Università Degli Studi Di Roma "La Sapienza"

Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”
Facoltà di Ingegneria
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale e Geotecnica
Dottorato di ricerca – XXI Ciclo
Structural integrity:
robustness assessment and
progressive collapse susceptibility
Candidate: Luisa Giuliani
Advisor: Prof. Franco Bontempi
Co-Advisor: Prof. Uwe Starossek
Arbeitsbereich Baustatik und Stahlbau, Leiter: Prof. Ing. U. Starossek
Dissertazione presentata per il conseguimento del titolo di

Dottore di ricerca in Ingegneria delle strutture
A.A. 2007/2008
Alle scale della facoltà,
che ho fatto sempre di corsa,
tranne una volta.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Prof. Franco Bontempi, for his indispensable
scientific contribution as well as for his valuable human advices and his constant and
wholehearted support.
A special thank is addressed to Professor Uwe Starossek, for the contribution given to this
research and for the warm hospitality at his department.
Professor Marcello Ciampoli and Professor Paolo Franchin, who revised this work and gave
me precious suggestions, are also gratefully acknowledged. Thanks are also due to Prof.
Rega, who coordinates Ph.D. activities.
I wish to thank Dr. Maren Wolff and Eng. Marco Haberland of Technical University of
Hamburg-Harburg for their collaboration and Engineers Simone Bolognesi and Viviana
Prisco for their valuable contribution.
Finally, I thank my colleagues Luca Sgambi, Fabio Giuliano, Sauro Manenti, who set me an
example to follow. Expecially, I wish to sincerely thank my colleagues and mates Francesco
Petrini, Chiara Crosti, Stefania Arangio and Konstantinos Gkoumas: for the help, the
sharing, the friendship.
STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY: ROBUSTNESS ASSESSMENT & PC SUSCEPTIBILITY
SYNTHESIS OF THE WORK
1. THESIS OUTLINE
2. SYNTHESIS
3. ESSENTIAL LITERATURE
SYNTHESIS OF THE WORK 7

THESIS OUTLINE

THESIS OUTLINE 9
SYNTHESIS 11
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................................... 11
KEYWORDS.............................................................................................................................................................. 14
ESSENTIAL LITERATURE 15
INTRODUCTION 17
1 SAFETY AND STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY 19
2 RISK HANDLING 22
PART I: STRUCTURAL ROBUSTNESS 29

3 STATE OF THE ART 31
3.1 DEFINITION OF ROBUSTNESS ............................................................................................................................... 31
3.2 DISPROPORTIONATE COLLAPSES ......................................................................................................................... 43
3.3 ROBUSTNESS IN CODES AND REGULATIONS ......................................................................................................... 53
4 STRATEGIES AND METHODS FOR STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY 67
4.1 PREVENTION OR PRESUMPTION ........................................................................................................................... 67
4.2 STRUCTURAL DEPENDABILITY ............................................................................................................................ 73
4.3 ROBUSTNESS EVALUATION: A PROPOSED APPROACH .......................................................................................... 78
PART II: NUMERICAL ASPECTS OF ROBUSTNESS INVESTIGATIONS 93

5 NONLINEAR BEHAVIOUR OF STRUCTURES 95
5.1 PROBLEMS TO FACE STUDYING A STRUCTURAL COLLAPSE .................................................................................. 95
5.2 SOURCES OF NONLINEARITIES ............................................................................................................................. 99
5.3 MODELLING NL STRUCTURAL RESPONSES ......................................................................................................... 109
6 PROBLEM COMPLEXITY AND OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUES 122
6.1 COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY ........................................................................................................................ 122
6.2 PROBABILISTIC OPTIMIZATION .......................................................................................................................... 133
6.3 A SIMPLE HEURISTIC OPTIMIZATION .................................................................................................................. 141
6.4 ASPECTS RELATED TO ALGORITHM AUTOMATISM ............................................................................................ 147
6.5 ASPECT RELATED TO NON MONOTONIC RESPONSE ............................................................................................ 148

PART III: APPLICATIONS 153

7 DETERMINING ROBUSTNESS CURVES 155
7.1 SIMPLE CASES ....................................................................................................................................................155
7.2 CONSIDERATION ON STATIC INDETERMINACY LEVEL .........................................................................................159
7.3 APPLICATION TO OTHER STRUCTURES ..............................................................................................................162
8 PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE INVESTIGATION 164
8.1 SERIAL AND PARALLEL PRIMARILY LOAD TRANSFER SYSTEMS ..................................................................164
8.2 A FRAMED R.C. BUILDING ..................................................................................................................................165
8.3 A LONG SUSPENSION BRIDGE .............................................................................................................................172
CONCLUSIONS 183
9 PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE SUSCEPTIBILITY 185
9.1 LONG SUSPENSION BRIDGE ................................................................................................................................185
9.2 R.C. FRAMED BUILDING .....................................................................................................................................189
10 PROPOSED ROBUSTNESS ASSESSMENT METHOD 191
10.1 GENERAL FRAMEWORK......................................................................................................................................191
10.2 ROBUSTNESS CURVES ........................................................................................................................................192
APPENDICES 195
11 ROBALG CODE 197
11.1 GETTING STARTED .............................................................................................................................................197
11.2 MAIN FEATURES ................................................................................................................................................197
11.3 CODE .................................................................................................................................................................198
11.4 EXAMPLE FILE AND SCREENSHOT...........................................................................................................220
INDICES AND LITERATURE 227

INDEX OF CONTENTS 229
LIST OF FIGURES 233
LIST OF TABLES AND EQUATIONS 235
LITERATURE 236

SYNTHESIS
ABSTRACT
The problem of structural safety is crucial issue in the field of civil engineering [1].
In order to ensure it, old codes and regulations only asked for the prevention of
structural failure, goal that can be easily achieved by means of local resistance
verifications (e.g. at a sectional level). Nowadays a general consensus seems yet to be
achieved among engineer community on the need of ensuring also a localized
resulting damage after the occurrence of a structural failure [2,3]. This assessment is
substantiated with two different considerations: not only is it impossible to prevent
every single failure in a structure (let think to human error in design or execution
phases, as well as extreme events that could not be directly considered in a common
design), but also even a small initial failure can result in a disproportionate structural
damage [4], as shown by several cases of building collapses in the past. Such a
behaviour is commonly understood as a lack of structural robustness [5], a primary
requirement for building and other civil works. In order to ensure a robust behaviour
and avoid the propagation of the damage throughout the structure [6], local
verifications are no more sufficient and specific investigations have to be carried out
on the whole structure.
A robust design should, for these reasons, take into account the different responses to
damage that result from different organizations of the composing elements in the
whole system [7] and cannot be limited to design the structure for additional
accidental load cases [8]. For this purpose a numerical evaluation of the robustness
degree of a structure [9], defined as the ratio between the decrement of ultimate
resistance and increment of the damage level, is suggested in this work: the presented
approach resorts a nonlinear analysis of the structure and is based on static or quasi-
static removal of the composing elements of the structure. The proposed method
takes the ultimate resistance as a parameter for the structural performance and the

number of failed elements as a parameter for the damage level: this means that
several configurations correspond to each damage level, since different combinations
of the removed elements are possible. Among these combinations, the best and the
worst configurations have been identified for each damage level (i.e. the
configurations that show the highest and the lowest response of the structure
respectively). By diagramming the trend of these two values corresponding to the
increment of damage levels, two curves are obtained, that provide a lower and upper
bound for the structure robustness.
Problems arise from the fact, that the exhaustive number of combinations increases
exponentially with the number of elements: in order to perform a feasible limited
number of analyses for one structure, optimization algorithms [10] have been used in
this work with the aim of moving the problem complexity from an exponential to a
polynomial form. The considered optimization techniques are an heuristic and a
probabilistic method. The first one is based on the assumption that the worst and the
best configuration for each damage level can be directly originated by an element
removal on the best and worst configurations of the previous damage level,
respectively; the second one avails a simulated annealing algorithms that starts from a
set move based on the most stressed or strained elements. In both case, the problem
becomes computationally feasible and the mentioned curves are obtained in a
polynomial time also for complex structural systems. These curves characterize the
response of the structure in term of robustness and provide useful information on the
investigated system; particularly, the method allows to clearly identify the critical
elements, enabling a significant improvement through a focused change in the static
scheme or a direct reinforcing of those element only.
In this respect, some applications on relatively simples structures are shown, aimed at
identifying the structural response in term of robustness as a direct consequences of
the different organization chosen for the system. Consequences of the static
indeterminacy level of a structure are presented and discussed, distinguishing

between cases in which it is provided mostly by high structural continuity or by a

redundant number of elements or by a high number of external restraints. Some
robustness indicators have been introduced in this work, that can be extrapolated
from the obtained robustness curves and that describe the robust response of the
structure. With the avail of these indicators, useful information can be obtained in
comparing two different design for a construction or showing a possible design
modification, that, acting on the elements identified as critical, can achieve a greater
robustness for the construction.
If these kind of static analysis can provide information on the robustness degree of
the structure, in order to trace the effective development of a progressive collapse in a
structure, more specific investigations have to be carried out [11, 12]. To asses the
progressive collapse susceptibility of a structure is quite an onerous task, since it
requires the consideration of many different aspects, starting from the knowledge of
real characteristics of the structure up to the analysis of the response, which generally
involves the consideration of dynamic actions, full material and geometric
nonlinearities and triggering of local mechanisms [13, 14]. The collapse mechanisms
can be very different, but particularly it is important to distinguish between primarily
horizontal load transfer structure and primarily vertical load transfer structures. In the
last section of this thesis, this kind of investigations are applied therefore to the case
of a framed reinforced concrete public building [15] and to a steel suspension bridge
with a long central main span [16]. Following a bottom-up approach, the critical
event modelling has been neglected and an initial failure has been a-priori assumed
on the structure. In the first construction the failure of a main column is assumed as
the starting event and the damage propagation is followed by means of an
incremental iterative nonlinear analysis. The structural system robustness is evaluated
and the contribution provided from the three-dimensional structure to the resistance
of the frame involved in the collapse is outlined. In the second case study an abrupt
rupture of some hanger ropes of the bridge suspension system is assumed as initial

damage and the response of the system to different damage levels and locations is
investigated. This kind of investigations avail some nonlinear dynamic analyses, that
directly account for the dynamic amplification caused from abrupt initial failures and
for the plastic reserves of the materials that the system can exploit during the collapse
evolution. Some considerations on the collapse modality are given and the difference
between sensibility to triggering and to the propagation of the collapse are
particularly outlined. From these investigations some indications on possible
measures that could arrest the collapse can be eventually deducted.
KEYWORDS
Robustness, damage, robustness curves, robustness indicators, combinatorial
optimization, heuristic optimization, simulated annealing optimization, static
indeterminacy, redundancy, element connection, structural continuity,
compartmentalization, progressive collapse, nonlinear analysis, iterative incremental
static analysis, dynamic investigation, collapse triggering and propagation.
Fig. 1: Two non robust behaviours: the Airfrance Concorde crashing and the Minnesota Bridge collapse.

ESSENTIAL LITERATURE
[1] Journal of the international association for bridge and structural engineering (IABSE) Special
edition, May 2006
[2] Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC): “Design of buildings to resist progressive collapse”, UFC 4-
023-03, 25 January 2005
[3] B. R. Ellingwood, R. Smilowitz, D. O. Dusenberry, D. Duthinh, H.S. Lew, N. J. Carino: “Best
practices for reducing the potential for progressive collapse in buildings”, NISTIR 7396,
National institute of Standard and Technology (NIST), February 2007
[4] Multi-hazard Mitigation Council (MMC) of the National institute of building science:
“Prevention of progressive collapse: Report on the July 2002 National Workshop and
recommendation for future efforts”, Washington D.C., 2003
[5] F. Bontempi: “Robustezza Strutturale”, invited lecture at Convegno Nazionale Crolli e
Affidabilità delle Strutture Civili, Università degli Studi di Messina, CRASC’06, Messina,
20-22 Aprile 2006 (in Italian)
[6] U. Starossek: “Progressiver Kollaps von Bauwerken, Beton Kalender, Sonderdruck Ernst &
Sons , 2008 (in German)
[7] J. Agarwal, D. Blockley, N. Woodman: “Vulnerability of structural systems”, Structural
Safety 25, 2003
[8] D.M Frangopol., M. Klisinski, 1992: ”Design for safety, serviceability and damage
tolerability”, Designing Concrete Structures for Serviceability and Safety, SP 133-12:225-
254, 1992
[9] U. Starossek, M. Haberland: “Approaches to measures of structural robustness”, 2008
Structures Congress – Crossing Borders, Vancouver, Canada, 24-26 April 2008
[10] Ausiello G., Crescenzi P., Gambosi G., Kann V., Marchetti Spaccamela A., Rotasi M.:
“Complexity and approximation”, Springer Verlag, 2003
[11] M. Wolff, U. Starossek: “Robustness assessment of a cable-stayed bridge”, 4th international
conference on bridge maintenance, safety and management, Seoul, Korea, 13-17 July 2008
[12] D. Yan, C. C. Chang: “ Vulnerability of long-span cable-stayed bridges under terrorist event”,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Bridge Engineering - Challenges in the 21st
Century, Hong Kong, 2006
[13] F. Bontempi, P.G. Malerba: “Il controllo della formulazione tangente per la soluzione di
problemi strutturali non lineari”, Studi e Ricerche, Vol.17,1996 (in Italian)
[14] G. Powell: “Progressive collapse: Case studies using nonlinear analysis”, presented at 2004
SEAOC annual convention, Monterey, August 2004
[15] ASCE: „The Oklahoma City Bombing: Improving building performance through multi-hazard
mitigation“, Report FEMA 277; FEMA Mitigation Directorate, Reston Virginia, 1996
[16] Bontempi, F., “Basis of design and expected performances for the Messina Strait Bridge”,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Bridge Engineering – Challenges in the 21st
Century, Hong Kong, 1-3 November 2006

INTRODUCTION
1. SAFETY AND STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY

2. HANDLING WITH LP-HC EVENTS
INTRODUCTION 17
1 SAFETY AND STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY
A primary requirement for civil products is certainly the safety of the constructions.
Nevertheless, if a general consensus can be found among structural engineers on the
importance of achieving safety, not the same can be said on the ways of pursuing it. The
divergences start from the definition of the term “safety” itself, that is either referred
primarily to the safety of people as in [SIA260] or to the structural integrity of the building
as in [ISO 2394]. The first code states that:
“A structure can be declared safe if during a critical event, like impact, fire, downfall,
safety of people is granted”.
Accordingly to this definition, safety could be provided also by means of non-structural

measures (event control) aimed at reducing the exposure of the structure to critical events .
Some exempla of event control could consider for instance:
a. the relocation of the area chosen for the construction of a public building (e.g. farer from
the street, in order to avoid truck bombs);
b. the installation of surveillance systems such as an alarm and a security service to prevent
risk of other terrorist attacks);
c. the improvement of people protection measures (e.g.: additional emergency exits and
evacuation plans to allow a quick evacuation of the buildings).
Protections can be also addressed to key elements (e.g. barriers that encircle the main
columns of the building to protect them against vehicle impact or bomb blast). Other
measure aimed at avoiding structural collapse contemplates a general strengthening and
over-sizing of the main parts of the construction. Differently from the previous ones, these
represents structural measures. Not involving any changes in the structural system, these
measures represent however an extrinsic defence of the structure, addressed to the
prevention of a failure more then to its confinement.
If the approach of hazard prevention can in some cases be justified, the limits of regulations
providing for this aim exclusively are self-evident: not only is it impossible to prevent all
malevolent attacks, but critical events can also result from natural disasters (such as
tornados, floods or earthquake of unexpected intensity), as well as human errors (either in
the design or in the execution phases), whose effects cannot be taken in account in advance.
As long as the static system remains unmodified, the consequences of such an occurrence
are not mitigated, being the possible susceptibility of the structure to progressive collapse
not eliminated. Majority of codes and regulations therefore agree in taking into account a
INTRODUCTION 19
possible failure of the system or of a part of it [T.U. 2005]. For instance the International
Standard above mentioned [ISO 2394] states that:
“Structures and structural elements should be designed, built and maintained in such a
way to be proper for their use during the structure’s design life in an economical way.
Particularly they should, with proper levels of reliability:
a. satisfy exercise ultimate state requirements
b. satisfy load ultimate state requirements
c. satisfy structural integrity requirements”.
Regulation:
SAFETY
Safety of Structural
people integrity
Safety in SIA260 Building Code: Safety in ISO/FDIS 2394 code:

“Structures and structural elements […] should,
The term safety in the SIA Building Codes is with proper levels of reliability:
primarily related to the safety of people satisfy exercise ultimate state requirements,
affected by structural failures satisfy load ultimate state requirements,
satisfy structural integrity requirements”
Fig. 2: Safety and structural integrity
Service limit states

STIFFNESS f < fadm
STRUCTURAL
(SLS)
SECTIONS OR
SAFETY
ELEMENTS
Ultimate limit states
(ULS)
RESISTANCE R>S
verification on
Structural integrity limit STRUCTURAL

ROBUSTNESS ?
state (SILS) SYSTEM
Fig. 3: Main requirements for the three limit states defined.
If methods to satisfy the first two requirements are wide studied and documented,
regulations for the practical achievement of an acceptable level of structural integrity after a
failure are not as much codified. Moreover, if the respect of the first and the second limit
state implies that structural failures, meant as the overcoming of predetermined levels of
resistance and functionality respectively, have to be completely avoided, the respect of the
structural integrity limit state refers to the structural behaviour after the occurrence of a
INTRODUCTION 20
critical event, i.e. the overcoming of previously mentioned limit states has not to be averted
but assumed as possible and the consequence on the structure have to be evaluated.
In order to achieve a satisfying level of structural integrity after a failure, the structure
should be provided with intrinsic defences that could avoid the propagation of the damage.
This issue call in directly in question the structural design choices and the organization of
the elements in the structural system.
In this respect a further difference in the structural integrity achievement can be evidenced
in the assumption of possible structural damages or possible critical events that may cause
structural damages. In this last case, specific structural investigations can lead to a collapse
resistant design [Starossek & Wolff, 2005], i.e. a structure that will show a localized
damage but just under the occurrence of a particular assumed circumstance. A proper
number of investigations on the structure that exhibits different level of structural damage
could instead lead to more significant modification of the structural system, so that it could
be able to localize the damage prescinding from the event that could have caused it. To this
ability of the system organization of a structures refers more specifically the requirement of
robustness, a primary property for the structural integrity achievement of constructions and
more generally for a safe design of civil works. This theme will be better discussed in the
first part of this work, where some definition of robustness are provided and a state of the
art of current regulations and research is reviewed.
INTRODUCTION 21
2 RISK HANDLING
The problem of structural safety can be synthetically returned to that one of risk handling. If
the term safety has in fact just a qualitative denotation, it is often used as opposite of the
term risk, that can be instead quantitatively defined.
HANDLING WITH RISK: PREVENT OR PRESUME?

Terrorism
Natural
SAFETY RISK
Errors
Non structural measures

(security, event control)
Extrinsic
defenses is prevented Probability
Oversizing of key
elements CRITICAL
EVENT
Intrinsic
ROBUSTNESS is presumed Damage
defenses
(after Starossek, 2005)
Fig. 4: Handling with risk: prevent or presume?
According to [Schneider, 1999] the risk is a measure for the magnitude of a hazard and it is
constituted by the probability P(F) of a damaging event F and the so-called average
expectation E(D|F) of the damage, should this event F take place. The simplest function
relating the two constituents of risk is the product of these quantities:
R(F) = P(F) × E(D F) Eq. 1
Referring more specifically to the risk of civil works, the first term P(F) represent the
probability of occurrence of an event that could lead to structural failures. Structural failures
can be determined by many different events:
- unfavourable combination of loads, material properties, geometrical parameters, all
resulting from standard actions and happenings;
- effects of critical but foreseeable events, such as collisions, climatic hazard etc;
- result of human errors, referring to design as well as to project execution;
INTRODUCTION 22
- unpredictable events.
The second term represents the consequences of structural failures and may be express in
terms of casualties or in monetary units, that indicate the cost due to service interruption,
damage repairing, lost goods and estates.
In order to reduce the risk (and to improve safety likewise) is possible to act on the first as
well as on the second component. As mentioned in the previous section, the approach is
substantially different, since in the first case the critical event has to be prevented while in
the second case has to be presumed. The safety measures discussed above can be better
identified and organised in this conceptual framework (see fig. 4).
If the issue of structural safety let itself to be easily framed from a conceptual point of view
in that one of risk handling, the practical assessment of risk for structural construction and
civil works is a quite complex task though. Both the probability evaluation and the damage
assessment present some difficulties, involving very high consequences, whose assessment
require onerous and complex investigations, that are though associated to very unlikely
occurrences.
Referring particularly to the probability evaluation, in a quite recent paper
[Ellingwood&Dusenberry 2005] described the probability that can be associated to a
structural collapse, as a chain of partial probabilities, according to the following expression:
P(F) = ∑ P[F | D, H i ] ⋅ P[D | H i ] ⋅ P[H i ] Eq. 2
The parameter Hi represents a distinct hazard, among them that can affect a structure, like,
for example in case of a building, occupancy loads and other demands, misuse, extreme
environmental effects, fires or abnormal loads.
The probability of one distinct hazard Hi to occur is therefore P[Hi]. The occurrence of this
potentially dangerous hazard doesn’t implies though that it will cause necessarily a local
damage in the structure. This event will be synthetically described by the conditional
probability P[D|Hi], i.e. the probability of a local damage in the structure, given that Hi
occurs. This probability considers actually two different aspects, the first one related to the
event and the second one related to the structural system. As a matter of fact, the hazard
could occur also without affecting the structure as well as it could involve some elements,
without anyone of them failing. Let think for instance to a bomb that explode near a
building. The explosion could also happen in a position where it has a minor impact on the
elements (for instance, too far from the building, or between two columns); on the contrary,
the impact area could involve significant elements like beams and columns, but they would
resist sturdily to the impact without showing any serious damage (i.e., in other words, the
INTRODUCTION 23
entity of impact would be too modest with respect to the resistance of the elements). The
first aspect is described by the exposure of the structure, while the second one refers directly
to the vulnerability of the structure. The structural vulnerability is intended here as the grade
of direct damage, that a dangerous event affecting the construction causes in its structural
system.
This ability differs, as better explained in the first part of this work, from the robustness of
the structure, that is instead the ability of the system to undergo a local damage without
suffering a major collapse and that is described from the last term of the equation P[F|DHi].
This term indicates the conditional probability that a collapse happens, given that hazard
and local damage have both occurred.
The term P[F] represents the overall probability of building failure and is the product of the
previous 3 terms exposed above.
Collapse resistance Vulnerability · Exposure
P(F) = P[F | DH] ⋅ P[D | H] ⋅ P[H]

Robustness Hazard
Fig. 5: Decomposition of collapse probability factors
According to [Ellingwood&Dusenberry 2005], in order to limit the collapse probability, it is

possible to act on the three partial probabilities described above can by means of the
following strategies:
a. influencing abnormal events
b. influencing individual local element behaviour
c. influencing global system behaviour.
[Haberland 2006] underlines that the collapse probability, referred as the collapse resistance
of the structure, i.e. the insensitivity of the structure to accidental circumstances, can be
achieved by acting on the first and second term only, being not possible to really control the
As a matter of fact, what could actually be controlled, would be the dangerousness of the
event, that means the probability that the occurred events would entangle the structure.
To better explain this, let refer to the three main components of risk that, according to a
more comprehensive risk analysis, can be identified in the hazardousness, vulnerability and
INTRODUCTION 24
exposure terms. As said before, the last two aspects are both contemplated in the second
factor of the mentioned equation. If it seems unfeasible to limit the hazard, i.e. probability
of occurrence of a potentially damaging event, it is generally possible tough to mitigate the
dangerousness of the event, by acting e.g. on the exposure of the building. In this manner,
when the event occurs, it won’t affect the structure too much. This could be done by
changing the location of a building (for instance, moving it away form the street, in order to
put more distance between a possible explosion or impact and the structural elements), as
well as by protecting the construction or its elements by means of protective barriers or
other casing systems. These strategies are not a direct concern of engineers though, since all
refers to non structural measures. Furthermore, the event control by means of the exposure
reduction of a constructions appears to be feasible for some type of hazards only: e.g.
terrorist attacks could be avoided or discouraged by means of sophisticated surveillance
system or security guards, but natural disasters appear to be less manageable in this sense.
Aspects related to the structural system are instead the vulnerability and robustness of the
structures. As mentioned before and better explained in paragraph 1.2 of the first part of this
work, both vulnerability and robustness are property of the structural system, but, while the
first property is a direct consequence of the mass and resistance of the structure, the second
property depends on the system organization, i.e. on the disposition of structural elements in
the system and their relative stiffness and resistance.
Another important difference between the two properties consists in the independence of the
second one from the event. Strategies aimed to mitigate the vulnerability of a construction
are structural measures, but are event-based. Strategies to improve the structural robustness
instead, referring to it as the last probability factor of previous equation, should start directly
from the assumption of a local damage and can therefore disregard the originating event. In
the paper of [Starossek&Haberland 2008] is underlined how strategies addressed to limit
this last factor, i.e. to increase the structural robustness, are seldom taken into account:
“Influencing abnormal events is generally not within the control of a structural
engineer whereas the probabilities P(D|H) and P(F|DH) are [respectively, the
conditional probability of a damage after the hazard and the conditional probability of
a failure after the occurrence of an initial damage]. The common standards usually
describe the safety of a structure as a function of the safety of all elements against local
failure, and therefore only take into account the probability P(D|H). The reaction of a
structure to the possible occurrence of a local failure, that is expressed by the
probability P(F|DH), is seldom investigated regularly.”
It’s important to underline that the mitigation of all these factors is always aimed to the
mitigation of the collapse probability P(F), since the main goal remains the achievement of
INTRODUCTION 25
the collapse resistance of the construction. The collapse probability P(F) must be limited to
a generally accepted value, i.e. a socially acceptable value identified through a combination
of professional practice and appropriate building regulation. In the above mentioned paper
of Ellingwood and Dusenberry, the value of 10-7/year is suggested as target value rate for
risk of collapse, even if it is recognised that a big problem of a completely probabilistic
approach is also represented from the difficulties of finding a general consensus on this
admissible risk.
HP-LC
qualitative risk
Deterministic
analysis
pragmatic
analysis of risk
scenarios
Probabilistic
Complexity
probabilistic
(quantitative)
risk analysis
LP-HC
Fig. 6: Deterministic, probabilistic and pragmatic approach
Besides this problem, also other aspects arise from a probabilistic approach, as underlined
by [Starossek. 2006a].
[In the] current design methods […] low probability events and unforeseeable incidents
(accidental circumstances) are not taken into account. Within the scope of a
probabilistic design concept, such a simplification is necessary because the supporting
statistical data, derived from experience and observation, is unavailable. In the case of
a non-robust structure, however, this simplification becomes inadmissible. Let's
consider, for the sake of argument, a structure with primarily serial load transfer (say,
a high-rise building) where the local failure probabilities are statistically independent.
In that case, the probability of collapse will be in the order of the sum of the failure
probabilities of all the elements (say, the building's individual stories) of the structure.
If the number of elements is sufficiently large (simply, if the area of attack is large
enough), even very low probabilities of initial local failure can add up to a probability
INTRODUCTION 26
of global failure which is high enough to be taken seriously. (For structures with
primarily parallel load transfer, the probability of collapse is in the order of the product
of the failure probabilities of the elements and thus very low.) [Another problem of]
current design methods is that the underlying probabilistic concept requires
specification of an admissible probability of failure. Considering the extreme losses that
often result from progressive collapse, it seems difficult to reach a true societal
consensus on the admissible probability of such an outcome—a problem which risks of
the type “low probability / high consequence” are typically up against.
Particularly the latter consideration could favour a deterministic approach instead of a

probabilistic one: as the figure above suggests, a qualitative risk analysis is sufficient for
less complex system. As the complexity grows a probabilistic risk analysis would be
required, but if the inherent complexity increases even more and the uncertainties are too
many, the probability approach cannot provide reliable result, as consequence of the
previous exposed aspects, and a pragmatic analysis of risk scenarios should instead be
favoured, when it’s possible to identify them.
INTRODUCTION 27
PART I: STRUCTURAL ROBUSTNESS
3. STATE OF THE ART

4. STRATEGIES AND METHODS FOR STRUCTURAL
INTEGRITY

3 STATE OF THE ART
3.1 DEFINITION OF ROBUSTNESS

3.1.1 Qualitative definition
According to the introduction given above, a lack of structural robustness in a construction
can determine a disproportionate structural damage with respect to the triggering failure,
caused by the unexpected occurrence of a critical event. With the term critical events an
occurrence is meant, having an unusual damage capability: in this case the risk connected
with the event cannot be considered low also if the event has a very low probability of
occurrence. Events like that can be either due to critical but foreseeable events (such as
collisions or climatic hazard) or resulting from unaccountable occurrence like human errors
(referring to design phases as well as to project execution) as well as deriving from standard
actions and happenings (such as very unfavourable combination of loads, material
properties, geometrical parameters).
It’s important to point out that it is not to be expected that the structure will resist all the
possible occurrences without any damage: not only is practically impossible the foreseeing
of any possible critical event, but hardening a structure to resist perfectly integer to hazards
that have such a low probability of occurrence, would be not economically feasible. In order
to maintain though a satisfying level of integrity, the structure should just be able to suffer
limited damages, i.e. damage proportionate to the originating cause [ASCE 7-02].
Several qualitative definition of the term robustness can be found in literature and
regulations, that are presented and discussed in the following sections. Even though some
conceptual differences, remarked in the following, are inherent in some definitions of the
term, the accent is always set on the concept of proportionate response and insensitivity to
local damage, as shown in fig. 7.
Qualitative definitions of structural robustness

[EN 1991-1-7: 2006 ]: ability of a structure to withstand actions due
to fires, explosions, impacts or consequences
of human errors, without suffering damages
disproportionate to the triggering causes
[SEI 2007, BetonKalender 2008]: insensitivity of the structure to local failure
Fig. 7: Qualitative definitions of structural robustness

The term robustness is intended in this work as defined by [SEI 2007, Starossek 2008], i.e.
as the structural insensitivity to local failure. It is important to underline that according to
this definition, the structural robustness is a property that does not depends on the particular
triggering cause, but is inherent to the structural system. The different robustness response
of two different structural system is shown in the following figure. System A shows a better
performance than system B when integer, but it is less robust, since when the structures are
damaged the structure B undergoes a lower decrement in its performance with respect to the
structure A.
P integer P P (performance)
damaged integer
damaged
ΔP ΔP ΔP
structure B
s s structure A
d
STRUCTURE A STRUCTURE B: (damage level)
more performant, less robust more performant, less resistant ROBUSTNESS CURVES
Fig. 8: Qualitative robustness slopes of non robust (A) and robust (B) structures.
At an elementary level, this behaviour can be exemplified by comparing a circular column

and a rectangular one with the same effective area. The use of a continuous spiral tie in the
circular column has a positive effect on the resistance due to an higher confinement of the
concrete. Yet, a localized rupture of the tie, that in the rectangular column would be
confined within the area of the failed tie, in the circular column would instead open the
spiral, causing a larger area to be involved in the failure and determining an higher
decrement of the column resistance.
Speaking of element robustness, it’s important to underline that assuring the robustness of
all elements not necessarily implies the robustness of the structure as a whole: in some cases
the high-level of robustness of some elements proves to be unfavourable to the robustness of
the system. Structural robustness is a systemic concept, i.e. it concerns more closely the
organization of the different parts of a system, than the elements itself. It is easy to
understand from this consideration, that verification of the robustness requirement cannot be
carried out at a sectional or element level, but need to account the response of the system as
a whole.
A further consideration on the relation between the structural system organization and
structural robustness consist in the observation that a high level of static indeterminacy,

when due to high continuity between elements, does permit a stress redistribution on other
elements and allows the load to find an alternative path to reach the ground, but is also
responsible of the rupture propagation in case the resulting alternate load path has not
sufficient resistance to bear the high stresses transmitted by this continuity [Starossek 2006].
3.1.2 Quantitative definition overview

The definition given above is just a qualitative definition and it doesn’t permit to establish if
and how much a structure is more robust of another one.
The quantitative evaluation of robustness is a challenging problem, that is currently faced
from several authors. Here a summary of the main quantitative definitions proposed by
several authors in the past few years is presented and the main aspects of these measures are
briefly discussed.
3.1.2.1 Risk-based-approach
A framework for assessing robustness based on minimizing the risk associated with
potential failure is proposed by several authors. In [Faber, 2007a] the indirect consequences
of a structural failure are recognised as the major component of costs and therefore
included in the equation for the robustness measure. This indirect consequences are said to
be scenario-dependent and computed with the avail of an event tree chart (fig.9).
A robustness index is defined by the author as the ratio between direct risk and total risk
(direct + indirect), where direct and indirect risk of each branch of the tree are computed as:
R dir = ∫ ∫ Cdir ⋅ f D EX ( y x ) ⋅ f EX ( x ) ⋅ dydx C = consequence D = damage

xy
Å F = failure EX = critical event Eq. 3
R ind = ∫ ∫ Cind ⋅ P(F D = y) ⋅ f D EX ( y x ) ⋅ f EX ( x ) ⋅ dydx
f (z) = prob. dens. funct.of var . z
xy
Æ Indirect
Risk
Æ Direct
Risk
Direct Risk
Irob =
Direct + Indirect Risk
Fig. 9: Event tree for risk-based assessment of robustness [Faber, 2007b]

This index assumes value in [0,1], where greater values correspond to greater robustness
and measures relative risk only. This measure of robustness is dependent upon the
probability of damage occurrence and also dependent upon consequences.
Hence, according to this measure, robustness could be reduced also by reducing the
exposure of the structure (i.e. reducing the probability of occurrence of a potentially
damaging event) or its vulnerability (i.e. the probability of occurrence of local damage)
generally increasing its reliability. In this sense robustness is not just a characteristics of the
static system, which strongly distinguish this definition from other ones (e.g the topology-
or damage-based definition summarised in the following).
Another distinguish feature of the robustness as defined by the author consists in the
subordination to the risk evaluation. The risk analysis allows for a clear identification of all
aspects that contribute to a structural collapse, by enumerating a series of possible hazard
and decomposing its factor in the event tree. On the other hand, as already mentioned in the
introduction of this work and noted by [Starossek 2006a], both the determination of hazard
probability (due to the scarceness of statistical data for critical events not originated by
natural causes) and the assumption of costs associated to certain consequences (especially in
case of injuries and fatalities) could be challenging. The evaluation of the consequence
particularly, requires quite complex investigations for all the scenarios, whose number is
generally very large: in this respect, the probabilistic approach doesn’t allow for a reduction
of the required investigation in comparison to a deterministic one. What seems to be more
problematic yet, is to find a theoretical justification for the computation of risk, due to the
low probabilities and high consequences associated to structural collapses.
However, an intrinsic lack of analytical consistence can be often found in many engineering
issues and, as a matter of fact, several researchers have preferred a probabilistic approach
for assessing structural robustness: [Frangopol&Curley 1987] considered probabilistic
indices to measure structural redundancy, that are based on the relationship between damage
probability and system failure probability; more recently, [Lind, 1995] proposed another
generic measure of system damage tolerance, based on the increase in failure probability
resulting from the occurrence of damage; eventually, [Ellingwood 2005] and [Ciampoli
2008] underlined the importance of a probabilistic risk assessment in order to assess
robustness in a general manner.
3.1.2.2 Topologic approach

In [Agarwaal et al. 2003] the robustness of a structure is defined as the ability of a system to
withstand any arbitrary damage, while the vulnerability of a structure is intended as the
opposite of the so defined robustness (moving aside, in this respect, from the definition

given by other authors and also used in this work). A structure can be defined vulnerable
then, if any small damage produces disproportionate consequence. Starting from these
definitions, a complete vulnerability theory is developed, aimed to identify the most
vulnerable scenarios by focusing only on the form of the structure (e.g. it hierarchical
element organization) and leaving intentionally aside instead the possible damaging events.
SC DD F QF − QI
Vu ln erability index → VI = , where : RDD = and SC =
RDD DD max QI
N Eq. 4
M ∑ qi
Well − formedness → Q = ∑ Qi , where : Qi = i =1 and qi = K
N ii
i =1
As shown in the expression reported above, the vulnerability index corresponding to a

failure scenario can be computed as the ratio between the structural consequences SC
caused by the failure and the relative damage demand RDD required for the occurrence of
that failure.
The damage demand is a measure of the effort required to cause a “deterioration event”
(i.e. the direct damage caused by an accidental action) and is assumed to be directly
proportional to the loss of the principal stiffness, determined by such an event. The damage
demand of a failure scenario DDF is the sum of the damage demands of each deteriorating
event in that failure scenario. The relative damage demand RDD is the ratio of the damage
demand of the failure scenario to the maximum possible damage demand DDmax
(corresponding to a damage scenario where all members are damaged).
The structural consequences are computed as the decrement in the “well-formedness” of the
damaged structure QF with reference to that of the intact one QI. This attribute is a measure
of the element connectivity and increases both with the structure resistance and stiffness. It
is derived from the nodal well-formedness qi of each node in the structure, that is computed
as the determinant of the sub-stiffness matrix Kii associated with node i. From these
definition derives, that the most well formed joint is a joint with a maximum stiffness along
all the principal translational directions. The structure well-formedness Q is the sum of all
nodal well-formedness dived by the number of nodes in the configuration of interest.
In order to identify the most vulnerable damage scenarios, the structure has to be
decomposed in different hierarchically organized parts through a clustering procedure. The
procedure is based on the identification of the so-called structural ring and rounds
(respectively in case of 2d or 3D structural analyses) that require to calculate the well-
formedness factor of an high number of substructures, depending on the complexity of the
structure (i.e. on the number of connections between elements). An estimation on the

number of operations required for the decomposition of a complex structure is not provided,
though the method can be automatized and an algorithm is described for this purpose. By
means of an organised search through the hierarchical model found for the structures,
different failure scenarios can be identified, that result in disproportionate consequence and
for each one a vulnerability index can be computed.
Since a very large number of failure scenarios is identifiable, the authors suggest to consider
only four particular scenarios plus a number of specific failure scenarios, that are deemed as
interesting for the particular design objectives or conditions of use of the structures. The
four type of failures indicated are very interesting, since they refer to some peculiar aspects
of robustness, that are better discussed in the following and may differ significantly between
distinct structural systems. The mentioned scenarios are listed in the following:
a. Total failure scenario: the total collapse of the structure is obtained with least effort. This
failure scenario is characterized by the highest structural consequence index (SC=1). If
different failure scenarios with index equal to 1 exist, then the failure scenario with the
lowest damage demand is chosen as the total failure scenario.
b. Maximum failure scenario: the vulnerability index is maximum.
c. Minimum failure scenario: the last added element in the hierarchical model is damaged
(i.e. the element that is less connected to the rest of the structure)
d. Minimum damage demand scenario: corresponding to the occurrence of the easiest
deterioration event.
The topologic approach presented by the authors seems to be a quite a comprehensive one
especially because it stresses the role played by the element organization and hierarchical
order of the structural system. The importance of element numbers and the element
connections is carefully recognised and the damage is identified at an intermediate
hierarchical level (cluster). Furthermore, the method has been also developed by the authors
in order to include dynamic effects of failure scenarios: in this case a different measure of
the attribute of well-formedness is provided, that considers not only stiffness but also inertia
and damping properties.
Even if the relevance of this method, especially for the methodological aspects, is not called
in question, from the point of view of a more practical application, it presents some
problematic issues. Firstly, the procedure of decomposition is quite onerous and this onus,
even when diverted from the user by developing an automatic procedure, is not completely
justified by the reduced number of scenarios, that will be in fact considered: even if the
approach starts from a bottom-up technique (see following sections), it avails then a top-
down choice of the scenarios to be considered. Further difficulties arise from the fact that

number and type of failure scenarios strongly depend on the chosen deteriorating event: a
suggested deteriorating event is the removal of one element (referred as “cut at both ends of
an element”) that is “a practical form of damage to use in search”. If different
deteriorating events are assumed, the vulnerability index looses expressiveness and doesn’t
allow to compare directly the robustness of different structures.
3.1.2.3 Damage-based approach

The previous definitions of robustness and vulnerability are also used from [Yan & Chang,
2006], who quite recently gave the following definition:
“A structure is vulnerable if a small damage would trigger disproportionately large
consequences or even lead to a cascade of progressive failure or even collapse”
Vulnerability indices in terms of stiffness degradation are also proposed by the authors and
tested to assess the vulnerability of a cable-stayed bridge:
n tr (K i )
SD = ∑ Eq. 5
'
i =1 tr ( K i )
where:
- Ki and Ki’ are the i-th element’s stiffness matrix under the healthy and the damaged
conditions respectively;
- tr(•) represents the trace (the sum of the eigenvalues) of the matrix in the brackets;
- n is the number of damaged element.
The formulation proposed by the authors can be numbered among the so-called damage
based approaches, since it is based on the comparison between the nominal and damaged
configurations. The proposed indicator is based on the structural stiffness and seems to be
quite expressive, but requires onerous and specific investigations on the structure in order to
be calculated.
A measure of structural robustness, which also arises from the comparison of the structural
performance of the system in the original state and in a perturbed state, was proposed by
[Biondini&Restelli 2008]. The original state is intended as the configuration, in which the
structure is fully intact, while the perturbed state refers to a condition, in which a prescribed
damage scenario is applied.
The authors define robustness as “the ability of a system to suffer an amount of damage not
disproportionate with respect to the causes of the damage itself” and propose to directly
measure it by means of robustness indices, that are dimensionless functions of some

performance indicators, used as state variables, and vary in the range [0, 1]. The proposed
indicators can be divided into two groups, the first one connected with the structural
property of the static system alone (conditioning, determinant, trace, period) and the second
one considering also the load condition applied upon the system (displacement, stored
energy, vector of backward and forward pseudo-loads). The effectiveness of the indices is
investigated by the authors by means of several application and the indices ρT, ρs, ρΦ, and
ρ1 (see Eq. 5) are indicated as capable of providing a very effective measure of structural
robustness.
c0 d1 t1 T1
ρc = ; ρd = ; ρt = ; ρT =
c1 d0 t0 T0
Eq. 6
s ΔΦ 0 ΔΦ 0 ΔΦ1
ρs = 0 ; ρΦ = ; ρ0 = 1 − ; ρ1 = 1 −
s1 ΔΦ1 ΔΦ1 ΔΦ 0
where:
- the indices 0 and 1 refers respectively to the intact and damaged structure;
- c, d and t are respectively the conditioning number, the determinant, and the trace of
the stiffness matrix K associated with the considered structural configuration;
- T is the first vibration period associated with the mass matrix M and λi(K) denotes
the ith eigenvalue of the matrix K;
- s is the displacement vector of the structure
- ΔΦ0 and ΔΦ1 are the energy difference between intact and damaged system after
application of the backward pseudo-loads and forward pseudo load respectively.
Backward pseudo-loads represents the additional nodal forces that must be applied to
the damaged system to achieve the nodal displacements of the intact system, while
forward pseudo-loads represents the additional nodal forces that must be applied to
the intact system to achieve the nodal displacements of the damaged one.
Among these indicators, the one considering the ratio of stored energies ρφ is probably the
most expressive. The components of this ratio ΔΦ0 and ΔΦ1 are represented by the two
shaded area of fig. 10: the displacement of an intact structure under a determined force is
always smaller (point P0) than the displacement of a damaged structure (P1) as shown in the
bottom part of the figure. In order to obtain the same greater displacement from the integer
structure, a further load increment ḟ0 should be applied to the integer structure (that moves
to point Ṗ 0). The point Ṗ0 and P1 define a triangle (together with the axis origin) that
represents the work of the so-called “forward pseudo-loads”. Conversely, in order to bring

the response of a damaged configuration (Ṗ1) back to the displacement that it would have
suffered as undamaged (Ṗ0) under the same load ḟ0, a force decrement ḟ1 has to be applied to
the damaged structure. The shaded area of the triangle defined by the axis origin and the
points P0 and Ṗ1 represent the work of the so-called “backward pseudo loads”. The ratio
between this area and the previous defined one, represent a comparison between a scalar
entity that refers to the integer structure and a scalar entities that refers to the damaged one.
Fig. 10: Energy based robustness indicator [Biondini&Restelli, 2008]
3.1.2.4 Energy-based approach

A further group of definitions is based on the comparison between the energy released from
the initial damage and that one required for the triggering of collapse progression. This
formulation proposed by [Haberland 2008], even if not directly tested by the author seems
worth to be mentioned among the other approaches, since, as underlined in the paper:
[…] the stiffness or damage-based robustness measures […] are either easy to
calculate or expressive. Energy-based approaches may be suitable to fulfil both
requirements equally. A possible formulation is based on the comparison between the

energy released by the initial failure and the energy required for a collapse
progression:
E r, j
R e = 1 − max Eq. 7
j E s,k
where:
- Re = energy-based robustness measure;
- Er,j = energy released by the initial failure of a structural element j and

available for the damage of the next structural element k;
- Es,k = energy required for the failure of the next structural element k.
This formulation does not include the design objective acceptable damage progression;
instead it verifies the possibility of a total collapse. [The equation above] has a simple
form and also appears to be expressive with regards to the possibility of a total
collapse. However, the determination of parameter Er,j presents a difficulty as it can be
both under and over estimated. The energy released by the initial failure of the
structural element is composed of several parts. For structures that have a tendency for
a pancake-like or domino-like collapse, a large or even dominant portion of the energy
will be kinetic energy transformed from the potential energy of the separated structural
elements. In such cases it is easy to carry out a numerical estimate. For structures with
a tendency for other types of collapse, the value can only be determined through a
comprehensive structural analysis. Furthermore, Er,j should only take into account that
energy part which leads to the damage of the next structural element k. This
requirement is most easily met with structures that have a tendency towards a pancake-
like or domino-like collapse. The separation and impact events which control the
mechanism here occur discretely and in a concentrated manner so that the re-use of the
released energy can also occur in a concentrated manner without large losses, and thus
be easily calculable. Overall, it can be stated that such structures are most likely
suitable for an application of energy-based robustness measures rather than anything
else.
[…] The expression also presumes that the energy of the triggering event is completely
absorbed by the damage of the initially failing component, or that at least the excess
energy does not contribute to the damage of the next element.
3.1.3 Robustness and vulnerability

In many different emblematic cases of structural collapses, the human and economic losses
due to the indirect consequences of a critical event were way higher than the direct losses,
by this tem meaning the immediate structural failures and injuries caused by the accidental

action. Referring to the case of the Oklahoma Building collapse for instance (that is further
described in the last part of this work) the explosion of a bomb caused a direct damage on
the construction, limited to the removal by brisance of one main column of the building, a
possible damage of the two adjoining columns and the failure of some part of the floor.
Neither people were directly injured by the explosion or by the column scattering deb, nor
the structural initial failures affected a significant area of the structures. Still, the indirect
consequences of the initial damages resulted in a progressive collapse that involved a major
part of the buildings and caused several human losses.
It seems important therefore to distinguish between direct and indirect effects on a structure,
caused by the considered critical event:
- one thing is the ability of a structure to undergo without significant failures or damages
an explosion, an impact or other critical circumstances, that directly affected some of its
elements;
- another one is the ability of the structure to maintain localized an initial damage or failure
caused by those circumstances, i.e. to take direct damages without developing major
indirect failures.
Considering that we usually call “invulnerable” something that cannot be in any way injured
or wounded (i.e. directly affected from an event), it seems appropriate to name the first
attribute with the term vulnerability [Faber 2006] and [Augusti et al. 2007] and the second
one with the one of robustness. On the other hand the term robustness is also used in
different fields like statistic, electronics, computer science, biology [Krakauer 2005], as the
insensitivity against small deviations in the nominal configuration, i.e. it refers to the
indirect consequence in a system, when an initial failure or change in configuration is
assumed.
Both the attributes of vulnerability and robustness, as here defined, are structural properties,
that depends on how the structure is designed and are therefore inherent to the structural
system. If the structure is invulnerable, it is also clearly resistant to the collapse, while the
contrary is generally not true. The invulnerability of a structure can be increased by a safe
design of key elements or a general over-dimensioning of elements. Generally, it would not
be considered as a desirable property for constructions, due to the cumbersome dimension
of elements that it would imply and to the economic effort required for the materials, that
could not be justified by the structural risk, being generally the probability of occurrence of
critical events quite small. In these cases, it seems more reasonable to achieve a good level
of robustness.

Different definitions can be found in literature for vulnerability and robustness of structures,
which can lead to different design strategies and goals, as discussed in the following section.
If a general consensus on the terms vulnerability and robustness given here cannot be found,
different terms could be as well used, provided that the two concepts remain distinguished.
EXPOSURE VULNERABILITY ROBUSTNESS
Fig. 11: Exposure, vulnerability and robustness according to [Faber, 2006b]
3.1.4 Robustness and collapse resistance

It is suggested by [Starossek, 2006b] to define the term robustness as insensitivity to local
failure and the term collapse resistance as insensitivity to accidental circumstances. Here,
the term “insensitivity” and “local failure” as well as “accidental circumstances” are to be
quantified by the design objectives.
The term collapse resistance could also be named differently, if a general consensus on this
term cannot be reached, but it seems important to clearly distinguish among structural
properties that depends on external events and properties that are characteristic of the
structure alone: robustness, as above defined, result to be a property inherent with the
structural system and independent of the possible causes of initial local failure. This
definition is in contrast to a broader definition of robustness [Faber, EN] which does include
possible causes of initial failure and should be therefore better addressed to the term
collapse resistance, that is a property that is influenced by numerous conditions including
both structural features and possible causes of initial failure.
It has to be underlined, that, accepting these two definitions of robustness and collapse
resistance, the aim of a safe design would be a collapse resistant design and not
compulsively a robust one. As reported by [Starossek, 2006a]:
It would intolerably limit the range of design possibilities, however, if only those
structural systems were permitted that are clearly robust. Nor is such a limitation
necessary because a structure whose system tends to promote collapse progression can
be made sufficiently collapse resistant by other measures such as an especially safe
design of key elements. Furthermore, collapse resistance may not be required for every
structure.

3.2 DISPROPORTIONATE COLLAPSES

3.2.1 Contextual and progressive collapses
According to what above mentioned, consequence of a robustness deficiency in a structure
is an extended collapse resulting from a localized damage. A lack in structural robustness
can result in the collapse of a major part of the structure.
These kind of collapses is often, though not always, progressive. The term “disproportionate
collapse” and “disproportionate collapse susceptibility" should be therefore used in
opposition to that one of robustness and robust structure.
A clear distinction between instantaneous and progressive collapse is required. In the first
case the collapse is contextual with the initial damage, that means that a real distinction
between direct and indirect damage is not possible. This kind of collapse is obviously very
dangerous also because the structure doesn’t show any warning of deterioration or collapse
and no notice is possible in order to evacuate the structure or the construction area.
Disproportionate collapse that are contextual to the damage are shown by fragile as well as
static determined structures, where the failure of just one element results in the collapse of
the whole system: hence the importance of not limiting all the possible constructions just to
the robust ones. For instance, designers may want act on the vulnerability of static
undetermined structures and act instead on the structural robustness in those case where
collapse resistance cannot be increased in other way. It seem sensible though, demanding a
strictly fulfilment of the robustness requirement demand instead for particular cases, such as
complex structural system or military and strategic constructions. The first kind of
structures can be easily prone to progressive collapse, while the second kind can be easily a
favourable target for military attacks. Furthermore, in both cases the consequences due to
partial or total loss of functionality are to be avoided.
Fig. 12: A domino collapse
Differently to instantaneous collapses, progressive collapses instead are characterised by the

loss of capacity of one spatially limited portion of the structure, that triggers the failure of

adjoining elements, propagating the ruptures with a “domino” effect and thus resulting in
the collapse of a major part of the system when not of the whole structure.
This phenomenon was experienced by several bridges and buildings, among which the case
of the A. P. Murrah Building, more in detail described in the following, was also numbered.
The cause that is at the basis of this phenomenon is called to be an insufficient redundancy
level of the structure. More precisely, a progression of rupture can be developed also in a
structure with a high level of continuity (and therefore potentially redundant), when the
alternate load path provided by redundancy is not provided with enough strength and
resistance to withstand the forces transmitted by continuity [Starossek 2006a].
3.2.2 Emblematic cases of progressive collapses

Several cases of structural disasters can be numbered among progressive collapses. Many of
them are described by different authors [Crowder 2005; Starossek 2006], so here just a brief
list of the most important ones is reported:
Ronan point apartment, London 1968: Ronan Point was a 23-storey tower block in
Newham, East London, which suffered a fatal partial collapse due to a natural gas
explosion on May 1968, just few days after it has been completed. The gas explosion
occurred in 18th story apartment and cause a wall panel blew out, which led to loss of
support of panels on 19-22nd floors. The debris of upper floors caused each floor below
to successively collapse. The lack of redundancy, determined by a very scarce continuity
between the horizontal and vertical precast panel, was claimed to be the main cause of
the collapse, since it inhibited the stress redistribution from the failing elements to the
adjoining ones. It’s interesting to note though, that this lack of continuity is also
responsible of the propagation of the rupture only in a vertical direction and not in a
horizontal one, contrarily, for instance, to the further reported case of the A.P. Murrah
Building in Oklahoma City. What can be more incisively imputed to the lack of
continuity of this system is definitely the high vulnerability of the building: as
interestingly reported by [Levy&Salvadori 1992], the vertical panel didn’t break out of
flexure, but was literally expelled from its frame at the overcoming of frictional
resistance produced by the vertical loads. The action required for triggering such a failure
was therefore relatively modest and the pressure of the explosion was indeed established
to be lower that 0,07 MPa, considering that it didn’t damaged the eardrums of the
occupant. However, the partial collapse of Ronan Point focused the attention on the
structural integrity issue and led to major changes in the regulations.
Skyline plaza, Virginia 1973: the Skyline Plaza Apartments in Fairfax County, Va
suffered a progressive collapse that occurred during construction of the 24th floor. The

collapse involved the full height of the tower, and falling debris also caused the
horizontal progressive collapse of an entire parking garage under construction adjacent to
the tower. [Leyendecker 1997]
Marine Barracks, Lebanon 1983: it was one of the first large scale terrorist attacks on
Department of Defences (DoD facilities causing significant collapse and causalities. The
estimated bomb equivalent weight consisted of 12,000 lbs TNT and caused the complete
destruction of the construction. Although no direct changes were made to U.S. national
building codes or DoD design criteria, the event began a history of attacks that eventually
influenced design to prevent progressive collapse.
Ambiance plaza, Connecticut, 1987: L'Ambiance plaza was planned to be a sixteen-story
building with thirteen apartment levels topping three parking levels. At the time of
collapse, the building was a little more than halfway completed. Suddenly, a slab fell on
to the slab below it, which was unable to support this added weight and in turn fell. The
entire structure collapsed, first the west tower and then the east tower, in 5 seconds, only
2.5 seconds longer than it would have taken an object to free fall from that height. The
exact cause of the collapse has never been established: the building had a number of
deficiencies and it is still not clear which one could have triggered the collapse, even if
many different theories have be so far developed by several authors [Korman 1987;
Cuoco 1992, McGuire 1992].
Murrah Federal buildings, Oklahoma 1995: on April 19, 1995, in a time span of about
three seconds, an 1800 kg car bomb blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in
Oklahoma City. The bombing resulted in the death of 168 people and hundreds of
injuries. Even though this bomb was placed 3 to 5 meters away from the building, one
side of the building collapsed in consequence of the direct damage on one column (that
was removed by brisance) and a possible partial damage on the two adjoining columns
and floor slabs. This collapse and not the blast, caused eighty percent of the deaths in the
bombing [Prendergast 1995].
Hartford arena, 1998: on January 18, 1978 the Hartford Arena experienced the largest
snowstorm of its five-year life. At 4:15 A.M. with a loud crack the centre of the arena's
roof plummeted the 83-feet to the floor of the arena throwing the corners into the air. Just
hours earlier the arena had been packed for a hockey game. Luckily it was empty by the
time of the collapse, and no one was hurt. The society hired to investigate on the collapse
ascertained that the roof began failing as soon as it was completed due to design
deficiencies. Three major design errors, coupled with the underestimation of the dead
load by 20%, allowed the weight of the accumulated snow to collapse the roof [ENR
1979]. The collapse if this building is further treated in the last part of this work, where

an application is presented on a framed R.C. structure, whose model is based on that one
of the A. P. Murrah building [Giuliani&Prisco 2008].
I-35W Mississippi River bridge, 2007: this bridge, officially known simply as Bridge
9340, was an eight-lane steel truss arch bridge that carried Interstate 35W across the
Mississippi River in Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States. The bridge was completed
in 1967 and its maintenance was performed by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation. The bridge was Minnesota's fifth–busiest, carrying 140,000 vehicles
daily. The bridge catastrophically failed during the evening rush hour on August 1, 2007,
collapsing to the river and riverbanks beneath. Nowadays, the NTSB (National
Transportation Safety Board) has not determined the likely cause of the collapse, but did
identify a design error that may have contributed to the failure and particularly in the
design specified steel gusset plates that were undersized and inadequate to support the
intended load of the bridge, a load which had increased over time. This assertion was
made based on an interim report which calculated the Demand to Capacity ratio for the
gusset plates. The NTSB recommended that similar bridge designs be reviewed for this
problem.
Silver Bridge 1967: the Silver Bridge was an eyebar chain suspension bridge built in
1928, in order to connect Point Pleasant, West Virginia and Gallipolis, Ohio over the
Ohio River. On December 15, 1967, the Silver Bridge collapsed while it was choked with
rush hour traffic, resulting in the deaths of 46 people. Investigation of the wreckage
pointed to the cause of the collapse being the failure of a single eye-bar in a suspension
chain, due to a small defect only 0.1 inch (2.5 mm) deep. It was also noted that the bridge
was carrying much heavier loads than it was originally designed for and was poorly
maintained. The eyebars in the Silver Bridge were not redundant, as links were composed
of only two bars each, of high strength steel (more than twice as strong as common mild
steel), rather than a thick stack of thinner bars of modest material strength "combed"
together as is usual for redundancy. With only two bars, the failure of one could impose
excessive loading on the second, causing total failure—unlikely if more bars are used.
While a low-redundancy chain can be engineered to the design requirements, the safety is
completely dependent upon correct, high quality manufacturing and assembly.
Among the previous cases, in fig. 13 also the Meidum Pyramid is represented, even if that
doesn’t refer to a structural collapse. This pyramid though proved a significantly worse
behaviour that the other pyramids, that since millennia last almost unaltered, since it lost the
exterior cover. This was ascribed to a minor increment in the angulation of the walls that
coupled with a worse foundation ground (sand instead of rock) and design [Levy&Salvadori

1992]. Since a slight difference in the design add up to such a worse performance of the
structure, it seems meaningful to show it among other example of non robust behaviour.
Fig. 13: Emblematic cases of structural collapses
In addition to the previously mentioned cases of collapses, also other cases are worth to be
briefly reported, where the structures maintained instead a sufficient integrity level after the
occurrence of impacts or explosions:
B17 collision, 1943: the airplane shown in the fig. 14 was a B-17F severely damaged
during the second world war in consequence of a collision with a Bf-109 in the Tunisian
skies. Even though the cargo tail was largely fractured, the plane managed to fly 90
minutes after the impact and landed safely.
Khobar towers, 1996: the Khobar Towers bombing was a terrorist attack on part of a
housing complex in the city of Khobar, Saudi Arabia, located near the national oil
company (Saudi Aramco) headquarters of Dhahran. In 1996, it was being used to house
foreign military personnel. On June 25, 1996 a fuel truck adjacent to Building #131
exploded in the housing complex. In all, 19 U.S. servicemen and one Saudi were killed
and 372 of many nationalities were wounded. The power of the blast was magnified
several ways. The truck itself shaped the charge by directing the blast toward the
building. Moreover, the relatively wide clearance between the truck and the ground gave

it the more lethal characteristics of an airburst. It was originally estimated by U.S.

authorities to have contained 3,000 to 5,000 pounds of explosives. Later the General
Downing report on the incident suggested that the explosion contained the equivalent of
20,000 to 30,000 pounds of TNT. The structure though did not collapse, so that it could
be considered an example of preventing progressive collapse.
Dar-es-salaam U.S Embass, 1998: on August 7, 1998 the U.S. Embassies in the East
African capital cities of Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya were
simultaneously attacked by truck bombs, that were detonated almost simultaneously near
the two embassies. In Nairobi about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000
injured, while in Dar-es-Salaam the attack killed only 11 and wounded 85. The Nairobi
embassy was heavily damaged and should be rebuilt, while the Dar-es-Salaam embassy
maintained a certain level of structural integrity, as can be seen in the fig. 14, even if it
could be partially ascribed to the fact that the gate entrance of the Dar-es-Salaam
embassy was blocked by a water tanker at the time of the attack and the bomber was
unable to penetrate the perimeter.
Fig. 14: Collapse resistant structures

3.2.3 Typology of progressive collapses

In the already mentioned special edition of the German yearbook on concrete structure
[Starossek 2008], progressive collapses are catalogued on the basis of some distinct features
(starting action, direction of failure progression, modality of collapse). This classification,
was presented for the first time in [Starossek 2007] where it is reported:
“Progressive collapse of structures is characterized by a disproportion in size between

a triggering event and the resulting collapse. Although the disproportion between cause
and effect is a defining and common feature, there are various differing mechanisms
that produce such an outcome. The amenability to theoretical treatment, approaches for
quantifying indices, and possible or preferable countermeasures can vary accordingly.
It thus seems useful to distinguish and describe the different types of progressive
collapse and to attempt a classification on that basis. The term propagating action, used
in the subsequent discussion, refers to the action that results from the failure of one
element and leads to the failure of further similar elements.”
Progressive collapses are classified by the above mentioned author in 6 different types,
briefly recalled in the following:
Pancake-type collapse: this type of collapse is characterised by an initial failure of

vertical load-bearing elements that cause the rigid fall of a part of the structure. The
transformation of potential energy into kinetic energy leads to a sequential impact of
falling parts on the rest of the structure, that in the end collapses on itself.
The propagating action is the vertical impact force that is parallel to the direction of
principal force and of failure propagation. Only serial primary load transfer structure are
prone to this kind of collapse.
This type of collapse is generally exemplified by the collapse of the World Trade Centre
(WTC), while a more recent -and less controversial- type of collapse, that can be ascribed
to this typology, is that one of the Windsor Tower of Madrid.
Zipper-type collapse: this type of collapse is typical of suspension and cable stayed
bridge, where the rupture of one cable can propagate through the rupture of adjacent
cables. This kind of collapse is shown by the bridge investigated in the application
presented in the last part of this work.
Characteristic features of this collapse type are the impulsive loading due to sudden
element failure, the redistribution of forces into alternative paths and the static and
dynamic force concentration in the elements that will fail next. The propagating action is
an impulsive action which result from the failure of one element and is therefore opposite
to the static reaction of the element. The principal forces in the failing elements is in this
case orthogonal to the propagating action and to the direction of failure propagation: as a

consequence, the structural system prone to a zipper-type collapse is rather characterized

by parallel instead of serial primary load transfer.
Fig. 15: Disproportionate collapse typologies
Domino-type collapse: this collapse, experimented from a domino trail as the one
represented in the fig. 15, is characterised by the initial overturning of one element, that

rigidly falls over another element and, by means of a transformation of potential energy
into kinetic energy, causes an impact capable of triggering the following element
overturning. This is due to the horizontal loading of the impacting element, that result
from its tilting and motion. The collapse propagates in the overturning direction, that is
orthogonal to the direction in which the failing element was initially loaded. Primary
serial load transfer system are therefore inclined to this kind of collapse. The peculiarity
of this collapse consists as a matter of fact, in a weakness of the system towards forces
other than the principal forces. On the other hand, the risk of overturning implies that the
individual structures are sufficiently slender and unbraced. It has to be pointed out, that
the impact of one element onto the next element can also be indirect, i.e. mediated
through other elements, like for example in the case of the collapse of overhead
transmission lines towers. As a consequence, the propagating action does not need to be a
pushing force but can also be a pulling force.
Section-type collapse: this type of collapse is typically experimented by a beam under a
bending moment. When a part of the cross section is cut, the internal forces transmitted
by that part are redistributed into the remaining cross section. The corresponding increase
in stress at some locations can cause the rupture of further cross-sectional parts, and the
failure progresses throughout the entire cross section. This kind of failure is usually
referred as fast fracture, but it is useful to include it in this classification in order to
possibly exploit similarities and analogies. According to linear-elastic fracture
mechanics, the stresses in the vicinity of a crack tip tend to infinity as the distance from
the crack tip approaches zero. In a discrete system, the distance between consecutively
affected elements is non-zero. Still, there is a force concentration in elements
neighbouring a failing element. This effect is partly of dynamic nature which should be
considered when adopting methods of fracture mechanics.
Instability-type: instability of structures is characterized by small perturbations
(imperfections, transverse loading) leading to large deformations or collapse. Structures
are designed such that instability will not normally occur. The failure of a bracing
element due to some small triggering event, however, can make a system unstable and
results in collapse. An instability-type collapse is characterised by an initial failure of
elements which stabilize load-carrying elements in compression, that leads to the
instability of the elements in compression, who suddenly fails due to small perturbations
and triggers the failure progression. The progression of failure can vary. If the element
firstly affected by destabilization is one of a few primary components, like for instance
the leg of a truss tower, complete collapse can ensue immediately without cascading
failure of similar, consecutively affected elements (like in the other types of collapse
discussed before). Although strong disproportion between cause and effect is apparent in

such an event, it might be addressed to the case of disproportioned collapse and not to a
progressive collapse.
Mixed-type collapse: the types of collapse recalled above are relatively easily discerned
and described. Some collapses that have occurred in the past do not neatly fit into these
categories, however. The partial collapse of the Murrah Federal Building (Oklahoma
City, 1995) seems to have involved features of both a pancake-type and a domino-type
scenario. Such mixed-type collapses are less amenable to generalization because the
relative importance of the contributing basic categories of collapse can, in principle, vary.
Nevertheless, further study might lead to the definition of other well defined types of
collapse.
3.2.4 Directions for progressive collapse assessment

The assessment of the progressive collapse susceptibility of a structure is quite an onerous
task, since it requires the consideration of many different aspects, starting from the
knowledge of real characteristics of the structure up to the analysis of the response, which
generally involves the consideration of dynamic actions, full material and geometric
nonlinearity and triggering of local mechanisms.
Problems to face in a progressive collapse investigations are therefore quite different with
respect to a verification or a design study that, as usual, is aimed at preventing the failure
instead of presuming it and investigating its effects on the construction. These problem are
revised and discussed in the second part of this work, where a focus is made on the
nonlinear sources to be considered and on the main collapse mechanisms to be investigated
and properly modelled.
As mentioned in the section above, the collapse typologies can be very different,
particularly depending on the type of load transfer (primarily load transfer structure and
primarily vertical load transfer structures). In the third part of this work, the investigation of
progressive collapse is carried out for a framed reinforced concrete public building and for a
steel suspension bridge with a long central main span. Following a bottom-up approach, the
critical event modelling has been neglected and an initial failure has been a-priori assumed
on the structure.
This kind of investigations avail some nonlinear dynamic analyses, that directly account for
the dynamic amplification caused from such abrupt initial failures and for the plastic
reserves of the materials that the system can exploit during the collapse and provide some
indications on possible measure that could mitigate the collapse and increase the structural
robustness.

3.3 ROBUSTNESS IN CODES AND REGULATIONS

3.3.1 American regulation
Due to several structural collapse suffered in the past (Oklahoma Building 1995, American
Embassy in Nairobi and Daar-es-Salaam 1998, World Trade Centre 2001) and to the
increasing concern for possible military attacks and malevolent accident caused by an
aggressive foreign politic, the American regulation was one of the first codes to contemplate
guidelines and prescriptions for structural integrity.
3.3.1.1 ASCE Standard

The Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures is a standard maintained by
the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). As such, it is a consensus document that
is revised through a balloting process among committee members, with the committee
membership balanced with respect to interests in the structural engineering profession. Prior
to being maintained by ASCE, this standard evolved up to 1982 as the American National
Standards Institute Standard ANSI A58.1 which, in 1982, was called Building Code
Requirements for Minimum Design Loads in Buildings and Other Structures. In 1972, soon
after the Ronan Point collapse, the ASCE standard already contained a brief general
statement to address the issue of progressive collapse. This issue was developed throughout
the year and ten years later a whole section is devoted to the problem of structural integrity
regulation [ASCE 7-02]: here the concept of proportionality between structural response
and initial cause is for the first time highlighted. Indirect measures of continuity,
redundancy and ductility are also suggested in order to achieve this goal:
“Building and other structures shall be designed to sustain local damage with the
structural system as a whole remaining stable and not being damaged to an extent
disproportionate to the original local damage. This shall be achieved through an
arrangement of the structural elements that provides stability to the entire structural
system by transferring loads without collapse. This shall be accomplished by providing
sufficient continuity, redundancy or energy dissipating capacity (ductility), or a
combination thereof, in members of the structure.”
Besides, in a commentary of this section [ASCE 7-98 C1.4], the attention is focused on the
occurrence of progressive collapse, whose a definition is given:
“Through accident or misuse, properly designed structures may be subjected to
conditions that could lead to general or local collapse. Especially for specially
designed protective systems, it is impractical for a structure to resist general collapses
caused by gross misuse of a large part of the system or severe abnormal load acting
directly on a large portion of it. However precaution could be taken in the design of
structures to limit the effects of local collapses, that is to prevent progressive collapses,

which is the spread of an initial from element to element resulting, eventually, in the
collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately part of it.”
Progressive collapses are clearly distinguished from general collapses, in which the
immediate failure of a major part of the structure cannot be averted and is therefore referred
as beyond the scope of the discussed provision, and from limited local collapses also, that
represent instead the aim of a design focused on structural integrity. Some exempla are
provided and also several factors that can possibly contribute to the risk of damage
propagation are listed. Furthermore, some design alternatives are discussed and divided
between direct and indirect methods. Among the direct design measures, the methods of
alternate load path and specific local resistance, originally presented in the renewed
technical report of [Leyendecker&Ellingwood 1997] are for the first time reported in an
official standard code together with some practical guidelines for the provision of general
structural integrity:
a. Direct design: explicit consideration of resistance to progressive collapse during the
design process, through either:
a. alternate path method: a method that allows local failure to occur but seeks to
provide alternate load paths so that the damage is absorbed and a major collapse
is averted;
b. specific local resistance method: a method that seeks to provide sufficient strength
to resist failure from accidents or misuse.
b. Indirect design: implicit consideration of resistance to progressive collapse during

the design process through the provision of minimum levels of strength, continuity
and ductility.
If the ASCE provisions was one of the first code to address the problem of progressive
collapse, the presented guidelines are more qualitative than quantitative. The commentary
contains a number of different design concepts and details to meet general structural
integrity requirements, but specific methods to achieve structural robustness or mitigating
progressive collapse are still not provided. On the contrary, the General Services
Administration (GSA) and the Department of Defence (DoD) have developed guidelines
that specifically address the vulnerability of buildings to progressive collapse, as part of
their overall building security requirements.
3.3.1.2 GSA requirements

The latest GSA criteria for progressive collapse [GSA, 2003] meet the purpose of assisting
in the reduction of and assessment of the potential for progressive collapse in new and
existing buildings, respectively. The methodology and performance criteria are prescriptive,

and the potential for progressive collapse is examined independently of any specific threat.
Vertical load-bearing members are removed to help introduce redundancy and resiliency
into the structure; this approach does not necessarily replicate the effects of any specific
abnormal load. The criteria in the GSA Guidelines are not part of a blast design or analysis
and the results based on these criteria should not be substituted for those obtained from a
substantiated blast analysis.
Flowcharts are used to determine whether a building is exempt from detailed consideration
for progressive collapse. A number of important attributes (including occupancy, type of
framing system, number of stories, and standoff distance) are used in the exemption process.
If it is determined that further consideration for progressive collapse is required, then either
a linear or nonlinear static/dynamic analysis procedure must be used. A linear analysis
approach is limited to low- to mid-rise buildings that are 10 stories or less in height with
relatively simple structural layouts. A more sophisticated nonlinear analysis usually is used
for taller buildings and/or buildings that have a typical structural configurations and can be
carried out only by qualified structural engineers, who are experienced in interpreting the
results of such an analysis.
Referring to linear analysis, the building must withstand as a minimum, the loss of one
primary vertical load-bearing member without causing progressive collapse. Both exterior
and interior scenarios must be examined for typical structural configurations. In the exterior
scenario, a framed building is to be analyzed separately for each of the following cases:
a. instantaneous loss of a column in the first story located near the middle of the short
side of the building;
b. instantaneous loss of a column in the first story located near the middle of the long
side of the building;
c. instantaneous loss of a column in the first story located at the corner of the building.
When performing a static analysis for the scenarios outlined above, the vertical load applied
to the structure accounts by means of a simplified factor of 2 for dynamic effects that
amplify the response when a column or wall is instantaneously removed from a building.
Furthermore, since the probability is small that full live load is present during a possible
progressive collapse event, 25 percent of the live load is used in the load combination:
DL = dead load
Load → L = 2 ⋅ (DL + 0.25LL) , where: Eq. 8
LL = live load
After the analysis has been performed, a demand-capacity ratio DCR is computed for each
of the structural members in the building. Failure of a structural member depends on the

magnitude of the DCR: in typical structural configurations, structural elements and

connections in reinforced concrete buildings that have DCR values for bending moment,
axial force, shear force, or a combination thereof that exceed 2.0 are considered to be
damaged severely or collapsed.
Once the DCRs have been computed after the required number of analysis runs, it is
possible to determine the extent of collapse, if any. The maximum allowable extent of
collapse resulting from the instantaneous removal of an exterior column or wall must be
confined to the smaller of the following two areas:
a. the structural bays directly associated with the instantaneously removed column or
wall;
b. 1800 square-feet at the floor level directly above the instantaneously removed
column or wall.
Similar limits are given for allowable collapse areas based on the removal of interior
columns or walls. A high potential for progressive collapse is assumed to exist when
collapse areas that are determined from analysis are greater than the appropriate limiting
values prescribed in the GSA Guidelines. In new construction, several iterations in the
design of key structural members may be needed before the acceptance criteria are satisfied.
Although not required by the GSA Guidelines, procedures to obtain preliminary member
sizes are given in Appendix B. Existing facilities undergoing modernization are to be
upgraded or retrofitted to meet new construction requirements.
3.3.1.3 Department of Defense (DoD) requirements

The latest requirements for progressive collapse in Design of Buildings to Resist
Progressive Collapse [UFC 4-023-03, 2005] states that all new and existing buildings with
three stories or more in height must be designed to avoid progressive collapse: even if a
structure has been designed to resist a specific abnormal load or threat, the progressive
collapse requirements must still be satisfied.
The level of progressive collapse design for a structure is correlated to the Level of
Protection (LOP) assigned to the building and the following three methods for mitigation of
progressive collapse are in detail examined:
1. Tie force method, that provide for a mechanical tying of the building. Minimum tie
forces, which vary with construction type and location in the structure, are typically
resisted by the structural members and connections that are designed for gravity and
lateral loads. The purpose of the horizontal and vertical ties is to enhance continuity and
ductility, and to develop alternate load paths in the structure. Internal and peripheral

horizontal ties must be provided, along with ties to external columns and walls. Specific
required tie strengths are given for reinforced concrete, structural steel, masonry, wood,
and cold-formed steel construction. In all cases, the paths of ties must be straight and
continuous and no changes in direction are permitted.
In a reinforced concrete structure, the flexural reinforcement in slabs, beams, and
girders can be used to satisfy the horizontal tie force requirements. Similarly,
longitudinal steel in concrete columns can be used to satisfy vertical tie force
requirements. Steel beams and girders are used as horizontal peripheral ties and column
ties in a steel structure, while either steel beams or the reinforcement in the concrete
slab are used as internal ties. Steel columns are instead used as vertical ties. The
connections between the steel members also must be designed to transfer the required
tie forces.
2. Alternate path method, which is applicable to buildings assigned to medium and high
LOPs, is similar to the method in the GSA Guidelines in that vertical load-bearing
elements are removed at various locations in the building. However, unlike the GSA
Guidelines where the members are removed at only the first floor level, in the DoD
alternate path method the vertical elements are removed at each floor level, one at a
time. For example, if there are three exterior columns that must be investigated and
there are five stories in the building, 15 alternate path analyses must be performed. The
details of the analysis are given for the different construction materials; including over
strength factors for material strength, which are analogous to the GSA strength-increase
factors. In a linear or nonlinear static analysis, the following amplified factored load
have to be applied referring to those bays immediately adjacent to the removed element
and at all floors above the removed element (first equation) and to the rest of the
structure (second equation):
Adjacent bays and floors → L = 2[(0 .9 or 1 .2 )DL + (0 .5 LL or 0.2SL )] + 0.2WL

Re st of the structures → L = [(0 .9 or 1 .2 )DL + (0 .5 LL or 0.2SL )] + 0.2WL Eq. 9
where : DL = dea d load ; LL = live load; S L = snow load; WL = wind load
3. Subsequent to the analyses, acceptability criteria must be satisfied. This consists of

satisfying strength design requirements of the applicable material standards and
deformation limits (ductility and rotation) for all the members in the structure.
When an external column or load-bearing wall is removed, the collapsed area of the
floor directly above the removed element must be less than the smaller of 750 square
feet or 15 percent of the total area of that floor. Also, the floor directly beneath the
removed element should not fail, and collapse must not extend beyond the structure

tributary to the removed element. The damage limits for interior columns and walls is
two times that of exterior ones. Any collapse must not extend into the bays immediately
adjacent to the removed element.
4. Additional ductility requirements, which are applicable to all types of construction in
structures assigned to Medium and High Levels of Protection and is meant to ensure
that the failure mode for all external columns and walls in the ground floor is flexural
(ductile) rather than shear (brittle).
3.3.1.4 MMC Progressive collapse report

On July 2002, the MMC with funding from the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) in cooperation with the Defence Threat Reduction Agency, General
Services Administration and U.S. Army Engineering Research and Development Centre,
organized a workshop on the prevention of progressive collapses. It featured the
presentation of 10 papers on specific design and research topics related to progressive
collapse and three working groups that met separately to consider codes and standards,
structural systems and analytical tools, and existing buildings. The workshop deliberations
resulted in a final report that eas expected to serve as the basis for an action plan to integrate
progressive collapse prevention into standard design practice and relevant building codes
and standards [MMC. 2003].
The report focused the attention on the difference between direct and indirect methods (this
distinction is further explained in the following section of this first part of the work) and
indicated different strategies to be used for the mitigation of progressive collapses. Among
the direct method, the strategies of alternate path method and the method of specific local
resistance, already mentioned by ASCE07 were reported, while among the indirect method,
the need of providing the structure with enough redundancy, continuity and ductility is
outlined.
In this respect though, it is worth noting that the same study reports the opinion of some
controlled demolition experts that noted how structures which possess inherent redundancy
to redistribute loads are easiest to bring down, fact that is not consistent with the indirect
methods proposed to increase the resistance against progressive collapses:
“Additional observation of the controlled demolition experts [...] indicated that grater
continuity may actually increase likelihood of progressive collapse. If the diaphragms
are too well tied together, a localize structural failure may actually pull down a greater
portion of the building. This observation contradict many engineering approaches to
structural integrity and needs to be studied further“.

3.3.2 European regulation

Among European regulation, different codes have to be cited. The fist one is the [ISO 2394]
that states:
“Structures and structural elements should be designed, built and maintained in such a
way to be proper for their use during the structure’s design life in an economical way.
Particularly they should, with proper levels of reliability:
a. satisfy exercise ultimate state requirements
b. satisfy load ultimate state requirements
c. satisfy structural integrity requirements.”
Already in ’90, the Model Code underlined in paragraph 1.1.1 (general requirements) the
concept of proportionality between the causes and the effects [Model Code 1990]:
“Structures should with appropriate degrees of reliability, during their construction
and whole intended lifetime, perform adequately and more particularly:
a. withstand all actions and environmental influences, liable to occur
b. withstand accidental circumstance without damage disproportionate to the original
events (insensivity requirement)”
Reference to safety and structural integrity can also be found in Swiss [SIA260] and
German codes [DIN 1055-100, 2001], whereas a separated section should be devoted to the
Eurocodes.
3.3.2.1 Eurocodes
A significant part of Eurocode 1 [EN 1991-1-7: 2006] is devoted to accidental actions:
according to EN 1991-1-1-7, structural robustness is the ability of a structure to withstand
actions due to fires, explosions, impacts or consequences of human errors, without suffering
a damages disproportionate to the triggering causes. In these terms, robustness is intended
as property dependent on the particular triggering event considered and not as an intrinsic
property of the structural system [Baldassino 2006]. According to [Starossek&Wolff 2005]
instead, the dependence upon the causes let the property be more correctly defined as
collapse resistance.
From a general point of view, the new release of Eurocode 1 represented an inversion in the
European tendency to focus on the structural property in order to achieve a structural
insensitivity to damage, that counterpoised the main role played in the American regulations
and guidelines by loads and actions. This fact is clearly evidenced by comparing the
flowchart presented in the Eurocode and reported in fig. 16 with the flowchart of a draft
version, where the sufficient minimum robustness requirement was included into the second

strategy group (limiting the extent of localised failure) instead of appearing in the first one
(accidental action based) like now.
As better explained in the following sections, this difference in the meaning of robustness is
not just an academic distinction, since the definition of the term strongly and directly affect
the strategies and methods to be used for the robustness achievement.
ACCIDENTAL
DESIGN SITUATION
STRATEGIES BASED ON IDENTIFIED

STRATEGIES BASED ON LIMITING THE
ACCIDENTAL ACTIONS
EXTENT OF LOCALISED FAILURE
e.g. explosions and impact
DESIGN THE PREVENTING DESIGN THE KEY ELEMENT

ENHANCED PRESCRIPTIVE
STRUCTURE OR REDUCING STRUCTURE
DESIGN THE DESIGNED TO
REDUNDANCY RULES
TO HAVE THE ACTION TO HAVE
STRUCTURE SUSTAIN
SUFFICIENT SUFFICIENT
TO SUSTAIN NOTIONAL
e.g. alternative e.g. integrity and
MINIMUM e.g. protective MINIMUM
THE ACTION ACCIDENTAL
load path ductility
ROBUSTNESS measures ROBUSTNESS ACTION Ad
Fig. 16: Accidental design situation [EN 1992-1-1-7]
Apart form this considerations, the mentioned Eurocode 1 appears to be one of the most
detailed regulation for what concern the topic of robustness and structural integrity. In the
following, the main sections covering the topic are reported:
Accidental design situations - strategies for identified accidental actions
a. The accidental actions that should be taken into account depend upon:
a. the measures taken for preventing or reducing the severity of an accidental
action;
b. the probability of occurrence of the identified accidental action;
c. the consequences of failure due to the identified accidental action;
d. public perception;
e. the level of acceptable risk.
NOTE: in practice, the occurrence and consequences of accidental actions can be
associated with a certain level of risk level. If this level cannot be accepted,
additional measures are necessary. A zero risk level, however, is unlikely to be
reached and in most case is necessary to accept a certain level of risk. Such risk
level will be determined by various factor such the potential number of casualties
involved, economic consequences and the cost of safety measures etc.

Levels of acceptable risks may be given in the National Annex as non

contradictory, complementary information.
b. A localized failure due to accidental actions may be acceptable, provided that it will
not endanger the stability of the whole structure and the overall load-bearing
capacity of the structure is maintained and allows necessary emergency measures to
be taken.
NOTE: for building structures such emergency measures may involve the safe
evacuation of persons from the premises and its surroundings.
For bridge structures such emergency measures may involve the closure of the road
or rail service within a specific limited period.
c. Measures should be taken to mitigate the risk of accidental actions and these
measures should include, as appropriate, one or more of the following strategies:
a. preventing the action from occurring (e.g. in case of bridges, by providing

adequate clearances between the traffic lanes and the structure) or reducing the
probability and/or magnitude of the action to an acceptable level through the
structural design process (e.g. in case of buildings providing sacrificial venting
components with a low mass and strength to reduce the effect of explosions);
b. protecting the structure against the effects of an accidental action by reducing the
effects of the action on the structure (e.g. by protective bollards or safety
barriers);
c. ensuring that the structure has sufficient robustness by adopting one or more of
the following approaches:
- by designing certain components of the structure upon which stability depends

as key elements (see 1.5.10) to increase the likelihood of the structure’s
survival following an accidental event.
- designing structural members, and selecting materials, to have sufficient

ductility capable of absorbing significant strain energy without rupture.
- incorporating sufficient redundancy in the structure to facilitate the transfer of

actions to alternative load paths following an accidental event.
NOTE: it may not be possible to protect the structure by reducing the effects of
an accidental action, or preventing an action from occurring. This is because
an action is dependent upon factors which, over the design working life of the
structure, may not necessarily be part of the design assumptions. Preventative
measures may involve periodic inspection and maintenance during the design
working life of the structure.

d. Accidental actions shall, where appropriate, be applied simultaneously in

combination with permanent and other variable actions in accordance with EN
1990, 6.4.3.3.
e. The safety of the structure immediately following the occurrence of the accidental
action shall be taken into account.
NOTE: this includes the consideration of progressive collapse for building
structures. See Annex A.
Accidental design situations – strategies for limiting the extent of localised failure
a. In the design, the potential failure of the structure arising from an unspecified cause
shall be mitigated.
b. The mitigation should be reached by adopting one or more of the following
approaches:
a. designing key elements, on which the stability of the structure depends, to sustain
the effects of a model of accidental action Ad;
NOTE: the National Annex may define the model which may be a concentrated or
a distributed load with a design value Ad. The recommended model for buildings
is a uniformly distributed notional load applicable in any direction to the key
element and any attached components (e.g. claddings, etc). The recommended
value for the uniformly distributed load is 34 kN/m2 for building structures. An
example of the application of Ad is given in A.8.
b. designing the structure so that in the event of a localized failure (e.g. failure of a
single member) the stability of the whole structure or of a significant part of it
would not be endangered;
NOTE: the National Annex may state the acceptable limit of "localized failure".
The indicative limit for building structures is 100 m2 or 15 % of the floor area,
whichever is less, on two adjacent floors caused by the removal of any supporting
column, pier or wall. This is likely to provide the structure with sufficient
robustness regardless of whether an identified accidental action has been taken
into account.
c. applying prescriptive design/detailing rules that provide acceptable robustness
for the structure (e.g. three-dimensional tying for additional integrity, or a
minimum level of ductility of structural members subject to impact).
NOTE: the National Annex may state which of the approaches given in 3.3 are to
be considered for various structures. Examples relating to the use of the
approaches for buildings are given in Annex A.

3.3.2.2 German regulation

The Beton Kalender manual, a widely known German year book on reinforced concrete
construction, published this year a special edition entirely devoted to progressive collapses.
In this manual [Starossek 2008], a brief state of the art of the current research and
regulations on the theme of progressive collapse is presented and different typologies and
modalities of progressive collapse are recognised.
This distinction, presented for the first time in [Starossek 2007] permits to address different
strategies for collapse mitigation. Several design criteria are presented and discussed in
order to achieve the collapse resistance of the structure (Kollapsresistenz), defined as
insensitivity to accidental circumstances, whereas the robustness (Robustheit) is here
defined as insensitivity to local failure.
Some investigations are presented concerning a multi-span bridge and a cable-stayed bridge
and other example that refers to bridges and tall building are discussed. Eventually, a review
on possible measure of structural robustness is presented. Robustness indicators are dived in
stiffness-based, damage-based and energy based indicators [Starossek&Haberland 2008].
3.3.2.3 Italian regulation

The first innovation of the Italian regulation [T.U. 2005] with respect to the definition of the
ultimate state in the above mentioned ISO code, consist in the substitution of the term
“structural integrity” with that of “robustness”. If also non structural strategies are indicated
for the achievement of structural safety, the aim of the damage limitation is clearly stated in
regard to the requirement of robustness, whose systemic aspect is also outlined (the
following texts are freely translated from Italian to English):
“Generally speaking, the following strategies can be considered by the designer, in
order to deal with actions acting upon the structure.
a. reduction of the action occurrence probability or of the action intensity (prevention);
b. reduction of the action effects upon the structure (protection);
c. designing and realizing a structure able to withstand actions without suffering any
damage;
d. reduction of the structure damage level, having the action taken place;
e. mitigation of the collapse consequences (mitigation).
Strategies a, b, and e are non-structural measures: they can be effectively adopted in
case of accidental actions.
Strategies c and d are structural measures: the first one refers to a nominal behaviour,
while the second one allows local failure and must be based on a robust resistant

system, i.e. an intrinsically redundant resistant system, that is able to develop

alternative load paths.”
Anyway, taking in account single action’s specificity, structural design must be oriented to
the whole resistant system and not only to the sizing and verification of single components.
The requirement of robustness is recalled with respect to the concept of proportionality

between the triggering causes and following effects in terms of resistance performance.
Furthermore, direct methods for robustness design and verification are for the first time
explicitly indicate:
“The robustness requirement must be tested during the design stage by applying
separately the following causes:
a. nominal loads, being these loads arbitrary but significant for the considered
scenario, in order to test the global behaviour: a fraction of loads acting in vertical
direction has to be somehow applied along an horizontal direction; this fraction,
unless otherwise stated by the designer, is assumed equal to 1% for construction
lower than 100 m, to 0.1% for construction higher than 200 m and to an interpolated
percentage for middle heights
b. lack of structural elements, in order to evaluate the consequence of their loss

regardless of the cause, so that critical elements can be identified.”
Among the general purposes of the structural analysis, the assessment of the extreme values
of structural response and sensibility, is pointed out.
“Structural analysis has to develop an investigation of structural response to the

accounted actions, which allow qualitative as well as quantitative evaluation, taking
into account the uncertainty due to:
a. different fundamental assumption (working hypotheses);
b. various models and various parameters, settled on modelling of pertaining actions;

according to a strategy, pursuing the two following general purposes:
a. demarcation of the extremal values of the structural response;
b. identification of structural response sensitivity.”
With respect to the assessment of the sensibility of the structural response particularly, in
the section devoted to non accidental actions (i.e. environmental and natural actions), the
need for particular analysis is highlighted: these analysis should in fact account not only for
the nominal, perfect configuration, but also for imperfections or ruptures in symmetry or
localized damages.

“In order to outline the trigger of mechanisms or instability as well as sensitivity of

structural response, the designer is in charge to identify:
a. occurrences which introduce perturbation or imperfections in the structural scheme;
b. unsymmetrical load positioning.”
As already mentioned, in addition to this prescriptions, specific strategies such as

compartmentalization and alternate load paths are clearly indicated.
“Among all construction types, the requirement of robustness is particularly demanding
for buildings, due to the great number of occupying people and to the disparate activity
taking place in there, being furthermore this activities often neither organized nor
controlled.
For this purpose buildings must be designed so that the principal structural system were
able to withstand local damages without entirely collapsing; building must undergo
proportionate deteriorations of resistance performance referring to the triggering
cause.
This requirement must be achieved by means of a structural element organization,

which is able to preserve resistance and stability of the principal structural system by
allowing a transmission of the action from a certain damaged area to the next ones: this
goal can be achieved providing the component parts of the building with enough
continuity, static indeterminacy level, ductility. By these means, the damage diffusion
from a limited area of the structure to a significant part of it or even to the whole system
must be avoided. This modality of collapse, referred to as progressive collapse, and
more generally the propagation of damage can be prevented also by means of a proper
compartmentalization of the structural system.”
The particular significance of prescriptions and recommendations of the Testo Unitario

results more evident when compared with the already mentioned EC 1-1-7, where risk
analysis is advised just in case of particular structures, where the consequence of a collapse
are reputed more severe. Besides, the wide space devoted by T 14/09/2005 to structural
robustness remarks the need for a responsible design of this requirement, which is gaining
always more space in codes and regulations as well as an established consensus among
structural engineers and society.
The updating of the mentioned regulation in 2008 cancelled unfortunately the majority of
the mentioned reference to robustness. In the new version of the Italian code [NTC 2008]
only the explicit reference to the verification of robustness among the other limit states is
left, together with the prescription of verifying the global behaviour of the structure by
considering conventional nominal actions:

“During the design phase, the robustness of the construction has to be checked by using
conventional nominal loads in addition to the usual explicit actions (excluding seismic
and wind actions).In order to verify the global behaviour of the construction, the loads
have to be applied along two orthogonal horizontal directions in the amount of 1% of
the system vertical loads”.
Some references to the methods for achieving robustness are done for different typology of
constructions. Some more detailed references are made for timber:
“The structural robustness requirements, mentioned in sections §§ 2.1 e 3.1.1 can be
also achieved by adopting proper design choice and adequate design measures, which,
in case of timber elements, should at least concern:
a. the protection of the structure and of its component elements against moistness;
b. the use of intrinsic ductile ties or binding systems with a ductile behaviour;
c. the exploitation of composite elements with a ductile global behaviour;
d. the reduction of timber zones which are stressed in tension orthogonally to the fiber
direction. The reduction apply especially if shear stresses are also present (like in
case of carvings) and, generally, when high level of moistness are to be considered
in the element during its service life.”

4 STRATEGIES AND METHODS FOR STRUCTURAL

INTEGRITY
4.1 PREVENTION OR PRESUMPTION

A quite controversial qualitative definition of robustness can be inferred by the comparison
of the previous regulations: as already mentioned before, the main difference consist in
considering robustness an intrinsic characteristic of the system (like in the new German
guidelines) or a property that describe the structural integrity (or collapse resistance) of the
construction against accidental actions (like in American regulation). In this last case, the
structural robustness is the final requirement to be obtained. According to the first definition
instead, which is followed in this work, it is just a mean to achieve a good level of structural
integrity, that directly invest the structural and design choices.
In this case, not all the structures can be required to be clearly robust. Depending on the
importance and exposure of the structures, the collapse resistance of a structure can be also
committed to other measures and properties, which don’t modify its intrinsic susceptibility
to progressive collapse but can nevertheless assure an adequate behaviour against some
accidental actions.
Prevention Presumption
Structural Specific
no yes avoided performed
measures analyses
Event control Invulnerability Indirect design Direct design

FAILURE FAULT
No hazards Hazards don’t Critical
Effects are event
can occur cause failure irrelevant modeled
uncertain
Bottom-up Top-down
? methods methods
SECURITY INVULNERABILITY Collapse

Unaccounted
resistance *
occurs
Behavior following
other hazards
remains unknown
Progressive
collapse Structural
?
susceptibility robustness
after Starossek
* and Wolff, 2005
Fig. 17: Strategies and methods for structural integrity

The first choice for the achievement of structural integrity concerns the engagement of a
strategy of prevention or presumption of the structural failures. As discussed in the previous
sections, the first strategies leads to the reduction of the structural vulnerability or the
improvement of structural security (requirement which is better defined in the following),
depending respectively, on the adoption of structural measures or not The undertake of
second strategy instead contemplates only structural measures but require also an early
choice in the approach to be followed, i.e. the use of direct or indirect design methods,
which are describes and discussed in the following g section.
4.1.1 Direct and indirect methods

What distinguishes the direct and indirect design approaches above mentioned is the
decision to undertake or , respectively, to avoid, specific structural investigations aimed at
identifying the response of the system to the considered failure. Both the direct and direct
approaches are aimed at avoiding a propagation of the initial damage, since in both cases it
is assumed, that the structure will be affected by the accidental action and that it will cause
at least a local failure.
Strategies and methods

INDIRECT METHOD DIRECT METHOD
all those measures that, without investigation aimed to identify the structure behavior after the
requiring any specific occurrence of failure or a critical event
investigation, are aimed to
provide the structure with an high
level of: Deductive Inductive
critical event is modeled critical event is irrelevant
resistance
Æ invulnerability T B
O O
connection T
P
Æ load redistribution T
D O
ductility O M
Æ energy dissipation W Identification of failures at Identification of failures at
meso-level micro level U
N
no specific investigations
(intermediate components) (basic components) P
are required but the efficacy FTA: Fault Tree Analysis FMEA: Failure, Mode and
is not granted Effect Analysis
FMECA: Failure Mode, Effect
and Criticity Analysis
Fig. 18: Direct and indirect methods
a. Direct measures
The structural behaviour under damaged condition is investigates. To this aim, some
assumptions have to be made concerning the modality of the analysis to be performed and

particularly, it has to be decided whether modelling or not the damage cause. If the action or
event producing the local failure is modelled, a deductive procedure is followed and a top-
down investigation is performed on the structure. If the study is made independent from the
failure-triggering cause, an inductive procedure and a bottom-up investigation is performed
on the structure, which identify the damage at low hierarchical level (e.g. composing
elements or sections, joints and connections, functional parts) and study directly the safety
and the performances of the damaged configuration. Particularly:
a. in a top-down investigation, the critical event has to be modelled (a collision between a

ship and a bridge pier, the explosion of a bomb in a building, the detachment of some
bridge hangers from the collars that tie them to the main cables) and the following
structural response has to be evaluated;
b. in a bottom-up investigation, the particular triggering cause is set aside and the
investigation proceeds from the lowest hierarchical structural level to the higher ones,
e.g. the consequences due to the failure of an element on the rest of the structure are
identified.
Referring to the top-down method, the assumption of possible accidental actions or critical
scenarios that can endanger the structure seems feasible just for some particular structural
typologies: e.g. bridges are prone to collisions on the pylon by ships or floating objects; tall
buildings had been more than was impacted by plans, embassy or military buildings are
exposed to explosions that can affect the main columns or to fires malevolently set in a
restricted area of the building. In these cases, the event modelling seems feasible, using
proper load scenarios to simulate the accidental action (impact, explosion etc.) and directly
verifying the structural response by means of a top-down investigation that follows the
propagation of ruptures from the highest hierarchical levels to the lowest ones.
In other cases instead, a clear identification of the damage causes seems less feasible: let
think for instance to human errors during the design phase or the execution of the work.
This difficulty has often induced to completely neglect the study of structural integrity.
Contrarily, an inductive approach, as above mentioned, provides information on the

structural behaviour not only against a particular defined event, but on the intrinsic
robustness of the system.
The clear identification of the design objective inherent to the direct design (both in cases of
a direct or indirect approach) makes it preferable for a performance-based design.
Nevertheless the onus of the investigations required (which are quite complex ones, having
to account for large displacements and deformations, dynamic actions, nonlinear behaviour

of materials and possible development of local mechanism) has lead hitherto to prefer
instead the indirect approach further described.
b. Indirect measures
If an indirect design approach is followed, the structure has to be provided with an high
level of resistance, static indeterminacy and ductility, in order to allow for a good load
redistribution on the elements adjacent to the failed ones (structural redundancy).
Indirect measures, prescinding from specific analyses, are prone to be easily included in a
prescriptive set of code rules. Being independent from the critical event and from the type of
triggered local damage, they are also called “multi-objective measures”, since they can
generally be helpful also in case of other menaces or design problems, like, for instance
earthquakes, wind and other dynamic actions.
The major limit of an indirect design consists in the fact that the structural response to the
accidental action remains unknown. Without a specific structural investigations the promise
to maintain a localized damage under different possible conditions and accidents seems to
be in fact unfeasible. Furthermore, the high level of structural connection which is provided
in the structure (with this term meaning the continuity between the elements and the grade
of internal constraints) can prove to be not only ineffective but in some cases even harmful.
This aspect, already observed during some controlled demolitions of buildings [MMC 2005]
is better discussed in the following section and taken up in the last part of the work.
4.1.1.1 Redundancy and compartmentalization

The structural redundancy is undoubtedly one of the more effective design strategy to
pursue the resistance of a structure to the collapse: in fig.20 the case of two systems (a plane
and a tall building) are shown, in which the initial damage caused by accidental events
remained localised, thanks to their intrinsic redundant systems, which permitted. The effect
of system redundancy can be exemplified at an elementary level by the analogy with a road
network graph, like the one represented in fig. 19, where the failure of an arc can be
bypassed through the engagement of other arcs connecting the same nodes.
A prerequisite of structural redundancy is clearly the static indeterminacy of the system,
which is not though a guarantee for it: static indeterminacy can be imputed either to an high
number of elements or to a tight connection between them (continuity). It depends
obviously also on the grade of external restraints, which is though quite difficult to improve
in civil constructions. However, while it appears obvious that a reduction of the external
restraints of a system is generally detrimental for the structural robustness, is not that easy to
understand the role played by the other two above mentioned factors of static
indeterminacy, as also shown by some application presented in the third part of this work.

The role played by structural continuity seems particularly controversial: as a matter of fact,
favouring the stress redistribution from the failed elements to the adjacent ones, it allows the
load to develop alternative paths to reach the ground. On the other side though, an high level
of structural continuity can be also responsible of the propagation of ruptures, in case the
elements adjoining the failed ones are not resistant enough to bear the high stressed
transmitted to them. It is not to be expected all the elements to be provided with the required
resistance to resist any stress transmission, since it depends on the entity of the initial
damage and cannot be ensured therefore in all circumstances. Under exceptionally high
stresses then the failure would propagate through the most connected elements, causing a
great portion of the structure to collapse. This particular aspect was already highlighted in
the report of the [MMC 2005] and presented in the previous section of this part of the work.
With regards to this consideration, an alternative strategy to redundancy can be identified,
that is aimed to create some structural compartments, where the stress concentration and the
propagation of rupture have to be contained. This concept is somewhat opposite to that of
stress redistribution: by compartmentalizing a structure, a concentration of the stress
increments is sought, in order to obtain also a localization of ruptures. The sharp loss of a
restricted area prevent the adjacent element to fail too. The strategies is exemplified in the
figure below, by means of an analogy with the fusible protection inserted in a electric
circuit, where the transit of a too intense current is inhibited by the rupture of the fusible that
interrupts the circuit.
The isolation of structural parts can be obtained by a strengthening or a reduction of
continuity at the limit of the compartmentalized sections. In fig. 20 two example of
localized collapse are shown, in which the compartmentalization of a plane and of a
building was obtained, by means of a strengthening and a reduction of continuity
respectively.
fusible
b c alternate protection
2 path
1 4
3
5
a g d +
2 6 -
9
7 R
8
f e
Fig. 19: Redundant road network and fusible-protected electric circuit.

Fig. 20: Structural integrity achieved by redundancy (above) or compartmentalization (below).

In this respect, [Starossek, 2006] proposed the approach of “isolation by

compartmentalization”, where a local reduction of the static indeterminacy is required in the
system, in order to arrest at those points the transmission of stresses: by means of the
insertion of hinges or breaking joint in predetermined sections, the structural continuity is
interrupted. That allows an earlier separation of collapsing sections from the rest of the
structure and avoids the propagation of failure, that remains bounded in a limited area.
The low local level of static indeterminacy might trigger a local mechanism following the
loss of one or more elements. This mechanism dissipates some energy through the
movement and assures the prevention of stress transmission, but it could also determines the
impact of moving elements on the structural parts below. However, being in most of the
cases the type of developing mechanism known, it is possible to design the structure in
order to avoid or sustain those collisions, since in this case they are a few and well
determined number.
It has to be emphasized that the extent of the resulting damage is generally known in
advance, since it is predetermined by adopting a proper static schema. This represents the
main strong point of the method but also its strong limit, since the sharp loss of the damaged
area occurs also for a quite low damage of the initial damage, i.e. the improve of system
robustness is often achieved at the expenses of the vulnerability of the structure. On the
contrary, the alternate paths strategy seems to perform very well for relative low damage
entities, when a good redistribution of stresses maintains the damage completely confined to
the initial damaged zone, but it cause instead the structure to collapse in a bad way, when
damage propagation cannot be avoided.
The strategy of compartmentalization, hitherto scarcely considered in regulations, has been
for the first time indicated by the recent Italian code [T.U. 2005], together with that one of
redundancy, as an effective measure to prevent progressive collapses.
4.2 STRUCTURAL DEPENDABILITY

The dependability of a system can be synthetically defined as the grade of confidence on the
safety and on the performance of a structural system. This is a qualitative definition that
comprehensively accounts for several properties, which, even if interconnected, can be
examined individually. Adapting the conceptual organization outline conceived for the
electronic and systems engineering field [Avizienis et al. 2004] to the one of constructions,
the structural dependability can be described by dividing it in three different conceptual
blocks: the first group concerns the properties that a dependable structure should posses,
that are referred as dependability attributes; the second group concerns the external or
internal threats that can mine the dependability of the structure; the third group eventually

includes the dependability means, i.e. the strategies and methods that can be followed in
order to achieve and maintain a dependable system.
ATTRIBUTES THREATS MEANS
Safety Serviceability Faults Errors Failures Fault prevention Failure prevention

Availability
Integrity Reliability Security - Environmental - Design
Maintainability - Execution
Robustness Tolerance
Collapse
- Intentional - Use Fault presumption Failure presumption
resistance Survivability
INTRINSIC EXTERNAL Prevention Presumption

Reliability Damage
tolerance fault failure fault failure
physical Faults
Structural Damage Invulne- Collapse Structural
Robustness THREATS Security
integrity or error Failures rability resistance robustness
logical Errors Unaccounted

Collapse Behavior
Security Progressive collapse following Localized
resistance
DESIGN EXECUTION susceptibility other hazards? damage
Fig. 21: Dependability main components and their logical interrelation.
4.2.1 Dependability attributes

Speaking of dependability attributes for a construction, it seems suitable for a structure to
divide these attributes in two groups, the first one relate to safety and the second one related
to the serviceability performances of the structural system.
4.2.1.1 Safety- based attributes of dependability

As discussed in the introduction of this work, the first problem on safety of structures arises
from the definition of the term safety itself, that is either referred to the safety of people
[SIA260] or to the structural integrity of the building [ISO 2394]. It results evident as the
achievement of such different goals, the first aimed to avoid the people injuries, the second
one focused on the structural behaviour of the civil work, requires to pursue completely
different means for the design conception.
In this work the term structural safety has been counterpoised to that one of risk. Assuring
the safety of a structure is intended therefore as the ability of providing service with an
acceptable level of risk. It’s important to repeat though, that a probabilistic definition of the
safety requirement cannot be sufficient to deal with very rare accidental circumstances with
a very high potential damaging capability (commonly referred as low probability/high
consequence event), like accidental explosions or malevolent attacks or extreme natural
disaster, being difficult to define and compute an accepted risk level in those cases. It
appears therefore suitable to refer then to the more comprehensive concept of structural
dependability and define a set of attributes related to the safety requirement for a
dependable system, that are in the following itemized and discussed:

Integrity: the attribute is referred to the absence of structural failure. This attribute
concerns therefore the structural state, in the sense that the maximum grade of structural
integrity is related to the nominal configuration of the structure, i.e. the undamaged one.
Most recent code and regulations [TU 2005] explicitly require to consider the structure in
the design phases not only in its nominal integer configuration, but also in a damaged
one, where a lack of structural elements can for any reason reduce the integrity level of
the system. It seems in fact not feasible to provide the structure of the ability to undergo
extreme accidental actions without suffering any damage. The strategy of structural
invulnerability would spare the onus of considering different level of structural integrity,
but it proves to be too much uneconomic considering that it refers to critical but very rare
events.
Reliability: the attribute is defined as the grade of confidence on the structure with
respect to environmental or human actions. It can be referred to a single element as well
as to a part or to the whole structural system. The attributes refers to the normal use of the
construction and can be therefore intended in a probabilistic way.
Security: the term is commonly intended as the vigilance and surveillance system. Here
it is instead more generally referred to the grade of confidence on the structure with
respect to malevolent (intentional) attacks. The security level of a construction can be in
this view enhanced also by means of non structural measures, like choosing a secure
location for the construction or providing it with vigilance or a proper escape system.
Damage tolerance: the term has to be referred to the ability of the structure to absorb,
continuously in time, local damage of small entity, such as those due to material
degradation or corrosion.
Collapse resistance: the attribute indicates the capacity of the structure to undergo
specific events of significant entity, with the whole system remaining stable
[Starossek&Wolff 2005]. It refers to the behaviour of the structure against a particular
critical event (such as an impact or an explosion). The structure can be designed for
single accidental circumstance: specific countermeasures can be adopted and calibrated
on the assumption of that particular fault event (top-down method); thus, this attribute
depends not directly on the structural system organization, but it is strongly influenced by
the actions involved in the considered accident.
Robustness: the attribute refers to the ability of the system not to propagate an initial
damage caused by a critical event. In a robust structure the damage remains bounded in a
limited portion of the structure and the entity of the collapse is proportional to the initial
failed elements directly affected by the accidental actions.

The conceptual organization of the attributes related to the structural safety is illustrated by
means of the flowchart at the left side of fig. 21: it is shown how a robust structure, being
this requirement referred to an intrinsic ability of the structural system to localize the
damage, is also damage tolerant and resistant to collapse, while the opposite cannot be
guaranteed.
4.2.1.2 Serviceability-based attributes of dependability

With respect to the serviceability performance of the structure, intended as the ability to
provide suitable service, the following attributes can be considered:
Availability: it is intended as readiness for correct serviceability. This is a very important

property for structures with varied serviceability levels (e.g. a long span bridge).
Maintainability: it is the ability to undergo repairs and modifications. Can be intended
as the ease taken for the maintenance, to be performed in accordance with prescribed
requirements
Survivability: it is intended as the ability of the structural system to provide basic
services in presence of a failure. It is particularly important for critical infrastructures and
for special structures such as military constructions, power generation plants, etc.
The attributes above mentioned are non exhaustive since the dependability provisions are
referred to a system in operation, i.e. are related to the function each structural system is
meant for.
4.2.2 Dependability threats

The threats for system dependability can be sub-divided into three main sub-sets, whose
logical organization is shown in the central flowchart of figure 21:
Faults: with this term all physical threats are intended, that may or may not cause a
structural failure. They can be divided in two groups: the first one includes the external
fault, by this term meaning extreme environmental action or natural disaster as well as
accidental or intentional explosion, impact and attacks; the second groups includes
instead the intrinsic defects of the structure, like for example a crack in a concrete beam,
that doesn’t normally represent a structural problem, until non conventional loads
scenarios occur.
Errors: this term is here referred to the logical threats, i.e. the human errors in the
design, construction and life-cycle. In the case of error, the system is in an incorrect state
(potentially dangerous), that may or may not cause failure, e.g. when coupled with a fault
event such as earthquake or intense wind.

Failures: failures are intended as the manifestation of an error or a fault. In the case of a
failure, the service that the system offers deviates from compliance with the system
specifications. Furthermore, it has to be considered that a failure in a non robust structure,
even when localized, can lead to the failure of adjacent elements, overloaded by the force
redistribution caused by that failure or impacted during the collapse of the fist failed
elements. This can lead to a progressive collapse that involves a major part of the
structure.
4.2.3 Dependability means

The means for dependability assurance embrace different strategies and methods.
Particularly, it seems useful to distinguish between the prevention and the presumption of
the possible threats. In the first case the aim is to avoid the occurrence of threats that may
cause damage in the structure, in the second case instead these threats are assumed possible
and the consequences on the structure are investigated. Depending on which of the
following distinguished means are considered, different dependability attributes are
primarily achieved (right flowchart in fig. 21):
Fault or error prevention: aimed at preventing the occurrence of critical events, without
directly investigating the structural is of a building far from the street or providing for
surveillance systems such as alarm and security service to prevent risk of terrorist
attacks). In this way the probability of occurrence of a critical event (very low in the first
place actually) is reduced, but the consequence of such a fault are not investigated. The
limit of a strategy based exclusively on prevention are self evident, since it is not feasible
to prevent all possible critical events and particularly the prevention of introduction of
errors seems to be unrealistic.
Failure prevention: aimed at preventing a structural failure in consequence of the
occurrence of a fault or error, i.e. the structure should possess enough protection or
resistance to withstand the occurrence of any potentially damaging event. This can be
achieved either by means of non structural measure like protection barriers on exposed
structural elements or even with structural measures, aimed at enhancing the resistance of
the whole structure, e.g. with an element over-sizing. It is important to point out that the
invulnerability of a structure doesn’t necessarily imply that it is also robust, since this
requirement refers directly to the behaviour of the structure in consequence of a structural
failure. As long as the static system remains unmodified, disproportionate consequences
of such an occurrence are not limited, being the possible susceptibility of the structure to
progressive collapse not eliminated.
Fault or error presumption: this strategy is not focused on avoiding the occurrence of
fault but it is aimed at reducing the severity of damage, by directly assuming the

occurrence of a fault or error. In this case the consequence of such an occurrence are
directly sought by means of top-down methods, that start from modelling the fault or the
error and avail specific investigation to highlight the response of the structure. Aim of
this mean is the achievement of a collapse-resistant structural system. It has to be
emphasizing that the modelling and the analyses required by such studies are quite
onerous; such studies seem therefore feasible only for particularly important or strategic
construction or complex structural system.
Failure presumption: this mean is aimed to provide the structure of a sufficient
robustness to suffer limited damage in consequence of structural failure. The failures are
then assumed possible to occur, independently by the causes that have determined them;
direct investigations on the structure have to be performed, that start from a damage that
involves the lowest hierarchical levels and studies the effects on the higher ones,
eventually determining the response of the overall structure (bottom-up methods).
Contrary to a top-down investigation, which can provide information on the structure
insensitivity just limited to a particular accidental situation, this approach could instead
supply information on the robustness degree of the structure, provided that a sufficient
number of failures are considered. Being this number usually very large, also in this case
the onus of such analyses is considerable, but it can be justified for some particular
construction, like the long suspension bridge presented in the following, whose unusual
characteristics could make the structural system susceptible of progressive collapse.
4.3 ROBUSTNESS EVALUATION: A PROPOSED APPROACH

A proposed method for a quantitative evaluation of the robustness considers the ultimate
resistance as a parameter for the structural performance and the number of failed elements
as a parameter for the damage level. For each damage degree all possible structural
configurations corresponding to the combinations of removed elements in the structure are
investigated by means of an incremental static analysis and the maximum and minimum of
ultimate resistance are stored, giving origin to the two curves showed in the graph above,
that provides a lower and upper bound of the structure robustness. The method, presented
for the first time in [Bolognesi 2000], has been further developed in this work, as better
explained and discussed in the following. In the third part of the work then, some robustness
evaluations of simple structural systems are presented, that exploit the implementation of an
algorithm based on this method.
4.3.1 Determination of robustness curves

In the previous section the concept of robustness was introduced as a structural requirement
that can indicate the ability of a structure to preserve a certain level of structural integrity

after a failure. Within a robust structure the damage is bounded and failures and has a
limited propagation, i.e. the entity of final collapse is proportional to the amplitude of the
initial damage determined directly by the accidental action. Analytically that means that the
ratio between the resistance decrement ΔR and the increment in the entity of the damage Δd
must be upper bounded:
ΔR
Robust structure ⇔ < L Eq. 10
Δd
where L is the maximal “acceptable” level.
In a performance-based design the value L of the admissible decrement of resistance for a

given increment of damage remains to be quantified by design objective. It clearly depends
on the significance of the structure with regard to the consequences of a collapse and on the
structure degree of exposure to hazard, natural disaster or terrorist attacks.
To provide a quantitative evaluation of robustness, the damage has also to be quantified: the
extent of damage can be measured by computing the number of failed elements. Such a
number is referred as the “damage degree” of the structural configuration.
A method for an analytic quantitative definition of the robustness employing the damage
degree is provided, by performing a nonlinear static analysis on the integer structure first
and on the structure exhibiting different degrees of damage successively (i.e. removing
elements from the integer structure). For each damage degree all possible combinations of
removed elements on the structure should be considered and a maximum and minimum load
factor can be extrapolated, providing as result two curves that are a measure of the structure
robustness. This method can be qualitatively summarized in the following procedure, also
represented in fig. 22:
1. A load distribution is identified over a structure composed by E elements and a

maximum damage level D is assumed for the system. The current damage level d is at
first posed equal to zero (undamaged structure);
2. All the possible structural configurations Cd, resulting from the combinations of
removed elements related to the considered damage level d are identified (e.g. C0 = 1
corresponding to the intact structure; C1 = E corresponding to the removal of each
element). In general, for a given level of damage d:
E!
Cd = Eq. 11
d!×(E − d )!

3. By means of a push-over analysis the ultimate resistance is identified (provided by the

load factor that develop a mechanism in the structure) for each structural configuration
having the considered damage level.
4. The maximum and the minimum value of these load factors are extrapolated.
5. The damage level is incremented of one unit and the procedure is repeated from point 2,
unless the maximum admitted value for the damage level is exceeded.
6. In this case all possible combinations have been analyzed and by means of the couple of
the minimum and maximum load factors corresponding to each damage level, two
slopes can be extrapolated, representing the robustness response of the structure.
ROBUSTNESS CURVES Maxima and minima enveloping curves

λ
START
d : damage level
i : structural configuration
λu: ultimate load multiplier
N : # of combinations
D : maximum damage level
d := 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 d
i := 1 Individuation of N Push-over analysis
λu,id
SI λud MAX Max {λu,id} NO SI
d := d +1 d<D i := i +1
Min {λu,i
i<N
λud MIN d}
NO
Curve of maxima
Curve of minima END
Fig. 22: Robustness evaluation chart and resulting structural response slopes.
By performing the analysis, particular attention has to be paid to local mechanisms possibly
developed, as well as to the choice of the load to be incremented. A distributed weight over
each elements should be to preferred, since it doesn’t require to replace point forces
whenever a loaded element is removed.
Another important parameter is the maximum damage level D, generally lower or at the
most equal to the number of element E. The number of the analysis to be performed
corresponds to all combinations of all the damage levels considered, that is:

D D E!
C = ∑ Cd = ∑ Eq. 12
d =0 d =0 d!×(E − d )!
When D is assumed equal to E (being conventionally the resistance of the null structure
equal to zero), the number C of all the possible combinations to be analyzed results
particularly simple to be expressed. This can be easily understood by ordering the elements
in a string with E positions, where the value 0 or 1 in each position respectively indicates
the absence or the presence of the element. The number of all possible strings is known by
the laws of the combinatory calculus to be:
E
D := E ⇒ C = ∑ C d = 2 E Eq. 13
d =0
This number increases exponentially with the complexity of the structure (number of
composing elements) and even for usual structure the number of all the possible
combinations is too large to allow an exhaustive analysis of all the configurations. For this
purpose, optimising algorithms have been developed in order to identify the most significant
combinations, as explained in detail in the second part of the work.
4.3.2 Identification of critical elements

Even if onerous in terms of iterations, the procedure is relatively simple and allows
significant considerations: in the design phase, several alternative solutions, referring to the
structure damage sensitivity to initial failures, can be analysed. The choice among them can
be easily solved in favour of the less sensitive one, by comparing the corresponding
robustness slopes.
Furthermore it has to be emphasized that, by the observation of the lowest slope, a clear
identification of critical elements is possible, by this term meaning those elements whose
failure implies an abrupt decrement in the resistance offered by the structure. By the
analysis of these critical combinations, it is possible to reconstruct events that could induce
such a damage. Vice versa it is also possible to identify some modification in the design of
these elements or of the system that would significantly increase its robustness.
4.3.3 Raison d’être of the assumptions
4.3.3.1 Resistance
The first assumption of this method concerns the parameter chosen for representing the
performance and the degradation of the quality of a structure, when the damage becomes
more significant. Several parameter could be used, as the stiffness of the structure or the
structural ductility or other properties related to displacement parameters. However, these

indicators are often too less sensitive to damage or not enough representative of the
structural behaviour [Biondini&Restelli, 2008]. The ultimate resistance is instead an
expressive measure of the structural capacity, that posses enough expressivity and
sensibility to damage. Furthermore, considering that the method avail do not avail dynamic
investigations, it seems more sensible to address the structural performances to the capacity
response, being this parameter directly obtainable as a result of a static analysis.
4.3.3.2 Element damage level

As widely discussed in the previous sections, a quite general consensus can be found on the
need of distinguishing the robustness of a structure with the ability to undergo a determined
critical event. Hence a bottom-up method has been advisedly preferred for the quantification
of structural robustness, that disregards the cause that originated that failure. Therefore a
starting hierarchical level needs to be assumed, in order to obtain a discretization of the
damage degree and it seems more sensible to identify it at the level of elements rather than
at a sectional level.
This assumption is substantiated with many reasons: the first one starts from the
consideration that the robustness of a structure is a property that involves the behaviour of
the whole structural system. In the usual ULS verifications, the safety of an element is
obtained by the verifications carried out at a sectional level. Similarly, the verification of a
section pleads the analysis of its fibres. A too localized initial damage would seem therefore
to be inconsistent with the other verification and with the common engineering practice.
Furthermore it would require a significantly bigger calculus onus that doesn’t seem to be
justified from a clear improvement in the expressivity of the robustness curves.
The investigation of the structural robustness is a quite arduous task, that need to be kept as
simplest as possible also in consideration of the result interpretability and of the need to
promote the acceptance of the method.
Eventually, a clear identification of the critical elements could not be provided anymore,
neither an abrupt resistance decrement would similarly represent a critical section, since the
damage level would no more be bounded with physical entities.
4.3.3.3 Scaling and calibration

It’s important to point out that, referring to the applications presented in the followings and
concerning the definition of all the indicators further propose, the ultimate resistance
considered for each damage level is scaled with respect to that of the nominal configuration,
i.e. the abscissa of the point obtained goes from a maximum of 1 corresponding to the
undamaged configuration to a minimum of 0 for the null configuration.

Rd R d = ult. res. for damage level d

rd = , where : Eq. 14
R0 R 0 = ult. res. of nominal config.
The reason for this scaling consists in the need of prescinding from the absolute nominal
capacity of the structure in the robustness evaluation, so that comparing two structures, the
biggest one would not always be the most robust too.
Conversely, a scaling of the abscissa has not been a-priori performed and it is discussed for
the definition of some robustness indicator proposed in the following. This choice can be
argued since structure with more elements could be favoured from the point of view of a
robustness assessment. Different solution for this problem have been considered and tested,
that are reported in the following.
This choice derives directly from the assumption of bounding the considered damage degree
at the level of elements in the structural hierarchy, assumption that has been widely
motivated in the previous section. On this premise, the number of total elements in the
structure counts also as absolute value for the structural robustness: in a structures with a
very large number of elements the failure of just one of them represent as a matter of fact a
minor event, that consistently leads to a more robust behaviour with respect to a structure in
which the same element has failed over an inconspicuous number of total elements. If a
scaling on the number of total elements would be performed, the response of the two
structure when one element is removed would be no more directly comparable.
a. Scaling by the total number of elements
This method of regularization is based on the scaling of damage level. In this case the
damage level will be divided by the total number of elements. In this way a structure with 9
elements that can suffer the loss of 3 of them remaining stable, will be not disadvantaged in
respect to a structure with 21 elements that can suffer the loss of 7 of them. That means, by
this scaling the relative damage entities will be considered and the number of element will
no more count as an absolute value. Still each element will count the same not depending on
his volume or area section. This aspect is better treated in the following section.
b. Scaling with respect to the element section
Let consider a multy-storey frame structure with 3 spans. According to the proposed
robustness quantification, the critical elements can be identified at glance as the 4 columns
of the first floor. It’s self evident that a failure of one these columns would have greater
consequence that the loss of one beam span for example and also that in the worst case, the
failure of just 4 elements is sufficient to drop the resistance to zero.
If the sections of these columns are incremented, the new structure can prove to be more or
less robust: changing the stiffness ratio between the different element, the modality of

collapse can also change and consequently also the form of the robustness curves and
indexes. So, for some force direction, the reinforcement of some elements could favour a
bigger force redistribution on other elements and lead to a plasticization of more sections
before a mechanism is triggered.
If a scaling of the damage level is performed on the basis of sectional dimension though, the
robustness of the second structures would be also favoured from the fact that a damage
increment of one would not imply the failure of one column, but just of a part of it,
contrarily to the case of original structure. Being the resistance referred to the nominal
value, the new structure would prove probably to be more robust of the original one even in
case of an unfavourable stiffness redistribution that triggers, as example, a local mechanism
and strongly reduces the structure capacity for subsequent damage levels.
In this way, the topological significance of the structural organization in the robustness
assessment would be loss in favour of the material quantity. The toughness provided by
incrementing the column sections should instead only influence the vulnerability of the
structure and its collapse resistance, due to an higher specific local resistance, but should not
directly affects its robustness.
4.3.4 Possible robustness indicators

In order to compare different solutions and evaluate the robustness level of the structure, a
quantitative indicator should be identified. From the observation of the curves obtained,
several parameters can be extrapolated, that are presented and discussed in the following.
Unfortunately, a unique indicator, capable of expressing all aspects of robustness could not
be identified and a number of indicators is proposed instead, each one referring to a
particular aspect of robustness. These indicators are meant to be jointly considered in a
robustness quantitative evaluation. Furthermore, being the robustness response bounded
between two curves, two different value of these indicators have to be considered,
depending on the curve which they are referred to, as better explained in the following
section.
a. Maximum secant inclination

The proposed first indicator considers the maximum value of inclination of all the secant
lines connecting the point of the curve related to the undamaged structure with the point of
the curve pertaining to subsequent damage levels. In this case most importance is given to
the absolute decrement of resistance, i.e. the decrement of resistance referred to the
undamaged conditions, both in case of the best response (curve of maxima) or in case of the
worst response (curve of minima).

In the fig.23 (top-left) the secant with the highest inclination is the first one, but hopefully
not many common structures would show the highest decrement of resistance for the first
damage level. According to the index measured though, the later an abrupt decrement in the
resistance occurs, the less it affects the structural robustness, being the inclination of the
secant mitigated by the absolute increment in the damage level (i.e. referred to the origin).
λ a λ b
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 d 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 d
λ λ
c d
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 d 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 d
a. Maximum inclination of all the secant lines λ e

that connect the first point of the curves
with the points pertaining to greater
damage levels.
⎧1 − r ( d ) ⎫
I a = max ⎨ ⎬ , ∀ 1 ≤ d ≤ D → 1 ≤ I a≤ E
⎩ d/E ⎭
DLOW DUP
b. Highest variation of secant lines between
two subsequent points (critical elements
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 d
are most relevant)
⎧ (r ( d − 1 ) − r ( d ) ) − (r ( d ) − r ( d + 1 ) ) ⎫
I b = max ⎨ ⎬ .∀ 1 ≤ i ≤ D ← (linear) 0 ≤ I b ≤ 0.5 (isostatic )
⎩ 2 ⎭
c. Area subtended by the curve of minima weighted by the difference between that area and
the area subtended from the curve of maxima (representing the scattering)
D
{ [
I c = ∑ r low ( d ) + k ⋅ r up ( d ) − r low (d )
d =0
]} , 0 ≤ k ≤1 ← 1 + k ≤ I c ≤ (1 + k) ⋅ E
d. Scattering from linear trend, calculated as the area subtended between the curves and the
straight line that connect the point of the integer structure with that one of the null one.
D ⎡ ⎛ d ⎞⎤
I d = ∑ ⎢ r (d ) − ⎜1 − ⎟ ⎥ ← - E ≤ Id ≤ E
d =0 ⎣ ⎝ E ⎠⎦ 2 2
e. Upper and lower bound for maximal damage that makes the structure unstable
I e = D low + k ⋅ D up , where : 0 < k < 1 and 1 ≤ D low ≤ D up ≤ E → 0 < I e < (1 + k ) ⋅ E
Fig. 23: Indicators proposed for the quantitative evaluation of robustness.

This property is consistent with the definition of robustness, that is focused on the
proportionality between the loss of quality of a structure and the damage entity that it should
suffer.
This parameter is the most simple and lend itself to be easily used in the engineering
practice, since it is perform-based: having a maximum damage of interest being fixed, the
worst response of the structure within that damage is measured and compared with the
expected performance or with an acceptable value determined as design objective: for
example, considering a two-storey framed building with four span in both directions, it
could be requested that the maximum decrement of resistance corresponding to a failure of
two elements at the most, doesn’t exceed the 40%. On the contrary it seems more difficult to
use this parameter for a quick reference in regulation, since the maximum damage level to
be considered can differ for different structures, as well as the maximum decrement to be
accepted within this damage level.
⎧1 − r (d ) ⎫
Verification : max ⎨ ⎬ ≤ L, ∀ 1 ≤ d ≤ D , L = acceptable value Eq. 15
⎩ d ⎭
Prescinding from the most common case of practice, this parameter can be considered also
from a more theoretical point of view, in case a more extensive investigation of the structure
is of interest or two structure have to be compared in term of robustness: analytically, this
indicator results to be bounded between the value of 1 (less robust structure: it occurs when
a mechanism is developed for the first damage level and the ultimate resistance drops
immediately to zero) and the value of 1/E (most robust structure). The minimum possible
value depends therefore on the number of elements of the structure.
⎧1 − r (d ) ⎫ 1 ≤ Ia ≤ 1
I a = max ⎨ ⎬ , ∀ 1≤ d ≤ D → Eq. 16
⎩ d ⎭ E
As a consequence, two structure, both hypothetically showing a perfect linear decrement of

resistance up to the removal of all elements (D=E), have a different robustness indicator Ia,
when being composed from a different number of elements. Structure with more elements
can be therefore favoured in the robustness assessment, provided that abrupt decrement in
resistance are avoided.
This peculiarity could be easily eliminated by referring the damage level to the maximum
number of element of the structure: in this case the index would be bound between the value
of E (least robust structure possible) and the value of 1 (most robust structure). As further
improvement also the difference in step level could be levelled, by interpolating the

obtained points with two curves and moving in this way from a discrete formulation to a
continuous one.
Nevertheless, the consideration of the role of elements numbers doesn’t appear to be
completely unreasonable, as it is a direct consequence of the choice of damage considered,
that has been bounded at an element level, prescinding from their size or the importance in
the structure. This assumption has been justified in the previous section; here it’s just worth
outlining that avoiding the indicator rescaling, the choice to use more elements or replicate
some of it for robustness purpose, could in some way be accounted (let think for example to
the doubling of bridge cables or hanger or to the redundancy of some bracing system). In
this case though, also the replacement of one big element with two smaller one would count
as element increment with a controversial effect on structural robustness.
b. Highest secant variation
The second proposed indicator consider the highest variation of the secant between two
subsequent points, excluding that one corresponding to the null structure (d=E), as better
explained in the following. Also here some continuous curves can be extrapolated from the
given points and in this case, the indicator assumes the meaning of the point of maximum
slopes.
This indicator is focused on the presence of critical element in the structure, since, as the
previous one, it also indicates an abrupt drop of the resistance. In this case importance is
given to the relative, not absolute, decrement of resistance, i.e. the decrement of resistance
referred not to the undamaged conditions, but to the previous damage level.
⎧ [r (d − 1) − r (d)] − [r (d ) − r (d + 1)] ⎫
I b = max ⎨ ⎬ , ∀ d ≤ D < E → 0 < I b < 0.5 Eq. 17
⎩ 2 ⎭
Again, the less robust structure is the one that becomes unstable by means of the removal of
just one element: for this structure the robust indicator assumes the minimum value of 0.5.
The most robust structure instead is the one that shows a linear decrement in the resistance,
giving raise to the maximum value of 0 for the indicator. Consequently, a structure that has
a concave robustness curve could not be said to be more robust of a structure that has a
linear decrement. This is consistent with the definition of robustness, that do not require
nothing more than a proportionate loss of quality. Contrarily, the concave robustness curve
structure would be less robust, since such a trend differ from a convex one just from the
point, in which a more sharp decrement is shown. In the first case the sharp drop off occurs
quite early (i.e. for the first damage level) and then the resistance level remains almost
constant or decrease very little; in the second case, a good resistance level is maintained at
first, but is abruptly dropped later.

This characteristic represents the main difference in comparison with the previous indicator,
that instead distinguishes the earliness or the lateness of an abrupt decrement in the
robustness trend. As can be seen in the figure below, according to the first indicator Ia
structure B would be considered more robust of structure A, where the sharp drop off occurs
earlier, whereas according to the second indicator Ib, both the structure would be considered
equally robust, being the entity of the decrement the same.
λ λ
Ia(A) > Ia (B)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
d d
λ λ
Ib(A) = Ib (B)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
d d
STRUCTURE A STRUCTURE B
Fig. 24: Comparison between the first and second indicator proposed
As a consequence, the indicator Ib is not directly affected by the number of elements in the
structure and doesn’t need therefore any calibration of the damage levels like the one
mentioned for the indicator Ia (even if the element dimensions will still influence the
indicator, since a removal of a bigger element count the same of a smaller one).
Furthermore this indicator could be easily contemplated in the regulation, by establishing
for each main structural type a maximum acceptable value for this indicator. Again, in case
of a performance-based verification, an exhaustive investigation that considers all the
damage levels can be avoided, by fixing a maximum damage level of interest, and
performed only in order to compare different solutions or in case a deeper investigation of
the structural behaviour is of interest.
It has to be pointed out that in case D = E the last point of the curves (corresponding to the
null structure) has to be excluded from the computation of this index. Without doing this, a
structure that maintains a very good resistance level up to the end and then abruptly drops to

zero when all the element are removed) would not be resistant at all. By disregarding the
last unavoidable drop off, only the previous trend is considered and the structure of the
previous example would be considered as very robust.
c. Subtended area
The third proposed indicator is based on the measure of the area of the histograms or the
area subtended by the curves that interpolate the histograms. The bigger the area subtended
by the minima curve, the more the structure is robust. The difference between the area
subtended by the curve of maxima and the one subtended from the curve of minima is
treated as measure of the exactness of the evaluation., since it represents the scattering
between the worst behaviour (considered for the assessment) and the best one.
The scattering area can be explicitly considered in the index by means of a reducing factor k
that assume values in (0,1). In this way, just one parameter is extrapolated, that accounts for
both the curve of minima and maxima, making the comparison between two structures
easier and immediately interpretable.
D
{ [
I c = ∑ r low (d ) + k ⋅ r up (d ) − r low (d )
d =0
]} , 0 ≤ k ≤1 ← 1 + k ≤ I c ≤ (1 + k) ⋅ E Eq. 18
In this case, both the number of elements and the lateness of abrupt decrement affect the
robustness of the structure, since they increase the area subtended to the curve. When
comparing two structures with the same element number, a structure with a concave trend
can be said to be more robust than a structure with a convex trend. Conversely, by
comparing two structure with the same trend, e.g. a linear decrement of resistance, the most
robust one is the one with more elements.
d. Scattering from linear trend

This parameter considers also the area subtended from the obtained curves, but just the part
that exceed the linear trend, i.e. the line that connect the nominal resistance with the
maximum damage level D (that should in this case being set equal to the number of element
E). The indicator assumes values between -E/2 and +E/2 and can be referred to a discrete as
well as to a continuous formulation: if the curve is convex, the area to be measured will be
negative, since the curve lies under the linear trend; if the curve is concave, the area will be
positive and the robustness level will be higher.
D ⎡ ⎛ d ⎞⎤
I d = ∑ ⎢ r ( d ) − ⎜1 − ⎟ ⎥ ← - E ≤ Id ≤ E Eq. 19
d =0 ⎣ ⎝ E ⎠⎦ 2 2

The indicator is focused on the scattering of the obtained trend from the linear one, i.e. on
the positivity of the second derivative of the curve. Nevertheless, being the indicator based
on the measure of an area, a structure with a longer curve (i.e. a structure that is capable of
undergoing more damage levels) would be favoured in the robustness evaluation than a
structure with a shorter curve.
Also in this case the abscissa could be referred to the total number of element in case the
robustness assessment is to be unbounded from the absolute number of elements.
Furthermore, a unique representation for the curve of minima and maxima could be
obtained, by means of a reducing factor k that determines the portion of the area related to
the curve of maxima has to be added to the area of the curve of minima, in case of a positive
contribution (while it seems more sensible to disregard a negative contribution of the area
related to the curve of maxima). In this case a conventional value of k between 0 and 1
should be a-priori fixed, and maintained equal for all the structures.
e. Upper and lower maximum damage
The last proposed indicator refers to the maximum achievable damage related to the curve
of maxima and to the curve of minima. Even if less handy for engineering practice, this
indicator highlights another important robustness aspect, that is the ability of the system to
last without the presence of several elements: the indicator represents the number of
elements that has to be removed for the triggering of a mechanism. In order to get the
information needed, the analysis should contemplate all possible damage levels, i.e. the
maximum damage level D should be set equal to the number of elements E. Also in this
case a parameter k has been considered in order to obtain a unique representative indicator
for both the curve of maxima and minima.
I d = D low + k ⋅ D up , where : 0 < k < 1 and 1 ≤ D low ≤ D up ≤ E → 0 < I d < (1 + k ) ⋅ E Eq. 20
It’s important to note that this indicator is not always equal to the grade of static
indeterminacy: let us consider for example 4 elements highly connected (all plane 3 d.o.f.)
in a square shape and restrained with two hinge (simply supported system). The system has
3 grades of internal static indeterminacy, but the upper and lower maximum damages are
respectively 2 and 4. In the best case the system can be dismounted piece by piece, starting
from one vertical column, then removing the upper horizontal beam, then the other vertical
column and finally the lower simply supported beam. In the worst case instead, the
sequential removal of both horizontal beams leads to an unstable system.
Further example are reported in the second part of this work, where the relation between the
static indeterminacy and the robustness of a structure is widely discussed and investigated.
Here it’s just worth noting that the discrepancy between the value assumed by the indicator

and the grade of static indeterminacy level depends on the position and acting direction of
external restrains and on the type of connection between elements (hinge or clamped
connection). Furthermore, in case some local mechanism could be accepted and overcome
by an opportune analysis method, the upper maximum damage can be significantly
increased.

PART II: NUMERICAL ASPECTS OF

ROBUSTNESS INVESTIGATIONS
5. NON LINEAR BEHAVIOUR OF STRUCTURES

6. PROBLEM COMPLEXITY AND OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUES

5 NONLINEAR BEHAVIOUR OF STRUCTURES
5.1 PROBLEMS TO FACE STUDYING A STRUCTURAL

COLLAPSE
In the first part of this work, the need of presuming a fault or a failure and investigating the
consequent structural response was presented and discussed. This is a particular arduous
task, since it requires to face particular aspects that are generally neglected when applying
the usual verifications for the prevention of the collapse.
PROBLEMS TO FACE IN A STRUCTURAL COLLAPSE INVESTIGATION

recovering structural data,
PLAUSIBLE CONTINGENCY SCENARIO assuming material resistances
values and plausible loads
ASSUMING INITIAL FAILURE or modeling the critical event
in triggering event and also

DYNAMIC REMOVAL OF FAILED ELEMENTS occurring during the collapse
propagation
NONLINEAR MATERIAL BEHAVIOR
Focus on some related
modeling and computational
NONLINEAR GEOMETRICAL EFFECTS problems
if not only the resistance is sought

ACCOUNTING FOR LOCAL MECHANISMS but the progressive collapse is to
be investigated
Fig. 25: Problems to face in a structural collapse investigation
5.1.1 Plausible contingency scenario

First of all, if in case of preventing a damage the evaluation of material characteristics and
loading actions can be conservative, the presumption of a damage requires instead the
consideration of the effective values of these quantity.
Referring to the material characteristics, problem arises from the fact that the effective
values of resistance, for example, are not know from the design specifications, since the
characteristic values reported will be lower than the effective one in 95% of cases. The
middle value should be in this case preferred, provided that the exactly same material has
been used for all the elements referring to a particular material type. In this case the absolute
resistance of the structure will be slightly over- or underestimated, but the ratio between the

element resistance will remain the same, not affecting the computed failure progressions.
When not, the effective structural data have to be recovered from direct tests on the used
material samples, in order to avoid an erroneous estimation of the ultimate resistance and
failure progression.
The estimation of the loads is also not easy usually, since not the design actions are of
interest, but the values of the loads that were acting on the structure at the moment of the
failure. These value are obviously not recoverable form design specifications and need to be
evaluated by considering the plausible loads action on the structure during its service.
It needs to be remarked how difficulties arise from the fact that slight variations in the
estimation of relative loads or material characteristics can lead to different collapse
mechanisms and add up therefore to strong variation in the evaluated robustness response of
the construction.
5.1.2 Modelling fault or failure

The second step consists in the choice between a top-down or a bottom-up investigation. In
the first case the critical event (bomb, impact, explosion) has to be modelled, a task that can
be extremely arduous and not always leads to reliable results. More frequently, the effect
resulting from the impact or the explosion on the construction will be estimated and
modelled as a dynamic load acting on the structural system.
When the initial failure can be directly assumed on the structure a bottom-up approach can
be used and in this case only the abrupt failure of a localized area has to be modelled.
Usually in this case the failing elements are modelled by means of force equivalent to the
value of the element static reaction, that are abruptly annulled during the dynamic analysis
with a sharp ramp function.
In both cases a central role is played by the time interval assigned to the dynamic action,
since it will directly affect the amplification of the structural response. As discussed also in
the third part of the work, an action can be felt less or more “dynamic” from the structure
depending on the vibration period of the motion excited by the action. So, especially in case
of small initial failure on stiff structures, a slight overestimation of this value (e.g. 1/100
second instead of 1/1000 second can lead to a significant underestimation of the response,
since, being the solicited period very short, the action will be felt almost as static from the
structural system.
This is a parameter that, once again, can hardly be recovered by direct inspections or
investigations and need therefore to be plausibly estimated starting from the knowledge of
structural data and from the information on the occurred fault.

5.1.3 Dynamic aspects in failure progression

The consideration of dynamic aspects is very important not only in order to account for the
abrupt occurrence of the initial damage, but also during the progression of failures and
ruptures, to consider the effect of these ruptures on the rest of the structure. In the third part
of this work for example, a progressive collapse investigation of a bridge is presented,
where the rupture of one hanger is triggered always from the abrupt breaking of the
previous one. This chain rupture is avoided instead every time the first hanger, that is
adjacent to the area of the initial failure, yield but resist the rupture (in case, for instance, the
dynamic wave is not big enough to exhaust the hangar ductility.
Therefore, in case the effective development of the collapse is of interest, a dynamic
investigation has to be favoured instead of an incremental static analysis where the dynamic
effect are accounted by means of a dynamic amplification factor (quasi-static approach).
This approach can be instead used for a robustness assessment, where just the collapse load
is sought or for a robust design, where only the maximum responses are of interest. To this
aim, quasi-static analyses using dynamic amplification factors to account for the dynamic
effects are advised. This kind of analysis however is accurate only when the dynamic
response is dominated by a mode shape similar to the static deflection of the integer
structure. Furthermore, the estimation of a dynamic amplification factor is also not very
easy, since it depends on the action time-span, on the above recalled solicited period of the
structure and on the considered amplified quantity. As remarked by [Wolff&Starossek
2008] a unique dynamic amplification factor cannot always be specified. Referring to the
case of a cable-stayed bridge where the rupture of one cable was investigate, the authors
noted that the dynamic amplification factor depends on the location of the ruptured cable
and on the type and location of the state variable being considered. If for bending moments
in the bridge girder a factor smaller than 2.0 was advised, as well as for the safe design of
the cables, though significantly larger dynamic amplification factors resulted to affect
bending moments in the bridge pylons (up to 20 at some location) and axial force in the
bridge deck, since here higher modes, which are not affine to the static deflection curve, was
excited.
5.1.4 Nonlinear response

The difficulties of modelling and analysis calibration exposed above are significantly
increased from the fact, that the analysis cannot prescind to consider geometrical and
mechanical nonlinearities, both in case of a quasi-static or dynamic investigation.
A focus on these aspects and on the modelling and computational problem related to them
is presented in the following section.

Here just few words are worth to be spent about the opportunity of considering both these
nonlinearities simultaneously.
If it cannot be avoided to account for material nonlinearities, since yielding and breaking of
the structural elements are the purpose of the investigations, geometrical nonlinearities can
in principle be disregarded or at least limited to second order effects, accepting a slight
deterioration of the solution accuracy. This can be understandable, considering that the
displacements suffered from a structure before collapse are indeed quite large and could
hardly be considered “small” from the point of view of the usual cinematic simplifications.
This approximation would not represent a big deal though, when compared with the more
significant approximations due to the previous exposed estimations and assumptions and
would be mostly justified for the sake of the reduction of computational and modelling
onus.
The use of geometrical nonlinearities should be therefore limited to those cases, where their
disregard would entail an erroneous evaluation of the collapse mechanisms. For example, in
case of a collapse out of buckling, the second order effects cannot evidently be neglected.
The same can also be said if the moment-axial force interaction in a beam is of interested.
In some cases though, the effects of the displacement or bending on the axial stress are
sought. In this case considering second order effects only is not sufficient to catch this
aspect and a large displacement approach should be used. This is the case of some common
collapse mechanism, like the three-hinge mechanism development in a beam of a frame
subjected to a vertical action. In this case, as better explained in the following, the
consideration of the tension-stiffening effect plays a central role in the identification of the
collapse and, what is also very important, in the recognition of the beam rupture.
5.1.5 Local mechanisms

When the aim of the investigation is not limited to a robust design of the structure or of
some of its elements, but the effective development of collapse is of interest, a further
computational problem has to be faced, that refers to the overcoming of local mechanism
formations.
This will be enumerated among other numerical problems explained further, since it is due
to the fact that usual algorithms for the incremental static analysis generally stop when the
structure is globally or locally unstable. For the overcoming of this problem different
solving methods can be used, like a displacement controlled incremental static analysis, as
described in the following section.
In many case though, the problem will not be completely overcome and other techniques
can be used. A possible solution consists in stopping the analysis at the triggering of the

mechanism and then iterating the procedure used for the investigation of the initial damage
in the first place: the collapsing sections can be substituted with equivalent forces, which
can be applied on the rest of the structure in a further analysis.
5.2 SOURCES OF NONLINEARITIES

We usually distinguish 3 different types of nonlinearities:
1. geometric nonlinearities that can be considered only through second order effects or
through the formulation of large displacements;
2. material nonlinearities, due to plasticity, cracking and viscosity;
3. nonlinearities due to non conservative restraints or loads.
NONLINEARITY SOURCES (no more unique solution, no superposition of effects allowed)
→ P-Δ, P-δ effects are computed

• II order effects
Conservancy
→ Equilibrium bifurcation (Euler instability load)

Equilibrium in def. config.
Geometric NL (N, M interaction)
→ Bowing effect is evidenced
• Large displacement
Real cinematic (or bigger order)
→ Post-critical equilibrium branches
→ Ultimate load is duly computed

Lumped
→ Hinge calibration is required
• Plasticity
Spread → Actual ductility is computed
Material NL • Cracking → Onerous analysis
Energy is NOT conserved
• Viscosity
Iterative – incremental
nonlinear static analysis
• Positional loads procedures
Boundary NL • Unilateral restraints Nonlinear FEM solver
• Joint friction
Fig. 26: Nonlinearity sources
In this section the attention is focalized on the first two types of nonlinearities and on the
analyses types that can account for such nonlinearities. In the application presented in the
third part of this work, the iterative-incremental NL static analysis procedure turned out to
be an useful investigation tool and therefore a brief resume of this kind of analysis is of
interest.
5.2.1 Geometrical nonlinearities

Regarding the nonlinearity options for the nonlinear static analysis, generally both second
order effects (II ord.) and large displacement (LD) can be considered.

By means of second order effects collapse out of buckling can be evidenced, even if when
the effective post-critical behaviour is needed, large displacement have to be considered
(cinematic is no longer linearized). When a collapse out of buckling is to be modelled,
particular attention has to be paid also to some peculiar type of structural instability such as
the instability of arches. Phenomena like snap-through buckling can be though be also
considered when large displacement are taken into account.
STRESS COUPLING INSTABILITY ANALYSIS

P P P
GEOM. NL
• Equilibrium
• Congruence
• Constitutive law θ θ θ
PE = k/L PE = k · L PE = ½ k · L
Extra flexion due to N P/PE
BIFURCATION
II ORD
POINT
δ N 1
I
M = M - N⋅δ PE
θ
POST CRITICAL BEHAVIOUR

Extra N due to flexion P/PE P/PE P/PE
ASYMMETRIC
L. D.
1 1
1 PCR < PE
N N
θ θ θ
Fig. 27: Geometrical nonlinearities
5.2.1.1 Coupling effect of geometrical and mechanical nonlinearities

a. Effects of catenary action
It’s worth noting also that only a full large displacement approach allows to catch the
transition from flexural to tensile resistance (catenary action) that is a typical situation
occurring in a structural collapse. As aforementioned, a frame system subjected to vertical
load, as for example a typical building frame, can experiment the development of this kind
of mechanism in case a column fail. This was the case of the Oklahoma building collapse,
whose investigation is presented in the third part of the work.
Let’s consider for example a girder, supported at mid-span by a column, that abruptly fails.
The negative moment at girder mid-span will start to decrease, while the beam tends to
release its negative curvature, and will redistribute on the side joints, where plastic hinge
will form when the plastic limit of negative moment will be exceeded.

In a real frame like the one investigated for the Oklahoma building collapse, the moment
redistribution is generally coupled with an increment in the axial force in the girder, so that
the section at mid-span can enter the plastic range when moment are still negative. Though,
for the sake of simplicity, let’s consider the girder of the example as fully horizontally
restrained. In this case the decrement of negative moment will continue until plastic limit is
reached for positive moment. Then a plastic hinge will form and a three-hinge mechanism
will develop.
At this point the static analysis cannot be continued anymore: the central point of the girder
will start to dynamically fall in vertical direction and huge tensile forces will soon develop
in the two beam now forming the girder. This tension-stiffening effect could at first be
considered to have a positive effect on the structure, since the transition from flexural to
tensile resistance provides the structure with further capacity, though it endows the
structural element of a prolonged structural connection, that can determine the overloading
of other structural elements too.
This mechanism is in fact in most cases a fatal mechanism that could just theoretically end
without consequence and usually leads instead in the best case to a local rupture only and in
the worst cases to the damage of adjoining elements and the progression of failures.
From a theoretical point of view, the beam collapsing sections could fall and get over the
static equilibrium point without the occurrence of any axial breakage of the girder fibres or
exhaustion of the plastic rotation capacity of the plastic hinges. In this case, when a distance
equal to two time the distance between the starting point and the equilibrium point has been
covered, no ruptures can occur anymore and the central joint would oscillate around the
static equilibrium point, where it would finally stop once the dynamic energy has been
dissipated from friction and viscosity.
Practically, one of two rupture (axial in the beams or rotational in the plastic hinges) always
occurs quite early, so at least a local damage in the collapsing area is to be expected. In case
not though, or if a complete detachment of the collapsing section has not occurred, the high
axial forces developed in the girder collapsing sections will be transferred by the residual
structural continuity to the adjoining elements. In a real frame, this would probably
determine the rising of high shear stress in the columns adjacent to the collapsing beam and
start therefore a new column failure that will end with the collapse of the major part of the
structure.
The considered mechanism is discussed also by [Powell, 2004], that notes how the
consideration of catenary action is fundamental when studying building structural collapse.
In the mentioned paper, a focus is also made on the different restraining action provided by

the lateral joints. In fig. 28 the image of the mentioned paper is reported, where the load-
deflection relationship for the considered mechanism (catenary action) is shown for three
different modelling of the problem:
Fig. 28: Load-deflection relationship for 3 models of catenary action [Powell, 2004]
1. Case 1 refers to the simplified model of rigid horizontal restraints at the outer columns
of the frame. The restraints in this example are roughly simplified, since no external
restraints would be present in an actual structure; though this model account in some
way for the anchorage that in a 3-dimensional structure would have to be provided by
the floor slab. In this case the beams have simple plastic hinges, with no P-M
interaction. In this case the beams are in tension at all levels and the resulting curve
shows how the anchorage greatly increases the structure strength and the amount of
energy absorbed, which could mean a substantial reduction in the maximum deflection.
2. In case 2 no horizontal restraint are modelled, i.e. the girders are restrained only from
bending of the columns. The beams have simple plastic hinges as in Case 1 and plastic
hinges can also form in the columns. Here, the beams in the lowest floor are in tension,
and the beams in the upper floor and the roof are in compression. The anchorage

resulting only from the bending stiffness and strength of the columns, provide a much
smaller, but still significant, strength increase with respect to case 1.
3. In case 3 rigid horizontal restraint at the outer columns of the frame are considered, as
in case 1, but the beams have plastic hinges that account for P-M interaction. Due to this
interaction, the axial tension forces reduce the moment strength of the beam, and hence
reduce the basic strength of the structure. Also, the beam hinges extend plastically,
which reduces the catenary effect. The comparison shows that it is easy to overestimate
the catenary effect.
This mechanism is also presented in other studies [Palma et al. 2003; Rahimian&Moazami
2008]. In these papers the effects of catenary action are also extended to the functioning of
two-dimensional panels and floor slabs.
b. Instability in plastic range
Speaking of coupling effects between geometrical and mechanical nonlinearities, a recall
has to be made to the fact, that when vertical bearing columns or compressed elements enter
the plastic range, the critical load then cause these elements to buckle becomes significantly
smaller than the Euler’s load, the elements are usually verified for.
INSTABILITY IN PLASTIC RANGE (non-Euler problem)

P0 P = P0+ΔP P + (ΔP) Equilibrium
Area of all possible
equilibrium paths bifurcation is no
σE more a point, but
σ a segment
+ σU ET
B σK
σ0 σ0 A
+ +
E
σS
ε θ
A B C
1) Stiffness decrement due to variation Shanley’s critical stress σE accounts

of tangent modulus ET: constitutive for this only (minimum load value σS = π2·ET(εs) / λ2
for which instability can occur) σ
law is no more proportional
Irreversibility introduces a history
dependence: ∞ strain values are
σE = π2·E / λ2
σ0
2) Stiffness variation between loaded possible for a stress-state, depending
and unloaded fiber: constitutive law on the load-unload path undergone
is no more elastic λ
(Von Karman critical stress σK refers
only to a particular one - ΔP = 0) λ0 = π (Ε/σ0 )½
Fig. 29: Instability in plastic range

In a collapse investigation though, the evolution of the structural configuration has to be

followed, since the progression of damages is of interest. A possible plastic-instability of
compressed elements should therefore considered and evaluated. Once again, being the aim
of the investigation the determination of the effective failure, a conservative value (as
Shanley’s critical stress) would not help (see fig. 29) and a dynamic analysis should be
therefore favoured in case a plastic-instability behaviour can be expected for some elements.
5.2.2 Mechanical nonlinearities

Mechanical nonlinearities can be due to a plastic behaviour of the materials, as well as to
cracking and viscosity. Regarding the material nonlinearities options, two distinct choices
can be pointed out:
a. the first concerns the material behaviour, that can be given at fiber level or at sectional
level;
b. the second one refers instead to the plasticity modelling, that can be considered spread or
lumped along the element.
Fast calculation Onerous preprocessing Onerous calculation Fast preprocessing

F.E. Analysis
SECTION type type
FIBER
Modeling
M σ
All 4 type are
possible,
1D lumped hinges
usually work
χ well.
ε
• Full spread
On. preprocessing
• The section law F-δ has to be computed • Just the material law σ-ε must be known
Fast calculation
plasticity
LUMPED
from section properties and material law

• A defined part of the element only
• Plastic hinge have to be assigned at behaves nonlinear (“fiber hinge”) • Lumped
discrete point along the element 2D hinges on an
• Stress-strain state is checked at discrete equivalent
• Plastic deformation is computed by points of the section (whose location and framed
means of an assigned hinge length tributary area are assigned) structure
Onerous calculation
• Just the material law σ-ε must be known

Fast preprocessing
• The section law F-δ has to be computed

from section properties and material law
SPREAD
• The element behaves nonlinear all his

• The element behaves nonlinear all his Full spread
extent long
extent long 3D plasticity
• Stress-strain state is checked at discrete
• Plastic deformation is computed by an point of every element section (whose
integration over the element length location and tributary area are assigned)
Fig. 30: Mechanical nonlinearities
5.2.3 Spread and lumped plasticity

In the third part of the work some studies on simple structures are performed, using a spread
plasticity model over all the structural elements. This choice was justified by the relatively

small number of elements and by the absence of other computational challenging aspects
such as load-dropping or geometrical nonlinearities, that maintained a low computational
onus. In the last applications presented instead, progressive collapse investigations are
performed with the avail of lumped plasticity, considered by means of plastic hinges
assigned at discrete points in the structure and whose sectional behaviour was computed
from the user from section properties and material law. This choice is the less onerous for
the program but, as discussed below, requires particular attention from the user in the pre-
processing phase.
a. Lumped plasticity
In case the material law is defined at a sectional level, the section law F-d has to be
computed from section properties and material law and be assigned to the plastic hinges,
that have to be distributed at discrete points along the elements. Plastic deformation is
computed by means of an assigned hinge length, as better explained in the following
section.
In case the material laws are assigned at a fiber level, a less onus is required from the user,
but the section as to be explicitly given to the program, i.e. general section cannot be used.
The plastic behaviour is still considered lumped at some location, i.e. just a defined part of
the element only behaves nonlinear and a fiber hinge length has to be defined. Stress-strain
state is checked at discrete points of the section (whose location and tributary area are
assigned).
b. Spread plasticity
Also in case the material law is defined at a sectional level, the section law F-d has to be
computed from section properties and material law, but in this case the element will behave
nonlinear all his extent long and the plastic deformations are computed by an integration
over the element length. The onus required from the user is smaller than in the previous
cases but the computational onus increases. In case the material laws are assigned at a fiber
level, the onus required from the user is minor, since just the material laws must be given as
input to the program. Also in this case all the elements behave as nonlinear and the stress-
strain state is also checked at discrete points of every element section (whose location and
tributary area are assigned).
5.2.3.1 Plastic hinge calibration

A careful calibration of the plastic hinge is therefore very important in case of lumped hinge
plasticity modelling. Three aspects should be particularly examined, as can be seen in fig.
31: the choice of a proper plastic hinge type, the assumption of an effective hinge fictitious

length and a fitting placement of the plastic hinge location throughout the elements along
the element length.
LUMPED PLASTICITY: PLASTIC HINGE CALIBRATION

A plausible failure mode must be
assumed (STRESS INTERACTION can’t
STRUCTURE DUCTILITY
1 Hinge type generally be neglected).
should not be underestimated
Sectional relation has to be extrapolated
from the assumed stress-strain relation.
Assumed equivalent hinge

2 Hinge length length must lead to a realistic
plastic displacement. λp
Under distributed load it is not

3 Hinge locations a-priori known where plastic
hinges will form.
HIGH
DISCRETIZATION
Intrinsic loss of objectivity
(due to model choice)
POSSIBLE CONFLICTS due to
Defect of regularization
(due to model calibration)
Fig. 31: Plastic hinge calibration factors: choice of hinge type, length and location.
a. Plastic hinge type

The first step is to define the hinge type, i.e. the failure mode and the hinge behaviour. In
this connection, it has to be said that the classic plastic hinge theory requires a elastic-
perfectly plastic bi-linearization of the sectional law (M-X in the example shown of a
flexural hinge). This leads to an underestimation of the ductility, since the plastic curvature,
even if unlimited, is bounded in a single point and can’t develop.
Three different solutions can be adopted to this purpose, that are shown in fig 32: the first
two try to consider a more realistic plastic behaviour by assuming an ultimate curvature and
acting on the sectional diagram definition, either modelling the plastic benefit due to section
structural factor with a three-linear hinge diagram or considering an hardening branch. So
the plastic deformation can develop over a plastic segment Lp. It’s worth noting that when
hardening is considered, not only the hardening amount influences the ductility but also the
form assumed for the hardening segment, as it can be seen by comparing this two different
hinges a and b of fig. 32. In the latter case b, the plastic rotation is bigger even if the
ultimate moment Mp and curvature Xu are the same than in case a. The third possibility
consists instead in assuming a fictive length over which the ultimate curvature develops.

Problems arise from defining a correct value for this equivalent length, that would lead to a
realistic plastic rotation, as better explained in the following section.
LUMPED PLASTICITY:
PLASTICITY: Plastic hinge ÅÆ M-χ diagram bilinearized LUMPED PLASTICITY:
PLASTICITY: • Ductility is strongly underestimated
1) HINGE TYPE 1) HINGE TYPE
M M SOLUTION
My ∞ • Resistance is duly computed My
1 Plastic benefit is modeled
• Ductility is strongly underestimated
Me Me
Plasticity is lumped in a single point: A more realistic behavior is considered, in order to let the
plastic deformation to develop over the plastic length Lp
χ as result, the plastic deformation can’t develop. χ according to the section structural factor β = My /Me.
χe χ y χe χy χu
Approximation is better for section with a low 1
structural factor β = My/Me (non compact sections) λu P λu P
My My
χy
χe
θ u = θy ! χy
θu = θ y + θp
χu θp = ½(χe + χy) × Lp
χ∞ Lp
PLASTICITY:
LUMPED PLASTICITY: • Ductility is strongly underestimated LUMPED PLASTICITY:
PLASTICITY: • Ductility is strongly underestimated
1) HINGE TYPE 1) HINGE TYPE
M SOLUTION M SOLUTION
Mu
My My
a b 2 Material hardening is considered 3 Hinge “fictive”
fictive” length
Me Me
Not only the amount of hardening influences the Over Lh! An ultimate plastic deformation is computed from an assumed
displacement, but also the form that is assumed for the ultimate elongation εu pertinent to the material. This
hardening: in the second case (b) the plastic rotation is deformation is considered to develop on an EQUIVALENT
χ χ hinge length Lh, leading to a realistic value of plastic rotation.
considerably greater than in the first case (a).
χe χ y χh χu χe χ y χu
3
2b 2a λu P
λu P λu P
My
Mu My Mu My
χy
χy χy
χh χu θ u = θy + θp
θ u = θy + θ p θu = θ y + θp
χu χu θp = (χu –χy) ×Lh
θp = ½(χh + χu) × Lp θp = ½(χy + χu) × Lp Lh
Lp Lp
Fig. 32: Hinge type choices: plastic benefit, material hardening and hinge length.
b. Plastic hinge length

The calibration of the hinge length is the biggest difficulty when using lumped plasticity:
even if this parameter doesn’t affect the correctness of the calculated ultimate load
(assuming that both the structure and the model have an infinite ductility), the evaluation of
the displacements depends on the hinge length set by the user. The maximum rotational
angle θu is computed by multiplying the ultimate curvature by the hinge length Lh, whereas
the effective θu would be obtained only by integrating the nonlinear variation of the
curvature along the plasticized beam zone.
The plasticized zone extent depends in facts from three different aspects: the first one is
related to the form of section, since the development of the plastic zone will be greater for
section with a high structural factor, as it can be seen in fig. 32 b. The second aspect is
related to the static scheme, since its length also affect the development of the plastic zone.
The third aspect is related instead to the structural system (i.e. geometry and loads), since a
central role is also played from the type and location of the load distribution (a distributed
load determines of course a greater extent of the plastic zone than a pinned load)

In order to assume a correct length for the plastic hinge, many expressions can be found in
literature or in current regulations. Most of them, shown in fig. 33, account in some way
also for the load distribution, by means of the parameter z, that represents the distance of the
section to the contraflexure point.
PLASTIC SEGMENT Lp
Structural factor β (i.e. on SECTION PROPERTY)
depends on Element length (i.e. on STATIC SCHEME)

Load distribution (i.e. on STRUCTURAL SYSTEM)
HINGE LENGTH Lh ESTEEMATION FOR R.C. BEAMS
Baker (1956) Lh = k1 · k2 · k3 · (z/h)¼ · h k1 = 0,7 (mild steel); 0,9 (cold-worked steel)

k2 = 1 + ½ Nu/N0 (where N is axial force)
EMPIRICAL
Sawyer (1964) Lh = ¼ h + 0,075 · z k3 = 0,6 (fc’ =35,2 MPa); 0,9 (if fc’ =11,7 MPa)
fc = concrete compression strength
Mattock (1965) Lh = ½ h + 0,05 · z
fc’ = 0,85 fc
Corley (1966) Lh = ½ h + 0,2 h½ · (z/h) H = section height
h = section effective height
z = section distance to contraflexure point
Lh = 0,08 · z + /60 asl · db · fy
1
asl = 1 in case of sliding bar, 0 elsewhere

0,25ε sy d b f y
CODES
z
θ y = χ y + 0,0025 + α sl db = bar diameter (middle value)
Ord. 3274 (2003) 3 (d − d ') f c fy = yielding strength
θ u = θ y + (χ u − χ y )⋅ Lh ⋅ ⎜1 −
⎛ 0.5Lh ⎞ χy = curvature at yielding
⎟ χu = ultimate curvature
⎝ z ⎠
Fig. 33: Plastic hinge length estimation
c. Plastic hinge positioning

The third step consists in the hinge positioning: problems arises from the fact that under
distributed load is not a-priori known where plastic hinges will form.
Usually, in a common pushover analysis for earthquake purpose, i.e. where horizontal force
are acting, plastic moment hinges are put at the end of the frame beams and axial plastic
hinges are assigned in the middle of bracing elements (if any). No plasticization of the
vertical element should occur before plastic hinges have developed in all the other elements
of the system, so interacting axial-moment plastic hinges could be positioned in the middle
of the column elements, just to prove they would not activate.
In case of a progressive collapse investigation though, the acting forces are not always, but
generally, acting in the vertical direction, so implying a possible plasticization of the beam
also along the frame span. Furthermore the usual ductility hierarchy cannot be always
granted and plastic hinges are to be carefully considered also on the columns. For the

purpose of identifying the effective location of the plastic zone and possibly also in order to
find the effective plastic segment extent, one could be tempted to use a dense distribution of
hinges along elements. This can lead though to possible conflicts due mainly either to an
intrinsic loss of objectivity resulting from the refined mesh assumed, or to defect of
regularization in the calibration of the model. The aspects are better discussed in the
following section, where the main objectivity and regularization problems are presented,
together with some proposed solutions.
5.3 MODELLING NL STRUCTURAL RESPONSES

As said above and represented also in the flowchart of fig. 31, the assumptions related to the
hinge length and the hinge positioning could be avoided when using a refined mesh, where a
dense distribution of plastic hinges is used, that have a tributary length equal to the length of
the element where they are assigned. This can lead though to possible conflicts due to two
different factors: the first aspect is related to an intrinsic loss of objectivity resulting from
the refined mesh assumed; the second aspect is referred to a defect of regularization in the
calibration of the model, due to inexperience or carelessness of the user in the modelling
phase.
5.3.1 Objectivity of the solution

As exemplification related to the first aspect, i.e. how the adopted mesh can affect the
results, let’s consider a tie beam, modelled first with 1 element and then with 2 elements.
The material considered for the beam behaves linearly until a certain stress value and
follows then a softening branch.
In both beams A and B the elastic limit is reached and then the load is decremented by a
certain amount. If in the first case the correct solution is found straight, in the second case
two different solutions can be found, depending on the fact that the two hinges can both
follow the softening branch (homogeneous solution) or can behave differently, one
following the softening branch and the other unloading elastically (inhomogeneous
solution). Incidentally, the inhomogeneous solution is the stable one and bring also to the
lowest structural response, but in the case presented it is the one with less physical sense
[Bontempi&Malerba 1986].
This aspect is strictly connected with the numerical problem of material softening modelling
[Bontempi&Malerba 1997]. If in case of an investigation aimed to failure prevention, the
role of softening concern only the material law of element at a fiber level, for sectional
verification of reinforced concrete or precast elements, in case of a collapse investigation,
the material softening has to be considered also to account for the load dropping, that occur

when, after entering the plastic range and exhausting the sectional ductility, elements break
releasing the residual resistance stored with plastic deformation. When plasticity is
modelled by means of plastic lumped hinges, the negative branch has to be considered for
the hinge behaviour at a sectional level. Different models can be used, in order to favour the
convergence of the analysis or the realism of the simulation.
Some possible models for plastic hinge load-dropping are discussed in the investigation on
the R.C. framed building presented in the third part of the work, while algorithms that can
be used in order to catch a negative slope in the response curve of the whole structure are
discussed in the following sections. Here it’s just worth outlining that, as said above, the
modelling of material softening or load dropping give rise to several numerical problems
and should be avoided whenever possible.
For example, in case just the ultimate resistance of the structure is of interest, like in the
robustness curve study presented in the first part of the work and tested on some simple
structures in the third one, the ductility of sections can also be considered infinite, since it
won’t affect the structural resistance (provided that no particular situations occur, where the
fragile behaviour of some section prevent the stress redistribution over other elements and
refrain the exhaustion of the resistance stock of the whole structural system).
SOLUTION OBJECTIVITY:
OBJECTIVITY: how the adopted mesh affects the result A
λ
(Bontempi, 1986) λu
A 1 element only: LE = L δ
− Δλ
λF
δy 2 δy δ
Axial hinge diagram

B
SOFTENING
softening 1st axial hinge 2st axial hinge

σY branch
λ λ
λu λu
Inhomogeneous
−2εy −εy
εy 2 εy
(stable)
− Δλ − Δλ
− σy
δ1y δ1 δ2y - δ1y δ2−δ1
B λ λ
δ1 δ2 λu λu
Homogeneous
(unstable)
− Δλ − Δλ
λF
δ1y δ1 δ2y - δ1y δ2−δ1

1st element: LE = L/2 2nd element: LE = L/2
Fig. 34: Solution objectivity

In case the aim of the investigation is tracing the evolution of the system and following the
failure progression and the chain rupture, the modelling of dropping-load plastic hinges
cannot be avoided and attention has to be paid to the calibration of analysis parameters in
order to favour the analysis convergence.
5.3.2 Regularization problems

The second aspect is not quite intrinsic to the adopted mesh but concerns some
regularization problems that can lead an inexpert user to completely wrong results. Errors
are mainly due to three different aspects, discussed below and represented in fig 35.
As example, an elementary case of a simply supported beams under distributed load is
considered in fig. 35. The basic solution, that refers to a mesh of only one element on which
a bilinear plastic hinge is assigned, is compared with three other solutions, each referring to
a refined mesh in the aforementioned cases a, b, c. A refined discretization for the mesh is
then considered, and one hinge is assigned in the middle of each element.
a. Event lumping tolerance tuning
If a standard tolerance parameter values are used, a fictive plastic segment will be evidenced
in the solution leading to an erroneous evaluation of the structure ductility, like evidenced in
fig. 35 a. The plastic segment found has nothing to do with the real plastic extent and only
depends on the fact, that in presence of distributed loads the moment distribution along the
element slightly varies around the positive maximum and the program could not recognise
this difference, when a standard value for the event lumping tolerance is used.
The event lumping tolerance (E.L.T.) is the entity of the moment variation ∆M used by the
program in order to assume that two hinges that differ for that ∆M or less activate together.
Being hinges densely distributed along the element, only a pretty low value of the event
lumping tolerance allows to recognize which hinge should actually be activated, whereas a
standard value of E.L.T. would let many hinges form around the point of maximum
moment: the apparent plastic zone extent would be completely fictive and leads to
erroneous evaluations of ductility.
b. Hardening branch in sectional law
As a matter of fact, a further issue is presented from the fact that the plastic zone, despite the
higher hinge density results localized in a single point, will always result to be lumped in
the single point of maximum moment, due to the idealized bilinear hinge diagram.
If the effective plastic hinge length is sought instead, an hardening branch has to be
considered or in alternative, the plastic benefit has to be considered in the hinge behaviour
through a tri-linear diagram. This refinement of the sectional law model is required in order
to let the plastic strain to develop, since it would otherwise be confined in a single point.

SOLUTION REGULARIZATION:
REGULARIZATION: how the adopted mesh affects the result
λp
No reduction of event
a
lumping tolerance value
Errors due to
L
Me My Me
b Idealized elastic -perfectly
plastic M-χ diagram
Lp = (1 - 1/β)½ · L c No regularization of the

hinge length
χe χe
Elementary structure: BASIC SOLUTION: one hinge assigned in the middle of the span
• Elastic-perfectly plastic behavior δ Hinge rupture
M Hinge activation
(no hardening) My λu
• Symmetry (Location of max
Me
moment is known)
• Static determined system
χ δ
(just one hinge makes the
χe χ y χu δe δu
structure unstable)
REGULARIZATION: how the adopted mesh affects the result

SOLUTION REGULARIZATION: My
Me
REFINED DISCRETIZATION:
χ
one hinge is assigned in the middle of each element
χe χy χu
In the presence of distributed load, the moment distribution along an element
No reduction of event
a slightly varies around the positive maximum. Being hinges densely
lumping tolerance value distributed along the element, only a pretty low value of the event lumping
tolerance (E.L.T.) allows to recognize which hinge should actually be
activate, whereas a standard value of E.L.T. would let many hinges form
around the point of maximum moment: the apparent plastic zone extent
ductility..
would be completely fictive and lead to erroneous evaluations of ductility
ΔM Å beneath the standard event lumping tolerance value

SAP2000 analysis
Discretizzazione 1,2,3
Actual Lp
Fig. 35: Solution regularization: cause of error and solution a (E.L.T. value)

REGULARIZATION: how the adopted mesh affects the result M M
y
Me
χ
one hinge assigned to each element, hinge hardening behavior is considered
χe χy χu
Despite the high meshing (being the E.L.T. correctly calibrated) the plastic
b Idealized elastic -perfectly zone result to be localized (only one plastic hinge activates), due to the
M-χ diagram
plastic M-χ idealized diagram assumed. In order to obtain the effective extent of plastic
zone, an hardening behavior has to be considered for the plastic hinge.
SAP2000 analysis
With hardening segment Without hardening segment
Actual Lp Actual Lp
REGULARIZATION: how the adopted mesh affects the result My
Me
χ
one hinge is assigned in the middle of each element
χe χy χu
Hinge length has to be modified depending on the hinges that will form:
c No regularization of the when only one hinge activates, would be meaningless to assign an hinge
hinge length length regularized on the assumed mesh (ductility would result strongly
underestimated). On the contrary, if hardening is considered and more hinges
activate, the length assigned to each hinge has to be regularized, otherwise the
ductility will result strongly overestimated (Lh = LE / #HE).
SAP2000 analysis
Effective hinge length =
Curve
Curve di pushover
pushover alal variare
di capacità variare del
del n°
n° di
di elementi
elementi
= # active hinges × single hinge length 180
180
160
160 22
Trave semplicemente appoggiata - sezione HEB240 44
140
140
lunghezza trave [mm] 4000 88
120
120
lunghezza cerniera [mm] 360 (Bresler, Lin, Scalzi; 1968). 16
16
100
100 11 22 44 66 1122
Discretizzazione
c arico
32
o
32
caric
ccer
ernn cceerrnn cceerrnn ccer
ernn cceer
r nn
80
80 64
64
numero di elementi 2 4 8 16 32 64 128
128
128
60 11 22 44 66
lunghezza elemento [mm] 2000 1000 500 250 125 62,5 31,3 60 12
12
teorico
teorico
40
numero cerniere formate 2 2 2 2 4 6 12 40
20
zona plasticizzata [mm] 2000 1000 500 250 375 312,5 343,8 20
00
lunghezza tot. cerniere [mm] 720 720 720 720 1440 2160 4320 00 10
10 20
20 30
30 40
40 50
50 60
60 70
70 80
80 90
90 100
100 110
110 120
120 130
130 140
140 150
150 160
160 170
170 180
180 190
190 200
200 210
210 220
220
lung.tot. / lung.teorica 2 2 2 2 4 6 12 freccia
freccia
Fig. 36: Solution regularization: solution b (hardening) and c (hinge length)

c. Hinge length calibration

In case a, by using an opportunely lower value of event lumping tolerance, only the hinge
corresponding to the peak of the moment will be activated (the hinge at mid-span in fig. 35).
A correct result on the strain and displacement will be therefore obtained only if an
opportune equivalent value for the hinge length is chosen, i.e the calibration of the hinge
length should consider that, despite the high number of hinges set along the element, only
one of them is expected to be activated.
In case b instead, and in all other cases, where more than one hinges are expected to be
activated, attention should be therefore paid to the fact that the hinge length need to be
regularized too: in order not to found a strong overestimation of the ductility, the hinge
length should be set equal to the length of the element divided by the number of hinges
assigned on it.
The need of this regularization could seem quite obvious, but errors are quite common when
many automatic hinges are assigned to an element, since their length is regularized by the
program only on the element length and not on the effective number of hinges assigned to
each element.
5.3.3 Static vs. dynamic investigation

The first choice to be taken in modelling the response of a structure is to consider or not the
dynamic effect, that especially in case of a robustness assessment could be significant. It is
widely recognized that a nonlinear time-history analysis constitutes the most accurate way
for simulating response of structures subjected to strong actions and it is indeed widely used
for studying the seismic response of constructions. This analytical method is based on sound
underlying principles and features the capability of reproducing the intrinsic inelastic
dynamic behaviour of structures.
The fibre modelling approach employed in the current endeavour inherently accounts for
geometric nonlinearities and material inelasticity, without a need for calibration of plastic
hinges mechanisms, typical in concentrated plasticity models. The resulting combination of
analysis accuracy and modelling simplicity allows thus to overcome the complexity and
computational onus associated to nonlinear dynamic analysis.
Nonetheless, even if it is unquestionable that a nonlinear dynamic analysis is the most
accurate method to identify the structural response, such type of analysis implies the
overcoming of some difficulties:
the first one is the modelling of the dynamic action, that in case of accidental events
cannot be easy to evaluate. Even in case of earthquake, where more data are available on
the seismic actions and probability spectra can be extrapolated, an ensemble of site-

specific ground motions compatible with the seismic hazard spectrum for the site must be
simulated, task that is not easy to be accomplished.
the second one is the computation demand of a nonlinear time-history analysis, that,
notwithstanding the significant increase in computing power witnessed in recent years,
remains very high, especially when distributed inelasticity is considered for complex
structure with many elements (let consider a long bridge or a tall building or even a
multy-story 3D building like the one investigated in the third part of this work);
thirdly, errors in the definition or assemblage of a finite elements model are difficult to
detect from dynamic analysis results, whilst they tend to be relatively evident from the
output pushover runs.
This difficulties are less compelling in a static iterative incremental analysis, that is also
useful for different purposes. Static analysis provides very important structural response
information such as [Pinho 2007a]:
a. identification of critical regions, where large inelastic deformations may occur;
b. individuation of strength irregularities in plan and elevation that might cause important
changes in the inelastic dynamic response characteristics;
c. evaluation of the force demand in potentially brittle elements;
d. prediction of the sequence of yielding or failure of structural members.
In addition, the explicit insight that pushover-derived base shear vs. top displacement
capacity curves provide into the stiffness, strength and ductility of a given structure,
constitutes the type of qualitative data that is always most informative and useful within a
design application, even when time-history analysis is then employed for the definitive
verifications.
This aspect is particularly important in view of a robustness investigation, since when just
the point of structural collapse is of interest, like for the construction of the robustness curve
presented, a static incremental analysis allows the immediate identification of the structural
response by means of an expressive and easy to compute parameter, that is the ultimate
resistance. The use of a dynamic analysis for the robustness curve assessment would be not
much difficult to implement in the algorithm written for the sequential removal of structural
element, but would entail some questions in the post-processing phase about the parameter
to use in order to identify the structural capacity.
5.3.3.1 Iterative incremental analysis (“Pushover”)

The aim of the pushover analysis is to derive an envelope of the response parameters that
can be obtained through many possible dynamic analyses, corresponding to different

intensity levels [Pinho 2007b]. In fig. 37 the response of a structure is shown, as can be
obtained by means of a much more complex and time-consuming incremental dynamic
analysis procedure, where a structure is subjected to a series of nonlinear time-history
analyses of increasing intensity with the objective of attaining an accurate indication of the
“true” dynamic response of the structure
Traditional pushover analysis is performed subjecting the structure to monotonically
increasing lateral forces with invariant distribution until a target displacement is reached.
Both the force distribution and target displacement are hence based on the assumption that
the response is controlled by a fundamental mode, that remains unchanged throughout.
However, such invariant force distributions cannot account for the redistribution of inertia
forces caused by structural yielding and the associated changes in the vibration properties,
including the increase of higher-mode participation. In order to overcome such drawbacks,
different solution have been developed.
An alternative type of nonlinear static analysis involves running multiple pushover analyses
separately (Multi-modal push-over). Each running corresponds to a given modal distribution
and the structural response is then estimated by combining the action effects derived from
each of the modal responses (i.e. each displacement force pair derived from such procedures
does not actually correspond to an equilibrated structural stress state).
Fig. 37: Pushover analysis aim [Pinho 2007b]
A further refinement of such multiple-pushover procedures, with the aim to account for the
alteration of local resistance and modal characteristics of the structure induced by the

accumulation of damage, consists in the employment of adaptive updating of the loading

pattern. The main advantage of this category of static analysis procedures is that they may
be applied using standard readily-available commercial software packages. The associated
drawback, however, is that the methods are inevitably more complex than running a single
pushover analysis.
Recently, in order to account for the redistribution of inertia forces but still keep the
simplicity of using single-run pushover analysis, as opposed to multiple-analyses schemes,
adaptive pushover techniques have recently been proposed.
5.3.3.2 Response controlled iterative incremental analysis

In tandem with the present drive for performance-based seismic engineering, there is also
currently a thrust for the development and code implementation of displacement or, more
generally, deformation-based design and assessment methods. Therefore, it would seem that
applying displacement loading, rather than force actions, in pushover procedures would be
an appropriate option for nonlinear static analysis of structures subjected to earthquake
action. However, due to the unvarying nature of the applied displacement loading vector,
conventional (non-adaptive) displacement-based pushover analysis can conceal important
structural characteristics, such as strength irregularities and soft storeys, should the
displacement pattern adopted at the start of the analysis not correspond to the structure’s
post-yield failure mechanism.
Consequently, when only non-adaptive static nonlinear analysis tools are available, as it has
been the case throughout the past, force-based pushover does constitute a preferable choice
over its displacement-based counterpart. On the other hand, however, if one is able to apply
displacements, rather than forces, in an adaptive fashion, that is, with the possibility of
updating the displacement loading pattern according to the structural properties of the model
at each step of the analysis, then a conceptually appealing deformation-based nonlinear
static analysis tool is obtained.
In fig. 38 three different basic types of incremental static analysis are summarized.
1. In the first case the load vector applied to the structure is incremented. Apart from the
consideration exposed above on the approximation caused from a non-adaptive load,
problems arise from the fact, that it’s not possible to evidence the softening branch of
the structure. This fact, if not fundamental in case of a seismic analysis, can represent a
significant determent to a progressive collapse investigation.
2. In the second case, the displacement vector is instead incremented during the analysis.
In this way, the softening branch is caught, but refers to a collapse-mode that have been
a-priori imposed and not found. As exemplified in fig. 38, a local floor mechanism of a

frame can in this way remain undetected and leads therefore to a complete erroneous
evaluation of the collapse failure, but also of the structural capacity. That is the reason
why, as aforementioned, a displacement-based pushover can be sensible just in case
some adaptive pushover techniques are used.
3. In the third case a response controlled analysis is instead used. The incremental analysis
is always force-based, i.e. the load vector is incremented like in case 1, but the load
increment is computed starting from the displacement control of a given joint of the
system. That means, that only one displacement value (and not all the displacement
vector like in case 2) is imposed; then the corresponding load multiplier is computed
and applied to the force vector. The computed load multiplier can result to be also a
negative value, thereby allowing to evidence the softening branch of the response curve
without imposing the collapse mode.
NL STATIC ANALYSIS F λ i F2
Force control
λ i F1
Δλ i
Load (vector) is incremented:
softening branch is not caught. δ
F λ i u2
Displacement control
λ i u1
Displacement (vector) is incremented:
collapse-mode is imposed, not found!
δ
δTARGET
Δλi
Response control F λ(Ui) F2
δi
Δλi
A control node displacement (value) λ(Ui) F1
U is incremented (up to a target):
the load multiplier λ(Ui) is computed
and applied to the force vector. δ
δTARGET
Fig. 38: Nonlinear static analysis typologies
5.3.4 Solution algorithms

The solution algorithms and [Bontempi&Malerba 1996].used in a force-based standard
pushover (case 1) and in a force-based displacement-controlled pushover (case 3) are briefly
recalled in the following sections, while further examination of adaptive pushover, that
avails nowadays quite promising techniques for seismic investigations, are in this context

neglected, since it seems less pertinent to the aim of robustness assessment and progressive
collapse studies.
5.3.4.1 Newton-Raphson method

In Newton-Raphson method loads are applied in predefined increments, equilibrated
through an iterative scheme, whereby the internal forces corresponding to a displacement
increment are computed until either convergence is achieved or the maximum number of
iterations is reached. At the completion of each incremental solution, before proceeding to
the next load increment, the stiffness matrix of the model is updated to reflect nonlinear
changes in structural stiffness.
In nonlinear analysis, automatic time-step adjustment controls load step sizes for optimum
accuracy and efficiency: if the convergence is achieved easily, automatic time stepping will
increase the load increment up to a selected maximum load step size, whilst if convergence
is hard to achieve, automatic time stepping will bisect the load increment until a selected
minimum load step size[Pinho 2007 a].
Fig. 39: Newton-Raphson (left) and modified Newton-Raphson (right) methods [Pinho 2007 a]
Different convergence check schemes, which may make use of three distinct criteria
(displacement/rotation, force/moment, energy based), can be employed to check the
convergence of the solution at the end of each iteration. The displacement/rotation criterion
provides a direct local control over the precision obtained in the solution of the problem,
usually ensuring overall accuracy. The force/moment criteria are suggested if a
displacement convergence check is not sufficient for the internal forces of the elements to
be adequately balanced. The maximum accuracy and solution control is obtained by
combining the displacement and force convergence check criteria, while the maximum

analysis stability is obtained if convergence is achieved for one of the two criteria checked,
at a price of lower analytical precision. Tolerances in convergence criteria should be
carefully defined.
The solution algorithm may feature a hybrid incremental algorithm, obtained from a
combination of the Newton-Raphson and the modified Newton-Raphson procedures,
whereby the stiffness matrix is updated only in the first few iterations of a load step, thus
obtaining an acceptable compromise between velocity in achieving convergence and
required computational effort [Cook et al. 1989].
5.3.4.2 Arc-length algorithm

The arc-length method for structural analysis was originally developed in the early ’70 by
[Wempner 1971, Riks 1972] and later various forms of arc-length method followed their
original work. In the brief summary of the method here presented, reference are made in
particulate to [Memon&Su 2004].
Unlike the load control method in which the load is kept constant during a load step or in
the displacement control method in which displacement is kept constant during increment,
in the arc-length method, the load-factor at each iteration is modified so that the solution
follows some specified path until convergence is achieved. In this method, the load-factor
as a variable, i.e. an additional unknown results in the equilibrium equations resulting from
finite element procedure. The solution of (q+1) unknowns, where q is the number of
elements in the displacement vectors requires an additional constraint equation expressed in
terms of current displacement, load-factor and arc-length.
Fig. 40: Arc-length method with generic constraint surface (a) and orthogonal iterative changes (b)
[Wempner 1971, Risk 1972]

Two approaches, fixed arc-length and varying arc-length are generally used. In the former
the arc-length is kept fixed for current increment, whereas in the latter case, new arc-length
is evaluated at the beginning of each load step to ensure the achievement of the solution.
Simplification of the constraint equation leads to a quadratic equation, whose roots are used
for determining the load-factor. Proper selection of root is one of the key issues of the
method, whose details will be discussed in subsequent sections. Generally, for the first
increment, the trial value of the load-factor is assumed as 1/5 or 1/10 of total load. For
further increments the load-factor is computed according to the rate of convergence of the
solution process. In case of divergence from the solution path, the arc-length is reduced and
computations are done again. The computation time of the solution process is also of major
concern in finite element analysis, so a maximum number of iterations are preset; and if
solution does not converge in the specified number of iterations then the load step is
reduced and the process is started over again.

6 PROBLEM COMPLEXITY AND OPTIMIZATION

TECHNIQUES
In the first part of this work, a method has been presented for the measure of the robustness
degree of a structure, that is based on the investigation of the response of all possible
damaged configuration of the structural system. As previously mentioned, problems arise
from the fact, that the number of investigations to be performed in order to obtain the exact
robustness curves increases exponentially with the number of elements: this is not just a
speculative issue, since it involves the computational feasibility of the problem.
As better discussed in the following, some kind of problems requires an effort in term of
time or memory, that makes impossible to find a solution for them, even if more and more
fast and powerful computer were at hand. In order to better explain this concept and define
the computational complexity for the problem of robustness curves, some basilar concept of
are presented in the following.
6.1 COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY

The computability and complexity of certain problems have been addressed using various
formalisms; one of the most famous is due to Alan Turing [Turing 1937]. This
computational model, gives a precious and precise framework to compute the complexity of
discrete mathematic problems (combinatorial problems).
These problems can be faced using computer-aided automatic calculations, so it's interesting
and necessary to understand how much space (memory) and time (computational steps) are
required in order to find a solution for a given problem instance with respect to the
dimension of the instance itself (or dimension of the input).
Feasible problems are those that can be solved in polynomial time, while a problem that
requires exponential time is clearly unfeasible. Another aspect concerning the automated
tractability of problems is pointed out by the following example: suppose a problem
instance of n elements is given and suppose it can be solved in polynomial time, say n6. If a
new machine is at hand and it's 106 times faster than an old one, the time required to solve
the problem becomes n6/106. That means, an instance 10 times bigger than the previous one
can be faced in the same time. Now, the same premises as before are given with the
difference that the problem instance requires exponential time in order to be solved, say 2n.
The speed improvement would give us the opportunity of tackling, in the same computing
time, an instance that whose dimension is n+log2(106) ≅ n+20, i.e. a pretty negligible
improvement [Ausiello et al. 2003a].

This example explains that even wide jumps ahead in computational power don't transform
unfeasible problems in feasible ones. In this respect, some brief concepts from theoretical
computer science are briefly recalled in the following sections, in order to define the
complexity related to the problem of robustness evaluation, as introduced in the first part of
this work.
6.1.1 P and NP classes of complexity

In this paragraph some concepts will be introduced on the class of complexity P and NP
with the aim of defining some term and expression used in the following, but avoiding to
deepen the theory or proofing every claim.
First of all, a Turing machine (TM) is an abstract computation device that, given an input,
executes a computation switching through many states.
The TM can terminate or not: if the TM terminates the computation and the terminating
state is accepted, then it's said that the MT recognizes the input, otherwise refuses the input.
That’s mean, in the former case a solution for the problem exists given the input, while in
the latter case the solution doesn't exist.
The definition given above is quite general but, as a matter of facts, it refers directly to the
deterministic Turing machines (DTM). Whereas a DTM goes through single states, a non
deterministic Turing machine (NDTM) switches between sets of states. A NDTM accepts
an input when one of the many parallel computations ends in an accepting state.
It's worth noting that a Turing machine, in principle, can continue its computation for an
infinite time, without terminating. This can be the case of the so called recursively
enumerable functions or not computable functions. This topic, even if quite important in the
framework of computational complexity, won’t be deepen any further, being not directly of
interest for this work.
A formal definition of a deterministic Turing machine DTM is given by the following 6-
tuple:
DTM Æ < γ, Ь, Q, q0, F, δ > Eq. 21
where:
- γ is the tape symbols alphabet;
- Ь ∉γ is a special character called blank;
- Q is a finite not empty set of states;
- q0 ∈ Q is the starting state;

- F ⊂ Q is the set of the final states;
- δ is the (partial) transition function defined as:

δ: (Q-F) × (γ ∪{ Ь }) Æ Q × (γ ∪{Ь})× {r, l, i}, in which r,s and i mean respectively
that the head moves on the right, on the left or remains in the same position.
Now, given a set A, P(A) represents the set of all the subsets of A. According to the notation
used above, a formal definition of a non-deterministic Turing machine NDTM is provided
by means of the following 6-tuple:
NDTM Æ < γ, b, Q, q0, F, δN > Eq. 22
where:
- δN is the (partial) transition function defined as:
δ: (Q-F) × (γ ∪{Ь}) Æ P (Q × (γ ∪{Ь})× {r, l, i})
It's worth noting that the transition function of the NDTM can drive the automaton on a set
of states with various configurations of the tape and head. This means that a NDTM can
operate various computations in parallel at the same time.
The focus of this paragraph will be the decision problems. A decision problem is a
particular case of the more general optimization problems. Optimization problems will be
discussed later in the thesis, while for the sake of brevity, decision problems will be referred
simply referred as problem in the following of this section.
A decision problem can be informally defined in this way: the input of the problems is a
structure and an integer (e.g. a graph and an integer k); the goal of the problem is to answer
the question: does exist a solution for the problem, whose measure is less (greater) than k?
Now it's possible to define some complexity classes for what concerns the computational
time. It's necessary to point out that given a polynomial:
m
[
p( x ) = ∑ a k ⋅ x k
k =0
] Eq. 23
only the monic term xm will be taken into account. For a deeper understanding of why this
suffices, refer to [Ausiello et al. 2003b]
A problem p belongs to the class DTIME[f(n)] if and only if there exists a DTM (or, and it's
the same, a deterministic algorithm) that, for any possible input instance of dimension n,
solves the problem in time f(n). The complexity class P is defined as:
P = U∞ [ k
k =1 DTIME( n ) ] Eq. 24

This means that P is the class of all the problems solvable by deterministic polynomial time
algorithms for any given input instance.
A problem p belongs to the class NTIME[f(n)] if and only if there exists a NDTM (or, and
it's the same, a non deterministic algorithm) that, for any possible input instance of
dimension n, solves the problem in time f(n).
The complexity class NP is defined as:
NP = U∞ [ k
k =1 NTIME( n ) ] Eq. 25
This means that NP is the class of all the problems solvable by non deterministic
polynomial time algorithms for any given input instance.
One important question is if it’s possible to solve a problem p in NP using a deterministic
algorithm, and how much time is needed in order to find the solution. The answer is that it's
always possible to solve p in exponential time using a deterministic algorithm, since it's not
known any deterministic polynomial time simulation of a NDTM using a DTM. This
doesn’t mean that it's necessary to use exponential time to actually solve a problem
belonging to NP, but that no deterministic algorithms are known capable of solving such a
kind of problems in polynomial time.
Before going further in the complexity matters, an introductory description of the problem
of solving problems in NP can be useful. Suppose that, given a certain number of cities and
roads connecting each pair of them, one road per couple of cities, along with the road's
length, one is interested in computing if there exists a tour that touches all the towns one and
only one time and that has a total length smaller than a certain distance.
This problem, better known as traveling salesman problem (TSP), looks like a very simple
and natural one [Campagna, 2007]. But thinking carefully about an algorithm solving it,
would probably bring to an enumeration of a certain number of possible paths before
finding one that satisfies the constraint. Suppose that no one of such a cycle exists: the
algorithm would output all of the possible cycles before answering “no”. The number of
existing cycles, for an arbitrary set of towns, can be exponential in the cardinality of the set.
This means that even for small sets, the number of computational steps necessary to answer
the posed question would be unfeasible for any computer existing in the world.
A subclass of NP problems are the so called NP-complete problems. These problem are
among the most complex ones because of their inner mathematical structure. NP-complete
problems are very important, both for the theoretical challenge they pose and for the
practical importance they have.

In order to define this kind of problems, it's necessary to introduce the concept of Karp-
reduction between problems. A problem p is Karp-reducible to a problem q if and only if
there exists a Karp reduction, that is an algorithm A that transforms every instance x of p in
an instance y of q such that x belongs to positive instances of p (instances with a solution) if
and only if y belongs to the positive instances of q. If p is Karp reducible to q, than the
notation p ≤ q.
For problems in NP, the interesting Karp-reductions are those carried out in polynomial
time, so in the following p ≤ q is to be intended as a polynomial time Karp reduction.
A problem p is NP-hard if and only if for any given q in NP, q ≤ p.
A problem p is NP-complete, if and only if p belongs to NP and it’s NP-hard.
A non-exhaustive list of known NP-complete problems is reported in the following.
- Satisfiability problem (SAT) - Subset sum problem
- N-puzzle - Clique problem
- Knapsack problem - Vertex cover problem
- Hamiltonian path problem - Independent set problem
- Travelling salesman problem - Graph colouring problem
- Sub-graph isomorphism problem - Robustness curve problem?
Just as a notice, it's worth to point out that the question whether P = NP or not is an open
one. There's a consistent prize for anyone who will provide a solution to this question, but
even if it would be sufficient to find a polynomial time algorithm for just one specific NP-
complete problem in order to prove that P = NP, because of the property of NP-
completeness, it seems unlikely that someone will ever be able to provide such an answer.
6.1.2 Complexity classes of optimization problems

The content of the previous paragraph holds for the so called decision problems that, as
above mentioned, are a subclass of the more general optimization problems. With respect to
optimization problems, some extension of the previous theory are needed.
An optimization problem requires to find an optimal solution for the problem itself. Going
back to the towns and roads problem described before (the TSP), in the case of an
optimization approach, the solution would require to find a cycle having all the properties
already described and having minimum weight among all the possible cycles (an alternate
version could require to compute a cycle with maximum weight).

For these kinds of problems new complexity classes and new reductions have to be defined,
even though they're mainly an extension of the previous ones.
Before doing that it's necessary to define a problem in a formal way: a problem p is
described by the following 4-tuple :
p Æ < I, SOL, m, goal > Eq. 26
where:
- I is the set of input instances for p;
- m is the measure function;
- SOL is a function that associates to any input instance x in I the set of feasible solutions
of x;
- goal specifies whether P is a minimalization or a maximalization problem.
A problem P belongs to the class NPO if and only if the following holds:
1. the set of instances I is recognizable in polynomial time;
2. a polynomial q exists, such that, given x in I, for any y in SOL(x), |y| <= q(|x|) and
furthermore, for any given y such that |y| <= q(|x|), it is decidable in polynomial time
whether y is in SOL(x);
3. the measure function m is computable in polynomial time.
As said before, an optimization is, somewhat, an extension of a decision problem, and for
any given optimization problem p holds that if it belongs to NPO, the corresponding
decision problem belongs to NP.
A class for “simple” problems exists in the optimization framework, as well as for
“complex” problems: a problem p belongs to PO if and only if an algorithm A exists, that
computes in polynomial time an optimal solution y in SOL(X) together with its value m(x),
for any given x in I.
At this point it's necessary to introduce the concept of Turing reduction. A precise definition
is out of the scope of the present work, so let’s consider it for sake of simplicity an
extension of a Karp reduction. In the following the syimbol ≤ means Turing reducible.
Given the Turing reductions, it's possible to introduce the concept of NP-hardness (in an
optimization scenario): an optimization problem p is called NP-hard, if and only if for every
decision problem q in NP, q ≤ p. Since this definition is not an operative one, it's worth to
point out that, roughly speaking, an optimization problem P is called NP-hard, if it's
associated decision problem is NP-complete.

6.1.3 Computational onus of the proposed method

From the concept introduced in the previous sections, it’s now possible to define the
computational complexity of the method proposed for the measure of structural robustness,
since it requires the enumeration of all the possible damaged configurations of a structure.
This enumeration is represented in the tree of fig. 41, where each leaf of the tree represent a
damaged configuration, i.e. a state of acceptance of the Turing machine and each arc
represents the removal of the element identified with the number on the arc, i.e. the
transition from a previous state to a further one.
Considering what above said, it can be easily observed that all the possible configurations
can be computed in polynomial time by a non deterministic Turing machine NDTM, being
the number of computational steps equal to the number of elements E composing the
structural system. This means that, according to the definition given in the previous section,
the problem belongs to the complexity class NP. Furthermore it seems that the problem can
be proved to belong also to the class of NP-complete problems [Bolognesi 2000].
3 State of acceptance: Initial state:

2 4 damaged S0
nominal
d=0 configuration configuration
1
1 2 3 4
3
2 4
d=1 S1 S2 S3 S4
2 4
2 3 4 3 4 4
1 1 1
d=2 2 2 4 S12 S13 S14 S23 S124 S124
3
4
3 4 4 4 Computational tree of a
non-deterministic Turing
3 3
machine:
3
4
all possible configurations
d=3 2 2 4 2 4 S123 S134 S134 S134
are computed in
1 1 1 polynomial time
3 4 (# computational steps s =
# system elements E).
d=4 2 4
S1234
1
Fig. 41: Computational complexity for identifying all damaged configuration of a structure.
Given the above consideration on the problem complexity, an exact solution cannot be
provided, since it would be unfeasible to perform all the required investigations. A

reduction of the problem complexity however can be achieved, provided that an

approximated solution is acceptable.
In the following sections an overview of imperfect solutions is given, with particular
reference to heuristic and probabilistic optimization methods. Among these methods, two in
particular have been considered for the optimization of the considered problem.
6.1.4 Imperfect solutions

Since the exact solution of the NP-hard problems is unfeasible, it’s necessary to use an
approximating approach. There are various way of tackling the approximate solution of a
hard problem:
1. the use of approximate algorithms: a static input instance is given and these algorithms
guarantee a solution with a certain performance ratio (ratio between the measure of the
optimum and the measure of the worse solution the algorithm itself can provide);
2. the use of randomized algorithms: the gain in speed is obtained paying the fee of a non-
optimal solution, without guarantees about the solution quality. For these algorithms the
technique of derandomization can help in order to obtain better solutions (at a cost of a
longer running time);
3. the reoptimization of solutions: an optimal solution is given along with an input instance
and a set of perturbations on the input itself. Modifying slightly and efficiently the
optimal solution, sometimes it is possible to maintain it at a near optimal level;
4. the maintenance of approximate solution: in this dynamic approach, an approximate
solution for the problem is given, as well as the input instance. On the latter a sequence
not known “a priori” occur. Maintaining the approximate solution in a very efficient
way, according to the incoming modifications can lead to good and extremely fast
results [Campagna, 2007].
Some problems, like the completely defined state problems, are better tackled with a certain
kind of algorithmic techniques, most of which are randomized one. These techniques,
anyway, have proven to be reliable and fast, so it’s seems sensible to adopt them in order to
try to solve complex problems.
6.1.4.1 Probabilistic algorithms

A randomized algorithm is an algorithm that might perform random choices among
different possibilities (note that no probabilistic assumption is made on the set of instances).
Clearly, repeated executions of the algorithm with the same input might give different
solutions with different values depending on the random choices. More precisely, for each
given instance of the problem, the value of the solution found by a randomized algorithm is

a random variable defined over the set of possible choices of the algorithm [Ausiello et al
2003b].
It’s possible to identify two fundamental classes of probabilistic algorithms: the first one
comprises the so called Monte Carlo algorithms, that represents the most used method and
has a very fast running time, but cannot guarantee the exactness of the solution (i.e. it
produces an answer that is correct with a bounded probability); the second one is composed
by algorithms called Las Vegas, that may not return an answer at all (i.e. the algorithm
doesn’t terminate), but in case a solution is provided, it is guaranteed to be correct. The
latter group presents also the inconvenient the time required for the solution tit’s not ensured
to be sustainable (i.e. the runtime for each input is a random variable whose expectation is
bounded).
In the framework of algorithms the so called search algorithms are the ones that operate a
scan of the state space, looking for a particular one that minimizes or maximizes a certain
measure. This algorithms can mainly be of two major classes: informed search algorithms,
both deterministic and randomized, relying mainly on heuristics, and local search
algorithms, that instead of searching through the search space and exploring paths from an
initial state like the former do, evaluate and modify a state that is completely known (the
same distinction actually apply also for deterministic algorithms).
Referring to the former class, example algorithms are given by the greedy best search first
A* and variants.
With respect to the second group, the main aspect of local search algorithms is that they are
instead not interested in computing a path to the goal. The only interesting thing is the state
configuration that has a certain measure. The focus is then on the present state and the
technique used is a modification of the state itself. This kind of algorithms have two main
advantages:
1. use of little memory, often constant (the state needs to be tracked);
2. they can usually find reasonable solutions for large (or even infinite, continuous) state
spaces. These algorithms are suitable for solving pure optimization problems, since the
goal is to find the best state according to an objective function.
An interesting example for local search is the so called “state space landscape”, in which the
x-axis contains the state configuration and the y-axis represent the measure. Observing the
graph reported in fig.42, it’s clear how moving through spaces makes the measure change.
Among the local search algorithms, it’s worth to number the hill climbing, which uses kind
of a greedy approach, local beam search, which proceeds keeping track of k parallel states in
spite of using just one, genetic algorithms, which relies on a set of evolving rules in order to

compute successive states and simulated annealing, which will be covered in the following.
While genetic algorithms as well as simulated annealing, are randomized algorithms, both
hill climbing and local beam can be used in deterministic or stochastic versions.
objective function
shoulder
plateaux
local minimum
state space
Fig. 42: element of difficulty in search of optimum by probabilistic algorithms
As mentioned above, a randomized algorithm with good expected behaviour is not

guaranteed to find a good solution for all executions and for all problem instances: however,
in most cases, randomized algorithms are simple to implement and very efficient
[Ausiello&al 2003b].
The performance guarantee approach analyzes the quality of an algorithm on the basis of its
worst possible behaviour. This might not be realistic if “bad” instances do not occur often
and, for all remaining cases, the algorithm is able to find a solution that is very close to the
optimum. Often we are interested in knowing the behaviour of the algorithm for the set of
instances that might actually arise in practice. Since, in most cases, it is impossible to define
such a class of instances, we might be interested in analyzing the behaviour of the algorithm
with respect to the “average input” of the problem.
Before performing the analysis, we have to choose a probability distribution on the set of
the instances of the problem. In some cases, an equiprobability assumption can be
acceptable, and therefore the average instance is simply determined by evaluating the
statistical mean over all instances of a fixed size. However, there are problems for which it
is not reasonable to assume equiprobability, and it might not be clear which input
distribution is realistic for practical applications.

A final remark concerning the probabilistic analysis of approximation algorithms is that it

requires the use of sophisticated mathematical tools. As a matter of facts, at the present state
of the art, only simple algorithms for simple input distributions have been analyzed: in most
cases, an analysis of sophisticated algorithms with respect to practical applications has not
been made.
6.1.4.2 Heuristic algorithms

The previously mentioned probabilistic approach has considerably enlarged the ability to
cope with NP-hard optimization problems. However, from a theoretical point of view,
analysis performed using these approaches is not completely satisfactory for three main
reasons [Ausiello et al. 2003b]: the first reason is that there exist problems that are not
efficiently solvable with any of the above approaches; the second reason is that, in the
solution of large instances of a problem, it is not sufficient to devise approximation
algorithms that are polynomial-time bounded because we need algorithms with a low level
of complexity, since, in these cases, even a quadratic-time algorithm might be too
expensive; finally, there exist approximation algorithms for which we are not able to prove
accurate bounds using the previous approaches.
Due to this considerations, the use of so called heuristics can be of interest. Whit the term
heuristic approximation algorithms are meant, that are characterized by a good practical
behaviour even though the value of the solution obtained is not provably good (either from a
worst case or from a probabilistic point of view). Heuristics are examples of an approach
that is different from all the others mentioned and that, at the same time, has shown its
usefulness for important problems.
The evaluation of a heuristic algorithm is based on executing the algorithm on a large set of
instances and averaging the behaviour on this set: the set of instances can be either
randomly generated or based on instances arising in real problems.
In literature [Ausiello et al. 2003b] many examples can be found, where randomize
algorithm finds a solution that is far from the optimum and it’s up to now not possible to
obtain a better solution. Moreover, problems arises from the fact, than in most cases, no
current implementation of randomized algorithm guarantees that the running time of the
algorithm is polynomial with the input.
As last remark, it has to be pointed out that a class of general heuristic strategies also exists,
which are called meta-heuristics and often use randomized search for example. A meta-
heuristic is a high-level strategy that guides other heuristics in a search for feasible solutions
and can be applied to a wide range of problems, even if, again, good performances are never
guaranteed.

6.2 PROBABILISTIC OPTIMIZATION

6.2.1 Overview of iterative improvement search methods
In the following a list of common algorithms used for the iterative improvement search is
listed. Each one of them can result to be more efficient for different kind of problem and the
choice of one of them depends therefore on the particular problem to be faced.
- Hill climbing - WalkSat
- Simulated annealing - Genetic algorithms
As better explain in the following, in this work the simulated annealing technique has been
deepened, in order to solve in an efficient way the robustness curve problem, while a
different approach that avails the use of genetic algorithms can be found in [Bolognesi,
2000].
Iterative search methods are generally useful in all cases in which some combinatorial
structures have to be optimized, by means of a cost function. Usually in these cases, the
search among all possible structures is untreatable and deep first search approaches are too
expensive.
Since there is no know algorithms for finding the optima solution efficiently, the iterative
improvement methods is to be used: the basic intuition consist in considering the
configurations to be laid on a surface and aiming to find the highest point. All these
methods start at a random configuration and repeatedly consider various move, accepting or
rejecting some of them, until getting stuck and restarting. A move-set should be defined that
describes what moves have to be considered from any configuration.
6.2.2 Simulated annealing

With the term simulated annealing (SA) method is intended, which simulates a
thermodynamic process where a metal is heated to its melting temperature and then is
allowed to cool slowly, so that its structure is frozen at the crystal configuration of lowest
energy. In this process, the atoms go through continuous rearrangements, moving toward a
lower energy level as they gradually lose mobility due to the cooling. The rearrangements
do not result in a monotonic decrease in energy, however. If the energy function has local
minima, going uphill occasionally is desirable [Gentle 2003].
[Metropolis et al. 1953] developed a stochastic relaxation technique that simulates the
behaviour of a system of particles approaching thermal equilibrium. The energy associated
with a given configuration of particles is compared to the energy of a different
configuration. In simulated annealing, the system moves through a sequence of states s(1),
s(2),…, and the energy at each state f[s(1)], f[s(2)],…, generally decreases. The algorithm

proceeds from state s(j) by choosing a trial state r and comparing the energy at r, f(r), with
the energy at the current state, f[s(j)]. If the energy of the new configuration is lower than
that of the previous one. This means that if f(r) < f[s(j)]), the new configuration is
immediately accepted; if the new configuration has a larger energy, the new state is
accepted with some nonzero probability that depends on the amount of the increase in
energy, f(r) − f[s(j)]. In simulated annealing, the probability of moving to a state with larger
energy also depends on a “temperature” parameter T. When the temperature is high, the
probability of acceptance of any given point is high. When the temperature is low, however,
the probability of accepting any given point is low.
Although the technique is heuristically related to the cooling of a metal, as in the original
application, it can be used in other kinds of optimization problems. The objective function
of the general optimization problem is used in place of the energy function of the original
application. Simulated annealing is particularly useful in optimization problems that involve
configurations of a discrete set, such as a set of particles whose configuration can
continuously change, or a set of cities in which the interest is an ordering for shortest
distance of traversal (TSP). Various application of SA can be found in literature and the
method has become widely used.
To use simulated annealing, a “cooling schedule” must be chosen; i.e. the initial temperature
has to be fixed and the type of temperature decrement with the time has to be decided too.
If T(0) is the initial temperature, a simple schedule is T(k + 1) = qT (k), for some fixed q,
such that 0 < q < 1. A good cooling schedule depends on the problem being solved, and
often a few passes through the algorithm are used to choose a schedule. Another choice that
must be made is how to update the state of the system; that is, at any point, how to choose
the next trial point.
The probability of accepting a higher energy state must also be chosen. Although this
probability could be chosen in various ways, it is usually taken as:
⎡f ( r ) − f (s ( j) )] / T ⎤
P = e ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
Eq. 27
which is proportional to the probability of an energy change of f(r) − f(s(j)) at temperature T

and comes from the original application of [Metropolis et al. 1953].
In addition to the cooling schedule, the method of generating trial states, and the probability
of accepting higher energy states, there are a number of tuning parameters to choose in
order to apply the simulated annealing algorithm. These include the number of trial states to
consider before adjusting the temperature. It is also good to adjust the temperature if a

certain number of state changes have been made at the given temperature even if the limit
on the number of trial states to consider has not been reached. Finally, there must be some
kind of overall stopping criterion.
The main steps of a simulated annealing algorithms have been reported by [Gentle 2003] as
follows:
1. Set k = 1 and initialize state s.
2. Compute T(k) based on a cooling schedule.
3. Set i = 0 and j = 0.
4. Generate state r, and compute δf = f(r) − f(s).
5. Based on δf, decide whether to move from state s to state r.
If δf ≤ 0, accept and set i = i +1; otherwise, accept with a probability P[δf, T(k)].
6. If i is equal to the limit for the number of successes at a given temperature imax, go to
step 1.
7. Set j = j + 1. If j is less than the limit for the number of iterations at the current
temperature, jmax, go to step 3.
8. If i = 0, deliver s as the optimum;
otherwise, if k < kmax, set k = k + 1 and go to step 1;
otherwise, issue message that “algorithm did not converge in kmax iterations”.
The travelling salesperson problem (TSP) can serve as a prototype of the problems in which
the simulated annealing method has had good success. In this problem, a state is an ordered
list of points (“cities”), and the objective function is the total distance between all points in
the order given plus the return distance from the last point to the first point. One simple
rearrangement of the list is the reversal of a sub-list; that is, for example,
(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) Æ (1, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 7, 8, 9).
Another simple rearrangement is the movement of a sub-list to some other chosen point in
the list; for example,
(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) Æ (1, 7, 8, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9).
6.2.2.1 Application of the method to the robustness curve problem

As explained before, SA is based on the acceptance of temporary worse solutions, with a
decrescent probability.
At the beginning, when the temperature is high, worse solution can be easily accepted. This
characteristic allows the search of the solution to roam in the beginning throughout all the
possible states (in this phase the algorithm is therefore similar to a random search). This

prevents the search to be stuck in a local minimum and makes therefore SA particularly
suitable for discrete combinatorial problems, where high variation of values corresponding
to subsequent states are usual (see fig.44a).
As the cooling procedure proceeds and relatively low temperature are reached, worse
solution are less frequently accepted and the algorithm tends to behave as a steepest descent
algorithm, where the search of the optimum is localize in a subset of neighbouring states.
This good capability of bypassing points of local minimum has induced to chose the SA as
optimization algorithm to reduce the number of damaged configuration to be investigated in
the proposed method for the robustness evaluation of a system. In the following figure, the
flowchart of a SA algorithm for a generic optimization problem is shown (on the right) and
its translation for the specific structural problem of interest is reported next (on the left).
Generic optimization Application to robustness curve problem
START Fix a damage level d=d+1<D
t = -1 Å cooling parameter i = 0; imax= Cd Å var. for configs

START
tmax Å halting parameter λu,i = 1010; x = x0 Å initial state
Inizialization of
parameters x = x0 Å initial state Inizialization of Smax (d); tmax (d) Å exit conditions
parameters
Smax Å max accepted state at T t = -1; α = 2/3 Å thermic var.
t = t+1 t = t+1
Tt = α ⋅ T(t-1) Å cooling criterion Cooling Tt = α ⋅ T(t-1) Å cooling criterion
Cooling
s=0 Å max accepted state at T s=0 Å max accepted state at T
Perturbation of the x = x+1 Å moveset i= i +1
current status New damaged
definition configuration Ci = d-tuple(i), computed by moveset:
d-tuple (i) = [dtuple (i-1) + 1]E
Computation of f(x) Evaluation of
1 for ∆f < 0 ultimate resistance call FE code for pushover
Computation of P(x) T = 1 for ∆λu,i < 0
P[f(x),t] Computation of
e - ∆f / kB for ∆f > 0 P[f(x),t] P(x) T =
- ∆λu,i / kB
Generation of a e for ∆λu,i > 0
random number Generation of a
r ∈ (0,1) random number
r ∈ (0,1)
N
r ≤ Px N
r ≤ Px
fmin = f(x) λu,min = λu,i; Cmin = Ci

Status is accepted Status is accepted
s=s+1 s=s+1
N N
Y Y
s ≤ smax criterion of thermic equilibrium s ≤ smax criterion of thermic equilibrium
N N
Y halting condition Y
t ≤ tmax t ≤ tmax halting condition
STOP STOP
Fig. 43: General SA algorithm and application to the considered structural problem
In order to apply the SA to the problem of robustness curves, three main aspects has to be
considered, that are summarized in the following.

a. Framework of application of SA in the robustness problem

The first step in order to apply the SA techniques to the structural problem of robustness
curve, is to specify exactly at which point of the investigations the randomized algorithm
has to be used. As can be seen in fig. 44 a (bottom left), the optimization of the
combinations to be investigated has to be performed within a single damage level, i.e. a
number of SA instances have to be performed, that is equal to the considered maximum
damage D.
As visible in the figure, the configurations that correspond to the same damage level d are
ordered along the abscissa. Among them, the configuration that corresponds to the lowest
ultimate resistance has to be identified through the SA with a low number of iterations.
A criterion to enumerate and order the subsequent configuration along the abscissa and the
entity of the reduction related to the investigations to be performed are aspects that needs to
be carefully considered and are summarize in the following sections.
λud/λu0 Minimum optimization problem b. Calibration of exit criterion on damage level

# combinations C d
desired for SA exhaustive
strong
reduction
0 11 2 2 3 34 54 d damage level d
3
1. Chose an arbitrary numeration of elements
λui d=2 2 4
2. For each damage level d, start with a number
that has d sequential ciphers (startinf from 1) 1
given d Æ C1 = 1 2 3 … d (starting configuration)
3. Try to generate new configuration by adding to the previous

number a unit. Sum are performed in ZE, where used
ciphers are: 1, 2, 3, 4 (E = # of elements).
S i = i +1 Æ Ci+1 = (Ci+1 + 1)d
12
S 4. Configuration is accepted only if the ciphers of generated
13
S number are in crescent order. If not, a unit is added until
14 this requirement is satified. Ex.: E = 4, d =2 Æ C1 = 1 2
S 3
15 C2 =(1 2 + 1)4 = 1 3
S 2 4
23
S C3 =(1 3 + 1)4 = 1 4 1 1 1
24 3
permutation of d-tuples, S C4 =(1 4 + 1)4 = 2 1 Æ 2 3 2 2 4
25
which represent damaged S C5 =(2 3 + 1)4 = 2 4
34
configurations co 3
nfi C6 =(2 4 + 1)4 = 3 1 Æ 3 4 4
gs
a. Framework of application of SA algorithm c. Definition of the move set
Fig. 44: Main aspects of SA application to the considered structural problem

b. Move set definition

As mentioned above, the following issue to face consists in the enumeration of the damaged
configuration and the identification of a criterion to switch automatically from a previous
configuration to a following one, when a new iteration is accomplished.
The method proposed (see fig. 44c), is based on a association of each damaged
configuration to a number. This scalar has a number of ciphers equal to the number of the
considered damage d (fixed during an optimization instance), while the ciphers to be used
are equal to the number of elements E.
For the sake of simplicity, let’s start the usable ciphers from 1 (instead of 0 as usual for sum
in base), so that the ciphers can be directly referred to the identification number associate to
each element in the system. Therefore, the ciphers to be used for a structure with, say, 4
elements are: 1, 2, 3, 4.
Now, given a juxtaposition of these ciphers, a unique damage configuration can be
identified, together with its associate damage level. For instance to the number 124
correspond a damage level equal to 3 and a damaged configuration where the elements
identified with the label 1, 2 and 4 are removed from the integer structure.
The initial configuration is that one associated to the number which has its ciphers in
ascending orders starting from 1. For example, for d = 3, the starting configuration would be
identified by the number 123.
The generation of a new configuration starting from a previous one, can be easily obtained
with a simple procedure, that lends itself to be implemented in a fully automatic way.
Simply, a unit is added to the number every time that one iteration is completed. The
summation should respect the base E in which the number is expressed, so that 123 + 1 =
123. Then again 123+1 = 131 and so on. Nonetheless, the resulting number is accepted only
if the ciphers results to maintain the ascending orders. If not, a unit is added again, until this
requirement is fulfilled. This precaution is needed in order to avoid to compute non existent
configuration (like 131) and to consider two or more time the same configurations (like for
123 and 132).
Referring, for sake of brevity, to damage level d = 2 for the above mentioned structure of 4
elements taken as example, the move set of all possible configurations Ci is listed below:
C1 = 1 2 C4 = (1 4 + 1)4 = (2 1) Æ not accepted Æ C4 = 2 3
C2 = (1 2 + 1)4 = 1 3 Æ accepted C5 = (2 3 + 1)4 = (2 4) Æ accepted
C3 = (1 3 + 1)4 = 1 4 Æ accepted C6 = (2 4 + 1)4 = (3 1) Æ not accepted Æ C4 = 3 4

The considered procedure for generating perturbations represents the most simple
identification of move set and is based on a organization of the damaged configurations,
which depends on the arbitrary enumeration of the elements composing the system.
However, as better explained in the following section, the choice of move set is a central
point in simulated annealing algorithms: the individuation of a convenient move set is the
real ingenuity, more that the decision of using one algorithm instead of another. Other
critical points can be the evaluation of function design and the choice of the annealing
schedule and other parameter of the algorithm, which are briefly discussed in the following.
c. Calibration of SA parameter
With respect to the calibration of SA parameters, three main aspects can be identified: the
choice of a proper cooling schedule; the definition of a criterion for the increment of
temperature; and the identification of an halting parameter.
As can be easily understood, the choice of the cooling schedule influences the ability of the
algorithms to find a good solution and it’s therefore quite important. It is usual to
distinguish three possible cooling schedule, reported below according to an descent order of
steepness of the curve. For the usual application anyway, the first expression is usually
used, which has been also considered for the application to the proposed structural problem.
T ( t ) = α ⋅ T ( t − 1) , where : 1 > α ≥ 0,8
α
T( t ) = T(0) ⋅ ⎛⎜1 − t ⎞
⎟ , where : 1≤ α ≤ 4 Eq. 28
⎝ t max ⎠
T( t ) = T( t − 1) ⋅ , where : 0 < δ ≤ 0,2 and σ k = variance

⎛ T( t − 1) ⋅ ln (1 + δ ) ⎞
⎜⎜1 + ⎟⎟
⎝ 3⋅ σk ⎠
Referring to a criterion to decide when and how often to increment of temperature provided
by one the formula above, a simple criterion has been chosen, that is based on the definition
of a maximum number of iteration at constant temperature smax.
Finally, a very important parameter is represented by the halting criterion. As remarked also
in the following section, being the dimension of the chosen move set very large, especially
for central damage levels (around the middle value of the element number), to this
parameter is remitted the reduction of investigations and the feasibility of the problem.
Due to the trend of the number of configurations that correspond to a damage level d, it’s
seems important to calibrate the maximum number of cooling instances tmax, that determines
the halting of the program, on the considered damage level. For example, with reference to
fig. 44b, the parameter tmax can be taken as a polynomial function of the damage, and

particularly a parabola, which is centred in d = E / 2 and whose maximum amplitude is fixed

on the basis of the maximum investigation required for this damage value.
6.2.2.2 Possible improvement in the considered SA algorithm

In the previous section a basic algorithm has been considered, that trivially starts from a
random initial configuration (since it depends form the numeration arbitrarily chose for the
elements of the system) and generates new configurations roaming in the space of all
possible combinations related to a given damage level.
The dimension of the move set has been therefore taken equal to the number of combination
Cd for the considered damage level, whose expression is given in the previous part of the
work (Eq. 11). It has to be remarked, that for significant damage levels (and most of all for
d = E / 2), the number of configurations and therefore the dimension of move set is
extremely large. For these reason, the calibration of an halting parameter (or bored criterion)
has been extremely important.
Another possibility of performing the SA optimization instead, considers a reduced
dimension for the move set, possibly also calibrated on the damage level (like the halting
parameter of the previous case). In these case the boring criterion is no more required but
the identification of a significant sample of configurations in the move set is essential.
In the following, some possible move set are proposed that could be used in a simulated
annealing based algorithm for the search of the minimum robustness curve. The move sets
identified are:
a. Trivial: all existing combinations of damaged configurations (previously exposed).
b. Stress based: after performing a nonlinear static analysis upon the integer structure, the
most stressed elements are identified (i.e. a list is created that contains the number of
elements ordered in accordance with a decreasing grade of stress). For a given damage
level d, the most (d-1) stressed elements are removed and then a move set of (E-d) moves
is defined by a random removal of one elements of the system (where E is the total
number of elements).
c. Strain-based: the same procedure explained before is considered, with reference to the
strain status of elements, instead of their stress state. Please note that in both cases, the
strong assumption relays on the evaluation of the stress or strain state of elements refers
only to the integer configurations.
d. Cfg(d-1) based: a number of random element n(d) is restored from the last optimum
configuration Cfg(d-1) and all the possible combinations of damages resulting from the
starting configuration as considered al element of the move set. The number of restored

elements is in (0,d): if n = 0 the method is very similar to the heuristic optimization

presented in the following paragraph, while if n = d, the method degenerates in the
algorithms that use the first move set a (trivial).
e. Proximity-based: all possible damaged configuration are considered, that regards the
removal of elements contiguous to the previously removed ones. This move set choice
could possibly work fine, but presents some difficulties in the practical implementation of
an automatic procedure to identify the element of interests and generates the new
configurations.
Note that in order to improve the efficiency of the algorithm, the definition of move sets has
been based on heuristic choices aimed at identifying the most convenient configurations to
be considered for the investigations. As mentioned before, this fact makes the optimization
most sensitive to the move set chosen, whereas the calibration of other parameters of the
algorithm becomes negligible in comparison to this aspect.
Other improvement on optimization algorithm usually are based on the identification of a
convenient starting point (i.e. initial state) in order to begin the optimization as nearest as
possible to optimum. In this case though, these measure seems not to be very efficient, due
to the high scattering of the objective function, due to the discrete nature of the problem and
to the random disposition of configurations on the abscissa (see fig. 44a), which depends on
the arbitrary generation of new configuration for each iteration of the algorithm. Any
attempt of improving the algorithm by researching a more convenient initial status have
been therefore disregarded.
6.3 A SIMPLE HEURISTIC OPTIMIZATION

Since, as previously explained, in order to create the robustness curves, the exhaustive
number of configurations to be analysed increases exponentially with the element number,
an exhaustive investigation would be practically unfeasible even for usual structures:
therefore probabilistic or heuristic methods, like the ones presented in the previous sections,
have to be used in order to identify the most significant combinations.
In particular, a very simple heuristic procedure is based on the analysis of only those
combinations, which can be directly derived by the optimal configuration of the previous
damage level. In order to identify the damaged configurations to be investigated for a
damage level d, the maximum and minimum configurations of level d-1 are considered and
the one element is removed starting form those configurations.
This procedure could theoretically also lead to errors, but it would generally works fine and
strongly reduce the analyses to be performed, since –what is most important- the complexity

of the problem moves from an exponential to a polynomial form, i.e. the robustness
investigation can actually be performed. To better explain this method, let consider as
example a structure of 8 element, like the one exemplified in fig. 47.
An exhaustive investigation should at first perform a push-over analysis on the integer
structure (d = 0); then all the 8 configuration where an element is missing have to be
analyzed for damage level d =1; afterwards, all the 28 configurations without 2 elements for
d = 2, and so on up to the maximum damage D. In case this maximum damages has been
fixed equal to the number of the elements, the last damage level corresponds to the unique
configuration of the null-structure (i.e. a structure without element, that has zero resistance)
and the total number of analyses is 2E. that for the structure considered correspond to 256
combinations.
HEURISTIC OPTIMIZATION a structure with 8 elements is considered as ex.

Approximated maxima and minima curves Reduced combinations
λ 1 8 14 Cd RED. 2 d=0 =1
28
Cd = =E
d=1
Cd EX.
d>1
= 2 ×[E-(d-1)]
for D = E
D
Ctot = Σd Cd = E2 + 1
1 0
polynomial
Exhaustive combinations
E!
Cd =
d! × (E-d)!
ERROR! exponential
D
(non cons.) Ctot = Σd Cd = 2E
0 1 2 --- 8 0
d for D = E
Fig. 45: Heuristic optimization for the robustness curve problem.
By means of the considered heuristic instead, the number of configurations to investigate,

would be reduced, starting from damage level d = 2: the integer structure is investigated (d
= 0), then the 8 configurations without one element (d = 1); now for d= 2 only 7 damaged
configuration, where just one element again is removed from the optimal solution found for
damage level d = 1; proceeding in this way the number of damaged configurations to be

investigated reduces while the damage increases (6 configuration for d = 3, 5 for d = 4 and
so on) and the total number of combination becomes:
D
C min/ max = 1 + E + ∑ [E − (d − 1)] Eq. 29
d =2
which is equal to 37 for the structure with 8 elements considered. It important to point out
that, contrary to the exhaustive investigations, the procedure has to be performed separately
for the curve of maxima and for the curve of minima, being the optimization different
depending on the optimum type. The number of total combination for obtaining both curves
is therefore given by the following expression:
D
C tot = 1 + E + 2 ∑ [E − (d − 1)] ⎯⎯⎯→ C tot = E 2 + 1
D=E
Eq. 30
d=2
For the considered structure taken as example, the total number of reduced combinations to
be investigated results to be equal to 65, which is a significant reduction when compared
with the number of 256 combinations calculated above whit respect to the exhaustive
investigation (ca. 75%). This reduction increases as percent value with the number of
composing structural elements: if we consider a structure with 16 elements, the number of
exhaustive combinations assuming D = E is equal to 65636, whereas the number of reduced
combinations is 257 corresponding to a reduction of more than 99%. In the following table,
the number of exhaustive and reduced combination is reported for a number of structures.
Number of Exhaustive number of damaged Heuristic-based reduced number of

elements configurations damaged configuration
(D = E) (D = E/2) (D = E) (D = E/2)
4 16 11 17 11
8 256 163 65 45
16 65536 39203 257 185
32 4,3⋅109 2,4⋅109 1025 753
64 1,8⋅1019 1,0⋅1019 4097 3041
128 3,4⋅1038 1,8⋅1038 16385 12225
256 1,2⋅1077 6,4⋅1076 65537 49025
512 not computable not computable 262145 196353
Tab. 1: Comparison between exhaustive and heuristically reduced number of investigations.

Observing the table, it is interesting to notice that for the first structure, the number of
heuristic-based reduced configurations in greater than the number of exhaustive
combinations. This apply to structures with a number of elements E ≤ 4 and is due to the
fact that, as mentioned before, the considered optimization requires to be performed
separately for the search of the curves of maxima and minima. This fact makes the
optimization inefficient for structure that have a very low number of elements.
Another peculiar aspect can be observed by comparing the number of exhaustive and
reduced combinations related to a maximum damage level taken equal to the half of the
element number: in case of exhaustive investigations, the total number of combinations for
D= E / 2 is of the order of half of the combinations for D = E (it is the exact half when E is
odd and D = (E-1) / 2, which correspond to the half of the maximum possible damage
levels, recalling that the first damage level is equal to zero); when the considered
optimization instead is used, the number of combinations for D = E / 2 is significantly
greater than the number of combinations for D =E. This fact can be better understood by
observing the graphics of fig. 48: the trend of the heuristically reduced combinations with
the damage don’t respect the symmetry about the middle damage value, contrarily to what
happen to the trend of the exhaustive combinations.
Fig. 46: Number of exhaustive and heuristically reduced combinations

This fact assumes importance from the consideration that complex structures like high
building or long bridges have usually a significant number of elements (say about half
thousand): in these cases, the computation of the robustness curves for all possible damage
levels (D = E) even if computationally feasible when the heuristic optimization is used,
requires a very high number of investigations (about two hundred thousand). On the other
hand, it seems reasonable to investigate the robustness of such complex structures just up to
a number of damage levels (say D < E/2), being the behaviour of a heavily damaged or
almost destroyed structure not of interest in the practice. For this reason, a stronger
reduction of combinations in the first half of the maximum damage level D, instead of in the
second half, would be more profitable, even though not compelling.
6.3.1 Heuristic-based algorithm for reduced investigations

An algorithm for the construction of robustness curves has be implemented, that is based on
the presented heuristic optimization. The algorithm has been written in APDL (Ansys
parametric design language) in order to be interfaced with a finite element program (Ansys),
that run the pushover analyses.
It’s important to stress what kind of information can be obtained by the observations of the
resulting robustness curves. It is possible:
to fix an admitted damage and check the corresponding resistance decrement
to extrapolate equations that interpolate the given points and calculate their subtended
area or derivatives
to identify critical elements by spotting the abrupt decrements in the resistance trend.
From here, different robustness indicators can be calculated, as already explained in the first
part of this work, and the response of two or more structure can be compared in order to
chose the more robust one.
The flowchart of fig. 49 shows the main functioning of the created algorithms: it is
composed of three parts mainly: the first one refers to the integer structure, the second one
to the first damage level, and the third parts works for the damage levels from 2 up to the
maximum damage set by the user D.
At first, the damage level is set to zero and a pushover analysis is performed on the integer
structure. The corresponding ultimate resistance is computed and saved for both the maxima
and minima curve data.
Then the damage level is incremented to 1: one element by time is first removed from the
structure, then a pushover analysis is performed and then the removed element is restored.
The analyses performed for this first damage level are equal to the number of elements to be

removed (numbered sequentially from 1 to E). Among the E value of the ultimate
resistance, both the maximum and minimum values are saved for the maxima and minima
curve respectively and the element identification numbers corresponding to these
configurations are registered.
The damage level can be now incremented again. From this point on, the procedure repeats
all the same for the following damage levels. First the analysis for the curve of maxima are
performed, then the integer structure is restored and the analysis for the curve of minima is
then started. The two algorithm macros are very similar and only differ from the fact that in
one case the maximum value of resistance is sought among those corresponding to the same
damage level, while in the other case the value sought is the minimum one.
START ALGORITHM FOR REDUCED ANALYSES

d := 0
“CURVE MIN“ MACRO
λu0 for d = 2 to D
Push-over analysis
Remove element e(d-1)MIN
d := 1
for e =1 to E for e =1 to E
Remove element e
Remove element e
if e <> edMIN Pushover analysis λu,ed
Pushover analysis λu,e1
Restore element e λudMIN,
Restore element e edMIN
λu1MAX, e1MAX
CALL “CURVE MAX”
λu1MIN, e1MIN
MAX” Curve of minima
Restore integer structure ROBUSTNESS QUANTIFICATION

CALL “CURVE MIN”
MIN” Fix an admitted Δd Calculate corresponding ΔR
Robustness quantification Extrapolate equations Calculate area or derivatives
END Spot abrupt decrement Identify critical element
Fig. 47: Developed algorithm for reduced analyses.
In the figure above, the macro related to the minima curve is shown: for each damage level,
the element registered in correspondence to the previous minimum found is removed. In this
way the minimum configuration of the previous damage level is restored. After that, the
other elements are removed one by time and each time a pushover analysis is performed,
then each element is restored. Among the analyses performed, the minimum value of the
resistance is found and the corresponding element removal is registered, so that it can be

removed to restore the minimum configuration found for the analysis of the following
damage level.
Some practical applications developed with the avail of this implemented algorithm are
shown and discussed in the third part of the presentation, while the code of the program is
reported and commented in the first Appendix.
6.4 ASPECTS RELATED TO ALGORITHM AUTOMATISM

6.4.1 Importance and limit of an automatic investigation
A big effort in writing the code has been done in order to make the algorithm flexible but
fully automatic. The onus required in term of time from this kind of investigation is, as
explained before, becomes significant in case of structure with a large number of elements.
In order to apply it to complex structure then, the program automatism is compelling. As a
matter of fact, it’s not a big problem nowadays to dedicate a multi-processor computer to
the calculus of a structure, provided that the user is not required to attend the analyses.
Problems arise from the fact that the structures investigated can be very different and,
particularly, the investigation of one structure implies to perform non linear static analyses
on structural configuration that can be very different, in term of resistance but also in term
of stiffness and displacements. Therefore the nonlinear analyses would generally require a
different calibration of the analysis parameters non only for each structure solved, but also
for each configuration analysed.
Furthermore, as better explained in the following sections, non only the analysis parameters,
but also the structural modelling would differ from case to case.
6.4.1.1 Analysis parameter calibration and choose of solving algorithm

Some of these problems have been overtaken, by a proper choose of solving algorithm and a
flexible setting of the analysis parameter. As explained in detail in the comment to the codes
reported in the appendix, the user is able to choose at first the solving algorithm, choosing
between the standard force-based Newton Raphson and the arc-length method, whose
functioning has been briefly exposed in the previous sections. In the first case the analysis
will stop at the first occurrence of a local mechanism but the solution is easier to be
obtained and lend itself to be easily interpreted. In the second case, also some decrement of
the force are possible, so local mechanism could be overtaken but some errors in computing
the ultimate resistance could occur, in case the constitutive law assumed for the materials
drops load at some point. In this case the algorithm could fail in computing the ultimate
resistance of the structure a the last converged step of the analysis, since that step could
refer to the softening branch of the pushover curve.

The analysis parameter can be calibrated by the user, by means of a proper macro that
require input from the user. Then the analysis on the integer structure can be repeatedly
launched and the graphical full result can be reviewed. These results include the stress and
strain distributions in the elements, that will be showed step-by-step following the trend of
the incremental analysis, as well as the so-called pushover curve (force-displacement curve).
By reviewing this result the user can see if the analysis was correct and go on with the
analyses of damaged structures or change the analyses parameter. In this case a new analysis
on the integer structure will be performed until the analyses parameter are correctly
calibrated.
6.5 ASPECT RELATED TO NON MONOTONIC RESPONSE

As a consequence of the static theorem of the limit analysis, under the hypothesis of infinite
ductility, the ultimate resistance of a structure should always increase, when some material
is added to the structure. That means, when a element is added to a previous system, the
ultimate resistance that refers to the last configuration will be greater than the previous one.
As direct consequence of that, the robustness curves should be always decreasing with the
damage level. In the practice, the requirement of a monotonic decreasing robustness curve
will be not always accomplished, due to different reasons, that need to be separately
discussed.
6.5.1 Errors due to the heuristic chosen

The first cause of a non monotonic response could be addressed to the heuristic chosen, that,
as explained in the first part of the work, could lead to an erroneous evaluation for some
damage levels of the maxima and minima configuration. If this would represent the unique
cause of non monotonic response, such a trend could unambiguously indicate a failure in the
heuristic. Unfortunately many other factors influence the monotony of the curve and the
errors of the heuristic are, as a matter of fact, much less significant for this problem than the
other factors reported in the following.
6.5.2 Errors due to an approximated evaluation of resistance

The ultimate resistance is computed from the program as the sum of the reactions in
direction of the acting force, referred to the last converged step of each analysis, i.e. in case
of a force-based pushover, the step before the non convergence, that depending on the step
size used can calculate a resistance that slightly differ from the peak resistance. In this case
though, the difference of the obtained trend with respect to the expected one are quite small.

6.5.3 Problem of local mechanisms

The first aspect concerns the possible developing of local mechanism. This can be
enumerated among other numerical problems explained further, since it is due to the fact
that usual algorithms for the incremental static analysis generally stop when the structure is
globally or locally unstable. For the overcoming of this problem different solving methods
can be used, like the arc-length method described in a previous section. As explained above,
the program created allow the user to chose the type of incremental analysis to be carried
on, so that in some cases this method could be preferred.
Though some local mechanisms cannot be overtaken: let think for example to a truss
composed of four element disposed like a square plus one diagonal element serving as
bracing member. The structure is simply supported at both the end of the bottom horizontal
bar, so that one node of the upper bar will be divided by just two elements (the node where
the bracing). Let’s call this two elements a and b and let’s think that a minimum
combination for a certain damage level implies the removal of element b, that leave the
element a free to move, leading to an ultimate resistance equal to zero for this damage level.
Let also assume that the minimum combination for the next damage level entails the
removal of both elements a and b since all the other combinations correspond to an higher
resistance. In this case the curve will be no more monotonic, since the removal of both
elements a and b together eliminates any lability.
This problem is coupled also with the fact that the hypothesis of infinite ductility doesn’t
hold, since the constitutive law chosen for the material is not elastic-perfectly plastic. An
elastic-plastic behaviour would actually be easier modelled, but the then the effective
behaviour of the structure would be no more well represented from the model.
6.5.4 Meshing issue

The element meshing, required in order to have reliable result form the analyses, could lead
also to some fictive mechanisms, if attention is not paid to remove simultaneously all the
sub-elements in which an element has been meshed. An automatic meshing procedure has
been therefore implemented in the algorithms, that allows the user to choose the number of
meshing element (so far fixed for all the elements) and remove all the sub-elements as
needed (refer to the appendix for further details related to this issue).
6.5.5 Problem in modelling imperfection

The analyses performed don’t require generally the consideration of geometrical effects,
that are for the sake of efficiency disregarded in the applications presented in the first
sections of third part of this work. The presence of imperfection was therefore at first also
disregarded, giving origin to some error in the monotonic response of the structure.

Let consider for example the structure represented in the following figure: the curve of
maxima show a final increment in the resistance, when element 2 is removed after element 3
and 1, for the third damage level. This is due to an erroneous evaluation of the structural
resistance of the configuration chosen as maximum for the second damage level, where only
the two the vertical elements 2 and 4 are present. In this case the structure is a mechanism
and therefore this configuration should not appear in the maxima curve, having a null
ultimate resistance. The program though calculate a non-null resistance for this
configuration, since it, being present only vertical force and no imperfections, it consider the
structure stable in the direction of interest.
Hence, the modelling of imperfections at least in the vertical elements is generally required
to avoid incorrect results, even if geometrical effects are not considered. In the first figure
below, the problem has been overcome by considering a slight inclination on the vertical
elements. The inclination considered is opposite for the two columns, in order to maintain
the structural symmetry. This measure will generally work fine for most structure, even if
some cases can occur, in which the imperfection of orthogonality cannot work: this is the
case for example of a structure like the one represented in the second figure below, where
all the node of the vertical elements are restrained. Here again, the structure without
imperfection will show an uncorrected trend of the maxima curve, since the ultimate
resistance corresponding to the third damage level and to a configuration where only the
vertical columns are left is greater than the resistance corresponding to the second damage
level. This is due again to the fact that the structure is not recognised as unstable: in order to
let the program consider this fact, two small horizontal force have been applied to the nodes
on the top of the columns, since the element inclination would not affect the restrained
nodes.
It is worth to be noted, that would the structure be fully restrained in all the nodes (i.e. with
hinges instead of movable supports), no kind of imperfection modelling would resolve the
problem of a monotonic response. In this case though, the damaged system composed by
the columns only would actually have a great resistance. This example falls therefore in the
case of local mechanism problems, since the non monotonic response can be addressed to
an underestimation in the resistance of the previous configuration, more than to an
overestimation of the configuration with the two columns only.
The integer structure for example will be considered unstable when all plastic hinges have
occurred in the horizontal and diagonal members. In this situation, the vertical elements are
though still in the elastic range and would react to further increment of the vertical acting
forces.

λg
2 4
without 1
slight inclination of
imperfection vertical elements
I3C STRUCTURE ROBUSTNESS MAX MIN

PU [kN]
PU [kN]
1
1
3 2
0,75
1 3
0,5
0,5
4
0,25
4 4 2
1 4 1
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Damage Level Damage Level
Fig. 48: Overcoming of problems due to disregarding the imperfection modelling (a)
λg
4 2
5
without slight horiz. forces
imperfection 1 on upper supports
I3V STRUCTURE ROBUSTNESS MAX MIN I3V STRUCTURE ROBUSTNESS MAX MIN
PU [kN]
PU [kN]
5
1
5 1 2
1 1
3
1 3
2
0,5
0,5
4 2
4 4 4
3 3
5 5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Fig. 49: Overcoming of problems due to disregarding the imperfection modelling (b)

PART III: Applications
7. DETERMINING ROBUSTNESS CURVES

8. PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE INVESTIGATION

7 DETERMINING ROBUSTNESS CURVES
7.1 SIMPLE CASES

In the following sections, the method presented in the first part of the work for the
evaluation of robustness is applied to some simple structures. The applications presented
here have been obtained with the avail of the algorithm discussed in the second part of the
work and based on the discussed heuristic. It is written in order to work with a FE
commercial code (ANSYS), that performs the incremental static analyses. The code of the
algorithm (APDL) is reported in the appendix together with some brief explanation on the
command and the functioning.
Some relatively simple two-dimensional structure are investigated in order to understand the
role played by the organization of the elements in the system in the structural response to
initial damages. For each structure considered, the robustness histograms are reported
together with the values related to the robustness index indicated in the previous sections.
Particularly, the value of the first two indicators Ia and Ib are also represented in the
following figures. Among the two indicators, that measure both directly the decrement of
ultimate resistance, the first one seems to be more suitable to represent this aspect of
robustness, being more sensible than the second one to the variation of structural response.
Also the third and the fourth indicators can be more directly compared, referring both to the
area subtended by the curves. The latter though proves to be less expressive, since it tends to
penalize the structure with more elements.
7.1.1 Star structure

The first structure considered is a system with a very high level of static indeterminacy, due
to its high external restraint level. As expected, the results shows an high level of robustness
since the decrement of the resistance of both the minimum and maximum histogram is
almost linear with the increment of damage.
If we choose to fit both histograms with a straight line, the first and the second robustness
indicator assume the best possible values, i.e. corresponding to the most robust
performances. Referring to those indicators, it is interesting to notice, that a structure that is
almost completely insensitive to the damage levels and drops all its the resistance at the end
(i.e. it becomes unstable only when all the composing elements are removed), would not be
considered more robust than a structure that presents instead a linear decrement, like this
one. This is consistent with the concept of proportionality between direct and indirect
damage, that has been considered to define structural robustness. On the contrary, the third

and especially the fourth indicator consider positively a concave decrement with respect to a
linear one. The last indicator instead, measuring the endurance of the structures to damages,
is therefore not influenced by this characteristic of the response.
In order to test the functioning and expressivity of the proposed indicators, their values are
reported in the following, referring to the rough approximation of both histograms with a
linear decrement.
a. Decay: Ia = 1 Å 1 Ia 8 (for both histograms)
b. Abrupt decrement: Ib = 0 Å 0 Ib ½ (for both histograms)
c. Subtended area: Ic = 4 Å 1 Ic 8 (for each k)
d. Scattering: Id = 0 Å -4 Id +4 (for each k)
e. Survival: Ie = 8 Å 1 Ie 8 (for both histograms)
Damage
# of elements: MIN CFG
E = 8MAX CFG ROBUSTNESS INDICATOR:
d El. ID Pumin El. ID Pumax
static Ia maximum secant starting from the 1st pt. (account for the
0 indetermin.
0 level:
1 i = 210 1
1 1 0,831745 3 0,896185 lateness of an abrupt decrement)
lower max. damage: D =8
2 5 0,648331 min7 0,832096 ⎧ r (d ) ⎫
upper I a = max ⎨ ⎬ ∀0≤d≤E →1 ≤ I b ≤ E (isostatic)
3 max.4damage: 0,523591 Dmax2 = 8 0,684849
⎩d E ⎭
4 max. damage:
fixed 8 0,376882 D =88 0,580928
5 2 0,269581 6 0,429733
Ib maximum slope pt. tangent (measure the abrupt decrement
exhaust.
6 combination:
6 0,16434 Cex=4 2560,320632 due to the removal of critical element)
⎧ (r −r ) − (ri −ri +1) ⎫
Ib = max⎨ i −1 i
7 7 0,042504 C 1= 65 0,261956
reduced combination: red ⎬ ∀i < D → (linear) 0 ≤ I b ≤ 0.5 (isostatic)
8 3 0 5 0 ⎩ 2 ⎭
STAR STRUCTURE ROBUSTNESS MAX MIN STATIC INDETERMINANCY:
high restrain grade
PU [ad] 1
⎧ ∂R ⎫
R ′ = max ⎨ ⎬ = 0 .25 ← cos t
⎩ ∂d d =1,..., D ⎭
Ia ≈ 1
8 1 2
Ib ≈ 0 !
0,5
7 3
λg
6 5 4
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Damage Level
Fig. 50: Star structure
7.1.2 Truss structure

The figure below represents a truss system, like the ones often used for the static schema of
some bridges. In a truss structure like this one, the bars are connected with hinges and the

grade of structural continuity cannot be very high. The structure therefore is made 4 time
static indeterminate by means of a redundant number of elements. The total number of
elements in the structure is 21, which corresponds to a number of 685960 combinations for
the damaged configurations. The implemented heuristic optimizations reduced the number
of structural configurations to be investigated to just 286.
The robustness curve obtained for this structure are shown in the figure, together with the
value of the robustness indicators evaluated for the maximum and minimum histogram.
Among all the indicators, particularly interesting is that one which refers to the maximum
damage level endured in the best and worse case: while the curve of minima shows a quite
steep decrement of resistance and the structure is unstable after the first two damage levels,
the curve of maxima manifests a lower decrement of resistance and tolerates the removal of
a very high number of elements before becoming unstable. On the right of the figure, the
last stable configuration for maximum and minimum histograms are shown. In this respect,
it’s interesting to notice that due to the analysis ability to undergo local mechanism, the
maximum damage level exceeds the static indeterminacy grade in the measure of 4.
Damage MIN CFG MAX CFG 11 9 10 12
# of elements: E = 21
d El. ID Pumin El. ID Pumax
0 indetermin.
static 0 1
level: i = 04 1
1 9 0,471351 1 0,888941
lower 13 15 17 16 14
2 max. 3damage:0 Dmin2 = 2 0,888941
upper max. damage: Dmax11= 9 0,628625
3 10 0 7 5 3 1 2 4 6 8
4 17 0 12 0,628625
18 20 21 19
fixed
5 max. 16damage:0 D =59 0,628625
6 1 0 6 0,628625 λ
exhaust.
7 combination:
5 0 Cex=13 695860
0,628625
8
reduced 11
combination: 0 Cred14= 2860,628625
9 6 0 17 0
PU [ad] TRUSS STRUCTURE ROBUSTNESS MAX MIN 11 9 10 12

1
13 15 17 16 14
4,76 > Ia > 1,11 7 5 3 1 2 4 6 8
1 2
0.75
18 20 21 19
11 12 5 6 13 14
0.5
MAX MIN
9
0.25
11 9 10 12
0,26 > Ib > 0,13
3 17 13 15 17 16 14
7 5 3 1 2 4 6 8
0
18 20 21 19
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Damage Level
Fig. 51: Truss structure
The values assumed from the robustness indicators are reported in the following. It’s worth
noting, that they are calculated separately for the maximum and minimum histogram. That’s

apply also for the last three indicators, which could possibly be calculated as single value by
defining a parameter k, that calibrates the influence of the maximum histogram.
Characteristic Min histogram Indicator Max histogram Ref. values

Decay 4,76 > Ia > 1,11 21 Ia 1
Abrupt decrem. 0,26 > Ib > 0,13 ½ Ib 0
Subtended area 1,47 < Ic < 6,55 1 Ic 21
Scattering -9,53 < Id < -4,45 -10,5 Id 10,5
Survival 2 < Ie < 9 1 Ie 21
Tab. 2: value of robustness indicator for truss structure
7.1.3 Vierendeel structure

The Vierendeel system represented here was also used in the past a static schema of bridges.
In this case an high level of static indeterminacy (equal to 12) is obtained by means of a
high continuity between elements. The element number is instead lower than the previous
structure and it is in particular equal to 13. Assuming a maximum damage level D = 10, the
number of exhaustive damaged configurations would be 8100. The used heuristic
optimization allowed to investigate instead only 158 combinations.
# of elements: E = 13 8 6 7 9
static indetermin. level: i = 12

lower max. damage: Dmin = 2 4 2 1 3 5
upper max. damage: Dmax = 10

fixed max. damage: D = 10 12 10 11 13
λ
exhaust. combination: Cex= 8100
reduced combination: Cred = 158
VIERENDEEL STRUCTURE ROBUSTNESS MAX MIN

PU [ad] 8 6 7 9
1
4
8,12 > Ia > 2,03 2 1 3 5
1
0,75
12 10 11 13
λ
0,31 > Icr > 0,09
2
0,5
MAX MIN
6
0,25
3 8 6 7 9
10 6 7 8 9 4 5 10 4 2 1 3 5
0
12 10 11 13
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Damage Level
Fig. 52: Vierendel structure

In the figure the obtained resulting maximum and minimum histograms are shown, together
with the representation of the last stable maximum and minimum configurations referring to
the curve of maxima and to the curve of minima. Also in this case, the removal of just two
elements makes the structure unstable, while the maximum sustainable damage for the
histogram of maxima shows a slight higher value than in the previous structure.
Characteristic Min histogram Indicator Max histogram Ref. values

Decay 8,12 > Ia > 2,03 13 Ia 1
Abrupt decrem. 0,31 > Ib > 0,09 ½ Ib 0
Subtended area 1,19 < Ic < 4,07 1 Ic 13
Scattering -5,81 < Id < -1,74 -6,5 Id 6,5
Survival 2 < Ie < 10 1 Ie 13
Tab. 3: value of robustness indicator for Vierendeel structure
7.2 CONSIDERATION ON STATIC INDETERMINACY LEVEL

As can be seen in the following figure, both the curves of maxima and minima of the
Vierendeel structure lies below of the ones referring to the truss structure.
i=4 i = 12
High element number High element connection
11 9 10 12 8 6 7 9
13 15 17 16 14
14 4 2 1 3 5
7 5
5 3
3 11 22 44 66 88
18 20 21 19 12 10 11 13
λ λ
λ
PU [ad] TRUSS STRUCTURE ROBUSTNESS MAX MIN PU [ad] VIERENDEEL STRUCTURE ROBUSTNESS MAX MIN
1
1 2 4,76 > Ia > 1,11 8,12 > Ia > 2,03

0,75
2
0,5
0,5
11 12 5 6 13 14
9 6
0,26 > Ib > 0,13 0,31 > Ib > 0,09
0,25
3 17 10 6 7 8 9 4 5 10
0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Fig. 53: Comparison of static indeterminacy level

Therefore, contrarily to what could be maybe expected, the Vierendel structures doesn’t
prove to be more robust than the truss one, even if its static indeterminacy grade is three
times that of the truss structure. This could be partially explained considering that if an high
level of continuity can provide for a redistribution of stresses on the other elements, it can
also transmit the failure to other elements, when the alternate load paths are not enough
resistant to withstand the high stress transmission. In this case a compartmentalized
structure could prove to be more robust, localizing the collapse between two low connected
joints.
HIGH CONNECTION LOW CONNECTION

Internal External
(constraints) (restraints)
STRESS REDISTRIBUTION LOCAL REDUCTION LOCAL REDUCTION

OF DUCTILITY OF CONTINUITY
(inhomogeneous stiffening
of predetermined sections) LOCAL
Element Element Element MECHANISM
number ductility EARLY RUPTURE AND
connection DEVELOPMENT
DETACHMENT
Continuity Ductility Fragility Isolation

*
HIGH STRESS TRANSMISSION STRESS ARE NOT TRANSMITTED
on adjoining elements after a localized failure
Redundancy Compartmentalization
TRIGGERING OF SUDDEN/EARLY
FEASIBLE ALTERNATE COLLAPSE
CHAIN RUPTURE COLLAPSE
LOAD PATH STANDSTILL
PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE ROBUSTNESS
Starossek & DISPROPORTIONATE COLLAPSE SUSCEPTIBILITY

* Wolff, 2005
Fig. 54: High and low connection
The comparison between these two structure is also useful for testing the robustness
indicators: while the first and the third one seems to correctly indicate a clear prevalence of
the robustness of the truss scheme, the second one responds too slowly to response variation
and the fourth one penalizes too much the structure with element redundancy. This is due to
the fact that this indicator is computed as difference between the area subtended to the curve
and the area subtended to a straight line connecting the resistance of the integer structure
with that one of the null structure, i.e. the with the best possible response of a structure with
a number E of elements. This characteristic determines a strong advantages of structures

with less elements and leads to scarcely expressive representation of the robustness, as the
direct superposition of the curves obtained for the two structure shown.
7.2.1 Three elementary structures for comparison

In order to better understand the role played by the different aspects related to the static
indeterminacy level (identified as the number of elements, the grade of external restraints
and the grade of connection between elements), let’s consider the following three simple
structures, with the same grade of static indeterminacy:
3
PU [kN]
1
elements
0,75
2 4
λg
0,5
1
STATIC INDETERMINANCY
0,25
I3V STRUCTURE ROBUSTNESS MAX MIN
PU [kN]
1
0
0 1 2 3 4
Damage Level
3
restrains
0,5
4 2
5 λg
1
I3E STRUCTURE ROBUSTNESS MAX MIN
PU [kN]
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Damage Level
0,75
6 5
12 11
connection
λg
7 4
0,5
16
13 15 10
0,25
8 14 3
1 2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Damage Level
Fig. 55: Different type of static indeterminacy level
9. HIGH CONNECTED: the first one its composed of four beams disposed in a square
and highly connected (transmission of force and moments). The resulting robustness
curves shows though an abrupt decrement of resistance for the first damage level, due to
the fact, that the failure of whichever element would open the square that as integer
show an high ultimate resistance just in function of its closed resisting form.
10. STRONG RESTRAINED: the second structure is composed by 5 bars (transmission of
axial force only, through internal hinge connections), disposed as a braced square. The
structure is internally static determined and the static indeterminacy level is all due to
the external restraints, that are supports applied at each node. As expected, the structure
shows a very good behaviour in term of robustness, since the two curves doesn’t deviate

very much from a linear trend and present moreover a low scattering, i.e. the robustness
of the structure is bounded between two similar behaviours.
11. MANY ELEMENTS: the third structure is also a truss structure composed of bar and
hinges. This structure, contrarily to the previous one, is externally static determined, i.e.
the rigid body motion is avoided by means of a simply support of two nodes at the basis
of the truss. The internal static indeterminacy is all to be ascribed to the redundant
number of elements. The robust behaviour of the structure is described, as common for
this typology of truss structure, by a almost horizontal trend of the maxima curve and a
very steep trend of the minima curve, i.e. with an high scattering between the two
extremal behaviours.
7.3 APPLICATION TO OTHER STRUCTURES

The structures presented in the previous exempla were used to test the algorithm and to
outline some particular aspects and typical behaviour of system typologies. Nevertheless, it
can be used also on more complex systems as well as, for example, to compare different
design, in order to choose the more robust one.
8/31
Stiff columns (flex. behaviour) Stiff beams (shear-type)
λg
19 20 21 SHEAR-TYPE FRAME ROBUSTNESS MAX MIN 19 20 21
9 10
P U [ad]
11 12
1
9 10 1 12 16 17 18
λg 1
PU
5 6 7 8
13 14 15
16 17 18 1 2 3 4
STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOUR
0,5
5 6 7 8
λg
19 20 21
13 14 15 9 10 11 12
16 17 18
5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 13 14 15
0
1
17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4
Damage Level
19 20 21 FLEX-TYPE FRAME ROBUSTNESS MAX MIN 19

λg
20 21
PU [ad]
9 10
1
11 12
9 10 1 12 16 17 18
λg 1
5 6 7 8
0,75
13 14 15
16 17 18
1 2 3 4
0,5
5 6 7 8
λg
19 20 21
13 14 15 9 10 11 12
0,25
16 17 18
5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 13 14 15
0
1 2 3 4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Damage Level
Fig. 56: Robustness comparison between a shear-type and flexural type design

In the figure above two building frame are shown. The geometry is the same for both the
system, but the structural system is different since in one case the frame has a shear-type
behaviour obtained by increasing the stiffness of the beams, and in the other case the frame
has a flexural behaviour obtained by increasing the sections of the columns.
As can be seen in the figure, the response of the shear-type frame should be preferred in
term of robustness to that one of the flexural-type frame, especially in consideration of the
minimum response, that shows an higher value of the resistance for the fist damage levels.

8 PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE INVESTIGATION
8.1 SERIAL AND PARALLEL PRIMARILY LOAD TRANSFER

SYSTEMS
Different structural typologies exhibit different load transfer system and also different
collapse modality: high-raise building can be prone to pancake or section-type collapses,
whereas bridge can suffer zipper-type or domino-type collapse [Starossek 2007]. Instability-
type collapse is shared by both system types, whereas it is generally coupled with other
collapse typologies. As mentioned in the first part of the work, completely different
strategies can be advised for example in case of serial load transfer systems and parallel load
transfer systems, so it appears reasonable to face the study of collapse susceptibility of both
separately.
Let’s consider for the sake of the argument a multy-storey building, where the load transfer
system is mainly a serial one. Assuming that the local failure probabilities were statistically
independent, the probability of collapse would be equal to the sum of the failure
probabilities of all the elements of the structure. If the initial damage is significant, even
very low probabilities of initial local failure can add up to a probability of global failure. If a
bridge is instead considered, where the load transfer system is mainly parallel, the
probability of collapse is in the order of the product of the failure probabilities of the
elements and thus very low. In consideration of this fact, [Starossek 2006 a] notes:
“When using the design strategy “high safety against local failure,” the probability of
progressive collapse is in the order of the sum of the failure probabilities of all key
elements, and thus increases with the number of key elements (which for that design
strategy can be rather high). When using the design method “isolation by
compartmentalization,” on the other hand, the probability of progressive collapse is in
the order of the product of the failure probabilities of the key elements, and therefore
decreases with an increasing number of key elements and compartments. (Even if these
compartments are all similar by design, the probability of progressive collapse will at
least not exceed the failure probability of one key element.) The advantage stated above
is shared, to a lesser extent, by the alternate-load-paths approach.
For these reasons, design methods based on the presumption of local failure seem
preferable for structures of high significance or exposure. They allow high safety
against progressive collapse at relatively low additional cost, as long as such a design
is possible. Moreover, they are more satisfying from the standpoint of reliability theory
because their efficiency is relatively independent of the failure probabilities of key
elements (a statement based on the preceding paragraph); uncertainties related to

triggering actions are altogether irrelevant, at least in the case of the

compartmentalization approach.”
8.2 A FRAMED R.C. BUILDING

The previously exposed concept of structural robustness finds a practical exemplification in
the collapse investigation of a reinforced concrete framed building, whose system
organization has been inferred from that one of the federal building A. P. Murrah of
Oklahoma City.
As well known, the A. P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, U.S.A., was almost
completely destroyed in a terrorist attack that led to the explosion of a truck bomb parked in
front of the building. Although the truck bomb was parked at a distance of about 4 meter
from the north face of the building, almost an half of the structure resulted to be destroyed
and 168 persons lost their lives while more than 500 were injured. According to
[Prendergast, 1995], about the 80% of the losses was not directly due to the explosion, but
were caused by the collapse of the building consequent to that explosion.
before after
Fig. 57: The A.P. Murrah Federal building befor and after the collapse [FEMA 277]
Shortly after the collapse, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) deployed a
team to investigate the damages caused by the Murrah Building bombing and to identify
engineering strategies for reducing such damage to new and existing buildings. In the
investigation report [FEMA 277 1996] the damages caused by the blast are reviewed and a
possible failure mechanism for the building is identified. It is deduced from visual
inspection and analysis of the damages that the column named G20 in the original drawings
(see Fig. 60) was in all likelihood abruptly removed by brisance in consequence of the bomb
explosion, while a possible damage caused by the detonation to the two adjoining columns
remains ambiguous [Coreley et al. 1998].

It is anyway concluded in the report that: “progressive collapse extended the damage
somewhat beyond that caused directly from the blast” and that “the type of damage that
occurred and the resulting collapse of nearly half the building is consistent with what would
be expected for an ordinary moment frame building of the type and detailing available in the
mid-1970’s”.
8.2.1 Short description of the building

The A. P. Murrah Federal Building was the main building of a bigger complex built at the
beginning of seventies and extended for a surface of about 13000 sqm and rose with 9
storey to an height of about 36 m. The building was formed by a central core and three
longitudinal main frames, placed at a mutual distance of 10,7 m: each frame was formed by
10 span of about 6 m each, but in the first frame only 6 of the 11 columns reached the
ground, while the other 5 columns were intercepted by a transfer girder at the third-floor
level. This peculiarity of the design was based on a structural scheme quite common for
office and public building, where wide entrances are required for security or representative
reason.
The transfer girder had a 0,9 m wide and 1,5 m tall section and a conspicuous upper and
bottom reinforcement, in order to bear the columns loads and distributing them on the other
elements of the system. While a sufficient bar overlapping provided continuity for the upper
reinforcement, the bottom bars were interrupted at the interception of the main columns,
according to the ordinary moment frame design, that was in force at the time the structure
was built. To this discontinuity was ascribed the non robust behaviour of the building, as
previously mentioned, being the transfer girder not capable of bearing in those section any
positive moments like the one that in consequence of the column removal would develop.
ROOF GIRDER
TYPICAL
GIRDERS
TRANSFER GIRDER
• Plan dimension: 60 m x 21 m
COLUMN BLASTED AWAY BY MAIN SECONDARY
• Main frames: 3 longitudinal frames of 10 THE EXPLOSION (G20) COLUMNS COLUMNS
spans, 6 m each span.
• Elevation: 10 floors for a total height of about 35 m
DISCONTINUITY IN THE
• Peculiarities: 5 columns of the main frame stop at 3° floor on a transfer girder, BOTTOM REINFORCEMENT
that has a bottom reinforcement discontinuity at supports OF THE TRANSFER GIRDER
Fig. 58: Original drawings of the A.P. Murrah building design [FEMA 277]

8.2.2 Modelling assumption and description of the performed analyses

In order to study the behaviour of reinforced concrete frame buildings, a structural system
like the one of the Murrah Building is examined: purpose of the investigation was to
determine the susceptibility of progressive collapse deriving from a particular structural
organization like the one described above. In particular, assuming that just one column
would be abruptly removed from the system, it is interesting to follow the propagation of
damage and determine if it could also affect the adjoining columns causing their failure. In
this case, a deficiency in the robustness of the construction could be identified, that is
intrinsic to the system organization chosen for the building and prescind from the particular
event that caused the initial damage.
Purpose of the investigation was also to outline the importance of some modelling aspects in
the study of a framed RC building, such as the account of the full three-dimensional
functioning of the structure and a proper dealing of uncertainties and nonlinear aspects that
would provide for consistent and reliable results but also allowing for a feasible analysis in
term of computational onus and clear interpretation of the outcomes.
Stair well:
3D model 12” concrete stiffening core
(30,48 cm) modeled with
SHELL elements (4×4 mesh).
Floors:
6” concrete slab (16,4 cm)
modeled with SHELL
elements subdivided with a
4×4 mesh.
Girder:
3 groups for main girders plus
one of secondary girder,
modeled with FRAME
elements subdivided with a 4
elements mesh.
Columns:
Ancillary side buildings walls: Basis restraints:
12 groups, modeled with
24” concrete walls (60,96 cm), All d.o.f. are restrained at FRAME elements subdivided
SHELL elements (4×4 mesh). column and wall basis. with a 2 element mesh.
Fig. 59: 3D finite element model of the investigated building

Generally speaking, by investigating the progressive collapse of a structure, many problems

have to be faced, that can be summarized in the following points:
- A plausible scenario has to be defined, recovering structural data, assuming material
resistances values and plausible loads.
- The critical event has to be modelled or one o more initial damages have to be assumed.
- Dynamic aspects are generally to be taken into account, directly or by means of a quasi-
static approach.
- Nonlinear aspects have to be considered, due to the large deformation occurring during a
collapse: in particular, referring to the mechanical behaviour of the material, not only a
elastic-plastic law has to be considered, since exceeding the material in all likelihood the
elastic behaviour, but also the possible rupture of sections and the consequent section
unloading has to be included.
- The possible development of local mechanism has to be checked and the consequences
have to be evaluated.
With respect to the lack of knowledge mentioned in the first point, some assumptions had to
be taken both for the geometrical and mechanical aspects of the model. Referring to
geometrical aspects, the disposition and dimension of elements where directly inferred from
that ones of the Murrah building reported in [FEMA 277 2006] and just some assumption
had to be made about some missing information, such as the definition of a plausible
thickness for the walls of the staircase and of the two adjoining ancillary buildings. The
amount and disposition of reinforcement instead differ from those used in the Murrah
Building, since in the presented model the calculation of the reinforcement was performed
by means of the automatic design of a current commercial code, according to Eurocodes 2
[EN 1992]. Particularly, this choice eliminated the peculiarity of the bottom reinforcement
discontinuity in the transfer girder, so that the investigated building can be assimilated to a
building like it would be currently designed rather than to the real one. Referring to the
mechanical characteristics of the material, the design value of the resistance were used for
the building design, while the characteristic value were considered instead in the collapse
investigation. Starting from these information and assumptions, a full three-dimensional
model of the building was made (see fig. 61) and loaded with design permanent weight and
service overloads computed according to the previously mentioned Eurocodes 2.
In this model the static reaction of the column G20 at the interception with the transfer
girder was identified and used in an further model to substitute the column with this
equivalent force. As already mentioned above in fact, in this investigation the modelling of

the explosion is discarded and a direct structural failure is assumed, by completely removing
the column G20.
The investigation is carried out by incrementing a vertical pushing force opposite to the
column reaction. The dynamic aspect of the column removal can be therefore just be limited
to a quasi-static approach, in the sense that in order to guarantee the exhaustion of the
dynamic peak this pushing force is expected to reach two times the value of the equivalent
force that simulates the column reaction.
Lack of knowledge Assumptions and choices ON THE BASIS OF Nonlinear static analyses are carried out:
F.E.M.A. REPORT
• Full 3D geometry (the Ancillary building and
original drawings reported staircase core modeled as Concrete: HOW ON
by F.E.M.A. were not walls of plausible thickness • E= 32858 Mpa
complete) • Pushing load is a vertical force • 8 two dimensional substructures
• fck=4000 psi= 27,6 MPa
(directed to the ground) applied to (segments of main girders and
• Actual loading at the Design loads are assumed Long. steel: the removed column joint secondary columns next to G20
moment of the explosion in order to perform the line)
• E= 28500 psi=196500 MPa • Vertical displacement is monitored
reinforcement design
• fck=60000 psi= 413,7 MPa at the considered joint • Two-dimensional frame model
Automatic design of current
Transv. steel: • Flexure plastic hinges (lumped • Three-dimensional building
• Effective disposition of all commercial code performed
according to EC2 standards • E= 28500 psi=196500 MPa plasticity) are assigned at beam model
reinforcements
(continuous reinforcement) • fck=34780 psi= 239,8 MPa ends
Characteristic resistance Vertical 3thÆ9th Roof • Different type of M-χ diagrams are
• Real resistance value of the assumed for the hinge behaviors
values are considered for loads [kN/m2] [kN/m2]
materials
nonlinear analyses Slab 3,8 3,8
Overload 2,0 1,0 Extrapolated
Only one column (G20) is
Live 3,0 0,5
• Elements directly hit by assumed to be destroyed by
Sum 8,8 5,3 Drop Residual
the explosion the explosion (statically
Horizontal 5% of to zero branch
removing from the system) λ
loads vertical loads
Fig. 60: Assumptions and choices for the building modelling process.
Referring to the nonlinear aspects to be considered in the analyses, the nonlinear behaviour
of the material was accounted by means of flexural plastic hinges located at the end of each
girder span, whose hinge length was computed according to the Italian seismic regulation
[Ord. 3274, 2003]. According to the regulation, the moment curvature diagram of the
sections are schematized by three segment (I stage up to the concrete cracking, II stage up to
the bar yielding and III stage up to the section rupture), but three different form were
considered for the hinge unloading branch: in the first one the hinge does not drop load
when the ultimate curvature is reached and a perfectly plastic behaviour is extrapolated
starting from the hinge ultimate moment; this hinge form doesn’t entail a big computational
effort, but also doesn’t permit to evidence the resistance drops in the response curve of the
structure consequent to the rupture of some sections; therefore a second hinge form was
considered, in which the plastic moment completely drops to zero as the ultimate curvature
is reached; a third hinge model was eventually considered, in which a residual sloped
branch is considered after the reaching of the ultimate moment. The use of this type of hinge
allowed for a more realistic model of the hinge unloading since the residual branch slope is
obtained drawing a line that starts from the highest point of the diagram (ultimate moment

of the section) and cross the point that refers to the ultimate moment and curvature of the
mere reinforcement of the section.
Several nonlinear static analyses where performed (see fig. 63), first on 8 substructures
extrapolated from the two-dimensional model of the first frame, then on the whole two-
dimensional model of the first frame and then on the complete three-dimensional model,
whose most significant outcomes are summarized in the following section.
8.2.2.1 Results
The analyses on the substructure of the first frame, that refer to segments of main girders
and secondary columns next to G20 line, permitted to evidence that the typical girders and
the roof girder contribute equally to the ultimate resistance of the structure, whereas the
transfer girder alone take more than the 45% of the whole resistance.
4000 SubStr Resist.

Resist. [kN
[kN]] %
A B C D 3500 A 1691,4 45,3
Resistance [kN]
E F G H 3000 B 2090,8 56,0
2500 C 2342,5 62,7
2000 D 2649,8 70,9
1500 E 78,7
2940,9
1000
F 3237,2 86,7
500
G 3533,6 94,6
0
-170 -120 -70 Displacement -20 [mm] H 3735,6 100
A B C D
E F G H
Fig. 61. Response curves relate to the 8 substructures investigated.
A significant difference on the ultimate resistance is also shown by the comparison of the
response curves of the two-dimensional and three-dimensional model. The ultimate
resistance of the tree-dimensional model results to be significantly greater then that one of
the model that account for the first frame alone (6200 vs. 4000 kN). Hence an
underestimation of the 35% would be committed neglecting the full consideration of the full
three-dimensional behaviour of the buildings. Also when the complete three-dimensional
model for the building is duly considered, the ultimate resistance cannot even reach the

static value of the column reaction (8800 kN). That means that when the building is
statically deprived of the column, it is not even able to sustain its weight (self weight and
service overloading); even more if a dynamic amplification factor would be considered (that
even if lower than the value 2 because of the energy dissipation provided by the many
plasticized sections, would be however greater than 1). A more refined estimation of the
dynamic amplification factor or an explicit consideration of the dynamic aspects would
prove to be not very significant and has been therefore disregarded.
More interesting can be instead a review of the progression of the subsequent plasticization
and of the structural parts involved in the collapse: all the outcomes resulting from the
previously described investigations show the development of a mechanisms that involves
the central span of all the girders between the columns adjoining the removed one (named
G16 and G24 in the original drawings).
This mechanism proves to be very dangerous, since it determines the rising of high axial
stresses in these girders, before the involved plastic hinges would exhaust their ductility.
These huge axial forces are transmitted by the structural continuity to the adjoining
elements and lead to an early collapse of the adjoining columns overloaded in shear and
moments.
RESPONSE COMPARISON: between the 2D-

2D-model and 3D-
3D-model Reaction value of the column under assumed loads
2D frame (I hinge) 2D frame (II hinge) 3D frame (I hinges) 3D frame (II hinge) F
10000
FRAME BY THE REST OF THE BUILDING
OVER RESISTANCE PROVIDED TO THE
Resistance [kN]
8800kN
8000
6000
6200kN Without the

column directly
4000
interested by the
explosion, the
structure is not
2000
even able to bear

loads due to self &
service weights.
0
-180 -130 -80 -30 Load carrying capacity of the system without the column
Displacement [mm]
2D FRAME ANALYSIS: plastic hinges development M I plastic hinge form 3D FRAME ANALYSIS: plastic hinge development M I plastic hinge form
c c
M II plastic hinge form M II plastic hinge form
c c
Response curve Response curve

5000 7000
Resistance [kN]
Resistance [kN]
6000
4000
5000
3000 4000
2000 3000
2000
1000
1000
0 0
-300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 -180 -130 -80 -30
Displacement [mm] Displacement [mm]
Fig. 62: 3D response of the 2d and 3d building model and result comparison

8.2.2.2 Findings
The review of the results provided by the performed investigations permits to identify some
characteristics that influence the progressive collapse susceptibility of the building that are
intrinsic to the structural system and its organization.
It can be concluded, that the development of a mechanisms like the one shown by the
analysis, that involves the central span of all girders between lines 16 and 24, as shown in
the review of investigation outcomes, could not be bore by the structure. The attempt of
designing these columns to resist this mechanism seems in fact to be unfeasible. On the
other side, an effort aimed to compartmentalize the structure would also be ineffective: a
modification of the column-girder connections could be for example considered, that
contemplates special controls joint able of providing for an early detachment of the
collapsing sections, but in consequence of the chosen static scheme (particularly referring to
the main column positioning) the collapsed area could be limited at the lowest to the frame
portion between the main column lines (G16 and G24), i.e. not even to a third of the frame,
which makes the measure not worth of the effort.
The development of this mechanism should therefore be avoided. Limiting the consideration
to structural measure only, this purpose can be achieved at least in two different ways:
would an alteration of the static scheme be possible, a reduction of the span length (e.g.
increasing the main column number or extending the secondary column to the ground)
would with all likelihood strongly limit the damaged area. Otherwise strengthening the
transfer girder could also work, provided that the girder section is designed to resist the
abrupt removal of the column without exceeding from the elastic range at least in one of the
section interested by the mechanism. As a matter of fact, as long as the static scheme
remains unmodified, the development of three-hinge mechanism would just be delayed to
an higher value of the dynamic amplification factor. The progressive collapse susceptibility
could be therefore mitigated just in case the section hardening would be sufficient to rise
this value in proximity to 2. It’s interesting to notice that a section hardening that involves
just the amount of the reinforcement (like suggested in the previously mentioned report
[FEMA 277, 2006] by means of a special moment frame detailing and design) would be not
adequate to this purpose and a more effective oversizing of the section dimension and of the
reinforcement would be instead required.
8.3 A LONG SUSPENSION BRIDGE

The previously exposed concept of structural robustness finds a practical exemplification in
the further described investigations of a long suspended bridge [Bontempi et al. 2006],
based on the preliminary design of the Messina Strait Bridge, that should connect the Italian

peninsula with the Sicily island. This project results particularly interesting from the point
of view of a robust investigation, since the structural system consists in a 3300 m long main
central span over a total length of 3666 m. The bridge suspension system is provided by two
pairs of prestressed steel cables, each measuring 1,24 m for the diameter section. The cables
have a total length of 5330 m and rely on two 383 m high towers and on the anchorage
blocks. The deck is formed by three continuous box-girders (the outer ones assigned to the
railway and the inner one devoted to the railway) supported by 30 m apart transversal
girders set 30 m away one from the other and suspended to the cables through a system of
121 pairs of rope hangers.
8.3.1 Performed investigations

The investigations concern the bridge behaviour consequent to an initial damage, intended
here as a sudden removal of some hangers. The approach followed is a bottom-up method: it
is irrelevant to the robustness assessment of the bridge if such an abrupt failure is caused
from explosive charges at the bottom of the ropes, or to an unexpected break off of the
collars that tie the hangers to the cables, or to an erroneous evaluation of the material
resistance of those hangers. The analyses are aimed to identify the minimum number of
removed hangers needed to cause a subsequent damage in the adjoining one, this being a
meaningful parameter that depends on the particular structural system and on the damage
location.
8.3.1.1 Contingency and load scenarios

The investigations performed considered four different locations for the initial damage
within the main span length (zone A, B, C, D of fig. 65) in order to identify the most
sensitive position of the bridge to the failure and two different damage conditions of
symmetrical and asymmetrical failure (respectively on one side only or on both sides of the
bridge).
Among all the investigations that have been carried out, some significant results are
presented in the following, that refer to these contingency scenarios:
Asymmetrical and symmetrical failure of hangers in zone A (damage cantered at 345 m
of distance from the left tower).
Asymmetrical failure of hangers in zone B (damage centred at 900 m of distance from the
left tower).
Symmetrical failure of hangers in zone C (damage centred 450 m left from the mid-span).
Symmetrical and asymmetrical failures of hangers in zone D (damage centred at mid-
span).

TOWER A MID-SPAN
345 m
B
900 m
C 450 m
section type 1 section type 2 section type 3
Fig. 63: Different damage locations considered in the investigations
As regards the load scenarios, the hanger failures are always considered to occur on the
unloaded structure, i.e. neither the train nor the car loads are assumed on the bridge, which
results therefore deformed only under the self weight.
8.3.1.2 Bridge modelling

The model of the bridge (fig. 66) has been implemented in a current commercial code using
one-dimensional finite elements: particularly, the hangers have been modelled through
tension-only frame elements with moment releases at both ends.
Fig. 64: Bridge structural scheme and hangers modelling.

Different starting schemes were considered for the investigations, each referring to the
above mentioned damaged configurations of the bridge. In each structural model the
hangers that are intended to be removed during the analysis were modelled by means of
equivalent forces: so it’s possible to perform the element killing needed during the analysis
just by activating a time-history function on those forces, as in the following section better
explained. A preliminary static analysis has therefore been performed on the integer
structure, in order to compute the reactions exerted by the hangers on the rest of the
structure. Then, for each considered contingency scenarios, the interesting hangers have
been substituted in the static scheme with its previously computed reactions: a static
analysis on the model that consider the load case assigned to these reaction should provide
the same results of the integer bridge analysis, ensuring that the nominal configuration is
correctly restored by the equivalent forces; a static analysis where this load case is neglected
would instead be able to show the final equilibrated configuration for the damaged bridge
only if no subsequent plasticizations occurred due to dynamic amplification after the
equilibrium point.
8.3.1.3 Description of the analysis

Investigating the response of a complex system after a structural failure requires to take into
account in the performed analyses many different aspects that will be briefly remarked in
the following.
1. Geometric nonlinearities: The responses of a long span suspended bridge like the
considered one is strongly nonlinear, due to the presence of the cables. Therefore,
geometrical nonlinearities have to be considered even within the elastic response, since
it’s fundamental for the equilibrium equations to be written with respect to the deformed
geometry. Being this deformed configuration not known in advance, the solution cannot
be obtained in a single analysis step but requires several steps, updating the tentative
solution after each step until a convergence test is satisfied.
The geometrical nonlinearities considered in the performed analyses are limited to the
second order theory (the so called P-Delta effects), whereas the large displacement
formulation is not actually used.
2. Material nonlinearities: Since the “tension only” frame elements used to model the
hangers have a nonlinear behaviour, material nonlinearities have been considered
starting from the first static analysis. Moreover, a nonlinear behaviour in the axial
hangers response is also considered, by means of plastic hinges with a tributary
equivalent length equal to the length of the element on which the hinge is assigned. The
considered hinges have no hardening branch and drop load when the ultimate
displacement is reached. The hinge properties parameters have been consider to have no

hardening and to drop load when ultimate sectional ductility is reached. It’s worth
noting that in the performed analyses the deck is considered to behave elastically and
only some qualitative considerations about a possible yielding of the continuous box-
girders of the deck are provided.
3. Dynamic analysis: The abrupt failure of one or more hangers is a dynamic event, that
can hardly be considered through a quasi-static approach by means of an amplification
factor: the estimation of this coefficient would indeed not be easy for such a complex
structural system, since it depends on many factors, like the ratio between the time taken
by the failure event and the period of the vibration mode solicited from that failure (i.e.
how much the failure event is felt as “dynamic” or as “quasi-static” from the structure)
and the energy absorbed from possibly occurring plasticization of elements, thing that
cannot be known in advance. Moreover, if it is still true that in a first evaluation (aimed
to exclude the possibility of damage propagation), only the first peak of the dynamic
wave is relevant (if the structure survive it without any subsequent damage, it will resist
all the more the following dumped waves), not the same can be said when other
elements collapse as result of the triggering events. In this case, as better shown in the
following, a full dynamic analysis is required to correctly investigate the propagation of
collapse.
The hanger failure has been therefore considered through a sharp ramp function (the time
needed for the failure is taken equal to 1/100 second) assigned to the equivalent forces that
simulated the presence of the considered hangers in the structure. The dynamic analysis
performed consists in a direct-integration time-history analysis where no damping is
assigned and all the previous exposed nonlinearities are considered. The time integration
method used for the time-history analysis was the Hilbert-Hughes-Taylor (HHT) method,
that use a single parameter alpha, that can assume value in [-1/3, 0] and that was set to zero
in the performed analyses, letting the method to be equivalent to the so called trapezoidal
rule method (i.e. method of the average acceleration).
In order to let the hanger failure occurs in a self-weight equilibrated configuration, the
dynamic analysis starts at the end of a previous static case that provides for the initial
conditions of the subsequent time-history case.
8.3.2 Progressive collapse susceptibility

The most significant outcomes resulting from the previously described investigations are
presented and briefly discussed in the following sections.
1. Initial failures in zone A: The bridge response to hanger abrupt failures localized in
this zone results to be a quite robust one.

With reference to an asymmetrical initial damage, if up to 8 hangers together abruptly

fail, nothing significant occurs to the other elements of the bridge, that bear the
overloading due to stress redistribution and dynamic amplification without exceeding
the elastic range. When 9 hangers together fail the hanger adjoining the failed ones to
the right (RH) reaches the plastic range but don’t actually break, since the dynamic peak
is too short to exhaust the hanger ductility. So the plastic hinge unloads elastically and
preserves the following hangers from yielding. The result is just an increment in the
vertical displacement of the unsupported deck segment with respect to the static
equilibrium of the elastic analysis. It’s worth noting that the same localized effect on the
right adjoining hanger occurs also when 10 or 11 or all the 12 hangers of this zone
(section type 2) are abruptly removed.
With respect to an initial damage that affects symmetrically both sides of the bridge,
nothing significant happen up to the abrupt failure of 5 hangers per side and just a
localized effect regarding the plasticization of the hangers adjoining the damaged zone
(RH & LH) occurs when 6 hangers per side together fail. In order to trigger a collapse
progression, an initial damage of 7 hangers per side is needed. It’s interesting to notice
that in this case the collapse propagates faster and faster toward the centre, while the
hangers toward the tower resist the propagation of the collapse much longer, since the
one to the left of the damaged zone (LH) eventually breaks: its rupture occurs 6 seconds
after the right one (RH), i.e. when 8 right hangers have already failed.
It has to be emphasized that such long unsupported span segments like those shown by
these analyses would probably not actually develop. In fact the rise of high negative
moment on the extreme section of the unsupported deck length would not be bearable
by standard box girder sections, that would break when the ultimate moment value is
reached. If in case of a symmetrical initial damage a proper design of joint details could
provide for an early detachment of the deck after yielding of the extreme sections, not
the same can be easily said for the asymmetrical failure where the moment distribution
results to be non symmetric too.
2. Initial failures in zone B: When the initial damage happens to occur in a zone farer
from the tower, an higher number of hangers is needed to be abruptly removed in order
to cause the plasticization of the adjoining ones or the triggering of the chain ruptures.
With regards to an asymmetrical failure, the abrupt removal of 7 hangers causes the
hangers to the left and right of the damage zone to yield, versus the very 9 needed
nearby the tower (zone A). Also here the two hangers don’t break, preserving the
following hangers from yielding.

In order to cause the rupture of the two hangers that trigger the chain ruptures to the left
and to the right of the damaged zone, 9 hangers have to abruptly fail together. Also in
this case the collapse propagation triggers in direction of the bridge centre first (after 2
second since the removal) and the hanger to the left of the damaged zone (LH)
surmount the rupture of 12 hangers to the right and resist up to 4 seconds after the
rupture of the first right hanger before breaking and triggering the collapse also toward
the tower (following figure).
It can be also observed that, in the direction of the bridge centre, the hangers yielding
and rupture speed up with time: in the first second after the first rupture just 2 hangers
break, while in the next second the chain rupture involve the following 4 hangers
(following figure). The velocity of collapse propagation, even if not very high at first
becomes rapidly hasty.
Tension [10^3 Ton] LH RH Tension [10^3 Ton] ZONE B - Asymmetrical

2 2
failure of 9 hangers
1 1
0 0 Æ Ruptures propagation
2 2
1 1
0 0
2 2
RH (Right Hangers)
1 1
0 0
First rupture occurs in the RH
2 2
Rupture propagation speeds up:
1 1
0 0
• 2 hangers break in 1 sec. then
2 2
• 4 break in the following second
1 1
0 0
2 2 LH (Left Hangers)
First LH break 3 seconds after the
1 1
0 0
first RH rupture, when 12 RHs
2 2
have already broken
Rupture propagation does not
1 1
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 speed up:
Time [s] Å Chain ruptures propagate Æ Time [s] • 2 hangers break each second
Fig. 65: Rupture propagation to the right and to the left of the removed hangers, for asymmetric damage in
zone B.
3. Initial failures in zone C: In case a symmetrical failure is assumed, the propagation of

the collapse is shown by removing just 5 hangers per side, versus the 7 needed to trigger
the collapse nearby the tower (zone A). Again, the collapse propagates faster toward the
centre of the bridge and only some seconds later the two adjoining left hangers of both
sides also break, triggering the chain rupture also toward the tower. As already

mentioned and observable in the image sequence below, the peculiarity of a

symmetrical rupture is the fact that it could lead to an early separation of the
unsupported deck segment, which could allow for a collapse standstill.
The resistance and the ductility of deck result therefore to be fundamental parameters in
this kind of failure. If the deck has enough resistance to withstand the negative moments
that develop on the girders just before the first hanger rupture, it will then let the
collapse propagate, since, due to the velocity of collapse propagation, no higher
negative value of the moment will be reached from the deck (see fig. 68).
Fig. 66: Moment propagation in case of a high resistant deck.
4. Initial failures in zone D: The centre of the bridge proves to be the most sensible zone
to a damage involving the hanger system: in this zone the asymmetrical abrupt failure of
just 7 hangers and the symmetrical failure of 5 hangers are sufficient for the triggering
of collapse. Furthermore the failure propagation results very fast: referring to the
propagation toward the centre, 7 hangers break in just three second (fig. 70), while in
the previous exposed case of asymmetrical failure in zone B (fig. 69) one second more
was needed to let the same number of hangers break in the same direction.
Even if the first rupture trigger very soon and propagates also very rapidly, though it
does not accelerate, contrarily to what happened in the previous exposed case: by
carefully comparing the graphics above (fig. 70) it can be observed that two hangers
break in each half second after the first rupture. Nevertheless the collapse doesn’t come
to a stop, not even in correspondence of the higher resistant hangers (section type 2).
These hangers are very far from the centre though, so when the ruptures get so far, the
unsupported deck involves the major of the central span, making very difficult (and also

not very significant) a collapse standstill. Further investigation should be carried on in

order to test a possible effectiveness of an earlier change of sections in the hangers for
the collapse arrest.
Tension [10^3 Ton] LH RH Tension [10^3 Ton]

ZONE D - Asymmetrical
failure of 7 hangers
2 2
1 1
0 0
Æ Ruptures propagation
2
2
1
1
0
RH - LH propagation
0
Ruptures trigger and propagate

2
2
1
1
simultaneously in the RH & LH
0
0
2 2
Rupture trigger very soon (in
the first one and half second)
and propagate with an high
1 1
0 0
velocity (7 hangers break in 3
2 2
seconds) compared with AF-AF-zB.
zB.
1 1
0 0 Rupture propagation does not

2 2 speeds up:
2 hangers break in each half
1 1
•
0 0
second
2 2
1 1
Progressive collapse doesn’
doesn’t
come to an halt though, not
even when encountering
0 0
3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3
Time [s] Å Chain ruptures propagate Æ Time [s] hanger greater sections
Fig. 67: Rupture propagation to the right and to the left of the removed hangers, for asymmetric damage in
zone D.
8.3.3 Proposed measures for mitigation

The review of the results provided from the performed investigations permits to identify
some characteristics in the behaviour of the bridge after a damage in the hanger suspension
system, that are intrinsic to the structural system (see fig. 70), that are summarized in the
following 4 aspects:
1. Minimum number of removed hangers and most sensitive location for the
triggering of the progressive collapse: the bridge results to be more sensible to the
damage at mid-span, where the removal of just 5 hanger for the symmetrical rupture
and 7 hangers for the asymmetrical rupture is needed in order to trigger the collapse
propagation.
Shifting the initial damage location aside (about at 1/3 of the span) the asymmetrical
rupture of 9 hangers is required for the collapse propagation, while moving the initial
damage near the tower even the asymmetrical removal of 12 hangers has no global

effects on the structure and very 7 hangers must be symmetrically removed on both
sides in order to trigger the propagation of the ruptures on the adjoining hangers.
most sensitive location
collapse propagation
2
growing element ductility
ruptures propagate easily

ruptures trigger easily
3
increasing sections
Symmetrical
Asymmetrical
Fig. 68: Characteristic behaviour of the structural system
2. Preferential direction for the collapse propagation: to the higher damage sensibility
of the bridge central zone counterpoises a lower acceleration of the collapse progression
triggered by central ruptures, with respect to that one triggered by lateral ruptures.

This effect is due to the particular configuration of the structural system that requires a
growing hanger length from the centre to the sides of the bridge: when a chain rupture
triggers, the ultimate elongation required to the hangers adjoining the failed ones
increases as the collapse propagates (because the unsupported deck length also
increases).
If the initial damage occurs at mid-span, it involves the shortest hangers and the
collapse propagation is partially slowed down from the growing element ductility of
sideward hangers. On the contrary, a more intense initial damage is required sideways
to trigger chain ruptures, but then the hanger breakdowns speeds up when moving
toward the centre, where the hanger length decreases.
3. Qualitative measure that could possibly lead the collapse to an halt: in the case of a
central rupture a closer increment in the section of the hangers (that remain instead the
same for about 5/6 of the span length) could possibly provide for a collapse standstill. In
the case of a chain rupture triggered in a lateral zone the preferential direction showed
by the progressive collapse would probably make less effective such a measure.
4. Sensibility to modality of damage (asymmetrical or symmetrical failure): another
consideration about the possible collapse standstill concerns the higher susceptibility of
the bridge to an unsymmetrical hanger failure than to a symmetrical one: in the last case
the symmetrical hinge formations determines a symmetrical moment increment on the
deck box-girders, thus possibly allowing for an early deck segment detachment that
would arrest the collapse.

CONCLUSIONS
9. PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE INVESTIGATIONS

10. PROPOSED ROBUSTNESS ASSESSMENT METHOD
CONCLUSIONS 183
9 PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE SUSCEPTIBILITY
9.1 LONG SUSPENSION BRIDGE

The review of the results provided by the performed investigations permits to identify some
characteristics of the behaviour of the bridge after a damage in the hanger suspension
system, that are intrinsic to the structural system. They can suggest some qualitative
measure to mitigate the collapse susceptibility of the structure. Particularly the investigation
outcomes give the hint for some considerations on some specific aspects related to the
robustness assessment of a structure and to the mitigation of a possible progressive collapse
susceptibility, that are briefly summarized in the following sections.
9.1.1 Dynamic amplification

As exposed in the first part of this work, recent regulations require to take into account in
the design phase not only the structure in its nominal integer configuration, but also in a
damaged one: for a bridge this would imply to explicit consider the possible failure of one
or more hangers. Being the abrupt failure of those elements a dynamic event, a quasi-static
analysis could be carried out only with the help of a proper calibrated dynamic amplification
factor (DAF). A conservative value of 2 (that refers to one-degree of freedom elastic
system) could be used in absence of more refined evaluation, but it would lead to an
uneconomic design. It seems though quite difficult to establish a fixed value for this
amplification factor, since it strongly depends on how much “dynamic” is the failure felt
from the system, i.e. on the ratio between the time and the period of the vibration induced
by that failure.
In all damage locations considered for the performed analyses, the abrupt removal of a
single hanger directly solicits a vibration mode that has a very short period and turns
therefore to be comparable with the time-length assigned to the failure event (10-2 seconds):
the resulting dynamic amplification factor associated to this event is therefore significantly
smaller than the suggested conservative value of 2. Referring for example to the
asymmetrical failure of a single hanger cantered in zone B, the DAF (computed as the ratio
between the maximum dynamic vertical displacement of the joint at the base of the removed
hanger and the static displacement corresponding to the structural scheme without the failed
hangers, as defined in 1), result to be equal to 1,3.
wm − w0
DAF =
we − wo Eq. 31
CONCLUSIONS 185
wm is the maximum dynamic vertical displacement of the considered joint;

where: we is the joint static vertical displacement without failed hangers;
w0 is the joint vertical displacement in the initial configuration (self weight).
In the considered positions and with all likelihood along the bridge, the abrupt removal of a
single hanger doesn’t entail the failure of any adjoined hangers and the bridge response
remains therefore fully elastic. The mentioned reduction of the DAF with respect to that one
provided form the regulation is then entirely due to the nearly static perception of the hanger
failure from the bridge.
Another aspect is the reduction of this factor provided from the exploiting of plastic reserve
of the structure. To rely on this type of DAF reduction without a specific nonlinear
investigation doesn’t seem possible though, while a reduction of the factor based on the
period of the directly solicited mode could possibly be feasible when limiting the
investigation to an elastic one.
9.1.2 Triggering and propagation

Referring to the previously exposed outcomes, an evaluation of the sensitivity of the
suspension system to a local damage can be given, considering that the bridge results to be
more sensible to the damage at mid-span, where the removal of just 5 hanger for the
symmetrical rupture and 7 hangers for the asymmetrical rupture is needed in order to trigger
the collapse propagation. When the initial damage location is shifted aside (about at 1/3 of
the span), the asymmetrical rupture of 9 hangers is required for the collapse propagation,
whereas, when moving the initial damage near the tower, even the asymmetrical removal of
12 hangers has no global effects on the structure and very 7 hangers must be symmetrically
removed on both sides in order to trigger the propagation of the ruptures on the adjoining
hangers.
An evaluation of the progressive collapse susceptibility of the bridge should take into
account not only the easiness of the collapse triggering but also the modality of this
propagation, i.e. the velocity of the chain rupture. Referring to this application, a significant
difference can be outlined between the triggering of the collapse and the easiness of rupture
propagation: to the higher damage sensibility of the bridge central zone counterpoises a
lower acceleration of the collapse progression triggered by central ruptures, with respect to
that one triggered by lateral ruptures. This effect is due to the particular configuration of the
structural system that requires a growing hanger length from the centre to the sides of the
bridge: when a chain rupture trigger, the ultimate elongation required to the hangers
adjoining the failed ones increases as the collapse propagates (because the unsupported deck
length also increases). If the initial damage occurs at mid-span, it involves the shortest
CONCLUSIONS 186
hangers and the collapse propagation is partially slowed down from the growing element
ductility of sideward hangers. On the contrary, a more intense initial damage is required
sideways to trigger chain ruptures, but then the hanger breakdowns speeds up when moving
toward the centre, where the hanger length decreases.
A preferential direction for the collapse propagation is then shown, that could address some
countermeasure aimed to mitigate the progressive collapse susceptibility of the structure.
Particularly, in the case of a central rupture a little increment in the section of the hangers
(that remain instead the same for about 5/6 of the span length) could possibly provide for a
collapse standstill, while in the case of a chain rupture triggered in a lateral zone instead, the
preferential direction showed by the progressive collapse would probably make less
effective such a measure and stronger modification of the structural system would be
probably required.
9.1.3 Collapse standstill and further developments

As mentioned before, in the performed investigations on the bridge the mechanical
nonlinearities have been limited to the suspensions system, while an elastic behaviour has
been assumed of the bridge deck. This limitation of the analysis was required in order to
outline the progressive collapse susceptibility of the suspension system, especially
considering that the studied structural system refers to a bridge design and not to a real
construction; it appears therefore quite difficult to rely on fixed and well determined deck
characteristics. In consequences of the high number of failed hangers needed to trigger the
collapse, it seems though probable that also the deck would be involved in the collapse.
In this respect particular importance assumes the structure sensibility to the modality of
damage (asymmetrical or symmetrical failure): in case of an asymmetrical initial damage
the rupture propagation results to be also asymmetric, while in case of a symmetrical initial
hanger failures, the symmetrical hinge formations determines a symmetrical moment
increment on the deck box-girders, thus possibly allowing for a symmetrical deck yielding.
The effects of the deck participation could significantly affect the rupture propagation and in
case of an early deck segment detachment the collapse could even come to a standstill.
If the overloaded sections of the part of the deck directly under the removed hangers yield, a
tree-hinge mechanism would develop, whose effects strongly depends on the section
properties of the deck (resistance, ductility and form of the section) and on the relative
resistance of the adjoining elements (in this case the bounding hangers and the deck
segments adjoining the collapsing ones). In order to understand the effects of this
mechanism further analyses should be performed, that could account at least on a subset of
elements of the bridge model, for the effects of large displacement and flexural-axial
CONCLUSIONS 187
interacting plastic hinges. With these premises it is however possible to support five
possible effects of this mechanism, that are:
a. The hanger breaks in consequence of an axial overloading transmitted by the cinematic
chain of the deck segments. In this case the ruptures would propagate through the hangers
by a zipper type collapse [Starossek 2007], just like in the cases previously examined.
Possible countermeasure could be aimed to increase the resistance or the section of
predetermined hangers, placed at a mutual distance that should be not greater than the
considered collapsing deck segment length. A collapse standstill would be anyway not a-
priori guaranteed by such countermeasure, since the effects b, c, d, e could occur
afterwards.
b. The deck breaks at hanger level in consequence of shear overloading: the axial stress of
the collapsing deck segments is not entirely taken from the hangers but is also transmitted
by shear force to the adjoining deck portion. The brittle rupture consequent to a shear
failure of the section could provide for a detachment of the collapsing deck portion, but
in consideration of the relative shear resistance between the deck and the hangers, it
seems unlikely that such a failure could actually occur in this system.
c. The deck breaks out for axial overloading: if the hangers and the deck section adjoining
the collapsing segment would resist up to the axial rupture of the latter, a detachment of
the collapsing section could be assumed that would arrest the collapse. Such high axial
stress in the deck collapsing section however, normally require quite low inclination
angles to occur, so that the horizontal component of the axial force, that is undertaken
from the adjoining deck segment, would also not be distant from the yielding value. Such
exiguous safety margin doesn’t permit to exclude an involvement of these elements in the
collapse.
d. The moment redistribution following the flexural failure of the three sections of the
considered deck portion determines the flexural overloading of other adjoining sections
and the failures propagate through the deck instead through the suspension system.
e. The hinge exhaust their ductility and breaks: when the ultimate rotation is reached, the
moment stored in the plastic hinge is dropped and the deck section is no longer able to
sustain and transmit any moment; however, the axial and shear loads could be still
transmitted, at least partially, to the adjoining sections. The rupture of flexural plastic
hinge cannot therefore indicate a simultaneous arrest of all stress transmission How and
how much axial and shear stresses are transmitted to the other elements is an aspect that
strongly depends on the joint detailing and on the joint physical realization and cannot
therefore be easily accounted by means of an unrefined model. Furthermore, the rupture
CONCLUSIONS 188
of a plastic hinge is a dynamic event, whose effects cannot be accounted just considering
the static flexural unloading of the involved sections. A possible countermeasure
addressed in this direction could attempt to obtain an early separation of this deck
segment. This aim could be accomplished by interrupting the continuity of the deck at
each 6th span, by means of special control joints, capable to abruptly disconnect the deck
segment when a predetermined joint rotation value is reached.
9.2 R.C. FRAMED BUILDING

The review of the results provided from the performed investigations on the building
permits to identify some characteristic that influence the progressive collapse susceptibility
of the construction that are intrinsic to the structural system and its organization.
It can be concluded, that the development of a mechanisms like the one shown by the
analysis, that involves the central span of all girders between lines 16 and 24, as shown in
the review of investigation outcomes, could not be bore by the structure. The attempt of
designing the columns to resist this mechanism seems as a matter of fact unfeasible. On the
other side, an effort aimed at compartmentalizing the structure would also be ineffective: a
modification of the column-girder connections could be for example considered, that
contemplates special controls joint able of providing for an early detachment of the
collapsing sections, but in consequence of the chosen static scheme (particularly referring to
the main column positioning) the collapsed area could be limited at the lowest to the frame
portion between the main column lines (G16 and G24), i.e. not even to a third of the frame,
which makes the measure not worth of the effort.
The development of this mechanism should therefore be avoided. Limiting the consideration
to structural measure only, this purpose can be achieved at least in two different ways:
would an alteration of the static scheme be possible, a reduction of the span length (e.g.
increasing the main column number or extending the secondary column to the ground)
would with all likelihood strongly limit the damaged area. Otherwise, strengthening the
transfer girder could also work, provided that the girder section is designed to resist the
abrupt removal of the column without exceeding from the elastic range at least in one of the
section interested by the mechanism. As a matter of fact, as long as the static scheme
remains unmodified, the development of three-hinge mechanism would just be delayed to
an higher value of the dynamic amplification factor. The progressive collapse susceptibility
could be therefore mitigated just in case the section hardening would be sufficient to rise
this value in proximity to 2. It’s interesting to notice that a section hardening that involves
just the amount of the reinforcement (like suggested in the previously mentioned report
[FEMA 277 2006] by means of a special moment frame detailing and design) would be not
CONCLUSIONS 189
adequate to this purpose and a more effective over-sizing of the section dimension and of
the reinforcement would be instead required.
CONCLUSIONS 190
10 PROPOSED ROBUSTNESS ASSESSMENT METHOD
The robustness of a structure, understood as its ability not to suffer disproportionate

damages as a result of a limited initial failure, has been widely recognised as an important
property of structural systems, which mitigates their susceptibility to progressive
disproportionate collapse. Several definition of robustness can be found in literature and
have been reviewed in the first part of this work. Anyway, most of them are just qualitative
definition and do not permit a clear evaluation of the robustness level of a structural system.
10.1 GENERAL FRAMEWORK

The concept of proportionality between initial failure and consequent damage seem always
to be present, though a general consensus on the term cannot be found: particularly, the
independence of structural robustness from the triggering events and forces is still
controversial. In this work, the robustness of a structure has been intended as an intrinsic
requirement, inherent to its static system and not dependent on the particular critical event
that can affect it. A set of definitions is provided in order to distinguish all the different
aspects related to structural integrity and has been integrated in the framework of structural
dependability. The term structural dependability in intended as collective term used to
describe the quality of a system and its performances.
The concept of dependability has been developed in the field of electronic systems
engineering and in the recent years, it has found ground in many scientific and engineering
fields, such as biological and computer systems. Though, the need of a extensive
organization of the design aspects related to the quality of the response of the system is also
important in other engineering fields. In particular, in structural systems the consolidated
issue of failure prevention needs to be integrated in the design with that of failure
presumption. In this view, this work attempted to transfer the concept of dependability to
the civil engineering field, defining the structural dependability as the grade of confidence
on the safety and on the performance of a structural system. The requirement of robustness
is in this way integrated in the framework of dependability and refers to the safety attributes
of dependability.
Strategies and methods to pursue structural integrity have been also presented and integrated
in this framework. Particularly, the presumption of damage in opposition with the common
strategy of failure prevention has been indicated as fundamental for the positive
achievement of structural integrity. Among the presumption of damage, direct and indirect
CONCLUSIONS 191
methods have been presented and discussed and a direct bottom-up method, that starts has
been indicated as effective for the achievement of structural robustness particularly.
10.2 ROBUSTNESS CURVES

In order to evaluate and verify the robustness level of a structure, as well as for comparing
and choosing among two different design solutions, a quantitative evaluation of robustness
is fundamental. As recalled above instead, mainly qualitative instead of quantitative
recommendations can be found in literature as well as in regulations.
In this work the development of a method to quantify the level of robustness has been
presented, that, following a bottom-up approach, assumes a failure in a hierarchically low
structural part (element level) and evaluate the worsening of the structural response. The
method resorts a nonlinear analysis and is based on static or quasi-static removal of the
composing elements of the structure.
10.2.1 Main aspects and limitations

The numerical evaluation of the robustness degree of a structure requires an extensive
analysis of all possible failures in the elements. The advantage with respect to a top-down
approach, which would consider all possible critical events and would investigate the
collapse resistance of the structure to these faults, consists in the fact that it seems not
possible to consider all the possible fault event or accidental actions that can affect a
structure, also considering that failures can happen not only in the case of accidents,
malicious attacks or natural catastrophes (exogenous causes) but also in consequences of
human errors in the design or execution phases or material failures (endogenous causes).
The latter events cannot be foreseen and therefore this kind of failures cannot be taken into
account during the design phase, leaving the robustness of the system in charge to avoid the
damage propagation. In opposition to this approach that starts from the consideration of the
fault events, the choice of starting from the elements failure can consider all the possible
failure, since the element number of the structure is a large, but finite and well know
number.
Some limitations should be stressed: the main one concerns the choice of element level as
lowest entity for the failure. As a matter of fact, the procedure need a starting hierarchical
level to be assumed, in order to obtain a discretization of the damage degree and it seemed
more sensible to identify it at an elementary level than at a sectional one. This assumption is
substantiated by many reasons: the first one starts from the consideration that the robustness
of a structure is a property that involves the behaviour of the whole structural system. In the
usual ULS verifications, the safety of an element is obtained by the verifications carried out
CONCLUSIONS 192
at a sectional level. Similarly, the verification of a section pleads the analysis of its fibres. A
too localized initial damage would seem therefore to be inconsistent with the other
verification and with the common engineering practice. Furthermore it would require a
significantly bigger calculus onus that would not be justified from a clear improvement in
the expressivity of the robustness curves. The investigation of the structural robustness is a
quite arduous task, that need to be kept as simplest as possible also in consideration of the
result interpretability and of the need to promote the acceptance of the method. Eventually,
a clear identification of the critical elements could not be provided anymore, neither an
abrupt resistance decrement would similarly represent a critical section, since the damage
level would no more be bounded with physical entities.
With respect to the first problem, some possible modification of the algorithm were
nevertheless presented and discussed, in order to take into account in the damage level the
entity of the element sections, by means of a simple rescaling of the robustness curve axis as
well as a more incisive modification in the procedure of element removal.
Another problem arises from the fact that the exhaustive number of combinations of failed
elements to be considered for an exhaustive investigations increases exponentially with the
number of elements. In order to perform a feasible limited number of analyses for one
structure, optimization algorithms have therefore been used in this work with the aim of
moving the problem complexity from an exponential to a polynomial form. The
optimization techniques considered are a heuristic and a probabilistic method. The first one,
that has been implemented and applied in the investigations of some simple structures, is
based on the assumption that the worst and the best configuration for each damage level can
be directly originated by an element removal on the best and worst configurations of the
previous damage level, respectively; the second one avails a simulated annealing algorithms
that starts from a set move based on the most stressed or strained elements. In both case, the
problem becomes feasible and the mentioned curves can be obtained in a polynomial time
also for complex structural system.
The obtained curves characterize the response of the structure in term of robustness and
provide useful information on the investigated system; particularly, the method allows to
clearly identify the critical elements, enabling a significant improvement through a focused
change in the static scheme or a direct reinforcing of only those elements.
10.2.2 Procedure summary and further efforts

Summarising, the method is based on five main steps, that have been extensively exposed in
the first part of this work and are here briefly listed:
a. the identification of damage at a low hierarchical level (i.e. element)
CONCLUSIONS 193
b. the reduction of all possible damaged configurations by means of a probabilistic or

heuristic optimization
c. the performing of a set of nonlinear analyses of the reduced damaged configurations
d. the construction and interpretation of the resulting robustness curves that diagram the
ultimate resistance over the damage level
e. the identification of a set of indicators among the ones proposed and the numerical
evaluation of the indices of robustness
The method, implemented in a code that is reported in the appendix, has been tested and
applied in this work to a set of structure, starting from the most simple one up to structures
with a larger number of elements. It has been shown how critical elements in the structure
can be identified, leading to a minor change in the design, that can still improve the
robustness of the system significantly.
Further research could be addressed to a more extensive testing of the optimization methods
used in order to reduce the number of investigations. These techniques require the testing
and calibration of several parameters and can be improved in term of exactness of the result
and especially in term of onus and time of computing. Further efforts could be also
addressed to the study, testing and calibrations of the robustness indices: in the first part of
this work a set of robustness indicators has been extrapolated; each of them is focused on a
particular aspect of the structural robustness, like critical decrement of resistance, tolerance
to high damage level, earliness or lateness for performance deterioration etc. These
indicators have to be all considered, since a unique parameter that could express both the
insensitivity to failure and the presence of critical elements, as well as the maximum or
minimum damage capability, has not been identified yet.
CONCLUSIONS 194
APPENDICES
11. ROBALG CODE
APPENDICES 195
11 ROBALG CODE
In this appendix, the code written for the calculus of the robustness curve is reported. The
code is written to work with ANSYS, that use a proprietary language called Ansys
parametric design language (APDL), quite similar to the well-known FORTRAN. The
algorithm avail the use of static nonlinear analysis of ANSYS and is conceptually divided in
ten main parts, that are briefly commented beneath. The program was meant to work fully
automatically and allows a simple and flexible usage by the users. In order to a proper
usage, just some requirement on the starting model should be accomplished, that are
recalled in the following sections.
11.1 GETTING STARTED

It is possible to use a text file with the model of the integer structure or create it when
requested during the program, that use a devoted macro (MODASK) to allow the user input
of the model parameters. In both cases the elements that should be removed during the
analyses, have to be sequentially numbered starting from 1 to E, that is a parameter asked
from the program, together with the maximum damage DMAX, since it could be wanted to be
different from E. Also the external restrains, used from the program to compute the static
reactions and therefore the ultimate resistance of the structure, should be numbered starting
from 1 to NV, that is also an input parameter.
In order to start the program, the code reported below should be saved “as is” in a text file.
It is possible to save under any name in any pc directory, but references in the following
will be made to a text file named ROBALG7.TXT, stored in the working directory of
ANSYS. The program can be launched by the command line of ANSYS, by means of two
simple command reported below: the first one specifies the location of the library file, while
the second launch the main part of the program, that will call the subsequent macro.
ULIB,ROBALG7,TXT
USE,MAIN
11.2 MAIN FEATURES

The analysis parameter can be calibrated by the user, by means of a proper macro that
requires input from the user. Then the analysis on the integer structure can be repeatedly
launched and the graphical full result can be reviewed. These results include the stress and
strain distributions in the elements, that will be showed step-by-step following the trend of
the incremental analysis, as well as the so-called pushover curve (force-displacement curve).
APPENDICES 197
By reviewing this result the user can see if the analysis was correct and go on with the
analyses of damaged structures or change the analyses parameter. In this case a new analysis
on the integer structure will be performed until the analyses parameter are correctly
calibrated.
11.3 CODE
=================================================================================
CODICE APDL PER IL CALCOLO DI CURVE DI ROBUSTEZZA
AUTORE: LUISA GIULIANI DATA REVISIONE: Settembre 2008
UNIVERSITA’ DI ROMA LA SAPIENZA – DIPARTIMENTO DISG
================================================================================
MAIN!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
!__________________MODELLO STRUTTURA E PARAMETRI ANALISI________________________
*USE,MODEL ! Modello geometrico della struttura
*USE,INPAR ! Inizializzazione parametri e vettori
*USE,MESH ! con vincoli, meshatura e carichi
*USE,CARICHI
:REPLAY
*USE,SOLVPAR ! Definizione parametri per l'analisi
!______________________RISOLVO STRUTTURA INTEGRA________________________________
*USE,SOLVINT ! Analisi della struttura integra
*USE,VEDIRIS ! Visualizzazione dei risultati (curva
! di pushover, andamenti e carico ult.)
!------ Scelgo se modificare e ripetere l'analisi della struttura integra ------
*ASK,GOON,Change analysis parameter and resolve integer structure again?,'n'
*IF,GOON,EQ,'y',THEN
JUMPLINE='REPLAY'
*ELSE
JUMPLINE='AVANTI'
*ENDIF
*GO,:%JUMPLINE%
:AVANTI
!-------- Scelgo se procedere con l'analisi delle strutture danneggiate ---------
TM=TSTOP-TSTART ! Tempo di analisi della str. integra
*USE,CALCTIME,TM ! Stimo il tempo tot per le analisi succ
*ASK,GOON,Proceed with analyses of damaged structures? (y/n),'y'
*IF,GOON,EQ,'n',THEN
JUMPLINE='TERMIN'
*ELSE
JUMPLINE='CONTIN'
*ENDIF
APPENDICES 198
*GO,:%JUMPLINE%
:CONTIN
!____________________RISOLVO LE STRUTTURE DANNEGGIATE__________________________
*USE,SAVENGO ! Salvo i risultati e procedo
*ASK,PRIMA,Which curve you want to be calculate first? (MAX/MIN),'MAX'
*IF,PRIMA,EQ,'MAX',THEN
*USE,CURVMAX
*USE,RESETINT ! Reimposto la config. integra
*USE,CURVMIN ! Risolvo il problema dei minimi
*ELSEIF,PRIMA,EQ,'MIN',THEN
*USE,CURVMIN ! Risolvo il problema dei minimi
*USE,RESETINT ! Reimposto la config. integra
*USE,CURVMAX ! Risolvo il problema dei massimi
*ENDIF
*USE,RESULT ! Registro e plotto i risultati
:TERMIN
/EOF!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
MODEL!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
!___________________INIZIALIZZAZIONE PARAMETRI MODELLO_________________________
NV=0
NT=0
E=0
ET=0
DMAX=0
!____________________________MODELLO DELLA STRUTTURA____________________________
*ASK,RISPOSTA,'Use wizard to build the model? (y/n)','n'
*IF,RISPOSTA,EQ,'n',THEN
*USE,INFOFILE
*ASK,INPUTPATH,'Name of input file','INPUT'
*ASK,INPUTEXT,'Extension of input file','TXT'
/INPUT,%INPUTPATH%,%INPUTEXT%,,,1
*ELSE
*USE,MODASK,E,NV,DMAX
*ENDIF
EPLOT
/PSF,DEFA, ,1,0,1
/PBF,DEFA, ,1
/PIC,DEFA, ,1
/PSYMB,DOT,1
/PBC,ALL, ,1
/REPLOT
/EOF!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
APPENDICES 199
INPAR!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
!_____________________DICHIARAZIONE PARAMETRI E VETTORI_________________________
!--------------------- Parametri scalari del modello ---------------------------
*ASK,TITLE,Analysis title,'ROBALG' ! Chiedo il titolo
/TITLE,%TITLE% ! Chiedo il # di nodi totali e il # di
*IF,NT,EQ,0,THEN
*ASK,NT,# of total nodes,9
*ENDIF ! Chiedo il # di nodi vincolati IN DIR.
*IF,NV,EQ,0,THEN ! INTERESSE (ovvero la direzione della
*ASK,NV,# of restrained nodes,8 ! forza agente). Nel modello tali nodi
*ENDIF ! devvono essere stati numerati in modo
*IF,ET,EQ,0,THEN ! sequenziale a partire da 1 fino ad NV.
*ASK,ET,# of total elements,8 ! Chiedo il # degli el. totali del mod.
*ENDIF
*IF,E,EQ,0,THEN ! Chiedo il # degli el. da rimuovere che
*ASK,E,# of removable elements,%ET%!
*ENDIF ! Tali el. devono essere stati numerati
*IF,DMAX,EQ,0,THEN ! nel modello in modo seq. da 1 ad E
*ASK,DMAX,Maximum damage level,%E%
*ENDIF ! Chiedo il danno massimo
*USE,CALCCOMB ! calcolo il # di combinazioni da analiz
!----------- Array dei carichi ultimi per il liv. di danno corrente ------------
*DIM,PUD,ARRAY,E,3,1 ! Dichiaro un vettore PUD che contiene
! i carichi ultimi delle configurazioni
! analizzate per il livello di danno D
*DO,I,1,E,1 ! Inizializzo il vettore PU, inserendo
PUD(I,1) = I ! nella prima colonna il numero
PUD(I,2) = -1 ! identificativo di ogni elemento e
PUD(I,3) = -1 ! nelle altre due il valore iniziale -1
*ENDDO ! NB: L'ID di el. serve per l'EKILL iniz
!------------------- Array PU dei carichi ultimi critici -----------------------
*DIM,PU,ARRAY,(DMAX+1),3,1 ! Dichiaro una matrice PU che conterrà
*DO,I,1,(DMAX+1),1 ! le inf. della config critica per ogni
*DO,J,1,3,1 ! liv. di danno da 0 a DMAX, prima per
PU(I,J)=-1 ! la curva dei MIN e poi per quella dei
*ENDDO ! MAX. La matrice è inizializzata con
*ENDDO ! il valore -1 in tutte le posizioni.
!------------------ Array ROBCUR delle curve di robustezza ---------------------
*DIM,ROBCUR,ARRAY,(DMAX+1),7,1
*DO,I,0,DMAX
ROBCUR((I+1),1)=%I%
APPENDICES 200
*DO,J,2,7,1
ROBCUR((I+1),J)=-1
*ENDDO
*ENDDO
/EOF!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
MESH!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
/PREP7!============================== ! Entro nel preprocessore
*ASK,MESHING,'Do you want to refine element mesh?','n'
*IF,MESHING,EQ,'y',THEN
*GET,ET,ELEM,0,COUNT ! Prendo il n. tot. di el. def.
*GET,NT,NODE,0,COUNT ! Prendo il n. tot. di nodi def.
*ASK,MESH,Number of element subdivision? (odd),3
*DIM,ELMESH,ARRAY,%MESH%,%ET%,1 ! Creo un vettore per salvare
*DO,EE,1,ET,1 ! le inf. sugli el. meshati
*GET,NMAX,NODE,0,NUM,MAXD ! Max n. assegnato ai nodi def.
*GET,EMAX,ELEM,0,NUM,MAXD ! Max n. assegnato agli el. def.
*GET,NI,ELEM,%EE%,NODE,1 ! N. assegn. al nodo iniz. di EE
*GET,NJ,ELEM,%EE%,NODE,2 ! N. assegn. al nodo fin. di EE
EDELE,EE ! Elimino l'elemento da discr.
! Creo MESH-1 nodi interni tra
! l'iniz. e il fin. dell'el.
! eliminato. Li numero consec.
FILL,%NI%,%NJ%,%MESH-1%,%NMAX+1%,1! da NMAX+1 a NMAX+MESH-1
EN,%EMAX+1%,%NI%,%NMAX+1% ! Primo sottoelemento
ELMESH(1,%EE%,1)= %EMAX+1%
EN,%EMAX+2%,%NJ%,%NMAX+MESH-1% ! Ultimo sottoelemento
ELMESH(%MESH%,%EE%,1)= %EMAX+2%
*DO,I,1,%(MESH-3)/2%,1 ! Sottoelementi interni
J=(I*2)+1
EN,%EMAX+J%,%NMAX+I%,%NMAX+I+1%
ELMESH(I+1,%EE%,1)= %EMAX+J%
EN,%EMAX+J+1%,%NMAX+MESH-I%,%NMAX+MESH-I-1%
ELMESH(%MESH-I%,%EE%,1)= %EMAX+J+1%
*ENDDO
! Creo il sottoel. centrale che
! rinomino EE (sarà rimosso)
EN,%EE%,%NMAX+((MESH-1)/2)%,%NMAX+((MESH+1)/2)%
ELMESH(%(MESH+1)/2%,%EE%,1)= %EE%
*ENDDO
*GET,ET,ELEM,0,COUNT ! Prendo il n. tot. di el. def.
*GET,NT,NODE,0,COUNT ! Prendo il n. tot. di nodi def.
APPENDICES 201
*ENDIF
/PNUM,NODE,1
/PNUM,ELEM,1
/REPLOT
FINISH!============================== ! Fine dati preprocessore
/EOF!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
CARICHI!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
/SOLU!=============================== ! Entro nel solutore
!-------Definisco i carichi----------
*MSG,UI
Definire i carichi con cui portare a collasso la struttura. %/&
N.B.: non utilizzare peso proprio o carichi distribuiti per elementi asta!
/WAIT,2
*ASK,LOADTYPE,'Apply: 1.Self weight, or 2.Distributed load, or 3.Pinned load?',1
*IF,LOADTYPE,EQ,1,THEN ! Definisco l'accelerazione
*ASK,DIRACC,Acceleration direction? (X/Y),'Y'
*ASK,MULTACC,Specify the load multiplier for self weight,10E003
*IF,DIRACC,EQ,'X',THEN
ACEL,(-9.81E-003*MULTACC)
*ELSEIF,DIRACC,EQ,'Y',THEN
ACEL,,(9.81E-003*MULTACC) ! il valore + è in dir. -y)
*ENDIF ! Se è definità una densità
*ELSEIF,LOADTYPE,EQ,2,THEN ! applica all'el. il p.p.
*ASK,DIRDIS,Force direction (X/Y),'Y'
*ASK,VALDIS,Force value,10E003
!multipro,'start',2
! *cset,1,3,DIRDIS,'Force direction (X/Y)','Y'
! *cset,4,6,VALDIS,'Force value',-10E005
!multipro,'end'
*IF,DIRDIS,EQ,'X',THEN ! Applico una press. sulla faccia
SFBEAM,ALL,3,PRESS,%VALDIS%! orizzontale dell'elemento trave
*ELSEIF,DIRDIS,EQ,'Y',THEN ! Applico un carico distribuito
SFBEAM,ALL,1,PRESS,%-VALDIS%! sugli elementi travi in direz.
*ENDIF ! perp. alla faccia 1 (-y)
*ELSEIF,LOADTYPE,EQ,3,THEN
*ASK,LN,Number of loaded joints,1
*DO,I,1,LN,1
*ASK,LNN,Loaded node #,%NV+1%
*ASK,DIRPIN,Force direction at given node (X/Y),'Y'
*ASK,VALPIN,Force value,-10E005
APPENDICES 202
!F,%LNN%,F%DIRPIN%,%VALPIN%
*IF,DIRPIN,EQ,'X',THEN
F,%LNN%,FX,%VALPIN%
*ELSEIF,DIRPIN,EQ,'Y',THEN
F,%LNN%,FY,%VALPIN%
*ENDIF
*ENDDO
*ENDIF
SAVE ! Salvo il modello
FINISH!============================== ! Fine dati solutore
/EOF!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
SOLVPAR!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
/SOLU!===============================
ANTYPE,0 ! Analisi statica
OUTRES,ALL,ALL ! Salvo risultati di ogni passo
*ASK,NC,Number of control node,%NV+1%
*ASK,FDIR,Monitored direction at given node (X/Y),'Y'
*ASK,PS,'First step load ratio',5000
*ASK,AL,Use arc-length method (y/n),'n'
*IF,AL,EQ,'y',THEN
NSUBST,%PS%,0,0 ! Fisso il primo passo (1/5 FY)
ARCLEN,1,0,0 ! Metodo Arc Length ON
*ASK,SMAX,Max value of monitored displacement,0.005
ARCTRM,U,%SMAX%,%NC%,U%FDIR% ! spostamento massimo ammesso
AUTOTS,-1.0 ! Automatic substepping OFF
NCNV,2 ! (richiesto per l'arc-length)
*ELSE ! Termina l'analisi alla mancata conv.
ARCLEN,OFF ! ma non arresta l'esecuzione del progr.
*ASK,PSMAX,Max step number,10000
*ASK,PSMIN,Min step number,500
NSUBST,%PS%,%PSMAX%,%PSMIN%
AUTOTS,ON ! Automatic substepping on
LNSRCH,ON ! Line search on
TIME,1
NCNV,1,10E010 ! Termina analisi e programma alla
*ENDIF
RESCONTROL,,NONE
FINISH!============================== ! Fine dati solutore
/EOF!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ù
APPENDICES 203
SOLVINT!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
/SOLU!===============================
D=0 ! Indice struttura integra
*GET,TSTART,ACTIVE,0,TIME,WALL,CPU ! Prendo il tempo di CPU
SOLVE ! Risolvo la struttura integra
*GET,TSTOP,ACTIVE,0,TIME,WALL,CPU ! Calcolo il tempo di analisi
!SAVE
FINISH!==============================
/POST1!============================== ! Entro nel postproc. generale
PU(1,1)=0 ! La config della struttura integra ha
SET,LAST ! tutti gli elementi presenti, quindi
*GET,CV,ACTIVE,0,SOLU,CNVG ! indico come el. assente l'el. 0
PU((D+1),3)=CV ! Salvo l'inf. sulla conv. in PU
*GET,TSN,ACTIVE,,SET,NSET ! Chiedo il numero totale di passi TSN
*IF,CV,EQ,0,THEN ! e fisso SN pari al numero di passi
SN=TSN-1 ! andati a convergenza. Se SN=0, non ci
*ELSE ! sono risultati validi, (es. struttura
SN=TSN ! labile)quindi il carico ultimo va
*ENDIF ! fissato a zero. Altrimenti quando SN
*IF,SN,GT,0,THEN ! SN>0 prendo il carico ultimo con FSUM
*IF,CV,EQ,0,THEN ! dall'ultimo passo a convergenza, dopo
SET,PREVIOUS ! aver selezionato i soli nodi vincolati
*ENDIF
NSEL,S,NODE,,1,NV,1 ! Seleziono i nodi vincolati
FSUM,0,ALL ! Calcolo il carico ultimo
*GET,PU((D+1),2),FSUM,0,ITEM,F%FDIR% ! Ne salvo il modulo in PU
NSEL,ALL ! Riseleziono tutti i nodi
*ELSE
PU((D+1),2)=0
*ENDIF
*IF,PU((D+1),2),LT,0,THEN
PU((D+1),2)=-1*PU((D+1),2)
*ENDIF
RESET
FINISH!============================== ! Fine dati postproc. generale
/EOF!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
VEDIRIS!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
!La parte di inizializzazione dei parameri TSN,SN,CV ecc. viene ripetuta solo
!per poter chiamare manualmente la routine quando SOLVINT non è stata chiamata
!in precedenza (ad es. nell'analisi manuale di strutture danneggiate).
APPENDICES 204
/POST1!================= ! Enter general postprocessor

SET,LAST ! ATTENZIONE: prima di chiedere la
! convergenza devo fissare il passo!!!
*GET,TSN,ACTIVE,,SET,NSET ! Get the total step number
*GET,CV,ACTIVE,0,SOLU,CNVG ! and store it in TSN variable
*IF,CV,EQ,0,THEN ! Get the number of converged step
SN=TSN-1 ! and store it in SN varable
*ELSE
SN=TSN
*ENDIF
*IF,SN,GT,0,THEN ! If at least one converged step exists
SET,LAST ! the ultimate load is calculated from
*IF,CV,EQ,0,THEN ! last converged step and stored in RES
SET,PREVIOUS ! variable, by FSUM command over the
*ENDIF ! selected restrained nodes.
NSEL,S,NODE,,1,NV,1 ! Seleziono i nodi vincolati
FSUM,0,ALL ! Calcolo il carico ultimo
*GET,RES,FSUM,0,ITEM,F%FDIR% ! Lo salvo in RES
*ELSE ! If no converged step exists, the
RES=0 ! structure was unstable and the ultimate
*ENDIF ! load has to be manually set to zero.
*ASK,DISPLAY,'Result review? (y/n)','n' ! Enter the plot-result part.
*IF,DISPLAY,EQ,'y',THEN
*ASK,ESHAPE,'Scale factor for section diplay?','1'
INC=1
*IF,SN,GT,50,THEN
INC=2
*ELSEIF,SN,GT,100,THEN
INC=5
*ELSEIF,SN,GT,500,THEM
INC=20
*ENDIF
!---------Displacement----------
*ASK,RISPOSTA,'Review displacement? (y/n)','y'
*IF,RISPOSTA,EQ,'y',THEN
/CONT,1,9,AUTO
/ESHAPE,%ESHAPE% ! Show element shape
*DO,I,1,SN,%INC%
SET,,,,,,,I
PLNSOL,U,%FDIR%,0,1 ! PLot Nodal SOLution U, X/Y
/WAIT,0.05 ! (deflection) as contour
APPENDICES 205
*ENDDO
*ENDIF
!---------Plastic strain---------
*ASK,RISPOSTA,'Review plastic strain? (y/n)','y'
/CONT,1,9,AUTO
/ESHAPE,%ESHAPE%
*DO,I,1,SN,%INC%
SET,,,,,,,I
PLNSOL,EPPL,EQV, 1,1.0 ! Plotta le def. plast.
/WAIT,0.05 ! (Von Mises)
*ENDDO
*ENDIF
!-----------Axial stress---------
*ASK,RISPOSTA,'Review axial stress? (y/n)','y'
*ASK,SIGMA,'Elastic stress?',240000
SALLOW,%SIGMA% ! Define maximum stress
/CONT,1,8,%-SIGMA%, ,%SIGMA%
/ESHAPE,%ESHAPE%
*DO,I,1,SN,%INC%
SET,,,,,,,I
PLNSOL, S,EQV, 1,1.0 ! Plotta le tensioni
!PLNSOL,S,1, 1,1.0 ! di Von Mises ad ogni
/WAIT,0.05 ! passo (o l'andamento
*ENDDO ! della tens. princ.)
*ENDIF
*ASK,RISPOSTA,'Review axial hinge progression? (y/n)','y'
*DIM,PHP,ARRAY,ET,SN+1,1 ! Define a matrix named
*DO,J,1,ET,1 ! PHP with ET (el. n.)
PHP(J,1)=J ! rows SN columns
*ENDDO ! (n. of substeps)
!-----------Axial hinge---------
*DO,I,1,SN,%INC%
SET,,,,,,,I ! Set the interest step
ETABLE,SAXL,LS,1 ! Store el. ax. stress
! in a table named SAXL
SFCALC,SF,SAXL,' ',3 ! Calculate and store
! in table named SF the
! work-rate of each el.
*VGET,PHP(1,I+1),ELEM,all,ETAB,SF, ,2
APPENDICES 206
PLETAB,SAXL,0 ! Plot axial stress

/WAIT,0.5
*ENDDO
EPLOT ! Display el.and node n.
/PNUM,NODE,1
/PNUM,ELEM,1
/REPLOT
*VEDIT,PHP ! Edit the PHP array
*ENDIF
!-----------Moment distribution---------
*ASK,RISPOSTA,'Review moment distribution? (y/n)','y'
*ASK,MOMEL,'Elastic moment?',4320
*ASK,MOMUL,'Ultimate moment?',6480
/CONTOUR,1,6,%MOMEL%,,%MOMUL%
/ESHAPE,%ESHAPE%
*DO,I,1,SN,1
SET,,,,,,,I
ETABLE,MZI,SMISC,6
ETABLE,MZJ,SMISC,12
PLLS,MZI,MZJ,-1,0
/WAIT,0.05
*ENDDO
*ENDIF
*ENDIF
FINISH!=========================
/POST26!========================! Enter time history
RESET ! Reset for clean recalling
!--------Define variables-------
NUMVAR,200 ! Necessary to use the var calculator
NSOL,2,%NC%,U,%FDIR%,DISP ! Create a var 2 that has the x/y
*IF,NV,LT,196,THEN ! displacement of the monitored node
*DO,I,1,%NV%,1
RFORCE,%I+3%,%I%,F,%FDIR%,F%I%
ADD,200,%I+3%,200
*ENDDO
ADD,3,200,,,LOAD
*ELSE
*USE,ERRORMSG !Messaggio di errore
*ENDIF
!---------Plot variables--------
/AXLAB,X,DEFLECTION ! Changes y label
APPENDICES 207
/AXLAB,Y,LOAD ! Changes X label

XVAR,2 ! Make var 2 the x-axis
PLVAR,3 ! Plot var 3 with respect to var 2
*MSG,UI,CV,RES
Ultimate load for last step computed %/&
(CV = %1X %I) is equal to %1X %G %1X kN.
/WAIT,2
FINISH!==============================
/EOF!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
CALCTIME!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
!Manca la trasformazione corretta in secondi dei tick della cpu!
Tred=TM*Cred
!Forse un clock tick corrisponde a 400 s. Quindi per avere il tempo in min
!devo moltiplicare per 400 e poi dividere per 60.
Tred1=Tred*400/60
!Metodo alternativo
/RUNST
RTIMST
*GET,TM2,RUNST,0,RTIMST,TOTAL
TM2=TM2*70 !Ritaratura
Tred2=TM2*Cred/60 !Tempo in minuti
*MSG,UI,'reduced',Tred,'red converted',Tred1,'red
forecast',Tred2,'exhaustive',(Cex/Cred)
Eximated time for analyses: %/&
- %1X %C %3X = %1X %G %1X clock ticks or%/&
- %1X %C %3X = %1X %G %1X min %/&
- %1X %C %1X = %1X %G %1X min; %/&
- %1X %C %5X = %1X %G %1X time red time.
/WAIT,2
/EOF!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
SAVENGO!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
!------------------------- Salvo i risultati in ROBCUR -------------------------
*DO,I,1,3 ! Salvo i risultati della struttura
ROBCUR((D+1),(I+1))=PU((D+1),I) ! integra sia nella I che nella II
ROBCUR((D+1),(I+4))=PU((D+1),I) ! parte dell'array finale (la cfg
*ENDDO ! è unica e vale come MIN e MAX)
!---------- Resetto l'analisi e procedo con le analisi seguenti ----------------
/POST1!============================== ! Entro nel postproc. generale
RESET ! Resetto l'analisi: SERVE??
FINISH!============================== ! Fine dati postproc. Generale
!---------- Salvo per le analisi seguenti solo i risultati base-----------------
/SOLU!===============================
APPENDICES 208
OUTRES,BASI,ALL ! Salvo risultati di ogni passo

FINISH!============================== ! Fine dati postproc. generale
/EOF!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
CURVMAX!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
INDEX='MAX'
START=1
START=2
*ENDIF
*USE,SOLDAMSTR
/EOF!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
RESETINT!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
!_________________REIMPOSTO LA CONFIGURAZIONE INTEGRA___________________________
!--------------------- Riattivo tutti gli elementi -----------------------------
/SOLU!=======================
EALIVE,ALL
!*DO,K,1,E
! *IF,MESHING,EQ,'y',THEN
! *DO,I,1,MESH,1
! EALIVE,%ELMESH(I,K,1)%
! *ENDDO
! *ELSE
! EALIVE,K
! *ENDIF
!*ENDDO
FINISH!======================
!--------------------------Reset dell' array PU---------------------------------
*DO,J,1,3 ! Serve per sapere quale el. è
PU(2,J)=ROBCUR(2,(1+J)) ! stato individuato come critico
*DO,I,3,DMAX+1,1 ! al LD precedente e rimuoverlo
PU(I,J)=-1 ! all'inizio del nuovo ciclo di
*ENDDO ! analisi per il nuovo LD. Va
*ENDDO
*DO,J,1,3 ! Serve per sapere quale el. è
PU(2,J)=ROBCUR(2,(4+J)) ! stato individuato come critico
*DO,I,3,DMAX+1,1 ! al LD precedente e rimuoverlo
PU(I,J)=-1 ! all'inizio del nuovo ciclo di
APPENDICES 209
*ENDDO ! analisi per il nuovo LD.

*ENDDO
*ENDIF
/EOF!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
CURVMIN!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
!________________________RISOLVO PROBLEMA DEI MINIMI____________________________
INDEX='MIN'
*IF,PRIMA,EQ,'MIN',THEN
START = 1
*ELSEIF,PRIMA,EQ,'MAX',THEN
START = 2
*ENDIF
*USE,SOLDAMSTR
/EOF!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
RESULT!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
!______________________REGISTRO E PLOTTO I RISULTATI____________________________
SAVE
*VPLOT,ROBCUR(1,1),ROBCUR(1,3),6 ! Plotto i PU MAX MIN vs i LD
*USE,WRITEOUT
/EOF!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
CALCCOMB!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
!*IF,DMAX,NE,E,THEN
Cex = 0 ! inizializ. la var. da calc.
EF=1 ! Fattoriale di n. di el.(EF=E!)
*DO,F,1,E
APPO = F
EF=EF*APPO
*ENDDO
*DO,LD,0,DMAX
LDF=1 ! Fattoriale del livello di
*DO,F,1,LD ! danno corrente (LDF=D!)
APPO=F
LDF=LDF*APPO
*ENDDO
EMLDF=1 ! Fattoriale di (E-D)!
*DO,F,1,(E-LD)
APPO=F
EMLDF=EMLDF*APPO
*ENDDO
CD = EF/(LDF*EMLDF)
Cex = Cex+CD
APPENDICES 210
*ENDDO
Cred = ((2*DMAX-1)*E)-(DMAX*(DMAX-1))+1 ! numero di combinazioni ridotte
!ELSE ! Non c'è bisogno dell'else dato
! Cex=2**DMAX ! che le formule sopra sono più
! Cred=E^2+1 ! generali e comprendono anche
!*ENDIF ! il caso DMAX=E per cui però
! le espres. sono più semplici
*MSG,UI,'exaustive',Cex,'reduced',Cred
Number of combination: %/&
- %1X %C %1X = %1X %I %/&
- %1X %C %3X = %2X %I
/WAIT,2
/EOF!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
INFOFILE!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
*MSG,UI
Caricare un file dati con la geometria della struttura e le proprietà%/&
della sezione e del maeriale ELASTO-PLASTICO, ricordando di: %/&
1) numerare gli elementi da rimuovere in sequenza da 1 ad E %/&
2) numerare i nodi vincolati in direz. della forza in seq. da 1 a NV %/&
3) riportare con il nome indicato i parametri seguenti: %/&
%2X - ETYPE per l'elemento scelto e Area, Jz, H per le car. sezionali%/&
%2X - Ex, SigmaY, Etx per le proprietà del materiale %/&
%2X - NT, ET per il # di nodi e di elementi totali usati nel modello %/&
%4X - DMAX per il livello di danno massimo da considerare.
/WAIT,2
/EOF!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
ERRORMSG!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
*MSG,UI
The pushover curve cannot be computed, due to the %/&
excessive number of node reactions to be summed.
/WAIT,2
/EOF!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
SOLDAMSTR!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
*DO,D,%START%,DMAX,1
/SOLU!=======================
*IF,PU(D,1),GT,0,THEN
*DO,I,1,MESH,1
DCW = %PU(D,1)%
APPENDICES 211
DEW = ELMESH(I,%DCW%,1)
EKILL,%DEW%
*ENDDO
*ELSE
EKILL,%PU(D,1)% ! Sopprimo l'el. individ
*ENDIF ! come critico nel liv.
*ENDIF ! di danno precedente
FINISH!====================== ! (NO PER D=1)
!_______RICERCA CONFIG CRITICA MINIMA PER IL LIVELLO DI DANNO D_________
!--------------------- Aggiorno i vettori ------------------------------
*DO,I,1,E,1
PUD(I,2)=-1 ! Resetto il vettore PUD
PUD(I,3)=-1
*ENDDO
!---------------- Sopprimo un elemento alla volta ----------------------
*DO,K,1,E,1
MATCH=0 ! Resetto la variabile
*DO,J,1,DMAX,1 ! In questo modo evito
*IF,K,EQ,PU(J,1),THEN ! di sopprimere elementi
MATCH = -1 ! che sono già soppressi
*ENDIF ! in config. di partenza
*ENDDO
*IF,MATCH,EQ,0,THEN
/SOLU!====================== ! Sopprimo l'elemento K
*DO,I,1,MESH,1
DEW = ELMESH(I,K,1)
EKILL,%DEW%
*ENDDO
*ELSE
EKILL,K ! (un el. per volta)
*ENDIF
/NERR,0 ! Evito il prompt alla
SOLVE ! mancata convergenza
FINISH!======================
/POST1!======================
/NERR,DEFA ! Riattivo i msg di err.
SET,LAST ! Chiedo ris. ult. passo
*GET,TSN,ACTIVE,,SET,NSET ! Get the total step number
*GET,CV,ACTIVE,0,SOLU,CNVG ! and store it in TSN variable
PUD(K,3)=CV ! Salvo l'inf. della CV in PUD
*IF,CV,EQ,0,THEN ! Se SN = 0 vuol dire che la struttura è
APPENDICES 212
SN=TSN-1 ! labile (unico passo di analisi senza

*ELSE ! convergenza), quindi il risultato non
SN=TSN ! è valido e imposto manualmente il
*ENDIF ! carico ultimo a zero. Altrimenti quando
*IF,SN,GT,0,THEN ! SN>0 prendo il carico ultimo con FSUM
*IF,CV,EQ,0,THEN ! Se non c'è stata conv.
SET,PREVIOUS ! chiedo i risultati del
*ENDIF ! penultimo passo
NSEL,S,NODE,,1,NV,1 ! Selez. nodi vincolati
FSUM,0,ITEM,F%FDIR% ! Calcolo il Pultimo,
*GET,PUD(K,2),FSUM,0,ITEM,F%FDIR%!lo salvo e lo
*IF,PUD(K,2),LT,0,THEN ! trasformo nel suo
PUD(K,2)=-1*PUD(K,2) ! valore assoluto
*ENDIF
NSEL,ALL ! Riselez. tutti i nodi
*ELSE
PUD(K,2)=0
*ENDIF
RESET ! Reset del postprocess.
FINISH!======================
/SOLU!======================
*DO,I,1,MESH,1
DEW = ELMESH(I,K,1)
EALIVE,%DEW%
*ENDDO
*ELSE
EALIVE,K ! Riattivo l'elemento
*ENDIF
FINISH!======================
*ENDIF
*ENDDO
*IF,INDEX,EQ,'MIN',THEN,
*USE,FINDMIN
*ELSE
*USE,FINDMAX
*ENDIF
*ENDDO
/EOF!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
APPENDICES 213
FINDMAX!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
*IF,D,EQ,1,AND,PRIMA,EQ,'MAX',THEN ! Per D=1 trovo prima
*USE,FINDMIN ! il MIN e lo salvo in
*ENDIF ! ROBCUR. Poi il MAX:
PU(D+1,2)=-1 !non 0 sennò non scrive l'ultimo ris. ! Inizializzo il carico
*DO,N,1,E,1 ! fino ad E non a DMAX!!! ! ultimo con un valore
*IF,PUD(N,2),GT,PU(D+1,2),THEN ! minimo (zero) e lo
*DO,I,1,3,1 ! sostituisco con ogni
PU(D+1,I)=PUD(N,I) ! valore più alto che
*ENDDO ! trovo in PUD, cioè
*ENDIF ! alla fine ci salvo il
*ENDDO ! il PU max di PUD
*DO,R,1,3 ! Copio la riga di PU
ROBCUR(D+1,R+4)=PU(D+1,R) ! nella II parte della
*ENDDO ! matrice ROBCUR (MAX)
/EOF!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
FINDMIN!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
*IF,D,EQ,1,AND,PRIMA,EQ,'MIN',THEN ! Per D=1 trovo prima
*USE,FINDMAX ! il MAX e lo salvo in
*ENDIF ! ROBCUR. Poi il MIN:
PU(D+1,2)=10**10 ! Inizializzo il carico
*DO,N,1,E,1 ! fino ad E non a DMAX!!! ! ultimo con un valore
*IF,PUD(N,2),LT,PU(D+1,2),AND,PUD(N,2),GT,-1,THEN! non superabile e lo
*DO,I,1,3,1 ! sostituisco con ogni
PU(D+1,I)=PUD(N,I) ! valore più basso che
*ENDDO ! trovo in PUD, cioè
*ENDIF ! alla fine ci salvo il
*ENDDO ! il PU min di PUD
*DO,R,1,3 ! Copio la riga di PU
ROBCUR(D+1,R+1)=PU(D+1,R) ! nella I parte della
*ENDDO ! matrice ROBCUR (MIN).
/EOF!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
MODASK!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
*ASK,NT,# of total nodes,33
*ASK,ET,# of total elements,32
!*ASK,NV,# of restrained nodes,8 !Passati dal file principale
!*ASK,E,# of damageble element,8
!_______Definisco il materiale_______
*MSG,UI
Inserire le proprietà del materiale ELASTO-PLASTICO.
APPENDICES 214
/WAIT,2
*ASK,Ex,'Young modulus',2.1E008
*ASK,PR,'Poisson ratio',0.3
*ASK,DENS,'Density',7849
*ASK,SigmaY,'Yield stress',2.4E005
*ASK,ExT,'Tangent Modulus',2.1E005
MP,Ex,1,%Ex% ! Modulo elastico acciaio
MP,PRxy,1,%PR% ! Modulo di Poisson
MP,DENS,1,%DENS% ! Densità dell'acciaio in kg
TB,BISO,1,1,2, ! Materiale bilin. inelastico
TBTEMP,0 ! Temp. per i dati seguenti
TBDATA,,%SigmaY%,%ExT%, ! Snervamento e incrudimento
!________Definisco l'elemento _______
*MSG,UI
Indicare il tipo di elemento (TRAVE/ASTA) e le %/&
caratteristiche della sezione da utilizzare.
/WAIT,2
*ASK,EType,'Joint DOF for elements? (2/3)','3'
*ASK,Area,'Section area',0.18
*IF,%EType%,EQ,3,THEN
*ASK,Jz,'Rotational inertia',5.4E-003
*ASK,H,'Section height',0.6
ET,1,BEAM23 ! Elemento trave inelastico 2D
! (3 g.d.l. per ogni nodo)
R,1,%Area%,%Jz%,%H% ! Definisco il set di costanti
! (R,1) per l'el.: Area, Jz, H
! per la sezione rettangolare
*ELSE
ET,1,LINK1 ! Elemento asta inelastico 2D
R,1,%Area% ! Area in mq (diameter = 0,1 m)
*ENDIF
!_______Definisco la geometria_______
!--------Coord. nodi vincolati-------
*MSG,UI,%NV%
Inserire le coordinate dei nodi vincolati. %/&
Tali nodi vengono automaticamente numerati %/&
da 1 ad NV = %I
/WAIT,2
*DO,I,1,NV ! Chiedo le coordinate dei nodi
*ASK,X,Coord X of node #%I%,%I% ! vincolati (numer. da 1 ad NV)
*ASK,Y,Coord Y of node #%I%,%I% ! Per la stella inserire:
APPENDICES 215
N,I,%X%,%Y%
*ENDDO
!---------Coord. altri nodi-----------
*MSG,UI,(NT-NV)
Inserire numerazione e coordinate degli altri %I nodi
/WAIT,2
*DO,I,NV+1,NT,1
*ASK,NN,Node #,%NV+1+I% ! Chiedo numerazione e coord.
*ASK,X,Coord X of node #%NN%,%I%! degli altri nodi dichiarati
*ASK,Y,Coord Y of node #%NN%,%I%
N,NN,%X%,%Y%
*ENDDO
!---Def. elem. removibili----
/PNUM,NODE,1 ! Visualizzo numeri nodi
/REPLOT
*MSG,UI,E
Inserire gli elementi removibili, definendone i nodi estremi. %/&
Gli elementi removibili vengono automaticamente numerati in %/&
modo sequenziale da 1 ad E=%I.
/WAIT,2
NUMST,ELEM,1 ! Parti a numerare gli el. da 1
*DO,I,1,E,1 ! Chiedo posiz. el. princ.
*ASK,M,1st node for element %I%,%NV+1%
*ASK,N,2nd node for element %I%,%I%
E,%M%,%N% ! Per la stella E,9,I

*ENDDO
!-------Def. elem. fissi----
/PNUM,NODE,1
/PNUM,ELEM,1
/REPLOT
*MSG,UI,(ET-E)
Inserire numero identificativo e nodi estremi %/&
dei %I elementi fissi.
/WAIT,2
*DO,I,(E+1),ET,1 ! Chiedo num. e posiz. degli el. sec.
*ASK,P,Secondary element #,I
*ASK,M,I node,%NV+1+I%
*ASK,N,II node,%NV+2+I%
NUMST,ELEM,%P%
E,%M%,%N%
*ENDDO
APPENDICES 216
!______Condizioni al contorno________
!-------Definisco i vincoli----------
*MSG,UI,NV
Definire il grado di vincolo dei %I nodi vicolati %/&
(1 carrello, 2 cerniera, 3 incastro)
/WAIT,2
*DO,I,1,NV,1 ! Chiedo il grado di vincolo dei
*ASK,GV,Restrain at node #%I%,3 ! nodi vincolati
*IF,GV,EQ,3,THEN ! Vincolo i nodi con un incastro
D,I,ALL,0 ! se GV = 3, con una cerniera se
*ELSEIF,GV,EQ,2,THEN ! GV=2 e con un carrello se GV=1
D,I,UX,0
D,I,UY,0
*ELSE
*ASK,VDIR,Restrained direction #%I%? (X/Y),'Y' ! nodi vincolati
D,I,U%VDIR%,0
*ENDIF
*ENDDO
!__________Salvo il modello__________
SAVE
/EOF!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
!§§ §§
!§§----------------- UNITA' DI MISURA ---[KN - m] --------------------§§
!§§ Attenzione: dato che la massa è sempre in kg, la densità del mat. §§
!§§ va espressa in kg/mc e l'accelerazione deve tener conto di questo §§
!§§ §§
!§§-------------------- PROCEDURA GENERALE -------------------------- §§
!§§ Salvare questo file nella cartella di lavoro di Ansys insieme ad §§
!§§ un file di input per il modello (altrimenti è possibile crearlo §§
!§§ tramite wizard durante l'esecuzione del programma). Poi aprire §§
!§§ Ansys e digitare in sequenza nella barra di comando: §§
!§§ *ULIB,ROBALG,TXT §§
!§§ *USE,MAIN §§
!§§ §§
!§§-------------------- PROCEDURA GENERALE -------------------------- §§
!§§ Listato per l'analisi statica non lineare di una struttura 2D al §§
!§§ variare del suo stato di danneggiamento. La struttura di esempio è§§
!§§ composta da 8 travi disposte a stella e incastrate agli estremi e §§
!§§ è soggetta ad una forza verticale crescente nel nodo centrale. Si §§
APPENDICES 217
!§§ cerca il carico di collasso PU0 della struttura integra, ovvero §§

!§§ con danno D=0, come somma delle reazioni verticali dei nodi dati §§
!§§ per vincolati(da 1 ad NV). Si ripete l'analisi per la struttura §§
!§§ privata di un solo elemento alla volta (D=1) tra quelli dichiarati§§
!§§ come principali (da 1 ad E). Per ogni configurazione si calcola il§§
!§§ carico ultimo PU1_K e si individuano il valore minimo e massimo §§
!§§ PU1MIN e PU1MAX che vengono archiviati insieme al numero dei due §§
!§§ elementi corrispondenti a quei valori di collasso in un vettore PU§§
!§§ che contiene queste informazioni per ogni livello di danno. Si §§
!§§ prosegue lo studio con il livello di danno D=2 per il quale si §§
!§§ dovrebbero analizzare tutte le configurazioni relative alle varie §§
!§§ combinazioni di due elementi rimossi, ma si considerano invece §§
!§§ solo le 16 combinazioni che derivano dalla rimozione dei due §§
!§§ elementi identificati nel caso precedente come primo elemento. Si §§
!§§ archiviano nel vettore PU il valore massimo e minimo PU2MAX e §§
!§§ PU2MIN e partendo dalle due combinazioni di danno relative a tali §§
!§§ valori si procede con questa euristica fino al livello di danno §§
!§§ massimo MAX. Infine si tracciano le due curve di robustezza che §§
!§§ congiungono rispettivamente i valori minimi e massimi trovati dei §§
!§§ moltiplicatori di carico per ogni livello di danno. §§
!§§------------------------- ARRAY ROBCUR --------------------------- §§
!§§ §§
!§§ Aggiornato | LD| IP.: CURVA MIN | IIP.: CURVA MAX | §§
!§§ alla fine ________________________________________ §§
!§§ delle analisi D CFGMIN PUMIN CVMIN CFGMAX PUMAX CVMAX §§
!§§ per la curva ________________________________________ §§
!§§ dei massimi 0 0 235 1 0 235 1 §§
!§§ di robustezza 1 1 193 1 4 198 1 §§
!§§ 2 5 150 1 -1 -1 -1 §§
!§§ D ... ... ... ... ... ... §§
!§§ DMAX 7 65 1 -1 -1 -1 §§
!§§ §§
!§§----------------------------- ARRAY PU --------------------------- §§
!§§ L'array PU ha dimensioni (DMAX+1)*3 e serve ad immagazzinare tutte§§
!§§ le informazioni relative alle configurazioni critiche, ovvero le §§
!§§ configurazioni che per ogni livello di danno da 0 a DMAX danno §§
!§§ origine ai carichi ultimi minimi o massimi. L'array infatti viene §§
!§§ riempito prima con le analisi per la ricerca della curva dei §§
!§§ minimi, poi copiato nella I parte della matrice ROBCUR e quini §§
!§§ sovrascritto con le informazioni delle analisi per la curva dei §§
!§§ massimi (in questo caso le analisi per la configurazione integra e§§
!§§ per tutte le configurazioni relative al livello di danno pari ad 1§§
APPENDICES 218
!§§ non vengono ripetute, quindi la prima riga di PU (D=0) non viene §§
!§§ sovrascritta, mentre la seconda (D=1) viene sovrascritta senza §§
!§§ fare analisi ma basandosi sul risultato del max per D=1 che è §§
!§§ stato opportunamente salvato in precedenza. In dettaglio, l'array §§
!§§ PU ha un numero di righe pari ai livelli di danno DMAX+1 (ovvero §§
!§§ da 0 a DAMX) ed un numero di colonne pari a 3: nella prima colonna§§
!§§ è indicato il numero dell'elemento critico (ovvero da rimuovere §§
!§§ rispetto alla configurazione critica precedente per avere una §§
!§§ nuova congigurazione critica per il nuovo livello di danno; nella §§
!§§ seconda colonna viene salvato il carico ultimo relativo a quella §§
!§§ configurazione; nella terza colonna viene salvata l'informazione §§
!§§ relativa alla convergenza dell'analisi (0 = no conv, 1= conv.). §§
!§§ §§
!§§ Aggiornati INDEX='MIN' INDEX='MAX' §§
!§§ a D = 2 ______________ _____________ §§
!§§ EL PU CV EL PU CV §§
!§§ Liv. danno ______________ _____________ §§
!§§ 0 0 263 1 0 263 1 §§
!§§ 1 1 192 1 4 198 1 §§
!§§ 2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 §§
!§§ D ... ... ... ... ... ... §§
!§§ DMAX -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 §§
!§§ §§
!§§------------------------- ARRAY PUD ------------------------------ §§
!§§ E' un array di dimensioni E*3 inizializzato ad ogni nuovo ciclo §§
!§§ in cui aumenta il livello di danno con valori pari a -1 nella §§
!§§ seconda e terza colonna, mentre nella prima rimangono sempre §§
!§§ elencati i numeri identificativi da 1 ad E degli elementi che ad §§
!§§ ogni nuovo ciclo di danno vengono rimossi uno ad uno nelle analisi§§
!§§ NB: all'aumentare del livello di danno le analisi da effettuare §§
!§§ diminuiscono, quindi il vettore, che viene inizializzato ad ogni §§
!§§ nuovo ciclo di danno, viene riempito su un numero sempre inferiore§§
!§§ di righe. In particolare, gli elementi rimossi permanentemente, §§
!§§ ovvero gli elementi che fanno parte della configurazione critica §§
!§§ individuata per il livello di danno precedente, non verranno §§
!§§ considerati per la rimozione nel livello di danno corrente, perciò§§
!§§ le righe del vettore PUD corrispondenti a questi elementi non §§
!§§ verranno sovrascritte e conterranno quindi sempre i valori -1 di §§
!§§ inizializzazione nella seconda e terza posizione. Tramite questo §§
!§§ vettore quindi è possibile individuare le configurazione critica §§
!§§ per il livello di danno precedente, rimuovendo idealmente dalla §§
!§§ struttura integra gli elementi indicati dal numero presente nella §§
APPENDICES 219
!§§ prima colonna di PUD che sono seguiti da -1 nelle colonne seguenti§§
!§§ §§
!§§ _____________ ______________ ______________ §§
!§§ D=0 EL PU CV D=1 EL PU CV D=2 EL PU CV §§
!§§ _____________ ______________ ______________ §§
!§§ 1 192 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 §§
!§§ 2 194 0 2 110 0 2 50 1 §§
!§§ 3 197 1 3 100 1 3 -1 -1 §§
!§§ ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... §§
!§§ E 197 0 E 197 0 E 40 0 §§
!§§----------------------- ARRAY ELMESH ----------------------------- §§
!§§ e' un array che contiene le informazioni sulla meshatura degli el.§§
!§§ operata in automatico dal programma. In particolare, ogni el. da §§
!§§ rimuovere (numerato da 1 ad E) viene suddiviso in un numero MESH §§
!§§ (dispari) di sottoelementi. Il sottoelemento centrale viene per §§
!§§ chiarezza rinominato come l'elemento principale, mentre gli altri §§
!§§ sottoelementi seguono una numerazione progressiva. Tutti i nuovi §§
!§§ sottoelementi vengono registrati nella matrice ELMESH lungo la §§
!§§ colonna di indice corrispondente all'elemento principale suddiviso§§
!§§ in modo che quando nel corso delle analisi è prevista la rimozione§§
!§§ dell'el. principale E, vengono killati insieme tutti i sottoelem. §§
!§§ in cui è stato suddiviso, registrati nella colonna corrispondente.§§
!§§ | da rimuovere | fissi | §§
!§§ ET(iniz) = 6 _______________________ §§
!§§ E = 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 §§
!§§ MESHING = 'y' _______________________ §§
!§§ MESH = 5 7 11 15 19 23 27 §§
!§§ | 9 13 17 21 25 29 §§
!§§ V 1 2 3 4 5 6 §§
!§§ ET(new) = ET(iniz)*MESH = 30 10 14 18 22 26 30 §§
!§§ ELMESH = MESH * ET = 5 * 6 8 12 16 20 24 28 §§
!§§ §§
!§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
11.4 EXAMPLE FILE AND SCREENSHOT

In this section the star structure presented in the third part of the work is used as example to
show how the program work and which are the produced outcomes and results. In this
example, the model of the structure isn’t create with the avail of the program wizard, but is
given to the program by mean of an input file that respect the prescriptions recalled in the
following.
APPENDICES 220
11.4.1 INPUT FILE

The input file is a text file saved in the Ansys working directory, where the geometrical
model and the characteristics of elements and material are specified. The elements should
not be meshed in this file, since a part of the program itself is devoted to perform this task,
as recalled in the previous section. At first, some parameters used in the following command
of the input file are specified. If not defined in the input files, these parameters will be asked
from the program wizard immediately after the creation of the model, since they are needed
for the algorithm to work properly.
!FILEINPUT! STELLA PER ROBALG §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§

NT=9 Number of total nodes
ET=8 Number of total elements
NV=8 Number of restrained nodes
E=8 Number of removable elements
DMAX=8 Maximum damage level
!_______Definisco il materiale_______
Ex = 2.1E008
MP,Ex,1,%Ex% ! Modulo elastico acciaio
MP,PRxy,1,0.33 ! Modulo di Poisson
MP,DENS,1,7849 ! Densità dell'acciaio in kg/m3
TB,BISO,1,1,2, ! Materiale bilin. inelastico
TBTEMP,0
SigmaY=240000
Etx=210000
TBDATA,,%SigmaY%,%Etx% ! Snervamento e incrudimento
!________Definisco l'elemento _______
ETYPE='BEAM23'
ET,1,%ETYPE% ! Elemento trave inelastico 2D
Area = 0.18
Jz=5.4E-003
H=0.6 ! (3 g.d.l. per ogni nodo)
R,1,%Area%,%Jz%,%H% ! Definisco il set di costanti
! (R,1) per l'elem.: A, Jz, H
! per la sezione rettangolare
!_______Definisco la geometria_______
!---Coord. nodi vincolati----
N,1,0,1 ! Numerazione da 1 ad NV
N,2,1,1
N,3,1,0
N,4,1,-1
APPENDICES 221
N,5,0,-1
N,6,-1,-1
N,7,-1,0
N,8,-1,1
!-----Coord. altri nodi------
N,9,0,0 ! Nodo centrale
!---Def. elem. principali----
NUMST,ELEM,1 ! Parti a numerare da 1
*DO,N,1,NT-1,1
E,9,N ! Numerazione da 1 ad E
*ENDDO
!________Definisco i vincoli_________
*DO,N,1,NV,1
D,N,ALL,0 ! Incastro i nodi da vincolare
*ENDDO
/EOF !§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
11.4.2 OUTPUT FILE

When the solution is done, the image of the robustness curve is given as output, together
with a text file, where the main parameters of the analysis are recalled together with the
resulting robustness curve data.
At first, the file title and the Ansys jobname are listed. Then the model parameters (number
of nodes, elements, maximum damage ecc.), together with the name of the input file used
for the model (if any). In this way each output file can be bonded to the input file used to
obtained it. It’s worth to be noted that the total number of elements and nodes do not
correspond with the input value, since the structure was meshed with the avail of the
program wizard and the number of total elements and nodes was updated after this
operation.
The type and characteristics chosen for elements and material models are also reported, in
case this quantity have been specified in the input file by means of the variables defined as:
ETYPE for the Ansys element type (chosen among the Ansys library element typologies),
Area for the sectional area, Jz for the sectional inertia, H for the section height (in case of
rectangular section), Ex for the elastic modulus of the material, Ex,T for the tangent modulus
and SigmaY for the stress elastic limit of the material. If this parameter are not explicitly
assigned to variables named as explained before, but are just numerically assigned with the
Ansys command in the input file, it won’t affect the analysis of course but this set of
information won’t be available in the output file.
APPENDICES 222
The analysis parameter are also reported, that have been asked by the program wizard
immediately before the analysis running: PS is the width of the first step force, while PSMAX
and PSMIN are the maximum and minimum step number to be used in the automatic time-
stepping performed from Ansys solution algorithm. When these two parameters are reported
to be zero, then the arc-length method has been used as solving algorithm and the parameter
AL will be equal to ‘y’. In this case the automatic time stepping cannot be used, but a
further parameter has to be specified, i.e. the maximum fixed displacement, reported as
SMAX. in this case the NC parameter indicates the identification number of the control node,
which this maximum displacement SMAX is assigned to. If no arc-length method was used
instead, the SMAX parameter will be empty and the value of zero will be reported, as in the
output file showed here, and the NC parameter indicate only the identification number of
the node used to trace the pushover-curve provided as control output after the analysis of the
integer structure, but has no particular role in the analysis.
Eventually, in the last part of the file the analysis outcome are listed: the first column
represent the different damage levels considered, form zero (integer structure) to DMAX. The
first group of three column refers to the analysis performed for the curve of minima, while
the second group refers to the analysis for the curve of maxima. For each group the
configuration of element, the ultimate resistance and the convergence of the analyses are
listed. In the case used as example the maximum damage level has been set equal to the
number of elements, i.e. the 8 beams forming the star. Therefore not only the values of
ultimate resistance corresponding to damage level d = 0 will be the same for the maxima
and minima columns (since it refers in both case to the integer structure), but also the value
corresponding to damage level d=8, since both refers to the null structure.
Due to the heuristic used, explained in detail in the second part of this work, the minima or
maxima structural configuration corresponding to each damage level d can be obtained by
removing from the integer structure all the elements listed in the correspondent column (the
second or the fifth column respectively) from the first damage level to the considered one d.
The number listed under the columns CV indicate the convergence of each analysis. The
value 0 indicates that the last analysis step had non convergence, while the value 1 indicates
a converged final step. This parameter can be used as control test when the arc-length
method has been used, since in this case each analysis should reach the convergence. When
instead no displacement control is performed, the analysis stops when the apex of the
response curve is reached, therefore the CV parameter will be always 0. This lack in
convergence however will not affect the ultimate resistance, since it will be computed from
the last converged step anyway.
APPENDICES 223
-----MIN&MAX DAMAGED CFGs AND ULTIMATE LOADS ARRAY------
______________________FILE TITLE_______________________
---------FILE TITLE-------|-----------JOBNAME----------|
STELLA PP ROBALG
____________________MODEL PARAMETERS___________________
---NV--|---E---|-DMAX--|-INPUT-|--MESH-|---NT--|---ET--|
8 8 8 STELLA 5 41 40
__________________ELEMENT AND MATERIAL_________________

-ETYPE-|---A---|---Jz--|---H---|---Ex--|--Ext--|---fy--|
BEAM23 0.1800 5.4E-003 0.60 210000000 210000 240000
___________________ANALISYS PARAMETERS__________________
---PS--|-PSMAX-|-PSMIN-|---NC--|--FDIR-|---AL--|--SMAX-|
500 1000 100 9 Y n 0.00000
________________________ROBCUR____________________________
-----|---------CFG MIN---------|--------CFG MAX----------|
--D--|-EL--|-----UL------|-CV--|-EL--|-----UL------|-CV--|
0 0 316465.814 0 0 316465.814 0
1 1 269259.491 0 3 287964.361 0
2 5 217067.864 0 7 260930.870 0
3 2 176972.425 0 2 217832.099 0
4 6 134520.175 0 8 179332.082 0
5 4 95029.264 0 4 135622.378 0
6 8 53424.792 0 6 96046.396 0
7 3 13276.250 0 1 48023.198 0
8 7 0.000 1 5 0.000 1
11.4.3 SCREENSHOT
In the following figure some screenshots from the program running are reported. The first
image refer to the pre-processing phase, where the model is created or imported from a text
file and then the element meshing is performed in the structure. Then the three following
images shows the stress and strain development related to the incremental static analysis
performed on the integer structure, while the fifth image is the corresponding pushover
curve obtained. In the last image the robustness histogram obtained at the end are shown.
APPENDICES 224
Meshed elements Plastic moment development
Plastic strain development Axial stress development
Pushover on integer structure Resulting robustness histogram
Fig. 69: Screenshots from the program running
APPENDICES 225
INDICES AND LITERATURE
1. INDEX OF CONTENTS
2. LIST OF FIGURES
3. LIST OF TABLE AND EQUATION
4. LITERATURE

INDEX OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 17
1 SAFETY AND STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY 19
2 RISK HANDLING 22

3 STATE OF THE ART 31
3.1 DEFINITION OF ROBUSTNESS ............................................................................................................................... 31
3.1.1 Qualitative definition .............................................................................................................................. 31
3.1.2 Quantitative definition overview ............................................................................................................. 33
3.1.2.1Risk-based-approach...................................................................................................................................... 33
3.1.2.2Topologic approach ....................................................................................................................................... 34
3.1.2.3Damage-based approach ................................................................................................................................ 37
3.1.2.4Energy-based approach.................................................................................................................................. 39
3.1.3 Robustness and vulnerability .................................................................................................................. 40
3.1.4 Robustness and collapse resistance ........................................................................................................ 42
3.2 DISPROPORTIONATE COLLAPSES ......................................................................................................................... 43
3.2.1 Contextual and progressive collapses..................................................................................................... 43
3.2.2 Emblematic cases of progressive collapses ............................................................................................ 44
3.2.3 Typology of progressive collapses .......................................................................................................... 49
3.2.4 Directions for progressive collapse assessment...................................................................................... 52
3.3 ROBUSTNESS IN CODES AND REGULATIONS ......................................................................................................... 53
3.3.1 American regulation ............................................................................................................................... 53
3.3.1.1ASCE Standard .............................................................................................................................................. 53
3.3.1.2GSA requirements.......................................................................................................................................... 54
3.3.1.3Department of Defense (DoD) requirements ................................................................................................. 56
3.3.1.4MMC Progressive collapse report.................................................................................................................. 58
3.3.2 European regulation ............................................................................................................................... 59
3.3.2.1Eurocodes ...................................................................................................................................................... 59
3.3.2.2German regulation ......................................................................................................................................... 63
3.3.2.3Italian regulation ............................................................................................................................................ 63
4 STRATEGIES AND METHODS FOR STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY 67

4.1 PREVENTION OR PRESUMPTION ........................................................................................................................... 67
4.1.1 Direct and indirect methods.................................................................................................................... 68
4.1.1.1Redundancy and compartmentalization ......................................................................................................... 70
4.2 STRUCTURAL DEPENDABILITY ............................................................................................................................ 73

4.2.1 Dependability attributes ..........................................................................................................................74
4.2.1.1Safety- based attributes of dependability........................................................................................................74
4.2.1.2Serviceability-based attributes of dependability.............................................................................................76
4.2.2 Dependability threats...............................................................................................................................76
4.2.3 Dependability means ...............................................................................................................................77
4.3 ROBUSTNESS EVALUATION: A PROPOSED APPROACH ...........................................................................................78
4.3.1 Determination of robustness curves.........................................................................................................78
4.3.2 Identification of critical elements ............................................................................................................81
4.3.3 Raison d’être of the assumptions .............................................................................................................81
4.3.3.1Resistance.......................................................................................................................................................81
4.3.3.2Element damage level ....................................................................................................................................82
4.3.3.3Scaling and calibration ...................................................................................................................................82
4.3.4 Possible robustness indicators.................................................................................................................84

5 NONLINEAR BEHAVIOUR OF STRUCTURES 95
5.1 PROBLEMS TO FACE STUDYING A STRUCTURAL COLLAPSE ...................................................................................95
5.1.1 Plausible contingency scenario ...............................................................................................................95
5.1.2 Modelling fault or failure ........................................................................................................................96
5.1.3 Dynamic aspects in failure progression ..................................................................................................97
5.1.4 Nonlinear response..................................................................................................................................97
5.1.5 Local mechanisms....................................................................................................................................98
5.2 SOURCES OF NONLINEARITIES ..............................................................................................................................99
5.2.1 Geometrical nonlinearities ......................................................................................................................99
5.2.1.1Coupling effect of geometrical and mechanical nonlinearities.....................................................................100
a. Effects of catenary action 100
b. Instability in plastic range 103
5.2.2 Mechanical nonlinearities .....................................................................................................................104
5.2.3 Spread and lumped plasticity.................................................................................................................104
5.2.3.1Plastic hinge calibration ...............................................................................................................................105
5.3 MODELLING NL STRUCTURAL RESPONSES ..........................................................................................................109
5.3.1 Objectivity of the solution ......................................................................................................................109
5.3.2 Regularization problems........................................................................................................................111
5.3.3 Static vs. dynamic investigation.............................................................................................................114
5.3.3.1Iterative incremental analysis (“Pushover”) .................................................................................................115
5.3.3.2Response controlled iterative incremental analysis ......................................................................................117
5.3.4 Solution algorithms................................................................................................................................118
5.3.4.1Newton-Raphson method .............................................................................................................................119
5.3.4.2Arc-length algorithm ....................................................................................................................................120
6 PROBLEM COMPLEXITY AND OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUES 122

6.1 COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY ........................................................................................................................ 122
6.1.1 P and NP classes of complexity ............................................................................................................ 123
6.1.2 Complexity classes of optimization problems ....................................................................................... 126
6.1.3 Computational onus of the proposed method........................................................................................ 128
6.1.4 Imperfect solutions................................................................................................................................ 129
6.1.4.1Probabilistic algorithms ............................................................................................................................... 129
6.1.4.2Heuristic algorithms..................................................................................................................................... 132
6.2 PROBABILISTIC OPTIMIZATION .......................................................................................................................... 133
6.2.1 Overview of iterative improvement search methods ............................................................................. 133
6.2.2 Simulated annealing.............................................................................................................................. 133
6.2.2.1Application of the method to the robustness curve problem ........................................................................ 135
a. Framework of application of SA in the robustness problem 137
b. Move set definition 138
c. Calibration of SA parameter 139
6.2.2.2Possible improvement in the considered SA algorithm................................................................................ 140
6.3 A SIMPLE HEURISTIC OPTIMIZATION .................................................................................................................. 141
6.3.1 Heuristic-based algorithm for reduced investigations.......................................................................... 145
6.4 ASPECTS RELATED TO ALGORITHM AUTOMATISM ............................................................................................ 147
6.4.1 Importance and limit of an automatic investigation ............................................................................. 147
6.4.1.1Analysis parameter calibration and choose of solving algorithm................................................................. 147
6.5 ASPECT RELATED TO NON MONOTONIC RESPONSE ............................................................................................ 148
6.5.1 Errors due to the heuristic chosen ........................................................................................................ 148
6.5.2 Errors due to an approximated evaluation of resistance ...................................................................... 148
6.5.3 Problem of local mechanisms ............................................................................................................... 149
6.5.4 Meshing issue........................................................................................................................................ 149
6.5.5 Problem in modelling imperfection....................................................................................................... 149

7 DETERMINING ROBUSTNESS CURVES 155
7.1 SIMPLE CASES ................................................................................................................................................... 155
7.1.1 Star structure ........................................................................................................................................ 155
7.1.2 Truss structure ...................................................................................................................................... 156
7.1.3 Vierendeel structure.............................................................................................................................. 158
7.2 CONSIDERATION ON STATIC INDETERMINACY LEVEL ........................................................................................ 159
7.2.1 Three elementary structures for comparison ........................................................................................ 161
7.3 APPLICATION TO OTHER STRUCTURES .............................................................................................................. 162
8 PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE INVESTIGATION 164
8.1 SERIAL AND PARALLEL PRIMARILY LOAD TRANSFER SYSTEMS ................................................................. 164
8.2 A FRAMED R.C. BUILDING.................................................................................................................................. 165
8.2.1 Short description of the building........................................................................................................... 166

8.2.2 Modeling, assumption and description of the performed analyses ........................................................167
8.2.2.1Results ..........................................................................................................................................................170
8.2.2.2Findings........................................................................................................................................................172
8.3 A LONG SUSPENSION BRIDGE .............................................................................................................................172
8.3.1 Performed investigations .......................................................................................................................173
8.3.1.1Contingency and load scenarios ...................................................................................................................173
8.3.1.2Bridge modelling..........................................................................................................................................174
8.3.1.3Description of the analysis ...........................................................................................................................175
8.3.2 Progressive collapse susceptibility ........................................................................................................176
8.3.3 Proposed measures for mitigation .........................................................................................................180
CONCLUSIONS 183
9 PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE SUSCEPTIBILITY 185
9.1 LONG SUSPENSION BRIDGE ................................................................................................................................185
9.1.1 Dynamic amplification...........................................................................................................................185
9.1.2 Triggering and propagation ..................................................................................................................186
9.1.3 Collapse standstill and further developments........................................................................................187
9.2 R.C. FRAMED BUILDING .....................................................................................................................................189
10 PROPOSED ROBUSTNESS ASSESSMENT METHOD 191
10.1 GENERAL FRAMEWORK......................................................................................................................................191
10.2 ROBUSTNESS CURVES ........................................................................................................................................192
10.2.1 Main aspects and limitations .................................................................................................................192
10.2.2 Procedure summary and further efforts.................................................................................................193
APPENDICES 195
11 ROBALG CODE 197
11.1 GETTING STARTED .............................................................................................................................................197
11.2 MAIN FEATURES ................................................................................................................................................197
11.3 CODE .................................................................................................................................................................198
11.4 EXAMPLE FILE AND SCREENSHOT...........................................................................................................220
11.4.1 INPUT FILE ..........................................................................................................................................221
11.4.2 OUTPUT FILE ......................................................................................................................................222
11.4.3 SCREENSHOT.......................................................................................................................................224

INDEX OF CONTENTS 229
LIST OF FIGURES 233
LIST OF TABLES AND EQUATIONS 235
LITERATURE 236

LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 1: Two non robust behaviours: the Airfrance Concorde crashing and the Minnesota Bridge collapse._________ 14
Fig. 2: Safety and structural integrity _______________________________________________________________ 20
Fig. 3: Main requirements for the three limit states defined. _____________________________________________ 20
Fig. 4: Handling with risk: prevent or presume? ______________________________________________________ 22
Fig. 5: Decomposition of collapse probability factors __________________________________________________ 24
Fig. 6: Deterministic, probabilistic and pragmatic approach_____________________________________________ 26
Fig. 7: Qualitative definitions of structural robustness__________________________________________________ 31
Fig. 8: Qualitative robustness slopes of non robust (A) and robust (B) structures. ____________________________ 32
Fig. 9: Event tree for risk-based assessment of robustness [Faber, 2007b] __________________________________ 33
Fig. 10: Energy based robustness indicator [Biondini&Restelli, 2008] _____________________________________ 39
Fig. 11: Exposure, vulnerability and robustness according to [Faber, 2006b] _______________________________ 42
Fig. 12: A domino collapse _______________________________________________________________________ 43
Fig. 13: Emblematic cases of structural collapses _____________________________________________________ 47
Fig. 14: Collapse resistant structures _______________________________________________________________ 48
Fig. 15: Disproportionate collapse typologies ________________________________________________________ 50
Fig. 16: Accidental design situation [EN 1992-1-1-7] __________________________________________________ 60
Fig. 17: Strategies and methods for structural integrity _________________________________________________ 67
Fig. 18: Direct and indirect methods _______________________________________________________________ 68
Fig. 19: Redundant road network and fusible-protected electric circuit. ____________________________________ 71
Fig. 20: Structural integrity achieved by redundancy (above) or compartmentalization (below). _________________ 72
Fig. 21: Dependability main components and their logical interrelation. ___________________________________ 74
Fig. 22: Robustness evaluation chart and resulting structural response slopes. ______________________________ 80
Fig. 23: Indicators proposed for the quantitative evaluation of robustness.__________________________________ 85
Fig. 24: Comparison between the first and second indicator proposed _____________________________________ 88
Fig. 25: Problems to face in a structural collapse investigation___________________________________________ 95
Fig. 26: Nonlinearity sources _____________________________________________________________________ 99
Fig. 27: Geometrical nonlinearities _______________________________________________________________ 100
Fig. 28: Load-deflection relationship for 3 models of catenary action [Powell, 2004] ________________________ 102
Fig. 29: Instability in plastic range________________________________________________________________ 103
Fig. 30: Mechanical nonlinearities ________________________________________________________________ 104
Fig. 31: Plastic hinge calibration factors: choice of hinge type, length and location. _________________________ 106
Fig. 32: Hinge type choices: plastic benefit, material hardening and hinge length.___________________________ 107
Fig. 33: Plastic hinge length estimation ____________________________________________________________ 108
Fig. 34: Solution objectivity _____________________________________________________________________ 110
Fig. 35: Solution regularization: cause of error and solution a (E.L.T. value) ______________________________ 112
Fig. 36: Solution regularization: solution b (hardening) and c (hinge length)_______________________________ 113
Fig. 37: Pushover analysis aim [Pinho 2007 b] ______________________________________________________ 116
Fig. 38: Nonlinear static analysis typologies ________________________________________________________ 118
Fig. 39: Newton-Raphson (left) and modified Newton-Raphson (right) methods [Pinho 2007 a] ________________ 119
Fig. 40: Arc-length method with generic constraint surface (a) and orthogonal iterative changes (b) ____________ 120
Fig. 41: Computational complexity for identifying all damaged configuration of a structure.___________________ 128
Fig. 42: element of difficulty in search of optimum by probabilistic algorithms______________________________ 131
Fig. 43: General SA algorithm and application to the considered structural problem_________________________ 136
Fig. 44: Main aspects of SA application to the considered structural problem ______________________________ 137
Fig. 47: Heuristic optimization for the robustness curve problem.________________________________________ 142
Fig. 48: Number of exhaustive and heuristically reduced combinations ___________________________________ 144
Fig. 49: Developed algorithm for reduced analyses. __________________________________________________ 146
Fig. 50: Overcoming of problems due to disregarding the imperfection modelling (a) ________________________ 151
Fig. 51: Overcoming of problems due to disregarding the imperfection modelling (b) ________________________ 151
Fig. 52: Star structure__________________________________________________________________________ 156
Fig. 53: Truss structure_________________________________________________________________________ 157
Fig. 54: Vierendel structure _____________________________________________________________________ 158
Fig. 55: Comparison of static indeterminacy level ____________________________________________________ 159
Fig. 56: High and low connection_________________________________________________________________ 160
Fig. 57: Different type of static indeterminacy level ___________________________________________________ 161

Fig. 58: Robustness comparison between a shear-type and flexural type design _____________________________162
Fig. 59: The A.P. Murrah Federal building befor and after the collapse [FEMA277] _________________________165
Fig. 60: Original drawings of the A.P. Murrah building design [FEMA 277] _______________________________166
Fig. 61: 3D finite element model of the investigated building ____________________________________________167
Fig. 62: Assumptions and choices for the building modelling process. _____________________________________169
Fig. 63. Response curves relate to the 8 substructures investigated._______________________________________170
Fig. 64: 3D response of the 2d and 3d building model and result comparison _______________________________171
Fig. 65: Different damage locations considered in the investigations______________________________________174
Fig. 66: Bridge structural scheme and hangers modelling.______________________________________________174
Fig. 67: Rupture propagation to the right and to the left of the removed hangers, for asymmetric damage in zone B. 178
Fig. 68: Moment propagation in case of a high resistant deck.___________________________________________179
Fig. 69: Rupture propagation to the right and to the left of the removed hangers, for asymmetric damage in zone D. 180
Fig. 70: Characteristic behaviour of the structural system ______________________________________________181
Fig. 71: Screenshots from the program running ______________________________________________________225

LIST OF TABLES AND EQUATIONS

Tab. 1: Comparison between exhaustive and heuristically reduced number of investigations. ..................................... 143
Tab. 2: value of robustness indicator for truss structure ............................................................................................... 158
Tab. 3: value of robustness indicator for Vierendeel structure...................................................................................... 159
Eq. 1: Expression of Risk ........................................................................................................................................... 22

Eq. 2: Failure probability ........................................................................................................................................... 23
Eq. 3: Direct and indirect risk [Faber, 2007] .............................................................................................................. 33
Eq. 4: Vulnerability index [Agarwaal et al. 2005] ....................................................................................................... 35
Eq. 5: Stiffnes degradation [Yan&Chang 2006] .......................................................................................................... 37
Eq. 6: Damage-based robustness indices [Biondini&Restelli 2008] ........................................................................... 38
Eq. 7: Energy-based robustness measure [Haberland 2008] ...................................................................................... 40
Eq. 8: Dead and live load combination [GSA 2003] .................................................................................................... 55
Eq. 9: Dead and live load combination [UCF 2005] ................................................................................................ 57
Eq. 10: Proposed measure of robustness ...................................................................................................................... 79
Eq. 11: Number of damaged configuration for each damage level ................................................................................ 79
Eq. 12: Exhaustive number of damaged configuration for all damage levels considered.............................................. 81
Eq. 13: Exhaustive number of damaged configuration for all possible damage levels .................................................. 81
Eq. 14: Curve scaling with respect to the integer ultimate resistance ........................................................................... 83
Eq. 15: Robustness verification .................................................................................................................................... 86
Eq. 16: First proposed robustness indicator Ia (decay) ................................................................................................ 86
Eq. 17: Second proposed robustness indicator Ib (abrupt decrement) ........................................................................... 87
Eq. 18: Third proposed robustness indicator Ic (subtended area) .............................................................................. 89
Eq. 19: Fourth proposed robustness indicator Id (scattering) ...................................................................................... 89
Eq. 20: Fifth proposed robustness indicator Ie (maximum sustained damage) ............................................................. 90
Eq. 21: Formal definition of a DTM............................................................................................................................. 123
Eq. 22: Formal defintion of a NDTM ........................................................................................................................... 124
Eq. 23: Polynomial expression .................................................................................................................................. 124
Eq. 24: Formal definition of class of complexity P....................................................................................................... 124
Eq. 25: Formal definition of class of complexity NP.................................................................................................... 125
Eq. 26: Formal definition of an optimization problem p .............................................................................................. 127
Eq. 27: Probability of acceptance of a worse state in SA............................................................................................. 134
Eq. 28: Different cooling schedule for SA algorithms) .............................................................................................. 139
Eq. 29: Heuristically reduced number of damaged configurations for the curve of minima (or maxima) ................... 143
Eq. 30: Total number of heuristically reduced combinations to be investigated)......................................................... 143
Eq. 31: Dynamic amplification factor .......................................................................................................................... 185

LITERATURE
Agarwal et al. 2005 Agarwaal J., Blockley D., Woodman N., 2005: “Vulnerability of
structural systems”, Structural Safety 25, 2003
ANSYS 2007 “Advanced analysis techniques guide, R. 11.0”, Ansys Inc. & Ansys
Europe, Jan 2007
ASCE 7-02 “Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures”,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2002.
ASCE 7-98 C1.4 “Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures”,
COMMENTARY C1.4: GENERAL STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY
Astaneh-Asl 2003 Astaneh-Asl A.:“Progressive collapse prevention in new and
existing buildings”, Proc. of the 9th Arab Structural Engineering
Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, Nov. 29 – Dec. 01, 2003
Augusti et al. 1984 Augusti G.,Baratta A., Casciati F., 1984: “Probabilistic methods in
structural engineering”, Chapman and Hall ed., 1984.
Augusti et al. 2005 Augusti G., Schuëller G.I., Ciampoli M.: “Safety and Reliability of
Engineering Systems and Structures”, Proc. of the 9th International
Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability (ICOSSAR '05),
Rome, 2005.
Augusti et al. 2007 Augusti G., Borri C., Niemann H.: “Is Aeolian risk as significant as
other environmental risk?”, 2007.
Ausiello&al. 2003a Ausiello G., D'Amore F., Gambosi G.: “Linguaggi modelli
complessità”. Franco Angeli Ed., 2003
Ausiello&al. 2003b Ausiello G., Crescenzi P., Gambosi G., Kann V., Marchetti
Spaccamela A., Rotasi M.: “Complexity and approximation”,
Springer Verlag, 2003
Avizienis et al. 2004 Avizienis A., Laprie J-C., Randell B.: “Dependability and its
Threats: A Taxonomy”. Proc. IFIP 18th World Computer Congress,
Building the Information Society, pp.91-120. ed. R. Jacquart,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Toulouse, France, 22-27 August
2004.
Baldassino 2006 Baldassino N.: “Some notes concerning robustness” 3rd national
congress on collapse and reliability of civil structures (CRASC’06),
“Università degli Studi di Messina”, Messina, Italy, 20-22 April
2006.
Bangert 2005 Bangert P.: “Downhill simplex methods for optimizing simulated
annealing”, Proceedings of ALGORITMY 2005, pp. 341,347, 2005.
Bathe 1996 Bathe K.J.: “Finite Element Procedures”, Prentice-Hall, 1996.
Biodini et al 1999 Biondini F., Bontempi F., Malerba P.G.: “Analisi di affidabilità di
strutture di c.a./c.a.p. mediante simulazione in campo non lineare”,
Studi e Ricerche, Scuola di specializzazione in Costruzioni in C.A.,
Fratelli Pesenti, 1999

Biondini&Restelli 2008 Biondini F.,Restelli S.: “Measure of structural robustness under

damage propagation”, 4th international conference on bridge
maintenance, safety and management, Seoul, Korea, 13-17 July
2008.
Bolognesi 2000 Bolognesi, S.: “L’integrità strutturale e la sua misura attraverso
analisi non lineari definite da algoritmi di ottimizzazione”, Master
thesis at University of Rome “La Sapienza”, advisor Prof. F.
Bontempi, Roma 2000
Bontempi 2005 Bontempi F.: “Frameworks for Structural Analysis”, in Innovation
in Civil and Structural Engineering Computing, B.H.V. Topping
(Editor), Saxe-Coburg Publications, Stirling, Scotland, 2005.
Bontempi 2006 a Bontempi F.: “Basis of design and expected performances for the
Messina Strait Bridge”, Proceedings of the International Conference
on Bridge Engineering – Challenges in the 21st Century, Hong
Kong, 1-3 November 2006
Bontempi 2006 b Bontempi F.: “Robustezza Strutturale”, invited lecture at Convegno
Nazionale Crolli e Affidabilità delle Strutture Civili, Università
degli Studi di Messina, CRASC’06, Messina, 20-22 Aprile 2006
Bontempi&Giuliani 2006 Bontempi F., Giuliani L.: “Engineering complexity: uncertainty
modelling and structural robustness”, 10. Dresdner Baustatik
Seminar, Technische Universitaet Dresden, Deutschland, September
2006.
Bontempi& Giuliano 2005 Bontempi F., Giuliano F.: “Multilevel approaches to the analysis
and synthesis of the serviceability performance of a long span
suspension bridge”, Proc. of the Tenth International Conference on
Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering Computing, ,
Rome, Italy, 30 August - 2 September, 2005.
Bontempi&Giuliani 2008 Bontempi F., Giuliani L.. “Robustness investigation of long
suspension bridges”, 4th international conference on bridge
maintenance, safety and management, Seoul, Korea, 13-17 July
2008.
Bontempi&Malerba1986 Bontempi F., Malerba P.G.: “The role of softening in the numerical
nonlinear analysis of R.C. frames”, Structural Engineering and
Mechanics, 1997.
Bontempi&Malerba 1996 Bontempi F., Malerba, P.G.: “Il controllo della formulazione
tangente per la soluzione di problemi strutturali non lineari”, Studi e
Ricerche, Vol.17,1996
Bontempi et al. 2004 Bontempi F., Catallo L., Sgambi L: “Structural analysis and design
of long span suspension bridges with regards to nonlinearities,
uncertainties, interactions and sustainability”, Proc. of the Second
International Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and
Management (IABMAS’04), Kyoto, Japan. 18-22 October 2004.
Bontempi et al 2005 Bontempi F., Gkoumas K., Arangio S.: “System Engineering
framework for the knowledge-based analysis of complex structural
systems”, Proc. of the 9th International Conference on Structural

Safety and Reliability (ICOSSAR2005), Rome, Italy, June 19-23,

2005.
Bontempi et al. 2007 a Bontempi F., Giuliani L., Gkoumas K.: “Handling the exceptions:
dependability of systems and structural robustness”(invited lecture),
3rd international conference on structural engineering, mechanics
and computation (SEMC 2007), Cape Town, South Africa, 10-12
September 2007.
Bontempi et al. 2007 b Bontempi F., Giuliani L., Gkoumas K.: “Handling the exceptions:
robustness assessment of a complex structural system”, 3rd
international conference on structural engineering, mechanics and
computation (SEMC 2007), Cape Town, South Africa, 10-12
September 2007.
Bontempi et al. 2007 c Bontempi F., Crosti C., Petrini F., Giuliani L.: “La valutazione
quantitativa delle capacità prestazionali di strutture in acciaio in
presenza di incendio” (in italian), XXI Congresso C.T.A. –
Costruire con l’acciaio, Catania, Italy, 1-3 Ottobre 2007.
Calzona&Casciati 2005 Calzona R., Casciati F.: “Provisions for Robustness and the Italian
Code”, Robustness of Structures, Workshop organised by the JCSS
& IABSE WC 1 BRE, Garston, Watford, UK, November, 28-29,
2005.
Campagna 2007 Campagna A.: Mantenimento dinamico di soluzioni approssimate
per il problema del commesso viaggiatore”, Master thesis, at
University of Rome “La Sapienza”, advisor Prof. G. Ausiello,
Rome, 2007.
Canisius et al. 2007 Canisius, T.D.G., Soerensen J.D., Baker J.W.: “Robustness of
structural system – a new focus for the Joint Committee on
Structural Safety (JCSS)”, Application of statistics and probability
in civil engineer, Taylor & Francis, 2007
Ciampoli 1991 Ciampoli M.: “Seismic reliability assessment of redundant
structural systems”, Computational Stochastic Mechanics Elsevier
Applied Science, pp.595-602, London/New York, 1991
Ciampoli 2008 Ciampoli M.: “Sicurezza ed affidabilita' strutturale: dependability”,
oral contribution presented at Handling Exception in Structural
Engineering (HE08), Rome, 13-14 Nov. 2008.
Ciampoli&Paulotto 2004 Ciampoli M., Paulotto C.: “A simulation procedure for the
reliability assessment of structural systems subject to deterioration”,
IABMAS’04, Kyoto, Japan, November 2004.
Corely 2002 Corley W.G: “Applicability of seismic design in mitigating
progressive collapse”, NIST Workshop, Jul 10-11 2002
Corely 2004 Corley W. G.: “Lessons learned on improving resistance of
buildings to terrorist attacks”, Asce 68 Journal of performance of
constructed facilities, May 2004.
Corely et al. 1998 Corley, W. G., Mlakar, P. F., Sozen, M. A., Thornton, C. H., 1998:
“The Oklahoma City Bombing: Summary and Recommendations

for Multihazard Mitigation”, Journal of Performance of Constructed

Facilities, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 100-112, August 1998.
CSI 2004: “SAP2000 Analysis reference manual”, CSI Computers and
structures Inc. Berkeley, California, USA, Sept. 2004
Cuoco 1992 Cuoco D., : "Investigation of L'Ambiance Plaza Building Collapse."
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, November, 1992.
DIN 1055-100 "Einwirkung auf Tragwerke", Teil 100: Grundlagen der
Tragwerksplanung, Sicherheitskonzept e Bemessungsregeln, Maerz
2001 (in German).
Ellingwood 2005 Elligwood B.R.: “Strategies for mitigating risk of progressive
collapse”,. Proc. of the 2005 Structures Congress and the 2005
Forensic Engineering Symposium, New York, April 20–24, 2005.
Ellingwood&Dusenberry 2005 Ellingwood B.R., Dusenberry D.O., 2005:”Building design for
abnormal loads and progressive collapse”, Computer-Aided Civil
and Infrastructure Engineering 20(3): 194-205.
EN 1991-1-7: 2006 “Actions on structures”, Eurocode 1, Part 1-7: General actions -
Accidental actions., Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN).
ENR 1979: “Hartford Collapse Blamed on Weld” ENR, Environmental
Management Commission (ENR), 24 June 1979.
Faber 2006 a Faber M.: “Robustness of structures: an introduction”, Structural
Engineering international, SEI Vol. 16, No. 2. May 2006
Faber 2006 b Faber M.: “Robust structures”, Workshop COST C26, Delft, 17
November 2006.
Faber, 2007 Faber M.H.: “Risk and safety in civil engineering”, Lecture notes,
Swiss federal institute of technology (ETH), Zurich 2007
Faravelli 1988 Faravelli L.: “Sicurezza strutturale”, Pitagora Editrice, Bologna
1998
FEMA 277, 1996 Report of FEMA Mitigation Directorate and ASCE, “The
Oklahoma City Bombing: Improving Building performance
Through Multi-Hazard Mitigation”, FEMA 277, Reston, Virginia,
30 August 1996.
Frangopol&Curley 1987 Frangopol D. M., Curley P., 1987: “ Effects of damage and
redundancy on structural reliability”, Journal of structural
engineering , vol.113, No.7, July 1987.
Frangopol&Klisinki 1992 Frangopol D.M., Klisinski M., 1992: ”Design for safety,
serviceability and damage tolerability”, Designing Concrete
Structures for Serviceability and Safety, SP 133-12:225-254, 1992.
Gentle E.J. 2003 Gentle, James E.: “Random Number Generation and Monte Carlo
Methods”, Springer, New York, 2003.
Gilmour&Virdi 1998 Gilmour J.R., Virdi K.S.: “Numerical modelling of the progressive
collapse of framed structures as a result of impact or explosion.” 2nd
Int. PhD symposium in civil engineering, Budapest 1998.

Giuliani&Prisco 2008 Giuliani L., Prisco V., “Nonlinear analysis for progressive collapse
investigation on reinforced concrete framed structures”, 2008
Structures Congress – Crossing Borders, Vancouver, Canada, 24-26
April 2008.
Giuliani&Wolff 2006 Giuliani L., Wolff M.: “Strategie per il conseguimento della
robustezza strutturale: connessione e compartimentazione”, 3rd
national congress on collapse and reliability of civil structures
(CRASC’06), “Università degli Studi di Messina”, Messina, Italy,
20-22 April 2006.
Grierson et al. Grierson D.E., Xu L.. Liu Y.: “Progressive failure analysis of
buildings subjected to abnormal loading”, 2005.
GSA 2003 GSA Guidelines - Progressive Collapse Analysis and Design
Guidelines for New Federal Office Buildings and Major Renovation
Projects, June 2003.
Gulvanessian 2006 Gulvanessian H., Vrouwenvelder T.: “ Robustness and the
eurocodes”, Structural Engineering international, SEI Vol. 16, No.
2. May 2006.
Haberland 2007 Haberland M.: “Progressiver Kollaps und Robustheit”, Master
thesis at Hamburg University of Technology, Structural Analysis
and Steel Structures Institute, Hamburg 2007.
Hamby 1990 Hamby E.C.: “ Bridge deck behaviour”, E&FN SPON , Chapman &
Hall Printer, second edition, Sept. 1990.
Holt&Hartmann 2008 Holt R., Hartmann J.: "Adequacy of the U10 & L11 Gusset Plate
Designs for the Minnesota Bridge No. 9340 (I-35W over the
Mississippi River)", Interim Report, National Transportation Safety
Board, January 2008.
ISO 2394: International Standard ISO/FDIS 2394: “General. principles on
reliability for structures”, 1998.
Kirkpatric et al. 1983 Kirkpatrick S., Gelatt C. D., Vecchi M. P., 1983 “Optimization by
Simulated Annealing”, Science, Vol 220, Number 4598, pages 671-
680, 1983.
Korman 1987 Korman R.: "Flawed Connection Detail Triggered Fatal
L'Ambiance Plaza Collapse." ENR, October 29, 1987.
Krakauer 2005 Krakauer, D.C.: “Robustness in Biological Systems: a provisional
taxonomy”, Complex Systems Science in Biomedicine. Kluwer,
2005.
Lamont et al. 2006 Lamont S., Lane B., Jowsey A., Torerro J., Usmani A., Flint G.,
2006 “ Innovative structural engineering for tall buildings in fire”,
Structural Engineering international, SEI Vol. 16, No. 2. May 2006.
Laprie 1992 Laprie J.-C.: “Dependability: Basic Concepts and Terminology”,
Springer-Verlag, 1992.
Levy&Salvadori 1992 Levy M., Salvadori M.: “Why buildings fall down – how structures
fail”, W. W. Norton & Company, 1994.

Leyendecker 1997 Leyendecker E. V.: “Investigation of the Skyline Plaza collapse in

Fairfax County, Virginia”, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National
Bureau of Standards, 1997.
Leyendecker&Ellingwood1997 Leyendecker E. V., Ellingwood B.R., Washington D.C.: U.S. Dept.
of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards. NBS BSS 98, 1977]
Lind 1995 Lind N.C.: “A measure of vulnerability and damage tolerance”,
Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 48, n° 1, p.1–6,
1995.
Maes 2006 Maes A.M., Fritzsons K.E., Glowienka S., 2006: “Structural
robustness in the light of risk and consequence analysis”, Structural
Engineering international, SEI Vol. 16, No. 2. May 2006.
Malerba 1998 Malerba P.G.: Analisi limite e non lineare di strutture in cemento
armato. CISM, Udine, Springer-Verlag, 1998.
Massonet&Save 1980 Massonet C., Save M.: “ Calcolo plastico a rottura delle
costruzioni”, Maggioli Editore, 2008.
Mc Guire 1992 McGuire W.: "Comments on L'Ambiance Plaza Lifting
Collar/Shearheads." Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities, May, 1992.
Memon&Su, 2004 Memon B.A, Su X.: “Arc-length technique for nonlinear finite
element analysis”, Journal of Zhejiang University Science, Vol. 5,
ISSN 1009-3095, China, 2004
Metropolis et al. 1953 Metropolis N., Rosenbluth A.W., Rosenbluth M., Teller A.H.,
Teller E.: “Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing
Machines”, J. Chem. Phys. 21, 1087-1092, 1953.
MMC 2003 “Prevention of progressive collapse: Report on the July 2002
National Workshop and recommendation for future efforts”,
Multihazard Mitigation Council, Washington D.C. 2003.
Marchand 2005 Marchand K.A.: “Blast and progressive collapse”, Facts for steel
buildings, number 2, April 2005.
Model Code 1990 “Buletin d’information No. 203”, Comite Euro-International du
Beton: CEB-FIP Model Code, Lausanne, 1991.
NISTIR 7396: “Best practices forr educing the potential for progressive collapse in
buildings”, by Ellingwood B. R., Smilowitz R., Dusenberry D. O.,
Duthinh D., Lew H.S., Carino N. J. , National institute of Standard
and Technology (NIST), February 2007.
NTC 2008 “Nuove norme tecniche per le costruzioni”, D.M. Infrastrutture
14/01/08, Italy 2008 (in Italian).
Palma et al. 2001 Palma M., Palmisano F., Vitone A.: "Orientamenti dei criteri di
progettazione per ridurre il rischio di collasso progressivo negli
edifici in c.a.. Dettagli costruttivi delle armature." Atti del
Convegno Nazionale Sicurezza nei sistemi complessi, Bari, 18-19
ottobre 2001.

Pinho 2007 a Pinho R.: “Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Structures Subjected to

Seismic Action”, CISM Courses and Lectures, ISSN 0254-1971,
Volume 494, Advanced Earthquake Engineering Analysis, Springer
Vienna, 2007.
Pinho 2007 b Pinho R.: “Using Pushover Analysis for Assessment of Buildings
and Bridges”, CISM Courses and Lectures, ISSN 0254-1971,
Volume 494, Advanced Earthquake Engineering Analysis, Springer
Vienna, 2007.
Porter&Powell 1971 Porter F.L., Powell G.H.: “Static and dynamic analysis of inelastic
frame structures”, Earthquake engineering research centre, Report
No. 71-3, June 1971
Powell 2004 Powell G.: “Progressive collapse: case studies using nonlinear
analysis”, presented at 2004 SEAOC annual convention, Monterey,
August 2004
Prendergast 2005 Prendergast J.: “Oklahoma City Aftermath”, Civil Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 65, No. 10, pp. 42-45, October 1995.
Rahimian&Moazami 2008 Rahimian A., Moazami K.: “Nonlinear structural integrity analysis”
http://www.emergencymgt.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/no
nLinearStructural.pdf
Riks 1972 Riks, E.: “The application of Newton’s method to the problem of
elastic stability”, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 39:1060-1065,
1972.
SEI 2007 PC Committee prospectus: “A PreStandard Prospectus: Robustness
and collapse resistance for buildings”, Prepared by the steering
group of the SEI Progressive Collapse Standards and Guidance
Committee, 17 October 2007.
Scheer 2000 Scheer J.: “Versagen von Bauwerken“, Vol.1, Brücken, Ernst &
Sohn, Berlin, 2000.
Schubert&Faber 2006 Schubert M., Faber F: Robustness of Structures: Discussion and
Examples, 1st Workshop and 3rd Management Committee (MC)
Meeting Workshop COST, Delft, 17 November 2006.
Schneider 1997 Schneider J.: “Introduction to Safety and Reliability of Structures”,
Structural Engineering Documents, 1997.
SIA 260 SIA 260 Building Code, Swiss Society of Engineers and Architects:
„Sicherheit und Gebrauchstauglichkeit von Tragwerken – Weisung
des SIA an seine Kommissionen für die Koordination des
Normenwerks“; 5. Fassung 1980 und 11. Fassung, September 1982.
Sgambi et al. 2004 Sgambi, L., Bontempi, F., Biondini, F., Frangopol, D.M. 2004.
Handling uncertainties in optimal design of suspension bridges with
special emphasis on loads, Proc. of PSAM 7 - ESREL’04, Berlin,
Germany, 2004.
Smilowitz 2008 Smilowitz R., 2008: “Designing buildings to resist explosive
threats”, Whole Building Design Guide, May 2008.

Smith 2006 Smith J.W.: “Structural robustness analysis and the fast fracture
analogy”, Structural Engineering international, SEI Vol. 16, No. 2.
May 2006.
Sørensen&Christensen 2006 Sørensen J.D., Christensen H.H.: “Danish requirements for
robustness of structures : background and implementation”,
Sozen et al. 1998 Sozen M.A., Thornton C. H., Corley W.G.: “The Oklaoma city
bombing: structure and mechanisms of the Murrah building“,
ASCE 120 Journal of performance of constructed facilities, Aug
1998.
Starossek 1997 Starossek U.: “Zum progressiven Kollaps mehrfeldriger
Brückentragwerke“, Bautechnik, pp. 443-453, July 1997.
Starossek&Wolff 2005 Starossek, U., Wolff, M. 2005: “Design of collapse-resistant
structures”, presented at 2005 Workshop “Robustness of Structures”
organised by the JCSS & IABSE WC 1, Garston, Watford, UK
November, 28-29, 2005.
Starossek 2006 a Starossek U.: “Progressive collapse of bridges - aspects if analysis
and design”, invited lecture, International symposium on sea-
crossing long-span bridges, Mokpo, Korea, Feb. 15-17, 2006.
Starossek 2006 b Starossek U.,: Progressive collapse of structures: Nomenclature and
procedures. Structural Engineering International 16(2): 113-117,
2006.
Starossek 2007 Starossek U.: “Typology of progressive collapse”, Engineering
Structures 29(9): 2302-2307, 2007.
Starossek 2008 Starossek U.: “Progressiver Kollaps von Bauwerken” (Progressive
collapse of structures). In Betonkalender 2008: Part VIII. Berlin:
Wiley-VCH, Ernst & Sohn, (in German).
T.U. 2005 Testo Unitario - Norme tecniche per le costruzioni, D.M. 14/09/05,
Italy 2005 (in Italian).
Turing 1937 Turing A.M. : “On computable numbers, with an application to the
Entscheidungsproblem”, Lond. Math. Soc. 42, pp. 230-265, 1937)
UFC 4-023-03 “Design Of Buildings To Resist Progressive Collapse, Unified
Facilities Criteria” (UFC), 25 January 2005.
Val&Val 2006 Val D.V., Val E.G.: “Robustness of frame structures”, Structural
Engineering international, SEI Vol. 16, No. 2. May 2006.
Vlassis et al. 2006 Vlassis A.G., Izzuddin B.A., Elghazouli A.Y., Nethercot D.A.:
“Design oriented approach for progressive collapse assessment of
steel framed buildings”. Structural Engineering international, SEI
Vol. 16, No. 2. May 2006.
Wempner 1971 Wempner, G.A.: “Discrete approximation related to nonlinear
theories of solids”, International Journal of Solids and Structures,
7:1581-1599, 1971.

Wada et al. 2006 Wada A., Ohi K., Suzuki H., Konho M., Sakumoto Y.: “A study on
the collapse control design method for high-rise steel buildings”,
Wisniewsky et al. 2006 Wisniewsky D., Casas J.R., Ghosn M., 2006: “Load capacity
evaluation of existing railway bridges on robustness quantification”,
Wolff&Starossek 2008 Wolff M., Starossek U.: “Robustness assessment of a cable-stayed
bridge”, 4th international conference on bridge maintenance, safety
and management, Seoul, Korea, 13-17 July 2008.
Yan&Chang 2006 Yan D., Chang C.: “Vulnerability of long-span cable-stayed bridges
under terrorist event”, Proceedings of the International Conference
on Bridge Engineering - Challenges in the 21st Century, Hong
Kong, 2006.

Università Degli Studi Di Roma "La Sapienza"

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Università Degli Studi Di Roma "La Sapienza"

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”

Candidate: Luisa Giuliani

Advisor: Prof. Franco Bontempi

Co-Advisor: Prof. Uwe Starossek

Arbeitsbereich Baustatik und Stahlbau, Leiter: Prof. Ing. U. Starossek

Dissertazione presentata per il conseguimento del titolo di

SYNTHESIS OF THE WORK

SYNTHESIS OF THE WORK 7

SYNTHESIS OF THE WORK 7

PART I: STRUCTURAL ROBUSTNESS 29

PART II: NUMERICAL ASPECTS OF ROBUSTNESS INVESTIGATIONS 93

SYNTHESIS OF THE WORK 9

PART III: APPLICATIONS 153

8.3 A LONG SUSPENSION BRIDGE .............................................................................................................................172

INDICES AND LITERATURE 227

SYNTHESIS OF THE WORK 10

SYNTHESIS OF THE WORK 11

SYNTHESIS OF THE WORK 12

between cases in which it is provided mostly by high structural continuity or by a

SYNTHESIS OF THE WORK 13

SYNTHESIS OF THE WORK 14

SYNTHESIS OF THE WORK 15

1. SAFETY AND STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY

1 SAFETY AND STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY

Accordingly to this definition, safety could be provided also by means of non-structural

Safety in SIA260 Building Code: Safety in ISO/FDIS 2394 code:

Fig. 2: Safety and structural integrity

Service limit states

Structural integrity limit STRUCTURAL

Fig. 3: Main requirements for the three limit states defined.

HANDLING WITH RISK: PREVENT OR PRESUME?

Non structural measures

(after Starossek, 2005)

Fig. 4: Handling with risk: prevent or presume?

R(F) = P(F) × E(D F) Eq. 1

- result of human errors, referring to design as well as to project execution;

P(F) = ∑ P[F | D, H i ] ⋅ P[D | H i ] ⋅ P[H i ] Eq. 2

Collapse resistance Vulnerability · Exposure

P(F) = P[F | DH] ⋅ P[D | H] ⋅ P[H]

Fig. 5: Decomposition of collapse probability factors

According to [Ellingwood&Dusenberry 2005], in order to limit the collapse probability, it is

Fig. 6: Deterministic, probabilistic and pragmatic approach

Particularly the latter consideration could favour a deterministic approach instead of a

PART I: STRUCTURAL ROBUSTNESS

3. STATE OF THE ART

PART I: STRUCTURAL ROBUSTNESS 29

3 STATE OF THE ART

3.1 DEFINITION OF ROBUSTNESS

Qualitative definitions of structural robustness

[SEI 2007, BetonKalender 2008]: insensitivity of the structure to local failure

Fig. 7: Qualitative definitions of structural robustness

PART I: STRUCTURAL ROBUSTNESS 31

At an elementary level, this behaviour can be exemplified by comparing a circular column

PART I: STRUCTURAL ROBUSTNESS 32

3.1.2 Quantitative definition overview

R dir = ∫ ∫ Cdir ⋅ f D EX ( y x ) ⋅ f EX ( x ) ⋅ dydx C = consequence D = damage

Fig. 9: Event tree for risk-based assessment of robustness [Faber, 2007b]

PART I: STRUCTURAL ROBUSTNESS 33

3.1.2.2 Topologic approach

PART I: STRUCTURAL ROBUSTNESS 34

As shown in the expression reported above, the vulnerability index corresponding to a

PART I: STRUCTURAL ROBUSTNESS 35

Pancake-type collapse: this type of collapse is characterised by an initial failure of