Analysis and study of progressive collapse behaviour of reinforced concrete structure with outrigger beams

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 09 Issue: 08 | August 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2022, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 303
Analysis and study of progressive collapse behaviour of reinforced
concrete structure with outrigger beams
Diksha D. Bhomkar1, Kanchan B. Kanagali2
1P.G. Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, K.L.S. Gogte Institute of Technology, Belagavi, Karnataka, India
2Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, K.L.S. Gogte Institute of Technology, Belagavi, Karnataka, India
---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - Progressive collapse of a building or structure
can be defined as the spread of a primary local structural
element failure that ultimately causes the collapse of the
whole structure or a significant component of it. In order to
reduce the potential for collapse associated with the loss of
primary structural member such as perimeter column,
outrigger systems can be used. Outriggers are horizontal
structural systems inserted into the building to connect the
core structure to the exterior structural elements. In this
paper, A typical reinforced concrete framed building of 20
storey is modelled in ETABS. This is a rectangular RC building
containing 6 bays in X-direction and 8 baysinY-directioneach
of 6m in both directions. In addition, the structureconsistsofa
core and outrigger beams. The analysis is done using linear
static analysis method. Thisstudyconsiderstwodifferentcases
of column removal as specified by GSA guidelines. The
percentage variations of axial force in critically affected
columns and demand capacity ratios of critically affected
beams are calculated. The results of the structure with
outrigger beams are compared to structurewithoutoutrigger
beams.
Key Words: Progressive collapse, Outrigger beams,
General Services Administration (GSA), Linear static
analysis, Alternate load path, Axial force variations,
Demand Capacity Ratio (DCR).
1. INTRODUCTION
Progressive collapse of a structure takes place when a
particular structural member fails leading to the failure of
neighboring structural members in a progressive way.
Initially, the primary structural member fails, which causes
the failure of adjacent structural members, resulting in the
structural collapse. Progressive collapse may be caused due
to mishaps such as gas explosions,bombattacks,fire;actions
of overload, material failure, or natural phenomena. The
ability to transfer loads from the collapsed columns to
columns that are properlydesignedandproperlyattachedto
the foundation can be achieved to mitigate this failure by
means of outriggers.Outriggersareinteriorlateral structural
members equipped to increase strength and enhance the
overturning stiffness of high-rise buildings. The entire
system includes a central core structure linked to the outer
columns of the structure with the help of structural
members termed as outriggers. The outriggers may be
equipped as walls, trusses, or horizontal beams. The core
system and perimeter columns together with the outriggers
regulate the performance of the entire building. Reference
[3] uses DCR values to investigate the progressive collapse
resisting ability of the structure. Reference[2]discusseshow
outrigger systems may mitigate toppling and
disproportionate collapse of building structures and
concludes that redistribution of gravity forces results in
reducing the axial compressive stress, compared to the
system without outriggers. Reference [4] shows that theuse
of outrigger and built system adds to different load paths to
the building that contributes to its resistance to progressive
collapse.
2. GSA GUIDELINES
The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) established
the “Progressive Collapse Analysis andDesignGuidelines for
New Federal Office Buildings and Major Modernization
Projects” to make sure that the possibility of progressive
collapse is addressed in the design, planning and
constructionofnewbuildingsandmajorrenovationprojects.
2.1 Analysis techniques
The methods for progressive collapse analysisincludelinear
static analysis, nonlinear static analysis, linear dynamic
analysis and nonlinear dynamicanalysis.ALinearProcedure
is a simplistic analysis approach, and suggests the usage of
either a static or dynamic linear elastic finite element
analysis. A Nonlinear Procedure is a more sophisticated
analysis approach, and implies the use of either static or
dynamic elasto-plastic finite element analysis methods that
capture both material and geometric nonlinearity.
1) Linear Static Analysis Method
Linear Static Analysis method is the most basic and easiest
method for progressive collapse analysis in which oneofthe
most important structural components are detached
statically.
Steps to perform the analysis:
1. Build a 3D model in ETABS.
2. Assign the necessary material properties, section
properties, loads, load combinations as per GSA
guidelines.

3. Remove the column at the location specified in GSA
guidelines separately for each considered case.
4. Perform the linear static analysis for the specified
static load combination.
5. Calculate the Demand Capacity Ratio (DCR) for the
critically affected adjoining structural members.
2) Nonlinear Static Analysis Method
Nonlinear static analysis also known as pushover analysis is
used to evaluate the deflection capability and ultimate load
of a structure. Until higher load or higher displacement is
attained, nonlinear static analysis increases practical loads
step by step while allowing structural components to
undergo nonlinear performance.
It is recommended that the following downward loads be
applied when assessing the possibility for progressive
collapse as presented in the GSA Guideline.
Static Analysis Loading
For static analysis purposes the following vertical load shall
be applied downward to the structure under consideration:
Load = 2(DL + 0.25L) (1)
Where,
DL is Dead Load, LL is Live Load, 2 is dynamic factor
3) Linear Dynamic Analysis Method
Linear dynamic analysis is also known as time history
analysis. This method involves real-time elimination of one
of the most important bearing structural members resulting
in real-time linear elastic motions.
4) Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis Method
Stepwise collapse analysis using the nonlinear dynamic
analysis approach is particularly precise and effective. It
involves removal of the vertical bearing structure which
affects the material by nonlinear behavior.
It is recommended that the following downward loads be
applied when assessing the possibility for progressive
collapse as presented in the GSA Guideline.
Dynamic Analysis Loading
For dynamic analysis purposes the following vertical load
shall be applied downward to the structure under
consideration:
Load = DL + 0.25L (2)
Where,
DL is Dead Load, LL is Live Load
2.2 Vertical Element Removal as per GSA
1) Exterior Considerations
a. Analyse for the sudden loss of a column for one
floor above grade (1 story) located at or near the
middle of the short side of the structure.
b. Analyse for the sudden loss of a column for one
floor above grade (1 story) located at or near the
middle of the long side of the structure.
c. Analyse for the sudden loss of a column for one
floor above grade (1 story) located at the corner of
the structure.
2) Interior Considerations
a. Analyse for the sudden loss of 1 column that
extends from the floor of the underground parking
area or uncontrolled public ground floor area tothe
next floor (1 story). The column considered should
be interior to the perimeter column lines.
3. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
A typical reinforced concrete framed building of 20 storey is
modelled in ETABS. This is a rectangular RC building
containing 6 bays, each of 6m in X-direction and 8 bays,each
of 6m in Y-direction. The typical storey height is 3m and the
base supports are fixed. In addition, the structure consistsof
a core and outrigger beams. The outrigger beams extend
from the core to perimeter columns in horizontal grids 4&6
and vertical grids C & E as shown in the figure. Connection is
formed between perimeter columns by means of outrigger
perimeter beams.
Fig -1: Plan view (outrigger beams highlighted)
C E
6
4

Fig -2: 3D view
The analysis is done using linear static analysis method. The
design of structural members is done as per IS 456:2000.
Details of the building structure are given below:
1) Material Properties
Characteristic compressive strength ofconcrete(fck):30
N/mm2
Yield Strength of reinforcing steel (fy): 500 N/mm2
2) Section Properties
Beam size: 300x500mm
Outrigger beam size: 300x750mm
Slab thickness: 150mm
Shear wall thickness: 250mm
Wall thickness: Exterior walls 230mm
Interior walls 150mm
Interior Columns sizes:
850x850 (Base floor)
800x800 (2nd to 4th floor)
600x800 (5th to 9th floor)
Exterior Column sizes
600x800 (Base to 4th floor)
3) Loads
Dead load: Self weight of the structure
Live load: 2 kN/m2
Floor finish: 1.5 kN/m2
Wall load: Exterior wall= 13.8 kN/m
Interior wall= 9 kN/m
4) Load Combinations
The combination of load taken into account is
Load = 2(DL+0.25LL)
Where, DL is Dead Load, LL is Live Load, 2 is dynamic factor
5) Demand Capacity Ratio (DCR)
Demand Capacity Ratio is the ratio between structural
member force after removal of column to the member's
ultimate strength or capacity of the member.
DCR = Mu/Mulimit
Mu = demanding or acting force in member or connection.
Mulimit = Unfactored capacity of the member or expected
ultimate strength of member.
DCR acceptance criteria are as follows,
Demand Capacity Ratio <2.0 for regular structures.
Demand Capacity Ratio<1.5 for irregular structures.
Demand Capacity Ratio<3.0 for steel structures.
Calculation of Mulimit to determine DCR for the structural
members are given below.
DCR= Mu/Mulimit
Outrigger beam:
Breadth, b = 300 mm, Depth, D = 750 mm
Cover, d’ = 60 mm
Effective depth, = D- d' =750-60 =690 mm
fck = 30 N/mm2, fy = 500 N/mm2
Calculation of ultimate moment:
Mulimit = 0.133*fck*b*d*d
= 0.133*30*300*690*690
= 569.81 kN-m
Beam:

Breadth, b = 300 mm, Depth, D = 500 mm
Cover, d’ = 30 mm
Effective depth, = D- d' =500-30 =470 mm
fck = 30 N/mm2, fy = 500 N/mm2
Calculation of ultimate moment:
Mulimit = 0.133*fck*b*d*d
= 0.133*30*300*470*470
= 264.42 kN-m
4. ANALYSIS AND RESULT
Reinforced concrete building is modelled in ETABS and is
analyzed using linear static analysis method. Progressive
collapse potential of a building is analyzed for two different
cases of column removal.
4.1 Load Paths
Case 1: Exterior column (C18) situated at the middle of the
short side of the structure at storey 1
When Column C18 is removed at storey 1, most critically
affected columns are: Columns: C46, C48, C15
Fig -3: Load path distribution when exterior column
situated at middle of short side of the structure is
removed.
Case 2: Exterior column (C36) situated at the corner of the
structure at storey 1
When Column C36 is removed at storey 1, most critically
affected columns are: Columns: C37, C45
Fig -4: Load path distribution when exterior column
situated at corner of the structure is removed.
4.2 Demand Capacity Ratios
Case 1: Exterior column (C18) situated at the middle of the
short side of the structure.
Fig -5: Case 1: Exterior column (C18) situated at the
middle of the short side of the structure
When Column C18 is removed at story 1, most critically
affected beams are: Beams: B59, B60, B25
Variations in DCR values for the beams B59 and B60
Chart -1: Demand Capacity Ratio V/S storey of beam
B59 & B60

Variations in DCR values for the beam B25
1.14
1.21
1.23
1.27
1.31
1.39
1.44
1.49
1.51
1.58
1.65
1.74
1.81
1.90
1.89
1.98
2.07
2.17
2.29
2.35
2019181716151413121110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
DCR
Value
Storey
Chart -2: Demand Capacity Ratio V/S storey of beam B25
Case 2: Exterior column (C36) situated at the corner of the
structure.
Fig -6: Case 2: Exterior column (C36) situated at the
corner of the structure
When Column C36 is removed at story 1, most critically
affected beams are: Beams: B1, B57
4.3 Comparison of DCR between structures with and
without outrigger beams.
Case 1: Exterior column located at the middle of the short
side of the building:
Structure with outrigger beams
& B60
Variations in DCR values for the beams B25
Structure without outrigger beams

1.65
1.86
1.85
1.89
1.93
1.99
2.06
2.14
2.22
2.34
2.50
2.59
2.75
2.87
2.99
3.12
3.16
3.31
3.44
3.57
2 01 91 81 71 61 51 41 31 21 11 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
DCR
Value
Storey
& B60
Variations in DCR values for the beams B25
Case 2: Exterior column located at the corner of the
building:
Variations in DCR values for the beams Beam B1

5. CONCLUSIONS
1. Case 1: Exterior column situated at the middle of
the short side of the structure.
i. Column removal at storey 1 has led to the
failure of adjacent beams B59 & B60 from
storeys 1 to 5 and failure of beam B25from
storeys 1 to 4 in case of structure with
outrigger beams whereas in case of
structure without outrigger beams, failure
of adjacent beams B59 & B60 is from
storeys 1 to 14 and failure of beam B25
from 1 to 17.
ii. Axial forces before and after column
removal are compared for adjoining
columns C46 & C48 and the percentage
increase is found to be 33.12% at storey 1
and 6.47% at storey 20 after column
removal.
iii. Axial forces before and after column
column C15 and the percentage increase is
found to be 9.8% at storey 1 and 3.87% at
storey 20 after column removal.
iv. In this case, when column is removed the
length of beams in that bay is doubled on
either sides and hogging bending moment
is increased in tension zone resulting in
increasing positive reinforcement.

2. Case 2: Exterior column situated at thecornerofthe
structure.
i. Column removal at storey 1 has led to the
failure of adjacent beams B1 & B57 from
storeys 1 to 4 in case of structure with
outrigger beams whereas in case of
structure without outrigger beams, failure
of adjacent beams B1 & B57 isfromstoreys
1 to 14.
ii. Axial forces before and after column
found to be 34.5% at storey 1 and 6.47% at
storey 20 after column removal.
iii. Axial forces before and after column
found to be 35.16% at storey 1 and 6.12%
at storey 20 after column removal.
iv. The beam members in both directions at
the junction where column is removedacts
as an overhanging cantilever beam where
load is transferred to adjacent structural
members.
3. According to GSA the beams whose DCR values are
more than acceptance criteria i.e., 2, then thefailure
of beams and columns will occur and is unsafe. If
the DCR values are less than 2, it suggests that
beams and columns are safe as per GSA.
4. When a column is removed, the column above this
column becomes a floating column and the
moments & axial forces are transferred to adjacent
beams and columns for the above storeys.
5. It is observed that the axial forces and bending
moments are increased in load carrying elements
adjacent to removed column therefore to overcome
this, sizes of elements should be increased and
bracings can be provided.
6. Localized failure is observed up to certain number
of storeys and failure at remaining stories is
arrested due to the presence of outriggers.
7. It was observed that progressive collapse resisting
capacity of structure with outrigger beamsishigher
compared to structure without outrigger beams.
8. It is seen that use of outrigger beams provides an
alternate load path to the structure to compensate
the immediate loss of column, this contributestoits
resistance to progressive collapse and provides
time for remedial measures.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank K.L.S. Gogte Institute of Technology,
Belagavi, Karnataka for providing all the required facilities
and special thanks to faculty for guidance. I wouldalsoliketo
thank all the referees cited in this paper.
REFERENCES
[1] General Services Administration (GSA), “Progressive
collapse design guidelines for New Federal Office
Buildings and Major Modernization Projects June2003”
[2] Osama Ahmed Mohamed and Omar Najm, “Outrigger
Systems to Mitigate Disproportionate Collapse in
Building Structures”,ELSEVIER,WorldMultidisciplinary
Civil Engineering-Architecture-Urban Planning
Symposium, pp. 839-844, 2016
[3] ZHANG Peng, CHEN Baoxu, “Progressive Collapse
Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures in
Linear Static Analysis Based on GSA”, IEEE, Third
International Conference on Intelligent System Design
and Engineering Applications, pp. 1074-1078, 2012
[4] J. M. Mirhom, H.T. Hafez, K.N. Ibrahim, J.R. Shaker, M.
Abdel-Mooty, “Progressive collapse analysis of a high-
rise building considering the effect of an outrigger belt
lateral load resisting system”, WIT Press, Structures
Under Shock and Impact XII, pp. 293-302, 2012
[5] Jinkoo Kim, Junhee Park, “Progressive collapse resisting
capacity of building structures with outrigger trusses”,
Wiley, The structural design of tall andspecial buildings,
pp. 566-577, 2010
[6] Huda Helmy, Hamed Salem, Sherif Mourad, “Computer-
Aided Assessment of Progressive CollapseofReinforced
Concrete Structures according to GSA Code”, ASCE,
Journal of performance of constructedfacilities,pp.529-
539, 2013
[7] S. M. Marjanishvili, “Progressive Analysis Procedure for
Progressive Collapse”, ASCE, Journal of performance of
constructed facilities, pp. 79-85, 2004
[8] Tae-Sung Eom, Hiubalt Murmu, Weijian Yi, “Behaviour
and Design of Distributed Belt Walls as Virtual
Outriggers for Concrete High-Rise Buildings”, Springer,
Int J Concr Struct Mater, pp. 1-13, 2019
[9] Han-Soo Kim, “Optimum Locations of Outriggers
in a Concrete Tall Building to Reduce Differential Axial
Shortening”, Springer, Kim Int J Concr Struct Mater, pp.
1-12, 2018

BIOGRAPHIES
Diksha D. Bhomkar
M.Tech. Structural Engineering
Student at K.L.S. Gogte Institute of
Technology, Belagavi
Prof. Kanchan B. Kanagali
Assistant Professor at K.L.S. Gogte
Institute of Technology, Belagavi

Analysis and study of progressive collapse behaviour of reinforced concrete structure with outrigger beams

More Related Content

Similar to Analysis and study of progressive collapse behaviour of reinforced concrete structure with outrigger beams (20)

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Analysis and study of progressive collapse behaviour of reinforced concrete structure with outrigger beams