Progressive Analysis Procedure for Progressive Collapse

S. M. Marjanishvili, P.E., M.ASCE1

Abstract: Following the collapse of the World Trade Center towers in September 2001, there has been heightened interest among
building owners and government entities in evaluating the progressive collapse potential of existing buildings and in designing new
buildings to resist this type of collapse. The General Services Administration and Department of Defense have issued general guidelines
for evaluating a building’s progressive collapse potential. However, little detailed information is available to enable engineers to confi-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUELPH UNIVERSITY on 06/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

dently perform a systematic progressive collapse analysis satisfying these guidelines. In this paper, we present four successively more
sophisticated analysis procedures for evaluating the progressive collapse hazard: linear-elastic static; nonlinear static; linear-elastic dy-
namic; and nonlinear dynamic. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each method. We conclude that the most effective analysis
procedure for progressive collapse evaluation incorporates the advantageous parts of all four procedures by systematically applying
increasingly comprehensive analysis procedures to confirm that the possibility of progressive collapse is high.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0887-3828共2004兲18:2共79兲
CE Database subject headings: Structural failures; Collapse; Structural analysis; Nonlinear analysis; Dynamic analysis; New York;
New York City; Terrorism.

Introduction propagate throughout the structure causing major structural fail-

Progressive collapse occurs when relatively local structural dam-
age causes a chain reaction of structural element failures, dispro-
portionate to the initial damage, resulting in partial or full col-
lapse of the structure. Local damage that initiates progressive
collapse is called initiating damage.
Progressive collapse is a dynamic event, since it involves vi-
brations of building elements and results in dynamic internal
forces, such as inertia forces, whose energy may or may not be
absorbed by the structure. Progressive collapse is also inherently
a nonlinear event in which structural elements are stressed beyond
their elastic limit to failure.
From an analytical point of view, progressive collapse occurs
when a sudden local change in building geometry results in dy-
namic internal forces that exceed the bearing capacities of sur-
rounding elements leading to their failures, which in turn results
in transmission of additional internal dynamic forces until the
remaining structure stabilizes 共absorbs the energy of the vibra-
tions兲 or collapses. In general, progressive collapse happens in a
matter of seconds.
The best way to mitigate the effects of progressive collapse is
to prevent it altogether. However, total prevention—i.e., reducing
the probability of occurrence to zero—is not always feasible. Al-
ternately, proper structural design can greatly reduce the probabil-
ity of progressive collapse through attention to structural details
and material properties. Progressive collapse analysis is per-
formed to evaluate the likelihood that the initiating damage would
1
Hinman Consulting Engineers, Inc., One Bush St., Suite 510, San
Francisco, CA 94104.
Note. Discussion open until October 1, 2004. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on June 23, 2003; approved on September 29, 2003.
This paper is part of the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facili-
ties, Vol. 18, No. 2, May 1, 2004. ©ASCE, ISSN 0887-3828/2004/2-
79– 85/$18.00.
ure and the subsequent loss of life.
Private-sector building owners and government entities are in-
creasingly interested in estimating the progressive collapse poten-
tial of existing buildings and in designing new buildings to resist
this type of collapse. Although some technical literature address-
ing progressive collapse became available after the 1968 Ronan
Point collapse in Britain, little research has been done in this area
since the mid-1970s. The ASCE developed a useful summary of
some of the basic concepts of progressive collapse and its preven-
tion during this time, which has been recently updated 共ASCE
2002兲. Some reports produced by the Federal Emergency Man-
agement Agency 共FEMA兲 are also helpful in performing progres-
sive collapse analysis 共FEMA-273 1997; FEMA-274 1997兲. Al-
though FEMA’s reports do not directly address this type of
analysis, they contain methods that are applicable to progressive
collapse. New research efforts being funded by the National In-
stitute of Testing and Standards 共NIST兲 may lead to useful infor-
mation for engineers over the next few years. Some preliminary
observations regarding the state-of-the-practice were generated as
part of a conference sponsored by the NIST in July 2002 共Dusen-
berry 2002; Krauthammer et al. 2002兲.
Recently, both the General Services Administration 共GSA兲
共GSA 2000兲 and Department of Defense 共DoD兲 共DoD 2002兲 have
issued guidelines for evaluating the progressive collapse hazard
which provides general information about the approach and
method of evaluating the progressive collapse potential. However,
little detailed information is now available to enable engineers to
confidently perform a systematic progressive collapse analysis
satisfying the requirements of these guidelines. Because of the
catastrophic nature of progressive collapse and the potentially
high cost of retrofitting buildings to resist it, it is imperative that
the progressive analysis methods be reliable. Engineers need an
accurate and concise methodology to produce trustworthy and
timely results.
In this paper, we present four successively more sophisticated
analysis procedures for evaluating the progressive collapse haz-

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY 2004 / 79

J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2004.18:79-85.

 ard: linear-elastic static; nonlinear static; linear-elastic dynamic;
and nonlinear dynamic. We discuss the advantages and disadvan-
tages of each method. We conclude that the most effective analy-
sis procedure for progressive collapse evaluation incorporates the
advantageous parts of all four by systematically applying increas-
ingly comprehensive analysis procedures to confirm that the pos-
sibility of progressive collapse is high. In this way, we use a
progressive analysis methodology to accomplish progressive col-
lapse analysis.
Objective and Organization
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUELPH UNIVERSITY on 06/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Our main objective is to formulate an easy-to-follow, comprehen-
sive analysis procedure that will, in most cases, yield reliable and
accurate results to estimate the likelihood of progressive collapse.
To attain this objective, we perform the following tasks:
1. Description of progressive collapse phenomena;
2. Review of current guidelines and state of the practice;
3. Evaluate and compare various analysis procedures; and
4. Formulate the preferred method of analysis.
Major topics covered in this paper include:
• Selection of the analysis procedure,
• Verification and validation of the results, and
• Evaluation of the results.
Description of the Phenomena
Progressive collapse includes two types of loadings: the load that
causes the structural element to fail 共primary load兲 and the loads
that are generated due to the structural motions caused by sudden
collapse of the element 共secondary loads兲. External abnormal
loads, such as blast pressures due to explosive attacks, could
cause primary loads, while secondary loads result from internal
static and dynamic loads and are caused by sudden changes in the
load path through the structure geometry. Although estimation of
primary loads is important, this paper deals with the effects of the
secondary loads.
There are several approaches to evaluating progressive col-
lapse potential. The simplest is the indirect method, where general
design upgrades are implemented to enhance the overall robust-
ness of the structure 共Corley 2002兲. Direct methods include the
alternate load path method and the direct design method. For the
alternate load path method, the loss of a primary structural com-
ponent is posited and the ability of the surrounding structure to
remain intact is evaluated. For the direct design method, the ac-
tual loads that initiate collapse of a primary structural member are
used to evaluate whether collapse will be initiated. The alternate
load path evaluation is performed by removing one or several
major structural bearing elements 共i.e., introducing an initiating
damage兲 and analyzing the remaining structure to determine if
this initiating damage propagates. We use the alternate load path
method in this paper. An advantage of this method is that it is
independent of the initiating load, so that the solution is valid for
any type of hazard that causes member loss.
Analysis methods used to evaluate the possibility of progres-
sive collapse vary widely, ranging from the simple two-
dimensional linear elastic static procedure to complex three-
dimensional nonlinear time history analysis. The loss of the
bearing elements 共initiating damage兲 is modeled as a sudden dy-
namic or quasistatic removal, depending on the method used.
Generally, an advanced structural analysis computer program
80 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY 2004
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2004.18:79-85.
such as SAP2000 is required to perform a sophisticated progres-
sive collapse analysis that includes response evaluation of all the
structural elements adjacent to the area of failure. All four meth-
ods discussed here may be implemented using SAP2000.
Load Sequence
In contrast to most dynamic analysis situations in which a dy-
namic external load is applied, in the progressive collapse analy-
sis there is no externally applied load. Internal dynamic loads,
such as inertia forces resulting from the sudden removal of sev-
eral elements from an ‘‘at rest’’ structure, initiate the response.
The ‘‘at rest’’ condition is the state of the building just before the
initiating damage; it includes all normal service loads, such as
dead and live loads. Therefore the load sequence is the key to
accurately capturing the structural response in the analysis. It is
approximated as follows: at first, the building is loaded with dead
and live loads 共normal service loads兲 and then, suddenly, struc-
tural bearing elements are removed. This could be represented
mathematically as a sudden change in the stiffness matrix of the
structure. However, in this paper the ‘‘at rest’’ equilibrium of the
structure is represented by applying the internal reaction forces of
the lost element to the supported structure. Initiating damage is
simulated by suddenly removing this internal force 共reaction兲 as-
sociated with the damaged element.
Dynamic Behavior
Sudden removal of an element in a structure causes an immediate
geometric change in the structure, resulting in release of potential
energy and rapid alteration of internal static dynamic forces, in-
cluding inertia forces. Usually this energy is confined to the im-
mediate vicinity of the damage. Since this behavior is localized,
care must be exercised when performing dynamic analysis; in
particular, all high modes of vibration should be included when
using modal superposition or Ritz vector analysis methods. Direct
step-by-step integration methods are preferable, since such algo-
rithms account for all possible vibration modes associated with
the given finite element mesh and analysis time step 共Clough and
Penzien 1993; Wilson 2002兲.
Nonlinear Behavior
True structural response to any loading, including internal dy-
namic loads, is nonlinear, and thus nonlinear behavior must be
considered whenever feasible, as well as when required by exist-
ing guidelines. However, nonlinear dynamic evaluation can be
very time-consuming, even using today’s fastest computers.
Structural Stability
Structural stability analysis is required to determine kinematical
stability of the damaged structure after the occurrence of the ini-
tiating damage, as well as after the remaining structure is stabi-
lized. This analysis ensures that the structure maintains its kine-
matical stability during and after the event.
Review of Existing Guidelines
Two major guidelines available in the United States are the GSA’s
Progressive collapse analysis and design guidelines 共GSA 2000兲
and the DoD’s ‘‘Minimum antiterrorism standards for buildings’’
 共DoD 2002兲. Both agencies have made significant efforts to define
procedures for progressive collapse analysis. They are briefly dis-
cussed below.
General Services Administration Progressive Collapse
Analysis and Design Guidelines
The main function of the GSA Guidelines is to assist in the as-
sessment of the risk of progressive collapse in new and existing
Federal Office Buildings. The document provides concise and di-
rect guidelines for selection of the analysis procedure and evalu-
ation of the results. Selection of the analysis procedure closely
follows the FEMA 273 and 274 publications 共FEMA-273 1997;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUELPH UNIVERSITY on 06/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FEMA-274 1997兲, with some differences 共discussed later in this
paper兲. The GSA Guidelines consider three analysis methods: lin-
ear elastic static analysis, linear elastic dynamic analysis, and
nonlinear dynamic analysis. Both the GSA and FEMA guidelines
limit the applicability of linear elastic static analysis procedures,
the GSA to buildings with 10 above-ground stories and FEMA to
those no more than 100 ft in height. Although GSA implicitly
restricts the applicability of linear elastic dynamic analysis to
buildings of less than 10 stories, the guidelines allow, at the dis-
cretion of the Engineer of Record, that either the static or dy-
namic analysis can be performed for buildings taller than 10 sto-
ries with proper justification and approval. FEMA’s guidelines
contain no restrictions on linear elastic dynamic analysis.
The GSA Guidelines allow certain structures to be exempted
from progressive collapse analysis on the basis of their occupancy
and functional use. The Guidelines include a comprehensive flow
chart for determining whether a building is exempt.
For linear elastic static analysis of a structure, GSA mandates
the following loading conditions in the downward direction:
Load⫽2 共 DL⫹0.25LL 兲 (1)
where DL⫽self-weight of the structure; and LL⫽live load of the
structure; a dynamic amplification factor of 2 is used to account
for deceleration effects.
For linear elastic dynamic and nonlinear analysis, GSA man-
dates the following loading conditions in the downward direction:
Load⫽DL⫹0.25LL (2)
where DL⫽self-weight of the structure; and LL⫽live load of the
structure. The performance evaluation criteria for linear elastic
analysis procedures are based on demand capacity ratios 共DCRs兲,
while for nonlinear analysis methods the evaluation criteria are
based on plastic hinge rotations and displacement ductility ratios.
Department of Defense Interim Antiterrorism ÕForce
Protection Construction Standards
The main objective of this document is to provide guidelines for
minimizing casualties from terrorist attacks against DoD facili-
ties. This document considers two-or three-dimensional static or
dynamic linear elastic or nonlinear analysis methods and provides
detailed guidelines for the analysis procedures. Determining the
likelihood of progressive collapse requires performing iterative
analysis for linear elastic methods.
The iterative analysis method entails removing the elements if
their ultimate capacities are exceeded and replacing them with
fixed moments equal to their corresponding ultimate moment ca-
pacities, then reanalyzing the remaining structure. If the support-
ing member is determined to fail, its dynamic impact and load
redistributions should also be considered. The failed member is
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY 2004 / 81
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2004.18:79-85.
defined as a structural element that fails in shear or compression,
cannot be held in place, and falls on the element below it.
This method closely approaches the vertical pushover analysis
method discussed later in this paper and leads to overly conser-
vative results. For nonlinear analysis methods, however, no itera-
tions are required by the DoD’s ‘‘Interim guidelines.’’ The likeli-
hood of progressive collapse is demonstrated by showing
excessive failed structural elements. Load conditions mandated
by the DoD’s ‘‘Interim guidelines’’ include:
Load⫽DL⫹0.5LL⫹0.2W (3)
where DL⫽self-weight of the structure; LL⫽live load of the
structure; and W⫽design lateral wind load.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
The primary objective of FEMA publications is to develop guide-
lines for seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Although the FEMA
273 and 274 publications 共FEMA 273 1997; FEMA-274 1997兲 do
not directly address progressive collapse analysis methods, they
provide comprehensive guidelines for selection of the analysis
procedure, which proves to be very useful for an efficient use of
engineers’ resources. Particularly when it is viable to estimate the
structural response using simpler analysis methods, simple analy-
sis methods are preferred over complicated analysis methods.
Simple analysis methods include two-dimensional and three-
dimensional linear-elastic static analysis methods, while compli-
cated analysis procedures include three-dimensional nonlinear
static or dynamic analysis methods. The two FEMA publications
referred to clearly outline the applicability boundaries of each
analysis procedure.
Selection of Analysis Procedure
There are several approaches to evaluating progressive collapse
potential. The simplest is the indirect method, where general de-
sign upgrades are implemented to enhance the overall robustness
of the structure. Direct methods include the alternate load path
method and the direct design method. For the alternate load path
method, the loss of a primary structural component is considered
and the ability of the surrounding structure to remain intact is
evaluated. For the direct design method, the actual loads that
initiate collapse of a primary structural member are used to evalu-
ate whether collapse will be initiated. The alternate load path
method of evaluating the progressive collapse potential is per-
formed by removing one or several major structural bearing ele-
ments 共i.e., introducing an initiating damage兲 and analyzing the
remaining structure to determine if this initiating damage propa-
gates. In this paper, we use the alternate load path method. An
advantage of this method of analysis is that its results are inde-
pendent of the initiating load, so that the solution is valid for any
type of hazard that causes member loss.
Analytical methods used to evaluate the possibility of progres-
sive collapse vary greatly from simple two-dimensional linear
elastic static procedure to complex three-dimensional nonlinear
time history analysis. The loss of the bearing elements 共initiating
damage兲 is modeled as a sudden dynamic or quasi-static removal,
depending on the method used. Generally, an advanced structural
analysis computer program such as SAP2000 关SAP2000 2002兴 is
required to perform a sophisticated progressive collapse analysis
that includes response evaluation of all the structural elements
adjacent to the area of failure. All four methods discussed in this
 paper can be implemented using SAP2000. Advantages and limi-
tations of the most common analysis methods are outlined below.
Linear Elastic Static Analysis
The most basic and easiest method of progressive collapse analy-
sis is the linear elastic static method, in which major structural
elements are removed statically. Because this method of analysis
is the simplest and most approximate, more conservative load
conditions are usually applied, with highly conservative evalua-
tion criteria.
The advantages of linear-elastic static analysis include:
• Relative simplicity,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUELPH UNIVERSITY on 06/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
• Calculations done quickly,
• Easy to perform, and
• Easy to evaluate and validate the results.
The disadvantages of linear-elastic analysis include:
• Does not consider dynamic effects, such as amplification fac-
tors, damping, and inertia forces, and
• Does not consider material nonlinear behavior.
The limitations are:
• Analysis of complex and large structures cannot be evaluated
with confidence, and
• Limited to simple structures with predictable behavior.
The steps required in performing the analysis are:
1. Build computer model;
2. Perform static analysis;
3. Perform stability analysis; and
4. Verify, validate, and evaluate the results.
Performance evaluation criteria used: Very conservative.
Nonlinear Static Analysis
Nonlinear static analysis is widely used to analyze a building for
a lateral load and is known as ‘‘pushover analysis.’’ It increases
applied loads step-by-step until maximum load is attained 共load-
controlled兲 or maximum displacement is attained 共displacement-
controlled兲 while allowing structural members to undergo nonlin-
ear behavior. This method can be used to determine the ductility
measure of the structure for lateral loading. Ductility is measured
as a ratio of maximum displacement and yield displacement. Gen-
erally, the ability of the structure to attain large ductilities results
in better performance under earthquake loading. In well-designed
structures, pushover analysis engages many structural elements
and generally ensures balanced design 共strong columns and weak
beams, for example兲.
For progressive collapse analysis, this method applies step-by-
step increases of vertical loads 共including gravity兲 until maximum
loads are attained or until the structure collapses 共i.e., vertical
‘‘pushover analysis’’兲. In most cases, vertical pushover analysis
would be load-controlled, since, in analyzing for progressive col-
lapse potential, structural performance under normal service loads
is evaluated.
Since progressive collapse can be initiated by relatively minor
damage, vertical pushover analysis will engage only a few ele-
ments 共elements far from the initiating damage location may not
yield兲. Also, since vertical bearing elements 共such as columns in
moment resistant frame systems兲 located directly above the re-
moved element will not experience significant deformations such
as elongation or shortening due to the loss of direct load path, the
failure of one bearing element 共such as a beam兲 will in most cases
lead to the failures of the elements 共beams兲 located directly
above, resulting in progressive collapse. Therefore vertical push-
82 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY 2004
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2004.18:79-85.
over analysis for the evaluation of progressive collapse will lead
to overly conservative ductility values.
For these reasons, the nonlinear static 共vertical pushover兲
analysis method is of limited usefulness for predicting progres-
sive collapse. For example, to avoid progressive collapse failure
in vertical pushover analysis, heavy transfer girders or beams
should be used directly above the removed element and the bend-
ing stiffness of transfer girders should be larger than axial stiff-
ness of the columns 共to ensure adequate load path redistribution兲,
which results in overdesigned deep girders that in some cases
may not be constructible.
The advantage of this method: Includes material nonlinear be-
havior.
Disadvantages of this method are:
• Does not consider dynamic effects such as amplification fac-
tors, inertia, and damping forces,
• Relative complexity,
• Could be time consuming, and
• Leads to overly conservative results.
The limitations are:
• Limited to relatively simple structures with predictable behav-
ior, and
• Cannot be effectively used for progressive collapse analysis.
The steps required for performing the analysis are:
1. Build a computer model;
2. Perform stability analysis;
3. Estimate element capacities and force-displacement relation-
ship;
4. Perform nonlinear static analysis; and
5. Verify, validate, and evaluate the results.
The performance evaluation criteria used: Very conservative.
Linear Elastic Time History Analysis (Dynamic)
The linear elastic dynamic analysis method involves real-time
removal of major bearing structural elements, which results in
real-time linear elastic motions. Thus it is more appropriate to
refer to this method of analysis as a time history analysis. This
method is more accurate than the equivalent static approach be-
cause it inherently incorporates dynamic amplification factors, in-
ertia, and damping forces.
The advantage of this method: Includes dynamic behavior.
The disadvantages of this method include:
• Does not account for material nonlinear behavior,
• Could be time consuming for large computer models,
• Moderate complexity,
• Requires additional calculations to obtain time step and inter-
nal forces, and
• Dynamic amplification, inertia, and damping forces may be
incorrectly calculated for structures that exhibit large plastic
deformations.
The limitations are: Limited to structures that do not exhibit large
plastic deformations.
The steps required for performing the analysis are:
1. Build a computer model;
2. Perform static analysis to determine internal forces;
3. Determine ‘‘at rest’’ force distribution;
4. Estimate load time step;
5. Perform time history analysis; and
6. Verify, validate, and evaluate the results.
The performance evaluation criteria used:
• Conservative for structures that exhibit nearly elastic behavior,
and
 • Could become nonconservative for structures that exhibit large
plastic deformations.
Nonlinear Time History Analysis (Dynamic)
The most thorough method of progressive collapse analysis re-
quires nonlinear time history evaluation, in which a major bearing
structural element is removed dynamically and the structural ma-
terial is allowed to undergo nonlinear behavior. This causes larger
deformations; energy dissipation; and material yielding, cracking,
and fracture.
The advantages of this method include:
• Provides most realistic results,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUELPH UNIVERSITY on 06/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
• Includes dynamic behavior, and
• Includes material nonlinear behavior.
The disadvantages are:
• Can be very time consuming,
• Requires extensive verification and validation of findings,
• Hard to evaluate the results. In most of the cases the results of
nonlinear dynamic analysis have to be verified and validated
independently. Independent peer review analysis, alternate
modeling, and sensitivity studies could validate the accuracy
of the analyses,
• High complexity, and
• Incorrect assumptions or incorrect modeling may lead to erro-
neous results.
The limitation is: Nonlinear time history analysis can be very
time consuming, which may limit the number of nonlinearities in
order to reduce the model and subsequently the computation time.
The steps required for performing the analysis are:
1. Build computer model;
2. Determine ‘‘at rest’’ force distribution;
3. Perform stability analysis;
4. Estimate load time step;
5. Estimate element capacities and force-displacement relation-
ship;
6. Perform nonlinear time history analysis;
7. Perform validation and various sensitivity studies to verify
and validate the results; and
8. Evaluate the results.
The performance evaluation criteria used: Most realistic.
Analysis Procedures Summary Table
A summary of advantages and disadvantages of all four progres-
sive collapse analysis procedures is presented in Table 1.
Preferred Method for Progressive Analysis
As is implied by the preceding, more complicated and compre-
hensive methods of analysis provide more accurate results. This
accuracy, however, comes with costs: meticulous engineering and
enormous computer resources, waiting sometimes weeks before
examining the output. For all methods, the greatest challenge is
verifying and validating the results. In general, more complex
analysis methods require a more comprehensive verification and
validation process. This may include alternate modeling and vari-
ous sensitivity studies. Simpler analysis methods, however, re-
quire, at most, simplistic validation methods, such as hand calcu-
lations and visual inspections of deflected shapes and force
diagrams. Thus simpler analysis methods are preferred from a
computational point of view.
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY 2004 / 83
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2004.18:79-85.
On one side of the scale is the cost of engineering resources
and on the other the cost of construction. Though the cost of
engineering can seem high to project managers, in fact it is typi-
cally far outweighed by the expenses of building, and, in the case
of retrofitting for prevention of progressive collapse, the potential
cost of human life. All engineering resources ought to be ex-
hausted before proceeding with a structural retrofit for progres-
sive collapse, using all available analysis procedures until it is
proven that the possibility of the progressive collapse is high and
retrofit is warranted.
Closer examination of the steps involved in the analysis pro-
cedures outlined above reveals many similarities. Foremost
among these similarities is that all of the analysis procedures
include building a computer model and performing static and sta-
bility analysis. By exploiting similarities in the analysis proce-
dures and taking into consideration that engineering resources are
used as exhaustively and as efficiently as possible, we can formu-
late a preferred analysis method which includes the most infor-
mative parts of all analysis methods and which should escalate
from simple to increasingly complex analysis processes as a vali-
dation of the results. As a result, we have an analysis procedure
which progresses from simple linear elastic static analysis to com-
plex nonlinear time history analysis, which we call the progres-
sive analysis method.
The progressive analysis method requires evaluating a struc-
ture for its vulnerability to progressive collapse against increas-
ingly realistic performance criteria through increasingly precise
analysis. The process commences with a basic linear-elastic static
analysis. If the building passes this step, whose evaluation re-
quirements are the most conservative, then the analysis is com-
plete; if the building fails, we proceed in turn to increasingly
complex linear and nonlinear analyses. At each step, we test the
building’s performance against increasingly less conservative cri-
teria. The structural evaluation process is stopped after the build-
ing meets evaluation criteria set forth for that particular analysis
procedure, provided these simpler methods of analysis are appli-
cable to the complexity of the structure 共i.e., are allowed under
the applicable FEMA/GSA/DoD Selection of Analysis Proce-
dures Guidelines兲. This approach ensures that the computer model
is stable and the results are validated at every step of the analysis
by comparing and evaluating the results with the analysis results
obtained in previous steps. It ensures also that the results progress
in accordance with commonly used engineering practice 共i.e., me-
chanics of materials, structural kinematics, statics, and dynamics兲.
Two major advantages of the progressive analysis procedure in-
clude:
• Progressive analysis methodology inherits the simplicity of
linear elastic static analysis methods, as well as the robustness
of advanced analysis methods since it encompasses all avail-
able analysis procedures, and
• Since progressive collapse analysis evolves from simpler
analysis methods to a more complex methodology, the results
can be easily validated by comparing the results of simpler
analysis methods with more complicated analysis methods at
every step of the analysis process.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Progressive collapse is caused by a series of structural element
failures due to large internal loads that exceed the elements’ bear-
ing capacities. The internal loads are generated by sudden geom-
etry change of the structure and include inertia and damping
forces.
 Table 1. Analysis Procedures Summary
84 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY 2004

Analysis Steps required to Performance

procedures Advantages Disadvantages Limitations perform the analysis evaluation criteria
Linear-elastic 1. Relative simplicity 1. Does not consider dynamic effects 1. Analysis of complex structures 1. Build computer model Very conservative
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUELPH UNIVERSITY on 06/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

static 2. Calculations 2. Does not consider material nonlinearity cannot be evaluated with confidence 2. Perform static analysis
analysis done quickly 2. Limited to simple structures with 3. Perform stability analysis
3. Easy to perform predictable behavior 4. Verify, validate, and evaluate
4. Easy to evaluate the results
and validate results

Nonlinear 1. Includes material 1. Does not consider dynamic effects 1. Limited to relatively simple 1. Build computer model Very conservative
static nonlinear behavior 2. Relative complexity structures with predictable behavior 2. Perform stability analysis
analysis 3. Could be time consuming 2. Cannot be effectively used for 3. Estimate element capacities
4. Leads to overly conservative results progressive collapse analysis and force-displacement relationship
4. Perform nonlinear static analysis
5. Verify, validate, and evaluate the results

Linear-elastic 1. Includes 1. Does not account for material 1. Limited to structures that do not 1. Build computer model Conservative for structures
dynamic dynamic nonlinear behavior exhibit large plastic deformations 2. Perform static analysis to determine that exhibit nearly elastic
analysis behavior 2. Could be time consuming for internal forces behavior and could become
large computer models 3. Determine ‘‘at rest’’ force distribution nonconservative for structures
3. Moderate complexity 4. Estimate load time step that exhibit large plastic
4. Requires additional calculations 5. Perform time history analysis deformations
to obtain time-step and internal forces 6. Verify, validate, and evaluate
5. Dynamic amplification, inertia the results
and damping forces may be incorrectly
calculated for structures that exhibit large
plastic deformations

Nonlinear 1. Provides most 1. Could be very time consuming
dynamic realistic results 2. Requires extensive verification
analysis 2. Includes dynamic and validation of findings
behavior 3. Hard to evaluate the results.
3. Includes material In most of the cases the results of
nonlinear behavior nonlinear dynamic analysis have to be
verified and validated independently.
Independent peer review analysis,
alternate modeling, and sensitivity studies
could validate the accuracy of the analyses.
4. High complexity
5. Incorrect assumptions or incorrect
modeling may lead to erroneous results
1. Nonlinear time history analysis can
be very time consuming, which may
limit the number of nonlinearities in
order to reduce the model and
subsequently the computation time
1. Build computer model Most realistic
2. Determine ‘‘at rest’’ force distribution
3. Perform stability analysis
4. Estimate load time step
5. Estimate element capacities
and force-displacement relationship
6. Perform nonlinear time history analysis
7. Verify, validate, and evaluate the results
8. Perform validation and various
sensitivity studies to verify the results

J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2004.18:79-85.

 The three most effective analysis procedures discussed in this
study are linear elastic static, linear elastic time history, and non-
linear time history. The simplest analysis methodology includes
static linear elastic procedures, and the most exhaustive procedure
is nonlinear time history analysis. Several design guidelines pro-
vide an excellent methodology regarding the selection of analysis
procedures, enabling the use of simpler analysis methods for rela-
tively simple structures and thereby saving engineering time and
computer resources. However, simpler analysis procedures use
more conservative response evaluation criteria than more elabo-
rate analysis procedures. It is expected that more elaborate analy-
sis methods will result in less severe structural response, due to
the more accurate estimates of load distribution and less stringent
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUELPH UNIVERSITY on 06/07/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
evaluation criteria.
We recommended that, in order to determine the likelihood of
progressive collapse, a progressive analysis procedure be used. In
progressive analysis, a structure’s response is evaluated by start-
ing with simpler static methodology and then by proceeding to
increasingly complex analysis methods as necessary, until it is
determined that the possibility of progressive collapse is low or
until all available engineering methodologies are exhausted. The
advantages of this methodology include relative simplicity in per-
forming the calculations as well as ease in evaluating the results.
References
ASCE. 共2002兲. ‘‘Minimum design loads for buildings and other struc-
tures.’’ American Society of Civil Engineers publication 共note revision
of 7-98, does not include building security or antiterrorism but covers
all natural hazards兲, ISBN: 0-7844-0624-3.
Clough, R. W., and Penzien, J. 共1993兲. Dynamics of structures, 2nd Ed.,
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY 2004 / 85
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2004.18:79-85.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Corley, W. G. 共2002兲. ‘‘Applicability of seismic design in mitigating pro-
gressive collapse.’’ National Workshop on Prevention of Progressive
Collapse in Rosemont, Ill, Multihazard Mitigation Council of the Na-
tional Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, D.C.
Department of Defense 共DoD兲. 共2002兲. ‘‘Unified facilities criteria 共UFC兲,
DoD minimum antiterrorism standards for buildings.’’ Department of
Defense, UFC 4-010-01, U.S. Army Corps of Engineering, Washing-
ton, D.C., 31.
Dusenberry, D. O. 共2002兲. ‘‘Review of existing guidelines and provisions
related to progressive collapse.’’ National Workshop on Prevention of
Progressive Collapse in Rosemont, Ill, Multihazard Mitigation Coun-
cil of the National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, D.C.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 共FEMA兲. 共1997兲. ‘‘NEHRP
guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.’’ FEMA-273,
Washington, D.C.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 共FEMA兲. 共1997兲. ‘‘NEHRP
commentary on the guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of build-
ings.’’ FEMA-274 Washington, D.C.
General Services Administration 共GSA兲. 共2000兲. Progressive collapse
analysis and design guidelines for new federal office buildings and
major modernization projects. Office of Chief Architect, Washington,
D.C.
Krauthammer, T., Hall, R. L., Woodson, S. C., Baylot, J. T., Hayes, J. R.,
and Sohn, Y. 共2002兲. ‘‘Development of progressive collapse analysis
procedure and condition assessment for structures.’’ National Work-
shop on Prevention of Progressive Collapse in Rosemont, Ill. Multi-
hazard Mitigation Council of the National Institute of Building Sci-
ences, Washington, D.C.
SAP2000. 共2002兲. Version 8, analysis reference manual, Computers and
Structures, Inc., Berkeley, Calif.
Wilson, E. L. 共2002兲. Three dimensional static and dynamic analysis of
structures, 3rd Ed., Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, Calif.