Engineering Structures 95 (2015) 6170

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Progressive collapse resistance of RC beams

Elisa Livingston a, Mehrdad Sasani b,, Marlon Bazan c, Serkan Sagiroglu d
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, United States
b
400 SN, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, United States
c
Protection Engineering Consultants, 4203 Gardendale, Suite C112, San Antonio, TX, United States
d
Department of Civil Engineering, Maltepe University, Istanbul, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The current guidelines for evaluating progressive collapse potential of existing and new buildings require
Received 7 October 2014 analyzing and evaluating the structure for the case of an instantaneous loss of a primary vertical support,
Revised 20 March 2015 such as a column. In this paper, the response of a continuous beam bridging over a lost column is eval-
Accepted 22 March 2015
uated. A series of beam models are developed by changing structural characteristics such as lateral load
Available online 8 April 2015
design type (ordinary vs. special frames), axial stiffness at the beam boundaries, steel yield stress, amount
of integrity reinforcement at bar cut-off locations and the beam span to study their effects on the perfor-
Keywords:
mance of the beam. The modeling technique used for the analyses of the beams has been validated by
Progressive collapse
Beam growth
comparing experimental and analytical results of an RC beam subjected to large deformations. Push-
Reinforcement detailing down analyses are carried out in order to study and characterize the full range of response and compare
Special frame the behavior of the beams. For each case, the behavior of the critical sections are evaluated and used to
Ordinary frame describe load transfer mechanisms. The effects of different structural characteristics on the performance
Integrity requirements of the beam to resist progressive collapse are discussed by comparing the results of the analyses.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction a at-plate structure, which consisted of a push-down test to simu-

GSA [6] and DOD [5] are two US guidelines for evaluating
progressive collapse potential of existing and new buildings and
provide a threat-independent approach in which the structure is
required to be analyzed and evaluated for the case of an instanta-
neous loss of a primary vertical support, such as a column.
Progressive collapse studies are carried out at the element (sub-
assemblage) and system levels. Bazan [3], Sasani and Kropelnicki
[17], Su et al. [19], Choi and Kim [4], Sadek et al. [13], and Yap
and Li [21] experimentally studied the progressive collapse resis-
tance of continuous beams bridging over a removed column sub-
jected to monotonically increasing vertical displacements. Yi
et al. [22] investigated the progressive failure of a four-bay and
three-story RC planar frame structure. The experimental studies
carried out by Qian and Li [11] include testing of a corner panel
of an RC structure with and without slab. Progressive collapse
resistance of full scale 3D structural systems are studied experi-
mentally and analytically (e.g. [16,18]) utilizing actual structures.
Yi et al. [23] conducted a system level experiment on collapse of
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 617 373 5222; fax: +1 617 373 2444.
E-mail addresses: e.livingston.p@gmail.com (E. Livingston), sasani@neu.edu
(M. Sasani), mbazan@protection-consultants.com (M. Bazan), serkansagiroglu@
maltepe.edu.tr (S. Sagiroglu).
late the loss of an interior column. Kokot et al. [7] analyzed and
tested quasi-statically a full scale three oor at-slab frame build-
ing following single and multi-column removal scenarios.
Although the location of the removed column(s) in the studies
mentioned above varies in the plan, along the elevation only
ground oor columns are removed from the structures to evaluate
their progressive collapse behavior.
In order to evaluate the progressive collapse resistance of struc-
tures, 3D structural models need to be developed or the important
effects of 3D systems need to be accounted for. In this paper the
latter approach is used along with a 2D model of a critical two-
span beam bridging over a lost column. The oor system is of sig-
nicant importance in resisting progressive collapse following the
loss of a column. There are two more important effects of the oor
system (apart from the critical beam) in redistributing the gravity
loads in a damaged structure. One is their load redistribution
through exural and corresponding shear response and interacting
with columns to develop Vierendeel frame action [18]. This action
is not studied in this paper.
The second important effect of the oor system in collapse
resistance is its in-plane action which is accounted for in this
study. Soon after column removal, as the beam bends and exural
cracks and yielding occur, the beam length tends to increase [17].
Since the elongation of the beam is limited due to the constraint

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.03.044
0141-0296/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
62 E. Livingston et al. / Engineering Structures 95 (2015) 6170

provided by the rest of the structure (mainly by the oor system),
an axial compressive force develops in the beam [3,17]. This axial
compressive force can signicantly affect the exural behavior
and in turn the vertical load carrying capacity of the beam. In the
case of loss of an interior column of a frame, the beam bridging
over the lost column can experience three phases of response [3]
which are explained in the following sections. During the rst
phase the beam exural response provides the vertical load carry-
ing capacity. The axial compressive force of the beam continues to
increase during this phase (improving the exural response
through PM interaction) until the maximum vertical load carrying
capacity is provided. This axial force is an important system-level
behavior affecting the beam response that should be accounted
for. In this paper we will evaluate the response of beams bridging
over a lost column as part of a structural system. In order to study
and characterize the full range of response and compare the behav-
ior of different beams, push-down analyses are carried out. The
effects of the following parameters on the performance of the
beam to resist progressive collapse are studied: lateral load design
type (ordinary vs. special frames), axial stiffness at the beam
boundaries, steel yield stress, amount of integrity reinforcement
at bar cut-off location, and the beam span length.
2. Analytical model validation
In order to validate the modeling technique for evaluating the
large displacement response of RC beams using the computer pro-
gram OpenSees [9], analytical results are compared with experi-
mental data obtained from an RC beam subjected to large
deformations [3,17]. The test specimen was a 3/8th scaled model
of a continuous two-span RC beam, designed as part of an exterior
frame of a 7-story ordinary RC building where a middle exterior
column was instantaneously removed [3].
Fig. 1 shows the dimensions and reinforcement details of the
scaled beam specimen. The RC beam specimen had concrete end
blocks that were securely attached to a steel reaction frame using
steel threaded rods in order to provide xed-end conditions to the
RC beam. The test consisted of imposing an increasing downward
displacement at the center column stub, at the location considered
to be above the removed column. The applied force, vertical deec-
tion and other response measures were recorded during the test.
A two-dimensional nite-element model of the RC beam speci-
men was developed using OpenSees. Each of the two beam spans
was divided into seven segments and modeled using force (exibil-
ity) based nonlinear beamcolumn elements with ber sections
and distributed plasticity. The center stub is modeled using two
elastic beamcolumn elements with high axial and exural stiff-
ness relative to the adjacent nonlinear beam elements stiffness.
Each nonlinear beamcolumn element is modeled using two
integration points. The concrete cover, concrete core and steel bars
are modeled using uniaxial nonlinear stressstrain relationships
with model parameters based on material testing of concrete and
reinforcing steel samples.
In order to model the effects of steel bar slip within the joint
(and supports), zero-length elements are used at the end nodes
of the beams. The zero-length element was dened by a bilinear
momentrotation relationship to model the rotation due to the
base crack. This relationship was dened such that it allowed for
strains of the tensile steel bers at the beam end sections to reach
the yield strain before yielding of the zero-length elements and the
maximum rotation at the base cracks was consistent with the
opening and depth of the base crack measured during the test.
The results are obtained using a displacement-controlled non-
linear static pushdown analysis, which consisted of imposing an
increasing downward displacement at the center node of the
model, as well as the corresponding horizontal displacement and
rotation of the center column stub, as monitored during the test.
The material nonlinearity is accounted for through the use of the
ber sections and the nonlinear stressstrain relationships of the
bers. Geometric nonlinearity is included in the analysis through
the use of the corotational geometric transformation in OpenSees.
Fig. 2 compares the analytical and experimental forcedisplace-
ment relationships of the RC beam. A downward force is consid-
ered negative. As can be seen, the analytical model captures the

12" 12"
(305mm) (305mm)
6 3/4"
(170mm)
6'-6 3/4" 6'-6 3/4"
(2000mm) (2000mm)
14 1/2"
23 5/8" 23 5/8" 23 5/8" (368mm) B 23 5/8" A
2#3
(600mm) (2D10) (600mm) (600mm) (midspan) (600mm)
3'-8" 3#3 W1.4@2.7" 3#3 W1.4@2.7" 3#3
(1120mm) (3D10) (D4@70) (3D10) (D4@70) (3D10)
2#3 2#3
(2D10) 14 1/2" (2D10) B A
(368mm)

712"
(190mm)
114" 712"
114" (32mm) (190mm)
(32mm)

5#3 2#3 3
3
(5D10) 4"
(2D10) 4"
W1.4@2.7'' (19mm) 71" (19mm) 71"
2 W1.4@2.7'' 2
(Diam=0.135'') (Diam=0.135'')
(190mm) (190mm)
(D4@70mm) 2#3 (D4@70mm) 2#3
(2D10) (2D10)

3 3
4" 4"
(19mm) Section A - A (19mm) Section B - B

Fig. 1. Reinforcement detail of scaled RC beam specimen.

 E. Livingston et al. / Engineering Structures 95 (2015) 6170
Fig. 2. RC beam forcedisplacement relationships.
three main phases of the forcedisplacement response observed
from experimental results: the rst branch up to the peak down-
ward (negative) force is controlled by exural and compression
membrane action, which is followed by a sudden drop in the resist-
ing force due to a combination of the axial compressive force
displacement (PD) effect and concrete crushing as discussed later
in this paper, and nally the third branch in which the vertical load
carrying capacity of the beam increases again due to tension mem-
brane (catenary) action.
In the experiment, after the drop of the beam resisting force, as
the vertical displacement was increased, high tensile strains devel-
oped in the bottom steel bars near the center of the beam, resulting
in fracture of both bottom bars at 6 in. (152 mm) and 7.5 in.
(191 mm) of imposed vertical displacement. This was in part due
the rotation of the center stub, which its history was recorded
and used in the analytical model. Bar fracture was included in
the beam model by dening an ultimate strain in the stressstrain
relationship of steel bers beyond which the stress is reduced to
zero. Analytical bar fracture was observed approximately at the
same location as in the beam test (bottom steel at the beam section
to the right of the center stub). Note that steel bar buckling is
accounted for based on [20] and as described by Sagiroglu [14]
and Sagiroglu and Sasani [15].
After the fracture of the bottom bars, the beam resistance to the
applied deection was provided by the beam catenary (cable-like)
or tensile membrane action. The increasing tensile axial force in
the beam due to catenary action resulted in the yielding of the
top bars along almost their entire length. This was observed
1 2 3 4
30'
9.14 (m)
30'
9.14 (m)
26' 26' 26'
7.92 (m) 7.92 (m) 7.92 (m)
Removed Column
Fig. 3. Typical oor layout of structure.
63
experimentally through the strain gage measurements, as well as
analytically. Experimental and analytical results also showed that
rebar tensile strains concentrated in the regions with lower
amounts of top longitudinal reinforcement (center of each span)
during the beam catenary action.
3. Structure characteristics
In order to study the progressive collapse resistance of RC
beams and consequently that of RC frame structures, a typical
seven-story RC building is considered (which is different from
the structure discussed in the previous section). The oor plan of
the building, which consists of a joist oor system [8], is shown
in Fig. 3. The spandrel beams are 18 in. (457 mm) wide and 20 in.
(508 mm) deep on all oors. The joists are 9 in. (229 mm) wide
and 20 in. (508 mm) deep. Uniform dead and live loads of 100 lb/ft2
(4.79 kN/m2) and 50 lb/ft2 (2.39 kN/m2), respectively, are assumed.
In addition, a uniformly distributed 100 lb/ft (1.46 kN/m) wall
weight on the perimeter beams is applied to the structure. The
building is assumed to be located at a site class C with a 1-s
spectral acceleration of 0.1g. The seismic response coefcients
(Cs) of 0.0534 and 0.02 are found for ordinary and special frames,
respectively [2]. The building is designed as an ordinary frame as
well as a special frame. Fig. 4a shows the reinforcement details
of the longitudinal spandrel beam C3C4 (same as beam C4C5)
for the ordinary and special frames [8]. The continuous top
reinforcement of the beam is approximately equal to 1/6th of the
top reinforcement at the ends of the beams, as required by the
ACI 318 [1]. For both the ordinary and special frames, a second
set of designs are shown in Fig. 4b. The reinforcement detail in
Case 1 (4a) meets ACI integrity requirements with the continuous
top reinforcement of the beam being at least 1/6th of the top
reinforcement at the ends of the beams. The top reinforcement in
Case 2 additionally satises the minimum exural reinforcement
ratio of 0.0033 or 2#7 (2D22mm) rebar. Compared to Case 1, one
can claim that Case 2 has a more common type of top reinforce-
ment choice. The main reason for evaluating Case 2 is to better
understand the effects of beam strength at the top bar cut off
location (amount of continuous top reinforcement) on the beam
response following column removal.
4. Analytical model
The static analysis of the beam after the removal of the column
was simulated through a 2D analytical model using OpenSees [9].
5 6 7
A
C
26' 26' 26'
7.92 (m) 7.92 (m) 7.92 (m)
Critical Beam
64 E. Livingston et al. / Engineering Structures 95 (2015) 6170

C3 24.5' C4 The concrete bers of sections are divided into a core area
1 2 7.47 (m) 3 which is the conned portion of the section and a cover area which
8' 8' is the unconned portion. The stressstrain relationship for the
3#9 Ordinary (3D29) 2#5 (2D16) 3#9 Ordinary (3D29) concrete is dened by a uniaxial material model. The cover con-
3#7 Special (3D22) 2#7 (2D22) 3#7 Special (3D22)
crete is dened by a compressive strength and strain of 5 ksi
(a) (34.5 MPa) and 0.002 and crushing strength and strain of 0.5
1 2 26' 3
(3.45 MPa) and 0.007 respectively. Consequently, the stressstrain
7.92(m) Removed relationships of core concrete for special and ordinary design cases
Column
are found using the modied Kent and Park model [10]. The crush-
C3 24.5' C4 ing strain is dened as 0.01 for the ordinary beam case and 0.02 for
1 2 7.47(m) 3 the special design case. The only exception is for the middle ele-
8' 8' ment in the special beam model, which has the same concrete core
4#7 Ordinary (4D22) 2#7 (2D22) 4#7 Ordinary (4D22) properties as that of the ordinary design.
2#7 Special (2D22) 2#7 (2D22) 2#7 Special (2D22)
Steel yield and ultimate strengths of 60 ksi (413.7 MPa) and
(b) 90 ksi (620.5 MPa) are used respectively. The effects of higher yield
1 2 26' 3 and ultimate strengths are also studied. Steel bar buckling is
7.92(m) Removed accounted for based on [20] and as described by Sagiroglu [14]
Column
and Sagiroglu and Sasani [15].
Fig. 4. Reinforcement detail of ordinary and special frames (a) Case 1, (b) Case 2
(response of sections 13 are evaluated). 5. Analytical results

The responses of different ordinary and special beams crossing

A single point constraint was assigned at the location of the
removed column and a gravity load of 1350 lb/ft (19.7 kN/m) was
applied (see Fig. 5). This load is calculated considering dead load
plus 1/4 of the live load [6] and considering the fact that the joists
are two span continuous beams. FV is the axial force in the removed
column. The removal of the column was simulated by gradually
moving the point constraint downwards. The reaction force (FV/2
for the symmetric model in Fig. 5) calculated at the constraint
point is equal to the vertical force required to satisfy equilibrium
at a given displacement. To simplify the model, only one of the
bridging beams over removed column is modeled and analyzed
utilizing symmetry. The line of symmetry was modeled by
restraining horizontal displacement and beam rotation to allow
only for vertical displacement. The exural stiffness of the beam
and columns at the left joint (see Fig. 5) is accounted for by a
rotational spring based on cracked sections [8]. The horizontal con-
straint of the structure provided by the slab and columns is repre-
sented by a longitudinal spring. The stiffness in the longitudinal
spring (on the left side of Fig. 5) is varied due to the beam tendency
to grow as it cracks and yields and the fact that different structures
provide different levels of axial stiffness.
For the axial stiffness spectrum for the longitudinal spring at
the beam end (see Fig. 5), a stiffness of 100 kip/in. (17,500 kN/m)
is used to represent the axial stiffness provided by just the
adjacent columns. Reducing the axial stiffness below 100 kip/in.
(17,500 kN/m) does not noticeably affect the vertical force
displacement relationship of the beam. A stiffness of 10,000 kip/in.
(1,750,000 kN/m) was also chosen and results showed that any-
thing higher than 10,000 kip/in. (1,750,000 kN/m) results in almost
no change in beam compression. Lastly, an intermediate stiffness
value of 1000 kip/in. (175,000 kN/m) was chosen to represent a
moderate compressive resistance and perhaps the most realistic
scenario.
over lost column C4 (see Fig. 3), with low, medium and high levels
of compressive force are discussed and evaluated. As mentioned
before, the axial force in the beam is varied by changing the axial
stiffness of the left end spring (see Fig. 5), representing an impor-
tant effect of the structural system on the beam response. The lar-
ger the stiffness, the larger the axial force that develops in the
beam is (i.e. more resistance to beam tendency to grow as it cracks
and its longitudinal bars yield). The purpose of these analyses is to
evaluate and compare the vertical load carrying capacity of each
system by identifying the important events and their sequence
corresponding to each model.
5.1. Ordinary frame Case 1 (medium axial stiffness/force)
The vertical forcedisplacement relationship of the 26 ft
(7.92 m) long ordinary beam Case 1 with medium axial stiffness
is shown in Fig. 6d. Note that the plots show results up to a vertical
displacement of 48 in. (1220 mm). In the abbreviations used in the
plots, M stands for moment, 1, 2 and 3 indicate the beam section
dened in Fig. 4, O stands for ordinary design and lastly S stands
for special design.
It should be emphasized that at the beginning of the analysis,
the structure is in equilibrium under the gravity loads and the
removed column is replaced with its reaction forces (primarily a
vertical upward force). Therefore the vertical force at zero vertical
displacement is equal to the column axial force under the gravity
loads before column removal (Fig. 6d). In all of the responses, there
appear to be two primary local force peaks at different displace-
ment levels, separating the response into three distinct phases.
These three phases are important to understand the full range of
responses discussed below.
Initially as the vertical displacement of the beam increases and
the beam transfers the gravity loads to the neighboring columns,
the vertical upward force required to satisfy equilibrium (FV in

Line of
1350 lb/ft
(19.7 kN/m) Symmetry

Fig. 5. Analytical model.

 E. Livingston et al. / Engineering Structures 95 (2015) 6170
Low Axial Force
(a)
(b)
Fig. 6. External and internal forces for Case 1 ordinary and special beams. Top: bending moments; and bottom: axial force (divided by 5) and vertical force.
Fig. 5) decreases. At 3.52 in. (89 mm) of displacement at which the
beam tensile (top) reinforcement at the face of the column adja-
cent to the removed column (section 1, see Fig. 4a) yields. This is
reected in the bending moment of section 1 (see Fig. 4), i.e.
M1-O shown in Fig. 6c, and in turn as a drop in the slope of the
vertical force shown in Fig. 6d.
As the beam deforms downwards and exural cracks form and
yielding occurs, the beam tends to grow in length. This tendency is
constrained by the boundary conditions of the beam, which leads
to the development of axial compressive force in the beam [17].
The axial (horizontal) force of the beam at the line of symmetry,
where the beam rotation is zero, is shown in Fig. 6d. This axial
compressive force on the one hand improves the exural capacity
of sections and in turn the vertical load carrying capacity of the
beam through the section axialexural interaction and on the
other hand reduces the vertical load carrying capacity through
the PD effect.
At 3.64 in. (93 mm) of displacement the beam reaches equilib-
rium on its own (i.e. the vertical force drops to zero) and in order
for the beam to continue displacing, a downward force is required.
At 3.9 in. (99 mm) the bottom reinforcement at the face of the
removed column (section 3) yields which leads to the yielding of
the section (M3-O in Fig. 6c). At 5.75 in. (146 mm) of displacement
the cover concrete at the bottom of section 1 reaches its peak com-
pressive strength and begins to crush.
At 6.81 in. (173 mm) the beam begins to weaken, i.e. the mag-
nitude of the downward (negative) force required to continue dis-
placing the beam starts to decrease (the downward force reaches
its local peak value), which marks the initiation of the second
phase of the response. It is interesting to note that in this case,
the drop in the vertical load carrying capacity occurs in spite of
the fact that both beam end moments are still increasing (see
Fig. 6c). However, at this point, the rate at which the sum of the
beam end moments (which contribute to developing the beam
shear force) after tensile rebar yielding is increasing becomes less
65
Medium Axial Force High Axial Force
(c) (e)
(d) (f)
than the rate at which the PD is increasing (in fact both P and
D are increasing). And therefore, because the PD effect reduces
the shear carrying capacity of the beam faster than the increase
due to higher beam end moments, the downward force starts to
decrease as the vertical displacement increases beyond this point.
At 9 in. (229 mm) of displacement the concrete cover at the top
of section 3 reaches its compressive strength, followed at 9.8 in.
(249 mm) by the core at the bottom of section 1 reaching its com-
pressive strength. Soon after, the compressive steel in section 1
yields. The compressive axial force developed in the beam reaches
its maximum value and starts to decrease at 10.02 in. (254 mm) of
displacement, and then the moment capacities developed at the
beam ends also begin to decrease.
At 19.42 in. (493 mm), the third phase of the response starts at
the point where the upward vertical force required for equilibrium
begins to decrease. It is important to note that the regain of
strength is achieved while the beam end moments are dropping
(see Fig. 6c) and the beam is still under a compressive axial force.
Again, the initiation of the third phase of response (similar to the
rst phase) can be explained by the fact that the rate at which
the sum of the beam end moments is decreasing becomes less than
the rate at which the PD is decreasing. And therefore, because the
reduction of PD leads to a larger vertical load carrying capacity of
the beam faster than the decrease in capacity due to lower beam
end moments, the downward force reaches its second local peak.
At 29.64 in. (753 mm), the axial force switches from compression
into tension. This can be considered to be the start of catenary
action.
5.2. Special frame Case 1 (medium axial stiffness/force)
The results for the special frame Case 1 analysis with medium
axial stiffness show a similar sequence of events to the ordinary
frame analysis for the same case. The steel rebars yield is almost
exactly in the same sequence as the ordinary case, albeit at
66 E. Livingston et al. / Engineering Structures 95 (2015) 6170

different displacements. One of the most noticeable differences

between ordinary and special frames for the same case is that
the reinforcement in the special frame case yields sooner than
for the ordinary frame, which is due to the fact that the special
beam is weaker. For example, in section 1, the top reinforcement
yields at 2.42 in. (62 mm) for the special frame while the same
cross-section in the ordinary frame yields at 3.52 in. (89 mm).
This is due to less top reinforcement in the beam ends for the spe-
cial frame compared to the ordinary frame.
It can be said that the ordinary frame beam performs better
than that in the special frame based on the vertical forcedisplace-
ment relation. Fig. 6d shows that the beam in the ordinary frame
reaches equilibrium (with zero vertical force) at an earlier dis-
placement compared to the beam in the special frame. Along with
this, the beam in the ordinary frame can withstand a higher down-
ward force than the beam in the special frame. Therefore, even Fig. 7. Vertical forcedisplacement relationships for ordinary frames Case 1 with
though the beam in the special frame is more ductile compared low, medium, and high axial forces.

to the beam in the ordinary frame, due to less longitudinal

reinforcement, it does not necessarily redistribute the gravity loads
more effectively (with a smaller vertical displacement) than the
beam in the ordinary frame for the 26 ft (7.92 m) span length.
Instead of the vertical displacement, it can be argued that the ver-
tical displacement demand divided by that of capacity is a better
measure of performance. This ratio is in fact a better measure of
performance for the lateral response of structures under seismic
ground motions, where element deformations up to collapse are
primarily exural. However, in the case of loss of a column, the
ultimate response of a frame structure under gravity loads is
assumed to be through catenary action which is primarily tensile
(axial) and depends on the amount of continuous longitudinal
reinforcement of the beams and slabs. The transverse reinforce-
ment detailing of special frames, however, provides higher shear
resistance, which is not discussed in this paper.
Shear failure was not observed in the experiment discussed for
validating the modeling technique used in this paper. This was in
spite that fact that the frame structure as well as the tested beam
was designed as an ordinary frame. In fact, the shear reinforcement
of the beam of the full-scale prototype structure was set equal to
the minimum practical value, i.e. #3(D10)@d/2, where d is the
beam effective depth. Qian and Li [12], however, reported shear
failure in a corner joint as well as in the corresponding beams,
when low shear reinforcement was used. It should be mentioned
again that if shear failure is likely to occur, then the performance
of special frames can considerably improve compared to that of
ordinary frames.
5.3. Effects of different levels of axial stiffness (axial force)
The surrounding elements impose some constraints on the
beam tendency to grow. Three different levels of the surrounding
systems lateral stiffness were modeled for both ordinary and spe-
cial frame design types (see Fig. 6af). The level of longitudinal
stiffness at the boundaries primarily affects the axial compressive
force developed in the beam, which in turn affects the vertical load
carrying capacity of the beam. Fig. 7 compares the vertical load car-
rying capacities of the ordinary beams Case 1, with low, medium,
and high axial stiffness values (and in turn axial forces). During
the rst phase of the response (up to the rst peak), the beam with
the higher axial force shows a larger vertical load carrying capacity.
As mentioned before, this is mainly due to the effects of the axial
compressive force on the moment capacity of the beam sections.
When a downward force is applied to each case (i.e. negative ver-
tical force), still the beam with higher axial spring stiffness
requires a higher force at each vertical displacement. It is noted
that even though the performance of the beam improves in terms
of the vertical load carrying capacity as the adjacent axial spring
stiffness increases and even though the special frames have higher
axial forces, the ordinary frames perform better with a smaller ver-
tical displacement than the special frame throughout all three
levels of axial spring stiffness (see Fig. 6). Notice that the local
peaks in the results and subsequently the three described phases
are more pronounced for beams with medium and larger axial
stiffness (and in turn medium and larger axial force).
5.4. Comparing Case 1 and Case 2
The main difference between Case 1 and Case 2 for both ordin-
ary and special frames is that Case 2 has almost twice the
reinforcement at the top midspan of the beam as Case 1, i.e.
beyond the top bar cut off location, as the continuous top bars.
Due to this, as can be seen in Fig. 8 which compares the behavior
and results of Case 1 and Case 2 for special and ordinary frames
for medium axial stiffness, initially both cases behave the same
until the top reinforcement at the midspan yields and then Case
2 begins to provide more resistance. In Fig. 8, C1 stands for Case
1 and C2 stands for Case 2.
5.5. Effects of higher rebar yield strength
Fig. 9 compares the internal forces of both special frames and
ordinary frames with 60 ksi (414 MPa) and 75 ksi (517 MPa) steel
respectively for a 26 ft (7.92 m) beam span. As can be seen by
the momentdisplacement curves, the behavior of the beams is
the same up until the point where the bottom rebars at the right
end of the beam (section 3 in Fig. 4) yields. This happens earlier
for the beam with 60 ksi (414 MPa) steel than for the beam with
75 ksi (517 MPa) steel. Following this event, the beam with
75 ksi (517 MPa) steel develops larger moments and reaches equi-
librium before the 60 ksi (414 MPa) steel beam. It is noted that the
axial force developed in the beam for both 60 ksi (414 MPa) and
75 ksi (517 MPa) is about the same throughout the analysis up
until around the time where the steel at the midspan of the beam
yields. Overall it can be concluded that both special and ordinary
frame beams with 75 ksi (517 MPa) steel behave better in terms
of their ability to reach equilibrium than those with 60 ksi
(414 MPa) steel beams.
6. Structure with longer spans
In order to evaluate the effect of the span length, a number of
push-down analyses of a beam with a 37 ft (11.28 m) span length
are conducted. Similar to the 26 ft (7.92 m) span layout, both
ordinary and special frame designs were taken into consideration
 E. Livingston et al. / Engineering Structures 95 (2015) 6170
Ordinary Frame
(a)
(b)
Fig. 8. External and internal forces for ordinary beams Case 1 and Case 2. Top: bending moments; and bottom: axial force (divided by 5) and vertical force.
(see Fig. 10). The ordinary frame design requires that only a quarter
of the bottom reinforcement at the mid span needs to be continu-
ous to satisfy the integrity requirement. Due to this, the ordinary
frame design has 2#6 + 2#9 (2D19 + 2D29) at the bottom mid span
for a total area of 2.88 in.2 (1858 mm2) for which 2#6 (2D19)
extends at the ends for a total area of 0.88 in.2 (568 mm2). The spe-
cial frame design requires that the positive moment capacity of a
beam at the face of a column is at least half of that of the negative
moment capacity [1]. The special frame design has 2#7 + 3#10
(2D22 + 3D32) at the top ends for a total area of 5.01 in.2
(3232 mm2) and 4#7 (4D22) at the bottom ends for a total area
of 2.4 in.2 (1548 mm2). It is noted that due to the integrity require-
ments explained above, the special frame design consists of a total
area at the bottom ends of almost three times that of the ordinary
frame design. This is important in analyzing which design behaves
better in terms of progressive collapse resistance following loss of a
column.
6.1. Ordinary frame (medium axial stiffness) 37 ft (11.28 m) span
The load carrying capacity of the 37 ft (11.28 m) ordinary frame
beam can be evaluated by examining Fig. 11c and d and by the
additional description provided below. At 8.58 in. (218 mm) of dis-
placement the top rebars of section 1 (see Fig. 10a) yield. This is
followed by the cover concrete at the bottom of section 1 reaching
its compressive strength at 9.92 in. (252 mm) of displacement.
Shortly after, at 10.08 in. (256 mm) of displacement the upward
force required for the beam equilibrium begins to increase, i.e.
the vertical load carrying capacity of the beam drops. Similar to
the response of the frame with a 26 ft (7.92 m) span beam, this
occurs in spite the fact that the beam end moments are still
increasing. Note that section 3 reaches its maximum positive bend-
ing moment at 12.29 in. (312 mm), followed by the maximum
67
Special Frame
(c)
(d)
compressive axial force at 12.43 in. (316 mm). Also, section 1
reaches its maximum negative bending moment right before the
positive (bottom) reinforcement in the section yields in
compression.
At around 20.67 in. (525 mm) the vertical force required to
reach equilibrium begins to decrease. That is, the vertical load car-
rying capacity increases. Similar to the discussion made for the
26 ft (7.92 m) long ordinary beam, this occurs in spite of the fact
that the beam end bending moments reduces as the vertical dis-
placement increases at this point. At 44.22 in. (1123 mm) the ver-
tical force drops to zero (system is at equilibrium) and in order for
the beam to continue displacing a downward force must be
applied. As the bottom core concrete in section 1 starts to crush
the negative moment capacity of the section goes down and the
compressive rebars start to buckle.
6.2. Special frame (medium axial stiffness) 37 ft (11.28 m) span
Fig. 11c and d show the moment and force responses of the 37 ft
(11.28 m) special frame beam along with those of ordinary frame
beam. Compared to the response of the ordinary frame beam, the
positive moment of the special beam at section 3 (M3-S) is con-
siderably larger. Due to higher compressive and transverse
reinforcement in the special frame compared to the ordinary
frame, concrete crushing does not occur in the core of the special
frame beam. The beam reaches equilibrium at around 36.95 in.
(939 mm), which is almost 8 in. (203 mm) smaller than that for
the ordinary frame for the same axial stiffness.
6.3. Effect of beam span
As can be seen from Fig. 11 which compares the results of the
cases for all three levels of axial stiffness for the 37 ft (11.28 m)
68 E. Livingston et al. / Engineering Structures 95 (2015) 6170

Ordinary Frame Special Frame

(a) (c)

(b) (d)

Fig. 9. External and internal forces for ordinary and special beams under different yield strengths Case 1. Top: bending moments; and bottom: axial force (divided by 5) and
vertical force.

C3 35.5' C4 analyses with a 26 ft (7.92 m) beam span, it can be concluded that

1 2 10.82 3 they behave oppositely and therefore beams with longer spans
8' 8'
behave better under special frame designs than ordinary frame
4#10 (4D32) 2#7 (2D22) 4#10 (4D32)
2#9 (2D29)
designs.
2#6 (2D19) 2#6 (2D19)
The difference in behavior between the 26 ft (7.92 m) span and
the 37 ft (11.28 m) span can be best explained by analyzing the
1 2 37' 3 reinforcement detailing in each design. For 26 ft (7.92 m) span,
11.28(m) Removed the bottom reinforcement for both special and ordinary frame
(a)
Column design at the ends of the beams is 2#7 (2D22). For 37 ft
C3 35.5' C4 (11.28 m) spans, reinforcement in the same section is reduced to
1 2 10.82(m) 3 2#6 (2D19) for ordinary and increased to 4#7 (4D22) for special.
8' 8'
In the 37 ft (11.28 m) beam span case the special frame design
3#10 (3D32) 2#7 (2D22) 3#10 (3D32) has higher reinforcement at the bottom beam ends because special
4#7 (4D22) 1#7 (1D22) 4#7 (4D22)
frame design requires that the bottom reinforcement of a beam is
at least half of the top reinforcement. Due to this, the special frame
1 2 37' 3 design has 2#7 + 3#10 (2D22 + 3D32) at the top ends for a total
(b) 11.28(m) Removed area of 5.01 in.2 (3232 mm2) and 4#7 (4D22) at the bottom ends
Column for a total area of 2.4 in.2 (1548 mm2).

Fig. 10. Reinforcement detail of (a) ordinary and (b) special frames.

beam span, it can be concluded that beams of special frames have a
better performance than beams of ordinary frames for longer span
lengths. The vertical forcedisplacement curve of the special frame
beams reaches equilibrium sooner than ordinary frame beams and
require larger downward forces to continue displacing the beam
after equilibrium. By comparing these results to the results of
7. Conclusions
In order to evaluate the collapse resistance of RC frame struc-
tures following loss of a middle column of the perimeter frame,
the response of the beam bridging over the lost column is studied.
The important effects of the 3D structure on the beam response are
accounted for by properly modeling the boundary conditions of the
 E. Livingston et al. / Engineering Structures 95 (2015) 6170
Low Axial Force
(a)
(b)
Fig. 11. External and internal forces for ordinary and special beams. Top: bending moments; and bottom: axial force (divided by 5) and vertical force [37 ft (11.28 m) span].
beam. The model captures the axial compressive force developed
in the beam, which is a combined result of RC beams tendency
to grow due to cracking and yielding and constraint to this ten-
dency to elongation provided by the surrounding structure. A veri-
ed analytical modeling technique is used to analyze various
beams bridging over a lost column with different structural charac-
teristics in order to characterize and evaluate the effects of these
characteristics on the performance of the beams in resisting pro-
gressive collapse.
It is discussed that two peaks of the vertical forcedisplacement
relationship of the beam bridging over the lost column divide the
curve into three phases. Perhaps counter intuitively, while just
after the rst peak the absolute values of beam end moments still
increase, the vertical load carrying capacity of the beam decreases.
Also after the second peak, while the absolute values of beam end
moments decrease, the vertical load carrying capacity of the beam
increases. These are explained below by accounting for the PD
effect.
Although the beam end moments are increasing just after the
rst peak, it is shown that the rate of increase in shear due to
the beam end moments is less than the rate of reduction in shear
due to the PD effect. Similarly, during the second phase of the ver-
tical forcedisplacement relationship, as the vertical displacement
increases, the vertical load carrying capacity of the beam decreases.
The second phase of the response ends at the second peak of the
vertical force. Beyond this peak, while the beam end moments
(and therefore shear due to the beam end moments) drop, the total
vertical load carrying capacity of the beam increases, which can
also be explained by the PD effect. It is shown that at this point,
because the axial compressive force in the beam drops, the PD
effect due to this axial force drops at a rate faster than the drop
in shear due to the beam end moments, and therefore the vertical
load carrying capacity of the beam increases. As the vertical
69
Medium Axial Force High Axial Force
(c) (e)
(d) (f)
displacement increases during the third phase of response, the
beam axial compressive force eventually turns to tensile and cate-
nary action develops.
The progressive collapse resistance of ordinary and special
frame structures with 26 ft (7.92 m) spans following loss of a col-
umn is evaluated and compared. While the beam of the special
frame is more ductile than a corresponding ordinary beam, the
results show that the ordinary beam demonstrates a higher resis-
tance to progressive collapse following loss of a column. This is
true regardless of the level of axial compressive force developed
in the beam (or the beam axial boundary condition). In other
words, for all cases and up to a vertical displacement of 4 ft
(1.22 m), at any vertical displacement, the ordinary beam provides
a higher vertical load carrying capacity than the special beam and
comes to equilibrium with zero axial force at the removed column
location at a smaller vertical displacement. One reason for such a
behavior is that in progressive collapse analysis of frame structures
following loss of a column, the constant load previously carried by
the lost column needs to be redistributed, therefore the strength
and the vertical load carrying capacity of the structure are of pri-
mary importance. However, under seismic ground motion the lat-
eral loads are a function of not only the severity of the ground
motion, but also the strength of the structure, and therefore the
structures ductility and deformation capacity is of primary impor-
tance. This results in ordinary frame designs being stronger but
less ductile than a comparable special frame designed for seismic
loads.
For 37 ft (11.28 m) span beams considered in this study, how-
ever, the above conclusion is not valid. This is due to the following
two facts. For a given seismicity, the longer the span the larger the
ratio of the gravity to the seismic moments is. Therefore the differ-
ence between the beam top longitudinal reinforcement at the face
of the columns of special and ordinary frame will be less.
70 E. Livingston et al. / Engineering Structures 95 (2015) 6170
Furthermore, with similar design top end reinforcements, the more
stringent detailing requirements for special frames results in
higher amounts of bottom reinforcement at the beam ends (and
therefore higher positive moment capacity).
The higher top reinforcement beyond the rebar cut-off location
does not considerably improve the vertical load carrying capacity
of the beam in the rst two phases of the response, but leads to
a higher resistance in the third phase, where the catenary action
becomes the primary resisting mechanism, because of a larger area
of continuous reinforcement. It is also shown that a larger yield
stress of the rebars provide a higher vertical load carrying capacity.
It should be emphasized that the conclusions drawn here are
valid with the assumptions and the cases studied in this paper
and should not be generalized. Furthermore, this study evaluated
the axial and exural response of beams only and did not consider
potential shear or other modes of element and section failure.
Lastly, neither a 3D redistribution of gravity loads nor effects of
Vierendeel frame action were considered.
Acknowledgements
This material is based upon work in part supported by the
National Science Foundation under Grant No. CMMI-0547503.
The review and comments provided by Justin A. Murray is
appreciated.
References
[1] ACI 318. Building code requirement for structural concrete. MI: American
Concrete Institute; 2011.
[2] ASCE/SEI 7. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. Reston,
VA: Structural Engineering Institute-American Society of Civil Engineers; 2010.
[3] Bazan M. Response of reinforced concrete elements and structures following
loss of load bearing elements. PhD dissertation. Boston, MA: Northeastern
University; 2008.
[4] Choi H, Kim J. Progressive collapse-resisting capacity of RC beamcolumn sub-
assemblage. Mag Concr Res 2011;63(4):297310.
[5] DOD. Design of building to resist progressive collapse. Unied facility criteria.
UFC 4-023-03. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense; 2010.
[6] GSA. Progressive collapse analysis and design guidelines for new federal ofce
buildings and major modernization projects. Washington, DC: U.S. General
Service Administration; 2003.
[7] Kokot S, Anthoine A, Negro P, Solomos G. Static and dynamic analysis of a
reinforced concrete at slab frame building for progressive collapse. Eng Struct
2012;40:20517 [Elsevier].
[8] Livingston E, Sasani M. Integrity, robustness and progressive collapse
resistance of RC structures designed for different levels of seismic loads.
Boston, MA: Structures Congress; 2014.
[9] OpenSEES. Open system for earthquake engineering simulation. Berkeley, CA:
Pacic Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California.
<http://opensees.-berkeley.edu>; 2013.
[10] Park R, Priestley MJN, Gill WD. Ductility of square-conned concrete columns.
J Struct Div ASCE 1982;108(ST4):92950.
[11] Qian K, Li B. Slab effects on response of reinforced concrete substructures after
loss of corner column. Struct J ACI 2012;109(6):84556.
[12] Qian K, Li B. Performance of three-dimensional reinforced concrete beam-
column substructures under loss of a corner column scenario. J Struct Eng
ASCE 2013;139(4):58494.
[13] Sadek F, Main JA, Lew HS, Bao Y. Testing and analysis of steel and concrete
beamcolumn assemblies under a column removal scenario. J Struct Eng ASCE
2011;137(9):88192.
[14] Sagiroglu S. Analytical and experimental evaluation of progressive collapse
resistance of reinforced concrete structures. PhD dissertation. Boston, MA:
Northeastern University; 2012.
[15] Sagiroglu S, Sasani M. Progressive collapse resisting mechanisms of reinforced
concrete structures and effects of initial damage locations. J Struct Eng ASCE
2014;140(3):112 [04013073].
[16] Sasani M, Kazemi A, Sagiroglu S, Forest S. Progressive collapse resistance of an
actual 11-story structure subjected to severe initial damage. J Struct Eng ASCE
2011;137(9):893902.
[17] Sasani M, Kropelnicki J. Progressive collapse analysis of an RC structure. Struct
Des Tall Spec Build 2008;17(4):75772.
[18] Sasani M, Sagiroglu S. Progressive collapse resistance of hotel San Diego. J
Struct Eng ASCE 2008;134(3):47888.
[19] Su Y, Tian Y, Song X. Progressive collapse resistance of axially-restrained frame
beams. Struct J ACI 2009;106(5):6007.
[20] Urmson C, Mander J. Local buckling analysis of longitudinal reinforcing bars. J
Struct Eng ASCE 2012;138(1):6271.
[21] Yap SL, Li B. Experimental investigation of reinforced concrete exterior beam
column subassemblages for progressive collapse. Struct J ACI
2011;108(5):54252.
[22] Yi W, He Q, Xiao Y, Kunnath SK. Experimental study on progressive collapse-
resistant behavior of reinforced concrete frame structures. Struct J ACI
2008;105(4):4339.
[23] Yi W, Kunnath SK, Zhang F, Xiao Y. Large-scale experimental evaluation of
building system response to sudden column removal. Structures Congress, SEI;
2011. p. 23537.