This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
L. Razdolsky Ph.D. P.E., S.E.
City of Chicago, Department of Buildings, 121 N. LaSalle St., Chicago, IL. 60602
PH (312) 3996959; FAX (847) 9138653; email: lrengineering@comcast.net
Abstract:
Progressive Collapse Prevention of a highrise building at the design stage under
abnormal loading conditions is a very important subject in structural design. This
article contains three major parts:
1. Code requirements regarding Progressive Collapse Prevention.
2. Design criteria for progressive collapse prevention under abnormal loading
conditions, including local stability of some elements and global stability of a
compromised structure.
3. Design loads from possible explosions inside of a highrise building with a
deflagration venting system. This article has an example to illustrate practical
approximate approach.
Introduction:
The prime goal of this study is to examine a possible combined effect of abnormal
fire and “local” fuel vapor explosions on “domino effect” failure.
The chain of events that could lead to the collapse of a high rise building can be
described as follows (See Figure 1):
If two structural floor systems have failed completely (See Figure 1), than one out of
three scenarios may occur:
1. Interior core columns with average utilization ratio of 60% before the impact
would increase the utilization ratio up to approximately 80%. Sudden increase in
unbraced length (3 times) for these columns in combination with such high
utilization ratio can create total failure and therefore “domino effect.”
2. Exterior columns normally have the utilization ratio of under 20%. However,
they are experiencing an additional lateral load from “local” explosion
(approximately 800
PCF
÷ 1000
PCF
per column: see explosion load calculation
below). Gravity load, lateral load coupled with three times larger unbraced length
of the column could create its total failure and therefore a “domino effect.”
3. Overall (global) stability of the portion of the building above impact area
(cantilevered hollow tube with perforated walls) is damaged by the impact load:
the center of rigidity has been shifted from the center of the building toward
opposite site of the wall frame. The torsional buckling mode of the upper portion
of the building suddenly became critical. The upper portion of the building could
become unstable at some point (see calculations below) and therefore create
progressive collapse.
I. Progressive Collapse: Building Codes Requirements
Building Codes do not account for abnormal loads such as extremely extensive fire,
explosion or combination of both. However, after the terrorist attacks in New York,
bombing of the Murray Federal Building in Oklahoma City, uncontrolled fire at One
Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia, Broadgate Phase 8, UK explosion at Roman Point,
UK etc. attention has been given to the ability of the structure (as a whole) to prevent
the total collapse of the buildings. There are a number of publications [1], [2]
analyzing different Building Codes requirements to safeguard against progressive
collapse. For example, an amendment to the British Building Regulations of 1970,
later developing into BS Cp 1101972, has a mandatory requirement to design a
building (five stories and higher) for the combined load and imposed explosion
pressure of 5 psi (720 psf) in any directions. Similarly the U.S. General Services
Administration (GSA) has published in its 2000 guidelines for progressive collapse
analysis and design of new federal office buildings, as well as major rehabilitations of
existing federal buildings. All major U.S. Standard Buildings Codes, such as UBC,
BOCA etc. have a requirement to design the structure for explosion load of 100 psf.
The Canadian Standard CSAA23.394 also recognizes structural integrity as a
separate limit state. The Standard has provisions for reinforced concrete structures
designed under vehicle impact or chemical explosion loads. The International Fire
Code gives you a better answer regarding the design internal pressure in case of
explosion (see Section 911.2): the minimum 100 psf. But “… deflagration venting
shall be designed to prevent unacceptable structural damage”. The problem here is
that the Code doesn’t say how to do it and what is the definition of “unacceptable
structural damage”. The answer to both of these questions is the main goal of the
following two parts of this article. It is assumed here that structural damage is
acceptable if progressive collapse has been arrested (partially damaged structure is
globally stable). This is the subject of the second part of this article. Finally, the
third part of this article deals with explosion internal pressure (pressuretime diagram)
with deflagration venting effect. The International Fire Code 2003 also has a
requirement regarding deflagration venting design criteria (see Section 911.2 p. 5):
“… to relieve at a maximum internal pressure of 20 psf., but not less than the loads
required by International Building Code.” This requirement will be used in this
article. (see Examples 1).
II. Global stability
There are two primary means to address global stability of a compromised highrise
building structure: direct design and indirect design approaches. The indirect design
provides general statements to enhance structural system as a whole by increasing
robustness, ductility etc. without specific consideration of abnormal loads and events.
The direct design approach considers abnormal design loading combination and
develops structural system sufficient to arrest a progressive collapse. Structural
analysis in this case are sophisticated, complex and costly [3]. However, they are
very sensitive to small changes in assumptions. For that reason this study has
developed appropriate analysis of a global stability of a compromised structure.
Approximate analysis of a highrise structure was originally developed by Dr. Fazlur
R. Khan [4]. In this study, the highrise building is considered as a cantilevered
hollow structural tube with perforated walls. The cross sectional properties of this
beam are assumed similar to [5]; [6]. For lateral and gravity load analysis they are as
follows:
I
x
= I
xi
;
y yi
I I =
¿
;
xy xyi
I I =
¿
…………………………………….(2.1)
Where:
I
x
– Total moment of inertia with respect to center of rigidity of the floor plate
I
xi
– Moment of inertia of “
i
” element of wind resistance system with respect to major
axis
C
w
=
xy
I = I
xi
(x
i
– x
o
)
2
+ I
yi
(y
i
– y
o
)
2
– 2 I
xyi
(x
i
– x
o
) (y
i
– y
o
)….(2.2)
Where:
Cw – Warping constant for the whole building
yi; xi – Coordinates for wind resisting element “i”
xo; yo – Coordinates of the center of rigidity of the floor plate area
Torsional constant for the hollow structural tube is:
i
i
t
L
A
J
E
=
2
4
............................................... .............. …………………………....(2.3)
Where:
J – Torsional constant of the building. A Floor plate area. L – Spandrel plate with
assumed constant thickness
i
t = const = " 2
If the center of rigidity of the building doesn’t coincide with the center of mass of the
floor plate, the building failure mode is a combination of torsion and bending that has
been described in [7]. The solution of these equations provides the building loads
(Euler forces):
2
2
) (kH
EI
P
x
x
t
= ;
2
2
( )
y
y
EI
P
kH
t
= ;
2
2 2
1
( )
w
T
o
C E
P JG
kH r
t (
= +
(
¸ ¸
…………………….(2.4)
First two equations are (Eq. D4.18 and Eq. D4.110) and the third equation is Eq.
D4.111 from AISI, 2001 [6].
o
r – Polar radius of garation of floor plate area.
Unbraced length factor “ k ” should be equal: k = 1.12, but not k = 2, since the
gravity load is applied at every floor level, therefore uniformly distributed along the
whole height of the building. In a regular design process the Euler force is reduced
by a safety factor 12/23, however in this case (total failure stage), it is not required.
The global stability of the building as a whole will be approximately measured by the
moment magnification factor
m
K :
x
i
mxi
P
P
K
÷
=
1
1
;
1
1
mTi
i
T
K
P
P
=
÷
;
1
1
mTi
i
T
K
P
P
=
÷
………………….(2.5)
If at least one of these factors is more than 3, then the building will be considered
“globally” unstable. This is a purely practical recommendation based on design
experience and logical approach.
Now let’s apply these formulas to our case.
Example #1
Total gravity load: P = 0.09 (208)
2
= 4000
k
– per floor
Total gravity force: P
110
= 4000(110) = 440,000
k
Total weight of 30 floors above impact area:
P
30
= 4000(30) = 120, 000
k
Wind load (aver.): = 0.06(208) = 12.5
KLF
Spandrel plate girder: t=2”
Polar radius of gyration (floor area):
( )
( )
4
2
0 2
208
;
6 208
I
r
A
= =
0
84.9' r =
Moment of Inertia: Spandrel plate girder:
( )
4 6 3
10 0 . 1
3
2
ft ta I
xpl
= =
DATA:
H = 1368’ – total height
n = 110 – number of floors
h = 12’4” – floortofloor
Upper ext. column (typ)
14” x 14” x 1”
A = 52in
2
= 0.36ft
2
I = 1500in
4
= 0.0723ft
4
Lower ext. column (typ.)
14” x 36” x 2”
A = 184in
2
= 1.278ft
2
I
x
= 27,000in
4
= 1.31ft
4
I
y
= 5,600in
4
= 0.27ft
4
Exterior columns:

.

\
 + +
= + + + +
= + + + + =
6
) 1 2 )( 1 (
... 3 2 1 :
) 10 ( 65 . 0 31 104 ) 36 . 0 ( 4 ) 31 .... 2 1 ( 33 . 3 ) 36 . 0 ( 4
2 2 2 2
4 6 2 2 2 2 2
.
n n n
n formula use
ft I
XCol
Total moment of inertia: ( ) ( )
6 6
1.0 .65 10 1.65 10
x
I = + =
Torsional constant:
Spandrel plate girder:
4 6 3
) 10 ( 5 . 1 ft ta J = =
Polar moment of inertia of columns:
4 6 6
.
) 10 ( 3 . 1 10 ) 65 . 0 ( 2 ft J
PCol
= =
Total torsional constant:
( )
6 4
2.8 10 J ft =
Now let’s calculate the geometrical properties of a floor plate after the initial impact
of the airplane. In order to simplify the calculations, assume that the whole exterior
wall is damaged.
Total bending stiffness and torsional stiffness of the building now have to be reduced
due to the fact that the outside walls are perforated with large number of openings. It
is considered a good engineering practice to design the lateral resistance in such a
way that the total nondimensional drift of the building will be equal to the floorto
floor nondimensional drift. For a portion of a one window bay area cantilevered
hollow structural tube, this will approximately result in the following formulas:
f
EIr
PH
H 12
3
1
=
A
;
E A
Ph
h
w
78 . 2
2
=
A
...…………………………………….(2.7)
Now equating nondimensional drifts we will get reduction factor " " " "
f f
r and R :
H
h
Ih
H A
r
w
f
.
) 12 ( 78 . 2
3
=
1
1
f
f
R
r
=
+
; In our case: .0869; .92
f f
r R = =
Let’s check if the assumptions above are reasonable:
Center of gravity:
' 4 . 69
) 208 ( 3
104 ) 208 ( 2
. .
= =
G C
Y
e = 69.4’
• Approximately calculate the total drift of the building:
" 3 . 10 ' 863 . 0
) 144 ( 92 . 0 ) 10 ( 65 . 1 ) 29000 ( 8
) 1368 ( 5 . 12
6
4
= = = A O.K.
• Calculate original moment magnification factor
1 MX
K ;
•
1
1
1.015 3
440, 000
1
29, 000, 000
mx
K = = s
÷
( ) ( )
( )
( )
2 6
6
2
29000 1.65 10 144
29 10
1.12 1368
x
P
t
= =
(
¸ ¸
Calculate moment of inertia:
a) Spandrel plate:
3 3
6 4
.875(10 ) ;
12 2
y
ta ta
I ft = + =
3
6 4
2
1.0(10 ) ;
3
x
ta
I ft = = 0
xy
I J = =
b) Exterior columns:
[ ]
[ ]
4 6
4 6 2 2 2 2 2
4 6 2 2 2 2
) 10 ( 213 . 1
) 10 ( 566 . 0 31 ... 2 1 ) 33 . 3 )( 36 . 0 ( 2 ) 62 ( 104 ) 36 . 0 ( 2
) 10 ( 647 . 0 62 ... 2 1 33 . 3 ) 36 . 0 ( 2
ft Total
ft I
ft I
y
x
=
= + + + + =
= + + + =
c) Warping constant:
6 6 6
) 10 ( 244 . 0 10 ) 566 . 0 647 . 0 (
36 . 0
0723 . 0
ft C
w
= + =
Assume that all exterior columns along the South wall were destroyed over a five
story range, therefore H = 61.67’ in our example.
1. Calculate the building load using formulas (2.4):
( ) ( )
6 6 4
1.0 .647 10 1.647 10
TOT
x
I ft = + =
( )
9
14.2 10 .
x
P k =
( )
9
12.4 10 .
y
P k =
( )
6 4
1.441 10
TOT
y
I ft =
( ) ( )
6 6 3
.244 10 ; 0; 292 10 .
w T
C ft J P k = = =
The total weight of 32 floors above is:
32
P = 4000(32)=128,000k.
2. Calculate the moment magnification factor
32 MT
K :
3 78 . 1
000 , 292
000 , 128
1
1
32
< =
÷
=
MT
K
There is no reduction in columns strength due to abnormal fire. Now, if modulus of
elasticity is reduced due to uncontrolled fire by 50%, then:
3 11 . 8
000 , 146
000 , 128
1
1
32
> =
÷
=
MT
K
Structure is considered as unstable in a torsional buckling mode.
III. Local Explosions – Design Loads
The purpose of this portion of the article is to “demystify the blast resistant design
loads” and make “... useable for application in the design of structures” (James R.
Cagley [8]) in case of possible local gas or vapor explosion inside of a building. Gas,
vapor or dust explosions are described in many research papers published over the
years in different special journals and magazines. Probably the best summary of all
theoretical and experimental data on this subject can be found in the [9]. However,
one common negative of all this research data is the application to relatively small
volumes (1 to 10 cu. ft.). It was never meant to apply the explosion experimental
data to a volume the size of a building. Current research data connected with vented
explosions using large pressure vessels has been published by Dr. Phylaktou, Prof. G.
E. Andrews, A. Alexion, [10]; D. Bradley, T.M. Cresswell and J. S. Puttock [11].
Numerical modeling of such a complex case of combustion and explosion has been
developed by Dr. Allen Kuhl [12], Dr. B. J. Arntzen [13], Russel A Ogle, J.K.
Beddow, L. D. Chen and P.B. Butler [14]; Ya. B. Zelgovich, G.I. Barenblatt, V.B.
Librovich, G.M. Makhviladze [15], and many other researchers.
However, to extrapolate smallscale experimental results to a full scale application
(the size of a building), one must comply with numerical and physical modeling
requirements. This in turns would lead to inclusion and investigation of some new
nondimensional parameters to account for gravity convection, hydrodynamics of the
burning process, venting of deflagrations, etc.
Maximum internal pressure from a gas explosion in an enclosed volume (no “vent
area”) according to [9] is approximately 10kg/sm2 = 20.5 KSF (airhydrocarbons
mixtures). The typical pressure time curve in the case of enclosed volume and the
volume with a “vent area” is shown on Figure 1.
1. Pressuretime curve (volume with no “vent area”) from [9]
2. Pressuretime curve (volume with “vent area”) [16]
Po – working pressure (“vent area” open).
The internal pressure (see fig. 1) increases up to some point even when the “vent
area” is open to the atmosphere. The main reason for this fact is that temperature
increase follows an exponential function [16] (See Appendix 1).
It has also been proven that in the case of local ignition with a partial volume of air
gas mixture, it is not important to have the same concentration of airgas mixture
beyond this “partial volume”, because in this case the outside gas is acting as an
inactive gas. This is to say, if only one room on the floor is filled with “active” air
gas mixture, it is not required to have the same “active” mixture in the whole floor
plate area. It has been proven [16] that the maximum internal pressure (see Fig. 1)
will remain the same even if only 20% of total floor plate area will be filled with
“active” airgas mixture.
In addition, if any floor plate of a building contains some obstructions such as
partitions, doors, shelves etc. it would lead to turbulent flame propagation and much
higher maximum internal pressure as a result. Dr. Phylantou [10] is recommending in
this case to use an ” enhancement factor between 2 and 10”. Similar research was
done by Dr. D. Bradley, T .M. Cresswell and J.S. Puttock [11]. The potential of
mathematical modeling in large scale volumes was developed by Dr. Arntzen [13]
and Dr. A.L. Kuhl [12]. Essentially, any analytical methods in computer modeling of
a rapid gas or vapor combustion are evolving around the solution of differential
equations that represents this process [See Appendix I]. The first two differential
equations represent heat and mass transfer with venting deflagrations. The third and
fourth are hydrodynamics of rapid combustion process in a large volume. The fifth
equation is a flow continuity condition. The sixth equation represents the ideal gas
law.
Formulas (3.1);(3.2);(3.3) and (3.4) are representing an envelope of many non
dimensional solutions of differential equations (Appendix 1[16]). Some of the
parameters in differential equations were taken as constant numbers (for example: L =
Pr = 1), and some other parameters were taken in a practical range of large volumes
applications (for example: Fr: from
9
10 to
11
10 : K
v
: from 0.02 to 0.2 etc).
Because the system of differential equations is highly nonlinear, the time scale is
different for some of W. Froude’s parameters. For example: if Fr = 10
9
to calculate
the real time “t” nondimensional parameter
0
t must be multiplied by
( )
7
5 10
÷
; if Fr =
10
10
 the multiplier is 10(10
7
); if Fr = 10
11
 the multiplier is (5)10
8
. The total time
of explosive load application, before the decay period starts, according to [16] is
0
5t .
Theoretical results obtained by formulas (3.1),(3.2), and (3.3) have a good
comparison with the experimental data (for example [10] [17] [18]).
The maximum temperature can be calculated by formula [8]
0 0
2
0
max
T
E
RT
T + = u
The hydrodynamic effect of airgas or vaporgas movement on critical parameter
0
t
(local ignition) has been investigated in [19]. It has been proven that W.Froude’s
parameter (Fr) that characterizes large volume effect, has a very important role in the
whole process of flame heat propagation. For example, if Fr 10
9
 the isotherms are
spreading in a horizontal plane; if Fr = 10
9
(our case Fr = 10
11
)  the isotherms are
spreading much more in a vertical plane (the heat will stay at the ceiling level),
therefore, the maximum temperature will be at the ceiling level.
If estimated, the initial nondimensional temperature (around electrical spark area) is
300
0
= u , activation energy for hydrocarbon based fuel E = 30,000 and initial room
temperature K T
o
300
0
= , then the maximum temperature calculated by formula (3)
is:
K T
o
2100 300 ) 300 (
000 , 30
) 300 ( 2
2
max
= + =
The experimental data from Table C.1 [9] in this case is K T
o
2300 ~ .
Finally, here are the formulas (3.1); (3.2) and (3.3) to calculate maximum interior
pressure from the local explosion.
AP = P
o
K[1.124 + 0.031K
v
0.285 lg Fr +
+ (0.001K
v
 0.0074 lg Fr)K
v
+ 0.022 lg
2
Fr ] …………(3.1) if t
o
= 1
AP = P
o
K[3.350.012K
v
+ 0.68 lg Fr +
+ (0.003K
v
– 0.01 lg Fr) K
v
– 0.0238 lg
2
Fr ] ………………...(3.2) if
t
o
= 10
AP = P
o
K[2.43 +0.3 K
v
+ 0.613 lg Fr +
+ (0.003K
v
– 0.0425 lg Fr) K
v
– 0.0167lg
2
Fr]………………………………….(3.3)
if t
o
= 20
Where:P
o
 initial interior pressure (exterior glass is broken)
(In our case: P
o
= 1.0264 atm.)
K
v
=
W
h A
V
 nondimensional “vent area” coefficient
A
v
– vent area; h – floortofloor distance; W – volume per a given floor area
K=
Co
Cst
n m ] ( 1 [
1
2
)
1 2
µ µ µ ÷ +

Q
513
1 2
; µ µ
1
– molecular weights of original and final products of chemical reaction
n; m – numbers of moles in initial and final stages of chemical reaction
0
; C C
st
– initial and stoichiometric concentrations of airgas mixture
Q – heat effect of chemical reaction (kdj)
Fr =
va
gh
3
. W. Froude’s parameter
g – gravity acceleration; a – coefficient of heat transfer by convection
u  coefficient of kinematic viscosity
E – activation energy; R – universal gas constant
Nondimensional time can be obtained by formula:
t
o
=
8
1
10
4
(AP
o
)
2
+
4
15
(AP
o
)
2
(10)
2
– 7 …………………………………(3.4)
Let’s assume that all exterior glass, at a given floor plate, is broken at P
o
=
36(1.5)=54psf=1.0264atm pressure.
Finally, let’s calculate the maximum interior pressure from a possible local explosion
in our case (Example # 1 continued):
Data: Floor plate: 208’ x 208’;Floor to ceiling height: h=10’;
Clear window glass width: 2’6”; c/c columns spacing: 3’6”
E= 30,000 calorie/ mol (assumed) ; Q=513 Kjoule; m=n=1
2
.3 / sec a sm v = = ;
2 1
; µ µ =
0
.5
st
C C =
Calculate the nondimensional “vent area” coefficient:
K
v
=
640 , 432
) 10 ( 75 . 0 ) 4 ( 10 ) 208 (
= 0.1444
Calculate maximum internal pressure based on formula (2):
AP= (1.0264) (0.5) [1.124 + 0.031 (0.144) – 0.285 (11) +
+ (0.001 (0.144) – 0.0074 (11) 0.144 + 0.022 (121)] =
= 0.3304 kg/sm
2
= 0.678
KSF
Coefficient “K” in this case is assumed K=0.5 (“real” airvapor concentration in a
local volume is 50% of stoichiometric concentration).
Calculate nondimensional time “t
o
” based on formula (3) (use a = 0.3 sm
2
/sec):
t
o
=
8
1
(10
4
)(0.0264)
2
+
4
15
(10
2
)(0.0264) – 7= 3.7712
0
t = 3.7712
3 . 0
) 48 . 300 (
2
(5)10
8
= 0.0567 sec.
(The time scale factor is 5(
8
10
÷
).
The total time of load application is:
0
5
v
t t = = 5 (0.0567) = 0.284 sec
Finally, the pressuretime curve can be represented as:
(Compare P
max
= 678
PSF
with UBC, BOCA etc. requirements of 100
PSF
and
Amendment to the British Building Regulations of 720
PSF
).
Summary and Observations
1. In the case of a local explosion, the maximum pressure of 678
PSF
on all
surfaces is sufficient enough to lift up the upper floor system to demolish
the floor system below and to create a free fall situation.
2. Equations (3.2) and (3.3) are representing an envelope of solutions of non
dimensional differential equations describing heat and flame propagation,
dynamics of chemical reaction and hydrodynamics of a nonstationary
local explosion. The differential equations are presented in Appendix 1.
3. Theoretical results based on equations (3.1), (3.2) and (3.3) have a good
correlation with experimental data, for example [17] [18].
Appendix 1
1) ( ) ( ) ( )
2 2
Pr
2
v
s s s
K
V W W W V V W W
x z z
u u u
µ
t
c c c c ¦  
(
+ + ÷ ÷ + ÷ × ÷ + (
´
 ¸ ¸
¸ ¸
c c c c
¹ \ .
( ) } ( )
1
1 1
n
s
V V C e
x
u
u
µ u o
+
c
+ ÷ = V + ÷ (
¸ ¸
c
2)
t c
cC
+ Pr (V
X
C
c
c
+ W
z
C
c
c
) =
L
1
AC + ¸o (1C)e
u
u
+ 1
3)
t c
cW
+ Pr () (V
x
W
c
c
+ W
x
W
c
c
) = 
z
p
c
c
(1 K
v
) +
+
3
4
Pr ()AW + Fr() + K
v
(W– W
s
) 

z c
c
[ (W – W
s
)] +
x c
c
[(V – V
s
)]
4)
t c
cV
+Pr() (V
x
V
c
c
+ W
z
V
c
c
) = 
x
P
c
c
(1 K
v
) +
+
3
4
Pr() AV + K
v
(V  V
s
) 

z c
c
[ (W– W
s
)] +
x c
c
[ (V – V
s
]
5)
t
µ
c
c
+
x
V
c
c ) (µ
+
z
W
c
c ) (µ
(1 + K
v
) = 0
6) P= e (1+ u)
Where nondimensional parameters are:
v = a =
2
sec
ft
;;
2
at
h
t = ;
( )
0
2
0
E T T
RT
u
÷
= ;
p
z
z
h
= ;
p
x
x
h
= ;
3
gh
Fr
a v
= ;
0
v
Fh
K
W
= ;
p
hV
V
v
= ;
p
hW
W
v
= ;
2
0
;
p
h p
p
a µ v
=
0
2
2
0
2
E
RT
E Q h
e
PT
o
ì
÷
 
= 

\ .
0
;
p
µ µ µ = ÷ Wvertical velocity; V horizontal velocity.
heat transfer coefficient ì ÷ ÷ ÷
h floortofloor distance; F vent area;
o
W Volume (per given floor).
All generally accepted nondimensional parameters are taken from [7] [8].
Boundary and initial conditions are:
/ 0;
s
u = ; 0
s
C
n
c
+ =
c
; ( ) /
s
gradC Bi C = ÷ ;
( ) / ;
s
grad Bi u u = ÷ / 0
s
n
µ c
=
c
/ 0;
s
gradV =
ur
0
0 V =
uur
; C(0,x,z)=0;
0
(0, , ) x z µ µ =
References:
1. ACI 31802 (2002)
2. Donald O. Dusenberry: (2004) “Review of Existing Guidelines and Provisions
Related to Progressive Collapse” (PDF) (Progressive Collapse Workshop,
Arlington, MA)
3. Prof. T. Kranthammer, Dr. R. L. Hall, Dr. S. C. Woodson, Dr. J. T. Baylot, Dr. J.
R. Hayes, Dr. Y. Shon: (2002) “Development of Progressive Collapse Analysis
Procedure and Condition Assessment for Structures” (PDF)
4. Khan F. R., and Sbarounis, T.A. (1964) “Interaction of Sheer Walls and Frames”
Proceedings, ASCE, 90 (St3), 285335.
5. PCI Design Handbook, 5
th
Edition. (2002)
6. AISI, (2001)
7. S. Timoshenico and J. M. Gere: (1961) “Theory of Elastic Stability” 2
nd
Edition.
New York: Mc GrawHill, Inc. (pp 319328)
8. James R. Cogley: (2002) “The Design Professional’s Concerns Regarding
Progressive Collapse Design” (PDF)
9. B. Lewis and G. Von Elbe: (1987) “Combination, Flames and Explosions of
Gases”, Academic Press, Inc. N.Y.
10. Dr. Phylakton, Prof. G. E. Andrews: (2002) “Livesey Report” (PDF)
11. D. Bradley, T. M. Cresswell and J. S. Puttock: (2001)
“Flame Acceleration due to Flameinduced Instabilities in Largescale
Explosions” Combustion and Flames, 124, 551559
12. Dr. Allen Kuhl: (2002) “ThermoGasDynamic Model of After Burning in
Explosions” (PDF)
13. B. J. Arntzen: (2000) “Modeling of Turbulence and Combustion for Simulation of
Gas Explosions in Complex Geometries”, Ph.D. Thesis, Japan.
14. A. Russel, J. K. Ogle, J. K. Beddow, L. D. Chen and P. B. Butler: (1988)
“An Investigation of Aluminum Dust Explosions” Science and Technology, Vol.
61 pp 7599.
15. Ya. B. Zeldovich, G. I. Barenblatt, V. B. Librovich, G. M. Makhviladze: (1989)
“The Mathematical Theory of Combustion and Exposions”, Plenum, New York,
p597.
16. L. Razdolsky, A. Petrov: (1977) “Building Design Loads in Case of Internal Air
gasvapor Explosions” Stroitelnaya Mekhanica and Raschet Sooruzheney No. 5.
17. D. J. Rasbash: (1969) “Explosions in Domestic Structures Part One. The Relief of
Gas and Vapor Explosions” Structural Engineering, V.47, No. 10.
18. Muller – Hillerbrand D.: (1958) “Explosions Lasting” Teknisk Tidskrift. Ar.88.
Vol. 48.
19. L. Razdolsky, A. Petrov, E. Shtessel: (1977) “Critical Conditions of Local
Explosions in Gravity Field” Gorenie Geterogeninick, Gasovich System,
Academy of Science of USSR, Moscow.
However. The problem here is that the Code doesn’t say how to do it and what is the definition of “unacceptable structural damage”. explosion or combination of both. Overall (global) stability of the portion of the building above impact area (cantilevered hollow tube with perforated walls) is damaged by the impact load: the center of rigidity has been shifted from the center of the building toward opposite site of the wall frame.1. Standard Buildings Codes. The answer to both of these questions is the main goal of the following two parts of this article. UK etc. However.” 3. The upper portion of the building could become unstable at some point (see calculations below) and therefore create progressive collapse. lateral load coupled with three times larger unbraced length of the column could create its total failure and therefore a “domino effect. Sudden increase in unbraced length (3 times) for these columns in combination with such high utilization ratio can create total failure and therefore “domino effect.S. attention has been given to the ability of the structure (as a whole) to prevent the total collapse of the buildings. Exterior columns normally have the utilization ratio of under 20%. This is the subject of the second part of this article. such as UBC. I. The Canadian Standard CSAA23. they are experiencing an additional lateral load from “local” explosion (approximately 800 PCF ÷ 1000 PCF per column: see explosion load calculation below). It is assumed here that structural damage is acceptable if progressive collapse has been arrested (partially damaged structure is globally stable). bombing of the Murray Federal Building in Oklahoma City.2): the minimum 100 psf. All major U. after the terrorist attacks in New York. Interior core columns with average utilization ratio of 60% before the impact would increase the utilization ratio up to approximately 80%. But “… deflagration venting shall be designed to prevent unacceptable structural damage”. an amendment to the British Building Regulations of 1970. later developing into BS Cp 1101972. Gravity load. General Services Administration (GSA) has published in its 2000 guidelines for progressive collapse analysis and design of new federal office buildings. have a requirement to design the structure for explosion load of 100 psf.” 2.S. has a mandatory requirement to design a building (five stories and higher) for the combined load and imposed explosion pressure of 5 psi (720 psf) in any directions. Broadgate Phase 8. the third part of this article deals with explosion internal pressure (pressuretime diagram) .394 also recognizes structural integrity as a separate limit state. BOCA etc. There are a number of publications [1]. uncontrolled fire at One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia. Similarly the U. Progressive Collapse: Building Codes Requirements Building Codes do not account for abnormal loads such as extremely extensive fire. The International Fire Code gives you a better answer regarding the design internal pressure in case of explosion (see Section 911. Finally. The torsional buckling mode of the upper portion of the building suddenly became critical. UK explosion at Roman Point. For example. as well as major rehabilitations of existing federal buildings. [2] analyzing different Building Codes requirements to safeguard against progressive collapse. The Standard has provisions for reinforced concrete structures designed under vehicle impact or chemical explosion loads.
1) Where: Ix – Total moment of inertia with respect to center of rigidity of the floor plate Ixi – Moment of inertia of “i” element of wind resistance system with respect to major axis Cw = I xy = Ixi (xi – xo)2 + Iyi (yi – yo)2 – 2 Ixyi(xi – xo) (yi – yo)….. the highrise building is considered as a cantilevered hollow structural tube with perforated walls..(2. Fazlur R. Approximate analysis of a highrise structure was originally developed by Dr...(2. I y = I yi .(2.4) 2 2 2 ( kH ) ro ( kH ) (kH ) .. In this study. without specific consideration of abnormal loads and events... yo – Coordinates of the center of rigidity of the floor plate area Torsional constant for the hollow structural tube is: 4 A2 J = . they are very sensitive to small changes in assumptions.... Khan [4].. The indirect design provides general statements to enhance structural system as a whole by increasing robustness.” This requirement will be used in this article.. complex and costly [3].…………………………........ but not less than the loads required by International Building Code. PT = + JG 2 ……………………. Global stability There are two primary means to address global stability of a compromised highrise building structure: direct design and indirect design approaches....2 p. Structural analysis in this case are sophisticated...... ductility etc...(2.. However.. For lateral and gravity load analysis they are as follows: Ix = Ixi .. The cross sectional properties of this beam are assumed similar to [5].3) Li ti Where: J – Torsional constant of the building...2) Where: Cw – Warping constant for the whole building yi.. the building failure mode is a combination of torsion and bending that has been described in [7]. For that reason this study has developed appropriate analysis of a global stability of a compromised structure.. The direct design approach considers abnormal design loading combination and develops structural system sufficient to arrest a progressive collapse... (see Examples 1)... The solution of these equations provides the building loads (Euler forces): 2 2 2 EI y EI x Cw E 1 Px = . L – Spandrel plate with assumed constant thickness t i = const = 2" If the center of rigidity of the building doesn’t coincide with the center of mass of the floor plate........ The International Fire Code 2003 also has a requirement regarding deflagration venting design criteria (see Section 911.Floor plate area...... I xy = I xyi ……………………………………. 5): “… to relieve at a maximum internal pressure of 20 psf.. [6]. II.. A..... Py = .with deflagration venting effect. xi – Coordinates for wind resisting element “i” xo.......
000k Total weight of 30 floors above impact area: P30 = 4000(30) = 120.111 from AISI.12.5KLF Spandrel plate girder: t=2” ( 208) I .110) and the third equation is Eq.000in4 = 1. however in this case (total failure stage).06(208) = 12. D4. then the building will be considered “globally” unstable. In a regular design process the Euler force is reduced by a safety factor 12/23.18 and Eq.36ft2 I = 1500in4 = 0. Example #1 DATA: H = 1368’ – total height n = 110 – number of floors h = 12’4” – floortofloor Upper ext. column (typ. but not k = 2. 2001 [6]. D4. Unbraced length factor “ k ” should be equal: k = 1. ro – Polar radius of garation of floor plate area. The global stability of the building as a whole will be approximately measured by the moment magnification factor K m : 1 1 1 . 000k Wind load (aver.278ft2 Ix = 27.): = 0.First two equations are (Eq. D4. K mTi = K mxi = .5) Pi Pi Pi 1 1 1 PT PT Px If at least one of these factors is more than 3.0723ft4 Lower ext.31ft4 Iy = 5. r0 = 84. therefore uniformly distributed along the whole height of the building. K mTi = …………………. Now let’s apply these formulas to our case.600in4 = 0.) 14” x 36” x 2” A = 184in2 = 1.0(10 ) ft 4 2 0 .(2.09 (208)2 = 4000k – per floor Total gravity force: P110 = 4000(110) = 440. column (typ) 14” x 14” x 1” A = 52in2 = 0. since the gravity load is applied at every floor level.27ft4 Total gravity load: P = 0. This is a purely practical recommendation based on design experience and logical approach. it is not required.9 ' Polar radius of gyration (floor area): r = = A 6 ( 208 )2 2 3 6 4 Moment of Inertia: Spandrel plate girder: I xpl = 3 ta = 1.
92 1 + rf Let’s check if the assumptions above are reasonable: Rf = rf = . assume that the whole exterior wall is damaged.332 (12 + 22 + . this will approximately result in the following formulas: 2. R f = . + 312 ) + 4(0.0869.G..65)106 = 1.78(12) Ih H 1 .7) H 12 EIrf h Aw E Now equating nondimensional drifts we will get reduction factor " rf " and " R f " : Aw H 3 h . = 2(208)104 = 69.65 (106 ) Torsional constant: Spandrel plate girder: J = ta 3 = 1. In our case: rf = . = 2(0.Exterior columns: I XCol .(2.4’ Total bending stiffness and torsional stiffness of the building now have to be reduced due to the fact that the outside walls are perforated with large number of openings.5(106 ) ft 4 Polar moment of inertia of columns: J PCol . In order to simplify the calculations..8 (106 ) ft 4 Now let’s calculate the geometrical properties of a floor plate after the initial impact of the airplane..3(106 ) ft 4 Total torsional constant: J = 2. + n 2 = n(n + 1)(2n + 1) 6 Total moment of inertia: I x = (1. It is considered a good engineering practice to design the lateral resistance in such a way that the total nondimensional drift of the building will be equal to the floortofloor nondimensional drift..0 + . Center of gravity: YC .78Ph PH 3 1 2 = .65) 106 = 1. 2. = .36)104231 = 0.. For a portion of a one window bay area cantilevered hollow structural tube.……………………………………..36)3.. = 4(0.65(106 ) ft 4 use formula : 12 + 22 + 32 + .4' 3(208) e = 69.
000 There is no reduction in columns strength due to abnormal fire. 000 1 29.000k.647 ) 106 = 1.566)10 6 = 0.647 (106 ) ft 4 Px = 14.36 Assume that all exterior columns along the South wall were destroyed over a fivestory range.92(144) • Calculate original moment magnification factor K MX 1 .0 + . • • K mx1 1 = = 1.33 2 12 + 2 2 + .647 + 0..244 (106 ) ft 6 .. I x = = 1.213(10 6 ) ft 4 c) Warping constant: 0.015 440. Calculate the moment magnification factor K MT 32 : 1 K MT 32 = = 1.65 (106 ) 144 = 29 (106 ) 2 (1. Calculate the building load using formulas (2. I xy = J = 0 Iy = 12 2 3 b) Exterior columns: I x = 2(0.4 (109 ) k .36)104 2 (62) + 2(0.0723 Cw = (0.33) 2 12 + 2 2 + . Now. + 62 2 = 0.67’ in our example. 8(29000)1. + 312 = 0.. if modulus of elasticity is reduced due to uncontrolled fire by 50%.000 1 292.36)3.78 < 3 128.K.875(10 ) ft .11 > 3 128.65(10 6 )0.000 Structure is considered as unstable in a torsional buckling mode. therefore H = 61.2 (109 ) k .566(10 6 ) ft 4 Total = 1. PT = 292 (103 ) k .12 ) 1368 Calculate moment of inertia: a) Spandrel plate: ta 3 ta 3 2ta 3 6 4 + = .0(106 ) ft 4 .647(10 6 ) ft 4 [ ] I y = 2(0.000 1 146. J = 0.4): TOT I x = (1.Approximately calculate the total drift of the building: 12.. 000 2 3 Px = ( 29000 ) 1. Cw = .441 (106 ) ft 4 y [ ] The total weight of 32 floors above is: P32 = 4000(32)=128.5(1368) 4 = = 0. 000.3" O. K MT 32 = .863' = 10. Py = 12.36)(3. 2. 1.244(10 6 ) ft 6 0. then: 1 = 8. I TOT = 1.
venting of deflagrations. Maximum internal pressure from a gas explosion in an enclosed volume (no “vent area”) according to [9] is approximately 10kg/sm2 = 20. vapor or dust explosions are described in many research papers published over the years in different special journals and magazines. Arntzen [13]. hydrodynamics of the burning process. Probably the best summary of all theoretical and experimental data on this subject can be found in the [9]. to extrapolate smallscale experimental results to a full scale application (the size of a building). Ya.M. Librovich.K. and many other researchers.I. However. Current research data connected with vented explosions using large pressure vessels has been published by Dr.III. Beddow. Cagley [8]) in case of possible local gas or vapor explosion inside of a building.B. The internal pressure (see fig.M. Dr. The main reason for this fact is that temperature increase follows an exponential function [16] (See Appendix 1). J. L. 1. D. However. Butler [14]. G. Numerical modeling of such a complex case of combustion and explosion has been developed by Dr. etc. V.). useable for application in the design of structures” (James R.. T. D. Pressuretime curve (volume with no “vent area”) from [9] 2. This in turns would lead to inclusion and investigation of some new nondimensional parameters to account for gravity convection. B. Prof. 1) increases up to some point even when the “vent area” is open to the atmosphere. Puttock [11].. Alexion. Andrews. Phylaktou. Pressuretime curve (volume with “vent area”) [16] Po – working pressure (“vent area” open). Bradley. ft.5 KSF (airhydrocarbons mixtures). [10]. Local Explosions – Design Loads The purpose of this portion of the article is to “demystify the blast resistant design loads” and make “. Zelgovich. Chen and P. Allen Kuhl [12]. one common negative of all this research data is the application to relatively small volumes (1 to 10 cu. Makhviladze [15]. A. E. Gas. if only one room on the floor is filled with “active” air .B. J. one must comply with numerical and physical modeling requirements. B. G. Russel A Ogle. The typical pressure time curve in the case of enclosed volume and the volume with a “vent area” is shown on Figure 1. It was never meant to apply the explosion experimental data to a volume the size of a building. This is to say. it is not important to have the same concentration of airgas mixture beyond this “partial volume”. S. Barenblatt. because in this case the outside gas is acting as an inactive gas. It has also been proven that in the case of local ignition with a partial volume of airgas mixture. Cresswell and J. G.
any analytical methods in computer modeling of a rapid gas or vapor combustion are evolving around the solution of differential equations that represents this process [See Appendix I]. In addition. if Fr 109 .(3. then the maximum temperature calculated by formula (3) is: . the initial nondimensional temperature (around electrical spark area) is 0 = 300 . Some of the parameters in differential equations were taken as constant numbers (for example: L = Pr = 1). Puttock [11].000 and initial room temperature T0 = 300 o K .4) are representing an envelope of many nondimensional solutions of differential equations (Appendix 1[16]). The total time of explosive load application. shelves etc. A.1). It has been proven [16] that the maximum internal pressure (see Fig. if Fr = 109 (our case Fr = 1011) . The third and fourth are hydrodynamics of rapid combustion process in a large volume. The sixth equation represents the ideal gas law. Dr. Froude’s parameters.1). Arntzen [13] and Dr. according to [16] is 5 0 .S. For example. it is not required to have the same “active” mixture in the whole floor plate area. For example: if Fr = 109 to calculate the real time “t” nondimensional parameter 0 must be multiplied by 5 (10 7 ) .the isotherms are spreading in a horizontal plane. Essentially. Similar research was done by Dr. Because the system of differential equations is highly nonlinear.2 etc). the time scale is different for some of W. The potential of mathematical modeling in large scale volumes was developed by Dr. Theoretical results obtained by formulas (3. if Fr = 1010 . and some other parameters were taken in a practical range of large volumes applications (for example: Fr: from 109 to 1011 : Kv: from 0. therefore.the multiplier is 10(107). The fifth equation is a flow continuity condition.L. D.M. The first two differential equations represent heat and mass transfer with venting deflagrations. It has been proven that W. it would lead to turbulent flame propagation and much higher maximum internal pressure as a result. Bradley. T . if any floor plate of a building contains some obstructions such as partitions. Phylantou [10] is recommending in this case to use an ” enhancement factor between 2 and 10”.(3. doors.2).3) and (3. before the decay period starts. Cresswell and J. 1) will remain the same even if only 20% of total floor plate area will be filled with “active” airgas mixture.the multiplier is (5)108. the maximum temperature will be at the ceiling level. has a very important role in the whole process of flame heat propagation.Froude’s parameter (Fr) that characterizes large volume effect. Kuhl [12].the isotherms are spreading much more in a vertical plane (the heat will stay at the ceiling level).gas mixture.(3. activation energy for hydrocarbon based fuel E = 30.3) have a good comparison with the experimental data (for example [10] [17] [18]). if Fr = 1011 .02 to 0. and (3. The maximum temperature can be calculated by formula [8] RT02 Tmax = 0 + T0 E The hydrodynamic effect of airgas or vaporgas movement on critical parameter 0 (local ignition) has been investigated in [19]. Formulas (3. If estimated.2).
3sm 2 / sec . µ2 1 – molecular weights of original and final products of chemical reaction n. Cst – initial and stoichiometric concentrations of airgas mixture Q – heat effect of chemical reaction (kdj) gh 3 Fr = . m=n=1 # = a = ..3) to calculate maximum interior pressure from the local explosion.0238 lg2 Fr ] ……………….0074 lg Fr) v + 0.3 v + 0.0264atm pressure. here are the formulas (3.003 v – 0. Finally.031 v 0.coefficient of kinematic viscosity E – activation energy. m – numbers of moles in initial and final stages of chemical reaction C0 .5Cst Calculate the nondimensional “vent area” coefficient: Tmax = 2(300) 2 (300) + 300 = 2100 o K .68 lg Fr + if + (0.012 v + 0.4) o= 8 4 Let’s assume that all exterior glass.022 lg2 Fr ] …………(3.0425 lg Fr) v – 0. W. R – universal gas constant Nondimensional time can be obtained by formula: 1 4 15 10 ( Po)2 + ( Po)2 (10)2 – 7 …………………………………(3. Q=513 Kjoule.1) P = Po [3.613 lg Fr + + (0.003 v – 0.(3..000 calorie/ mol (assumed) .30.) Ah Kv= V .5)=54psf=1.350. µ2 = µ1 . P = Po [1.124 + 0.0264 atm.(3. c/c columns spacing: 3’6” E= 30.initial interior pressure (exterior glass is broken) (In our case: Po= 1. C0 = .3) if o= 20 Where:Po . is broken at Po = 36(1.0.01 lg Fr) v – 0. let’s calculate the maximum interior pressure from a possible local explosion in our case (Example # 1 continued): Data: Floor plate: 208’ x 208’. at a given floor plate. Clear window glass width: 2’6”. h – floortofloor distance.Floor to ceiling height: h=10’.0167lg2Fr]………………………………….2) and (3. a – coefficient of heat transfer by convection " .001 v.nondimensional “vent area” coefficient W Av – vent area. (3.43 +0. W – volume per a given floor area 1 513 ! K= Cst Q [1 + (mµ 2 nµ1 ) µ 2 ] Co µ1 .1 [9] in this case is T 2300 o K . Froude’s parameter va g – gravity acceleration.285 lg Fr + if o= 1 + (0.000 The experimental data from Table C. Finally.1).2) o= 10 P = Po [2.
. BOCA etc.0264) – 7= 3. the maximum pressure of 678PSF on all surfaces is sufficient enough to lift up the upper floor system to demolish the floor system below and to create a free fall situation.144) – 0.5) [1.3304 kg/sm2= 0.2) and (3. The total time of load application is: tv = 5t0 = 5 (0.144 + 0.0074 (11) 0.0567 sec. 0 . the pressuretime curve can be represented as: Kv= (Compare Pmax = 678PSF with UBC.678 KSF Coefficient “K” in this case is assumed K=0.3) are representing an envelope of solutions of nondimensional differential equations describing heat and flame propagation.0264) (0.022 (121)] = = 0.(208)10(4)0.2) and (3. dynamics of chemical reaction and hydrodynamics of a nonstationary local explosion.640 Calculate maximum internal pressure based on formula (2): P= (1. Theoretical results based on equations (3. Calculate nondimensional time “ o” based on formula (3) (use a = 0.001 (0.3) have a good correlation with experimental data.7712 (5)108 = 0.3 (The time scale factor is 5( 10 8 ). for example [17] [18].7712 o= 8 4 2 (300. requirements of 100PSF and Amendment to the British Building Regulations of 720PSF). 3.3 sm2/sec): 1 15 (104)(0.031 (0. 1.5 (“real” airvapor concentration in a local volume is 50% of stoichiometric concentration).1).124 + 0. (3.144) – 0.0264)2 + (102)(0.284 sec Finally. Summary and Observations In the case of a local explosion.0567) = 0.48) t 0 = 3.75(10) = 0. Equations (3. The differential equations are presented in Appendix 1.285 (11) + + (0.1444 432. 2.
. = .horizontal velocity.W= . (1C)e 1 + + + Pr (V +W )= % L %X %z %W %W %W %p 3) + Pr ( ) (V +W )=(1. 0 heat transfer coefficient V = . Wo Volume (per given floor). V. z ) = $ 0 %n .. $ (0. Wvertical velocity. All generally accepted nondimensional parameters are taken from [7] [8]. = hV p hW p h2 pp 2 E RT0 h. 2 s = 0 .z)=0. x = p . %n u r uu r %$ grad / s = Bi ( ) . V0 = 0 .Vs) ! 3 % % ! [ (W – Ws)] + [ (V – Vs] %z %x %$ % ( $V ) % ( $W ) 5) + + (1 + Kv) = 0 % %x %z 6) P= / (1+ + ) Where nondimensional parameters are: z x E (T T0 ) ft 2 at gh 3 Fh #=a= .+ . 2 sec h RT0 h h #a W0 + E Q h e ! PT02 0 2 # # $ 0# a $ = $ p ÷ $ 0 .Appendix 1 1) % % % + Pr V +W % %x %z Kv 2 (W Ws ) + (V 2 n Vs ) 2 &% $ (W ×( ) %z Ws ) + + 2) % $ (V %x Vs ) 1} = .x. p= . x. (1 C ) e1+ + %C %C %C 1 C + . C(0. / s = 0 gradV / s = 0.vent area. Kv = . = 2 .Kv) + %x %x %z % 4 + Pr ( ) W + Fr( ) + Kv(W – Ws) ! 3 % % ! [ (W – Ws)] + [ (V – Vs)] %z %x 4) %V %V %V %P +Pr( ) (V +W )=(1. Fr = . z = p .floortofloor distance.. gradC / s = Bi ( C ) .Kv) + %x %z %x % 4 Pr( ) V + Kv (V . F.. Boundary and initial conditions are: %C / s = 0.
Petrov. New York: Mc GrawHill. Hall. Andrews: (2002) “Livesey Report” (PDF) 11. Rasbash: (1969) “Explosions in Domestic Structures Part One. Ph. Woodson. Baylot. J. M. J. (pp 319328) 8. (2002) 6. 61 pp 7599. Flames and Explosions of Gases”. Phylakton. Muller – Hillerbrand D. Dr. M. L. Kranthammer. Gere: (1961) “Theory of Elastic Stability” 2nd Edition. J. Inc. C. Academy of Science of USSR.47. Academic Press. Chen and P. Gasovich System. G. AISI. Dusenberry: (2004) “Review of Existing Guidelines and Provisions Related to Progressive Collapse” (PDF) (Progressive Collapse Workshop. A. S. B.. N. 10. T. Dr. ACI 31802 (2002) 2. Arlington. Dr. L. PCI Design Handbook. Razdolsky. B. Cogley: (2002) “The Design Professional’s Concerns Regarding Progressive Collapse Design” (PDF) 9. Cresswell and J. 124. A. Thesis. J. Vol. The Relief of Gas and Vapor Explosions” Structural Engineering. Timoshenico and J. S. (1964) “Interaction of Sheer Walls and Frames” Proceedings. Prof. 18. 14. Inc. 16. . J. Razdolsky. S. J. R. Hayes.Y. Dr. 15. G.A. New York. G. Dr. Allen Kuhl: (2002) “ThermoGasDynamic Model of After Burning in Explosions” (PDF) 13. A. Moscow. and Sbarounis. ASCE. Plenum. K. Dr. Librovich. V. Makhviladze: (1989) “The Mathematical Theory of Combustion and Exposions”. D. Petrov: (1977) “Building Design Loads in Case of Internal Airgasvapor Explosions” Stroitelnaya Mekhanica and Raschet Sooruzheney No. Khan F. Barenblatt. p597. 551559 12.References: 1. E. Russel. Butler: (1988) “An Investigation of Aluminum Dust Explosions” Science and Technology. L. 17. D. MA) 3. R. B. K. 5. 10. B. Ogle. Zeldovich. L. E. I. M. Y. 5. 48. T.: (1958) “Explosions Lasting” Teknisk Tidskrift. T. Beddow. Bradley. 5th Edition. 19. Arntzen: (2000) “Modeling of Turbulence and Combustion for Simulation of Gas Explosions in Complex Geometries”. Donald O. B. No. D. Prof.D. Von Elbe: (1987) “Combination. Puttock: (2001) “Flame Acceleration due to Flameinduced Instabilities in Largescale Explosions” Combustion and Flames. James R. V. R. Shtessel: (1977) “Critical Conditions of Local Explosions in Gravity Field” Gorenie Geterogeninick.88. Japan. Vol. 90 (St3). Shon: (2002) “Development of Progressive Collapse Analysis Procedure and Condition Assessment for Structures” (PDF) 4. Ya. Ar. Lewis and G. 285335. T. Dr. (2001) 7.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.