Steel and Composite Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Element loss analysis of concentrically braced frames considering structural performance criteria

  • Received : 2011.06.10
  • Accepted : 2011.12.27
  • Published : 2012.03.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This research aims to investigate the structural behavior of concentrically braced frames after element loss by performing nonlinear static and dynamic analyses such as Time History Analysis (THA), Pushdown Analysis (PDA), Vertical Incremental Dynamic Analyses (VIDA) and Performance-Based Analysis (PBA). Such analyses are to assess the potential and capacity of this structural system for occurrence of progressive collapse. Besides, by determining the Failure Overload Factors (FOFs) and associated failure modes, it is possible to relate the results of various types of analysis in order to save the analysis time and effort. Analysis results showed that while VIDA and PBA according to FEMA 356 are mostly similar in detecting failure mode and FOFs, the Pushdown Overload Factors (PDOFs) differ from others at most to the rate of 23%. Furthermore, by sensitivity analysis it was observed that among the investigated structures, the eight-story frame had the most FOF. Finally, in this research the trend of FOF and the FOF to critical member capacity ratio for the plane split-X braced frames were introduced as a function of the number of frame stories.

Keywords

References

  1. American Society of Civil Engineers (2005), ASCE 7-05: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, New York.
  2. Asgarian, B. and Hashemi Rezvani, F. (2012), "Progressive collapse analysis of concentrically braced frames through EPCA algorithm", J. Constr. Steel Res., 70, 127-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2011.10.022
  3. Asgarian, B. and Jalaeefar, A. (2009), "Incremental dynamic analysis of steel braced frames designed based on the first, second and third editions of the Iranian seismic code (Standard No. 2800)", Struct. Des. Tall Special Build., 20(2), 190-207.
  4. Asgarian, B., Sadrinezhad, A. and Alanjari, P. (2010), "Seismic performance evaluation of steel moment frames through incremental dynamic analysis", J. Constr. Steel Res., 66(2), 178-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2009.09.001
  5. Asgarian, B. and Shokrgozar, H.R. (2008), "BRBF response modification factor", J. Constr. Steel Res., 65(2), 290-298.
  6. Black, R.G., Wenger, W.A.B. and Popov, E.P. (1980), "Inelastic buckling of steel struts under cyclic load reversals". Report No: UCB/EERC-80/40.
  7. England, J., Agarwal, J. and Blockley, D. (2008), "The vulnerability of structures to unforeseen events", Comput. Struct., 86(10), 1042-1051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2007.05.039
  8. Fu, F. (2009), "Progressive collapse analysis of high-rise building with 3-D finite element modeling method", J. Constr. Steel Res., 65(6), 1269-1278.
  9. Iranian national building codes for structural design, Part 6: Minimum Building Loads. (2006).
  10. Khandelwal, K., El-Tawil, S. and Sadek, F. (2009), "Progressive collapse analysis of seismically designed steel braced frames", J. Constr. Steel Res., 65(3), 699-708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2008.02.007
  11. Kim, H., Kim, J. and An, D. (2009), "Development of integrated system for progressive collapse analysis of building structures considering dynamic effect", Adv. Eng. Software., 40(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2008.03.011
  12. Kim, J. and Kim, T. (2009), "Assessment of progressive collapse-resisting capacity of steel moment frames", J. Constr. Steel Res., 65(1), 169-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2008.03.020
  13. Kim, J., Lee, Y. and Choi, H. (2009), "Progressive collapse resisting capacity of braced frames", Struct. Des. Tall Special Build., 20(2), 257-270.
  14. Liu, J.L. (2010), "Preventing progressive collapse through strengthening beam-to-column connection, Part 1: Theoretical analysis", J. Constr. Steel Res., 66(2), 229-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2009.09.006
  15. Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F., Scott, M.H., Fenves, G.L. and Jeremic, B. (2007), OpenSees command language manual.
  16. National Institute of Standard and Technology (NIST) (2007), Best practices for reducing the potential for progressive collapse in buildings, NISTIR 7396, Technology administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
  17. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings (FEMA 356). (2000), Federal emergency management agency.
  18. Pujol, S. and Smith-Pardo, J.P. (2009), "A new perspective on the effects of abrupt column removal", Eng. Struct., 31(4), 869-874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.11.022
  19. Staroseek, U. (2007),"Typology of progressive collapse", Eng. Struct., 29, 2302-2307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.11.025
  20. U.S. General Service Administration (U.S. GSA). (2003), Progressive collapse analysis and design guidelines for new federal office buildings and major modernization projects. Washington (DC).
  21. Unified Building Code. (1997), International Conference of Building Officials.
  22. Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC). (2009), Design of buildings to resist progressive collapse. Washington (DC): Dept. of Defense.
  23. Vamvatsicos, D. and Cornell, C.A. (2002), "Incremental dynamic analysis". Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31(3), 491-514. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.141

Cited by

  1. Failure progression resistance of a generic steel moment-resisting frame under beam-removal scenarios vol.8, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSI-02-2016-0008
  2. Structural behavior of conventional and buckling restrained braced frames subjected to near-field ground motions vol.7, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2014.7.4.553
  3. Effect of span length on progressive collapse behaviour of steel moment resisting frames vol.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2015.03.004
  4. Consequence-based robustness assessment of a steel truss bridge vol.14, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2013.14.4.379
  5. Structural response of a MRF exposed to travelling fire vol.168, pp.9, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1680/jstbu.14.00046
  6. Effect of seismic design level on safety against progressive collapse of concentrically braced frames vol.16, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2014.16.2.135
  7. Collapse behaviour in reciprocal frame structures vol.46, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2013.46.4.533
  8. Effect of Span Length on Behavior of MRF Accompanied with CBF and MBF Systems vol.171, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.01.431
  9. Effect of column loss location on structural response of a generic steel moment resisting frame vol.25, pp.2, 2012, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2017.25.2.217