Journal of Constructional Steel Research 94 (2014) 76–83

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Progressive collapse testing and analysis of a steel frame building

Brian I. Song a, Kevin A. Giriunas b, Halil Sezen b,⁎
a
Westinghouse Electric Company, Jenkinsville, SC, United States
b
Civil, Environmental and Geodetic Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A steel frame building was tested by physically removing four first story columns from one of the perimeter
Received 22 May 2013 frames prior to building's scheduled demolition. The purpose of the field experiment was to simulate sudden col-
Accepted 1 November 2013 umn loss in buildings that may cause progressive collapse. Another objective was to investigate the load redistri-
Available online 13 December 2013
bution within the building after each column removal. The measured experimental data and observed
performance of the building was valuable because it is very difficult and cost-prohibitive to build and test
Keywords:
Steel frame building
three-dimensional full-scale building specimens in the laboratory. Generally, the design code requirements pre-
Demand to capacity ratio scribe simplified analysis procedures involving instantaneous removal of certain critical columns in a building.
Column removal experiment Design methodologies and simplified analysis procedures recommended in the design guidelines were also eval-
Collapse uated using the experimental data. In this study, two and three-dimensional models of the building were devel-
oped and analyzed to simulate the progressive collapse response. The effectiveness of the analysis procedures
was evaluated by comparing with the experimental data.
© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Progressive collapse is a chain reaction of failures initiated by instan-
taneous loss of one or a few gravity load carrying elements. Once the
gravity load-carrying element fails, it may be desirable for the structure
to be able to provide an alternative load-carrying path and transfer the
loads carried by that element to neighboring elements. Dynamic inter-
nal forces in adjoining members increase as a result of release of internal
energy due to a member loss. After the load is redistributed throughout
the structure, each structural component supports different loads
including the additional internal forces. If any redistributed load
exceeds the capacities of the surrounding undamaged members, it can
cause another local failure. Such sequential failures can spread from el-
ement to element, eventually leading to the entire or a large part of the
structure. In general, such progressive collapse happens in a matter of
seconds.
American Society of Civil Engineer (ASCE) Standard 7 defines pro-
gressive collapse as “the spread of an initial local failure from element
to element resulting eventually in the collapse of an entire structure
or a disproportionately large part of it” [2]. A similar definition of pro-
gressive collapse is provided in the General Services Administration
(GSA) guidelines [7]: “a situation where local failure of a primary struc-
tural component leads to the collapse of adjoining members, and hence,
the total damage is disproportionate to the original cause”. Since the
collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers due to terrorist
attacks on September 11, 2001, interest in progressive collapse has
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: songbi@westinghouse.com (B.I. Song), giriunas.1@osu.edu
(K.A. Giriunas), sezen.1@osu.edu (H. Sezen).
further increased [11]. The collapse of the twin WTC structures was
caused by a very large impact force and subsequent fire. It was a pro-
gressive collapse and not a disproportionate collapse [4].
Failure of one or more columns in a building and the resulting pro-
gressive collapse may be a result of a variety of events with different
loading rates, pressures or magnitudes. Therefore, current progressive
collapse design guidelines are generally threat-independent and do
not intend to prevent such local damage. Rather, their purpose is to pro-
vide a level of resistance against disproportionate collapse and to in-
crease the overall structural integrity. Design guidelines typically
require a minimum level of redundancy, strength, ductility and element
continuity. In general, the design code requirements prescribe simpli-
fied analysis procedures involving instantaneous removal of certain
critical columns in a building. Among a number of building codes, stan-
dards, and design guidelines for progressive collapse, General Services
Administration [7] and Department of Defense [3] address progressive
collapse mitigation explicitly. They provide quantifiable and enforceable
procedures. This paper investigates the effectiveness of such commonly
used progressive collapse evaluation and design methodologies through
numerical simulation and experimental testing of a building.
A large number of analytical studies have been conducted to evalu-
ate the effectiveness and consistency of the current progressive collapse
design guidelines. However, very limited experimental research has
been performed to validate the results of these computational studies
and to verify the methodologies prescribed in the guidelines. This is
mainly because it is difficult to construct and test full scale building
specimens because such large scale testing is discouragingly expensive.
In this study, several first-story columns were physically removed
from an existing steel frame building scheduled for demolition. The
building was instrumented and experiment was conducted prior to its

0143-974X/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2013.11.002
 B.I. Song et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 94 (2014) 76–83 77

demolition. Two and three-dimensional models of the building were

analyzed following the requirements of the current progressive collapse
evaluation and design guidelines, such as ASCE 7 [2] and GSA [7].

2. Progressive collapse design approaches

Indirect and direct methods are the two approaches typically used
for providing resistance against progressive collapse [5]. The indirect
design approach attempts to prevent progressive collapse through the
provision of minimum levels of strength, continuity, and ductility [2].
The examples of this approach are to improve connection resistance
by special detailing, to improve redundancy, and to provide more
ductility to a structure. The indirect design approach can easily be inte-
grated into building codes or standards because it can create a redun-
dant structure that will perform well under various extreme loading
conditions and improve overall structural response. However, this
design approach may not be as effective if the building is to be designed
explicitly to prevent progressive collapse due to the sudden loss of
specific critical gravity load carrying member(s). The goal of indirect
design method or inclusion of general structural integrity requirements
in design codes or guidelines is to improve the overall structural
performance of the building, not specifically the progressive collapse
resistance.
The direct design approach explicitly considers resistance of a build-
ing to progressive collapse during the design process [2]. There are two
direct design methods: specific local resistance method and alternate
load path method. The specific local resistance method seeks to provide
strength to be able to resist progressive collapse. The alternate load path
method seeks to provide alternative load paths to absorb localized dam-
age and resist progressive collapse. The specific local resistance method
requires that a critical structural element be able to resist abnormal
loading. Structural element is explicitly designed to remain intact and
robust under an expected specific threat or extreme loading. Critical
load carrying elements can be designed to have additional strength,
ductility and toughness to resist the abnormal loading, simply by in-
creasing the design load factors.
In the alternate path method, the design allows local failure to occur,
but seeks to prevent major collapse by providing alternate load paths.
Failure in a structural member dramatically changes load path by trans-
ferring loads to the members adjacent to the failed member. If the adja-
cent members have sufficient capacity and ductility, the structural
system develops alternate load paths. Using this method, a building is
analyzed for the potential of progressive collapse by instantly removing
one or several load-bearing elements from the building, and by evaluat- Fig. 1. Four circled columns were removed from the BLCC building during the experiment.
One cut column is exposed by removing the walls. Northeast corner (top photo) and north
ing the capability of the remaining structure to prevent subsequent side of the building (middle and bottom photos) are shown.
damage. The advantage of this method is that it is independent of the
initiating load, so that the solution may be valid for any type of the
hazard causing member loss. The alternate load path method is primar- at each end of the building was 23 ft-6 in (7.163 m). The interior trans-
ily recommended in the current building design codes and standards in verse frames had typical 47 ft-0 in (14.3 m) long bays in the first and
the U.S., including General Services Administration [7] and the Depart- second stories (Fig. 4b). Although the experiment was performed in
ment of Defense [3] guidelines. the first story, the computer models included the basement of the build-
ing, which may have had very limited or no effect on the response of the
3. Test building and experiment upper two floors. Steel columns with yield strength of 36 ksi (248 MPa)
were rigidly connected to the concrete columns at the ground level.
The Bankers Life and Casualty Company (BLLC) insurance building Steel girders and beams had a specified yield strength of 42 ksi
was a three-story structure located in Northbrook, Illinois. The building (290 MPa). Test frame geometry and designation of columns and
was constructed in 1968 and was demolished in August 2008 immedi- beams of the BLCC building are shown in Table 1 and Fig. 2.
ately after the experiment was conducted. The sixth edition of the A large loading dock bay area was located at the far Northwest cor-
AISC Steel Construction Manual [1] was used to design the structure. ner of the structure. In addition, there was a mezzanine level between
The longitudinal perimeter frame located on the north side of the the first and second floors at the Southeast and Southwest end of the
BLCC building was tested and used in this paper (Fig. 1). structure. For this research, the docking bay and mezzanine level were
The tested part of the BLCC building was a two-story steel frame not considered in computer modeling because neither would affect
structure. As shown in Fig. 2, the heights of the first and second floors the experiment. Also, the plans available do not include a recent addi-
were 20 ft-6 in (6.25 m) and 14 ft-8 in (4.47 m), respectively. The tion of two stairwells at the south end of the building. This addition
building had a 10 ft-6 in (3.2 m) tall reinforced concrete framed base- does not have any effect on the experiment. A detailed description of
ment. Typical beam length or bay width of the two transverse frames the building, details of instrumentation and testing, and building plans
78 B.I. Song et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 94 (2014) 76–83
Fig. 2. Longitudinal end frame elevation of BLLC building on the north side (Fig. 1), including beam and columns sections (see Table 1).
can be found in Giriunas [6]. Modeling assumptions and details of struc-
tural analysis and results are provided in Song [15] and Song et al. [16].
Four of the ten first-story columns were removed from the perime-
ter frame in the following order: (1) two columns near the middle of the
frame, (2) column in the building corner, and (3) column next to the
corner column (Fig. 1). As shown in Fig. 3a, a 914 mm long section of
the test columns were first torched at approximately 6 ft to 9 ft (1.83
to 2.74 m) above the base of the column. Only a very small portion of
the flange was left intact when the two column cross sections were
cut. The column segment between the torched sections was then pulled
out using a steel chain (Fig. 3b). No significant damage was observed in
the building during or after the column removals.
The demolition team first exposed the columns and beams by par-
tially removing the exterior brick walls. Strain gauges were attached
on the columns numbered 5, 8, 11, 17 and 20 in the frame model
shown in Fig. 4a. Strain gauges were typically installed on columns
approximately 6 ft (1.83 m) from the ground. Universal general pur-
pose strain gauges with a resistance of 120 ± 0.3% Ohms were used.
The major objective of strain gauge instrumentation was to monitor
the redistribution of loads during the removal of columns. A scanner
and portable data acquisition system were connected to a laptop com-
puter to record the strains during testing.
Fig. 5 shows the history of measured strain data for strain gauge 7,
attached on the exterior face of column 11, during the torching and
removal of columns. As shown in Fig. 5, the strain values dropped
most after each torching or removal process. It is clear from the record-
ed data that there was a sudden compressive (negative) strain increase
of approximately 20 to 40 × 10−6 and 75 to 105 × 10−6 in column 11
near the end of torching of neighboring columns 14 and 17, respectively
(see Fig. 4a). This indicates that part of the axial loads from these
columns was transferred to column 11. Load distributions were
captured during the column torching and removal process. Because of
the nature of the column removal process no dynamic effect was
observed during and immediately after column removals in this build-
ing. Details of the measured test data are reported by Giriunas [6].
Table 1
Column and beam sections of the BLLC building.
Column section Beam section
Column number Column type Beam number
c1 concrete b1
c2 10 WF 49 b2
c3 10 WF 72 b3
c4 8 WF 31 b4
Note: RC and WF are reinforced concrete and wide-flange shaped steel I-section, respectively.
The first and last numbers are the depth (inch) and nominal weight (lb per linear ft) of the
steel column or beam, respectively.
4. Modeling assumptions and structural models
Several assumptions were made to simplify and clearly demonstrate
the steps for progressive collapse analysis of the two-dimensional (2-D)
and three-dimensional (3-D) building frame models. The assumptions
are: 1) the building was modeled as a special moment resistant frame
with connections and columns stronger than beams. Thus, the model
allowed plastic hinges to form in the beams, not in the connections or
columns; 2) connections at the foundations were modeled as pinned
connections; 3) secondary members (e.g., transverse joist beams and
braces) were disregarded. Other than transferring the initial gravity
loads, they did not directly contribute to the progressive collapse
resistance; 4) the effect of large deflections was not considered. This is
a reasonable assumption in this study because very large deflections
or collapse were not observed in the test building; and 5) live load
was assumed to be zero because non-structural loads were removed
from the building prior to its demolition. Underneath the slabs, there
were ducts and pipes with negligible weight.
Each column on the perimeter frame had different properties in each
of the three stories (Fig. 2 and Table 1). The basement columns were
reinforced concrete. The top of first story steel columns was rigidly con-
nected to the steel beam. Their bottom included a steel base plate above
the reinforced concrete basement column. The bottoms of the smaller
size second story steel columns were rigidly attached to the top of the
first floor steel beams. Therefore, the beam–column connection details
immediately above the removed columns were unique in this building.
The steel beams were continuous through the beam–column connec-
tions and they were spliced near the gravity load inflection points on
each side of the interior connections. There was no beam splicing at
the end of the frame near the corner column (last/fourth removed
column in Fig. 4).
At the time of testing, the frames carried only dead loads due to
weight of walls, slabs, beams and columns. The weight and properties
of frame members were obtained from the original design notes and
structural drawings of the building. The weight of the roof including cor-
rugated steel plates, membranes and roof joists was assumed to be
25 psf (1.2 kN/m2). All reinforced concrete decks at the entrance and
first floor levels had 6 in (152 mm) uniform thickness. Dead weight of
reinforced concrete was assumed to be 150 pcf (23.6 kN/m3) in this
study. The 12 in (305 mm) thick wall contained glass, brick, and con-
crete masonry units. To calculate the dead load of the walls, the densi-
ties of glass, reinforced concrete masonry blocks, and exterior bricks
Beam type
were assumed to be 160 psf (25.1 kN/m3), 135 pcf (21.2 kN/m3), and
RC flat slab
120 pcf (18.9 kN/m3), respectively.
24 I 79.9
21 WF 62 The computer program SAP2000 [13] was used to evaluate the pro-
18 WF 45 gressive collapse performance of the test building. Fig. 4a shows a 2-D
model of the longitudinal perimeter frame of the BLCC building. Four
circled columns were sequentially removed in the SAP2000 analysis,
in the same order as the field torching and removal process. Fig. 4b
 B.I. Song et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 94 (2014) 76–83 79

Fig. 3. (a) Torching of the second removed column (column 14 in Fig. 4), (b) column ready to be pulled out, and (c) removal of the column.

shows the 3-D model of the building. The north side of the BLCC build-
ing, mainly considered in this study, had nine bays in the longitudinal
direction and eight bays in the transverse direction. To simplify 3-D
models, insignificant six bays in the backside were neglected. As
shown in Fig. 4b, the 3-D model includes only front two bays that
were most impacted by column removals.
5. Numerical analysis and results
Static or dynamic analysis methods with varying complexities, for
example, including the effect of geometric or material nonlinearities,
can be used to analyze a structure. Researchers investigated the advan-
tages and shortcomings of different analysis procedures for progressive

Fig. 4. (a) Two-dimensional SAP2000 model with frame member numbers, and (b) three-dimensional SAP2000 model (circled columns are removed in the order shown from the north
side of the building, column 4 is in the northeast corner).
80 B.I. Song et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 94 (2014) 76–83
Fig. 5. Strain data from strain gauge 7 during testing of the BLCC building.
collapse analysis [9,10,12]. A complex analysis is desired to obtain more
realistic results representing the actual nonlinear and dynamic collapse
response of the structure. Song and Sezen [14] report results from dy-
namic analyses of a steel building tested similar to the one presented
in this paper. However, linear static analysis is presented in the GSA
guidelines [7] as the primary method of analysis because it is cost-
effective and easy to perform. Nevertheless, it is difficult to predict accu-
rate behavior in a structure due to the absence of dynamic effects and
material nonlinearity by sudden loss of one or more members [8]. The
analysis is run under the assumptions that the structure only undergoes
small deformations and that the materials respond in a linear elastic
fashion. Linear static procedure, therefore, is limited to simple and
low- to medium-rise structures (i.e., less than ten stories) with predict-
able behavior [7].
In the linear static analysis performed in this research, dead loads
were multiplied by 2.0 as recommended in the GSA guidelines [7].
The amplification factor of 2.0 is used to account for dynamic effects,
such as damping and inertia, when static analysis procedure is used.
Results of linear static analysis are evaluated here by comparing the
demand-to-capacity ratios (DCR) based on the recommendations of
the GSA guidelines. DCR for a structural component is defined as
the ratio of the maximum demand, e.g., moment, Mmax of the beam
or column to its expected capacity, e.g., ultimate moment capacity
M p, which is calculated as the product of plastic section modulus
and yield strength. In Mp calculations for columns, the effect of the
axial load is neglected because the column axial loads were relatively
small and did not significantly affect the moment capacity of the
cross section.
M max
DCR ¼ : ð1Þ
Mp
If a DCR value is greater than 1.0, theoretically the member has
exceeded its ultimate capacity at that location. However, this alone
does not signify failure or damage in that member or the structure if
the forces can be redistributed and the neighboring members are capa-
ble of carrying the redistributed forces. According to GSA [7], if DCR
values for steel columns and beams in the BLLC building frame exceed
2.0 and 3.0, respectively, the members are to be considered failed mem-
bers, resulting in severe damage or potential partial or total collapse of
the structure. The GSA [7] acceptance criteria is applied for DCR values
calculated from static analysis, when only one first floor corner column
or only one first floor column at or near the middle of one of the perim-
eter frames is removed from the computer model.
Table 2 and Fig. 6 show DCR values for all members of the original 2-D
frame and after each of the four columns are removed one by one. Frame
member numbers up to 26 are columns, and beams are numbered from
27 to 49 (Fig. 4a). Fig. 6 also shows the DCR limits for frame members
specified in the GSA [7] for critical column removal scenarios. As
shown in the figure, calculated DCR values were quite large and
exceeded the acceptance criteria. It should be noted, however, that the
GSA criteria is applicable for removal of a single column. As indicated
 B.I. Song et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 94 (2014) 76–83 81

Table 2
DCR values calculated from 2-D model for steel frame members.

Frame Before 1 column 2 columns 3 columns 4 columns

member no. removal removed removed removed removed

2 0.47 0.46 0.43 2.25 Removed

3 0.11 0.19 0.99 1.67 2.81
5 0.55 0.57 0.61 Removed Removed
6 0.06 0.16 1.13 1.43 4.02
8 0.55 0.54 0.37 1.67 1.81
9 0.03 0.17 2.00 3.86 2.35
11 0.55 1.61 3.13 3.24 3.54
12 0.04 1.54 3.26 3.33 5.02
14 0.55 Removed Removed Removed Removed
15 0.03 0.35 5.15 4.95 6.50
17 0.59 1.56 Removed Removed Removed
18 0.07 2.10 5.22 5.57 3.75
20 0.61 0.67 3.90 3.98 3.92
22 0.61 0.63 0.92 0.90 1.09
24 0.62 0.62 0.59 0.60 0.85
26 0.38 0.39 0.26 0.24 0.45
28 0.23 0.21 0.42 2.45 1.13
29 0.14 0.11 0.51 2.27 1.17
Fig. 7. Comparison of DCR values determined from 2-D and 3-D models after four column
31 0.21 0.31 0.68 3.18 2.60
removals.
32 0.09 0.29 0.70 2.66 1.79
34 0.19 1.25 3.17 3.66 3.96
35 0.10 1.18 4.01 4.76 4.42
37 0.19 2.46 4.99 4.85 5.15 addition, in the computer model, the effect of infill walls was not consid-
38 0.09 2.18 4.90 4.71 5.00 ered. However, as shown in Fig. 1, the infill walls were mostly intact,
40 0.20 2.42 7.95 8.03 7.91 probably carrying some portion of the load and reducing the actual de-
41 0.14 2.19 3.29 3.40 3.21 mand on the steel frame members. Also, DCR values were calculated
43 0.22 1.24 6.15 6.27 5.86
from static analysis of the building frame with dead loads multiplied
45 0.23 0.36 4.60 4.66 4.55
47 0.24 0.26 0.92 0.94 0.90 by 2.0, which follows the GSA guidelines [7].
49 0.31 0.31 0.45 0.44 0.51 DCR values reported in Table 2 and Fig. 6 show that the beams were
more impacted than columns by the loss of columns. DCR values ob-
served in beams were larger than in columns for all column removal
cases. This was probably due to large span lengths and large slab tribu-
by red inverted triangles in Fig. 6, after the loss of the first column, only tary areas for the beams. The centerline distance between the transverse
one member (column 18 with a DCR of 2.10) exceeded the GSA accep- bays was 14.3 m (47 ft) in the first and second floors of the BLCC build-
tance criteria. ing. After a column is lost, the demand on the beam bridging over the
After two or more columns were removed, many columns and removed column significantly increases because the new beam span-
beams, mostly above or next to the first two removed columns, ning over two bays has a much longer span length.
exceeded the DCR criteria. The DCR values for all members remarkably Fig. 7 compares the DCR values for moments calculated from 2-D
increased after the last two columns were lost. The maximum calculated and 3-D models after all four columns were removed. It was observed
DCR values for columns and beams were 6.50 and 8.03, respectively. that the DCR values calculated from the 3-D model were smaller than
When all four columns were removed, the DCR values of almost all those from the 2-D model for almost all frame members. This simply
structural members were much higher than the specified limits. Again, could be due to contribution of transverse beams, which enable the
the GSA limits are specified for one column removal scenario. In structure to have more stiffness, as well as additional loads to be

Fig. 6. Change in DCR values of each frame member in the 2-D model for all column removal cases.
82 B.I. Song et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 94 (2014) 76–83

Fig. 8. Moment diagram of the 2-D model with corresponding DCR values after the loss of four columns.

transferred to the columns in the transverse direction, leading to de-

creased demands on the perimeter frame. Thus, it can be concluded
that the 2-D model may lead to overestimated demands. Figs. 8 and 9
show the 2-D and 3-D models of the BLCC building with corresponding
DCR values, respectively, after the loss of four columns. Since no signif-
icant visible damage was observed during the field testing, apparently
the actual demands were not as large as those predicted by the
SAP2000 elastic static analysis.
Strains calculated from static analysis of the 2-D and 3-D models are
compared with the average strain measured by strain gauge 7 attached
on column 11 after the removal of each of the four columns. Strains
were calculated by considering the combination of axial loading and a
bending moment generated from 2-D and 3-D SAP2000 analyses. Details
of strain calculations from SAP2000 models were described in Giriunas
[6] and Song [15]. Fig. 10 shows comparison between calculated strains
and strain data recorded in the field. 2-D SAP2000 model significantly
overestimated the measured response of the structure. The percent
error was calculated for each column removal case, indicating that the re-
Fig. 10. Comparison of measured and calculated strain values.
sults obtained from the 3-D model were in close agreement with exper-
imental results than the 2-D model. An average 30% difference between
the 3-D model and the field data was observed while the average differ- result was consistent with the DCR values and 3-D deformed shape of
ence between the 2-D model and the field data was 84%. the BLCC building shown in Fig. 9.
The loss of columns significantly affects the adjacent members, caus-
ing the deformation of the structure, especially in the area where col- 6. Conclusions
umns are lost. Vertical displacements of the joints right above the
removed columns of the BLCC building were calculated. Fig. 11 shows Progressive collapse performance of an existing steel frame building
changes in the joint displacements calculated from the 3-D analysis dur- was evaluated by physically removing four first-story columns from the
ing the entire column removal process. Joints 1, 2, 3, and 4 designate the BLLC building and by analyzing the 2-D and 3-D models of the building.
joints above the first, second, third, and fourth removed columns, re- The following conclusions were reached during this study based on the
spectively (columns 14, 17, 5 and 2 in Fig. 4a). Joints 1 and 2 above evaluation of experimental data and structural analysis of the test
the first two removed columns had the largest displacements. This building.

Fig. 9. Deflected 3-D model with corresponding DCR values after loss of four columns.
 B.I. Song et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 94 (2014) 76–83
joint 3
joint 4
joint 1
joint 2
Fig. 11. Maximum joint displacements at each of the four joints above removed columns in
the 3-D model after each column removal.
Most structural members of BLCC building exceeded the DCR limits
once the second column was removed. However, the building did not
experience a collapse during the field test, even after the four columns
were removed. The amplification factor of 2 for the dead load in linear
static analysis may have led to conservative analysis results. Lower
DCR values were observed in both columns and beams from the 3-D
model, compared with the 2-D model. Force demand on each member
of 3-D model is generally smaller mainly because the additional loads
caused by the loss of load-bearing columns were distributed to more
structural members in the 3-D model.
Strain data obtained from each field test was compared with the
strain values calculated from the 2-D and 3-D models. The strain values
from the 3-D model were closer to the experimental results. It was indi-
cated that 3-D computer models were more accurate in simulating the
response of buildings to removal of columns because 3-D models can
account for 3-D effects including the contribution of transverse mem-
bers resulting in more conservative solutions.
83
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Environmental Cleansing Corpo-
ration of Markham, Illinois for their help with the experiment. This
research was partially funded by the American Institute of Steel
Construction. This support is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] AISC. Manual of Steel Construction. 6th ed. Chicago, IL: American Institute of Steel
Construction; 1969.
[2] ASCE. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. Reston, VA:
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE); 2005.
[3] DOD. Design of buildings to resist progressive collapse. Unified Facilities Criteria
(UFC) 4-023-03. Washington, DC: Department of Defense (DOD); 2005.
[4] Dusenberry D, Cagley J, Aquino W. Case Studies. Multihazard Mitigation Council
National Workshop on Best Practices Guidelines for the Mitigation of Progressive
Collapse of Buildings. Washington, DC: National Institute of Building Sciences
(NIBS); 2004.
[5] Ellingwood B, Leyendecker E. Approaches for design against progressive collapse. J
Struct Div ASCE 1978;104(3):413–23.
[6] Giriunas K. Progressive collapse analysis of an existing building. (Undergraduate
Honors Thesis) , Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodetic
Science. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University; 2009.
[7] GSA. Progressive Collapse Analysis and Design Guidelines for New Federal Office
Buildings and Major Modernization Projects. Washington, DC: General Services Ad-
ministration (GSA); 2003.
[8] Kaewkulchai G, Williamson EB. Dynamic behavior of planar frames during progres-
sive collapse. 16th ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conference, July 16–18. Seattle:
University of Washington; 2003.
[9] Marjanishvili SM. Progressive analysis procedure for progressive collapse. J Perform
Constr Facil ASCE 2004;18(2):79–85.
[10] Marjanishvili S, Agnew E. Comparison of various procedures for progressive collapse
analysis. J Perform Constr Facil ASCE 2006;20(4):365–74.
[11] NIST. The Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, Final Report. Gaithersburg,
MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); 2005.
[12] Powell G. Progressive collapse: case study using nonlinear analysis. ASCE Structures
Congress and Forensic Engineering Symposium, April 20–24, New York, NY; 2005.
[13] SAP 2000. SAP 2000 Advanced Structural Analysis Program, Version 12. Berkeley,
CA: Computers and Structures, Inc. (CSI); 2010.
[14] Song B, Sezen H. Experimental and analytical progressive collapse assessment of a
steel frame building. Eng Struct 2013;56:664–72.
[15] Song BI. Experimental and Analytical Assessment on the Progressive Potential of
Existing Buildings. (Master's Thesis) The Ohio State University; 2010 125.
[16] Song B, Sezen H, Giriunas K. Experimental and analytical assessment on progressive
collapse potential of actual steel frame buildings. ASCE Structures Conference and
North American Steel Construction Conference, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Orlando, Florida; May 12–15 2010.