Challenges, Opportunities and Solutions in Structural Engineering and Construction Ghafoori (ed.

.) 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-56809-8

Comparison of different standards for progressive collapse evaluation procedures

A. Saad, A. Said & Y. Tian
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA

ABSTRACT: The chain reaction failure of a major portion of a structure that is initiated by the failure of a relatively small portion is referred to as the progressive collapse of a structure. The main approach used for the evaluation of a structures vulnerability to progressive collapse is the instantaneous removal of a load bearing element of the structure, followed by studying its effect on other structural elements. An analytical study using a finite element model (FEM) is used in this investigation with the aim of comparing the main two standards that address progressive collapse. A three-dimensional nonlinear model of a concrete generic frame structure is used in the study. The structure is designed according to different seismic zones in order to evaluate the effect of the seismic region on its vulnerability to progressive collapse.

INTRODUCTION

Progressive collapse is the spread of an initial local failure from element to element, resulting in the collapse of the entire structure or a large portion of it. Structural Engineers attention was drawn to its threat after the partial collapse of Ronan Point apartment building in the UK in 1968 (Nair 2007). Consequently, increasing the overall structural integrity was addressed in different building codes, specifically for the purpose of progressive collapse mitigation. Recent terrorist attacks on the Alfred Murrah building in Oklahoma City and the World Trade Center further highlighted the importance of progressive collapse mitigation. These attacks indicated that most of the casualties are due to building collapses rather than the initial explosion or impact. To reduce the risk of progressive collapse resulting from local failure, precautions should be considered in a design. For this purpose two design methods were defined by Breen (1975) and Ellingwood and Leyendecker (1978). These methods were termed as direct and indirect design methods. The indirect design method is an implicit approach to ensure progressive collapse resistance by providing the minimum levels of strength, continuity and ductility. The direct design method is an explicit consideration of progressive collapse resistance through one of two techniques: (1) the alternative load path method and (2) the specific load resistance method. The first technique provides an alternative load path in case of local failure so that the damage is absorbed and collapse is prevented. The second technique aims at providing resistance to failure (Ellingwood and Leyendecker 1978). Building codes and standards generally address the increase of the

overall integrity of structures, which is considered in the indirect design method. The direct design method, particularly the alternative load path method, is used in the design provisions for progressive collapse analyses, design, and evaluation. The main objective of this investigation is to perform a comparison between two of the main guidelines that address progressive collapse namely: GSA Design Guidelines (2003) and the DOD Unified Facility Criteria (2005). This analytical comparison is made at various seismic zones using a three-dimensional FEM of a generic concrete structure using nonlinear static (pushover) analysis. 2 PREVIOUS RESEARCH

Various studies have discussed different issues related to the progressive collapse. Here are some examples of the research done recently. Marjanishvili introduced the different analysis procedures that can be used for the progressive collapse evaluation and design (2004). Bescemi and Marjanishvili discussed the analysis of the column removal scenario as a SDOF system (2005). Sasani and Sagiroglu studied the effect of seismic detailing, design and rehabilitation of structures on progressive collapse resistance (2008). Examinations of different seismic design and strengthening were conducted by Sozen et al. on the Alfred Murrah Building and indicated the positive influences of seismic design on progressive collapse resistance (1998). Different retrofit techniques to mitigate the progressive collapse were also discussed by Crawford 2002; Astaneh 2003; Orton 2007 and others.

291

STANDARDS AND CODES

Different standards and codes address abnormal loads and progressive collapse analysis. The focus on this issue started after the progressive collapse of Ronan Point apartment tower in 1968 (Nair 2007). Although the ASCE/SEI 7-05 includes a definition for the progressive collapse, it does not incorporate any specific steps or design criteria during the design process to prevent or minimize the risk of progressive collapse. Instead, guidelines for the provision of general integrity are included. These guidelines emphasize providing the required integrity to carry loads around the severely damaged walls, trusses, beams, columns and floors. Similarly, the ACI 318-08 includes requirements for structural integrity in the details of reinforcement recommendations. It states that the structural members shall be tied together to improve the overall structural integrity. The intent of this section of the code is to improve the redundancy and ductility in structures so that in the event of damage to a major supporting element or an abnormal loading event, the resulting damage is contained and the structure will have a better chance to maintain an overall stability. The Federal Emergency Management Agency introduced its two publications FEMA 273 and 274 (1997) as guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Despite the fact that progressive collapse analysis was not clearly discussed in the guidelines, comprehensive guidelines were presented for the selection of the analysis procedure, which is generally valuable for use by engineers in estimating structural response.

these techniques the GSA guidelines mandates loading values and acceptance criteria for evaluation. For static analysis procedures the loading value is taken as: Load = 2(DL + 0.25 LL) (1)

while for the dynamic analysis procedures the loading value is: Load = DL + 0.25 LL (2)

where DL and LL are the dead and live loads of the structure, respectively. An amplification factor of 2 is used in the static analysis loading equation to account for the dynamic effect. Evaluation in the linear elastic analysis procedures is based on the demand capacity ratio (DCR), while in the nonlinear analysis procedures it is based on the plastic hinge rotation and displacement ductility ratios. 4.2 Department of Defense (DOD 2005)

4 4.1

STANDARDS USED IN THE STUDY General Services Administration (GSA 2003)

The Department of Defense (DOD) introduced the Unified Facility Criteria (2005) to provide the necessary design requirements to reduce the potential of progressive collapse for new and existing DOD facilities. The document provides detailed guidelines for analysis procedures for RC, steel, masonry and wood structures. Detailed steps of the analytical techniques and evaluation criteria are described in the document following the same scenario of the load bearing element removal from the structure in the GSA. Three analysis techniques are presented as the linear static, nonlinear static and the nonlinear dynamic analysis procedures. For linear and nonlinear static analysis procedures, the following amplified load combination is applied to the bays adjacent to the removed element: Load = 2[(0.9 or 1.2)DL + (0.5LL or 0.2S)] + 0.2W (3) While for the nonlinear dynamic analysis procedure, the following load combination is used: Load = (0.9 or 1.2)DL + (0.5LL or 0.2S) + 0.2W (4) where S and W are the snow and wind loads, respectively. For linear static analysis procedures, iterations are requited since elements are removed from the model if their ultimate capacities are exceeded. For the nonlinear analyses, the evaluation is performed based on the stresses and forces in the elements and connections as well as deflection and plastic hinge rotation values which may require additional analysis iterations with new initial.

The Progressive Collapse Analysis and Design Guidelines introduced by the General Services Administration (GSA 2003) to assist in reducing potential for progressive collapse in new buildings and for evaluating the potential of existing ones. It starts with a process to determine whether a building is exempt from progressive collapse considerations or not based on the type, usage, size and occupation of the structure. This is followed by an evaluation process described for concrete and steel non-exempt structures. The evaluation is done by performing structural analysis for the following the removal of one column or a 30 ft length of bearing wall. The potential of progressive collapse is determined using the acceptance criterion described for each analysis technique. Different analysis techniques are considered in the GSA guidelines including: linear elastic static and dynamic analysis and nonlinear static and dynamic analysis techniques. For each of

292

5 5.1

DESCRIPTION OF PROTOTYPE BUILDING Geometry

The building used in the analysis is a seven storey typical reinforced concrete generic building (6 stories + roof) with a story height of 12 ft (Figure 1). The reason for choosing this number of stories is to have the earthquake load as the governing lateral load in the design rather than the wind load, so that having the building in various seismic zones would affect the cross sectional capacities and accordingly the geometric nonlinearity definitions. Another reason is to distinguish between the two standards, since the GSA does not account for wind load (eqs. 1 and 2) to the contrary of DOD (eqs. 3 and 4). In plan, the building consists of four 25 ft bays in each direction. The slab thickness was assumed to be 8 in. (per ACI provisions for 2-way slabs) and columns are 24 24 in. 5.2 Modeling The slabs were modeled using plate elements except for the two bays adjacent to the removed column where equivalent frame elements were used instead. Beams were modeled using frame elements. The nonlinearity

in beams and slab elements in the two bays where the majority of plastic deformation takes place was defined using the designed cross-sections full momentcurvature relationship. The foundations at the ground floor were modeled as fixed support (restrained in the six degrees of freedom) in all seismic zones. 5.3 Design loads

The building was designed in accordance to the Uniform Building Code (UBC 97) and the ACI 318-02 (2002). In addition to the self-weight, the superimposed dead load plus the distributed load equivalent to partitions load was estimated to be 60 lb/ft2 and a live load to be 50 lb/ft2. A wind speed of 70 mph with Exposure B and an importance factor of 1.15 were used in the design. Three different seismic zones (Zero, 2B and 4) were used independently resulting in three different buildings compared in two different standards. The soil profile type was selected to be Sc (Very dense soil or soft rock) for all seismic zones with an importance factor of 1.25. Table 1 shows

25 ft

Interior Frame 25 ft

Exterior Frame

Lost Column

Figure 1. analysis.

3D view of the generic building used in the Figure 2. Plan of the typical floor.

Table 1.

Longitudinal reinforcement in frames at different seismic zones. 0 Exterior frame 24 12 in. 3#6 2#6 Interior frame 24 12 in. 4#6 2#6 2B Exterior frame 24 12in. 4#6 2#6 Interior frame 24 12 in. 4#7 2#6 4 Exterior frame 24 12 in. 4#7 2#6 Interior frame 24 12 in. 4#8 2#6

Seismic zone Location Beam size* Top Rft Bottom Rft

* Beam dimensions are depth x width. Note: 1 in = 25.4 mm; #6 = D19; #7 = D22 and #8 = D25.

293

longitudinal (top and bottom) reinforcement in the interior and exterior frames (refer to Figure 2) connected to the lost column.

ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

Three dimensional finite element models for the buildings different design configurations using the SAP 2000 program (2002) were developed to perform the analyses. The Response 2000 program (2000) was used in the sectional analysis for the hinge definition used in the nonlinear input of SAP2000. The nonlinear static analysis procedures were used according to the two standards in the analysis of the buildings with the following assumptions: 1. The building was chosen to be symmetric to avoid complications of asymmetry. 2. Zero initial condition methodology was used in the analysis. 3. Geometric nonlinearity (P-delta plus large deformations) was considered. 4. Strength increase factor of 1.25 was used in the material definition (in accordance with the GSA and the DOD standards). 5. The building frames were considered to be special moment resisting frames in case of seismic zone 4, intermediate moment-resisting frames in case of seismic zone 2B and ordinary moment-resisting frames in case of zero seismic zone. 6. The response of the structure was monitored step by step (not only the final stage) during analysis. 6.1 Nonlinear static (pushover) procedure

Figure 3.

Nonlinear static case definition for GSA.

Figure 4.

Nonlinear static case definition for DOD.

The first analysis procedure used in the comparisons is the static nonlinear (pushover) analysis. As shown in Figures 3 and 4, Equations 1 and 3 are used for the load definitions of GSA and DOD, respectively. The loads are applied statically taking geometric and material nonlinearities. The analysis procedure involves increasing the applied load monotonically and incrementally until maximum amplified loads are achieved or collapse occurs (Marjanishvili and Agnew 2006). The displacement at node A (the top point of the failed column, see Figure 1) was monitored in each case and plotted in Figures 5 and 6 with the percentage of loading (100% of loading represents the removed column load in Equations 1 and 3 for GSA and DOD, respectively). 6.2 Analysis of results Through the computer runs, a numerical analysis divergence is noted. This is likely due to the significant stiffness degradation at a large portion of the structural members based on the observation of the inelastic

deformation in the slab (Refer to Figure 8); it is likely that the structure is at the verge of collapse. Each one of the plots in Figures 5a through 5c represents the pushover curve for one of the six buildings (two standards for three seismic zones). During the incrementally increasing load, each curve encounters three stages before the potential collapse. The first stage (stage 1 in Figure 7) is the elastic stage before the formation of the first hinge; the second stage (stage 2 in Figure 7) is represented by the curve after the straight line where most of the hinges are formed successively, and finally the third stage (stage 3 in Figure 7) represented by the straight part of the curve after the hinge formation stage. The deformation in the third stage is the highest of the three stages as the strain hardening occurs until collapse point. In the comparison of the GSA to the DOD (Figures 5a, b and c), the value of deflection at the collapse point in case of the DOD in slightly higher than those in case of the GSA, even though the same building is used in the analysis in each case. This is attributed to the use of the absolute deflection of node A and not the relative deflection. As a result of including the wind load in

294

0 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10

20

40

60

80

100
0 -1 Deflection (in) -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10

20

40

60

80

100

Deflection (in)

GSA DoD

Zero zone 2B zone 4 zone

% of Load

% of Load

Figure 5a. Percentage of Load vs. displacement for GSA and DOD at zero seismic zone.

Figure 6a. Percentage of load vs. displacement for GSA at various seismic zones.
0 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10 20 40 60 80 100

0 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10

20

40

60

80

100

Deflection (in)

Deflection (in)

GSA DoD

Zero zone 2B zone 4 zone

% of Load

% of Load

Figure 5b. Percentage of Load vs. displacement for GSA and DOD at 2 B seismic zone.

Figure 6b. Percentage of load vs. displacement for DOD at various seismic zones.
0 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10 20 40 60 80 100

0 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10

20

40

60

80

100

Collapse Point

Deflection (in)

GSA DoD

Deflection (in)

Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 3

% of Load

% of Load

Figure 7.

Load-displacement curves interpretation.

Figure 5c. Percentage of Load vs. displacement for GSA and DOD at 4 seismic zone.

the loading equation of the DOD standard, the overall deflection of this side of the building is higher than the other side (Leeward side has more deflection than the windward side) and accordingly higher than the GSA standard. With reference to Figures 6a and 6b representing the three seismic levels in each standard, the curves are closer to each other in case of the DOD standard than those in the case of GSA. The reason for that is the application of higher load intensity in the DOD case than in case of the GSA. Consequently,

Figure 8. Deformed shape and hinges formed in beams and slab strips at collapse.

295

the percentage of load at failure in the case of DOD varies from 74.02% to 77.6% while in the case of GSA varies from 86.4% to 94.4%. 7 CONCLUSIONS

A study was performed to compare the two main standards for evaluating structures vulnerability to progressive collapse, namely the GSA and DOD standards. It was concluded that when comparing the two standards used in the study, the percentage of load at which the potential collapse occurs (for nonlinear static analyses) in the DOD procedures are less than the percentage of load at which the collapse occurs in the GSA procedures. This is due to the higher applied load intensity in the DOD than that of the GSA. This conclusion is very important for the fact that at a certain point a structure may have a huge difference in its design or evaluation results if the two standards are used. One of the main reasons resulting in such a difference is the application of the wind load in the DOD, even though the wind speed used in the analyses of the study is a basic wind speed with a moderate exposure. Accordingly, the loading equations used in the GSA standard should be reconsidered. ACKNOWLEDGMENT This study is based on work supported by the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) at University of Nevada, Las Vegas. The authors greatly appreciate this support. REFERENCES
ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirement for Structural Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318-08), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2008. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirement for Structural Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318-02), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2002. ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Structural Engineering Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2005. Bentz E.C., Collins M.P. Response-2000. Software Program for Load-Deformation Response of Reinforced Concrete Section, <http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/bentz/inter4/inter4. shtml>, 2000. Breen, J.E., (1975). Research Workshop on Progressive Collapse of Building Structures Held at the University of Texas at Austin, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC, 1975. Buscemi, N., and Marjanishvili, S., (2005). SDOF Model for Progressive Collapse Analysis, Proceedings of the 2005 Structures Congress and the 2005 Forensic Engineering Symposium April 2024, New York, New York. Corley, G.W., (2004). Lessons Learned on Improving Resistance of Buildings to Terrorist Attacks. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), V. 18, No. 2, pp. 6878.

Crawford, J.E., (2002). Retrofit Measures to Mitigate Progressive Collapse, NIST/NIBS, Multihazard Mitigation Council National Workshop on Prevention of Progressive Collapse, Chicago, IL, July 2002. Ellingwood, B., and Leyendecker, E. V., (1978). Approaches for Design Against Progressive Collapse, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 104, No. ST3, pp. 413423. Federal Emergency Management Agency, NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 273, Washington D.C., October 1997. Federal Emergency Management Agency, NEHRP Commentary on Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 274, Washington D.C., 1997. Hayes, J.R., Woodson, S.C., Pekelnicky, R.G.; Poland, C.D.; Corley, W. G.; and Sozen, M., Can Strengthening for Earthquake Improve Blast and Progressive Collapse Resistance? Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 131, No. 8, 2005, pp. 11571177. International Conference of Building Officials ICBO (1997). 1997 Uniform Building Code. Volume 2. International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California. Marjanshvili, S. and Agnew, E., (2006). Comparison of Various Procedure for Progressive Collapse Analysis, Journal of performance of constructed facilities, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), V. 20, No. 4, pp. 365374. Marjanshvili, S.M., (2004). Progressive Analysis Procedure for Progressive Collapse, Journal of performance of constructed facilities, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), V. 18, No. 2, pp.7985. Nair, R.S., (2007). Progressive Collapse Basics, North American Steel Construction Conference, March 2427, Long Beach, CA <http://www.aisc.org/Content/ Content Groups/Documents/freePubs/Blast_Symposium_ Proceedings.pdf> (April 2nd, 2008) National Institute of Standard and Technology (NIST). (2007). Best Practices for Reducing the Potential for Progressive Collapse in Buildings, NISTIR 7396, February 2007. Orton, S.L., (2007). Development of a CFRP System to Provide Continuity in Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings Vulnerable to Progressive Collapse, University of Texas at Austin, August 2007, 363 pp. SAP2000 Version 8, Analysis Reference Manual. Computers and Structures, Inc. Berkeley, California, July 2002. Sasani, M. and Sagiroglu, S., (2008). Progressive Collapse of Reinforced Concrete Structures: A Multihazard Perspective, ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 1, pp. 96103. Sozen, M.A., Thornton, C.H., Corley, W.G., and Mlakar, P.F., (1998). The Oklahoma City Bombing: Structure and Mechanisms of the Murrah Building, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), V. 12, No. 3, pp. 120136. U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). (2005). Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Collapse. UFC 4-02303, Unified Facility Criteria, Washington, D.C. U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). (2003). Progressive Collapse Analysis and Design Guidelines for New Federal Office Buildings and Major Modernization Projects, Washington, D.C.

296