CONTROLLED DEMOLITION OF A MULTI-STORY REINFORCED

CONCRETE FRAME USING DEMOLITION BALL (27.5 TONS)

Description
This problem shows a multi-story reinforced concrete frame subjected swinging
disc. Figure 1 shows the geometry and reinforcement of the frame. It is shown in Fig. 1
the locations and inclination angle of the swinging disc. Simulation is performed using
3349 elements, as shown in Fig. 2. Analysis took approximately 2 hours to simulate the
first 7.0 seconds of motion using a PC. The swinging disc is of radius 1.5 meters with
thickness 0.5 m and connected to a steel rope of width 0.05 m. and out-of-plane thickness
of 0.5 m.

2.96 m

2.11 45°
1.00 t=0.05 m

5.00 10.46

0.25 1.00
As=15 cm2

1.00 R0.75
2
5.00
As=15 cm
Beam Sec.
1.00
As=10 cm2
top/bottom
30.00 5.00
0.25
1.00 1.00
Column Sec.
5.00
Stirrups:
2
1.00 As=5 cm/25 cm

5.00
Solid Ground

1.00 7.00 1.00 7.00 1.00

17.00
Fig. 1, Geometry and Reinforcement Distribution of a Multi-Story Frame Subjected to
Controlled Demolition
 Point of Displacement Calculation

Point of Stress Calculation

Fig. 2, Mathematical Model

Material properties
Steel
For reinforcement and disc springs, the model presented in previous research1) is
used and is shown in Fig. 3. The tangent stiffness of reinforcement is calculated based on
the strain from the reinforcement spring, loading status (either loading or unloading) and
the previous history of steel spring, which controls the Bauschinger's effect.
The main advantage of this model is that it can easily consider the effects of
partial unloading and Baushinger's effect without any additional complications to the
analysis. Reinforcement bars are assumed to be cut, which is not realistic in some cases,
after reaching 1.5 times the yield stress value.

Stress
σy1 Tension
Eo/n

Eo
Strain

Compression σy2

Fig. 3 Stress-Strain curve for Steel 1)

Where,
n= post yield slope=100

Young’s Modulus (E)

( kN / m2 )
σy1 σy2 γ (Disc)
2 2
(kN / m ) (kN / m )
2.10E+08 2.40E+05 2.40E+05 7.8 t/m3

Concrete
As a material modeling of concrete under compression condition, Maekawa
compression model2), as shown in Fig. 4, is adopted. In this model, the initial Young's
modulus, the fracture parameter, representing the extent of the internal damage of
concrete, and the compressive plastic strain are introduced to define the envelope for
compressive stresses and compressive strains. Therefore, unloading and reloading can be
conveniently described. For more details, refer to Ref. (2).
The tangent modulus is calculated according to the strain at the spring location.
To consider the biaxial confinement effects in compression zones, Kupfer3) biaxial failure
function is adopted. A modified compressive strength, fceq, is calculated using Eq. (1).
This indicates that the compressive resistance associated with each spring is variable and
depends mainly on the stress situation at the spring location. To determine the principal
stress components σ1 and σ2, refer to Sec. 2.3.
 1 + 3.65(σ1 σ 2 )
f ceq = fc (1)
(1 + σ1 σ 2 )2

After peak stresses, spring stiffness is assumed as a minimum value to avoid

negative stiffness. This results in difference between calculated stress and stress
corresponds to the spring strain. These residual stresses are redistributed by applying the
redistributed force values in the reverse direction. For concrete springs subjected to
tension, spring stiffness is assumed as the initial stiffness until reaching the cracking
point. After cracking, stiffness of springs subjected to tension is set to be zero.

S tr e s s
σc
g
di n
Loa

in g
o ad C o m p r e s s io n

ading
R el

Unlo

εp
S tr a in
T e n s io n
σt
Fig. 4 Stress-Strain curve for Concrete2)

Young’s Modulus (E)

(kN / m2 )
σc σt γ
(kN / m2 ) (kN / m2 ) (t / m 3 )
2.10E+07 2.00E+03 25.00E+03 4.0 (columns) or
10.0 (Beams)

Cracking Model
One of the main problems associated with the use of elements having three
degrees of freedom is the modeling of diagonal cracking. Applying Mohr-Coloumb’s
failure criteria calculated from normal and shear springs, not based on principal stresses,
has some problems. When the structure is really composed of individual elements, such
as granular material or brick masonry buildings, Mohr-Coloumb’s failure criteria is
reasonable. However, when we use elements by dividing the structure virtually, which is
not really composed of elements, for convenience of numerical simulation, adopting
Mohr-Coloumb’s failure criteria leads to inaccurate simulation of fracture behavior of the
structure.
It was proved in Ref. 4 that stresses and strains around each element could be
calculated accurately. The idea of the proposed technique is how to use the calculated
stresses around each element to detect the occurrence of cracks. To determine the
principal stresses at each spring location, the following technique is used. Referring to
Fig. 5, the shear and normal stress components (τ and σ1) at point (A) are determined
from the normal and shear springs attached at the contact point location. The secondary
stress (σ2) can be calculated by Eq. 2 from normal stresses in points (B) and (C), as
shown in Fig. 5.
σ2 =
x
σB +
(a − x ) σ
C (2)
a a

The principal tension is calculated:

2
 σ + σ2   σ − σ2 
σp =  1 +  1  + (τ )
2
(3)
 2   2 

The value of principal stress (σp) is compared with the tension resistance of the
studied material. When σp exceeds the critical value of tension resistance, the normal and
shear spring forces are redistributed in the next increment by applying the normal and
shear spring forces in the reverse direction. These redistributed forces are transferred to
the element center as a force and moment, and then these redistributed forces are applied
to the structure in the next increment. The redistribution of spring forces at the crack
location is very important for following the proper crack propagation.
For the normal spring, the whole force value is redistributed to have zero tension
stress at the crack faces. Although shear springs at the location of tension cracking might
have some resistance after cracking due to the effect of friction and interlocking between
the crack faces, the shear stiffness is assumed zero after crack occurrence.
σP σ1
τ
σC σ2 σΒ
(C) (A) (B)
d

Contact point

a
Fig. 5 Principal Stress determination
Shear Model
Shear model is approximately considered in the analysis according to Fig. 6. The
shear stress-strain relation is assumed linear until reaching the cracking point. After
cracking, due to shear transfer and shear locking, a part of the shear stresses is
redistributed (RV). The RV factor was taken as 1.0 in this simulation.

τ Cracking point

Redistributed
value (RV)

G
γ
Fig. 6 Shear Stress-Strain Relation Before and After Cracking

Limitations of Used Models

It should be emphasized that some other failure occurrences, as buckling of
reinforcement and spalling of concrete cover, are not considered in the analysis in this
study.
However, the shear transfer and shear softening are approximately considered in the
analysis. The assumption of reinforcement bars cut may be acceptable for bars of small
diameters; however, it is not realistic in cases of bars of large area. The effects of loading
rate on the material properties were also neglected.
Results
Many interesting results are detailed through this sample. The following factors were
considered in the analysis and can be customized to fit other situations:
1- The swinging disc can be set at any location in the problem to be solved
2- The rope connecting to the disc can also be modeled
3- In the used mesh, the user does not have to know any previous information about
how the structure will collapse
4- The crack initiation and propagation can be traced easily until failure at any
location
5- The program detects automatically the contact location and set contact normal and
shear springs at contact points. The cracking closure phenomenon can also be
traced
6- The nonlinear behavior of reinforcement bars, stirrups and concrete in both
tension and compression can be simulated
7- Normal and shear stresses and strains can be traced at any point, steel or concrete,
at any time.
8- The rope vibration can be also traced
9- Although the column was destroyed due to collision with the disc, the structure
did not collapse.

Figure 7 shows a screen shot of the structure during collapse. Figure 8 shows the
displacement-time relation of element shown in Fig. 2, while Fig. 9 the stress-time
relation of the steel bar shown at Fig. 2.
Fig. 7, Structure Shape after Collision with the Disc
 Displacement Curve

0.2

0.15
X-Displacement (m)

0.1

0.05

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-0.05

-0.1
Time (Sec.)

Fig. 8, Displacement-Time of Top of the Frame

Stress-Strain Curver in RFT Bar

250000
200000
150000
Stress (kN/m2)

100000
50000
0
-50000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-100000
-150000
-200000
Time (Sec.)

Fig. 9, Stress-Strain Relation at point shown in Fig. 2.

References
1. Ristic D., Yamada Y., and Iemura H.: Stress-strain based modeling of hystertic structures under earthquake
induced bending and varying axial loads, Research report, No. 86-ST-01, School of Civil Engineering, Kyoto
University, 1986.
2. Okamura H. and Maekawa K.: Nonlinear analysis and constitutive models of reinforced concrete, Gihodo Co.
Ltd., Tokyo, 1991.
3. Kupfer H., Hilsdorf, H.K., Rusch H.: Behavior of concrete under biaxial stresses, ACI journal, V. 66, No. 8, pp.
656-666, Aug. 1969.
4. Meguro K. and Tagel-Din H.: Applied Element Method for structural analysis: theory and application for linear
materials, Structural Eng./Earthquake Eng., JSCE, Vol. 17, No. 1, 21s-35s, April 2000