Analytical study on the behaviour of G+10 RC building subjected to progressive collapse using ETABS

1. ANALYTICAL STUDY ON THE BEHAVIOUR OF G+10 RC BUILDING
SUBJECTED TO PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE USING ETABS
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
(PHASE-II REVIEW)
GROUP MEMBERS REGISTER NO
R. ARUN 14TA2903
N. SATHISH 14TA2919
B. THIYAGARAJAN 14TA2929
R. VASANTH 14TA2930
GUIDED BY
Mr. R.VIGHNESHWARAN
(Assistant Professor Department of Civil Engineering )
1

2. Introduction:
The progressive collapse of building is initiated when one or more vertical
load carrying members (typically columns) is removed.
 When a column is removed, (due to a vehicle impact, fire, earthquake, man-
made or natural hazards) the building’s weight (gravity load) transfers to
neighboring columns in the structure.
If these neighboring columns are not properly designed to resist and
redistribute the additional gravity load that part of the structure fails.
2

3. 3

4. Need for study:
If the structure shows signs of failure then suitable retrofit measures may also
be suggested.
It is very important to establish the likelihood of progressive collapse of
structures to avoid catastrophic events.
Design the column safely to avoid the progressive collapse.
To study the formation of hinge patterns in different stages using pushover
analysis.
Design the structure to sustain the accidental actions.
4

5. Objective:
To design the G+10 Reinforced concrete structures.
To analyze the structure by Non linear static analysis method.
To identify the critical columns in various seismic Zones.
To perform Pushover analysis for the structure with the removal of
columns as per GSA guidelines.
To determine the potential for progressive collapse.
To give the preventive measures.
5

6. To determine the Axial Load distribution in the columns with
various cases such as frame with all columns, Corner column
removed, Exterior column removed and interior column in various
seismic zones.
To determine the critical column of the Building columns with
various cases such as frame with all columns, Corner column
removed, Exterior column removed and interior column in various
seismic zones.
To study the Hinge Pattern of G+10 multistorey building before and
after removing of column as per GSA guidelines
Scope:
6

7. Literature study summary
7
The literature survey carried out in the present work clearly indicates that
the pushover analysis is one of the powerful tools for predicting the
performance of a building under seismic forces.
Based on these facts, the numerical model development and analysis under
pushover analysis is planned in the present work.
Capacity of the member at any section is calculated as per IS 456:2000
from the obtained reinforcement details after analysis and design.
Member forces are obtained by analysis results carried out in ETABS 16.0.
And result comparison is to be done for these parameters before and after the
progressive collapse of the building.

8. METHODOLOGY
Detailed study of literature review
Removal of Critical column initiate progressive collapse
Check for acceptance as per GSA 2003 guidelines
G+10 RCC building is taken for project
Prepare Plan for G+10 structure
Non linear static analysis is carried out
Determination of Axial load values of column
Result comparison – before and after progressive collapse
Modeling in ETABS
Identification of critical columns
By these evaluation building can be assessed whether
it can withstand progressive collapse 8

9. Modelling
9

10. FRAME WITH ALL COLUMNS: (Plan view)
10

11. Elevation View:
11

12. 3D View Model:
12

13. Result and Discussion
13

14. C1 REMOVED (PLAN VIEW):
Plan View 3D View
The above shown figures are the Plan View and 3D view of the G+10 framed structure with
Corner column c1 removed in the Ground storey.
14

15. COLUMN LOAD(KN)
C1 2849.53
C2 3854.75
C6 3826.19
C7 4666.36
COLUMN LOAD(KN)
C1 0
C2 5199.81
C6 5213.32
C7 4915.29
Axial Load Values of Column: Axial load values of C1 Column removed:
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
C1 C2 C6 C7
C1
REMOVED
FRAME
WITH ALL
COLUMNS
COMPARATIVE GRAPHLOAD(KN)
COLUMN
15

16. C3 COLUMN REMOVED IN GROUND STOREY:
Plan view 3D view
The above shown figures are the Plan View and 3D view of the G+10 framed structure C3 with
the removal of C3 column in the Ground storey.
16

17. COLUMN LOAD(KN)
C3 3956.03
C2 3854.75
C4 3854.72
C8 5059.93
Axial load values of columns:
COLUMN LOAD(KN)
C3 0
C2 5031.78
C4 4698.61
C8 6123.95
Axial load values of C3 column Removed:
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
C3 C2 C4 C8
C3
REMOVED
LOAD(KN)
COLUMN
COMPARATIVE GRAPH
17

18. C5 COLUMN REMOVED IN GROUN STOREY:
Plan view 3D view
The above shown figures are the Plan View and 3D view of the G+10 framed structure with
Corner column c5 was removed in the ground storey. 18

19. COLUMN LOAD(KN)
C5 2849.24
C4 3854.72
C9 4657.67
C10 3826.69
Frame with all Column in Ground storey:
COLUMN LOAD(KN)
C5 0
C4 5199.57
C9 4907.65
C10 5213.83
C5 column removed in ground storey:
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
C5 C4 C9 C10
C5
REMOVED
FRAME WITH
ALL COLUMN
COLUMNS
LOAD(KN)
COMPARATIVE GRAPH
19

20. C13 COLUMN REMOVED IN GROUND STOREY:
Plan view 3D view
The above shown figures are the Plan View and 3D view of the G+10 framed structure
with the removal of middle column in the building C13in Ground storey. 20

21. COLUMN LOAD(KN)
C13 5209.64
C12 4786.71
C14 4786.76
C8 5059.93
C18 5059.82
Frame with all Columns in ground storey:
COLUMN LOAD(KN)
C13 0
C12 6045.76
C14 6048.57
C8 6064.6
C18 6067.9
C13 column removed in ground storey:
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
C13 C12 C14 C8 C18
C13
REMOVED
FRAME
WITH ALL
COLUMNS
COLUMNS
COMPARITIVE GRAPH
LOAD(KN)
21

22. COLUMN C1 REMOVED IN 5TH
STOREY:
Plan view 3D view
The above shown figures are the Plan View and 3D view of the G+10 framed structure
with removal of corner column C1 in Fifth storey. 22

23. COLUMN LOAD(KN)
C1 0
C2 2817.41
C6 3081.36
C7 1711.43
C1 column in 5th storey:
COLUMN LOAD(KN)
C1 1036.75
C2 1280.79
C6 1267.83
C7 1627.08
Frame with all columns in 5th storey
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
C1 C2 C6 C7
C1 REMOVED IN
5TH FLOOR
ALL COLUMN IN
5TH FLOOR
COLUMNS
LOAD(KN)
COMPARITIVE GRAPH
23

24. ZONE COMPARISON:
ZONE ZONE FACTOR SEISMIC INTENSITY
ZONE-I 0.10 LOW
ZONE-II 0.16 MODERATE
ZONE-III 0.24 SEVERE
ZONE-IV 0.36 VERY SEVERE
Similarly, the columns C1, C3, C5, C13 in ground storey and column C1 in 5th floor has to
be analyzed in ZONE 3, ZONE3, ZONE1 and the Critical column was determined and designed
safely to avoid the progressive collapse of the building.
24

25. COLUMN ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 ZONE 4
C1 1594.45 1630.97 2772 2849.53
C2 3666.07 3709.61 3767.66 3854.75
C3 3765.2 3809.24 3867.95 3956.03
C4 3666.04 3709.58 3767.64 3854.72
C5 1468.82 1430.06 2771.72 2849.245
C6 3629.08 3674.57 3735.22 3826.195
C7 4898.14 4900.65 4904 4666.36
C8 5048.3 5050.98 5054.56 5059.93
C9 4898.16 4900.67 4904.02 4657.67
C10 3629.49 3675 3735.68 3826.69
C11 3730.33 3776.26 3837.5 3929.26
C12 5051.76 5053.23 5055.19 4786.76
C13 5209.63 5209.63 5209.63 5209.637
C14 5051.75 5053.21 5055.16 4786.71
C15 3730.76 3776.71 3837.97 3929.86
C16 3629.01 3674.49 3735.15 3826.12
C17 4899.15 4900.67 4904.02 4657.68
C18 5048.27 5050.94 5054.49 5059.82
C19 4898.17 4900.69 4904.14 4666.45
C20 3629.42 3674.93 3735.6 4826.62
C21 1772.53 1436.01 2771.68 2849.209
C22 3666.72 3710.3 3768.4 3855.54
C23 3765.9 3809.96 3868.71 3956.83
C24 3666.69 3710.27 3768.37 3855.519
C25 1468.62 1429.86 2771.4 2848.92
25

26. 0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20 C21 C22 C23 C24 C25
ZONE 1
ZONE 2
ZONE 3
ZONE 4
STOREY 1 FRAME WITH ALL COLUMNS
COULMNS
LOAD(KN)
26

27. COLUMN ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 ZONE 4
C1 0 0 0 0
C2 4777.6 4838 5077.2 5199.81
C6 4913.73 4981.74 5084.15 5213.32
C7 5095.36 5100.79 5132.16 4915.29
COLUMN ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 ZONE 4
C1 1630.97 1630.97 2772 2849.53
C2 3709.61 3709.61 3767.66 3854.75
C6 3674.57 3674.57 3735.22 3826.19
C7 4900.65 4900.65 5054.56 4666.36
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
C1 C2 C6 C7
ZONE 1
ZONE 2
ZONE 3
ZONE 4
COLUMNS
C1 COLUMN REMOVED
LOAD(KN)0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
C1 C2 C6 C7
ZONE 1
ZONE 2
ZONE 3
ZONE 4
COLUMNS
FRAME WITH ALL COLUMNS
Frame with all column in all seismic zones: Frame with C1 column removed in all seismic zones:
27

28. COLUMN ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 ZONE 4
C3 0 0 0 0
C2 4724.38 4842.22 4918.05 5031.78
C4 4788.35 4845.26 4921.15 4698.61
C8 6097.54 6124.06 6124.01 6123.95
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
C3 C2 C4 C8
ZONE 1
ZONE 2
ZONE 3
ZONE 4
COLUMNS
C3 COLUMN REMOVED
LOAD(KN)
COLUMN ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 ZONE 4
C3 3765.2 3809.24 3867.95 3956.03
C2 3666.07 3709.61 3767.66 3854.75
C4 3666.04 3709.58 3767.64 3854.72
C8 5048.3 5050.98 5054.56 5059.93
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
C3 C2 C4 C8
ZONE 1
ZONE 2
ZONE 3
ZONE 4
FRAME WITH ALL COLUMNS
COLUMNS
LOAD(KN) Frame with all columns in ground storey: Frame with C3 column removed in ground storey:
28

29. COLUMN ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 ZONE 4
C5 0 0 0 0
C4 4872.97 4995.24 5076.91 5199.57
C9 5120.02 5125.16 5132.01 4907.65
C10 4872.89 4998.47 5084.61 5213.83
COLUMN ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 ZONE 4
C5 1468.82 1430.06 2771.72 2849.24
C4 3666.04 3709.58 3767.64 3854.72
C9 4898.16 4900.67 4904.02 4657.67
C10 3629.49 3675 3735.68 3826.69
Load distribution in the columns with all seismic zones: C5 column removed in all seismic zones:
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
C5 C4 C9 C10
ZONE 1
ZONE 2
ZONE 3
ZONE 4
COLUMNS
FRAME WITH ALL COLUMNS
AXIALLOAD(KN)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
C5 C4 C9 C10
ZONE 1
ZONE 2
ZONE 3
ZONE 4
C5 COLUMN REMOVED
COLUMNS
AXIALLOAD(KN) 29

30. COLUMN ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 ZONE 4
C13 0 0 0 0
C8 6054.12 6056.54 6062.98 6045.76
C12 6041.9 6042.79 6043.98 6048.57
C14 6044.51 6045.45 6046.7 6064.6
C18 6057.25 6059.71 6062.98 6067.9
COLUMN ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 ZONE 4
C13 5209.63 5209.63 5209.63 5209.64
C8 5048.3 5050.98 5054.56 4786.71
C12 5051.76 5053.23 5055.19 4786.76
C14 5051.75 5053.21 5055.16 5059.93
C18 5048.27 5050.94 5054.49 5059.82
Frame with all columns in ground storey in all Seismic Zones: C13 column removed in all seismic zones:
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
C13 C8 C12 C14 C18
ZONE 1
ZONE 2
ZONE 3
ZONE 4
C13 COLUMN REMOVED
COLUMNS
AXIALLOAD(KN)
4400
4600
4800
5000
5200
5400
C13 C8 C12 C14 C18
ZONE 1
ZONE 2
ZONE 3
ZONE 4
FRAME WITH ALL COLUMNS
COLUMNS
AXIALLOAD(KN)
30

31. COLUMN ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 ZONE 4
C1 0 0 0 0
C2 2863.09 2852.55 2838.49 2817.41
C6 2901.51 2924 2953.99 3081.36
C7 1694.06 1698.07 1703.41 1711.43
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 ZONE 4
C1
C2
C6
C7
5TH FLOOR C1 REMOVED
COLUMNS
AXIALLOAD(KN)
C1 column removed in fifth storey with all seismic zones:
31

32. Force VS Deformation curve
32
PLASTIC DEFORMATION CURVE:

33. Pushover Curve - Base Shear vs Monitored Displacement:
Hinge Pattern in-direction X:
33

34. Hinges pattern in C3 column Removed Model:
Hinge Pattern in-direction Y:
Pushover Curve - Base Shear vs Monitored Displacement:
34

35. 35

36. 36

37. 37

38. 38

39. 39

40. Conclusion:
40
From the analytical result, I would like to conclude that critical column needs special
care at the time of construction and maintenance.
Critical column should be given some extra strengthening such as adding new
concrete jacket with additional reinforcement, using external steel angles, horizontal
strips, wrapping the original column section and retrofitting.
 In practical situation the critical column should not be disturbed by any external
forces.
The planning of building should be made in such a way that, critical column should
not be near to way explosive areas such of kitchen the critical columns should be
avoided from direct impact any external forces such as vehicle impact.

41. References
 Kokot S., Anthoine A., Negro P. and Solomos G, Static and Dynamic Analysis Of A Reinforced Concrete Flat Slab Frame
Building For Progressive Collapse, JRC 62663, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, 2010.
 Kokot S, Literature Survey on Current Methodologies of Assessment of Building Robustness and Avoidance of Progressive
Collapse, JRC 55989, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, 2009.
 Khazaee A, Nonlinear Static and Dynamic Analysis for Assessment of Progressive Collapse Potential in intermediate RC frame
structures, I.J. of Advances in Engineering Sciences 2013; Vol.3, Issue 4.
 Bing-bing Tu, Dong Zhao, Judgment of Key Components during Progressive Collapse. EJGE, 19; PP: 195-204, 2014
 FEMA, World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations,
FEMA 403, 2002.
 Starossek U, Avoiding disproportionate collapse of tall buildings. Structural Engg. International, 3:238–245, 2008.
 Ellingwood B. R, Load and Resistance Factor Criteria for Progressive Collapse Design. Proceedings of the Workshop on
Prevention of Progressive Collapse, Multi-hazard Mitigation, Council of the National Institute of Building Sciences,
Rosemont,2002,
 Ellingwood B. R et al, Best Practices for Reducing the Potential for Progressive Collapse in Buildings, National Institute of
Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, 2007.
 Stevens D., Martin E, Williamson E, McKay A. and Marchand, Recent Developments In Progressive Collapse Design,
Protection Engineering Consultants, San Antonio, Texas, 2013
 Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), Design Of Buildings To Resist Progressive Collapse, Department of Defense (DOD), 2009.
41

42. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing
Buildings, ASCE 41-06, Reston, Virginia, 2006.
 Alrudaini T. M. S, A New Mitigation Scheme to Resist Progressive Collapse of
Reinforced Concrete Buildings. Doctor Thesis, University of Wollongong, 2011
 Iribarren, B. S, Progressive Collapse Simulation of Reinforced Concrete Structures:
Influence of Design and Material Parameters and Investigation of the Strain Rate
Effects. Ph.D. Thesis, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 2011.
 Mwafy A. M., Elnashai A.S, Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC
buildings, Engineering Structures,23, PP: 407–424, 2001
 Rakshith K G, Radhakrishna, Progressive Collapse Analysis Of Reinforced Concrete
Framed Structure, IJRET: I.J. of Research in Engg. and Technology, PP:32-40, 2013
 Gururaja B., and Sridhar R, Progressive Collapse Potential of Irregular Concrete
Building. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE), 67; pp:
320-34, 2014.
 Li Y., Lu X., Guan H. and Ye L, An improved tie force method for progressive
collapse resistance design of reinforced concrete frame structures. Engineering
Structures, 33, PP: 2931–2942, 2011.
42

43. General Services Administration (GSA). (2003). Progressive collapse analysis and
design guidelines for new federal office buildings and major modernization projects,
GSA.
 IS 456:2000 (2005). Plain and reinforced concrete code of practice, 4th Revision,
7th Reprint, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
 IS 1893 (Part 1):2002 (2006). Criteria for earthquake resistant design of
structures.5th Revision, 3rd Reprint, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi
 ETAB v 9.7 analysis reference manual, Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley.
S.R. Damodarasamy and S. Kavitha book name Basics of Structural Dynamics and
a seismic Design is referred for the load calculation and other Purpose.
Image reference for progressive collapse and its URL is
(http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/progressive.html)
Image reference for Domino effect and its URL is
 (https://speakzeasy.wordpress.com/tag/domino-effect/)
43

44. 44