applied

sciences
Article
Progressive Collapse Analysis of SRC Frame-RC Core
Tube Hybrid Structure
Xingxing Chen 1, *, Wei Xie 1 , Yunfeng Xiao 2 , Yiguang Chen 3 and Xianjie Li 1
1 School of Urban Construction, Yangtze University, Jingzhou 434023, China;
[email protected] (W.X.); [email protected] (X.L.)
2 School of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, Huazhong University of Science and Technology,
Wuhan 430074, China; [email protected]
3 Wuhan Construction Engineering Group CO., LTD, Wuhan 430056, China; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 25 October 2018; Accepted: 15 November 2018; Published: 20 November 2018


Abstract: Steel reinforced concrete (SRC) frame-reinforced concrete (RC) core tube hybrid structures
are widely used in high-rise buildings. Focusing on the progressive collapse behavior of this structural
system, this paper presents an experiment and analysis on a 1/5 scaled, 10-story SRC frame-RC
core tube structural model. The finite element (FE) model developed for the purpose of progressive
collapse analysis was validated by comparing the test results and simulation results. The alternate
load path method (APM) was applied in conducting nonlinear static and dynamic analyses, in which
key components including columns and shear walls were removed. The stress state of the beams
adjacent to the removed component, the structural behavior including inter-story drift ratio and
shear distribution between frame and tube were investigated. The demand capacity ratio (DCR)
was applied to evaluate the progressive collapse resistance under loss of key components scenarios.
The results indicate that the frame and the tube cooperate in a certain way to resist progressive
collapse. The core tube plays a role as the first line of defense against progressive collapse, and the
frame plays a role as the second line of defense against progressive collapse. It is also found that the
shear distribution is related to the location of the component removed, especially the corner column
and shear walls.

Keywords: steel reinforced concrete frame; reinforced concrete core tube; progressive collapse analysis;
loss of key components

1. Introduction
Compared with traditional structural systems composed of steel or reinforced concrete members,
steel reinforced concrete (SRC) frame-reinforced concrete (RC) core tube hybrid structure has a better
combination of small sectional dimensions, higher strength, higher rigidity and resistance to corrosion,
abrasion and fire. The SRC columns and RC core tube are rigidly connected by steel beams and
composite floors. Benefiting from this connection and high stiffness of the core tube, most of the
shear force caused by the horizontal load is assumed to be resisted by the core tube, and the lateral
deformation can be restricted to an acceptable level. The vertical load of the building and partial
overturning moment aroused by horizontal load is undertaken by the frame. Moreover, with the
stiffness and resistance degeneration of the core tube under a strong earthquake, the frame will play
the role of the second line of defence to resist shear force and avoid collapse. Hence, as a suitable and
economical structure form of high-rise buildings, it is widely applied in the US, China, and Japan,
especially in earthquake prone regions.

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2316; doi:10.3390/app8112316 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2316 2 of 20

Due to the advantages of concrete-encased composite structure [1], there are extensive
studies [2–6] focusing on its seismic performance. The research on progressive collapse has become of
increasing interest in recent years, especially since the World Trade Center towers collapse following
the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. The progressive collapse of a structure can be caused by
the failure of structural components under unexpected loads including, car accidents, earthquakes,
or explosions and so on. [7]. To study the response of structures under extreme conditions such as
explosions and fire, some research has been carried out. A new analysis method for the progressive
collapse analysis of a structure with consideration of both the non-zero initial condition and existing
damage in structural members [8], and a new finite element model was proposed as a feasible tool
to evaluate the fire response of composite floor systems [9]. Recently, the alternate load path method
(APM) recommended by the current codes and manuals of practice [10,11] for anti-collapse design
and analysis has been popular. The alternate load path method is easy to implement. In this method,
the robustness of a structure is evaluated through removal of the key vertical components to determine
whether the local damage may be absorbed by the remaining structural members and whether the
structural system can bridge over the removed components.
In the literature, there have been extensive experimental studies focusing on progressive
collapse behavior of reinforced concrete frame and steel frame structures subjected to the loss of
key components [12–17]. The compressive arch action and catenary action were clearly observed
in the experiments. Due to exorbitant cost and safety issues, numerical simulations are preferred
for studying the progressive collapse resistance of structures [18–23], in which nonlinear static and
dynamic analyses had been conducted [24–29].
As the two main components resisting the horizontal force aroused by earthquake, the frame and
the core tube operate cooperatively with different stiffness. An unequal distribution of shear in the
two components is produced and will affect the behavior of building structures against progressive
collapse. To effectively prevent earthquake-induced structural collapse it is necessary to study a widely
used structural system in high-rise buildings, SRC frame-RC core tube hybrid structures, focusing on
progressive collapse behavior. Nevertheless, to date, limited related experimental and analysis work
has been carried out on this particular structural system.
Based on the experiment recommend by reference [6], using the general purpose finite element
package OpenSees [30,31], a numerical model is first developed in this paper which enables the
non-linear progressive collapse analysis of high rise building. The proposed numerical model was
validated by a pseudo-static test. The alternate load path method was applied in conducting nonlinear
static and dynamic analyses, and robustness was studied under column and shear wall removal
scenarios. The model accurately displayed the overall behavior, including inter-story drift ratio and
shear distribution under sudden loss of key components and seismic waves input, which provided
important information for additional design guidance on progressive collapse for the SRC frame-RC
core tube hybrid structures.

2. Experiment Program

2.1. Details of Specimen

Based on the currently design codes and specifications in China [32–34], a 1/5 scaled, 10-story
prototype building was designed and built [6]. The plane layout is shown in Figure 1, the dimension
and reinforcement of core tube, columns and beams is shown in Figures 2 and 3. The properties of
concrete and steel are listed in Tables 1 and 2. The similarity ratios of properties (elastic modulus,
stress and strain) of concrete and steel are 1, which means the specimen and the prototype are in an
equal strain state. So, the failure mode of specimen can truly reflect that of the prototype.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2316 3 of 20

Figure 1. Plan arrangement (units: mm).

Figure 2. Details of core tube: (a) the south and north shear wall, (b) the west and east shear wall,
(c) the reinforcement in the shear wall and (d) the reinforcement in the opening. (units: mm).

Figure 3. Details of components: (a) steel reinforced concrete (SRC) column and (b) steel beam. (units: mm).
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2316 4 of 20

Table 1. Properties of Concrete.

Concrete Compressive
Concrete Strength Grade Elastic Modulus/MPa
Strength/MPa
C40 41.5 3.03 × 104

Table 2. Properties of steel.

Material Yield Strength/MPa Ultimate Strength/MPa Elastic Modulus/MPa

Φ4 bar 305 424 2.1 × 105
Steel plate 327 463 2.0 × 105

2.2. Test Setup and Procedure

The test setup is shown in Figure 4. By controlling displacement, a pseudo static horizontal
cyclic loading scheme was implemented in this test. The lateral load was applied by two hydraulic
servo actuators at 4th and 9th floor respectively. Mode-superposition response spectrum method was
adopted to control the amplitude of displacement and finally ∆9 /∆4 = 1.5:1. The vertical load was
applied by sandbags on the floors. Based on the Load Code for the Design of Building Structures
(GB50009-2012) [35], it was necessary to take the weight of infill walls into account, and the live load
and dead load were taken as 2.0 kN/m2 and 1.6 kN/m2 respectively. The history of the loading
program is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 4. Test setup: (a) Test specimen and (b) Arrangement of instruments.

Figure 5. History of loading program.

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2316 5 of 20

2.3. Test Results

Figure 6a shows the hysteretic curve of the test results, which is the relationship of the building
base shear and the displacement at the top loading point. The curve is full and in a spindle shape,
the yielding, limiting and failure stages are obvious. Figure 6b shows the test value of lateral
displacement at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 9th floor when the top displacements are 8 mm,
24 mm, 56 mm, 88 mm and 136 mm respectively. During the experiment, the dynamic characteristics
were measured and the details were introduced in reference [6]. Table 3 shows the test value of
frequencies of the first five vibration modes at the initial and failure states.

Figure 6. Test results: (a) The hysteretic curve and (b) lateral displacement.

Table 3. Test value of frequencies.

Initial State Failure State

Vibration Modes
Test Value/Hz Test Value/Hz
1 5.94 3.26
2 18.98 6.22
3 25.13 15.96
4 37.93 31.82
5 50.03 42.01

3. Finite Element Model

3.1. Constitutive Model of Materials

In general, bilinear stiffness degeneration behavior is employed to simulate the cumulative
damage of structure [36,37]. In this paper, stiffness degeneration of materials are defined in the finite
element (FE) model to simulate the cumulative damage of structure. Constitutive model curves of steel
and concrete are shown in Figure 7a,b [6], respectively. In Figure 7a, the stress–strain curve exhibits two
stages, including elastic and hardening stages. Es is modulus of elasticity, f y is yield strength, and Ep
is hardening modulus. In Figure 7b, the constitutive model of concrete is based on the Kent-Park
model [38], both unconfined and confined concrete fibers in this constitutive model consider tensile
strength with linear degeneration. f c , Et , f t , and Eu are ultimate compressive strength, rigidity after
cracking, ultimate tensile strength, unloading rigidity. The calculating formula is expressed as below:
 h
2 i
2ε
fc 0.002 − ε
0.002 ε ≤ 0.002
σ =  f c [1 − Z (ε − 0.002)] (1)

0.002 ≤ ε ≤ ε 20
0.2 f c ε ≥ ε 20

0.5
Z= (2)
ε 50u + ε 50h − 0.002
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2316 6 of 20

3 + 0.002 f c
ε 50u = (3)
0.002 f c − 1000
s
3 B
ε 50h = ρs (4)
4 sh
where, ε, Z, ε50u , ε50h , ρs , B and Sh are the concrete strain, the slope of the descending branch of the
stain-stress curve, the stain at 0.5f c , the strain increase of confined concrete over unconfined concrete
at 0.5f c , the ratio of stirrup, width of concrete core area and the spacing of stirrup, respectively.

Figure 7. Constitutive model of materials: (a) constitutive model of steel and (b) constitutive model
of concrete.

3.2. Elements and Boundary Condition

The element types “dispBeamColumn” and “LayeredShell” are employed to divide the cross
section of members into units with a certain number. According to the variation positions of
concrete and steel in the specimen, the fibers at corresponding positions can be defined with different
constitutive models. The cross sections of different members are shown in Figure 8. And the view of
the FE model is shown in Figure 9.

Figure 8. Fiber sections: (a) beam, (b) column and (c) wall and floor.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2316 7 of 20

Figure 9. The finite element (FE) model.

Vertical load was applied to the corresponding node. Horizontal load was controlled by
displacement referring to the experiment. Based on the experimental conditions, the bottom of
the tube and column were defined as fixed, and displacement of nodes on the other same floor was
defined as coupled. The mass proportional damping was defined as 0.05.

3.3. Validation of the FE Model

The model size, section dimensions, loading and boundary conditions are exactly replicated in
the experiment [6]. The test results are provided in this section. To validate the proposed FE model,
simulation and test results are compared focusing on hysteretic curve, skeleton curve, bearing capacity,
deformation and dynamic characteristics.
In Figure 10a, the calculating and the test curves are both full and in spindle shaped, the yielding,
limiting and failure stages are obvious. In Figure 10b, the calculating and the test curves are consistent
in elastic-plastic segment and degenerate segment. Table 4 shows the characteristic values at yielding,
limiting, and failure stages. It can be seen that the calculation results are consistent with the test.

Figure 10. Comparison of hysteretic and skeleton curves: (a) Hysteretic curve and (b) Skeleton curve.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2316 8 of 20

Table 4. Comparison of characteristic value.

Calculating
Load Direction Test Value/kN Absolute Error/%
Value/kN
Positive 238.49 256.72 7.64
Py
Negative −243.52 −251.89 3.43
Positive 351.72 373.69 6.24
Pmax
Negative −356.12 −333.91 6.23
Positive 308.47 338.44 9.72
Pu
Negative −304.96 −300.55 1.44
where, Py , Pmax and Pu are yield strength, ultimate strength and failure strength respectively.

Figure 11 shows a comparison of lateral displacement at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 9th
floors resulting from test and simulation. The dotted line is the test value and the solid line is the
simulation value. It can be seen that structural deformation resulting from the two approaches are in a
good agreement when the top displacements are 8 mm, 24 mm, 56 mm, 88 mm and 136 mm respectively.

Figure 11. Comparison of lateral displacement.

Table 5 shows the frequencies of the first five vibration modes at the initial and failure state. It can
be seen that the natural frequency of structure decreases along with damage accumulation, and that
the absolute errors between calculating results and test results is within 5%.

Table 5. Comparison of frequencies.

Initial State Failure State

Vibration
Modes Test Calculating Absolute Test Calculating Absolute
Value/Hz Value/Hz Error/% Value/Hz Value/Hz Error/%
1 5.94 5.86 1.31 3.26 3.35 2.73
2 18.98 18.13 4.50 6.22 6.01 3.23
3 25.13 23.97 4.60 15.96 15.25 4.47
4 37.93 36.47 3.87 31.82 32.47 2.06
5 50.03 48.43 3.20 42.01 40.85 2.76
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2316 9 of 20

4. Progressive Collapse Analysis

4.1. Basic Principle

As stated above, the alternate path method (APM) proposed by General Services Administration
(GSA) [10] is applied to assess the potential for progressive collapse by a certain acceptance criteria.
As stated in GSA, the demand-capacity ratio (DCR) of adjacent components is applied to evaluate
whether progressive collapse occurs as after the failure of critical component.
The component removal is conducted using element-killing technology. The DCR under various
cases is assessed using nonlinear static and dynamic analysis. The nonlinear static analysis can be
used to simulate the removal scenario induced by triggering events, such as explosions and vehicle
accidents. The nonlinear dynamic analysis can be used to simulate the building subjected to an
earthquake with failure of critical components. The maximum forces and displacements for each
member are recorded. In static analysis, the critical component is removed primarily, and then the
analysis goes on to evaluate the structural performance. If the structure is stable, the dynamic analysis
will continue based on the static analysis, a seismic wave will be input to the model with critical
component removal. The dynamic effects are considered through load-increase factors. For the ground
key components loss, load combination was employed as follows:

Load = 2(DL + 0.25 LL) (5)

Load = DL + 0.25 LL (6)

where Equation (5) is for nonlinear static analysis, Equation (6) is for nonlinear dynamic analysis.
DL and LL are dead load and live load respectively.
Based on GSA, DCR is a ratio defined as internal force QUD of a component after the removal of
key component to the ultimate internal force QCE of the component. The DCR values are calculated as
Equation (7). As specified by GSA, the progressive collapse would not occur, as the DCR is smaller
than 2; besides the progressive collapse of the structure will occur.

QUD
DCR = (7)
QCE

4.2. Seismic Input for Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis

To assure the accuracy of numerical analysis, the HOLLYWOOD, ELCENTRO and NRIGDE
seismic waves are selected to represent the various level of earthquake intensity, including frequent
earthquake, fortification earthquake and rare earthquake. Moreover, an artificial wave is also selected.
The peak ground acceleration (PGA) of each seismic wave is listed in Table 6, and acceleration-time
curves are shown in Figure 12.

Table 6. PGA of seismic waves.

Number Seismic Wave PGA/g

1 HOLLYWOOD 0.041
2 ELCENTRO 0.278
3 NRIGDE 0.603
4 Artificial wave 0.540
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2316 10 of 20

Figure 12. Acceleration-time curves: (a) HOLLYWOOD, (b) ELCENTRO, (c) NRIGDE and (d) artificial wave.

Figure 13 shows response spectra of these seismic waves and design response spectrum specified
by Chinese code (GB 50011-2001) [33]. When the PGA does not meet the specification, modification
should be performed by the equation given below:
0
Amax
a0 (t) = a(t) (8)
| A|max

where, a(t) is initial time-history relationship of acceleration, |A|max is PGA of seismic wave, a0 (t) is
modified time-history relationship of acceleration, A0 max is the modified result, taken as Table 7.

Figure 13. Response spectra of seismic waves.

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2316 11 of 20

Table 7. A0 max /Gal of seismic waves.

Earthquake Intensity 7 8 9
Frequently occurring 35 70 140
Moderate 107 215 429
Rarely expected 220 400 620

4.3. Progressive Collapse Cases

Table 8 shows the list of analysis cases considered together with the components that are forcibly
removed. Due to the symmetry of the cross section of the structure, 5 key components were assumed
to be removed. These critical components are side columns C1 and C3, corner column C2, shear walls
W1 and W2 at the first floor. Figure 14a,b show the location of these critical components and adjacent
beams. To illustrate the analysis method clearly and facilitate analysis of data, case 1 is discussed in
detail while discussion of the other cases is relatively concise.

Table 8. Progressive analysis cases.

Case 1 2 3 4 5
Removed
C1 C2 C3 W1 W2
component

Figure 14. Location of members at the first floor: (a) location of key components and (b) location of the
adjacent beams.

4.4. Nonlinear Static Analysis

4.4.1. Case 1—Column C1 at Ground Floor Removed

For case 1, the ground columns C1 as shown in Figure 14 were suddenly removed (Case 1 in
Table 8). Table 9 shows force condition of beams adjacent to C1. It can be seen that the maximum DCR
value is 0.86, far less than 2.0. The DCRs of B8 and B10 are larger than the DCR of B4. This result may
be caused by the different locations. Compared with the locations of B4, B8 and B10 are closer to the
core tube. When column C1 is removed, the load is transferred to B4 by the portion of 20.06%, to B8 by
the portion of 45.23% and to B10 by the portion of 34.71%.
Figure 15 shows the lateral displacement of the structure. X-axis is west-east direction, Y-axis is
south-north direction. It can be seen that the lateral displacement along the X-axis is larger, and the
maximum displacement is 24.5 mm. Moreover, the maximum inter-story displacement angle θ max is
far smaller than the limited value 1/800 in Chinese specification (GB50009-2001) [35]. These results
indicate that the progressive collapse will not occur under the loss of C1 scenario.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2316 12 of 20

Table 9. Force condition of beams in case 1.

Beam Bending Average

Case Direction Portion (%) DCR
Number Moment/kN·m Value (%)
Positive 110.00 15.69 0.23
B4 20.06
Negative −202.50 24.43 0.42
1 (C1) Positive 280.00 39.92 0.58
B8 45.23
Negative −418.75 50.53 0.86
Positive 311.25 44.39 0.64
B10 34.71
Negative −207.50 25.04 0.43

Figure 15. Displacement of structure in case 1.

4.4.2. The Results from Case 2 to Case 5

Table 10 shows the force condition of beams under the other cases. It can be seen that the DCRs
are less than 2.0. Due to the structural symmetry, the difference between the DCRs of B1 and B4 is
small in case 2. In case 3, the DCR of B5 is larger than the DCRs of B1 and B2. Similar to the case 1,
B5 is closer to the core tube than B1 and B2, and the more load is transferred to B5 by the portion of
48.77% while the load is transferred to B1 and B2 by the portion of 20.02% and 32.21% respectively.
In case 4 and case 5, B5 and B8 are directly linked to the core tube. Due to the structural symmetry,
there is a small difference between the DCRs of B5 and B8, and the DCR of B5 is larger than the DCR
of B8 in case 4, but the relationship is reversed in case 5. From the results of the above cases, it can be
seen that the closer to the core tube, the more affected the beam gets.
Figure 16 shows the lateral displacement of the structure in different case. The maximum
displacements are 22.5 mm, 12.50 mm, 7.80, 5.70 mm respectively. Moreover, the θ max is still smaller
than the specified limitation. From case 1 to case 5, in terms of the number, the displacements of
9th floor are the maximum, the maximum displacements and the difference between the maximum
value in X-axis and Y-axis showing a decreasing trend. In cases 1, 2 and 4, the maximum values on
the X-axis are larger than that on the Y-axis. This means that the removal of C1, C2 and W1 make
the ability of structure to resist deformation weaker mostly in X direction. On the contrary, in cases 3
and 5, the removal of C3 and W2 make the ability of structure to resist deformation weaker mostly in
Y direction.

Table 10. Force condition of beams in cases 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Beam Bending Average

Case Direction Portion (%) DCR
Number Moment/kN·m Value (%)
Positive 213.75 33.79 0.44
B1 50
Negative −428.75 66.21 0.88
2 (C2)
Positive 418.75 67.39 0.86
B4 50
Negative −207.50 32.61 0.43
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2316 13 of 20

Table 10. Cont.

Beam Bending Average

Case Direction Portion (%) DCR
Number Moment/kN·m Value (%)
Positive 206.25 22.39 0.42
B1 20.02
Negative −88.75 17.66 0.18
Positive 313.75 34.06 0.64
3 (C3) B2 32.21
Negative −142.50 28.36 0.29
Positive 401.25 43.55 0.82
B5 48.77
Negative −271.25 53.98 0.55
Positive 347.50 46.41 0.71
B5 47.10
Negative −380.00 47.80 0.78
4 (W1)
Positive 401.25 53.59 0.82
B8 52.90
Negative −415.00 52.20 0.85
Positive 497.50 55.43 1.02
B5 56.59
Negative −440.00 57.74 0.90
5 (W2)
Positive 400.00 44.57 0.82
B8 43.41
Negative −322.50 42.26 0.66

Figure 16. Displacement of structure in (a) case 2, (b) case 3, (c) case 4 and (d) case 5.

4.5. Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis

4.5.1. Case 1—Column C1 at Ground Floor Removed

The nonlinear dynamic analysis is to simulate the structure under earthquake action with critical
component removal. Under the influences of different seismic waves, the displacement-time curves of
the top floor are shown in Figure 17, the inter-story displacement angles θ of structure are shown in
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2316 14 of 20

Figure 18. It can be seen the maximum inter-story displacement angle θ max is located at the 6th floor
when subjected to HOLLYWOOD and ELCENTRO waves, and the value is within the code limitation.
When subjected to NRIDGE and artificial waves, the value reached 0.0016 and 0.0022, which exceed
the specified limitation.

Figure 17. Displacement-time curve of top under different seismic wave in case 1: (a) HOLLYWOOD,
(b) ELCENTRO, (c) NRIGDE and (d) Artificial wave.

Figure 18. Inter-story displacement angle in case 1.

Figure 19 shows shear distribution between the ground frame and core tube. At the initial stage,
the shear ratios of frame to core tube under HOLLYWOOD, ELCENTRO, NRIGDE and artificial
seismic waves are 1:3.29, 1:3.17, 1:3.01, and 1:2.96 respectively. The core tube is responsible for the
majority of the lateral load. With the stiffness degradation of the core tube, the shear ratios of frame
to core tube change to 1: 2.35, 1:2.28, 1:2.18, and 1:2.14 respectively. It means that the core tube plays
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2316 15 of 20

a role as the first line of defense against lateral load, and the frame plays a role as the second line of
defense against lateral load.

Figure 19. Shear distribution of bottom under different seismic wave in case 1: (a) HOLLYWOOD,
(b) ELCENTRO, (c) NRIGDE and (d) Artificial wave.

Table 11 shows force condition of beams adjacent to C1 after the sudden failure of C1 under
earthquake action. The maximum DCR value of the beams is smaller than 2.0 in the cases of
HOLLYWOOD and ELCENTRO seismic waves. In the cases of NRIGDE and Artificial seismic wave,
the maximum DCR value of B8 and B10 are 2.92 and 3.04, greater than 2.0. That is to say, the progressive
collapse will not occur under the failure of the C1 scenario when subjected to the frequent earthquake
or fortification earthquake, but it will occur when subjected to the rare earthquake. Compared to
Table 9 in nonlinear static analysis, the loads transferred to B4 and B10 are increased while the load
transferred to B8 is reduced. The reason for these changes is the frame has played a greater role of
defense against the earthquake load.

Table 11. Force condition of beams in case 1.

Case Beam Number Seismic Wave Average Bending Moment/kN·m Portion (%) DCR
HOLLYWOOD 457.50 27.98 0.94
ELCENTRO 558.75 23.99 1.15
B4
NRIGDE 885.00 23.30 1.82
Artificial wave 763.75 22.36 1.57
HOLLYWOOD 555.00 33.95 1.14
1 (C1) ELCENTRO 900.00 38.65 1.79
B8
NRIGDE 1440.00 37.91 2.92
Artificial wave 1347.50 39.46 2.77
HOLLYWOOD 622.50 38.07 1.28
ELCENTRO 870.00 37.36 1.87
B10
NRIGDE 1473.75 38.79 3.04
Artificial wave 1303.75 38.18 2.68
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2316 16 of 20

4.5.2. The Results from Cases 2 to Case 5

Table 12 shows the θ max of structure. It can be seen, when the structure is subjected to the same
seismic wave, the θ max in case 3 is smaller than other cases. Compared to case 4, the horizontal
displacement of structure becomes obviously smaller in case 5.
Table 13 shows the shear distribution between the frame and core tube. It is obvious that the core
tube is responsible for more shear than the frame. It obviously increases the shear the frame bears in
the cases of shear wall removal. That means the shear is redistributed, the core tube plays a role as the
first line of defense against lateral load, and the frame plays a role as the second line of defense against
lateral load. Compared to the shear distribution between the ground frame and core tube in case 1,
it can be found that the portion of shear assumed by the frame in case 5 is more than double of it in
case 1.
Table 14 shows force condition of beams. Compared to Table 10 in nonlinear static analysis,
DCRs of the corresponding component in nonlinear dynamic analysis become obviously larger.
With increasing earthquake intensity, the DCR under the failure of W2 is larger than 2.0, even in
the frequent earthquake. DCR under the failure of W1 and W2 is larger than DCR under the failure of
columns. Compared to the failure of C1, the DCR of adjacent beams becomes obviously larger under
the failure of C2. That is to say, the failure of the corner column is more likely to cause progressive
collapse of the structure than failure of side column. Moreover, the DCRs of adjacent beams under
the failure of C1 are obviously larger than that under the failure of C3. That is to say, the failure of
side columns is more likely to cause progressive collapse of structure. Compared to the failure of W1,
DCRs of adjacent beams become obviously larger under the failure of W2. The failure of shear wall
without opening is more likely to cause progressive collapse. Compared to Table 10 in nonlinear static
analysis, in terms of cases 2, 4 and 5, due to the structural symmetry, the change of load transfer is
not obvious. However, it is obvious for case 3, similar to case 1, the loads transferred to B1 and B2 are
increased while the load transferred to B5 is reduced.

Table 12. The maximum inter-story displacement angle in cases 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Case Seismic Wave θmax

HOLLYWOOD 0.00078
ELCENTRO 0.00108
2 (C2)
NRIGDE 0.00206
Artificial wave 0.00149
HOLLYWOOD 0.00076
ELCENTRO 0.00105
3 (C3)
NRIGDE 0.00199
Artificial wave 0.00142
HOLLYWOOD 0.00077
ELCENTRO 0.00101
4 (W1)
NRIGDE 0.00209
Artificial wave 0.00151
HOLLYWOOD 0.00074
ELCENTRO 0.00093
5 (W2)
NRIGDE 0.00192
Artificial wave 0.00136
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2316 17 of 20

Table 13. Shear distribution in cases 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Case Seismic Wave Shear Distribution

HOLLYWOOD 1:1.76
ELCENTRO 1:2.19
2 (C2)
NRIGDE 1:2.01
Artificial wave 1:2.17
HOLLYWOOD 1:1.81
ELCENTRO 1:2.03
3 (C3)
NRIGDE 1:2.05
Artificial wave 1:2.19
HOLLYWOOD 1:1.37
ELCENTRO 1:1.61
4 (W1)
NRIGDE 1:1.47
Artificial wave 1:1.59
HOLLYWOOD 1:1.23
ELCENTRO 1:1.58
5 (W2)
NRIGDE 1:1.44
Artificial wave 1:1.56

Table 14. Force condition of beams in cases 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Average Bending
Case Beam Number Seismic Wave Portion (%) DCR
Moment/kN·m
HOLLYWOOD 748.75 48.74 1.54
ELCENTRO 885.00 51.12 1.82
B1
NRIGDE 1576.25 49.03 3.24
Artificial wave 1445.00 48.31 2.97
2 (C2)
HOLLYWOOD 787.50 51.26 1.62
ELCENTRO 846.25 48.88 1.74
B4
NRIGDE 1638.75 50.97 3.37
Artificial wave 1546.25 51.69 3.18
HOLLYWOOD 365.00 25.44 0.75
ELCENTRO 447.50 22.13 0.92
B1
NRIGDE 730.00 23.86 1.5
Artificial wave 627.50 22.70 1.29
HOLLYWOOD 622.50 43.38 1.28
3 (C3) ELCENTRO 870.00 43.02 1.79
B2
NRIGDE 1245.00 40.69 2.56
Artificial wave 1090.00 39.44 2.24
HOLLYWOOD 447.50 31.18 0.92
ELCENTRO 705.00 34.86 1.45
B5
NRIGDE 1085.00 35.46 2.23
Artificial wave 1046.25 37.86 2.15
HOLLYWOOD 602.50 48.20 1.24
ELCENTRO 782.50 40.94 1.61
B5
NRIGDE 1426.25 47.90 2.93
Artificial wave 1196.25 46.68 2.46
4 (W1)
HOLLYWOOD 647.50 51.80 1.33
ELCENTRO 1128.75 59.06 2.32
B8
NRIGDE 1551.25 52.10 3.19
Artificial wave 1366.25 53.32 2.81
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2316 18 of 20

Table 14. Cont.

Average Bending
Case Beam Number Seismic Wave Portion (%) DCR
Moment/kN·m
HOLLYWOOD 715.00 47.59 1.47
ELCENTRO 1026.25 44.52 2.11
B5
NRIGDE 1502.50 46.33 3.09
Artificial wave 1430.00 50.87 2.94
5 (W2)
HOLLYWOOD 787.50 52.41 1.62
ELCENTRO 1278.75 55.48 2.63
B8
NRIGDE 1740.00 53.67 3.58
Artificial wave 1381.25 49.13 2.84

5. Conclusions
In this paper, a 3-D finite element model was first built with the OpenSees software to simulate the
behavior of SRC frame-RC core tube hybrid buildings under sudden component removal. The method
and principle for the modeling techniques and progressive analysis are described in detail. The model
also incorporates non-linear material characteristics and non-linear geometric behavior. A 1/5 scaled,
10-story 3-bay model was built for the validation of the proposed modeling method. The numerical
results are presented and compared to experimental data, a good agreement is obtained. Using the
proposed model, the progressive collapse analysis under loss of key components and seismic waves
input were conducted. The following conclusions can be drawn within the limitation of the current
study presented in this paper.
Even though the progressive collapse is a rare event when subjected to only the loss of a column
or shear wall, the possibility of progressive collapse should not be neglected. When the seismic wave
was entered into the component removed model, especially the model under the loss of shear wall
scenario, DCR of the adjacent beams significantly increased. For the SRC frame-RC core tube hybrid
structure, the possibility of progressive collapse increases with the increase of earthquake intensity,
especially under the loss of shear wall scenario.
In this paper, the portion of shear assumed by the frame in case 5 is more than double of that
in case 1 under a seismic wave. A loss of the W5 seriously weakened the carrying capacity of the
core tube. Under the same general conditions, removal of a shear wall is the most likely to cause
progressive collapse, and then next likely is removal of a corner column, and lastly removal of a side
column. In addition, removal of a shear wall without opening is more likely to cause progressive
collapse than the shear wall with opening.
When subjected to the loss of component and earthquake, the internal forces will be redistributed
between the frame and core tube and the frame is responsible for more load. The concept of multi-lines
of seismic defense is reflected in SRC frame-RC core tube hybrid buildings. The core tube plays a
role as the first line of defense against progressive collapse, the second line of collapse resistance is
provided by the frame.

Author Contributions: All authors substantially contributed to this work. W.X. and X.C. were the scientific
coordinator of the research, designed the experimental campaign and analyzed the results. Y.X. supervised all the
research and revised the results. Y.C. and X.L. contributed on the experimental tests. All authors helped with the
writing of the paper and give final approval of the version to be submitted and any revised versions.
Funding: The research presented in this paper was funded by Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province of
China (Grant No. 2016CFB604), Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51108041, 51378077), Science
Foundation of the Education Department of Hubei Province of China (Grant No. D20161305), and it is grateful for
their support.
Acknowledgments: It is very grateful for the supports from Lei Zeng.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2316 19 of 20

References
1. Zeng, L.; Parvasi, S.M.; Kong, Q.; Huo, L.; Lim, I.; Li, M.; Song, G. Bond slip detection of concrete-encased
composite structure using shear wave based active sensing approach. Smart. Mater. Struct. 2015, 24, 125026.
[CrossRef]
2. Xu, C.H.; Zeng, L.; Zhou, Q.; Tu, X.; Wu, Y. Cyclic performance of concrete-encased composite columns with
t-shaped steel sections. Int. J. Civ. Eng. 2015, 13, 456–467.
3. Xiao, Y.F.; Zeng, L.; Cui, Z.K.; Jin, S.Q.; Chen, Y.G. Experimental and analytical performance evaluation of steel
beam to concrete-encased composite column with unsymmetrical steel section joints. Steel Compos. Struct. 2017,
23, 17–29. [CrossRef]
4. Xue, J.; Lavorato, D.; Bergami, A.; Nuti, C.; Briseghella, B.; Marano, G.; Ji, T.; Vanzi, I.; Tarantino, A.;
Santini, S. Severely Damaged Reinforced Concrete Circular Columns Repaired by Turned Steel Rebar and
High-Performance Concrete Jacketing with Steel or Polymer Fibers. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1671. [CrossRef]
5. Fiore, A.; Marano, G.C.; Laucelli, D.; Monaco, P. Evolutionary modeling to evaluate the shear behavior of
circular reinforced concrete columns. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2014, 2014, 169–182. [CrossRef]
6. Zeng, L.; Xiao, Y.; Chen, Y.; Jin, S.; Xie, W.; Li, X. Seismic Damage Evaluation of Concrete-Encased Steel
Frame-Reinforced Concrete Core Tube Buildings Based on Dynamic Characteristics. Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 314.
[CrossRef]
7. Tavakoli, H.R.; Afrapoli, M.M.; Tavakoli, H.R. Robustness analysis of steel structures with various lateral
load resisting systems under the seismic progressive collapse. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2018, 83, 88–101. [CrossRef]
8. Shi, Y.C.; Li, Z.X.; Hao, H. A new method for progressive collapse analysis of RC frames under blast loading.
Eng. Struct. 2010, 32, 1691–1703. [CrossRef]
9. Kodur, V.K.; Naser, M.; Pakala, P.; Varma, A. Modeling the response of composite beam–slab assemblies
exposed to fire. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2013, 80, 163–173. [CrossRef]
10. General Services Administration. Progressive Collapse Analysis and Design Guidelines for New Federal Office
Buildings and Major Modernization Projects; General Services Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
11. Department of Defense. Unified Facilities Criteria: Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Collapse;
UFC 4-023-03; Department of Defense: Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
12. Li, H.; Cai, X.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, B.; Wang, W.; Li, H. Progressive collapse of steel moment-resisting frame
subjected to loss of interior column: Experimental tests. Eng. Struct. 2017, 150, 203–220. [CrossRef]
13. Forquin, P.; Chen, W. An experimental investigation of the progressive collapse resistance of beam-column
RC sub-assemblages. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 152, 1068–1084. [CrossRef]
14. Song, B.I.; Sezen, H. Experimental and analytical progressive collapse assessment of a steel frame building.
Eng. Struct. 2013, 56, 664–672. [CrossRef]
15. Guo, L.; Gao, S.; Fu, F.; Wang, Y. Experimental study and numerical analysis of progressive collapse resistance
of composite frames. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2013, 89, 236–251. [CrossRef]
16. Lu, X.; Lin, K.; Li, Y.; Guan, H.; Ren, P.; Zhou, Y. Experimental investigation of RC beam-slab substructures
against progressive collapse subject to an edge-column-removal scenario. Eng. Struct. 2017, 149, 91–103.
[CrossRef]
17. Wang, T.; Chen, Q.; Zhao, H.; Zhang, L. Experimental study on progressive collapse performance of frame with
specially shaped columns subjected to middle column removal. Shock Vib. 2016, 2016, 7956189. [CrossRef]
18. Cosgun, T.; Sayin, B. Damage assessment of RC flat slabs partially collapsed due to punching shear. Int. J.
Civ. Eng. 2017, 16, 725–737. [CrossRef]
19. Lima, C.; Martinelli, E.; Macorini, L.; Izzuddin, B.A. Modelling beam-to-column joints in seismic analysis of
RC frames. Earthq. Struct. 2017, 12, 119–133. [CrossRef]
20. Boonmee, C.; Rodsin, K.; Sriboonma, K. Gravity load collapse behavior of nonengineered reinforced concrete
columns. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2018, 2018, 9450978. [CrossRef]
21. Zhang, Q.; Li, Y. The performance of resistance progressive collapse analysis for high-rise frame-shear
structure based on opensees. Shock Vib. 2017, 2017, 3518232. [CrossRef]
22. Li, S.; Shan, S.; Zhai, C.; Xie, L. Experimental and numerical study on progressive collapse process of rc
frames with full-height infill walls. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2016, 59, 57–68. [CrossRef]
23. Tavakoli, H.R.; Hasani, A.H. Effect of Earthquake characteristics on seismic progressive collapse potential in
steel moment resisting frame. Earthq. Struct. 2017, 12, 529–541.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2316 20 of 20

24. Eskandari, R.; Vafaei, D.; Vafaei, J.; Shemshadian, M.E. Nonlinear static and dynamic behavior of reinforced
concrete steel-braced frames. Earthq. Struct. 2017, 12, 191–200. [CrossRef]
25. Elshaer, A.; Mostafa, H.; Salem, H. Progressive collapse assessment of multistory reinforced concrete
structures subjected to seismic actions. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2017, 21, 184–194. [CrossRef]
26. Ferraioli, M. Dynamic increase factor for nonlinear static analysis of rc frame buildings against progressive
collapse. Int. J. Civ. Eng. 2017, 1–23. [CrossRef]
27. Ellobody, E.; Young, B. Numerical simulation of concrete encased steel composite columns. J. Constr. Steel Res.
2011, 67, 211–222. [CrossRef]
28. Weng, J.; Tan, K.H.; Lee, C.K. Adaptive superelement modeling for progressive collapse analysis of reinforced
concrete frames. Eng. Struct. 2017, 151, 136–152. [CrossRef]
29. Adom-Asamoah, M.; Banahene, J.O. Nonlinear seismic analysis of a super 13-element reinforced concrete
beam-column joint model. Earthq. Struct. 2016, 11, 905–924. [CrossRef]
30. Psyrras, N.K.; Sextos, A.G. Build-x: Expert system for seismic analysis and assessment of 3d buildings using
opensees. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2018, 116, 23–35. [CrossRef]
31. Lu, X.; Xie, L.; Guan, H.; Huang, Y.; Lu, X. A shear wall element for nonlinear seismic analysis of super-tall
buildings using opensees. Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 2015, 98, 14–25. [CrossRef]
32. China Academy of Building Research. Code for Design of Steel Structure; China Architecture & Building Press:
Beijing, China, 2010.
33. China Academy of Building Research. Code for Seismic Design of Buildings; China Architecture & Building
Press: Beijing, China, 2010.
34. China Academy of Building Research. Technical Specification for Concrete Structures of Tall Building; China
Architecture & Building Press: Beijing, China, 2010.
35. China Academy of Building Research. Load Code for the Design of Building Structures; China Architecture &
Building Press: Beijing, China, 2012.
36. Luco, N.; Bazzurro, P.; Cornell, C.A. Dynamic versus static computation of the residual capacity of a
mainshock-damaged building to withstand an aftershock. In Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1–6 August 2004.
37. Li, Q.; Ellingwood, B.R. Performance evaluation and damage assessment of steel frame buildings under
main shock–aftershock earthquake sequences. Earthq. Eng. Struct. D 2010, 36, 405–427. [CrossRef]
38. Kent, D. Flexural members with confined concrete. J. Struct. Div. 1971, 97, 1969–1990.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
 © 2018. This work is licensed under
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”).
Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this
content in accordance with the terms of the License.