PC Progress Report 1.1

Progress Report #1
Progressive Collapse of Steel-Concrete Hybrid Structures

Date: 19th April 2020
Presented by: Chong Kok Soon (A0126395Y)

Supervisor: Dr. Pang Sze Dai
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Table of Content
1. Understanding of Progressive Collapse
2. GSA & UFC Guidelines
3. Case study #1 (UFC)
4. Case study #2 (“Comparison of Various Procedures for Progressive
Collapse Analysis”)
5. Abstract Submission for ICILSM2020
6. Q&A
Presented by: CHONG KOK SOON Progress Report #1 19th April 2020 2
A. Types of Collapse
Failure Mode Examples
a) Pancake-type collapse WTC
b) Zipper-type collapse Tacoma Narrows Bridge
c) Section-type collapse Cable bridges, cable nets, or membrane structures
d) Domino-type collapse Overhead transmission line towers in Germany
e) Mixed-type collapse Alfred P.Murrah Federal Building, Haeng-Ju Grand Bridge
f) Instability-type collapse Truss or beam structures where bracing elements are used to stabilize
bars or cross-sectional elements in compression.
What would be the failure mode if out-riggers or transfer trusses fail?
B. Collapse-promoting features
a) Spatial orientation, size, and slenderness
b) Dynamic action and force concentration
c) Brittle material behaviour
d) Overstrength and ductile material behaviour
e) Continuity or discontinuity how ductile behavior promotes failure?
f) Structuredness ??
g) Series or parallel load transfer
C. Design Objectives
a) Assumable accidental circumstances or actions
b) Assumable cases of initial local failure
c) Acceptable extent of collapse
d) Acceptable other damage
e) Applicable partial safety factors and combinations of actions.
D. Measures of robustness and collapse resistance

a) Stiffness-based measures Robustness Robustness is defined as insensitivity to local failure. A purely structural
property in the sense that the cause and probability of local failure and thus
also the nature, extent, and probability of the triggering accidental
b) Damage-based measures circumstances are immaterial.
c) Energy-based measures Collapse resistance Collapse resistance is defined as insensitivity to accidental circumstances
E. Design Methods Specific local resistance
Prevent Local
Failure
Non-structural protective
measures
Direct Methods
Alternative load paths

Assume Local
Failure
Design methods Isolation by segmentation
Providing tension ties
Indirect Methods Enabling catenary action
Ensuring ductility
F. Existing Standards & Guidelines
a) General Services Administration (USA)
b) United Facilities Criteria for Department of Defense projects
c) The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
d) CEB-FIP Model Code 1990
e) American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-02 guideline
f) German DIN1055-100 standard
g) Eurocode EN 1991-1-7 (Annex A &Annex B)
h) The Building Regulations 2000 —structure: approved document A (2004 edition) (UK)
(BS 5950 (Steel Work) + BS 8110 (RC))
i) International Federation for Structural Concrete
G. Current Design Procedures
P (C|L) is not reflected in
the verification procedures
Focus on local not global

failures
Response of entire system

to local failure is ignored
Limitations Accidental circumstances
are neglected.
No new societal consensus
seems necessary when
probabilistic design is
The underlying adopted
probabilistic concept
requires the specification
of an acceptable
probability of failure. A problem that risks of the
‘low probability/high
consequence
Analysis Types Force-controlled
actions
Applied Load Case,
Component &
Element Acceptance
Criteria
Deformation-
controlled actions
P-delta analysis is not
a.) Linear Static Procedure* (LSP) required due to the
small deformations.
DIF =2 for Force-Controlled
Dynamic Increase Factor (DIF)
DIF depends on M factor for

Deformation-Controlled
?
*If the structure is irregular, a linear static procedure may be performed if all of the component
DCRs determined in Paragraph 3.2.11.1 are less than or equal to 2.0. If the structure is irregular and
one or more of the DCRs exceed 2.0, then a linear static procedure cannot be used.
Analysis Types
and global too
Member non-linear
property is considered.
Use the stiffness requirements of ASCE 41 [10]

b.) Non-linear Static Procedure (NSP)
Chapters 9 through 12 to create the model
Dynamic Increase
Factor (DIF)
Analysis Types
Member non-linear
property is considered.
Column to be removed after initial equilibrium

condition is reached. Duration of removal is
c.) Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure (NDP)
recommended to be one tenth of period associated to
vertical motion of bays above the removed column.
No DIF is required.
• Redundancy Requirements
• Spacing of load redistribution systems up the height of the building shall not
exceed three floors.
• Load redistribution systems shall be provided at the exterior (perimeter)of the
structure to meet the following design requirements. In general, a load
redistribution system is defined as a structural system that has the capability to
redistribute gravity loads to adjacent structural elements under the loss of a
column or load-bearing wall. This is called structural redundancy system
• For each exterior ground level column and/or wall plan removal location, the
variation of the design strength of any load redistributing system shall be
within +/- 30% of the average design strength of load redistributing systems up
to the height of the building, as defined by Equation 3.14.
• The example shown in the guideline for steel structure was studied under Linear
Static Procedure (LSP).
• Columns were removed one at a time as shown in Figure E3.1.
• Program SAP2000 was used.
Comparison of results
with UFC Examples
• Under LSP-Stage
construction, column
is removed using stage
construction
procedure.
• Under LSP-Initial
Stiffness, column is
removed at initial
stage.
Summary:
a) There are discrepancies in the results between UFC & GSA example.
Due to the assumptions in structural performance level.
This resulted in the different values of M-factor and LIF.
GSA=CP (Collapse Prevention), Less Stringent
UFC=LS (Life Safety)
b) Double counting of DL,SDL and LL (if follow the guidelines) It can be explained
. You need to understand this
c) It is mentioned in the guideline that live-load reduction (LLR) is allowed but it never indicated in the
example if it has been applied.
d) Column capacity check, post processing is needed. Difference between SAP2000 and ASCE 41-13.
e) Under LSP, column-removal with/without initial stiffness yields similar results (expected)
f) Discrepancies are due to the assumption of lateral restraints on steel beams. (GSA/UFC states
composite effect from the slab is ignored)
g) The load combination used before column-removal presents minimal effect to the results under LSP
with initial stiffness.
3. Case study #1 (GSA & UFC)
b) Double counting of DL,LL &SDL if we follow the guidelines.
Double counting of DL, LL & SDL
3. Case study #1 (GSA & UFC)
d) Column capacity check, post processing is needed. Difference between SAP2000
and ASCE 41-13.
SAP2000 Design Calculation
Design Calculation based on ASCE 41-13.
4. Case study #2
• Case study based on the
10th storeys building
presented in the following
literature.
• Linear static and
Nonlinear static analysis
were completed.
• Linear dynamic and
Nonlinear dynamic
analysis to be completed.
• Analysis results were
compared.
• Program SAP2000 was
used.
4. Case study #2
SAP2000 Model
4. Case study #2
a) Linear Static Analysis: The moment diagram and values tally with the literature.
SAP2000 Model
4. Case study #2
a) Linear Static Analysis: The vertical displacement obtained is 167.1mm as compared to 165mm from the
literature.
SAP2000 Model
4. Case study #2
b) Nonlinear Static Analysis: Displacements at stage of 1st plastic hinge and stage of collapse were compared.
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
1st Plastic Hinge Forms
Vertical Displacement (mm)
-140
-160 At 52% of Load = 2(DL+0.25LL)
-180 U= 88.93 mm
-200
-220
-240
-260
-280 Collapse (NLS)
-300 at 70% of Load = 2(DL+0.25LL)
-320
U= 200.8 mm
-340
-360
-380
-400
-420
-440
-460
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Percent of Load = 2(DL+0.25LL)
SAP2000 Model
4. Case study #2
• Liner Dynamic & Non-
Linear Dynamic Analysis
are yet to be completed.
• After completion, this
model will be used as the
base model for the
research mentioned in
section 5 with column to
be changed from steel to
rc.
• Submitted on 31st Jan 2020
• The conference was postponed to March
2021 due to current situation.
Research gap
• Insufficient research on the robustness of Steel-RC hybrid systems against progressive collapse .
• The brittle characteristic of concrete presents distinctively responses in tension and compression. Design codes typically neglect the
tensile stiffness and strength of concrete. Depending on the lateral confinement, concrete softens after reaching its compression
strength whereas steel exhibits elastoplastic behaviour in both tension and compression1.
• Given the distinct responses from concrete and steel, the existing guidelines such as GSA2 and UFC3 cannot be applied directly
without evaluating the behaviour of steel-RC hybrid structure.
• There are insufficient studies on the progressive collapse resistance of connections consisting of steel beams with either RC or SRC
or CFT column.
Proposed research
• A hybrid building of 10-storey with RC columns and steel beams are evaluated with perimeter frame to be fixed-connected and
internal frame to be pin-connected.
• Column-removal one at a time at critical locations as recommend by GSA is adopted. Non-linear behaviour of the members are
included using ACSE41-13 database.
• Push-down analysis using SAP2000 is performed using two methods i.e. Bay Pushdown(BP); and Incremental Dynamic Pushdown
(IDP)4. Under BP method, nonlinear static analysis is performed and the gravity load of the affected bays under column-removal are
amplified using dynamic increase factor (DIF) of 2 recommended by existing design guide2 while the gravity loading on other areas
remains nominal. Under IDP method, the dynamic effect is explicitly accounted for and the over-load factor with corresponding
failure mode is established by dividing failure load with nominal gravity load.
• The results are then compared with those of the non-linear static analysis to ensure the DIF of 2 recommended in GSA is safe to be
used for such hybrid structure.
6. Q&A

PC Progress Report 1.1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

PC Progress Report 1.1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PC Progress Report 1.1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Progress Report #1

Progressive Collapse of Steel-Concrete Hybrid Structures

Presented by: Chong Kok Soon (A0126395Y)

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

What would be the failure mode if out-riggers or transfer trusses fail?

g) Series or parallel load transfer

D. Measures of robustness and collapse resistance

Alternative load paths

Providing tension ties

Indirect Methods Enabling catenary action

Focus on local not global

Response of entire system

Dynamic Increase Factor (DIF)

DIF depends on M factor for

Use the stiffness requirements of ASCE 41 [10]

Column to be removed after initial equilibrium

Double counting of DL, LL & SDL

SAP2000 Design Calculation

Design Calculation based on ASCE 41-13.

You might also like