ournal archive at www.thestructuralengineer.org.ukNeral Structural robustness John Menzies (F), a member of the Institution’s Study Group on Risk and Reliability, gives a view of structural robustness and indicates how optimum engineering strategies may be devised to reduce risks of damage from accidental events mongst structural engineers today robustness is recognised as generally boing a desirable property ofa structure, although in reality itis a property of « particular structurefenvironment system. Robustness is usually conceived in a narrow sense as the ability ofa struc- ture to withstand events that may arise by accidental action without damage or loss of function that is disproportionate to the cause. This ceoneopt-may also be described as insen: sitivity o Lolerance to local damage. ‘The torm ‘damage’ may be taken to embrace risks to life and the structure and may also inelude consequential fects. Accidental events may include those that directly impose loads on the structure, e.g vehiele impact, and local structural events such as those that ‘may arise due to deterioration or ‘human error in design or construction, ‘The vor Robustness is commonly used to deseribe great strength or vigour. A more particular meaning associated with itis the ability to survive, remain vigorous, and to continue to Fanetion despite adverse ‘ineumstances: * Someono who never gets a cold or the flu despite eoming into contact with sneezing people all the time ray be referred to as ‘boing robust + A footbollor whose play is never slowed doven by violent tackles, falls and bruises may be rferred to 8 2 ‘robust player’. The player accepts local ‘damage’ and is insensitive to it ‘Machinery that continues to function satisfuetorily despite misuse may be Aeseribed asa robust machine. Iti this particular eoneept of robust- ness’ that engincers endeavour to apply to structures, Note that the concept is associated with a particular environment or ect of circumstances [Note also thatthe concopt applioe ovar the wholo rango of'structure’ from individual elements or eannestions to the whole structure, thas long been recognised that individual elements and connections need robustness, eg. connections ‘tween metal elements should be made with more than one bot to give robustness through load-sharing eapa- bility There is also acceptance that ‘structures should not generally be wholly dependent for their stability on the structural integrity ofasingle | ‘connection or element. Where this situe ation is unavoidable, the crucial ‘connection or element should be made so that it has ample strength, ductility and toughnoss to tolorate an aesidental event causing local damage. Engineering objectives | Ideally the overall objective of strue- tural engineering for robustness isto design so that the risk, Le. the lkeli- Jhood and extent of damage, of an extreme event is. as low as reasonably practicable, Local damage to the strue- ‘ure due to an accidental event is senorally accepted provided it does not tndanger the stability othe whole structure, ‘..the overall objective of structural engineering for robustness is to design so that the risk of an extreme event is as low as reasonably practicable.’ teas ng en cota tat sencare etna usp Sees or eee on sete Gaia reacoe ea retard na dee Tha Se ieee canectapeestae at | oe eran ornate | ee aie aarce Sees? | naam ign enpnexing seni un pecans enioveeurusrane syst nnd oben oSaape enue on hens aan ro eraser a aaa stcrun ne he senred prone eee {Sted te dren the sate ‘etissuomla nde sing 16|The structural Engineer 17 January 2008 Accidental events Bvonts may bo naturally occu ‘extreme wind, snow, flo or earth- ‘quake; oF they may be accidentally ‘man-made, e vehicle impactor explo: sion, Structural design for normal service loads provides resistance to nnaturally-occurring extreme events ‘throwgh consideration of high values of the predicted actions dive to wind, snow, ete ‘Design of the struetoral form and of the strength and ductility of structural cloments and the eonneetions between, ‘thom to carry normal sorvice loads usually also provides some capability in the structare to resist accidents and to limit damage due to an extreme ‘accidental event. However this eapabil ity may be insufficient to limit damage 0 that it isnot disproportionate to the ‘eauso. In these euses provisions to limit the damage due to specific aecidental ‘events that are likely to ceeur are needed. ‘Accidental events that are consid ceed depend on the funetion of the structure and the anticipated hazards, ‘Some foreseeable haxards are not ‘usually taken into aecount, eg, aireraft impact on small buildings is generally not considered in design since the probability of occurrence is extremely Tow and, in any ease, designing a small ‘building to limit structural damage in these circumstances would be probibi- tively expensive, og. Damage ‘Tho damago that may oeeur due to an accidental ovent may be broadly of three types ~ loss of life (or injury) due to the event, damage to the structure, tnd consequential damage to the activ: ities supported by the structure, 0. Tose of contents and loss of aecommoda- tion and business. The provisions for robustness made in the dosign of the structure and its surroundings usually take account of the perceived relative importance ofthese three types of damage. Gonorally structural design for aci- dental events seeks both to protect lite ‘and minimise damage tothe structure, thereby also minimising consequential damage. Howover this is not always the ease ‘Lass of life or injury ean be the para: ‘mount consideration. In this ease design of the structure and its surroundings may be made so that, in ‘dalton ta local structural damage, some or all f the strueture is sneriioed in an accidental event in order to rexluce loss of life and injury. The potentially serificed structure is not robust as commonly interproted, but it ay bo sad that the strueturo/envirr ment system as a whole is robust in relation to loss of ie ‘Tho criterion that structures should be able to withstand accidental events to the extent that damage should notbe disproportionate to the cause’ has become widely accopted. This common sce requirement has come to he torpreted as a measure ofthe rebust- ness ofthe structure, Generally & structure is considered not to be robust Ifa minor disturbance or lcal damage eauses itt collapse. ‘The term ‘disproportionate damage’ bas generally been used to deseribe situations in whieh loeal damage eausod by an initia] aeeidental event acts a a trigger for progressive collapse. In this ease, a failure front progeeases from the initial area of local ‘damage to envelop significantly larger portions of the structure. "The direction and extent of progres- sive collapse depends on the structural form (i.e, the layout of the structural ‘lements and of the ductility and strength of connections and elements), the location ofthe event, and the ease ‘with which the potontial energy of the structure ean be released to motivate the failure front. Collapse will not ‘become progressive unless the kinotic ‘energy of the moving elements is suff- cient to overwhelm the resistanee of ‘the elements ahead of the failure front. In tall buildings, the eritical mecha: nisms involve vrtieal progression of failure fronts, For long structures, eg. Jong terraces of low-rise dwellings oF long electrical supply lines earied on a series of pylons, the failure front progresses horizontally. Tn some circumstances in transport networks, whilst the damago to tho structure due to an accidental event ay not he great, the consequential damage in terms of transport disrup- tion ean be severe and disproportion ate. Engineering for robustness Features ofa structure that are gener- ally recognised as contributing to robustness by limiting damage and Joas of function ince: 1) The presence of more load paths than required for oquilibrit, 2) The strength and ductility, and hhonce energy absorption eapacity of tho structure's eloments and the connections between them, 8) The incorporation of provisions that enable the structure to avoid ary: ing the peak accidental load, thus limiting damage and consequences overall Those features are best regarded as principles that it may be appropriate to apply seleetively or in combination doponding on the structure being designed and the porformance required oft tho ongineoring objetives — when an accidental event occurs ‘There are broadly four provisions that may be used, singly or in eombina- tion, in engineering for robustness Resistance: Resist the foreseen acci= dental actions through the strength and ductility in the structure’ elements and the connections between ‘them and through the provision of| multiple independent load paths in the structure, Avoidance: Design the structure £0 that it ean avoid the fll extent of the potontial damage caused by the actions ofthe aesidental event through weak ‘ouneetions or‘release’ mechanisms, 3c. devices analogous to a fuse in an electrical exe, Protection: Protect the structure against the aecidental action, ‘Sacrifice: Design the structure so that it fails partially or completely in the ‘event thereby reducing the potential consequences ofan aecident scenario, "This option sacrifices a part or the ‘whole of the structure in a controlled ‘way to minimiso consequences. It may be adopted particularly where protec: tion ofifeis the paramount eonsidera- tion. ‘Collapse will not become | progressive unless the kinetic energy of the moving elements is sufficient to overwhelm the resistance of the elements ahead of the failure front.’ "The resistance provision may be ‘thought of as meeting aeidental events ‘head onto minimise damage to the structure. The avoidanee, protec- tion and sacrifice provisions may be ‘thowght of asthe use of engineering arifulness and ingenuity to minimise sks of damage to the strueture and other eonsequences. The four provi- sions are similar tothe advice on ‘amelioration of risks in ooeupational health and safety, i. ‘eliminate’, ‘reduce, mitigate and ‘control. Resistance against accidental actions ‘This provision is generally recognised as providing a robust structure. ‘Traditionally the provision of strength and ductility ofelements and eonnee- tons and multiple independent load paths has been seen as providing desir: able robustness against unkown tovents that eould not be foreseen atthe docign stage. Strongth and ductility alone provide the required resistance if the structure is of necessity statically ddoterminant. Multiple independent load paths provide redundancy giving additional protection by enabling, in the event of local structural damage, load to he shed into other pathe of resistance elsewhere inthe structure, Following the partial progressive | collapee of the 22atorey Ronan Point | building in 1968, the provision of | resistance against progressive collapee | became a design requirement in the 17 January 2006 ~The Structural Engineer] 17, viewpoint: robustne ‘UK for buildings over five storeys in ‘eight. This requirement has now been extended to buildings generally depending upon a consequences risk {actor based largely onthe type, height ‘and oceupaney ofthe building. Avoidance of extreme actions ‘There are situations where a weale component is used as a‘rolease’ or “fuse! mechanism to reduce the peak | accidental action and limit damage to | the structure thus providing aleo. | roduction of risks to lif, eg svindows in buildings designed to vent prossures sfenorated by acsidental explosions. Similarly i long horizontal structures, ‘woak joints designed to prevent hori- zontal transmiesion of peak loads may be used to prevent horizontal progres- sive collapse. Protection against accidental | actions ‘Where damage cannot he mitigated by design of a strong and ductile structure in rolation to the foreseen event, ie. by use of the resistanee option, resort may be made tothe use of protection ‘to minimise riak tothe structure, eg. placing protective barriers around buildings to provont building damage ‘due to impact by highway vehicles. Protection isa way of modifying the ‘environment in which the structure ‘oxists to make the environment les of ‘threat and hence the structureenvi- ronment system more robust. Whilst the provision of protective harriers is the usual appreaeh to reducing risks of vehicle impact, for explosion events protection may include management ‘moasures, eg exclusion of potentially ‘explosive gas supplies or security ‘against explosives being carried into the structure, "The progressive collapse ofthe World "Tyade Center in 2001 identified vulner- ability to disproportionate damage in fire conditions. For tall buildings, protection of the structure against fire may now be seen as a nocessary additional provision in order to redwee this vulnerability and achieve robust. ness in extreme fire conditions Sacrifice of the structure (or part of it) Lightweight and low strength and robustness of highway structures may be desirable features of some roadside structures in road vehicle aecidants where these features reduce risks to life and associated damage. The called impact-sae or passively-safe post and mast structures being dovel- ‘oped in Scandinavia and the UK for supporting strect furniture reduce risks to vehiclos and occupants precisely because they are not them- selves robust structures in relation to | vehicle impaet. The concept results in reduced risks to life but saerifiee of the structure. The strueturelenviron-| mont system asa whole may be paths, and/or protection. Tn desig & and vehicle damage, | thongit ofas being robust in relation | more substantial eombination of prov "The strategy may need to be quite | torisks to it sions is appropriate for structures at refined to achieve the required robust al ness ofthe system. For example, where Strategies risks are high. In the assessment of there is elearly potential for accidental Since robustness is a property ofa | existing structures, maintenance, ‘transport vehiele impacts on ealumns particular atructurefenvironment strengthening and management supporting buildings over transport system, engineering for robustness to | regimes ean be tailored ta limit aci- routes, each vulnerable colurmn may be reduce the risks from accidental events | dental event risks through taking into | designed fist for a resistance to is achieved by use of strategies based ‘on provisions, singly or in combination, account the existing provisions For major structures, such a8 ta impact somewhat less than the ‘maximum possible. Secondly the build forresistance, avoidance, protec- "| buildings and maior bridges, however ing design may be made so that, in the ton and sacrifice depending on the | a wide range of accidental event ‘extreme ease of one column failing in engineering objectives of the particular | seonarios may necd to be considered. the event, resistance is uifieient. for case ‘The averal strategy for minimising the building above to romain standing There are many examples ofthe use | risks and damage may explicitly take using alternative load paths, thereby of robustness concepts in structural | account ofthe risks by redueingy voiding a disproportionate conse tengineering both in the design ofnew | vulnerability to disproportionate quence. Finally each column may be structures and in the assessment and | damage and by effetive provisions designed so that it will be sacrificed management of existing structures. | through management ofthe structure by failing before the peak impaet load "Their purpose is to reduce or imit, | and its surroundings i reached co that extensive damage to where practicable, damage caused by | For structures that have a primary the supported building by the ealuma secidental events whilst acoopting | funetion apeciially to proteet if seh palling down the building above’ some local damage to the structure as | as bridge parapets, the emphaeia in through the dynamic offeets of tho boing inevitable, The combination of | design is usually on mitigating the rile event is prevented, The later feature provisions adopted generally involves a | to life through a combination of resist. af the design may also be thought of ‘ood measure of engineering judgment. | nee and saerifice, og. providing eapa- ‘avaTuse', i. an avoidance find depends largely on the objectives | bility to redirect errant vehieles back provision, a in relation to risks to life, the structure | to the traffic stream in order to reduce and consequential effects, and on value | the nuraber and severity of vehicle + Readers are invited to sond for money and practicality callisions. Saerifice of the barrier comments tothe Study Group ‘Where aceidental events are distinet_| structure isthe price paid by design to (chan@istructeorg.uld and to indicate and well-lefined, e4- accidental impaet | reduce the soverity of the eonsequencos their interest in taking part inthe f road vehicles, the usual practice s to | giving greatest weight to reducing Group's work on this topic. The Group specify minimum accidental loads, | potential injuries and loss of life of is arranging a workshop on robustness structural redundancyalternative load | vehicle ooeypants and less to parapet at HQ on 16 March (coe nows pb). 1 | rena kr where cao ace cid -< Structural) Hes x prewar oe IStructE a oa Seon eer {Structe Invite you to enter for the Structural Awards 2006, Established in 1968, the stutt Fea ‘annual Structural Awards are the world's pre-eminent awards for structural design, Seaeseie i recognising and rewarding the work of the word's most talented structural designers. Seer Tis yea’ Structural Awards have new categories and an easier electronic application process Fee eai es 8 NEW CATEGORIES Isiructé has changed the categories forthe Structural Anards to beter ee ea reflect the breadth of projects for which structural engineers are responsible, However small Your reat project the Structural Anards have a category for you ai) EASIER TO APPLY You can now submit your entry electronically. Just send us your completed BT es entry via emailoron a CD. bet erie NEW DEADLINE Structures entered must have been completed in the last year (between en 7 Api 2008 and 7 Api 2006}. The deadline for submissions is FRIDAY 7 APRIL 2006. feet For more information, including the full category definitions, judgment criteria and further details on how to enter log-on to www.structuralawards.org, or contact Lucy Pile on +44 (0)20 7204 9104 or emaill plle@istructe.org.uk £8 |The Structural Engineer ~ 17 January 2006