Engineering Failure Analysis 104 (2019) 643–656

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal

Progressive collapse analysis and structural robustness of steel-

T
framed modular buildings
⁎
Fu Jia Luoa, Yu Baia, , Jian Houa,b, Yuan Huangc
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China
c
Hunan Provincial Key Lab on Damage Diagnosis for Engineering Structures, College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords: This paper investigated the structural robustness of steel-framed modular buildings based on the
Modular construction alternative load path method using LS-DYNA. The structural responses of a reference structure
Steel modular buildings were first simulated to understand typical building motion, load redistribution mechanisms and
Structural robustness failure modes after removal of a base corner module. Based on the reference scenario, a com-
Progressive collapse
prehensive parametric study was then carried out to investigate the effects of structural config-
Nonlinear dynamic analysis
uration (number of modules of each floor), module posts (wall thickness and number of sup-
porting posts) and other features (inclusion of floor slab, longitudinal wall bracing, connection
stiffness and connection capacity) on the structural responses of steel modular buildings. It was
found that the collapse resistance of steel modular buildings could be improved with an increase
in the number of modules per floor, the number and capacity of supporting posts, higher rota-
tional stiffness and capacity of inter-module connections, and the use of longitudinal wall bra-
cing. Consideration of floor slabs provided a more realistic description of collapse mechanisms,
due to the slab-related contact interaction and diaphragm action. Also, the structure was more
vulnerable to the removal of modules (or posts) near the end corner of a building.

1. Introduction

Structural robustness is the ability of a structure to resist progressive collapse after localised structural damage due to accidental
loads [1]. Since the lessons learned from the Ronan Point apartment failure [2], the importance of structural robustness has received
worldwide attention, with provisions addressing robustness design included in a number of standards and codes such as Eurocode
[1], DoD (U.S.) [3] and GSA (U.S.) [4]. Currently, the tie force method and the alternative load path method are commonly used in
the robustness design of building structures. In the tie force method, the tie members (such as beams) and their connections must be
capable of withstanding a certain level of tensile load, to ensure load redistribution from damaged parts of a structure to undamaged
parts. Provisions for minimum tying force can be found in several standards such as DoD [3] and GSA [4]. The alternative load path
method is used to evaluate structural robustness by examining the ability of a building to remain stable without violation of an
allowable collapsed area, after removal of supporting elements (such as columns and a portion of load-bearing wall). Three ap-
proaches are cited in GSA [4] for alternative load path analysis: linear static analysis, nonlinear static analysis and nonlinear dynamic
analysis. Numerical simulations provide an effective, economical and comprehensive means of evaluating structural robustness. A
number of numerical investigations have been conducted on the basis of the alternative load path method [5,6]. Furthermore, the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: fujia.luo@monash.edu (F.J. Luo), yu.bai@monash.edu (Y. Bai), huangy@hnu.edu.cn (Y. Huang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2019.06.044
Received 13 July 2017; Received in revised form 29 May 2019
Available online 22 June 2019
1350-6307/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F.J. Luo, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 104 (2019) 643–656

Fig. 1. Construction of steel modular building with volumetric units [9].

collapse mechanisms due to identified accidental actions (such as earthquake [7] and fire [8]) have also been investigated for more
accurate understanding and realistic predictions. Such a cause-specific analysis is also encouraged by GSA [4]. These studies,
however, are mainly in the context of buildings featuring traditional on-site construction.
In recent years, steel-framed modular buildings (Fig. 1) have attracted strong interest, particularly for medium-rise residential
applications, educational sector buildings and hotels [9]. The construction method, known as modular construction, involves offsite
prefabrication of volumetric and/or planar modular units and on-site assembly, bringing benefits such as both time and cost savings,
superior quality control, improved productivity and less wastage compared to traditional on-site construction. Due to the nature of
modular construction, modular buildings exhibit some distinctive structural characteristics, particularly in those assembled with
steel-framed units. Normally, such structures are designed to withstand not only the normal loading scenarios as in conventional
buildings, but also the racking actions during transportation and craning, which are structurally more demanding [10]. Moreover, the
floor slab may not be as continuous as in an in-situ build, and load transfer between adjacent modules may occur mainly through the
module corners [11]. These features can potentially disadvantage structural robustness in design. Therefore, it is necessary to ex-
amine whether the existing guidelines is still applicable for analysis of steel modular buildings.
Limited studies have been reported for steel modular buildings based on the tie force method or the alternative load path method.
For the tie force method, minimum tying forces of 26% of the total applied load for horizontal tie, and 40% for vertical tie have been
suggested, based on the loss of one corner support and consideration of diaphragm action from the module envelope [11]. For the
alternative load path method, two extreme cases were conceived in [11], namely (a) removal of a corner module at the ground floor
and (b) removal of two intermediate modules at the ground floor, to replicate severe damage to a module. However, the corre-
sponding structural responses have not yet been well understood, due to the lack of analysis and results available. An example of
robustness design was documented in [12] for the Atlantic Yards B2 Residential Tower - a sufficient number of module columns was
used to form a highly redundant load path while adequate tying resistance was provided between the posts of stacking modules.
Clearly, there is a lack of understanding of the collapse mechanisms in steel modular buildings, particularly with consideration of
dynamic responses at full structural scale. It is also necessary to evaluate the collapse resistance against other possible robustness
design scenarios besides module removal, which may be overly conservative for large modules. For example, the designer may
consider a steel modular building as an atypical structure with closely spaced columns (with distances no greater than 30% of the
length of the associated bays) in light of GSA [4]. In that case, a cluster of supporting posts may be grouped to be removed at a
junction of modules.
In this study, the structural robustness and collapse mechanism of a medium-height steel modular building was evaluated based
on the alternative load path method through nonlinear dynamic analysis using LS-DYNA [13]. The structural responses (building
motion, failure modes and load redistribution) after element removal were investigated. A parametric study was also performed to
investigate the effect of connection stiffness and capacity, number of modules per floor, floor slab, longitudinal wall bracing and
supporting posts (size and number) on the structural robustness of steel modular buildings. Structural robustness was also examined
against various scenarios including removal of modules and removal of group of corner posts. Design considerations were then
derived based on the results obtained from the numerical investigations.

2. Finite element (FE) modelling

2.1. Model description

Fig. 2 illustrates the reference FE model used in the present study. The structure was conceived as a five-storey office building
assembled with steel-framed modules. Each storey consisted of a series of identical corner-supported modules 9 m long, 3 m high and
3.6 m wide. Stairs and corridors are not included in this model. A rigid ground was added at the bottom of the structure to allow
consideration of the interaction between the structure and the ground surface. The FE model was created using ANSYS APDL 16.1

644
F.J. Luo, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 104 (2019) 643–656

Fig. 2. FE model of steel modular building.

[14] and LS-PrePost 4.2 [13], and analysed using LS-DYNA Solver.
A number of scenarios were investigated in this study. For the ease of discussion, each scenario was designated under the rules
shown in Fig. 3. The FE models for each type of steel-framed module are illustrated in Fig. 4a–d. As seen in Fig. 3, the first four words
(HxWx) indicate the structure configuration. The next three words (xCx) refer to the number and size of the square hollow section
(SHS) posts for each module; the letters at the end describe other features, namely R for “rigid” or P for “pinned” inter-module
connections in terms of rotational stiffness, S for slab-included (Fig. 4b) and B for longitudinal wall bracing (Fig. 4c).

2.2. Element types and material properties

For each module, PFC 300 parallel flange channels were chosen for all the edge beams and beams at the intermediate columns.
PFC 150 was chosen for all the purlins and the spacing was 375 mm for floor purlins and 600 mm for roof purlins. SHS 100 × 100 × 5
(or 100 × 100 × 6 mm) was used for all corner and intermediate posts. The sections used for longitudinal wall bracing were identical
to the purlins. The floor slabs were considered as typical concrete slab with a thickness of 100 mm.
All steel members were meshed with Hughes-Liu explicit beam elements (BEAM 161) with cross-section integration. The steel was
defined as bilinear material with consideration of hardening rules and strain rate effect using the Cowper and Symonds model [15],
namely
1
⎡ ε ̇ p⎤ Etan
σy = ⎢1 + ⎛ ⎞ ⎥·⎜⎛σ0 + β ⎛ ⎜ εpeff ⎞ ⎞⎟ ⎟

⎝ C⎠ ⎝ ⎝ E − Etan ⎠ ⎠ (1)
⎣ ⎦
where ε ̇ is the strain rate, and εp is the effective plastic strain, β = 0 for a kinematic hardening rule. The strain rate parameters were
eff

taken as C = 40.4 s−1 and P = 5 for typical steel properties suggested in [15]. The material properties were taken as density of
7850 kg/m3, elastic modulus (E) of 206 GPa, initial yield stress (σ0) of 350 MPa, Poisson's ratio of 0.3 for a Grade 350 steel member.
The tangent module (Etan) was assumed to be 1% of the elastic modulus as a lower bound approximation. The failure criterion was
defined by a maximum strain of 0.2.
The slabs were modelled with explicit 3D structural solid elements (SOLID164). The material was defined by the Holmquist-
Johnson-Cook (HJC) model [16] as suitable for concrete subjected to large strains, with the consideration of the effects of permanent
crushing and various strain rates. The values of each individual parameters in the model were adopted according to literature [16] for
concrete with the unconfined compressive strength (fc’) of 32 MPa and the density of 2400 kg/m3. The constitutive law of the HJC
model was described by an equivalent strength model (Eq. (2)), an accumulated damage model (Eq. (3)) and a hydrostatic pressure-
volumetric strain (P - μ) relationship model (Eq. (4)). The equivalent strength model is given here considering the applied hydrostatic
pressure, strain rate and material damage:
σ
σ∗= = [A (1 − D) + BP ∗N ]·[1 − Cln (ε ∗̇ )]
f ′c (2)

where σ⁎ = σ/fc’ as the normalised equivalent strength (limited at Smax of 7.0), A (=0.27) is the normalised cohesive strength, B
(=1.86) is the normalised pressure hardening coefficient, N (=0.84) is the pressure hardening exponent, C (=0.007) is strain rate

Fig. 3. Rules of designation.

645
F.J. Luo, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 104 (2019) 643–656

Fig. 4. FE models of steel-framed volumetric module used in the present study: (a) basic reference model; (b) slab-included model; (c) braced model;
(d) module with additional vertical ties at intermediate posts.

coefficient, P⁎ (=P/fc’) is the normalised actual pressure, ε ∗̇ = ε /̇ ε0̇ as the normalised strain rate with ε ̇ representing the actual strain
rate and ε0̇ (=1.0 s−1) representing the reference strain rate. The damage index D (0 ≤ D ≤ 1.0) is given by Eq. (3) to account for the
reduction in cohesive strength during the damage process.
Δεp + Δμp
D= ∑ with εpf + μpf = D1 (P ∗ + T ∗) D2 ≥ εf , min εpf + μpf = D1 (P ∗ + T ∗) D2 ≥ εf , min
εpf + μpf (3)

where D1 (=0.039) and D2 (=1.0) are the damage constants, Δεp is the equivalent plastic strain increment, Δμp is the equivalent
plastic volume strain increment, T⁎ (=T/fc’) is the normalised tensile hydrostatic strength with T calculated by 0.62(fc’)1/2 as 4 MPa,
εpf + μpf is the fracture strain for a certain pressure P⁎, and εf,min (=0.01) is the minimum fracture strain.
Finally, the P - μ relationship model is used to describe the process of air void collapse in concrete, involving an elastic stage
(P ≤ Pc), a plastic transition stage (Pc < P ≤ Pl) and a fully dense stage (P > Pl), wherein Pc (=fc’/3) is the crushing pressure and PL
(=800 MPa) is the locking pressure (complete crushing), with volumetric strains μc of 0.001 and μl of 0.1. The P - μ relationships for
each stage are described with material constants K1 (=85), K2 (=−171) and K3 (=208) and a full description was given in [16]. It
may be noted that the mesh size in this study was determined based on a sensitivity analysis with consideration of reasonable
computational costs. Based on the analysis, the mesh size was 375 mm (purlin spacing) in y-direction (see Fig. 2), and 900 mm (1/4
purlin length) in x-direction for all beams, purlins and slabs. For columns, which are the more sensitive elements, the mesh size was
500 mm (1/6 module height).

2.3. Connections, boundary conditions and contact definition

In the FE models, all intra-module connections were assumed rigid, to represent fully-welded module chassis [10,11]. For the
inter-module connections, the vertical continuity between stacking modules was made at the corner posts [9]. The horizontal ties
were located at the position of roof beams and edge beams of adjacent modules, represented by connecting plates with a cross-section
of 150 × 25 mm. The fixity between horizontal tie and the connecting module was assumed to be either fully rigid or pinned, for
comparative purposes. The connection capacity was considered as either the tensile capacity of the connecting plate (greater than the
maximum possible tying force) or intentionally an inadequate value to study the effects of connection capacity on structural ro-
bustness. For models consisting of floor slabs, the bottom surface of the concrete slab was constrained to the floor purlins through
node coupling. For the boundary conditions, the supporting posts at the bottom floor and the rigid ground were fully fixed.
An automatic single surface contact (ASSC) was chosen for the analysis [13], which is an efficient approach for explicit dynamic
modelling problems when potential contact surfaces are difficult to predict. With ASSC, the contact surfaces were automatically
determined when a surface of an object was about to contact itself or another object.

2.4. Analysis procedures

The analysis was conducted as per the nonlinear dynamic procedure of GSA [4]. During the analysis, the structure was loaded first
under the following load combination as per DoD [3]:
G + 0.5 Q (5)

where the dead load (G) consisted of the self-weight of structural members and a superimposed dead load of 1.0 kPa to account for
the placement of utilities, floor finishes, etc. The live load (Q) was taken as 3.0 kPa as per AS1170.1 [17] for the general area of office
buildings. The live loads and superimposed dead loads were represented by mass elements MASS166 with equivalent weight

646
F.J. Luo, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 104 (2019) 643–656

Fig. 5. Final state of the reference model.

uniformly distributed over the slab. In cases where floor slabs were not included in the model, the self-weight was added to the
lumped mass. The total factored applied load was 207 kN (or 6.4 kN/m2) applied to each module.
In the FE models, the module to be removed was represented by equivalent reactions (obtained through an initial static analysis)
acting at the supports of the stacking module above. During the loading process, the applied gravity fields were ramped up from 0 to
9.81 m/s2 over the first 5.0 s to the undamaged structure to approximate a static loading, and the equivalent reactions were also
applied simultaneously in a similar fashion. The loading was then kept constant until 10.0 s to minimise oscillation. Subsequently, the
reaction forces were reduced to zero to replicate the removal of the module. Similar approaches have been commonly used in
experiments to represent element removal [18,19]. The duration of module removal was taken as 0.02 s to comply with GSA [4],
i.e. < 10% of the fundamental period of the remaining structure. The analysis was conducted under a constant damping ratio of 2%
as per AS 1170.2 [20] for steel structures using the Rayleigh damping model [11,12].

3. Structural responses of reference model

3.1. Building motion and failure modes

Fig. 5 shows the final state (side view, with contour plot of resultant displacements) of the reference model H5W6-4C5-R after
removal of a corner module. As seen from Fig. 5, progressive collapse was arrested after module removal, accompanied by buckling of
corner posts (adjacent to the removed module) and a noticeable drifting.
Fig. 6a and b show the time-history (10.0 to 20.0 s) of vertical displacement (dz) and velocity (vz) respectively of the top-left node
in the damaged bay (reference node, marked with a circular dot in Fig. 5) where the maximum displacement was recorded. For
comparison purpose, the same reference node is used for the description of dz and vz in subsequent sections. As seen from Fig. 6a, the
reference node moved downwards by 0.27 m over the first 0.5 s after module removal, due to the initial load redistribution around
the damaged bay. Then, dz stabilised at around 0.27 m from 10.5 to 11.6 s (Fig. 6a) with noticeable oscillation (Fig. 6b). Subse-
quently, dz increased gradually to 0.97 m from 11.6 to 13.0 s owing to the global buckling of corner posts adjacent to the removed
module (Fig. 5). From 13.0 to 14.3 s, the building motion due to member buckling diminished while the structure bent slowly towards
the removed module, leading to noticeable drifting of the upper floors. Finally, the building stabilised at dz of 1.06 m with decaying

Fig. 6. Structural responses of reference model: (a) time-history of vertical displacement and (b) resultant velocity at the node of measurement.

647
F.J. Luo, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 104 (2019) 643–656

Fig. 7. Schematic diagram of primary load redistribution after module removal.

oscillation.

3.2. Load redistribution

Fig. 7 illustrates the load redistribution patterns for the members most affected after module removal, with arrows indicating the
changes in compression and tension. The time-history of axial forces is given in Fig. 8a and b for the selected typical members,
including corner posts, roof beam, floor beam and horizontal inter-module connections as marked in Fig. 7, whereby Mij refers to the
j-th module (counting from the positive y-direction) located at the i-th floor. The members are denoted as Xij, where X = C for corner
posts, FB for floor beam and RB for roof beam; ij means belonging to module Mij. For corner posts, the superscript in Cij* means that
the post is located on the right-hand side (with reference to Fig. 7) of module Mij. For horizontal connections (i.e. tying force), the
denotation HRij/k refers to that connecting module Mij and Mik at the roof position and HFij/k at the floor position.
As seen from Fig. 7, the redistributed load after module removal was transferred mainly through the corner posts (C21* to C41*;
C12 to C42) in the adjacent bay and the roof beams (RB52 to RB55) at the top floor. For the critical corner posts (C12), the compression
force increased by a factor of 3.7 (759 kN) at 0.2 s after module removal (Fig. 8a). Simultaneously, an increase in the compression
force by a factor of 2.5 to 2.8 was also observed in the corner posts above (C22, C32 and C42). As well, a decrease in the axial load
(labelled in Fig. 7) by up to 77% was observed from corner posts located at the other side of the structure (e.g. C16). The influence of
module removal was negligible for modules in the inner region (e.g. C15). The above load redistribution mechanism was attributed
mainly to the flexural deformation of the entire structure (Fig. 5). Therefore, it was observed that the posts in the concave side near
the damaged bay (such as C12 to C32) exhibited increases in compression force due to shortening; and those in the convex side (such
as C16) exhibited decreases in compression force due to elongation. After the buckling of C12, the load redistributed further to the
adjacent corner posts (C12* and C13, see Fig. 8a).
As seen from Fig. 8b, the initial force was negligible in edge beams under the normal loading condition (t ≤ 10.0 s). After module
removal, tensile forces developed mainly in the roof edge beams (RB52 to RB55) of modules at the top floors due to catenary action,
and they increased with building deformation. The most critical members were RB53 with a final tensile force of 104 kN (Fig. 8b). The
compressive force was developed mainly in the floor edge beams at the top floors and the beams near the first floor. The maximum
compressive forces (94 kN) were observed from RB13 at 12.8 s.
During the initial load redistribution, the critical horizontal inter-module connection (with the maximum tensile force) was HF51/

Fig. 8. Time-history of axial forces for selected members: (a) corner posts, (b) roof beam, floor beam, and horizontal inter-module connections.

648
F.J. Luo, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 104 (2019) 643–656

Fig. 9. Comparison of H5W6-4C5-R and H5W6-4C5-P in terms of vz.

2 (129 kN at 10.2 s, see Fig. 8b) mainly due to the self-weight of modules M21 to M51 in the damaged bay. Subsequently the tension
force decreased in HF51/2, and the critical connections became HR52/3, with a final value stabilised around 131 kN after 11.3 s, due to
the development of catenary action.

4. Parametric study

4.1. Effect of connection stiffness

Fig. 9 shows a comparison of H5W6-4C5-R (fixed ties) and H5W6-4C5-P (pinned ties) in terms of vertical velocity at the reference
node (see Fig. 5) (vz) and the collapse process of H5W6-4C5-P is illustrated in Fig. 10. Compared with H5W6-4C5-R, similar time-
velocity responses (Fig. 9) were observed from H5W6-4C5-P within the first 0.15 s after module removal, followed by the buckling of
corner posts (‘A’ in Fig. 10). Due to the lower constraint in H5W6-4C5-P (as evident by the noticeable joint rotation of the inter-
module connection, see Fig. 10), faster structural motion was induced, as reflected by the higher values of vz in Fig. 9. As a result, a
higher impact was generated to the critical posts C12, with a maximum load 7% higher than H5W6-4C5-R (both observed at around
10.2 s). Furthermore, the lower connection stiffness also led to higher structural instability of H5W6-4C5-P and hence greater collapse
potential as compared to H5W6-4C5-R with rigid connections.
Subsequently, module M12 was completely crushed at 12.0 s due to excessive building motion as shown in ‘B’ of Fig. 10. That was
immediately followed by a 75% reduction in vz when module M21 dropped to the ground (‘B' in Fig. 10). Simultaneously, member
buckling was induced for all other corner posts at the first two floors (‘B’ in Fig. 10) due to the impact from the upper modules,
leading to the subsequent collapse. Then, the collapse propagated towards the upper floors (C and D in Fig. 10) in a manner similar to
the previous stages until the impact became too small to cause further member buckling. Eventually, the modules of the first three
levels in H5W6-4C5-P were crushed completely (Fig. 10), whereas collapse was arrested in H5W6-4C5-R.

4.2. Effect of module number in each floor

Fig. 11a–c show the final states of the modular buildings with four (H5W4-4C5-R), six (H5W6-4C5-R) and eight modules (H5W8-

Fig. 10. Collapse process of H5W6-4C5-P (unit: m).

649
F.J. Luo, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 104 (2019) 643–656

Fig. 11. Final states of H5W4-4C5-R, H5W6-4C5-R and H5W8-4C5-R.

4C5-R) in each floor; and a summary of key structural responses is presented in Table 1. As seen from Fig. 11a, progressive collapse
occurred in the building with only four modules per floor (H5W4-4C5-R). The collapse process was similar to that of H5W6-4C5-P as
initiated by the buckling of corner posts C12 and followed by crushing of modules floor by floor. With the number of modules
increased to six per floor (H5W6-4C5-R), buckling of corner posts was also induced after module removal, while the resulting
building motion was finally controlled through energy dissipation by member buckling and global flexural deformation (Fig. 11b).
With further increase in the module numbers to eight per floor in H5W8-4C5-R, no progressive collapse or member buckling was
induced (Fig. 11c). Removal of modules (M11) brought about mainly structural oscillation, which was then dissipated through
structural damping. The final drifting dy was 87% less than that in H5W6-4C5-R. Clearly, the collapse resistance was enhanced with
the increase in the number of modules, due to the increased lateral stiffness that effectively minimised the risk of excessive of building
flexure motion.

4.3. Effect of floor slab

Fig. 12a–c compares the time-history of vertical displacement at the reference node (dz) in the building models with and without
floor slabs, under H5W4, H5W5 and H5W6 configurations respectively. Overall, as seen from Fig. 12a–c, the slab-included model
under the same configuration exhibited a slower collapse process and likely a different collapse mode compared to the model without
slabs.
In H5W4 with or without floor slabs, although both models predicted a final state of building collapse, there was a noticeable
difference in the collapse process reflected in the displacement time-histories (Fig. 12a). To aid understanding of the mechanism, the
final states of H5W4-4C5-R and H5W4-4C5-RS are shown in Fig. 13a and b respectively. The difference in the collapse process in
H5W4-4C5-RS as compared to H5W4-4C5-R was attributed to the contact interaction (see Fig. 13b) between the floor slabs of the
falling modules and the debris of the crushed modules beneath, with absorption of kinetic energy from the building motion. In
contrast, due to the absence of such interaction, penetration was observed between stacking modules in the model without floor slabs
(H5W4-4C5-R), leading to a larger building motion (Fig. 13a). Therefore, fewer floors of modules were crushed in the slab-included
model (see Fig. 13a and b). Also, as reflected in the collapse process (Fig. 12a), the consideration of a slab in model H5W4-4C5-RS
greatly reduced the speed of collapse due to the time required for the above contact interactions and the reduced kinetic energy.
For the H5W5 configuration, the frame-only model (H5W5-4C5-R) collapsed, whereas the slab-included model (H5W5-4C5-RS)
was capable of arresting progressive collapse with the buckling of corner posts in module M12. In the H5W6 configuration with and
without floor slabs, similar final states were reached (collapse arrested with buckling of the corner posts) for both cases (H5W6-4C5-R
and H5W6-4C5-RS), and the final dz for the slab-included model (H5W6-4C5-RS) was only 25% of its framed-only counterpart
(H5W6-4C5-RS) as shown in Fig. 12c. This comparison indicated the additional collapse resistance contributed by the diaphragm
action of the slabs.
In terms of the member forces in H5W6-4C5-RS, the maximum compression force in the critical members was similar to that
recorded from the frame-only model H5W6-4C5-R (3% higher only). Due to the smaller deformation of the structure at the final state,
the tension forces in the critical tie members RB53 and HR52/3 were both 17% lower than the values in the frame-only model. This was
because the slab contributed to the overall structural stiffness through diaphragm action while the total applied load to the sup-
porting posts was unchanged.

Table 1
Detailed forces and displacement results for H5W4-4C5-R H5W6-4C5-R and H5W8-4C5-R.
Scenarios dy (m) dz (m) Tmax (kN) Nmax (kN)

H5W4-4C5-R 6.44 12.7 99 758

H5W6-4C5-R 0.53 1.05 111 759
H5W8-4C5-R 0.07 0.21 72.9 782

Note: dy and dz are the displacements at the reference node, Nmax is the maximum compression force obtained in the corner posts and Tmax is the
maximum tensile force obtained in the beams.

650
F.J. Luo, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 104 (2019) 643–656

Fig. 12. Time-history of dz for framed-only models and slab-included models.

Fig. 13. Final state of framed-only models and slab-included models for H5W4 scenario.

4.4. Effect of wall bracing

Fig. 14a and b compares the time-history of vertical displacement at the reference node (dz) in the non-braced and braced models
under the H5W4 or H5W6 configuration, and the final states of the braced models (H5W4-4C5-RB and H5W6-4C5-RB) are shown in
Fig. 15a and b.
In the H5W4 scenarios, as seen from Fig. 14a, the non-braced model (H5W4-4C5-R) exhibited progressive collapse after module
removal, whereas the collapse was arrested with member buckling in the braced model (H5W4-4C5-RB) (Fig. 15a), due to the
additional energy dissipation capacity contributed by the buckling of wall bracings. In the H5W6 scenarios, where collapse was
arrested in both the non-braced and braced models (H5W6-4C5-R and H5W6-4C5-RB), similar structural responses were found in the
vertical displacement dz at the reference node during the first 2.2 s of initial load redistribution (Fig. 14b), while the onset of member
buckling was delayed compared with the non-braced counterpart. This finding can be explained by the improvement in load-sharing
by the added bracing. Also, the final displacement dz was reduced by 51% (Fig. 14b) due to the improved vertical in-plane stiffness.
The added wall bracing was also beneficial for avoiding excessive buckling deformation, thereby minimising the risk of instability
due to excessive building motion. In general, an improvement in collapse resistance was achieved with the use of wall bracing.

4.5. Effect of supporting posts

Fig. 16 shows the effect of supporting posts (in terms of size and number) on the structural responses (the time-history of dz) under
both H5W4 and H5W6 structural configurations. Furthermore, Fig. 17 shows the time-history of axial forces of corner post C12 and its
adjacent intermediate post from the same side of the module in H5W6-8C5-R, providing better understanding of the load redis-
tribution mechanisms. From 4C5 to 4C6 (with supporting posts increased from 100 × 100 × 5 to 100 × 100 × 6), the improvement
was 18.7% in axial stiffness and capacity and 16.4% in bending for a single post. From 4C5 to 8C5 (with supporting posts increased

Fig. 14. Time-history of dz for non-braced models and braced models.

651
F.J. Luo, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 104 (2019) 643–656

Fig. 15. Final state of braced models.

Fig. 16. Comparison of time-history of dz for models with different posts sizes and different number of supporting posts for (a) H5W4 and (b) H5W6
configuration.

Fig. 17. Time-history axial force of supporting posts in module M12 of H5W6-8C5-R.

from 4 to 8), the addition of supporting posts was in form of adding vertical ties between the intermediate posts of stacking modules,
which formed additional vertical load paths whilst maintaining the same number of corner posts (Fig. 4d).
Clearly, the collapse resistance of a modular building was improved by the use of corner posts with a larger section
(100 × 100 × 6 SHS) due to the increase in their member stiffness and capacity. As reflected in Fig. 16a and b, progressive collapse
was arrested without member buckling in both H5W4-4C6-R and H5W6-4C6-R, as evident by the small final displacement dz (sta-
bilised at 0.22 m approximately) compared to the rapid increase in dz for H5W4-4C5-R and H5W6-4C5-R where member buckling
was triggered.
Similarly, with the use of more supporting posts (or vertical ties), no progressive collapse or member buckling was observed for
H5W4-8C5-R and H5W6-8C5-R (see Fig. 16a and b) due to the added vertical load paths through the intermediate posts. As seen from
Fig. 17, the maximum axial force of corner posts C12 was reduced by 29% in comparison to that in the reference model H5W6-4C5-R
(see Fig. 8a) due to the load shared by the intermediate posts, which reduced the risk of member buckling and hence the collapse
potential.

652
F.J. Luo, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 104 (2019) 643–656

Fig. 18. Collapse process of H5W6-4C5-R with capacity of horizontal inter-module connections limited to 120 kN: (a) 10.2 s, (b) 10.9 s and (c)
14.5 s.

4.6. Effect of capacity of horizontal inter-module connections

Fig. 18a–c show the collapse process of H5W6-4C5-R with the capacity of horizontal inter-module connections limited to 120 kN,
a value lower than the maximum tying force (131 kN) obtained from the analysis of the reference scenario. As seen from Fig. 18a–c,
the structures with inadequate horizontal inter-module connections failed by partial collapse after removal of a corner module due to
the failure of horizontal connections between modules in the damaged bay and its adjacent bay. The failure started from the lower
level between modules M21 and M22 at 10.1 s and propagated immediately upwards until the top level. The extent of damage was
limited to the damaged bay only and the rest of the structure did not collapse, due to the limited loading transferred from the
damaged bay of the structure.

4.7. Effect of element removal locations

Fig. 19 shows the locations of the removal of modules or posts, and the corresponding final states are presented in Fig. 20a–h with
a summary of key structural responses presented in Table 2. In this study, the locations of element removal were all at the ground
floor, which was subjected to the greatest initial loading. The structural configuration H5W6 was used in all cases. Among these
scenarios, (a) C11* + C12, (b) C12* + C13 and (c) C13* + C14 were removal of a cluster of two corner posts from two neighbouring
modules (shaded in Fig. 19) in light of GSA (2008) for structures with closely spaced corner posts; (d) C11 + C11* + C12, (e)
C11* + C12 + C12* + C13 and (f) C12* + C13 + C13* + C14 featured removal of two clusters of corner posts for a higher level of
damage; (g) and (h) featured removal of two intermediate modules as per [7] to replicate extreme scenarios. The resulting deflection
dz and the maximum column load recorded after removal of posts or modules (Nmax) are also given in Fig. 20a–h. The locations of
maximum tensile force in the critical tie member and their values are also marked in the same figures. The black dashed lines indicate
the original location of the removed corner posts or modules.
As seen from Fig. 20a–c, the removal of a cluster of corner posts did not lead to progressive collapse or member buckling in the
H5W6 configuration. Moreover, with the location of element removal closer to the outer perimeter of the building, larger structural
responses were induced. For example, from scenario (a) to scenario (c), the deflection dz was reduced from 78 mm to 68 mm (13%).
The increase in the compression load of the critical member (after post removal) was also reduced, from a factor of 2.95 to 1.78. With
the removal of two clusters of posts, similar trends were observed for scenarios (e) and (f). Despite the arrest of collapse under both
scenarios, scenario (e) exhibited member buckling with 54% higher maximum load in the critical post and a dz value 49% higher than
scenario (f). In scenario (d), although the removed elements were closer to the edge of building, slightly lower structural responses
were observed than in scenario (e) because fewer members were removed. In the two extreme scenarios under H5W6 configuration,
the effect of the location of module removal on the structural responses was more pronounced. As seen from Fig. 20g and h,

Fig. 19. Locations of module or post removal.

653
F.J. Luo, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 104 (2019) 643–656

Fig. 20. Final states of various robustness scenarios.

Table 2
Detailed forces and displacement results for various robustness scenarios.
Scenarios Damage locations dz (m) Tmax (kN) Nmax (kN)

(a) C11* + C12 0.078 Negligible 624

(b) C12* + C13 0.070 Negligible 454
(c) C13* + C14 0.068 Negligible 376
(d) C11 + C11* + C12 0.282 29 675
(e) C12 + C12* + C13 + C13* 0.315 30 734
(f) C12* + C13 + C13* + C14 0.154 13 475
(g) M12 + M13 see note (a) see note (b) 741
(h) M13 + M14 0.174 31 726

Note: (a) collapsed; (b) catenary actions not effectively developed.

progressive collapse occurred in scenario (g) with the removal of modules M12 and M13, whereas in scenario (h), with the removal of
modules M13 and M14, no progressive collapse or member buckling was induced. Although the maximum forces for the most post
columns were similar in scenarios (g) and (h), the overall resistances to module instability were different in these cases. In (g), the
edge module M11 was the most critical one after module removal, and its posts inside were more prone to global buckling as the
restraints were presented only on right side (i.e. towards the positive-y direction) of module M11. In comparison, the most critical
modules (M12 and M15) were intermediate modules in (g), and the constraints were presented on both sides of the modules by their
surroundings modules through tie forces.

5. Summary and concluding remarks

A comprehensive numerical investigation was conducted in this study to understand the structural robustness of steel modular
buildings, based on the alternative load path method by nonlinear dynamic analysis. The structural responses of a reference model

654
F.J. Luo, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 104 (2019) 643–656

(five-storey building with six modules per floor and rigid inter-module connection) were first investigated based on removal of a base
corner module. Based upon the reference model, a parametric study was then conducted to investigate the effects of rotational
stiffness and capacity of inter-module connections, number of modules per floor, floor slab, longitudinal wall bracing, and supporting
posts (size and number) on the structural robustness of steel modular buildings. The structural responses to various element removal
scenarios were also investigated.
Four possible final states were identified for the steel modular buildings investigated. The first three types were (1) ‘collapse’, (2)
‘collapse arrested with member buckling’ and (3) ‘collapse arrested without member buckling’, corresponding to structures with
increased collapse resistance (or robustness). The fourth type was ‘partial collapse’, typically occurring due to insufficient capacity of
inter-module connections. In structures that were collapsed in the final state, such as the structure with pinned connections (H5W6-
4C5-P) and that with four only modules per floor (H5W4-4C5-R), the typical collapse process involved initial load redistribution,
member buckling, crushing of modules (floor by floor) and stabilisation of building motion. Progressive collapse was triggered by the
rapid building motion developed with the excessive buckling deformation. The kinetic energy of building motion was dissipated
through crushing of modules until the energy was reduced to a vibratory level.
For structures capable of arresting progressive collapse through member buckling, such as the reference scenario (H5W6-4C5-R)
and the scenario with longitudinal wall bracing (H5W6-4C5-RB), the typical process involved initial load redistribution, member
buckling, and stabilisation of the full structure. In such cases, due to redundant load paths and sufficient member capacity, the
building motion during member buckling was controlled and overall instability was avoided. This phase was normally accompanied
by the development of catenary action and noticeable overall building flexure. With further increases in collapse resistance (or
structure robustness), such as in the structure with eight modules per floor (H5W8-4C5-R), that with larger corner posts (H5W6-4C6-
R) and that with additional vertical load paths (H5W6-8C5-R), no progressive collapse or member buckling was induced in the
scenarios. The structure stabilised immediately after initial load redistribution.
Based on the parametric study, adoption of the following design strategies is advised to ensure adequate collapse resistance or
structural robustness in steel modular buildings. The first is to ensure adequate size of corner posts (thus the member capacity) to
avoid member buckling. An increase in the number of vertical ties between stacking modules can also avoid overloading through
better load-sharing mechanisms, thereby preventing member buckling. In addition, the use of effective longitudinal bracing may
provide additional vertical in-plane stiffness and energy absorption capacity when member buckling occurs. Collapse resistance can
also be improved by using inter-module connections with adequate rotational stiffness, contributing restraint of building motion and
improvement of global stability. In addition, a structure with an adequate number of modules per floor may have inherently high
lateral stiffness, which is beneficial to reducing the potential of excessive building motion that may cause instability and the resulting
collapse. Finally, it would be necessary to design the edge modules stronger and stiffer than the intermediate modules due to the less
restraints to the posts of the former.
With slabs included, the model was able to simulate slab-related contact interaction and diaphragm action, providing a more
realistic result. The frame-only model produced the maximum compression forces, similar to those obtained from the slab-included
model for the critical posts (on the slightly conservative side). This is may be favourable for fast evaluation of collapse potential,
offered from the frame-only model, with less difficulty in computation and convergence.
Based on the study on the structural responses against various element removal scenarios, it can be seen that the structure was
more vulnerable to the removal of corner modules or posts. In the most critical cases, the corner posts must be able to resist 370% of
the static loading if designed to sustain removal of modules or two clusters of closely spaced posts. This requirement was reduced to
295% if designed for removal of one cluster of posts only. Further, on the basis of the results from the removal of one corner module
in the reference model (H5W6-4C5-R), the roof edge beams and their connections must be able to sustain a tensile force of 101 kN. In
addition, to avoid partial collapse, it may be necessary to provide adequate connection strength, or to reduce the tensile force
transferred through each horizontal inter-module connection (for example by means of adding redundant load paths).
This study contributes to understanding of the collapse mechanism of steel-framed modular buildings and development of design
considerations to improve structural robustness. Further research is expected to consider actual connection behaviours such as the
semi-rigidity and joint capacity of connections. Threat-dependent simulation would be also necessary to understand the potential
extent of damage following accidental loading (such as that resulting from a blast or gas explosion) and to propose more realistic
robustness scenarios. Experimental investigations may be important for better understanding of progressive collapse mechanism of
such structures and this will also provide valuable data for validation and further development of modelling technique.

Declaration of Competing Interests

None.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support from the industry partners of the Modular Construction Codes Board and the
State Government of Victoria through the Manufacturing Productivity Networks program.

References

[1] European Committee for Standardisation (CEN), Eurocode 1 - EN 1991-1-7: Actions on Structures - Part 1–7: General Actions - Accidental Actions, (2006).

655
F.J. Luo, et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 104 (2019) 643–656

[2] C. Pearson, N. Delatte, Ronan point apartment tower collapse and its effect on building codes, J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 19 (2005) 172–177.
[3] Department of Defence (DoD), Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Collapse, Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4–023-03, (2005).
[4] General Services Administration (GSA), Progressive Collapse Analysis and Design Guidelines for New Federal Office Buildings and Major Modernization Projects,
Washington DC (2003).
[5] F. Fu, Progressive collapse analysis of high-rise building with 3-D finite element modelling method, J. Constr. Steel Res. 65 (6) (2009) 1269–1278.
[6] Y. Li, X. Lu, H. Guan, P. Ren, Numerical investigation of progressive collapse resistance of RC frames subject to column removals from different stories, Adv.
Struct. Eng. 19 (2) (2016) 314–326.
[7] X. Lu, X. Lu, H. Guan, W. Zhang, L. Ye, Earthquake-induced collapse simulation of a super-tall mega-braced frame-Core tube building, J. Constr. Steel Res. 82
(2013) 59–71.
[8] X. Lu, Y. Li, H. Guan, M. Ying, Progressive collapse analysis of a typical super-tall reinforced concrete frame-core tube building exposed to extreme fires, Fire.
Technol 53 (1) (2017) 107–133.
[9] W. Ferdous, Y. Bai, T.D. Ngo, A. Manalo, P. Mendis, New advancements, challenges and opportunities of multi-storey modular buildings–a state-of-the-art
review, Eng. Struct. 183 (2019) 883–893.
[10] F. Innella, F.J. Luo, Y. Bai, Capacity of screw connections between plasterboard panels and cold-formed steel for modular buildings, J. Archit. Eng. 24 (4) (2018)
04018031.
[11] R.M. Lawson, M. Byfield, S. Popo-Ola, J. Grubb, Robustness of light steel frames and modular construction, Proc. Inst. Civil Eng. 161 (1) (2008) 3–16.
[12] D. Farnsworth, Modular Tall Building Design at Atlantic Yards B2, CTBUH 2015 Shanghai Conference, (2014), pp. 492–499.
[13] LS-DYNA (Release 9.0.1) [Computer software], Livermore Software Technology Corporation (LSTC), (2015).
[14] ANSYS (Release 16.1) [Computer software], ANSYS, Inc., Canonsburg, PA, 2015.
[15] P.S. Symond, Survey of Methods of Analysis for Plastic Deformation of Structures under Dynamic Loading, No. BU/NSRDC/1–67, Brown University, Division of
Engineering Report, 1967.
[16] T.J. Holmquist, G.R. Johnson, W.H. Cook, A computational constitutive model for concrete subjected to large strains, high strain rates, and high pressures, 14th
International Symposium on Ballistics, 1993, pp. 591–600.
[17] Standards Association of Australia (SAA), AS/NZS 1170.1:2002 Structural Design Actions – Part 1: Permanent, Imposed and Other Actions, SAI Global, 2002.
[18] Q. Kai, B. Li, Quantification of slab influences on the dynamic performance of RC frames against progressive collapse, J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 29 (1) (2013)
04014029.
[19] Q. Kai, B. Li, Dynamic performance of RC beam-column substructures under the scenario of the loss of a corner column - experimental results, Eng. Struct. 42
(2012) 154–167.
[20] Standards Association of Australia (SAA), AS/NZS 1170.2:2002 Structural Design Actions – Part 2: Wind Actions, SAI Global, 2012.

656