Progressive Collapse Resistance of Precast Concrete

Frames with Discontinuous Reinforcement in the Joint

Shao-Bo Kang 1 and Kang Hai Tan, M.ASCE 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Boundary conditions of precast concrete frames play a crucial role in their progressive collapse resistance under middle column
removal scenarios. Interior and exterior frames behave differently as a result of different horizontal restraints on side columns. This paper
presents an experimental study on four precast concrete frames with either 90° bend or lap-splice of the bottom reinforcement in the
beam-column joint. The resistance of interior and exterior frames were determined quantitatively. Reinforcement detailing in the beam-
column joint dominated structural resistance and deformation capacity of interior frames. Side columns of interior frames remained intact
under compressive arch action (CAA) and catenary action, in spite of significant horizontal deflections and severe cracking because of initial
horizontal compression at the CAA stage and subsequent tension at the catenary action stage. However, one exterior frame exhibited flexural
failure of the side column when subject to catenary action, evidenced by concrete crushing in the compression zone. In side beam-column
joints, diagonal shear cracks were observed at the CAA stage, and shear links were mobilized to sustain the shear force. Finally, relevant
conclusions on the progressive collapse design of precast concrete frames are drawn from the experimental findings. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
ST.1943-541X.0001828. © 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Column removal scenarios; Precast concrete frames; Joint detailing; Horizontal restraints; Compressive arch action;
Catenary action; Concrete and masonry structures.

Introduction
In the wake of progressive collapse of the Ronan Point Apartment,
London, extensive research studies were conducted on RC frames
to assess their resistance to extreme loading conditions. Several de-
sign approaches against progressive collapse have been proposed
and incorporated into the design guidelines (DoD 2013; GSA
2013). Design recommendations for RC structures also have been
published by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technol-
ogy (NIST 2007). Among these approaches, the alternate path
method considers various single column removal scenarios and
seeks to avert propagation of local damage induced by column loss
through development of compressive arch action (CAA) and
catenary action in the bridging beams over the missing column
(Stevens et al. 2011).
So far, several RC beam-column subassemblages have been
tested under quasi-static loading conditions to evaluate the ductility
and continuity of middle beam-column joints (Su et al. 2009; Yu
and Tan 2013a). Additionally, the influence of seismic detailing on
collapse resistance of subassemblages was investigated experimen-
tally (Yu and Tan 2013b). It was found that seismic detailing does
1
Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Key Laboratory of New Technology for
Construction of Cities in Mountain Area, Chongqing Univ., Ministry of Edu-
cation, Chongqing 400045, China; School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing
Univ., Chongqing 400045, China; formerly, Ph.D. Candidate, School of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological Univ., 50 Nanyang
Ave., Singapore 639798 (corresponding author). ORCID: http://orcid.org/
0000-0001-5666-6758. E-mail: skang2@e.ntu.edu.sg
2
Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang
Technological Univ., 50 Nanyang Ave., Singapore 639798. E-mail:
CKHTAN@ntu.edu.sg
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 3, 2015; approved on
February 22, 2017; published online on May 11, 2017. Discussion period
open until October 11, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
not have much effect on enhancing catenary action because the load
is monotonic. As for frames, a planar three-storey four-bay frame
was tested under middle column missing scenarios, in which
column failure and ruptured beam reinforcement at the joint were
observed (Yi et al. 2008). Other frame tests indicated potential
shear failure of the side beam-column joint (Choi and Kim
2011; Lew et al. 2011). Furthermore, special reinforcement detail-
ing in interior RC frames has shown to be an economic approach to
mitigating progressive collapse (Yu and Tan 2014).
To date, very limited research has been focused on precast
concrete structures subject to single column removal. Compared
with RC joints, precast concrete beam-column joints are vulnerable
to progressive collapse because of discontinuity of beam longitu-
dinal reinforcement in the joints. Various types of reinforcement
detailing can be used in precast concrete joints, such as welding
of steel bars to embedded plates, lap-splice, or anchorage of rebars
in the joints. However, welded connections in precast concrete
structures exhibit poor performance under column removal scenar-
ios (Main et al. 2014). With continuous top reinforcement in the
cast-in situ concrete topping, precast concrete beam-column sub-
assemblages can develop significant CAA and catenary action,
even though pullout failure of anchored bottom steel reinforcement
occurs in the middle joint (Kang and Tan 2015). However, only
stocky end column stubs were designed in the beam-column
subassemblages to provide adequate horizontal and rotational
restraints for bridging beams, realistic side columns and axial com-
pression forces in the columns from the upper storeys were not con-
sidered in the tests. Moreover, under column removal scenarios,
horizontal loads imposed by CAA and catenary action on side
columns may lead to column or joint failures, which in turn
may hinder the full development of CAA and catenary action in
the bridging beam. Therefore, experimental tests on precast con-
crete frames are necessary to study the behavior of side columns
subject to the initial CAA and subsequent catenary action stages.
This paper presents an experimental investigation on four pre-
cast concrete frames, in which different boundary conditions and

© ASCE 04017090-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1

 reinforcement detailing in the beam-column joint were taken into
consideration. Besides structural resistance and deformation capac-
ity of bridging beams, dominant factors that affect the behavior of
precast columns and beam-column joints were studied.
Experimental Program
Specimen Design and Detailing
A prototype precast concrete frame was designed for gravity loads
(including 10.5 kPa dead load and 3.0 kPa live load) in accordance
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
with Eurocode 2 (BSI 2004), and was scaled down to a half-scale
model. In the frame, the slab thickness was 150 mm, including the
precast concrete plank and cast-in situ concrete topping. Precast
concrete frames, with 300-mm deep by 150-mm wide beams
and 250-mm square columns, were extracted from the perimeter
of the structure. The net span of the single-bay beam was
2,750 mm, and the column height was 2,350 mm. Because precast
beam units were prefabricated ahead of cast-in situ structural
topping and beam-column joints, a horizontal interface existed
between the precast units and the structural topping. Complying
with Eurocode 2 (BSI 2004), the interface was intentionally rough-
ened to 3-mm deep to prevent potential delamination across the
interface. In addition, closely-spaced stirrups were arranged uni-
formly along the whole beam length and protruded from the top
face of precast beam units. For precast columns, longitudinal
reinforcement can either be lap-spliced at the column ends or
run through two-tier column units. However, lap-splice of column
reinforcement requires corrugated steel sleeves at the column ends
that may significantly increase the cross section of the columns.
Therefore, in this study, continuous longitudinal reinforcement
passed through the beam-column joint and was welded to the steel
plates at the ends of two-tier columns.
Two types of beam-bottom reinforcement detailing, namely a
90° bend and lap-splice, were used in the beam-column joint
region. A 90° bend-of-bottom reinforcement projected from the
end of the beam units [Fig. 1(a)] has been widely used in precast
concrete structures (fib 2002); however, it would cause some
congestion in the middle beam-column joint (CAE 1999). For
lap-spliced reinforcement in the middle joint, similar to the practice
recommended by fib (2003), a U-shaped trough was cast at each
end of the beam unit, and its length depended on the required em-
bedment length of the bottom rebars, as shown in Fig. 1(b). The
inner face of the trough was intentionally roughened to increase
the interface shear resistance with cast-in situ concrete topping.
Shear links were placed in the joint region to confine the concrete
and to improve the integrity of the joint. The diameter and spacing
of shear links were identical to those in the side column [see C-C in
Fig. 1(a–d)].
In all four frames, the cross sections of the double-bay beam and
the precast column remained identical. Table 1 summarizes the
reinforcement ratios of precast concrete frames; IF and EF denote
the interior and exterior frames, respectively, and B and L represent
the 90° bend and lap-splice of beam bottom reinforcement in the
joint, respectively. The last two numerals indicate the top and
bottom reinforcement ratios of the beam end sections joining
the middle column, respectively. Fig. 1 shows the geometry and
reinforcement detailing of interior and exterior precast frames.
Only half of the frame specimen is shown because of symmetry.
In comparison with interior frames IF-B-0.88-0.59 and IF-L-
0.88-0.59 [Figs. 1(a and b)], the short beam extension protruding
beyond the side column was eliminated from exterior frames EF-B-
0.88-0.59 and EF-L-0.88-0.59. Thus, both the top and bottom
© ASCE 04017090-2
J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1
reinforcing bars in EF-B-0.88-0.59 and EF-L-0.88-0.59 were anch-
ored into the side beam-column joint, but the joint detailing and
reinforcement ratio were identical to those of interior frames, as
shown in Figs. 1(c and d). Precast concrete components were
hatched to be differentiated from cast-in situ concrete.
Material Properties
Hot-rolled deformed steel bars with 13-mm diameter were used as
the longitudinal reinforcement in the frames, and mild steel with
8-mm diameter were used as stirrups. For each type of steel
reinforcement, tensile tests were conducted (BSI 2010) on three
coupons with 300-mm gauge length to obtain the stress-strain
curves, as shown in Fig. 2(a). As for concrete materials, three
cylinders with 150-mm diameter by 300-mm height were tested.
Two aluminum rings at 100-mm spacing were fixed to the middle
one-third of each cylinder and three LVDTs were mounted between
the rings to measure the average compressive strain in this region.
Fig. 2(b) shows the stress-strain curves of precast and cast-in situ
concrete. Table 2 summarizes the material properties of concrete
material and steel reinforcement.
Test Set-Up
Fig. 3 shows the test setup for interior precast concrete frames.
Similar to the rig employed by Yu (2012), a horizontal load cell
was connected to the precast column, and measured 200 mm from
its top end. At the bottom, a pin support was designed with a load
pin inserted underneath to measure the horizontal reaction force.
The distance between the centroid of the load pin and the bottom
end of the side column was 190 mm and, thus, the effective length
of column between the top load cell and the bottom pin support was
2,340 mm. Another horizontal restraint was applied to the beam
extension of interior frames IF-B-0.88-0.59 and IF-L-0.88-0.59.
In addition, short steel columns were provided to prevent
out-of-plane deflections of the bridging beam, and a rotational re-
straint was applied at the middle joint to ensure symmetrical bend-
ing if reinforcement fractured on one side only. The rotational
restraint was comprised of two pair of steel columns beside the
middle joint and two steel rods. Before testing, two steel rods were
placed in the PVC pipes embedded in the middle joint and clamped
by the steel columns so that the joint could move only in the vertical
direction. As for exterior frames, the same top and bottom restraints
were connected to the side columns, whereas the horizontal
restraint and corresponding load cell were not provided for the
beam extensions.
To simulate axial compression force on the two columns, a self-
equilibrating system was installed on each side column, through
which a hydraulic jack was inserted in between the column and
a thick steel plate connected by four steel rods to the bottom
pin support. Prior to testing, an axial stress of 0.3fc0 , with f c0 being
the cylinder compressive strength of concrete, was applied to each
side column and was kept constant in the course of loading the
middle joint.
Instrumentation
In the test, vertical load and horizontal reaction force were mea-
sured by the corresponding load cells acting as restraints, as shown
in Fig. 3. In addition, deformations of precast concrete frames also
were measured by means of LVDTs. Fig. 4 shows the arrangement
of LVDTs on precast concrete frames. Similar to the instrumenta-
tion in precast concrete beam-column subassemblage tests (Kang
and Tan 2015), six vertical LVDTs were installed along the beam
length to measure the vertical deflections. In addition, plastic
hinge rotations also were measured through four LVDTs at the
beam ends. Under CAA and catenary action, side columns and
J. Struct. Eng.
 8H13
3H13

75
2H13

75
R8@100

250
R8@80 R8@80

300

300
R8@100

225

225
2H13 2H13

1175
C C 250
150 150 C-C
A-A B-B
PVA sleeve
500 1000 1000

150
A B A

300

150
A B A
PVA sleeve
2750
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

875
250
Precast units

(a)

8H13
3H13

75

75
2H13
R8@100

250
R8@80 R8@80

300

300
R8@100

225

225
2H13
2H13 2H13
1175

C C 250
150 150 C-C
A-A B-B

PVA sleeve
500 1000 1000

150
A B A
300

150
A B A
PVA sleeve
2750
875

250
Precast units

(b)

3H13
75

2H13
75

R8@100

250
R8@80 R8@80
300

300

R8@100
225

225

2H13 2H13 8H13

1175

C C 250
150 150 C-C
A-A B-B
PVA sleeve
1000 1000
A B A 150
300

150

A B A
PVA sleeve
2750
875

250
Precast units

(c)

3H13
75

2H13
75

R8@100
250

R8@80 R8@80
300

300
225

R8@100
225

2H13
2H13 2H13 8H13
1175

C C
250
150 150 C-C
A-A B-B
PVA sleeve
1000 1000
150

A B A
300

150

A B A
PVA sleeve
2750
875

250
Precast units

(d)

Fig. 1. Geometry and reinforcement detailing of precast concrete frames: (a) IF-B-0.88-0.59; (b) IF-L-0.88-0.59; (c) EF-B-0.88-0.59;
(d) EF-L-0.88-0.59

© ASCE 04017090-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1

 Table 1. Reinforcement Detailing and Ratios of Frame Specimens
Beam Column
Specimen Joint detailing TRRa BRRa Stirrup RRb Stirrup Location
IF-B-0.88-0.59 90° bend 0.88% (3H13) 0.59% (2H13) R8@80 1.70% (8H13) R8@100 Interior
IF-L-0.88-0.59 Lap-splice Interior
EF-B-0.88-0.59 90° bend Exterior
EF-L-0.88-0.59 Lap-splice Exterior
a
TRR and BRR represent the respective top and bottom reinforcement ratios in the beam.
b
RR represents the longitudinal reinforcement ratio of the column.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

800
H13-Precast units
H13-Beam top bars
640 Reaction
wall

Actuator
Stress (MPa)

480 Load cell

Self-equilibrating
system
320
A-frame

160

0 Out-of-plane
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 restraint
(a) Rotational
Strain Pin support restraint

30
Precast units Fig. 3. Test setup for interior precast concrete frames
Cast-in-situ concrete
25

Experimental Results
20
Stress (MPa)

Load-Displacement Curves
15
Under displacement-controlled loading conditions, vertical loads
applied onto the middle beam-column joint were recorded by
10
the built-in load cell of a hydraulic actuator. Simultaneously,
horizontal reaction forces in the bottom pin support and the hori-
5 zontal load cells were summed up to calculate the total horizontal
reaction. Figs. 5 and 6 show the vertical load versus middle joint
0 displacement curves, and the horizontal reaction force versus
0.000 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0.020
(b) middle joint displacement curves. The horizontal reaction force
Strain
represents the average value of the total horizontal forces acting
Fig. 2. Material stress-strain curves of reinforcement and concrete: on each side column.
(a) reinforcement; (b) concrete Under single column removal scenarios, nearly the same vertical
load capacities developed in the interior and exterior frames, as
shown in Figs. 5(a and b), when the middle joint displacement
was less than 300 mm (one beam depth). With increasing middle
beam-column joints experienced significant deformations (Yi et al. joint displacement, precast frames IF-B-0.88-0.59 and EF-B-0.88-
2008). Thus, five horizontal LVDTs were installed along the 0.59 exhibited sequential fracture of beam top longitudinal
column height to capture the deformed profile of the side columns, reinforcement in the vicinity of side columns, which reduced the
and two diagonal LVDTs were mounted in the side beam-column hogging moment resistance of beam sections at the side column
joints to measure the distortion, as shown in Fig. 4. interface, causing a reduction in the vertical load, as shown in

Table 2. Material Properties of Concrete and Reinforcement

Nominal Yield Elastic Ultimate Modulus
diameter strength modulus strength Fracture Compressive of elasticity
Steel bar (mm) (MPa) (GPa) (MPa) strain (%) Concrete strength (MPa) (GPa)
Main bar H13 13 553.2 203.9 630.8 10.8 Precast units 27.7 22.7
593.7a 202.2a 688.4a 12.0a
Stirrup R8 8 272.4 207.4 359.5 — Cast-in situ concrete 26.9 25.8
a
The second row represents longitudinal reinforcing bars that were used in the cast-in situ concrete topping of precast frames.

© ASCE 04017090-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1

 Top restraint Side column
Column face

35

100
LS-1

52°
LJ-1 LS-3
SD-1

100
230
575
LS-2 LS-4

100
LJ-2

35
SD-2 Beam
150 120
400

35 180 35 Beam
Plastic hinge region Middle joint
Side beam-column joint
LJ-1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

SD-3 LS-1 LS-5

LS-3 LS-7
300

LS-4 LS-8
LS-2 LS-6
SD-4 LJ-2
Side
column
400

LB-1 LB-2 LB-3 LB-4 LB-5

300 450 625 625 450
LB-6
300
SD-5
665

Pin support

Fig. 4. Layout of LVDTs for precast concrete frames

300
120 IF-B-0.88-0.59 IF-B-0.88-0.59
EF-B-0.88-0.59 250 EF-B-0.88-0.59
Horizontal reaction force (kN)

100
200
Vertical load (kN)

80 Catenary action
150
Fracture of top bars

60 100
CAA
Fracture of top bars
at right end 50
40
Zero force
0
Fracture of top bars
20 at left end
-50

0 -100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
(a) Middle joint displacement (mm) (a) Middle joint displacement (mm)

300
120 IF-L-0.88-0.59 Pull-out of bottom IF-L-0.88-0.59
EF-L-0.88-0.59 bars at right column 250 EF-L-0.88-0.59
Horizontal reaction force (kN)

100 Catenary action

200
Vertical load (kN)

80 Fracture of bottom bars 150

Fracture of top bars CAA

60 100

50
40
Zero force
Pull-out of bottom bar 0
Column failure
20
-50

0 -100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
(b) Middle joint displacement (mm) (b) Middle joint displacement (mm)

Fig. 5. Vertical load-middle joint displacement curves of precast Fig. 6. Horizontal reaction force-middle joint displacement curves of
frames: (a) 90° bend of bottom bars; (b) lap-splice of bottom bars precast frames: (a) 90° bend of bottom bars; (b) lap-splice of bottom bars

© ASCE 04017090-5 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1

 Table 3. Resistances and Deformations of Precast Concrete Frames
Middle joint
Capacity of displacement at Max. beam
Specimen CAA Pc (kN) Pc (mm) axial compression (kN)
IF-B-0.88-0.59 66.3 76.1 −89.1
IF-L-0.88-0.59 65.6 69.0 −73.0
EF-B-0.88-0.59 67.9 191.1 −45.0
EF-L-0.88-0.59 65.9 95.0 −53.9
Fig. 5(a). Meanwhile, the measured horizontal tension force in the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
beams of the two frames also was reduced significantly because of
fracture of the beam top longitudinal reinforcement at the side
column face, as shown in Fig. 6(a). As for exterior frame
EF-L-0.88-0.59, one beam bottom bar fractured on one side of
the middle joint at the CAA stage and then was pulled out from
the other side, whereas the other bottom bar developed pull-out fail-
ure. Eventually, beam top bars anchored in the left column ruptured
at the catenary action stage, resulting in a drop of vertical load, as
shown in Fig. 5(b). However, tension reinforcement near the right
column remained intact until the beam axial tension force attained
its maximum value. Eventually, the axial force of beam decreased
[Fig. 6(b)] because of concrete crushing in the right column,
leading to a gradual decrease of vertical load [Fig. 5(b)]. Interior
frame IF-L-0.88-0.59 exhibited similar load-displacement curve
and failure mode of bottom reinforcement to EF-L-0.88-0.59 at
the CAA stage. However, among the four precast concrete frames,
significant catenary action was mobilized only in interior frame
IF-L-0.88-0.59 to redistribute the vertical load through tension
force in the beam, as shown in Fig. 5(b), with its capacity of
127.4 kN and the peak tension force of 283.1 kN in the beam.
At 676-mm middle joint displacement, pull-out failure of beam
top reinforcement at the side column hindered the further develop-
ment of catenary action.
Table 3 summarizes the resistances of precast concrete frames
under column removal scenarios. CAA is characterized by
compression force in the bridging beam, whereas catenary action
commences when the net axial force across a section changes from
compression to tension. Capacities of CAA and catenary action
correspond to the maximum vertical loads at the CAA and catenary
action stages.
Crack Patterns and Failure Modes of Precast Beams
Table 4 summarizes the failure modes of precast concrete frames.
Fig. 7 shows the crack patterns and failure modes of the bridging
beams. Frames IF-B-0.88-0.59 and EF-B-0.88-0.59, with a 90°
bend of the beam bottom reinforcement in the beam-column joint,
developed similar crack patterns and failure modes in the beam, as
shown in Figs. 7(a and c). At the CAA stage, cracks were concen-
trated only in the flexural tension zones of the beam. Both bottom
Table 4. Failure Modes of Precast Concrete Frames
Specimen At the middle joint
IF-B-0.88-0.59 Pull-out failure of both bottom bars
IF-L-0.88-0.59 Pull-out of one bottom bar; fracture of the other
bottom bar at the left face first, and then
pull-out at the right face
EF-B-0.88-0.59 Pull-out failure of both bottom bars
EF-L-0.88-0.59 Pull-out of one bottom bar; fracture of the other
bottom bar at the right face first, and
then pull-out at the left face
© ASCE 04017090-6
J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1
Capacity of Middle joint
catenary action displacement at Peak axial
Pt (kN) Pt (mm) tension (kN)
49.5 390.9 25.3
127.4 675.8 283.1
51.4 383.9 17.1
50.3 457.0 108.3
longitudinal reinforcing bars in the beam were pulled out from the
middle joint because of insufficient embedment length. Thus, the
applied vertical load varied smoothly without sudden drop at
the CAA stage, as shown in Fig. 5(a). Eventually, top longitudinal
reinforcement ruptured at the face of the side column, which caused
sudden drops of vertical load. Following the rupture of top
reinforcement, a pin was formed at the face of the side column,
and the vertical load could not increase any further, as shown in
Fig. 5(a).
Precast frames IF-L-0.88-0.59 and EF-L-0.88-0.59 exhibited
similar failure modes of embedded beam bottom reinforcement
in the middle joint, as shown in Figs. 7(b and d). At the middle
joint displacements of 192 mm for IF-L-0.88-0.59 and 171 mm
for EF-L-0.88-0.59, only one bottom bar fractured on one side
of the middle joint, whereas the other bar on the same side was
pulled out from the joint. Fracture of the beam bottom reinforce-
ment led to a sudden drop of vertical load at the CAA stage
[Fig. 5(b)]. Furthermore, after fracture of one bottom steel bar at
one joint interface, moment resistance at the opposite face could
be mobilized because of the presence of rotational restraint in
the middle joint (Fig. 3). With increasing middle joint displace-
ment, a similar pull-out failure occurred at the opposite face of
the middle joint, which reduced the vertical load prior to the com-
mencement of catenary action, as shown in Fig. 5(b). Different
crack patterns of the beam and failure modes at the side column
interface were observed in IF-L-0.88-0.59 and EF-L-0.88-0.59,
as shown in Figs. 7(b and d). Remarkable cracking and flexural
deformations developed in the bridging beam of IF-L-0.88-0.59,
as shown in Fig. 7(b). However, beam top reinforcement near
the right column did not fracture. Instead, the lap-spliced beam
bottom reinforcement exhibited pull-out failure in the plastic hinge
region near the side column face. Correspondingly, the tension
force in the beam was reduced, as shown in Fig. 6(b). However,
in exterior frame EF-L-0.88-0.59, the beam top reinforcement frac-
tured at the left column face [Fig. 7(d)]. Thereafter, axial tension
dominated the beam behavior under catenary action. Full-depth
tension cracks ran perpendicular to the beam axis and distributed
uniformly along the beam length, as shown in Fig. 7(d). Eventually,
the right column exhibited concrete crushing in the region above
the right beam-column joint because of the horizontal tension force,
At the side column
Fracture of top bars at both columns
Pull-out of bottom bars at the right column
Fracture of top bars at both columns
Fracture of top bars at left column,
flexural failure of right column
J. Struct. Eng.
 CAA stage. However, the crack width remained limited and the
Crushing
of concrete side beam-column joint did not develop shear failure because of
Middle joint the presence of shear links in the joint. If shear links were not
provided in the joint according to gravity design, shear failure
Rupture of of the joint might have occurred, which would hinder the develop-
top bars ment of CAA. At the catenary action stage, significant horizontal
Pull-out
of rebars tension forces in IF-L-0.88-0.59 and EF-L-0.88-0.59 generated
Left column
flexural cracks at the column face toward the middle joint, as shown
in Figs. 8(b and d). The cracks were located above the beams be-
(a) cause horizontal tension forces in the load cell connected to the
column top was greater than that in the bottom pin support at
Right column the catenary action stage. However, because of premature fracture
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Crushing
of concrete of the beam top reinforcement at the side column face or the
presence of horizontal restraints on the beam extension, the side
Pull-out columns of specimens IF-B-0.88-0.59, IF-L-0.88-0.59, and
of rebar EF-B-0.88-0.59 did not fail. Only the right column of exterior
frame EF-L-0.88-0.59 developed flexural failure, characterized
by concrete crushing above the side beam-column joint, as shown
in Fig. 8(d). Following the column failure, excessive lateral deflec-
Spalling of tions of the side column hindered development of horizontal
Middle joint concrete
tension force.
(b) At the CAA and catenary action stages, side columns developed
significant lateral deflections. Fig. 9 shows the deformed profile of
Left column Crushing side columns. In the sign convention, the negative value denotes
of concrete outward deflection of the side column relative to the middle joint,
and the positive number represents inward deflection toward the
Pull-out middle joint. Similar to the frame behavior reported by Yi et al.
of rebars (2008), the side column was initially pushed outward by the
horizontal compression force under CAA, whereas it was pulled
Fracture toward the middle joint by the tension force under catenary action,
of rebars as shown in Figs. 9(a and b). Interior frame IF-L-0.88-0.59 and
Middle joint
exterior frame EF-L-0.88-0.59 attained almost the same negative
(c) deflections at the maximum horizontal compression force [Figs. 9(a
and b)]. Nonetheless, because of the presence of horizontal restraint
on the beam extension, interior frame IF-L-0.88-0.59 only exhibited
Left column Crushing
of concrete 7.5-mm positive deflection at the peak horizontal tension force, 52%
less than 15.7-mm deflection of EF-L-0.88-0.59.
Pull-out Besides the deflection profile, measurements of LVDTs SD-3
of rebar and SD-4 (corresponding to the top and bottom faces of the beam,
see Fig. 4) on the right column of exterior frame EF-L-0.88-0.59
are shown in Fig. 10. At the CAA stage, SD-4 measured larger
Spalling of Fracture
concrete of rebars
negative deflection than SD-3. When catenary action commenced,
the positive value of SD-3 was greater than SD-4. Positive deflec-
Middle joint
tions of the right column varied at almost a constant rate until the
column could not sustain the horizontal tension force and concrete
(d) crushing occurred above the joint in the right column [Fig. 8(d)].
Following flexural failure of the column, the horizontal tension
Fig. 7. Crack patterns and failure modes of bridging beams: (a) IF-B- force was reduced [Fig. 6(b)], but lateral deflections of the column
0.88-0.59; (b) IF-L-0.88-0.59; (c) EF-B-0.88-0.59; (d) EF-L-0.88-0.59 were further increased, as shown in Fig. 10.
On top of the lateral deflections of the side column, shear behav-
ior of the side joint may be instrumental to the progressive collapse
and catenary action could not be maintained because of excessive resistance of precast concrete frames. To quantify the shear distor-
horizontal deflections of the column. tion of the side joint subject to CAA, four steel threads were
embedded into the joint panel encased by beam and column lon-
Behavior of Side Columns and Joints gitudinal reinforcement, on which a pair of diagonal LVDTs, LJ-1
Fig. 8 illustrates the crack patterns of side columns subject to CAA and LJ-2, was installed, as shown in Fig. 4. At the CAA stage, a
and catenary action. Under CAA, the horizontal compression force diagonal strut was formed by forces in the compression zones of the
primarily was transferred to the bottom pin support, and thus beam and the side column, as shown in Fig. 11(a). Thus, LVDT
column sections below the side joint developed flexural cracks LJ-1 was shortened by the diagonal compression force in the joint,
at the outer face, as shown in Figs. 8(a–d). Diagonal shear cracks whereas LJ-2 was elongated at the CAA stage. This observation
also were observed in the side beam-column joint of EF-B-0.88- agrees well with the crack pattern of the side joints, as shown
0.59, as shown in Fig. 8(c). These cracks primarily were initiated in Fig. 8(c). To further calculate the joint distortion from the LVDT
at approximately 150-mm middle joint displacement, when the measurements, the joint model proposed by Youssef and Ghobarah
horizontal compression force attained its maximum value at the (2001) was modified, as plotted in Fig. 11(b). In accordance with

© ASCE 04017090-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1

 Left column Flexural
cracks under
catenary action
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Flexural cracks
under CAA
Flexural cracks
under CAA
Right column

(a) (b)

Left column Crushing of

Diagonal shear concrete under
cracks under catenary action
CAA

Flexural
cracks under
catenary action

Flexural cracks Flexural cracks

under CAA under CAA
Right column

(c) (d)

Fig. 8. Failure modes of side columns: (a) IF-B-0.88-0.59; (b) IF-L-0.88-0.59; (c) EF-B-0.88-0.59; (d) EF-L-0.88-0.59

the deformation compatibility condition of the joint panel, total In addition to shear distortion, rigid-body rotation of the side
shear distortion γ is computed by Eq. (1) joint is calculated as the difference between the readings of
SD-3 and SD-4 (Fig. 4), divided by their vertical spacing
a2 − b2 300 mm, as expressed in Eq. (2)
γ ¼ γ 1 þ γ 2 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð1Þ
ða2 þ b2 Þ2 − 4a2 b2 cos2 ð2θÞ δ SD−3 − δSD−4
θr ¼ ð2Þ
d
where a ¼ ðl=2Þ þ δ 1 ; b ¼ ðl=2Þ − δ 2 ; l = diagonal length of the
joint panel; and δ 1 and δ2 = deformations of the joint panel in the where θr = rigid-body rotation of the side joint; δ SD−3 and δ SD−4 =
two directions. measurements of LVDTs SD-3 and SD-4, respectively; and

© ASCE 04017090-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1

 2500
Top restraint Peak compression rotation. The maximum value of the shear distortion was only

Distance to bottom pin support (mm)

Onset of catenary action 0.0012 radian, approximately 24% of the joint rotation at the
2000 Peak tension same middle joint displacement. Similar results also were obtained
in EF-L-0.88-0.59, as shown in Fig. 11(d).
1500 Load Path of Horizontal Reaction Forces to the Support
Horizontal reaction force as shown in Fig. 6 represents the summa-
1000
Beam top face tion of horizontal forces measured by the horizontal restraint on the
column top, horizontal load cell on the beam extension, and the
Beam bottom face bottom pin support (Fig. 3). It is the average value of total horizon-
500 tal reaction forces measured on both sides. To investigate the load
Original position path of horizontal forces to the support, Fig. 12 also shows indi-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0
vidual readings of the load cells and the pin support at one side
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 column of the interior [Fig. 12(a)] and the exterior [Fig. 12(b)]
(a) Lateral deflection (mm) frames. When interior frame IF-L-0.88-0.59 was subject to
CAA, the horizontal compression force was sustained primarily
2500 by the bottom pin support, and the horizontal load cell connected
Top restraint
Peak compression to the beam extension only took up a small portion of the compres-
Distance to bottom pin support (mm)

Onset of catenary action sion force, as shown in Fig. 12(a). Once catenary action com-
2000 Peak tension
menced, the horizontal load cell at the beam started to sustain a
greater portion of horizontal tension force, and the magnitudes
Beam top face
1500 of horizontal reaction forces in the top load cell and the bottom
pin support came close to one another [Fig. 12(a)] because tension
force in the beam was dominant over bending moments. Similarly,
1000 exterior frame EF-L-0.88-0.59 transmitted horizontal compression
Original position
Beam bottom face force to the pin support at the CAA stage [Fig. 12(b)]. However,
500 under catenary action, the horizontal tension force developed in the
beam was transferred to the support in a different manner from
interior frame IF-L-0.88-0.59. As shown in Fig. 12(b), the top load
0 cell carried a major fraction of the total horizontal tension force,
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
whereas the horizontal force in the bottom pin support was substan-
(b) Lateral deflection (mm)
tially smaller in comparison with that in the top load cell.
Fig. 9. Lateral deflections of side columns: (a) IF-L-0.88-0.59;
Effect of Reinforcement Detailing on Frame Behavior
(b) EF-L-0.88-0.59
When subject to column removal scenarios, precast concrete frames
IF-B-0.88-0.59 and IF-L-0.88-0.59 developed almost the same
CAA capacities as included in Table 3. Nonetheless, at the catenary
action stage, IF-L-0.88-0.59 behaved in a different manner from
20
SD-3 IF-B-0.88-0.59. IF-L-0.88-0.59 developed 2.57 times as much
SD-3 SD-4 catenary action capacity as IF-B-0.88-0.59 (Table 3). However,
15 Joint the axial tension force developed in the bridging beam of IF-L-
Column deflection (mm)

Catenary action 0.88-0.59 was 11.2 times as much as that in IF-B-0.88-0.59. Sim-
10 SD-4 ilar results were obtained when comparisons were made between
the horizontal tension forces in exterior frames EF-B-0.88-0.59 and
CAA
5 EF-L-0.88-0.59.
The different behavior of precast concrete frames with lap-splice
Original position and a 90° bend of beam bottom reinforcement in the joint was
0
Column failure primarily because of the neutral axis depth of the beam sections
at the face of the side column, which was in hogging moment.
-5
To calculate the neutral axis depth, it was assumed that the top
reinforcement had attained its yield strength f y , and the bottom
-10
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 compression concrete fiber had reached its crushing strain εcu when
Middle joint displacement (mm)
the maximum horizontal compression forces were obtained at the
CAA stage. On the basis of the plane-section assumption and the
Fig. 10. Column deflection-middle joint displacement curves of force equilibrium, Fig. 13 shows that the neutral axis depths for
EF-L-0.88-0.59 interior frames IF-B-0.88-0.59 and IF-L-0.88-0.59 were calculated
as 35 and 39 mm, respectively. In comparison with a 90° bend of
longitudinal reinforcement, precast beams with lap-spliced bottom
reinforcement developed slightly deeper compression zones at the
d = vertical spacing between SD-3 and SD-4, equal to the full depth side column face. Correspondingly, the distance between the neu-
of the precast beam. tral axis and the top face of the beam was smaller in IF-L-0.88-0.59,
Fig. 11(c) shows the comparison between the shear distortion which delayed fracture of beam top reinforcement at the catenary
and the rigid-body rotation of the left joint in exterior frame action stage. Besides, in IF-L-0.88-0.59, the neutral axis depth was
EF-B-0.88-0.59. Under CAA, the shear distortion of the side joint smaller than the distance (approximately 65 mm) between the cent-
was significantly smaller in comparison with the rigid-body roid of bottom reinforcement and the beam bottom face, and the

© ASCE 04017090-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1

 2

1
Tb

2
1

Original
shape

l
of joint Deformed
Vb shape of
joint
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Cb

Vc
T ci
T ce

2
Cc

1
(a) (b)

0.008
Shear distortion
Rigid body rotation

0.006
Joint deformation (radian)

0.004

0.002

0.000
0 100 200 300 400 500
Middle joint displacement (mm)
(c)

0.008
Shear distortion
Rigid body rotation

0.006
Joint deformation (radian)

0.004

0.002

0.000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Middle joint displacement (mm)
(d)

Fig. 11. Shear distortions of side beam-column joints: (a) actions in the side joint; (b) joint model; (c) EF-B-0.88-0.59; (d) EF-L-0.88-0.59

© ASCE 04017090-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1

 300
Horizontal load cell on column top Figs. 5(a and b). Nonetheless, in the descending branch of the ver-
250 Load pin on beam extension tical load before the fracture of beam reinforcement, less reduction
Horizontal reaction forces (kN)
Pin support at the bottom of column in the vertical load was observed at a specific displacement of
200 Summation of horizontal forces
EF-B-0.88-0.59 compared with interior frame IF-B-0.88-0.59, as
150
shown in Fig. 5(a). The discrepancy in the descending branch of the
vertical load was attributable to horizontal restraints to the precast
CAA
100 concrete frames. With horizontal load cells connected to the beam
extensions on both sides of the frame (Fig. 3), interior precast frame
50
IF-B-0.88-0.59 developed larger compression forces in the beams
0 than exterior frame EF-B-0.88-0.59, as shown in Fig. 6(a). In turn, a
larger compression force at the CAA stage caused concrete in the
-50 Catenary action compression zone to crush, thereby reducing the moment resistance
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-100 of beam sections. Consequently, the vertical load on the middle

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 joint of interior frame IF-B-0.88-0.59 was gradually reduced after
(a) Middle joint displacement (mm) the capacity of CAA was attained, as shown in Fig. 5(a).
120 Pseudo-Static Resistances of Precast Concrete Frames
Horizontal load cell on column top
Pin support at the bottom of column To consider the dynamic effect under sudden column removal
90
Horizontal reaction forces (kN)

Summation of horizontal forces scenarios, the energy balance method proposed by Izzudin et al.
60
(2008) could be used to quantify the pseudo-static resistance of
CAA
precast concrete frames. In the method, focus is placed on the
30 maximum dynamic response at each load level when the kinetic
energy is reduced to zero. Thus, the work done by the external load
0 is equal to the internal energy absorbed by the frames, as expressed
in Eq. (3). At a vertical displacement ud , internal energy
-30 [i.e., ∫ u0 d PðuÞdu] is calculated as the area under the quasi-static
Catenary action load-displacement curve, as shown in Fig. 14(a). Correspondingly,
-60 under sudden column loss scenarios, the pseudo-static resistance
(Pd ) at vertical displacement ud is determined by Eq. (3)
-90
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Z u
d
(b) Middle joint displacement (mm) Pd · u d ¼ PðuÞdu ð3Þ
0
Fig. 12. Load paths of horizontal reaction forces to the support:
(a) interior frame IF-L-0.88-0.59; (b) exterior frame EF-L-0.88-0.59 Figs. 14(a–d) show that the first peak pseudo-static resistance
(Point A) is substantially lower compared with the quasi-static
CAA capacity of frames. The ratio of the CAA capacity to the
first peak pseudo-static resistance (Point A) falls in the range of
lap-spliced bottom reinforcement at the column face sustained 1.10–1.23. At the catenary action stage, only interior frame
tensile stress at the CAA stage, as shown in Fig. 13. It was equiv- IF-L-0.88-0.59 was able to develop significantly greater second
alent to additional tension reinforcement in the plastic hinge peak load (Point B) than the first peak load, as shown in
region. Therefore, the catenary action capacity of IF-L-0.88-0.59 Fig. 14(b). Development of catenary action in IF-L-0.88-0.59
with lap-spliced bottom reinforcement was increased significantly increased the first pseudo-static resistance by 23.6%.
compared with IF-B-0.88-0.59 with a 90° bend of bottom A comparison also was made between the pseudo-static resis-
reinforcement. tances of precast frames, as shown in Table 5. Although slightly
higher CAA capacities of interior frames IF-B-0.88-0.59 and
Effect of Boundary Conditions on Frame Behavior IF-L-0.88-0.59 were obtained under quasi-static loading conditions
Interior and exterior frames exhibited approximately the same in comparison with exterior frames EF-B-0.88-0.59 and EF-L-
load resistance up to their capacities of CAA, as shown in 0.88-0.59 [Figs. 5(a and b)], the calculated first peak pseudo-static

fy T
as

Mid-depth axis
N max
Lap-spliced
bars
Mu T sl
f 'sl
f ' C sb
c

sb
c

90o bend of bars Cc

0.85f 'c
a's

cu

Fig. 13. Neutral axis depth of beam section at the face of side column

© ASCE 04017090-11 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1

 80
Static loading Table 5. Pseudo-Static Resistances of Precast Concrete Frames under
Ps Sudden column loss Sudden Column Loss Scenarios
First peak Second peak
60 B
Vertical load (kN) load Pdc at Middle joint load Pdt at Middle joint
Pd A point A displacement point B displacement at
Specimen (kN) at Pdc (mm) (kN) Pdt (mm)
40
IF-B-0.88-0.59 55.6 178.1 56.6 341.9
IF-L-0.88-0.59 53.3 178.2 68.7 681.7
EF-B-0.88-0.59 61.8 342.0 — —
20 EF-L-0.88-0.59 56.8 171.1 54.1 300.0

ud
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 resistances of exterior frames EF-B-0.88-0.59 and EF-L-0.88-0.59

0 100 200 300 400 500
(a) Middle joint displacement (mm) were greater than those of interior frames IF-B-0.88-0.59 and
IF-L-0.88-0.59, as shown in Table 5. For instance, the capacity
140 of EF-B-0.88-0.59 under pseudo-static loading was 61.8 kN,
Static loading
Sudden column loss 1.11 times as much as that of IF-B-0.88-0.59. Similarly, EF-L-
120
0.88-0.59 was able to sustain 1.07 times as much first peak
100 pseudo-static load as IF-L-0.88-0.59 (Table 5). In comparison with
Vertical load (kN)

interior frames IF-B-0.88-0.59 and IF-L-0.88-0.59, higher first

80 peak pseudo-static resistances of exterior frames EF-B-0.88-0.59
B
and EF-L-0.88-0.59 resulted from better energy absorption
60 A
capacities of exterior frames in the descending branch of quasi-
40 static loads, as shown in Figs. 5(a and b).

20

0
Conclusions
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
(b) Middle joint displacement (mm) In the experimental program, four precast concrete frames were
tested under quasi-static loads to investigate structural resistance
80 and deformation capacity under middle column removal scenarios.
Static loading
Sudden column loss A 90° bend and lap-splice of beam bottom reinforcement were used
in the middle and side beam-column joints. In addition to the
60 joint detailing, the effect of boundary conditions on the behavior
A
Vertical load (kN)

of precast concrete frames was studied experimentally. Conclusions

were drawn from experimental results as follows:
40 • Under quasi-static loading conditions, similar behavior of
precast concrete frames was obtained at CAA stage, with
approximately the same capacities of CAA for all four frames.
20 However, the catenary action capacities of frames varied greatly
as a result of different reinforcement detailing and horizontal
restraints.
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
• Compared with a 90° bend of beam bottom reinforcement, lap-
(c) Middle joint displacement (mm) spliced reinforcement in the joint enabled the development of
higher catenary action in precast concrete frames, in particular
80
Static loading
for IF-L-0.88-0.59. The lap-spliced bottom reinforcement at the
Sudden column loss side column face was subject to tension because of limited
neutral axis depth, which enhanced the rotational capacity of
60 A
B
beam plastic hinge near the side joint.
Vertical load (kN)

• Exterior frames EF-B-0.88-0.59 and EF-L-0.88-0.59 were less

likely to develop significant catenary action than interior frames
40 IF-B-0.88-0.59 and IF-L-0.88-0.59 because of either premature
fracture of beam top longitudinal reinforcement at the side
column face (i.e., EF-B-0.88-0.59), or flexural failure of the side
20 column (i.e., EF-L-0.88-0.59).
• Exterior frames EF-B-0.88-0.59 and EF-L-0.88-0.59 developed
greater pseudo-static load resistances at CAA stage than interior
0 frames IF-B-0.88-0.59 and IF-L-0.88-0.59 because of better
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
energy absorption capacities in the descending branch of
(d) Middle joint displacement (mm)
vertical loads.
Fig. 14. Pseudo-static load-middle joint displacement curves of precast • The side columns experienced significant lateral deflections and
frames: (a) IF-B-0.88-0.59; (b) IF-L-0.88-0.59; (c) EF-B-0.88-0.59; cracking at the CAA and catenary action stages. However, only
(d) EF-L-0.88-0.59 the right column of exterior frame EF-L-0.88-0.59 developed
flexural failure under catenary action. Significant shear cracks

© ASCE 04017090-12 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1

 were observed in the side beam-column joint of EF-B-0.88-
0.59. Shear distortion of the side joint was significantly smaller
in comparison with the rigid-body rotation of the joint at the
CAA stage.
In accordance with experimental results, lap-splice of beam
bottom reinforcement in the joint is recommended for use in precast
concrete structures against progressive collapse. However, to en-
able the full development of catenary action in exterior frames,
the side column and the beam-column joint have to be prevented
from potential flexural and shear failures at large deformations.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support
provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(No. 51608068), Fundamental and Frontier Research Project of
Chongqing (No. cstc2016jcyjA0450), and China Postdoctoral
Science Foundation (2016M590863).
References
BSI (British Standards Institution). (2004). “Eurocode 2: Design of
concrete structures—Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings.”
BS EN 1992-1-1, London.
BSI (British Standards Institution). (2010). “Steel for reinforcement and
prestressing of concrete—Test methods. Part 1: Reinforcing bars, wire
rod and wire.” BS EN ISO 15630-1, London.
CAE (Centre for Advanced Engineering). (1999). “Guideline for the use
of precast concrete in buildings.” Rep. of a Study Group of the
New Zealand Concrete Society and the New Zealand Society of Earth-
quake Engineering, Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Choi, H., and Kim, J. (2011). “Progressive collapse-resisting capacity of
RC beam-column sub-assemblage.” Mag. Concr. Res., 63(4), 297–310.
DoD (Department of Defense). (2013). “Design of buildings to resist
progressive collapse.” Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4-023-03,
Washington, DC.
fib (Fédération internationale du béton). (2002). “Precast concrete in mixed
construction.” Bulletin 19, Laussane, Switzerland.
fib (Fédération internationale du béton). (2003). “Seismic design of precast
concrete building structures.” Bulletin 27, Laussane, Switzerland.
© ASCE 04017090-13
J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1
GSA (General Services Administration). (2013). “General services
administration alternate path analysis & design guidelines for
progressive collapse resistance.” Washington, DC.
Izzudin, B. A., Vlassis, A. G., Elghazouli, A. Y., and Nethercot, D. A.
(2008). “Progressive collapse of multi-storey buildings due to sudden
column loss. Part I: Simplified assessment framework.” Eng. Struct.,
30(5), 1308–1318.
Kang, S.-B., and Tan, K. H. (2015). “Behaviour of precast concrete beam-
column sub-assemblages subject to column removal.” Eng. Struct., 93,
85–96.
Lew, H. S., Bao, Y., Sadek, F., Main, J. A., Pujol, S., and Sozen, M. A.
(2011). “An experimental and computational study of reinforced
concrete assemblies under a column removal scenario.” NIST
Technical Note 1720, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, MD.
Main, J. A., Bao, Y., Lew, H. S., and Sadek, F. (2014). “Robustness of
precast concrete frames: Experimental and computational studies.”
Structures Congress 2014, 2210–2220.
NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). (2007). “Best prac-
tices for reducing the potential for progressive collapse in buildings.”
NISTIR 7396, Gaithersburg, MD.
Stevens, D., et al. (2011). “DoD research and criteria for the design of
buildings to resist progressive collapse.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000432, 870–880.
Su, Y., Tian, Y., and Song, X. (2009). “Progressive collapse resistance of
axially-restrained frame beams.” ACI Struct. J., 106(5), 600–607.
Yi, W. J., He, Q. F., Xiao, Y., and Kunnath, S. K. (2008). “Experimental
study on progressive collapse-resistant behavior of reinforced concrete
frame structures.” ACI Struct. J., 105(4), 433–439.
Youssef, M., and Ghobarah, A. (2001). “Modeling of RC beam-column
joints and structural walls.” J. Earthquake Eng., 5(1), 93–111.
Yu, J. (2012). “Structural behaviour of reinforced concrete frames subjected
to progressive collapse.” Ph.D. thesis, Nanyang Technological Univ.,
Singapore.
Yu, J., and Tan, K. H. (2013a). “Experimental and numerical investigation
on progressive collapse resistance of reinforced concrete beam column
sub-assemblages.” Eng. Struct., 55, 90–106.
Yu, J., and Tan, K. H. (2013b). “Structural behavior of RC beam-column
subassemblages under a middle column removal scenario.” J. Struct.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000658, 233–250.
Yu, J., and Tan, K. H. (2014). “Special detailing techniques to improve
structural resistance against progressive collapse.” J. Struct. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000886, 04013077.
J. Struct. Eng.