Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Twelve specimens representing reinforced concrete frame beams simulated the removal of the middle column at the first story.
were tested to investigate their gravity load-carrying capacity Beam catenary action was identified in the test, and the failure
against progressive collapse. In these tests, the beams within the of the specimen was controlled by the rupture of beam longi-
frame subassemblies were restrained longitudinally against axial tudinal reinforcement. Orton11 studied the technique of
deformation. The tests indicated that the compressive arch action
due to longitudinal restraint can significantly enhance the flexural
using carbon fiber-reinforced polymer to strengthen beams
strength of a beam subjected to vertical loads. The compressive without continuity of bottom reinforcement that makes a
arch action was observed to be a function of flexural reinforcement reinforced concrete frame vulnerable to progressive collapse.
ratio and ratio of beam span to depth. The test results validated an Beams are critical structural components of a reinforced
analytical model that has considered the axial restraining effects concrete frame to resist progressive collapse when a bearing
on beam loading capacity. The application of compressive arch column fails. The two collinear beams framing into the failed
effect to the prevention of progressive collapse is discussed. column become a single structural component resisting the
redistributed gravity load that causes significantly increased
Keywords: beam(s); catenary action; compressive arch action; progressive bending moment and shear demands in the beam. Unless
collapse; reinforced concrete. sufficient strength is provided, the two-bay beam spanning
over the failed column cannot retain the local failure, and a
INTRODUCTION progressive collapse may result. Note that the pure bending
Abnormal loading events such as explosions, vehicle capacity that generally fits the test data of simply supported
collisions, and foundation failure are not considered in an beams has been used to define the flexural strength of a
ordinary structural design. The local damage caused by such reinforced concrete beam in the routine design and analysis
low-probability loads, however, may result in a chain reaction of structures. Under gravity loading, however, compressive
of structural element failure that leads to partial or even full arch action and tensile catenary action develop in a reinforced
collapse of a structure. The collapses of the Ronan Point concrete flexural member that is restrained axially at the
Tower in London in 1968 and the Alfred P. Murrah Federal boundaries, as is the case with frame beams. Compressive
Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 have demonstrated the axial force develops, as observed in tests,10-12 when the
disastrous consequences of a progressive collapse. To mitigate longitudinal expansion due to concrete cracking is confined
the risk of progressive collapse due to an abnormal loading by the adjacent structural components. Accordingly, beams
event, a structure must accommodate the initial local damage or slabs with top cracking due to negative bending at the
and develop an alternative load-path to sustain the redistributed supports and bottom cracking due to positive bending at the
loads. Two federal guidelines, GSA 20031 and DOD 2005,2 midspan act as a compressive arch subjected to both bending
adopted this strategy and proposed threat independent-analysis and compression. Tests12 showed that the load capacity of
procedures to assess the potential of progressive collapse of a one-way slabs due to the compressive arch action can be 30
structure following the notional removal of major load- to 100% higher than that determined from the yield-line
bearing elements. collapse mechanism approach. In addition, analytical studies
Despite notable analytical studies,3-6 very limited experimental indicated that even a partially restrained one-way slab may
data exist as the basis of assessing progressive collapse resistance achieve considerable extra strength as a result of the
of reinforced concrete frame structures. Sasani et al.7 conducted compressive axial force.13 Compared with the studies of
an in-place test of a reinforced concrete building with one- slabs, however, there is a lack of experimental evidence for
way floor slabs supported by transverse frames. The structure compressive arch effects for reinforced concrete beams.
was instrumented and its performance following the removal of
an exterior bearing column in the first story by explosion was RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
studied. Analysis using conventional line elements was This study experimentally investigated the gravity load
conducted as a complementary study. Sasani and Sagiroglu8 capacity of axially restrained reinforced concrete beams and
and Sasani9 similarly examined the dynamic response and the critical parameters affecting the compressive arch action.
the potential of progressive collapse of another reinforced The study validated the effectiveness of a mechanical model
concrete frame building where one corner column and one addressing the compressive arch effects. Taking into account
adjacent exterior column were simultaneously demolished the beneficial compressive arch effects on flexural capacity
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 ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 5, September-October 2009.
progressive collapse was observed. Yi et al.10 carried out MS No. S-2008-022.R2 received November 25, 2008, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright 2009, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
laboratory testing of a 1/3-scale four-bay and three-story 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-
planar frame specimen subjected to static loading that August 2010 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by March 1, 2010.
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.
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).
Fig. 10Failure mode of Specimen B3. Fig. 11Comparison of measured and calculated results.
1
P = ------- 0.85f c 1 bh --- 1 ----1- + --- ( 1 3 ) +
h
l n 2 2 4 Fig. 12Normalized horizontal reaction force, applied
load, and bending moments at support and midspan versus
2
l n - 2
2
l n
--------- ( 1 1 ) total + ----- 2 ----1- + --------- 1 ----1- total normalized center deflection (Specimen B3).
8h 2 h 2
(1)
2 4 2
1 l n 2 ( T T Cs + C s ) It is noted that the choice of S for practical situations may
------------------ total ------------------------------------------ + ( Cs + C s )
h
2 3.4f c b not have a pronounced effect on the calculated load capacity.
The longitudinal restraint at the beam ends is provided by the
h h surrounding structural components including the columns as
--- d --- + ( T + T ) d --- + --- l n
2 2 2 2 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
where b is the beam width; h is the beam depth; fc is the axial stiffness of the beam. It was found that, even if only
concrete cylinder compressive strength assumed as f c = 0.8fcu; 20% of the actual support rigidity in the tests was considered,
1 (determined according to ACI 318-0515) is the ratio of the the computed loading capacity Pcu of the specimens was
depth of concrete equivalent stress block to the depth of reduced by less than 10%.
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 Effects of axial restraint on internal forces
tensile resultant forces of steel at the midspan and supports; Although it is well recognized that the existence of axial
Cs and Cs are compressive resultant forces of steel at the force in a column can increase its flexural capacity, the role
midspan and supports; T, T, Cs, and Cs are calculated using of axial force developed in a longitudinally restrained beam
steel yield strength; d is the beam effective depth; d is the is complex. To illustrate this situation, Fig. 12 presents in the
distance from the centroid of compressive reinforcement to same plot the response of vertical load P, horizontal reaction N,
the concrete compression surface; is the beam self-weight bending moment at the supports M, and moment at the
per unit length of beam; and total is the total axial strain due midspan M as the center deflection increased in Specimen B3
to beam axial deformation and support longitudinal until its failure. For convenience of comparison, P was
displacement, and is determined as normalized by Pyu, the load at the formation of a plastic
collapse mechanism without considering the compressive arch
-------- h T T C s + C s C s T effects. N was normalized by the absolute value of the
- + ------- 0.85f c 1 --- --- ---------------------------------------
1 b
- + ---------------
hE c l n S 2 4 1.75f c 1 b b maximum compressive axial force Nmax. M and M determined
total = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- (2)
0.85f c 1 l n 1
2
from test data were normalized by the corresponding pure
- --------- + ------
b
1 + -----------------------------
hE c l n s bending capacity M0 and M0 calculated without considering
the interaction between axial force and moment. P, N, M,
where S is support rigidity in the horizontal direction, and Ec is and M satisfy
concrete elastic modulus determined according to ACI 318-05.15
The solution provided by Eq. (1) and (2) is implicit because P = 2(M + M N Mg)/ln (3)
deflection must be increased gradually to determine the peak
value of P. It is noted that due to the assumptions made in the where Mg denotes the bending moment caused by the specimen
model regarding the state of stress for steel and concrete, the self-weight. Figure12 indicates that compressive arch action
P- relation defined by Eq. (1) and (2) cannot be used to can significantly improve the flexural capacity of a beam
describe the entire load-deflection response of a specimen. section. Compared with M0 and M0, the beam flexural
Equations (1) and (2) were adopted to estimate Pcu , the capacity of Specimen B3 at the supports and the midspan
load-carrying capacity of the specimens due to compressive was increased by 66% and 150%, respectively. However, a
arch action. The measured horizontal rigidity of the support, two-fold effect of the compressive axial force exists. As indicated
approximately 1000 kN/mm (5710 kip/in.), was used to define by Eq. (3), the axial force tends to reduce the load capacity by
S. Comparison of calculated versus measured capacity is shown means of P- effect. As a result, Pcu was reached well before
by solid dots in Fig. 11. It can be seen that good agreement the maximum bending moments at the supports and the
was achieved between the test results and the analytical midspan were achieved. Thus, the overall strength enhancement
results based on Parks model. The average ratio of calculated effect, measured by the peak value of P/Pyu , was less than the
to measured capacity is 0.95 with a standard deviation of 0.04. average of the peak values of M/M0 and M/M0 that represented