See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/353121723

PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE RESISTANCE OF STEEL FRAMES UNDER COLUMN

REMOVAL SCENARIO

Conference Paper · July 2021

CITATIONS READS

0 60

2 authors:

Anjaly James Asha Joseph

Federal Institute of Science and Technology FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, KERALA
2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    20 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

seismic analysis of water tanks View project

COLLAPSE RESISTANCE OF STEEL FRAMES View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Asha Joseph on 09 July 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of International Conference on
Recent Advances in Civil Engineering (ICRACE 2020)
July 15-17, 2020, Kochi, Kerala India

PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE RESISTANCE OF STEEL FRAMES

UNDER COLUMN REMOVAL SCENARIO
Anjaly James1 and Dr. Asha Joseph2
1
Research Scholar, Federal Institute of Science and Technology, Angamaly, Ernakulam, Kerala
anjalyjamesthengola@gmail.com
2
Associate Professor, Federal Institute of Science and Technology, Angamaly, Ernakulam, Kerala
ashameledath@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Progressive collapse is the spread of an initial local damage from element to element, resulting eventually in the
collapse of an entire structure. It is commenced when the primary component(s), usually column, is eliminated.
When a column is suddenly removed as a result of a vehicle collision, explosion, earthquake and other natural or
artificial hazards, gravity loads gets transmitted to adjoining columns in the structure. If these primary elements
are not appropriately designed to bear and redistribute the overloading, results in the collapse of the structure.
The aim of this study is to investigate whether a 15 storeyed moment resisting framed steel structure that has been
designed based on Indian seismic codes, are able to resist progressive collapse with damaged columns in different
locations. The time history analysis is performed as a dynamic procedure along with alternate path method to
examine the behaviour of the building using structural software, ETABS.

KEYWORDS
Progressive collapse, Time history analysis, Steel building, ETABS

INTRODUCTION
A progressive collapse involves a series of failures, resulting in the complete collapse of the structure. The
potential abnormal load hazards leading to a progressive collapse includes vehicle collision, explosion, terrorist
attacks, earthquake and other natural or artificial hazards [1]. During such a hazard, the primary load carrying
member of the structure, columns may get overloaded when the gravity loads is transmitted to the adjoining
columns in the structure. As these hazards have low probability of occurrence, they are not considered in the
structural design [2]. Among many different approaches to design structures to resist progressive collapse, the
guidelines generally recommend the alternate path method. In this approach, the structure is designed such that if
one component fails, alternate paths are available for the loads to transfer and a general collapse does not occur.
Alternate path method consists in designing the structure so that stresses can be redistributed following the loss
of a vertical bearing member. This approach has the benefit of simplicity and directness. The existence of alternate
load paths, ranges from static linear analysis through static nonlinear analysis, to dynamic linear or nonlinear
analyses [3]. This alternate load path approach was selected as the preferred one by several standards, such as
General Services Administration (GSA) and the Department of Defence (DoD). Both organizations have issued
guidelines that specify fully detailed computational procedures.
From the history, there are several events of progressive collapse. On 16 May 1968 at Ronan Point Building,
London the loss of support at the 18th floor caused the floors above to collapse [4]. The impact of these collapsing
floors set off a chain reaction of collapses all the way to the ground. The ultimate result was that the corner bay
of the building has collapsed from top to bottom. The Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City was
destroyed by a bomb on 19 April 1995. The bomb, in a truck at the base of the building, destroyed or badly
damaged three columns. Loss of support from these columns led to failure of a transfer girder. Failure of the
transfer girder caused the collapse of columns supported by the girder and floor areas supported by those columns,
the complete collapse of structure [4]. Also, in recent years on 24 April 2013, the 8 story Rana Plaza commercial
office complex in Savar, Bangladesh, suffered a collapse. The reason behind the event was that when the load
carrying capacity exceeded the original designed load capacity of the floors, contributed to the weakening and
eventual failure of key structural elements. On 19 January 2017, the Plasco Building, a high-rise building
in Tehran, Iran, caught fire and collapsed. The fire started on the eighth floor and the progressive collapse occurred
during rescue operations.The best practical advice suggested by Mahmoud et.al. (2018) was to reduce the potential
of progressive collapse is to consider the seismic design practices and to avoid local damage failures that may
affect the whole structure [1]. Also investigated the progressive collapse potential of steel moment resisting and

ISBN No. 978-81-941516-5-4 Page | 29

braced frames designed according to Egyptian local standards due to damage caused by seismic actions employed
using SAP2000.
Among several studies conducted on progressive collapse Yavari et.al.,(2019) evaluated the effects of severity of
Torsional Irregularity (TI) and Inplane Discontinuity in Vertical Lateral force-resisting element Irregularity
(IDVLI) together with seismic strength of the building on the progressive collapse potential of steel Special
Moment-Resisting Frames (steel SMRFs), which were designed based on common seismic codes. The
conclusions from the study was that all the buildings located in the site with low seismicity were rejected and site
with high seismicity were accepted against the progressive collapse [5].Clear conceptual step-by-step descriptions
of various procedures for progressive collapse analysis by Marjanishvili et.al., (2006) using commercially
available structural analysis software, such as SAP2000, demonstrates that dynamic analysis procedures not only
yield more accurate results, but are also easy to perform for progressive collapse determination [6].
The cost of progressive collapse design provisions, and a comparison of costs and benefits of progressive collapse
design provisions is an important factor. The conclusions arrived from the study of Stewart (2016) were, the
progressive collapse cost premium of 1 4% of building cost is a reasonable and conservative basis for cost-benefit
assessment. These costs seem reasonable, as design measures are less costly than retrofit measures [7]. Also, the
cost-benefit analysis of UFC and GSA design provisions to mitigate against progressive collapse showed that
these measures only become cost-effective when the threat likelihood is a very high 1 in 1,000 per building per
year.

ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
Alternate path method based on dynamic procedure is used in this study according to GSA guidelines using
ETABS 2017 software. For progressive collapse analysis, GSA mandates several loss scenarios; however, only
one element removal is required at a time. Analysis is carried out as threat-independent, meaning that the cause
of element failure is not considered. The sole relevant fact is that the element is suddenly unable to carry load.
The dynamic method of analysis deals with the application of ground motions to any structure in order to evaluate
the response of the building at each increment of time. The loads acting on a structure at the time of an earthquake
is necessarily dynamic. In order to perform a time history analysis, a real time acceleration time data of an
earthquake has to be considered. Here, time history analysis is performed considering the earthquake data of El
Centro earthquake occurred in 1940 at Mexico.

LOCATION OF REMOVED LOAD-BEARING ELEMENTS

According to GSA guidelines for a typical structure under study is analysed for following column removal
scenarios as shown in Figure 1.

Long side middle column.

Short side middle column
Corner column

Figure 1 Column removal locations recommended by GSA

LOAD COMBINATION
For progressive collapse analysis, the following load combinations shall be applied after the removal of load
carrying members [3]:

Division of Civil Engineering, SOE Page | 30

For linear and nonlinear dynamic analysis: DL + 0.25 LL

Where DL = Dead Load and LL = Live Load.

DEMAND-TO-CAPACITY RATIOS (DCR)

Demand-to-
the beam or column calculated from dynamic analysis to its expected ultimate moment capacity Mp, which is
calculated as the product of plastic section modulus and yield strength [3].

considered adequate for progressive collapse resistance if it is able to overcome the removed column by meeting
the speci ed performance criteria and inadequate if it cannot overcome the loss [6].
According to GSA guidelines, the performance criteria for the analysis of elements in the damaged frame are
divided into two categories: force controlled and deformation controlled. Components under high axial load,
P/PCL>0.5 (where PCL is the lower-

a
majority of columns comes under force controlled components, has a demand-to-capacity ratio (DCR) less than
unity in order to resist progressive collapse.

METHODOLOGY ADOPTED
A 3D model is prepared using ETABS 2017 and the analysis is carried out for the load combinations as per the
design codes for Steel to be safe against seismic loading corresponding to Zone III and V. The axial forces acting
on a column element is computed before eliminating any member. These forces are then applied as upward point
loads at the location of column removal to stimulate the instantaneous column removal. This corresponds to the
initial case where the column is at place and functioning at its full capacity.
A ramp function is defined to simulate the abrupt removal of the column element after a certain time has elapsed
so that the upward point loads is suddenly removed. The time interval for ramping down the column forces shall
not exceed one tenth of the period associated with the structure. Linear dynamic analysis using time-history
analysis is performed. The results based on DCR for columns, axial force near the removed member and vertical
displacement are evaluated to arrive at conclusions.

MODELING OF MULTI-STOREYED BUILDING

The structures were modelled using beam and column elements of 15 storey steel frame building, with six bays
in the longitudinal direction and four in the transverse direction. The longitudinal direction has a uniform column
spacing of 8 m, while on the four-bay side columns are spaced every 10 m. Main girders are ISMB 550. Floor-to-
floor height for every story is 3.3 m. 550x550x30 box columns span throughout the height and ISMB 450 grade
secondary beams are used. The floor diaphragms are constructed of composite metal deck with slab thickness of
90 mm. The modulus of elasticity and yield strength of the steel material is taken as 2x10 5 MPa and 250 MPa
respectively. The plan of the basic model is shown in Figure 2. Analysis and design are done by using the software
product of computers and structures, Inc (CSI), called ETABS 2017 as one of the powerful finite element computer
programs.

Figure 2 Plan of basic model

Division of Civil Engineering, SOE Page | 31

LOADING
A live load of 4 kN/ is applied as per IS: 875 (part 2): 1987 and the dead load is software assigned. Lateral
loads are applied as wind load in X direction and wind load in Y direction as per IS: 875 (part 3):1987 [9]. Seismic
loads are applied as seismic load in X direction and seismic load in Y direction as per IS 1893: 2002 (part 1).
Seismic loads are applied as per moderate seismic zone and high seismic zone [8]. For dynamic analysis
procedure, Load = DL + 0.25LL [3] is applied as an increased gravity load as per GSA guidelines 2013. 3D view
of the model is as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 3D view of basic model

ANALYSIS RESULTS
Alternate path method based on dynamic procedure is used in this study according to GSA guidelines. DCR value,
axial force near the removed column and vertical displacement etc. are identified and tabulated in figure 4, 5, 6,
7, 8 and 9.

DEMAND-TO-CAPACITY RATIOS (DCR)

Demand-to-capacity ratios (DCR) were calculated for each frame member, and the building response was
evaluated by comparing the calculated DCR values based on the recommendations of GSA guidelines [3].

DCR=

Mp= Fy x Zx
Where Fy = 250 MPa and Zx = 2359.80 cm3
= 250 x 2359.80 = 589.95 kNm
The permissible value for DCR of column is 1. The values of DCR exceeding the permissible limits are considered
as failed. The obtained DCR values for all column removal scenarios as per GSA guidelines 2013 for moderate
seismic zone and high seismic zone are pictorially plotted as above. Figures 4, 5 and 6 shows the DCR values for
column removal scenarios in moderate seismic zone and Figures 7, 8 and 9 shows the DCR values for column
removal scenarios in high seismic zone.
It shows that when the seismic zone is increased there is change in Mmax of columns, resulting in the variation of
DCR values. For the steel frame designed for moderate seismic zone the obtained DCR values are greater than 1
which shows that, the structure is severely damaged. But for the steel frames designed for high seismic zone the
obtained DCR values falls less than 1, satisfying the GSA permissible limits. Now arriving at the conclusion, that
the structure seems to resist progressive collapse when it is designed for high seismic zone. Also, from the
comparison of DCR values in all the column removed condition, the corner column removal in base is more
critical in a building. The results show the influence of seismic design which is satisfying to the study of Yavari
et.al. that, all the buildings located in the site with low seismicity were rejected and site with high seismicity were
accepted against the progressive collapse [5].

Division of Civil Engineering, SOE Page | 32

 Figure 4 DCR for long side middle column Figure 5 DCR for short side middle column
removal scenario - moderate seismic zone removal scenario - moderate seismic zone

Figure 6 DCR for corner column removal scenario Figure 7 DCR for long side middle column
- moderate seismic zone removal scenario - high seismic zone

Division of Civil Engineering, SOE Page | 33

 Figure 8 DCR for short side middle column Figure 9 DCR for corner column removal scenario
removal scenario - high seismic zone - high seismic zone

AXIAL FORCES
The axial forces developed in the columns can be identified for studying the pattern of redistribution of loads.
Also, this redistribution of loads shows the direction of progressive collapse.

Figure 10 Axial force diagram for long side

middle column removal - moderate seismic Figure 11 Axial force diagram for short side middle
column removal - moderate seismic zone
zone

Division of Civil Engineering, SOE Page | 34

 Figure 12 Axial force diagram for corner column Figure 13 Axial force diagram for long side middle
removal - moderate seismic zone column removal - high seismic zone

Figure 14 Axial force diagram for short side Figure 15 Axial force diagram for corner column
middle column removal - high seismic zone removal - high seismic zone

The Figures 10, 11 and 12 shows the axial force diagrams for column removal scenarios in moderate seismic zone
and Figures 13, 14 and 15 shows the axial force diagrams for column removal scenarios in high seismic zone. The
increase in seismic zone also influences the axial force of the members. From above axial force diagrams, it can

Division of Civil Engineering, SOE Page | 35

be drawn that axial force near the removed column is more in case of corner columns, the axial force of its adjacent
column is increased significantly and other columns do not have a major role in this change of axial force. The
magnitude of axial force is more when the building is designed for moderate seismic zone than for high seismic
zone, is depicted in table1. It also showed that the column adjacent to the removed column underwent higher force
than other columns, which implied the redistribution of forces from the removed column to the nearest columns.
Table 1 Axial Forces in kN

Location of member removal Axial force - Moderate seismic zone (kN) Axial force - High seismic zone(kN)
Long side middle column 9847.4 6228.7
removal scenario
Short side middle column 10018.4 5956.3
removal scenario
Corner column removal scenario 10843.8 7307.2

VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT
The maximum displacements of the structure in mm is shown in Figure 16. In the design as per high seismic zone
the maximum value of 10 mm is obtained in the case of a column lost in the corner location which was relatively
higher than the displacement for a middle column loss scenario of long side and short side. In moderate seismic
zone, a larger vertical displacement was obtained as 26 mm.

Vertical Displacement

25.526 25.737 26.433

10.229
6.518 7.563

Moderate High Seismic Moderate High Seismic Moderate High Seismic

Seismic Zone Zone Seismic Zone Zone Seismic Zone Zone
Long side middle column short side middle column corner column removal
removal removal

Figure 16 Maximum displacements in mm

From the results it can be concluded that a column lost in the corner region of a building is the most critical than
middle column lose scenarios and also the displacements will be minimum when a high seismic zone design is
chosen. The obtained results seem to be in relatable with the literatures referred. And based on this study the best
practical advice to reduce the potential of progressive collapse is to consider seismic design practises. The
seismically designed buildings possess inherent ability to resist progressive collapse.

CONCLUSIONS
Based on the limited study of progressive collapse in a G+15 storey steel structure, following conclusions can be
drawn:

Using DCR criteria, the structure has DCR values greater than 1 are severely damaged or collapsed
(GSA). The structure is not severely damaged when it is designed based on high seismic zone.
By removing a column, a great force is imposed to its adjacent column which shows progressive
collapse direction.
Maximum displacements obtained from the analysis show a higher value for moderate seismic

Division of Civil Engineering, SOE Page | 36

 condition.
By comparing parameters such as DCR values, axial forces in nearby members and vertical
displacements in all the column removed condition, it can be concluded that corner column removal
condition in base is more critical in a building.

REFERENCES
[1] Yara M. Mahmoud, Maha M. Hassam, Sherif A.
Progressive Collapse Of
Elsevier.
[2]

[3] e analysis and design guidelines for new federal office buildings and major

[4]
Steel Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.
[5]

Elsevier
[6] Shalva Marja

[7] the

[8] IS 875: Code of Practice for Design Loads for Buildings and Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards,
1988.
[9] IS 1893: Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards, 2002.
[10] IS 800: General Construction on Steel: Code of Practice, Bureau of Indian Standards, 2007.
[11] IS456: Plain and Reinforced Concrete: Code of Practice, Bureau of Indian Standards, 2007.

Division of Civil Engineering, SOE Page | 37

View publication stats

Proceedings of International Conference on

Recent Advances in Civil Engineering (ICRACE 2020)
July 15-17, 2020, Kochi, Kerala India

BEHAVIOUR OF FOOTINGS RESTING ON LATERALLY

CONFINED SOILS
Arya. B. Nair1, Akshaya. S.1, Aswini. A. S.1, Jeena. S. L.1, Mydhili Krishnan. R.1,
Jayamohan. J.2 and Deepthi Chandran. R.3
1
Student, LBS Institute of Technology for Women, Thiruvananthapuram
2
Professor, Civil Engineering, LBS Institute of Technology for Women, Thiruvananthapuram
3
Assistant Professor, LBS Institute of Technology for Women, Thiruvananthapuram
arya1154@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
The necessity of in-situ treatment of foundation soil to improve the bearing capacity has increased
considerably due to scarcity of good construction sites. Soil confinement is one such method of improving
bearing capacity which can be economically adopted. This method is currently practiced in the construction
industry in many places of Kerala, but a satisfactory design procedure or theory for this technique is not
available .In this project, it is proposed to investigate the improvement in bearing capacity and reduction
in settlement of footing due to lateral confinement of the underlying soil by carrying out a series of finite
element analyses with the software PLAXIS-2D. The influence of parameters like diameter, depth, etc. of
laterally confined granular soil are studied.

KEYWORDS
Soil confinement, Finite Element Analyses, Bearing capacity, Laboratory scale load test

INTRODUCTION
The decreasing availability of good construction sites has led to increased use of sites with marginal soil
properties. The necessity for in situ treatment of foundation soil to improve its bearing capacity has
increased considerably. The soil confinement is a promising technique of improving soil capacity. This
technique of soil confinement, though successfully applied in certain areas of soil engineering, has not
received much attention in foundation applications. In the last few decades, great improvements in
foundation engineering have occurred, along with the development of new and unconventional types of
foundation systems through considerations of soil structure interaction. In the past few decades many
researches have been carried out to investigate the improvement in bearing capacity due to confining the
underlying soil. It has been proved that by confining the soil there is a reduction in the settlement resulting
in an increase in bearing capacity.
Much research has been carried out on soil reinforced with geosynthetics ( (Mahmoud. M.A (1989)), (Puri.
V.K (1993)), (N. K. Dash. S. (2001)), (K. R. Dash. S. (2001)), (Mandal. J.M. (1995)), (Rajagopal. K (2001)).
The behaviour of circular footing resting on confined sand was investigated by (Sawwaf M.E (2005)). They
used confining cylinders of different heights and diameters to confine the sand. The result indicates that the
bearing capacity of circular footing can be appreciably increased by soil confinement. Laboratory model
tests on square footings resting on laterally confined sand was carried out by (Krishna. A. (2014)). They
reported that the ultimate bearing capacity of square footing can be significantly increased by soil
confinement under axial load as well under eccentric inclined load. The effect of inclination of loads on
footings resting on laterally confined soil was studied by (Vinod. K.S. (2007)). It has been observed that
lateral confinement resists the lateral displacement of soil underneath the footing leading to a significant
decrease in the vertical settlement and hence improving the ultimate bearing capacity. In this research, the
beneficial effects of providing a laterally confined granular layer underneath a footing resting on clay are
investigated by carrying out a series of nonlinear finite element analyses using FE software PLAXIS-2D.
The confinement is attained by encasing the granular soil with Woven Geotextile. The influence of
geometric parameters of the laterally confined granular soil on the load-settlement behaviour is particularly
studied.

ISBN No. 978-81-941516-5-4 Page | 38