Progressive Collapse Response of Reinforced Concrete Buildings Designed According to Turkish Earthquake Code

Abstract

In this study, the progressive collapse response of reinforced concrete buildings designed for the ‘government buildings’ occupancy class was investigated numerically. For this purpose, two reinforced concrete framed buildings were initially designed according to the Turkish Earthquake Code published in 2018. Later, those buildings’ progressive collapse responses were evaluated using the Alternate Path direct design approach defined in the GSA-2016 and UFC 4-023-03 guidelines. Three different column removal scenarios were employed independently by applying the nonlinear dynamic analysis method. Nonlinear fiber hinges were used to simulate the plasticity of the structural load-bearing members. As a result of this study, it is deduced that a limited local collapse disproportioned to the initial failure was observed on the investigated buildings. In addition to the conventional seismic design methods, the buildings designed according to the Turkish Earthquake Code should also be assessed with respect to the explicit design approaches against unforeseeable extreme events to reduce their progressive collapse risk.

Keywords

• Progressive collapse
• Nonlinear dynamic analysis
• Reinforced concrete
• Government buildings occupancy class
• Turkish Earthquake Code

Supporting Institution

The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK)

Project Number

2219-International Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Program

Thanks

The author was supported by the 2219-International Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Program of The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK). The author also thanks Prof. Dr. Halil SEZEN for his invaluable contributions and support.

Türkiye Bina Deprem Yönetmeliğine Göre Tasarlanan Betonarme Binaların İlerlemeli Çökme Davranışları

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, kamu binaları kullanım sınıfı göre tasarlanan betonarme binaların ilerlemeli çökme davranışı sayısal olarak incelenmiştir. Bu amaçla öncelikle iki adet betonarme çerçeve türü bina Türk Bina Deprem Yönetmeliğine (2018) göre tasarlanmıştır. Daha sonra, bu binaların ilerlemeli çökme davranışı, GSA-2016 ve UFC 4-023-03'te yönetmeliklerinde tanımlanan doğrudan tasarım yaklaşımı kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Alternatif yol doğrudan tasarım yaklaşımı için doğrusal olmayan dinamik analiz yöntemi ile birbirinden bağımsız olarak üç farklı kolon kaldırma senaryosu uygulanmıştır. Taşıyıcı sistem elemanlarının plastik davranışlarını temsil etmek amacıyla doğrusal olmayan fiber elemanlar kullanılmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda, incelenen binalarda başlangıçtaki hasar ile orantısız lokal yerel göçme gözlemlenmiştir. Bu sebeple, kamu binaları kullanım sınıfına sahip Türkiye Bina Deprem Yönetmeliğine göre tasarlanan binalar, herhangi bir dinamik yük etkisi altında ilerlemeli çökme riskine karşı dirençlerini artırmak için ek doğrudan tasarım yöntemleri ile değerlendirilmeleri gerekmektedir.

Keywords

• İlerlemeli Çökme
• Doğrusal olmayan dinamik analiz
• Betonarme
• Kamu binaları kullanım sınıfı
• Türkiye bina deprem yönetmeliği

Project Number

2219-International Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Program

References

1. B. Sevim and A. T. Toy, “Blasting response of a two-storey RC building under different charge weight of TNT explosives,” Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 565-577, Jun 23, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s40996-019-00256-0.
2. R. A. Oyguç, “Seismic assessment of damaged buildings after 24 January 2020 Elazığ earthquake,” (in Turkish), Bitlis Eren University Journal of Science, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 140-155, 2022, doi: 10.17798/bitlisfen.1000615.
3. “Oklahoma City bombing.” fbi.gov. https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/oklahoma-city-bombing (accessed Feb. 02, 2022).
4. “Elazığ saldırısını PKK üstlendi.” aljazeera.com.tr. http://www.aljazeera.com.tr/haber/elazig-saldirisini-pkk-ustlendi (accessed Feb. 02, 2022).
5. Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE/SEI 7-16, American Society of Civil Engineers, Virginia, 2016.
6. Alternate Path Analysis and Design Guidelines for Progressive Collapse Resistance, GSA-2016, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, 2016.
7. Design of building to resist progressive collapse, UFC 4-023-03, US Department of Defense, Washington, DC, 2016.
8. O. Yagob, K. Galal, and N. Naumoski, “Progressive collapse of reinforced concrete structures,” Structural Engineering and Mechanics, An Int'l Journal, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 771-786, 2009, doi: 10.12989/sem.2009.32.6.771.

9. Design of Concrete Structures: Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, Eurocode 2, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 2004.
10. International Building Code, IBC, International Code Council, Inc, Washington, DC, 2020.
11. M. H. Tsai and B. H. Lin, “Investigation of progressive collapse resistance and inelastic response for an earthquake-resistant RC building subjected to column failure,” Engineering Structures, vol. 30, pp. 3619-3628, 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.05.031.
12. A. G. Marchis, T. S. Moldovan, and A. M. Ioani, “The influence of the seismic design on the progressive collapse resistance of mid-rise RC framed structures,” Acta Technica Napocensis: Civil Engineering & Architecture, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 222-234, 2013.
13. T. A. Sheikh, J. M. Banday, and M. A. Hussain, “Progressive collapse study of seismically designed low rise reinforced concrete framed structure,” Civil Engineering and Architecture, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 1327-1338, 2021, doi: 10.13189/cea.2021.090506.
14. M. A. Abdulsalam and M. T. A. Chaudhary, “Progressive collapse of reinforced concrete buildings considering flexure-axial-shear interaction in plastic hinges,” Cogent Engineering, vol. 8, no. 1:1882115, 2021, doi: 10.1080/23311916.2021.1882115.
15. A. G. Marchisa and M. D. Botez, “A numerical assessment of the progressive collapse resistance of RC frames with respect to the number of stories,” Procedia Manufacturing, vol. 32, pp. 136-143, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2019.02.194.
16. Specification for buildings to be built in seismic zones, TEC2018, Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency, Government of Republic of Turkey, Ankara, 2018.
17. M. A. A. Mahad, “Global response of 2D reinforced concrete structures under blast loads and progressive collapse,” M.S. thesis, Institute of Graduate Studies, Istanbul Kultur University, Istanbul, Turkey, 2021.
18. Ö. F. Nemutlu and A. Sarı, “Comparison of Turkish earthquake code 2018 and U.S. seismic codes in terms of earthquake calculations,” (in Turkish), 5. International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Ankara, 8-11 Oct. 2019.
19. C. Aksoylu and M. H. Arslan, “Empirical evaluation of periodic calculations for frame+shear wall type of reinforced concrete buildings according to TEC-2019 standard,” (in Turkish), Uludağ University Journal of The Faculty of Engineering, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 365-382, 2019, doi: 10.17482/uumfd.603437.
20. C. Aksoylu and M. H. Arslan, “Comparative investigation of different earthquake load calculation methods for reinforced concrete buildings in the 2007 and 2019 codes,” (in Turkish), International Journal of Engineering Research and Development, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 359-374, 2021, doi: 10.29137/umagd.844186.
21. E. Işık and E. Demirkıran, “The effect of different earthquake ground motion level on performance of reinforced-concrete structures,” Bitlis Eren University Journal of Science and Technology, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 29-35, 2021, doi: 10.17678/beuscitech.952812.
22. E. Işık, E. Harirchian, A. Büyüksaraç, and Y. L. Ekinci, “Seismic and structural analyses of the Eastern Anatolian Region (Turkey) using different probabilities of exceedance,” Applied System Innovation, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 89, 2021, doi: 10.3390/asi4040089.
23. O. F. Nemutlu, B. Balun, and A. Sari, “Damage assessment of buildings after 24 January 2020 Elazığ-Sivrice Earthquake,” Earthquakes and Structures, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 325-335, 2021, doi: 10.12989/EAS.2021.20.3.325.
24. Structural Engineering Software. ProtaStructures 2021 Academic Version, Prota Eng. Comp., Besiktas, Istanbul.
25. Three-Dimensional Static and Dynamic Finite Element Analysis and Design of Structures. SAP2000 V23 Academic Version, Computer and Structures, Inc., California.
26. Design Loads for Buildings, TS 498, Turkish Standards Institute, Ankara, 1997.
27. Requirements for Design and Construction of Reinforced Concrete Structures, TS 500, Turkish Standards Institute, Ankara, 2002.
28. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, ASCE/SEI 41-13, American Society of Civil Engineers, Virginia, 2013.
29. G. G. Deierlein, A. M. Reinhorn, and M. R. Willford, “NEHRP seismic design technical brief no. 4 - Nonlinear structural analysis for seismic design: A guide for practicing engineers,” NIST, Maryland, Rep. 10-917-5, 2010.
30. Computers and Structures, Inc. CSI Technical Knowledge Base. Accessed: Mar. 15, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://wiki.csiamerica.com
31. R. Y. Wu and C. P. Pantelides, “Concentrated and distributed plasticity models for seismic repair of damaged RC bridge columns,” J. Compos. Constr., vol. 22, no. 5:04018044, 2018, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000879.
32. F. Sadek, Y. Bao, J. A. Main, and H. S. Lew, “Evaluation and Enhancement of Robustness for Reinforced Concrete Buildings,” J. Struct. Eng., vol. 148, no. 1:04021248, 2022, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0003226.
33. S. Sagiroglu, “Analytical and experimental evaluation of progressive collapse resistance of reinforced concrete structures,” Ph.D. Dissertation, The Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA, 2012.