Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 14–27

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Numerical study of progressive collapse resistance of RC beam-slab T

substructures under perimeter column removal scenarios
⁎
Jun Yua, , Lizhong Luoa, Yi Lib
a
College of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China
b
Key Laboratory of Urban Security and Disaster Engineering of Ministry of Education, Beijing Collaborative Innovation Center for Metropolitan Transportation, Beijing
University of Technology, Beijing 100124, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this paper high fidelity solid-element-based numerical models are used to study the progressive collapse
Reinforced concrete resistance of reinforced concrete (RC) beam-slab substructures. This is a common type of system used in RC
Beam-slab substructures framed structures through monolithic construction. After careful calibration of model parameters, the numerical
Column removal scenario models are validated through comparisons with test data and further employed to investigate the load transfer
Progressive collapse
mechanisms and explore parameters affecting the robustness of RC beam-slab substructures under perimeter
Numerical simulations
column removal scenarios. The parameters studied include lateral restraint stiffness at the substructure
boundaries, loading schemes in testing, slab thickness and reinforcement detailing in slabs. The simulation
results show that the progressive collapse resistance of the RC beam-slab substructures is developed primarily
through compressive arch action of the longitudinal beams and flexural mechanism of the transverse beam at
small deflections and catenary action of beams as well as tensile membrane action (TMA) of slabs at large
deflections. The slabs enhance structural resistance through working compatibly with beams as L- and T-section
“composite beams” at hogging moment regions and developing TMA. If the slabs are just simply converted into
equivalent flanges of beams, the resistance at large deflections will be significantly underestimated.

1. Introduction to the complexity, it is necessary to decompose overall structures into

The failure of columns due to accidental loading (such as blast and
impact) may result in a large disproportionate collapse of framed
buildings. Among the various column failure scenarios, perimeter col-
umns are more vulnerable as they are more easily accessible. The most
typical example of disproportionate collapse (or progressive collapse) is
the Murrah Federal Building collapse in Oklahoma City after a truck
bomb caused failure of perimeter columns. The collapse extent and the
severe casualties were much more beyond the expected consequences of
perimeter column failure. Since then, in particular the occurrence of 9/
11 event, progressive collapse is a big concern of government agencies.
So far, both building codes [1,2] and specific guidelines provide design
and strengthening method to improve the resistance of structures
against progressive collapse [3,4]. As the accidental loading to cause
column failure is difficult to be identified, threat-independent ap-
proaches are introduced into the codes and guidelines by mainly using
column removal scenarios.
Progressive collapse is an overall structural response which involves
both material and geometrical nonlinearity of structural members. Due
multi-story, single-story and beam-column connection levels to obtain
the in-depth understanding of their load-transfer mechanisms, load and
deformation capacities. Reinforced concrete (RC) framed structures are
one of widely used structural systems. Over the last decade, a great
many efforts have been dedicated to investigating the progress collapse
performance of single-story RC beam-column substructures [5–11],
single-story beam-slab substructures [12–16], multi-story RC frames
[17–20] and a large scaled 3-dimensional substructures [21].
In nature, progressive collapse is a dynamic response. However, the
dynamic tests of RC beam-column substructures due to middle column
removal by contact detonation [22] and by free-fall [23] have indicated
that the failure patterns in the dynamic tests are identical to those in
quasi-static tests, and thus the quasi-static results are capable of re-
presenting progressive collapse performance of RC substructures. Any
results from quasi-static tests or analysis should be modified by ac-
counting for dynamic effects to assess the progressive collapse cap-
ability of structures. Based on the given structural resistance from
quasi-static tests or analyses, energy-based approach [24–26] and
equivalent single-degree-of-freedom model approaches [27,28] can be

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yujun@hhu.edu.cn (J. Yu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.12.038
Received 7 October 2017; Received in revised form 20 December 2017; Accepted 20 December 2017
Available online 29 December 2017
0141-0296/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Yu et al.
used to take account of dynamic effects.
Under gravity, provided that the supporting columns are adequately
strong, beams and slabs are the primary structural members to redis-
tribute loads after column removal. Previous experiments on the pro-
gressive collapse of RC beam-slab substructures were mainly focused on
the corner column [12,29] and interior column removal scenarios
[13,15]. The results show that slabs can significantly enhance the
progressive collapse resistance compared with skeleton beam-column
substructures. This is because slabs can contribute flexural resistance
and compressive membrane action at small deformation and tensile
membrane action (TMA) at large deformation based on proper
boundary conditions.
Recently, the research on RC beam-slab substructures has been ex-
tended to perimeter column removal scenarios [14,16,30]. Dat and Tan
[14] tested three 1/3 scaled RC beam-slab substructures under a pe-
nultimate-perimeter column removal scenario, and investigated the
effects of the amounts of beam stirrups in plastic hinge length, the as-
pect ratios of slab panels and the amounts of slab longitudinal re-
inforcement above the removed column. Qian et al. [30] tested two 1/4
scaled RC beam-slab substructures. In one specimen, a penultimate-
perimeter column removal scenario was considered, while in the other
one, the simultaneous removal of a penultimate-perimeter column and
a corner column was studied. The above two groups of results indicated
that despite no lateral restraints, the beam-slab substructures could still
develop TMA to enhance progressive collapse resistance beyond the one
predicted by the yield-line theory. Lu et al. [16] tested four 1/3 scaled
RC beam-slab substructures under a middle-perimeter column removal
scenario, and the adequate lateral restraints were provided at the other
three edges of each specimen. Both compressive arch action and TMA
were evidently identified based on the load-deflection curves. More-
over, it is confirmed that slabs could significantly enhance the pro-
gressive collapse resistance of structures.
Typically, the experiments on the progressive collapse resistance of
RC beam-slab substructures are expensive and thus the number of tests
is limited. Accordingly, the information is not adequate to showcase the
load transfer mechanisms of beam-slab substructures against pro-
gressive collapse and the effects of pertinent geometric and structural
parameters. Moreover, perimeter columns are more likely to be re-
moved than the other columns due to accessibility. Therefore, in this
paper high fidelity finite element (FE) numerical modeling is adopted to
investigate the robustness of RC beam-slab substructures under peri-
meter column removal scenarios, which can provide the nonlinear be-
havior of the substructures in great detail. After the introduction and
validation of the numerical modeling, the FE model is further used to
explore the load transfer mechanisms of beam-slab substructures
against progressive collapse, the effects of loading schemes and the
axial restraint stiffness at substructure boundaries. Finally, the numer-
ical models are employed to illustrate the contribution of beams and
slabs to the progressive collapse resistance of the overall beam-slab
substructures, the effects of slab thickness and the slab reinforcement
detailing on the substructure resistance.
2. Experiment and numerical validation on progressive collapse of
RC beam-slab substructures
2.1. Brief of the experiments
The FE numerical model is validated by the test data conducted by
Lu et al. [16]. They tested four 1/3 scaled RC beam-slab substructures
with an additional companion beam-column substructure under a
perimeter middle column removal scenario. As shown in Fig. 1, each
beam-slab specimen consisted of two-bay beam in longitudinal direc-
tion (i.e. X-beam), one-bay beam in transverse direction (i.e. Y-beam),
two slab panels and three size-enlarged boundary beams. The three
boundary beams are fully fixed onto the concrete bases, which were
anchored onto the strong floor, to provide adequate boundary restraints
15
Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 14–27
to the specimen, as demonstrated in Fig. 2. During the test, two hy-
draulic actuators were respectively installed at the top and the bottom
of the middle column stub to generate a concentrated load to each
specimen. The load was applied by monotonically increasing the dis-
placement of the middle column stub until the complete failure of the
specimen.
The parameters studied in the test program include: (1) slab thick-
ness, (2) beam depth, and (3) seismic design intensity. Note that both X-
and Y- beams had the same depth in each specimen. Geometric di-
mensions of all the specimens are listed in Table 1. The reference beam-
slab specimen was SE1, and the companion beam-column substructure
was BE1. On top of SE1, the slab of SE2 was thickened, and the beams of
SE3 were designed with a greater depth. Specimens SE1-3 were de-
signed under seismic design intensity of 6 degree with peak ground
acceleration (PGA) of 0.05 g, and SE4 under intensity of 8 degree with
PGA of 0.2 g, resulting in larger beam reinforcement ratio. The slab top
reinforcement of SE1, 3 and 4 is shown in right side of Fig. 1, and the
one in “Zones a and d” of SE2 was changed to ϕ6@140 and ϕ6@180,
respectively. Moreover, the bottom slab reinforcement of all the beam-
slab specimens is ϕ6@200 in both x- and y-directions. For all the spe-
cimens, the concrete strength of standard concrete cubes was 43 MPa,
equivalent to cylinder compressive strength of 34 MPa. The yield
strength and ultimate strength of the longitudinal reinforcement are
around 350 MPa and 500 MPa, respectively. The stirrups were made of
ϕ4 with ultimate strength of 825 MPa. More model details about the
test program can refer to the paper [16].
2.2. Finite element modeling
To fully understand the load transfer mechanisms of RC beam-slab
substructures subjected to perimeter column removal scenarios and the
effect of relevant parameters, numerical investigation is employed with
commercial software Ls-dyna. Although only the quasi-static behavior
is concerned here, explicit finite element method (FEM) is used to avoid
the convergence difficulties of conventional implicit FEM. The numer-
ical models were built exactly the same as specimens SE1-SE4 and BE1,
and validated by the corresponding experimental results. For example,
the specimen and the reinforcement detailing as shown in Fig. 3 is
identical to those of specimen SE1. The boundary beams are modeled as
well to achieve the similar boundary conditions as the tests.
2.2.1. Element types
In the numerical modeling, as shown in Fig. 3, concrete part is
modeled using 8-node solid elements with reducing integration scheme.
There is only one integration point in each solid element. Based on the
mesh sensitivity analysis, the mesh size of 12 ∼ 20 mm is used, in
which the smaller element size is used in the slab strips connected to the
column stub and the larger element size is used in the other regions of
RC beam-slab substructures, as shown in Fig. 3. The combination of
mixed element sizes is used to reduce the number of elements and in-
crease computational efficiency.
All the reinforcement is modeled using 2-node Hughes-Liu beam
elements with 2 × 2 Gauss quadrature integration at the cross-section.
As the beam element length is key to determine the computational time,
the element length of 20 mm to 25 mm is eventually chosen, which is
larger than the size of surrounding concrete elements.
Except the beam-column connections, where the development of
wide cracks can be clearly expected and the force transfer is mainly in
one direction, the bond between the reinforcement and concrete in the
rest regions of a beam-slab substructure is assumed to be perfect. This is
because the force transfer in the rest regions is complicated and varying
in x- and y-directions, resulting in hard to predict the directions of
cracks. Moreover, the slabs are typically thin, and the strain con-
centration of reinforcement is not as severe as that in beams. Therefore,
perfect bond is tentatively assumed by using the keyword
∗CONSTRAINED_LAGRANGE_IN_SOLID in Ls-dyna to connect
J. Yu et al. Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 14–27

Fig. 1. Schematic of specimens and detailing of top slab

reinforcement (symmetric with units: mm) [16].
500 1000 1000
400

Boundary beam 3

550 370
Zone c
6@140
Boundary beam 1
1000

Y-beam
Slab panel
6@140 @120

6@200
Middle column
1000

Zone d
550
stub
Y
X-beam 85 550
X 550 470
Zone b Zone a

0.5
⎧ τbmax (s / s1) for s ⩽ s1
τb =
⎨= τbmax = 0.3 fc for s > s1 (1)
⎩
Lifting beams
Boundary where s1 = 0.1 mm and fc = compressive strength of standard cylin-
beam 2
ders, which is 34 MPa in the tests. Accordingly, τbmax = 1.75 MPa.
In Ls-dyna, the bond relationship used for Contact_1D is assumed to
Upper actuator be elastic-perfectly-plastic. After reaching the maximum shear stress,
Boundary
beam 1 the bond stress could decay following an exponential damage curve.
Column stub The constitutive law of shear stress τ and local slip s is given by

Concrete Gb s for s ⩽ smax

τ=⎧
base 3 ⎨
⎩ τmax e −hdmg D for s > s
max (2)
Concrete base 2
where Gb is bond shear modulus; smax is maximum elastic slip, equal to
Concrete base 1 Lower actuator τmax/Gb; hdmg is damage curve exponential coefficient; and D is damage
parameter, which is a function of plastic slip and equals (s-smax) for
monotonic loading.
Fig. 2. Test set-up [16].
The comparison between Eqs. (1) and (2) indicates that for plain
bar, hdmg = 0. Previous work [31] suggests that smax = 0.5 s1 to re-
reinforcement with concrete in the model. present the actual nonlinear ascending part of local bond-slip re-
lationship. As a result, smax = 0.05 mm, and Gb = 35 MPa/mm.
2.2.2. bond-slip relationships
At beam-column connection regions, severe cracks occur and the 2.2.3. Applied loads and boundary conditions
strain concentration of beam reinforcement could be significant, The three concrete bases in the tests, as shown in Fig. 2, are modeled
causing bar slip. Similar to previous work [31], the local bond-slip of as three rigid plates with zero translations and rotations, as indicated in
bars at the column stub region and two end segments equal to half Fig. 3. The boundary beams of each beam-slab substructure are fixed
beam depth of each single-span beam are considered with using key- onto these rigid plates with contact surfaces using keyword ∗Con-
word ∗CONTACT_1D. tact_Automatic_Surface_To_Surface (∗CASTS). The lifting beams are not
The local bond-slip relationship of hot-rolled plain bar in fib Model modeled, but they actually work together with boundary beams to
Code 2010 [32] is employed in the current case to calibrate the prop- enhance the restraint stiffness. Therefore, the nodes at the contact
erties of Contact_1D. According to Model Code 2010, the bond stress surfaces between the boundary and lifting beams are also restrained, as
between concrete and reinforcement under pull-out failure is defined as denoted in Fig. 3.
follows: During the test, a concentrated load was applied onto the stub of the

Table 1
Cross-sectional dimensions and reinforcement of the beams in the specimens (unit: mm) [16].

Specimen Beam depth Beam width Slab thickness X-direction (Top) X-direction (Bottom) Y-direction (Top) Y-direction (Bottom)

End Middle End Middle

SE1 170 85 50 2ϕ6 + 1ϕ8 2ϕ6 2ϕ6 2ϕ8 + 1ϕ6 2ϕ8 2ϕ8
SE2 170 85 75 2ϕ6 + 1ϕ8 2ϕ6 2ϕ6 2ϕ8 + 1ϕ6 2ϕ8 2ϕ8
SE3 200 85 50 2ϕ6 + 1ϕ8 2ϕ6 2ϕ6 2ϕ8 + 1ϕ6 2ϕ8 2ϕ8
SE4 170 85 50 3ϕ10 2ϕ10 2ϕ10 2ϕ12 + 1ϕ10 2ϕ12 2ϕ12
BE1 170 85 N.A. 2ϕ6 + 1ϕ8 2ϕ6 2ϕ6 2ϕ8 + 1ϕ6 2ϕ8 2ϕ8

16
J. Yu et al. Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 14–27

Contact interfaces between Boundary

boundary and lifting beams beams

Rigid plates for

supports

Rigid plate for

Column stub vertical loading

Fig. 3. Numerical model of RC beam-slab substructure SE1.

removed perimeter column using a pair of hydraulic actuators and the 10

Model 1: Default
loading rate was controlled by the displacement of the stub [16]. In the Model 2: Reduced elastic modulus
5
numerical model, a rigid plate was placed on the column stub, as in- Model 3: Reduced elastic modulus
dicated in Fig. 3. The contact surface is applied between the rigid plate & fracture energy
0
and the top surface of the column stub using keyword ∗CASTS. The
rigid plate is moved downwards with velocity-control approach. The -5
Stress (MPa)

velocity gradually increases at the beginning stage and stay constant

afterwards. A small velocity at the beginning is able to avoid severe -10
vibration of structural resistance using explicit FEM and the later con-
-15
stant velocity is able to represent displacement-control per time step. At
the contact surface between the rigid plate and the column stub, static -20
and dynamic coefficients of friction are provided to prevent any sliding
of the rigid plate. -25

2.2.4. Material modeling
Continuous surface cap model (CSCM) is used for concrete material
properties. The failure surface of CSCM is defined by three-invariants
together with a cap hardening parameter [33]. CSCM can model da-
mage-based softening and modulus reduction, shear dilation, shear
compaction, confinement effect and strain rate effect. Moreover, the
default model parameters converted from the input are for normal
strength concrete, with compressive strength ranging from 28 MPa to
58 MPa.
The simplified version only requires the input parameters of un-
confined compressive strength fc, erosion criterion, maximum aggregate
size Ag and units. In the tests of SE1-SE4 and BE1, fc was 34 MPa. Since
the slabs of the substructures were very thin, Ag is taken as 5 mm. The
subroutine of the CSCM calculates the default model parameters as
functions of fc. Ag is used for determining the fracture energy para-
meters of CSCM in accordance with CEB-FIP concrete model code1990
[34]. Based on the default CSCM, the unconfined uniaxial compressive
(UUC) and tensile (UUT) stress-strain relationship of concrete is shown
in Fig. 4. It can be seen that for each branch, the constitutive curve
consists of a linear pre-peak part and a softening post-peak part.
When the severe cracking and failure of concrete cause the concrete
separation, the maximum principal strain εmax is a proper criterion for
erosion algorithm. By this criterion, the solid elements with concrete
properties will be deleted if εmax exceeds the principal strain at failure
εf. The value of εf is mesh-dependent, and taken as 0.1 for element size
between 12 and 20 mm in accordance with the previous work on RC
beam-column substructures under column removal scenarios [31].
A symmetric bilinear elastic-plastic model ∗Mat_Plastic_Kinematic
(MAT_003) is used for steel reinforcement. In this model, the elastic
modulus, yield strength, tangential modulus after yielding and failure
-30
-35
-0.010 -0.008 -0.006 -0.004 -0.002 0.000 0.002 0.004
Strain
Fig. 4. Unconfined uniaxial stress-strain relationship of concrete based on CSCM (Positive
stress for tension and negative stress for compression).
strain should be provided. When the strain exceeds the ultimate elon-
gation ratio, the corresponding reinforcement element is to be deleted.
The detailed material properties of reinforcing bars with different dia-
meters can refer to the paper [16].
With the default concrete model parameters, the numerical results
are stiffer and larger than the experimental results, as shown in Fig. 5. It
is noted that the compressive strength is reached at the strain of around
0.001. However, normal strength concrete typically attains the com-
pressive strength at the strain of 0.002. As a result, the elastic modulus
of concrete can be reduced to fit the strain of 0.002 corresponding to
compressive strength, as shown in Fig. 4, and the rest parameters are
determined based on fc and Ag, which were introduced in the user
manual of CSCM [33]. This adjustment improves the numerical results
for BE1 and SE1 but still over-predicted.
When it comes to over-prediction, the model developer suggested
that the tensile fracture energy Gft, corresponding to the area under the
softening constitutive curve of UUT, could be reduced to 80% of the
default one, and compressive fracture energy Gfc = 50Gft or shear
fracture energy Gfs = 0.5Gft is a reasonable reduction as well if com-
pression or shear damage is evident [35]. Note that the default model
assumes Gfc = 100Gft and Gfs = Gft. Since the compressive failure of
concrete was severe at the beam ends and inclined cracks occurred at

17
J. Yu et al. Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 14–27

60 the numerical results, in particular for beam-slab substructure SE1.

Experimental results
Results w/ default parameters
Therefore, the model parameters after two adjustments are eventually
Results w/ reduced elastic modulus used for numerical study in this paper, with model parameters shown in
50
Results w/ reduced elastic modulus Fig. 6. Note that the rate effect option of the material is turned off
& fracture enenrgy
because only quasi-static behavior is concerned herein.
40
2.3. Comparisons between the simulation and the experimental results
Load (kN)

30
Fig. 7 shows that the numerical resistance of the three specimens
SE2-4 is in good agreement with the experimental ones. The essential
20 characteristics of the resistance curves, including the ascending, the
softening and the re-ascending part, are well captured. The difference of
the predicted and the experimental peak capacity is less than 10%. The
10
sudden reduction of structural resistance is attributed to the fracture of
reinforcing bars. As there are many reinforcement in the RC beam-slab
Numerical model
0 substructures, it is difficult to accurately predict each fracture of the bar
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 the at large deflection. However, Park [36] suggested that the deflec-
Vertical displacemnt of column stub (mm) tion equal to 10% the short span of a single-panel two-way slab can be
used to determine capacity of tensile membrane action. By analogy, the
(a) Specimen BE1 deflection (i.e. the vertical displacement of the column stub) equal to
10% the longitudinal span of the substructure can be used as the de-
120 flection limit. At this deflection, the prediction also agrees well with the
experimental results.
100
Crack pattern of RC slabs at the failure stage cannot be directly
demonstrated because concrete model CSCM is unable to track cracks.
However, the cracks can be equivalently shown by effective plastic
80 strains [37]. Typically, wider cracks result in larger effective plastic
strains. For simplicity, only the crack pattern of SE1 is compared with
Load (kN)

the experimental one, with top and bottom of the slab shown in
60
Fig. 8(a) and (b), respectively. It is seen that the area with the dis-
tribution of extensive cracks and the direction of cracks agree well with
40 the experimental ones, respectively. Fig. 9(a) and (b) compare the
failure modes and crack patterns of longitudinal and transverse beams,
Experimental results
Results w/ default parameters respectively. The numerical results can effectively show the wide cracks
20 Results w/ reduced elastic modulus at the bar cut-off position with erosion of concrete elements in the
Results w/ reduced elastic modulus longitudinal beams. Also, the effective plastic strain can well indicate
& fracture enenrgy
the failure at the transverse beam end due to concrete crushing.
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 In summary, the agreement of the structural resistance curve and
the failure mode indicates the validity of the numerical model. The
Vertical displacement of column stub (mm)
model is then to be extended to investigate the load transfer mechan-
(b) Specimen SE1 isms of the RC beam-slab substructures and the effects of pertinent
parameters.
Fig. 5. Effect of concrete modeling parameters of CSCM on the numerical results.

3. Load transfer mechanisms of RC beam-slab substructures

some local regions of the beams, both reduced Gfc and Gfs are used.
After the reduction of fracture energy, the compressive stress reduces to The development and the distribution of internal forces or stresses
zero more quickly, as shown in Fig. 4. This adjustment further improves can help to illustrate how the gravity load is re-balanced under a

Fig. 6. Model parameters of CSCM model for

numerical investigation (Units: N, mm and ms).

18
J. Yu et al. Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 14–27

100 validated numerical model could be an effective tool to shed light on

Experiment results
the stress distribution and the internal force development.
Numerical results
80 3.1. Stress distribution of the entire slab specimens

For simplicity, the numerical model for specimen SE1, namely,

60 SE1a, is used for stress distribution demonstration. Fig. 10(a) shows
Load (kN)

that at a small deflection (e.g. 28 mm) the large axial stress of SE1a is
mainly concentrated at the beam reinforcement and the adjacent slab
40 reinforcement in the column stub and the beam end regions. At the
column stub region, the top and the bottom reinforcement of the
longitudinal beam is in compression and tension, indicating the de-
20 velopment of sagging moment, whereas the stress of the reinforcement
in the transverse beam is quite low. At the far ends of longitudinal and
transverse beams, the top and bottom reinforcement is in tension and
0 compression, indicating the development of hogging moment. There-
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
fore, at this stage the structural resistance is primarily contributed by
Vertical displacement of column stub (mm) the beams through flexural resistance.
(a) Specimen SE2 The extensive cracks developed through the slab of specimen SE1 at
failure, as shown in Fig. 8, indicating a large proportion of the slab
120
Experimental results except two corners surrounded by boundary beams is mobilized into
Numerical results tensile membrane action (TMA) state. Fig. 10(b) demonstrates that
100 except the slab reinforcement in the two corners far from the perimeter
beam, most slab reinforcement (both at the top and bottom) are in
tension at the deflection of 626 mm, confirming the dominant devel-
80
opment of TMA.
Load (kN)

Fig. 10(b) also elaborates the stress states of the reinforcement at

60 the column stub and the beam ends. Evidently, all the main reinforce-
ment in the column stub region is in tension and the stress in the
longitudinal beams is larger than that in the transverse beam, in par-
40
ticular at the bottom reinforcement, whereas at the far ends of both the
longitudinal and transverse beams, the top and bottom reinforcement is
20 in tension and compression, respectively. This is because under hogging
moment, the beams and the slabs work compatibly to form composite L-
and T-shaped sections at the beam ends, in which the slabs function as
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 flanges and the beams as webs. Therefore, even if TMA is dominant in
the beam-slab substructure, the bending moment still prevails at the
Vertical displacement of column stub (mm)
beam ends.
(b) Specimen SE3
140 3.2. Development of internal forces in beams
Experimental results
Numerical results The internal forces at the beam sections labeled in Fig. 11 will be
120
extracted to elucidate load transfer mechanisms of the RC beam-slab
substructures. The sections X-beam-R2 and Y-beam-2 are at the mid-
100
span of each beam, and the rest denoted beam sections are located at
260 mm away from the adjacent column stub or the beam ends. Note
80
Load (kN)

that the sections too near the column stub or the beam ends experience
element erosion at large deflection and fail to provide the internal
60 forces over the entire loading history.
For simplicity, specimens BE1, SE1 and SE3 are used for typical
40 demonstration, with numerical models designated as BE1a, SE1a and
SE3a, respectively. The comparison between BE1a and SE1a illustrates
20 the effects of the slabs on the load transfer mechanism of RC beams. The
comparison of SE1a and SE3a elucidates the effect of the beam depth.
0 Fig. 12 shows similar characteristics of axial force development at
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 cross-sections X-beam-L1 and -R1 of BE1a, SE1a and SE3a. The axial
Vertical displacment of column stub (mm) force initially is compression, indicating the mobilization of compres-
sive arch action (CAA), and then transitions into tension, reflecting the
(c) Specimen SE4 development of catenary action (CTA). Table 2 shows the critical states
Fig. 7. Comparisons of numerical and experimental results of RC beam-slab substructure. of the beam axial force in the development history. It should be pointed
out that CAA is a flexural mechanism of beams coupled with axial
compression, and CTA is a structural mechanism of beams with re-
column removal scenario, i.e., the load transfer mechanisms of RC
sistance provided by axial tension.
beam-slab substructures against progressive collapse. However, the
The comparison between Fig. 12(a) and (b) suggests that the pre-
monitoring of internal forces or global stress distribution in beam-slab
sence of slabs significantly weakens CAA of longitudinal beams near the
substructures during testing is very difficult. On the contrast, the
column stub (e.g. peak axial compression of 140 kN reduced to 25 kN),

19
J. Yu et al. Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 14–27

(a) At the top of the slab

(b) At the bottom of the slab

Fig. 8. Comparisons of numerical and experimental crack patterns of SE1 at failure.

and makes the beams evolve into CTA at a much smaller deflection and
develop larger ultimate axial tension. This suggests that near the
column stub region of the beam-slab substructure, CTA is much more
dominant in longitudinal direction. The comparison of
Fig. 12(b) and (c) shows that a larger beam depth in SE3a increases the
peak compression of longitudinal beams, but has insignificant effect on
the development of axial tension. This is because the amount of steel
reinforcement in SE1a and SE3a is the same.
In the overall loading history, the transverse beam in BE1a is in
slight tension with maximum value of 5 kN due to short of adequate
axial restraints. In comparison, the presence of slabs in SE1a and SE3a
makes the transverse beam mainly in compression with peak value of
around 20 kN due to the composite effect of T-beam section, but
eventually the axial force in the transverse beams of SE1a and SE3a
decreases to around zero.
Fig. 13 shows the development of the shear forces at the cross-
sections near the column stub. All the shear forces are contributed to
the structural resistance. It is seen that the shear forces of the long-
itudinal beams in the three specimens increase first and then sig-
nificantly decrease after attaining the peak value. The great reduction
in shear forces of the longitudinal beams is mainly due to the transition
into axial tension as well as concrete crushing at compression zone of
the far beam ends.
Fig. 13(a) shows that without the slabs, the shear forces of the
longitudinal beams are much larger than that of the transverse beam.
Consequently, the decrease of structural resistance coincides with the
decrease of the shear force of the longitudinal beams at small deflec-
tions. Moreover, at large deflections, the increase of structural re-
sistance albeit the reduction of shear force suggests the great con-
tribution from CTA of the longitudinal beams.

A F
B E
Slab and beam C D
Slab and beam cracks merged at bar curtailment point cracks merged

(a) Longitudinal beam

Concrete crushing Concrete crushing

(b) Transverse beam

Fig. 9. Comparisons of numerical and experimental failure modes of the beams in SE1.

20
J. Yu et al.
(a) At deflection of 28mm
(b) At deflection of 626mm
Fig. 11. Locations of beam sections (X-beam for longitudinal beams, and Y-beam for
transverse beam).
Fig. 13(b) and (c) demonstrate that the presence of slabs make the
transverse beam contributes more shear than each longitudinal beam.
At the deflection of 30 mm, the sum of the shear forces in all the beams
is around 75% of the resistance of SE1a and SE3a, indicating the
structural resistance of the substructure is mainly provided by CAA of
the longitudinal beams and flexural mechanism of the transverse beam.
After the first peak capacity, with large reduction of shear force in the
longitudinal beams and the slight increase of shear force in the
21
Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 14–27
Fig. 10. Distribution of reinforcement stress of SE1a.
transverse beam, the structural resistance keeps rising. However, after
the deflection of around 400 mm, the shear force decreases again. At
the deflection of 600 mm, the chord rotation of each beam is 0.3 rad
and the sum of vertical component of the shear forces in both long-
itudinal and transverse beams is around 30% of the resistance of SE1a
and SE3a. This suggests the structural resistance is dominantly con-
tributed from TMA of slabs and CTA of the longitudinal beams.
3.3. Distribution of internal forces in beams
Besides the development of beam internal forces in the column stub
region, it is more desirable to know the distribution of beam internal
forces. As the axial force throughout each beam in a beam-column
substructure is identical, only beam-slab substructures are concerned
herein. For brevity, SE1a is employed for demonstration. Due to the
symmetry in the development of internal forces at the left and right
longitudinal beams, only the sections labeled at the right beam and the
transverse beam are used for extracting internal forces.
Fig. 14(a) demonstrates the axial force at the sections along the
longitudinal beam (i.e. X-beam) of SE1a. Near the column stub, Section
R1 is mainly in axial tension, whereas near the beam end adjacent to
the boundary restraints Section R3 is entirely in compression with
maximum value up to 250 kN. This is mainly because Section R3 is
subjected to a hogging moment, and the “composite effect” of the L-
J. Yu et al. Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 14–27

100 50 beam-3) is in significant compression over the loading history due to

dominant composite effect in providing flexural resistance. The quick
reduction of axial compression at Y-beam-3 after the defection of
50 25 400 mm is attributed to the concrete crushing, as shown in Fig. 9(b).
Beam axial force (kN)

Fig. 14(b) shows that for the longitudinal beam, the sections near

Resistance (kN)
the column stub and the far ends are mainly in sagging and hogging
0 0
moment, respectively. However, after attaining the peaks or deflecting
one beam depth, the moments at the sections X-beam-R1, -R2 and -R3
-50 -25 keep decreasing as increasing the deflection. Due to the composite ef-
X-beam-L1 fect, sections throughout most of the transverse beam are subjected to a
X-beam-R1
Y-beam-1 hogging moment.
Resistance
-100 -50 Combining Fig. 14(a) and (b), it is observed that after the deflection
of one beam depth, at the central region near the column stub, the
bending moment is small, and the axial tension is dominant in long-
-150 -75 itudinal direction. At the beam ends adjacent to the boundaries, the
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 hogging moment is prevailing even at very large deflection (e.g.
Vertical displacement of column stub (mm) 600 mm). In particular, the composite effect between slabs and beams
(a) Specimen BE1a enhance the contribution of transverse beam to the structural resistance
of beam-slab substructure.
80 120
X-beam-L1 4. Effect of boundary and loading approaches on progressive
X-beam-R1
Y-beam-1 collapse resistance
60 90
Resistance
Beam axial force (kN)

4.1. Effect of lateral restraint stiffness on the resistance of beam-slab

Resistance (kN)

40 60 substructure

As a column removal scenario is quite random for a building

20 30 structure. The failure of different columns results in the affected beam-
slab substructures under different geometric dimensions and boundary
0 0 conditions. For instance, if the removed perimeter column is in the
middle of a frame, the three edges of the affected beam-slab sub-
structure are adequately restrained in horizontal or lateral direction. If
-20 -30 the removed column is next to a corner column, two edges of the af-
fected beam-slab substructure are free. Moreover, the previous research
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 [7] has shown that the axial restraint stiffness influences the load
Vertical displacemnt of column stub (mm) transfer mechanisms and structural resistance of RC beam-column
substructures. By analogy, the lateral restraints should affect the
(b) Specimen SE1a structural resistance of RC beam-slab substructures. Finally, the tests on
80 120 beam-slab substructures are typically expensive and limited. If the
lateral restraints in tests are not adequately rigid, whether the experi-
mental results can properly characterize the progressive collapse per-
60 90
formance of beam-slab substructures is a big concern.
Beam axial force (kN)

For brevity, models BE1a and SE1a are used for investigating the
40 60
Resistance (kN)

effect of the lateral restraint stiffness. In the numerical modeling, the

boundary beams are replaced by discrete spring restraints, as shown in
20 30 Fig. 15. At each boundary, a steel plate is attached at the beam end and
the slab of SE1a, and connected to the spring restraints via rigid plates.
0 0 The function of this steel plate is to smooth the transfer of reaction
X-beam-L1 forces. The pair of a spring and a rigid plate is placed onto the steel
-20 X-beam-R1 -30 plate at an interval of 400 mm. One end of each spring is fixed, and the
Y-beam-1 other end allows only axial movement. To avoid the rotation of slab
Resistance boundary, the rotations of the rigid plates are restrained. Therefore, the
-40 -60
boundaries of the slab of SE1a allow only horizontal displacements in
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 both longitudinal and transverse directions.
Vertical displacement of column stub (mm) Besides the two idealized cases (including the rigid and zero re-
straints), the general cases are studied with spring restraints taking
(c) Specimen SE3a three different stiffness, including 100 kN/mm, 50 kN/mm and 10 kN/
Fig. 12. Development of beam axial force in RC beam-column/slab substructures. mm. The results under the different restraints are shown in Fig. 16. The
axial stiffness (EA/L) of the BE1 and SE1 in the longitudinal direction is
65 kN/mm and 496 kN/mm, respectively, and is used to normalize the
section beam makes the slab and beam work compatibly as a flange and
restraint stiffness. E is the elastic modulus of concrete, A is the cross-
a web, respectively, to provide flexural resistance, in which the web
sectional area at the boundary and L is the longitudinal length of the
mainly contributes compression.
specimen. Note that for SE1, there are 5 springs at each span of the
Fig. 14(a) also shows that along the transverse beam, near the
boundary.
column stub Section Y-beam-1 is in slight compression first and even-
Fig. 16 shows that the boundary beams in the testing function
tually in small tension, whereas the section near the beam end (i.e. Y-
equivalently to the rigid restraints. With decreasing the lateral restraint

22
J. Yu et al.
Table 2
Critical states of the beam axial force at cross-section X-beam-R1.
Specimens Peak axial compression Displacement at the onset of axial tension (mm)
Displacement (mm) Magnitude (kN)
BE1 68 140 212
SE1 32 25 73
SE3 35 42 94
stiffness, the first peak capacity of BE1a and SE1a decreases due to
weakened CAA, and the structural resistance of BE1a and SE1a at large
deflection stay almost the same. When there are no lateral restraints,
the structural resistance of BE1a significantly decreases due to the ab-
sence of CTA at large deflection, whereas the structural resistance of
SE1a only drops around 25% at the deflection of 400 mm. The reason is
that laterally unrestrained slabs can still develop TMA with a self-
equilibrium mechanism [14]. In a word, the development of TMA of RC
beam-slab substructures is insensitive to the lateral restraint stiffness at
the boundaries. When the relative lateral restraint stiffness is not less
than 0.1, RC beam-slab substructures show similar structural resistance
at large deflections.
4.2. Effect of loading approaches
For quasi-static tests on RC structures against progressive collapse,
there are three types of loading schemes, including concentrated
loading, equivalent uniformly distributed loading (UDL) and preloading
UDL combined with unloading at a removed column. With concentrated
loading, a monotonic load is directly applied at the top of the column
stub [16]. With an equivalent UDL, a loading tree is used to apply 12
equal concentrated loads at the top surface of the beam-slab sub-
structure [14]. With the last scheme, a UDL is preloaded until the load
is balanced, and thereafter one column is unloaded to simulate a re-
moved column until a new balance is achieved at a certain deflection
[38]. The last scheme is the most realistic but can only provide the
applied load and the corresponding deflection. In comparison, the first
two simplified schemes are more easily to derive structural resistance.
For an equivalent UDL, the loading tree made of steel members is
explicitly modeled using rigid materials, as demonstrated in the inset of
Fig. 17. More modeling details can refer to the paper [39]. The beauty
of using equivalent UDL rather than UDL is that displacement-con-
trolled loading can still be used, so that softening resistance can be
captured if any. For the third loading scheme, a rigid pad is modeled
and fixed beneath the column stub and a contact surface is set between
the pad and the stub. After a given UDL is applied and balanced, the pad
is slowly moved downwards in vertical direction until the separation
with the stub and further the stoppage of the stub movement. The
eventual displacement of the stub is the ultimate deflection for the
given UDL. For simplicity, only five given UDL are used in total herein.
Fig. 17 shows that the concentrated load and the equivalent UDL
schemes mobilize the structural resistance with similar characteristics
(i.e. the ascending, softening and re-ascending resistance) but the
concentrated loading scheme significantly underestimates the struc-
tural resistance, around 1/3.5 to 1/4.5 the one under the UDL scheme.
Fig. 17 suggests that the equivalent UDL scheme provides the similar
load-deflection pairs as the third loading scheme, but the deflection is
slightly smaller for a given UDL at large deformation stage. This is
because with increasing deflection the loading points near the peri-
meter beam, which deforms more than the other regions, slightly take
less load than the other points.
In a word, the concentrated loading scheme is unable to fully ex-
plore the structural resistance of beam-slab substructures, but is still
feasible to represent the essential load transfer mechanisms against
progressive collapse. In comparison, the equivalent UDL is a more re-
presentative loading scheme to demonstrate progressive collapse
23
Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 14–27
Peak axial tension
Displacement (mm) Magnitude (kN)
600 50
632 66.26
634 68.86
performance of beam-slab substructures but takes more costs in prac-
tice.
5. Effect of structural parameters on progressive collapse
resistance
5.1. Effect of slab
The research on RC beam-slab substructures against progressive
collapse illustrates the load transfer mechanism of the substructures
after a column removal, and also demonstrates the contribution of the
beams and slabs to the progressive collapse resistance, as shown in
Fig. 18. The ratio the beam-column substructure resistance to the cor-
responding beam-slab substructure resistance is used for estimating the
contributions from the beams to the entire substructure. Through this
way, when the deflection is less than 30 mm, the resistance contribution
of the beams can reach around 50–60%, but with increasing the de-
flection, the contribution of the beams keeps decreasing until the onset
of catenary action. After the deflection of 30 mm, the resistance con-
tribution of the beams ranges from 30% to 50%.
In progressive collapse analysis of framed structures, it is quite often
to convert slabs as effective flanges of beams [40,41]. Consequently,
model SE1a is further simplified into a beam-slab substructure (desig-
nated as BE1b) with composite T-Section and L-Section in the trans-
verse and longitudinal beams, respectively, as shown in the inset of
Fig. 18. In accordance with Chinese Code for Design of Concrete
Structures [42], the width of the flange in the T- and L-Sections is
666 mm and 333 mm, respectively. Fig. 18 demonstrates that the
structural resistance of BE1b has the same characteristics as those of
BE1a, such as the softening resistance after the peak capacity and the
re-ascending resistance at catenary mechanism. As expected, the
structural resistance of BE1b is between BE1a and SE1a, indicating that
the slab strips enhance the overall structural resistance compared with
BE1a. Moreover, compared with SE1a, the resistance contribution of
BE1b mainly varies from 60% to 70%; when the deflection is less than
30 mm, BE1b provides 70–90% resistance of the substructure. There-
fore, converting slabs into beam flanges is feasible for structural ana-
lysis at small deflection but too conservative at large deflection.
5.2. Effect of slab thickness
In the reference tests, the slab thickness of SE2 (75 mm) was 50%
greater than that of SE1 (50 mm), and the amount of reinforcement
used in SE2 was 43% more than the one in SE1. The comparison of the
experimental results of them, as shown in Fig. 19, indicates that the slab
thickness has little effect on the stiffness of ascending and the first peak
resistance at beam mechanism stage, whereas with increasing the de-
flection, the difference of the resistance of SE1 and SE2 stays around
10 kN. Prior to the first bar fracture of SE2 at the deflection of 366 mm,
the resistance of SE2 was 13% larger than that of SE1. The insignificant
effect of the slab thickness and the corresponding reinforcement is
partly attributed to the concentrated loading scheme, with which only
the reinforcement adjacent to the beams are fully mobilized.
To re-evaluate the effect the slab thickness, the equivalent UDL
loading scheme is employed. The comparison of the numerical results
as shown in Fig. 19 suggests that the difference of the resistance is
J. Yu et al. Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 14–27

120
Section: X-beam-L1
16 Section: X-beam-R1 48 100 Deflection of one beam depth
Section: Y-beam-1
Resistance 96

Beam axial force (kN)

12 36 0

Resistance (kN)
Shear force (kN)

Resistance (kN)
72
-100
8 24
48
-200
4 12 24
X-beam-R1 Y-beam-1
X-beam-R2 Y-beam-2
-300 X-beam-R3 Y-beam-3
Resistance
0 0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Vertical displacement of column stub (mm) Vertical displacement of column stub (mm)

(a) Specimen BE1a (a) Axial forces

25 120 120
Section: X-beam-L1
10
Section: X-beam-R1
Section: Y-beam-1 deflection of one beam depth
Resistance 96 5 100
20

Bending moment (kNm)

Resistance (kN)
Shear force (kN)

80

Resistance (kN)
0
15 72

-5 60

10 48
-10 40

5 24
-15 20
X-beam-R1 Y-beam-1
X-beam-R2 Y-beam-2
X-beam-R3 Y-beam-3
Resistance
0 0 -20 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Vertical displacement of column stub (mm) Vertical displacement of column stub (mm)

(b) Specimen SE1a (b) Bending Moment

30 120 Fig. 14. Development of beam internal forces at different sections of SE1a.

25 100 5.3. Effect of slab reinforcement detailing

80 The design guideline UFC 4-023-03 requires that the ties used to
Shear force (kN)

20
Resistance (kN)

resist progressive collapse be placed in slabs rather than in beams as

Section: X-beam-L1 beams may fail to rotate 0.2 rad prior to the fracture of reinforcing bars.
15 Section: X-beam-R1 60
In this context, only the continuous bottom slab reinforcement in the
Section: Y-beam-1
RC beam-slab substructures is qualified for ties. In accordance with UFC
Resistance
10 40 4-023-03, under a uniform floor load (wF) the required peripheral ties
shall be able to provide the following capacity

5 20 FP = 6wF L1 LP + 3Wc (3)

where wF = 1.2D + 0.5L; D = dead load acting at the floor; L = live
0 0 load; L1 = the greater of the distances between the centers of columns,
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 frames or walls in a framed structure, at the perimeter of the building in
Vertical displacement of column stub (mm) the direction under consideration; Lp = 1.0 m, specifying the positions
(c) Specimen SE3a of peripheral ties; and Wc = 1.2 times dead load of cladding over the
length of L1 .
Fig. 13. Development of shear force of beams in RC beam-column/slab substructures near And the required internal ties shall satisfy the capacity
the column stub (Positive values for upward shear force).
Fi = 3wF L1 (4)
2
evident. Around the first peak capacity at the deflection of 30 mm, the The prototype of the SE1 was designed with D = 5 kN/m and
resistance of SE2 is about 31% greater than that of SE1. At the de- L = 2 kN/m2. After scaled down to the specimen, L1 = 2 m and
flection of 550 mm prior to bar fracture of SE2, the resistance of SE2 is Lp = 0.333 m in both longitudinal and transverse directions.
around 23% higher with a greater slab thickness. Accordingly, Fi = 42 kN/m, and Fp = 27.72 kN. The bottom slab re-
inforcement is designed as ϕ6@200 with the yield strength
fy = 372 MPa. The design strength for ties is 1.25fy, and thus the

24
J. Yu et al. Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 14–27

Fig. 15. Numerical model with lateral restraint

springs at the boundary.

RC slab

Steel
plate

Rigid plates
Restraint
springs

Restrained by boundary beams 400

12 point loading tree
50 Rigid
ks=100kN/mm (ra=1.5)
ks=50kN/mm (ra=0.77)
320
40 ks=10kN/mm (ra=0.15)
ks=0 Numerical model
Load (kN)

30 240
Load (kN)

20
160 Concentrated loading
Equivalent UDL w/ 12 points
UDL w/ unloading at removed
10 column
80

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0
Vertical displacement of column stub (mm) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
(a) Model BE1a Vertical displacement of the column stub (mm)
120
Restrained by boundary beams Fig. 17. Effect of loading approach on the structural resistance of RC beam-slab sub-
Rigid structure.
ks=100kN/mm (ra=1.0)
100
ks=50kN/mm (ra=0.5)
120 1.0
ks=10kN/mm (ra=0.1)
80 ks=0

Resistance contribution of beams

L-section
T-section 0.8
Load (kN)

96
60 Numerical model to beam-slab assembley
72 0.6
Load (kN)

40

20 48 0.4

0 24 BE1a (beam-column assembly) 0.2

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 SE1a (beam-slab assembly)
BE1b (T-beam-column assembly)
Vertical displacement of column stub (mm) Resistance ratio of BE1a/SE1a
Resistance ratio of BE1b/SE1a
0 0.0
(b) Model SE1a 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Fig. 16. Effect of lateral restraint stiffness on the structural resistance. Vertical displacement of column stub (mm)
Fig. 18. Decomposition of structural resistance of beam-slab substructure SE1.
provided capacity for internal and peripheral ties is 65.7 kN/m and
26.28 kN. Note that only two bars are within the slab strip with the well as the stress contour shown in Fig. 10 indicate that at large de-
width of 333 mm. The above calculation shows that the internal ties are flections, the longitudinal reinforcement in and near the perimeter
enough, but the peripheral ties are slightly inadequate, in particular beam developed larger stress than the rest. Therefore, those dis-
when the dead load of cladding is included. The experimental results as continuous top reinforcement of the slab can be replaced by continuous

25
J. Yu et al. Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 14–27

200 500 include lateral restraint stiffness at the substructure boundaries, loading
schemes in testing, slab thickness and reinforcement detailing in slabs.
The main conclusions drawn from the numerical investigations are as
160 400
follows:

Total load of UDL (kN)

Point load (kN)

1. The progressive collapse resistance of the RC beam-slab sub-

120
80
40 SE1-Experimental results w/ concentrated load
SE2-Experimental results w/ concentrated load
SE1-Numerical results w/ equivalent UDL
SE2-Numerical results w/ equivalent UDL
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Vertical displacement of column stub (mm)
Fig. 19. Effect of slab thickness on structural resistance of RC beam-slab substructures.
one in the slab strip with a width of Lp.
According to the detailing of specimen SE1, nine discontinuous top
slab bars are replaced by the three continuous ones, as demonstrated in
the inset of Fig. 20. The numerical models for SE1 and the substructure
with new reinforcement detailing are designated as SE1a and SE1b,
respectively. The replacement makes the amount of slab reinforcement
increased only by 2.97%. Fig. 20 illustrates that under both the con-
centrated loading and the equivalent UDL schemes, the additional top
slab reinforcement increases the structural resistance of the beam-slab
substructure only at large deflections, in which TMA of the slabs and
CTA of the longitudinal beams are mobilized. The larger the deflection
is, the more evident the beneficial effect is. Prior to the bar fracture (i.e.
sudden drop of structural resistance) at each loading scheme, the in-
crease of structural resistance is more than 10%, suggesting that the
detailing with additional continuous reinforcement within the slab strip
adjacent to the perimeter beam is very effective and feasible.
6. Summary and conclusions
In this paper, high fidelity solid-element-based numerical models
are used to study the progressive collapse resistance of single-story
reinforced concrete (RC) beam-slab substructures under perimeter
column removal scenarios. After careful calibration of model para-
meters, the numerical models are validated through comparisons with
test data and further employed to investigate the load transfer me-
chanisms and explore parameters affecting the progressive collapse
resistance of RC beam-slab substructures. The parameters studied
200
SE1b
300
structures is developed primarily through compressive arch action
(CAA) of the longitudinal beams and flexural mechanism of the
200 transverse beam at small deflections and catenary action (CTA) of
the longitudinal beams as well as tensile membrane action (TMA) of
slabs at large deflections. Compared with the corresponding beam-
100 column substructure, the presence of slabs significantly increase
structural resistance of beam-slab substructures through working
compatibly with beams as L- and T-section “composite beams” at
hogging moment regions and developing tensile membrane action.
600 700 2. The slabs make the longitudinal beam near the column stub evolves
into axial tension at a deflection much smaller than one beam depth.
After the deflection of one beam depth, at the central region near the
column stub, the bending moment is small, and the axial tension is
dominant in longitudinal direction. At the beam ends adjacent to the
boundaries, the hogging moment is prevailing even at very large
deflection (e.g. 600 mm). Due to the composite effect from the slab,
the contribution from the transverse beam to structural resistance is
significantly enhanced compared with that in the beam-column
substructure.
3. Under a concentrated load, when the slabs are converted into
equivalent flanges of the beams, the resistance contribution of L-
and T-section beams is around 70–90% for a beam-slab substructure
at small deflections and around 60–70% at large deflections.
Consequently, it is necessary to directly model slabs if large de-
formation behavior of beam-slab substructures is concerned.
4. Decreasing the lateral restraint stiffness reduces the peak capacity of
beam-slab substructures and makes the post-peak softening re-
sistance less severe. However, CTA of beams and TMA of slabs are
not sensitive to lateral restraint stiffness. As long as the relative
restraint stiffness is greater than 0.1, both CTA and TMA can be fully
mobilized.
5. The concentrated loading scheme is unable to fully explore the
structural resistance of beam-slab substructures, but is still feasible
to represent the essential characteristics of resistance curves and to
illustrate load transfer mechanisms against progressive collapse. In
comparison, the equivalent uniformly distributed loading (UDL) is a
more representative loading scheme to demonstrate progressive
collapse performance of beam-slab substructures but takes more
costs in practice.
6. The beneficial effect of increasing slab thickness and associated slab
reinforcement is not evident in the concentrated loading scheme.
However, in equivalent UDL scheme, the greater slab thickness and
500
more slab reinforcement can increase structural resistance
Total load of equivalent UDL (kN)

175 throughout all the deflections.

7. In a slab strip adjacent to the perimeter beam, in which peripheral
150 375 ties should be placed, a reinforcement detailing scheme of replacing
SE1a
discontinuous top reinforcement with continuous one is effective to
Point load (kN)

125 increase the structural resistance of beam-slab substructures at large

deflections with little additional cost.
100 250

75
Acknowledgement
50 125
SE1a under point loading The authors would like to acknowledge the final support by the
25 SE1b under point loading
SE1a under equivalent UDL National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51408189); Natural
SE1b under equivalent UDL Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province of China (No. BK20140855);
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No.
Vertical displacement of column stub (mm) 2017B41814).

Fig. 20. Effect of additional continuous top slab reinforcement along the perimeter beam.

26
J. Yu et al.
References
[1] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings
and Other Structures. ASCE/SEI 7–10. Reston (VA). Reston (VA): American Society
of Civil Engineers; 2010.
[2] European Committee for Standardization. EN 1991-1-7: Eurocode 1 - Actions on
structures - Part 1-7: General actions - Accidental actions. Brussels: CEN; 2006.
[3] General Services Administration (GSA). Progressive collapse analysis and design
guidelines for new federal office buildings and major modernization projects; 2003.
[4] Department of Defense (DOD). UFC 4–023-03, Design of Buildings to Resist
Progressive Collapse. Including Change 2–1 June 2013; 2013.
[5] Qian K, Li B. Performance of three-dimensional reinforced concrete beam-column
substructures under loss of a corner column scenario. J Struct Eng
2013;139:584–94.
[6] Yu J, Tan KH. Structural behavior of reinforced concrete beam-column sub-
assemblages under a middle column removal scenario. J Struct Eng
2013;139:233–50.
[7] Yu J, Tan KH. Experimental and numerical investigation on progressive collapse
resistance of reinforced concrete beam column sub-assemblages. Eng Struct
2013;55:90–106.
[8] Kang S-B, Tan KH. Behaviour of precast concrete beam–column sub-assemblages
subject to column removal. Eng Struct 2015;93:85–96.
[9] Yu J, Tan KH. Structural behavior of reinforced concrete frames subjected to pro-
gressive collapse. ACI Struct J 2017;114:63–74.
[10] FarhangVesali N, Valipour H, Samali B, Foster S. Development of arching action in
longitudinally-restrained reinforced concrete beams. Constr Build Mater
2013;47:7–19.
[11] Lin Kaiqi, Li Yi, Lu Xinzheng, Guan H. Effects of seismic and progressive collase
designs on the vulnerability of RC frame structures. J Perform Constr Facil 2016.
04016079-1-11.
[12] Kai Q, Li B. Dynamic performance of RC beam-column substructures under the
scenario of the loss of a corner column—experimental results. Eng Struct
2012;42:154–67.
[13] Pham XD, Tan KH. Experimental study of beam–slab substructures subjected to a
penultimate-internal column loss. Eng Struct 2013;55:2–15.
[14] Dat PX, Tan KH. Experimental response of beam-slab substructures subject to pe-
nultimate-external column removal. J Struct Eng 2015;141:04014170.
[15] Qian K, Li B, Ma JX. Load-carrying mechanism to resist progressive collapse of RC
buildings. J Struct Eng 2015;141:04014107.
[16] Lu X, Lin K, Li Y, Guan H, Ren P, Zhou Y. Experimental investigation of RC beam-
slab substructures against progressive collapse subject to an edge-column-removal
scenario. Eng Struct 2017;149:91–103.
[17] Yi WJ, He QF, Xiao Y, Kunnath SK. Experimental study on progressive collapse-
resistant behavior of reinforced concrete frame structures. ACI Struct J
2008;105:433–9.
[18] Shan S, Li S, Xu S, Xie L. Experimental study on the progressive collapse perfor-
mance of RC frames with infill walls. Eng Struct 2016;111:80–92.
[19] Qian K, Li B. Effects of masonry infill wall on the performance of RC frames to resist
progressive collapse. J Struct Eng 2017;143:04017118.
[20] Shan S, Li S, Zhai C, Xie L. Nonlinear dynamic analysis on the PC response of an RC
frame with perforated infill walls. In: S JG, editor. Structures congress 2017.
Denver: ASCE; 2017. p. 119–29.
27
Engineering Structures 159 (2018) 14–27
[21] Xiao Y, Kunnath S, Li FW, Zhao YB, Lew HS, Bao Y. Collapse test of three-story half-
scale reinforced concrete frame building. ACI Struct J 2015;112:429–38.
[22] Yu J, Rinder T, Stolz A, Tan KH, Riedel W. Dynamic progressive collapse of an RC
assemblage induced by contact detonation. J Struct Eng 2014;140:04014014.
[23] Pham AT, Tan KH. Experimental study on dynamic responses of reinforced concrete
frames under sudden column removal applying concentrated loading. Eng Struct
2017;139:31–45.
[24] Izzuddin BA, Vlassis AG, Elghazouli AY, Nethercot DA. Progressive collapse of
multi-storey buildings due to sudden column loss – Part I: simplified assessment
framework. Eng Struct 2008;30:1308–18.
[25] Li Y, Lu X, Guan H, Ye L. Progressive collapse resistance demand of reinforced
concrete frames under catenary mechanism. ACI Struct J 2014;111:1225–34.
[26] Tsai M-H, You Z-K. Experimental evaluation of inelastic dynamic amplification
factors for progressive collapse analysis under sudden support loss. Mech Res
Commun 2012;40:56–62.
[27] Tsai M-H. An analytical methodology for the dynamic amplification factor in pro-
gressive collapse evaluation of building structures. Mech Res Commun
2010;37:61–6.
[28] Yu J, Yin C, Guo Y. Nonlinear SDOF model for progressive collapse responses of
structures with consideration of viscous damping. J Eng Mech 2017;143:04017108.
[29] Qian K, Li B. Slab effects on response of reinforced concrete substructures after loss
of corner column. ACI Struct J 2012;109:845–55.
[30] Qian K, Li B, Zhang Z. Influence of multicolumn removal on the behavior of RC
floors. J Struct Eng 2016;142:04016006.
[31] Pham AT, Tan KH, Yu J. Numerical investigations on static and dynamic responses
of reinforced concrete sub-assemblages under progressive collapse. Eng Struct
2016.
[32] fib. fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010. Ernst & Sohn; 2013.
[33] Murray YD. Users manual for LS-DYNA concrete material model 159. Colorado:
APTEK, Inc.; 2007. p. 92.
[34] CEB. CEB-FIP model code 1990. Thomas Telford; 1991.
[35] Murray YD, Abu-Odeh A, Bligh R. Evaluation of Ls-dyna concrete material model
159. APTEK, Inc.; Texas Transportation Institute; 2007. p. 209.
[36] Park R. The ultimate strength of uniformly loaded laterally restrained rectangular
two-way concrete slabs. University of Bristol; 1964.
[37] Lew HS, Bao Y, Sadek F, Main JA, Pujol S, Sozen MA. An Experimental and com-
putational study of reinforced concrete assemblies under a column removal sce-
nario. NIST Technical Note 1720. National Institute of Standards and Technology,
U.S. Department of Commerce; 2011. p. 106.
[38] Yi W-J, Zhang F-Z, Kunnath S. Progressive collapse performance of RC flat plate
frame structures. J Struct Eng 2014;140:04014048.
[39] Yu J, Luo L, Ge C. Numerical investigation on structural behavior of RC beam-slab
assemblies under an exterior column removal scenario; 2017.
[40] Li Y, Lu X, Guan H, Ren P, Qian L. Probability-based progressive collapse-resistant
assessment for reinforced concrete frame structures. Adv Struct Eng
2016;19:1723–35.
[41] Sasani M. Response of a reinforced concrete infilled-frame structure to removal of
two adjacent columns. Eng Struct 2008;30:2478–91.
[42] Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People's Republic of
China (MOHURD). Code for design of concrete structures. GB50010-2010. Beijing,
China; 2010.