YaBeSH Engineering and Technology Library

    • Journals
    • PaperQuest
    • YSE Standards
    • YaBeSH
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASCE
    • Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
    • View Item
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASCE
    • Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
    • View Item
    • All Fields
    • Source Title
    • Year
    • Publisher
    • Title
    • Subject
    • Author
    • DOI
    • ISBN
    Advanced Search
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Archive

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

    Source: Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities:;2006:;Volume ( 020 ):;issue: 004
    Author:
    Peter Ruth
    ,
    Kirk A. Marchand
    ,
    Eric B. Williamson
    DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2006)20:4(349)
    Publisher: American Society of Civil Engineers
    Abstract: The existing General Services Administration (GSA) and Department of Defense Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) guidelines make use of the alternate path approach for evaluation of a structural system to determine susceptibility to progressive collapse. The alternate path approach presumes that one critical or key member, typically a column, is damaged and rendered incapable of supporting load. The remaining structure must be able to span across this lost member. The existing procedures incorporate material nonlinearity through allowable plastic deformations or through the use of a modified static capacity to incorporate plasticity. The procedures also permit an analyst to evaluate the response of a structure either statically or dynamically. Dynamic inertial effects can be considered directly through the equations of motion inherent in a dynamic analysis or considered indirectly through the modification of dead and live loads in a static analysis. Both the GSA and UFC procedures recommend a static “multiplier” of 2.0 to account for these inertial effects. The analysis presented in this paper illustrates that this multiplier may be conservative, resulting in structural designs less efficient than may be otherwise achievable. A dynamic multiplier of 1.5 better captures the dynamic effects when a static analysis is performed, and will result in more economical designs.
    • Download: (404.0Kb)
    • Show Full MetaData Hide Full MetaData
    • Get RIS
    • Item Order
    • Go To Publisher
    • Price: 5000 Rial
    • Statistics

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

    URI
    http://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/44460
    Collections
    • Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities

    Show full item record

    contributor authorPeter Ruth
    contributor authorKirk A. Marchand
    contributor authorEric B. Williamson
    date accessioned2017-05-08T21:15:17Z
    date available2017-05-08T21:15:17Z
    date copyrightNovember 2006
    date issued2006
    identifier other%28asce%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28349%29.pdf
    identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/44460
    description abstractThe existing General Services Administration (GSA) and Department of Defense Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) guidelines make use of the alternate path approach for evaluation of a structural system to determine susceptibility to progressive collapse. The alternate path approach presumes that one critical or key member, typically a column, is damaged and rendered incapable of supporting load. The remaining structure must be able to span across this lost member. The existing procedures incorporate material nonlinearity through allowable plastic deformations or through the use of a modified static capacity to incorporate plasticity. The procedures also permit an analyst to evaluate the response of a structure either statically or dynamically. Dynamic inertial effects can be considered directly through the equations of motion inherent in a dynamic analysis or considered indirectly through the modification of dead and live loads in a static analysis. Both the GSA and UFC procedures recommend a static “multiplier” of 2.0 to account for these inertial effects. The analysis presented in this paper illustrates that this multiplier may be conservative, resulting in structural designs less efficient than may be otherwise achievable. A dynamic multiplier of 1.5 better captures the dynamic effects when a static analysis is performed, and will result in more economical designs.
    publisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers
    titleStatic Equivalency in Progressive Collapse Alternate Path Analysis: Reducing Conservatism while Retaining Structural Integrity
    typeJournal Paper
    journal volume20
    journal issue4
    journal titleJournal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
    identifier doi10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2006)20:4(349)
    treeJournal of Performance of Constructed Facilities:;2006:;Volume ( 020 ):;issue: 004
    contenttypeFulltext
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian
     
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian