corso di dottorato su ottimizzazione strutturale: robustezza strutturale - gkoumas

Corso di Dottorato: Introduzio ne all'o�mi zzazione struttural e Roma, 21 Giugno 2014

Prof.-Ing. Franco Bontempi, Ing. Konstantinos Gkoumas, Ph.D.

“Structural robustness: definitions, examples and consequence based assessment of structures”

Konstantinos Gkoumas, Ph.D., P.E.

Corso di Dottorato: introduzio ne all'ottimi zzazionestruttural e

Prof.-Ing. Franco Bontempi

Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale e Geotecnica

Dottorato di Ricerca in Ingegneria delle Strutture

Rome, June 21 2014



Index

Ottimizzazione Strutturale

[email protected]



Personal



Black

Swan

Vulnerability

Cause

Damage

Index

Robustness

Collapse

resistance

Progressive

collapse

Photo Credit: Wikipedia Commons.

Member

consequence

factor

• Significant collapse cases

• LPHC events and Black Swans

• Structural robustness in qualitative terms

• Structural robustness in civil engineering

design

• Collapse types

• Structural robustness and progressive

collapse definitions

• Measures against progressive collapse

• Quantification of robustness

• Robustness and optimization

• Member consequence factor

• Assessment of simple structures

• Assessment of complex structures

• References



Black

Swan

Vulnerability

Cause

Damage

Index





design

• Collapse types









• References

Robustness

Collapse

resistance

Progressive

collapse


Member

consequence

factor



Ronan Point Tower Block– May 16, 1968

Description:- apartments building;

- built between 1966 and 1968;

- 64 m tall with 22 story;

- walls, floors, and staircases was precast

concrete;

- each floor was supported directly by the walls

in the lower stories, (bearing walls system).

The event:- May 16, 1968 a gas explosion blew out an

outer panel of the 18th floor,

- the loss of the bearing wall causes the

progressive collapse of the upper floors,

- the impact of the upper floors’ debris caused

the progressive collapse of the lower floors.

Cause Damage Pr. Collapse



Description:- apartments building;

- precast concrete wall and floor components

was the structural bearing system;

- ductile detailing and effective ties between

the precast components.


The event:- June 25, 1996 9 tons of

TNTeq detonated in

front of the building;

- the exterior wall was

entirely destroyed;

- collapse did not

progress beyond areas

of first damage.

Khobar Towers Bombing – June 25, 1996



Description:- office facility for the Deutsche Bank in

Manhattan;

- constructed in the early ‘70s in steel-framed

structure moment connected, 130 m tall, 40

story and 2 subterranean levels;

The event:- On September 11, 2011, the WTC towers

debris impact on a building’s façade,

- heavy damage between the 9th and the 23rd

floor, the column was lost from the 9th and

the 18th floor;

- the framing system was able to support

and redistribute the loads.

Deutsche Bank Building – September 11, 2001




Probability of progressive collapse from an abnormal event

P(F) = P(D|H) P(F|DH)P(H) x x

damage is caused in

the structure

damage spreads in

the structureoccurrence of

critical event

occurrence of broad

or global collapse

STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY (ISO/FDS 2394)

COLLAPSE RESISTANCE (Starossek&Wolff 2005)

Faber (2006)

STRUCTURALNON STRUCTURAL

MEASURES

HAZARD

References: Ellingwood, B.R. and Dusenberry, D.O. (2005), “Building design for abnormal loads and progressive

collapse”, Comput-Aided Civ. Inf., 20(3), 194-205.



Black

Swan

Vulnerability

Cause

Damage

Index





design

• Collapse types









• References

Robustness

Collapse

resistance

Progressive

collapse


Member

consequence

factor



Reference: Bontempi, F. (2005) Frameworks for structural analysis, In: Innovation in Civil and Structural

Engineering Topping, BHV ed., pp. 1-24

HPLCHigh Probability –

Low Consequences

LPHCLow Probability –

High Consequences

ComplexityNon linear issues and

interaction mechanisms

De

sig

n a

pp

roa

ch:

Sto

cha

stic

De

term

inis

tic

QUALITATIVE RISK

ANALYSIS

PROBABILISTIC

RISK ANALYSIS

PRAGMATIC

ANALYSIS OF

RISK SCENARIOS

Secondary

design

Primary

design

Low Probability – High Consequences Events



References: Taleb, Nassim Nicholas (April 2007). The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable (1st ed.).

London: Penguin. p. 400. ISBN 1-84614045-5.

A Black Swan is an event with the following three attributes.

1. First, it is an outlier, as it lies outside the realm of regular expectations,

because nothing in the past can convincingly point to its possibility.

Rarity -The event is a surprise (to the observer).

2. Second, it carries an extreme 'impact'.

Extreme “impact” - the event has a major effect.

3. Third, in spite of its outlier status, human nature makes us concoct

explanations for its occurrence after the fact, making it explainable and

predictable.

Retrospective (though not prospective) predictability - After the first

recorded instance of the event, it is rationalized by hindsight, as if it could

have been expected; that is, the relevant data were available but

unaccounted for in risk mitigation programs. The same is true for the

personal perception by individuals.

Black Swans



Black

Swan

Vulnerability

Cause

Damage

Index





design

• Collapse types









• References

Robustness

Collapse

resistance

Progressive

collapse


Member

consequence

factor



QUALITY

DAMAGE or ERROR

REQUIRED PERFORMANCE

NOMINAL

PERFORMANCE

NOMINAL SITUATION

Structural Robustness



• Capacity of a construction to exhibit regulardecrease of its structural quality as a consequenceof negative causes.

• It implies:

a) some smoothness of the decrease ofstructural performance due to negativeevents (intensive feature);

b) some limited spatial spread of therupture (extensive feature).




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,

Beton Kalender 2008]: insensitivity of the structure to local failure

structure B

d

P

s

STRUCTURE B:

P

s

ROBUSTNESS CURVES

P (performance)

structure A

STRUCTURE A

damaged

integer

DP

damaged

more performant, less resistant

integer

(damage level)

DPDP

more performant, less robust less performant, more robust


A B



Black

Swan

Vulnerability

Cause

Damage

Index





design

• Collapse types









• References

Robustness

Collapse

resistance

Progressive

collapse


Member

consequence

factor



Co

mm

on

UL

S &

SL

S

Ver

ific

ati

on

Fo

rma

t


Assessment

1st level:

Material Point

2nd level:

Element

Section

3rd level:

Structural

Element

4th level:

Structural

System

Structural robustness in design



STRUCTURAL DESIGN

PRIMARY SECONDARY TERTIARY

LO

AD

S

DEAD X

LIVE X

SNOW X

EARTHQUAKE X

FIRE X X

EXPLOSIONS X X

“BLACK SWAN” X

Member-basedstructural design

Consequence-basedstructural design

Black Swan event:

- unpredictable,

- large impact on community,

- easy to predict after its occurrence.

References:

Nafday, AM. (2011) Consequence-based structural

design approach for black swan events. Structural

Safety, 33(1): 108-114.




Uncertainty in the likelihood that

the harmful consequences of a

particular event will be realized

Uncertainty in the consequences

related to the specific event

Primary

designSecondary

design

Tertiary

design




Black

Swan

Vulnerability

Cause

Damage

Index





design

• Collapse types









• References

Robustness

Collapse

resistance

Progressive

collapse


Member

consequence

factor



STRUCTURE

& LOADS

Collapse

Mechanism

NO SWAY

“IMPLOSION”

OF THE

STRUCTURE

“EXPLOSION”

OF THE

STRUCTURE

is a process in which

objects are destroyed by

collapsing on themselves

is a process

NOT CONFINED

SWAY

Bad VS Good collapse



Initial load-bearing element failure that

triggers the rigid fall of a part of the

structure onto another and leads to a

sequential impacts on the rest of the

structure, that collapses on itself.

Characteristic feature is the force

redistribution into alternative paths,

impulsive loading due to sudden element

failure and force concentration in elements

to fail next.

Zipper Domino

Section Instability Mixed

Pancake

Initial cross-section cut and stress

concentration that cause the rupture of

further cross-sectional parts (fast fracture)

and failure progression throughout the

entire section.

Initial element rigid overturning and

falling over another element, that, by

means of transformation of potential into

kinetic energy, trigger the overturning of

the following element.

The destabilization of some load-carrying

elements in compression due to an initial

failure of stabilizing elements can trigger a

failure progression throughout the

structure.

Some collapses are less amenable to

generalization because the relative

importance of the contributing basic

categories of collapse can vary and

combine in progression of failures.

- DOMINO + PANCAKE

(e.g. A.P.Murrah Building, Building

during Izmit Earquake)

- ZIPPER + INSTABILITY

(e.g. cable-stayed bridges)

Reference: Betoncalendar, 2008 (adapted from “Structural integrity: robustness assessment and progressive collapse

susceptibility”, Luisa Giuliani, PhD Thesis, Sapienza University of Rome, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale e Geotecnica)

Collapse types



Initial load-bearing element failure that

triggers the rigid fall of a part of the

structure onto another and leads to a

sequential impacts on the rest of the

structure, that collapses on itself.

Characteristic feature is the force

redistribution into alternative paths,

impulsive loading due to sudden element

failure and force concentration in elements

to fail next.

Zipper Domino

Section Instability Mixed

Pancake

Initial cross-section cut and stress

concentration that cause the rupture of

further cross-sectional parts (fast fracture)

and failure progression throughout the

entire section.

Initial element rigid overturning and

falling over another element, that, by

means of transformation of potential into

kinetic energy, trigger the overturning of

the following element.

The destabilization of some load-carrying

elements in compression due to an initial

failure of stabilizing elements can trigger a

failure progression throughout the

structure.

Some collapses are less amenable to

generalization because the relative

importance of the contributing basic

categories of collapse can vary and

combine in progression of failures.

- DOMINO + PANCAKE

(e.g. A.P.Murrah Building, Building

during Izmit Earquake)

- ZIPPER + INSTABILITY

(e.g. cable-stayed bridges)

Reference: Betoncalendar, 2008 (adapted from “Structural integrity: robustness assessment and progressive collapse

susceptibility”, Luisa Giuliani, PhD Thesis, Sapienza University of Rome, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale e Geotecnica)

Collapse types

Islamabad Earthquake 2005

Münsterland, 2005

Viaduct after earthquakeIzmit Earthquake

1999

Tanker S.S. Schenectady, 1941



The Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress collided with another aircraft during World War II and, although

sustaining large amount of structural damage, landed safely, due to the high redundancy of the

fuselage connections.

Design Strategy #1: Continuity (robust behavior-redundancy)



On July 1945 a B-25 bomber crashed into the Empire State Building, The impact of the plane

created a 5.5x6 m hole in the side of the tower. This crash caused extensive damage to the

masonry exterior and the interior steel structure of the building.

The 278 m building was rocked by the impact but resist the impact in consequence of the

intrinsic redundancy of its framed system.

Plane crash on the Empire

State Building, 1945

Design Strategy #1: Continuity (robust behavior-redundancy)



Design Strategy #2: Segmentation (Compartmentalization)

A service-induced damage led to explosive decompression and loss of large portion of fuselage

skin when small fatigue crack suddenly linked together. The subsequent fracture was eventually

arrested by fuselage frame structure and the craft landed safely.

Aloha Boeing 737, April 1988

(compartmentalization by strengthening)



Design Strategy #2: Segmentation (Compartmentalization)

The partial collapse, started in the roof and due design and execution errors, stoped at the two joints

which separated the collapsing section from the adjacent structures.

A higher continuity could have unlikely sustained the forces during collapse, since the construction

deficiencies affected also adjacent sections.



Black

Swan

Vulnerability

Cause

Damage

Index





design

• Collapse types









• References

Robustness

Collapse

resistance

Progressive

collapse


Member

consequence

factor



References:

(EN 1991-1-7 2006): "Eurocode 1 – Actions on structures, Part 1-7: General actions – accidental actions." Comité

European de Normalization (CEN).

(Bontempi F, Giuliani L, Gkoumas K, 2007): "Handling the exceptions: robustness assessment of a complex structural

system.“, Invited Lecture, Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Computation (SEMC) 3, 1747-1752.

(Starossek U, 2009): “Progressive collapse of structures.” London: Thomas Telford Publishing, 2009.

Definitions:

1- "The ability of a structure to withstand events like fire, explosions,

impact or the consequences of human error without being damaged to an

extent disproportionate to the original cause." (EN 1991-1-7 2006)

2- "The robustness of a structure, intended as its ability not to suffer

disproportionate damages as a result of limited initial failure, is an

intrinsic requirement, inherent to the structural system organization."

(Bontempi F, Giuliani L, Gkoumas K, 2007)

3- “Robustness is defined as insensitivity to local failure." (Starossek U,

2009)




References:

(ASCE 7-05 2005): "Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures." American Society of Civil Engineers

(ASCE).

(GSA 2003): "Progressive collapse analysis and design guidelines for new federal office buildings and major

modernization projects." General Services Administration (GSA).

(UFC 4-010-01 2003): "DoD minimum antiterrorism standards for buildings." Department of Defense (DoD).

Progressive Collapse

Definitions:

1-"Progressive collapse is defined as the spread of an initial local failure

from element to element resulting, eventually, in the collapse of an entire

structure or a disproportionate large part of it." (ASCE 7-05 2005)

2- "A progressive collapse is a situation where local failure of a primary

structural component leads to the collapse of adjoining members which, in

turn, leads to additional collapse. Hence, the total collapse is

disproportionate to the original cause." (GSA 2003)

3-"Progressive collapse: a chain reaction failure of building members to an

extent disproportionate to the original localized damage." (UFC 4-010-01

2003)



References:

Arup (2011), Review of international research on structural robustness and disproportionate collapse, London,

Department for Communities and Local Government.

Starossek, U. and Haberland, M. (2010), “Disproportionate Collapse: Terminology and Procedures”, J. Perf. Constr.

Fac., 24(6), 519-528.

Observations:

− A progressive collapse is one which develops in a progressive manner akin to the collapse

of a row of dominos.

− A disproportionate collapse is one which is judged (by some measure defined by the

observer) to be disproportionate to the initial cause. This is merely a judgement made on

observations of the consequences of the damage which results from the initiating events.

− A collapse may be progressive in nature but not necessarily disproportionate in its extents,

for example if arrested after it progresses through a number of structural bays. Vice versa, a

collapse may be disproportionate but not necessarily progressive if, for example, the

collapse is limited in its extents to a single structural bay but the structural bays are large.

− The terms of disproportionate collapse and progressive collapse are often used

interchangeably because disproportionate collapse often occurs in a progressive manner

and progressive collapse can be disproportionate.

Progressive Collapse VS Disproportionate Collapse



Robustness and collapse resistance in a dependability framework

Sgambi, L., Gkoumas, K. and Bontempi, F. (2012), “Genetic

algorithms for the dependability assurance in the design of a long-

span suspension bridge”, Comput-Aided Civ. Inf., 27(9), 655-675.



Black

Swan

Vulnerability

Cause

Damage

Index





design

• Collapse types









• References

Robustness

Collapse

resistance

Progressive

collapse


Member

consequence

factor



The currently available design strategies and methods to

prevent disproportionate collapse are as follows:

− Prevent local failure of key elements (direct design)

− Specific local resistance

− Non-structural protective measures

− Presume local failure (direct design)

− Alternative load paths

− Isolation by segmentation

− Prescriptive design rules (indirect design)

Reference:

Starossek, U. 2008. Collapse resistance and robustness of bridges. IABMAS’08: 4th International Conference on

Bridge Maintenance, Safety, and Management Seoul, Korea, July 13-17, 2008

Measures against disproportionate collapse



Reference:

Giuliani, L., 2012. Structural safety in case of extreme actions. International Journal of Lifecycle Performance Engineering

IJLCPE Special Issue on: "Performance and Robustness of Complex Structural Systems", Guest Editor Franco Bontempi, ISSN

(Online): 2043-8656 - ISSN (Print): 2043-8648.

Design strategies against progressive collapse



Black

Swan

Vulnerability

Cause

Damage

Index





design

• Collapse types









• References

Robustness

Collapse

resistance

Progressive

collapse


Member

consequence

factor



RISK-BASED[Faber, 2005]

R

Iinddir

dirrob

R

R

+=

direct risk

indirect riskDAMAGE-BASED

∑=

=n

1i'

i

i

)K(tr

)K(tr.Deg.Stiff

ithelement stiffness matrix(integer state)

damaged

elements

ithelement stiffness

matrix (damaged state)

[Yan&Chang, 2006] [Biondini &

Frangopol, 2008]

1

0

∆Φ

∆Φρ =Φ

∆ energy between intact

and damaged system

(backward pseudo-loads)

∆ energy between intact

and damaged system

(forward pseudo-loads)

� Indirect

Risk

� Direct

Risk

� Indirect

Risk

� Direct

Risk

Reference:

Olmati, P., Brando, F., Gkoumas, K. “Robustness assessment of a Steel Truss Bridge”, ASCE/SEI Structures Congress,

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, May 2-4, 2013.

B

A Withstand actions, events

Withstand damages

Structural Robustness assessment

TOPOLOGY-BASED ENERGY-BASEDOther:



[Baker et al. 2008]

R

Iinddir

dirrob

R

R

+=

direct risk

indirect risk

Reference:

Baker J.W., Schubert M., Faber M.H., (2008). On the Assessment of Robustness, Journal of Structural Safety, Volume

30, Issue 3, pp. 253-267, DOI:10.1016/j.strusafe.2006.11.004

“A robust system is considered to be one where indirect

risks do not contribute significantly to the total system

risk”

Rdir˃˃Rind

Rdir: associati con il danni iniziali

Rind: associati con danni successivi

EXBD: Exposure before damage

D � : Damage

D : No Damage

F : Probability of system failure

Cdir : Direct consequences

Cind: Indirect consequences

Risk Based Structural Robustness assessment



��

− ��

≥ 0member-based design

� − � ≥ 0limit state design

Resistance (probabilistic) Solicitation (probabilistic)

Resistance (design values) Solicitation (design values)

(1 − ��)��

��−��

��≥ 0

Member consequence factor based design

0 ≤ �� ≤ 1

• Cf quantifies the influence that a loss of a structural element has on the load carrying capacity.

• Cf provides to the single structural member an additional load carrying capacity, in function of the

nominal design (not extreme) loads that can be used for contrasting unexpected and extreme loads.

• Essentially, if Cf tends to 1, the member is more likely to be important to the structural system;

instead if Cf tends to 0, the member is more likely to be unimportant to the structural system.

Member consequence factor and robustness assessment

0EγγRγγ kEMEk

1

Rd

1

MR ≥−∑−−

0E)R(*)C1( kEdMEk

1

Rd

1

MRf ≥γγ−γγ− ∑−−



• The structure is subjected to a set of damage scenarios and the consequence of the

damages is evaluated by the member consequence factor (��) that for

convenience can be easily expressed in percentage.

• For damage scenario is intended the failure of one or more structural elements.

• Robustness can be expressed as the complement to 100 of ��, intended as the

effective coefficient that affects directly the resistance.

• ��is evaluated by the maximum percentage difference of the structural stiffness

matrix eigenvalues of the damaged and undamaged configurations of the structure.

�� = ��

�� − ��

��

�� 100

� !"#

where, ��and ��

��are respectively the i-th eigenvalue of the structural stiffness

matrix in the undamaged and damaged configuration, and N is the total number of the

eigenvalues.




• The corresponding robustness index (��) is therefore defined as:

��=1 - ��

• Values of Cf close to 100% mean that the failure of the structural member most

likely causes a global structural collapse.

• Low values of Cf do not necessarily mean that the structure survives after the failure

of the structural member: this is something that must be established by additional

analysis that considers the loss of the specific structural member.

• A value of Cf close to 0% means that the structure has a good structural

robustness.

The proposed method for computing the consequence factors, for different reasons,

should not be used for:

1. Structures that have high concentrated masses (especially non-structural masses) in

a particular zone; and,

2. Structures that have cable structural system (e.g., tensile structures, suspension

bridges).




Black

Swan

Vulnerability

Cause

Damage

Index





design

• Collapse types









• References

Robustness

Collapse

resistance

Progressive

collapse


Member

consequence

factor



Cost of robustness measures ≤ Reduction of failure consequences

• The objective function for optimization may be very complex

and depend on the type of the structural system, robustness

measures, characteristics of failure consequences and

probabilities of occurrence and intensities of various hazards.

• If the total cost of robustness measures exceeds the reduction

in failure consequences, then the system may be considered as

robust but uneconomic. In such a situation, probabilistic

methods of risk assessment may be effectively used

Reference:

COST Action TU0601 Robustness of Structures STRUCTURAL ROBUSTNESS DESIGN FOR PRACTISING

ENGINEERS. EUROPEAN COOPERATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Editor T. D. Gerard Canisius.

Robustness in Optimization



Reference:

Casciati, S. and Faravelli, L. (2008) Building a Robustness Index. Robustness of Structures COST Action TU0601,

1st Workshop, February 4-5, ETH Zurich, Switzerland.

Robustness in Optimization

Example: Hierarchy of the failure modes (“weak beam/strong column”)

...develop the less catastrophic failure

modes first.

...ranking the failure modes in terms of

a hierarchy in such a way that the less

harmful ones are generated at lower

loading levels

Objective function:

Robustness term:Pfi: probability of the i-th failure mode

m: number of failure modes

A robust structure requires the plastic moment of the column, MPc, being larger than the

one of the beam, MPb; that is, Z = MPc– MPb≥ 0

µc, σc, µb, σb: means and the standard deviations of the plastic moments of the columns and

of the beam, respectively.

To ensure robustness, the index I needs to be kept positive. The objective is, therefore, to

minimize FI=-I.



Black

Swan

Vulnerability

Cause

Damage

Index





design

• Collapse types









• References

Robustness

Collapse

resistance

Progressive

collapse


Member

consequence

factor



Stiffness matrix

Kun λiun

Eigenvalues

Kdam λidam

Consequence factor

Robustness indexRscenario= 100 - Cfscenario

N1i

un

i

dam

i

un

iscenario

f 100)(

maxC

−=

λ

λ−λ=

Structural Robustness assessment - overview



ka

kb

x

yK%& =

10 0

0 10

C(!1 = 0% C(*

1 = 30%

R1 = 70%

R1 = 100 − C(1

N: total eigenvalues number

i: single eigenvalue number

a and b: elements

a

b

N1i

un

i

dam

i

un

iscenario

f 100)(

maxC

−=

λ

λ−λ=

K./0 =10 0

0 7Scenario 1

Single damage – analytic calculation



• Single bay frame structure with a diagonal beam brace, composed in total of 5

members

• IPE 300, S235 steel, one meter length, pinned boundary conditions.

The evaluated scenarios consist in the removal of elements 1, 2 and 3 sequentially, so the

damage is cumulative: this means that the each scenario includes the damage from the

previous one.

Cumulative damage – numerical assessment

DSj = Σi=(1-j) di



Cumulative damage – numerical assessment

• star-shaped structure – 8 members - pipe cross section - 20 centimeters outside

diameter - 20 millimeters thickness - S235 steel.

• members 1, 3, 5, and 7 are 0.5 meters long and members 2, 4, 6, and 8 are 0.7

meters long.All the members are connected to each other by a fixed type connection. Also the boundary

conditions are of the fixed type and the structure is plane.

DSj = Σi=(1-j) di



Black

Swan

Vulnerability

Cause

Damage

Index





design

• Collapse types









• References

Robustness

Collapse

resistance

Progressive

collapse


Member

consequence

factor



• Built 1967

• 3 spans, 1067 feet long

• 1977 – new wearing surface

• 1998 – curbs and railings replaced

I-35 West Bridge, Minneapolis, MN



North Downtown

I-35 West Bridge, Minneapolis, MNP

hoto

fro

m a

ircr

aft

flyin

g o

ver

hea

d.

• At 6:05 pm on August 1st 2007 Bridge Collapsed

• 13 People killed & approximately 145 Injured



I-35 W bridge

I-35 West Bridge, Minneapolis, MN

NTSB 2007



Undamaged

Damaged

scenario

I-35 West Bridge, Minneapolis, MN – damage scenarios



I-35 West Bridge, Minneapolis, MN – damage scenarios

3D

2D



d1d2d3

d4

d5d7

d6

37

59

42 4535 38

23

63

41

58 5565 62

77

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ro

bu

stn

ess

%

ScenarioCf max Robustness

1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Damage scenariod1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7

DSj = di

I-35 West Bridge, Minneapolis, MN – single damage



d1

d2d3

d4

d5d7

d6

83 87 88

5360

86

64

17 13 12

4740

14

36

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ro

bust

nes

s %


Damage scenariod1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7

I-35 West Bridge, Minneapolis, MN/ enhanced– single damage

DSj = di



Black

Swan

Vulnerability

Cause

Damage

Index





design

• Collapse types









• References

Robustness

Collapse

resistance

Progressive

collapse


Member

consequence

factor



References

Alashker, Y., Li, H. and El-Tawil, S. (2011), “Approximations in Progressive Collapse Modeling”, J. Struct. Eng.- ASCE, 137(9), 914-924.

Arup (2011), Review of international research on structural robustness and disproportionate collapse, London: Department forCommunities and Local Government.

ASCE 7-05 (2005), Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).

Biondini, F. and Frangopol, D. (2009), “Lifetime reliability-based optimization of reinforced concrete cross-sections under corrosion”,Struct. Saf., 31(6), 483-489.

Biondini, F., Frangopol, D.M. and Restelli, S. (2008), “On structural robustness, redundancy and static indeterminancy”, Proceedings ofthe 2008 Structures Congress, April 24-26, 2008, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Bontempi, F. and Giuliani, L. (2008), “Nonlinear dynamic analysis for the structural robustness assessment of a complex structuralsystem”, Proceedings of the 2008 Structures Congress, April 24-26, 2008, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Bontempi, F., Giuliani, L. and Gkoumas, K. (2007), “Handling the exceptions: dependability of systems and structural robustness”, InvitedLecture, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Computation (SEMC), Cape Town,South Africa, September 10-12.

Brando, F., Testa, R.B. and Bontempi, F. (2010), “Multilevel structural analysis for robustness assessment of a steel truss bridge”, BridgeMaintenance, Safety, Management and Life-Cycle Optimization - Frangopol, Sause and Kusko (eds), Taylor & Francis Group, London,ISBN 978-0-415-87786-2.

Canisius, T.D.G., Sorensen, J.D. and Baker, J.W. (2007), “Robustness of structural systems - A new focus for the Joint Committee onStructural Safety (JCSS)”, Proceedings of the 10th Int. Conf. on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering(ICASP10), Taylor and Francis, London.

Casciati, S. and Faravelli, L. (2008) Building a Robustness Index. Robustness of Structures COST Action TU0601, 1st Workshop,February 4-5, 2008, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Cha, E. J. and Ellingwood, B. R. (2012), “Risk-averse decision-making for civil infrastructure exposed to low-probability, high-consequence events”, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safe., 104(1), 27-35.

Choi, J-h. and Chang, D-k. (2009), “Prevention of progressive collapse for building structures to member disappearance by accidentalactions”, J. Loss Prevent. Proc., 22(6), 1016-1019.

COST (2011), TU0601 - Structural Robustness Design for Practising Engineers, Canisius, T.D.G. (Editor).

Crosti, C. and Duthinh, D. (2012), “Simplified gusset plate model for failure prediction of truss bridges”, Bridge Maintenance, Safety,Management, Resilience and Sustainability - Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety andManagement, IABMAS 2012, Italy, Stresa, 8-12 July 2012.

Crosti, C., Duthinh, D. and Simiu, E. (2011), “Risk consistency and synergy in multihazard design”, J. Struct. Eng.- ASCE, 137(8), 844-849.



References

DoD - Department of Defense (2009), Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC). Report No. UFC 4-023-03: Design of buildings to resistprogressive collapse. Washington DC: National Institute of Building Sciences.

Ellingwood, B. (2002), “Load and resistance factor criteria for progressive collapse design”, Proceedings of Workshop on Prevention ofProgressive Collapse, National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, D.C

Ellingwood, B.R. and Dusenberry, D.O. (2005), “Building design for abnormal loads and progressive collapse”, Comput-Aided Civ. Inf.,20(3), 194-205.

Ellingwood, B.R., Smilowitz, R., Dusenberry, D.O., Duthinh, D. and Carino, N.J. (2007), Report No. NISTIR 7396: Best practices forreducing the potential for progressive collapse in buildings. Washington DC: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

EN 1990 (2002), Eurocode - Basis of structural design.

Faber, M.H. and Stewart, M.G. (2003), “Risk assessment for civil engineering facilities: critical overview and discussion”, Reliab. Eng.Syst. Safe., 80(2), 173-184.

FHWA (2011), Framework for Improving Resilience of Bridge Design, Publication No IF-11-016.

Galal, K. and El-Sawy, T. (2010), “Effect of retrofit strategies on mitigating progressive collapse of steel frame structures”, J. Constr. SteelRes., 66(4), 520-531.

Ghosn, M. and Moses, F. (1998), NCHRP Report 406: Redundancy in Highway Bridge Superstructures, TRB, National Research Council,Washington, D.C.

Giuliani, L. (2012), “Structural safety in case of extreme actions”, Special Issue on: “Performance and Robustness of Complex StructuralSystems”, Int. J. of Lifecycle Performance Engineering (IJLCPE), 1(1), 22-40.

GSA - General Service Administration (2003), Progressive collapse analysis and design guidelines for new federal office buildings andmajor modernization project, Washington DC: GSA.

Hoffman, S. T. and Fahnestock, L. A. (2011), “Behavior of multi-story steel buildings under dynamic column loss scenarios”, SteelCompos. Struc., 11(2), 149-168.

HSE - Health and Safety Executive (2001), Reducing risks, protecting people, HSE’s decision-making process, United King: Crowncopyright.

Izzuddin, B. A., Vlassis, A. G., Elghazouli, A. Y. and Nethercot, D. A. (2008a), “Progressive collapse of multi-storey buildings due tosudden column loss - Part I: Simplified assessment framework”, Eng. Struct., 30(5), 1308-1318.

Izzuddin, B. A., Vlassis, A. G., Elghazouli, A. Y. and Nethercot, D. A. (2008b), “Progressive collapse of multi-storey buildings due tosudden column loss - Part II: Application”, Eng. Struct., 30(5), 1424-1438.

Kim, J. and Kim, T. (2009), “Assessment of progressive collapse-resisting capacity of steel moment frames”, J. Constr. Steel Res., 65(1),169-179.



References

Kwasniewski, L. (2010), “Nonlinear dynamic simulations of progressive collapse for a multistory building”, Eng. Struct., 32(5), 1223-1235.

Malla, R.B., Agarwal, P. and Ahmad, R. (2011), “Dynamic analysis methodology for progressive failure of truss structures consideringinelastic postbuckling cyclic member behavior”, Eng. Struct., 33(5), 1503-1513.

Miyachi, K., Nakamura, S. and Manda, A. (2012), “Progressive collapse analysis of steel truss bridges and evaluation of ductility”, J.Constr. Steel Res., 78, 192-200.

Nafday, A.M. (2008), “System Safety Performance Metrics for Skeletal Structures”, J. Struct. Eng.- ASCE, 134(3), 499-504.

Nafday, A.M. (2011), “Consequence-based structural design approach for black swan events”, Struct. Saf., 33(1), 108-114.

Olmati, P., Gkoumas, K., Brando, F., Cao, L. (2013) “Consequence-based robustness assessment of a steel truss bridge”, Steel andComposite Structures, An International Journal, 14(4), 379-395.

Rezvani, F. H. and Asgarian, B. (2012), “Element loss analysis of concentrically braced frames considering structural performancecriteria”, Steel Compos. Struc., 12(3), 231-248.

Saydam, D. and Frangopol, D. M. (2011), “Time-dependent performance indicators of damaged bridge superstructures”, Eng. Struct.,33(9), 2458-2471.

Starossek, U. (2009), Progressive collapse of structures, London: Thomas Telford Publishing.

Starossek, U. and Haberland, M. (2010), “Disproportionate Collapse: Terminology and Procedures”, J. Perf. Constr. Fac. 24(6), 519-528.

Starossek, U. and Haberland, M. (2012), “Robustness of structures”, Special Issue on: “Performance and Robustness of ComplexStructural Systems”, Int. J. of Lifecycle Performance Engineering (IJLCPE), 1(1), 3-21.

Taleb, Nassim Nicholas (April 2007). The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable (1st ed.). London: Penguin. p. 400. ISBN 1-84614045-5.

Yuan, W. and Tan, K. H. (2011), “Modeling of progressive collapse of a multi-storey structure using a spring-mass-damper system”,Struct. Eng. Mech., 37(1), 79-93.



Acknowledgements

- Luisa Giuliani, PhD. Associate Professor, DTU, Denmark.

- Francesca Brando, PhD. Senior Engineer, Thornton Tomasetti, NY.

- Pierluigi Olmati, PhD. Post-doc, Surrey University, UK.



“Structural robustness: definitions, examples and consequence based assessment of structures”

Konstantinos Gkoumas, Ph.D., P.E.

Corso di Dottorato: introduzio ne all'ottimi zzazionestruttural e

Prof.-Ing. Franco Bontempi

Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale e Geotecnica

Dottorato di Ricerca in Ingegneria delle Strutture

Rome, June 21 2014

corso di dottorato su ottimizzazione strutturale: robustezza strutturale - gkoumas

Education