PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE RESISTING CAPACITY OF

REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAM-COLUMN SUB-STRUCTURES

Chanh Trung Huynh, Jongyul Park, and Jinkoo Kim 1

1
Dept. Architectural Eng., Sungkyunkwan Univ., Suwon, Korea, jkim12@skku.edu
Hyunhoon Choi2
2
Research Institute of Technology, Samsung Engineering & Construction, Seoul, Korea

ABSTRACT
In this study experiments were carried out to investigate the progressive collapse resisting capacity of RC
beam-column subassemblages designed with and without seismic load. Monotonically increasing load
was applied at the middle column of the specimens and the force-displacement relationships were plotted.
It was observed that the non-seismically designed specimen failed by crushing of concrete at the exterior
column-girder joint of the left-hand-side girder before catenary action was activated. However the force-
displacement relationship of the specimen designed for seismic load kept increasing after fracture of the
girder lower re-bars near the middle column due to the catenary force of the upper re-bars.

INTRODUCTION
Recently the effect of catenary action on progressive collapse has been investigated by many researchers.
Kim and An (2009) investigated the effect of catenary action on the progressive collapse potential of steel
structures. Milner et al. (2007) and Sasani and Kropelnicki (2008) carried out experiments to study on the
behavior of a scaled model of a continuous perimeter beam in a reinforced concrete frame structure
following the removal of a supporting column. Yi et al. (2008) carried out static experimental study of a
three-story RC frame structure to investigate progressive failure due to the loss of a lower story column. In
those experiments it was observed that after the plastic mechanism formed, the concrete strain in the
compression zone at the beam ends reached its ultimate compressive strain, and the compressive re-bars
were gradually subject to tension with increasing displacement. Finally at large deformation catenary
action was activated in floor beams due to tensile resistance of reinforcing bars.
Previous experimental researches on RC beam-column subassemblages have been carried out under
the assumption or experimental condition that longitudinal re-bars are continuous in both sides of the
spans from which a column is removed. In this study monotonic tests of RC beam-column
subassemblages designed with and without seismic load were carried out to investigate the progressive
collapse resisting capacity. The two-span subassemblages were designed as part of five and eight-story
RC moment resisting frames. Based on the test results, performance of an eight-story RC moment frame
with a missing column was evaluate by pushdown analysis, and the results were compared with those
obtained by using the member limit state recommended in the FEMA-356 (2000).

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

Design of model structures and testing specimens

To evaluate the progressive collapse resisting capacity of five and eight-story RC frames, scaled
models of the beam-column subassemblage shown in Fig. 1 were manufactured for test. To compare the
performance of the subassemblage depending on concrete strength and amount and detailing of re-bars,
four different specimens were constructed. The seismic and non-seismic designed specimens of the 5-
story structure were named as 5S and 5G, respectively, and those of the 8-story structure were named as
8S and 8G, respectively. The detail design of the specimens was conducted based on the ACI Detailing
 J. Kim, J. Park, H. Choi

Manual (ACI, 2004). The scales of the specimens corresponding to the subassemblages of the five- and
eight-story structures are 37% and 35% determined in consideration of the capacity of the testing facility.
The member sizes and re-bar placements of the specimens for the five-story structure are presented in
Table 1. The details of the re-bar placements of the specimens 8G and 8S are depicted in Fig. 1. The
right-hand-side columns in the test specimens were made to be 1.5 times larger in size than that of the
left-hand-side columns considering the fact that girder re-bars are continuous through the internal
columns. In the case of non-seismically designed beams, bottom bars extended into the support (the
exterior column) without hook. However the top and bottom bars of seismically designed specimens were
anchored with standard 90 degree hook into exterior columns. To take into account the continuation of
the right-hand-side girder in the specimens the longitudinal bars were anchored with the tail extension of
the hook. The length of the tail of the hook is longer than that required in in code. The D10 (nominal
diameter: 9.53mm) re-bars were used for main reinforcing steel for beams and columns, and  6 steel
bars were used for stirrups and tie bars. From coupon tests of re-bars used in the specimen it was
observed that the yield and ultimate strengths of the main re-bars are 493 MPa and 611 MPa, respectively,
and those of stirrups and tie bars are 363 MPa and 423 MPa, respectively. It was assumed that the five-
story structure was an old structure with its concrete strength somewhat deteriorated. Therefore the
specimens 5S and 5G were cast with concrete with higher water/cement ratio and the concrete strength
turned out to be 17 MPa from cylinder tests. The concrete strength of the specimens 8S and 8G was 30
MPa.

(a) Gravity load resisting system

(b) Seismic load resisting system

Fig. 1: Test specimens

2
 J. Kim, J. Park, H. Choi

Tab. 1: Sectional properties of prototype model structures (unit: mm):

(a) Seismic load resisting frame (5S)

Column Beam
Member
Exterior (C3) Interior (C4) (Depth x Width, G2)

Size 450x450 500x500 600x400

Prototype 3D25a)
frame Top 2D25b)
Rebar 4D25 8D25 2D25
Bottom 2D25 3D25
Size 170x170 185x185 225x150
Specimen 3D10
Top 2D10
Rebar 4D10 8D10 2D10
Bottom 2D10 3D10
a) Longitudinal reinforcement at both ends of beam
b) Longitudinal reinforcement at middle of beam

(b) Gravity load resisting frame (5G)

Column Beam
Member
Exterior (C3) Interior (C4) (Depth x Width, G2)

Size 450x450 450x450 500x400

Prototype
frame Top 2D25 2D25
Rebar 4D25 8D25
Bottom 2D25 2D25
Size 170x170 170x170 185x150
Specimen Top 2D10 2D10
Rebar 4D10 8D10
Bottom 2D10 2D10

Test setup
Figure 2 shows the test setup for the specimens. The right- and left-side-columns were fixed to the jigs
and the actuator was connected to the middle column. It was assumed that the middle columns of the
subassemblages were removed by accident and displacement-controlled monotonic pushdown force was
enforced at the middle column using a hydraulic actuator with maximum capacity of 2000 kN and
maximum stroke of ±250mm. The tests were carried out horizontally and to prevent vertical deflection of
the specimens due to self weight rollers were placed beneath the beam-column joint during the test. Strain
gages were attached on the longitudinal re-bars located at the ends of girders and at columns.

3
 J. Kim, J. Park, H. Choi

Fig. 2: Test setup for the beam-column subassemblage specimens

Failure modes of test specimens

Figure 3 shows the deformed shape and crack pattern of the specimens 8S and 8G. It was observed
that in the specimen 8G, which is a part of eight-story gravity load resisting system, plastic hinges formed
at the ends of girders accompanied by flexural cracks and crushing of concrete under compression. As
deflection increased, major cracks formed at the exterior beam-column connection, which leaded to
connection failure (Fig. 3(a)). It was also observed that at failure most damages were concentrated at the
ends of the beams. In the specimens 8S, which is part of the seismic load-resisting system, it was
observed that after plastic hinges formed at both ends of the beams damages spread toward the center of
the beams (Fig. 3(b)). This is due to the enhanced amount of shear reinforcement at the ends of the beams
and the seismic detailing of re-bars at the beam-column joints including anchoring of bottom re-bars
using standard hooks. The cracks formed in the middle of the beams perpendicular to the beam axis
seemed to be results of catenary action of the beams at large vertical displacement.

Force-displacement relationships
Figure 4 shows the load-displacement relationships of the subassemblage specimens. It can be
observed that the maximum strengths of the subassemblages designed for seismic load are almost twice
as high as those of the specimens not designed for seismic load. The strength of the specimens dropped
rapidly when the bottom re-bars, which were subjected to tension, fractured. The strength of the specimen
8G, however, was soon recovered and kept increasing as catenary force of the beams contributed from the
top re-bars was activated. At small deformation the top re-bars were subjected mostly to compression;
however at large deformation both top and bottom re-bars were under tensile catenary force and resisted
collapse of the specimen. The catenary forces of the other specimens could not be activated since the
concrete of the beam-column joints fail to provide proper anchorage for the re-bars. Based on the
experimental results, it can be concluded that the RC moment frames which is seismically designed using
concrete strength high enough to provide strong anchorage for beam re-bars can resist progressive
collapse by activation of beam catenary force. In the experiments of Sasani and Kropelnicki (2008) and
Yi et al. (2008), which were carried out with interior girder-column subassemblages, damages were
observed only in the girders, not in the girder-column joints. However in this study of girder-column
subassemblages it was observed that the concrete strength and anchoring detailing of re-bars in an
exterior joint played important roles in activating catenary action of girders.

4
 J. Kim, J. Park, H. Choi

(a) Gravity load resisting frame (8G)

(b) Seismic load resisting frame (8S)

Fig. 3: Deformation configurations of the specimens at various loading steps

Rotation (/L) Rotation (/L)

0.00 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.30 0.00 0.06 0.13 0.19 0.26 0.32
50 100
5S 8S
5G 8G
40 80 Fractures of rebars
Force (kN)

Force (kN)

30 60
Fractures of rebars

20 Fractures of rebars
40

10 Fractures of rebars 20

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

(a) Subassemblage from 5-story structure (b) Subassemblage from 8-story structure
Fig. 4: Load-displacement relationships of the subassemblage specimens

5
 J. Kim, J. Park, H. Choi

CONCLUSIONS

According to the experimental results, the force-displacement relationship of the specimen designed for
seismic load and having adequate concrete strength kept increasing even after fracture of lower re-bars
due to the catenary action of the upper re-bars. However the non-seismically designed specimens
designed with wider-spaced stirrups/tie bars and with their lower beam longitudinal re-bars not anchored
by standard hooks failed by pulling out of re-bars and crushing of concrete at the exterior column-girder
joint before catenary action was activated. Also the seismically designed specimen with low-strength
concrete failed by joint failure before catenary action was activated. Based on the test results it was
concluded that RC moment-resisting buildings designed with seismic detailing might have significant
resisting capacity against progressive collapse initiated by sudden loss of a column; whereas
nonseismically-designed structures or seismically-designed structures with deteriorated concrete strength
might be vulnerable to progressive collapse.

Acknowledgement

This research was financially supported by the Super-Tall Building R&D Project of the Korean Ministry
of Land, Transport, and Maritime Affairs (09CHUD-A053106-01-000000).

References
ACI Committee 315, ACI Detailing Manual-2004, Publication SP-66(04), American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2004.
FEMA, Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Report FEMA-356,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., 2000.
Kim, J. and An, D., Evaluation of progressive collapse potential of steel moment frames considering
catenary action, The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 18, No. 4, 2009, 455- 465.
Milner, D., Gran, J., Lawver, D., Vaughan, D., Vanadit-Ellis, W., and Levine, H., FLEX analysis and
scaled testing for prediction of progressive collapse, First International Workshop on Performance,
Protection & Strengthening of Structures under Extreme Loading (PROTECT 2007), Whistler,
Canada, 2007.
Panagiotakos, T.B., and Fardis, M.N., Deformations of reinforced concrete members at yielding and
ultimate, ACI Structural Journal, 98, No. 2, 2001, 135-148.
SAP2000, Structural Analysis Program, Computer and Structure, Inc., Berkeley, 2004.
Sasani, M., and Kropelnicki, J., Progressive collapse analysis of an RC structure, The Structural Design
of Tall and Special Buildings, 17, No. 4, 2008, pp. 757-771.
Yi, W.J., He, Q.F., Xiao, Y., and Kunnath, S.K., Experimental study on progressive collapse-resistant
behavior of reinforced concrete frame structures, ACI Structural Journal, 105, No. 4, 2008, 433-439.

BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF PRESENTER

Professor Jinkoo Kim got bachelor’s degree from Department of Architectural Engineering, Seoul
National University in 1986, and Ph. D degree from Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
MIT in 1995. Currently he is a professor of architectural engineering in Sungkyunkwan University, Korea.
His research interests include seismic design and retrofit of building structures, and design of structures
against progressive collapse.