See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262217872

Modelling and analysis

Conference Paper · September 2009

CITATIONS READS

8 911

5 authors, including:

Bassam A. Izzuddin Carmen Bucur

Imperial College London Technical University of Civil Engineering of Bucharest
309 PUBLICATIONS 6,184 CITATIONS 52 PUBLICATIONS 89 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Marian Gizejowski
Warsaw University of Technology
138 PUBLICATIONS 456 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Carmen Bucur on 05 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Joint Workshop of COST Actions TU0601 and E55
September 21-22 2009, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Modelling and analysis

Leslaw Kwasniewski
Warsaw University of Technology, Poland

Bassam A. Izzuddin
Imperial College London, United Kingdom

Miguel Pereira
Imperial College London, United Kingdom

Carmen Bucur
Technical University of Civil Engineering Bucharest, Romania

Marian Gizejowski
Warsaw University of Technology, Poland

Summary

The principal question for all modeling methods applied for evaluation of structural
robustness is the extent of damage caused by a local failure initiated by a real infrequent
event or notional column removal. This document discusses the modelling approaches that
can be employed for the assessment of structural robustness, covering both simplified as
well as detailed analysis techniques. Three methods are briefly presented: Design-Oriented
Method, Detailed Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis, and Applied Element Method. The methods
are based on different conceptual frameworks, apply different solution techniques and
loading representations, and differ on how the materials and interactions are incorporated in
the analysis.

The first method is a design-oriented method, where the robustness limit state is based on
avoidance of failure in the above floors following sudden column loss, and where a simplified
dynamic assessment method is adopted thus avoiding the need for detailed nonlinear
dynamic analysis. The second method is concerned with detailed nonlinear dynamic
simulation of the structural response under extreme loading, including the effects of floor
failure and impact. The third method, combining the features from finite element and discrete
element methods, allow for tracking the structural collapse behaviour through all stages
using a specially designed cubical element with a variety of inter-element connections.

Keywords

Progressive collapse, robustness, accidental loading, computer simulation, finite element

analysis, design-oriented method, alternative load paths, connection resilience, connection
redundancy, catenary action, arching action.

91
Modelling and analysis

Background / Introduction

After several disastrous building collapses, concepts such as progressive collapse and
robustness of structures have been reflected in many research papers and recent codes of
practice in the United States (e.g.: UFC, 2009) and in Europe (e.g.: EN 1991-1-7, 2006). The
same European code provides strategies to be considered for accidental design situations:

Figure 1: Strategies for Accidental Design Situations (EN 1991-1-7, 2006)

A clear distinction is made between situations where the accidental action is clearly defined,
such as a known level of blast or impact caused by a specific vehicle, and other situations
where the objective is to enhance robustness in an event-independent manner by limiting
the effects of local damage. The former cases (left side of the chart) allow the adoption of
performance based design, with the possibility of considering risk-based methodologies
where not only the structure itself is considered but also the functionality of the facility, its
societal and environment role and economical assets. The latter cases (right side of the
chart) are rather prescriptive, and therefore offer typically notional robustness based on good
practice rather than on performance evaluation under extreme events. There are other
scenarios which have been recently conceived, such as the sudden or instantaneous loss of
a column, which are prescriptive on the loading side, thus benefitting from event-
independence, yet allow a performance based assessment on the structural response side.
With the possibility of correlation against actual events, these scenarios straddle the divide in
the above chart, and show a promise for practical application in design.

In any case, the above two types of methodologies are not completely independent and can
both be considered for the robustness design of the same structure.

This particular document discusses the modelling approaches that can be employed for the
assessment of structural robustness, covering both simplified as well as detailed analysis
techniques.

92
Modelling and analysis

Problem statement / Key issues

The collapse of an entire structure or an essential part of it that is disproportionately large

compared to the initiating local damage is considered a progressive collapse.

The most common design scenario is the event-independent sudden loss of a column or
other vertical load bearing member (GSA, 2000), (UFC, 2009). The simplicity of this scenario
allows the quantification of important issues as ductility, redundancy and energy absorption
(Izzuddin et al., 2008), leading to a performance-based assessment even if the loading
scenario itself is prescriptive.

Figure 2: Multi-storey building subject to sudden column loss (Izzuddin et al., 2008)

When the extreme event is well-defined, more detailed analysis methods, such as nonlinear
dynamic finite element analysis, may be used. Such approaches additionally require
knowledge of the structural configuration, material properties and the influence of elements
typically not considered in the structural design, such as infill panels.

Analysis Methods

The GSA code (GSA, 2000) introduced a flow-chart procedure for determining if a specific
building can be exempt from detailed consideration for progressive collapse. For non-exempt
structures, finite element analyses at different levels of complexity are proposed. One can
choose among linear or nonlinear, static or dynamic (time history), and between 2- and 3-
dimensional (2D and 3D) analysis techniques (Herrle and McKay 2001). The GSA code
limits the applicability of linear elastic static analysis procedures to buildings with a maximum
of 10 stories above the ground. The nonlinear dynamic procedures are considered the most
sophisticated and accurate structural assessment techniques. However, due to the
complexity and inherent challenges, these procedures are less frequently used for
progressive collapse analysis. The main difficulties are related to the numerical convergence
problems, material models capturing inelastic properties and damage, modelling component

93
Modelling and analysis

disintegration caused by failure, requirements for mesh density to capture local effects, and
the size of the FE models for large structures (e.g., multi-story buildings) which is associated
with considerable computational demands. Other simplified and design-oriented methods
have therefore emerged recently, where emphasis has been placed on capturing the main
nonlinear dynamic phenomena involved in progressive collapse assessment within a
computationally efficient framework that is viable for direct application in design.

The three methods presented hereafter are based on different conceptual frameworks. The
first is a design-oriented method, where the robustness limit state is based on avoidance of
failure in the above floors following sudden column loss, and where a simplified dynamic
assessment method is adopted thus avoiding the need for detailed nonlinear dynamic
analysis . The second method is concerned with detailed nonlinear dynamic simulation of the
structural response under extreme loading, including the effects of floor failure and impact.
The third method, combining the features from finite element and discrete element methods,
allow for tracking the structural collapse behaviour through all stages using a specially
designed cubical element with a variety of inter-element connections.

A Design-Oriented Method

A simplified approach has been proposed by Izzuddin et al. (2008) for progressive collapse
assessment of multi-storey building structures considering sudden column loss as a design
scenario, which offers a quantitative framework for the consideration of such important
issues as ductility, redundancy and energy absorption. This approach requires only the
nonlinear static response under gravity loading of the structure excluding the removed
column, with dynamic effects evaluated in a simplified, yet reasonably accurate, manner.

Accordingly, the proposed assessment framework utilises three main stages:

i. nonlinear static response of the damaged structure under gravity loading, considering
the beneficial effects of such nonlinear phenomena as compressive arching and
catenary actions;

ii. simplified dynamic assessment to establish the maximum dynamic response under
sudden column loss; and,

iii. ductility assessment of the joints by comparing maximum ductility demands to

ductility supply.

This simplified assessment framework may be applied at the overall structural level and,
importantly, at various sub-structural levels, according to the required modelling detail and
the feasibility of model reduction (Izzuddin et al., 2008).

Nonlinear static response

The sudden removal of the bottom column (Figure 3(a)) is similar in effect to sudden
application of the gravity load (P0) on the same structure, particularly when the structure
sustains significant deformations as a result. This sudden application of gravity loading leads
to dynamic effects, where the ductility demands for all deformation states up to the maximum
dynamic response (Figure 3(b)) must be met in order to avoid failure. A simplifying feature of

94
Modelling and analysis

this framework is that the maximum dynamic response can be estimated with reasonable
accuracy from the nonlinear static response under amplified gravity loading (λdP0), as
illustrated in (Figure 3(c)), thus removing the need for detailed nonlinear dynamic analysis.
This bears some similarity to simplified equivalent single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) models
for extreme dynamic loading (e.g. blast), where the deformation modes under static loading
are used as a basis for estimating the dynamic response. Therefore, the nonlinear static
response of the structure, excluding the lost column, is required under gravity loading that is
varied according to a scaling factor (P = λP0), where a typical response is shown in
Figure 3(d).

(a) Sudden column loss (b) Maximum dynamic response (c) Amplified static
loading

(d) Characteristic nonlinear static response under proportional load (P = λP0)

Figure 3: Sudden column removal using amplified static loading (Izzuddin et al., 2008)

Simplified dynamic assessment

Under a sudden column loss scenario, a typical building structure exhibits a highly nonlinear
dynamic response, and thus any assessment of ductility demands should consider the
maximum dynamic response of the structure. In this respect, the previous UFC code in the
USA (DoD, 2005) recommended the use of nonlinear dynamic analysis for the damaged
structure, though this is overly complicated for practical application in structural design. To
address this issue, an alternative simplified approach has been allowed by the latest UFC
code (DoD, 2009), which allows a nonlinear static assessment coupled with the use of
dynamic amplification factors for gravity loading above the damaged column that reduce with
the levels of ductility in the structure. However, recent work by Izzuddin & Nethercot (2009)
has shown that this approach is not sufficiently rational and could lead to designs for
robustness that are seriously unsafe.

95
Modelling and analysis

Addressing such shortcomings, a rational simplified treatment was proposed by Izzuddin et

al. (2008), the so-called ductility-centred approach, which determines the maximum dynamic
response based on principles of energy balance. This approach considers that in the initial
stages of the dynamic response, the gravity load exceeds the static structural resistance,
and the differential work done over the incremental deformations is transformed into
additional kinetic energy, thus leading to increasing velocities. As the deformations increase,
the static resistance exceeds the gravity loading, and the differential energy absorbed
accounts for a reduction in the kinetic energy, thus leading to decreasing velocities.
Considering a response dominated by a single deformation mode, the maximum dynamic
response is achieved when the kinetic energy is reduced back to zero, and hence when the
work done by the gravity loads becomes identical to the energy absorbed by the structure.
This allows the maximum dynamic displacement to be obtained from energy balance as
illustrated in Figures 4(a-b) for two levels of gravity loading, leading to the notion of a
pseudo-static response depicting the variation of maximum dynamic displacement with
applied gravity loading as shown in Figure 4(c).

The above simplified dynamic assessment approach provides clear computational benefits
in comparison with detailed nonlinear dynamic analysis, aids in the understanding of the
dynamic response characteristics under sudden column loss, and can be easily applied at
various levels of structural idealisation (Izzuddin et al., 2008).

(a) Dynamic response (P = λ1P0) (b) Dynamic response (P = λ2P0) (c) Pseudo-static
response

Figure 4: Simplified dynamic assessment and pseudo-static response (Izzuddin et al., 2008)

Another aspect of dynamic assessment is the treatment of the effects of material rate-
sensitivity, where an extension of the simplified dynamic assessment procedure has been
recently proposed towards this end (Pereira & Izzuddin, 2009). Using this approach, it was
shown that material rate-sensitivity for steel-framed building can improve resistance to
progressive collapse by around 25%.

Ductility assessment

This is the final stage of assessment where the maximum dynamic displacement (ud) under
the applied gravity loading (P = P0) is compared to the ductility limit (uf) to establish the limit
state.

In determining the ductility limit, the variation of connection deformation demands with ud is
considered, and uf is established as the minimum value of ud for which the deformation
demand becomes equal to the supply in any of the connections. Although such a criterion is

96
Modelling and analysis

based on first failure of at a connection component, the simplified approach can also deal
with multiple failures (Izzuddin, 2008).

Measure of structural robustness

Commonly advocated indicators are inadequate on their own as measures of structural

robustness, particularly since all of these can have positive as well as negative influences
(Izzuddin et al., 2008). For sudden column loss scenarios, the comparison of the system
pseudo-static capacity (Pf) against the applied gravity loading (P0) establishes the
robustness limit state and provides a single measure of robustness including the combined
influence of common indicators, such as ductility, redundancy and energy absorption
capacity.

Detailed Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis

For all approaches applied for evaluation of structural robustness, the principal question is
the extent of damage caused by a local failure initiated by a real infrequent event or notional
column removal. The common factor for such investigations is that an analysis is conducted
beyond the point where the loading reaches its extreme level and often the structure loses
its stability and collapses. To fulfill all such requirements, often the researchers have to turn
toward three dimensional (3D), nonlinear dynamic analyses. As a consequence, so-called
computer simulations cover the post-buckling behavior or development of failure
mechanisms. A computer model is the numerical, discrete representation of the
mathematical model, which, in turn, usually attempts to characterize a physical problem. In
engineering and research practice, a computer model is developed, solved, and analyzed
with the aid of computer programs that can be advanced, general purpose, commercial
software, or specialized unique programs developed by academia. In both cases, the
majority of today’s computer programs, dedicated to structural analysis, are based on the
Finite Element (FE) Method.

Static versus Dynamic

Depending on how time is treated in the analysis, we can choose among dynamic, quasi-
static, and strictly static approaches. The loss of stability is usually a dynamic process, and
therefore should be directly traced using the most general, dynamic approach. In structural
stability, it is considered that for conservative systems (i.e., elastic structures with ideal
constraints and subject to conservative loading) the simpler, static approach leads to the
same results as the more complicated dynamic approach (Ziegler, 1977). This consideration
is commonly extended to nonlinear structures subject to conservative loading.

In the dynamic analysis, the inertia effects have to be included, usually accompanied by
damping forces and the strain rate dependence of the material behavior. This explicit time
dependence requires calculating of time derivatives with respect to the actual, physical time.
In the static analyses, the inertia effects are ignored. In the strictly static approaches, the
actual time is replaced by a history-like parameter used to measure incrementally the
analysis’s progress. For quasi-static problems, the real-time measure can be present to
capture phenomena such as creep or temperature deformation, but the inertia effects are
still ignored. Nonlinearity and discontinuity cause convergence problems that are less severe

97
Modelling and analysis

in the dynamic (with both implicit and explicit time integration) due to the stabilizing effect of
the inertia forces (Belytschko et al. 2000).

Explicit versus Implicit Time Integration

Implicit dynamic analysis (using implicit time integrators) is dedicated for structural problems
described by (Belytschko et al., 2000) as inertial problems where stress wave propagation
and related effects are not important. For such problems, the response time is relatively long
compared to the time required for a stress wave to traverse the structure. When the
response time sought is short and the wave effects are important, the time step must be very
small, and more appropriate solution methods are those based on the explicit time
integration. Figure 5 shows an example of implicit dynamic analysis using the ABAQUS
program for the large-scale model of Chorzow Trade Hall, which collapsed under snow
loading (Lutomirski et al., 2007).

Figure 5: Failure mechanism of roof structure in Chorzow Trade Hall simulated using
dynamic approach with implicit time integration (Lutomirski et al., 2007)

The explicit scheme belongs to purely incremental methods and is applicable only to formally
dynamic problems. The incremental solution methods dominate incremental-iterative
methods, especially for problems experiencing rough nonlinearities, which involve inequality
constraints such as contact or friction. In the explicit methods, the equations of motion are
usually solved using the central difference method with very small time steps determined by
the highest frequency of the linearized system (Hallquist ,2009). The codes based on the
explicit time integration are dedicated to dynamic transient problems and have proved to be
especially effective when large deformations grow rapidly. Contrary to the implicit methods,
the explicit time integration cycle is computationally much less expensive as there are no
iterations and only one diagonal matrix needs to be inverted. However, this approach
requires a much larger number of calculation cycles. With a time step of the order of
microseconds, even a few seconds of a typical simulated event require millions of calculation
cycles and substantial calculation time. Additionally, the extension of the simulated time can
lead to numerical instabilities such as hourglass modes (Hallquist, 2009). The explicit
method is simple, easy to implement, and very effective; it rarely aborts due to failure of the
numerical algorithm, which is quite often in the problem for implicit methods. Even though
the dynamic response, obtained using the explicit method, can be different from the static,
implicit outcome, it should be remembered that for many cases the dynamic behaviour is
more accurate. It is especially true for the post-critical phase, which is usually by nature

98
Modelling and analysis

dynamic. Also, the FE dynamic calculation is more convergent due to the stabilizing effect of
inertia effects (see Figure 6). To increase the stability of the dynamic equilibrium, viscous
global damping can be added in dynamic analysis.

t=3s t=9s t = 10 s

Figure 6: Example of transient dynamic simulation for global FE models of a multistory

building (Kwasniewski, 2009)

Element Erosion and Tied Nodes Failure

Depending on the type of loading (e.g., explosion) and type of material, several criteria for
material failure can be formulated in terms of strains or stresses (Hallquist 2006). For
example the criterion limiting the effective plastic strain is commonly used for metals. For
brittle materials such as concrete, a combination of several criteria can be applied
independently, and once any one of them is satisfied, the element is deleted from the
calculation.

Once, one of the applied criteria of failure is satisfied for a finite element, the element is
deleted (eroded) from further calculations. In this way, the separation of the model
components can be simulated. However, when there are high stresses, the rapid removal of
an element can interfere with the local balance of forces and cause computational
instabilities. A better strategy is to include in the material model reduction (softening) of the
element stiffness due to damage and to allow for the substantial decrease of stresses prior
to the element erosion. The removal of an element is often necessary to avoid numerical
instabilities caused by the extensive deformation of such elements. Element erosion has
also some disadvantages. The removal of many elements from the calculation affects the
energy balance and the total mass of the model. For coarse mesh densities, large portions
of the model can disappear unnaturally.

Another option called “tied nodes” possible in some of the programs (e.g., LSDYNA) allows
for separation of the failed elements at the common nodes. Mesh with merged sheared
nodes can be automatically replaced during pre-processing with tied nodes, separate for
each element but with the same coordinates. The massless ties between the nodes are
released when the prescribed failure criterion is reached. In this way, finite elements can
separate along the edges without element erosion. This concept is also applied in the
Applied Element Method.

Verification and Validation

99
Modelling and analysis

The complexity of full-scale numerical models analyzed within the inelastic range, including
instability and failure, raises questions about the predictive capabilities. Verification and
validation (V&V) are recognized as the primary method for evaluating the confidence of
computer simulations (Oberkampf et al. 2004). Verification uses a comparison of
computational solutions with highly accurate (analytical or numerical) benchmark solutions
among them, whereas validation compares the numerical solution with the experimental
data. There are three main objectives for verification and validation: to detect and separate
the model’s significant discrepancies, to remove and reduce removable and unavoidable
errors, and to evaluate the uncertainties in the results.

Applied Element Method

The Applied Element Method (AEM) combines features from finite element and discrete
element methods, (Tagel-Din and Rahman, 2006). The main advantage of this method is
that it can track the structural collapse behaviour passing through all stages of the
application of loads, elastic stage, crack initiation and propagation in tension-weak materials,
reinforcement yielding, element separation, element collision (contact), and collision with the
ground and with adjacent structures.

In contrast to Finite Element Method, that uses a variety of element types, each of them
being used for a specific structural element, in Applied Element Method there is a single type
of element. An analyzed structure is modelled using rigid cubic elements, see Figure 7. Two
elements are connected through a series of contact points. In every point there are attached
three springs: a normal spring and two shear springs. Each group of springs completely
represents stresses and deformations of a certain volume and each element has six degrees
of freedom. There is no need for transition of elements, and the partial element connectivity
and the springs can also be generated at the interfaces of elements. The AEM permits
detachment of the elements anytime and for any point of common surfaces through
releasing their connecting springs (Lupoae and Bucur , 2009).
Normal and shear
springs
d
d

d
d Volume represented by a
a
pair of normal and shearing
a a
springs and shearing

Figure 7: Applied elements and connecting springs

The computer programs based on the Applied Element Method, e.g. “Extreme Loading for
Structures” software (Applied Science International, 2009) is able to track collapse of
structure including formation of plastic hinges, buckling and post-buckling behaviour, crack
propagation (Figure 8), separation of elements, and collision of elements. Both static and
dynamic loading can be incorporated. Dynamic analysis is performed in an implicit way.
Possible dynamic loading includes: impact, support failure, earthquake, element removal,

100
Modelling and analysis

blast scenario and shock wave pressure control. The software is under continuous
development in order to incorporate new features.

Figure 8: Cracking at maximum shear force

References

Applied Science International, LLC (ASI) - Extreme Loading® for Structures,

http://www.extremeloading.com/, Accessed in October 2009.

Belytschko, T. Liu, W.K. Moran, B. (2000) Nonlinear Finite Elements for Continua and
Structures. John Wiley & Sons, LTD, Chichester, England.

EN 1991-1-7 (2006), Eurocode 1: Actions on structures — Part 1-7: General actions

Accidental actions. European Committee for Standardization, 2005.

General Services Administration (GSA) (2000) Progressive collapse analysis and design
guidelines for new federal office buildings and major modernization projects. Office of
Chief Architect, Washington, D.C.

Hallquist, J.O. (2009) LS-DYNA Keyword Manual. Livermore: Livermore Software

Technology Corporation, USA.

Herrle, K.W. McKay, A.E. (2001) Development and application of progressive collapse
design criteria for the federal government. GSA. Applied Research Associates, Inc 2001.
http://www.buildingsecurity.us/odoc/usbuilding/pdfs/DevAppPCDesignCriteria.pdf

Izzuddin, B.A., Vlassis, A.G., Elghazouli, A.Y., Nethercot, D.A., (2008) Progressive collapse
of multi-storey buildings due to sudden column loss — Part I: Simplified assessment
framework, Engineering Structures, Volume 30, Issue 5, pp 1308-1318.

Izzuddin, B.A., Nethercot, D.A., (2009) Design-Oriented Approaches for Progressive

Collapse Assessment: Load-Factor vs. Ductility-Centred Methods, Structures Congress
2009: Don't Mess with Structural Engineers, ASCE.

Izzuddin, B.A., (2008) Simplified Assessment of Structural Robustness for Sudden

Component Failures, 1st Workshop on Robustness of Structures, COST Action TU0601,
ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Kwasniewski, L. (2009) Nonlinear dynamic simulations of progressive collapse for a

multistory building, Under preparation.

101
 Modelling and analysis

LUPOAE M. and BUCUR C. (2009) Use of Applied Element Method to Simulate the
Collapse of a Building – Academy of Technical Sciences Commission of Acoustics of
Romanian Academy Annual Symposium of the Institute of Solid Mechanics - SISOM
2009 - Session 1 System Dynamics and continuum mechanics,
http://www.extremeloading.com/Publications.aspx

Lutomirski, S. Kwasniewski, L. Kozyra, Z. Winnicki, A. (2007) Failure analysis of Chorzów

Trade Hall roof collapse. 23rd Konferencja Naukowo-Techniczna “Awarie budowlane”
(Structural Failures). in Polish. Szczecin – Miedzyzdroje, Poland, pp. 631-639.

Oberkampf, W.L. Trucano, T.G. Hirsch, C. (2004) Verification, validation, and predictive
capability in computational engi-neering and physics. Appl. Mech. Rev. 57 (5), 345–384.

Pereira, M., Izzuddin, B.A., (2009) Assessment of Progressive Collapse in Multi-Storey

Buildings – Influence of Material Rate Sensitivity, Proceedings of the 6th International
Conference on Advances in Steel Structures, ICASS’09, Hong Kong.

TAGEL-DIN H., RAHMAN N. A. (2006) - The Applied Element Method: The Ultimate
Analysis of Progressive Collapse, Structure Magazine, No 4, April 2006, pp 30-33.

U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) (2005) Unified facilities criteria (UFC), Design of
buildings to resist progressive collapse. Department of Defense, UFC 4-023-03, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineering, Washington, D.C., 31.

U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) (2009) Unified facilities criteria (UFC), Design of
buildings to resist progressive collapse. Department of Defense, UFC 4-023-03, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineering, Washington, D.C., 31.

U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) (2009) Unified facilities criteria (UFC), DoD minimum
antiterrorism standards for buildings. Department of Defense, UFC 4-010-01, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineering, Washington, D.C., 31.

Ziegler, H. (1977) Principles of Structural Stability. Basel und Stuttgart: Birkhauser Verlag

102

View publication stats