A Review of Progressive Collapse Research and Regulations
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Structures and Buildings Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Volume 167 Issue SB8 Structures and Buildings 167 August 2014 Issue SB8 Pages 447–456 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/stbu.12.00023 A review of progressive collapse research Paper 1200023 and regulations Received 20/04/2012 Accepted 20/08/2013 Published online 12/12/2013 Byfield, Mudalige, Morison and Stoddart Keywords: buildings, structures & design/codes of practice & standards ICE Publishing: All rights reserved A review of progressive collapse research and regulations j1 Michael Byfield Beng, PhD, MIStructE, MICE, CEng j3 Colin Morison BSc, MSc, PhD, RSES, CEng, MICE School of Civil Engineering and the Environment, University of Security and Explosion Effects Division, TPS Consult, Croydon, UK Southampton, UK j4 Euan Stoddart BEng, PhD j2 Wjesundara Mudalige BEng School of Civil Engineering and the Environment, University of School of Civil Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, UK Southampton, UK j1 j2 j3 j4 History has demonstrated that buildings designed to conventional design codes can lack the robustness necessary to withstand localised damage, partial or even complete collapse. This variable performance has led governmental organisations to seek ways of ensuring all buildings of significant size possess a minimum level of robustness. The research community has responded by advancing understanding of how structures behave when subjected to localised damage. Regulations and design recommendations have been developed to help ensure more consistent resilience in all framed buildings of significant size, and rigorous design approaches have been specified for buildings deemed potentially vulnerable to extreme loading events. This paper summarises some of the more important progressive collapse events, to identify key attributes that lead to vulnerability to collapse. Current procedures and guidelines for ensuring a minimum level of performance are reviewed and modelling methods for structures subjected to localised damage are described. These include increasingly sophisticated progressive collapse analysis procedures, including linear static and non-linear static analysis, as well as non-linear static pushover and linear dynamic methods. Finally, fully non-linear dynamic methods are considered. Building connections potentially represent the most vulnerable structural elements in steel-framed buildings; their failure can lead to progressive collapses. Steel connections also present difficulties with respect to frame modelling and this paper highlights benefits and drawbacks of some modelling procedures with respect to their treatment of connections. 1. Introduction Row car park, the loss of strength due to concrete deterioration Interest in the progressive collapse of buildings was initiated after triggered punching shear failures (Wood, 2003). In the Sampoong the partial collapse of Ronan Point in London, UK, in 1968 (Pearson superstore the inadequate provision of reinforcement in the flat and Delatte, 2005), which led to the first regulations with the aim of slab column region, combined with overloading, caused punching providing a minimum level of resistance to progressive collapse. shear failures and a collapse which killed 501 people (Wearne, The Ronan Point collapse was caused by a natural gas explosion; 1999). however, blasts from car bombs, known as vehicle-borne impro- vised explosive devices (VBIEDs) also have a proven ability to Buildings are always vulnerable to collapse during the construc- cause progressive collapses of buildings, such as the attack on the tion phases, as occurred at the Skyline Tower in Virginia, USA, US Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983, which was almost in 1973. During construction, shoring at the 22nd floor was completely demolished with the loss of 241 lives (Davis, 2007). prematurely removed, causing punching shear failures which propagated throughout the full height of the building, a phenom- Localised structural weaknesses, sometimes combined with dete- enon sometimes referred to as pancaking. The impact from the rioration or overloading, continue to cause collapses. Punching debris also caused the collapse to progress sideways, consuming shear failures of flat slabs are the most common cause in an entire parking garage under construction adjacent to the tower. reinforced concrete framed buildings, as occurred at the Pipers The L’Ambiance Plaza building in Bridgeport, USA in 1987 also Row car park in Wolverhampton in the UK (in 1997) and at the collapsed during the construction phase (Martin and Delatte, Sampoong superstore in South Korea (in 1995). In the Pipers 2000). This involved the lift-slab method in which post-tensioned 447 Structures and Buildings A review of progressive collapse research Volume 167 Issue SB8 and regulations Byfield, Mudalige, Morison and Stoddart Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com Author copy for personal use, not for distribution concrete slabs were lifted onto steel column permanent supports. to collapse locally, and the impact of debris collapsed all of the Three slab panels lifted to their temporary positions collapsed floors below into the basement. This progressive collapse was the onto the permanent slab below due to substandard welding at primary cause of five deaths and 34 injuries. slab-to-column connections (Ellingwood et al., 2007; McGuire, 1992). The permanent slab was unable to resist the impact and In terms of the tragedy and losses, the above-mentioned cases collapsed, initiating a chain of collapses that progressed to the were far exceeded by the events at the World Trade Center in ground level (Martin and Delatte, 2000). 2001. The towers were structurally highly redundant, comprising a rigid perimeter frame and a gravity load-bearing central core, No review of progressive collapses would be complete without a together with a truss system installed between the 107th and mention of the 1995 Alfred P. Murrah building collapse in 110th floors which linked the perimeter frame to the central core Oklahoma city, USA. The building featured open-plan architec- structure (Kirk, 2005). The towers remained globally stable ture combined with a glazed fac¸ade, features that became vitally immediately after the impacts, despite the severing of up to 36 important when a VBIED was detonated on the curb side. The perimeter columns in the face of each tower. The gravity loads building comprised lightly reinforced columns common in non- originally carried by the damaged perimeter columns were seismic regions of the world. Such columns are vulnerable to partially transferred to the adjacent undamaged columns by way shear failures due to the sideways pressure from blast loading and of Vierendeel action. In addition, perimeter columns were also it is believed that the column closest to the blast shattered and believed to have become suspended from the trusses installed the two columns either side failed in shear. Lacking strong between the 107th and 110th floors. It can be speculated that the internal partition walls or cladding, the building had no emer- buildings may have collapsed immediately following the impacts gency means for redistributing loads and a progressive collapse if the towers had not incorporated the trusses, although no was initiated which consumed nearly one half of the building, research has been carried out to prove this. killing 168 people (Corley et al., 1998). The use of the transfer girder to support every other perimeter column has been widely Sasani and Sagiroglu (2008) carried out an experimental investi- attributed to the scale of the collapse, as has the lack of gation of the robustness of the Hotel San Diego, USA which had continuity of beam reinforcement through beam–column junc- already been planned for demolition. The building featured a tions. However, more recent forensic analysis of the building reinforced concrete frame structure with hollow clay brick indicated that a 42 m wide section of the building would still exterior infill panels. The response of the building after a simul- have collapsed had all the perimeter columns been continued to taneous removal of two adjacent exterior columns, one of which ground-floor level and had full reinforcement continuity been was a corner column, was recorded. The building successfully provided (in the actual event a 48 m wide section of the building bridged the damaged areas, with loads redistributed through collapsed) (Byfield and Paramasivam, 2012; NIST, 1995). This Vierendeel frame action and diagonal strutting in the panel highlights the ease with which VBIEDs can cause extensive walling (Sasani and Sagiroglu, 2008). column shear failures and also the importance of alternative load paths to redistribute loads away from damaged columns. A recent progressive collapse test was carried out on the 11- storey reinforced concrete Crowne Plaza hotel in Texas, USA. The Murrah building can be contrasted with the response of Four columns were removed using explosive charges (Sasani, framed buildings observed during World War II, some of which 2011). Two of the columns were on the centre-line of the building suffered loss of support at multiple perimeter columns. The perimeter and the two internal columns were immediately forensic investigations into bomb sites, led by Professor Sir adjacent. The building was unloaded and was able to withstand Dermot Christopherson and Professor Lord Baker, found that the column loss with only a 50 mm total displacement, and the progressive collapses