Version 2:December 2012

STRUCTURAL ROBUSTNESS
DESIGN
ir azhar ahmad faculty of civil engineering
 Version 2:December 2012

The following course notes are specifically for

use in MAE 1023 Analysis & Design of Structural
Systems lecture only. Any reproduction or
public display of the contents beyond MAE
1023 course is prohibited without prior
consent of the author.
 CONTENT
PHASE 1: PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE
• Introduction
• Historical Events
• Associated Hazards

PHASE 2: ROBUST STRUCTURE

• Robustness in Design
• Example of Robust Structure
• Design Procedure
• Practical Means for Collapse Prevention

PHASE 3: CONSTRUCTION & QUALITY ASSURANCE

• Robustness During Construction
• Quality Assurance

3
 INTRODUCTION
• The collapse of Ronan Point in 1968 was a seminal event
and resulted in fundamental changes to the design
philosophy of building structures in the UK. The disaster
highlighted the need for specific consideration of the
stability of structures that have been damaged by
accidents such as a gas explosion.
• It was considered that, while localized damage was
unavoidable, complete collapse of structures had to be
prevented. Thus, the concept of disproportionate or
progressive collapse was born and structures had to be
designed in such a way that they would not be damaged to
an extent disproportionate to the initial effect of the
accident.
4
 INTRODUCTION

Blast Ronan Point apartment, 1968,

on UK
18th
Floor Precast concrete wall and floor
system.
Explosion caused by a gas leak blew
out one of the precast wall panels on
the 18th floor, triggering the partial
collapse of the building.
Attention to progressive collapse was
initiated

5
 INTRODUCTION

Ronan Point collapse: a gas explosion

on the 18th floor resulted in a
progressive collapse

6
 INTRODUCTION

Ronan Point apartment, 1968,

UK

Precast concrete wall and floor

system.

Explosion caused by a gas

leak blew out one of the
precast wall panels on the
18th floor, triggering the partial
collapse of the building.

Attention to progressive
collapse was initiated.

7
 INTRODUCTION

Upper floor panels have collapsed after

gas explosion blew out large wall
panels. Floor panels can be seen
hanging down.

8
 INTRODUCTION

25th floor
1) 1D Translational-Rotational
--- "Ronan Point" type Gas
Angular momentum and shear exploded
on 18th floor
not negligible

2) 3D Compaction Front
Propagation
— will require finite Generalization of
strain simulation Progressive
Collapse

9
 INTRODUCTION

Intact Structure Initial loss of a column Failures propagating to

and subsequent failures the other bays
in the floors above

Phases of progressive collapse (Ettouney et al. 2004)

10
 INTRODUCTION

IDEAL DESIGN SOLUTION?

Limited (proportionate) damage

as opposed to dispropotionate/
progressive collapse

11
 INTRODUCTION

IDEAL DESIGN SOLUTION?

Explosion at ground floor

Local damage only

12
 INTRODUCTION

• The term “progressive collapse” has been used to describe

the spread of an initial local failure in a manner analogous
to a chain reaction that leads to partial or total collapse of
a building.

• ASCE Standard 7-05 defines progressive collapse as “the

spread of an initial local failure from element to element
resulting, eventually, in the collapse of an entire structure
or a disproportionately large part of it” (ASCE 2005). The
disproportionality refers to the situation in which failure of
one member causes a major collapse, with a magnitude
disproportionate to the initial event.

13
 INTRODUCTION

• Thus, “progressive collapse” is an incremental type of

failure wherein the total damage is out of proportion to
the initial cause. In some countries, the term
“disproportionate collapse” is used to describe this type
of failure.

• progressive collapse—the spread of local damage, from an

initiating event, from element to element resulting,
eventually, in the collapse of an entire structure or a
disproportionately large part of it; also known as
disproportionate collapse.

14
PHASE 1: PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE
• Introduction
• Historical Events
• Associated Hazards

PHASE 2: ROBUST STRUCTURE

• Robustness in Design
• Example of Robust Structure
• Design Procedure
• Practical Means for Collapse Prevention

PHASE 3: CONSTRUCTION & QUALITY ASSURANCE

• Robustness During Construction
• Quality Assurance

15
HISTORICAL EVENTS

Alfred P. Murrah
Building, 1995,
Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma

RC frame structure
with transfer girders
designed in
accordance with ACI
318-71.
Discontinuity of
reinforcement in both
the positive and
negative moment
reinforcement.
16
 HISTORICAL EVENTS

Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building

(Note the brittle failure of the transfer
girder due to non-ductile design)

Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building

17
HISTORICAL EVENTS

1995 Federal
Murrah Building

18
 HISTORICAL EVENTS

Illustration of the Alfred P Murrah building before and after the

collapse

19
 HISTORICAL EVENTS

3) Columns fail due to loss

of lateral bracing (floors);
2) Blast loads propagating transfer girder fails
through failed façade load
and fail floors

1) Columns fail in shear

Progression of Loads and Damage in Murrah Building Collapse

20
 HISTORICAL EVENTS

4) Floors above
transfer girder fail;
collapse imminent

Pre-Collapse Position of Building

Components in
Murrah Structure
21
 HISTORICAL EVENTS

Commonwealth Avenue
apartment, 1971, Boston
RC flat-plate structure
Likely construction over-load, poor material
properties in cold weather, and inadequate
positioning slab top bars caused punching
shear failure at roof level.
Punching shear failure propagated to the
ground level.
Attention to progressive collapse was
initiated.

22
 HISTORICAL EVENTS

Sampoong Department Store, Seoul, South Korea

RC flat-plate structure
Punching shear failure initiated from an interior slab-column connection at the top story.
Contributing factors for the failure included reduced slab effective depth and a 35%
increase in dead loads due to the change of use at the 5th floor(Gardner et al. 2002).
501 people were killed.
23
 HISTORICAL EVENTS

1983 US Marine
Corps HQ, Lebanon -
241 dead + 60
wounded

24
 HISTORICAL EVENTS

WORLD TRADE
CENTER NEW
YORK
SEPTEMBER
2011

25
HISTORICAL EVENTS

26
 HISTORICAL EVENTS

North Tower Collapse in Sequence

27
 HISTORICAL EVENTS

Moment of ground impact

28
 HISTORICAL EVENTS

World Trade Center

USA, 2001

29
PHASE 1: PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE
• Introduction
• Historical Events
• Associated Hazards

PHASE 2: ROBUST STRUCTURE

• Robustness in Design
• Example of Robust Structure
• Design Procedure
• Practical Means for Collapse Prevention

PHASE 3: CONSTRUCTION & QUALITY ASSURANCE

• Robustness During Construction
• Quality Assurance

30
 ASSOCIATED HAZARDS

• A number of potential abnormal load hazards, which could

trigger progressive collapse, are considered
• These hazards have a low probability of occurrence and
are either not considered in structural design for
economic reasons or addressed indirectly through passive
protective measures rather than by structural
calculations.
Among the reasons are:
• general lack of meaningful load data, difficulty in
identifying possible hazard scenarios; lack of any
assurance that designing for specific loads would be
effective in reducing the incidence of progressive
collapse.
31
 ASSOCIATED HAZARDS

• There is a consensus that strategies to manage the risk of

progressive collapse from a structural engineering
viewpoint should focus on methods that enable a damaged
structural system to maintain its overall integrity
following an abnormal load event (Breen and Siess 1979)

• Nevertheless, one must understand the characteristics of

abnormal load events, in terms of incidence and intensity,
to judge their overall significance in building construction
and to predict the extent of damage that might have to be
tolerated by the building structural system

32
 ASSOCIATED HAZARDS

Abnormal loads may be

grouped as
• pressure loads (e.g.,
explosions, detonations,
tornado wind pressures),
• impact (e.g., vehicular
collision, aircraft or missile
impact, debris, swinging
objects during construction
or demolition),

33
 ASSOCIATED HAZARDS

• deformation-related (softening of steel in fire,

foundation subsidence),
• or as faulty practice (Somes 1973; Burnett
1975b).
• The loads generally are time-varying, but may
be static or dynamic in their structural action

34
 ASSOCIATED HAZARDS

1. 60% of 60 columns of impacted face (16% of

Failure Scenario
287 overall) were severed, more damaged.
2. Stress redistribution ⇒ higher column loads.
3. Insulation stripped ⇒ steel temperatures
up to 600oC→yield strength down -20% at
300oC,-85% at 300oC, creep for > 450oC.
4. Differential thermal expansion + viscoplasticity
⇒ floor trusses sag, pull perimeter columns
inward (bowing of columns = buckling
imperfection).
5. Collapse trigger: Viscoplastic buckling of hot
columns (multi-floor) → upper part of tower
falls down by at least one floor height.
6. The kinetic energy of upper part can be
neither elastically resisted nor plastically
absorbed by the lower part of tower ⇒
a) b) c) d) e) progressive collapse (buckling + connections
sheared.)

softening of steel in fire

35
 ASSOCIATED HAZARDS

1.Aircraft Impact
• The majority of accidents occur in
take-off or landing operations. US
figures indicate that over half of
all such accidents occur at airport
sites and only 30 % occur at
distances greater than 8 km (5 mi)
from the airport.
Although aircraft impact does not
appear to pose a credible threat
certain key facilities within 10 km
(6 mi) of an Airport may require a
site-specific analysis.
36
 ASSOCIATED HAZARDS

2.Design or Construction Error

• A majority of structural failures and damage costs in
ordinary buildings (some estimates range as high as 80 %)
occur as a result of errors in planning, design,
construction, and use rather than stochastic variability in
resistance and load.
• Errors in concept, analysis and execution, and other
unforeseen circumstances occur even when qualified
personnel are involved in design and construction and
when accepted methods of quality assurance and control
are employed. Such errors result from human
imperfections and are difficult to quantify.
37
 ASSOCIATED HAZARDS

L’Ambiance Plaza during the

construction phase

L’Ambiance Plaza after the

collapse

38
 ASSOCIATED HAZARDS

• Design and construction errors do not simply change the

statistics in load or resistance that are used to derive
probability-based design criteria; rather, they change
fundamentally the load and resistance models or the
relevant design limit states (Ellingwood 1987)
• This source of “abnormal” load or resistance is better
dealt by the engineer recognizing that things can go
wrong, through a consideration of hazard scenarios, and
through improvements in quality assurance and control.
• Such performance-oriented thinking is essential to
progressive collapse mitigation in general.

39
 ASSOCIATED HAZARDS

3.Fire

• The fire hazard lies at an intersection between normal

and abnormal loads. Traditionally, structural engineers
have rarely been responsible for structural fire protection,
and such protection was provided by non-structural
means, such as thermal insulation. This state of affairs is
changing, with the recognition that structural design for
fire conditions often can add value to the building
process.

40
 ASSOCIATED HAZARDS

4.Gas Explosions

• Following the Ronan Point collapse a number of studies

were conducted to determine the pressures developed in
a residential compartment from an explosion of natural
(building service) gas. The pressures developed in tests
conducted seldom exceeded 17 kPa (2.5 psi or 360 psf).
This is a very large load when compared with ordinary
design loads due to live, wind and snow load (on the order
of 4.8 kPa (100 psf) or less) , but is substantially less than
the 34 kPa (5 psi) load that was mentioned frequently as
the “normative” abnormal load.

41
 ASSOCIATED HAZARDS

1. Floor lifted up by
the gas explosion

2. Dowel bar
pulled out
the grout tube

3. Panel pushed outward

42
 ASSOCIATED HAZARDS

5.Overload Due to Occupant Misuse

• This hazard falls in the same category as

design/construction error. No information could be
located to describe statistically the incidence of this
hazard or its intensity. Some building owners or managers
commission condition surveys aimed at determining the
nature of the building occupancy and building contents.
Data from such surveys are, however, practically
impossible to obtain for analysis.

43
 ASSOCIATED HAZARDS

6.Transportation and Storage of Hazardous

Materials

• Sources of hazardous materials include pipelines, motor

vehicle transport, railway transport, water carriers and
storage facilities. The potential for fire or explosion from
ignition of unconfined vapors from transported liquids or
gases poses a hazard to buildings that are in close
proximity, one that increases in areas of high population
density.

44
 ASSOCIATED HAZARDS

7.Vehicular Collision

• Vehicular collisions with buildings occur mainly in urban

areas due to single vehicles leaving the roadway. One
early study (Leyendecker and Burnett, 1976) suggested
that the annual frequency of impact of motor vehicles
with buildings was approximately 6 x 10-4 per dwelling
unit per yr. Forces due to vehicular collision (involving
trains and barges, as well as trucks) may be obtained from
an analysis that relates the energy absorbed by the
vehicle and the structure itself during the collision. in the
determination of the kinetic

45
 ASSOCIATED HAZARDS

8.Bomb Explosions

• Bomb detonations create shock wave pressures that

expand at a velocity on the order of 1 km/s (0.6 mi/s) and
the dynamic pressures depend on yield and distance from
the point of detonation. The initial positive pressure
phase is followed by a longer and less intense negative
phase; the pressure can be approximated by a triangular
impulse load with essentially instantaneous rise time,
linear decay, and a duration that depends on the size of
the charge and distance but is on the order of tens of
millisecond

46
ASSOCIATED HAZARDS

47
 ASSOCIATED HAZARDS

The structural effects of a large exterior explosion can be

summarized as follows :

• The pressure wave acts on the exterior of the building and

may cause window breakage and wall or column failures;
• As the pressure wave continues to expand into the
building, upward pressures are applied to the ceilings and
downward pressures are applied to the floors;
• Floor failure is common due to the large surface area upon
which the pressure acts; and
• Failure of floor slabs eliminates lateral support to vertical
load-bearing elements, making the structure prone to
progressive collapse.
48
 ASSOCIATED HAZARDS

For a smaller interior explosion, the type of expected

damage may include:

• Localized failure of the floor system below the detonation;

• Damage and possible localized failure of the floor system
above the detonation;
• Damage and possible localized failure of nearby walls
(concrete or masonry); and
• Failure of non-structural elements (partitions, ductwork,
windows).

49
PHASE 1: PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE
• Introduction
• Historical Events
• Associated Hazards

PHASE 2: ROBUST STRUCTURE

• Robustness in Design
• Example of Robust Structure
• Design Procedure
• Practical Means for Collapse Prevention

PHASE 3: CONSTRUCTION & QUALITY ASSURANCE

• Robustness During Construction
• Quality Assurance

50
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

• Following the recommendations of the official inquiry in

to the Ronan Point failure, the world‟s first
disproportionate collapse regulations came into force in
the UK. They were first issued via Circulars of the Ministry
of Housing and Local Government (MHLG 1968a and 1968b)
and these were aided by documents issued by the
Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE 1968).

51
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

An extract from
the UK Building
Regulations of
1972.

52
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

• The new requirements stated in the above documents

were developed in relation to the hazard of internal gas
explosion that caused the Ronan Point failure. The
overpressure of 34 kN/m2 (or 5 psi) prescribed for use
when designing „Key Elements‟ is the most visible
evidence of the internal gas explosion related roots of the
UK requirements

• The ROBUSTNESS related requirements currently in

force in Europe is the result of further developments
that followed much theoretical and experimental
studies

53
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

• The principles of satisfying robustness and disproportionate

collapse are described below. There are typically 3
methods, it is emphasized these separate methods are
largely based on judgment, providing a level of robustness
commensurate with routine risks and are achievable at
affordable costs.
• METHOD 1: The Indirect method: provision of horizontal
and vertical ties
• METHOD 2: Alternative load path method: notional
removal of elements
• METHOD 3: Specific load resistance method: the provision
of key elements

54
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

Class Building type and occupancy Summary requirements

• House not exceeding 4 storeys. • No additional measures are
1 • Agricultural buildings. likely to be necessary.
• Buildings into which people rarely go.

• 5 storey single-occupancy houses. • Horizontal ties,

• Hotels, apartments and other residential buildings not OR
exceeding 4 storeys. • Effective anchorage of floors to
• Offices not exceeding 4 storeys. walls,
2A • Industrial buildings not exceeding 3 storeys. as described in the codes of
• Retailing premises not exceeding 3 storeys of less than practice.
2000 m2 floor area in each storey.
• Single-storey educational buildings.
• All buildings not exceeding 2 storeys to which members of
the pubic are admitted and which
contain floor areas exceeding 2000 m2 at each storey.

55
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

Class Building type and occupancy Summary requirements

• Hotels, apartments and other residential buildings • Horizontal ties and vertical ties
exceeding 4 storeys, but not exceeding 15 storeys. as described in the codes of
• Educational buildings greater than 1 storey, but not practice,
exceeding 15 storeys. OR
• Retail premises greater than 3 storeys but not exceeding • Show that the removal of a wall
2B 15 storeys. or column will cause only limited
• Hospitals not exceeding 3 storeys. damage,
• Offices greater than 4 storeys but not exceeding 15 OR
storeys. • Design as ‘key elements’.
• All buildings to which members of the pubic are admitted
and which contain floor areas exceeding
2000 m2 but less than 5000 m2 at each storey.
• Car parking not exceeding 6 storeys.
• All buildings defined above as Class 2A and 2B that • Systematic risk assessment
exceed the limits on area and/or number of storeys.
3 • All buildings, containing hazardous substances and/or
processes.
• Grandstands accommodating more than 5000
spectators.

56
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

Class 1 buildings

• Provided the building has been designed and constructed

to the rules given in AD A and/or appropriate codes of
practice and in line with general good practice, no
additional measures are necessary.

57
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

Class 2A buildings
• Class 2A buildings require horizontal ties in the floor
plates. If dedicated horizontal ties are not provided then
there must be „effective anchorage‟ of the suspended
floors to the walls. In terms of concrete elements, the use
of the effective anchorage concept is used when concrete
floors are supported on masonry walls, by reference to BS
56286.

• Class 2A buildings do not require vertical ties.

58
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

• Class 2B buildings
• There are effectively three approaches:
• 1 Compliance with tying rules
• 2 Showing that the removal of a wall or column will cause
only limited damage
• 3 Showing that key elements are „non-removable‟.

• The simplest approach is to provide horizontal and

vertical ties, using tie forces derived from the codes of
practice. Alternatively, where ties are not provided, a
check should be carried out to show that, upon notional
removal of each supporting column and wall,
59
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

• and each beam supporting columns or walls (one at a time

in each storey of the building) that the building remains
stable. Further, the area of floor at any storey at risk of
collapse should not exceed 15% of the floor area of that
storey or 70 m2, whichever is the smaller. The collapse
should not extend further than the immediate adjacent
storeys (see Figure 1).

• Finally, where the removal of an element results in a

collapse greater than permitted, then it should be
designed as a key element.

60
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

Figure 1:
Recommended limit
of acceptable
damage

Legend:
a) Floor plan
b) Elevation with vertical section
(A) Local damage less than 15 % of floor area but not more than 75 m2
simultaneously in two adjacent floors
(B) Column, removed for analysis
61
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

Class 3 risk assessment

• The Class 3 classification represents a departure from the
previous requirements and requires that: "A systematic
risk assessment of the building should be undertaken
taking into account all normal hazards that may
reasonably be foreseen, together with any abnormal
hazards. Critical situations or design should be selected to
reflect the conditions that can reasonably be foreseen as
possible during the life of the building".

• Unfortunately, this guidance gives the designer little

assistance and no references are provided.

62
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

• Interaction of Methods
It should be noted that Methods 2 & 3 are principally
concerned with vertical structure or elements
supporting vertical structure. When applying these
methods the designer must ensure that the horizontal
structure in both directions is robust. This is generally
achieved by providing horizontal ties.

The provision of ties helps to constrain elements from

displacement during an event and make possible
alternative load carrying systems including catenary
action.
63
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

METHOD 1: The Indirect method:

Provision of horizontal and vertical
ties (Framed Structures)

Relies on an integrated system of

horizontal and vertical tie forces for
developing tensile membrane or
catenary action.

Emphasizes providing minimum

levels of strength, continuity,
and ductility to ensure structural
integrity.

64
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

In the Tie Force approach, the building is mechanically tied together, enhancing
continuity, ductility, and development of alternate load paths.

Tie forces can be provided by the existing structural elements that have been
designed using conventional design methods to carry the standard loads
imposed upon the structure.

Loss of column
65
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

Typical arrangement of
tensile ties in precast
bearing wall structures,
include typical
transverse, longitudinal,
vertical, and perimeter
arrangements.

METHOD 1: The Indirect method:

Provision of horizontal and vertical
ties (Precast Structures)
66
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

Lack of continuous reinforcement

across the beam-to column
connection can lead to
progressive collapse.

Poor detailing-no
continuity of top &
bottom reinforcement

67
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

Continuous top reinforcement in conjunction with bottom

bars in perimeter beams provides continuous tie around
the structure.

68
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

Catenary action can be provided by extending a portion of the bottom

reinforcement and making it continuous. The portion of bottom
reinforcement required to be extended into the support must be made
continuous or spliced with bottom reinforcement from the adjacent span.
Structural

69
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

To prevent the top continuous bars from tearing out of the top
of the beam, U-stirrups with 135-degree hooks, or one-piece
closed stirrups must be used around the continuous bars.

70
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

Possible scenario of the structural behaviour of a precast frame

structure after sudden column loss due to accidental actions

A B C
Floor units are Structural topping is
gettingapart detached from the
slabs, mainly in the
floor part near to the
edge beams
D

F
Floor beams slip Large cracks in the floor
off the units due to torsion
supporting
Large cracks E
corbels
between slab units
and floor beams
71
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

Tie bars above floor beam to function as

catenary system in alternative load path

Projecting
stirrups from
floor beam
Transversal tie bar connecting the
floor to the supporting beam

Example of connection between

floor beam and peripheral tie
reinforcement

72
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

• HORIZONTAL TIES
• Ties need to be continuous (lapped or connected)
across from edge to edge or around the structure while
at the ends horizontal ties to edge columns and wall
must be satisfactorily anchored back

• All tie force paths should be geometrically straight,

changes in direction should be avoided where
possible. For buildings composed of separate
structures or sections, the tie force requirement are
applied to each independent section, each treated as a
separate unit

73
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

• Tie provisions aim to ensure that beams and

slabs can span across removed support.
However there is no theoretical justification
that ties designed will in fact enable the
structure to span across damaged areas

• The rationale is that a notional tie provision

represents a reasonable level of precautionary
investment

74
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

• VERTICAL TIES
• Vertical ties have 2 roles. The first is to provide
some form of minimum resistance to the
removal of vertical elements. The second is to
enable load sharing between floors above a
damaged vertical element.

75
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

METHOD 2: Alternative load path

method: notional removal of elements

Fig. 1:(b) conventional design: progressive

collapse;

Fig. 1: Effects of losing an external Fig. 1: (c) alternate load path design:
column to a blast loading: (a) exterior no progressive collapse
blast loading;
76
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

In the Alternate Path method, the designer must show that the structure is capable
of bridging over a removed column or section of wall and that the resulting
deformations and internal actions do not exceed the acceptance criteria.

1.What elements to remove?

2.How to remove them (type of analysis)?
3.Acceptance criteria?

77
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

Beam-to-beam continuity is
assumed to be maintained
across a removed column,
i.e. remove the clear height
between lateral restraints.

For walls, remove a length

that is twice the clear story
height H. For external
corners with intersecting
walls remove a length of wall
equal to the clear story
height H in each direction.

78
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

1 Analyze for the instantaneous

METHOD 2: Alternative load path loss of a column
method: notional removal of elements for one floor above grade
(1st story) located near
the middle of the short
side of the building.

2 Analyze for the instantaneous

loss of a column
for one floor above grade
(1st story) located near
the middle of the long
side of the building.

3 Analyze for the instantaneous

loss of a column
for one floor above grade
(1st story) located at the
corner of the building
79
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

METHOD 2: Alternative load path

method: notional removal of elements

Location of internal column

removal considered

80
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

Moment before column removal

81
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

Moment after column removal

82
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

Frame Action

Catenary Action

Frame Progression from Flexural

Response to Tensile Catenary Action
83
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

Horizontal restraints
Actuator

Steel roller

The collapse mode of the specimen

84
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

Compressive arching
and tensile catenary
actions in double-span
steel beam

85
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

Monotonic Loading Test Setup

12 specimens were tested: 9 under static loading (1/2‐scale), 3 under

different loading speed (1/3‐scale)
Test variables: (1) reinforcement ratio, (2) span‐to‐depth ratio, and (3) loading
speed
86
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

Following concrete crushing

87
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

Prior to final failure

88
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

A3: 2.7 m x 0.3 m x 0.15 m, Pcu= 249 kN, PACI= 147 kN

B1: 4.2 m x 0.3 m x 0.15 m, Pcu= 125 kN, PACI= 77 kN
B2: 5.7 m x 0.3 m x 0.15 m, Pcu= 83 kN, PACI= 55 kN
All 3φ14 at top and bottom, ρ= 1.13%
89
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

This catenary action can be used to provide for an alternative

load path in multi-story precast concrete structure
Suspension

Catenary
action Cantilevering
beam

90
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

a) Suspension of the elements to the intact upper

structure above the damaged area. This is
realized by vertical ties from foundation to roof
level in all columns and walls.

91
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

• b) Cantilever action of the surrounding structure,

for example in case of failure of a corner column
or wall panel. The horizontal tie reinforcement on
top of the floor beam or wall panel will take up
the tensile stresses of the cantilever. To this
effect the tie-reinforcement should be duly
connected to the beam or panel, for example
inside projecting hairpins at the top of the units.

92
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

• Idealized cantilever action in a wall frame

structure
93
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

c) Bridging of the damaged area by catenary action of the tie

beams. In the event of accidental damage to a column, it
can no longer carry any of the force and the ultimate
design load must be distributed to other members, to avoid
total failure. The loss of support means that the beam has
effectively doubled in length and the excess forces in the
system must be carried through catenary action. When the
beam deflects, the tie bar is strained and a tensile force is
mobilised. The excess loads are transmitted through the tie
bar via the links and with increased deformation, a new
equilibrium state will develop.

94
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

• d) Prevention of damaged floors from falling down

on the underlying structure. Progressive collapse
is often the result of accumulation of debris from
successive collapsing floors falling on the lower
floors. The longitudinal ties anchoring the floor
slabs to the support structure are best placed in
the middle of the floor depth to allow for
maximum efficiency and deformability.

95
 ROBUSTNESS IN DESIGN

• METHOD 3: Specific load resistance

method: the provision of key elements
• For building structures, a key element should resist an
accidental design action of Ad applied in horizontal and
vertical directions (one direction at a time). Such
accidental design loading should be applied in accordance
with expression (6.11b of the EN 1990 [23], here see Eq.
(3.5)) and may be concentrated or distributed load. The
recommended value of Ad for building structures is 34
kN/m2.

96
PHASE 1: PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE
• Introduction
• Historical Events
• Associated Hazards

PHASE 2: ROBUST STRUCTURE

• Robustness in Design
• Example of Robust Structure
• Design Procedure
• Practical Means for Collapse Prevention

PHASE 3: CONSTRUCTION & QUALITY ASSURANCE

• Robustness During Construction
• Quality Assurance

97
 EXAMPLE OF ROBUST
STRUCTURE
On June 25, 1996, a bomb
estimated at 9 Mg (20 000 lb)
TNT equivalent, apparently
placed in a tank truck was
detonated approximately 24 m
(80 ft) from one of the buildings.
Khobar Towers The explosion, which created a
crater 17 m (55 ft) in diameter
and 5 m (16 ft) deep, destroyed
the facing façade wall of the
closest building, and damaged
interior floors and wall
crater components.

Khobar Towers Saudi Arabia 1996

98
EXAMPLE OF ROBUST STRUCTURE

Khobar Towers
Bombing,
Dhahran, Saudi
Arabia;
Casualties from
Debris, Not
Collapse

99
 EXAMPLE OF ROBUST STRUCTURE

Crater caused by bomb

100
 EXAMPLE OF ROBUST STRUCTURE

The British concrete design code (CP-110) was

used for the structural design and the detailing of
connections in the Khobar Towers buildings. This
code included a prescriptive approach for collapse
prevention, and required ductile detailing and
effective ties (indirect method ). In the system, the
precast floor slabs were cast with castellated edges,
with loops of reinforcing steel extending from the
slab ends into what would be the gap between
adjacent slab ends

101
 EXAMPLE OF ROBUST STRUCTURE

When adjacent slabs

were placed, two 11 mm
(0.43 in) diameter steel
19 2 strand (1.9 GPa
[270 ksi] strength) were
threaded through the
overlapping loops from
adjacent plank,
effectively interlocking
them, and the gaps were
grouted.
Typical floor slab connection
102
 EXAMPLE OF ROBUST STRUCTURE

Similarly, joints between

wall elements were
constructed with protruding
loops that were threaded
with steel bars. The bars
from one level to the next
were connected with nuts
inside connecting brackets.

Connection at floor slab

and wall intersection
103
 EXAMPLE OF ROBUST STRUCTURE

Collapse was limited

to the façade and
some slabs of the
outer bay of the
closest building. Even
though the exterior
shear wall for
essentially the full
length of the building
was removed by the
blast, collapse did not
progress beyond
areas of first damage
Side of building facing the explosion

104
 EXAMPLE OF ROBUST STRUCTURE

• An investigation of the damage to Khobar Towers

revealed that the precast concrete system used
for these buildings had sufficient ductility to
resist the extraordinary assault on one of the
buildings. Floor slabs spanned parallel to the
shear wall that was removed by the blast, limiting
the damage induced by the removal of the façade
wall. Even though walls parallel to the blast, and
interior walls facing the blast, were extensively
damaged (Figure shows yield lines in interior
walls), they continued to support vertical load.
105
 EXAMPLE OF ROBUST STRUCTURE

Interior wall exhibiting yield line damage

106
PHASE 1: PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE
• Introduction
• Historical Events
• Associated Hazards

PHASE 2: ROBUST STRUCTURE

• Robustness in Design
• Example of Robust Structure
• Design Procedure
• Practical Means for Collapse Prevention

PHASE 3: CONSTRUCTION & QUALITY ASSURANCE

• Robustness During Construction
• Quality Assurance

107
 DESIGN PROCEDURES
• The BS Code defines the requirement for robustness in
Clause 2.1.4 as “a structure should be designed and
constructed so that it is inherently robust and not
unreasonably susceptible to the effects of accidents or
misuse, and disproportionate collapse.”
• BS 8110 states: "The engineer responsible for the overall
stability of the structure should ensure the compatibility
of the design and details of parts and components, even
where some or all of the design and details of those parts
and components are not made by this engineer". This is
particularly important when it comes to the robustness of
the structural frame.

108
 DESIGN PROCEDURES

Fig. 3.1 BS8110

109
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-BUILDING
LAYOUT

BS8110 Design requirements comprise :

• building layouts checked to avoid any

inherent weakness…..?????

110
DESIGN PROCEDURES-BUILDING LAYOUT

The Murrah building collapsed

progressively, initiated by the
destruction of a relatively small part
(the three columns) of the structure.
However, the cause of collapse was
a large bomb (4000 lb kg TNT
equivalent) which was capable of
causing damage over an area of
several city blocks. Investigations
have also shown that with some
modest changes in the design, the
damage from the bomb could have
been reduced significantly. The
changes, based on a study by
Corley et al. [1998], could have
been:

111
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-BUILDING LAYOUT

a) Improvement of
the local resistance
of the columns

Protecting the columns in the ground floor

Strengthening of the columns in the ground

floor
112
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-BUILDING LAYOUT

• b) Improvement of the effectiveness of

alternative load paths

Strengthening the transfer girder Strengthening the ground floor with more
columns (but, this would have conflicted
with architectural requirements)

113
DESIGN PROCEDURES-BUILDING LAYOUT

The middle section of this building

under construction collapsed
because of a design mistake of a
heavy awning or entrance
overhang above the building main
entrance.

114
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-BUILDING LAYOUT

The vertical vibration of the earthquake

broke the columns to which the awning is
attached. Through failing of the two
columns, the three floors above also
collapsed.
Several measurements would have
avoided the above type of damage:
(1) A much lighter construction, hence the
earthquake force would have been much
smaller.
(2) Hanging the awning suspended from
the floor above, not causing forces on the
columns.
(3) Having a couple of support columns under the outside of the awning.
(4) Having made the two support columns deeper and stronger to withstand the
additional load.
(5) Having the awning individually supported, not being attached to the columns.

115
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-BUILDING LAYOUT

Staircases need to continue functioning as an escape route during an

earthquake. Either the construction should be designed stronger or more
ductile to withstand the earthquake forces.

116
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-BUILDING LAYOUT

Diagonal forces may cause a horizontal

load on the middle of a column, creating a
moment force to which the column was not
designed. Either the column should be
reinforced here or the flight of the stairs
loosely supported.

117
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-BUILDING LAYOUT

Multi storey or apartment buildings tend to have slender columns using little floor space. In addition
they require long floor spans, also minimizing the amount of columns. To minimise also the amount
of beams, the floors are made with a high profile and therefore are becoming thick and stiff
In the upper line of sketches the
building has thick and stiff floors
with slender supporting columns.
During a earthquake the bottom
columns receive the largest
forces and bend; walls crack and
the whole building will pancake.

In the second line of sketches the

floors have a ductile design,
allowing to absorb some of the
shock. Floors will be waving and
cracking. With properly designed
columns the façade may crack, but
the building would not collapse

118
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-NOTIONAL
HORIZONTAL LOADS
• capable to resist notional loads simultaneously at floor
levels and roof (Cl. 3.1.4.2 of the BS 8110 Code which also
requires that applied ultimate wind loads should be greater
than these notional values)

119
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-INDIRECT
METHOD

• METHOD 1: Indirect Method

To provides effective horizontal and

vertical ties (in form of reinforcements
embedded in concrete Cl. 3.1.4.3 and Cl
3.12.3 BS8110)

120
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-INDIRECT
METHOD

• provides effective horizontal and vertical ties (in

form of reinforcements embedded in concrete Cl.
3.1.4.3 and Cl 3.12.3 BS8110)

(a) around the periphery

(b) internally
(c) to external columns and walls
(d) vertical ties

121
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-INDIRECT METHOD

• Principles in Design of ties

• (i) The reinforcements are assumed to be acting at 1.0fy
instead of 0.87 fy;
• (ii) To resist only the tying forces specified, not any
others;
• (iii) Reinforcements provided for other purpose can also
act as ties;
• (iv) Laps and anchorage of bars as ties similar to other
reinforcements;
• (v) Independent sections of a building divided by
expansion joints have appropriate tying system.

122
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-INDIRECT METHOD

Peripheral ties in floors (for Class 2A buildings and

above)
At each floor and roof level, an effectively continuous tie should be
provided within 1.2 m of the floor edge. Structures with internal edges
(e.g. atria and courtyards) should also have similar peripheral ties.
The peripheral tie should be able to resist a tensile force of:

Ftie,per = (20 + 4 no) ≤ 60 kN

Where no = number of storeys

123
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-INDIRECT METHOD

Internal ties in floors (for Class 2A buildings and above)

At each floor and roof level, internal ties should be provided in two
directions approximately at right angles. The internal ties may be spread
evenly in slabs or may be grouped at walls or other positions. If located in
walls, the reinforcement should be within 0.5 m of the top or bottom of the
floor slabs. In each direction the tie needs to be able to resist a force, which
should be taken as:

Ftie,int = (1/7.5)(gk + qk)(lr/5)Ft ≥ Ft where

(gk + qk) = average permanent and variable floor actions (kN/m2)

lr = greater of the distances (in m) between centers of the columns, frames
or walls supporting any two adjacent floor spans in the direction of the tie
under consideration
Ft =(20 +4no)≤60 kN (no is the number of storey)
The maximum spacing of internal ties should be 1.5lr.
124
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-INDIRECT METHOD

Horizontal ties to columns and walls (for Class 2A

buildings and above)
Vertical elements at the edge and corner of the structure should be tied to
each floor and roof. In corner columns ties should be provided in two
directions. The tie should be able to resist a force of:

Ftie, fac = Ftie,col = Maximum (Minimum (2Ft ; ls Ft/2.5) ; 0.03 NEd)

where
Ftie,fac = peripheral tie force (kN/m run of wall)
Ftie,col = column tie force (kN per column)
Ft = (20 + 4no) ≤ 60 kN (no is the number of storeys)
ls = floor to ceiling height (in metres)
NEd = total design ultimate vertical load in wall or column at the level
considered
Tying of external walls is required only if the peripheral tie is not located
within the wall.
125
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-INDIRECT METHOD

Vertical ties to columns and walls (for Class 2B buildings

and above)

BS8110 Cl 3.12.3.7states: "Normally, continuous vertical ties should be

provided from the lowest to the highest level, capable of carrying the load in
the accidental design situation, acting on the floor above the column/wall
accidentally lost". The tie should be capable of resisting a tensile force
equal to the maximum design ultimate dead and imposed load acting on the
column or wall from any one storey

Vertical ties provided to wall and column should be continuous and be

capable of carrying exceptional load.
Use fy×[dead load + 1/3 imposed load + 1/3 wind load] of one floor to
determine the design load for the vertical ties where fy= 1.05.

126
 EXAMPLE OF INDIRECT METHOD

Example

i. Internal Ties

127
 EXAMPLE OF INDIRECT METHOD

ii. Peripheral Ties

128
 EXAMPLE OF INDIRECT METHOD

iii. External
Column & Wall
Ties

129
 EXAMPLE OF INDIRECT METHOD

iv. Vertical Ties

130
DESIGN PROCEDURES: EXAMPLES
OF TIE DETAILS

131
 DESIGN PROCEDURES: TIE DETAILS

Typical Details for Ties

132
 DESIGN PROCEDURES: TIE DETAILS

Typical Details for Ties

133
 DESIGN PROCEDURES: TIE DETAILS

Typical
Details for
Ties

134
 DESIGN PROCEDURES: TIE DETAILS

Typical Details for Ties

135
 DESIGN PROCEDURES: TIE DETAILS

Typical Details for Ties

136
 DESIGN PROCEDURES: TIE DETAILS

Typical Details for Ties

137
 DESIGN PROCEDURES: TIE DETAILS

Typical
Details for
Ties

138
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT
METHOD

METHOD 2: Alternative load path

method
(notional removal of elements)

139
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT
METHOD

• METHOD 2: Alternative load path method

(notional removal of elements)
In the Alternate Path method, the designer must show that the structure
is capable of bridging over a removed column or section of wall and that
the resulting deformations and internal actions do not exceed the
acceptance criteria.

1.What elements to remove?

2.How to remove them (type of analysis)?
3.Acceptance criteria?

140
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

U.S. General Services Administration

[GSA 2003] Approach

• For buildings of 10 stories or less in height with relatively

simple layouts, both the U.S. General Services
Administration [GSA 2003] and the Interagency Security
Committee [ISC 2001] recommend the alternate load path
method be used to assess the vulnerability of new and
existing buildings to progressive collapse. This prescriptive
method requires a check of the capability of the structural
system to resist removal of a specific critical structural
member.

141
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

Linear Static Analysis

• The response of a structure to redistributed loads following the
sudden loss of a critical load-carrying member is dynamic and
nonlinear. However, as in seismic design, one simple approach is to
use an equivalent static elastic analysis if buildings have relatively
simple layouts and do not fall in the following categories:

• a) Buildings that utilize a combination of frames and walls in the

structural systems,

• b) Buildings with vertical discontinuities in columns and walls, which

utilize transfer girders,

• c) Buildings that have a large variance in structural bay size,

142
•
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

• d) Buildings that have plan irregularities, and

• e) Buildings that have closely spaced columns, which can lead to

uncertainty in the application of a simplified analysis.

• A more sophisticated analysis, such as non-linear dynamic analysis, is

required for buildings that have the above structural characteristics,
(a) through (e).

143
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

When performing a static analysis, the characteristic loads to be

applied to the structure are:

Load = 2 (DL + 0.25 LL)……………………………….(1)

where
DL = dead load
LL = live load.

For the load combination in Eq. 1, only 25 percent of the live load is
used since the probability of that full live load being present during a
progressive collapse event is small. An amplification factor of 2 is
applied to the load combination to account for dynamic effects.

144
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

After the static analysis, a demand-capacity ratio (DCR) is computed

for each of the structural members in the building.
DCR = QUD/QCE
where
• QUD = force (bending moment, axial force, shear force) determined in
a component or connection from the analysis
• QCE = expected ultimate, unfactored capacity (bending moment, axial
force, shear force) of the component or connection.

• In the analysis, design material strength may be increased by a

strength-increase factor to account for expected actual strength of
materials. For reinforced concrete members, this factor could be
taken as 1.5. For steel members this factor may vary from 1.05 to
1.10, depending on types and age of steel.

145
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

• Using the DCR criteria, structural members and connections that have
DCR values greater than 2.0 are considered to be severely damaged or
collapsed [GSA 2003]. In the case of shear forces, failure is imminent
when the DCR value exceeds 1.0.

• Once the DCRs have been computed, the extent of damage or collapse
can be determined. GSA specifies that the maximum allowable area of
collapse resulting from the instantaneous removal of an exterior
column (or wall ) shall be smaller of the following two areas: (1) the
structural bay directly associated with the removed column or (2) 170
m2 (1830 ft2) at the floor level directly above the removed column.
Similar limits are given areas based on the removal of an interior
column

146
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

Case Study

1. Design 3 building structures for live, dead, wind, and

seismic loads
2. Instantaneously remove selected first floor columns
3. Calculate the alternate path loads per GSA criteria
4. Apply the GSA loads to the structure
5. Determine moments and forces
6. Determine ultimate unfactored member capacity
7. Calculate Demand Capacity Ratios
8. Calculate additional reinforcement
147
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

Case Study Building Plan

Number of stories: 12

Bay size in each direction: 24’

Typical story height: 12’

First story height: 15’

148
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

• Loads
• Floor Live Load = 50 psf
• Superimposed Dead Load = 30 psf
• Dead Load
• Wind Load for 70 MPH
• Seismic Load - 3 Locations (SDC D,
SDC C & SDC A)

149
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

Analysis and Design

• Select preliminary member sizes

• Model in 3 dimensions
• Static linear elastic analysis
• Beam and column reinforcement calculated
• ETABS software version 8.11

150
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

Remove 1st Story Columns

Interior column
removed for parking and public space

151
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

Alternate Load Path Analysis

• Four new models of each of 3 buildings (corresponding

to 4 nos. of columns removed)
• First story columns removed

Progressive Collapse Alternate Load Path

• Gravity Load = 2(DL+0.25LL)
• Determine forces and moments (ETABS)

152
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

Calculate Demand Capacity Ratios

DCR = QUD/QCE

• QUD: Acting force from alternate load path

• QCE: Ultimate unfactored component capacity with
strength increased 25%
Limits:
• DCR < 2.0 for typical structures
• DCR < 1.5 for atypical structures

153
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

Columns removed one at a time: C9, C2, C1 & C6

154
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

Case 1: Remove Perimeter Column C9

The removal of exterior

column C9 near the
middle of the long side of
the building caused
moment reversal in the
beams intersecting at
the removed support,
beams B2, B3, and B27.
The flexural resistance in
these beams depends
on the bottom
reinforcement provided
at the support.

155
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

Bending moment due to GSA load combination (SDC A) after

removing column C9
The distribution of
the moment and
shear after removal
of the column for
the two column
lines intersecting at
the removed
support. The figure
shows that the
values of the
reversed moment
diminish in the
upper floors and for
beams away from
the vicinity of the
removed column.
Column line 1 Column line C
156
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

Shear force due to GSA load combination (SDC A) after removing

column C9
Shear Force
Diagram

Column line C
Column line 1
157
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

DCR RESULTS CASE 1

A comparison of the flexural
demand capacity ratios for
the three buildings studied for
the beams in the vicinity of
the removed column at
beams B2, B3, and B27 for
the twelve stories is
presented in Figure 3. The
figure shows that the
perimeter beams (B2 and B3)
are more critical for resisting
progressive collapse than
beam B27. The following is a
summary of the analysis
results:

158
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

• 1. For the building designed for SDC D

a. Beams B2, B3, and B27 in all levels have flexural demand capacity ratios
(DCR‟s) less than the GSA limit of 2 and, therefore, do not need additional
reinforcement to resist progressive collapse.
b. All other beams do not need additional reinforcement.
• 2. For the building designed for SDC C
a. Beams B2 and B3 in levels 1, 2, 3 and 4 have flexural DCR‟s greater than
2.0 and therefore need additional reinforcement to prevent progressive
collapse.
b. All other beams do not need additional reinforcement.
• 3. For the building designed for SDC A
a. Beams B2 and B3 in levels 1 through 11 have flexural DCR‟s greater than
2.0 and therefore need additional reinforcement to prevent progressive
collapse.
b. All other beams do not need additional reinforcement.

159
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

• The shear DCR‟s are shown in Table 5 for critical beams B2, B3, and
B27. The table shows that all the SDR‟s are below the GSA limit of 2
and therefore additional shear reinforcement is not needed to prevent
progressive collapse.

• Columns C13, C12, and C16 are symmetrical to the removed column
C9 and, therefore, would also be removed one at a time.
Consequently, beams B4, B17, B18, and B19 would have DCR‟s equal
to those for beams B2 and B3 and need additional reinforcement as
discussed in 2 and 3 above.

160
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

Case 2: Remove Perimeter Column C2

The removal of exterior

column C2 near the
middle of the short side
of the building caused
moment reversal in the
beams intersecting at the
removed support, beams
B6, B21, and B22. The
beam flexural resistance
depends on the bottom
reinforcement provided at
the support.

161
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

Bending moment due to GSA load combination (SDC A) after

removing column C2

Column line 2 Column line A

162
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

Shear force due to GSA load combination (SDC A) after

removing column C2

Shear
Force
Diagram

Column line 2 Column line A

163
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

• DCR RESULTS CASE 2

. A comparison of the
flexural demand
capacity ratios for the
three buildings studied
for the beams in the
vicinity of the removed
column at beams B6,
B21, and B22 for the
twelve stories is
presented in Figure 5.
The following is a
summary of the
analysis results:

164
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

• 1. For the building designed for SDC D

a. Beams B6, B21, and B22 in all levels have flexural demand capacity
ratios (DCR‟s) less than the GSA limit of 2 and therefore do not need
additional reinforcement to resist progressive collapse.
b. All other beams do not need additional reinforcement.
• 2. For the building designed for SDC C
a. Beams B21 and B22 in levels 1, 2, and 3 have flexural DCR‟s greater
than 2.0 and therefore need additional reinforcement to prevent
progressive collapse.
b. All other beams do not need additional reinforcement.
• 3. For the building designed for SDC A
a. Beams B21 and B22 in levels 1 through 11 have flexural DCR‟s
greater than 2.0 and therefore need additional reinforcement to
prevent progressive collapse.
• b. All other beams do not need additional reinforcement
165
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

• The shear DCR‟s are shown in Table 5 for beams B6, B21, and B22. The
table shows that all the SDR‟s are below the GSA limit of 2 and
therefore additional shear reinforcement is not needed to prevent
progressive collapse.

• Columns C3, C22, and C23 are symmetrical to the removed column C2
and, therefore, would also be removed one at a time. Consequently,
beams B23, B36, B37, and B38 would have DCR‟s equal to those for
beams B21 and B22 and would need additional reinforcement as
discussed in 2 and 3 immediately above

166
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

Case 3: Remove Corner Column C1

The removal of
the corner column
C1 caused
moment reversal
in the beams
intersecting at the
removed support,
beams B1 and
B21

167
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

Bending moment due to GSA load combination (SDC A) after

removing column C1

Bending
Moment
Diagram

Column line 1 Column line A

168
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

Shear force due to GSA load combination (SDC A) after

removing column C1

Shear
Force
Diagram

Column line 1 Column line A

169
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

DCR RESULTS CASE 3

A comparison of the
flexural demand
capacity ratios for the
three buildings studied
for the beams in the
vicinity of the removed
column at beams B1
and B21 for the twelve
stories is presented in
Figure 7. The following
is a summary of the
analysis results:

170
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

• 1. For the building designed for SDC D

a. Beams B1 and B21 in all levels have flexural demand capacity ratios
(DCR‟s) less than the GSA limit of 2 and therefore do not need
additional reinforcement to resist progressive collapse.
b. All other beams do not need additional reinforcement.
• 2. For the building designed for SDC C
a. Beams B1 and B21 in levels 1 and2 have flexural DCR‟s greater than
2.0 and therefore need additional reinforcement to prevent
progressive collapse.
b. All other beams do not need additional reinforcement.
• 3. For the building designed for SDC A
a. Beam B1 in levels 1 through 8 and beam B21 in levels 1 through 4
have flexural DCR‟s greater than 2.0 and therefore need additional
reinforcement to prevent progressive collapse.
b. All other beams do not need additional reinforcement.
171
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

• The shear DCR‟s are shown in Table 5 for beams B1 and B21. The table
shows that all the SDR‟s are below the GSA limit of 2 and, therefore,
additional shear reinforcement is not needed to prevent progressive
collapse.

• Columns C4, C21, and C24 are symmetrical to the removed column C1
and, therefore, would also be removed one at a time. Consequently,
beams B23, B16, B20, B9, B36 and B38 would have DCR‟s equal to
those for beams B1 and B21 and would need additional reinforcement
as discussed in 2 and 3 immediately above.

172
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

Case 4: Remove Internal Column C6

The removal of
interior column
C6 caused
moment
reversal in the
beams
intersecting at
the removed
support in
beams B6, B7,
B24, and B25

173
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

Bending moment due to GSA load combination (SDC A) after

removing column C6

Bending
Moment
Diagram

Column line 2 Column line B

174
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

Shear force due to GSA load combination (SDC A) after

removing column C6

Shear
Force
Diagram

Column line 2 Column line B

175
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

DCR RESULTS CASE 4

A comparison of the
flexural demand
capacity ratios for the
three buildings
studied for the beams
in the vicinity of the
removed column at
beams B6, B7, B24,
and B25 for the
twelve stories is
presented in Figure 9.
The following is a
summary of the
analysis results:

176
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

• 1. For the building designed for SDC D

a. Beams B6, B7, B24, and B25 in all levels have flexural demand capacity
ratios (DCR‟s) less than the GSA limit of 2 and, therefore, do not need
additional reinforcement to resist progressive collapse.
b. All other beams do not need additional reinforcement.
• 2. For the building designed for SDC C
a. Beams B6, B7, B24, and B25 in all levels have flexural demand capacity
ratios (DCR‟s) less than the GSA limit of 2 and, therefore, do not need
additional reinforcement to resist progressive collapse.
b. All other beams do not need additional reinforcement.
• 3. For the building designed for SDC A
a. Beams B6 and B24 in levels 1 through 3 and beams B7 and B25 in levels 1
through 2 have flexural DCR‟s greater than 2.0 and, therefore, need
additional reinforcement to prevent progressive collapse.
b. All other beams do not need additional reinforcement.

177
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

• The shear DCR‟s are shown in Table 5 for beams B6, B7, B24, and B25.
The table shows that all the SDR‟s are below the GSA limit of 2 and
therefore additional shear reinforcement is not needed to prevent
progressive collapse.

• Columns C7, C10, C11, C14, C15, C18, and C19 are symmetrical to the
removed column C6 and, therefore, would also be removed one at a
time. Consequently, beams B8, B9, B10, B11, B12, B13, B14, and B15
would have DCR‟s equal to those for beams B6, B7, B24, and B25 and
would need additional reinforcement as discussed in 3 immediately
above.

178
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-DIRECT METHOD

• SUMMARY OF DCR VALUES:

• COLUMNS
• BEAM FLEXURAL
• BEAM SHEAR

179
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-KEY
ELEMENT DESIGN

METHOD 3: Key Element Design

Alternatively, where ties are not provided, a check should
be carried out to show that, upon notional removal of each
supporting column and wall, and each beam supporting
columns or walls (one at a time in each storey of the
building) that the building remains stable. Further, the area
of floor at any storey at risk of collapse should not exceed
15% of the floor area of that storey or 70 m2, whichever is
the smaller. The collapse should not extend further than the
immediate adjacent storeys (see Figure 1).

180
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-KEY
ELEMENT DESIGN

Figure 1:
Recommended limit
of acceptable
damage

Legend:
a) Floor plan
b) Elevation with vertical section
(A) Local damage less than 15 % of floor area but not more than 75 m2
simultaneously in two adjacent floors
(B) Column, removed for analysis
181
 DESIGN PROCEDURES-KEY ELEMENT
DESIGN

v. Key Element
Design
Calculation

182
PHASE 1: PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE
• Introduction
• Historical Events
• Associated Hazards

PHASE 2: ROBUST STRUCTURE

• Robustness in Design
• Example of Robust Structure
• Design Procedure
• Practical Means for Collapse Prevention

PHASE 3: CONSTRUCTION & QUALITY ASSURANCE

• Robustness During Construction
• Quality Assurance

183
 PRACTICAL MEANS FOR
COLLAPSE PREVENTION

• A major collapse that can be prevented at

modest cost by prudent structural
arrangements and robust details

• Donald O. Dusenberry

184
 PRACTICAL MEANS FOR COLLAPSE PREVENTION

1.0 Structural System Features

Good Layout Plan
• regular, symetric building plan
• closely spaced beams framing into girders for load
redistribution
• Avoid long spans

Integrate the System

– engage structure in all direction
– multi span beams for greater continuity

185
 PRACTICAL MEANS FOR COLLAPSE PREVENTION

– longitudinal spine of walls & stairwells for enhanced

overall stability
– perpendicular walls and returns

Make the Structure Work for You

minimize eccentricities to reduce extreme moment
design
avoid discontinuities that will cause load
concentrations
set back perimeter columns for protection
detail non structural walls to support load

186
 PRACTICAL MEANS FOR COLLAPSE PREVENTION

2.0 Detailing Features

Foundations
 column-foundation connection needs flexural capacity
 ultimate bearing strength must support added force
 consider wider and thicker footings
 tie footings together

RC Structures
 members detailed for ductility- confinement of shear links/column
with spiral links
 can be designed for load reversal
 can be designed for alternate path
 can be designed for two way action
187
 PRACTICAL MEANS FOR COLLAPSE PREVENTION

RC Beam Design
• ensure flexural failure (ductile) rather than shear failure (brittle)
• consider large deflections/rotations
• maintain continuous positive and negative reinforcement
• develop the steel anchorage - do not splice reinforcement near
connections or mid span (max. moment areas)
• Increase member sizes (enhance torsional resistance)

Enhance Connections
 Provide closely spaced confining steel (improves ductility,
increases shear and torsion strength)
 Design joint regions to be stronger than elements
 Design for full plastic moment capacity before shear failure

188
 PRACTICAL MEANS FOR COLLAPSE PREVENTION

RC Column Design
 increase member sizes (enhance load sharing after loss of adjacent
column)
 provide confinement
 splice column reinforcement at third points

RC Slab Design

 provide continuous top and bottom reinforcement in both

directions
 do not splice at mid spans or at ends
 cast slabs monolithically with beams

189
 PRACTICAL MEANS FOR COLLAPSE PREVENTION

 add reinforcing steel to tie to beams

 design for uplift (load reversals)
 provide punching shear capacity for additional load

RC Wall Design
 provide additional detailing in coupling beams and around
openings
 consider adding boundary elements to serve as column
 tie slabs into walls

190
PHASE 1: PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE
• Introduction
• Historical Events
• Associated Hazards

PHASE 2: ROBUST STRUCTURE

• Robustness in Design
• Example of Robust Structure
• Design Procedure
• Practical Means for Collapse Prevention

PHASE 3: CONSTRUCTION & QUALITY ASSURANCE

• Robustness During Construction
• Quality Assurance

191
 ROBUSTNESS DURING
CONSTRUCTION

• A major objective of the design process is to prevent

structural failures. Unfortunately, too often this is taken
to mean failures of the permanent structure, with its
temporary form not being given much consideration,
sometimes with catastrophic results.

• This is not acceptable as such, avoiding failure of the

“temporary” structure deserves the same considerations
as does the avoidance of failure of the permanent
structure.

192
 ROBUSTNESS DURING CONSTRUCTION

• There are three types of failure, as follows:

• Overload failure, which, is usually brought about by the
overloading of a component. In the absence of alternative
load paths, this local failure causes overloading of
adjacent components and, eventually, progressive
collapse.

• Serviceability failure, which, when it happens, prevents

a structure being used to its full potential. For example,
when a component in a building exhibits deflections under
load that are enough to prevent things like doors opening
properly, it is said to have suffered a serviceability
failure.
193
 ROBUSTNESS DURING CONSTRUCTION

• Functional failures, which, when it happens, prevents a

structure from fulfilling completely the reason for it
being built. For example, a bridge built with insufficient
clearance will not allow all types of vehicle that use a
road to pass under it. Clearly, this means that the
product, the bridge, does not completely fulfil all of the
attributes required of a bridge.

194
 ROBUSTNESS DURING CONSTRUCTION

1.Excessive loads applied during construction

• On any construction site, delivered components are stored
prior to their installation. For example, when constructing
a composite floor, i.e. concrete on steel decks, prior to
laying them a contractor needs to store the decking sheets
somewhere close to where they will be fixed later.
Therefore, it is foreseeable that the contractor will store
the decking on the structural skeleton. These loads can be
significant, depending on whether the contractor splits
the packs in which the decking are delivered. If the
structural skeleton is not properly checked for the ability
to resist these loads, the structure may be vulnerable.

195
 ROBUSTNESS DURING CONSTRUCTION

2.Incorrect sequencing of construction

• When the sequence of erection is fundamentally

important, this information must be transmitted to a
contractor. Similarly, when components are critical for
safety, this information must be transmitted to the
contractor.

196
 ROBUSTNESS DURING CONSTRUCTION

3.Inadequate information to allow development of

effective temporary works

• A portal frame, by its inherent nature, generates a lateral

thrust at its base. For long span low pitch frames these
thrusts can be significant. Unless a contractor knows the
magnitude of this force, the temporary works to support
this load may be inadequate. There is a danger that the
frames can kick out, causing collapse.

197
PHASE 1: PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE
• Introduction
• Historical Events
• Associated Hazards

PHASE 2: ROBUST STRUCTURE

• Robustness in Design
• Example of Robust Structure
• Design Procedure
• Practical Means for Collapse Prevention

PHASE 3: CONSTRUCTION & QUALITY ASSURANCE

• Robustness During Construction
• Quality Assurance

198
 QUALITY ASSURANCE
Reinforced Concrete Buildings
during the 1999 Kocaeli Turkish
NO COLUMN STIRRUPS
Earthquake
(Non-application of standards
and poor quality
material/construction)
The collapse of many reinforced
concrete buildings during the
1999 earthquake in Turkey has
been attributed to designs which
were not carried out according to
the applicable standards and to
the poor quality of materials and
construction

199
 QUALITY ASSURANCE

Pipers Row Car Park, UK (Poor

design and maintenance)

The horizontal progressive collapse

of a floor of this structure is attributed
to both poor
concrete patch repair and poor
structural design [Wood, 2003].
However, the unintended non-
continuation of reinforcement
between different areas of the roof
slab prevented a more significant
progressive collapse.

200
 QUALITY ASSURANCE

Activity during Type of Quality Issue that Methods of preventing occurrences

the life a can affect robustness and and reducing or eliminating their
structure safety effects

Conceptual Poor concept, giving a structural type Employment of knowledgeable

design sensitive to errors and poor quality Engineers, preferably with experience
Engineering Erroneous calculations Capable staff. Check calculations.
design and Use verified software.
detailing

Not consider or erroneouslyconsider an Capable staff who understand structural

important safety aspect behaviour. Staff to be conversant with Codes to be
employed. Staff to be aware when to seek help.
Independent checking. Use validated software.

Wrong assumptions on structural or

material behaviour
Incorrect detailing Capable staff. Checking
Erroneous notes in drawings Capable staff. Checking
Procurement Poor control measures Contracts to have good quality control measures
and acceptance testing.
Priority of costs over quality Adequate funds
Inconsistent quality Choose suppliers with good QC measures. 201
 QUALITY ASSURANCE

Activity during Type of Quality Issue that Methods of preventing occurrences

the life a can affect robustness and and reducing or eliminating their
structure safety effects

Construction Poor material quality on site Test for quality. Reject poor quality.
Good suppliers.

Damaged components Inspect prior to and after construction.

Reject/Repair.

Incorrect setting out Well trained staff. Checking prior to start of

construction. Early discovery would reduce
complexities of correction.

Incorrect dimensions of Check.

components

Poor curing (where necessary) Good supervision and procedures. Well trained staff.

Badly applied protection Good supervision and procedures. Well trained staff .
measures

Poor connection of components Good supervision and procedures. Well trained staff

202
 QUALITY ASSURANCE

Activity during Type of Quality Issue that Methods of preventing occurrences

the life a can affect robustness and and reducing or eliminating their
structure safety effects

Poor (too low or too high) Good supervision and procedures. Well
prestressing trained staff

Contractor changing details Good supervision and procedures.

without permission of designer. Safety conscious staff
Designer not checking a
contractor’s changes

Inadequate site investigations Good specifications.

Good supervision and procedures.
Well trained staff.

Other poor construction Good specifications.

practices. Good supervision and procedures.
Well trained staff.

203
 APPENDIX

The following clauses are extracted from

BS 8110 Part 1

204
APPENDIX

205
APPENDIX

206
APPENDIX

207
APPENDIX

208
APPENDIX

209
•THANK YOU

210