You are on page 1of 46

PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE RESISTANCE OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Ying Tian
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Nevada Las Vegas

OUTLINE
• • • • Historical events of progressive collapse Design standards and available approaches Gaps in existing knowledge and research needs Experimental study of progressive collapse resistance of RC beams • Numerical simulation of axially restrained RC frame beams • Numerical simulation of RC flat-plate buildings at the risk of progressive collapse • Structural laboratory at UNLV

“Progressive collapse is defined as the spread of an initial local failure from element to element resulting, eventually, in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it.” --- ASCE 07-10

HISTORICAL EVENTS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE
Ronan Point apartment, 1968, UK • • Precast concrete wall and floor system. Explosion caused by a gas leak blew out one of the precast wall panels on the 18th floor, triggering the partial collapse of the building. Attention to progressive collapse was initiated.

(Nair, 2004)

and inadequate positioning slab top bars caused punching shear failure at roof level. Punching shear failure propagated to the ground level.Commonwealth Avenue apartment. poor material properties in cold weather. 1971. Attention to progressive collapse was initiated. 2004) . • • (King and Delatte. Boston • • RC flat-plate structure Likely construction over-load.

Alfred P. Murrah Building. Discontinuity of reinforcement in both the positive and negative moment reinforcement. 168 people died. Oklahoma City. 1995. • . The blast from the bomb destroyed column G20 below the transfer girder and may have destroyed or severely damaged columns G24. Oklahoma • • • RC frame structure with transfer girders designed in accordance with ACI 318-71.

Seoul. South Korea • • • • RC flat-plate structure Punching shear failure initiated from an interior slab-column connection at the top story. Contributing factors for the failure included reduced slab effective depth and a 35% increase in dead loads due to the change of use at the 5th floor (Gardner et al. 2002). . Killed 501 people.Sampoong Department Store.

DESIGN STANDARDS Both consider progressive collapse as dynamic and nonlinear event. .

 is  currently develop new standard modified from DOD ‐2009.ASCE/SEI Committee.  . Disproportionate Collapse Standards and Guidance.

• Direct Design .emphasizes providing minimum levels of strength. continuity.includes the Specific Load Resistance and the Alternate Path approaches.Design Approaches • Indirect Design . and ductility to ensure structural integrity. .

. Horizontal ties and vertical ties.Indirect design – DOD procedure Relies on an integrated system of tie forces for developing tensile membrane or catenary action.

emphasizes providing minimum levels of strength. Location of column removal considered in DOD 2009 . continuity. • Building must bridge across a removed element.• Indirect Design . and ductility to ensure structural integrity.

Moment before column removal Moment after column removal .

5 2 1.5 1 0.Dynamic Loading Effects Due To Sudden Removal of Supporting Column (undamped SDOF system) mg P 3.7Pu P P = mg m 0 0.5 1 1.5 Displacement / Static Displacement P u 3 2.5 5% damping ratio 2 2.9Pu P = 0.5 0 P = 0.5 t Time (s) .

Three analysis procedures permitted: • Linear Static (consider M-factor) • Nonlinear Static (consider Nonlinear Dynamic Increase factor) • Nonlinear Dynamic Force‐driven nonlinear static analysis Load applied considers DIF for tributary area surrounding the lost element .

Dynamic Increase Factor (DIF) for concrete structures (Marchand et al. 2009) –Protection Engineering Consultants .

GAP IN EXISTING KNOWLEDGE AND RESEARCH NEEDS • Actual strength of critical element such as beams and beam-column joints • Actual deformation capacity of critical element such as beams under large deformation • Participation of slabs in resisting progressive collapse • Risk of progressive collapse of flat-plate structures • Appropriate retrofit techniques for progressive collapse prevention .

Youpo Su at Hebei Polytechnic University (China) • Investigated flexural capacity of RC frame beams where axial restrains exist • Both static and dynamic loading tests were conducted. .EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH • In collaboration with Dr.

Typical Behavior of RC Frame Beams Ptu Tensile arch (catenary) action Compressive arch action Vertical Load Pcu Pyu Capacity based on yield-line theory δcu Deflection δtu (Bao. 2008) Compressive arch action and catenary action .

Prototype Structure and Test Specimen Prototype structure and typical geometry of test specimen .

 3 under different loading  speed (1/3‐scale) Test variables: (1) reinforcement ratio. (2) span‐to‐depth ratio. and (3) loading speed .Monotonic Loading Test Setup 12 specimens were tested: 9 under static loading (1/2‐scale).

Following concrete  crushing Prior to final failure .

 ρ = 1.3 m x 0.15 m.7 m x 0.2 m x 0.15 m. Pcu = 83 kN. PACI = 55 kN All 3φ 14 at top and bottom.3 m x 0. PACI = 77 kN B2: 5.13% . Pcu = 125 kN.A3: 2. PACI = 147 kN B1: 4.15 m.7 m x 0. Pcu = 249 kN.3 m x 0.

6 0.3 0.5 1.5 B2 with symmetrical reinforcement with asymmetrical reinforcement 1 0 0.9 1.5 Flexural Reinforcement Ratio (%) Span / Depth (ln /h ) Effect of Reinforcement Ratio Effect of Span‐to‐depth ratio .2 with symmetrical reinforcement with asymmetrical reinforcement 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 1.5 A6 A4 2.3 3 (a) Strength Enhancement Factor α A1 (b) Strength Enhancement Factor α 2.5 A5 A2 A6 2 A3 2 A3 B3 B1 1.

2 m x 0.4 kN C3: 2.2 mm/s. Pcu = 91.1 m.6 kN C2: 2.7 m x 0.200 45 Vertical Load P (kN) 150 30 100 15 50 0 0 0 -50 -15 -100 -150 -200 0. Pcu = 96.2 m x 0.4 0.1 m.4 1.2 0.2 1. loading rate 2 mm/s.1 m. Pcu = 108 kN All 2φ 12 at top and bottom.2 m x 0.3% Horizontal Reaction N (kip) Vertical Load P (kip) . loading rate 0.7 m x 0. ρ = 1.6 0.8 1 1.7 m x 0.6 Horizontal Reaction N (kN) Specimen C1 Specimen C2 Specimen C3 Peak Load Pcu -30 -45 Center Deflection / Beam Depth (δ/h ) C1: 2. loading rate 20 mm/s.

Observations from monotonic loading tests • Compressive arch action resulting from axial restraint contributed at least 50% extra loading capacity beyond the capacity estimated without considering axial restraining forces and strain harderning. . • Load resistance under catenary action may not provide higher capacity than under compressive arch action. • High loading speed slightly increases beam flexural stiffness and load resistance.

 D4: 2. D3: 1. reinforcement ratio Four specimens were tested: D1 to D4.4% Each specimen was tested multiple times with different weight of mass blocks Load release time less than 10% of natural period .Dynamic Loading Tests Test variables: Load level.2 %. 5700 mm x 300 mm x 150 mm (1/2‐scale) D1: no axial restraint was applied D1 and D2: ρ = 1.8 %.

Lower weight of mass blocks: study the dynamic response of a specimen  within its elastic range   .

Higher weight of mass blocks: detect the dynamic load‐carrying capacity .

6 0.4 0.8 Time (s) .3 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.Dynamic response under lower level of load 15 (a) Deflection (mm) 10 Midspan deflection 5 Quarterspan deflection 0 45 Horizontal Force (kN) (b) 30 15 Restraining Moment (kN-m) 0 45 (c) 30 15 0 0 0.2 0.

5 Time (s) Time (s) .5 1 1.6 kN P = 53.8 kN 0 90 D3 Center Deflection (mm) P = 54.9 kN P = 18.0 kN 30 P = 28.5 0 0.5 1 1.Dynamic response under higher level of load 90 Flexural yielding Center Deflection (mm) D1 D2 Concrete crushing 60 P = 44.9 kN P = 23.0 kN 30 P = 38.9 kN 0 0 0.5 kN D4 60 P = 44.

15 0.1 0.Dynamic response of axial restraining force and restraining moment Restraining Moment (kN-m) 150 150 150 100 100 100 50 50 50 0 0 0 -50 -50 -50 Axial Force (kN) -100 At peak deflection -100 At peak deflection -100 At Concrete Crushing -150 -150 -150 (a) -200 0 0.2 0.05 0.15 0.3 Time (s) Time (s) Time (s) Specimen D2 Specimen D3 Specimen D4 .2 0.3 0 (c) 0.05 0.2 0.1 0.25 0.3 -200 0 (b) -200 0.15 0.05 0.25 0.1 0.25 0.

 collapsed) Damage Pattern . approximately the  load capacity) Damage pattern of Specimen D3 (P = 53.6 kN) Damage pattern of Specimen D3 (P = 54.Concrete Spalling Diagonal Crack Edge Column Center Column (a) Damage pattern of Specimen D3 (P = 54.6 kN.5 kN.

Observations from dynamic loading tests • Typically assumed 5% damping ratio for cracked concrete structures was verified. . • Dynamic increase factor of 2 could be too conservative for force controlled actions. • Compressive arch action still exists under dynamic loading scenario considered by DOD and can significantly increase the dynamic loading capacity. • Another series of tests is being conducted to further identify dynamic loading effects (mainly evaluate DIF proposed by DOD and dynamic deformation capacity).

Using traditional ACI code approach to define M-ϕ (or M-θp) in a nonlinear analysis cannot effectively capture the dynamic response under both compressive arch action and catenary action. appropriate nonlinear model is need for frame beams surrounding the lost column. Numerical analysis needs to consider the geometry nonlinearity when solving system equations.NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF AXIALLY RESTRAINED RC FRAME BEAMS (ONGOING) • Current DOD progressive collapse design guideline considers dynamic loading condition. To reduce uncertainty in an analysis. The response of structure from an analysis (deformation and force demand) can be highly sensitive to the definition of beam flexural capacity. • • • .

Using fiber section to define flexural property • • • • • • • Cross section is divided into several layers (regions) to have fibers along the beam or column. Material property is defined at stressstrain level. Available in SAP newer editions. Current fiber section can only define flexural and axial loading behavior. Confinement effects due to transverse reinforcement can be explicitly considered. . Involves higher computational cost. Can be used for irregular cross sections.

Zero-length section was used to define bond-slip property.Simulation of axially restrained beams tested • • • • • Concrete property  (Concrete 1 model) • • OPENSEES was adopted Concrete 1 was used to define material property for concrete Confined concrete model for peak stress and ultimate compress strain proposed by Scott et al. Steel 2 was used to define material property for reinforcing bars. Model (Bond_SP01) proposed by Zhao and Sritharan (2007) was considered. (1982) was use for cover concrete and core concrete. Ultimate goal: nonlinear static and dynamic analysis of multi-story RC frame building designed w/ seismic loading (assisted by Ken Zhang) and w/o seismic loading (assisted by Sang-in Choi). .

5%) .Simulation results 200 Load (measured) Average Axial Force (measured) Axial Force (calculated) 150 Load (calculated) 100 Load and Axial Force (kN) 50 Pu (ACI) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 Vertical Displacement at Center Column (mm) Symmetrically reinforced beam (ρ = 1.

NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF RC FLAT-PLATES (ONGOING) • Flat-plate buildings. • Rebar layer was used to simulate tension and compression mats of slab flexural reinforcement. • Concrete damaged plasticity model was used to simulate the property of concrete under tri-axial state of stress. • Research assisted by Jinrong Liu. . • ABAQUS using shell elements is used to conduct nonlinear analysis. especially those designed prior to 1980s. • Preliminary analyses have been conducted. could be vulnerable to a progressive collapse.

5 2 4” 1 Inclined Crack First Yielding 0 0 0.Behavior of two slab-column connections under simulated gravity loading 5 4 3 Two‐way shear strength (ACI 318‐08) G1.5 Center Deflection (in.) (Tested at University of Texas at Austin) 40 .0 G0.5 1 1.

Test results of slab-column connections by (Elstner and Hognestad.99%) (ρ=0.50%) (ρ=0. punching shear  failure is actually controlled by flexure rather than shear.50%) For flat‐plates with low‐to‐moderate reinforcement ratios. 1956) (ρ=0. .

2 10 Lateral Load 0 0 0.5 2 2.6 Vertical Shear (kips) Applied Load 20 P1 P2>P1 Slab 0.5 1 1.006 0.8 50 1 Specimen A-13.4 0.8 Specimen T-2 Torque (tonf-m) 0. ρ = 0.009 0.55% Vertical Shear (kips) 40 30 Specimen 6AH.4 Column 0.Calibration of modeling parameter 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0.6 0.012 Deflection (in) Deflection (in) Twist Angle (rad) Test Result FE Simulation Result Simulation results for a one story flat-plate building Peak Dynamic Rotation Demand (rad.) .003 0.5 0 0 0.2 0. ρ = 0.6% 0.

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY AT UNLV Renovated from a gymnasium .

 and  4 ft thick reinforced concrete slab with  a matrix of embedded anchors Anchor unit .Strong floor Strong floor: 32 ft long. 28 ft wide.

. could be at high risk of progressive collapse.CONCLUSIONS • Lateral restraining effect existing in an actual moment frame may significantly increase beam flexural capacity. especially older flat-plates. • Even though such effect is generally neglected in a normal design. • Flat-plate buildings. • Input for industry is needed to better improve current design practice for progressive collapse. it can be considered for progressive collapse resistance under extreme loading conditions. • Fiber section can best describe the strength and stiffness properties of RC frame beams.

Thank You QUESTIONS? .