Comparison of Various Procedures for Progressive Collapse Analysis
Publication: Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
Volume 20, Issue 4
Abstract
We compare four methods for progressive collapse analysis by analyzing a nine-story steel moment-resistant frame building, employing increasingly complex analytical procedures: linear-elastic static, nonlinear static, linear-elastic dynamic, and nonlinear dynamic methodologies. Each procedure is thoroughly investigated and common shortcomings are identified, along with advantages and disadvantages, using side-by-side comparison, including approximate time spent on modeling and computation. The evaluation uses current General Services Administration progressive collapse guidelines. Our objective is to provide clear conceptual step-by-step descriptions of various procedures for progressive collapse analysis by performing example analyses using commercially available structural analysis software, such as SAP2000, with the aim that the explanations in this paper will be clear enough that they will be readily understandable and will be used by practicing engineers. We demonstrate that dynamic analysis procedures not only yield more accurate results, but are also easy to perform for progressive collapse determination. Additionally, we show that current GSA performance limits for linear analysis procedures are unconservative, meaning that a structure designed with acceptable linear evaluation criteria may exceed allowable ductility and rotation limits when nonlinear dynamic analysis is performed on the same structure. Finally, our recommendations for the analysis procedures take into account accuracy as well as ease of use.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
AISC-LRFD. (2003). Manual of steel construction, load and resistance factor design, 3rd Ed., 2nd Printing, AISC, Chicago.
Buscemi, N., and Marjanishvili, S. M. (2005). “SDOF model for progressive collapse analysis.” Proc., SEI Structures Congress, ASCE, Reston, Va.
Clough, R. W., and Penzien, J. (1993). Dynamics of structures, 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
Department of Defense (DoD). (2005). “Unified facilities criteria (UFC), design of buildings to resist progressive collapse.” UFC 4-023-03, DoD.
General Services Administration (GSA. (2003). Progressive collapse analysis and design guidelines for new federal office buildings and major modernization projects, GSA.
IBC. (2003). 2003 international building code, International Code Council, Falls Church, Va.
Interagency Security Committee (ISC). (2004). ISC security design criteria for new federal office buildings and major modernization projects, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C.
Kaewkulchai, G., and Williamson, E. (2003). “Dynamic behavior of planar frames during progressive collapse.” Proc., 16th Engineering Mechanics Conference, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.
Marjanishvili, S. M. (2004). “Progressive analysis procedure for progressive collapse.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 18(2), 79–85.
Pretlove, A. J., and Ramsden, M., Atkins, A. G. (199l). “Dynamic effects in progressive failure of structures.” Int. J. Impact Eng., 11(4), 539–546.
SAP2000. (2002). Version 8, analysis reference manual, Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, Calif.
Wilson, E. L. (2002). Three-dimensional static and dynamic analysis of structures, 3rd Ed., Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, Calif.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2006 ASCE.
History
Received: Mar 7, 2006
Accepted: Mar 31, 2006
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.