Effect of Design Ductility on the Progressive Collapse Potential of RC Frame Structures Designed to Eurocode 8
American Journal of Civil Engineering
Volume 4, Issue 2, March 2016, Pages: 40-49
Received: Feb. 8, 2016;
Accepted: Feb. 18, 2016;
Published: Mar. 1, 2016
Views 4392 Downloads 194
Mark Adom-Asamoah, Department of Civil Engineering, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana
Nobel Obeng Ankamah, Department of Civil Engineering, Sunyani Polytechnic, Sunyani, Ghana
Progressive collapse is the cause of most structural failures around the world. The US General Service Administration (GSA) has presented guidelines for the assessment of the vulnerability of building structures to progressive collapse. It has been established in literature that the philosophy of ductility and redundancy used in seismic design is beneficial in resisting progressive collapse but not accounted for in these guidelines. The GSA methodology is particularly suited to seismic codes which allows for a constant member rotation but may be unsuitable to other codes that makes provision for ductility level. In this study, an investigation into the progressive collapse potential of RC framed structures designed to the seismic design code, EC 8, with varying design ground accelerations and ductility classes under different column loss scenarios was done. Based on the EC 8, a criteria for maximum plastic rotations and dynamic multiplies for progressive collapse analysis was proposed. These proposed criteria, together with the GSA criteria, were used to investigate the designed structures. The EC 8 criteria proved that buildings designed for higher ductilities yield at lower loads but undergo greater deformations and absorbs more energy to resist collapse. On the other hand, buildings designed for lower ductilities have higher yield loads but undergo lower deformations before collapse. Higher PGAs result in higher yield strengths but does not necessarily deformation capacity. This effect of ductility was not seen with the GSA criteria since a constant rotation capacity was recommended for all the buildings regardless of design ductility. It was also found that the removals of a corner column possess the greatest threat to progressive collapse on a building.
Nobel Obeng Ankamah,
Effect of Design Ductility on the Progressive Collapse Potential of RC Frame Structures Designed to Eurocode 8, American Journal of Civil Engineering.
Vol. 4, No. 2,
2016, pp. 40-49.
ASCE-41, (2006): "Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings", American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, USA.
Choi H, Kim J, (2011): “Progressive collapse-resisting capacity of RC beam-column sub-assemblage”, Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 63, No.4.
DOD (2005): “Design of building to resist progressive collapse”. Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4-023-03, Department of Defence, USA.
Elghazouli A, (2009): “Seismic Design of buildings to Eurocode 8”, Spon Press, London, United Kingdom.
EN 1998 (2004): Eurocode 8: "Design of structures for earthquake resistance", European Committee for Standardization.
FEMA 356 (2000): "Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings", Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, USA.
GSA (2003): "GSA Progressive Collapse Analysis and Design Guidelines for New Federal Office Buildings and Major Modernizations Projects", General Services Administration, USA.
Ioani A. M, Cucu H. L, (2010): "Resistance to progressive collapse of RC structures: principles, methods and designed models", Computational Civil Engineering 2010, Iasi, Romania.
Ioani A. M, Cucu H. L, Mircea C (2008): “Seismic Design vs. Progressive Collapse: A Reinforced Concrete Framed Structure Case Study”, Innovation in Structural Engineering and Construction.
Kappos A, Penelis G. G, (2010): “Earthquake resistant concrete structures”, CRC Press, pp607.
Marchis A. G, Moldovan T. S, Ioani A. M, (2013): “The influence of the seismic design on the progressive collapse resistance of mid-rise RC framed structures”, Acta Technica Napocensis: Civil Engineering & Architecture Vol. 56, No. 2.
Mohamed O. A. (2015): “Calculation of load increase factors for assessment of progressive collapse potential in framed steel structures”, Case studies in Structural Engineering, Vol 3.
Patel B. R (2014): “Progressive collapse analysis of RC Buildings using Nonlinear Static and Nonlinear Dynamic Method”, International journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, Vol 4(9).
Patel PV, Parikh RD (2013), “Various procedures for progressive collapseanalysis of steel framed buildings”, The IUP Journal of Structural Engineering, 6, p17-31.
Qazi AU, Majid A, Hameed A, Ilyas M (2015): “Nonlinear progressive collapse analysis of RC frame structure”, Pak. J. Engg. And Applied Science, 16, p121-132.
Taewan K. Jinkoo K, Junhee P. (2009): “Investigation of Progressive Collapse-Resisting capability of Steel Moment Frames Using Push-Down Analysis”, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, Vol. 23, No. 5.
Tsitos A, Mosqueda G, Filiatrault A, Reinhorn A. M., (2008): “Experimental investigation of progressive collapse of steel frames under multi-hazard extreme loading”, The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China.
Wardhana K, Hadipriono F. C, (2003): “Study of Recent Building Failures in the United States”, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, Volume 17, No. 3.
Yi W. J, He Q. F, Xiao Y, Kunnath S. K, (2008): “Experimental study on Progressive Collapse-resistant behaviour of reinforced concrete frame structures”, ACI Structural Journal, Vol.105, No.4, pp.433-438.