Structures 21 (2019) 33–44

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Numerical study on steel-concrete composite floor systems under corner T

column removal scenario
Qiuni Fu , Kang-Hai Tan
⁎

School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, 50 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: In this paper, the authors assess the robustness of steel-concrete composite floor systems subjected to a Corner
Progressive collapse Column (CC) removal scenario based on numerical simulations. First, a modelling method is verified by previous
Column removal actual test results conducted by the authors. Afterwards, using the reliable modelling method a composite floor
Composite floor systems system subjected to a corner column loss is simulated, producing the static load-displacement curve, the failure
Dynamic behaviour
mode and load-transfer mechanisms. These results are compared with those of composite floor systems under an
Numerical study
Internal Column (IC) removal scenario. Besides, the model is applied to simulate that the same composite floor
system experiences a sudden column removal under six levels of loads. The dynamic displacement-time histories
under all levels of loads are obtained, from which the loads and corresponding maximum deflections constitute
the dynamic load-deflection response. They are used to evaluate the dynamic load capacity and deformability of
this composite floor system subjected to a sudden CC removal scenario. Lastly, Dynamic Increase Factors (DIFs)
are obtained through comparing the dynamic load-deflection response with the quasi-static one, which are
further compared with DIFs under IC scenario.

1. Introduction contribution in Reinforced Concrete (RC) buildings. Qian and Li [2]

Since the “911” event, studies on structural robustness against
progressive collapse have become booming. Up to date, numbers of
experimental tests have been carried out to shed light on structural
performance of joint components, two-dimensional (2D) cruciform
beam-column sub-structures and three-dimensional (3D) column-beam-
slab floor systems, based on column removal scenarios. Definitely, tests
on 3D floor systems can yield the most realistic behaviour. Besides
experimental tests, Finite Element (FE) simulations also play an im-
portant role in revealing behaviour of structures subjected to extreme
events. Especially due to the prohibitively high cost of tests on entire
buildings or large-scale floor systems, researchers have to resort to
numerical simulations for investigating the global structural behaviour.
Regarding FE modelling methods, joint zones and beam-to-column
connections are usually simulated by the respective rigid zones and
plastic hinges, which are not sufficiently accurate to capture the be-
haviour of joints and connections subjected to large deformations. As a
matter of fact, joint behaviour evidently influences the overall beha-
viour of a building, so researchers ought to use more refined joint
models.
By conducting a few tests on beam-slab sub-structures under a
corner column removal scenario, Qian and Li [1] identified the slab
also studied the influences of slabs on the dynamic response of RC
structures subjected to a sudden column loss. LIM [3] systematically
investigated the structural performance of 2D and 3D RC frames, as
well as 3D RC frame-slabs under different column removal scenarios.
Chen et al. [4] experimentally investigated the collapse resistance of
a two-storey steel-frame-composite-floor system subjected to the
sudden loss of an edge column. In their test, the strains of steel members
were much smaller than the corresponding yield strain, so that the
structural behaviour at large deformation stage was not observed. Ad-
ditionally, Dynamic Increase Factor (DIF) could not be determined by
one free-fall test.
Hadjioannou et al. [5] tested a composite floor system subjected to
an Internal Column (IC) loss scenario. Unfortunately, they were not able
to load up to failure. Instead, their deliberate weakening action led to
the collapse of the sub-structure so that they could not reveal the rea-
listic failure mechanism in the composite floor system under an IC loss
scenario.
A field test was carried out by Song and Sezen [6] on an existing
steel building by cutting off four ground-floor columns in sequence.
They have revealed some behaviour of a real steel building under
column loss scenarios. However, the experimental results were too few
to investigate load-resisting. Besides, the failure mechanism was not

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: fuqi0002@e.ntu.edu.sg (Q. Fu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2019.06.003
Received 4 January 2019; Received in revised form 25 May 2019; Accepted 7 June 2019
Available online 17 June 2019
2352-0124/ © 2019 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Q. Fu and K.-H. Tan Structures 21 (2019) 33–44

Restraint 155 30

500

65

65
C8

40
C5 Beam C1
75 75 92 93
Girder: H 200x100x5.5x8

Column:

Girder B2
Loading point Secondary beam

1000
H200x200x8x12
Girder
B8 B5
Inner beam:H150x75x5x7
Removed Fig. 3. Configurations of composite slabs.

1000
Column

Girder
C7 B7 B4 C2 the one under a CC removal scenario but was not successfully carried
Beam:H150x75x5x7 out. Therefore, there is still an absence of valid actual test results of
composite floor systems under a corner column removal scenario. Be-
Girder

1000
Girder
sides, although one composite floor system [4] was tested under a
B1

B6 B3 sudden column removal scenario, they did not investigate DIF and the
dynamic behaviour at large deformation. Hence, the authors aim to
Y 250 1500 250 conduct actual tests to investigate the static and dynamic behaviour of

1000
X composite floor systems subjected to a CC removal scenario, and to
C6 C4 C3 study DIF. Before the commencement of realistic 3D static and dynamic
tests, numerical predictions are carried out in this paper.
500
2. Verification of FE modelling method
500 2000 2000 500

Fig. 1. Structural layout and restrained positions of the referenced specimen

Before conducting numerical analyses, the model is verified by the
under internal column removal scenario. test results of one of the specimens in Fu et al. [9]. The details of the
referenced experimental test are introduced in the following text.

revealed owing to the slightly damage of the structure.
Johnson et al. [7] tested a half-scale composite floor system sub-
jected to different column loss scenarios. During the test, the load ca-
pacity was unexpectedly low under the CC removal scenario, and the
specimen could not reach equilibrium when applying the first level of
load. Consequently, the load-deflection curve was not obtained for the
CC removal scenario.
Fu et al. [8,9] tested four composite floor systems under an IC re-
moval scenario. As a result, they have studied load-resisting mechan-
isms and the effects of slab aspect ratio, degree of composite action and
boundary condition on the behaviour in composite floor systems sub-
jected to an IC removal scenario.
From the above literature review, the test in Johnson et al. [7] was
2.1. Referenced test under IC removal scenario
Considering the high cost of specimens and lab space constraint, the
test specimen was one-third scaled, with 2 m by 2 m for each bay
(Fig. 1) and 1.4 m for storey height. Fig. 1 shows the structural layout of
the specimen, with girders (primary beams) connecting to column
flanges in the y-direction and secondary beams (including beam and
inner beam in Fig. 1) to column webs or girder webs in the x-direction.
H-shaped steel sections were used for the columns, girders and sec-
ondary beams, indicated in Figs. 1 and 2 which shows the joint con-
figurations. The girder-to-column connections adopted flush end plates
with bolts, while the beam-to-column and inner beam-to-girder joints
employed double angle-cleat connections. The four numbers following

Column stub
Column stub 140 Secondary beam H200x200x8x12
H200x200x8x12 30 30 40 H150x75x5x7
M16 (8.8S) 10 60 8
26
25
50 20

25 50 25

Secondary beam
100
50

H150x75x5x7 Stiffener
t=4mm
50

40 45 5
25

End plate
20 50

t=8 mm
Double angle
Girder L90x56x5
60 8
H200x100x5.5x8

Fig. 2. Details of joints.

34
Q. Fu and K.-H. Tan Structures 21 (2019) 33–44

(a) Overview of the model

(b) Element used in the model

Fig. 4. Information of the model [10].

155 placed at 75 mm spacing on the girders and 92 mm spacing on the

30
secondary beams, as shown in Fig. 3. All the material properties can be
found in Fu et al. [8].
65

40

The specimen was quasi-statically applied with displacement-con-

(a) Original Cross-section trolled loads at 12 points (Fig. 1) up to failure. During the test, the
specimen was vertically and horizontally restrained along the free ends
of the cantilever girders and beams (Fig. 1) simulating restraints from
155 the adjacent bays. Detailed descriptions on loading and restraining
Weak strip 30
systems can be found in Fu et al. [9]. With all this attainable in-
formation, numerical models can be constructed to simulate structural
65

behaviour of the specimen during the test.

40

Strong strip Reinforcement Decking layer

(b) Simplified Cross-section 2.2. FE modelling

Fig. 5. Simplification for trapezoidal profiled composite slabs.

Considering computational efficiency and accuracy, macro-based
modelling method is adopted in this study using ABAQUS software. Due
1800 to one-way symmetry of the loading system and double symmetry of the
Vertical load (kN)

1500 specimen, a half model is constructed and loaded through 6 points

1200 (Fig. 4 (a)). An overview of the model including boundary and loading
900
Test result conditions is shown in Fig. 4 (a). The bottom ends of the three columns
600 are fixed, while the far ends of girders and secondary beams in adjacent
FE simulation
300 bays are vertically and horizontally restrained by springs (Fig. 4 (a)), of
0 which stiffness values can be found in Fu [10]. Fig. 4 (b) shows the
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 elements used in the model. Steel beams and columns in the numerical
Central displacement (mm) model are simulated by beam elements. No damage criteria are in-
troduced into the beam elements because beams and columns are much
Fig. 6. Load-displacement curve.
stronger than slabs and connections and it is assumed that no fracture
will occur in them. Connections are simplified using joint components
the letter “H” in sequence, represent depth and width of the section, as simulated by connector (similar to spring) elements in ABAQUS. The
well as thicknesses of the web and the flange in mm, respectively. The full force-displacement relationships of joint components were experi-
composite slab consisted of a profiled steel decking (40 mm deep and mentally determined by Fu [10].
0.9 mm thick), concrete (65 mm in total thickness), and a reinforcing It should be noted that the trapezoidal profiled composite slabs are
mesh (ϕ6 at 100 mm spacing in both directions). Shear studs were simulated by alternate “strong” and “weak” strips with rectangular

35
Q. Fu and K.-H. Tan Structures 21 (2019) 33–44

(a) The bottom bolt fracture at 0.73hg (b) The top bolt fracture at 1.16hg

(c) Force development of components in girder B1-to-removed-column connection

Fig. 7. Failure of components in the girder-to-removed-column connection.

(a) Failures at B1-H (b) Force development of components at

B1-H
Fig. 8. Failure of components at the hogging end of double-span girder.

cross-sections (Figs. 4 and 5). In this way, trapezoidal profiled com-
posite slabs can be modelled by quadrilateral shell elements (S4R)
(Fig. 4), which can be assigned with a composite section containing
various materials at different layers. Hence, reinforcement is defined as
one part of a shell element section. The interactions between re-
inforcement and concrete, such as bond slip and dowel action, can be
simulated because tension stiffening of concrete is specified by means of
a post-failure stress-strain relation. Considering that the steel decking
would delaminate from the RC slab at very small deformation, shell
elements of RC slab and steel decking are separately built ignoring bond
but incorporating contact behaviour between them. For both “strong”
and “weak” sections, the steel decking layers are defined at the bottom
of the sections. Hence, the steel decking layer continues in the rib di-
rection but discontinues at the boundaries between the strong and the
week strips in the direction normal to the ribs (transverse direction). To
capture more precisely the behaviour of ribs in the transverse direction,
one can refer to Izzuddin et al. [11] which introduced additional rib
freedoms associated with hierarchic displacement fields for the ribs.
In the modelling, bilinear stress-strain relationship is adopted to
represent uniaxial material property for the steel reinforcement and
profiled decking, of which fracture is controlled by ductile damage
criteria. The FE models in this study incorporate concrete with damaged
plasticity model, which assumes concrete with scalar (isotropic) da-
mage. One can find all the input information for materials from Fu [10].
Additionally, beam elements (B31) are used to connect composite slabs
to steel girders and beams (Fig. 4) such as shear studs in test specimens.
The determination of properties of the “shear studs” has been in-
troduced by Fu [10] in detail.
Subsequently, the authors conduct numerical simulations to com-
pare with the respective counterparts in the test.

36
Q. Fu and K.-H. Tan Structures 21 (2019) 33–44

(a) Failure of angles and steel decking (b) Force development of components in the
in the test beam-to-removed column connection

(c) Fracture of steel decking

Fig. 9. Failure of beam-to-removed column connection and steel decking.

S-1 S-3 in the girder-to-removed-column connection, while Fig. 7 (c) plots the
1 component force versus displacement of the removed column. In the
Adjacent bay test, the bottom- and top-row components of the sagging moment
500

C5 C1 connections (denoted by “S”) fractured at the respective displacements

of 193 mm (0.73hg where hg is the depth of composite girder including
Loading point S-4
Adjacent bay

slab thickness, hg = 265 mm) and 307 mm (1.16hg). In comparison, the

500

corresponding components fail at respective displacements of 203 mm

1000

(0.77hg) and 256 mm (0.97hg) in the FE model. Hence, failure of

Girder B2

500

Inner beam B5 components in the girder-to-removed-column connection can be cap-

tured with acceptable accuracy. From Fig. 8 (a), at the hogging end of
the double-span girder (denoted by “H”), yielding of bottom flange was
500

375 750 750 750

visible at a displacement of 50 mm (0.19hg), in agreement with the
1000

behaviour of the bottom compressive component in the FE model

500

y Beam B4 C2
Removed column
x 3000
Fig. 10. Structural layout and boundary conditions.
2.3. Comparisons between numerical predictions and test results
In this section, the load-deflection curves and failure modes are first
compared between numerical predictions and test results to validate the
FE modelling before conducting further parametric analyses. Fig. 6
shows that the FE model can predict the overall load-deflection re-
sponse well.
Fig. 7 (a) and (b) show the photographs of the fractured components
(Fig. 8 (b)). Similarly, the model can also predict failure of the top- and
2
middle-row bolts at the hogging end at a correct range of displacement,
S-2 as shown in Fig. 8 (a) and (b).
750
Moreover, in the test, the fracturing process of angles in the beam-
to-removed column connection starting at 300 mm (1.4hb where hb is
the depth of composite beam including slab thickness, hb = 215 mm) to
400 mm (1.86hb) in the test is predicted by descending forces of the
joint components commencing at 256 mm (1.19hb) to 407 mm (1.89hb),
as shown in Fig. 9 (a) and (b). Lastly, fracture of the steel decking at the
final stage is also captured by the model (Fig. 9 (a) and (c)).
After the numerical comparison, the modelling method shows the
capability to predict the overall load-displacement response and cap-
ture the failure mode of structural components. The verified model is
then used to study the corner column removal effects on composite
floor systems under a corner column removal scenario.

37
Q. Fu and K.-H. Tan Structures 21 (2019) 33–44

Restraint
Restraint
Free edge
Free edge

Removed column

(a) Model under UDL

Restraint
Displacement
Removed column

Fixed Fixed

(b) Model under 12-point load

Fig. 11. Overviews of models.

3. Simulations of composite floor system with corner column

missing

3.1. Details of floor system

Fig. 10 shows that the structural layout of the analysed floor system
which is supported by three columns with the corner column removed.
It should be noted that steel member sections, joint configurations, slab
details and restraint properties remain the same as those of the tested
specimen [10] introduced in Section 2.

Fig. 12. Loading scheme [12]. 3.2. Descriptions of modelling

300 To model the boundary conditions, the three columns are fixed at
their feet and the floor is restrained at the two inner edges with the
250
other two edges remaining free (Figs. 10 and 11). Specifically, the re-
Vertical load (kN)

200 straints are simulated by axial springs with very high stiffness values in
150 the horizontal direction (Figs. 10 and 11) and rigid restraints in the
UDL vertical direction in the model. According to [10], the stiffness values of
100
12-point Springs S-1 and S-3 in Fig. 10 are assigned with 230 kN/mm and those
50 of Springs S-2 and S-4 are set to 36 kN/mm.
0 Firstly, the model is applied with static 12-point loads and
0 100 200 300 Uniformly Distributed Loads (UDL) (Fig. 11 (a) and (b)), respectively.
Deflection of removed column (mm) The load-deflection curves and failure modes under the two loading
scenarios are discussed and compared in Section 4.1. Secondly, using
Fig. 13. Comparison of load-deflection curves between UDL and 12-point the dynamic solver in Abaqus the model is analysed for simulating the
loading scenarios.
sudden corner column removal. Specifically, a UDL is applied on the

38
Q. Fu and K.-H. Tan Structures 21 (2019) 33–44

Fig. 14. Distribution of in-plane principal strain in steel decking at the peak load point [12].

100 floor system collapses.

0 4. Simulation results
Component force (kN)

0 100 200 300

Top-row (12-point)
-100 Top-row (UDL)
Flange in compression (12-point)
Flange in compression (UDL)
-200
-300
Deflection of the removed column (mm)
Fig. 15. Force development of components at the hogging end of B2.
slab in a ramp pattern during Step-1 (Fig. 12) and remains unchanged
during Step-2. On the other hand, in Step-1, the corner column stub is
applied with a vertically upward force which is supposed to be the
corresponding reaction force. At the beginning of Step-2, the upward
reaction force is reduced to zero in 0.08 s to simulate sudden loss of the
corner column. This duration is one-tenth of the period of the floor
system with the corner column removed, associated with the vertical
motion. The program continues to run until the maximum displacement
can be obtained (e.g. 2 s). Following this method, the model is re-
peatedly analysed under increasingly greater levels of loads until the
4.1. Static behaviour
4.1.1. Load-deflection curves and failure mode
From Fig. 13, it can be seen that the load-deflection response under
UDL agrees very well with that under 12-point loads in the ascending
stage. The curves reach the peak at the respective ultimate load of
246 kN and deflection of 76 mm. Afterwards, the model under UDL does
not sustain greater loads but has a significant deflection, indicating
failure of the composite floor system. Although the failure is initiated in
the floor system, the load-deflection curve under UDL does not decrease
due to the force-controlled loading method. In contrast, the displace-
ment-controlled 12-point loading can yield the descending branch.
Nevertheless, the two loading scenarios lead to the same failure mode.
For instance, the decrease in load is initiated by the damage in the slab
(Fig. 14) and fracture of joint components (Fig. 15) at the hogging end
of girder B2 (Fig. 10) due to cantilever action.
Considering the close agreement in load-deflection curves and
failure modes before the ultimate state, 12-point loads can use used to
substitute UDL to capture post-peak response. With increasing deflec-
tion, the cantilever action in girder B2, beam B4 and the slab cause
strain concentration in steel decking and reinforcement at supporting
edges (Figs. 16 and 17). Catenary Action (CA) and Tensile Membrane
Action (TMA) are not observed. The failure mechanisms under the CC

C1 C5 C1
C5
Failure Failure

B2 B2

B4 B4

(a) Short-span reinforcement (b) Long-span reinforcement

Fig. 16. In-plane principal strain distribution in reinforcement when slab collapses.

39
Q. Fu and K.-H. Tan
C5
Fig. 17. Distribution in-plane principal strain in steel decking when slab collapses.
60
50
40
UDL (kN/m2)
30
20
IC scenario
10 CC senario
0 from it until the applied vertical load reaches the maximum at a de-
0 100 200 300 400
Deflection of removed column (mm)
Fig. 18. Comparison of load-deflection curves under CC and IC removal sce-
narios.
and IC removal scenarios are different from each other. For the latter, it
was the complete failure of joint components at the girder-to-removed
column and beam-to-removed column connections that govern the
collapse of the floor system, when joint components at the hogging
moment ends of the double-span girder and the double-span beam were
also severely damaged [8]. For IC removal scenario, CA was mobilised
in the double-span girder and the double-span beam, and TMA was
mobilised in the composite slab [8]. Consequently, composite floor
systems under an IC removal scenario can sustain greater loads and
have better ductility compared with those under a CC removal scenario,
as shown in Fig. 18. It should be noted that the numerical modelling
information under CC and IC scenarios shown in Fig. 18 is the same, the
only difference lies in the column removal location.
4.1.2. Horizontal deformations and restraining forces
Fig. 19 shows the deflected shapes of the floor system when the
vertical displacement of the removed column reached around 50 mm,
100 mm, 150 mm and 200 mm. It can be seen that the deformed shape
of the girder and the beam were caused by cantilever action which
played an important role in transferring the applied load to adjacent
bays. Hence, horizontal deformations and restraining forces at the far
ends of girder B2 (Point 1 in Fig. 10) and beam B4 (Point 2 in Fig. 10),
as well as the reaction forces at the associated column feet (C5 and C2,
respectively), are discussed in this section. Fig. 20 shows the develop-
ment of horizontal deformations (H-1 and H-2) at respective Points 1
and 2. At the corresponding same locations, the development of forces
in the horizontal restraining springs (S-1 and S-2) are shown in Fig. 21.
40
Structures 21 (2019) 33–44
C1
Failure
C2
It should be noted that positive horizontal deformation indicates that
the movement is towards the removed column, while a negative value
means that the monitored point moves away from the removed column.
Accordingly, a negative force in the restraining spring means that the
spring is in compression so the negative horizontal restraining force in
Fig. 21 acts towards the removed column, while the positive force acts
in the opposite direction. Therefore, both Figs. 20 and 21 show that
girder B2 moves towards the removed column while Beam B4 departs
flection of around 76 mm at the removed column location, indicating
torsional behaviour is present in the slab at this stage. Afterwards, both
B2 and B4 displace away from the removed column, exhibiting hor-
izontal outward pushing behaviour in the floor system. With the corner
column removal, it is confirmed that CA is absent in the floor system.
4.1.3. Reactions at column feet
The force in restraining spring S-1 with a greater stiffness (230 kN/
mm) is significantly smaller than that in S-4 with a smaller stiffness
(36 kN/mm). The reason is that column C5 possesses greater horizontal
stiffness in B2-direction compared with that of C2 in B4-direction. As a
result, C5 resists most of the horizontal force transferred from girder B2,
thus reducing horizontal force transferred to S-1. In comparison, most
of the reaction force in line with B4 is sustained by S-2 instead of C2, as
shown in Fig. 22, where RC5,y indicates that the horizontal reaction
force at C5 is in the positive y-direction while RC2,x at C2 is in the
positive x-direction.
However, the numerical result shows that the force in S-1 is smaller
than that in S-2 (Fig. 21), which runs contrary to the observation in the
floor systems with an internal column missing [9] where Compressive
Arch Action (CAA) was mobilised in the double-span girder and the
double-span beam. For specimens in Fu et al. [9], the much greater CAA
in girder B2 produced greater outward horizontal force compared to
that in beam B4, so that the horizontal reaction at the end of B2 (cor-
responding to S-1 in the present model) is greater than that of B4
(corresponding to S-2), although C5 was placed in a better orientation
to resist horizontal force compared to C2.
Fig. 23 shows the development of reactions at the feet of column C2
and C5, where RC2,V and RC5,V represent the respective vertical reaction
forces at C2 and C5; MC5,ma denotes the bending moment at the feet of
C5 about major-axis of the cross-section while MC2,mi denotes the
bending moment at the feet of C2 about minor-axis of the cross-section.
Positive bending moments mean that the fibre in the flange which is
Q. Fu and K.-H. Tan Structures 21 (2019) 33–44

(a) Displacement of the removed column = 50 mm

(b) Displacement of the removed column = 100 mm

(c) Displacement of the removed column = 150 mm

(d) Displacement of the removed column = 200 mm

Fig. 19. Deformed shape of the floor system at different loading stages.

farther to the removed column is in tension. It can be seen that C5
connecting with girder B2 sustains a greater vertical load and a bending
moment than C2 before the deflection at the removed column reaches
around 150 mm. Actually, the vertical load and the bending moment at
C5 decrease rapidly from a displacement of around 76 mm at the re-
moved column, synchronising with the development of applied load.
Since the load in C5 is mainly transferred from girder B2 and the as-
sociated effective composite slab flange, the decrease in load should be
caused by failures of the slab and joint at the hogging end of girder B2.
Hence, the strength of composite girder B2 at the hogging end governs
the maximum load capacity of the composite floor system after losing
the corner column.

41
Q. Fu and K.-H. Tan Structures 21 (2019) 33–44

0 4.2. Dynamic behaviour

Horizontal Deformation (mm)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
-0.2 4.2.1. Deflection-time history and failure mode
-0.4 Fig. 24 (a) shows the deflection-time histories at the removed
column location under increasing vertical loads, viz. around 18.7%,
-0.6
H-1 37.4%, 56.2%, 75% and 93.8% and 100% of the ultimate dynamic load
-0.8 capacity. If the total load of an applied UDL is smaller than 160 kN, the
H-2 deflection at the removed column reaches the maximum deformation
-1 within 0.03 s–0.06 s following the complete removal of the column at
1.08 s. The vibration of the floor system lasts for a few cycles, and then
-1.2
ceases at a permanent deflection smaller than the maximum. When
Deflection of removed column (mm)
applying 160 kN of loads (Fig. 24 (a)), the deflection continues to in-
Fig. 20. Development of horizontal deformation at the ends of girder B2 and crease after the first round of vibration until collapse occurs. If the floor
beam B4. system were to sustain a greater load (say 180 kN), a sudden removal of
the column leads to an immediate collapse, indicated by a sharp in-
10 crease in deflection (from the value smaller than 70 mm to the value
S-1 S-2
more than 500 mm) at the removed column, as shown in Fig. 24 (b).
Fig. 25 shows that the failure mode of the slab subjected to the
Horizontal restraining

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 sudden removal of the corner column under a total load of 160 kN is
force (kN)

-10 similar to that under quasi-static scenario (Fig. 14). Under this level of
load, the crucial components at the hogging end of B2 do not fail but
-20
have plastic deformation, as shown in Fig. 26 (a). However, under a
-30 free-fall load of 180 kN, these components fracture, and the forces de-
velop in a similar manner to those under quasi-static loading scenario,
-40 as shown in Figs. 15 and 26.
Deflection of removed column (mm)

Fig. 21. Development of horizontal restraining forces at the ends of girder B2

and beam B4. 4.2.2. Dynamic increase factor (DIF)
As shown in Fig. 24 (a), different magnitudes of loads and the
corresponding maximum deflections constitute the dynamic load-de-
0
Horizontal reaction force (kN)

flection curve (Fig. 27), which is in good agreement with the pseudo-
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 static response calculated based on energy method [13]. It should be
-10 noted that the pseudo-static response has been calculated to its max-
imum value. However, it does not give any indications of dynamic ul-
timate loads or deformations as investigated by Fu et al. [14]. A value
-20 of DIF is the quotient of a static load and the corresponding dynamic
load on the same deformation basis. As shown in Fig. 28, deflections are
-30 normalised as rotations (θpra/θyb) of the primary member (girder). The
RC5,y RC2,x
terms θpra and θyb indicate the plastic and yield rotations of the girders,
respectively. It can be seen that the DIF for the CC removal scenario
-40 varies from around 1.8 to 1.5 with increasing deflection, which is
Deflection of removed column (mm)
greater than the corresponding DIF under an IC removal scenario.
Fig. 22. Development of horizontal reaction forces at column C2 and C5. However, this finding from the numerical predictions requires further
verifications by actual tests.

150
Horizontal reaction force (kN)

20
RC5,v
Reaction moment (kN·m)

120
RC2,v 15
90
10
60
5 MC5,ma MC2,mi
30

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Deflection of removed column (mm) Deflection of removed column (mm)

(a) Vertical reaction forces b) Bending moments

Fig. 23. Development of reactions at feet of C2 and C5.

42
Q. Fu and K.-H. Tan Structures 21 (2019) 33–44

10 Time (s)
0

Deflection at removed
30 kN 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2

Deflection at removed
-10 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 -100

column (mm)
60 kN -200

column (mm)
-30 90 kN -300 180 kN
120 kN -400
-50 150 kN -500
160 kN -600
-70 Time (s)

(a) Survival(b) Sudden collapse

Fig. 24. Deflection-time histories under different levels of loads.

C5 C1

C2

Fig. 25. In-plane principal strain distribution of steel decking under a load of 160 kN at 1.14 s (first peak deflection) [12].

100 100 Failed

0 0
Component Force (kN)
Component force (kN)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 100 200 300 400 500

Top-row (160kN)
-100 -100
Flange in compression (160kN) Top-row (180kN)
Flange in compression (180kN)
-200 Plastic deformation -200

-300 -300
Deflection of the removed column (mm) Deflection of the removed column (mm)

(a) Under load of 160 kN (b) Under load of 180 kN

Fig. 26. Force development of components at hogging end of B2 under free-fall loads.

5. Conclusions secondary beams connected web-cleat and steel decking-concrete

Based on numerical simulations, the static and dynamic behaviour
of 3D composite floor systems under a corner column removal scenario
are discussed in this paper. The conclusions area limited to the floor
systems configured with girders connected by bolted flush-endplate,
composite slabs. After losing a corner column removal scenario, applied
load is mainly resisted by cantilever action in the girder, beam and slab.
Catenary action, tensile membrane action and compressive arch action
are not observed based on simulation results. The slab is failed by
component failures at the hogging moment regions of the cantilever

43
Q. Fu and K.-H. Tan Structures 21 (2019) 33–44

280 Acknowledgments
240
Vertical load (kN)

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support pro-

200 vided by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Singapore.
160
References
120 Static
80 Dynamic [1] Qian K, Li B. Slab effects on response of reinforced concrete substructures after loss
of corner column. ACI Struct J 2012;109(6):845–55.
40 Pseudo-static [2] Qian K, Li B. Quantification of slab influences on the dynamic performance of RC
frames against progressive collapse. J Perform Constr Facil 2015;29(1):04014029.
0 [3] LIM NS. Systematic study on reinforced concrete structures under progressive col-
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 lapse Doctor of Philosophy Nanyang Technological University; 2017.
[4] Chen J, Huang X, Ma R, He M. Experimental study on the progressive collapse
Deflection of the removed column (mm) resistance of a two-story steel moment frame. J Perform Constr Facil
2012;26(5):567–75.
Fig. 27. Pseudo-static response. [5] Hadjioannou M, Donahue S, Williamson EB, Engelhardt MD. Large-scale experi-
mental tests of composite steel floor systems subjected to column loss scenarios. J
Struct Eng 2018;144(2).
2 [6] Song BI, Sezen H. Experimental and analytical progressive collapse assessment of a
steel frame building. Eng Struct 2013;56:664–72.
DIF-CC DIF-IC [7] Johnson ES, Meissner JE, Fahnestock LA. Experimental behavior of a half-scale steel
Force-based DIF

1.8
concrete composite floor system subjected to column removal scenarios. J Struct
Eng 2016;142(2):04015133.
1.6 [8] Fu QN, Tan KH, Zhou XH, Yang B. Load-resisting mechanisms of 3D composite floor
systems under internal column-removal scenario. Eng Struct 2017;148:357–72.
1.4 [9] Fu QN, Tan KH, Zhou XH, Yang B. Three-dimensional composite floor systems under
column-removal scenarios. J Struct Eng 2018;144(10).
1.2 [10] Fu QN. Structural behaviour of composite floor systems under column removal
scenario (PhD thesis). Nanyang Technological University; 2018.
1 [11] Izzuddin BA, Tao XY, Elghazouli AY. Realistic modeling of composite and re-
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 inforced concrete floor slabs under extreme loading. I: analytical method. J Struct
Eng 2004;130(12):1972–84.
Normalised rotation of girder (θpra/θyb) [12] Fu QN, Tan KH. Numerical study on steel-concrete composite floor systems under
corner column removal scenario. 12th international conference on advances in
Fig. 28. DIF under IC and CC scenario. steel-concrete composite structures (ASCCS 2018). 2018. p. 897–904. València,
Spain.
[13] Izzuddin BA, Vlassis AG, Elghazouli AY, Nethercot DA. Progressive collapse of
girder, beam and slab. Consequently, composite floor systems under a multi-storey buildings due to sudden column loss — part I: simplified assessment
framework. Eng Struct 2008;30(5):1308–18.
corner column removal scenario fail in a less ductile manner compared [14] Fu QN, Tan KH, Zhou XH, Yang B. Numerical simulations on three-dimensional
with those under an internal column removal scenario. Furthermore, composite structural systems against progressive collapse. J Constr Steel Res
the dynamic increase factor for corner column removal scenario is 2017;135:125–36.
greater than that under internal column removal scenario.

44