Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.    2019, Vol. 13 Issue (4) : 904-917     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-019-0525-7
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Seismic progressive-failure analysis of tall steel structures under beam-removal scenarios
Behrouz BEHNAM1(), Fahimeh SHOJAEI2, Hamid Reza RONAGH3
1. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran 13496, Iran
2. Independent Researcher, Earthquake Engineer, Parand 37611, Iran
3. Centre for Infrastructure Engineering, Western Sydney University, NSW 2751, Australia
Download: PDF(2354 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Investigating progressive collapse of tall structures under beam removal scenarios after earthquake is a complex subject because the earthquake damage acts as an initial condition for the subsequent scenario. An investigation is performed here on a 10 story steel moment resisting structure designed to meet the life safety level of performance when different beam removal scenarios after earthquake are considered. To this end, the structure is first subjected to the design earthquake simulated by Tabas earthquake acceleration. The beam removal scenarios are then considered at different locations assuming that both ends connections of the beam to columns are simultaneously detached from the columns; thus the removed beam falls on the underneath floor with an impact. This imposes considerable loads to the structure leading to a progressive collapse in all the scenarios considered. The results also show that the upper stories are much more vulnerable under such scenarios than the lower stories. Hence, more attention shall be paid to the beam-to-column connections of the upper stories during the process of design and construction.

Keywords progressive collapse      tall steel moment-resisting frames      non-linear dynamic analysis      beam-removal scenario      impact     
Corresponding Authors: Behrouz BEHNAM   
Just Accepted Date: 07 March 2019   Online First Date: 16 April 2019    Issue Date: 10 July 2019
 Cite this article:   
Behrouz BEHNAM,Fahimeh SHOJAEI,Hamid Reza RONAGH. Seismic progressive-failure analysis of tall steel structures under beam-removal scenarios[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(4): 904-917.
 URL:  
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-019-0525-7
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2019/V13/I4/904
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Behrouz BEHNAM
Fahimeh SHOJAEI
Hamid Reza RONAGH
Fig.1  Transverse impact on flexible bodies [15]. (a) Impact on flexible bodies; (b) an equivalent SDOF system
Fig.2  Impact the beam fallen on the receiving beam
Fig.3  Steps of seismic progressive-failure analysis under beam-removal scenarios
Fig.4  Application of the gravity and seismic loads to the structure in a time domain fashion. (a) Application of the gravity loads to the structure; (b) application of the seismic loads to the structure
Fig.5  Conceptual plastic hinge states
Fig.6  The plan view of the case study (dimensions are in m)
story 1, 2 3, 4, 5 6, 7 8, 9 10
beam B1: 2IPE300
PL A= 250 × 12
PL B= 270 × 10
B2: 2IPE270
PL A= 220 × 12
PL B= 230 × 10
B3: 2IPE240
PL A= 200 × 10
PL B= 210 × 10
B4: 2IPE200
PL A= 150 × 10
PL B= 150 × 10
B5: 2IPE200
PL A= 150 × 8
PL B= 150 × 8
Tab.1  Cross-sectional information of beams (dimensions are in mm)
story 1 2, 3, 4 5, 6 7, 8 9, 10
column C1: B= 400, t = 20 C2: B= 400, t = 15 C3: B= 350, t = 15 C4: B= 300, t = 15 C5: B= 250, t = 12
Tab.2  Cross-sectional information of columns (dimensions are in mm)
Fig.7  Stress-strain behavior of steel
scenario location
story frame span map sign
1 2 5 B-C 2-5-BC
2 6 5 B-C 6-5-BC
3 9 5 B-C 9-5-BC
4 2 3 B-C 2-3-BC
5 6 3 B-C 6-3-BC
6 9 3 B-C 9-3-BC
7 9 F 4-5 9-F-45
8 9 F 3-4 9-F-34
Tab.3  The beam-removal scenarios
item section type qy performance level acceptance criteria maximum rotation after the earthquake analysis
column section C1 0.0061 IO 0.0122 IO<0.0214<LS
LS 0.0366
CP 0.0488
C2 0.0065 IO 0.0130 IO<0.0228<LS
LS 0.0039
CP 0.0052
C3 0.0085 IO 0.0170 IO<0.0255<LS
LS 0.0510
CP 0.0680
C4 0.0101 IO 0.0202 IO<0.0303<LS
LS 0.0606
CP 0.0808
C5 0.0120 IO 0.0240 0.018<IO
LS 0.0720
CP 0.0960
beam section B1 0.0090 IO 0.0180 IO<0.0401<LS
LS 0.0540
CP 0.0720
B2 0.0103 IO 0.0210 IO<0.0041<LS
LS 0.0620
CP 0.0820
B3 0.0110 IO 0.0220 IO<0.0418<LS
LS 0.0660
CP 0.0880
B4 0.0140 IO 0.0280 IO<0.0420<LS
LS 0.0840
CP 0.1120
B5 0.0150 IO 0.0300 0.0290<IO
LS 0.0900
CP 0.1200
Tab.4  Controlling of the performance criteria after earthquake
Fig.8  The structural response under the Scenario 1 (Frame 5, story 2, span B-C). (a) An overview from the structure just after the collision; (b) the beam is falling; (c) the receiving beam just after the collision
Fig.9  The variation of rotation versus time in left connection of receiving beam under the scenario 1
Fig.10  The structural response under the Scenario 2 (Frame 5, story 6, span B-C). (a) An overview from the structure just after the collision; (b) the variation of rotation versus time in left connection of receiving beam under the Scenario 2
Fig.11  The structural response under the Scenario 3 (Frame 5, story 9, span B-C). (a) An overview from the structure just after the collision; (b) the variation of rotation versus time in left connection of receiving beam under the Scenario 3
Fig.12  The variation of rotation versus time in left connection of receiving beams under the Scenario 4 to 6. (a) Scenario 4; (b) Scenario 5; (c) Scenario 6
Fig.13  The structural response under the Scenario 7 (Frame F, story 9, span 4-5). (a) An overview from the structure just after the collision; (b) the variation of rotation versus time in left connection of receiving beam under the Scenario 7
Fig.14  The structural response under the Scenario 8 (Frame F, story 9, span 3-4). (a) An overview from the structure just after the collision; (b) the variation of rotation versus time in left connection of receiving beam under the Scenario 8
Fig.15  The response of column 5B in the first story under the Scenario 1. (a) Variation of axial force; (b) variation of bending moment
Fig.16  The response of column 5B in the first story under the Scenario 2. (a) Variation of axial force; (b) variation of bending moment
Fig.17  The response of columns under the Scenarios 3 to 6. (a) Variation of axial force in Col. B-8 under Scenarios 3; (b) variations of moment in Col. B-8 under Scenario 3; (c) variation of axial force in Col. C-1 under Scenario 4; (d) variations of moment in Col. C-1 under Scenario 4; (e) variation of axial force in Col. C-5 under Scenario 5; (f) variations of moment in Col. C-5 under Scenario 5; (g) variation of axial force in Col. C-8 under Scenario 6; (h) variations of moment in Col. C-8 under Scenario 6
g ground acceleration
q rotation
? deflection
L member length
?y yield deflection
qy yield rotation
Z plastic section modulus
Fy yield strength
Fye expected yield strength
lb beam length
lc column length
E modulus of elasticity
Ib,c moment of inertia
P axial force
Pye expected axial yield force
Ag cross-section area
DCR demand over capacity ratio
PCL axial compression capacity
PUF axial force in the member
Mx bending moment in the member for the x-axis
My bending moment in the member for the y-axis
MCEx expected bending strength of the column for the x-axis
MCEy expected bending strength of the column for the y-axis
mx value of m for the column bending about the x-axis
my value of m for the column bending about the y-axis
MMUFx bending moment in the member about the x-axis
MMUFy bending moment in the member about the y-axis
MMCLx lower-bound flexural strength of the member about the x-axis
MCLy lower-bound flexural strength of the member about the y-axis
  
1 J Gross, W McGuire. Progressive collapse resistant design. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1983, 109(1): 1–15
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1983)109:1(1)
2 J Kim, T Kim. Assessment of progressive collapse-resisting capacity of steel moment frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2009, 65(1): 169–179
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2008.03.020
3 F Fu. Progressive collapse analysis of high-rise building with 3-D finite element modeling method. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2009, 65(6): 1269–1278
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2009.02.001
4 D E Grierson, M Safi, L Xu, Y Liu. Simplified methods for progressive-collapse analysis of buildings. In: Structures Congress 2005. Washington D. C.: ASCE, 2005, 1–8
5 B A Izzuddin, A G Vlassis, A Y Elghazouli, D A Nethercot. Progressive collapse of multi-storey buildings due to sudden column loss - Part I: Simplified assessment framework. Engineering Structures, 2008, 30(5): 1308–1318
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.07.011
6 F Hashemi Rezvani, M Mohammadi Gh, S Alam. Seismic progressive collapse analysis of concentrically braced frames through incremental dynamic analysis. In: 15th World Conference On Earthquake Engineering. Lisboa: John Wiley, 2012
7 H R Tavakoli, A A Rashidi. Evaluation of progressive collapse potential of multi-story moment resisting steel frame buildings under lateral loading. Scientia Iranica, 2013, 20: 77–86
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scient.2012.12.008
8 Z L Xin , C L Xu , P Y Lie , L Yi, Y T Dai . Numerical models for earthquake induced progressive collapse of high-rise buildings. Engineering mechanics, 2010, 27: 64–70
9 Y G Zhang, H T Zhou, J Z Wu. Mechanism of progressive collapse of spherical shell under severe earthquake. Journal of Beijing University of Technology, 2013, 39: 562–569
10 F H Rezvani, B Behnam, H R Ronagh, M S Alam. Failure progression resistance of a generic steel moment-resisting frame under beam-removal scenarios. International Journal of Structural Integrity, 2017, 8(3): 308–325
11 C P Ostertag. Microstructure characterization of fractured steel beam-to-column connections. Journal of Materials Science, 1999, 34(16): 3883–3891
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004622806458
12 J A Zukas. High velocity impact dynamics. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 1990
13 D Yan, G Lin, G Chen. Dynamic properties of plain concrete in triaxial stress state. ACI Materials Journal, 2009, 106: 89–94
14 J W Boh, L A Louca, Y S Choo. Strain rate effects on the response of stainless steel corrugated firewalls subjected to hydrocarbon explosions. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2004, 60(1): 1–29
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2003.08.005
15 G Kaewkulchai, E Williamson. Modeling the impact of failed members for progressive collapse analysis of frame structures. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 2006, 20(4): 375–383
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2006)20:4(375)
16 W J Stronge. Impact mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2004
17 G Kaewkulchai, E B Williamson. Beam element formulation and solution procedure for dynamic progressive collapse analysis. Computers & Structures, 2004, 82(7–8): 639–651
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2003.12.001
18 American Society of Civil Engineers. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures SEI/ASCE 7–10. Washington D.C.: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2013
19 ABAQUS. 6.8. Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp: Providence, 2008
20 American Society of Civil Engineers. Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. Reston: American Society of Civil Engineers. 2007
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] Y B SUDHIR SASTRY, B G KIROS, F HAILU, P R BUDARAPU. Impact analysis of compressor rotor blades of an aircraft engine[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(3): 505-514.
[2] Gholamreza ABDOLLAHZADEH, Hadi FAGHIHMALEKI. Proposal of a probabilistic assessment of structural collapse concomitantly subject to earthquake and gas explosion[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2018, 12(3): 425-437.
[3] Cameron B. RITCHIE, Jeffrey A. PACKER, Xiao-Ling ZHAO, Amin HEIDARPOUR, Yiyi CHEN. Dynamic material performance of cold-formed steel hollow sections: a state-of-the-art review[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2017, 11(2): 209-227.
[4] Ying YAN, Pengfei LI, Shunying JI. Buffer capacity of granular matter to impact of spherical projectile based on discrete element method[J]. Front Struc Civil Eng, 2013, 7(1): 50-54.
[5] Iman TABAEYE IZADI, Abdolrasoul RANJBARAN. Investigation on a mitigation scheme to resist the progressive collapse of reinforced concrete buildings[J]. Front Struc Civil Eng, 2012, 6(4): 421-430.
[6] Hossein ASADI KALAMEH, Arash KARAMALI, Cosmin ANITESCU, Timon RABCZUK. High velocity impact of metal sphere on thin metallic plate using smooth particle hydrodynamics (SPH) method[J]. Front Struc Civil Eng, 2012, 6(2): 101-110.
[7] Kazi Md Abu SOHEL, Jat Yuen Richard LIEW, Min Hong ZHANG. Analysis and design of steel-concrete composite sandwich systems subjected to extreme loads[J]. Front Arch Civil Eng Chin, 2011, 5(3): 278-293.
[8] Herbert LINSBAUER. Hazard potential of zones of weakness in gravity dams under impact loading conditions[J]. Front Arch Civil Eng Chin, 2011, 5(1): 90-97.
[9] Fuwen ZHANG, Xilin LU, Chao YIN, . Numerical simulation and analysis for collapse responses of RC frame structures under earthquake[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2009, 3(4): 364-369.
[10] CHEN Yiyi, BIAN Ruoning. Tests on impact effect of partial fracture at steel frame connections[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2008, 2(4): 295-301.
[11] FAN Lichu. Life cycle and performance based seismic design of major bridges in China[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2007, 1(3): 261-266.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed