Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 400–412

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruc

Progressive collapse simulation of precast panel shear walls

during earthquakes
O.A. Pekau *, Yuzhu Cui
Department of Building, Civil, and Environmental Engineering, Concordia University, 1455 Maisonneuve Blvd. W., Montreal, Canada H3G 1M8

Received 22 May 2004; accepted 29 September 2005

Available online 23 November 2005

Abstract

A distinct element method (DEM) program is modified to model precast panel shear walls. The influence of collapse time t0 of local
failure of a panel is presented. Integrity analyses of a twelve-storey, three-bay precast panel shear wall in different conditions with respect
to earthquakes and progressive collapse are performed focusing on the shear ductility demands of the mechanical connectors in the ver-
tical joints. The whole progressive collapse processes of the panel wall in various conditions are also simulated. Results indicate that if the
design of this precast panel shear wall satisfies the seismic requirements, it will automatically meet the demands of shear ductility of con-
nectors in vertical joints and shear slip in horizontal joints with respect to progressive collapse without earthquakes.

2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Earthquakes; Progressive collapse; Concrete panels; Failure process simulation; Distinct element method

1. Introduction terrorist attack, are the potential sources of abnormal load-

Progressive collapse has increasingly become an impor-
tant research area of civil engineering structures since the
casualty of the Ronan Point residential apartment building
in London, United Kingdom in 1968 caused by a gas
explosion [1]. Such failure mode is different from global
collapse of a structure. The collapse of the entire structure
or a large part thereof begins from a small local area failure
induced by abnormal loading. There usually is a delay time
for the localized damage to extend to an area dispropor-
tionate to its initial size. The recent catastrophes of the
Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on
April 19, 1995 [2] and the World Trade Center in New
York on September 11, 2001 [3] are two other typical
examples of such a collapse mode of buildings, both caused
by terrorist attack. Many events such as fires, vehicle colli-
sions and construction mistakes, besides gas explosion or
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 514 848 2424x7809; fax: +1 514 848
7965.
E-mail address: oapekau@civil.concordia.ca (O.A. Pekau).
ing. Therefore, it is hard and in most cases almost impossi-
ble to prevent all such incidents from happening.
One way to prevent progressive collapse may be by
providing a structure of sufficient strength to resist the
abnormal loading. This readily results in an unacceptably
uneconomical design. Meanwhile, determining the abnor-
mal load from a specific event poses another difficulty, even
though some achievements in determining the parameters
of the abnormal load from a specific event such as domestic
gas explosion [4] or dynamite detonation [5] have been
reported. The design for alternative load paths [1,6] is usu-
ally recommended in which method local damage is toler-
ated under abnormal loading but collapse should be
limited to a predetermined area. The size of the local failure
and the acceptable extension of the subsequent collapse
need to be specified in building codes [7].
The possibility of progressive collapse exists in almost
all types of structures [8], whereas some such as precast
panel buildings are more susceptible to this type of failure
due to the lack of structural continuity across the horizon-
tal and vertical joints. This was demonstrated in the Ronan

0045-7949/$ - see front matter
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2005.09.027
 O.A. Pekau, Y. Cui / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 400–412
Point failure as aforementioned. The general concepts
about structural integrity of large panel buildings with
respect to progressive collapse have been discussed in many
papers [9,10]. A simplified rigid-cantilever method was pro-
posed by the Portland Cement Association to examine the
integrity of precast panel shear walls when an exterior
panel becomes inactive [11]. An experiment on a six-storey,
three-bay 3/32-scale model of a precast concrete large
panel building under simulated progressive collapse condi-
tions has been performed by Harris and Muskivitch [12]. In
this experiment, similar to the rigid-cantilever analysis,
preselected bearing walls at various locations were removed
from the model to simulate local collapse. Based on the
finite element method Pekau [13] modelled the ties and
joints by discrete spring-type connectors and compared
the results with those by the rigid-cantilever analysis. Fol-
lowing that, the effects of nonlinearly behaving joints and
dynamic collapse of local panels were studied [14,15],
where the latter were simulated by reducing the supporting
forces of the failed panel to zero over a specified period.
Precast panel shear walls have been observed to perform
well during severe earthquakes [16]. Their seismic responses
have also been examined by experimental investigations
[17,18] as well as analytical studies [19,20]. Although pro-
viding for resistance to earthquake forces will automati-
cally increase the resistance capacity of a building to a
progressive collapse type of failure as pointed out in Ref.
[21], combinations of both loadings may result in the most
critical status for a structure, which has been studied in
Ref. [13]. In the analyses, the properties of the joints of a
precast panel wall were limited to remain elastic. However,
it is indicated that the nonlinear behaviour of the joints is
an important factor on the response of a precast building
in conditions with respect to progressive collapse [12,14]
or seismic loadings [19,20]. On the other hand, the total
collapse process of constructions contains not only high
nonlinearities but also strong discontinuities.
Therefore, to simulate such processes, methods capable
of including large deformations as well as nonlinear behav-
iours have to be adopted. Discontinuous media methods,
such as the distinct element method [22] using an explicit
time marching scheme or the discontinuous deformation
analysis method (DDA) [23] based on an implicit solution,
are suitable to be modified for such analysis. One example
has been presented by Meguro and Hakuno [24] using the
extended DEM, while Katsuyama et al. [25] simulated the
demolition of a storehouse by the DDA method. Contin-
uum media methods such as finite element method can also
be used to perform the collapse analysis by extending
matrices to include nonlinear behaviour of material and
discontinuities of the simulated structure during collapse.
As one example, Isobe and Toi [26] simulated the whole
progressive collapse process of framed structures based
on finite element codes enforced by an adaptively shifted
integration technique.
In this paper, the distinct element method proposed by
Cundall in 1971 [22], is selected to study the integrity of
401
a precast panel shear wall with respect to progressive col-
lapse and to simulate the corresponding whole collapse
processes in different conditions. This method is capable
of simulating the slip and separation behaviour of contact
joints. The contact model represented by a spring-dashpot
system is inherently easy for use to imitate the behaviours
of the ties and the mechanical connectors connecting the
panels. On the other hand, the explicit time marching
scheme applied in DEM to solve the dynamic equilibrium
equations makes it suitable for nonlinear dynamic prob-
lems. Different kinds of boundary conditions or constitu-
tive relationships can be incorporated into the programs
of this method without much difficulty. Due to its potential
powerful capabilities the DEM has been improved rapidly
and extended to fully deformable as well as three-dimen-
sional formats. This method has also been applied to a
wide range of engineering problems associated with stabil-
ity analysis of high rock slopes, collapse simulation of
structures as aforementioned, and underground works.
Considering that the vertical and horizontal joints domi-
nate the behaviours of a precast panel shear wall, the panel
itself can be regarded as rigid to simplify the simulation.
For this study a three-dimensional rigid DEM program
[27] has been modified.
Following a brief review of the main features of the dis-
tinct element method, the methodology of using this
method to simulate the whole progressive collapse process
of precast panel shear walls is presented. Then the constitu-
tive relationships and parameters of the ties, mechanical
connectors and joints represented by the modified spring-
dashpot contact model are described in detail. The influ-
ence of collapse time t0 of local failure of panels is also dis-
cussed. Prior to the integrity analyses of the panel wall in
conditions with respect to progressive collapse during
earthquakes, similar studies are performed in conditions
without earthquakes. The normal requirements of the
structure for resisting seismic loads are also inspected for
comparison. Examined in particular are the ductility
demands of the mechanical connectors in the vertical joints
of the wall as well as the whole progressive collapse
processes.
2. Numerical model for precast panel shear walls
2.1. Three-dimensional rigid distinct element method
As the distinct element method has been described in
detail in many papers [27–29], herein only some important
parts, especially those that would be subject to modifica-
tion for their application to the current study, are briefly
reviewed.
In three-dimensional rigid distinct element method, the
system is divided into polyhedron blocks by joints and each
block is assumed to be rigid. Normal and shear springs and
dashpots are set between contact blocks for simulating the
behaviour of joints. A face or line contact can be consid-
ered to consist of point contacts. Therefore only point
402 O.A. Pekau, Y. Cui / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 400–412

contacts are needed to be detected and modeled. Based on where m and ~ L represent the inertia mass and angular
techniques of Ôrounded corners and rounded edgesÕ and momentum of the block, respectively. ~ F and M~ are the
Ôpriority staged algorithmÕ, the automatic contact detection resultant force and moment applied to its centroid whose
procedure will be operated as the calculation progresses acceleration and velocity are ~u€ and ~_ respectively. a de-
u,
[27]. Failed contacts will be deleted and new contacts will notes the mass proportional damping coefficient. By
be recognized and built up when the contact relationship employing the central difference method, the above dy-
of blocks changes. namic equilibrium equations can be solved explicitly.
Each contact is represented by a set of shear and normal Since an explicit time marching scheme is adopted, this
springs and dashpots. In each time step Dt, the increments method is suitable for dynamic and nonlinear analysis.
n s
of normal and tangential spring forces D~ F c and D~F c are However, the time step has to be smaller than a certain crit-
determined correspondingly by the following formulations: ical value to overcome possible numerical instability
n because of the conditional stability for an explicit algo-
D~
F c ¼ k n D~
un ¼ k n~ u_n Dt rithm. The critical value is usually first chosen by the fol-
s ð1Þ
D~
F ¼ k s D~ u_s Dt
us ¼ k s~ lowing criterion:
c
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where kn and ks, respectively, are the normal and shear mmin
Dt ¼ htcri ¼ 2h ð5Þ
spring stiffness constants representing the elastic joint k max
properties. D~un and D~ us are the normal and shear compo-
nents of the relative contact displacement during the corre- where Dt is the critical time step used in simulation. tcri is
sponding time step, respectively. ~ u_n and ~ u_s are the the critical time step of the single mass-spring system
corresponding components of the relative contact velocity. including the smallest block mass mmin and the hardest
Various contact constitutive behaviours of joints can be elastic spring stiffness kmax in the simulated region; h is a
incorporated easily into such a spring-dashpot model. time step factor usually set at a small value of the order
Those for the connectors, joints and ties of the precast of 0.1 or so since a constant time step is adopted in the pro-
walls will be discussed in the following section. The elastic gram for nonlinear analysis while the critical time step of
one described above is used for normal discrete blocks. tcri is suitable for a linear analysis. Therefore, the time step
These springs are assumed to follow CoulombÕs friction is a small fraction of the smallest critical time step among
law: the linear systems including one block mass and one con-
s n
tact spring. However, this value is only approximate and
j~
F c j 6 f j~
F c j þ cA ð2Þ if numerical instability is suspected, a smaller time step
where f, c are the friction and cohesion coefficients of the may have to be determined by convergence trials.
contact, respectively and A denotes the area of the contact.
Since only point contacts are used as indicated previously, 2.2. Twelve-storey precast panel shear wall model
c is set at zero.
Zero tension in the normal direction of contacts is A twelve-storey, three-bay precast panel shear wall as
assumed in normal springs. When normal compressive shown in Fig. 1(a) is selected for the following study. It is
forces reach zero, joints open and blocks separate at that 35.64 m high and 11.0 m wide and consists of 36 precast
point. The corresponding contact will be deleted panels. Each solid panel is 3.67 m in width, 2.97 m in height
consequently. and 0.2 m in thickness constructed from normal weight
The stiffness proportional damping forces of the normal concrete whose material parameters are the following: elas-
and shear dashpots ~
n
F dc and ~
s
F dc related to the correspond- tic modulus E = 2.76 · 1010 Pa; PoissonÕs ratio m = 0.17;
u_n and ~
ing relative velocities ~ u_s of the blocks at contact can and mass density q = 2.40 · 103 kg/m3.
be described, respectively, as The panels are connected by headed-stud mechanical
n
connectors placed along vertical joints between adjacent
~ n
_ D~Fc stacks. Two such connectors are employed per panel to
F dc ¼
bk n~
un ¼
b
Dt transfer shear force in vertical joints. Horizontal ties are
s ð3Þ
s D~
Fc set at floor levels and passing through the horizontal joints
~ _
F dc ¼
bk s~
us ¼
b
Dt to resist tensile forces developed in vertical joints, while two
vertical ties are set per panel width between consecutive
where b is the stiffness proportional damping coefficient. lifts of wall panels to provide clamping and dowel action
Herein, identical coefficients for both tangential and nor- within the horizontal joints as well as the suspension mech-
mal dashpots are used. anism to resist tensile forces incurred in horizontal joints.
Movement of each block that is assumed to be a rigid These treatments increase the integrity of the structure sig-
body can be described by the following equations: nificantly by strengthening the continuity of the joints.
However, the joints in such large panel buildings are still
u€ þ am~
m~ u_ ¼ ~
F
ð4Þ recognized as the weak elements and dominate the behav-
~
dL=dt ¼ M~ iour of the structure. Therefore, in the following simulation
 O.A. Pekau, Y. Cui / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 400–412 403

(a) Panel number (b) Example of local failure of Panel 3

Fig. 1. Twelve-storey panel shear wall model.

each panel is considered as a rigid block to simplify the
simulation, while the springs in the three-dimensional dis-
tinct element method are modified to model the mechanical
connectors, ties and joints according to their corresponding
behaviours.
As seen in Fig. 2, the spring-dashpot system I is set in
horizontal joints at each corner of the panels and the
spring-dashpot system II is set in vertical joints at each
corner of panels. The one in horizontal joints includes a
normal uniaxial spring to model the vertical ties, a set of

Panel Springs for horizontal joint

ks kn

Dn
Ds

Panel Spring for vertical tie

Details of spring-dashpot system I
Panel
Panel

Ds

ks

Spring-dashpot system I
Springs for mechanical connector

Panel
kn
Spring for horizontal tie
Spring-dashpot system II

Horizontal joint
Panel

Panel
Dn

Vertical joint

Details of spring-dashpot system II

Fig. 2. Models for joints and ties of a panel.

404 O.A. Pekau, Y. Cui / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 400–412
normal and shear springs to model the horizontal joints
and a pair of normal and shear dashpots providing stiffness
proportional damping. Similarly, system II in vertical
joints consists of a normal uniaxial spring to model the
horizontal ties, the normal and shear springs to model
the headed-stud mechanical connectors in vertical joints
and the normal and shear dashpots. It should be noted here
that a contact in Fig. 2 indicates a pair of spring-dashpot
systems in the direction of the thickness of the wall located
at the two corresponding corners. These springs of the con-
tacts are set initially and the automatic contact detection
procedure is not needed. Their behaviour and parameters
are determined by the corresponding attributes of the ele-
ments they represent. When the deformations of the con-
nectors or ties in joints exceed their capacities, the
springs will break accordingly. Then, the relative corners,
edges and faces come into the normal ones and the auto-
matic contact detection procedure will be performed on
them as in the normal three-dimensional distinct element
method described above. The stiffnesses of the new
detected contacts are assumed at 2.0 · 1010 kN/m in both
the shear and normal directions and the corresponding fric-
tion coefficient f is set conservatively at zero.
A headed-stud mechanical connector in the vertical
joints is modeled by a set of normal and shear springs as
depicted also in Fig. 2. In the shear direction, the constitu-
tive behaviour follows a typical elasto-plastic model and
exhibits excellent ductility prior to failure as shown in
Fig. 3(b). Since the tensile forces in the normal direction
are usually considered to be supported by horizontal ties,
the constitutive behaviour of the connectors in this direc-
tion in Fig. 3(a) are set to carry only compression following
a linear elastic model. When the shear deformation of a
connector exceeds its capacity (see the break point in
Fig. 3(b)), it will fail and lose its function in both the shear
and normal directions. In the current study, the break
point has not been set in normal direction. The maximum
shear deformation umax divided by the elastic limit uelim
defines the connectorÕs ductility capacity llim = umax/uelim.
Assuming that 2–12.7 · 155.6 mm headed-stud anchors
are used per connector, its normal and shear stiffnesses
are 2.24 · 105 kN/m and 2.94 · 105 kN/m, respectively.
Ft Fs
Break point
Fy
ks
uc ut uelim
kc
Fc * equivalent tensile stiffness is 1.2 · 104 kN/m based on a
Break point
(a) Normal direction (b) Shear direction
Fig. 3. Constitutive model for mechanical connectors in vertical joints.
Ft Fs
f Fc2
f Fc1 kr
ks
uelim
uc ut us
kc
Fc
(a) Normal direction (b) Shear direction
Fig. 4. Constitutive model for horizontal joints.
Its shear strength Fy is specified at 104 kN and the practical
shear ductility limit llim is set at 36 [30]. Accordingly, the
shear deformation limit is 12.8 mm considering the elastic
deformation limit of 0.354 mm. The influence of the shear
strength of the connectors on the behaviour of this shear
wall will be examined by setting Fy to 146 kN (2–
15.9 · 166.7 mm headed anchors) while keeping other
parameters at the same values. Since the elastic deforma-
tion limit rises to 0.497 mm correspondingly, the shear
deformation limit will become to 18.0 mm for the same
ductility limit of 36.
A horizontal joint between consecutive lifts of wall pan-
els is modeled by two sets of normal and shear springs
located at the end corners as depicted in Fig. 2. The normal
spring follows a simple elasto-plastic model in compression
as shown in Fig. 4(a). The shear-friction model simplified
from that by Kianoush and Scanlon [31] is employed for
the shear spring as seen in Fig. 4(b). The shear strength
is determined by the normal compressive force multiplied
by the friction coefficient f of the joints. When the shear
force exceeds the friction sliding strength, the stiffness ks
is decreased to kr instead of zero considering the dowel
action of vertical ties. Based on previous studies on a sim-
ilar structure in the literature [14,15] the normal and shear
stiffnesses kn and ks of horizontal joints are set at
6.07 · 107 kN/m and 2.17 · 107 kN/m, respectively. The
corresponding yielding stiffness kr is assume as 2.17 · 106
kN/m, 10% of the initial elastic value [31]. The friction
coefficient f and the normal elastic deformation limit are
specified at 0.4 and 0.352 mm, respectively. No break
points have been set for the horizontal joints. They break
* once the corresponding vertical ties fail.
Both vertical and horizontal ties follow an elasto-plastic
constitutive relationship in tension, and their stiffnesses
reduce to zero in compression carrying no force as shown
umax us
in Fig. 5. The tie will fail once the break point is reached.
12.7 mm diameter strands serve as horizontal ties with fac-
tored strength of 142 kN per tie and the corresponding
debonding length assumed equal to 60 times the tie diame-
ter, whereas high-strength steel bars of 17.5 mm diameter
with a factored strength of 224 kN are employed as vertical
 O.A. Pekau, Y. Cui / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 400–412
Ft Ft
Break point
Fy * Fy
kt kt
uc uelim umax ut uc uelim
Fc Fc
(a) Horizontal ties (b) Vertical ties
Fig. 5. Constitutive model for ties.
ties, whose stiffness is 1.62 · 104 kN/m calculated by the
actual length between anchorage points. The ductility lim-
its for both vertical and horizontal ties are assumed at 3 for
failure analysis. Although a tie only works in the normal
direction, it is also assumed to fail when the corresponding
shear deformation exceeds five times the deformation limit
in the normal direction. When vertical ties are postensioned
to enforce the vertical integrity of the precast panel shear
wall, they will be stressed to Fp representing 67% of the fac-
tored strength corresponding to a force of 150 kN per tie.
The dead and live loads per unit width of the wall are
43.0 kN/m and 16.0 kN/m for each level, respectively.
According to the design recommendations of the PCA
[11], the strength, U, should be D + 0.5L, where D and L
are dead and live loads, respectively, when effect of wind
load is not included. Accordingly, the resulting loading
per unit width of the wall is determined as 51 kN/m at each
level.
The panels are numbered from 1 to 36 as shown in
Fig. 1(a), where the bottom block is fixed to serve as the
foundation. Gravity and seismic loads are mainly consid-
ered in the following studies. For seismic progressive
collapse simulation, the north–south component of the
El-Centro earthquake on May 18, 1940 with peak ground
acceleration of 0.35 g is selected as the seismic loading
input in the x-direction. The damping coefficients a and b
are set to 1.5 and 4 · 10
5, respectively. The time step is
set at 2.0 · 10
5 s. The initiation of progressive collapse,
i.e. local failure, is simulated by removing a selected panel
at various levels within the wall. Fig. 1(b) gives an example
of missing an external panel at the lowest level (panel 3).
Cases of local collapse of different panels at higher levels
or in the internal stack, which are not depicted here, will
also be examined. In the following simulations, particular
emphasis will focus on estimating the ductility demands
of the headed-stud mechanical connectors along the verti-
cal joints and the progressive collapse processes of the
resulting partially damaged structure in different conditions
since previous results predict unexpectedly large concentra-
tions of shear forces in the vertical joints by elastic study
[13] or a large ductility demand exceeding the headed-stud
connectorÕs practical capacity by nonlinear analysis [14].
405
3. Behaviour under local panel collapse without earthquakes
Break point
* In static models the panel can be removed instanta-
neously since the removal speed of the failure panel has
Fp no impact in such analysis. However the speed at which
an element is removed in a dynamic analysis cannot be
umax ut
ignored considering that it may have a significant influence
on the response of a structure. Therefore, the collapse time
t0 of a local panel should be limited to a certain time period
during which the support forces of the failing panel are
assumed to decrease linearly from the original values to
zero. This has been discussed with respect to conditions
of gas explosions in Ref. [15].
Here, the influence of collapse time is first examined for
the case of the eleven panel deep cantilever due to missing
external panel 3 shown in Fig. 1(b). It is apparent that the
structure is in a more critical state when the collapse time
is shorter as seen from Fig. 6, where increasing vertical dis-
placement of panel 6 is obtained when the collapse time of
panel 3 decreases from 1.0 s to zero. The maximum dis-
placement reaches 5.8 mm if panel 3 is removed instanta-
neously, which is almost 3 times the value of about
2.0 mm if the panel is taken out slowly over 1.0 s. From
the history lines of the displacement, it can also be seen that
higher speed of panel removal produces larger impact on
the structure. The oscillation of panel 6 is pronounced if
the panel is removed instantaneously but remains very small
if the collapse time is longer than 0.3 s. If the time period of
local panel collapse is long enough, the solution of a
dynamic model could come into the static one. Consistent
with this, the displacements of panel 6 converge as collapse
time becomes longer and the lines of 0.3 s, 0.5 s and 1.0 s in
Fig. 6 almost overlap after the total failure of panel 3.
Fig. 7 depicts the shear ductility demands of the
mechanical connectors in the vertical joints for different
locations of local panel failure with varying collapse time.
Generally, higher speed of panel failure correspondingly
increases the ductility demand by amplifying the response
of the structure, which can be seen from the lines for miss-
ing external panels 3, 18 and 33. However, when the
0
-1 1.0 s
Displacement (mm)
0.5 s
-2 0.3 s
0.2 s
-3 0.1 s
0.03 s
-4 0.0 s
-5
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (sec)
Fig. 6. Vertical displacement histories of panel 6 for varying collapse time
t0 of panel 3.
406 O.A. Pekau, Y. Cui / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 400–412

14 instantaneous removal will overvalue the impact of the

Panel 3
missing panel on the remainder of the damaged system,
12 Panel 18
Panel 33
while the results of collapse time larger than 0.2 s converge
10 to the static solution.
Ductility factor

Panel 2
Panel 17 Results not presented here indicate that all the horizon-
8
Panel 32 tal ties remain in the elastic range in all of the above cases
6 except for local failure of panel 33 which leaves a cantilever
of only one panel in depth. In that case, the top horizontal
4
ties reach the plastic stage only when the collapse time is
2 smaller than 0.2 s and the largest ductility demand is
around 2.1 when the collapse time is zero which will result
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 in a high impact on the remaining cantilever. For the col-
t 0 (sec) lapse time of 0.1 s the corresponding ductility demand of
the horizontal ties is smaller at only 1.6. Therefore, this
Fig. 7. Ductility demand for different local panel failure with varying requirement should easily be met by current design of hor-
collapse time t0.
izontal ties.

collapse time is longer than 0.3 s the lines remain nearly
horizontal for these cases. The converged values of the duc-
tility demand can be regarded as static results which ignore
the influence of local collapse speed and represent the bot-
tom limit for ductility demand.
Since local failure in the exterior panel stack requires the
corresponding remaining damaged system to serve as a
cantilever, these locations create the most critical condi-
tions with respect to progressive collapse. When the col-
lapse time is larger than 0.1 s the ductility demands of
missing panel 3, which creates the deepest cantilever of
11 panels, are correspondingly larger than those of missing
panel 18 at the intermediate floor level, whereas the small-
est demands are in the case of local failure of panel 33
resulting in a thinnest cantilever of only one panel in depth.
However, this trend of the ductility demands of the headed-
stud connectors for various levels of missing external panel
reverses when the panel is removed instantaneously. The
largest demand is 12.5 for missing panel 33, which is still
far from the aforementioned practical limit of 36. There-
fore, the safety of the structure is ensured with respect to
the shear ductility demand of the headed-stud mechanical
connectors even if the influence of the most critical speed
at which the missing panel is removed instantaneously is
included. Different from external panels, failure of internal
panels requires the remaining internal panels to function as
a beam and all the connectors remain in the elastic stage as
seen from the ductility demands for cases of missing inter-
nal panels 2, 17 or 32 which are less than 1.0 except in the
case of panel 2 removed instantaneously. In the following
analysis, collapse time of 0.1 s is selected considering that
4. Seismic resistance vs. progressive collapse
In traditional structural design, seismic loads as well as
dead and live loads are considered and meet building
codes. Therefore structures properly designed have ade-
quate capacity to resist these loadings. On the other hand,
conditions with respect to progressive collapse have
increasingly attracted attention since the collapse of Ronan
Point Tower in 1968. However, it should be noted that
proper seismic design might automatically meet the resis-
tance capacity of structures to progressive collapse.
To examine the relationship between the requirements for
seismic conditions and those with respect to progressive col-
lapse, the maximum slip in horizontal and vertical joints of
the twelve-storey precast panel shear wall in Fig. 1(a) under
these two conditions, respectively, are listed in Table 1 for
comparison. The north–south component of the El-Centro
earthquake with peak ground acceleration of 0.35 g is used
as seismic input, while panel 3 is selected for local collapse
since it is concluded to be the critical case from above results
assuming the collapse time of 0.1 s. The influence of posten-
sioned vertical ties and higher shear strength Fy = 146 of the
headed-stud mechanical connectors are also examined by
applying the corresponding method separately or combined
as listed in Table 1. From the results in Table 1 it is seen that
higher Fy can efficiently decrease the maximum slip in verti-
cal joints while postension of vertical ties works well in lim-
iting the maximum slip in horizontal joints when local panel
collapse occurs. These trends are not consistent in the
response of the structure during earthquakes. However, all
the values of maximum slip for seismic loadings in the four

Table 1
Maximum slip in horizontal and vertical joints (mm)
Conditions Local collapse of panel 3 Response during earthquakes without local collapse
Vertical joints (maximum l) Horizontal joints Vertical joints (maximum l) Horizontal joints
Untensioned, Fy = 104 kN 2.14 (6.05) 1.67 3.17 (9.00) 2.05
Postensioned, Fy = 104 kN 0.97 (2.74) 0.71 1.86 (5.25) 1.31
Untensioned, Fy = 146 kN 0.73 (1.47) 0.80 2.25 (4.53) 1.95
Postensioned, Fy = 146 kN 0.73 (1.47) 0.07 2.44 (4.53) 2.27
 O.A. Pekau, Y. Cui / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 400–412 407

different conditions are correspondingly larger than those 11

for local collapse of panel 3 as seen in Table 1. This indicates 10

Story level of panel collapse

that if the design of this precast panel shear wall as shown in 9
Fig. 1(a) satisfies the seismic loads, it will automatically meet 8
7 µ = 36
the demands on shear ductility of connectors in vertical
6
joints and shear slip in horizontal joints with respect to pro-
5
gressive collapse. Untensioned, Fy = 104 kN
4 Postensioned, Fy = 104 kN
3 Untensioned, Fy = 146 kN
5. Progressive collapse behaviour during earthquakes 2 Postensioned, Fy = 146 kN

1
Strong earthquakes increase the possibility of local fail- 0
ures. On the other hand, local failures under such condi- 0 50 100 150 200
tions may result in the most critical cases with respect to Ductility factor
progressive collapse because of the participation of seismic (a) Local collapse of external panels
loads. Since preventing structures from all local failures is
uneconomical and most times impossible, the integrity of 11 Untensioned, Fy = 104 kN
structures with respect to progressive collapse during earth- 10 Postensioned, Fy = 104 kN

Story level of panel collapse

quakes should also be examined. In the following, the seis- 9 Untensioned, Fy = 146 kN

8 Postensioned, Fy = 146 kN
mic progressive collapse behaviour of the twelve-storey
panel shear wall in Fig. 1(a) is studied. The north–south 7
6
component of the El-Centro earthquake with peak ground µ = 36
5
acceleration of 0.35 g is selected as the earthquake input as
4
aforementioned. Local failure is assumed to happen at 2.0 s 3
from the beginning of the earthquake, which is near the 2
time of the peak ground acceleration. The failure period 1
t0 of local panel collapse is assumed to be 0.1 s. 0
0 50 100 150 200
5.1. Overall integrity Ductility factor
(b) Local collapse of internal panels

The ductility demand of the mechanical connectors with
respect to progressive collapse during the El-Centro earth-
quake is examined by assuming various positions of local
failure as presented in Fig. 8. If local collapse appears in
the external stack during the earthquake, as shown in
Fig. 8(a) progressive collapse will occur when the mechan-
ical connectorsÕ strength Fy is 104 kN as the ductility
demands are all beyond the practical value of 36 for vari-
ous floor level of the local panel failure. However, if
Fy = 146 kN is employed, the integrity of the wall would
be ensured except when the local panel failure occurs at
the top between levels 10 and 11, which results in the thin-
nest cantilever of only one panel. Calculations not pre-
sented here indicate that this particular case is the most
critical for the design of the horizontal ties. It can be seen
Fig. 8. Ductility demand with different level of local collapse during
earthquake.
Generally from Fig. 8(a) and (b), increasing the strength
of the mechanical connectors in vertical joints has large
influence on their ductility demand by decreasing the value
significantly, while postensioning the vertical ties is not as
efficient and sometimes may have negative effect. However,
that latter method helps well in decreasing the slip in
10
Local collapse
0
Displacement (mm)

that the ductility demand rises with the floor level of local -10 µ = 60
collapse for the four conditions. This trend is the reverse of
the results without earthquakes, where the controlling case -20
is a missing panel in the lowest level. µ = 10
When local collapse occurs in the internal stack, the duc- -30
µ = 20 µ = 30
tility demand decreases as the location rises if vertical ties µ = 40
-40
are not postensioned. For the wall with postensioned verti-
cal ties, the controlling position is in the middle levels. -50
However, only for both methods of postension and higher 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Fy could the safety of the precast panel wall be ensured as Time (sec)
seen in Fig. 8(b), where the ductility demands for the cor- Fig. 9. Local collapse of panel 3 during earthquake—vertical displace-
responding cases are all limited to below the practical value ment histories of panel 6 for various ductility factor l (Fy = 104 kN,
of 36. untensioned).
408 O.A. Pekau, Y. Cui / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 400–412

1.73 s of external panels at the lower and middle floor levels,

1.82 s whereas in the higher floor levels, local failure of the panels

Shear force (kN)

100
in external stack becomes more dangerous. Therefore, dur-
ing earthquakes conditions with respect to progressive col-
µ = 36 50 lapse become complex and the critical positions that need
to be examined become diversified. The local failure of
Shear deformation (mm) panels in the internal stack can also precipitate severe col-
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 lapse of the wall during earthquakes, while the most critical
condition for progressive collapse without earthquakes is
-50 missing panel in the external stack.

-100 1.96 s 5.2. Case study of local failure of panel 3

9.06 s 9.00 s 3.47 s in external stack
2.00 s

Fig. 10. Local collapse of panel 3 during earthquake—shear deformation
vs. shear force of connectors between panels 5 and 6 (Fy = 104 kN,
untensioned).
horizontal joints. Comparing the lines in Fig. 8(b) to (a), it
is found that the ductility demands for local collapse of
internal panels are all larger than those for local collapse
Figs. 9–11 describe the details associated with the case of
local failure of panel 3 (see the panel number in Fig. 1(a))
during the earthquake, which is the critical location for
progressive collapse without earthquakes as indicated pre-
viously. As seen in Fig. 9 for Fy = 104 kN and the vertical
ties untensioned, progressive collapse will happen unless
the ductility factor l of the mechanical connectors in

Failure time of connectors t = 9.5 s t = 10.0 s

t = 10.5 s t = 11.5 s t = 12.5 s t = 13.5 s

t = 14.5 s t = 15.5 s t = 16.5 s t = 18.5 s

Fig. 11. Local collapse of panel 3 during earthquake—progressive failure process of the structure (Fy = 104 kN, untensioned).
 O.A. Pekau, Y. Cui / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 400–412 409

vertical joints is as high as 60, which is far beyond their
practical performance of only about 36. Progressive col-
lapse will come earlier if the assumed ductility limit is smal-
ler. Then the vertical displacement of panel 6 increases very
fast once collapse begins. Since larger ductility capacity can
delay the further collapse after local failure during earth-
quakes, it may even prevent the structure from such casu-
alty if an earthquake does not last too long.
This behaviour may be explained by the shear deforma-
tion vs. shear force of connectors between panels 5 and 6 in
the corresponding case as shown in Fig. 10, where the duc-
tility capacity of the mechanical connectors in vertical
joints is assumed to be unlimited. (The signs of the shear
force and shear deformation are determined relative to
panel 5.) Before the assumed local collapse of panel 3 at
2.0 s, the connectors between panel 5 and 6 have deformed
beyond the elastic limit due to the seismic loads. But the
deformation is small and far from the practical ductility
limit of 36. If no local collapse happens, the shear deforma-
tion vs. shear force would appear as many hysteresis loops
without very large shear deformations during earthquakes.
Due to the local collapse of panel 3 at 2.0 s, an eleven-sto-
rey cantilever is formed. The connectors in vertical joint A
have to undertake the weight of the panels in the external
stack by increased corresponding shear forces. As seen in
Fig. 10, the shear force is maintained at a relatively high
value and reaches the strength of 104 kN frequently, while
the shear deformation increases steadily. At 3.47 s the
various vertical ties broke upon collisions between panels
or between panels and the ground. At last, the debris piled
on the ground in 10 s leaving only two thirds of the build-
ing standing. Thus, when the ductility limit does not meet
the requirement, the corresponding progressive collapse
area extends to all the external panels from the initial local
collapse area of one panel within only 0.25 s with failure of
all the connectors along joint A. Hence it is a kind of
expanding and rapid collapse mode.
5.3. Case study of local failure of panel 2
in internal stack
Without earthquakes, the mechanical connectors will
remain elastic when panel 2 collapses as seen in Fig. 7.
The critical location with respect to progressive collapse
is panel 3 in the external stack. However, during earth-
quakes the situation becomes complex and the case of local
collapse of internal panel 2 becomes more critical than the
one of external panel 3. Figs. 12 and 13 give the details
associated with the case of local failure of internal panel
2 (see the panel number in Fig. 1(a)) at 2.0 s during the
earthquake for Fy = 146 kN and the vertical ties unten-
sioned. As seen from the results in Fig. 12, the maximum
shear deformation of the mechanical connectors above
µ = 36 200

Shear force (kN)

deformation reaches 7.08 mm, whose corresponding ductil-
ity demand is 20. This is consistent with the progressive
failure happening at the same time in Fig. 9 when the duc- 100
4.5 s
tility limit is set at the same value of 20. After the earth- Shear deformation (mm)
13.3 s
quake, the maximum deformation of the mechanical
connectors is 20.03 mm corresponding to a ductility factor -30 -20 -10 0
of 57. Therefore, to avoid the further collapse of the panel
wall, this requirement should be met. Since it is largely -100 2.0 s
beyond the practical performance of normal mechanical
connectors, other considerations have to be taken. 9.0 s
The corresponding process of the progressive collapse is -200
presented in Fig. 11. Since the practical ductility limit of (a) Connectors between panels 4 and 5
the connectors is 36, the first failure is of the connectors
between panels 5 and 6 at 9.0 s, which is consistent with
µ = 36 200
the results in Fig. 10. Due to this new panel collapse, addi-
Shear force (kN)

tional impact and load is applied to the remaining struc- 2.0 s

ture. Therefore layer by layer with very small time

100
interval of 0.025 s, all the connectors along joint A come
Shear deformation (mm)
into failure within 0.25 s resulting in collapse of one third 9.0 s
of the building, which has largely extended the original
local failure of only one panel. The horizontal ties were -30 -20 -10 0
also found to have failed due to the large deformation in
the shear direction. Then, all the collapsed external panels -100
fell together as a free falling object. The vertical ties
13.3 s 4.5 s
between them were kept from failure until the lowest panel
hit the ground. At that moment, large impact occurred -200
inside the falling external wall and caused it to buckle with (b) Connectors between panels 5 and 6
some vertical ties broken as seen from the picture at 11.5 s Fig. 12. Local collapse of panel 2 during earthquake—shear deformation
in Fig. 11. Following that, the panels continued falling and vs. shear force of connectors above panel 2 (Fy = 146 kN, untensioned).
410 O.A. Pekau, Y. Cui / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 400–412
Joint A
Joint B
Joint A
Joint B
13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5
Time (sec)
Failure time of connectors
t = 16.5 s t = 17.5 s
t = 20.5 s t = 21.5 s
Fig. 13. Local collapse of panel 2 during earthquake—progressive failure process of the structure (Fy = 146 kN, untensioned).
internal failure panel 2 is about 25 mm, which is larger than
18.0 mm of their practical ductility limit of 36. (The signs
of the shear force and shear deformation between panels
4 and 5 and between panels 5 and 6 are determined relative
to panels 4 and 6 respectively.) Since the local collapse of
panel 2 makes the remaining internal panels to function
as a beam, they will have influence on each other when
the two ends of the beam do not deform identically during
earthquakes. The shear forces acting on panel 5 are nega-
tive (upward) at most times on both sides as seen in the
Fig. 12(a) and (b). However, there are some points where
the shear forces become positive while the connectors on
the other side are in plastic slip, for example at 9.0 s or
4.5 s, which makes the conditions more critical. Due to
the interaction between the connectors on each side of
the internal panels, the ductility demand becomes much
larger.
The simulated collapse process is presented in Fig. 13,
whose mode is quite different from that for the external
panel 3 shown in Fig. 11. The connectors in joint A from
floor level 1 to 7 broke first almost at the same time over
t = 15.0 s t = 15.5 s
t = 18.5 s t = 19.5 s
t = 22.5 s
only about 0.01 s from 13.30 s after the local collapse of
panel 2 at 2.0 s. Then shortly after about 0.01 s, the connec-
tors in joint B from floor level 1–6 failed in 0.01 s. How-
ever, only the mechanical connectors up to floor level 8
have failed in 0.1 s later. Then the vertical ties at floor level
8 broke and released the force of the failed panels from the
unfailed top four internal panels. Horizontal ties in levels
from 1 to 8 broke correspondingly due to large shear defor-
mations. At last, the collapsed internal panels fell rapidly
and piled on the ground in 10 s.
6. Conclusions
(1) The influence of collapse time of local failure on the
response of a precast panel wall has been examined.
Results show that the speed at which an element is
removed in a dynamic analysis should not be ignored
and if the time period of local panel collapse is long
enough the solution of the dynamic model converges
to the static one which gives a lower limit of design
requirements.
 O.A. Pekau, Y. Cui / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 400–412
(2) The safety of the shear wall with respect to shear duc-
tility demands of the mechanical connectors in verti-
cal joints under conditions of local panel collapse but
without earthquakes is ensured in current design and
the critical position is the panel at the lowest floor
level in the external stack when local collapse time
is assumed at 0.1 s.
(3) Results also indicate that if the design of the precast
panel shear wall satisfies the seismic loads, it will
automatically meet the demands of shear ductility
of connectors in vertical joints and shear slip in hor-
izontal joints with respect to progressive collapse
without earthquakes. However, for other particular
items or structures, appropriate analysis has to be
made to determine if the seismic design could cover
the demands with respect to progressive collapse,
although the providing for resistance to seismic loads
generally increases the ability of a building to prevent
itself from such failure mode.
(4) During earthquakes, conditions with respect to pro-
gressive collapse become not only more critical but
also more complex and the critical positions that need
to be examined become diversified. The local failure
of panels in an internal stack can also precipitate
severe collapse of the wall during earthquakes, while
without earthquakes all the mechanical connectors in
vertical joints remain elastic if local panel collapse
occurs in the internal stack.
(5) Failure process simulations indicate that progressive
collapse is a kind of expanding and rapid collapse
mode and the importance of preventing structures
from such incidents should be emphasized.
(6) The strength of the mechanical connectors in vertical
joints has large influence on their ductility demand by
decreasing the value significantly, while postensioning
the vertical ties is not as efficient.
Although a three-dimensional DEM program was
employed for the current study, the analyses have been per-
formed mainly in the wall plane and the lateral support of a
building has not been included. Work should therefore be
continued to study the three-dimensional function of a
building by modifying the DEM to simulate beams and
floors in addition to the walls themselves.
Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial sup-
port for this work, which was provided by the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
under Grant No. A8258.
References
[1] Breen JE. Research workshop on progressive collapse of building
structures. The University of Texas at Austin, November 1975.
411
[2] Prendergast J. Oklahoma city aftermath. ASCE, Civil Eng
1995;65(10):42–5.
[3] Corley WG. What we learned: building performance study of the
WTC collapse. Struct Eng 2002:26–31.
[4] Rashbash DJ, Stretch XL. Explosions in domestic structures. Struct
Eng (London) 1969;47(10):403–11.
[5] Mays GC, Smith PD, editors. Blast effects on buildings: design of
buildings to optimize resistance to blast loading. London: Thomas
Telford Publications; 1995.
[6] Leyendecker EV, Ellingwood BR. Design methods for reducing the
risk of progressive collapse in Buildings. US Department of
Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, April 1977.
[7] Progressive collapse analysis and design guidelines for new federal
office buildings and major modernization projects. US General
Services Administration, November 2000.
[8] Taylor DA. Progressive Collapse. Can J Civil Eng 1975;2(4):517–29.
[9] Fintel M, Schultz DM. A philosophy for structural integrity of large
panel buildings. J Prestressed Concr Inst 1976;21(3):46–69.
[10] Popoff AJ. Design against progressive collapse. J Prestressed Concr
Inst 1975;20:44–57.
[11] Design and construction of large-panel concrete structures. Portland
Cement Association, Skokie, Report No. 1, 1976, 65pp; Report No. 2,
1976, 133pp; Report No. 3, 1976, 78pp; Report No. 4, 1978, 174pp.
[12] Harris HG, Muskivitch JC. Models of precast concrete large panel
buildings. ASCE, J Struct Div 1980;106(ST2):545–65.
[13] Pekau OA. Structural integrity of precast panel shear walls. Can J
Civil Eng 1982;9(1):13–24.
[14] Pekau OA, Zielinski ZA, Lee AWK. Precast shearwalls subjected to
local panel collapse. J Am Concr Inst 1985;82(3):324–30.
[15] Pekau OA, Zielinski ZA, Lee AWK, Hum D. Dynamic effects of
panel failure in precast concrete shearwalls. Struct J Am Concr Inst
1988;85(3):277–85.
[16] Fintel M. Performance of buildings with shear walls in earthquakes of
the last thirty years. J Prestressed Concr Inst 1995;40(3):62–80.
[17] Oliva MG, Shahrooz BM. Shaking table tests of wet jointed precast
panel walls. In: Proceedings of the eighth world conference on
earthquake engineering, San Francisco, California, USA, vol. 6, 1994,
p. 717–24.
[18] Harris HG, Caccese V. Seismic behavior of precast concrete large
panel buildings using a small shaking table. In: Proceedings of the
eighth world conference on earthquake engineering, San Francisco,
California, USA, vol. 6, 1984, p. 757–64.
[19] Becker JM, Llorente C. The seismic response of simple precast
concrete panel walls. In: Proceedings of the US national conference
on earthquake engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California,
USA, 1979, p. 423–32.
[20] Kianoush MR, Scanlon A. Behavior of large panel precast coupled
wall systems subjected to earthquake loading. J Prestressed Concr
Inst 1988;33(5):124–51.
[21] Fuller GR. Seismic resistance vs. progressive collapse of precast
concrete panel buildings. In: Workshop on earthquake-resistant
reinforced concrete building construction (ERCBC), University of
California, Berkeley, July 1977, p. 1852–60.
[22] Cundall PA. A Computer model for simulating progressive large scale
movements in blocky rock systems. In: Proceedings of the symposium
of the international society for rock mechanics, Nancy, France, vol. 1,
1971, Paper No. II-8.
[23] Shi GH, Goodman RE. Two dimensional discontinuous deformation
analysis. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 1985;9(6):541–56.
[24] Meguro K, Hakuno M. Simulation of collapse of structures due to
earthquake using the extended distinct element method. In: Proceed-
ings of tenth world conference on earthquake engineering, Balkema,
Rotterdam, vol. 7, 1992, p. 3793–6.
[25] Katsuyama K, Ogata Y, Wada Y, Shindo T, Nishida T. Demolition
of a storehouse by the blasting and the simulation of the demolition
by DDA method. In: Proceedings of the annual conference on
explosives and blasting technique, Orlando, USA, vol. 1, 1996, p.
268–75.
412 O.A. Pekau, Y. Cui / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 400–412
[26] Isobe D, Toi Y. Analysis of structurally discontinuous reinforced
concrete building frames using the ASI technique. Comput Struct
2000;76:471–81.
[27] Lu J. A study of numerical model of distinct element method and its
application in engineering. PhD thesis, Tsinghua University, Beijing,
China, 1996 [in Chinese].
[28] Cundall PA. Distinct element models of rock and soil structure. In:
Brown ET, editor. Analytical and computational methods in engi-
neering rock mechanics. London: Allen & Unwin; 1987. p. 127–63.
[29] Hart RD. An introduction to distinct element modeling for rock
engineering. In: Hudson John A, editor. Comprehensive Rock Engi-
neering: principles, practice & projects, vol. 2. Oxford, England: Perg-
amon Press; 1993. p. 245–61.
[30] Spencer RA, Neille DS. Cyclic tests of welded headed stud connec-
tions. J Prestressed Concr Inst 1976;21(3):70–83.
[31] Kianoush MR, Scanlon A. Analytical modelling of large panel
coupled walls for seismic loading. Can J Civil Eng 1988;15(4):
623–32.