CONTROLLED DEMOLITION OF A MULTI-STORY REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES "BUILDING IMPLOSION"

Description
This problem shows a multi-story reinforced concrete frame subjected explosives force Fig. 1 shows the geometry and reinforcement of the frame. It is shown in Fig. 1 the locations of explosives and time of explosion. The left column is detonated after 0.1 seconds while the middle column after 0.2 seconds. The right column is detonated after 0.3 seconds. Simulation is performed using 2766 elements, as shown in Fig. 2. Analysis took approximately ten hours to simulate the first 5.0 seconds of collapse on a PC.
1.00 5.00 1.00 5.00
As=15 cm2

0.25 1.00

Point of Stress Calculation

1.00 30.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 5.00
(0.1 Sec.) Implosion Level (0.2 Sec.) Implosion Level (0.3 Sec.) Implosion Level

As=15 cm

Beam Sec.
As=10 cm2 top/bottom

2.00

0.25 1.00

Column Sec.
2.00
Stirrups: 2 As=5 cm/25 cm

2.00 1.00 7.00 1.00 17.00 7.00

Solid Ground

1.00

Fig. 1, Geometry and Reinforcement Distribution of a Multi-Story Frame Subjected to Controlled Demolition

Fig. 2, Mathematical Model

Material properties
Steel
For reinforcement springs, the model presented in the previous research1) is used and is shown in Fig. 3. The tangent stiffness of reinforcement is calculated based on the strain from the reinforcement spring, loading status (either loading or unloading) and the previous history of steel spring, which controls the Bauschinger's effect. The main advantage of this model is that it can easily take into account the effects of partial unloading and Baushinger's effect without any additional complications to the analysis. Reinforcement bars are assumed to be cut, which is not realistic in some cases, after reaching 1.5 times the yield stress value.

Stress

y1

Tension

Eo/n

Eo

Strain
y2

Compression

Fig. 3 Stress-Strain curve for Steel 1) Where, n= post yield slope=100

Youngs Modulus (E) ( kN / m2 )

y1

(kN / m )

(kN / m2 )

y2

2.10E+08

2.40E+05

2.40E+05

Concrete
As a material modeling of concrete under compression condition, Maekawa compression model2), as shown in Fig. 4, is adopted. In this model, the initial Young's modulus, the fracture parameter, representing the extent of the internal damage of concrete, and the compressive plastic strain are introduced to define the envelope for compressive stresses and compressive strains. Therefore, unloading and reloading can be conveniently described. For more details, refer to Ref. (2). The tangent modulus is calculated according to the strain at the spring location. To consider the biaxial confinement effects in compression zones, Kupfer3) biaxial failure function is adopted. A modified compressive strength, fceq, is calculated using Eq. (1). This indicates that the compressive resistance associated with each spring is variable and depends mainly on the stress situation at the spring location. To determine the principal stress components 1 and 2, refer to Sec. 2.3.

f ceq =

1 + 3.65(1 2 )

(1 + 1

2 )2

fc

(1)

After peak stresses, spring stiffness is assumed as a minimum value to avoid negative stiffness. This results in a difference between calculated stress and stress corresponding to the spring strain. These residual stresses are redistributed by applying the redistributed force values in the reverse direction. For concrete springs subjected to tension, spring stiffness is assumed as the initial stiffness until reaching the cracking point. After cracking, stiffness of springs subjected to tension is set to be zero.

S tr e s s

c
Loa di n g

C o m p r e s s io n
o ad R el in g

p
T e n s io n

Unlo

ading

S tr a in

Fig. 4 Stress-Strain curve for Concrete2)

Youngs Modulus (E) (kN / m2 )

c (kN / m2 )
2.00E+03

t (kN / m2 )
25.00E+03

(t / m 3 )

2.10E+07

4.0 (columns) or 7.0 (Beams)

Cracking Model
One of the main problems associated with the use of elements having three degrees of freedom is the modeling of diagonal cracking. Applying Mohr-Coloumbs failure criteria calculated from normal and shear springs, not based on principal stresses, has some problems. When the structure is really composed of individual elements, such as granular material or brick masonry buildings, Mohr-Coloumbs failure criteria is reasonable. However, when we use elements by dividing the structure virtually, which is not really composed of elements, for convenience of numerical simulation, adopting Mohr-Coloumbs failure criteria leads to inaccurate simulation of fracture behavior of the structure. It was proved in Ref. 4 that stresses and strains around each element could be calculated accurately. The idea of the proposed technique is to explain how using the calculated stresses around each element to detect the occurrence of cracks. To determine the principal stresses at each spring location, the following technique is used. Referring to Fig. 5, the shear and normal stress components ( and 1) at point (A) are determined from the normal and shear springs attached at the contact

point location. The secondary stress (2) can be calculated by Eq. 2 from normal stresses in points (B) and (C), as shown in Fig. 5.
2 =

(a x ) x B + C a a

(2)

The principal tension is calculated:

+ 2 2 2 p = 1 + 1 + ( ) 2 2
2

(3)

The value of principal stress (p) is compared with the tension resistance of the studied material. When p exceeds the critical value of tension resistance, the normal and shear spring forces are redistributed in the next increment by applying the normal and shear spring forces in the reverse direction. These redistributed forces are transferred to the element center as a force and moment, and then these redistributed forces are applied to the structure in the next increment. The redistribution of spring forces at the crack location is very important for following the proper crack propagation. For the normal spring, the whole force value is redistributed to have zero tension stress at the crack faces. Although shear springs at the location of tension cracking might have some resistance after cracking due to the effect of friction and interlocking between the crack faces, the shear stiffness is assumed zero after crack occurrence.

(C)
d

P 2

1 (A) (B)

Contact point

a
Fig. 5 Principal Stress determination

Shear Model
Shear model is approximately considered in the analysis according to Fig. 6. The shear stress-strain relation is assumed linear until reaching the cracking point. After cracking, due to shear transfer and shear locking, a part of the shear stresses is redistributed (RV). The RV factor was taken as 1.0 in this simulation.

Cracking point Redistributed value (RV)

Fig. 6 Shear Stress-Strain Relation Before and After Cracking

Limitations of Used Models

It should be emphasized that some other failure occurrences, as buckling of reinforcement and spalling of concrete cover, are not considered in the analysis in this paper. However, the shear transfer and shear softening are approximately considered in the analysis. The assumption of reinforcement bars cut may be acceptable for bars of small diameters; however, it is not realistic in cases of bars of large area. The effects of loading rate on the material properties were also neglected.

Results
Many interesting results are detailed through this sample. The following factors were considered in the analysis and can be customized to fit other situations: 1- Explosives can be set at any location in the problem to be solved 2- Explosives time lag effects can be considered easily 3- In the used mesh, you do not need to have any previous information concerning how the structure will collapse 4- The crack initiation and propagation can be traced easily until failure at any location 5- The program detects automatically the contact location and sets contact normal and shear springs at contact points. The cracking closure phenomenon can also be traced 6- The nonlinear behavior of reinforcement bars, stirrups and concrete in both tension and compression can be simulated 7- Normal and shear stresses and strains can be traced at any point, steel or concrete, at any time.

Figure 7 shows a screen shot of the structure during collapse. Figure 8 shows the displacement-time relation of an arbitrary element while Fig. 9 the stress-time relation of the steel bar shown at Fig. 2.

Fig. 7, Collapse Behavior of the Structure

Displacement Curve
0 Y-Displacement (m) -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 -14 Time (Sec.) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Fig. 8, Displacement-Time Relation of Top of the Frame

Stress-Strain Curver in RFT Bar

300000 200000 Stress (kN/m2) 100000 0 0 -100000 -200000 -300000 Time (Sec.) 1 2 3 4 5

Fig. 9, Stress-Strain Relation at point shown in Fig. 2.

References
1. 2. 3. 4. Ristic D., Yamada Y., and Iemura H.: Stress-strain based modeling of hystertic structures under earthquake induced bending and varying axial loads, Research report, No. 86-ST-01, School of Civil Engineering, Kyoto University, 1986. Okamura H. and Maekawa K.: Nonlinear analysis and constitutive models of reinforced concrete, Gihodo Co. Ltd., Tokyo, 1991. Kupfer H., Hilsdorf, H.K., Rusch H.: Behavior of concrete under biaxial stresses, ACI journal, V. 66, No. 8, pp. 656-666, Aug. 1969. Meguro K. and Tagel-Din H.: Applied Element Method for structural analysis: theory and application for linear materials, Structural Eng./Earthquake Eng., JSCE, Vol. 17, No. 1, 21s-35s, April 2000.