Materials Today: Proceedings 60 (2022) 582–587

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

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

Progressive collapse: Analytical study on the behavior of reinforced

concrete frame using E-tabs
Vigneshwaran Rajendran a,⇑, Ananthakrishnan Gopalakrishnan b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Amrita College of Engineering and Technology, Nagercoil, Tamil Nadu, India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Amrita College of Engineering and Technology, Nagercoil, Tamil Nadu, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Performance-based seismic analysis is one vital tool for studying the progressive collapse of Reinforced
Available online 19 February 2022 Concrete (RC) buildings. Many incidents, such as earthquakes and gas explosions, have caused failures
in major components of building structures either partially or completely. Progressive collapse in a build-
Keywords: ing occurs when at least one vertical element, such as columns, is removed. This work deals with the per-
Progressive collapses formance of a (G + 10) storey building consisting of 5  5 bays with a span length of 4 m and pushover
Performance based design analysis is performed using E-tabs software and design of buildings as per Indian Standard (IS) code. The
Hinges
columns have been removed as per General Service Administration (GSA) guidelines. The first corner col-
E-tabs
umn (C1), the third column (C3), the fifth column C5), the middle column (C13) in the ground storey, and
the first corner column (C1) in the fifth storey are removed. The frame is analysed for different seismic
zones (zone 1, zone 2, zone 3, zone 4) as per IS 1983:2002 by using a non-linear static analysis procedure.
The critical column in a frame is found using axial load carrying capacity.
Copyright Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Sustainable Materials
and Practices for Built Environment.

1. Introduction collapse analysis of the RC frame subjected to blast loading. The

All Engineering structures such as buildings are designed for
gravity and lateral loads, but due to the rising threat of terrorism
and accidental explosions such as bomb blasts, which lead to pro-
gressive collapse. The structural failure which occurs when one
part of the structure spreads to the other part of the structure
and results in a massive collapse is called a progressive collapse.
For the past three decades, many works of literature have been
available to study the progressive collapse of Engineering struc-
tures. At the latest, a critical review has been conducted on the pro-
gressive collapse of RC structures, and the experimental
investigation carried out by many researchers is discussed [1]. In
this sphere, a study was carried out on a typical RC high-rise tower.
An advanced numerical analysis procedure is used to predict the
progressive collapse of RC buildings [2]. The LS-DYNA explicit finite
element analysis code is used to study the progressive collapse.
The structural and non-structural elements are modelled using
the above code [3]. Researchers critically studied the progressive
frame is built using G + 3 stories and the columns and beams are
designed and analysed [4]. The researchers analysed the progres-
sive collapse of an RC frame building by removing a middle col-
umn, and the collapse distribution and the formation of hinges
were studied [5,7]. The present paper deals with the study of
G + 10 RC frame building with the removal of columns as per
GSA guidelines. Further researchers [12] carried out the progres-
sive collapse for buildings at different heights, i.e., G + 6, G + 8,
and G + 10, and the analysis was performed using E-tabs software,
and finally the linear static analysis result is compared with the
time history analysis. Usually, tall buildings are filled with
masonry walls, and so the behavior of the infill wall on RC is very
important. Researchers [13] studied the behaviour of the RC frame
with infill experimentally. From the result, it is observed that infill
frame behaviour is different from bare frame behaviour in terms of
displacement, storey drift, etc.
2. Methodology

⇑ Corresponding author. In order to study the progressive collapse of an RC building, a

E-mail address: vignesh.rajen.93@gmail.com (V. Rajendran). frame is developed as per the dimensions given in Table 2. The

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.02.117
2214-7853/Copyright Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Sustainable Materials and Practices for Built Environment.
V. Rajendran and A. Gopalakrishnan Materials Today: Proceedings 60 (2022) 582–587

RC frame is modelled using E-tabs software; loads such as self-

weight, wind, and seismic are calculated and given as per IS code
[6,10]. Fig. 1 shows the plan and elevation of the RC frame building.
Nonlinear static analysis is used in the analysis and the removal of
columns is made as per GSA guidelines. As per the guidelines of
GSA, five cases have been considered in the analysis. The analysis
is carried in all seismic zones (Zone 1, 2, 3, and 4) as per IS code.
Fig. 2 shows the removal of columns C1 on the ground floor;
Fig. 3 shows the removal of columns C3 on the ground
floor; Fig. 4 shows the removal of column C5 on the ground floor;
and Fig. 5 shows the removal of columns C1on the fifth floor. Fig. 6
shows the removal of column C1 on the fifth floor. Table 1, shows
the removal of column as per GSA guidelines.

3. Results and discussions

Fig. 2. Conner column C1 is removed in ground floor.

Pushover analysis is carried for the G + 10 RC building and the

removal of columns are made as per GSA guidelines.
For case 1, the removal of the column C1 in the frame leads to
an increase in axial loads around the column, and the major
increase is observed in the neighbouring columns C2, C6, and C7
by 34.89%, 36.25%, and 5.3%. Fig. 7 shows the value of axial loads
when all columns are present and when column C1 is removed,
the rise in axial load value is increased as shown in the graph.
For case 2, column C3 is removed, which is the middle column
located in the ground storey. Fig. 8, shows the axial load of the col-
umn with the removal of column C3. When column C3 is removed,
the axial load in the other columns is increased, and the neighbour-
ing columns C2, C4, and C8 increase by 30.53%, 21.89% and 21.02%.
For case 3, conner column C5 is removed from the ground storey
and there is an increase in axial loads on the neighbouring columns
by 34.88% by column C4, 5.36% by column 5.36% and 36.24%, by
column C10. Fig. 9 shows the removal of column C5. Fig. 10 shows Fig. 3. Middle column C3 is removed in ground floor.
the axial load of the column with the removal of column C5. For
case 4, by removing the column C13 on the ground floor. As per
case 4 removal of column C13 in the ground floor, there is an
increase in axial loads in the columns C12, C14, C8, C18 by
26.30%, 26.36%, 19.85% and 19.92%. Fig. 10 shows the axial load
of the column with the removal of column C5. In the case 5
removal of the column C1 from the 5th floor, there is a tremendous
increase in the axial loads on the neighbouring columns C2, C6 and
C7 by 54.54%, 58.85% and 4.9%. The comparison of the results is
made as per the previous researchers [7,8]. Fig. 11 shows the axial
load of the column with the removal of column C1 (see Fig. 9).

3.1. Behaviour of frame with different seismic zones

The analysis is carried with different seismic zones as per IS

code (Zone 1–4) [11]. For all the cases zone 4 experiences large
axial loads. The size of the columns is decided based on the axial
Fig. 4. Conner column C5 is removed in ground floor.

loads in the columns [9]. When the column is removed, the axial
loads in the neighbouring column is increased. Fig. 12 shows the
axial loads of all columns for seismic zones I, II, III and IV. Further
in Fig. 12 represent the presence of all the column in a frame and
the axial load is shown. For the frame with all columns, column
(C7) in zone 3 experiences high axial load. From Fig. 12 it is
observed that for the column C1, C2, C6 and C7 there is no much
difference in axial load for the seismic zone I, II, III and IV. Whereas,
for the seismic zone III and IV, Fig. 13 shows the axial loads of all
columns by removing C1 for seismic zone I, II, III and IV. Since
the column C1 is removed in this case, the axial load in this column
Fig. 1. Plan and 3D view of the frame. is zero and so the axial load for neighbouring columns (C2, C6 and
583
V. Rajendran and A. Gopalakrishnan Materials Today: Proceedings 60 (2022) 582–587

Fig. 7. Axial loads with and without C1 column in the frame.

Fig. 5. Middle column C13 is removed in ground floor.

Fig. 6. Conner column C1 is removed in fifth floor.

Table 1
Columns.

Building Cases Location of the column Fig. 8. Axial loads with and without C3 column in the frame.

Case – 1 The conner column C1 is removed in Ground Floor

Case – 2 The middle column C3 is removed in Ground floor
Case – 3 The conner column C5 is removed in Ground floor
Case – 4 The middle column C13 is removed in Ground floor
Case – 5 The conner column C1 is removed in the fifth floor

Table 2
Dimensions of the building frame.

Building parameter Details

Number of floors G + 10
Typical storey height 3m
Bottom storey height 4.2 m
Number of bays and spacing in X-direction 4 bays with spacing 4 m
Number of bays and spacing in Y-direction 4 bays with spacing 4 m
Size of beam 200  300 mm
Size of column 450  350 mm
Thickness of slab 150 mm
Thickness of wall 100 mm

C7) is increased. Fig. 14 shows the axial load for the columns C3,
C2, C4 and C8 for the seismic zone I, II, III and IV. Fig. 15 shows
the axial loads on all columns by removing C3 for seismic zone I,
II, III and IV. Fig. 16 shows the axial loads for the columns C5, C4, Fig. 9. Axial loads with and without C5 column in the frame.

584
V. Rajendran and A. Gopalakrishnan Materials Today: Proceedings 60 (2022) 582–587

Fig. 10. Axial loads with and without C13 column in the frame. Fig. 13. Axial loads on all columns by removing C1 for seismic zone I, II, III and IV.

Fig. 11. Axial loads with and without C1 column in 5th floor of the frame.
Fig. 14. Axial loads on all columns for seismic zone I, II, III and IV.

Fig. 12. Axial loads on all columns for seismic zone I, II, III and IV. Fig. 15. Axial loads on all columns by removing C3 for seismic zone I, II, III and IV.

585
V. Rajendran and A. Gopalakrishnan Materials Today: Proceedings 60 (2022) 582–587

Fig. 19. Axial loads on all columns by removing C13 for seismic zone I, II, III and IV.
Fig. 16. Axial loads on all columns for seismic zone I, II, III and IV.

C9, and C10 for seismic zone I, II, III and IV. For the removal of col-
umn C5 in the ground storey there is rise in axial load for the
neighbouring columns C8, C12, C14 and C18. Fig. 17 shows the
axial loads on all columns by removing C5 for seismic zone I, II,
III and IV. Fig. 18 shows the axial loads on all columns for seismic
zone I, II, III and IV. From the Fig. 19 shows the axial loads on all
columns by removing C13 for seismic zone I, II, III and IV. From
the figure it is observed that the removal of middle column C13
in the fifth floor, there is equal distribution of axial load on remain-
ing four adjacent columns (C8, C12, C14 and C18), since the
removal of column is made on the mid height of the building
(i.e., on fifth floor) there no variation in axial load carried by the
columns for different seismic zones.

4. Conclusions

Following are the conclusion drawn in the above study,

Fig. 17. Axial loads on all columns by removing C5 for seismic zone I, II, III and IV.
 Since the progressive collapse of a building occurs in many parts
of the world, it is important to investigate. Buildings are usually
designed to carry the axial loads, but accidents occur suddenly
which may lead to the collapse of the entire structures. In the
current investigation, the columns are removed as per GSA
guidelines and investigations are carried out.
 Removal of the columns on the 5th floor led to a tremendous
increase in the axial load of more than 50%.
 Removal of middle column in the frame, led to equal distribu-
tion of axial loads to the neighbouring columns and there is
an equal rise in axial load in all the seismic zones (Zone 1, Zone
2, Zone 3 and Zone 4).
 For the above study, it is concluded that building have to be
designed taking into the consideration of progressive collapse
and additional reinforcement bars have to be provided in col-
umns in order to protect the buildings from progressive
collapse.
 The pushover analysis is a useful tool for assessing the inelastic
strength and deformation demands of the design and for expos-
ing design weaknesses. The pushover analysis is a relatively
simple way to explore the non-linear behaviour of the structure.
Pushover analysis was carried out separately in the X and Y
directions. The resulting pushover curves, in terms of Base
Shear – Roof Displacement (V D), are given in X and Y direc-
Fig. 18. Axial loads on all columns for seismic zone I, II, III and IV. tions separately.
586
V. Rajendran and A. Gopalakrishnan
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Vigneshwaran Rajendran: Conceptualization, Visualization.
Ananthakrishnan Gopalakrishnan: Visualization.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Reddy G. Rama Krishna, Y. Vinod, Seismic performance of RCC multistored
building with base isolators, Test Engineering and Management, March – April
2020, ISSN: 0193-4120, Page No. 99-106.
[2] Binu Sukumar, Silva P. Joyson, R.G. Dhilip Kumar, Effect of slab opening in
seismic Resistance of structure, Test Engineering and Management, January –
February 2020, ISSN: 0193-4120, Page No. 14850–14855.
[3] Sidi Shan, Shuang Li, Shuhong Wang, Effect of infill walls on mechanisms of
steel frames against progressive collapse, J. Constr. Steel Res. 162 (2019)
105720, page 1–13.
587
Materials Today: Proceedings 60 (2022) 582–587
[4] Y.A. Al-Salloum, H. Abbas, T.H. Almusallam, T. Ngo, P. Mendis, Progressive
collapse analysis of a typical RC high-rise tower, J. King Saud Univ. – Eng. Sci.
[5] I.M.H. Alshaikh, B.H. Abu Bakar, E.A.H. Alwesabi, H.M. Akil, Experimental
investigation of the progressive collapse of reinforced concrete structures: an
overview, Structures 25 (2020) 881–900.
[6] Somayyeh Karimiyan, Collapse distribution scenario in seismic progressive
collapse of RC buildings caused by internal column elimination, Iran. J. Sci.
Technol. Trans. Civil Eng.
[7] Elvira, P. Mendis, N. Lam, T. Ngo, Progressive collapse analysis of RC frames
subjected to blast loading, Austr. J. Struct. Eng. 7 (1) (2006) 47–55.
[8] M.-H. Tsai, Evaluation of different loading simulation approaches for
progressive collapse analysis of regular building frames, Struct. Infrastruct.
Eng. 8 (8) (2012) 765–779.
[9] B. Lewicki, S.O. Olesen, Limiting the possibility of progressive collapse, Build.
Res. Pract. 2 (1) (1974) 10–13.
[10] IS: 456 – Plain and Reinforced Concrete Code of Practice.
[11] IS: 1893 (Part – I): 2002 – Criteria for Earthquake Resistance Design of
Structure.
[12] Pawan Kumar, Samrat Lavendra, T. Raghavendra, Progressive collapse
resistance of reinforced concrete frame structures subjected to column
removal scenario, Mater. Today: Proc. (2021). doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2021.09.204.
[13] N. Eren, E. Brunesi, R. Nascimbene, Influence of masonry infills on the
progressive collapse resistance of reinforced concrete framed buildings, Eng.
Struct. 178 (2019) 375–394.