Dynamic amplification factor for progressive collapse resistance analysis of an RC building

Abstract

Linear static (LS), nonlinear static (NS) and nonlinear dynamic analyses were conducted to estimate the progressive collapse resistance of a reinforced concrete building. The step‐by‐step procedure recommended by the US General Service Administration was used for the LS analysis. Load‐displacement response curves were compared to investigate the force‐based dynamic amplification factor (DAF), which was defined in this study. It was observed that a constant DAF equal to 2·0 was conservative for estimating the collapse resistance of a ductile column‐removed building. However, the LS procedure may fail to appropriately simulate the inelastic response of the building. A capacity curve, constructed from the NS load‐displacement response, may be applied to prediction of the collapse resistance and DAF for a column‐removed building. An analytical method was proposed to demonstrate the dependency of the DAF on hinge model parameters. The proposed method was capable of predicting the collapse resistance and the force‐based DAF of an inelastic structure under vertical downward loadings. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Efficient progressive collapse analysis for robustness evaluation of buildings experiencing column removal

“…It is noted that the dynamic effects can be reasonably included, if needed, by an equivalent static method based on energy balance [23,32,33].…”

Robustness of Older Flat Plate Buildings against Dynamic Progressive Collapse

“…The applied load w s is identified by ESP approach as 1.24 psi (Point B), which corresponds to a DIF of w s /w d =1.29. In addition, the dynamic amplification factor (DAF), defined as the ratio of peak dynamic displacement response to the static displacement response (Tsai and Lin, 2009) at a certain load level, can also be obtained from Figure 5(b) by comparing the deformation demands (such as the abscissa of Point A and C).…”

A review of progressive collapse research and regulations

“…In methods incorporating material non-linearity, calculation of the DLF is complicated by energy dissipation during the ductility phase, where members achieve significant plastic rotations and deformations. In these cases a dynamic multiplier of 2 has been found to be conservative (Tsai and Lin, 2009) and a factor of 1 . 5 (Ruth et al, 2006) has been recommended to provide a realistic and economical approximation.…”

“…Incorporating semi-rigid behaviour into global structural analysis is necessary in order to accurately model joint failures that may progress to a collapse. The most complete way of achieving this is to use experimental data from connection tests; however, the large number of connection types and variations mean suitable test data are not available for every design situation (Izzuddin, 2010;Tsai and Lin, 2009). Full threedimensional finite-element models of connections have the ability to simulate accurate joint behaviour but require high levels of technical skill and computational expense.…”