PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE RESISTANCE OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Ying Tian
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Nevada Las Vegas

OUTLINE
Historical events of progressive collapse Design standards and available approaches Gaps in existing knowledge and research needs Experimental study of progressive collapse resistance of RC beams Numerical simulation of axially restrained RC frame beams Numerical simulation of RC flat-plate buildings at the risk of progressive collapse Structural laboratory at UNLV

Progressive collapse is defined as the spread of an initial local failure from element to element resulting, eventually, in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it. --- ASCE 07-10

HISTORICAL EVENTS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE

Ronan Point apartment, 1968, UK Precast concrete wall and floor system. Explosion caused by a gas leak blew out one of the precast wall panels on the 18th floor, triggering the partial collapse of the building. Attention to progressive collapse was initiated.

(Nair,2004)

Commonwealth Avenue apartment, 1971, Boston RC flat-plate structure Likely construction over-load, poor material properties in cold weather, and inadequate positioning slab top bars caused punching shear failure at roof level. Punching shear failure propagated to the ground level. Attention to progressive collapse was initiated.

(KingandDelatte,2004)

Alfred P. Murrah Building, 1995, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma RC frame structure with transfer girders designed in accordance with ACI 318-71. Discontinuity of reinforcement in both the positive and negative moment reinforcement. The blast from the bomb destroyed column G20 below the transfer girder and may have destroyed or severely damaged columns G24. 168 people died.

Sampoong Department Store, Seoul, South Korea RC flat-plate structure Punching shear failure initiated from an interior slab-column connection at the top story. Contributing factors for the failure included reduced slab effective depth and a 35% increase in dead loads due to the change of use at the 5th floor (Gardner et al. 2002). Killed 501 people.

DESIGN STANDARDS

Bothconsiderprogressivecollapseasdynamicandnonlinearevent.

ASCE/SEICommittee,DisproportionateCollapseStandardsandGuidance,is currentlydevelopnewstandardmodifiedfromDOD2009.

Design Approaches
Indirect Design - emphasizes providing minimum levels of strength, continuity, and ductility to ensure structural integrity. Direct Design - includes the Specific Load Resistance and the Alternate Path approaches.

Indirect design DOD procedure

Relies on an integrated system of tie forces for developing tensile membrane or catenary action. Horizontal ties and vertical ties.

 Indirect Design - emphasizes providing minimum levels of strength, continuity, and ductility to ensure structural integrity. Building must bridge across a removed element.

LocationofcolumnremovalconsideredinDOD2009

Momentbeforecolumnremoval

Momentaftercolumnremoval

Dynamic Loading Effects Due To Sudden Removal of Supporting Column

(undamped SDOFsystem)

mg P
3.5

Displacement / Static Displacement

P u

3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

P = 0.9Pu

P = 0.7Pu

P = mg m
0 0.5 1 1.5

5% damping ratio
2 2.5

Time (s)

Three analysis procedures permitted:

Linear Static (consider M-factor) Nonlinear Static (consider Nonlinear Dynamic Increase factor) Nonlinear Dynamic

Forcedrivennonlinearstaticanalysis LoadappliedconsidersDIFfortributaryareasurroundingthelostelement

Dynamic Increase Factor (DIF) for concrete structures

(Marchand etal.2009)ProtectionEngineeringConsultants

GAP IN EXISTING KNOWLEDGE AND RESEARCH NEEDS

Actual strength of critical element such as beams and beam-column joints Actual deformation capacity of critical element such as beams under large deformation Participation of slabs in resisting progressive collapse Risk of progressive collapse of flat-plate structures Appropriate retrofit techniques for progressive collapse prevention

EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH
In collaboration with Dr. Youpo Su at Hebei Polytechnic University (China) Investigated flexural capacity of RC frame beams where axial restrains exist Both static and dynamic loading tests were conducted.

Typical Behavior of RC Frame Beams

Ptu Tensile arch (catenary) action Compressive arch action

Vertical Load

Pcu Pyu

Capacity based on yield-line theory

cu

Deflection

tu

(Bao,2008)

Compressive arch action and catenary action

Prototype Structure and Test Specimen

Prototype structure and typical geometry of test specimen

Monotonic Loading Test Setup

12specimensweretested:9understaticloading(1/2scale),3underdifferentloading speed(1/3scale) Testvariables:(1)reinforcementratio,(2)spantodepthratio,and(3)loadingspeed

Followingconcrete crushing

Priortofinalfailure

A3:2.7mx0.3mx0.15m,Pcu =249kN,PACI =147kN B1:4.2mx0.3mx0.15m,Pcu =125kN,PACI =77kN B2:5.7mx0.3mx0.15m,Pcu =83kN,PACI =55kN All3 14attopandbottom, =1.13%

(a)
Strength Enhancement Factor
A1

(b)
Strength Enhancement Factor
2.5
A6

A4

2.5

A5 A2 A6

A3

2
A3 B3 B1

1.5

1.5

B2

with symmetrical reinforcement with asymmetrical reinforcement

1 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2

with symmetrical reinforcement with asymmetrical reinforcement

1 0 2 4 6 8 10

1.5

Flexural Reinforcement Ratio (%)

Span / Depth (ln /h )

EffectofReinforcementRatio

EffectofSpantodepthratio

200

45

Vertical Load P (kN)

150 30 100 15 50 0 0 0 -50 -15 -100 -150 -200 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

Horizontal Reaction N (kN)

Specimen C1 Specimen C2 Specimen C3 Peak Load Pcu

-30

-45

Center Deflection / Beam Depth (/h )

C1:2.7mx0.2mx0.1m,loadingrate0.2mm/s,Pcu =91.6kN C2:2.7mx0.2mx0.1m,loadingrate2mm/s,Pcu =96.4kN C3:2.7mx0.2mx0.1m,loadingrate20mm/s,Pcu =108kN All2 12attopandbottom, =1.3%

Horizontal Reaction N (kip)

Vertical Load P (kip)

Observations from monotonic loading tests

Compressive arch action resulting from axial restraint contributed at least 50% extra loading capacity beyond the capacity estimated without considering axial restraining forces and strain harderning. Load resistance under catenary action may not provide higher capacity than under compressive arch action. High loading speed slightly increases beam flexural stiffness and load resistance.

Dynamic Loading Tests

Testvariables:Loadlevel,reinforcementratio Fourspecimensweretested:D1toD4,5700mmx300mmx150mm(1/2scale) D1:noaxialrestraintwasapplied D1andD2: =1.2%,D3:1.8%,D4:2.4% Eachspecimenwastestedmultipletimeswithdifferentweightofmassblocks Loadreleasetimelessthan10%ofnaturalperiod

Lowerweightofmassblocks:studythedynamicresponseofaspecimen withinitselasticrange

Higherweightofmassblocks:detectthedynamicloadcarryingcapacity

Dynamic response under lower level of load

15

(a)
Deflection (mm)
10

Midspan deflection

Quarterspan deflection

0 45

Horizontal Force (kN)

(b)
30

15

Restraining Moment (kN-m)

0 45

(c)
30

15

0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Time (s)

Dynamic response under higher level of load

90

Flexural yielding
Center Deflection (mm)

D1

D2

Concrete crushing
60

P = 44.0 kN

30

P = 38.9 kN

P = 23.9 kN P = 18.8 kN
0 90

D3
Center Deflection (mm) P = 54.6 kN

P = 53.5 kN

D4

60

P = 44.0 kN

30

P = 28.9 kN

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 0

0.5

1.5

Time (s)

Time (s)

Dynamic response of axial restraining force and restraining moment

Restraining Moment (kN-m)
150 150 150

100

100

100

50

50

50

-50

-50

-50

Axial Force (kN)

-100

At peak deflection

-100

At peak deflection

-100

At Concrete Crushing

-150

-150

-150

(a)
-200 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 -200 0

(b)
-200 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0

(c)
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

Time (s)

Time (s)

Time (s)

SpecimenD2

SpecimenD3

SpecimenD4

Concrete Spalling

Diagonal Crack Edge Column Center Column

(a) Damage pattern of Specimen D3 (P = 54.6 kN)

DamagepatternofSpecimenD3 (P=54.6kN,approximatelythe loadcapacity)

DamagepatternofSpecimenD3 (P=53.5kN,collapsed)

Damage Pattern

Observations from dynamic loading tests

Typically assumed 5% damping ratio for cracked concrete structures was verified. Compressive arch action still exists under dynamic loading scenario considered by DOD and can significantly increase the dynamic loading capacity. Dynamic increase factor of 2 could be too conservative for force controlled actions. Another series of tests is being conducted to further identify dynamic loading effects (mainly evaluate DIF proposed by DOD and dynamic deformation capacity).

NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF AXIALLY RESTRAINED RC FRAME BEAMS (ONGOING)

Current DOD progressive collapse design guideline considers dynamic loading condition. The response of structure from an analysis (deformation and force demand) can be highly sensitive to the definition of beam flexural capacity. To reduce uncertainty in an analysis, appropriate nonlinear model is need for frame beams surrounding the lost column. Using traditional ACI code approach to define M- (or M-p) in a nonlinear analysis cannot effectively capture the dynamic response under both compressive arch action and catenary action. Numerical analysis needs to consider the geometry nonlinearity when solving system equations.

Using fiber section to define flexural property

Cross section is divided into several layers (regions) to have fibers along the beam or column. Material property is defined at stressstrain level. Confinement effects due to transverse reinforcement can be explicitly considered. Can be used for irregular cross sections. Current fiber section can only define flexural and axial loading behavior. Involves higher computational cost. Available in SAP newer editions.

Simulation of axially restrained beams tested

Concreteproperty (Concrete1model)

OPENSEES was adopted Concrete 1 was used to define material property for concrete Confined concrete model for peak stress and ultimate compress strain proposed by Scott et al. (1982) was use for cover concrete and core concrete. Steel 2 was used to define material property for reinforcing bars. Model (Bond_SP01) proposed by Zhao and Sritharan (2007) was considered. Zero-length section was used to define bond-slip property. Ultimate goal: nonlinear static and dynamic analysis of multi-story RC frame building designed w/ seismic loading (assisted by Ken Zhang) and w/o seismic loading (assisted by Sang-in Choi).

Simulation results
200
Load (measured) Average Axial Force (measured) Axial Force (calculated)

150

Load (calculated)

100

Load and Axial Force (kN)

50

Pu (ACI)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

-50

-100

-150

-200

Vertical Displacement at Center Column (mm)

Symmetricallyreinforcedbeam( =1.5%)

NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF RC FLAT-PLATES (ONGOING)

Flat-plate buildings, especially those designed prior to 1980s, could be vulnerable to a progressive collapse. ABAQUS using shell elements is used to conduct nonlinear analysis. Concrete damaged plasticity model was used to simulate the property of concrete under tri-axial state of stress. Rebar layer was used to simulate tension and compression mats of slab flexural reinforcement. Preliminary analyses have been conducted. Research assisted by Jinrong Liu.

Behavior of two slab-column connections under simulated gravity loading

5 4 3

Twowayshearstrength(ACI31808)
G1.0 G0.5

4
1

InclinedCrack FirstYielding

0 0 0.5 1 1.5

Center Deflection (in.)

(TestedatUniversityofTexasatAustin)

40

Test results of slab-column connections by (Elstner and Hognestad, 1956)

(=0.99%) (=0.50%) (=0.50%)

Forflatplateswithlowtomoderatereinforcementratios,punchingshear failureisactuallycontrolledbyflexureratherthanshear.

Calibration of modeling parameter

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 50

Specimen A-13, = 0.55%

Vertical Shear (kips)
40 30

Specimen 6AH, = 0.6%

0.8

Specimen T-2
Torque (tonf-m)
0.6

Vertical Shear (kips)

Applied Load

20

P1

P2>P1

Slab
0.4

Column
0.2

10

Lateral Load

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

0 0 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012

Deflection (in)

Deflection (in)

Twist Angle (rad)

Test Result

FE Simulation Result

Simulation results for a one story flat-plate building

PeakDynamicRotationDemand(rad.)

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY AT UNLV

Renovatedfromagymnasium

Strong floor

Strongfloor:32ftlong,28ftwide,and 4ftthickreinforcedconcreteslabwith amatrixofembeddedanchors Anchorunit

CONCLUSIONS
Lateral restraining effect existing in an actual moment frame may significantly increase beam flexural capacity. Even though such effect is generally neglected in a normal design, it can be considered for progressive collapse resistance under extreme loading conditions. Fiber section can best describe the strength and stiffness properties of RC frame beams. Flat-plate buildings, especially older flat-plates, could be at high risk of progressive collapse. Input for industry is needed to better improve current design practice for progressive collapse.

Thank You
QUESTIONS?