2012
DOI: 10.1061/(asce)sc.1943-5576.0000126
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Alternate Path Method in Progressive Collapse Analysis: Variation of Dynamic and Nonlinear Load Increase Factors

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
3
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 73 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
17
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The UFC guideline for nonlinear static analysis recommends the use of the Ω N dynamic increase factor (DIF) in increased gravity load combination to those bays immediately adjacent to the removed element and at all floors above the removed element (UFC, 2016). The empirical formula of DIF obtained by McKay et al (2012) and adopted in the UFC guidelines is based on the hypothesis that the controlling beam has reached its maximum allowable plastic hinge rotation capacity. Several existing studies (Ferraioli, 2019b; Liu, 2013, 2016; Tsai, 2012) have already stated that the DIF should be calculated based on the actual (as opposed to maximum allowable) plastic deformation level.…”
Section: Analytical Modeling Of Progressive Collapsementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The UFC guideline for nonlinear static analysis recommends the use of the Ω N dynamic increase factor (DIF) in increased gravity load combination to those bays immediately adjacent to the removed element and at all floors above the removed element (UFC, 2016). The empirical formula of DIF obtained by McKay et al (2012) and adopted in the UFC guidelines is based on the hypothesis that the controlling beam has reached its maximum allowable plastic hinge rotation capacity. Several existing studies (Ferraioli, 2019b; Liu, 2013, 2016; Tsai, 2012) have already stated that the DIF should be calculated based on the actual (as opposed to maximum allowable) plastic deformation level.…”
Section: Analytical Modeling Of Progressive Collapsementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The M2-X -ATF model is used in these simulations since UFC 4-023-03 (DoD [2]) require that "for elements with inadequate horizontal tie force capacity, the Alternate Path method cannot be used". The following steps have to be performed to assess the DIF according to the procedures proposed in McKay et al [33] and UFC 4-023-03 (DoD [2]):…”
Section: Calculation Of Dynamic Increase Factormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Marjanishvili and Agnew (2006) researched the differences between the results from the AP method using linear static, nonlinear static, nonlinear dynamic, and linear dynamic analyses, finding that the evaluation criteria for the linear analyses were not conservative when compared to nonlinear analyses. McKay et al (2012) studied the dynamic and nonlinear increase factors for the AP method, proposing new methods for selecting the linear static load increase factor and the nonlinear static dynamic increase factors. While the AP method is useful for the design of structures to resist a progressive collapse, it is not used to assess the capability of a structure to resist a progressive collapse after a blast has occurred.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%