Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Table 1
Values of parameters selected for parametric studies.
Variable Range of variable selected
3. Parametric studies
removal scenario
U3(m)
-0.03
In this case, column A1 at the ground level was removed as
it is shown in Fig. 3. In order to evaluate the effect of strength,
-0.04
three grades of steel members are chosen, which are S275, S355,
S460. The comparison is shown in Fig. 4. It can be seen that,
-0.05
there is not much difference between these three cases. This is
because the inspection of the model shows that no plastic strain
-0.06
was developed in the steel beams, as is shown in Fig. 5. That means
all the beams are still in the elastic stage, so no obvious difference Fig. 4. Displacement of the node above the removed column with different grade
of the response was observed. For the research done so far, most of steel members.
researchers presume that after one column has been removed; the
plastic hinge will form in the beam in their analysis model. The
0
0 0.5 1 1.5
modelling result of this paper shows that this is not always true.
The plasticity will depend on the size of the beam, the strength of
-0.2
the beam and the loading. The structure can remain elastic after
one column has been removed.
-0.4
Plastic strain
removal scenario
Fig. 6 that the plastic strain were developed in the steel beams. The Time(s)
0
0.0002 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
-0.01
C30
0.00015
C40
-0.02 C60
U3(m)
Plastic strain
-0.03
0.0001
-0.04
0.00005
-0.05
-0.06
Time(S)
0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Time(s) Fig. 10. Displacement of the node above the removed column with different
concrete strength (1 column removal).
Fig. 6. Axial Plastic strain of beam B1-A1 at ground level for case with S355 strength
(2 columns removal). 40000
35000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 30000
-0.02
Moment(N.m)
25000
-0.04 20000
15000
-0.06
U3(m)
10000 C30
-0.08 C40
5000 C60
-0.1
0
S275
-0.12 S355
Time(s)
S460
-0.14 Fig. 11. Major Bending Moment of Beam A1-B1 at ground level with different
Time(S)
concrete strength (1 column removal).
80000 350000
S355
60000 250000
S460
50000 200000
Moment(N.m))
40000 150000
100000
30000 C30
50000 C40
20000 C60
0
10000
Time(s)
0
Time(S) Fig. 12. Axial force of Beam A1-B1 at ground level with different concrete strength
(1 column removal).
Fig. 8. Major Bending Moment of Beam B1-A1 at ground level with different grade
of steel member (2 columns removal).
like vertical displacement, major axis moment and axial force are
reordered. The comparison results are shown in Figs. 10 to 12.
800000
When column A1 as shown in Fig. 3 was suddenly removed, the
700000
node on the top of the removed column vibrated and reached a
600000 peak vertical displacement and eventually rested at a displacement
shown in Fig. 10. The redistribution of forces was observed to take
Axial Force (N)
500000
place as shown in Figs. 11 and 12. From Fig. 10 it can be seen that,
400000
the weaker the concrete strength the greater the maximum vertical
300000
S275
dynamic deflection observed. It can be noticed from the Figs. 11
200000 S355 and 12 that, the weaker the concrete strength, the greater the axial
S460 force and bending moment were observed in the steel beam, this
100000
is because for lower grade concrete strength, the concrete cracked
0
more early than the higher grade concrete. Therefore, more force
Time(S) is transferred into the steel beams rather than the slabs.
It can be seen that, increasing the concrete’s strength will
Fig. 9. Axial force of beam B1-A1 at ground level with different grade of steel increase the resistance to the progressive collapse as the dynamic
members (2 columns removal). deflection is reduced and the overall stiffness of the building is
3978 F. Fu / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 3974–3980
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
U3(m)
-0.04
-0.05
-0.06
-0.07
-0.08
Time(S)
Fig. 15. Major Bending Moment of Beam A1-B1 at ground level with different rebar
meshes (1 column removal).
Fig. 13. Displacement of the node above the removed column with different rebar
meshes (1 column removal). construction market. From Fig. 13, It can be seen that, with
increasing the steel mesh, a larger maximum dynamic deflection
600000 is caused. This is because the experiments done by Fu [18] shows
500000
that, with the increasing of the steel bars the rotation capacity
of the composite joints is increased, therefore a larger maximum
400000 dynamic deflection is observed.
Axial Force(N)
From Figs. 14 and 15 it can be seen that, the internal forces of the
300000 A142
A192
beam are increased as well. This is because, after removal, the point
200000 A252 A1 is working as a roller. As the deflection is increased, the axial
A393
force of the beam is increased due to the increase of elongation or
100000 A1390
A7200
compression of the beam segment. As discussed in Section 3.1, in
0 one column removal scenario, the beam is still in the elastic stage,
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Time(s)
no plastic hinge is formed. So from the elastic energy analysis, it
can be seen that:
Fig. 14. Axial force of Beam A1-B1 at ground level with different rebar meshes Ue = Ui
(1 column removal).
Ue ∝ P ∆
L
M2
∫
increased. However, the internal force of the steel beam is also Ui ∝ dx
increased. It can also be seen that, the tensile strength of the 0 2EI
concrete has a smaller effect on the response of the structure. The where,
reason for this is that the joints and the steel beams have provided Ui is the internal strain energy,
sufficient effective tying that prevents large deformation in the Ue is the potential work due to the loss of the column,
floors. This means increasing of the strength in the concrete has P is the gravity load,
only a marginal contribution to the effective tying of the system. ∆ is the deflection.
The similar result has been found in the research of [14] as well. M is the bending moment of the beam.
Therefore, with the deflection increased, Ue increases, so Ui
3.4. Effect of reinforcement mesh — one column removal scenario increases as well, Therefore M is increased. Which means more
energy has been transferred into the system. And as no plastic
In this case, column A1 at the ground level was removed. hinge is formed, this amount of energy is stored in the system as a
In order to evaluate the effect of the steel mesh used in the strain energy, and some is dissipated through the dumping.
concrete, four types of steel mesh were chosen first, which are
A142, A193, A252 and A393 with mesh size as 142 mm2 /m, 3.5. Effect of reinforcement mesh — three columns removal scenario
193 mm2 /m, 252 mm2 /m and 393 mm2 /m respectively. They are
In order to clearly investigate the effect of the steel mesh,
the typical mesh size used in the current composite slab design.
in this analysis, column A1, A2 and B1 on the ground level are
The comparison results are shown in Figs. 13–15. It can be seen
removed. The steel meshes investigated are A142 with mesh size
that, when one column A1 was suddenly removed, the node on
142 mm2 /m, A1420 with mesh size 1420 mm2 /m and A7200 with
the top of the removed column vibrated and substantially reached mesh size 7200 mm2 /m, although the last two mesh sizes are not
a peak vertical displacement. The response eventually rested at a actually used in the current construction market.
displacement shown in Fig. 13. A large redistribution of forces was Plastic strain is also observed similar to the two columns
observed to take place as shown in Figs. 14 and 15. The comparison removal scenario. From Fig. 16, It can be seen that, with the
result shows that, for the conventional steel mesh used in current increase of the steel mesh, a larger maximum dynamic deflection
construction practice, the variation of the deformation is small. is observed. From Figs. 17 and 18 it can be seen that, with the
This is because the variation of rebar ratio of this four meshes is increase of the steel mesh, the beam axial force increases, however
small, and forces are mainly taken by the steel beams rather than the major bending moment decreases. From the plastic theory, it
the slab, as is discussed in Section 3.1. Therefore, the difference is can be seen that, when plasticity starts to develop, the equation
not obvious. below can be obtained:
In order to clearly investigate the effect of the steel mesh, M
N
2
more steel meshes are investigated which are A1930 with mesh + =1 (1)
size 1930 mm2 /m and A7200 with mesh size 7200 mm2 /m, My Ny
although this two mesh sizes are not actually used in the current where,
F. Fu / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 3974–3980 3979
0
However, the analysis of Sections 3.4 and 3.5 in this paper
-0.05 shows that, the reduction of the M will not occur in the one column
-0.1 removal scenarios as the structures are still in the elastic stage, Eq.
(1) is not applicable, unless a large deflection occurs as the three
-0.15
columns removal scenario. It normally will not happen in the one
U3(m)
-0.35
3.6. Measures to mitigate progressive collapse
-0.4
Time(s)
From above parametric studies it can be seen that, for the
Fig. 16. Displacement of the node above the removed column with different steel multi-storey composite steel frame buildings, the way to mitigate
meshes (3 columns removal). the progressive collapse is to increase the strength of the steel
structural members and strength of concrete, however, it only has
1000000
marginal effect on the resistance capacity of the building.
900000
It can also be seen that, the building is more vulnerable to
800000 the removal of more than two columns scenarios. As is discussed
700000 by Fu [16], this is due to the larger affected loading area after
the column removal which also determines the amount of energy
Axial Force (N)
600000
500000
needed to be absorbed by the remaining building. Therefore,
another effective way to resist progressive collapse is to decrease
400000
the spacing of the grid or provide more redundancy in the
300000
structural scheme.
200000
For the one column removal scenario, increasing the steel
100000 mesh will increase the maximum dynamic deflection which is
0 a disadvantage. However, for more columns removal scenarios,
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 because the development of the plasticity, the behavior of the
Time(S)
building changes. The experiments done by Fu [18] shows that,
Fig. 17. Axial force of Beam B1-C1 at ground level with different steel meshes (3
increasing the steel rebar can increase the rotation capacity of
columns removal). the composite joint, which allows the plasticisation of the steel
member, therefore, increasing the ductility of the joints. The
70000 increasing ductility increases the energy absorption capacity of the
60000 joints. This is because the ductile joints allow for redistribution
of internal forces within the structural system by enabling large
50000
deformations so that they are suitable for progressive collapse
40000 mitigation by transition from flexural loading to axial loading in
Moment (N.m)
30000 the members and joints and initiating of a catenary action. So more
steel mesh is an advantage when plasticity develops. However, it
20000
is noticed from the analysis of this paper that, this can only be
10000 achieved when large deflections is occurred.
0
-10000
4. Conclusions
-20000
Time(S)
In this paper, the behavior of the 20 storey steel composite
frame building under the sudden column removal was investigated
Fig. 18. Major Moment of Beam B1-C1 at ground level with different steel meshes with a 3-D finite element model using the ABAQUS package. Based
(3 columns removal). on this model, parametric studies were carried out to investigate
the structural behavior with variations in: strength of concrete,
My is the plastic bending moment capacity in the absence of any strength of structural steel, reinforcement mesh size. Through the
axial force parametric study, the measures to mitigate progressive collapse
Ny is the plastic axial force capacity in the absence of any design were recommended.
bending moment. Below are main findings:
M is the bending moment
1. The risk assessment of a multi-storey building shows that,
N is the axial force, that can be either compressive or tensile one column removal scenario is the most frequently occurring
force. scenario. Therefore, most of recent research has focused on
Liu [19] performed detailed discussions about this equation. From the one column removal of multi-storey buildings. For most
Eq. (1), it can be seen that, when the deflection is increased due research done so far, the plasticity is presumed to develop in
to the increased mesh size, gravity loads are mainly resisted by the steel member under the one column removal scenario, and
the vertical components of axial catenary forces that develop in a plastic hinge is formed in the beam, therefore most research
the beams. It is apparent from Eq. (1) that, with N approaching Ny, are based on the plasticity theory. However, for the beam sizes
thus M will approximate to 0. This means that the beam bending and grid used in the current design practice, this is not always
stiffness will be greatly softened by the catenary axial force N. true, after removal, the beam may still be in the elastic stage.
Consequently, when the catenary force is extremely large, the The elastic behavior of the building after column removal is
bending moment will almost disappear. investigated in this paper in detail.
3980 F. Fu / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 3974–3980
2. The typical multi-storey building with the cross-bracing lateral [5] British Standards Institution. BS 5950: Structural use of steelwork in buildings,
resistance system used in the current design practice is less Part 1: code of practice for design — rolled and welded sections, London (UK);
2001.
vulnerable to progressive collapse under the one column [6] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA 403. World Trade
removal scenario. Center building performance study: data collection, preliminary observations,
3. For one column removal, for the four conventional sizes (A142, and recommendations. Washington (DC, USA); 2002.
[7] National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST). Final Report on the
A193, A252 and A393) used in the current composite design Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. NCSTAR 1, Federal Building and
practice, the difference mesh sizes have a slight influence on Fire 318 Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. Gaithersburg
the behavior of the structure. (MD, USA): US Department of Commerce; 2005.
[8] Khandelwal Kapil, El-Tawil Sherif, Sadek Fahim. Progressive collapse analysis
4. For the one column removal scenario, increasing the steel of seismically designed steel braced frames. J Constr Steel Res 2009;65:
mesh will increase the deflection, due to the increased rotation 699–708.
capacity. As the steel beams are still in the elastic stage, no [9] Izzuddin BA, Vlassis AG, Elghazouli AY, Nethercot DA. Progressive collapse
of multi-storey buildings due to sudden column loss — part I: simplified
plastic hinges are formed, therefore, the catenary effect is not assessment framework. Eng Struct 2008;30(5):1308–18.
significant. [10] Vlassis AG, Izzuddin BA, Elghazouli AY, Nethercot DA. Progressive collapse of
5. For more than one column removal scenarios, with the forming multi-storey buildings due to sudden column loss—part II: application. Eng
Struct 2008;30(5):1424–38.
of plasticity, when the steel mesh increases, the ductile joints [11] Kim Jinkoo, Kim Taewan. Assessment of progressive collapse-resisting
allow for redistribution of internal forces within the structural capacity of steel moment frames. J Constr Steel Res 2009;65(1):169–79.
system so that they are suitable for progressive collapse [12] Paik Jeom Kee, Kim Bong Ju. Progressive collapse analysis of thin-walled box
columns. Thin-Walled Struct 2008;46(5):541–50.
mitigation by initiating of catenary action. However, it is
[13] Tsai Meng-Hao, Lin Bing-Hui. Investigation of progressive collapse resistance
noticed from this paper that, this can only be achieved when and inelastic response for an earthquake-resistant RC building subjected to
large deflections is achieved. column failure. Eng Struct 2008;30(12):3619–28.
[14] Yu Min, Zha Xiaoxiong, Ye Jianqiao. The influence of joints and composite floor
slabs on effective tying of steel. J Constr Steel Res 2010;66(3):442–51.
References [15] ABAQUS theory manual. Version 6.9. Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen, Inc.
Pawtucket, R.I; 2003.
[16] Fu Feng. Progressive collapse analysis of high-rise building with 3-D finite
[1] ASCE. SEI/ASCE 7-05 minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. element modelling method. J Constr Steel Res 2009;65:1269–78.
Washington (DC): American Society of Civil Engineers; 2005. [17] Wang Jing-Feng, Li Guo-Qiang. Testing of semi-rigid steel–concrete composite
[2] Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC)-DoD. Design of buildings to resist progressive frames subjected to vertical loads. Eng Struct 2007;29(8):1903–16.
collapse. Department of Defense; 2005. [18] Fu F, Lam D. Experimental study on semi-rigid composite joints with
[3] GSA. Progressive collapse analysis and design guidelines for new federal steel beams and precast hollowcore slabs. J Constr Steel Res 2006;62(8):
office buildings and major modernization projects. The US General Services 771–782.
Administration; 2003. [19] Liu JL. Preventing progressive collapse through strengthening beam-to-
[4] Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The building regulations 2000, Part A, column connection, part 1: theoretical analysis. J Constr Steel Res 2010;66:
Schedule 1: A3, Disproportionate collapse. London (UK). 2004. 229–37.