Advertisement

International Journal of Civil Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 281–303 | Cite as

Dynamic Increase Factor for Nonlinear Static Analysis of RC Frame Buildings Against Progressive Collapse

  • Massimiliano FerraioliEmail author
Research paper
  • 253 Downloads

Abstract

This paper deals with the dynamic increase factor (DIF) to consider the dynamic effects in the nonlinear static analysis of RC frame buildings subjected to sudden loss of a first-storey column. The study applies nonlinear static and dynamic analyses and focuses on typical seismically designed reinforced concrete buildings. The analysis of these structures until failure requires considering both the geometric and material nonlinearities since the behaviour following sudden column loss is inelastic and possibly implicate catenary effects. Moreover, quantifying the robustness of this type of structure requires the implementation of detailed three-dimensional models. This paper investigates the effects of building properties including the number of storeys, the number of bays and the location of the removed column. The results show that the buildings designed for seismic loads reveal enough capacity to avoid the global collapse, both considering and neglecting the contribution of RC floor slab. The progressive collapse resistance is greater for the external column removal scenario than for the internal column removal scenario. Both the number of floors and the number of bays are not very sensitive parameters for the progressive collapse resistance. The nonlinear static approach leads to a conservative estimation of the collapse resistance when a DIF of 2 is used as the dynamic amplification factor. For the study cases, the response of the building subjected to column loss never involves the hardening phenomenon associated with the catenary action. In this situation, the DIF decreases monotonically with increasing vertical deflection. The lower bound value of DIF is very close to 1, which is the typical value of structures that fully develop their inelastic behaviour after column removal. The simulation results show that the floor slabs can greatly improve the progressive collapse resistance, but have a minor influence on the dynamic increase factor. Thus, the simplification of the problem into 3D bare frames can lead to an accurate estimation of DIF with less computationally intensive analyses.

Keywords

Progressive collapse RC frame buildings Pushdown analysis Dynamic increase factor 

References

  1. 1.
    Kim J, Park JH, Lee TH (2011) Sensitivity analysis of steel buildings subjected to column loss. Eng Struct 33:421–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ferraioli M, Avossa AM, Mandara A (2014) Assessment of progressive collapse capacity of earthquake-resistant steel moment frames using pushdown analysis. Open Constr Build Technol J 8:324–336Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Keyvani L, Sasani M, Mirzaei Y (2014) Compressive membrane action in progressive collapse resistance of RC flat plates. Eng Struct 59:554–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    DOD (2010) Design of building to resist progressive collapse, Unified facility criteria, UFC 4-023-03. US Department of Defense, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    GSA (2003) Progressive collapse analysis and design guidelines for new federal office buildings and major modernization projects. US General Service Administration, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ruth P, Marchand KA, Williamson EB (2006) Static equivalency in progressive collapse alternate path analysis: reducing conservatism while retaining structural integrity. J Perform Constr Facil ASCE 20(4):349–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marchand KA, Alfawakhiri F (2005) Blast and progressive collapse. In: Facts for steel buildings. vol. 2, American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liu M (2013) A new dynamic increase factor for nonlinear static alternate path analysis of building frames against progressive collapse. Eng Struct 48:666–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    GSA (2013) Alternate path analysis and design guidelines for progressive collapse resistance. US General Service Administration, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marchand K, McKay A, Stevens DJ (2009) Development and application of linear and nonlinear static approaches in UFC 4-023-03. In: Proc, structures congress 2009, Austin, Texas, April 30–May 2Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    American Society of Civil Engineers (2006) ASCE 41-06: seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Izzuddin BA, Nethercot DA (2009) Design-oriented approaches for progressive collapse assessment: load-factor vs ductility-centred methods. ASCE Struct Congress, AustinGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ferraioli M (2016) Dynamic increase factor for pushdown analysis of seismically designed steel moment-resisting frames. Int J Steel Struct 16(3):857–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    ACI 318 (2011) Building code requirement for structural concrete. American Concrete Institute, Farmington HillsGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lampert P (1973) Post-cracking stiffness of reinforced concrete beams in torsion and bending. ACI Special Publication SP-35, ACI, pp 385–433Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sasani M (2008) Response of a reinforced concrete infilled-frame structure to removal of two adjacent columns. Eng Struct 30:2478–2491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ferraioli M (2015) Case study of seismic performance assessment of irregular RC buildings: hospital structure of Avezzano (L’Aquila, Italy). Earthq Eng Eng Vib 14(1):141–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Seismosoft (2016) SeismoStruct 2016—A computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed structures. Available from http://www.seismosoft.com
  19. 19.
    Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng 114(8):1804–1826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mari A, Scordelis A (1984) Nonlinear geometric material and time dependent analysis of three dimensional reinforced and prestressed concrete frames. SESM Report 82-12, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rashidian O, Abbasnia R, Ahmadi R, Nav FM (2016) Progressive collapse of exterior reinforced concrete beam–column sub-assemblages: considering the effects of a transverse frame. Int J Concr Struct Mater 10(4):479–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Correia AA, Virtuoso FBE (2006) Nonlinear analysis of space frames. In: Mota Soares et al. (eds) Proc. Third European conference on computational mechanics: solids, structures and coupled problems in engineering. Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pankaj P, Lin E (2005) Material modelling in the seismic response analysis for the design of RC framed structures. Eng Struct 27(7):1014–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bao Y, Kunnath SK, El-Tawil S, Lew HS (2008) Macromodel-based simulation of progressive collapse: RC frame structures. J Struct Eng ASCE 134(7):1079–1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Iribarren BS (2011) Progressive collapse simulation of reinforced concrete structures: influence of design and material parameters and investigation of the strain rate effects. Ph.D. thesis, Polytechnic Faculty, Faculty of Applied SciencesGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN) (2004) Eurocode 8—design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures, European Communities for Standardization, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Paulay T, Priestley MJN (1992) Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. Wiley, New York, pp 98–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kiani Jalal, Khanmohammadi Mohammad (2015) New approach for selection of real input ground motion records for incremental dynamic analysis (IDA). J Earthq Eng 19(4):592–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vamvatsikos D, Allin Cornell C (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Italian Code-NTC08 (2008) Norme tecniche per le costruzioni in zone sismiche. Ministerial Decree D.M. 14.01.08, G.U. No. 9—04.02.08 (in Italian) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Iran University of Science and Technology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringDesign, Building and Environment, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”Aversa (CE)Italy

Personalised recommendations