Progressive Collapse and Earthquake Resistance
Publication: Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction
Volume 13, Issue 1
Abstract
Images of structural collapse crowd our globalized television screens; from wars, terrorist bombs, and earthquakes. The outcomes often look quite similar, but what are the engineering differences? Look first for differences relating to collapse mechanisms: (1) earthquake engineering focuses on sway collapse mechanisms in which the building as a whole moves sideways and may collapse under its own weight; and (2) explosions may remove one or several load-bearing columns, walls or transfer structures leading to vertical collapse and the “double-span mechanisms” of GSA (2003). Records of earthquake damage show that earthquakes can also remove supports, often corner columns causing two-way cantilever mechanisms. Earthquake engineering does need to include recognition of “lost column” events and to incorporate design against progressive collapse. Common to earthquakes and to explosions is the need for ductile detailing and ductile detailing for lost column events is similar to that for earthquakes if not always for the same reasons. Ductility does need to relate to specific collapse mechanisms and so, although earthquake engineering is an excellent starting point for design against progressive collapse, it does need to adapt so as to include the “double span” mechanisms at lost supports.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
For the writer, Chicago continues as the tall-buildings capital of the world both in terms of the buildings located there and in terms of the expertise. In April 2006, the writer was able to spend a month in Chicago studying tall buildings. The writer would like to thank all structural engineers at AISC, ARUP, CTL, IIT School of Civil and Architectural Engineering, PCA, and SOM for discussions on issues raised in this paper. The writer is also grateful for their advice and input. Any errors in this paper are solely on the writer.
References
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2004). ACI 318-05, “Building code requirements for structural concrete.” Farmington Hills, Mich.
AISC. (2005a). “Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings.” ANSI/AISC341-05, Chicago.
AISC. (2005b). “Specifications for structural steel buildings.” ANSI/AISC360-05, Chicago.
ASCE. (2002). “Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.” ASCE 7-02, Reston, Va.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (1996). “The Oklahoma City bombing: Improving building performance through multi-hazard mitigation.” FEMA 227/ASCE, Washington, D.C.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2000) “Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.” FEMA 356, Washington, D.C.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2003). “NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings.” FEMA 450, Building Seismic Safety Council, National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, D.C.
Federal Emergency Management Agency/American Society of Civil Engineers (FEMA/ASCE). (2002). “World Trade Center building performance study: Data collection, preliminary observations, and recommendations.” FEMA 403/ASCE 2002, Washington, D.C.
Gurley, C. R. (1979). “Bimoment equilibrium of finite segments of Hillerborg plate.” Mag. Concrete Res., 31(108), 142–150.
Gurley, C. R. (2008). “Structural design for fire in tall buildings.” Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., in press.
Hillergorg, A. (1975). Strip method of design, English Ed., Cement and Concrete Association, Wexham Springs, Slough, U.K.
Jones, L. L., and Wood, R. H. (1967). Yield-line analysis of slabs, Thames & Hudson Ltd., London, and Chatto & Windus Ltd., London.
NIST. (2005). “Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers.” Final Rep., National Institute of Standards & Technology, NIST NCSTAR1, Washington, D.C.
Nielsen, M. P. (1964). Limit analysis of reinforced concrete slabs, Danmarks Ingeniorakademi, Bygningsafdelingen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
U.S. General Services Administration (USGSA). (2003). “Progressive collapse analysis and design guidelines for new federal office buildings and major modernization projects.” GSA 2003, Washington, D.C.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction
Volume 13 • Issue 1 • February 2008
Pages: 19 - 23
Copyright
© 2008 ASCE.
History
Received: May 29, 2007
Accepted: Jun 25, 2007
Published online: Feb 1, 2008
Published in print: Feb 2008
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.