Practical Means for Energy-Based Analyses

of Disproportionate Collapse Potential

Donald O. Dusenberry, P.E., F.ASCE1; and Ronald O. Hamburger, S.E.2

Abstract: For several decades, the engineering profession has considered techniques to analyze the potential that structures could
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 04/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

experience disproportionate collapse and to design them for greater resistance to such collapse. First interest in such design followed the
partial collapse in 1968 of the Ronan Point building in London, a high rise residential structure that experienced full height collapse of a
portion of the building following a relatively small kitchen-related gas explosion. Interest in collapse phenomena continued to build
following the attack on the Alfred P. Murrah building in 1995 and has been at an apex since the collapses of the twin towers at the World
Trade Center and the nearby World Trade Center 7 building in 2001. Presently researchers and engineers are studying structural perfor-
mance during extreme deformations, systems to resist disproportionate collapse, and methods to analyze collapse potential. The goal is to
develop techniques to accurately and cost efficiently assess collapse potential and to enhance robustness at appropriate cost. Analysis
methods in common use include sophisticated dynamic, nonlinear modeling of structural systems with high-fidelity structural analysis
computer software, and simplified approaches that are intended to capture the essential behaviors during collapse scenarios. Unfortunately,
the sophisticated approaches require software not normally owned by design engineers, substantial experience in the modeling of collapse
phenomena, and time and cost implications that cannot be supported by the present design fees and, indeed, are not warranted for many
situations. Simplified analysis methods in common use are generally empirically based. Hence, they do not capture the essential behaviors
of collapse mechanisms, and are of uncertain applicability for all but structural systems for which they have been calibrated. This paper
presents two energy-based methods that capture the essential physics of collapse phenomena, and have potential to be developed into
simplified procedures for collapse potential assessment.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0887-3828共2006兲20:4共336兲
CE Database subject headings: Collapse; Engineering profession; Energy.

Introduction A second wave of interest in the United States followed the

Following the Ronan Point collapse in England in 1968, there was
a flurry of interest in the subject of disproportionate collapse.
Although keen attention to the subject has continued through the
ensuing decades, many of the authoritative papers were prepared
within the first several years of that landmark event. William
McGuire 共McGuire 1974兲 was one of the first to articulate the
nature of the problem and some of the ways that designers could
respond. He was followed by Eric Burnett 共Burnett 1975兲, Edgar
Leyendecker and Bruce Ellingwood 共Leyendecker and Elling-
wood 1977; Ellingwood and Leyendecker 1978兲, and others
through the 1970s and 1980s as the intellectual debate on how
best to model these phenomena and design to avoid them began to
develop.
1
Senior Principal, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., 41 Seyon St.,
Building 1, Ste. 500, Waltham, MA 02453 共corresponding author兲.
E-mail: dodusenberry@sgh.com
2
Senior Principal, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., The Landmark @
One Market, Ste. 600, San Francisco, CA 94105. E-mail: rohamburger@
sgh.com
Note. Discussion open until April 1, 2007. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible
publication on February 18, 2006; approved on April 11, 2006. This
paper is part of the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities,
Vol. 20, No. 4, November 1, 2006. ©ASCE, ISSN 0887-3828/2006/4-
336–348/$25.00.
terrorist attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in 1995.
Investigators prepared several papers 共Hinman and Hammond
1997; Corley et al. 1998兲, on the damage and collapse of that
building, and included design recommendations for future
consideration.
Interest now has risen to an apex as the engineering profession
studies and responds to the collapses of the Twin Towers at the
World Trade Center and the nearby World Trade Center 7 build-
ing in New York and of a portion of the Pentagon in Washington,
all resulting from a coordinated terrorist attack in September
2001. To study the collapse of the towers, the National Institute of
Science and Technology 共NIST兲 has recently completed what is
indisputably the most comprehensive collapse analysis ever per-
formed 共NIST 2005兲. While far less extensive in its scope, the
American Society of Civil Engineers published its study 共Mlakar
2002兲 on the reasons why the Pentagon performed so well when it
was struck by an aircraft.
Throughout the structural engineering profession, research is
in progress, workshops are being organized and presented, and
authoritative organizations are printing reference material on the
subject. 共As of this writing, NIST is poised to publish its guide-
lines for the prevention of disproportionate collapse and the
American Institute of Steel Construction also has a design guide
under development.兲
In the face of this activity, debate continues about the true need
to design for disproportionate collapse, the economic and societal
implications of committing resources to the issue, how we should
analyze collapse potential, the goal that engineers might strive to

336 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2006

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2006, 20(4): 336-348

 achieve in practical design, and, indeed, what should be the defi-
nition of “disproportionate collapse.”
Ultimately, engineers striving to provide appropriate robust-
ness in building systems need relatively simple techniques that
provide accurate assessments of collapse potential. These tech-
niques need to acknowledge the complicated physics of the col-
lapse phenomena, and to recognize the present limitations in our
knowledge of the performance of structures under the extreme
conditions associated with disproportionate collapse.
Collapse Phenomenon
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 04/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The risk that any randomly-selected building will be subjected to
conditions that could lead to collapse is very small 共NIST 2006兲.
Even within the population of buildings that could be identified as
potential sites of major explosions, collisions by vehicles, or other
accidental or intentional initiators, the risk of a triggering event at
any particular building is small. Considering the related design
and construction complication and cost and the rarity of the event,
generally it would be unjustified to provide collapse resistance
that would allow any particular building to be serviceable after an
extreme event such as the destruction of a significant structural
element. Under most circumstances, the defense philosophy is to
design buildings to have nearly elastic response for service loads,
and to design for collapse resistance by activating as much of the
reserve, inelastic strength as possible.
Building collapse is a dynamic phenomenon during which un-
balanced gravity forces introduce kinetic energy into the structure
and its supported mass, while elastic and inelastic strain energy
accumulated by the structure are the means to dissipate this en-
ergy and arrest the downward motion. Simply put, when a portion
of a structure is put into motion by the instantaneous removal of
a column or other primary load bearing element, if collapse is to
be avoided, the remaining structural elements must accumulate
enough strain energy to bring the moving mass to rest before
deformations reach failure limits. Otherwise, the structural ele-
ments will fail in series and the structure will collapse.
At any stage in a structure’s response following loss of a pri-
mary load-bearing element, an energy balance can be expressed
through comparison of the release of potential energy that occurs
as the structure falls, the strain energy that accumulates as the
structure deforms, and the kinetic energy associated with the
moving mass. Treating the phenomenon as a single degree of
freedom dynamic process, the change in potential energy is sim-
ply the product of the moving weight times the distance through
which it falls 共Fig. 1兲. The strain energy is the integration of the
product of the change in applied stress times the change in mate-
rial strain over the volume of the structural elements that undergo
deformation. Neglecting energy lost to other sources, such as
heat, the kinetic energy can be calculated as the difference be-
tween these two values.
For all conditions when the kinetic energy is positive, portions
of the structure are in motion, and collapse has not been arrested.
When kinetic energy attains a value of zero 共strain energy accu-
mulated by the structure equals the change in potential energy兲
the moving portion of the structure is at rest, and collapse poten-
tially has been averted 共Fig. 1兲. If strain energy never equals the
change in potential energy, the mass remains in motion and col-
lapse is inevitable 共Fig. 1兲. In all cases, the end condition must be
a structure in which statics is satisfied, with all surviving struc-
tural elements having sufficient ultimate capacity to support the
forces that they accept.
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2006 / 337
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2006, 20(4): 336-348
Fig. 1. Energy balance as collapsing portion of structure falls
Available Approaches to Evaluate Collapse
Potential
Current common practice follows one of three approaches: 共1兲
conduct comprehensive dynamic analyses of the damaged struc-
ture, including material and geometric nonlinearities to attempt to
capture the physics of the phenomena; 共2兲 pursue empirical linear
approaches that have been correlated to sophisticated nonlinear
studies of certain regularly framed damaged structures; or 共3兲
follow prescriptive approaches wherein specific detailing to add
robustness can be used in lieu of analyses. The first and second
approaches are “direct design” because they consider specific ini-
tiating events. The third approach is “indirect design” because no
specific initiating event is postulated.
The first direct design approach, which attempts to account for
the processes of collapse, can produce satisfying assessments of
collapse potential. This approach also can assess the influence,
whether beneficial or detrimental, of geometrically nonlinear cat-
enary action within a bay that is in the collapse region.
The accuracy of this approach is limited, of course, by the
precision with which we understand the relevant structural and
material mechanics issues. Since much research is needed before
the profession has a thorough database on these performance is-
sues, there is the potential to “overanalyze” phenomena that are
not well understood. Also, the level of effort to conduct such
analyses is high and these analyses require sophisticated software
that generally is not owned by most structural designers.
While sophisticated analyses may be appropriate for iconic
and critical structures, the complications associated with such
analyses probably make them unwarranted for the vast majority
of structures. Hence, it is useful for engineers to have simplified
approaches so that clients with limited demands can be served
appropriately and economically.
The General Services Administration, in its Progressive col-
lapse analysis and design guidelines for new federal office build-
ings and major modernization projects 共the GSA guidelines兲
共GSA 2003兲, provides a simple means to assess collapse potential
through linear analyses that can be performed using software that
most structural design engineers own. The GSA guidelines, which
are representative of simplified approaches in common use, rec-
 ommend analyses for the instantaneous removal of individual col-
umns or bearing walls at various locations in the building, de-
pending on the assessed risk of compromise of these elements.
The structure, with a missing vertical load-carrying element, is
analyzed for the applied load
L pc = 2共DL + 0.25LL兲 共1兲
where L pc⫽load applied for collapse analyses; DL⫽dead load;
and LL⫽design-base live load.
The load factor of two on the combined dead and live loads
can be thought of as a dynamic amplification factor to account for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 04/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the rapid application of the load in an elastic system.
The potential for disproportionate collapse is determined by
the calculation of a demand-capacity ratio 共DCR兲 for each pri-
mary and secondary structural element. The DCR for each pri-
mary and secondary structural element is determined as
DCR = QUD/QCE 共2兲
where QUD⫽force determined by linear elastic, static analysis in
the element or connection 共moment, axial force, shear, and pos-
sible combined forces兲; and QCE⫽expected ultimate capacity of
the component and/or connection.
Concrete structures with regular structural systems are judged
in this approach to have high potential for disproportionate col-
lapse if any primary or secondary structural element outside the
allowed collapse area has DCR ⬎2.0. There is a similar approach
for structures that are deemed to be “atypical,” wherein the DCR
is limited to 1.5.
The GSA guidelines also contain a procedure for evaluation of
steel buildings. The approach is nearly identical, except that a
table of DCR limits defines failure criteria based on a variety of
potential failure modes for steel elements.
It is not explicitly stated what physical phenomena are repre-
sented by the limiting values of the DCR. However, in a simplis-
tic characterization, these values represent correlation factors that
might loosely account for the ductility 共energy absorption兲 inher-
ent in conventional structures. Hamburger and Whittaker 共2004兲
have demonstrated that the simplified assumptions inherent in
these procedures in many situations can lead to designs that are
incapable of arresting collapse as intended.
Other federal agencies have similar empirical approaches that
rely on simplified linear analyses 共Dusenberry and Junega 2002兲.
Limitations of Simplified Methods
All methods for the analysis of disproportionate collapse potential
share limitations created by our present understanding about the
performance of structural elements that are deformed far beyond
elastic limits. Further, the available simplified methods share
additional approximations that limit their applicability and
reliability.
The available simplified approaches are primarily limited by
their reliance on analysis approaches that do not capture the
physical phenomena of building collapse. Many are based on lin-
ear analyses that lead to a comparison of stresses in structural
elements to somewhat arbitrary acceptance criteria, and do not
directly account for the energy balance that is the inherent deter-
minant of survival, nor do they accurately quantify the ductility
demands on yielding elements.
338 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2006
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2006, 20(4): 336-348
Fig. 2. Moment development during displacement
Alternative Energy-Based Methods for Simplified
Analyses
Approaches that are based on energy balance calculations in gen-
eral will provide more accurate assessments of collapse potential
than will linear elastic methods that have force-based acceptance
criteria. Two energy-based approaches that can be adapted for
collapse analyses are: push-down analyses and flexural/catenary
energy absorption analyses.
In these approaches, the simplicity follows from the recogni-
tion that the strain energy in a structure is equal to the work done
by the external loads that must be applied to deform a structure
into a given shape. With that concept applied to a structural frame
with a bay assumed damaged by the notional removal of a col-
umn, both the change in potential energy and the accumulated
strain energy can be calculated without difficulty and, hence, the
value of the remaining kinetic energy in the system can be
determined.
Push-Down Analyses
Assume collapse analyses are to be performed for the single-
degree-of-freedom, two-span beam shown in Fig. 2共a兲 by assum-
ing the notional sudden removal of the center support. In this
model, the ends of the beams are fixed against rotation, and the
mass is assumed to be concentrated at the center support.
Upon the removal of that support 关Fig. 2共b兲兴, the mass starts to
drop 关Fig. 2共c兲兴, changing the potential energy of the system. In
this case, the change in potential energy is the product of the
acceleration due to gravity, the moving mass, and the vertical
displacement
⌬PE = Mg␦ 共3兲
where ⌬PE⫽change in potential energy; M⫽falling mass;
g⫽acceleration due to gravity; and ␦⫽vertical distance of travel
共for the purpose of this paper, all deflections are treated as posi-
tive downward兲.
Considering frame action 共ignoring catenary action for this
analysis兲, the strain energy is the area under the force/deformation
curve for the effective spring represented by the stiffness of the
remaining structural system. If motion is being resisted by an
elastic system, then the strain energy is
1
⌬SE = F␦ 共4兲
2
where ⌬SE⫽change in strain energy; and F⫽force in the spring
or, in this case, the upward force exerted on the mass by the
beam.
Hence, the kinetic energy in the falling mass is
 ⌬KE = ⌬PE − ⌬SE = ␦ Mg −冉 F
2
冊 共5兲
The mass comes to rest when the kinetic energy, ⌬KE, is zero.
Rearranging Eq. 共5兲 with ⌬KE equal to zero shows the familiar
result for an elastic system: the peak resisting force in the system
necessary to bring a falling mass to rest is twice the weight of the
falling mass.
This formulation applies as long as the system remains elastic.
To extend the analysis into the inelastic range, assume that the
elastic limit at some point in the system is reached and a “hinge”
forms at a deformation equal to ␦e1 关Fig. 2共c兲兴. The energies as-
sociated with elastic performance up to deformation ␦e1 are
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 04/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
proportional to the calculated kinetic energy in the system at the
formation of each successive hinge, and comparing the value to
zero. If the value of the indicator remains positive for the calcu-
lation for all possible hinges, the structure is predicted to be un-
able to arrest collapse. If it becomes zero or negative at any point,
this indicates that collapse of the structure has been arrested at a
deformation less than that which corresponds to the particular
point. Provided the deformation associated with the formation of
the hinge that is associated with a zero or negative value of the
indicator is not excessive and the remaining strength of the struc-
ture is adequate to support the weight at rest, the structure can be
judged to survive.

PE0−1 = Mg␦e1 共6兲 Push-Down Analyses Using Commonly Available

Linear Elastic Software
1
SE0−1 = Fe1␦e1 共7兲 The approach illustrated above can be applied to the analysis of a
2 frame using common linear elastic analysis software through a

冉 冊
Fe1
KE0−1 = ␦e1 Mg −
2 column missing to represent the initiating event. Consider the
where Fe1⫽internal force resistance that is induced at deflection
␦e1.
The energy comparisons can be taken beyond the elastic limit.
Using the assumption that materials have bilinear strength behav-
ior, the evaluation can be continued with a subsequent linear
analysis, using a reduced stiffness to represent the effect of
yielding. Hinge locations can be assumed to continue to deform,
accumulating additional inelastic strain energy without further
increase in force. In the second phase of behavior following
formation of the first plastic hinge in the structure and up to the
formation of the next hinge at deflection ␦e2 关Fig. 2共d兲兴, the
change in potential energy follows the same formulation
PE1−2 = Mg共␦e2 − ␦e1兲
The strain energy still is the area under the force-deformation
curve, but now takes the form
series of elastic analyses.
A numerical model of the structure is constructed with one
共8兲
general case, where masses are represented as lumped masses at
all nodes, i. A loading case corresponding to 1 g is applied to
simulate the application of an external load to evaluate strain
energy. Under this loading case, each node, i, will deflect verti-
cally to ␦Ej,i, with j = 1 to signify the first phase. This is the de-
formation that would occur if the structure was able to remain
elastic under the influence of quasi-static application of gravity
with a column missing. The strain energy actually absorbed dur-
ing the first phase while deformation is elastic can be calculated
as follows:
Compare the forces 共e.g., moments兲 at critical locations in the
structure to corresponding plastic capacities 共e.g., fully plastic
moment capacities兲 at the same locations, and calculate the ratios
共9兲
F Pi
R1,i = 共15兲
FE1,i

1 where F Pi⫽plastic capacity at location “i”; and FE1,i⫽applied

SE1−2 = 共Fe1 + Fe2兲共␦e2 − ␦e1兲 共10兲
2 force at location “i” in the first phase.
Find the smallest ratio to determine when and where the first
Hence, the kinetic energy change associated with this phase is hinges form

冋 1
KE1−2 = 共␦e2 − ␦e1兲 Mg − 共Fe1 + Fe2兲
2
册 共11兲 ␤1 = Min共R1,i兲 共16兲

Combining these calculated energies with the energies associated The deformation at which the first hinge forms 共Fig. 3兲 is
with the first, elastic phase, at the time of formation of the second
hinge in the system the calculated energies are ␦e1,i = ␤1␦E1,i 共17兲
⌬PE0−2 = Mg␦e2 共12兲
and the effective forces that cause this deformation are
1
⌬SE0−2 = 关Fe1␦e2 + Fe2共␦e2 − ␦e1兲兴 共13兲 Fe1,i = ␤1mig 共18兲
2
The energies in the system at formation of the first hinge are
1
⌬KE0−2 = Mg␦e2 − 关Fe1␦e2 + Fe2共␦e2 − ␦e1兲兴 共14兲
2 n

If the system is capable of forming several plastic hinges, this ⌬PE0−1 = 兺

i=1
mig␤1␦E1,i 共19兲
process can be extended for each linear portion between the for-
mation of hinges.
Using this approach, the potential for a structure to come to n
1
rest, and therefore survive against disproportionate collapse, can
be determined by calculating the value of an indicator that is
⌬SE0−1 = 兺
2 i=1
mig␤21␦E1,i 共20兲

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2006 / 339

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2006, 20(4): 336-348

 冋 册
n
1
⌬KE j−1−j = 兺
i=1
mig共␦ej,i − ␦ej−1,i兲 1 − 共␤ j−1 + ␤ j兲
2
共26兲

Structural elements will accumulate strain energy as they undergo

elastic and inelastic deformation up to distortions that lead to
limiting crushing or rupture. Beyond those deformations, the in-
volved structural elements often separate and should be removed
from the analysis, because they cease to be capable of dissipating
energy and in fact, will release the elastic portion of the strain
energy they previously accumulated, which will then contribute to
additional kinetic energy.
The analysis process can continue, but an adjustment needs to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 04/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

be made for the sudden loss of support created by the removal of

a structural element. This can be accomplished by determining a
value, ␤⬘j−1, that represents the force needed to bring the displace-
ment at the beginning of the phase after rupture to the same value
as at the end of the previous phase.
To find the value of ␤⬘j−1, the equations for displacements in
the subject two phases are set to be equal, as follows:
Fig. 3. Nomenclature for push-down analyses
␤⬘j−1␦Ej,i + ␦oj,i = ␤ j−1␦Ej−1,i + ␦0j−1,i 共27兲
This leads to

冉 冊
n
␤1
⌬KE0−1 = 兺 mig␤1␦E1,i 1−
2
共21兲
i=1
If ⌬KE0−1 is greater than zero, then additional phases of analysis
are required. For each required phase, a hinge is placed at the
location or locations where yielding was predicted to occur in the
prior phases, and equal and opposite forces are applied to the
members that connect to the hinges to represent the plastic force
capacity at these locations.
In general, these plastic hinge forces applied without gravity
will cause an upward displacement, which is designated as ␦oj,i,
and forces, Foj,i, in the elements of the structure. While these
displacements and forces never occur during a collapse sequence,
their calculation is useful in the determination of collapse poten-
tial, as described below.
The next step is to remove the internal force couples related to
formation of prior hinges, and to apply a load case of 1 g to
determine the elastic deformations, ␦Ej,i, and element forces, FEj,i,
␤ j−1␦Ej−1,i + ␦0j−1,i − ␦oj,i
␤⬘j−1,i = 共28兲
␦Ej,i
Of course, when the analytical model is changed to represent the
failure of elements of the structure, the conversion from one
phase to another is not exact unless there is only one degree of
freedom that is being tracked. A single value of ␤⬘j−1 will not scale
multiple deflections exactly. Therefore, it is incumbent on the
engineer to select the value that closely represents the behavior of
the structure. Normally, this will be the value determined for the
location where the structure is deforming the most.
The selected value of ␤⬘j−1, is substituted for ␤ j−1, and the
process continues. In phases following a rupture, the energies are
n
⌬PE j−1−j = 兺 mig共␦ej,i − ␦ej−1,i兲 共29兲
i=1

that theoretically would occur if the structure remained elastic in

this configuration. Also, in this and all subsequent phases, dis- n
1
placements used for energy calculations need to be adjusted for ⌬SE j−1−j = 兺
2 i=1
mig共␦ej,i − ␦ej−1,i兲共␤⬘j−1 + ␤ j兲 共30兲
the artificial upward movement caused by internal hinge forces.
␤ j is now calculated as

冉 冊 冋 册
n
1
␤ j = min
F Pi − Foj,i
FEj,i
共22兲 ⌬KE j−1−j = 兺
i=1
mig共␦ej,i − ␦ej−1,i兲 1 − 共␤⬘j−1 + ␤ j兲
2
共31兲

and new effective elastic deformations, ␦ej,i, are calculated as A close examination of the formulas for the components of energy
follows: for the first elastic phase, phases after yield, and phases after
rupture reveals that they all take the same form, and can be rep-
␦ej,i = ␤ j␦Ej,i + ␦oj,i 共23兲 resented by Eqs. 共29兲–共31兲 above, with ␦E0,i, ␦o0,i, ␦o1,i, FE0,i, and
␤0 all equal zero.
In phases after the formation of hinges, the energies are
Therefore, the determination of collapse potential can be re-
n solved by calculating the sum of the kinetic energy changes in
⌬PE j−1−j = 兺 mig共␦ej,i − ␦ej−1,i兲 共24兲 each phase, and comparing to zero.

冋 册
i=1
k n
1
1
n ⌬KEk = 兺 兺 mig共␦ej,i − ␦ej−1,i兲 1 − 共␤⬘j−1 + ␤ j兲
2
共32兲
兺
j=1 i=1
⌬SE j−1−j = mig共␦ej,i − ␦ej−1,i兲共␤ j−1 + ␤ j兲 共25兲
2 i=1 This can be expanded by substituting the relationship for ␤⬘j−1

340 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2006

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2006, 20(4): 336-348

 k n

⌬KEk = 兺 兺 mig共␦ej,i − ␦ej−1,i兲

j=1 i=1

⫻ 1− 冋 冉 1 ␤ j−1␦Ej−1,i + ␦0j−1,i − ␦oj,i

2 ␦Ej,i
+ ␤j 冊册 共33兲

k n

⌬KEk = 兺 兺 mig共␦ej,i − ␦ej−1,i兲

j=1 i=1

⫻ 1− 冋 1
2␦Ej,i
共␤ j−1␦Ej−1,i + ␦oj−1,i − ␦oj,i + ␤ j␦Ej,i兲 册 Fig. 4. Example framing
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 04/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

共34兲
Recognizing again that
k
1 ␦2ej − ␦ej−1
2
− 2␦oj共␦ej − ␦ej−1兲
␦ej,i = ␤ j␦Ej,i + ␦oj,i 共35兲 ⌽k = ␦ek − 兺
2 j=1 ␦Ej
艋0 共39兲
the expression for kinetic energy can be regrouped and simplified.
for which ␤0 = ␦o0 = ␦o1 = ␦E0 = Fo1 = 0.

冋 册
k n For analyses that do not consider incremental failure of ele-
1
⌬KEk = 兺 兺 mig共␦ej,i − ␦ej−1,i兲
j=1 i=1
1−
2␦Ej,i
共␦ej,i + ␦ej−1,i − 2␦oj,i兲 ments, acceptance criterion can be derived directly from Eq. 共32兲
k
1
共36兲 ⌽k = ␦ek − 兺
2 j=1
共␦ej,i − ␦ej−1,i兲共␤ j−1 + ␤ j兲 艋 0 共40兲

n
Column survival can be checked when a phase of analysis indi-
⌬KEk = 兺
i=1
mig␦ej,i cates that collapse is arrested. The column forces determined in
that phase can be used to verify the adequacy of the critical col-

冋 册 umns.
k n
1 m ig
− 兺兺
2 j=1 ␦Ej,i
共␦ej,i − ␦ej−1,i兲共␦ej,i + ␦ej−1,i − 2␦oj,i兲 This approach can be adapted for complicated frames by track-
i=1 ing forces and capacities in the elements in the immediate vicinity
共37兲 of the column that is assumed to be removed as the initiating
event.
n

⌬KEk = 兺
i=1
mig␦ej,i Example Application of Push-Down Procedure
In this simple example, the application of push-down analyses
k n coupled with energy balance concepts is used to assess the capa-
1 mg
− 兺兺
2 j=1
i

i=1 ␦Ej,i
关␦2ej,i − ␦ej−1,i
2
− 2␦oj,i共␦ej,i − ␦ej−1,i兲兴 bility of a structure to arrest collapse. The structure used to illus-
trate these concepts consists of the simple grid frame illustrated in
共38兲 Fig. 4 with nine supports on a 6.1 m 共20-ft兲 grid pattern. W410
⫻ 53 共W16⫻ 36兲 girders frame across the supports in one direc-
Generalized, the determination of resistance to collapse can be tion and W360⫻ 32.9 共W14⫻ 22兲 beams in the second direction.
assessed through a series of linear elastic analyses that yield arti- The girders and beams framing to supports are assumed to be
ficial upward deflections, ␦oj,i, and forces Foj,i, associated with continuous over the central support and fixed against rotation at
applied internal plastic force limits; the effective elastic vertical the edge supports. Beams framing at the midspan of girders are
deflection, ␦Ej,i, and forces, FEj,i, that would have occurred in assumed to have pinned support conditions. Fig. 5 is a stick figure
each phase if the structure remained elastic under gravity load representing the framing only at the support lines, and the repre-
with pins at the locations where elastic strengths have been ex- sentation of the weight supported by this framework idealized as
ceeded; and factors, ␤ j, that are the scale factors indicating the a 178 kN 共40 kip兲 load at the center support. This system is ana-
actual fraction 共or multiple兲 of gravity load that the structure can lyzed for ability to arrest collapse in the event of removal of the
support elastically in the various configurations with pins and central support.
eliminated elements.
While this approach clearly is complicated for multiple degree
of freedom 共MDOF兲 systems, most analyses procedures assume
that a single vertical load-carrying element is notionally removed.
For this assumption, the structural system usually can be repre-
sented reasonably with a single degree of freedom defining verti-
cal motion 共i.e., by assuming that all floors deflect by the same
amount at the location of the removed column兲, hence with only
one deflection tracked. In these cases, the acceptance criterion can
be simplified and the mass terms drop out, to create the following
expression: Fig. 5. Line diagram of key framing and supported weight

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2006 / 341

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2006, 20(4): 336-348

 Table 1. Calculation of Force Ratios, R1,i, in Phase 1
Plastic Elastic
capacity force
F Pi FE1,i
Member Location 共kip-ft兲 共kip-ft兲 F Pi / FE1,i
Girder End supports −225 −137 1.64
Girder Central support 225 137 1.64
Fig. 6. Deflected shape under statically applied gravity forces
Beam End supports −138 −62 2.22
Beam Center support 138 62 2.22
The first step is to develop an elastic model of the structure
illustrated in Fig. 5 with the central support removed, and to
Next, hinges are placed in the model at the point of formation
analyze it to determine the internal forces in the members and the
of the first plastic hinge and the plastic moments, Fo1.i, are applied
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 04/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

deflections at the load point under the statically applied gravity

at the hinges. This is illustrated in Figs. 8 and 9. The deflection,
loading. Fig. 6 illustrates the deflected shape of the structure with
␦02,j, at the load point is calculated to be −0.1181 m 共−4.65 in.兲
the central support removed and the gravity forces applied as
under the application of these forces.
static loads. In this model, the deflection, if the structure remained
Now the hinge forces are removed and the structural model
elastic, would be 0.0328 m 共1.29 in.兲. Fig. 7共a and b兲 show the
with the hinges in place is analyzed for the load case of the
computed moment diagram in the girder and beam, respectively.
weight of the structure applied as a static force. The displacement,
Next we calculate the ratio of the computed plastic capacities
␦E2,j 0.1041 m 共4.10 in.兲, and internal forces, FE2,j, are calculated,
at each critical point to computed force demand, R1,i. This calcu-
as illustrated in Figs. 10 and 11.
lation is illustrated in Table 1. The smallest of these ratios Ri,j
As with the first load application, the value of ␤2 is calculated
occurs simultaneously at the center and end supports of the girder,
as the minimum of the capacity to demand ratios calculated in
where R1,I has a value of 1.64. Therefore, the value of ␤1, which
Table 2 using Eq. 共22兲. The calculated value of ␤2 is 1.82 and
is the factor on the applied forces that will produce first yielding,
corresponds to the simultaneous formulation of plastic hinges at
is 1.64.
the end and center supports of the beam.
From Eq. 共17兲
Now, with the value of ␤2 defined, Eq. 共23兲 is used to find the
␦e1,i = 1.64 ⫻ 0.0328 m = 0.0538 m 共2.12 in.兲 共41兲 deflected shape of the structure at the formation of the second
yield hinge event
Following the process that led to the development of the accep-
tance criterion, the accumulated energies when the first hinge ␦e2,i = 1.82 ⫻ 0.1041 − 0.1181 = 0.0714 m 共2.81 in.兲 共45兲
forms are given by Eqs. 共19兲–共21兲, respectively, and are as fol-
With the deflected shape at the formation of the second yield
lows:
hinge ␦e2,i defined, it is then possible to calculate the potential
⌬PE0−1 = 178 ⫻ 1.64 ⫻ 0.0328 = 9.57 kN-m 共84.7 kip-in.兲 energy ⌬PE1−2, strain energy ⌬SE1−2, and kinetic energy ⌬KE1−2,
共42兲 at the formation of hinges at the ends and center supports of the
beam using Eqs. 共24兲–共26兲, respectively
1 ⌬PE1−2 = 178 ⫻ 共0.0714 − 0.0538兲 = 3.13 kN-m 共27.7 kip-in.兲
⌬SE0−1 = ⫻ 178 ⫻ 1.642 ⫻ 0.0328 = 7.85 kN-m 共69.5 kip-in.兲
2 共46兲
共43兲
1

冉 冊
⌬SE1−2 = ⫻ 178 ⫻ 共0.0714 − 0.0538兲 ⫻ 共1.64 + 1.82兲
1.64 2
⌬KE0−1 = 178 ⫻ 1.64 ⫻ 0.0328 ⫻ 1 −
2 = 5.42 kN-m 共47.9 kip-in.兲 共47兲
= 1.72 kN-m 共15.2 kip-in.兲 共44兲
The calculated kinetic energy is positive at the end of the first
phase, indicating that the downward fall of the structure is not
1
冋
⌬KE1−2 = 178 ⫻ 共0.0714 − 0.0538兲 1 − 共1.64 + 1.82兲
2
册
arrested at the formation of the first set of hinges. It is necessary = − 2.29 kN-m 共− 20.2 kip-in.兲 共48兲
to carry the analysis another step.
Combining the energy calculations for the two phases shows the
following:

Fig. 7. Moment diagrams of framing under statically applied gravity

forces Fig. 8. Application of forces F01i and computed deflections

342 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2006

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2006, 20(4): 336-348

 Fig. 9. Moment diagram in 共a兲 girder; 共b兲 beam under applied force Fig. 11. Moment diagram in 共a兲 girder; 共b兲 beam under forces FE2,i
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 04/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

F01,i

simplified analyses that evaluate the energy accumulated by both

⌬PE0−2 = 9.57 + 3.13 = 12.70 kN-m 共112.4 kip-in.兲 共49兲
⌬SE0−2 = 7.85 + 5.42 = 13.27 kN-m 共117.4 kip-in.兲 共50兲
⌬KE0−2 = 1.72 − 2.29 = − 0.57 kN-m 共−5.0 kip-in.兲 共51兲
The calculated strain energy accumulated by the system at the end
of the second phase exceeds the change in potential energy, and
the calculated kinetic energy is negative. Of course, kinetic en-
ergy cannot be less than zero: this negative value means that the
structure has arrested collapse prior to formation of the second set
of hinges.
The acceptance criterion in either Eq. 共39兲 or Eq. 共40兲 is a
replacement for the calculation of the energies in each phase.
Exercising the acceptance criteria of Eq. 共40兲 shows the same
result
1
⌽1 = 0.0538 − 关共0.0538 − 0兲共0 + 1.64兲兴 = 0.0097 m 共0.38 in.兲
2 integration of the force–displacement relationship over three
共52兲
1 moment location; and 共3兲 once hinges have formed at both the
⌽2 = 0.0714 − 关共0.0538 − 0兲共0 + 1.64兲
2
+ 共0.0714 − 0.0538兲共1.64 + 1.82兲兴
= − 0.0032 m 共−0.12 in.兲 共53兲
The acceptance criterion shows that the structure arrests collapse
before formation of the second set of plastic hinges.
Elastic–Plastic Analyses That Capture Flexural
and Catenary Behavior
Linear push-down analyses as described herein cannot account
directly for catenary action. However, it is possible to pursue
flexural and catenary behavior, thereby enhancing the scope of
simplified analyses. The approach described below can be easily
programmed to calculate the strain energy accumulated by a
structural frame and compare it to the change in potential energy,
to yield an assessment of the energy balance including both flex-
ural and catenary behavior, for a direct determination of collapse
potential.
Considering each floor independently during the collapse se-
quence, flexural behavior at the vicinity of a removed column can
be represented by the elastic stiffness of the beam spanning two
bays, bilinear elastic–plastic moment capacity relationships at the
location of peak positive moment 共at the location of the removed
column兲 and at the location of peak negative moment 共at the
adjacent remaining columns兲, and rotational stiffnesses that rep-
resent the restraint provided by the beams and columns that frame
from adjacent structure into the adjacent remaining columns 共Fig.
12兲.
Energy accumulation through flexural action is calculated by
phases of the structural response: 共1兲 while the system is elastic;
共2兲 after a plastic hinge forms at either the positive or negative
positive and negative hinge locations.
Assuming that the structure is symmetric about the column
line where a column is assumed to be removed, the force–
displacement relationships for these phases of the response are as
follows:
For the elastic phase
24EsIb
P fe共␦兲 = ␦ 共54兲
Ls3共1 + 3Rb兲
where P fe共␦兲⫽force necessary to deform the beam in flexure to
deflection ␦ while it is elastic; Es⫽Young’s modulus; Ib⫽moment
of inertia of the beam in the bays under consideration;
Ls⫽original span of the bay 共one half of the span with the central

Table 2. Calculation of Force Ratios, R2,i, in Phase 2

Plastic Release Elastic
capacity force force F Pi − Fo2,i
F Pi Fo2,i FE2,i FE2,i
Member Location 共kip-ft兲 共kip-ft兲 共kip-ft兲
Girder End supports −225 −225 0 —
Girder Central support 225 225 0 —
Beam End supports −138 225 −200 1.82
Fig. 10. Deflections under forces FE2,i Beam Central support 138 −225 200 1.82

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2006 / 343

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2006, 20(4): 336-348

 Fig. 12. Model for flexural analysis

column removed兲; Rb⫽ratio of the stiffness of the two-span beam

under study to the combined stiffness of the elements framing into
the adjacent columns; and ␦⫽deflection at the removed column.
Ignoring joint flexibility for this simplified presentation, it can
be assumed without introducing significant errors that columns
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 04/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

that are not near the roof, building corners, or grade levels have
inflection points at midheight and beams in adjacent spans are
fixed at their far ends, leading to
Ib
Rb = 共55兲 Fig. 14. Strain energy absorbed by flexural behavior and change in
Ls
Ib + 4Iab + 12Ic potential energy
Hc
where Iab⫽moment of inertia of the beams in adjacent spans; To develop the appropriate force–displacement relationship
Ic⫽moment of inertia of columns; and Hc⫽column height. over the relevant range of response, it is necessary to determine
Similar relationships for Rb can be developed for other column whether the first hinge forms at the positive or negative moment
locations in the building frame, and for locations where two-way locations, so that the appropriate relationship, either Pfyn共␦兲 or
action is important. Pfyp共␦兲, is used in the analysis. This can be accomplished by
In the inelastic range, if the first hinge forms in the negative calculating the following values and finding which is lower:
moment location

冋冉 冊 册
4ZnFy
3 2EsIb Pen = 共58兲
Pfyn共␦兲 = ␦ + Z nF y 共56兲 Ls共1 − Rb兲
Ls Ls2
where Pfyn共␦兲⫽force necessary to deflect the beam in flexure with 4Z pFy
Pep = 共59兲
yielding at negative moment locations; Zn⫽plastic section modu- Ls共1 + Rb兲
lus in negative bending; and Fy⫽yield stress.
In the inelastic range, if the first hinge forms in the positive where Pen⫽force that would induce first yielding at negative mo-
moment location ment locations; and Pep⫽force that would induce first yielding at

冋冉 冊 册
the positive moment location.
3 2EsIb Once plastic hinges have formed in both locations, the force
Pfyp共␦兲 = 共1 − Rb兲␦ + Z pFy共1 + Rb兲
Ls共1 + 2Rb兲 Ls2 that is sustained while the beam experiences additional displace-
ment is
共57兲
2共Zn + Z p兲Fy
where Pfyp共␦兲⫽force necessary to deflect the beam in flexure with Pfy = 共60兲
yielding at positive moment locations; and Z p⫽plastic section Ls
modulus in positive bending. The next step is to set a deflection limit, ␦ f lim 共perhaps deter-
mined by limiting support rotations兲, that determines when the
flexural system is assumed to lose ability to accumulate additional
energy. For deformations beyond ␦ f lim, the beam has failed and
ceases to support load.
With this formulation, the minimum value of Pfe共␦兲, Pfyn共␦兲 or
Pfyp共␦兲, and Pfy共␦兲 over the range of deflections between 0 and
␦ f lim defines the force–displacement relationship,P f 共␦兲, for the
beam.
To illustrate the approach, representative plots are shown in
Figs. 13–18, based on the following assumed member properties
and structural geometry:

Fig. 13. Force–displacement relationship for flexural behavior Fig. 15. Model for catenary analysis

344 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2006

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2006, 20(4): 336-348

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 04/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 16. Force–displacement relationship for catenary behavior

Fig. 17. Strain energy absorbed by catenary behavior and change in
Es = 2.03 ⫻ 10 MPa 共29.5 ⫻ 10 psi兲
5 6 potential energy

Fy = 345 MPa 共50,000 psi兲 with the beam axial strain a function of deformation at the loca-
tion of the missing column, axial flexibility, and horizontal stiff-
Ib = Iab = 3.9 ⫻ 10−4 m4 共941 in.4兲 nesses derived from the adjacent structure.
In this formulation, the relationship between the force neces-
Ic = 5.3 ⫻ 10−4 m4 共1,270 in.4兲 sary to deform the beam while it is elastic and deflection is fourth
order, as follows:

冋 册 冉 冊 冋 册 冉 冊冉 冊
Zn = Z p = 2.16 ⫻ 10−3 m3 共132 in.3兲
Pce共␦兲 4
1 2
Pce共␦兲 3
1 1 1
− +
Ab = 0.0135m 共20.9 in. 兲
2 2 ␦ 4klkh ␦ 4klkh kl kh

Ls = 9.14 m 共30 ft兲 冋 册 再冉 冊 冋 冉 冊 册 冉 冊冎

+
Pce共␦兲
␦
2
1
2kl
2
1+
␦
Ls
2
+
1
k lk h
1+
kl
4kh
Hc = 3.66 m 共12 ft兲
Once the force–displacement relationship 共Fig. 13, with ␦ f lim as-
冉 冊再 冋 冉 冊 册 冎 冉 冊
−
Pce共␦兲
␦
1
kl
1+
␦
Ls
2
+
1
kh
+
␦
Ls
2
=0 共63兲

sumed to be limited by support rotations of 6°兲 is established, the where Pce共␦兲⫽force necessary to deflect the catenary while the
energy accumulated through flexural action can be calculated by beam is elastic; kl⫽axial stiffness of the beam, AbEs / Ls; Ab⫽area
integration of the beam; and kh⫽horizontal stiffness of the surrounding struc-

冕
y
EF共y兲 = P f 共␦兲d␦ 共61兲
0

where EF共y兲⫽strain energy absorbed by flexural action through

deformation y; and y⫽deflection at which absorbed strain energy
will be compared to change in potential energy.
To make the comparison, and determine if strain energy accu-
mulated through flexural behavior is sufficient to resist collapse,
the change in potential energy is calculated as
⌬PE共y兲 = Wy 共62兲
where W⫽weight associated with the missing column at the floor
under study 共taken in this example as 7.18 kPa 共150 psf兲 over a
tributary area of 41.8 m2 共450 ft2兲兲.
For a representative case, the comparison of the change in
potential energy and the strain energy accumulated by a beam, as
calculated using this approach, is shown in Fig. 14. For the con-
ditions analyzed, this approach suggests that energy accumulated
through flexural behavior is likely to arrest motion after the beam
deflects approximately 0.89 m 共35 in.兲
The strain energy accumulated through catenary action also
can be calculated. The behavior model used for this simplified
approach is shown in Fig. 15. The basic assumptions are that the Fig. 18. Strain energy absorbed by structure and change in potential
beam acts as two straight segments that elongate under axial load, energy

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2006 / 345

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2006, 20(4): 336-348

 ture, evaluated using a structural model of the frame and floor
diaphragm.
Under circumstances when there is sufficient strength in con-
nections to enable the beam to yield in tension, the relationship
between the force necessary to deform the beam and deflection is

冫冤冢 冦冋 冧冣 冥
2 1/2
A bF y 1

冉 冊册
Pcy共␦兲 = 2AbFy␦ Ls − + ␦2
kh ␦ 2 1/2
1+
Ls
共64兲
where Pcy共␦兲⫽force necessary to deflect the catenary after the
beam yields in tension.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 04/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The force–deflection relationship for catenary action can there-

fore be determined by solving the fourth order relationship be-
tween Pce共␦兲 and ␦ and selecting the lesser of Pce共␦兲 and Pcy共␦兲
for the applicable range of values of ␦.
As with flexural behavior, an additional upper limit on force in
the catenary can be determined to model connection strength or
the ability of the surrounding structure to transfer catenary reac-
tions. Following this approach, a representative force–
displacement curve, Pc共␦兲, for catenary action is shown in Fig.
16, with the maximum axial force in this example limited to Fig. 19. Structural model used to assess diaphragm stiffness
4.45⫻ 102 kN 共1 ⫻ 105 lb兲 and kh = 2.63⫻ 105 kN/ m 共1.5
⫻ 10 lb/ in.兲
6

To evaluate the contribution of catenary action to collapse re-

sistance, this force–displacement relationship must be integrated ing systems have floor diaphragms that are effectively integrated
to determine the strain energy accumulated through catenary with the beams. For this study, we investigated whether effective
action horizontal stiffness at a floor level in the building was influenced
by forces applied on floors above and below the floor of interest.

冕
y
EC共y兲 = Pc共␦兲d␦
0
where EC共y兲⫽strain energy absorbed by catenary action through
deflection y 共Fig. 17兲.
Fig. 17 suggests that the analyzed condition will not stabilize
through energy accumulated through catenary action alone.
In the simplified approach described herein, flexural action and
catenary action are uncoupled 共however, formulations can be de-
veloped to represent coupled phenomena兲. Hence, the combined
strain energy absorbed through deflection of a beam that resists
deflection through both mechanisms is EF共y兲 + EC共y兲. This com-
bined accumulated strain energy can be compared to the change
in potential energy, Wy, at any value of y less than limiting values
共e.g., values corresponding to beam failure in flexure or connec-
tion failure in axial load兲. The beam can be judged to fail if for all
deflections the change in potential energy exceeds the accumu-
lated strain energy, or to survive if the accumulated strain energy
at least equals the change in potential energy 共Fig. 18兲. For the
analyzed condition, accounting for energy accumulated through
both flexural and catenary behavior the structure stabilizes at a
deformation of approximately 0.64 m 共25 in.兲.
Adjacent columns can be verified by distributing the end mo-
ment of the beams under study in accordance with the relative
stiffnesses of the connecting columns and beams, and augmenting
the column axial service load by the sum of the increases in the
vertical components of the end reactions of the beams above.
Similarly, the surrounding structure must also be evaluated for its
ability to develop and sustain the catenary tensile forces.
This simplified approach can be extended to structures with
multiple floors. A parametric study using a representative framing
system for a multistory building 共Fig. 19兲 shows that the horizon-
tal stiffnesses on adjacent floors exhibit little coupling when fram-
To accomplish this evaluation, we constructed equivalent dia-
共65兲 phragms on three floors. Then we removed the diaphragm ele-
ments from two adjacent bays on the floor level of interest at the
perimeter of the building and four bays in a cluster at an interior
location. We applied opposing horizontal forces at the beam/
column connections and calculated horizontal deflections for
equivalent 0.102 and 0.051 m 共4 and 2 in.兲 slabs 共to account for
cracking兲, with and without corresponding openings in the bays
above and below the floor level of interest. These analyses
showed that the effective diaphragm stiffness is influenced by less
than 10% by the presence of openings on adjacent floors.
Hence, for many common conditions, stiffnesses that must be
evaluated for catenary action 共which clearly relies on good dia-
phragm action and the ability to transfer the tensile forces from
the beam to capable resisting elements兲 often can be estimated on
a floor-by-floor basis. For flexural and catenary action, consider-
ation needs to be given to the potential that the sudden removal of
a column releases strain energy contained in the compressed col-
umns above, magnifying the effective potential energy that must
be absorbed by lower floors.
The analysis described above can be programmed relatively
easily with commonly available software such as Mathcad, as was
done by the authors to create the example in this paper.
Research Needs
The methods presented here can be adapted to be practical im-
provements over current simplified methods to assess dispropor-
tionate collapse potential, because they are based on the physical
phenomena associated with building failure, rather than a force-
based approach that is calibrated for certain structures. Further,
these approaches do not rely on an assumed multiple on applied

346 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2006

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2006, 20(4): 336-348

 load to account for dynamic effects, or a preset multiple of
strength 共i.e., DCR greater than one兲 for evaluation of
compliance.
Nevertheless, all procedures presently available rely on ap-
proximations that deserve further attention before analyses can be
expected to predict collapse potential with high accuracy.
The concept of notional removal of a critical structural ele-
ment to initiate a collapse is part of most common sophisticated
approaches and simplified approaches. It is postulated that a ver-
tical load-carrying element 共a column or bearing wall兲 is removed
instantaneously, and survival is judged by the ability of the rest of
the structure to remain standing without disproportionate col-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 04/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
lapse. Of course, few initiating events will cleanly remove a
single structural element. Hence, the accuracy of the prediction of
collapse potential needs to be judged in the context of the as-
sumption of the initiator.
Common to all approaches for the assessment of dispropor-
tionate collapse potential are assumptions about such matters as
the amount of strain that structural elements can sustain, the in-
fluence of strain rate on strength, the location 共e.g., column cen-
terline, column face, or elsewhere兲 where effective hinges should
be assumed, and the influence of nonstructural elements on the
dissipation of energy.
Normally for the analysis of collapse potential, the notional
removal of a load-carrying element is assumed simply to create a
new building configuration, and the modified structure is tested to
determine if it can resist the influence of gravity. In fact, a struc-
ture under load is a taut spring. If a load-carrying element is
suddenly removed, the spring is released, freeing strain energy
that imparts forces that accelerate portions of the structure. Some
of this commonly neglected strain energy is additive with energy
due to change in potential energy.
At present, none of the common approaches to the evaluation
of disproportionate collapse potential considers the influence of
this stored strain energy in the structure at the time of the initiat-
ing event. Generally this energy is relatively small compared to
the potential energy changes that occur during the collapse of a
structure. However, consideration should be given to the possibil-
ity for tracking the release of this stored energy along with the
increase in change in potential energy to achieve a level of accu-
racy that cannot now be achieved with common approaches.
To the extent that portions of the structure away from the
modeled falling mass move 共vertically, horizontally, or rotation-
ally兲, some of the potential energy change associated with the
falling mass is converted into kinetic energy or to a change in
potential energy in masses that are not in the bay under consider-
ation. Also, mass inertia elsewhere in the structure can force a
deformed shape during collapse of a bay that is dissimilar to the
deformed shape determined by quasi-static application of an ex-
ternal load. The relevance of these neglected phenomena should
be evaluated.
As in any such analyses, assumptions must be made about
material properties, participation of nonstructural elements in the
resistance of collapse, limits in the deformation potential of the
elements that come into play, and collapse kinematics modeling.
Any approach to the solution of this problem must deal with these
uncertainties, and none can be faulted because approximations
must be introduced, either in the initiating condition, the perfor-
mance of the structure, or how we judge whether the structure has
actually collapsed. However, future improvements in collapse
prediction will follow from research to reduce these uncertainties.
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2006 / 347
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2006, 20(4): 336-348
Discussion
Reference papers, guidelines, and standards to date recognize two
primary means to address disproportionate collapse issues: by di-
rect design and by indirect design. In direct design, the engineer
must consider specific events that are likely to compromise the
structural system and to develop analyses that demonstrate that
remaining load paths are sufficient to confine and arrest a col-
lapse.
Indirect design approaches the problem by identifying and in-
corporating into a building system features that are known to
enhance robustness, without specific consideration of loads or
events that could trigger disproportionate collapse.
Accurate prediction of collapse potential is a very difficult task
that could easily be beyond the present capability of many struc-
tural engineers. Many factors that influence collapse potential—
component performance, dynamic behaviors, and interactions of
structural systems, among others—have not been expressed in
terms that are sufficient for engineers to be able to interpret the
expected performance of specific structures. Also, analysis proce-
dures are not sufficiently developed for rapid and universal appli-
cation to wide classes of structures. In addition, the most
accurate analysis procedures—including dynamic, nonlinear
representations—generally are beyond the ability of most practic-
ing structural engineers to perform economically in the building
design environment, given the analysis tools and fee consider-
ations that limit the scope of realistic studies.
Available simplified analysis approaches include approxima-
tions that are based on the results of studies of a few representa-
tive buildings. Artificial load and resistance factors are used to
create the best representations of the results of these limited
studies.
Energy-based approaches create a bridge between present sim-
plified analysis methods and the best representation of the nonlin-
ear, dynamic behavior that actually occurs during collapse. By
approaching the analysis of collapse phenomena by tracking the
energy released by the falling weight and the energy absorbed by
the structure, a comparison can be made to judge whether the
failure is arrested. Simply put, if the energy absorbed by the struc-
ture exceeds the change in potential energy, the structure has
come to rest and has potential to survive.
The energy approaches presented in this paper represent sig-
nificant improvements over present simplified approaches be-
cause they approximate the dynamic phenomenon directly, with-
out artificial load and resistance factors. Further, these energy-
based approaches can be developed to be implemented by
practicing structural engineers with analysis tools presently avail-
able in most design offices.
References
Burnett, E. F. P. 共1975兲. “The avoidance of progressive collapse: Regu-
latory approaches to the problem.” U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National
Bureau of Standards, Oct. 1975 NBS-GCR 75-48, Washington, D.C.
Corley, W. G., Mlakar, P. F., Sr., Sozen, M. A., and Thornton, C. H.
共1998兲. “The Oklahoma City bombing: Summary and recommenda-
tions for multihazard mitigation.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 12共3兲,
100–112.
Dusenberry, D. O., and Juneja, G. 共2002兲. “Review of existing guidelines
and provisions relating to progressive collapse.” Proc., Multihazard
Mitigation Council National Workshop on Prevention of Progressive
Collapse, Chicago.
 Ellingwood, B., and Leyendecker, E. V. 共1978兲. “Approaches for design
against progressive collapse.” J. Struct. Div., 104共ST3兲, 413–423.
General Services Administration 共GSA兲. 共2003兲. Progressive collapse
analysis and design guidelines for new federal office buildings and
major modernization projects, Washington, D.C.
Hamburger, R. O., and Whittaker, A. 共2004兲. “Design of steel structures
for blast-related progressive collapse resistance.” Proc., AISC Symp.
on Blast and Progressive Collapse, New York City.
Hinman, E. E., and Hammond, D. J. 共1997兲. “Lessons from the Oklahoma
City bombing.” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va.
Leyendecker, E. V., and Ellingwood, B. R. 共1977兲. Design methods for
reducing the risk of progressive collapse in buildings, National Bu-
reau of Standards, Washington, D.C.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Adelaide on 04/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
348 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2006
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2006, 20(4): 336-348
McGuire, W. 共1974兲. “Prevention of progressive collapse.” Proc., Re-
gional Conf. on Tall Buildings, Bangkok, Asian Institute of Technol-
ogy, Bangkok, Thailand.
Mlakar, P., Dusenberry, D. O., Harris, J. R., Haynes, G., Phan, L. T., and
Sozen, M. A. 共2002兲. The Pentagon Building Performance Rep.,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va.
National Institute of Science and Technology 共NIST兲. 共2005兲. Final Rep.
on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, Federal Building
and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, U.S.
Dept. of Commerce, Gaithersburg, Md.
National Institute of Science and Technology 共NIST兲. 共2006兲. Best prac-
tices for reducing the potential for progressive collapse in buildings,
Draft document for use during Fall 2006 NIST-SEI Workshop, U.S.
Dept. of Commerce, Gaithersburg, Md.