Progressive collapse resisting capacity of reinforced concrete load bearing wall structures

Abstract

Reinforced concrete (RC) load bearing wall is widely used in high-rise and mid-rise buildings. Due to the number of walls in plan and reduction in lateral force portion, this system is not only stronger against earthquakes, but also more economical. The effect of progressive collapse caused by removal of load bearing elements, in various positions in plan and stories of the RC load bearing wall system was evaluated by nonlinear dynamic and static analyses. For this purpose, three-dimensional model of 10-story structure was selected. The analysis results indicated stability, strength and stiffness of the RC load-bearing wall system against progressive collapse. It was observed that the most critical condition for removal of load bearing walls was the instantaneous removal of the surrounding walls located at the corners of the building where the sections of the load bearing elements were changed. In this case, the maximum vertical displacement was limited to 6.3 mm and the structure failed after applying the load of 10 times the axial load bored by removed elements. Comparison between the results of the nonlinear dynamic and static analyses demonstrated that the “load factor” parameter was a reasonable criterion to evaluate the progressive collapse potential of the structure.

Keywords

reinforced concrete (RC) load bearing wall structure / progressive collapse / fiber sections / nonlinear analysis / load factor method

References

[1] General Service Administration GSA.Alternate path analysis and design guidelines for progressive collapse resistance [S], 2013

[2] The Unified Facilities Criteria UFC.Design of structures to resist progressive collapse [S], 2013

[3] KimJ, YuJ. Analysis of reinforced concrete frames subjected to column loss [J]. Magazine of Concrete Research, 2012, 64(1): 21-33

[4] LuD G, CuiS S, SongP Y, ChenZ H. Robustness assessment for progressive collapse of framed structures using pushdown analysis method [C]. Proceeding of the 4th International Workshop on Reliable Engineering Computing (REC 2010). Harbin, 2010, 1: 268-281

[5] SasaniM. Response of a reinforced concrete infilled-frame structure to removal of two adjacent columns [J]. Engineering Structures, 2008, 30(9): 2478-2491

[6] KimJ, JungM. Progressive collapse resisting capacity of tilted building structures [J]. Struct Des Tall Spec Build, 2013, 22(18): 1359-1375

[7] PachenariA, KeramatiA. A method for modeling successive removal of columns in macromodeling frameworks [J]. Structural Engineering International, 2014, 24(3): 372-380

[8] BaoaY, KunnathS. Simplified progressive collapse simulation of rc frame-wall structures [J]. Engineering Structures, 2010, 32(10): 3153-3162

[9] PachenariA, KeramatiA. Progressive collapsed zone extent estimation in two-way slab floors by yield line analysis [J]. Magazine of Concrete Research, 2014, 66(13): 685-696

[10] ThomsenJ H, WallaceJ WDisplacement based design of reinforced concrete structural walls: An experimental investigation of walls with rectangular and T-shaped crosssections [R], 1995New YorkDepartment of Civil Engineering, Clarkson University

[11] ManderJ B, PriestleyM J N, ParkR. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete [J]. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 1988, 114(8): 1804-1826

[12] ASCE.. ASCE/SEI 7-10 minimum design loads for building and other structures [S]. American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010

[13] American Concrete Institute ACI 318-14.Building code requirements for structural concrete [S], 2014

[14] Perform 3D.Nonlinear analysis and performance assessment for 3D structures: Version 5 [M], 2011Berkeley, CAComputer and Structures Inc

[15] ManderJ B, PriestleyM J N, ParkR. Observed stress-strain model of confined concrete [J]. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 1988, 114(8): 1827-1849