Static and Dynamic Analysis of A Reinforced Concrete Flat Slab Frame Building For Progressive Collapse PDF

Static and dynamic analysis of
a reinforced concrete flat slab frame

building for progressive collapse
Seweryn Kokot, Armelle Anthoine,
Paolo Negro, George Solomos
PUBSY JRC 62663 - 2010
The mission of the JRC-IPSC is to provide research results and to support EU policy-makers in
their effort towards global security and towards protection of European citizens from accidents,
deliberate attacks, fraud and illegal actions against EU policies.
European Commission
Joint Research Centre
Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen
Contact information
Address: Seweryn Kokot, T.P. 480, Joint Research Centre, I-21027 Ispra, ITALY
E-mail: [email protected]
Tel.: +390332-786779
Fax: +390332-789049
http://ipsc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
Legal Notice
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is
responsible for the use which might be made of this publication.
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.
A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server http://europa.eu/
JRC 62663
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

European Union, 2010
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged
Printed in Italy
Contents
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.
Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.
Resistance of the frame elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.
Summary of the previous analyses and experiment for progressive collapse . 12
1. Introduction
2. Description of the structure
3. Finite element model in SAP 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4. Linear static analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.1.
Before demolition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.2.
One central column removed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.3.
One left corner column removed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.4.
One right corner column removed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5. Linear dynamic analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

5.1.
5.2.
5.3.
6. Nonlinear dynamic analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

6.1.
6.2.
6.3.
7. Two central columns removed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

8. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
A. Photos from experimental destroying of columns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
1. Introduction
Progressive collapse of structures occurs when a local failure triggers successive
failures and leads to the total collapse or a collapse disproportionate to the original
cause. There were a few world-wide known examples of progressive collapses such
as the partial collapse of the Ronan Point residential apartment building (London
1968), the major collapse of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building (Oklahoma 1995)
etc. The first progressive collapse regulatory documents followed the Ronan Point
partial collapse and were included into the British standards. In turn, after the total
collapse of the World Trade Center towers, many research activities lead to more
detailed guidelines on designing and preventing progressive collapses (e.g. [5], [2],
[8]).
There are basically two approaches when dealing with the evaluation and
prevention of progressive collapses in a given structure. The first indirect approach
consists in ensuring that the structure satisfies prescriptive design rules (such as
requirements on structural integrity and ductility or the presence of vertical and
horizontal ties). The second direct approach uses two possibilities depending on
whether local failure is allowed or not. If local failure is allowed, then the structure
must be verified using the alternate load path method in which a load-bearing
element is removed from the structure. If no local failure is allowed, then key
elements must be designed to sustain a notional accidental action. More detailed
information on the state-of-the-art in the field of progressive collapse can be found
in the JRC Scientific and Technical Report [6].
A few years ago at the ELSA laboratory, a reinforced concrete flat-slab frame
building was tested to evaluate its safety against collapse (see [4]). First, static
linear and nonlinear analyses of the building under column removals were performed
and then several columns of the building were demolished, one after the other,
to observe the building behaviour. This experiment has shown not only that the
structure survived the demolition of two central columns, but also how challenging
the structural testing against progressive collapse is. Even though the columns were
demolished rather slowly using a concrete crunching machine, still safety provisions
prevented the planned sequence of column removal from being followed.
However, buildings can be exposed to fast dynamic abnormal events, such
as bomb explosions or impacts, so the dynamic nature of the loading must be
considered. Therefore, the purpose of this report is to re-evaluate the previously
mentioned frame building using linear and nonlinear dynamic analyses according
to the alternate load path method. In other words, this study tries to answer the
question: what would have happened if the columns had been destroyed dynamically
(e.g. as it could be in the case of a bomb explosion or other accidental action)? For
completeness, there is also included in this report a comparison between the dynamic
analysis and the previously performed static analysis.
2. Description of the structure

The structure was a 3-storey 2-bay reinforced concrete frame building with a
0.24 m thick slab (Figure 2.1). The structure contained two main frames connected
together with transverse beams (Figure 2.2). The girder beams were 1 m wide and
0.24 m high. The slab had the same height (0.20 m thick and 0.04 m topping) as the
beams. The frames were supported by square columns with the size of 0.4 0.4 m.
In each frame, there existed an eccentricity of 0.2 m between the axes of beams and
columns. Because of the reduced beam height, they had quite high reinforcement
on both sides, with only some rebars anchored to the column joints.
The structure was designed for medium seismicity (which corresponds to a 0.25g
peak ground acceleration), however some detailing rules were intentionally violated.
This applied to the mentioned eccentricity between beams and columns as well as to
the lack of design for ductility. The details of reinforcement are shown in Figures 2.3
and 2.4.
Despite these drawbacks, the structure had survived the design earthquake,
testing at the reaction wall facility, with minor damage and had been transported
out of the laboratory for demolition. Taking this opportunity, it was decided to
study its safety margins against progressive collapse.
2.1. Materials
The materials of the structure were C25/30 concrete and S500 steel. In addition,
laboratory tests were performed on cubes of concrete and on three specimens of each
rebar diameter. The results are presented in Tables 2.1 and 2.2.
Table 2.1. Concrete strength (mean values)
Origin of the sample

1st floor columns
1st floor slab
2nd floor columns
2nd floor slab
3rd floor columns
3rd floor slab
fcm [MPa]
fck [MPa]
34.36
35.98
36.87
33.80
33.42
39.61
31.45
33.08
33.97
30.90
30.51
36.71
Chapter 2. Description of the structure
Figure 2.1. Front view
Figure 2.2. Floor plan
Materials
Figure 2.3. Elevation and column rebars
Figure 2.4. Beam rebars

Table 2.2. Steel strength (mean values)
rebar size
fy [MPa]
ft [MPa]
u [%]
8mm
10mm
14mm
16mm
18mm
20mm
534.80
565.53
532.86
531.16
535.13
524.56
610.36
659.76
640.53
641.90
643.40
642.56
9.12
10.01
10.60
11.14
10.10
11.07
2.2. Resistance of the frame elements

This section presents the calculated values of resistance for both beams and
columns, against which the computed internal forces will be checked.
Assuming that in beams failure is due to bending (neglecting axial and shear
forces), the approximated beam moment resistance is calculated as
Mr = 0.85As fs d
(2.1)
where As is the area of reinforcement bars in the beam cross-section, fs is the

characteristic value of strength of steel (524.6 MPa), and d is the distance from
the centre of reinforcement to the extreme compressed concrete fibers of the beam
cross-section. The assumption of neglecting the axial forces is justified because
usually the axial forces in beams are relatively small and increase/decrease the
bending moment resistance only marginally (see an example of the interaction
diagram for a type 1 beam in Figure 2.5).
For columns, the pure axial resistance is calculated as
Nr = Ac fc + As fs
(2.2)
where Ac is the area of the concrete cross-section and fc is the strength of concrete in
compression (32.8 MPa). Their approximated pure bending resistance is calculated
via Eq. (2.1).
The calculated resistance for the beams are presented in Table 2.3 and for the
columns in Table 2.4 (a - longer bay, b - shorter bay).
Note that for those beams which will undergo bending reversal after the column
removal two values of resistance are listed in Table 2.3 (positive and negative
moment).
However, for columns, the influence of axial force on bending moment resistance
cannot be neglected, therefore the actual bending moment resistance is obtained
from the interaction diagrams plotted in Figs. 2.6-2.9. These interaction diagrams
were calculated with SAP 2000 for four types of column cross-sections. The usage
of these interaction diagrams is illustrated in Chapter 4.1 (Fig. 4.4).
Resistance of the frame elements
PM3 interaction diagram for the beam type 1

10000
8000
axial force [kN]
6000
4000
2000
2000
4000
50
50
100
150
200
bending moment [kNm]
250
300
350
400
Figure 2.5. Interaction diagram for a type 1 beam
PM3 interaction diagram for a column with rebars 14

6000
5000
axial force [kN]
4000
3000
2000
1000
1000
50
100
150
200
250
300
Figure 2.6. Interaction diagram for a column with rebars 14
350
10

6000
5000
axial force [kN]
4000
3000
2000
1000
1000
50
100
150
200
250
300
350

6000
5000
axial force [kN]
4000
3000
2000
1000
1000
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Resistance of the frame elements
11
Table 2.3. Resistance of beams
Beam
Mr [kNm]
Mr [kNm]
Floors 1-2
a - left
a - middle
a - right
b - left
b - middle
b - right
197.087
92.349
225.242
225.242
92.349
112.621
176.815
176.815
Floor 3
a - left
a - middle
a - right
b - left
b - middle
b - right
168.932
92.349
197.087
197.087
92.349
112.621
148.660
148.660
Table 2.4. Resistance of columns
Column
Nr [kN]
Mr [kNm]
Floor 1
1 5836.481
2 6170.202
3 5836.481
96.821
151.282
96.821
Floor 2
1 5836.481
2 5836.481
3 5697.431
96.821
96.821
74.128
Floor 3
1 5994.072
2 5836.481
3 5697.431
122.539
96.821
74.128
The internal forces will be obtained from a FE calculation using the commercial
software SAP 2000 and in the most loaded cross-sections they will be compared to
the corresponding resistance values.
12

7000
6000
5000
axial force [kN]
4000
3000
2000
1000
1000
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2.3. Summary of the previous analyses and experiment for

progressive collapse
The structure described earlier was first tested pseudodynamically against a
design earthquake. The results reported in [7] showed that the structure suffered
minor damage. Then the structure was devoted to controlled demolition with the
goal of investigating its safety against collapse.
However, before the experiment, the structure was analysed numerically using
three different FE programs. First, the linear static analyses were performed in
SAP 2000 using the geometrical and material properties of the virgin structure and
applying vertical loads corresponding to self-weight. The self-weight of the structure
was represented by uniformly distributed loads, to account for the one-way structural
scheme of the slabs. In this analysis, the most significant cases of column removal
were presented, namely the removal of a central column in the first frame and
then the removal of both central columns. The conclusions were drawn from the
comparison between the resulting internal forces and the computed yield moments:
the structure would have survived the annihilation of any single column with minor
yielding, while it would have collapsed after the removal of both central columns
because the distribution of bending moments resulted to be far beyond the yield
limit.
Then, a nonlinear static analyses were carried out in ADINA. The mechanical
properties of the cross-sections were specified as monotonic moment-curvature
relationships. The removal of a single central column resulted in yielding in the first
frame at the ends of the beams of the first two stories and at the top of the external
columns of the top storey. However, the maximum plastic curvature remained below
the assumed ultimate curvature capacity. The removal of both central columns gave
yielding in the whole structure and the plastic curvature demands reached their
maximum at the top of the columns of the top storey. The total curvature demand
was in this case much higher than the capacity, therefore the results indicated that
the structure would have collapsed.
The nonlinear static analyses were repeated in IDARC2D, in order to include the
softening branch in moment-curvature relationship and the results suggested that
the structure would have survived even if both central columns were removed.
The experimental part involved the successive cutting of the columns. In the
first phase, one central column was cut out. As can be seen in Figures A.1 and
A.2 in Annex A, the building withstood the lack of this load-bearing member. In
the second phase, the other central column was removed and, again, the structure
survived (see Figures A.3 and A.4). Then, there was concern that the building would
collapse in an uncontrolled manner (after a complete removal of another column),
therefore, for safety reasons, it was decided to progressively destroy two external
columns to provoke a pancake-type collapse (see Figures A.5A.9).
In the context of the experimental investigation, it is worth mentioning that
initially, another reinforced concrete frame building (see [9]) was planned to be
destroyed and tested against collapse. Unfortunately, the first stages of demolition
had activated large vibrations in the whole building, and for safety reasons again it
was decided to stop the procedure and destroy the building in a safer way. Thus, no
experimental information was obtained about the potential progressive collapse of
that building. This example also showed that it is very difficult to experimentally
assess the safety against collapse. On the contrary, numerical analyses are easier
and allow to consider different scenarios.
It should be noted however that the above-presented results, both numerical and
experimental, took into account only the static behaviour of the structure. Thus,
a question arises: would the structure have survived if a column/columns had been
destroyed dynamically? In the following chapters, the results of numerical linear and
nonlinear, static and dynamic analyses are presented to give a preliminary answer
to this question.
3. Finite element model in SAP 2000

A finite element model of the analysed structure has been created in SAP 2000:
the element numbers (Figure 3.1) and node numbers (Figure 3.2) will be often used
in the sequel to display the numerical results. The first longer bay in x-direction is
referred to as a-bay, while the second one as b-bay.
In this report three scenarios are considered: sudden removal of a central column,
a left corner column and finally a right corner column (see Figure 3.3).
Only the self-weight was considered at the moment of demolition. This was equal
to 3.5 kN/m2 (actual concrete structure weight) plus 2.0 kN/m2 representing several
permanent fixtures on the structure. The self-weight was modelled as a uniformly
distributed linear load applied to the girders (see Figure 3.4) to account for the
one-way behaviour of the concrete slabs. The column to be removed is replaced by
the corresponding reaction forces at the appropriate node (see Figure 3.5).
In dynamic analyses, the simulation of the column removal is performed by
suddenly cancelling the reaction forces standing for the column: in practice, a similar
set of forces/moments is applied in the opposite direction (see Figure 3.6). The rate
of the column removal is specified by a time function, also presented in Figure 3.6
(linear ramp to maximum value). For actual bomb explosions, the time in which a
structural member is destroyed is very short (some milliseconds). In the presented
FE calculations, the removal time is chosen close to zero (5 ms), which means a quasi
instantaneous removal. The dynamic effects of the removal rate on the dynamic
response of the structure were analysed in Report [6] and the results showed that
the most unfavourable dynamic effects occur when the column is destroyed within a
time close to zero (below 5 ms). The dynamic computations are performed starting
from the equilibrium position of the intact structure under gravity loads (zero initial
velocities) and assuming a 5% viscous damping.
Figure 3.7 presents the summary of the loading case used in SAP 2000
calculations.
15
Figure 3.1. Finite element model of the analysed frame in SAP 2000 - element numbers
16
Chapter 3. Finite element model in SAP 2000
Figure 3.2. Frame model in SAP 2000 - node numbers
Figure 3.3. Analysed scenarios of column removal
17
Figure 3.4. Loads on the frame: self weight
Figure 3.5. Loads on the frame: reaction from the actual column at node 48
18
Chapter 3. Finite element model in SAP 2000
Figure 3.6. Loads on the frame - simulation of the column removal (from SAP 2000)
Figure 3.7. Loads on the frame - load case (from SAP 2000)
4. Linear static analysis

This chapter addresses the linear static analyses of the intact structure and of
the three scenarios of column removals mentioned before (see Figure 3.3). These
analyses have already been performed and the results reported in [4]. However, to
make this report self-contained, they have been reproduced to compare with the
dynamic analyses.
The results obtained from these static computations are compared with the
structural resistances using the so called demand-resistance ratios (DRR). A local
DRR is defined in each section as
in beams (bending moment only)

Mmax /Mr
DRR = Nmax /Nr
in bars (axial force only)
Mmax /Mr (N) in columns (combined bending moment and axial force)
(4.1)
where Mmax and Nmax are the maximum moment and axial force acting on the
section while Mr and Nr are the bending moment and axial resistances of the section,
respectively. The global DRR is taken as the maximum local DRR over the structure
i.e. DRRmax . For reinforced concrete structures, both [5] and [2] specify that the
value of 200% for the demand-resistance ratio should not be exceeded, otherwise the
structure is deemed as prone to progressive collapse.
4.1. Before demolition

The results in this phase concern the frames in the intact state, i.e. all elements
are present, as compared to the subsequent phases where one or more columns are
destroyed.
The results being exactly the same for both frames, are displayed only once.
Figures 4.14.3 display the internal forces (bending moments, shear forces and
axial forces) in both frames while their values in the most representative/critical
cross-sections are given in Table 4.1 for beams and in Table 4.2 for columns. The
loading corresponds to the above-mentioned self-weight of (3.5 + 2) kN/m2 . In the
Tables, the resultant internal forces are given at the different cross-sections (l - left,
mid - midspan, r - right) of each bay (a - longer bay, b - shorter bay) together
with the ratios between the resultant internal forces and the element resistances
(demand/resistance ratio - DRR). Note that the Mr values in these Tables are
20
Chapter 4. Linear static analysis
obtained from the interaction diagrams (Figs. 2.6-2.9), accordingly. As an example,

Fig. 4.4 shows how the value of Mr is obtained for the first-floor central columns
(with rebars 20) under the axial force Ns = 267.20 kN. The maximum values of
demand/resistance ratios are highlighted: the most loaded cross-sections are the
midspan of the left beams on the third floor (DRR = 32.53%) and the top of the
left column on the third floor (DRR = 29.33%) but their demand-resistance ratios
are relatively small.
Figure 4.1. Bending moments, original structure

Table 4.1. Bending moments in beams, no column removal, comparison with resistance,
frames 1 and 2
Frame 1 and 2
Ms [kNm]
Beam
a-left
a-mid
floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
43.34
49.59
47.22
30.04
27.18
28.26
a-right b-left
52.52
51.98
52.18
29.30
23.07
26.90
b-mid
b-right
11.08
11.46
11.28
17.84
23.31
19.84
12.00
12.41
12.21
15.84
20.70
17.62
Ms /Mr [%]
floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
25.66
25.16
23.96
32.53
29.43
30.60
26.65
23.08
23.17
14.87
10.24
11.94
Before demolition
21
Figure 4.2. Shear forces, original structure
Figure 4.3. Axial forces, original structure
22

Finding M (N ) from the interaction diagram (rebars 20)
r
7000
6000
5000
axial force [kN]
4000
3000
2000
1000
N = 267.20kN
s
M =212.03kNm
r
1000
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Before demolition
23
Table 4.2. Axial forces and bending moments in columns, no column removal, comparison
with resistance, frames 1 and 2
Frame 1
Column
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
Ns [kN]
1
50.45
50.45
102.02
102.02
153.17
153.17
91.02
91.02
177.99
177.99
267.20
267.20
31.78
31.78
66.49
66.49
99.38
99.38
Ms [kNm]
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
43.34
28.06
21.53
26.91
20.31
9.09
23.21
16.89
12.02
14.82
10.46
5.98
17.84
13.45
9.86
11.75
8.09
4.87
Mr (Ns ) [kNm]
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
147.78
147.78
128.30
128.30
136.71
136.71
126.38 91.24
126.38 91.24
140.57 97.38
140.57 122.09
212.03 127.84
212.03 127.84
Ms /Mr (Ns ) [%]

floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
29.33
18.99
16.78
20.97
14.86
6.65
18.37
13.36
8.55
10.54
4.93
2.82
19.55
14.74
10.13
9.62
6.33
3.81
24
4.2. One central column removed

In phase 1, a central column in the first frame is removed. Figures 4.5-4.8
display the bending moment and axial force distributions for both frames and the
corresponding values are given in Tables 4.3-4.5.
Figure 4.5. Bending moments, linear static analysis, central column removed, frame 1
The linear static analysis shows that the most loaded cross-sections are in the
first frame, namely the right-end of the right beam on the second floor (DRR =
123.72%) and the top of the right column on the third floor (DRR = 107.77%). The
vertical displacement at node 48 is equal to 0.0167 m.
As stated in [4], these results indicate only minor yielding, so the structure
is not susceptible to collapse, statically. However, according to guidelines in
[2] and [5], a structure is susceptible to progressive collapse (dynamically) when
its demand-resistance ratio exceeds 200% provided that the permanent loads are
multiplied by a factor of 2 (to accounts for dynamic effects) in the computation
of internal forces. Therefore, in this case, if the loads were doubled, the
demand-resistance ratios would exceed 200% and the structure would be deemed
as susceptible to progressive collapse, dynamically.
One central column removed
25
Figure 4.6. Axial forces, linear static analysis, central column removed, frame 1
Figure 4.7. Bending moments, linear static analysis, central column removed, frame 2
26
Figure 4.8. Axial forces, linear static analysis, central column removed, frame 2
Table 4.3. Bending moments in beams, central column removed, comparison with
resistance, frame 1 and 2
Frame 1
Ms [kNm]
Beam
a-left
floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
130.01
150.60
138.13
a-mid a-right b-left
b-mid
b-right
35.93
28.51
34.10
18.26
14.54
12.20
110.25
139.33
136.21
19.77
15.74
13.21
97.89
123.72
120.95
45.94
51.69
50.41
77.46
99.12
91.30
Ms /Mr [%]
floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
76.96
76.41
70.09
38.91
30.87
36.93
Frame 2
30.90
29.23
28.51
52.11
56.06
51.64
Ms [kNm]
Beam
a-left
a-mid a-right b-left
b-mid
b-right
floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
46.52
54.43
51.71
29.92
27.04
28.14
11.38
11.59
11.46
12.85
16.65
13.32
12.32
12.55
12.41
11.41
14.78
11.83
49.56
47.42
47.94
33.69
29.47
33.07
Ms /Mr [%]
floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
27.54
27.62
26.24
32.40
29.28
30.47
25.15
21.05
21.28
17.09
13.08
14.68
27
Table 4.4. Axial forces and bending moments in columns, central column removed,
comparison with resistance, frame 1
Frame 1
Column
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
Ns [kN]
1
81.30
81.30
166.99
166.99
250.39
250.39
10.37
10.37
1.68
1.68
-
81.58
81.58
175.84
175.84
267.37
267.37
Ms [kNm]
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
129.79
85.39
65.89
96.46
41.52
31.79
30.24
18.54
27.84
39.55
-
107.81
77.40
60.40
60.30
74.43
25.19
Mr (Ns ) [kNm]
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
152.61
152.61
138.86
138.86
151.84
151.84
112.29
112.29
110.78
110.78
-
100.04
100.04
116.69
140.24
154.49
154.49
Ms /Mr (Ns ) [%]

floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
85.05
55.95
47.45
69.47
27.34
20.94
26.93
16.51
25.13
35.70
-
107.77
77.37
51.76
43.00
48.18
16.31
28
Table 4.5. Axial forces and bending moments in columns, central column removed,
Frame 2
Column
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
Ns [kN]
1
51.47
51.47
104.61
104.61
157.22
157.22
92.34
92.34
183.00
183.00
273.94
273.94
29.44
29.44
60.88
60.88
90.60
90.60
Ms [kNm]
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
46.74
29.31
24.44
30.31
21.54
15.78
17.15
12.79
6.20
8.66
7.56
3.42
15.29
12.01
6.18
7.97
6.82
3.41
Mr (Ns ) [kNm]
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
147.94
147.94
128.75
128.75
137.34
137.34
126.61 90.83
126.61 90.83
141.35 96.38
141.35 121.11
155.51 126.30
155.51 126.30
Ms /Mr (Ns ) [%]

floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
31.59
19.81
18.98
23.54
15.68
11.49
13.55
10.10
4.39
6.13
4.86
2.20
16.83
13.22
6.41
6.58
5.40
2.70
One left corner column removed
29
4.3. One left corner column removed

Many current progressive collapse provisions in codes, standards and guidelines
(e.g [3], [5], [2]) require that the load-bearing elements are removed anywhere in the
structure one at a time and check if progressive collapse could occur. Therefore in
this section, a left corner column is removed from the first frame.
Figures 4.9-4.12 provide the internal force distribution in both frames, whereas
Tables 4.6-4.8 show their values in the representative cross-sections. The maximum
demand-resistance ratio are reached on the third floor at the right-ends of the left
beam (DRR = 132.64%) and at the top of the right columns (DRR = 92.31%). The
vertical displacement at node 25 equals 0.0552 m. Therefore, according to the rules
of thumbs mentioned earlier, a progressive collapse is unlikely under static conditions
(DRR < 200%) but is possible under dynamic conditions (DRR > 200%).
Figure 4.9. Bending moments, linear static analysis, left corner column removed, frame 1
30
Figure 4.10. Axial forces, linear static analysis, left corner column removed, frame 1
Figure 4.11.
frame 2
Bending moments, linear static analysis, left corner column removed,
31
Figure 4.12. Axial forces, linear static analysis, left corner column removed, frame 2
Table 4.6. Bending moments in beams, left corner column removed, comparison with
Frame 1
Beam
floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
Ms [kNm]
a-left a-mid
87.35
112.37
103.10
23.04
26.57
19.32
a-right
b-left
197.19 149.55
215.15 150.57
220.38 119.61
b-mid b-right
0.28
7.74
4.07
80.82
96.75
58.44
0.30
8.38
4.41
71.76
85.91
51.89
Ms /Mr [%]
floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
51.71
57.02
52.31
24.95
28.77
20.92
Frame 2
132.64 100.60
121.68 85.16
124.64 67.65
Ms [kNm]
Beam
a-left a-mid
floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
54.56
64.19
61.65
29.31
26.83
27.66
a-right
b-left
b-mid b-right
42.74
38.07
38.96
42.11
43.02
45.44
11.59
11.86
11.76
4.02
2.56
0.33
12.55
12.84
12.73
3.57
2.27
0.29
Ms /Mr [%]
floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
32.30
32.57
31.28
31.74
29.05
29.95
21.69
16.90
17.30
21.37
19.10
20.17
32
Table 4.7. Axial forces and bending moments in columns, left corner column removed,
Frame 1
Column
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
Ns [kN]
1
4.55
4.55
1.94
1.94
-
191.64
191.64
394.58
394.58
579.63
579.63
22.94
22.94
50.12
50.12
59.98
59.98
Ms [kNm]
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
81.92
42.21
66.67
98.39
-
43.78
30.76
30.40
7.30
90.86
28.36
82.78
58.24
41.25
82.84
25.32
32.96
Mr (Ns ) [kNm]
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
139.84
139.84
110.82
110.82
-
142.70
142.70
174.29
174.29
261.08
261.08
89.68
89.68
94.48
119.24
120.96
120.96
Ms /Mr (Ns ) [%]

floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
58.58
30.18
60.16
88.78
-
30.68
21.56
17.44
4.19
34.80
10.86
92.31
64.94
43.66
69.47
20.93
27.25
33
Table 4.8. Axial forces and bending moments in columns, left corner column removed,
Frame 2
Column
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
Ns [kN]
1
53.94
53.94
110.27
110.27
166.03
166.03
94.18
94.18
186.67
186.67
280.79
280.79
25.13
25.13
49.66
49.66
73.03
73.03
Ms [kNm]
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
49.13
30.55
30.14
35.07
21.87
28.71
4.49
4.36
5.89
4.60
4.59
17.63
5.98
7.20
1.90
1.07
5.90
16.62
Mr (Ns ) [kNm]
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
148.33
148.33
129.74
129.74
138.71
138.71
126.93 90.07
126.93 90.07
141.92 94.40
141.92 119.15
214.16 123.24
214.16 123.24
Ms /Mr (Ns ) [%]

floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
33.12
20.60
23.23
27.03
15.77
20.70
3.54
3.43
4.15
3.24
2.14
8.23
6.64
7.99
2.01
0.90
4.79
13.49
34
4.4. One right corner column removed

The last case deals with the removal of a right corner column from the first
frame. Figures 4.13-4.16 present the bending moment and axial force diagrams
while Tables 4.9-4.11 give their values and demand-resistance ratios. This case is
similar to the previous one and is more favourable because the span of the right
bay is shorter. The demand-resistance ratios are far below 100% in all members.
The maximum DRR values are 66.23% for beams and 39.2% for columns and the
vertical displacement at node 69 is equal to 0.0142 m. In this case, the linear static
calculation indicates that the structure would not collapse neither statically (DRR <
100%) nor dynamically (DRR < 200%)
Figure 4.13. Bending moments, linear static analysis, right corner column removed,
frame 1
One right corner column removed
35
Figure 4.14. Axial forces, linear static analysis, right corner column removed, frame 1
Figure 4.15. Bending moments, linear static analysis, right corner column removed,
frame 2
36
Figure 4.16. Axial forces, linear static analysis, right corner column removed, frame 2
Table 4.9. Bending moments in beams, right corner column removed, comparison with
Frame 1
Ms [kNm]
Beam
a-left
a-mid a-right
floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
3.71
3.64
16.72
26.88
26.10
25.96
b-left b-mid
98.46 89.39
100.08 94.16
87.29 104.36
b-right
7.25
11.30
5.40
34.58
47.46
45.85
7.85
12.24
5.85
30.70
42.14
40.71
b-right
Ms /Mr [%]
floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
2.20
1.85
8.48
29.11
28.26
28.11
Frame 2
66.23
56.60
49.37
60.13
53.25
59.02
Ms [kNm]
Beam
a-left
a-mid a-right
b-left b-mid
floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
37.71
41.60
39.61
30.33
27.39
28.53
22.20
12.34
16.67
57.56
59.55
59.25
10.67
11.27
10.94
25.76
34.42
30.76
11.55
12.20
11.85
22.87
30.56
27.31
Ms /Mr [%]
floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
22.32
21.11
20.10
32.84
29.66
30.89
29.21
26.44
26.31
11.26
5.48
7.40
37
Table 4.10. Axial forces and bending moments in columns, right corner column removed,
Frame 1
Column
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
Ns [kN]
1
top
36.19 133.41
bot 36.19 133.41
top
72.09 271.37
bot 72.09 271.37
top 112.30 407.31
bot 112.30 407.31
3.66
3.66
2.90
2.90
-
Ms [kNm]
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
2.52
0.46
5.39
15.91
31.86
16.98
11.13
7.55
4.07
16.95
32.60
16.84
31.94
15.11
30.50
43.51
-
Mr (Ns ) [kNm]
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
145.33
145.33
123.07
123.07
130.09
130.09
133.63
133.63
155.11
155.11
234.02
234.02
86.28
86.28
86.14
110.99
-
Ms /Mr (Ns ) [%]

floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
1.73
0.32
4.38
12.93
24.49
13.05
8.33
5.65
2.62
10.93
13.93
7.20
37.02
17.51
35.41
39.20
-
38
Table 4.11. Axial forces and bending moments in columns, right corner column removed,
Frame 2
Column
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
Ns [kN]
1
top
48.67
bot 48.67
top
97.65
bot 97.65
top 146.35
bot 146.35
89.04 35.54
89.04 35.54
173.28 75.71
173.28 75.71
259.65 113.88
259.65 113.88
Ms [kNm]
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
38.91
26.42
16.72
21.78
18.61
7.25
33.31
23.59
21.76
25.35
15.81
18.88
23.13
16.42
16.15
18.04
10.37
16.27
Mr (Ns ) [kNm]
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
147.50
147.50
127.54
127.54
135.64
135.64
126.03 91.91
126.03 91.91
139.84 99.00
139.84 123.70
153.29 130.37
153.29 130.37
Ms /Mr (Ns ) [%]

floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
26.38
17.91
13.11
17.08
13.72
5.35
26.43
18.72
15.56
18.13
10.31
12.32
25.17
17.87
16.31
14.58
7.95
12.48
5. Linear dynamic analysis

This chapter presents the results of the three scenarios of column removal using
linear dynamic analysis. The advantage of this kind of calculations is that dynamic
effects are inherently incorporated in the analysis as opposed to an a priori assumed
dynamic factor to be applied on the results of the static analysis. Since it provides
a more realistic distribution of the internal forces over the structure, the linear
dynamic analysis is expected to give a more reliable estimate of the actual maximum
demand-resistance ratio (DRRmax ) characterising the structural robustness against
progressive collapse. Furthermore, the actual dynamic factor that should be applied
to the static analysis results, can be computed a posteriori. It is however worth
mentioning that the notion of dynamic factor is well-defined only for a single degree
of freedom system where all quantities (force, displacement, DRR, etc.) lead to the
same dynamic/static ratio. In a multi degree of freedom system, different definitions
can be adopted which lead to different values of the dynamic factor, namely:
the ratio of the dynamic and static maximum deflection at the top of the removed
column,
the maximum ratio of the dynamic and static local DRR,
the ratio of the dynamic and static DRRmax .
Despite the apparent soundness of the first two definitions, only the third definition
seems to be correct in the following sense: if this dynamic factor is applied to the
static results, the output of the dynamic analysis is recovered in terms of robustness
(value of DRRmax ). This will be confirmed by the results of the linear and nonlinear
dynamic analyses.
The procedure used in the calculations has been presented in Chapter 3. In
summary, the following steps were carried out in SAP 2000:
build a FE model,
find the reaction forces of a column to be removed under the self-weight loading
(see Figure 3.4),
remove this column from the FE model and apply these reactions in its place
(Figure 3.5),
apply these reaction forces again but in the opposite direction using a linear
ramp function (Figure 3.6),
perform linear time history analysis with initial conditions and 5% critical
damping (Figure 3.7).
The results obtained from these dynamic computations (time histories of internal
40
Chapter 5. Linear dynamic analysis
forces) are compared with the resistances (using Eq. (4.1) defined in Chapter 4) and
with the corresponding static responses obtained in the previous chapter.

This section reports on the response of the structure to the sudden removal
of the central column in the first frame. Figures 5.1-5.4 show the envelopes of
the internal forces (bending moments and axial forces) in both frames while the
corresponding maximum values for beams and columns are presented in Tables
5.1-5.3, respectively. First of all, as could be expected, Frame 2 is significantly less
affected than Frame 1 where the column was removed, a fact that can be explained by
the one-way behaviour of the flat-slab frame. The most critical sections in terms of
demand-resistance ratio are the right-end of the right beam on the first floor (DRR =
212.54%) and the top of the right column on the third floor (DRR = 159.83%). Since
the demand-resistance ratio for beams exceeded the 200% threshold, the building is
susceptible to progressive collapse.
As for local dynamic factors in beams, the maximum values are reached at the
right-end of the left beam at the third floor in the first frame but also at the right-end
of the right beam at the first floor in the second frame (2.22), while in columns, the
maximum dynamic factors are much larger and reach 3.58 and 8.71 in the first and
second frame respectively. This fact demonstrates that it is difficult to draw any
conclusion from the local dynamic factors because they are highly heterogeneous
throughout the structure, especially in columns where the static and dynamic forces
are quite different.
In Figures 5.5-5.6 are plotted the time history of the displacement at Node 48 and
the bending moments at the most loaded section. From the maximum displacement
of the dynamic (0.0268 m) and static (0.0167 m) responses at node No. 48, a ratio
of 1.60 is found, which can be interpreted as a global dynamic factor.
41
Figure 5.1. Envelope of bending moments, linear dynamic analysis, central column
removed, frame 1
Figure 5.2. Envelope of axial forces, linear dynamic analysis, central column removed,
frame 1
42
Figure 5.3. Envelope of bending moments, linear dynamic analysis, central column
removed, frame 2
Figure 5.4. Envelope of axial forces, linear dynamic analysis, central column removed,
frame 2
43
Deflection at node 48
0.005
deflection [m]
0.01
0.015
static value
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.2
0.4
0.6
t [s]
0.8
1.2
Figure 5.5. Vertical deflection at node No. 48, central column removed
Bending moment at rightend of element 86

0
50
100
static value
150
200
250
0.2
0.4
0.6
t [s]
0.8
1.2
Figure 5.6. Bending moment at the most critical section, central column removed
44
Table 5.1. Maximum bending moments in beams, central column removed, comparison
with resistance, frame 1 and 2
Frame 1
Beam
floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
Md [kNm]
a-left a-mid
190.21
220.48
186.13
52.12
40.21
49.57
a-right
b-left b-mid
102.04 136.70
98.50 180.72
96.26 176.65
b-right
25.93
21.16
15.92
174.17
228.94
239.37
28.08
22.91
17.24
154.65
203.28
212.54
Md /Mr [%]
floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
112.60
111.87
94.44
56.44
43.54
53.68
68.64 91.95
55.71 102.21
54.44 99.91
Md /Ms local dynamic factor

floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
1.46
1.46
1.35
1.45
1.41
1.45
Frame 2
2.22
1.91
1.91
1.76
1.82
1.93
1.42
1.46
1.30
1.58
1.64
1.76
b-left b-mid
b-right
Md [kNm]
Beam
a-left a-mid
floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
56.25
68.53
63.92
30.38
27.41
28.70
a-right
54.08
55.26
58.63
46.62
49.40
49.62
12.01
11.99
12.01
18.79
27.71
29.51
13.01
12.98
13.01
16.68
24.60
26.20
Md /Mr [%]
floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
33.30
34.77
32.43
32.90
29.68
31.08
27.44
24.53
26.03
23.65
21.93
22.03

floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
1.21
1.26
1.24
1.02
1.01
1.02
1.09
1.17
1.22
1.38
1.68
1.50
1.06
1.03
1.05
1.46
1.66
2.22
45
Table 5.2. Maximum axial forces and bending moments in columns, central column
removed, comparison with resistance values, frame 1
Nmax
[kN]
d
Frame 1
Column
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
105.31 91.02
105.59 91.02
220.88 177.99
221.10 177.99
328.19
328.27
-
118.44
118.76
262.65
262.91
406.71
406.82
Mmax
[kNm]
d
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top 189.97
bot 134.29
top
87.40
bot 157.38
top
66.94
bot 92.68
67.52
41.98
71.50
91.72
-
170.27
118.30
109.33
90.09
150.73
102.47
Nd [kN] for Mmax

d
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
105.20
105.44
220.88
220.74
229.94
221.17
12.24
16.54
11.37
22.18
-
118.33
117.71
262.00
261.21
399.56
403.76
Mr (Nd ) [kNm]
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
156.34
156.38
147.25
147.23
148.66
147.29
112.62
113.37
112.47
114.36
-
106.53
106.42
130.93
153.53
175.07
175.72
Mmax
/Mr (Nd ) [%]
d
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top 121.51
bot 85.87
top
59.35
bot 106.89
top
45.03
bot 62.92
59.95
37.03
63.57
80.20
-
159.83
111.16
83.50
58.68
86.10
58.31
Mdmax /Mr (Nd )

Ms /Mr (Ns )
(local dyn. factor)
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
1.43
1.53
1.25
1.54
1.65
3.00
2.23
2.24
2.53
2.25
-
1.48
1.44
1.61
1.36
1.79
3.58
46
Table 5.3. Maximum axial forces and bending moments in columns, central column
removed, comparison with resistance values, frame 2
Nmax
[kN]
d
Frame 2
Column
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
1
53.91
53.93
111.20
111.22
167.44
167.44
113.16 32.32
113.22 32.45
221.65 67.68
221.76 67.77
327.48 100.93
327.52 100.97
Mmax
[kNm]
d
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
56.48
36.05
34.36
42.01
33.38
41.95
24.60
20.64
13.66
16.41
19.20
31.24
20.34
18.68
12.66
13.09
16.07
29.28
Nd [kN] for Mmax

d
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
53.88
52.88
106.75
111.12
161.15
161.82
79.02
90.26
178.92
172.98
324.84
251.57
31.71
30.47
59.70
66.24
94.65
79.87
Mr (Nd ) [kNm]
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
148.32
148.16
129.13
129.89
137.95
138.05
124.28 91.23
126.25 91.01
140.72 96.18
139.79 122.05
221.08 127.01
209.57 124.43
Mmax
/Mr (Nd ) [%]
d
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
38.08
24.33
26.61
32.34
24.20
30.39
19.79
16.35
9.71
11.74
8.68
14.91
22.30
20.53
13.16
10.73
12.65
23.53
Mdmax /Mr (Nd )

Ms /Mr (Ns )
(local dyn. factor)
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
1.21
1.23
1.40
1.37
1.54
2.64
1.46
1.62
2.21
1.92
1.79
6.78
1.33
1.55
2.05
1.63
2.34
8.71
47

For the left corner column removal scenario, the bending moments and axial
forces are reported in Figures 5.7-5.10 and the corresponding maximum values are
given in Tables 5.4-5.6. The maximum demand-resistance ratios are 199.54% for
beams (right-end of the left beam of the third floor in Frame 1) and 172.79% for
columns (top of the right column of the third floor in Frame 1). In this scenario,
we can notice even larger local dynamic factors (up to 29.43). For this scenario,
the maximum demand-resistance ratio (almost 200%) is on the verge of treating the
building as acceptable/unacceptable against progressive collapse.
Figure 5.11 shows how the vertical displacement at node 25 varies in time. The
maximum value is 0.091 m. Similarly, Figure 5.12 presents the bending moment time
history at the most critical section. The ratio between maximum linear dynamic
deflection and the deflection for the linear static analysis is 0.091 m/0.0552 m = 1.65.
Figure 5.7. Envelope of bending moments, linear dynamic analysis, left corner column
removed, frame 1
48
Figure 5.8. Envelope of axial forces, linear dynamic analysis, left corner column removed,
frame 1
Figure 5.9. Envelope of bending moments, linear dynamic analysis, left corner column
removed, frame 2
49
Figure 5.10. Envelope of axial forces, linear dynamic analysis, left corner column
removed, frame 2
0
0.01
0.02
deflection [m]
0.03
0.04
0.05
static value
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.6
t [s]
0.8
1.2
Figure 5.11. Vertical deflection at node No. 25, left corner column removed
50

0
50
100
150
200
static value
250
300
350
0.2
0.4
0.6
t [s]
0.8
1.2
Figure 5.12. Bending moment at most critical section, left corner column removed
51
Table 5.4.
Maximum bending moments in beams, left corner column removed,
comparison with resistance, frame 1 and 2
Frame 1
Beam
floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
Md [kNm]
a-left a-mid
163.28
210.70
191.23
30.06
32.59
28.27
a-right
b-left
296.63 245.11
325.91 269.70
332.74 241.59
b-mid b-right
12.03
11.97
11.90
165.24
214.15
182.65
13.03
12.96
12.89
146.72
190.15
162.18
Md /Mr [%]
floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
96.65
106.91
97.03
32.55
35.29
30.61
199.54 164.88
184.32 152.53
188.19 136.63

floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
1.87
1.88
1.85
1.30
1.23
1.46
Frame 2
Beam
floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
1.50
1.51
1.51
1.64
1.79
2.02
42.96
1.55
2.92
2.04
2.21
3.13
Md [kNm]
a-left a-mid
74.80
96.57
101.42
30.19
27.42
28.61
a-right
b-left
b-mid b-right
54.15
58.24
61.14
66.48
86.95
98.18
12.75
12.73
13.38
22.61
43.08
55.55
13.81
13.78
14.49
20.08
38.25
49.32
Md /Mr [%]
floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
44.28
49.00
51.46
32.69
29.69
30.98
27.48
25.86
27.14
33.73
38.60
43.59

floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
1.37
1.50
1.65
1.03
1.02
1.03
1.27
1.53
1.57
1.58
2.02
2.16
1.10
1.07
1.14
5.62
16.83
168.33
52
Table 5.5. Maximum axial forces and bending moments in columns, left corner column
removed, comparison with resistance, frame 1
Nmax
[kN]
d
Frame 1
Column
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
50.45 266.22
bot 50.45 266.31
top 102.02 556.88
bot 102.02 556.93
top
- 814.40
bot
- 814.42
67.94
67.99
153.69
153.73
218.37
218.38
Mmax
[kNm]
d
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top 154.76 80.19

bot 81.20 55.34
top 125.42 77.22
bot 183.87 65.49
top
- 164.03
bot
- 187.53
168.68
113.69
114.53
164.77
69.35
211.28
Nd [kN] for Mmax

d
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
3.04
9.77
1.24
7.11
-
233.99
237.52
386.90
454.69
650.18
659.47
67.87
67.75
136.44
153.17
28.94
189.56
Mr (Nd ) [kNm]
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
139.57
140.74
110.70
111.72
-
149.29
149.84
173.10
183.65
270.20
271.39
97.62
97.60
109.73
136.71
115.54
142.37
Mmax
/Mr (Nd ) [%]
d
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top 110.88
bot 57.70
top 113.30
bot 164.58
top
bot
-
53.71
36.93
44.61
35.66
60.71
69.10
172.79
116.49
104.37
120.53
60.02
148.40
Mdmax /Mr (Nd )

Ms /Mr (Ns )
(local dyn. factor)
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
1.89
1.91
1.88
1.85
-
1.75
1.71
2.56
8.51
1.74
6.36
1.87
1.79
2.39
1.73
2.87
5.45
53
Table 5.6. Maximum axial forces and bending moments in columns, left corner column
Nmax
[kN]
d
Frame 2
Column
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
70.41
70.51
142.18
142.26
212.49
212.52
100.48
100.49
204.32
204.32
312.06
312.07
33.25
33.27
72.49
72.51
112.19
112.20
Mmax
[kNm]
d
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
66.56
36.93
59.79
55.40
42.46
99.33
35.97
21.59
58.26
51.88
40.92
98.65
22.77
14.30
38.79
29.95
24.62
90.69
Nd [kN] for Mmax

d
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
57.92
55.47
133.34
122.26
206.05
205.75
100.46
100.33
203.12
204.01
311.07
311.28
33.25
33.27
17.21
14.75
14.65
13.99
Mr (Nd ) [kNm]
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
148.95
148.57
133.62
131.83
144.94
144.89
128.03
128.00
144.48
144.62
218.91
218.95
91.50
91.51
88.67
113.06
113.04
112.93
Mmax
/Mr (Nd ) [%]
d
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
44.69
24.86
44.75
42.02
29.29
68.56
28.09
16.87
40.32
35.87
18.69
45.06
24.89
15.63
43.75
26.49
21.78
80.31
Mdmax /Mr (Nd )

Ms /Mr (Ns )
(local dyn. factor)
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
1.35
1.21
1.93
1.55
1.86
3.31
7.94
4.92
9.72
11.07
8.73
5.48
3.75
1.96
21.77
29.43
4.55
5.95
54

For the right corner column removal scenario, the bending moments and axial
forces are reported in Figure 5.13-5.16 and the corresponding maximum values are
given in Tables 5.7-5.9. The maximum demand-resistance ratios are 84.54% for
beams (right-end of the left beam on the third floor of Frame 1) and 69.41% for
columns (top of the right column on the second floor of Frame 1). In this case, the
maximum local dynamic factor is the largest observed so far (59.34), which can be
explained by the small static bending moment 0.32 kNm (see Table 4.10).
Figure 5.17 shows the function of the vertical displacement at node 69 in time.
The maximum value is 0.0207 m. Figure 5.18 presents how the bending moment in
the most critical section varies in time. The ratio between maximum linear dynamic
deflection and the deflection for the static analysis is 0.0207 m/0.0142 m = 1.46.
The results demonstrate that this is the most favourable failure scenario and that
the structure bridges over the lacking column very efficiently. In fact, the structure
remains in the elastic range.
Figure 5.13. Envelope of bending moments, linear dynamic analysis, right corner column
removed, frame 1
55
Figure 5.14. Envelope of axial forces, linear dynamic analysis, right corner column
removed, frame 1
Figure 5.15. Envelope of bending moments, linear dynamic analysis, right corner column
removed, frame 2
56
Figure 5.16. Envelope of axial forces, linear dynamic analysis, right corner column
removed, frame 2
0
deflection [m]
0.005
0.01
static value
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.2
0.4
0.6
t [s]
0.8
1.2
Figure 5.17. Vertical deflection at node No. 69, right corner column removed
57
Bending moment at leftend of element 83

20
40
60
80
100
static value
120
140
160
0.2
0.4
0.6
t [s]
0.8
1.2
Figure 5.18. Bending moment at most critical section, right corner column removed
58
Table 5.7. Maximum bending moments in beams, right corner column removed,
comparison with resistance, frame 1 and 2
Frame 1
Md [kNm]
Beam
a-left
a-mid a-right
b-left
b-mid
b-right
floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
43.34
49.63
47.59
30.39
27.46
28.59
125.67 110.57
129.58 124.71
117.38 145.51
11.08
14.34
11.28
51.04
73.79
77.46
12.00
15.53
12.21
45.32
65.52
68.78
Md /Mr [%]
floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
25.66
25.18
24.15
32.91
29.74
30.96
84.54
73.29
66.39
74.38
70.53
82.30

floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
11.68
13.63
2.85
1.13
1.05
1.10
Frame 2
1.28
1.29
1.34
1.24
1.32
1.39
1.53
1.27
2.09
1.48
1.55
1.69
Md [kNm]
Beam
a-left
a-mid a-right
b-left
b-mid
b-right
floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
45.38
51.51
48.37
31.48
28.04
29.32
31.86
25.92
28.31
11.20
11.58
11.33
45.15
61.68
53.96
12.13
12.54
12.27
40.09
54.77
47.91
70.56
77.77
74.62
Md /Mr [%]
floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
26.86
26.14
24.54
34.09
30.36
31.75
35.80
34.53
33.13
16.17
11.51
12.57

floor 3
floor 2
floor 1
1.20
1.24
1.22
1.04
1.02
1.03
1.23
1.31
1.26
1.44
2.10
1.70
1.05
1.03
1.04
1.75
1.79
1.75
59
Table 5.8. Maximum axial forces and bending moments in columns, right corner column
Nmax
[kN]
d
Frame 1
Column
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
50.49
50.62
102.20
102.28
153.99
154.03
151.83
151.88
311.70
311.73
467.72
467.73
31.79
31.79
66.49
66.49
-
Mmax
[kNm]
d
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
43.34
28.06
22.74
46.91
69.03
73.82
45.53
32.45
31.33
48.68
86.53
76.96
48.14
32.30
60.41
75.20
-
Nd [kN] for Mmax

d
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
50.45 132.89
bot 50.45 132.98
top 102.20 289.73
bot 54.30 268.06
top 119.33 437.91
bot 91.03 416.05
1.28
1.55
7.92
12.82
-
Mr (Nd ) [kNm]
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
147.78
147.78
128.33
119.97
131.32
126.38
133.55
133.56
157.97
154.60
238.83
235.40
85.86
85.90
87.03
112.72
-
Mmax
/Mr (Nd ) [%]
d
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
29.33
18.99
17.72
39.10
52.57
58.41
34.09
24.30
19.83
31.49
36.23
32.69
56.07
37.60
69.41
66.71
-
Mdmax /Mr (Nd )

Ms /Mr (Ns )
(local dyn. factor)
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
16.95
59.34
4.05
3.02
2.15
4.48
4.09
4.30
7.57
2.88
2.60
4.54
1.51
2.15
1.96
1.70
-
60
Table 5.9. Maximum axial forces and bending moments in columns, right corner column
Nmax
[kN]
d
Frame 2
Column
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
1
50.80
50.81
102.80
102.81
153.55
153.55
91.61 46.94
91.62 47.02
179.58 96.77
179.59 96.82
268.20 140.62
268.20 140.64
Mmax
[kNm]
d
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
46.63
34.42
24.18
30.83
30.46
37.48
63.75
47.23
43.50
51.95
39.81
58.83
42.15
30.45
31.61
37.22
28.41
53.21
Nd [kN] for Mmax

d
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
50.78
bot 48.41
top
98.34
bot 102.81
top 146.39
bot 138.55
84.19 38.91
84.17 38.75
164.61 87.58
161.22 87.01
252.10 137.83
251.57 138.06
Mr (Nd ) [kNm]
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
147.83
147.45
127.66
128.44
135.65
134.43
125.19
125.18
138.49
137.96
209.66
209.57
92.50
92.48
101.10
125.68
134.32
134.35
Mmax
/Mr (Nd ) [%]
d
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
31.54
23.34
18.94
24.00
22.45
27.88
50.92
37.73
31.41
37.66
18.99
28.07
45.57
32.93
31.27
29.61
21.15
39.61
Mdmax /Mr (Nd )

Ms /Mr (Ns )
(local dyn. factor)
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
floor
3
3
2
2
1
1
top
bot
top
bot
top
bot
1.20
1.30
1.44
1.41
1.64
5.21
1.93
2.02
2.02
2.08
1.84
2.28
1.81
1.84
1.92
2.03
2.66
3.17
6. Nonlinear dynamic analysis

The nonlinear dynamic analysis is the most advanced method for predicting
the response of a structure when a load-bearing element is removed
quasi-instantaneously. The only difference with the linear dynamic analysis is that
inelastic behaviours and/or geometric nonlinearities are taken into account.
The procedure used for the calculations in SAP 2000 can be summarised as
follows:
build a FE model,
define and assign plastic hinges to selected members,
find the reaction forces from a column to be removed under the self-weight
loading,
remove this column from the FE model and apply these reactions in its place,
apply these reaction forces again but in the opposite direction using a linear
ramp function,
perform nonlinear time history analysis with initial conditions and 5% critical
damping.
Plastic hinge properties were based on the concrete cross-section size and rebar
area and on the stress-strain relationships for concrete and steel [1]. In summary,
there were 4 types of beam cross-section and 4 types of column cross-section (see
Figure 6.1).
The stress-strain ( ) relationship for concrete is assumed parabolic in the
first phase and constant in the second phase according to the following equation

2
c = fc
(6.1)
+2
0.002
0.002
where fc is the compressive strength (taken from the test results of Table 2.1),
is the strain in concrete, 0.002 is the strain value at which the parabola ends. For
strains between 0.002 and 0.0035 the stress remains constant until failure. The plot
of the stress-strain relationship defined in SAP 2000 is presented in Figure 6.2. For
steel, the stress-strain ( ) relationship is assumed bilinear (Figure 6.3). The first
phase is linear elastic with a yield stress of 524.56 MPa and a modulus of elasticity
of 206 GPa while the second phase is plastic with a linear hardening and an ultimate
stress of 642.56 MPa (see Table 2.2).
From the cross-section geometry, the material relationships and the normal force
(for column only), the moment-curvature relationships are automatically derived in
62
Chapter 6. Nonlinear dynamic analysis
Figure 6.1. Cross sections for beams and columns defined in SAP 2000
Figure 6.2. Stress-strain relation for concrete
63
Figure 6.3. Stress-strain relation for steel
SAP 2000 both in an exact and idealised (bilinear) form. The different relationships
are displayed (left-hand side) in Figures 6.4-6.7 for beams and in Figures 6.8-6.10
for columns under different level of normal force (31 kN - 3rd floor, 65 kN - 2nd
floor and 97 kN - 1st floor). The strain diagrams at the ultimate concrete strain
(0.0035) are also plotted on the right-hand side of the same figure. It should be
noted that the presented Figures are for positive moments, and when a negative
bending moment develops in cross-sections, the inverted cross-section is used to
calculate moment-curvature characteristics.
In SAP 2000, the plastic hinge behaviour is defined by a piece-wise linear
moment-plastic rotation relationship, the characteristics of which are identified from
the idealised moment-curvature relationship of the section. An example is given
in Figure 6.11 for a beam section: point B is defined by the yielding moment
and point C by the ultimate moment and the corresponding plastic rotation. The
curve is usually prolonged by a softening and residual branch which has however no
importance in the present study since the plastic hinges never reach their ultimate
capacity. For columns, this moment-plastic rotation relationship depends on the
normal force and this interaction may be activated in SAP2000.
To be able to directly compare the nonlinear results to the linear ones, the
following nonlinear demand-resistance ratio (DRRnlin) is defined as
100 Mmax /Mr

if no yielding occurred,
nlin
(6.2)
DRR =
max plastic rotation
100(1 +
) if yielding occurred.
ultimate plastic rotation
This nonlinear DRR coincides with the linear DRR in the absence of yielding
(DRR < 100%). In the presence of yielding (DRR > 100%), the nonlinear
DRR measures the distance to the ultimate plastic rotation (point C of the
64
Figure 6.4. Moment-curvature relationship for a beam type 1 cross-section
65
66
Figure 6.8. Moment-curvature relationship for a column cross-section (rebars 14) under a compression force of 31 kN
67
Figure 6.11. Definition of a plastic hinge for a type 1 beam element
68
moment-curvature relationship). As for the linear DRR, 200% is marking the

threshold not to be exceeded (failure of the section) although this does not
necessarily implies the collapse of the structure.
Three plastic hinges are introduced in each beam (left, mid and right) and two
in each column (bottom and top), thus resulting in 36 plastic hinges for each frame
(Figure 6.12).
97H1(hinge_beam)
148H1(hcol1)
145H1(hcol1)
87H1(hinge_beam)
144H1(hcol2)
99H1(hinge_beam)
102H1(hinge_beam)
89H1(hinge_beam)
92H1(hinge_beam)
141H1(hcol2)
77H1(hinge_beam)
140H1(hcol3)
137H1(hcol3)
79H1(hinge_beam)
82H1(hinge_beam)
103H1(hinge_beam)
208H1(hcol4)
205H1(hcol4)
93H1(hinge_beam)
204H1(hcol5)
201H1(hcol5)
83H1(hinge_beam)
200H1(hcol6)
105H1(hinge_beam)
106H1(hinge_beam)
95H1(hinge_beam)
96H1(hinge_beam)
85H1(hinge_beam)
86H1(hinge_beam)
197H1(hcol6)
Figure 6.12. Locations of plastic hinges
160H1(hcol7)
157H1(hcol7)
156H1(hcol8)
153H1(hcol8)
152H1(hcol9)
149H1(hcol9)
69

The nonlinear dynamic analysis for one central column removed shows that, at
at time 0.039 s, two plastic hinges are activated almost simultaneously in the first
frame, one at the top of the right column on the third floor and the other at the
right-end of the right beam on the second floor (see Figure 6.13). Shortly after, at
0.040 s, another plastic hinge is activated at the right-end of the right beam on the
first floor. The final configuration of the plastic hinges activated after the sudden
column removal is shown in Figure 6.14.
Figure 6.13. The first two plastic hinges activated at approximately 0.040 s after the
central column removal
Figures 6.15 and 6.16 show the comparison between the linear and nonlinear
time histories of the displacement at node 48 and of the bending moment at
the right-end of the right beam on the first floor, respectively. In both cases,
the sharp change at time 0.04 s is caused by the formation of the first plastic
hinges. Slightly larger deflections (up to 0.0315 m) are observed during the nonlinear
dynamic analysis owning by the formation of a few plastic hinges. The ratio
between maximum deflections at point 48 for nonlinear and linear dynamic analyses
is 1.18, thus the global dynamic factor (maximum dynamic displacement divided
by static displacement) is slightly higher that in the linear case (1.89 instead of
1.6). Conversely, the bending moments are much lower that in the nonlinear case
especially, of course, where the plastic hinges are activated.
Fig. 6.17 presents the results available in SAP 2000 for a beam plastic hinge
(element No. 96), while Figure 6.18 shows the case of a column plastic hinge (element
No. 160). These figures include the following information:
70
Figure 6.14. Final locations of plastic hinges for the central column removal
the skeleton path of the plastic hinge (thin black line) including the threshold
points (yield, ultimate, residual) and the associated levels of damage (pink first
yielding, blue immediate occupancy, cyan life safety and green collapse
prevention). The skeleton path is the moment-plastic rotation relationship
without normal force.
the actual path followed (thick black line),
the current time step,
the values of the plastic moment and rotation at that current time step.
For a beam plastic hinge, the actual path follows exactly the skeleton path, while
for a column plastic hinge, the actual path usually deviates from the skeleton
path because of the influence of the normal force on the moment-plastic rotation
relationship.
In the present case, the demands in the plastic hinges are all below their ultimate
capacity. In fact, according to definition (6.2), the maximum DRRnlin value is 140%
in beams and 125% in columns. The nonlinear dynamic analysis thus demonstrates
that the structure would have survived a sudden removal of the central column.
71
0
linear dynamic
nonlinear dynamic
0.005
deflection [m]
0.01
0.015
linear static value
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.2
0.4
0.6
t [s]
0.8
1.2
Figure 6.15. Displacement at node No. 48, comparison of linear and nonlinear dynamic
analyses

0
linear dynamic
nonlinear dynamic
50
100
linear static value
150
200
250
0.2
0.4
0.6
t [s]
0.8
1.2
Figure 6.16. Bending moment at the right-end of the right beam on the first floor,
central column removed, comparison of linear and nonlinear dynamic analyses
72
Figure 6.17. Plastic hinge at the right-end of the right beam on the first floor
Figure 6.18. Plastic hinge at the top of the right column on the third floor
73

In the nonlinear analysis of a left corner column removal, two hinges are activated
almost simultaneously at time 0.094 s, one at the right-end of the left beam on
the first floor, the other on the bottom of the left column on the second floor
(Figure 6.19). Figure 6.20 shows the bending moment distribution at first yielding.
The final distribution of activated plastic hinges is shown in Figure 6.21 and the
corresponding bending moment diagram in Figure 6.22.
Figure 6.19. First two plastic hinges activated at approximately 0.094 s after the corner
column removal
The ratio between the maximum deflections at node 25 for nonlinear and linear
dynamic analyses is 0.117 m/0.091 m = 1.29, leading to a global dynamic factor of
2.12 with respect to the linear static analysis.
Figure 6.23 illustrates the response of the first plastic hinge activated, while
Figures 6.24 and 6.25 compare nonlinear and linear time histories of displacement
at node 25 and bending moment in the first hinge activated, respectively. The
maximum DRRnlin values are 149% for beams and 134% for columns.
This nonlinear dynamic analysis shows that the structure would have survived
a sudden removal of the left corner column. Again, the total or partial collapse
would not have happened thanks to an appropriate activation of plastic hinges and
redistribution of bending moments.
74
Figure 6.20. Bending moment distribution at first yielding
Figure 6.21. Final locations of plastic hinges for the corner column removal
Figure 6.22. Final bending moment distribution
Figure 6.23. Plastic hinge at the right-end of the left beam on the first floor
75
76

0
linear dynamic
nonlinear dynamic
0.02
deflection [m]
0.04
linear static value
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.2
0.4
0.6
t [s]
0.8
1.2
Figure 6.24. Vertical deflection at node No. 25, left corner column removed

0
linear dynamic
nonlinear dynamic
50
100
150
200
linear static value
250
300
350
0.2
0.4
0.6
t [s]
0.8
1.2
Figure 6.25. Bending moment at right-end of the left beam on the first floor, left corner
column removed

When it comes to the case where a right corner column is removed, the linear
dynamic analysis has shown that the structure remains elastic, so the nonlinear
analysis gives exactly the same results as in paragraph 5.3.
7. Two central columns removed

In all three scenarios considered, the structure experienced limited or no damage.
In order to assess the robustness of the structure, the case of two central columns
removal has also been studied through linear and nonlinear dynamic analyses.
The results have been summarised in Figure 7.1 where the time history of the
displacement at node 48 is plotted for the linear/nonlinear analysis of one/two
column(s) removal. It can be seen that no matter whether one or two central columns
are removed from the structure, the response does not change drastically, which can
be explained by the one-way behaviour of the flat-slab frame. In other words, each
frame appears to be damaged essentially by the removal of its central column.
0
1 column linear dynamic
1 column nonlinear dynamic
2 columns linear dynamic
2 columns nonlinear dynamic
0.005
deflection [m]
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.2
0.4
0.6
t [s]
0.8
1.2
Figure 7.1. Comparison of displacement at node 48 for the cases when one central
column is removed and when two central columns are removed
8. Conclusions
This report presents the results of an extended study of the flat-slab frame
building which was analysed and tested quasi-statically at the ELSA Laboratory
a few years ago. The scope of the previous study was limited to the investigation
of the general safety against collapse, and thus did not consider a possible abrupt
removal of columns as it may take place in the incidence of bomb explosions, impacts,
or other accidental actions.
The current investigation includes linear and nonlinear dynamic time history
analyses using alternate load path methods, as presented in the earlier JRC Scientific
and Technical Report [6]. Three scenarios of column removal have been considered:
a central column, a left corner column and a right corner column.
The results of the analyses are summarised in Table 8.1. This table presents the
maximum values of the demand-resistance ratios (in the most critical cross-sections)
and the maximum displacements obtained through linear static, linear dynamic and
nonlinear dynamic analyses. The colours highlight the conclusion drawn from each
analysis in terms of three possible structural states: no damage, limited damage and
extensive damage.
The simplest linear static analysis indicates that the structure would exhibit
limited or no damage if the column is removed statically. However if the column is
removed dynamically, the same analysis (with a factor 2 to account for the dynamic
nature of the loading) indicates that the structure would be susceptible to progressive
collapse in two scenarios whereas it would suffer limited damage in the third one.
The linear dynamic analysis indicates a slightly more favourable situation: the
structure would still be susceptible to progressive collapse for the central column
scenario but not necessarily for the left column scenario as the DRR is slightly below
200%. Furthermore, the structure would remain fully elastic for the right column
scenario. The value 2 of the dynamic factor is therefore conservative. In fact, the
actual value of the dynamic factor found in the three scenario ranges from 1.72 to
1.87 (maximum of the two values reached in beams and columns). Conversely, the
dynamic factor computed from the displacement ranges from 1.46 to 1.6 and thus
underestimates the dynamic effect on the DRR (non conservative estimate).
The linear dynamic analysis has revealed that the local dynamic factor defined in
each section as the ratio between the dynamic and static demand-resistance ratios, is
unworkable because it does not makes sense for all sections. Huge dynamic factors
may be found in columns for instance, but they are usually insignificant because
80
Chapter 8. Conclusions
they result from the relatively small value of the static force. The global dynamic
factor defined from the displacement of the node above the removed element, does
not present such a drawback but remains quite different from the true dynamic
factor computed as the ratio between the dynamic/static maximum DRR. It should
be noted that the results may be different for a different structure. For example,
the previous studies carried out on another frame structure [6] demonstrated that
the global dynamic factor (in terms of the displacement at the node above the
removed column, under a central column removal) has been larger and equalled 1.76
as compared to 1.60, obtained in this study.
The nonlinear dynamic analysis (taking into account the capability of
redistribution of internal forces) indicates that the progressive collapse of the
building would not have happened, that is, the propagating failure would have been
arrested. For both the central and left corner column removals several plastic hinges
would have occurred in the structure, yet all of them would have been far below their
ultimate capacity (two yellow areas in the summary Table). For the right corner
column removal, no yielding would have occurred, as already foreseen by the linear
dynamic analysis.
Although the nonlinear dynamic analysis appears to be the most accurate, gives
the most information about the behaviour of the structure and leads to a more
economic design, it should be noted that: (1) this type of analysis is also the
most time-consuming (plus several computation re-runs), (2) it requires a proper
modelling of the reinforced concrete cross-sections (see Figure 6.1) as well as (3) an
appropriate definition and location of plastic hinges in beams and columns.
Another finding is that, within a given column-removal scenario, the most critical
sections (with maximum demand-resistance ratios) may be different in the different
types of analysis. This can be readily observed, following the locations of the red
dots in the sketches in Table 8.1. This lack of consistent pattern is true when passing
from the linear static to the linear dynamic analyses, from the linear static to the
nonlinear dynamic analyses, as well as from the linear dynamic to the nonlinear
dynamic analyses. This explains why it is so difficult to find a case-independent
correlation between the different analyses.
Finally, the second frame in the three column removal scenarios has always
experienced relatively minor distress. As proved in Chapter 7, the removal of two
central columns (one in the first frame and the other in the second frame) causes
similar internal forces and deformations as those of the first frame. This means
that, for this particular structure, it does not matter whether one or two columns
are removed, each frame bridges over the missing column, separately. Obviously, if
one of the frames collapses, it will entail the out-of-plane collapse of the other frame.
Table 8.1. Summary table
linear
static
Beam
Column
DRRlin
32.5 %
29.3 %
B
C
DRRlin
123.7 %
107.8 %
0.0167 m
B
C
DRRlin
132.6 %
92.3 %
0.0552 m
B
C
DRRlin
66.2 %
39.2 %
0.0142 m
st.2
nonlinear
dynamic
global
dyn. fact.
global
dyn. fact.
dynamic
-
Intact
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Legend:
DRRlin
B
212.5 %
C
159.8 %
0.0268 m
DRRlin
265.2 %
184.6 %
0.1104 m
DRRlin
B
199.5 %
C
172.8 %
0.0910 m
DRRlin
132.4 %
78.4 %
0.0284 m
DRRlin
B
84.5 %
C
69.4 %
0.0207 m
Linear analysis
1.72
1.48
1.60
DRRnlin
B
140 %
C
125 %
0.0315 m
1.50
1.87
1.65
DRRnlin
B
149 %
C
134 %
0.1170 m
1.28
1.77
1.46
no
yielding
1.13
1.16
1.89
1.12
1.45
2.12
1.28
1.77
1.46
Nonlinear analysis
lin
green
no yielding, DRR
yellow
limited yielding, 100% < DRRlin < 200%
< 100%
large yielding, DRRlin > 200%
green
no yielding, DRRlin < 100%
yellow
limited yielding, 100% < DRRnlin < 200%
red
large yielding, DRRnlin > 200%
Nmax
Mmax
or 100
DRRlin = 100
M
Nr
r
100 Mmax /Mr

no yielding,
DRRnlin =
max plastic rotation
100(1 +
) with yielding.
ultimate plastic rot.
81
red
DRRlin
247.4 %
215.6 %
0.0334 m
References
[1] ATC. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. ATC-40 Report.
Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California, 1996.
[2] DoD UFC Guidelines. Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Collapse, Unified
Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4-023-03. Department of Defence (DoD), 2005.
[3] EN 1991-1-7. Eurocode 1 - EN 1991-1-7: Actions on structures - Part 1-7:
General actions - Accidental actions, 2006.
[4] M. Gemelli, P. Negro, A. Castellani, R. Bianchi, and M. Salandi. Experimental
evaluation of the safety against the collapse of buildings. Technical Report
I.03.102, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, 2003.
[5] GSA Guidelines. GSA Progressive Collapse Analysis and Design Guidelines
for New Federal Office Buildings and Major Modernizations Projects. General
Services Administration (GSA), 2003.
[6] S. Kokot. Literature survey on current methodologies of assessment of building
robustness and avoidance of progressive collapse. JRC Scientific and Technical
Reports: JRC 5598, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, 2009.
[7] P. Negro and E. Mola. Current assessment procedures: application to regular
and irregular structures compared to experimental results. In Third European
Workshop on the Seismic Behaviour of Irregular and Complex Structures,
Florence, September 17-18 2002.
[8] NIST Best Practices. Best Practices for Reducing the Potential for Progressive
Collapse in Buildings. U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), Washington, D.C., 2007.
[9] A. Pinto, G. Verzeletti, J. Molina, H. Varum, R. Pinho, and E. Coelho.
Pseudodynamic tests on non-seismic resisting rc frames (bare and selective
retrofit frames).
Technical report, European Laboratory for Structural
Assessment, 2002.
List of Figures
2.1. Front view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2. Floor plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3. Elevation and column rebars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4. Beam rebars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5. Interaction diagram for a type 1 beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6. Interaction diagram for a column with rebars 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.7. Interaction diagram for a column with rebars 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.1. Finite element model of the analysed frame in SAP 2000 - element numbers . . 15
3.2. Frame model in SAP 2000 - node numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3. Analysed scenarios of column removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4. Loads on the frame: self weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.5. Loads on the frame: reaction from the actual column at node 48 . . . . . . . . 17
3.6. Loads on the frame - simulation of the column removal (from SAP 2000) . . . 18
3.7. Loads on the frame - load case (from SAP 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.1. Bending moments, original structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

4.2. Shear forces, original structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.3. Axial forces, original structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
84
Chapter 8. List of Figures

4.5. Bending moments, linear static analysis, central column removed, frame 1 . . . 24
4.6. Axial forces, linear static analysis, central column removed, frame 1 . . . . . . 25
4.7. Bending moments, linear static analysis, central column removed, frame 2 . . . 25
4.8. Axial forces, linear static analysis, central column removed, frame 2 . . . . . . 26
4.9. Bending moments, linear static analysis, left corner column removed, frame 1 . 29
4.10. Axial forces, linear static analysis, left corner column removed, frame 1 . . . . 30
4.11. Bending moments, linear static analysis, left corner column removed, frame 2 . 30
4.12. Axial forces, linear static analysis, left corner column removed, frame 2 . . . . 31
4.13. Bending moments, linear static analysis, right corner column removed, frame 1 34
4.14. Axial forces, linear static analysis, right corner column removed, frame 1 . . . 35
4.15. Bending moments, linear static analysis, right corner column removed, frame 2 35
4.16. Axial forces, linear static analysis, right corner column removed, frame 2 . . . 36
5.1. Envelope of bending moments, linear dynamic analysis, central column

removed, frame 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.2. Envelope of axial forces, linear dynamic analysis, central column removed,
frame 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.3. Envelope of bending moments, linear dynamic analysis, central column
removed, frame 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.4. Envelope of axial forces, linear dynamic analysis, central column removed,
frame 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.5. Vertical deflection at node No. 48, central column removed . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.6. Bending moment at the most critical section, central column removed . . . . . 43
5.7. Envelope of bending moments, linear dynamic analysis, left corner column
removed, frame 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.8. Envelope of axial forces, linear dynamic analysis, left corner column removed,
frame 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
85
5.9. Envelope of bending moments, linear dynamic analysis, left corner column
removed, frame 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.10. Envelope of axial forces, linear dynamic analysis, left corner column removed,
frame 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.11. Vertical deflection at node No. 25, left corner column removed . . . . . . . . . 49
5.12. Bending moment at most critical section, left corner column removed . . . . . 50
5.13. Envelope of bending moments, linear dynamic analysis, right corner column
removed, frame 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.14. Envelope of axial forces, linear dynamic analysis, right corner column
removed, frame 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.15. Envelope of bending moments, linear dynamic analysis, right corner column
removed, frame 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.16. Envelope of axial forces, linear dynamic analysis, right corner column
removed, frame 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.17. Vertical deflection at node No. 69, right corner column removed . . . . . . . . 56
5.18. Bending moment at most critical section, right corner column removed . . . . 57
6.1. Cross sections for beams and columns defined in SAP 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.2. Stress-strain relation for concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.3. Stress-strain relation for steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
6.4. Moment-curvature relationship for a beam type 1 cross-section . . . . . . . . . 64
6.8. Moment-curvature relationship for a column cross-section (rebars 14) under a compression force of 31 kN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
86
Chapter 8. List of Figures
6.11. Definition of a plastic hinge for a type 1 beam element
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
6.12. Locations of plastic hinges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

6.13. The first two plastic hinges activated at approximately 0.040 s after the
central column removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.14. Final locations of plastic hinges for the central column removal . . . . . . . . . 70
6.15. Displacement at node No. 48, comparison of linear and nonlinear dynamic
analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.16. Bending moment at the right-end of the right beam on the first floor, central
column removed, comparison of linear and nonlinear dynamic analyses . . . . . 71
6.17. Plastic hinge at the right-end of the right beam on the first floor . . . . . . . . 72
6.18. Plastic hinge at the top of the right column on the third floor
. . . . . . . . . 72
6.19. First two plastic hinges activated at approximately 0.094 s after the corner
column removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6.20. Bending moment distribution at first yielding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
6.21. Final locations of plastic hinges for the corner column removal . . . . . . . . . 74
6.22. Final bending moment distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
6.23. Plastic hinge at the right-end of the left beam on the first floor . . . . . . . . . 75
6.24. Vertical deflection at node No. 25, left corner column removed . . . . . . . . . 76
6.25. Bending moment at right-end of the left beam on the first floor, left corner
column removed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
7.1. Comparison of displacement at node 48 for the cases when one central column
is removed and when two central columns are removed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
A.1. Destruction of the first central column (Phase 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

A.2. State of the building at the end of Phase 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
A.3. Destruction of the other central column (Phase 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
A.4. State of the building at the end of Phase 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
A.5. Demolition of the external columns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
A.6. Collapse of the building (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

List of Tables
2.1. Concrete strength (mean values) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2. Steel strength (mean values) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3. Resistance of beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.4. Resistance of columns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. Bending moments in beams, no column removal, comparison with resistance,
frames 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.2. Axial forces and bending moments in columns, no column removal,
comparison with resistance, frames 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.3. Bending moments in beams, central column removed, comparison with
resistance, frame 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.4. Axial forces and bending moments in columns, central column removed,
comparison with resistance, frame 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.5. Axial forces and bending moments in columns, central column removed,
4.6. Bending moments in beams, left corner column removed, comparison with
4.7. Axial forces and bending moments in columns, left corner column removed,
4.8. Axial forces and bending moments in columns, left corner column removed,
4.9. Bending moments in beams, right corner column removed, comparison with
4.10. Axial forces and bending moments in columns, right corner column removed,
4.11. Axial forces and bending moments in columns, right corner column removed,
5.1. Maximum bending moments in beams, central column removed, comparison

with resistance, frame 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.2. Maximum axial forces and bending moments in columns, central column
removed, comparison with resistance values, frame 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.3. Maximum axial forces and bending moments in columns, central column
removed, comparison with resistance values, frame 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.4. Maximum bending moments in beams, left corner column removed,
comparison with resistance, frame 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.5. Maximum axial forces and bending moments in columns, left corner column
removed, comparison with resistance, frame 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.6. Maximum axial forces and bending moments in columns, left corner column
5.7. Maximum bending moments in beams, right corner column removed,
comparison with resistance, frame 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.8. Maximum axial forces and bending moments in columns, right corner column
5.9. Maximum axial forces and bending moments in columns, right corner column
8.1. Summary table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
A. Photos from experimental destroying of

columns
The following photos are taken from [4].
Figure A.1. Destruction of the first central column (Phase 1)
Figure A.2. State of the building at the end of Phase 1
91
Figure A.3. Destruction of the other central column (Phase 2)
Figure A.4. State of the building at the end of Phase 2
92
Appendix A. Photos from experimental destroying of columns
Figure A.5. Demolition of the external columns
Figure A.6. Collapse of the building (1)
93
94
Appendix A. Photos from experimental destroying of columns
European Commission
Joint Research Centre Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen
Title: Static and dynamic analysis of a reinforced concrete flat slab frame building for progressive collapse
Author(s): Seweryn Kokot, Armelle Anthoine, Paolo Negro, George Solomos
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union
2010 94 pp. 21.0 x 29.7 cm
Abstract
The problem of the progressive collapse of a building has been addressed using a reinforced concrete
flat slab frame. This structure was tested in the past at the ELSA laboratory to evaluate safety margins
against collapse. Static linear and nonlinear analyses of the building under column removals had first
been performed and then, in the experiment, columns had been successively removed, slowly
demolished with a crunching machine. The experiment showed that the structure survived the
demolition of two central columns, and also that structural testing against progressive collapse can be
very challenging.
Extending the scope, the dynamic nature of the loading has been considered in this report since
buildings can be exposed to fast dynamic abnormal events, such as explosions or impacts, which may
destroy abruptly load bearing elements. Thus, this study tries to answer the question of what would
have happened to this building if the columns had been destroyed dynamically. For the same
structural model dynamic linear and nonlinear analyses have been performed employing the finite
element computational framework of the SAP2000 code. Alternately, three columns, a central and two
corner ones, have been instantaneously removed and the structural response of the frame calculated.
Maximum values of bending moments and forces at critical sections are reported and compared to
those of the static analyses. Time histories of deflections of nodes above missing columns are
determined, and several ratios of response parameters resulting from the different analyses are
produced for comparison purposes. All approaches predict no mechanism which might lead to
progressive collapse, even though several hinges are formed. Advantages of the use of static or
dynamic, linear or nonlinear analyses are discussed.
How to obtain EU publications

Our priced publications are available from EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu), where you can place
an order with the sales agent of your choice.
The Publications Office has a worldwide network of sales agents. You can obtain their contact details by
sending a fax to (352) 29 29-42758.
The mission of the JRC is to provide customer-driven scientific and technical support
for the conception, development, implementation and monitoring of EU policies. As a
service of the European Commission, the JRC functions as a reference centre of
science and technology for the Union. Close to the policy-making process, it serves
the common interest of the Member States, while being independent of special
interests, whether private or national.

Static and Dynamic Analysis of A Reinforced Concrete Flat Slab Frame Building For Progressive Collapse PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Static and Dynamic Analysis of A Reinforced Concrete Flat Slab Frame Building For Progressive Collapse PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Static and Dynamic Analysis of A Reinforced Concrete Flat Slab Frame Building For Progressive Collapse PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Static and dynamic analysis of

a reinforced concrete flat slab frame

PUBSY JRC 62663 - 2010

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

Resistance of the frame elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of the previous analyses and experiment for progressive collapse . 12

2. Description of the structure

3. Finite element model in SAP 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

One central column removed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

One left corner column removed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

One right corner column removed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

5. Linear dynamic analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

One central column removed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

One left corner column removed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

One right corner column removed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

6. Nonlinear dynamic analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

One central column removed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

One left corner column removed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

One right corner column removed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

7. Two central columns removed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

2. Description of the structure

Origin of the sample

Chapter 2. Description of the structure

Figure 2.1. Front view

Figure 2.2. Floor plan

Figure 2.3. Elevation and column rebars

Figure 2.4. Beam rebars

Chapter 2. Description of the structure

2.2. Resistance of the frame elements

where As is the area of reinforcement bars in the beam cross-section, fs is the

Resistance of the frame elements

PM3 interaction diagram for the beam type 1

axial force [kN]

Figure 2.5. Interaction diagram for a type 1 beam

PM3 interaction diagram for a column with rebars 14

axial force [kN]

Figure 2.6. Interaction diagram for a column with rebars 14

Chapter 2. Description of the structure

axial force [kN]

Figure 2.7. Interaction diagram for a column with rebars 16

PM3 interaction diagram for a column with rebars 18

axial force [kN]

Figure 2.8. Interaction diagram for a column with rebars 18

Resistance of the frame elements

Table 2.3. Resistance of beams

Table 2.4. Resistance of columns

Chapter 2. Description of the structure

axial force [kN]

Figure 2.9. Interaction diagram for a column with rebars 20

2.3. Summary of the previous analyses and experiment for

3. Finite element model in SAP 2000

Chapter 3. Finite element model in SAP 2000

Figure 3.2. Frame model in SAP 2000 - node numbers

Figure 3.3. Analysed scenarios of column removal

Figure 3.4. Loads on the frame: self weight

Chapter 3. Finite element model in SAP 2000

4. Linear static analysis

in beams (bending moment only)

4.1. Before demolition