X. Lu et al.

Engineering Structures 168 (2018) 721–735

P
M1 M1

1 2 M2 3 4
Fixed boundary Failed column Fixed boundary

(a) Resistance mechanism of RC beams at initial loading stage

P
Compressive arching zone Tensile cracks M1
M1 2 3
N N
1 M2 4
Fixed boundary Failed column Fixed boundary

(b) Resistance mechanism of RC beams at CAA stage

Fig. 1. CAA in RC beams at small deformation stage under concentrated load (Note: 1, 2, 3, 4 denote various beam sections).

reasons: beam and beam-slab specimens, their sectional stress-strain distribu-

tions, key design parameters and the corresponding sensitivities were
(1) The abovementioned models are not suitable for practical use in analyzed using the validated FE models. Following the experimental
progressive collapse design: (a) the Park & Gamble’s model [21] and numerical analysis, we proposed explicit and easy-to-use CAA
requires the peak displacement of the CAA, which cannot be easily calculation models for RC beams with and without slabs. Comparison
obtained for real structures; (b) the models proposed by Yu & Tan with the published experimental results of other researchers confirms
[22] and Kang & Tan [23] require iterative calculations of the re- that the newly developed models can accurately produce the pro-
lative depth of the equivalent compression zone, making the asso- gressive collapse resistance of RC beams (with and without slabs) at the
ciated computation infeasible without dedicated computer pro- CAA stage. The computational procedure of the new models is simple
gramming. and easy to implement. The findings from this study can serve to pro-
(2) In real RC frame structures, the frame beams and slabs are always vide a quantitative reference for practical design of RC frame structures
cast together to carry the dead and live loads. According to Ren against progressive collapse.
et al. [7] and Lu et al. [8], the presence of slab can significantly
improve the progressive collapse resistance at the CAA stage. 2. Validation of the Park & Gamble’s model
However, existing models can only calculate the CAA of frame
beams. In the presence of slabs, reinforcing steels on beam sections 2.1. The Park & Gamble’s model
1–4 (Fig. 1b) do not yield simultaneously, which violates the fun-
damental assumptions of the existing models. Hence, when these The Park & Gamble’s model [21] is based on the deformation
models are used for evaluating the CAA resistance of the frame compatibility and force equilibrium of RC beams under a concentrated
beams with the slab effect, significant errors would be expected. load (Fig. 2a). Considering the isolated beam model shown in Fig. 2b,
the progressive collapse resistance (P) at CAA stage can be expressed as:
In this study, we simplified the boundary conditions as fixed ends in
2(M1 + M2−Nδ )
order to provide an explicit solution for calculating the CAA resistance P=
βl (1)
of RC beams under interior column removal scenarios. Such simplifi-
cation also helped to simplify the prediction equations, making the where δ is the peak displacement corresponding to the peak load; M1
proposed model more practical and feasible for practical engineering and M2 are the moments at the beam ends; N is the axial force induced
applications. Note that in the alternate path (AP) design method as by CAA; l is the total length of the two-span beam; β is the ratio between
specified in most of the existing progressive collapse design codes the net span and the total span l. Note that M1, M2 and N can be derived
[11–12], a column removal means removing the clear height of the by calculating the resultant forces at the corresponding cross sections.
selected column between the lateral restraints at both column ends. In In the Park & Gamble’s model, the relative depths of the compres-
real situations, the interior beams or beam-slab substructures are al- sion zones at Sections 1 and 2 are obtained by solving the equations of
ways surrounded by the peripheral structural components (i.e., beams, deformation compatibility and force equilibrium:
columns and slabs of the adjacent bays). These components will provide
h δ βl 2 2t T ′−T −Cs′ + Cs
sufficient restraints to the deformation of the boundaries. It is therefore c′ = − − ⎛ε + ⎞ +
2 4 4δ ⎝ l ⎠ 1.7fc′ β1 b (2)
rational to assume such fixed boundaries when considering the interior
column removal case in an RC structure. h δ βl 2 2t T ′−T −Cs′ + Cs
To overcome the limitations of the existing calculation models for c= − − ⎛ε + ⎞−
2 4 4δ ⎝ l ⎠ 1.7fc′ β1 b (3)
CAA, we established a series of finite element (FE) models fully vali-
dated against a large database of experimental outcomes. For both where c′ and c are the relative depth of the compression zone at
Sections 1 and 2, respectively; h and b are the height and width of the

722
X. Lu et al. Engineering Structures 168 (2018) 721–735

Fig. 2. The Park & Gamble’s model (Note: 1, 2, 3, 4 denote various beam sections).

beam, respectively; ε is the axial compressive strain of the beam; t is the M1 = 0.85fc′ β1 c′b (0.5h−0.5β1 c′) + Cs′ (0.5h−d′) + T ′ (0.5h−d′) (5)
longitudinal movement of the boundary; Cc′ and Cc are the resultant
forces in concrete at Sections 1 and 2; T ′ and T are the tensile forces in M2 = 0.85fc′ β1 cb (0.5h−0.5β1 c ) + Cs (0.5h−d′) + T (0.5h−d′) (6)
reinforcement at Sections 1 and 2, respectively; Cs′ and Cs are the
where d' is the thickness of the concrete cover.
compressive forces in reinforcement at Sections 1 and 2, respectively; fc'
is the concrete cylinder strength; β1 is the ratio of the depth of the
2.2. The database of experimental tests
equivalent rectangular stress block to the depth of neutral-axis, as de-
fined in ACI 318–14 [24].
Many experiments have been reported to study progressive collapse
In order to calculate the force contributions from concrete and re-
of RC frame beams under different column removal scenarios. In order
inforcement, it was assumed by Park & Gamble that the critical sections
to validate the calculation models for CAA, a total of 50 RC progressive
have reached their strengths when a full plasticity is developed at the
collapse specimens, tested by other researchers under a mid-column
critical sections of the beam (i.e., the peak point at the CAA stage) [21].
removal scenario, were collected from the literature. Details of these RC
Note that under certain circumstances, the above assumption may not
specimens are listed in Appendix A [5–7,10,13–17,25–26], in which 45
be very valid as the compressive reinforcement at Section 2 may not
are beam specimens and 5 are beam-slab specimens. In addition to the
yield at the peak point of CAA. However, since the Park & Gamble’s
test specimens included in Appendix A, we also reviewed a number of
model has been proven to be able to provide accurate predictions of the
other RC progressive collapse tests found in the literature (e.g., Lu et al.
load carrying capacities of RC beams under CAA [10,14,21], this as-
[8], Qian et al. [10], Choi & Kim [18], Sadek et al. [19], Qian & Li [27],
sumption is nonetheless adopted in the calculation procedure of the RC
Prasad & Hutchinson [28], and Dat & Tan [29]). However, comparing
beam specimens for its simplicity. Hence, the moments M1, M2 and the
to the illustrations shown in Figs. 1 and 2, these additional tests typi-
axial force N can be calculated by combining Eqs. (2) and (3) with the
cally have different boundary conditions or deformation modes, and
stress-strain relationships of the reinforcement and concrete at the ul-
hence they are not considered in this work.
timate state, after which the CAA resistance P of the RC beams can then
be readily calculated following Eq. (1). The expressions of M1, M2 and N
at the beam ends are obtained as: 2.3. Validation of the Park & Gamble’s model

N = Cc + Cs−T = 0.85fc′ β1 cb + Cs−T (4) Following the Park & Gamble’s model [21], the CAA resistance P is
computed for all 45 beam specimens given in Appendix A, and the

723