FRAGILITY ANALYSIS OF TYPICAL RMG BUILDINGS

OF BANGLADESH FOR PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE

MOHAMMAD HASAN MAHMOOD

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ENGINEERING

(CIVIL & STRUCTURAL)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
DHAKA, BANGLADESH

March, 2018

i
ii
iii
 DEDICATION

This Thesis is Dedicated to My Parents and Teachers

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all the author would like to give thanks to almighty Allah who is very kind to allow

completing this thesis effectively.

The author expresses his profound gratitude and heartiest thanks to his thesis supervisor

Dr. Tanvir Manzur, Associate Professor Department of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh

University of Engineering and Technology (BUET) for his constant guidance, supervision,

keen interest, as well as resource management in making this project success. His helpful

guidance has benefited the author greatly.

The author is grateful to the members of thesis defence committee Prof. Dr. Ahsanul Kabir,

Prof. Dr. Munaz Ahmed Noor, Dr. Md. Raquibul Hossain and Major Mohammed Russedul

Islam, Ph. D. for their advice and help in reviewing this thesis.

The author is very thankful to Bayezid Baten and Md. Jihan Hasan for their cooperation

and would like to express his thanks to all laboratory members for their advice and technical

support throughout the experimental program.

The author is very grateful to his family members and friends for their unconditional love,

encouragement, blessings, and co-operation.

v
 ABSTRACT

In the modern era of industrial outburst, the phenomenon of progressive collapse has

become one of the prime concerns in the sector of infrastructural development. This type

of structural failure gains its optimal significance when reinforced concrete structures are

usually extended vertically for an increased number of floor spaces. Initiating from a

localized portion, the phenomenon of progressive collapse follows a chain reaction leading

to a massive structural damage. However, there are no significant studies in Bangladesh for

the behavior of Reinforced Concrete (RC) structures towards progressive failure and no

specific local code guidelines to account for the phenomenon in structural design. This

necessitates an initial study in this aspect to account for this type of structural failure in

structural design and analysis of RC structures. In this study, the phenomenon of

progressive collapse was analyzed for certain typical RMG buildings in around Dhaka City.

A survey was conducted on typical garments buildings at different locations of the city to

obtain uniform sample size of four, six and eight stories models. Each of the model was

later analyzed by ETABS for three cases of column removal and fragility curves were

obtained for axial loading of adjacent columns and shear force and bending moment of

adjacent beams. The obtained graphs can be used to obtain the probability of exceedance

for different Demand-Capacity ratios to account for axial, shear and flexural failure in

adjacent columns and beams. Hence, this study will also play a substantial role towards

safeguarding safety assurance of RC structures against progressive failure.

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ V
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. VII
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ X
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... XII
CHAPTER ONE : INTRODUCTION .................................................................................1
1.1 Background and Modification .......................................................................................1
1.2 Objective of the Present Study ......................................................................................2
1.3 Methodology of the Study .............................................................................................3
1.4 Scope of the Study .........................................................................................................4
1.5 Organization of the Study ..............................................................................................4
CHAPTER TWO : LITERATURE REVIEW .....................................................................6
2.1 Progressive Collapse Basics ..........................................................................................6
2.2 Progressive Collapse Initiating Factors Behind Notable Example ...............................7
2.2.1 Ronan Point Apartment Tower .............................................................................7
2.2.2 Skyline Towers Building ......................................................................................7
2.2.3 Wedbush Building ................................................................................................8
2.2.4 Hotel New World ..................................................................................................8
2.2.5 Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building .......................................................................8
2.2.6 Sampoong Department Store.............................................................................. 9
2.2.7 Windsor Tower in Madrid.....................................................................................9
2.2.8 World Trade Center ...........................................................................................10
2.2.9 Rana Plaza.........................................................................................................11
2.3 Relevant Codes and Standards .....................................................................................12
2.3.1 ASCE 7-02 ..........................................................................................................12
2.3.2 ACI 318-02 .........................................................................................................12
2.3.3 GSA PBS Facilities Standards 2000 ..................................................................13
2.3.4 GSA PBS Facilities Standards 2003 .................................................................13
2.4 GSA Progressive Collapse Guidelines 2003................................................................13
2.4.1 Purpose of GSA Guideline..................................................................................14
2.4.2 Applicability of GSA Guideline .........................................................................15

vii
 2.4.3 GSA Guideline Philosophy .................................................................................16
2.5 Atypical Structural Configurations ..............................................................................17
2.6 GSA Analysis for Reinforced Concrete Building.........................................................19
2.7 Steps of GSA Guidelines .............................................................................................19
2.7.1 Typical Structural Configurations.......................................................................19
2.7.2 Atypical Structural Configurations ..................................................................21
2.7.3 Loading Analysis .............................................................................................22
2.7.4 Acceptance Criteria ..........................................................................................23
2.8 The Trapazoid Rule......................................................................................................24
2.9 Fragility Curve .............................................................................................................25
2.10 Modeling and Analyzing using ETABS ..............................................................30
2.10.1 ETABS Analysis ...............................................................................................30
2.10.2 Modeling of Structural Sustem in ETABS .......................................................30
2.10.3 Loading, Analysis & Design in ETABS Model................................................31
2.10.4 Output, Interoperability, and Versatility in ETABS Model ..............................32
CHAPTER THREE : SURVEY AND SAMPLE GENERATION .................................. 34
3.1 General .........................................................................................................................34
3.2 Detail Survey Plan .......................................................................................................34
3.3 Sample Generation .......................................................................................................38
3.3.1 Strength of Concrete (𝑓𝑐 ) ....................................................................................38
3.3.2 Yield Strength of Steel (𝑓𝑦 ).................................................................................38
3.3.3 Span Length ........................................................................................................39
3.3.4 Column Size ........................................................................................................39
3.3.4.1 Four Storey Structure .......................................................................................40
3.3.4.2 Six Storey Structure .........................................................................................42
3.3.4.3 Eight Storey Structure ......................................................................................44
3.3.5 Beam Size ...........................................................................................................46
3.4 Random Selection .......................................................................................................46
CHAPTER FOUR : MODEL DEVLOPMENT & ANALYSIS ....................................... 48
4.1 Generals .......................................................................................................................48
4.2 Model Development.....................................................................................................48
4.2.1 Model Development for Four Storey Structure ................................................49
4.2.1.1 Loading Criteria ..............................................................................................50

viii
 4.2.1.2 Column Removal Technique .........................................................................51
4.2.1.3 Case Study .....................................................................................................52
4.2.2 Model Development for Six Storey Structure ..................................................55
4.2.2.1 Loading Criteria ..............................................................................................56
4.2.2.2 Case Study .....................................................................................................56
4.2.3 Model Development for Eight Storey Building ................................................61
4.2.3.1 Case Study ......................................................................................................62
CHAPTER FIVE : DEVLOPMENT of FRAGILITY CURVE ........................................ 68
5.1 General .........................................................................................................................68
5.2 Development of Normal Distribution and Fragility Curve ..........................................68
5.2.1 Six Stories Model Result Analysis ..................................................................69
5.2.1.1 Case-I Corner Column Removal of Exterior Bay .........................................69
5.2.1.2 Case-II Middle Column Removal of Exterior Bay ........................................79
5.2.1.3 Case-III Interior Column Removal of Interior Bay .......................................89
5.2.2 Four Stories Model Result Analysis .................................................................97
5.2.2.1 Case-I Corner Column Removal of Exterior Bay .........................................97
5.2.2.2 Case-II Middle Column Removal of Exterior Bay ......................................104
5.2.2.3 Case-III Interior Column Removal of Interior Bay .....................................113
5.2.3 Eight Stories Model Result Analysis ..............................................................121
5.2.3.1 Case-I Corner Column Removal of Exterior Bay .......................................121
5.2.3.2 Case-II Middle Column Removal of Exterior Bay ......................................130
5.2.3.3 Case-III Interior Column Removal of Interior Bay .....................................162
5.3 Structural Model Check .............................................................................................143
CHAPTER SIX : CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................. 147
6.1 General .......................................................................................................................147
6.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................................148
6.3 Recommendations for FutureWorks ..........................................................................151
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 153
APPENDIX-A.................................................................................................................. 156
APPENDIX-B .................................................................................................................. 165
APPENDIX- C ................................................................................................................. 173

ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Ronan Point Building after 16 May 1968 Collapse .......................................... 7
Figure 2.2: World Trade Center 1 and 2 on 11 September 2001 ....................................... 10
Figure 2.3: Rana Plaza Collapse ........................................................................................ 11
Figure 2.4: Exterior Column Removal Position ................................................................ 20
Figure 2.5: Interior Column Removal Position.................................................................. 20
Figure 2.6: Normal Distribution Curve .............................................................................. 24
Figure 2.7: Normal Distributions Differing in Mean and Standard Deviation. ................. 26
Figure 2.8: Fragility Curve ................................................................................................ 29
Figure 2.9: 3-D Model in ETABS Software ...................................................................... 31
Figure 2.10: Loading in Etabs Model ................................................................................ 32
Figure 2.11: Out Put Analysis Report in ETABS Model................................................... 33
Figure 4.1: Plan of the building with red circles showing the columns that are to be
removed............................................................................................................................. 51
Figure 4.2: Moment diagram after the removal of corner column………………..……...53
Figure 4.3: Shear force diagram after the removal of corner column ................................ 53
Figure 4.4: Axial force diagram after the removal of corner column ................................ 54
Figure 4.5: Moment diagram after the removal of middle column at exterior bay. .......... 58
Figure 4.6: Shear force diagram after the removal of middle column at exterior bay ....... 59
Figure 4.7: Axial force diagram after the removal of middle column at exterior bay ....... 60
Figure 4.8: Moment diagram after the removal of middle column at exterior bay. .......... 64
Figure 4.9: Shear force diagram after the removal of middle column at exterior bay ....... 65
Figure 4.10: Axial force diagram after the removal of corner column .............................. 66
Figure 5.1: Frequency curve for axial loading in column (in the case of corner column
removal)………………………………………………………………………………….………..70
Fig 5.2: Fragility Curves for three limit states of six storeys RMG building for corner
column removal …………………………………………………………………………72
Figure 5.3: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for fc = 3 ksi.................................................... 73
Figure 5.4: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for fc = 2.5 ksi ............................................. 73
Figure 5.5: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for fc = 2.0 ksi..............................................74
Figure 5.6: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for fc = 1.5 ksi.............................................. 74
Figure 5.7: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for axial loading in column due to corner column
removal for different compressive strength of concrete ....................................................74
Figure 5.8: DCR vs L/(d+As/S) graph for fc = 3 ksi …………..…………….……….….76

x
Figure 5.9: DCR vs L/(d+As/S) graph for fc = 2.5 ksi ……………………………………76
Figure 5.10: DCR vs L/(d+As/S) graph for fc = 2 ksi ……………………….…………...76
Figure 5.11: DCR vs L/(d+As/S) graph for fc = 1.5 ksi……………………….…….….76
Figure 5.12: DCR vs L/(d+As/S) graph for shear force in beam due to corner column
removal for different compressive strength of concrete………………………………….77
Figure 5.13: DCR vs L²/ρbd graph for fc = 3 ksi ............................................................... 78
Figure 5.14: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for f c = 2.5 ksi ………………………..……….….78
Figure 5.15: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for f c = 2 ksi ……………………..……………….78
Figure 5.16: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for f c = 1.5 ksi……………………………..….…..78
Figure 5.17: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for bending moment in beam due to corner column
removal for different compressive strength of concrete……………………………….…79
Figure 5.18: In the case of Middle Column Removal frequency Curve for axial loading in
Column………………………………………………………………………………..….80
Figure 5.19: Fragility Curves for three limit states of six storey RMG building for middle
column removal…………………………………………………………………………..81
Figure 5.20: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for fc = 3 ksi ………………………..……....82
Figure 5.21: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for fc = 2.5 ksi …………………….……..…82
Figure 5.22: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for fc = 2 ksi ………………………………...83
Figure 5.23: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for fc = 1.5 ksi……………………………....83
Figure 5.24: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for axial loading in column due to middle
column removal for different compressive strength of concrete …………………………83
Figure 5.25: DCR vs L/(d+ As/S) graph for fc = 3 ksi ………………………………..….84
Figure 5.26: DCR vs L/(d + As/S) graph for fc = 2.5 ksi ……………………………..….84
Figure 5.27: DCR vs L/(d + As/S) graph for fc = 2 ksi ……………………………….....85
Figure 5.28: DCR vs L/(d + As/S) graph for fc = 1.5 ksi…………………………………85
Figure 5.29: DCR vs L/(d +As/S) graph for shear force in beam due to middle column
removal for different compressive strength of concrete ……………………………..…..85
Figure 5.30: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for fc = 3 ksi………………………………………….86
Figure 5.31 DCR vs L²/pbd graph for fc = 2.5 ksi …………………………………….86
Figure 5.32 DCR vs L²/pbd graph for fc = 2 ksi ……………………………….…….…..87
Figure 5.33: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for fc = 1.5 ksi……………………………………..87
Figure 5.34: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for bending moment in beam due to middle column
removal for different compressive strength of concrete…….…………………….………88

xi
Figure 5.35: In the case of Interior Column Removal Frequency Curve for axial loading in
Column……………………………………………………………………..…………….89
Figure 5.36: In the case of Interior Column Removal Fragility Curve for six storey
model…………………………….……………………………………………………… 91
Figure 5.37: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for fc = 3 ksi ………………………………..92
Figure 5.38: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for fc = 2.5 ksi ……………………………92
Figure 5.39: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for fc = 2 ksi …………………....…….…..92
Figure 5.40: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for fc = 1.5 ksi……….………………….…92
Figure 5.41: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for axial loading in column due to interior
column removal for different compressive strength of concrete………………………….93
Figure 5.42: DCR vs L/(d+ As/S) graph for fc = 3 ksi ……………………….…………..94
Figure 5.43: DCR vs L/(d + As/S) graph for fc = 2.5 ksi ………….………….………….94
Figure 5.44: DCR vs L/(d + As/S) graph for fc = 2 ksi ……………………………..…...94
Figure 5.45: DCR vs L/(d + As/S) graph for fc = 1.5 ksi……………………….….….…94
Figure 5.46: DCR vs L/(d + As/S) graph for shear force in beam due to interior column
removal for different compressive strength of concr………………………………….….95
Figure 5.47: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for f c = 3 ksi …………………….………..………96
Figure 5.48: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for f c = 2.5 ksi ……………………..…….……….96
Figure 5.49: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for f c = 2 ksi …………………….…….……….…96
Figure 5.50: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for f c = 1.5 ksi…………..………….………….….96
Figure 5.51: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for bending moment in beam due to interior column
removal for different compressive strength of concrete……………….….………………97
Figure 5.52: In the case of Corner Column Removal Frequency Curve for axial loading in
Column……………………………………………………………………….…………..98
Figure 5.53: In the case of Corner Column Removal Fragility Curve for four storey models
……………………………………………………………………………………………96
Figure 5.54: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for fc = 3.5 ksi ………………..…….……..101
Figure 5.55: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for fc = 3.0 ksi ……………..…….………..101
Figure 5.56: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for fc = 2.5 ksi………….……….………....101
Figure 5.57: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for fc = 2.0 ksi…………….………………101
Figure 5.58: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for axial loading in column due to corner column
removal for different compressive strength of concrete……………………………..….102

xii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: No of RMG buildings surveyed with respect to storey height ......................... 35
Table 3.2: Different parameters for each garments buildings at Detail Survey................. 36
Table 3.3: Different parameters for each garments buildings at Detail Survey ................. 37
Table 4.1: Sectional Properties .......................................................................................... 50
Table 4.2: Material Properties............................................................................................ 50
Table 4.3: Maximum Demand and DCR Values of Adjacent Members after Exclusions of
Columns from Certain Positions. ....................................................................................... 55
Table 4.4: Sectional Properties .......................................................................................... 56
Table 4.5: Material Properties............................................................................................ 56
Table 4.6: Maximum Demand and DCR Values of Adjacent Members after Exclusions of
Columns from Certain Positions ........................................................................................ 61
Table 4.7: Sectional Properties .......................................................................................... 62
Table 4.8: Material Properties............................................................................................ 62
Table 4.9: Maximum Demand and DCR Values of Adjacent Members after Exclusions of
Mix Columns from Certain Positions ................................................................................ 67
Table 5.1: Frequency corresponding to selected interval of DCR values……………..…70
Table 5.2: Probability of Exceedance at various DCR Limits ........................................... 71
Table 5.3: Probability of Exceedance at various DCR Limits .......................................... 80
Table 5.4: Probability of Exceedance at various DCR Limits ........................................... 90
Table 5.5: Probability of Exceedance at various DCR Limits............................................99
Table 5.6: Frequency corresponding to DCR value………………………………...…..121
Table 5.7: Probability of Exceedance at various DCR Limits………………..….….….123
Table 5.8: Sectional Properties………………………………….……………….….…..144
Table 5.9: Material Properties…………………………………………..…………..…...145
Table 5.10: Model Check……………………………………………..……….……...…145

xiii
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Coherent to the booming industrialization and expansion in the RMG sector of

Bangladesh, structural safety assurance has become one of the prime concerns in this domain

[1, 2]. This has been more substantial after some recent structural mishaps including the

Rana Plaza collapse. Post damage analysis revealed that the governing cause of the structural

failure of Rana Plaza was progressive in nature [9. 10]. This phenomenon corresponds to an

extensive structural damage initiated by a localized failure in a relatively small portion of the

structure followed by a chain reaction [3, 6]. Moreover, a declination in the load carrying

capacity of a small portion of a structure can also evolve towards a significant failure.

Progressive failure can also be accountable to a change in the loading pattern and boundary

condition of a structure, which enforces the major structural components towards loads

beyond capacity [4]. Although certain forms of infrastructures are more susceptible to

progressive collapse, this type of collapse can occur in almost all types of construction. A

reflection of this case is prominent in the developing RMG sector of Bangladesh, where the

existing buildings are extended vertically to suffice the additional demand of space. Such

unprecedented structural load due to addition of extra floors, without any proper structural

design, makes the structures vulnerable to progressive failure.

1.1 Background and Motivation

Bangladesh has more than 5,000 garment factories, handling orders for nearly all of the

world’s top brands and retailers. It has become an export powerhouse largely by

delivering products in lower costs [1]. The failure type of Rana Plaza garments and

1
 several other buildings are of progressive types [8], which cause a chain reaction or

propagation of failures following damage to a relatively small portion of a structure [3].

If these buildings were designed considering progressive collapse criteria then the

damage could be prevented or reduced to certain degree. The General Services

Administration (GSA) published design guidelines to meet the progressive collapse

requirements [4-6]. The GSA publications provide a threat independent method to

verify the potentiality for progressive collapse. In Bangladesh, there are no special

guidelines or assessment procedures to verify the fragility of the structure in case of

progressive collapse action. For this reason, assessment of progressive collapse

fragility of garments building in Bangladesh following GSA guidelines is of great

importance Therefore; an attempt has been made to develop fragility curves of common

garments building in terms of progressive collapse.

1.2 Objective of the Present Study

The main objectives of the study can be listed as follows-

a. To obtain comprehensive knowledge on progressive collapse phenomenon

b. To accumulate information on different structural parameters (span length, story

number, number of bays, column size, beam size etc.) for generating statistically

significant sample size

c. To develop finite element models of randomly selected structures from

generated sample size and analyze them for progressive collapse as per GSA

recommendations

d. To evaluate Demand-Capacity Ratio of relevant members for determining

progressive collapse potential

2
 e. To develop fragility curves in terms of Demand-Capacity Ratio of beams and

columns for three different storied typical existing garment buildings

1.3 Methodology of the Study

 A comprehensive survey has been conducted to gather information on typical

existing garment buildings around Dhaka city. From survey data, the garments

buildings were categorized in terms of the numbers of storey. Other important

structural parameters, such as- length of span, size of column, reinforcement

amount, beam size, concrete strength etc. were also be identified.

 Significant number of population for each category of building has been

generated using obtained information.

 MATLAB function [22] has been used to select 100 samples from each

generated population on random basis. It is expected that the randomly selected

samples from large population size will provide normally distributed samples

that will eventually result in normally distributed analysis output.

 Randomly selected models were then modeled and analyzed in ETABS

environment as per GSA guideline for progressive collapse. Demand-capacity

ratio [4-7] of all the relevant columns & beams were determined in next steps of

the study.

 Frequency curve [18-20] for each demand-capacity ratio has been developed

and statistical parameters were evaluated for all relevant members of the

selected buildings. From the frequency curve, the probability of exceedance

[21] for each Demand-Capacity ratio was evaluated for all structures under

consideration.

3
1.4 Scope of the Study

In this research, typical structure was used in the analysis for progressive collapse since

most of the garments buildings are typical structure and atypical structures were avoided due

to their paucity. The models were developed using MATLAB function based on the survey

data. The survey was conducted on common type of existing garment factory buildings. The

fragility curves and the corresponding generalized demand-capacity graphs were based on

randomly selected 100 samples from generated population. Understanding the scope of the

study is important to use the outcomes of the research in practical application.

1.5 Organization of the Study

The study is organized as per detail given below:

Chapter 1 provides a statement of the objectives and scope of the study, followed by the

methodology and a brief description of the contents of the chapter.

Chapter 2 Introduces progressive collapse basics, some examples of progressive collapse,

relevant codes and standard, GSA guidelines, the normal distribution curve and the fragility

curve.

Chapter 3 Deals with detail survey plan, sample generation, and random model selection by

using MATLAB function.

Chapter 4 This is the chapter where the actual analysis works were documented in ETABS

environment.

Chapter 5 Deals with the normal distribution curve, development of the fragility curve and

finally development of the generalized curve.

4
Chapter 6 Documents the conclusion and recommendation based on the analysis result.

5
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Progressive Collapse Basics

The collapse of all or a large part of a structure, instigated by failure or damage of a

relatively small part of it, can be defined as progressive collapse. The General Services

Administration offers somewhat more specific description of the phenomenon: “Progressive

collapse is a situation where local failure of a primary structural component leads to the

collapse of adjoining members which in turn, leads to additional collapse” [5]. After the

progressive and disproportionate collapse of the Ronan Point apartment tower in England in

1968, prevention of such incidents became one of the unchallenged imperatives in structural

engineering. Code-writing bodies and governmental user agencies have attempted ever since

to develop design guidelines and criteria that would reduce or eliminate the susceptibility of

buildings to this form of failure. These efforts tend to focus on improving redundancy and

alternate load path to ensure that loss of any single component will not lead to a general

collapse. However, redundancy is one of the ways of reducing susceptibility to

disproportionate collapse. Improved local resistance for critical components, continuity, and

interconnection throughout the structure (which can improve both redundancy and local

resistance) can be more effective than increased redundancy in many instances. Through an

appropriate combination of improved redundancy, local resistance, and interconnection it

should be possible to greatly reduce the susceptibility of buildings to disproportionate

collapse.

6
2.2 Progressive Collapse initiating factors behind notable examples

2.2.1 Ronan Point Apartment Tower: On May 16, 1968, the 22 story Ronan Point

apartment tower in West Ham, London suffered a fatal collapse of one of it is corners due to

a natural gas explosion [7]. This Explosion destroyed a load-bearing wall. The building was

a large-panel system building.

Damage: 4 people were killed and 17 others were injured as shown in Figure 2.1

Figure 2.1 Ronan Point building after 16 May

1968 collapse

2.2.2 Skyline Towers Building: On March 2, 1973, the 26 story Skyline Towers Building in

Fairfax County, Virginia, collapsed. This was due to wooden shore being removed too soon

from an upper-story floor during construction [8]. The tower was a steel-reinforced concrete

design .

Damage: 14 people were killed and 34 others were injured.

7
2.2.3 Wedbush Building: On December 19, 1985, the 22 storied commercial office

building at 1000 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles, currently known as the Wedbush Building,

experienced a partial collapse of the structure [7, 8]. Construction crews were offloading

recently arrived steel girders from a flatbed truck on to the deck of the newly completed 5th

floor via crane. Suddenly, a girder broke loose from the crane and fell down on the current

stockpile below which was already loaded to twice the maximum designed load capacity of

the floor. This initiated a progressive collapse of the overloaded floor, causing the floor

section and girders to crash through the 4th, 3rd, 2nd, and 1st floors and finally coming to

rest in the parking garage. The building was designed as a steel-framed structure.

Damage: 3 people were killed.

2.2.4 Hotel New World: On March 15, 1986, the 6 story Hotel New World in Little India,

Singapore collapsed due to a design error [6]. The structural engineer forgot to add the

building's dead load (the weight of the building itself) to his calculations when determining

how strong he needed to make the support pillars that held up the building during its

construction in 1971. The building was a steel-reinforced concrete structure.

Damage: 33 people were killed and 17 others were injured.

2.2.5 Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building: On April 19, 1995, the 9 story Alfred P. Murrah

Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, collapsed due to a truck bomb that was

detonated outside of the southern facade [7,8] . The bomb's compression wave caused floors

4 and 5 to shear up and off their columns and collapse on to floor 3. Floor 3 was connected

to the main transfer beam, and pulled it inwards when floors 4 and 5 fell on it. This caused

all the vertical columns on the southern perimeter that were connected to the transfer beam to

collapse, along with any floor sections that depended on those columns for vertical support.

Similar to the collapse of the World Trade Center, the Oklahoma City Bombing was the first

8
known example of a terrorist-initiated progressive collapse of a building on US soil. The

building was also a steel-reinforced concrete structure.

Damage: 168 people were killed and 680 others were injured.

2.2.6 Sampoong Department Store: On June 29, 1995, the 5 story Sampoong Department

Store in Seoul, South Korea collapsed. The collapse was due to the removal of several

support columns on the lower floors in order to make room for escalators [7]. This situation

was worsened years later by the addition of several heavy air conditioners on the roof above

the area from where support columns had been removed. This caused the remaining column

that was closest to the air conditioners to fail and pass its load onto nearby columns, which

led to complete failure and collapse within 24 hours of major cracks appearing around the

failed column.

Damage: 501 people were killed and 937 others were injured.

2.2.7 Windsor Tower in Madrid: On February 12, 2005, the 28 story Windsor Tower in

Madrid, Spain suffered the collapse of the upper 11 floors of the building. The tower had a

reinforced concrete inner-core surrounded by a traditional webbed steel-frame outer-

perimeter. Between floors 16 and 17, there was a 7-foot thick reinforced concrete transfer

floor, designed to act as a bulkhead and to support the steel framework of the upper 11

stories. An office fire began on the 21st floor and after 5 hours, the concrete inner-core

could no longer support the buckling steel outer-framework. The upper 11 stories collapsed

down to street level with remnants of the upper 3 floors collapsing down on to the transfer

floor [7]. No one was killed. The building was a composite steel-frame and steel-reinforced

concrete design.

9
2.2.8 World Trade Center: On September 11, 2001, World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and

7 in New York City, collapsed as a result of terrorist attacks and the subsequent fires as

shown in Figure 2.2. After a 3-year investigation by the National Institute of Standards and

Technology, it was concluded that fire weakened the steel structure until the long bridge-like

floor sections (called trusses) began to progressively sag. This sagging converted the

downwards pull of the trusses into an inwards pull. This intensifying inwards pull on the

walls eventually caused the outer columns of Tower 2, and later the inner columns of Tower

1, to buckle and fold, thus initiating the collapses. The buildings were a steel-frame design.

This structural failure should not to be a progressive failure of the floor systems, or so-called

"pancake theory" which was ruled out as a cause [7].

Damage: 2,752 people died in the buildings, including 157 passengers and crew members

who were aboard two hijacked airplanes that struck buildings 1 and 2, initiating fires in both,

with debris initiating fires in building 7 upon the collapse of buildings 1 and 2.

Figure 2.2: World Trade Center 1 and 2 on 11 September 2001

10
2.2.9 Rana Plaza : On 24 April 2013, the 8 story Rana Plaza, a commercial office complex

in Savar, Bangladesh, suffered a collapse to the majority of the structure [7,9]. The building

was originally designed to accommodate shops and offices with light traffic but had been

converted into a factory with heavy garment manufacturing equipment on the upper floors.

This equipment acted like a mild tamping rammer by inducing oscillating forces to the

building's frame. The use of substandard construction materials along with the weight of the

workers and machinery (which together exceeded the original designed load capacity of the

floors) contributed to the weakening and eventual failure of key structural elements. The

final collapse occurred after a day when preliminary cracks began to appear throughout the

building, suggesting that key elements had failed and was passing its load forces onto

surrounding elements. The incident is considered to be the deadliest garment-factory

accident in history, as well as the deadliest accidental structural failure in modern human

history as shown in Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3: Rana Plaza Collapse

Damage: 1,129 people died in the building and approximately 2,515 people were injured

11
2.3 Relevant Codes & Standards

2.3.1 ASCE 7-02 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE,

2002) has a section on “general structural integrity” that reads thus: “Buildings and other

structures shall be designed to sustain local damage with the structural system as a whole

remaining stable and not being damaged to an extent disproportionate to the original local

damage. This shall be achieved through an arrangement of the structural elements that

provides stability to the entire structural system by transferring loads from any locally

damaged region to adjacent regions capable of resisting those loads without collapse. This

shall be accomplished by providing sufficient continuity, redundancy, or energy-dissipating

capacity (ductility), or a combination thereof, in the members of the structure.”

Clearly, the focus in the ASCE standard is on redundancy and alternate load paths over all

other means of avoiding susceptibility to disproportionate collapse. However, the degree of

redundancy is not specified and the requirements are entirely threat-independent [6-8].

2.3.2 ACI 318-02 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI, 2002)

includes extensive “Requirements for structural integrity” in the chapter on reinforcing steel

details. Though the Commentary states that it “is the intent of this section to improve

redundancy”, there is no explicit mention of redundancy or alternate load paths in the Code

[6]. The Code provisions include a general statement that “In the detailing of reinforcement

and connections, members of a structure shall be effectively tied together to improve

integrity of the overall structure” and many specific prescriptive requirements for the

continuity of reinforcing steel and interconnection of components. There are additional

requirements for the tying together of precast structural components. None of the ACI

provisions are treat-specific in any way.

12
 2.3.3 GSA PBS Facilities Standards 2000 The 2000 edition of the GSA’s Facilities

Standards for the Public Buildings Service (GSA, 2000) has included the following

statement under the “Progressive Collapse” heading in the “Structural Considerations”

section: “The structure must be able to sustain local damage without destabilizing the whole

structure. The failure of a beam, slab, or column shall not result in failure of the structural

system below, above, or in adjacent bays. In the case of column failure, damage in the

beams and girders above the column shall be limited to large deflections. Collapse of floors

or roofs must not be permitted.”

2.3.4 GSA PBS Facilities Standards 2003 The 2003 edition of the GSA’s Facilities

Standards for the Public Buildings Service (GSA, 2003a) has retained the “Progressive

Collapse” heading from the 2000 edition.

2.4 GSA Progressive Collapse Guidelines 2003

The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) developed the “Progressive Collapse:

Analysis and Design Guidelines for New Federal Office Buildings and Major Modernization

Projects” to ensure that the potential for progressive collapse is addressed in the design,

planning and construction of new buildings and major renovation projects [5, 13].

Exemption is based on the type and size of the structure (for instance, any building of over

ten stories is non-exempt) and is unrelated to the level of threat. Typical non-exempt

buildings in steel or concrete have to be shown by analysis to be able to tolerate removal of

one column or one 30 ft length of bearing wall without collapsing. Considerable detail is

provided regarding the features of the analysis and the acceptance criteria.

13
In some ways, these guidelines appear to be a throw-back to the GSA’s PBS Facilities

Standards of 2000. As per the standards, their central provision is a requirement for one-

member redundancy, unrelated to the degree of vulnerability of the member or the level of

threat to the structure.

2.4.1 Purpose of GSA Guideline

GSA is based on following purposes:

● Assist in the reduction of the potential for progressive collapse in new federal office

buildings

● Assist in the assessment of the potential for progressive collapse in existing Federal

Office Buildings

● Assist in the development of potential upgrades to facilities if required.

In order to meet these purposes, these Guidelines provide a threat independent methodology

for minimizing the potential for progressive collapse in the design of new and upgraded

buildings, and for assessing the potential for progressive collapse in existing buildings. It

should be noted that these Guidelines are not an explicit part of a blast design or blast

analysis, and the resulting design or analysis findings cannot be substituted for addressing

blast design or blast analysis requirements. The requirements contained herein are an

independent set of requirements for meeting the provisions of Interagency Security

Committee (ISC) Security Criteria regarding progressive collapse. The procedures, presented

herein, are required for the treatment of progressive collapse for U.S.General Services

Administration (GSA) facilities.

The previous guidelines, “Progressive Collapse Analysis and Design for New Federal Office

Buildings and Major Modernization Projects”, November 2000 focused primarily on analysis

14
and design for progressive collapse of reinforced concrete structures. This update includes

lessons learned and adds a separate section pertaining to structural steel buildings.

2.4.2 Applicability of GSA Guideline: These Guidelines should be used by all professionals

engaged in the planning and design of new facilities or building modernization projects for

the GSA. It applies to in-house Government engineers, architectural/engineering (A/E) firms

and professional consultants under contract to the GSA. The primary users of the document

will be architects and structural engineers. While mandatory for GSA facilities, these

Guidelines may also be used and/or adopted by any agency, organization, or private concern.

The use of a simplified analysis approach (hereafter referred to in these Guidelines as a

“Linear Procedure”) should typically be limited to the consideration of low-to-medium-rise

facilities. A Linear Procedure implies the use of either a static or dynamic linear-elastic finite

element analysis.

Typically such facilities consist of buildings and specially structures that are nominally 10

stories above grade or less. However, when analyzing buildings that have more than 10

stories above grade, and/or exhibit an atypical structural configuration, project engineers

should consider using a more sophisticated analysis method hereinafter referred to as a

“Nonlinear Procedure”.

Nonlinear procedure: A Nonlinear Procedure indicates the use of static or dynamic finite

element analysis methods that capture both material and geometric nonlinearity. Special

attention should be given for facilities that contain atypical structural configurations and/or

high-rise buildings, exhibiting complex response modes for the case of instantaneous

removal of a primary vertical element. If a complex structural response to the analysis

process contained in these Guidelines is anticipated, a Nonlinear Procedure may be required.

15
2.4.3 GSA Guideline Philosophy: These Guidelines address the need to protect human life

and prevent injury as well as the protection of Federal buildings, functions and assets. The

Guidelines take a flexible and realistic approach to the reliability and safety of Federal

buildings [5, 13].

The approach described below utilizes a flow-chart methodology to determine if the facility

under consideration might be exempt from detailed consideration for progressive collapse, as

illustrated in Figure 1.1. In other words, a series of questions must be answered that identifies

whether or not further progressive collapse considerations are required. This process is based

on ascertaining certain critical documentation to ensure that resources are spent wisely

regarding this issue. Critical documentation consists of identifying all of the following

information:

● Building occupancy

● Building category (e.g., reinforced concrete building, steel frame building, etc.)

● Number of stories

● Seismic zone

● Detailed description of local structural attributes [discrete beam-to-beam continuity,

connection redundancy, and connection resilience].

A threat independent approach is, however, prescribed as it is not feasible to rationally

examine all potential sources of collapse initiation. The approach taken (i.e., the removal of

a column or other vertical load bearing member) is not intended to reproduce or replicate any

specific abnormal load or assault on the structure. Rather, member removal is simply used as

a “load initiator” and serves as a means to introduce redundancy and resiliency into the

structure. The objective is to prevent or mitigate the potential for progressive collapse, not

necessarily to prevent collapse initiation from a specific cause. Regardless of other specific

16
design requirements, (e.g., blast design, seismic design, impact design, fire design, etc.) there

are always scenarios that will be capable of initiating a collapse.

2.5 Atypical Structural Configurations

Developing a set of analysis considerations that works for every facility is impractical

because all structures are unique and are often not typical (i.e., buildings often contain

distinguishing features or details). Thus, the user of this guideline must use engineering

judgment to determine critical analysis scenarios that should be assessed in order to meet the

intent of this guideline. Possible structural configurations that may result in an atypical

structural arrangement include but are not limited to the following items.

Combination Structures

The analyst shall apply considerations similar to that presented for typical building

configurations for facilities that utilize a combination of frame and wall systems for the

primary supporting structure. The user shall use engineering judgment to determine the

critical situations that should be assessed for the potential for progressive collapse. The

considerations may be similar to those utilized in typical building configurations, but

additional configurations may be necessary depending on the structural makeup. The user

may consider, but not be limited to the other atypical arrangements that follow, for

determining the critical scenarios that should be assessed.

Vertical Discontinuities

Structures that have vertical discontinuities may warrant additional consideration for

progressive collapse. Examples of vertical discontinuities include discontinuous shear walls

or columns such as the use of transfer girders. If vertical discontinuities are present in the

primary structural configuration, analyses of the response of the building for a loss of

primary vertical support in these areas shall be considered.

17
Variations in Bay Size/Extreme Bay Sizes

A building configuration that contains structural bay(s) that have a large variance in size

(compared to what may be considered a typical bay size of the facility) or extremely large

bay sizes should be considered vulnerable and an assessment of the potential for progressive

collapse shall be performed in these areas. Structural bays that are greater than 30 ft in any

direction are considered extreme.

Plan Irregularities

Plan irregularities such as re-entrant corners could present vulnerable areas in regards to the

potential for progressive collapse. This type of structural configuration should be

investigated regarding potential for progressive collapse.

Closely Spaced Columns

Structures that have closely spaced columns may present uncertainty to the analyst when

deciding on what primary vertical support to remove in the analysis process.

Typically, some of the columns are likely to be architectural in nature as opposed to a true

structural column. Structures that have this type of structural configuration shall be analyzed

for a loss in support from both the architectural and the structural column to assess the

potential for progressive collapse. In the situation where structural columns are closely

spaced, the structure should be analyzed for the loss of both columns if the distance between

the columns is less than or equal to 30% of the longest dimension of the associated bay.

Otherwise, only the loss of one column shall be required in the analysis.

18
2.6 GSA Analysis for Reinforced Concrete Building

The analysis procedure, mentioned hereafter, is to be performed using well-established linear

elastic, static analysis techniques. It is recommended that 3-dimensional analytic models be

used to account for potential 3-dimensional effects and avoid overly conservative solutions.

Nevertheless, 2-dimensional models may be used provided that the general response and 3-

dimensional effects can be adequately accounted for.

2.7 Procedure

The potential for progressive collapse can be determined by the following procedure.

Step1. The components and connections of both the primary and secondary structural

elements are to be analyzed for the case of an instantaneous loss in primary vertical support.

The applied downward loading shall be consistent with that presented [5, 13].

Step2. The results from the analyses performed in Step 1 can be evaluated by utilizing the

analysis criteria defined.

2.7.1 Typical Structural Configurations: In case of facilities that have a relatively simple

layout with no typical structural configurations, the following analysis scenarios can be

considered.

19
Framed or Flat Plate Structures

Exterior Considerations

The following exterior analysis cases as shown in Figure 2.4 can be considered in the
procedure

1. Analyze for the instantaneous loss of a column for one floor above grade (1 story)
located at or near the middle of the short side of the building.
2. Analyze for the instantaneous loss of a column for one floor above grade (1 story)
located at or near the middle of the long side of the building.
3. Analyze for the instantaneous loss of a column for one floor above grade (1 story)
located at or near the corner of the building.

Figure 2.4: Exterior Column Removal Position

Interior Considerations

Facilities that have underground parking and/or uncontrolled public ground floor areas can
use the following interior analysis case(s) as shown in Figure 2.5 in the procedure outlined
here

1 Analyze for the instantaneous loss of 1 column that

extends from the floor of the underground parking area

Figure 2.5: Interior Column Removal Position

20
or uncontrolled public ground floor area to the next
floor (1 story).The column considered should be
interior to the perimeter column lines.

2.7.2 Atypical Structural Configurations Facilities, having a relatively simple layout with

typical structural configurations can be analyzed based on the following analysis scenarios:

Structural collapse resulting from the instantaneous removal of a primary vertical support will

be limited. Typically, the allowable collapse area for a building will be based on the

structural bay size. However, in order to account for structural configurations that have

abnormally large structural bay sizes, the collapsed region will also be limited to a reasonably

sized area. The allowable extent of collapse for the instantaneous removal of a primary

vertical support member along the exterior and within the interior of a building can be

defined as follows.

Exterior Consideration:

The maximum allowable extent of collapse, resulting from the instantaneous removal of an

exterior primary vertical support member (one floor above grade) shall be confined to:

1. The structural bays directly associated with the instantaneously removed vertical

member in the floor level directly above the instantaneously removed vertical member.

Or,

2
2. 1,800ft at the floor level directly above the instantaneously removed vertical member,

whichever is smaller.

21
Interior Considerations

The allowable extent of collapse, resulting from the instantaneous removal of an interior

primary vertical support member in an uncontrolled ground floor area and/or an underground

parking area for one floor level, shall be confined to:

1. The structural bays, directly associated with the instantaneously removed vertical

member

Or,

2
2. 3,600ft at the floor level directly above the instantaneously removed vertical

member, whichever is smaller area.

If there is no uncontrolled ground floor area and/or an underground parking area present

in the facility under evaluation, the internal consideration is not required.

2.7.3 Loading Analysis:

a. Static Analysis Loading: The following vertical load shall be applied downward to the

structure under investigation for static analysis purposes:

Load = 2 (DL+0.25 LL)

b. Dynamic Analysis Loading: In case of dynamic analyses, the following vertical load

shall be applied downward to the structure under investigation:

Load = DL+0.25 LL

Where, DL = Dead Load

LL = Live Load (higher of the design live load or the code live load).

22
2.7.4 Acceptance Criteria:

An examination of the outcomes of linear elastic analyses are to be performed to identify the

magnitudes and distribution of potential demands on both the primary and secondary

structural elements for quantifying potential collapse areas. The magnitude and distribution

of these demands will be indicated by Demand-Capacity Ratios (DCR) [3-7]. Acceptance

criteria for the primary and secondary structural components can be determined as:

DCR=QUD /QCE

Where,

QUD = Acting force (demand) determined in component or connection/joint (moment, axial

force, shear, and possible combined forces)

QCE= Expected ultimate, un-factored capacity of the component and/or connection/joint

(moment, axial force, shear and possible combined forces)

Using the DCR criteria of the linear elastic approach, structural elements and connections

that have DCR values that exceed the following allowable values are considered to be

severely damaged or collapsed.

The allowable DCR values for primary and secondary structural elements are

● DCR < 2.0 for typical structural configurations

● DCR <1.5 for atypical structural configuration

23
2.8 The Trapezoid Rule

Trapezoids hug the curve; they give a much better area estimate than either left or right

rectangles. And it turns out that a trapezoid approximation is the average of the left

rectangle and right rectangle approximations. The area of each trapezoid is the average

of the areas of the two corresponding rectangles in the left and right rectangle sums.

The figure 2.6 shows three trapezoids drawn under the function x2 + 1.

Figure 2.6: Area Determination by Trapezoid Rule

From the Figure 2.6, it might expect a trapezoid approximation to be better than a

midpoint rectangle estimate, but in fact, as a general rule, midpoint sums are about twice

as good as trapezoid estimates. Even though the formal definition of the definite integral

is based on the sum of an infinite number of rectangles, it might want to think of

integration as the limit of the trapezoid rule at infinity. The further if zoom in on a

curve, the straighter it gets. When it is used a greater and greater number of trapezoids

and then zoom in on where the trapezoids touch the curve, the tops of the trapezoids get

closer and closer to the curve.

24
2.9 Fragility Analysis

2.9.1 Limit State and Damage State

A limit state defines the threshold between different damage conditions, whereas the

damage state defines the damage conditions themselves [18,20]. For instance, if the

performance of a building is described by two limit states, there will be three damage

states as shown in Figure 2.7. The methods for deriving fragility curves generally model

the damage on a discrete damage scale. In the empirical procedures, the scale is used in

reconnaissance efforts to produce post event damage statistics, whereas in the analytical

procedures the scale is related to the limit state mechanical properties of the buildings,

such as displacement capacity. For example, the displacement capacity can be related to

damage conditions that are identifiable through limit states.

The number of the damage states depends on the damage scale used. Some of the most

frequently damage scales used for seismic analysis are: HAZUS99, ATC-13, Vision 2000

and EMS98 [18-21]. The last one, commonly used in Europe, was used in the studies of

Rota et al. and Gaspari . Depending on the methodology used to compute the fragility

functions and depending on the choices of the authors, different scales with different

limit states/damage states can be adopted. It should be noted that there are some studies

that do not refer to any of the typical damage scales but they follow specific damage state

scales developed by the authors. Damage Index to classify damage into five grades: none,

minor, moderate, severe and collapse [14]. Rossetto & Elnashai [19-20] used the inter

storey drift to classify damage in seven grades: none, slight, light, moderate, extensive,

partial collapse, and collapse. Damage states of yielding and collapse were also used in

the analytical assessment methods [18,19]. For progressive collapse mechanism, there is

25
 no definite limit state available in the literature. In this study, damage limit states have

been defined based on GSA guidelines and describe in details in Chapter 5 of this thesis.

Figure 2.7 Limit States and Damage States

2.9.2 Methods for Fragility Evaluation

Mathematically, fragility is the probability of attaining or exceeding a certain damage

state.. In the case of analytical evaluation for seismic fragility, discrete values of this

probability are obtained by numerical simulation, and related statistical inference, of the

demand D at discrete ground motion intensities G = gj given the capacity Ci against

every damage state i. Symbolically, one can write such discrete values of fragility as follow

Pij = P{D ≥ Ci | G = g j }

26
 Capacity may be assumed to be either deterministic or random. In the former case, Ci in

Eqn. is the threshold value associated with the onset of the damage state i. This is quantified

by a proper damage index [18, 20].

The fragility curve expresses the exceeding probability as a continuous function of the

ground motion intensity, that is Pi = Pi (G). Usually, this is the smooth function that fits

best, in some sense, the discrete values of probability versus those of the ground motion

intensity. Various methods used to identify a fragility curve are mentioned in the next

sections.

2.9.9.2.1 Relative Frequency (RF) Method

Capacity is assumed to be deterministic. The exceeding probability is approximated by

the relative frequency, that is:

Pij = nij N

nij is the number of demands found to exceed the capacity C i among the performed N

realizations at the ground motion intensity gj. The fragility curves pertaining to each damage

state i derive from least-squares fitting of such cumulative relative frequencies [14]. For

instances, Mosalam assumed an expotential fitting model [19]. This is a crude, quite simple

method characterized by being independent of any particular probability distribution of the

realizations.

2.9.9.2.2 Log Normal Distribution (LD) Method

Capacity is assumed to be deterministic. The realizations are assumed to follow some

probability distribution function, to be identified specifically to both the damage state and

the ground motion intensity, Eqn writes:

27
 Pij = 1- Fij (Ci )

Fij is the cumulative probability distribution function. It is common to use the two

parameter . Singhal and Kiremidijian verified such assumption at a 5 % confidence level

bythe Kolmogorov- Smirnov test, and assumed a lognormal distribution function to express

the fragility curves as well, identified ordinary fitting.

The fragility of a structure is is defined as the conditional probability of failure at a given

value of seismic response parameter as maximum acceleration, velocity displacement,

spectral acceleration, effective acceleration, arias intensity etc. Generally there are two

ways of defining seismic fragilities i.e. in terms of global ground motion parameter or in

terms of local response parameter.

Most frequently the objective of the fragility evaluation is to estimate the peak ground

motion acceleration value for which the seismic response of a structure (system component)

exceeds the capacity resulting in failure. The estimation of the ground acceleration value

could be performed on the base of calculations or based on experience data (the later could

be from real earthquakes or dynamic tests). Because there are many sources of variability

the structure (component) fragility is expressed usually by family of curves. A probability

value is assigned to each curve to reflect the uncertainty in the fragility estimation are shown

in fig 2.8.

The first step in generation fragility curve is a clear definition of what constitutes failure

for the analyzed object. The failure definition may differ significantly depending of the

goals of the analyzed object. The failure definition may differ significantly depending of

the goals of the analysis, e.g. failure could be any loss of function, strength, integrity value

etc. One and the same failure may happen in different failure modes, each of them have to

be clearly identified and addressed. A post office may fail for instance due to structural

28
 failure, failure in the electrical supply, failure of the road system, failure of the

communication equipment, failure of the auxiliary facilities etc. Another example of failure

mode differentiation is the ductile or the brittle mode of failure. If there is clear definition

for the possible failure modes, fragility has to be developed for the mode which is most

likely to occur.

2.9.3 Fragility Curves

Fragility curves, as shown in Figure 2.8, is a statistical tool representing the probability of
exceeding a given damage state (or performance) as a function of an engineering demand
parameter [21].

Figure 2.8: Fragility Curve

29
2.10 Modeling and Analyzing using ETABS:

2.10.1 ETABS Analysis: New ETABS is an ultimate integrated software package for the

structural analysis and design of buildings. Incorporating 40 years of continuous research and

development, this latest ETABS offers unmatched 3D object based modeling and

visualization tools, blazingly fast linear and nonlinear analytical power, sophisticated and

comprehensive design capabilities for a wide-range of materials, and insightful graphic

displays, reports, and schematic drawings that allow users to quickly and easily decipher and

understand analysis and design results.

From the start of design conception through the production of schematic drawings, ETABS

integrates every aspect of the engineering design process. Creation of models has never been

easier - intuitive drawing commands allow for the rapid generation of floor and elevation

framing. CAD drawings can be converted directly into ETABS models or used as templates

onto which ETABS objects may be overlaid. The state-of-the-art SAPFire 64-bit solver

allows extremely large and complex models to be rapidly analyzed, and supports nonlinear

modeling techniques such as construction sequencing and time effects (e.g., creep and

shrinkage).

2.10.2 Modeling of Structural Systems in ETABS: Fundamental to ETABS modeling is the

generalization that multi-story buildings typically consist of identical or similar floor plans in
the vertical direction as shown in Figure 2.9. Modeling features that streamline analytical-
model generation, and simulate advanced seismic systems, are listed as follows:

● Templates for global-system and local-element modeling.

● Customized section geometry and constitutive behavior.
● Grouping of frame and shell objects.
● Link assignment for modeling isolators, dampers, and other advanced seismic systems.

30
● Nonlinear hinge specification.
● Automatic meshing with manual options.
● Editing and assignment features for plan, elevation, and 3D views.

Figure 2.9: 3-D Model in ETABS Software

2.10.3 Loading, Analysis & Design in ETABS Model: Once modeling is complete, ETABS
automatically generates and assigns code-based loading conditions for gravity, seismic, wind,
and thermal forces as shown in Figure 2.10. Users may specify an unlimited number of load
cases and combinations [13].

Analysis capabilities then offer advanced nonlinear methods for characterization of static-
pushover and dynamic response. Dynamic considerations may include modal, response-
spectrum, or time-history analysis. P-delta effect that account for geometric nonlinearity.

Design features will automatically size elements and systems, design reinforcing schemes,
and otherwise optimize the structure according to desired performance measures for given
enveloping specification.

31
.

Figure 2.10: Loading in Etabs Model

2.10.4 Output, Interoperability, and Versatility in ETABS Model: Output and display

formats are also practical and intuitive. Moment, shear, and axial force diagrams, presented in

2D and 3D views with corresponding data set (Figure 2.11), may be organized into customizable

reports. Also available are detailed section cuts depicting various local response measures.

Global perspectives, depicting static displaced configurations or video animations of time-history

response, are available as well.

ETABS also features interoperability with related software products, providing for the import of

architectural models from various technical drawing software, or export to various platforms and

file formats. SAFE, the floor and foundation slab design software with post-tensioning (PT)

capability, is one such option for export. CSI coordinated SAFE to be used in conjunction with

ETABS such that engineers could more thoroughly detail, analyze, and design the individual

levels of an ETABS model.

32
While ETABS features a variety of sophisticated capabilities, the software is equally useful for

designing basic systems. ETABS is the practical choice for all grid-like applications ranging

from simple 2D frames to the most complex high rises.

Figure 2.11: Out Put Analysis Report in ETABS Model

33
 CHAPTER THREE

SURVEY AND SAMPLE GENERATION

3.1 General:

In this chapter, field survey and sample generation is described in details. Initially a field survey

has been conducted to gather real time information on the typical garments buildings located at

different locations of Dhaka City. Based on the field survey, three different types of typical

garment buildings (4, 6, and 8 storey) have been selected for fragility analysis of progressive

collapse. For each structure type, 3500 sample were then generated based on parameter range

obtained from the field survey. Out of the several samples, 100 samples have been selected

randomly using MATLAB function to conduct a progressive collapse analysis.

This survey and sample generation process can be classified into three sections

 Detail Survey Plan

 Sample Generation

 Random Selection

3.2 Detail Survey Plan:

In this study, about 50 garment buildings were surveyed. Initially, reconnaissance survey was

conducted to identify the typical stories of different garment buildings. In the reconnaissance

survey, the structures have been divided into different categories based on storey height. The

34
following table (Table 3.1) shows the number of factories surveyed and their respective storey

level:

Table 3.1: No of RMG buildings surveyed with respect to storey height

Storey No.of RMG Buildings

3 2
4 9
5 6
6 16
7 2
8 6
10 2
11 2

By analyzing the survey data, 4, 6 and 8 storey buildings were found to have a greater frequency

as compared to higher storey buildings. For these reasons, an extensive data collection was

conducted for 4, 6 and 8 storey buildings. Though 5 storey buildings were also found in

significant number but were not considered in this study due to a similar behavior to the 6 storey

buildings.

The detailed survey was conducted primarily by performing a site-visit of the selected sites and

further detail design and drawings (design and structural drawings) were collected at the time of

the survey. In this study, a survey was conducted on 30 garments and a data sheet was also

prepared for these garment buildings. The following table (Table 3.2) mainly shows different

structural parameters of the survey conducted on the 30 garment buildings.

35
 Table 3.2: Different parameters for each garments buildings at Detail Survey

Beam
Span Length (ft) Column Size (in) Size
Story Interior
SI No No X- Dir Y Dir Corner (C1) Exterior (C2) (C3) (in)
1 6 15 15 10x10 12x12 12x15 10x18
2 6 24 26 15x15 15x15 20x20 12x24
3 6 25 25 18x18 18x18 24x24 15x30
4 6 15 20 12x12 12x12 15x15 12x20
5 6 25 26 20x20 21x24 24x24 15x30
Flat
6 6 26 17 18x15 21x18 21x21 Plate
7 6 20 19 15x15 15x15 20x20 12x25
8 6 18 15 16x12 20x12 20x12 10x17
9 6 13 15 10x10 10x10 12x15 10x12
10 6 27 24.5 18x15 18x18 24x24 15x30
11 6 25 25 15x15 15x15 24x24 15x30
12 6 19.5 20 12x12 12x12 15x15 12x18
Flat
13 8 24.5 25.5 18x18 18x27 24x27 Plate
14 8 19 22 21x21 21x21 24x24 10x20
Flat
15 8 16.5 14 12x10 12x10 12x15 Plate
Flat
16 8 21 18.5 21x21 21x21 24x24 Plate
Flat
17 8 25 25 18x18 18x27 24x27 Plate
18 8 27 23.5 15x15 18x18 24x24 15x30
Flat
19 8 20 20 12x15 12x15 15x18 Plate
20 8 25'-5" 24'-7" 18x15 18x18 25x27 12x30
21 8 14 15.5 12x10 12x12 12x15 10x18
22 8 14.33 17 15x15 15x15 20x20 10x18
23 4 15 16 10x10 15x10 12x15 10x17
24 4 19 20 10x15 10x15 15 dia 10x21
25 4 19 20 10x10 15x15 15x15 15x21
26 4 15 14 10x10 10x10 12x15 10x15
27 4 15.25 16 15x10 15x10 12x12 12x17
28 4 25.5 26.5 17x17 17x18 15x18 12x30
29 4 25 25 10x10 10x15 12x15 10x21
30 4 20.5 20 15x15 24x12 24x12 10x20

36
Table 3.3: Different parameters for each garments buildings at Detail Survey

Compressive Yield Strength Beam

SI Strength of of Steel fy % Steel Size % Steel
No Concrete (ksi) (ksi) in Column (in) in Beam
1 3 60 1.5 10x18 0.75
2 3 60 1.5 12x24 1
3 4 60 2 15x30 1.75
4 3 60 1.25 12x20 1.25
5 3.5 60 1.75 15x30 1.5
6 3.25 60 1.25 Flat Plate 0.5
Not Found Not Found Not Found
7 Not Found 12x25
Not Found Not Found Not Found Not Found
8 10x17
Not Found Not Found Not Found Not Found
9 10x12
Not Found Not Found
10 Not Found 15x30 Not Found
Not Found Not Found Not Found Not Found
11 15x30
Not Found
12 3.5 40 Not Found 12x18
13 3 60 1.75 Flat Plate 1.5
14 2 40 1.25 10x20 0.5
15 3.5 60 1.75 Flat Plate 1.5
16 3 60 1.25 Flat Plate 0.5
Not Found Not Found Not Found
17 Flat Plate Not Found
18 3.5 60 2 15x30 1
19 Not Found 60 1 Flat Plate Not Found
20 3 60 1.5 12x30 1
21 3.5 60 1.25 10x18 0.5
22 3.5 40 2 10x18 2
23 4 60 1.5 10x17 1.25
24 4.5 60 2 10x21 1
25 4 60 2 15x21 0.75
26 3.5 60 2.5 10x15 1
Not Found Not Found Not Found
27 12x17 Not Found
28 4 60 1 12x30 0.5
29 3 40 2 10x21 1
30 4 60 2 10x20 2

37
3.3 Sample Generation:

From the 30 garment buildings, detailed survey data of important structural parameters were

identified. Then the range and variation of the different structural parameters were determined

considering the prevalent constructional condition of Bangladesh which is described below:

3.3.1 Strength of Concrete (𝒇𝒄 ):

Strength of concrete is commonly considered as the most valuable property of concrete which is

invariably a vital element of structural design. Strength of concrete is dependent on a lot of

factors such as concrete mix design, water/cement ratio, aggregate size, placing and curing of

concrete, admixtures etc. In most of the cases, these factors are not properly maintained in the

construction sites of Bangladesh which results in a reduced compressive strength as compared to

the value stated in the design. From the detailed survey data, the compressive strength of

concrete for RMG structures was found to be 3 to 4 ksi from the design drawings with a few

exceptions of strength value more than 4 ksi. However, in some cases, no proper design plans

were found to infer any conclusive values of compressive strength. The objective of this study is

to determine the real fragility scenario of RMG buildings in Bangladesh. Thus, considering

actual field construction environment, compressive strength of concrete was limited to the range

of 1.5 to 4 ksi.

3.3.2 Yield Strength of Steel (𝒇𝒚 ):

Yield strength is an important indicator for use in engineering structural design. In detailed

structural analysis, yield strength of steel is required at every step for analyzing Demand-

Capacity ratio and fragility of structures. From the detailed survey data, in most of the cases

38
yield strength of steel was found to be 60 ksialong with few cases with 40 ksi. Hence, most of

the models were designed by using yield strength of 60 ksi while a few incorporated the lower

value of 40 ksi.

3.3.3 Span Length:

Span length is a key factor for every structure with an utmost significance in progressive collapse

analysis. In case of the removal of acorner column and interior or middle column in progressive

collapse analysis, the resulting equivalent structure of a column supported beam resembles a

cantilever beam and a double spanned beam respectively. Span length also controls other

structural parameters and plays an important role in their analysis. However, from the detailed

survey data, different span lengths were found, ranging from 12 ft to 30 ft. In most of the cases,

span length was found to be around 15 ft, 20 ft and 25 ft. Considering all these circumstances

model were developed by using span lengths in combination of 15 ft, 20 ft and 25 ft.

3.3.4 Column Size:

Column dimension is the fundamental structural feature of progressive collapse analysis. When

one column is removed in progressive collapse analysis, its effect is tremendous in other adjacent

columns and can result in total structural failure of the adjacent structural elements. However, a

huge variation was found in column dimension in the detailed survey analysis since the

parameter is dependent upon a lot of factors such as storey height, number of bay, span length,

yield strength of steel, compressive strength of concrete, number of reinforcement etc. Different

scenario was found in different buildings with a certain number of characterized story heights as

described below:

39
3.3.4.1 Four Storey Structure:

For analyzing progressive of four storied structures in case of column removal, structures are

categorized in three parts based on the location of removal:

a. Exterior Corner Column:

In the detailed survey, when span length was around 15 ft, the size of the corner columns were

found to be 10 in x 10 in to 10 in x 15 in. By using this limit while varying the sizes within this

range, models were generated in generalized table with a combination of 10 in x 10 in, 10 in x 12

in, 10 in x 15 in etc.

When span length was around 20 ft, the size of the corner column dimensions were found to be

10 in x 10 in to 15 in x 15 in. By using this limit while varying the sizes within this range,

models were generated in generalized table like 10 in x 10 in, 10 in x 12 in, 12 in x 12 in, 12 in x

15 in etc.

Similarly, for 25 ft span length, the size of the corner columns were found to be around 10 in x

10 in to 17 in x 17 in. Considering this limit while varying the sizes in different combinations,

models were generated in generalized table with a combination of 10 in x 12 in, 12 in x 15 in, 15

in x 15 in, 15 in x 17 in etc.

b. Exterior Middle Column:

In the detailed survey, when span length was around 15 ft, the size of the exterior middle

columns were found to be 10 in x 10 in to 10 in x 15 in.. By using this limit while varying the

sizes within this range, models were generated in generalized table with a combination of 10 in x

10 in, 10 in x 12 in, 10 in x 15 in etc.

40
When span length was around 20 ft, the size of the exterior middle columns dimensions were

found to be 10 in x 15 in to 12 in x 15 in. By using this limit while varying the sizes within this

range, models were generated in generalized table like 10 in x 15 in, 12 in x 15 in, 15 in x 15 in

etc.

Similarly, for 25 ft span length, the size of the exterior middle columns were found to be around

12 in x 12 in to 12 in x 18 in. Considering this limit while varying the sizes in different

combinations, models were generated in generalized table with a combination of 12 in x 12 in,

12 in x 15 in, 12 in x 18 in etc.

c. Interior Column:

In the detailed survey, when span length was around 15 ft, the size of the interior columns were

found to be 12 in x 12 in to 12 in x 15 in. By using this limit while varying the sizes within this

range, models were generated in generalized table with a combination of 12 in x 12 in, 12 in x 14

in, 10 in x 15 in etc.

When span length was around 20 ft, the sizes of the interior columns dimensions were found to

be 15 in diameter circular column to 24 in x 12 in. By using this limit while varying the sizes

within this range, models were generated in generalized table like 15in diameter, 18in diameter,

12 in x 20 in etc.

Similarly, for 25 ft span length, the size of the interior columns were found to be around 12 in x

15 in to 15 in x 18 in. Considering this limit while varying the sizes in different combinations,

models were generated in generalized table with a combination of 12 in x 15 in, 15 in x 15 in, 15

in x 18 in etc.

41
3.3.4.2 Six Storey Structure:

For analyzing progressive of six storey structures in case of column removal, structures are

categorized in three parts based on the location of removal:

a. Exterior Corner Column:

In the detailed survey, when span length was around 15 ft, the size of the corner columns were

found to be 10 in x 10 in to 12 in x 16 in. By using this limit while varying the sizes within this

range, models were generated in generalized table with a combination of 10 in x 10 in, 10 in x 12

in, 10 in x 15 in, 12 in x 15 in etc.

When span length was around 20 ft, the sizes of the corner column dimensions were found to be

12 in x 12 in to 16 in x 12 in. By using this limit while varying the sizes within this range,

models were generated in generalized table like 12 in x 12 in, 12 in x 15 in, 12 in x 14 in, 16 in x

12 in etc.

Similarly, for 25 ft span length, the size of the corner columns were found to be around 15 in x

15 in to 20 in x 20 in. Considering this limit while varying the sizes in different combinations,

models were generated in generalized table with a combination of 15 in x 15 in, 15 in x 18 in, 18

in x 18 in, 18 in x 20 in etc.

b. Exterior Middle Column:

In the detailed survey, when span length was around 15 ft, the size of the exterior middle

columns were found to be 10 in x 12 in to 12 in x 20 in. Considering this limit while varying the

sizes in different combinations, models were generated in generalized table with a combination

of 10 in x 12 in, 12 in x 12 in, 12 in x 15 in, 12 in x 18 in etc.

42
When span length was around 20 ft, the sizes of the exterior middle columns dimensions were

found to be 12 in x 12 in to 15 in x 15 in. By using this limit while varying the sizes within this

range, models were generated in generalized table like 12 in x 12 in, 12 in x 15 in, 15 in x 15 in

etc.

Similarly, for 25 ft span length, the size of the exterior middle columns were found to be around

15 in x 15 in to 18 in x 27 in. Considering this limit while varying the sizes in different

combinations, models were generated in generalized table with a combination of 15 in x 15 in,

15 in x 18 in, 18 in x 18 in, 18 in x 20 in , 18 in x 25 in etc.

c. Interior Column:

In the detailed survey, when span length was around 15 ft, the size of the interior columns were

found to be 12 in x 15 in to 15 in x 15 in. By using this limit while varying the sizes within this

range, models were generated in generalized table with a combination of 12 in x 15 in, 12 in x 14

in, 14 in x 15 in etc.

When span length was around 20 ft, the sizes of the interior columns dimensions were found to

be 12 in x 12 in to 15 in x 15 in. By using this limit while varying the sizes within this range,

models were generated in generalized table like 15 in x 15 in, 15 in x 18 in, 18 in x 18 in, 18 in x

20 in, 20 in x 20 in etc.

Similarly, for 25 ft span length, the size of the interior columns were found to be around 15 in x

15 in to 24 in x 24 in. Considering this limit while varying the sizes in different combinations,

models were generated in generalized table with a combination of 15 in x 15 in, 15 in x 18 in, 18

in x 18 in, 18 in x 20 in, 20 in x 20 in etc.

43
3.3.4.3 Eight Storey Structure:

For analyzing progressive of eight storied structures in case of column removal, structures are

categorized in three parts based on the location of removal:

a. Exterior Corner Column:

In the detailed survey, when span length was around 15 ft, the size of the corner columns were

found to be 10 in x 12 in to 15 in x 15 in. By using this limit while varying the sizes within this

range, models were generated in generalized table with a combination of 10 in x 12 in, 12 in x 12

in, 12 in x 15 in etc.

When span length was around 20 ft, the sizes of the corner column dimensions were found to be

12 in x 15 in to 21 in x 21 in. By using this limit while varying the sizes within this range,

models were generated in generalized table like 12 in x 15 in, 15 in x 15 in, 15 in x 18 in, 18 in x

18 in etc.

Similarly, for 25 ft span length, the size of the corner columns were found to be around 15 in x

15 in to 20 in x 20 in. Considering this limit while varying the sizes in different combinations,

models were generated in generalized table with a combination of 15 in x 15 in, 15 in x 18 in, 18

in x 18 in, 18 in x 20 in etc.

b. Exterior Middle Column:

In the detailed survey, when span length was around 15 ft, the size of the exterior middle

columns were found to be 10 in x 12 in to 15 in x 15 in . Considering this limit while varying the

sizes in different combinations, models were generated in generalized table with a combination

of 10 in x 12 in, 12 in x 12 in, 12 in x 15 in etc.

44
When span length was around 20 ft, the sizes of the exterior middle columns dimensions were

found to be 12 in x 15 in to 21 in x 21 in. By using this limit while varying the sizes within this

range, models were generated in generalized table like 12 in x 15 in, 15 in x 15 in, 15 in x 18 in,

18 in x 18 in, 18 in x 21 in etc.

Similarly, for 25 ft span length, the size of the exterior middle columns were found to be around

18 in x 18 in to 18 in x 27 in. Considering this limit while varying the sizes in different

combinations, models were generated in generalized table with a combination of 18 in x 18 in,

18 in x 20 in, 18 in x 24 in, 18 in x 25 in etc.

c. Interior Column:

In the detailed survey, when span length was around 15 ft, the size of the interior columns were

found to be 12 in x 15 in to 20 in x 20 in. By using this limit while varying the sizes within this

range, models were generated in generalized table with a combination of 12 in x 15 in, 15 in x 15

in, 15 in x 18 in etc.

When span length was around 20 ft, the sizes of the interior columns dimensions were found to

be 15 in x 18 in to 24 in x 24 in. By using this limit while varying the sizes within this range,

models were generated in generalized table like 15 in x 18 in, 18 in x 18 in, 18 in x 20 in, 20 in x

20 in etc.

Similarly, for 25 ft span length, the size of the interior columns were found to be around 24 in x

24 in to 25 in x 27 in.. Considering this limit while varying the sizes in different combinations,

models were generated in generalized table with a combination of 24 in x 24 in, 24 in x 25 in, 25

in x 25 in, 24 in x 27 in etc.

45
3.3.5 Beam Size:

Beam size, the depth of the beam in particular, is a key parameter in progressive collapse

analysis when demand capacity ratio for shear and moment are to be determined. As mentioned

earlier, the resulting configuration of the column supported beam to cantilever and double

spanned beam on removal of corner and middle or interior ones, respectively vitalizes the role of

beam size in the analysis of Demand-Capacity ratio. In the detailed survey, span lengths were

found to be around 15 ft, 20 ft and 25 ft. When span lengths were around 15 ft, 20 ft and 25 ft,

beam depth showed a variation of 12 in to 18 in, 18 in to 25 in and 24 in to 30 in respectively

.The similar values for the width of the beams were around 10 in, 10 in to 15 in and 12 in to 15

in, respectively. By using this variation and ranges of length and width, different types of model

data were obtained and generated in a generalized table.

3.4 Random Selection:

In generalized table, huge number of population were created but during the detail progressive

collapse analysis random selection was required to make the job easier. Random selection was

important because random sampling eliminates bias by giving all individuals an equal chance to

be chosen. Random sampling produces an uncertainty about experimental results that can be

quantified and analyzed objectively. Failure to use random sampling results in uncertainties that

are themselves unknown and subjective and leads overall to a higher level of ignorance.

MATLAB is a modern programming language environment. It has sophisticated data structures,

contains built-in editing and debugging tools, and supports object-oriented programming. In

generalized table, 3500 sample models were created by combining different structural parameter

in each story. The generalized table was made in Microsoft Office excel environment. The data

46
in Excel were imported from an automated analysis workflow in MATLAB by calling MATLAB

commands "readtable" and "xlsread" directly. Excel data was naturally represented in MATLAB

as a table, which in turn organized the tabular data into columns of a single variable.

In generalized table, 3500 sample models were created by combining different structural

parameter in each story. The generalized table was made in Microsoft Office excel environment.

The data in Excel were imported from an automated analysis workflow in MATLAB by calling

MATLAB commands "readtable" and "xlsread" directly. Excel data was naturally represented in

MATLAB as a table, which in turn organized the tabular data into columns of a single variable.

Later, 100 samples were randomly chosen by MATLAB for each storied buildings and later 300

models were generated in ETABS with these randomly picked up samples and further ETABS

analysis were conducted.

47
 CHAPTER FOUR

MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS

4.1 General:

As discussed in the previous chapter, 300 models of Matlab simulation for 4, 6 and 8 storey

buildings were selected from 3500 models, where each story represents 100 models out of 300

models. These 300 models were then used in the analysis in ETABS environment following

GSA guidelines. In this research, typical structure was used in the analysis since most of the

garments buildings are typical structure and atypical structures were avoided due to their paucity.

4.2 Model Development:

For each storey of the 4, 6 and 8 were analyzed for three cases namely:

Case 1: Removing corner column.

Case 2: Removing exterior bay middle column.

Case 3: Removing an interior column.

For the above three cases, the behavior of the adjacent columns and beams are observed for the

analysis. For moment and shear, the adjacent beams of the removed column are considered for

the analysis and in case of axial force, the adjacent column of the removed column is taken into

account for the analysis.

48
In the following section, three structural models of 4, 6 and 8 storey buildings, respectively

which was selected from MATLAB random selection and analyzed in ETABS environment are

described in details. In detail description, the procedure of analysis according to the GSA

guideline of every case for 4 storey building described. Other buildings considered in the study

were modeled and analyzed following the same procedure.

4.2.1 Model Development for Four Storey Building:

100 models of 4 storey structures have been created and analyzed in ETABS environment. In

the following section,one model is described out of the 100 analyzed models.

During MATLAB random selection of the 4-storey structural models was done from 3500

models, the material and sectional properties of these models were also inputted in MATLAB

function. For this reason, when 100 models were randomly selected, their material and sectional

properties were also selected. By using these selected data of material and sectional properties,

three dimensional 4 storied 100 structural models were made in ETABS environment.

In this model, described below, the span length was found 25 ft in both X and Y directions. Slab

thickness was found 6 inches. The material properties are described in Table 4.2 and the

sectional properties for frame structure are described in Table 4.1.

49
 Table 4.1: Sectional Properties

Column Size Beam Size

Corner Middle Interior Percentage Exterior Interior Reinforcement

Column Column of Column of of Steel in Beam Beam (in) Ratio in Beam

Exterior Interior Column (in) (ῤ)

(in) Bay (in) Bay (in)

10 x 10 15 x 10 15 x 12 1% 10 x 21 10 x 21 0.0075

Table 4.2: Material Properties

Compressive Strength of Concrete (psi) Yield Strength of Steel (psi)

2,500 60,000

4.2.1.1 Loading Criteria:

In progressive collapse analysis, the main concern is the gravity load. This is because when a

column fails or it gets damaged in any situation, the gravity load will be distributed through

another part of the structure. If the adjacent parts of the structures are not enough strong to carry

the additional load, the structure will fail in a progressive way. Lateral loads like wind load and

seismic load were not considered in this analysis. However, the live load intensity for RMG

buildings is higher than the residential buildings. For this reason, the live load was considered 60

psf like a commercial space. Only one type of load combination was taken into account

50
according to GSA guidelines [11-13]. In ETABS model, load Combination -1 was made by

using multiplication factor 2 for Dead Load and 0.5 for live load.

4.2.1.2 Column Removal Technique:

According to GSA guideline, column was removed in three positions which are shown in figure

4.1 and the removals are indicated with red circles. Red circle-1 shows corner column removal

position, red circle-2 and red circle-3 show middle column of exterior bay removal position and

interior column removal position, respectively.

1 2

Figure 4.1: Plan of the building with red circles showing the columns that are to be removed.

51
4.2.1.3 Case Study:

CASE 1 depicts the structural response of a typical four storey building, analyzed using ETABS,

due to the exclusion of a corner column.

After the removal of corner column, the structure was analyzed and the maximum demand for

axial, flexure and shear on adjacent members (as shown in Fig. 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4) were observed.

The maximum moment demand was found to be 767.08 kip-ft and the corresponding capacity

was found to be 126.365 kip-ft. For this reason, DCR value was obtained as 6.07. On the other

hand, the maximum shear force (Vmax) was found to be 86.58 kip and the corresponding

capacity was found to be 18.5 kip. For this reason, DCR value was obtained as 4.68. So

according to GSA guideline for both moment and shear value, the adjacent beam fails since DCR

value exceeds 2. The higher DCR value results from a change in the support system of the

corner beams. Such change in support system causes a high demand for bending moment as well

as shear values as compared to the capacity of the beam [6,13]. For adjacent column analyzing

scenario, the maximum reaction force (Pmax) in the adjacent column was found to be 742.95 kip

and the corresponding DCR value was obtained to be 2.25, where capacity was found to be

329.08 kip.

52
 Figure 4.2: Moment diagram after the removal of corner column

Figure 4.3: Shear force diagram after the removal of corner column.

53
 Figure 4.4: Axial force diagram after the removal of corner column

From the above analysis, it is apparent that the removal of corner column as per GSA guideline

caused adjacent beam and adjacent column to fail. However, DCR values of the beam have been

found to be much higher than the column. This is due to the fact that when corner column was

removed the support condition of the beam was changed and the beam was converted into a

cantilever beam from fixed supported beam. Consequently, the DCR values for both the shear

and the moment of the beam increased so highly. On the other hand, when the corner column is

removed, some load of the corner column is shifted to the adjacent column and consequently, it

fails but its DCR value does not become much higher compared with the DCR value of the

adjacent beam. So, it can be concluded that in this model, when the corner column is removed,

the local failure of the beam occurs to a great extent, but the total failure of the column is not that

great. It may be noted that the failure of the column is chosen as a total structural failure.

54
The analyzing procedure for case-2 and case-3 were same as case-1. Table 4.3 summarizes all

the findings of linear elastic analysis performed for above mentioned three cases of column

removal.

Table 4.3: Maximum Demand and DCR Values of Adjacent Members after Exclusions of

Columns from Certain Positions.

Case Bending Moment Shear Force (kip) Axial Force (kip)

(kip-ft)

Max. DCR Max. DCR Max. DCR

Demand Demand Demand

Case-1 767.08 6.06 86.58 4.68 742.95 2.25

Case-2 550.19 4.35 77.62 4.19 667.27 2.02

Case-3 693.46 6.31 91.23 4.93 887.96 2.26

4.2.2 Model Development for Six Storey Building:

100 models of six storey structures have been created and analyzed in ETABS environment. In

the following section,one model is described out of the 100 analyzed models.

During MATLAB random selection of the 6-storey structural models was done from 3500

models, the material and sectional properties of these models were also inputted in MATLAB

function. For this reason, when 100 models were randomly selected, their material and sectional

properties were also selected. By using these selected data of material and sectional properties,

three dimensional 6 storey 100 structural models were made in ETABS environment.

55
In this model, described below, the span length was found 20 ft in both X and Y directions.Slab

thickness was found 6 inches. The material properties are described in Table 4.2 and the

sectional properties for frame structure are described in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4: Sectional Properties

Column Size Beam Size

Corner Middle Interior Percentage Exterior Interior Reinforcement

Column Column of Column of of Steel in Beam Beam (in) Ratio in Beam

Exterior Interior Column (in) (ῤ)

(in) Bay (in) Bay (in)

16 x 12 20 x 12 20 x 12 1.25 % 10 x 17 10 x 17 0.018

Table 4.5: Material Properties

Compressive Strength of Concrete (psi) Yield Strength of Steel (psi)

2,000 60,000

4.2.2.1 Loading Criteria:

In progressive collapse analysis, the main concern is the gravity load. This is because when a

column fails or it gets damaged in any situation, the gravity load will be distributed through

another part of the structure. If the adjacent parts of the structures are not enough strong to carry

the additional load, the structure will fail in a progressive way. Lateral loads like wind load and

56
seismic load were not considered in this analysis. However, the live load intensity for RMG

buildings is higher than the residential buildings. For this reason, the live load was considered 60

psf like a commercial space. Only one type of load combination was taken into account

according to GSA guidelines. In ETABS model, load Combination -1 was made by using

multiplication factor 2 for Dead Load and 0.5 for live load.

4.2.2.2 Case Study:

CASE 2 depicts the structural response of a typical six storey building, analyzed using ETABS,

due to the exclusion of a middle column at exterior bay.

After the removal of middle column at exterior bay, the structure was analyzed and the

maximum demand for axial, flexure and shear on adjacent members (as shown in Fig. 4.5, 4.6

and 4.7) were observed. The maximum moment demand was found to be 6611.79 kip-in and the

corresponding capacity was found to be 1556.628 kip-ni. For this reason, DCR value was

obtained as 4.24. On the other hand, the maximum shear force (Vmax) was found to be 88.61

kip and the corresponding capacity was found to be 36.89 kip. For this reason, DCR value was

obtained as 2.4. So according to GSA guideline for both moment and shear value, the adjacent

beam fails since DCR value exceeds 2. The higher DCR value results from a change in the

support system of the middle beams. Such change in support system causes a high demand for

bending moment as well as shear values as compared to the capacity of the beam. For adjacent

column analyzing scenario, the maximum reaction force (Pmax) in the adjacent column was

found to be 864.73 kip and the corresponding DCR value was obtained to be 1.85, where

capacity was found to be 466.32 kip.

57
Figure 4.5: Moment diagram after the removal of middle column at exterior bay.

58
Figure 4.6: Shear force diagram after the removal of middle column at exterior bay.

59
 Figure 4.7: Axial force diagram after the removal of middle column at exterior bay.

From the above analysis, it is apparent that the removal of middle column at exterior bay as per

GSA guideline caused adjacent beam to fail. However, DCR values of the beam have been

found to be much higher than the column. This is due to the fact that when middle column was

removed the span length was doubled and the adjacent beam could not carry the tremendous.

moment as well as shear force. As a result the adjacent beam was failed both flexure and shear

cases. On the other hand, when the middle column was removed, some load of the middle

column was shifted to the adjacent column and consequently, its DCR value was increased but it

does not become much higher compared with the DCR value of the adjacent beam. So, it can be

concluded that in this model, when the middle column at exterior bay is removed, the local

60
failure of the beam occurs to a great extent, but the total failure of the column is not that great. It

may be noted that the failure of the column is chosen as a total structural failure.

The analyzing procedure for case-1 and case-3 were same as case-2. Table 4.6 summarizes all

the findings of linear elastic analysis performed for above mentioned three cases of column

removal.

Table 4.6: Maximum Demand and DCR Values of Adjacent Members after Exclusions of
Columns from Certain Positions.

Case Bending Moment Shear Force (kip) Axial Force (kip)

(kip-in)

Max. DCR Max. DCR Max. DCR

Demand Demand Demand

Case-1 5641.44 3.62 76.4 2.1 814.67 1.74

Case-2 6611.79 4.24 88.61 2.4 864.73 1.85

Case-3 6012.9 2.74 77.79 1.8 1159.42 2.48

4.2.3 Model Development for Eight Storey Building:

100 models of eight storey structures have been created and analyzed in ETABS environment.

In the following section,one model is described out of the 100 analyzed models.

During MATLAB random selection of the 8-storied structural models was done from 3500

models, the material and sectional properties of these models were also inputted in MATLAB

function. For this reason, when 100 models were randomly selected, their material and sectional

61
properties were also selected. By using these selected data of material and sectional properties,

three dimensional 8 storied 100 structural models were made in ETABS environment.

In this model, described below, the span length was found 25 ft in both X and Y directions. Slab

thickness was found 6.5 inches. The material properties are described in Table 4.7 and the

sectional properties for frame structure are described in Table 4.8.

Table 4.7: Sectional Properties

Column Size Beam Size

Corner Middle Interior Percentage Exterior Interior Reinforcement

Column Column of Column of of Steel in Beam Beam (in) Ratio in Beam

Exterior Interior Column (in) (ῤ)

(in) Bay (in) Bay (in)

15 x 15 18 x 18 24 x 24 1.5 % 15 x 30 15 x 30 0.009

Table 4.8: Material Properties

Compressive Strength of Concrete (psi) Yield Strength of Steel (psi)

3,000 60,000

4.2.3.1 Case Study:

CASE 3 depicts the structural response of a typical eight storey building, analyzed using

ETABS, due to the exclusion of a middle column at exterior bay.

62
After the removal of interior column, the structure was analyzed and the maximum demand for

axial, flexure and shear on adjacent members (as shown in Fig. 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10) were observed.

The maximum moment demand was found to be 5717.08 kip-in and the corresponding capacity

was found to be 16020.65 kip-in. For this reason, DCR value was obtained as 2.80. On the other

hand, the maximum shear force (Vmax) was found to be 159.89 kip and the corresponding

capacity was found to be 105.68 kip. For this reason, DCR value was obtained as 1.51. So

according to GSA guideline for moment value, the adjacent beam fails since DCR value exceeds

2 but for the adjacent beam does not fail due to shear . The higher DCR value for flexure results

from a change in the support system of the interior beams. Such change in support system

causes a high demand for bending moment as compared to the capacity of the beam. For

adjacent column analyzing scenario, the maximum reaction force (Pmax) in the adjacent column

was found to be 2813.98 kip and the corresponding DCR value was obtained to be 1.75, where

capacity was found to be 1605.226 kip.

63
Figure 4.8: Moment diagram after the removal of middle column at exterior bay.

64
Figure 4.9: Shear force diagram after the removal of middle column at exterior bay.

65
 Figure 4.10: Axial force diagram after the removal of corner column

From the above analysis, it is apparent that the removal of interior column as per GSA guideline

caused adjacent beam to fail due to flexure. However, DCR values of the beam have been found

to be much higher than the column. This is due to the fact that when interior column was

removed the span length was doubled and the adjacent beam could not carry the tremendous.

moment. As a result the adjacent beam was failed for flexure. On the other hand, when the

interior column was removed, some load of the interior column was shifted to the adjacent

column and consequently, its DCR value was increased but it does not become much higher

compared with the DCR value of the adjacent beam. So, it can be concluded that in this model,

when the middle column at exterior bay is removed, the local failure of the beam occurs to a

66
great extent, but the total failure of the column is not that great. It may be noted that the failure

of the column is chosen as a total structural failure.

The analyzing procedure for case-1 and case-2 were same as case-3. Table 4.9 summarizes all

the findings of linear elastic analysis performed for above mentioned three cases of column

removal.

Table 4.9: Maximum Demand and DCR Values of Adjacent Members after Exclusions of
Columns from Certain Positions.

Case Bending Moment Shear Force (kip) Axial Force (kip)

(kip-in)

Max. DCR Max. DCR Max. DCR

Demand Demand Demand

Case-1 12115.33 2.12 122.07 1.34 1795.91 2.03

Case-2 15029.56 2.62 157.59 1.74 1965.11 2.22

Case-3 16020.65 2.80 159.89 1.51 2813.98 1.75

67
 CHAPTER FIVE

DEVELOPMENT OF FRAGILITY CURVES

5.1 General

The main objective of this study is to perform the fragility analysis of typical garment buildings

of Bangladesh for progressive collapse. The probability of exceedance was determined for three

predefined limit states of progressive collapse through finite element analysis of garments

buildings using ETABS package. From the probability of exceedance values, fragility curves

have been generated for three different storey garment buildings for each of the limit state.

5.2 Development of Fragility Curve

As discussed in the previous chapter, 100 models were randomly generated from thousand

population size for each of the three different storey buildings e.g. 4 storey, 6 storey, and 8 storey

buildings using MATLAB function. In accordance with the GSA guidelines, all models were

analyzed for 3 distinct collapse cases. The 3 distinct collapse cases are;

 Corner column removal of an exterior bay.

 Middle column removal of an exterior bay.

 Interior column removal of an interior bay.

In every case, demand capacity ratios (DCR) for three limit states i.e. adjacent beam shear force,

adjacent beam flexural moment and adjacent column axial load were obtained. Frequency

68
curves for DCR values were developed for all buildings for three collapse cases. The probability

of exceedance was then calculated for different DCR values using the frequency curve. Once the

probability of exceedance was found, the fragility curves were constructed for each of the three

different storey buildings for three limit states.

5.2.1 Six Storey Building

5.2.1. 1 Case-I: Corner Column Removal of Exterior Bay

The effect of corner column removal of 6 storey building is analyzed and a brief description is

given in this section on the procedure of fragility curve development from the frequency

distribution curve of DCR values of the adjacent column axial load.

In the same way, other two cases of 6 storey buildings and corresponding three cases of 4 and 8

storey buildings were analyzed and DCR values were obtained from their progressive collapse

analysis. The obtained DCR values were then used to create the frequency distribution curves,

from which the probability of exceedance data were used to develop the fragility curves.

The axial load DCR values of adjacent columns for all 100 models chosen from generated

population of six storey building were obtained. The frequency distribution curve of DCR

values were developed and are shown Figure 5.1. Table 5.1 provides the relevant data for

developing the frequency distribution curve.

69
 Table 5.1: Frequency corresponding to selected interval of DCR values

DCR Average DCR Frequency

1.0-1.5 1.25 14

1.5-2.0 1.75 41

2.0-2.5 2.25 22

2.5-3.0 2.75 12

3.0-3.5 3.25 7

3.5-4.0 3.75 3

4.0-4.5 4.25 1

Using Table 5.1, a graph of average DCR against frequency is plotted and shown in Fig 5.1.

45
40
35
30
Frequency

25
20
15
10
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
DCR

Figure 5.1: Frequency curve for axial loading in column (in the case of corner column removal)

70
The area on the right portion of the frequency distribution graph for a particular DCR value is the

probability of exceedance of that DCR value. This area can be determined by using trapezoidal

method in MATLAB environment. For determining the area, a user defined MATLAB function

was created for integration with the composite trapezoidal method of a function f(x) that is given

in a set of 'n' discrete points. The points were spaced equally by using higher and lower value

and frequency probability of exceedance is determined.

For different DCR thresholds, the corresponding probability of exceedance was found in the

similar way, which is presented in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2: Probability of Exceedance at various DCR Limits

DCR limit 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Probability of exceedance 1 1 0.812 0.442 0.221 0.101 0.03 0

By using this table and plotting DCR vs Probability of exceedance, Fragility Curve was

developed for column axial load case. For beam flexure and beam shear cases, similar types of

MATLAB function was used for calculation of probability of exceedance and fragility curves

were developed. Fragility curves for the three limit states are shown in Figure 5.2;

71
 1.2

1
Probability of Exceedance

0.8 Probabililty of Exccedance

for Column Axial Load

0.6 Probabililty of Exccedance

for Beam Flexure
Probabililty of Exccedance
0.4 for Beam Shear

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
DCR
Fig 5.2: Fragility Curves for three limit states of six storeys RMG building for corner column
removal

From this fragility curve (Figure 5.2), it can be said that according to GSA guidelines, where

limiting value is taken as 2, failure of corner column in six storey RMG structures would result

in 80 % failfor beam flexure, 33 % failure for beam shear and 44 % failure for column axial load.

However, the limiting value for a particular limit state depends largely on local construction

practice and material properties. Therefore, a different limiting value (probably more stringent

ones) might be required to set for structures in Bangladesh. For example, if a limiting value of 1

is set for different limit states for Bangladesh, the removal of corner column would cause beam

flexure failure in 100 % cases, beam shear failure in 84% instances, and failure for column axial

capacity in 100 % cases.

As part of the study, an attempt has been made to develop some generalized graphs to relate

DCR values with a dimensionless parameter (based on relevant structural parameter) so that

DCR values for any related structure can be tentatively evaluated without conducting the tedious

finite element and statistical analysis. The structural components of the dimensionless parameter

are chosen in such a way that the values of these components can be calculated from the design

72
drawings and field observation of the building. Moreover, the components of the structural

parameter directly influence the limit state case under consideration e.g. axial load capacity of a

column. The relationship developed for adjacent column axial load capacity showed a good

linear relationship with the DCR values and thereby, can be used to obtain approximate DCR

values. Such DCR value will assist engineers to decide whether the structure requires further

analysis for progressive collapse or not.

For axial loading in adjacent column DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graphs with corresponding R values

are plotted for fc = 3 ksi, fc = 2.5 ksi, fc = 2 ksi and fc = 1.5 ksi in the Figures 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6,

respectively. The different structural components of the parameter are as follows;

Ag = Gross cross sectional area of adjacent column.

As = Area of reinforcement of adjacent column.

Atrib= Tributary loading area of the adjacent column.

1.8 2
1.6 1.8
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.2 1.2
DCR

1
DCR

1
0.8 0.8
0.6 y = 0.0161x + 0.5302
0.6 y = 0.0136x + 0.5142
0.4 R² = 0.7174
R² = 0.7189
0.4 0.2
0.2 0
0 0 50 100
0 50 100 Atrib/(Ag+As)
Atrib/ (Ag+ As)

Figure 5.3: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for Figure 5.4: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for
fc = 3.0 ksi fc = 2.5 ksi

73
 2.5 3

2.5
2
2

DCR
1.5
DCR

1.5

1 1 y = 0.0217x + 0.6989
y = 0.0179x + 0.6349 R² = 0.7614
0.5
0.5 R² = 0.7375
0
0 0 50 100
0 20 40 60 80 100 Atrib / (Ag + As)
Atrib/( Ag +As)

Figure 5.5: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for fc Figure 5.6: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for
= 2 ksi fc = 1.5 ksi

From the graphs plotted in Figures 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 and 5.5, it can be observed that a linear

relationship exists between DCR and the ratio of Atrib and (Ag + As) regardless of the

compressive strength of concrete as mentioned before. In the Figure 5.7, all generalized curves

for determination of DCR values of column axial capacity due to corner column removal are

provided for different compressive strength of concrete.

4
3.5
3
2.5 fc 3 ksi
DCR

2 fc 2.5 ksi

1.5 fc 2 ksi
fc 1.5 ksi
1
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Atrib/(Ag + As)

Figure 5.7: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for axial loading in column due to corner column
removal for different compressive strength of concrete

74
From the developed curve presented in Figure 5.7, it can be said that the curve shift downwards

for higher compressive strength as expected. At the same value of Atrib/ (Ag + As), higher DCR

value for fc = 1.5 ksi has been found as compared to f c = 3 ksi. As already mentioned,

generalized graphs have been developed for relating DCR values with dimensionless structural

parameter that can be easily evaluated from structural drawings. The components of

dimensionless parameter like Ag, As and Atrib of a particular building for a particular column can

be obtained from design drawings or from field observations and therefore, the tentative DCR

value can be determined directly from the generalized curves for six storey building for different

compressive strengths.

For Shear force in beam due to corner column removal, the relationship between DCR and

dimensionless parameter L/(d+As/S) are plotted in Figures 5.8, 5.9, 5.10 and 5.11 for fc = 3 ksi,

fc = 2.5 ksi, fc = 2 ksi and fc = 1.5 ksi ,respectively. The different structural components of the

parameter are as follows;

L = Span length of the adjacent beam

d = Effective depth of the adjacent beam

S = Longitudinal spacing of web reinforcement

As = Total cross-sectional area of web steel within distance S, at the adjacent beam

It is clearly understood that the shear capacity of a beam is directly influenced by the chosen

components of the dimensionless parameter.

75
 4.5 4
4 y = 2.9478x - 0.9224 y = 2.6756x - 0.9303
3.5
R² = 0.99 R² = 0.9885
3.5
3
3
2.5

DCR
2.5
DCR

2
2
1.5 1.5

1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 1 2 0 1 2
L/(d+As/S) L/(d+As/S)

Figure 5.8: DCR vs L/(d+As/S) graph for fc Figure 5.9: DCR vs L/(d+As/S) graph for fc = 2.5
= 3 ksi ksi
5 6
4.5 y = 3.2084x - 0.8004
y = 3.8318x - 0.8463
4 R² = 0.9884 5 R² = 0.9889
3.5
4
3
DCR
DCR

2.5 3
2
2
1.5
1 1
0.5
0
0
0 1 2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
L/(d+As/S) L/(d+As/S)

Figure 5.10: DCR vs L/(d+As/S) graph for Figure 5.11: DCR vs L/(d+As/S) graph for fc =
fc = 2 ksi 1.5 ksi

From the best fit graphs in the Figures 5.8, 5.9, 5.10 and 5.11, it is found that DCR and

L/(d+As/S) have good linear relation for different concrete compressive strengths. All the graphs

have a R2 value of greater than 0.9 and thereby, it can be inferred that the linear regression

equations represent the data quite well.

In Figure 5.12, all the four generalized graphs corresponding to different compressive strengths

of concrete are provided.

76
 6

5
fc 3 ksi
4 fc 2.5 ksi
fc 2 ksi

DCR
3
fc 1.5 ksi
2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
L/(d +As/S)

Figure 5.12: DCR vs L/(d+As/S) graph for shear force in beam due to corner column removal for
different compressive strength of concrete

It can be inferred from Figure 5.12 that the demand capacity ratio (DCR) increases with a

decrease in compressive strength of concrete for the same value of L/(d+As/S). So, a higher

compressive strength of concrete will ensure lesser DCR value. However, the primary objective

for developing such graphs to ease the effort of design engineers in evaluating the DCR values

for different limit cases.

DCR vs L²/ ρbd graph is plotted in Figures 5.13, 5.14, 5.15 and 5.16 for f c = 3 ksi, fc = 2.5 ksi, fc

= 2 ksi and fc = 1.5 ksi, respectively for bending moment in beam due to corner column removal,

where

L = Span length of the adjacent beam

d = Effective depth of the adjacent beam

b = Width of the adjacent beam

ρ = Reinforcement ratio of the adjacent beam

77
 8 8
7 7
6 y = 9E-05x + 0.3405 6 y = 9E-05x + 0.388
R² = 0.9111 R² = 0.9071
5 5

DCR
DCR

4 4

3 3
2
2
1
1
0
0
0 20 40 60 80
0 20 40 60 80
L²/pbd (x 1000)
L²/pbd (x 1000)

Figure 5.13: DCR vs L²/ρbd graph for fc = 3 Figure 5.14: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for f c =
ksi 2.5 ksi
8 12
7
10
6 y = 9E-05x + 0.5661
y = 0.0001x + 0.9916
R² = 0.9002 8
5 R² = 0.7771
DCR
DCR

4 6
3 4
2
2
1
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 50 100

L²/pbd (x 1000) L²/pbd (x 1000)

Figure 5.15: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for f c = 2 Figure 5.16: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for f c =
ksi 1.5 ksi

The graphs in the Figure 5.13, 5.14, 5.15 and 5.16 show that a linear relationship exists between

DCR and L²/pbd regardless of the compressive strength of concrete. All best fit curves showed

good linear relationship. The generalized curves for DCR values vs dimensionless structural

parameter representing flexural capacity of adjacent beam are presented in the Figure 5.17.

78
 12

10

fc 3 ksi
DCR

6
fc 2.5 ksi
4 fc 2 ksi
fc 1.5 ksi
2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
L²/pbd (x 1000)

Figure 5.17: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for bending moment in beam due to corner column removal
for different compressive strength of concrete

The graph in the Figure 5.17 illustrates that, with an increasing compressive strength of concrete,

the DCR value follows a decreasing trend. However, this trend is not that significant as found in

the case of beam shear and column axial load capacity except for fc=1.5 ksi. The components of

dimensionless parameter can be obtained directly from design drawings and therefore, the

corresponding DCR value of an adjacent beam can be found from the graphs.

5.2.1. 2 Case-II Middle Column Removal of Exterior Bay

In this section, the effect of middle column removal of 6 storey building is analyzed and a brief

description is presented on the procedure of fragility curve development from the frequency

distribution curve of DCR values of the adjacent column for axial load. The frequency

distribution curve for axial loading in the case of middle column removal is presented in Figure

5.18.

79
 45
40
Frequency 35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
DCR

Figure 5.18: In the case of Middle Column Removal frequency Curve for axial loading in
Column
The area on the right portion of the frequency distribution graph of a particular DCR value is the

probability of exceedance of that DCR value. This area can be determined by using trapezoidal

method in MATLAB environment. For determining the area a user defined MATLAB function

was created for integration with the composite trapezoidal method of a function f(x) that is given

in a set of 'n' discrete points. The points were spaced equally by using higher and lower value and

frequency probability of exceedance is determined as different DCR threshold.

For different DCR threshold, the corresponding probability of exceedance was found in the

similar way, which is described in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3: Probability of Exceedance at various DCR Limits

DCR limit 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Probability of 1 1 0.868 0.60 0.30 0.101 0.121 0.048

exceedance

80
By using this table and plotting DCR vs probability of exceedance, Fragility Curve was

determined for column axial load cases. For beam flexure and beam shear cases similar types of

MATLAB function was used and fragility curves were developed. Fragility curves for three

limit states are shown in Figure 5.19 :

1.2
Probability of Exceedance

1
Probabililty of
0.8 Exccedance for
Column Axial Load
0.6
Probabililty of
0.4 Exccedance for Beam
Flexure

0.2
Probabililty of
0 Exccedance for Beam
Shear
0 1 2 3 4
DCR

Figure 5.19: Fragility Curves for three limit states of six storey RMG building for middle column
removal

From this fragility curve (Figure 5.19) it can be said that according to GSA guidelines, where

limiting value is taken as 2, failure of middle column in 6 storey RMG structures would result in,

76 % fail for beam flexure, 47 % failure for beam shear and 60 % failure for column axial load.

However, the limiting value for a particular limit state depends largely on local construction

practice and material properties. Therefore, a different limiting value (probably more stringent

ones) might be required to set for structures in Bangladesh. For example, if a limiting value of

1.0 is set for different limit states for Bangladesh, the removal of middle column would cause

81
100 % fail for beam flexure, 96 % failure for beam shear and 100 % failure for column axial

load.

As part of the study, an attempt has been made to develop generalized graphs to relate DCR

values with a dimensionless structural parameter so that DCR values for any related structure can

be tentative evaluated without conducting the tedious finite element and statistical analysis. The

components of structural parameter are chosen in such a way that the values of these components

can be calculated from the design drawings and field observation of the building. Moreover, the

components of the structural parameter directly influence the axial load capacity of a column,

The relationship developed showed a good linear relationship with the DCR values and thereby,

can be used to get approximate DCR values. Such DCR value will assist engineers to decide

whether the structure requires further analysis for progressive collapse. DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As)

graph is plotted for fc = 3 ksi, fc = 2.5 ksi, fc = 2 ksi and fc = 1.5 ksi in the Figure 5.20, 5.21, 5.22

and 5.23 respectively in case of middle column removal.

2.5 3

2 2.5

1.5 2
DCR

DCR

y = 0.0114x + 1.0844 1.5

1
R² = 0.8261 y = 0.0135x + 1.207
1
R² = 0.8569
0.5
0.5
0
0
0 50 100 150
0 50 100 150
Atrib/(Ag +As)
Atrib/(Ag + As)

Figure 5.20: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for Figure 5.21: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for
fc = 3 ksi fc = 2.5 ksi

82
 3.5 4.5
3 4
3.5
2.5
3
2 2.5
DCR

DCR
1.5 y = 0.0168x + 1.3394 2 y = 0.0213x + 1.9338
R² = 0.9001 R² = 0.7673
1.5
1
1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Atrib/(Ag + As) Atrib/(Ag + As)

Figure 5.22: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for Figure 5.23: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for
fc = 2 ksi fc = 1.5 ksi

From the graphs plotted in Figure 5.20, 5.21, 5.22 and 5.23, it can be observed that a linear

relationship exists between DCR and the ratio of Atriband (Ag + As) regardless of the compressive

strength of concrete as mentioned before. In the Figure 5.24 all generalized curves for

determination of DCR values of column axial capacity due to middle column removal are

provided for different compressive strength of concrete.

4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5 fc 3 ksi
DCR

2 fc 2.5 ksi
1.5 fc 2 ksi
1 fc 1.5 ksi
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Atrib/(Ag +As)

Figure 5.24: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for axial loading in column due to middle column
removal for different compressive strength of concrete

83
From the superimposed curve presented in Figure 5.24, it can be said that the curve shift

downwards for higher compressive strength as expected. At the same value of A trib/ (Ag + As),

higher DCR value for fc = 1.5 ksi has been found as compared to fc = 3 ksi. As already

mentioned, generalized graphs have been developed for relating DCR values with dimensionless

structural parameter that can be easily evaluated from structural drawings. The components of

dimensionless parameter like Ag, As and Atrib of a particular building can be obtained from

design drawings or from field observations and therefore the tentative DCR value can be

determined directly from the generalized curves for six storey model at different compressive

strength.

For Shear force in beam due to middle column removal, the relationship between DCR and

dimensionless parameter L/(d+As/S) are plotted in Figure 5.25, 5.26, 5.27 and 5.28 for f c = 3 ksi,

fc = 2.5 ksi, fc = 2 ksi and fc = 1.5 ksi respectively. The shear capacity of a beam is directly

influenced by the components of the dimensionless parameter.

4 4.5
3.5 4
y = 0.3114x - 2.0405 y = 0.3339x - 1.9228
3.5 R² = 0.6886
3 R² = 0.7126 3
2.5
DCR

2.5
DCR

2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5
0.5
0
0 0 10 20
0 5 10 15 20
L/(d+As/S)
L/(d+As/S)

Figure 5.25: DCR vs L/(d+ As/S) graph for fc Figure 5.26: DCR vs L/(d + As/S) graph for fc
= 3 ksi = 2.5 ksi

84
 7
5
4.5 6
y = 0.3704x - 1.8677 y = 0.4729x - 2.6697
4 R² = 0.6624 5 R² = 0.5565
3.5
4

DCR
3
DCR

2.5 3
2 2
1.5
1 1
0.5 0
0 0 10 20
0 10 20
L/(d + As/S)
L/(d + As/S)

Figure 5.27: DCR vs L/(d + As/S) graph for fc Figure 5.28: DCR vs L/(d + As/S) graph for fc
= 2 ksi = 1.5 ksi

From the best fit graphs in the Figure 5.25, 5.26, 5.27 and 5.28, it is found that DCR and

L/(d+As/S) have good linear relation for different concrete compressive strengths.

In Figure 5.29, all the four generalized graphs corresponding to different compressive strengths

of concrete are provided.

4 fc 3 ksi
DCR

3 fc 2.5 ksi

2 fc 2 ksi
fc 1.5 ksi
1

0
5 10 15 20
L/(d+As/S)

Figure 5.29: DCR vs L/(d +As/S) graph for shear force in beam due to middle column removal
for different compressive strength of concrete

85
It can be observed from the graph in Figure 5.29 that, the demand capacity ratio (DCR) has an

increasing trend with the decrease in compressive strength of concrete for the same value of L/(d

+ As/S). The curve shifts downwards with the increase in concrete compressive strength. So, a

higher compressive strength of concrete will ensure lower DCR value.

DCR vs L²/pbd graphs are plotted in Figure 5.30, 5.31, 5.32 and 5.33 for f c = 3 ksi, fc = 2.5 ksi, fc

= 2 ksi and fc = 1.5 ksi, respectively for bending moment in adjacent beam due to middle column

removal.

7 7
6 y = 8E-05x + 0.4715 6 y = 8E-05x + 0.5387
R² = 0.7134 R² = 0.7055
5 5
4
DCR

4
DCR

3 3

2 2
1
1
0
0
0 20 40 60 80
0 20 40 60 80
L²/pbd (x1000) L²/pbd (x1000)

Figure 5.30: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for f c = 3 ksi Figure 5.31 DCR vs L²/pbd graph for fc =
2.5 ksi

86
 7 7
6 y = 8E-05x + 0.6266 6 y = 8E-05x + 0.8184
R² = 0.6936 R² = 0.6729
5 5
4

DCR
4
DCR

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80

L²/pbd ( x 1000) L²/pbd ( x1000)

Figure 5.32 DCR vs L²/pbd graph for fc = 2 ksi Figure 5.33: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for f c =
1.5 ksi

The graphs in the Figure 5.30, 5.31, 5.32 and 5.33 show that a linear relationship exists between

DCR and L²/pbd regardless of the compressive strength of concrete. All best fit curves showed

quite satisfactory linear relationship. The generalized curves for DCR values vs dimensionless

structural parameter representing flexural capacity of adjacent beam are presented in the Figure

5.34.

87
 7

DCR 4 fc 3ksi
3 fc 2.5 ksi
fc 2 ksi
2
fc 1.5 ksi
1

0
0 20 40 60 80
L²/pbd ( x1000)

Figure 5.34: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for bending moment in beam due to middle column removal
for different compressive strength of concrete

The graph in the Figure 5.34 illustrates that, with an increasing compressive strength of concrete,

the DCR value follows a decreasing trend. It should be noted that, compressive strength has

relatively insignificant effect on moment capacity of adjacent beam than that of adjacent beam

shear and adjacent column axial capacity. The components of dimensionless parameter can be

obtained directly from design drawings and therefore, the corresponding DCR value of an

adjacent beam can be found from the graphs.

88
5.2.1. 3 Case-III Interior Column Removal of Interior Bay

The effect of interior column removal of 6 storey building is analyzed and a brief description is

given on the procedure of fragility curve development from the frequency distribution curve of

DCR values of the adjacent column for axial load.

In the same way, other two cases of 6 storey buildings and corresponding three cases of 4 and 8

storey buildings were analyzed and DCR values were obtained from their progressive collapse

analysis. The obtained DCR values were used to create the frequency distribution curves, from

which the data were used to develop the fragility curves.

The axial load DCR values of adjacent columns for all 100 models chosen from generated

population of six storey building were obtained. The frequency distribution curve of DCR

values considering a certain interval were developed Table 5.4 and Figure 5.35.

45
40
35
30
Frequency

25
20
15
10
5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
DCR

Figure 5.35: In the case of Interior Column Removal Frequency Curve for axial loading in
Column

89
The area on the right portion of the frequency distribution graph of a particular DCR value is the

probabilty of exceedance of that DCR value. This area can be determined by using trapezoidal

method in MATLAB environment. For determining the area a user defined MATLAB function

was created for integration with the composite trapezoidal method of a function f(x) that is given

in a set of 'n' discrete points. The points were spaced equally by using higher and lower value and

frequency probability of exceedance is determined as different DCR threshold.

For different DCR thresholds the corresponding probability of exceedance were found in the

similar way, which is described in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4: Probability of Exceedance at various DCR Limits

DCR limit 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Probability of 0.976 0.98 0.90 0.65 0.30 0.004 0.007 0.0007

exceedance

By using this table and plotting DCR vs Probability of exceedance, Fragility Curve was

determined for column axial load cases. For beam flexure and beam shear cases similar types of

MATLAB function was used and fragility curves were developed. Fragility curves for the three

limit states are shown in Figure 5.36. :

90
 1.2

Probability of Exceedance 1

0.8 Probabililty of Exccedance for

Column Axial

0.6
Probabililty of Exccedance for
0.4 Beam Flexure

0.2 Probabililty of Exccedance for

Beam Shear

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
DCR

Figure 5.36: In the case of Interior Column Removal Fragility Curve for six storey model

From this fragility curve (Figure 5.2) it can be said that according to GSA guidelines, where

limiting value is taken as 2, failure of interior column in six storey RMG structures would result

in, 88 % fail for beam flexure, 75 % failure for beam shear and 65% failure for column axial load

and for limiting value is taken as 1, failure of interior column in six storey RMG structures

would result in, 98% fail for beam flexure, 96 % failure for beam shear and 98 % failure for

column axial load. However, the limiting value for a particular limit state depends largely on

local construction practice and material properties.

As part of the study, an attempt has been made to develop generalized graphs to relate DCR

values with a dimensionless structural parameter so that DCR values for any related structure can

be tentative evaluated without conducting the tedious finite element and statistical analysis. The

components of structural parameter are chosen in such a way that the values of these components

can be calculated from the design drawings and field observation of the building. Moreover, the

components of the structural parameter directly influence the axial load capacity of a column,

91
The relationship developed showed a good linear relationship with the DCR values and thereby,

can be used to get approximate DCR values. Such DCR value will assist engineers to decide

whether the structure requires further analysis for progressive collapse.

For axial loading in adjacent column DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph is plotted for fc = 3 ksi, fc =

2.5 ksi, fc = 2 ksi and fc = 1.5 ksi in the Figure 5.37, 5.38, 5.39 and 5.40 respectively, where

2.5 3

2.5
2
2
1.5
DCR

1.5
DCR
y = 0.0198x + 0.5843 y = 0.0228x + 0.6524
1
R² = 0.606 1 R² = 0.6164
0.5 0.5

0
0
0 50 100
0 50 100
Atrib/(Ag +As)
Atrib/(Ag + As)

Figure 5.37: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for Figure 5.38: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for
fc = 3 ksi fc = 2.5 ksi
3.5 4.5
3 4
3.5
2.5
3
2
DCR

2.5
DCR

1.5 2 y = 0.036x + 0.9845

y = 0.0263x + 0.7492
1.5 R² = 0.5271
R² = 0.634
1
1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 50 100 0 50 100
Atrib/(Ag + As) Atrib/(Ag+As)

Figure 5.39: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for Figure 5.40: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for
fc = 2 ksi fc = 1.5 ksi

92
From the graphs plotted in 5.37, 5.38, 5.39 and 5.40, it can be observed that a linear relationship

exists between DCR and the ratio of Atrib and (Ag + As) regardless of the compressive strength of

concrete as mentioned before. In the Figure 5.41 all generalized curves for determination of

DCR values of column axial capacity due to corner column removal are provided for different

compressive strength of concrete.

4.5
4
3.5
3
fc 3 ksi
DCR

2.5
2 fc 2.5 ksi
1.5 fc 2 ksi
1
fc 1.5 ksi
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Atrib/(Ag +As)

Figure 5.41: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for axial loading in column due to interior column
removal for different compressive strength of concrete
From the superimposed curve presented in Figure 5.41, it can be said that the curve shift

downwards for higher compressive strength as expected. At the same value of A trib/ (Ag + As),

higher DCR value for fc = 1.5 ksi has been found as compared to fc = 3 ksi. As already

mentioned, generalized graphs have been developed for relating DCR values with dimensionless

structural parameter that can be easily evaluated from structural drawings. The components of

dimensionless parameter like Ag, As and Atrib of a particular building can be obtained from

design drawings or from field observations and therefore the tentative DCR value can be

93
determined directly from the generalized curves for six storey model at different compressive

strength.

For Shear force in beam due to interior column removal, the relationship between DCR and

dimensionless parameter L/(d+As/S) are plotted Figure 5.42, 5.43, 5.44 and 5.45 for f c = 3 ksi, fc

= 2.5 ksi, fc = 2 ksi and fc = 1.5 ksi respectively. The shear capacity of a beam is directly

influenced by the components of the dimensionless parameter.

4 4.5
3.5 4
y = 0.3114x - 2.0405 y = 0.3339x - 1.9228
3.5 R² = 0.6886
3 R² = 0.7126
3
2.5
DCR
2.5
DCR

2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0
0
0 10 20
0 10 20
L/(d+As/S)
L/(d+As/S)

Figure 5.42: DCR vs L/(d+ As/S) graph for fc Figure 5.43: DCR vs L/(d + As/S) graph for fc
= 3 ksi = 2.5 ksi
5 7
4.5 y = 0.3704x - 1.8677 6
4 R² = 0.6624 y = 0.4729x - 2.6697
3.5 5 R² = 0.5565
3 4
DCR
DCR

2.5
3
2
1.5 2
1 1
0.5
0 0
0 10 20 0 10 20
L/(d + As/S) L/(d + As/S)

Figure 5.44: DCR vs L/(d + As/S) graph for fc Figure 5.45: DCR vs L/(d + As/S) graph for fc
= 2 ksi = 1.5 ksi

94
From the best fit graphs in the Figure 5.42, 5.43, 5.44 and 5.45, it is found that DCR and

L/(d+As/S) have good linear relation for different concrete compressive strengths. In Figure

5.56, all the four generalized graphs corresponding to different compressive strengths of concrete

are provided.

7
6
5
4
DCR

fc 3 ksi
3 fc 2.5 ksi

2 fc 2 ksi
fc 1.5 ksi
1
0
5 10 15 20
L/(d+As/S)

Figure 5.56: DCR vs L/(d + As/S) graph for shear force in beam due to interior column removal
for different compressive strength of concrete
It can be inferred from Figure 5.56 that the demand capacity ratio (DCR) increases with a

decrease in compressive strength of concrete for the same value of L/(d+As/S). So, a higher

compressive strength of concrete will ensure lesser DCR value.

DCR vs L²/pbd graph is plotted in Figure 5.57, 5.58, 59 and 5.60 for fc = 3 ksi, fc = 2.5 ksi, fc = 2

ksi and fc = 1.5 ksi respectively for bending moment in beam due to interior column removal.

95
 6 6
5 y = 0.0001x + 0.2905 5 y = 0.0001x + 0.4474
R² = 0.6618 R² = 0.6563
4 4

DCR
DCR

3 3

2 2
1
1
0
0
0 10 20 30 40
0 10 20 30 40
L²/pbd (x1000)
L²/pbd (x1000)

Figure 5.57: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for f c = Figure 5.58: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for fc =
3 ksi 2.5 ksi
6 7
y = 0.0001x + 0.7477 6
5 y = 7E-05x + 2.520
R² = 0.7615
5 R² = 0.65
4
4
DCR
DCR

3
3
2
2
1 1
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
L²/pbd (x1000) L²/pbd (x1000)

Figure 5.59: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for f c = Figure 5.60: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for f c =
2 ksi 1.5 ksi

The graphs in the Figure 5.57, 5.58, 5.59 and 5.60 shows that a linear relationship exists between

DCR and L²/pbd regardless of the compressive strength of concrete. All best fit curves showed

good linear relationship. The generalized curves for DCR values vs dimensionless structural

parameter representing flexural capacity of adjacent beam are presented in the Figure 5.61.

96
 7
6
5
4
DCR 3
fc 3 ksi
fc 2.5 ksi
2
fc 2 ksi
1 fc 1.5 ksi
0
0 10 20 30 40
L²/pbd (x1000)

Figure 5.61: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for bending moment in beam due to interior column removal

for different compressive strength of concrete

The graph in the Figure 5.61 illustrates that, with an increasing compressive strength of concrete,

the DCR value follows a decreasing trend. The components of dimensionless parameter can be

obtained directly from design drawings and therefore, the corresponding DCR value of an

adjacent beam can be found from the graphs

5.2.2 Four Storey Building

5.2.2. 1 Case-I Corner Column Removal of Exterior Bay

The effect of corner column removal of 4 storey building is analyzed and a brief description is

given on the procedure of fragility curve development from the frequency distribution curve of

DCR values of the adjacent column for axial load.

97
The axial load DCR values of adjacent columns for all 100 models chosen from generated

population of four storey building were obtained. The frequency distribution curve of DCR

values considering a certain interval were developed Figure 5.64.

50
45
40
35
Frequency

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
DCR

Figure 5.64: In the case of Corner Column Removal Frequency Curve for axial loading in
Column
The area on the right portion of the frequency distribution graph of a particular DCR value is the

probabilty of exceedance of that DCR value. This area can be determined by using trapezoidal

method in MATLAB environment. For determining the area a user defined MATLAB function

was created for integration with the composite trapezoidal method of a function f(x) that is given

in a set of 'n' discrete points. The points were spaced equally by using higher and lower value

and frequency probability of exceedance is determined as different DCR threshold.

For different DCR thresholds the corresponding probability of exceedance were found in the

similar way, which is described in Table 5.5.

98
 Table 5.5: Probability of Exceedance at various DCR Limits

DCR limit 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Probability of 1 1 0.88 0.55 0.1407 0.042 0

exceedance

By using this table and plotting DCR vs Probability of exceedance, Fragility Curve was

determined for column axial load cases. For beam flexure and beam shear cases similar types of

MATLAB function was used and fragility curves were developed. Fragility curves for the three

limit states are shown in Figure 5.65.

1.2
Probability of Exceedance

0.8
Probabililty of Exccedance
0.6 for Column Axial
Probabililty of Exccedance
0.4 for Beam Flexure
Probabililty of Exccedance
for Beam Shear
0.2

0
0 2 4 6
DCR

Fig 5.65: In the case of Corner Column Removal Fragility Curve for four storey models

From this fragility curve (Figure 5.2) it can be said that according to GSA guidelines, where

limiting value is taken as 2, failure of corner column in six storey RMG structures would result

in, 97 % fail for beam flexure, 47 % failure for beam shear and 14 % failure for column axial

load and for limiting value is taken as 1, failure of corner column in six storey RMG structures

99
would result in, 100 % fail for beam flexure, 88 % failure for beam shear and 88 % failure for

column axial load However, the limiting value for a particular limit state depends largely on

local construction practice and material properties.

As part of the study, an attempt has been made to develop generalized graphs to relate DCR

values with a dimensionless structural parameter so that DCR values for any related structure can

be tentative evaluated without conducting the tedious finite element and statistical analysis. The

components of structural parameter are chosen in such a way that the values of these components

can be calculated from the design drawings and field observation of the building. Moreover, the

components of the structural parameter directly influence the axial load capacity of a column,

The relationship developed showed a good linear relationship with the DCR values and thereby,

can be used to get approximate DCR values. Such DCR value will assist engineers to decide

whether the strycture requires further analysis for progressive collapse.

DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph is plotted for fc = 3.5 ksi, fc = 3.0 ksi, fc = 2.5 ksi and fc = 2.0 ksi in

the Figure 5.66, 5.67, 5.68 and 5.69 respectively in case of corner column removal, where

Ag = Gross cross sectional area of adjacent column.

As = Area of reinforcement of adjacent column.

Atrib= Loaded area of model at adjacent column.

100
 2 2

1.6 1.6

1.2 1.2
DCR

DCR
0.8 0.8
y = 0.0161x + 0.5302
y = 0.0136x + 0.5142 0.4 R² = 0.7174
0.4
R² = 0.7189
0
0 0 50 100
0 50 100
Atrib/ (Ag + As)
Atrib/ (Ag+As)

Figure 5.66: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for Figure 5.67: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for
fc = 3.5 ksi fc = 3.0 ksi

2.5 3

2.5
2

2
1.5
DCR

DCR

1.5
1 y = 0.0179x + 0.6349
R² = 0.7375 1
y = 0.0217x + 0.6989
0.5 R² = 0.7614
0.5

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 50 100
Atrib/ (Ag+ As) Atrib / (Ag + As)

Figure 5.68: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for Figure 5.69: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for
fc = 2.5 ksi fc = 2.0 ksi

From the graphs plotted in Figure 5.66, 5.67, 5.68 and 5.69, it can be observed that a linear

relationship exists between DCR and the ratio of Atrib and (Ag + As) regardless of the

compressive strength of concrete as mentioned before. In the Figure 5.70 all generalized curves

101
for determination of DCR values of column axial capacity due to corner column removal are

provided for different compressive strength of concrete.

2.5

2
DCR

1.5 fc 3.5 ksi

fc 3 ksi
1
fc 2 ksi

0.5 fc 2 ksi

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Atrib/(Ag +As)

Figure 5.70: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for axial loading in column due to corner column
removal for different compressive strength of concrete

From the superimposed curve presented in Figure 5.70, it can be said that the curve shift

downwards for higher compressive strength as expected. At the same value of Atrib/ (Ag + As),

higher DCR value for fc = 1.5 ksi has been found as compared to fc = 3 ksi. As already

mentioned, generalized graphs have been developed for relating DCR values with dimensionless

structural parameter that can be easily evaluated from structural drawings. The components of

dimensionless parameter like Ag, As and Atrib of a particular building can be obtained from

design drawings or from field observations and therefore the tentative DCR value can be

determined directly from the generalized curves for six storey model at different compressive

strength.

102
DCR vs L²/pbd graph is plotted in Figure 5.57, 5.58, 59 and 5.60 for f c = 3 ksi, fc = 2.5 ksi, fc = 2

ksi and fc = 1.5 ksi respectively for bending moment in beam due to corner column removal.

6 6
y = 0.0001x + 0.4474
5 5
R² = 0.6563
4 4
DCR

DCR
3 3

2 2
y = 0.0001x + 0.2905
1 R² = 0.6618 1

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
L²/pbd (x1000) L²/pbd (x1000)

Figure 5.57: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for fc = Figure 5.58: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for fc =
3 ksi 2.5 ksi
6 7
y = 0.0001x + 0.7477 6
5 y = 7E-05x + 2.520
R² = 0.7615
5 R² = 0.65
4
4
DCR
DCR

3
3
2
2
1 1
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
L²/pbd (x1000) L²/pbd (x1000)

Figure 5.59: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for fc = Figure 5.60: DCR vs L/²pbd graph for fc =
2 ksi 1.5 ksi

The graphs in the Figure 5.57, 5.58, 5.59 and 5.60 shows that a linear relationship exists between

DCR and L²/pbd regardless of the compressive strength of concrete. All best fit curves showed

103
good linear relationship. The generalized curves for DCR values vs dimensionless structural

parameter representing flexural capacity of adjacent beam are presented in the Figure 5.61.

4 fc 3 ksi
DCR

3 fc 2.5 ksi

2 fc 2 ksi
fc 1.5 ksi
1

0
0 10 20 30 40
L²/pbd (x1000)

Figure 5.61: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for bending moment in beam due to corner column removal
for different compressive strength of concrete
The graph in the Figure 5.61 illustrates that, with an increasing compressive strength of concrete,

the DCR value follows a decreasing trend. The components of dimensionless parameter can be

obtained directly from design drawings and therefore, the corresponding DCR value of an

adjacent beam can be found from the graphs.

5.2.2. 2 Case-II Middle Column Removal of Exterior Bay

The effect of middle column removal of 4-storey building is analyzed and a brief description is

discussed on the procedure of fragility curve development from the frequency distribution curve

of DCR values of the adjacent column for axial load. The frequency distribution curve for axial

loading in the case of middle column removal is presented in Figure 5.64.

104
 45
40
35
30
Frequency

25
20
15
10
5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
DCR

Figure 5.64: In the case of Middle Column Removal Frequency Curve for axial loading in
Column

The area on the right portion of the frequency distribution graph of a particular DCR value is the

probabilty of exceedance of that DCR value. This area can be determined by using trapezoidal

method in MATLAB environment. For determining the area a user defined MATLAB function

was created for integration with the composite trapezoidal method of a function f(x) that is given

in a set of 'n' discrete points. The points were spaced equally by using higher and lower value

and frequency probability of exceedance is determined as different DCR threshold.

Fragility curves were determined for column axial load cases, beam flexure and beam shear

cases by using MATLAB function.

105
Fragility curves for three limit states are shown in Figure 5.65:

Probability of Exceedance 1.2

0.8
Probabililty of Exccedance
0.6 for Column Axial Load
Probabililty of Exccedance
0.4 for Beam Flexure
Probabililty of Exccedance
0.2 for Beam Shear

0
0 2 4 6 8
DCR

Figure 5.65: In the case of Middle Column Removal Fragility Curve for four storey model

From this fragility curve (Figure 5.65) it can be said that according to GSA guidelines, where

limiting value is taken as 2, failure of corner column in six storey RMG structures would result

in, 91 % fail for beam flexure , 52 % failure for beam shear and 45 % failure for column axial

load and if limiting value is taken as 1, failure of corner column in six storey RMG structures

would result in, 98 % fail for beam flexure , 90 % failure for beam shear and 86 % failure for

column axial load. However, the limiting value for a particular limit state depends largely on

local construction practice and material properties.

As part of the study, an attempt has been made to develop generalized graphs to relate DCR

values with a dimensionless structural parameter so that DCR values for any related structure can

be tentative evaluated without conducting the tedious finite element and statistical analysis. The

components of structural parameter are chosen in such a way that the values of these components

can be calculated from the design drawings and field observation of the building. Moreover, the

106
components of the structural parameter directly influence the axial load capacity of a column,

The relationship developed showed a good linear relationship with the DCR values and thereby,

can be used to get approximate DCR values. Such DCR value will assist engineers to decide

whether the structure requires further analysis for progressive collapse.

DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph is plotted for fc = 3 ksi, fc = 2.5 ksi, fc = 2 ksi and fc = 1.5 ksi in the

Figure 5.66, 5.67, 5.68 and 5.69 respectively in case of middle column removal.

3.5
3
3
2.5
2.5
2
2
DCR

DCR
1.5 1.5
y = 0.0133x + 1.6425 y = 0.0121x + 1.3932
1 1 R² = 0.7393
R² = 0.8594
0.5 0.5
0
0
0 50 100 150
0 50 100
Atrib / (Ag + As) Atrib/ (Ag +As)

Figure 5.66: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for fc Figure 5.67: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for
= 3 ksi fc = 2.5 ksi
3.5 4.5
3 4
3.5
2.5
3
2
DCR

DCR

2.5
1.5 y = 0.0133x + 1.6425 2
R² = 0.8594 1.5 y = 0.0198x + 2.1347
1 R² = 0.7724
1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Atrib / (Ag + As) Atrib/ (Ag + As)
Figure 5.68: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for fc Figure 5.69: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for
= 2 ksi fc = 1.5 ksi
107
From the graphs plotted in Figure Figure 5.66, 5.67, 5.68 and 5.69, it can be observed that a

linear relationship exists between DCR and the ratio of Atrib and (Ag + As) regardless of the

compressive strength of concrete as mentioned before. In the Figure 5.70 all generalized curves

for determination of DCR values of column axial capacity due to middle column removal are

provided for different compressive strength of concrete.

3
fc 3 ksi
DCR

2 fc 2.5 ksi
fc 2 ksi
1 fc 1.5 ksi

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Atrib/(Ag +As)

Figure 5.70: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for axial loading in column due to middle column
removal for different compressive strength of concrete

The superimposed curve in Figure 5.70 indicates that for higher compressive strength of

concrete, the DCR value was found to be lower. The curve shifts downward for higher

compressive strength of concrete. For the same value of Atrib/ (Ag + As), the DCR value will be

higher for fc = 1.5 ksi as compared to fc = 3 ksi.

108
For Shear force in beam due to middle column removal, the DCR vs L/(d + As/S) graph is

plotted in Figure 5.71, 5.72, 5.73 and 5.74 for fc = 3 ksi, fc = 2.5 ksi, fc = 2 ksi and fc = 1.5 ksi

respectively.

4 4.5
3.5 4
y = 0.3114x - 2.0405 y = 0.3339x - 1.9228
3 3.5 R² = 0.6886
R² = 0.7126
3
DCR

2.5

DCR
2.5
2
2
1.5
1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
L/(d+As/S) L/(d+As/S)

Figure 5.71: DCR vs L/(d+ As/S) graph for fc Figure 5.72: DCR vs L/(d + As/S) graph for fc
= 3 ksi = 2.5 ksi
5 7
4.5 y = 0.3704x - 1.8677 6
4 R² = 0.6624 y = 0.4729x - 2.6697
3.5 5 R² = 0.5565
3 4
DCR
DCR

2.5
3
2
1.5 2
1
1
0.5
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
L/(d + As/S) L/(d + As/S)

Figure 5.73: DCR vs L/(d + As/S) graph for fc Figure 5.74: DCR vs L/(d + As/S) graph for fc
= 2 ksi = 1.5 ksi

From the best fit graphs in the Figure 5.71, 5.72, 5.73 and 5.74, it is found that DCR and

L/(d+As/S) have good linear relation for different concrete compressive strengths.

109
In Figure 5.75, all the four generalized graphs corresponding to different compressive strengths

of concrete are provided.

7
6
5
4 fc 3 ksi
DCR

3 fc 2.5 ksi
2 fc 2 ksi
1 fc 1.5 ksi

0
5 10 15 20
L/(d+As/S)

Figure 5.75: DCR vs L/(d +As/S) graph for shear force in beam due to middle column removal
for different compressive strength of concrete
It can be observed from the graph in Figure 5.75 that, the demand capacity ratio (DCR) has an

increasing trend with the decrease in compressive strength of concrete for the same value of L/(d

+ As/S). The curve shifts downwards with the increase in concrete compressive strength. So, a

higher compressive strength of concrete will ensure lower DCR value.

DCR vs L²/pbd graph is plotted in Figure 5.76, 5.77, 5.78 and 5.79 for f c = 3 ksi, fc = 2.5 ksi, fc =

2 ksi and fc = 1.5 ksi respectively for bending moment in beam due to middle column removal.

110
 7 7
6 y = 8E-05x + 0.4715 6 y = 8E-05x + 0.5387
5 R² = 0.7134 R² = 0.7055
5
4
DCR

DCR
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
0 50 100 0
0 20 40 60 80
L²/pbd (x1000)
L²/pbd (x1000)

Figure 5.76: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for fc = 3 Figure 5.77: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for f c =
ksi 2.5 ksi

7 7
6 y = 8E-05x + 0.8184
6 y = 8E-05x + 0.6266
R² = 0.6729
R² = 0.6936
5 5
4
DCR

4
DCR

3 3
2
2
1
1
0
0 20 40 60 80 0
0 50 100
L²/pbd (x1000)
L²/pbd (x1000)

Figure 5.78 DCR vs L²/pbd graph for fc = 2 Figure 5.79: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for f c =
ksi 1.5 ksi

The graphs in the Figure 5.76, 5.77, 5.78 and 5.79 show that a linear relationship exists between

DCR and L²/pbd regardless of the compressive strength of concrete. All best fit curves showed

111
good linear relationship. The generalized curves for DCR values vs dimensionless structural

parameter representing flexural capacity of adjacent beam are presented in the Figure 5.80.

4
DCR

fc 3 ksi
3 fc 2.5 ksi
fc 2 ksi
2
fc 1.5 ksi
1

0
0 20 40 60 80
L²/pbd (x1000)

Figure 5.80: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for bending moment in beam due to middle column removal
for different compressive strength of concrete

The graph in the Figure 5.80 illustrates that, with an increasing compressive strength of concrete,

the DCR value follows a decreasing trend. The components of dimensionless parameter can be

obtained directly from design drawings and therefore, the corresponding DCR value of an

adjacent beam can be found from the graphs.

112
5.2.2. 3 Case-III Interior Column Removal of Interior Bay

The effect of interior column removal of 4 storey building is analyzed and a brief description is

given on the procedure of fragility curve development from the frequency distribution curve of

DCR values of the adjacent column for axial load.

In the same way, other two cases of 4 storey buildings were analyzed and DCR values were

obtained from their progressive collapse analysis. The obtained DCR values were used to create

the frequency distribution curves, from which the data were used to develop the fragility curves.

The axial load DCR values of adjacent columns for all 100 models chosen from generated

population of four storey building were obtained. The frequency distribution curve of DCR

values considering a certain interval was developed are shown in Figure 5.81:

50
45
40
35
Frequency

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
DCR

Figure 5.81: In the case of Interior Column Removal Normal Distribution Curve for axial

loading in Column

113
Fragility Curves were determined for column axial load cases, beam flexure and beam shear

cases These three cases fragility curves were combined. This is shown in Figure 5.82:

1.2
Probability of Exceedance
1

Probabililty of
0.8
Exccedance for
Column Axial
0.6
Probabililty of
Exccedance for
0.4 Beam Flexure
Probabililty of
0.2
Exccedance for
Beam Shear
0
0 2 4 6 8
DCR

Figure 5.82: In the case of Interior Column Removal Fragility Curve for four storey model

From this fragility curve (Figure 5.82) it can be said that according to GSA guidelines, where

limiting value is taken as 2, failure of corner column in six storey RMG structures would result

in, 91 % fail for beam flexure, 44 % failure for beam shear and 50% failure for column axial load

and if limiting value is taken as 2, failure of corner column in six storey RMG structures would

result in, 97 % fail for beam flexure, 96% failure for beam shear and 95 % failure for column

axial load. However, the limiting value for a particular limit state depends largely on local

construction practice and material properties.

As part of the study, an attempt has been made to develop generalized graphs to relate DCR

values with a dimensionless structural parameter so that DCR values for any related structure can

be tentative evaluated without conducting the tedious finite element and statistical analysis. The

components of structural parameter are chosen in such a way that the values of these components

114
can be calculated from the design drawings and field observation of the building. Moreover, the

components of the structural parameter directly influence the axial load capacity of a column; the

relationship developed showed a good linear relationship with the DCR values and thereby, can

be used to get approximate DCR values. Such DCR value will assist engineers to decide

whether the structure requires further analysis for progressive collapse.

DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag+As) graph is plotted for fc = 3.5 ksi, fc = 3.0 ksi, fc = 2.5 ksi and fc = 2.0 ksi in

the Figure 5.83, 5.84, 5.85 and 5.86 respectively in case of interior column removal.

1.8 2
1.6 1.8
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.2 DCR 1.2
DCR

1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 y = 0.0161x + 0.5302
0.6
y = 0.0136x + 0.5142 0.4 R² = 0.7174
0.4
R² = 0.7189 0.2
0.2 0
0 0 50 100
0 50 100
Atrib/(Ag+As)
Atrib/ (Ag+ As)

Figure 5.83: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag+As) graph for fc Figure 5.84: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for
= 3.5 ksi fc = 3.0 ksi

115
 2.5 3
y = 0.0179x + 0.6349
2 2.5 y = 0.0217x + 0.6989
R² = 0.7375
R² = 0.7614
1.5 2
DCR

DCR
1 1.5

0.5 1

0 0.5
0 50 100
0
Atrib/( Ag +As)
0 50 100
Atrib/ (Ag + As)

Figure 5.85: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for Figure 5.86: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for
fc = 2.5 ksi fc = 2.0 ksi

From the graphs plotted in 5.83, 5.84, 5.85 and 5.86, it can be observed that a linear relationship

exists between DCR and the ratio of Atrib and (Ag + As) regardless of the compressive strength of

concrete as mentioned before. In the Figure 5.87 all generalized curves for determination of

DCR values of column axial capacity due to middle column removal are provided for different

compressive strength of concrete

2.5

2
DCR

fc 3.5 ksi
1.5
fc 3 ksi
1 fc 2.5 ksi

0.5 fc 2 ksi

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Atrib/(Ag +As)

Figure 5.87: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag+As) graph for axial loading in column due to interior column
removal for different compressive strength of concrete

116
From the superimposed curve presented in Figure 5.87, it can be said that the curve shift

downwards for higher compressive strength as expected. At the same value of A trib/ (Ag + As),

higher DCR value for fc = 1.5 ksi has been found as compared to fc = 3 ksi. As already

mentioned, generalized graphs have been developed for relating DCR values with dimensionless

structural parameter that can be easily evaluated from structural drawings. The components of

dimensionless parameter like Ag, As and Atrib of a particular building can be obtained from

design drawings or from field observations and therefore the tentative DCR value can be

determined directly from the generalized curves for six storey model at different compressive

strength.

For Shear force in beam due to interior column removal, the DCR vs L/(d + A s/S) graph is

plotted in Figure 5.88, 5.89, 5.90 and 5.91 for fc = 3 ksi, fc = 2.5 ksi, fc = 2 ksi and fc = 1.5 ksi

respectively.

4 4.5
3.5 4
y = 0.3339x - 1.9228
y = 0.3114x - 2.0405 3.5
3 R² = 0.6886
R² = 0.7126 3
2.5
DCR

2.5
DCR

2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5
0.5
0
0 0 10 20
0 5 10 15 20 L/(d+As/S)
L/(d+As/S)

Figure 5.88: DCR vs L/(d+ As/S) graph for fc Figure 5.89: DCR vs L/(d + As/S) graph for fc
= 3 ksi = 2.5 ksi

117
 5 7
4.5 y = 0.3704x - 1.8677 6
4 R² = 0.6624 y = 0.4729x - 2.6697
3.5 5 R² = 0.5565
3 4

DCR
DCR

2.5
3
2
1.5 2
1
1
0.5
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
L/(d + As/S) L/(d + As/S)

Figure 5.90: DCR vs L/(d + As/S) graph for fc Figure 5.91: DCR vs L/(d + As/S) graph for fc
= 2 ksi = 1.5 ksi

From the best fit graphs in the 5.88, 5.89, 5.90 and 5.91, it is found that DCR and L/(d+As/S)

have good linear relation for different concrete compressive strengths. In Figure 5.92, all the

four generalized graphs corresponding to different compressive strengths of concrete are

provided.

7
6
5
4 fc 3 ksi
DCR

3 fc 2.5 ksi
2 fc 2 ksi
1 fc 1.5 ksi

0
5 10 15 20
L/(d+As/S)

Figure 5.92: DCR vs L/(d + As/S) graph for shear force in beam due to interior column removal
for different compressive strength of concrete

118
It can be observed from the graph in Figure 5.56 that, the demand capacity ratio (DCR) has an

increasing tendency with the decrease in concrete compressive strength for the same value of

L/(d + As/S). The curve shifts upwards with the decrease in concrete compressive strength. So,

a lower compressive strength of concrete will demand for a greater DCR value.

DCR vs L²/pbd graph is plotted in Figure 5.93, 5.94, 5.95 and 5.96 for f c = 3 ksi, fc = 2.5 ksi, fc =

2 ksi and fc = 1.5 ksi respectively for bending moment in beam due to interior column removal.

6 6

5 5

4 4
DCR

DCR
3 3

2 2
y = 0.0001x + 0.2905 y = 0.0001x + 0.4474
1 R² = 0.6618 1 R² = 0.6563
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
L²/pbd (x1000) L²/pbd (x1000)

Figure 5.93: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for f c = Figure 5.94: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for f c =
3 ksi 2.5 ksi
6 7

5 6
5
4
4
DCR

DCR

3
3
2
y = 0.0001x + 0.7477 2 y = 7E-05x + 2.520
1 R² = 0.7615 1 R² = 0.65

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
L²/pbd (x1000) L²/pbd (x1000)

Figure 5.95: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for f c = Figure 5.96: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for f c =
2 ksi 1.5 ksi

119
The graphs in the Figure 5.93, 5.94, 5.95 and 5.96 shows that a linear relationship exists between

DCR and L²/pbd regardless of the compressive strength of concrete. All best fit curves showed

good linear relationship. The generalized curves for DCR values vs dimensionless structural

parameter representing flexural capacity of adjacent beam are presented in the Figure 5.97.

4 fc 3 ksi
DCR

3 fc 2.5 ksi

2 fc 2 ksi
fc 1.5 ksi
1

0
0 10 20 30 40
L²/pbd (x1000)

Figure 5.97: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for bending moment in beam due to interior column removal
for different compressive strength of concrete
The graph in the Figure 5.97 illustrates that, with an increasing compressive strength of concrete,

the DCR value follows a decreasing trend. The components of dimensionless parameter can be

obtained directly from design drawings and therefore, the corresponding DCR value of an

adjacent beam can be found from the graphs

120
5.2.3 Eight Storey Building

5.2.3. 1 Case-I Corner Column Removal of Exterior Bay

The effect of corner column removal of 8 storey building is analyzed and a brief description is

given on the procedure of fragility curve development from the frequency distribution curve of

DCR values of the adjacent column for axial load.

In the same way, other two cases of 8 storey buildings were analyzed and DCR values were

obtained from their progressive collapse analysis. The obtained DCR values were used to create

the frequency distribution curves, from which the data were used to develop the fragility curves.

The axial load DCR values of adjacent columns for all 100 models chosen from generated

population of six storey building were obtained. The frequency distribution curve of DCR

values considering a certain interval were developed Table 5.6 and Figure 5.98.

Table 5.6: Frequency corresponding to DCR value

DCR Average DCR Frequency

0.5-1 0.75 4

1.0-1.5 1.25 14

1.5-2.0 1.75 28

2.0-2.5 2.25 33

2.5-3.0 2.75 13

3.0-3.5 3.25 5

3.5-4.0 3.75 3

121
Using Table 5.6, a graph of average DCR against frequency is plotted and shown in Fig 5.98.

40
35
30
25
Frequency

20
15
10
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
DCR

Figure 5.98: Frequency curve for axial loading in column (in the case of corner column removal)

The area on the right portion of the frequency distribution graph of a particular DCR value is the

probabilty of exceedance of that DCR value. This area can be determined by using trapezoidal

method in MATLAB environment. For determining the area a user defined MATLAB function

was created for integration with the composite trapezoidal method of a function f(x) that is given

in a set of 'n' discrete points. The points were spaced equally by using higher and lower value and

frequency probability of exceedance is determined as different DCR threshold.

For different DCR thresholds the corresponding probability of exceedance were found in the

similar way, which is described in Table 5.7.

122
 Table 5.7: Probability of Exceedance at various DCR Limits

DCR limit 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Probability of 0.986 0.937 0.804 0.571 0.31 0.121

exceedance

By using this table and plotting DCR vs Probability of exceedance, Fragility Curve was

determined for column axial load cases. For beam flexure and beam shear cases similar types of

MATLAB function was used and fragility curves were developed. Fragility curves for the three

limit states are shown in Figure 5.99. :

1.2
Probability of Exceedance

Probabililty of
0.8
Exccedance for
Column Axial
0.6
Probabililty of
Exccedance for Beam
0.4 Flexure
Probabililty of
0.2
Exccedance for Beam
Shear
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
DCR

Fig 5.99: In the case of Corner Column Removal Fragility Curve for eight storey models

From this fragility curve (Figure 5.2) it can be said that according to GSA guidelines, where

limiting value is taken as 2, failure of corner column in six storey RMG structures would result

in, 75 % fail for beam flexure, 49 % failure for beam shear and 57% failure for column axial

load, on the other hand if limiting value is taken as 1, failure of corner column in six storey RMG

structures would result in 97 % fail for beam flexure, 85 % failure for beam shear and 94%

123
failure for column axial load However, the limiting value for a particular limit state depends

largely on local construction practice and material properties. Therefore a different limiting

value (probably more stringent ones) might be required to set for structures in Bangladesh

As part of the study, an attempt has been made to develop generalized graphs to relate DCR

values with a dimensionless structural parameter so that DCR values for any related structure can

be tentative evaluated without conducting the tedious finite element and statistical analysis. The

components of structural parameter are chosen in such a way that the values of these components

can be calculated from the design drawings and field observation of the building. Moreover, the

components of the structural parameter directly influence the axial load capacity of a column,

The relationship developed showed a good linear relationship with the DCR values and thereby,

can be used to get approximate DCR values. Such DCR value will assist engineers to decide

whether the structure requires further analysis for progressive collapse.

DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph is plotted for fc = 3.5 ksi, fc = 3.0 ksi, fc = 2.5 ksi and fc = 2.0 ksi in

the Figure 5.100, 5.101, 5.102 and 5.103 respectively in case of corner column removal, where

Ag = Gross cross sectional area of adjacent column.

As = Area of reinforcement of adjacent column.

Atrib= Loaded area of model at adjacent column.

124
 2.5 3
y = 0.0323x + 1.2426
2 2.5 R² = 0.8243

2
1.5

DCR
1.5
DCR

1
y = 0.0278x + 1.1512 1
0.5 R² = 0.7157
0.5

0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
Atrib / (Ag+As) Atrib / (Ag + As)

Figure 5.100: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph Figure 5.101: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph
for fc = 3.0 ksi for fc = 2.5 ksi

3.5 4.5
y = 0.0372x + 1.4383 4 y = 0.0529x + 1.9492
3
R² = 0.812 3.5 R² = 0.8489
2.5
3
2
DCR

DCR

2.5
1.5 2
1.5
1
1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 20 40 60
Atrib / (Ag+As) Atrib / (Ag + As)

Figure 5.102: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for Figure 5.103: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph
fc = 2.0 ksi for fc = 1.5 ksi

125
From the graphs plotted in Figure 5.100, 5.101, 5.102 and 5.103, it can be observed that a linear

relationship exists between DCR and the ratio of Atrib and (Ag + As) regardless of the

compressive strength of concrete as mentioned before. In the Figure 5.104 all generalized curves

for determination of DCR values of column axial capacity due to corner column removal are

provided for different compressive strength of concrete.

4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5 fc 3 ksi
DCR

2 fc 2.5 ksi
1.5 fc 2 ksi
1 fc 1.5 ksi
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Atrib/(Ag +As)

Figure 5.104: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for axial loading in column due to corner column
removal for different compressive strength of concrete
From the superimposed curve presented in Figure 5.104, it can be said that the curve shift

downwards for higher compressive strength as expected. At the same value of A trib/ (Ag + As),

higher DCR value for fc = 1.5 ksi has been found as compared to fc = 3 ksi. As already

mentioned, generalized graphs have been developed for relating DCR values with dimensionless

structural parameter that can be easily evaluated from structural drawings. The components of

dimensionless parameter like Ag, As and Atrib of a particular building can be obtained from

design drawings or from field observations and therefore the tentative DCR value can be

126
determined directly from the generalized curves for six storey model at different compressive

strength.

For shear force in beam due to corner column removal, the DCR vs L/(d+As/S)graph is plotted

in Figure 5.105, 5.106, 5.107 and 5.108 for fc = 3 ksi, fc = 2.5 ksi, fc = 2 ksi and fc = 1.5 ksi

respectively.

3 3.5
y = 0.3678x - 3.5698 3 y = 0.4035x - 3.7235
2.5
R² = 0.8689 R² = 0.8677
2.5
2
2
DCR

DCR
1.5
1.5
1
1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
L/(d+As/S) L/(d+As/S)

Figure 5.105: DCR vs L/(d+As/S)graph for fc Figure 5.106: DCR vs L/(d+As/S)graph for fc
= 3 ksi = 2.5 ksi
4 5
3.5 y = 0.4518x - 3.9309 y = 0.5219x - 4.2254
R² = 0.8646 4 R² = 0.864
3
2.5 3
DCR

DCR

2
2
1.5
1 1
0.5
0
0
0 5 10 15 20
0 5 10 15 20
L/(d+As/S)
L/(d+As/S)

Figure 5.107: DCR vs L/(d+As/S)graph for fc Figure 5.108: DCR vs L/(bdAs/S)graph for fc
= 2 ksi = 1.5 ksi

127
From the graphs in the Figure 5.105, 5.106, 5.107 and 5.108 after fitting a best fit curve it is

found that DCR and L/(bdAs/S) is linearly related for different concrete compressive strengths.

All the graphs have a R2 value greater than 0.8, so it can be inferred that the regression equation

represents the data very well.

In Figure 5.09, all the four graphs corresponding to different compressive strengths of concrete

are superimposed.

5
4.5
4
3.5
3
fc 3 ksi
DCR

2.5
fc 2.5 ksi
2
1.5 fc 2 ksi
1 fc 1.5 ksi
0.5
0
5 10 15 20
L/(d+ As/S)

Figure 5.109: DCR vs L/(d + As/S)graph for shear force in beam due to corner column removal
for different compressive strength of concrete
It can be inferred from Figure 5.109 that the demand capacity ratio (DCR) increases with a

decrease in compressive strength of concrete for the same value of L/(d + As/S). So, a higher

compressive strength of concrete will ensure lesser DCR value.

DCR vs L²/pbd graph is plotted in Figure 5.110, 5.111, 5.112 and 5.113 for fc = 3 ksi, fc = 2.5

ksi, fc = 2 ksi and fc = 1.5 ksi respectively for bending moment in beam due to corner column

removal.

128
 8 8
7 7
6 y = 9E-05x + 0.3405 6 y = 9E-05x + 0.3885
R² = 0.9111 R² = 0.907
5 5
DCR

DCR
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
L² /pbd (x1000) L²/pbd (x1000)

Figure 5.110: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for f c =3 Figure 5.111: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for f c =
ksi 2.5 ksi
8 12
7 10
6 y = 9E-05x + 0.5666
y = 0.0001x + 0.9046
R² = 0.9 8
5 R² = 0.7674
DCR

4 6
DCR

3 4
2
1 2
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
L²/pbd (x1000) L²/pbd (x1000)

Figure 5.112: DCR vs L²/pbdgraph for fc = 2 Figure 5.113: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for f c =
ksi 1.5 ksi

The graphs in the Figure 5.110, 5.111, 5.112 and 5.113 shows that a linear relationship exists

between DCR and L²/pbd regardless of the compressive strength of concrete. All best fit curves

showed good linear relationship. The generalized curves for DCR values vs dimensionless

structural parameter representing flexural capacity of adjacent beam are presented in the Figure

5.114.

129
 12

10

8
DCR fc 3 ksi
6
fc 2.5 ksi
4 fc 2 ksi

2 fc 1.5 ksi

0
0 20 40 60 80
L²/pbd (x1000)

Figure 5.114: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for bending moment in beam due to corner column removal
for different compressive strength of concrete
The graph in the Figure 5.114 illustrates that, with an increasing compressive strength of

concrete, the DCR value follows a decreasing trend. The components of dimensionless

parameter can be obtained directly from design drawings and therefore, the corresponding DCR

value of an adjacent beam can be found from the graphs.

5.2.3. 2 Case-II Middle Column Removal of Exterior Bay

The effect of middle column removal of 8-storey building is analyzed and a brief description is

discussed on the procedure of fragility curve development from the frequency distribution curve

of DCR values of the adjacent column for axial load. The frequency distribution curve for axial

loading in the case of middle column removal is presented in Figure 5.115.

130
 45
40
35
30
Frequency
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
DCR

Figure 5.115: In the case of Middle Column Removal Frequency Curve for axial loading in
Column
The area on the right portion of the frequency distribution graph of a particular DCR value is the

probability of exceedance of that DCR value. This area can be determined by using trapezoidal

method in MATLAB environment. For determining the area a user defined MATLAB function

was created for integration with the composite trapezoidal method of a function f(x) that is given

in a set of 'n' discrete points. The points were spaced equally by using higher and lower value and

frequency probability of exceedance is determined as different DCR threshold.

Fragility Curve was determined for column axial load cases. For beam flexure and beam shear

cases similar types of MATLAB function was used and fragility curves were developed.

Fragility curves for three limit states are shown in Figure 5.116:

131
 1.2

Probability of Exceedance
1

Probabililty of
0.8
Exccedance for
Column Axial Load
0.6
Probabililty of
Exccedance for Beam
0.4 Flexure
Probabililty of
0.2
Exccedance for Beam
Shear
0
0 2 4 6 8
DCR

Fig 5.116: In the case of Middle Column Removal Fragility Curve for eight storey models

From this fragility curve (Figure 5.116) it can be said that according to GSA guidelines, where

limiting value is taken as 2, failure of middle column in eight storey RMG structures would

result in, 88 % fail for beam flexure , 72 % failure for beam shear and 61 % failure for column

axial load, on the other hand if limiting value is taken as 1, failure of middle column in eight

storey RMG structures would result in, 99 % fail for beam flexure , 93 % failure for beam shear

and 94 % failure for column axial load. However, the limiting value for a particular limit state

depends largely on local construction practice and material properties.

As part of the study, an attempt has been made to develop generalized graphs to relate DCR

values with a dimensionless structural parameter so that DCR values for any related structure can

be tentative evaluated without conducting the tedious finite element and statistical analysis. The

components of structural parameter are chosen in such a way that the values of these components

can be calculated from the design drawings and field observation of the building. Moreover, the

components of the structural parameter directly influence the axial load capacity of a column,

The relationship developed showed a good linear relationship with the DCR values and thereby,

132
can be used to get approximate DCR values. Such DCR value will assist engineers to decide

whether the structure requires further analysis for progressive collapse.

DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph is plotted for fc = 3 ksi, fc = 2.5 ksi, fc = 2 ksi and fc = 1.5 ksi in the

Figure 5.117, 5.118, 5.119 and 5.120 respectively in case of middle column removal.

3
2.5 2.5

2 2

DCR
1.5 1.5
y = 0.0121x + 1.3932
DCR

y = 0.0114x + 1.0844 1 R² = 0.7393

1
R² = 0.8261
0.5
0.5
0
0 50 100
0
0 50 100 150
Atrib/ (Ag +As)
Atrib/(Ag +As)

Figure 5.117: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for Figure 5.118: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph
fc = 3 ksi for fc = 2.5 ksi
3.5 4.5

3 4
3.5
2.5
3
2 2.5
DCR

DCR

y = 0.0198x + 2.1347
1.5 2 R² = 0.7724
y = 0.0133x + 1.6425
R² = 0.8594 1.5
1
1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Atrib / (Ag +As) Atrib/ (Ag+As)
Figure 5.119: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for Figure 5.120: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph
fc = 2 ksi for fc = 1.5 ksi

133
From the graphs plotted in Figure 5.117, 5.118, 5.119 and 5.120, it can be observed that a linear

relationship exists between DCR and the ratio of Atrib and (Ag + As) regardless of the

compressive strength of concrete as mentioned before. In the Figure 5.121 all generalized curves

for determination of DCR values of column axial capacity due to middle column removal are

provided for different compressive strength of concrete.

4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
DCR

fc 3 ksi
2 fc 2.5 ksi
1.5 fc 2 ksi
1 fc 1.5 ksi
0.5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Atrib/(Ag +As)

Figure 5.121: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for axial loading in column due to middle column

removal for different compressive strength of concrete

From the superimposed curve presented in Figure 5.121, it can be said that the curve shift

downwards for higher compressive strength as expected. At the same value of A trib/ (Ag + As),

higher DCR value for fc = 1.5 ksi has been found as compared to fc = 3 ksi. As already

mentioned, generalized graphs have been developed for relating DCR values with dimensionless

structural parameter that can be easily evaluated from structural drawings. The components of

dimensionless parameter like Ag, As and Atrib of a particular building can be obtained from

134
design drawings or from field observations and therefore the tentative DCR value can be

determined directly from the generalized curves for six storey model at different compressive

strength.

For Shear force in beam due to middle column removal, the DCR vs L/(d +As/S)graph is plotted

in Figure 5.122, 5.123, 5.124 and 5.125 for fc = 3 ksi, fc = 2.5 ksi, fc = 2 ksi and fc = 1.5 ksi

respectively.

4 4.5
3.5 4
y = 0.3339x - 1.9228
y = 0.3114x - 2.0405 3.5
3 R² = 0.6886
R² = 0.7126 3
2.5
DCR
2.5
DCR

2 2
1.5 1.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
0
0 0 10 20
0 5 10 15 20 L/(d+ As/S)
L/(d + As/S)

Figure 5.122: DCR vs L/(d +As/S) graph for Figure 5.123: DCR vs L/(d +As/S) graph for
fc = 3 ksi fc = 2.5 ksi
5 7
y = 0.3888x - 1.9511 6
4 R² = 0.7833 y = 0.4623x - 2.3905
5 R² = 0.7185
3
DCR

4
DCR

2 3
2
1
1
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
L/(d + As/S) L/(d + As/S)

Figure 5.124: DCR vs L/(d + As/S) graph for Figure 5.125: DCR vs L/(d + As/S) graph for
fc = 2 ksi fc = 1.5 ksi

135
The graphs illustrated in Figure 5.122, 5.123, 5.124 and 5.125 shows the relationship between

DCR and L/(d + As/S) for concrete with compressive strengths of f c = 3 ksi, fc = 2.5 ksi, fc = 2

ksi and fc = 1.5 ksi respectively. It can be said that, DCR increases linearly with an increase in

L/(d + As/S). All the regression equations fit the data well as the R2 values around 0.7 for fc = 3

ksi, fc = 2.5 ksi, fc = 2 ksi and fc = 1.5 ksi. The four graphs are combined together in Figure

5.126

7
6
5
4 fc 3 ksi
DCR

3 fc 2.5 ksi
2 fc 2 ksi
1 fc 1.5 ksi
0
5 10 15 20
L/(d + As/S)

Figure 5.126: DCR vs L/(d + As/S)graph for shear force in beam due to middle column removal

for different compressive strength of concrete

It can be observed from the graph in Figure 5.155 that, the demand capacity ratio (DCR) has an

increasing trend with the decrease in compressive strength of concrete for the same value of L/(d

+As/S). The curve shifts downwards with the increase in concrete compressive strength. So, a

higher compressive strength of concrete will ensure lower DCR value.

DCR vs L²/pbd graph is plotted in Figure 5.127, 5.128, 5.129 and 5.130 for f c = 3 ksi, fc = 2.5

ksi, fc = 2 ksi and fc = 1.5 ksi respectively for bending moment in beam due to middle column

removal.

136
 9 8
8 y = 0.0001x - 0.182 7 y = 0.0001x + 0.3052
7 R² = 0.9107 R² = 0.9455
6
6
5 5

DCR
4
DCR

4
3
3
2
1 2
0 1
0 20 40 60 80 0
L²/pbd (x1000) 0 20 40 60 80
L²/pbd (x1000)

Figure 5.127: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for f c = 3 Figure 5.128: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for f c =
ksi 2.5 ksi
6 14
y = 0.0001x + 0.371 12
5 y = 0.0002x - 0.2533
R² = 0.8761
10 R² = 0.9271
4
DCR

8
DCR

3 6
2 4
2
1
0
0 0 20 40 60 80
0 20 40 60
L²/pbd (x1000) L²/pbd (x1000)

Figure 5.129: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for f c = 2 Figure 5.130: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for f c =
ksi 1.5 ksi

The graphs in the Figure 5.127, 5.128, 5.129 and 5.130 shows that a linear relationship exists

between DCR and L²/pbd regardless of the compressive strength of concrete. All best fit curves

showed good linear relationship. The generalized curves for DCR values vs dimensionless

structural parameter representing flexural capacity of adjacent beam are presented in the Figure

5.131

137
 14
12
10
8
DCR
fc 3 ksi
6 fc 2.5 ksi
fc 2 ksi
4
fc 1.5 ksi
2
0
0 20 40 60 80
L²/pbd

Figure 5.131: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for bending moment in beam due to middle column removal
for different compressive strength of concrete
The graph in the Figure 5.131 illustrates that, with the increase in compressive strength of

concrete, the DCR value will decrease. The curve shifts upward with decrease in the compressive

strength of concrete. For getting lower DCR limiting value, a higher compressive strength must

be specified for the same L²/pbd value.

5.2.3. 3 Case-III Interior Column Removal of Interior Bay

The interior column removal of the exterior bay from a 8-storey building is analyzed and a brief

description is discussed on how the fragility curve is developed from the frequency curve.

Frequency curve for axial loading in the case of middle column removal is presented in Figure

5.161:

138
 50
45
40
35
Frequency 30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
DCR

Figure 5.161: In the case of Interior Column Removal Frequency Curve for axial loading in
Column
For column axial load, beam flexure and beam shear cases MATLAB function was used and

fragility curves were developed. These three cases fragility curves were combined. This is

shown in Figure 5.162:

1.2
Probability of Exceedance

1
Probabililty of
0.8 Exccedance for
Column Axial
0.6
Probabililty of
0.4 Exccedance for
Beam Flexure
0.2 Probabililty of
Exccedance for
0 Beam Shear
0 2 4 6
DCR

Fig 5.162: In the case of Interior Column Removal Fragility Curve for eight storey models

139
From this fragility curve (Figure 162) it can be said that according to GSA guidelines, where

limit state is taken as 2, if interior column is removed or failed in any type of exceedance in eight

storey RMG structures, 88 % of structures would fail for beam flexure and 49 % structures

would fail for shear failure in beam. On the other hand 49 % structures would fail for column

failure criteria where DCR limit value is taken as 2 and 100 % of structures would fail for beam

flexure and 83 % structures would fail for shear failure in beam, 89 % structures would fail for

column failure criteria where DCR limit value is taken as 1. Similarly, for any other limit, the

damage state can be determined from this graph.

DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph is plotted for fc = 3 ksi, fc = 2.5 ksi, fc = 2 ksi and fc = 1.5 ksi in the

Figure 5.163, 5.164, 5.165 and 5.166 respectively in case of interior column removal.

1.8 2
1.6 1.8
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.2 1.2
DCR

1
DCR

1
0.8 0.8
0.6 y = 0.0161x + 0.5302
0.6
y = 0.0136x + 0.5142 0.4 R² = 0.7174
0.4 0.2
R² = 0.7189
0.2 0
0 0 50 100
0 50 100 Atrib/(Ag+As)
Atrib/ (Ag+ As)

Figure 5.163: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag +As) graph for Figure 5.164: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph
fc = 3.5 ksi for fc = 3.0 ksi

140
 2.5 3

2 2.5

1.5 2
DCR

DCR
1.5
1
1 y = 0.0217x + 0.6989
0.5 y = 0.0179x + 0.6349 R² = 0.7614
R² = 0.7375 0.5
0
0 50 100 0
0 50 100
Atrib/( Ag +As)
Atrib/ (Ag +As)

Figure 5.165: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag+ As) graph for Figure 5.166: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph
fc = 2.5 ksi for fc = 2.0 ksi

From the Figure 5.163, 5.164, 5.165 and 5.166, it can be observed that DCR value increase

linearly with the increase in Atrib/ (Ag + As) for axial loading in column due to interior column

removal for concrete compressive strength f c = 3.5 ksi, fc = 3.0 ksi, fc = 2.5 ksi and fc = 2.0 ksi

respectively. The R2 value of the regression equations lies around 0.7, so it can be inferred that

the fitting of the data is good. By superimposing all four of these graphs we get a generalized

curve which is presented in Figure 5.167.

141
 3

2.5

2
DCR
fc 3.5 ksi
1.5
fc 3 ksi
1 fc 2.5 ksi
fc 2 ksi
0.5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Atrib/(Ag+As)

Figure 5.167: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag +As) graph for axial loading in column due to interior column
removal for different compressive strength of concrete
DCR vs L²/pbd graph is plotted in Figure 5.168, 5.169, 5.170 and 5.171 for f c = 3.5 ksi, fc = 3.0

ksi, fc = 2.5 ksi and fc = 2.0 ksi respectively for bending moment in beam due to interior column

removal.

7
y = 0.0001x + 0.3987 7
6
R² = 0.6653 6 y = 0.0001x + 0.5324
5 R² = 0.6557
5
DCRe

4
DCR

4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
L²/pbd (x1000) L²/pbd (x1000)

Figure 5.168: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for fc = Figure 5.169 DCR vs L²/pbd graph for fc =
3.0 ksi 2.5 ksi

142
 7
7 6 y = 0.0001x + 1.701
y = 0.0001x + 0.8457 R² = 0.9924
6 5
R² = 0.6728
5 4

DCR
4 3
DCR

3 2
2 1
1 0
0 20 40 60
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 L²/pbd (x1000)
L²/pbd (x1000)

Figure 5.170: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for f c = Figure 5.171: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for f c =
2.0 ksi 1.5 ksi

The graphs in the Figure 5.122, 5.123, 5.124 and 5.125 shows that there is a linear relationship

between DCR and L²/pbd regardless of the compressive strength of concrete. A superimposed

curve of all these graphs is presented in the Figure 5.172.

7
6
5
4 fc 3 ksi
DCR

3 fc 2.5 ksi
2 fc 2 ksi
1 fc 1.5 ksi

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
L²/pbd (x1000)

Figure 5.172: DCR vs L²/pbdgraph for bending moment in beam due to interior column removal
for different compressive strength of concrete

143
5. 3 Structural Model Check:

In order to validate the developed graphical charts, a 6 storey garment building (having structural

parameters different than that of 100 generated samples) was analyzed in ETABS to calculate

DCR values for different progressive collapse cases and at the same time, generalized graphs

were used to determine the corresponding DCR values for comparison. The sectional properties

and material characteristics of the chosen 6 storey building are given in Table 5.1 and Table 5.2,

respectively. The three distinguish cases of progressive collapse as per GSA guidelines are as

follows:

Case 1: Removal of corner column.

Case 2: Removal of exterior bay at middle column.

Case 3: Removal of an interior column.

For every case, this model was analyzed separately in ETABS environment. After getting the

maximum demand value for flexure, shear and axial forces in the adjacent beam and column,

actual DCR values were calculated.

Table 5.8: Sectional Properties

Column Size Beam Size

Corner Middle Interior Percentage Exterior Interior Reinforcement

Column Column of Column of of Steel in Beam Beam (in) Ratio in Beam

Exterior Interior Column (in) (ῤ)

(in) Bay (in) Bay (in)

12 x 12 12 x 12 15 x 15 1.25 % 10 x 18 10 x 18 0.01

144
 Table 5.9: Material Properties

Compressive Strength of Concrete (psi) Yield Strength of Steel (psi)

3,000 60,000

In the next step of validation, the different values from Table 5.8 and Table 5.9 were used to

calculate L²/pbd and L/(d + As/S) for adjacent beams along with Atrib/(Ag+ As) for adjacent

columns. With the obtained values of dimensionless structural parameter, DCR of adjacent

column and beam can be determined by using developed graphical charts as shown in Figures

5.7, 5.14, 5.21, 5.28, 5.35, 5.42 and 5.49. DCR values found from the graphs were then

compared with actual DCR value and are shown in Table 5.10.

Table 5.10: Model Check

Case Bending Moment Shear Force Axial Force

DCR Actual Deviation DCR Actual Deviation DCR Actual Deviation

from DCR from DCR (%) from DCR (%)

Graph Graph Graph

Case- 3.2 2.92 8.8 2.1 1.93 8.0 1.5 1.7 13.3

Case- 2.5 2.6 4.0 2.8 2.4 14.2 1.9 1.74 8.4

Case- 3.8 4.02 5.8 2.2 2.18 0.9 1.8 1.88 4.4

145
It is obvious from Table 5.10 that in most cases the difference between the obtained values from

the charts and the values from finite element analysis is within the 10% limit. Only 2 values

show higher difference than 10 %. Therefore, it could be concluded that the developed graphical

charts can provide a good approximation of DCR values for different progressive collapse cases

for the typical RMG buildings considered in the study.

146
 CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSION

6.1 General

Progressive collapse analysis has become one of the key essentials in the structural design of

infrastructures in today’s construction practices. This is of higher significance in the RMG

sectors of Bangladesh which is subjected to an escalating growth in recent times. In this study,

typical four, six, and eight storey RMG structures have been analyzed for progressive collapse

for three pre-selected limit states in connection with three different cases of column failures as

per GSA guidelines. Fragility curves were eventually obtained for each case of column removal

in terms of susceptibility of the adjacent beams and columns for different DCR values. These

fragility curves can be used to evaluate progressive collapse fragility of typical four, six and

eight storey RMG buildings of the country. Moreover, relation between DCR values and various

relevant structural parameters have been developed for determining tentative DCR for different

limit states for three different types of progressive collapse failure. The obtained DCR values

from the developed curve can be used to evaluate the progressive collapse vulnerability of an

existing structure and consequently, to infer the suitable strategic locations and techniques for the

strengthening of an existing building for reducing the potential of progressive collapse.

Therefore, such study has a profound implication in preventing any further degradation of a

structure at an early state which is assessed to be vulnerable towards progressive collapse.

Hence, this study has the potential to play a substantial role towards safeguarding safety

assurance of RC structures against progressive failure.

147
6.2 Conclusion

Major findings of the study can be summarized as follows:

 A comprehensive step by step procedure for conducting fragility analysis for progressive

collapse of typical RMG buildings in Bangladesh has been discussed in this study. For

progressive collapse analysis, the guideline of GSA code was adopted.

 A comprehensive filed survey was conducted to accumulate information on different

structural parameters of existing RMG buildings considered in the study. From survey, it

was observed that most of the RMG structures have similar features and 4, 5, 6, and 8

storey buildings were found to have a greater frequency as compared to other storey

numbers. The ranges of column and beam dimensions as well as span lengths were

obtained from survey. In addition, information on material data was also collected. The

survey data were then used to generate 3500 population sample for each storey type.

 MATLAB function was used to select 100 samples from each generated population on

random basis. Randomly selected samples were then modeled and analyzed in ETABS

environment as per GSA guidelines for progressive collapse. Three types of column

removal techniques were used as per GSA guidelines for progressive collapse. It was

observed that demand-capacity ratio (DCR) of all the relevant columns and beams

increased significantly after sudden failure of column.

 The frequency curves for DCR values were generated for three limit states for each case

of column removal technique. From the area of the frequency curves, probability of

exceedances of different DCR values was obtained using MATLAB function. The

probability of exceedance data was then used to develop fragility curve for each limit

state considered in the study for three different storey RMG buildings.

148
 From the fragility curve, a tentative scenario of existing RMG structures can be obtained

regarding progressive collapse. It can be inferred from the fragility curves that the

variation of probability of exceedance follows an inverse relationship with the DCR

values which represents a reduced probability of exceedance of higher DCR values. As

per GSA guidelines, a structural member is considered as “failed” when the DCR value is

2. Therefore, as per the GSA guidelines, middle column removal in six storey buildings

would result in 62% probability that the adjacent column will exceed its capacity in axial

loading. The corresponding probability of failure in shear force and bending moment for

the adjacent beam is 63% and 80%, respectively. However, the DCR value for a

particular limit state depends on local construction practice and material characteristics.

A more stringent DCR value might need to be considered in case of structures in

Bangladesh. Such hypothesis deems necessary from some recent catastrophic failure.

Therefore, if a DCR value of 1 is considered to be safe for a structural member for

progressive collapse in Bangladesh, the chance of failure increases drastically to 97%,

87% and 97% for axial loading, shear force and bending moments of the adjacent column

and beam, respectively.

 In each of the aforementioned cases of column removal, the probability of exceedance for

flexural failure in the adjacent beam is always greater as compared to axial force and

shear failure in the adjacent column and beam, respectively. This pattern can be

accountable to the fact that when corner column is considered to be damaged the adjacent

beam acts as a cantilever beam, again when middle or interior column is damaged the

span is doubled and consequently, a sudden significant increase in moment occurs.

149
 However, a column failure is global in nature causing larger damage to the structure as

compared to the relatively localized nature of beam flexure failure.

 Considering the axial loading behavior of the structure in case of a specific column

failure, it was observed that removal of an interior column resulted in less vulnerability in

progressive failure as compared to the other cases. This is in accordance with the

common design practice of the country where greater dimension are usually assigned to

the interior columns to support the acting load from a greater tributary area resulting in

more residual capacity. However, the adjacent column of an exterior bay of a structure is

mostly prone to progressive collapse failure when a middle column at any exterior bay is

removed. This conforms to the fact that despite having a lower tributary area, the

exterior columns should also be designed with adequate dimensions if progressive

collapse failure is considered. For example, in six storey structures, probability of

exceedance of progressive collapse for DCR value of 1 in case of interior column

removal is 0.40. However, for corner and middle column removal cases, the probability

of exceedanceis found to be 0.53 and 0.62, respectively.

 In comparison with the three different storey buildings considered in this study, the four

storied structures exhibited less vulnerability for column failure as compared to six and

eight storey structures. The probability of exceedances for four storey structures for

corner, middle, and interior column removal cases are obtained as 0.187, 0.281, and 0.27,

respectively. On the other hand, for six storey structures, the probability of exceedance

values are found to be 0.527, 0.619 and 0.407, respectively for corner, middle and interior

column removal cases. Eight storey structures showed probability of exceedance values

of 0.571, 0.61 and 0.41, respectively for similar cases. Similarly, different probability of

150
 exceedance values was found for shear and flexure failure criteria for adjacent beams.

However, the variation is relatively less as compared to column removal cases.

 From the obtained DCR values for different limit states e.g. shear failure, flexural failure

in adjacent beam and failure at adjacent column due to sudden increase in axial load,

DCR vs L/(d + As/S), DCR vs L²/pbd and DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) curves have been

developed for different compressive strength of concrete. The relationship between DCR

values and above mentioned parameters is found to be quite satisfactory and is also

validated through a comparative analysis. Therefore, from these curves, the DCR value

of any structure (similar to structure studied in this research) for three limit states can be

tentatively obtained without conducting exhaustive finite element analysis. The

parameters required to use the developed curves can be easily obtained through design

drawings and field observation. The obtained DCR values from the developed curves

could assist engineers to decide whether a structure will require further investigation for

progressive collapse or not.

6.3 Recommendations for Future Works

The following recommendation can be made for future investigation;

 This analysis can be extended to evaluate vulnerability of other types of buildings like

residential buildings, commercial buildings, schools, hospitals etc for progressive

collapse.

 A comprehensive study should be carried out to decide suitable DCR values that can be

considered as failure for progressive collapse analysis for different limit states

151
 considering local construction practice, skills of construction workers and material

characteristics.

 Keeping in mind the outcomes of the current study, further study needs to be conducted

for developing guidelines for existing structures and new construction to reduce potential

of progressive collapse. Moreover, initiatives should be taken to incorporate such

guidelines in the Bangladesh National Building Code.

152
References

[1] Rahman, M. T., Habibullah, M. and Masum, M. A., 2017. "Readymade Garment Industry in

Bangladesh: Growth, Contribution and Challenges." IOSR Journal of Economics and

Finance (IOSR-JEF), 8 (3), 01-07.

[2] Ahmed, J. U. and Hossain, T., 2009. "Industrial Safety In The Readymade Garment Sector:

A Developing Country Perspective." Sri Lankan Journal of Management, 14 (1), 1-13.

[3] Ellingwood, B. R. and Leyendecker, E. V., 1978. "Approaches for design against

progressive collapse." Journal of the Structural Division, 104 (3), 413–423.

[4] Abruzzo, J., Matta, A. and Panariello, G., 2006. “Study of Mitigation Strategies for

Progressive Collapse of a Reinforced Concrete Commercial Building.” Journal of

Performance of Constructed Facilities, 20(4), 384-390.

[5] GSA, Progressive Collapse Analysis and Design Guidelines for New Federal Office

Building and Major Modernization Projects. General Services Administration (GSA),

Washington, D.C., 2003.

[6] Vlassis, A.G., Izzuddin, B.A., Elghazouli, A.Y. and Nethercot, D.A., 2008. “Progressive

collapse of multi-storey buildings due to sudden column loss—Part II: Application.”

Engineering Structures, 30(5), 1424-1438.

[7] Nair, R.S., 2004. " Progressive Collapse Basics". Proc., Proceedings of the International

Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 01-03.

[8] Krauthammer, T., Hall, R. L., Woodson, S. C., Baylot, J. T., Hayes, J. R. and Sohn,Y., 2002.

‘‘Development of progressive collapse analysis procedure and condition assessment for

structures,’’ presented at National Workshop on Prevention of Progressive Collapse in

153
 Rosemont, Multihazard Mitigation Council of the National Institute of Building Sciences,

Washington, D.C.

[9] Dietz, K., 2013. "Rana Plaza Garment Factory Collapse,” Learning from Building Failures,

Architectural Program Project, University of Texas..

[10] Whearty, Torpie, Catania and Terris., 2014. "Rana Plaza Engineering Disaster." ESG 201

Learning from Disasters, Stony Brook University.

[11] Taylor, D. A., 1975. “Progressive Collapse.” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 2 (4).

[12] Marjanishvili, S. M., 2004. “Progressive Analysis Procedure for Progressive Collapse.” J.

Perform. Constr. Facil., 18 (2), 79-85.

[13] Shi, Y. Z., Li, X. and Hao, H., 2010. “A new method for progressive collapse analysis of

RC frames under blast loading.” Engineering Sturctures, 32, 1691-1703.

[14] Bilow, D. N. and Kamamra, M., 2004. “U.S. General Services Administration Progressive

Collapse Design Guidelines Applied to Concrete Moment-Resisting Frame Buildings.”

presented at Structures Congress 2004, Nashville, Tennesse.

[15] Wen, Y. K. and Ellingwood, B. R ., 2005. “The role of fragility assessment in consequence-

based engineering.” Earthquake Spectra, 21 (3), 861-877.

[16] Lew, H. S., “Analysis Procedures for Progressive Collapse of Buildings.” Building and Fire

Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology,

Gaithersburg, Maryland, U.S.A, NIST Special Publication 1025, Available at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1025

154
[17] Bredean, L., Botez, M. and Ioani, A., 2012. “Progressive Collapse Risk and Robustness of

Low-Rise Reinforced Concrete Buildings.” In the Proceedings of the Eleventh International

Conference on Computational Structures Technology, 244, Stirlingshire, Scotland.

[18] Zenter, I., Nadjarian, A., Humbert , N. and Viallet, E., 2008. " Numerical Calculation of
th
Fragility Curves for Probabilistic Seismic Risk Assessment." The 14 World Conference

on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.

[19] Fariborz, N.A. and Vahid, L. S., 2004. "Development of Fragility and Reliability Curves for
th
Seismic Evaluation of a Major Prestressed Concrete Bridge." The 13 World Conference

on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

[20] Mackie, K. and Stojadinovic, B., 2004. "Fragility Curves for Reinforced Concrete Highway
th
Overpass Bridges." The 13 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver,

B.C., Canada.

[21] Shinozuka , M., Feng, M. Q., Kim, H., Uzawa, T. and Ueda, T., 2003. " Statistical Analysis

of Fragility Curves." Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 126 (12), 1287-1295.

[22] Hussein, M. T.., 2015. " Modeling Mechanical and Electrical Uncertain Systems using

Functions of Robust Control MATLAB Toolbox." International Journal of Advanced

Computer Science and Applications (IJACSA), 6(4), 79-84.

[23] Gross, B., Kozek, M. and Jorgl, H., 2005. " Identification and Inversion of Magnetic

Hysteresis using Labview and MATLAB, International Journal of Online Engineering

(iJOE), 1 (3).

155
 APPENDIX-A

3.5

2.5 fc 3 ksi

fc 2.5 ksi
DCR

fc 2 ksi
1.5

fc 1.5 ksi
1

0.5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Atrib/(Ag + As)

Figure A-1: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for axial loading in column due to corner column
removal for different compressive strength of concrete at six storey

156
 6

fc 3 ksi

4
fc 2.5 ksi

fc 2 ksi
DCR

fc 1.5 ksi

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2

L/(d +As/S)

Figure A-2: DCR vs L/(d+As/S) graph for shear force in beam due to corner column removal for
different compressive strength of concrete at six storey

157
 12

10

fc 3 ksi
DCR

6
fc 2.5 ksi
fc 2 ksi
fc 1.5 ksi

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

L²/pbd (x 1000)

Figure A-3: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for bending moment in beam due to corner column removal
for different compressive strength of concrete at six storey

158
 4.5

3.5

2.5 fc 3 ksi
DCR

2 fc 2.5 ksi

1.5
fc 2 ksi

1
fc 1.5 ksi

0.5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Atrib/(Ag +As)

Figure A-4: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for axial loading in column due to middle column
removal for different compressive strength of concrete at six storey

159
 7

4
fc 3 ksi
DCR

fc 2.5 ksi
3 fc 2 ksi
fc 1.5 ksi

0
5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
L/(d+As/S)
Figure A-5: DCR vs L/(d +As/S) graph for shear force in beam due to middle column removal
for different compressive strength of concrete at six storey

160
 7

fc 3ksi
DCR

fc 2.5 ksi
3 fc 2 ksi
fc 1.5 ksi

0
0 20 40 60 80
L²/pbd ( x1000)

Figure A-6: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for bending moment in beam due to middle column removal
for different compressive strength of concrete at six storey

161
 4.5

3.5

2.5
fc 3 ksi
DCR

fc 2.5 ksi
2 fc 2 ksi
fc 1.5 ksi

1.5

0.5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Atrib/(Ag +As)

Figure A-7: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for axial loading in column due to interior column
removal for different compressive strength of concrete at six storey

162
 7

fc 3 ksi
DCR

fc 2.5 ksi
3 fc 2 ksi
fc 1.5 ksi

0
5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
L/(d+As/S)

Figure A-8: DCR vs L/(d + As/S) graph for shear force in beam due to interior column removal
for different compressive strength of concrete at six storey

163
 7

fc 3 ksi
DCR

fc 2.5 ksi
3
fc 2 ksi
fc 1.5 ksi

0
0 10 20 30 40
L²/pbd

Figure A-9: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for bending moment in beam due to interior column removal
for different compressive strength of concrete at six storey

164
 APPENDIX-B

2.5

2
DCR

fc 3.5 ksi
1.5
fc 3 ksi

fc 2 ksi

1 fc 2 ksi

0.5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Atrib/(Ag +As)

Figure B-1: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for axial loading in column due to corner column
removal for different compressive strength of concrete at four storey

165
 7

fc 1.5 ksi
DCR

fc 2.5 ksi
3 fc 2 ksi
fc 1.5 ksi

0
0 10 20 30 40
L²/pbd (x1000)

Figure B-2: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for bending moment in beam due to corner column removal
for different compressive strength of concrete at four storey

166
 5

fc 3 ksi
DCR

fc 2.5 ksi
fc 2 ksi
2 fc 1.5 ksi

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Atrib/(Ag +As)

Figure B-3: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for axial loading in column due to middle column
removal for different compressive strength of concrete at four storey
167
 7

fc 3 ksi
DCR

fc 2.5 ksi
fc 2 ksi
3
fc 1.5 ksi

0
5 10 15 20
L/(d+As/S)

Figure B-4: DCR vs L/(d +As/S) graph for shear force in beam due to middle column removal
for different compressive strength of concrete at four storey

168
 7

fc 3 ksi
DCR

fc 2.5 ksi
fc 2 ksi
3
fc 1.5 ksi

0
0 20 40 60 80
L²/pbd (x1000)

Figure B-5: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for bending moment in beam due to middle column removal
for different compressive strength of concrete

169
 3

2.5

fc 3.5 ksi
DCR

1.5
fc 3 ksi
fc 2.5 ksi
fc 2 ksi

0.5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Atrib/(Ag +As)

Figure B-6: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag+As) graph for axial loading in column due to interior column
removal for different compressive strength of concrete at four storey

170
 7

fc 3 ksi
DCR

fc 2.5 ksi
fc 2 ksi
3
fc 1.5 ksi

0
5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
L/(d+As/S)

Figure B-7: DCR vs L/(d + As/S) graph for shear force in beam due to interior column removal
for different compressive strength of concrete at four storey

171
 7

fc 3 ksi
DCR

fc 2.5 ksi
fc 2 ksi
3
fc 1.5 ksi

0
0 10 20 30 40
L²/pbd (x1000)

Figure B-8: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for bending moment in beam due to interior column removal
for different compressive strength of concrete at four storey

172
 APPENDIX-C

4.5

3.5

2.5
fc 3 ksi
DCR

fc 2.5 ksi
2 fc 2 ksi
fc 1.5 ksi

1.5

0.5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Atrib/(Ag +As)

Figure C-1: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for axial loading in column due to corner column
removal for different compressive strength of concrete for eight storey

173
 5

4.5

3.5

3
DCR

fc 3 ksi
2.5
fc 2.5 ksi
fc 2 ksi

2 fc 1.5 ksi

1.5

0.5

0
5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
L/(d+ As/S)

Figure C-2: DCR vs L/(d + As/S)graph for shear force in beam due to corner column removal for
different compressive strength of concrete

174
 12

10

fc 3 ksi
DCR

6
fc 2.5 ksi
fc 2 ksi
fc 1.5 ksi

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
L²/pbd (x1000)

Figure C-3: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for bending moment in beam due to corner column removal
for different compressive strength of concrete

175
 4.5

3.5

2.5
fc 3 ksi
DCR

fc 2.5 ksi
2 fc 2 ksi
fc 1.5 ksi

1.5

0.5

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Atrib/(Ag +As)

Figure C-4: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag + As) graph for axial loading in column due to middle column
removal for different compressive strength of concrete

176
 7

fc 3 ksi
DCR

fc 2.5 ksi
fc 2 ksi
3
fc 1.5 ksi

0
5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
L/(d + As/S)

Figure C-5: DCR vs L/(d + As/S)graph for shear force in beam due to middle column removal
for different compressive strength of concrete at eight storey.

177
 14

12

10

8
DCR

fc 3 ksi
fc 2.5 ksi
fc 2 ksi
6 fc 1.5 ksi

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
L²/pbd

Figure C-6: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for bending moment in beam due to middle column removal
for different compressive strength of concrete

178
 3

2.5

fc 3.5 ksi
DCR

1.5
fc 3 ksi
fc 2.5 ksi
fc 2 ksi

0.5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Atrib/(Ag+As)

Figure C-7: DCR vs Atrib/ (Ag +As) graph for axial loading in column due to interior column
removal for different compressive strength of concrete at eight storey.

179
 7

fc 3 ksi
DCR

fc 2.5 ksi
fc 2 ksi
3
fc 1.5 ksi

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
L²/pbd (x1000)

Figure C-8: DCR vs L²/pbd graph for bending moment in beam due to interior column removal

for different compressive strength of concrete

180