2 IDS2
Median value, λ (m/s)

1.5 1.5
IDS IDS
3 3
as
as
1.2 IDS 1.2 IDS
4 4
IDS IDS
5 5
0.9 0.9
0.6 0.6
0.3 0.3
0 0
Slight Moderate Extensive Complete Slight Moderate Extensive Complete
Limit state Limit state
(a) OMF-4S-RO (rigid offset) (b) OMF-4S-JS (joint shear)
2.1 2.1
IDS IDS
0 0
1.8 IDS3 1.8 IDS3
IDS4 IDS4
1.5 1.5
IDS IDS
5 5
as
as
1.2 1.2
0.9 0.9
0.6 0.6
0.3 0.3
0 0
(c) OMF-4S-JB (joint bond) (e) OMF-4S-CS (column shear)
2.1
IDS0
1.8 IDS3
IDS
4
1.5
IDS
5
as
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.3
0
Limit state
(f) OMF-4S-JCS (joint and column shear)
Figure 6.9 Median values of aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for OMF-4S frame
184
Table 6.10 Difference in median values with different IDSs for OMF-4S frame
Frame model Damage state transition Slight Moderate Extensive Complete
OMF-4S-RO IDS0 to IDS1 0 0 0 0
(rigid offset) IDS0 to IDS2 -2 -2 -1 -1
IDS0 to IDS3 -5 -5 -6 -6
IDS0 to IDS4 -33 -29 -24 -20
IDS0 to IDS5 -43 -39 -34 -30
OMF-4S-JS IDS0 to IDS1 -1 -1 0 0
(joint shear) IDS0 to IDS2 -2 -2 -2 -2
IDS0 to IDS3 -9 -8 -5 -4
IDS0 to IDS4 -28 -26 -22 -19
IDS0 to IDS5 -38 -34 -30 -27
OMF-4S-JB IDS0 to IDS3 -13 -10 -6 -4
(joint bond) IDS0 to IDS4 -29 -25 -21 -18
IDS0 to IDS5 -34 -31 -28 -26
OMF-4S-CS IDS0 to IDS3 -5 -5 -6 -6
(column shear) IDS0 to IDS4 -25 -28 -30 -32
IDS0 to IDS5 -39 -42 -46 -49
OMF-4S-JCS IDS0 to IDS3 -6 -7 -8 -9
(joint and IDS0 to IDS4 -19 -21 -25 -27
Column shear) IDS0 to IDS5 -31 -31 -33 -34
§ Difference in median values = (IDSi – IDS0) / IDS0 × 100 (%), where i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
Aftershock fragility curves are generated for two analytical frame models with and
without joint shear built for the SMF-8P frame with different mainshock-damaged
conditions (IDSs). Figure 6.10 presents the comparison of aftershock fragility curves with
different IDSs (except for IDS1 and IDS2) across all the four limit damage states for
SMF-8P-JS model. As depicted in the figure, as the extent of damage associated with
mainshocks increase, the probability of being in a damage (limit) state given an intensity
measure (PGVas) increases for all limit states over the entire range of PGVas (no
crossover fragility), thereby giving rise to the increased vulnerability of structures under
successive earthquakes. Particularly, the mainshock-damaged condition of IDS5 for all
plots has a considerable increase in the probability of being in a damage state. This can
be associated with the fact that the structure experiencing the dramatic stiffness and
185
strength degradation in the mainshock analyses has a significant aftershock demand in the
aftershock analyses.
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
P[Slight|PGV , IDS]
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
as
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
as
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.3 IDS (θ =1.50%) 0.3 IDS (θ =1.50%)
3 max,ms 3 max,ms
0.1 IDS (θ =4.50%) 0.1 IDS (θ =4.50%)
5 max,ms 5 max,ms
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Figure 6.10 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for SMF-8P-JS model
The plot of median values across four limit states is shown in Figure 6.11. As
mentioned before, the comparison is performed by evaluating the relative change in the
median value of the aftershock fragility curves in Table 6.11. The relative change is
computed on the basis of the value for undamaged condition (IDS0). It can be indicated
that, for all frame models, there is a considerable reduction in the median values at the
186
higher level of initial damage states due to mainshocks. This finding is due to the
increased aftershock demand associated with the inelastic behavior of the components
subjected to mainshocks.
3 3
IDS0 IDS0
2.5 IDS3 2.5 IDS3

IDS IDS

4 4
2 IDS 2 IDS
5 5
as
as
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
Figure 6.11 Median values of aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for SMF-8P frame
Table 6.11 Difference in median values with different IDSs for SMF-8P frame
Frame model
Damage state transition Slight Moderate Extensive Complete
SMF-8P-RO IDS0 to IDS3 -52 -42 -11 -3
(rigid offset) IDS0 to IDS4 -60 -51 -26 -20
IDS0 to IDS5 -91 -86 -58 -48
SMF-8P-RO IDS0 to IDS3 -33 -27 -13 -10
(joint shear) IDS0 to IDS4 -46 -39 -20 -16
IDS0 to IDS5 -85 -78 -51 -42
§ Difference in median values = (IDSi – IDS0) / IDS0 × 100 (%), where i = 3, 4, 5.
187
6.4.2 Impact of modeling characteristics
To investigate the impact of analytical modeling techniques on the seismic performances
of RC frames in an aftershock environment, the aftershock fragility curves are compared
in terms of the median values of these curves. For this purpose, four RC frames with
different modeling variables are chosen in this research: OMF-4S and OMF-8S frames
for non-ductile frames and SMF-4P and SMF-8P frames for ductile frames.
Figure 6.12 depicts the comparison of the median values with five different modeling
characteristics for the OMF-4S frame across the four limit states. The influence of the
modeling characteristics on their aftershock demand is investigated by comparing the
relative change in the median value of the aftershock fragility curves, as indicated in
Table 6.12. In the table, the value of relative change is calculated on the basis of the
reference frame model (OMF-4S-JS). As mentioned before, the negative change refers to
increased vulnerability. The following bulleted list addresses the effect of the modeling
variables in the OMF-4S frame.
• Overall, OMF-4S-JCS model is the most vulnerable when compared to other
modeling types associated with the concurrent inelastic action (cyclic
deterioration) of joint and column shears. However, for the slight damage state
(limit), the positive change can be found (less vulnerable), which is attributed to
the difference in the best linear fit (slope and intercept) of the PADMs indicated
in Table 6.3 and the usage of identical limit states for all frame models. However,
as shown in Figure 6.12, the comparison of the median values with different
188
analytical frame models demonstrates that the difference in the modeling
characteristics is not significant at the slight or moderate damage states.
• The impact of the joint bond model associated with discontinuous beam bottom
reinforcement within joints on the aftershock fragility curves is examined by
evaluating the relative difference in the median values of two frame models
(OMF-4S-JS and OMF-4S-JB models). OMF-4S-JB model has the negative
change in the median values within -6% over the entire range of initial damage
states, indicating that accounting for the insufficient anchorage results in the slight
increase in its vulnerability.
• The column shear model (OMF-4S-CS) is less vulnerable at lower initial damage
states (IDS0 to IDS4) compared to the joint shear model (OMF-4S-JS). However,
the percentage change in the median values between the two frame models is
approximately -10% at all four limit damage states under severely mainshock-
damaged condition (IDS5), demonstrating that the column shear model is more
vulnerable at this initial damage state. It is associated with the increased
aftershock demand as a result of the dramatic loss in stiffness and strength of
columns governed by shear failure under mainshock ground motions with IDS5.
• The joint rigid offset model (OMF-4S-RO) is the least vulnerable structure
because it behaves as flexure-dominated structures designed by the modern
seismic codes. Particularly, in the table, the relative change in the median values
significantly increases with positive values at higher limit states: 22~29% for the
extensive damage state and 42~47% for the complete damage state. This
observation demonstrates that analytical frame model without crucial components
189
such as beam-column joints and column shears may result in the underestimation
of the aftershock demand.
2.1 2.1
OMF−4S−RO (rigid offset) OMF−4S−RO (rigid offset)
1.8 OMF−4S−JS (joint shear) 1.8 OMF−4S−JS (joint shear)
OMF−4S−JB (joint bond) OMF−4S−JB (joint bond)
OMF−4S−CS (column shear) OMF−4S−CS (column shear)

1.5 OMF−4S−JCS (joint/column shear) 1.5 OMF−4S−JCS (joint/column shear)
as
as
1.2 1.2
0.9 0.9
0.6 0.6
0.3 0.3
0 0
(a) IDS0 (b) IDS3

2.1 2.1
OMF−4S−RO (rigid offset) OMF−4S−RO (rigid offset)
1.8 OMF−4S−JS (joint shear) 1.8 OMF−4S−JS (joint shear)
OMF−4S−JB (joint bond) OMF−4S−JB (joint bond)
1.5 OMF−4S−JCS (joint/column shear) 1.5 OMF−4S−JCS (joint/column shear)

as
as
1.2 1.2
0.9 0.9
0.6 0.6
0.3 0.3
0 0
(c) IDS4 (b) IDS5
Figure 6.12 Median values of aftershock fragility curves with different modeling characteristics
for OMF-4S frame
190
Table 6.12 Difference in median values with different modeling techniques for OMF-4S frame
IDS Frame model Slight Moderate Extensive Complete
IDS0 OMF-4S-RO (rigid offset) -15 3 29 47
OMF-4S-JS (joint shear) – – – –
OMF-4S-JB (joint bond) 2 -1 -4 -6
OMF-4S-CS (column shear) -8 2 17 26
OMF-4S-JCS (joint/column shear) 12 0 -13 -19
IDS3 OMF-4S-RO (rigid offset) -10 5 28 43
OMF-4S-JB (joint bond) -2 -3 -5 -5
IDS4 OMF-4S-RO (rigid offset) -20 -2 25 45
OMF-4S-JB (joint bond) 1 0 -2 -4
IDS5 OMF-4S-RO (rigid offset) -22 -5 22 42
OMF-4S-JB (joint bond) 7 3 -1 -4
OMF-4S-CS (column shear) -10 -10 -10 -11
§ Difference in median values = (IDSi,others – IDSi,jointshear) / IDSi,jointshear × 100 (%), where i = 0, 3,
4, 5.
Figure 6.13 shows the comparison of the median values with three different modeling
techniques for the OMF-8S frame across the four limit states. The impact of the modeling
characteristics on their aftershock fragility curves is examined by comparing the relative
change in the median value of the curves, as presented in Table 6.13. As is the case of the
OMF-4S frame, the relative change is computed on the basis of the reference frame
model (OMF-8S-JS). The following bulleted list describes the effect of the modeling
characteristics in the OMF-8S frame. The OMF-8S frame has the same trend as the
OMF-4S frame.
191
• OMF-8S-JCS model is the most vulnerable when compared to other modeling
types associated with the combined inelastic behavior of joint and column shears.
However, for the slight damage state (limit), the positive change can be found
(less vulnerable), which is due to the difference in the slope and intercept of the
PADMs indicated in Table 6.4 and the usage of identical limit states for all frame
models. However, as shown in Figure 6.13, the comparison of the median values
with different analytical frame models indicates that the difference in the
modeling characteristics is not significant at the slight or moderate damage states.
• The column shear model (OMF-8S-CS) is less vulnerable at IDS0 through IDS3
compared to the joint shear model (OMF-8S-JS). However, the percentage change
in the median values between the two frame models is approximately -5% (-5%~-
14%) at all four limit damage states under IDS4 (IDS5), thereby indicating that the
column shear model is more vulnerable at these initial damage states. It can be
explained that several columns (by shear failure) experience a considerable loss in
stiffness and strength under mainshock ground motions corresponding to IDS4
and IDS5.
192
1.6 1.6
OMF−8S−JS (joint shear) OMF−8S−JS (joint shear)
1.4 OMF−8S−CS (column shear) 1.4 OMF−8S−CS (column shear)
OMF−8S−JCS (joint/column shear) OMF−8S−JCS (joint/column shear)

1.2 1.2
1 1
as
as
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
(a) IDS0 (b) IDS3
1.6 1.6
OMF−8S−JS (joint shear) OMF−8S−JS (joint shear)

1.2 1.2
1 1
as
as
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
(c) IDS4 (b) IDS5
for OMF-8S frame
Table 6.13 Difference in median values with different modeling techniques for OMF-8S frame
IDS0 OMF-8S-JS (joint shear) – – – –
OMF-8S-CS (column shear) -7 -3 4 7
§ Difference in median values = (IDSi,others – IDSi,jointshear) / IDSi,jointshear × 100 (%), where i = 0, 3,
4, 5.
193
Figure 6.14 presents the median values for the SMF-4P frame with and without joint
shear across the four limit states. The difference in the median values of the aftershock
fragility curves is compared to examine the effect of the joint shear on their aftershock
demand, as shown in Table 6.14. Unlike the OMF-4S frame, the relative change in the
median value is calculated on the basis of the reference frame model (SMF-4P-RO, rigid
offset model). SMF-4P-JS model is more vulnerable when compared to the analytical
frame model without joint shear as a result of the increase in the aftershock demand due
to joint shear. However, as is the case of the OMF-4S frame, the positive change can be
found at the slight or moderate damage state in the table. This is attributable to the fact
that the regression coefficient of the PADMs presented in Table 6.6. The effect of joint
shear on the aftershock fragility curves is significant at the higher levels of the limit states:
-7~-21% for the extensive damage state and -12~-27% for the complete damage state.
194
3 3
SMF−8P−RO (rigid offset) SMF−8P−RO (rigid offset)
SMF−8P−JS (joint shear) SMF−8P−JS (joint shear)
2.5 2.5

2 2
as
as
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
(a) IDS0 (b) IDS3

3 3
2.5 2.5

2 2
as
1.5 as 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
(c) IDS4 (b) IDS5
for SMF-4P frame
Table 6.14 Difference in median values with different modeling techniques for SMF-4P frame
IDS0 SMF-4P-RO (rigid offset) – – – –
SMF-4P-JS (joint shear) -7 -9 -12 -12
SMF-4P-JS (joint shear) 32 13 -20 -25
§ Difference in median values = (IDSi,jointshear – IDSi,rigidoffset) / IDSi,rigidoffest × 100 (%), where i = 0,
3, 4, 5.
195
Figure 6.15 depicts the median values for the SMF-8F frame with and without joint shear
across the four limit states. The difference in the median values of the aftershock fragility
curves is compared to investigate the effect of the joint shear on their seismic demand, as
indicated in Table 6.15. As is the case of the OMF-4S frame, the relative change in the
median value is calculated on the basis of the reference frame model (rigid offset model).
The joint shear model (SMF-8P-JS) is more vulnerable when compared to the analytical
frame model without joint shear as a result of the increase in the aftershock demand due
to joint shear. However, as is the case of the OMF-4S frame, the positive change can be
found at the slight or moderate damage state in the table, which is owing to the fact that
the regression coefficient such as the slope and intercept of PADMs listed in Table 6.7.
Nevertheless, as shown in Figure 6.15, the comparison of the median values for the frame
models with and without joint shear demonstrates that this difference is negligible at the
slight or moderate damage states. On the other hand, the impact of joint shear on the
structural performance is considerable at the higher levels of the limit states: -4~-18%
and -11~-20% for the extensive and complete damage states, respectively.
196
3 3
2.5 2.5

2 2
as
as
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
(a) IDS0 (b) IDS3

3 3
2.5 2.5

2 2
as
1.5 as 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
(c) IDS4 (b) IDS5
for SMF-8P frame
Table 6.15 Difference in median values with different modeling techniques for SMF-8P frame
SMF-8P-JS (joint shear) -3 -8 -18 -20
§ Difference in median values = (IDSi,jointshear – IDSi,rigidoffset) / IDSi,rigidoffest × 100 (%), where i = 0,
3, 4, 5.
197
6.4.3 Comparison of RC frames
The influence of frame types with an identical modeling technique on the median values
of their aftershock fragility curves is investigated in order to evaluate their relative
vulnerability under different mainshock-damaged conditions. For this purpose, four types
of modeling characteristics are selected in this research: joint shear for all frames, column
shear with and without joint model for four frames, and joint rigid offset for three frames.
6.4.3.1 Comparison of RC frames with joint shear
The median values of aftershock fragility curves for six RC frames (OMF-4S, OMF-8S,
OMF-4P, OMF-8P, SMF-4P, SMF-8P) with joint shear are plotted in terms of four initial
damage states (IDS0, IDS3, IDS4, and IDS5) and limit states in Figure 6.16. Since non-
ductile and ductile RC frames have different maximum drifts corresponding to initial
damage states, as mentioned in Chapter 5, the comparison of aftershock fragility curves
for these frame types is performed for only undamaged condition (IDS0). The following
bulleted list addresses the difference in the vulnerability of the frames with joint shear.
• For non-ductile frames, the OMF-4P frame is the most vulnerable, followed by
OMF-8P, because the median values are the smallest values across the four limit
states as well as the four initial damage states. Perimeter frames are more
vulnerable than space frames as a result of their inherent characteristic (P-Δ
effects) and smaller maximum joint shear strength. Furthermore, there is no or a
little difference between the OMF-4S and OMF-4P frames. In this case, the
building height does not affect the vulnerability of these structures.
198
2.8 2.8
OMF−4S OMF−4S
2.4 OMF−8S 2.4 OMF−8S
OMF−4P OMF−4P
Median value, λ (m/s) OMF−8P OMF−8P

2 SMF−4P 2 SMF−4P
SMF−8P SMF−8P
as
as
1.6 1.6
1.2 1.2
0.8 0.8
0.4 0.4
0 0
(a) IDS0 (b) IDS3

2.8 2.8
OMF−4S OMF−4S
2.4 OMF−8S 2.4 OMF−8S
OMF−4P OMF−4P
OMF−8P OMF−8P

2 SMF−4P 2 SMF−4P
SMF−8P SMF−8P
as
as
1.6 1.6
1.2 1.2
0.8 0.8
0.4 0.4
0 0
(c) IDS4 (d) IDS5
Figure 6.16 Comparison of median values for RC frames with joint shear
• For ductile frames, the SMF-4P frame is more vulnerable for all damaged
conditions (IDS3 to IDS5), as shown in Figure 6.16(b), 6.16(c), and 6.16(d). On
the other hand, in the case of undamaged condition (IDS0), the SMF-8P frame is
more considerably vulnerable at the extensive and complete damage states, as
depicted in Figure 6.16(a). This difference can be explained by the fact that the
SMF-4P frame actually experiences more damage even if two frames have the
same initial damage states corresponding to maximum interstory drifts.
199
• For frame models with joint shear, as mentioned before, the comparison of
median values is conducted for the undamaged condition (IDS0), as depicted in
Figure 6.16(a). The OMF-4P frame is the most vulnerable while the OMF-8P is
the least vulnerable. From the figure, the difference in the median values between
non-ductile and ductile RC frames is observed, particularly extensive and
complete damage states. It is attributed to the fact that the slight difference in the
median values of the capacity model for both non-ductile and ductile frames.
6.4.3.2 Comparison of RC frames with column shear and with joint and column shear
The median values of aftershock fragility curves for four non-ductile RC frame models
(OMF-4S-CS and OMF-8S-CS for column shear and OMF-4S-JCS and OMF-8S-JCS for
combined joint and column shear) are plotted in terms of four initial damage states (IDS0,
IDS3, IDS4, and IDS5) and limit states in Figure 6.17. The following bulleted list
describes some important findings for aftershock fragility results of the frames with
column shear.
• As mentioned in Section 6.4, the non-ductile RC frames including the combined
joint and column shear modeling are more vulnerable when compared to those
with only column shear. OMF-4S-JCS model is the most vulnerable structure
while OMF-4S-CS model is the least vulnerable.
• For non-ductile frames with column shear, the OMF-4S frame is more vulnerable
except for IDS5. Figure 6.17(d) infers that the OMF-8S frame undergoes more
severe damage under mainshock ground motions associated with IDS5 even if the
same initial damage state is imposed for the two frames.
200
• For non-ductile frames with joint and column shear, the OMF-4S frame is more
vulnerable across the four limit states and initial damage states.
2.1 2.1

1.5 1.5
as
as
1.2 1.2
0.9 0.9
0.6 0.6
0.3 0.3
0 0
(a) IDS0 (b) IDS3

2.1 2.1
1.5 1.5
as
as
1.2 1.2
0.9 0.9
0.6 0.6
0.3 0.3
0 0
(c) IDS4 (d) IDS5
Figure 6.17 Comparison of median values for RC frames with joint shear
6.4.3.3 Comparison of RC frames with joint rigid offset
The median values of aftershock fragility curves for three RC frames (OMF-4S, SMF-4P,
SMF-8P with joint rigid offset model are plotted in terms of four initial damage states
(IDS0, IDS3, IDS4, and IDS5) and four capacity limit states in Figure 6.18. As mentioned
in Section 6.4.2.1, the direct comparison of aftershock fragility curves for non-ductile and
201
ductile frames is performed for only undamaged condition (IDS0). The following are
some of the significant findings of this chapter.
3 OMF−4S 3 OMF−4S
SMF−4P SMF−4P
SMF−8P SMF−8P
2.5 2.5
Median value, λas (m/s)

2 2
as
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.4 0.4
0 0
(a) IDS0 (b) IDS3
3 OMF−4S 3 OMF−4S
SMF−4P SMF−4P
SMF−8P SMF−8P
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.4 0.4
0 0
(c) IDS4 (d) IDS5
Figure 6.18 Comparison of median values for RC frames with joint rigid offset model
• For ductile frames, the SMF-8P frame is more vulnerable across under IDS0 and
IDS4 while the SMF-4P frame is more vulnerable under IDS3 and IDS5. The
relative vulnerability is different for each mainshock-damaged condition
• For non-ductile and ductile frame models, the median values are compared for the
undamaged condition (IDS0), as depicted in Figure 6.18(a). The OMF-4P frame is
202
still the most vulnerable among all three frame models even if it does not include
the analytical modeling of the critical components. It is due to the fact that the
column design follows the older design codes such as widely spaced transverse
reinforcement and lower concrete strength.
6.4.4 Simulation method of damaging earthquakes
This section presents the applicability of cyclic pushover analysis (CPO) approach
generating hypothetical mainshocks to the development of aftershock fragility curves.
This is accomplished by comparing these aftershock fragility results with those from IDA
approach. In contrast to the IDA approach, the CPO approach can be easily applied and
much less computationally intensive. To generate the aftershock fragility curves using the
CPO approach, OMF-4S-JS model is selected in this research. In addition to the
description in Section 5.5.2, the input drift history is defined as shown in Figure 6.19(a);
maximum roof drift is determined where maximum interstory drift reaches the target drift
associated with an initial damage state; each drift of total seven drift levels has two cycles
to account for the cyclical effect (stiffness and strength deterioration); and residual drifts
are assumed to be 0%, 5%, 6%, 7%, 10%, and 13% of maximum drifts for IDS1, IDS2,
IDS3, IDS4, IDS5, and IDS6, respectively, which are the median values obtained from the
IDA approach. Figure 6.19(b) shows the associated base shear-roof drift relationship for
the frame model. The simulated results describe the stiffness and strength deterioration of
associated with cyclic loadings.
203
1200
2
800
1 400
Base shear (kN)

Roof drift (%)
0
0
−400
−1
−800
−2 −1200
−2 −1 0 1 2
Roof drift (%)
(a) Imposed input drift (b) Cyclic behavior
Figure 6.19 Imposed roof drift history and associated base shear-roof drift hysteresis
Figure 6.20(a) and Figure 6.20(b) depict the comparison plots for the aftershock
fragility curves with different IDSs at the extensive and complete limit states,
respectively, using the IDA and CPO approaches. The aftershock fragility curves have
same trend as the results of IDA approach in that the probability of being in a damage
state increases over the entire range of PGVas as the extent of initial damage state is more
severe. Moreover, Figure 6.21 shows the comparison of the median values of the
aftershock fragility curves for the IDA and CPO approaches with different initial damage
states and capacity limit states. The difference in the median values between the IDA and
CPO approaches is very small at lower limit states (slight and moderate), but the
percentage change in the median values is -10% at the complete limit state of IDS4 and
IDS5, thereby indicating that, in the case of using the CPO approach, a mainshock-
damaged structure is more vulnerable to an aftershock ground motion. Additionally, the
CPO approach can provide conservative results within a reasonable margin of 10%, and
204
therefore it can be easily utilized where the rapid evaluation of aftershock fragility
assessment is needed.
IDA
CPO
IDA
CPO
(a) Extensive damage state (b) Complete damage state
Figure 6.20 Comparison of aftershock fragility curves using IDA and CPO approaches
Figure 6.21 Comparison of median values with different IDSs using IDA and CPO approaches
205
6.4.5 Sensitivity analysis for degrading slope in joint shear model
To investigate the effect of the descending branch in joint shear model on the seismic
performance and aftershock fragility curves, two joint shear models with different
degrading behavior are described in addition to the original joint shear model: baseline
model with original descending slope (Kdeg), Model 1 (0.5Kdeg), and Model 2 (1.5Kdeg), as
shown in Figure 6.22. The original joint shear model (baseline) is constructed using the
mean value of the joint modeling parameters obtained through the model validation,
listed in Table 3.7 and Table 3.8 for non-ductile beam-column joints or Table 3.11 and
Table 3.12 for ductile beam-column joints. For this sensitivity analysis, the OMF-4S-JS
model is chosen, and its two models are newly modeled with different degrading
behavior for all joints in this section. Then, the aftershock fragility curves for undamaged
condition (IDS0) and damaged condition (IDS5) are generated across the four limit
damage states.
Joint shear stress (vj)
Baseline (Kdeg)
Model 1 (0.5Kdeg)
Model 2 (1.5Kdeg)
Joint shear strain (γj)
Figure 6.22 Joint shear models with different degrading behaviors
206
Figure 6.23(a) and Figure 6.23(b) depict the aftershock fragility curves with
different joint degrading behavior at the complete limit state under undamaged (IDS0)
and damaged (IDS5) conditions, respectively. It can be indicated that there is no or little
difference in the aftershock fragility curves between the baseline model and Model 1
(0.5Kdeg). Additionally, the relative change in the median values between the baseline
model and Model 2 (1.5Kdeg) is approximately -2% and -7% for IDS0 and IDS5,
respectively. However, the joint degrading behavior does not significantly affect the
aftershock fragility curves although the median values are slightly reduced with an
increase in the descending slope. It may be attributed to the fact that the suite aftershock
ground motions includes a wide range of their intensity (from small to large earthquakes)
and many of them are not large enough to produce the joint deformation after maximum
joint shear strength.
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
P[Complete|PGV , IDS]
0.7 0.7
as
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
Baseline (Kdeg) Baseline (Kdeg)
0.2 Model 1 (0.5Kdeg) 0.2 Case 1 (0.5Kdeg)
0.1 Model 2(1.5K ) 0.1 Case 2(1.5K )
deg deg
0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
(a) IDS0 (complete damage) (b) IDS5 (complete damage)
Figure 6.23 Aftershock fragility curves for joint shear models with different degrading behaviors
207
6.5 Summary
PADMs and aftershock fragility curves with different initial damage states are generated
for non-ductile and ductile RC frames chosen in this research with various modeling
characteristics in order to investigate how the extent of existing damage associated with
mainshocks affects the additional damage as a result of aftershock ground motions. To
probe the increased vulnerability associated with the accumulation of damage, the
aftershock fragility curves are compared in terms of the relative change in their median
values.
The following are some of the significant findings of this chapter:
• For all RC frame models, as the extent of damage associated with mainshocks is
more severe (as the initial damage state increases), the probability of being in a
damage (limit) state given a PGVas increases for all four limit states over the
entire range of PGVas, thereby resulting in the increased vulnerability of structures
subjected to multiple earthquakes. Crossover fragility curves are not observed for
all RC frame models, thereby demonstrating the appropriate selection of the
identical suite of aftershock ground motions. Additionally, the aftershock fragility
curves for IDS0 through IDS2 are almost identical, because the components
remain elastic under these mainshock ground motions, as explained in the PADM
generation.
• For non-ductile RC frames, the joint and column shear model is the most
vulnerable when compared to other modeling types associated with the concurrent
inelastic action (cyclic deterioration) of joint and column shears. Additionally, as
a result of inadequate embedment length in joints, the joint bond model is a more
208
vulnerable structure compared to the joint shear model. Moreover, the column
shear model is more vulnerable when many columns experiences inelastic shear
behavior (IDS5) when compared to the joint shear model. Finally, the joint rigid
offset model is the least vulnerable structure since it behaves as a ductile frame.
• For ductile RC frames, the impact of joint shear on the aftershock demand of
structures is more vulnerable because the inelastic action in joints reduces the
column shear force as well as increases the aftershock demand. Thus, the
conventional analytical modeling technique such as the rigid offset method is not
appropriate for evaluating the seismic performance for ductile frames
experiencing significant joint deformations.
• The cyclic pushover analysis (CPO) approach, an alternative approach for
simulating damaging earthquakes, is introduced. The aftershock fragility curves
using the CPO approach are compared with those using incremental dynamic
analysis (IDA) approach commonly employed in this research. The CPO
approach offers reasonable results compared to the IDA approach, and therefore,
since it is computationally efficient, it can be easily employed when rapid
estimation is required.
209
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
7.1 Summary and Conclusions
damage estimation methods ignore the effect of successive earthquakes on structures. In
light of recent strong seismic events, mainshock-damaged structures are shown to be
more vulnerable to severe damage and collapse. The increase in aftershock vulnerability
significantly threatens the safety of occupants in these structures. Additionally, a
mainshock-damaged structure may increase the risk of major damage or building collapse
and the associated loss of life and property. The increased vulnerability estimation
associated with the additional damage plays a significant role in assessing potential losses
to facilitate crucial decision making such as emergency response mobilization, inspection
priority, recovery strategy, and re-occupancy decision. The main objective of this
research is to develop a probabilistic framework to account for these increased
vulnerabilities in terms of the extent of damage associated with mainshock ground
motions. Aftershock fragility curves are developed accounting for both the uncertainty
from the seismic hazard and the uncertainty from the structural capacity. This proposed
approach also allows for the inherent variability, such as modeling characteristics
associated with the design codes, present in non-ductile and ductile RC frames found in
California.
210
For a reliable estimate of seismic risk assessment, the accurate analytical models
of RC frame’s primary components reflecting the design codes such as their reinforcing
details is established. Following a review of existing analytical modeling techniques, the
analytical models describing shear behavior in the columns and shear or bond responses
in the joints of the RC frames are employed, modified, and developed in this research. To
resolve the drawback of an existing model (Elwood 2004), this research substantiates the
applicability of the model to experimental older columns subjected to reversed cyclic
pushover loadings by comparing the analytical results from experimental results available
in the literature. For beam-column joint models, an existing joint shear stress-strain
model is utilized with modification to the degrading slope in order to form its backbone
curve. Since this model was developed for non-ductile interior joints, this research shows
the applicability of the model to other joint types such as non-ductile exterior joints,
ductile exterior and interior joints by comparing experimental results with analytical
predictions. In addition, reduced joint shear strength associated with insufficient
anchorage is accounted for by employing an existing bond strength model for non-ductile
joints with discontinuous beam bottom reinforcement. Finally, hysteric rules including
the effect of cyclic deterioration are extracted in comparison to experimental results.
Application of the proposed column shear model and beam-column joint model for
seismic demand analyses of RC frames demonstrates the significance of capturing the
inelastic response of the components accurately in assessing their seismic performance.
A major task in the current research is to seek an understanding of the RC
building inventory in a region which can reflect the design and detailing aspects of non-
ductile and ductile RC frames. For this purpose, non-ductile and ductile RC frames
211
designed by Liel (2008) and Haselton (2006), respectively, are selected in this research,
whose frames are representative of design and construction practices as well as typical of
office buildings and industrial facilities in California. Based on the building information
and analytical modeling techniques of components, high fidelity analytical frame models
accounting for geometric and material nonlinearities are created in OpenSees (McKenna
et al. 2010). Moreover, since the joint model presented in the model validation is
developed based on experimental joint shear strength, the non-ductile joint shear strength
model is proposed in order to ensure the applicability of this joint model to analytical
frame models. The joint strength model is obtained through the statistical method based
on collected experimental results available in the literature. Finally, the seismic
performance for these analytical frame models is evaluated through the pushover analysis
and nonlinear time history analysis. Not only do the analytical models with joint shear
increase the drift demand, they also reduce the maximum shear force and initial stiffness
due to the spread of inelastic action into joints. The analytical frame model with joint
shear and column shear is the most vulnerable because it has a sudden drop of lateral load
resistance in pushover analysis and the largest maximum and residual deformation in
both analyses. However, it is observed that the concentrated inelastic action in joints
delays the inelastic shear response in columns compared to the frame model with only
column shear.
A framework for the development of analytical aftershock fragility assessment is
described in order to develop a quantitative evaluation tool for their accumulated damage
and increased vulnerability associated with aftershock ground motions. Aftershock
fragility curves relate the probability of meeting or exceeding a particular limit state
212
given an imposed aftershock intensity demand. Unlike existing aftershock fragility
assessment using a stripe approach (IDA), the framework is developed using a cloud
method (NTHA) for aftershock analysis to account for realistic ground motions that can
occur at the site of interest. Details about various parts of the framework including the
stochastic analytical frame models with material uncertainties, assembling a ground
motion (mainshock and aftershock) motion suite, simulating damaging earthquakes
associated with the characterization of existing mainshock-damaged conditions (initial
damage states), performing mainshock-aftershock analyses, computing probabilistic
aftershock demand models (PADMs), defining the capacity limit state models, and
generating aftershock fragility curves. Particularly, the mainshock-damaged condition of
structures can be achieved by linking visible damage with member response based on the
observation of existing experimental column tests and by generating mainshock ground
motions through IDA or CPO approach. Additionally, the aftershock fragility function is
developed by modifying the classical fragility function and by assuming the lognormal
distribution of aftershock demand and capacity limit state. Moreover, the ground motions
with smaller aftershock intensity do not considerably affect the final responses for
mainshock-damaged structures, and therefore, aftershock ground motions that can cause
the additional damage to structures should be selected.
PADMs and aftershock fragility curves with different initial damage states are
generated for non-ductile and ductile RC frames with various modeling characteristics
and frame attributes in order to investigate how the extent of existing damage associated
with mainshocks affects the additional damage as a result of aftershock ground motions.
To probe the increased vulnerability associated with the accumulation of damage, the
213
aftershock fragility curves are compared in terms of the relative change in their median
values. The following are some of the main findings from the aftershock fragility analysis:
• For all RC frame models, as the extent of damage associated with mainshocks is
more severe (as the initial damage state increases), the probability of being in a
damage (limit) state given a PGVas increases for all four limit states over the
entire range of PGVas, thereby resulting in the increased vulnerability of structures
subjected to multiple earthquakes. Crossover fragility curves are not observed for
all RC frame models, thereby demonstrating the appropriate selection of the
identical suite of aftershock ground motions.
• For non-ductile RC frames, the joint and column shear model is the most
vulnerable when compared to other modeling types associated with the concurrent
inelastic action (cyclic deterioration) of joint and column shears. Additionally, as
a result of inadequate embedment length in joints, the joint bond model is a more
vulnerable structure compared to the joint shear model. Moreover, the column
shear model is more vulnerable when many columns experiences inelastic shear
behavior (IDS5) when compared to the joint shear model. Finally, the joint rigid
offset model is the least vulnerable structure since it behaves as a ductile frame.
• For ductile RC frames, the impact of joint shear on the aftershock demand of
structures is more vulnerable because not only does the inelastic action in joints
reduce the column shear force but also increases the aftershock demand. Thus, the
conventional analytical modeling technique such as the rigid offset method is not
appropriate for evaluating the seismic performance for ductile frames
experiencing significant joint deformations.
214
• The cyclic pushover analysis (CPO) approach, an alternative approach for
simulating damaging earthquakes, is introduced. The CPO approach provides
reasonable results compared to the IDA approach, and therefore, since it is
computationally efficient, it can be easily employed when rapid estimation is
required.
7.2 Research Impact
This research presents a rigorous probabilistic performance assessment framework in an
aftershock environment to develop aftershock fragility curves for common non-ductile
and ductile RC frames in California. A primary contribution of this research is the
refinement and evaluation of an approach for the generation of aftershock fragility curves
that would facilitate a quantitative evaluation of the increased vulnerability and
cumulative damage potential of RC frames in terms of their mainshock-damaged
conditions. Additional benefits and contributions of this research include the following:
• High fidelity analytical models allowing for an in-depth understanding of the
performance and behavior of RC frames common to California.
• A deep understanding of the impact of various modeling considerations on the
seismic vulnerability of RC buildings.
• The output in this research will not only be a means to provide a building tagging
methodology for making evacuation and re-occupancy decisions, but also a
reliable analytical damage estimation tool prior to building visual inspection.
215
• The aftershock fragility curves can be used in the seismic loss assessment package
tool, HAZUS-MH, to provide a better estimate of the vulnerability of RC
buildings undergoing repeated earthquake loadings.
7.3 Recommendation for Future Work
The work in the present research should be extended through additional research in the
following areas:
• This research looked at the vulnerability assessment of low- and mid-rise RC
frames to reduce the computational intensity of the analyses. However, the
aftershock fragility curves for high-rise RC frames should be expanded to
investigate the effect of building heights on the aftershock demand analyses.
• This research involved the relationship between visible damage and response of
columns to define the existing mainshock-damaged conditions of structures.
However, damage is unlikely to be only concentrated in columns during
earthquakes. Therefore, performance and collapse potential associated with other
factors such as beam-column joints should be investigated.
• The link between visible damage and response mechanism is quantified in terms
of the maximum drift of columns. However, other engineering demand
parameters such as residual drift will serve as a damage indicator to evaluate their
residual capacity after earthquakes.
• Provided that the correlation of visible damage with component response is
established, this framework can be also extended to bridge structures or steel
buildings to investigate the cumulative effect of multiple earthquakes on their
216
load carrying capacity. Particularly, this framework can be applied to concrete
bridge structures without additional efforts.
• Three-dimensional effects including the torsional motions and irregularities as
well as the presence of masonry infill walls should be incorporated in the finite
element frame models and their influences on the seismic demand response of RC
frames should be addressed.
• The modeling parameters of Pinching4 material utilized in the beam-column joint
models are employed as the median values of those obtained from the model
validation. The automatic formulation that can calculate the values of damage
parameters would be required through the statistical method based on material
and geometry properties, as is the case of the determination of joint shear strength.
217
APPEDIX A
ANALYTICL RESULTS OF FRAME’S COMPONENTS
This appendix provides the comparison of experimental results with analytical
predictions for RC frame’s critical components: shear-dominated columns, non-ductile
exterior and interior beam-column joints experiencing the joint shear failure and joint
bond failure, and ductile exterior and interior beam-column joints. Figure A.1 presents
the comparison of experimental and analytical shear force-drift hysteresis for shear-
dominated columns, and Table A.1 indicates the comparison of experimental and
analytical maximum column shear force. Figure A.2 and A3 depict the comparison of
experimental and analytical lateral force-deformation (drift) hysteresis for non-ductile
exterior beam-column joint assemblages exhibiting the joint shear failure and joint bond
failure, respectively. Table A.2 presents the comparison of experimental and analytical
maximum lateral force for these joints. Figure A.4 shows the comparison of experimental
and analytical lateral force-deformation (drift) hysteresis for non-ductile interior beam-
column joint subassemblages, and Table A.3 indicates the comparison of experimental
and analytical maximum lateral force for these joint. Figure A.5 and Figure A.6 present
the comparison of experimental and analytical lateral force-deformation (drift) hysteresis
for ductile exterior and interior, respectively, beam-column joint subassemblages. Table
A.4 and Table A.5 indicate the comparison of experimental and analytical maximum
lateral force for these exterior and interior joints, respectively.
218
A.1 Simulated Response for Flexure-Shear-Critical Columns
400 400
300 300
200 200
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)

100 100
0 0
−100 −100
−200 −200

−400 −400
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −2 0 2 4 6
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(a) Specimen 1 (Sezen 2002) (b) Specimen 4 (Sezen 2002)

300 300
200 200
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)

100 100
0 0
−100 −100
−200 −200
−300 −300
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(c) 3CLH18 (Lynn et al. 1996) (d) 3SLH18 (Lynn et al. 1996)
300 300
200 200
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)
100 100
0 0
−100 −100
−200 −200
−300 −300
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(g) 2SLH18 (Lynn et al. 1996) (f) 2CMH18 (Lynn et al. 1996)
Figure A.1 Comparison between experimental and analytical force-drift hysteresis loops for
flexure-shear-critical columns
219
400 400
300 300
Column shear (kN) 200 200
Column shear (kN)

100 100
0 0
−100 −100
−200 −200

−400 −400
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(a) 3CMH18 (Lynn et al. 1996) (b) 3CMD12 (Lynn et al. 1996)
400 120
300
80
200
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)

40
100
0 0
−100
−40
−200
−80
−400 −120
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(c) 3SMD12 (Lynn et al. 1996) (d) 2D16-R-S (Ohue et al. 1985)
120 120
80 80
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)
40 40
0 0
−40 −40
−80 −80
−120 −120
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(e) 4D13-R-S (Ohue et al. 1985) (f) H-2-1/5 (Esaki 1996)
flexure-shear-critical columns (continued)
220
120 150
80 100
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)

40 50
0 0
−40 −50
−80 −100
−120 −150
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(a) HT-2-1/5 (Esaki 1996) (b) H-2-1/3 (Esaki 1996)

150 120
100 80
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)

50 40
0 0
−50 −40
−100 −80
−150 −120
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(c) HT-2-1/3 (Esaki 1996) (d) HPRC19-32 (Nagasaka 1982)

150 150
100 100
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)
50 50
0 0
−50 −50
−100 −100
−150 −150
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(e) CA025C (Ono et al. 1989) (f) CA060C (Ono et al. 1989)
221
400 200
300 150
Column shear (kN)

100 50
0 0
−100 −50
−200 −100
−300 Experiment −150

Experiment
−400 −200
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(a) No. 5 (Mostafaei et al. 2009) (b) No. 4 (Ousalem et al. 2002)
300 300
200 200
Column shear (kN)

Column shear (kN)
100 100
0 0
−100 −100
−200 −200
Experiment
Experiment
−300 −300
−2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 −8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(c) No. 8 (Ousalem et al. 2002) (d) No. 12 (Ousalem et al. 2002)
400 400
300 300
200 200
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)
100 100
0 0
−100 −100
−200 −200

−400 −400
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(e) No. 14 (Ousalem et al. 2003) (f) No. 15 (Ousalem et al. 2003)
222
400 300
300
200
Column shear (kN) 200
Column shear (kN)

100
100
0 0
−100
−100
−200
−200
−400 −300
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(a) No. 16 (Ousalem et al. 2003) (b) U1 (Saatcioglu and Ozcebe 1989)
300 300
200 200
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)

100 100
0 0
−100 −100
−200 −200
−300 −300
−9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9 −9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(c) U2 (Saatcioglu and Ozcebe 1989) (d) U3 (Saatcioglu and Ozcebe 1989)
200 150
150
100
100
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)
50
50
0 0
−50
−50
−100
−100
−200 −150
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(e) 43-H-3 (Ikeda 1968) (f) 44-H-4 (Ikeda 1968)
223
200 200
150 150
Column shear (kN)

50 50
0 0
−50 −50
−100 −100

−200 −200
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(a) 45-H-5 (Ikeda 1968) (b) 46-H-6 (Ikeda 1968)

150 150
100 100
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)

50 50
0 0
−50 −50
−100 −100
−150 −150
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(c) 62-L-4 (Ikeda 1968) (d) 63-L-5 (Ikeda 1968)

150 200
150
100
100
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)
50
50
0 0
−50
−50
−100
−100
−150 −200
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(e) 64-L-6 (Ikeda 1968) (f) 81-1C32 (Kokusho 1964)
224
200 200
150 150
Column shear (kN)

50 50
0 0
−50 −50
−100 −100

−200 −200
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(a) 372-2C12 (Kokusho 1964) (b) 373-2C22 (Kokusho 1964)

600 600
400 400
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)

200 200
0 0
−200 −200
−400 −400
−600 −600
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(c) 115-085A56 (Takeda and Yoshioka 1970) (d) 118-085A80 (Takeda and Yoshioka 1970)
800 800
600 600
400 400
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)
200 200
0 0
−200 −200
−400 −400
−800 −800
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(e) 139-1.2AA56 (Takeda and Yoshioka 1970) (f) 140-1.2AA80 (Takeda and Yoshioka 1970)
225
Table A.1 Comparison of experimental and analytical maximum shear force for flexure-shear-
critical columns
Maximum shear force (kN) Difference
Reference Specimen
Experiment Analysis (%)
Sezen (2002) Specimen 1 315 306 -2.9
Specimen 4 295 300 +1.9
Lynn et al. (1996) 3CLH18 277 275 -0.6
3SLH18 270 269 -0.2
2SLH18 233 230 -1.3
2CMH18 306 302 -1.2
3CMH18 328 332 +1.3
3CMD12 356 363 +2.0
3SMD12 367 358 -2.6
Ohue et al. (1985) 2D16RS 101 102 +1.0
4D13RS 111 113 +2.3
Esaki (1996) H-2-1/5 108 108 +0.2
HT-2-1/5 107 107 -0.0
H-2-1/3 118 122 +3.3
HT-2-1/3 116 117 +1.0
Nagasaka (1982) HPRC19-32 113 113 +0.0
Ono et al. (1989) CA025C 130 131 +0.6
CA060C 137 135 -1.0
Mostafaei et al. (2009) No. 5 322 321 -0.2
Ousalem et al. (2002) No. 4 170 170 +0.3
No. 8 233 233 +0.1
No. 12 220 219 -0.5
Ousalem et al. (2003) No. 14 300 300 -0.0
No. 15 347 349 +0.6
No. 16 349 350 +0.4
Saatcioglu and Ozcebe (1989) U1 276 276 -0.1
U2 279 273 -2.0
U3 271 268 -1.1
Ikeda (1968) 43-H-3 152 152 -0.2
44-H-4 142 142 +0.0
45-H-5 164 161 -2.2
46-H-6 158 157 -0.6
62-L-4 115 115 -0.6
63-L-5 143 136 -5.0
64-L-6 142 140 -1.0
Kokusho (1964) 81-1C32 178 175 -1.5
372-2C12 152 156 +2.1
373-2C22 177 180 +1.7
Takeda and Yoshioka (1970) 115-085A56 584 579 -0.7
118-085A80 563 568 +0.8
139-12AA56 758 725 -4.4
140-12AA80 754 736 -2.4
226
A.2 Simulated Response for Non-Ductile Exterior Beam-Column Joint
Subassemblages–Joint Shear Failure
300 300
200 200
Lateral load (kN)
Lateral load (kN)

100 100
0 0
−100 −100
−200 −200
−300 −300
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(a) Unit 2 (Clyde et al. 2000) (b) Unit 4 (Clyde et al. 2000)
300 300
200 200
Lateral load (kN)
Lateral load (kN)
100 100
0 0
−100 −100
−200 −200
−300 −300
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(c) Unit 5 (Clyde et al. 2000) (d) Unit 6 (Clyde et al. 2000)
150 80
60
100
40
Shear force (kN)
50
20
0 0
−20
−50
−40
−100
−150 −80
−90 −60 −30 0 30 60 90 −12 −9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9 12
Beam−tip displacement (mm) Drift (%)
(e) T1 (Ghobarah and Said 2002) (f) JO (Ilki et al. 2011)
Figure A.2 Comparison between hysteretic responses of experiment and analysis for non-ductile
exterior joints with joint shear failure
227
60 30
40 20
Lateral load (kN)

Shear force (kN)
20 10
0 0
−20 −10
−40 −20
−60 −30
−12 −9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9 12 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
(a) JOP (Ilki et al. 2011) (b) A0 (Karayannis et al. 2008)

80 80
60 60
40 40
Lateral load (kN)
Lateral load (kN)

20 20
0 0
−20 −20
−40 −40

−80 −80
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80 −80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
(c) B0 (Karayannis et al. 2008) (d) C0 (Karayannis et al. 2008)

30 240
180
20
120
Lateral load (kN)
Lateral load (kN)
10
60
0 0
−60
−10
−120
−20 −180
−30 −240
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80 −12 −9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9 12
Displacement (mm) Drift (%)
(e) RC-1 (Liu 2006) (f) Unit 3 (Pantelides et al. 2002)
exterior joints with joint shear failure (continued)
228
240 240
180 180
120 120
Lateral load (kN)

Lateral load (kN)
60 60
0 0
−60 −60
−120 −120

−240 −240
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −12 −9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9 12
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(a) Unit 4 (Pantelides et al. 2002) (b) Unit 5 (Pantelides et al. 2002)
240 75
180
50
120
Applied shear (kN)

Lateral load (kN)
25
60
0 0
−60
−25
−120
−180 −50
−240 −75
−9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9 −8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(c) Unit 6 (Pantelides et al. 2002) (d) G1 (Tsonos 2007)

75 75
50 50
Shear force (kN)
Shear force (kN)
25 25
0 0
−25 −25
−50 −50
−75 −75
−8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 −8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(e) F1 (Tsonos and Papanikolaou 2003) (f) F2 (Tsonos and Papanikolaou 2003)
229
75 120
50 80
Lateral load (kN)

40
Shear force (kN)
25
0 0
−25 −40
−50 −80
−75 −120
−8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
(a) L1 (Tsonos and Papanikolaou 2003) (b) BS-L (Wong 2005)

90 120
60 80
Lateral load (kN)

Lateral load (kN)
30 40
0 0
−30 −40
−60 −80
−90 −120
−90 −60 −30 0 30 60 90 −90 −60 −30 0 30 60 90
(c) BS-OL (Wong 2005) (d) BS-U (Wong 2005)

90
60
Lateral load (kN)
30
−30
−60
Experiment
Simulation
−90
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
Displacement (mm)
(e) JA-NN03 (Wong 2005)
230
A.3 Simulated Response for Non-Ductile Exterior Beam-Column Joint
Subassemblages –Joint Bond Failure
6 100
75
4
50

Lateral force (kN)
2
25
0 0
−25
−2
−50
−4
−6 −100
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
(a) Exterior (Aycardi et al. 1994) (b) T-BS3 (El-Amoury 2004)
150 150
100 100
50 50
Lateral load (kN)
Lateral load (kN)
0 0
−50 −50
−100 −100
−150 −150

−250 −250
−12 −9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9 12 −12 −9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9 12
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(c) Unit 1 (Pantelides et al. 2002) (d) Unit 2 (Pantelides et al. 2002)
100
75
50
Shear force (kN)
25
−25
−50
−75 Experiment
Simulation
−100
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
Displacement (mm)
(e) SP-1 (Sasmal et al. 2011)
exterior joints with joint bond failure
231
Table A.2 Comparison of experimental and analytical maximum lateral force for non-ductile
exterior beam-column joint subassemblages
Maximum lateral force (kN) Difference
Reference Specimen
Joint shear failure
Clyde et al. (2000) Unit 2 291 272 -6.3
Unit 4 292 280 -4.1
Unit 5 267 266 -0.4
Unit 6 279 266 -4.7
Ghobarah and Said (2002) T1 115 117 +1.9
Ilki et al. (2011) JO 68 69 +1.7
JOP 55 53 -2.3
Karayannis et al. (2008) A0 24 24 -0.2
B0 58 63 +7.7
C0 64 62 -2.8
Liu (2006) RC-1 23 22 -2.7
Pantelides et al. (2002) Unit 3 186 190 +1.7
Unit 4 213 209 -2.1
Unit 5 194 194 +0.3
Unit 6 198 196 -1.3
Tsonos and Papanikolaou F1 68 64 +1.8
(2003) F2 55 52 -5.4
L1 59 61 +4.7
Tsonos (2007) G1 61 62 +1.8
Wong (2005) BS-L 102 103 +0.9
BS-OL 70 73 +4.5
BS-U 110 109 -0.4
JA-NN03 82 83 +1.2
Joint bond failure
Aycardi et al. (1994) Exterior +2.5 (-5.7) +2.6 (-5.3) +4.0 (-6.9)
El-Amoury (2004) T-SB3 +61 (-95) +60 (-87) -0.9 (-8.4)
Pantelides et al. (2002) Unit 1 +91 (-194) +99 (-195) +8.1 (+0.4)
Unit 2 +126 (-188) +127 (-192) +0.4 (+2.1)
Sasmal et al. (2011) SP-1 +48 (-86) +49 (-82) +2.2 (-5.4)
232
A.4 Simulated Response for Non-Ductile Interior Beam-Column Joint
Subassemblages
600 600
400 400
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)

200 200
0 0
−200 −200
−400 −400
−600 −600
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(a) PEER09 (Alire 2002) (b) PEER15 (Alire 2002)
600 9
400 6
Column shear (kN)
Lateral force (kN)
200 3
0 0
−200 −3
−400 −6
−600 −9
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(c) PEER41 (Alire 2002) (d) Interior (Aycardi et al. 1994)
150 200
150
100
100
Column shear (kN)
Story shear (kN)
50 50
0 0
−50
−50
−100
−100 −150 Experiment

Experiment Simulation
Simulation −200
−150 −180 −120 −60 0 60 120 180
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 Displacement (mm)
Story drift (%)
(f) OH (Goto and Joh 1996) (g) O4 (Hakuto et al. 2000)
interior joints
233
200 150
150
100
Column shear (kN)

50
50
0 0
−50
−50
−100
−100
−200 −150
−180 −120 −60 0 60 120 180 −120 −80 −40 0 40 80 120
(a) O5 (Hakuto et al. 2000) (b) JI0 (Lee et al. 2010)

200 200
150 150
100 100
Column shear (kN)

Column shear (kN)
50 50
0 0
−50 −50
−100 −100

−200 −200
−90 −60 −30 0 30 60 90 −100 −75 −50 −25 0 25 50 75 100
(c) A1 (Li et al. 2002) (d) M1 (Li et al. 2002)

80 90
60
60
40
30
20
0 0
−20
−30
−40
−60
−80 −90
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(e) AL1 (Li et al. 2009) (f) AS1 (Li et al. 2009)
interior joints (continued)
234
90 120
60 80

30 40
0 0
−30 −40
−60 −80
−90 −120
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(a) AL2 (Li et al. 2009) (b) AS2 (Li et al. 2009)
50 45
30
25
Column shear (kN)

Beam shear (kN)
15
0 0
−15
−25
−30
−50 −45
−75 −50 −25 0 25 50 75 −150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150
(c) No. 1 (Ohwada 1970) (d) P2 (Ohwada 1973)

20 30
15
20
10
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)
10
5
0 0
−5
−10
−10
−20
−20 −30
−9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9 −9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(e) JO-1 (Ohwada 1977) (f) JE-1 (Ohwada 1977)
235
400 45
300
30
200
Column shear (kN)

Story shear (kN)
15
100
0 0
−100
−15
−200
−300 −30
−400 −45
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
(a) RC (Ota et al. 2000) (b) LJO-6 (Owada 1984)

45 45
30 30
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)

15 15
0 0
−15 −15
−30 −30
−45 −45
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(c) LJXY-6 (Owada 1984) (d) LJXY-7 (Owada 1984)

45 60
30 40
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)
15 20
0 0
−15 −20
−30 −40
−45 −60
−9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9 −4.5 −3 −1.5 0 1.5 3 4.5
(e) LJXY-8 (Owada 1984) (f) JO-5 (Owada 2000)
236
60 90
40 60
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)

20 30
0 0
−20 −30
−40 −60
−60 −90
−4.5 −3 −1.5 0 1.5 3 4.5 −4.5 −3 −1.5 0 1.5 3 4.5
(a) JXY-3 (Owada 2000) (b) J0 (Pimanmas and Chaimahawan 2010)

400 400
300 300
200 200
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)

100 100
0 0
−100 −100
−200 −200

−400 −400
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(c) PEER14 (Walker 2001) (d) CD1514 (Walker 2001)

400 400
300 300
200 200
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)
100 100
0 0
−100 −100
−200 −200

−400 −400
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(e) CD3014 (Walker 2001) (f) PADH14 (Walker 2001)
237
450 450
300 300
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)

150 150
0 0
−150 −150
−300 −300
−450 −450
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(a) PEER22 (Walker 2001) (b) CD3022 (Walker 2001)

450 150
300 100
Column shear (kN)

Column shear (kN)
150 50
0 0
−150 −50
−300 −100
−450 −150
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −120 −80 −40 0 40 80 120
(c) PADH 22 (Walker 2001) (d) Ho-JI1 (Wang and Hsu 2009)
150
100
Column shear (kN)
50
−50
−100
Experiment
Simulation
−150
−120 −80 −40 0 40 80 120
Displacement (mm)
(e) Ko-JI1 (Wang and Hsu 2009)
238
Table A.3 Comparison of experimental and analytical maximum lateral force for non-ductile
interior beam-column joint subassemblages
Reference Specimen
Alire (2002) PEER0995 416 390 -6.1
PEER1595 599 555 -7.4
PEER4150 560 529 -5.7
Aycardi et al. (1994) Interior 7.3 7.7 +4.6
Hakuto et al. (2000) O4 173 167 -3.7
O5 159 161 +1.0
Goto and Joh (1996) J-OH 132 132 +0.4
Lee et al. (2010) JI0 133 133 -0.1
Li et al. (2002) A1 166 147 -11.0
M1 188 170 -9.5
Li et al. (2009) AS1 77 72 -7.2
AL1 53 52 -1.8
AS2 99 91 -7.9
AL2 81 77 -5.6
Ohwada (1970) NO1 43 40 -6.9
Ohwada (1973) P2 32 32 -1.7
Ohwada (1977) JO-1 19 18 -3.5
JE-1 22 22 -0.9
Ota et al. (2004) RC 318 301 -5.3
Owada (1984) LJO-6 37 37 +1.1
LJXY-6 40 40 -0.1
LJXY-7 44 44 +1.1
LJXY-8 36 38 +3.9
Owada (2000) JO-5 40 41 +3.4
JXY-3 50 51 +3.2
Pimanmas & Chaimahawan (2010) J0 72 69 -4.0
Walker (2001) PEER14 265 253 -4.5
CD1514 286 276 -3.8
CD3014 306 311 +1.9
PADH14 332 335 +1.0
PEER22 359 350 -2.7
CD3022 376 416 +10.9
PADH22 375 413 +10.2
Wang and Hsu (2009) Ko-JI1 134 135 0.4
Ho-JI1 146 141 -3.3
239
A.5 Simulated Response for Ductile Exterior Beam-Column Joint Subassemblages
200 300
150
200
100
Applied load (kN)

Lateral force (kN)
100
50
0 0
−50
−100
−100
−200
−200 −300
−10 −8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 10 −120 −80 −40 0 40 80 120
Drift (%) Displacement (mm
(a) JC (Chen and Chen 1999) (b) HL11 (Ehsani and Alameddine 1991)
300 300
200 200
Applied load (kN)
Applied load (kN)

100 100
0 0
−100 −100
−200 −200
−300 −300
−120 −80 −40 0 40 80 120 −120 −80 −40 0 40 80 120
Displacement (mm Displacement (mm
(c) LL11 (Ehsani and Alameddine 1991) (d) LL14 (Ehsani and Alameddine 1991)
300 200
150
200
100
Applied load (kN)
Applied load (kN)
100
50
0 0
−50
−100
−100
−200
−300 −200
−120 −80 −40 0 40 80 120 −150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150
(e) LH14 (Ehsani and Alameddine 1991) (f) NO4 (Ehsani et al. 1987)
Figure A.5 Comparison between hysteretic responses of experiment and analysis for ductile
exterior joints
240
200 200
150 150
Applied load (kN) 100 100
Lateral load (kN)

50 50
0 0
−50 −50
−100 −100

−200 −200
−150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150 −150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm Displacement (mm)
(a) NO5 (Ehsani et al. 1987) (b) 1B (Ehsani and Wight 1985)
200 200
150 150
100 100
Lateral load (kN)
Lateral load (kN)

50 50
0 0
−50 −50
−100 −100

−200 −200
−150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150 −150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150
(c) 2B (Ehsani and Wight 1985) (d) 3B (Ehsani and Wight 1985)
200 200
150 150
100 100
Applied load (kN)
Applied load (kN)
50 50
0 0
−50 −50
−100 −100

−200 −200
−150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150 −150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150
(e) 5B (Ehsani and Wight 1985) (f) 6B (Ehsani and Wight 1985)
exterior joints (continued)
241
75 75
50 50

25 25
0 0
−25 −25
−50 −50
−75 −75
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
Beam−tip displacement (mm) Beam−tip displacement (mm)
(a) B1 (Fujii and Morita 1991) (b) B2 (Fujii and Morita 1991)
75 75
50 50

25 25
0 0
−25 −25
−50 −50
−75 −75
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
(c) B3 (Fujii and Morita 1991) (d) B4 (Fujii and Morita 1991)
75 75
50 50
Story shear (kN)
Story shear (kN)
25 25
0 0
−25 −25
−50 −50
−75 −75
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
Story displacement (mm) Story displacement (mm)
(e) A-0 (Ishida et al. 1996) (f) A-0-F (Ishida et al. 1996)
242
100 100
75 75
Column shear (kN)

25 25
0 0
−25 −25
−50 −50

−100 −100
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(a) LO-NO (Joh et al. 1989) (b) HH-NO (Joh et al. 1989)
100 100
75 75
50 50
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)

25 25
0 0
−25 −25
−50 −50

−100 −100
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(c) LO-N96 (Joh et al. 1989) (d) HH-N96 (Joh et al. 1989)
150 100
75
100
50
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)
50
25
0 0
−25
−50
−50
−100
−150 −100
−9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9 −9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(e) NRC-J5 (Joh et al. 1992) (f) NRC-J10 (Joh et al. 1992)
243
150 60
100 40
Column shear (kN)
Beam shear (kN)

50 20
0 0
−50 −20
−100 −40
−150 −60
−9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9 −90 −60 −30 0 30 60 90
Drift (%) Displacment (mm)
(a) NRC-J13 (Joh et al. 1992) (b) NO03 (Kaku and Asakusa 1991)
60 60
40 40
Beam shear (kN)
Beam shear (kN)

20 20
0 0
−20 −20
−40 −40
−60 −60
−90 −60 −30 0 30 60 90 −90 −60 −30 0 30 60 90
(c) NO05 (Kaku and Asakusa 1991) (d) NO06 (Kaku and Asakusa 1991)
60 60
40 40
Beam shear (kN)
Beam shear (kN)
20 20
0 0
−20 −20
−40 −40
−60 −60
−90 −60 −30 0 30 60 90 −90 −60 −30 0 30 60 90
(e) NO09 (Kaku and Asakusa 1991) (f) NO11 (Kaku and Asakusa 1991)
244
60 200
150
40
100

Beam shear (kN)
20
50
0 0
−50
−20
−100
−40 −150
−60 −200
−90 −60 −30 0 30 60 90 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
Displacment (mm) Beam−tip displacement (mm)
(a) NO12 (Kaku and Asakusa 1991) (b) U41L (Kanada et al. 1984)
90 100
75
60
50
Beam shear (kN)

Beam shear (kN)
30
25
0 0
−25
−30
−50
−60 −75
−90 −100
−45 −30 −15 0 15 30 45 −45 −30 −15 0 15 30 45
(c) EJ+0.0 (Lee and Lee 2000) (d) EJ+0.1 (Lee and Lee 2000)
90 210
60 140
Beam shear (kN)
Story shear (kN)
30 70
0 0
−30 −70
−60 −140
−90 −210
−150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
Displacment (mm) Story drift (%)
(e) RC-2 (Nishiyama et al. 1989) (f) O-5 (Takeuchi et al. 2003)
245
75 60
50 40
Applied shear (kN)

Applied shear (kN)
25 20
0 0
−25 −20
−50 −40
−75 −60
−8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 −100 −75 −50 −25 0 25 50 75 100
(a) A1 (Tsonos 2007) (b) S1 (Tsonos et al. 1992)

60 75
40 50
Applied shear (kN)
Applied shear (kN)

20 25
0 0
−20 −25
−40 −50
−60 −75
−75 −50 −25 0 25 50 75 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
(c) S2 (Tsonos et al. 1992) (d) S6 (Tsonos et al. 1992)

90 60
60 40
Applied shear (kN)
Applied shear (kN)
30 20
0 0
−30 −20
−60 −40
−90 −60
−75 −50 −25 0 25 50 75 −75 −50 −25 0 25 50 75
(e) S6’ (Tsonos et al. 1992) (f) F2 (Tsonos et al. 1992)
246
100 100
75 75
Lateral force (kN) 50 50
Lateral force (kN)

25 25
0 0
−25 −25
−50 −50
−100 −100
−100 −75 −50 −25 0 25 50 75 100 −75 −50 −25 0 25 50 75
(a) JA-NY03 (Wong 2005) (b) JA-NY15 (Wong 2005)
247
Table A.4 Comparison of experimental and analytical maximum lateral force for ductile exterior
Reference Specimen
Chen and Chen (1999) JC 175 174 -1.1
Ehsani & Alameddine (1991) HL11 262 273 +4.6
LL11 212 202 -5.0
LL14 261 234 -10.4
LH14 264 233 -11.5
Ehsani et al. (1987) NO4 161 161 -0.4
NO5 170 148 -14.7
Ehsani and Wight (1985) 1B 147 155 +5.1
2B 139 143 +3.0
3B 183 171 -6.9
5B 172 171 -0.7
6B 155 144 -7.8
Fujii and Morita (1991) B1 57 58 +1.9
B2 51 50 -1.2
B3 64 64 -0.1
B4 65 68 +4.1
Ishida et al. (1996) A-0 55 56 +1.5
A-0-F 53 54 +2.0
Joh et al. (1989) LO-NO 60 64 +6.2
HH-NO 87 92 +6.4
LO-N96 67 72 +7.9
HH-N96 85 88 +3.4
Joh et al. (1992) NRC-J5 137 142 +3.5
NRC-J10 85 95 +10.0
NRC-J13 132 133 +1.2
Kaku and Asakusa (1991) NO03 48 45 -4.9
NO05 46 46 +0.3
NO06 45 44 -1.6
NO09 51 49 -4.3
NO11 50 49 -3.3
NO12 43 43 -0.2
Kanada et al. (1984) U41L 171 164 -4.2
Lee and Lee (2000) EJ+0.0 82 79 -4.1
EJ+0.1 90 85 -5.7
Nishiyama et al.(1989) RC-2 71 71 +0.3
Takeuchi et al. (2003) O-5 203 201 -1.0
Tsonos (2007) A1 56 54 -3.7
Tsonos et al. (1992) S1 48 42 -14.5
S2 40 43 +7.0
S6 58 56 -3.7
S6' 76 63 -20.5
F2 54 56 +2.4
Wong (2005) JA-NY03 81 83 +3.0
JA-NY15 88 91 +3.3
248
A.6 Simulated Response for Ductile Interior Beam-Column Joint Subassemblages
210 210
140 140
70 70
Force (kN)
Force (kN)
0 0
−70 −70
−140 −140
−210 −210
−150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150 −150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150
(a) X1 (Durrani and Wight 1985) (b) X2 (Durrani and Wight 1985)
210 150
140 100
Story shear (kN)

70 50
Force (kN)
0 0
−70 −50
−140 −100
Experiment
Experiment
Simulation
Simulation −150
−210 −120 −80 −40 0 40 80 120
−150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150 Story displacement (%)
Displacement (mm)
(c) X3 (Durrani and Wight 1985) (d) HLC (Endoh et al. 1991)
180 60
120 40
Story shear (kN)
60 20
0 0
−60 −20
−120 −40
Experiment
Experiment
Simulation
−180 Simulation
−120 −80 −40 0 40 80 120 −60
Story displacement (%) −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
Beam−tip displacement (mm)
(e) LA1 (Endoh et al. 1991) (f) A1 (Fujii and Morita 1991)
interior joints
249
60 60
40 40

20 20
0 0
−20 −20
−40 −40
−60 −60
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
(a) A3 (Fujii and Morita 1991) (b) A4 (Fujii and Morita 1991)
200 150
150
100
100
Story shear (kN)
Story shear (kN)

50
50
0 0
−50
−50
−100
−100
−200 −150
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
(c) HH (Goto and Joh 1996) (d) LM-60 (Goto and Joh 2003)
150 200
150
100
100
Story shear (kN)
Story shear (kN)
50
50
0 0
−50
−50
−100
−100
−150 −200
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
(e) LM-125 (Goto and Joh 2003) (f) HM-60 (Goto and Joh 2003)
250
150 150
100 100
Story shear (kN)
Story shear (kN)

50 50
0 0
−50 −50
−100 −100
−150 −150
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
(a) HM-125 (Goto and Joh 2003) (b) HH-125 (Goto and Joh 2003)
400 400
300 300
200 200
Beam shear (kN)

Story shear (kN)
100 100
0 0
−100 −100
−200 −200

−400 −400
−9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
(c) S1 (Hiramatsu et al. 1995) (d) SP1 (Inoue et al. 1990)

300 1200
200 800
Beam shear (kN)
Story shear (kN)
100 400
0 0
−100 −400
−200 −800
−300 −1200
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
(e) SP2 (Inoue et al. 1990) (f) CN (Ishida et al. 1996)
251
1200 200
150
800
Story shear (kN) 100
Story shear (kN)

400
50
0 0
−50
−400
−100
−800
−1200 −200
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8
(a) ES (Ishida et al. 1996) (b) NO1 (Jinno et al. 1991)

200 400
150 300
100 200
Story shear (kN)
Story shear (kN)

50 100
0 0
−50 −100
−100 −200

−200 −400
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(c) NO2 (Jinno et al. 1991) (d) NO3 (Jinno et al. 1991)
400 400
300 300
200 200
Story shear (kN)
Story shear (kN)
100 100
0 0
−100 −100
−200 −200

−400 −400
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(e) NO4 (Jinno et al. 1991) (f) NO5 (Jinno et al. 1991)
252
400 400
300 300
Story shear (kN) 200 200
Story shear (kN)

100 100
0 0
−100 −100
−200 −200

−400 −400
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8
Drift (%) Drift (%)
(a) NO6 (Jinno et al. 1991) (b) NO7 (Jinno et al. 1991)
450 75
300 50
Column shear (kN)

Story shear (kN)
150 25
0 0
−150 −25
−300 −50
−450 −75
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 −80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80
(c) NO8 (Jinno et al. 1991) (d) JXO-B1 (Joh et al. 1991a)
75 75
50 50
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)
25 25
0 0
−25 −25
−50 −50
−75 −75
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80 −80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80
(e) JXO-B5 (Joh et al. 1991a) (f) JXO-B8MH (Joh et al. 1991b)
253
300 60
200 40
Story shear (kN)
Beam shear (kN)

100 20
0 0
−100 −20
−200 −40
−300 −60
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
(a) J31A (Kaku et al. 1993) (b) NN.1 (Kamimura et al. 2004)
210 150
140 100
Story shear (kN)

Story shear (kN)
70 50
0 0
−70 −50
−140 −100
−210 −150
−75 −50 −25 0 25 50 75 −90 −60 −30 0 30 60 90 120
Story Displacement (mm) Story displacement (mm)
(c) MKJ-1 (Kashiwasazaki et al. 1992) (d) J1 (Kitayama et al. 1991)

150 150
100 100
Story shear (kN)
Story shear (kN)
50 50
0 0
−50 −50
−100 −100
−150 −150
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8
(e) PB1 (Kitayama et al. 2000) (f) PNB2 (Kitayama et al. 2000)
254
150 300
100 200
Story shear (kN)
Story shear (kN)

50 100
0 0
−50 −100
−100 −200
−150 −300
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
(a) PNB3 (Kitayama et al. 2000) (b) J1 (Kurose et al. 1991)

120 120
80 80
Story shear (kN)
Story shear (kN)

40 40
0 0
−40 −40
−80 −80
−120 −120
−8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 −8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8
(c) JE-0 (Kusuhara et al. 2004) (d) JE-55 (Kusuhara et al. 2004)
600
300
400
200
Story shear (kN)
Story shear (kN)
200
100
0 0
−100
−200
−200
−400
−300 Experiment
Experiment
−600
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
(e) J1 (Lee et al. 2009) (f) B-0 (Matsumoto et al. 2010)
255
600 600
400 400
Story shear (kN)
Story shear (kN)

200 200
0 0
−200 −200
−400 −400
−600 −600
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
(a) B-5 (Matsumoto et al. 2010) (b) J-0 (Matsumoto et al. 2010)
600 150
400 100
Story shear (kN)
Story shear (kN)

200 50
0 0
−200 −50
−400 −100
−600 −150
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
(c) J-5 (Matsumoto et al. 2010) (d) M1 (Morita et al. 2004)

150 300
100 200
Story shear (kN)
Story shear (kN)
50 100
0 0
−50 −100
−100 −200
−150 −300
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 −80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80
(e) M6 (Morita et al. 2004) (f) OKJ-1 (Noguchi and Kashiwazaki 1992)
256
300 300
200 200
Story shear (kN)
Story shear (kN)

100 100
0 0
−100 −100
−200 −200
−300 −300
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80 −80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80
(a) OKJ-4 (Noguchi and Kashiwazaki 1992) (b) OKJ-5 (Noguchi and Kashiwazaki 1992)
300 50
200
25
Story shear (kN)
Beam shear (kN)

100
0 0
−100
−25
−200
−300 −50
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80 −90 −60 −30 0 30 60 90
(c) OKJ-6 (Noguchi and Kashiwazaki 1992) (d) No. 2 (Ohwada 1970)
30 300
20 200
Column shear (kN)
Story shear (kN)
10 100
0 0
−10 −100
−20 −200
−30 −300
−9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
(e) JO-2 (Ohwada 1977) (f) J-1 (Oka and Shiohara 1992)
257
300 400
300
200
Story shear (kN) 200
Story shear (kN)

100
100
0 0
−100
−100
−200
−200
−300 −400
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
(a) J-6 (Oka and Shiohara 1992) (b) J-8 (Oka and Shiohara 1992)
300 180
200 120
Story shear (kN)
Story shear (kN)

100 60
0 0
−100 −60
−200 −120
−300 −180
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
(c) J-10 (Oka and Shiohara 1992) (d) NO1 (Ozaki et al. 2010)
180 120
120 80
Story shear (kN)
Story shear (kN)
60 40
0 0
−60 −40
−120 −80
−180 −120
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
(e) NO2 (Ozaki et al. 2010) (f) SP1 (Raffaelle and Wight 1995)
258
90 90
60 60
Story shear (kN)
Story shear (kN)

30 30
0 0
−30 −30
−60 −60
−90 −90
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
(a) SP2 (Raffaelle and Wight 1995) (b) SP3 (Raffaelle and Wight 1995)
120 100
75
80
50
Story shear (kN)
Story shear (kN)

40
25
0 0
−25
−40
−50
−80
−120 −100
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
(c) SP4 (Raffaelle and Wight 1995) (d) SL1 (Shin and LaFave 2004)
100 150
75
100
50
Story shear (kN)
Story shear (kN)
50
25
0 0
−25
−50
−50
−100
−100 −150
−8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 −8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8
(e) SL2 (Shin and LaFave 2004) (f) SL4 (Shin and LaFave 2004)
259
300 300
200 200
Story shear (kN)
Story shear (kN)

100 100
0 0
−100 −100
−200 −200
−300 −300
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
(a) B-1 (Shinjo et al. 2009) (b) J-1 (Shinjo et al. 2009)
300 1500
200 1000
Story shear (kN)

Story shear (kN)
100 500
0 0
−100 −500
−200 −1000
−300 −1500
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
(c) BJ-1 (Shinjo et al. 2009) (d) NO1 (Takamori et al. 2006)
1500 1500
1000 1000
Story shear (kN)
Story shear (kN)
500 500
0 0
−500 −500
−1000 −1000
−1500 −1500
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
(e) NO2 (Takamori et al. 2006) (f) NO3 (Takamori et al. 2006)
260
150 150
100 100
Story force (kN)
Story force (kN)

50 50
0 0
−50 −50
−100 −100
−150 −150
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
(a) S1 (Teng and Zhou 2003) (b) S2 (Teng and Zhou 2003)
90 300
60 200
Column shear (kN)

100
Story force (kN)
30
0 0
−30 −100
−60 −200
−90 −300
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9
(c) S5 (Teng and Zhou 2003) (d) NO01 (Teraoka 1997)

300 300
200 200
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)
100 100
0 0
−100 −100
−200 −200
−300 −300
−9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9 −9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9
(e) NO04 (Teraoka 1997) (f) NO07 (Teraoka 1997)
261
300 200
150
200
Column shear (kN)

100
50
0 0
−50
−100
−100
−200
−300 −200
−9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9 −9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9
(a) NO08 (Teraoka 1997) (b) NO09 (Teraoka 1997)

200 600
150
400
100
Column shear (kN)
Column shear (kN)

200
50
0 0
−50
−200
−100
−400
−200 −600
−9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9 −9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9
(c) NO10 (Teraoka 1997) (d) NO35 (Teraoka 1997)

600 600
400 400
Column shear (kN)
Story shear (kN)
200 200
0 0
−200 −200
−400 −400
−600 −600
−9 −6 −3 0 3 6 9 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
Story drift (%) Story drift (mm)
(e) NO36 (Teraoka 1997) (f) No. 1 (Yashita et al. 1996)
262
600 750
400 500
Story shear (kN)
Story shear (kN)

200 250
0 0
−200 −250
−400 −500
−600 −750
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
Story drift (mm) Story drift (mm)
(a) No. 3 (Yashita et al. 1996) (b) No. 4 (Yashita et al. 1996)
60 60
40 40
Story shear (kN)
Story shear (kN)

20 20
0 0
−20 −20
−40 −40
−60 −60
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8
(c) NO1 (Yoshino et al. 1997) (d) NO3 (Yoshino et al. 1997)
150
100
Story shear (kN)
50
−50
−100
Experiment
Simulation
−150
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
Story drift (%)
(e) S3 (Zaid et al. 1999)
263
Table A.5 Comparison of experimental and analytical maximum lateral force for ductile interior
Reference Specimen
Durrani and Wight (1985) X1 197 184 -7.0
X2 205 196 -4.6
X3 159 151 -5.1
Endoh et al. (1991) HLC 132 127 -4.2
LA1 158 149 -7.4
Fujii and Morita (1991) A1 48 49 +1.9
A3 49 50 +2.3
A4 51 50 -1.4
Goto and Joh (1996) HH 146 149 +1.8
Goto and Joh (2003) LM-60 131 131 +0.2
LM-125 102 103 +0.6
HM-60 149 154 +3.6
HM-125 120 120 +0.0
HH-125 123 127 +2.7
Hiramatsu et al. (1995) S1 307 288 -6.7
Inoue et al. (1990) SP1 326 328 +0.6
SP2 283 281 -0.8
Ishida et al. (2001) CN 958 929 -3.1
ES 964 938 -2.8
Jinno et al. (1991) NO1 162 156 -3.5
NO2 197 192 -2.9
NO3 276 267 -3.2
NO4 305 294 -3.8
NO5 366 352 -4.1
NO6 340 326 -4.3
NO7 363 355 -2.5
NO8 416 406 -2.5
Joh et al. (1991a) JXO-B1 60 61 +1.2
JXO-B5 63 64 +2.3
Joh et al. (1991b) JXO-8MH 68 64 -5.9
Kaku et al. (1993) J31A 257 255 -0.9
Kamimura et al. (2004) NN.1 47 47 -1.0
Kashiwazaki et al. (1992) MKJ-1 159 160 +0.2
Kitayama et al. (1991) J1 115 116 +0.7
Kitayama et al. (2000) PB1 144 127 -13.1
PNB2 130 127 -2.9
PNB3 121 118 -2.8
Kurose et al. (1991) J1 224 223 -0.6
Kusuhara et al. (2004) JE-0 94 97 +3.0
JE-55 89 90 +1.3
Lee et al. (2009) J1 346 354 +2.3
Matsumoto et al. (2010) B-0 399 394 -1.1
B-5 404 397 -1.7
J-0 457 452 -1.2
J-5 459 448 -2.6
264
Table A.5 Comparison of experimental and analytical maximum lateral force for ductile interior
beam-column joint subassemblages (continued)
Reference Specimen
Morita et al. (2004) M1 118 115 -2.8
M6 135 122 -10.3
Noguchi and Kashiwazaki OKJ-1 231 230 -0.6
(1992) OKJ-4 252 243 -3.7
OKJ-5 245 239 -2.8
OKJ-6 221 216 -2.4
Ohwada (1970) No. 2 43 40 -7.3
Ohwada (1977) JO-2 22 2 -1.2
Oka and Shiohara (1992) J-1 253 246 -2.6
J-6 266 262 -1.4
J-8 304 295 -3.2
J-10 189 188 -1.0
Ozaki et al. (2010) NO1 149 149 -0.2
NO2 140 143 +2.2
Raffaelle and Wight (1992) SP1 95 91 -4.4
SP2 62 60 -3.2
SP3 73 71 -2.7
SP4 105 102 -2.3
Shin and LaFave (2004) SL1 86 83 -3.4
SL2 83 83 +0.4
SL4 109 102 -7.6
Shinjo et al. (2009) B-1 246 238 -3.4
J-1 278 282 +1.6
BJ-1 260 256 -1.8
Takamori et al. (2006) NO1 1308 1291 -1.3
NO2 1293 1252 -3.2
NO3 1323 1357 +2.4
Teng and Zhou (2003) S1 117 114 -2.4
S2 121 115 -5.9
S5 72 65 -9.9
Teraoka (1997) NO01 221 210 -5.1
NO04 243 245 +0.8
NO07 268 259 -3.4
NO08 268 259 -3.4
NO09 183 181 -1.3
NO10 186 177 -4.8
NO35 460 474 +3.0
NO36 520 507 -2.6
Yashito et al. (1996) No. 1 440 458 +4.0
No. 3 480 502 +4.4
No. 4 594 618 +3.8
Yoshino et al. (1997) NO1 46 48 +3.2
NO3 49 51 +2.3
Zaid et al. (1999) S3 129 131 +1.2
265
APPEDIX B
FRAME DESIGN INFORMATION
This appendix provides the structural design details for each of the RC frames modeled
and analyzed in Chapter 4. The ductile and non-ductile RC frames are designed by
Haselton (2006) and Liel (2008), respectively, in accordance with the design codes. The
design information helps facilitate the fiber-section beam-column elements, compute the
beam-column joint shear strength, and model the shear behavior in columns.
0.0048
0.0060
0.0029
0.0048
0.0060
0.0029
0.0048
0.0060
0.0029
610
813
127
610
813
127
610
813
127
Floor 5
Design base shear
h (mm) = 762 965 965 762 = 0.092g, 1717 kN
Story 4
b (mm) = 813 813 813 813

ρtot = 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 fć,beams = 34.5 MPa
0.0093
0.0108
0.0039
0.0093
0.0108
0.0039
0.0093
0.0108
0.0039

610
813
127
610
813
127
610
813
127
Floor 4
h (mm) = 762 965 965 762
Story 3
b (mm) = 813 813 813 813

ρtot = 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100
ρsh = 0.0061 0.0080 0.0080 0.0061
0.0100
0.0048
0.0100
0.0048
0.0100
0.0048
0.0115
0.0115
0.0115
s (mm) = 102 89 89 102

610
813
127
610
813
127
610
813
127
Floor 3
h (mm) = 762 965 965 762
b (mm) = 813 813 813 813
Story 2
3,962 mm
ρtot = 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100

= 0.0108
= 0.0123
= 0.0051
= 0.0108
= 0.0123
= 0.0051
= 0.0108
= 0.0123
= 0.0051
ρsh = 0.0085 0.0112 0.0112 0.0085

= 610
= 813
= 127
= 610
= 813
= 127
= 610
= 813
= 127
s (mm) = 89 89 89 89
Floor 2
h (mm)
b (mm)
h (mm)
b (mm)
h (mm)
b (mm)
s (mm)
s (mm)
s (mm)
h (mm) = 762 965 965 762

Story 1
4,572 mm
ρsh
ρsh
ρsh
ρ´
ρ´
ρ´
ρ
b (mm) = 813 813 813 813

ρtot = 0.0210 0.0160 0.0160 0.0210
ρsh = 0.0085 0.0112 0.0112 0.0085
s (mm) = 89 89 89 89

6,096 mm
Figure B.1 Design information of 4-story ductile perimeter frame (SMF-4P) (Haselton 2006)
266
0.0032
0.0032
0.0024
0.0032
0.0032
0.0024
0.0032
0.0032
0.0024
762
660
152
762
660
152
762
660
152
Floor 9
Design base shear
h (mm) = 711 711 711 711 = 0.050g, 7137 kN
Story 8
b (mm) = 660 660 660 660
ρtot = 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 fć,beams = 34.5 MPa
0.0032
0.0040
0.0025
0.0032
0.0040
0.0025
0.0032
0.0040
0.0025
762
660
140
762
660
140
762
660
140
Floor 8
h (mm) = 711 711 711 711
Story 7
b (mm) = 660 660 660 660

ρtot = 0.0100 0.0140 0.0140 0.0100
ρsh = 0.0069 0.0069 0.0069 0.0069
0.0040
0.0055
0.0031
0.0040
0.0055
0.0031
0.0040
0.0055
0.0031
s (mm) = 102 102 102 102
762
660
165
762
660
165
762
660
165
Floor 7
h (mm) = 711 711 711 711

Story 6
b (mm) = 660 660 660 660

ρtot = 0.0100 0.0150 0.0150 0.0100
ρsh = 0.0069 0.0069 0.0069 0.0069
0.0055
0.0068
0.0037
0.0055
0.0068
0.0037
0.0055
0.0068
0.0037
s (mm) = 102 102 102 102
762
660
152
762
660
152
762
660
152
Floor 6
h (mm) = 711 711 711 711

Story 5
b (mm) = 660 660 660 660

ρtot = 0.0130 0.0220 0.0220 0.0130
ρsh = 0.0069 0.0069 0.0069 0.0069
0.0063
0.0075
0.0041
0.0063
0.0075
0.0041
0.0063
0.0075
s (mm) = 102 102 0.0041 102 102
762
660
140
762
660
140
762
660
Floor 5 140
h (mm) = 711 864 864 711

Story 4
b (mm) = 660 660 660 660

ρtot = 0.0128 0.0113 0.0113 0.0125
ρsh = 0.0097 0.0121 0.0121 0.0097
0.0068
0.0080
0.0043
0.0068
0.0080
0.0043
0.0068
0.0080
0.0043
s (mm) = 89 89 89 89
762
660
127
762
660
127
762
660
127
Floor 4
h (mm) = 711 864 864 711

Story 3
b (mm) = 660 660 660 660

ρtot = 0.0148 0.0130 0.0130 0.0148
ρsh = 0.0097 0.0121 0.0121 0.0097
0.0073
0.0083
0.0045
0.0073
0.0083
0.0045
0.0073
0.0083
0.0045
s (mm) = 89 89 89 89
762
660
165
762
660
165
762
660
165
Floor 3
h (mm) = 711 864 864 711
b (mm) = 660 660 660
Story 2
660 3,962 mm
ρtot = 0.0148 0.0130 0.0130 0.0148
= 0.0068
= 0.0075
= 0.0042
= 0.0068
= 0.0075
= 0.0042
= 0.0068
= 0.0075
= 0.0042
ρsh = 0.0097 0.0121 0.0121 0.0097

= 762
= 660
= 127
= 762
= 660
= 127
= 762
= 660
= 127
s (mm) = 89 89 89 89
Floor 2
h (mm)
b (mm)
h (mm)
b (mm)
h (mm)
b (mm)
s (mm)
s (mm)
s (mm)
h (mm) = 711 864 864 711

Story 1
4,572 mm
ρsh
ρsh
ρsh
ρ´
ρ´
ρ´
ρ
b (mm) = 660 660 660 660

ρtot = 0.0200 0.0180 0.0180 0.0200
ρsh = 0.0097 0.0121 0.0121 0.0097
s (mm) = 89 89 89 89

6,096 mm
Figure B.2 Design information of 8-story ductile perimeter frame (SMF-8P) (Haselton 2006)
267
0.0125
0.0193
0.0055
0.0125
0.0193
0.0055
0.0125
0.0193
0.0055
508
508
224
508
508
224
508
508
224
Floor 5
Design base shear
h (mm) = 508 508 508 508 = 0.068g, 440 kN
Story 4
b (mm) = 508 508 508 508
ρtot = 0.0280 0.0120 0.0120 0.0280 fć,beams = 27.6 MPa
0.0205
0.0044
0.0205
0.0044
0.0205
0.0044
0.0115
0.0115
0.0115
508
508
224
508
508
224
508
508
224
Floor 4
h (mm) = 508 508 508 508
Story 3
b (mm) = 508 508 508 508

ρtot = 0.0280 0.0190 0.0190 0.0280
ρsh = 0.0022 0.0015 0.0015 0.0022
0.0065
0.0135
0.0028
0.0065
0.0135
0.0028
0.0065
0.0135
0.0028
s (mm) = 254 254 254 254
660
508
300
660
508
300
660
508
300
Floor 3
h (mm) = 508 508 508 508
Story 2
3,962 mm
b (mm) = 508 508 508 508
ρtot = 0.0280 0.0280 0.0280 0.0280
= 0.0073
= 0.0143
= 0.0028
= 0.0073
= 0.0143
= 0.0028
= 0.0073
= 0.0143
= 0.0028
ρsh = 0.0022 0.0028 0.0028 0.0022
= 660
= 508
= 300
= 660
= 508
= 300
= 660
= 508
= 300
s (mm) = 254 254 254 254
Floor 2
h (mm)
b (mm)
h (mm)
b (mm)
h (mm)
b (mm)
s (mm)
s (mm)
s (mm)
h (mm) = 508 508 508 508
Story 1
4,572 mm
ρsh
ρsh
ρsh
ρ´
ρ´
ρ´
ρ
ρ
b (mm) = 508 508 508 508
ρtot = 0.0390 0.0280 0.0280 0.0390
ρsh = 0.0029 0.0028 0.0028 0.0029
s (mm) = 254 254 254 254

7,620 mm
Figure B.3 Design information of 4-story non-ductile space frame (OMF-4S) (Liel 2008)
0.0033
0.0070
0.0015
0.0033
0.0070
0.0015
0.0033
0.0070
0.0015
610
610
274
610
610
274
610
610
274
Floor 5
Design base shear
h (mm) = 711 711 711 711 = 0.068g, 1957 kN
Story 4
b (mm) = 610 610 610 610

ρtot = 0.0100 0.0110 0.0110 0.0100 fć,beams = 27.6 MPa
0.0047
0.0103
0.0015
0.0047
0.0103
0.0015
0.0047
0.0103
0.0015

610
610
274
610
610
274
610
610
274
Floor 4
h (mm) = 711 711 711 711
Story 3
b (mm) = 610 610 610 610

ρtot = 0.0150 0.0220 0.0220 0.0150
ρsh = 0.0015 0.0018 0.0018 0.0015
0.0060
0.0090
0.0015
0.0060
0.0090
0.0015
0.0060
0.0090
0.0015
s (mm) = 356 356 356 356

813
610
376
813
610
376
813
610
376
Floor 3
h (mm) = 711 711 711 711
Story 2
3,962 mm
b (mm) = 610 610 610 610

ρtot = 0.0150 0.0220 0.0220 0.0150
= 0.0065
= 0.0093
= 0.0015
= 0.0065
= 0.0093
= 0.0015
= 0.0065
= 0.0093
= 0.0015
ρsh = 0.0020 0.0033 0.0033 0.0020

= 813
= 610
= 376
= 813
= 610
= 376
= 813
= 610
= 376
s (mm) = 356 356 356 356

Floor 2
h (mm)
b (mm)
h (mm)
b (mm)
h (mm)
b (mm)
s (mm)
s (mm)
s (mm)
h (mm) = 711 711 711 711

Story 1
4,572 mm
ρsh
ρsh
ρsh
ρ´
ρ´
ρ´
ρ
b (mm) = 610 610 610 610

ρtot = 0.0320 0.0330 0.0330 0.0320
ρsh = 0.0046 0.0053 0.0053 0.0046
s (mm) = 356 356 356 356

7,620 mm
Figure B.4 Design information of 4-story non-ductile perimeter frame (OMF-4P) (Liel 2008)
268
0.0097
0.0140
0.0037
0.0097
0.0140
0.0037
0.0097
0.0140
0.0037
508
610
224
508
610
224
508
610
224
Floor 9
Design base shear
Story 8 h (mm) = 610 610 610 610 = 0.046g, 601 kN
b (mm) = 610 610 610 610
ρtot = 0.0160 0.0100 0.0100 0.0160 fć,beams = 27.6 MPa
0.0090
0.0153
0.0031
0.0090
0.0153
0.0031
0.0090
0.0153
0.0031
508
610
224
508
610
224
508
610
224
Floor 8
h (mm) = 610 610 610 610
Story 7
b (mm) = 610 610 610 610

ρtot = 0.0160 0.0100 0.0100 0.0160
ρsh = 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015
0.0093
0.0173
0.0031
0.0093
0.0173
0.0031
0.0093
0.0173
0.0031
s (mm) = 305 305 305 305
508
610
224
508
610
224
508
610
224
Floor 7
h (mm) = 610 610 610 610

Story 6
b (mm) = 610 610 610 610

ρtot = 0.0160 0.0140 0.0140 0.0160
ρsh = 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015
0.0093
0.0183
0.0031
0.0093
0.0183
0.0031
0.0093
0.0183
0.0031
s (mm) = 305 305 305 305
508
610
224
508
610
224
508
610
224
Floor 6
h (mm) = 610 610 610 610

Story 5
b (mm) = 610 610 610 610

ρtot = 0.0190 0.0140 0.0140 0.0190
ρsh = 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017
0.0058
0.0120
0.0018
0.0058
0.0120
0.0018
0.0058
0.0120
0.0018
s (mm) = 305 305 305 305
660
610
300
660
610
300
660
610
300
Floor 5
h (mm) = 610 711 711 610

Story 4
b (mm) = 610 711 711 610

ρtot = 0.0190 0.0100 0.0100 0.0190
ρsh = 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017 0.0017
0.0053
0.0123
0.0020
0.0053
0.0123
0.0020
0.0053
0.0123
0.0020
s (mm) = 305 356 356 305

660
610
300
660
610
300
660
610
300
Floor 4
h (mm) = 610 711 711 610

Story 3
b (mm) = 610 711 711 610

ρtot = 0.0190 0.0100 0.0100 0.0190
ρsh = 0.0019 0.0019 0.0019 0.0019
0.0055
0.0128
0.0020
0.0055
0.0128
0.0020
0.0055
0.0128
0.0020
s (mm) = 305 356 356 305

660
610
300
660
610
300
660
610
300
Floor 3
h (mm) = 610 711 711 610
Story 2
3,962 mm
b (mm) = 610 711 711 610

ρtot = 0.0190 0.0140 0.0140 0.0190
= 0.0058
= 0.0128
= 0.0020
= 0.0058
= 0.0128
= 0.0020
= 0.0058
= 0.0128
= 0.0020
ρsh = 0.0023 0.0023 0.0023 0.0023

= 660
= 610
= 300
= 660
= 610
= 300
= 660
= 610
= 300
s (mm) = 305 356 356 305

Floor 2
h (mm)
b (mm)
h (mm)
b (mm)
h (mm)
b (mm)
s (mm)
s (mm)
s (mm)
h (mm) = 610 711 711 610

Story 1
4,572 mm
ρsh
ρsh
ρsh
ρ´
ρ´
ρ´
610
ρ
b (mm) = 610 711 711

ρtot = 0.0320 0.0140 0.0140 0.0320
ρsh = 0.0036 0.0023 0.0023 0.0036
s (mm) = 305 356 356 305

7,620 mm
Figure B.5 Design information of 8-story non-ductile space frame (OMF-8S) (Liel 2008)
269
0.0033
0.0066
0.0015
0.0033
0.0066
0.0015
0.0033
0.0066
0.0015
610
660
274
610
660
274
610
660
274
Floor 9
Design base shear
h (mm) = 711 711 711 711 = 0.054g, 1739 kN
Story 8
b (mm) = 660 660 660 660
ρtot = 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 fć,beams = 27.6 MPa
0.0040
0.0095
0.0015
0.0040
0.0095
0.0015
0.0040
0.0095
0.0015
610
660
274
610
660
274
610
660
274
Floor 8
h (mm) = 711 711 711 711
Story 7
b (mm) = 660 610 660 660

ρtot = 0.0130 0.0170 0.0170 0.0130
ρsh = 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015
0.0063
0.0100
0.0015
0.0063
0.0100
0.0015
0.0063
0.0100
0.0015
s (mm) = 356 356 356 356
762
660
351
762
660
351
762
660
351
Floor 7
h (mm) = 711 711 711 711

Story 6
b (mm) = 660 660 660 660

ρtot = 0.0130 0.0250 0.0250 0.0130
ρsh = 0.0015 0.0036 0.0036 0.0015
0.0078
0.0015
0.0078
0.0015
0.0078
0.0015
0.0113
0.0113
0.0113
s (mm) = 356 356 356 356
762
660
351
762
660
351
762
660
351
Floor 6
h (mm) = 711 711 711 711

Story 5
b (mm) = 660 660 660 660

ρtot = 0.0220 0.0250 0.0250 0.0220
ρsh = 0.0027 0.0036 0.0036 0.0027
0.0070
0.0093
0.0015
0.0070
0.0093
0.0015
0.0070
0.0093
s (mm) = 254 267 0.0015 267 254
914
660
427
914
660
427
914
660
Floor 5 427
h (mm) = 711 914 914 711

Story 4
b (mm) = 660 762 762 660

ρtot = 0.0220 0.0180 0.0180 0.0220
ρsh = 0.0031 0.0036 0.0036 0.0031
0.0075
0.0100
0.0015
0.0075
0.0100
0.0015
0.0075
0.0100
0.0015
s (mm) = 356 457 457 356

914
660
427
914
660
427
914
660
427
Floor 4
h (mm) = 711 914 914 711

Story 3
b (mm) = 660 762 762 660

ρtot = 0.0220 0.0180 0.0180 0.0220
ρsh = 0.0031 0.0040 0.0040 0.0031
0.0075
0.0103
0.0015
0.0075
0.0103
0.0015
0.0075
0.0103
0.0015
s (mm) = 356 457 457 356

914
660
427
914
660
427
914
660
427
Floor 3
h (mm) = 711 914 914 711
Story 2
3,962 mm
b (mm) = 660 762 762 660
ρtot = 0.0220 0.0180 0.0180 0.0220
= 0.0075
= 0.0100
= 0.0015
= 0.0075
= 0.0100
= 0.0015
= 0.0075
= 0.0100
= 0.0015
ρsh = 0.0031 0.0040 0.0040 0.0031

= 914
= 660
= 427
= 914
= 660
= 427
= 914
= 660
= 427
s (mm) = 356 457 457 356

Floor 2
h (mm)
b (mm)
h (mm)
b (mm)
h (mm)
b (mm)
s (mm)
s (mm)
s (mm)
h (mm) = 711 914 914 711

Story 1
4,572 mm
ρsh
ρsh
ρsh
ρ´
ρ´
ρ´
660
ρ
b (mm) = 660 762 762

ρtot = 0.0300 0.0330 0.0330 0.0300
ρsh = 0.0036 0.0050 0.0050 0.0036
s (mm) = 356 394 394 356

7,620 mm
Figure B.6 Design information of 8-story non-ductile perimeter frame (OMF-8P) (Liel 2008)
270
APPEDIX C
DATABASE OF NON-DUCTILE AND DUCTILE BEAM-COLUMN
JOINTS
This appendix presents the list of experimental non-ductile and ductile RC beam-column
joint subassemblages available in the literature in order to propose the formulation of
non-ductile and ductile joint shear strength. The tables in this appendix indicate the
material and cross-sectional properties of beams, columns, and joints, and the governing
failure mechanisms for each specimen. Additionally, the tables contain the comparison of
experimental and predicted joint shear strength.
271
C.1 Database of Non-Ductile Beam-Column Joints
Table C.1 Experimental non-ductile beam-column joint database

No. Joint Beam Column v j ,max, pred
Joint Failure
No. Reference Specimen of fcj fyj sj ρj bj fcb fyb ρb hb bb fcc fyc ρc hc bc e ALF
type v j , max,exp mode§
TBs (MPa) (MPa) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (mm) (mm) (mm)
1 Al-Salloum et al. ECON1 EXT 0 33.4 - - - 160 33.4 510 0.009 350 160 33.4 510 0.016 300 160 - 0.20 0.91 J
2 (2011) ECON2 EXT 0 33.4 - - - 160 33.4 510 0.009 350 160 33.4 510 0.016 300 160 - 0.20 0.90 J
3 Alva et al. (2007) LVP2 EXT 0 44.2 602 150 0.003 200 44.2 594 0.011 400 200 44.2 594 0.033 300 200 - 0.15 0.77 J
5 Antonopoulos and C1 EXT 0 19.4 - - - 200 19.4 585 0.009 300 200 19.4 585 0.015 200 200 - 0.06 1.27 J
6 Triantafillou (2003) C2 EXT 0 23.7 - - - 200 23.7 585 0.009 300 200 23.7 585 0.015 200 200 - 0.05 1.22 J
7 Beres et al. (1991) E-01 EXT 0 26.1 - - - 381 26.1 490 0.008 610 356 20.7 517 0.020 406 406 - 0.13 1.18 BJ, A
8 E-04 EXT 0 24.5 483 203 0.002 381 24.5 490 0.008 610 356 29.6 501 0.020 406 406 - 0.09 0.99 BJ, A
9 E-05 EXT 0 31.5 - - - 381 31.5 490 0.008 610 356 39.4 519 0.020 406 406 - 0.24 1.14 BJ, A
10 E-07 EXT 0 29.3 - - - 381 29.3 490 0.008 610 356 22.5 519 0.020 406 406 - 0.12 1.29 BJ, A
11 E-10 EXT 0 20.5 - - - 381 20.5 490 0.008 610 356 15.9 517 0.020 406 406 - 0.59 1.06 BJ, A
12 E-12 EXT 0 18.9 - - - 381 18.9 474 0.008 610 356 19.2 499 0.009 406 406 - 0.14 1.31 BJ, A
13 E-13 EXT 0 17.0 - - - 381 17.0 474 0.008 610 356 14.8 499 0.009 406 406 - 0.18 1.22 BJ, A
14 Biddah (1997) J4 EXT 0 24.0 - - - 610 24.0 440 0.004 610 610 24.0 440 0.007 510 610 - 0.07 1.19 BJ, A
15 Chen (2006) TDP2 EXT 0 23.8 408 165 0.001 215 23.8 333 0.005 330 200 23.8 333 0.009 230 230 - 0.08 1.29 J
16 TDD2 EXT 0 24.0 408 165 0.001 215 24.0 354 0.008 330 200 24.0 354 0.009 230 230 - 0.09 1.13 J
17 TDP1 EXT 0 22.9 424 165 0.001 215 22.9 348 0.005 330 200 22.9 348 0.009 230 230 - 0.09 1.22 BJ
18 Clyde et al. (2000) Unit 2 EXT 0 46.2 - - - 305 46.2 746 0.024 406 305 46.2 742 0.022 457 305 - 0.10 1.26 J
19 Unit 4 EXT 0 41.0 - - - 305 41.0 746 0.024 406 305 41.0 742 0.022 457 305 - 0.25 1.26 J
20 Unit 5 EXT 0 37.0 - - - 305 37.0 746 0.024 406 305 37.0 742 0.022 457 305 - 0.25 1.26 J
21 Unit 6 EXT 0 40.1 - - - 305 40.1 746 0.024 406 305 40.1 742 0.022 457 305 - 0.10 1.21 J
22 El-Amoury (2004) T-S1 EXT 0 30.8 - - - 250 30.8 477 0.013 400 250 30.8 477 0.022 400 250 - 0.19 0.85 BJ
23 T-SB3 EXT 0 30.6 - - - 250 30.6 477 0.013 400 250 30.6 477 0.022 400 250 - 0.20 1.16 BJ, A
24 Filiatrault et al. (1994) Specimen 1 EXT 0 34.0 - - - 350 34.0 475 0.010 450 350 34.0 475 0.023 350 350 - 0.08 0.73 J, A
25 Ghobarah and Said T1 EXT 0 30.8 - - - 250 30.8 425 0.013 400 250 30.8 425 0.022 400 250 - 0.19 0.79 BJ
26 (2002) T2 EXT 0 30.8 - - - 250 30.8 425 0.013 400 250 30.8 425 0.022 400 250 - 0.10 0.84 BJ
27 Hamil (2000) C4ALN0 EXT 0 42.4 - - - 130 42.4 500 0.021 210 110 42.4 500 0.036 150 150 - 0.05 0.96 J
28 C6ALH0 EXT 0 100.8 - - - 130 100.8 500 0.021 210 110 100.8 500 0.036 150 150 - 0.04 1.08 J
29 C6LN0 EXT 0 51.2 - - - 130 51.2 500 0.021 210 110 51.2 500 0.036 150 150 - 0.04 1.18 J
30 C6LN1A EXT 0 48.8 - - - 130 48.8 500 0.021 210 110 48.8 500 0.036 150 150 - 0.05 0.99 J
272
Table C.1 Experimental non-ductile beam-column joint database (continued)
Joint Failure
No. Reference Specimen of fcj fyj sj ρj bj fcb fyb ρb hb bb fcc fyc ρc hc bc e ALF §
type v j , max,exp mode
31 Hamil (2000) C6LN1AE EXT 0 44.0 - - - 130 44.0 500 0.021 210 110 44.0 500 0.036 150 150 - 0.05 0.88 J
32 C7LN0 EXT 0 38.4 - - - 130 38.4 500 0.014 300 110 38.4 500 0.036 150 150 - 0.06 0.93 J
33 C9LN0 EXT 0 40.8 - - - 130 40.8 500 0.014 300 110 40.8 500 0.036 150 150 - 0.05 1.02 J
34 C4ALN1 EXT 0 45.6 500 105 0.004 130 45.6 500 0.041 210 110 45.6 500 0.036 150 150 - 0.05 1.07 J
35 C6LN1r EXT 0 48.8 500 105 0.004 130 48.8 500 0.021 210 110 48.8 500 0.036 150 150 - 0.05 0.98 J
36 C7LN1 EXT 0 37.6 500 150 0.003 130 37.6 500 0.014 300 110 37.6 500 0.036 150 150 - 0.06 0.82 J
37 C7LN3 EXT 0 40.0 500 109 0.003 130 40.0 500 0.014 300 110 40.0 500 0.036 150 150 - 0.06 0.78 J
38 C9LN1 EXT 0 38.4 500 150 0.003 130 38.4 500 0.014 300 110 38.4 500 0.036 150 150 - 0.06 1.00 J
39 C9LN3 EXT 0 36.8 500 109 0.003 130 36.8 500 0.014 300 110 36.8 500 0.036 150 150 - 0.06 0.85 J
40 Hanson and Connor (1967) V EXT 0 22.8 - - - 343 22.8 352 0.019 508 305 37.4 447 0.055 381 381 - 0.52 0.89 J
41 Hoffschild et al. (1995) RCBC1 EXT 0 26.3 - - - 178 26.3 566 0.012 200 165 26.3 566 0.013 190 190 - 0.10 1.01 J
42 Hwang et al. (2005) 0T0 EXT 0 67.3 - - - 370 67.3 430 0.016 450 320 67.3 421 0.037 420 420 - 0.02 1.09 BJ
43 1B8 EXT 0 61.8 - - - 370 61.8 435 0.016 450 320 61.8 430 0.037 420 420 - 0.02 0.84 BJ
44 1T44 EXT 0 72.8 498 293 0.004 370 72.8 430 0.016 450 320 72.8 421 0.037 420 420 - 0.02 1.08 BJ
45 Ilki et al. (2011) JOP EXT 0 8.3 - - - 250 8.3 333 0.007 500 250 8.3 333 0.013 500 250 - 0.13 1.34 J
46 Jinno et al. (1985) NO05 EXT 0 32.0 - - - 280 32.0 392 0.013 380 260 32.0 371 0.038 300 300 - 0.00 1.06 J
47 Kanada et al. (1984) U40L EXT 0 24.3 - - - 280 24.3 387 0.017 380 260 24.3 385 0.026 300 300 - 0.00 1.18 J
48 U20L EXT 0 26.7 - - - 280 26.7 387 0.009 380 260 26.7 387 0.013 300 300 - 0.00 1.19 BJ, A
49 Karayannis et al. (1998) J0 EXT 0 20.8 - - - 100 20.8 580 0.009 200 100 20.8 580 0.016 200 100 - 0.10 0.96 J
50 Karayannis et al. A0 EXT 0 31.6 - - - 200 31.6 580 0.003 300 200 31.6 580 0.005 300 200 - 0.05 0.96 J
51 (2008) B0 EXT 0 31.6 - - - 200 31.6 580 0.008 300 200 31.6 580 0.005 300 200 - 0.05 0.97 J
52 C0 EXT 0 31.6 - - - 200 31.6 580 0.008 300 200 31.6 580 0.013 300 200 - 0.05 1.00 J
53 Kordina (1984) RE4 EXT 0 32.0 250 150 0.003 200 32.0 420 0.011 300 200 32.0 420 0.020 200 200 - 0.04 0.85 J
54 Le-Trung et al. (2010) NS EXT 0 33.8 - - - 151 33.8 324 0.012 200 134 33.8 324 0.015 167 167 - 0.00 1.17 J
55 Liu (2006) RC-1 EXT 0 19.4 - - - 215 19.4 324 0.008 330 200 19.4 324 0.009 230 230 - 0.07 0.94 BJ
56 RC-6 EXT 0 25.9 384 165 0.001 250 25.9 307 0.006 330 250 25.9 307 0.018 250 250 - 0.06 0.84 BJ
57 Oh et al. (1992) EJS-200-0 EXT 0 26.8 - - - 170 26.8 434 0.025 200 140 26.8 417 0.027 200 200 - 0.00 1.18 J
58 EJS-400-0 EXT 0 41.7 - - - 170 41.7 434 0.025 200 140 41.7 417 0.027 200 200 - 0.00 1.12 J
59 Onish et al. (1990) NO. 1 EXT 0 25.9 - - - 250 25.9 389 0.007 250 250 25.9 389 0.012 250 250 - 0.00 0.75 BJ
60 NO. 2 EXT 0 28.1 314 125 0.002 250 28.1 389 0.007 250 250 28.1 389 0.012 250 250 - 0.00 0.72 BJ
273
Joint Failure
61 Onish et al. (1990) NO. 4 EXT 0 25.2 - - - 250 25.2 389 0.012 250 250 25.2 389 0.012 250 250 - 0.00 0.99 BJ
62 Pantelides et al. Unit 1 EXT 0 33.1 - - - 406 33.1 459 0.018 406 406 33.1 470 0.025 406 406 - 0.10 1.04 BJ, A
63 (2002) Unit 2 EXT 0 33.1 - - - 406 33.1 459 0.018 406 406 33.1 470 0.025 406 406 - 0.25 1.11 BJ, A
64 Unit 3 EXT 0 34.0 - - - 406 34.0 459 0.018 406 406 34.0 470 0.025 406 406 - 0.10 1.12 J
65 Unit 4 EXT 0 34.0 - - - 406 34.0 459 0.018 406 406 34.0 470 0.025 406 406 - 0.25 0.98 J
66 Unit 5 EXT 0 31.7 - - - 406 31.7 459 0.018 406 406 31.7 470 0.025 406 406 - 0.10 1.04 J
67 Unit 6 EXT 0 31.7 - - - 406 31.7 459 0.018 406 406 31.7 470 0.025 406 406 - 0.25 1.02 J
68 Parker and Bullman 4b EXT 0 39.2 - - - 275 39.2 570 0.009 500 250 39.2 550 0.009 300 300 - 0.09 1.17 J
69 (1997) 4c EXT 0 36.8 - - - 275 36.8 570 0.009 500 250 36.8 550 0.009 300 300 - 0.17 1.14 J
70 4d EXT 0 39.2 - - - 275 39.2 570 0.009 500 250 39.2 580 0.036 300 300 - 0.00 1.16 J
71 4e EXT 0 40.0 - - - 275 40.0 570 0.009 500 250 40.0 580 0.036 300 300 - 0.10 1.26 J
72 4f EXT 0 37.6 - - - 275 37.6 570 0.009 500 250 37.6 580 0.036 300 300 - 0.18 1.07 J
73 5b EXT 0 43.2 480 150 0.005 275 43.2 485 0.009 500 250 43.2 485 0.022 300 300 - 0.08 0.83 J
74 Reys de Ortiz (1993) BC1 EXT 0 33.8 - - - 200 33.8 720 0.011 400 200 33.8 461 0.015 300 200 - 0.00 1.02 J
75 BC2 EXT 0 37.8 461 200 0.003 200 37.8 720 0.011 400 200 37.8 461 0.015 300 200 - 0.00 0.96 J
76 BC3 EXT 0 33.0 - - - 200 33.0 720 0.011 400 200 33.0 461 0.021 300 200 - 0.00 0.95 J
77 BC5 EXT 0 37.9 - - - 200 37.9 720 0.011 400 200 37.9 461 0.024 300 200 - 0.13 1.05 J
78 BC6 EXT 0 35.0 - - - 200 35.0 720 0.011 400 200 35.0 461 0.024 300 200 - 0.14 1.01 J
79 Sagbas (2007) ED1 EXT 0 31.1 - - - 343 31.1 349 0.014 508 305 38.5 335 0.028 381 381 - 0.09 0.92 BJ
80 Salim (2007) S1 EXT 0 30.2 - - - 165 30.2 460 0.016 300 150 30.2 460 0.025 180 180 - 0.09 1.28 J
81 Sarsam and Phipps (1985) EX2 EXT 0 52.5 - - - 155 52.5 504 0.010 305 155 52.5 504 0.025 205 155 - 0.18 1.15 J
82 Sasmal et al. (2011) SP-1 EXT 0 37.2 500 300 0.001 300 37.2 500 0.007 400 300 37.2 500 0.022 300 300 - 0.09 0.99 J, A
83 Scott (2007) C1AL EXT 0 33.4 250 105 0.004 130 33.4 540 0.011 210 110 33.4 540 0.036 150 150 - 0.07 0.91 J
84 C2 EXT 0 49.4 250 105 0.004 130 49.4 540 0.011 210 110 49.4 540 0.036 150 150 - 0.25 1.11 J
85 C3L EXT 0 35.5 250 105 0.004 130 35.5 540 0.011 210 110 35.5 540 0.036 150 150 - 0.06 0.95 J
86 C4 EXT 0 41.4 250 105 0.004 130 41.4 540 0.021 210 110 41.4 540 0.036 150 150 - 0.29 0.92 J
87 C4A EXT 0 44.3 250 105 0.004 130 44.3 540 0.021 210 110 44.3 540 0.036 150 150 - 0.28 0.88 J
88 C4AL EXT 0 35.8 250 105 0.004 130 35.8 540 0.021 210 110 35.8 540 0.036 150 150 - 0.06 0.90 J
89 C6 EXT 0 39.8 250 105 0.004 130 39.8 540 0.021 210 110 39.8 540 0.036 150 150 - 0.31 1.23 J
90 C6L EXT 0 45.8 250 105 0.004 130 45.8 540 0.021 210 110 45.8 540 0.036 150 150 - 0.05 1.09 J
274
Joint Failure
91 Scott (2007) C7 EXT 0 35.2 250 150 0.003 130 35.2 540 0.014 300 110 35.2 540 0.036 150 150 - 0.35 1.08 J
92 C9 EXT 0 35.9 250 150 0.003 130 35.9 540 0.014 300 110 35.9 540 0.036 150 150 - 0.34 1.24 J
93 Shin et al. (1992) HJC0-R0 EXT 0 78.5 - - - 135 78.5 392 0.024 200 120 78.5 392 0.025 150 150 - 0.01 0.84 BJ
94 HJC1-R0 EXT 0 78.5 235 100 0.004 135 78.5 392 0.024 200 120 78.5 392 0.025 150 150 - 0.01 0.78 BJ
95 Taylor (1974) P1/41/24 EXT 0 26.4 250 100 0.004 120 26.4 500 0.024 200 100 26.4 500 0.041 140 140 - 0.46 0.91 J
96 P2/41/24 EXT 0 29.0 250 100 0.004 120 29.0 500 0.024 200 100 29.0 500 0.041 140 140 - 0.42 0.79 J
97 P2/41/24A EXT 0 37.6 250 100 0.004 120 37.6 500 0.024 200 100 37.6 500 0.041 140 140 - 0.33 0.78 J
98 A3/41/24 EXT 0 21.6 250 100 0.004 120 21.6 500 0.024 200 100 21.6 500 0.041 140 140 - 0.57 0.76 J
99 B3/41/24 EXT 0 17.6 250 100 0.004 120 17.6 500 0.024 200 100 17.6 500 0.041 140 140 - 0.70 0.78 J
100 C3/41/24X EXT 0 40.0 250 100 0.004 120 40.0 500 0.024 200 100 40.0 500 0.041 140 140 - 0.31 1.17 J
101 C3/41/24BY EXT 0 25.6 250 60 0.007 120 25.6 500 0.024 200 100 25.6 500 0.041 140 140 - 0.48 1.09 J
102 C3/41/13Y EXT 0 22.4 250 100 0.004 120 22.4 500 0.013 200 100 22.4 500 0.041 140 140 - 0.55 0.85 J
103 C3/41/24Y EXT 0 48.0 250 100 0.004 120 48.0 500 0.024 200 100 48.0 500 0.041 140 140 - 0.26 0.95 J
104 D3/41/24 EXT 0 42.4 250 100 0.004 120 42.4 500 0.024 200 100 42.4 500 0.041 140 140 - 0.07 0.77 J
105 Tsonos (2007) G1 EXT 0 22.0 500 100 0.013 200 22.0 495 0.009 300 200 22.0 495 0.031 200 200 - 0.23 0.77 J
106 Tsonos and F1 EXT 0 20.0 - - - 200 20.0 520 0.006 300 300 20.0 520 0.023 200 200 - 0.39 0.73 J
107 Papanikolaou (2003) F2 EXT 0 31.0 - - - 200 31.0 530 0.005 300 300 31.0 535 0.008 200 200 - 0.29 0.92 BJ
108 L1 EXT 0 34.0 - - - 200 34.0 520 0.008 300 300 34.0 535 0.008 200 200 - 0.26 0.80 J
109 Tsonos et al. (1992) P1 EXT 0 16.0 - - - 200 16.0 485 0.011 300 200 16.0 485 0.031 200 200 - 0.18 1.04 J
110 V1 EXT 0 23.0 - - - 200 23.0 485 0.011 300 200 23.0 485 0.031 200 200 - 0.18 1.08 J
111 F1 EXT 0 17.0 - - - 200 17.0 485 0.011 300 200 17.0 485 0.031 200 200 - 0.18 0.75 J
112 Uzumeri (1977) 2 EXT 0 31.1 - - - 343 31.1 349 0.014 508 305 38.5 335 0.028 381 381 - 0.41 0.90 BJ
113 Wang and Lee (2004) JE1 EXT 0 20.0 - - - 350 20.0 520 0.011 400 300 20.0 461 0.025 400 400 - 0.00 1.27 J
114 Wong (2005) BS-L EXT 0 30.9 - - - 280 30.9 520 0.009 450 260 30.9 520 0.022 300 300 - 0.15 1.08 J
115 BS-L-300 EXT 0 34.1 - - - 280 34.1 520 0.014 300 260 34.1 520 0.022 300 300 - 0.15 0.89 J
116 BS-L-600 EXT 0 36.4 - - - 280 36.4 520 0.007 600 260 36.4 520 0.022 300 300 - 0.15 1.11 J
117 BS-L-H1T10 EXT 0 33.3 500 160 0.003 280 33.3 520 0.009 450 260 33.3 520 0.022 300 300 - 0.15 0.91 J
118 BS-LL EXT 0 42.1 - - - 280 42.1 520 0.009 450 260 42.1 520 0.022 300 300 - 0.15 0.98 J
119 BS-L-LS EXT 0 31.6 - - - 280 31.6 520 0.009 450 260 31.6 520 0.022 300 300 - 0.15 1.00 J
120 BS-L-V2T10 EXT 0 32.6 - - - 280 32.6 520 0.009 450 260 32.6 520 0.022 300 300 - 0.15 0.88 J
275
Joint Failure
121 Wong (2005) EXT
BS-L-V4T10 0 28.3 - - - 280 28.3 520 0.009 450 260 28.3 520 0.022 300 300 - 0.15 0.82 J
122 BS-U EXT 0 31.0 - - - 280 31.0 520 0.009 450 260 31.0 520 0.022 300 300 - 0.15 1.00 J
123 JA-NN03 EXT 0 44.8 - - - 280 44.8 520 0.007 400 260 44.8 520 0.022 300 300 - 0.03 1.16 BJ
124 JA-NN15 EXT 0 46.0 - - - 280 46.0 520 0.007 400 260 46.0 520 0.022 300 300 - 0.15 1.10 BJ
125 JB-NN03 EXT 0 47.4 - - - 280 47.4 520 0.010 300 260 47.4 520 0.022 300 300 - 0.03 1.17 BJ
126 Akguzel (2011) 3D1-X EXT 1 17.4 - - - 215 17.4 430 0.006 330 200 17.4 430 0.009 230 230 - 0.21 1.12 J
127 3D1-Y EXT 1 17.4 - - - 215 17.4 430 0.006 330 200 17.4 430 0.009 230 230 - 0.19 1.15 J
128 Antonopoulos & Triantafillou (2003) T-C EXT 1 24.6 - - - 200 24.6 585 0.009 300 200 24.6 585 0.015 200 200 - 0.05 1.22 J
129 Engindeniz (2008) SP1-NS EXT 1 25.8 - - - 331 25.8 315 0.013 508 305 25.8 352 0.013 356 356 - 0.10 1.16 J
130 SP1-EW EXT 1 25.8 - - - 331 25.8 316 0.013 508 305 25.8 353 0.013 356 356 - 0.10 1.04 J
131 SP2-NS EXT 1 34.6 - - - 331 34.6 317 0.013 508 305 34.6 354 0.013 356 356 - 0.10 1.18 J
132 SP2-NW EXT 1 34.6 - - - 331 34.6 318 0.013 508 305 34.6 355 0.013 356 356 - 0.10 1.11 J
133 Hanson and Connor (1972) 7 EXT 1 39.3 - - - 343 39.3 350 0.019 508 305 40.4 564 0.055 381 381 - 0.49 0.82 BJ
134 Hassan (2011) U-J-1EW EXT 1 29.6 - - 432 29.6 470 0.020 457 406 29.6 470 0.031 457 457 - 0.30 0.88 J
135 U-J-1NS EXT 1 29.6 - - 432 29.6 470 0.020 457 406 29.6 470 0.031 457 457 - 0.30 1.00 J
136 B-J-1EW EXT 1 30.4 - - 432 30.4 502 0.020 457 406 30.4 502 0.031 457 457 - 0.45 1.11 J
137 B-J-1NS EXT 1 30.4 - - 432 30.4 502 0.020 457 406 30.4 502 0.031 457 457 - 0.45 1.20 J
138 U-BJ-1EW EXT 1 30.3 - - 432 30.3 535 0.007 457 406 30.3 535 0.031 457 457 - 0.45 0.96 BJ
139 U-BJ-1NS EXT 1 30.3 - - 432 30.3 535 0.007 457 406 30.3 535 0.031 457 457 - 0.45 1.04 BJ
140 U-J-2EW EXT 1 30.5 - - 432 30.5 503 0.009 762 406 30.5 535 0.031 457 457 - 0.45 0.87 J
141 U-J-2NS EXT 1 30.5 - - 432 30.5 503 0.009 762 406 30.5 535 0.031 457 457 - 0.45 0.97 J
142 Ilki et al. (2011) JO EXT 1 8.3 - - - 250 8.3 333 0.007 500 250 8.3 333 0.013 500 250 - 0.13 1.04 J
143 Park and Mosalam SP1-EW EXT 1 24.7 - - - 432 24.7 542 0.007 457 406 24.7 498 0.019 457 457 - 0.10 0.94 BJ
144 (2013a) SP1-NS EXT 1 24.7 - - - 432 24.7 542 0.007 457 406 24.7 498 0.019 457 457 - 0.10 0.99 BJ
145 SP2-EW EXT 1 24.3 - - - 432 24.3 498 0.012 457 406 24.3 498 0.019 457 457 - 0.10 0.81 J
146 SP2-NS EXT 1 24.3 - - - 432 24.3 498 0.012 457 406 24.3 498 0.019 457 457 - 0.10 0.81 J
147 SP3-EW EXT 1 24.8 - - - 432 24.8 542 0.004 762 406 24.8 471 0.031 457 457 - 0.10 0.84 BJ
148 SP3-NS EXT 1 24.8 - - - 432 24.8 542 0.004 762 406 24.8 471 0.031 457 457 - 0.10 0.96 BJ
149 SP4-EW EXT 1 27.3 - - - 432 27.3 498 0.007 762 406 27.3 471 0.031 457 457 - 0.10 0.88 J
150 SP4-NS EXT 1 27.3 - - - 432 27.3 498 0.007 762 406 27.3 471 0.031 457 457 - 0.10 1.04 J
276
Joint Failure
151 Sanchez et al. (2009) Test 1 EXT 1 33.0 - - - 200 33.0 493 0.010 300 200 33.0 493 0.026 200 200 - 0.20 0.73 CJ
152 Tsonos (2008) F1 EXT 1 22.0 - - - 200 22.0 540 0.012 300 200 22.0 540 0.015 200 200 - 0.17 0.98 J
153 O2 EXT 1 16.2 - - - 200 16.2 540 0.012 300 200 16.2 540 0.015 200 200 - 0.23 1.07 J
154 Uzumeri (1977) 1 EXT 1 30.8 - - - 343 30.8 347 0.014 508 305 38.5 332 0.028 381 381 - 0.41 0.87 BJ
155 5 EXT 1 31.9 - - - 343 31.9 347 0.014 508 305 38.5 336 0.028 381 381 - 0.41 0.91 BJ
156 Aycardi et al. (1994) Exterior EXT 2 34.5 386 51 0.003 89 34.5 448 0.006 152 76 30.0 448 0.010 102 102 - 0.09 0.75 BJ, A
157 Barnes et al. (2008) Unit 1 EXT 2 27.8 - - 200 27.8 483 0.015 300 200 27.8 483 0.026 200 200 - 0.40 0.93 CJ
158 Unit 2 EXT 2 27.8 - - 200 27.8 483 0.015 300 200 27.8 483 0.026 200 200 - 0.20 0.83 CJ
159 Beres et al. (1991) E-02 EXT 2 26.8 - - - 381 26.8 490 0.008 610 356 20.8 517 0.020 406 406 - 0.13 1.27 BJ, A
160 E-03 EXT 2 22.6 483 203 0.002 381 22.6 483 0.008 610 356 27.4 501 0.020 406 406 - 0.10 1.01 BJ, A
161 E-06 EXT 2 31.0 - - 381 31.0 490 0.008 610 356 34.7 519 0.020 406 406 - 0.27 1.16 BJ, A
162 E-08 EXT 2 30.1 - - 381 30.1 490 0.008 610 356 23.2 519 0.020 406 406 - 0.12 1.16 BJ, A
163 E-09 EXT 2 19.9 - - 381 19.9 490 0.008 610 356 15.9 517 0.020 406 406 - 0.59 1.10 BJ, A
164 E-11 EXT 2 16.4 - - 381 16.4 474 0.008 610 356 16.9 499 0.009 406 406 - 0.16 1.30 BJ, A
165 E-14 EXT 2 21.0 - - 381 21.0 474 0.008 610 356 18.6 499 0.009 406 406 - 0.14 1.20 BJ, A
166 Hanson and Connor (1967) VA EXT 2 37.4 - - - 343 37.4 343 0.019 508 305 36.1 484 0.055 381 381 - 0.54 1.26 BJ
167 Hatamoto and Bessho (1998) F-5 EXT 2 44.5 - - - 350 44.5 392 0.030 400 300 44.5 392 0.036 425 400 - 0.00 1.16 BJ
168 Woo (2003) Model 5 EXT 2 26.5 - - - 151 26.5 385 0.012 200 134 26.5 385 0.015 167 167 - 0.00 0.94 BJ, A
169 Alire (2002) PEER0995 INT 0 60.4 - - - 406 60.4 504 0.011 508 406 60.4 505 0.012 457 406 - 0.11 1.18 BJ
170 PEER1595 INT 0 61.5 - - - 406 61.5 841 0.009 508 406 61.5 538 0.035 457 406 - 0.11 0.95 BJ
171 PEER4150 INT 0 33.0 - - - 406 33.0 545 0.022 508 406 33.0 545 0.035 457 406 - 0.10 0.84 BJ
172 Almusallam and IC1 INT 0 30.0 - - - 160 30.0 420 0.009 350 160 30.0 420 0.016 300 160 - 0.20 0.80 BJ
173 Al-Salloum (2007) IC2 INT 0 25.0 - - - 160 25.0 420 0.009 350 160 25.0 420 0.016 300 160 - 0.20 1.04 BJ
174 Beres et al. (1991) I-11 INT 0 29.9 - - - 381 29.9 459 0.008 610 356 29.8 487 0.020 406 406 - 0.09 1.23 BJ
175 I-13 INT 0 25.0 - - - 381 25.0 341 0.008 610 356 27.0 550 0.020 406 406 - 0.10 0.93 BJ
176 I-15 INT 0 23.4 - - - 381 23.4 461 0.008 610 356 16.2 497 0.020 406 406 - 0.58 1.07 BJ
177 I-17 INT 0 21.2 - - - 381 21.2 472 0.008 610 356 15.9 472 0.009 406 406 - 0.17 1.25 BJ
178 I-20 INT 0 20.0 - - - 381 20.0 461 0.008 610 356 17.7 478 0.009 406 406 - 0.53 1.03 BJ
179 Chang et al. (1997) BCB1 INT 0 54.7 - - - 300 54.7 354 0.013 400 300 54.7 354 0.023 500 300 - 0.18 1.17 BJ
180 BCS1 INT 0 54.7 - - - 300 54.7 354 0.013 400 300 54.7 354 0.023 500 300 - 0.18 1.00 BJ
277
Joint Failure
181 Dhakal et al. (2005) C1PD INT 0 31.6 - - - 325 31.6 538 0.027 550 300 31.6 538 0.022 500 350 - 0.11 1.33 J
182 C1ND INT 0 31.6 - - - 325 31.6 538 0.027 550 300 31.6 538 0.022 500 350 - 0.11 1.15 J
183 C4ND INT 0 32.7 - - - 350 32.7 538 0.033 550 300 32.7 538 0.025 400 400 - 0.11 1.20 J
184 C1HD INT 0 31.6 - - - 325 31.6 538 0.027 550 300 31.6 538 0.022 500 350 - 0.11 1.18 J
185 C4HD INT 0 32.7 - - - 350 32.7 538 0.033 550 300 32.7 538 0.025 400 400 - 0.11 1.24 J
186 Goto and Joh (1996) J-OH INT 0 31.5 - - - 250 31.5 426 0.024 350 200 31.5 578 0.038 300 300 - 0.28 1.01 J
187 C5-LO INT 0 32.7 360 117 0.000 325 32.7 426 0.024 350 200 32.7 578 0.038 200 450 - 0.27 0.84 J
188 Hakuto et al. (2000) O4 INT 0 52.9 - - - 380 52.9 308 0.014 500 300 52.9 321 0.017 460 460 - 0.00 1.30 BJ
189 O5 INT 0 32.8 - - - 380 32.8 306 0.012 500 300 32.8 321 0.017 460 460 - 0.00 0.92 BJ
190 Kulkarni and Li (2007) JA INT 0 33.7 - - - 325 33.7 484 0.011 500 250 33.7 484 0.016 400 400 - 0.30 0.78 BJ
191 JB INT 0 34.8 - - - 325 34.8 484 0.011 500 250 34.8 484 0.016 400 400 - 0.30 0.79 BJ
192 Lee et al. (2010) JI0 INT 0 27.0 - - - 350 27.0 456 0.009 600 300 27.0 456 0.025 400 400 - 0.19 0.83 J
193 Li et al. (2002) A1 INT 0 32.3 - - - 600 32.3 503 0.006 600 300 32.3 460 0.025 300 900 - 0.00 1.01 J
194 M1 INT 0 32.0 499 150 0.001 600 32.0 503 0.006 600 300 32.0 460 0.025 300 900 - 0.00 1.02 BJ
195 Liu and Park (1998) Unit 2 INT 0 48.9 - - - 380 48.9 321 0.010 500 300 48.9 321 0.020 300 460 - 0.12 1.06 CJ
196 Noguchi and NO2 INT 0 34.1 354 150 0.001 250 34.1 325 0.015 300 200 34.1 388 0.023 300 300 - 0.06 1.12 BJ
197 Kurusu (1988) NO4 INT 0 34.1 354 150 0.001 250 34.1 388 0.012 300 200 34.1 388 0.023 300 300 - 0.06 0.98 BJ
198 Ohwada (1970) No. 1 INT 0 21.5 - - - 175 21.5 392 0.013 300 150 21.5 392 0.032 200 200 - 0.18 0.84 J
199 Ohwada (1973) P-1 INT 0 11.6 - - - 175 11.6 400 0.015 300 150 11.6 400 0.040 200 200 - 0.34 1.15 J
200 P-2 INT 0 13.3 - - - 175 13.3 385 0.013 300 150 13.3 385 0.032 200 200 - 0.29 0.99 J
201 P-3 INT 0 12.8 - - - 175 12.8 385 0.010 300 150 12.8 385 0.032 200 200 - 0.31 0.83 J
202 Ohwada (1976) JO-0 INT 0 20.1 - - - 100 20.1 402 0.039 150 100 20.1 402 0.034 150 100 - 0.00 1.15 J
203 Ohwada (1977) JO-1 INT 0 20.0 - - - 150 20.0 432 0.020 150 150 20.0 432 0.034 150 150 - 0.00 1.06 J
204 Ohwada (1980) JO-3 INT 0 20.6 - - - 150 20.6 394 0.020 150 150 20.6 394 0.034 150 150 - 0.00 0.91 J
205 JO-4 INT 0 14.0 - - - 150 14.0 360 0.020 150 150 14.0 360 0.068 150 150 - 0.00 0.81 J
206 LJO-1 INT 0 20.0 - - - 150 20.0 372 0.020 150 150 20.0 372 0.068 150 150 - 0.00 0.91 J
207 LJO-3 INT 0 20.0 - - - 150 20.0 372 0.020 150 150 20.0 372 0.045 150 150 - 0.00 0.99 J
208 Ohwada (1981) LJO-4 INT 0 17.1 - - - 135 17.1 368 0.018 200 120 17.1 368 0.023 150 150 - 0.16 1.07 J
209 LJO-5 INT 0 17.1 - - - 135 17.1 368 0.018 200 120 17.1 368 0.023 150 150 - 0.41 1.00 CJ
210 Ota et al. (2004) RC INT 0 74.2 944 200 0.002 340 74.2 538 0.022 400 280 55.5 538 0.025 400 400 - 0.08 1.09 BJ
278
Joint Failure
211 Owada (1984) LJO-6 INT 0 28.9 - - - 135 28.9 357 0.018 200 120 28.9 357 0.023 150 150 - 0.23 0.81 J
212 Owada (2000) JO-5 INT 0 37.6 - - - 135 37.6 349 0.018 200 120 37.6 349 0.023 150 150 - 0.17 0.81 J
213 Pessiki et al. (1990) I-01 INT 0 32.7 - - - 381 32.7 483 0.013 610 356 38.3 456 0.020 406 406 - 0.25 1.09 BJ
214 I-02 INT 0 32.5 - - - 381 32.5 483 0.013 610 356 38.7 456 0.020 406 406 - 0.24 1.11 BJ
215 I-03 INT 0 30.4 - - - 381 30.4 483 0.013 610 356 30.8 486 0.018 406 406 - 0.31 1.11 BJ
216 I-04 INT 0 31.9 - - - 381 31.9 483 0.013 610 356 31.7 518 0.019 406 406 - 0.30 1.15 BJ
217 I-05 INT 0 29.8 427 203 0.002 381 29.8 531 0.013 610 356 28.6 427 0.019 406 406 - 0.33 1.13 BJ
218 I-07 INT 0 26.0 - - - 381 26.0 481 0.008 610 356 21.7 461 0.020 406 406 - 0.43 1.04 BJ
219 I-08 INT 0 25.4 - - - 381 25.4 481 0.008 610 356 22.0 461 0.020 406 406 - 0.43 1.06 BJ
220 I-09 INT 0 29.1 - - - 381 29.1 425 0.008 610 356 28.2 461 0.020 406 406 - 0.10 1.06 BJ
221 Pimanmas and Chaimahawan (2010) J0 INT 0 27.3 - - - 188 27.3 480 0.015 300 175 24.2 480 0.029 350 200 - 0.17 1.16 J
222 Supaviriyakit and Pimanmas (2008) J1 INT 0 26.3 - - - 188 26.3 480 0.016 300 175 23.2 480 0.029 350 200 - 0.13 1.12 J
223 Walker (2001) PEER14 INT 0 31.8 - - - 406 31.8 423 0.009 508 406 31.8 423 0.014 457 406 - 0.11 1.02 BJ
224 CD1514 INT 0 29.8 - - - 406 29.8 423 0.009 508 406 29.8 423 0.014 457 406 - 0.12 0.96 BJ
225 CD3014 INT 0 42.5 - - - 406 42.5 423 0.009 508 406 42.5 423 0.014 457 406 - 0.08 0.97 BJ
226 PADH14 INT 0 42.9 - - - 406 42.9 423 0.009 508 406 42.9 423 0.014 457 406 - 0.08 0.93 BJ
227 PEER22 INT 0 38.4 - - - 406 38.4 527 0.013 508 406 38.4 538 0.028 457 406 - 0.09 1.04 BJ
228 CD3022 INT 0 38.1 - - - 406 38.1 516 0.013 508 406 38.1 510 0.028 457 406 - 0.09 0.96 BJ
229 PADH22 INT 0 36.3 - - - 406 36.3 527 0.013 508 406 36.3 538 0.028 457 406 - 0.10 0.96 BJ
230 Wang and Hsu (2009) Ko-JI1 INT 0 31.7 - - - 300 31.7 533 0.016 500 300 31.7 533 0.034 300 300 - 0.14 0.93 J
231 Ho-JI1 INT 0 26.2 - - - 350 26.2 541 0.011 400 300 26.2 541 0.025 400 400 - 0.00 0.97 J
232 Hanson and Connor (1972) 8 INT 1 41.8 - - - 343 41.8 306 0.019 508 305 41.2 564 0.055 381 381 - 0.48 0.94 BJ
233 Ohwada (1976) JE-0 INT 1 20.1 - - - 100 20.1 402 0.039 150 100 20.1 402 0.034 150 100 - 0.00 1.17 J
234 Ohwada (1977) JE-1 INT 1 20.0 - - - 150 20.0 432 0.020 150 150 20.0 432 0.034 150 150 - 0.00 0.88 J
235 Aycardi et al. (1994) Interior INT 2 34.5 - - - 102 34.5 448 0.009 76 152 30.0 448 0.010 102 102 - 0.09 1.06 BJ, A
236 Beres et al. (1991) I-12 INT 2 30.8 - - - 381 30.8 459 0.008 610 356 16.5 487 0.020 406 406 - 0.57 1.18 BJ
237 I-14 INT 2 25.0 - - - 381 25.0 341 0.008 610 356 26.5 550 0.020 406 406 - 0.10 1.08 BJ
238 I-16 INT 2 24.8 - - - 381 24.8 461 0.008 610 356 17.2 497 0.020 406 406 - 0.55 1.14 BJ
239 I-18 INT 2 21.9 - - - 381 21.9 472 0.008 610 356 16.8 472 0.009 406 406 - 0.16 1.31 BJ
240 I-19 INT 2 18.9 - - - 381 18.9 461 0.008 610 356 16.7 478 0.009 406 406 - 0.56 1.13 BJ
279
Joint Failure
241 Hanson and Connor (1972) 9 INT 2 26.2 - - - 343 26.2 306 0.019 508 305 41.3 430 0.055 381 381 - 0.47 0.89 BJ
242 Hatamoto and Bessho F-3 INT 2 44.5 - - - 363 44.5 392 0.028 400 325 44.5 392 0.036 425 400 - 0.23 0.99 BJ
243 (1998) F-4 INT 2 44.5 - - - 363 44.5 392 0.028 400 325 44.5 392 0.036 425 400 - 0.00 1.04 BJ
244 Li et al. (2009) AS1 INT 2 31.4 - - - 300 31.4 473 0.011 400 200 31.4 473 0.031 200 400 - 0.00 0.85 J
245 AL1 INT 2 30.3 - - - 300 30.3 473 0.011 400 200 30.3 473 0.031 200 400 - 0.00 0.95 J
246 AS2 INT 2 31.9 - - - 200 31.9 473 0.011 400 200 31.9 473 0.031 400 200 - 0.00 1.15 J
247 AL2 INT 2 32.1 - - - 200 32.1 473 0.011 400 200 32.1 473 0.031 400 200 - 0.00 1.17 J
248 MAS1 INT 2 31.2 252 135 0.003 300 31.2 473 0.011 400 200 31.2 473 0.031 200 400 - 0.00 0.90 J
249 Ohwada (1977) JI-1 INT 2 20.0 - - - 150 20.0 432 0.020 150 150 20.0 432 0.034 150 150 - 0.00 0.84 J
250 Ohwada (1980) JI-3 INT 2 20.6 - - - 150 20.6 394 0.020 150 150 20.6 394 0.034 150 150 - 0.00 0.79 J
251 JI-4 INT 2 20.6 - - - 150 20.6 394 0.020 150 150 20.6 394 0.034 150 150 - 0.00 0.99 J
252 JI-5 INT 2 20.6 - - - 150 20.6 394 0.020 150 150 20.6 394 0.034 150 150 - 0.00 0.94 J
253 JXY-1 INT 2 14.0 - - - 150 14.0 360 0.020 150 150 14.0 360 0.068 150 150 - 0.00 0.90 J
254 LJXY-1 INT 2 20.0 - - - 150 20.0 372 0.020 150 150 20.0 372 0.068 150 150 - 0.00 0.83 BJ
255 LJXY-3 INT 2 20.0 - - - 150 20.0 372 0.020 150 150 20.0 372 0.068 150 150 - 0.00 0.81 BJ
256 Ohwada (1981) LJXY-5 INT 2 17.1 - - - 135 17.1 368 0.018 200 120 17.1 368 0.023 150 150 - 0.41 0.96 CJ
257 Owada (1984) LJXY-6 INT 2 28.9 - - - 135 28.9 357 0.018 200 120 28.9 357 0.023 150 150 - 0.23 0.88 CJ
258 LJXY-7 INT 2 28.9 - - - 135 28.9 357 0.018 200 120 28.9 357 0.023 150 150 - 0.23 0.79 CJ
259 LJXY-8 INT 2 28.9 - - - 135 28.9 357 0.018 200 120 28.9 357 0.023 150 150 - 0.23 0.93 CJ
260 Owada (2000) JXY-3 INT 2 37.6 - - - 135 37.6 349 0.018 200 120 37.6 349 0.023 150 150 - 0.17 0.84 CJ
261 Pessiki et al. (1990) I-10 INT 2 22.3 - - - 381 22.3 425 0.008 610 356 27.7 476 0.020 406 406 - 0.34 1.09 BJ
Mean 1.01
Minimum 0.72
Maximum 1.34
COV 0.15
§ J and BJ refer to joint shear failure without and without beam yielding, respectively.
Note that subscripts j, b, and c indicate joint, beam, and column, respectively.
280
C.2 Database of Ductile Beam-Column Joints
Table C.2 Experimental ductile beam-column joint database

Joint Failure
No. Reference Specimen of fcj fyj sj ρj bj fcb fyb ρb hb bb fcc fyc ρc hc bc e ALF
type v j , max,exp mode§
1 Adachi et al. (1995) A0 EXT 0 73.9 939 50 0.005 190 73.9 969 0.020 250 160 73.9 969 0.031 220 220 - 0.06 1.05 J
3 LVP5 EXT 0 25.9 602 82 0.006 200 25.9 594 0.011 400 200 25.9 594 0.033 300 200 - 0.15 0.81 J
4 Chen and Chen (1999) JC EXT 0 20.0 397 75 0.006 400 20.0 439 0.016 500 300 20.0 457 0.016 500 500 - 0.00 0.83 BJ
5 JE EXT 0 19.9 397 75 0.006 400 19.9 439 0.016 500 300 19.9 457 0.016 500 500 100 0.00 0.78 BJ
6 Chun and Kim (2004) JC-2 EXT 0 40.8 384 150 0.003 425 40.8 392 0.020 500 350 40.8 392 0.025 500 500 - 0.05 0.89 BJ
7 Chutarat and Aboutaha (2003) Specimen 1 EXT 0 27.6 365 102 0.012 381 27.6 483 0.014 457 356 27.6 483 0.028 406 406 - 0.00 0.95 BJ
8 Ehsani and LL8 EXT 0 55.8 437 102 0.012 337 55.8 437 0.015 508 318 55.8 437 0.028 356 356 - 0.04 0.97 BJ
9 Alameddine (1991) LH8 EXT 0 55.8 437 61 0.020 337 55.8 437 0.019 508 318 55.8 437 0.028 356 356 - 0.04 1.12 BJ
10 HH8 EXT 0 55.8 437 61 0.020 337 55.8 437 0.019 508 318 55.8 437 0.032 356 356 - 0.07 0.95 BJ
11 LH11 EXT 0 73.8 437 61 0.020 337 73.8 437 0.015 508 318 73.8 437 0.028 356 356 - 0.03 1.03 BJ
12 HH11 EXT 0 73.8 437 61 0.020 337 73.8 437 0.019 508 318 73.8 437 0.032 356 356 - 0.06 1.02 BJ
13 LL14 EXT 0 93.8 437 102 0.012 337 93.8 437 0.015 508 318 93.8 437 0.028 356 356 - 0.02 1.15 BJ
14 LH14 EXT 0 93.8 437 61 0.020 337 93.8 437 0.015 508 318 93.8 437 0.028 356 356 - 0.02 1.18 BJ
15 HH14 EXT 0 93.8 437 61 0.020 337 93.8 437 0.019 508 318 93.8 437 0.032 356 356 - 0.04 1.11 BJ
16 HL8 EXT 0 55.8 437 102 0.012 337 55.8 437 0.019 508 318 55.8 437 0.032 356 356 - 0.07 0.92 J
17 LL11 EXT 0 73.8 437 102 0.012 337 73.8 437 0.015 508 318 73.8 437 0.028 356 356 - 0.03 1.20 J
18 HL11 EXT 0 73.8 437 102 0.012 337 73.8 437 0.019 508 318 73.8 437 0.032 356 356 - 0.06 1.04 J
19 HL14 EXT 0 93.8 437 102 0.012 337 93.8 437 0.019 508 318 93.8 437 0.032 356 356 - 0.04 1.25 J
20 Ehsani and Wight 1B EXT 0 33.6 437 112 0.013 279 33.6 331 0.018 480 259 33.6 490 0.025 300 300 - 0.06 0.82 J
21 (1985) 2B EXT 0 35.0 437 99 0.015 279 35.0 331 0.020 439 259 35.0 490 0.032 300 300 - 0.07 0.85 J
22 3B EXT 0 40.9 437 84 0.017 279 40.9 331 0.018 480 259 40.9 490 0.025 300 300 - 0.06 0.91 BJ
23 5B EXT 0 24.3 437 109 0.012 320 24.3 331 0.018 480 300 24.3 414 0.044 340 340 - 0.13 0.79 J
24 6B EXT 0 38.4 437 127 0.010 320 38.4 331 0.016 480 300 38.4 490 0.020 340 340 - 0.07 1.22 BJ
25 Ehsani et al. (1987) NO3 EXT 0 64.7 437 76 0.019 279 64.7 448 0.012 439 259 64.7 448 0.032 300 300 - 0.07 1.02 BJ
26 NO4 EXT 0 67.3 437 99 0.015 279 67.3 448 0.015 439 259 67.3 448 0.040 300 300 - 0.05 0.88 BJ
27 NO5 EXT 0 44.6 437 99 0.015 279 44.6 448 0.017 439 259 44.6 448 0.025 300 300 - 0.06 0.99 BJ
28 Fujii and Morita (1987) GOO EXT 0 45.6 367 70 0.004 198 45.6 369 0.020 250 175 45.6 369 0.031 220 220 - 0.04 1.09 BJ
29 Fujii and Morita B1 EXT 0 30.0 291 52 0.005 190 30.0 1069 0.017 250 160 30.0 387 0.031 220 220 - 0.07 1.17 J
30 (1991) B2 EXT 0 30.0 291 52 0.005 190 30.0 409 0.016 250 160 30.0 387 0.031 220 220 - 0.07 0.95 J
281
Table C.2 Experimental ductile beam-column joint database (continued)
Joint Failure
31 Fujii and Morita B3 EXT 0 30.0 291 52 0.005 190 30.0 1069 0.017 250 160 30.0 387 0.031 220 220 - 0.24 1.05 J
32 (1991) B4 EXT 0 30.0 291 35 0.015 190 30.0 1069 0.017 250 160 30.0 387 0.031 220 220 - 0.24 1.09 J
33 Hamada et al. (1999) J-10 EXT 0 57.4 950 55 0.005 350 57.4 745 0.018 430 250 34.3 527 0.026 450 450 - -0.19 0.90 BJ
34 Hamil (2000) C4ALN3 EXT 0 52.0 500 63 0.006 130 52.0 500 0.041 210 110 52.0 500 0.036 150 150 - 0.04 0.84 J
35 C4ALN5 EXT 0 63.0 500 31 0.012 130 63.0 500 0.041 210 110 63.0 500 0.036 150 150 - 0.04 0.86 J
36 C6LN3 EXT 0 61.0 500 63 0.006 130 61.0 500 0.041 210 110 61.0 500 0.036 150 150 - 0.04 1.14 J
37 C6LN5 EXT 0 46.0 500 31 0.012 130 46.0 500 0.041 210 110 46.0 500 0.036 150 150 - 0.05 0.86 J
38 C6ALH3 EXT 0 121.0 500 63 0.006 130 121.0 500 0.041 210 110 121.0 500 0.036 150 150 - 0.04 1.06 J
39 C7LN5 EXT 0 50.0 500 31 0.012 130 50.0 500 0.027 300 110 50.0 500 0.036 150 150 - 0.04 0.83 J
40 C9LN5 EXT 0 44.0 500 31 0.012 130 44.0 500 0.027 300 110 44.0 500 0.036 150 150 - 0.05 0.93 J
41 Hanson and Connor (1967) I-A EXT 0 22.1 364 82 0.005 343 22.1 330 0.019 508 305 36.7 481 0.055 381 381 - 0.54 0.74 BJ
42 Hwang et al. (2005) 3T3 EXT 0 69.0 471 97 0.003 370 69.0 430 0.016 450 320 69.0 421 0.037 420 420 - 0.02 0.95 BJ
43 2T4 EXT 0 71.0 498 146 0.004 370 71.0 430 0.016 450 320 71.0 421 0.037 420 420 - 0.02 1.02 BJ
44 Ishida et al. (1996) A-0 EXT 0 27.0 271 50 0.005 190 27.0 700 0.015 250 160 27.0 700 0.031 220 220 - 0.15 1.01 J
45 A-0-F EXT 0 27.0 271 50 0.005 190 27.0 467 0.015 250 160 27.0 467 0.031 220 220 - 0.15 0.92 BJ
46 Iwaoka et al. (2005) J15-3 EXT 0 180.0 935 80 0.002 295 180.0 682 0.036 400 260 180.0 690 0.027 380 330 - 0.05 1.04 J
47 J10-1 EXT 0 115.0 935 80 0.002 295 115.0 682 0.036 400 260 115.0 690 0.027 380 330 - 0.05 0.96 J
48 Jinno et al. (1985) NO06 EXT 0 28.9 304 100 0.004 280 28.9 392 0.013 380 260 28.9 371 0.038 300 300 - 0.00 1.06 BJ
49 NO07 EXT 0 28.9 304 100 0.004 280 28.9 392 0.013 380 260 28.9 371 0.038 300 300 - 0.00 1.07 BJ
50 NO08 EXT 0 28.9 304 50 0.008 280 28.9 392 0.013 380 260 28.9 371 0.038 300 300 - 0.00 1.10 BJ
51 NO09 EXT 0 28.9 304 100 0.008 280 28.9 392 0.013 380 260 28.9 371 0.038 300 300 - 0.00 1.08 BJ
52 NO10 EXT 0 28.9 304 100 0.008 280 28.9 392 0.013 380 260 28.9 371 0.038 300 300 - 0.00 1.02 BJ
53 Joh et al. (1989) LO-NO EXT 0 27.9 380 110 0.001 275 27.9 606 0.024 350 200 27.9 581 0.025 260 350 - 0.02 1.13 J
54 HO-NO EXT 0 29.6 380 38 0.004 275 29.6 606 0.024 350 200 29.6 581 0.025 260 350 - 0.02 0.99 J
55 MM-NO EXT 0 27.8 380 38 0.004 275 27.8 606 0.024 350 200 27.8 581 0.028 260 350 - 0.02 1.00 J
56 HH-NO EXT 0 29.3 380 38 0.004 275 29.3 606 0.024 350 200 29.3 581 0.025 260 350 - 0.02 0.86 J
57 H'O-NO EXT 0 31.5 380 38 0.004 275 31.5 606 0.024 350 200 31.5 581 0.025 260 350 - 0.02 1.08 J
58 LO-N96 EXT 0 31.5 380 100 0.002 275 31.5 606 0.024 350 200 31.5 581 0.034 260 350 - 0.30 1.04 J
59 HH-N96 EXT 0 30.5 380 38 0.004 275 30.5 606 0.024 350 200 30.5 581 0.034 260 350 - 0.31 0.92 J
60 Joh et al. (1990) NRC-J1 EXT 0 51.5 815 36 0.006 225 51.5 1091 0.032 250 200 51.5 1091 0.024 250 250 - 0.02 1.03 J
282
Joint Failure
62 NRC-J3 EXT 0 86.9 840 36 0.003 225 86.9 1091 0.032 250 200 86.9 1091 0.024 250 250 - 0.02 1.02 J
63 NRC-J4 EXT 0 88.9 815 36 0.006 225 88.9 1091 0.032 250 200 88.9 1091 0.024 250 250 - 0.30 1.00 J
65 NRC-J6 EXT 0 32.2 762 36 0.006 225 32.2 753 0.024 250 200 32.2 1092 0.024 250 250 - 0.02 1.09 J
66 NRC-J7 EXT 0 57.7 762 35 0.006 225 57.7 753 0.016 350 200 57.7 1092 0.024 250 250 - 0.02 0.85 J
67 NRC-J8 EXT 0 53.7 717 42 0.002 225 53.7 675 0.025 250 200 53.7 675 0.028 250 250 - 0.02 1.19 J
68 NRC-J9 EXT 0 49.3 770 36 0.006 225 49.3 675 0.017 250 200 49.3 675 0.020 250 250 - 0.02 0.85 J
69 NRC-J10 EXT 0 65.7 760 42 0.002 225 65.7 675 0.017 250 200 65.7 675 0.020 250 250 - 0.02 1.25 BJ
70 NRC-J11 EXT 0 78.7 760 42 0.002 225 78.7 675 0.011 250 200 78.7 675 0.020 250 250 - 0.02 1.26 BJ
71 NRC-J12 EXT 0 83.7 717 42 0.002 225 83.7 698 0.025 250 200 83.7 698 0.024 250 250 - 0.02 0.79 BJ
72 NRC-J13 EXT 0 79.4 770 36 0.006 225 79.4 698 0.025 250 200 79.4 698 0.024 250 250 - 0.02 0.98 BJ
73 NRC-J14 EXT 0 64.9 717 42 0.002 225 64.9 547 0.025 250 200 64.9 698 0.024 250 250 - 0.02 1.09 BJ
74 Kaku and Asakusa 3 EXT 0 41.7 250 52 0.005 190 41.7 381 0.016 220 160 41.7 360 0.016 220 220 - 0.00 0.97 BJ
75 (1991) 4 EXT 0 44.7 281 52 0.001 190 44.7 381 0.016 220 160 44.7 360 0.016 220 220 - 0.17 0.81 BJ
76 5 EXT 0 36.7 281 52 0.001 190 36.7 381 0.016 220 160 36.7 360 0.016 220 220 - 0.09 0.83 BJ
77 6 EXT 0 40.4 281 52 0.001 190 40.4 381 0.016 220 160 40.4 360 0.016 220 220 - 0.00 1.25 BJ
78 9 EXT 0 40.6 250 52 0.005 190 40.6 381 0.016 220 160 40.6 395 0.018 220 220 - 0.00 0.89 BJ
79 11 EXT 0 41.9 281 52 0.001 190 41.9 381 0.016 220 160 41.9 395 0.018 220 220 - 0.08 0.82 BJ
80 12 EXT 0 35.1 281 52 0.001 190 35.1 381 0.016 220 160 35.1 395 0.018 220 220 - 0.00 0.87 BJ
81 13 EXT 0 46.4 250 52 0.005 190 46.4 381 0.016 220 160 46.4 395 0.018 220 220 - -0.04 1.04 BJ
82 14 EXT 0 41.0 281 52 0.001 190 41.0 381 0.016 220 160 41.0 381 0.016 220 220 - 0.08 0.81 BJ
83 15 EXT 0 39.7 281 52 0.001 190 39.7 381 0.016 220 160 39.7 381 0.016 220 220 - 0.08 0.78 BJ
84 17 EXT 0 39.7 250 52 0.005 190 39.7 381 0.016 220 160 39.7 395 0.011 220 220 - 0.00 1.15 BJ
85 Kanada et al. (1984) U41L EXT 0 26.7 387 100 0.004 280 26.7 387 0.017 380 260 26.7 385 0.026 300 300 - 0.00 1.19 BJ
86 U42L EXT 0 30.1 387 50 0.008 280 30.1 387 0.017 380 260 30.1 385 0.026 300 300 - 0.00 1.33 BJ
87 Kawai et al. (1997) O8V EXT 0 88.1 928 65 0.003 400 88.1 522 0.024 450 325 88.1 522 0.027 475 475 - 0.67 0.90 BJ
88 Lee and Lee (2000) EJ+0.0 EXT 0 19.0 673 75 0.003 250 19.0 451 0.015 300 200 19.0 451 0.027 300 300 - 0.00 1.22 J
89 EJ+0.1 EXT 0 19.0 673 75 0.003 250 19.0 451 0.015 300 200 19.0 451 0.027 300 300 - 0.10 1.13 J
90 Lee and Lee (2001) HJ2-0.0 EXT 0 38.0 671 96 0.002 250 38.0 540 0.022 300 200 38.0 504 0.027 300 300 - 0.00 1.02 J
283
Joint Failure
91 Lee and Lee (2001) HJ2-0.15 EXT 0 38.0 671 96 0.002 250 38.0 540 0.022 300 200 38.0 504 0.027 300 300 - 0.15 1.00 J
92 HJ2-0.30 EXT 0 38.0 671 96 0.002 250 38.0 540 0.022 300 200 38.0 504 0.027 300 300 - 0.30 1.08 J
93 HJ5-0.0 EXT 0 38.0 671 32 0.006 250 38.0 540 0.022 300 200 38.0 504 0.027 300 300 - 0.00 1.00 J
94 HJ5-0.15 EXT 0 38.0 671 32 0.006 250 38.0 540 0.022 300 200 38.0 504 0.027 300 300 - 0.15 1.15 J
95 HJ5-0.3 EXT 0 38.0 671 32 0.006 250 38.0 540 0.022 300 200 38.0 504 0.027 300 300 - 0.30 1.24 J
96 NJ2-0.0 EXT 0 23.5 671 96 0.002 250 23.5 442 0.016 300 200 23.5 504 0.027 300 300 - 0.00 0.97 J
97 NJ2-0.15 EXT 0 23.5 671 96 0.002 250 23.5 442 0.016 300 200 23.5 504 0.027 300 300 - 0.15 1.01 J
98 NJ2-0.3 EXT 0 23.5 671 96 0.002 250 23.5 442 0.016 300 200 23.5 504 0.027 300 300 - 0.30 1.01 J
99 NJ5-0.0 EXT 0 23.5 671 32 0.006 250 23.5 442 0.016 300 200 23.5 504 0.027 300 300 - 0.00 1.01 J
100 NJ5-0.15 EXT 0 23.5 671 32 0.006 250 23.5 442 0.016 300 200 23.5 504 0.027 300 300 - 0.15 1.08 J
101 NJ5-0.3 EXT 0 23.5 671 32 0.006 250 23.5 442 0.016 300 200 23.5 504 0.027 300 300 - 0.30 1.08 J
102 Megget (1971) Unit 1 EXT 0 28.3 317 127 0.006 293 28.3 286 0.013 460 255 28.3 305 0.012 380 330 - 0.00 1.03 BJ
103 Megget (1974) Unit A EXT 0 22.1 317 50 0.016 293 22.1 374 0.017 460 255 22.1 365 0.025 380 330 - 0.07 0.88 BJ
104 Nishiyama et al. (1989) RC2 EXT 0 29.8 335 50 0.008 250 29.8 425 0.025 300 200 29.8 425 0.032 300 300 - 0.04 0.95 BJ
105 Ogawa et al. (2003) BUCS EXT 0 18.6 402 50 0.004 280 18.6 388 0.010 400 260 18.6 388 0.027 300 300 - 0.20 0.88 J
106 BUVS EXT 0 18.6 402 50 0.004 280 18.6 389 0.010 400 260 18.6 388 0.027 300 300 - 0.62 1.03 J
107 Oh et al. (1992) EJS-200-0.3N EXT 0 26.8 375 64 0.004 170 26.8 434 0.025 200 140 26.8 417 0.027 200 200 - 0.00 1.01 J
108 EJS-200-2-0.6N EXT 0 24.0 375 32 0.007 170 24.0 434 0.025 200 140 24.0 417 0.027 200 200 - 0.00 0.98 J
109 EJS-200-2-0.6N' EXT 0 24.0 375 64 0.004 170 24.0 434 0.025 200 140 24.0 417 0.031 200 200 - 0.00 0.95 J
110 EJS-400-0.3N EXT 0 41.7 375 64 0.004 170 41.7 434 0.025 200 140 41.7 417 0.027 200 200 - 0.00 0.96 J
111 EJS-400-0.6N EXT 0 44.6 375 32 0.007 170 44.6 434 0.025 200 140 44.6 417 0.027 200 200 - 0.00 1.00 BJ
112 EJS-400-0.6N' EXT 0 44.6 375 64 0.004 170 44.6 434 0.025 200 140 44.6 417 0.031 200 200 - 0.00 0.96 BJ
113 EJS-400-0.6H EXT 0 43.1 765 32 0.009 170 43.1 417 0.036 200 140 43.1 417 0.027 200 200 - 0.00 0.99 J
114 EJS-400-1.2H EXT 0 43.1 765 16 0.018 170 43.1 417 0.036 200 140 43.1 417 0.027 200 200 - 0.00 0.97 BJ
115 Onish et al. (1990) NO. 5 EXT 0 28.1 314 55 0.005 250 28.1 389 0.012 250 250 28.1 389 0.012 250 250 - 0.00 0.95 BJ
116 Parker and Bullman (1997) 5f EXT 0 43.2 480 100 0.008 275 43.2 515 0.014 500 250 43.2 485 0.022 300 300 - 0.15 0.80 J
117 Sasmal et al. (2011) SP-3 EXT 0 35.0 250 140 0.002 300 35.0 500 0.018 400 300 35.0 500 0.022 300 300 - 0.10 1.16 J
118 Smith (1972) Unit 4 EXT 0 20.5 310 70 0.011 293 20.5 296 0.013 460 255 20.5 274 0.012 380 330 - 0.00 1.30 BJ
119 Unit 5 EXT 0 20.1 310 95 0.005 293 20.1 301 0.013 460 255 20.1 274 0.012 380 330 - 0.00 1.19 BJ
120 Unit 6 EXT 0 17.7 310 76 0.010 293 17.7 299 0.013 460 255 17.7 297 0.012 380 330 - 0.00 1.17 BJ
284
Joint Failure
121 Takeuchi et al. (2003) O-5 EXT 0 42.0 327 100 0.004 375 42.0 445 0.011 450 350 42.0 553 0.029 400 400 - 0.10 1.36 J
122 Teroaka (1997) NO1 EXT 0 34.8 328 45 0.006 453 32.6 421 0.011 560 365 33.4 421 0.025 540 540 - 0.01 1.17 BJ
123 NO3 EXT 0 38.9 328 47 0.006 453 32.6 434 0.014 560 365 33.4 421 0.025 540 540 - 0.01 1.20 BJ
124 NO4 EXT 0 39.1 328 48 0.005 453 32.6 434 0.014 560 365 33.4 421 0.025 540 540 - 0.01 1.13 BJ
125 Tsonos (1996) MS4 EXT 0 33.6 495 42 0.012 200 33.6 466 0.006 300 200 33.6 485 0.031 200 200 - 0.29 0.84 BJ
126 Tsonos (2007) A1 EXT 0 35.0 540 50 0.010 200 35.0 500 0.006 300 200 35.0 500 0.016 200 200 - 0.14 1.04 BJ
127 E1 EXT 0 22.0 540 50 0.010 200 22.0 495 0.009 300 200 22.0 495 0.031 200 200 - 0.23 0.74 J
128 E2 EXT 0 35.0 540 50 0.010 200 35.0 495 0.006 300 200 35.0 495 0.031 200 200 - 0.14 1.09 BJ
129 Tsonos et al. (1992) S1 EXT 0 37.0 495 70 0.007 200 37.0 485 0.006 300 200 37.0 485 0.023 200 200 - 0.18 1.24 BJ
130 S2 EXT 0 26.0 495 70 0.007 200 26.0 465 0.006 300 200 26.0 465 0.008 200 200 - 0.18 1.03 BJ
131 S3 EXT 0 19.0 495 70 0.007 200 19.0 465 0.006 300 200 19.0 465 0.008 200 200 - 0.18 0.96 BJ
132 S4 EXT 0 21.0 495 70 0.007 200 21.0 485 0.010 300 200 21.0 465 0.012 200 200 - 0.18 1.10 J
133 S5 EXT 0 25.0 495 70 0.007 200 25.0 485 0.011 300 200 25.0 465 0.019 200 200 - 0.18 1.05 J
134 S6 EXT 0 33.0 495 70 0.007 200 33.0 485 0.011 300 200 33.0 485 0.015 200 200 - 0.18 1.13 J
135 S6' EXT 0 29.0 495 70 0.007 200 29.0 485 0.011 300 200 29.0 485 0.031 200 200 - 0.18 0.95 BJ
136 O1 EXT 0 20.0 495 70 0.011 200 20.0 485 0.011 300 200 20.0 485 0.031 200 200 - 0.18 1.25 J
137 F2 EXT 0 24.0 495 70 0.011 200 24.0 485 0.011 300 200 24.0 485 0.031 200 200 - 0.18 1.04 J
138 Uzumeri (1977) 6 EXT 0 36.2 357 44 0.015 381 36.2 352 0.011 508 381 37.7 340 0.028 381 381 - 0.42 1.02 BJ
139 7 EXT 0 30.8 365 76 0.009 381 30.8 352 0.011 508 381 30.8 340 0.028 381 381 - 0.52 0.96 BJ
140 8 EXT 0 26.3 365 44 0.015 381 26.3 352 0.015 508 381 26.3 390 0.028 381 381 - 0.61 0.87 BJ
141 Wong (2005) BS-L-H2T10 EXT 0 42.1 500 130 0.004 280 42.1 520 0.009 450 260 42.1 520 0.022 300 300 - 0.15 0.91 J
142 JA-NY03 EXT 0 34.9 500 100 0.005 280 34.9 520 0.007 400 260 34.9 520 0.022 300 300 - 0.03 1.25 BJ
143 JA-NY15 EXT 0 38.5 500 100 0.005 280 38.5 520 0.007 400 260 38.5 520 0.022 300 300 - 0.15 1.21 BJ
144 JB-NY03 EXT 0 34.2 500 100 0.005 280 34.2 520 0.010 300 260 34.2 520 0.022 300 300 - 0.03 1.28 BJ
145 Adachi et al. (1995) B-1EW EXT 1 73.9 939 50 0.005 190 73.9 969 0.020 250 160 73.9 969 0.031 220 220 - 0.06 1.03 BJ
146 B-1NS EXT 1 73.9 939 50 0.005 190 73.9 969 0.020 250 160 73.9 969 0.031 220 220 - 0.06 1.11 BJ
147 B-2EW EXT 1 73.9 939 50 0.005 190 73.9 969 0.020 250 160 73.9 969 0.031 220 220 - 0.06 1.05 J
148 B-2NS EXT 1 73.9 939 50 0.005 190 73.9 969 0.020 250 160 73.9 969 0.031 220 220 - 0.06 1.15 J
149 Ishida et al. (1996) B-1E EXT 1 27.0 271 50 0.005 190 27.0 700 0.015 250 160 27.0 700 0.031 220 220 - 0.15 0.97 J
150 B-1N EXT 1 27.0 271 50 0.005 190 27.0 700 0.015 250 160 27.0 700 0.031 220 220 - 0.15 1.01 J
285
Joint Failure
151 Ishida et al. (1996) C-1E EXT 1 27.0 271 54 0.005 190 27.0 467 0.015 250 160 27.0 467 0.031 220 220 - 0.15 0.96 BJ
152 C-1N EXT 1 27.0 271 54 0.005 190 27.0 467 0.015 250 160 27.0 467 0.031 220 220 - 0.15 0.99 BJ
153 B-2E EXT 1 28.4 271 50 0.005 190 28.4 700 0.015 250 160 28.4 700 0.031 220 220 - 0.14 1.16 J
154 B-2N EXT 1 28.4 271 50 0.005 190 28.4 700 0.015 250 160 28.4 700 0.031 220 220 - 0.14 0.95 J
155 C-2E EXT 1 28.4 271 54 0.005 190 28.4 467 0.015 250 160 28.4 467 0.031 220 220 - 0.14 0.96 BJ
156 C-2N EXT 1 28.4 271 54 0.005 190 28.4 467 0.015 250 160 28.4 467 0.031 220 220 - 0.14 0.83 BJ
157 Uzumeri (1977) 3 EXT 1 27.0 427 76 0.005 343 27.0 350 0.014 508 305 39.4 336 0.028 381 381 - 0.40 0.90 BJ
158 4 EXT 1 31.0 379 76 0.009 343 31.0 349 0.014 508 305 38.2 332 0.028 381 381 - 0.42 0.86 BJ
159 Canbolat and Wight (2008) 3-N EXT 2 29.0 441 95 0.010 394 29.0 450 0.016 457 254 29.0 450 0.012 356 533 - 0.03 0.76 BJ
160 Ehsani et al. (1985) 3S EXT 2 29.0 437 112 0.013 279 29.0 345 0.008 439 259 29.0 490 0.032 300 300 - 0.09 0.84 BJ
161 Fujii and Morita GBO,NS EXT 2 37.0 367 70 0.004 198 37.0 369 0.020 250 175 37.0 369 0.031 220 220 - 0.05 1.28 BJ
162 (1987) GBS1,NS EXT 2 38.3 367 70 0.004 198 38.3 369 0.020 250 175 38.3 369 0.031 220 220 - 0.05 0.88 BJ
163 GBS2,NS EXT 2 28.8 367 70 0.004 198 28.8 369 0.020 250 175 28.8 369 0.031 220 220 - 0.07 1.00 BJ
164 GBS3,NS EXT 2 38.3 367 70 0.004 198 38.3 369 0.020 250 175 38.3 369 0.031 220 220 - 0.05 0.91 BJ
165 GBS4,NS EXT 2 38.4 367 70 0.004 198 38.4 369 0.020 250 175 38.4 369 0.031 220 220 - 0.05 0.95 BJ
166 GBSU,NS EXT 2 34.7 367 35 0.008 198 34.7 369 0.020 250 175 34.7 369 0.031 220 220 - 0.06 0.94 BJ
167 Kurose et al. (1991) J3E EXT 2 27.6 409 152 0.008 305 27.6 459 0.029 457 279 27.6 459 0.051 457 330 - 0.00 0.96 BJ
168 Nishi et al. (1992) JY-2 EXT 2 24.9 448 40 0.004 135 24.9 366 0.018 150 120 24.9 366 0.023 150 150 - 0.70 1.04 BJ
169 JXY-2Y EXT 2 24.9 448 40 0.004 135 24.9 366 0.018 150 120 24.9 366 0.023 150 150 - 0.70 0.90 BJ
170 Sekine and Ogura No. 1 EXT 2 26.3 283 76 0.003 215 26.3 345 0.014 280 180 26.3 352 0.013 250 250 - 0.06 1.02 BJ
171 (1979) No. 2 EXT 2 26.3 283 76 0.003 215 26.3 345 0.014 280 180 26.3 352 0.013 250 250 - 0.06 0.88 BJ
172 Tsubosaki et al. (1993) J13EW EXT 2 60.3 800 50 0.004 270 60.3 711 0.019 320 240 60.3 973 0.044 300 300 - 0.29 0.90 BJ
173 Aoyama et al. (1993) H2 INT 0 45.6 441 56 0.005 250 45.6 544 0.008 300 200 45.6 544 0.027 300 300 - 0.04 1.11 BJ
174 H4 INT 0 64.2 441 58 0.005 250 64.2 544 0.008 300 200 64.2 809 0.027 300 300 - 0.03 0.87 BJ
175 Chang et al. (1997) BCS2 INT 0 54.7 352 100 0.005 300 54.7 354 0.014 400 300 54.7 354 0.023 500 300 - 0.18 1.11 BJ
176 Durrani and Wight X1 INT 0 34.3 352 152 0.008 321 34.3 345 0.015 419 279 34.3 414 0.031 362 362 - 0.05 1.07 BJ
177 (1985) X2 INT 0 33.6 352 102 0.012 321 33.6 345 0.015 419 279 33.6 414 0.031 362 362 - 0.06 1.08 BJ
178 Durrani and Wight X3 INT 0 31.0 352 152 0.008 321 31.0 345 0.011 419 279 31.0 331 0.020 362 362 - 0.05 1.25 BJ
179 Endoh et al. (1991) HLC INT 0 40.6 290 60 0.004 250 40.6 368 0.017 300 200 40.6 360 0.027 300 300 - 0.05 0.96 BJ
180 LA1 INT 0 34.8 286 45 0.007 250 34.8 801 0.020 300 200 34.8 550 0.035 300 300 - 0.06 1.12 J
286
Joint Failure
181 Endoh et al. (1991) A1 INT 0 30.6 320 45 0.006 250 30.6 780 0.020 300 200 30.6 539 0.035 300 300 - 0.06 1.12 J
182 Fujii and Morita (1987) OBO INT 0 43.5 367 70 0.004 190 43.5 369 0.011 250 160 43.5 369 0.031 220 220 - 0.05 1.05 BJ
183 Fujii and Morita A1 INT 0 40.2 291 52 0.005 190 40.2 1069 0.017 250 160 40.2 643 0.042 220 220 - 0.08 1.20 J
184 (1991) A2 INT 0 40.2 291 52 0.005 190 40.2 409 0.016 250 160 40.2 387 0.042 220 220 - 0.08 0.92 J
185 A3 INT 0 40.2 291 52 0.005 190 40.2 1069 0.017 250 160 40.2 643 0.042 220 220 - 0.23 1.20 J
186 A4 INT 0 40.2 291 35 0.015 190 40.2 1069 0.017 250 160 40.2 643 0.042 220 220 - 0.23 1.28 J
187 Goto and Joh (1996) BJ-PL INT 0 29.7 326 50 0.004 250 29.7 395 0.014 350 200 29.7 640 0.031 300 300 - 0.17 1.06 BJ
188 BJ-PH INT 0 30.5 326 40 0.009 250 30.5 395 0.014 350 200 30.5 640 0.031 300 300 - 0.17 1.08 BJ
189 J-HH INT 0 32.8 381 42 0.016 250 32.8 426 0.024 350 200 32.8 578 0.038 300 300 - 0.27 1.04 J
190 J-HO INT 0 31.4 381 42 0.016 250 31.4 426 0.024 350 200 31.4 578 0.038 300 300 - 0.28 1.06 J
191 J-MM INT 0 32.4 381 40 0.008 250 32.4 426 0.024 350 200 32.4 578 0.038 300 300 - 0.27 0.97 J
192 J-MO INT 0 32.7 381 40 0.008 250 32.7 426 0.024 350 200 32.7 578 0.038 300 300 - 0.27 0.95 J
193 J-LO INT 0 31.7 360 117 0.000 250 31.7 426 0.024 350 200 31.7 578 0.038 300 300 - 0.28 0.87 J
194 Goto and Joh (2003) LM-60 INT 0 26.4 411 50 0.003 325 26.4 396 0.016 350 200 26.4 379 0.018 300 450 60 0.17 0.90 BJ
195 LM-125 INT 0 26.0 411 50 0.003 325 26.0 396 0.012 350 200 26.0 379 0.018 300 450 125 0.17 0.98 BJ
196 HM-60 INT 0 24.3 411 50 0.003 325 24.3 396 0.020 350 200 24.3 379 0.018 300 450 60 0.17 0.79 BJ
197 HM-125 INT 0 28.9 411 50 0.003 325 28.9 413 0.016 350 200 28.9 379 0.018 300 450 125 0.17 0.97 BJ
198 HH-125 INT 0 31.4 411 32 0.004 325 31.4 413 0.016 350 200 31.4 379 0.018 300 450 125 0.17 0.98 BJ
199 Goto and Joh (2004) UM-0 INT 0 24.0 355 50 0.003 325 24.0 697 0.018 350 200 24.0 388 0.020 300 450 - 0.17 0.94 J
200 UM-60 INT 0 24.6 355 50 0.003 325 24.6 697 0.018 350 200 24.6 388 0.020 300 450 60 0.17 1.16 J
201 UM-125 INT 0 25.2 355 50 0.003 325 25.2 697 0.018 350 200 25.2 388 0.020 300 450 125 0.17 1.11 J
202 UU-125 INT 0 25.4 355 24 0.005 325 25.4 697 0.018 350 200 25.4 388 0.020 300 450 125 0.17 1.02 BJ
203 HU-125 INT 0 22.2 355 24 0.005 325 22.2 408 0.016 350 200 22.2 388 0.017 300 450 125 0.17 0.90 BJ
204 Hayashi et al. (1993) NO47 INT 0 54.2 347 50 0.007 350 54.2 382 0.017 400 300 54.3 645 0.022 400 400 - 0.20 1.29 BJ
205 NO48 INT 0 54.2 347 50 0.007 350 54.2 645 0.011 400 300 54.3 645 0.022 400 400 - 0.20 1.19 BJ
206 NO49 INT 0 54.2 347 50 0.007 350 54.2 599 0.019 400 300 54.3 645 0.022 400 400 - 0.20 1.00 BJ
207 NO50 INT 0 54.2 347 50 0.007 350 54.2 858 0.008 400 300 54.3 645 0.022 400 400 - 0.20 1.19 BJ
208 Hiramatsu et al. (1995) S1 INT 0 52.2 876 40 0.003 255 52.2 836 0.015 300 210 52.2 836 0.023 300 300 - 0.20 1.03 J
209 Inoue et al. (1990) SP2 INT 0 43.3 1253 52 0.003 371 43.3 473 0.018 417 301 43.3 473 0.018 440 440 - 0.28 0.98 BJ
210 Ishida et al. (2001) CN INT 0 33.4 365 130 0.002 625 33.4 462 0.014 750 450 33.4 464 0.016 700 800 - 0.09 1.04 BJ
287
Joint Failure
211 Ishida et al. (2001) EN INT 0 33.4 365 130 0.002 625 33.4 462 0.014 750 450 33.4 464 0.016 700 800 135 0.09 1.09 BJ
212 Irisawa et al. (1996) No. 1 INT 0 25.8 354 110 0.008 400 25.8 383 0.013 550 300 25.8 378 0.012 500 500 - 0.11 1.06 BJ
213 Ishida et al. (2004) HS-HS INT 0 70.0 1116 50 0.004 250 70.0 707 0.011 300 200 70.0 707 0.018 300 300 - 0.10 0.94 BJ
214 Ishikawa and Kamimura (1990) No. 3 INT 0 23.3 330 50 0.010 215 23.3 373 0.016 250 180 23.3 373 0.032 250 250 - 0.18 0.97 BJ
215 Iwaoka et al. (2005) J15-1 INT 0 182.0 935 80 0.002 260 182.0 682 0.037 400 220 182.0 690 0.030 380 300 - 0.25 0.98 J
216 Jinno et al. (1991) NO1 INT 0 28.3 686 50 0.003 350 28.3 405 0.017 400 300 28.3 405 0.029 400 400 - 0.17 0.99 BJ
217 NO2 INT 0 28.3 686 50 0.003 350 28.3 913 0.017 400 300 28.3 913 0.029 400 400 - 0.17 1.08 J
218 NO3 INT 0 80.2 686 50 0.003 350 80.2 593 0.017 400 300 80.2 593 0.029 400 400 - 0.17 0.99 BJ
219 NO4 INT 0 80.2 686 50 0.003 350 80.2 593 0.017 400 300 80.2 593 0.029 400 400 - 0.17 0.89 BJ
220 NO5 INT 0 80.2 686 50 0.003 350 80.2 913 0.017 400 300 80.2 913 0.029 400 400 - 0.17 0.86 BJ
221 NO6 INT 0 101.9 686 50 0.003 350 101.9 726 0.017 400 300 101.9 726 0.029 400 400 - 0.17 0.96 BJ
222 NO7 INT 0 101.9 686 50 0.003 350 101.9 913 0.017 400 300 101.9 913 0.029 400 400 - 0.17 0.95 BJ
223 NO8 INT 0 101.9 686 50 0.003 350 101.9 913 0.023 400 300 101.9 913 0.029 400 400 - 0.17 0.91 BJ
224 Joh and Goto (2000) PL-13 INT 0 26.4 366 50 0.004 250 26.4 363 0.010 350 200 26.4 402 0.022 300 300 - 0.09 0.96 BJ
225 PH-16 INT 0 23.6 366 40 0.005 250 23.6 344 0.012 350 200 23.6 402 0.027 300 300 - 0.13 0.93 BJ
226 PH-13 INT 0 26.3 366 40 0.005 250 26.3 363 0.014 350 200 26.3 402 0.027 300 300 - 0.13 0.91 BJ
227 PH-10 INT 0 25.6 366 40 0.005 250 25.6 372 0.012 350 200 25.6 402 0.027 300 300 - 0.11 0.90 BJ
228 Joh et al. (1988) X0-1 INT 0 21.3 363 88 0.002 225 21.3 363 0.008 350 150 21.3 363 0.011 300 300 - 0.16 1.07 BJ
229 Joh et al. (1991a) JXO-B1 INT 0 21.3 307 88 0.002 225 21.3 371 0.008 350 150 21.3 371 0.011 300 300 - 0.16 1.04 BJ
230 JXO-B5 INT 0 23.0 307 88 0.002 225 23.0 371 0.008 350 150 23.0 371 0.011 300 300 75 0.15 0.90 BJ
231 JXO-B6 INT 0 22.4 307 88 0.002 225 22.4 371 0.008 350 150 22.4 371 0.011 300 300 75 0.15 0.87 BJ
232 Joh et al. (1991b) JX0-B8LH INT 0 26.9 377 88 0.002 250 26.9 404 0.006 350 200 26.9 404 0.020 300 300 - 0.15 1.29 BJ
233 JX0-B8MH INT 0 28.1 377 45 0.004 250 28.1 404 0.006 350 200 28.1 404 0.020 300 300 - 0.14 1.27 BJ
234 Kaku et al. (1993) J11A INT 0 57.6 893 86 0.005 280 57.6 371 0.022 350 260 57.6 371 0.033 400 300 - 0.24 1.19 BJ
235 J12A INT 0 56.6 893 86 0.005 280 56.6 371 0.030 350 260 56.6 371 0.033 400 300 - 0.25 1.02 BJ
236 J31A INT 0 55.2 893 85 0.005 280 55.2 363 0.025 350 260 55.2 371 0.033 400 300 - 0.25 1.02 BJ
237 J32A INT 0 55.2 893 65 0.006 280 55.2 363 0.032 350 260 55.2 371 0.033 400 300 - 0.25 1.09 BJ
238 Kamimura et al. NN.1 INT 0 36.2 344 50 0.004 265 36.2 345 0.018 250 180 36.2 380 0.018 250 350 - 0.03 1.17 BJ
239 (2004) NN.2 INT 0 36.2 344 50 0.004 265 36.2 345 0.018 250 180 36.2 380 0.018 250 350 55 0.03 1.13 BJ
240 Kashiwazaki et al. (1992) MKJ-1 INT 0 84.3 675 50 0.009 250 84.3 771 0.011 300 200 84.3 644 0.009 300 300 - 0.10 1.21 BJ
288
Joint Failure
241 Kashiwazaki et al. MKJ-2 INT 0 84.3 675 50 0.009 250 84.3 771 0.017 300 200 84.3 718 0.027 300 300 - 0.07 1.20 BJ
242 (1992) MKJ-3 INT 0 98.5 675 50 0.009 250 98.5 742 0.015 300 200 98.5 794 0.017 300 300 - 0.07 1.20 BJ
243 MKJ-4 INT 0 98.5 675 50 0.009 250 98.5 742 0.022 300 200 98.5 771 0.038 300 300 - 0.07 1.22 BJ
244 Kawai et al. (1997) I8C INT 0 85.5 928 65 0.003 400 85.5 522 0.027 450 325 85.5 522 0.027 475 475 - 0.20 1.22 BJ
245 Kitayama et al. (1991) J1 INT 0 25.7 368 75 0.003 250 25.7 401 0.020 300 200 25.7 401 0.023 300 300 - 0.08 1.01 BJ
246 B1 INT 0 24.5 235 70 0.003 250 24.5 371 0.021 300 200 24.5 351 0.035 300 300 - 0.08 0.90 BJ
247 B2 INT 0 24.5 235 54 0.003 250 24.5 371 0.021 300 200 24.5 351 0.035 300 300 - 0.08 0.91 BJ
248 B3 INT 0 24.5 235 32 0.009 250 24.5 311 0.017 300 200 24.5 371 0.023 300 300 - 0.08 0.96 BJ
249 A1 INT 0 30.6 320 45 0.006 250 30.6 780 0.021 300 200 30.6 539 0.035 300 300 - 0.06 1.14 BJ
250 A4 INT 0 30.6 320 45 0.006 250 30.6 780 0.015 300 200 30.6 539 0.035 300 300 - 0.06 0.94 BJ
251 Kitayama et al. (1992) I1 INT 0 98.8 360 75 0.004 250 98.8 799 0.033 300 200 98.8 747 0.051 300 300 - 0.04 0.76 BJ
252 I3 INT 0 41.4 360 75 0.004 250 41.4 799 0.024 300 200 41.4 361 0.035 300 300 - 0.03 1.02 BJ
253 I5 INT 0 85.4 250 75 0.004 250 85.4 769 0.015 300 200 85.4 534 0.035 300 300 - 0.02 1.21 BJ
254 I6 INT 0 85.4 250 75 0.004 250 85.4 772 0.017 300 200 85.4 534 0.035 300 300 - 0.02 1.01 BJ
255 Kitayama et al. (2000) PB-1 INT 0 21.0 404 60 0.007 300 21.0 534 0.024 380 250 21.0 517 0.051 350 350 - 0.34 1.03 BJ
256 PNB-2 INT 0 21.0 404 60 0.007 300 21.0 534 0.024 380 250 21.0 517 0.051 350 350 - 0.34 1.06 BJ
257 PNB-3 INT 0 21.9 404 60 0.007 300 21.9 534 0.024 380 250 21.9 517 0.051 350 350 - 0.33 1.14 BJ
258 Kurose et al. (1991) J1 INT 0 24.1 550 102 0.007 457 24.1 463 0.011 508 406 24.1 463 0.024 508 508 - 0.00 0.81 BJ
259 Kusuhara et al. (2004) JE-0 INT 0 27.0 364 74 0.003 250 27.0 387 0.016 300 180 27.0 345 0.023 280 320 - 0.00 0.97 BJ
260 Kusuhara et al. (2004) JE-55 INT 0 27.0 364 74 0.003 250 27.0 387 0.016 300 180 27.0 345 0.023 280 320 55 0.00 0.94 BJ
261 JE-55S INT 0 27.0 364 37 0.009 250 27.0 387 0.016 300 180 27.0 345 0.023 280 320 55 0.00 1.03 BJ
262 Lee et al. (2009) J1 INT 0 40.0 510 50 0.008 325 40.0 510 0.021 400 300 40.0 514 0.063 350 350 - 0.00 0.93 J
263 BJ1 INT 0 40.0 510 50 0.008 325 40.0 510 0.012 400 300 40.0 514 0.063 350 350 - 0.00 0.87 BJ
264 Leon (1990) BCJ2 INT 0 27.6 414 51 0.005 229 27.6 414 0.009 305 203 27.6 414 0.028 254 254 - 0.00 1.04 BJ
265 BCJ3 INT 0 27.6 414 51 0.004 254 27.6 414 0.009 305 203 27.6 414 0.023 254 305 - 0.00 0.90 BJ
266 Matsumoto et al. B-0 INT 0 54.6 1276 50 0.005 350 54.6 522 0.020 400 250 54.6 746 0.022 400 450 - 0.20 1.01 BJ
267 (2010) B-5 INT 0 55.4 1276 50 0.005 350 55.4 522 0.020 400 250 55.4 746 0.022 400 450 50 0.20 0.98 BJ
268 B-10 INT 0 57.0 1276 50 0.005 350 57.0 522 0.020 400 250 57.0 746 0.022 400 450 100 0.20 1.00 BJ
269 B-10S INT 0 58.4 1276 50 0.005 350 58.4 522 0.020 400 250 58.4 746 0.022 400 450 100 0.20 0.95 BJ
270 J-0 INT 0 54.6 1276 50 0.005 350 54.6 710 0.020 400 250 54.6 746 0.022 400 450 - 0.20 0.98 J
289
Joint Failure
271 Matsumoto et al. J-5 INT 0 55.4 1276 50 0.005 350 55.4 710 0.020 400 250 55.4 746 0.022 400 450 50 0.20 0.96 J
272 (2010) J-10 INT 0 57.0 1276 50 0.005 350 57.0 710 0.020 400 250 57.0 746 0.022 400 450 100 0.20 0.99 J
273 J-10S INT 0 58.4 1276 50 0.005 350 58.4 710 0.020 400 250 58.4 746 0.022 400 450 100 0.20 0.94 J
274 Meinheit and Jirsa 1 INT 0 26.2 409 152 0.005 305 26.2 449 0.022 457 279 26.2 457 0.021 457 330 - 0.40 1.11 J
275 (1981) 2 INT 0 41.8 409 152 0.005 305 41.8 449 0.022 457 279 41.8 449 0.043 457 330 - 0.25 0.90 J
276 3 INT 0 26.6 409 152 0.005 305 26.6 449 0.022 457 279 26.6 402 0.067 457 330 - 0.39 0.99 J
277 4 INT 0 36.1 409 152 0.004 432 36.1 449 0.015 457 406 36.1 438 0.043 330 457 - 0.30 0.83 J
278 5 INT 0 35.9 409 152 0.005 305 35.9 449 0.022 457 279 35.9 449 0.043 457 330 - 0.04 0.89 J
279 6 INT 0 36.7 409 152 0.005 305 36.7 449 0.022 457 279 36.7 449 0.043 457 330 - 0.48 0.83 BJ
280 7 INT 0 37.2 409 152 0.004 432 37.2 449 0.015 457 406 37.2 438 0.043 330 457 - 0.47 0.83 J
281 12 INT 0 35.2 423 51 0.024 305 35.2 449 0.022 457 279 35.2 449 0.043 457 330 - 0.30 0.78 BJ
282 13 INT 0 41.3 409 51 0.015 305 41.3 449 0.022 457 279 41.3 449 0.043 457 330 - 0.25 1.00 J
283 14 INT 0 33.2 409 51 0.011 432 33.2 449 0.015 457 406 33.2 438 0.043 330 457 - 0.32 0.83 J
284 Morita et al. (2004) M1 INT 0 17.1 344 80 0.003 300 17.1 520 0.019 400 300 17.1 520 0.059 350 300 - 0.00 1.13 J
285 M2 INT 0 18.2 344 80 0.003 300 18.2 520 0.019 400 300 18.2 520 0.059 350 300 - 0.00 1.06 J
286 M3 INT 0 18.8 344 80 0.003 300 18.8 520 0.019 400 300 18.8 520 0.059 350 300 - 0.00 1.16 J
287 M4 INT 0 20.6 429 40 0.021 300 20.6 520 0.019 400 300 20.6 520 0.059 350 300 - 0.00 1.18 J
288 M6 INT 0 19.4 344 80 0.003 300 19.4 520 0.013 400 300 19.4 520 0.059 350 300 - 0.00 0.99 J
289 Nakamura et al. (1991) No. 1 INT 0 65.3 880 60 0.004 350 65.3 582 0.017 400 300 65.3 785 0.022 400 400 - 0.09 0.99 BJ
290 No. 2 INT 0 68.4 880 60 0.004 350 68.4 785 0.017 400 300 68.4 785 0.022 400 400 - 0.09 0.92 J
291 No. 4 INT 0 91.9 880 60 0.004 350 91.9 785 0.017 400 300 91.9 785 0.022 400 400 - 0.07 0.92 BJ
292 No. 5 INT 0 64.1 873 60 0.012 350 64.1 785 0.017 400 300 64.1 785 0.022 400 400 - 0.10 0.92 BJ
293 No. 6 INT 0 63.1 873 60 0.012 350 63.1 785 0.017 400 300 63.1 785 0.022 400 400 - 0.10 0.86 BJ
294 No. 7 INT 0 76.0 873 60 0.012 350 76.0 785 0.017 400 300 76.0 785 0.022 400 400 - 0.08 0.95 BJ
295 Nishi et al. (1992) JO-2 INT 0 24.9 448 40 0.004 135 24.9 366 0.016 150 120 24.9 366 0.023 150 150 - 0.70 1.10 BJ
296 Noguchi and OKJ-1 INT 0 70.0 955 50 0.009 250 70.0 718 0.023 300 200 70.0 718 0.028 300 300 - 0.12 1.12 BJ
297 Kashiwazaki (1992) OKJ-4 INT 0 70.0 955 50 0.009 250 70.0 718 0.018 300 200 70.0 718 0.028 300 300 - 0.12 0.98 BJ
298 OKJ-5 INT 0 70.0 955 50 0.009 250 70.0 718 0.025 300 200 70.0 718 0.034 300 300 - 0.12 1.12 J
299 OKJ-6 INT 0 53.5 955 50 0.009 250 53.5 718 0.020 300 200 53.5 718 0.028 300 300 - 0.12 1.05 J
300 Ohwada (1970) No. 2 INT 0 21.5 245 40 0.003 175 21.5 392 0.013 300 150 21.5 392 0.032 200 200 - 0.18 0.76 J
290
Joint Failure
301 Ohwada (1970) No. 3 INT 0 21.5 245 20 0.007 175 21.5 392 0.013 300 150 21.5 392 0.032 200 200 - 0.18 0.90 J
302 Ohwada (1973) P-4 INT 0 13.4 245 20 0.007 175 13.4 385 0.013 300 150 13.4 385 0.032 200 200 - 0.29 1.19 BJ
303 Ohwada (1977) JO-2 INT 0 20.0 450 40 0.004 150 20.0 432 0.020 150 150 20.0 432 0.034 150 150 - 0.00 1.03 J
304 Ohwada (1980) LJO-2 INT 0 20.0 407 50 0.003 150 20.0 372 0.020 150 150 20.0 372 0.068 150 150 - 0.00 1.06 J
305 Oka and Shiohara J-1 INT 0 81.2 1374 50 0.004 270 81.2 627 0.019 300 240 81.2 627 0.034 300 300 - 0.11 1.07 BJ
306 (1992) J-2 INT 0 81.2 1374 50 0.004 270 81.2 1429 0.017 300 240 81.2 627 0.034 300 300 - 0.11 1.26 J
307 J-4 INT 0 72.8 1374 50 0.004 270 72.8 506 0.022 300 240 72.8 492 0.053 300 300 - 0.13 0.97 BJ
308 J-5 INT 0 72.8 1374 50 0.004 270 72.8 824 0.019 300 240 72.8 824 0.034 300 300 - 0.13 0.98 J
309 J-6 INT 0 79.2 775 100 0.002 270 79.2 663 0.019 300 240 79.2 663 0.034 300 300 - 0.12 0.92 BJ
310 J-8 INT 0 79.2 775 50 0.004 270 79.2 364 0.043 300 240 79.2 364 0.077 300 300 - 0.12 0.92 J
311 J-10 INT 0 39.2 598 50 0.004 270 39.2 687 0.019 300 240 39.2 687 0.034 300 300 - 0.12 1.03 J
312 J-11 INT 0 39.2 401 50 0.004 270 39.2 365 0.042 300 240 39.2 365 0.077 300 300 - 0.12 0.90 J
313 Otani et al. (1984) J1 INT 0 25.7 368 75 0.003 250 25.7 401 0.020 300 200 25.7 401 0.023 300 300 - 0.08 1.01 BJ
314 J2 INT 0 24.0 368 75 0.006 250 24.0 401 0.020 300 200 24.0 401 0.023 300 300 - 0.08 1.01 BJ
315 J3 INT 0 24.0 368 25 0.017 250 24.0 401 0.020 300 200 24.0 401 0.023 300 300 - 0.08 1.03 BJ
316 J4 INT 0 25.7 368 75 0.003 250 25.7 401 0.020 300 200 25.7 401 0.023 300 300 - 0.30 1.04 BJ
317 J5 INT 0 28.7 368 75 0.003 250 28.7 401 0.020 300 200 28.7 401 0.023 300 300 - 0.07 1.07 BJ
318 Owada (1992) J0C-1 INT 0 31.2 447 40 0.004 135 31.2 340 0.014 150 120 31.2 343 0.023 150 150 - 0.13 1.32 BJ
319 J0T-1 INT 0 31.2 447 40 0.004 135 31.2 340 0.014 150 120 31.2 343 0.023 150 150 - -0.07 0.90 CJ
320 J0R-1 INT 0 31.2 447 40 0.004 135 31.2 340 0.014 150 120 31.2 343 0.023 150 150 - 0.13 0.85 BJ
321 Ozaki et al. (2010) 1 INT 0 32.8 338 50 0.004 240 32.8 410 0.022 300 180 32.8 410 0.018 300 300 - 0.09 0.98 BJ
322 2 INT 0 32.8 338 50 0.004 249 32.8 410 0.020 300 198 32.8 410 0.018 300 300 42 0.09 0.99 BJ
323 Raffaelle and Wight SP1 INT 0 28.6 476 89 0.008 305 28.6 441 0.010 381 254 28.6 441 0.018 356 356 51 0.02 1.10 BJ
324 (1995) SP2 INT 0 26.8 476 89 0.008 267 26.8 441 0.009 381 178 26.8 441 0.018 356 356 89 0.03 1.11 BJ
325 SP3 INT 0 37.7 476 89 0.008 273 37.7 441 0.009 381 191 37.7 441 0.018 356 356 83 0.02 1.14 BJ
326 SP4 INT 0 19.3 476 89 0.008 273 19.3 441 0.006 559 191 19.3 441 0.018 356 356 83 0.04 1.08 BJ
327 Shinjo et al. (2009) B-1 INT 0 111.0 1452 48 0.004 350 70.0 549 0.028 400 300 111.0 528 0.022 400 400 - 0.10 1.07 BJ
328 J-1 INT 0 110.0 1452 48 0.004 350 71.0 716 0.032 400 300 110.0 528 0.022 400 400 - 0.10 0.99 J
329 BJ-1 INT 0 110.0 1452 48 0.004 350 70.0 549 0.032 400 300 110.0 528 0.022 400 400 - 0.10 1.00 J
330 Suzuki et al. (2002) E00 INT 0 24.0 358 100 0.004 315 24.0 384 0.018 500 230 24.0 384 0.014 500 400 - 0.25 1.04 J
291
Joint Failure
331 Suzuki et al. (2002) E085 INT 0 23.0 358 100 0.004 315 23.0 384 0.018 500 230 23.0 384 0.014 500 400 85 0.25 1.02 J
332 E135 INT 0 22.7 358 100 0.003 365 22.7 384 0.013 450 230 22.7 384 0.019 300 500 135 0.25 0.96 J
333 Takamori et al. (2006) NO1 INT 0 48.0 334 60 0.006 575 49.6 435 0.013 900 450 48.0 430 0.024 700 700 85 0.21 1.00 BJ
334 NO2 INT 0 48.0 334 60 0.006 540 43.4 435 0.017 900 380 48.0 430 0.024 700 700 125 0.21 0.99 BJ
335 NO3 INT 0 48.0 334 60 0.006 575 43.4 435 0.013 900 450 48.0 430 0.024 700 700 - 0.21 1.03 BJ
336 NO4 INT 0 48.0 334 60 0.006 575 50.0 436 0.021 900 450 48.0 430 0.024 700 700 - 0.21 0.92 BJ
337 Takatani and Maruta (2003) N INT 0 36.3 849 90 0.003 435 36.3 517 0.019 500 370 36.3 534 0.022 500 500 - 0.15 1.04 BJ
338 Teng and Zhou (2003) S1 INT 0 33.0 440 75 0.008 300 33.0 510 0.014 400 200 33.0 530 0.031 300 400 - 0.11 0.95 BJ
339 S2 INT 0 34.0 440 75 0.008 300 34.0 510 0.014 400 200 34.0 530 0.031 300 400 50 0.11 0.93 BJ
340 S3 INT 0 35.0 440 75 0.008 300 35.0 510 0.014 400 200 35.0 530 0.031 300 400 100 0.11 0.94 BJ
341 S5 INT 0 39.0 440 50 0.012 300 39.0 425 0.009 400 200 39.0 530 0.047 200 400 50 0.11 0.94 BJ
342 S6 INT 0 38.0 440 50 0.012 300 38.0 425 0.009 400 200 38.0 530 0.047 200 400 100 0.11 0.92 BJ
343 Teraoka et al. (1997) HJ4 INT 0 54.2 338 50 0.007 350 54.2 382 0.017 400 300 54.3 645 0.022 400 400 - 0.18 0.90 BJ
344 HJ5 INT 0 54.2 338 50 0.007 350 54.2 645 0.011 400 300 54.3 645 0.022 400 400 - 0.18 0.85 BJ
345 HJ6 INT 0 54.2 338 50 0.007 350 54.2 858 0.008 400 300 54.3 645 0.022 400 400 - 0.18 0.88 BJ
346 HJ7 INT 0 92.6 681 50 0.009 350 92.6 422 0.023 400 300 83.4 645 0.022 400 400 - 0.21 0.91 BJ
347 HJ8 INT 0 92.6 681 50 0.009 350 92.6 599 0.015 400 300 83.4 645 0.022 400 400 - 0.21 0.90 BJ
348 HJ9 INT 0 92.6 681 50 0.009 350 92.6 858 0.011 400 300 83.4 645 0.022 400 400 - 0.21 0.95 BJ
349 Teroaka (1997) HNO1 INT 0 88.7 681 50 0.009 350 88.7 611 0.015 400 300 93.9 604 0.027 400 400 - 0.16 0.96 BJ
350 HNO3 INT 0 88.7 681 50 0.009 350 88.7 441 0.029 400 300 93.9 442 0.027 400 400 - 0.16 0.81 BJ
351 HNO4 INT 0 88.7 681 50 0.009 350 88.7 604 0.029 400 300 93.9 442 0.027 400 400 - 0.16 0.77 BJ
352 HNO5 INT 0 116.9 681 50 0.009 350 116.9 634 0.018 400 300 107.6 604 0.027 400 400 - 0.14 0.94 BJ
353 HNO6 INT 0 116.9 681 50 0.009 350 116.9 604 0.029 400 300 107.6 604 0.027 400 400 - 0.14 0.82 BJ
354 NO1 INT 0 33.6 390 57 0.011 270 33.6 406 0.022 300 240 32.2 431 0.027 300 300 - 0.25 0.87 J
355 NO2 INT 0 33.6 390 53 0.015 270 33.6 406 0.022 300 240 32.2 431 0.027 300 300 - 0.25 0.87 J
356 NO19 INT 0 30.8 375 35 0.008 320 36.2 417 0.018 320 260 36.2 436 0.011 380 380 - 0.15 1.09 BJ
357 NO20 INT 0 30.8 375 35 0.008 320 36.2 417 0.021 320 260 36.2 436 0.011 380 380 - 0.15 1.02 BJ
358 NO21 INT 0 25.2 300 35 0.006 300 25.2 426 0.011 300 260 28.4 399 0.021 340 340 - 0.09 1.16 BJ
359 NO22 INT 0 26.7 300 35 0.006 300 26.7 426 0.015 300 260 28.4 399 0.021 340 340 - 0.09 1.00 BJ
360 NO23 INT 0 34.0 300 35 0.006 300 34.0 426 0.015 300 260 30.9 399 0.021 340 340 - 0.19 1.02 BJ
292
Joint Failure
361 Teroaka (1997) NO26 INT 0 35.6 300 35 0.006 300 35.6 399 0.019 300 260 34.3 399 0.021 340 340 - 0.17 0.92 BJ
362 NO28 INT 0 36.2 300 35 0.006 300 36.2 399 0.026 300 260 36.2 399 0.021 340 340 - 0.16 0.84 J
363 NO29 INT 0 44.0 300 35 0.006 300 44.0 399 0.019 300 260 42.7 399 0.021 340 340 - 0.23 0.98 BJ
364 NO30 INT 0 44.0 300 35 0.006 300 44.0 428 0.034 300 260 42.7 399 0.021 340 340 - 0.23 0.86 J
365 Watanabe et al. (1998) WJ-1 INT 0 29.0 364 36 0.013 250 29.0 326 0.008 300 200 29.0 358 0.026 300 300 - 0.07 0.85 BJ
366 WJ-3 INT 0 29.0 364 36 0.013 250 29.0 364 0.008 300 200 29.0 373 0.026 300 300 - 0.07 0.76 BJ
367 WJ-6 INT 0 29.0 364 36 0.013 250 29.0 358 0.012 300 200 29.0 373 0.040 300 300 - 0.07 0.71 BJ
368 Yashita et al. (1996) No. 1 INT 0 43.1 823 44 0.004 358 43.1 409 0.023 395 300 43.1 409 0.020 415 415 - 0.10 1.28 BJ
369 No. 3 INT 0 54.3 823 44 0.004 358 54.3 405 0.017 395 300 54.3 405 0.020 415 415 - 0.10 1.08 BJ
370 No. 4 INT 0 53.8 823 44 0.004 358 53.8 702 0.017 395 300 53.8 702 0.020 415 415 - 0.10 1.06 J
371 Yoshino et al. (1997) No. 1 INT 0 28.6 420 50 0.005 215 28.6 382 0.013 250 180 28.6 379 0.025 250 250 - 0.16 0.96 BJ
372 No. 3 INT 0 28.6 420 50 0.005 215 28.6 379 0.016 250 180 28.6 379 0.025 250 250 - 0.16 0.96 BJ
373 No. 4 INT 0 28.6 420 50 0.005 215 28.6 379 0.011 250 180 28.6 379 0.025 250 250 - 0.16 1.04 BJ
374 Yoshiya et al. (1991) No. 2 INT 0 39.2 364 32 0.004 338 39.2 388 0.025 450 300 39.2 365 0.021 500 375 - 0.24 0.89 BJ
375 No. 3 INT 0 39.2 810 32 0.007 338 39.2 388 0.025 450 300 39.2 365 0.021 500 375 - 0.24 0.95 BJ
376 Zaid et al. (1999) S3 INT 0 28.0 390 40 0.005 250 28.0 470 0.019 300 200 28.0 450 0.038 300 300 - 0.04 0.94 BJ
377 Asou (1993) No.1 INT 1 65.8 931 100 0.006 370 52.6 510 0.018 400 300 65.8 510 0.024 440 440 - 0.18 1.18 BJ
378 Canbolat and Wight (2008) 3-S INT 1 29.0 441 95 0.010 394 29.0 450 0.011 457 254 32.0 450 0.012 356 533 140 0.04 1.07 BJ
379 Fujii and Morita GBO,EW INT 1 37.0 367 70 0.004 190 37.0 369 0.011 250 160 37.0 369 0.031 220 220 - 0.05 0.99 BJ
380 (1987) GBS1,EW INT 1 37.0 367 70 0.004 190 37.0 369 0.011 250 160 37.0 369 0.031 220 220 - 0.05 0.90 BJ
381 GBS2,EW INT 1 37.0 367 70 0.004 190 37.0 369 0.011 250 160 37.0 369 0.031 220 220 - 0.05 0.91 BJ
382 GBS3,EW INT 1 37.0 367 70 0.004 190 37.0 369 0.011 250 160 37.0 369 0.031 220 220 - 0.05 0.99 BJ
383 GBS4,EW INT 1 37.0 367 70 0.004 190 37.0 369 0.011 250 160 37.0 369 0.031 220 220 - 0.05 0.97 BJ
384 GBSU,EW INT 1 34.7 367 35 0.008 190 34.7 369 0.011 250 160 34.7 369 0.031 220 220 - 0.06 1.00 BJ
385 Hanson and Connor (1972) 10 INT 1 39.3 310 104 0.013 343 39.3 303 0.019 508 305 37.7 447 0.055 381 381 - 0.52 0.93 BJ
386 Ishida et al. (2001) CS INT 1 33.4 365 130 0.002 625 33.4 462 0.014 750 450 33.4 464 0.016 700 800 - 0.09 0.99 BJ
387 ES INT 1 33.4 365 130 0.002 625 33.4 462 0.014 750 450 33.4 464 0.016 700 800 135 0.09 0.98 BJ
388 ES-J INT 1 33.4 365 130 0.002 625 33.4 371 0.013 750 450 33.4 464 0.016 700 800 135 0.09 1.10 BJ
389 Kurose et al. (1991) J3N INT 1 27.6 409 152 0.008 305 27.6 463 0.020 457 279 27.6 459 0.051 457 330 - 0.00 1.10 BJ
390 Nishi and Ohwada (1993) JXY-3X INT 1 21.5 448 40 0.004 135 21.5 382 0.016 150 120 21.5 382 0.023 150 150 - 0.81 1.05 J
293
Joint Failure
391 Nishi et al. (1992) JX-2 INT 1 24.9 448 40 0.004 135 24.9 366 0.016 150 120 24.9 366 0.023 150 150 - 0.70 1.24 BJ
392 JXY-2X INT 1 24.9 448 40 0.004 135 24.9 366 0.016 150 120 24.9 366 0.023 150 150 - 0.70 1.07 BJ
393 Ohwada (1977) JE-2 INT 1 20.0 450 40 0.004 150 20.0 432 0.020 150 150 20.0 432 0.034 150 150 - 0.00 0.99 BJ
394 Owada (1992) J1T-1 INT 1 31.2 447 40 0.004 135 31.2 340 0.014 150 120 31.2 343 0.023 150 150 - -0.07 0.86 J
395 J1R-1 INT 1 31.2 447 40 0.004 135 31.2 340 0.014 150 120 31.2 343 0.023 150 150 - 0.13 0.86 BJ
396 Shin and LaFave SL1 INT 1 29.9 448 79 0.006 368 29.9 503 0.008 406 279 35.8 538 0.015 330 457 89 0.00 1.15 BJ
397 (2004) SL2 INT 1 36.2 448 79 0.006 318 36.2 503 0.012 406 178 40.7 538 0.015 330 457 140 0.00 1.12 BJ
398 SL4 INT 1 31.2 448 64 0.012 279 31.2 510 0.008 406 279 31.5 503 0.026 368 279 - 0.00 0.97 BJ
399 Sugano et al. (1991) J4-0 INT 1 30.4 922 50 0.012 370 30.4 385 0.031 400 300 30.4 400 0.024 440 440 - 0.33 0.95 J
400 J6-0 INT 1 60.5 922 50 0.012 370 60.5 385 0.031 400 300 60.5 400 0.024 440 440 - 0.17 1.04 BJ
401 J8-0 INT 1 77.6 922 50 0.012 370 77.6 385 0.031 400 300 77.6 400 0.024 440 440 - 0.13 1.17 BJ
402 J8H-0 INT 1 80.1 922 50 0.012 370 80.1 568 0.031 400 300 80.1 568 0.024 440 440 - 0.13 1.03 BJ
403 Tsubosaki et al. (1993) J13NS INT 1 60.3 800 50 0.004 270 60.3 711 0.014 320 240 60.3 973 0.044 300 300 - 0.29 0.75 BJ
404 Goto et al. (1999) B17-13X INT 2 22.8 291 50 0.008 250 22.8 389 0.017 350 200 22.8 387 0.035 300 300 - 0.15 1.01 BJ
405 B17-13Y INT 2 22.8 291 50 0.008 250 22.8 389 0.017 350 200 22.8 387 0.035 300 300 - 0.15 1.00 BJ
406 B17-13LX INT 2 19.7 291 50 0.008 250 19.7 389 0.017 350 200 19.7 387 0.035 300 300 - 0.17 0.91 BJ
407 B17-13LY INT 2 19.7 291 50 0.008 250 19.7 389 0.017 350 200 19.7 387 0.035 300 300 - 0.17 1.07 BJ
408 B17-19X INT 2 20.3 291 50 0.008 250 20.3 384 0.014 350 200 20.3 387 0.035 300 300 - 0.16 0.97 BJ
409 B17-19Y INT 2 20.3 291 50 0.008 250 20.3 384 0.014 350 200 20.3 387 0.035 300 300 - 0.16 1.03 BJ
410 Gumaraes et al. (1992) J2 INT 2 27.6 550 102 0.008 457 27.6 463 0.015 508 406 26.1 459 0.040 508 508 - 0.00 0.86 BJ
411 J4 INT 2 31.6 550 102 0.008 457 31.6 463 0.010 508 406 29.1 523 0.040 508 508 - 0.00 0.84 BJ
412 J5 INT 2 77.9 550 102 0.008 457 77.9 561 0.023 508 406 95.1 543 0.063 508 508 - 0.00 1.05 BJ
413 J6 INT 2 92.1 570 64 0.016 457 92.1 523 0.019 508 406 70.3 561 0.063 508 508 - 0.00 0.87 BJ
414 Hiramatsu et al. (1995) S2 INT 2 52.2 876 40 0.003 255 52.2 836 0.015 300 210 52.2 836 0.023 300 300 - 0.20 1.01 BJ
415 Hosono et al. (2001) TD-1 INT 2 23.0 404 90 0.005 300 23.0 538 0.026 380 250 23.0 517 0.051 350 350 - 0.31 1.05 BJ
416 Inoue et al. (1990) SP1 INT 2 43.3 1253 52 0.003 371 43.3 473 0.018 417 301 43.3 473 0.018 440 440 - 0.28 1.12 BJ
417 Joh and Goto (2000) TH-13 INT 2 22.8 373 25 0.008 250 22.8 334 0.017 350 200 22.8 387 0.035 300 300 - 0.17 0.96 BJ
418 TH-13A INT 2 19.7 373 25 0.008 250 19.7 334 0.017 350 200 19.7 387 0.035 300 300 - 0.19 0.88 BJ
419 TH-19 INT 2 20.0 373 25 0.008 250 20.0 384 0.014 350 200 20.0 387 0.035 300 300 - 0.18 0.89 BJ
420 TL-13 INT 2 23.2 373 50 0.004 250 23.2 334 0.010 350 200 23.2 387 0.027 300 300 - 0.10 0.94 BJ
294
Joint Failure
421 Joh et al. (1988) X2-1 INT 2 22.5 363 88 0.002 225 22.5 363 0.008 350 150 22.5 363 0.023 300 300 - 0.15 1.07 BJ
422 X2-2 INT 2 22.3 363 88 0.002 225 22.3 363 0.008 350 150 22.3 363 0.023 300 300 - 0.15 0.88 BJ
423 X2-3 INT 2 20.6 1334 30 0.006 225 20.6 363 0.008 350 150 20.6 363 0.023 300 300 - 0.17 0.97 BJ
424 X2-4 INT 2 23.3 363 88 0.002 225 23.3 363 0.005 600 150 23.3 363 0.023 300 300 - 0.15 1.15 BJ
425 Kurose et al. (1991) J2E INT 2 27.6 409 152 0.008 305 27.6 463 0.028 457 279 27.6 459 0.068 457 330 - 0.00 1.08 BJ
426 J2N INT 2 27.6 409 152 0.008 305 27.6 463 0.030 457 279 27.6 459 0.068 457 330 - 0.00 1.10 BJ
427 Meinheit and Jirsa 8 INT 2 33.1 409 152 0.005 305 33.1 449 0.022 457 279 33.1 449 0.043 457 330 - 0.32 0.95 BJ
428 (1981) 9 INT 2 31.0 409 152 0.005 305 31.0 449 0.022 457 279 31.0 449 0.043 457 330 - 0.35 0.99 J
429 10 INT 2 29.6 409 152 0.005 305 29.6 449 0.022 457 279 29.6 449 0.043 457 330 - 0.36 1.05 J
430 11 INT 2 25.6 409 152 0.004 432 25.6 449 0.015 457 406 25.6 438 0.043 330 457 - 0.42 1.01 J
431 Nakamura et al. (1991) No. 3 INT 2 65.5 880 60 0.004 350 65.5 785 0.017 400 300 65.5 785 0.022 400 400 - 0.09 1.00 BJ
432 Ohwada (1977) JI-2 INT 2 20.0 450 40 0.004 150 20.0 432 0.020 150 150 20.0 432 0.034 150 150 - 0.00 1.01 BJ
433 Teroaka (1997) NO3 INT 2 30.4 390 57 0.011 270 30.9 406 0.022 300 240 32.2 431 0.027 300 300 - 0.24 0.97 J
434 NO4 INT 2 36.6 390 57 0.011 270 39.6 411 0.025 300 240 39.6 431 0.027 300 300 - 0.32 0.99 J
435 NO5 INT 2 36.6 390 53 0.015 270 39.6 411 0.025 300 240 39.6 431 0.027 300 300 - 0.32 1.01 J
436 NO6 INT 2 39.6 390 57 0.011 270 39.6 411 0.025 300 240 39.6 431 0.027 300 300 - 0.30 0.98 BJ
437 NO7 INT 2 46.7 390 57 0.011 270 41.5 411 0.025 300 240 41.5 431 0.027 300 300 - 0.25 1.02 BJ
438 NO8 INT 2 46.7 390 53 0.015 270 41.5 411 0.025 300 240 41.5 431 0.027 300 300 - 0.25 1.04 BJ
439 NO9 INT 2 30.5 390 71 0.003 270 28.9 406 0.022 300 240 28.9 431 0.027 300 300 - 0.25 1.05 J
440 NO10 INT 2 30.5 390 57 0.011 270 28.9 406 0.022 300 240 28.9 431 0.027 300 300 - 0.25 1.17 J
441 NO11 INT 2 32.2 390 71 0.003 270 26.0 396 0.025 300 240 26.0 431 0.027 300 300 - 0.33 1.02 J
442 NO12 INT 2 32.2 390 57 0.011 270 26.0 396 0.025 300 240 26.0 431 0.027 300 300 - 0.33 1.08 J
443 NO24 INT 2 39.4 300 35 0.006 300 33.0 601 0.010 300 260 32.1 399 0.021 340 340 - 0.15 1.21 BJ
444 NO27 INT 2 32.2 300 35 0.006 300 33.6 399 0.019 300 260 37.0 399 0.021 340 340 - 0.18 1.10 BJ
445 NO31 INT 2 31.9 328 45 0.006 453 32.6 421 0.016 560 365 33.4 421 0.025 540 540 - 0.11 1.12 BJ
446 NO32 INT 2 33.7 312 40 0.005 453 32.6 421 0.016 560 365 33.4 421 0.025 540 540 - 0.10 1.14 BJ
447 NO33 INT 2 34.7 314 45 0.010 453 32.6 421 0.016 560 365 33.4 421 0.025 540 540 - 0.10 1.18 BJ
448 NO34 INT 2 39.4 390 40 0.007 400 35.5 429 0.015 500 300 33.0 427 0.017 500 500 - 0.20 1.19 BJ
449 NO35 INT 2 39.4 390 40 0.007 400 35.5 429 0.015 500 300 33.0 427 0.017 500 500 75 0.20 1.12 BJ
450 NO36 INT 2 39.4 390 40 0.007 400 35.5 429 0.018 500 300 33.0 427 0.017 500 500 - 0.20 1.24 BJ
295
Joint Failure
451 Teroaka (1997) NO37 INT 2 39.4 390 40 0.007 400 35.5 429 0.015 500 300 33.0 427 0.017 500 500 - 0.20 1.19 BJ
452 NO38 INT 2 39.4 390 40 0.007 400 35.5 429 0.015 500 300 33.0 427 0.017 500 500 75 0.20 1.12 BJ
453 Tsubosaki et al. (1993) J12EW INT 2 60.3 800 50 0.004 270 60.3 711 0.021 320 240 60.3 973 0.044 300 300 - 0.29 0.79 BJ
454 J12NS INT 2 60.3 800 50 0.004 270 60.3 711 0.020 320 240 60.3 973 0.044 300 300 - 0.29 0.75 BJ
Mean 1.01
Minimum 0.71
Maximum 1.36
COV 0.12
§ J, BJ, CJ, and A refer to joint shear failure without member yielding, joint shear failure after beam yielding, and joint shear failure after column
yielding, bond failure associated with short embedment length, respectively.
Note that subscripts j, b, and c indicate joint, beam, and column, respectively.
296
APPEDIX D
AFTERSHOCK FRAGILITY CURVES
Using the framework for the development of aftershock fragility curves proposed in
Chapter 5, Chapter 6 present the applicability of the framework to analytical frame
models with different modeling characteristics. The aftershock fragility curves are
developed in terms of the four limit states and initial damage states associated with
mainshock-damaged conditions to evaluate the increased vulnerability and damage
accumulation due to mainshock-aftershock sequences. This appendix not only contains
the aftershock fragility curves with different initial damage states for the analytical
models, but also presents the comparison of the median values of these curves across the
four limit states.
297
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
P[Slight|PGV , IDS]
0.7 0.7
0.6 IDS (No damage) 0.6 IDS (No damage)
as
0 0
0.4 IDS (θ =0.50%) 0.4 IDS (θ =0.50%)
2 max,ms 2 max,ms
0.1 IDS (θ =2.50%) 0.1 IDS (θ =2.50%)
5 max,ms 5 max,ms
0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2

1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
as

0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
Figure D.1 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for OMF-4S-RO model
2.1
IDS0
1.8 IDS1
IDS2
1.5
IDS3
1.2 IDS4
IDS5
0.9
0.6
0.3
0
Limit state
Figure D.2 Median values of aftershock fragility curves for OMF-4S-RO model
298
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
P[Moderate|PGV , IDS]
P[Slight|PGV , IDS]
0.7 0.7
as
as
0 0
0.4 IDS (θ =0.50%) 0.4 IDS (θ =0.50%)
2 max,ms 2 max,ms
0.1 IDS (θ =2.50%) 0.1 IDS (θ =2.50%)
5 max,ms 5 max,ms
0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2

1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
as
as
0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
Figure D.3 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for OMF-4S-JS model
2.1
IDS0
1.8 IDS1
IDS2
1.5
IDS3
1.2 IDS4
IDS5
0.9
0.6
0.3
0
Limit state
Figure D.4 Median values of aftershock fragility curves for OMF-4S-JS model
299
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
P[Slight|PGV , IDS]
0.7 0.7
as
0.6 0.6
as
0.5 0.5
0.3 IDS (θ =1.00%) 0.3 IDS (θ =1.00%)
3 max,ms 3 max,ms
0.1 IDS (θ =2.50%) 0.1 IDS (θ =2.50%)
5 max,ms 5 max,ms
0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2

1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
as
as
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.3 IDS (θ =1.00%) 0.3 IDS (θ =1.00%)
3 max,ms 3 max,ms
0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
Figure D.5 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for OMF-4S-JB model
2.1
IDS0
1.8 IDS3
IDS4
1.5
IDS5
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.3
0
Limit state
Figure D.6 Median values of aftershock fragility curves for OMF-4S-JB model
300
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
P[Slight|PGV , IDS]
0.7 0.7
as
0.6 0.6
as
0.5 0.5
0.3 IDS (θ =1.00%) 0.3 IDS (θ =1.00%)
3 max,ms 3 max,ms
0.1 IDS (θ =2.50%) 0.1 IDS (θ =2.50%)
5 max,ms 5 max,ms
0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2

1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
as
as
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.3 IDS (θ =1.00%) 0.3 IDS (θ =1.00%)
3 max,ms 3 max,ms
0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
Figure D.7 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for OMF-4S-CS model
2.1
IDS0
1.8 IDS3
IDS4
1.5
IDS5
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.3
0
Limit state
Figure D.8 Median values of aftershock fragility curves for OMF-4S-CS model
301
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
P[Slight|PGV , IDS]
0.7 0.7
as
0.6 0.6
as
0.5 0.5
0.3 IDS (θ =1.00%) 0.3 IDS (θ =1.00%)
3 max,ms 3 max,ms
0.1 IDS (θ =2.50%) 0.1 IDS (θ =2.50%)
5 max,ms 5 max,ms
0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2

1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
as
as
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.3 IDS (θ =1.00%) 0.3 IDS (θ =1.00%)
3 max,ms 3 max,ms
0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
Figure D.9 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for OMF-4S-JCS model
2.1
IDS0
1.8 IDS3
IDS4
1.5
IDS5
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.3
0
Limit state
Figure D.10 Median values of aftershock fragility curves for OMF-4S-JCS model
302
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
P[Slight|PGV , IDS]
0.7 0.7
as
as
0 0
0.4 IDS (θ =0.50%) 0.4 IDS (θ =0.50%)
2 max,ms 2 max,ms
0.1 IDS (θ =2.50%) 0.1 IDS (θ =2.50%)
5 max,ms 5 max,ms
0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2

1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
as
as
0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
Figure D.11 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for OMF-8S-JS model
1.6
IDS0
1.4 IDS1
IDS2
1.2
IDS3
1
IDS4
0.8 IDS5
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Limit state
Figure D.12 Median values of aftershock fragility curves for OMF-8S-JS model
303
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
P[Slight|PGV , IDS]
0.7 0.7
as
0.6 0.6
as
0.5 0.5
0.3 IDS (θ =1.00%) 0.3 IDS (θ =1.00%)
3 max,ms 3 max,ms
0.1 IDS (θ =2.50%) 0.1 IDS (θ =2.50%)
5 max,ms 5 max,ms
0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2

1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
as
as
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.3 IDS (θ =1.00%) 0.3 IDS (θ =1.00%)
3 max,ms 3 max,ms
0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
Figure D.13 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for OMF-8S-CS model
1.6
IDS0
1.4 IDS3
IDS4
1.2
IDS5
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Limit state
Figure D.14 Median values of aftershock fragility curves for OMF-8S-CS model
304
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
P[Slight|PGV , IDS]
0.7 0.7
as
0.6 0.6
as
0.5 0.5
0.3 IDS (θ =1.00%) 0.3 IDS (θ =1.00%)
3 max,ms 3 max,ms
0.1 IDS (θ =2.50%) 0.1 IDS (θ =2.50%)
5 max,ms 5 max,ms
0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2

1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
as
as
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.3 IDS (θ =1.00%) 0.3 IDS (θ =1.00%)
3 max,ms 3 max,ms
0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
Figure D.15 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for OMF-8S-JCS model
1.6
IDS0
1.4 IDS3
IDS4
1.2
IDS5
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Limit state
Figure D.16 Median values of aftershock fragility curves for OMF-8S-JCS model
305
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
P[Slight|PGV , IDS]
0.7 0.7
as
0.6 0.6
as
0.5 0.5
0.3 IDS (θ =1.00%) 0.3 IDS (θ =1.00%)
3 max,ms 3 max,ms
0.1 IDS (θ =2.50%) 0.1 IDS (θ =2.50%)
5 max,ms 5 max,ms
0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2

1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
as
as
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.3 IDS (θ =1.00%) 0.3 IDS (θ =1.00%)
3 max,ms 3 max,ms
0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
Figure D.17 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for OMF-4P-JS model
1.2
IDS0
1 IDS3
IDS4
0.8 IDS5
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Limit state
Figure D.18 Median values of aftershock fragility curves for OMF-4P-JS model
306
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
P[Slight|PGV , IDS]
0.7 0.7
as
0.6 0.6
as
0.5 0.5
0.3 IDS (θ =1.00%) 0.3 IDS (θ =1.00%)
3 max,ms 3 max,ms
0.1 IDS (θ =2.50%) 0.1 IDS (θ =2.50%)
5 max,ms 5 max,ms
0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2

1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
as
as
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.3 IDS (θ =1.00%) 0.3 IDS (θ =1.00%)
3 max,ms 3 max,ms
0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
Figure D.19 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for OMF-8P-JS model
1.2
IDS0
1 IDS3
IDS4
0.8 IDS5
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Limit state
Figure D.20 Median values of aftershock fragility curves for OMF-8P-JS model
307
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
P[Slight|PGV , IDS]
0.7 0.7
as
0.6 0.6
as
0.5 0.5
0.3 IDS (θ =1.50%) 0.3 IDS (θ =1.50%)
3 max,ms 3 max,ms
0.1 IDS (θ =4.50%) 0.1 IDS (θ =4.50%)
5 max,ms 5 max,ms
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
as
as
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.3 IDS (θ =1.50%) 0.3 IDS (θ =1.50%)
3 max,ms 3 max,ms
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Figure D.21 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for SMF-4P-RO model
3.5
IDS0
3 IDS3
IDS4
2.5
IDS5
2
1.5
0.5
0
Limit state
Figure D.22 Median values of aftershock fragility curves for SMF-4P-RO model
308
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
P[Slight|PGV , IDS]
0.7 0.7
as
0.6 0.6
as
0.5 0.5
0.3 IDS (θ =1.50%) 0.3 IDS (θ =1.50%)
3 max,ms 3 max,ms
0.1 IDS (θ =4.50%) 0.1 IDS (θ =4.50%)
5 max,ms 5 max,ms
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
as
as
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.3 IDS (θ =1.50%) 0.3 IDS (θ =1.50%)
3 max,ms 3 max,ms
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Figure D.23 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for SMF-4P-JS model
3.5
IDS0
3 IDS3
IDS4
2.5
IDS5
2
1.5
0.5
0
Limit state
Figure D.24 Median values of aftershock fragility curves for SMF-4P-JS model
309
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
P[Slight|PGV , IDS]
0.7 0.7
as
0.6 0.6
as
0.5 0.5
0.3 IDS (θ =1.50%) 0.3 IDS (θ =1.50%)
3 max,ms 3 max,ms
0.1 IDS (θ =4.50%) 0.1 IDS (θ =4.50%)
5 max,ms 5 max,ms
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
as
as
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.3 IDS (θ =1.50%) 0.3 IDS (θ =1.50%)
3 max,ms 3 max,ms
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Figure D.25 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for SMF-8P-RO model
3
IDS0
2.5 IDS3
IDS4
2 IDS5
1.5
0.5
0
Limit state
Figure D.26 Median values of aftershock fragility curves for SMF-8P-RO model
310
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
P[Slight|PGV , IDS]
0.7 0.7
as
0.6 0.6
as
0.5 0.5
0.3 IDS (θ =1.50%) 0.3 IDS (θ =1.50%)
3 max,ms 3 max,ms
0.1 IDS (θ =4.50%) 0.1 IDS (θ =4.50%)
5 max,ms 5 max,ms
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
as
as
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.3 IDS (θ =1.50%) 0.3 IDS (θ =1.50%)
3 max,ms 3 max,ms
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Figure D.27 Aftershock fragility curves with different IDSs for SMF-8P-JS model
3
IDS0
2.5 IDS3
IDS4
2 IDS5
1.5
0.5
0
Limit state
Figure D.28 Median values of aftershock fragility curves for SMF-8P-JS model
311
REFERENCES
ACI Committee 318 (1963) Building code requirements for reinforced concrete (ACI
318-71) and commentary (ACI 318R-63), American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
MI.
318-71) and commentary (ACI 318R-71), American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI.
318-89) and commentary (ACI 318R-89), American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
MI.
318-02) and commentary (ACI 318R-02), American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI.
ACI-ASCE Committee 352 (2002) Recommendations for design of beam-column
connections in monolithic reinforced concrete structures, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
Adachi, M., Ishida K., Fujii S., Watanabe, F., and Morita, S. (1995) Bi-directional
seismic loading tests of high-strength R/C corner column-beam subassemblage (1)
(in Japanese), Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting Architectural
Institute of Japan, pp. 91–92.
Akguzel, U. (2011) Seismic performance of FRP retrofitted exterior RC beam-column
joints under varying axial and bidirectional loading, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of
Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
New Zealand.
Alath, S. and Kunnath, S.K. (1995) Modeling inelastic shear deformations in RC beam-
column joints, Engineering Mechanics: Proceedings of 10th Conference,
University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO, May 21–24, ASCE, New York,
Vol. 2, pp. 822–825.
Alire, D.A. (2002) Seismic evaluation of existing unconfined reinforced concrete beam-
column joints, M.S. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Almusallam, T.H., and Al-Salloum, Y.A. (2007) Seismic response of interior RC beam-
column joints upgraded with FRP sheets. II: Analysis and parametric study,
ASCE Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 11, No. 6, pp. 590–600.
Al-Salloum, Y.A., Siddiqui, N.A., Elsanadedy, H.M., Abadel, A.A., and Aqel, M.A.
(2011) Textile-reinforced mortar versus FRP as strengthening material for
seismically deficient RC beam-column joints, ASCE Journal of Composites for
Construction, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 920–933.
312
Altoontash, A. (2004) Simulation and damage models for performance assessment of
reinforced concrete beam-column joints, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, CA.
Alva, G.M.S., de Cresce El Debs, A.L.H., and El Debs, M.K. (2007) An experimental
study on cyclic behaviour of reinforced concrete connections, Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 565–575.
Amadio, C., Fragiacomo, M., and Rajgelj, S. (2003) The effects of repeated earthquake
ground motions on the non-linear response of SDOF systems, Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 291–308.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2000) Prestandard and commentary for
the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA-356, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington DC.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2005) ASCE 7-05: Minimum design loads
for buildings and other structures, Reston, VA.
Anderson, M., Lehman, D., and Stanton, J. (2008) A cyclic shear stress-strain model for
joints without transverse reinforcement, Engineering Structures, Vol. 30, No. 4,
pp. 941–954.
Ang, G.B., Priestley, M.J.N., and Park, R. (1981) Ductility of reinforced bridge piers
under seismic loading, Report 81-3, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Antonopulos, C.P. and Triantafillou, T.C. (2003) Experimental investigation of FRP-
strengthened RC beam-column joints, ACSE Journal of Composites for
Aoyama, H., Lee, S., Tasai, A., and Otani, S. (1993) Bond characteristics of beam bars
passing through reinforced concrete interior beam-column joints using high-
strength concrete–Part 1: Outline of experiment (in Japanese), Summaries of
Technical Papers of Annual Meeting Architectural Institute of Japan, pp. 837–838.
Applied Technology Council (ATC) (1985) Earthquake damage evaluation data for
California, Report No. ATC-13, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City,
CA.
Applied Technology Council (ATC) (1996) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete
buildings, Report No. ATC-40, California Seismic Safety Commission (SSC 96-
01), Sacramento, CA.
Aschheim, M. and Black, E. (1999) Effects of prior earthquake damage on response of
simple stiffness-degrading structures, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 1–
24.
Aschheim, M. and Moehle, J.P. (1992) Shear strength and deformability of RC bridge
columns subjected to inelastic displacements, UCB/EERC 92/04, University of
California, Berkeley, CA.
Asou, N., Nagashima, T., and Sugano, S. (1993) Force characteristic of beam column
connection using high strength concrete (Fc600) and reinforcement (SD490) (in
313
Japanese), Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 553–
558.
Attaalla, S.A. (2004) General analytical model for normal shear stress of type 2 normal
and high strength concrete beam-column joints, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 101,
No. 1, pp. 65–75.
Aycardi, L.E., Mander, J.B., and Reinhorn, A.M. (1994) Seismic resistance of reinforced
concrete frame structures designed only for gravity loads: Experimental
performance of subassemblages, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 91, No. 5, pp. 552–
563.
Azizinamini, A., Johal, L.S., Hanson, N.W., Musser, D.W., and Corley, W.G. (1988)
Effects of transverse reinforcement on seismic performance of columns–A partial
parametric investigation, Project No. CR-96 17, Construction Technology
Laboratories, Skokie, Illinois.
Bae, S. (2005) Seismic performance of full-scale reinforced concrete columns, Ph.D.
Thesis, Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, The
University of Texas at Austin, TX.
Baker, J.W. and Cornell, C.A. (2006) Vector-valued ground motion intensity measures
for probabilistic seismic demand analysis, PEER Report 2006/08, Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Baker, J.W., Shahi, S.K., and Jayaram, N. (2011) New ground motion selection
procedures and selected motions for the PEER Transportation Research Program,
PEER Report 2011/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Barkhordary, M. and Tariverdilo, S. (2011) Vulnerability of ordinary moment resistant
concrete frames, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, Vol. 10, No.
4, pp. 519–533.
Bartlett, F.M. and MacGregor, J.G. (1996) Statistical analysis of the compressive
strength of concrete in structures, ACI Material Journal, Vol. 93, No. 2, pp. 158–
168.
Barnes, M., Jigoral, S., Park, S., and Moehle, J. (2008) Evaluation of exterior non-ductile
reinforced concrete building joints experiencing early column failure, Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Bazzurro, P., Cornell, C.A., Menun, C., Motahari, M., and Luco, N. (2006) Advanced
seismic assessment guidelines, PEER Report 2006/05, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Bearman, C.F. (2012) Post-earthquake assessment of reinforced concrete frames, M.S.
Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Washington, Seattle, WA.
Beres, A., White, R.N., and Gergely, P. (1992) Seismic performance of interior and
exterior beam-to-column joints related to lightly reinforced concrete frame
314
buildings: Detailed experimental results, Report No. 92-7, School of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Berry, M., Parrish, M., and Eberhard, M. (2004) PEER structural performance database
user’s manual, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
Biddah, A.M.S. (1997) Seismic behaviour of existing and rehabilitated reinforced
concrete frame connections, Ph.D. Thesis, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada.
Bonacci, J. and Pantazopoulou, S. (1993) Parametric investigation of joint mechanics,
ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 90, No. 1, pp. 61-70.
Bracci, J.M., Reinhorn, A.M., and Mander, J.B. (1992) Seismic resistance of reinforced
concrete frame structures designed only for gravity loads: Part I–Design and
properties of a 1/3 scale model structure, Technical Report NCEER–92–0027,
National Center of Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New
York at Buffalo, NY.
Canbolat, B.B. and Wight, J.K. (2008) Experimental investigation on seismic behavior of
eccentric reinforced concrete beam-column-slab connections, ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 105, No. 2, pp. 154–162.
Celik, O.C. and Ellingwood, B.R. (2008) Modeling beam-column joints in fragility
assessment of gravity load designed reinforced concrete frames, Journal of
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 357–381.
Celik, O.C. and Ellingwood, B.R. (2010) Seismic fragilities for non-ductile reinforced
concrete frames–Role of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties, Structural Safety,
32(1), pp. 1-12.
Chang, K.W., Kim, Y.I., and Oh, Y.H. (1997) Slab effect on inelastic behavior of high
strength RC beam-column joints (in Korean), Journal of the Korean Concrete
Institute, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 167–177.
Chen, C.C. and Chen, G-K. (1999) Cyclic behavior of reinforced concrete eccentric
beam-column corner joints connecting spread-ended beams, ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 96, No. 3, pp. 443–450.
Chen, T.-H. (2006) Retrofit strategy of non-seismically designed frame systems based on
a metallic haunch system, M.S. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Chun, S.-C. and Kim, D.-Y. (2004) Evaluation of mechanical anchorage of
reinforcement by exterior beam-column joint experiments, 13th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 0326, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Chutarat, N. and Aboutaha, R.S. (2003) Cyclic response of exterior reinforced concrete
beam-column joints reinforced with headed bars–experimental investigation, ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 100, No. 2, pp. 259–264.
Clyde, C., Pantelides, C.P., and Reaveley, L.D. (2000) Performance-based evaluation of
exterior reinforced concrete building joints for seismic excitation, PEER Report
315
2000/05, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center, University of California,
Berkeley, CA.
Cornell, A.C., Jayaler, F., Hamburger, R.O., and Foutch, A.D. (2002) Probabilistic basis
for 2000 SAC Federal Emergency Management Agency steel moment frame
guidelines, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 128, No. 4, pp. 526–
533.
Decanini, L., Gavarini, C., and Mollaioli, F. (2000) Some remarks on the Umbria-Marche
earthquakes of 1997, European Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 3, pp. 18– 48.
Decanini L.D., Liberatore, D., Liberatore, L., and Sorrentino, L. (2012) Preliminary
report on the 2012, May 20, Emilia earthquake, Vol. 1,
http://www.eqclearinghouse.org/2012-05-20-italy-it/.
DesRoches, R., Comerio, M., Eberhard, M., Moony, W., and Rix, G.J. (2011) Overview
of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 27, No. S1, pp. S1–S21.
Dhakal, R.P., Pan, T.-C., Irawan, P., Tsai, K.-C., Lin, K.-C., and Chen, C.-H. (2005)
Experimental study on the dynamic response of gravity-designed reinforced
concrete connections, Engineering Structures, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 75–87.
Durrani, A.J. and Wight, J.K. (1985) Behavior of interior beam-to-column connections
under earthquake-type loading, ACI Journal, Vol. 82, No. 3, pp. 343–349.
Eberhard, M.O., Baldridge, S., Marshall, J., Mooney, W., and Rix, G.J. (2010) The Mw
7.0 Haiti Earthquake of January 12, 2010, USGS/EERI Advance Reconnaissance
Team Report, US Geological Survey Open-File Report.
Ehsani, M.R. and Alameddine, F. (1991) Design recommendations for type 2 high
strength reinforced concrete connections, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 88, No. 3,
pp. 277–291.
Ehsani, M.R. and Wight, J.K. (1985) Exterior reinforced concrete beam-to-column
connections subjected to earthquake-type loading, ACI Journal, Vol. 82, No. 4,
pp. 492–499.
Ehsani, M.R., Moussa, A.E., and Vallenilla, C.R. (1987) Comparison of inelastic
behavior of reinforced ordinary-and high strength concrete frames, ACI
El-Amoury, T.A. (2004) Seismic rehabilitation of concrete frame beam-column joints,
Ph.D. Thesis, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada.
Ellingwood, B.R., Celik, O.C., and Kinali, K. (2007) Fragility assessment of building
structural systems in Mid-America, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, Vol. 36, No. 13, pp. 1935–1952.
Ellingwood, B.R., Taftali, B., and DesRoches, R. (2010) Seismic performance assessment
of steel frames with shape memory alloy connections, Part II – Probabilistic
seismic demand assessment, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 5,
pp. 631–645.
316
Ellingwood, B.R. and Wen, Y.-K. (2005) Risk-benefit-based design decisions for low-
probability/high consequence earthquake events in Mid-America, Progress on
Structural Engineering and Materials, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 56–70.
Elwood, K.J., Matamoros, A.B., Wallace, J.W., Lehman, D., Heintz, J.A., Mitchell, A.D.,
Moore, M.A., Valley, M.T., Lowes, L.N., Comartin, C.D., and Moehle, J.P. (2007)
Update to ASCE/SEI 41 concrete provisions, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 23, No. 3,
pp. 493–523.
Elwood, K.J. and Moehle, J.P. (2003) Shake table tests and analytical studies on the
gravity load collapse of reinforced concrete frames, PEER Report 2005/13,
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, CA.
Elwood, K.J. and Moehle, J.P. (2005) Drift capacity of reinforced concrete columns with
light transverse reinforcement, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 71–89.
Endoh, Y., Kamura, T., Otani, S., and Aoyama, H. (1991) Behavior of RC beam-column
connections using light-weight concrete, Transactions of the Japan Concrete
Institute, Vol. 13, pp. 319–326.
Engindeniz, M. (2008) Repair and strengthening of pre-1970 RC corner beam-column
joints using CFRP composites, Ph.D. Thesis, School of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, GA.
Esaki, F. (1996) Reinforcing effect of steel plate hoops on ductility of R/C square column,
11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 199, Acapulco,
Mexico.
Faisal, A., Majid, T.A., and Hatzigeorgiou, G.D. (2013) Investigation of story ductility
demands of inelastic concrete frames subjected to repeated earthquakes, Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 44, pp. 42–53.
FEMA (2003) HAZUS-MH MR4 technical manual, earthquake model, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
FEMA 306 (1998) Evaluation of earthquake damaged concrete and masonry wall
buildings: Basic procedures manual, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Redwood City, CA.
Filiatrault, A., Ladicani, K., and Massicotte, B. (1994) Seismic performance of code
designed fiber reinforced concrete joints, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 91, No.5,
pp. 564–571.
Fujii, S. and Morita, S. (1987) Behavior of exterior reinforced concrete beam-column-
slab subassemblages under bi-directional loading, Pacific Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Wairakei, New Zealand, Vol. 1, pp. 339-350.
Fujii, S. and Morita, S. (1991) Comparison between interior and exterior RC beam-
column joint behavior, Design of Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance
(SP123), American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, pp. 145–165.
317
German, S.A. (2013) Automated damage assessment of reinforced concrete columns for
post-earthquake evaluations, Ph.D. Thesis, School of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, GA.
Ghobarah, A. and Said, A. (2002) Shear strengthening of beam-column joints,
Engineering Structures, Vol. 24, No. 7, pp. 881–888.
Goto, Y. and Joh, O. (1996) An experimental study on shear failure mechanism of RC
interior beam-column joints, 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Paper No. 1194, Acapulco, Mexico.
Goto, Y. and Joh, O. (2003) Experimental study on shear resistance of RC interior
eccentric beam-column joints, 9th East Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural
Engineering and Construction, Bali, Indonesia, RSC-170.
Goto, Y. and Joh, O. (2004) Shear resistance of RC interior eccentric beam-column
joints, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 649,
Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Goto, Y., Joh, O., and Yoshida, H. (1999) Characteristic of beam reinforcement bond
and failure after beam reinforcement yielding in RC interior beam column
connection (in Japanese), Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 21,
No. 3, pp. 655–660.
Guimaraes, G.N., Kreger, M.E., and Jirsa, J.O. (1992) Evaluation of joint-shear
provisions for interior beam-column-slab connections using high-strength
materials, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 89, No. 1, pp. 89–98.
Gulkan, P. and Sozen, M. (1999) Procedure for determining seismic vulnerability of
building structures, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 96, No. 3, pp. 336–342.
Hakuto, S., Park, R., and Tanaka, H. (2000) Seismic load tests on interior and exterior
beam-column joints with substandard reinforcing details, ACI Structural Journal,
Vol. 97, No. 1, pp. 11–25.
Hamada, M., Ishibashi, H., and Horie, A. (1999) Experimental study about RC exterior
beam connection subjected to tensile axial force (in Japanese), Proceedings of the
Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 667–672.
Hamil, S.J. (2000) Reinforced concrete beam-column connection behavior, Ph.D. Thesis,
Durham University, UK.
Hanson, N.W. and Conner, H.W. (1967) Seismic resistance of RC beam-column joints,
ACSE Journal of Structural Division, Vol. 93, No. ST5, pp. 533–560.
Hanson, N.W. and Conner, H.W. (1972) Tests of RC beam-column joints under simulated
seismic loading, Portland Cement Association Research and Development
Bulletin.
Haselton, C.B. (2006) Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern reinforced concrete
moment frame buildings, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Stanford University, CA.
318
Haselton, C.B., Liel, A.B., Deierlein, G., Dean, B.S., and Chou, J.H. (2011) Seismic
collapse safety of reinforced concrete buildings. I: Assessment of ductile moment
frames, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 137, No. 4, pp. 481–491.
Hassan, W.M. (2011) Analytical and experimental assessment of seismic vulnerability of
beam-column joints without transverse reinforcement in concrete buildings, Ph.D.
Hatamoto, H. and Bessho, S. (1988) Structural Behavior of columns and beam-column
assemblages in a 30 storey reinforced concrete building, 9th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, Vol. IV, pp. 627–632.
Hatzigeorgiou, G.D. and Liolios, A.A. (2010) Nonlinear behaviour of RC frames under
repeated strong ground motions, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
Vol. 30, No. 10, pp. 1010–1025.
Hauksson, E. and Jones, L.M. (1995) The 1994 Northridge earthquake sequence in
California: Seismological and tectonic aspects, Journal of Geophysical Research,
Vol. 100, No. B7, pp. 12335–12355.
Hayashi, K., Teraoka, M., Mollick, A.A., and Kanoh, Y. (1993) Bond characteristic of
RC interior beam-column connections using high strength materials (in Japanese),
Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute, Vol.15, No. 2, pp. 583–588.
Healy, J.J., Wu, S.T., and Murga, M. (1980) Structural building response review,
UREG/CR–1423, 1, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
Hiramatsu, K., Suzuki, M., Saito, K., and Tokota, K. (1995) Experimental study on high-
strength RC interior beam-column Joints with slabs and transverse beams (in
Japanese), Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting Architectural
Hoffman, G.W., Kunnath, S.K., Mander, J.B., and Reinhorn, A.M. (1992) Gravity-load-
designed reinforced concrete buildings: Seismic evaluation strategies for
Improved Seismic Resistance, Technical Report NCEER-92-0016, National
Center of Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at
Buffalo, NY.
Hoffschild, T.E., Prion, H.G.L., and Chery, S. (1995) Seismic retrofit of beam-to-column
joints with grouted steel tubes, Recent Developments in Lateral Force Transfer in
Buildings (SP157), American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, pp. 397–426.
Hosono, T., Kitayama, K., K., Tajima, H., and Kishida, J. (2001) Failure characteristic
of RC interior beam-column connection subjected to bi-directional loading (in
384.
Hwang, S. and Lee, H. (1999) Analytical model for predicting shear strengths of exterior
reinforced concrete beam-column joints for seismic resistance, ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 96, No. 5, pp. 846–857.
319
Hwang, S. and Lee, H. (2000) Analytical model for predicting shear strengths of interior
reinforced concrete beam-column joints for seismic resistance, ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 97, No. 1, pp. 35–44.
Hwang, S.J., Lee, H.J., Liao, T.F., Wang, K.C., and Tsai, H.H. (2005) Role of hoops on
shear strength of RC beam-column joints, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 102, No. 3,
pp. 445–453.
Ikeda, A. (1968) Report of the training institute for engineering teachers, Yokohama
National University, Japan. Also in A list of past experimental results of
reinforced concrete columns by Hirosawa, M. (1973) Building Research Institute,
Ministry of Construction, Japan.
Ilki, A., Bedirhanoglu, I., and Kumbasar, N. (2011) Behavior of FRP-retrofitted joints
built with plain bars and low-strength concrete, ASCE Journal of Composites for
Inoue, H., Higashi, K., and Ohta, K. (1990) Experimental study on effect of transverse
beam and slab of reinforced cross type beam-column joints (in Japanese),
Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting Architectural Institute of
Japan, pp. 379–380.
International Code Council (2003) 2003 International Building Code, Falls Church, VA.
International Conference of Building Officials (1961) Uniform Building Code, Whittier,
CA.
Irisawa, I. Yoshino, T., and Sasaya, T. (1996) Mechanical properties of precast beam-
column connections (in Japanese), Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute,
Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 1265–1 270.
Ishida, K., Akiyuma, K., Pareek, S., and Kuroda, K. (2004), Experimental study of beam-
column joints of RC structures using high-strength concrete and steel (2) (in
Japanese), Proceedings of Tohoku Branch Research, Architectural Institute of
Japan, Vol. 67, pp. 77–80.
Ishida, K., Fujii, S., Morita, S., and Choi, G. (1996) Shear strength of exterior beam
column connection under bi-axial earthquake loading (in Japanese), Proceedings
of the Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 953–958.
Ishida, K., Shima, K., Higashi, K., and Fujii, S. (2001) Real scale test of RC interior
beam-column connections (in Japanese), Proceedings of the Japan Concrete
Institute, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 343–348.
Ishikawa, Y. and Kamimura, T. (1990), Experimental study on shear resistance of RC
interior beam-column connections (in Japanese), Proceedings of the Japan
Concrete Institute, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 669-674.
Iwaoka, S., Hori, S., Naruse, T., Watanabe, T., Yamamoto, K., and Konno, S. (2005)
Experimental study on the beam-column joints of ultra-high-strength reinforced
concrete structures (in Japanese), Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual
Meeting Architectural Institute of Japan, pp. 245–246.
320
Jeong, S.-H., Mwafy, A.M., and Elnashai, A.S. (2012) Probabilistic seismic performance
assessment of code-compliant multi-story RC buildings, Engineering Structures,
Vol. 34, pp. 527–537.
Jinno, Y., Kanada, K., Fujii, S., and Morita, S. (1985) On design concepts of exterior
beam-column joints of reinforced concrete structures (in Japanese), Research
Report Collection of Kinki Branch, Architectural Institute of Japan, Vol. 25, pp.
117–120.
Jinno, Y., Kawachi, T., Kadoriku, J., and Kumagai, H. (1991) An experimental study on
behaviour of reinforced concrete interior beam-column joints using high-strength
materials: Part1 Test program and results (in Japanese), Summaries of Technical
Papers of Annual Meeting Architectural Institute of Japan, pp. 591–592.
Joh, O. and Goto, Y. (2000) Beam-column joint behavior after beam yielding in RC
ductile frames, 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No.
2196, Auckland, New Zealand.
Joh, O., Goto, Y., and Shibata, T. (1988) Behavior of three-dimensional reinforced
concrete beam-column subassemblages with slabs, 9th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, Vol. VIII, pp. 587–592.
Joh, O., Goto, Y, and Shibata, T. (1989) Influence of joint reinforcement to shear
resistance characteristic in RC exterior beam column connection (in Japanese),
Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 537–542.
Joh, O., Goto, Y., and Shibata, T. (1991a) Behavior of reinforced concrete beam-column
joints with eccentricity, Design of Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance
(SP 123), American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, pp. 317–357.
Joh, O., Goto, Y., and Shibata, T. (1991b) Influence of transverse joint and beam
reinforcement and relocation of plastic hinge region on beam-column joint
stiffness deterioration, Design of Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance (SP
123), American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, pp. 187–223.
Joh, O., Goto, Y., and Shibata, T. (1992) Shear resistance performance in RC exterior
beam column connection using high strength materials (in Japanese),
Kaku, A., Masou, K., Kutoka, T., and Muguruma, T. (1993) Experimental study on
deformation characteristic of beam column connection in RC structure (in
564.
Kaku, T. and Asakusa, H. (1991) Ductility estimation of exterior beam-column
subassemblies in reinforced concrete frames, Design of Beam-Column Joints for
Seismic Resistance (SP123), American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, pp. 167–
185.
Kamimura, T., Takimoto, H., and Tanaka, S. (2004) Mechanical behavior of reinforced
concrete beam-column assemblages with eccentricity, 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 4, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
321
Kanada, K., Kondo, G., Fujii, S., and Morita, S. (1984) Relation between shear failure
and anchorage failure in exterior beam-column joints (in Japanese), Proceedings
of the Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 6, pp. 433–440.
Kaneko, Y., Mihashi, H., and Ishihara, S. (2001) Entire load-displacement
characteristics for direct shear failure of concrete, Modeling of inelastic behavior
of RC structures under seismic load, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston,
Virginia, pp. 175–192.
Karayannis, C.G., Chalioris, C.E., and Sideris, K.K. (1998) Effectiveness of RC beam-
column connection repair using epoxy resin injections, Journal of Earthquake
Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 217–240.
Karayannis, C.G., Chalioris, C.E., and Sirkelis, G.M. (2008) Local retrofit of exterior RC
beam-column joints using thin RC jackets–An experimental study, Earthquake
Kashiwasazaki, T., Kitayama, K., and Noguchi, H. (1992) Bond characteristic of
reinforced concrete beam-column connections using ultra high strength materials
(in Japanese), Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.
397–400.
Kawai, T., Kimura, H., Iwata, M., and Watai, T. (1997) Experimental study of resistance
mechanism of RC beam-column connections using high strength materials (in
1016.
Kim, J. and LaFave, J.M. (2009) Joint shear behavior of reinforced concrete beam-
column connections subjected to seismic lateral loading, Report No. NSEL–020,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, IL.
Kirçil, M.S. and Polat, Z. (2006) Fragility analysis of mid-rise R/C frame buildings,
Engineering Structures, Vol. 28, No. 9, pp. 1335–1345.
Kitayama, K., Otani, S., and Aoyama, H. (1987) Earthquake resistant design criteria for
reinforced concrete interior beam-column joints, Pacific Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Wairakei, New Zealand, Vol. 1, pp. 315–326.
Kitayama, K., Otani, S., and Aoyama, H. (1991) Development of design criteria for RC
interior beam-column joints, Design of Beam-Column Joints for Seismic
Resistance (SP123), American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, pp. 97–123.
Kitayama, K., Lee, S., Otani, S., and Aoyama, H. (1992) Behavior of high-strength R/C
beam-column joints, 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid,
Spain, pp. 3151–3156.
Kitayama, K., Tajima, Y., Okuda, M., and Kishida, S. (2000) Influences of beam and
column bar bond on failure mechanism in reinforced concrete interior beam-
column joints, The 2nd U.S.-Japan Workshop on Performance-Based Earthquake
Engineering Methodology for Reinforced Concrete Building Structures, Sapporo,
Hokkaido, Japan.
322
Kokusho, S. (1964) Report by Building Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan. Also in A list
of past experimental results of reinforced concrete columns by Hirosawa, M.
(1973) Building Research Institute, Ministry of Construction, Japan.
Kordina K. (1984) Bewehrungsfiihrung in ecken und rahmenendknoten, Deutscher
Ausschuss fur Stahlbeton, Heft 354.
Kulkarni, S.A. and Li, B. (2007) Experimental investigations on reinforced concrete
beam-column joints with vertically distributed layers, 8th Pacific Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 555, Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore.
Kunnath, S.K., Hoffmann, G., Reinhorn, A.M., and Mander, J.B. (1995) Gravity-load-
designed reinforced concrete buildings–Part 1: Seismic evaluation of existing
construction, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 343–354.
Kurose, Y., Guimaraes, G.N., Zuhua, L., Kreger, M.E., and Jirsa, J.O. (1991) Evaluation
of slab-beam-column connections subjected to bi-directional loading, Design of
Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance (SP123), American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, MI, pp. 39–67.
Kusuhara, F., Azukawa, K., Shiohara, H., and Otani, S. (2004) Tests of reinforced
concrete interior beam-column joint subassemblage with eccentric beams, 13th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 185, Vancouver, BC,
Canada.
Kwon, O.S. and Elnashai, A. (2006) The effect of material and ground motion
uncertainty on the seismic vulnerability of RC structure, Engineering Structures,
Vol. 28, No. 2, 289–303.
LaFave, J.M. and Shin, M. (2005) Discussion of “Modeling reinforced-concrete beam-
column joints Subjected to cyclic loading” by Lowes, L.N. and Altoontash, A.,
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 6, pp. 992–993.
LeBorgne, M.R. (2012) Modeling the post shear failure behavior of reinforced concrete
columns, Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
Lee, D.H. and Elnashai, A.S. (2001) Seismic analysis of RC bridge columns with flexure-
shear interaction, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 5, pp.
546–553.
Lee, C.-J. and Lee, S.-H. (2000) A study on the shear strength of reinforced concrete
exterior beam-column joints (in Korean), Journal of Architectural Institute of
Korea, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 21–28.
Lee, J.-Y., Kim, J.-Y., and Oh, G.-J. (2009) Strength deterioration of reinforced concrete
beam-column joints subjected to cyclic loading, Engineering Structures, Vol. 31,
No. 9, pp. 2070–2085.
Lee K. and Foutch, D.A. (2004) Performance evaluation of damaged steel frame
buildings subjected to seismic loads, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering,
Vol. 130, No. 4, pp. 588–599.
323
Lee, S.H. and Lee, D.H. (2001) A study on the shear characteristic of exterior-type
reinforced concrete joints under cyclic loading (in Korean), Journal of the
Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 73–82.
Lee, W.T., Chiou, Y.J., and Shih, M.H. (2010) Reinforced concrete beam-column joint
strengthened with carbon fiber reinforced polymer, Composite Structures, Vol. 92,
No. 1, pp. 48–60.
Leon, R.T. (1989) Interior joints with variable anchorage lengths, ASCE Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 115, No. 9, pp. 2261–2275.
Leon, R.T. (1990) Shear strength and hysteretic behavior of interior beam-column joints,
ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 87, No. 1, pp. 3–11.
Le-Trung, K., Lee, K., Lee, J., Lee, D.H., and Woo, S. (2010) Experimental study of RC
beam–column joints strengthened using CFRP composites, Composites Part B:
Li, Q. and Ellingwood, B.R. (2007) Performance evaluation and damage assessment of
steel frame buildings under main shock-aftershock earthquake sequences,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 405–427.
Li, B., Tran, C.T.N., and Pan, T.-C. (2009) Experimental and numerical investigations on
the seismic behavior of lightly reinforced concrete beam-column joints, ASCE
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 9, pp. 1007–1018.
Li, B., Wu, Y., and Pan, T.-C. (2002) Seismic behavior of nonseismically designed
interior beam-wide column joints–Part I: Experimental results and observed
behavior, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 99, No. 6, pp. 791–802.
Liel, A.B. (2008) Assessing the collapse risk of California’s existing reinforced concrete
frame structures: Metrics for seismic safety decisions, Ph.D. Thesis, Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, CA.
Liel, A.B., Haselton, C.B., and Deierlein, G.G. (2011) Seismic collapse safety of
reinforced concrete buildings. II: Comparative assessment of nonductile and
ductile moment frames, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 137, No. 4,
pp. 492–502.
Liu, C. (2006) Seismic behavior of beam-column joint assemblies reinforced with steel
fibers, M.S. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand.
Liu, A. and Park, R. (1998) Seismic load tests on two concrete interior beam-column
joints reinforced by plain round bars designed to pre-1970s codes, Bulletin of the
New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 164–176.
Lowes, L.N. and Altoontash, A. (2003) Modeling reinforced-concrete beam-column
joints subjected to cyclic loading, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
129, No. 12, pp. 1686–1697.
Luco, N., Bazzurro, P., and Cornell, C.A. (2004) Dynamic versus static computation of
the residual capacity of a mainshock-damaged building to withstand an
324
aftershock, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 2405,
Vancouver, Canada.
Lynn, A.C., Moehle, J.P., Mahin, S.A., and Holmes, W.T. (1996) Seismic evaluation of
existing reinforced concrete building columns, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 12, No. 4,
pp. 715–739.
MacGregor, J.G., Mirza, S.A., and Ellingwood, B.R. (1983) Statistical analysis of
resistance of reinforced and prestressed concrete members, Journal of the
American Concrete Institute, Vol. 80, No. 3, pp. 165–276.
Maffei, J., Tellen, K., and Nakayama, Y. (2008) Probability-based seismic assessment of
buildings, considering post-earthquake safety, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 24, No. 3,
pp. 667–699.
Mahin, S.A. (1980) Effects of duration and aftershocks on inelastic design earthquakes,
7th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey, pp. 677–680.
Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N., and Park, R. (1988) Theoretical stress-strain model for
confined concrete, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 114, No. 8, pp.
1804–1826.
Matsumoto, T., Nishihara, H., Nakao, M., and Castro, J.J. (2010) Performance on shear
strength of reinforced concrete eccentric beam-column joints subjected to seismic
loading, Proceedings of the 9th U.S. National and 10th Canadian Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 1457, Toronto, Canada.
Mckay, M.D., Conover, W.J., and Beckman, R.J. (1979) A comparison of three methods
for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer
code, Technometrics, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 239–245.
McKenna, F., Scott, M.H., and Fenves, G.L. (2010) Nonlinear finite-element analysis
software architecture using object composition, ASCE Journal of Computing in
Civil Engineering, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 95–107.
Megget, L.M. (1971) Anchorage of beam reinforcement in seismic resistant reinforced
concrete frames, M.S. Thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New
Zealand.
Megget, L.M. (1974) Cyclic behavior of exterior reinforced concrete beam-column joints,
Bulletin of New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 7, No.
1, pp. 22–47.
Meinheit, D.F. and Jirsa, J.O. (1977) The shear strength of reinforced concrete beam-
column joints, Technical Report CESRL Report No. 77-1, University of Texas at
Austin, TX.
Meinheit, D.F. and Jirsa, J. (1981) Shear strength of R/C beam-column connections,
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 107, No. 11, pp. 2227–2243.
Menegotto, M. and Pinto, P.E. (1973) Method of analysis for cyclically loaded reinforced
concrete plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behavior of
elements under combined normal force and bending, Proceedings of the IABSE
325
Symposium on Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structures Acted on by
Well-Defined Repeated Loads, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 15–22.
Mitra, N. (2007) An analytical study of reinforced concrete beam-column joint behavior
under seismic loading, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Mitra, N. and Lowes, L.N. (2007) Evaluation, calibration, verification of a reinforced
concrete beam-column joint model, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
133, No. 1, pp. 105–120.
Moiser, W.G. (2000) Seismic assessment of reinforced concrete beam-column joints, M.S.
Washington, Seattle, WA.
Morita, S. and Kaku, T. (1984) Slippage of reinforcement in beam-column joint of
reinforced concrete frame, 8th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San
Francisco, CA, pp. 477–484.
Morita, S., Kitayama, K., Kishida, S., and Nishikawa, T. (2004) Shear force and capacity
in reinforced concrete beam-column joints with good bond along beam and
column bars, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 1761,
Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Mosalam, K.M., Ayala, G., White, R.W., and Roth, C. (1997) Seismic fragility of LRC
frames with and without masonry infill walls, Journal of Earthquake Engineering,
Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 693–720.
Mostafaei, H., Vecchio, F.J., and Kabeyasawa, T. (2009) Deformation capacity of
reinforced concrete columns, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 106, No. 2, pp. 187–
195.
Nagasaka, T. (1982) Effectiveness of steel fiber as web reinforcement in reinforced
concrete columns, Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute Vol. 4, pp. 493–
500.
Nakamura, M., Bessho, S., Usami, S., and Kato, T. (1991) Experimental study on interior
beam-column joint using high strength concrete and rebars (1) (in Japanese),
Japan, pp. 583–584.
Neter, J., Kutner, M.H., Nachtsheim, C.J., and Wasserman, W. (1996) Applied linear
statistical models, 4th edition, WCB/McGraw-Hill, Burr Ridge, IL.
Nishi, K. and Ohwada, Y. (1993) An experimental study on reinforced concrete beam-
column joint of exterior frame under biaxial seismic load (3) (in Japanese),
Japan, pp. 859–860.
Nishi, K., Ota, K., and Ohwada, Y. (1992) An experimental study on beam-column joint
of exterior frame under biaxial seismic load (1) (in Japanese), Summaries of
326
Nishiyama, M., Nishizaki, T., Muguruma, H., and Watanabe, F. (1989) Seismic design of
prestressed concrete beam–exterior column joints, Transactions of the Japan
Concrete Institute, Vol. 11, pp. 439–446.
Noguchi, H. and Kashiwazaki, T. (1992) Experimental studies on shear performances of
RC interior column-beam joints with high-strength materials, 10th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, pp. 3163–3168.
Noguchi, H. and Kurusu, K. (1988) Correlation of bond and shear in RC beam-column
connections subjected to seismic forces, 9th World Concrete Earthquake
Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, Vol. IV, pp. 597–602.
Ogawa, T., Sawada, S., Adachi, H., and Nakanishi, M. (2003) Study on mechanical
properties of R/C exterior beam-column joint under dynamic loading (1) (in
Oh, B.G., Park, K.C., Hwang, H.S., and Chung, H.S. (1992) An experimental study on
shear capacity of reinforced concrete exterior beam-column joint with high
strength concrete (in Korean), Proceedings of the Architecture Institute of Korea,
Vol. 12, pp. 363–366.
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.
Ohwada, Y. (1970) A study on RC beam-column connection subjected to lateral load (8)
Institute of Japan, Vol. 45, pp. 737–738.
Ohwada, Y. (1973) A study on RC beam-column connection subjected to lateral load (9)
Institute of Japan, Vol. 48, pp. 1297–1298.
Ohwada, Y. (1976) A study on effect of lateral beams on RC beam-column joints (1) (in
Institute of Japan, pp.1455–1456.
Japanese), Proceedings of the Architectural Institute of Japan, Vol. 61, pp. 241–
244.
Oka, K. and Shiohara, H. (1992) Tests of high-strength concrete interior beam-column-
joint subassemblages, 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid,
Spain, pp. 3211–3217.
327
Onish, S., Sugawara, M., and Takibuchi, Y. (1990) Experimental study on the seismic
performance of beam-column connections (in Japanese), Proceedings of the Japan
Concrete Institute, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 681–684.
Ono, A., Nobuaki, S., Adachi, H., and Sakamaki, Y. (1989) Elasto-plastic behavior of
reinforced concrete column with fluctuating axial force, Transactions of the Japan
Concrete Institute Vol. 11, pp. 239–246.
Ota, T., Hatato, T., Nezu, S., Sugimoto, H., Masuda, Y., Sugimoto, K., and Eto, H. (2004)
Experimental study on pre-cast RC beam-column joint (1) (in Japanese),
Japan, pp. 849–850.
Otani, S., Kobayashi, Y., and Aoyama, H. (1984) Reinforced concrete interior beam-
column joints under simulated earthquake loading, US-New Zealand-Japan
Seminar on Design of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column joints, Monterey, CA.
Otani, S. and Sozen, M.A. (1972) Behavior of multistory reinforced concrete frames
during earthquakes, Structural Research Series No. 392, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, IL.
Ousalem, H., Kabeyasawa, T., Tasai, A., and Ohsugi, Y. (2002) Experimental study on
seismic behavior of reinforced concrete columns under constant and variable,
Proceedings of Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 229–234.
Ousalem, H., Kabeyasawa, T., Tasai, A., and Iwamoto, J. (2003) Effect of hysteretic
reversals on lateral and axial capacities of reinforced concrete columns,
Proceedings of Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 367–372.
Owada, Y. (1984) Studies on reinforced concrete beam-column joints under biaxial
seismic load (2) (in Japanese), Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual
Meeting Architectural Institute of Japan, pp. 1869–1870.
Owada, Y. (1992) Seismic behaviors of beam-column joint of reinforced concrete
exterior frame under varying axial load, 10th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Madrid, Spain, pp. 3181–3184.
Owada, Y. (2000) Three-dimensional behaviors of reinforced concrete beam-column
joint under seismic load, 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Paper No. 0707, Auckland, New Zealand.
Ozaki, E., Nishio, A., Tajima, K., and Shirai, N. (2010) Damage evaluation of RC beam
column joints based on the image measurement (in Japanese), Proceedings of the
Ozbolt, J., Mayer, U., and Vocke, H. (2001) Smeared fracture FE-analysis of reinforced
concrete structures–Theory and examples, Modeling of inelastic behavior of RC
structures under seismic load, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston,
Virginia, pp. 234-256.
Pantelides, C.P., Hansen, J., Nadauld, J., and Reaveley, L.D. (2002) Assessment of
reinforced concrete building exterior joints with substandard details, PEER
328
Report 2002/18, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center, University of California,
Berkeley, CA.
Park, S. and Mosalam, K.M. (2012) Analytical model for predicting shear strength of
unreinforced exterior beam-column joints, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 109, No.
2, pp. 149–160.
Park, S. and Mosalam, K.M. (2013a) Experimental investigation of nonductile RC corner
beam-column joints with floor slabs, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering,
Vol. 139, No. 1, pp. 1–14.
Park, S. and Mosalam, K.M. (2013b) Simulation of reinforced concrete frames with
nonductile beam-column joints, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 233–257.
Park, R. and Paulay, T. (1990) Use of interlocking spirals for transverse reinforcement in
bridge columns, Strength and Ductility of Concrete Substructures of Bridges,
RRU (Road Research Unit) Bulletin 84, Vol. 1, pp. 77–92.
Parker, D.E. and Bullman, P.J.M. (1997) Shear strength within RC beam-column joints,
The Structural Engineer, Vol. 75, No. 4, pp. 53–57.
Paulay, T. (1989) Equilibrium criteria for reinforced concrete beam-column joints, ACI
PEER (2011) NISEE earthquake engineering online archive, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA,
http://nisee.berkeley.edu/elibrary/.
Pessiki, S.P., Conley, C.H., Gergely, P., and White, R.N. (1990) Seismic behavior of
lightly-reinforced concrete column and beam-column joint details, Report No.
NCEER-90-0014, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State
University of New York at Buffalo, NY.
Pimanmas, A. and Chaimahawan, P. (2010) Shear strength of beam-column joint with
enlarged joint area, Engineering Structures, Vol. 32, No. 9, pp. 2529–2545.
Pincheira, J.A., Dotwiala, F.S., and D’Souza J.T. (1999) Seismic analysis of older
reinforced concrete columns, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 245–272.
Priestley, M.J.N. (1997) Displacement based seismic assessment of reinforced concrete
buildings, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 157–92.
Popov, E.P. (1994) Development of US seismic codes, Journal of Constructional Steel
Research, Vol. 29, No. 1–3, pp. 191–207.
Pujol, S., Ramirez, J.A., and Sozen, M.A. (1999) Drift capacity of reinforced concrete
columns subjected to cyclic shear reversals, Seismic Response of Concrete
Bridges, SP-187, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, pp. 255–274.
Raffaelle, G.S. and Wight, J.K. (1995) Reinforced concrete eccentric beam-column
connections subjected to earthquake-type loading, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 92,
No. 1, pp. 45–55.
329
Raghunandan, M, Liel, A.B., Ryu, H., Luco, N., and UMA, S.R. (2012) Aftershock
fragility curves and tagging assessments for a mainshock-damaged building, 15th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 4124, Lisbon, Portugal.
Ramamoorthy, S.K., Gardoni, P., and Bracci, J.M. (2006) Probabilistic demand models
and fragility curves for reinforced concrete frames, ASCE Journal of Structural
Ranf, R.T., Eberhard, M.O., and Malone, S. (2007) Post-earthquake prioritization of
bridge inspections, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 131, No. 1, pp. 131–146.
Reys de Ortiz, I. (1993) Strut-and-tie modeling of reinforced concrete short beams and
beam-column joints, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Westminster, UK.
Rossetto, T. and Elnashai, A.S. (2003) Derivation of vulnerability functions for
European-type RC structures based on observational data, Engineering
Structures, Vol. 25, No. 10, pp. 1241–1263.
Ruiz-García, J. and Negrete-Manriquez, J.C. (2011) Evaluation of drift demands in
existing steel frames under as-recorded far-field and near-fault mainshock-
aftershock seismic sequences, Engineering Structures, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 621–
634.
Ryu, H., Luco, N., Uma, S.R., and Liel, A.B. (2011) Developing fragilities for
mainshock-damaged structures through incremental dynamic analysis,
Proceedings of the 9th Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No.
225, Auckland, New Zealand.
Saatcioglu, M. and Grira, M. (1999) Confinement of reinforced concrete columns with
welded reinforcement grids, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 96, No. 1, pp. 29–39.
Saatcioglu, M. and Ozcebe, G. (1989) Response of reinforced concrete columns to
simulated seismic loading, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 86, No. 1, pp. 3–12.
Sagbas, G. (2007) Nonlinear finite element analysis of beam-column subassemblies, M.S.
Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Canada.
Salim, I.B. (2007) The influence of concrete strengths of the behavior of the external
beam-column joints, M.S. Thesis, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Sanchez, V.M., Lloyd, B., Hassan, W.M., and Moehle J.P. (2009) Evaluation of non-
ductile reinforced concrete building corner joint experiencing early column
failure, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center, University of California,
Berkeley, CA.
Sarsam, K.F. and Phipps, M.E. (1985) The shear design of in-situ reinforced beam-
column joints subjected to monotonic loading, Magazine of Concrete Research,
Vol. 37, No. 130, pp. 16–28.
Sasmal, S., Lakshmanan, N., Ramanjaneyulu, K., Iyer, N.R., Novák, B., Srinivas, V.,
Kumar, K.S., and Roehm, C. (2011) Development of upgradation schemes for
gravity load designed beam–column sub-assemblage under cyclic loading,
Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 25, No. 8, pp. 3625–3638.
330
Scott, R.H. (1992) The effects of detailing on RC beam/column connection behavior, The
Structural Engineer, Vol. 70, No. 18, pp. 318–324.
Scott, M.H. and Fenves, G.L. (2006) Plastic hinge integration methods for force-based
beam-column elements, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 132, No. 2,
pp. 244–252.
Seckin, M. and Ogura, K. (1979) Experimental studies on reinforced concrete beam-
column joints (exterior), Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute, Extra, No.
2443.
Sedra, N., Eberhard, M., Irfanoglu, A., Matamoros, A., Pujol, S., Haraldsson, O.S.,
Lattanzi, D.A., Lauer, S.L., Lyon, B., Messmer, J., Nasi, K., Rautenberg, J.,
Symithe, S., and Douilly, R. (2010) The Haiti Earthquake Database,
http://nees.org/resources/1797.
Sezen, H. (2002) Seismic behavior and modeling of reinforced concrete building columns,
Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
California at Berkeley, CA.
Sezen, H. and Chowdhury, T. (2009) Hysteretic model for the lateral behavior of
reinforced concrete columns including shear deformation, ASCE Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 2, pp. 139–146.
Sezen, H. and Moehle J.P. (2003) Bond-slip behavior of reinforced concrete members,
Proceedings of Fib Symposium on Concrete Structures in Seismic Regions,
Athens, Greece.
Shafieezadeh, A. (2011) Seismic vulnerability assessment of wharf structures, Ph.D.
Thesis, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of
Technology, GA.
Shafieezadeh, A., Ramanathan, K., Padgett, J.E., and DesRoches, R. (2012) Fractional
order intensity measures for probabilistic seismic demand modeling applied to
highway bridges, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 41, No.
3, pp. 391–409.
Sharma, A., Eligehausen, E., and Reddy, G.R. (2011) A new model to simulate joint
shear behavior of poorly detailed beam-column connections in RC structures
under seismic loads, Part I: Exterior joints, Engineering Structures, Vol. 33, No.
3, pp. 1034–1051.
Shin, M. and LaFave, J.M. (2004) Modeling of cyclic joint shear deformation
contributions in RC beam-column connections to overall frame behavior,
Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 645–669.
Shin, S.W., Lee, K.S., and Ghosh, S.K. (1992) High-strength concrete beam-column
joints, 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, pp.
3145–3150.
Shing, P.B. and Spencer, B. (2001) Modeling of shear behavior of RC bridge structures,
Modeling of inelastic behavior of RC structures under seismic load, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, pp. 315-333.
331
Shinjo, H., Matsunaga, K., Kawakami, H., and Kosaka, H. (2009) Loading tests of RC
beam-column joint using high-strength concrete, Reports of Technical Research
and Development Center of Sumitomo Mitsui Construction Co., Ltd., No. 9, pp.
93–99.
Shinozuka, M., Feng, M.Q., Lee, J., and Naganuma, T. (2000) Statistical analysis of
fragility curves, ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 126, No. 12, pp.
1224–1231.
Shiohara, H. (2004) Quadruple flexural resistance in R/C beam-column joints, 13th world
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 491, Vancouver, Canada.
Singhal, A. and Kiremidjian, A.S. (1996) Method for probabilistic evaluation of seismic
structural damage, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 122, No. 12, pp.
1459–1467.
Smith, B.J. (1972) Exterior reinforced concrete joints with low axial load under seismic
loading, M.S. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand.
Smyrou, E., Tasiopoulou, P., Bal, I.E., Gazetas, G., and Vintzileou, E. (2011) Structural
and geotechnical aspects of the Christchurch (2011) and Darfield (2010)
earthquakes in N.Zealand, 7th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Istanbul, Turkey.
Spacone, E., Filippou, F.C., and Taucer, F.F. (1996) Fibre beam-column model for
nonlinear analysis of R/C frames: Part I Formulation, Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 25, No. 7, pp. 711–725.
Stevens, N.J., Uzumeri, S.M., and Collins, M.P. (1991) Reinforced concrete subjected to
reversed cyclic shear–Experiments and constitutive model, ACI Structural Journal,
Vol. 88, No. 2, pp. 135–146.
Sugano, K., Nagashima, T., Kimura, H., and Ichikawa, A. (1991) Behavior of beam-
column joints using high-strength materials, Design of Beam-Column Joints for
Seismic Resistance (SP123), American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, pp. 359–
377.
Sunasaka, Y. and Kiremidjian, A.S. (1993) A method for structural safety evaluation
under mainshock-aftershock earthquake sequences, Report No. 105, The Jone A.
Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Stanford University, CA.
Supaviriyakit, T. and Pimanmas, A. (2008) Comparative performance of sub-standard
interior reinforced concrete beam-column connection with various joint
reinforcing details, Materials and Structures, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 543–557.
Suzuki, K., Kondo, T., Kudo, Y., Sato, M., Kurosawa, R., and Hirosawa, M. (2002)
Experimental study on seismic performance of RC eccentricity beam-column
joint–Part 1: Experiment result and scale-effect (in Japanese), Summaries of
332
Takamori, N., Hayashi, K., Sasaki, S., and Teraoka, M. (2006) Experimental study on
full-scale R/C interior beam-column joints (in Japanese), Proceedings of the
Takatani, S. and Maruta, M. (2003) Experimental study on bond behavior of mechanical
anchorage in beam column connections (in Japanese), Proceedings of the Japan
Concrete Institute, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 463–468.
Takeda, T. and Yoshioka, K. (1970) Report of the Engineering Research Laboratory,
Ohbayashi-Gumi, Ltd., Japan. Also in A list of past experimental results of
reinforced concrete columns by Hirosawa, M. (1973) Building Research Institute,
Ministry of Construction, Japan.
Takeuchi, H., Nakamura, K., Hayakawa, K., and Ichikawa, M. (2003) An experimental
study on exterior beam joints with mechanical anchorage used circular anchor
plate, Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 913–918.
Tanaka, H. and Park, R. (1990) Effect of lateral confining reinforcement on the ductile
behavior of reinforced concrete columns, Report 90-2, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Canterbury , Christchurch, New Zealand.
Taylor, H.P.J. (1974) The behavior of in situ concrete beam-column joints, Technical
Report 42.492, Cement and Concrete Association.
Teng, S. and Zhou, H. (2003) Eccentric reinforced concrete beam-column joints
subjected to cyclic loading, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 100, No. 2, pp. 139–148.
Teraoka, M. (1997) A study on seismic design of R/C beam-column joint in high rise
frame structure (in Japanese), Research Report, Extra Issue No. 5, Fujita Institute
of Technology, Tokyo, Japan.
Tsai, K.C., Loh, C.H., Lin, K.C., and Chen, C.H. (2000) Cyclic load tests of 0.7 scale 2-
story RC frames retrofitted with steel jackets, National Center for Research on
Earthquake Engineering, Taiwan.
Tsonos A.G. (1996) Influence of P-Δ effect and axial force variations on seismic
performance of R/C beam-column joints, 11th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Paper No. 679, Acapulco, Mexico.
Tsonos, A.G. (2007) Cyclic load behavior of reinforced concrete beam-column
subassemblages of modern structures, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 104, No. 4, pp.
468–478.
Tsonos, A.G. (2008) Effectiveness of CFRP-jackets and RC-jackets in post-earthquake
and pre-earthquake retrofitting of beam–column subassemblages, Engineering
Structures, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 777–793.
Tsonos, A.G. and Papanikolaou, K.V. (2003) Post-earthquake repair and strengthening
of reinforced concrete beam-column connections (theoretical & experimental
investigation), Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering,
Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 73–93.
333
Tsonos, A.G., Tegos, I.A., and Penelis, G.Gr. (1992) Seismic resistance of type 2 exterior
beam-column joints reinforced with inclined bars, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 89,
No. 1, pp. 3–12.
Tsubosaki, H., Shiohara, H., Oka, K., and Furukawa J. (1993) Evaluation of slab-beam-
column joints subjected to bidirectional loading (1) (in Japanese), Summaries of
Uma, S.R., Ryu, H., Luco, N., Liel, A.B., and Raghunandan, M. (2011) Comparison of
main-shock and aftershock fragility curves developed for New Zealand and US
buildings, Proceedings of the 9th Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Paper No. 227, Auckland, New Zealand.
USGS (2000) Implications for earthquake risk reduction in the United States from the
Kocaeli, Turkey, Earthquake of August 17, 1999, U.S. Geological Survey Circular
1193.
Uzumeri, S.M. (1977) Strength and ductility of cast-in-place beam-column joints,
Reinforced Concrete Structures in Seismic Zones (SP53), American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, MI, pp. 293–350.
Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, A.C. (2002) Incremental Dynamic Analysis, Earthquake
Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C.A. (2006) Direct estimation of the seismic demand and
capacity of oscillators with multi-linear static pushovers through IDA, Earthquake
Vecchio, F.J. and Collins, M.P. (1986) The modified compression field theory for
reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 83,
No. 2, pp. 219–231.
Walker, S.G. (2001) Seismic performance of existing reinforced concrete beam-column
joints, M.S. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Wang, Y.-C. and Hsu, K. (2009) Shear strength of RC jacketed interior beam-column
joints without horizontal shear reinforcement, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 106,
No. 2, pp. 222–232.
Wang, Y.-C. and Lee M.-G. (2004) Rehabilitation of nonductile beam-column joint using
concrete jacketing, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No.
3159, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Watanabe, K., Abe, K., Murakawa, J., and Noguchi, H. (1988) Strength and deformation
of reinforced concrete interior beam-column joints, Transactions of the Japan
Concrete Institute, Vol. 10, pp. 183–188.
Watanabe, F. and Ichinose, T. (1992) Strength and ductility of RC members subjected to
combined bending and shear, Concrete Shear in Earthquake, Elsevier Applied
Science, New York, pp. 429–438.
334
Wong, H.F. (2005) Shear strength and seismic performance of non-seismically designed
RC beam-column joints, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, The
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
Woo, S.W. (2003) Seismic performance of RC frames in a low to moderate seismicity
region, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Korea University, Korea.
Yashita, N., Ishiwata, Y., Ichikawa, M., Furukawa, J. Morimoto, H., and Matsuzaki, Y.
(1996) Experimental study on reinforced concrete interior beam-column joint
with high rise R/C structure (1) (in Japanese), Summaries of Technical Papers of
Annual Meeting Architectural Institute of Japan, pp. 841–842.
Yeo, G.L. and Cornell, C.A. (2005) Stochastic characterization and decision bases under
time-dependent aftershock risk in performance-based earthquake engineering,
PEER Report 2005/13, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Yoshino, M., Takeda, S., and Kamimura, T. (1997) Behavior of interior RC beam column
connections after yielding of longitudinal beam reinforcement (in Japanese),
Yoshiya, H., Sumi, A., Masuo, K., Segawa, T., and Hisatoku, T. (1991) Experimental
study on behaviour of reinforced concrete interior beam-column joints (in
Youssef, M. and Ghobarah, A. (2001) Modelling of RC beam-column joints and
structural walls, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 93–111.
Yucemen, M.S., Ozcebe, G., and Pay, A.C. (2004) Prediction of potential damage due to
severe earthquakes, Structural Safety, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 349–366.
Zaid, S., Shiohara, H., and Otani, S. (1999) Test of a joint reinforcing detail improving
joint capacity of R/C interior beam-column joint, The 1st Japan-Korea Joint
Seminar on Earthquake Engineering for Building Structures, Seoul National
University, Seoul, Korea.
Zhu, Z. (2011) Column recognition and defects/damage properties retrieval for rapid
infrastructure assessment and rehabilitation using machine vision, Ph.D. Thesis,
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology,
GA.
335
VITA
JONG-SU JEON
Jong-Su Jeon was born on November 5 in Geochang, Korea. Upon graduating High
School in 1997, he entered Hanyang University in Seoul. He obtained his Bachelor of
Engineering degree in Civil Engineering in 2002. Upon completion of his Bachelor’s
degree, he continued to graduate school at the same university pursuing a Master’s degree
in Civil Engineering with emphasis in Structural Engineering and Mechanics. Having
obtained in his Master’s degree in Fall 2004, he joined the Structural Division at Sambo
Engineering Co, LTD. In 2009, he entered the Georgia Institute of Technology to pursue
his Doctoral studies in Civil Engineering with a special emphasis in Earthquake
Engineering and minor in Probability and Statistics. He obtained another Master’s degree
in Civil Engineering en route his Doctoral degree in Summer 2011.
336

Jeon Dissertation 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jeon Dissertation 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jeon Dissertation 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AFTERSHOCK VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF

DAMAGED REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Georgia Institute of Technology

Copyright © 2013 by Jong-Su Jeon

DAMAGED REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Dr. Reginald DesRoches, Advisor Dr. Ioannis Brilakis, Co-advisor

Dr. Laura N. Lowes Dr. Zhigang Peng

Dr. Yang Wang

Date Approved: [June 7, 2013]

valuable suggestions and contributions. Additionally, I thank Professor Joseph M. Bracci

results so that I integrate their outputs into my research.

I am thankful to my mother Gapyeon Im, my father Junggyu Jeon, my sisters

National Science Foundation under Grant Numbers CMMI-1000700. Any opinions,

LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................x

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiii

1.1 Problem Description and Motivation ...................................................................1

1.2 Research Objectives .............................................................................................7

1.3 Dissertation Outline ..............................................................................................8

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF THE STATE OF THE ART .....10

2.1 Significance of Aftershocks ...............................................................................10

2.2 Existing Mainshock and Aftershock Fragility Assessment ................................14

2.2.1 Review of fragility assessment for mainshock .........................................14

2.2.2 Existing fragility assessment for aftershock .............................................17

2.3 Modeling Critical Components in RC Frames ...................................................20

2.3.1 Shear-dominated column model ...............................................................20

2.3.2 Beam-column joint model ........................................................................27

2.4 Summary ............................................................................................................36

CHAPTER 3: ANALYTICAL MODELING TECHNIQUE OF RC FRAME

3.1 Modeling Flexure Behavior of Columns and Beams .........................................42

3.1.1 Analytical model .......................................................................................42

3.1.2 Validation of analytical model ..................................................................44

3.2 Modeling Shear Behavior of Columns ...............................................................46

3.2.2 Validation of analytical model ..................................................................48

3.3 Modeling Non-Ductile Beam-Column Joints .....................................................53

3.3.1 Joint shear failure model ...........................................................................54

3.3.2 Empirical joint bond failure model ...........................................................57

3.3.3 Validation of analytical model for subassemblages .................................61

3.3.4 Validation of analytical model for scale model frame ..............................69

3.4 Modeling Ductile Beam-Column Joints .............................................................74

3.5 Summary ............................................................................................................82

CHAPTER 4: DESCRIPTION, MODLEING, AND RESPONSE OF RC

4.1 Description of Typical RC Building Frames in California ................................83

4.1.1 Non-ductile RC frames .............................................................................84

4.1.2 Ductile RC frames ....................................................................................85

4.1.3 Selection of analyzed RC frames ..............................................................87

4.2 Analytical Frame Model .....................................................................................89

4.2.1 Overall modeling technique ......................................................................89

4.2.2 Proposed joint shear strength model .........................................................95

4.2.3 Model limitations ....................................................................................110

4.3 Seismic Response of RC Frames ......................................................................111

4.3.1 Pushover analysis ....................................................................................112

4.3.2 Nonlinear time history analysis ..............................................................116

4.4 Summary ..........................................................................................................127

CHAPTER 5: FRAMEWORK FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AFTERSHOCK

5.1 Aftershock Fragility Formulation .....................................................................131

5.1.2 Aftershock fragility function ..................................................................132

5.2 Stochastic Analytical Frame Models ................................................................134

5.3 A Suite of Ground Motions ..............................................................................136

5.3.1 Optimal intensity measure in classical PSDM ........................................138

5.3.2 Selection of mainshock and aftershock ground motion suite .................142