JCSS and IABSE Workshop on Robustness of Structures

Design-Oriented Progressive Collapse Assessment of Steel Framed Buildings

Anastasios G. Vlassis
Imperial College London anastasios.vlassis@ imperial.ac.uk

Bassam A. Izzuddin
Imperial College London b.izzuddin@ imperial.ac.uk

Ahmed Y. Elghazouli
Imperial College London a.elghazouli@ imperial.ac.uk

David A. Nethercot
Imperial College London d.nethercot@ imperial.ac.uk

Abstract
This paper introduces a relatively simple yet accurate methodology to evaluate the efficacy of steel framed buildings to resist progressive collapse initiated by sudden local column failure. Depending on the required level of sophistication, the proposed procedure can be implemented at various levels of structural idealisation, considering either the full structure without the damaged column or critical substructures. In either case, the procedure accounts for the dynamic effects of column failure and considers ductility demand and supply in assessing the potential for progressive collapse, where three main assessment stages are proposed. The first stage involves the determination of the nonlinear static response of the damaged structure/substructure under gravity loading using either simplified or detailed modelling techniques, including important factors such as the connection response as well as compressive and tensile membrane actions. The second stage employs a newly developed simplified dynamic approach, where the maximum dynamic response is estimated from the nonlinear static response using an energy equivalence criterion. The final stage assesses the vulnerability of the structure to progressive collapse by comparing the ductility demand in the connections, corresponding to the maximum dynamic response, to the ductility supply, considering the deformation capacity of individual connection components. The applicability of the proposed approach to progressive collapse assessment is demonstrated through a case study, which considers sudden removal of a peripheral column in a typical steel-framed composite building. This study shows that such structures can be prone to progressive collapse, especially due to the inability of secondary beam connections to transfer the gravity loads to the adjacent undamaged parts of the structure. Several remedial measures are investigated, including the benefits of additional reinforcement in the slab over the connections, the quantification of which is made possible by the proposed approach. Keywords: Progressive collapse, column removal, ductility, composite connections

1 Introduction
Progressive collapse is a relatively rare event as it requires both an extreme loading to cause the initial damage and a structure that lacks adequate continuity, ductility, and redundancy to resist the subsequent spread of damage. However, the recent escalation of terrorist attacks on buildings has highlighted the necessity to consider progressive collapse mitigation as a basic design criterion because of the significant

JCSS and IABSE Workshop on Robustness of Structures casualties that can result when collapse occurs and the economic loss associated with service disruption for large-scale building facilities. The main feature of progressive collapse is that the total cumulative damage is disproportionate to the original cause [1]. As it is not feasible to foresee all possible sources of collapse initiation, a rational progressive collapse design should aim at localizing rather than preventing damage on the whole. This goal can be generally achieved through structural robustness, since the inherent redundancy and ductility of a robust structure preclude premature failure modes that can lead to progressive collapse. Although building authorities in most western countries have introduced guidance to mitigate the risk of progressive collapse and enhance structural integrity [1-3], there is a broad consensus that the issue is addressed only in a very limited way [4]. Such guidance vary from the prescriptive, for example tying force requirements [3], to performance based [1,2], though in the latter case there is still a clear need for simplified design-oriented methods that consider ductility issues in the context of the nonlinear dynamic structural response under an extreme event. This paper presents such a method for progressive collapse assessment of steel framed buildings under an extreme dynamic event leading to instantaneous column removal. The new design-oriented method can be implemented at various levels of structural idealisation, depending on the required level of sophistication, in the sense that it can be applied either to the full structure, excluding the damaged column, or more practically to critical substructures. Regardless of the level of structural idealisation, three main assessment stages are considered: i) determination of the nonlinear static response, ii) estimation of the dynamic response due to instantaneous column removal, and iii) comparison of ductility supply and demand to establish the potential for progressive collapse. The paper proceeds by describing the components of the proposed assessment method, and finally presents a case study considering the assessment of a typical steel-framed composite building subject to sudden removal of a peripheral column. This study highlights i) the inadequacy of tying force requirements alone towards preventing progressive collapse, ii) the necessity of considering the nonlinear dynamic response and ductility demand/supply in progressive collapse assessment, iii) the susceptibility of typical composite building structures to progressive collapse, and iv) the benefits of additional connection reinforcement in the slab towards improving structural robustness.

2 Nonlinear Static Response

The first component of the proposed assessment method is the static response of the steel framed system excluding the damaged vertical support member. Since the actual dynamic response due to sudden column removal is likely to involve large deflections and induce inelastic material behaviour, both geometric and material nonlinearity should be considered. The most accurate representation of the nonlinear structural response is obtained from detailed modelling of the overall structure (Fig. 1a), including the interactions of all the structural components. However, in view of the associated modelling complexity and computational demand, critical substructures, where ductility demands are concentrated, can offer accurate and efficient assessment of structural robustness, provided realistic boundary conditions are assumed. Such substructures may include the range of floors above the damaged column (Fig. 1b), an individual floor plate modelled in detail (Fig. 1c) or as a grillage (Fig. 1d), or individual floor beams (Fig. 1d). An important feature of the proposed methodology is that the nonlinear static response under gravity loading

JCSS and IABSE Workshop on Robustness of Structures may be obtained at various levels of idealisation either from detailed nonlinear finite element models [5,6], or from simplified models. In the latter case, the nonlinear response of a floor beam (Fig. 1d) including catenary action may be determined from simplified mechanical models [7], the response of a floor grillage (Fig. 1c) may be assembled from the individual responses of floor beams assuming a specific deformation mode, and the response of a sequence of floors (Fig. 1b) may be similarly assembled from the individual floor plates (Figs. 1c-d). Clearly, if the involved floor plates are identical in terms of structure and loading, it is sufficient to consider the nonlinear static response of a single floor, since the load sharing along the line of the damaged column would be negligible.

(a)

(c)

(d)

(b)

(e)

Fig. 1 Levels of idealization for progressive collapse assessment.

3

JCSS and IABSE Workshop on Robustness of Structures collapse assessment. However, the application of the proposed method should follow extensive experimental validation and calibration, particularly in relation to the connection response and ductility limits under combined bending and axial actions.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the support provided for this work by ARUP and EPSRC under a Case award scheme.

References
1. General Services Administration (2003). Progressive Collapse Analysis and Design Guidelines for New Federal Office Buildings and Major Modernization Projects. 2. Department of Defense (2005). Unified Facilities Criteria, Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Collapse. 3. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2000). The Building Regulations 2000, Part A, Schedule 1: A3, Disproportionate Collapse, 1992 edition, fourth impression (with amendments) 1994, further amended 2000. 4. National Institute of Standards and Technology (2005). Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers, NIST NCSTAR 1, Draft for Public Comment. 5. Song, L., Izzuddin, B. A., Elnashai, A. S., and Dowling, P. J. (2000). An integrated adaptive environment for fire and explosion analysis of steel frames Part I: analytical models, Journal of Constructional Steel Research; 53: 63-85. 6. Izzuddin B.A., Tao X.Y., and Elghazouli, A.Y. (2004). Realistic Modelling of Composite and Reinforced Concrete Floor Slabs Under Extreme Loading I: Analytical Method, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 130(12):1972-1984. 7. Izzuddin, B. A. (2005). A Simplified Model for Axially Restrained Beams Subject to Extreme Loading, International Journal of Steel Structures; under review. 8. Izzuddin, B. A. (2004). Ductility Assessment for an Idealized Elasto-Plastic Structural System Subject to an Instantaneous Applied Load, internal discussion document, Imperial College, London. 9. European Committee for Standardization (2005). EN 1993-1-8:2003, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures - Part 1-8: Design of Joints. 10. American Institute of Steel Construction (2002). Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, Appendix S. 11. Anderson, D., Aribert, J. M., Bode, H., Kronenburger, H. J. (2000). Design rotation capacity of composite joints, The Structural Engineer 78(6): 25-29. 12. British Construction Steelwork Association/Steel Construction Institute (2002). Joints in Steel Construction: Simple Connections. 13. British Standards Institution (2001). BS 5950: Structural use of steelwork in building, Part 1: Code of practice for design Rolled and welded sections. 14. Izzuddin, B. A. (1991). Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Framed Structures, PhD Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Imperial College, University of London. 15. European Committee for Standardization (2004). EN 1994-1-1:2004, Eurocode 4: Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings.

11