ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 106-S55
Progressive Collapse Resistance of Axially-Restrained
Frame Beams
by Youpo Su, Ying Tian, and Xiaosheng Song
Twelve specimens representing reinforced concrete frame beams
were tested to investigate their gravity load-carrying capacity
against progressive collapse. In these tests, the beams within the
frame subassemblies were restrained longitudinally against axial
deformation. The tests indicated that the compressive arch action
due to longitudinal restraint can significantly enhance the flexural
strength of a beam subjected to vertical loads. The compressive
arch action was observed to be a function of flexural reinforcement
ratio and ratio of beam span to depth. The test results validated an
analytical model that has considered the axial restraining effects
on beam loading capacity. The application of compressive arch
effect to the prevention of progressive collapse is discussed.
Keywords: beam(s); catenary action; compressive arch action; progressive
collapse; reinforced concrete.
INTRODUCTION
Abnormal loading events such as explosions, vehicle
collisions, and foundation failure are not considered in an
ordinary structural design. The local damage caused by such
low-probability loads, however, may result in a chain reaction
of structural element failure that leads to partial or even full
collapse of a structure. The collapses of the Ronan Point
Tower in London in 1968 and the Alfred P. Murrah Federal
Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 have demonstrated the
disastrous consequences of a progressive collapse. To mitigate
the risk of progressive collapse due to an abnormal loading
event, a structure must accommodate the initial local damage
and develop an alternative load-path to sustain the redistributed
loads. Two federal guidelines, GSA 20031 and DOD 2005,2
adopted this strategy and proposed threat independent-analysis
procedures to assess the potential of progressive collapse of a
structure following the notional removal of major load-
bearing elements.
Despite notable analytical studies,3-6 very limited experimental
data exist as the basis of assessing progressive collapse resistance
of reinforced concrete frame structures. Sasani et al.7 conducted
an in-place test of a reinforced concrete building with one-
way floor slabs supported by transverse frames. The structure
was instrumented and its performance following the removal of
an exterior bearing column in the first story by explosion was
studied. Analysis using conventional line elements was
conducted as a complementary study. Sasani and Sagiroglu8
and Sasani9 similarly examined the dynamic response and
the potential of progressive collapse of another reinforced
concrete frame building where one corner column and one
adjacent exterior column were simultaneously demolished
by explosion. Although the two aforementioned structures
were deficient in structural integrity as required by the more
recent design codes, load redistribution was achieved and no
progressive collapse was observed. Yi et al.10 carried out
laboratory testing of a 1/3-scale four-bay and three-story
planar frame specimen subjected to static loading that
600
TECHNICAL PAPER
simulated the removal of the middle column at the first story.
Beam catenary action was identified in the test, and the failure
of the specimen was controlled by the rupture of beam longi-
tudinal reinforcement. Orton11 studied the technique of
using carbon fiber-reinforced polymer to strengthen beams
without continuity of bottom reinforcement that makes a
reinforced concrete frame vulnerable to progressive collapse.
Beams are critical structural components of a reinforced
concrete frame to resist progressive collapse when a bearing
column fails. The two collinear beams framing into the failed
column become a single structural component resisting the
redistributed gravity load that causes significantly increased
bending moment and shear demands in the beam. Unless
sufficient strength is provided, the two-bay beam spanning
over the failed column cannot retain the local failure, and a
progressive collapse may result. Note that the pure bending
capacity that generally fits the test data of simply supported
beams has been used to define the flexural strength of a
reinforced concrete beam in the routine design and analysis
of structures. Under gravity loading, however, compressive
arch action and tensile catenary action develop in a reinforced
concrete flexural member that is restrained axially at the
boundaries, as is the case with frame beams. Compressive
axial force develops, as observed in tests,10-12 when the
longitudinal expansion due to concrete cracking is confined
by the adjacent structural components. Accordingly, beams
or slabs with top cracking due to negative bending at the
supports and bottom cracking due to positive bending at the
midspan act as a compressive arch subjected to both bending
and compression. Tests12 showed that the load capacity of
one-way slabs due to the compressive arch action can be 30
to 100% higher than that determined from the yield-line
collapse mechanism approach. In addition, analytical studies
indicated that even a partially restrained one-way slab may
achieve considerable extra strength as a result of the
compressive axial force.13 Compared with the studies of
slabs, however, there is a lack of experimental evidence for
compressive arch effects for reinforced concrete beams.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
This study experimentally investigated the gravity load
capacity of axially restrained reinforced concrete beams and
the critical parameters affecting the compressive arch action.
The study validated the effectiveness of a mechanical model
addressing the compressive arch effects. Taking into account
the beneficial compressive arch effects on flexural capacity
ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 5, September-October 2009.
MS No. S-2008-022.R2 received November 25, 2008, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright 2009, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the July-
August 2010 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by March 1, 2010.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009
Youpo Su is a Professor of civil engineering and Director of the Hebei Earthquake
Engineering Research Center at Hebei Polytechnic University, Tangshan, China.

ACI member Ying Tian is an Assistant Professor of civil engineering at the University
of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. He received his PhD from the University of Texas at Austin,
Austin, TX. He is a member of ACI Committee 369, Seismic Repair and Rehabilitation;
and Joint ACI-ASCE Committees 421, Design of Reinforced Concrete Slabs, and
445, Shear and Torsion. His research interests include experimental investigation
and numerical modeling of reinforced concrete members and systems.

Xiaosheng Song is a Lecturer of civil engineering at Hebei Polytechnic University.

of beams would lead to an improved understanding of the

load redistribution characteristics of a reinforced concrete Fig. 1Test subassembly and reinforcement layout. (Note:
frame structure in the scenario of losing a bearing column 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
and thus lead to a more accurate estimate of the risk of
progressive collapse of the structure. Table 1Specimen properties
ln , fcu , Longitudinal
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM b x h, mm MPa reinforcement and ratio
Test variables Test mm (in.) (in.) ln /h (psi) Top Bottom Ties
The experimental program consisted of testing 12 reduced- 150 x 300 1225 4.08 32.3 212, 212,
(4680) = 0.55% = 0.55% 8 at 100
A1
scale specimens. Each specimen represented a two-bay beam (5.9 x 11.8) (48)
resulting from the removal of a supporting column. The tests 150 x 300 1225 35.3 312, 312,
A2 8 at 80
(5.9 x 11.8) (48) 4.08 (5120) = 0.83% = 0.83%
of one-way slabs indicated that the compressive arch action
150 x 300 1225 4.08 39.0 314, 314,
due to longitudinal restraint at the slab boundaries is a function A3 8 at 80
(5.9 x 11.8) (48) (5660) = 1.13% = 1.13%
of flexural reinforcement ratio and the ratio of span to depth.12
150 x 300 1225 4.08 28.8 212, 114,
(4180) = 0.55% = 0.38% 8 at 100
In addition, the instantaneous removal of a bearing column A4
(5.9 x 11.8) (48)
results in a rapid load redistribution at the beams bridging over the 150 x 300 1225 33.1 312, 212,
A5 8 at 80
removed column. It was of interest to confirm the development (5.9 x 11.8) (48) 4.08 (4800) = 0.83% = 0.55%
of compressive arch action in a frame beam subjected to fast 150 x 300 1225 4.08 35.8 314, 214,
A6 8 at 80
loading. Therefore, three series of tests were conducted to (5.9 x 11.8) (48) (5190) = 1.13% = 0.75%
study the following parameters affecting the compressive 150 x 300 1975 6.58 23.2 314, 314,
(3360) = 1.13% = 1.13% 8 at 100
B1
arch effect: 1) flexural reinforcement ratio (A-series); 2) ratio of (5.9 x 11.8) (78)
beam span to depth (B-series); and 3) loading rate (C-series). 150 x 300 2725 24.1 314, 314,
(5.9 x 11.8) (107) 9.08 (3500) = 1.13% = 1.13% 8 at 120
B2

150 x 300 2725 26.4 314, 214,

Test subassemblies (5.9 x 11.8) (107) 9.08 (3830) = 1.13% = 0.75% 8 at 120
B3
As shown in Fig. 1, each test subassembly consisted of two 100 x 200 1225 6.12 19.9 212, 212,
doubly reinforced beams connected with a column stub at C1 8 at 80
(3.9 x 7.9) (48) (2890) = 1.30% = 1.30%
the center and two short columns at the edges where the 100 x 200 1225 6.12 21.0 212, 212,
C2 8 at 80
rotational and longitudinal restraints on beams were (3.9 x 7.9) (48) (3050) = 1.30% = 1.30%
applied. The center column represented the removed column C3
100 x 200 1225 20.4 212, 212,
8 at 80
and was 250 mm (9.8 in.) square for all specimens. The edge (3.9 x 7.9) (48) 6.12 (2960) = 1.30% = 1.30%
columns had an enlarged size for ease of being anchored into
the test setup. 150 mm (5.9 in.) cubes from the same batch of concrete as the
In the A-series tests, beams varied in flexural reinforcement specimen. Because the specimens were doubly reinforced,
ratios and measured 150 mm (5.9 in.) wide, 300 mm (11.8 in.) concrete strength had negligible influence on the beam pure
deep, and 1225 mm (48 in.) long for the clear span. The clear flexural capacity. The wide range of concrete strength,
span ln is defined as the distance from the face of the center however, enabled the examination of the effects of beam axial
column to an edge column. Because deeper girders with stiffness, generally assumed as a function of the concrete
sufficient stiffness directly over the removed column may be strength, on the compressive arch action. Deformed steel
required to ensure an adequate alternative load path,14 beams bars with diameters of 12 and 14 mm (0.47 and 0.55 in.) were
with lower span-depth ratio ln/h were considered in this used for beam flexural reinforcement. The longitudinal
study and included in the A-series tests. In the B-series tests, reinforcement was anchored into the edge columns with
beams had the same cross section as in the A-series but with hooks and met the ACI 318-0515 code requirements for
different span lengths. The beams of C-series specimens development length. Smooth bars with a diameter of 8 mm
were identically reinforced and were 100 mm (3.9 in.) in (0.31 in.) were used for ties. All specimens had a concrete
width, 200 mm (7.9 in.) in depth, and 1350 mm (53 in.) in clear cover of 20 mm (0.79 in.) for the longitudinal bars.
length. Because of the limitation of loading rate imposed by Because the tests focused on the compressive arch effects,
the loading equipment, specimens with smaller scale were continuous longitudinal bars at the center column and hoops
included in the C-series tests. The geometry of the test specimens with close spacing were used in the beams to avoid any premature
is summarized in Table 1. failure due to reinforcement discontinuity or shear distress.
All specimens were constructed using ready mixed Figure 1 illustrates the typical reinforcement layout of the
normalweight concrete. The concrete compressive strength specimens. The measured concrete strength and reinforcing
fcu varied from 19.9 to 39 MPa (2890 to 5660 psi). The details for each specimen are given in Table 1. Table 2
concrete strength was measured at the commencement of a provides the measured material properties of reinforcement
test and was determined by averaging the values of three based on the average of three coupons.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009 601


Fig. 2Schematic illustration of test setup.
Fig. 3Support details.
Fig. 4Test setup.
Test setup and measurements
Figure 2 shows the experimental scheme adopted in this
study. The test scheme permitted the simulation of vertical,
longitudinal, and rotational restraints imposed at the beam
ends by the rest of a structure. A test setup was designed and
constructed to achieve the restraining effects at the beam
boundaries. Before a test was conducted, the edge columns
of the specimen were anchored into the steel sockets (shown
in Fig. 3) by steel plates and high-strength bolts. Each socket
was connected with the rigid supports on a steel test bed by
a pin located at a distance of 150 mm (5.9 in.) from the beam
end. The pin connections allowed the sockets to rotate and
horizontally displace temporarily. The specimen was therefore
simply supported at this stage. Then the socket at each end of
the specimen was further connected to the support by a
vertical strut and a horizontal strut to achieve axial and
rotational restraints at the beam ends after assembling. Two
roller bearings were used on the side faces of the center
column stub to prevent the specimen from twisting and
exhibiting out-of-plane movement during testing. Figure 4
shows the test setup together with an installed specimen
prior to a test.
Gravity loading was simulated by applying downward
displacements at the center column stub through a servo-
controlled actuator reacting against a loading frame. For
A- and B-series tests, except for the initial loading and some
602
Table 2Reinforcement properties
Diameter, Yield strength, Ultimate strength, Elongation,
Steel type mm (in.) MPa (ksi) MPa (ksi) %
8 8 (0.31) 290 (42) 455 (66) 33
12 12 (0.47) 350 (51) 540 (78) 26
14 14 (0.55) 340 (49) 535 (78) 27
pauses for inspection, a constant loading rate of 5 mm/min
(0.197 in./min) was maintained until the failure of specimens.
For the C-series tests, the loading rate was controlled at 0.2, 2,
and 20 mm/s (0.008, 0.079, and 0.787 in./s) for Specimens
C1, C2, and C3, respectively. It is noted that the average rate
of vertical displacement at the columns immediately following
their sudden removal by explosion in the field tests described in
References 7 and 8 did not exceed 90 mm/s (3.54 in./s),
which can be converted into a lower value in a test of specimen
with reduced scale. Thus, if the C-series specimens are assumed
to have a 1/4-scale, the 20 mm/s (0.787 in./s) loading rate
applied on Specimen C3 likely simulated the displacement
speed at the removed column of a frame structure.
During the tests, the vertical load P and deflection at the
center column stub were measured by a built-in load cell
within the actuator and displacement transducers. The horizontal
reaction N and vertical reaction F shown in Fig. 2 were
measured by load cells embedded in the struts that connected
the steel socket and the support. The measured deflection
and forces F, N, and P allowed for the determination of beam
negative bending moment M at the supports and positive
bending moment M at the midspan according to the equilibrium
of specimens evaluated at their deformed positions.
Steel tensile strains were measured at selected locations in
the potential plastic hinge zones of the beams at the supports
and the center column. In addition, horizontal displacement
and rotation of the edge columns were measured to determine
the actual rigidity of the support. The horizontal rigidity of the
support, defined as the force to produce a unit displacement
in the horizontal direction, was approximately 1000 kN/mm
(5710 kip/in.). The rotational stiffness of the support,
defined as the bending moment required to produce a unit rota-
tion, was approximately 17,500 kN-m/rad (12,910 k-ft/rad).
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Vertical load and horizontal reaction
versus deflection
The overall behavior of the specimens is described in
Fig. 5 to 9 by the response of vertical load P and horizontal
reaction N versus the center deflection normalized by the
beam depth h. Compressive reaction force is assigned to be
negative and presented in the lower half of a plot. Figures 5
and 6 present the test data for the A-series specimens with
and without symmetrical flexural reinforcement, respectively.
The response of the B-series specimens is shown together with
Specimens A3 and A6 for comparison purposes in Fig. 7 and 8.
Figure 9 shows the response of the C-series specimens
subjected to different loading rates. The load when yielding
occurred at the supports Py , and the peak load due to
compressive arch actions Pcu are also shown in Fig. 5 to 8.
The test data reported herein do not account for the beam
bending effect due to the self-weight of specimens.
Under the applied load, flexural cracking took place first
at the interface of the beam and the center column stub. The
cracking loads ranged from 24 to 30 kN (5.4 to 6.7 kips) for
the A-series specimens. For the B-series specimens, due to
the larger span and thus higher effects of specimen self-
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009
Fig. 5Vertical load and horizontal reaction force versus Fig. 7Vertical load and horizontal reaction force versus
normalized center deflection (A1, A2, and A3 with symmetrical normalized center deflection (B1, B2, and A3 with symmetrical
reinforcement). reinforcement).

Fig. 6Vertical load and horizontal reaction force versus Fig. 8Vertical load and horizontal reaction force versus
normalized center deflection (A4, A5, and A6 with normalized center deflection (B3 and A6 with unsymmetrical
unsymmetrical reinforcement). reinforcement).

weight, the cracking loads were reduced to 9.9 to 13 kN

(2.2 to 2.0 kips). The first cracking was soon followed by
the cracking of beam concrete at the supports. The horizontal
reaction forces were generally negligible during the initial
loading but increased notably after flexural cracking
occurred at both midspan and supports, indicating the onset
of compressive arch action. Because of the mobilization of
axial restraint, concrete cracking did not cause a significant
decrease in stiffness and most specimens presented an
approximately linear load-deflection response until the flexural
yielding of the beams.
First yielding of the beams occurred at the midspan of the
specimens due to positive bending and then at the supports
due to negative bending, which resulted in pronounced stiffness
degradation. Following the yielding at the supports, the peak
load Pcu was achieved at a normalized deflection ranging Fig. 9Vertical load and horizontal reaction force versus
between /h = 0.16 and 0.34. Even though Pcu had been normalized center deflection (C1, C2, and C3 subjective to
reached, the horizontal reaction force could keep increasing. different loading rates).
The maximum compressive reaction force Nmax measured in
a test was reached when concrete crushed at the midspan at indicated by the decrease of the measured compressive axial
a value of /h between 0.29 and 0.50. Because of the unexpected force, diminished the axial restraining effects provided at the
in-plane rotation of the center column stub, concrete crushing supports. It is noted that, for A-series specimens with a lower
occurred earlier at /h = 0.20 in Specimen A2. Concrete ln/h (= 4.08), concrete crushing generally caused a rapid drop
crushing reduced the axial stiffness of the beams and thus, as of the applied vertical load and horizontal reaction force.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009 603

This process, however, was fairly gradual for B-series specimens
with higher ln/h (= 6.58 and 9.08).
With the increased center deflection, most specimens,
except for A5, developed tensile axial force, indicating a
transition from the compressive arch action to the tensile
catenary action. The development of catenary action was
generally accompanied by the increase of vertical load. Prior
to failure (represented by the terminating points of the curves
in Fig. 5 to 9), the specimens have exhibited significant
deflection mainly due to the concentrated inelastic deformation
at the supports and the midspan. The final failure of all specimens
was announced by the fracture of bottom reinforcement at the
interface of beam and center column stub. The failure mode
of Specimen B3 is shown as an example in Fig. 10. The
values of /h at failure ranged from 0.66 for Specimen A3 to
1.44 for Specimen B3. The relative deflection /ln that can be
taken as a function of the plastic hinge rotation, however, was
limited to close values between 0.16 and 0.20 radians. It is
noted that the ultimate load under catenary action Ptu
measured at the fracture of longitudinal reinforcement was lower
than the compressive arch capacity Pcu for the A-series
specimens with shorter span and was 20 to 45% higher for
B-series specimens with longer span. The C-series specimens
(ln/h = 6.12) subjected to three different loading rates
presented similar behavior to the B-series specimens.
Compressive arch action was observed in all tests. Even
though a higher loading rate resulted in higher cracking load,
larger compressive horizontal reaction force, and slightly
greater compressive arch capacity Pcu, the effects of loading
rate considered in the tests can be neglected.
Neither shear distress nor anchorage failure was observed
in the three series of tests. Table 3 summarizes the test results
for each specimen including the loads at cracking and
yielding, peak load under compressive arch action, load at
fracture of flexural reinforcement, peak axial reaction force,
and measured center deflections at several characteristic
loading stages.
Effects of compressive arch action on beam
load-carrying capacity
The measured loading capacities Pcu due to compressive
arch effects for the A- and B-series specimens and Specimen C1
were compared with analytical predictions using the classical
plastic collapse mechanism approach and using the formulations
suggested by Park.13 The loading capacity Pyu according to the
conventional plastic analysis approach was determined at the
formation of a collapse mechanism due to hinging at both the
midspan and the supports of a specimen. The ultimate
bending capacity without considering the existence of axial
restraining force was used to define the flexural strength of a
plastic hinge. No strain hardening was considered for the
longitudinal reinforcement. The data series with hollow
markers in Fig. 11 shows the comparison between Pcu and
Pyu. The vertical distance from the diagonal line of the figure

Fig. 10Failure mode of Specimen B3. Fig. 11Comparison of measured and calculated results.

Table 3Experimental results

Compressive arch action Tensile arch action
Load at yielding Maximum compressive Load at fracture
Cracking at supports, Peak load Deflection at Horizontal reaction horizontal reaction Deflection at of bottom bar Deflection at
Test load, kN (kip) kN (kip) Pcu , kN (kip) Pcu, mm (in.) at Pcu, kN (kip) Nmax, kN (kip) Nmax , mm (in.) Ptu, kN (kip) Ptu, mm (in.)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
A1 26 (5.84) 117 (26.3) 168 (37.8) 48 (1.89) 281 (63.2) 388 (87.2) 87.8 (3.46) 93.1 (20.9) 202 (7.95)
A2 30 (6.74) 148 (33.3) 221 (49.7) 56.4 (2.22) 318 (71.5) 324 (72.8) 59.3 (2.33) 140 (31.5) 205 (8.07)
A3 29 (6.52) 152 (34.2) 246 (55.3) 76.4 (3.01) 296 (66.5) 305 (68.6) 87.8 (3.46) 178 (40.0) 199 (7.83)
A4 24 (5.40) 82.3 (18.5) 147 (33.0) 65 (2.56) 309 (69.5) 344 (77.3) 93.5 (3.68) 45.9 (10.3) 238 (9.37)
A5 29 (6.52) 129 (29.0) 198 (44.5) 70.7 (2.78) 340 (76.4) 393 (88.3) 108 (4.25) 58.1 (13.1) 227 (8.94)
A6 27 (6.07) 153 (34.4) 226 (50.8) 69.2 (2.72) 177 (39.8) 191 (42.9) 89.1 (3.51) 144 (32.4) 209 (8.23)
B1 13 (2.92) 105 (23.6) 125 (28.1) 100 (3.94) 211 (47.4) 225 (50.6) 146 (5.75) 150 (33.7) 389 (15.3)
B2 10 (2.25) 73.2 (16.5) 82.9 (18.6) 102 (4.02) 190 (42.7) 210 (47.2) 125 (4.92) 121 (27.2) 255 (10.0)
B3 9.9 (2.23) 65.0 (14.6) 74.7 (16.8) 85.5 (3.37) 172 (38.7) 210 (47.2) 150 (5.91) 90.2 (20.3) 431 (17.0)
C1 8.0 (1.80) 48.2 (10.8) 60.9 (13.7) 33.7 (1.33) 91.6 (20.6) 108 (24.3) 62.5 (2.46) 65.7 (14.8) 227 (8.94)
C2 9.1 (2.05) 64.9 (14.6) 33.5 (1.32) 96.4 (21.7) 117 (26.3) 65.4 (2.57) 77.6 (17.4) 250 (9.84)
C3 10.2 (2.29) 68.6 (15.4) 28.7 (1.13) 108 (24.3) 134 (30.1) 60.0 (2.36) 54.4 (12.2) 201 (7.91)

604 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009

to the data points clearly indicates the remarkably underestimated
loading capacities of the specimens based on the conventional
approach. The strength enhancement factor due to the
compressive arch effect, defined as the ratio of Pcu to Pyu,
ranged from 1.53 for Specimen B2 to 2.63 for Specimen A4.
Park13 proposed an analytical model for one-way slabs
longitudinally restrained at the slab boundaries. Parks
formulations were modified herein to be used for axially
restrained beams. The load capacity due to compressive arch
effect for the specimens tested in this study was determined as the
maximum value of P computed using the following equation
1
P = ------- 0.85f c 1 bh --- 1 ----1- + --- ( 1 3 ) +
h
l n 2 2 4
2
l n - 2
--------- ( 1 1 ) total + ----- 2 ----1- + --------- 1 ----1- total
8h 2 h 2
2 4
1 l n 2 ( T T Cs + C s )
------------------ total ------------------------------------------ + ( Cs + C s )
h
2 3.4f c b
h h
--- d --- + ( T + T ) d --- + --- l n
2 2 2 2
where b is the beam width; h is the beam depth; fc is the
concrete cylinder compressive strength assumed as f c = 0.8fcu;
1 (determined according to ACI 318-0515) is the ratio of the
depth of concrete equivalent stress block to the depth of
neutral axis; is the ratio of the distance from a plastic hinge
at the midspan to the nearest support to 2ln; T and T are
tensile resultant forces of steel at the midspan and supports;
Cs and Cs are compressive resultant forces of steel at the
midspan and supports; T, T, Cs, and Cs are calculated using
steel yield strength; d is the beam effective depth; d is the
distance from the centroid of compressive reinforcement to
the concrete compression surface; is the beam self-weight
per unit length of beam; and total is the total axial strain due
to beam axial deformation and support longitudinal
displacement, and is determined as
-------- h T T C s + C s C s T
- + ------- 0.85f c 1 --- --- ---------------------------------------
1 b
hE c l n S 2 4
total = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.85f c 1 l n 1
2
- --------- + ------
1 + -----------------------------
hE c l n s
where S is support rigidity in the horizontal direction, and Ec is
concrete elastic modulus determined according to ACI 318-05.15
The solution provided by Eq. (1) and (2) is implicit because
deflection must be increased gradually to determine the peak
value of P. It is noted that due to the assumptions made in the
model regarding the state of stress for steel and concrete, the
P- relation defined by Eq. (1) and (2) cannot be used to
describe the entire load-deflection response of a specimen.
Equations (1) and (2) were adopted to estimate Pcu , the
load-carrying capacity of the specimens due to compressive
arch action. The measured horizontal rigidity of the support,
approximately 1000 kN/mm (5710 kip/in.), was used to define
S. Comparison of calculated versus measured capacity is shown
by solid dots in Fig. 11. It can be seen that good agreement
was achieved between the test results and the analytical
results based on Parks model. The average ratio of calculated
to measured capacity is 0.95 with a standard deviation of 0.04.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009
Fig. 12Normalized horizontal reaction force, applied
load, and bending moments at support and midspan versus
2
l n
normalized center deflection (Specimen B3).
(1)
2
It is noted that the choice of S for practical situations may
not have a pronounced effect on the calculated load capacity.
The longitudinal restraint at the beam ends is provided by the
surrounding structural components including the columns as
well as the floor slab. Based on Parks model, the effects of
lateral rigidity on Pcu is a function of the ratio Sln/(bhEc) that
represents the relative axial rigidity of the support to the
axial stiffness of the beam. It was found that, even if only
20% of the actual support rigidity in the tests was considered,
the computed loading capacity Pcu of the specimens was
reduced by less than 10%.
Effects of axial restraint on internal forces
Although it is well recognized that the existence of axial
force in a column can increase its flexural capacity, the role
of axial force developed in a longitudinally restrained beam
is complex. To illustrate this situation, Fig. 12 presents in the
same plot the response of vertical load P, horizontal reaction N,
bending moment at the supports M, and moment at the
midspan M as the center deflection increased in Specimen B3
until its failure. For convenience of comparison, P was
normalized by Pyu, the load at the formation of a plastic
collapse mechanism without considering the compressive arch
effects. N was normalized by the absolute value of the
- + ---------------
1.75f c 1 b b maximum compressive axial force Nmax. M and M determined
- (2)
from test data were normalized by the corresponding pure
b
bending capacity M0 and M0 calculated without considering
the interaction between axial force and moment. P, N, M,
and M satisfy
P = 2(M + M N Mg)/ln (3)
where Mg denotes the bending moment caused by the specimen
self-weight. Figure12 indicates that compressive arch action
can significantly improve the flexural capacity of a beam
section. Compared with M0 and M0, the beam flexural
capacity of Specimen B3 at the supports and the midspan
was increased by 66% and 150%, respectively. However, a
two-fold effect of the compressive axial force exists. As indicated
by Eq. (3), the axial force tends to reduce the load capacity by
means of P- effect. As a result, Pcu was reached well before
the maximum bending moments at the supports and the
midspan were achieved. Thus, the overall strength enhancement
effect, measured by the peak value of P/Pyu , was less than the
average of the peak values of M/M0 and M/M0 that represented
605

Fig. 13Effect of reinforcement ratio and ratio of beam
span to depth: (a) effect of flexural reinforcement ratio; and
(b) effect of ratio of beam span to depth.
Fig. 14Modeling for catenary action and comparison of
measured and calculated results for loading capacity under
catenary action.
the flexural capacity enhancement at the supports and the
midspan. It is noted that, prior to failure, the specimen could
still resist a significant amount of bending moment at the
critical sections. Therefore, a double curvature deformed
shape was maintained in the beams until failure when the
bottom reinforcement at the midspan fractured under
catenary action.
Effects of reinforcement ratio and span-depth
ratio on compressive arch effect
As indicated in Eq. (3), the compressive arch capacity Pcu
depends on beam flexural capacity, compressive axial force,
and beam deflection that are functions of flexural reinforce-
ment ratio and the ratio of beam span to depth. Given that the
analytical model formulated in Eq. (1) and (2) is complex for
practical applications, the influences of beam reinforcement
ratio and the ln/h on compressive arch effect were examined
separately using test data.
Figure 13(a) plots the strength enhancement factor against
beam flexural reinforcement ratio for A-series specimens
(ln/h = 4.08). Both the top bars at supports and the bottom
bars at midspan had yielded in all tests before Pcu was
reached. In addition, similar to the behavior of Specimen B3
shown in Fig. 12, the positive bending moment at the
606
midspan of all other unsymmetrically reinforced specimens
decreased by less than 5% when the maximum negative
bending was achieved at the supports. Accordingly, an
average of the tensile reinforcement ratio evaluated at the
supports and the midspan was used to examine the effects of
flexural reinforcement ratio. As shown in Fig. 13(a), the
strength enhancement factor was observed to increase in
an approximately linear manner from 1.91 to 2.63 as the
reinforcement ratio decreased from 1.13 to 0.46%.
The influence of span length on the compressive arch
action is illustrated in Fig. 13(b) by comparing the ln/h and
the strength enhancement factor for five specimens. The
solid dots denote the symmetrically reinforced specimens,
A3, B1, and B2 (reinforcement ratio = 1.13%). The hollow
dots denote the unsymmetrically reinforced specimens, A6
and B3 (average reinforcement ratio = 0.9%). Figure 13(b)
indicates that the strength enhancement factor that
measures the beneficial compressive arch effect on beam
gravity load capacity decreases as the ln/h increases. The
lowest strength enhancement factor, however, could still
reach a value of 1.54 that occurred in Specimen B2 with a
ln/h of 9.08.
Load capacity under catenary action
The specimen load-carrying capacity under catenary
action, Ptu, was estimated using a simple model schematically
shown in Fig. 14. The model was established according to
equilibrium at the center column stub where the specimens
failed in fracture of the bottom reinforcement. Ptu was
assumed to be resisted only by the vertical component of Ntu,
the tensile force developed in the bottom bars. The resistance
provided by the top bars at the midspan and bottoms at the
supports was neglected. Ntu was determined from the area
and tensile strength of the bottom bars. It was assumed that
the line of action of Ntu extended from the bottom bar at the
center column stub to the top bars at the support. The load
capacity due to catenary action was calculated as Ptu = 2Ntusin,
where defines the orientation of Ntu and was determined
based on: 1) the beam clear span length, and 2) the summation
of measured vertical displacement of the center column stub
at failure and the vertical distance between the top and
bottom reinforcing bars. Figure 14 shows the comparison of
calculated to measured load capacity. The figure indicates
that, although the simple model accurately predicted Ptu for
some specimens, a significant discrepancy exists between
measured and calculated results for other specimens.
Use of compressive arch action and catenary
action in progressive collapse prevention
The tests conducted in this study indicated that, if adequate
transverse reinforcement and continuous bottom reinforcement
are provided in a frame beam, gravity load-carrying capacity
can be considerably higher than that conventionally
assumed. The extra loading capacity due to compressive
arch action is suggested to be considered in analyses so that
the performance of a structure following the loss of a bearing
column can be more accurately simulated. The nonlinear
finite element model6 employing fiber discretization for
reinforced concrete beams likely serves this purpose because
this model can capture the compressive axial force developed in
a longitudinally restrained beam. The line elements
conventionally used in practice for modeling frame beams,
however, must be modified so that the compressive arch
effect can be approximately addressed. For this purpose, a
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009
strength enhancement factor may be introduced to modify
the definition of beam flexural strength. The strength
enhancement factor defined in Eq. (4) was empirically
derived from a regression analysis of test data shown in Fig. 13
and can be used for beams with flexural reinforcement ratio less
than 1.3% (the largest reinforcement ratio for the specimens
tested in this study).
= 2.4 1 --- 1 + ------------
5
(4)
3 2
l---n
h
The tests of B- and C-series specimens indicated that
considerable deflection must be reached in a beam to
develop a Ptu higher than Pcu. The ultimate deformation of a
beam, however, largely depends on the elongation of tensile
reinforcement at the critical sections. Thus, unless sufficient
steel elongation has been specified and unless an appropriate
strength reduction factor is applied to address the uncertainty
involved in predicting the catenary action capacity, caution
should be exercised to count on the catenary action in a beam
to resist progressive collapse. In addition, although Ptu was
22 to 49% larger than Pcu for B-series specimens, Ptu was
close to or even less than Pcu for C-series specimens
subjected to faster loading. Therefore, instead of defining the
limit state of a progressive collapse at the fracture of tensile
reinforcement under catenary action, compressive arch
capacity may have the potential to be used as the design basis
for progressive collapse prevention. It should be noted that,
if the compressive arch action is taken into account, the
vertical displacement at the removed column must be
controlled within an acceptable level. The test data shown in
Fig. 5 to 9 indicate that, if the vertical deflection at the
removed column can be limited to 0.3h, the compressive
arch effects can be considered with sufficient confidence.
Consistent with the design philosophy of the GSA guidelines,1
the aforementioned deformation limitation could also reduce
the extent of damage of a structure by arresting the failure
progression of structural components.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
An experimental study was carried out to investigate the
gravity load-carrying capacity of reinforced concrete frame
beams when a supporting column is removed due to
abnormal loading events. The tests confirmed the strength
enhancement effect of compressive arch action on beam
flexural capacity. For the specimens tested in this study, the
compressive arch action resulting from axial restraint
contributed 50 to 160% extra loading capacity beyond the
capacity estimated without considering axial restraining forces.
The tests indicated that the effects of compressive arch
action increased with decreased beam span-depth ratio and
decreased flexural reinforcement ratio. Under fast loading,
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009
the compressive arch effect still could be developed but the
effects of loading speed can be neglected. The study indicated
that the beam gravity load-carrying capacity under compressive
arch action can be predicted by an analytical model with
sufficient accuracy. The compressive arch effects are
suggested to be incorporated into the assessment of vulnerability
to progressive collapse of reinforced concrete frame structures.
To take advantage of the compressive arch action, beams
with deeper sections and lower longitudinal reinforcement
ratios should be used in a structural design, if other structural
components such as the adjacent beams, columns, or slabs
can provide an effective longitudinal restraint.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the fund provided by the Natural
Science Foundation of China (No. 50478114) for the work presented in this paper.
REFERENCES
1. GSA, Progressive Collapse Analysis and Design Guidelines for New
Federal Office Buildings and Major Modernization Projects, U.S. General
Services Administration, Washington, DC, 2003.
2. DOD, Design of Building to Resist Progressive Collapse, Unified
Facility Criteria, UFC 4-023-03, U.S. Department of Defense, Washington,
DC, 2005.
3. Baldridge, S. M., and Humay, F. K., Preventing Progressive Collapse
in Concrete Buildings, Concrete International, V. 25, No. 11, Nov. 2003,
pp. 73-79.
4. Hayes, J. R. Jr.; Woodson, S. C.; Pekelnicky, R. G.; Poland, C. D.;
Corley, W. G.; and Sozen, M., Can Strengthening for Earthquake Improve
Blast and Progressive Collapse Resistance? Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 131, No. 8, 2005, pp. 1157-1177.
5. Sasani, M., and Sagiroglu, S., Progressive Collapse of Reinforced
Concrete Structures: A Multihazard Perspective, ACI Structural Journal,
V. 105, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2008, pp. 96-103.
6. Bao, Y.; Kunnath, S. K.; El-Tawil, S., and Lew, H. S., Macromodel-
Based Simulation of Progressive Collapse: RC Frame Structures, Journal
of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 134, No. 7, 2008, pp. 1079-1091.
7. Sasani, M.; Bazan, M.; and Sagiroglu, S., Experimental and Analytical
Progressive Collapse Evaluation of an Actual Reinforced Concrete Structure,
ACI Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2007, pp. 731-739.
8. Sasani, M., and Sagiroglu, S., Progressive Collapse Resistance of
Hotel San Diego, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 134, No. 3,
2008, pp. 478-488.
9. Sasani, M., Response of a Reinforced Concrete Infilled-Frame Structure
to Removal of Two Adjacent Columns, Engineering Structures, V. 30, No. 9,
2008, pp. 2478-2491.
10. Yi, W.; He, Q.; Xiao, Y.; and Kunnath, S. K., Experimental Study
on Progressive Collapse-Resistant Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Frame
Structures, ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 4, July-Aug. 2008, pp. 433-439.
11. Orton, O. L., Development of a CFRP System to Provide Continuity
in Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings Vulnerable to Progressive
Collapse, PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX,
2007, 363 pp.
12. Leslie, K. G., and Edward, J. R., Membrane Action in Partially
Restrained Slabs, ACI Structural Journal, V. 85, No. 4, July-Aug. 1988,
pp. 365-373.
13. Park, R., and Gamble, W. L., Reinforced Concrete Slabs, second
edition, John Wiley & Sons, 2000, 716 pp.
14. Marjanishvili, S. M., Progressive Analysis Procedure for Progressive
Collapse, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, V. 18,
No. 2, 2004, pp. 79-85.
15. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005, 430 pp.
607