4thInternational Engineering Research Symposium

22
March 04-06, 2022
ISBN: 978-605-71407-0-8
www.umas.duzce.edu.tr

Aydin Demira,*
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Sakarya University, Sakarya/Turkey.
*
Corresponding Author: [email protected]

I. INTRODUCTION likely extreme events during the design process of

buildings is vitally important to reduce their
Turkey is one of the most seismic-prone countries
progressive collapse risk. For this purpose, there are
due to being on a very active fault system. It has
few direct design methods in the literature to evaluate
experienced several high magnitude earthquakes
the progressive collapse resistance of structures. The
resulting in many dramatic casualties and high
guidelines of the US General Service Administration
economic losses. Therefore, the Turkish Seismic Code
(GSA-2016) [5] and the US Department of Defense
(TSC) is frequently updated depending on advances in
(UFC 4-023-03) [6] are specified to assess the PC
engineering and technology. The latest updates have
response of new and existing government and military
been released in 2007 (TSC-2007) and 2019 (TSC-
buildings. In these guidelines, the progressive collapse
2019). In addition to earthquakes, Turkey has been
response of structures is evaluated by simulation of
suffered from several unforeseeable man-made
different column loss scenarios on a structure.
hazards such as accidents, deliberate attacks, misuse
of the structures. The terrorist attacks specifically
targeting the government buildings have been caused
a high number of casualties and economic losses. For
example, a terrorist attack targeting Elazig Police
Headquarters in 2016 led to severe damage to the
building as well as the martyrization of 3 police
officers and the injury of more than 217 people (Fig.
1) [3].
A local failure on one of the load-bearing members
of a structure might propagate from member to
member and ultimately result in the partial or total
collapse of the building that is disproportionate to the Fig. 1 An example of building damages after explosions [3]
initial failure. This phenomenon is called the
progressive collapse (PC) of structures [4]. The On the other hand, conventional design
progressive collapse response of the structures is not specifications such as Eurocode 2 [7], ASCE 7-16 [4],
generally considered in their design process, which IBC [8], etc., do not provide specific design and
may increase human casualties and economic losses evaluation criteria to reduce the PC risk of the
under any extreme events. Therefore, considering

64
structures. Instead, they try to improve the general definitions, TS-500 [16] was used for reinforced
integrity and robustness of the structures by providing concrete design in addition to TSC. The compressive
adequate redundancy, strength, ductility, etc. By this strength of concrete and the tensile strength of
means, the structural resistance against unforeseeable reinforcing steel were taken as 30 MPa (C30) and 420
events is expected to be increased indirectly. MPa (S420), respectively. The geometrical and
Moreover, it has been proposed in the literature that reinforcing detail of the members are reported in Table
the proper seismic detailing prescribed in the 1, and they were kept constant for all story levels. The
conventional seismic design codes contributes building designs were conducted using
significantly to the PC resistance of the buildings. ProtaStructures [17], which is a finite element (FE)
However, it should be noted that the PC risk of those design software for RC buildings.
buildings will never be abolished since it is not
considered explicitly in the design process [9-11].
Thus, further studies are needed to observe the PC
response of buildings designed with modern design
codes. Moreover, the response of the structures
designed according to TSC is not known well since the
studies investigating that behavior are scarce in the
literature. Therefore, progressive collapse resistance
of RC buildings designed according to recent updates
of TSC was investigated numerically in the present
study.
In the literature, Mahad [12] observed the global
collapse response of 2-dimensional (2D) RC structures
under blast loads. Tsai and Lin [9] investigated the
effect of the seismic design on the PC resistance of
reinforced concrete structures. Marchis et al. [13]
studied similar behavior on the mid-rise buildings and
Sheikh et al. [11] on the low-rise RC framed
structures. The progressive collapse of RC buildings Fig. 2 Plan view of the buildings (dimensions in cm)
by defining flexure-axial-shear interaction in plastic
hinges was evaluated by Abdulsalam and Chaudhary The progressive collapse evaluation of the designed
[14]. buildings was employed by creating a 3D finite
In the study, progressive collapse behavior of RC element model using static and dynamic FE analysis
framed buildings designed according to recent updates software for structures, SAP2000 [18]. The nonlinear
of TSC was investigated numerically. For this dynamic analysis method of the Alternate Path direct
purpose, a building was designed according to both design approach, defined in GSA-2016 and UFC 4-
TSC-2007 and TSC-2019. Later on, a nonlinear 023-03 guidelines, was used to perform the PC
dynamic analysis method for the alternate path direct analyses. Frame elements were used to model beams
design approach of GSA-2016 and UFC 4-023-03 was and columns. The slabs were not modeled; instead, a
implemented to evaluate the PC resistance of the rigid diaphragm was defined at every story level in the
buildings. Three independent column removal models. The slab loads were assigned to the
scenarios were employed for the analyses. surrounding beams. Fiber hinges were defined at both
Consequently, it was observed that the inner column ends of frame elements to simulate the nonlinear
removal scenario resulted in the worst case and led to behavior of the structural members. The finite-length
a local collapse of the buildings. hinge zone of the members was taken as half the
section depth as specified in TSC. The FE model of
II. MATERIALS AND METHOD the buildings is given in Fig. 3.
A symmetric building plan was created for a 7- Following a static analysis case for the gravity
story reinforced concrete (RC) framed building with a loads, a nonlinear dynamic time-history load case was
3.5 m story height. The plan view of it is depicted in defined to simulate the column removal scenario with
Fig. 2. The building was designed according to both a ramp function. P-Delta and Large Displacements
TSC-2007 and TSC-2019 with an occupancy class of options were involved in the analyses to consider
due to their inherent high PC geometric nonlinearity of the members and catenary
risks stemming from the likelihood of being targeted action of the beams after the column removal [19,20].
by terrorist attacks. A high ductility class is considered Three column loss scenarios from the first story of the
for the design. While TS-498 [15] was used for load buildings were conducted as prescribed in the GSA-

65
 Table 1. Geometrical and reinforcing details of the sections
Designed Section B H Top Web Bottom Stirrups & # of s
building type [cm] [cm] bars bars bars ties ties [cm]
Column 45 45 8 8 8 1 8
TSC-2007
Beam 25 50 2 N/A 2 N/A 10
Column 50 50 1 8
TSC-2019
Beam 25 50 N/A N/A 10
*B: section width, H: section height,

2016 and UFC 4-023-03. As shown in Fig. 2, E1, E3,

and C3 columns were removed independently from the III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
buildings. The time-history results for vertical displacement of
The damage condition of the members and failure the nodes above the removed columns were illustrated
response of the structures was evaluated according to in Figs. 4 6 for different column removal cases. The
the acceptance criteria calculated with respect to TSC- residual vertical displacement ( ) results of those
2019 depending on the strain both on concrete and nodes are given in Table 3. The residual vertical
reinforcement. The acceptance criteria calculated for displacements of the building designed according to
the concrete are reported in Table 2. LD represents TSC-2019 are lower than those of TSC-2007 for all
Limited Damage in the table, MD means Moderate column removal scenarios. That means that the
Damage, and SD stands for Severe Damage. The building designed with respect to TSC-2019 resisted
reinforcement strain acceptance criteria are constant progressive collapse better than those designed
for all sections: namely, LD is 0.0075, MD is 0.0240, concerning TSC-2007. The maximum was obtained
and SD is 0.0320. for the inner column (column C3) removal case for
both versions of TSC. Moreover, an interesting result
was experienced on the building designed according to
TSC-2007. The vertical displacement of the node
above the removed column increased dramatically
after inner column removal (column C3) and resulted
in the total failure of the members above and bridging
over the removed column.
The damage responses of the load-bearing
members, defined according to the acceptance criteria
and calculated in the previous section, are illustrated
in Figs. 7 12. Because the buildings are symmetric in
their plans, a two-dimensional elevation view of the
axes on which the removed column lays is given. The
results of the perpendicular axes are the same. In the
figures, the damage status of the hinges is represented
using different color patterns. Namely, gray shows no
damage, green represents Limited Damage, cyan
shows Moderate Damage, pink represents Severe
Damage (collapse prevention), and red means failure
(collapse).
As can be seen in the figures, the damage conditions
Fig. 3 FE model of the buildings
of the members designed according to TSC-2007 are
Table 2. Concrete strain acceptance criteria for the structural more severe than those designed concerning TSC-
members 2019. A scatter of Limited Damage and Moderate
Analyzed Section Damage was observed on the members above and
LD MD SD
Building Type bridging over the removed column for all buildings
TSC- Column -0.0025 -0.0082 -0.0110 under the corner column (E1) and middle edge column
2007 Beam -0.0025 -0.0042 -0.0056 (E3) loss scenarios. However, Severe Damage was
TSC- Column -0.0025 -0.0080 -0.0106 experienced on the building designed according to
2019 Beam -0.0025 -0.0041 -0.0055 TSC-2007 for the inner column (C3) removal case.
Because the beams exceeded their ultimate load-
bearing capacities, a local collapse was observed on
the building.

66
 Fig. 4 The vertical displacement time-history of the node above
the removed column E1

Fig. 7 Fiber hinge damage results of the building designed

according to TSC-2007 for removal of column E1

Fig. 5 The vertical displacement time-history of the node above

the removed column E3

Fig. 8 Fiber hinge damage results of the building designed

according to TSC-2007 for removal of column E3

Fig. 6 The vertical displacement time-history of the node above

the removed column C3

Table 3. Result of the residual vertical displacement value of the

node above the removed column
Analyzed Building Removed Column [mm]
E1 -29.7
TSC-2007 E3 -36.0
C3 collapse
E1 -18.3
TSC-2019 E3 -23.6
C3 -38.6

Consequently, the progressive collapse resistance

of the buildings designed with respect to TSC-2007 is
weaker than those designed according to TSC-2019.
The vulnerability of the buildings increases when they
are subjected to an inner column loss. Fig. 9 Fiber hinge damage results of the building designed
according to TSC-2007 for removal of column C3

67
 IV. CONCLUSION
In the present study, progressive collapse behavior
of RC framed buildings designed according to recent
updates of TSC was investigated numerically. For this
purpose, a building was designed according to both
TSC-2007 and TSC-2019. Next, a nonlinear dynamic
analysis method for the alternate path direct design
approach of GSA-2016 and UFC 4-023-03 was
implemented to evaluate the PC resistance of the
buildings. Three independent column removal
scenarios were implemented for the analyses. The
following conclusions have been deduced from the
study:
- The residual vertical displacement results of the
node above the removed column are higher more
Fig. 10 Fiber hinge damage results of the building designed
critical for the buildings designed with respect to TSC-
according to TSC-2019 for removal of column E1 2007 than those designed according to TSC-2019.
- Severe damage occurs on members of the building
designed according to TSC-2007 when subjected to an
inner column loss scenario.
- A local collapse was experienced on the buildings
designed with respect to TSC-2007 during an inner
column removal case. But, the buildings did not
collapse entirely.
- The evaluation of progressive collapse resistance
of the buildings designed according to past updates of
TSC is critical in reducing their progressive collapse
risk.

REFERENCES

[1] TSC-2007. Turkish Seismic Code, Ministry of Environment

and Urbanization, Ankara, 2007.
[2] TSC-2019. Turkish Seismic Code for Buildings. Ministry of
Environment and Urbanization, Ankara, 2019.
[3] (2022) Elazig saldirisini PKK ustlendi. [Online]. Available:
Fig. 11 Fiber hinge damage results of the building designed http://www.aljazeera.com.tr/haber/elazig-saldirisini-pkk-
according to TSC-2019 for removal of column E3 ustlendi.
[4] ASCE/SEI 7-16. Minimum Design Loads and Associated
Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures Minimum design
loads for buildings and other structures. American Society of
Civil Engineers, Virginia, 2016.
[5] GSA-2016. Alternate Path Analysis and Design Guidelines
for Progressive Collapse Resistance. General Services
Administration, Washington, DC, 2016.
[6] UFC 4-023-03. Design of building to resist progressive
collapse. US Department of Defense, Washington, DC, 2016.
[7] Eurocode 2. Design of Concrete Structures: Part 1-1:
General Rules and Rules for Buildings. European Committee
for Standardization, Brussels, 2004.
[8] IBC. International Building Code. International Code
Council, Inc., 2020.
[9] M.H. Tsai and B.H. Lin. Investigation of progressive
collapse resistance and inelastic response for an earthquake-
resistant RC building subjected to column failure
Engineering Structures, 30, 3619 3628, 2008.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.05.031
[10] A.G. Marchisa and M.D. Botez. A numerical assessment of
the progressive collapse resistance of RC frames with respect
to the number of stories Procedia Manufacturing, 32, 136
Fig. 12 Fiber hinge damage results of the building designed
143, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2019.02.194
according to TSC-2019 for removal of column C3

68
[11] T.A. Sheikh, J.M. Banday, and M.A. Hussain. Progressive
collapse study of seismically designed low rise reinforced
concrete framed structure Civil Engineering and
Architecture, 9(5), 1327 1338, 2021.
[12] M.A.A. Mahad. Global response of 2D reinforced concrete
structures under blast loads and progressive collapse M.Sc.
Dissertation, Institute of Graduate Studies, Istanbul Kultur
University, Istanbul, 2021.
[13] A.G. Marchis, T.S. Moldovan, and A.M. Ioani. The
influence of the seismic design on the progressive collapse
resistance of mid-rise RC framed structures Acta Technica
Napocensis: Civil Engineering & Architecture, 56(2), 222
234, 2013.
[14] M.A. Abdulsalam and M.T.A. Chaudhary. Progressive
collapse of reinforced concrete buildings considering flexure-
axial-shear interaction in plastic hinges Cogent
Engineering, 8(1), 1882115, 2021.
[15] TS-498. Design Loads for Buildings. Turkish Standards
Institute, Ankara, 1997.
[16] TS-500. Requirements for Design and Construction of
Reinforced Concrete Structures. Turkish Standards Institute,
Ankara, 2002.
[17] ProtaStructures Academic Version. Structural Engineering
Software. Prota Eng. Comp., Besiktas, Istanbul.
[18] SAP2000. Three-Dimensional Static and Dynamic Finite
Element Analysis and Design of Structures. Computer and
Structures, Inc., California.
[19] (2022) CSI Knowledge Base. Technical Knowledge Base,
Computers and Structures, Inc. [Online]. Available:
https://wiki.csiamerica.com
[20] S. Sagiroglu. Analytical and experimental evaluation of
progressive collapse resistance of reinforced concrete
structures Ph.D. Dissertation, The Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Northeastern University,
Boston, MA, 2012.

69