CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

Steel moment resisting frame, is a frame in which members and joints are capable of resisting
forces primarily by flexure. Vertical Irregularity shall be considered to occur where the
horizontal dimension of the lateral force resisting system in any storey is more than 150 per
cent of that in its adjacent storey. Progressive collapse is defined as adjoining member
collapse due to local failure of primary structure. Progressive collapse of a structure leads
severe effect to more number of death, injuries and destruction of property, so recently
progressive collapse concept makes a sound in structural engineering. Progressive collapse
causes due to local failure of structure.
Progressive collapse of structure happens due to single event or multiple event can combined
to cause local failure some of the events which causes local failure are earthquake, fire,
explosions and vehicular impact as well as design error.

Year by year concentrate research on progressive collapse increased due to terrorist attack
those are Oklahoma City federal bank building bomb 1995 and World trade center
2001.Progressive collapse occurs due to construction error and design error and also
vehicular collision. Progressive collapse occurs due to one or more vertical member is
dismantled.

Progressive collapse analysis is very important because it is able to analyze the capability of
abnormal loading. Severe problem undergone buildings due to progressive collapse are

1) Ronan point building after 16th may 1968

It is 22 story building, due to 18th story gas explosion leads to above floor collapsed and it
leads failure to the ground this is based on the progressive collapse for one component fails
and it leads to other member like chain process.

1
Fig.1.1 Ronan Point Building after 16th May 1968

2
 1) Murrah federal office building after 19th April 1995 attack

This building collapse happen due to severe damage to the three columns this building
collapse is purely progressive nature that is firstly three columns fails this led to transfer
girder fails and this leads to above structure fails.

Fig.1.2 Murrah Federal Office Building after 19th April 1995 Attack

3
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

1. S.L Al Hafian and I M May, (WCEE) (2012), in their paper entitled ―Seismic
progressive collapse of reinforced concrete framed structure‖ discussed
progressive collapse research on applied element method used. Applied element
method is the combined advantage of both finite element method and discrete element
method 6 story RC framed structure seismically designed is taken as case study. M30
grade of concrete used in this structure. Structure modeled by three dimensional
cubical sub elements, in this study researcher showed that comparison between
analytical and experimental history. Finally concluded that the important is mass
parameter of the structure, it is controlled by the column beam strength ratio.
Suppressing the beam strength is more useful in avoiding the collapse than increasing
in strength of column.

2. A.R Rahai, M, Banazadeh, M.R Seify Asghshahr, (WCEE) (2012) in their paper
entitled ―Progressive collapse assessment of RC structures under Instantaneous
and gradual removal of column‖ has discussed that an instantaneous and gradual
removal of column. In this study 5 story reinforced structure RC resisting moment
frame is taken for modeling , the first floor is 2.7m height other floors are 3.3m
height. The progressive collapse analysis is calculated on the basis of GSA guidelines.
Finally they said that vertical displacement of column after gradual removal of
column was 70 to 80% of the optimum vertical displacement after instantaneous
removal, plastic deformation for the adjacent beam of the column removed for
gradual is 70 to 73% of instantaneous removed.

3. Rakshith K G and Radhakrishna, (IJRET), Nov 2013, in their paper entitled

―Progressive collapse analysis of reinforced concrete framed structure‖ has
considered height of the building 37.5m for modeling, ground floor height is 3.4m and
other story height is 3.1m. Totally it is 12 story building designed for seismic loading.
It is done by considering General Service administration (GSA) guidelines. In this

4
 comparison made between Demand Capacity Ratio (DCR) value and GSA value.
Ultimately concluded that DCR value is less than 2 for column, it implies that
columns are safer for GSA guidelines. The beam DCR value is obtained is more than
expected criteria for GSA guidelines, so special care must be needed for beam and
adjacent columns.

4. Syed Asaad and Shivraj G D, (IJESRT), June 2015, in their paper entitled
―Analysis of progressive collapse in RC frames structure for different seismic
zones‖ has considered the Zone II for three different cases, 5 stories and 8 stories with
4x6 base structures are considered, and the structure was symmetrical. Linear static
analysis is used in this practice. At the end DCR and GSA values are compared for
beam and column behavior. And concluded that higher story buildings are more
sensitive for progressive collapse than low rise buildings. Building designed in zone II
is having high progressive collapse to avoid this we have to redesign the building
model. Structure designed in earthquake as inherit strength for progressive collapse.

5. Halil Sezen and Kevin A Giriunas, May 2009, in their paper entitled ―Progressive
collapse analysis of existing building‖ the SAP 2000 has used to analyze the model;
the strain value noted in the field was related with computer model of the building. In
this baker’s life and Casualty Company building was taken for analysis. By using
strain gauge data strain value is taken at the time of column removal. In this demand
capacity ratio and GSA guidelines are compared. Finally stated that DCR value and
SAP 2000 result were very high due to unique property of the building.

6. Bhavik R Patel, (IJETAE), Vol 4, September 2014, in his paper entitled

―Progressive collapse analysis of RC buildings using Non- linear static and non-
linear dynamic method” has considered on nonlinear static and nonlinear dynamic
methods are considered to analyze the model. 15 story RC building have taken with
the building size plan was 30mx24m, the analysis is made as GSA guidelines`, and
the software used is SAP 2000. Finally concluded that the building for nonlinear static
analysis which is more than 50% of a GSA model so it is not susceptible for

5
 progressive analysis. For nonlinear dynamic analysis the building attempts full GSA
loading so finally stated that the building is low potential for progressive collapse.

7. Harinadha Babu Raparla and Prdeep Kumar Rmacharla, IIIT 2015, in their
paper entitled ―Progressive collapse analysis of RC buildings subjected to seismic
loads‖ has studied four cases, they are, one story one base structure, three story one
base structure, five story one base structure and ten story three base structures
respectively. And concluded that progressive collapse phase starts for single story
frame in 6.7sec, for three story frame it is 5.8sec, for five story frame it is 7sec, and
for ten stories it was 6.8sec. And showed that progressive collapse can be analyzed by
AEM. (Applied element method).

8. Ram Shankar Singh, Yusuf Jamal, and Meraj A Khan, (IJIRAE), Vol 2 Dec
2015, in their paper entitled ―Progressive collapse analysis of reinforced concrete
symmetrical and unsymmetrical framed structure by ETABS‖ has deliberated the
five story symmetrical and unsymmetrical structures. In this study DCR value is
compared with general service administration (GSA) value. ETABS version 9.7.1
have used there are four cases are taken into account for the analysis, exterior column
near the middle of the long side of the structure, exterior column near the middle of
the shorter side of the structure, column situated at the corner of the structure, column
interior to the perimeter column lines. Finally observed that the DCR value for beam
design forces is less than 2 for all the cases so it is suggested that columns are safer
under GSA` guidelines.

9. B A Izzuddin, A G Vlassis, and A Y Elghazouli, in their paper entitled

―Progressive collapse of multi- story buildings due to sudden column loss – part I
simplified assessment frame work‖ has considered multi-story building which is
subjected to sudden column removal and there are three main stages were considered
for assessment, they are 1) nonlinear static analysis of the broken building at the time
of gravity loading, 2) simplified dynamic valuation for maximum dynamic response at
the time of sudden column removal and 3) ductility valuation of the connections.

6
 Ultimately stated as multi story frame work for progressive collapse assessment of
structure for sudden column elimination which benefits for practical applicability.

10. David N Bilow, S.P. Mahamoud kamara, in their paper entitled ―Progressive
collapse Design Guidelines Applied to concrete moment-resisting frame
buildings‖ has studied the flexural and shear reinforcement for each building
according to the strength requirements was estimated. Earthquake design A, B, C and
D for each building using the study. In this study finally concluded that extra
reinforcement is not required to Progressive collapse. By GSA criteria we can easily
analyses and determine progressive collapse it is designed by readily available
software.

7
 CHAPTER 3

OBJECTIVE OF THE PRESENT STUDY

Based on the literature survey conducted and through analysis, the following
objectives were arrived

1. To Study the behavior of the steel moment resisting frame structures with vertical
irregularities subjected to progressive collapse.
2. To carry out Modal analysis and Equivalent static analysis to understand the vibration
behavior and lateral load resistance of steel frames with two progressive collapse
conditions.
3. To Study Linear progressive collapse analysis as per General Services Administration
(GSA) specifications.
4. To the results of above analysis and to suggest the prevention of complete collapse of
structure.

8
 CHAPTER 4

METHODOLOGY

4.1 METHODOLOGY ADOPTED.

Following methodology is adopted to perform the progressive collapse analysis

1. Steel Moment resisting frame is considered as the base model for the present study.
2. Steel moment resisting frame with vertical irregularity is considered. Two collapse
conditions (i.e., one and two columns collapse condition) were taken for the present study
based on the General Services Administration (GSA) specifications.
3. Demand capacity ratios of steel structures under collapse condition are found out.
4. Based on the demand capacity ratios conclusions are made whether steel moment resisting
frames are susceptible for complete collapse.

Suggestions are made in order to avoid the complete failure of the structure by re designing
members where Demand Capacity Ratio (DCR) ratios will be within the limitations as per
GSA specifications.

4.2 SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF0STRUCTURES

4.2.10GENERAL

Seismic tremor remains a sign of quick arrival of pressure waves throughout a hard
separation of rock. The impulsiveness of seismic tremor ground motion is because of
components like, foundation effect, pathway effect and nearby location influence. Seismic
tremor reason ground to shake and buildings sustained on ground are exposed to this
indication. Afterwards forceful loading on the building through a seismic tremor remains
outside loading, then rather because of wave of sustenance. The different components adding
to the structural destruction amongst tremor are vertical abnormalities, variation in strength
and toughness, mass abnormality, torsion abnormality and so on.

4.3 SEISMIC0DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

The0design0theory included 0in0the0seismic0code0is0to0ensure0 the structure

0possess0minimum0 required 0strength0to,
i) Resist0minor tremor (<DBE), which may happen usually with no damage or Harm.

9
ii) Resist0moderate tremor (<DBE), without more structurally damage &minor non-structural
damages to the structures.
iii) Resist0major earthquake0 (MCE) failure will not occur.
In this manner0 the construction will be fully functioning inside of a lesser time and the
repair costs will be little. After adequate trembling, the structure determination exists
functioning once the repair and reinforcing of the smashed main members is finished.

Fig 4.1: Performance objectives under distinctive intensities of earthquake shaking

4.40EQUIVALENT STATIC METHOD

The0 comprehensive design0lateral load or0design base0shear along0any0principal

direction0is given0in terms0of design0horizontal seismic0coefficient and0seismic weight0of
the0structure. Design0seismic coefficients depend on upon the zone0factor of0the site,
consequence of0the0structure, reaction decrease factor0of the0lateral burden opposing
components and the principal time0of the0structure.
For equivalent static analysis following method is to used explained below

i) Fundamental mental natural period (Ta) of building is taken as

1) Ta = 0.75h0.75 is used for moment resisting RC frame building without

brick infill walls

2) Ta = 0.075h0.85 used for moment resisting steel frame building without

brick infill walls

10
 3) Ta = 0.09 d1/2 for other buildings moment resisting RC frame with brick
walls
Where h-is height of building in m

ii) Calculation of base shear (VB)

VB = Ah x W
Where
Ah = Design horizontal seismic coefficient for a structure
W = Seismic weight of Building
Ah can be calculated by following equation
Ah = Z I Sa
2Rg
Where,
Z = Zone Factor
I = Importance Factor
R = Response Reduction Factor
Sa/g = Average Response Acceleration Coefficient

4.5 ANALYSIS PROCEDURE AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

Progressive collapse analysis is desirable to decide the abnormal load causing this problem.
This happens due to removing of vertical column or sudden abnormal load, structure not able
to resist.

4.5.1 Analysis

Linear Static analysis used to analyse the possible for progressive collapse, coupled with the
following criteria: Principles for assessing the analysis results, a suite of analysis cases,
Specific loading criteria.

4.5.2 Analysis Loading

For Linear Static analysis the following vertical load should be applied downward to the
structure under analysis
Load = 2DL+0.5LL
Where

11
DL = Dead load
LL = Live load

4.6 ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

Progressive collapse analysis is needed to determine the abnormal load causing this problem.
This happens due to removing of vertical column or sudden abnormal load, structure not able
to resist

4.7 LINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS

In this linear static analysis vertical member is dismantled from the location being
considered. From this analysis the value of demand at critical position are obtained. From the
original seismic design section the ability of structure to resist the force is determined. In this
DCR value is checking with the acceptance criteria, if DCR value exceeds the acceptance
criteria in shear and flexure. The member is not holds good to serviceability.

12
4.7.1 DEAD LOAD

Dead load is obtained from IS 875(part1), the unit weight of concrete is taken as 25kN/m3
Self-weight of the structural elements.
Super Dead Load = 1.5 kN/m2
Glazing load = 1kN/m

4.7.2. Imposed Load (Live Load)

Imposed Load is obtained from IS 875(part2).
On floor 3kN/m2

4.7.3. Earthquake Load

The building is considered in zone 4 according to IS 1893-2002. Zone factor is taken as 0.24,
as in code for zone 4. For zone4 Soil category II, Response Reduction Factor = 5 and
Importance Factor = 1 is taken.

4.8. DEMAND CAPACITY RATIO (DCR)

The GSA guidelines advised to use the Demand Capacity Ratio (DCR), which is stated as
the ratio of the structural member force after the sudden removal of a column to the member
strength (capacity) ,as a mark to determine the failure of other major structural members by
the linear static analysis procedure (GSA 2003).

Demand Capacity Ratio = QUD / QCE

Where,

QUD = Acting force /demand observed in member.

QCE = Expected ultimate, un-factored capacity of the member

The permissible DCR values for primary and secondary structural elements are:

Demand capacity ratio (DCR) < 2.0 for regular structural configurations.

Demand capacity ratio (DCR) < 1.5 for irregular structural configurations.

Using the DCR criteria of the linear elastic method, structural elements and connections that
have DCR values that exceed the limiting values are considered to be severely damaged or
collapsed.

13
4.9. ETABS (EXTENDED THREE DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS OF BUILDING
SYSTEM)

ETABS is a FEM based software suite, developed by a US based computers and structures
Inc. which will instantly improve the capability of the engineers to analyze and design the
buildings. It is a mold made software suite for the building systems, which is simple to use
unusual purpose analysis and design program. The software has a very controlling graphical
interface, using this module the analyzer can model, analyze and design different kind of
compound structures easily, Any type of loads cases or load patterns, in which the building is
subjected to during its life time can be defined and assigned to the concerned structural
elements. It can perform the linear, nonlinear, static and also dynamic analysis of the
structure, thereby making it one of the most powerful tools that the structural engineers can
use in the present scenario. The results can be directly obtained from the analysis and
tabulated, which can be exported to other formats easily with compatible programs.

4.10 METHOD OF PREVENTING PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE

1) Redundancy or Alternate load path

In this method the structure is designed in such a manner that if it is primary structure fails it
doesn’t affect the other components via, the load transfer in another path because of this
structure is safe.

14
2). Local resistance method
In this method the structure undergoes progressive collapse, was resisted by providing
critical components this method is very challenging to codify in a simple and objective way.

3) Inter connection of continuity

This method is improved version of the redundancy or local resistance method this method
explains that interconnection of the structure effectively reduces the progressive failure.

15
4.11 CODES AND STANDARDS

1) ASCE 7-02
The American society of civil engineers in this code they concentrate on general
structural integrity. This code also prefers sufficient continuity, redundancy and
energy dissipation capacity
2) ACI 318-02
The American concrete institute this code deeply undergoes in “requirement for
structural integrity”. This code also tells that member should be properly tie this
increases integrity of the structures
3) GSA PBS Facilities standards 2000
In this code states that progressive collapse heading to structure consideration and
also structure is able to resist the local damage without destabilize the complete
structure.
4) GSA PBS Facilities standards 2003
It is replace the above GSA 2000 code and in chapter 8 mainly refer to security design
was considered. In this code extensively frame the code for blast effect.
5) GSA Progressive collapse guidelines 2003
In this code thoroughly analyzed about progressive collapse and justify the building
progressive collapse consideration. Justification based on type and size of the structure.

16
 CHAPTER 5
MODELLING

5.1 GENERAL SUMMARY OF THE STRUCTURE

In the present chapter, the general procedure of modeling the building is explained below, the
similar modeling procedure is used to models different other models with various grid data.

5.1.1 Material Properties

The material considered for analysis RC is M-25 grade concrete and Fe-500 grade reinforcing
steel:

Young’s modulus - steel, Es = 2, 10,000 MPa

Young’s modulus - concrete, EC =25,000 MPa

Characteristic strength of concrete, fck = 25 MPa

Yield stress for steel, FY = 500 MPa

Ultimate strain in bending, Ƹcu =0.0035

5.1.2 Model Geometry

Structure is a 30-story height, 5 bays in X direction, 8 bays along Y- direction RC moment-

resisting frame with properties as indicated, the floors are modeled as rigid, the details of the
model are given as follows,

Number of stories = 30.

Story height = 3.0 meters at Ground Floor, Remaining Floors.

Bay width along X Dir. = 5, Y Dir. = 3.0 meters

17
5.1.3 Plan View of Building

The plan view of building plan is indicative in the Figure 5.1. The bay width, columns
and beams positions can be seen further:

Fig: 5.1: Plan View of Building

18
5.1.4 Building Elevation

The Figure 5.2 indicates the elevation view of the building. The storey heights,
column lines can be seen in this image.

Fig: 5.2: Elevation View of a Building

19
5.2 STEPS BY STEP PROCEDURE OF MODELLING

Fig: 5.3: Dimensions of a Building

Fig 5.3: shows the dimensions of a building

20
Fig: 5.4: Story Data of a Building

Fig: 5.5: Story Height of a Building

21
 Fig: 5.6: Material Properties of steel

Fig: 5.7: Material Properties of Concrete

Figures 5.6 & 5.7 shows the grade of concrete, steel and their properties
22
Fig: 5.8: Basic Section Properties of a Column

Fig: 5.9: Basic Section Properties of a Beam

Figures 5.8 & 5.9 shows the beam and column sections

23
Fig: 5.10: Basic Dimensions of a Slab

Figure 5.10 shows Deck Slab thickness

24
 Fig: 5.11: Details of Load Patterns

To define static load case, Define and Static Load case, all load cases self weight multiplier
shall be zero other than Dead load.

Once we assigned the dead & live load on a structure, now we apply the earthquake load. In
this the first step is to, select and add new load combination option. Then assign all the
parameters by using IS1893 (part 1):2002.

The Loads are taken on the structure as specified in IS875: Part 2, for live load.

Fig: 5.12: Live Load on Slab

25
 Fig: 5.13: Glazing Load

Figures 5.12 & 5.13 shows the Loading details assigned to the Slab and the Wall.

The Procedure shows the modeling of 30 storey building, similarly the 30 storey model is
done for different configuration.

26
Fig: 5.14: MODEL1 (STEEL FRAME SYSTEM)

Regular Steel Frame System is shown in Fig: 5.14

27
 Fig: 5.15: MODEL 2 (STEEL FRAME VERTICLE DOUBLE HEIGHT (VI))
Figure 5.15 shows the thirty story of vertical double height steel frame system is shown

28
 Fig: 5.16: MODEL3 (STEEL FRAME PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE 1 (PC1))

Figure 5.16 shows the steel frame system of vertical double height with exterior column
removed near the middle side of the building at one location.

29
 Fig: 5.17: MODEL 4 (STEEL FRAME PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE 2 (PC2))

Figure 5.17 shows the steel frame system of vertical double height with exterior columns
removed near the middle side of the building at two locations.

30
 CHAPTER 6

ANALYSIS RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

6.1 GENERAL

This chapter presents important responses obtained by the analysis of steel moment resisting
frame structures with vertical irregularities particularly stiffness irregularities having double
height at the bottom and mid height of the building by using ETABS 2015. Also progressive
collapse study using static method has be done by removing the columns at the bottom of the
steel structure at two different locations as per the General Services Administration (GSA)
guidelines. Modal analysis has been done to understand the behavior under different modes
and corresponding time period and frequencies are presented. Also base shear, story
displacement, inter story drifts, due to lateral loads have been presented and discussed.
Demand capacity ratios has be found out whether the building will collapse due to the
removal or loss of column at the bottom of the structure and corresponding results are
extracted and presented, indicating the severity of the collapse. Based on the results and
discussions, conclusions are drawn and presented in the next chapter 7.

6.2 MODAL ANALYSIS

Modal analyses have been carried out for all types of steel structures with and without loss of
column and time period and frequencies are listed in Table 6.1 and Table 6.2 respectively.
Time period is maximum for steel structure for with the loss of two columns at the bottom
and found to be 14% higher than that of all type of steel structure. Maximum frequency is
found in steel moment resisting frame structure which is found to be 0.29cycles/sec (Table
6.2) which is 13.28% higher than that of all the buildings.

31
 Table: 6.1: Mode Shape vs. Time Period

Mode No. Time Period (Seconds)

STEEL FRAME STEEL VI STEEL-PC1 STEEL-PC2

1 5.526 6.55 6.587 6.606

2 3.288 3.55 3.562 3.564
3 3.033 3.193 3.197 3.214
4 1.827 2.271 2.278 2.285
5 1.086 1.198 1.203 1.204
6 1.062 1.155 1.156 1.157
7 0.98 1.049 1.051 1.052
8 0.755 0.91 0.912 0.913
9 0.634 0.664 0.665 0.666
10 0.586 0.597 0.596 0.597
11 0.548 0.575 0.574 0.575
12 0.48 0.542 0.543 0.544

Figure: 6.1: Mode Shape V/s Mode (time) period for different models

32
Mode 1 Mode 2

Fig 6.2 Mode Shapes of Regular Steel Frame System

33
 Mode 1 Mode 2

Fig 6.3: Mode Shapes of Steel Frame System with Vertical Double Height (VI)

34
 Mode 1 Mode 2

Fig 6.4: Mode Shapes of Steel Frame System with Vertical Double Height Progressive
Collapse 1 (PC1)

35
 Mode 1 Mode 2

Fig 6.5: Mode Shapes of Steel Frame System with Vertical Double Height Progressive
Collapse 2 (PC2)

36
 Table: 6.2. Mode vs. Frequency

Mode No. Frequency (Cycles/sec)

STEEL STEEL STEEL- STEEL-
FRAME VI PC1 PC2
1 0.29 0.265 0.257 0.256
2 0.36 0.348 0.339 0.338
3 0.38 0.363 0.353 0.353
4 0.89 0.778 0.757 0.755
5 1.09 1.057 1.029 1.028
6 1.15 1.072 1.043 1.042
7 1.56 1.480 1.444 1.442
8 1.93 1.903 1.855 1.854
9 1.95 1.912 1.864 1.862
10 2.21 1.933 1.883 1.880
11 2.75 2.568 2.500 2.498
12 2.75 2.631 2.565 2.562

Figure: 6.6: Mode V/s frequency period for different models

37
6.3 EARTH QUAKE ANALYSIS RESULTS: EQUIVALENT STATIC
ANALYSIS

6.3.1 Maximum Base shear

Maximum base shear developed at the ground floor for all the structures are presented here in
Table 6.3. It is found that variation of base shear is not much compared between the all the
steel structures. Maximum base shear exist in steel moment resisting frame which is 915 kN
compared to all other models and minimum is 860kN shaped model which is 6% less than
that of moment resisting frame.

Table: 6.3: Maximum Base Shear

Base Shear (kN)

STEEL STEEL- STEEL-
STEEL FRAME VI PC1 PC2

915 860 860 860

Figure: 6.7: Maximum base shear.

38
6.3.2 Story Displacements

Table: 6.4: Story Displacement

Joint Displacement (mm)

STEEL STEEL STEEL- STEEL-
Story
FRAME VI PC1 PC2
Story30 75 85 90 90
Story29 74 84 89 89
Story28 73 83 88 88
Story27 72 82 87 87
Story26 70 80 85 85
Story25 68 79 83 84
Story24 66 77 82 82
Story23 64 75 79 80
Story22 62 73 77 77
Story21 59 71 75 75
Story20 57 68 72 73
Story19 54 66 70 70
Story18 52 63 67 67
Story17 49 61 64 64
Story16 46 54 57 58
Story15 43 47 50 51
Story14 40 45 47 48
Story13 37 42 45 45
Story12 34 39 42 42
Story11 31 36 39 39
Story10 28 34 36 36
Story9 25 31 33 33
Story8 22 28 30 30
Story7 19 26 27 28
Story6 16 23 25 25
Story5 13 20 22 22
Story4 10 18 19 19
Story3 8 15 16 17
Story2 5 13 14 14
Story1 2 6 6 6
Base 0 0 0 0

39
 Figure: 6.8: Story Displacements

Story displacements for the steel structure is found to be minium 75 mm in case of regular
steel moment resisting frame where are maximum is found steel structure with loss of
columns i.e., 90 mm which is found to be increase in 20%.

40
6.3.3 Story Drift ratios

Table: 6.5: Story Drift Ratios

STORY DRIFTS
Story STEEL STEEL STEEL- STEEL-
FRAME VI PC1 PC2
Story30 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003
Story29 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004
Story28 0.0005 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005
Story27 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005
Story26 0.0006 0.0005 0.0006 0.0006
Story25 0.0007 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006
Story24 0.0007 0.0006 0.0007 0.0007
Story23 0.0008 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007
Story22 0.0008 0.0007 0.0008 0.0008
Story21 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008
Story20 0.0009 0.0008 0.0009 0.0009
Story19 0.0009 0.0008 0.0009 0.0009
Story18 0.0009 0.0009 0.0010 0.0010
Story17 0.0009 0.0022 0.0023 0.0023
Story16 0.0010 0.0022 0.0023 0.0023
Story15 0.0010 0.0009 0.0010 0.0010
Story14 0.0010 0.0009 0.0010 0.0010
Story13 0.0010 0.0009 0.0010 0.0010
Story12 0.0010 0.0009 0.0010 0.0010
Story11 0.0010 0.0009 0.0010 0.0010
Story10 0.0010 0.0009 0.0010 0.0010
Story9 0.0010 0.0009 0.0010 0.0010
Story8 0.0010 0.0009 0.0010 0.0010
Story7 0.0010 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009
Story6 0.0010 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009
Story5 0.0010 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009
Story4 0.0009 0.0008 0.0009 0.0009
Story3 0.0009 0.0009 0.0010 0.0010
Story2 0.0009 0.0023 0.0025 0.0025
Story1 0.0007 0.0020 0.0022 0.0022
Base 0 0 0 0.0000

41
Story drift ratios are extracted and listed in Table 6.5. From the results it can be observed that
story drift ratios are found to be varying equally for all types of the steel structure, but the
effect of vertical double height at the bottom and mid heights causes the drift to increase
drastically from 0.0009 to 0.0025 which will be 177% increase at story 2 and story 16. Also
due to loss of columns story drifts has a slight increase of 8.7% as

Figure: 6.9: Story Drifts

6.4 PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE ANALYSIS

In linear static analysis column is detached from the position being

considered and linear static analysis with the gravity load enforced on the structure has
carried out. From the analysis results demand at dangerous locations are achieved from the
area of the steel provided and to determine the capacity of the section using the IS 1893 2002.
Check for the demand capacity ratio in each structural member is carried out. If the demand
capacity ratio of a member exceeds the acceptance criteria i.e. 2 for regular configuration and
1.5 for irregular configuration buildings, the member is considered as failed. The DCR
calculated from linear static procedure helps to determine the potential for progressive
collapse of the building. The DCR for the beams in the neighborhood of the removed
columns for the building in the study are summarized.

42
6.4.1 Exterior Column C-19 Removed Near the Middle Side of the Building at One
Location

The elimination of exterior column C-19 near the middle of the shorter side of the building
which will cause moment reverse in the beams intersecting at the detached support beams
B17, B18, B50, and B51 as shown in the below figure.6.6.

DCR Results are tabulated for all the stories for the above said beams which will indicate the
potentiality of progressive collapse.

Figure: 6.10: Exterior Column C-19 Removed Near the Middle Side of the Building at
One Location.

43
 Table: 6.6: DCR for beam from Story 1 to 10

Story 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
B-17 0.0 8.10 7.71 4.96 3.25 2.10 1.33 0.93 0.72 0.54
B-18 0.0 2.03 1.05 0.80 0.58 0.42 0.31 0.23 0.17 0.12
B-50 0.0 6.56 5.70 4.46 3.59 2.91 2.39 1.99 1.63 1.42
B-51 0.0 6.57 5.68 4.39 3.47 2.76 2.21 1.79 1.46 1.21

Figure: 6.11: DCR for beam from Story 1 to 10

From the above table it can be observed that DCR values are greater than 1.5 for beam B-17
up to story 6, B-18 at story 2 only, for B-50 story 9 and B-51 up to story 8.

44
 Table: 6.7: DCR for beam from Story 11 to 20

Story 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
B-17 0.39 0.27 0.17 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.24 0.28
B-18 0.10 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.08 0.11 0.13
B-50 1.23 1.11 1.04 0.99 0.92 0.00 0.82 0.83 0.79 0.77
B-51 1.07 0.98 0.90 0.84 0.78 0.00 0.66 0.64 0.61 0.57

Figure: 6.12: DCR for beam from Story 11 to 20

45
 Table: 6.8: DCR for beam from Story 21 to 30

Story 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
B-17 0.31 0.34 0.37 0.39 0.41 0.42 0.44 0.44 0.47 0.29
B-18 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.16
B-50 0.75 0.73 0.72 0.71 0.70 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.69 0.57
B-51 0.54 0.52 0.50 0.48 0.47 0.46 0.45 0.44 0.46 0.18

Figure: 6.13: DCR for beam from Story 21 to 30

DCR values from 21 to 30 stories are all less than 1.5 indicating that beams will have
adequate stiffness and strength to carry floor loads from the above stories. And also in all
most all stories B-50 and B-51 will have DCR values higher than that of B-17 and B-18.

46
6.4.2 Dcr Values for the Columns (C-10, C-20, C-21 and C-28) Near the Vicinity of
Removed Column C19

Figure: 6.14: DCR Values for Columns near the Vicinity of Removed Column C19

47
 Table: 6.9: DCR for column from Story 1 to 10

Story 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
C-10 1.6 1.65 1.03 0.93 0.88 0.84 0.79 0.76 0.72 0.68
C-20 2.1 2.28 1.36 1.20 1.08 0.97 0.87 0.79 0.72 0.66
C-21 1.6 1.64 0.93 0.89 0.85 0.81 0.78 0.74 0.71 0.67
C-28 1.7 1.72 1.06 0.96 0.91 0.86 0.82 0.78 0.74 0.70

DCR : STORY 1 TO STROY 10

2.5

2.0

1.5
C-10
DCR

C-20
1.0 C-21
C-28

0.5

0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
STORY

Figure: 6.15: DCR for column from Story 1 to 10

48
 Fig.1 Fig.2

Fig.3 Fig.4

In the above Figures (Fig1, Fig2, Fig3 and Fig4): 6.16: DCR Values of beams for
Columns near the Vicinity of Removed Column C19

49
 Table: 6.10: DCR for column from Story 11 to 20

Story 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
C-10 0.65 0.62 0.59 0.56 0.53 0.78 0.75 0.49 0.45 0.43
C-20 0.61 0.56 0.52 0.48 0.44 0.65 0.65 0.40 0.38 0.35
C-21 0.64 0.60 0.57 0.54 0.50 0.75 0.74 0.44 0.41 0.38
C-28 0.66 0.63 0.59 0.56 0.53 0.80 0.78 0.48 0.44 0.41

DCR : STORY 11 TO STROY 20

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50
C-10
DCR

C-20
0.40
C-21
0.30 C-28

0.20

0.10

0.00
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
STORY

Figure: 6.17: DCR for column from Story 11 to 20

50
 Table: 6.11: DCR for column from Story 21 to30

Story 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
C-10 0.41 0.38 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.30 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.23
C-20 0.33 0.32 0.30 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.17
C-21 0.35 0.32 0.29 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.19 0.16 0.14 0.12
C-28 0.32 0.37 0.35 0.32 0.30 0.28 0.25 0.23 0.20 0.20

DCR : STORY 21 TO STROY 30

0.45

0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25 C-10
DCR

0.20 C-20
C-21
0.15
C-28
0.10

0.05

0.00
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
STORY

Figure: 6.18: DCR for column from Story 21 to 30

From the above results it is clear that all columns will have DCR Values greater than 1.5 at
story level 1 and 2 only, and particularly C-20 will have higher DCR value compare to all
other columns.

51
6.4.3 Exterior Column C-5 and C-19 Removed Near the Middle Side of the Building at
Two Locations

Figure: 6.19: Exterior Column C-5 and C-19 Removed Near the Middle Side of the
Building at Two Locations

52
 Table: 6.12: DCR for beams from Story 1 to 10

Story 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
B-4 0.0 16.51 9.80 6.45 4.32 2.92 1.99 1.34 1.01 0.85
B-5 0.0 15.83 8.99 5.86 3.87 2.58 1.73 1.17 0.92 0.77
B-69 0.0 3.46 2.84 1.96 1.39 1.05 0.88 0.73 0.61 0.50
B-70 0.0 0.75 0.66 0.64 0.63 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.62

DCR : STORY 1 TO STROY 10

18.0

16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0 B-4
DCR

B-5
8.0
B-69
6.0 B-70

4.0

2.0

0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
STORY

Figure: 6.20: DCR for beams from Story 1 to 10

From the above table it can be observed that DCR values are greater than 1.5 for beam B-
4and B-5 up to story 7, for B-69 story 4 and B-70beams are safe. Also DCR ratios are 16.51
for B-4 which is 103.82% more than that of steel moment resisting frame where single
column is removed at one side (Fig 6.10 for B-17).

53
 Fig .1: Fig.2:

Fig.3: Fig.4:

In the above Figures (Fig1, Fig2, Fig3 and Fig4): 6.21: DCR Values of beams for
Exterior Column C-5 and C-19 Removed near the Middle Side of the Building at Two
Locations

54
 Table: 6.13: DCR for beam from Story 11 to 20

Story 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
B-4 0.72 0.62 0.53 0.47 0.40 0.00 0.31 0.29 0.26 0.24
B-5 0.64 0.54 0.47 0.40 0.35 0.00 0.27 0.24 0.21 0.19
B-69 0.57 0.65 0.72 0.78 0.81 0.00 0.89 0.98 1.03 1.06
B-70 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.64 0.65 0.00 0.65 0.67 0.71 0.72

DCR : STORY 11 TO STROY 20

1.20

1.00

0.80

B-4
DCR

0.60
B-5
B-69
B-70
0.40

0.20

0.00
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
STORY

Figure: 6.22: DCR for beam from Story 11 to 20

55
 Table: 6.14: DCR for beam from Story 21 to 30

Story 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
B-4 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15
B-5 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13
B-69 1.09 1.11 1.14 1.16 1.20 1.23 1.25 1.27 1.33 0.99
B-70 0.72 0.73 0.73 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.73 0.76 0.66

DCR : STORY 21 TO STROY 30

1.40

1.20

1.00

0.80
B-4
DCR

B-5
0.60 B-69
B-70
0.40

0.20

0.00
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
STORY

Figure: 6.23: DCR for beam from Story 21 to 30

56
DCR values from 11 to 30 stories are all less than 1.5 indicating that beams will have
adequate stiffness and strength to carry floor loads from the above stories. B-69 from story
21-30 will have higher DCR values than all other beams.

6.4.4 Dcr Values for the Redesigned Beams (B-17, B-18, B-50 and B-51) When
Column C19 Is Being Removed At One Location

To avoid the progressive collapse of the whole structure, beams at the collapsed columns are
redesigned and I section ISHM 450 up to story 10 is recommended at the following locations
as shown in the below figure .6.18.

Figure: 6.24: DCR Values for the Redesigned Beams (B-17, B-18, B-50 and B-51) When
Column C19 is being removed at one location.
57
 Table: 6.15: DCR for beams from Story 1 to 10

Story 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
B-17 0.0 0.64 0.60 0.46 0.36 0.29 0.22 0.17 0.13 0.09
B-18 0.0 0.37 0.26 0.79 0.57 0.41 0.29 0.21 0.15 0.11
B-50 0.0 0.66 0.60 0.52 0.46 0.41 0.37 0.34 0.31 0.28
B-51 0.0 0.66 0.60 0.52 0.45 0.40 0.36 0.32 0.29 0.26

Figure: 6.25: DCR for beams from Story 1 to 10

58
 Table: 6.16: DCR for beams from Story 11 to 20

Story 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
B-17 0.27 0.17 0.08 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.16 0.24 0.28 0.31
B-18 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.10 0.12 0.14
B-50 1.07 1.00 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.00 0.77 0.78 0.75 0.73
B-51 0.95 0.87 0.81 0.76 0.71 0.00 0.61 0.59 0.56 0.54

Figure: 6.26: DCR for beams from Story 11 to 20

59
 Table: 6.17: DCR for beams from Story 21 to 30

Story 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
B-17 0.34 0.37 0.39 0.41 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.48 0.29
B-18 0.16 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.17
B-50 0.71 0.70 0.69 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.55
B-51 0.50 0.50 0.47 0.46 0.45 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.43 0.18

Figure: 6.27: DCR for beams from Story 21 to 30

60
 Figure: 6.28: Consolidated DCR for beams from Story 1 to 30

From the results it is clear that, all the DCR values are less than 1.5. Also from the above
consolidated figure, it is clear that, DCR values are increase from story 11 since only up to
story 10 beam sections are revised form ISMB 450 to ISHB 450.

61
 CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSIONS AND SCOPE OF FUTURE WORK

7.1 CONCLUSIONS
 Form the results of modal analysis, it can be concluded that time period is less for
steel moment resisting frame indicates maximum stiffness hence maximum frequency
compared to all vertical irregular frames with and without loss of columns.
 Steel moment resisting frame with columns being removed at one location may be
considered are flexible since its having maximum time period and less frequency than
all types of steel structures.
 Reduction in base shear in vertical irregular frames is observed due to removal of
column at the base level of the building.
 Due to lateral loads, displacement shows 20% increase and drift shows 177%
(increase at floors 2 and 16 due to double height) compared to regular steel moment
resisting frames which indicates the effect of vertical irregularity exited in the frame.
 From the progressive collapse study as per the General Service Administration (GSA)
guide lines, it can be concluded that Demand Capacity Ratio (DCR) Values increase
from value of 0.81 up to 16.51 during the catastrophic failure of columns due to
impact or blast load, leading to failure or collapse of entire super structure creating
loss of life and resources.
 Demand Capacity Ratio (DCR) Values of beams and columns near the vicinity of the
failed columns to be considered for the progressive collapse analysis, since heavy
loads during the failure of the column will be balanced by the nearby columns and
beams.
 Demand Capacity Ratio (DCR) Values will increase to 103% due to loss of column at
two locations, indicates that potentiality of progressive collapse is very high in case of
loss of columns at two locations simultaneously.
 Due to the removal or loss of columns, Demand Capacity Ratio (DCR) values of
beams will increase compared to columns, since beams will behave as girder carrying
floating columns. Hence beam sections are to be design with enough factor of safety
to avoid progressive collapse.

62
7.2 SCOPE OF FUTURE WORK

 Progressive collapse analysis can be carried out for vertical offset; set back and step
back steel moment resisting frames.
 Progressive collapse analysis can be extended by considering the nonlinear behavior.
 Base isolated buildings with progressive collapse concept can be attempted.

63
 REFERENCES

1. S.L Al Hafian and I M May, “Seismic progressive collapse of reinforced concrete

framed structure” (WCEE) (2012).

2. A.R Rahai, M, Banazadeh, M.R Seify Asghshahr, “Progressive collapse

assessment of RC structures under Instantaneous and gradual removal of column”
(WCEE) (2012).

3. Rakshith K G and Radhakrishna, “Progressive collapse analysis of reinforced

concrete framed structure” (IJRET), Nov 2013.

4. Syed Asaad and Shivraj G D, “Analysis of progressive collapse in RC frames

structure for different seismic zones” (IJESRT), June 2015.

5. Halil Sezen and Kevin A Giriunas, “Progressive collapse analysis of existing

building” May 2009.

6. Bhavik R Patel, “Progressive collapse analysis of RC buildings using Non- linear

static and non- linear dynamic method” (IJETAE), Vol 4.

7. Harinadha Babu Raparla and Prdeep Kumar Rmacharla, “Progressive collapse

analysis of RC buildings subjected to seismic loads” IIIT 2015.

8. Ram Shankar Singh, Yusuf Jamal, and Meraj A Khan, “Progressive collapse
analysis of reinforced concrete symmetrical and unsymmetrical framed structure by
ETABS” (IJIRAE), Vol 2 Dec 2015.

9. B A Izzuddin, A G Vlassis, and A Y Elghazouli, “Progressive collapse of multi-

story buildings due to sudden column loss – part I simplified assessment frame work”.

10. David N Bilow, S.P. Mahamoud kamara, “Progressive Collapse Design Guidelines
Applied to concrete moment-resisting frame buildings”.
11. ASCE 7-02 American society of civil engineers in this code they concentrate on
general structural integrity
12. ACI 318-02 American concrete institute this code deeply undergoes in “requirement
for structural integrity”.
13. GSA PBS Facilities standards 2000The 2000 edition of the GSA‟s Facilities
Standards for the Public Buildings Service (GSA, 2000) included the following
64
 statement under the “Progressive Collapse” heading in the “Structural
Considerations” section.

14. GSA PBS facilities standards 2003The 2003 edition of the GSA‟s Facilities
Standards for the Public Buildings Service (GSA, 2003) retained the “Progressive
Collapse” heading from the 2000 edition.

15. GSA progressive collapse guidelines 2003 The GSA Progressive Collapse Analysis
and Design Guidelines for New Federal Office Buildings and Major Modernization
Projects (GSA, 2003b) begins with a process for determining whether a building is
exempt from progressive collapse considerations.

16. IS: 875 (Part 1) – 1987 PART 1 DEAD LOADS — Unit Weights of Building
Materials and Stored Materials.
17. IS: 875 (Part 2) – 1987 PART 2 Indian Standard Code of Practice for Imposed
Loads.
18. IS 1893 (Part 1):2002 Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design Of Structures.

65