This article was downloaded by: [Meng-Hao Tsai]

On: 25 March 2015, At: 08:59

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcie20

A proper estimation of inelastic dynamic increase

factor in support-loss experiments
a a
Meng-Hao Tsai & Wen-Shinn Shyu
a
Department of Civil Engineering, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology,
No.1 Hseuh-Fu Rd., Neipu, Pingtung County 912, Taiwan
Published online: 29 Oct 2014.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Meng-Hao Tsai & Wen-Shinn Shyu (2015) A proper estimation of inelastic dynamic increase factor in
support-loss experiments, Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, 38:3, 372-381, DOI: 10.1080/02533839.2014.970388

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02533839.2014.970388

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, 2015
Vol. 38, No. 3, 372–381, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02533839.2014.970388

A proper estimation of inelastic dynamic increase factor in support-loss experiments

Meng-Hao Tsai* and Wen-Shinn Shyu
Department of Civil Engineering, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, No.1 Hseuh-Fu Rd., Neipu, Pingtung
County 912, Taiwan
(Received 6 June 2013; accepted 17 September 2014)

Dynamic increase factor (DIF) is usually approximated as the ratio of maximum to neutral response in dynamic support-
loss experiments. However, this neutral-based calculation may underestimate the real DIF for elasto-plastic response. In
this study, an analytical formulation is thus proposed to correct the neutral-based DIF based on measured dynamic
response. Accuracy of the analytical formulation is verified with the results of a small-scale experiment. An iterative pro-
cedure, which is validated by the experimental results, is suggested for practical application of the correction approach.
Its application to sudden support-loss tests of prototype buildings is demonstrated with numerical simulation for two
model frames. The analysis results indicate that the corrected DIFs may be approximated to the real DIFs in most cases.
Downloaded by [Meng-Hao Tsai] at 08:59 25 March 2015

Due to the coupled vertical oscillation under corner column loss, the correction approach is more favorable for interior
column loss situations that are dominated by a single mode. The ductility demand obtained from the iterative procedure
may serve as an indication of structural damage under column loss.
Keywords: dynamic increase factor; support-loss test; ductility demand; iterative analysis procedure

1. Introduction
It is well known that dynamic loadings may provoke dif-
ferent structural responses from static loadings even if
their magnitudes are equal. This difference in structural
response is generally defined as the dynamic amplifica-
tion effect. Its basic definition may be found in funda-
mental structural dynamic theory and is usually
represented by a dynamic amplification factor (DAF)
(Chopra 1995; Clough and Penzien 1993). The intention
of the DAF is to facilitate the prediction of maximum
dynamic structural response using static analysis results.
The DAF of elastic structures is of concern in most
cases. Numerical and analytical solutions of elastic DAFs
for several loading patterns have been established (Biggs
1964; Chopra 1995). Nevertheless, in the wake of grow-
ing attention on structural response under sudden column
loss, it is necessary to investigate the effect of structural
plasticity on the DAFs. The DAF obtained from a single
degree-of-freedom (SDOF) model subjected to a step-
loading function has been used for building structures
under sudden column loss. The dynamic effect has been
simulated by a constant DAF equal to 2.0 in the static
analysis procedures as recommended by US General
Service Administration (GSA) (U.S. GSA 2003) and the
Unified Facilities Criteria UFC 4-023-03 by the
Department of Defense (DoD) (U.S. DoD 2005).
However, several studies revealed that a constant DAF
of 2.0 may lead to results inconsistent with those
obtained from nonlinear dynamic analyses (Kaewkulchai
and Williamson 2004; Kim and Kim 2009; Kim, Kim,
and An 2009; Ruth, Marchand, and Williamson 2006;
Tsai and Lin 2008). In the latest issued UFC 4-023-03
guidelines (U.S. DoD 2009), two different magnification
factors, namely the load increase factor (LIF) and
dynamic increase factor (DIF), are suggested for consid-
ering the dynamic effect in the linear and nonlinear static
analysis, respectively. The LIF is intended to account for
both the material nonlinearity and dynamic effect, while
the DIF is only responsible for the latter. Also, analytical
expressions of DAFs for elasto-plastic SDOF models
have been proposed for progressive collapse analysis of
building frames under column loss (Tsai 2010; Tsai and
Lin 2009).
Recently, several prototype dynamic experiments were
conducted to investigate the gravity load–redistribution
behavior (Matthews, Elwood, and Hwang 2007; Sasani,
Bazan, and Sagiroglu 2007; Sasani and Sagiroglu 2008,
2010; Sasani et al. 2011; Tian and Su 2011). Prototype
experiments are always costly and valuable. Therefore, it
seems infeasible to conduct a series of large-scale
dynamic tests as desired. Due to the nature of failure tests,
usually only dynamic response under a specific loading
magnitude may be obtained from a prototype specimen.
Sometimes, it is challenging to obtain all the required
information from the limited test data. Since static
response cannot be obtained from the prototype specimen,
the DIF is thus usually estimated from the measured
maximum and neutral responses in the dynamic failure

*Corresponding author. Email: mhtsai@mail.npust.edu.tw

© 2014 The Chinese Institute of Engineers

 Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers
test (Matthews et al. 2008; Tian and Su 2011). This simple
approach is appropriate for elastic DIF, which is equal to
2.0. However, as the tested structure is loaded into the
inelastic phase, the obtained DIF may not really reflect
the influence of plasticity on dynamic amplification. In
this study, a correction approach is proposed for the
neutral-based DIF, which is obtained from dividing the
maximum displacement by the neutral displacement in
dynamic support-loss tests. An analytical relationship
between the neutral-based DIF and ductility demand is
developed. The ductility demand is then used to estimate
the DIF under the support-loss test. An iterative procedure
is suggested for the correction approach. Test results of a
small-scale experiment are used to verify the proposed
formulation. Practical application of the correction
approach to structural frames is demonstrated and
discussed.
Downloaded by [Meng-Hao Tsai] at 08:59 25 March 2015
2. Derivation and correction of the neutral-based
DIF
2.1. Analytical derivation
Consider a block with weight W and suspended by a
spring with elastic stiffness k, as shown in Figure 1(a).
Suppose that the block is originally supported such that
the spring is not stretched at the beginning. If the block
is not so heavy as to load the spring into the inelastic
range, an energy equation of the block under support
loss may be written as
Wu ¼ ku2 =2 þ mv2 =2; (1)
where m, u, and v are the mass, displacement, and velocity
of the block, respectively. Damping-induced energy loss is
neglected in Equation (1). At the maximum deformation
umax , the kinetic energy is zero. Therefore, Wumax is equal
to the strain energy ku2max =2, and umax is equal to 2W =k. If
Figure 1. (a) Schematic of a spring–mass system and (b) Force–displacement response of an elasto-plastic spring under step
loadings.
373
the value of W =k is denoted as ub , which represents the
spring deformation as the support is released statically, the
DIF is then calculated as umax =ub ¼ 2. Since ub is also the
neutral position of the block under the support-loss
vibration, the DIF is conventionally estimated as the ratio
of maximum dynamic response to the neutral response.
However, as the maximum deformation umax goes beyond
the elastic limit, the elastic resilience is dependent on the
nonlinear behavior of the material. The DIF may be no
longer equal to 2.0.
Suppose that the weight of the block, W, is sufficient
to load the spring into the inelastic range under support
loss. The yield deformation and post-yield stiffness ratio
of the spring are assumed as uy and a, respectively.
Then, neglecting inherent damping, the potential loss
will be equal to the stored strain energy in the spring at
the instant of maximum deformation. That is,
1
Wumax ¼ Py uy f1 þ ðl  1Þ½2 þ aðl  1Þg
2 n o
1
¼ Py uy aðl  1Þ2 þ 2l  1 ; (2)
2
where Py ¼ kuy and l ¼ umax =uy are the static yield
force and ductility of the spring, respectively. Although
the sustained external loading is W , the maximum spring
force Pmax may be larger than W at the maximum defor-
mation, as shown in Figure 1(b). A positive post-yield
stiffness ratio is adopted herein because it is regarded as
a necessity for stable support-loss vibration. Pmax is, in
fact, in equilibrium with the sustained loading W and the
inertia force induced by the block. As the support-loss
vibration ceases at neutral displacement ub , it comes to a
static equilibrium state when the spring force is equal to
W . If the plastic behavior of the spring follows the kine-
matic strain-hardening rule, the difference between the
maximum and the neutral deformation of the spring may
be expressed as
 374 M.-H. Tsai and W.-S. Shyu
d ¼ umax  ub ¼ ðPmax  W Þuy =Py ;
where Pmax ¼ Py ½1 þ aðl  1Þ. Upon substituting
Equation (2) into the above equation, it may be derived
that
d ¼ umax  ub ¼ ðaðl2  1Þ þ 1Þuy =2=l for l  1:
The values of umax and ub may be obtained from the
measured displacement time histories in support-loss
tests. Hence, the DIF is calculated as
umax 2l2
g¼ ¼ for l  1:
umax  d ð2l2  1Þ  aðl2  1Þ
This DIF, g, is defined as the neutral-based DIF in this
study since it is determined from the neutral response.
As revealed from Equation (5), the neutral-based DIF
Downloaded by [Meng-Hao Tsai] at 08:59 25 March 2015
decreases with ductility and will asymptotically converge
to 1.0 as the ductility approaches infinity.
2.2. Correction
A general definition of the DIF is usually given as the
ratio of maximum dynamic displacement to static
displacement under the same load demand. Based on a
similar philosophy, it may be defined as the ratio of
static to maximum dynamic force response under the
same displacement demand (Tsai 2010). For better
distinction, the former and the latter are, respectively,
defined as displacement-based DIF and force-based DIF.
Therefore, if the same displacement demand umax is
selected as the basis, the DIF will be expressed as
Pmax 2l½1 þ aðl  1Þ
DIFp ¼ ¼ for l  1: (6)
W faðl  1Þ2 þ 2l  1g
This force-based DIF is regarded as real DIF for compar-
ison with the neutral-based DIF. Analytical formulations
of displacement-based DIF may be derived if the same
force demand is used as the basis.
Figure 2(a) and (b) presents the variation of
numerical neutral-based and real DIFs with ductility for
selected post-yield stiffness ratios, respectively. It is seen
that the real DIF may increase when the ductility is lar-
ger than a certain value for positive post-yield stiffness.
However, the neutral-based DIF shows an asymptotically
decreasing trend with ductility. Relative errors between
the neutral-based and real DIFs are shown in Figure 2(c).
Except for the case with zero post-yield stiffness, the
errors monotonically increase with ductility. The neutral-
based approach may significantly underestimate the real
DIF for large ductility. Also, the relative error appears
insensitive to the variation of post-yield stiffness ratio
when the stiffness ratio is larger than 0.1. As observed
from Equation (5), the neutral-based DIF may be used to
(3) estimate the corresponding ductility demand for the
support-loss test. The estimated ductility demand is
written as
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
gð1  aÞ
l¼ for g  2: (7)
gð2  aÞ  2
(4)
Then, the ductility l from Equation (7) may be substi-
tuted into Equation (6) for correction of the neutral-based
DIFs. In this way, the DIFs corrected from the neutral-
based DIFs will be exactly identical to the real DIFs
from Equation (6). Thus, both the ductility demand and
real DIF may be obtained from the support-loss experi-
(5) ment. However, it is assumed that the post-yield stiffness
ratio is given beforehand in this correction approach.
This is usually not the case in practice. Therefore, an
iterative procedure is proposed in a later section to deter-
mine an approximate ductility value for correction of the
neutral-based DIF.
3. Experimental verification
3.1. Test setup
A small-scale test setup with manual support-loss mecha-
nism was devised for the DIF experiment (Tsai and You
2012). Figure 3(a) shows a schematic drawing for the
elevation view of the test setup. The test specimen is
made of structural steel with design yield stress of
400 MPa and has a cross section of 30 mm wide and
3 mm deep. From material tests of the specimen, the
yield stress and strain are equal to 422 MPa and 0.002,
respectively. Details of the test setup may be gathered
from Tsai and You (2012). Iron blocks with average
weight of 6.30 N and lead plates with average weight of
12.37 N each are used as the imposed loadings. A rect-
angular steel basket is used to accommodate the imposed
loadings. A laser displacement meter is installed on a
reference frame to measure the displacement 225 mm
away from the presumed fixed end. A hanger is fixed to
the reference frame with a pinned connection. It is used
to support the imposed loading before sudden loss. The
hanger may be manually knocked off by a hammer to
simulate the sudden-loss scenario in the dynamic tests.
As for the static tests, the applied loading is increased by
sequentially placing the iron blocks into the basket and
the displacement response of each loading step is mea-
sured. The picture of a deformed specimen under static
loading is shown in Figure 3(b).
3.2. Test results
Figure 4(a) shows the fundamental nonlinear static load–
displacement response of the specimens. The ordinate is
 Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers
Downloaded by [Meng-Hao Tsai] at 08:59 25 March 2015
Figure 2. (a) Variation of numerical neutral-based DIFs with
ductility; (b) Variation of numerical real DIFs with ductility;
and (c) Relative errors between the neutral-based and real
DIFs.
the imposed loading and the abscissa is the measured
displacement. It is seen that the specimen is well loaded
into the plastic range with apparent positive post-yield
stiffness. The estimated yield displacement is 38.1 mm
and the associated yield load is 78.69 N. Dynamic
response of the test specimens is investigated from the
recorded time histories. Figure 4(b) shows the measured
375
displacement time histories under three different loading
demands. The maximum and neutral responses obtained
from each time history are also plotted in Figure 4(a) for
comparison. It is seen that the neutral response is consis-
tent with the static response in the elastic range. Both of
the neutral and static displacements are in fact equal to
half of the maximum dynamic displacement under small
loadings. However, as the specimen is loaded into the
plastic range, the neutral response begins to diverge from
the static response. Experimental static, dynamic, and
neutral responses are then used to calculate the neutral-
based and real DIFs. The neutral-based DIF is obtained
from dividing the maximum dynamic displacement by
the neutral displacement, as shown in Figure 5(a), where
the ordinate is expressed as the ratio of the applied load-
ing to the static yield force and the abscissa is expressed
as ductility demand. The real DIFs are calculated as the
ratios of static to dynamic force responses under identi-
cal ductility demands. It is seen that the experimental
results present similar variation to the previous numerical
results. Difference between the neutral-based and real
DIFs is apparent as the ductility demand increases.
3.3. Verification
Idealized approximation of the nonlinear static response
is established for verification of the proposed correction
approach. Because of the strain-hardening behavior, it is
more appropriate to idealize the static load–displacement
response of the test specimen as a trilinear curve. The
elastic, post-yield, and hardening stiffness are, respec-
tively, estimated as 20.65, 5.19, and 11.07 N/cm. The
post-yield and hardening stiffness ratios and the thresh-
olds of load and displacement response for the trilinear
approximation are summarized in Table 1. In the table,
Py , Ps , and Pu are, respectively, the yield loading, the
loading at the onset of strain-hardening, and the maxi-
mum applied loading in the static test. Their correspond-
ing displacements are denoted as uy , us , and uu . The
post-yield and hardening stiffness ratios are, respectively,
calculated as
a1 ¼ ðPs  Py Þuy =ðus  uy Þ=Py ; (8a)
a2 ¼ ðPu  Ps Þuy =ðuu  us Þ=Py (8b)
The value of a1 in Table 1 is substituted into Equation
(7) for the estimation of ductility. The estimated ductility
is then substituted into Equation (5) for the analytical
neutral-based DIFs, as shown in Figure 5(a) as well. It is
seen that the analytical results agree well with the experi-
mental neutral-based DIFs. The estimated ductility from
Equation (7) is further substituted into Equation (6) for
correction of the neutral-based DIFs. The corrected DIFs
 376 M.-H. Tsai and W.-S. Shyu

Figure 3. (a) A schematic drawing of the test setup and (b) A photo of a deformed specimen.
Downloaded by [Meng-Hao Tsai] at 08:59 25 March 2015

Figure 4. (a) Nonlinear load–displacement response of the specimens and (b) Typical displacement time histories under three
different loading demands.

are compared with the neutral-based and real DIFs in
Figure 5(a). Apparently, the correction leads to better
approximation to the real DIFs. Relative errors with
respect to the real DIFs are shown in Figure 5(b) for the
neutral-based and corrected DIFs. Except for the DIF
under the largest ductility demand, the relative errors are
significantly reduced through the correction.
4. Limitations of the analytical formulation
4.1. Idealized elasto-plastic response
Since the proposed analytical formulation is derived
based on an assumption of elasto-plastic response, its
accuracy may decrease if the nonlinear response presents
significant strain-hardening behavior. This is observed
from the pronounced error under the largest ductility
demand in Figure 5(b). In fact, a similar formulation
may be derived for trilinear approximation if necessary.
In such a case, more complicated expressions are
expected for the idealized tri-linear response. For
example, the relationship between the neutral-based DIF
and the ductility will become
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
g½ð1  a1 Þ þ l2s ða1  a2 Þ
l¼ (9)
2g  2  a2 g
 Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers 377

Figure 5. (a) Comparison of DIFs and (b) Relative errors with respect to the real DIFs.
Downloaded by [Meng-Hao Tsai] at 08:59 25 March 2015

Table 1. Control parameters for defining the idealized trilinear

response.

Load magnitude (N) Displacement (mm) Stiffness ratio d Pmax W al2  a þ 1

¼  ¼ : (11)
uy Py Py 2l
Py Ps Pu uy us uu a1 a2
78.69 129.12 192.11 38.1 135.3 192.2 0.251 0.536 Since the oscillation rebounded from maximum dynamic
response is elastic, the above equation is bounded by
0.5. This leads to 1  l  ð1  aÞ=a, which implies that
a\0:5 if the support-loss response is inelastic. Also, the
maximum ductility, lmax , is bounded by ð1  aÞ=a. Since
The corrected DIF is then expressed as

2l½1 þ a1 ðls  1Þ þ a2 ðl  ls Þ
DIFp ¼ h i:
1 þ a1 ðls  1Þ þ 2ðls  1Þ þ 2a1 ðls  1Þðl  ls Þ þ a2 ðl  ls Þ2 þ 2ðl  ls Þ
2

(10)
These two equations, Equations (9) and (10), are
applicable to the strain-hardening range with l  ls ,
where ls stands for the ductility threshold of strain hard-
ening. Moderate improvement in the corrected DIF for
the strain-hardening vibration may be obtained with the
trilinear approximation. Nevertheless, since elasto-plastic
response is usually the dominant behavior in support-loss
tests, the proposed correction approach is sufficient for
most practical applications.
4.2. Bounded estimation of post-yield stiffness ratio
and ductility
Usually, the post-yield stiffness ratio cannot be deter-
mined from a single dynamic support-loss test. However,
a predetermined post-yield stiffness ratio is needed for
utilization of Equations (6) and (7). It is noted that from
Equation (2) and Pmax ¼ Py ½1 þ aðl  1Þ, Equation (3)
may be rewritten as
the value of lmax will increase toward infinity as the
post-yield stiffness ratio approaches zero, an engineer-
ing-based maximum ductility ratio may be provided in
practice. Moreover, Equation (7) may have a meaningful
ductility value only if gð2  aÞ  2 [ 0. This brings
about a\2ðg  1Þ=g. Meanwhile, Equation (7) reveals
that the ductility demand l increases with the post-yield
stiffness ratio for a fixed neutral-based DIF, g. Thus, a
lower p bound of ductility may be obtained as
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
lmin ¼ g=ð2g  2Þ with a ¼ 0. To sum up, the post-
yield stiffness ratio and corresponding ductility demand
are bounded as
0  a\min:f2ðg  1Þ=g; 0:5g; (12a)
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
g=ð2g  2Þ  l  ð1  aÞ=a: (12b)
From the above investigation, an iterative procedure is
proposed for the determination of the post-yield stiffness
ratio and ductility demand. At first, an initial guess for a
 378 M.-H. Tsai and W.-S. Shyu
is made according to Equation (12a). Then, Equation (7)
is used to calculate the resulting ductility l. Since the
value of lmax is dependent on a, the mean value of lmax
and lmin may vary accordingly. The post-yield stiffness
ratio is adjusted until the ductility is approximated to the
Downloaded by [Meng-Hao Tsai] at 08:59 25 March 2015
Figure 6. Flow chart of the iterative procedure.
Figure 7. (a) Comparison of the estimated ductility under various applied loadings and (b) Comparison of the iterative DIFs under
various applied loadings.
average of lmax and lmin . Detailed steps of the procedure
are shown in Figure 6. Although the resulting ductility
may not really equal the true value, it can still be used
as an index of damage. Figure 7(a) compares the
ductility estimate by using the iterative procedure to that
obtained from the static and dynamic test results under
various applied loadings. It is seen that except for the
strain-hardening region, approximate ductility may be
obtained. In the figure, the experimental ductility is
calculated as the maximum dynamic displacement
divided by yield displacement, so it is less than 1.0 in
the elastic region. Figure 7(b) shows the corresponding
experimental and predicted DIFs. Accuracy of the itera-
tive procedure is comparable to the previous estimation
with a known post-yield stiffness ratio. Therefore, its
application to general elasto-plastic dynamic response
may be confirmed.
5. Numerical validation for structural frames
A 3-story and a 10-story steel moment-resisting frame are
constructed using a commercial program SAP2000 (CSI
2008) to investigate the accuracy of the proposed
approach in estimation of structural DIF under column
loss. Elevation views, material strength, and section
details of the frame models are shown in Figures 8(a) and
(b). Two assumed column loss scenarios, namely a corner
and an interior column as indicated in the figures, are
considered for each model. Elasto-plastic flexural hinges
are assigned to the member ends of beams and columns.
It is assumed that the flexural hinges have a post-yield
stiffness ratio equal to 4%. Development of catenary
action is not considered in the structural models.
Nonlinear static pushdown analyses are carried out
for each column loss scenario. Pseudo-static response or
capacity curves, which are constructed from the
 Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers 379

Figure 8. (a) Elevation view and section details of the 3-story frame model and (b) Elevation view and section details of the 10-story
frame model.

nonlinear static analysis results, are used to determine It is assumed that the selected column is lost suddenly
Downloaded by [Meng-Hao Tsai] at 08:59 25 March 2015

the loading magnitudes for nonlinear dynamic analyses
(Tsai 2010, 2012). Figures 9(a) and (b) shows the non-
linear static and pseudo-static response curves of the
three-story and ten-story frames, respectively. The ordi-
nate is expressed as a multiplier of the total vertical reac-
tion divided by an assigned downward loading, W ,
which is the sum of a uniformly distributed loading
equal to 10 kN/m on each span adjacent to the failed
column. The abscissa is expressed as the ductility
demands obtained from dividing the displacement of the
column loss joint by the yield displacement. The yield
displacement is determined from the commencement of
the first hinge event. For varied extent of plasticity, three
different loading magnitudes for the corner and interior
column loss scenarios are selected for the nonlinear
dynamic analyses, as shown in Tables 2(a) and 2(b),
respectively. The loading magnitudes are expressed as
multipliers of the assigned downward loading.
in the dynamic loading procedure (Kim, Kim, and Park
2009; U.S. DoD 2009). In the dynamic loading proce-
dure, the selected column is at first replaced with its sec-
tional resultants applied to the column-removed joint to
simulate the intact condition of the frame. Then, a set of
equal-but-opposite step loadings is applied to the column-
removed joint to simulate the sudden column loss sce-
nario. Contribution of inherent damping is neglected
herein. Maximum and neutral displacements of the
column loss joint are measured in the nonlinear dynamic
analyses. Tables 2(a) and 2(b) summarize the dynamic
response and associated analysis results using the iterative
procedure. In the table, the real DIFs are calculated as the
ratios of static to dynamic loading magnitudes under the
same displacement demands. It is seen that except for the
corner column loss scenarios under the lowest loading
demand, the corrected DIFs, DIFp , may have better
approximation to the real values than the neutral-based

Figure 9. (a) Nonlinear static and pseudo-static response curves of the 3-story frame and (b) Nonlinear static and pseudo-static
response curves of the 10-story frame.
 380 M.-H. Tsai and W.-S. Shyu

Table 2(a). Numerical validation for corner column loss scenario.

Frame Load/W umax (cm) l ub (cm) g lpredict DIFp Real DIF

3-story 1.64 12.6 1.7 8.7 1.45 1.6 1.67 1.48
2.26 25.9 3.5 24.2 1.07 5.6 1.34 1.32
2.56 40.3 5.5 37.7 1.07 5.8 1.33 1.24
10-story 1.94 14.1 1.8 9.5 1.48 1.5 1.70 1.52
2.63 26.0 3.4 22.2 1.17 2.9 1.45 1.32
2.98 39.5 5.1 36.3 1.09 4.8 1.36 1.24

Table 2(b). Numerical validation for interior column loss scenario.

Frame Load/W umax (cm) l ub (cm) g lpredict DIFp Real DIF

3-story 1.70 9.4 1.8 6.7 1.40 1.7 1.64 1.53
2.31 20.0 3.9 18.4 1.09 4.8 1.36 1.29
2.55 30.1 5.9 28.7 1.05 7.7 1.31 1.22
10-story 2.01 9.5 1.8 7.2 1.31 1.9 1.57 1.48
2.65 19.2 3.7 17.5 1.09 4.6 1.36 1.29
2.94 28.9 5.5 27.5 1.05 7.6 1.31 1.22
Downloaded by [Meng-Hao Tsai] at 08:59 25 March 2015

DIFs, g. In general, the correction approach presents use-
ful predictions for the interior column loss scenarios. This
may be caused by the fact that lateral vibration of the
structural frame is coupled with the vertical oscillation
under corner column loss. Also, the proposed approach
leads to better prediction under larger ductility demands.
Therefore, the proposed correction approach is more
accurate for dynamic support-loss tests dominated by sin-
gle-mode vibration. Besides, although in some cases the
predicted ductility demands are not really close to the true
values, they may still be used to roughly evaluate the
extent of structural damage without the need of sophisti-
cated nonlinear dynamic simulation. Since the variation
of DIF decreases as the ductility increases, the proposed
correction approach may result in more accurate predic-
tion of DIF than ductility demand.
not very close to the exact value, the estimated ductility
may serve as an index of damage induced by the support
loss. Application of the proposed approach to estimation
of structural DIFs under sudden column loss is numeri-
cally validated with two moment-resisting steel frames.
Approximated DIFs are obtained from correction of the
neutral-based DIFs that are calculated from the maxi-
mum and neutral displacements. Accuracy of the ductil-
ity demands which resulted from the iterative procedure
is acceptable for evaluation of structural damage.
Because the vertical oscillation caused by corner column
loss may be coupled with lateral vibration mode, the cor-
rection approach is more favorable for interior column
loss scenarios.
Nomenclature

6. Conclusions DIFp the real DIF

Owing to limited test data, DIFs have usually been esti- k elastic stiffness of spring
mated as the ratios of the measured maximum displace- m the block mass
ment to neutral displacement in dynamic support-loss Pmax the maximum spring force
experiments. Based on the analytical investigation of an Ps the loading at the onset of strain hardening
elasto-plastic, single degree-of-freedom model, it has Pu the maximum applied loading
been revealed that this neutral-based calculation may Py the yield loading
underestimate the real DIF in the plastic phase. An u the spring deformation
analytical formulation is thus proposed to correct the ub neutral displacement
neutral-based DIF obtained from the measured dynamic umax maximum deformation
response. Accuracy of the proposed formulation has been us deformation corresponding to Ps
confirmed with the test results of a small-scale experi- uu deformation corresponding to Pu
ment. It may be used to correct the neutral-based DIFs uy yield deformation
in the elasto-plastic region. Since the post-yield stiffness W the block weight
ratio is needed a priori, an iterative procedure is sug- v block velocity
gested for practical application of the derived formulae. α, α1 post-yield stiffness ratio
The ductility demand under support loss may be α2 hardening stiffness ratios
obtained as well from the iterative procedure. Although η the neutral-based DIF
 Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers 381

Acknowledgments Sasani, M., and S. Sagiroglu. 2008. “Progressive Collapse

The writers wish to express their sincere appreciation to the Resistance of Hotel San Diego.” Journal of Structural
reviewers for very constructive comments. Engineering 134 (3): 478–488. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9445(2008) 134:3(478).
Sasani, M., and S. Sagiroglu. 2010. “Gravity Load Redistribu-
Funding tion and Progressive Collapse Resistance of 20-story Rein-
The study presented in this paper was partially supported by forced Concrete Structure Following Loss of Interior
the National Science Council of Taiwan under Grants NSC 99- Column.” ACI Structural Journal 107 (6): 636–644.
2221-E-020-013 and that support is gratefully acknowledged. doi:10.14359/51664011.
Sasani, M., M. Bazan, and S. Sagiroglu. 2007. “Experimental
and Analytical Progressive Collapse Evaluation of Actual
References Reinforced Concrete Structure.” ACI Structural Journal
104 (6): 731–739. doi:10.14359/18955.
Biggs, J. M. 1964. Introduction to Structural Dynamics.
Sasani, M., A. Kazemi, S. Sagiroglu, and S. Forest. 2011. “Pro-
New York: McGraw-Hill.
gressive Collapse Resistance of an Actual 11-story Struc-
Chopra, A. K. 1995. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and
ture Subjected to Severe Initial Damage.” Journal of
Applications to Earthquake Engineering. New Jersey, NJ:
Structural Engineering 137 (9): 893–902. doi:10.1061/
Prentice-Hall.
(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000418.
Clough, R. W., and J. Penzien. 1993. Dynamics of Structures.
Tian, Y., and Y. Su. 2011. “Dynamic Response of Reinforced Con-
New York: McGraw-Hill.
crete Beams Following Instantaneous Removal of a Bearing
Downloaded by [Meng-Hao Tsai] at 08:59 25 March 2015

CSI (Computers and Structures, Inc.). 2008. SAP2000® Version

Column.” International Journal of Concrete Structures and
12.0 Linear and Nonlinear Static and Dynamic Analysis
Materials 5 (1): 19–28. doi:10.4334/IJCSM.2011.5.1.019.
and Design of Three-dimensional Structures. Berkeley, CA:
Tsai, M.-H. 2010. “An Analytical Methodology for the
Computers and Structures.
Dynamic Amplification Factor in Progressive Collapse
Kaewkulchai, G., and E. B. Williamson. 2004. “Beam Element
Evaluation of Building Structures.” Mechanics Research
Formulation and Solution Procedure for Dynamic Progres-
Communications 37 (1): 61–66. doi:10.1016/j.mechres-
sive Collapse Analysis.” Computers & Structures 82 (7–8):
com.2009.11.001.
639–651. doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2003.12.001.
Tsai, M.-H. 2012. “A Performance-based Design Approach for
Kim, J., and T. Kim. 2009. “Assessment of Progressive Col-
Retrofitting Regular Building Frames with Steel Braces
lapse-resisting Capacity of Steel Moment Frames.” Journal
against Sudden Column Loss.” Journal of Constructional
of Constructed Steel Research 65 (1): 169–179.
Steel Research 77: 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2012.04.008.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2008.03.020.
Tsai, M.-H., and B.-H. Lin. 2008. “Investigation of Progressive
Kim, H.-S., J. Kim, and D.-W. An. 2009. “Development of
Collapse Resistance and Inelastic Response for an Earth-
Integrated System for Progressive Collapse Analysis of
quake-resistant RC Building Subjected to Column Failure.”
Building Structures Considering Dynamic Effects.”
Engineering Structures 30 (12): 3619–3628. doi:10.1016/
Advances in Engineering Software 40 (1): 1–8.
j.engstruct.2008.05.031.
doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2008.03.011.
Tsai, M.-H., and B.-H. Lin. 2009. “Dynamic Amplification Fac-
Kim, T., J. Kim, and J. Park. 2009. “Investigation of Progres-
tor for Progressive Collapse Resistance Analysis of a RC
sive Collapse-resisting Capability of Steel Moment Frames
Building.” Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings
Using Push–Down Analysis.” Journal of Performance of
18 (5): 539–557. doi:10.1002/tal.453.
Constructed Facilities 23 (5): 327–335. doi:10.1061/
Tsai, M.-H., and Z.-K. You. 2012. “Experimental Evaluation of
(ASCE)0887-3828(2009) 23:5(327).
Inelastic Dynamic Amplification Factors for Progressive
Matthews, T., K. J. Elwood, and S.-J. Hwang. 2007. “Explosive
Collapse Analysis under Sudden Support Loss.” Mechanics
Testing to Evaluate Dynamic Amplification during Gravity
Research Communications 40: 56–62. doi:10.1016/j.me-
Load Redistribution for Reinforced Concrete Frames.” In
chrescom.2012.01.011.
Proceedings of the 2007 Structures Congress, Long Beach,
U.S. DoD (U.S. Department of Defense). 2005. Unified
CA, May 16–19, 1–14. Virginia, VA: American Society of
Facilities Criteria: Design of Buildings to Resist Progres-
Civil Engineers. doi:10.1061/40944(249)10.
sive Collapse (UFC 4-023-03). Washington, DC: U.S.
Matthews, T., K. J. Elwood, F.-P. Hsiao, Y.-K. Yeh, and S.-J.
Department of Defense.
Hwang. 2008. Explosive Testing to Assess Dynamic Load
U.S. DoD (U.S. Department of Defense). 2009. Unified
Redistribution in a Reinforced Concrete Frame Building
Facilities Criteria: Design of Buildings to Resist Progres-
(Report No. NCREE-08-015). Taipei: National Center for
sive Collapse (UFC 4-023-03). Washington, DC: U.S.
Research of Earthquake Engineering.
Department of Defense.
Ruth, P., K. A. Marchand, and E. B. Williamson. 2006. “Static
U.S. GSA (U.S. General Service Administration). 2003.
Equivalency in Progressive Collapse Alternate Path Analysis:
Progressive Collapse Analysis and Design Guidelines for
Reducing Conservatism While Retaining Structural Integrity.”
New Federal Office Buildings and Major Modernization Pro-
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 20 (4):
jects. Washington, DC: U.S. General Service Administration.
349–364. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2006) 20:4(349).