Authors : Madhu N. S.; Shankar G. S.

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 9 - September

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/4z4csp2

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/wpy6nc63

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25sep1375

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Note : Google Scholar may take 30 to 40 days to display the article.

Abstract : The increasing need for urban redevelopment in densely populated regions has elevated the importance of controlled demolition of aging high-rise structures, a high-risk operation where failure can lead to catastrophic progressive collapse. Traditional static analysis methods are fundamentally inadequate for simulating the sudden, nonlinear, and dynamic nature of such events, creating a significant gap between structural design and demolition safety planning. This research addresses this critical need by developing an integrated computational workflow utilizing ETABS for global analysis and design of a G+15 vertically irregular RC building per Indian codes, and ANSYS Explicit Dynamics for high-fidelity simulation of blast-induced progressive collapse. The study successfully identifies critical columns through pushover analysis and quantifies the dynamic response, establishing a Dynamic Amplification Factor of 1.92-2.02 and proposing a kinetic energy-based metric for robust collapse initiation detection. The results demonstrate distinct failure mechanisms for instantaneous versus blast-load removal scenarios, with the latter producing more realistic fragmentation and a 12% higher energy impulse. This work provides a validated, end-to-end methodology that bridges a crucial gap in demolition engineering, offering practical, simulation-driven insights to enhance the safety and predictability of demolishing complex irregular structures.

Keywords : ETAB, ANSYS Explicit Dynamics ,Progressive Collapse.

References :

1. Bao, Y., & Kunnath, S. K. (2010). Response of building frames to removal of structural elements. International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials, 4(1), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.4334/IJCSM.2010.4.1.029
2. Liu, X., Wu, C., Hao, H., & Su, Y. (2016). Experimental and numerical study of progressive collapse of reinforced concrete frames under a middle column removal scenario. Advances in Structural Engineering, 19(5), 847–864. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369433216630189
3. Pham, T. M., Hao, H., & Tran, T. M. (2016). Prediction of progressive collapse of building frames using numerical simulation. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 30(6), 04016054. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000896
4. Luo, H., Ma, G., & Zhang, J. (2023). A review of numerical methods for simulating building demolition and collapse. Engineering Structures, 276, 115323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.115323
5. Fang, Q., & Li, J. (2022). Dynamic response and collapse analysis of reinforced concrete frames under column removal: Experimental and simulation-based insights. Materials, 15(20), 7104. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15207104
6. Lu, X., Lin, K., Guan, H., & Jiang, H. (2020). Integrated robustness evaluation of RC buildings subjected to progressive collapse. Buildings, 10(8), 128. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10080128
7. Izzuddin, B. A., Vlassis, A. G., Elghazouli, A. Y., & Nethercot, D. A. (2008). Progressive collapse of multi-storey buildings due to sudden column loss – Part I: Simplified assessment framework. Engineering Structures, 30(5), 1308–1318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.07.011