7/30/13

An Overview of Progressive Collapse | sedigest.in

Current Issue

Archives

Consult ancy Cards

IASt ruct E

Edit orial Board

Cont act

Fort hcoming Event s

TECHNICAL ARTICLE

E-Book
View the current issue in a new E-Book form at.

Poll Which of the following will have the most significant impact, in the future, on structural engineering profession?
Increasing use of m ore adv anced m aterials 29% Increasing im portance of Sustainability

An Overview of Progressive Collapse

Aut hors Ketul Ruparelia Student, CEPT Univ ersity Dr. P V Patel Professor, Nirm a Univ ersity Bhairav Patel Structural Engineer, VMS Engineering Abst ract Progressiv e collapse is spread of an initial local structural dam age causing partial or total collapse of structure. It is a kind of chain reaction where local dam age of prim ary load carry ing elem ent causes the collapse of adjoining m em bers which in turn, leads to additional collapse. The ultim ate collapse is disproportionate to the original cause. In today s fast growing infrastructure trend, it is necessary to accom m odate the m ost unfav orable situations in structure design. At the sam e tim e it is equally im portant to m ake it financially v iable. Progressiv e collapse is a situation which can be triggered from any kind of abnorm al loading or ev ent like v ehicle im pact, bom b blast, design or construction error etc. Failure of any load carry ing structural m em ber can lead to catastrophic failure. In present literature study , an attem pt has been m ade to cov er the basic aspects of progressiv e collapse like historical background, m echanism , dev elopm ent of guidelines etc.

News
NEWS FROM ABROAD

23% Increasing use of BIM (Building Inform ation Modelling) 17% Increasing use of Preengineered structures 2 5% Can't say 5% Total v otes: 9 2

Big buildings som etim es lead to big-bucks legal fights

Subscribe
Stay inform ed on our latest news! Email: *

Body 1. Int roduct ion:

Older polls

Subscribe

Progressiv e collapse is the result of a localized failure of one or two structural elem ents that lead to a steady progression of load transfer that exceeds the capacity of other surrounding elem ents, thus initiating the progression that leads to a total or partial collapse of the structure . Progressiv e collapse as a structural engineering point of v iew started taking attention when partial collapse of 2 2 storey Ronan Point apartm ent building occurred in London on May 1 6 , 1 9 6 8. This collapse generated considerable concern ov er the adequacy of existing building codes. After the partial collapse of Ronan Point apartm ent building, num ber of other collapses around the world took place, which could be placed in to category of progressiv e collapse. The collapse of Sky line Plaza in Virginia, the Civ ic Arena roof in Hartford, the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahom a City , the Khobar Towers - Saudi Arabia, the U.S. em bassies in Keny a and Tanzania, WTC Towers in New York were im portant collapse ev ents in the history of progressiv e collapse which changed the perspectiv e of the structural design. In norm al design practice, the abnorm al ev ents like, gas explosions, bom b attack, v ehicle im pacts, foundation failure, failure due to construction or design error etc are not considered. It is not econom ical as well to design the structures for accidental ev ents unless they hav e reasonable chance of occurrence. Considering these aspects, m any gov ernm ent authorities and local bodies hav e worked on dev eloping som e design guidelines to prev ent progressiv e collapse. Am ong these guidelines, U.S. General Serv ices Adm inistration (GSA) and Departm ent of Defense (DoD) guidelines by United Facilities Criteria (UFC) - New York, prov ide detailed stepwise procedure regarding m ethodologies to resist the progressiv e collapse of structure. In this procedure, one of the im portant v ertical structural elem ents in the load path i.e. colum n, load bearing wall etc. is rem ov ed to sim ulate the local dam age scenario and the rem aining structure is checked for av ailable alternate load path to resist the load. This paper describes the basic aspects of progressiv e collapse analy sis in brief along with the m echanism of progressiv e collapse, historical background and the dev elopm ent of guidelines. A little detailed inform ation on analy sis procedure, specified in GSA and UFC guidelines is also prov ided in dev elopm ent of guidelines section. 2. Mechanism of Progressive Collapse: Any collapse in a way could be regarded as progressiv e collapse, but it should be of special concern if the collapse is disproportionate to its original cause. The disproportionality refers

sedigest.in/article/overview-progressive-collapse

1/8

7/30/13

An Overview of Progressive Collapse | sedigest.in

to the situation in which failure of one m em ber causes a m ajor collapse of larger m agnitude com pared to initial ev ent. It is sim ilar to fall of cy cles in a cy cle stand when the first one is pushed. This can also be com pared with dom ino effect. Another exam ple is house of cards effect [fig. 1 ]. Based on different characteristic features, progressiv e collapse can be categorized in six different ty pes as described below [7 ].

Fig. 1 . House of Card Effect [8]

1) Pancake-ty pe collapse: failure sequence followed in this ty pe of collapse is; initiating ev ent, separation of structural com ponents, release of potential energy and the occurrence of im pact forces. Depending on the size of the falling com ponents, the potential energy of falling com ponents can far exceed the strain energy stored in the structure. The collapse of WTC towers of New York in Sept. 2 001 is exam ple of this ty pe of collapse where collapse is said to be initiated by weakening of the floor joists due to fire that resulted from the aircraft im pact. The loss of structural m em ber was lim ited to the few stories but it progressiv ely extended throughout the height of tower. The potential energy of upper part of collapsed m em bers conv erted in to kinetic energy which turned in to im pact force which was far bey ond the resisting capacity of the lower floors and ultim ately resulted in to total collapse of the tower. 2) Zipper-ty pe collapse: this ty pe of collapse is initiated by rupture of one cable and

propagating by ov erloading & rupture of adjacent cables. Exam ple of this ty pe of collapse is collapse of original Tacom a Narrows Bridge. After the first hangers of that suspension bridge snapped due to wind induced v ibrations of the bridge girder, the entire girder peeled off and fell. Im pact force does not ty pically occur in this ty pe of collapse, which is the case in pancake-ty pe collapse. 3) Dom ino-ty pe collapse: m echanism behind this ty pe of collapse is, initial ov erturning

of one elem ent, fall off that elem ent in angular rigid-body m otion around a bottom edge, transform ation of potential energy into kinetic energy , lateral im pact of the upper edge of that elem ent on the side face of an adjacent elem ent where the horizontal pushing force transm itted by that im pact is of both static and dy nam ic origin because of the tilting and the m otion of the im pacting elem ent, ov erturning of the adjacent elem ent due to the horizontal loading from the im pacting elem ent and collapse progression in the ov erturning direction. This ty pe of failure can occur in row of tem porary scaffolding towers. In ov erhead transm ission line towers also, this ty pe of collapse is com m on. 4) Section-ty pe collapse: when a m em ber under bending m om ent or axial tension is cut, the internal forces transm itted by that part are redistributed in to the rem aining cross section. The corresponding increase in stress at som e locations can cause the rupture of further cross sectional parts, and, in the sam e m anner, a failure progression throughout the entire cross section. This ty pe of failure can be term ed as fast fracture instead of progressiv e failure. 5) Instability -ty pe collapse: instability of structure is characterized by sm all im perfection which leads to large deform ations or collapse. For exam ple, the failure of a bracing elem ent due to som e sm all triggering ev ent can m ake a sy stem unstable and result in collapse. Another exam ple is failure of a plate stiffener leading to local instability and failure of the affected plate, and possibly to global collapse. Here propagating destabilization occurs when the failure of destabilized elem ents leads to the failure of stabilizing elem ents. 6) Mixed-ty pe collapse: this ty pe of collapse can be assigned to the structure where one or m ore possible failure reasons fall in to different category of progressiv e collapse. For exam ple, the partial collapse of the Murrah Federal Building (Oklahom a City ) seem s to hav e inv olv ed features of both a pancake-ty pe and dom ino-ty pe scenario. The horizontal forces, induced by an initial failure, that lead to ov erturning of other elem ents. This horizontal tensile force could hav e been induced by falling com ponents and transm itted to other elem ents through continuous reinforcing bars. Another exam ple is collapse of cable-stay ed bridges which fall in to category of zipper-ty pe and instability -ty pe failure. The girders and towers of cable-stay ed bridges are in com pression. They are braced by the stay cables. Thus, the loss of one or few cables can not only lead to unzipping, but also to instability failure.

sedigest.in/article/overview-progressive-collapse

2/8

7/30/13
3. Hist orical Background:

An Overview of Progressive Collapse | sedigest.in

In this section, attem pt has been m ade to prov ide brief inform ation on som e of the significant structural failures in past which hav e presented the world wide opportunities to ev aluate the v alidity of engineering approaches and design procedures. 3.1 Ronan Point Apart ment Building - London:

Ronan Point Apartm ent building, 2 2 -storey tower block in Newham , East London was nam ed after Harry Louis Ronan (a form er Chairm an of the Housing Com m ittee of the London Borough of Newham ). The tower was built by Tay lor Woodrow Anglian, using a technique known as Large Panel Sy stem building or LPS. This inv olv ed casting large concrete prefabricated sections off-site, then bolting them together to construct the building. Building started in 1 9 6 6 , and construction was com pleted on 1 1 March 1 9 6 8.

Fig. 2 . Ronan Point, 1 9 6 8 Collapse due to gas explosion [9 ] On 1 6 th May 1 9 6 8, a gas explosion took place on 1 8th floor that knocked out load bearing precast concrete panels near the corner of the building which caused the floors abov e to collapse [fig. 2 ]. This im pact set off a chain reaction of collapses all the way to the ground. The ultim ate result was collapse of the corner bay of the building from top to bottom . It is believ ed that the weakness was in the joints connecting the v ertical walls to the floor slabs [1 3 ]. 3.2 Sky line Plaza Nort h Virginia:

Sky line Plaza was a large com plex located in Bailey 's Crossroads, Virginia which included eight apartm ent buildings, six office buildings, a hotel, and a shopping center. The building that collapsed was to hav e contained 4 6 8 condom inium apartm ents. The construction of the Sky line Plaza began in the early 1 9 7 0 and was set to open in August 1 9 7 3 .

Fig. 3 . Sky line Plaza, 1 9 7 3 Prem ature form work rem ov al [1 0] In the m idst of construction on March 2 , 1 9 7 3 , progressiv e collapse occurred during construction of 2 4 th floor. The collapse inv olv ed the full height of the tower, and the falling debris also caused horizontal progressiv e collapse of an entire parking garage under construction adjacent to the tower [fig. 3 ]. The incident occurred at around 2 :3 0 in the afternoon and resulted in the death of 1 4 construction workers and the injury of 3 4 others. The m ost likely cause of the collapse was a punching shear failure of the 2 3 rd floor slab. The two factors that contributed to this were prem ature rem ov al of shores below the 2 3 rd floor slab, and the low strength of the 2 3 rd floor concrete in the area supporting the weight of the

sedigest.in/article/overview-progressive-collapse

3/8

7/30/13
2 4 th floor slab [1 3 ]. Civic Arena Roof - Hart ford:

An Overview of Progressive Collapse | sedigest.in

The Civ ic Arena roof in Hartford, a steel space fram e collapsed after heav y snow fall in January , 1 9 7 8 [fig. 4 ]. The prem ature buckling of one of the m em bers, resulted due to design error, caused progressiv e collapse. During construction in 1 9 7 2 and 1 9 7 3 , the inspection agency notified the engineers of excessiv e deflections. The m easured deflection of the roof was twice that predicted by com puter analy sis. On the day of the collapse, the sum of dead and liv e loads was less than the design load [1 8]. 3.4 Hy at t Regency Hot el, Kansas Cit y , U.S.:

Fig. 4 . Civ ic Arena Roof, 1 9 7 8 Collapsed due to design error [1 1 ]

Construction of the 4 0-storey Hy att Regency Crown Center of Kansas city , U.S. began in 1 9 7 8, and the hotel opened on July 1 , 1 9 80 after construction delay s including an incident on October 1 4 , 1 9 7 9 , when 2 ,7 00 square feet (2 50 m 2 ) of the atrium roof collapsed because one of the roof connections on the north end of the atrium failed.

Fig. 5. Hy att Regency Hotel, 1 9 81 Failure of Connection [1 2 ]

On July 1 7 , 1 9 81 , the Hy att Regency Hotel in Kansas City , Missouri, held a v ideotaped teadance party in their atrium lobby . Construction of the walk way was like; the fourth floor bridge was suspended directly ov er the second floor bridge, with the third floor walkway set off to the side sev eral m eters away from the other two. Construction difficulties led to a m inor but flawed design change that doubled the load on the connection between the fourth floor walkway support beam s and the tie rods carry ing the weight of both walkway s. This new design could barely handle the dead load weight of the structure itself, m uch less the weight of the spectators standing on it. The connection failed and both walkway s crashed one on top of the other and then into the lobby below as shown in fig. 5, killing 1 1 4 people and injuring m ore than 2 00 others [1 7 ].

sedigest.in/article/overview-progressive-collapse

4/8

7/30/13

An Overview of Progressive Collapse | sedigest.in

3.5

U.S. Marine Barracks - Lebanon:

The car bom b was detonated by a suicide bom ber driv ing a deliv ery v an packed with about 2 ,000 pounds (9 1 0 kg) of explosiv es at approxim ately on April 1 8, 1 9 83 that killed ov er 6 0 people, m ostly em bassy staff m em bers and United States Marines and sailors. The blast collapsed the entire central facade of the horseshoe-shaped building, leav ing the wreckage of balconies and offices in heaped tiers of rubble, and spewing m asonry , m etal and glass fragm ents in a wide swath [fig. 6 ]. The explosion was heard throughout West Beirut and broke windows as far as a m ile away [1 3 ].

Fig. 6 . U.S. Marine Barracks, Lebanon, 1 9 83 Terrorist Attack [1 3 ]

LAmbiance Plaza, Bridgeport : Lam biance plaza, a 1 6 -story apartm ent tower in Bridgeport, Conn., totally collapsed on April 1 9 87 , during construction, killing 2 8 construction workers. L'Am biance Plaza was to be a 1 6 story structure with 3 parking lev els and 1 3 apartm ent lev els. It was com posed of two offset rectangular towers, separated by a construction joint at a central elev ator lobby . The flat plate floors were designed to be constructed by the "lift slab sy stem ." The design used unbonded plastic-sheathed post-tensioning tendons in each direction. The m ajor design or construction deficiencies which led to total collapse were [1 7 ]; im proper drape of posttensioning tendons adjacent to elev ator openings, ov erstressed concrete slab sections adjacent to two tem porary floor slots for cast-in-place shear walls, ov erstressed and excessiv ely flexible steel lifting angles during slab lifting, and unreliable and inadequate tem porary slab-colum n connections to assure fram e stability [fig. 7 ]. 3.7 Murrah Federal Building, Oklahoma Cit y :

Fig. 7 . LAm bience Plaza, Bridgeport, 1 9 87 Construction and Design Error [1 4 ]

sedigest.in/article/overview-progressive-collapse

5/8

7/30/13

An Overview of Progressive Collapse | sedigest.in

Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahom a City was the target of terrorist attack in 1 9 9 5. The truck bom b explosion caused extensiv e dam age to the exterior colum ns. Suspended transfer girder resting on the exterior colum ns failed due to loss of support which triggered the progressiv e collapse of upper stories [fig. 8]. It was the m ost destructiv e act of terrorism on Am erican soil until the Septem ber 1 1 , 2 001 attacks. The Oklahom a blast claim ed 1 6 8 liv es, including 1 9 children under the age of 6 and injured m ore than 6 80 people. The blast destroy ed or dam aged 3 2 4 buildings within a sixteen-block radius destroy ed or burned 86 cars and shattered glass in 2 58 nearby buildings [1 3 ].

3.8 Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia:

Fig. 8. Alfred P. Murrah Building Collapse Terrorist Attack, 1 9 9 5 [1 5]

The Khobar Towers bom bing was a terrorist attack on part of a housing com plex in the city of Khobar, Saudi Arabia, located near the national oil com pany (Saudi Aram co) headquarters of Dhahran. In 1 9 9 6 , Khobar Towers was being used to house foreign m ilitary personnel.

Fig. 9 . Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia, 1 9 9 6 Terrorist Attack [1 6 ]

The attackers were reported to hav e sm uggled explosiv es into Saudi Arabia from Lebanon. In Saudi Arabia, they purchased a large gas tanker truck and conv erted it into a bom b. They prepared for the attack by hiding large am ounts of explosiv e m aterials and tim ing dev ices in paint cans and 50-kilogram bags, underground in Qatif near Khobar. The bom b was a m ixture of gasoline and explosiv e powder placed in the tank of a tanker truck. On June 2 5, 1 9 9 6 , a terrorist truck bom b exploded outside the northern perim eter of Khobar Towers resulted in to 1 9 fatalities and approxim ately 500 US wounded resulted from the attack [fig. 9 ]. The force of the explosion was enorm ous. It heav ily dam aged or destroy ed six high rise apartm ent buildings in the com plex. Windows were shattered in v irtually ev ery other building in the com pound and in surrounding buildings up to a m ile away . An enorm ous crater, 85 feet (2 6 m ) wide and 3 5 feet (1 1 m ) deep, was left where the truck had

sedigest.in/article/overview-progressive-collapse

6/8

7/30/13

An Overview of Progressive Collapse | sedigest.in

been and within a few hours was filling up partially with salt-water from the Persian Gulf, which is less than one m ile (1 .6 km ) away . The blast was felt 2 0 m iles (3 2 km ) away in the Persian Gulf state of Bahrain [1 3 ]. 4. Development of Guidelines:

After the collapse of the Ronan Point Apartm ent Tower in 1 9 6 8, m any codes and standards around the world, attem pted to address the issue of progressiv e collapse by prov iding prov isions in their relev ant guidelines. They were based on either explicit design requirem ents or on general structural integrity requirem ents. Most of the European, UK guidelines and building codes followed the explicit design requirem ent and U.S. codes followed the general structural integrity requirem ent. Sev eral US gov ernm ent agencies dev eloped the specific design guides which closely resem bled the requirem ents in the UK and European Codes [3 ]. A requirem ent to consider progressiv e collapse due to Local failure, caused by sev ere ov erloads was first introduced in the United States in the General Design Requirem ents section of ANSI St andard A58.1 , 1 9 7 2 , the first edition that appeared after the Ronan Point Collapse [4 ]. Later editions of 1 9 82 , 1 9 9 5 and 2 005 contained m ore com prehensiv e perform ance statem ent and check of strength & stability of structural sy stem s with recom m ended set of load com binations. The National Institute of Standards and Technology ( NIST 2005 ) presented a report on collapse of WTC, which prov ided recom m endations for im prov ing the safety of buildings, occupants and em ergency responders. In 2 006 , NIST presented a docum ent to prov ide owners and practicing engineers with best practices to reduce likelihood of progressiv e collapse of buildings in the ev ent of abnorm al loading [5]. The U.S. General Serv ices Adm inistration ( GSA ) published the general guidelines to assess the potential for progressiv e collapse in RCC and Steel buildings in 2 000 and 2 003 . These guidelines prov ide threat independent m ethodology to m inim ize the progressiv e collapse potential i.e. cause of elem ent failure is not considered. Guidelines prov ide sim plified approach i.e. Linear Procedure for low to m edium rise buildings i.e. building up to 1 0 storey and sophisticated approach i.e. Nonlinear Procedure for buildings abov e 1 0 storey or building with asy m m etrical configuration. The sim plest analy tical procedure to ev aluate the progressiv e collapse potential is Linear Static Method where the perform ance of structure is ev aluated by dem and to capacity ratio (DCR), which should not exceed 2 for regular structures and 1 .5 for irregular structures or else they are considered as sev erely dam aged or failed [1 ]. GSA has defined the DCR as the ratio of Dem and to Capacity where Dem and is the acting force in term s of m om ent, axial force, shear and possible com bined force while capacity is ultim ate, un-factored capacity of the com ponent and/or connection/joint. In this procedure, one of the v ertical load bearing structural elem ents is rem ov ed as per the locations specified in the guidelines and the rem aining structure is checked for the alternate load path for grav ity load com bination. For static analy sis procedure, load com bination defined in the guidelines is 2 (DL + 0.2 5LL); where factor 2 is prov ided to function as dy nam ic m agnification factor to sim ulate dy nam ic response. For dy nam ic analy sis procedure, the load com bination defined is (DL + 0.2 5LL). There are v arious analy sis approaches prev ailing through which, the potential for progressiv e collapse can be ev aluated. They are m ainly , 1. Direct Design Approach: Direct design approach includes (a) Alternate Path Method, which requires that the structure be capable of bridging ov er a m issing structural elem ent (b) Specific Local Resistance (SLR) Method, which requires that the building, or parts of the building, prov ide sufficient strength to resist a specific load. 2. Indirect Design Approach: This approach is based on prov ision of m inim um lev el of strength, continuity and ductility . It em phasizes on good plan lay out, integrated tie sy stem , ductile detailing and extra reinforcem ent for accidental loading and load rev ersal. Thus Indirect Method is likely to be prim ary m ethod used to enhance the robustness of the building Departm ent of Defense ( DoD) of U.S. has also published the sim ilar guidelines under Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) in 2 002 to reduce the potential of progressiv e collapse for the buildings that experiences significant structural dam age under abnorm al loading condition [6 ]. This guideline prov ides three analy sis approaches for progressiv e collapse analy sis requirem ent; 1. Tie Force Method: In this approach, the building is m echanically tied together to enhance continuity and ductility which also help to dev elop the alternate load paths. 2. Alternate Load Path Method: This m ethod is used to determ ine the bridge ov er capacity of the structure when one of the load carry ing elem ents is rem ov ed. 3. Enhanced Local Resistance Method: In this m ethod, enhance local resistance is prov ided through flexural and shear resistance of perim eter building colum ns and load bearing walls. Load com bination defined by the guidelines is Static analy sis: 2 [(0.9 or 1 .2 )DL + (0.5LL or 0.2 SL)] + 0.2 WL Dy nam ic analy sis: [(0.9 or 1 .2 )DL + (0.5LL or 0.2 SL)] + 0.2 WL Upward loads on floor slabs: 1 .0 DL + 0.5LL ; Where DL = Dead Load, LL = Liv e Load

sedigest.in/article/overview-progressive-collapse

7/8

7/30/13

An Overview of Progressive Collapse | sedigest.in

and WL = Wind Load and SL = Snow Load This way , in this analy sis procedure, additional effect of lateral load and upward com ponent of grav ity load is considered to assess the progressiv e collapse potential. Also these guidelines specify colum n rem ov al conditions on each floor one at a tim e, which was just on ground floor in GSA guidelines. The Indian Institute of Technology , Kanpur ( IITK) and Gujarat State Disaster Managem ent Authority ( GSDMA ) has published a docum ent called Measures to Mitigate the Terrorist Attacks on Buildings in 2 007 , which cov ers m ostly the qualitativ e aspects [2 ]. 5. Closure:

It is not alway s feasible to design structures for absolute safety , nor is it econom ical to design for abnorm al ev ents unless they hav e a reasonable chance of occurrence. Alternativ ely , proper structural design can greatly reduce the possibility of progressiv e collapse by pay ing due attention to structural details and m aterial properties. The m echanism and history of building collapses presented in the study , prov ide the inform ation on probable cause of failure and behav ior of building at the tim e of collapse, which helps to design the building in better way . 6. References:

[1 ] US General Serv ice Adm inistration (GSA 2 003 ), Progressiv e Collapse Analy sis and Design Guidelines for New Federal Office Buildings and Major Modernization Projects, 2 003 , USA [2 ] IITK GSDMA, Guidelines on m easures to m itigate effects of terrorist attacks on buildings, I ndian I nstitute of Technology, Kanpur & Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority, July 2 007 . [3 ] H.S. Lew, Best practices guidelines for m itigation of building progressiv e collapse, May 2 003 . [4 ] Bruce R. Ellingwood, Mitigating risk from abnorm al loads and progressiv e collapse, Journal of performance of constructed facilities / ASCE, pp. 3 1 5-3 2 3 , Nov . 2 006 . [5] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Best practices for reducing the potential for progressive collapse in buildings , U.S. Departm ent of Com m erce, Technology Adm inistration, NIST, U.S.A., August 2 006 . [6 ] United Facilities Criteria (UFC 4 -02 3 -03 ), Design of buildings to resist the progressive collapse, Departm ent of Defense, New York [7 ] Uwe Starossek, Ty pology of Progressiv e Collapse, Engineering Structures, Science Direct, Vol. 2 9 : 2 3 02 -2 3 07 , 2 007 7. Web Resources:

[8] http://hiddenirony .wordpress.com /2 01 1 /03 /2 3 /bell-m ohler-driscoll-and-thetheological-house-of-cards/ [9 ] http://m odernhistorian.blogspot.com /2 009 /05/on-this-day -in-history -collapseof.htm l [1 0] http://failures.wikispaces.com /Progressiv e+ Collapse+ Ov erv iew [1 1 ] http://www.courant.com /com m unity /hartford/hc-1 9 7 8-civ ic-center-collapsepg,0,6 1 07 889 .photogallery [1 2 ] http://www.ny tim es.com /2 008/07 /2 7 /us/2 7 hy att.htm l [1 3 ] http://en.wikipedia.org/ [1 4 ] http://m atdl.org/failurecases/Building_Collapse_Cases/L_Am biance_Plaza [1 5] http://9 1 1 research.wtc7 .net/non9 1 1 /oklahom a/index.htm l [1 6 ] http://www.globalsecurity .org/security /profiles/khobar_towers_bom bing.htm [1 7 ] http://www.engineering.com /Library / [1 8] http://m atdl.org/failurecases/Building_Collapse_Cases/Hartford_Civ ic_Center

sedigest.in/article/overview-progressive-collapse

8/8