PROGRESSIVE

COLLAPSE STUDY OF
R.C.C. BUILDING
FRAME STRUCTURES

Muhammad Shahid Hussain

Roll No. 03

Govt. Engineering Academy Punjab, Pakistan

PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE
 CAUSES
 Design mistake
 Faulty construction
 Abnormal load events

Pressure Loads Impact Loads

- Internal gas explosions - Aircraft impact
- Blast - Vehicular collision
- Wind over pressure - Earthquake
- Extreme values of - Overload due to
environmental loads occupant overuse
 OBJECTIVE
 To get familiar with ETABS.
 To determine demand capacity ratio for a building undergoing
progressive
collapse.
 To study changes in design using GSA (General Service Administration)
guidelines.

SCOPE
 Reduction of potential for progressive collapse in new and renovated
important buildings
 Potential of progressive collapse is assessed using Non linear static
analysis method since it gives economical design
 Progressive Collapse Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Framed Structure
Raghavendra C, Mr. Pradeep A R

Building -For the analysis, a typical frame of height 37.5 m is considered

description -All the supports are modeled as fixed supports
Analysis - Linear Static analysis is used to analyze the structure
Software -ETABS v9.7 for the IS 1893 load combinations
Column - For PC analysis the columns at eight different location is removed
removal for eachcase
Progressive -RC frame in the earthquake zones 2, 3, 4 and 5 is designed using
Collapse ETABS program for dead, live, wind and seismic loads.
Analysis -The specified GSA load combination was applied
-The Demand Capacity Ratio (DCR), the ratio of the member force and the
member strength is calculated.
Conclusion -While removing the column the intersecting beams of the shorter
span beams tend to take the extra burden load and DCR values of
that beams were more compared to longer span beams.
-To avoid the progressive failure of beams and columns, adequate
reinforcement is required to limit the DCR within the acceptance
criteria.
 PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMED
STRUCTURE
Rakshith K , Radhakrishna
Building  Typical frame structure of height 37.5m is considered.
description &  It is modeled using ETABS v9.7 software.
Modeling  Linear static analysis is conducted on each of thesemodels.
Analysis  Analysis is carried out by ETABS Software for IS 1893 load combinations.
Column  Critical Column are removed for progressive collapse analysis in different cases.
removal  Separate linear static analysis is performed for each case.
Demand  DCR for flexure at all storeys is calculated for three cases of column failure.
Capacity ratio  Demand capacity ratio < 2.0 (acceptance criteria as per GSA 2003)
Results C1 B1 and B5 exceed acceptance criteria value suggested by GSA for
removed progressive collapse guidelines.
C16 B23 and B24 exceed acceptance criteria value suggested by GSAfor
removed progressive collapse guidelines.
C18 B25 and B26 exceed acceptance criteria value suggested by GSAfor
removed progressive collapse guidelines
Conclusion Progressive failure of beams and columns is avoided by adequate
reinforcement is required to limit the DCR within the acceptance criteria.
 It can develop alternative load paths
 Progressive Collapse Analysis Of Building
Miss. Preeti, K. Morey ,Prof S.R.Satone

Mathematical Using STADD Pro software 3d model of a frame is

modeling analyzed
DCR ( Acceptance For typical structure (symmetrical structure) = DCR≤ 2.0
Criteria) For typical structure (unsymmetrical structure) = DCR≤ 1.5
DCR= M max / Mp
Performance C1 , C3 is removed and critical column is identified forboth
analysis static and seismiccase.
Result of column wise DCR of Linear Static analysis and
linear dynamic analysis for both static and seismic case is
considered.
CONCLUSION Case II - RC Frame with removal of column c3 has highest
DCR value in comparison with case I.
DCR of column c3 is 1.98 which is less than 2 i.e. GSA
criteria. Hence the frame is less vulnerable to progressive
collapse.
 METHODOLOGY
Detailed study of literaturereview

RCC building is taken for Project

Prepare AUTO CAD plan for the structure

Modeling in ETABS

Non linear static analysis is carried out

Identification of critical column

Removal of critical column toinitiate

progressive collapse

DCRs aredetermined

Result comparison – before &after

progressive collapse
check for acceptance criteria as per By this evaluation a building can be assessed
GSA 2003 guidelines whether it can withstand progressivecollapse
Building taken for Study
AUTO CAD DRAWINGS
ETABS Modeling
Non Linear static analysis
Steps to befollowed:
 Analysis Procedure:
- Modeling of structure is carriedout
- Load casesare defined

Gravity load case:

DL Self weight
DL1 Super imposed load
LL live load

Seismic load case: Wind load case:

Applied as point load in floor diaphragms
WLX Wind load along X direction
ELX Earthquake along X dir.
ELY Earthquake along Y dir. WLY Wind load along Y direction
Loads Assigned:
Gravity Loads:
• Live Load = 70psf
• Floor finishes = 36psf
• Partition load = 20psf
• Wall load = 982lf/ft

Lateral Loads:
• Seismic zoon = 2A
• Seismic zoon factor = 0.15
• Soil profile = SD
• Importance Factor = 1
• Wind speed = 15mph
• Exposure type = B
 Load Combination
UBC 97 :-
1. 1.4∑DL
2. 1.4∑DL +1.7(∑LL + ∑ RLL)
3. 0.75[ 1.4∑DL + 1.7(∑LL +∑RLL) + 1.7 WL]
4. 0.75[ 1.4∑DL + 1.7(∑LL +∑RLL) - 1.7 WL]
5. 0.9∑DL + 1.3 WL
6. 0.9∑DL -1.3 WL
7. 1.1[1.2∑DL +0.5(∑LL+∑RLL)+1.0E]
8. 1.1[1.2∑DL +0.5(∑LL+∑RLL)-1.0E]
9. 1.1(0.9∑DL +1.0E)
10. 1.1(0.9∑DL – 1.0E)
 Demand Capacity ratio

 Demand Capacity Ratio (DCR) is the ratio of Member force to the

Memberstrength.

 DCR = Member force/ Memberstrength

 Allowable DCR < 2, for typical structuralconfiguration,

< 1.5, for atypical structuralconfiguration.

 DCR is calculated for the each elements in the frame which consists of
removed column
 Table: DCR value of surrounding columns and beams.
Moment Moment Load Load
Surrounding
Member Before After Before After
Members DCR
Removed Removal Removal Removal Removal
Be am Column lb-ft lb-ft lb lb
B8 34435.919 70708.897 2.05
B9 37495.671 72506.914 1.93
B39 59608.952 73010.254 1.22
CASE-1
C165 126100.18 182480.94 1.45
C65 95124.37 147098.35 1.55
C83 125791.03 133473.28 1.06
C188 87217.66 122028.02 1.40
C181 87893.94 122246.86 1.39
C109 163252.89 208046.88 1.27
CASE-2
B119 39275.31 41593.963 1.06
B56 35616.308 52513.347 1.47
B57 31465.337 45316.742 1.44
C70 120899.21 158774.45 1.31
C182 84882.48 127944.01 1.51
CASE-3
B15 47880.888 89533.964 1.87
B16 49574.243 90380.761 1.82
B101 55080.637 65832.031 1.20
B102 20933.695 33513.42 1.60
CASE-4
C104 62840.84 80940.44 1.29
C123 123924.47 135276.12 1.09
According to the GSA guideline atypical frame building having
DCR values greater than 1.5 indicate that the portion is
severely damaged and have more damage potential.
It can be seen that in the 1st , 3rd and 4th case, demand to
capacity ratio (DCR) values of the members exceeds the
acceptance criteria it means most of the building part is
vulnerable to spread of progressive collapse.
Conclusion and Recommendations
• Progressive collapse is a very devastating type of
failure that may lead to excessive loss of lives and
property, so that it should be avoided as much as
possible.
• For the buildings to be constructed in future,
progressive collapse should necessarily be
considered.
• High rise building and structures located in
earthquake prone areas should be design
considering progressive collapse.
Conclusion and Recomm. cont..
• To prevent progressive collapse, structure
system of the building should be able to tolerate
the removal of one or more structural members
and redistribute their load on the surrounding
members, so that disproportionate collapse
would not take place.
• In this field, proper methodology, guidelines and codes
are not yet available. Considering the needs of the
modern era, to provide higher margin of safety against
the bomb blast, Earthquakes and other impact loadings
more development and research work is required
regarding Progressive collapse.
THANK YOU