© All Rights Reserved

4 views

© All Rights Reserved

- steel frames
- Design of Steel Building
- Prof Rombach Presentation
- 2769 ST7101 Concrete Structures
- structural analysis exam papers
- 16B
- 39028875-Monorail
- Design of Steel Members
- e Tn Cbd General 007
- Dynamics Report
- Cantilever Beam
- 3282-5986-1-SM
- 10 Deflection-castigliano Theorem
- CE2252-SOM QB.pdf
- ILD
- List of Tables
- aci thep dam
- Manual 1 Beam
- Module 1 - Wsd Flexure (1)
- Diploma

You are on page 1of 13

Engineering Structures

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

Static and dynamic analysis of a reinforced concrete ﬂat slab frame building

for progressive collapse

Seweryn Kokot ⇑, Armelle Anthoine, Paolo Negro, George Solomos

Joint Research Centre – Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, European Laboratory for Structural Assessment, Ispra, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The problem of structural progressive collapse has been investigated using a real-scale reinforced con-

Received 1 September 2011 crete ﬂat-slab frame building, which has survived collapse after two of its central columns had been phys-

Revised 2 February 2012 ically destroyed. The numerical study undertaken considers three loading scenarios, in which alternately

Accepted 5 February 2012

three different columns are being instantaneously removed, and in each case the structural response of

Available online 28 March 2012

the frame is calculated. A ﬁnite-element linear static analysis has ﬁrst been conducted. To account for

severe dynamic effects occurring during fast dynamic events, such as explosions or impacts, dynamic

Keywords:

linear and nonlinear time history analyses have next been performed. For each scenario the results have

Progressive collapse

Reinforced concrete frame building

been processed in terms of demand-resistance ratios at critical cross-sections, and thus it has been

Column removal assessed whether the building would be susceptible to progressive collapse according to certain allow-

Alternate load path method ance criteria prescribed in technical guidelines. In this respect, three deﬁnitions of dynamic factors are

Dynamic nonlinear analysis introduced and their effective applicability is assessed in view of actually calculated and guidelines-sug-

gested values. Results show overall that the approaches of linear static and dynamic analyses would have

produced progressive collapse conditions. The nonlinear dynamic analysis predicts no mechanism which

might lead to progressive collapse, even though several plastic hinges would be formed. Merits of using

static or dynamic, linear or nonlinear analyses are discussed.

Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction is allowed, then the structure must be veriﬁed using the alternate

load path method in which a load-bearing element is removed

Progressive collapse of structures occurs when a local failure from the structure. If no local failure is allowed, then key elements

triggers successive failures and leads to the total collapse or a col- must be designed to sustain a notional accidental action. More de-

lapse disproportionate to the original cause. There have been a few tailed information on the state-of-the-art in the ﬁeld of progressive

world-wide known examples of progressive collapses such as that collapse can be found in [3–8].

of the Ronan Point residential apartment building (London, 1968), Following the issue of the guidelines [1,2], there have been pub-

of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building (Oklahoma, 1995), etc. The lished several research papers presenting numerical analyses con-

ﬁrst progressive collapse regulatory documents followed the cerning progressive collapse of steel and reinforced concrete

Ronan Point partial collapse and were included into the British structures. To give a few examples of recent studies, Marjanishvili

standards. In turn, after the total collapse of the World Trade Cen- and Agnew [9], analysed a model of a nine-storey steel moment-

ter towers, many research activities have led to more detailed resistant frame building applying four methods of the indirect ap-

guidelines on designing and preventing progressive collapses proach using SAP 2000 ﬁnite element software. Similarly Fu [10]

(e.g. [1–3]). considered a twenty-storey steel composite frame building model

There are basically two approaches when dealing with the eval- under column removal using ABAQUS. Tsai and Lin [11] investi-

uation and prevention of progressive collapses in a given structure. gated progressive collapse resistance of an earthquake-resistant

The ﬁrst indirect approach consists in ensuring that the structure reinforced concrete building model subjected to column failure

satisﬁes prescriptive design rules (such as requirements on struc- using SAP 2000. Kwasniewski [12] analysed an eight-storey steel

tural integrity and ductility or the presence of vertical and horizon- building using LS-DYNA software focusing on 3D detailed

tal ties). The second direct approach uses two possibilities modelling and identifying critical parameters for the potential of

depending on whether local failure is allowed or not. If local failure progressive collapse. Recently, Iribarren et al. [13] used a more

sophisticated approach consisted of a detailed modelling of rein-

forced concrete cross-sections to analyse a ﬁve-storey RC planar

⇑ Corresponding author. frame model.

E-mail address: seweryn.kokot@jrc.ec.europa.eu (S. Kokot).

0141-0296/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.02.026

206 S. Kokot et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 205–217

the structural testing against progressive collapse is.

However, buildings can be exposed to fast dynamic abnormal

events, such as bomb explosions or impacts, so the dynamic nature

of the loading must be considered. Therefore, the ﬁrst objective of

this work is to re-evaluate the previously mentioned frame build-

ing using linear and nonlinear dynamic analyses according to the

alternate load path method. In other words, this study tries to an-

swer the question: what would have happened if the columns had

been destroyed dynamically in an almost instantaneous manner?

The second objective is to learn how much the effects of the fast

dynamic column removal are greater compared to the effects of

the static approach. To this end, three deﬁnitions of dynamic fac-

tors are discussed. Finally, the third objective is to identify the

advantages when redistribution of bending moments due to plastic

hinges is taken into account.

building with a 0.24 m thick slab (Fig. 1). The height of each storey

was 2.7 m and the bays were 6 m and 4 m long. The structure con-

tained two main frames connected together with transverse beams

(Fig. 2). The girder beams were 1 m wide and 0.24 m high. The

frames were supported by square columns of dimensions

0.4 0.4 m. In each frame, there existed an eccentricity of 0.2 m

between the axes of beams and columns. Because of the reduced

Fig. 1. Front view.

beam height, they had quite high reinforcement on both sides,

with only some rebars anchored to the column joints. The details

of reinforcement are shown in Figs. 3 and 4.

In the European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA), a

reinforced concrete ﬂat-slab frame building was tested to evaluate 2.1. Materials

its safety against collapse (see [14,15]). First, static linear and non-

linear analyses of the building under column removals were per- The materials of the structure were C25/30 concrete and S500

formed and then two columns of the building were actually steel. In addition, laboratory tests were performed on cubes of con-

demolished, one after the other, to observe the building behaviour. crete and on three specimens of each rebar diameter. The mean va-

This experiment has shown not only that the structure survived lue of concrete strength f cm is 32.8 MPa. For /20 steel rebars the

S. Kokot et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 205–217 207

tion, fs is the characteristic value of strength of steel (524.6 MPa

for rebars /20), and d is the distance from the centre of reinforce-

ment to the extreme compressed concrete ﬁbres of the beam

cross-section. The calculated resistance for the beams are presented

in Table 1 (a – longer bay, b – shorter bay). Note that for those

beams which will undergo bending reversal after the column re-

moval two values of resistance are listed in Table 1 (positive and

negative moment). The assumption of neglecting the axial forces

is justiﬁed because usually the axial forces in beams are relatively

small and they increase/decrease the bending moment resistance

only marginally.

For columns, the pure axial resistance is calculated as

Nr ¼ Ac fc þ As fs ð2Þ

where Ac is the area of the concrete cross-section and fc is the

strength of concrete in compression (32.8 MPa). Their approxi-

mated pure bending resistance is calculated via Eq. (1), Table 2.

However, for columns, the inﬂuence of axial force on bending mo-

Fig. 3. Elevation and column rebars.

ment resistance cannot be neglected. Therefore the actual bending

moment resistance is obtained from the interaction diagrams calcu-

lated with the commercial software SAP 2000 for four types of col-

mean yield, ultimate strength and ultimate strain are as follows: umn cross-sections.

f y ¼ 524:6 MPa, f t ¼ 642:6 MPa and eu ¼ 11:07%. The internal forces are obtained from a FE calculation using the

SAP 2000, and in the most loaded cross-sections they are compared

2.2. Resistance of the frame elements to the corresponding resistance values.

Assuming that in beams failure is due to bending (neglecting 2.3. Summary of the quasi-static experiment for progressive collapse

axial and shear forces), the approximate beam moment resistance

is calculated as The structure was ﬁrst tested pseudodynamically against a de-

sign earthquake. The results reported in [16] showed that the

M r ¼ 0:85As fs d ð1Þ

structure suffered minor damage. Then the structure was devoted

208 S. Kokot et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 205–217

Table 1

Resistance of beams.

Floors 1–2

a – left 197.087

a – middle 92.349

a – right 225.242 176.815

b – left 225.242 176.815

b – middle 92.349

b – right 112.621

Floor 3

a – left 168.932

a – middle 92.349

a – right 197.087 148.660

b – left 197.087 148.660

b – middle 92.349

b – right 112.621

Table 2

Axial and simpliﬁed bending resistance of columns.

Floor 1

1 5836.481 96.821

2 6170.202 151.282

3 5836.481 96.821

Floor 2

1 5836.481 96.821

2 5836.481 96.821

3 5697.431 74.128

Floor 3

1 5994.072 122.539

2 5836.481 96.821

3 5697.431 74.128

against collapse.

The experiment consisted in cutting the columns, one after an-

Fig. 6. State of the building at the end of Phase 2 (Note that the second central

other. In the ﬁrst phase, one central column was cut out and, as can column is cut at the base).

be seen in Fig. 5, the building withstood the lack of this load-bear-

ing member. In the second phase, the other central column was re-

moved and, again, the structure survived (see Fig. 6). Then, there

was concern that the building would collapse in an uncontrolled

manner (after a complete removal of another column), therefore,

for safety reasons, it was decided to progressively destroy two

external columns to provoke a pancake-type collapse (see Fig. 7).

Since the experiment took into account only the static behav-

iour of the structure, a question arises whether the structure would

have survived if a column/columns had been destroyed dynami-

cally in an instantaneous manner. In the following sections, the re-

sults of numerical linear and nonlinear, static and dynamic

analyses are presented to give a preliminary answer to this

question.

ated in SAP 2000. It contains 186 frame elements and 171 nodes.

The element and node numbers shown in Fig. 8 are used in the se-

Fig. 7. The building during the pancake-type collapse.

quel to display the numerical results. The ﬁrst longer bay in the x-

direction is referred to as ‘a-bay’, while the second one as ‘b-bay’.

In this work three principal scenarios have been considered: analyses, in this paper only the self-weight is considered to be able

sudden removal of the central column, of the left corner column to compare the numerical results with the experiment. The perma-

and ﬁnally of the right corner column, one at a time. nent load was equal to 3.5 kN/m2 (actual concrete structure

Although both guidelines [1,2] recommend applying the combi- weight) plus 2.0 kN/m2 (representing several permanent ﬁxtures

nation of permanent (dead) and variable (live) loads in structural on the structure) and was modelled as a uniformly distributed

S. Kokot et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 205–217 209

Fig. 8. Finite element model of the analysed frame in SAP 2000 – element and node numbers.

Fig. 9. Loads on the frame – simulation of the column removal (from SAP 2000).

linear load applied to the girders to account for the one-way node. In the second step these reaction forces are simultaneously

behaviour of the concrete slabs. and abruptly brought to zero. In practice this is accomplished in

In the current dynamic analyses the simulation of the column SAP 2000 by applying at these points a similar set of forces/mo-

removal is performed as follows: The column to be removed is ﬁrst ments of increasing magnitude in the opposite direction (see

replaced by the corresponding reaction forces at the appropriate Fig. 9). The rate of the column removal is speciﬁed by a time

210 S. Kokot et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 205–217

Table 3 The results obtained from these static computations are com-

Bending moments in beams, no column removal, comparison with resistance, frames pared with the structural resistances using the so called demand-

1 and 2.

resistance ratios (DRRs), also referred to as demand-capacity ratios.

Frames 1 and 2 Ms (kNm) A local DRR is deﬁned in each section as

Beam a – left a – mid a – right b – left b – mid b – right

8

Floor 3 43.34 30.04 52.52 29.30 11.08 17.84 < M max =M r

> in beamsðbending moment onlyÞ

Floor 2 49.59 27.18 51.98 23.07 11.46 23.31 DRR ¼ N max =N r in barsðaxial force onlyÞ

Floor 1 47.22 28.26 52.18 26.90 11.28 19.84

>

:

M max =M r ðNÞ in columnsðcombined bending moment and axial forceÞ

Ms/Mr (%) ð3Þ

Floor 3 25.66 32.53 26.65 14.87 12.00 15.84

Floor 2 25.16 29.43 23.08 10.24 12.41 20.70

Floor 1 23.96 30.60 23.17 11.94 12.21 17.62

where Mmax and Nmax are the maximum moment and axial force

acting on the section while Mr and Nr are the bending moment

and axial resistances of the section, respectively. The global DRR

is taken as the maximum local DRR over the entire structure i.e.

Table 4

Axial forces and bending moments in columns, no column removal, comparison with

DRRmax. For reinforced concrete structures, both [1,2] specify that

resistance, frames 1 and 2. the value of 200% for the demand-resistance ratio should not be ex-

ceeded, otherwise the structure is deemed as prone to progressive

Frame 1 Ns (kN)

collapse.

Column 1 2 3

Floor 3 top 50.45 91.02 31.78

Floor 3 bot 50.45 91.02 31.78

4.1. Before column demolition

Floor 2 top 102.02 177.99 66.49

Floor 2 bot 102.02 177.99 66.49

Floor 1 top 153.17 267.20 99.38 This phase concerns the frames in the intact state, i.e. all ele-

Floor 1 bot 153.17 267.20 99.38 ments are present, as compared to the subsequent phases where

Ms (kNm) one or more columns are destroyed.

Floor 3 top 43.34 23.21 17.84 The results, being exactly the same for both frames, are dis-

Floor 3 bot 28.06 16.89 13.45 played only once. The values of internal forces (bending moments

Floor 2 top 21.53 12.02 9.86 and axial forces) in the most representative/critical cross-sections

Floor 2 bot 26.91 14.82 11.75 are given in Table 3 for beams and in Table 4 for columns. The load-

Floor 1 top 20.31 10.46 8.09

Floor 1 bot 9.09 5.98 4.87

ing corresponds to the aforementioned self-weight of (3.5 + 2) kN/

m2. In the Tables, the resultant internal forces are given at the dif-

Mr(Ns) (kNm)

ferent cross-sections (l – left, mid - midspan, r – right) of each bay

Floor 3 top 147.78 126.38 91.24 (a – longer bay, b – shorter bay) together with the ratios between

Floor 3 bot 147.78 126.38 91.24

the resultant internal forces and the element resistances (demand/

Floor 2 top 128.30 140.57 97.38

Floor 2 bot 128.30 140.57 122.09 resistance ratio – DRR). Note that the Mr values in these Tables are

Floor 1 top 136.71 212.03 127.84 obtained from the corresponding interaction diagrams. As an

Floor 1 bot 136.71 212.03 127.84 example, Fig. 10 shows how the value of Mr is obtained for the

Ms/Mr(Ns) (%) ﬁrst-ﬂoor central columns (with rebars /20) under the axial force

Floor 3 top 29.33 18.37 19.55 Ns = 267.20 kN. The maximum values of demand/resistance ratios

Floor 3 bot 18.99 13.36 14.74 are: at the midspan of the a-beams on the third ﬂoor

Floor 2 top 16.78 8.55 10.13 (DRR = 32.53%) and at the top of the left column on the third ﬂoor

Floor 2 bot 20.97 10.54 9.62 (DRR = 29.33%) and clearly these values are relatively small.

Floor 1 top 14.86 4.93 6.33

Floor 1 bot 6.65 2.82 3.81

function, which is chosen as a linear ramp. For actual bomb explo-

Many current progressive collapse provisions in codes, stan-

sions, the time in which a structural member is destroyed is very

dards and guidelines (e.g [1,2,17]) require that the load-bearing

short (some milliseconds). In the presented FE calculations, the re-

elements are removed anywhere in the structure, one at a time,

moval time is selected to be 5 ms, which implies a quasi instanta-

and check if progressive collapse could occur. As the ﬁrst damage

neous removal. The dynamic effects of the removal rate on the

scenario a central column in the ﬁrst frame is removed. The bend-

dynamic response of the structure have already been investigated

ing moment and axial force distributions for both frames in the

in [7] and the results have showed that the most unfavourable dy-

most critical cross-sections are given in Tables 5–7.

namic effects occur when the column is destroyed within a time

The linear static analysis shows that the most loaded cross-sec-

close to zero (below 5 ms). The dynamic computations are per-

tions are in the ﬁrst frame, namely the right-end of the b-beam on

formed starting from the equilibrium position of the intact struc-

the second ﬂoor (DRR = 123.72%) and the top of the right column

ture under gravity loads (zero initial velocities) and assuming a

on the third ﬂoor (DRR = 107.77%). The vertical displacement at

5% viscous damping.

node 48 is equal to 0.0167 m.

These results indicate only minor yielding, so the structure

4. Linear static analysis would not be susceptible to collapse, statically. However, accord-

ing to the guidelines in [1,2], a structure would be susceptible to

These analyses have already been performed and the results re- progressive collapse, dynamically. This is because its demand-

ported in [14]. However, to make this paper self-contained, they resistance ratio exceeds 200% when the permanent loads are mul-

have been reproduced to facilitate comparison with the dynamic tiplied by a factor of 2 (to account for dynamic effects) in the com-

analyses. putation of internal forces.

S. Kokot et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 205–217 211

7000 Axial forces and bending moments in columns, central column removed statically,

comparison with resistance, Frame 1.

Column 1 2 3

5000

Floor 3 81.30 10.37 81.58

Floor 2 166.99 1.68 175.84

axial force [kN]

Ms (kNm)

3000

Floor 3 top 129.79 30.24 107.81

Floor 3 bot 85.39 18.54 77.40

2000

Floor 2 top 65.89 27.84 60.40

Floor 2 bot 96.46 39.55 60.30

1000 Floor 1 top 41.52 – 74.43

Ns = 267.20kN Floor 1 bot 31.79 – 25.19

0 Mr=212.03kNm Mr(Ns) (kNm)

Floor 3 152.61 112.29 100.04

−1000 Floor 2 138.86 110.78 116.69

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Floor 1 151.84 – 154.49

bending moment [kNm]

Ms/Mr(Ns) (%)

Fig. 10. Interaction diagram for a column with rebars /20.

Floor 3 top 85.05 26.93 107.77

Floor 3 bot 55.95 16.51 77.37

Floor 2 top 47.45 25.13 51.76

Floor 2 bot 69.47 35.70 43.00

Table 5

Floor 1 top 27.34 – 48.18

Bending moments in beams, central column removed statically, comparison with

Floor 1 bot 20.94 – 16.31

resistance, frames 1 and 2.

Frame 1 Ms (kNm)

Beam a – left a – mid a – right b – left b – mid b – right

Floor 3 130.01 35.93 45.94 77.46 18.26 110.25

0.0142 m. In this case, the linear static calculation indicates that

Floor 2 150.60 28.51 51.69 99.12 14.54 139.33 the structure would not be prone to progressive collapse neither

Floor 1 138.13 34.10 50.41 91.30 12.20 136.21 statically (DRR < 200%) nor dynamically (DRR < 200%)

Ms/Mr (%)

Floor 3 76.96 38.91 30.90 52.11 19.77 97.89

Floor 2 76.41 30.87 29.23 56.06 15.74 123.72 5. Linear dynamic analysis

Floor 1 70.09 36.93 28.51 51.64 13.21 120.95

Frame 2 Ms (kNm) This section presents the results of the three scenarios of col-

Floor 3 46.52 29.92 49.56 33.69 11.38 12.85 umn removal using linear dynamic analysis. The advantage of this

Floor 2 54.43 27.04 47.42 29.47 11.59 16.65 kind of calculations is that dynamic effects are inherently incorpo-

Floor 1 51.71 28.14 47.94 33.07 11.46 13.32 rated in the analysis as opposed to an a priori assumed dynamic

Ms/Mr (%) factor to be applied on the results of the static analysis. Since it

Floor 3 27.54 32.40 25.15 17.09 12.32 11.41 provides a more realistic distribution of the internal forces over

Floor 2 27.62 29.28 21.05 13.08 12.55 14.78 the structure, the linear dynamic analysis is expected to give a

Floor 1 26.24 30.47 21.28 14.68 12.41 11.83 more reliable estimate of the actual maximum demand-resistance

ratio (DRRmax) characterising the structural robustness against pro-

gressive collapse. Furthermore, the actual dynamic factor that

4.3. One left corner column removed should be applied to the static analysis results, can be computed

a posteriori.

In the second damage scenario a left corner column is removed It is however worth mentioning that the notion of dynamic fac-

from the ﬁrst frame. tor is well-deﬁned only for a single-degree-of-freedom system

The maximum demand-resistance ratios are reached on the where all quantities (force, displacement, DRR, etc.) lead to the

third ﬂoor at the right-end of the a-beam (DRR = 132.64%) and at same dynamic/static ratio. In a multi-degree-of-freedom system,

the top of the right column (DRR = 92.31%). The vertical displace- different deﬁnitions can be adopted which lead to different values

ment at node 25 equals 0.0552 m. Therefore, according to the rules of the dynamic factor, namely:

of thumb mentioned earlier, a progressive collapse is unlikely un-

der static conditions (DRR < 200%) but is possible under dynamic The ratio of the dynamic and static maximum deﬂection at the

conditions (DRR > 200%). top of the removed column (Deﬁnition 1),

the maximum ratio of the dynamic and static local DRR (Deﬁni-

tion 2),

4.4. One right corner column removed the ratio of the dynamic and static DRRmax (Deﬁnition 3).

The last case deals with the removal of a right corner column Despite the apparent soundness of the ﬁrst two deﬁnitions, the

from the ﬁrst frame. This case is similar to the previous one and third deﬁnition may be preferable because it provides a weighted

is more favourable because the span of the right bay is shorter. global dynamic factor, as it will be conﬁrmed by the results of

The demand-resistance ratios are far below 100% in all members. the linear and nonlinear dynamic analyses. If this dynamic factor

The maximum DRR values are 66.23% for beams and 39.2% for col- is applied to the static results, the output of the dynamic analysis

umns and the vertical displacement at node 69 is equal to is recovered in terms of robustness (value of DRRmax).

212 S. Kokot et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 205–217

Table 7 Table 9

Axial forces and bending moments in columns, central column removed statically, Maximum axial forces and bending moments in columns, central column removed

comparison with resistance, frame 2. dynamically, comparison with resistance values, Frame 1, linear analysis.

d (kN)

Column 1 2 3 Column 1 2 3

Floor 3 51.47 92.34 29.44 Floor 3 105.59 91.02 118.76

Floor 2 104.61 183.00 60.88 Floor 2 221.10 177.99 262.91

Floor 1 157.22 273.94 90.60 Floor 1 328.27 – 406.82

Ms (kNm) M max

d (kNm)

Floor 3 top 46.74 17.15 15.29 Floor 3 top 189.97 67.52 170.27

Floor 3 bot 29.31 12.79 12.01 Floor 3 bot 134.29 41.98 118.30

Floor 2 top 24.44 6.20 6.18 Floor 2 top 87.40 71.50 109.33

Floor 2 bot 30.31 8.66 7.97 Floor 2 bot 157.38 91.72 90.09

Floor 1 top 21.54 7.56 6.82 Floor 1 top 66.94 – 150.73

Floor 1 bot 15.78 3.42 3.41 Floor 1 bot 92.68 – 102.47

Mr(Ns) (kNm) Nd (kN) for M max

d

Floor 3 147.94 126.61 90.83 Floor 3 top 105.20 12.24 118.33

Floor 2 128.75 141.35 96.38 Floor 3 bot 105.44 16.54 117.71

Floor 1 137.34 155.51 126.30 Floor 2 top 220.88 11.37 262.00

Ms/Mr(Ns) (%) Floor 2 bot 220.74 22.18 261.21

Floor 1 top 229.94 – 399.56

Floor 3 top 31.59 13.55 16.83 Floor 1 bot 221.17 – 403.76

Floor 3 bot 19.81 10.10 13.22

Floor 2 top 18.98 4.39 6.41 Mr(Nd) (kNm)

Floor 2 bot 23.54 6.13 6.58 Floor 3 156.38 113.37 106.42

Floor 1 top 15.68 4.86 5.40 Floor 2 147.23 114.36 130.93

Floor 1 bot 11.49 2.20 2.70 Floor 1 147.29 – 175.72

M max

d /Mr(Nd) (%)

Floor 3 bot 85.87 37.03 111.16

Table 8

Floor 2 top 59.35 63.57 83.50

Maximum bending moments in beams, central column removed dynamically,

Floor 2 bot 106.89 80.20 58.68

comparison with resistance, frames 1 and 2, linear analysis.

Floor 1 top 45.03 – 86.10

Frame 1 Md (kNm) Floor 1 bot 62.92 – 58.31

d =Mr ðN d Þ

(local dyn. factor)

M s =M r ðN s Þ

Floor 3 190.21 52.12 102.04 136.70 25.93 174.17

Floor 2 220.48 40.21 98.50 180.72 21.16 228.94 Floor 3 top 1.43 2.23 1.48

Floor 1 186.13 49.57 96.26 176.65 15.92 239.37 Floor 3 bot 1.53 2.24 1.44

Floor 2 top 1.25 2.53 1.61

Md/Mr (%)

Floor 2 bot 1.54 2.25 1.36

Floor 3 112.60 56.44 68.64 91.95 28.08 154.65 Floor 1 top 1.65 – 1.79

Floor 2 111.87 43.54 55.71 102.21 22.91 203.28 Floor 1 bot 3.00 – 3.58

Floor 1 94.44 53.68 54.44 99.91 17.24 212.54

Md/Ms – local dynamic factor

remove this column from the FE model and apply these internal

Floor 3 1.46 1.45 2.22 1.76 1.42 1.58

Floor 2 1.46 1.41 1.91 1.82 1.46 1.64 forces as reactions in its place,

Floor 1 1.35 1.45 1.91 1.93 1.30 1.76 apply these reaction forces again but in the opposite direction

Frame 2 Md (kNm) using a linear ramp function,

perform linear time history analysis with initial conditions (sta-

Floor 3 56.25 30.38 54.08 46.62 12.01 18.79

Floor 2 68.53 27.41 55.26 49.40 11.99 27.71 tic deformation and zero velocities) and 5% critical damping.

Floor 1 63.92 28.70 58.63 49.62 12.01 29.51

Md/Mr (%) The results obtained from these dynamic computations (time

histories of internal forces) are compared with the resistances

Floor 3 33.30 32.90 27.44 23.65 13.01 16.68

Floor 2 34.77 29.68 24.53 21.93 12.98 24.60

using Eq. (3) and with the corresponding static responses obtained

Floor 1 32.43 31.08 26.03 22.03 13.01 26.20 in the previous section.

Md/Ms – local dynamic factor

5.1. One central column removed

Floor 3 1.21 1.02 1.09 1.38 1.06 1.46

Floor 2 1.26 1.01 1.17 1.68 1.03 1.66

Floor 1 1.24 1.02 1.22 1.50 1.05 2.22 The response of the structure to the sudden removal of the cen-

tral column in the ﬁrst frame is determined. Based on the enve-

lopes of the internal forces (bending moments and axial forces)

in both frames, the corresponding maximum values for beams

The procedure used in the calculations has been presented in and columns are presented in Tables 8 and 9. For columns of Frame

Section 3. In summary, the following steps were carried out in 2 (results not reported in full due to space limitation), the maxi-

SAP 2000: mum value of DRR is 38.08% at the top of the left third column.

As could be expected, Frame 2 is signiﬁcantly less affected than

Build a FE model, Frame 1 where the column was removed, a fact that can be ex-

ﬁnd the internal forces at the top of a column to be removed plained by the one-way behaviour of the ﬂat-slab frame. The most

under the self-weight loading, critical sections in terms of demand-resistance ratio are the right-

S. Kokot et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 205–217 213

0

−0.01

−0.02

−0.03

deflection [m]

−0.04

−0.05

−0.06

left column removed − node 25

−0.08 right column removed − node 69

−0.09

−0.1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

t [s]

Fig. 11. Vertical deﬂections for three column removal scenarios at nodes of maximum deﬂections for linear dynamic analysis.

end of the b-beam on the ﬁrst ﬂoor (DRR = 212.54%) and the top of

the right column on the third ﬂoor (DRR = 159.83%). Since the de-

mand-resistance ratio for beams exceeded the 200% threshold, the

building is susceptible to progressive collapse.

As for local dynamic factors (Deﬁnition 2) in beams, the maxi-

mum values are reached at the right-end of the a-beam at the third

ﬂoor in the ﬁrst frame but also at the right-end of the b-beam at

the ﬁrst ﬂoor in the second frame (2.22), while in columns, the

maximum dynamic factors are much larger and reach values of

3.58 and 8.71 in the ﬁrst and second frame, respectively. This fact

demonstrates that it is difﬁcult to draw any conclusion from the lo-

cal dynamic factors because they are highly heterogeneous

throughout the structure, especially in columns where the static

and dynamic forces are quite different. On the other hand, much

more representative is the global dynamic factor according to Def-

inition 3 and here for beams, it is equal to 1.72, while for columns

1.48. Fig. 12. Deﬁnition of a plastic hinge for beam elements.

The time history of the maximum displacement of the structure

at node 48 is plotted in Fig. 11. It is seen that the dynamic curve

practically oscillates about the corresponding static deﬂection va- 5.3. One right corner column removed

lue, and the maximum is obtained for t ﬃ 0.09 s.

From the maximum displacement of the dynamic (0.0268 m) For the right corner column removal scenario, the maximum

and static (0.0167 m) responses at node 48, a ratio of 1.60 is found, demand-resistance ratios are 84.54% for beams (right-end of the

which can be interpreted as another global dynamic factor (Deﬁni- a-beam on the third ﬂoor of Frame 1) and 69.41% for columns

tion 1). (top of the right column on the second ﬂoor of Frame 1). In this

case, the maximum local dynamic factor is the largest observed

5.2. One left corner column removed so far (59.34), which can be explained by the small static bending

moment of 0.32 kNm. On the other hand, the global dynamic fac-

For the left corner column removal scenario, the maximum de- tor, for beams, equals 1.28, while for columns 1.77.

mand-resistance ratios are 199.54% for beams (right-end of the a- Fig. 11 shows the vertical displacement at node 69 in time. The

beam of the third ﬂoor in Frame 1) and 172.79% for columns (top of maximum value is 0.0207 m at time t ﬃ 0.31 s. The ratio of the

the right column of the third ﬂoor in Frame 1). In this scenario, we maximum linear dynamic deﬂection and the deﬂection of the static

can notice even larger local dynamic factors (up to 29.43). For this analysis is 0.0207 m/0.0142 m = 1.46.

scenario, the maximum demand-resistance ratio (almost 200%) is These results demonstrate that this is the most favourable non-

on the verge of treating the building as acceptable/unacceptable failure scenario and that the structure bridges over the lacking col-

against progressive collapse. umn very efﬁciently. In fact, as will be seen below, the structure

The global dynamic factor (Deﬁnition 3), for beams, equals 1.50, remains always in the elastic range.

while for columns 1.87.

Fig. 11 shows how the vertical displacement at node 25 varies 6. Nonlinear dynamic analysis

in time. The maximum value is 0.091 m at time t ﬃ 0.2 s. The ratio

of the maximum linear dynamic deﬂection and the deﬂection for The nonlinear dynamic analysis is the most advanced method

the linear static analysis is 0.091 m/0.0552 m = 1.65. for predicting the response of a structure when a load-bearing

214 S. Kokot et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 205–217

(

100 Mmax =Mr if no yielding occurred;

DRR nlin

¼

max plastic rotation

100 1 þ ultimate plastic rotation

if yielding occurred:

ð5Þ

This nonlinear DRR coincides with the linear DRR in the absence of

yielding (DRR < 100%). In the presence of yielding ( DRR > 100%), the

nonlinear DRR measures the distance to the ultimate plastic rota-

tion (point C of the moment-curvature relationship, Fig. 12). As

for the linear DRR, the value of 200% is marking the threshold not

to be exceeded (failure of the section) although this does not neces-

sarily implies the collapse of the structure.

In the current analysis three plastic hinges are introduced in

each beam (left, mid and right) and two in each column (bottom

and top), thus resulting in 36 plastic hinges for each frame.

moved shows that, at time 0.039 s, two plastic hinges are activated

almost simultaneously in the ﬁrst frame, one at the top of the right

column on the third ﬂoor and the other at the right-end of the b-

beam on the second ﬂoor. Shortly after, at 0.040 s, another plastic

hinge is activated at the right-end of the b-beam on the ﬁrst ﬂoor.

Fig. 13. Final locations of plastic hinges for the central column removal. The ﬁnal spatial conﬁguration of the plastic hinges activated after

the sudden column removal is shown in Fig. 13.

The time history of the maximum displacement at node 48 is

plotted in Fig. 14. Two solid lines show the comparison between

element is removed quasi-instantaneously. The fundamental dif- the linear and nonlinear time histories of the displacement at node

ference with the linear dynamic analysis is that inelastic behaviour 48. The divergence of the two curves at time 0.04 s is caused by the

and/or geometric nonlinearities are taken into account. Therefore formation of the ﬁrst plastic hinges mentioned above. Clearly lar-

in the SAP 2000 modelling it requires the deﬁnition and assign- ger deﬂections (up to 0.0315 m), always overshooting the static

ment of plastic hinges at speciﬁed positions of selected members. ones, are observed during the nonlinear dynamic analysis owning

The nonlinear time history analysis with the same initial condi- by the formation of the plastic hinges. The ratio of maximum

tions is performed next. deﬂections at point 48 for nonlinear and linear dynamic analyses

The stress–strain (r e) relationship for concrete is assumed is 1.18 (0.0315 m/0.0268 m), thus the global dynamic factor (max-

parabolic in the ﬁrst part and constant in the second part according imum dynamic nonlinear displacement divided by static linear dis-

to the following equation placement) is slightly higher than that of the linear case, that is

1.89 (0.0315 m/0.0167 m) instead of 1.60 (see subsection 5.1). On

e 2 e the contrary, the bending moments are much lower than in the lin-

rc ¼ f c þ2 ; 0:002 < e < 0; ð4Þ

0:002 0:002 ear case especially, where the plastic hinges are activated, as is to

be expected.

where fc is the compressive strength, e is the strain in concrete, With regards to the properties of the hinges, Fig. 15 presents the

0.002 is the strain value at which the parabola ends. For strains results for a beam plastic hinge (element No. 96), while Fig. 16

between 0.002 and 0.0035 (which is considered as the failure shows the case of a column plastic hinge (element No. 160). There

strain) the stress remains constant. is the possibility to follow the detailed behaviour of the hinge and

For steel, the stress–strain (r e) relationship is assumed the following information can be produced:

bilinear. The ﬁrst part is linear elastic with a yield stress of

524.56 MPa and a modulus of elasticity of 206 GPa, while the The skeleton path of the plastic hinge (thin black line) including

second part is plastic with linear hardening and an ultimate the threshold points (yield, ultimate, residual) and the associ-

stress of 642.56 MPa. ated levels of damage (pink1 – ﬁrst yielding, blue – immediate

In SAP 2000, the plastic hinge behaviour is deﬁned by a piece- occupancy, cyan – life safety and green – collapse prevention).

wise linear moment-plastic rotation relationship, the characteris- The skeleton path is the moment-plastic rotation relationship

tics of which are identiﬁed from the idealised moment-curvature without normal force,

relationship of the section. An example is given in Fig. 12 for a the actual path followed (thick black line),

beam section: point B is deﬁned by the yielding moment and point the current time step,

C by the ultimate moment and the corresponding plastic rotation. the values of the plastic moment and rotation at that current

The curve is usually extended by a softening and residual branch time step.

which has however no importance in the present study since the

plastic hinges never reach their ultimate capacity. For columns, For a beam plastic hinge, the actual path follows exactly the

this moment-plastic rotation relationship depends also on the nor- skeleton path, while for a column plastic hinge, the actual path

mal force and this interaction may be activated in SAP 2000. The usually deviates from the skeleton path because of the inﬂuence

values of points B, C, D and E are taken from Ref. [18]. of the normal force on the moment-plastic rotation relationship.

To be able to directly compare the nonlinear results to the linear

ones, the following nonlinear demand-resistance ratio (DRRnlin) is 1

For interpretation of colour in Figs. 1, 5–7, 9–11, 13–18, the reader is referred to

deﬁned as the web version of this article.

S. Kokot et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 205–217 215

0

NL=L

−0.02

L

NL

−0.04

deflection [m]

−0.06

left column removed − node 25

−0.08 right column removed − node 69

L

−0.1

NL

−0.12

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

t [s]

Fig. 14. Vertical deﬂections for three column removal scenarios at nodes of maximum deﬂections for nonlinear dynamic analysis.

Fig. 15. Plastic hinge at the right-end of the b-beam on the ﬁrst ﬂoor.

Fig. 17. Final locations of plastic hinges for the left column removal.

In the present case, the demands in the plastic hinges are all be-

low their ultimate capacity. In fact, according to Eq. (5), the maxi-

mum DRRnlin value is 140% in beams and 125% in columns. The

global dynamic factor (Deﬁnition 3) for beams is equal to 1.13,

whereas for columns 1.16. The nonlinear dynamic analysis thus

demonstrates that the structure would have survived a sudden re-

moval of the central column.

hinges are activated almost simultaneously at time 0.094 s, one

Fig. 16. Plastic hinge at the top of the right column on the third ﬂoor. at the right-end of the a-beam on the ﬁrst ﬂoor, the other on the

216 S. Kokot et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 205–217

Deflection at node 48

0

1 column linear dynamic

1 column nonlinear dynamic

−0.005 2 columns linear dynamic

2 columns nonlinear dynamic

−0.01

deflection [m]

−0.015

−0.02

−0.025

−0.03

−0.035

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

t [s]

Fig. 18. Comparison of the displacement at node 48 for the cases of one central column and two central columns removal.

bottom of the left column on the second ﬂoor. The ﬁnal spatial dis- This nonlinear dynamic analysis shows that the structure would

tribution of activated plastic hinges is shown in Fig. 17. have survived a sudden removal of the left corner column. Again,

The ratio of the maximum deﬂections at node 25 for nonlinear the total or partial collapse would not have happened thanks to

and linear dynamic analyses is 1.29 (0.117 m/0.091 m), leading to a an appropriate activation of plastic hinges and redistribution of

global dynamic factor (Deﬁnition 1) of 2.12 (0.117 m/0.0552 m) bending moments.

with respect to the linear static analysis.

The dashed lines in Fig. 14 compare nonlinear and linear time

histories of displacement at node 25. The maximum DRRnlin values 6.3. One right corner column removed

are 149% for beams and 134% for columns. Similarly, the global dy-

namic factor according to Deﬁnition 3 is 1.12 for beams and 1.45 When it comes to the case where a right corner column is re-

for columns. moved, the linear dynamic analysis has shown that the structure

Table 10

Summary of results.

S. Kokot et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 205–217 217

remains elastic, so the nonlinear analysis gives exactly the same re- demand-resistance ratios, is insigniﬁcant and misleading because

sults as in subsection 5.3. huge dynamic factors may be found in columns for instance, but

they result from the relatively small value of the internal forces

7. Two central columns removed in the static analysis. The global dynamic factor deﬁned from the

displacement of the node above the removed element, does not

In all three scenarios considered, the structure has experienced present such a drawback but remains quite different from the true

limited or no damage. In order to assess the robustness of the dynamic factor computed as the ratio of the dynamic/static maxi-

structure, the case of two central columns removal has also been mum DRR.

studied through linear and nonlinear dynamic analyses. It is re- The nonlinear dynamic analysis (taking into account the capa-

minded that the real structure had survived that event. bility of redistribution of internal forces) indicates that the pro-

The results have been summarised in Fig. 18 where the time gressive collapse of the building would not have happened, that

history of the displacement at node 48 is plotted for the linear/ is, the propagating failure would have been arrested. For both

nonlinear analysis of one/two column(s) removal. It can be seen the central and left corner column removals several plastic hinges

that no matter whether one or two central columns are removed would have formed in the structure, yet all of them would have

from the structure, the response does not change drastically. The been far below their ultimate capacity (two yellow areas in the

period of vibration becomes slightly longer in the second case be- summary Table). For the right corner column removal, no yielding

cause the remaining structure is less rigid. This behaviour can be would have occurred, as already foreseen by the linear dynamic

explained by the one-way action of the ﬂat-slab frame. In other analysis.

words, each frame appears to be damaged essentially by the re- Certainly more sophisticated models could have been adopted

moval of its own central column. in the analysis. In particular it is noted that the structural member

strengths as calculated here correspond to the static properties of

8. Conclusions their constituent materials, concrete and steel. For the current

loading conditions considerations of high strain-rate effects should

This work presents the results of an extended study of the ﬂat- be taken into account, and this is the subject of an investigation in

slab frame building which has been analysed and tested quasi-stat- course.

ically at the European Laboratory for Structural Assessment. The

scope of a previous study was limited to the investigation of the References

general safety against collapse, and thus it did not consider a pos-

[1] GSA Guidelines. GSA progressive collapse analysis and design guidelines for

sible abrupt removal of columns as it may take place in the event of new federal ofﬁce buildings and major modernizations projects. General

a bomb explosion, impact, or other accidental action. Services Administration (GSA); 2003.

[2] DoD UFC Guidelines. Design of buildings to resist progressive collapse, Uniﬁed

The current investigation includes linear and nonlinear dynamic

Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4-023-03. Department of Defence (DoD); 2005.

time history analyses using alternate load path methods. Three [3] NIST Best Practices. Best practices for reducing the potential for progressive

main scenarios of column removal have been considered: a central collapse in buildings. US National Institute of Standards and Technology

column, a left corner column and a right corner column. In addi- (NIST), Washington, DC; 2007.

[4] Nair RS. Preventing disproportionate collapse. J Perform Construct Facilit

tion, the scenario of two central columns being removed simulta- 2006;20(4):309–14.

neously has been investigated. [5] Mohamed OA. Progressive collapse of structures: annotated bibliography and

The results of the analyses are summarised in Table 10. This ta- comparison of codes and standards. J Perform Construct Facilit

2006;20(4):418–25.

ble presents the maximum values of the demand-resistance ratios [6] Starossek U. Progressive collapse of structures. Thomas Telford Ltd; 2009.

(in the most critical cross-sections) and the maximum displace- [7] Kokot S. Literature survey on current methodologies of assessment of building

ments obtained through linear static, linear dynamic and nonlinear robustness and avoidance of progressive collapse. JRC Scientiﬁc and Technical

Reports JRC 5598, European Commission, Joint Research Centre; 2009.

dynamic analyses. The colours highlight the conclusion drawn [8] Starossek U. Typology of progressive collapse. Eng Struct 2007;29(9):2301–7.

from each analysis in terms of three possible structural states: no [9] Marjanishvili S, Agnew E. Comparison of various procedures for progressive

damage, limited damage and extensive damage. collapse analysis. J Perform Construct Facilit 2006;20(4):365–74.

[10] Fu F. 3-d nonlinear dynamic progressive collapse analysis of multi-storey steel

The simplest linear static analysis indicates that the structure

composite frame buildings – parametric study. Eng Struct 2010;32:3974–80.

would exhibit limited or no damage if the column is removed stat- [11] Tsai MH, Lin BH. Investigation of progressive collapse resistance and inelastic

ically. However, if the column is removed dynamically, the same response for an earthquake-resistant RC building subjected to column failure.

Eng Struct 2008;30:3619–28.

static analysis (with the loading multiplied by 2 to account for

[12] Kwasniewski L. Nonlinear dynamic simulations of progressive collapse for a

the dynamic nature of the loading) indicates that the structure multistory building. Eng Struct 2010;32(5):1223–35.

would be susceptible to progressive collapse in two scenarios [13] Iribarren BS, Berke P, Bouillard P, Vantomme J, Massart T. Investigation of the

whereas it would suffer limited damage in the third one. inﬂuence of design and material parameters in the progressive collapse

analysis of RC structures. Engineering Structures, in press. doi:10.1016/

The linear dynamic analysis indicates a slightly more favourable j.engstruct.2011.06.005.

situation: the structure would still be susceptible to progressive [14] Gemelli M, Negro P, Castellani A, Bianchi R, Salandi M. Experimental

collapse for the central column scenario but not necessarily for evaluation of the safety against the collapse of buildings. Tech. Rep. I.03.102;

European Commission, Joint Research Centre; 2003.

the left column scenario as the DRR is slightly below 200%. Further- [15] Kokot S, Anthoine A, Negro P, Solomos G. Static and dynamic analysis of a

more, the structure would remain fully elastic for the right column reinforced concrete ﬂat slab frame building for progressive collapse. JRC

scenario. The value 2 of the dynamic factor is therefore conserva- Scientiﬁc and Technical Reports JRC 62663; European Commission, Joint

Research Centre; 2010.

tive. In fact, the actual value of the global dynamic factor found [16] Negro P, Mola E. Current assessment procedures: application to regular and

in the three scenarios ranges from 1.72 to 1.87 (maximum of the irregular structures compared to experimental results. In: Third European

two values reached in beams and columns). Interestingly, the dy- workshop on the seismic behaviour of irregular and complex structures.

Florence; 2002.

namic factor computed from the displacement ranges from 1.46

[17] EN 1991-1-7 . Eurocode 1 - EN 1991-1-7: Actions on structures - Part 1-7:

to 1.6 and thus it underestimates the dynamic effect on the DRR General actions - Accidental actions; 2006.

(nonconservative estimate). [18] ATC-40. Seismic evaluation and retroﬁt of concrete buildings. ATC-40 Report,

Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California; 1996.

The linear dynamic analysis has revealed that the local dynamic

factor deﬁned in each section as the ratio of the dynamic and static

- steel framesUploaded byClaudia Alina Iovan
- Design of Steel BuildingUploaded byruelcf
- Prof Rombach PresentationUploaded byDawit Solomon
- 2769 ST7101 Concrete StructuresUploaded bylavanya
- structural analysis exam papersUploaded byfesada1
- 16BUploaded byBrynn Alexander
- 39028875-MonorailUploaded byJay-ar Cabus
- Design of Steel MembersUploaded byUzair Maqbool Khan
- e Tn Cbd General 007Uploaded byVivek Gosavi
- Dynamics ReportUploaded byNasim Mammadov
- Cantilever BeamUploaded byjellowis
- 3282-5986-1-SMUploaded bybalamurugan25011990
- 10 Deflection-castigliano TheoremUploaded byGhaffar Laghari
- CE2252-SOM QB.pdfUploaded byNandhini Nallasamy
- ILDUploaded byMaharNadirAli
- List of TablesUploaded byKulal Swapnil
- aci thep damUploaded byminhthanha6
- Manual 1 BeamUploaded byNatchimuthu Kannan
- Module 1 - Wsd Flexure (1)Uploaded byMichelle Lee
- DiplomaUploaded byAbdul Khader Shahadaf
- Funções singulares 2.pdfUploaded byrubensc778
- Unit 2habyUploaded byKanha
- m13l34.pdfUploaded bySoham Roy
- 6-Influence Lines IIUploaded bySteven Kua
- Quiz 4 CompressionUploaded byMac Ky
- MortarlessDM BS56282005 Part 1 Section 9 090706Uploaded byyanickdouce1206
- MTech SUMMARY2Uploaded byChintan Pathak
- 2 Seismic Performance of Adobe BuildingsUploaded bybasabi12
- GRPD_Aircraft Structures ReportUploaded byGhassan Mousa
- jl-85-july-august-5Uploaded bychondroc11

- 12 Applications of Flat-slab RC Structures in Seismic RegionsUploaded bygelardr
- Chapter 1 evsUploaded bySecond user
- PUNCHING SHEAR.pdfUploaded bymohamedadel100
- Static-and-dynamic-analysis-of-a-reinforced-concrete.pdfUploaded byAnonymous JEF1rRQwtE
- FIF2 18 - dyhiUploaded byAnonymous JEF1rRQwtE
- FIF2 18 - Jenny BurridgeUploaded byjoricccc
- dfvdvdvvUploaded byAnonymous JEF1rRQwtE
- Punching_of_Reinforced_Concrete_Flat_Sla.pdfUploaded byAnonymous JEF1rRQwtE
- Lecture 5 Slabs and Flat Slabs PHG N Rev13 15 Oct 16Uploaded byjos
- 1536033919866uhijUploaded byAnonymous JEF1rRQwtE
- SEBI RecruitmentUploaded byTopRankers
- 0.2.pdfUploaded byMarkanday Giri
- 17.pdfUploaded byAnonymous JEF1rRQwtE

- ACDAUploaded byMariam Mustafa
- Steel Section Properties and Dimensions Narrow Flange I-Beam Chart _ BS 4-1 _ en 1993-1-1 _ Engineers EdgeUploaded bySuresh Devarajan
- POM FatigueUploaded byMustapha Bello
- Classification of TimberUploaded byMukhtaar Case
- CIVL311_Module8_16_Pile Types and Installation.pdfUploaded byhavartican
- RC PLATEsUploaded byianiroy13
- Hurricane-Resistant UHPC Roof System.pdfUploaded byAnonymous NptEV2BHL
- Space StructuresUploaded byMaitreyi Yellapragada
- CalcsUploaded byJacek
- Types of PilesUploaded byWaqas Sadiq
- Lecture 03 Design of RC Members for Flexure and Axial Loads Color VersionUploaded byawaishahmad
- 3.BricksUploaded byAbuzar Ali
- lateral torsional bucklingUploaded byStavros Pitelis
- Jeffrey Duah PortfolioUploaded byJeffrey Duah
- AASHTO Std Specs for Hwy Bridges 17th 2002Uploaded byKibar
- Pile Foundation DesignUploaded byDhondi Kumar
- FoundationUploaded byLeung Wai Yip
- Floor and roof connections to masonry wallsUploaded byChris Findlay
- SCIE-1Uploaded bySamuel Vargas Rojas
- Segregation of Concrete - Causes & PreventionUploaded byTrainee
- Module Mounting StructureUploaded byVishnu Patel
- Chapter 22 - SteelUploaded byAnandan R Blue
- Shotcrete and UndergroundUploaded bySayed Diab Alsayed
- Load CombinationUploaded byIndrawan Muhhammad Zen
- 2Uploaded byInoshan Madushika Jayawickrama
- Deflection LimitUploaded byPiyush Bhardwaj
- PAPER 1 3-D ANALYSIS OF BUILDING FRAME USING STAAD-PRO.docUploaded byAnonymous CaemA1
- Principles of Foundation Engineering Solution Manual by Braja M Das 6th Ed 2007 0495082465Uploaded byEngr Arbab Faisal
- Utah DOT Pile Design DocUploaded byAurva Kapoor
- PhangUploaded byJudy Tan