1

School of Civil and Resource Engineering

An Improved Procedure for An Improved Procedure for
Progressive Collapse Analysis of RC Progressive Collapse Analysis of RC
Frames to Blast Loading Frames to Blast Loading
Yanchao Shi
1,2
, Hong Hao
1
and Zhong-Xian Li
2
1 1
School of Civil & Resource Engineering, School of Civil & Resource Engineering,
The University of Western Australia, WA 6009, Australia The University of Western Australia, WA 6009, Australia
2 2
School of Civil Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin Tianjin University, University,
Tianjin Tianjin 300072, China 300072, China
School of Civil and Resource Engineering
Because of the catastrophic nature of progressive collapse
and the potentially high cost of retrofitting buildings to
resist it, it is imperative that the progressive analysis
methods be reliable, efficient and straightforward.
Background
School of Civil and Resource Engineering
Three approaches
1. Direct simulations
Luccioni, et al. (Autodyn simulation)
Hao, et al. (LS-DYNA
simulation)
School of Civil and Resource Engineering
2. Simplified Numerical Methods Alternative Load Path
Method
Krauthermmer et al. (2007a and 2007b), to reduce the computational time, develop
hysteretic load-displacement curves for beam-column joints, and each beam
column joint is modelled with a simple connection element
Starossek (2007), Topology method
Izzuddin, et al (2008), simplified approach with consideration of ductility,
redundancy and energy absorption.
School of Civil and Resource Engineering
Astaneh-Asl, et al. Experimental and numerical simulation
3. Experimental study
School of Civil and Resource Engineering
Design Guidelines
Most codes, such as ACI318, NBCC, BS and Eurocode, give only
general guidelines. They do not provide methods on how to assess
structure stability, analyse load redistribution, and alternative load
path due to loss or partial loss of key structure members.
[from: NAVFAC;Brian Crowder PE]
2
School of Civil and Resource Engineering
The most detailed and commonly used guidelines are the
US DoD and US GSA Guidelines. They include four levels
of analysis:
1) Static Linear Elastic Analysis
2) Static Nonlinear Inelastic Analysis
3) Dynamic Linear Elastic Analysis
4) Dynamic Nonlinear Inelastic Analysis
The progressive analysis starts by removing one or a group
of key vertical load-carrying members
School of Civil and Resource Engineering
There are many possible causes of progressive collapse.
Considering the progressive collapse caused by blast
loading, the primary drawback of the previous methods is
that the nonzero initial conditions and damage to other
structural members by direct blast load are ignored in the
progressive collapse analysis
School of Civil and Resource Engineering
Marjanishvili, et al. (2007), discussed the effect of nonzero initial displacement
Although progressive collapse occurs after the blast loading phase,
blast load will cause damage to structural members around the
collapsed column, moreover the structure will not start progressive
collapse from zero initial condition.
School of Civil and Resource Engineering
In this study, an improved procedure with nonzero
initial conditions and damage of structural members by
direct blast loading is proposed for progressive collapse
analysis.
School of Civil and Resource Engineering
Step 1 Locate the columns that will collapse for a given
explosion scenario

10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5


P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
k
P
a
)
Impulse (kPa*ms)
Low damage
Medium damage
Heavy damage
Collapse
Fitted D=0.2
Fitted D=0.5
Fitted D=0.8
School of Civil and Resource Engineering
Step 2 Estimate nonzero initial condition of each non
collapsing structural member based on SDOF
approximation
Assumed deflection shape
)
2 /
1 ( ) (
max
L
y
s y s = )
2 /
1 ( ) (
max
L
y
v y v =
t M e
M K M = ) ( ) (
t L e
t F K t F = k K k
L e
=
e
e
e
0
e
t
d
d
) (
M
I
M
d t F
v
t
t
= =

d t t
d d
3
2
t v s =
3
School of Civil and Resource Engineering
Step 3 Estimate initial damage of concrete material
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
3
10
4
10
5
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
k
P
a
)
Impulse (kPa*ms)
D=0.2
D=0.5
D=0.8
A
damage degree D
) 1 (
'
c
'
dmg c,
D f f =
) 1 (
dmg
D E E =
The total length of the
damage zone is assumed to
be 1/5 of the column length
School of Civil and Resource Engineering
Numerical example
Span of 6 m in x direction, 3
m in y direction. Storey
height 3 m. Dimension of all
the columns 300 300 mm,
beams 200 mm 300 mm, all
with a 2% longitudinal
reinforcement of the yield
stress 335 MPa and
10@200 mm hoop
reinforcement with the yield
stress of 235 MPa. Slab is
150 mm thick with a 2%
longitudinal reinforcement
Floor live load: 4 kN/m
2
Weight of the infill wall: 120 kN/m
2
School of Civil and Resource Engineering
1. Direct simulation
Blast scenario: TNT 1000 kg, distance 10 m.
Concrete model: LSDYNA Material 72
Steel model: LSDYNA Material 003
DIF: K&C Model
3D Solid element of size 50 mm
Erosion criteria: Principle and shear strain: 0.15 and 0.9
School of Civil and Resource Engineering
2. GSA Guideline Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis
Load=DL+0.25LL
School of Civil and Resource Engineering
3. Proposed Method
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
3
10
4
10
5
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
k
P
a
)
Impulse (kPa*ms)
D=0.2
D=0.5
D=0.8
Blast loads
on the columns
School of Civil and Resource Engineering
Direct simulation GSA nonlinear dynamic Proposed method
405ms
640ms
805ms
1005ms
405ms
620ms
4
School of Civil and Resource Engineering
200 400 600 800 1000 1200
-3000
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
V
e
rtic
a
l d
is
p
la
c
e
m
e
n
t (
m
m
)
Time (ms)
GSAanalysis
Benchmark analysis
Proposed method
Vertical displacement at N1
200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
T
ra
n
s
v
e
r
s
e
d
is
p
la
c
e
m
e
n
t (m
m
)
Time (ms)
GSAanalysis
Benchmark analysis
Proposed method
Horizontal displacement at N1
200 400 600 800 1000 1200
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
V
e
r
t
ic
a
l v
e
lo
c
i
ty
(
m
/
s
)
Time (ms)
GSA analysis
Benchmark analysis
Proposed method
200 400 600 800 1000 1200
-20
-10
0
10
20
V
e
r
t
u
c
a
l a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
m
/
m
s
2
)
Time (ms)
GSAanalysis
Benchmark analysis
Proposed method
Vertical velocity and acceleration
School of Civil and Resource Engineering
Same example, only change is the weight of infill wall
from 120 kN/m
2
to 80 kN/m
2
200 400 600 800
-3000
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
V
e
r
tic
a
l d
is
p
la
c
e
m
e
n
t (
m
m
)
Time (ms)
GSAanalysis
Benchmark analysis
Proposed method
200 400 600 800
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
V
e
r
tic
a
l v
e
lo
c
ity
(
m
/s
)
Time (ms)
GSAanalysis
Benchmark analysis
Proposed method
200 400 600 800
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
V
e
rtu
c
a
l a
c
c
e
le
ra
tio
n
(m
m
/m
s 2)
Time (ms)
GSA analysis
Benchmark analysis
Proposed method
School of Civil and Resource Engineering
Conclusion
The proposed method takes into consideration the
nonzero initial conditions and damage in structural
elements, owing to direct blast load impact, in
progressive collapse analysis. It results in more reliable
estimation of structural collapse process, as compared to
the GSA guidelines.
It is computationally more efficient as compared to the
direct simulation of structural progressive collapse.