Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
Structures, cilt.73, 2025 (SCI-Expanded)
This study compares the Finite Element Method (FEM) and the Applied Element Method (AEM) in analyzing progressive collapse (PC) of a reinforced concrete (RC) structure. The novelty and distinction of this research lie in its broad investigation of the influence of various slab thicknesses, types, and damping ratios on failure analysis in a total of 54 scenarios, considering two engineering methods, six slab models, three thicknesses, and three damping ratios. A five-span five-bay RC structure model was analyzed using SAP2000 and ELS programs. A three-stage column removal was performed, with 3-second intervals to allow for sufficient vibration damping. In order to observe behavioral changes not only one corner column, but also with the columns that follow those adjacent to it on both sides were removed. The displacement values of the corner column were then compared in both cases. While AEM, for each slab piece, used cuboid-shaped elements connected by springs, applying a “thin structure correction factor” to consider shear and flexure behavior, FEM analyzed five slab types. AEM elements connected by springs, whereas FEM employs linear elements and the distributed plasticity concept (fiber hinges). The findings reveal that AEM exhibits higher rigidity and damping within the first second, contrasting with FEM's 2–2.50 seconds. The layered-shell slab model, characterized by its comprehensiveness and realism, exhibits more rigid behavior. Therefore, AEM model, particularly when considering the thickest layered-shell slab structure, relatively aligns with the FEM model. Increasing the slab thickness has a greater impact on the rigidity of the FEM model, thereby enhancing its resilience. Conversely, in the AEM-based solid model, an increase in slab weight (thickness) results in more displacement. A validation study was conducted by comparing the results with a former experimental test. Overall, the study highlights the viability of both methods for PC analysis, as long as their characteristics are well-understood. The AEM serves as an alternative to FEM, particularly in scenarios involving multiple element removals, considering computational time and modeling practicality.