Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 377–384

The Twelfth East Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction

Progressive Collapse Analysis of an RC Building with

Exterior Non-Structural Walls
MENG-HAO TSAI*, TSUEI-CHIANG HUANG
Department of Civil Engineering, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, Taiwan

Abstract

In this study, effects of three common types of exterior non-structural RC walls on the progressive collapse potential
of an RC frame are investigated. Linear and nonlinear static analyses are carried out for the RC frames with and
without the non-structural walls under three different column-loss scenarios. Changes in demand-to-capacity ratios
indicate that without considering the non-structural walls, the moment demand of beams may be overestimated while
the shear demand may be underestimated, especially for the panel-type walls. They may increase the collapse
resistance of the building frame under column loss, but with decreased ductility capacity. With a constant opening
rate of 60%, the wing-type exterior wall is a better option than the parapet-type and panel-type walls from the
structural aspect. The panel-type wall appears to be the worst choice since shear failure of their connected beam
members may be induced.

© 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

Selection
Keywords: RC building, progressive collapse, exterior non-structural wall, nonlinear static analysis

1. Introduction

Prevention or mitigation of progressive collapse appears to be an important issue in the development of

several structural design codes. They highlight the necessity of providing sufficient structural integrity,
ductility, and redundancy to indirectly compensate the risk of disproportional collapse (Ellingwood et al.
2007). US General Service Administration (GSA) and Department of Defense (DoD) have issued design
and analysis guidelines for progressive collapse evaluation of building structures (GSA 2003, DoD 2005).
Practical linear and nonlinear static procedures have been recommended to assess the alternate paths for

* Corresponding author
Email: mhtsai@mail.npust.edu.tw

1877–7058 © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.047
378 MENG-HAO TSAI and TSUEI-CHIANG HUANG / Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 377–384

loading transfer under sudden column loss situations. Some studies have indicated that various building
structural systems may result in different progressive collapse resistance (Khandelwal et al. 2009, Kim
and Hong 2009, Kim and Lee 2009, Kim et al. 2009, Galal and El-Sawy 2010). However, effect of non-
structural components on the structural response under column loss is not really clarified yet. Perhaps due
to the variety of non-structural configuration, most engineers can only conservatively consider their
weight in the design process.
In fact, evolution of practical architectural design usually depends on regional cultures and local
residential customs. In Taiwan, due to some environmental and architectural factors, the exterior opening
walls of RC condominium buildings are often monolithically cast with beams and columns. The opening
style is designed by architects in most cases. Only the weight of the opening walls is accounted for in
structural design process. Therefore, they are regarded as non-structural elements and their mechanical
effects on the building frame are neglected. In this study, effect of three common types of exterior non-
structural RC walls on the progressive collapse potential of an RC frame is investigated. Linear and
nonlinear static analyses under three different column-loss scenarios are carried out. Changes in the
demand-to-capacity ratios (DCRs) are used to evaluate their effects on the elastic response. Inelastic load-
displacement responses are used to clarify their effects on the collapse resistance and ductility capacity of
the column-removed RC frame.
Figure 1 shows the first typical configuration of exterior non-structural RC walls, which is defined as
the parapet-type wall herein. It is usually around 1 m high and quite popular for buildings without
balconies. The parapet-type wall may be integrated with the rectangular beam section and regarded as an
inverted T-section in structural analysis. Another common type looks like a pair of wings connected to the
story columns, as shown in Figure 2. It is thus defined as the wing-type wall in this study. It is usually
designed with French windows for buildings with balconies. Sometimes it is combined with the parapet-
type wall for buildings without balconies. The wings of a corner column are located in two orthogonal
directions. Under column loss conditions, it is probable that flexural failure occurs in the wings without
damage to the column section. The third type may be considered as exterior RC panels confined by the
floor beams, as shown in Figure 3. It is defined as the panel-type wall. It may be designed with French
windows for buildings with balconies or combined with the parapet-type walls. The panel wall is usually
shared by two rooms partitioned with an interior brick infill for an apartment. For sudden column loss, the
panel-type walls may act as Vierendeel trusses even though they are thought as non-structural
components.

Parapet- typ e wall

Wing-type wall

Figure 1 Parapet-type wall Figure 2 Wing-type wall

 MENG-HAO TSAI and TSUEI-CHIANG HUANG / Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 377–384 379

N
7.15 m 9.95 m 7.15 m
Panel-type wall GD-1 GD-2 GD-3
3

5.48 m
B1-3

B2-3

B4-3
b5
b5

B3-3
GC-1 GC-2 GC-3
2

B2-2
b2 b2

B3-2

7.87 m
B1-2

b4

B4-2
GB-1 GB-2 GB-3
1
A B C D
Figure 3 Panel-type wall Figure 4 Plan layout of the building

2. Types of Exterior Non-Structural Walls

3. Modeling of the Building Frame and Exterior Walls

A 10-story, moment-resisting RC building with a 2-story basement is used to investigate the effects of
the exterior walls. Its first story is an open space for the public. The plan dimensions are shown in Figure
4. The story height is 4m for the first story and 3.3m for the others. Table 1 presents the section
dimensions of the RC members for the building. Thickness of the RC floor and exterior walls is equal to
15cm. Three first-story column loss scenarios, namely 1B, 2A, and 1A as designated by the bay lines in
Figure 4, are considered. Linear and nonlinear static responses of the column-removed building without
exterior walls under the three scenarios are used as benchmarks. They are denoted as Case 1B, Case 2A,
and Case 1A accordingly. Width of the wing and panel walls is determined based on the opening rate of 1
m high parapet walls, which is equal to 60%.

Table 1 Dimensions of the RC member sections (cm)

Spandrel beam
Floor Column Interior beam Joist
Transverse Longitudinal
1F 70×100 60×90 50×90 50×90 30×65
2F 70×100, 70×90 60×75 50×75 50×75 30×65
3F~4F 70×90 60×75 50×75 50×75 30×65
5F~10F 70×90 50×75 50×75 50×75 30×65
5F~10F 70×90 50×75 50×75 50×75 30×65

3.1. Modeling of the RC frame

A beam-column frame model is constructed for the RC building with its base fixed on the ground. Self
weight of the exterior walls is distributed to the spandrel beams. An additional dead load (DL) of
0.98kN/m2 is applied to the roof and 0.245kN/m2 to other floors. The service live load (LL) is 4.91kN/m2
for the roof and 1.96kN/m2 for other floors. Compressive strength, f’c, equal to 27500kN/m2 is used for
the concrete. Design yield strength, fy, is 412000kN/m2 for the main reinforcements and 275000kN/m2 for
the stirrups. Self weight of the slab and all the dead and live loads on it are distributed to the beam
elements for each floor. The fundamental period of the building model is equal to 1.17 and 1.23 seconds
380 MENG-HAO TSAI and TSUEI-CHIANG HUANG / Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 377–384

in the longitudinal and transverse direction, respectively. Flexural hinge properties based on FEMA 356
guidelines (FEMA 2000) are assigned to the beam ends of the frame. Catenary tensile action is not
considered in this study.

15cm
#3@15 double Reduced length of beam
layers in two
ways wall width
15cm

100 cm
17.5cm 17.5cm Equivalent
column
column width
As Ⱦ10 main steel
Ⱦ4 stirrup
Rigid beam
A’s offset ½ column width
Figure 5(a) An inverted T-section Figure 5(c) Modeling of the panel wall

10
Reduced length of beam
9
column
8
Parapet-type
7
Equivalent strut Panel-type
6
Story

Wing-column
column 5
width 4

3
Case 1B
Moment DCR
Rigid beam Rigid beam 2

1
½ column width + wall width 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
mean DCR reduction

Figure 5(b) Modeling of the wing walls Figure 6(a) Moment DCR reduction (1B)

3.2. Modeling of the non-structural walls

At first, the parapet-type wall is combined with the rectangular beam section to result in an inverted T-
section, as shown in Figure 5(a). Based on the reinforcement details of each inverted T-section, sectional
analysis is conducted to obtain the moment-curvature curves. The plastic moment-curvature curves are
then utilized to construct the plastic moment-rotation relationships. For the wing-type exterior walls,
equivalent diagonal nonlinear links are used to evaluate their mechanical effect, as depicted in Figure 5(b).
This modeling approach is intended to consider the situation that the column sections may be operative as
the wing walls fail. It has been assured in a previous study (Tsai and Huang 2010) that column sections of
the building frame may remain elastic under the column-loss conditions. Thus, they may still function
well even though the wing walls are suffered from flexural damage. Preliminary assessments for the
sectional strength of the wing walls indicate that they are dominated by flexural failure (Huang 2010).
Hence, flexural characteristics of the wing walls are used to determine the mechanical properties of the
diagonal nonlinear links.
At last, the panel-type walls are regarded as beam-column elements located in the mid-span of
spandrel beams in the structural analysis, as shown in Figure 5(c). Similarly, their hinge properties are
 MENG-HAO TSAI and TSUEI-CHIANG HUANG / Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 377–384 381

constructed using the moment-curvature curves obtained from section analysis. The boundary beam
segments of the panel walls are assumed to behave as rigid elements. Since each spandrel beam is divided
into two elements by the panel walls, vulnerability of these shortened beams to shear failure is checked.
The assessed results indicate that section strength of the shorted beams is controlled by either shear or
flexural-shear failure. Therefore, equivalent moment hinges are used to simulate their nonlinear behavior.

Table 2(a) Elastic displacement under the GSA loading (cm)

Case RC frame With parapet walls With wing walls With panel walls
1B 3.99 1.40 1.29 0.99
2A 1.72 0.71 0.61 0.56
1A 3.20 1.32 1.08 1.04

Table 2(b) No. of moment DCR t 1.0 under the GSA loading

Case RC frame With parapet walls With wing walls With panel walls
1B 28 17 3 3
2A 0 0 0 0
1A 6 3 0 1

10 10

9 9 Parapet-type

8 8 Panel-type
Parapet-type
7 7
Wing-column
Panel-type
6 6
Story
Story

Wing-column
5 5

4 4

3 3
Case 2A Case 1A
Moment DCR Moment DCR
2 2

1 1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
mean DCR reduction mean DCR reduction

Figure 6(b) Moment DCR reduction (2A) Figure 6(c) Moment DCR reduction (1A)

4. Progressive Collapse Analysis

4.1. Linear static analysis

A downward loading combination

Pst 2( DL  0.25 LL ) (1)

recommended by the GSA guidelines is applied to the structural bays adjacent to the removed column.
Pst is defined as the GSA loading herein. Table 2(a) shows the downward displacement of the column-
removed point under different column loss conditions. In either case, the panel walls lead to the greatest
stiffness contribution, while the parapet walls the least. Table 2(b) shows the number of beam ends with
moment DCR larger than 1.0 in each analysis case. In either Case 1B or 1A, the number of moment
DCRt1.0 is reduced as the non-structural walls are considered. In Case 2A, the sectional moment
382 MENG-HAO TSAI and TSUEI-CHIANG HUANG / Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 377–384

strength in the transverse beams is high enough such that no DCR exceeds 1.0. For more general
perception of the influence on DCR, the reduction in mean DCR of each story is calculated. It is
expressed as
DCR f , i  DCR w, i
rDCR, i
DCR f , i (2)

where rDCR, i is the reduction of mean DCR in the i-th story. DCR w, i and DCR f , i are the mean
beam-end DCR of the i-th story of the structural bays adjacent to the removed column for the building
frame with and without exterior walls, respectively. The calculated reduction in the mean DCR of each
story is shown in Figures 6(a), 6(b), and 6(c) correspondingly for Case 1B, 2A, and 1A. It is seen that,
with a same 60% opening rate, the panel-type exterior walls result in best reduction in moment DCRs.
Effect of the exterior walls on the section shear of beams is evaluated in a similar manner. From
Figures 7(a), 7(b), and 7(c), it is seen that the shear DCRs of beams located in lower stories may be
underestimated without considering the exterior walls. For the panel-type walls, significantly increased
shear DCRs are observed for the lower stories. Since the panel walls are modeled as beam-column
elements located in the mid-span of spandrel beams, the structural behavior may perform as a combined
frame and Vierendeel system. Also, the shear strength of mid-span sections is less than that of beam-end
sections due to larger stirrup spacing. These factors make the maximum shear DCRs of the panel-type
frame usually occur at the beam sections connecting to the panel wall elements and become larger than
that of the column-removed frame without exterior walls.

4.2. Nonlinear static analysis

Displacement-controlled pushdown analyses are performed for investigating the influence of exterior
non-structural walls on the progressive collapse resistance of the RC building frame. The GSA loading
pattern is imposed to the structural bays adjacent to the removed column. Nonlinear hinge models of the
beams and walls are established according to the approaches described in a previous section. Figures 8(a),
8(b), and 8(c) present the load-displacement curves of the RC building frame with and without walls for
Case 1B, 2A, and 1A, respectively. The imposed loading is expressed as a multiplier of the loading
combination (DL+0.25LL). The abscissa is the downward displacement of the column-removed joint. As
expected from the linear static analysis result, Case 2A has the highest loading capacity as compared to
the other two cases. The parapet-type and wing-type walls may enhance the static loading capacity,
especially the latter being the most significant. This may be attributed to the increase of stiffness caused
by the exterior walls. However, the panel walls may induce a lower loading capacity. This is in fact arisen
from the shear or flexural-shear failure of the shortened beams. In addition, it is observed that the loading
capacities of the RC frame with exterior walls are attained at smaller deformation capacities than that
exhibited by the frame without walls.

5. Conclusions

The influence of three common types of exterior non-structural walls on the response of an RC
building subjected to column loss is investigated. Linear static analysis results reveal that the sectional
moment DCRs of beams are generally reduced with consideration of the exterior walls. However, the
sectional shear DCRs of beams, especially for lower stories, may be underestimated without consideration
of the exterior walls. With a constant opening rate equal to 60%, the extent of wall effects on the elastic
response under column loss descends in the sequence of panel type, wing type, and parapet type.
 MENG-HAO TSAI and TSUEI-CHIANG HUANG / Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 377–384 383

10 700%

Case 1B Frame
9
600%
Parapet-type
8
Parapet-type 500% Wing-column
7

%(DL+0.25LL)
Panel-type Panel-type
6 400%
Story

Wing-column
5 300%

4
200%
3
Case 1B
Shear DCR 100%
2

1 0%
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
mean DCR reduction Displacement (cm)

Figure 7(a) Shear DCR reduction (1B) Figure 8(a) Push-down curve (1B)
700%
10
Case 2A
9 600%
Frame
8
Parapet-type 500% Parapet-type
7

%(DL+0.25LL)
Panel-type Wing-column
6 400%
Story

Panel-type
Wing-column
5
300%
4
200%
3
Case 2A
Shear DCR 100%
2

1
0%
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
mean DCR reduction
Displacement (cm)

Figure 7(b) Shear DCR reduction (2A) Figure 8(b) Push-down curve (2A)
10 700%
Case 1A
9
600%

8 Frame
500%
Parapet-type
7 Parapet-type
%(DL+0.25LL)

Wing-column
6 Panel-type 400%
Story

Panel-type
5 Wing-column
300%

4
200%
3
Case 1A
Shear DCR 100%
2

1 0%
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
mean DCR reduction Displacement (cm)

Figure 7(c) Shear DCR reduction Figure 8(c) Push-down curve (1A)

Nonlinear static analysis results indicate that the collapse resistance of the RC building subjected to
column loss may be significantly increased with the wing-type walls. Moderate enhancement is also
observed as the parapet-type walls are considered. However, if the panel-type walls are ignored in
structural analysis, the collapse resistance may be overestimated. This is due to the shear or flexural-shear
failure of the shortened spandrel beams caused by the panel walls. Also, the deformation capacity
corresponding to the collapse resistance is reduced with the exterior walls. From the aspect of structural
behavior, with a constant opening rate, if the mechanical properties of exterior walls are intended to be
384 MENG-HAO TSAI and TSUEI-CHIANG HUANG / Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 377–384

neglected in structural analysis, the wing-type walls may bring least adverse effect on the building
response under column loss.

Acknowledgments

The study presented in this paper was supported by the National Science Council of Taiwan under
Grants NSC 97-2221-E-020-016. The support is gratefully acknowledged.

References

[1] DoD 2005. Unified facilities criteria: design of buildings to resist progressive collapse, UFC 4-023-03, US Department of
Defense: Washington D.C.
[2] Ellingwood BR, Smilowitz R, Dusenberry DO, Duthinh D, and Lew HS (2007), Best practices for reducing the potential for
progressive collapse in buildings, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NISTIR 7396, Department of Commerce,
US.
[3] FEMA 356. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of buildings. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency
Management Agency; 2000.
[4] Galal K and El-Sawy T (2010), Effect of retrofit strategies on mitigating progressive collapse of steel frame structures,
Journal of Constructional Steel Research. 66, pp.520531.
[5] General Service Administration, 2003. Progressive collapse analysis and design guidelines for new federal office buildings
and major modernization projects. Washington D.C., USA.
[6] Huang TC (2010). The elasto-plastic response of an RC building with non-structural walls under sudden column loss
conditions. M.S. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology. (in
Mandarin)
[7] Khandelwal K, El-Tawil S, and Sadek F (2009), Progressive collapse analysis of seismically designed steel braced frames,
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 65, pp.699-708.
[8] Kim J and Hong S (2009), Progressive collapse performance of irregular buildings, Structural Design of Tall and Special
Buildings, doi:10.1002/tal.575.
[9] Kim J and Lee Y-H (2009), Progressive collapse resisting capacity of tube-type structures, Structural Design of Tall and
Special Buildings, doi:10.1002/tal.512.
[10] Kim J, Lee Y, and Choi H (2009), Progressive collapse resisting capacity of braced frames, Structural Design of Tall and
Special Buildings, doi:10.1002/tal.574.
[11] Tsai MH and Huang TC (2010), Evaluation for the effect of interior brick infills on the elasto-plastic response of an RC
building subjected to column removal, Journal of Architecture, Special Issue on Technology, 72, pp.25~41. (in Mandarin)