This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
PROGRESSIVEOFCOLLAPSE CONCRETE BUILDINGS RESISTANCE
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Nevada Las Vegas
• 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
in the collapse of an spread entire structureof or a an disproportionately large part of it.” --. defined as the initial local failure from element to element resulting.ASCE 07-10 .“Progressive collapse iseventually.
1968.HISTORICAL EVENTS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE Ronan Point apartment. triggering the partial collapse of the building. Attention to progressive collapse was initiated. 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. • .
(Nair. 2004) .
Punching shear failure propagated to the ground level. 1971. 2004) . (King and Delatte. Boston • RC flat-plate structure • Likely construction over-load. and inadequate positioning slab top bars caused punching shear failure at roof level. poor material properties in cold weather. • • Attention to progressive collapse was initiated.Commonwealth Avenue apartment.
Murrah Building. 1995.Alfred P. . Oklahoma City. Oklahoma • RC frame structure with transfer girders designed in accordance with ACI 318-71.
• The blast from the bomb destroyed column G20 below the transfer girder and may have destroyed or severely damaged columns G24. • 168 people died.• Discontinuity of reinforcement in both the positive and negative moment reinforcement. .
Sampoong Department Store. South Korea • • RC flat-plate structure Punching shear failure initiated from an interior slab-column connection at the top story. . 2002). • • Contributing factors the included reduced slabeteffective 35% increase in dead loads for due to thefailure change of use at the 5th floor (Gardner al. Seoul. depth and a Killed 501 people.
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. and ductility to ensure structural integrity.includes the Specific Load Resistance and the Alternate Path approaches.Design Approaches • Indirect Design .
Indirect design – DOD procedure .
Relies on an integrated system of tie forces for developing tensile membrane or catenary action. Horizontal ties and vertical ties. .
continuity.• Indirect Design emphasizes providing minimum levels of strength. • Building must bridge across a removed element. and ductility to ensure structural integrity. .
Location of column removal considered in DOD 2009 .
Moment before column removal Moment after column removal .
7P u 1.5 Displacement / Static Displacement P 1 P = mg 5% damping ratio 0.9Pu 2 P = 0.5 (undamped SDOF system) P u 2.5 3 P = 0.5 0 m .Dynamic Loading Effects Due To Sudden Removal of Supporting Column m g P 3.
5 0 0.5 1 1.t 2.5 2 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 Appropriate retrofit techniques for progressive collapse prevention • Risk of progressive collapse of flat-plate structures .
EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH • In collaboration with Dr. . 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.
2008) Compressive arch action and catenary action .Typical Behavior of RC Frame Beams Ptu Tensile arch (catenary) action Vertical Load Pcu P Compressi ve arch action yu Capacity based on yield-line theory δ cu Deflection δ t u (Bao.
Prototype Structure and Test Specimen Prototype structure and typical geometry of test specimen .
and .Monotonic Loading Test Setup 12 specimens were tested: 9 under static loading (1/2‐scale). (2) span‐to‐depth ratio. 3 under different loading speed (1/3‐scale) Test variables: (1) reinforcement ratio.
(3) loading speed .
Following concrete crushing Prior to final failure .
7 m x All 3φ 14 at 0. PACI = 55 kN top and bottom.3 m x 0.13% . PACI = 77 kN 0. ρ = 1. Pcu = 249 kN.2 m x B2: 5.3 m x 0.7 m x B1: 4. Pcu = 83 kN.15 m. Pcu = 125 kN. PACI = 147 kN 0.3 m x 0.15 m.15 m.A3: 2.
5 2.5 .(a) A 4 A1 A 5 A2 A6 A3 with symmetrical reinforcement with asymmetrical reinforcement 3 3 2 .
Strength Enhancement Factor α 2 2 1 .6 0.5 Flexural Reinforcement Ratio (%) 1 (b ) A6 A3 B 3 B 2 .9 1. 5 1.3 0.2 1.5 B1 1 0 0.
with symmetrical reinforcement with asymmetrical reinforcement Strength Enhancement Factor α 0 2 Span / Depth (l / h ) n 4 6 8 10 Effect of Reinforcement Ratio Span‐to‐depth ratio Effect of .
2 1.6 0 -45 Center Deflection / Beam Depth (δ/h ) (kip) Horizontal Reaction N (kip) Vertical Load P (kN) Vertical Load P (kN) Horizontal Reaction N .6 0.200 150 45 30 100 15 50 0 0 -50 -15 -100 -150 -200 Specimen C1 Specimen C2 Specimen C3 Peak Load Pcu -30 0.8 1 1.2 0.4 1.4 0.
7 m x 108 kN All 2φ 12 at 0.2 m x 0.2 m x 0.6 kN C2: 2. loading rate 0.4 0.7 m x 91. Pcu = top and bottom.7 m x kN C3: 2. Pcu = 96.3% . Pcu = 0.1 m. loading rate 20 mm/s.1 m.2 mm/s. loading rate 2 mm/s.C1: 2.1 m. ρ = 1.2 m x 0.
High loading speed slightly increases beam flexural stiffness and load resistance. Load resistance under catenary action may not provide higher capacity than under compressive arch action. .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.
5700 mm x 300 mm x 150 mm (1/2‐scale) D1: no axial restraint was applied D1 and D2: ρ = 1.4% Each specimen was tested multiple times with different weight of mass blocks .8 %.2 %. reinforcement ratio Four specimens were tested: D1 to D4. D4: 2.Dynamic Loading Tests Test variables: Load level. D3: 1.
Load release time less than 10% of natural period .
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 .
Dynamic response under lower level of load (a) Mi span d defl Quar erspan t de ction flectio n 15 Deflection (mm) 10 5 0 (b) 45 .
7 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.30 15 Horizontal Force (kN) Restraining Moment (kN-m) 0 45 30 15 0 (c) 0 0.2 0.3 0.6 .8 Time (s) 0.
P= 53.8 kN .9 kN P = 18.9 kN Dynamic response under higher level of load Flexur l yielding a te Concr crushing e D1 P = 23.0 kN 4 P = 28.5 kN D4 P = 4.
D2 P = 44.9 kN 90 Center Deflection (mm) 60 30 0 90 .0 k N P = 38.
Center Deflection (mm) 60 30 0 D3 P = 54.5 1 Time (s) .6 kN 0 1.5 0 0.5 0.5 Time (s) 1 1.
Dynamic response of axial restraining force and restraining moment 15 0 10 0 50 15 0 10 0 50 150 100 50 (b ) 0 0 0 .
3 0 15 0 0.05 20 0.15 At -150 0.25 0.05 20 0.2 20 0 .15 0.50 10 0 50 -50 -100 -100 (a ) At peak deflection peak deflection 15 0 0 0.1 0.25 0.3 0 0.2 0 0.1 0.
At Conc ete r Cru shin g Restraining Moment (kN-m) Axial Force (kN) Time (s) Time (s) 0.05 (c 0 0.1 0.3 ) 0.15 0.2 Time (s) Specimen D2 Specimen D4 Specimen D3 .25 0.
6 kN) Center Column Damage pattern of Specimen D3 (P = 54. approximately the load capacity) Damage pattern of Specimen D3 (P = 53.6 kN.Concrete Spalling Diagonal Crack Edge Column (a) Damage pattern of Specimen D3 (P = 54.5 kN. collapsed) Damage Pattern .
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).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. .
The response of structure from an analysis (deformation and force demand) can be highly sensitive to the definition of beam flexural 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. To reduce uncertainty in an analysis.NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF AXIALLY RESTRAINED RC FRAME BEAMS (ONGOING) • Current DOD progressive collapse design guideline considers dynamic loading condition. appropriate nonlinear model is need for frame beams surrounding the lost column. • • • . Numerical analysis needs to consider the geometry nonlinearity when solving system equations.
Can be used for irregular cross sections.Using fiber section to define flexural property • • • • • Cross section is divided into several layers (regions) to have fibers along the beam or column. Confinement effects due to transverse reinforcement can be explicitly considered.strain level. Material property is defined at stress. Current fiber section can only define flexural and axial .
. • Available in SAP newer editions. • Involves higher computational cost.loading behavior.
Zero-length section was used to define bond-slip property. (1982) was use for cover concrete and core concrete. Steel 2 was used to define material property for reinforcing bars.Simulation of axially restrained beams tested • • • 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. Ultimate goal: nonlinear static and dynamic analysis of multistory RC frame building designed w/ seismic loading (assisted by Ken Zhang) and w/o seismic loading (assisted by Sang-in Choi). • • • Concrete property Model (Bond_SP01) proposed by Zhao and Sritharan (2007) was considered. (Concrete 1 model) • .
Simulation results 200 150 Load (measured) (measured) Load (calculated) Average Axial Force Axial Force (calculated) 100 50 Pu (ACI) 0 0 -50 50 100 150 200 250 300 Load and Axial Force (kN) -100 -150 -200 Vertical Displacement at Center Column (mm) .
Symmetrically reinforced beam (ρ = 1.5%) .
NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF RC FLAT-PLATES (ONGOING)
• • • •
Flat-plate buildings, especially those designed prior to 1980s, could be vulnerable to a progressive collapse. ABAQUS using shell elements is used to conduct nonlinear analysis. Concrete damaged plasticity model was used to simulate the property of concrete under tri-axial state of stress. Rebar layer was used to simulate tension and compression mats of slab flexural reinforcement.
• Preliminary analyses have been conducted. • Research assisted by Jinrong Liu.
Behavior of two slab-column connections under simulated gravity loading
Two‐way ar strength sh (ACI 3
Fir st Yielding
4” Inclined Crack
0 0 0.5 1 1.5
Center Deflection (in.)
(Tested at University of Texas at Austin)
50%) . 1956) (ρ=0.Test results of slab-column connections by (Elstner and Hognestad.50%) (ρ=0.99%) (ρ=0.
punching shear .For flat‐plates with low‐to‐moderate reinforcement ratios.
failure is actually controlled by flexure rather than shear. .
Calibration of modeling parameter 1 60 50 Specimen A-13.6 Deflection (in) Vertical Shear (kips) 0. 2 Specimen T-2 40 30 30 20 10 P 1 Sl ab Colu mn Lateral Load Applied Load 20 10 0 0 0.6% 0.012 Twist Angle (rad) 0.8 0.5 2 Deflection (in) 1 2.003 0.009 0. ρ = 0.006 Test Result FE Simulation Result .4 0 0 1. 6 0.55% Vertical Shear (kips) 50 40 Specimen 6AH. ρ = 0.8 P2>P1 0. 4 T o r q u e (t o n fm ) 0.5 0 0 0.2 0.5 0.
Simulation results for a one story flat-plate building Peak Dynamic Rotation Demand (rad.) .
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.
Even though such effect is generally neglected in a normal design. Input for industry is needed to better improve current design practice for progressive collapse. could be at high risk of progressive collapse. especially older flat-plates. it can be considered for progressive collapse resistance under extreme loading conditions. .CONCLUSIONS • • • • • Lateral restraining effect existing in an actual moment frame may significantly increase beam flexural capacity. Flat-plate buildings. Fiber section can best describe the strength and stiffness properties of RC frame beams.
Thank You QUESTIONS? .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.