Column Loss Analysis Procedure in S-FRAME Analysis

By

Kenneth Kutyn, B.A.Sc.

Senior Application Engineer S-FRAME Software Inc.

S-FRAME Software LLC
#282 800 Village Walk
Guildford, CT 06437
USA
+1 203-421-4800
S-FRAME Software (UK) Ltd.
4th Floor, Rex House
10 Regent Street
London, SW1Y 4RG
UK
+44 (0) 20 3287 7825
S-FRAME Software Inc.
#1150 13351 Commerce Parkway
Richmond, BC, V6V 2X7
Canada
+1 604 273 7737

Please contact S-FRAME Support for more information on this publication or to obtain
corresponding model files.
Contents
Introduction and Goals ................................................................................................................................. 3
Simplifying Assumptions ............................................................................................................................... 4
Model Geometry ........................................................................................................................................... 5
Procedure and Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 5
Step 1: Vibration Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 5
Step 2: Calculate Damping Parameters .................................................................................................... 8
Step 3: Static Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 8
Step 4: Time History Analysis .................................................................................................................... 9
Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 13
Time Response ........................................................................................................................................ 13
Floor Forces ............................................................................................................................................. 14
Column Code Check ................................................................................................................................ 15
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 15
Appendix ................................................................................................................................................... 16

List of Figures
Figure 1: 5 Story Steel and Concrete Building............................................................................................... 3
Figure 2: Location of Removed Column ........................................................................................................ 4
Figure 3: Cross Section of UKB 356x171x57 ................................................................................................. 5
Figure 4: Vibration Analysis Input Parameters ............................................................................................. 6
Figure 5: Mode Shapes 2, 3 and 4 (from left to right) .................................................................................. 7
Figure 6: Support Conditions on Joint 6 ........................................................................................................ 9
Figure 7: Time Dependent Loading Curve................................................................................................... 10
Figure 8: Time History Loading Input Parameters ...................................................................................... 11
Figure 9: Time History Response of Joint 6 ................................................................................................. 13
Figure 10: Load Case Step Filtering ............................................................................................................. 14

2014 Copyright S-FRAME Software Inc. 2/21

Introduction and Goals

This case study will demonstrate the procedure used to perform a column loss analysis on a simple 5
story concrete and steel building, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: 5 Story Steel and Concrete Building

One of the steel columns at the ground floor level will be removed from the structure over a 0.2 second
period, and the effect this has on the concrete floor and the adjacent steel column will be measured and
quantified. The removed column is shown in Figure 2. This case study will present the results of this
analysis, with the focus on the step-by-step procedure followed rather than the performance of the
structure.

A dynamic analysis will be performed using S-FRAME Analysis. The column loss will be simulated by a
time-dependent load in the place of the column which supports the floor for 4 seconds, and then is
removed linearly over 0.2 seconds.

2014 Copyright S-FRAME Software Inc. 3/21

 Figure 2: Location of Removed Column

Simplifying Assumptions

Several simplifying assumptions were made in order to demonstrate a simpler, repeatable procedure:

1. The structural model used does not represent a real-world building.

2. No rigid links were used to model the column dimensions and, as such, the slabs are supported
by a single point and may experience larger forces and moments than would be present in
reality.
3. All materials behave linearly. S-FRAME supports non-linear material models and hysteretic
behavior, but an advanced examination of yielding materials is outside the scope of this case
study.
4. The support provided by the column is removed linearly over 0.2 seconds.

2014 Copyright S-FRAME Software Inc. 4/21

Model Geometry

The structure in question is an idealized 5 storey building. Floors are represented with a mesh of 200mm
thick 2D finite element shells with concrete material properties.

The gravity system consists of 5 steel columns and 4 concrete columns. One concrete shear wall is
present, again composed of 200mm thick shell elements.

The steel columns are assigned the section properties of a UKB 356x171x57, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Cross Section of UKB 356x171x57

Boundary conditions at the base of all columns and the shear wall are fully fixed in all 6 degrees of
freedom.

Please contact S-FRAME Support for the .TEL model file.

Procedure and Analysis

Step 1: Vibration Analysis

Initially, a vibration analysis was run to determine the natural frequencies of the structure. These will be
used in the next section to determine the correct damping coefficients. The vibration analysis will
provide an insight on our structures dynamic properties and it has the additional benefit of being a

2014 Copyright S-FRAME Software Inc. 5/21

great way to verify any assumptions in the structural model and identify modelling errors. It is important
that the model used for the vibration analysis does not contain the column to be removed as we are
trying to identify the frequency of vertical vibration at this point and the column would prevent this
motion.

An Unstressed Vibration Analysis was selected with the Subspace iteration Eigenvalue Extraction
Method. As a starting point, 10 eigenvalues (or mode shapes) were requested, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Vibration Analysis Input Parameters

From the first 10 mode shapes, we want to identify those that exhibit significant vertical motion in the
region of our removed column. Figure 5 shows that mode shapes 2, 3 and 4 appear to be the primary
modes of vertical vibration near the removed column.

2014 Copyright S-FRAME Software Inc. 6/21

 Figure 5: Mode Shapes 2, 3 and 4 (from left to right)

Table 1: Natural Frequencies of 5 Story Structure

Mode Frequency
Shape (Hz)
1 0.6393
2 0.8455
3 2.1835
4 2.395
5 3.0413
6 3.4401
7 3.4877
8 3.5717
9 3.6196
10 3.6857

This means that the most relevant frequencies for our study range from 0.85 Hz to 2.40 Hz, as can be
seen in Table 1.

Note that we have chosen the relevant frequencies under the assumption that the column loss event
primarily leads to vertical motion in the floor at this location. It is possible; however, that motion may
occur in other directions and regions as well. It would be good practise to verify this assumption after
running the dynamic analysis in Step 4 and, if necessary, re-examine the vibration analysis results for any
other mode shapes that appear in the dynamic results.

2014 Copyright S-FRAME Software Inc. 7/21

Step 2: Calculate Damping Parameters

The Time History analysis direct integration method, implemented in S-FRAME, allows the damping to
be entered as a function of frequency. This damping frequency is specified via the Rayleigh Damping
Coefficients. If we know the desired damping as a percentage of critical damping, , and the frequencies
where this level of damping should occur, we can easily calculate the correct Rayleigh Damping
Coefficients, and .

i and j have been chosen as 0.01 and 0.03 respectively; these are assumed to be typical values for this
type of structure.

i = 0.01 at i = 0.85 Hz = 5.31 rad/s

j = 0.03 at j = 2.40 Hz = 15.05 rad/s

The values of and which produce the desired level of damping can be calculated from the following
equations:

Therefore:

= 0.323146

= 0.004012

Step 3: Static Analysis

A static analysis was used to determine the upwards force on the floor at the location of the removed
column. Two approaches could have been used:

1. Perform a static analysis with a column in place and note the axial force in the column
2. Perform a static analysis with no column, but a pinned support at the top of where the column
would have been and note the vertical reaction in the support

In this case study, the second option was chosen.

2014 Copyright S-FRAME Software Inc. 8/21

Frist, the column member was deleted from the model. A pinned support (Fx, Fy, Fz) was placed on
the floor joint at the top of the column as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Support Conditions on Joint 6

Next, a linear static analysis was run for the gravity loading on the structure. This yielded a vertical
reaction at the new pinned support of 658.0 kN.

After the static analysis was completed, the pinned support was no longer needed and was removed
from the model.

Step 4: Time History Analysis

The final step was to run a time history analysis, dynamically simulating the loss of a column and
enabling us to observe the structures response to this event.

Two load cases were present in the time history analysis:

1. Gravitational loading
2. Column loss loading

The gravitational loading was straightforward and applied as a gravitational acceleration based on the
mass of each element in the model. S-FRAME automates this loading when the user enters the desired
gravitational factor (in this case, -1). This is the same loading that was present in the static analysis in
Step 3. The pinned support used in the static analysis should now be removed.

The column loss loading is an upwards force on the concrete floor at the column location. After several
seconds of this force, the force will be removed over a period of 0.2 seconds (simulating a column loss
event taking place over this duration). This is displayed in Table 2 and Figure 7.

2014 Copyright S-FRAME Software Inc. 9/21

Table 2: Time Dependent Loading Definition
Figure 7: Time Dependent Loading Curve
Time (s) Force (kN)
0 657.9945
4 657.9945
4.2 0
6 0

Please contact S-FRAME Support for the .DTH time history loading file.

The force is maintained for the first 4 seconds of the analysis to give the structure a time to cease
oscillating after application of the gravity loads at time 0.

This loading was applied to the joint using the Nodal Excitation option in S-FRAMEs Time History Load
tool, shown in Figure 8.

2014 Copyright S-FRAME Software Inc. 10/21

 Figure 8: Time History Loading Input Parameters

The gravitational and time history loading were combined in a Load Combination.

As stated, a linear dynamic time history analysis was run with the following input parameters:

1. Integration Method: Variable Time Step Size. For a column loss analysis with a short duration
event, the selection of time step size is of critical importance for accurate results. Rather than
attempt multiple constant time step analyses and run a sensitivity analysis, S-FRAMEs variable
time step analysis was used. This approach ensures time step sizes are automatically adjusted as
needed throughout the analysis to determine accurate results from even short-duration events.
The variable time step analysis has the additional benefit of being computationally efficient
when compared to a constant time step size analysis.
2. Initial Time Step Size: 0.01 seconds
3. Minimum Time Step Size: 0.000001 seconds
4. Maximum Time Step Size: 0.01 seconds

2014 Copyright S-FRAME Software Inc. 11/21

 5. Critical Jerk: 0.01
6. Initial Time: 0 seconds
7. Final Time: 12 seconds
8. Output to file after: 0 time steps
9. Output to file every: 1 time step
10. Rayleigh Damping (calculated above)
a. Alpha (Mass) Damping: 0.32315
b. Beta (Stiffness) Damping: 0.00401
11. Newark Coefficients
a. Alpha: 0.25 (should be 0.25 in the presence of damping and 0.2525 when damping not
present)
b. Beta: 0.5 (should be 0.5 in the presence of damping and 0.505 when damping not
present)
12. Additional Dynamic Mass: None
13. Solve for: Load Combinations Only

Please contact S-FRAME Support for the .TEL model file and the .DTH time history loading file.

The above parameters for Initial Time Step Size, Maximum Time Step Size, and Critical Jerk, were chosen
arbitrarily. As such, it is good practice to run a sensitivity analysis on these values and test for
convergence of results.

The analysis was repeated three times and the floor force and deflection results recorded as shown in
Table 3.

Table 3: Sensitivity Analysis

Analysis 1 Analysis 2 Analysis 3

Starting Time Step Size (s) 0.1 0.01 0.001
Input

Max Time Step Size (s) 0.1 0.01 0.001

Critical Jerk 0.1 0.01 0.001
Time Steps 106 496 1553
Maximum Mx Floor Force (kN-m/m) 135.17 140.02 140.68
Results

Maximum My Floor Force (kN-m/m) 126.14 129.31 129.81

Max Deflection at Removed Column (mm) -76.1 -83.1 -83.94

This output gives a good indication that the results are sufficiently converged in Analysis 2. Analysis 3
offers only slightly more accurate results over Analysis 2, but is 313% as computationally expensive.

2014 Copyright S-FRAME Software Inc. 12/21

Results

Time Response

The most logical result to examine first is the displacement response of the joint at the top of the
column; shown in Figure 9. These results can be extracted graphically by right-clicking the joint and
choosing Response Time History or from the Joint Displacement Spreadsheet in the Numerical Results
window. Qualitatively, these results are as expected:

1. Between t=0 and t=4s the joint is relatively still at a displacement of 0. Some motion is present,
due to the gravitational loading being applied suddenly at t=0, but this has mostly died out due
to damping by t=4 and is assumed to be negligible as it is very small relative to the response due
to column removal.
2. At t=4s, the supporting force simulating a column is removed and the joint begins to fall rapidly.
The loading is now transferred through the floor into nearby columns instead. Inertia of the
falling floor leads to a maximum displacement of about 83mm before the floor rebounds
upwards, but not as far as the original, supported condition.
3. After t=4, the joint oscillates about a new equilibrium position. The amplitude of oscillations can
be seen to decay with time due to the applied damping. The joint motion appears to be
converging to approximately 58 mm below the initial location. Due to linear material behaviour,
it is expected that a static analysis of the structure without a column would yield the same
equilibrium geometry.

20
10
0
-10 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
Displacement (mm)

-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
Time (s)

Figure 9: Time History Response of Joint 6

2014 Copyright S-FRAME Software Inc. 13/21

 Floor Forces

The peak moment and shear force results from the finite element shells in the first floor were compared
just before (t=3.95 seconds) and after (4 < t < 12 seconds) the column loss event. This was done by
filtering S-FRAMEs numerical Shell Force results by load combination number in the case of this
model, 180 load combination steps were solved before t=4s, and 316 after, as shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Load Case Step Filtering

Once filtered, the maximum forces were determined using S-FRAMEs Find Max/Min Forces tool:

The results were compared before and after the column loss event in Table 3.

Table 4: Floor Force Comparison

After Removal
Max Floor Forces Shell Number Before Removal Increase (%)
Force Time
Mx (kN-m/m) 413 47.75 131.65 4.33 175.71
My (kN-m/m) 619 73.07 129.31 4.74 76.97
Mxy (kN-m/m) 619 4.59 46.56 4.33 914.38
Fxz (kN/m) 622 247.96 306.06 5.31 23.43
Fyz (kN/m) 622 -208.47 -258.05 5.31 23.78

It is clear that the loss of a column caused the concrete floor to experience a dramatic increase in the
moment and shear forces present.

2014 Copyright S-FRAME Software Inc. 14/21

Column Code Check

Column loss events are potentially catastrophic when they lead to a progressive collapse mechanism. As
a result, it would be prudent to test the adjacent steel column for code compliance before and after the
loss event.

The structural model and results of the time history analysis were processed using S-FRAMEs built-in
steel design tool, S-STEEL. Two separate code-checks were run on the adjacent column: one at time 3.98
seconds (before the column loss) and one for time 4.0 to 12.0 seconds (after the column loss). The
adjacent column was tested for performance using EN 1993 (Eurocode 3): Design of Steel Structures one
of the codes natively supported by S-STEEL.

Table 5: Adjacent Column Check to EC3

Before Removal After Removal

Biaxial Bending and Axial Force Biaxial Bending and Axial Force
Governing Code Check Stability Interaction Stability Interaction
Utilization
0.835 2.12
(demand/capacity)
Time of Occurrence
3.98 4.38
(seconds)

This code-check indicates that the adjacent column has sufficient capacity under the static gravity
loading, but that the column loss event causes the demand to increase to more than double that of the
column capacity. This is presented in Table 5. Therefore, the column is likely to fail and a progressive
collapse is possible.

Conclusions

This case study has demonstrated the procedure of conducting a dynamic analysis on a structure to
evaluate its performance in a column loss scenario using a simple model and a corresponding simplified
procedure. In this case, the effect was measured in the floor forces and the steel column code
compliance, but a similar procedure could be used with other metrics, such as foundation loads, floor
rebar requirements, or displacement limits.

In this model, the column loss event led to a 23% to 915% increase in floor forces and moments, and a
154% increase in the demands and utilizations of the adjacent steel column in the governing code check.

Making use of a dynamic column loss analysis in S-FRAME enables the structural engineer to test the
robustness of the structure, evaluate performance under irregular or complex loading, estimate the risk
of catastrophic failure, and ultimately have increased confidence in their designs.

2014 Copyright S-FRAME Software Inc. 15/21

Appendix

Appendix A: Adjacent Column Check Before Removal

Appendix B: Adjacent Column Check After Removal

Appendix C: Column Loss Results Summary

2014 Copyright S-FRAME Software Inc. 16/21

Appendex A: Adjacent Column Check before Removal

Company2 Key Code Check Results

Project: Project 4703B
, Structure: Machine Room
Filename: C:\Users\Kenneth\Desktop\COLUMN LOSS\TH2\4 STOREY BUILDING - COLUMN.TEL
Engineer: George Casoli Page: 1
Date:25/08/2014

1. Summary of Governing Selected Members for Each Group

Member Group Steel Governing Governing Pass/Fail
Ratio
No. Name Section Load Case/Comb Clause Status
6 SECTION 1 356 171 57 UKB Comb 178, comb1,step=178,time=3.97966058 Beam-column stability 0.835 Pass

2. Code Details For Governing Members for Each Group

356 171 57 UKB
Member: 6 S-FRAME Section is 356 171 57 UKB z

Member is part of group: SECTION 1 13.0

Note: Neglecting: axial<1.0 kN, shear<1.0 kN, moment<1.0 kNm 358 y

8.100
Load Combination 178 comb1,step=178,time=3.97966058 (Bending + Compression)
172
2
fy=275 N/mm ; M0=1.00; M1=1.00; M2=1.0 Section Class = 3 Clause 5.5.2
Governing geometrical slenderness ratio
kz L/iz 38
ky=0.50; kz=0.50; kyL/iy=10.1; = = 0.213
180 180
Axial Load - (kN)

0.00 3.00 ( m)
-1374.0
Compression Check (flexural buckling) Clause 6.3.1
NEd NEd 1374
= = = 0.758
Nb,z,Rd zaAfy/M1 1814
Strong Axis Shear - (kN)

0.00 3.00 ( m)
-1.5
Strong axis shear strength check Clause 6.2.6(1)
2 Vz,Ed Vz,Ed 2
Av= 3149.0 mm ; = = = 0.003
Vc,z,Rd Av(fy/(3)1/2)/Mo 500
Weak Axis Shear - (kN)

0.00 3.00 ( m)
-1.2
Weak axis shear strength check Clause 6.2.6(1)
2 Vy,Ed Vy,Ed 1
Av= 4477.2 mm ; = = = 0.002
Vc,y,Rd Av(fy/(3)1/2)/Mo 711
Strong Axis Moment - (kN-m)
3.2

0.00 2.11 3.00 ( m)

-1.3
Strong axis moment resistance of cross-section Clause 6.2.5(1)
My,Ed My,Ed 3
= = = 0.013
Mc,y,Rd Wel,y fy/ M0 246

Design Code: EC3 2005 UK Annex

Steel Table : British S-STEEL
Analysis Program: S-FRAME (Linear Base Motion Time History analysis) Version 11.1.8
Copyright 1995-2014, S-FRAME Software Inc.
2014 Copyright S-FRAME Software Inc. 17/21
 Company2 Key Code Check Results
Project: Project 4703B
, Structure: Machine Room
Filename: C:\Users\Kenneth\Desktop\COLUMN LOSS\TH2\4 STOREY BUILDING - COLUMN.TEL
Engineer: George Casoli Page: 2
Date:25/08/2014

Lateral-torsional buckling resistance moment check Clause 6.3.2

My,Ed My,Ed 3
kL=2.11 m; C1=1.000; C2=1.000; = = = 0.015
Mb,Rd LtWel,yfy/M1 217
Weak Axis Moment - (kN-m)
1.8
0.00 1.46 3.00 ( m)
-1.9
Weak axis moment resistance of cross-section Clause 6.2.5(1)
Mz,Ed Mz,Ed 2
= = = 0.053
Mc,z,Rd Wel,z fy/ M0 35
Biaxial Bending and Axial Force Strength Interaction Clause 6.2.9.2(1)
NEd My,Ed Mz,Ed 1374 3 2
+ + = + + = 0.754
Afy/M0 Wel,yfy/M0 Wel,zfy/M0 1995 246 35
Biaxial Bending and Axial Force Stability Interaction Clause 6.3.3(4) Eqn 6.62
NEd kzy My,Ed k M 1374 3 2
+ + zz z,Ed = + + = 0.835
zAfy/M1 LT Wel,yfy/M1 Wel,zfy/M1 1814 217 35

3. Summary of Governing Load Cases for Each Selected Member

Member Group Steel Governing Governing Pass/Fail
Ratio
No. Name Section Load Case/Comb Clause Status
6 SECTION 1 356 171 57 UKB Comb 178, comb1,step=178,time=3.97966058 Beam-column stability 0.835 Pass

Design Code: EC3 2005 UK Annex

Steel Table : British S-STEEL
Analysis Program: S-FRAME (Linear Base Motion Time History analysis) Version 11.1.8
Copyright 1995-2014, S-FRAME Software Inc.
2014 Copyright S-FRAME Software Inc. 18/21
Appendex B: Adjacent Column Check - After Removal

Company2 Key Code Check Results

Project: Project 4703B
, Structure: Machine Room
Filename: C:\Users\Kenneth\Desktop\COLUMN LOSS\TH2\4 STOREY BUILDING - COLUMN.TEL
Engineer: George Casoli Page: 1
Date:25/08/2014

1. Summary of Governing Selected Members for Each Group

Member Group Steel Governing Governing Pass/Fail
Ratio
No. Name Section Load Case/Comb Clause Status
6 SECTION 1 356 171 57 UKB Comb 193, comb1,step=193,time=4.38262658 Beam-column stability 2.12 Fail

2. Code Details For Governing Members for Each Group

356 171 57 UKB
Member: 6 S-FRAME Section is 356 171 57 UKB z

Member is part of group: SECTION 1 13.0

Note: Neglecting: axial<1.0 kN, shear<1.0 kN, moment<1.0 kNm 358 y

8.100
Load Combination 193 comb1,step=193,time=4.38262658 (Bending + Compression)
172
2
fy=275 N/mm ; M0=1.00; M1=1.00; M2=1.0 Section Class = 4 Clause 5.5.2
Governing geometrical slenderness ratio
kz L/iz 38
ky=0.50; kz=0.50; kyL/iy=10.1; = = 0.213
180 180
Axial Load - (kN)

0.00 3.00 ( m)
-2510.4
Compression Check (flexural buckling) Clause 6.3.1
NEd NEd 2510 > 1.00; FAIL
= = = 1.387
Nb,z,Rd zaAfy/M1 1810
Strong Axis Shear - (kN)
14.4
0.00 3.00 ( m)

Strong axis shear strength check Clause 6.2.6(1)

2 Vz,Ed Vz,Ed 14
Av= 3149.0 mm ; = = = 0.029
Vc,z,Rd Av(fy/(3)1/2)/Mo 500
Weak Axis Shear - (kN)
7.5
0.00 3.00 ( m)

Weak axis shear strength check Clause 6.2.6(1)

2 Vy,Ed Vy,Ed 7
Av= 4477.2 mm ; = = = 0.011
Vc,y,Rd Av(fy/(3)1/2)/Mo 711
Strong Axis Moment - (kN-m)
29.8

0.00 0.92 3.00 ( m)

-13.3
Strong axis moment resistance of cross-section Clause 6.2.5(1)
My,Ed My,Ed 30
= = = 0.121
Mc,y,Rd Wel,eff,y fy/ M1 247

Design Code: EC3 2005 UK Annex

Steel Table : British S-STEEL
Analysis Program: S-FRAME (Linear Base Motion Time History analysis) Version 11.1.8
Copyright 1995-2014, S-FRAME Software Inc.
2014 Copyright S-FRAME Software Inc. 19/21
 Company2 Key Code Check Results
Project: Project 4703B
, Structure: Machine Room
Filename: C:\Users\Kenneth\Desktop\COLUMN LOSS\TH2\4 STOREY BUILDING - COLUMN.TEL
Engineer: George Casoli Page: 2
Date:25/08/2014

Lateral-torsional buckling resistance moment check Clause 6.3.2

My,Ed My,Ed 30
kL=2.08 m; C1=1.000; C2=1.000; = = = 0.137
Mb,Rd LtWel,eff,yfy/M1 218
Weak Axis Moment - (kN-m)
15.6

0.00 0.92 3.00 ( m)

-6.9
Weak axis moment resistance of cross-section Clause 6.2.5(1)
Mz,Ed Mz,Ed 16
= = = 0.439
Mc,z,Rd Wel,eff,z fy/ M1 35
Bending and Axial Force Strength Interaction Clause 6.2.9.3(2)
NEd M + NEd eNy Mz,Ed + NEd eNz 2510 30 16 > 1.00; FAIL
+ y,Ed + = + + = 1.823
Aefffy/M0 Weff,y,minfy/M0 Weff,z,minfy/M0 1991 247 35
Biaxial Bending and Axial Force Stability Interaction Clause 6.3.3(4) Eqn 6.62
NEd k (M +N e ) k (M +N e ) 2510 29 21 > 1.00; FAIL
+ zy y,Ed Ed Ny + zz z,Ed Ed Nz = + + = 2.120
zAefffy/M1 LT Weff,y,minfy/M1 Weff,z,minfy/M1 1810 218 35

3. Summary of Governing Load Cases for Each Selected Member

Member Group Steel Governing Governing Pass/Fail
Ratio
No. Name Section Load Case/Comb Clause Status
6 SECTION 1 356 171 57 UKB Comb 193, comb1,step=193,time=4.38262658 Beam-column stability 2.12 Fail

Design Code: EC3 2005 UK Annex

Steel Table : British S-STEEL
Analysis Program: S-FRAME (Linear Base Motion Time History analysis) Version 11.1.8
Copyright 1995-2014, S-FRAME Software Inc.
2014 Copyright S-FRAME Software Inc. 20/21
 Appendex C: Column Loss Results Summary

Column Loss Results Summary

Comparison of Maximum Floor Forces Before and After Removal

AfterRemoval
MaxFloorForces ShellNumber BeforeRemoval Increase(%)
Force Time
Mx(kNm/m) 413 47.75 131.65 4.33 175.71
My(kNm/m) 619 73.07 129.31 4.74 76.97
Mxy(kNm/m) 619 4.59 46.56 4.33 914.38
Fxz(kN/m) 622 247.96 306.06 5.31 23.43
Fyz(kN/m) 622 208.47 258.05 5.31 23.78

Adjacent Column Check

AdjacentColumnCheck(EC3) BeforeRemoval AfterRemoval
BiaxialBendingandAxialForce BiaxialBendingandAxialForceStability
CodeCheck
StabilityInteraction Interaction
Utilization(demand/capacity) 0.835 2.12
Time(seconds) 3.98 4.38

TopofColumnJoint(#6) Time History Response

20
10
0
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
10
Displacement(mm)

20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Time(s)

Conclusions:
1. Columnremovalleadstoa23915%increaseinslabdemands
2. Columnremovalleadstoexpectedfailureinadjacentcolumn(utilization=2.12)

Limitations:
1. Columnlossassumedtohappenover0.2seconds
2. Slabforcesmaybesmallerthanreportedassupportingcolumndimensionswerenotconsidered.
3. Asmallamountofmotionwasalreadypresentinthestructureatthetimethecolumnwasremoved.Thisisduetotheplacementofthe
gravityloadingattime=0
4. Linearmaterialbehaviourassumed

2014 Copyright S-FRAME Software Inc. 21/21