Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer


Vol. 10 (2023)

Evaluation of the Failure Probability of a 2D RC Frame Subjected to Column Loss

January 7, 2023


Abstract: This study regards the evaluation of the failure probability of a symmetrical 2D reinforced concrete frame composed of 4 spans and 5 floors, in case of an accidental event which causes the central base column loss. The frame is an internal one of a typical building designed in a highly seismic area, characterised by a high ductility class. The frame is modelled in the non-linear finite elements software Atena 2D, accounting for both geometrical and material non-linearities. The uncertainties relevant to the problem are included by sampling both material and action variables, adopting the Latin Hypercube Sampling technique. To compute the failure probability associated to the accidental scenario, two sets of analyses are considered: the first set to compute the capacity of the structure against the column removal by means of displacement-controlled pushdown analysis; the second set to evaluate the demand in terms of external loads, properly combined within the accidental combination according to the codes. The external load is then amplified in order to include the dynamic effects characterising a scenario of a structural member loss. Finally, the probability of the demand exceeding the capacity is evaluated.


  1. Ellingwood BR. Mitigating risk from abnormal loads and progressive collapse. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2006; 20(4): 315-323.
  2. JCSS. Probabilistic Model Code, Part 1 - Basis of Design 2000.
  3. Botte W, Droogné D, Caspeele R. Reliability-based resistance of RC element subjected to membrane action and their sensitivity to uncertainties. Eng. Struct. 2021; 238: 112259.
  4. Xu G, Ellingwood B. Probabilistic Robustness Assessment of Pre-Northridge Steel Moment Resisting Frames. J. Struct. Eng. 2011; 137(9): 925-934.
  5. Brunesi E, Nascimbene R, Parisi F, et al. Progressive Collapse Fragility of Reinforced Concrete Framed Structures through Incremental Dynamic Analysis. Eng. Struct. 2015; 104: 65-79.
  6. Arshian A, Morgenthal G, Narayanan S. Influence of modelling strategies on uncertainty propagation in the alternate path mechanism of reinforced concrete framed structures. Eng. Struct. 2016; 110: 36-47.
  7. Bhattacharya B. A reliability based measure of structural robustness for coherent systems. Struct. Saf. 2021; 89: 102050.
  8. Stewart M, Netherton M, Rosowsky D. Terrorism Risks and Blast Damage to Built Infrastructure. Nat. Haz. Rev. 2006; 7(3): 114-122.
  9. MIT, Istruzioni per l'applicazione dell'«Aggiornamento delle "Norme tecniche per le costruzioni"» di cui al decreto ministeriale 17 gennaio 2018, 2019.
  10. European Committee for Standardization, Eurocode 8 - Design of Structures for earthquake resistance, 1998.
  11. Cervenka Consulting s.r.o., ATENA 2D v5, Prague, Czech Republic, 2014.
  12. Saatcioglu M, Razvi SR. Strength and ductility of confined concrete. J. Struct. Eng. 1993; 119(10): 3109-3110.
  13. Department of Communities and Local Government. The building regulations 2010 - structure: approved document A. UK: HM Government; 2010.
  14. ASCE Standard 7-02, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7-16) (2016), American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
  15. Adam J M, Buitrago M, Bertolesi E, et al. Dynamic Performance of a Real-scale Reinforced Concrete Building Test under a Corner-column Failure Scenario. Eng. Struct. 2020; 210: 110414.
  16. European Committee for Standardization, Eurocode 1 - Actions on structures - Part 1-7: General actions - Accidental actions, 1991.
  17. General Services Administration (GSA). Alternative path analysis and design guidelines for progressive collapse resistance. Washington, DC: Office of Chief Architects; 2013.
  18. United States Departement of Defence (DoD), Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC): design of buildings to resist progressive collapse, Washington, D.C., Nov. 2016.
  19. Kaewkulchai G, Williamson EB. Beam element formulation and solution procedure for dynamic progressive collapse analysis. Comput. Struct.2004; 82(7-8): 639-651.
  20. Pretlove AJ, Ramsden M, Atkins A. Dynamic effects in progressive failure of structures. Int. J. Impact Eng. 1991; 11(4): 539-546.
  21. Gino D, Castaldo P, Giordano L, Mancini G. Model Uncertainty in Non‐linear Numerical Analyses of Slender Reinforced Concrete Members. Struct. Concr. 2021; 845-70.
  23. JCSS, Probabilistic Model Code, Part 2 - Load Models., 2001.
  24. JCSS, Probabilistic Model Code, Part 3 - Resistance Models, 2002.
  25. Fib, Model Code for Concrete Structures, 2010.
  26. Khandelwal KS, El-Tawil S. Pushdown resistance as a measure of robustness in progressive collapse analysis, Eng. Struct. 2011; 33(9): 2653-2661.
  27. Ferraioli M, Avossa AM, Mandara A. Assessment of Progressive Collapse Capacity of Earthquake-Resistant Steel Moment Frames Using Pushdown Analysis. Open Constr. Build. Technol. J. 2014; 8(1): 324-336.
  28. Fib, Partial factor methods for existing concrete structures. Bulletin no. 80: 2016.
  29. CEN EN 1990 Eurocode. 2002. "Basis of structural design." Brussels.
  30. Implementation of Eurocodes Handbook 2 - Reliability backgrounds. Leonardo Da Vinci Project. Prague, 2005.
  31. ISO 2394: 2015: General principles on reliability for structures. Genéve, 2015.
  32. Paté-Cornell M. (1994). Quantitative safety goals for risk management of industrial facilities. Struct. Saf. 1994; 13(3): 145-157.
  33. Izzuddin BA, Vlassis AG, Elghazouli AY, Nethercot DA. Progressive collapse of multi-storey buildings due to sudden column loss - Part I: Simplified assessment framework. Eng. Struct. 2008; 30(5): 1308-1318.