“Simplified Methods for Progressive-Collapse Analysis of Buildings”

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Imperial College London on 08/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Donald E. Grierson1, Mohammad Safi2, Lei Xu1 and Yuxin Liu1

1
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1,
Canada, Tel: + (519) 888 4567, Fax: + (519) 888 6197, grierson@uwaterloo.ca
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Power & Water Institute of Technology,
Tehran, Iran, P.O. Box 16765-1719, Tel: +98 (21) 731 3062, Fax: +98 (21) 879
4671, msafi@pwit.ac.ir

Abstract

The provision of structural integrity to avoid major failure and progressive

collapse of buildings under abnormal loading is a major concern for design
engineers. Current codes and standards that deal with this issue often propose only
qualitative criteria. As well, there is generally no consensus among researchers
and engineers concerning performance-based requirements for design against
progressive collapse. One of the major reasons seems to be the difficulty and
complexity of the collapse analysis of buildings. This paper proposes some
simplified methods for the analysis of building structures subjected to abnormal
loads that result in structural collapse. The computational techniques can be used
to track possible failure mechanisms and give useful information to the designer
about the integrity of the structure. The proposed methods are based on simple
linear analysis and can easily be implemented in conventional commercially-
available engineering analysis and design software for building structural systems.
The results of the simplified methods are verified through comparison with those
found using rigorous nonlinear failureanalysi s.

Existing Guidelines on Progressive Collapse

The progressive collapse of a structure is a chain-reaction of failures triggered

by relatively limited local damage caused by some initial event. Current design
codes deal with this failure phenomenon in various ways. Eurocode 1 gives
general comments about designing structures to prevent damage to an extent
disproportionate to the original abnormal loading event (Eurocode 1994). The
non-mandatory commentary of the American ASCE 7-98/ANSI A58 standard
recommends several general approaches to design against progressive collapse
(ASCE 2002). The Canadian code requires design for sufficient structural
integrity to withstand all effects that may reasonably be expected to occur during

Copyright ASCE 2005 Structures 2005

Structures Congress 2005
 the service life of the structure (NRCC 1995). Both the Department of Defence
(DOD 2001) and General Services Administration (GSA 2000) in the U.S. have
issued analysis and design guidelines for dealing with progressive collapse
hazards.

There have been a number of research efforts worldwide to quantify the nature of
abnormal loading and determine means by which its effects may be mitigated
(Grierson 2003). A state-of-the-practice paper (Dusenberry 2002) summarizes
some significant technical design codes and research papers on the subject of
progressive collapse under abnormal loading. A recent paper (Marjanishvili 2004)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Imperial College London on 08/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

concludes that little detailed information is available to enable engineers to

confidently perform a systematic progressive collapse analysis. Quasi-static
nonlinear pushover analysis methods used in seismic engineering (FEMA 1997)
have been considered applicable for dealing with other extreme events, such as
blast loads and tornado winds (Hamburger et al. 2002). A non-linear dynamic
analysis methodology has been proposed for tracking the dynamic behavior of
progressive collapse (Kaewkulchai and Williamson 2004).

Specific design guidelines to counteract progressive collapse include providing

members with sufficient local resistance against specified abnormal loading,
increasing resiliency against local damage by adding vertical and horizontal ties,
and detailing the structure to have adequate residual load-carrying capacity when
one or more members is removed (Ellingwood and Leyendecker 1978, Gross and
McGuire 1983, Zalka and Armer 1992, ASCE 2002, NIBS 2002). Implementation
of the latter two design strategies, which require that alternate loading paths be
provided to transfer loads away from damaged regions, involve conducting
progressive-failure analysis of part or all of the structure.

This study presents several simple computational methods for progressive

collapse analysis of building frameworks. The methods are based on linear
analysis and approximately simulate material and geometric nonlinearity. Further,
with the view that any one of them may be attached as a toolbox to conventional
structural engineering software, each computer method requires conventional
input data, uses standard computing procedures, and provides conventional output
data useful to design engineers in making modifications to structures to improve
their integrity against progressive collapse.

Linear-Static Progressive Collapse Analysis

Progressive collapse analysis (PCA) can be conducted using nonlinear dynamic

analysis, nonlinear-static analysis or linear-static analysis. Nonlinear dynamic
PCA involves conducting impact/explosion wave propagation time-history
analysis, provides very comprehensive and accurate results, and requires
significant computational effort. Nonlinear-static PCA involves conducting
equivalent-dynamic push-over analysis based on verified models of stiffness
degradation, provides reasonably accurate results, and requires more than a little
computational effort. Finally, linear-static PCA involves conducting conventional
structural analysis based on simplified models of stiffness degradation, provides

Copyright ASCE 2005 Structures 2005

Structures Congress 2005
 approximate results, and requires reasonable computational effort. The latter
method is best suited for initial use by practicing engineers in design offices and,
for this reason, is the primary focus of this paper.

The general steps of the linear-static method for progressive collapse analysis are
as follows:

1. In the absence of explicit abnormal loading information, randomly assume one

or more members completely fail and eliminate them from the structure to
simulate the initial damage done by a random extreme loading event. The analysis
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Imperial College London on 08/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

may be repeated several times for different initial damage scenarios.

2. Perform linear-static analysis of the currently damaged structure under service

loads and any debris loads. Debris loads are defined by the weight and loading of
failed members scaled by a dynamic impact factor 1, and are modelled as
some form of distributed loading (e.g., uniform) acting on members immediately
below. The analysis may be conducted using commercial design-office software,
e.g., (SAP 2000, STAAD 2004).

3. Having the analysis results, identify the occurrence of any plasticity and reduce
member stiffnesses accordingly. Code specified moment-axial force and moment-
shear force interaction criteria govern plastic behavior, e.g.(CISC 1993). Member
stiffness reduction may be achieved using commercial design-office software
through direct modification of input data files, in a variety of different ways, as
follows:
(a) Modify material properties (E, G, etc.) and/or member properties (A, I, etc.) so
as to reduce member stiffness in a virtual manner. A drawback to this approach is
that the member needs to be further discretized beforehand so that properties can
be modified only in the regions where plastic behavior occurs, which may result
in a large increase in the number of elements for the structure.
(b) Release each member degree-of-freedom (DOF) associated with plastic
behavior by modifying the corresponding member end-fixity factor to be ‘free’.
This is illustrated in Figure 1 for both semi-rigid and rigid behavior, where the
DOF is not released in the former case until both the strength capacity Fp and
deformation capacity fail have been reached. While this approach does not
increase the dimensions of the analysis, it only crudely approximates plastic
behavior and may lead to erroneous results (Grierson & Safi 2005).
(c) Introduce a spring element for each DOF at locations of the member where
plastic behavior may occur. Initially assign each spring stiffness to be either the
same as that of the member (semi-rigid connection) or of infinite value (rigid
connection). After the member reaches its first-yield capacity Fy, progressively
modify the spring stiffness until both the strength capacity Fp and deformation
capacity fail have been reached, at which point the DOF is released. This
procedure is illustrated in Figure 2 for the initial spring stiffness being either
semi-rigid or rigid. This approach approximates plastic behavior quite well and
gives results that reasonably agree with those found by more rigorous analysis
(Grierson & Safi). The number of DOF for the structure is not increased by this
stiffness reduction method when using design-office software that has embedded

Copyright ASCE 2005 Structures 2005

Structures Congress 2005
 spring elements, e.g., (SAP 2000, STAAD 2004). For other software, additional
DOF must be introduced to model the spring elements, which may greatly
increase the dimensions of the analysis.

4. Having the reduced member stiffnesses, determine if any existing members are
sufficiently damaged as to be eliminated from the structure. A member is
eliminated from the structure if its buckles, or its plastic deformation capacity has
been reached a both end-sections. Upon eliminating a member, its released
reactions are applied as point loads on end-section nodes while its selfweight and
loading are applied as debris loads on members below. If no members are
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Imperial College London on 08/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

eliminated, reanalyze the structure accounting for the reduced member stiffnesses
and go back to step 3. Otherwise, go to step 5.

5. Reanalyze the structure accounting for both the reduced member stiffnesses
and any eliminated members to check overall stability. If it is found possible to
complete the analysis because the structure is yet stable, go back to step 3. If it is
not found possible to complete the analysis because the structure is unstable as
indicated by its stiffness matrix being singular, the analysis process is terminated
(i.e., essentially, progressive collapse has been triggered).

F F

Fp Fp

Semi-rigid Rigid DOF Release

DOF Release
Ki
Ki
fail =0
Figure 1. DOF-Release stiffness reduction models: semi-rigid & rigid behavior

F F

Analysis1 Analysis1
F1 F1
Analysis n Analysis n
Fn Fn
Analysis N Analysis N
Fp Fp
Ke-n Ke1 Ke-n
Ke1
Ke-N Ke-N
Fy DOF Release Fy DOF Release

Ki Ki
y p 1 n fail y p 1 n fail

Figure 2. Equivalent-Spring stiffness reduction models: semi-rigid & rigid behavior

Copyright ASCE 2005 Structures 2005

Structures Congress 2005
 Verification Example

Consider the 2-bay by 2-story steel framework subject to the uniformly

distributed service-level design gravity loads shown in Figure 3, (Liu 2005). The
structure is a building perimeter frame that supports open-web-steel-joist floor and
roof systems; i.e., in addition to member self weight, the load intensity on floor
members 4-5 and 5-6 (w45= w56 =109.5 N/mm) and that on roof members 7-8 and
8-9 (w78= w89 = 51.1N/mm) are due to tributary floor and roof loading,
respectively. All members are oriented with their webs in the plane of the
framework and are assumed to be fully restrained against out-of-plane behavior.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Imperial College London on 08/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Plastic deformation may occur at the end sections of each of the six column
members, and at the end and mid span sections of each of the four beam members.
Linear-static progressive collapse analysis of the framework is conducted using
the DOF-Release stiffness reduction method (Figure 1), and the results are
compared with those found using a rigorous progressive collapse analysis method,
(Grierson et al 2005).

As shown in Figure 4(a), it is initially assumed that column 6-9 fails due to the
action of some type of abnormal load (e.g., explosion, design error, etc.) and is
eliminated from the original structure. After column 6-9 fails, the remaining
structure experiences inelastic flexural behavior. The linear-static PCA determines
that five plastic hinges sequentially form up to a loading level that is only 22.68%
of the gravity service loads in Figure 3, at which beam 8-9 becomes unstable, as
shown in Figure 4(a). The rigorous PCA (Grierson et al 2005) determines the very
similar results shown in Figure 5(a), the only real difference being in the sequence
of plastic hinges formed in column 4-7.

After the fifth plastic hinge forms, beam section 8 reaches its flexural deformation
capacity and beam 8-9 is eliminated from the structure, and its gravity dead
weight w89 is applied as uniformly distributed debris loading with impact factor
= 1.0 on the lower floor beam 5-6, as indicated in Figure 4(b). Thereafter, the
linear PCA determines that four further plastic hinges sequentially form up to a
loading level that is 78.81% of the gravity service loads, at which point the
structure stiffness matrix became singular as the right bay of the frame fails as a
plastic collapse mechanism, as shown in Fig. 4(b). The rigorous PCA (Grierson et
al 2005) determines the nearly similar results shown in Figure 5(b), the
differences being in the sequence of plastic hinges formed and the fact that
progressive collapse is triggered at the higher load level of 89.63% of the gravity
service loads.

Conclusions

It is possible to conduct linear-static progressive collapse analysis of structures

using commercial design-office software through direct modification of input data
files. The paper presents two different methods to model stiffness reduction due to
plastic behavior; namely, a simple DOF-release method and a more refined
equivalent-spring method. A verification example illustrated that linear-static

Copyright ASCE 2005 Structures 2005

Structures Congress 2005
 PCA can predict results that are reasonably close to those found using rigorous
PCA, including the sequence of plastic hinge formation and the load level at
which progressive collapse occurs.
y

7 8 51.1 N/mm 9
W200×19

W360×16
W 530×66 W

360×1

4572
5 109.5 N/mm
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Imperial College London on 08/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

4 W360×19 6
W
W200×2

W360×1
W

6096
6

x
1 2 3
6096 mm 14630 mm

Figure 3. Two-bay by two-story steel framework

8
7 1 5 9
3 4 7 8

2
4 4 7
5 6 8
5 6
9
Sequence of plastic 6
i = 0.7881
= 0.2268 hinge formation
1 3 1 2 3
2
Ground level

(a) First Stage (b) Second Stage

Figure 4. Linear-static progressive collapse analysis results

8
7 1 5 9 7
2 8
4

3
4 4 6
5 7
6 5 6
9

Sequence of plastic = 0.8963 8

= 0.2377 i
hinge formation
1 3 1 2 3
2
Ground level

(a) First Stage (b) Second Stage

Figure 5. Rigorous progressive collapse analysis results

Copyright ASCE 2005 Structures 2005

Structures Congress 2005
 Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Natural Science & Engineering Research
Council of Canada, and bythe Power & Water Institute of Technology, I.R. Iran.

References

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), (2002), Minimum Design Loads for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Imperial College London on 08/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7), American Society of Civil

Engineers, New York.
Canadian Institute of Steel Construction (CISC), (1993), Hand book of Steel
Construction, 5th edition.
Department of Defence (DOD), (2001), Interim Antiterrorism/Force Protection
Construction Standards, Guidance on Structural Requirements.
Dusenberry, D. O.,(2002), “Review of Existing Guidelines and Provisions Related
to Progressive Collapse”, MMC's Workshop on Prevention of Progressive
Collapse, Illinois.
Ellingwood, B. & Leyendecker, E.V., (1978), “Approaches for design against
progressive collapse”, J. Struct. Div., 104(3), 413-423.
Eurocode 8, (1994), Design provisions for structures, European Committee for
Standardization.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), (1997), NEHRP guidelines for
the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA-273, Washington D.C.
General Services Administration (GSA), (2000), Progressive Collapse Analysis
and Design Guidelines for New Federal Office Buildings and Major
Modernization Projects.
Grierson, D. E., (2003), “Designing buildings against abnormal loading”,
Progress in Civil and Structural Engineering Computing, Edited by B.H.V.
Topping, Saxe-Coburg Publications, Scotland, 37-62.
Grierson D.E., Xu L. and Liu Y., (2005), “Progressive failure analysis of
buildings subjected to abnormal loading”, Journal of Computer Aided Civil
and Infrastructure Engineering, No. 3.
Grierson, D. E. & Safi, M., (2005), Engineering analysis of the progressive
collapse of steel building frameworks (Paper in preparation).
Gross, J. L. & McGuire, W., (1983), Progressive collapse resistant design, ASCE
Journal of Structural Engineering, 109(1),1-15.
Hamburger, R.O., Hanson, R.D., Mahoney, M., Rojahn, C., (2002),
“Performance-based design: A practical approach to protecting infrastructure”,
Modern Steel Construction, June Issue.
Kaewkulchai, G. & Williamson, E.B., (2004), “Beam element formulation and
solution procedure for dynamic progressive collapse analysis”, Computers and
Structures, Elsevier, 82, 639-651.
Liu Y., (2005), Failure analysis of building structures under abnormal loading,
PhD thesis, University of Waterloo, Canada (In progress).
Marjanishvili, S. M.,(2004), “Progressive analysis procedure for progressive
collapse”, ASCE Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 18(2), 79-
85.

Copyright ASCE 2005 Structures 2005

Structures Congress 2005
 National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), (2002), Multi-hazard Mitigation
Council, Prevention of progressive collapse, National workshop and
recommendations for future efforts.
National Research Council of Canada (NRCC), (1995), National Building Code of
Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
SAP2000, (2000), Structural Analysis Program, Computers and Structures, Inc.,
Berkeley, CA., USA.
STAAD, (2004), STructural Analysis And Design, Research Engineers, Inc.,
Yorba Linda, CA, USA
Zalka, K.A. & Armer, G.S.T., (1992), Stability of large structures, Butterworth-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Imperial College London on 08/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Heinemann Ltd, Linacre House, Jordan Hill, Oxford.

Copyright ASCE 2005 Structures 2005

Structures Congress 2005