Engineering Failure Analysis 91 (2018) 527–542

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal

The influence of beams design and the slabs effect on the

T
progressive collapse resisting mechanisms development for RC
framed structures
⁎
L.A. Bredean , M.D. Botez
Department of Structural Mechanics, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, Romania

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords: Using numerical approaches, this paper investigates the structural response of RC framed
Progressive collapse buildings subjected to accidental/abnormal loads (explosion, impact, etc.). Beside the con-
RC framed structures tribution of the beams, currently considered in the progressive collapse analyses, the effect of the
Nonlinear static analysis slab structural element through its specific resisting mechanisms (Flexural Action, Yield Line
Push-down analysis
Mechanism, Membrane Action) is also assessed. In addition, the influence of three distinct beam
Collapse resisting mechanisms
Slabs
design parameters (the ductility class of the beam longitudinal reinforcement, the beam flex-
Beams ibility in terms of beam height over the beam clear span ratios, respectively the beam long-
itudinal reinforcement ratio) on the progressive collapse behavior of RC structures is evaluated.
Based on previously calibrated numerical models, a consistent series of nonlinear push-down
advanced analyses are performed using the Finite Element Method approach. The results indicate
that the slab influence is significant at the internal forces transfer and load redistribution me-
chanisms level: it completely changes the resisting elements behavior when considered in the
numerical model. Original findings based on the conducted parametric studies are drawn and
compared with results currently available in technical literature.

1. Introduction

Explosions, wind gusts, fire, terrorist attacks or design flaws cause the disproportionate or even total collapse of buildings leading
to significant human causalities and material damages. The most recent event occurred on 19 January 2017 in Tehran, Iran where the
Plasco Building, a 17-story high rise structure (Fig. 1) considered an iconic landmark of the Tehran skyline collapsed due to a fire
started at the ninth floor. Twenty firefighters have been reported to have been killed and at least 70 others were injured by the
collapse [1]. Other well-known progressive collapse events with significant casualties occurred at Rana Plaza commercial office
complex in Savar, Bangladesh (2013–1129 deaths and 2515 injuries), World Trade Center buildings in New York City, USA
(2001–2752 deaths), Sampoong Department Store in Seoul, South Korea (1995–501 deaths and 937 injuries) [2].
Nowadays, the behavior of structures subjected to abnormal loads such as those previously mentioned is a high interest research
topic among civil engineering researchers. ASCE7 [4] defines the Progressive Collapse phenomenon as “the spread of an initial local
failure from element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it”,
definition also assumed by DoD (2009) [5] Guidelines.
The progressive collapse behavior of RC structures is analyzed in recent experimental and theoretical studies considering the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: lucian.bredean@mecon.utcluj.ro (L.A. Bredean).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2018.04.052
Received 16 January 2018; Received in revised form 28 April 2018; Accepted 30 April 2018
Available online 03 May 2018
1350-6307/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L.A. Bredean, M.D. Botez Engineering Failure Analysis 91 (2018) 527–542

Fig. 1. Plasco Building, Tehran, Iran [3].

successive occurrence of several resisting mechanisms [6–9]. When subjected to abnormal loads that lead to the failure of a vertical
structural element, the RC structure activates load-carrying capacity resources through beam and slab resisting mechanisms.
Depending on the structural design, the beams can develop the resisting mechanisms known in technical literature as: Flexural
Action (FA) – explicitly considered in the design phase of a structure, Compressive Arch Action (CAA) – developed in beams which
tends to elongate as they experience large flexural deformation, cracking and yielding, Catenary Action (CA) – acting only under large
displacements and deformations of beams [8].
Experimental and numerical studies [10,11] emphasize that three main resisting mechanisms occur for slabs: Flexural Action (FA)
- explicitly considered in the design phase of a structure, Yield Line Mechanism (YLM) - the ultimate stage of flexural behavior,
characterized by the appearance of plastic strains concentration along linear patterns, respectively Membrane Action (MA) - “con-
sisting of a peripheral compressive ring of concrete supporting tensile membrane action in the central region” [12]. When the
progressive collapse risk of RC structures is assessed using models capable to numerically represent the slab elements, the load-
carrying capacities assured by the previously described slab resisting mechanisms can be also accounted for.
The structural elements design has direct consequences on the progressive collapse behavior of structures. The boundary con-
ditions of beam's end sections influence on the resisting mechanisms developed in beams are investigated in an authors' previous
paper [9]. The importance of accurately considering these conditions in the numerical progressive collapse analysis is emphasized.
The progressive collapse resisting mechanisms developed in beams (FA, CAA, CA) could also be influenced by the following main
design parameters: the ductility class of the beam longitudinal reinforcement, the beam flexibility in terms of beam height over the
beam clear span ratios and the beam longitudinal reinforcement ratio. Their influence was also investigated by other research groups
interested in the progressive collapse topic [6,13]. Most of technical papers available draw conclusions regarding these aspects based
on analyses performed on RC sub-assemblages. A significant improvement would be to assess the influence of the previously men-
tioned parameters on the supplementary resistance resources activated through FA, CAA and CA by using complete RC framed
models. Since experimental studies on entire structures are difficult to perform due to technical and cost efficiency issues, the first
objective of the current study is to investigates these aspects through numerical methods.
Furthermore, the accuracy of the progressive collapse resisting capacity assessment could be significantly improved when the slab
is considered in the numerical models. In addition, the influence of beam-slab interaction on the progressive collapse resisting
mechanisms, according to authors' knowledge, is not covered extensively in the available research studies. Consequently, the second
objective of the current paper is to estimate the additional load-carrying capacity of an RC framed structure when the slab is added in
the numerical model as a primary structural element. Also, the influence of the slab presence on the activation and development of
beam PC resistance mechanisms is investigated.

2. Analysis procedure and PC resisting mechanisms

According to both main progressive collapse guidelines [5,14] the collapse risk can be assessed using three different analysis
methods: Linear Static Analysis (LSA), Nonlinear Static Analysis (NSA) and Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis (NDA). Due to their com-
plexity and the high demands in terms of computational power, the dynamic procedures are not widely used for the progressive risk
assessment of real, complete structures. Different approaches, such as the use of a Dynamic Increase Factor (DIF), have been proposed
[15–17] to account for the dynamic effect while performing a static analysis. However, all the previously mentioned procedures
account only for the Flexural Action (FA) developed in the structural elements (beams and slabs), since the plastic rotation values are
limited for RC beams and slabs to 0.10 rad by the provisions of DoD(2009) [5]. Experimental studies [10,18] indicate that load-
carrying capacities could be activated, through CAA and CA in beams, respectively through YLM and MA in slabs, even when the
plastic rotations exceed the limit values prescribed in progressive collapse assessment guidelines [5,14].
Compressive Arch Action (CAA) could be considered an enhancement of the Flexural Action (FA) mechanism and it is typical only
for RC structures. The supplementary load-carrying capacity associated with CAA can be activated for structural deformations
corresponding to the small displacements domain [7]. Catenary Action (CA) occurs when the beams no longer act as structural
elements subjected mainly to bending; the vertical loads are instead transferred to the adjacent vertical structural elements through

528
L.A. Bredean, M.D. Botez Engineering Failure Analysis 91 (2018) 527–542

Fig. 2. a) Experimental test setup [18], b) Numerical model calibration/validation [8].

axial tension forces. Reaching a vertical displacement level between 0.83 and 1.28 of the beam height is reported in technical
literature [13,19] as a necessary condition for the activation of CA resisting mechanism.
Yield Line Mechanism (YLM) involves plastic strains concentration along linear patterns due to concrete cracking in the tensioned
regions of the slab, cracking phenomenon that leads to the transfer of tension stresses to slab reinforcement. Membrane Action (MA)
occurs subsequent to the development of YLM which divides the slab into distinct regions, interconnecting them. The displacements
of each slab region are blocked by the adjacent slab regions, generating a “compression ring” in the marginal regions of the slab. This
“compression ring” sustains the tensile membrane action activated in the center of the slab, as Dat & Tan emphasize in their research
[12].
The objectives of this paper are achievable only if the used numerical models are able to account for the advanced progressive
collapse resisting mechanisms (CAA and CA for beams, respectively YLM and MA for slabs). Thus, a nonlinear push-down analysis,
capable to accurately represent the structural response in the large displacements domain, is used. This type of analysis was suc-
cessfully calibrated by the authors [8,11] using Abaqus FEA software [20], against two well-known experimental studies: the first
involves the loading of a planar RC frame to its ultimate capacity [18], while the second includes the uniform loading of a simply
supported RC slab up to failure [10].
The obtained results [8,11] indicate a good agreement between the numerical and experimental results (Figs. 2, 3); the calibrated
numerical models accurately represent the failure phenomenon which involves the concrete crushing respectively the reinforcement
bar fracture.

3. Numerical models

The numerical models used in the current study are based on the previously mentioned calibrated Abaqus numerical models
[8,11]. The materials constitutive laws (stress-strain curves) are assembled based on the characteristics specified in the experimental
study of Yi et al. [18] and are specified in Table 1 and Fig. 4. The concrete behavior is modeled using the Concrete Damaged Plasticity
(CDP) option, while the steel behavior is represented using the Plastic option, both available in Abaqus [20]. The finite elements used
are C3D8 solid finite elements for concrete, respectively T3D2 linear finite elements for steel reinforcement (Fig. 5). The concrete
failure (crushing and cracking) is modeled using an “erosion algorithm” which consists of the finite element deletion once a specified

Fig. 3. M1 slab specimen: experimental [10] vs. numerical results [11].

529
L.A. Bredean, M.D. Botez Engineering Failure Analysis 91 (2018) 527–542

Table 1
Material characteristics.
Material Experimental parameters Measured values

HRB400 Steel (Yi et al. [18]) Yield strength 416 MPa

Ultimate strength 526 MPa
Elongation δ5 = 27.5%, δ10 = 23%
HRB235 Steel Yield strength 370 MPa
Concrete Compression strength 25 MPa

δ5/δ10 - steel gauge is 5/10 times as long as the bar diameter.

Fig. 4. Stress-strain curve: Steel and Concrete.

Fig. 5. FEM proposed numerical model [8].

“erosion strain” is reached. This approach is successfully used in studies on the behavior of RC slabs subjected to explosions [21],
respectively in studies regarding the progressive collapse risk of RC framed structures [22]. On the other hand, the reinforcement bar
fracture is represented by imposing a limit fracture strain of 23%, using the “Ductile Damage” option available in Abaqus software
[20]. The main parameters that must be defined for this option are: “Fracture strain”, “Stress triaxiality”, “Strain rate” and “Fracture
energy”. Since the reinforcement bars are modeled using truss finite elements the stress triaxiality limit values are defined by
+0.3333 and −0.3333. The minimum and maximum strain rate values are respectively 0.0001 and 10; in this way the static analyses
performed are not influenced by the strain rate parameter. The fracture energy is set to 0, so the bar rupture occurs instantaneously
when the fracture strain is reached.

530
L.A. Bredean, M.D. Botez Engineering Failure Analysis 91 (2018) 527–542

The numerical models are analyzed using a push-down Nonlinear Static Analysis (NSA) which involves the simulation of the
central vertical support failure by imposing increasing vertical displacements, up to the failure stage of the structure.

3.1. Numerical models - RC framed structures

As previously mentioned in the description of the first objective of the paper, the influence of three distinct parameters - the
ductility class of the beam longitudinal reinforcement, the beam flexibility in terms of beam height over the beam clear span ratios,
respectively the beam longitudinal reinforcement ratio - on the progressive collapse resisting mechanisms, activated in beams is
assessed.
All analyzed RC framed numerical models (Fig. 5) are assembled based on the geometry, material characteristics and section
design of the structural elements specified for the RC planar frame, scaled at 1/3, experimentally tested by Yi et al. [18] in their study.
The cross-section dimensions of the columns are 200x200mm longitudinally reinforced with 4∅12 bars while the cross-section
dimensions of the beams are 100x200mm, also longitudinally reinforced with 4∅12 bars. The experimental structure consists of four
spans of 2.667 m each. Vertically, the planar frame has three stories with a high of 1.567 m for the ground floor, respectively 1.1 m for
the other two floors.

3.1.1. Longitudinal reinforcement ductility class

The importance of the steel ductility class in relation to the structure's capacity to develop significant plastic strains that improve
its response to abnormal loads induced by earthquakes and explosions is emphasized by Bachmann [23]. Given the direct influence of
the reinforcement ductility class on the general structure's capacity to accommodate large plastic deformation, it is of high interest to
assess the influence of this design parameter on the structure's capacity to activate supplementary load-carrying capacity through
CAA and CA resisting mechanisms.
The Romanian version of Eurocode 2 (SR-EN 1992-1-1 [24]) defines three ductility classes (Table 2) based on the ratio between
the ultimate strength and yield strength, respectively based on the specific elongation corresponding to the maximum stress (Agt).
Based on the ductility classes parameters previously presented, the longitudinal reinforcement steel used by Yi et al. [18] in their
experimental study is of ductility class C.
This parametrical study involves five numerical models; the first analyzed model is identical with the calibrated numerical model,
presented in detail in authors' previous paper [8], while the additional models are obtained by modifying only the ductility class of
the longitudinal beam reinforcement (Table 3).
Table 3 contains the vσ parameter, defined as the stress gradient between the yield and the ultimate steel stress, which embeds
both main steel ductility characteristics (on the ultimate strength and yield strength ratio and specific elongation corresponding to the
maximum stress) and whose impact on the progressive collapse resisting mechanisms activation will be discussed.

3.1.2. Beam flexibility

Defined as a parameter with high significance for the beams deformation capacity, the beam flexibility is directly correlated with
the CAA and CA progressive collapse resisting mechanisms activation. The influence of this parameter on the progressive collapse
potential of RC framed structures is a research subject considered in recent studies [18,25]. However, its importance on the CAA and
CA resisting mechanisms is not directly emphasized.
In this paper the beam flexibility coefficient (denoted “Fc”) is determined as the beam height over the beam clear span ratio. The
planar frame experimentally tested by Yi et al. [18] which is also considered as a reference for the analyzed numerical models has an
Fc value of 12.335. In the current design practice, the Fc values for beams are generally between 8 and 12. Thus, four supplementary
numerical models based on the design and geometry of the planar frame tested by Yi et al. [18] and characterized by decreasing Fc
values, are analyzed. By increasing the beam height from the initial value of 200 mm to 230 mm (corresponding to an Fc value of
10.7), respectively to 270 mm (corresponding to an Fc value of 9.1) two numerical models are obtained. Decreasing the clear span
length from the original value of 2.467 m to 2.2 m (corresponding to an Fc value of 11), respectively to 2.0 m (corresponding to an Fc
value of 8) leads to another two distinct numerical models. The analysis of the described models and the comparison of results
emphasizes the influence of beam flexibility on the CAA and CA resisting mechanisms. The longitudinal reinforcement for the
structural elements (beams and columns) is the same (4Φ12) as for the planar frame experimentally tested by Yi et al. [18].

Table 2
Ductility classes according to SR-EN 1992-1-1 [24].
Ductility class - rebar A B C

k = ft/fyk k ≥ 1.05 k ≥ 1.08 1.35 ≥ k ≥ 1.15

Agt Agt ≥ 2.5% Agt ≥ 5.0% Agt ≥ 7.5%

ft - ultimate tension strength.

fyk - yield stress (corresponds to 0.2% residual specific deformation).
Agt - the specific elongation corresponding to the maximum stress.

531
L.A. Bredean, M.D. Botez Engineering Failure Analysis 91 (2018) 527–542

Table 3
Ductility class parameters - parametrical study.
fyk, εpl_yk ft, Agt fu, εpl k = ft/fyk vσ = (ft − fyk)/(100·Agt)

HRB400 Steel - class C (NM_C_1)a σ [MPa] 416 579 526 1.39 12.54
εpl 0 ~0.13 ~0.23
HRB500 Steel - class C (NM_C_2)a σ [MPa] 535 697.4 628 1.30 15.61
εpl 0 ~0.104 ~0.197
BST500 Steel - class B (NM_B_1) a
σ [MPa] 535 697.4 628 1.30 –
εpl 0 ~0.050 ~0.197
BST500 Steel - class B (NM_B_2) a
σ [MPa] 604 660 594 1.09 5.38
εpl 0 ~0.104 ~0.197
PC52 Steel - class C (NM_C_3)a σ [MPa] 467.6 599.5 538.55 1.28 11.17
εpl 0 ~0.118 ~0.27

fu - tension strength corresponding to ultimate specific deformation.

εpl_yk – specific deformation corresponding to yield strength.
εpl – specific plastic deformation.
a
Numerical model using the defined steel ductility class. Numerical models are named according to the following pattern: NM_SC_I = Numerical
Model_Steel Class_Model Index.

3.1.3. Beam reinforcement ratio

Considered as a topic of a high interest in the research community concerned by the progressive collapse phenomenon, the beam
reinforcement ratio influence on the activation of the resisting mechanisms is investigated through both, numerical and experimental
approaches [6, 13, 26]. The current paper aims to detail the existing conclusions and to offer new perspectives related to the beam
reinforcement ratio influence when the additional beam flexibility effect is also included.
Numerical models based on the original geometry (Yi et al. [18] planar frame) are analyzed considering four longitudinal re-
inforcement configurations which lead to reinforcement ratios varying between 0.5% and 1.29% (detailed in Section 4.1.3) for both
superior and inferior reinforcement. Considering that the beams flexibility coefficient of the planar frame tested experimentally are
higher than the current design practice value, a stiffer numerical model is assembled by increasing the beams height to 270 mm
(leading to a flexibility coefficient value of 9.1). The obtained model is analyzed for the same reinforcement detailing; the re-
inforcement ratios vary between 0.5% and 1.29%.

3.2. Numerical models - RC framed structures with slabs

Load-carrying capacities can be activated through Flexural Action, Compressive Arch Action and Catenary Action of RC framed
structures. On the other hand, the slabs resisting mechanisms (Flexural Action, Yield Line Mechanism, Membrane Action) activation
is confirmed for thin slabs (slab thickness over clear span ratio around 1/60) through both experimental and numerical studies
[10,11]. According to authors' knowledge, detailed conclusions regarding the influence of the beam-slab interaction on the activation
of progressive collapse resisting mechanisms are not reported in current research studies. Also, the impact of the longitudinal re-
inforcement continuity in slabs on the activation of supplementary resisting mechanisms is not sufficiently investigated. Thus, the
second objective of the current paper is to enrich the progressive collapse knowledge with conclusions drawn from the analyses of
previously mentioned subjects.
Four numerical models are analyzed to achieve the second established objective. Based on the geometry of the planar frame
experimentally tested by Yi et al. [18], 3D numerical models (two stiff numerical models, Stiff Model - SM and Stiff Model Continuous
- SMC, respectively two flexible numerical models, Flexible Model - FM and Flexible Model Continuous - FMC) are assembled by
connecting, using slab elements, five planar frames on each direction, obtaining a four-bay and four-span 3D model (Fig. 6.a).
According to international guidelines [5,14], the progressive collapse risk assessment implies analyzing several damaged column
scenarios (corner column, long-side exterior column, short-side exterior column and interior column). In this study, the interior
central column, located at the ground floor level is considered to be damaged. To reduce the computational power needed for the
analyses, the numerical model is reduced at ¼ of the initial size due to the double symmetry (Fig. 6.b). The main difference between
the SM and SMC models consists in the fact that, for the SMC model, the superior slab reinforcement is continuous, while for the SM
model the superior slab reinforcement covers only ¼ of the clear span. The same also applies to FM and FMC numerical models.
Comparing the SM/SMC models to the FM/FMC models, the differences can be summarized through the following aspects: the slab
thickness is reduced while the clear span size is increased for the second set of models. The geometry details (cross-sectional di-
mensions and clear span for beams, slab thickness) and slab reinforcement details are presented in Table 4.
The continuity of the superior slab reinforcement could have a major impact when the failure of a vertical support (column) is
considered. In such case, due to the bending moment redistribution (Fig. 7), the usually prescribed length (Lo/4) for the superior slab
reinforcement could not be sufficient. Consequently, numerical models with continuous superior reinforcement in slabs (SMC, FMC)
are analyzed.
To establish the load-carrying capacity activated through each resisting mechanism, the assessment of the flexural action limit
load value associated with the appearance of plastic hinges in beams, respectively yield lines in slabs is assessed according to the
Principle of Virtual Work. Considering the monolithic connection between the beams and slabs, it is important to consider a slab

532
L.A. Bredean, M.D. Botez Engineering Failure Analysis 91 (2018) 527–542

Fig. 6. FEM 3D numerical models: a) complete model, b) reduced model (due to double symmetry).

Table 4
Geometry and reinforcement details.
Numerical model Clear span (L0) Beam cross-section (bxh) Slab thickness (hs) h/L0 hs/L0
[m] [mm] [mm]

FM/FMC 2.467 200 × 100 50 1/12.335 1/50

SM/SMC 2.000 200 × 100 60 1/10 1/33

Beam reinforcement Effective slab width (beff) [mm] Slab reinforcement

Inferior Superior

FM/FMC 4φ12 mm 400 4φ2.7 mm 4φ3.3 mm

SM/SMC 4φ12 mm 380 4φ2.7 mm 4φ3.3 mm

Fig. 7. Bending moment redistribution (slab regions adjacent to the damaged column).

533
L.A. Bredean, M.D. Botez Engineering Failure Analysis 91 (2018) 527–542

effective width when assessing the beams bending plastic capacity.

According to ACI318-11 [27] “the T-beam flanges shall not exceed one-quarter of the span length of the beam, and the effective
overhanging flange width on each side of the web shall not exceed eight times the slab thickness or one-half the clear distance to the
next web”. Thus, the considered effective slab width for the SM/SMC models is 380 mm, respectively 400 mm for the FM/FMC
models. The limit load corresponding to the plastic failure mechanism of the structure is assessed according to the following
equations:
Lext = −L int (1)

Lext = Pl⋅Δ (2)

− L int = Lσbeams + Lσslabs (3)

Δ
Lσbeams = 3⋅4⋅ +
⋅(Mbeam −
+ Mbeam )
L0 (4)

Δ
Lσslabs = 3⋅8⋅ +
⋅L0⋅(mslab −
+ mslab )
L0 (5)
+ −
(Mbeam + Mbeam ) +
Pl = 3⋅4⋅ + 3⋅8⋅Δ⋅(mslab + m\−slab)
L0 (6)

where: Lextrepresents the external work done by applied loads,Lint represents the internal work done by interior forces,Pl the
equivalent concentrated load corresponding to the plastic failure mechanism,Δ represents the imposed virtual displacement,Lσbeams
represents the internal work done by interior beam cross-sectional forces,Lσslabs represents the internal work done by interior slab
cross-sectional forces,L0 represents the clear span of beams/slabs,Mbeam+ represents the positive plastic moment for beams,Mbeam−
represents the negative plastic moment for beams,mslab+ represents the positive plastic moment per unit length for slabs,mslab−
represents the negative plastic moment per unit length for slabs.

4. Results and discussions

4.1. Numerical models - RC framed structures

The first paper objective involves the influence assessment of three significant design parameters (the ductility class of the beam
longitudinal reinforcement, the beam flexibility in terms of beam height over the beam clear span ratios, respectively the beam
longitudinal reinforcement ratio) on the progressive collapse resisting mechanisms. This goal is achieved by running a total of 16
distinct push-down analyses on RC framed structures and analyzing the obtained results.

4.1.1. Longitudinal reinforcement ductility class

The reinforcement ductility class has a direct influence on the general structure's capacity to accommodate large plastic de-
formation. Thus, it is of high interest to assess the influence of this design parameter on the structure's capacity to activate sup-
plementary load-carrying capacity through CAA and CA resisting mechanisms. The analyses results are illustrated in two distinct
manners, graphically as shown in Fig. 8, respectively with numerical values in Table 5.

Fig. 8. The influence of steel ductility class on the progressive collapse CAA and CA resisting mechanisms.

534
L.A. Bredean, M.D. Botez Engineering Failure Analysis 91 (2018) 527–542

Table 5
Steel ductility class influence on the load-carrying capacities activated through CAA and CA resisting mechanism.
Numerical model FA CAA CA

[kN] [kN] Additional capacitya [%] [kN] Additional capacitya [%] Vertical displacement
[mm]

NM_C_1 72.2 80.2 +11.08 99.3 +37.5 455

NM_C_2 75.7 88.9 +17.37 93.3 +23.25 310
NM_B_1 85.4 101 +18.27 113 +32.67 365
NM_B_2 85.4 105 +22.95 112 +31.15 225
NM_C_3 90 109 +21.11 – – –

a
The additional capacity associated with each resisting mechanism is computed with respect to FA Capacity.

A slight increase of the load-carrying capacity activated through CAA resisting mechanism is observed for higher values of the
steel characteristic strength (fyk): for a steel with fyk = 416 MPa a 11% supplementary CAA resisting capacity is obtained, while a
21% increase corresponds to a steel with fyk = 604 MPa.
As shown in Table 2, the ductility class of steel reinforcement is defined based on two parameters: the ratio between the ultimate
strength and yield strength, respectively based on the specific elongation corresponding to the maximum stress (Agt). The numerical
results (NM_B_1) reveal the following: a steel that fits the requirements for the “C” ductility class only from the “k” ratios perspective
(and not also from the specific elongation corresponding to the maximum stress perspective) is sufficient to allow the structure to
activate supplementary load-carrying capacities through CA resisting mechanism. In contrast, a steel that fits the requirements for the
“C” ductility class only from the specific elongation corresponding to the maximum stress point of view (NM_B_2) does not provide
the structure with the capacity to activate CA mechanism. It is also revealed that if the longitudinal steel characteristics lead to a “vσ”
parameter (defined in Section 3.1.1 – Table 3) with values exceeding 10, significant load-carrying capacities can be activated through
CAA and CA resisting mechanisms. The supplementary load-carrying capacities represent 23%–37% (Table 5 of the flexural resisting
capacity.

4.1.2. Beam flexibility

The influence of the beam flexibility parameter on the CAA and CA progressive collapse resisting mechanisms activation is
investigated through a series of four numerical analyses carried out on planar RC frame models with beams characterized by different
flexibility coefficient values (Fc).
Illustrated in Fig. 9 and Table 6, the results indicate that the supplementary load-carrying capacity associated with CAA me-
chanism varies between 11% and 20% (Table 6) of the flexural capacity. Consequently, the CAA supplementary resistance resources
level is not highly sensitive with respect to the beam flexibility. On the other hand, the load-carrying capacity associated with CA
resisting mechanism is generally proportional to the beam flexibility coefficient (Fc): a reduced beam flexibility coefficient provides
the structure with a less ductile behavior (reduced vertical displacements). This leads to structural failure for a diminished dis-
placement level, as presented in Table 6. For beam flexibility coefficient values that are currently used in the design process
(Fc = 10 ÷ 11), the performed analyses indicate a supplementary resistance level around 25% higher than the flexural capacity.
In certain situations, even though the ultimate vertical displacement values are around 1.3 of the beam height (displacement level
which allows the activation of the CA resisting mechanism), the ultimate load capacity is not necessarily increased compared to the

Fig. 9. The influence of beam flexibility on the progressive collapse CAA and CA resisting mechanisms.

535
L.A. Bredean, M.D. Botez Engineering Failure Analysis 91 (2018) 527–542

Table 6
Beam flexibility influence on the load-carrying capacities activated through CAA and CA resisting mechanisms.
Numerical model FA CAA CA

[kN] [kN] Additional capacitya [%] [kN] Additional capacitya [%] Vertical displacement
[mm]

NM_FC_12.335 72.2 80.2 +11.08 99.3 +37.5 455

NM_FC_11 81 91.2 +12.6 101 +25.93 370
NM_FC_8 111.4 127 +14 130 +16.7 260
NM_FC_10.7 101 114 +12.87 127.4 +26.13 400
NM_FC_9.1 145.9 175 +19.95 179 +22.7 355

Numerical models are named according to the following pattern:

NM_ FC_V = Numerical Model_Flexibility Coefficient_Value.
a
The additional capacity associated with each resisting mechanism is computed with respect to FA Capacity.

level associated with CAA resisting mechanism (Table 6, NM_ FC_8: CAA - 127 kN vs. CA - 130 kN).

4.1.3. Beam reinforcement ratio

The beam reinforcement ratio influence on the activation of the resisting mechanisms is investigated by carrying out seven push-
down analyses on planar RC frame models, characterized by various longitudinal superior/inferior reinforcement ratios, respectively
by different beam flexibility coefficients.
The obtained results are displayed in graphical form (Fig. 10) as “vertical displacement-equivalent vertical load” curves, re-
spectively as numerical data in Table 7.
It can be observed that the supplementary load-carrying capacity associated with the CAA resisting mechanism is limited to the
range of 10%–25% of the flexural capacity. Depending on the beam longitudinal reinforcement ratio, the supplementary resisting
resources activated through CA mechanism can reach an increase value up to 37% of the level obtained through the usual bending
behavior (flexural action). It is also observed that for flexible beams, the increased resistance resources associated with CA are more
significant when compared to stiffer beams (Table 7, NM_ FC_12.335 vs. NM_ FC_9.1). In addition, for an inferior longitudinal
reinforcement ratio of 0.5% (value that doesn't fit the optimum reinforcement ratio intervals according to SR-EN 1992-1 [24]), even
though the vertical displacement level attained allows the activation of CA mechanism, the associated supplementary load-carrying
capacity does not significantly improve when compared to the CAA resistance level (Table 7, NM_ FC_12.335–0.85%_0.5).

4.2. Numerical models - RC framed structures with slabs

Considered as the second objective of the current paper, the study of both, beam-slab interaction and slab reinforcement con-
tinuity influence on the activation of progressive collapse resisting mechanisms for beams and slabs is achieved by running a set of
four push-down numerical analyses.
In addition, for each numerical model, manual computations are made according to the Principle of Virtual Work equations (Eqs.
1–6) to determine the flexural capacity (Table 8 – Pl column). The presumed patterns of yield-line for slabs, respectively plastic
regions for beams, for the structural elements contained in the bays directly affected by the failed column are illustrated in Fig. 11.
The plastic moments numerical values determined based on the cross-sectional detailing (Section 3.2.), corresponding to the

Fig. 10. The influence of the beam reinforcement ratio on the progressive collapse CAA and CA resisting mechanisms.

536
L.A. Bredean, M.D. Botez Engineering Failure Analysis 91 (2018) 527–542

Table 7
Beam reinforcement ratio influence on the load-carrying capacities activated through CAA and CA resisting mechanisms.a
Numerical model FA CAA CA

[kN] [kN] Additional capacitya [%] [kN] Additional capacitya [%] Vertical displacement
[mm]

NM_FC_12.335 72.2 80.2 +11.08 99.3 +37.5 455

1.293%_1.293%
NM_FC_12.335 59.7 68.4 +14.5 75 +25.63 370
1.293%_0.85%
NM_FC_12.335 47.4 53.5 +12.9 60.7 +28.06 390
0.85%_0.85%
NM_FC_12.335 37.8 43.5 +15.08 43.5 +15.08 200
0.85%_0.5%
NM_FC_9.1 145.9 175 +19.95 179 +22.7 355
1.293%_1.293%
NM_FC_9.1 121.4 146 +20.33 146 +20.33 260
1.293%_0.85%
NM_FC_9.1 96.9 119 +22.81 119 +22.81 230
0.85%_0.85%
NM_FC_9.1 78.1 96 +22.92 97.9 +25.35 210
0.85%_0.5%

Numerical models are named according to the following pattern:

NM_FC_V_ρI_ρS - Numerical Model_Flexibility Coefficient_Value_Inferior Reinforcement.
Ratios_ Superior Reinforcement Ratio.
a
The additional capacity associated with each resisting mechanism is computed with respect to FA Capacity.

Table 8
Sectional forces used in flexural action assessment. Resisting mechanisms associated load-carrying capacities.
Numerical model Plastic moments Pl Ultimate equivalent vertical load (Pmax)
[kN]
Beams Slabs [kN] Additional capacitya [%]
[kNm] [kNm/m]

Mbeam+ Mbeam− mslab+ mslab−

FM 16.09 21.28 3.06 0.65 270.8 572.3 +111.3

FMC 4.53 363.9 715.7 +96.7
SM 16.24 20.96 3.78 0.94 336.5 637.3 +89.4
SMC 5.61 448.5 713.4 +59.1

a
The additional capacity associated with each resisting mechanism is computed with respect to Pl (YLM associated load).

presumed patterns of plastic zones of the structure are presented in Table 8. Following the column removal (Fig. 11), the maximum
load values (numerically computed) supported by the structure (considering the positive effect of all activated resisting mechanisms
in beams and slabs), are also summarized in Table 8 (Pmax columns). In terms of “vertical displacement-equivalent vertical load”
curves, the results obtained for the analyzed numerical models (SM/SMC and FM/FMC) are displayed in Fig. 12. For a flexibility level
corresponding to the current structural design practice (SM/SMC numerical models - beam height over clear span ratio of 1/10,
respectively slab thickness over clear span ration of 1/33) the designed structure is able to activate the CA mechanism in beams and
the MA in slabs.
The maximum vertical displacements are in the range of 1.2–1.3 of the beam height, respectively 4.0–5.4 of the slab thickness. In
addition, when comparing the “vertical displacement-equivalent vertical load” obtained for the numerical models with continuous
superior slab reinforcement (SMC and FMC) to the ones with discontinuous superior slab reinforcement (SM and FM), a significant
difference in terms of maximum supported equivalent load is observed. Thus, for the SMC and FMC models the load corresponding to
the plastic failure mechanism formation is increased with 30%–35% compared to SM and FM models. The ultimate equivalent
vertical load increases by up to 25%, depending on the flexibility level of the structural elements.
It is also observed that for the SM and FM numerical models (discontinuous superior slab reinforcement) the increase of the
structures flexibility leads to a decreased ultimate equivalent vertical load (637 kN for SM model vs. 572 kN for FM model, Table 8).
On the other hand, for the SMC and FMC numerical models (continuous superior slab reinforcement) the increase of the structures
flexibility does not significantly influence the ultimate equivalent vertical load (713 kN for SMC model vs. 715 kN for FMC model,
Table 8).
Fig. 13 illustrates, based on the push-down numerical analyses performed on SMC and SM models, the tensile Young modulus
degradation of the concrete for a vertical displacement of 155 mm (0.775 of the beam height, respectively 2.5 of the slab thickness);
the regions colored in red correspond to a 64% degradation of the concrete tensile Young modulus. The degradation patterns

537
L.A. Bredean, M.D. Botez Engineering Failure Analysis 91 (2018) 527–542

Fig. 11. Presumed patterns for yield-lines in slabs and plastic regions in beams: a) SMC, FMC models, b) SM, FM models.

Fig. 12. SM, SMC, FM, FMC: vertical displacement-equivalent vertical load curves.

obtained numerically are in good agreement with the presumed patterns displayed in Fig. 11. In a previous paper [9], authors applied
the same push-down procedure for a numerical model similar to the current FM model, without including the slab structural elements
(SM4B*4S model). Fig. 14 illustrates in a comparative manner the structural response in terms of “vertical displacement-equivalent
vertical load curves” for the current FM model and the SM4B*4S model. The comparison between the ultimate equivalent vertical
load obtained for the SM4B*4S numerical model (195 kN, [9]) and the value computed for the current FM numerical model (572 kN -
Table 8 – which is equivalent with a three time increase in the capacity) emphasizes the importance of the slab modeling when an
accurate progressive collapse behavior assessment is required.
The slab influence is also noticeable when analyzing the efforts transfer and load redistribution mechanisms level. Compared to
the numerical model previously studied by the authors where the slabs are not included (SM4B*4S model [9]), the beam axial efforts
distribution is completely different when the slabs are considered (SM numerical model). For the SM4B*4S numerical model [9], the
results indicate a constant distribution of the axial efforts along the beam length. The axial efforts vary as intensity and sign with
respect to the location of the beam in elevation (Fig. 15 -comparison between first floor beams – BM_Inf, second floor beams –
BM_Med and third floor beams – BM_Sup).
On the other hand, for the SM numerical model the axial effort distribution does not depend on the location of the beam in
elevation; instead, the axial effort is no longer constant along the beam length, but it gradually varies from tension in the beam end
section directly connected to the damaged column (E2 beam end) to compression in the opposite beam end section (E1 beam end), as

538
L.A. Bredean, M.D. Botez Engineering Failure Analysis 91 (2018) 527–542

Fig. 13. Numerical results for a maximum vertical displacement of 155 mm - degradation of the tensile Young modulus map: a) SMC, b) SM (slab
regions adjacent to the damaged column).

Fig. 14. Vertical displacement-equivalent vertical load curves: FM (numerical model with slab) vs. SM4B*4S (numerical model without slab).

illustrated in Fig. 16. This phenomenon can be explained by the fact that the beam cinematic restrictions introduced by the slab
generate compression axial efforts, continuously distributed along the beam length, which change the original beam axial effort sign
as the distance from the considered damaged column increases.
Based on the axial effort variation, it can be stated that a precise delimitation of the load-carrying capacity and vertical dis-
placement intervals associated with each progressive collapse resisting mechanism can no longer be made when the slab elements are
included in the numerical model.
According to the values illustrated in Table 8, the numerical models which include the slab elements have an associated
equivalent maximum vertical load increased with 90%–110% for the SM and FM numerical models, respectively with 60%–100% for
the SMC and FMC numerical models, when compared to the equivalent vertical load which corresponds to the formation of the plastic
failure mechanism. This phenomenon can be explained by the double effect of the slab elements. Firstly, the slab acts like a horizontal
diaphragm improving, due to the M-N interaction, the beam capacity to accommodate bending moments with increased values
compared to the pure-bending plastic moments of the beam. Secondly, the slabs increase the value of the equivalent vertical load
associated with the plastic failure mechanism and allows the activation of supplementary load-carrying capacities through the MA
mechanism.

539
L.A. Bredean, M.D. Botez Engineering Failure Analysis 91 (2018) 527–542

Fig. 15. Vertical displacement vs. axial forces in beams: SM4B*4S – numerical model without slabs [9].

Fig. 16. Vertical displacement - axial forces in beams: SM – numerical model with slabs.

5. Conclusions

This paper investigates aspects of the RC framed structures response when subjected to abnormal loads. First objective of the
current study is to assess the effect of beam design, on the progressive collapse resisting mechanisms developed in beams: FA, CAA
and CA. The second objective aims to estimate the additional load-carrying capacity of an RC framed structure when the slab is added
in the numerical model. In addition, the influence of beam-slab interaction on the progressive collapse resisting mechanisms, ac-
cording to authors' knowledge, is not covered extensively in actual research studies. The main conclusions and new findings of the
current study are presented as follows.

5.1. Numerical models - RC framed structures

The influence on the progressive collapse resisting mechanisms activated in beams, of three distinct parameters is assessed. A
series of 16 distinct push-down analyses are performed on RC framed structures.

5.1.1. Longitudinal reinforcement ductility class

The main conclusions regarding the longitudinal reinforcement ductility class parameter are:

• A slight increase of the load-carrying capacity activated through CAA resisting mechanism is observed for higher values of the
steel characteristic strength (Table 5).
• The two parameters that define the steel ductility class, the ratio between the ultimate strength and yield strength, respectively the
specific elongation corresponding to the maximum stress, do not impact in the same measure the activation of CA resisting
mechanism.

540
L.A. Bredean, M.D. Botez Engineering Failure Analysis 91 (2018) 527–542

• A new parameter “v ” which embeds both main steel ductility characteristics with impact on the progressive collapse resisting
σ
mechanisms activation is defined as the stress gradient between the yield and the ultimate steel stress. A minimum threshold value
of 10 for the “vσ” parameter would be necessary to activate supplementary load-carrying capacities through CA.

5.1.2. Beam flexibility

The assessment of the beam flexibility influence on the progressive collapse resisting mechanisms indicates the following:

• The CAA supplementary resistance resources level is not highly sensitive with respect to the beam flexibility; the load-carrying
capacity associated with CAA mechanism for all analyzed models varies between 10% and 20% (Table 6) of the flexural capacity.
• For beam flexibility coefficient values (Fc = 10 ÷ 11) currently used in the design process, the performed analyses indicate a
supplementary resistance level associated with CA that oscillates around 25% of the flexural capacity.
• Even though the ultimate vertical displacement values allow the activation of the CA resisting mechanism, in some cases the load-
carrying capacity activated through CA is not necessarily significantly increased compared to the values associated to CAA
(Table 6, NM_ FC_8: CAA - 127 kN vs. CA - 130 kN). This conclusion is consistent in a certain degree with the similar finding
indicated by Tian & Su [28] in their research according to which the “Load resistance under catenary action may not provide
higher capacity than under compressive arch action”.

5.1.3. Beam reinforcement ratio

A series of push-down analyses are performed to evaluate the beam reinforcement ratio influence on the activation of the pro-
gressive collapse resisting mechanisms. The main conclusions revealed are:

• The contribution of the CAA resisting mechanisms to the supplementary load-carrying capacity is limited to the range of 10% to
25% of the flexural capacity of the structure (Table 7). Similar studies [6] indicate an increase of the load-carrying capacity
associated to CAA form 37% up to 89%. This significant difference can be explained by the fact that in the current study the
analyses are performed on complete RC frame structures, considering the precise beam-end restraints.
• The supplementary resisting resources activated through CA mechanism can increase up to 37% of the structures' bending ca-
pacity due to the flexural action. He & Yi [19] report in their study a double load-carrying capacity associated to CA mechanism
due to the fixed end conditions considered for beams.
• For beams with higher flexibility coefficient, the increased resistance resources associated with CA are more consistent when
compared to beams with increased stiffness (Table 7, NM_ FC_12.335 vs. NM_ FC_9.1).

5.2. Numerical models - RC framed structures with slabs

The additional load-carrying capacity of an RC framed structure considering the resistance resources activated through the FA,
YLM and MA slab resisting mechanisms is estimated. In addition, the impact of the longitudinal reinforcement continuity in slabs on
the activation of supplementary resisting mechanisms is investigated. The numerical results obtained by performing four push-down
analyses reveal the following main conclusions:

• The structures designed according to the current codes are able to develop increased vertical displacements: 1.2–1.3 of the beam
height, respectively 4–5.4 of the slab thickness. Such a displacement domain allows the activation of supplementary load-carrying
capacities through all resisting mechanisms in beams and in slabs.
• The ultimate equivalent vertical load supported by the analyzed structural models is significantly affected when the slab is not
considered in the numerical model (Fig. 14, FM model vs. SM4B*4S model).
• A new finding not reported before in technical literature is that the slab influence is significant at the efforts transfer and load
redistribution mechanisms level: it completely changes the beam axial efforts when considered in the numerical model (Fig. 15 vs.
Fig. 16); in addition, due to the slab-beam interaction, the beam axial effort distribution does not longer allow a clear delimitation
between the FA, CAA and CA resisting mechanisms in beams.
• For the SM and FM models the increase of the structures flexibility leads to a decreased ultimate equivalent vertical load (Table 8).
On the contrary, for the SMC and FMC numerical models the increase of the structures flexibility does not significantly influence
the ultimate equivalent vertical load. In addition, it can be noticed that reinforcing the slabs with continuous superior bars
significantly increases the ultimate load capacity of the structures, compared to the case when the superior slab reinforcement is
discontinuous (Fig. 12).
• The supplementary load-carrying capacity associated with the progressive collapse resisting mechanisms active in the large
displacement domain are evaluated for the analyzed numerical models at around 60%–110% when compared to the equivalent
vertical load which corresponds to the formation of the plastic failure mechanism.

Acknowledgment

The results presented in this paper were obtained with the support of the Technical University of Cluj-Napoca through the
research Contract no. 2007/2017, Internal Competition CICDI-2017.

541
L.A. Bredean, M.D. Botez Engineering Failure Analysis 91 (2018) 527–542

References

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasco_Building.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_collapse.
[3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-4135370/Irans-oldest-high-rise-building-collapses-fire.html.
[4] ASCE/SEI 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Virginia, S.U.A., 2010.
[5] Department of Defense, Design of Building to Resist Progressive Collapse, Unified Facility Criteria, UFC-4-023-03, Washington D.C. 176 pp. (2009).
[6] J. Yu, K.H. Tan, Analytical model for the capacity of compressive arch action of reinforced concrete sub-assemblages, Mag. Concr. Res. 66 (2013) 109–126.
[7] S. Sagiroglu, Analytical and experimental evaluation of progressive collapse resistance of reinforced concrete structures, Civil Engineering Dissertations. Paper
18, http://hdl.handle.net/2047/d20002914, (2012).
[8] M. Botez, L. Bredean, A.M. Ioani, Improving the accuracy of progressive collapse risk assessment: efficiency and contribution of supplementary progressive
collapse resisting mechanisms, Comput. Struct. 174 (2016) 54–65, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2015.11.002.
[9] L. Bredean, M. Botez, A.M. Ioani, Numerical identification of advanced progressive collapse resisting mechanisms for RC framed structures, Insights and
Innovations in Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Computation: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Structural Engineering, Mechanics and
Computation (SEMC 2016), 2016, pp. 1942–1947 ISBN: 978-1-138-02927-9.
[10] C. Bailey, W. Toh, B. Chan, Simplified and advanced analysis of membrane action of concrete slabs, ACI Struct. J. 105 (4) (2008) 30–40.
[11] L. Bredean, M. Botez, A.M. Ioani, Advanced numerical models in the analysis of RC slabs under small and large displacements: FEM and AEM, Insights and
Innovations in Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Computation: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Structural Engineering, Mechanics and
Computation (SEMC 2016), 2016, pp. 1294–1299 ISBN: 978-1-138-02927-9.
[12] P.X. Dat, K.-H. Tan, Membrane actions of RC slabs in mitigating progressive collapse of building structures, Eng. Struct. 55 (2013) 107–115.
[13] H. Choi, J. Kim, Progressive collapse-resisting capacity of RC beam–column subassemblage, Mag. Concr. Res. 63 (4) (2011) 297–310.
[14] General Service Administration, Alternate Path Analysis & Design Guidelines for Progressive Collapse Resistance. USA, (2013).
[15] K. Marchand, A. McKay, D. Stevens, Development and Application of Linear and Non-Linear Static Approaches in UFC 4-023-03, Structures Congress, (2009),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41031(341)191.
[16] M.H. Tsai, Assessment of analytical load and dynamic increase factors for progressive collapse analysis of building frames, Adv. Struct. Eng. 15 (1) (2012) 41–54,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1260/1369-4332.15.1.41.
[17] S. Amiri, H. Saffari, J. Mashhadi, Assessment of dynamic increase factor for progressive collapse analysis of RC structures, Eng. Fail. Anal. 84 (2018) 300–310,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2017.11.011.
[18] W.-J. Yi, Q.-F. He, Y. Xiao, S. Kunnath, Experimental study on progressive collapse-resistant behavior of reinforced concrete frame structures, ACI Struct. J. 105
(4) (2008) 433–439.
[19] Q.-F. He, W.-J. Yi, Experimental Study on Collapse-resistant Behavior of RC Beam Column Sub-structure Considering Catenary Action. 14WCEE, Beijing, China,
(2008).
[20] ABAQUS, ABAQUS - User's Manual, Version 6.11, Hibbit, Karlsson & Sorenson, Pawtucket, RI, 2011.
[21] K. Xu, Y. Lu, Numerical simulation study of spallation in reinforced concrete plates subjected to blast loading, Comput. Struct. 84 (2006) 431–438.
[22] Y. Shi, Z.-X. Li, H. Hao, A new method for progressive collapse analysis of RC frames under blast loading, Eng. Struct. 32 (2010) 1691–1703.
[23] H. Bachmann, Problems Relevant to Poor Ductility Properties of European Reinforcing Steel. 12WCEE, Auckland, New Zealand, (2000).
[24] ASRO, SR EN 1992-1-1: 2004, Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. EN1992-1-1– Part 1-1(in Romanian), Romania, (2004).
[25] H. Helmy, H. Salem, S. Mourad, Progressive collapse assessment of framed reinforced concrete structures according to UFC guidelines for alternative path
method, Eng. Struct. 42 (2012) 127–141.
[26] Y. Su, Y. Tian, X. Song, Progressive collapse resistance of axially-restrained frame beams, ACI Struct. J. 106 (5) (2009) 600–607.
[27] ACI 318-11, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, S.U.A., 2011.
[28] Y. Tian, Y. Su, Dynamic response of reinforced concrete beams following instantaneous removal of a bearing column, Int. J. Conc. Struct. Mater. 5 (1) (2011)
19–28.

542