KJBCXKNB ZB

SCHOOL OF Civil and Environmental Engineering
Structural Comparison of Flat slab with Band beam flooring for

multi-storeyed commercial building subjected to progressive collapse.
Rajratna T. Jagadale
Student ID: z5219687
Thesis submitted as a requirement for the degree Master of

Engineering (Structural Engineering)
University of New South Wales, Sydney.
April 2020.
Originality Statement
‘I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it
contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial
proportions of material which have been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma
at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in
the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at
UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual
content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from
others in the project’s design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression
is acknowledged.’
April 24, 202
Authenticity Statement
‘I certify that the Library deposit digital copy is a direct equivalent of the final officially
approved version of my thesis. No emendation of content has occurred and if there are any
minor variations in formatting, they are the result of the conversion to digital format.’
April 24, 2020
2
Acknowledgements
This work has been inspired by the labours of numerous academics in the Faculty of
Engineering at UNSW as of my very own supervisor Dr. Hamid Valipour, who have
endeavoured, over the years, to encourage students to present beautiful concepts using beautiful
typography.
Further inspiration comes from my external supervisor for the project who happens to be the
senior structural advisor of NSW govt. sector for public works. It would have never been
possible to produce the satisfactory results without his guidance and insights.
3
Abstract
Investigations surrounding the progressive collapses have been gathering attention over the
past five to six decade and although substantial studies have been made in the area, there is a
lot that can be desired. For instance, till late 2000s static analysis were considered to be
sufficient enough when analyzing a structure. However, the disproportionate collapse in
questions is a very dynamic event and has inertial effect. So, it is very unlikely that the same
results can be produced in a static analysis and thus needs a dynamic approach. So, to say that
substantial leaps have been made in the area would be a great overstatement. It has only been
in the past 5-6 years that the researchers have gathered impactful information and although the
phenomenon of progressive collapse is evident in present, efforts can be made so as to mitigate
the effects to as minimal as possible.
The objective of this study is to carry out the comparison between the two solutions to the
problems that are mentioned above. These are namely, the Flat Slab and Band Beam systems.
Over the years, a good amount of research has been carried out on both the systems
individually. It has been suggested that with proper detailing of both the systems, the structure
sustain the sudden and abnormal impact. The reason for specifically choosing the flat slab and
band beam systems for comparison is because of their efficacy and simplicity in construction.
Simplicity in construction also means that these systems are very economical and having spread
widely. Hence, there is a sense of need and urgency in carrying out such a study.
The study involves designing of both the system and analyzing the same in Etabs (ETABS,
2017). The responses of the both the system under the same loading and boundary conditions
is to be recorded. Along with that this project also aims to illustrate the differences between
the static and dynamic analysis result. The study shows us which system is viable and most
effective under different circumstances.
4
Table of Contents
Abstract............................................................................................................................................. 4
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 8
1.1. Background........................................................................................................................ 8
1.2. Aim and Scope of Study................................................................................................... 12
2. Literature Review .................................................................................................................... 14
3. Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 19
3.1. Experimental plan ............................................................................................................ 19
3.2. Flooring system and building types .................................................................................. 19
3.3. Modelling ........................................................................................................................ 28
3.3.1. Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 36
3.3.2. Band beam analysis .................................................................................................. 37
3.3.3. Flat slab analysis ...................................................................................................... 39
3.3.4. Spandrel beam analysis............................................................................................. 46
3.4. Design –........................................................................................................................... 49
3.4.1. Band beam design .................................................................................................... 49
3.4.2. Flat slab design......................................................................................................... 50
3.4.3. Spandrel Beam Design ............................................................................................. 51
3.4.4. Column design ......................................................................................................... 53
3.5. Progressive Collapse Analysis .......................................................................................... 54
3.5.1. Approach.................................................................................................................. 54
Scenario BB5A ........................................................................................................................ 59
Scenario BB5B ........................................................................................................................ 61
Scenario BB5C ........................................................................................................................ 62
Scenario BB7A ........................................................................................................................ 64
Scenario BB7B ........................................................................................................................ 65
Scenario BB7C ........................................................................................................................ 67
Scenario BB10A ...................................................................................................................... 68
Scenario BB10B ...................................................................................................................... 70
Scenario BB10C ...................................................................................................................... 72
Scenario FS5A......................................................................................................................... 73
Scenario FS5B ......................................................................................................................... 75
Scenario FS5C ......................................................................................................................... 76
Scenario FS7A......................................................................................................................... 78
Scenario FS7B ......................................................................................................................... 79
Scenario FS7C ......................................................................................................................... 81
Scenario FS10A ....................................................................................................................... 82
Scenario FS10C ....................................................................................................................... 85
References....................................................................................................................................... 87
5
List of Figures
Figure 1: Stats showing the increase in high rise building (CityLab, 2016) ............................ 8
Figure 2: Explosion point in Ronan Apartments in London (Designing Buildings, 2019) ...... 9
Figure 3: Khobar Tower ruins in Saudi Arabia (Wikipedia, 1996) ....................................... 10
Figure 4: Ruins of Torre Higgins building after collapse occurring on 8th and 9th floor
(Bishop, 2011) .................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 5: A typical flat slab with drop panels and column head (Civil Today, 2018)............ 12
Figure 6: Experimental setup showing a moving column for dynamic removal (J.M. Russell,
Experimental Investigations on the dynamic response of RC flat slab after a sudden column
loss, 2015)........................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 7: View showing the important column positions that were removed for dynamic
testing (J.M. Russell, Nonlinear Behaviour of reinforced concrete flat slabs after column loss,
2018) .................................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 8: Experimental setup and spring arrangement for spring connection modelling
experiment (Preliminary Collapse Simulation of a Reinforced Concrete Flat Plate, 2014) ... 17
Figure 9: Floor plan for band beam flooring system ............................................................ 20
Figure 10: Floor plan for flat slab flooring system ............................................................... 21
Figure 11: 3D model of 5-storey building with band beam flooring system ......................... 22
Figure 12: 3D model of 5-storey building with flat slab flooring system .............................. 22
Figure 13: 3D model of 7-storey building with band beam flooring system ......................... 23
Figure 14: 3D model of 7-storey building with flat slab flooring system .............................. 23
Figure 15: 3D model of 10-storey building with band beam flooring system ....................... 24
Figure 16: 3D model of 10-storey building with flat slab flooring system ............................ 24
Figure 17: Long side elevation view of 5-storey building .................................................... 25
Figure 18: Short side elevation view of 5-storey building .................................................... 25
Figure 19: Long side elevation view of 7-storey building .................................................... 26
Figure 20: Short side elevation of 7-storey building............................................................. 26
Figure 21: Long side elevation of 10-storey building ........................................................... 27
Figure 22: Short side elevation of 10-storey building........................................................... 27
Figure 23: Grid definition options in ETABS ...................................................................... 28
Figure 24: Story definition options on ETABS software ...................................................... 29
Figure 25: Material definition option on ETABS software ................................................... 29
Figure 26: Frame section definition for band beam .............................................................. 30
Figure 27: Stiffness modification options on ETABS software ............................................ 30
Figure 28 : Reinforcement bar definition options on ETABS software................................. 31
Figure 29 : External column definition on ETABS software ................................................ 31
Figure 30 Internal column definition option on ETABS software ....................................... 32
Figure 31 : Slab property definition options on ETABS software ........................................ 32
Figure 32 Spandrel beam definition on ETABS software ..................................................... 33
Figure 33 Load defining provision on ETABS..................................................................... 34
Figure 34 Assigning dead load in ETABS ........................................................................... 34
Figure 35 Defining load combination on ETABS software .................................................. 35
Figure 36 Meshing options on ETABS software .................................................................. 36
Figure 37 Band beam - 1 in X direction ............................................................................... 37
Figure 38 Design moments .................................................................................................. 38
Figure 39 Design strips - Long span direction...................................................................... 40
6
Figure 40 Design moment factor table ................................................................................. 43
Figure 41 Distribution factors for column strip .................................................................... 44
Figure 42 Design strips in short span direction .................................................................... 44
Figure 43 Spandrel beam design moments in short span direction ....................................... 47
Figure 44 Spandrel beam shape moments in short span direction ......................................... 48
Figure 45 Reinforced concrete design handbook 2001 (Australia, 2009).............................. 53
Figure 46 GSA load combination ........................................................................................ 54
Figure 47 Corner column removed in Band beam structure ................................................. 55
Figure 48: Interior column removed in Band beam structure ............................................... 56
Figure 49: Edge column removed in Band beam structure ................................................... 56
Figure 50 Interior column removed in Flat Slab structure .................................................... 57
Figure 51 Edge column removed in Flat Slab structure ........................................................ 57
Figure 52 Edge column removed in Flat Slab structure ........................................................ 58
Figure 53 DCR scenario BB5A ........................................................................................... 60
Figure 54 DCR Scenario BB5B ........................................................................................... 62
Figure 55 DCR Scenario BB5C ........................................................................................... 63
Figure 56 DCR Scenario BB7B ........................................................................................... 66
Figure 57 DCR Scenario BB7C ........................................................................................... 68
Figure 58 DCR Scenario BB10A ......................................................................................... 69
Figure 59 DCR Scenario BB10B ......................................................................................... 71
Figure 60 DCR Scenario BB10C ......................................................................................... 73
Figure 61 DCR Scenario FS5A ........................................................................................... 74
Figure 62 DCR Scenario FS5B............................................................................................ 76
Figure 63 DCR Scenario FS5C............................................................................................ 77
Figure 64 DCR Scenario FS7A ........................................................................................... 79
Figure 65 DCR Scenario FS7B........................................................................................... 80
Figure 66 DCR Scenario FS7C............................................................................................ 82
Figure 67 DCR Scenario FS10A ......................................................................................... 83
Figure 68 DCR Scenario FS10B.......................................................................................... 85
Figure 69 DCR Scenario FS10C.......................................................................................... 86
7
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
Progressive collapse has been a hot topic of research for the structural engineers / researchers
all over the world especially in the last two decades where erecting high-rise building have
significantly spiked all over the world.
Figure 1: Stats showing the increase in high rise building (CityLab, 2016)
Interestingly enough, the moment when structural engineers realized this phenomenon and
acknowledged the fact that deeper, more comprehensive studies has to be carried out
surrounding this phenomenon is when a 22- storey residential building collapsed in London in
late 1960s. The collapse was caused by an gas explosion which took out the corner slab at the
higher floor (18th Floor) which in turn caused all the corner slabs to collapse just like a domino
effect.
8
Figure 2: Explosion point in Ronan Apartments in London (Designing Buildings, 2019)
A similar failure occurred when a truck exploded leading to the collapse of the three main
supporting pillars of the Alfred P. Murrah Building in 1995 that resulted in collapse of more
than half of front section of the building.
There have been many instances in the past wherein buildings have collapsed because of such
design errors and failure to consider loads that the structure was intended to sustain. One such
example is the Khobar Towers. The Military complex was attacked in Saudi Arabia by
terrorists. The `shows the same.
The collapse of a high-rise office building in Chile is another example of poor structural design.
The cause of the collapse was a seismic wave. The columns on the three floors from ground up
were reinforced with concrete whereas the upper three floors weren’t. This is a peculiar case
as the entire building did not face the full spread of the collapse and the structure remained
stable after failure at 8th and 9th floor. Figure 4 shows the extent of the damage of the office
building
9
Figure 3: Khobar Tower ruins in Saudi Arabia (Wikipedia, 1996)
Figure 4: Ruins of Torre Higgins building after collapse occurring on 8th and 9th floor (Bishop, 2011)
But the most devastating of all were the collapse of the World Trade Centre towers in
September 2001. These collapses had such a huge impact on not just the US but the entire
world. The cause of the collapse were the airplanes crashing into the top floors of the buildings.
10
The floors where the planes crashed could not sustain a sudden impact and hence the all the
subsequent floors came crashing down.
Progressive collapse occur when there is abnormal or sudden loading at a point in a structure.
The structure being designed for a specific threshold of load when can no longer take the load,
fails. The building codes mention progressive collapses but has little to no information about
the protocol to follow to avoid such collapses.
11
1.2. Aim and Scope of Study
While researchers all over the world have studied progressive collapse and done detailed
analysis, there is still so much left to be desired. The studies made over the years have brought
two effective ways to tackle the phenomenon of progressive collapse. Very important factors
were pointed out in the paper published by Hawkins & Mitchell in 1979 that could initiate
progressive collapse. The researchers carried out investigation around the geometry of the steel
frames, the different types of connections that were used in the steel frames, the different
mechanism that the collapse could take place in etc. They conducted a wide analysis on the
critical points and came to the conclusion that a well-designed flat slab could sustain even if
one the columns fails. The flat slab can survive by hanging from other columns.
So, a flat slab can be considered as a normal slab which has been reinforced in two ways. Flat
slabs do not have beams, instead the columns take up all the loads which is transferred to them
(Civil Today, 2018).
Figure 5: A typical flat slab with drop panels and column head (Civil Today, 2018)
The other way that would help mitigate the problems caused by progressive collapses is the
application of band beams. The band beam system consists of shallow beams that are widely
space and hold concrete slab. The flexible tubes in a band beam system provide tensile strength
and being ductile, undergo a substantial deformation before collapsing. The World Trade
Centre was a stiff structure and thus was more prone to progressive collapse. Having said this,
12
stiffness is not an undesirable property, stiffness helps to transfer the load to the columns
(David Scott, 2015).
While there are other structural configurations that obtain the same results, flat slab and band
beam slab systems have proven to be the most reliable with relative ease in construction.
Over the years, both slab systems have been studied. Static analysis of the slab system in
question was the accepted practice. Static analysis, although accurate most of the times, do not
accurately simulate the real life situations. Moreover, during the collapse there is a sudden and
abnormal increase in the load which the static analysis just cannot compute. Hence, there is a
need to carry out the dynamic analysis. So in the past decade, structural engineers have been
more focused on analyzing the structure dynamically.
The aim of this project is to draw a comparison between the flat slab and band beam systems
in regard to their responses during a progressive collapse. More specifically, in this study the
systems would be designed for same conditions of load, frame structure & boundary conditions
and their responses studied by carrying out static and dynamic analysis. Also, it is evident in
most of the cases that the progressive collapse arise from the flexural, whereas, there are cases
where the punching shear has been vital and hence that is one of the factors that this study will
take into account.
13
2. Literature Review
The issue of progressive collapse is the one which needs a meticulous attention when it comes
to designing of the structures. Be it the World Trade Centre Tower collapse in 2001 or the
Alfred P. Murrah Building collapse of 1995 after a truck explosion, the collapses can be pin
pointed to the design errors of the structure and the negligence in considering the loads that the
structure was initially designed to resist. Hence making the structures less susceptible to the
progressive collapses has been a vital design consideration.
According to ASCE 7, progressive collapse is defined as the propagation of the failure at a

particular point in the structure, which ultimately leads to the failure of the entire structure or
a significant portion of it. This is sometimes also called as the disproportionate collapse as
extent of the collapse is exponentially bigger than the agent that leads to it (Brewer Smith
Brewer Group, 2018)
Flat slabs are one alternative to tackle the problem. The increasing popularity of flat slab can
be attributed to their ease in construction and economic viability. However, amidst all the
advantages there are some crucial disadvantages as well. Flat slabs are more prone to failure
against punching shear. These failures are quite sudden and brittle in nature and occur when
subjected to abnormal loading.
Over the years, several programs and workshops have been organized by different nations
collectively to tackle the problems and iron out the kinks in this approach. Momentum
increased especially after the collapse of the Apartment Building at Ronan Point in London.
This led to inclusion of mandates and provisions regarding the phenomenon in the compliance
codes and standards by the government.
The research carried out by J.M. Russel, J.S. Owen, I. Hajirasouliha in 2015 investigates the
response of a flat slab in an abnormal situation where the structure loses a column suddenly.
The objective of the experiment was to illustrate effectiveness of the flat slab systems. This
was done by showing how the flat slabs generally redistribute the loads across all the columns
in case of failure of one. The setup was lucid and practical. The researchers modelled seven
reinforced concrete slabs and tested them by increasing the load under the static and dynamic
conditions. The dynamic conditions were replicated by sudden removal of columns. Different
iterations were performed by removing the columns under different positions. The study
concluded that although failure of the structure did not occur due to the flexural action, it was
very evident that the issue of punching failure did persist (J.M. Russell, Experimental
Investigations on the dynamic response of RC flat slab after a sudden column loss, 2015).
14
Figure 6: Experimental setup showing a moving column for dynamic removal (J.M. Russell, Experimental Investigations on
the dynamic response of RC flat slab after a sudden column loss, 2015).
The study although a thorough one did have few pitfalls. For instances, it was in the later study
carried out by the same researchers, found that the effect of the sudden column loss can create
deflections of more than 1.7 times as considered in static loading case. This factor was
presumed to be 1.5 in this particular study. Also, the effects of the high strain rates were not
considered in this study. Hence, there were some inconsistencies found in the results (J.M.
Russell, Experimental Investigations on the dynamic response of RC flat slab after a sudden
column loss, 2015).
In another paper published by the same group of researchers J.M. Russel, J.S. Owen, I.
Hajirasouliha in 2018, they carried out a finite element analysis of the model of a flat slab. This
was done to accurately obtain the data. These results were then compared with the real life
model, which they studied the effects on in 2015, and found the inaccuracies and the errors that
they committed. The correlation of dynamic amplification factor (DAF), which is the inertial
effect that is accompanied by the amplification of the forces and is experienced by the parts of
the structure, and the shear forces was previously thought to be somewhat linear, after the study
was found to be nonlinear. For instance, the DAF was 1.62, the shear forces on remaining
columns were 159% whereas it rocketed to 300% when the DAF was increased to 2. Which
showed that although the flat slab could sustain the progressive collapses, it is still prone to
shear failure (J.M. Russell, Nonlinear Behaviour of reinforced concrete flat slabs after column
loss, 2018)
15
Figure 7: View showing the important column positions that were removed for dynamic testing (J.M. Russell, Nonlinear
Behaviour of reinforced concrete flat slabs after column loss, 2018)
As an extension to their study carried out in 2015 and 2018, J.M. Russel, J.S. Owen & I.
Hajirasouliha went on to research the effects of the dynamic column loss and the response of
RC slab with different material and geometric configurations in 2019. In this paper the
researchers took to a computational approach. Numerical methods were used to validate the
experimental scaled model, similar to the one they made in 2015. In this study the researchers
covered all pitfalls that existed in their previous study. Consideration of the effect of increase
of strain rate with the increase in tensile strength of the concrete material was also done which
ultimately led to better designs (J.M. Russell, Dynamic Column Loss Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete Flat Slabs, 2019).
The other alternative to tackle the problem of progressive collapse is the band beam and slab
system. Similar to flat beams, although not as widespread, studies have been carried with the
band beam system. Band beams like flat slab are also very economical and easy to construct.
But like flat slabs, these have their own disadvantages. These systems must be inherently stiff
so that they can redistribute the load better. But in doing so, the failure becomes sudden and
brittle.
The paper published by G. Kaewkulchai & E.B. Griengsak in 2004, have formulated planar
frame on top of a beam column. The situation of progressive collapse is simulated by sudden
16
removal one of the columns and the response of the structure is analyzed. The beam was
modelled using a multilayer, lumped plastic model. The reduction in strength and stiffness is
also considered which are correlated to the amount of damage that has occurred (Griengsak,
2004)
The study states that enforcing additional degrees of freedom in the model is not required. But
the failures, being dynamic in nature, are unpredictable and therefore having to additional
degrees of freedom given to the column element might have had a better, more accurate result.
Moreover, the modification in the connecting elements is necessary as most of the failures
occur at the phase change of the structure. These modifications were not made in this study
(Griengsak, 2004).
A different approach was presented by H. Xue, H. Guan and Y. Li in their paper published in
2014 where the researchers made use of numerical approach to the spring connection modelling
when analyzing the response of a flat plate on band beam under progressive collapse. The setup
consisted of five springs that acted as connecting elements. The spring elements modelled
differently had represented the two materials i.e. steel and concrete. Two of the five springs
which where modelled explicitly acted as the steel structures and provided the flexural strength.
The other three represented the concrete part in the structure. This was an efficient model as
the springs which represented the concrete part where modelled with the properties of shear
and bending behaviors whereas the steel counterparts were modelled to illustrate the punching
failure. The reliability of the model was tested when the results derived from the model were
compared with the physical simulation. The study suggested that the two results were not far
apart (H. Xue, 2014)
Figure 8: Experimental setup and spring arrangement for spring connection modelling experiment (Preliminary Collapse
Simulation of a Reinforced Concrete Flat Plate, 2014)
17
Although the approach presented by H. Xue, H. Guan and Y. Li in their paper published in
2014 was a relatively better approximation than the previous studies, the research lacked the
correct approach. The studies were based on real life incidences in the past and thus the
researchers could only analyse the information which was available in the concerned literature.
A detailed investigation was lacking in this study. Such kind of study could identify the factors
that could mitigate/minimize the damage. Also, this helps evaluating the potential of a building
to progressive collapse.
To evaluate the building’s vulnerability to progressive collapse, there are protocols that are
devised by the U.S. General Services Administration and the same are published in the
guidelines titled, “Progressive Collapse Analysis and Design Guidelines for New Federal
Office Buildings and Major Modernization Projects (GSA (General Services Administration),
2013) & also in “Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Collapse” published by U.S. Dept of
Defense. These guidelines are specifically aimed at the design of government buildings and
has an increased factor of safety (or level of protection) than an ordinary commercial building.
The information provided by these guidelines to the building designer is vital in the regards
that it aids the concerned designer in assessing the susceptibility of the building towards
progressive collapse. So, the guidelines encompass all the factors that could result in a
building’s progressive collapse. From loading patterns to removal of columns in different
cases, the guidelines touch base on all the factors. To help the reader/designer, it also includes
the approach for analysis and evaluation methods. The results after evaluation, if found
complying to the standards, infer that building is impervious to progressive collapse. On the
contrary, if it fails the evaluation means that remedial measure must be put in place. (DoD
(Department of Defense), 2009)
The method of analysis that is recommended in the GSA guidelines is the linear static analysis
method. This method helps in the investigation of the effects of the fluctuating design
parameters on the vulnerability of a structure to progressive collapse. This mainly involves
calculating the demand to capacity ratios (DCR). The value of DCR was found to be high when
the number of floors in a building increased. Also, upon computation for the flat slabs, it was
found that the DCR were lower in general.
18
3. Methodology
3.1. Experimental plan
The aim of this project was to study the effect of fluctuations in demand to capacity ratios
(DCR) to assess the vulnerability of the structure to progressive collapse. To get a
comprehensive understanding, the fluctuations of DCR was studied for two different flooring
types for three different storied buildings. The details of the flooring types and the structure of
the building is further explained in depth in section 1.2. The investigation demands the
calculation of DCR. According to GSA guidelines, the DCR is calculated as:
𝐷𝐶𝑅 = (𝑄𝑈𝐷 /𝑄𝐶𝐸 ) (citation needed GSA guideline)
Here, 𝑄𝑈𝐷 = force acting on a given area
𝑄𝐶𝐸 = expected capacity of the element
The conditions as mentioned in the guidelines state that the structure is deemed safe if the DCR
≤ 2. This is valid for the buildings having typical configuration. For the buildings with
unconventional configurations (such as irregularities in plan, different structure combination,
bay size variation etc.), DCR ≤ 1.5 is considered safe. There are other couple of exceptions
mentioned in the guidelines. For e.g.: regarding the irregularities, the guidelines suggest that if
they are included with an engineering justification, then the condition of DCR being less than
or equal to 1.5 can be used. (GSA (General Services Administration), 2013)
3.2. Flooring system and building types
As mentioned in 1.1, the demand/capacity ratio was studied for a combination of flooring
system and building types. The flooring systems considered were:
1) Band beam structure

2) Flat slab with spandrel beam structure
These flooring systems were used because these are the most economical and hence most
widely used options.
The types of building considered were:
1) 5 storey building
19
The 5, 7, 10 storey buildings were specifically considered because these represent low,
medium, and high-rise buildings.
In all, the variation of DCR was studied for six different combination of flooring system and
building types.
Figures below the plans for two flooring systems
Figure 9: Floor plan for band beam flooring system
20
Figure 10: Floor plan for flat slab flooring system
Figures 9 and 10 illustrate typical floor plans and floor system used. It should be noted that all
the stories in each building have the same flooring system.
21
Figure 11: 3D model of 5-storey building with band beam flooring system
Figure 12: 3D model of 5-storey building with flat slab flooring system
22
23
24
Figures 17 to 22 illustrate the elevation views of the building.
Figure 17: Long side elevation view of 5-storey building
Figure 18: Short side elevation view of 5-storey building
25
Figure 19: Long side elevation view of 7-storey building
Figure 20: Short side elevation of 7-storey building
26
Figure 21: Long side elevation of 10-storey building
Figure 22: Short side elevation of 10-storey building
27
Each building was analysed for different scenarios of column removal thus reconstructing the
incident of severe damage or failure of column. As mentioned previously, the total number of
six different combinations of flooring system and types of buildings were analysed but since
there were four different cases of column removal for each combination, the total number of
analyses were 24.
3.3. Modelling
The structure was modelled in accordance with the AS-3600 2018 codes (Australia., 2018).
The same codes were referred while designing and analysis of the model.
The first step was to generate the grid system. The following figure shows the spacing between
the grids. Cartesian coordinate system was used to define the grid for this model as it is most
practical and easy to understand.
Figure 23: Grid definition options in ETABS
28
Figure 24: Story definition options on ETABS software
Figure 25: Material definition option on ETABS software
29
Figure 26: Frame section definition for band beam
Figure 27: Stiffness modification options on ETABS software
30
Figure 28 : Reinforcement bar definition options on ETABS software (AS4100, 1998)
Figure 29 : External column definition on ETABS software
31
Figure 30 Internal column definition option on ETABS software
Figure 31 : Slab property definition options on ETABS software
32
Figure 32 Spandrel beam definition on ETABS software
The loading on the structure that was analysed is as follow:

1) Self-weight: This loading parameter was computed by software itself. The software
allows for material input and each material has its own specific density.
2) Live load: These loads were put in as mentioned in the Australian standards.
3) Dead load: The additional mass effect considered by the software comprises of dead
load which acts uniformly in a distributed manner.
4) Reduction factor: This factor is also automatically computed by the software.
All the loads that are automatically computed/generated by the software are in accordance with
the Australian Standards (Australia., 2018).
33
Figure 33 Load defining provision on ETABS
Figure 34 Assigning dead load in ETABS
Figure 27: Assigning live load in ETABS
34
Figure 35 Defining load combination on ETABS software
35
3.3.1. Analysis
Considering the forces acting on the structure, the dimensions of the columns were taken as:
Interior columns: 600 mm x 600 mm

Exterior columns: 750 mm x 450 mm
These column dimensions were constant for both the systems. The dimension for band beam
were taken as 2400 mm x 450 mm and the thickness of the flat slab was taken as 300 mm. Both
the band beam and flat slab were designed according to the AS 3600-2018 code. A detailed
procedure of the design has been mentioned in the following sections.
For modelling and analysis of the structure, ETABS computer software was used. The structure
modelled on ETABS was lucid which incorporated slabs that were column supported. Certain
assumptions were taken into consideration, for e.g.: to neglect the deformations arising from
the shearing action in transverse direction, slabs were designed as thin plates.
The next parameter that had to be decided upon before conducting the modelling, was the mesh
size for slabs. From experience and due to limitation on the computation power of the hardware,
it was decided that it would be best to leave the mesh size on the software itself. ETABS has a
provision for the same, known as “auto cookie cut”, where the software detects the crucial
loading surfaces and adjusts the mesh size accordingly to provide the optimum result.
Figure 36 Meshing options on ETABS software
36
The analysis carried out on the structure was linear elastic analysis and upon referring the AS
3600-2018, the load combinations that decided were:
• 1.35 (dead load)

• 1.5 (live load) + 1.20 (dead load)
3.3.2. Band beam analysis
Considering the loading conditions, the dimension of band beam was taken as: Width = 2400
mm; Depth = 450.
To get comprehensive results, the analysis was carried out for the above mentioned live and
dead loads acting on the frame (beams and columns) of the structure. Special attention was
given to material selection was ensured that it remains uniform throughout the model. The
dimensions of the band beam and columns were taken and are presented in the following
section. These dimensions were taken according to the current day design practices.
The reinforcement used in the analysis was a standard grade reinforcement with the yield
strength of 𝑓𝑦 = 500 MPa. Similarly, the compressive strength of concrete was taken as 𝑓′𝑐 =
40 MPa. Other loads that were considered are as follows:
Unfactored design load for Dead Load was 𝐷𝐿 = 1.5 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2; 𝐿𝐿 = 3 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 for live load.
A base story height of 4.5 m was used and the height for all other story was used as 3.5 m
3.3.2.1. Load Calculations
Figure 37 Band beam - 1 in X direction
𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ (𝑙𝑛) 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑒𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑠 = 7100 − (450 + 600/2) = 6575 𝑚𝑚
𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ (𝑙𝑛) 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑒𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑠 = 7100 − (600 + 600/2) = 6500 𝑚𝑚
𝐶𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑚 1 & 2 = 7200 𝑚𝑚
37
𝑆𝑒𝑙𝑓 − 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 = [(240 ∗ 200) + (7200 ∗ 200)] ∗ 25 ∗ 10−6 = 52 𝑘𝑁/𝑚
𝑆𝑢𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 = 1.5 ∗ 7200 ∗ 10−3 = 11.1 𝑘𝑁/𝑚
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 (𝐺) = 63.1 𝐾𝑁/𝑚
𝐿𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 (𝑄) = 3 ∗ 7400 ∗ 10−3 = 22.2 𝐾𝑁/𝑚
𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, 1.2𝐺 + 1.5𝑄
𝐹𝑑 = [(1.2 ∗ 63.1) + (1.5 ∗ 22.2)] = 109.02 𝐾𝑁/𝑚
3.3.2.2. Design moments – For 1st beam in short direction
Negative design moments (Cl 6.10.2.2 AS 3600-2018)
𝑙𝑛2 65752
𝐴𝑡 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑟 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 = 𝐹𝑑 ∗ = 109.02 ∗ = 294.56 𝑘𝑁𝑚
16 16
𝑙𝑛2
𝐴𝑡 𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑠𝑡 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑟𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 = 𝐹𝑑 ∗ = 109.02 ∗ 65752/16 = 471.30 𝑘𝑁𝑚
10
𝑙𝑛2
𝐴𝑡 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 = 𝐹𝑑 ∗ = 109.02 ∗ 65002/16 = 418.74 𝑘𝑁𝑚
11
Positive design moments (Cl 6.10.2.3 AS 3600-2018)
𝑙𝑛2 65752
𝐴𝑡 𝑒𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑛 = 𝐹𝑑 ∗ = 109.02 ∗ = 428.45 𝑘𝑁𝑚
11 16
𝑙𝑛2
𝐴𝑡 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑛 = 𝐹𝑑 ∗ = 109.02 ∗ 65002 /16 = 287.77 𝑘𝑁𝑚
16
Figure 38 Design moments
38
3.3.3. Flat slab analysis
3.5.2.1 Long span direction
Using deemed to comply method for calculating the thickness of slab, the thickness was
calculated as 300 mm across all floors.
To get comprehensive results, the analysis was carried out for the above mentioned live and
dead loads acting on the frame (beams and columns) of the structure. Special attention was
given to material selection was ensured that it remains uniform throughout the model. The
dimensions of the band beam and columns were taken and are presented in the following
section. These dimensions were taken according to the current day design practices.
The reinforcement used in the analysis was a standard grade reinforcement with the yield
strength of 𝑓𝑦 = 500 MPa. Similarly, the compressive strength of concrete was taken as 𝑓′𝑐 =
40 MPa. Other loads that were considered are as follows:
Unfactored design load for Dead Load was 𝐷𝐿 = 1.5 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2; 𝐿𝐿 = 3 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 for live load.
A base story height of 4.5 m was used and the height for all other story was used as 3.5 m
Direct design strip method was used for slab analysis
• Static design moments were calculated
• Design bending moments were calculated using the design factors given in tables
6.10.4.3 (A) for end span and 6.10.4.3 (B) for interior span from AS3600-2108.
• The bending moments are now distributed to the column strip and middle strips using
factors from table 6.9.5.3 AS3600-2018.
39
Figure 39 Design strips - Long span direction
40
Slab Thickness
𝐿𝑛𝑦 = 7000 𝑚𝑚
𝐿𝑛𝑦 /24 = 7000/24 = 291.67 = 290 𝑚𝑚 = 0.29 (Table C-4 RCD, Foster)
𝐹𝑑, 𝑒𝑓 = (1.0 + 𝑘𝑐𝑠)𝑔 + (𝛹𝑠 + 𝑘𝑐𝑠 ∗ 𝛹𝑙 ) ∗ 𝑞 (Cl 9.3.4 AS3600)
Ignoring effect of compressive reinforcement
𝐾𝑐𝑠 = 2.0 (Cl 8.5.3.2 AS3600)
𝛹𝑠 = 0.5
𝛹𝑠 = 0.3
𝑆𝑒𝑙𝑓 − 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 = 𝛾 ∗ 𝐷𝑠 = 0.29 ∗ 25 = 7.25 𝑘𝑃𝑎
𝐷𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 = 1.50 𝑘𝑃𝑎
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 (𝑔) = 8.75 𝑘𝑃𝑎
𝐿𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 (𝑞) = 3.0 𝑘𝑃𝑎
𝐹𝑑, 𝑒𝑓 = 29.55 𝑘𝑃𝑎
Deemed to comply span-to-depth ratio for reinforced slabs -
(Cl 9.4.4 AS3600)
𝑘3 = 0.95(𝐹𝑙𝑎𝑡 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒)
𝑘4 = 1.75(𝐸𝑛𝑑 𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑛
𝐸𝑐 = 30100.00𝑀𝑝𝑎
𝐿𝑒𝑓 = 7000 𝑚𝑚
𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝐻𝑆 = 26.55
𝑑 = 263.62 𝑚𝑚
𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑁12 𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑠 & 30 𝑚𝑚 𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟
𝐷𝑠 = 263.62 + 30 + 6 = 305.62𝑚𝑚
𝑫𝒔 = 𝟑𝟎𝟎 𝒎𝒎
Design Loading
𝑆𝑒𝑙𝑓 − 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 = 𝛾 ∗ 𝐷𝑠 = 25 ∗ 0.300 = 7.5𝑘𝑃𝑎
𝐷𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝐺 = 1.5 𝑘𝑃𝑎
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 = 9 𝑘𝑃𝑎
𝐿𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑄 = 3 𝑘𝑃𝑎
𝑊𝑢 = 1.2𝐺 + 1.5𝑄 = (1.2 ∗ 9 + 1.5 ∗ 3) = 15.30 𝑘𝑃𝑎
41
Design static moments
(CL 6.10.4.2 AS3600 – 2018)

𝐹𝑑 = 𝑊𝑢 = 15.30 𝑘𝑃𝑎
𝐿𝑡 = 𝑊𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑟 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝
𝐿1 + 𝐿2 7.1+7.1
𝐿𝑡 = = = 7.1 𝑚 (Cl 6.10.4.2 AS3600)
2 2
Effective length Design static moments
For Span 1,
Mo1 = (15.30 * 7.1 * 6.482 ) / 8
0.75 0.75
𝐿0 = 7.0 − 0.7 ∗ ( ) − 0.7 ∗ ( )
2 2 Mo1 = 569.30 KNm
= 6.48 𝑚
For Span 2
𝐿0 = 7.4 – 0.7 ∗ (0.75/2) – 0.7 Mo2 = (15.30 * 7.1 * 6.882 ) / 8
∗ (0.75/2)
Mo2 = 641.81 KNm
= 6.88 𝑚
For Span 3
L0 = 7.4 – 0.7*(0.75/2) – 0.7*(0.75/2) Mo3 = (15.30 * 7.1 * 6.882 ) / 8
=6.88 m
Mo3 = 641.81 KNm
For Span 4
L0 = 8.0 – 0.7*(0.75/2) – 0.7*(0.75/2)
=7.48 m Mo4 = (15.30 * 7.1 * 7.482 ) / 8
For Span 5 Mo4 = 758.72 KNm

L0 = 7.0 – 0.7*(0.75/2) – 0.7*(0.75/2)
=6.48 m
Mo5 = (15.30 * 7.1 * 6.482 ) / 8
Mo5 = 569.30
42
Design bending moments
Factors for End Span were taken from condition 3 from table 6.10.4.3 (A) AS3600-2018 and
factors for Interior Span were taken from table 6.10.4.3 (B)
Figure 40 Design moment factor table
At edge column (-ve) At mid span (+ve) At interior column (-ve)

(KNm) (KNm) (KNm)
M*1 170.79 M*1 284.65 M*1 398.51
M*2 192.54 M*2 320.90 M*2 449.27
M*3 192.54 M*3 320.90 M*3 449.27
M*4 227.62 M*4 379.36 M*4 531.10
M*5 170.79 M*5 284.65 M*5 398.51
Table 1 Design bending moment table on interior design strip - 1
Distribution of design bending moments to the column strip

Using table 6.9.5.3 AS3600 – 2018,
Distribution factors for strength limit state were used.
43
Figure 41 Distribution factors for column strip
Column strip 1
M*1 128.09 M*1 142.32 M*1 239.10
M*2 144.41 M*2 160.45 M*2 269.56
M*3 144.41 M*3 160.45 M*3 269.56
M*4 170.71 M*4 189.68 M*4 318.66
M*5 128.09 M*5 142.32 M*5 239.10
Table 2 Design bending moment for column strip 1

3.5.2.2. Short span direction
Figure 42 Design strips in short span direction 44

Slab thickness
Considered the same slab thickness calculated in step 1 for long side direction strip.
Hence,
Ds = 300 mm
Step 2 : Design loading
Similar as of long span direction.
Wu = 15.30 kPa
Step 3 : Design static moments
CL 6.10.4.2 AS3600 – 2018
Fd = Wu = 15.30 kPa
Lt = Width of interior design strip

𝐿5 + 𝐿6 7.0+7.4
Lt = 2
= 2
= 7.2 m
Cl 6.10.4.2 AS3600
For Span 1, Design static moments –

L0 = 7.1 – 0.7*(0.45/2) – 0.7*(0.75/2)
= 6.68 m Mo1 = (15.30 * 7.2 * 6.682 ) / 8
Mo1 = 614.45 KNm
For Span 2
L0 = 7.1 – 0.7*(0.75/2) – 0.7*(0.75/2)
= 6.58 m Mo2 = (15.30 * 7.2 * 6.582 ) / 8
Mo2 = 595.29 KNm
For Span 3
L0 = 7.1 – 0.7*(0.75/2) – 0.7*(0.75/2) Mo3 = (15.30 * 7.2 * 6.582 ) / 8
= 6.58 m Mo3 = 595.29 KNm
For Span 4
L0 = 7.1 – 0.7*(0.75/2) – 0.7*(0.45/2) Mo4 = (15.30 * 7.2 * 6.682 ) / 8
= 6.68 m Mo4 = 614.45 KNm
45
Step 4 – Design bending moments –
Again, Factors for End Span were taken from condition 3 from table 6.10.4.3 (A) AS3600-2018
and factors for Interior Span were taken from table 6.10.4.
Interior Design strip 4
M*1 184.34 M* 307.23 M* 430.12
M*2 178.59 M*2 297.64 M*2 416.70
M*3 178.59 M*3 297.64 M*3 416.70
M*4 184.34 M*4 307.23 M*4 430.12
Table 3 Design moments for Interior design strip 4
Step 5 – Distribution of design bending moments to the column strip :
Using table 6.9.5.3 AS3600 – 2018,

Distribution factors for strength limit state were used.
Column strip 4
M*1 138.25 M*1 153.61 M*1 258.07
M*2 133.94 M*2 148.82 M*2 250.02
M*3 133.94 M*3 148.82 M*3 250.02
M*4 138.25 M*4 153.61 M*4 258.07
Table 4 Design moments for column strip 4
3.3.4. Spandrel beam analysis

Size of spandrel beam was taken as 450*650
Effective length (ln) for end spans = 7100-(450+750/2) = 6500 mm
Effective length (ln) for interior spans = 7100-(750+750/2) = 6350 mm
Centre to centre effective width = 3700 mm
Load calculation -
Self-weight = [(450*450)+(3700*200)]*25*10^-6 = 23.56 KN/m
Superimposed dead load = 1.5*3700*10^-3 = 5.55 KN/m
Total Dead Load (G) = 29.11 KN/m
Live load (Q) = 3*7400*10^-3 = 11.1KN/m
46
For Load combination 1.2G+1.5Q
Fd = [(1.2*63.1)+(1.5*22.2)] = 51.59 KN/m
Design moments – For 1st beam in short direction
Negative design moments ( Cl 6.10.2.2 AS3600-2018)
At interior faces of exterior support = Fd*ln2/16 = 51.59 * 65002 / 16 = 136.22 KNm
At first interior support = Fd*ln2/10 = 51.59*65002 / 16 = 217.95 KNm
At other interior support = Fd*ln2/11 = 51.59*63502/16 = 189.09 KNm
Positive design moments (Cl 6.10.2.3 AS3600-2018)
At end span = Fd*ln2/11 = 51.59*65002/16 = 198.13 KNm
At interior span = Fd*ln2/16 = 51.59*63502/16 = 130 KNm
Figure 43 Spandrel beam design moments in short span direction
3.3.4.2. Long span direction

Size of spandrel beam was taken as 450 mm * 650 mm
Effective length (ln) for –
Span PQ = 7000 – (750 + 750) / 2 = 6250 mm

Span QR = 7400 – (750 + 750) / 2 = 6650 mm
Span RS = 7400 – (750 + 750) / 2 = 6650 mm
Span ST = 8000 – (750 + 750) / 2 = 7250 mm
Span TU = 7000 – (750 + 750) / 2 = 6250 mm
Centre to centre effective width = 3700 mm
Load calculation -
Self-weight = [(450*450)+(3700*200)]*25*10^-6 = 23.56 KN/m
47
Superimposed dead load = 1.5*3700*10^-3 = 5.55 KN/m
Total Dead Load (G) = 29.11 KN/m

Live load (Q) = 3*7400*10^-3 = 11.1KN/m
For Load combination 1.2G+1.5Q
Fd = [(1.2*63.1)+(1.5*22.2)] = 51.59 KN/m
Design moments – For 1st beam in short direction
Negative design moments ( Cl 6.10.2.2 AS3600-2018)
At interior faces of exterior support = Fd*ln2/16
At first interior support = Fd*ln2/10
At other interior support = Fd*ln2/11
Positive design moments (Cl 6.10.2.3 AS3600-2018)
At end span = Fd*ln2/11
At interior span = Fd*ln2/16
Design moments (KNm) :
Span PQ : Span ST :
P PQ Q S ST T
125.94 183.19 201.50 246.49 169.46 271.14
Span QR : Span TU :
Q QR R T TU U
228.12 142.58 207.38 217.95 198.13 136.22
Span RS :
R RS S
207.38 142.58 207.38
Figure 44 Spandrel beam shape moments in short span direction
48
3.4. Design
3.4.1. Band beam design

For maximum moment of 471.30 KNm at first interior support.
𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑖𝑠 𝑎𝑡 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑.
𝐶 = 𝑇
𝐼𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑑𝑛 = 0.85 ∗ 𝑑 (𝐶𝑙 3.59, 𝑃𝑎𝑔𝑒 123, 𝑅𝐶𝐷 𝐹𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟)
𝑑𝑛 = 0.85 ∗ 396 = 336.6 𝑚𝑚
𝛼2 = 1.0 – 0.003 ∗ (𝑓’𝑐) (𝐶𝑙 8.1.3.1 𝐴𝑆3600 − 2018)

= 1.0 – 0.003 ∗ (40)
= 0.79
𝛾 = 1.05 – 0.007 (𝑓′𝑐 ) (𝐶𝑙 8.1.3.2 𝐴𝑆3600 − 2018)

= 1.05 – 0.007 (40)
= 0.87
𝐴𝑠𝑡 = 𝑀 ∗⁄ 𝛾𝑑𝑛
𝑓𝑠𝑦 ∗ (𝑑 − 2 )
= (471.30 ∗ 106) / (500 ∗ (396 – 0.87 ∗ 336.6)/2)
= 3776.76 𝑚𝑚2
𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 28𝑚𝑚 𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑠,

𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 1 𝑏𝑎𝑟 = 615.75 𝑚𝑚2
𝑁𝑜 𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑠 = 3776.76/615.75 = 7 = 10 (𝑠𝑎𝑦)
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑑 = 10 ∗ 615.75 = 6157.52 𝑚𝑚2
𝐷
𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 = 0.20 ∗ ( ) 2 ∗ 𝑓 ′ 𝑐𝑡 ∗ 𝑓/𝑓𝑠𝑦
𝑑
= [0.20 ∗ (450/396)2 ∗ 3.79/500] = 1862.87 𝑚𝑚2
𝑇𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑇 = 𝐴𝑠𝑡 ∗ 𝑓𝑠𝑦
= 6157.52 ∗ 500 ∗ 10−3 = 3078.76 𝐾𝑁
𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝐶 = 𝛼2 ∗ 𝑓’𝑐 ∗ 𝛾 ∗ 𝑏 ∗ 𝑑𝑛
3078.76 ∗ 103 = 0.79 ∗ 40 ∗ 0.87 ∗ 2400 ∗ 𝑑𝑛
𝑑𝑛 = 46.66 𝑚𝑚
𝐿𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑟𝑚 𝑍 = 𝑑 – 𝛾𝑑𝑛/2
= 396 – 0.87 ∗ 46.22/2
= 375.50 𝑚𝑚
𝑈𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑀𝑢 = 𝑇 ∗ 𝑍

= 3078.76 ∗ (375.50/1000)
= 1156.70 𝐾𝑁𝑚
49
3.4.2. Flat slab design
𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑀 ∗ = 318.66
𝑝 = 2.7 ∗ 𝑀 ∗/𝑑 2 𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 4.9 𝑅𝐶𝐵,

= (2.7 ∗ 318.66 ) / 2622
= 0.0125
𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.20 (𝐷𝑠/𝑑)^2 ∗ (𝑓′𝑐𝑡. 𝑓/𝑓𝑠𝑦) 𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 4.10 𝑅𝐶𝐵, 𝐹𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟

= 0.20 ∗ (300/262)2 ∗ (3.79 / 500 )
= 0.0019
𝑝 > 𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝐻𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑘.
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 ( 𝐴𝑠𝑡 ) = 𝑝 ∗ 𝑏 ∗ 𝑑

= 0.0125 ∗ 1000 ∗ 262
= 3283.93 𝑚𝑚2
𝐿𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑟𝑚 𝑍 = 0.925 ∗ 𝑑 (𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 4.5.3, 𝑅𝐶𝐵, 𝐹𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 )

= 0.925 ∗ 276
= 242.35 𝑚𝑚
𝑈𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 ( 𝑀𝑢) = 𝐴𝑠𝑡 ∗ 𝑓𝑠𝑦 ∗ 𝑍

= 3283.93 ∗ 500 ∗ 242.35 ∗ 10−6
= 397.93 𝐾𝑁𝑚

𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑀 ∗ = 258.07 𝐾𝑁𝑚,
𝑝 = 2.7 ∗ 𝑀 ∗/ 𝑑2 ( 𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 4.9 𝑅𝐶𝐵, 𝐹𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 )

= (2.7 ∗ 258.07)/2622
= 0.0125
𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.20 (𝐷𝑠/𝑑)^2 ∗ (𝑓′𝑐𝑡. 𝑓/𝑓𝑠𝑦) ( 𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 4.10 𝑅𝐶𝐵, 𝐹𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 )

= 0.20 ∗ (300/262)2 ∗ (3.79/500 )
= 0.0019
𝑝 > 𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝐻𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑘.
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝐴𝑠𝑡 = 𝑝 ∗ 𝑏 ∗ 𝑑

= 0.0102 ∗ 1000 ∗ 262
= 2659.49 𝑚𝑚2
𝐿𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑟𝑚 𝑍 = 0.925𝑑 (𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 4.5.3, 𝑅𝐶𝐵, 𝐹𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 )

= 0.925 ∗ 276
= 242.35 𝑚𝑚
𝑈𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑀𝑜 = 𝐴𝑠𝑡 ∗ 𝑓𝑠𝑦 ∗ 𝑍

= 2659.49 ∗ 500 ∗ 242.35 ∗ 10−6
= 322.26 𝐾𝑁𝑚
50
3.4.3. Spandrel Beam Design
𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 217.95 𝐾𝑁𝑚

𝐶 = 𝑇
𝐼𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑑𝑛 = 0.85𝑑 (𝐶𝑙 3.59, 𝑃𝑎𝑔𝑒 123, 𝑅𝐶𝐷 𝐹𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟)

𝑑𝑛 = 0.85 ∗ 599
= 509.15 𝑚𝑚
𝛼2 = 1.0 – 0.003 ∗ (𝑓’𝑐) (𝐶𝑙 8.1.3.1 𝐴𝑆3600 − 2018)

= 1.0 – 0.003 ∗ (40)
= 0.79
𝛾 = 1.05 – 0.007 (𝑓’𝑐) (𝐶𝑙 8.1.3.2 𝐴𝑆3600 − 2018)

= 1.05 – 0.007 (40)
= 0.87
𝑓𝑠𝑦 ∗ (𝑑 − 2 )
= (217.95 ∗ 106) / (500 ∗ (599 – 0.87 ∗ 509.15)/2)

= 1154.62 𝑚𝑚2

𝑁𝑜 𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑠 = 1154.62 / 380.13 = 4
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑑 = 4 ∗ 380.13 = 1520.53 𝑚𝑚2
𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 = 0.20 ∗ (𝐷/𝑑)2 ∗ 𝑓’𝑐𝑡. 𝑓/𝑓𝑠𝑦

= [0.20 ∗ (650/599)2 ∗ 3.79/500]
= 481.79 𝑚𝑚2
𝐴𝑠𝑡𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑑 > 𝐴𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝐻𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑂𝐾.
= 1520.53 ∗ 500 ∗ 10−3
= 760.27 𝐾𝑁

760.27 ∗ 103 = 0.79 ∗ 40 ∗ 0.87 ∗ 450 ∗ 𝑑𝑛
𝑑𝑛 = 61.45 𝑚𝑚

= 599 – 0.87 ∗ 61.45/2
= 572.27 𝑚𝑚
= 760.27 ∗ (572.27/1000)
= 435.08 𝐾𝑁𝑚
51
𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 271.14 𝐾𝑁𝑚
𝐶=𝑇
𝐼𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑑𝑛 = 0.85𝑑 (𝐶𝑙 3.59, 𝑃𝑎𝑔𝑒 123, 𝑅𝐶𝐷 𝐹𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟)

𝑑𝑛 = 0.85 ∗ 599
= 509.15 𝑚𝑚
𝛼2 = 1.0 – 0.003 ∗ (𝑓’𝑐) (𝐶𝑙 8.1.3.1 𝐴𝑆3600 − 2018)

= 1.0 – 0.003 ∗ (40)
= 0.79
𝛾 = 1.05 – 0.007 (𝑓’𝑐) (𝐶𝑙 8.1.3.2 𝐴𝑆3600 − 2018)

= 1.05 – 0.007 (40)
= 0.87
𝑓𝑠𝑦 ∗ (𝑑 − )
2
= (271.14 ∗ 106) / (500 ∗ (599 – 0.87 ∗ 509.15)/2)

= 1436.45 𝑚𝑚2

𝑁𝑜 𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑠 = 1436.45/380.13 = 5
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑑 = 5 ∗ 380.13 = 1900 𝑚𝑚2
𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 = 0.20 ∗ (𝐷/𝑑)2 ∗ 𝑓’𝑐𝑡. 𝑓/𝑓𝑠𝑦

= [0.20 ∗ (650/599)2 ∗ 3.79/500]
= 481.79 𝑚𝑚2
𝐴𝑠𝑡𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑑 > 𝐴𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝐻𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑂𝐾

= 1900 ∗ 500 ∗ 10−3
= 950.33 𝐾𝑁

950.33 ∗ 103 = 0.79 ∗ 40 ∗ 0.87 ∗ 450 ∗ 𝑑𝑛
𝑑𝑛 = 76.82 𝑚𝑚

= 599 – 0.87 ∗ 76.82/2
= 565.58 𝑚𝑚

= 950.33 ∗ (565.58/1000)
= 537.49 𝐾𝑁𝑚
52
3.4.4. Column design
Column in all buildings were taken of same size.

Ext col 450*750
Int col 600*600
Axial force N* , Major (M3) and minor (M2) moments were taken from Etabs analysis for
1.2G+1.5Q load combination
Ultimate moment capacity was calculated by using chart 6.32 from RCD handbook by initially
assuming the minimum reinforcement of 1%. (p=1%) and calculating the ratio N*/bd
Figure 45 Reinforced concrete design handbook 2001 (Australia, 2009)
53
3.5. Progressive Collapse Analysis
3.5.1. Approach
1. Linear elastic analysis was conducted in Etabs for 5,7 and 10 story buildings after removal of
column at base story. The following three scenarios were considered for removal of column :
• Corner column removal

• Interior column removal
• Edge column removal
2. According to the GSA 2003 guideline, the load combination of 2DL+0.5LL was introduced in
the Etabs and the model was analyzed. After analysis, the demand moments were noted.
Figure 46 GSA load combination
3. The demand/capacity ratios at critical locations were calculated by dividing the moment
demands obtained in Step 2 by the ultimate moment capacity values obtained in design section 3.4.
Results of progressive collapse analyses

The results of the progressive collapse analyses are presented in the following sequence -
1. 5 story building – Band beam structure

• Scenario 1 ( BB5A ) – Corner column removed
• Scenario 2 ( BB5B ) – Interior column removed
• Scenario 3 ( BB5C ) – Edge column removed
2. 7 story building - Band beam structure
54
4. 5 story building – Band beam structure
• Scenario 1 ( FS5A ) – Corner column removed
• Scenario 2 ( FS5B ) – Interior column removed
• Scenario 3 ( FS5C ) – Edge column removed
All of the column removal scenarios for Band Beam Structure and Flat Slab Structure are
represented in the figures 47 to 52 The corresponding results of all the column removal scenarios
for both types of flooring systems are presented in the figures 53 to 69.
COLUMN REMOVED
55
Figure 47 Corner column removed in Band beam structure
COLUMN REMOVED
Figure 48: Interior column removed in Band beam structure
COLUMN REMOVED
Figure 49: Edge column removed in Band beam structure 56

COLUMN REMOVED
Figure 50 Interior column removed in Flat Slab structure
COLUMN REMOVED
Figure 51 Edge column removed in Flat Slab structure 57

COLUMN REMOVED
Figure 52 Edge column removed in Flat Slab structure
58
Scenario BB5A
Table 5 DCR of critical beams, Scenario BB5A
DCR Of Critial Beams
Column Story Adjacent Demand Capacity DCR

removed Beam
Long edge
C1-225 1 B1 561.00 537.49 1.04
2 B1 584 537.49 1.09
3 B1 568 537.49 1.06
4 B1 571 537.49 1.06
5 B1 511 537.49 0.95

removed Beam
Short edge
C1-225 1 B27 595.61 435.08 1.37
2 B27 606 435.08 1.39
3 B27 594 435.08 1.37
4 B27 506 435.08 1.16
5 B27 544 435.08 1.25
Table 6 DCR critical columns Scenario BB5A
DCR Of Critial Columns

removed Columns
Mx* My* Mux Muy
C1-225 1 C2 232.5 219 1350 810.00 0.44
2 C2 246 267 1350 810.00 0.51
Long edge 3 C2 244.5 271.5 1350 810.00 0.52
4 C2 210 229.5 1350 810.00 0.44
5 C2 426 517.5 1350 810.00 0.95

removed Columns
Mx* My* Mux Muy
C1-225 1 C13 51 232.5 759.375 1265.63 0.25
2 C13 58.5 237 759.375 1265.63 0.26
Short edge 3 C13 63 241.5 759.375 1265.63 0.27
4 C13 37.5 204 759.375 1265.63 0.21
5 C13 129 415.5 759.375 1265.63 0.50
59
1.60
1.37 1.39 1.37

1.40
1.25
1.20 1.16
1.09 1.06
1.04 1.06
1.00 0.95 0.95
Long edge column

DCR
0.80
Short edge column
Long edge beam
0.60 0.51 0.52 0.50 Short edge beam
0.44 0.44
0.40
0.25 0.26 0.27
0.21
0.20
0.00
1 2 3 4 5
Storey number
Figure 53 DCR scenario BB5A
60
Scenario BB5B

removed Columns
Left Mx* My* Mux Muy
C20-320 1 C9 753 393 900.00 900.00 1.27
2 C9 1468.5 315 900.00 900.00 1.98
3 C9 1219.5 235.5 900.00 900.00 1.62
4 C9 1216.5 156 900.00 900.00 1.53
5 C9 1531.5 76.47 900.00 900.00 1.79

removed Columns
Right Mx* My* Mux Muy
C20-320 1 C21 747 396 1116.00 1116.00 1.02
2 C21 1446 313.5 1116.00 1116.00 1.58
3 C21 1189.5 235.5 1116.00 1116.00 1.28
4 C21 1180.5 156 1116.00 1116.00 1.20
5 C21 1494 76.365 1116.00 1116.00 1.41

removed Columns
Downward Mx* My* Mux Muy
C20-320 1 C14 277.5 11.25 900.00 900.00 0.32
2 C14 222 16.05 900.00 900.00 0.26
3 C14 165 15.195 900.00 900.00 0.20
4 C14 109.95 12.45 900.00 900.00 0.14
5 C14 53.67 26.25 900.00 900.00 0.09
Table 7 DCR critical columns Scenario BB5B

removed Left
Beam
Left
C20-320 1 B11 2089 1156.70 1.81
2 B11 2117 1156.70 1.83
3 B11 2079 1156.70 1.80
4 B11 2098 1156.70 1.81
5 B11 1909 1156.70 1.65

removed Right
Beam
Right
C20-320 1 B12 2079 1156.70 1.80
2 B12 2102 1156.70 1.82
3 B12 2061 1156.70 1.78
4 B12 2076 1156.70 1.79
5 B12 1893 1156.70 1.64
Table 8 DCR critical beam Scenario BB5B
61
Figure 54 DCR Scenario BB5B
Scenario BB5C

removed Columns
C20-320 1 C25-345 339 57 810.00 1350.00 0.46
2 C25 705 115.5 810.00 1350.00 0.96
3 C25 576 91.5 810.00 1350.00 0.78
4 C25 573 82.5 810.00 1350.00 0.77
5 C25 702 205.5 810.00 1350.00 1.02

removed Columns
C20-320 1 C12-280 81 391.5 928.13 556.88 0.79
2 C12 165 828 928.13 556.88 1.66
3 C12 132 666 928.13 556.88 1.34
4 C12 127.5 657 928.13 556.88 1.32
5 C12 265.5 834 928.13 556.88 1.78
Table 9 DCR critical columns Scenario BB5C
62

removed Left
Beam
Short direction
C26-350 1 B16 839.42 435.08 1.93
2 B16 849.44 435.08 1.95
3 B16 837.53 435.08 1.93
4 B16 847.45 435.08 1.95
5 B16 830.14 435.08 1.91

removed Right
Beam
Short direction
C26-350 1 B17 797.29 435.08 1.83
2 B17 839.29 435.08 1.93
3 B17 816.21 435.08 1.88
4 B17 851.66 435.08 1.96
5 B17 812 435.08 1.87
Table 10 DCR critical beams Scenario BB5C
Figure 55 DCR Scenario BB5C
63
Scenario BB7A

removed Columns
Mx* My* Mux Muy
C1-225 1 C2-230 244.5 171 1307.8125 784.69 0.40
2 C2 481.5 415.5 1307.8125 784.69 0.90
3 C2 417 396 1307.8125 784.69 0.82
Long edge 4 C2 400.5 421.5 1307.8125 784.69 0.84
5 C2 394.5 466.5 1307.8125 784.69 0.90
6 C2 384 544.5 1307.8125 784.69 0.99
7 C2 453 615 1307.8125 784.69 1.13

removed Columns
Mx* My* Mux Muy
C1-225 1 C13-285 252 51 810 1350.00 0.35
2 C13 487.5 120 810 1350.00 0.69
3 C13 423 84 810 1350.00 0.58
Short edge 4 C13 420 93 810 1350.00 0.59
5 C13 427.5 105 810 1350.00 0.61
6 C13 420 145.5 810 1350.00 0.63
7 C13 499.5 196.5 810 1350.00 0.76

removed Beam
Long edge
C1-225 1 B1 650.02 537.49 1.21
2 B1 656.03 537.49 1.22
3 B1 634.24 537.49 1.18
4 B1 619.35 537.49 1.15
5 B1 643.34 537.49 1.20
6 B1 640.99 537.49 1.19
7 B1 592.42 537.49 1.10

removed Beam
Short edge
C1-225 1 B27 638.36 435.08 1.47
2 B27 663.48 435.08 1.52
3 B27 645.26 435.08 1.48
4 B27 637.8 435.08 1.47
5 B27 686.82 435.08 1.58
6 B27 693.21 435.08 1.59
7 B27 632.35 435.08 1.45
64
Scenario
DCR OfBB7B
Critial Columns

removed Columns
C20-320 1 C19-315 780 2.745 396.00 396.00 1.98
2 C19 1029 465 396.00 396.00 3.77
3 C19 1252.5 387 396.00 396.00 4.14
4 C19 1287 309 396.00 396.00 4.03
5 C19 1278 231 396.00 396.00 3.81
6 C19 1233 153 396.00 396.00 3.50
7 C19 1561.5 75 396.00 396.00 4.13

removed Columns
C20-320 1 C17-305 394.5 8.55 396.00 396.00 1.02
2 C17 336 28.95 396.00 396.00 0.92
3 C17 277.5 17.25 396.00 396.00 0.74
4 C17 222 17.4 396.00 396.00 0.60
5 C17 165 17.7 396.00 396.00 0.46
6 C17 109.5 14.4 396.00 396.00 0.31
7 C17 53.55 31.2 396.00 396.00 0.21

removed Columns
C20-320 1 C21-325 772.5 1.5 396.00 396.00 1.95
2 C21 1017 463.5 396.00 396.00 3.74
3 C21 1215 387 396.00 396.00 4.05
4 C21 1243.5 307.5 396.00 396.00 3.92
5 C21 1231.5 231 396.00 396.00 3.69
6 C21 1182 153 396.00 396.00 3.37
7 C21 1500 73.5 396.00 396.00 3.97 65
Table 13 DCR critical columns Scenario 7B

removed Left
Beam
Long direction
C20-320 1 B11 2135.00 1156.70 1.85
2 B11 2149 1156.70 1.86
3 B11 2101 1156.70 1.82
4 B11 2074 1156.70 1.79
5 B11 2047 1156.70 1.77
6 B11 2064 1156.70 1.78
7 B11 1873 1156.70 1.62

removed Right
Beam
Long direction
C20-320 1 B12 2123.00 1156.70 1.84
2 B12 2132 1156.70 1.84
3 B12 2079 1156.70 1.80
4 B12 2048 1156.70 1.77
5 B12 2017 1156.70 1.74
6 B12 2032 1156.70 1.76
7 B12 1849 1156.70 1.60
66
Scenario BB7C

removed Columns
C20-320 1 C25-345 373.5 57 810.00 1350.00 0.50
2 C25 765 115.5 810.00 1350.00 1.03
3 C25 612 88.5 810.00 1350.00 0.82
4 C25 630 91.5 810.00 1350.00 0.85
5 C25 621 102 810.00 1350.00 0.84
6 C25 601.5 142.5 810.00 1350.00 0.85
7 C25 729 193.5 810.00 1350.00 1.04

removed Columns
C20-320 1 C12-280 82.5 421.5 1054.69 632.81 0.74
2 C12 171 898.5 1054.69 632.81 1.58
3 C12 135 714 1054.69 632.81 1.26
4 C12 145.5 738 1054.69 632.81 1.30
5 C12 159 745.5 1054.69 632.81 1.33
6 C12 196.5 753 1054.69 632.81 1.38
7 C12 250.5 921 1054.69 632.81 1.69


removed Left
Beam
Short direction
C26-350 1 B16 903.98 435.08 2.08
2 B16 907.55 435.08 2.09
3 B16 890.27 435.08 2.05
4 B16 880.53 435.08 2.02
5 B16 917.97 435.08 2.11
6 B16 926.4 435.08 2.13
7 B16 857.89 435.08 1.97

removed Right
Beam
Short direction
C26-350 1 B17 863.94 435.08 1.99
2 B17 906.18 435.08 2.08
3 B17 886.26 435.08 2.04
4 B17 885.07 435.08 2.03
5 B17 918.77 435.08 2.11
6 B17 955.52 435.08 2.20
7 B17 762.43 435.08 1.75
67
Scenario BB10A

removed Columns
Mx* My* Mux Muy
C1-225 1 C2-230 271.5 174 590.625 354.38 0.95
2 C2 535.5 432 590.625 354.38 2.13
3 C2 460.5 424.5 590.625 354.38 1.98
4 C2 438 465 590.625 354.38 2.05
Long 5 C2 427.5 522 590.625 354.38 2.20
edge 6 C2 417 630 590.625 354.38 2.48
7 C2 405 639 590.625 354.38 2.49
8 C2 393 655.5 590.625 354.38 2.52
9 C2 367.5 651 590.625 354.38 2.46
10 C2 435 742.5 590.625 354.38 2.83

removed Columns
Mx* My* Mux Muy
C1-225 1 C13-285 51.06 289.005 632.8125 1054.69 0.35
2 C13 121.5 552 632.8125 1054.69 0.72
3 C13 84 477 632.8125 1054.69 0.59
4 C13 96 466.5 632.8125 1054.69 0.59
Short 5 C13 103.5 463.5 632.8125 1054.69 0.60
edge 6 C13 157.5 459 632.8125 1054.69 0.68
7 C13 141 457.5 632.8125 1054.69 0.66
8 C13 148.5 457.5 632.8125 1054.69 0.67
9 C13 136.83 450 632.8125 1054.69 0.64
10 C13 199.5 531 632.8125 1054.69 0.82
68

removed Beam
Long edge
C1-225 1 B1 718.00 537.49 1.34
2 B1 715 537.49 1.33
3 B1 682 537.49 1.27
4 B1 656 537.49 1.22
5 B1 670 537.49 1.25
6 B1 647 537.49 1.20
7 B1 631 537.49 1.17
8 B1 617 537.49 1.15
9 B1 614 537.49 1.14
10 B1 568 537.49 1.06

removed Beam
Short edge
C1-225 1 B27 704.00 435.08 1.62
2 B27 728 435.08 1.67
3 B27 701 435.08 1.61
4 B27 684 435.08 1.57
5 B27 726 435.08 1.67
6 B27 713 435.08 1.64
7 B27 706 435.08 1.62
8 B27 700 435.08 1.61
9 B27 709 435.08 1.63
10 B27 644 435.08 1.48
Table 18 DCR critical beams Scenario BB10A
3.00 Scenario BB10A Column long edge

Column short edge
Beam long edge
2.50
Beam short edge
2.00
DCR
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
1 2 3 4 Storey
5 number
6 7 8 9 10
Figure 58 DCR Scenario BB10A
69
Scenario BB10B

removed Columns
C20-320 1 C19-315 835.5 1.545 432.00 432.00 1.94
2 C19 1098 1.515 432.00 432.00 2.55
3 C19 1041 1.815 432.00 432.00 2.41
4 C19 1038 1.875 432.00 432.00 2.41
5 C19 1027.5 448.5 432.00 432.00 3.42
6 C19 1332 375 432.00 432.00 3.95
7 C19 1320 298.5 432.00 432.00 3.75
8 C19 1320 223.5 432.00 432.00 3.57
9 C19 1273.5 148.5 432.00 432.00 3.29
10 C19 1602 72 432.00 432.00 3.88

removed Columns
C20-320 1 C21-325 828 1.125 468.00 468.00 1.77
2 C21 1084.5 2.865 468.00 468.00 2.32
3 C21 1017 4.74 468.00 468.00 2.18
4 C21 1006.5 6.135 468.00 468.00 2.16
5 C21 1284 8.925 468.00 468.00 2.76
6 C21 1267.5 372 468.00 468.00 3.50
7 C21 1252.5 297 468.00 468.00 3.31
8 C21 1248 222 468.00 468.00 3.14
9 C21 1198.5 148.5 468.00 468.00 2.88
10 C21 1515 72 468.00 468.00 3.39
Column Story Adjacent Capacity DCR

removed Columns
C20-320 1 C17-305 559.5 17.55 504.00 504.00 1.14
2 C17 505.5 36 504.00 504.00 1.07
3 C17 448.5 28.5 504.00 504.00 0.95
4 C17 391.5 30 504.00 504.00 0.84
5 C17 336 29.4 504.00 504.00 0.73
6 C17 277.5 22.05 504.00 504.00 0.59
7 C17 220.5 22.05 504.00 504.00 0.48
8 C17 165.9 22.62 504.00 504.00 0.37
9 C17 109.71 18.12 504.00 504.00 0.25
10 C17 53.61 41.01 504.00 504.00 0.19
70

removed Beam
Short edge
C20-320 1 B11 2236 1156.70 1.93
2 B11 2233 1156.70 1.93
3 B11 2163 1156.70 1.87
4 B11 2112 1156.70 1.83
5 B11 2071 1156.70 1.79
6 B11 2035 1156.70 1.76
7 B11 2008 1156.70 1.74
8 B11 1982 1156.70 1.71
9 B11 1977 1156.70 1.71
10 B11 1806 1156.70 1.56

removed Beam
Short edge
C20-320 1 B12 2205.00 1156.70 1.91
2 B12 2204 1156.70 1.91
3 B12 2136 1156.70 1.85
4 B12 2082 1156.70 1.80
5 B12 2035 1156.70 1.76
6 B12 1995 1156.70 1.72
7 B12 1965 1156.70 1.70
8 B12 1937 1156.70 1.67
9 B12 1952 1156.70 1.69
10 B12 1771 1156.70 1.53
Table 20 DCR critical beams Scenario BB10B
Column left
4.50 Scenario BB10B
Column right
4.00
Column
3.50 downward
Beam left
3.00
2.50
DCR
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
1 2 3 4 Storey
5 number
6 7 8 9 10
71
Scenario BB10C

removed Columns
C20-320 1 C25-345 411 55.5 708.75 1181.25 0.63
2 C25 838.5 117 708.75 1181.25 1.28
3 C25 667.5 90 708.75 1181.25 1.02
4 C25 682.5 91.5 708.75 1181.25 1.04
5 C25 664.5 102 708.75 1181.25 1.02
6 C25 666 148.5 708.75 1181.25 1.07
7 C25 649.5 136.5 708.75 1181.25 1.03
8 C25 651 141 708.75 1181.25 1.04
9 C25 621 130.5 708.75 1181.25 0.99
10 C25 762 189 708.75 1181.25 1.24

removed Columns
C20-320 1 C12-280 82.5 456 1307.81 784.69 0.64
2 C12 174 970.5 1307.81 784.69 1.37
3 C12 140.1 765 1307.81 784.69 1.08
4 C12 151.5 787.5 1307.81 784.69 1.12
5 C12 163.5 783 1307.81 784.69 1.12
6 C12 210 820.5 1307.81 784.69 1.21
7 C12 204 802.5 1307.81 784.69 1.18
8 C12 211.5 805.5 1307.81 784.69 1.19
9 C12 199.5 765 1307.81 784.69 1.13
10 C12 264 949.5 1307.81 784.69 1.41


removed Beam
Left
Short edge
C26-350 1 B16 977.00 435.08 2.25
2 B16 973 435.08 2.24
3 B16 947 435.08 2.18
4 B16 928 435.08 2.13
5 B16 960 435.08 2.21
6 B16 947 435.08 2.18
7 B16 937 435.08 2.15
8 B16 926 435.08 2.13
9 B16 934 435.08 2.15
10 B16 864 435.08 1.99

removed Beam
Right
Short edge
C26-350 1 B17 935.00 435.08 2.15
2 B17 975 435.08 2.24
3 B17 948 435.08 2.18
4 B17 939 435.08 2.16
5 B17 973 435.08 2.24
6 B17 966 435.08 2.22
7 B17 960 435.08 2.21
8 B17 947 435.08 2.18
9 B17 982 435.08 2.26
10 B17 784 435.08 1.80

72
2.50 Scenario BB10C
2.00
1.50
Column left
DCR
Column right
1.00 Beam left
Beam right
0.50
0.00
1 2 3 4 Storey
5 number
6 7 8 9 10
Scenario FS5A
removed Columns
C1-185 Mx* My* Mux Muy
1 C2-190 219 136.215 1350 810.00 0.33
Short 2 C2-189 442.5 310.5 1350 810.00 0.71
edge 3 C2-188 369 268.5 1350 810.00 0.60
4 C2-187 349.5 270 1350 810.00 0.59
5 C2-186 396 327 1350 810.00 0.70
1 C7-170 130.5 211.5 759.375 1265.63 0.34
Long 2 C7-169 297 429 759.375 1265.63 0.73
edge 3 C7-168 253.5 354 759.375 1265.63 0.61
4 C7-167 255 336 759.375 1265.63 0.60
5 C7-166 312 388.5 759.375 1265.63 0.72
Table 23 DCR critical columns Scenario FS5A
73
Critial Column Strips

removed Column
Strip
C1-185 1 Lo5 214.00 198.97 1.08
2 Lo5 209 198.97 1.05
Long 3 Lo5 201 198.97 1.01
edge 4 Lo5 201 198.97 1.01
5 Lo5 177.54 198.97 0.89
1 Lo1 208.00 156.66 1.33
Short 2 Lo1 198 156.66 1.26
edge 3 Lo1 191 156.66 1.22
4 Lo1 191 156.66 1.22
5 Lo1 168.68 156.66 1.08
Table 24 DCR critical beams Scenario FS5A
0.80
Scenario FS5A
0.70
0.60
0.50
DCR
0.40
Column short edge
Column long edge
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1 2 3 4 5
Storey number
Figure 61 DCR Scenario FS5A
74
Scenario FS5B
Critical Columns

removed Columns
Mx* My* Mux Muy
C15-135 1 C9-129 169.5 5.775 1116.00 1116 0.16
2 C9 295.5 8.85 1116.00 1116 0.27
On 3 C9 240 10.95 1116.00 1116 0.22
left 4 C9 235.5 10.83 1116.00 1116 0.22
5 C9 387 20.52 1116.00 1116 0.37
1 C14-134 153 6.36 1116.00 1116 0.14
2 C14 240 18.48 1116.00 1116 0.23
On 3 C14 195 25.5 1116.00 1116 0.20
right 4 C14 178.5 30.15 1116.00 1116 0.19
5 C14 295.5 34.5 1116.00 1116 0.30
1 C21-141 310.5 6.33 1116.00 1116 0.28
2 C21 244.5 18.33 1116.00 1116 0.24
Downward 3 C21 195 25.56 1116.00 1116 0.20
side 4 C21 165 30.15 1116.00 1116 0.17
5 C21 295.5 35.1 1116.00 1116 0.30
Table 25 DCR critical columns Scenario FS5B
Critial Column Strips Critial Column Strips

Column Story Adjacent Demand Capacity Column Story Demand Capacity DCR
removed Column removed
Strip
C15-135 1 Lo2 536 384.45 C15-135 1 963 461.88 2.08
2 Lo2 494 384.45 2 936 461.88 2.03
Short 3 Lo2 472 384.45 Long 3 908 461.88 1.97
edge 4 Lo2 461 384.45 edge 4 896 461.88 1.94
5 Lo2 444 384.45 5 864 461.88 1.87
1 Lo3 391 384.45 1 735 461.88 1.59
Short 2 Lo3 385 384.45 2 718 461.88 1.55
edge 3 Lo3 363 384.45 Long 3 714 461.88 1.55
4 Lo3 350 384.45 edge 4 707 461.88 1.53
5 Lo3 285 384.45 5 677 461.88 1.47
Table 26 DCR critical column strips Scenario FS5B
75
Column left
2.50 Scenario FS5B
Column right
Column downward
column strip upward long edge
2.00
column strip downward long edge
1.50
DCR
1.00
0.50
0.00
1 2 3 4 5
Storey number
Figure 62 DCR Scenario FS5B
Scenario FS5C

removed Columns
Mx* My* Mux Muy
C24-165 1 C30-240 102 325.5 928.125 556.875 0.69
2 C30 235.5 714 928.125 556.875 1.54
Right 3 C30 201 375 928.125 556.875 0.89
Side 4 C30 199.5 571.5 928.125 556.875 1.24
5 C30 246 660 928.125 556.875 1.45
1 C18-160 252 142.5 810 556.875 0.57
2 C18 285 169.5 810 556.875 0.66
Left 3 C18 276 165 810 556.875 0.64
Side 4 C18 241.5 138 810 556.875 0.55
5 C18 433.5 274.5 810 556.875 1.03
Table 27 DCR critical columns Scenario FS5C
76
removed Column
Strip
C24-165 1 Lo3 220.00 156.66 1.40
2 Lo3 218 156.66 1.39
Left 3 Lo3 208 156.66 1.33
4 Lo3 208 156.66 1.33
5 Lo3 186 156.66 1.19
1 Lo4 157.00 156.66 1.00
2 Lo4 144 156.66 0.92
Right 3 Lo4 133 156.66 0.85
4 Lo4 125 156.66 0.80
5 Lo4 109 156.66 0.70
1 Lo9 575 397.9303 1.44
2 Lo9 482 397.9303 1.21
Down 3 Lo9 433 397.9303 1.09
4 Lo9 409 397.9303 1.03
5 Lo9 371 397.9303 0.93
Table 28 DCR critical column strips Scenario FS5C
1.80 Scenario FS5C Column right

Column left
1.60 Column strip left
column strip right
1.40
Column strip downward
1.20
1.00
DCR
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
1 2 Storey 3number 4 5
Figure 63 DCR Scenario FS5C
77
Scenario FS7A
Critical columns

removed Columns
Mx* My* Mux Muy
C1-185 1 C2-190 240 136.5 1350 810 0.35
2 C2-189 495 309 1350 810 0.75
Short 3 C2-188 406.5 265.5 1350 810 0.63
edge 4 C2-187 388.5 274.5 1350 810 0.63
5 C2-186 373.5 277.5 1350 810 0.62
6 C2-185 354 270 1350 810 0.60
7 C2-184 399 324 1350 810 0.70
1 C7-170 233.355 130.5 810 1350 0.38
2 C7-169 481.5 168 810 1350 0.72
Long 3 C7-168 399 165 810 1350 0.61
edge 4 C7-167 387 168 810 1350 0.60
5 C7-166 376.5 172.5 810 1350 0.59
6 C7-165 361.5 153 810 1350 0.56
7 C7-164 411 279 810 1350 0.71
Table 29 DCR critical column Scenario FS7A
Column Story Adjacent Demand Capacity

removed Column
Strip
C1-185 1 Lo5 213 198.97
2 Lo5 215 198.97
3 Lo5 203 198.97
Left 4 Lo5 197 198.97
5 Lo5 191 198.97
6 Lo5 191 198.97
7 Lo5 167 198.97
1 Lo1 201 156.66
2 Lo1 204 156.66
3 Lo1 194 156.66
Right 4 Lo1 188 156.66
5 Lo1 183 156.66
6 Lo1 183 156.66
7 Lo1 161 156.66
Table 30 DCR critical column strips Scenario FS7A
78
Column short edge
0.80 Scenario FS7A
0.75 Column long edge
0.72 0.71
0.70
0.70
0.630.61 0.63 0.62
0.60 0.59 0.60
0.60 0.56
0.50
0.38
DCR
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1 2 3 Storey 4number 5 6 7
Scenario FS7B
Critical columns

removed Columns
Mx* My* Mux Muy
C15-135 1 C9-129 141 4.08 828.00 828.00 0.18
2 C9 241.5 6 828.00 828.00 0.30
3 C9 189 3.75 828.00 828.00 0.23
On 4 C9 187.5 3.15 828.00 828.00 0.23
left 5 C9 180 1.5 828.00 828.00 0.22
6 C9 171 4.8 828.00 828.00 0.21
7 C9 264 4.05 828.00 828.00 0.32
1 C14-134 2.1 138 828.00 828.00 0.17
2 C14 4.2 232.5 828.00 828.00 0.29
Downward 3 C14 2.85 187.5 828.00 828.00 0.23
side 4 C14 4.05 190.5 828.00 828.00 0.23
5 C14 1.5 187.5 828.00 828.00 0.23
6 C14 3.9 184.5 828.00 828.00 0.23
7 C14 6.75 300 828.00 828.00 0.37
1 C21-141 130.5 11.25 828.00 828.00 0.17
2 C21 210 28.2 828.00 828.00 0.29
3 C21 162 40.5 828.00 828.00 0.24
On 4 C21 162 48 828.00 828.00 0.25
right 5 C21 159 66 828.00 828.00 0.27
6 C21 145.5 69 828.00 828.00 0.26
7 C21 243 117 828.00 828.00 0.43
Table 31 DCR critical column Scenario FS7B
79
Column Story Adjacent Demand Capacity DCR Column Story Adjacent Demand Capacity DCR
removed Column removed Column
Strip Strip
C15-135 1 Lo2 850 384.45 2.21 C15-135 1 Lo6 764 461.88 1.65
2 Lo2 801 384.45 2.08 2 Lo6 739 461.88 1.60
3 Lo2 758 384.45 1.97 3 Lo6 685 461.88 1.48
Left 4 Lo2 722 384.45 1.88 Down 4 Lo6 680 461.88 1.47
5 Lo2 694 384.45 1.81 5 Lo6 652 461.88 1.41
6 Lo2 677 384.45 1.76 6 Lo6 653 461.88 1.41
7 Lo2 652 384.45 1.70 7 Lo6 622 461.88 1.35
1 Lo3 814.00 384.45 2.12 1 Lo7 569 461.88 1.23
2 Lo3 756 384.45 1.97 2 Lo7 556 461.88 1.20
3 Lo3 710 384.45 1.85 3 Lo7 551 461.88 1.19
Right 4 Lo3 673 384.45 1.75 Up 4 Lo7 549 461.88 1.19
5 Lo3 636 384.45 1.65 5 Lo7 608 461.88 1.32
6 Lo3 615 384.45 1.60 6 Lo7 633 461.88 1.37
7 Lo3 607 384.4468 1.58 7 Lo7 725 461.8834 1.57
1.80
Scenario FS7B
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00 Column left

DCR
Column right
0.80
Column downward
0.60
Column strip
downward
0.40 Column strip
upward
0.20
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Storey number
80
Scenario FS7C
Critical columns

removed Columns
Mx* My* Mux Muy
C24-165 1 C30-240 97.5 331.5 928.125 556.875 0.70
2 C30 223.5 724.5 928.125 556.875 1.54
Right 3 C30 183 582 928.125 556.875 1.24
Side 4 C30 189 579 928.125 556.875 1.24
5 C30 186 562.5 928.125 556.875 1.21
6 C30 178.5 538.5 928.125 556.875 1.16
7 C30 222 628.5 928.125 556.875 1.37
1 C18-160 135 258 810 1350 0.36
2 C18 295.5 537 810 1350 0.76
Left 3 C18 219 417 810 1350 0.58
Side 4 C18 219 400.5 810 1350 0.57
5 C18 201 370.5 810 1350 0.52
6 C18 174 340.5 810 1350 0.47
7 C18 192 370.5 810 1350 0.51

removed Column
Strip
C24-165 1 Lo3 219 156.66 1.40
2 Lo3 212 156.66 1.35
3 Lo3 197 156.66 1.26
Left 4 Lo3 187 156.66 1.19
5 Lo3 175 156.66 1.12
6 Lo3 170 156.66 1.09
7 Lo3 153 156.66 0.98
1 Lo4 150 156.66 0.96
2 Lo4 148 156.66 0.94
3 Lo4 136 156.66 0.87
Right 4 Lo4 129 156.66 0.82
5 Lo4 126 156.66 0.80
6 Lo4 126 156.66 0.80
7 Lo4 103 156.6561 0.66
1 Lo9 682 397.9303 1.71
2 Lo9 687 397.9303 1.73
3 Lo9 689 397.9303 1.73
Adjacent 4 Lo9 693 397.9303 1.74
down 5 Lo9 739 397.9303 1.86
6 Lo9 760 397.9303 1.91
7 Lo9 685 397.9303 1.72
81
2.50 Scenario FS7C
2.00
Column right
1.50
Column left
DCR
Column strip
1.00 left
Column strip
right
0.50 Column strip
downward
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Storey number
Scenario FS10A
Critical columns

removed Columns
Mx* My* Mux Muy
C1-185 1 C2-190 133.5 277.5 1054.688 632.81 0.57
2 C2-189 307.5 571.5 1054.688 632.81 1.19
3 C2-188 264 463.5 1054.688 632.81 0.98
4 C2-187 277.5 438 1054.688 632.81 0.96
Long edge 5 C2-186 282 412.5 1054.688 632.81 0.92
6 C2-185 288 387 1054.688 632.81 0.88
7 C2-184 289.5 372 1054.688 632.81 0.86
8 C2-183 295.5 360 1054.688 632.81 0.85
9 C2-182 288 346.5 1054.688 632.81 0.82
10 C2-181 349.5 393 1054.688 632.81 0.95
1 C7-170 289.5 138 810 1350.00 0.46
2 C7-169 591 315 810 1350.00 0.96
3 C7-168 475.5 273 810 1350.00 0.79
4 C7-167 441 286.5 810 1350.00 0.76
Short edge 5 C7-166 408 288 810 1350.00 0.72
6 C7-165 376.5 294 810 1350.00 0.68
7 C7-164 357 295.5 810 1350.00 0.66
8 C7-163 340.5 300 810 1350.00 0.64
9 C7-162 322.5 291 810 1350.00 0.61
10 C7-161 366 349.5 810 1350.00 0.71
Table 35 DCR critical column Scenario FS10A
82

removed Column
Strip
C1-185 1 Lo5 196.00 198.97 0.99
2 Lo5 195 198.97 0.98
3 Lo5 185 198.97 0.93
4 Lo5 174 198.97 0.87
Left 5 Lo5 168 198.97 0.84
6 Lo5 157 198.97 0.79
7 Lo5 149 198.97 0.75
8 Lo5 145 198.97 0.73
9 Lo5 142 198.97 0.71
10 Lo5 133 198.97 0.67
1 Lo1 186.00 156.66 1.19
2 Lo1 186 156.66 1.19
3 Lo1 171 156.66 1.09
4 Lo1 162 156.66 1.03
Right 5 Lo1 153 156.66 0.98
6 Lo1 146 156.66 0.93
7 Lo1 141 156.66 0.90
8 Lo1 138 156.66 0.88
9 Lo1 138 156.66 0.88
10 Lo1 117 156.66 0.75
Table 36 DCR critical column strips Scenario FS10A
1.40 Scenario FS10A
1.20
1.00
0.80
DCR
Column long
0.60
Column short
0.40
0.20
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Storey number
83
Scenario FS10B
Critical columns

removed Columns
Mx* Mx* My* My* P Mux Muy
C15-135 1 C9-129 139 208.5 2.45 3.675 13414 828 828.00 0.26
2 C9 237 355.5 3.7 5.55 11825 828 828.00 0.44
3 C9 180 270 1.1 1.65 10339 828 828.00 0.33
4 C9 178 267 0.7 1.05 8918 828 828.00 0.32
Left 5 C9 165 247.5 4.9 7.35 7554 828 828.00 0.31
6 C9 161 241.5 1.9 2.85 6234 828 828.00 0.30
7 C9 153 229.5 5.4 8.1 4950 828 828.00 0.29
8 C9 150 225 6.6 9.9 3694 828 828.00 0.28
9 C9 142 213 5.6 8.4 2459 828 828.00 0.27
10 C9 214 321 17.1 25.65 1241 828 828.00 0.42
1 C14-134 136 204 2.6 3.9 12881 432 432.00 0.48
2 C14 228 342 4 6 11389 432 432.00 0.81
3 C14 181 271.5 2.8 4.2 9984 432 432.00 0.64
4 C14 182 273 3.6 5.4 8634 432 432.00 0.64
Downward 5 C14 176 264 0.5 0.75 7330 432 432.00 0.61
6 C14 179 268.5 2.1 3.15 6061 432 432.00 0.63
7 C14 173 259.5 1 1.5 4820 432 432.00 0.60
8 C14 174 261 1.5 2.25 3602 432 432.00 0.61
9 C14 166 249 2.6 3.9 2400 432 432.00 0.59
10 C14 272 408 9.2 13.8 1214 432 432.00 0.98
1 C21-141 130 195 15 22.5 21175 360 360.00 0.60
2 C21 208 312 35 52.5 10628 360 360.00 1.01
3 C21 156 234 52 78 9206 360 360.00 0.87
4 C21 153 229.5 60 90 7869 360 360.00 0.89
Right 5 C21 146 219 103 154.5 6602 360 360.00 1.04
6 C21 135 202.5 108 162 5412 360 360.00 1.01
7 C21 131 196.5 107 160.5 4281 360 360.00 0.99
8 C21 128 192 113 169.5 3189 360 360.00 1.00
9 C21 122 183 139 208.5 2126 360 360.00 1.09
10 C21 203 304.5 195 292.5 1088 360 360.00 1.66
Table 37 DCR critical column Scenario FS10B

Column Story Adjacent Demand Capacity DCR Column Story Adjacent Demand Capacity DCR
removed Column removed Column
Strip Strip
C15-135 1 Lo2 912.00 384.45 2.37 C15-135 1 Lo6 805.00 461.88 1.74
2 Lo2 877 384.45 2.28 2 Lo6 740 461.88 1.60
3 Lo2 741 384.45 1.93 3 Lo6 688 461.88 1.49
4 Lo2 686 384.45 1.78 4 Lo6 646 461.88 1.40
Left 5 Lo2 640 384.45 1.66 Up 5 Lo6 618 461.88 1.34
6 Lo2 603 384.45 1.57 6 Lo6 596 461.88 1.29
7 Lo2 602 384.45 1.57 7 Lo6 566 461.88 1.23
8 Lo2 580 384.45 1.51 8 Lo6 554 461.88 1.20
9 Lo2 537 384.45 1.40 9 Lo6 548 461.88 1.19
10 Lo2 517 384.45 1.34 10 Lo6 526 461.88 1.14
1 Lo3 842.00 384.45 2.19 1 Lo7 698.00 461.88 1.51
2 Lo3 767 384.45 2.00 2 Lo7 679 461.88 1.47
3 Lo3 729 384.45 1.90 3 Lo7 748 461.88 1.62
4 Lo3 673 384.45 1.75 4 Lo7 790 461.88 1.71
Right 5 Lo3 590 384.45 1.53 Down 5 Lo7 803 461.88 1.74
6 Lo3 523 384.45 1.36 6 Lo7 806 461.88 1.75
7 Lo3 503 384.45 1.31 7 Lo7 843 461.88 1.83
8 Lo3 497 384.45 1.29 8 Lo7 856 461.88 1.85
9 Lo3 462 384.45 1.20 9 Lo7 876 461.88 1.90
10 Lo3 459 384.45 1.19 10 Lo7 992 461.88 2.15
84
Column left
2.50 Scenario FS10B
Column right
2.00 Column
downward
Column strip
left
1.50
Axis Title
Column strip
right
Column strip
1.00 upward
Column strip
downward
0.50
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Axis Title
Scenario FS10C
Critical columns Critial Column Strips

Column Story Adjacent Demand Capacity DCR removed Column
removed Columns Strip
C24-165 1 Lo3 201.00 156.66 1.28
Mx* My* Mux Muy 2 Lo3 190 156.66 1.21
C24-165 1 C30-240 130.5 280.5 1265.625 759.38 0.47 3 Lo3 173 156.66 1.10
4 Lo3 158 156.66 1.01
2 C30 286.5 582 1265.625 759.38 0.99 Left 5 Lo3 144 156.66 0.92
3 C30 208.5 438 1265.625 759.38 0.74 6 Lo3 133 156.66 0.85
7 Lo3 125 156.66 0.80
4 C30 196.5 408 1265.625 759.38 0.69
8 Lo3 118 156.66 0.75
Right 5 C30 172.5 361.5 1265.625 759.38 0.61 9 Lo3 115 156.66 0.73
6 C30 142.5 327 1265.625 759.38 0.54 10 Lo3 105 156.66 0.67
1 Lo4 170.00 156.66 1.09
7 C30 120 294 1265.625 759.38 0.48 2 Lo4 165 156.66 1.05
8 C30 109.5 271.5 1265.625 759.38 0.44 3 Lo4 147 156.66 0.94
9 C30 94.5 244.5 1265.625 759.38 0.40 Right 4 Lo4 134 156.66 0.86
5 Lo4 127 156.66 0.81
10 C30 103.5 255 1265.625 759.38 0.42 6 Lo4 120 156.66 0.77
1 C18-160 94.5 354 810 1350.00 0.38 7 Lo4 114 156.66 0.73
8 Lo4 110 156.66 0.70
2 C18 217.5 769.5 810 1350.00 0.84 9 Lo4 110 156.66 0.70
3 C18 175.5 604.5 810 1350.00 0.66 10 Lo4 87 156.66 0.56
1 Lo9 631.00 397.9303 1.59
4 C18 181.5 588 810 1350.00 0.66
2 Lo9 636 397.93 1.60
Left 5 C18 174 556.5 810 1350.00 0.63 3 Lo9 642 397.93 1.61
6 C18-161 172.5 529.5 810 1350.00 0.61 4 Lo9 650 397.93 1.63
Adjacent 5 Lo9 690 397.93 1.73
7 C18 168 511.5 810 1350.00 0.59 down 6 Lo9 727 397.93 1.83
8 C18 168 498 810 1350.00 0.58 7 Lo9 722 397.93 1.81
9 C18 159 480 810 1350.00 0.55 8 Lo9 738 397.93 1.85
9 Lo9 737 397.93 1.85
10 C18 202.5 564 810 1350.00 0.67 10 Lo9 651 397.93 1.64
Table 39 DCR critical column Scenario FS10C Table 40 DCR critical column strips Scenario FS10C
85
2.00 Scenario FS10C
Column
1.80 right
1.60
Column
1.40
left
1.20
DCR
1.00 Column
strip left
0.80
0.60
Column
0.40 strip
right
0.20
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Storey number
86
References
(n.d.).
Australia, S. (2009). Reinforced concrete design Handbook. Sydney: Standards Australia.
Australia., S. (2018). AS 3600-2018: Concrete Structures. Australia.
Bishop, E. (2011, May 10). Earthquake reconnaissance trip: Chile. Retrieved from
http://www.reidmiddleton.com/: http://www.reidmiddleton.com/reidourblog/earthquake-
reconnaissance-trip-chile/
Brewer Smith Brewer Group. (2018, July 19). Progressive Collapse of Structures. Retrieved from
bsbgroup.com: https://bsbgroup.com/blog/progressive-collapse-of-structures/
CityLab. (2016, January 28). The Relationship Between Skyscrapers and Great Cities. Retrieved from
citylab.com: https://www.citylab.com/design/2016/01/skyscrapers-cities-tall-
buildings/431655/
Civil Today. (2018, June 3). Civil Engineering. Retrieved from https://civiltoday.com/:
https://civiltoday.com/structural-
David Scott, B. L. (2015, January 18). Fire Induced Progressive Collapse. Retrieved from cdn.ymaws:
https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.nibs.org/resource/resmgr/mmc/wppc_scott_paper.pdf
Designing Buildings. (2019, September 29). Designing Buildings Wiki. Retrieved from
https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/:
https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Ronan_Point
DoD (Department of Defense). (2009). Design of buildings to resist progressive collapse.
Griengsak, G. K. (2004). Beam element formulation and solution procedure for dynamic progressive
collapse analysis. Computers and structures, 639-651.
GSA (General Services Administration). (2013). Alternate path analysis & design guidelines for
progressive collapse resistance. General Services Administration.
H. Xue, H. G. (2014). Preliminary Collapse Simulation of a Reinforced Concrete Flat Plate. Applied
Mechanics and Materials, 1445-1448.
J.M. Russell, J. O. (2015). Experimental Investigations on the dynamic response of RC flat slab after a
sudden column loss. Engineering Structures, 28-41.
J.M. Russell, J. O. (2018). Nonlinear Behaviour of reinforced concrete flat slabs after column loss.
Advances in Strutural Engineering, 2169-2183.
J.M. Russell, J. O. (2019). Dynamic Column Loss Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Flat Slabs.
Engineering Structures, 392-415.
Preliminary Collapse Simulation of a Reinforced Concrete Flat Plate. (2014). Applied Mechanics and
Materials, 1445-1448.
Wikipedia. (1996, June 25). Khobar Tower Bombings. Retrieved from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khobar_Towers_bombing
87
88

KJBCXKNB ZB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KJBCXKNB ZB

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

KJBCXKNB ZB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCHOOL OF Civil and Environmental Engineering

Structural Comparison of Flat slab with Band beam flooring for

Thesis submitted as a requirement for the degree Master of

According to ASCE 7, progressive collapse is defined as the propagation of the failure at a

𝐷𝐶𝑅 = (𝑄𝑈𝐷 /𝑄𝐶𝐸 ) (citation needed GSA guideline)

Here, 𝑄𝑈𝐷 = force acting on a given area

𝑄𝐶𝐸 = expected capacity of the element

3.2. Flooring system and building types

1) Band beam structure

The types of building considered were:

Figures below the plans for two flooring systems

Figure 9: Floor plan for band beam flooring system

Figure 17: Long side elevation view of 5-storey building

Figure 18: Short side elevation view of 5-storey building

Figure 20: Short side elevation of 7-storey building

Figure 22: Short side elevation of 10-storey building

Figure 23: Grid definition options in ETABS

Figure 25: Material definition option on ETABS software

Figure 27: Stiffness modification options on ETABS software

Figure 29 : External column definition on ETABS software

Figure 31 : Slab property definition options on ETABS software

The loading on the structure that was analysed is as follow:

Figure 34 Assigning dead load in ETABS

Figure 27: Assigning live load in ETABS

Interior columns: 600 mm x 600 mm

Figure 36 Meshing options on ETABS software

• 1.35 (dead load)

3.3.2. Band beam analysis

3.3.2.1. Load Calculations

Figure 37 Band beam - 1 in X direction

𝐶𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑚 1 & 2 = 7200 𝑚𝑚

𝑆𝑢𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 = 1.5 ∗ 7200 ∗ 10−3 = 11.1 𝑘𝑁/𝑚

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 (𝐺) = 63.1 𝐾𝑁/𝑚

𝐿𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 (𝑄) = 3 ∗ 7400 ∗ 10−3 = 22.2 𝐾𝑁/𝑚

𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, 1.2𝐺 + 1.5𝑄

𝐹𝑑 = [(1.2 ∗ 63.1) + (1.5 ∗ 22.2)] = 109.02 𝐾𝑁/𝑚

3.3.2.2. Design moments – For 1st beam in short direction

Negative design moments (Cl 6.10.2.2 AS 3600-2018)

Positive design moments (Cl 6.10.2.3 AS 3600-2018)

Figure 38 Design moments

Direct design strip method was used for slab analysis

• Static design moments were calculated

(Cl 9.4.4 AS3600)

(CL 6.10.4.2 AS3600 – 2018)

Effective length Design static moments

For Span 5 Mo4 = 758.72 KNm

Figure 40 Design moment factor table

At edge column (-ve) At mid span (+ve) At interior column (-ve)

Distribution of design bending moments to the column strip

Table 2 Design bending moment for column strip 1

Figure 42 Design strips in short span direction 44

Step 2 : Design loading

Similar as of long span direction.

Step 3 : Design static moments

CL 6.10.4.2 AS3600 – 2018

Lt = Width of interior design strip

For Span 1, Design static moments –

Step 5 – Distribution of design bending moments to the column strip :

Self-weight = [(450450)+(3700200)]2510^-6 = 23.56 KN/m

Superimposed dead load = 1.5370010^-3 = 5.55 KN/m

Live load (Q) = 3740010^-3 = 11.1KN/m

At interior faces of exterior support = Fdln2/16 = 51.59 65002 / 16 = 136.22 KNm

At first interior support = Fdln2/10 = 51.5965002 / 16 = 217.95 KNm

At other interior support = Fdln2/11 = 51.5963502/16 = 189.09 KNm

At end span = Fdln2/11 = 51.5965002/16 = 198.13 KNm

At interior span = Fdln2/16 = 51.5963502/16 = 130 KNm

Self-weight = [(450450)+(3700200)]2510^-6 = 23.56 KN/m

Fd = [(1.263.1)+(1.522.2)] = 51.59 KN/m