Modeling Consequences due to Failure of Extraordinary Structures

  • Michael Havbro Faber
  • Oliver Kübler
  • Mario Fontana
Conference paper


The collapse of the World Trade Centre buildings in New York on September 11, 2001 constitutes the first event in where buildings of the aforementioned type have failed completely. Despite the atypical and meaningless cause of the tragic failure it might be possible to learn something from the event, whereby the design basis of similar future structures can be enhanced. Of special importance is the assessment of the actual consequences in case of failure. The present paper considers the development of a general framework for the consequence assessment of extraordinary building structures and high-rise buildings in particular.


Risk Aversion Failure Consequence World Trade Centre Federal Emergency Management Agency Structural Safety 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barry D. (2003). A New Account of Sept. 11 loss, With 40 Fewer Souls to Mourn. New York Times, October 29, 2003.Google Scholar
  2. Faber M.H. (2001). Reliability of Exceptional Structures. World Congress Safety of Modern Technical Systems, Congress-Documentation, Saarbrücken, 2001.Google Scholar
  3. Faber M.H. & Sørensen J.D. (2003). Optimal Code Calibration — the JCSS Approach. Proceedings of ICASP9, Vol. 1, pp. 927–935, San Francisco, USA, July 6-9, 2003.Google Scholar
  4. Faber M.H. & Maes M.A. (2003). Modelling of Risk Perception in Engineering Decision Analysis. Reliability and Optimization of Structural Systems 2003 Proceeding of the 11th IFIP WG 7.5 Working Conference, Banff, Alberta, Canada, November 2-5, 2003. Balkemad.Google Scholar
  5. FEMA (2002). A Nation Remembers, A Nation Recovers: Responding to September 11, 2001 — One Year Later. Federal Emergency Management Agency.Google Scholar
  6. Kübier O. & Faber M.H. (2002). Optimality and Acceptance Criteria in Offshore Design. Proceedings of OMAE 2002.Google Scholar
  7. Maes M.A. & Faber M.H. (2003). Issues in Utility Modeling and Rational Decision Making. Reliability and Optimization of Structural Systems 2003 Proceeding of the 11th IFIP WG 7.5 Working Conference, Banff, Alberta, Canada, November 2-5, 2003. Balkema.Google Scholar
  8. Nathwani J.S., Lind N.C. & Pandey, M.D. (1997). Affordable Safety by Choice: The Life Quality Method. Inst. for Risk Research, Univ. of Waterloo, Canada.Google Scholar
  9. Rackwitz R. (2000). Optimization — the basis of code-making and reliability verification. Structural Safety, 22, pp. 27–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Rackwitz, R. (2001). A New Approach for Setting Target Reliabilities. Proc. Int. Conference on Safety, Risk and Reliability — Trends in Engineering, IABSE.Google Scholar
  11. Rackwitz R. (2003). Acceptable Risks and Affordable Risk Control for Technical Facilities and Optimization, submitted for publication in Reliability Engineering and Systems Safety, Sept., 2003.Google Scholar
  12. Rosenblueth E. & Mendoza E. (1971). Reliability Optimization in Isostatic Structures. Journ. Eng. Mech. Division, 97 EM6: 1625–1642.Google Scholar
  13. Skjong R. & Ronold K.O. (1998). Societal Indicators and Risk Acceptance. Proc. 17th Int. Conference on Offshore Mechanic and Artic Engineering, ASME.Google Scholar
  14. Thompson W.C. (2002). One Year Later — The Fiscal Impact of 9/11 on New York City. Comptroller of the City of New York, Sept. 4, 2002.Google Scholar
  15. Hartwig R.P. (2002). Special Issue on the Economic Consequences of the September 11 Attacks on National Insurance Markets. Geneva Association. Working Paper No. 251.Google Scholar
  16. Voortman H.G. (2002). Risk-based design of large-scale flood defense systems. PhD Thesis. Technical University of Delft.Google Scholar
  17. Lind N.C. (1977). Reliability-Based Structural Codes — Optimization Theory. International Research Seminar on Safety of Structures under Dynamic Loading. Vol. 1.Google Scholar
  18. JCSS (2001): Probabilistic model code. The Joint Committee on Structural Safety.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Havbro Faber
    • 1
  • Oliver Kübler
    • 1
  • Mario Fontana
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Structural EngineeringSwiss Federal Institute of Technology ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations