4.7 Article

An improved tie force method for progressive collapse resistance design of reinforced concrete frame structures

Journal

ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
Volume 33, Issue 10, Pages 2931-2942

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.06.017

Keywords

Reinforced concrete frame structures; Progressive collapse resistance; Tie force (TF) method; Improved analytical model

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation of China [90815025]
  2. Tsinghua University [2010THZ02-1]
  3. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Progressive collapse of structures refers to local damage due to occasional and abnormal loads, which in turn leads to the development of a chain reaction mechanism and progressive and catastrophic failure. The tie force (TF) method is one of the major design techniques for resisting progressive collapse, whereby a statically indeterminate structure is designed through a locally simplified determinate structure by assumed failure mode. The method is also adopted by the BS8110-1:1997, Eurocode 1, and DoD 2005. Due to the overly simplified analytical model used in the current practical codes, it is necessary to further investigate the reliability of the code predictions. In this research, a numerical study on two reinforced concrete (RC) frame structures demonstrates that the current TF method is inadequate in increasing the progressive collapse resistance. In view of this, the fundamental principles inherent in the current TF method are examined in some detail. It is found that the current method fails to consider such important factors as load redistribution in three dimensions, dynamic effect, and internal force correction. As such, an improved TF method is proposed in this study. The applicability and reliability of the proposed method is verified through numerical design examples. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available