Experimental Tests of Steel Frames with Different

Beam–Column Connections under Falling Debris Impact

Hao Wang 1; Kang Hai Tan 2; and Bo Yang 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 12/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Falling debris may initiate or promote the progressive collapse of a structure. To mitigate progressive collapse under falling
debris impact, steel frames with five types of beam–column connections were tested. Both single and multiple impacts were applied to
each specimen to obtain dynamic responses, load-resisting mechanisms, and impact resistance. The results showed that a typical impact
process was divided into three stages. The falling debris impact was mainly resisted by the inertia effect in the initial stage and by deformation
in subsequent stages. The majority of the external work applied to the system was absorbed by bending deformation, especially by the plastic
rotation at midspan of the beam. All the specimens had the same global deformation shape under the midspan impact scenario. The evolution
of catenary action in specimens with different beam–column connections was similar. Catenary action was shown to significantly improve the
load-carrying capacity and energy absorption in specimens with high levels of rotational ductility. Greater load-carrying capacity did not
offer greater impact resistance. Load-carrying capacity and ductility both played a significant role in the energy absorption capability of the
specimens. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002469. © 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Debris impact; Progressive collapse; Disproportionate collapse; Steel frames; Beam–column connections; Impact
resistance; Energy absorption.

Introduction
Researchers began to pay attention to progressive collapse inci-
dents after the partial collapse of the Ronan Point apartment build-
ing in 1968. Many progressive collapse events have occurred in
the following decades, such as the World Trade Center disaster
on September 11, 2001. To mitigate the progressive collapse of
building structures, the alternate load path method, an important
design approach, was recommended by many design codes, includ-
ing the GSA (2013) and DoD (2009), as it can conveniently and
effectively address the issue of structures subjected to abnormal
loads.
To date, most studies on progressive collapse have been based
on column-removal scenarios. In this method, regardless of the
accident loading effect, it is assumed that the column is removed
suddenly. If the remaining structures can redistribute the vertical
load sustained by the column removed and reach a new stable
status, progressive collapse can be prevented. Previous studies
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Key Laboratory of New Technology for Construction
of Cities in Mountain Areas, Chongqing Univ., Ministry of Education,
83 Shabeijie, Chongqing 400045, China; Ph.D. Candidate, School of Civil
Engineering, Chongqing Univ., 83 Shabeijie, Chongqing 400045, China.
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6552-7821. Email: wanghao13689@
cqu.edu.cn
2
Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang
Technological Univ., 50 Nanyang Ave. Singapore 639798. Email: ckhtan@
ntu.edu.sg
3
Professor, Key Laboratory of New Technology for Construction of
Cities in Mountain Areas, Chongqing Univ., Ministry of Education,
83 Shabeijie, Chongqing 400045, China; Professor, School of Civil Engi-
neering, Chongqing Univ., 83 Shabeijie, Chongqing 400045, China (cor-
responding author). Email: yang0206@cqu.edu.cn
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 7, 2018; approved on
May 10, 2019; published online on November 12, 2019. Discussion per-
iod open until April 12, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engi-
neering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
(Fujikake et al. 2009; Chen et al. 2017; Ribeiro et al. 2016; Lew
et al. 2013; Sadek et al. 2013) focused more on this scenario, which
investigated the loading redistribution in the remaining structures
after the column loss. In these studies, if the remaining structures
could not redistribute the vertical load, and the structural compo-
nents reached failure criteria, progressive collapse or disproportion-
ate collapse occurred. However, a falling-debris-impact scenario
may also cause progressive collapse of structures, regardless of
accident loading. This scenario assumes that structural and non-
structural elements drop down and hit the remaining structures
below due to abnormal loads. Fig. 1 shows the collapse process of
the Ronan Point apartment building. Falling debris caused the final
collapse. The entire collapse process could be divided into two
stages. In the first stage, the gas blast on the 18th floor destroyed
the load-bearing walls. The upper structures could not reach a new
stable status. The collapse occurred on the upper floors due to the
removal of vertical load-bearing elements. In the second stage,
elements from the upper floors dropped down to hit the structures
below. The lower structures did not have sufficient impact resis-
tance, and collapse occurred on the lower structures. A new dispro-
portionate collapse standard will be proposed by ASCE to mitigate
the disproportionate collapse of building structures based on GSA
(2013)/DoD (2009) guidelines, published research papers, and re-
ports. The new standard may allow for partial collapse where a
falling debris impact that may directly result in a disproportionate
collapse. However, it is difficult to predict the dynamic behaviors
and failures of structures subjected to falling debris impacts. Stud-
ies need to be carried out to mitigate the progressive collapse of
structures under impact load.
In recent years, more attention has been paid to building struc-
tures subject to falling impact. Kaewkulchai and Williamson
(2006) developed a modeling strategy to demonstrate the impact
of failed members against other structural components. The im-
portance of demonstrating the effect of impact on predicting pro-
gressive collapse was given by an example illustration. Vlassis et al.
(2009) proposed an energy-based design-oriented methodology
for building structures subject to impact from an upper floor.

© ASCE 04019183-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(1): 04019183

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 12/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Collapse process of Ronan Point apartment.
Wang et al. (2016) simulated the dynamic behavior of steel beams
with fin plate connections under impact loads. The effects of
parameters, i.e., impact energy, impact position, imposed load, bolt
hole distance, and fin plate thickness, were studied by validated
finite-element models. Olmati et al. (2017) presented a framework
for simplified reliability analysis for computing the probability of
punching failure due to a slab falling from above. The reliability
method proposed was applied to a case study of an existing build-
ing, showing that a column removal situation is not always critical,
whereas a slab falling from above is much more detrimental. Based
on the energy-transfer methodology proposed by Vlassis et al.
(2009), Jawdhari et al. (2018) assessed a withstanding progressive
collapse under falling debris for building structures. A theoretical
calculation was performed to investigate a reinforced concrete flat
plate structure and composite steel-concrete floor structure under a
fully plastic-impact scenario and a fully rigid impact. Haas et al.
(2018) presented an overview of analysis methods, i.e., conserva-
tion of energy method, single degree-of-freedom (SDOF) method,
and multiple degree-of-freedom (MDOF) method, to predict struc-
tural element performance under debris impact. A design example
showed that all three analysis methods offered similar predictions.
The conservation of the energy method is the simplest approach to
predict peak displacement. However, if the entire displacement
time-history is needed, the SDOF or MDOF methods should be
chosen.
In general, beam–column joints play an important role in the
stability of structures, because they are the weaker components in
a structural system, especially for steel and composite structures.
The beam–column connections usually control the extent of cat-
enary action because of the limited resistance and rotation capacity
of the connections. Some studies have been conducted to improve
the progressive collapse resistance of beam–column connections
under column-removal scenarios. Computational simulations were
conducted by Khandelwal and EI-Tawil (2007) to study catenary
action in moment-resisting steel frames. Welded joints with and
without reduced beam sections were employed in the structures.
Many key design parameters that affect the formation of catenary
action were investigated. Yang and Tan (2012, 2013a) carried out a
series of experimental tests and numerical analyses to investigate
catenary action and the progressive collapse resistance of differ-
ent types of bolted beam–column joints under a central-column-
removal scenario. According to the results of tests and numerical
analyses, component-based models were proposed by Yang and
Tan (2013b) to predict the behavior of bolted-angle beam–column
joints. Wang and Xue (2013) proposed a new type of beam–column
connection named a reverse channel connection. A series of ex-
perimental tests were carried out to investigate the effects of
parameters on moment-rotation characteristics and failure modes.
© ASCE 04019183-2
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(1): 04019183
This connection could be designed as either a single connection
or a semirigid connection. It was conveniently used to connect
beams and different column sections, such as steel hollow sections,
concrete-filled tubular columns, and universal columns.
Progressive collapse is a dynamic process. To consider the
dynamic effect, sudden-column-removal tests were carried out by
Liu et al. 2013, 2015, 2016) to investigate the dynamic behaviors
of web cleat connections, top-and-seat with web angle connec-
tions, and flush end plate connections. Both force-based and
displacement-based dynamic increase factors were measured from
the tests. Another test method was proposed by Grimsmo et al.
(2015, 2016) and Al-Rifaie et al. (2017), where a drop hammer
machine was employed to apply impact loads to specimens. The
tests were conducted under a low strain-rate effect to compare the
difference in terms of loading rate. It should be noted that these
studies focused on the dynamic behaviors of structures and com-
ponents above the failed columns.
Under a falling debris impact, whether a structure will survive
depends on both the impact resistance of the structure and the
impact load. If the structure can absorb the energy of the impact
without failure, the structure can survive. Otherwise, progressive
collapse may occur. In history, there are examples of structures that
survived or did not survive under impact. In 1967, the Ronan Point
building was not robust enough to resist the falling debris impact
from upper stories, as shown in Fig. 1. Finally, partial collapse oc-
curred. In 1995, the sixth story of an eight-story building was dam-
aged in the Great Hanshin Earthquake. The upper stories dropped
down and struck the lower story, but collapse did not occur, as
shown in Fig. 2. Thus, it is necessary to conduct studies to ensure
that the structures can absorb impact energy without failure. In this
paper, the experimental test assumed that the upper structures could
not bear the redistributed load due to the failure of columns. The
debris from the upper floor impacted the structure below. If the
residual structure cannot resist the impact from the upper story,
the debris from the two levels will fall and impact the lower story
together, and progressive collapse will occur. This is a typical
domino effect. However, it is possible that the collapse process
stopped if the lower story can absorb more energy than the testing
story to resist the impact load from both the upper stories and test-
ing story.
This paper focuses on the impact resistance of steel-framed
structures. A series of experimental tests were carried out to study
the dynamic behavior of steel frames with different types of beam–
column connections subject to impact loads. Five types of beam–
column connections, i.e., welded unreinforced flange-bolted web
connections (WUF-B), reduced beam section connection (RBS),
fin plate connection (FP), reverse channel connection with flush
end plate (RC-FEP), and reverse channel connection with extended
J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 12/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Building survives under falling impact.
end plate (RC-EEP), were used in the test program. The midspan
of the beam was chosen as the loading position for all five tests
under the greatest flexural damage. The resistance of individual
connections was demonstrated. The energy absorption capacity
was proposed to evaluate the resistance of structures instead of
the load-carrying capacity.
Test Program
Test Setup
A prototype structure was used to test the dynamic behaviors of
steel frames subject to a falling debris impact, as shown in Fig. 3.
A one-span steel frame was extracted from a steel-framed building
to study the dynamic behavior, deformation, and impact resistance
of steel frames under falling debris impact. The impact tests as-
sumed that part of a structure in the story above the specimen was
severely damaged by abnormal loads so that it dropped down and
hit the testing beam at midspan. Fig. 4 shows the front view and
three-dimensional view of the test setup. Horizontal restraint was
provided by a steel A-frame on each side to simulate the restraint
from undamaged surrounding structural elements. Columns were
connected to A-frames by horizontal load cells. The bottom of the
columns was connected to the strong floor by pinned supports.
Impact loads were applied by a ZCJ9034 drop weight impact
testing machine (MTS Industrial Systems, Shenzhen, China).
The drop hammer consisted of the hammer body, hammerhead,
and weights. The basic weight of the drop hammer was 530 kg,
including a load cell. The weight of one block was 30 kg, and
Fig. 3. Prototype steel frame.
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(1): 04019183
the weights could be installed on top of the hammer body, which
was gripped by a crossbeam above. An electric control system was
used to operate the testing machine, such as moving the crossbeam
up or down, gripping the hammer hook, or releasing the drop ham-
mer. The drop hammer slid along two vertical rods. The drop ham-
mer was first lifted to a certain height, and then the hammer hook
was released. Immediately, the drop hammer freely dropped to im-
pact the specimen below. The drop hammer was centered on the
axis of the steel beam.
Specimens and Material Properties
Full-scale specimens were not suitable for experimental tests due
to limited headroom in the laboratory. Therefore, half-scale spec-
imens were designed and fabricated for impact tests. A total of five
specimens were tested, and the details of the tested specimens are
shown in Table 1. All specimens had the same span of 3,160 mm
between the middle of the columns. British universal beams (UB)
203 × 133 × 30 and British universal columns (UC) 203 × 133 × 71
were used as the sections of steel beams and steel columns, respec-
tively. At the midspan of the beam, steel plates and stiffeners were
welded to limit local deformations and out-of-plane distortions.
A total of five types of beam–column connections, including
WUF-B, RBS, FP, RC-FEP, and RC-EEP, were considered in the
experiments. The WUF-B, RBS, and FP were commonly applied in
steel frames, viz. WUF-B and RBS for rigid or semirigid joints and
FP for conventionally pinned joints. Reverse channel connection
was a new type of connection proposed by Wang and Xue (2013).
A 6-mm-thick fin plate was used in the WUF-B, RBS and FP.
A parallel flange channel (PFC) 150 × 75 × 18 and an end plate
with 8-mm thickness were used in RC-FEP and RC-EEP. In all
specimens, S355 steel was used for the beams and columns, and
S275 was used for fin plates, end plates, and PFCs. Grade 10.9 M20
bolts were used for all specimens. The details of the five specimens
are shown in Fig. 5.
The falling-debris-impact scenario is a process in which failed
elements drop down and strike structures below. In the experiment,
the mass of the drop hammer was 830 kg, which was approximately
equal to the mass of the beam and a 1-m-wide slab in the story
above. The dropping height of the hammer was 3 m, which is a
typical story height in a building. Because both the mass and the
dropping height of the hammer approximated that of actual falling
debris, the experimental test was representative of the impacts an
actual structure would experience in a collapse scenario.
Tensile coupon tests were carried out to obtain the mechanical
properties of the different steel components. The coupons were
taken from the flange and web of the beam, the column and
04019183-3 J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 12/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 4. Test setup: (a) front view; and (b) three-dimensional view.

Table 1. Summary of specimens

Specimen Mass of drop Dropping Fin plate/ Parallel flange
identification hammer (kg) height (m) Beam section Column section end plate (mm) channel (PFC) section
WUF-B 830 3.0 UB 203 × 133 × 30 UC 203 × 203 × 71 150 × 70 × 6 —
RBS 830 3.0 UB 203 × 133 × 30 UC 203 × 203 × 71 150 × 70 × 6 —
FP 590 3.0 UB 203 × 133 × 30 UC 203 × 203 × 71 150 × 70 × 6 —
RC-FEP 830 3.0 UB 203 × 133 × 30 UC 203 × 203 × 71 220 × 150 × 8 PFC 150 × 75 × 18
RC-EEP 830 3.0 UB 203 × 133 × 30 UC 203 × 203 × 71 290 × 150 × 8 PFC 150 × 75 × 18
Note: FP = fin plate; WUF-B = welded unreinforced flanges and bolted web; RBS = reduced beam section; RC-FEP = reversed channel connection with flush
end plate; and RC-EEP = reversed channel connection with extended end plate.

channel, the fin plate, the end plate, and the stiffener. Table 2 sum-
marizes the measured yield stress, ultimate strength, and fracture
strain.
Instrumentation
Measurements of the impact force and vertical displacement
were based on the load cell and laser sensor, as shown in
Fig. 4. A Type 9393A load cell (Kistler Instrumente, Winterthur,
Switzerland) with 1,000 kN capacity was installed on the drop
hammer to measure directly the impact force. To capture the rap-
idly changing vertical displacement at the impact location, a
Type HG-C1400 laser distance sensor (Panasonic, Osaka, Japan)
with a measuring range of 200–600 mm was placed below the
specimen at midspan. To obtain the internal forces, strain gauges
were placed at four sections symmetrically, viz. Section 2 and Sec-
tion 3 at 700 mm away from the midspan and Section 1 and Section
4 at 900 mm away from the midspan, respectively. Four strain
gauges were placed in each cross-section, as shown in Fig. 6.
All strain gauges were in the elastic state during the impact process.
The bending moment MðtÞ at each section and the axial force NðtÞ
were calculated by Eqs. (1) and (2). At the left half of the beam,
according to the bending moments in Sections 1 and 2, the bending
moments at midspan M mid;L ðtÞ and connection M con;L ðtÞ were cal-
culated by Eqs. (3) and (4). At the right half of the beam, similarly,
the bending moments at midspan and connection were calculated
by the bending moments at Sections 3 and 4 as follows:
1
MðtÞ ¼ W Z σm ðtÞ ¼ W Z E½ε3 ðtÞ þ ε4 ðtÞ − ε1 ðtÞ − ε2 ðtÞ ð1Þ
2

© ASCE 04019183-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(1): 04019183

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 12/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b) (c)

(d)

(e) (f)

Fig. 5. Details of specimens and beam–column connections: (a) overview of specimens; (b) FP; (c) WUF-B; (d) RBS; (e) RC-FEP; and
(f) RC-EEP.

1 X4 where σm ðtÞ = bending stress at the edge of the cross-section;

NðtÞ ¼ AS σn ðtÞ ¼ EAS εi ðtÞ ð2Þ σn ðtÞ = axial stress of the cross section; εi ðtÞ = strain measured by
4 i¼1 different strain gauges at the same cross section; AS = area of the
cross section; and MS1 and M S2 = bending moments at Sections 1
900 and 2, respectively.
M mid;L ðtÞ ¼ ½M ðtÞ − M S1 ðtÞ þ M S1 ðtÞ ð3Þ
200 S2 Two sets of data acquisition systems, SIRIUS STG (Dewesoft,
Trbovlje, Slovenia) and TML (Tokyo Measuring Instruments Lab-
772 oratory, Tokyo, Japan) multirecorders, were employed simultane-
M con;L ðtÞ ¼ ½M ðtÞ − MS2 ðtÞ þ M S2 ðtÞ ð4Þ
200 S1 ously, because each system only had 16 channels. In both systems,

© ASCE 04019183-5 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(1): 04019183

 Table 2. Material properties of steel impact forces of RC-FEP and RC-EEP were 254 and 223 kN,
Yield strength Ultimate strength Fracture and the corresponding maximum displacements were 102.9 and
Component (MPa) (MPa) straina 92.7 mm, respectively. A comparison of steady impact force and
maximum displacement showed that greater steady impact force
Beam flange 370 536 0.33
Beam web 386 540 0.32
reduced the deformation of specimens to resist the same impact
Column flange 375 556 0.29 load. Because WUF-B, RBS, RC-FEP, and RC-EEP used the iden-
Column web 412 574 0.29 tical drop hammer (830 kg, 7.67 m=s), the impact energy of the
Channel flange 402 555 0.27 four specimens were the same. In Stage 1, according to the test
Channel web 406 552 0.33 results, the energy absorbed by the four specimens was 3.7, 3.8,
Stiffener 395 553 0.29 4.2, and 4.0 kN, respectively, and the displacement of the four spec-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 12/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fin plate 349 485 0.36
End plate 311 460 0.36
pffiffiffiffiffi
a
Fracture strain is based on proportional coupon gauge length of 5.56 S0 ,
where S0 is original cross-sectional area of coupons.
the test data were recorded at a sampling rate of 100 kHz with
low-pass filters at 1 kHz to eliminate high-frequency ambient
noise.
Test Results and Discussions under Single Impact
Impact force-time and vertical displacement-time histories were
directly measured by the load cell and laser sensor, respectively.
Internal forces were calculated by Eqs. (1)–(4) based on strain
gauges in Sections 1–4. Fig. 7 shows time histories of impact force,
vertical displacement, axial force, bending moment at midspan, and
connections. Table 3 summarizes the test results, including maxi-
mum impact force, steady impact force, duration of impact process,
maximum displacement, and the steady bending moment at mid-
span and connections.
Impact Force and Displacement
The test results are summarized in Table 3. The steady impact force
was defined as follows:
R t2
E t PðtÞdδðtÞ
Fs ¼ 2 ¼ 1 ð5Þ
δ2 δ2
where Fs = steady force; E2 = energy absorption during Stage 2; t1
and t2 = start and end times of Stage 2, respectively; PðtÞ = applied
force; δðtÞ = vertical displacement; and δ 2 = vertical displacement
during Stage 2. Figs. 7(a and b) show impact force-time and
displacement-time histories. It was obvious that all five specimens
had different steady impact forces, maximum displacements, and
durations of the impact process. The WUF-B and the RBS had
greater steady impact forces of 324 and 310 kN and smaller maxi-
mum displacements of 75.4 and 75.2 mm, respectively. The steady
imens was 18, 17, 17, and 18 mm, respectively. In Stage 1, the four
specimens absorbed approximatively an identical amount of en-
ergy and appeared with approximatively identical displacement.
Because the four specimens had identical energy absorption in
Stage 1 and identical impact energy, the four specimens needed to
absorb an identical amount of energy in Stage 2. According to the
relationship between force, displacement, and energy [Eq. (5)], the
specimen with greater steady impact force absorbed an identical
amount of energy under less displacement. Thus, the greater impact
force reduced the deformation of specimens under identical impact
energy. The FP had the smallest steady impact force of 190 kN, but
its maximum displacement was 88.2 mm, which was in the middle
of the other four tests. This outcome is because the drop hammer
employed in FP was 590 kg, 71% of the mass of the drop ham-
mer used in other tests. Under the impact with the same drop
hammer mass, the steady impact force affected the duration of the
impact process. The specimen with greater steady impact force fin-
ished in a shorter time.
Axial Force and Bending Moment
The internal forces obtained from the strain gauges of all specimens
are compared in Figs. 7(c–e). At the midspan, the beam section,
the impact plate, and the stiffeners of all five specimens were
the same. Thus, the bending moment at midspan of all specimens
developed similarly during the impact process, and the steady
bending moment at midspan was approximately 130 kN · m, as
shown in Fig. 7(c). Fig. 7(d) shows the comparison of bending
moment-time histories at connections. As a typical rigid/semirigid
beam–column connection, WUF-B had a greater bending moment
of −105 kN · m in the steady stage. The steady bending moment
at the connection of RBS was less than that of WUF-B due to the
reduced beam section. Typically used as a simple connection, the
FP connection provided nearly no bending moment during the im-
pact process. The capacity of the two reverse channel connections
was between the typical rigid/semirigid connections and the typical
simple connection. The steady bending moments at the connection
of RC-FEP and RC-EEP were −29 and −44 kN · m, respectively.
Compared with RC-FEP, the bending moment at the connection
of RC-EEP increased by 52% due to the extended end plate.

Fig. 6. Layout of strain gauges.

© ASCE 04019183-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(1): 04019183

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 12/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Fig. 7. Time history curves: (a) impact force; (b) vertical displacement; (c) bending moment at midspan; (d) bending moment at connection; (e) axial
force; and (f) typical impact process (WUF-B).

Table 3. Summary of test results under single impact

Maximum Steady bending Steady bending
Specimen Peak impact Steady impact Duration of impact displacement moment at midspan moment at connection
identification force (kN) force (kN) process (ms) (mm) (kN · m) (kN · m)
WUF-B 607 324 30.7 75.4 139 −105
RBS 592 310 31.3 75.2 127 −75
FP 564 190 36.9 88.2 127 −9
RC-FEP 587 223 41.2 102.9 131 −29
RC-EEP 603 254 37.3 92.7 137 −44
Note: FP = fin plate; WUF-B = welded unreinforced flanges and bolted web; RBS = reduced beam section; RC-FEP = reversed channel connection with flush
end plate; and RC-EEP = reversed channel connection with extended end plate.

In Fig. 7(e), axial forces that developed in the beams of all spec-
imens are compared. Under the single impact load, the maximum
displacement of all specimens was less than 102.9 mm, which was
only half of the height of the beam section. The catenary action did
not significantly develop due to the small displacement.
Impact Process
A typical impact process was divided into three stages based on
the impact force-time and displacement-time histories, as shown
in Fig. 7(f). The first stage was the contact stage from the time

© ASCE 04019183-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(1): 04019183

 (a) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 12/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Simplified model of beam subjected to point mass impact: (a) system of beam under impact; and (b) SDOF system.

the drop hammer first contacted the specimens to approximately md vd0 þ αmb vb0 ¼ md vdt þ αmb vbt ð6Þ
2.5 ms. In this stage, the impact force changed rapidly from
0 kN to the maximum impact force and then decreased to nearly where vdt and vbt = velocities of the drop hammer and specimen
0 kN. The maximum impact force was 564 kN in FP and approx- after contact, respectively; and αmb = equivalent mass of the beam.
imately 600 kN in the other tests. The 590 kg drop hammer was When the drop hammer and the contact region of the specimen
employed in FP, and the 830 kg drop hammer was employed move together, the velocity vt can be calculated by Eq. (7)
in the other tests, which means that the connection types slightly md vd0
vt ¼ ; for vb0 ¼ 0 m=s ð7Þ
affected the maximum impact force, whereas the maximum im- ðmd þ αmb Þ
pact force and the mass of the drop hammer had a positive corre-
lation. The vertical displacement increased linearly. As shown in Based on the impact force-time curves [Fig. 7(a)], the shape
Fig. 7(c–e), the axial force and bending moment at midspan and of the impact impulse I was assumed to be triangular and equaled
connection developed rapidly in this stage. From approximately the change of the momentum of the drop hammer and the specimen
2.5 milliseconds to the time the displacement reached maximum as Eq. (8)
value, the impact process was in the second stage, i.e., the plateau Z
1
stage. In this stage, the oscillation of the impact force asymp- I ¼ FI ðtÞdt ¼ FP Δt ¼ md ðvd0 − vt Þ ¼ αmb vt ð8Þ
totically decreased to a steady value. The vertical displacement in- 2
creased nonlinearly. The internal force also remained steady until where Δt = duration of the process. Combining Eqs. (7) and (8), the
the vertical displacement reached maximum value. The connection peak impact force can be calculated by Eq. (9)
types significantly affected the impact force in this stage. Greater
steady impact force appeared in specimens with connections that 2αmb vt 2αmb md vd0
FP ¼ ¼ ð9Þ
had greater bending moment. Under the same impact load, spec- Δt ðαmb þ md ÞΔt
imens with greater bending moment at beam–column connection
absorbed the impact energy in a smaller deformation. After the dis- For the simplified SDOF system, α is equal to 0.5 for a simply
placement reached maximum value, the impact process entered supported beam and approximately 0.375 for a fixed-fixed beam
the third stage, i.e., the bouncing stage. After reaching maximum (Kaewkulchai and Williamson 2006). The duration Δt was approx-
displacement, specimens started to rebound. The direction of mo- imately 1 ms, according to the test results. The peak impact force
tion of specimens and drop hammer changed from downward to should have been 420–641 kN for WUF-B, RBS, RC-FEP and
upward. All parameters were noticeably descending until the drop RC-EEP and 497–628 kN for FP.
Fig. 7(f) shows that Stage 2 had a relatively long time duration
hammer was separated from the specimens.
versus Stage 3. The reason can be explained as follows.
The load applied by a mass was its self-weight in a static test.
To simplify the analyses, Stage 1 was ignored because the du-
However, in the impact test, the maximum impact force was ap-
ration was short. According to the momentum theorem, Stages 2
proximately 600 kN, but the self-weight of the drop hammer was
and 3 can be expressed as follows:
only 8.1 kN (5.8 kN for FP). The maximum applied force was Z
approximately 74 (103 for FP) times the self-weight of the drop m v
md Δvs2 ¼ Fs2 ðtÞdt ¼ FS t2 ⇒ t2 ¼ d d0 ð10Þ
hammer. Even in the plateau stage, the steady impact force was FS
190–324 kN for different specimens, which were 28–40 times the
Z
self-weight of the drop hammer. The results showed an obvious 1 2md v3
difference between the static test and the impact test under gravity. md Δvs3 ¼ Fs3 ðtÞdt ¼ FS t3 ⇒ t3 ¼ ð11Þ
2 FS
For frame-type structures, the impact of dropping weight on
the beam is a collision that generates a flexural response with struc- where md = mass of drop hammer; Δvs2 and Δvs3 = change of
tural deformation far from the contact region (Kaewkulchai and velocities in Stages 2 and 3, respectively; Fs2 ðtÞ and Fs3 ðtÞ = load
Williamson 2006). A point mass striking transversely against a curves in Stages 2 and 3, respectively; Fs = steady force during
beam, referred to as a beam–mass system [Fig. 8(a)], was used as Stage 2; t2 and t3 = durations of Stages 2 and 3, respectively;
the basis for analysis. An SDOF model was used to approximate vd0 = initial velocity of drop hammer; and v3 = velocity of the drop
the response at the point of contact in the beam–mass system, as hammer and specimen at the end of Stage 3.
shown in Fig. 8(b). The time of contact between the drop hammer In Stage 2, the energy absorbed by specimens, i.e., elastic de-
and specimens was assumed to be sudden so that the conservation formation energy Ee and plastic deformation energy Ep, was equal
of momentum is expressed by Eq. (6) to the initial kinetic energy of drop hammer Ek. In Stage 3, the

© ASCE 04019183-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(1): 04019183

 kinetic energy Ek3 was equal to the elastic deformation energy
released by the specimen
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 2Ek
Ek ¼ md v2d0 ¼ Ep þ Ee ⇒ vd0 ¼ ð12Þ
2 md
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 2Ee
Ek3 ¼ ðmd þ αmb Þv23 ¼ Ee ⇒ v3 ¼ ð13Þ
2 md þ αmb
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 12/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
where αmb = equivalent mass of the beam. The coefficient α is
equal to 0.375–0.5 for different boundary conditions, according
to the study from Kaewkulchai and Williamson (2006). Combining
Eqs. (10)–(13)
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
t2 md vd0 FS 1 vd0 1 2Ek ðmd þ αmb Þ
¼ ¼ ¼
t3 FS 2md v3 2 v3 2 md 2Ee
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 Ek ðmd þ αmb Þ
¼ ð14Þ
2 Ee md
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
For this study, the ðmd þ αmb Þ=md was set as 1, because md
was significantly larger than αmb . Then, the ratio of t2 and t3 can be
simply expressed as
sffiffiffiffiffiffi
t2 1 E k
¼ ð15Þ
t3 2 E e
According to this equation, if Ek is greater than four times Ee ,
the duration of Stage 2 should be longer than that of Stage 3. Based
on the experimental results, the Ee values of WUF-B, RBS,
RC-EEP, and RC-FEP were 2.8, 2.7, 2.2, and 2.3 kJ, respectively,
and the Ee value of FP was 1.5 kJ. The Ek value of WUF-B, RBS,
RC-FEP, and RC-EEP was 24.4 kJ and that of FP was 17.3 kJ,
which is greater than four times that of the Ee . Thus, Stage 2 had
a longer time duration than Stage 3.
Load-Resisting Mechanism
Fig. 9(a) shows the residual deflection profiles of specimens after
impact. All specimens had the same global deformation shape.
During the impact process, the midspan of the beam moved down-
ward. The angle (α1 ) between the moving beam axis and its origi-
nal horizontal location continued to increase, as shown in Fig. 9(b).
Only the left side of the specimens is shown in Fig. 9(b) due to
symmetry. Two parts, viz. inertial effect and deformation, including
catenary action and flexural action, resisted the impact load applied
to specimens. Fig. 9(c) shows the force equilibrium of specimens
under impact load. The axial force NðtÞ and bending moment
at midspan M mid ðtÞ and connection Mcon ðtÞ were calculated by
Eqs. (1)–(4) based on the strain gauges of the four sections in Fig. 6.
On the left side of the specimen, the shear force provided by mid-
span V L;mid ðtÞ and connection V L;con ðtÞ was calculated by Eqs. (16)
and (17). The flexural action was represented by shear force V L ðtÞ
in Eq. (18). The vertical resistance provided by deformation on the
left side could be obtained by Eq. (19). On the right side, the ver-
tical resistance provided by deformation RV;R ðtÞ, i.e., the shear
force V R ðtÞ, the shear force provided by midspan V R;mid ðtÞ and
connection V R;con ðtÞ could be acquired in the same way as the left
side. Substituting axial and shear forces into Eq. (20), which was
obtained from the force equilibrium shown in Fig. 9(c), the load-
resisting mechanism of steel frames under impact load was ob-
tained as Eq. (21). In Eq. (21), the first item shows the load resisted
© ASCE 04019183-9
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(1): 04019183
by the inertial effect, whereas the second and the third items show
the load resisted by catenary and flexural actions, respectively
M L;mid ðtÞ
V L;mid ðtÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð16Þ
14722 þ δ 2 ðtÞ
−M L;con ðtÞ
V L;con ðtÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð17Þ
14722 þ δ 2 ðtÞ
ML;mid ðtÞ − M L;con ðtÞ
V L ðtÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð18Þ
14722 þ δ2 ðtÞ
M mid;L ðtÞ − M con;L ðtÞ
RV;L ðtÞ ¼ N L ðtÞ sin α1 þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi cos α1 ð19Þ
14722 þ δ 2 ðtÞ
PðtÞ ¼ FI ðtÞ þ RV;L ðtÞ þ RV;R ðtÞ ð20Þ
PðtÞ ¼ FI ðtÞ þ N L ðtÞ sin α1 þ N R ðtÞ sin α2
|ffl{zffl} |fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}
Inertial effect Catenary action
½M mid;L ðtÞ − Mcon;L ðtÞ ½M ðtÞ − M con;R ðtÞ
þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi cos α1 þ mid;R pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
14722 þ δ 2 ðtÞ 14722 þ δ2 ðtÞ
|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}
Flexural action
ð21Þ
where M L;mid ðtÞ and M L;con ðtÞ = bending moments at the left mid-
span and left connection based on the strain gauges at four sections,
as shown in Fig. 6, respectively; V L;mid ðtÞ and V L;con ðtÞ = shear
forces on the left side based on the bending moments of the left
midspan and left connection, respectively; V L ðtÞ = shear force
on the left side; δðtÞ = vertical displacement at midspan; α1 ðtÞ
and α2 ðtÞ = angles between the moving beam axis and the origi-
nal horizontal beam axis on the left and right sides, respectively;
RV;L ðtÞ and RV;R ðtÞ = resistance provided by the deformation on the
left and right halves of the specimens, respectively; FI ðtÞ = inertia
force; and PðtÞ = applied force. On the right side, the expressions
for the shear force V R ðtÞ, the shear force provided by right midspan
V R;mid ðtÞ and right connection V R;con ðtÞ, and the resistance pro-
vided by deformation RV;R ðtÞ were not presented because they have
the same form as the left side due to symmetry.
Load-Resisting Histories
Based on the load-resisting mechanism, the applied force-time his-
tory of all five specimens is shown in Fig. 10 with various parts of
resistance. All specimens had a similar impact process, which could
be divided into three stages, as mentioned previously. In the first
stage, the impact force reached maximum value within a very short
time. The flexural action developed in this stage. The drop hammer
had obtained considerable acceleration when it contacted the speci-
men. When the impact load reached peak value, approximately
83%–94% of the applied load was resisted by inertia force. The
peak value of the impact load was primarily resisted by inertia
effect. During the second stage, the oscillation of inertial effect
decreased to near zero, and flexural action reached a steady value.
The impact load was primarily controlled by flexural action. The
resistance provided by the flexural action of five specimens was
more than 97% of the applied load. According to Eqs. (16)–(18),
flexural action depended on the bending moment at midspan and
connections. The five specimens had the same beam section but
different beam–column connections, which means that connection
types primarily controlled the impact load. After reaching maxi-
mum displacement, specimens entered the third stage. The velocity
J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 12/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 9. Load-resisting mechanism under impact: (a) residual deflection profiles of specimens; (b) deformation geometry of left side; and (c) force
equilibrium of specimens.

of the drop hammer was zero at maximum displacement. Impact
energy was completely transformed into other forms, such as the
deformation of specimens. Deformation included two parts, viz.
elastic and plastic deformation. Specimens rebounded due to elastic
deformation after maximum displacement. Similar to the second
stage, the impact load was primarily contributed by flexural action
in this stage. The catenary action provided almost no contribution
to resisting the impact load during the entire impact process, even if
obvious axial force appeared in all five specimens, as shown in
Fig. 7(e). This is because maximum displacement was too small
to provide effective resistance. For instance, maximum displace-
ment of the RC-EEP specimen was 102 mm, and the corresponding
axial force was 28 kN. According to Fig. 9(c) and Eq. (19), sin α
was 0.073, and the resistance provided by catenary action was
4 kN. For WUF-B, the maximum value of axial force was 194 kN
with a corresponding displacement of 17 mm. The calculated sin α
was 0.012, and the resistance provided by axial force was 5 kN. In
summary, the applied load was primarily resisted by inertial effect
in the first stage. From the beginning of the second stage, the pri-
mary resistance changed from inertial effect to flexural action.
After that, flexural action played the key role in resisting impact
until the end of the impact process.
Deformation Modes
Fig. 11 shows the deformation of each specimen after impact.
Deformation included axial and bending deformations at mid-
span and connections. According to Figs. 7(c and d), the sagging
moment appeared at the midspan, and the hogging moment ap-
peared at the connections. As all specimens had the same beam
section, only the midspan of WUF-B was demonstrated, as shown
in Fig. 11(a). Under the sagging moment, the upper and lower
flanges were under compressive force and tensile force, respec-
tively. An arch appeared at the upper flange near the midspan at
each side. All connections were under the hogging moment dur-
ing the impact process. The upper and lower flanges were under
tensile force and compressive force, respectively. For WUF-B and
RBS, beam flanges and columns were welded. The arches ap-
peared at the lower flange, as shown in Figs. 11(b and c). For
FP, the beam web and the fin plate were connected by bolts. Origi-
nal gaps appeared between beam and columns. After impact, the
gap was opened at the upper flange and closed at the lower flange.
In the fin plate, a hump appeared at the right of the upper bolt.
The obvious bending deformation appeared on the connection, as
shown in Fig. 11(d). Fig. 11(e) shows the deformation of RC-FEP.
A gap was opened between the channel web and the end plate

© ASCE 04019183-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(1): 04019183

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 12/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)

Fig. 10. Load-resisting time histories: (a) WUF-B; (b) RBS; (c) FP; (d) RC-FEP; and (e) RC-EEP.

near the upper flange. However, no arch was found at the lower
beam flange under compressive force because the deformation
was concentrated on the channel. At the top of the channel, a con-
vex form appeared under tensile force along the beam axial, as
shown in Fig. 11(f). A concave form under compressive force
appeared at the bottom of the channel, as shown in Fig. 11(g).
The deformation of RC-EEP was similar to that of RC-FEP, as
shown in Fig. 11(h). All specimens showed typical bending de-
formation, because flexural action played a key role in resisting
impact load, as shown in Fig. 10.
Test Results under Multiple Impacts
After the first impact, no failure was found in any of the five
specimens. To investigate the ultimate capacity of specimens
under impact as far as possible, multiple impacts were applied
to each specimen. Among the five specimens, one beam–column
connection completely broke in FP, RC-FEP, and RC-EEP. For
WUF-B and RBS, out-of-plane deformation appeared at the impact
location after several moments of impact. Although the connections
in these two specimens did not break, there were fractures in the
large deformation area. For safety reasons, no more impact was
applied to these two specimens.
WUF-B
A force-displacement curve could be obtained by combining force-
time and displacement-time histories. The load versus displacement
curves of WUF-B is shown in Fig. 12(a), with three parts resisted
by the two actions provided by deformation, i.e., flexural action
provided by midspan (FAM), flexural action provided by connec-
tions (FAC), and catenary action (CA). The specimen subject to
impact load experienced an energy conversion process. Large de-
formation of the specimen was the primary method to absorb im-
pact energy. The energy absorption of each part, i.e., the bending

© ASCE 04019183-11 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(1): 04019183

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 12/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Deformation after first impact: (a) midspan (WUF-B); (b) WUF-B; (c) RBS; (d) FP; (e) RC-FEP; (f) Top of channel (RC-FEP); (g) Bottom of
channel (RC-FEP); and (h) RC-EEP.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 12. Comprehensive results of WUF-B: (a) force-displacement curves; (b) energy absorption curves; (c) fracture at upper flange (top view); and
(d) fracture at upper flange (bottom view).

deformation at midspan, the bending deformation at connections, WUF-B is a typical semirigid connection that could provide an
and the axial deformation, was obtained by integrating the force- effective bending moment. A total of five impacts were applied
displacement curves of FAM, FAC, and CA, respectively, as shown to the WUF-B specimen. In Fig. 12(a), the load applied on the
in Fig. 12(b). specimen rapidly increased at the initial stage. After that, the FAM

© ASCE 04019183-12 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(1): 04019183

 entered the steady stage, and the FAC still slowly increased. Both
the strength and stiffness of the connections were less than those
at midspan. After 89 mm, both FAM and FAC were in the steady
stage, and CA was mobilized due to large deformation, which con-
tinued to increase until the end. Under midspan loading, connec-
tions were combined with the axial force and the hogging moment.
The maximum tensile force appeared at the upper flange at the
beam end. After the fifth impact, the upper flange at the right beam
end first cracked, as shown in Figs. 12(c and d). Because the frac-
ture only appeared in less half of the flange and occurred at the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 12/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
end stage of the fifth impact, the FAC did not obviously decrease.
In the end, the load reached 479 kN at 221 mm. The corresponding
resistances of FAM, FAC, and CA were 217 kN (45%), 151 kN
(32%), and 111 kN (23%), respectively. In Fig. 12(b), the energy
absorbed by bending deformation at midspan and connections was
58% and 41%, respectively, whereas the axial deformation was 1%
at the beginning of the catenary action. After that, FAM and FAC
maintained a steady value, and CA increased with increasing dis-
placement. The ratio of energy absorbed by axial deformation con-
tinuously increased and reached 8% at 221 mm. The ratio of energy
absorbed by axial deformation was significantly less than that of
the load resisted by catenary action. The bending deformation ab-
sorbed the most energy (52% at midspan and 40% at connections).
After the fifth impact, serious out-of-plane distortion appeared
at midspan, and the drop hammer did not align with the center of
the upper flange. Although the right connection did not break com-
pletely, no more impact was applied to WUF-B for safety reasons.
RBS
Based on WUF-B, the RBS utilized circular radius cuts in both
upper and lower flanges of the beam to reduce the flange area over
(a)
(c)
Fig. 13. Comprehensive results of RBS: (a) force-displacement curves; (b) energy absorption curves; (c) fracture at left reduced section (front view);
and (d) fracture at left reduced section (back view).
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(1): 04019183
the length of the beam near the ends of the beam span to satisfy the
ductility requirements in seismic design. Figs. 13(a and b) show the
force-displacement and energy absorption curves of RBS, respec-
tively. In Fig. 13(a), FAM and FAC rapidly increased at the begin-
ning and then entered the steady stage. The catenary action was
mobilized after 75 mm. The load rapidly increased in the initial
stage and then steadily increased to 168 mm. Before 168 mm, the
development of load and resistance was similar to WUF-B. The
load was less than that of WUF-B because the bending moment
at the connection was less than WUF-B due to the reduced beam
section, as shown in Fig. 7(d). At 168 mm, the left reduced beam
section cracked from the upper flange to the web due to tensile
force, which was produced by the combination of axial force and
hogging moment, as shown in Figs. 13(c and d). Therefore, the
lever arm of the bending moment at the left connection decreased
so that FAC started decreasing. The load dropped suddenly due to
the fracture of the left reduced section. The FAC was primarily pro-
vided by the right connection. After 168 mm, the FAM and FAC
remained steady, whereas the load increased with increasing CA.
At 240 mm, although the load resisted by CA (130 kN) was more
than two times that at 168 mm (52 kN), the load (352 kN) was still
less than the maximum load (401 kN at 168 mm) due to decreasing
flexural action. The energy absorption curve of RBS is shown in
Fig. 13(b). Before the mobilization of catenary action, almost all
energy was absorbed by bending deformation at midspan and con-
nections. With the development of catenary action after 75 mm, the
ratio of energy absorbed by axial deformation increased. In the
end, compared to WUF-B, the ratio of energy absorbed by axial
deformation (10%) increased, and the ratio of energy absorbed by
bending deformation at connections (37%) decreased, because the
left connection could not effectively absorb energy after cracking.
Although the final load resisted by CA was more than two times
(b)
(d)
04019183-13 J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 12/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
(c)
Fig. 14. Comprehensive results of FP: (a) force-displacement curves; (b) energy absorption curves; (c) left connection after Impact 3 (front view); and
(d) left connection after Impact 4 (front view).
that of FAC, bending deformation at connection absorbed almost
four times the energy than axial deformation.
FP
FP is a typical single connection. Compared to WUF-B, beam
flanges were not welded to columns, whereas only the beam web
was connected to the column by a fin plate. The force-displacement
and energy absorption curves are shown in Figs. 14(a and b).
In Fig. 14(a), FAM provided primary resistance until the end. After
68 mm, catenary action was mobilized and provided partial resis-
tance. At 157 mm, the load reached the maximum value of 230 kN.
After the third impact, a large deformation appeared at the fin plate.
The first fracture was found at the left fin plate between the upper
and middle bolt holes, as shown in Fig. 14(c). After 157 mm, the
load remained steady until final failure at 207 mm. Finally, the de-
formation was concentrated on the fin plate, whereas no obvious
deformation was found on the beam section at the connection. The
fracture on the left fin plate showed a reverse L shape under the
combination of bending moment and axial force, as shown in
Fig. 14(d). In Fig. 14(b), bending deformation at midspan absorbed
the most energy (83%). The ratio of energy absorbed by connection
was 6% because FAM maintained a very low level from begin-
ning to end. Axial deformation absorbed more energy (11%) than
connections.
RC-FEP
Reverse channel connection was a new type of beam–column
connection proposed by Wang and Xue (2013). This connection
could be designed as either a single or a semirigid connection.
The development of the load and resistance of RC-FEP is shown
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(1): 04019183
(b)
(d)
in Fig. 15(a). Because RC-FEP could not provide an effective bend-
ing moment, FAC stayed at a low level until the end. During the
second impact, a large deformation appeared at the channel web
and the end plate corresponding to the upper beam flange, as shown
in Fig. 15(c). After 121 mm, the catenary action significantly in-
creased with increasing vertical displacement. The flexural action
decreased with the development of plastic deformation at the con-
nections. At 230 mm, CA provided the same resistance as FAM.
The gap between the end plate and channel web at the location of
the upper beam flange developed while a new gap at the lower
flange formed due to significant tensile axial force, as shown in
Fig. 15(d). The load reached a maximum value of 339 kN at
265 mm. At 284 mm, failure occurred at the left connection. The
final failure mode was the fracture of the reverse channel at the web
near the flange/web junctions under tensile axial force, as shown
in Fig. 15(e). Fig. 15(b) shows the energy absorption curves of
RC-FEP. The final ratios of energy absorption by midspan, connec-
tions, and axial deformation were 65%, 9%, and 26%, respectively.
Because RC-FEP had better deformation capacity, catenary action
developed better in RC-FEP than in FP.
RC-EEP
Compared to RC-FEP, RC-EEP employed an extended instead of
a flush end plate. The extended part increased the lever arm of the
bending moment and enhanced the moment capacity of the con-
nection. The flexural action of RC-EEP was greater than that of
RC-FEP. In Fig. 16(a), the catenary action began at 102 mm and
increased to 330 mm. The flexural action remained stable. The load
increased with increasing catenary action and reached the maxi-
mum value (455 kN) at 330 mm. After 330 mm, a fracture appeared
04019183-14 J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 12/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
(c)
(e)
Fig. 15. Comprehensive results of RC-FEP: (a) force-displacement curves; (b) energy absorption curves; (c) left connection after Impact 2;
(d) left connection after Impact 3; and (e) left connection after Impact 4.
and developed at the channel web, as shown in Fig. 16(c). Finally,
the upper half of the web separated from the reverse channel, and
the lower bolts were pulled out of their bolt holes, as shown in
Fig. 16(d). Fig. 16(b) demonstrates the energy absorption curves
of RC-EEP. Compared to RC-FEP, RC-EEP had greater FAC.
CA fully developed in RC-EEP due to good deformation capacity.
Thus, the energy absorbed by axial deformation reached 26%,
which was the highest energy absorption ratio in all five specimens
as that of RC-FEP.
Comparison and Discussion
The load resisting-displacement and the energy absorption-
displacement curves of the specimens are compared in Figs. 17
and 18, respectively. As Fig. 17 shows, the specimens in these five
tests went through two stages. During the small deformation stage,
the specimens sustained applied loads by flexural action. After
the small deformation stage, catenary action formed rapidly with
© ASCE 04019183-15
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(1): 04019183
(b)
(d)
increasing displacement. The load resistance was provided by the
combination of flexural action and catenary action. Because the five
specimens had the same section at midspan, flexural resistance de-
pended on the strength of the beam–column connections. The spec-
imen with the beam–column connection of the highest (WUF-B)
and the lowest (FP) bending moments had the highest and the low-
est flexural resistance, respectively, as shown in Fig. 17(a). It was
obvious that catenary resistance depended on deformation rather
than connection types. Before failure occurred, in Fig. 17(b), the
catenary resistance of different specimens had a growing trend. The
greatest catenary resistance appeared on the specimen with the best
ductility (RC-EEP). The load-carrying capacity with and without
catenary action of the five specimens is demonstrated in Table 4,
which clearly shows that WUF-B had the highest load-carrying
capacity due to its greatest flexural strength. RBS had the second
greatest flexural resistance among the five specimens, but its load-
carrying capacity was lower than that of RC-EEP, which had
the best catenary resistance due to its best ductility. Although the
J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 12/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 16. Comprehensive results of RC-EEP: (a) force-displacement curves; (b) energy absorption curves; (c) right connection after Impact 6; and
(d) right connection after Impact 7.

(a) (b)

Fig. 17. Comparison of load resistance of different specimens: (a) flexural resistance-displacement curves; and (b) catenary resistance-displacement
curves.

load-carrying capacity of RC-FEP was improved by 35% by cat-
enary action, it was still lower than that of RBS. FP had the lowest
load-carrying capacity due to the weakest beam–column connec-
tion and poor ductility.
Structures subject to impact load for this research experienced
an energy-absorption process. During the impact process, impact
energy was absorbed by the deformation of specimens. The capac-
ity for energy absorption is an important index to evaluate the
impact resistance of structures, and it is equal to the virtual work
done by the resistance of each part. The energy absorption capac-
ity of each specimen was obtained from the integral of the force-
displacement curve, as shown in Fig. 18. Corresponding to load
resistance, energy absorption by specimens was also divided into
two parts, i.e., energy absorption of bending and axial deformation.
In Fig. 18(a), the energy absorption curves approximated a straight
line, and the slope was positively correlated with flexural strength,
as shown in Fig. 17(a). Because catenary action was related to
deformation, the energy absorption curves of axial deformation
overlapped. Energy absorbed by axial deformation depended on
the final displacement, as shown in Fig. 18(b). Total energy absorp-
tion with and without axial deformation is shown in Table 4. The
energy absorption of specimens with larger deformation (RC-FEP
and RC-EEP) was greatly improved by axial deformation. More-
over, although WUF-B had the greatest load-carrying capacity,

© ASCE 04019183-16 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(1): 04019183

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 12/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 18. Comparison of energy absorption of different specimens: (a) energy absorption of flexural deformation; and (b) energy absorption of axial
deformation.

Table 4. Comparison with and without catenary action

Ultimate Load capacity Load capacity Load capacity Energy Energy Energy
vertical with without increase caused absorption absorption absorption
Specimen displacement catenary catenary by catenary with axial without axial increase caused by
identification (mm) action (kN) action (kN) action (%) deformation (kJ) deformation (kJ) axial deformation (%)
WUF-B 227 479 414 16 82.5 76.2 8
RBS 241 401 364 10 75.4 67.9 11
FP 235 230 215 7 43.2 38.6 12
RC-FEP 302 339 252 35 71.2 52.8 35
RC-EEP 394 455 311 46 121.6 89.7 36

RC-EEP had the best capacity for energy absorption, which means
that load-carrying capacity cannot independently confirm impact
resistance. The ductility of the specimen was also a factor influenc-
ing the capacity of energy absorption.
In addition, the total impact energies of WUF-B, RBS, FP,
RC-FEP, and RC-EEP were 122.0, 109.8, 69.4, 97.6, and 170.8 kJ,
respectively. The corresponding energies absorbed by deformation
were 82.5, 75.4, 43.2, 71.2, and 121.6 kJ, respectively. There was a
difference between total impact energy and total energy absorbed
by deformation. The difference can be attributed to the energy dis-
sipated by the test setup; the energy loss due to the rebound of the
drop hammer; and the sound, light, and heat dissipation during
the impact processes. The impact energy was always larger than
the energy absorbed by deformation.
Conclusions
This paper focused on steel-framed structures subjected to impact
loads. A series of experimental tests of steel frames with different
beam–column connections under both single and multiple impacts
were carried out. The results in this paper were obtained from flexu-
ral mode under the midspan-impact scenario. Further studies are
needed to obtain the impact resistance of specimens under other
scenarios. Conclusions of this work can be drawn as follows:
1. The process of specimens under single impact can be divided
into three stages. The peak impact force appeared at the first
stage. In the second stage, the impact force maintained a steady
value and decreased to zero at the third stage. The comparison of
steady impact force and maximum displacement showed that
greater steady impact force reduced the deformation of speci-
mens to resist the same impact load. The specimen with greater
steady impact force finished in a shorter time. Under the single
impact load, the maximum displacement of all specimens was
less than half of the height of the beam section. Although ob-
vious axial force occurred in the specimens, it did not signifi-
cantly affect the impact force. The greater steady impact force
appeared on the specimen with beam–column connections with
higher bending moment resistance.
2. Under a single impact, all specimens had the same global
deformation shape. The load-resisting mechanism was in-
vestigated. The applied load was resisted by inertial effect and
deformation, including catenary action and flexural action.
Flexural action was provided both at midspan and by connec-
tions. During the first stage, the global deformation was limited.
When the impact load reached peak value, approximately 83%–
94% of the applied load was resisted by inertia force. The peak
value of the impact load was primarily resisted by inertia effect.
During the following stages, flexural action played the key role.
More than 97% of the applied load was resisted by flexural ac-
tion. Catenary action did not fully mobilize due to limited de-
formation. The resistance provided by catenary action was less
than 5 kN, which was less than 2% of the applied load. In short,
the applied load was primarily resisted by inertial effect at the
first stage and by flexural action in following stages.
3. No failure occurred on any of the specimens after first impact.
Multiple impacts were applied to each specimen to investigate
ultimate impact resistance. For each specimen, the load-carrying
capacity was discussed. Load was resisted primarily by flexural
action at the small deformation stage. Specimens sustained ap-
plied load by a combination of flexural action and catenary ac-
tion at the large deformation stage. The specimen with a higher
bending moment resistance connection and better deformation
capacity had greater load-carrying capacity.

© ASCE 04019183-17 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(1): 04019183

 4. Energy absorption of a specimen was more important than its
load-carrying capacity to evaluate impact resistance because
the structures subject to impact load experienced an energy-
absorption process. Although WUF-B had the greatest load-
carrying capacity, RC-EEP absorbed more impact energy due to
its development of large deformation. Both strength and ducti-
lity were important for the capacity of energy absorption. FP had
the worst impact resistance due to its low load-carrying capacity
and poor ductility. In addition, impact energy is always larger
than energy absorbed by deformation.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Addis Ababa Science and Technology University on 12/26/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
5. The failure mode of FP was a reverse L-shape fracture at the left
connection. The fractures of both WUF-B and RBS appeared
on the upper flange of the beam section. The first fracture of
WUF-B occurred at the beam end, while that of RBS occurred
at the reduced beam section. The extended end plate changed
the failure mode of the reverse channel connection. The failure
mode of RC-FEP was the laceration on the whole web of the
parallel flange channel, while that of RC-EEP was the laceration
on the upper half of the web of the parallel flange channel and
the lower bolts pulling out of their bolt holes.
6. The development of catenary action depended on ductility in-
stead of strength of connections. If the specimen had good duc-
tility, catenary action significantly improved both load-carrying
capacity and energy absorption.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided
by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities in
China (No. 2019CDQYTM037), the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (51778086), the program of China Scholar-
ships Council (No. 201506050087), and the Ministry of Home Af-
fairs in Singapore. The test specimens were supported by the Prof
Tan Kang Hai’s MHA project The Structural Resilience Study: A
Study of Concrete Pre-cast and Composite Steel Joints subject to
Missing Column Scenario. All the tests were conducted by Wang
Hao while he was at Nanyang Technological University, School of
Civil and Environmental Engineering.
References
Al-Rifaie, A., Z. W. Guan, S. W. Jones, and Q. Wang. 2017. “Lateral
impact response of end-plate beam–column connections.” Eng. Struct.
151 (Nov): 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.08.026.
Chen, J., W. Shu, and H. Huang. 2017. “Rate-dependent progressive col-
lapse resistance of beam-to-column connections with different seismic
details.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 31 (2): 04016086. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000922.
DoD (Department of Defense). 2009. Design of buildings to resist
progressive collapse. Washington, DC: Dept. of Defense.
Fujikake, K., B. Li, and S. Soeun. 2009. “Impact response of reinforced
concrete beam and its analytical evaluation.” J. Struct. Eng. 135 (8):
938–950. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000039.
Grimsmo, E. L., A. H. Clausen, A. Aalberg, and M. Langseth. 2016.
“A numerical study of beam-to-column joints subjected to impact.” Eng.
Struct. 120 (Aug): 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016
.04.031.
Grimsmo, E. L., A. H. Clausen, M. Langseth, and A. Aalberg. 2015. “An
experimental study of static and dynamic behaviour of bolted end-plate
joints of steel.” Int. J. Impact Eng. 85 (Nov): 132–145. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2015.07.001.
© ASCE 04019183-18
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(1): 04019183
GSA (General Services Administration). 2013. Alternate path analysis
and design guidelines for progressive collapse resistance. Washington,
DC: GSA.
Haas, K., M. Bychkowski, and S. Marjanishvili. 2018. “A review of analy-
sis methods for falling debris resulting from structural collapse.” In
Proc., Structures Congress 2018. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Jawdhari, A., S. Orton, B. Izzuddin, and D. Cormie. 2018. “Dynamic debris
loading in flat plate and steel framed buildings.” In Proc., Structures
Congress 2018. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Kaewkulchai, G., and E. B. Williamson. 2006. “Modeling the impact of
failed members for progressive collapse analysis of frame structures.”
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 20 (4): 375–383. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0887-3828(2006)20:4(375).
Khandelwal, K., and S. EI-Tawil. 2007. “Collapse behavior of steel special
moment resisting frame connections.” J. Struct. Eng. 133 (5): 646–655.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:5(646).
Lew, H. S., J. A. Main, S. D. Robert, F. Sadek, and V. P. Chiarito. 2013.
“Performance of steel moment connections under a column removal
scenario. I: Experiments.” J. Struct. Eng. 139 (1): 98–107. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000618.
Liu, C., T. C. Fung, and K. H. Tan. 2016. “Dynamic performance of
flush end-plate beam-column connections and design applications in
progressive collapse.” J. Struct. Eng. 142 (1): 04015074. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001329.
Liu, C., K. H. Tan, and T. C. Fung. 2013. “Dynamic behaviour of web cleat
connections subjected to sudden column removal scenario.” J. Constr.
Steel Res. 86 (Jul): 92–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2013.03.020.
Liu, C., K. H. Tan, and T. C. Fung. 2015. “Investigations of nonlinear
dynamic performance of top-and-seat with web angle connections sub-
jected to sudden column removal.” Eng. Struct. 99 (Sep): 449–461.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.05.010.
Olmati, P., J. Sagaseta, D. Cormie, and A. E. K. Jones. 2017. “Simplified
reliability analysis of punching in reinforced concrete flat slab buildings
under accidental actions.” Eng. Struct. 130 (Jan): 83–98. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.09.061.
Ribeiro, J., A. Santiago, C. Rigueiro, P. Barata, and M. Veljkovic. 2016.
“Numerical assessment of T-stub component subjected to impact
loading.” Eng. Struct. 106 (Jan): 450–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.engstruct.2015.10.047.
Sadek, F., J. A. Main, H. S. Lew, and S. EI-Tawil. 2013. “Performance
of steel moment connections under a column removal scenario. II:
Analysis.” J. Struct. Eng. 139 (1): 108–119. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000617.
Vlassis, A. G., B. A. Izzuddin, A. Y. Elghazouli, and D. A. Nethercot. 2009.
“Progressive collapse of multi-storey buildings due to failed floor
impact.” Eng. Struct. 31 (7): 1522–1534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.engstruct.2009.02.009.
Wang, H., B. Yang, X. H. Zhou, and S. B. Kang. 2016. “Numerical analy-
ses on steel beams with fin-plate connections subjected to impact
loads.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 124 (Sep): 101–112. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.jcsr.2016.05.016.
Wang, Y. C., and L. Xue. 2013. “Experimental study of moment-rotation
characteristics of reverse channel connections to tubular columns.”
J. Constr. Steel Res. 85 (Jun): 92–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr
.2013.03.006.
Yang, B., and K. H. Tan. 2012. “Numerical analyses of steel beam–column
joints subjected to catenary action.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 70 (Mar):
1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2011.10.007.
Yang, B., and K. H. Tan. 2013a. “Experimental tests of different types
of bolted steel beam–column joints under a central-column-removal
scenario.” Eng. Struct. 54 (Sep): 112–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.engstruct.2013.03.037.
Yang, B., and K. H. Tan. 2013b. “Robustness of bolted-angle connections
against progressive collapse: Experimental tests of beam-column joints
and development of component-based models.” J. Struct. Eng. 139 (9):
1498–1514. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000749.
J. Struct. Eng.