Engineering Failure Analysis 109 (2020) 104278

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

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

Progressive collapse assessment of post-tensioned reinforced

T
concrete flat slab structures using AEM
⁎
Amgad Mahrousa, , Mariam Ehaba, Hamed Salemb
a
The British University in Egypt, El-Sherouk, Cairo, Egypt
b
Department of Structural Engineering, Cairo University, Egypt

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords: Progressive collapse is defined as the failure of a primary vertical element of a structure, which
Progressive collapse may result in the failure of adjoining elements, consequently, leads to a partial or total collapse of
Post-tensioned slabs the structure. Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) and General Services Administration (GSA)
Applied element method guidelines used to assess the behavior of structures subjected to progressive collapse as a result of
Collapsed area
the loss of primary vertical support. For the current case study, numerical analysis is carried out
Column removal
Rotation limits
for a typical ten-story reinforced concrete post-tensioned flat slab structure subjected to primary
vertical element loss (corner column, edge column, internal column, edge shear wall & internal
shear wall). The structure is designed according to (ACI 318-14) and its progressive collapse is
assessed according to UFC guidelines. Non-linear dynamic analysis for the structure is carried out
using Extreme Loading for Structures (ELS) software. The Applied Element Method (AEM) is used
to create a 3D model to assess the structure’s progressive collapse behavior as a result of primary
support removal. Evolution of axial forces in columns, principal stress contour for slabs and
tendon’s prestressing losses are the parameters used to investigate the post-tensioned flat slab
progressive collapse as a result of support removal.

1. Introduction

The progressive collapse of several structures accidentally happened during the last few decades. One of the famous examples, the
progressive collapse of the “Ronan Point” building in 1968 which was located in east London as a result of a gas explosion that took
place on the 18th floor. In 1995, the Murrah Federal Office Building located in Oklahoma City showed a partial collapse as a result of
a terroristic attack, where an explosion took place on the ground floor. In 2001, the World Trade Center, New York, suffered a total
collapse as a result of a plane impact at the upper levels of the tower.
One of the main floor systems that have been widely used in the United States is the Post-tensioned (PT) slab. About 1 billion m2
of concrete PT slabs are used [1]. PT slabs are mainly developed to cover large spans with a relatively small slab thickness. Although
the wide usage of PT slabs, the progressive collapse resistance of PT structures is not yet investigated through experimental or
analytical studies.
Different structural systems progressive collapse behavior has been investigated on the component and system level [2–8]. The
alternative path method, that is defined by the UFC [9], is adopted in this study to investigate the structure ability in capturing the
initial damage propagation as well as bridging over the primary support loss.
Many research and incidents showed the progressive collapse behavior of flat plates as a result of column loss or punching

⁎
Corresponding author at: El Sherouk City, Suez Desert Road, P.O. Box 43, Cairo 11837, Egypt.
E-mail address: amgad.alaa@bue.edu.eg (A. Mahrous).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2019.104278
Received 21 March 2019; Received in revised form 14 September 2019; Accepted 4 November 2019
Available online 12 November 2019
1350-6307/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Mahrous, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 109 (2020) 104278

Fig. 1. Structure modeling using AEM [38].

behavior. Hawkins et al. [10] investigated the factors that lead to progressive collapse initiation in flat plate structures. Salim et al.
[11], Jahangir Alam et al. [12], and Habibi et al. [13] evaluated experimentally flat plate panels punching strength subjected to
monotonic loading. Qian et al. [14] investigated experimentally the effect of corner column loss on the progressive collapse behavior
of flat plate floor subassemblage. Polak et al. [15], Megally et al. [16] and Wang et al. [17] investigated the effect of localized
punching on the progressive collapse behavior of flat plate structures through using layered shell elements. Mirzaei and Sasani [18]
Keyvani et al. [19] and Attia et al. [20] assessed the progressive collapse behavior of flat plate structures as a result of different
column loss scenarios.
Limited experimental studies were performed on the PT slabs. Small-scale flat plate systems were evaluated experimentally when
subjected to gravity loading, cyclic loading, and fire [21–27]. The flexural and shear failure evaluated experimentally on a small-scale
PT slab column connection subjected to gravity and pseudo-static loading [28–31]. M. Botez et al. [32] investigated the efficiency and
contribution of supplementary progressive collapse resisting mechanisms and how the accuracy of progressive collapse risk assess-
ment being improved through these mechanisms. Bredean et al. [33] investigated the influence of beams design and the effect of the
slab on the progressive collapse resisting mechanisms development for RC framed structures.
In the current study, progressive collapse assessment of a typical 10-story reinforced concrete post-tensioned flat slab structure is
carried out in accordance with the UFC guidelines. The structure is designed according to the building code requirements for
structural concrete (ACI 318-14) [34]. A fully nonlinear dynamic analysis for the structure due to the removal of the primary vertical
element is carried out using (AEM).

2. Applied element method overview

The Applied Element Method [35–37] is an advanced modeling technique in which a discrete cracking concept is adopted. Fig. 1b
[38] shows how the structural elements are divided into sub-elements of a smaller size in the AEM. A set of normal and shear springs
are used to connect the sub-elements surfaces. As shown in Fig. 1c, at the contact points of two adjacent elements, the normal and
shear springs are created along with the whole element faces. The normal and shear stresses are transferred from one element to
another through normal and shear springs created at element faces. Stresses and deformations of an element are represented by
springs as shown in Fig. 1c.
3 translations and 3 rotations represent the element 6 degrees of freedom. Rotational and translational motion between any two
adjacent elements is converted into stresses in springs connecting both elements as shown in Fig. 2. These springs connecting ele-
ments represent connectivity, strains, and stresses between elements. Hence, as the springs connecting two adjacent elements rup-
tured, the two which are no more connected.
The AEM nonlinear constitutive reinforced concrete models are shown in Fig. 3. elasto-plastic and fracture models are used to
represent concrete material subjected to compression [39]. Linear stress-strain relationship used to represent concrete material
subjected to tension until concrete springs cracking. A bare bar model is used for reinforcing bars for the envelope while interior loops
use Ristic et al. [41] model is used, in order to simulate the discrete crack approach adopted in AEM. Detailed information about
constitutive models used is introduced by Tagel-Din and Meguro.
When the tensile principal stresses reach concrete cracking strength, the concrete assumed to be cracked as shown in Fig. 4a. The
crack propagation direction depends on the cracking direction with respect to the element faces, where if the direction of crack
parallel to the face of the element then the crack will propagate in the same direction. It is numerically complicated to predict the
crack propagation direction when the crack is inclined as shown in Fig. 4b. Two ways are used to solve such a problem; the first
solution is to divide the element into two smaller elements while the second solution is the redistribution of unbalanced stresses
across element faces. To transfer shear stresses, the first solution should be adopted while in the fact it is too complicated. The
accuracy of the second solution is less compared to the first one, but it can be increased by reducing element size.
One of the main advanced features adopted in the ELS is that the element contact is automatically detected whether it’s time or
location. Elements separation and contact are automatically detected and accurately modeled. Fig. 5 illustrates the different types of
contacts that may occur during analysis.

2
A. Mahrous, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 109 (2020) 104278

Fig. 2. Stresses in springs due to relative displacements [38].

(A) concrete under axial stresses (B) Concrete under shear stresses (C) Reinf. under axial stresses
Fig. 3. Concrete and steel constitutive models [38].

(A) Cracking (B) Post-cracking

Fig. 4. AEM cracking & post-cracking criterion [38].

3
A. Mahrous, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 109 (2020) 104278

(B) Edge-to–edge
(A) Corner-to-Corner contacts (C) Corner- to-Ground Contact
contacts
Fig. 5. AEM different types of contact [38].

3. Analytical model

3.1. Structural details

An RC post-tensioned flat slab structure consists of typical 10 stories with an area of 2500 m2 that is adopted in this study. Each
direction of the structure has five equal bays of ten meters long for each bay. The clear height of all floors is 3 m. The structure is
supported by columns and a reinforced concrete core located at the center. In addition to the R.C core, two shear walls are located at
the structure’s edge to resist lateral loads as shown in Fig. 6. The slab thickness used is 280 mm reinforced with post-tensioned
tendons spaced at 1.25 m in both directions distributed among the slab. Additional bottom reinforcement of Φ16 @ 200 mm and top
reinforcement of Φ12 @200 mm are arranged as shown in Fig. 7(C). The tendon’s profile for column strip and field strip indicating
the number of strands in each tendon are shown in Fig. 7(a–c). In addition to the self-weight of the structure, uniformly distributed
loads of 2 kN/m2 were considered for both live loads and finishes, plus 2.5 kN/m2 for partitions. Slab punching is designed only to be
resisted by the concrete with a 20% safety margin. A 3D model is adopted using ELS and based on the AEM to model all structural
details and a different configuration of reinforcement as well as the post-tensioned tendons with its prestressing force and profile as
shown in Fig. 7. An isometric view extracted from the ELS is shown in Fig. 8.

3.2. Material properties

Table 1 shows the concrete and reinforcement properties adopted in the analysis.

3.3. Analytical approach

According to UFC guidelines, analysis cases for a typical multistory structure will be as follows:

i. Corner column removal.

ii. Edge column removal.
iii. Internal column removal.
iv. Edge shear wall removal.

Plan view Elevation view

Fig. 6. General Structure Dimensions.

4
A. Mahrous, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 109 (2020) 104278

(A) Field Strip Tendon’s Profile

(B) Column Strip Tendon’s Profile

(C) A typical part of the plan showing slab reinforcement & number of strands in
each tendon
Fig. 7. Geometry and reinforcement details of the structural components.

v. Internal shear wall removal.

For each support removal scenario, the analysis is done on three different floors; on the ground floor, 5th and 10th floor. Only one
support is removed in each analysis case, where the analysis is divided into two stages, the first stage is the gravity where the
structure is loaded only by the applied gravity loads mentioned before and the second stage is the non-linear dynamic analysis stage
where a sudden removal of the support carried out. The location of the removed support is illustrated graphically as shown in Fig. 9.
A time step of 0.01 secs was used to capture the behavior of the structure accurately. No amplification factors for the material

5
A. Mahrous, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 109 (2020) 104278

(D) Column reinforcement details

(E) Core and shear wall reinforcement details

Fig. 7. (continued)

strength were considered in the analysis. For most of the non-linear analysis cases adopted in the ELS, the damping ratio has a default
value of zero as the internal damping due to material nonlinearity is sufficient for good accuracy. Having external damping causes a
deceleration force on falling objects. This means that objects will fall “unrealistically” slow. According to UFC guidelines, an element
is considered as failed when its rotations exceed rotations limits specified by the code.

3.4. Mesh sensitivity

A parametric study adopted to obtain an adequate mesh that leads to accurate results for the current study. One column removal
scenario used to study four different mesh discretization as shown in Table 2. Maximum deflection at column removal location is
obtained for each case of analysis for different mesh sizes. The relation between each mesh discretization against maximum deflection

6
A. Mahrous, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 109 (2020) 104278

Fig. 8. Isometric view for the ELS model.

Table 1
Material Properties.
Material Young’s modulus (MPa) Compressive strength (MPa) Yield stress (MPa) Ultimatestrength (MPa)

Concrete 29725.4 40 – –
Reinforcementa 200,000 – 240 360
Reinforcementb 200,000 – 460 570
Strand 13 mm (0.5″) 195,000 – 1675 1860

a b
Note: Reinforcement for stirrups; Reinforcement for vertical rebars.

Fig. 9. Location of removed supports.

7
A. Mahrous, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 109 (2020) 104278

Table 2
Mesh sensitivity study details.
Analysis Mesh discretizationa

Column Slab

1 1 × 2 × 10 8×8×2
2 2 × 4 × 10 16 × 16 × 2
3 3 × 5 × 20 22 × 22 × 2
4 4 × 6 × 20 22 × 22 × 2

Note: a number of elements in cross-sections and in the vertical direction for the
column, or number of elements in the slab plan and its depth.

200
180
160
Deflection (mm)

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Mesh category
Fig. 10. The relation between the mesh category and the maximum deflection above the removed column.

is illustrated in Fig. 10. Mesh #3 is chosen to be used in the rest of the analysis cases as the difference in results between mesh #3 and
mesh #4 could be neglected.

4. Analysis results and discussion

4.1. Structural behavior due to vertical support loss

Different structural behaviors are observed after the removal of the different vertical supports. Some cases showed resistance to
vertical support removal and other cases showed partial collapse. In this section, each category is discussed in detail.

4.1.1. Analysis cases showed structure resistance to support removal scenarios

4.1.1.1. Axial loads evolution due to vertical support removal. The structure did not collapse after primary vertical support loss in all
analysis cases such as corner column, interior shear wall and interior column in 5th and 10th floors as shown in Fig. 11. After the
support removal, the vertical loads are redistributed to the adjacent columns and walls. The maximum axial load in columns and
walls after vertical support removal are represented in Figs. 12 and 13. Table 3 summarizes the percentage of increase in axial forces
and percentage of exceeding the ultimate design capacity specified by the ACI for columns and shear walls adjacent to the vertical
support removed according to each case of analysis.
In the case of corner column removal in the ground floor, the axial loads in the near supports; edge columns and interior column
increased by 57%, 52%, and 0% respectively.
In the case of interior column removal in the ground floor, the axial loads in the near supports; edge columns and interior columns
increased by 127%, 123%, 62%, and 54% respectively.
In the case of internal shear wall removal on the ground floor, the axial loads in the flange and web increased by 29% and 104%
respectively.
The increase in axial loads as a result of column loss does not exceed the column's ultimate capacity. This is due to the fact that the
columns are designed in accordance with the (ACI 318-14) code, where the load combination has higher factors compared to that
implemented in the UFC guidelines to be used to assess the structure progress collapse (1.2DL + 1.6LL instead of 1.2DL + 0.5LL). In
addition, reinforcement reaches the strain-hardening zone. consequently, the reinforcement failure point is defined by the ultimate
strain, not the yield stress and sections actual capacity not subjected to any strength reduction. All these reasons helped in increasing
the margin of safety for columns and walls. Also, the reduction factors for strength adopted in ACI are considered as a safety capacity
of columns.

4.1.1.2. Column rotation. The column rotation values are obtained by dividing the maximum horizontal displacement of the column
by the column length as shown in Fig. 14. Histories of column rotation for different analysis cases that showed no collapse are

8
A. Mahrous, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 109 (2020) 104278

Ground Floor Fifth floor Tenth floor

(A) Corner column removal.

Fifth floor Tenth floor

(B) Interior column removal on the 5th and 10th floors.

Ground Floor Fifth floor Tenth floor

(C) Interior shear wall removal
Fig. 11. Structural behavior after removal of; (A) Corner column, (B) Interior column removal in 5th & 10th floor, (C) Interior shear wall removal.

presented in Fig. 15, Fig. 16 and Fig. 17. Table 4 summarizes all analysis cases that showed no collapse meet UFC limits for maximum
column rotation compared to the rotation limit obtained from Table (10–8) in the ASCE 41 [40].
In the cases of corner and interior column removal, as the number of floors over the removed support decreases, the maximum
column rotation decreases as well as the damping effect vanishes as a result of the decreased load carried by the removed support.
While in case of interior shear wall removal, according to the UFC guidelines, only one flange of the core is removed while the rest
of the shear wall still capable of resisting the support removal and hence decreasing the column rotation compared to the cases of
interior and corner column removal.
The removal of interior shear wall in the ground and 10th showed higher column rotation compared to that of the 5th floor, that is
a result of the huge shear wall section above the removed part in the 5th and also half of the load carried by the shear wall part at the
ground floor. While on the 10th floor there is no shear wall section above the removed part on the last floor.

4.1.1.3. Slab rotation. The slab rotation values are obtained by dividing the maximum deflection of the slab by the span between
columns the same as illustrated before for the column. Histories of slab rotation for different analysis cases that showed no collapse
are presented in Fig. 18, Fig. 19 and Fig. 20. Table 5 summarizes all analysis cases that showed no collapse meet UFC limits for
maximum slab rotation compared to the rotation limit obtained from Table (4–3) in the UFC.
In the case of corner and interior column removal, as the number of floors over the removed support decreases, the maximum slab

9
A. Mahrous, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 109 (2020) 104278

Before column removal After column removal

Before column removal After column removal

Fig. 12. Axial forces in columns (Ton) before and after the different column removal scenarios from the ground floor.

Before wall removal After wall removal

Fig. 13. Axial forces in columns (Ton) before and after for interior shear wall removal from the ground floor.

rotation decreases as a result of the decreased load carried by the removed support.
While in case of interior shear wall removal, according to the UFC guidelines, only one flange of the core is removed while the rest
of the shear wall still capable of resisting the support removal and hence decreasing the slab rotation compared to the cases of interior
and corner column removal.
The removal of the interior shear wall in the ground and 5th floors showed higher slab rotation compared to that of the 10th floor,
which is a result of the huge shear wall section above the removed part in the ground and 5th floors. While on the 10th floor there is
no shear wall section above the removed part on the last floor.

4.1.1.4. Stresses in prestressing tendons. The structure showed high potential to progressive collapse in case of corner column removal,

10
A. Mahrous, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 109 (2020) 104278

Table 3
Axial forces evolution in adjacent columns due to support removal.
Corner Column

Location Capacity (ton) Axial force B.R.* Axial force A.R.* Increase in Axial Force(%) Exceeding capacity by (%)

Corner 450 349 0 N/A N/A

Edge 920 737 1154 57 25
742 1128 52 23
Interior 2270 1745 1457 no increase N/A
Interior Column
Location Capacity (ton) Axial force B.R.* Axial force A.R.* Increase in Axial Force(%) Exceeding capacity by (%)
Edge 920 737 1670 127 82
Edge 742 1651 123 79
Interior 2270 1556 2514 62 11
Interior 1604 2468 54 9

Interior Shear Wall

Location Capacity (ton) Axial force B.R.* Axial force A.R.* Increase in Axial Force(%) Exceeding capacity by (%)
Interior S.W.*(Flange) Too large 2137 2752 29 N/A
Interior S.W.*(Web) 1414 2883 104 N/A

Note: * B.R. : Before Removal , * A.R. : After Removal , S.W : Shear Wall.

Fig. 14. Column rotation.

interior column removal in 5th and 10th floors as well as interior shear wall removal. The slab catenary action developed was able to
reduce the deflection above the removed support and enable the structural components such as slabs and columns to act as a one-unit
transferring the gravity load to the surrounding columns in a safe manner. Fig. 21 shows the major principal stress contours
indicating the maximum tensile stresses developed in the slab after corner column removal and interior column removal on the 5th
and 10th floors. It is noticed that the resultant of catenary forces developed in slab reinforcement appeared as diagonal tension struts,
thus constituting alternative load-carrying path and preventing the structure collapse.
Prestressing tendons play an important role in resisting the progressive collapse of the structure, as it acts as an alternative load
path as a result of stress redistribution along the area directly connected to the removed column. Tendon-stresses obtained every 5 m
along the tendon profile to represent the losses in each tendon. The losses show the ability of the post-tensioned slab system to bridge
over the support loss.

11
A. Mahrous, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 109 (2020) 104278

Column rotation (Corner column)

0.06
Ground Floor
0.05 Fifth Floor

Rotation (Degrees)
0.04 Tenth Floor

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
Time (Sec.)

Fig. 15. Histories of column rotation in case of corner column removal.

Column rotation (Interior column)

0.09
Fifth Floor
0.08
Tenth Floor
0.07
Rotation (Degrees)

0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
Time (Sec.)

Fig. 16. Histories of column rotation in case of interior column removal.

Column rotation (Interior shear wall)

0.50
0.45
0.40
Rotation (Degrees)

0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15 Ground Floor
0.10 Fifth Floor
0.05 Tenth Floor
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80
Time (Sec.)

Fig. 17. Histories of column rotation in case of interior shear wall removal.

In the case of interior column removal in the 5th and 10th floor, the prestressing loss percentage in tendons directly connected to
the removed column ranged between 10% and 35% along with the tendon profile as shown in Fig. 22. A good representation of
tendon’s stress losses can be also used using the stress profile for the tendons passing by the removed column. Fig. 23 shows the effect
of interior column loss on the tendons stresses for the two perpendicular tendons passing by the location of the removed column.

12
A. Mahrous, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 109 (2020) 104278

Table 4
Summary of maximum column rotation.
Removed support Level Limits (◦) Actual (◦) Safety

Corner column ground 1.8 0.052 Safe

5 2.45 0.049 Safe
10 3.3 0.035 Safe
Interior column 5 2.45 0.08 Safe
10 3.3 0.07 Safe
Interior shear wall ground 1.8 0.42 Safe
5 2.45 0.31 Safe
10 3.3 0.42 Safe

Slab rotation (Corner column)

2.00
1.80
1.60
Rotation (Degrees)

1.40
1.20
1.00
Ground Floor
0.80
0.60 Fifth Floor
0.40 Tenth Floor
0.20
0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
Time (Sec.)

Fig. 18. Histories of slab rotation in case of corner column removal.

Slab rotation (Interior column)

2.50

2.00
Rotation (Degrees)

1.50

1.00
Fifth Floor

0.50 Tenth Floor

0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
Time (Sec.)

Fig. 19. Histories of slab rotation in case of interior column removal.

While in the case of corner column removal, the prestressing losses vary between 9% and 11% along with the tendon profile
which is considered as low losses compared to the case of interior column removal. That is explained by the fact that the area carried
by the corner column is relatively small compared to that carried by the internal column.
Also, an increase in the tendons stress by 20% to 30% occurred at slab edge as a result of additional tension stress added due to
corner column removal as shown in Fig. 22.
In the interior shear wall removal case, in addition to the effect of prestressing tendons, the presence of the shear wall huge
sections in the floors above the removed part helped in spanning safely the bays supported by the removed all and prevent the
collapse of the structure in all analysis cases. In addition, according to the UFC guidelines, only one flange of the interior shear wall is
removed during the analysis, thus the shear wall remaining parts still support the structure and prevent its collapse.

13
A. Mahrous, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 109 (2020) 104278

Slab rotation Tenth Floor

Ground Floor
0.80
Fifth Floor
0.70
0.60
Rotation (Degrees) 0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80
Time (Sec.)

Fig. 20. Histories of slab rotation in case of interior shear wall removal.

Table 5
Summary of maximum slab rotation.
Removed support Level Limits (◦) Actual (◦) Safety

Corner column ground 2.86 1.85 Safe

5 2.86 1.78 Safe
10 2.86 1.61 Safe
Interior column 5 2.86 2.15 Safe
10 2.86 1.99 Safe
Interior shear wall ground 2.86 0.3 Safe
5 2.86 0.25 Safe
10 2.86 0.74 Safe

(A) Interior column removal in 5th hand 10th floor

h
(B) Corner column
Fig. 21. Major principal stress contours in the slabs after column removal; (A) Interior column removal in 5th and 10th floor & (B) Corner column.

4.1.2. Analysis cases resulted in the structure collapse

4.1.2.1. Axial loads evolution due to vertical support removal. The structure showed partial collapse after interior column removal on
the ground floor, edge column and edge shear wall removal. After the support removal, its vertical load transferred to the adjacent
columns and walls as shown in Fig. 24. Table 6 summarizes the percentage of increase in axial forces and percentage of exceeding the
ultimate design capacity specified by the ACI for columns and shear walls adjacent to the vertical support removed according to each
case showed structure partial collapse.
In the case of edge column removal on the ground floor, the axial loads in the adjacent columns increased by 106% and 46% while
increased by 20% in edge shear wall of the gravity loads.

14
A. Mahrous, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 109 (2020) 104278

Interior column 5th floor Interior column 10th floor

Corner column ground & 5th floors Corner column 10th floor
Fig. 22. Pre-stressing loss in tendons due to the removal of the corner and interior columns.

In the case of interior column removal on the ground floor, the axial load in the adjacent columns increased by 127% and 123%
for edge columns while increased by 62% and 54% for internal columns. The increase in axial loads for column removal in the ground
floor leads to structure partial collapse that will be discussed later.
In the case of edge shear wall removal in the ground floor, the axial load in the adjacent columns increased by 108% and 91% for
edge columns while increased by 57% and 52% for internal columns.
All the axial forces resulted from the edge column and edge shear wall were still less than their ultimate capacities as previously
illustrated in the axial load's evolution section for analysis cases that showed no collapse.
All cases that showed partial structure collapse do not meet the UFC limits.

4.1.2.2. Failure pattern and collapse reasons. Fig. 25 shows the failure patterns that took place for removing an interior column in the
ground floor, edge column and edge shear wall.
In the case of interior column removal on the ground floor, the structure suffered a partial collapse of the area directly connected
to the removed column on the ground floor and on the upper floor as well. Mainly the failure took place due to the large increase in
axial loads in the edge column adjacent to the removed column, which leads to compression failure as shown in Fig. 26. The post-
tensioned slab system could bridge over the interior column removal on the ground floor until the failure initiated at the edge
column.
In the case of edge column removal, all analysis cases showed a partial collapse due to local slab failure connected to the corner
column. The failure reason was not clearly identified through the analysis whether it is punching stress failure or a local column
failure as shown in Fig. 27. A manual calculation is done to investigate the type of failure. Punching shear stresses calculations
showed that the total punching stresses resulted from column shear and transferred biaxial moments from the slab exceeded the RC
punching shear resistance. The total applied punching stress is 3.35 N/mm2 and the allowable punching shear stress is 1.5 N/mm2. As

15
A. Mahrous, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 109 (2020) 104278

Stress profile in x-direction

2,00,000

1,90,000

1,80,000
Stress (t/m2)
1,70,000

1,60,000

1,50,000

1,40,000 Before col. removal

1,30,000 After col. removal
1,20,000
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00
Location (m)

Stress profile before and after column removal in y-direction

2,00,000
1,90,000
1,80,000
Stress (t/m2)

1,70,000
1,60,000
1,50,000
1,40,000
Before col. removal
1,30,000
After col. removal
1,20,000
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00
Location (m)

Fig. 23. Tendon stress profile; before and after column removal.

a conclusion, a drop panel needs to be used to bridge over the slab failure due to punching and increase progressive collapse
resistance in case of edge column removal scenario.
A detailed study needs to be done to investigate the effect of drop panel placement for the corner column on the progressive
collapse resistance of a post-tensioned slab
Although the edge column removal caused structure partial collapse, the post-tensioned slab system showed a high resistance
until the punching shear failure for slab occurred at the corner column.
The area of the slab directly connected to the edge shear wall is relatively large compared to that connected to the columns at the
edge, where the wall supports 3 bays of the structure (30 m), while the edge column supports only two bays (20 m). As a result, the
removal of the edge shear wall that supporting three bays showed very high deflection resulting in partial collapse for the structure in
all analysis cases. Although the shear wall removal caused structure partial collapse, the post-tensioned slab-system showed a high
resistance in the areas beyond the area directly connected to the wall preventing the total collapse of the structure.

5. Conclusion

The AEM is used in the evaluation of progressive collapse resistance of RC post-tensioned flat slab structure designed in ac-
cordance with ACI 318–14 code and assessed against UFC guidelines. Based on the different analysis cases results, the following main
points are obtained:

1. The post-tensioned flat slab system designed according to ACI 318 is an appropriate system in resisting the structure progressive
collapse. All vertical support removal scenarios showed a good agreement with the UFC guidelines except for the cases of removal

16
A. Mahrous, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 109 (2020) 104278

Before column removal After column removal

Before wall removal After wall removal

Fig. 24. Axial forces in columns (Ton) before and after edge column & edge shear wall removal scenarios from the ground floor.

Table 6
Axial forces evolution in adjacent columns due to support removal.
Edge Column

Location Capacity (ton) Axial force B.R. Axial force A.R. Increase in Axial Force(%) Exceeding capacity by (%)

Corner 450 349 719 106 60

Edge S.W. Too large 1925 2315 20 N/A
Interior 2270 1730 2524 46 11

Interior Column
Location Capacity (ton) Axial force B.R. Axial force A.R. Increase in Axial Force(%) Exceeding capacity by (%)
Edge 920 737 1670 127 82
Edge 742 1651 123 79
Interior 2270 1556 2514 62 11
Interior 1604 2468 54 9

Edge Shear Wall

Location Capacity (ton) Axial force B.R. Axial force A.R. Increase in Axial Force(%) Exceeding capacity by (%)
Edge 920 722 1504 108 63
Edge 737 1405 91 53
Interior 2270 1532 2403 57 6
Interior 1535 2338 52 3

Note: * B.R. : Before Removal , * A.R. : After Removal , S.W : Shear Wall.

of the interior column in the ground floor, edge column removal in (ground, 5th & 10th floors) and edge shear wall removal in
(ground, 5th & 10th floors).
2. For interior column loss on the ground floor, mainly the structure partial collapse took place as a result of adjacent edge column
compression failure due to exceeding the column axial load ultimate capacity.

17
A. Mahrous, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 109 (2020) 104278

Ground floor
(A) Interior column

Ground Floor Fifth floor Tenth floor

(B) Edge column

Ground Floor Fifth floor Tenth floor

(B) Edge shear wall
Fig. 25. Failure pattern as a result of different support removal scenarios.

Fig. 26. Collapse initiation at edge column head due to ground floor interior column removal.

18
A. Mahrous, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 109 (2020) 104278

Fig. 27. Collapse initiation in the slab at corner column due to edge column removal.

3. For edge shear wall loss, the area of the slab directly connected to the edge shear wall is relatively large compared to that
connected to the columns at edge, where the wall supports 3 bays of the structure (30 m) which results in excessive deflection and
hence structure partial collapse for the area connected to the wall.
4. For edge column loss, the failure is due to punching shear in the slab at the adjacent corner column. A drop panel needs to be
considered in this case.
5. The slab catenary action reduced the structure deflection at column removal and helped slabs and columns in acting as a single
unit resulting in transfer safely the gravity load to the adjacent supports.
6. The Post-tensioned slab system could bridge over vertical support loss through stress redistribution along slab tendons, creating an
alternative load path led to transfer the gravity load safely.
7. The result obtained from all analysis cases showed that the designed reinforced concrete post-tensioned flat slab structure ac-
cording to the ACI 318–14 meet the UFC code limit for the cases that did not show any collapse.
8. Further studies need to be done to investigate the seismic loading effect on the progressive collapse of reinforced concrete post-
tensioned flat slab structure. Structures with irregular layouts, different heights, spans and also, different statical systems such as
waffle slabs, hollow blocks, and paneled beams need to be considered in the study as well.

Declaration of Comprting Interest

None.

References

[1] K.B. Bondy, Two way post-tensioned slabs with bonded tendons, PTI J. 2 (2012) 44.
[2] M.B. Mehrdad Sasani and Serkan Sagiroglu, Experimental and Analytical Progressive Collapse Evaluation of Actual Reinforced Concrete Structure, Struct. J. 104
(n.d.). doi:10.14359/18955.
[3] M. Sasani, S. Sagiroglu, Progressive collapse resistance of hotel San Diego, J. Struct. Eng. 134 (2008) 478–488, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2008)
134:3(478).
[4] M.S. and S. Sagiroglu, Gravity Load Redistribution and Progressive Collapse Resistance of 20-Story Reinforced Concrete Structure following Loss of Interior
Column, Struct. J. 107 (n.d.). doi:10.14359/51664011.
[5] M. Sasani, A. Kazemi, S. Sagiroglu, S. Forest, Progressive collapse resistance of an actual 11-story structure subjected to severe initial damage, J. Struct. Eng. 137
(2011) 893–902, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0000418.
[6] S. Kokot, A. Anthoine, P. Negro, G. Solomos, Static and dynamic analysis of a reinforced concrete flat slab frame building for progressive collapse, Eng. Struct. 40
(2012) 205–217, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.02.026.
[7] K. Qian, B. Li, Performance of three-dimensional reinforced concrete beam-column substructures under loss of a corner column scenario, J. Struct. Eng. 139
(2012) 584–594, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0000630.
[8] K. Qian, B. Li, Analytical evaluation of the vulnerability of RC frames for progressive collapse caused by the loss of a corner column, J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 29
(2013) 04014025, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cf.1943-5509.0000493.
[9] Department of Defense. DoD., Design of buildings to resist progressive collapse, unified facilities criteria (UFC, 4-023-03)., (2016).
[10] N.M.H. and D. Mitchell, Progressive Collapse of Flat Plate Structures, J. Proc. 76 (n.d.). doi:10.14359/6981.
[11] W.S. and W.M. Sebastian, Punching Shear Failure in Reinforced Concrete Slabs with Compressive Membrane Action, Struct. J. 100 (n.d.). doi:10.14359/12656.
[12] A.K.M. Jahangir Alam, K.M. Amanat, S.M. Seraj, Experimental investigation of edge restraint on punching shear behaviour of RC slabs, IES J. Part A Civ. Struct.
Eng. 2 (2009) 35–46, https://doi.org/10.1080/19373260802449537.
[13] F. Habibi, E. Redl, M. Egberts, W.D. Cook, D. Mitchell, Assessment of CSA A23.3 structural integrity requirements for two-way slabs, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 39 (2012)
351–361, https://doi.org/10.1139/l2012-013.
[14] K.Q. and B. Li, Experimental Study of Drop-Panel Effects on Response of Reinforced Concrete Flat Slabs after Loss of Corner Column, Struct. J. 110 (n.d.). doi:10.
14359/51684411.
[15] M.A. Polak, Modeling Punching Shear of Reinforced Concrete Slabs Using Layered Finite Elements, Struct. J. 95 (n.d.). doi:10.14359/528.
[16] S. Megally, A. Ghali, Punching of concrete slabs due to column moment transfer, J. Struct. Eng. 126 (2002) 180–189, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-
9445(2000) 126:2(180).
[17] W. Wang, S. Teng, Finite-element analysis of reinforced concrete flat plate structures by layered shell element, J. Struct. Eng. 134 (2008) 1862–1872, https://doi.
org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2008) 134:12(1862).
[18] M. Mirzaei, Y. Sasani, Punching shear failure in progressive collapse analysis, Struct. Congr. 2011 (2011) 515–527, https://doi.org/10.1061/41171(401)255.
[19] L. Keyvani, M. Sasani, Y. Mirzaei, Compressive membrane action in progressive collapse resistance of RC flat plates, Eng. Struct. 59 (2014) 554–564, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.10.040.

19
A. Mahrous, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 109 (2020) 104278

[20] F. Attia, H. Salem, N. Yehia, Progressive collapse assessment of medium-rise reinforced concrete flat slab structures, Struct. Concr. 18 (2017) 409–420, https://
doi.org/10.1002/suco.201600051.
[21] T.Y.L. A. C. Scordelis and R. Itaya, Behavior of a Continuous Slab Prestressed in Two Directions, J. Proc. 56 (n.d.). doi:10.14359/8105.
[22] N.H. Burns, R. Hemakom, Test of Post-Tensioned Flat Plate with Banded Tendons (1985), https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1985) 111:9(1899).
[23] G.M. Kosut, N.H. Burns, C.V. Winter, Test of four-panel post-tensioned flat plate, J. Struct. Eng. 111 (1985) 1916–1929, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-
9445(1985) 111:9(1916).
[24] T.H.-K.K. and J.W. Wallace, Punching of Reinforced and Post-Tensioned Concrete Slab-Column Connections, Struct. J. 103 (n.d.). doi:10.14359/16429.
[25] E. Ellobody, C.G. Bailey, Modelling of unbonded post-tensioned concrete slabs under fire conditions, Fire Saf. J. 44 (2009) 159–167, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
firesaf.2008.05.007.
[26] N. Zhang, C.C. Fu, H. Che, Experiment and numerical modeling of prestressed concrete curved slab with spatial unbonded tendons, Eng. Struct. 33 (2011)
747–756, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.11.029.
[27] P.R. Kim, U. Kang, T.H.K. Chakrabarti, Rehabilitation of unbonded post-tensioned slabs with different boundary conditions, PTI J. (2012) 72–75.
[28] W.L.G. Douglas A. Foutch and Harianto Sunidja, Tests of Post-Tensioned Concrete Slab-Edge Column Connections, Struct. J. 87 (n.d.). doi:10.14359/2689.
[29] T.H.-K. Kang, S.-H. Kee, S.-S. Ha, L.-H. Lee, J.W. Wallace, S.W. Han, Cyclic behaviour of interior post-tensioned flat plate connections, Mag. Concr. Res. 58
(2006) 699–711, https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.2006.58.10.699.
[30] S.W. Han, S.H. Kee, Y.M. Park, L.H. Lee, T.H.K. Kang, Hysteretic behavior of exterior post-tensioned flat plate connections, Eng. Struct. 28 (2006) 1983–1996,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.03.029.
[31] S.W. Han, K.H. Moon, Y.-M. Park, Effect of slab bottom reinforcement on seismic performance of post-tensioned flat plate frames, Mag. Concr. Res. 64 (2012)
317–334, https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.11.00012.
[32] M. Botez, L. Bredean, A.M. Ioani, Improving the accuracy of progressive collapse risk assessment: efficiency and contribution of supplementary progressive
collapse resisting mechanisms, Comput. Struct. 174 (2016) 54–65, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2015.11.002.
[33] L.A. Bredean, M.D. Botez, The in fl uence of beams design and the slabs e ff ect on the progressive collapse resisting mechanisms development for RC framed
structures, Eng. Fail. Anal. 91 (2018) 527–542, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2018.04.052.
[34] ACI Committee 318, ACI 318-14: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, 2014.
[35] K. Meguro, H. Tagel-Din, Applied element method for structural analysis, Doboku Gakkai Ronbunshu. 2000 (2000) 31–45, https://doi.org/10.2208/jscej.2000.
647_31.
[36] K. Meguro, H. Tagel-Din, Nonlinear simulation of RC structures using applied element method, Doboku Gakkai Ronbunshu. 2000 (2000) 13–24, https://doi.org/
10.2208/jscej.2000.654_13.
[37] K. Meguro, H. Tagel-Din, Applied element simulation of RC structures under cyclic loading 127 (2001) 1295–1305, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-
9445(2001) 127:11(1295).
[38] Applied Science International. LLC., (n.d.). https://www.appliedscienceint.com/.
[39] K. Maekawa, H. Okamura, Deformational behavior and constitutive equation of concrete using the elasto-plastic and fracture model; 1983.
[40] ASCE/SEI 41/17, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, 2017. doi:10.1061/9780784414859.
[41] Ristic; D., Yamada; Y., and Iemura; H., Stress-strain based modeling of hysteretic structures under earthquake induced bending and varying axial loads. School of
Civil Engineering, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan, pp. Research report No. 86-ST-01, 1986.

20