Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 s2.0 S2212827121000044 Main
1 s2.0 S2212827121000044 Main
com
ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 98 (2021) 25–30
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Abstract
Previous studies have shown that RC flat slab buildings are highly vulnerable to progressive collapse because no beams could help redistribute
the loads previously carried by the lost columns. The necessary strengthening methods should, therefore, be adapted to reduce the occurrence of
progressive collapse. In this paper, the progressive collapse behaviour of five-storey R.C flat slab building is assessed by removing columns from
the first-storey and dynamic analysis is conducted in compliance with GSA guidelines (2016). The results are analyzed in terms of vertical
displacement and chord rotation at the location of removed columns and compared with the allowable limits as specified in DoD guidelines
(2009). Different sized perimeter beams are used as strengthening methods to increase the progressive collapse resistance of the studied flat slab
building. Since building strengthening uses structural elements that consume natural resources, sustainability criteria should be explicitly included
in the strengthening requirements. These performance enhancement methods are then evaluated from structural, cost and environmental aspects
and the results are examined. A strengthening alternative is then proposed which not only satisfy the progressive collapse code requirements but
also requires less cost and emits less CO2 gas.
© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 28th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering.
Keywords: Sustainability; Progressive collapse; Flat slab; Perimeter beam; Cost calculation; CO2 emission.
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
26 Suyash Garg et al. / Procedia CIRP 98 (2021) 25–30
Notations Table 1. CO2 emission factor and unit cost by the strength of materials used in
C-1 Corner Column strengthening alternatives.
E-1 Edge Column - 1 Material
Strength CO2 emission
Unit cost
E-2 Edge Column - 2 (MPa) factor
ΔC-1 Vertical Displacement at the location of the Concrete
25 236.8 kg-CO2/m3 ₹ 9400.85/m3
(M25)
removed corner column
Rebar (Fe 500) 500 424.2 kg-CO2/ton ₹ 83500.0/ton
ΔE-1 Vertical Displacement at the location of the
removed edge column - 1
ΔE-2 Vertical Displacement at the location of the In civil engineering, structures are at risk of a local failure
removed edge column - 2 which can cause repeated failures leading to complete collapse.
θC-1 Chord Rotation at the location of the removed Consequently, numerous strengthening alternatives are
corner column required to be implemented to achieve adequate protection.
θE-1 Chord Rotation at the location of the removed Strengthening, however, like constructing new houses, often
edge column - 1 requires forms of energy and creates harmful gases.
θE-2 Chord Rotation at the location of the removed Sustainability issues should therefore be studied from an
edge column - 2 engineering point of view. The CO2 emission factors and unit
costs are adjusted according to the material quality. Therefore,
element. The acceptance criteria for beams, two-way slabs and proper strengthening system to save money and protect the
slab column connections (flat slabs) of different material types environment must be determined. Table 1 [14] indicates the
(reinforced concrete, steel, masonry, wood, cold-formed steel) CO2 emission factors and unit costs of concrete and rebar based
are presented in the DoD guidelines in terms of plastic rotation on their strength.
angles in radians.
Flat slab structures are more vulnerable to progressive 3. Detail of Building Models
collapse because there are no beams to help redistribute the
loads [3-7]. Several researchers have therefore attempted to The studied RC flat slab building consists of five storeys
investigate the behaviour of RC flat slab structures in resisting with 3x4 bays having a span of 8.0 m in each direction with a
progressive collapse. On the basis of validated numerical height of 3.6 m in all storeys. ETABS software [16] is used to
analyses, Keyvani et al. [8] evaluated the impact of replicate the flat slab building. A plan and 3-D view of the
compressive membrane action on the progressive collapse building under study can be seen in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively.
capacity of flat plate structures. Qian and Li [9,10] assessed the For modelling flat slabs, the Equivalent Frame Method (EFM)
behaviour of RC flat slab structures under corner or interior [17-19] is used. For each storey, the size of column taken as
column removals. Peng et al. [11] examined the dynamic 450 x 450 mm, the thickness of the flat slab is taken as 200 mm,
behaviour of flat plate substructure under the instantaneous and size of the inner and outer flat slab beams are taken as 1780
removal of the exterior column. x 200 mm and 890 x 200 mm, respectively. In each building
In these conditions, there is a considerable need to carry out layout, a Live Load (LL) of 4.0 kN/m2 and a superimposed
an effective performance evaluation of RC flat slab buildings
Dead Load (DL) 2.0 kN/m2 is applied to all floors. The grade
and to evaluate potential strengthening schemes to meet the
of concrete and steel is taken as M25 and Fe500, respectively.
criteria of the progressive collapse code [1, 2]. Perimeter beams
are strongly recommended to allow frame action to redistribute Buildings are designed for gravity loads in accordance with IS
vertical loads and improve the shear connection of floors to 456:2000 [20].
columns, and can, therefore, be used as an effective The size and reinforcement details of the seven
strengthening tool [12]. strengthening alternatives, examined in this study, in the form
In this study, the progressive collapse behaviour of a five- of different perimeter beams are shown in Table 2. The
storey RC flat slab building subjected to instantaneous removal building model without any strengthening measure, B-PB, is
of first storey columns is assessed using dynamic analysis and compared with building models B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6 and
various strengthening alternatives to meet the current B7 having different sized perimeter beams.
progressive collapse code requirements are presented. These
alternatives, in the form of different sized perimeter beams, are
then examined from the chord rotation at the location of the
removed column, the cost and CO2 gas generation perspectives
and the results are demonstrated for comparison.
2. Sustainability Criteria
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
Suyash Garg et al. / Procedia CIRP 98 (2021) 25–30 27
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
28 Suyash Garg et al. / Procedia CIRP 98 (2021) 25–30
ΔE-1 (mm)
Building column (mm)
-400
ΔC-1 ΔE-1 ΔE-2 θC-1 θE-1 θE-2
-500
B-NB 850.2 749.7 725.3 0.106 0.094 0.091 -600
B-1 449.6 540.1 515.1 0.056 0.068 0.064
-700
B-2 400.2 501.3 474.9 0.050 0.063 0.059
B-3 366.1 460.5 435.5 0.046 0.058 0.054 -800
B-4 295.3 369.8 348.8 0.037 0.046 0.044 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3
B-5 250.5 352.1 325.6 0.031 0.044 0.041 Time (sec)
B-6 341.4 420.6 405.2 0.043 0.053 0.051
B-7 315.5 380.2 369.4 0.039 0.048 0.046
B-NB B-1 B-5 B-7
-200 0
ΔC-1 (mm)
-100
-400
-200
-600 -300
ΔE-2 (mm)
-800 -400
-500
-1000
-600
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3
-700
Time (sec) -800
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3
B-NB B-1 B-5 B-7
Time (sec)
Fig. 4. Time history of vertical displacement when C-1 is instantaneously B-NB B-1 B-5 B-7
removed at t = 1.5 sec.
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
Suyash Garg et al. / Procedia CIRP 98 (2021) 25–30 29
0.060 0.070
0.060
0.050
0.050
0.040
0.040
θC-1 (rad)
θE-2 (rad)
0.030
0.020
Beam 450x500 mm
Beam 450x600 mm
Beam 450x550 mm
Beam 450x550 mm
Beam 450x650 mm
Beam 450x650 mm
Beam 450x600 mm
Beam 450x450 mm
Beam 450x500 mm
Beam 450x450 mm
0.020
0.010
0.010
0.000 0.000
B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7
Strengthening alternatives Strengthening alternatives
Fig. 7. Chord rotation when C-1 removed. Fig. 8. Chord rotation when E-2 removed.
0.070 4000000.00
0.060 3500000.00
3000000.00
0.050
2500000.00
COST (₹)
0.040
θE-1 (rad)
2000000.00
Beam size inccreasing from top
Beam size decreasing from top
Beam 450x450 mm
Beam 450x500 mm
Beam 450x550 mm
Beam 450x600 mm
Beam 450x650 mm
Beam 450x450 mm
Beam 450x550 mm
Beam 450x600 mm
0.020
1000000.00
0.010 500000.00
0.000 0.00
B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7
Strengthening alternatives Strengthening alternatives
Fig. 9. Chord rotation when E-1 removed. Fig. 10. Cost of strengthening alternatives.
5.3. Assessment of strengthening from a sustainability of CO2 decreases as the perimeter beam size decreases. But the
perspective reduction in perimeter beam size results in a higher chord
rotation at the location of the removed column. Thus, in order
Strengthening of the studied flat slab building is assessed to balance the chord rotation with the perimeter beam size, the
from a sustainability perspective, taking into account costs and strengthening methods B6 and B7 used approximately the same
CO2 emissions. Consumption of concrete and steel materials in quantity of concrete and reinforcement as used in alternative B-
the system is used in the measurements with a view to assessing 3. Alternative B-7 judiciously used different sized perimeter
the environmental effect of strengthening. The total cost and beams on different storeys (beam size increasing from the top
CO2 emissions of strengthening methods are shown in Figs. 10 storey having largest size on the first storey) and achieved
and 11, respectively. Alternative B-5 has the least chord chord rotation values within the limit of 0.05 which is not
rotation, but it is the most expensive and reveals the most CO2 achieved in the case of B-3 where same sized perimeter beams
gas among all alternatives. Alternative B-1, on the other hand, are incorporated on each storey. Thus, strengthening alternative
is the cheapest and emits the least CO2 gas, but has the highest B-7 not only requires low cost and emits less CO2 but also
chord rotation than any other alternative. In strengthening meets the structural requirements of the GSA and DoD
alternatives B-1 to B-5, it is noted that the cost and emission guidelines.
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
30 Suyash Garg et al. / Procedia CIRP 98 (2021) 25–30
storeys (beam size increasing from the top storey having largest
60000.00 size on the first storey) and satisfy the progressive collapse
code requirements with a limited cost and CO2 emission.
50000.00 Acknowledgements
Beam 450x650 mm
Beam 450x550 mm
Beam 450x600 mm
[1] GSA 2016, Progressive collapse analysis and design guidelines for new
10000.00 federal office buildings and major modernizations projects. The US
General Services Administration.
[2] UFC 4-023-03 2009, Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), Design of buildings
0.00 to resist progressive collapse. The USA Department of Defense.
B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 [3] Foraboschi P. Structural layout that takes full advantage of the capabilities
and opportunities afforded by two-way RC floors, coupled with the
Strengthening alternatives selection of the best technique, to avoid serviceability failures. Eng. Failure
Anal. 70 (2016) 387–418.
[4] Shear P. Strength computation of reinforced concrete beams strengthened
Fig. 11. CO2 emission for strengthening alternatives.
with composite materials. Compos: Mech. Compu.t Appl. 3 (3) (2012)
227–52.
6. Conclusion [5] Foraboschi P. Modeling of collapse mechanisms of thin reinforced concrete
shells. J. Struct. Eng. ASCE. 121 (1) (1995) 15–27.
RC flat slab buildings are at risk of progressive collapse if [6] King S, Delatte NJ. Collapse of 2000 commonwealth avenue: punching
shear case study. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. ASCE. 18 (1) (2004) 54–61.
they are unable to meet the requirements of the current
[7] Park TW. Inspection of collapse cause of sampoong department store.
progressive collapse code. Hence, these buildings ought to be Forensic Sci. Int. 217 (1) (2012) 119–26.
strengthened using different strengthening methods. [8] Keyvani L, Sasani M, Mirzaei Y. Compressive membrane action in
Strengthening improves the building's efficiency and helps progressive collapse resistance of RC flat plates. Eng. Struct. 59 (2014)
buildings meet their service lives. Consequently, economic and 554–64.
[9] Qian K, Li B. Experimental study of drop-panel effects on response of
sustainable methods of strengthening attract engineers and
reinforced concrete flat slabs after loss of corner column. ACI Struct. J. 110
society's attention. (2) (2013) 319–329.
In the study, an RC flat slab building is strengthened to meet [10] Qian K, Li B. Resilience of flat slab structures in different phases of
progressive collapse code requirements taking into account progressive collapse. ACI Struct. J. 113 (3) (2015) 537–48.
various strengthening techniques. The joint displacement and [11] Peng ZH, Orton SL, Liu JR, Tian Y. Experimental study of dynamic
progressive collapse in flat-plate buildings subjected to exterior column
chord rotation at column removal locations are evaluated when
removal. J. Struct. Eng. 143 (9) (2017) 04017125.
the building is exposed to three cases of sudden removal of [12] Ellingwood BR, Smilovitz R, Dusenberry DO, Duthinh D, Carino NJ. Best
columns at the first storey. The findings indicate that the practices for reducing the potential for progressive collapse in buildings.
studied flat slab building is more vulnerable to progressive National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), US Department of
collapse in the case of corner column removal than in the case commerce, NITIR 7396, 2007.
[13] Adelberth K. Energy use during the life cycle of buildings: a method.
of edge column removal.
Build. and Env. 32 (4) (1997) 317-320.
To order to track the strengthening efficiency of the addition [14] Ji C., Hong T. and Park H.S. Comparative analysis of decision-making
of perimeter beams to the studied building, alternate perimeter methods for integrating cost and CO2 emission-focus on building structural
beam sizes are examined. The results show that the inclusion design. Ener. and Build. 72 (2014) 186-194.
of perimeter beams in the building dramatically increases the [15] Mora E.P. Life cycle, sustainability and the transcendent quality of
building materials. Build. and Env. 42 (2007) 1329-1334.
progressive collapse resistance by providing adequate stiffness
[16] User’s guide ETABS 2016, Integrated building design software.
and a proper transfer of loads. It is also recognized that an Computers & Structures Inc, Berkeley 2016.
increase in the size of perimeter beams increases the [17] Cano M.T. and Klingner R.E. Comparison of Analysis Procedure for Two
progressive collapse resistance, but at the same time increases Way Slabs. ACI Struct. J. 85 (6) (1988) 597-608.
the cost and CO2 emissions. It is essential that the economic [18] Sen S. and Singh Y. Seismic Performance of Flat Slab Buildings. Adv. in
Struct. Eng. Springer New Delhi, 2 (2015) 897-907.
and environmental implications must be held to a minimum,
[19] Hwang S.J. and Moehle J.P. Models for Laterally Loaded Slab-Column
while structural safety is also necessary and cannot be ignored. Frames. ACI Struct. J. 97 (2) (2000) 345-353.
The strengthening alternative is hence proposed in such a way [20] IS 456:2000, Plain and Reinforced Concrete - Code of Practice. Bureau of
that it wisely uses different sized perimeter beams on different Indian Standards, New Delhi 2000.
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.