NIST Technical Note 1720 

An Experimental and Computational 

Study of Reinforced Concrete Assemblies 

under a Column Removal Scenario 

H.S. Lew 

Yihai Bao 

Fahim Sadek 

Joseph A. Main 

Santiago Pujol 

Mete A. Sozen 

National Institute of Standards and Technology • U.S. Department of Commerce

NIST Technical Note 1720 

An Experimental and Computational 

Study of Reinforced Concrete Assemblies 

under a Column Removal Scenario 

H. S. Lew, Yihai Bao, Fahim Sadek and Joseph A. Main 

Engineering Laboratory 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Santiago Pujol and Mete A. Sozen 

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering 

Bowen Laboratory, Purdue University 

October 2011 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

John E. Bryson, Secretary 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Patrick D. Gallagher, Director 
Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this 

document in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately. 

Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the 

entities, materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose. 

National Institute of Standards and Technology Technical Note 1720 

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Tech. Note 1720, 104 Pages (October 2011) 

CODEN: NTNOEF 
 

ABSTRACT

This report presents an experimental and computational study of two reinforced concrete beamcolumn assemblies, each comprising three columns and two beams. The two beam-column 

assemblies represent portions of the structural framing system of two ten-story reinforced 

concrete frame buildings, which were designed as part of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology research program aimed at mitigating disproportionate structural collapse. One 

building was designed for Seismic Design Category C (SDC C) and the other for Seismic Design 

Category D (SDC D). The beam-column assemblies were taken from the exterior momentresisting frames of these buildings. The assembly from the SDC C building was part of an 

intermediate moment frame (IMF) and the assembly from the SDC D building was part of a 

special moment frame (SMF). The full-scale test assemblies were subjected to monotonically 

increasing vertical displacement of the center column to simulate a column removal scenario. 

The test was terminated when a collapse mechanism of each assembly was developed and the 

vertical load carrying capacity of the assembly was depleted. The primary test specimen response 

characteristics were measured. These included vertical and horizontal displacements at specific 

locations, rotations at beam ends, and strains in reinforcing bars at various locations. In addition, 

concrete surface strains were recorded by measuring the change in length between prepositioned 

targets at pre-selected critical zones of the beams. The failure of both the IMF and SMF 

assemblies was characterized by (1) crushing of concrete at the top of the beam near the center 

column, (2) development of major flexural cracks (deepening and widening), and (3) fracture of 

the bottom longitudinal beam reinforcing bars at a major crack opening near the center column. 

Computational analyses of the beam-column assembly tests were carried out using two levels of 

modeling: (1) detailed models with a large number of elements: solid elements for concrete and 

beam elements for both longitudinal and transverse reinforcement, and (2) reduced models with a 

limited number of elements: beam elements for beams and columns and rigid links connected by 

nonlinear rotational springs for the beam-column joints. The analyses conducted using these 

models provided insight into the overall behavior and failure modes of the test assemblies. Good 

agreement was observed between the experimental and computational results. Both detailed and 

reduced models were capable of capturing the primary response characteristics. The reduced 

models developed in this study will be valuable in the analysis of complete structural systems for 

assessing the reserve capacity and robustness of building structures. The analyses confirm that 

the ultimate loads under the column removal scenario are primarily resisted through catenary 

action, wherein axial tension develops in the beams. The tensile force increase is limited by the 

fracture strength of the tensile reinforcement of the beams. 

Keywords: buildings; computational model; computer simulation; design standards; 

disproportionate collapse; finite element analysis; progressive collapse; reinforced concrete 

structures; structural robustness; testing. 

iii 
 

This page intentionally left blank. 
 

PREFACE

The experimental and computational study reported herein is part of a comprehensive research 

program being carried out by the National Institute of Standard and Technology (NIST) on 

prevention of disproportionate collapse of building structures. To meet the critical need for 

experimental data, NIST developed a plan to test a series of full-scale structural assemblies of 

common building types. 

This report presents the results from an experimental and computational study of two reinforced 

concrete beam-column assemblies. NIST developed the test plan and designed the specimens. 

The specimens represent portions of concrete moment frame buildings designed for Seismic 

Design Categories C and D, respectively. Detailed design of the buildings was carried out by S. 

K. Ghosh and Associates. The design was guided by a panel of experts who reviewed the design 

and provided valuable comments. The following experts served on the panel: David R. 

Bonneville (Degenkolb Engineers, San Francisco, CA), Donald O. Dusenberry (Simpson, 

Gumpertz & Heger, Waltham, MA), Ramon Gilsanz (Gilsanz, Murray, Steficek, LLP, New 

York, NY), Thomas A. Sabol (Englekirk & Sabol, Los Angeles, CA), and Andrew W. Taylor 

(KPFF Consulting Engineers, Seattle, WA).

The Applied Technology Council (ATC) and the Consortium of Universities for Research in 

Earthquake Engineering (CUREE) Joint Venture provided technical services under a contract to 

NIST. The Bowen Laboratory of Purdue University, under contract to the ATC/CUREE Joint 

Venture, fabricated and erected the test specimens, deployed the instruments, performed the test, 

and collected the test data. 

The study reported herein was partially supported by the Department of Homeland Security. 

v 
 

This page intentionally left blank. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................ iii

Preface .......................................................................................................................................................... v

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................ vii

List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. ix

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................. xiii

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................................................................................................... xv

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ xvii

Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Scope of Study ................................................................................................................................. 2

1.3 Report Outline .................................................................................................................................. 2

1.4 References ........................................................................................................................................ 3

Chapter 2 Description of Prototype Building Designs ............................................................... 5

2.1 Prototype Building Designs ............................................................................................................. 5

2.2 Design of Moment Resisting Frames ............................................................................................... 8

2.3 References ........................................................................................................................................ 9

Chapter 3 Test Program .............................................................................................................. 11

3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 11

3.2 Test Specimens .............................................................................................................................. 11

3.3 Test Setup ...................................................................................................................................... 17

3.4 Instrumentation .............................................................................................................................. 18

3.4.1 Displacement Transducers (Position transducers and LVDTs) .......................................... 22

3.4.2 Inclinometers ...................................................................................................................... 22

3.4.3 Surface Deformation Measurement Devices ...................................................................... 23

3.4.4 Strain Gages ....................................................................................................................... 23

Chapter 4 Experimental Results ................................................................................................. 25

4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 25

4.2 IMF Specimen ................................................................................................................................ 25

vii 
Table of Contents 

viii 

4.2.1 Observed Behavior and Failure Modes .............................................................................. 25

4.2.2 Crack Patterns ..................................................................................................................... 27

4.2.3 Displacement Measurements .............................................................................................. 28

4.2.4 Rotation Measurements ...................................................................................................... 31

4.2.5 Strain Measurements .......................................................................................................... 32

4.3 SMF Specimen ............................................................................................................................... 40

4.3.1 Observed Behavior and Failure Modes .............................................................................. 40

4.3.2 Crack Patterns ..................................................................................................................... 41

4.3.3 Displacement Measurements .............................................................................................. 42

4.3.4 Rotation Measurements ...................................................................................................... 45

4.3.5 Strain Measurements .......................................................................................................... 48

4.4 Summary and Discussion of Test Results ...................................................................................... 55

4.5 References ...................................................................................................................................... 58

Chapter 5 Computational Modeling and Analysis of Test Specimens.................................... 59

5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 59

5.2 Material Models ............................................................................................................................. 59

5.2.1 Reinforcement .................................................................................................................... 59

5.2.2 Concrete.............................................................................................................................. 61

5.2.3 Shear in Concrete ............................................................................................................... 65

5.2.4 Bond-Slip Effects ............................................................................................................... 66

5.3 Finite Element Models ................................................................................................................... 69

5.3.1 Detailed Models ................................................................................................................. 69

5.3.2 Reduced Models ................................................................................................................. 71

5.4 Analysis Results ............................................................................................................................. 73

5.4.1 IMF Specimen .................................................................................................................... 73

5.4.2 SMF Specimen ................................................................................................................... 78

5.5 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 83

5.6 References ...................................................................................................................................... 84

Chapter 6 Summary and Conclusions ....................................................................................... 85
 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Plan layout and member sizes of SDC C Building ................................................................... 6

Figure 2.2 Plan layout and member sizes of SDC D Building ................................................................... 6

Figure 2.3 Elevation of SDC C Building and SDC D Building ................................................................. 7

Figure 3.1 Details of IMF specimen ........................................................................................................ 13

Figure 3.2 Details of SMF specimen ....................................................................................................... 14

Figure 3.3 Threaded mechanical couplers for splicing longitudinal bars of beams ................................. 15

Figure 3.4 Anchorage of beam longitudinal reinforcement ..................................................................... 15

Figure 3.5 Reinforcing cage for beams and columns (SMF specimen) ................................................... 16

Figure 3.6 Reinforcement in buttressing slab .......................................................................................... 16

Figure 3.7 Steel blocks used to prevent footing from sliding .................................................................. 17

Figure 3.8 SMF specimen ........................................................................................................................ 18

Figure 3.9 Test configuration for IMF and SMF specimens .................................................................... 19

Figure 3.10 Support arrangement near column top ................................................................................... 20

Figure 3.11 Hydraulic rams arrangement below the strong floor ............................................................. 20

Figure 3.12 Instrument layouts (INC-inclinometer, ENC-position transducer, LC-load cell, other 

sensors are LVDTs). .............................................................................................................. 21

Figure 3.13 Optotrak target points for IMF specimen .............................................................................. 23

Figure 4.1 IMF specimen subjected to large displacement ...................................................................... 26

Figure 4.2 Failure mode of IMF specimen .............................................................................................. 26

Figure 4.3 Crack patterns of IMF specimen at center column deflections of (a) 24 in (610 mm) 

and (b) 43 in (1092 mm) ........................................................................................................ 27

Figure 4.4 Vertical load versus vertical deflections of IMF specimen at (a) 1⁄4 span of beams 

(ENC0 and ENC7), (b) mid-span of beams (ENC1 and ENC6), (c) 3⁄4 span of beams 

(ENC2 and ENC5),and (d) center column (ENC3 and ENC4) ............................................. 29

Figure 4.5 Vertical deflection profiles of beams corresponding to indicated vertical Loads for 

IMF specimen (deflections magnified) .................................................................................. 30

Figure 4.6 Horizontal displacement of end columns at (a) top (SCOL T, NCOL T), and (b) 

beam mid-height (SCOL M, NCOL M) versus vertical displacement of center 

column for IMF specimen. .................................................................................................... 30

Figure 4.7 Applied vertical load versus beam end rotations for IMF specimen ...................................... 31

Figure 4.8 Beam end rotations versus vertical displacement of center column for IMF specimen ......... 31

Figure 4.9 Strain measurements for IMF specimen: (a) Optotrak target locations and b) 

reinforcing bar strain gage locations ..................................................................................... 33

ix 
 

Figure 4.10 Beam mid-span (Section B3 and B8) reinforcing bar strains versus vertical 

displacement of center column for IMF specimen: (a) top reinforcing bars and (b) 

bottom reinforcing bars ......................................................................................................... 34

Figure 4.11 Column-bottom (Section S1 and N1) reinforcing bar strains versus vertical 

displacement of center column for IMF specimen: (a) interior reinforcing bars and 

(b) exterior reinforcing bars ................................................................................................... 35

Figure 4.12 Beam reinforcement strains at bar-cutoff sections versus vertical displacement of 

center column for IMF specimen: (a) top bars at sections B2 and B9, (b) top bars at 

sections B4 and B7, (c) bottom bars at sections B2 and B9, and (d) bottom bars at 

sections B4 and B7 ................................................................................................................ 37

Figure 4.13 Concrete surface strain distributions of IMF specimen at beam ends: (a) near north 

end column and (b) near south end column ........................................................................... 38

Figure 4.14 Concrete surface strain distributions of IMF specimen at beam ends: (a) near north 

side of center column and (b) near south side of center column ........................................... 39

Figure 4.15 View of SMF specimen subjected to large displacement ...................................................... 40

Figure 4.16 Failure mode of SMF specimen ............................................................................................. 41

Figure 4.17 Crack patterns of SMF specimen at center column deflections of (a) 24.5 in 

(622 mm) and (b) 48 in (1219 mm). ...................................................................................... 42

Figure 4.18 Vertical load versus vertical displacements of SMF specimen at (a) 1⁄4 span of beams 

(ENC 0 and ENC 7), (b) mid-span of beams (ENC 1 and ENC 6), (c) 3⁄4 span of 

beams (ENC 2 and ENC 5), and (d) center column (ENC 3 and ENC 4) ............................. 43

Figure 4.19 North footing displacement versus vertical displacement of center column ......................... 44

Figure 4.20 Vertical deflection profiles of beams corresponding to indicated vertical loads for 

SMF specimen ....................................................................................................................... 45

Figure 4.21 Horizontal displacement of end columns at (a) top (SCOL T, NCOL T), and (b) 

beam mid-height (SCOL M, NCOL M) versus vertical displacement of center 

column for SMF specimen .................................................................................................... 46

Figure 4.22 Vertical loads versus beam end rotations for SMF specimen: (a) near end columns 

and (b) near center column .................................................................................................... 47

Figure 4.23 Beam end rotation versus vertical displacement of center column for SMF 

specimen: (a) near end columns and (b) near center column ................................................ 48

Figure 4.24 Stain measurements for SMF specimen: (a) Whittemore gage target locations and 

(b) reinforcing bar strain gage locations ................................................................................ 50

Figure 4.25 Mid-span (Sections B3 and B8) strain gage measurements versus vertical 

displacement of center column for SMF specimen: (a) top reinforcing bars and (b) 

bottom reinforcing bars ......................................................................................................... 51

Figure 4.26 Column reinforcement strains at sections S1 and N1 versus vertical displacement of 

center column for SMF specimen: (a) interior reinforcing bars and (b) exterior 

reinforcing bars ...................................................................................................................... 52

Figure 4.27 Beam reinforcement strains at bar-cutoff sections versus vertical displacement of 

center column for SMF specimen: (a) top bars at sections B2 and B9, (b) top bars at 

sections B4 and B7, (c) bottom bars at sections B2 and B9, and (d) bottom bars at 

sections B4 and B7 ................................................................................................................ 53

x 
Figure 4.28 Concrete surface strain distributions of SMF specimen at beam ends: (a) near north 

end column and (b) near south end column ........................................................................... 54

Figure 4.29 Concrete surface strain distributions of SMF specimen at beam ends: (a) near north 

side of center column and (b) near south side of center column ........................................... 55

Figure 4.30 Three stages of load transfer: (a) arching action, (b) plastic hinge formation, and (c) 

catenary action (Fs: force in steel, Fc: force in concrete, Fc,s: force in concrete and 

steel) ...................................................................................................................................... 57

Figure 5.1 Example finite element models of No. 9 reinforcing bar: (a) beam element with 8 in 

(203 mm) mesh size, (b) beam element with 4 in (102 mm) mesh size and (c) beam 

element with 2 in (51 mm) mesh size .................................................................................... 60

Figure 5.2 (a) Input stress-strain curve and (b) engineering stress-strain curves for a No. 9 

reinforcing bar obtained from a standard tensile test and from finite element 

analyses using different sizes of beam elements ................................................................... 61

Figure 5.3 (a) Input stress-strain curves and (b) engineering stress-strain curves for a No. 9 

reinforcing bar obtained from a standard tensile test and from finite element 

analyses using different sizes of beam elements ................................................................... 61

Figure 5.4 Compressive stress-strain curves of concrete with and without confinement ........................ 62

Figure 5.5 Compressive stress-strain relationship of unconfined concrete .............................................. 64

Figure 5.6 Tensile stress-strain relationship of concrete .......................................................................... 65

Figure 5.7 Comparison of calculated and observed response (Vecchio et al. 1986) ............................... 66

Figure 5.8 Bond stress distribution (a) with full anchorage and (b) without full anchorage ................... 68

Figure 5.9 Bond-slip effects of reinforcement fiber at critical beam elements ........................................ 68

Figure 5.10 Overview of detailed model of (a) IMF and (b) SMF specimen ........................................... 70

Figure 5.11 Enlarged views of portions of the detailed model ................................................................. 71

Figure 5.12 Overview of reduced model of (a) IMF and (b) SMF specimens .......................................... 72

Figure 5.13 Detailed view of beam-column joint in reduced model of IMF specimen ............................ 73

Figure 5.14 Deflected shape of IMF specimen: (a) detailed model at a center column vertical 

displacement of 42.2 in (1072 mm) and (b) reduced model at a center column 

vertical displacement of 42.8 in (1087 mm) (contours represent vertical 

displacements in inches) ........................................................................................................ 74

Figure 5.15 Failure mode of IMF detailed model (contours represent plastic strains) ............................. 74

Figure 5.16 Concrete damage index contours compared with observed crack patterns at center 

column displacement of (a) 24 in (610 mm) and (b) 42 in (1067 mm) for IMF 

specimen (contours represent damage index: 0 = no damage, 1 = complete damage) .......... 75

Figure 5.17 (a) Applied vertical load and (b) horizontal displacement of end column at beam 

mid-height versus vertical displacement of center column for IMF specimen ...................... 76

Figure 5.18 Axial stresses in reinforcing bars along a beam segment near mid-span at center 

column displacements of (a) 4.6 in (117 mm) and (b) 42 in (1067 mm) for IMF 

specimen (contours represent stress in psi) ........................................................................... 77

Figure 5.19 Beam axial force versus vertical displacement of center column for IMF specimen ............ 77

xi 
 

Figure 5.20 Minimum principal stress contours of concrete at a center column displacement of 

4.6 in (117 mm) for IMF specimen (Contours represent stress in psi) .................................. 78

Figure 5.21 Deflected shape of SMF specimen: (a) detailed model at a center column vertical 

displacement of 48.2 in (1224 mm) and (b) reduced model at a center column 

vertical displacement of 47.0 in (1194 mm) (Contours represent vertical 

displacements in inches) ........................................................................................................ 79

Figure 5.22 Failure mode of the SMF detailed model (Contours represent plastic strains) ...................... 79

Figure 5.23 Concrete damage index contours compared with observed crack patterns at center 

column displacement of (a) 24.5 in (622 mm) and (b) 48.2 in (1224 mm) for SMF 

specimen (contours represent damage index: 0 = no damage, 1 = complete damage) .......... 80

Figure 5.24 (a) Vertical load, (b) horizontal displacement of south column at beam mid-height 

and (c) horizontal displacement of north column at beam mid-height versus center 

column displacement for SMF specimen .............................................................................. 81

Figure 5.25 Axial stresses in reinforcing bars along a beam segment near mid-span beam at 

center column displacement of (a) 4.4 in (112 mm) and (b) 48 in (1219 mm) for 

SMF specimen (Contours represent stress in psi) .................................................................. 82

Figure 5.26 Beam axial force versus vertical displacement of center column for SMF specimen ........... 82

Figure 5.27 Minimum principal stress contours of concrete at a center column displacement of 

4.4 in (112 mm) for SMF specimen (Contours represent stress in psi) ................................. 83

 

xii 
xiii 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Design data ................................................................................................................................ 7

Table 2.2 Seismic design parameters for SDC C and D buildings ............................................................ 8

Table 2.3 Summary of design seismic and wind forces ............................................................................. 8

Table 3.1 Average compressive and tensile strengths of 6x12 concrete cylinders at the time of 

testing ...................................................................................................................................... 12

Table 3.2 Average mechanical properties of reinforcing bars ................................................................. 12

Table 3.3 Summary of instrumentation .................................................................................................... 22

Table 4.1 Comparison of rotation capacities of IMF and SMF beam-column joints based on 

seismic data and monotonic column displacement .................................................................. 58

Table 5.1 Features of two material models used for concrete .................................................................. 63

Table 5.2 Coefficient n of concrete cutoff strain from CEB-FIP model code (CEB 1991) ..................... 63

Table 5.3 Tensile fracture energy from CEB-FIP model code (CEB 1991) ............................................ 65

Table 5.4 Average bond strengths as a function of steel stress (Lowes et al. 2003) ................................ 67
 

This page intentionally left blank. 
 

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Acronyms 

ACI American Concrete Institute 

ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers 

DoD U.S. Department of Defense 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

GSA U.S. General Services Administration 

IBC International Building Code 

ICC International Code Council 

IMF Intermediate Moment Frame 

SDC Seismic Design Category 

SMF Special Moment Frame 

UFC Unified Facilities Criteria 

U.S. United States 

Unit Abbreviations 

ft foot 

in inch 

kip 1000 lbf 

kN kilonewton 

kPa kilopascal 

ksi kip per square inch 

lbf pound-force 

m meter 

mm millimeter 

MPa megapascal 

psf pound-force per square foot 

psi pound-force per square inch 

s second 

xv 
 

This page intentionally left blank. 
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In recent years, the engineering community has paid greater attention to the vulnerability of 

multistory buildings to disproportionate collapse, which is a structural collapse that is 

disproportionate to the initiating event. Disproportionate collapse may be initiated by a variety of 

abnormal loading conditions, such as blast, uncontrolled fire, or vehicle impact. To enhance 

structural performance under such abnormal loading conditions, the 2009 version of the 

International Building Code introduced structural integrity requirements for design of multistory 

buildings. In addition, both the U.S. Department of Defense and the General Services 

Administration stipulate mandatory requirements for design of multistory buildings to resist 

disproportionate collapse. The American Society of Civil Engineers Standard 7 (ASCE 7) 

provides general guidelines to be considered for design of buildings to minimize the risk of 

disproportionate collapse. In general, these documents provide guidance to prevent spreading of 

an initial local failure progressively to cause total collapse or collapse of a disproportionately 

large part of a building. ASCE 7 recommends that resistance to disproportionate collapse be 

accomplished either implicitly, by providing minimum levels of strength, continuity, and 

ductility; or explicitly, by (1) providing sufficient strength to structural members that are critical 

to global stability or (2) providing alternate load paths so that local damage is absorbed and 

major collapse is averted. For concrete structures, the American Concrete Institute Building 

Code 318 (ACI 318) requires minimum continuity reinforcement to enhance overall structural 

integrity. At present these guidelines and code requirements are mainly based on engineering 

experience with limited experimental basis. 

This report presents an experimental and computational study of two reinforced concrete beamcolumn assemblies, each comprising three columns and two beams. The two beam-column 

assemblies represent portions of the structural framing system of two ten-story concrete momentframe buildings. One building was designed for Seismic Design Category C (SDC C) and the 

other for Seismic Design Category D (SDC D). The beam-column assemblies were taken from 

the exterior moment resisting frames of these buildings, designed in accordance with the 

requirements in ACI 318. The moment resisting frames of the SDC C and SDC D buildings 

employed intermediate moment frames (IMFs) and special moment frames SMFs), respectively. 

The assemblies were subjected to monotonically increasing vertical displacement of the 

unsupported center column to observe their behavior under a simulated column removal 

scenario, including the development of catenary action in the beams. The vertical displacement 

of the center column was increased until the vertical load-carrying capacity of each assembly 

was depleted. 

The overall behavior of each beam-column assembly was analyzed using two levels of modeling 

complexity: (1) detailed models with a large number of elements: solid elements to represent the 

concrete and beam elements to represent the reinforcement, and (2) reduced models with a 

limited number of elements: beam elements to represent the beams and columns, and rigid links 

connected by nonlinear rotational springs to represent the beam-column joints. The analyses 

xvii 
xviii 

conducted using these models provided insight into the behavior and failure modes of the joints 

and the development of catenary action in the beams. 

Based on the study reported herein, the following conclusions are reached.

1. For both the IMF and SMF assemblies, the behavior of the assemblies was dominated by 

flexure in the early stages of the response. With increased vertical displacement of the 

center column, resistance was provided through the development of compressive 

diagonal axial forces, or “arching action,” due to the restraint on axial elongation of the 

beams by the end columns. With further increase in the vertical displacement, tensile 

axial forces developed in the beams and the behavior was dominated by catenary action. 

2. The failure of both the IMF and SMF assemblies was characterized by: (1) crushing of 

concrete at the top of the beam section near the center column, (2) development of major 

flexural cracks (deepening and widening), and (3) fracture of one of the bottom 

reinforcing bars at a major crack opening near the center column. 

3. The test results show that the rotational capacities of both the IMF and SMF beam-tocolumn joints under monotonic column displacement are about seven to eight times as 

large as those based on seismic test data. The rotations at peak load in this study were 

about 0.185 rad and 0.200 rad for the IMF and SMF assemblies, respectively, whereas the 

rotational capacities of these connections based on seismic testing data are approximately 

0.026 rad and 0.025 rad, respectively. 

4. This study indicates generally good agreement between the experimental and the 

computational results. Both the detailed and reduced models were capable of capturing 

the primary response characteristics and failure modes of the test specimens. 

This study shows that analysis using reduced models consisting of beam and spring elements can 

accurately predict the response characteristics of both the IMF and SMF beam-column 

assemblies. Furthermore, the reduced models developed in this study will be valuable in the 

analysis of complete structural systems for assessing the reserve capacity and robustness of 

building structures. 
 

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND 

In recent years, the engineering community has paid greater attention to the vulnerability of 

multistory buildings to disproportionate collapse, which could pose a substantial hazard to 

human life. Disproportionate collapse is a structural collapse in which the final extent of damage 

is disproportionate to the cause. Disproportionate collapse may be initiated by a variety of 

abnormal loading conditions, such as blast, vehicle impact, and uncontrolled fire. To enhance 

structural performance under such abnormal loading conditions, the 2009 version of the 

International Building Code (ICC 2009) introduced structural integrity requirements for design 

of multistory buildings assigned to specific occupancy categories, including buildings with 

occupancy of greater than 300, schools, hospitals, police stations and aviation control towers. In 

addition, both the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD 2009) and the General Services 

Administration (GSA 2003) stipulate mandatory requirements for design of multistory buildings 

to resist disproportionate collapse. The American Society of Civil Engineers Standard 7 (ASCE 

2010) provides general guidelines for design of buildings to minimize the risk of 

disproportionate collapse. For concrete building structures, the American Concrete Institute 

Building Code 318 (ACI 2008) requires minimum continuity reinforcement to enhance overall 

structural integrity. Currently, these guidelines and code requirements are based mainly on 

engineering experience with limited experimental basis. 

In general, these documents provide guidance to prevent progressive spreading of an initial local 

failure to cause total collapse or collapse of a disproportionately large part of a building. The 

ASCE 7 Standard recommends that resistance to disproportionate collapse be accomplished 

either implicitly, by providing minimum levels of strength, continuity, and ductility; or 

explicitly, by (1) providing sufficient strength to structural members that are critical to global 

stability or (2) providing alternate load paths so that local damage is absorbed and major collapse 

is averted through adequate connections and ties. In this latter approach, the structural integrity is 

assessed by analysis to ascertain whether alternate load paths exist around failed structural 

members. The analysis must demonstrate the adequacy of undamaged members to redistribute 

the loads previously carried by the damaged member(s). In this regard, physical tests are 

indispensible to validate the analytical models used to represent the nonlinear, large-deformation 

behavior associated with the transfer of forces through structural members and their connections. 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is carrying out a comprehensive 

analytical and experimental research program to study the vulnerability of multistory building 

structures to disproportionate collapse and to develop guidance to reduce the risk of 

disproportionate collapse. As part of this research, prototype ten-story buildings have been 

designed with various structural systems, including steel frame, cast-in-place concrete frame, and 

precast concrete frame buildings. Beam-column assemblies representing portions of these 

structural systems have been tested at full scale under simulated column removal. In addition to 

1 
providing insight into the behavior and failure modes of these structural systems under column 

removal scenarios, an important objective of these tests was to provide experimental data for 

validation of finite element-based modeling approaches for collapse analysis. Sadek et al. (2010) 

describe testing and analysis of steel beam-column assemblies with moment connections, while 

this report focuses on cast-in-place concrete beam-column assemblies. Reduced models 

developed as part of this research are being incorporated into three-dimensional models of the 

prototype ten-story buildings, which will be used to assess the vulnerability of different structural 

systems to disproportionate collapse. 

1.2 SCOPE OF STUDY 

The study presented herein includes full-scale testing and finite-element based analysis of two 

reinforced concrete beam-column assemblies. One is taken from a ten-story building designed 

for Seismic Design Category C (SDC C) and the other is taken from a ten-story building 

designed for Seismic Design Category D (SDC D). The design of these two prototype buildings 

was based on the ACI 318 building code (ACI 2002). The building designed for SDC C 

employed intermediate moment frames (IMFs) for the lateral force resisting system, and the 

building designed for SDC D employed special moment frames (SMFs). Each beam-column 

assembly consisted of three columns and two beam spans taken from the exterior lateral load 

resisting frames of the prototype buildings. The columns spanned from mid-height of the second 

story to mid-height of the third story, while the beams connected the three columns at the third 

floor level. Both assemblies were subjected to monotonically increasing downward displacement 

of the unsupported center column, simulating a column removal scenario. Each test was 

terminated upon reaching the collapse mechanism of the assembly. Both detailed and reduced 

finite element models of the test specimens were developed. The instrumentation plan and the 

testing were guided by pre-test predictions of the detailed model. The tests and associated 

computational models help fill the gap in defining the response characteristics of the momentresisting beam-column joints under collapse scenarios. 

1.3 REPORT OUTLINE 

This report describes the test program and the modeling approaches used in this study and 

presents and compares the experimental and computational results for the two beam-column 

assemblies. Chapter 2 describes the design of the two ten-story prototype reinforced-concrete 

buildings. The dimensions and reinforcing details of the test specimens were taken directly from 

the prototype buildings. Chapter 3 presents the test setup for both specimens, including the test 

configuration, the loading apparatus and sequence, and the instrumentation used. Chapter 4 

summarizes the test results, including the observed behavior and failure modes of each specimen, 

and presents the measured responses, including displacements, rotations, strains, and loads. 

Chapter 5 describes both detailed and reduced finite element models used in the analysis of the 

test specimens and presents the results of these analyses, including validation of the models 

against experimental results. Chapter 6 presents a summary and conclusions of the report. 

2 
3 

1.4 REFERENCES 

American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2002). “Building code requirements for structural concrete.”

ACI 318-02, Farmington Hills, MI. 

American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2008). “Building code requirements for structural concrete.”

ACI 318-08, Farmington Hills, MI. 

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). (2010). “Minimum design loads for buildings and 

other structures.” ASCE/SEI 7-10, Reston, VA 

Department of Defense, (DOD). (2009). “Design of buildings to resist progressive collapse.” 

Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4-023-03, Washington, D.C. 

General Services Administration (GSA). (2003). “Progressive collapse analysis design 

guidelines for new federal office buildings and major modernization projects.” Washington, 

DC. 

International Code Council (ICC). (2009). International Building Code, Falls Church, VA. 

Sadek, F., Main, J.A., Lew, H.S., Robert, S.D., Chiarito, V.P., and El-Tawil, S. (2010). “An 

experimental and computational study of steel moment connections under a column removal 

scenario.” NIST TN 1669, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 
 

This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 2

DESCRIPTION OF PROTOTYPE BUILDING DESIGNS

2.1 PROTOTYPE BUILDING DESIGNS 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), working with a panel of practicing 

structural engineers, developed the overall configuration and dimensions of two ten-story 

prototype reinforced concrete buildings for office occupancy. A rectangular plan was chosen for 

the buildings with plan dimensions of 100 ft × 150 ft (30.5 m × 45.7 m). To examine the 

effectiveness of seismic design and detailing in resisting disproportionate collapse, one building 

was designed for Seismic Design Category (SDC) C and the other for SDC D. The SDC C 

building was designed for Atlanta, Georgia and used intermediate moment frames (IMFs) for the 

lateral force resisting system, while the SDC D building was designed for Seattle, Washington 

and used special moment frames (SMFs) for the lateral force resisting system. Figures 2.1 and 

2.2 show the plan layouts of the SDC C and SDC D buildings, respectively. The story heights of 

the buildings are shown in Figure 2.3. The detailed design of the buildings was carried out by a 

consulting engineering firm (Shen and Ghosh 2006). 

The prototype buildings were designed in accordance with the following code and standards: 

• International Code Council (ICC), 2003 International Building Code (ICC 2003) 

• American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Standard 7-02, Minimum Design Loads for 

Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 2002) 

• American Concrete Institute (ACI), Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 

318-02) and Commentary (ACI 318R-02) (ACI 2002) 

Superimposed dead loads, live loads, wind forces, and earthquake forces were determined in 

accordance with ASCE 7-02 (ASCE 2002). The reduction of live loads was based on Section 

1607.9.1 of the IBC (ICC 2003). The following superimposed dead loads and live loads were 

used in the design of both buildings, assuming Category II occupancy (see ASCE 7-02 

Table 1-1): 

• Superimposed roof dead load: 10 psf (0.48 kN/m2

) 

• Superimposed floor dead load: 30 psf (1.44 kN/m2) 

• Roof live load: 25 psf (1.20 kN/m2) 

• Floor live load: 100 psf (4.79 kN/m2

) 

Normal weight concrete with a specific weight of 150 lbf/ft3

, (23.6 kN/m3) and a nominal 

compressive strength of 4000 psi (27.6 MPa) and ASTM 615-Grade 60 reinforcing bars with a 

minimum specified yield strength of fy = 60 ksi (414 MPa) were used for all structural members. 

A 10 in (254 mm) thick normal-weight concrete slab was used at all floor levels in both 

5
buildings. The slab thickness was selected on the basis of Table 9.5(c) in ACI 318-02 (ACI 

2002) for a two-way slab with edge beams. 

1 2 3 4 5 6

A

B

C

D

E

F

30’ 30’ 30’ 30’ 30’

20’ 20’ 20’ 20’ 20’

N

Col. 28”x28”

(typ.)

Beam 34”x30”

(typ.)

Beam 34”x30”

(typ.)

Beam 28”x20”

(typ.)

Beam 28”x20”

(typ.)

Col. 34”x34”

(typ.)

Beam 28”x20”

(typ.)

Slab Thickness

=10”

Col. 28”x28”

(typ.)

Beam 28”x20”

(typ.)

Col. 28”x28”

(typ.)

 Figure 2.1 Plan layout and member sizes of SDC C Building 

1 2 3 4 5 6

A

B

C

D

E

F

30’ 30’ 30’ 30’ 30’

20’20’ 20’20’20’

Col. 34”x34”

(typ.)

Beam 34”x26”

(typ.)

Beam 34”x26”

(typ.)

Beam 38”x32”

(typ.)

Beam 38”x32”

(typ.)

Col. 38”x38”

(typ.)

Slab Thickness

=10”

Beam 34”x26”

(typ.)

Beam 34”x26”

(typ.)

Col. 34”x34”

(typ.)

Col. 38”x38”

(typ.)

N

 Figure 2.2 Plan layout and member sizes of SDC D Building 

6 
 Figure 2.3 Elevation of SDC C Building and SDC D Building 

The design was carried out for the combined effects of gravity and lateral loads according to 

ASCE 7-02 (ASCE 2002). The equivalent lateral force procedure of ASCE 7-02, Section 9.5.5 

was used to compute the seismic base shear, and the design procedure outlined in Section 6.5.3 

was used to determine the wind forces on the building in both principal directions. The prototype 

buildings are classified as Seismic Use Group I based on the Occupancy Category of II. The 

design assumed a wind importance factor Iw = 1.0, a wind exposure category B (suburban 

terrain), an earthquake importance factor IE = 1.0, and Site Class D soil (stiff soil). The design 

data used for analysis of the two prototype buildings are listed in Table 2.1, in which Ss and S1

are the mapped maximum considered earthquake spectral acceleration at short period and at a 

period of 1 s, respectively, R is the response modification coefficient, and Cd is the deflection 

amplification factor. 

A summary of seismic design parameters for the two buildings is shown in Table 2.2, in which 

SDS and SD1 are the design spectral response accelerations at short periods and at a period of 1 s, 

respectively, and CS is the seismic response coefficient. A summary of the design seismic and 

wind forces is shown in Table 2.3. For both the SDC C (Atlanta, GA) and SDC D (Seattle, WA) 

buildings, the design was controlled by the load combination of gravity and seismic loads. 

 Table 2.1 Design data 

Location 

Wind Seismic 

Speed, mph (m/s) Exposure IW SS, g S1, g Site Class IE R Cd

Atlanta, GA 90 (40) B 1.0 0.276 0.117 D 1.0 5 4.5 

Seattle, WA 85 (38) B 1.0 1.580 0.549 D 1.0 8 5.5 

7 
 Table 2.2 Seismic design parameters for SDC C and D buildings 

Building Approx. Period, 

Ta s

SDS 

g 

SD1

g 

Cs

Seismic Weight, W 

kip (kN)

Design Base Shear, V 

kip (kN)

SDC C − 1.216 − 0.291 − 0.182 − 0.0299 32 690 (145 400) − 978 (4350) 

SDC D − 1.216 − 1.053 − 0.549 − 0.0564 36 600 (162 800) − 2065 (9186) 

 Table 2.3 Summary of design seismic and wind forces 

Building Location Story Seismic Force at Each Floor Level

kip (kN)

Wind Force at Each Floor Level

kip (kN)

E-W N-S 

SDC C Atlanta, GA 

10 179 (796) 11 (50) 18 (80) 

9 180 (801) 22 (100) 36 (160) 

8 154 (685) 22 (100) 36 (160) 

7 130 (578) 22 (100) 35 (155) 

6 106 (472) 21 (95) 34 (150) 

5 84 (374) 20 (90) 33 (145) 

4 63 (280) 20 (90) 31 (140) 

3 44 (196) 19 (85) 30 (135) 

2 26 (116) 18 (80) 28 (125) 

1 12 (53) 17 (75) 27 (120) 

∑ 978 (4350) 194 (863) 307 (1366) 

SDC D Seattle, WA 

10 377 (1677) 10 (44) 16 (71) 

9 381 (1695) 20 (89) 32 (142) 

8 326 (1450) 20 (89) 32 (142) 

7 274 (1219) 20 (89) 31 (138) 

6 224 (996) 19 (85) 30 (133) 

5 177 (787) 18 (80) 29 (129) 

4 133 (592) 18 (80) 28 (125) 

3 92 (409) 17 (76) 27 (120) 

2 56 (249) 16 (71) 25 (111) 

1 26 (116) 15 (67) 24 (107) 

∑ 2066 (9190) 173 (770) 274 (1219) 

2.2 DESIGN OF MOMENT RESISTING FRAMES 

Design of the moment-resisting frames for the buildings was based on three-dimensional 

analyses of the buildings using a commercially available computer program for linear elastic 

analysis. Fixed-base connections were assumed at the structure-foundation interface. The 

8 
9 

designs of both IMFs and SMFs followed the requirements of the ACI 318-02 code (ACI 2002). 

Specifically, the flexural members of IMFs met the requirements of Sections 21.2 and 21.12, 

whereas the flexural members of SMFs satisfied the requirements of Sections 21.2 through 21.5. 

The flexural reinforcement satisfied the limits prescribed in Section 10.3.5 of ACI 318-02 for 

maximum reinforcement and Section 10.5.1 for minimum reinforcement, as well as Sections 

3.3.2 and 7.6.1 (minimum spacing for concrete placement), Section 7.7.1 (minimum cover for 

protection of reinforcement), and Section 10.6.4 (maximum spacing for control of flexural 

cracking). 

The columns in the IMFs satisfied the requirements of Section 21.12.3 and the columns in SMFs 

satisfied Section 21.4.5 of ACI 318-02. Transverse reinforcement consisted of rectangular hoops, 

ties, and crossties. 

2.3 REFERENCES 

American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2002). “Building code requirements for structural concrete 

and commentary.” ACI 318-02 and ACI 318R-02, Farmington Hills, MI. 

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). (2002). “Minimum design loads for buildings and 

other structures.” SEI/ASCE 7-02, Reston, VA. 

International Code Council (ICC). (2003). International Building Code, Falls Church, VA. 

Shen, Q., and Ghosh, S. K. (2006). Assessing ability of seismic structural systems to withstand 

progressive collapse: Design of reinforced concrete frame buildings. Report submitted to the 

Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

Gaithersburg, MD. 
 

This page intentionally left blank
 

Chapter 3

TEST PROGRAM

3.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter describes the overall test program, which includes the design of full-scale test 

specimens, the test setup including test apparatus and instrumentation, and the test procedure. 

The primary objectives of these tests are to (1) characterize the response of the beam-column 

assemblies under a column removal scenario, including the capacity of the beams and the beamto-column joints to carry loads through catenary action, and (2) provide experimental data for 

validation of computational models to be used in assessing the robustness of structural systems. 

The test specimens were beam-column assemblies from the third-floor framing system of the 

ten-story buildings described in Chapter 2. Thus, the specimen from the SDC C building was 

part of an intermediate moment frame (IMF), while the specimen from the SDC D building was 

part of a special moment frame (SMF). Throughout the remainder of this report, these two 

specimens will be referred to as the IMF specimen and the SMF specimen, respectively. 

Section 3.2 presents in detail the description of the test specimens, while Section 3.3 describes 

the test setup for both specimens including boundary conditions, test apparatus, and loading 

sequence. Section 3.4 presents the instrumentation plan for each of the two tests. 

3.2 TEST SPECIMENS 

Figures 3.1 and 3.2 show member cross section and beam-to-column joint details of the IMF 

specimen and the SMF specimen, respectively. All beams and columns were designed with 

concrete having a nominal compressive strength of 4000 psi (27.6 MPa) with ASTM A706-

Grade 60 reinforcing bars with a minimum specified yield strength of fy = 60 ksi (413.7 MPa). 

Table 3.1 shows the average compressive and tensile strengths of the concrete measured at the 

time of testing using 6×12 cylinders, and Table 3.2 shows mean values of the measured 

mechanical properties of the reinforcing bars used to fabricate the specimens. As indicated in 

Figures 3.1 and 3.2, top and bottom longitudinal reinforcing bars in the beams were spliced with 

threaded couplers located at mid-span to avoid premature lap splice failure (see Figure 3.3). All 

beam longitudinal bars were anchored at the exterior beam-column joints by means of threaded 

mechanical anchorage devices to simulate continuity of the longitudinal bars. These anchorage 

devices were supplemented with 3⁄4 in (19 mm) thick steel plates (see Figure 3.4). The concrete 

adjacent to the devices was confined with spirals made with Grade 40 plain wire. 

The footings for the end columns were cast prior to casting of the beams and columns (see 

Figure 3.5). The footings for both specimens were 88 in (2235 mm) long in the direction of the 

beam, 64 in (1626 mm) wide and 42 in (1067 mm) high. The longitudinal bars in the columns 

were fully embedded in the footings with 24 in (610 mm) long 90o hooks placed near the bottom 

of the footings (see Figures 3.1 and 3.2). Each footing was clamped down to the strong floor 

using ten 11⁄4 in (32 mm) post tensioning bars. Each bar was post tensioned to 150 kip (667 kN), 

11 
12 

for a total clamping force of 1500 kip (6670 kN) on each footing. To restrain the inward 

movement of the end columns, a concrete slab with a 28 in × 10 in (711 mm × 254 mm) cross 

section was cast between the two footings as a buttress. It was reinforced with six Grade 60 #8 

bars in the longitudinal direction and hoops made with Grade 60 #4 bars in the transverse 

direction spaced at 6 in (152 mm) on center. Additional confinement was provided by spirals at 

the ends of the slab in contact with the footings (see Figure 3.6). 

Since the SMF specimen was tested first and experienced some slippage at the north footing (see 

Section 4.3.3), the footings for the IMF specimen were cast against the reaction walls to 

minimize their movement during testing. The north footing was further restrained with two steel 

reaction blocks that were butted against the footing using threaded spacers (see Figure 3.7). The 

possible movement between the anchor bolts used to attach these blocks to the strong floor and 

the holes in the strong floor was eliminated by shimming before post-tensioning the anchor bolts. 

Table 3.1 Average compressive and tensile strengths of 6x12 concrete cylinders at the time of testing 

Specimen 

Compressive Strength 

psi (MPa) 

Split-Cylinder Tensile Strength

psi (MPa) 

Footings Beams and Columns Beams and Columns 

IMF 5700 (39) 4700 (32) 450 (3.1) 

SMF 5300 (37) 5200 (36) 420 (2.9) 

 Table 3.2 Average mechanical properties of reinforcing bars 

Heat Bar Size Yield Strength, fy

ksi (MPa) 

Ultimate Strength, fu

ksi (MPa) Rupture Strain†

A1 8 69 (476) 94 (648) 21 % 

B2 9 67 (462) 93 (641) 18 % 

C3 9 70 (483) 100 (690) 17 % 

D4 10 73 (503) 106 (731) 16 % 

E5 4 76 (524)* 103 (710) 14 % 

F6 4 79 (545)* 98 (676) 15 % 

* 0.2 % offset yield strength 

†

 Gage length: 8 in (203 mm) 

1 Top bars in beam of IMF specimen and all beam reinforcement in SMF specimen 

2 Bottom bars in beam of IMF specimen 

3 Vertical bars in columns of IMF specimen 

4 Vertical bars in columns of SMF specimen 

5 Ties and stirrups in IMF specimen 

6 Ties and stirrups in SMF specimen 
 Figure 3.1 Details of IMF specimen

13 
 Figure 3.2 Details of SMF specimen

14 
 

 Figure 3.3 Threaded mechanical couplers for splicing longitudinal bars of beams 

 Figure 3.4 Anchorage of beam longitudinal reinforcement 

15 
 Figure 3.5 Reinforcing cage for beams and columns (SMF specimen) 

 Figure 3.6 Reinforcement in buttressing slab 

16 
 Figure 3.7 Steel blocks used to prevent footing from sliding 

3.3 TEST SETUP 

Figure 3.8 shows a photograph of the SMF specimen. The test setup for the IMF specimen was 

essentially the same as that of the SMF specimen. A schematic view of the test setup for both the 

IMF specimen and the SMF specimen is shown in Figure 3.9. For each specimen, the tops of the 

two end columns were restrained from horizontal movement by a two-roller fixture. One roller 

was placed on the interior (beam side) face of the column and the other on the exterior face (see 

Figure 3.10). These rollers reacted against 2 in (51 mm) thick steel plates which were cemented 

with hydrostone to the interior and exterior faces of the column. Recesses with a depth of 1⁄2 in 

(13 mm) were formed on the column faces to accommodate these plates and improve their 

connection to the concrete. The plates that fitted in these recesses transferred forces from the 

rollers to the columns. The rollers were suspended by 1⁄2 in (13 mm) steel rods from the tops of 

the columns. Horizontal movement of the steel plates on the exterior face of each column was 

restrained by four 11⁄4 in (32 mm) post-tensioning bars which were anchored to a reinforced 

concrete block that was clamped to the reaction wall by post-tensioning bars with a total 

clamping force of 600 kip (2669 kN). The tops of the columns were allowed to move in the 

vertical direction.

As shown in Figure 3.9, four 120 kip (534 kN) hydraulic rams with a 20 in (508 mm) stroke 

were placed below the strong floor of the laboratory to apply load at the top of the center 

column. Figure 3.11 shows a photograph of the ram arrangement below the strong floor. The 

load was transferred to the specimen using four 22 ft (6.6 m) long, 11⁄4 in (31.6 mm) diameter 

17 
18 

post-tensioning rods. These rods were connected to two 6 ft (1.8 m) long 10 in × 4 in × 1⁄2 in 

(254 mm × 102 mm × 12.7 mm) hollow structural section (HSS) rectangular tubes resting on a 

34 in × 34 in × 2 in (864 mm × 864 mm × 51 mm) steel plate that transferred the load to the top 

of the center column. The weight of the rams, rods, tubes, and plates used to load to the 

specimens was approximately 2500 lbf (11 120 N). The load was applied under displacement 

control at a rate of approximately 1 in/min (25 mm/min). 

Use of the four hydraulic rams to apply the load enabled control of any possible in-plane rotation 

of the center column in the advanced stages of loading. Pulling down the beam with the rams 

below the strong floor, rather than pushing it from a support above, minimized the tendency for 

lateral movement of the beam. Out-of-plane movement of the specimen was also restrained by 

four steel channels fixed to the reaction wall as seen in Figure 3.8.

Vertical downward displacement of the center column was applied in small increments of 2.5 in 

to 3 in (64 mm to 76 mm). After each increment in displacement, the specimen and the 

instrumentation were inspected, cracks were marked, and photographs were taken. The rams 

were reset when the stroke of the rams reached about 18 in to 20 in (457 mm to 508 mm). The 

displacement of the center column was increased until one or more of the longitudinal 

reinforcing bars in the beams fractured. 

 Figure 3.8 SMF specimen 

3.4 INSTRUMENTATION 

Seven types of measurements were taken for each specimen. The types of instruments used are 

summarized in Table 3.3. Figure 3.12 shows the layout of the linear variable differential 

transformers (LVDTs), load cells, position transducers, and inclinometers. The locations of the 

Whittemore gage targets, Optotrak targets, and strain gages are presented in Chapter 4 together 

with the test results. 
42 in

(1067mm)

4 x Hydraulic Rams

Load Cells

Test Floor

Concrete BlockFixed to the Reaction Wall

Steel Roller

Coupler

Post‐tensioning rods

HSS Tubes

Steel Plate

Encoders

LVDT

88 in (2235 mm)

Footing 

S 

20 ft (6096 mm) 20 ft ( 6096 mm)

 Figure 3.9 Test configuration for IMF and SMF specimens 

19 
 

 Figure 3.10 Support arrangement near column top 

 Figure 3.11 Hydraulic rams arrangement below the strong floor 

20 
 Figure 3.12 Instrument layouts (INC-inclinometer, ENC-position transducer, LC-load cell, other sensors are LV

21 
 

 Table 3.3 Summary of instrumentation 

Instrument Type Location Measurement 

LVDT North & south columns Horizontal displacement 

(column top and beam mid-height) 

LVDT North & south footings Vertical displacement 

(movement of footing) 

Load cell North & south columns Horizontal load (reaction at top) 

Load cell Center column Vertical load (applied load) 

Position transducer Beams & center column Vertical displacement 

(beam deflections) 

Position transducer Beams Horizontal displacement 

(length change) 

Inclinometers Beam ends Rotation 

Whittemore gages* Beam-column joints Horizontal strain 

Optotrak** Beam-column joints Horizontal strain 

Strain gages Beam & column reinforcing bars Axial strain of reinforcement 

Dial gages Base of footing Horizontal displacement 

*Used only for the SMF specimen

**Electronic coordinate measurement device, used only for the IMF specimen

The uncertainty in the measured values of load, deflection, surface deformation, rotation, and 

strain was within ± 1 %. In addition to these digital measurements, digital cameras were used to 

capture the deformed shape of the specimens, surface cracks of concrete, and failure of 

components.

3.4.1 Displacement Transducers (Position transducers and LVDTs) 

Based on pre-test analysis of the test specimen, the center column was expected to undergo large 

displacements of over 40 in (1000 mm) prior to final failure. To accommodate such large 

displacements, two spring-loaded string-type position transducers having a 6 ft (1.8 m) range and 

a 0.004 in (0.1 mm) accuracy were used to measure the vertical displacement of the center 

column. An additional six position transducers were used to measure the vertical displacement at 

different locations along the beam spans, and two position transducers were used to measure the 

change in length of the beam spans. Eight LVDTs having an accuracy of 0.005 in (0.127 mm) 

were used to measure horizontal displacements of the end columns and vertical displacements of 

the footings. 

3.4.2 Inclinometers 

To measure the rotation of the beam ends, four digital inclinometers were attached to the tops of 

the beams, about 30 in (760 mm) away from the column faces. The locations of the four 

inclinometers are shown in Figure 3.12, designated as SS INC, SM INC, NM INC, and NN INC. 

22 
23 

3.4.3 Surface Deformation Measurement Devices 

To document the formation of concrete cracks, surface deformations were measured in the beamcolumn joint region using an electronic coordinate measurement device (Optotrak) for the IMF 

specimen and an electronic Whittemore gage device for the SMF specimen. The locations of the 

Optotrak target points are shown in Figure 4.9(a) and the locations of the Whittemore gage 

targets are shown in Figure 4.23(a). A photograph of the Optotrak target points in the beamcolumn joint region of the IMF specimen is shown in Figure 3.13. A change in the distance 

between any two target points is determined by measuring the coordinates of the targets.

3.4.4 Strain Gages 

Uniaxial strain gauges were attached to the surface of reinforcing bars in beams and columns. 

The locations of strain gages are shown in Figures 4.9 and 4.23 for the IMF specimen and the 

SMF specimen, respectively. The primary purpose of the strain measurements was to observe 

experimentally the development of axial forces and bending moments in the beams and columns, 

including the onset of catenary action in the beams. 

 Figure 3.13 Optotrak target points for IMF specimen 
 

This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 4

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

4.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter presents the test results of both the IMF and SMF specimens, described in Chapter 

3. The test results include the observed behavior and failure modes of each specimen, along with 

the primary response parameters of the test specimens measured during the experiment. Such 

measurements include vertical and horizontal deflections of beams and columns, rotations at 

beam ends, and strains (reinforcing bars and concrete). The response parameters also include the 

vertical load applied by the hydraulic rams to pull down the center column, measured using load 

cells. Both the observed behavior and the measured response provide insights into the behavior 

of the specimens prior to and during the failure process. Sections 4.2 and 4.3 provide 

experimental results obtained from the IMF and SMF specimens, respectively, while Section 4.4 

presents a summary and discussion of the test results.

4.2 IMF SPECIMEN 

4.2.1 Observed Behavior and Failure Modes 

Under monotonic vertical displacement of the center column, the IMF specimen experienced 

large deflections and rotations at the ends of the beams prior to failure (Figure 4.1). The failure 

was characterized by the following sequence (see Figure 4.2): (1) crushing and spalling of 

concrete at the top of the beams near the center column, (2) development of major flexural 

cracks (deepening and widening), and (3) fracture of one of the bottom reinforcing bars at a 

major crack opening near the center column. A south beam-bottom reinforcing bar near the 

center column first fractured at a vertical displacement of the center column of about 43.0 in 

(1092 mm), with a corresponding beam chord rotation of about 0.179 rad (10.3°), obtained by 

dividing the center column displacement by the centerline-to-centerline beam span of 240.0 in 

(6096 mm). At that displacement, the applied vertical load was approximately 123 kip (547 kN). 

A second bar fractured when the center column deflection reached 44.5 in (1130 mm) at which 

point the test was terminated. 

25 
 Figure 4.1 IMF specimen subjected to large displacement 

 Figure 4.2 Failure mode of IMF specimen 

26 
4.2.2 Crack Patterns 

When shores were removed prior to testing, small vertical flexural cracks developed at the ends 

of both the south and north beams. The maximum width of the cracks measured was 0.008 in 

(0.2 mm). When testing commenced with downward displacement of the center column, more 

flexural cracks developed along the beams, as well as along the lower halves of the end columns 

(below the beams). As the vertical displacement of the center column approached 3.5 in 

(90 mm), with a vertical load approaching 60 kip (267 kN), shear cracks started to develop in the 

bottom halves of the columns, and inclined cracks developed at the beam-column joints at the 

end columns. At a center column displacement of about 4.3 in (110 mm), with a load of about 

63 kip (280 kN), splitting cracks were noted at the top of the beams near the end columns. When 

the center column was displaced about 6.8 in (173 mm), corresponding to a vertical load of about 

61 kip (271 kN), splitting cracks also appeared at the top of the beam next to the north face of the 

center column. As the center column displaced further, concrete began to crush at the beam ends. 

It was noted that the crushing was more intense in the north beam than the south beam. Figure 

4.3(a) shows a map of cracks at a center column displacement of about 24 in (610 mm). At this 

displacement, the maximum crack width of the north beam near the center column was about 

1.3 in (33 mm). As the center column displacement was increased further, full-depth cracks 

appeared in the beams near both sides of the center column. After the fracture of the second 

longitudinal bar of the south beam, wide gaps were visible in the beams near the center column 

and also at the reinforcement cutoff points. Full-depth cracks were visible at the middle segments 

of the beams. Figure 4.3(b) shows a map of the final crack pattern.

(a) 

N

N

 

(b) 

Figure 4.3 Crack patterns of IMF specimen at center column deflections of (a) 24 in (610 mm) and (b) 43 in 

(1092 mm) 

27 
28 

4.2.3 Displacement Measurements 

Figure 4.4 shows the vertical load versus vertical deflections at (a) 1⁄4 span of the beams (ENC0 

and ENC7), (b) mid-span of the beams (ENC1 and ENC6), (c) 3⁄4 span of the beams (ENC2 and 

ENC5), and (d) the center column (ENC3 and ENC4). The locations of the position transducers 

were shown previously in Figure 3.12. As the plots indicate, the specimen was slightly unloaded 

when the hydraulic rams were halted every 2.5 in to 3.0 in (64 mm to 76 mm) to take instrument 

measurements and photographs. Figure 4.4(d) shows that the load reached an initial peak of 

66.5 kip (296 kN) at a center column displacement of about 5 in (127 mm) and started to 

decrease with increasing displacement. At a displacement of about 16 in (406 mm), the load had 

leveled off at 44 kip (196 kN). With further increase in the center column displacement, the load 

started to increase again until it reached a maximum value of approximate 123 kip (547 kN) at a 

displacement of 43 in (1092 mm). At that displacement, the first longitudinal bar of the south 

beam fractured at the face of the center column, which was followed by a second bar fracture at 

the same crack location when the displacement reached 44.5 in (1130 mm). Each of the four 

pairs of load-displacement curves plotted in Figure 4.4 shows good agreement between the 

measurements of symmetrically placed position transducers, which indicates that symmetry was 

largely maintained during the experiment. In subsequent plots, the average of ENC3 and ENC4 

is used to represent the vertical displacement of the center column. 

Figure 4.5 depicts the deflection profile of the beams (ENC0 through ENC7) at different load 

values. In the figure, dotted lines are used to connect the measured deflections. Note that the 

straight lines do not accurately represent the deflected shape of the beams. The small differences 

between the displacement measurements on each side of the center column indicate a slight 

rotation of the center column during the experiment.

The plots in Figure 4.6 show the horizontal displacements at the tops of the end columns 

(SCOL T and NCOL T), where the rollers were placed to restrain the movement, and the 

horizontal displacement at the beam mid-height (SCOL M and NCOL M) versus the vertical 

displacement of the center column. In the plots, positive values represent inward movement. 

Figure 4.6(a) shows that a small deflection was observed at the top of the columns. This is 

mainly due to slack in the support system at the top of the columns. A maximum outward 

deflection (average of SCOL T and NCOL T) of about 0.1 in (2.5 mm) was recorded at a vertical 

displacement of the center column of about 10 in (254 mm). As the vertical displacement was 

increased, the columns started to move inward and reached a maximum average deflection of 

about 0.04 in (1 mm) at the top. Figure 4.6(b) shows similar movement of the columns at beam 

mid-height with a peak outward deflection (average of SCOL M and NCOL M) of about 0.24 in 

(6.1 mm) at a vertical displacement of about 9 in (230 mm) and a maximum inward deflection of 

about 0.17 in (4.3 mm) at the end of the test.
0 254 508 762 1016 1270

0222.4444.8667.2889.61112

0

50

100150200250

0 10 20 30 40 50

Vertical Displacement (mm)

Applied Load (kN)

Applied Load (kip)

Vertical Displacement (in)

Position transducer 0Position transducer 7

0 254 508 762 101

0

50

100150200250

0 10 20 30 40 

Vertical Displacement (mm)

Applied Load (kip)

Vertical Displacement (in)

Position transPosition trans

(a) (b) 

0 254 508 762 1016 1270

0222.4444.8667.2889.61112

0

50

100150200250

0 10 20 30 40 50

Vertical Displacement (mm)

Applied Load (kN)

Applied Load (kip)

Vertical Displacement (in)

Position transducer 2Position transducer 5

0 254 508 762 101

0

50

100150200250

0 10 20 30 40 

Vertical Displacement (mm)

Applied Load (kip)

Vertical Displacement (in)

Position transPosition trans

(c) (d) 

Figure 4.4 Vertical load versus vertical deflections of IMF specimen at (a) 1⁄4 span of beams (ENC0 and ENC7), (b) mid-span o

ENC6), (c) 3⁄4 span of beams (ENC2 and ENC5),and (d) center column (ENC3 and ENC4) 

29 
‐6096 ‐4572 ‐3048 ‐1524 0 1524 3048 4572 6096

‐1524

‐1270

‐1016

‐762

‐508

‐254

0

‐60

‐50

‐40

‐30

‐20

‐10

0

‐240 ‐180 ‐120 ‐60 0 60 120 180 240

Spanwise Distance (mm)

Vertical Displacement (mm)

Vertical Displacement (in)

Spanwise Distance (in)

66 kips

44 kips

66 kips

122 kips

Figure 4.5 Vertical deflection profiles of beams corresponding to indicated vertical Loads for IMF specimen 

(deflections magnified) 

0 254 508 762 1016 1270

‐3.048

‐2.032

‐1.016

0

1.016

2.032

‐0.12

‐0.08

‐0.04

0

0.04

0.08

0 10 20 30 40 50

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (mm)

Horizontal Displacement (mm)

Horizontal Displacement (in)

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (in)

NCOL T

SCOL T

0 254 508 762 1016 1270

‐7.62

‐5.08

‐2.54

0

2.54

5.08

‐0.3

‐0.2

‐0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (mm)

Horizontal Displacement (mm)

Horizontal Displacement (in)

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (in)

NCOL M

SCOL M

(a) 

(b) 

Figure 4.6 Horizontal displacement of end columns at (a) top (SCOL T, NCOL T), and (b) beam mid-height 

(SCOL M, NCOL M) versus vertical displacement of center column for IMF specimen. 

30 
4.2.4 Rotation Measurements 

Figure 4.7 shows the vertical load plotted against the rotations measured at the beam ends near 

the north and south end columns (inclinometers NN INC and SS INC, respectively, see Figure 

3.12). Figure 4.8 presents the same rotation measurements plotted against the vertical 

displacement of the center column. Rotations of the north and south beams agreed closely until a 

vertical displacement of about 20 in (508 mm). As the displacement increased, the bottom of the 

south beam near the south end column exhibited significant crushing of concrete which caused a 

reduction of the effective cross section of the south beam near the end column. This condition 

led the south beam to undergo a larger rotation than the north beam. This disparity in beam-end 

rotation is evident in Figures 4.7 and 4.8. The average of the two measured beam-end rotations 

near the end columns (NN INC and SS INC) was calculated and plotted in Figures 4.7 and 4.8. 

These figures show that the maximum average rotation before failure was about 0.159 rad (9.1°). 

The other two inclinometers, which were near the center column (NM INC and SM INC, see 

Figure 3.12), did not provide meaningful data. 

0 3 6 9 12 15

0

111.2

222.4

333.6

444.8

556

667.2

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

0 0.0523 0.1046 0.1569 0.2092 0.2615

Rotation (deg)

Applied Load (kN)

Applied Load (kip)

Rotation (rad)

NN INC

SS INC

Average

 Figure 4.7 Applied vertical load versus beam end rotations for IMF specimen 

0 254 508 762 1016 1270

0

3

6

9

12

15

0

0.0523

0.1046

0.1569

0.2092

0.2615

0 10 20 30 40 50

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (mm)

Rotation (deg)

Rotation (rad)

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (in)

NN INC

SS INC

Average

 Figure 4.8 Beam end rotations versus vertical displacement of center column for IMF specimen 

31 
32 

4.2.5 Strain Measurements 

Concrete surface strains were calculated using position transducer (Optotrak) readings which 

recorded a relative displacement between two targets cemented on the concrete surface as shown 

in Figure 4.9(a). The horizontal gage length between Optotrak targets was 8 in (203 mm), and 

the vertical spacing was 5 in (127 mm). Reinforcing bar strains were measured by electrical 

resistance strain gages attached to reinforcing bars embedded into concrete. The strain gage 

locations are shown in Figure 4.9(b). In the figure, the cross sections where strain gages were 

installed are labeled as S1 through S3 in the south column, N1 through N3 in the north column, 

and B1 through B10 in the beams.

Gages at sections B3 and B8 provide information about the reinforcement strains at mid-span of 

the beams. Figure 4.10 shows negative (compressive) strain in both top and bottom reinforcing 

bars of the beams before the vertical displacement exceeded about 20 in (508 mm), which 

indicates that a compressive axial force developed in the beams during this stage of loading. It 

was observed that although the applied load started to decrease, the compressive strain of the top 

and bottom bars continued to increase until the vertical displacement of the center column 

reached about 10 in (254 mm). Transition of beam axial forces from compression to tension 

occurred as the vertical displacement of the center column increased from 20 in (508 mm) to 

30 in (762 mm). As the vertical displacement increased beyond 30 in (762 mm), all longitudinal 

reinforcement at the mid-span sections (B3 and B8) of the beams exhibited positive (tensile) 

strain, which clearly indicates the development of catenary action in the beams. Enlargements of 

the strain development in the early stages of loading are shown on the right hand side of the 

plots.

Gages at sections S1 and N1 provide information about strain in the longitudinal reinforcement 

at the base of the end columns. Figure 4.11(a) shows strains in the longitudinal bars located near 

the interior face at these sections, indicating that these bars were in tension initially and gradually 

changed to compression after reaching a peak tensile strain. On the other hand, Figure 4.11(b) 

shows that the reinforcing bars near the outer face were in compression initially and gradually 

changed to tension. These sign changes in the measured strains indicate a reversal of the in-plane 

curvature of the end columns, which was associated with the development of tensile axial forces 

in the beams due to catenary action.

At sections B1 and B10, near the end column interfaces, the measured strain in the top 

reinforcing bars of the beams exceeded the nominal yield strain (0.002) in tension at a vertical 

displacement of about 2 in (51 mm). Soon after the vertical displacement exceeded about 5 in 

(127 mm), these gages failed. The measured strain in the bottom reinforcing bars at sections B1 

and B10 exceeded the nominal yield strain in compression at a vertical displacement of about 

15 in (381 mm). Strain readings in these bars gradually changed from compression to tension 

beyond a vertical displacement of 30 in (762 mm). The bottom longitudinal reinforcing bars at 

sections B5 and B6 exceeded the nominal yield strain in tension at a vertical displacement of the 

center column of about 1.5 in (38 mm).
(a) 

(b) 

B1

Figure 4.9 Strain measurements for IMF specimen: (a) Optotrak target locations and b) reinforcing bar strain gage locations 

B5 B6

B10

B3 B8

S1S2S3

B2 B4 B7 B9

33 
34 

0 254 508 762 1016 1270

‐1000

0

10002000300040005000

0 10 20 30 40 50

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (mm)

Strain (x10

‐6

)

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (in)

3ET3WT8ET8WT

0 127 254 381 508 

‐200

0

200400600800

0 5 10 15 20 

Vertical Displacement of Center Colum

Strain (x10

‐6

)

Vertical Displacement of Center Colum

3ET3WT8ET8WT

0 254 508 762 1016 1270

‐1000

0

10002000300040005000

0 10 20 30 40 50

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (mm)

Strain (x10

‐6

)

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (in)

3EB3WB8EB

0 127 254 381 508 

‐200

0

200400600800

0 5 10 15 20 

Vertical Displacement of Center Colum

Strain (x10

‐6

)

Vertical Displacement of Center Colum

3EB3WB8EB

Figure 4.10 Beam mid-span (Section B3 and B8) reinforcing bar strains versus vertical displacement of center column for IMF 

reinforcing bars and (b) bottom reinforcing bars

(a) 

(b) 
0 254 508 762 1016 1270

‐2000

‐1000

0

1000

2000

3000

0 10 20 30 40 50

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (mm)

Strain (x10‐6)

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (in)

SCOL1NW

NCOL1SE

NCOL1SW

0 254 508 762 1016 1270

‐2000

‐1000

0

1000

2000

3000

0 10 20 30 40 50

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (mm)

Strain (x10‐6)

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (in)

SCOL1SE

SCOL1SW

NCOL1NE

NCOL1NW

(a) 

(b) 

Figure 4.11 Column-bottom (Section S1 and N1) reinforcing bar strains versus vertical displacement of 

center column for IMF specimen: (a) interior reinforcing bars and (b) exterior reinforcing bars 

35 
36 

A number of strain gages malfunctioned from the early stage of loading. These include gages 

5EB and 5WB, which failed when the vertical displacement exceeded 2.0 in (51 mm), and gages 

6EB and 6WB, which failed at vertical displacements of about 9 in (229 mm) and 14 in 

(356 mm) with maximum tensile strains of about 0.04 and 0.06, respectively. Gages 5ET and 

5WT malfunctioned and did not provide data. Gages 6ET and 6WT failed at a vertical 

displacement of 12 in (305 mm), with maximum compressive strains of about 0.005 and 0.01, 

respectively. See Figure 4.9 for the locations of these gages. 

Strain gage measurements at bar-cutoff sections, where the shorter top reinforcing bars in the 

beams terminate (B2, B4, B7, and B9 in Figure 4.9), are presented in Figure 4.12. Strain readings 

at bar-cutoff sections B2 and B9 show that the top bars yielded in tension when the bottom bars 

were still in compression. This spreading of yielding in the longitudinal bars is the reason that 

the displacement profile in Figure 4.5 exhibits curvature along the beam spans, rather than 

consisting simply of straight line segments between plastic hinges at the beam ends. 

Plots of average computed concrete surface strain based on Optotrak readings at beam-end 

sections near the end columns are presented in Figure 4.13. Strain distributions correspond to 

applied vertical loads of 49 kip, 63 kip, 59 kip, 44 kip, and 108 kip (218 kN, 280 kN, 262 kN, 

196 kN, and 480 kN). These loads correspond to center column vertical displacements of 2.2 in, 

4.3 in, 6.8 in, 14.2 in, and 38.5 in (56 mm, 109 mm, 173 mm, 361 mm, and 978 mm). Similar 

plots are shown in Figure 4.14 for the beam-end sections near the center column. Enlargements 

of the cross-sectional strain distributions during the early stage of loading are shown on the righthand side of these figures. Figure 4.13 shows that the neutral axis moved upward during the 

initial stage of loading, for center column displacements less than 5 in (127 mm). Then the 

neutral axis moved downward as the center column displacement increased. This suggests that 

compressive axial force developed in the beams during the initial stages of loading, which later 

changed to tensile axial force as the center column displacement increased. The cross-sectional 

strain profiles shown in Figure 4.14(a) and (b) indicate that the north beam rotated more than the 

south beam at the center beam-column joint until the onset of catenary action. Subsequently, a 

large crack developed at the beam-column interface on the south side of the joint (see Figure 

4.2). As a result, the rotation of the south beam increased rapidly and the difference in the end 

rotations of the north and the south beams diminished. With further increases in the center 

column displacement, considerable localized reduction in the cross-sectional area of the bottom 

reinforcing bars developed and these bars eventually fractured.
0 254 508 762 1016 1270

‐1000

0

10002000300040005000

0 10 20 30 40 50

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (mm)

Strain (x10

‐6

)

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (in)

2ET2WT9ET

0 254 508 762 101

‐1000

0

10002000300040005000

0 10 20 30 40 

Vertical Displacement of Center Colum

Strain (x10

‐6

)

Vertical Displacement of Center Colum

4ET4WT7ET

0 254 508 762 1016 1270

‐1000

0

10002000300040005000

0 10 20 30 40 50

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (mm)

Strain (x10

‐6

)

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (in)

2EB2WB9WB

0 254 508 762 101

‐1000

0

10002000300040005000

0 10 20 30 40 

Vertical Displacement of Center Colum

Strain (x10

‐6

)

Vertical Displacement of Center Colum

4EB7EB7WB

(a) (b) 

(c) (d) 

Figure 4.12 Beam reinforcement strains at bar-cutoff sections versus vertical displacement of center column for IMF specimen

B2 and B9, (b) top bars at sections B4 and B7, (c) bottom bars at sections B2 and B9, and (d) bottom bars at sections B4 and B7

37 
‐254

‐203.2

‐152.4

‐101.6

‐50.8

0

50.8

101.6

152.4

203.2

254

‐10

‐8

‐6

‐4

‐2

0

2

4

6

8

10

‐20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Strain (x10‐3)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (mm)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (in)

2.2 in, 49 kip

4.3 in, 63 kip

6.8 in, 59 kip

14.2 in, 44 kip

38.5 in, 108 kip

‐203.2

‐177.8

‐152.4

‐127

‐101.6

‐8

‐7

‐6

‐5

‐4

‐10 ‐5 0 5 10

Strain (x10‐3)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (mm)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (in)

‐254

‐203.2

‐152.4

‐101.6

‐50.8

0

50.8

101.6

152.4

203.2

254

‐10

‐8

‐6

‐4

‐2

0

2

4

6

8

10

‐50 0 50 100 150

Strain (x10‐3)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (mm)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (in)

2.2 in, 49 kip

4.3 in, 63 kip

6.8 in, 59 kip

14.2 in, 44 kip

38.5 in, 108 kip

‐203.2

‐177.8

‐152.4

‐127

‐101.6

‐8

‐7

‐6

‐5

‐4

‐10 ‐5 0 5 10

Strain (x10‐3)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (mm)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (in)

(a) 

(b) 

Figure 4.13 Concrete surface strain distributions of IMF specimen at beam ends: (a) near north end 

column and (b) near south end column 

38 
Figure 4.14 Concrete surface strain distributions of IMF specimen at beam ends: (a) near north side of 

center column and (b) near south side of center column 

‐254

‐203.2

‐152.4

‐101.6

‐50.8

0

50.8

101.6

152.4

203.2

254

‐10

‐8

‐6

‐4

‐2

0

2

4

6

8

10

‐20 20 60 100 140

Strain (x10‐3)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (mm)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (in)

2.2 in, 49 kip

4.3 in, 63 kip

6.8 in, 59 kip

14.2 in, 44 kip

38.5 in, 108 kip

101.6

127

152.4

177.8

203.2

4

5

6

7

8

‐10 ‐5 0 5 10

Strain (x10‐3)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (mm)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (in)

(a) 

‐254

‐203.2

‐152.4

‐101.6

‐50.8

0

50.8

101.6

152.4

203.2

254

‐10

‐8

‐6

‐4

‐2

0

2

4

6

8

10

‐20 20 60 100 140

Strain (x10‐3)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (mm)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (in)

2.2 in, 49 kip

4.3 in, 63 kip

6.8 in, 59 kip

14.2 in, 44 kip

38.5 in, 108 kip

101.6

127

152.4

177.8

203.2

4

5

6

7

8

‐10 ‐5 0 5 10

Strain (x10‐3)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (mm)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (in)

(b) 

39 
4.3 SMF SPECIMEN 

4.3.1 Observed Behavior and Failure Modes 

Under monotonic vertical displacement of the center column, the SMF specimen (see Figure 

4.15) experienced larger deflections and rotations than the IMF specimen before failure. The 

SMF specimen failed at a vertical displacement of the center column of about 48 in (1219 mm), 

with a corresponding beam chord rotation of about 0.20 rad (11.5°), obtained by dividing the 

center column displacement at failure by the centerline-to-centerline beam span of 240.0 in 

(6096 mm). The applied vertical load corresponding to that displacement was approximately 

277 kip (1232 kN). The failure was initiated by fracture of one of the beam-bottom reinforcing 

bars in tension near the north face of the center column (see Fig. 4.16). As loading continued, all 

of the reinforcing bars in the bottom layer fractured. Compared with the IMF specimen, the 

larger rupture strain of the longitudinal reinforcement (21% versus 18% for SMF and IMF, 

respectively, see Table 3.2) at the bottom of the beams of the SMF specimen may have 

contributed to the larger deflections and rotations that were achieved. 

 Figure 4.15 View of SMF specimen subjected to large displacement 

40 
 Figure 4.16 Failure mode of SMF specimen 

4.3.2 Crack Patterns 

During shore removal before testing, small cracks were noted at the beam ends close to the end 

columns and the center column. When testing commenced with downward displacement of the 

center column, flexural cracks developed along the beam and along the lower halves of the 

columns (below the beams). When the vertical displacement of the center column approached 

1.4 in (36 mm), with a vertical load approaching 105 kip (467 kN), flexural-shear cracks started 

to develop in the beams and the lower halves of the columns. Inclined cracks developed in the 

beam-column joints, and horizontal cracks developed in the center column when the center 

column displacement approached 1.7 in (44 mm), with the load approaching 150 kip (667 kN). 

Splitting cracks due to compression were observed in the beam near the center column at a center 

column displacement of about 3.1 in (80 mm), with a load of nearly 192 kip (854 kN). Splitting 

cracks were also observed in the beam near the end columns at a center column displacement of 

about 3.8 in (96 mm), with a vertical load of about 200 kip (890 kN). At that load, the maximum 

width of flexural beam cracks near the center column was 0.25 in (6.35 mm). Figure 4.17(a) 

shows a map of the cracks that had formed at a center column displacement of 24.5 in (622 mm). 

41 
42 

In the beams, cracks concentrated in the beam-end zones, while some cracks developed near the 

reinforcement cutoff points where half of the top reinforcing bars working in tension were 

discontinued. In the columns, cracks were concentrated in the lower halves. The maximum crack 

width was approximately 0.7 in (18 mm). As the center column displacement was increased 

further, full-depth cracks appeared in the beams near the center column. After fracture of the 

bottom layer reinforcement, wide gaps were visible in the beams near the center column and at 

the reinforcement cutoff points. Full-depth cracks were also visible at the middle segments of the 

beams. Figure 4.17(b) shows a map of the final crack pattern.

(a) 

N

N

 

(b) 

Figure 4.17 Crack patterns of SMF specimen at center column deflections of (a) 24.5 in (622 mm) and (b) 48 

in (1219 mm). 

4.3.3 Displacement Measurements 

The plots in Figure 4.18 show the vertical load versus vertical displacements at (a) 1⁄4 span of the 

beams (ENC0 and ENC7), (b) mid-span of the beams (ENC1 and ENC6), (c) 3⁄4 span of the 

beams (ENC2 and ENC5), and (d) the center column (ENC3 and ENC4). The locations of the 

position transducers were shown in Figure 3.12. As the plots indicate, the specimen was slightly 

unloaded when the hydraulic rams were halted every 2.5 in to 3.0 in (64 mm to 76 mm) to take 

measurements and photographs. The pairs of load-displacement curves are nearly the same in 

each of the four plots in Figure 4.18, which indicates that symmetry was largely maintained 

during the experiment. In subsequent plots, the average of ENC3 and ENC4 is used to represent 

the vertical displacement of the center column. 
0 254 508 762 1016 1270 1524

0444.8889.6

1334.41779.2

2224

0

100200300400500

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Vertical Displacement (mm)

Applied Load (kN)

Applied Load (kip)

Vertical Displacement (in)

Position transducer 0Position transducer 7

0 254 508 762 1016 127

0

100200300400500

0 10 20 30 40 50 

Vertical Displacement (mm)

Applied Load (kip)

Vertical Displacement (in)

Position transdPosition transd

(a) (b) 

0 254 508 762 1016 1270 1524

0444.8889.6

1334.41779.2

2224

0

100200300400500

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Vertical Displacement (mm)

Applied Load (kN)

Applied Load (kip)

Vertical Displacement (in)

Position transducer 2Position transducer 5

0 254 508 762 1016 127

0

100200300400500

0 10 20 30 40 50 

Vertical Displacement (mm)

Applied Load (kip)

Vertical Displacement (in)

Position transdPosition transd

(c) (d) 

Figure 4.18 Vertical load versus vertical displacements of SMF specimen at (a) 1⁄4 span of beams (ENC 0 and ENC 7), (b) mid-and ENC 6), (c) 3⁄4 span of beams (ENC 2 and ENC 5), and (d) center column (ENC 3 and ENC 4) 

43 
Figure 4.18(d) indicates that the load reached an initial peak of 203 kip (903 kN) at a center 

column displacement of 4.4 in (112 mm). The load started to decrease as the vertical 

displacement increased further. At the time that the initial peak load was reached, a northward 

movement of the north footing was detected (see Figure 4.19). The footing initially moved 

approximately 0.25 in (6.4 mm). As the displacement of the center column increased up to 20 in 

(508 mm), additional northward movement of the footing was observed. When the load was 

144 kip (641 kN), the movement of the north footing stopped, reaching a maximum northward 

displacement of about 0.77 in (19.6 mm). The vertical load reached a maximum of 277 kip 

(1232 kN) at a center column displacement of 48 in (1219 mm), when one of the outermost 

bottom bars near the north face of the center column fractured (see Figure 4.16). All bottom layer 

bars ruptured instantaneously as additional displacement of the center column was attempted. 

Figure 4.20 depicts the deflection profile of the beams (ENC0 through ENC7, see Figure 3.12) at 

different load values. In the figure, dotted lines are used to connect the measured deflections, 

while it is noted that straight lines do not accurately represent the deflected shape of the beams. 

0 254 508 762 1016 1270

0.00

5.08

10.16

15.24

20.32

25.40

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

0 10 20 30 40 50

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (mm)

North Footing Displacement (Northward) (mm)

North Footing Displacement (Northward) (in)

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (in)

Figure 4.19 North footing displacement versus vertical displacement of center column 

44 
‐6096 ‐4572 ‐3048 ‐1524 0 1524 3048 4572 6096

‐1524

‐1270

‐1016

‐762

‐508

‐254

0

‐60

‐50

‐40

‐30

‐20

‐10

0

‐240 ‐180 ‐120 ‐60 0 60 120 180 240

Spanwise Distance (mm)

Vertical Displacement (mm)

Vertical Displacement (in)

Spanwise Distance (in)

203kips

143 kips

203 kips

276 kips

Figure 4.20 Vertical deflection profiles of beams corresponding to indicated vertical loads for SMF specimen 

The plots in Figure 4.21 show the horizontal movement at the tops of the end columns (SCOL T 

and NCOL T, see Figure 3.12), where the rollers were placed to restrain the movement, and at 

the beam mid-height (SCOL M and NCOL M, see Figure 3.12) versus the vertical displacement 

of the center column. In the plots, positive values represent inward movement of the end 

columns. Due to the horizontal movement of the north footing, horizontal displacements of the 

north column were larger than those of the south column. The maximum outward displacements 

at the top and beam mid-height of the south column were about 0.13 in (3.3 mm) and 0.29 in 

(7.4 mm), respectively. When the north footing started to move, the displacements of the south 

column ceased to increase while the displacements at the top and beam mid-height of the north 

column continued to increase. The maximum outward displacements at the top and beam midheight of the north column were about 0.15 in (3.8 mm) and 0.71 in (18.0 mm), respectively. As 

the vertical displacement of the center column increased, the end columns tended to be pulled 

inward due to catenary action. The south column at the beam mid-height was pulled inward 

(toward the center column) about 0.1 in (2.5 mm) relative to the original position, whereas the 

north column at the beam mid-height was pushed outward (away from the center column) about 

0.23 in (5.8 mm) due to the movement of the north column footing. 

4.3.4 Rotation Measurements 

Figure 4.22(a) shows the vertical load plotted against the rotations measured at the beam ends 

near the north and south columns (inclinometers NN INC and SS INC, respectively, see Figure 

3.12), while Figure 4.22(b) shows the vertical load plotted against the rotations measured at the 

beam ends near the north and south sides of the center column (NM INC and SM INC, 

respectively, see Figure 3.12). Rotations of the north and south beams matched closely until the 

final stages of loading. The average of the two rotation measurements at the beam ends near the 

end columns (NN INC and SS INC) at failure was about 0.183 rad (10.5°), and the average of the 

two rotation measurements at the beam ends near the center column (NM INC and SM INC) at 

failure was about 0.195 rad (11.2°). Figure 4.23 presents the measured rotations of the beam ends 

versus the vertical displacement of the center column. The rotations were essentially linearly 

45 
proportional to the vertical displacement of the center column until the displacement reached 

30 in (762 mm). 

0 254 508 762 1016 1270 1524

‐5.08

‐3.81

‐2.54

‐1.27

0

1.27

2.54

‐0.2

‐0.15

‐0.1

‐0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (mm)

Horizontal Displacement (mm)

Horizontal Displacement (in)

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (in)

NCOL T

SCOL T

(a) 

0 254 508 762 1016 1270 1524

‐20.32

‐15.24

‐10.16

‐5.08

0

5.08

‐0.8

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0

0.2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (mm)

Horizontal Displacement (mm)

Horizontal Displacement (in)

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (in)

NCOL M

SCOL M

(b) 

Figure 4.21 Horizontal displacement of end columns at (a) top (SCOL T, NCOL T), and (b) beam midheight (SCOL M, NCOL M) versus vertical displacement of center column for SMF specimen 

46 
0 3 6 9 12 15

0

444.8

889.6

1334.4

1779.2

2224

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 0.0523 0.1046 0.1569 0.2092 0.2615

Rotation (deg)

Applied Load (kN)

Applied Load (kip)

Rotation (rad)

NN INC

SS INC

(a) 

0 3 6 9 12 15

0

444.8

889.6

1334.4

1779.2

2224

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 0.0523 0.1046 0.1569 0.2092 0.2615

Rotation (deg)

Applied Load (kN)

Applied Load (kip)

Rotation (rad)

NM INC

SM INC

(b) 

Figure 4.22 Vertical loads versus beam end rotations for SMF specimen: (a) near end columns and (b) near 

center column 

47 
0 254 508 762 1016 1270 1524

0

3

6

9

12

15

0

0.0523

0.1046

0.1569

0.2092

0.2615

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (mm)

Rotation (deg)

Rotation (rad)

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (in)

NN INC

SS INC

0 254 508 762 1016 1270 1524

0

3

6

9

12

15

0

0.0523

0.1046

0.1569

0.2092

0.2615

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (mm)

Rotation (deg)

Rotation (rad)

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (in)

NM INC

SM INC

(a) 

(b) 

Figure 4.23 Beam end rotation versus vertical displacement of center column for SMF specimen: (a) near 

end columns and (b) near center column 

4.3.5 Strain Measurements 

Concrete surface strains were estimated using Whittemore gage readings which recorded the 

relative displacement between the targets cemented on the concrete surface as shown in Figure 

4.24(a). The horizontal gage length between the Whittemore gage targets was 8 in (203 mm), and 

the vertical spacing was 10 in (254 mm). Reinforcing bar strains were measured by electrical 

resistance strain gages attached to steel bars embedded into concrete. The strain gage locations 

are shown in Figure 4.24(b). In the figure, the cross sections where strain gages were installed 

are labeled as S1 through S3 in the south column, N1 through N3 in the north column, and B1 

through B10 in the beams.

Gages at Sections B3 and B8 provide information about the reinforcement strains at mid-span of 

the beams. Figure 4.25 shows negative (compressive) strains in both top and bottom reinforcing 

48 
49 

bars before the vertical displacement exceeded 25 in (635 mm), which indicates that a 

compressive axial force had developed in the beams. The transition of beam axial forces from 

compression to tension occurred as the vertical displacement of the center column increased 

from 25 in (635 mm) to 30 in (762 mm). Positive (tensile) strain in all reinforcements at the midspan sections indicates the development of catenary action in the beams as the vertical 

displacement of the center column exceeded 30 in (762 mm). When the vertical displacement of 

the center column exceeded 30 in (762 mm), reinforcement strains at sections B3 and B8 

exceeded the nominal yield strain of the steel (0.002) in tension. Enlargements of the strain 

development in the early stages of loading are shown on the right hand side of the plots. 

Gages at Sections S1 and N1 provided information about the reinforcement strains at the base of 

the end columns. Figure 4.26(a) shows strains in the longitudinal reinforcing bars located near 

the interior face at these sections, indicating that these bars were all in tension initially and 

gradually changed to compression after reaching a peak tensile strain. On the other hand, Figure 

4.26(b) shows that the reinforcing bars near the outer face were in compression initially and 

gradually changed to tension. These sign changes in the measured strains indicate a reversal of 

the in-plane curvature of the end columns, which was associated with the development of tensile 

axial forces in the beams due to catenary action. A sudden drop in strain was observed in each 

plot when the vertical displacement was close to 4.4 in (112 mm), which was due to the 

movement of the north footing. Some of the exterior reinforcing bars at Sections S1 and N1 

yielded in tension, with strains exceeding the nominal yield strain of the steel (0.002) at a center 

column displacement of about 30 in (762 mm). 

At sections B1 and B10, strain readings on the top reinforcing bars exceeded the nominal yield 

strain (0.002) in tension at a vertical displacement of the center column of about 2 in (51 mm). 

Soon after the vertical displacement exceeded about 5 in (127 mm), these gages failed. Strains in 

the outermost bottom layer of reinforcement at Sections B1 and B10 exceeded the nominal yield 

strain in compression at a center column displacement of about 4 in (102 mm), while positive 

(tensile) strains were measured for reinforcements located in the second bottom layer. Strain 

measurements on the reinforcing bars located in the outermost bottom layer at Sections B5 and 

B6 exceeded the nominal yield strain in tension at a vertical displacement of about 1.5 in 

(38 mm). The maximum recorded tensile strain was about 0.007 at gage W5B when the vertical 

displacement of the center column was close to 40 in (1016 mm). Strains in the reinforcements 

located in the outermost top layer exceeded the nominal yield strain in compression at a vertical 

displacement of about 3 in (76 mm). The maximum recorded compressive strain was about 0.004 

at gage E5T when the vertical displacement of the center column was close to 10 in (254 mm). 

Positive (tensile) strains were measured for reinforcements located in the second top layer. Most 

gages at sections B1 and B10 stopped working before the deflection reached 10 in (254 mm).

Strain gage measurements at bar-cutoff sections (B2, B4, B7, and B9) are presented in Figure 

4.27. The strain measurements at bar-cutoff sections B2 and B9 show that the top reinforcing 

bars yielded in tension when the bottom reinforcing bars were still in compression. Similarly, at 

bar-cutoff sections B4 and B7, the bottom reinforcing bars yielded in tension when the top 

reinforcements were still in compression. This spreading of yielding in the longitudinal bars is 

the reason that the displacement profile in Figure 4.20 exhibits curvature along the beam spans, 

rather than consisting simply of straight line segments between plastic hinges at the beam ends. 
(a) 

(b) 

Figure 4.24 Stain measurements for SMF specimen: (a) Whittemore gage target locations and (b) reinforcing bar strain gage l

B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9

B10 B1

S1S2S3

NNN

50 
0 254 508 762 1016 1270 1524

‐1000

0

10002000300040005000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (mm)

Strain (x10

‐6

)

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (in)

E3TW3TE8TW8T

0 127 254 381 508 

‐400

0

400800

1200

0 5 10 15 20 

Vertical Displacement of Center Colu

Strain (x10

‐6

)

Vertical Displacement of Center Co

E3TW3TE8TW8T

(a) 

0 254 508 762 1016 1270 1524

‐1000

0

10002000300040005000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (mm)

Strain (x10

‐6

)

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (in)

W3BE8BW8B

0 127 254 381 508 

‐400‐200

0

200400600

0 5 10 15 20 

Vertical Displacement of Center Colu

Strain (x10

‐6

)

Vertical Displacement of Center Co

W3BE8BW8B

(b) 

Figure 4.25 Mid-span (Sections B3 and B8) strain gage measurements versus vertical displacement of center column for SMF 

reinforcing bars and (b) bottom reinforcing bars

51 
0 254 508 762 1016 1270 1524

‐1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (mm)

Strain (x10‐6)

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (in)

SCOL1NE

SCOL1NW

NCOL1SW

0 254 508 762 1016 1270 1524

‐1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (mm)

Strain (x10‐6)

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (in)

SCOL1SW

NCOL1NE

NCOL1NW

(a) 

(b) 

Figure 4.26 Column reinforcement strains at sections S1 and N1 versus vertical displacement of center 

column for SMF specimen: (a) interior reinforcing bars and (b) exterior reinforcing bars 

52 
0 254 508 762 1016 1270 1524

‐2000

0

2000400060008000

10000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (mm)

Strain (x10

‐6

)

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (in)

E2TW2TE9TW9T

0 254 508 762 1016 

‐2000

0

2000400060008000

10000

0 10 20 30 40 

Vertical Displacement of Center Colu

Strain (x10

‐6

)

Vertical Displacement of Center Co

E4TW4TE7TW7T

0 254 508 762 1016 1270 1524

‐2000

0

2000400060008000

10000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (mm)

Strain (x10

‐6

)

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (in)

E2BW2BE9BW9B

0 254 508 762 1016 

0

5000

1000015000200002500030000

0 10 20 30 40 

Vertical Displacement of Center Col

Strain (x10

‐6

)

Vertical Displacement of Center Co

E4BW4BE7BW7B

(a) (b) 

(c) (d) 

Figure 4.27 Beam reinforcement strains at bar-cutoff sections versus vertical displacement of center column for SMF specimen

B2 and B9, (b) top bars at sections B4 and B7, (c) bottom bars at sections B2 and B9, and (d) bottom bars at sections B4 and B7

53 
 

Plots of concrete surface strain measurements along beam-end sections near the end columns are 

presented in Figure 4.28. Strain distributions correspond to applied vertical loads of 150 kip, 

200 kip, 182 kip, 163 kip, and 145 kip (667 kN, 890 kN, 810 kN, 725 kN, and 645 kN). These 

loads correspond to center column vertical displacements of 1.7 in, 4.0 in, 6.5 in, 11.5 in, and 

21.5 in (43 mm, 102 mm, 165 mm, 292 mm, and 546 mm). In these figures, enlargements of the 

cross sectional strain distributions during the early stage of loading are shown on the right-hand 

side of the plots. Similar plots are shown in Figure 4.29 for the beam-end sections near the center 

column. In Figure 4.28, the neutral axis was shifted to the tension side in the initial stages of 

loading. This verified the presence of compressive axial forces in the beams. Due to crushing of 

concrete at the beam ends, not enough data were obtained to characterize the strain distribution 

after the vertical displacement exceeded 21.5 in (546 mm). 

‐355.6

‐254

‐152.4

‐50.8

50.8

152.4

254

355.6

‐14

‐10

‐6

‐2

2

6

10

14

‐20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Strain (x10‐3)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (mm)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (in)

1.7 in, 150 kip

4.0 in, 200 kip

6.5 in, 182 kip

11.5 in, 163 kip

21.5 in, 145 kip

‐254

‐228.6

‐203.2

‐177.8

‐152.4

‐10

‐9

‐8

‐7

‐6

‐10 ‐5 0 5 10

Strain (x10‐3)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (mm)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (in)

‐355.6

‐254

‐152.4

‐50.8

50.8

152.4

254

355.6

‐14

‐10

‐6

‐2

2

6

10

14

‐20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Strain (x10‐3)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (mm)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (in)

1.7 in, 150 kip

4.0 in, 200 kip

6.5 in, 182 kip

11.5 in, 163 kip

21.5 in, 145 kip

‐254

‐228.6

‐203.2

‐177.8

‐152.4

‐10

‐9

‐8

‐7

‐6

‐10 ‐5 0 5 10

Strain (x10‐3)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (mm)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (in)

(a) 

(b) 

Figure 4.28 Concrete surface strain distributions of SMF specimen at beam ends: (a) near north end column 

and (b) near south end column 

54
Figure 4.29 Concrete surface strain distributions of SMF specimen at beam ends: (a) near north side of 

center column and (b) near south side of center column 

4.4 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS 

This chapter presented the experimental results of two reinforced concrete beam-column 

assemblies tested under a simulated column removal scenario. The assemblies represented 

portions of the moment resisting frames of two ten-story prototype buildings designed and 

detailed in accordance with the ACI 318 requirements for Seismic Design Category (SDC) C and 

SDC D. For the lateral force resisting system, intermediate moment frames (IMFs) and special 

moment frames (SMFs) were selected for the SDC C and D buildings, respectively. The center 

‐355.6

‐254

‐152.4

‐50.8

50.8

152.4

254

355.6

‐14

‐10

‐6

‐2

2

6

10

14

‐20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Strain (x10‐3)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (mm)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (in)

1.7 in, 150 kip

4.0 in, 200 kip

6.5 in, 182 kip

11.5 in, 163 kip

16.5 in, 149 kip

101.6

127

152.4

177.8

203.2

4

5

6

7

8

‐10 ‐5 0 5 10

Strain (x10‐3)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (mm)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (in)

(a) 

‐355.6

‐254

‐152.4

‐50.8

50.8

152.4

254

355.6

‐14

‐10

‐6

‐2

2

6

10

14

‐20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Strain (x10‐3)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (mm)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (in)

1.7 in, 150 kip

4.0 in, 200 kip

6.5 in, 182 kip

11.5 in, 163 kip

16.5 in, 149 kip

101.6

127

152.4

177.8

203.2

4

5

6

7

8

‐10 ‐5 0 5 10

Strain (x10‐3)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (mm)

Vertical Distance from Beam Centroid (in)

(b) 

55 
column of each three-column assembly was subjected to monotonically increasing downward 

vertical displacement until failure. The experimental results included the photographic 

documentation of crack formation and modes of failure, as well as response measurements taken 

using various instruments. The instruments used were displacement transducers, inclinometers, 

position transducers, strain gages, an Optotrak coordinate measurement system, Whittemore 

gages, dial gages, and load cells.

For both the IMF and SMF specimens, minor flexural cracks developed in the beams during the 

early stages of loading. However, these cracks did not cause a significant decrease in the overall 

stiffness of the beams. This was due to the restraint to horizontal movements of the beams 

provided by the end columns, which induced the development of arching action in the beams. 

Similar behavior was previously observed in axially restrained two-span beam tests (Su et al. 

2009). Pronounced degradation of the beam stiffness was observed in both specimens when 

yielding of the beam bottom reinforcing bars near the center column and the top reinforcing bars 

near the end columns commenced. As a result, while the rate of vertical displacement of the 

center column remained constant, the load level increased gradually at a lower rate. For the IMF 

specimen the load reached a peak value of 66.5 kip (296 kN) with a corresponding center column 

displacement of about 5 in (127 mm), and for the SMF specimen the load reached a peak value 

of 203 kip (903 kN) with a corresponding center column displacement of about 4.4 in (112 mm). 

For both specimens, after reaching the initial peak load, the load began to drop with increasing 

vertical displacement of the center column. The load leveled off and started to increase again 

when the vertical displacement of the center column exceeded the depth of the beam. Catenary 

forces developed in the beams as full-depth cracks developed. The catenary force development 

was evidenced by tensile strains in both top and bottom reinforcing bars at mid-span of the 

beams. Both specimens failed due to fracture of beam-bottom reinforcing bars near the center 

column at an ultimate load greater than the initial peak load reported above. The ultimate load of 

the IMF specimen was 123 kip (547 kN), with a corresponding center column displacement of 

43.0 in (1092 mm), while the ultimate load of the SMF specimen was 277 kip (1232 kN), with a 

corresponding center column displacement of 48.0 in (1219 mm). The ultimate load of the SMF 

specimen was thus 2.25 times greater than that of the IMF specimen, reflecting the more 

stringent seismic design and detailing of the SMF specimen. However, the ultimate load of the 

IMF specimen exceeded the initial peak load by a factor of 1.85, whereas the ultimate load of the 

SMF specimen exceeded the initial peak load by a factor of only 1.36.

The behavior described above can be summarized as a three-stage process (Figure 4.30): (1) an 

arching action stage, in which compressive arching forces developed due to horizontal restraint 

at the beam ends, providing additional stiffness and load-carrying capacity; (2) a plastic hinging 

stage, in which flexural bending caused reinforcing bars to yield in tension, and concrete to 

soften and crush in compression, causing a reduction in load-carrying capacity; and (3) a 

catenary action stage, in which tensile catenary forces were mobilized as the deflection of the 

center column exceeded the depth of the beam, supplying additional load-carrying capacity. 

While beam-end rotations continued to increase during the third stage, the overall load carrying 

capacity of the assembly was dominated by the development of catenary action, which prevented 

a further drop in load. As described above, the ultimate failure of the assemblies resulted from 

fracture of the bottom reinforcing bars at the beam ends near the center column. While strain 

measurements in the top and bottom reinforcing bars show that yielding did occur even at mid56 
span of the beams, fracture of the reinforcing bars occurred only near the center column. These 

fractures occurred due mainly to concentrated rotation of the beams near the beam-column 

interface (see Figures 4.1, 4.2, 4.15 and 4.16). The results of these tests suggest that the 

rotational capacity of concrete beams at the beam-column joints controls the development of 

catenary (or tensile) forces. 

Figure 4.30 Three stages of load transfer: (a) arching action, (b) plastic hinge formation, and (c) catenary 

action (Fs: force in steel, Fc: force in concrete, Fc,s: force in concrete and steel) 

Table 4.1 summarizes the rotational capacities based on the tests conducted in this study and on 

ASCE/SEI 41-06 (ASCE 2006), which is based on prior seismic test data (FEMA 2000). As the 

table indicates, the rotations at peak load based on the experimental results in this study were 

about 0.185 rad for the IMF specimen, corresponding to a center column displacement of 44.5 in 

(1130 mm) at failure, and 0.200 rad for the SMF specimen, corresponding to a center column 

displacement of 48.0 in (1219 mm) at failure. These values are obtained by dividing the center 

57 
58 

column displacement at failure by the centerline-to-centerline beam span of 240.0 in (6096 mm). 

The permitted plastic rotation angles (or rotation capacities) of the IMF and SMF beam columncolumn-joint assemblies based on seismic testing data are 0.026 rad and 0.025 rad, respectively, 

corresponding to the collapse prevention criterion according to Table 6-7 of ASCE/SEI 41-06 

(ASCE 2006). These results show that the rotational capacities of these beam-column-joints 

under monotonic column displacement are about 7~8 times as large as those based on seismic 

test data generated under cyclic loading condition. This difference may be attributed to (1) 

degradation of strength and stiffness of the beam-column joint regions due to different loading 

effects, cyclic loading versus monotonic loading, and (2) the presence of large axial tension in 

the beams due to the development of catenary action under a column removal scenario. Thus, if 

the acceptance criteria based on seismic test data are used for column removal scenarios, a very 

conservative design of beam-column joints would result.

Table 4.1 Comparison of rotation capacities of IMF and SMF beam-column joints based on seismic data 

and monotonic column displacement 

Connection Type

Rotation Capacities (rad)

Seismic Data 

(ASCE/SEI 41-06) 

Monotonic Loading 

(This Study)

IMF 0.026 0.185 

SMF 0.025 0.200 

4.5 REFERENCES 

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). (2006). “Seismic rehabilitation of existing 

buildings.” ASCE/SEI 41-06, Reston, VA. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2000). “Prestandard and commentary for the 

seismic rehabilitation of buildings.” FEMA 356, Washington, DC. 

Su, Y., Tian, Y., and Song, X. (2009). “Progressive collapse resistance of axially-restrained 

frame beams.” ACI Structural Journal, 106(5), 600-607. 
 

Chapter 5

COMPUTATIONAL MODELING AND ANALYSIS OF TEST SPECIMENS

5.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter presents a computational study of the response of the Intermediate Moment Frame 

(IMF) and Special Moment Frame (SMF) reinforced concrete beam-column assemblies. The 

objectives of the analyses are to: (1) develop and validate detailed finite element models of the 

assemblies that can reproduce the behavior and failure modes of the test specimens, (2) develop 

and validate reduced finite element models of the assemblies that can accurately predict the 

response and failure modes of the test specimens, and (3) gain insight into the behavior and 

failure modes of moment resisting frames, including the process of member force redistribution 

due to loss of structural members and the development of tie forces within structural members to 

enhance continuity, ductility, and maintain structural integrity. 

The finite element analyses presented in this study are conducted using explicit time integration 

in LS-DYNA (Hallquist 2007), a general-purpose finite element software package. The analyses 

account for both geometrical and material nonlinearities, including fracture using element 

erosion. In all analyses, the center column is pushed down under displacement control until 

failure occurs. Displacements are increased at a slow rate to ensure a static response (no dynamic 

amplification), similar to the test conditions. Comparisons between the computational and 

experimental results are presented to validate the detailed and reduced models developed herein. 

Section 5.2 provides an overview of the material models used in the analyses. Section 5.3 

presents a description of the detailed and reduced models used in this study. Section 5.4 provides 

the analysis results for both the IMF and SMF specimens. Section 5.5 presents a summary and 

discussion of the analysis results.

5.2 MATERIAL MODELS 

5.2.1 Reinforcement 

The primary material model used in the analyses presented in this study was an isotropic elasticplastic model (MAT_PLASTICITY_COMPRESSION_TENSION or MAT_124 in LS-DYNA). 

In this model, effective stress versus plastic strain curves are defined, along with a plastic strain 

to failure. Once the failure strain is reached, the element is eroded, simulating fracture of the 

steel bar. One advantage of using this model is that the compressive and tensile stress-strain 

curves can be defined individually, which is desirable in developing a modified stress-strain 

relationship incorporating bond-slip effects for the reduced models (see Section 5.2.4). While 

this model was developed for solid and shell elements only, it has been extended to support beam 

elements by the software vender for the purposes of this study.

59
For various sizes of reinforcing bars used in the test specimens, the material model parameters 

were developed based on the engineering stress-strain curves obtained from standard tensile tests 

of reinforcing bars used for fabrication of the test specimens (see Chapter 3). For both the IMF 

and SMF specimens, the tensile tests provided data for beam longitudinal reinforcement (No. 8 

and No. 9 bars), column longitudinal reinforcement (No. 9 and No. 10 bars), and ties and stirrups 

(No. 4 bars). Due to the lack of data for the softening branch of stress-strain curves beyond the 

ultimate stress, a linear descending branch of the stress-strain relationship was assumed (see 

Figure 5.2).

For beam elements representing reinforcing bars in the detailed models (Section 5.3.1), the 

engineering stress-strain curve cannot be converted directly to the true stress versus effective 

plastic strain curve because the cross-sectional area of the beam element remains constant (true 

stress σt is equal to engineering stress σE in this case). To determine the input curves, iterative 

finite element analyses of the tensile strength tests were carried out. Effective plastic strains were 

adjusted until quantitative agreement of the measured and calculated engineering stress-strain 

behavior was attained. 

Figure 5.1 shows examples of finite element models of a No. 9 reinforcing bar used in the IMF 

specimen. The length was determined by the gage length of 8 in (203 mm) used in the tensile 

tests. In Example (a) a single beam element was used. The input curves were determined by 

iterative finite element analysis until a close match between the engineering stress-strain curve 

from the tensile strength test and from the analysis was attained as shown in Figure 5.2. The 

results of Examples (b) and (c) using two and four beam elements, respectively, and the same 

input curve used in Example (a) are also plotted in Figure 5.2. The curves agreed well with the 

test results except for the softening branches. Since the softening behavior was essentially 

associated with the necking of the bar, the beam element with constant cross-sectional area 

cannot capture the necking behavior. Plasticity tended to be localized in one element, which is 

affected by the mesh size. To avoid this type of spurious localization, the softening portion of the 

input stress-strain curve was adjusted based on the element size. In this manner, consistency with 

the experimental rupture strain can be achieved as shown in Figure 5.3. 

Figure 5.1 Example finite element models of No. 9 reinforcing bar: (a) beam element with 8 in (203 mm) 

mesh size, (b) beam element with 4 in (102 mm) mesh size and (c) beam element with 2 in (51 mm) mesh size 

60 
0.0

137.9

275.9

413.8

551.7

689.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

True Stress σt (MPa)

True Stress σt (ksi)

Effective Plastic Strain εp (%)

0.0

137.9

275.9

413.8

551.7

689.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 5 10 15 20

Engineering Stress σE (MPa)

Engineering Stress σE (ksi)

Engineering Strain εE (%)

1 element

2 elements

4 elements

Test

(a) (b) 

Figure 5.2 (a) Input stress-strain curve and (b) engineering stress-strain curves for a No. 9 reinforcing bar 

obtained from a standard tensile test and from finite element analyses using different sizes of beam elements 

0.0

137.9

275.9

413.8

551.7

689.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

True Stress σt (MPa)

True Stress σt (ksi)

Effective Plastic Strain εp (%)

1 element

2 elements

4 elements

0.0

137.9

275.9

413.8

551.7

689.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 5 10 15 20

Engineering Stress σE (MPa)

Engineering Stress σE (ksi)

Engineering Strain εE (%)

1 element

2 elements

4 elements

Test

(a) (b) 

Figure 5.3 (a) Input stress-strain curves and (b) engineering stress-strain curves for a No. 9 reinforcing bar 

obtained from a standard tensile test and from finite element analyses using different sizes of beam elements 

5.2.2 Concrete 

For the solid elements used in the detailed models (Section 5.3.1), a continuous surface cap 

model (MAT_CSCM_CONCRETE or MAT_159 in LS-DYNA) was used as the material model 

for concrete. In this model, a smooth and continuous intersection is formulated between the 

failure surface and the hardening cap. The main features of the model are isotropic constitutive 

equations, a yield surface formulated in terms of three stress invariants with translation for prepeak hardening, a hardening cap that expands and contracts, and damage-based softening with 

erosion and modulus reduction. This model can capture confinement effects and softening 

behavior both in tension and compression. By using a regulation technique, it can achieve 

convergent softening behavior with reasonable mesh refinement. 

To demonstrate the capability of the concrete model to handle confinement effects, a single 

element example is shown in Figure 5.4. Boundary conditions and load conditions are imposed 

to simulate a lateral confinement to the concrete element block. The element is pushed down by 

61 
applying a controlled displacement to the top four nodes. Stress-strain curves are compared for 

the cases with zero confinement pressure and with 150 psi (1034 kPa) confinement pressure. 

Figure 5.4 shows that the confined concrete has higher compressive strength. More details about 

this model can be found in a report published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA 

2007).

F

F

F

F

F F

F F

 Figure 5.4 Compressive stress-strain curves of concrete with and without confinement 

or the beam elements representing concrete in the reduced models (Section 5.3.2), two material 

 the material 

the 

ain 

The softening branch of the stress-strain curve for concrete could not be obtained experimentally 

 

F

models (MAT_PLASTICITY_COMPRESSION_TENSION or MAT_124, and 

MAT_RC_BEAM or MAT_174) were considered. Important features of each of

models are listed in Table 5.1. Because the current version of LS-DYNA does not support the 

use of different types of materials to define concrete and reinforcement with type 1 beam 

formulation (Hughes-Liu beam with cross-section integration), MAT_124 was selected as 

concrete material model for critical beam elements representing beam segments with highly 

nonlinear behavior expected. MAT_124 is generally suitable for defining a uniaxial stress-str

relationship under monotonic loading condition. It is noted in Table 5.1 that MAT_124 does not 

provide a regulation on softening behavior by itself. Therefore, a modification of the input stressstrain curve based on mesh size is required. For noncritical beam elements, MAT_174 was used 

in place of MAT_124. 

due to limitations on the stiffness of the machine used for compression testing of the concrete 

cylinders. In order to develop input stress-strain curves for concrete to be used in the reduced 

models, a basic stress-strain curve was generated first from available information such as the 

compressive strength ݂௖

ᇱ

 and the strain εc1 corresponding to the compressive strength. 

Subsequently, the basic stress-strain curve was modified based on the mesh size. 

Single Point Constraints (SPC)

Unit length brick element

Displacement controlled loading

F       Applied force to simulate confined pressure

Deformed shape

y

x

z

62 
 Table 5.1 Features of two material models used for concrete 

Feature MAT_124 MAT_174 

Can be used for concrete rcing bars and reinfo Y Y 

Can define failure Y N 

Compressive and tensile behavior can be defined separately Y N 

Regulation for mesh size sensitivity N Y 

Support user defined compressive and tensile curves Y N 

he compressive stress-strain relationship for unconfined concrete was estimated as follows:

 the 

 

T

1. The ascending portion can be calculated by various equations in the literature, such as

one proposed by Popovics (1973):

ߪ ௖ൌ െ

ಶ೎೔

ಶ೎భ

ഄ೎೔

ഄ೎భିቀഄ೎೔ഄ೎భቁ

మ

ଵାቀಶ೎೔

ಶ೎భିଶቁഄ೎೔ഄ೎భ

݂௖

ᇱ

 (5.1) 

εci where σc is the compressive stress, is the compressive strain, Eci is the tangent 

secant 

2. The cutoff 

 Table 5.2 Coefficient n of concrete cutoff strain from CEB-FIP model code (CEB 1991) 

modulus calculated based on the CEB-FIP model code (CEB 1991), and Ec1 is the 

modulus from the origin to the peak compressive stress (see Figure 5.5).

The descending portion was approximated by a straight line (Figure 5.5). 

strain nεc1 depends on the concrete strength, and the coefficient n was estimated from

Table 5.2, which is from the CEB-FIP model code (CEB 1991).

 

Compressive strength of concrete Cutoff strain coefficient, n 

2900 psi (20 MPa) 3 

5800 psi (40 MPa) 2 

8700 psi (60 MPa) 1.5 

11600 psi (80 MPa) 1.2 

hen experimental data are not available, Equation (5.1) may be used to develop a stress-strain 

ent 

the 

W

curve. To reduce the mesh size effects, a constant fracture energy approach was used. To 

maintain constant fracture energy, the shaded area in Figure 5.5 needs to be adjusted by 

modifying the cutoff strain (through adjustment of the coefficient n) according to the elem

characteristic length Lchar. The compressive fracture energy Gf,c can be estimated as 100 times 

tensile fracture energy Gf,t (see Table 5.3).

63 
Confinement effects were calculated using a modified Kent and Park model proposed by Scott et 

al. (1982), which was based on experimental data from monotonically loaded full-sized column 

samples. The enhancement of concrete strength and ductility as a result of the confinement of 

rectangular-shaped transverse reinforcement were taken into account in this model. 

0.2 cf ′

cf ′

σ

ε c1 nε c1 ε

, (constant) L AG char × = f c

Eci

Ec1

L1 L2

L3 Lines L1 , L2, and L3

are parallel,

with slope Eci

 Figure 5.5 Compressive stress-strain relationship of unconfined concrete 

The tensile stress-strain relationship for concrete was estimated as follows:

1. For uncracked concrete subject to tension, a bilinear curve defined by the following 

equations in the CEB-FIP model code (CEB 1991) was used to estimate the ascending 

branch of the tensile stress-strain curve:

for 0 0.9

0.00015 0.1 for 0.9 0.00015

0.00015 0.9

t

ci

t

t ci

ci

f

ci ct ct E

ct ct f

t t f E ct

E

E

f f

ε ε

σ ε

ε

⎧ < ≤ ⎪ = ⎨ − − < ⎪ − ⎩

≤ (5.2) 

where Eci is the tangent modulus of elasticity, ft is the tensile strength, σct is the tensile 

stress, and εct is the tensile strain (see Figure 5.6).

2. For cracked concrete, a straight line was used to describe the descending branch of the 

stress-strain curve. The ultimate crack strain ߝ௨

௖௥ was calculated based on tensile fracture 

energy Gf,t (see Table 5.3) in this smeared crack model as:

௨ߝ 

௖௥ ൌ ଶீ೑,೟

௙೟௛ (5.3) 

where h is the crack bandwidth (for beam elements, h is the length of the element).

64 
 Table 5.3 Tensile fracture energy from CEB-FIP model code (CEB 1991) 

Maximum aggregate size, dmax Fracture energy, Gf,t

0.315 in (8 mm) 0.143 lbf·in/in2 (0.025 N·mm/mm2) 

0.630 in (16 mm) 0.171 lbf·in/in2 (0.030 N·mm/mm2) 

1.260 in (32 mm) 0.331 lbf·in/in2 (0.058 N·mm/mm2) 

σ

ε c r

u 0.00015 ε

 Figure 5.6 Tensile stress-strain relationship of concrete 

5.2.3 Shear in Concrete 

For the detailed models (Section 5.3.1), shear behavior of the concrete material is modeled 

explicitly using the continuous surface cap model (MAT_159). For the reduced models (Section 

5.3.2), although the Hughes-Liu beam element is able to include finite transverse shear strains in 

its formulation, the shear behavior of the joint panel zones needs to be modeled using separate 

spring elements. The shear behavior of joint panel zones in the reduced models was represented 

using rigid links connected by rotational springs with a symmetric multi-linear moment-rotation 

relationship. The shear stress (τ) versus shear strain (γ) relationship under monotonic load was 

calculated following the approach proposed by Vecchio and Collins (1986). Figure 5.7 shows a 

comparison between the calculated shear stress-strain relationship and experimental data 

(specimen PV20, Vecchio and Collins 1986). The equivalent moment (M) and corresponding 

joint rotation (θ) for the rotationa e est l springs ar imated as:

 ܯൌ߬·ܸ௝௢௜௡௧ , ߠ ൌ tanିଵ ߛ) 5.4 (

65 
where Vjoint is the gross volume of the joint, which is computed as a product of the column width, 

depth and beam height. Since no beam shear failure was observed in similar tests conducted 

recently (Yi et al. 2008, Su et al. 2009, Yu and Tan 2010), a distinct shear spring representing the 

shear behavior of the beam-joint interface was not included in the reduced models.

0

1.38

2.76

4.14

5.52

6.9

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Shear Stress,

vxy (MPa)

Shear Stress,

vxy (ksi)

Shear Strain,γxy (×10−3)

Calculated

Test PV20

Figure 5.7 Comparison of calculated and observed response (Vecchio et al. 1986) 

5.2.4 Bond-Slip Effects 

The bond-slip effect is an important feature that needs to be considered in developing the 

computational model. If bond slip is neglected, the model cannot capture the bond failure mode. 

A fully bonded assumption will also lead to premature bar fracture in certain circumstances. For 

the detailed models (Section 5.3.1), bond-slip behavior was modeled by defining a onedimensional contact interface (CONTACT_1D in LS-DYNA) between the solid elements 

representing concrete and the beam elements representing reinforcing bars. The bond-slip 

relationship is assumed to be bilinear, and bond stress deterioration after reaching the maximum 

bond stress is considered through setting a positive value of the exponent in the damage curve 

(see Hallquist 2007). 

Recommended values of the maximum bond stress τmax and the slip so under τmax can be found in 

references as the DIANA User’s Manual (de Witte 2005) or the CEB-FIP model code (CEB 

1991). In this study, τmax is defined as 1.9ft, where ft is the tensile strength of concrete, so is equal 

to 0.0024 in (0.06 mm), and the value of the exponent in the damage curve is set to 4 (see 

Hallquist 2007).

For the reduced models (Section 5.3.2), the stress-strain relationship of reinforcing bars of 

critical beam elements, representing beam segments with highly nonlinear behavior expected, is 

modified for bond-slip effects as shown in Equation (5.6). It is assumed that the stress-strain 

relationship without the bond-slip effect is expressed as: 

66 
 ߝ ൌ ݂ሺߪሻ (5.5) 

The modified stress-strain relationship can then be defined as: 

 ߝᇱ ൌ ௅ି௅బ

௅బ

ൌ ௦ሺఙሻା௙ሺఙሻ௅బ

௅బ

ൌ ௦ሺఙሻ

௅బ

൅ ݂ሺߪሻ ൌ ݂ᇱ (5.6) ሻ଴ܮ ,ߪሺ

where s is the slip under axial stress σ, L0 is the original length of the reinforcing bar, and L is 

the “deformed” length of the reinforcing bar including slip. All stresses and strains are expressed 

in engineering terms. The input curves for MAT_124 are generated based on the modified stressstrain curves by following the iterative procedure described in Section 5.2.1. The slip s is 

calculated using an approach proposed by Lowes et al. (2003). An average bond stress of τe is 

assumed if σs ≤ fy, where σs is the stress in the reinforcing bar and fy is the yield strength of the 

bar. An average bond stress of τy is assumed if σs > fy. Expressions for τe and τy are given in 

Table 5.4, based on Lowes et al. (2003). If sufficient anchorage length can be provided, which is 

shown in Figure 5.8(a), bond slip s is defined as the deformation of the reinforcing bar along the 

anchorage length Ly. 

 Table 5.4 Average bond strengths as a function of steel stress (Lowes et al. 2003) 

Bar stress σs

Average bond strength (psi) 

(fc in psi)

Average bond strength (MPa) 

(fc in MPa) 

Tension σs ≤ fy e c τ = 21 f ′ e c τ = 8.1 f ′

Tension σs > fy yc c 6.0 f ′ τ ≤≤ 8.4 f ′ yc c 05.0 f ′ τ ≤≤ 4.0 f ′

For the convenience of modeling with more generalized stress-strain curves obtained from 

tensile tests, the calculation of slip s is simplified from an integrated form (Lowes et al. 2003) to 

a discretized form. Let ([εs]n,[σs]n) denote a point on a discretized, monotonically-increasing 

stress-strain curve, where n = 1, 2, 3, ... , and [εs]1 = [σs]1 = 0. Letting sn denote the value of slip 

associated with the point ([εs]n,[σs]n), where s1 = 0, and letting db denote the diameter of the 

reinforcing bar, values of slip corresponding to each point on the stress strain curve can be 

calculated as follows: 

 

( )( )

1 1 1

1

1 1

[][ ] for [ ] 8

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] for [ ] 8

b

1

s n sn s n

e

n

b

n sn sn sn sn s n

y

d y

y

f

s d s f

ε σ σ

τ

ε εσ σ σ

τ

+ + +

+

+ +

⎧

+

≤ ⎪

⎪ = ⎨

⎪ ++ − > ⎪

⎩

 (5.7) 

For the case with insufficient ancho g ra e length (see Figure 5.8b), bond slip s' can be obtained by

 ݏᇱ ൌ ݏሺߪ௦ሻ െ ݏሺߪ௦

ᇱ

ሻ (5.8) 

Figure 5.9 illustrates modeling the tensile behavior of a reinforcing bar of a critical beam 

element. Assuming that the original length of the steel bar is L0, the deformed length L including 

bond slip is calculated as:

67 
 (5.9) ଶݏ ൅ ଵݏ ൅ ᇱܮൌܮ 

where L′ is the deformed length caused by bar elongation, and s1 and s2 are the amounts of bond 

slip at each end. In Equation (5.9), s1 and s2 can be computed based on their anchorage 

conditions, and L' can be computed based on the stress-strain relationship of the reinforcing bar. 

A more sophisticated calculation of ܮᇱ would need to consider the tension stiffening effect by 

using a modified stress-strain relationship for the embedded reinforcing bar in concrete, as 

suggested in the CEB-FIP model code (CEB 1991). For simplicity, the tension stiffening effect is 

not included in this study, as its effect is considered negligible compared to the bond-slip effect. 

Axial stress distribution

Bond stress distribution

σ s

τ

y f

e τ

y τ

L'y

s'

s σ ' σ s

σ s

τ

y f

e τ

y τ

Le

Ly

s

σ s

(a) (b)

 Figure 5.8 Bond stress distribution (a) with full anchorage and (b) without full anchorage 

s1 s2

L0

L'

L

Deformed beam

 Figure 5.9 Bond-slip effects of reinforcement fiber at critical beam elements 

68 
5.3 FINITE ELEMENT MODELS 

Two finite element models of each specimen tested in Chapter 4 were developed to study the 

response characteristics of the beam–column assemblies. The first was a detailed model with 

approximately 70,000 solid and beam elements for the IMF specimen and about 60,000 elements 

for the SMF specimen (fewer elements due to the relative larger mesh size). The second was a 

reduced model with about 80 beam and zero-length elements for both IMF and SMF specimens. 

The following sections provide detail descriptions of the both models.

5.3.1 Detailed Models 

An overview of the detailed models used in the analysis of the IMF and SMF specimens is 

shown in Figure 5.10. Solid elements in the right-hand portion of each model are removed to 

show the embedded reinforcing bars. The detailed models consist of solid elements representing 

the concrete and the steel plate at the top of the center column, beam elements representing 

longitudinal and transverse reinforcing bars, and rigid elements representing the steel rollers. 

Enlarged views of portions of the detailed model are shown in Figure 5.11. The characteristic 

length of the solid elements used to represent concrete is between 1.75 in to 2 in (44 mm to 

51 mm) for the IMF specimen, and 1.2 in to 3 in (30 mm to 76 mm) for the SMF specimen. The 

aspect ratio of solid elements is in a range of 1 to 2.3 for the IMF specimen and 1 to 2.8 for the 

SMF specimen. The length of the beam elements representing beam longitudinal reinforcement 

is 4 in (102 mm), while the beam elements representing transverse and column longitudinal 

reinforcement range in length from 3.25 in to 4 in (83 mm to 102 mm) for the IMF specimen and 

3.5 in to 5 in (89 mm to 127 mm) for the SMF specimen.

Bond slip is modeled between beam-longitudinal reinforcing bars and surrounding concrete as 

described in Section 5.2.4. Two sets of nodes are required to define the contact, with the concrete 

nodes specified as master nodes and the reinforcement nodes specified as slave nodes. Bond slip 

is not considered for the transverse and column longitudinal reinforcement. Beam elements 

representing these reinforcing bars are constrained within the solid elements using the 

CONSTRAINED_LAGRANGE_IN_SOLID card. Beam elements can be eroded when a prespecified failure strain is reached, representing the fracture of reinforcing bars. Solid elements 

are not eroded in this analysis in order to avoid excessive loss of stiffness.

Very fine meshing of solid elements would be required to directly capture the progress of 

concrete cracking, which could also cause a nonobjective (divergent) response due to 

localization. Since simulation of cracking is not a focus of this study, the level of refinement of 

the solid element mesh described above is considered reasonable. While cracks are not modeled 

explicitly, concrete cracking can be reflected by contours of the damage index computed by the 

concrete material model. Mechanical bar couplers are assumed to have a higher ultimate strength 

than the longitudinal reinforcing bars and thus modeled using elastic elements. End nodes of the 

beam longitudinal reinforcements within the end columns are constrained by the surrounding 

concrete nodes using the CONSTRAINED_INTERPOLATION card, simulating the effect of 

mechanical anchorage devices (see Section 3.2). 

69 
All nodes are fixed at the bases of the end columns. The steel rollers which are used to restrain 

the horizontal movement near the top of the end columns are modeled by non-deformable 

cylinders (RIGIDWALL_GEOMETRIC_CYLINDER in LS-DYNA). Contact between the 

concrete column and the steel roller is automatically considered as a feature of the rigid wall 

interface in LS-DYNA. In the test, a steel plate was placed on the top of the center column to 

avoid local damage to concrete. This plate is represented using solid elements with an elastic 

material model. All top surface nodes of the steel plate are pushed downward following a 

prescribed time-displacement curve. 

Solid Elements

Steel Plate

Steel Roller

Fixed bottom

Transverse Reinforcements

Longitudinal Reinforcements

20 ft - 0 in (6.10 m)

6 ft - 0 in 

(1.83 m)

6 ft - 0 in 

(1.83 m)

20 ft - 0 in (6.10 m)

(a)

Beam Elements

Solid Elements Beam Elements

Steel Plate

Steel Roller

Fixed bottom

Transverse Reinforcements

Longitudinal Reinforcements

20 ft - 0 in (6.10 m)

6 ft - 0 in 

(1.83 m)

20 ft - 0 in (6.10 m)

6 ft - 0 in 

(1.83 m)

(b)

 Figure 5.10 Overview of detailed model of (a) IMF and (b) SMF specimen 

70 
 Figure 5.11 Enlarged views of portions of the detailed model 

5.3.2 Reduced Models 

The reduced models of the IMF and SMF specimens are shown in Figure 5.12. Both models 

make use of Hughes-Liu beam elements (Hallquist 2007) to represent the beams and columns. 

The Hughes-Liu beam elements use cross section integration with each integration point 

assigned to a discretized cross-sectional geometry component (fiber). Integration of the cross 

section is performed at mid-length of each beam element. Because integration is performed at 

only one section along the axis of each beam, a fairly small mesh size is required at critical 

Contact 1D

Longitudinal Bar 

Transverse Bar 

Concrete

Rigid Rollers

IMF SMF

71 
locations (such as beam ends) in order to obtain acceptable accuracy. However, very small mesh 

sizes will cause a non-objective material response as well as computational inefficiency. In this 

study, the mesh size of critical elements is selected as one half of the beam depth. Ten beam 

elements in total were used to model each beam with varying section properties. The beam 

elements used cross section integration with the proper cross-sectional geometry defined for each 

section type. Uniaxial stress-strain relationships for concrete and reinforcing bars are defined as 

discussed in Section 5.2.

The beam-column joints were modeled by a deformable rectangular frame with rigid sides and 

nonlinear springs located at the corners (Figure 5.13). Zero-length discrete beam elements were 

used to connect the rigid links at their ends. Independent curves can be defined for all degrees of 

freedom (three translational and three rotational DOFs) of these zero-length elements using the 

MAT_GENERAL_NONLINEAR_6DOF_DISCRETE_BEAM card in LS-DYNA. The in-plane 

moment-rotation relationship is presented in Section 5.2.3, accounting for joint panel shear 

behavior. Beams and columns were connected to the joints by interpolating beam (or column) 

nodal DOFs from the translational DOFs of a pair of joint nodes, one at each end of the rigid 

element, using the CONSTRAINED_INTERPOLATION card in LS-DYNA. The column bases 

were modeled as fixed.

20 ft - 0 in (6.10 m) 20 ft - 0 in (6.10 m)

6 ft - 0 in 

(1.83 m)

6 ft - 0 in 

(1.83 m)

20 ft - 0 in (6.10 m) 20 ft - 0 in (6.10 m)

6 ft - 0 in 

(1.83 m)

6 ft - 0 in 

(1.83 m)

Fixed Fixed 

Fixed Fixed 

(a)

(b)

 Figure 5.12 Overview of reduced model of (a) IMF and (b) SMF specimens 

72 
Rigid Link

Rigid Link

Rigid Link

Rigid 

Link

Moment Released

Moment Released

Nonlinear 

Shear 

Springs

Beam Element

Column Element

Moment Released

Moment Released

 Figure 5.13 Detailed view of beam-column joint in reduced model of IMF specimen 

5.4 ANALYSIS RESULTS 

The IMF and SMF test specimens were analyzed using both the detailed and reduced models. 

The gravity load (self-weight) of the specimen was applied first, which was followed by 

displacement-controlled loading applied at the top of the center column. The analysis results of 

the detailed and reduced models are presented in the following sections.

5.4.1 IMF Specimen 

The final deflected shapes of the IMF specimen based on the detailed and reduced models are 

shown in Figure 5.14. In the detailed model, beam elements representing bottom reinforcing bars 

near the center column exceeded the fracture strain and were eroded (see Figure 5.15) at a center 

column vertical displacement of 42.2 in (1072 mm). In the reduced model, strains of the 

integration points representing the bottom reinforcing bars in the critical elements near the center 

column exceeded the fracture strain at a center column displacement of about 42.8 in (1087 mm). 

Such a failure mode is consistent with that observed in the experiment (see Figure 4.2) at a 

measured center column vertical displacement of 43 in (1092 mm). 

73 
(a)

(b)

Figure 5.14 Deflected shape of IMF specimen: (a) detailed model at a center column vertical displacement of 

42.2 in (1072 mm) and (b) reduced model at a center column vertical displacement of 42.8 in (1087 mm) 

(contours represent vertical displacements in inches) 

 Figure 5.15 Failure mode of IMF detailed model (contours represent plastic strains) 

Concrete damage distributions at two levels of vertical displacement of the center column are 

shown in Figure 5.16 along with the observed crack patterns. The contours depict the degree of 

damage of the concrete, with a value of 0 representing no damage and a value of 1 representing 

complete damage. At a displacement of 24 in (610 mm), about at the onset of catenary action 

(see Section 4.4), the analysis shows that the damage is concentrated at the beam ends and the 

longitudinal reinforcing bar cutoff points in the beam. Inclined damage contours are seen at 

74 
exterior beam-column joints and the lower half of the columns, which represent the formation of 

diagonal shear cracks. At the final stage of the response, with a displacement of about 42 in 

(1076 mm), damage is widespread along the entire length of the beams. The computed damage 

distributions are in agreement with the observed crack patterns. 

(a)

(b)

Figure 5.16 Concrete damage index contours compared with observed crack patterns at center column 

displacement of (a) 24 in (610 mm) and (b) 42 in (1067 mm) for IMF specimen (contours represent damage 

index: 0 = no damage, 1 = complete damage) 

Figure 5.17 shows plots of (a) the applied vertical load and (b) the measured horizontal 

displacement of the end columns at beam mid-height versus the measured vertical displacement 

of the center column. Curves computed from the detailed and the reduced models are also shown 

in the figures and generally good agreement with the experimental curve is observed. The 

applied load on the center column began to decrease after reaching a peak at a vertical 

displacement of about 5 in (127 mm). The applied load leveled off after the center column was 

pulled down to a displacement of about 20 in (508 mm), then increased again with increasing 

displacement until the specimen failed at a displacement of about 42.8 in (1087 mm). Similar to 

the experimental observations, the end columns at beam mid-height initially moved outward and 

subsequently moved inward when the displacement of the center column was about 10 in 

(254 mm). This change in the direction of movement of the end columns indicates a change in 

the beam axial force from compression to tension.

75 
0 254 508 762 1016 1270

0

222.4

444.8

667.2

889.6

0

50

100

150

200

0 10 20 30 40 50

Midspan Displacement (mm)

Applied Load (kip)

Applied Load (kN)

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (in)

Experimental

Detailed model

Reduced model

(a) 

0 254 508 762 1016 1270

-7.62

-5.08

-2.54

0

2.54

5.08

7.62

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0 10 20 30 40 50

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (mm)

Horizontal Displacement (in)

Horizontal Displacement (mm)

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (in)

Experimental

Detailed model

Reduced model

(b) 

Figure 5.17 (a) Applied vertical load and (b) horizontal displacement of end column at beam mid-height 

versus vertical displacement of center column for IMF specimen 

Computed axial stresses in longitudinal reinforcing bars at the beam mid-span from the detailed 

model are shown in Figure 5.18, which indicates a shift in the beam axial force from 

compression to tension. Figure 5.18(a) shows that both top and bottom reinforcing bars were 

predominantly in compression in the early stages of loading, when the vertical displacement of 

the center column was less than 4.6 in (117 mm). The stresses in the bars gradually changed to 

tension as the center column displacement was increased. Figure 5.18(b) shows the state of stress 

of these reinforcing bars when the vertical displacement was 42 in (1067 mm). Detailed and 

reduced model calculations of beam axial force versus the center column displacement are 

shown in Figure 5.19, in which the change from compression to tension is evident. 

A diagonal compression zone extending from the bottom corner of the beam near the end column 

to the upper corner near the center column is seen in Figure 5.20, which shows the minimum 

principal stress contours for concrete at a center column displacement of 4.6 in (117 mm). The 

76 
plot indicates the development of “arching action” in the beams (see Section 4.4), which was 

also reported by Su et al. (2009) in their experimental work. 

Similar to the experimental results, the computational models indicate that as the displacement of 

the center column increased, yielding initiated in the bottom reinforcing bars of the beams near 

the center column, followed by yielding of the top reinforcing bars near the end columns. With 

further increase in the displacement, yielding of both the top and bottom reinforcing bars 

propagated from the beam ends toward mid-span.

 

(a) (b) 

Figure 5.18 Axial stresses in reinforcing bars along a beam segment near mid-span at center column 

displacements of (a) 4.6 in (117 mm) and (b) 42 in (1067 mm) for IMF specimen (contours represent stress in 

psi) 

0 254 508 762 1016 1270

-1779.2

-889.6

0

889.6

1779.2

-400

-200

0

200

400

0 10 20 30 40 50

Midspan Displacement (mm)

Beam Axial Force (kip)Beam Axial Force (kN)

Center Column Deflection (in)

Detailed model

Reduced model

Figure 5.19 Beam axial force versus vertical displacement of center column for IMF specimen 

77 
Figure 5.20 Minimum principal stress contours of concrete at a center column displacement of 4.6 in (117 

mm) for IMF specimen (Contours represent stress in psi) 

5.4.2 SMF Specimen 

Figure 5.21 shows the final deformed shapes of the SMF specimen based on the detailed and 

reduced models. This specimen experienced a movement of the north footing during the test as 

described in Section 4.3.3. This movement of the footing was considered in the analysis by 

applying the measured displacement in Figure 4.19 as a prescribed displacement at the base of 

the north column. In the detailed model, beam elements representing bottom reinforcing bars 

near the north side of the center column exceeded the fracture strain and were eroded (see Figure 

5.22) at a center column displacement of 48.2 in (1224 mm). In the reduced model, strains of the 

integration points representing bottom reinforcing bars in the critical elements near the north side 

of the center column exceeded the fracture strain at a center column displacement of 47.0 in 

(1194 mm). This failure mode is consistent with that observed in the experiment (see Figure 

4.16) at a measured center column displacement of 48 in (1219 mm).

Concrete damage distributions at two levels of center column displacement are shown in Figure 

5.23 along with the observed crack patterns. At a displacement of 24.5 in (622 mm), the analysis 

shows that the damage is concentrated at beam ends and at the longitudinal reinforcing bar cutoff 

points. Inclined damage contours are seen at the exterior beam-column joints and within the 

lower half of the columns. At the final stage of the response, with a displacement of about 

48.2 in (1224 mm), damage is widespread along the entire length of the beams. The computed 

damage distributions are in good agreement with the observed crack patterns. 

78 
(a)

(b)

Figure 5.21 Deflected shape of SMF specimen: (a) detailed model at a center column vertical displacement of 

48.2 in (1224 mm) and (b) reduced model at a center column vertical displacement of 47.0 in (1194 mm) 

(Contours represent vertical displacements in inches) 

Figure 5.22 Failure mode of the SMF detailed model (Contours represent plastic strains) 

79 
(a)

(b)

Figure 5.23 Concrete damage index contours compared with observed crack patterns at center column 

displacement of (a) 24.5 in (622 mm) and (b) 48.2 in (1224 mm) for SMF specimen (contours represent 

damage index: 0 = no damage, 1 = complete damage) 

Figure 5.24 shows plots of (a) the applied vertical load, (b) the horizontal displacement of the 

south column at beam mid-height, and (c) the horizontal displacement of the north column at 

beam mid-height versus the vertical displacement of the center column. Curves computed from 

the detailed and reduced models are also shown in the figures. Similar to the experimental 

results, the computational models indicate that as the displacement of the center column 

increased, yielding initiated in the bottom reinforcing bars of the beams near the center column, 

followed by yielding of the top reinforcing bars near the end columns. After reaching a peak load 

of about 200 kip (890 kN) at a vertical displacement of 4 in (102 mm), the load began to 

decrease as the center column displacement increased. At the same time, yielding of both the top 

and bottom reinforcing bars propagated from the beam ends toward mid-span. The load leveled 

off at a center column displacement of about 25 in (635 mm). As the displacement was further 

increased, the load began to increase again with the development of catenary action until the 

specimen failed at a displacement of 47 in (1194 mm). As shown in Figure 5.24(b), the south 

column initially moved outward at beam mid-height and subsequently began to move inward 

when the displacement of the center column was about 10 in (254 mm). This change in direction 

of the movement of the end columns indicates a change in the beam axial force from 

compression to tension. Movement of the north column at beam mid-height, which is shown 

in Figure 5.24(c), was not symmetric to that of the south column due to the movement of the 

north footing; however, a similar trend can be seen. 

80 
0 254 508 762 1016 1270 1524

0

444.8

889.6

1334.4

1779.2

0

100

200

300

400

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Midspan Displacement (mm)

Applied Load (kip)

Applied Load (kN)

Center Column Deflection (in)

Experimental

Detailed model

Reduced model

(a) 

0 254 508 762 1016 1270 1524

-30.48

-20.32

-10.16

0

10.16

20.32

-1.2

-0.8

-0.4

0

0.4

0.8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (mm)

Horizontal Displacement (in)

Horizontal Displacement (mm)

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (in)

Experimental

Detailed model

Reduced model

(b) 

0 254 508 762 1016 1270 1524

-30.48

-20.32

-10.16

0

10.16

20.32

-1.2

-0.8

-0.4

0

0.4

0.8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (mm)

Horizontal Displacement (mm)

Horizontal Displacement (in)

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (in)

Experimental

Detailed model

Reduced model

(c) 

Figure 5.24 (a) Vertical load, (b) horizontal displacement of south column at beam mid-height and (c) 

horizontal displacement of north column at beam mid-height versus center column displacement for SMF 

specimen 

81 
Computed axial stresses in longitudinal reinforcing bars at the beam mid-span from the detailed 

model are shown in Figure 5.25, which indicates a shift in the beam axial force from 

compression to tension. Figure 5.25(a) shows that both top and bottom reinforcing bars were 

predominantly in compression when the vertical displacement of the center column was 4.4 in 

(112 mm), while Figure 5.25(b) shows that tensile stress eventually developed in the longitudinal 

reinforcements when the vertical displacement was increased to 48 in (1219 mm). 

Detailed and reduced model calculations of beam axial force versus the center column 

displacement are shown in Figure 5.26. Similar to the IMF specimen, the analysis results show 

that the compressive axial force continued to increase beyond the initial peak vertical load. A 

diagonal compression zone extending from the bottom corner of the beam near the end column 

to the upper corner near the center column is seen in Figure 5.27 at a center column displacement 

of 4.4 in (112 mm), indicating the development of “arching action” in the beams. 

 

(a) (b) 

Figure 5.25 Axial stresses in reinforcing bars along a beam segment near mid-span beam at center column 

displacement of (a) 4.4 in (112 mm) and (b) 48 in (1219 mm) for SMF specimen (Contours represent stress in 

psi) 

0 254 508 762 1016 1270 1524

-3558.4

-1779.2

0

1779.2

3558.4

-800

-400

0

400

800

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Midspan Displacement (mm)

Beam Axial Force (kip)Beam Axial Force (kN)

Vertical Displacement of Center Column (in)

Detailed model

Reduced model

Figure 5.26 Beam axial force versus vertical displacement of center column for SMF specimen 

82 
Figure 5.27 Minimum principal stress contours of concrete at a center column displacement of 4.4 in (112 

mm) for SMF specimen (Contours represent stress in psi) 

5.5 SUMMARY 

This chapter presented a computational assessment of the performance of beam-column 

assemblies designed and detailed for Seismic Design Categories C and D under the monotonic 

loading conditions expected in column removal scenarios. Two different modeling approaches 

were considered in this study: (1) detailed models with a large number of elements, primarily 

solid and beam elements, and (2) reduced models with much fewer elements, primarily beam and 

zero-length elements. The analyses conducted using these models provided insight into the 

behavior and failure modes of the moment resisting concrete frames. 

This study indicates good agreement between the experimental results and the computational 

predictions. Both detailed and reduced models were able to capture the primary response 

characteristics and failure modes. The reduced models developed in this study will serve as a 

valuable tool to analyze complete structural systems for assessing the reserve capacity and 

robustness of building structures.

The analyses also indicated the development of “arching action” in the beams as a result of the 

restraint of axial elongation of the beams provided by the end columns. Axial compressive forces 

in the beams diminished as the vertical column displacement approached the depth of the beam. 

Eventually, the axial compressive forces in the beams changed to tensile forces as a result of the 

formation of catenary action in the beam. The tensile forces increased with increasing 

displacement of the center column until the bottom reinforcing bars near the center column 

fractured and the specimen lost its load-carrying capacity.

83 
84 

5.6 REFERENCES 

Comite Euro-International du Beton (CEB). (1991), CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 Design Code, 

Published by Thomas Telford, London, UK. 

FHWA (2007), Evaluation of LS-DYNA Concrete Material Model 159, Publication No. FHWAHRT-05-063, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA. 

de Witte, F. C. (2005), User’s Manual-release 9, TNO DIANA BV, Delft, the Netherlands. 

Hallquist, J. (2007), LS-DYNA Keyword User’s Manual, Livermore Software Technology 

Corporation, Livermore, CA, Version 971. 

Lowes, L. N., Mitra, N., and Altoontash, A. (2003) “A beam-column joint model for simulating 

the earthquake response of reinforced concrete frames.” Technical Report, No. PEER 

2003/10, PEER, Berkeley, CA. 

Popovics, S. (1973) “A numerical approach to the complete stress strain curve for concrete.” 

Cement and concrete research, 3(5), 583-599. 

Scott, B. D., Park, R., and Priestley, M. J. N. (1982) “Stress-strain behavior of concrete confined 

by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates.” ACI Journal, 79(1). 13-27. 

Su, Y., Tian, Y., and Song, X. (2009). “Progressive collapse resistance of axially-restrained 

frame beams.” ACI Structural Journal, 106(5), 600-607. 

Vecchio, F. J. and Collins, M. P. (1986). “The modified compression-field theory for reinforced 

concrete elements subjected to shear.” ACI Journal, 83(2), 219-231. 

Yi, W., He, Q., Xiao, Y., and Kunnath, S. K. (2008). “Experimental study on progressive 

collapse-resistant behavior of reinforced concrete frame structures.” ACI Structural 

Journal,105(4), 433-439. 

Yu, J. and Tan, K. H. (2010). “Experimental study on catenary action of RC beam-column 

subassemblages.” Proceedings, 3rd International fib Congress, PCI, Washington, DC.
 

Chapter 6

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This report presented an experimental and computational study of two reinforced concrete beamcolumn assemblies, each comprising three columns and two beams. The two beam-column 

assemblies represent portions of the structural framing system of two ten-story concrete frame 

buildings. One building was designed for Seismic Design Category C (SDC C) and the other for 

Seismic Design Category D (SDC D). The beam-column assemblies were taken from the exterior 

moment resisting frames of these buildings. One test specimen, which was part of the SDC C 

building, had intermediate moment frames (IMFs) for the lateral force resisting system and the 

other, which was part of the SDC D building, had special moment frames (SMFs). The 

specimens were subjected to monotonically increasing vertical displacement of the center 

column to observe their behavior under a simulated column removal scenario, including the 

development of catenary action in the beams. The vertical displacement of the center column 

was increased until the vertical load-carrying capacity of each specimen was depleted.

The overall behavior of each beam-column assembly was analyzed using two levels of modeling 

complexity: (1) detailed models with solid elements representing concrete and beam elements 

representing steel reinforcement, and (2) reduced models with beam elements representing 

beams and columns and rigid links connected by nonlinear rotational springs representing the 

beam-column joints. The analyses conducted using these models provided insight into the 

behavior and failure modes of the test specimens, including the development of catenary action 

in the beams.

Based on the study reported herein, the following conclusions are reached.

1. For both the IMF and SMF specimens, the behavior was dominated by flexure in the 

early stages of the response. With increased vertical displacement of the center column, 

resistance was provided through the development of compressive diagonal axial forces or 

“arching action” due to the restraint on axial elongation of the beams by the end columns. 

With further increase in the vertical displacement, tensile axial forces developed in the 

beams and the behavior was dominated by catenary action.

2. The failure of both the IMF and SMF specimens was characterized by: (1) crushing and 

spalling of concrete at the top of the beams near the center column, (2) development of 

major flexural cracks (deepening and widening), and (3) fracture of one of the bottom 

reinforcing bars at a major crack opening near the center column.

3. The test results show that the rotational capacities of both the IMF and SMF beam-tocolumn joints under monotonic column displacement are about seven to eight times as 

large as those based on seismic test data. The rotations at peak load in this study were 

about 0.185 rad and 0.200 rad for the IMF and SMF specimens, respectively, whereas the 

rotational capacities of these connections based on seismic testing data are approximately 

0.026 rad and 0.025 rad, respectively.

85 
86 

4. This study indicates generally good agreement between the experimental and the 

computational results. Both the detailed and reduced models were capable of capturing 

the primary response characteristics and failure modes of the test specimens.

This study shows that analysis using reduced models consisting of beam and spring elements can 

accurately predict the response characteristics of both the IMF and SMF beam-column 

assemblies. Furthermore, the reduced models developed in this study will be valuable in the 

analysis of complete structural systems for assessing the reserve capacity and robustness of 

building structures.