Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00470

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

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

Case study

Dynamic analysis of high-strength concrete frame buildings

for progressive collapse
Ahmed M. Yousefa , Mahmoud A. El-Mandouhb,*
a
Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Mansoura University, El-Mansoura, Egypt
b
Civil Construction Department, Beni-Suef University, Egypt

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: The issue of progressive collapse of two real-scale frame buildings examples (three and six
Received 28 October 2020 stories) constructed from High-Strength Concrete (HSC with fc` =75 MPa) and Normal-
Received in revised form 25 November 2020 Strength Concrete (NSC with fc` =32 MPa) under central column removal have been studied
Accepted 28 November 2020
using numerical analysis. Initially, a finite element linear static analysis was carried out.
Next, linear dynamic and non-linear dynamic analyses were conducted to account for the
Keywords: extreme dynamic effects that arise during central column removal. The values of Demand-
Progressive collapse
Capacity Ratios are considered in each analysis. The results showed that, the analysis of
High-strength concrete
Frame buildings
progressive collapse under central column removal of three and six stories frame buildings
Analysis constructed from HSC is approximately similar to that of the same structures constructed
Linear static with NSC. The three stories building constructed from NSC and HSC would not be
Non-linear dynamic susceptible to collapse for linear statically central column removal, while the situation is
reversed for both NSC and HSC six stories buildings. NSC and HSC three and six stories
buildings would be susceptible to progressive collapse for linear and nonlinear dynamic
central column removal. The ratio between the maximum nonlinear dynamic displacement
and the maximum linear dynamic displacement for NSC and HSC three stories buildings at
the column removal are 1.17 and 1.18, respectively, whereas these ratios become 1.89 and
1.86 for NSC and HSC six stories building, respectively. The internal forces at the most
critical sections for NSC and HSC three story building in the case of linear dynamic analysis
are larger than that of linear static analysis by about 58% and 39%, respectively, while for six
story building these ratios become 82% and 80%, respectively. For the case of nonlinear
dynamic analysis, these ratios for NSC and HSC three story building are larger than that of
linear dynamic analysis by about 9% and 7%, respectively, while for six story building these
ratios become 11 % and 8%, respectively due to activation of plastic hinges.
© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction

Some buildings may be subjected to local damage due to unexpected events and also this damage may be extended to
progressive collapse of the buildings. This type of failure occurs when a building loss one or more of its columns and this loss
could be the result of some accidents such as vehicle accidents and explosions. Both guidelines of General Service
Administration [1] and Department of Defense (DoD) [2] have been issued to limit such failure. The collapse of one column
will cause building failure then, the number degree of indeterminacy increases the structure robustness, which represents

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mahmoudaiz_2008@yahoo.com (M.A. El-Mandouh).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2020.e00470
2214-5095/© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
A.M. Yousef and M.A. El-Mandouh Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00470

the ability of the structure to redistribute loads after column loss [3]. Localized spread of damage to surrounding beams and
columns was observed following the release of forces in the affected column [4]. It was observed that, irregular buildings are
more susceptible to progressive collapse and more susceptible to the location of the column removed. The removal column
will activate large bending moments and as a result tensile stresses due to vierendeel action are developed. The vierendeel
action greatly increases the building resistance to progressive collapse [5]. Tensile and compressive membrane action can
significantly enhance the building resistance to internal column failure, and the contribution of these mechanisms can be
found less when eliminating exterior or corner columns [6]. Previous studies noted that the slab's contribution significantly
improves the building resistance to progressive collapse and concluded that the most critical sections for the differed types
of analysis might be different from one to another [7–25]. All the available studies are devoted to the progressive collapse of
reinforced concrete buildings constructed from Normal -Strength Concrete (NSC) with cylinder compressive strength fc' less
than 40 MPa. Recently, using High-Strength Concrete (HSC) with cylinder compressive strength fc' more than 50 N/mm2 has
increased significantly in reinforced concrete buildings due to its benefits when compared with NSC [26,27]. The use of HSC
provides slenderer vertical elements with lower stiffness which may lead to many questions about progressive collapse of
buildings constructed with HSC.
The main objective of this paper is to study the effect of using HSC and NSC on the progressive collapse of buildings due to
central column removal. For this purpose, linear static, linear dynamic and non-linear dynamic analyses have been
conducted using finite element model and their effects were compared with each other.

2. Description of studied building examples

This investigation studies progressive collapse resistance of two frame buildings examples. The first building example has
3-stories and 2-bays reinforced concrete frames [7]. This building experimentally tested in the European laboratory for
structural assessment and was designed according to Eurocode 2 [28]. The floor slabs of Example-1 are one way flat slabs and
have 240 mm and 220 mm thick for slabs constructed from NSC and HSC, respectively. Each storey was 2.70 m high and the
bays were 6 m and 4 m long. Fig. 1 shows the beams and columns designations for building Example-1 in addition to the plan
view of the floor that included two main frames connected by transverse beams. The second building example has 6 stories
and 4 bays reinforced concrete frame [29], and designed according to ACI 318–1980 [30]. Each storey of building Example-2 is
3.65 m high and has two 3.20 m short bays and two 9.20 m long bays. Fig. 2 shows the plan view, elevation and beams and
columns designations of the studied building Example-2. The principal data for beams and columns of the studied building
Example-1 and Example-2 are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Two concrete cylinder compressive strengths were
studied; the first Normal-Strength Concrete (NSC with fc' =32 MPa) and the second High-Strength Concrete (HSC with fc'
=75 MPa).

3. Resistance of beams and columns

For beams, the approximate bending moment resistance Mbr of beams (neglecting axial force) is estimated as follows:
Mbr = 0.85 As fy d (1)
Where As is the area of reinforcement, fy is the yield strength of steel and d is the distance from the center of reinforcement to
the extreme concrete compressed fibers of the cross section. Table 3 displays the calculated bending moment resistances of
beams (L-longer bay and S-shorter bay) for building Example-1, while for Example-2, the beam bending moment resistances
Mbr for NSC and HSC are equal to 749.12 kN.m and 699.97 kN.m, respectively.
For columns, the axial force resistance Nr is estimated as follows:
Nr = Ac fc' + As fy (2)

Where Ac is the concrete cross-section area and fc` is the compressive strength of concrete. Table 4 shows the axial force
resistance (Nr) and approximate bending resistance (Mr) for NSC and HSC columns of the studied buildings. The actual
bending moment resistance is derived from interaction diagrams calculated using the computer program SAP-2019 [31]. The
elasticity modulus of concrete is calculated according to ACI 318–2019 [32] from the following two equations:
qffiffiffiffi
0
Ec ¼ 4700 f cfor NSC ð3Þ

qffiffiffiffi
0
Ec ¼ 3320 f c þ 6900for HSC ð4Þ

These equations give Ec =26587 MPa and 35652 MPa for NSC and HSC, respectively. The yield stress for beams and
columns reinforcement are fy =524.6 MPa [7]. The steel modulus of elasticity, Es, is taken equal to 200 GPa and the Poisson's
ratio is equal to 0.30. The sum of the flexural strength of columns at a joint is at least 20 % larger than that of beams (strong
columns-weak beams) as recommended in ACI 318–1980 [30].

2
A.M. Yousef and M.A. El-Mandouh Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00470

Fig. 1. Elevation and plan view of the studied building Example-1.

Fig. 2. Elevation and plan view of the studied building Example-2.

Table 1
Principal data for the studied building Example-1.

Principal Data NSC (fc`=32 MPa) HSC (fc`=75 MPa)

Size of Beam B1(t*b)mm 300*240 300*220
Size of Beam B2(t*b)mm 1000*240 1000*220
Size of all Columns (t*b)mm 400*400 350*350
Long. Rft. Ratio of Beams 0.85 % 1.20 %
Long. Rft. Ratio of Columns 2.0 % 1.20 %

4. Finite element modeling

A finite element model of the analyzed building examples was developed by SAP-2019 [29]. All beams and columns are
modeled by frame element, each frame element has two nodes and each node has three degrees of freedom (two transitional
and one rotational). Frame element size of 0.50 m is used and convergent results are obtained. All slabs are modeled by shell
element. Each element has four nodes and each node has six degrees of freedom (three transitional and three rotational).

3
A.M. Yousef and M.A. El-Mandouh Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00470

Table 2
Principal data for the studied building Example-2.

Principal Data NSC (fc`=32 MPa) HSC (fc`=75 MPa)

Size of all Beams (t*b) mm 750*400 700*300
Size of Exterior Columns (t*b) mm
13 Floor 725*500 700*350
46 Floor 625*500 600*350
Size of Interior Columns (t*b) mm
13 Floor 725*725 625*625
46 Floor 675*675 575*575
Long. Rft. Ratio of Beams 0.80 % 1.15 %
Long. Rft. Ratio of Columns 2.0 % 1.15 %

Table 3
Bending moment of resistance of beams (Mbr) for building Example-1.

Beam Mr (kN.m)

Floor 12 Floor 3

L- left L-middle L-right S-left S-middle S- right L-left L-middle L-right S-left S-middle S-right
NSC 197.08 92.34 225.24 225.24 92.34 112.62 168.93 92.34 197.08 197.08 92.34 112.62
HSC 214.82 100.66 245.51 245.51 100.66 122.75 184.14 100.66 214.82 214.82 100.66 122.75

Table 4
Axial resistance (Nr) and bending resistance (Mr) of columns for the studied examples.

Column NSC HSC

Nr (kN) Mr (kN.m) Nr (kN) Mr (kN.m)

Building Example-1 Floor 1
C1-C10 5836.48 96.82 13433.22 280.54
C4-C13 6170.20 151.28 13788.34 387.56
C7-C16 5836.48 96.82 13433.22 280.54
Floor 2
C2-C11 5836.48 96.82 13433.22 280.54
C5-C14 5836.48 96.82 13433.22 280.54
C8-C17 5697.43 74.12 13284.28 225.63
Floor 3
C3-C12 5994.07 122.53 13593.19 372.32
C6-C15 5836.48 96.82 13433.22 280.54
C9-C18 5697.43 74.12 13284.28 225.63
Building Example-2 Floors 1,2,3
C1-C2-C3 15403.35 860.52 19853.06 962.43
C7-C13-C8-C14-C9-C15 22334.85 1882.45 31653.47 2118.45
Floors 4,5,6
C4-C5-C6 13278.75 780.22 17016.91 1100.21
C10-C16-C11-C17-C12-C15 19360.41 1445.36 26791.51 1830.86

Shell element size is taken equal to 0.50*0.50 m, so that the shell will be aligned with the break points of the frames. The load
was equal to 5.50 kN/m2 (including the structure self-weight) and was modeled as a uniformly distributed load. The bases of
the columns were fixed to reflect the actual state of the buildings. The critical damping of the structure is assumed to be 5%. In
the dynamic analyses, the simulation of the central column removal is applied as the following: (1) remove column which is
considered to be failed (2) attach equivalent axial load in opposite direction at point of column removal (3) check if the axial
load model and the column model generate similar internal forces and displacement. The column removal rate is defined by a
time function starting from 1 to 0 values in time 0 and 1, respectively. The time it takes to destroy the central column is very
short. The time column removal is equal to (1/20) of the structure's natural period and is selected to be 0.005 sec [24]. The
analysis time step is equal to (1/200) of the structure's natural period.

5. Linear static analysis

Linear static analysis is the basic type of analysis and is conducted to study the response of the building under central
column removal. In linear static method, the structural analysis includes only linear elastic materials and small deformation
theory. The procedures for linear static analysis are (1) without the column that is deemed to fail by external load, a bare

4
A.M. Yousef and M.A. El-Mandouh Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00470

frame model is built (2) apply all gravity loads on the frame according to GSA (3) the analysis is run and then the moment and
axial force are taken from the results. Buckling is not included in the model but can be edited through analysis of the output.
Demand-Capacity Ratios for beams, columns and frame elements (DCRM, DCRN and DCRM,N), respectively, are defined as the
ratio of the internal force to expected ultimate capacity and can be expressed as follows:

DCRM = Mmax / Mbr (5.a)

DCR N = Nmax / Nr (5.b)

DCRM,N = Nmax / Mr (Ns) (5.c)

Where Mmax and Nmax are the maximum bending moment and axial force acting on the section, respectively, while Mr and Nr
are the bending moment and axial force resistances of the section, respectively. The values of Mr (Ns) are the bending
moment resistance corresponding to normal force Ns and calculated from the interaction diagrams. GSA [1] specifies that the
calculated values of DCR should not exceed 200 %, otherwise the structure is susceptible to progressive collapse. Before
removal of central column, the calculated DCRM and DCRM,.N for beams and columns, respectively of studied building
examples are shown in Figs. 3 and 4 for case of no column removal. For HSC building Example-1, the maximum values of
DCRM and DCRM,N are 23.8 % and 20.7 % at the mid span of beam B3 and at the top of column C3, respectively, whereas for NSC
building Example-1 these percentages became 32.5 % and 29.3 % at the same locations. For HSC building Example-2, the
maximum values of DCRM and DCRM,N are 51.2 % and 28.2 % at the left end of beam B11 and at the top of column C12,
respectively, whereas for NSC Example-2 these percentages became 76.5 % and 53.0 % at the same locations. The results
showed that, the upper stories have the maximum DCR in the case of no column removal.
After damage of the central columns C4 and C13 of building Example-1 and building Example-2, respectively, the
calculated DCRM and DCRM,N for beams and columns, respectively of the studied building Examples for case of linear
statically central column removal are shown in Figs. 5 and 6. In order to account for dynamic effects of central column
removal, the load corresponds to the aforementioned can be multiplied by a factor 2 according to GSA [1]. As a result of spans
duplication due to column removal, some bending moments are magnified and others are changed. For HSC building
Example-1, the maximum values of DCRM and DCRM,N are 68.2 % and 81.2 % at the right end of beam B5 and at the top of
column C9, respectively, whereas for NSC building Example-1 these percentages became 123.7 % and 107.7 % at the same
locations. Also the results show that, when the central column is removed, frame 2 in Example-1 is considerably less affected
than frame 1. For HSC building Example-2, the maximum values of DCRM and DCRM,N are 420.1 % and 197.5 % at the left end of
beam B8 and at the top of column C12, respectively, whereas for NSC building Example-2 these percentages became 628.1 %
and 338.0 % at the same locations. For the studied NSC and HSC building examples, the upper stories were more affected by
the removal of the column than the lower stories. Increasing the concrete strength from NSC to HSC lead to considerable
effect on the DCRM and DCRM,N of the beams and the columns. The vertical node displacement at the column removal for HSC
buildings Examples 1 and 2 is equal to 0.0150 m and 0.026 m, respectively, which is lower than that for NSC building by about
11 % and 23 % at the same node. The results indicated that, NSC and HSC building Example-1 would not be susceptible to
collapse, linear statically because its DCR not surpasses 200 %, while the situation is reversed for building Example-2 due to
large beams spans.

6. Linear dynamic analysis

For linear dynamic analysis, the critical damping of the structure is assumed to be 5%. It should be noted that, in multi-
degree of freedom systems, a Local Dynamic Factor (LDF) can be defined as follows:
Md =Mr ðNd Þ
LDF ¼ ð6Þ
Ms =Mr ðNs Þ
Where Mr (Nd) is the bending moment resistance corresponding to linear dynamic normal force Nd. The ratio of the
maximum linear dynamic deflection to the maximum linear static deflection at the node of the column removal is called the
linear dynamic factor, while the ratio of the dynamic moment Md and the static moment Ms is called the dynamic factor.
Figs. 7 and 9 show the calculated DCRM and DCRM,N for beams and columns, respectively of the studied buildings examples
for the case of linear dynamic central column removal whereas Figs. 8 and 10 show the calculated dynamic factor for beams
and columns of the studied building Examples for case of linear dynamic central column removal. For HSC building Example-
1, the maximum values of DCRM and DCRM,N are 166.1 % and 96.8 % at the right end of beam B5 and at the top of column C9,
respectively, whereas for NSC Example-1 these percentages became 203.2 % and 159.8 % at the same locations. For NSC
building Example-1, the DCRM for some beams exceed 200 %, and consequently, the building is susceptible to progressive
collapse according to GSA [1]. For HSC building Example-2, the maximum values of DCRM and DCRM,N are 459.4 % and 150.4 %
at the left end of beam B8 and at the top of column C10, respectively, whereas for NSC building Example-2 these percentages
became 628.1 % and 172.2 % at the left end of beam B8 and at the bottom of column C8, respectively. For NSC and HSC building

5
A.M. Yousef and M.A. El-Mandouh Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00470

Fig. 3. Calculated DCRM and DCRM,N for beams and columns of building Example-1, respectively, for case of no column removal.

Fig. 4. Calculated DCRM and DCRM,N for beams and columns of building Example-2, respectively, for case of no column removal.

Example-2, the maximum values of DCRM and DCRM,N for some beams exceed 200 %, and consequently, this building is also
susceptible to progressive collapse according to GSA. In general, the internal forces at the critical sections for linear dynamic
analysis are larger than that of linear static analysis with considerable differences. The dynamic factor of NSC building
Example-1 increased by about 12 from that constructed from HSC, while the dynamic factor of NSC building Example-2
increased by about 10 % from that constructed from HSC. The calculated LDF of NSC building Examle-1 didn't vary much from

6
A.M. Yousef and M.A. El-Mandouh Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00470

Fig. 5. Calculated DCRM and DCRM,N for beams and columns, respectively of building Example-1 for case of linear statically central column removal.

Fig. 6. Calculated DCRM and DCRM,N for beams and columns of building Example-2, respectively, for case of linear statically central column removal.

7
A.M. Yousef and M.A. El-Mandouh Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00470

Fig. 7. Calculated DCRM and DCRM,N for beams and columns, respectively of building Example-1 for case of linear dynamic central column removal.

Fig. 8. Calculated dynamic factor for beams and columns of building Example-1 for case of linear dynamic central column removal.

that constructed from HSC, while the calculated LDF of NSC building Example-2 increased by about 16 % from that
constructed from HSC. This demonstrates that the calculated LDF are extremely various in the same structure, especially in
columns where the linear static and linear dynamic forces are greatly different. The time histories of the maximum
displacements at the column removal for the studied examples are plotted in Figs. 11–14. It can be seen that, the curve of
linear dynamic displacement oscillates about the corresponding linear static value. For NSC and HSC building Example-1, the
ratio between the maximum displacement of linear dynamic and linear static at the column removal are 1.60 and 1.65,
respectively, while these ratios became 1.81 and 1.95 for NSC and HSC Example-2, respectively. The internal forces at the
most critical sections for NSC and HSC building Example-1 in the case of linear dynamic analysis are larger than that of linear
static analysis by about 58 % and 39 %, respectively while for building Example-2 these ratios become 82 % and 80 %,
respectively. In general, there is no considerable differences between the analysis of progressive collapse under central
column removal of three and six stories frame buildings constructed from HSC (fc` =75 MPa) and NSC (fc` =32 MPa).

8
A.M. Yousef and M.A. El-Mandouh Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00470

Fig. 9. Calculated DCRM and DCRM,N for beams and columns, respectively of building Example-2 for case of linear dynamic central column removal.

Increasing the concrete strength results in reduction of the columns cross-sections of the buildings, and both parameters
approximately balance the effect of each other in many cases.

7. Nonlinear dynamic analysis

The basic difference in the nonlinear dynamic analysis is that the nonlinearities of materials and geometry are taken into
account. By allocating concentrated plastic hinges to frame objects, users can simulate post-yield actions. Elastic behavior
occurs over the length of the member, and then deformation occurs entirely inside hinges outside the elastic limit, which are
modeled in separate places. Inelastic behavior is accomplished by integrating the plastic strain and plastic curvature within
the given length of the hinge. In order to minimize load redistribution (which can lead to progressive collapse), and to ensure
numerical convergence, modeling of strength loss is discouraged. A trilinear stress-strain relationship is introduced for the
steel reinforcement bars, which is similar in tension and compression. The elasticity modulus, Es was introduced as 200 GPa
and the Poisson's ratio was assumed equal to 0.30. The bond between concrete and reinforcement was assumed to be perfect.
The description and assignment of plastic hinges at designated positions for selected members is required in the SAP-2019
modeling. Every beam has three plastic hinges (left, middle and right) and two in each column (bottom and top). Plastic hinge
properties can be manually defined according to the anchorage perfection of the section reinforcement. Using the equation
suggested by ACI 318–2019 [32], the uniaxial tensile cracking stress ft was calculated as follows: f t
qffiffiffiffi
‘
f t ¼  0:62 f c ðin MPaÞandf c ‘in MPa ð7Þ

The Poisson’s ratio of concrete was taken equal to 0.2. The compressive uniaxial stress-strain values of concrete are
modeled for NSC and HSC using the following equations [33]:
fc nðec =e0 Þ
‘
¼ ð8:aÞ
fc n  1 þ ðec =e0 Þnk

fc n 
‘
e0 ¼ ð8:bÞ
Ec n  1

9
A.M. Yousef and M.A. El-Mandouh Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00470

Fig. 10. Calculated dynamic factor for beams and columns of building Example-2 for case of linear dynamic central column removal.

Fig. 11. Vertical displacements at the column removal for cases of linear static, linear dynamic and nonlinear dynamic analysis for NSC building Example-1.

‘
fc ‘
n ¼ 0:80 þ andf c  in MPa ð8:cÞ
17:20
Where fc is the stress at any strain e e and e0 is the strain corresponding to the peak stress fc`. In order to make a contrast
between the nonlinear dynamic results to the linear ones, the Nonlinear Demand Capacity Ratio DCRnlin can be defined as
follows:
DCRnlin = 100*Mmax / Mr in case of no yielding occurred (9)

 
maximum plastic rotation
DCRnlin   ¼  100 1 þ  in case of yielding occurred ð10Þ
ultimate plastic rotation
Where Mmax and Mr is the maximum moment and moment resistance, respectively. The Nonlinear Demand Capacity Ratio
measures the distance to the ultimate plastic rotation in the case of no yielding. The contrast between the linear and
nonlinear time displacement history at column removal for the studied building Examples can be displayed from Figs. 11–14.

10
A.M. Yousef and M.A. El-Mandouh Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00470

Fig. 12. Vertical displacements at the column removal for cases of linear static, linear dynamic and nonlinear dynamic analysis for HSC building Example-1.

Fig. 13. Vertical displacements at the column removal for cases of linear static, linear dynamic and nonlinear dynamic analysis for NSC building Example-2.

Fig. 14. Vertical displacements at the column removal for cases of linear static, linear dynamic and nonlinear dynamic analysis for HSC building Example-2.

For NSC and HSC Example-1, the ratio between the maximum nonlinear dynamic displacement and the maximum linear
dynamic displacement at the column removal were 1.17 and 1.18, respectively, whereas these ratios became 1.89 and 1.86 for
NSC and HSC Example-2, respectively. It should be noted that, the ratio between the maximum nonlinear dynamic
displacement and the linear static displacement at the column removal for NSC and HSC Example-1are 2.10 and 2.28,
respectively, whereas these ratios became 2.35 and 2.43 for NSC and HSC Example-2. Conversely, the bending moments at
the most critical sections for both NSC and HSC examples in the case of nonlinear dynamic analysis are lower than that of the
linear dynamic analysis due to activation of plastic hinges. The results show that, the internal forces at the most critical
sections for NSC and HSC building Example-1 in the case of nonlinear dynamic analysis are larger than that of linear dynamic
analysis by about 9% and 7%, respectively while for building Example-2 these ratios become 11 % and 8%, respectively due to
activated of plastic hinges.
The final locations of plastic hinges for the studied NSC and HSC building examples are shown in Figs. 15 and 16. It can be
seen from Fig. 15 that, six plastic hinges were activated in HSC building Example-1, three at the left edge of beams B1, B2 and

11
A.M. Yousef and M.A. El-Mandouh Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00470

Fig. 15. Final locations of plastic hinges for NSC and HSC building Example-1.

Fig. 16. Final locations of plastic hinges for NSC and HSC building Example-2.

B3. Similarly, six plastic hinges are activated in NSC building Example-1, in addition to activation of two plastic hinges at the
top of columns C3 and C9. As expected, the number of plastic hinges of columns is less than that of beams because of the
influence of the normal force on the moment-plastic rotation relationship. Fig. 16 shows that, fourteen plastic hinges are
activated in HSC building Example-2, whereas eighteen plastic hinges are activated in NSC building Example-2. The plastic
hinges are concentrated in the outer sides of the beams and in the upper columns generally, the number of plastic hinges in
the studied HSC building examples is less than that of NSC examples, since the formation of plastic hinges in NSC buildings
was faster than the corresponding HSC buildings. The results show that, the internal forces at the most critical sections for
both NSC and HSC buildings in the case of nonlinear dynamic analysis is lower than that of the linear dynamic analysis by
about 9% due to activated of plastic hinges.

12
A.M. Yousef and M.A. El-Mandouh Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00470

8. Conclusions

The following can be concluded from the findings of this analytical investigation:

1 The analysis of progressive collapse under central column removal of three and six stories real scale frame buildings
constructed from High-Strength Concrete (HSC with fc` =75 MPa) is approximately similar to that of the same structures
constructed with Normal-Strength Concrete (NSC with fc` =32 MPa).
2 NSC and HSC three stories buildings would not be susceptible to collapse for linear statically central column removal. On
the other side, the situation is reversed for both NSC and HSC six stories buildings. The three stories and six stories
buildings constructed from NSC and HSC would be susceptible to progressive collapse for linear and nonlinear dynamic
central column removal.
3 The ratio between the maximum nonlinear dynamic displacement and linear static displacement for NSC and HSC three
stories building at the column removal are 2.10 and 2.28, respectively, whereas these ratios become 2.35 and 2.43 for NSC
and HSC six stories buildings, respectively.
4 The ratio between the maximum nonlinear dynamic displacement and the maximum linear dynamic displacement for
NSC and HSC three stories buildings at the column removal are 1.17 and 1.18, respectively, whereas these ratios become
1.89 and 1.86 for NSC and HSC six stories building, respectively.
5 The internal forces at the most critical sections for NSC and HSC three story building in the case of linear dynamic analysis
are larger than that of linear static analysis by about 58 % and 39 %, respectively, while for six story building these ratios
become 82 % and 80 %, respectively. For the nonlinear dynamic analysis, these ratios for NSC and HSC three story building
are larger than that of linear dynamic analysis by about 9% and 7%, respectively, while for six story building these ratios
become 11 % and 8%, respectively due to activation of plastic hinges.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors report no declarations of interest.

References

[1] GSA guidelines, GSA Progressive Collapse Analysis and Design Guidelines for New Federal Office Buildings and Major Modernizations Projects, General
Services Administration (GSA), 2003.
[2] DoD UFC Guidelines, Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Collapse. Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4-023-03, Department of Defence (DoD), 2005.
[3] R. Mohammad, S.M. Ameri, A.S.C.E. Ali Massumi, S.M. Hassan Masoomi, Effect of structural redundancy on progressive collapse resistance
enhancement in RC frames structures, Perform. Constr. Facil 33 (1) (2019) doi://dx.doi.org/10.1061/ (ASCE) CF.1943-5509.0001244.
[4] Peiqi Ren, Yi Li, Hong Guan, Lu Xinzheng, Progressive collapse resistance of two typical high-rise RC frame shear wall structures, Constr. Facil 29 (June
(3)) (2015).
[5] Yi Li, Xinzheng Lu, Hong Guan, Peiqi Ren, Numerical investigation of progressive collapse resistance of reinforced concrete frames subjected to column
removals from different stories, Adv. Struct. Eng. J. 19 (2) (2016) 314–326.
[6] Nsikak William Ulaeto, Progressive Collapse Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Flat Slab Structures Considering Post-Punching and Dynamic Response,
PhD at University of Surrey Guildford, United Kingdom, 2018.
[7] S. Kokot, A. Anthoine, Pn Negro, G. Solomos, Static and dynamic analysis of a reinforced concrete flat slab frame building for progressive collapse, Eng.
Struct. 40 (2012) 205–217.
[8] S.T. Hoffiman, L.A. Fahnestock, Behavior of multi-story steel buildings under dynamic column loss scenarios, Steel Compos. Struct. 11 (2) (2011) 149–
168.
[9] Yu Jun, Tassilo Rinder, Alexander Stolz, Kang-Hai Tan, Dynamic progressive collapse of an RC assemblage induced by contact detonation, J. Struct. Eng.
140 (6) (2014).
[10] Y. Su, Y. Tian, X. Song, Progressive collapse resistance of axially-restrained frame beams, ACI Struct. J. 106 (5) (2009) 600–607.
[11] D. Gouverneur, R. Caspeele, L. Taerwe, Experimental investigation of the load-displacement behaviour under catenary action in a restrained reinforced
concrete slab strip, Eng. Struct. 49 (2013) 1007–1016.
[12] M. Kai Qian, Bing Li ASCE, Ma. Jia-Xing, Load carrying mechanism to resist progressive collapse of RC buildings, J. Struct. Eng. 141 (2) (2015).
[13] J. Yu, K.H. Tan, Special detailing techniques to improve structural resistance against progressive collapse, J. Struct. Eng. 140 (3) (2013).
[14] Y.P. Su, Y. Tian, X. Song, Progressive collapse resistance of axially-restrained frame beams, ACI Struct. J. 106 (5) (2009) 600–607.
[15] Xinzheng Lu, Kaiqi Lin, Chenfeng Li, Yi Li, New analytical calculation models for compressive arc action in reinforced concrete structures, Eng. Struct.
168 (2018) 721–735.
[16] Mudalige Byfield, Moriso, Stoddart, A review of progressive collapse research and regulations, Struct. Build. J. 167 (SB8) (2014).
[17] H.J. Choi, T. Krautammer, Investigation of Progressive Collapse Phenomena in a Multistory Building, Protective Technology Center, Pennsylvania State
University, 2003.
[18] A. Ventura, V. De Biagi, B. Chiaia, Structural robustness of RC frame buildings under threat-independent damage scenarios, Struct. Eng. Mech. 65 (2018)
689–698.
[19] K. Qian, W. Yun-Hao, B. Li, Improving behavior of reinforced concrete frames to resist progressive collapse through steel bracings, J. Struct. Eng. 145 (2)
(2019) https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE) ST.1943-541X.0002263.
[20] S. Orton, J.O. Jirsa, O. Bayrak, Carbon fiber reinforcement polymer for continuity in existing reinforced concrete buildings vulnerable to collapse, ACI
Struct. J. 106 (5) (2019) 608–616.
[21] Q. Kai, B. Li, Experimental and analytical assessment on RC interior beam-column sub-assemblage for progressive collapse, J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 26
(5) (2012) 576–589.
[22] V. De Biagi, F. Parisi, D. Asprone, B. Chiaia, G. Manfredi, Collapse resistance assessment through the implementation of progressive damage in finite
element codes, Eng. Struct. 136 (2017) 523–534.
[23] S. Mehrdad, K. Ali, S. Serkan, F. Scott, Progressive collapse of an actual 11-Story structure subjected to severe initial damage, J. Struct. Engin. ASCE 137 (9)
(2011) 893–902 Doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000418.

13
A.M. Yousef and M.A. El-Mandouh Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00470

[24] S. Gowtham, M. Prakash, N. Parthasarathi, K.S. Satyanarayanan, V. Thamilarasu, 2D-Linear static and non-linear dynamic progressive collapse analysis
of reinforced concrete building, Mater. Today (2018) 8775–8783.
[25] B. Abdelwahed, A Review on Building Progressive Collapse. Survey and Discussion, Case Studies in Construction Materials, (2019), pp. 11, doi:http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2019.e00264.
[26] ACI Committee 363, State-of-the-Art Report on High-Strength Concrete ACI 363R-92, American Concrete Institute, Farmington, Hills, MI, 1997 55 P.
[27] ACI Committee 363, Guide to Quality Control and Assurance of High-Strength Concrete, ACI 363.2R-19) American concrete Institute, Farmington, Hills,
MI, 2018 48331, 20 P..
[28] Eurocode 2, Design of Concrete Structures, Part 1-6: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, European Prestandard, European Committee for
Standardization, 2006 253 pages.
[29] T. Paulay, A.J. Carr, D.N. Tompkins, Response of ductile reinforced concrete frames located in zone C, Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for
Earthquake Engineering 13 (3) (1980) 209–225.
[30] ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318-1980), American concrete Institute, Farmington,
Hills, M.I, 1980, pp. 48331.
[31] SAP2000-2019, Three Dimensional Static and Dynamic Finite Element Analyses and Design of Structures. Analysis Reference, Version 14.1, Computer
and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, CA, 2019.
[32] ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318-19), American concrete Institute, Farmington,
Hills, M.I, 2019, pp. 48331.
[33] E. Thorenfeldt, A. Tomaszewicz, J.J. Jensen, Mechanical properties of high strength concrete and application to design, Proceeding of the Symposium:
Utilization of High Strength Concrete (1987) 149–159.

Further reading

[34] Haluk Sucuoglu, Sinan Altin, Resistance mechanisms in RC building frames subjected to column failure, Struct. Eng. J. 120 (March (3)) (1994) 765-782,
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1994)120:3(765).
[35] J. Kim, S. Hong, Progressive collapse performance of irregular buildings, Struct. Des. Tall Special Build. 20 (6) (2011); 721-734.
[36] M. Sasani, M. Bazan, S. Sagiroglu, Experimental and analytical progressive collapse evaluation of actual reinforced concrete structure, ACI Struct. J. 2007;
104 (6) 731-739.

14