Steel and Composite Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of seismic design level on safety against progressive collapse of concentrically braced frames

  • Received : 2012.10.23
  • Accepted : 2013.09.25
  • Published : 2014.02.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this research the effect of seismic design level as a practical approach for progressive collapse mitigation and reaching desired structural safety against it in seismically designed concentric braced frame buildings was investigated. It was achieved by performing preliminary and advanced progressive collapse analysis of several split-X braced frame buildings, designed for each seismic zone according to UBC 97 and by applying various Seismic Load Factors (SLFs). The outer frames of such structures were studied for collapse progression while losing one column and connected brace in the first story. Preliminary analysis results showed the necessity of performing advanced element loss analysis, consisting of Vertical Incremental Dynamic Analysis (VIDA) and Performance-Based Analysis (PBA), in order to compute the progressive collapse safety of the structures while increasing SLF for each seismic zone. In addition, by sensitivity analysis it became possible to introduce the equation of structural safety against progressive collapse for concentrically braced frames as a function of SLF for each seismic zone. Finally, the equation of progressive collapse safety as a function of bracing member capacity was presented.

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 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 Spec. Build., 20(2), 190-207.
  3. Asgarian, B. and Rezvani, F.H. (2012), "Progressive collapse analysis of concentrically braced frames through EPCA algorithm", J. Construct. Steel Res., 70, 127-136. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2011.10.022
  4. Asgarian, B., Sadrinezhad, A. and Alanjari, P. (2010), "Seismic performance evaluation of steel moment frames through incremental dynamic analysis", J. Construct. 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. Construct. 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", Compos. 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. Construct. Steel Res., 65(6), 1269-1278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2009.02.001
  9. Iranian national building codes for structural design (INBCSD) (2006), Part 6: Minimum Building Loads.
  10. Khandelwal, K., El-Tawil, S. and Sadek, F. (2009), "Progressive collapse analysis of seismically designed steel braced frames", J. Construct. Steel Res., 65(3), 699-708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2008.02.007
  11. Kim, J. and Kim, T. (2009), "Assessment of progressive collapse-resisting capacity of steel moment frames", J. Construct. Steel Res., 65(1), 169-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2008.03.020
  12. 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
  13. Kim, J., Lee, Y. and Choi, H. (2011), "Progressive collapse resisting capacity of braced frames", Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build., 20(2), 257-270. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.574
  14. Liu, J.L. (2010), "Preventing progressive collapse through strengthening beam-to-column connection, Part 1: Theoretical analysis", J. Construct. 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.
  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. Rezvani, F.H. and Asgarian, B. (2012), "Element loss analysis of concentrically braced frames considering structural performance criteria", Steel Compos. Struct., Int. J., 12(3), 231-248. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2012.12.3.231
  20. Staroseek, U. (2007), "Typology of progressive collapse", Eng. Struct., 29(9), 2302-2307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.11.025
  21. Unified Building Code (1997), International Conference of Building Officials.
  22. Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) (2009), Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Collapse, Department of Defense, Washington D.C.
  23. 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 D.C.
  24. Vamvatsicos, D. and Cornell, C.A. (2002), "Incremental dynamic analysis", Earth Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31(3), 491-514. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.141

Cited by

  1. Structural response of a MRF exposed to travelling fire vol.168, pp.9, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1680/jstbu.14.00046
  2. Effect of inverted-V bracing on retrofitting against progressive collapse of steel moment resisting frames vol.17, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-017-9019-4
  3. Assessment of eccentrically braced frames strength against progressive collapse vol.17, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-017-6014-8
  4. Progressive collapse analysis of steel frame structure based on the energy principle vol.21, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2016.21.3.553
  5. Seismic analysis of steel structure with brace configuration using topology optimization vol.21, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2016.21.3.501
  6. Design guides to resist progressive collapse for steel structures vol.20, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2016.20.2.357
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Experimental study on seismic performance of reinforced concrete frames retrofitted with eccentric buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) vol.12, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2017.12.1.079
  10. Effect of column loss location on structural response of a generic steel moment resisting frame vol.25, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2017.25.2.217
  11. Mitigation of progressive collapse in steel structures using a new passive connection vol.70, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2019.70.4.381
  12. Estimating the cross-sectional area of inverted-V braces required for mitigating the progressive collapse of Steel Intermediate Moment Resisting Frames vol.15, pp.8, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2019.1602148