Keywords: progressive collapse, structural analysis, seismic, ductility, life safety.

The objective of this paper is to present how seismic engineering research and design provisions are affecting the way progressive collapse design standards are emerging. In particular, this paper discusses how seismic resistant design knowledge impacted, UFC [1], one of the design standards dedicated for progressive collapse resistant design.

This paper outlines the analysis methods typically used in seismic resistant design that are adopted in progressive collapse resistant design. This includes criteria for conducing linear static procedures (LSP), nonlinear static procedures (NSP), and nonlinear dynamic procedures (NSD). The classifications of each structural component actions as force-controlled or deformation-controlled used to assess the performance of the component action during analysis are presented. LSP remains the method of choice, therefore, this paper details the m-factor method that is used in seismic design procedures and currently implanted for progressive collapse resistant design. The impact of the seismic provision ASCE 41/FEMA 356 [2] is particularly emphasized.

The major differences between mode of load application in seismic resistant design and progressive collapse and the impact of such differences in design philosophy are presented in this paper. The primary difference being that seismic forces are lateral while progressive collapse is dominated by gravity forces. Other unique characteristics to progressive collapse design discusses in this paper include the importance of special considerations for corner and perimeter columns that was highlighted in recent research and the need for multifaceted approach for life safety [3,4].

The rationale behind interest in seismic resistant analysis and design procedures is that there are indications that structures designed and strengthened to resist seismic forces are likely to perform better when experiencing progressive collapse associated with the loss of primary load carrying members, especially when life safety (LS) or collapse prevention (CP) are the desired performance levels.

1

"Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Collapse", UFC 4-023-04 United States Department of Defense, 2009.

2

"Prestandard and Commentary for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings - FEMA 356", Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., 2000.

3

O.A. Mohamed, "Assessment of Progressive Collapse Potential in Corner Panels of Reinforced Concrete Buildings", Engineering Structures J., 31(3), 749-757, 2009. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.11.020

4

O.A. Mohamed, "Strategies for Mitigation of Progressive of Collapse of Corner Panels in Reinforced Concrete Buildings", 2nd International Conference on Safety and Security Engineering - SAFE 2007, 2007.

purchase the full-text of this paper (price £20)

go to the previous paper
go to the next paper
return to the table of contents
return to the book description
purchase this book (price £145 +P&P)