Damage mitigation strategies for progressive collapse of modular steel buildings following sudden corner module removal

Abstract

This study evaluates gravity-induced progressive collapse performance and damage mitigation strategies in modular steel buildings (MSBs) A typical three-dimensional six-story structure was modeled and analyzed using the finite element method, focusing on the instantaneous removal of a corner module. The study includes a parametric evaluation of the influence of beam moment capacity on progressive collapse and investigates the effect of using concrete as an infill for square hollow section columns. Additionally, the effectiveness of short K-shaped braces in limiting gravity-induced collapse was assessed. A response/damage index (DI) was proposed to quantify the overall structural response. The findings indicate that semirigid beam-column connections outperform fully rigid connections. Both concrete-filled columns and K-shaped braces mitigate structural damage, with K-shaped braces proving more effective in preventing collapse. Although increasing the beam moment-resisting capacity reduced the DI, improvements were marginal beyond 50% of the fully rigid connection capacity. Higher beam moment capacities reduced local vertical displacement at the corner joint but led to undesirable lateral deformations. Reducing beam rigidity/capacity by 25% mitigated global structural deformations. The optimal beam moment capacity was identified as 75% of the total section capacity when using concrete-filled columns. K-shaped braces applied at the column midpoint entirely prevented progressive gravity-induced collapse and no lateral deformations were observed in braced structures with fully rigid beam-column connections, unlike unbraced structures. Concrete-filled columns offer a cost-effective solution for preliminary production of MSBs, while K-shaped braces are suitable for retrofitting existing buildings. Further research is necessary to address other parameters influen cing the mitigation of progressive collapse in MSBs.

Keywords

damage mitigation / inter-module connection / intra-module connection / modular steel building / progressive collapse / response index

References

[1] Lawson M, Ogden R, Goodier C. Design in Modular Construction. CRC Press;2014.

[2] Sharafi P, Samali B, Ronagh H, Ghodrat M. Automated spatial design of multi-story modular buildings using a unified matrix method. Automation in Construction. Vol 82. Elsevier;2017:31-42.

[3] Lacey AW, Chen W, Hao H, Bi K. Structural response of modular buildings-an overview. J Build Eng. 2018;16:45-56.

[4] Sharafi P, Mortazavi M, Usefi N, Kildashti K, Ronagh H, Samali B. Lateral force resisting systems in lightweight steel frames: recent research advances. Thin Wall Struct. 2018;130:231-253.

[5] Sharafi P, Teh LH, Hadi MNS. Shape optimization of thin-walled steel sections using graph theory and ACO algorithm. J Construct Steel Res. 2014;101:331-341.

[6] Lacey AW, Chen W, Hao H, Bi K. Review of bolted inter-module connections in modular steel buildings. J Build Eng. 2019;23:207-219.

[7] Sharafi P, Rashidi M, Samali B, Ronagh H, Mortazavi M. Identification of factors and decision analysis of the level of modularization in building construction. J Architect Eng. 2018;24(2):04018010.

[8] Sharafi P, Mortazavi M, Samali B, Ronagh H. Interlocking system for enhancing the integrity of multi-storey modular buildings. Automation in Construction. Vol 85. Elsevier;2018:263-272.

[9] Gorgolewski MT, Grubb PJ, Lawson RM. Modular Construction Using Light Steel Framing: Desing of Residential Buildings. Steel Construction Institute;2001.

[10] Lawson RM, Ogden RG, Pedreschi R, Popo-Ola SO. Developments of cold-formed steel sections in composite applications for residential buildings. Adv Struct Eng. 2008;11(5):651-660.

[11] Ma H, Huang Z, Song X, Ling Y. A study on mechanical performance of an innovative modular steel building connection with cross-shaped plug-in connector. Buildings. 2023;13(9):2382.

[12] Yavari H, Ghobadi MS, Yakhchalian M. Progressive collapse potential of different types of irregular buildings located in diverse seismic sites. Heliyon. 2019;5(1):e01137.

[13] Ghobadi MS, Yavari H. Progressive collapse vulnerability assessment of irregular voided buildings located in seismic-prone areas. Structures. 2020;25:785-797.

[14] Mckay A, Marchand K, Diaz M. Alternate path method in progressive collapse analysis: variation of dynamic and nonlinear load increase factors. Pract Period Struct Design Construct. 2012;17(4):152-160.

[15] Mashhadia J, Saffari H. Dynamic increase factor based on residual strength to assess progressive collapse. Steel Comp Struct. 2017;25(5):617-624.

[16] Liu M. A new dynamic increase factor for nonlinear static alternate path analysis of building frames against progressive collapse. Eng Struct. 2013;48:666-673.

[17] Ferraioli M. Evaluation of dynamic increase factor in progressive collapse analysis of steel frame structures considering catenary action. Steel Comp Struct. 2019;30(3):253-269.

[18] Mohamed OA. Calculation of load increase factors for assessment of progressive collapse potential in framed steel structures. Case Studies Struct Eng. 2015;3:11-18.

[19] Ferraioli M. A modal pushdown procedure for progressive collapse analysis of steel frame structures. J Construct Steel Res. 2019;156:227-241.

[20] Stoddart EP, Byfield MP, Davison JB, Tyas A. Strain rate dependent component based connection modelling for use in non-linear dynamic progressive collapse analysis. Eng Struct. 2013;55:35-43.

[21] Chen Z, Liu J, Yu Y, Zhou C, Yan R. Experimental study of an innovative modular steel building connection. J Construct Steel Res. 2017;139:69-82.

[22] Chen Z, Liu J, Yu Y. Experimental study on interior connections in modular steel buildings. Eng Struct. 2017;147:625-638.

[23] Deng EF, Yan JB, Ding Y, Zong L, Li ZX, Dai XM. Analytical and numerical studies on steel columns with novel connections in modular construction. Int J Steel Struct. 2017;17(4):1613-1626.

[24] Deng EF, Zong L, Ding Y, Dai XM, Lou N, Chen Y. Monotonic and cyclic response of bolted connections with welded cover plate for modular steel construction. Eng Struct. 2018;167:407-419.

[25] Doh NMHJ-H, Miller D, Peters T, Carlson D, Lai P. Steel bracket connection on modular buildings. J Steel Struct Constr. 2017;2(121).

[26] UFC. Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Collapse. Unified Facilities Criteria;2016.

[27] Lawson PM, Byfield MP, Popo-Ola SO, Grubb PJ. Robustness of light steel frames and modular construction. Proc Inst Civil Eng Struct Build. 2008;161(1):3-16.

[28] LSH. AFCEC conducts CONEX dorm field testing. 2017. Available from: http://www.afcec.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1157092/afcec-conducts-conex-dorm-field-testing/

[29] Chua YS, Liew JYR, Pang SD. Robustness of prefabricated prefinished volumetric construction (PPVC) high-rise building: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Advances in Steel-Concrete Composite Structures. 2018.

[30] Kim J, Jung M. Progressive collapse-resisting capacity of modular mega-frame buildings. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings. Vol 22. Wiley;2013:471-484.

[31] ASCE. SEI/ASCE 7-05 minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, 2005.

[32] Adam JM, Parisi F, Sagaseta J, Lu X. Research and practice on progressive collapse and robustness of building structures in the 21st century. Eng Struct. 2018;173:122-149.

[33] Sharafi P, Rasidi M. Optimum spanning for rectangular floor systems -part 1: a unified combinatorial approach. Aust J Civ Eng. 2017;14:97-105.

[34] Sharafi P, Rashidi M. Optimum spanning for rectangular floor systems – part 2: an algorithm and practical applications. Aust J Civ Eng. 2017;14:106-113.

[35] Sharafi P, Teh LH, Hadi MNS. Conceptual design optimization of rectilinear building frames: a knapsack problem approach. Eng Opt. 2015;47(10):1303-1323.

[36] Council of Australian Governments. National construction code (NCC), 2016.

[37] CAfECS (CECS). Code for anti-collapse design of building structures. CECS 392-2014, 2014.

[38] UFC-DoD. Design of buildings to resist progressive collapse. Department of Defense;2005.

[39] National Research Council Canada. National Building Code of Canada. Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, 1995.

[40] DoCaL Government. The Building Regulations 2010-Structure: Approved Document A. HM Government; 2010.

[41] GSA. Alternate Path Analysis and Design Guidelines for Progressive Collapse Resistance -Revision 1. The US General Services Administration;2016.

[42] CCEd Normalisation. EN 1991-1-7: Eurocode 1 – Actions on Structures – Part 1–7: General Actions – Accidental Actions. CEN;2006.

[43] Fu F. Progressive collapse analysis of high-rise building with 3-D finite element modeling method. J Construct Steel Res. 2009;65(6):1269-1278.

[44] Luo FJ, Bai Y, Hou J, Huang Y. Progressive collapse analysis and structural robustness of steel-framed modular buildings. Eng Fail Anal. 2019;104:643-656.

[45] Standards Australia. Structural Design Actions, Part 4: Earthquake Actions in Australia. Vol 4, 2007.

[46] Standard Australia. Steel Structures, 1998.

[47] Ribeiro FLA, Barbosa AR, Scott MH, Neves LC. Deterioration modeling of steel moment resisting frames using finite-length plastic hinge force-based beam-column elements. J Struct Eng. 2015;141(2):04014112.

[48] Styles AJ, Luo FJ, Bai Y, Murray-Parkes JB, Effects of joint rotational stiffness on structural responses of multistorey modular buildings. International conference on smart infrastructure and construction (ICSIC), 2016.

[49] ABAQUS. ABAQUS theory manual, 2017.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 Tianjin University and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.