See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271560194

Experimental evaluation of inelastic dynamic

amplification factors for progressive collapse
analysis under sudden support loss

Article in Mechanics Research Communications · March 2012

Impact Factor: 1.5 · DOI: 10.1016/j.mechrescom.2012.01.011

CITATIONS READS

4 10

2 authors, including:

Meng-Hao Tsai
National Pingtung University of Science an…
28 PUBLICATIONS 324 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Meng-Hao Tsai
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 11 May 2016
 Mechanics Research Communications 40 (2012) 56–62

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Mechanics Research Communications

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mechrescom

Experimental evaluation of inelastic dynamic amplification factors for

progressive collapse analysis under sudden support loss
Meng-Hao Tsai ∗ , Zhi-Kuo You
Department of Civil Engineering, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, No.1 Hseuh-Fu Rd., Neipu, Pingtung County, 912, Taiwan

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

Article history: A small-scale test setup is devised to investigate the inelastic dynamic amplification factors (DAFs) for
Received 7 September 2011 structures subjected to sudden support loss. Based on three different definitions, experimental DAFs are
Received in revised form calculated from static and dynamic support-release tests. Comparison results indicate that DAFs obtained
25 November 2011
from the neutral displacement response cannot account for the inelastic dynamic effect on either the
Available online xxx
displacement or force response. The displacement-based DAFs are apparently different from the force-
based DAFs in the inelastic range. The former is larger than 2.0 and exhibits a concave downward variation
Keywords:
with displacement ductility. On the contrary, the latter is less than 2.0 and exhibits a concave upward
Small-scale test
Inelastic dynamic amplification factor
variation. Both of them may asymptotically return to the elastic DAF under large deformation as the
Support loss specimen presents significant strain-hardening behavior. Pseudo-static response analysis is carried out
Progressive collapse for prediction of inelastic DAFs using the load–displacement curve obtained from the nonlinear static test.
Pseudo-static response Also, analytical formulae with consideration of post-yield stiffness ratios are derived from the pseudo-
static response analysis. They are proved to be capable of simulating the variation of inelastic DAFs with
ductility demand.
© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The recommended approaches are based on immaculate member

Numerous studies on prevention of progressive collapse have
been made since the gas explosion event of the Ronan Point build-
ing in 1968. Its importance may be revealed from the evolution of
several structural design codes, where special attention to struc-
tural integrity has been given (ASCE, 2005; BSI, 2006; ACI, 2005;
Ellingwood et al., 2007). Development of practical and efficient
approaches for protecting building structures from progressive
collapse under accidental loadings has been an imperative issue.
In general, tie force, alternative load path, integrity provisions,
and specific local load resistance are recommended as feasible
measures for reducing the vulnerability of building structures to
progressive collapse (Ellingwood and Leyendecker, 1978; Abruzzo
et al., 2006; Ellingwood, 2006; Mohamed, 2006; Nair, 2006). Non-
linear dynamic analysis as well as both linear and nonlinear static
analysis methods may be used for the evaluation of alternative
load paths. Detailed step-by-step analysis procedures of these
methods have been issued by US General Service Administration
(GSA) (2003) and recommended in the Unified Facilities Criteria
UFC 4-023-03 by the Department of Defense (DoD) (2005, 2009).
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 8 7703202x7193; fax: +886 8 7740122.
E-mail addresses: mhtsai@mail.npust.edu.tw (M.-H. Tsai),
M9733014@mail.npust.edu.tw (Z.-K. You).
removal and have been widely accepted in practical engineering.
Dynamic effect was simulated with a constant dynamic ampli-
fication factor (DAF) equal to 2.0 in static analysis procedures.
Several studies have revealed that a constant DAF of 2.0 may lead to
inconsistent results with those obtained using nonlinear dynamic
analysis (Kaewkulchai and Williamson, 2004; Ruth et al., 2006; Tsai
and Lin, 2008; Kim et al., 2009; Kim and Kim, 2009). In the latest
issued UFC 4-023-03 guidelines (DoD, 2009), two different magni-
fication factors, namely the load increase factor (LIF) and dynamic
increase factor (DIF), are suggested to consider the dynamic effect
in linear and nonlinear static analysis, respectively. The LIF is
intended to account for the material nonlinearity and dynamic
effect, while the DIF is only responsible for the latter. Empirical
formulae established on nonlinear dynamic analysis results of var-
ious frame models are provided for estimation of LIF and DIF in
the guidelines (Marchand et al., 2009). Also, analytical expressions
of DAFs based on elasto-plastic single degree-of-freedom (SDOF)
models were proposed around the same period (Tsai and Lin, 2009;
Tsai, 2010). On the other hand, some dynamic tests have been per-
formed to investigate the structural response under sudden support
loss. An experimental study on the dynamic effects in progressive
failure of structures was carried out with a spoked-wheel struc-
ture (Pretlove et al., 1991). It indicated that plasticity will blunt
the sensitivity of a structure to dynamic effect in progressive fail-
ure. Recently, some prototype column-loss experiments have been
conducted to investigate the dynamic behavior of gravity load

0093-6413/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.mechrescom.2012.01.011
 M.-H. Tsai, Z.-K. You / Mechanics Research Communications 40 (2012) 56–62
Laser displacement meter
225
100 40 270
Strain gauge-1
Strain gauge-2
Strain gauge-3
20
800
200
Fig. 1. A schematic drawing of the test setup.
redistribution (Matthews et al., 2007, 2008; Sasani et al., 2007;
Sasani and Sagiroglu, 2008, 2010). Due to the nature of failure tests,
usually only dynamic response under a given loading magnitude
may be obtained. The DAF is then estimated from the measured
time-history response in the dynamic failure test (Matthews et al.,
2007). It is understood that prototype experiments are expensive
and, as such, it may be difficult to conduct a series of such test to
inspect the variation of the DAF with ductility demand.
In this study, a small-scale test setup is devised to investigate
the effect of plasticity on the DAF under sudden support loss. Static
and dynamic support-release tests are carried out manually. On
the basis of three different definitions, experimental DAFs under
various ductility demands are obtained from the measured static
and dynamic responses. Differences of the three definitions and
their practical implications are discussed. Pseudo-static response of
the test specimen, which is a load–displacement curve constructed
from the nonlinear static response, is used to capture the varia-
tion of DAFs with ductility demand. With consideration of both
post-yield stiffness ratios and ductility, analytical expressions are
proposed for estimation of inelastic DAFs.
2. Test setup and program
2.1. Test setup
From the basic structural dynamic theory (Chopra, 1995; Clough
and Penzien, 1993), the DAF of an SDOF model subjected to sudden
support loss may be estimated from dividing its maximum dynamic
displacement under a step loading by its static displacement under
the same loading magnitude. This means that both static and
dynamic loading tests should be conducted for experimental DAFs.
Conventionally, the static load–displacement response of a test
specimen may be obtained from a single monotonic loading test.
However, as the test specimen is loaded into inelastic range, it may
suffer from certain damage. Each inelastic dynamic test will then
consume one specimen and only one set of maximum responses
may be obtained. Thus, the required number of dynamic tests will
equal the number of the experimental DAF. If prototype or large-
scale experiments are desired, both the test specimens and facilities
may be costly. Also, feasibility of an efficient and practical support-
release mechanism is questionable for large-scale tests.
57
Hanger
100
40
Transfer connection
Accelerometer
basket
20
Iron blocks
and lead plates
Unit: mm
1200
Due to the aforementioned considerations and limited
resources, a small-scale test setup with manual support-release
mechanism is devised for the DAF experiment. Fig. 1 shows a
schematic drawing for the elevation view of the test setup. The
test specimen is made of structural steel with design yield stress of
400 MPa and has a cross section of 30 mm wide and 3 mm depth.
From preliminary coupon tests of the steel material, the measured
yield stress and strain are equal to 422 MPa and 0.002, respectively.
For installation of the test specimens, L40 × 40 × 3 steel angles are
welded to both ends. Clear length of the specimen is equal to
270 mm. Then, one end is bolted to an I100 × 75 × 5 × 8 steel col-
umn and the other to a transfer connection. The transfer connection
serves as the loading point and is attached with an accelerome-
ter. For each specimen, three strain gauges are disposed 20 mm
away from the weld connection, as shown in the figure. A laser
displacement meter is installed to a reference frame to measure
the displacement at a distance of 225 mm from the presumed fixed
end. A hanger, used to support the imposed loading before sudden
release, is fixed to the reference frame with a pinned connection.
The hanger may be manually knocked off by a hammer to simulate
the sudden loss scenario. A rectangular steel basket is connected
to the transfer connection and used to accommodate the imposed
loadings. Iron blocks with average weight of 6.30 N and lead plates
with average weight of 12.37 N each are used as the imposed load-
ings. The picture of a deformed specimen under static loading is
shown in Fig. 2.
2.2. Test program
The experiment begins with static loading tests, which are used
to determine the nonlinear static response of the test specimen.
The first applied loading is the self weight of the specimen and
transfer connection. Weight of the transfer connection (14.53 N)
and the L40 × 40 × 3 steel angle (1.33 N) are summed to 15.86 N.
With the weight of half specimen, the initial sustained loading is
17.07 N. Since the weight of the steel basket (23.92 N) is approxi-
mately four times that of an iron block, two iron blocks are put into
the transfer connection sequentially for two additional data points
prior to installing the basket. Then, the iron blocks are removed
and the basket is installed to the transfer connection. Each iron
block is then steadily laid into the basket to increase the applied
58 M.-H. Tsai, Z.-K. You / Mechanics Research Communications 40 (2012) 56–62

a 200

180 Static Pseudo-static

160 Dynamic Neutral

140

120

Load (N)
100

80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Displacement Δ (mm)

200
b
Static (tension) Static (comp.)
180
Dynamic (tension) Dynamic (comp.)
160
Fig. 2. A photo of the deformed specimen under maximum static loading. Neutral (tension) Neutral (comp.)
140

Load (N)
loading. As the loading process is finished, the iron blocks are 120

removed sequentially to record the unloading response. The mag- 100

nitudes of sustained loading and corresponding step numbers in
the nonlinear static test are shown in Fig. 3. Significant deforma-
tion is observed as all 24 iron blocks are laid into the basket, as
shown in Fig. 2.
The load–displacement curve obtained from the static test is
then used to determine the loading magnitude for the dynamic
support-release test. Static yield load and displacement are esti-
mated from the nonlinear static response. Half of the static yield
load will be equal to the dynamic yield load. The first specimen
of the dynamic test is used for measuring the elastic response up
to the yield loading. Each following specimen is tested with three
different loading magnitudes. The first two are less than the yield
load for verifying the consistency of elastic response. The final
one is a specified larger magnitude for intended inelastic dynamic
response. Time histories of acceleration, displacement, and strain
are measured with 1000 Hz sampling rate. The loading magnitude
of dynamic test is increased step by step, as shown in Fig. 3. Because
of the dynamic amplification effect, the maximum loading magni-
tude of dynamic test is less than that of static test.
3. Test results
The nonlinear static load–displacement behavior of the speci-
men is shown in Fig. 4(a). In the figure, the ordinate is the applied
200
180
160
140
Load (N)
80
60
40
20
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
Strain ε (μm/m)
Fig. 4. (a) Load–displacement response curves from the tests. (b) Load–strain
response curves from the tests.
loading and the abscissa is the displacement measured with the
laser sensor. It is seen that the specimen is well loaded into the
plastic range with apparent positive post-yield stiffness. The esti-
mated yield displacement is 38.1 mm, of which the associated yield
load is 78.69 N. The pseudo-static response, which is used to deter-
mine the imposed loading for dynamic tests, is also included in the
figure. It is calculated from the accumulated strain energy below
the nonlinear static response curve divided by the corresponding
displacement (Tsai, 2010). Meanwhile, nonlinear static tensile and
compressive strain magnitudes measured near the fixed end are
shown in Fig. 4(b). Consistent variation of the tensile and compres-
sive strain reveals that the test specimen deforms in the intended
bending mode. Significant strain hardening response is observed as
the strain is larger than 0.025.
Dynamic response of the test specimens is investigated from
the recorded time histories. Some typical displacement time histo-
ries measured by the laser sensor are shown in Fig. 5(a). The slow
decayed amplitudes reveal that the specimens have very low damp-
ing ratios. The measured maximum and neutral displacements are

120
static unloading compared to the static response in Fig. 4(a) as well. Definition of
100 the neutral response is explained in Fig. 5(b). It is seen that the
static loading pseudo-static response may be well approximated to the maxi-
80
mum dynamic response under support loss. Moreover, the neutral
60
response is consistent with the static response in the elastic range.
40 Static tests
Both of the neutral and static displacements are in fact equal to
20 Dynamic tests half of the maximum dynamic displacement under small load-
0 ings. However, as the specimen is forced into the plastic range,
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 the neutral response curve starts to divert from the static curve.
Step number An approximately parallel offset from the dynamic envelope is
observed for the inelastic neutral response. Similarly, the maximum
Fig. 3. Loading magnitudes for the static and dynamic tests. and neutral strains are compared to the static strain in Fig. 4(b).
 M.-H. Tsai, Z.-K. You / Mechanics Research Communications 40 (2012) 56–62 59

a 200 Load P

180

160 Pu
Static response
Displacement Δ (mm)

140 Ps
120 Pst,y

100 Dynamic response

Pst
80 Pd,y
Δ d Pst
Pd DAFΔ = = = DAFP
60 Δ st Pd
102.8 N 78.1 N 29.6 N
40
Δst Δd Δy Δs Δu Displacement Δ
20

0 Fig. 7. Definition of the elastic displacement- and force-based DAFs (Tsai, 2010).
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (sec)
SDOF model under an applied loading P = Pd , as shown in Fig. 7.
Dynamic response Therefore, a displacement-based DAF may be defined as (Tsai, 2010)
b
Time d
DAF = (1)
st
Maximum Neutral According to this definition, the experimental DAF may be
response response
calculated directly by dividing the dynamic envelope by the cor-
responding static response because the static and dynamic tests
are conducted with load control technique.
Conversely, as observed from Fig. 7, the elastic DAF is also equal
to the ratio of static force to dynamic force under an equal displace-
ment demand. Thus, a force-based DAF may be defined as (Tsai,
Fig. 5. (a) Typical displacement time histories under support loss. (b) Definition of 2010)
the maximum and neutral response.
Pst
DAFP = (2)
Pd
Offset of the neutral strain from the dynamic strain envelope seems
where Pst and Pd are respectively the required static and
less observable. This may be explained from the tensile strain time
dynamic force under the same deflection, st = d . Apparently, the
histories as shown in Fig. 6, which correspond to the displacement
displacement- and force-based DAFs are equal in the elastic range.
histories in Fig. 5(a). It is seen that, in contrast to the displace-
For experimental DAFP , the dynamic force and displacement are
ment histories, the strain oscillation is relatively small under large
provided from the support-release tests. However, the required
deformation. Therefore, the maximum and neutral strains appear
static force under the same displacement demand has to be deter-
to agree with each other as the strain increases.
mined from linear interpolation of the static load–displacement
response curve.
4. Dynamic amplification factor (DAF) In addition, a common approach for calculating the DAF from
measured dynamic time histories is to divide the maximum
4.1. Definition response by the neutral response (Matthews et al., 2007). For com-
parison, it is defined as neutral DAF. Usually, the neutral DAF is
The DAF is conventionally calculated as the ratio of maximum obtained from the displacement time history as
dynamic displacement d to static displacement st for an elastic
max
DAFN = (3)
nul
30000
where max and nul are the maximum and neutral displacement,
respectively. In this way, the DAF may be determined from a single
25000 dynamic test without the need of static test. It is noteworthy that
Tensile strain (μm/m)

for an elastic SDOF model subjected to sudden support loss, the

20000 displacement-based, force-based, and neutral DAFs are all equal to
2.0. However, certain differences among the three definitions may
arise if inelastic response is induced under support loss.
15000

102.8 N 78.1 N 29.6 N 4.2. Comparison

10000
Fig. 8 presents the DAFs calculated based on the aforementioned
5000 three definitions using the measured displacement response. The
abscissa is expressed as ductility demand, which is obtained by
dividing the maximum displacement by the yield displacement
0
38.1 mm. It is seen that the three definitions have consistent pre-
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (sec) dictions only in the elastic range. The displacement-based DAF may
increase with ductility demand at the onset of inelastic phase and
Fig. 6. Typical time histories of strain. then start to decrease after certain larger ductility. Eventually, it
60 M.-H. Tsai, Z.-K. You / Mechanics Research Communications 40 (2012) 56–62

3 3
Static
2.5 2.5 Pseudo-static

Dynamic

Load ratio (P/Pst,y )

2 2
Neutral
DAF

Linearized
1.5 1.5

1 1
Dispalcement-based

0.5 Force-based 0.5

Neutral
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ductility demand Ductility demand μ

Fig. 8. Comparison of three different DAFs. Fig. 9. Normalized responses in terms of ductility demand and load ratio.

5.2. Analytical estimation

decreases to around 2.0 as the ductility demand is greater than 4.5.
This reveals that the support-loss behavior of the specimen appears
In practical engineering, the nonlinear structural behavior is
to be solely governed by its post-yield stiffness under large defor-
usually modeled by piecewise linear approximation. If the static
mation such that the inelastic DAF is approximated to the elastic
load–displacement curve of the test specimen is idealized as tri-
DAF. On the contrary, a different variation for the force-based DAF
linear behavior, the elastic, post-yield, and hardening stiffness are
is observed from the figure. It is seen that it decreases with ductility
estimated as 20.65 N/cm, 5.19 N/cm, and 11.07 N/cm, respectively.
demand at the onset of inelastic phase. However, due to the strain
The approximated tri-linear response is also shown in Fig. 9. The
hardening effect, the decreasing trend is reversed as the ductility
post-yield and hardening stiffness ratios and the thresholds of load
increases further. Similar to the displacement-based DAF, it may
and displacement response for the tri-linear approximation are
return to 2.0 under larger ductility demand. As for the neutral DAF,
summarized in Table 1. In the table, Pst,y , Ps and Pu are respectively
it may asymptotically decrease toward 1.0 with increasing ductil-
ity. Since the neutral response cannot represent the nonlinear static
behavior, it is thus not suitable for quantifying the dynamic effect a 3
on either the displacement or force response in the plastic range.
The neutral DAF can only make sense for elastic vibration. In prac- 2.5
tice, the force- and displacement-based DAFs may be applied to
different situations. If the collapse resistance of building structures 2
subjected to column loss is of concern, the force-based DAF may be
DAFP

used in the nonlinear static pushdown analysis. Alternatively, the

1.5
displacement-based DAF may be used in prediction of the maxi-
mum displacement response if the structural performance under UFC formula DIF = 1.08 + 0.76
1 ( μ − 1) + 0.83
column loss is desired.
Experiment

0.5 Numerical
5. Prediction of DAFs
Analytical
0
5.1. Numerical estimation
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ductility demand μ
The test results have verified that the maximum dynamic
response agrees well with the pseudo-static response, which may
b 3

be obtained from the static load–displacement curve. Therefore,

2.5
both the displacement- and force-based DAFs may be calculated
from the numerical pseudo-static response as long as the non-
linear static load–displacement curve is given. In order to have 2
more pertinent comprehension for the effect of plasticity on DAFs,
DAFΔ

Fig. 4(a) is re-plotted in terms of displacement ductility and load 1.5

ratio as shown in Fig. 9. The load ratios are calculated from the
imposed loadings divided by the yield loading 78.69 N. The normal- 1 Experiment
ized pseudo-static response is then used to calculate the numerical
displacement- and force-based DAFs, as shown in Fig. 10(a) and Numerical
0.5
(b), respectively. It is seen that the numerical DAFs are consistent Analytical
with the experimental DAFs. The DAFs calculated from the empir-
0
ical formula recommended by UFC 4-023-03 (DoD, 2009) for DIFs 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
of steel frames are also shown in Fig. 10(a). Due to the contribution
Ductility demand μ
of post-yield stiffness, the empirical formula appears to signifi-
cantly underestimate the force-based DAFs as the ductility is larger Fig. 10. (a) Comparison of predicted force-based DAFs. (b) Comparison of predicted
than 3. displacement-based DAFs.
 M.-H. Tsai, Z.-K. You / Mechanics Research Communications 40 (2012) 56–62 61

Table 1 where  = (s /)[ s + (˛2 ( − s )2 + ( − s )(2 + 2˛1 (s − 1)))/s ],

Control parameters for defining the idealized tri-linear response.
B = [2 + 2˛1 (s − 1) − ], and st is the static ductility under the load
Load magnitude (N) Displacement (mm) Stiffness ratio demand Pd . The static ductility st is related to the load ratio as
Pst,y Ps Pu y s u ˛1 ˛2 
st = for  ≤ 2.0 (8a)
78.69 129.12 192.11 38.1 135.3 192.2 0.251 0.536 2
 −2
st = 1 + for 2.0 <  and st ≤ s (8b)
2˛1
the yield loading, the loading at the onset of strain-hardening, and
the maximum applied loading in the static test, as shown in Fig. 7.  − 2[1 + ˛1 (s − 1)]
st = s + for 2.0 <  and s ≤ st (8c)
Their corresponding displacements are denoted as y , s , and u . 2˛2
The post-yield and hardening stiffness ratios are respectively cal- Eqs. (8) may be used to estimate the nonlinear static dis-
culated as placement response of building frames under column loss. The
(Ps − Pst,y )y corresponding displacement-based DAF is calculated from Eqs. (6)
˛1 = (4a)
(s − y )Pst,y or (7), and the maximum dynamic ductility demand is calculated
as st DAF .
(Pu − Ps )y
˛2 = (4b) The aforementioned formulae are used to calculate the analyti-
(u − s )Pst,y cal displacement- and force-based DAFs as shown in Fig. 10(a) and
Analytical formulae of displacement- and force-based DAFs (b), respectively. With proper consideration of the post-yield and
have been derived from pseudo-static analysis for idealized elasto- hardening stiffness ratios, it is seen that the analytical methodol-
plastic models (Tsai, 2010). The force-based DAFs are determined ogy may approximately capture the variation of DAFs with ductility
from dividing the static force response by the pseudo-static force demands. The analytical approach appears to be an effective option
for given ductility demands. Similar efforts are made herein to for predicting the DAFs in progressive collapse analysis. Because
derive analytical expressions for the idealized tri-linear response. the maximum ductility obtained from the static loading test is
Extended from the formulation for elasto-plastic models, the ana- 5.04, plastic deformation larger than that is not considered in the
lytical force-based DAF, DAFp , is written as estimation of the hardening stiffness ratio ˛2 . Hence, more signifi-
cant discrepancy between the analytical and experimental DAFs is
2[1 + ˛1 ( − 1)]
DAFp = for 1 ≤  ≤ s (5a) observed as the ductility demand is larger than 5.0.
1 + ˛1 ( − 1)2 + 2( − 1)
2[1 + ˛1 (s − 1) + ˛2 ( − s )]
DAFp = for s ≤  (5b)
[1 + ˛1 (s − 1)2 + 2(s − 1) + 2˛1 (s − 1)( − s ) + ˛2 ( − s )2 + 2( − s )]
where s = s /y and  is the ductility demand.
As compared to the force-based DAF, derivation of the analyti-
cal displacement-based DAF, DAF , is much more complicated. In
the derivation, a dynamic ductility demand  under an imposed 5.3. Limitations
loading Pd is determined from the pseudo-static response. Cor-
respondingly, a static ductility demand st under the loading is Because the support-loss experiment is conducted with small-
determined from the nonlinear static response. The analytical scale specimens made of structural steel, there are some limitations
displacement-based DAF is then expressed as /st . A load ratio to the results of this study. At first, test specimens with different
, which is defined as Pd divided by the dynamic yield force Pd,y , is scales and/or materials may have different nonlinear properties,
introduced in the analytical expressions. The load ratio may be fur- such as the post-yield stiffness ratios and/or deformation capac-
ther written as a function of the ductility demand. According to the ity. This may lead to different DAFs even under identical ductility
magnitude of  and , the analytical formulae may be categorized demand. An objective of this study is to experimentally validate
as follows. the proposed analytical approach for estimation of the DAFs under
support loss. The study results indicate that approximate DAFs may
(a)  ≤ 1.0 and  ≤ 1.0:  =  and DAF = 2. be obtained from the approach. Therefore, it is inferred that the
(b) 1 <  ≤ s : analytical approach may still apply, provided the test specimens
 present non-negative post-yield stiffness and ductile nonlinear
A+ A2 − 4˛1 (˛1 − 1)
DAF = for  ≤ s ≤ 2.0 (6a) behavior implied in the derivation. Moreover, both the experiment
˛1 and analytical derivation are conducted on the basis of single-mode
 deformation. This reveals that the analytical formulation is favor-
A+ A2 − 4˛1 (˛1 − 1)
DAF = for 2.0 ≤  ≤ s (6b) able for regular building frames in which column-loss response is
A
usually dominated by a single mode (Tsai, 2011). Its accuracy may
where  = [1 + ˛1 ( − 1)2 + 2( − 1)]/, A = (2˛1 +  − 2), and be lost for other structural configurations, especially as multi-mode
 s = (s ). vibration is provoked under support loss (Wolff and Starossek,
(c) s < : 2009).

2˛2 s − B + B2 − 4˛2 (s − )s 6. Conclusions
DAF = for st ≤ 1 (7a)
˛2
 A small-scale test setup is devised to investigate the inelastic
˛1 (2˛2 s −B+ B2 −4˛2 (s −)s ) dynamic amplification factors (DAFs) for structures subjected to
DAF = for 1 < st ≤ s (7b)
˛2 A sudden column loss. Strip-type steel specimens are designed to be
 fixed at one end and supported by a hanger at the other. The hanger
B2 − 4˛2 (s − )s is manually knocked off by a hammer to simulate the sudden loss
DAF = 1 + for s < st (7c)
2˛2 s − B scenario. Based on three different definitions, experimental DAFs
62 M.-H. Tsai, Z.-K. You / Mechanics Research Communications 40 (2012) 56–62
are determined from static and dynamic support-release tests. Test
results indicate that the DAFs estimated from the neutral response
cannot properly account for the inelastic dynamic effect on either
the displacement or force response. Displacement-based DAFs may
significantly differ from the force-based DAFs in the inelastic phase.
The former is larger than two and exhibits a concave downward
variation with ductility demand. On the contrary, the latter is less
than two and exhibits a concave upward variation with ductility
demand. Nevertheless, both approach the elastic DAF as the test
specimen is loaded into the strain-hardening range. Pseudo-static
analysis may be applied to prediction of the inelastic displacement-
and force-based DAFs. With proper consideration of the post-yield
and hardening stiffness ratios, the derived analytical formulae may
produce inelastic DAFs approximated to the experimental results.
For nonlinear static progressive collapse analysis, the force-based
DAF is adequate for collapse resistance estimation in which the ulti-
mate loading capacity of structures under column loss is desired.
The displacement-based DAF may be employed in structural per-
formance evaluation in which the column-loss displacement is
preferred under given loadings.
Acknowledgements
The writers wish to express their sincere appreciation to the
reviewers for very constructive comments. The study presented in
this paper was supported by the National Science Council of Taiwan
under Grants NSC 99-2221-E-020-013 and that support is gratefully
acknowledged.
References
ACI, 2005. Building code requirements for structural concrete. In: Standard ACI 318-
05. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan.
ASCE, 2005. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. In: Standard
ASCE/SEI 7-05. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
Abruzzo, J., Matta, A., Panariello, G., 2006. Study of mitigation strategies for pro-
gressive collapse of a reinforced concrete commercial building. Journal of
Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE 20 (4), 384–390.
British Standards Institution (BSI), 2006. Actions on Structures – Part 1–7: General
Actions – Accidental actions, BS EN 1991-1-7: 2006. British Standards Institu-
tion, London, UK.
Chopra, A.K., 1995. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake
Engineering. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
Clough, R.W., Penzien, J., 1993. Dynamics of Structures. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York.
Department of Defense (DoD), 2005. Unified facilities criteria: design of
buildings to resist progressive collapse, UFC 4-023-03. Washington D.C.,
USA.
Department of Defense (DoD), 2009. Unified facilities criteria: design of buildings
to resist progressive collapse, UFC 4-023-03. Washington D.C., USA.
Ellingwood, B., Leyendecker, E.V., 1978. Approaches for design against pro-
gressive collapse. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE 104 (ST3),
413–423.
Ellingwood, B.R., Smilowitz, R., Dusenberry, D.O., Duthinh, D., Lew, H.S., 2007. Best
practices for reducing the potential for progressive collapse in buildings, Report
No. NISTIR 7396. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department
of Commerce, USA.
Ellingwood, B.R., 2006. Mitigating risk from abnormal loads and progressive collapse.
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE 20 (4), 315–323.
General Service Administration (GSA), 2003. Progressive collapse analysis and
design guidelines for new federal office buildings and major modernization
projects. Washington D.C., USA.
Kaewkulchai, G., Williamson, E.B., 2004. Beam element formulation and solution
procedure for dynamic progressive collapse analysis. Computers and Structures
82, 639–651.
Kim, H.S., Kim, J., An, D.W., 2009. Development of integrated system for progressive
collapse analysis of building structures considering dynamic effects. Advances
in Engineering Software 40 (1), 1–8.
Kim, J., Kim, T., 2009. Assessment of progressive collapse-resisting capacity of steel
moment frames. Journal of Constructed Steel Research 65 (1), 169–179.
Wolff, M., Starossek, U., 2009. Cable loss and progressive collapse in cable-stayed
bridges. Bridge Structures 5 (1), 17–28.
Marchand, K., McKay, A., Stevens, D.J., 2009. Development and application of linear
and nonlinear static approaches in UFC 4-023-03. In: Proceedings of Structures
Congress 2009, Austin, Texas.
Matthews, T., Elwood, K.J., Hwang, S.J., 2007. Explosive testing to evaluate dynamic
amplification during gravity load redistribution for reinforced concrete frames.
In: Proceedings of Structures Congress 2007, Long Beach, California.
Matthews, T., Elwood, K.J., Hsiao, F.P., Yeh, Y.K., Hwang, S.J., 2008. Explosive testing
to assess dynamic load redistribution in a reinforced concrete frame building,
Report No. NCREE-08-015. National Center for Research of Earthquake Engineer-
ing, Taipei, Taiwan.
Mohamed, O.A., 2006. Progressive collapse of structures: annotated bibliography
and comparison of codes and standards. Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities, ASCE 20 (4), 418–425.
Nair, R.S., 2006. Preventing disproportionate collapse. Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, ASCE 20 (4), 309–314.
Pretlove, A.J., Ramsden, M., Atkins, A.G., 1991. Dynamic effects in progressive failure
of structures. International Journal of Impact Engineering 11 (4), 539–546.
Ruth, P., Marchand, K.A., Williamson, E.B., 2006. Static equivalency in progressive
collapse alternate path analysis: reducing conservatism while retaining struc-
tural integrity. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilitiesm, ASCE 20 (4),
349–364.
Sasani, M., Bazan, M., Sagiroglu, S., 2007. Experimental and analytical progressive
collapse evaluation of actual reinforced concrete structure. ACI Structural Jour-
nal 104 (6), 731–739.
Sasani, M., Sagiroglu, S., 2008. Progressive collapse resistance of Hotel San Diego.
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 134 (3), 478–488.
Sasani, M., Sagiroglu, S., 2010. Gravity load redistribution and progressive collapse
resistance of 20-story reinforced concrete structure following loss of interior
column. ACI Structural Journal 107 (6), 636–644.
Tsai, M.H., Lin, B.H., 2008. Investigation of progressive collapse resistance and inelas-
tic response for an earthquake-resistant RC building subjected to column failure.
Engineering Structures 30 (12), 3619–3628.
Tsai, M.H., Lin, B.H., 2009. Dynamic amplification factor for progressive collapse
resistance analysis of a RC building. Structural Design of Tall and Special Build-
ings 18 (5), 539–557.
Tsai, M.H., 2010. An analytical methodology for the dynamic amplification factor
in progressive collapse evaluation of building structures. Mechanics Research
Communications 37, 61–66.
Tsai, M.H., 2011. Analytical load and dynamic increase factors for progressive
collapse analysis of building frames. In: Proceedings of 2011 Architectural Engi-
neering Conference (AEI 2011), ASCE, Oakland, California, 30 March–2 April, pp.
172–179.