2006
DOI: 10.1061/(asce)0887-3828(2006)20:4(349)
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Static Equivalency in Progressive Collapse Alternate Path Analysis: Reducing Conservatism while Retaining Structural Integrity

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
32
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 124 publications
(40 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
2
32
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The results are shown in Table 2. The DIF is substantially below the widely used value of 2.0, which is in agreement with the conclusion of the literature [19]. It can be seen from Table 2 that the existence of the composite floor slabs improved the integrity performance of the structure and decreased the dynamic effect of the split column.…”
Section: (21)supporting
confidence: 81%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The results are shown in Table 2. The DIF is substantially below the widely used value of 2.0, which is in agreement with the conclusion of the literature [19]. It can be seen from Table 2 that the existence of the composite floor slabs improved the integrity performance of the structure and decreased the dynamic effect of the split column.…”
Section: (21)supporting
confidence: 81%
“…The dynamic impact factor (DIF), which is widely used to account for dynamic effects within a static design framework, is usually recommended for 2.0tabl [19]. Since the large deformation and nonlinearity of the structure under the progressive collapse condition are not well considered, the value of 2.0 is quite conservative.…”
Section: Dynamic Impact Factormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Powell compared the results obtained by different analysis procedures and concluded that using dynamic increase factor of 2.0 in linear static analysis may be conservative [6]. In addition, the research conducted by Ruth et al also showed that the value of 1.5 was suitable for linear static analysis of steel frame structures considering dynamic effect [7]. Kim and Kim performed APM on steel frame structures whose results showed that nonlinear dynamic analysis would result in larger responses in structures than static analysis [8].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The simulation models used in previous studies differ from each other in many ways and can be classified into distinct groups based on the model features: (1) the type of analysis: linear or nonlinear-that can significantly affect the response of the structure as documented in Marjanishvili and Agnew (2006), where a comparison between different analyses shows that the predicted responses can vary significantly when performing static/dynamic and linear/nonlinear analyses, (2) the typology of elements: continuum, beam-column elements or a combination of both have been successfully used for modeling local and global phenomena of progressive collapse: examples of micro-models can be found in Khandelwal and El-Tawil (2007), Sasani and Kropelnicki (2008), Kwasniewski (2010), and Bao et al (2008), while examples of macro-models are those utilized in Kaewkulchai and Williamson (2004), Bao et al (2008), and Bao and Kunnath (2010) and an example of the use of hybrid models is reported in the work of Alashker et al (2011), (3) the dimension of the model: planar or three dimensional-that is crucial in capturing spatial effects: most of the published work were conducted on two-dimensional structures (Khandelwal and El-Tawil 2007;Bao et al 2008;Kim et al 2009) and very few on three-dimensional models (Ruth et al 2006;Alashker et al 2011) making the comparison of results very challenging, (4) the floor system, modeled using a collection of beam-column, shell or brick elements , which plays a key role in determining the response of three-dimensional structures, as shown by Yu et al (2010), Alashker et al (2011) and Li and El-Tawil (2014), (5) the loads applied on the structure, which can include only the self-weight or the self-weight and a fraction of the design dead/live loads.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%