Seismic Performance of Axially Restrained

Reinforced Concrete Frame Beams

Liping Wang 1; Ying Tian, M.ASCE 2; Wenwen Luo 3; Guichen Li 4;
Wei Zhang 5; Siwei Liu 6; and Chunyu Zhang 7

Abstract: Reinforced concrete beams tend to elongate after flexural cracking and yielding; however, the elongation is restrained by the
surrounding structural components in a RC moment frame. Experiments were conducted on seven 1=2-scale interior beam-column subas-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lund University on 02/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

semblies to study the effects of axial restraint on the seismic performance of RC frame beams and beam-column joints without the presence of
floor slabs. The test setup permitted applying axial restraint to beam ends and measuring the compressive axial force passively generated in
the beams. Major test variables included beam flexural reinforcement ratio and axial restraining rigidity. Without axial restraint, the total beam
elongation reached 3.75% of the beam height at 3% lateral drift. Under the considered levels of axial restraining rigidity, large compressive
axial force developed in the beams, leading to an axial force ratio up to 0.25. The axial restraint increased both beam flexural stiffness and
strength. Depending on the tensile reinforcement ratio, beam flexural capacity increased 40%–150% at 3% drift. Compared with the
unrestrained specimens, the axially restrained specimens suffered greater damage in the beam plastic hinge regions and beam-column joints
due to the dramatically increased shear demand, which can negatively impact the seismic performance of a RC frame. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
ST.1943-541X.0002306. © 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Reinforced concrete frame; Axial restraint; Beam elongation; Beam-column joint.

Introduction 2% to 5% of beam height (Fenwick and Megget 1993; Cooper et al.

According to the capacity design principle and the seismic design
provisions in ACI 318 (ACI 2014), the flexural capacity of beams
in a RC moment frame is the basis for the flexural design of
the columns. Therefore, properly defining the beam flexural
strength to achieve the desired strong-column–weak-beam mecha-
nism when subjected to major earthquakes is of significance. RC
components such as beams and walls tend to elongate, especially
after flexural yielding (Fenwick and Fong 1979; Kokusho et al.
1988; Dhakal et al. 2014; Encina et al. 2016). The elongation of
beams, also known as beam growth, occurs predominantly in the
plastic hinge regions. Prior to strength degradation, the elongation
of a cantilevered beam under reversed cyclic loading ranges from
1
Associate Professor, School of Civil Engineering and Architecture,
Chongqing Univ. of Science and Technology, Chongqing 401331, China;
Visiting Scholar, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering and
Construction, Univ. of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154.
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering
and Construction, Univ. of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154 (corresponding
author). Email: ying.tian@unlv.edu
3
Lecturer, School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Chongqing
Univ. of Science and Technology, Chongqing 401331, China.
4
Graduate Student, School of Civil Engineering and Architecture,
Chongqing Univ. of Science and Technology, Chongqing 401331, China.
5
Graduate Student, School of Civil Engineering and Architecture,
Chongqing Univ. of Science and Technology, Chongqing 401331, China.
6
Graduate Student, School of Civil Engineering and Architecture,
Chongqing Univ. of Science and Technology, Chongqing 401331, China.
7
Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering and
Construction, Univ. of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 29, 2018; approved on
October 18, 2018; published online on February 20, 2019. Discussion
period open until July 20, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural En-
gineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
2005). A similar level of beam free elongation can be found in the
cyclic lateral loading tests of beam-column subassemblies (Zerbe
and Durrani 1989; Ashtiani et al. 2014).
Beam growth in a moment frame, however, is restrained by the
surrounding components; in turn, compressive axial force develops
in the beam, thereby enhancing the flexural strength. The restraint
is partially enforced by cast-in-place RC slabs through continuity
and high in-plane stiffness (Qi and Pantazopoulou 1991). For
simplicity, the participation of slabs in resisting lateral loads was
normally considered by assigning an effective slab flange width
(French and Boroojerdi 1989; French and Moehle 1991), which
accounts not only for the negative bending resistance provided
by slab reinforcement, but also for the effects of restraining beam
elongations. Even without the existence of slabs, other frame
components, such as columns, can still restrain beam growth and
increase the beam flexural strength. The phenomenon was demon-
strated by the experiments conducted by Zerbe and Durrani (1989,
1990) on statically indeterminate 1-story two-bay frames and stati-
cally determinate isolated substructures. Data from these tests in-
dicated the restraint provided by the columns alone resulted in more
than a 20% increase in lateral loading capacity compared with a
40% strength increase due to slab participation.
Beam elongation is conventionally neglected in the seismic de-
sign of RC frames. However, both experimental and numerical evi-
dence (Zerbe and Durrani 1989; Kim et al. 2004; Kabeyasawa et al.
2000) have revealed its remarkable influence on the distributions of
bending moment and shear. For instance, the story shear force was
increased by as much as 86% at 2% drift in a RC frame analyzed by
Kim et al. (2004). Moreover, neither along the height of a RC frame
nor at the same floor could beam yielding occur simultaneously. As
a result, the beam elongation due to the early hinging, which nor-
mally occurs in the lower stories, can be strongly restrained by the
neighboring structural components suffering only a limited extent
of damage. The large flexural strength of the restrained beams may

© ASCE 04019019-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(5): 04019019


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lund University on 02/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Collapse of a RC frame classroom building during the 2008
Wenchuan Earthquake. (Reprinted with permission from Lu et al.
2012.)
force yielding to occur in the columns and thus generate a soft-story
mechanism. The M7.9 Wenchuan earthquake in 2008 examined the
performance of RC frames designed and constructed in China. In
spite of the compliance with modern Chinese design codes, a large
number of RC frame buildings formed plastic hinges at both the top
and bottom ends of the first-story columns, thereby leading to soft
stories or even collapses.
Fig. 1 (Lu et al. 2012) shows an example the collapse of a RC
frame building constructed in 2007. In addition to the possible ef-
fects of infill walls on altering structural performance, the under-
estimation of slab contribution to flexural resistance in the Chinese
design provisions was blamed for the largely unexpected failure
mode (Ye et al. 2008; Lu et al. 2012). Recognizing the harmful
effects of beam elongation, the New Zealand concrete design code
NZS 3101.1:2006 (Standards New Zealand 2017) requires the ef-
fects of beam elongation on beam moment capacity, column flexu-
ral and shear demands, and residual local deformations to be taken
into account for lateral load–resisting systems. The consideration of
the elongation of RC flexural components would unavoidably com-
plicate the formulation of plastic hinge zone behavior (Dhakal and
Fenwick 2008). Mechanical models with varying complexity were
developed to simulate the behavior (Kokusho et al. 1988; Fenwick
and Davidson 1995; Kim et al. 2004; Eom and Park 2010; Peng
et al. 2011a, b, 2013; Encina et al. 2016) and thus better capture
the system-level seismic response of RC frames and walls.
The compressive forces in the restrained beams may also
significantly increase the shear burden on beam-column joints
(Zerbe and Durrani 1989; Kim et al. 2004). However, most pre-
vious experimental studies of restrained beam elongation were car-
ried out on single cantilevered beams without an interaction with
beam-column joints. Additionally, as found in some high-bay struc-
tures, RC moment frames may be constructed without floor slabs.
In such a case, it becomes inapplicable to use an effective slab
flange width to indirectly account for the enhancement of beam
flexural strength.
This paper presents a series of experiments aiming to further
examine the performance of frame beams restrained by the rest of
structure and the restraining effects on beam flexural capacity and
shear demand in beam-column joints. Different from the previous
testing of beam-column subassemblies, the present experiments
were designed to directly measure and systematically characterize
the passively developed beam axial compressive forces. The test
data allow for the development and/or validation of numerical
© ASCE 04019019-2
J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(5): 04019019
Actuator
Load Cell
Steel Rod
Load Cell Steel Beam
(a)
Bracing Frame
(b)
Fig. 2. Test setup.
models that simulate the behavior of RC frame beams subjected
to axial restraints.
Test Setup and Specimen Properties
Seven specimens constructed at a 1=2 scale were tested. The test
structures modeled the interior beam-column substructure of a
multibay, multistory RC frame prototype building with an 8-m span
length and a 3.2-m story height. Each specimen was symmetric and
consisted of two beams and a center column. Fig. 2 shows the test
setup, which was similar to that typical of testing the seismic per-
formance of interior beam-column joints, except that axial restraint
was applied to the beams. Most prior experiments aimed at study-
ing the effects of restraining beam elongation were conducted by
applying a constant compressive axial force to the beam. This
study, however, was intended to simulate the passively generated
axial force that varies along with increasing plastic deformation of
the beam.
Two vertical struts made of steel tubes, together with pin con-
nections at the upper and lower ends, were used to restrain beam
vertical displacement while simulating beam contraflexural points
in the prototype structure under lateral loading. The length of struts
was adjustable to accommodate any imperfection in the dimension
of the specimens and the supporting components. The column bot-
tom end was pin-connected with steel beams fully anchored to a
strong floor. Two steel bracing frames [Fig. 2(b)] were used to
prevent the specimen from out-of-plane movement during lateral
loading. A spreader beam, made of two steel channel sections and
strengthened by stiffeners, was connected with the far end of each
RC beam. The spreader beam was oriented perpendicular to the
loading plane, bore against rollers installed on the bracing frame,
J. Struct. Eng.
 1955 350 1955 4D25 each side

D12

300
@80 (column)
@75 (joint)

350
780

600
Column and Joint Sections

3D16 4D16

400
400

D10 D10

400

400
@90 @90
490

600
2D16 2D16
250 250
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lund University on 02/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3N, 3L, and 3H 4N, 4L, 4LM, and 4H

2000 2000
Beam Sections

Fig. 3. Dimensions (in millimeters) and reinforcing details of test specimens.

and was used to apply axial restraint to the RC beams. To avoid
introducing substantial bending moment to the beam ends due to
unevenly distributed bearing stress applied by the spreader beam to
the RC beam, a steel plate was inserted between these components.
The steel plate mounted to the center of beam end was 20 mm thick,
250 mm wide, and 100 mm high. Two steel rods, one at the front
side of a specimen and another one at the back side, were connected
with the steel spreader beams. The steel rods were aligned with the
longitudinal axis of the RC beams and positioned at a clear distance
of 100 mm from beam vertical faces. The entire assembly of steel
rods and spreader beams restrained beam elongation during lateral
loading. Steel rods with a diameter of 50 and 60 mm were used
to achieve lower and higher axial restraining rigidity that may be
encountered in a RC frame (after scaling) without the presence of
cast-in-place slabs.
The test specimens were designed and detailed based on the
seismic design provisions in ACI 318 (ACI 2014) for special
moment frames and the Chinese seismic design code (CMC 2010).
Fig. 3 shows specimen dimension and reinforcing details. The ef-
fective longitudinal dimension of a specimen measured as the dis-
tance between the vertical struts at beam ends was 4 m. The lateral
loading position as well as the pin support below the column simu-
lated column inflection points in the prototype structure. The effec-
tive column height, defined as the vertical distance between these
two locations, was 1.6 m. Each beam had a width of 250 mm and
height of 400 mm. The column cross-sectional dimension was
350 mm in the loading direction and 300 mm in the transverse
direction. The axial restraining effect on flexural capacity was
expected be a function of beam flexural reinforcement ratio and
restraining rigidity; both were thus considered as major test vari-
ables. Most specimens, as indicated in Table 1, were designated
by a numeral and a letter. The numeral (3 or 4) refers to the number
of beam top reinforcing bars. The letters N, L, and H indicate
restraining rigidity levels corresponding to zero, lower, and higher
restraining stiffness, respectively. Specimens 3N and 4N were
control specimens without any axial restraint.
The longitudinal reinforcement had a 16-mm (D16) diameter for
the beams and 25-mm (D25) diameter for the columns. Rectangular
hoops made of D10 bars were used as beam transverse reinforce-
ment and were uniformly distributed at a center-to-center spacing
of 90 mm. The transverse reinforcement of the columns and the
beam-column joints contained two overlapping D12 hoops with
a spacing of 80 mm in the columns and 75 mm in the joints.
All reinforcement was deformed bars. The clear concrete cover
was specified as 15 mm for the beams and 20 mm for the columns.
Table 1 gives the yield and tensile strengths of the reinforcing bars
and the cylinder compressive strength of concrete measured after
the completion of an experiment. The beam bottom was identically
reinforced by two D16 bars in all specimens. The specimens with
three beam top bars (3N, 3L, and 3H) had a top reinforcement ratio
ρtop ¼ 0.66%, whereas the ratio ρtop ¼ 0.88% for the specimens
reinforced by four top bars in beams (4N, 4L, 4LM, and 4H).
The yield strength of the D16 bars was fy ¼ 493 or 471 MPa. Thus,
the aforementioned reinforcement ratios would be equivalent to
about 0.75% and 1.0% if Grade 60 steel (fy ¼ 414 MPa) was used.
Each column was heavily reinforced by a total of 12 D25 bars to

Table 1. Test specimens, material properties, and restraining rigidity

Yield strength of reinforcing Tensile strength of reinforcing
bars (MPa) bars (MPa)
Concrete Restraining rigidity
Specimen D10 D12 D16 D25 D10 D12 D16 D25 strength (MPa) at 3% drift (kN=mm)
3N 595 545 493 473 710 670 658 587 28.7 —
3L 595 545 493 473 710 670 658 587 28.7 73.2
3H 595 545 471 473 710 670 588 587 31.9 124
4N 595 545 493 473 710 670 658 587 24.9 —
4L 595 545 493 473 710 670 658 587 21.7 68.3
4LM 595 545 471 473 710 670 588 587 27.1 74.6
4H 595 545 471 473 710 670 588 587 30.2 108

© ASCE 04019019-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(5): 04019019

 6 96
Story Drift Ratio (%)
4 64
2 32
0 0
-2
-4
-6
Fig. 4. Lateral loading history.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lund University on 02/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ensure an elastic response during lateral loading, because the ex-
periments focused on the behavior of beams and beam-column
joints.
The column size was chosen based on the shear design of beam-
column joints to ensure the nominal shear strength, after consider-
ing a strength-reduction factor per ACI 318 (ACI 2014), would
be greater than the maximum shear demand in the condition of
neglecting axial restraining effects. The shear demand was deter-
mined based on the expected lateral load required to generate plas-
tic hinges in both beams and the total tensile force of beam top
longitudinal bars on one side of the joint and the bottom bars at
another side, assuming the tensile reinforcement has developed a
stress of 1.25fy to account for possible strain hardening.
Loading Protocol and Instrumentation
Prior to lateral loading, a posttensioning force of 1 kN was applied
to each steel rod of the restrained specimens by tightening the nuts
that fixed the rod with the steel spreader beams. Displacement-
controlled quasi-static lateral loading was applied to the column
top by a hydraulic actuator having a 500-kN loading capacity.
No axial load was applied to the column because column compres-
sive force is beneficial for joint shear strength, and seismic lateral
loading may considerably reduce column axial force induced by
gravity loading.
The loading history applied to the specimens, except for 4LM,
is shown in Fig. 4 where positive and negative signs for lateral
drift are given to pushing and pulling, respectively. The displace-
ment routine consisted of increasing drift ratios of 0.375%, 0.5%,
0.75%, 1%, 1.5%, 2%, 3%, and 4.0% with three cycles at each drift
level. Specimen 4LM examined the impact of a different loading
history on axial restraining effects. This specimen was subjected
to drift ratios of 0.25%, 0.30%, 0.50%, 0.60%, 1.0%, 1.2%, 1.7%,
2.2%, and 3.0%, thereby experiencing six additional loading cycles
than other specimens by the completion of 3% drift. No further
loading beyond 3% drift was attempted for this specimen because
the testing could not be completed during a single day and it was
concerned that relaxation of the axial restraining force would occur
overnight. To observe specimen damage as well as inspect the load-
ing and data acquisition systems, loading was paused twice during
the third cycle when the target drift in the positive and negative
loading directions was reached.
LVDTs were used to measure the horizontal displacements at
the column top, beam ends, and beam-column interfaces. From the
measured beam horizontal movements at various locations, the
overall beam elongation was determined. Moreover, to examine
the elongation of beam plastic hinge regions, additional LVDTs
measured the beam horizontal displacement at a distance of
380 mm away from the nearest column face. A load cell mounted
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(5): 04019019
900
Lateral Displacement (mm)
800
3L 4L 4LM
700
Restraining Force (kN)
3H 4H
600
-32 500
400
-64
300
-96
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Beam Elongation (mm)
Fig. 5. Axial force versus beam elongation.
to the actuator measured the applied lateral load. Two tension/
compression load cells embedded in the vertical struts measured
the vertical reaction forces at beam ends, from which the beam
bending moment on each side of the beam-column joint was de-
termined. As shown in Fig. 2(b), a through-hole compression load
cell bearing against the left steel spreader beam was used for each
steel rod to measure the restraining force. To measure the local
deformations of a specimen, strain gauges were attached to the lon-
gitudinal and transverse reinforcement of the beams, column, and
joint at selected locations.
Experiment Results
Measured Axial Restraining Rigidity
Beam elongation in plastic hinge region is restrained by both the
beam segment outside plastic hinge and other structural compo-
nents surrounding the beam. However, because of the high axial
stiffness of the unyielded beam portion, the response of an axially
restrained specimen was mainly a function of the restraining ri-
gidity provided by the rest of structure. Fig. 5 shows the mea-
sured restraining force versus beam elongation when the restrained
specimens were loaded to different drift ratios along the positive
direction. Likely due to the lack of perfect contact between the
components on the path of transferring restraining force from the
steel rods to the beams, the restraining rigidity was relatively low
in the early loading stages. Once the elongation of a specimen
exceeded 1.5 mm, the restraining rigidity was fully built-up, which
generally occurred after 0.5% drift. The secant restraining rigidity
at 3% drift, evaluated based on the measured restraining force and
beam elongation, is given in Table 1 for each specimen.
Hysteretic Response
Fig. 6 shows the hysteric response of lateral load versus drift for the
test specimens. The measured strains indicate that flexural yielding
occurred between 0.7% and 1.3% drift in the beam top reinforce-
ment and between 0.6% and 1.1% drift in the bottom reinforce-
ment. The specimens did not experience strength degradation by
the completion of 4% drift. The unrestrained specimens, 3N and
4N, presented a yield plateau in their response envelopes. During
the first cycle of loading to þ3% drift, Specimen 3N was slightly
overloaded to 3.6% but the planned loading routine was resumed
04019019-4 J. Struct. Eng.
 Top Displacement (mm) Top Displacement (mm)
-80 -64 -48 -32 -16 0 16 32 48 64 80 -80 -64 -48 -32 -16 0 16 32 48 64 80
300 300
250 250
200 200
150 150 Fu,0 = 139 kN
Fu,0 = 118 kN

Lateral Load (kN)

100 100
50 50
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
-150 -Fu,0 = -118 kN -150 -Fu,0 = -139 kN
-200 -200
-250 3N -250 4N
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lund University on 02/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-300 -300
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Drift Ratio (%) Drift Ratio (%)

Top Displacement (mm) Top Displacement (mm)

-80 -64 -48 -32 -16 0 16 32 48 64 80 -80 -64 -48 -32 -16 0 16 32 48 64 80
300 300
250 250
200 200
150 Fu,0 = 115 kN 150 Fu,0 = 116 kN
Lateral Load (kN)

100 100
50 50
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
-150 -Fu,0 = -115 kN -150 -Fu,0 = -116 kN
-200 -200
-250 3L -250 3H
-300 -300
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Drift Ratio (%) Drift Ratio (%)

Top Displacement (mm) Top Displacement (mm) Top Displacement (mm)

-80 -64 -48 -32 -16 0 16 32 48 64 80 -80 -64 -48 -32 -16 0 16 32 48 64 80 -80 -64 -48 -32 -16 0 16 32 48 64 80
300 300 300
250 250 250
200 200 200
Fu,0 = 137 kN Fu,0 = 138 kN 150 Fu,0 = 139 kN
150 150
Lateral Load (kN)

100 100 100

50 50 50
0 0 0
-50 -50 -50
-100 -100 -100
-150 -150 -150 -Fu,0 = -139 kN
-Fu,0 = -137 kN -Fu,0 = -138 kN
-200 -200 -200
4L -250 4LM -250 4H
-250
-300 -300 -300
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Drift Ratio (%) Drift Ratio (%) Drift Ratio (%)

Fig. 6. Hysteretic response of lateral load versus drift.

thereafter. Therefore, the overloading should not change the overall showed a reduced degree of pinching. The trend was more obvious
performance of this specimen. The two unrestrained specimens for Specimens 3H and 4H, subjected to greater axial restraining
demonstrated severe pinching, which could be explained by the rigidity. As shown in Fig. 6, the hysteretic loops of these specimens
bond deterioration of the beam longitudinal bars passing though were much fuller than in other tests. Additionally, as described sub-
the plastic hinge regions and the beam-column joints. sequently, the axial restraining force kept increasing as lateral drift
Restrained specimens 3L and 4L, which had similar concrete increased. As a result, the flexural capacity of beams was enhanced
strength to that of their unrestrained counterparts (3N and 4N), through axial force-flexure interaction; as such, the restrained

© ASCE 04019019-5 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(5): 04019019

 specimens did not present a yield plateau in the response envelop.
The effect of axial restraint on lateral stiffness was examined by the
average load at 1% drifts when the two control specimens was
about to reach a general yielding in the load-deformation response
envelope. This load, denoted as F1.0% , was 101.3 and 109.5 kN for
3N and 4N but increased to 112.4, 142.4, 126.1, and 156.0 kN for
3L, 3H, 4L, and 4H, respectively. Accordingly, the flexural stiffness
was enhanced by 11% and 15% for the test assemblies with lower
restraining rigidity and about 40% with higher restraining rigidity.
The most distinctive response of the restrained specimens was
their enhanced loading capacity. The flexural strength, without con-
sidering the effects of axial restraint, M u;0 , was determined for each
specimen according to ACI 318 (ACI 2014). The actual material
properties of reinforcing steel and concrete are given in Table 1.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lund University on 02/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The lateral loading capacity Fu;0 predicted based on Mu;0 , speci-
men dimension, and supporting condition is shown by the horizon-
tal dashed lines in Fig. 6. Because large restraining rigidity of the
specimens was not developed until 0.5% drift, obtaining the desired
restraint to beam elongation was delayed. Focus is thus given to the
lateral load at 3% drift rather than at the 2% drift limit specified in
ASCE 7-16 (ASCE 2017) for RC moment frames under design-
level earthquake loads. It can be expected that if the specimens
could obtain the target restraining rigidity from the beginning of
lateral loading, the restraining effects should have increased the
load at general yielding that occurred slightly later than 1.0% drift.
For Specimens 3L, 4L, and 4LM with lower restraining rigidity, the
load at 3% drift was 72%, 55%, and 49% greater than the predicted
loading capacity when neglecting the axial restraining effects. The
load increase was 129% and 103% for Specimens 3H and 4H hav-
ing greater restraining rigidity. Such a strength increase may re-
markably alter the seismic response of a RC moment frame and
jeopardize the likelihood of achieving a desired strong-column–
weak-beam mechanism. In general, the extent of strength enhance-
ment increased with reduced beam flexural reinforcement ratio and
increased restraining rigidity. At 3% drift, Specimens 4L and 4LM
obtained similar axial restraining rigidity (68.3 and 74.6 kN=mm).
Even if 4LM was subjected to a total of 12 loading cycles from 1%
to 3% drift with six more cycles than 4L, these specimens resisted
nearly identical lateral load at 3% drift. Given that the yield strength
of beam flexural reinforcement of 4L was only 4% less than that of
4H, the test results could not clearly reveal the impact of loading
intensity on axial restraining effects.
3N
4N
Fig. 7. Damage condition of specimens at 2% lateral drift.
© ASCE 04019019-6
J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(5): 04019019
Damage Patterns in Beams and Joints
Figs. 7 and 8 show the damage patterns in plastic hinge and beam-
column joint regions of six specimens (without 4LM) at 2.0% and
4.0% drifts. Fig. 9 shows the maximum width of inclined shear
cracks in the joint region at various levels of lateral drift. Beam
flexural cracking occurred at the first drift level of 0.375% and
diagonal shear cracks appeared in the joint of each specimen by
0.5% drift. The maximum width of flexural cracks was found at
the beam bottom due to positive bending. Flexural cracks also
formed in the column but were much fewer and narrower. The per-
formance of the unrestrained specimens (3N and 4N) was domi-
nated by flexure, and the lateral drift beyond beam yielding was
accommodated mainly by bond slip in the beam plastic hinge re-
gions and the joint. By 2% drift, the flexural cracks at the beam-
column interface became much wider than 2 mm, penetrated the
entire beam depth, and could not be completely closed in the sub-
sequent loading reversals. Very few new cracks were further devel-
oped in the joints of Specimens 3N and 4N beyond 2% drift. As
shown in Fig. 9, the maximum width of joint shear cracks was sta-
bilized after 2% and 3% drifts for 3N and 4N, respectively. Damage
to the beams due to spalling of concrete cover occurred at 3%
drift in 3N and 4% drift in 4N, but was limited within small regions
(Fig. 8).
The axial restraint applied to the other specimens significantly
affected the extent of damage. The existence of compressive axial
force delayed the opening of beam flexural cracks. Thus, the cracks
in the restrained beams were narrower than in the unrestrained spec-
imens at the same drift level. For instance, Specimen 3N reached
a crack width of 1 and 2 mm at 1% and 1.5% drifts, respectively;
however, Specimen 3L reached these crack widths at 1.5% and
2% drifts. Similar to the unrestrained specimens, crushing of beam
concrete in the restrained specimens did not occur until 3% drift.
However, as shown in Fig. 8, damage to the beam plastic hinge
regions was remarkably more severe by 4% drift. In addition, the
restrained beams suffered disintegration of core concrete and bar
buckling. Therefore, loading beyond 4% drift is expected to initiate
a strength degradation.
Damage to the beam-column joints was also greater in the re-
strained specimens. As stated previously, the axial force developed
in a restrained beam can increase shear demand in the beam-
column joint, evidenced by the wider inclined cracks in the re-
strained specimens than in the unrestrained specimens (Fig. 9).
3L 3H
4L 4H
J. Struct. Eng.
 3N 3L 3H
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lund University on 02/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

4N 4L 4H

Fig. 8. Damage condition of specimens at 4% lateral drift.

1.6 20

1.4 18
Crack Width in Joint (mm)

1.2 3H 16
4H 14 4N
Elongation (mm)
1 4L
12
4LM
0.8
3L 10
0.6 3N 8
4N
0.4 6

0.2 4
4L
0 2
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
0
Drift Ratio (%) -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Drift Ratio (%)
Fig. 9. Width of joint inclined shear cracks.
Fig. 10. Beam elongation history of Specimens 4N and 4L.

When loaded beyond 1.5% drift, Specimen 4L experienced a sharp

increase in shear crack width, reaching 1.5 mm by 3% drift. Lateral
loading generates compressive struts bounded by inclined cracks in
a beam-column joint. Concrete spalling in the joint region of Speci-
men 4L was observed at 4% drift, as shown in Fig. 8. Specimen 3H
was reinforced with less top reinforcement in the beams and had
higher concrete strength; however, inclined crack width still sud-
denly increased from 0.3 mm at 3% drift to 1.25 mm at 4% drift.
Moreover, the compressive force in the joint struts compounded by
the flexure-induced compressive stress in the column crushed
concrete right below the beam-column joint at 4% drift.
Beam Elongation
The total beam elongation contributed from the two beams of a
specimen, one subjected to negative bending and the other sub-
jected to positive bending, was determined based on the measured
horizontal displacement at beam ends. The elongation of a cycli-
cally loaded RC component can be attributed to geometric elonga-
tion and residual crack opening (Fenwick and Megget 1993; Encina
et al. 2016). Geometric elongation is due to strain profiles that lo-
cate the neutral axis away from the midsection. Residual crack
opening is caused by a combination of dislodged concrete particles
falling into the cracks during loading reversals, shear transfer by
means of diagonal concrete struts in plastic hinge regions, and unre-
coverable plastic deformation of reinforcing bars.
Fig. 10 compares the beam elongation history of the unre-
strained Specimen 4N and restrained Specimen 4L. During the ini-
tial loading stage, the beams behaved elastically and the cracks
were narrow and closed almost completely upon unloading; ac-
cordingly, the beam elongation was low and recoverable. The
residual beam elongation after unloading from a target drift can
be taken as the elongation caused by residual crack opening. Thus,
the initial loading under lower drift ratios primarily caused geomet-
ric elongation. At 1% drift, the beam elongation of Specimen 4N
was about 2.5 mm and reduced to 1 mm after unloading. However,
with increased level of cyclic lateral drifts, residual crack opening
gradually accumulated and started to account for a greater portion
of beam elongation. At 2% drift, the total beam elongation of 4N
was 7.6 mm; at 4% drift, the elongation was as high as 18 mm,
equivalent to 4.5% of the beam depth, 0.45% of the span length,
or 1.1% of the story height. Such a large beam elongation is diffi-
cult to achieve in an actual RC frame due to the restraints from the
surrounding frame components and monolithically constructed
floor slabs. In contrast, the restrained Specimen 4L obtained a beam
elongation of only 3.1 mm at 2% drift and 5.4 mm at 4% drift.

© ASCE 04019019-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(5): 04019019

 20 14

18 3H 4H
4LM 3L 12 Experimental Results
16 4L 3N Estimations Based on Eq. (1)
4N

Beam Elongation (mm)

14 10
Elongation (mm)

12
8
10

8 6

6
4
4

2 2

0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lund University on 02/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 0
3N 4N 3L 4L 4LM 3H 4H
Drift Ratio (%)
Fig. 13. Comparison between measured and predicted beam elonga-
Fig. 11. Beam elongation envelope response. tions at 2.5% drift.

16 from that caused by negative bending. Beyond 1.5% drift, positive

bending resulted in greater beam elongation than negative bending
14 Left Beam Right Beam for two reasons. First, the positive bending resisted by less tensile
reinforcement caused greater shift in neutral axis beyond yielding
12 and thus more geometric elongation. Second, under positive bend-
Elongation (mm)

ing, the amount of compressive reinforcement was double that of

10
8
6 cracks in the compressive zone (Fenwick and Megget 1993). Addi-
4 verged at approximately 5 mm. Although the same trend was found
2 needed to confirm this phenomenon.
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Drift Ratio (%)
Fig. 12. Elongation of single beam versus lateral drift (Specimen 4 N).
As shown in Fig. 10, the unrecoverable residual crack opening in
Specimen 4L was about 3.2 mm at 4% drift as opposed to 16.0 mm
in Specimen 4N. Therefore, the reduced beam elongation was
caused mainly by the effects of axial restraint on limiting residual
crack opening.
Fig. 11 shows the envelope of beam elongations at the first load-
ing cycle of various drift ratios for each specimen. For both the
restrained and unrestrained specimens, beam elongation was ap-
proximately linear with respect to lateral drift, an observation also
made by Fenwick and Megget (1993). Because the beams were not
symmetrically reinforced, the positive bending moment at one side
of the column was resisted by fewer reinforcing bars in tension than
the negative bending moment on the other side. The beam elonga-
tion at each side was individually examined based on the LDVT
measurements. As an example, Fig. 12 shows the one-side beam
elongation of the unrestrained Specimen 4N. The left and right
beams were under positive bending when the drift ratios are in neg-
ative and positive signs, respectively. Although the total beam elon-
gations measured during two different loading directions were
approximately symmetric (Fig. 11), Fig. 12 indicates the beam
elongation caused by positive bending alone was quite different
negative bending; however, the beam elongation under cyclic load-
ing is also affected by compressive reinforcement because its ac-
cumulated plastic deformation restrains the closing of concrete
tionally, after 2% drift, the elongation under negative bending con-
in the tests of other specimens, more experimental evidence is
The standard NZS 3101.1:2006 (Standards New Zealand 2017)
4 5 recommends Eqs. (1a) and (1b) for estimating the elongation of a
reversing plastic hinge of RC beams at the ultimate limit state,
which corresponds to 2.5% lateral drift [NZS 1070.5:2004
(Standards New Zealand 2004)]. Eqs. (1a) and (1b) are used for
beams without axial force and with an axial force ratio equal to
or greater than 0.08, respectively. The axial force ratio is defined
as the ratio of axial force to the multiplication of fc0 with beam
cross-sectional area
θm
δ el ¼ 2.6 ðd − d 0 Þ ≤ 0.036hb ð1aÞ
2
θm
δ el ¼ ðd − d 0 Þ ð1bÞ
2
where δ el = plastic hinge elongation at beam middepth; θm = plastic
hinge rotation (rad); d − d 0 = distance between tension and
compression reinforcement; and hb = beam overall depth.
Eqs. (1a) and (1b) were employed to predict the beam elonga-
tion of the test specimens at 2.5% drift when the measured axial
force ratios of the restrained specimens all exceeded 0.08 (from
0.087 to 0.018). The plastic hinge rotation θm was approximated
by subtracting the drift ratio at beam general yielding from the
2.5% drift ratio. As indicated by Fig. 13, Eq. (1a) overestimates
the beam elongation of the unrestrained Specimens 3N and 4N
by 18% and 26%, respectively; however, Eq. (1b) provides a much
closer prediction for each restrained specimen, with a difference
less than 10% from the measured result.

© ASCE 04019019-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(5): 04019019

 800 800 0.25

700 0.25 700

0.2
600 600
0.2

Axial Force Ratio

Axial Force Ratio
Axial Force (kN)
Axial Force (kN)
500 500 0.15
0.15
400 400

300 0.1
300 0.1

200 200
0.05 0.05
100 3L 100 3H

0 0 0 0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Drift Ratio (%) Drift Ratio (%)

800 800 0.3 800

0.25
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lund University on 02/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.35
700 700 700
0.3 0.25
600 600 600 0.2
Axial Force Ratio

Axial Force Ratio

Axial Force Ratio

0.25
Axial Force (kN)

Axial Force (kN)

Axial Force (kN)

0.2
500 500 500
0.15
0.2
400 400 0.15 400
0.15 0.1
300 300 300
0.1
200 0.1 200 200
0.05
0.05
100 4L 0.05 100 4LM 100 4H

0 0 0 0 0 0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Drift Ratio (%) Drift Ratio (%) Drift Ratio (%)

Fig. 14. Beam axial force and axial force ratio.

Beam Axial Force a 5-story-four-bay RC frame, the beams at the first story can reach
an axial force ratio of 0.10 at 2% lateral drift when beam elongations
As shown in Fig. 14, a large compressive axial force was generated
are explicitly simulated. Moreover, no slabs were incorporated in the
in the restrained beams during lateral loading. Prior to exceeding
modeling, and the study indicated the beams experience greater com-
1% drift, the axial force diminished upon unloading because beam
pression forces as the bay number increases. It is therefore believed
growth was caused primarily by geometric elongation. Beyond 1%
the axial restraining rigidity considered in the experiments presented
drift, the residual axial force gradually increased and accounted for
in this paper, as well as the level of axial forces generated in the
nearly 60% of the peak axial force at 3% drift for Specimens 3L,
beams, realistically represented the loading conditions of beams
4L, and 4LM, and about 30% for Specimens 3H and 4H. At 4%
situated in an actual RC frame constructed without slabs.
drift, the beam axial force was about 400 kN in Specimens 3L, 4L,
and 4LM, which was nearly half that in Specimens 3H and 4H.
Even after the beam concrete cover crushed in Specimens 3H Effects of Axial Restraint on Beam Flexural Strength
and 4H during cycling to 3% drift, the beam axial force was still The axial force induced by longitudinal restraint increased beam
able to increase. Such a behavior was different from that observed flexural strength and thus the overall lateral loading capacity of
in the monotonic loading tests (Su et al. 2009), where beam axial a test subassembly. As shown in Fig. 6, the use of ACI provisions
force under a compressive arch action dropped following concrete for beam flexural capacity Mu;0 (neglecting axial force) closely es-
cover spalling. Furthermore, it appeared the damage to the beam- timates the lateral loading capacity of the unrestrained Specimens
column joint due to shear cracking, especially in Specimens 4L and 3N and 4N. Thus, normalized bending moment, defined as the ratio
3H, still permitted further development of compression force in of measured beam end moment M to M u;0 , is used to demonstrate
the beams. the effects of strength enhancement and is shown in Fig. 15 for the
Because of the different concrete strengths of the specimens, the restrained specimens at various drift levels. Figs. 15(a and b) group
passively developed beam axial force was normalized into axial the moment ratio for beams when they resisted negative moment by
force ratio. The ratio ranged between 0.10–0.20 at 3% drift four and three D16 bars, respectively; Fig. 15(c) shows beam mo-
and 0.15–0.25 at 4% drift. Specimen 4LM, experiencing more in- ment ratio for positive moment resisted by two D16 bars. It is seen
tensive loading cycles, reached an axial force ratio of 0.17 at that for each case, the moment ratio was at least 1.3 at 2% drift and
3% drift, which was only 13% greater than that of Specimen 4L 1.4 at 3% drift.
(0.15). Given that Specimen 4LM was subjected to 9% higher Monotonic loading tests (Su et al. 2009) revealed the en-
restraining rigidity at 3% drift (reflected in Table 1), it can be as- hancement of flexural strength due to axial restraint increases with
sumed the loading history (cycle number) caused little effect on reduced tensile reinforcement ratio. The same trend was found
axial force development. The beam axial force ratios identified in the cyclic loading tests conducted during the current study.
in the current experiments were significantly larger than in the Depending on restraining rigidity, the moment ratio ranged be-
two-bay frames tested by Zerbe and Durrani (1989). However, ac- tween 1.6 and 2.5 at 3% drift for beam bending carried by two lon-
cording to the numerical simulations by Kim et al. (2004) on gitudinal tensile bars; however, this ratio was 1.4–1.6 for beam

© ASCE 04019019-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(5): 04019019

 3 3 3

2.5 4H 2.5 2.5

4L
4LM
2 2 2
Moment Ratio

1.5 1.5 1.5

3H
1 1 1 4H
3H
4L
3L
0.5 0.5 0.5 4LM
3L
0 0 0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Drift Ratio (%) Drift Ratio (%) Drift Ratio (%)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lund University on 02/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 15. Moment ratio (normalized beam end moment) in restrained beams versus drift ratio: (a) negative moment for beams resisted by four top bars;
(b) negative moment for beams resisted by three top bars; and (c) positive moment resisted by two bottom bars.

F F 1.6

1.4
Column Column
1.2
Shear Demand Ratio
T1 C 2 T1 C2
Joint
1
Joint
Vj 0.8
C1 T2
C2 = N + T 2 0.6
Column
0.4
F 3H 4H 4L 3L
0.2
4N 3N
Fig. 16. Horizontal forces acting on beam-column joint.
0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Drift Ratio (%)
bending resisting by four longitudinal bars. Moreover, Fig. 15
indicates that as beam tensile reinforcement ratio increased, the Fig. 17. Shear demand ratio at four drift levels.
flexural capacity enhancement became less sensitive to restraining
rigidity and the moment ratio was stabilized at around 1.5 at
3% drift. dramatically increased shear demand in the beam-column joint.
Because the joint of each specimen was confined by the beams
on two opposite faces, the nominal joint shear strength defined
Effects of Axial Restraint on Shear Stress of pffiffiffiffiffi
Beam-Column Joints by ACI 318 (ACI 2014) was V c ¼ 15 fc0 Aj , with Aj being joint
effective area.
The horizontal forces acting on a beam-column joint are shown in A shear demand ratio equal to V j =V c was evaluated based on
Fig. 16, where T 1 and T 2 are tensile forces in the beam top and test data for each specimen at 1.5%, 2%, 3%, and 4% drifts and
bottom reinforcing bars passing through the joint, C1 and C2 shown in Fig. 17. To calculate T 1 and T 2 , the tensile stress of
are resultant compressive forces resisted by reinforcement and con- reinforcing bars was assumed as the yield strength, f y , at 1.5% drift
crete, F is column shear force equal to the load applied at column and 1.25f y at higher drift ratios to account for possible strain hard-
top, and N is the measured axial restraining force. Based on the ening per ACI 318 (ACI 2014). The shear demand ratios increased
recommendation of ACI-ASCE Committee 352 (1985) and incor- approximately linearly after 2% drift. The axial restraint caused the
porating beam compressive axial force, the shear demand at a
least impact on the beam-column joint of Specimen 3L; at 4% drift,
beam-column joint V j was taken as the horizontal force transferred
the shear demand, V j , was only slightly higher than the nominal
at the midheight of the beam-column connection and evaluated
shear strength of the joint, V c . However, for Specimens 3H, 4H,
Vj ¼ T1 þ T2 þ N − F ð2Þ and 4L, V j at 3% drift exceeded V c by 21%, 34%, and 21%, re-
spectively, and the V j ∶V c ratio further increased at 4% drift. Com-
The effect of axial restraint is twofold, as shown by the opposite pared with the unrestrained Specimen 4N, the V j ∶V c ratio in
signs of N and F in Eq. (2). On one hand, it increased beam flexu- Specimens 4H and 4L was 79% and 61% higher at 3% drift; com-
ral strength and thus the lateral load F applied to the test subassem- pared with 3N, the V j ∶V c ratio in 3H and 3L increased by 120%
bly. On the other hand, the axial force N generated in the beam and 64% at 3% drift. The remarkable increase in shear demand

© ASCE 04019019-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(5): 04019019

 0.003
Yield Strain
0.0025
0.002
Strain
0.0015
0.001
0.0005
0 of shear demand to capacity defined by ACI 318 was increased
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Drift Ratio (%)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lund University on 02/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 18. Strain of transverse reinforcement in beam-column joints.
explained the noticeable damage to the joints of Specimens 3H and
4L, described previously, and can significantly reduce the strength
margin of beam-column joints. The control Specimens 3N and 4N
were designed with redundant joint shear resistance particularly
due to the use of a strength-reduction factor of 0.85 per ACI 318
(ACI 2014). It can be expected that if a smaller column size was
used, the joints of the restrained specimens would have experienced
more severe damage.
To further illustrate the effects of axial restraint on beam-column
joints, the measured strains of joint transverse reinforcement at
various lateral drifts are shown for each specimen in Fig. 18. It
is seen that the maximum measured strain of the unrestrained Spec-
imens 3N and 4N was only 0.00088. In contrast, the strain of re-
strained Specimen 3H exceeded 0.002, the yield strain of Grade 60
reinforcing bars and approximately 73% of the yield strain of
D12 bars used as joint transverse reinforcement of the test speci-
mens. Given that the inclined crack may not directly cross the
strain gauges, the actual strain of joint transverse reinforcement
could be even greater. Thus, the restraining effects can potentially
exhaust the contribution of transverse reinforcement to joint shear
resistance.
Conclusions
Experiments were conducted to examine the effects of axial re-
straint provided by the surrounding structural components on the
seismic performance of RC frame beams and beam-column joints
constructed without floor slabs. Taking beam longitudinal rein-
forcement ratio and axial restraining rigidity as major test variables,
seven 1=2-scale interior beam-column subassemblies were tested
using a scheme capable of passively generating and measuring
axial force in the beams. The following observations and conclu-
sions were made:
• The unrestrained beams elongated about 2% of the beam height
at 2.0% drift and 3.75% of the beam height at 3% drift. Positive
bending resisted by fewer beam tensile reinforcements resulted
in greater beam elongation beyond 2% drift than negative
bending. The beam elongation after flexural yielding was con-
tributed mainly by unrecoverable residual crack opening. The
latest New Zealand concrete design code closely estimates
the elongations of the restrained beams at 2.5% drift.
• Under the considered levels of axial restraint, large compressive
axial force was generated in the beams, leading to an axial force
ratio up to 0.25. The axial restraint increased both flexural
stiffness and strength of the beams. As a function of tensile
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(5): 04019019
reinforcement ratio, the beam flexural capacity was increased
by 40%–150% at 3% lateral drift. Therefore, the axial restraining
effect may jeopardize the chance of achieving strong-column–
3H weak-beam in RC frames subjected to earthquake loading. Com-
4H pared with the unrestrained specimens, the axially restrained
4L specimens suffered greater damage to concrete in the beam plas-
4LM tic hinge regions, which can reduce their inelastic deformation
3N capacity.
4N • Beam axial restraint can considerably increase shear demand in
beam-column joints and thus negatively impact the seismic per-
formance. Compared with the unrestrained specimens, the ratio
by 61%–120% in the restrained specimens. The large shear
force in the beam-column joints caused wider inclined shear
cracks, greater strain of transverse reinforcement in the joints,
and more damage to the joints of two restrained specimens.
• The limited test data from the study indicate that load history
had negligible effects on beam elongation and axial force. How-
ever, additional experimental evidence is needed to confirm the
observation.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful for the financial supports received
from the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(No. 51808087) and Chongqing Science and Technology Commis-
sion (No. cstc2018jcyjAX0695). The opinions, findings, and con-
clusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of
the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.
References
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2014. Building code requirements for
structural concrete. ACI 318. Detroit: ACI.
ACI-ASCE Committee 352. 1985. “Recommendations for design of beam-
column joints in monolithic reinforced concrete structures.” ACI J.
82 (3): 266–283.
ASCE. 2017. Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings
and other structures. ASCE/SEI 7-16. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Ashtiani, M. S., R. P. Dhakal, and A. N. Scott. 2014. “Seismic performance
of high-strength self-compacting concrete in reinforced concrete beam-
column joints.” J. Struct. Eng. 140 (5): 04014002. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000973.
CMC (China Ministry of Construction). 2010. Code for seismic design of
buildings. GB 50011. Beijing: CMC.
Cooper, M., B. Davidson, and J. M. Ingham. 2005. “The influence of axial
compression on the elongation of plastic hinges in reinforced concrete
beams.” In Proc., New Zealand Concrete Industries Conf. Auckland,
New Zealand: New Zealand Concrete Society.
Dhakal, R. P., and R. C. Fenwick. 2008. “Detailing of plastic hinges in
seismic design of concrete structures.” ACI Struct. J. 105 (6): 740–749.
Dhakal, R. P., B. H. H. Peng, R. C. Fenwick, A. J. Carr, and D. K. Bull.
2014. “Cyclic loading test of a RC frame with precast-prestressed floor-
ing system.” ACI Struct. J. 111 (4): 777–788. https://doi.org/10.14359
/51686732.
Encina, E., Y. Lu, and R. S. Henry. 2016. “Axial elongation in ductile
reinforced concrete walls.” Bull. N. Z. Soc. Earthquake Eng. 49 (4):
305–318.
Eom, T.-S., and H.-G. Park. 2010. “Elongation of reinforced concrete mem-
bers subjected to cyclic loading.” J. Struct. Eng. 136 (9): 1044–1054.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000201.
Fenwick, R., and B. Davidson. 1995. “Elongation in ductile seismic-
resistant reinforced concrete frames.” In Proc., Tom Paulay Symp.,
143–170. Farmington Hills, MI. ACI.
04019019-11 J. Struct. Eng.
 Fenwick, R., and A. Fong. 1979. The behavior of reinforced concrete
beams under cyclic loading. Research Rep. No. 176. Auckland,
New Zealand: Univ. of Auckland.
Fenwick, R. C., and L. M. Megget. 1993. “Elongation and load deflection
characteristics of reinforced concrete members containing plastic
hinges.” Bull. N. Z. Soc. Earthquake Eng. 26 (1): 28–41.
French, C. W., and A. Boroojerdi. 1989. “Contribution of R/C floor slabs in
resisting lateral loads.” J. Struct. Eng. 115 (1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1989)115:1(1).
French, C. W., and J. P. Moehle. 1991. “Effect of floor slab on behavior of
slab-beam-column connections.” ACI Spec. Publ. 123 (9): 225–258.
Kabeyasawa, T., Y. Sanada, and M. Maeda. 2000. “Effect of beam axial
deformation on column shear in reinforced concrete frames.” In
Proc., 12th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering. Auckland,
New Zealand: Society of Earthquake Engineering.
Kim, J., J. Stanton, and G. MacRae. 2004. “Effect of beam growth on re-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lund University on 02/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
inforced concrete frames.” J. Struct. Eng. 130 (9): 1333–1342. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:9(1333).
Kokusho, S., S. Hayashi, A. Wada, and H. Sakata. 1988. “Behaviors of
reinforced concrete beam subjected to the axial restriction of deforma-
tion.” In Proc., 9th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, 463–468.
Tokyo: International Association for Earthquake Engineering.
Lu, X.-Z., L.-P. Ye, Y.-H. Ma, and D.-Y. Tang. 2012. “Lessons from the
collapse of typical RC frames in Xuankou School during the Great
Wenchuan Earthquake.” Adv. Struct. Eng. 15 (1): 139–153. https://doi
.org/10.1260/1369-4332.15.1.139.
Peng, B. H. H., R. P. Dhakal, R. C. Fenwick, A. J. Carr, and D. K. Bull.
2011a. “Elongation of plastic hinges in ductile RC members: Model
© ASCE 04019019-12
J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(5): 04019019
development.” J. Adv. Concr. Technol. 9 (3): 315–326. https://doi
.org/10.3151/jact.9.315.
Peng, B. H. H., R. P. Dhakal, R. C. Fenwick, A. J. Carr, and D. K. Bull.
2011b. “Elongation of plastic hinges in ductile RC members: Model
verification.” J. Adv. Concr. Technol. 9 (3): 327–338. https://doi.org/10
.3151/jact.9.327.
Peng, B. H. H., R. P. Dhakal, R. C. Fenwick, A. J. Carr, and D. K. Bull.
2013. “Multi-spring hinge element for reinforced concrete frame analy-
sis.” J. Struct. Eng. 139 (4): 595–606. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
ST.1943-541X.0000690.
Qi, X., and S. J. Pantazopoulou. 1991. “Response of RC frame under lateral
loads.” J. Struct. Eng. 117 (4): 1167–1188. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9445(1991)117:4(1167).
Standards New Zealand. 2004. Structural design actions. NZS
1070.5:2004. Wellington, New Zealand: Standards New Zealand.
Standards New Zealand. 2017. Concrete structures standard. NZS
3101.1:2006. Wellington, New Zealand: Standards New Zealand.
Su, Y., Y. Tian, and X. Song. 2009. “Progressive collapse resistance of
axially-restrained frame beams.” ACI Struct. J. 106 (5): 600–607.
Ye, L., Z. Qu, X. Lu, Q. Ma, X. Lin, and P. Pan. 2008. “Study on ensuring
the strong column-weak beam mechanism for RC frames based on the
damage analysis in the Wenchuan Earthquake.” [In Chinese.] Build.
Struct. 38 (11): 52–59.
Zerbe, H. E., and A. J. Durrani. 1989. “Seismic response of connections
in two-bay R/C frame subassemblies.” J. Struct. Eng. 115 (11): 2829–
2844. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1989)115:11(2829).
Zerbe, H. E., and A. J. Durrani. 1990. “Seismic response of connections in
two-bay reinforced concrete frame subassemblies with a floor slab.”
ACI Struct. J. 87 (4): 406–415.
J. Struct. Eng.