Dynamic Amplification Factor For Progressive Collapse Resistance Analysis of An RC Building

THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS
Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 18, 539–557 (2009)

Published online 24 June 2008 in Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/tal.453
DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTOR FOR PROGRESSIVE

COLLAPSE RESISTANCE ANALYSIS OF AN RC BUILDING
MENG-HAO TSAI* AND BING-HUI LIN

Department of Civil Engineering, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, Neipu, Pingtung, Taiwan
SUMMARY
Linear static (LS), nonlinear static (NS) and nonlinear dynamic analyses were conducted to estimate the progres-
sive collapse resistance of a reinforced concrete building. The step-by-step procedure recommended by the US
General Service Administration was used for the LS analysis. Load-displacement response curves were compared
to investigate the force-based dynamic amplification factor (DAF), which was defined in this study. It was
observed that a constant DAF equal to 2·0 was conservative for estimating the collapse resistance of a ductile
column-removed building. However, the LS procedure may fail to appropriately simulate the inelastic response
of the building. A capacity curve, constructed from the NS load-displacement response, may be applied to predic-
tion of the collapse resistance and DAF for a column-removed building. An analytical method was proposed to
demonstrate the dependency of the DAF on hinge model parameters. The proposed method was capable of pre-
dicting the collapse resistance and the force-based DAF of an inelastic structure under vertical downward loadings.
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
1. INTRODUCTION
Many practicing engineers and academic researchers have been engaged in the prevention of progres-
sive collapse since the partial collapse of the Ronan Point apartment building in 1968. Especially after
the malevolent bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in 1995, several changes in the philosophy
and practice of design for important buildings have been made in the last decade. Resistance of build-
ing structures to progressive collapse has been an essential task for the development of structural
design codes. A number of studies, code approaches, and design strategies or standards have been
reviewed, discussed and/or compared in several recently published literatures (Dusenberry, 2002;
Starossek and Wolff, 2005; Ellingwood, 2006; Mohamed, 2006; Nair, 2006; Starossek, 2006; Elling-
wood et al., 2007). Generally speaking, the investigated subjects are involved with abnormal loading
events, assessment of loadings, analysis methods and design philosophies. An important issue for a
building structure subjected to sudden column loss is its vulnerability to progressive collapse. Reliable
methodologies to reduce the susceptibility to progressive collapse may include improving the structural
integrity, increasing the specific local resistance for critical members and providing sufficient alterna-
tive load paths or redundancy. All the methodologies come to an identical purpose of enhancing the
progressive collapse resistance. Hence, estimation of the collapse resistance for the column-removed
building under vertical downward loadings may be necessary.
Development of analysis methods for evaluating the progressive collapse potential of an existing
or new building has been an imperative subject in recent years. Linear static (LS), nonlinear static
* Correspondence to: Meng-Hao Tsai, Department of Civil Engineering, National Pingtung University of Science and
Technology, No.1 Hseuh-Fu Rd., Neipu, Pingtung 912, Taiwan. E-mail: mhtsai@mail.npust.edu.tw
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

540 M-H. TSAI AND B-H. LIN
(NS), linear dynamic and nonlinear dynamic (ND) methods are four basic approaches for the
progressive collapse analysis. Detailed descriptions of a step-by-step LS procedure have been issued
by the US General Service Administration (GSA 2003) and Department of Defense (DoD, 2005).
Advantages and disadvantages of these basic approaches have been discussed by Marjanishvili
and Agnew (2006). A most attractive merit of the LS procedure over other approaches is its
simplicity in structural modelling and economy in execution. The GSA LS procedure has been
applied to evaluate the potential of a steel moment frame and a reinforced concrete (RC) frame
for progressive collapse (Marjanishvili, 2004; Abruzzo et al., 2006). In the GSA guidelines,
a constant dynamic amplification factor (DAF) equal to 2·0 is assumed to account for the dynamic
effect. Also, a step-by-step scheme of inserting moment-release hinges is utilized to simulate the
inelastic structural behaviour. However, some studies have indicated that the DAF may change
under different force demands (Pretlove et al., 1991; Kaewkulchai and Williamson, 2003;
Kaewkulchai and Williamson, 2004; Harris, 2007). A constant DAF equal to 2·0 may lead to
inconsistent results obtained from the LS procedure and the ND analysis method for progressive
collapse (Lin 2007; Tsai et al., 2007).
A forced-based DAF for an earthquake-resistant RC building subjected to sudden column loss is
defined and investigated in this paper. The GSA LS, NS and ND analysis methods are used to estimate
the progressive collapse resistance of the RC building under four threat-independent, column-removed
conditions. Catenary effect is neglected and only flexural failure mode is considered herein. Load-
displacement response curves obtained from the three methods are compared to evaluate the variation
of the DAF with displacement demand. Efficiency of the LS procedure in capturing the collapse
resistance is also assessed. Application of the capacity curve, which is constructed from the NS load-
displacement response, to estimation of the progressive collapse resistance and DAF is demonstrated.
An analytical methodology is proposed and verified for predicting the collapse resistance and force-
based DAF of a column-removed RC building under vertical downward loadings.
2. A BRIEF OF THE GSA LINEAR ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The step-by-step procedure in the GSA guidelines for performing the linearly elastic, static analysis
starts from removing a vertical support from the location being considered. Then, LS analysis is con-
ducted for the building subjected to a recommended loading, Pst,
Pst = 2 ( DL + 0 ⋅ 25LL ) (1)
where DL and LL represent the dead loads and imposed live loads. The next step is to examine the
demand-to-capacity ratios (DCRs) of members and connections. A member is considered as a failed
member if its shear DCR or its flexural DCRs of both ends and the span itself exceed the correspond-
ing acceptance criterion. At the third step, moment of the member end or connection, of which the
flexural DCR exceeds the allowable value, is released by inserting a hinge. The fourth step is to apply
equal-but-opposite moments to the stub and member end to each side of the inserted hinge. Magnitude
of the moments is equal to the expected flexural strength of the member or connection. Direction of
the moments is consistent with the moment direction in the analysis of the first step. At last, the
analysis is re-run and the aforementioned four steps are repeated. This process is continued until no
DCR exceeds the allowable value. If the DCRs in areas outside of the allowable collapse region still
exceed the acceptance criterion, the building is considered to have a high potential for progressive
collapse. In addition, a vertical downward loading, Pdy,
Pdy = ( DL + 0 ⋅ 25LL ) (2)
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 18, 539–557 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTOR FOR PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE RESISTANCE 541
is suggested in the guidelines for dynamic analysis purpose. Apparently, a DAF equal to ‘2·0’ is
assumed in the recommended procedure.
3. FORCE-BASED DAF
The DAF is usually defined as the ratio of the dynamic displacement response (∆dy) of an elastic
single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system to its static displacement response (∆st) under an equal
applied loading P. That is
∆ dy P kdy kst
DAF = = = (3)
∆ st P kst kdy
where kst and kdy represent the equivalent static and dynamic stiffness of the SDOF system, respectively.
It is usually known as ‘dynamic magnification factor’ (Biggs, 1964; Clough and Penzien, 1993) or
‘displacement response factor’ (Chopra, 1995). As shown in Figure 1, the DAF may also be expressed
as the ratio of the static force response to the dynamic force response under an equal displacement
demand. To distinguish from the displacement-based definition in Equation (3), it is defined as a
force-based DAF and expressed as
DAF = kst kdy = Pst Pdy (4)
where Pst = kst ∆st and Pdy = kdy ∆dy are the required static and dynamic force under the same deflection,
∆ = ∆dy, respectively. The force-based DAF is apparently equal to the displacement-based one in the
elastic range.
When a base column of a building is suddenly destroyed by an accidental load, an instantaneous
downward loading equal to the vertical load supported by the lost column is transferred to the remain-
ing building. This may be described by a step force function as shown in Figure 2, where the rise time
tr is taken as an infinitesimal value. The displacement-based elastic DAF under the step force is
expressed as
P
Static response
Pstt
PCC((ud)
kst
Dynamic
Pdy response
kdy
∆st ∆dy ud ∆
Figure 1. Diagrammatic explanation of the dynamic amplification factor
DOI: 10.1002/tal
δ(DL+0.25LL)
tr t
Figure 2. The step force function for dynamic analyses
W E A B C D
S 5.6 m 6.55 m 5.6 m
GG-4 GG-5 GG-6
3 3
B6-6
5.75 m
b3
B4-6
b3 B5-6
g1
g1
B7-6
GF-4 GF-5 GF-6
2 2
b3 b3
6.6 m
B7-5
B4-5
B6-5
B5-5
b6
GE-4 GE-6
1 1
GE-5
A B C D
Figure 3. Plan dimensions of the building
sin (π t r Tn )
DAF = 1 + (5)
π t r Tn
(Chopra, 1995), where Tn is the structural natural period in the force direction. When the base column
is removed suddenly, the value of tr/Tn may approach zero. Hence, the displacement-based DAF is
approximated to 2·0 and equal to the force-based one.
The multiplier ‘2’ in Equation (1) reflects that the elastic DAF is adopted in the GSA LS analysis
procedure. However, if the transferred vertical load, which is originally supported by the lost column,
causes inelastic response for the remaining building, the DAF may be different from the conventional
value 2·0. This inelastic effect on the force-based DAF for the progressive collapse resistance analy-
sis of an RC building is investigated in the following sections.
4. DESCRIPTIONS AND MODELING OF THE RC BUILDING

4.1 Descriptions
The RC building is a moment-resisting frame structure. It has 11 stories above the ground and a two-
storey basement. Its first storey is an open space for the public. The centre-to-centre plan dimensions
and span arrangement are identical from the ground floor to the roof, as shown in Figure 3. The storey
DOI: 10.1002/tal
height is 3·8 m for the first storey and 3·2 m for the others. In addition to the self weight, a DL of
0·98 kPa is applied to the roof and 0·245 kPa to other floors. The service LL is 4·91 kPa for the roof
and 1·96 kPa for the other floors. Table 1 presents the section dimensions of the RC members for the
building. The concrete strength is equal to 27 500 kPa (4000 psi). The design yield strength is 412
000 kPa (60 000 psi) for the main reinforcements and 275 000 kPa (40 000 psi) for the stirrups. The
spectral response acceleration for seismic design, SaD, is equal to 0·47 g.
4.2 Modelling
A beam-column frame model is constructed for the RC building using the SAP2000 (2002) commercial
program. It is assumed that the model is fixed on the ground. Self weight of the exterior perforated walls
is distributed to the spandrel beams. Also, self weight of the interior brick walls and partitions is esti-
mated and applied to the slab as a distributed load. Thereafter, according to the tributary area, self
weight of the slab and all the imposed DLs and LLs on it are distributed to the beam elements for each
floor. The reinforcement area of member sections is calculated based on the design drawings. The
nominal flexural moment and shear strength vary from 620 kN-m to 1460 kN-m and 730 kN to 920 kN,
respectively, for the beam members. Flexural plastic hinges are assigned to both ends of beam elements.
Default moment-hinge properties based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-273
guidelines (FEMA, 1997) are adopted for the hinge model, as shown in Figure 4. Preliminary studies
(Lin, 2007) indicated that collapse of the RC building subjected to sudden column loss is governed by
the flexural failure mode of beam elements. Also, the column members remain elastic when the ultimate
moment capacities of their connected beam sections have been developed. Hence, shear failure is not
considered and it is assumed that the column members are elastic in this study.
5. PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE RESISTANCE

The progressive collapse resistance is defined as the maximum downward loading capacity of a
column-removed building herein. Four threat-independent, column-removed conditions are consid-
ered. According to the assigned bay line numbers in Figure 3, the removed base columns are 1B, 2A,
Table 1. Dimensions of reinforced-concrete member sections (cm)
Floor Column Beam Joist

1F 70 × 100 50 × 90 30 × 65, 20 × 50
2F∼11F 70 × 90 50 × 75 30 × 65, 20 × 50
M/My
A IO LS CP
1.1 B
1.0
IO: immediate occupancy
LS: life safety
0.005
CP: collapse prevention
0.01
C D
0.02 Hinge
rotation
θp (rad)
0.035
Figure 4. The plastic hinge model
DOI: 10.1002/tal
1A and 2B. They are designated as Case 1B, Case 2A, Case 1A and Case 2B, respectively. LS, NS
and ND analyses are carried out to estimate the progressive collapse resistance of each condition; 5%
inherent damping ratio is assumed for the dynamic analysis.
5.1 GSA linear analysis
In the LS analysis procedure, beam sections with DCRs larger than the acceptance criterion are
replaced with inserted hinges to simulate the inelastic response of the column-removed building under
vertical downward loadings. Apparently, elastic-perfectly plastic models are assumed for the inserted
hinges in the GSA linear procedure. Progressive collapse resistance of the column-removed building
is obtained by performing a series of LS analysis with gradually increased multiplier of (DL + 0·25
LL). The analysis results under several selected load multipliers are summarized in Table 2. The
progressive collapse resistance of the building subjected to sudden column loss is approximated to
3·25, 4·25, 3·5 and 3·75 times of (DL + 0·25 LL) for Case 1B, 2A, 1A and 2B, respectively. The cor-
responding distribution of inserted hinges is shown in Figure 5. When the applied load exceeds the
collapse resistance, a local flexural failure mechanism is formed and the following analyses result in
progressive collapse. Because the number of inserted hinge usually increases with the applied loading,
the required number of execution for completing one analysis increases as well. As a consequence,
the execution time for a complete analysis may be considerable as the applied load close to the pro-
gressive collapse resistance.
Figure 6 shows the load-displacement responses obtained from the incremental LS analyses for the
four conditions. The abscissa is the displacement of the column-removed point. The ordinate is the
loading magnitude expressed in terms of (DL + 0·25 LL). It is observed that the building presents
fairly linear behaviour up to the progressive collapse resistance. The LS load-displacement curves are
analogous to the response of an elastic-perfectly plastic model. It appears that the GSA linear proce-
dure is only appropriate for substantially elastic response analysis.
Table 2. Linear static analysis results
Case Load multiplier Times of run Sum of inserted hinge

1B 2 1 0
2·5 2 3
3 2 5
3·25 5 9
3·5a 6 53
2A 2 1 0
3·24 2 1
4 3 6
4·25 5 13
4·5a 12 52
1A 2 1 0
2·78 2 1
3·5 6 7
3·7a 16 43
2B 2 1 0
2·78 2 2
3·5 2 6
3·75 3 10
4a 7 71
a
Progressive collapse is observed in the analysis.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
A B C D 1 2 3 A B C D 1 2 3
1 1 B B 2 2 A A
(a) (b)
A B C D 1 2 3 A B C D 1 2 3
A 2 2 B B
1 1 A
(c) (d)
Figure 5. (a) Distribution of the inserted hinge for Case 1B. (b) Distribution of the inserted hinge for Case 2A.
(c) Distribution of the inserted hinge for Case 1A. (d) Distribution of the inserted hinge for Case 2B
5.2 NS analysis
Displacement-controlled procedure is used to perform the NS analysis. A maximum deflection of
20 cm is assigned to the column-removed point. The load-displacement responses under those four
conditions are shown in Figure 7. If expressed as a multiplier of (DL + 0·25 LL), the collapse resistance
is equal to 2·5, 3·24, 2·78 and 2·78 for Case 1B, 2A, 1A and 2B, respectively. It is seen that the NS
analysis predicts a smaller progressive collapse resistance than that obtained from the GSA LS
analysis. The response curve of the NS analysis starts to divert from that of the LS analysis as the
building is significantly loaded into inelastic range.
5.3 ND analysis
A series of nonlinear time-history analysis under various dynamic loadings are conducted. The step force
function in Figure 2 is used to simulate the dynamic loading imposed on the column-removed building.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
450%
400%
350%
300%
%(DL+0.25LL)
250%
200%
150%
100% Case 1B Case 2A
50% Case 1A Case 2B
0%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Displacement (cm)
Figure 6. Load-displacement curves from the linear static analyses
450%
400%
350%
300%
%(DL+0.25LL)
250%
200%
150%
100% Case 1B Case 2A
50% Case 1A Case 2B
0%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Displacement (cm)
Figure 7. Load-displacement curves from the nonlinear static analyses
The multiplier of (DL + 0·25 LL), ∆, is increased gradually until extremely large deflection occurs at the
column-removed point. P-∆ effect and large displacement are considered in the ND analysis. Typical
displacement time histories under 1·0, 1·6 and 2·0 times of (DL + 0·25LL) for Case 1B are shown in Figure
8. Peak responses of the displacement time histories are collected to construct the load-displacement curves,
which are shown in Figure 9. The estimated collapse resistance is about 2·15, 2·75, 2·4 and 2·4 times of
(DL + 0·25 LL) for Case 1B, 2A, 1A and 2B, respectively. As compared with the other two methods, the
ND analysis results in lowest collapse resistance. Because of identical plastic hinge models used in the NS
and ND analyses, their progressive collapse resistance is developed at the approximate deflection.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
-1
-2
Displacement (cm) -3
-4
-5 Case 1B
-6 100%(DL+0.25LL)
160%(DL+0.25LL)
-7
200%(DL+0.25LL)
-8
-9
-10
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time (sec)
Figure 8. Typical displacement time histories for Case 1B
450%
400%
350%
300%
% (DL+0.25LL)
250%
200%
150%
Case 1B Case 2A
100%
50% Case 1A Case 2B
0%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Displacement (cm)
Figure 9. Load-displacement curves from the incremental dynamic analyses
5.4 Evaluation and estimation

5.4.1 Evaluation
Table 3 summarizes the progressive collapse resistance obtained by the three different methods for the RC
building under the four conditions. It is seen that the GSA LS procedure leads to largest collapse resistance
and smallest associated displacement under each condition. If elastic-perfectly plastic behaviour is
assumed for the LS load-displacement response, the force-based DAFs may be obtained from dividing the
LS collapse resistance by the ND collapse resistance. As shown in the central column of Table 4, none of
DOI: 10.1002/tal
Table 3. Collapse resistance and displacement response (cm)
Case Linear static Nonlinear static Nonlinear dynamic

a
1B (3·25, 3·4) (2·5, 12·84) (2·15, 12·33)
2A (4·25, 3·95) (3·24, 12·92) (2·75, 12·30)
1A (3·5, 4·2) (2·78, 12·13) (2·4, 12·61)
2B (3·75, 3·6) (2·78, 12·82) (2·4, 12·51)
a
In terms of (load multiplier, displacement).
Table 4. Dynamic amplification factors at the collapse resistance
Case Linear static/nonlinear Nonlinear static/nonlinear

dynamic dynamic
1B 1·52 1·16
2A 1·55 1·18
1A 1·46 1·16
2B 1·56 1·16
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
DAF
0.8
0.6
0.4 Case 1B Case 2A
0.2 Case 1A Case 2B
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Displacement (cm)
Figure 10. Variation of the dynamic amplification factor (DAF) for the column-removed conditions
the DAF is close to 2·0. This reveals that a DAF equal to 2·0 will lead to conservative estimation of the
progressive collapse resistance if the column-removed building has ductile nonlinear response.
From the comparison of the LS and NS analysis results, it is realized that the GSA LS procedure
does not really capture the NS behaviour. Therefore, the force-based DAF estimated from the LS and
ND analysis results does not account for the inelastic effect correctly. The DAF obtained from the NS
and ND analysis results may reflect the inelastic effect adequately because identical hinge models are
used in both analyses. As shown in Table 4, the DAF is less than the conventional value 2·0 and that
estimated from the LS and ND analysis results. Furthermore, variation of the DAF with the displace-
ment demand may be obtained as shown in Figure 10. It is seen that the DAF decreases with increas-
ing displacement of the column-removed point. A constant DAF equal to 2·0 is no longer valid for
DOI: 10.1002/tal
the inelastic responses of structures. Under the displacement demand of collapse resistance, the DAF
may decrease to 1·16, which is similar to that observed by Ruth et al. (2006).
5.4.2 Estimation
Nonlinear incremental dynamic analysis is usually a promising method for analyzing the progressive
collapse resistance. Nevertheless, it is time-consuming to perform the incremental dynamic analysis
for the maximum loading capacity. As a consequence, an efficient approach may be needed to predict
the collapse resistance precisely. The area below the NS load-displacement curve represents the stored
energy of the column-removed building under the downward loading. A capacity curve may be con-
structed by dividing the accumulated stored energy by its corresponding displacement (Abruzzo et al.,
2006). It is mathematically expressed as
ud
1
PCC (ud ) =
ud ∫P NS (u ) du (6)
0
where PCC(u) and PNS(u) are the capacity function and the NS loading estimated at the displacement
demand u, respectively.
The capacity curves of those four conditions, as well as their LS, NS and ND load-displacement
curves, are compared separately in Figure 11. It is seen that the capacity curve approximately coincides
with the ND curve up to the maximum loading. Therefore, the capacity curve generated from the NS
load-displacement curve may be used to predict the progressive collapse resistance of the column-
removed building. Based on the principle of conservation of energy, PCC (ud) in Equation (6) represents
the equivalent dynamic loading under the displacement demand ud. Hence, for a building subjected to
sudden column loss, the column-removed point will reach a maximum displacement response such
that both the hatched areas in Figure 1 are equal.
The predicted collapse resistance is 2·16, 2·78, 2·38, and 2·40 times of (DL + 0·25 LL) for Case
1B, 2A, 1A and 2B, respectively.
Moreover, the force-based DAF may be estimated from dividing the NS load-displacement curve
by its corresponding capacity curve up to the collapse resistance. As shown in Figure 12, the predicted
DAF agrees well with that in Figure 10. In general, the displacement-based DAF of an inelastic struc-
ture is larger than 2·0. However, the force-based DAF is less than 2·0 for an inelastic structure. From
the analysis results, it is realized that the NS analysis approach is very efficient in progressive collapse
analysis. The collapse resistance and DAF may be estimated directly from the capacity curve without
the need for time-consuming ND analyses.
6. ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY FOR THE FORCE-BASED DAF

The previous discussion indicates that an analytical expression of DAF may be derived if the NS
load-displacement curve is given. Meanwhile, different plastic hinge models may lead to significantly
different results. An analytical methodology and dependence of the predicted DAF on model param-
eters are demonstrated as follows.
6.1 Bilinear elastic-plastic system

Consider a bilinear elastic-plastic SDOF model with elastic stiffness k, yielding displacement ∆y, and
post-stiffness ratio a, as shown in Figure 13(a). For ∆ ≤ ∆y, the stored strain energy Es, static force
Pst and estimated dynamic force Pdy are expressed as
DOI: 10.1002/tal
450% 450%
GSA method Nonlinear static Case 2A
400% Case 1B 400%
Nonlinear dynamic Capacity curve
350% 350%
300% 300%
% (DL+0.25LL)
%(DL+0.25LL)
250% 250%
200% 200%
150% 150%
100% 100% GSA method Nonlinear static
50% 50% Nonlinear dynamic Capacity curve
0% 0%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Displacement (cm) Displacement (cm)
450% 450%
Case 1A Case 2B
400% 400%
350% 350%
300% 300%
%(DL+0.25LL)
%(DL+0.25LL)
250% 250%
200% 200%
150% 150%
100% 100% GSA method Nonlinear static

GSA method Nonlinear static
50% Nonlinear dynamic Capacity curve
50% Nonlinear dynamic Capacity curve
0% 0%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Displacement (cm)
Displacement (cm)
Figure 11. (a) Load-displacement curves of Case 1B. (b) Load-displacement curves of Case 2A. (c) Load-
displacement curves of Case 1A. (d) Load-displacement curves of Case 2B
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
DAF
0.8
0.6
Case 1B Case 1A
0.4
Case 2A Case 2B
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Displacement (cm)
Figure 12. Estimated dynamic amplification factors
DOI: 10.1002/tal
1 2
Es = k ∆ , Pst = k ∆ (7)
2
Es 1 1
Pdy = = k ∆ = Pst (8)
∆ 2 2
As expected, the force-based DAF is equal to Pst/Pdy, which is 2. For ∆ > ∆y, similar derivation is
followed to obtain that
Es = Ey (1 + α ( µ − 1) + 2 ( µ − 1))
2
(9)
Ey
Pst = 2 (1 + α ( µ − 1)) (10)
∆y
Es Ey
Pdy =
∆
=
∆
(1 + α ( µ − 1) + 2 ( µ − 1))
2
(11)
where Ey = k∆2y /2 and m = ∆/∆y . Hence, the DAF is derived as
2 µ (1 + α ( µ − 1))
DAF = Pst Pdy = (12)
1 + α ( µ − 1) + 2 ( µ − 1)
2
Maximum Pdy will be the progressive collapse resistance for the inelastic model. If Pdy in Equation
(11) is differentiated with respect to m and set equal to zero, it results in m2 = (a − 1)/α. When a < 0,
a positive ductility m may be obtained and substituted into Equation (11) for the collapse resistance.
As for a = 0, it is easy to prove that the collapse resistance will approach the yielding force, k∆y , as
m approaches infinity. Pdy will increase monotonically with ductility if a > 0, as presented by the dash
curve in Figure 13(a).
The curves in Figure 13(b) show the analytical DAF with varying ductility m for three selected
post-stiffness ratios. It is seen that the DAF is sensitive to the post-stiffness ratio a. For a ≥ 0,
the DAF decreases from 2·0 to less than 1·4 as m increases from approximately 1·0 to 3·0. After
that, the DAF slightly increases with ductility at a gentle rate. For a = 0, the DAF asymptotically
approaches 1·0 as the ductility increases towards infinity. However, the analytical DAF shows
a monotonic decrease for a negative a. These evidences reveal that the force-based DAF will be
larger than or at least equal to 1·0 for a bilinear inelastic system with non-negative post-elastic
stiffness.
6.2 Rigid-plastic system

For a rigid-plastic SDOF model with post-stiffness kp, as shown in Figure 14(a), the stored strain
energy, static force and estimated dynamic force are written as
∆
Es = ( 2 Fy + kp ∆ ) (13)
2
Pst = Fy + kp ∆ (14)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
force Linear static
k p = αk Nonlinear static
Fy
k
Nonlinear dynamic
∆y ∆ displacement
(a)
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
DAF
0.8
0.6
α = 0.1
0.4
Curves: analytical α=0
0.2 Symbols: numerical
α = −0.1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Ductility
(b)
Figure 13. (a) A schematic of the bilinear elastic-plastic model. (b) Variation of the analytical dynamic
amplification factor (DAF) for bilinear single-degree-of-freedom model
Es 1
Pdy = = ( 2 Fy + kp ∆ ) (15)
∆ 2
where Fy is the yielding force. Hence, the force-based DAF is expressed as
2 (1 + ∆kp Fy )
DAF = Pst Pdy = (16)
2 + ∆kp Fy
which is a function of ∆kp /Fy. It is observed from Equation (15) that Pdy will increase with displace-
ment demand if kp > 0, as shown by the dash curve in Figure 14(a). As it is differentiated with respect
to ∆, the result will be kp /2. This means that the collapse resistance of a rigid-perfectly plastic model
(kp = 0) will be equal to the yielding force Fy. If kp < 0, unstable inelastic response will be obtained.
This will be investigated numerically in a later section.
The curve in Figure 14(b) shows the DAF of a rigid-plastic model with respect to varying ∆kp /Fy
Negative values of ∆kp /Fy represent unstable inelastic behaviour under vertical loadings. For a rigid-
DOI: 10.1002/tal
force
Nonlinear static
kp ∆kp
Fy
Nonlinear dynamic
∆ displacement
(a)
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
DAF
0.8
0.6
0.4
Analytical
0.2 Numerical
0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
kp∆/Fy
(b)
Figure 14. (a) A schematic of the rigid-plastic model. (b) Variation of the analytical dynamic amplification
factor (DAF) for rigid-plastic model
perfectly plastic model, ∆kp /Fy is equal to zero and its DAF is 1·0, irrespective of the displacement.
For positive post stiffness, the DAF increases steadily towards 2·0 with displacement demand.
6.3 Application to elastic response

In a complete GSA LS analysis procedure, most of the execution time is occupied by the examination
of DCRs and insertion of moment-released hinges. On the premise of given NS load-displacement
response, a similar methodology may be applied to the LS analysis without the need for inserting
moment-released hinges. Considering the aforementioned bilinear elastic-plastic SDOF model, the
force-based DAF for its elastic counterpart, which is represented by a dashed line in Figure 13(a),
may be calculated as
2µ 2
DAFe1 = (17)
1 + α ( µ − 1) + 2 ( µ − 1)
2
DOI: 10.1002/tal
DAFel is the ratio of the imposed loading on the LS counterpart to that on the bilinear elastic-plastic
model under an equal displacement demand. The curves in Figure 15 show the variation of DAFel
with ductility demand for the selected post-stiffness ratios. It is seen that DAFel is larger than or at
least equal to 2·0. The sensitivity of DAFel to a is getting pronounced as m increases. Hence, if the
yielding displacement ∆y and allowable ductility m of an elastic-plastic model are known, its progres-
sive collapse resistance, Pcu, may be estimated by
µ∆ y δ ( DL + 0 ⋅ 25 LL )
Pcu = (18)
∆0 DAFe1
where ∆0 is the displacement response of the elastic counterpart subjected to a small downward loading
d(DL + 0·25 LL).
6.4 Numerical verification

The analytical method is verified by carrying out a series of nonlinear time-history analysis on the
SDOF models with different nonlinear parameters. The detailed model parameters are listed in Table
5. The step force function (Figure 2) with an incremental magnitude is imposed on the SDOF model
12
α = 0.1
10 α=0
α = −0.1
8
DAFel
2
Curves: analytical
Symbols: numerical
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Ductility
Figure 15. The variation of dynamic amplification factor (DAF)el with ductility demand
Table 5. Model parameters for numerical verification
Bilinear model Rigid-plastic model

Self weight W (kN) 9·81 9·81
Yield force Fy (kN) W W
Yield displacement (cm) 5 0
Post-stiffness kp (kN/m) −19·62, 0, 19·62 −19·62, 0, 19·62
Post-stiffness ratio a −0·1, 0, 0·1 Not applied
DOI: 10.1002/tal
for the ND analysis. The symbols in Figure 16 present the numerical load-displacement responses for
the bilinear and rigid-plastic models, respectively. The ordinate is the ratio of the applied loading to
the yielding force. Excellent agreement is obtained for the numerical response and the analytical
prediction, which is presented by curves in the figures. It is noted that for the rigid-plastic model with
negative or zero post stiffness, divergent inelastic response is observed. This indicates that collapse
will occur if it is loaded into the inelastic range. Also, only limited ductility is available for the
2
Curves: analytical α = 0.1
1.8
Symbols: numerical
α=0
1.6
α = −0.1
1.4
1.2
Pdy / Fy
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Ductility
(a)
3.5
2.5
Pdy / Fy
1.5
1
Numerical
0.5
Analytical
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
kp ∆/Fy
(b)
Figure 16. (a) The load-ductility curves for the bilinear model. (b) The load-displacement curve for the
rigid-plastic model
DOI: 10.1002/tal
bilinear model with negative post stiffness. If strength deterioration is neglected, positive post stiffness
ensures gradually increased resistance with displacement demand.
The numerical force-based DAF is calculated by dividing the NS force by the dynamically applied
loading. The symbols in Figures 13(b) and 14(b) are the numerical DAFs for the bilinear and the
rigid-plastic models, respectively. It is seen that the numerical results are precisely consistent with the
analytical estimations. Hence, the force-based DAF of an inelastic system may be accurately predicted
from the capacity curve. The analytical DAF may be less than 1·0 for the bilinear or rigid-plastic
model with negative post stiffness. However, a numerical DAF less than 1·0 will never be obtained
because of structural instability. A predicted value less than 1·0 indicates a consequence of collapse
under the imposed vertical load.
Likewise, the numerical estimations of DAFel, as marked in Figure 15, are in good agreement with
the analytical curves; its numerical and analytical load-displacement responses are exactly the same
as that in Figure 16(a). Because of structural instability in the plastic range, the numerical DAFel
is bounded rather than increased monotonically for the elastic-plastic model with negative post
stiffness.
7. CONCLUSIONS
Progressive collapse resistance analysis of a seismically designed RC building subjected to sudden
column loss has been performed by using linear static, NS and ND methods. The LS analysis proce-
dure is recommended by the GSA. According to the analysis results, the force-based DAF, as defined
in this paper, decreases with increasing inelastic displacement demand. The conventional DAF, 2·0,
will lead to conservative estimation of the collapse resistance for a ductile column-removed building.
The GSA LS analysis procedure is valid when the column-removed building is substantially elastic.
Meanwhile, it is realized that the collapse resistance may be accurately estimated from the capacity
curve, which is constructed from the NS load-displacement response. It may also be utilized to capture
the variation of the force-based DAF with displacement. Hence, the NS analysis method appears to
be more efficient than the other methods. An analytical expression of the DAF may be derived if the
NS load-displacement curve is known. It is shown that the inelastic force-based DAF is sensitive to
the hinge model parameters. In general, larger post-elastic stiffness leads to a larger force-based DAF.
It is numerically demonstrated that under vertical loadings, the force-based DAF must be larger than
1·0 for stable inelastic behaviour.
REFERENCES
Abruzzo J, Matta A, Panariello G. 2006. Study of mitigation strategies for progressive collapse of a reinforced
concrete commercial building. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE 20(4): 384–390.
Biggs JM. 1964. Introduction to Structural Dynamics. McGraw-Hill: New York.
Chopra AK. 1995. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering. Prentice-Hall:
New Jersey.
Clough RW, Penzien J. 1993. Dynamics of Structures. McGraw-Hill: New York.
DoD. 2005. Unified Facilities Criteria: Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Collapse, UFC 4-023-03. US
Department of Defense Washington DC.
Dusenberry DO. 2002. Review of existing guidelines and provisions related to progressive collapse. Workshop
on Prevention of Progressive Collapse, National Institute of Building Sciences: Washington DC, 2002.
Ellingwood BR. 2006. Mitigating risk from abnormal loads and progressive collapse. Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, ASCE 20(4): 315–323.
Ellingwood BR, Smilowitz R, Dusenberry DO, Duthinh D, Lew HS, Carino NJ. 2007. Best Practices for Reduc-
ing the Potential for Progressive Collapse in Buildings, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
NISTIR-7396: Washington D.C.
DOI: 10.1002/tal
FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1997. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings (FEMA-273). Building Seismic Safety Council: Washington, DC.
GSA. 2003. Progressive Collapse Analysis and Design Guidelines for New Federal Office Buildings and Major
Modernization Projects. US General Service Admenistration Washington, DC.
Harris J. 2007. Recommendations for dynamic amplification for disproportional collapse analysis of tall buildings.
In Proceedings of PROTECT 2007, Structures under Extreme Loading, Whistler, Canada, Aug. 20–22,
CDROM.
Kaewkulchai G, Williamson EB. 2003. Dynamic behavior of planar frame during progressive collapse. In 16th
ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conference, University of Washington, Seattle, July 16–18, 629–640.
Kaewkulchai G, Williamson EB. 2004. Beam element formulation and solution procedure for dynamic progres-
sive collapse analysis. Computers and Structures 82: 639–651.
Lin BH. 2007. Progressive collapse analysis and evaluation of an earthquake-resistant RC building. MS Thesis,
National Pingtung University of Science and Technology.
Marjanishvili SM. 2004. Progressive analysis procedure for progressive collapse. Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, ASCE 18(2): 79–85.
Marjanishvili S, Agnew E. 2006. Comparison of various procedures for progressive collapse analysis. Journal of
Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE 20(4): 365–374.
Mohamed OA. 2006. Progressive collapse of structures: annotated bibliography and comparison of codes and
standards. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE 20(4): 418–425.
Nair RS. 2006. Preventing disproportionate collapse. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE
20(4): 309–314.
Pretlove AJ, Ramsden M, Atkins AG. 1991. Dynamic effects in progressive failure of structures. International
Journal of Impact Engineering 11(4): 539–46.
Ruth P, Marchand KA, Williamson EB. 2006. Static equivalency in progressive collapse alternate path analysis:
reducing conservatism while retaining structural integrity. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities,
ASCE 20(4): 349–364.
SAP2000®. 2002. Linear and Nonlinear Static and Dynamic Analysis and Design of Three-Dimensional Struc-
tures. Version 8·0 analysis reference manual, Computers and Structures Inc.: Berkeley, CA.
Starossek U. 2006. Progressive collapse of structures: nomenclature and procedures. IABSE, Structural Engineer-
ing International 16(2): 113–117.
Starossek U, Wolff M. 2005. Progressive collapse: design strategies. In IABSE Symposium, Structures and
Extreme Events, Lisbon, Portugal, Sep. 14–17, http://server.sh.tu-harburg.de
Tsai MH, Lu JK, Lin BH. 2007. Progressive collapse analysis of a seismically designed RC building in Taiwan.
In Proceedings of PROTECT 2007, Structures under Extreme Loading, Whistler, Canada, Aug. 20–22, CD-
ROM.
DOI: 10.1002/tal

Dynamic Amplification Factor For Progressive Collapse Resistance Analysis of An RC Building

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Dynamic Amplification Factor For Progressive Collapse Resistance Analysis of An RC Building

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 18, 539–557 (2009)

DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTOR FOR PROGRESSIVE

MENG-HAO TSAI* AND BING-HUI LIN

Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2. A BRIEF OF THE GSA LINEAR ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

Pst = 2 ( DL + 0 ⋅ 25LL ) (1)

Pdy = ( DL + 0 ⋅ 25LL ) (2)

DAF = kst kdy = Pst Pdy (4)

Figure 2. The step force function for dynamic analyses

Figure 3. Plan dimensions of the building

4. DESCRIPTIONS AND MODELING OF THE RC BUILDING

5. PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE RESISTANCE

Floor Column Beam Joist

Figure 4. The plastic hinge model

Table 2. Linear static analysis results

Case Load multiplier Times of run Sum of inserted hinge

100% Case 1B Case 2A

50% Case 1A Case 2B

Figure 6. Load-displacement curves from the linear static analyses

100% Case 1B Case 2A

50% Case 1A Case 2B

Figure 7. Load-displacement curves from the nonlinear static analyses

Figure 8. Typical displacement time histories for Case 1B

50% Case 1A Case 2B

Figure 9. Load-displacement curves from the incremental dynamic analyses

5.4 Evaluation and estimation

Table 3. Collapse resistance and displacement response (cm)

Case Linear static Nonlinear static Nonlinear dynamic

Table 4. Dynamic amplification factors at the collapse resistance

Case Linear static/nonlinear Nonlinear static/nonlinear

0.4 Case 1B Case 2A

0.2 Case 1A Case 2B

6. ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY FOR THE FORCE-BASED DAF

6.1 Bilinear elastic-plastic system

100% 100% GSA method Nonlinear static

50% 50% Nonlinear dynamic Capacity curve

100% 100% GSA method Nonlinear static

Figure 12. Estimated dynamic amplification factors

where Ey = k∆2y /2 and m = ∆/∆y . Hence, the DAF is derived as

6.2 Rigid-plastic system

force Linear static

where Fy is the yielding force. Hence, the force-based DAF is expressed as

6.3 Application to elastic response

6.4 Numerical verification

Table 5. Model parameters for numerical verification

Bilinear model Rigid-plastic model

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen