Non-Linear Static Progressive Collapse Analysis of High Rise R.C.C. Structure

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395 -0056
Volume: 04 Issue: 06 | June -2017 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2017, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 5.181 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 1620
NON-LINEAR STATIC PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE ANALYSIS OF HIGH RISE
R.C.C. STRUCTURE
Rucha Thombare1, Dr. H. R. Magarpatil2
1Postgraduate student, Structural Engineering department MIT, Pune, Maharashtra.
2Professor, Structural Engineering department, MIT, Pune, Maharashtra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - As per recent developments in construction,
the architects required to plan the high rise structures in
RCC. Unfortunately due to some reasons such as gas
explosion, terrorist attack, fire etc. high rise structures
undergoes some major component failure. Because of the
failure of major component, sometimespartofthestructure
or whole structure tend to collapse. In other words this
behaviour of structure is called as progressive collapse
In this project it is proposed to carry out progressive
collapse analysis of 12 storey RC frame building by
removing different column one at a time as per the GSA
guidelines. Building consists of 6 X 5 bay 3 m in X and Y-
direction and designed by Indian code. Structural model of
building has been created in ETABS and loads are applied
as per GSA guidelines, for evaluationofprogressivecollapse
nonlinear static method of analysis has been used. As per
given in GSA, three column removal cases for 1st floor has
studied like corner column C1, interior column C43 and
exterior column C47. For these cases non linear static
analysis has done and joint displacements for three column
removal cases are evaluated. Also, PMM ratio and axial
force for adjacent columns and bending moments for
adjoining beams are evaluated.
Results are obtained that, for progressive collapse of
interior column is more critical than other two locations ie.
Corner and exterior column.
Key Words: Progressive Collapse , non linear
static analysis, Etabs 2015.
1.INTRODUCTION
Progressive collapse is a term now a days used
worldwide. progressive collapse phenomenon isinitiated
by the failure of one or more load carrying members. At
the time of failure, to transfer excessive load, structural
elements structure will seek alternate load paths.
sometimes structure may not be designed to resist
additional loadings. Failure of overloaded structural
elements will cause further redistribution of loading, this
process will continue till the equilibriumisreached.when
elements may reached equilibrium already a large part of
structure has already collapsed. The resulting overall
damage may be disproportionate to the damage in the
local region near the lost member.
The American Society of Civil Engineering(ASCE,2005)is
the only mainstream standard which addresses the issue
of progressive collapse in some detail. The guidelines for
progressive collapse resistant design are noticeable in US
Government documents, General Service Administration
(GSA, 2003) and Unified Facility Criteria (UFC, 2009).The
GSA guidelines have provided a methodology to diminish
the progressive collapse potential in structures based on
Alternate Path Method (APM). It defines scenarios in
which one of the building’s columns is removed and the
damaged structure is analyzed to study the system
responses. With the current scenario of increasing
reasons for disaster like situation at industrial or
residential workplace. The main objective of this study is
to implement GSA guidelines for RCC structure in three
dimensional, which are designed according to Indian
standard codes to assess the vulnerability behaviour. The
procedure have been carried out is Non Linear Static
(NSL) according to the guidelines, and analyzed by using
by finite element software Etabs 2015.
2. LITURATURE SURVEY
Progressive collapse study is in picture after Ronan point
apartment building and after that incident progressive
collapse is studied by various researchers.Therearelotof
research carried out on many aspects of progressive
collapse of RCC structure. R. Shankar Nair (March 2004)
describes in paper previous structural collapse and
observation on progressive collapse and description of
proportionate and disproportionate collapse
[1].Wibowo,H. .andLau,D.T. (2009) summaries themerits
and limitations of available analysis methods for
assessment of progressive collapse of structures and
paper concluded that seismic progressive collapse of
structures can be analyzed by modifying the current
analysis procedures[2]. Three researchers Bruce R.
Ellingwood Robert Smilowitz Donald O.
DusenberryDatDuthinh H.S. Lew NicholasJ.Carino(2007)
discussed three methods in this document indirect
method, specific local resistance method and alternate
load path method to reduce progressive collapse. The
methodology for evaluating the progressive collapse
potential of existing buildings is also discussed[3].
HalilSezen (PI) and Kevin A. Giriunas (May 2009)

investigates the existing structure’spotential tofail dueto
progressive collapse. Author concluded that the existing
building is unique because second floor was collapsed at
the initial stage of experiment[4]. Authors Yanchao Shi ,
Zhong-Xian Li , Hong Hao (2010) studied RC
structureunder blast loading prone to progressive
collapse. A new method for progressive collapse analysis
of reinforced concrete (RC) frame structures by
considering nonzero initial conditions and initialdamage
to adjacent structural members under blast loading is
proposed And it is found it gives better prediction[5].
Weifeng Yuan and Kang Hai Tan(2011)toincorporatethe
pancake type progressivecollapseofmultistorystructure.
This paper concludes that the local member failure in a
multi-storey structure may lead to a global progressive
collapse[6]. In this present study by A.R. Rahai, M.
Banazadeh, M.R. SeifyAsghshahr& H. Kazem (2012)
progressive collapse in RC structures resulting from both
instantaneous and gradual removal of columns is
observed[7].Rakshith K G, Radhakrishna (2013) studied
RCC structure of 12 story. Paper concludes that, to avoid
the progressive failure of beams and columns, caused by
failure of particular column, adequate reinforcement is
required to limit the DCR within the acceptance
criteria[8]. Shefna L Sunamy, Binu P, Dr. Girija K (2014)
describes linear static analysis of a multi-storeyed
building, authors concludes that seismically designed
building having good resisting capacity to progressive
collapse[9].Ram Shankar Singh, Yusuf Jamal, Meraj A.
Khan (2015) studied five storey reinforced concrete
framed structure symmetrical and Unsymmetrical by
geometry and conclude that toavoidprogressivecollapse,
adequate reinforcement is required to limit the DCR
within the acceptance criteria[10]. authors A. Choubey
and M.D. Goel (2015) studied RCC building designed
based on Indian standard code of practice is considered
and concludes that the effect of transferring the load is
more on the nearest member oftheremovedmemberand
negligible when moved away from removed column[11].
Ram Shankar Singh,Yusuf Jamal, Meraj A. Khan (2015)
states that seismically designed building columns have
inherent ability to resist progressive collapse. To avoid
the progressive failure of beams and columns, caused by
failure of particular column, adequate reinforcement is
required to limit the DCR within the acceptance
criteria[12].
3. MODELLING OF STRUCTURE
To observe the structural behavior of RCC building for
progressive collapse it is necessary to build up 3D model
by using finite element model, analyse and design that
model by using ETABS(15) . Here are some tables related
to modeling of structure
Fig.1. Typical Plan layout of ETABS model
TABLE 1. MODELLING DETAILS FOR IRREGULAR STRUCTURE
Sr.
no.
Particulars Description
1 Type of
Structure
RCC Framed structure
2 Type of
Building
Commercial Building
3 Number of
stories
G+12
4 Height of
Building
42m
5 Spacing in X-
Direction
18m
6 Spacing in Y-
Direction
15m
7 Material M30, Fe500
8 Thickness of
Slab
150mm
9 Codal
Provision
IS456:2000,IS1893:2002,GSA2003

4. METHODOLOGY
This Study is based on analysis of RCC structure for
progressive collapse, Considering Sudden Loss of Column
asa design Scenarioandconsideringdifferentlocationsfor
sudden loss of column and its effect on progressive
collapse. There are many codes and Guideline available
worldwide but most of the research work uses the GSA
guideline.For this research work, there are various
methods to analyse the structures and investigate their
response to the progressive collapse phenomenon, we
used GSA for further guideline. The aim of this work is to
study Progressive Collapse over the sudden loss of a
column, to study the Limiting Extent of damage to a
localised area and comparative study of collapse as per
column locations.
There are many methods to analyse progressive collapse
such as linear static analysis, Non linear static analysis,
linear dynamic analysis, Non linear dynamic analysis are
given as per GSA guidelines. But for our research work we
are analysing model for non linear static analysis.
4.1 Non Linear static analysis procedure
Nonlinear static procedure is effective for more than 10
stories structure. For structure which is less than 10
stories. Once the nonlinear model, both materially and
geometrically is modeled , the loads are increased with a
Dynamic Increase Factor (DIF) by taking into account the
inertia effects only. Then column is eliminated and
consequent load is applied to the model.
To model, analyze, and evaluate a building, employ a
three-dimensional assembly ofelementsandcomponents.
Create one model for framed structure. Apply non
linearity conditions and Dynamic Increase Factor. Apply
plastic hinges as per ASCE 41 and FEMA. Then apply
loadings as per GSA guidelines. Then run non linear
analysis and find out results as per our considerations.
4.2 Load Cases for Non Linear static analysis
Case I: Force Control action Quf for linear static
G LF = Ω LF [1.2 D + (0.5 L or 0.2 S)] (1)
Where,
G LF = Increased gravity loads forforce-controlled actions
for Linear Static analysis.
Ω LF = Load increasefactorforcalculatingforce-controlled
actions forLinear Staticanalysis;useappropriatevaluefor
framed or load-bearing wall structures.
Case II: Force Control action Quf for non linear static
Apply the following increased
Fig.2 .2D Elevation of ETABS Models
Fig. 3. 3D Elevation of Model

GN= ΩN [1.2 D + (0.5 L or 0.2 S)] (2)
Where,
GN = Increased gravity loads for Nonlinear Static Analysis
D=Dead load
S= Snow Load
ΩN = Dynamic increase factor for calculatingdeformation-
controlled and forcecontrolledactionsforNonlinearStatic
analysis.
Gravity Loads for Floor Areas Away from Removed
Column or Wall. Apply the gravity load combination in
below Equation to those bays not loaded with GN
G = 1.2D + (0.5 L or 0.2 S) (3)
For those bays not immediately adjacent to the removed
element the load combination is the same for both
deformation and force- controlled action.
4.3Loading data used for modeling
4.4 Progressive collapse analysis
In this analysis, we are considering 3 different cases of
column removal. Each of them from 1st story
Case1 : analyzed for sudden loss of corner column C1
Case2 : analyzed for sudden loss of middle column C43
Case3 : analyzed for sudden loss of centre column C47
Table 2. Loading Data
Fig.4 Detail Description of Model
Fig.5. Location of Column Removal

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 RESULTS FOR REMOVAL OF COLUMN C1
Graph. 1. Joint displacement of column C1
Joint displacement of column C1 before column removal
was 8mm but due to sudden loss of column C1 and after
Non Linear Static Procedure carried out, joint
displacement was suddenly increased to 16.2mm due to
less load carrying elements carries extra load.
PMM ratio of original structure is in a range of 0.8 to 4 but
due to sudden column removal load distributed tonearest
member and the PMM ratio is suddenly increases above
the removal location max upto 5.54
Graph. 2. PMM ratio For column no C1
From graph 2, PMM ratio or % rebar of original structure is
in a range of 0.8 to 3.7. initially column had two supportsbut
due to sudden loss of column it transformintocantileverand
PMM ratio (%rebar) minimized to 0.8.
PMM ratio of original structure is in a range of 0.8 to 4 but
due to sudden column removal, load distributedtonearest
member and the PMM ratio is suddenly increases above
the removal location max upto 5.52.
Graph. 5. Bending Moment For beam no B50
After removal of column C1, adjacent beams transform
their form from simply supported to cantilever beams.
From above graph, bending moments before removal of
column and after removal of column are varies from
min.10 and max.13.78 to16.3. bending moments are
increased after column removal.

Graph. 10. PMM ratio of column no C43
From graph of PMM ratio or % rebar of original structure
is in a range of 0.8 to 3.84. initially column had two
supports but due to sudden loss of column is converted
into cantilever and PMM ratio (%rebar) minimized to 0.8
for all above stories.
Graph. 6. BM of beam no. B85
From graph it is observed that after removal of first floor
column BM value of B85 changes largely near the column
removal location after that effect is neutralized.
Graph. 7. Axial Force of column no C35
Axial force is important factor to check column is safe or
not. After removal of column the forcetakenbythismember
is transfer to column C35 andC31.Henceaxialforcesonthat
column after removal of column C1 is suddenly increased.
Values of increased loads are given in graph.7 and 8.
Graph. 8. Axial Force of column no C31
Graph .9. joint displacement of column no C43
Displacement at node 43 is changes after removal of column
is considerable. Before removal of column initial
displacement was min. 1.6mmandmax.11.2,afterremovalof
column max displacement is 19.6mm.

Initially PMM ratio of original structure is in a rangeof0.8
to 3.16 but due to sudden column removal, load
distributed to nearest member and the PMM ratio is
suddenly increases above the removal location max upto
5.76.
PMM ratio of original structure is in a range of 0.8 to 3.67
but due to sudden column removal, load distributed to
nearest column and the PMM ratio is suddenly increases
above the column removal location max upto 5.76.
Graph. 14. PMM ratio of Column no. C49
From graph no.14 PMM ratio of original structure is in a
range of 0.8 to 3.36 but due to sudden column removal,
load distributed to nearest member and the PMM ratio is
suddenly increases above the removal location max upto
5.85.
Graph. 15. Bending Moment of beam no. B61
After removal of column C43, adjacent beams transform
their form from simply supported to cantilever beams.
From above graph, bending moments before removal of
column and after removal of column are varies from 15 to
25.15. bending moments are increased after column
removal.
Graph. 13. PMM ratio of column no. C44
Initially PMM ratio of original structure is in a rangeof
0.8 to 3.84 but due to sudden column removal,
load distributed to nearest member and the PMM
ratio is suddenly increases above the removal location
max upto 5.52.

From graph it is observed that after removal of first floor
column BM value of B62 changes largely near the column
removal location after that effect is neutralized.
After removal of column C43 it is observed that after
removal of first floor column, BM value of B98 changes
largely than before.
Graph. 18. BM of beam no B99
After removal of column, simply supported beams act like
a cantilever beams. Bending moments increasedsuddenly
after column removal.
Graph. 19. Axial load on column no C37
After removal of column C43theforcetakenbythecolumn
is transfer to adjacent columns. Hence axial forces on that
column afterremovalofcolumnC43issuddenlyincreased.
After removal of column C43 the force taken by this
member is transfer to adjacent column C37, C44, C42 and
C49. Hence axial forces on that column after removal of
column C43 was suddenly increased.
When column C43 is removed, load on column is
distributed to the columns of vicinity. C43 is interior
column and surrounded by 4 columns. After removal of
column load is transfer to the surrounded columns and
axial load on the columns is suddenly increased.
After removal of column C43theforcetakenbythecolumn
is transfer to adjacent columns. Hence axial forces on that
column afterremovalofcolumnC43issuddenlyincreased.

Graph. 23. Displacement of column no. C47
Displacement at column C47 is changes after removal of
column is considerable. Before removal of column initial
displacement was min. 1.2mm and max. 8, after removal of
column max displacement is 15.5 mm.
Graph. 24. PMM ratio of column No.C47
From graph of PMM ratio or % rebar of original structure is
in a range of 0.8 to 4.37. initially column had two supports
but due to sudden loss of columnisconvertedintocantilever
and PMM ratio (% rebar) minimized to 0.8 for all above
stories.
PMM ratio of original structure is in a range of 0.8 to 4.36but
due to sudden column removal, load distributed to nearest
column and the PMM ratio is suddenly increases above the
column removal location max upto 5.55.
From graph no.14 PMM ratio of original structure is in a range
of 0.8 to 3.69 but due to sudden column removal, load
distributed to nearest member and the PMM ratio is suddenly
increases above the removal location max upto 4.1.
PMM ratio of original structure is in a range of 0.8 to 4.36 but
due to sudden column removal, load distributed to nearest
column and the PMM ratio is suddenly increases above the
column removal location max upto 5.55.
Graph. 28. Bending Moment of beam no.B65
After removal of column C47, bending moment of adjacent
beams increasedsuddenly. Min bending momentat1ststoryis
6.55KN-m after removal of column C47 bending moment it
reaches 16.96 KN-m. At all stories bending moment increases
suddenly.

6. SUMMURY AND CONCULSION
In this study we analyze G+12 structure for non linear
progressive collapse. Following observations are made.
1.for removal of C1, C43 and C47, joint displacement is
larger in C43 ie. at Interior column.
2.PMM ratio (% rebar) is suddenly increasing at interior
column location as compare to corner and exterior
column locations.
3.BM values of beam are largely increasing at interior
column than other two locations because thesebeamsget
affected more.
4.Axial forces are increased in locations near to interior
column, after removal of exterior column C43.
From this study it is observed that maximumreadingsare
obtained for interior column removal and out of three
After removal of column, simply supported beams act like a
cantilever beams. Bending moments increased suddenly after
column removal. Initially BM is max. 13.3KN-M after removal
of column it reaches 17.8KN-M .
After removal of column, simply supported beams act like a
cantilever beams. Bending moments increased suddenly after
column removal. Initially BM is max. 13.1KN-M after removal
of column it reaches 17.89KN-M .
Graph.31. Axial load of column C41
When column C47 is removed, loadoncolumnisdistributedto
the columns of vicinity.C47isexteriorcolumnandsurrounded
by 3 columns. After removal of column load is transfer to the
surrounded columns andaxialloadonthecolumnsissuddenly
increased.
Graph. 32. Axial load of column C48
After removal of column C47 the force taken by the column is
transfer to adjacent columns. Hence axial forces on that
column after removal of column C47 is suddenly increased.
Graph. 33. Axial load of column C48
After removal of column C47the force taken by thismemberis
transfer to adjacent column C41, C48 and C53. Hence axial
forces on that column after removal of column C47 was
suddenly increased.

locations, middle central location ie. Interior location
(C43) shows the effects of progressivecollapselargerthat
other two cases. And that column location is critical for
progressive collapse.
When interior column is failed due to some reasons then
building undergoes major collapse than corner or any
exterior column.
7.References
[6] Weifeng Yuan and Kang Hai Tan,"Modeling of
progressive collapse of a multi-storey structure using a
spring-mass-damper system" Structural Engineeringand
Mechanics, Vol. 37, No. 1 (2011) 79-93
[7] A.R. Rahai, M. Banazadeh, M.R. SeifyAsghshahr& H.
Kazem," Progressive Collapse Assessment of RC
Structures under Instantaneous and Gradual Removal of
Columns" 15 WCEE,LISBOA 2012.
[8] Rakshith K G, Radhakrishna, " Progressive Collapse
Analysis Of ReinforcedConcreteFramedStructure" IJRET:
International Journal of Research in Engineering and
Technology,2013.
[9] Shefna L Sunamy, Binu P, Dr. Girija K," Progressive
collapse analysis of a reinforced concreteframebuilding."
International journal of civil engineering and technology
IJCIET), Volume 5, Issue 12, December (2014), pp. 93-98
(2009)
[10] Ram Shankar Singh, Yusuf Jamal, Meraj A.
Khan"Progressive collapseanalysis ofreinforcedconcrete
symmetrical and unsymmetrical framed structures by
Etabs." International Journal of Innovative Research in
Advanced Engineering(IJIRAE)ISSN:2349-2763Issue12,
Volume 2 (December 2015)
[11] A. Choubey and M.D. Goel, " Progressive collapse
analysis of RCC structures", international journal of
optimization in civil engineering, Int. J. Optim. Civil Eng.,
2016; 6(2):287-301,(2015).
[12] GSA. Progressive collapse analysis and design
guidelines for new federal office buildings and major
modernization projects. The US General Services
Administration; 2013
[13] IS 456: (2000) Plain and reinforced concrete- codeof
practice, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[14] IS 1893 (Part 1), Indian Standard criteria for
Earthquake Resistant Design ofstructures,Part1:General
Provisions and buildings (Fifth Revision), New Delhi.
[15] ASCE 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildingsand
Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers,
1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191-4400.
[16] UFC 4-023-03, Design of Buildings to Resist
Progressive Collapse,dated 14July2009,includingchange
2 – 1 June 2003.
[17] FEMA, “World Trade Center Building Performance
Study, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Report403,
2002(excerpt in ASCE, Civil Engineering, Vol.72, No. 5,
May).
[18] Krishna Kant Chaubey, A.B.Pujari, Dr. Venkata Dilip
Kumar P, " Progressive Collapse Analysis of Low Rise
Steel Frame Structure With and Without Bracing
System" IRJET, Jan -2017.
[1] R. Shankar Nair, Ph.D., P. E., S. E., “ProgressiveCollapse
Basic,” Modern Steel Construction, 2004.
[2] Wibowo,H. .andLau,D.T.,"Seismic Progressive Collapse :
Qualitative Point of View."CivilEngineeringDimension,Vol.11,
No. 1, March 2009, 8-14.
[3] Bruce R. Ellingwood Robert Smilowitz Donald O.
DusenberryDatDuthinh H.S. Lew Nicholas J. Carino ,"Best
Practices for Reducing the Potential for Progressive
Collapse in Buildings",National Institute OfStandardsAnd
Technology, 2007.
[4] HalilSezen (PI) and Kevin A. Giriunas, " Progressive
collapse analysis of an existing building" The Ohio State
University, May 2009.
[5] Yanchao Shi , Zhong-Xian Li , Hong Hao ," A new
method for progressive collapse analysis of RC frames
under blast loading, Engineering Structures 32 (2010)
1691_1703.

Non-Linear Static Progressive Collapse Analysis of High Rise R.C.C. Structure

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Non-Linear Static Progressive Collapse Analysis of High Rise R.C.C. Structure (20)

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Non-Linear Static Progressive Collapse Analysis of High Rise R.C.C. Structure