Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 205–217

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Static and dynamic analysis of a reinforced concrete flat slab frame building
for progressive collapse
Seweryn Kokot ⇑, Armelle Anthoine, Paolo Negro, George Solomos
Joint Research Centre – Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, European Laboratory for Structural Assessment, Ispra, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The problem of structural progressive collapse has been investigated using a real-scale reinforced con-
Received 1 September 2011 crete flat-slab frame building, which has survived collapse after two of its central columns had been phys-
Revised 2 February 2012 ically destroyed. The numerical study undertaken considers three loading scenarios, in which alternately
Accepted 5 February 2012
three different columns are being instantaneously removed, and in each case the structural response of
Available online 28 March 2012
the frame is calculated. A finite-element linear static analysis has first been conducted. To account for
severe dynamic effects occurring during fast dynamic events, such as explosions or impacts, dynamic
Keywords:
linear and nonlinear time history analyses have next been performed. For each scenario the results have
Progressive collapse
Reinforced concrete frame building
been processed in terms of demand-resistance ratios at critical cross-sections, and thus it has been
Column removal assessed whether the building would be susceptible to progressive collapse according to certain allow-
Alternate load path method ance criteria prescribed in technical guidelines. In this respect, three definitions of dynamic factors are
Dynamic nonlinear analysis introduced and their effective applicability is assessed in view of actually calculated and guidelines-sug-
gested values. Results show overall that the approaches of linear static and dynamic analyses would have
produced progressive collapse conditions. The nonlinear dynamic analysis predicts no mechanism which
might lead to progressive collapse, even though several plastic hinges would be formed. Merits of using
static or dynamic, linear or nonlinear analyses are discussed.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Progressive collapse of structures occurs when a local failure
triggers successive failures and leads to the total collapse or a col-
lapse disproportionate to the original cause. There have been a few
world-wide known examples of progressive collapses such as that
of the Ronan Point residential apartment building (London, 1968),
of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building (Oklahoma, 1995), etc. The
first progressive collapse regulatory documents followed the
Ronan Point partial collapse and were included into the British
standards. In turn, after the total collapse of the World Trade Cen-
ter towers, many research activities have led to more detailed
guidelines on designing and preventing progressive collapses
(e.g. [1–3]).
There are basically two approaches when dealing with the eval-
uation and prevention of progressive collapses in a given structure.
The first indirect approach consists in ensuring that the structure
satisfies prescriptive design rules (such as requirements on struc-
tural integrity and ductility or the presence of vertical and horizon-
tal ties). The second direct approach uses two possibilities
depending on whether local failure is allowed or not. If local failure
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: seweryn.kokot@jrc.ec.europa.eu (S. Kokot).
is allowed, then the structure must be verified using the alternate
load path method in which a load-bearing element is removed
from the structure. If no local failure is allowed, then key elements
must be designed to sustain a notional accidental action. More de-
tailed information on the state-of-the-art in the field of progressive
collapse can be found in [3–8].
Following the issue of the guidelines [1,2], there have been pub-
lished several research papers presenting numerical analyses con-
cerning progressive collapse of steel and reinforced concrete
structures. To give a few examples of recent studies, Marjanishvili
and Agnew [9], analysed a model of a nine-storey steel moment-
resistant frame building applying four methods of the indirect ap-
proach using SAP 2000 finite element software. Similarly Fu [10]
considered a twenty-storey steel composite frame building model
under column removal using ABAQUS. Tsai and Lin [11] investi-
gated progressive collapse resistance of an earthquake-resistant
reinforced concrete building model subjected to column failure
using SAP 2000. Kwasniewski [12] analysed an eight-storey steel
building using LS-DYNA software focusing on 3D detailed
modelling and identifying critical parameters for the potential of
progressive collapse. Recently, Iribarren et al. [13] used a more
sophisticated approach consisted of a detailed modelling of rein-
forced concrete cross-sections to analyse a five-storey RC planar
frame model.

0141-0296/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.02.026
206 S. Kokot et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 205–217
Fig. 1. Front view.
In the European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA), a
reinforced concrete flat-slab frame building was tested to evaluate
its safety against collapse (see [14,15]). First, static linear and non-
linear analyses of the building under column removals were per-
formed and then two columns of the building were actually
demolished, one after the other, to observe the building behaviour.
This experiment has shown not only that the structure survived
Fig. 2. Floor plan.
the removal of two central columns, but also how challenging
the structural testing against progressive collapse is.
However, buildings can be exposed to fast dynamic abnormal
events, such as bomb explosions or impacts, so the dynamic nature
of the loading must be considered. Therefore, the first objective of
this work is to re-evaluate the previously mentioned frame build-
ing using linear and nonlinear dynamic analyses according to the
alternate load path method. In other words, this study tries to an-
swer the question: what would have happened if the columns had
been destroyed dynamically in an almost instantaneous manner?
The second objective is to learn how much the effects of the fast
dynamic column removal are greater compared to the effects of
the static approach. To this end, three definitions of dynamic fac-
tors are discussed. Finally, the third objective is to identify the
advantages when redistribution of bending moments due to plastic
hinges is taken into account.
2. Description of the structure
The structure was a 3-storey 2-bay reinforced concrete frame
building with a 0.24 m thick slab (Fig. 1). The height of each storey
was 2.7 m and the bays were 6 m and 4 m long. The structure con-
tained two main frames connected together with transverse beams
(Fig. 2). The girder beams were 1 m wide and 0.24 m high. The
frames were supported by square columns of dimensions
0.4  0.4 m. In each frame, there existed an eccentricity of 0.2 m
between the axes of beams and columns. Because of the reduced
beam height, they had quite high reinforcement on both sides,
with only some rebars anchored to the column joints. The details
of reinforcement are shown in Figs. 3 and 4.
2.1. Materials
The materials of the structure were C25/30 concrete and S500
steel. In addition, laboratory tests were performed on cubes of con-
crete and on three specimens of each rebar diameter. The mean va-
lue of concrete strength f cm is 32.8 MPa. For /20 steel rebars the
 S. Kokot et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 205–217
Fig. 3. Elevation and column rebars.
mean yield, ultimate strength and ultimate strain are as follows:
f y ¼ 524:6 MPa, f t ¼ 642:6 MPa and eu ¼ 11:07%.
2.2. Resistance of the frame elements
Assuming that in beams failure is due to bending (neglecting
axial and shear forces), the approximate beam moment resistance
is calculated as
M r ¼ 0:85As fs d
Fig. 4. Beam rebars.
207
where As is the area of reinforcement bars in the beam cross-sec-
tion, fs is the characteristic value of strength of steel (524.6 MPa
for rebars /20), and d is the distance from the centre of reinforce-
ment to the extreme compressed concrete fibres of the beam
cross-section. The calculated resistance for the beams are presented
in Table 1 (a – longer bay, b – shorter bay). Note that for those
beams which will undergo bending reversal after the column re-
moval two values of resistance are listed in Table 1 (positive and
negative moment). The assumption of neglecting the axial forces
is justified because usually the axial forces in beams are relatively
small and they increase/decrease the bending moment resistance
only marginally.
For columns, the pure axial resistance is calculated as
Nr ¼ Ac fc þ As fs ð2Þ
where Ac is the area of the concrete cross-section and fc is the
strength of concrete in compression (32.8 MPa). Their approxi-
mated pure bending resistance is calculated via Eq. (1), Table 2.
However, for columns, the influence of axial force on bending mo-
ment resistance cannot be neglected. Therefore the actual bending
moment resistance is obtained from the interaction diagrams calcu-
lated with the commercial software SAP 2000 for four types of col-
umn cross-sections.
The internal forces are obtained from a FE calculation using the
SAP 2000, and in the most loaded cross-sections they are compared
to the corresponding resistance values.
2.3. Summary of the quasi-static experiment for progressive collapse
The structure was first tested pseudodynamically against a de-
sign earthquake. The results reported in [16] showed that the
ð1Þ
structure suffered minor damage. Then the structure was devoted
208 S. Kokot et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 205–217

Table 1
Resistance of beams.

Beam Mr (kNm) Mr (kNm)

Floors 1–2
a – left 197.087
a – middle 92.349
a – right 225.242 176.815
b – left 225.242 176.815
b – middle 92.349
b – right 112.621
Floor 3
a – left 168.932
a – middle 92.349
a – right 197.087 148.660
b – left 197.087 148.660
b – middle 92.349
b – right 112.621

Fig. 5. State of the building at the end of Phase 1.

Table 2
Axial and simplified bending resistance of columns.

Column Nr (kN) Mr (kNm)

Floor 1
1 5836.481 96.821
2 6170.202 151.282
3 5836.481 96.821
Floor 2
1 5836.481 96.821
2 5836.481 96.821
3 5697.431 74.128
Floor 3
1 5994.072 122.539
2 5836.481 96.821
3 5697.431 74.128

to controlled demolition with the goal of investigating its safety

against collapse.
The experiment consisted in cutting the columns, one after an-
Fig. 6. State of the building at the end of Phase 2 (Note that the second central
other. In the first phase, one central column was cut out and, as can column is cut at the base).
be seen in Fig. 5, the building withstood the lack of this load-bear-
ing member. In the second phase, the other central column was re-
moved and, again, the structure survived (see Fig. 6). Then, there
was concern that the building would collapse in an uncontrolled
manner (after a complete removal of another column), therefore,
for safety reasons, it was decided to progressively destroy two
external columns to provoke a pancake-type collapse (see Fig. 7).
Since the experiment took into account only the static behav-
iour of the structure, a question arises whether the structure would
have survived if a column/columns had been destroyed dynami-
cally in an instantaneous manner. In the following sections, the re-
sults of numerical linear and nonlinear, static and dynamic
analyses are presented to give a preliminary answer to this
question.

3. Finite element model

A finite element model of the analysed structure has been cre-

ated in SAP 2000. It contains 186 frame elements and 171 nodes.
The element and node numbers shown in Fig. 8 are used in the se-
quel to display the numerical results. The first longer bay in the x-
direction is referred to as ‘a-bay’, while the second one as ‘b-bay’.
In this work three principal scenarios have been considered:
sudden removal of the central column, of the left corner column
and finally of the right corner column, one at a time.
Although both guidelines [1,2] recommend applying the combi-
nation of permanent (dead) and variable (live) loads in structural
Fig. 7. The building during the pancake-type collapse.
analyses, in this paper only the self-weight is considered to be able
to compare the numerical results with the experiment. The perma-
nent load was equal to 3.5 kN/m2 (actual concrete structure
weight) plus 2.0 kN/m2 (representing several permanent fixtures
on the structure) and was modelled as a uniformly distributed
 S. Kokot et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 205–217 209

Fig. 8. Finite element model of the analysed frame in SAP 2000 – element and node numbers.

Fig. 9. Loads on the frame – simulation of the column removal (from SAP 2000).

linear load applied to the girders to account for the one-way
behaviour of the concrete slabs.
In the current dynamic analyses the simulation of the column
removal is performed as follows: The column to be removed is first
replaced by the corresponding reaction forces at the appropriate
node. In the second step these reaction forces are simultaneously
and abruptly brought to zero. In practice this is accomplished in
SAP 2000 by applying at these points a similar set of forces/mo-
ments of increasing magnitude in the opposite direction (see
Fig. 9). The rate of the column removal is specified by a time
210 S. Kokot et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 205–217

Table 3 The results obtained from these static computations are com-
Bending moments in beams, no column removal, comparison with resistance, frames pared with the structural resistances using the so called demand-
1 and 2.
resistance ratios (DRRs), also referred to as demand-capacity ratios.
Frames 1 and 2 Ms (kNm) A local DRR is defined in each section as
Beam a – left a – mid a – right b – left b – mid b – right
8
Floor 3 43.34 30.04 52.52 29.30 11.08 17.84 < M max =M r
> in beamsðbending moment onlyÞ
Floor 2 49.59 27.18 51.98 23.07 11.46 23.31 DRR ¼ N max =N r in barsðaxial force onlyÞ
Floor 1 47.22 28.26 52.18 26.90 11.28 19.84
>
:
M max =M r ðNÞ in columnsðcombined bending moment and axial forceÞ
Ms/Mr (%) ð3Þ
Floor 3 25.66 32.53 26.65 14.87 12.00 15.84
Floor 2 25.16 29.43 23.08 10.24 12.41 20.70
Floor 1 23.96 30.60 23.17 11.94 12.21 17.62
where Mmax and Nmax are the maximum moment and axial force
acting on the section while Mr and Nr are the bending moment
and axial resistances of the section, respectively. The global DRR
is taken as the maximum local DRR over the entire structure i.e.
Table 4
Axial forces and bending moments in columns, no column removal, comparison with
DRRmax. For reinforced concrete structures, both [1,2] specify that
resistance, frames 1 and 2. the value of 200% for the demand-resistance ratio should not be ex-
ceeded, otherwise the structure is deemed as prone to progressive
Frame 1 Ns (kN)
collapse.
Column 1 2 3
Floor 3 top 50.45 91.02 31.78
Floor 3 bot 50.45 91.02 31.78
4.1. Before column demolition
Floor 2 top 102.02 177.99 66.49
Floor 2 bot 102.02 177.99 66.49
Floor 1 top 153.17 267.20 99.38 This phase concerns the frames in the intact state, i.e. all ele-
Floor 1 bot 153.17 267.20 99.38 ments are present, as compared to the subsequent phases where
Ms (kNm) one or more columns are destroyed.
Floor 3 top 43.34 23.21 17.84 The results, being exactly the same for both frames, are dis-
Floor 3 bot 28.06 16.89 13.45 played only once. The values of internal forces (bending moments
Floor 2 top 21.53 12.02 9.86 and axial forces) in the most representative/critical cross-sections
Floor 2 bot 26.91 14.82 11.75 are given in Table 3 for beams and in Table 4 for columns. The load-
Floor 1 top 20.31 10.46 8.09
Floor 1 bot 9.09 5.98 4.87
ing corresponds to the aforementioned self-weight of (3.5 + 2) kN/
m2. In the Tables, the resultant internal forces are given at the dif-
Mr(Ns) (kNm)
ferent cross-sections (l – left, mid - midspan, r – right) of each bay
Floor 3 top 147.78 126.38 91.24 (a – longer bay, b – shorter bay) together with the ratios between
Floor 3 bot 147.78 126.38 91.24
the resultant internal forces and the element resistances (demand/
Floor 2 top 128.30 140.57 97.38
Floor 2 bot 128.30 140.57 122.09 resistance ratio – DRR). Note that the Mr values in these Tables are
Floor 1 top 136.71 212.03 127.84 obtained from the corresponding interaction diagrams. As an
Floor 1 bot 136.71 212.03 127.84 example, Fig. 10 shows how the value of Mr is obtained for the
Ms/Mr(Ns) (%) first-floor central columns (with rebars /20) under the axial force
Floor 3 top 29.33 18.37 19.55 Ns = 267.20 kN. The maximum values of demand/resistance ratios
Floor 3 bot 18.99 13.36 14.74 are: at the midspan of the a-beams on the third floor
Floor 2 top 16.78 8.55 10.13 (DRR = 32.53%) and at the top of the left column on the third floor
Floor 2 bot 20.97 10.54 9.62 (DRR = 29.33%) and clearly these values are relatively small.
Floor 1 top 14.86 4.93 6.33
Floor 1 bot 6.65 2.82 3.81

4.2. One central column removed

function, which is chosen as a linear ramp. For actual bomb explo-
sions, the time in which a structural member is destroyed is very
short (some milliseconds). In the presented FE calculations, the re-
moval time is selected to be 5 ms, which implies a quasi instanta-
neous removal. The dynamic effects of the removal rate on the
dynamic response of the structure have already been investigated
in [7] and the results have showed that the most unfavourable dy-
namic effects occur when the column is destroyed within a time
close to zero (below 5 ms). The dynamic computations are per-
formed starting from the equilibrium position of the intact struc-
ture under gravity loads (zero initial velocities) and assuming a
5% viscous damping.
4. Linear static analysis
These analyses have already been performed and the results re-
ported in [14]. However, to make this paper self-contained, they
have been reproduced to facilitate comparison with the dynamic
analyses.
Many current progressive collapse provisions in codes, stan-
dards and guidelines (e.g [1,2,17]) require that the load-bearing
elements are removed anywhere in the structure, one at a time,
and check if progressive collapse could occur. As the first damage
scenario a central column in the first frame is removed. The bend-
ing moment and axial force distributions for both frames in the
most critical cross-sections are given in Tables 5–7.
The linear static analysis shows that the most loaded cross-sec-
tions are in the first frame, namely the right-end of the b-beam on
the second floor (DRR = 123.72%) and the top of the right column
on the third floor (DRR = 107.77%). The vertical displacement at
node 48 is equal to 0.0167 m.
These results indicate only minor yielding, so the structure
would not be susceptible to collapse, statically. However, accord-
ing to the guidelines in [1,2], a structure would be susceptible to
progressive collapse, dynamically. This is because its demand-
resistance ratio exceeds 200% when the permanent loads are mul-
tiplied by a factor of 2 (to account for dynamic effects) in the com-
putation of internal forces.
 S. Kokot et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 205–217 211

Finding Mr(Ns) from the interaction diagram (rebars φ 20) Table 6

7000 Axial forces and bending moments in columns, central column removed statically,
comparison with resistance, Frame 1.

6000 Frame 1 Ns (kN)

Column 1 2 3
5000
Floor 3 81.30 10.37 81.58
Floor 2 166.99 1.68 175.84
axial force [kN]

4000 Floor 1 250.39 – 267.37

Ms (kNm)
3000
Floor 3 top 129.79 30.24 107.81
Floor 3 bot 85.39 18.54 77.40
2000
Floor 2 top 65.89 27.84 60.40
Floor 2 bot 96.46 39.55 60.30
1000 Floor 1 top 41.52 – 74.43
Ns = 267.20kN Floor 1 bot 31.79 – 25.19
0 Mr=212.03kNm Mr(Ns) (kNm)
Floor 3 152.61 112.29 100.04
−1000 Floor 2 138.86 110.78 116.69
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Floor 1 151.84 – 154.49
bending moment [kNm]
Ms/Mr(Ns) (%)
Fig. 10. Interaction diagram for a column with rebars /20.
Floor 3 top 85.05 26.93 107.77
Floor 3 bot 55.95 16.51 77.37
Floor 2 top 47.45 25.13 51.76
Floor 2 bot 69.47 35.70 43.00
Table 5
Floor 1 top 27.34 – 48.18
Bending moments in beams, central column removed statically, comparison with
Floor 1 bot 20.94 – 16.31
resistance, frames 1 and 2.

Frame 1 Ms (kNm)
Beam a – left a – mid a – right b – left b – mid b – right
Floor 3 130.01 35.93 45.94 77.46 18.26 110.25
0.0142 m. In this case, the linear static calculation indicates that
Floor 2 150.60 28.51 51.69 99.12 14.54 139.33 the structure would not be prone to progressive collapse neither
Floor 1 138.13 34.10 50.41 91.30 12.20 136.21 statically (DRR < 200%) nor dynamically (DRR < 200%)
Ms/Mr (%)
Floor 3 76.96 38.91 30.90 52.11 19.77 97.89
Floor 2 76.41 30.87 29.23 56.06 15.74 123.72 5. Linear dynamic analysis
Floor 1 70.09 36.93 28.51 51.64 13.21 120.95
Frame 2 Ms (kNm) This section presents the results of the three scenarios of col-
Floor 3 46.52 29.92 49.56 33.69 11.38 12.85 umn removal using linear dynamic analysis. The advantage of this
Floor 2 54.43 27.04 47.42 29.47 11.59 16.65 kind of calculations is that dynamic effects are inherently incorpo-
Floor 1 51.71 28.14 47.94 33.07 11.46 13.32 rated in the analysis as opposed to an a priori assumed dynamic
Ms/Mr (%) factor to be applied on the results of the static analysis. Since it
Floor 3 27.54 32.40 25.15 17.09 12.32 11.41 provides a more realistic distribution of the internal forces over
Floor 2 27.62 29.28 21.05 13.08 12.55 14.78 the structure, the linear dynamic analysis is expected to give a
Floor 1 26.24 30.47 21.28 14.68 12.41 11.83 more reliable estimate of the actual maximum demand-resistance
ratio (DRRmax) characterising the structural robustness against pro-
gressive collapse. Furthermore, the actual dynamic factor that
4.3. One left corner column removed should be applied to the static analysis results, can be computed
a posteriori.
In the second damage scenario a left corner column is removed It is however worth mentioning that the notion of dynamic fac-
from the first frame. tor is well-defined only for a single-degree-of-freedom system
The maximum demand-resistance ratios are reached on the where all quantities (force, displacement, DRR, etc.) lead to the
third floor at the right-end of the a-beam (DRR = 132.64%) and at same dynamic/static ratio. In a multi-degree-of-freedom system,
the top of the right column (DRR = 92.31%). The vertical displace- different definitions can be adopted which lead to different values
ment at node 25 equals 0.0552 m. Therefore, according to the rules of the dynamic factor, namely:
of thumb mentioned earlier, a progressive collapse is unlikely un-
der static conditions (DRR < 200%) but is possible under dynamic  The ratio of the dynamic and static maximum deflection at the
conditions (DRR > 200%). top of the removed column (Definition 1),
 the maximum ratio of the dynamic and static local DRR (Defini-
tion 2),
4.4. One right corner column removed  the ratio of the dynamic and static DRRmax (Definition 3).

The last case deals with the removal of a right corner column
from the first frame. This case is similar to the previous one and
is more favourable because the span of the right bay is shorter.
The demand-resistance ratios are far below 100% in all members.
The maximum DRR values are 66.23% for beams and 39.2% for col-
umns and the vertical displacement at node 69 is equal to
Despite the apparent soundness of the first two definitions, the
third definition may be preferable because it provides a weighted
global dynamic factor, as it will be confirmed by the results of
the linear and nonlinear dynamic analyses. If this dynamic factor
is applied to the static results, the output of the dynamic analysis
is recovered in terms of robustness (value of DRRmax).
212 S. Kokot et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 205–217

Table 7 Table 9
Axial forces and bending moments in columns, central column removed statically, Maximum axial forces and bending moments in columns, central column removed
comparison with resistance, frame 2. dynamically, comparison with resistance values, Frame 1, linear analysis.

Frame 2 Ns (kN) Frame 1 N max

d (kN)
Column 1 2 3 Column 1 2 3
Floor 3 51.47 92.34 29.44 Floor 3 105.59 91.02 118.76
Floor 2 104.61 183.00 60.88 Floor 2 221.10 177.99 262.91
Floor 1 157.22 273.94 90.60 Floor 1 328.27 – 406.82
Ms (kNm) M max
d (kNm)
Floor 3 top 46.74 17.15 15.29 Floor 3 top 189.97 67.52 170.27
Floor 3 bot 29.31 12.79 12.01 Floor 3 bot 134.29 41.98 118.30
Floor 2 top 24.44 6.20 6.18 Floor 2 top 87.40 71.50 109.33
Floor 2 bot 30.31 8.66 7.97 Floor 2 bot 157.38 91.72 90.09
Floor 1 top 21.54 7.56 6.82 Floor 1 top 66.94 – 150.73
Floor 1 bot 15.78 3.42 3.41 Floor 1 bot 92.68 – 102.47
Mr(Ns) (kNm) Nd (kN) for M max
d
Floor 3 147.94 126.61 90.83 Floor 3 top 105.20 12.24 118.33
Floor 2 128.75 141.35 96.38 Floor 3 bot 105.44 16.54 117.71
Floor 1 137.34 155.51 126.30 Floor 2 top 220.88 11.37 262.00
Ms/Mr(Ns) (%) Floor 2 bot 220.74 22.18 261.21
Floor 1 top 229.94 – 399.56
Floor 3 top 31.59 13.55 16.83 Floor 1 bot 221.17 – 403.76
Floor 3 bot 19.81 10.10 13.22
Floor 2 top 18.98 4.39 6.41 Mr(Nd) (kNm)
Floor 2 bot 23.54 6.13 6.58 Floor 3 156.38 113.37 106.42
Floor 1 top 15.68 4.86 5.40 Floor 2 147.23 114.36 130.93
Floor 1 bot 11.49 2.20 2.70 Floor 1 147.29 – 175.72

M max
d /Mr(Nd) (%)

Floor 3 top 121.51 59.95 159.83

Floor 3 bot 85.87 37.03 111.16
Table 8
Floor 2 top 59.35 63.57 83.50
Maximum bending moments in beams, central column removed dynamically,
Floor 2 bot 106.89 80.20 58.68
comparison with resistance, frames 1 and 2, linear analysis.
Floor 1 top 45.03 – 86.10
Frame 1 Md (kNm) Floor 1 bot 62.92 – 58.31

Beam a – left a – mid a – right b – left b – mid b – right M max

d =Mr ðN d Þ
(local dyn. factor)
M s =M r ðN s Þ
Floor 3 190.21 52.12 102.04 136.70 25.93 174.17
Floor 2 220.48 40.21 98.50 180.72 21.16 228.94 Floor 3 top 1.43 2.23 1.48
Floor 1 186.13 49.57 96.26 176.65 15.92 239.37 Floor 3 bot 1.53 2.24 1.44
Floor 2 top 1.25 2.53 1.61
Md/Mr (%)
Floor 2 bot 1.54 2.25 1.36
Floor 3 112.60 56.44 68.64 91.95 28.08 154.65 Floor 1 top 1.65 – 1.79
Floor 2 111.87 43.54 55.71 102.21 22.91 203.28 Floor 1 bot 3.00 – 3.58
Floor 1 94.44 53.68 54.44 99.91 17.24 212.54
Md/Ms – local dynamic factor
 remove this column from the FE model and apply these internal
Floor 3 1.46 1.45 2.22 1.76 1.42 1.58
Floor 2 1.46 1.41 1.91 1.82 1.46 1.64 forces as reactions in its place,
Floor 1 1.35 1.45 1.91 1.93 1.30 1.76  apply these reaction forces again but in the opposite direction
Frame 2 Md (kNm) using a linear ramp function,
 perform linear time history analysis with initial conditions (sta-
Floor 3 56.25 30.38 54.08 46.62 12.01 18.79
Floor 2 68.53 27.41 55.26 49.40 11.99 27.71 tic deformation and zero velocities) and 5% critical damping.
Floor 1 63.92 28.70 58.63 49.62 12.01 29.51
Md/Mr (%) The results obtained from these dynamic computations (time
histories of internal forces) are compared with the resistances
Floor 3 33.30 32.90 27.44 23.65 13.01 16.68
Floor 2 34.77 29.68 24.53 21.93 12.98 24.60
using Eq. (3) and with the corresponding static responses obtained
Floor 1 32.43 31.08 26.03 22.03 13.01 26.20 in the previous section.
Md/Ms – local dynamic factor
5.1. One central column removed
Floor 3 1.21 1.02 1.09 1.38 1.06 1.46
Floor 2 1.26 1.01 1.17 1.68 1.03 1.66
Floor 1 1.24 1.02 1.22 1.50 1.05 2.22 The response of the structure to the sudden removal of the cen-
tral column in the first frame is determined. Based on the enve-
lopes of the internal forces (bending moments and axial forces)
in both frames, the corresponding maximum values for beams
The procedure used in the calculations has been presented in and columns are presented in Tables 8 and 9. For columns of Frame
Section 3. In summary, the following steps were carried out in 2 (results not reported in full due to space limitation), the maxi-
SAP 2000: mum value of DRR is 38.08% at the top of the left third column.
As could be expected, Frame 2 is significantly less affected than
 Build a FE model, Frame 1 where the column was removed, a fact that can be ex-
 find the internal forces at the top of a column to be removed plained by the one-way behaviour of the flat-slab frame. The most
under the self-weight loading, critical sections in terms of demand-resistance ratio are the right-
 S. Kokot et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 205–217 213

Deflections at nodes 48, 25 and 69

0

−0.01

−0.02

−0.03
deflection [m]

−0.04

−0.05

−0.06

−0.07 central column removed − node 48

left column removed − node 25
−0.08 right column removed − node 69

−0.09

−0.1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
t [s]

Fig. 11. Vertical deflections for three column removal scenarios at nodes of maximum deflections for linear dynamic analysis.

end of the b-beam on the first floor (DRR = 212.54%) and the top of
the right column on the third floor (DRR = 159.83%). Since the de-
mand-resistance ratio for beams exceeded the 200% threshold, the
building is susceptible to progressive collapse.
As for local dynamic factors (Definition 2) in beams, the maxi-
mum values are reached at the right-end of the a-beam at the third
floor in the first frame but also at the right-end of the b-beam at
the first floor in the second frame (2.22), while in columns, the
maximum dynamic factors are much larger and reach values of
3.58 and 8.71 in the first and second frame, respectively. This fact
demonstrates that it is difficult to draw any conclusion from the lo-
cal dynamic factors because they are highly heterogeneous
throughout the structure, especially in columns where the static
and dynamic forces are quite different. On the other hand, much
more representative is the global dynamic factor according to Def-
inition 3 and here for beams, it is equal to 1.72, while for columns
1.48. Fig. 12. Definition of a plastic hinge for beam elements.
The time history of the maximum displacement of the structure
at node 48 is plotted in Fig. 11. It is seen that the dynamic curve
practically oscillates about the corresponding static deflection va- 5.3. One right corner column removed
lue, and the maximum is obtained for t ffi 0.09 s.
From the maximum displacement of the dynamic (0.0268 m) For the right corner column removal scenario, the maximum
and static (0.0167 m) responses at node 48, a ratio of 1.60 is found, demand-resistance ratios are 84.54% for beams (right-end of the
which can be interpreted as another global dynamic factor (Defini- a-beam on the third floor of Frame 1) and 69.41% for columns
tion 1). (top of the right column on the second floor of Frame 1). In this
case, the maximum local dynamic factor is the largest observed
5.2. One left corner column removed so far (59.34), which can be explained by the small static bending
moment of 0.32 kNm. On the other hand, the global dynamic fac-
For the left corner column removal scenario, the maximum de- tor, for beams, equals 1.28, while for columns 1.77.
mand-resistance ratios are 199.54% for beams (right-end of the a- Fig. 11 shows the vertical displacement at node 69 in time. The
beam of the third floor in Frame 1) and 172.79% for columns (top of maximum value is 0.0207 m at time t ffi 0.31 s. The ratio of the
the right column of the third floor in Frame 1). In this scenario, we maximum linear dynamic deflection and the deflection of the static
can notice even larger local dynamic factors (up to 29.43). For this analysis is 0.0207 m/0.0142 m = 1.46.
scenario, the maximum demand-resistance ratio (almost 200%) is These results demonstrate that this is the most favourable non-
on the verge of treating the building as acceptable/unacceptable failure scenario and that the structure bridges over the lacking col-
against progressive collapse. umn very efficiently. In fact, as will be seen below, the structure
The global dynamic factor (Definition 3), for beams, equals 1.50, remains always in the elastic range.
while for columns 1.87.
Fig. 11 shows how the vertical displacement at node 25 varies 6. Nonlinear dynamic analysis
in time. The maximum value is 0.091 m at time t ffi 0.2 s. The ratio
of the maximum linear dynamic deflection and the deflection for The nonlinear dynamic analysis is the most advanced method
the linear static analysis is 0.091 m/0.0552 m = 1.65. for predicting the response of a structure when a load-bearing
214 S. Kokot et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 205–217
Fig. 13. Final locations of plastic hinges for the central column removal.
element is removed quasi-instantaneously. The fundamental dif-
ference with the linear dynamic analysis is that inelastic behaviour
and/or geometric nonlinearities are taken into account. Therefore
in the SAP 2000 modelling it requires the definition and assign-
ment of plastic hinges at specified positions of selected members.
The nonlinear time history analysis with the same initial condi-
tions is performed next.
The stress–strain (r  e) relationship for concrete is assumed
parabolic in the first part and constant in the second part according
to the following equation
  1.89 (0.0315 m/0.0167 m) instead of 1.60 (see subsection 5.1). On
e 2 e the contrary, the bending moments are much lower than in the lin-
rc ¼ f c þ2 ; 0:002 < e < 0;
0:002 0:002
where fc is the compressive strength, e is the strain in concrete,
0.002 is the strain value at which the parabola ends. For strains
between 0.002 and 0.0035 (which is considered as the failure
strain) the stress remains constant.
For steel, the stress–strain (r  e) relationship is assumed
bilinear. The first part is linear elastic with a yield stress of
524.56 MPa and a modulus of elasticity of 206 GPa, while the
second part is plastic with linear hardening and an ultimate
stress of 642.56 MPa.
In SAP 2000, the plastic hinge behaviour is defined by a piece-
wise linear moment-plastic rotation relationship, the characteris-
tics of which are identified from the idealised moment-curvature
relationship of the section. An example is given in Fig. 12 for a
beam section: point B is defined by the yielding moment and point
C by the ultimate moment and the corresponding plastic rotation.
The curve is usually extended by a softening and residual branch
which has however no importance in the present study since the
plastic hinges never reach their ultimate capacity. For columns,
this moment-plastic rotation relationship depends also on the nor-
mal force and this interaction may be activated in SAP 2000. The
values of points B, C, D and E are taken from Ref. [18].
To be able to directly compare the nonlinear results to the linear
ones, the following nonlinear demand-resistance ratio (DRRnlin) is
defined as
(
100  Mmax =Mr if no yielding occurred;
DRR nlin
¼  
max plastic rotation
100 1 þ ultimate plastic rotation
if yielding occurred:
ð5Þ
This nonlinear DRR coincides with the linear DRR in the absence of
yielding (DRR < 100%). In the presence of yielding ( DRR > 100%), the
nonlinear DRR measures the distance to the ultimate plastic rota-
tion (point C of the moment-curvature relationship, Fig. 12). As
for the linear DRR, the value of 200% is marking the threshold not
to be exceeded (failure of the section) although this does not neces-
sarily implies the collapse of the structure.
In the current analysis three plastic hinges are introduced in
each beam (left, mid and right) and two in each column (bottom
and top), thus resulting in 36 plastic hinges for each frame.
6.1. One central column removed
The nonlinear dynamic analysis for one central column re-
moved shows that, at time 0.039 s, two plastic hinges are activated
almost simultaneously in the first frame, one at the top of the right
column on the third floor and the other at the right-end of the b-
beam on the second floor. Shortly after, at 0.040 s, another plastic
hinge is activated at the right-end of the b-beam on the first floor.
The final spatial configuration of the plastic hinges activated after
the sudden column removal is shown in Fig. 13.
The time history of the maximum displacement at node 48 is
plotted in Fig. 14. Two solid lines show the comparison between
the linear and nonlinear time histories of the displacement at node
48. The divergence of the two curves at time 0.04 s is caused by the
formation of the first plastic hinges mentioned above. Clearly lar-
ger deflections (up to 0.0315 m), always overshooting the static
ones, are observed during the nonlinear dynamic analysis owning
by the formation of the plastic hinges. The ratio of maximum
deflections at point 48 for nonlinear and linear dynamic analyses
is 1.18 (0.0315 m/0.0268 m), thus the global dynamic factor (max-
imum dynamic nonlinear displacement divided by static linear dis-
placement) is slightly higher than that of the linear case, that is
ð4Þ
ear case especially, where the plastic hinges are activated, as is to
be expected.
With regards to the properties of the hinges, Fig. 15 presents the
results for a beam plastic hinge (element No. 96), while Fig. 16
shows the case of a column plastic hinge (element No. 160). There
is the possibility to follow the detailed behaviour of the hinge and
the following information can be produced:
 The skeleton path of the plastic hinge (thin black line) including
the threshold points (yield, ultimate, residual) and the associ-
ated levels of damage (pink1 – first yielding, blue – immediate
occupancy, cyan – life safety and green – collapse prevention).
The skeleton path is the moment-plastic rotation relationship
without normal force,
 the actual path followed (thick black line),
 the current time step,
 the values of the plastic moment and rotation at that current
time step.
For a beam plastic hinge, the actual path follows exactly the
skeleton path, while for a column plastic hinge, the actual path
usually deviates from the skeleton path because of the influence
of the normal force on the moment-plastic rotation relationship.
1
For interpretation of colour in Figs. 1, 5–7, 9–11, 13–18, the reader is referred to
the web version of this article.
 S. Kokot et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 205–217 215

Deflections at nodes 48, 25 and 69

0
NL=L

−0.02
L

NL
−0.04
deflection [m]

−0.06

central column removed − node 48

left column removed − node 25
−0.08 right column removed − node 69
L

−0.1

NL

−0.12
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
t [s]

Fig. 14. Vertical deflections for three column removal scenarios at nodes of maximum deflections for nonlinear dynamic analysis.

Fig. 15. Plastic hinge at the right-end of the b-beam on the first floor.

Fig. 17. Final locations of plastic hinges for the left column removal.

In the present case, the demands in the plastic hinges are all be-
low their ultimate capacity. In fact, according to Eq. (5), the maxi-
mum DRRnlin value is 140% in beams and 125% in columns. The
global dynamic factor (Definition 3) for beams is equal to 1.13,
whereas for columns 1.16. The nonlinear dynamic analysis thus
demonstrates that the structure would have survived a sudden re-
moval of the central column.

6.2. One left corner column removed

In the nonlinear analysis of a left corner column removal, two

hinges are activated almost simultaneously at time 0.094 s, one
Fig. 16. Plastic hinge at the top of the right column on the third floor. at the right-end of the a-beam on the first floor, the other on the
216 S. Kokot et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 205–217

Deflection at node 48
0
1 column linear dynamic
1 column nonlinear dynamic
−0.005 2 columns linear dynamic
2 columns nonlinear dynamic

−0.01
deflection [m]

−0.015

−0.02

−0.025

−0.03

−0.035
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
t [s]

Fig. 18. Comparison of the displacement at node 48 for the cases of one central column and two central columns removal.

bottom of the left column on the second floor. The final spatial dis-
tribution of activated plastic hinges is shown in Fig. 17.
The ratio of the maximum deflections at node 25 for nonlinear
and linear dynamic analyses is 1.29 (0.117 m/0.091 m), leading to a
global dynamic factor (Definition 1) of 2.12 (0.117 m/0.0552 m)
with respect to the linear static analysis.
The dashed lines in Fig. 14 compare nonlinear and linear time
histories of displacement at node 25. The maximum DRRnlin values
are 149% for beams and 134% for columns. Similarly, the global dy-
namic factor according to Definition 3 is 1.12 for beams and 1.45
for columns.
This nonlinear dynamic analysis shows that the structure would
have survived a sudden removal of the left corner column. Again,
the total or partial collapse would not have happened thanks to
an appropriate activation of plastic hinges and redistribution of
bending moments.
6.3. One right corner column removed
When it comes to the case where a right corner column is re-
moved, the linear dynamic analysis has shown that the structure

Table 10
Summary of results.
 S. Kokot et al. / Engineering Structures 40 (2012) 205–217
remains elastic, so the nonlinear analysis gives exactly the same re-
sults as in subsection 5.3.
7. Two central columns removed
In all three scenarios considered, the structure has experienced
limited or no damage. In order to assess the robustness of the
structure, the case of two central columns removal has also been
studied through linear and nonlinear dynamic analyses. It is re-
minded that the real structure had survived that event.
The results have been summarised in Fig. 18 where the time
history of the displacement at node 48 is plotted for the linear/
nonlinear analysis of one/two column(s) removal. It can be seen
that no matter whether one or two central columns are removed
from the structure, the response does not change drastically. The
period of vibration becomes slightly longer in the second case be-
cause the remaining structure is less rigid. This behaviour can be
explained by the one-way action of the flat-slab frame. In other
words, each frame appears to be damaged essentially by the re-
moval of its own central column.
8. Conclusions
This work presents the results of an extended study of the flat-
slab frame building which has been analysed and tested quasi-stat-
ically at the European Laboratory for Structural Assessment. The
scope of a previous study was limited to the investigation of the
general safety against collapse, and thus it did not consider a pos-
sible abrupt removal of columns as it may take place in the event of
a bomb explosion, impact, or other accidental action.
The current investigation includes linear and nonlinear dynamic
time history analyses using alternate load path methods. Three
main scenarios of column removal have been considered: a central
column, a left corner column and a right corner column. In addi-
tion, the scenario of two central columns being removed simulta-
neously has been investigated.
The results of the analyses are summarised in Table 10. This ta-
ble presents the maximum values of the demand-resistance ratios
(in the most critical cross-sections) and the maximum displace-
ments obtained through linear static, linear dynamic and nonlinear
dynamic analyses. The colours highlight the conclusion drawn
from each analysis in terms of three possible structural states: no
damage, limited damage and extensive damage.
The simplest linear static analysis indicates that the structure
would exhibit limited or no damage if the column is removed stat-
ically. However, if the column is removed dynamically, the same
static analysis (with the loading multiplied by 2 to account for
the dynamic nature of the loading) indicates that the structure
would be susceptible to progressive collapse in two scenarios
whereas it would suffer limited damage in the third one.
The linear dynamic analysis indicates a slightly more favourable
situation: the structure would still be susceptible to progressive
collapse for the central column scenario but not necessarily for
the left column scenario as the DRR is slightly below 200%. Further-
more, the structure would remain fully elastic for the right column
scenario. The value 2 of the dynamic factor is therefore conserva-
tive. In fact, the actual value of the global dynamic factor found
in the three scenarios ranges from 1.72 to 1.87 (maximum of the
two values reached in beams and columns). Interestingly, the dy-
namic factor computed from the displacement ranges from 1.46
to 1.6 and thus it underestimates the dynamic effect on the DRR
(nonconservative estimate).
The linear dynamic analysis has revealed that the local dynamic
factor defined in each section as the ratio of the dynamic and static
217
demand-resistance ratios, is insignificant and misleading because
huge dynamic factors may be found in columns for instance, but
they result from the relatively small value of the internal forces
in the static analysis. The global dynamic factor defined from the
displacement of the node above the removed element, does not
present such a drawback but remains quite different from the true
dynamic factor computed as the ratio of the dynamic/static maxi-
mum DRR.
The nonlinear dynamic analysis (taking into account the capa-
bility of redistribution of internal forces) indicates that the pro-
gressive collapse of the building would not have happened, that
is, the propagating failure would have been arrested. For both
the central and left corner column removals several plastic hinges
would have formed in the structure, yet all of them would have
been far below their ultimate capacity (two yellow areas in the
summary Table). For the right corner column removal, no yielding
would have occurred, as already foreseen by the linear dynamic
analysis.
Certainly more sophisticated models could have been adopted
in the analysis. In particular it is noted that the structural member
strengths as calculated here correspond to the static properties of
their constituent materials, concrete and steel. For the current
loading conditions considerations of high strain-rate effects should
be taken into account, and this is the subject of an investigation in
course.
References
[1] GSA Guidelines. GSA progressive collapse analysis and design guidelines for
new federal office buildings and major modernizations projects. General
Services Administration (GSA); 2003.
[2] DoD UFC Guidelines. Design of buildings to resist progressive collapse, Unified
Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4-023-03. Department of Defence (DoD); 2005.
[3] NIST Best Practices. Best practices for reducing the potential for progressive
collapse in buildings. US National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), Washington, DC; 2007.
[4] Nair RS. Preventing disproportionate collapse. J Perform Construct Facilit
2006;20(4):309–14.
[5] Mohamed OA. Progressive collapse of structures: annotated bibliography and
comparison of codes and standards. J Perform Construct Facilit
2006;20(4):418–25.
[6] Starossek U. Progressive collapse of structures. Thomas Telford Ltd; 2009.
[7] Kokot S. Literature survey on current methodologies of assessment of building
robustness and avoidance of progressive collapse. JRC Scientific and Technical
Reports JRC 5598, European Commission, Joint Research Centre; 2009.
[8] Starossek U. Typology of progressive collapse. Eng Struct 2007;29(9):2301–7.
[9] Marjanishvili S, Agnew E. Comparison of various procedures for progressive
collapse analysis. J Perform Construct Facilit 2006;20(4):365–74.
[10] Fu F. 3-d nonlinear dynamic progressive collapse analysis of multi-storey steel
composite frame buildings – parametric study. Eng Struct 2010;32:3974–80.
[11] Tsai MH, Lin BH. Investigation of progressive collapse resistance and inelastic
response for an earthquake-resistant RC building subjected to column failure.
Eng Struct 2008;30:3619–28.
[12] Kwasniewski L. Nonlinear dynamic simulations of progressive collapse for a
multistory building. Eng Struct 2010;32(5):1223–35.
[13] Iribarren BS, Berke P, Bouillard P, Vantomme J, Massart T. Investigation of the
influence of design and material parameters in the progressive collapse
analysis of RC structures. Engineering Structures, in press. doi:10.1016/
j.engstruct.2011.06.005.
[14] Gemelli M, Negro P, Castellani A, Bianchi R, Salandi M. Experimental
evaluation of the safety against the collapse of buildings. Tech. Rep. I.03.102;
European Commission, Joint Research Centre; 2003.
[15] Kokot S, Anthoine A, Negro P, Solomos G. Static and dynamic analysis of a
reinforced concrete flat slab frame building for progressive collapse. JRC
Scientific and Technical Reports JRC 62663; European Commission, Joint
Research Centre; 2010.
[16] Negro P, Mola E. Current assessment procedures: application to regular and
irregular structures compared to experimental results. In: Third European
workshop on the seismic behaviour of irregular and complex structures.
Florence; 2002.
[17] EN 1991-1-7 . Eurocode 1 - EN 1991-1-7: Actions on structures - Part 1-7:
General actions - Accidental actions; 2006.
[18] ATC-40. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. ATC-40 Report,
Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California; 1996.