No abstract

No abstract

Six reinforced concrete (RC) beam column sub-assemblages, consisting of two single-bay beams, one middle joint and two end column stubs, were quasi-statically tested under a middle column removal scenario. The tests were aimed to investigate if there are alternate load paths that can mitigate progressive collapse. With adequate axial restraints, both compressive arch action (CAA) and catenary action could be mobilized, significantly increasing the structural resistance beyond the beam flexural capacity. The effects of the top and bottom reinforcement ratios at the joint interfaces and beam span-to-depth ratio on structural behavior were studied. Results show that CAA is more beneficial to the sub-assemblages with a short span-to-depth ratio and a low reinforcement ratio, whereas catenary action is more favorable to the sub-assemblages with a large span-to-depth ratio and a high reinforcement ratio, particularly the top reinforcement ratio.As the last defense mechanism to prevent structural collapse, the development of catenary action is highlighted. The onset of catenary action corresponds to the transition of beam axial force from compression to tension, typically occurring at a central deflection around one beam depth in the tests if no shear failure precedes catenary action. At catenary action stage, prior to fracture of bottom bars, structural resistance is contributed by both beam axial tension from longitudinal reinforcement and shear force due to dowel action. If the contribution from rising axial tension exceeds the loss due to declining shear force, structural resistance will still keep on increasing until the fracture of top bars. Finally, the authors suggest a deformation criterion to determine

No abstract

No abstract