Next Article in Journal
Parametric Investigation on the Effectiveness of FRM-Retrofitting in Masonry Buttressed Arches
Previous Article in Journal
Intervention Strategies for the Seismic Improvement of Masonry Buildings Based on FME Validation: The Case of a Terraced Building Struck by the 2016 Central Italy Earthquake
Article

Comparison of Different Procedures for Progressive Collapse Analysis of RC Flat Slab Structures under Corner Column Loss Scenario

Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, 195220 St. Petersburg, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Nerio Tullini
Buildings 2021, 11(9), 405; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11090405
Received: 4 August 2021 / Revised: 2 September 2021 / Accepted: 6 September 2021 / Published: 10 September 2021
Progressive collapse is the failure of the whole structure caused by local damage, which leads to significant economic and human losses. Therefore, structures should be designed to sustain local failures and resist subsequent nonproportional damage. This paper compared four procedures for a progressive collapse analysis of two RC structures subjected to a corner column loss scenario. The study is mainly based on the methods outlined in the current Russian standard (linear static (LS) pulldown, nonlinear static (ND) pulldown, and nonlinear dynamic), but also includes LS and NS pushdown procedures suggested by the American guidelines and linear dynamic procedure. We developed detailed finite element models for ANSYS Mechanical and ANSYS/LS-DYNA simulations, explicitly including concrete and reinforcement elements. We applied the Continuous Surface Cap Model (MAT_CSCM) to account for the physical nonlinearity of concrete. We also validated results obtained following these procedures against known experimental data. Simulations using linear static pulldown and linear dynamic procedures lead to 50–70% lower results than the experimental because they do not account for the nonlinear behavior of concrete and reinforcement. Displacements obtained from the NS pulldown method exceed the test data by 10–400%. It is found that correct results for both RC structures can only be found using a nonlinear dynamic procedure, and the mismatch with the test data do not exceed 7%. Compared to static pulldown methods, LS and NS pushdown methods are more accurate and differ from the experiment by 28% and 14%, respectively. This relative accuracy is provided by more correct load multipliers depending on the structure type. View Full-Text
Keywords: progressive collapse; reinforced concrete; finite element method; computer simulation; structural dynamics; nonlinear analysis; numerical analysis progressive collapse; reinforced concrete; finite element method; computer simulation; structural dynamics; nonlinear analysis; numerical analysis
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Dmitriev, A.N.; Lalin, V.V. Comparison of Different Procedures for Progressive Collapse Analysis of RC Flat Slab Structures under Corner Column Loss Scenario. Buildings 2021, 11, 405. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11090405

AMA Style

Dmitriev AN, Lalin VV. Comparison of Different Procedures for Progressive Collapse Analysis of RC Flat Slab Structures under Corner Column Loss Scenario. Buildings. 2021; 11(9):405. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11090405

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dmitriev, Andrey N., and Vladimir V. Lalin. 2021. "Comparison of Different Procedures for Progressive Collapse Analysis of RC Flat Slab Structures under Corner Column Loss Scenario" Buildings 11, no. 9: 405. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11090405

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop