Static Equivalency in Progressive Collapse Alternate Path Analysis: Reducing Conservatism while Retaining Structural Integrity
Publication: Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
Volume 20, Issue 4
Abstract
The existing General Services Administration (GSA) and Department of Defense Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) guidelines make use of the alternate path approach for evaluation of a structural system to determine susceptibility to progressive collapse. The alternate path approach presumes that one critical or key member, typically a column, is damaged and rendered incapable of supporting load. The remaining structure must be able to span across this lost member. The existing procedures incorporate material nonlinearity through allowable plastic deformations or through the use of a modified static capacity to incorporate plasticity. The procedures also permit an analyst to evaluate the response of a structure either statically or dynamically. Dynamic inertial effects can be considered directly through the equations of motion inherent in a dynamic analysis or considered indirectly through the modification of dead and live loads in a static analysis. Both the GSA and UFC procedures recommend a static “multiplier” of 2.0 to account for these inertial effects. The analysis presented in this paper illustrates that this multiplier may be conservative, resulting in structural designs less efficient than may be otherwise achievable. A dynamic multiplier of 1.5 better captures the dynamic effects when a static analysis is performed, and will result in more economical designs.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
Abruzzo, J. (2002). “Structural systems for progressive collapse prevention.” Proc., Workshop for Prevention of Progressive Collapse, Multihazard Mitigation Council of the National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, D.C.
ACI. (2002). Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-02) and commentary (ACI 318R-02), ACI Committee 318, Farmington Hills, Mich.
ASCE. (2002). “Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.” ASCE/SEI 7-02, Reston, Va.
Biggs, J. M. (1964). Introduction to structural dynamics, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Breen, J. E., and Siess, C. P. (1979). “Progressive collapse—Symposium summary.” ACI J., 76(9), 997–1004.
Cagley, J. R. (2002). “The design professional’s concerns regarding progressive collapse design.” Proc., Workshop for Prevention of Progressive Collapse, Multihazard Mitigation Council of the National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, D.C.
Chopra, A. K. (2000). Dynamics of structures: Theory and applications to earthquake engineering, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.
Clough, R. W., and Penzien, J. (2004). Dynamics of structures, Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, Calif.
Dusenberry, D. O., and Juneja, G. (2002). “Review of existing guidelines and provisions related to progressive collapse.” Proc., Workshop for Prevention of Progressive Collapse, Multihazard Mitigation Council of the National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, D.C.
International Code Council. (1997). Uniform building code, Falls Church, Va.
International Code Council (IBC). (2003). International building code, Falls Church, Va.
Kaewkulchai, G., and Williamson, E. (2003). “Beam element formulation and solution procedure for dynamic progressive collapse analysis.” Comput. Struct., 82(7–8), 639–651.
Marchand, K. A., and Alfawakhiri, F. (2005). Facts for steel buildings: Blast and progressive collapse, American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago.
Pekelnicky, R. E. (2003). “Can we do anything right now? An assessment of the blast resistance gained from seismic detailing.” Proc., American Concrete Institute Annual Convention, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.
Smilowitz, R. (2002). “Analytical tools for progressive collapse analysis.” Proc., Workshop for Prevention of Progressive Collapse, Multihazard Mitigation Council of the National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, D.C.
United States Department of Defense (USDOD). (2005). “Design of buildings to resist progressive collapse, Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC).” 4-023-03, Washington, D.C. (approved for public release).
U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). (2003). Progressive collapse analysis and design guidelines for new federal office buildings and major modernization projects, Washington, D.C.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
Volume 20 • Issue 4 • November 2006
Pages: 349 - 364
Copyright
© 2006 ASCE.
History
Received: Feb 17, 2005
Accepted: Sep 26, 2005
Published online: Nov 1, 2006
Published in print: Nov 2006
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.