Collapse fragility assessment of steel roof framings with force limiting devices under transient wind loading

Abstract

Steel structural frame is a popular structural form to cover large-span roof space and under high winds. Either part of the roof enclosure or the entire roof structure can be lifted off a building, particularly for low sloped roofs subject to wind-induced suction force. Collapse of roof could cause severe economic loss and poses safety risk to residents in the building. The buckling of members in a steel roof frame structure, which may lead to progressive collapse, may be dynamic in nature. This paper presents a fragility analysis of the collapse of steel roof frame structures under combined static and transient wind loading. Uncertainties associated with wind load change rate and member imperfections are taken into account in this study. A numerical example based on a Steel Joist Institute (SJI) K series joist was used to demonstrate the use of force limiting devices for collapse risk mitigation. For the presented fragility assessment of steel roof collapse, a Monte Carlo method combined with response surface approach was adopted, which greatly reduces the computation time and makes the Monte Carlo simulation feasible for probabilistic collapse analysis of steel roof frame structures.

Keywords

collapse / dynamic response / fragility analysis / Monte Carlo simulation / wind load

References

[1] El-Sheikh A E. Effect of force limiting devices on behaviour of space trusses. Engineering Structures, 1999, 21(1): 34-44

[2] McKenna F, Fenves G L. User manual for Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees), PEER, University of California at Berkeley, CA, 2005

[3] Ellingwood B R, Dusenberry D O. Building design for abnormal loads and progressive collapse. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 2005, 20(3): 194-205

[4] Blandford G. E. Review of progressive failure analyses for truss structures. Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE, 1997, 123(2), 122-129

[5] Neuenhofer A, Filippou F C. Evaluation of nonlinear frame finite element models. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1997, 123(7): 958-966

[6] Spacone E, Ciampi V, Filippou F C. Mixed formulation of nonlinear beam finite element. Computers & Structures, 1996, 58(1): 71-83

[7] Neuenhofer A, Filippou F C. A geometrically nonlinear flexibility-based frame finite element model. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1998, 124(6): 704-711

[8] De Souza R M. Force-based finite element for large displacement inelastic analysis of frames. <DissertationTip/> 2000, University of California, Berkeley

[9] Filippou F C, Fenves G L. Methods of Analysis for Earthquake- Resistant Structures, Earthquake Engineering: From Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based Engineering, eds, Bozorgnia Y, and Bertero V V, Chapter 6, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL., USA, 2004

[10] Scott M H, Fenves G L. Krylov subspace accelerated Newton algorithm: application to dynamic progressive collapse simulation of frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2010, 136(5): 473-480

[11] Val D V, Val V E G. Robustness of frame structures. Structural Engineering International, 2006, 16(2): 108-112

[12] Uang C M, Nakashima M. Steel buckling-restrained frames. In: Earthquake Engineering: Recent Advances and Application, Chapter 16, Y. Bozorgnia and V. V. Bertero, eds., CRC Press, 2003

[13] Clark P, . Large-scale testing of steel unbonded braces for energy dissipation, Advanced Technology in Structural Engineering: Proceedings of the 2000 Structures Congress & Exposition, May 8-10, 2000, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, 2000

[14] Reinhorn A M, Viti S, Cimellaro G P. Retrofit of structures: strength reduction with damping enhancement. In: Proceedings of the 37th UJNR Panel Meeting on Wind and Seismic Effects, 16-21 May, Tsukuba, Japan, 2005

[15] Viti S, Cimellaro G P, Reinhorn A M. Retrofit of a hospital through strength reduction and enhanced damping. Smart Structures and Systems, 2006, 2(4): 339-355

[16] Savory E, Parke G, Zeinoddini M, Toy N, Disney P. Modelling of tornado and microburst-induced wind loading and failure of a lattice transmission tower. Engineering Structures, 2001, 23(4): 365-375

[17] Midgley C J. Multi-scale study of a convectively driven high wind event, M.S. Thesis, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, 2003

[18] Nelson E.L., Ahuja D., Verhulst, S.M. and Criste, E.. The source of the problem. ASCE Civil Engineering Magazine, January 2007, 50-55

[19] Fujita T T. The downburst- microburst and macroburst. Sattellite and mesometeorology research project (SMRP) research paper 210, Dept. of Geophysical Sciences, Univ. of Chicago, (NTIS PB-148880) Feb. 1985.

[20] Liel A, Haselton C, Deierlein G, Baker J W. Incorporating modelling uncertainties in the assessment of seismic collapse risk of buildings. Structural Safety, 2009, 31(2): 197-211

[21] Faravelli L. Response surface approach for reliability analysis. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 1989, 115(12): 2763-2781

[22] Gavin H, Yau S. High-order limit state functions in the response surface method for structural reliability analysis. Structural Safety, 2008, 30(2 Issue 2): 162-179

[23] Olivi L. Response Surface Methodology in Risk Analysis. Synthesis and Analysis Methods for Safety and Reliability Studies. Edited by Apostolakis, G., Garribba, S., and Volta G. Pleum Press, 1980

[24] Engelund S, Rackwitz R. Experiences with experimental design schemes for the failure surface estimation and reliability. Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural and Geotechnical Reliability. ASCE, 1992, 1992: 252-255

[25] Gupta S, Manohar C S. An improved response surface method for the determination of failure probability and importance measures. Structural Safety, 2004, 26(2): 123-139

[26] Bucher C G, Bourgund U. A fast and efficient response surface approach for structural reliability problems. Structural Safety, 1990, 7(1): 57-66

[27] Rajashekhar M, Ellingwood B. A new look at the response surface approach for reliability analysis. Structural Safety, 1993, 12(3): 205-220

[28] Starossek U, Haberland M. Measures of structural robustness - requirements & applications. ASCE SEI 2008 Structures Congress, Vancouver, Canada, <month>April</month><day>24-26</day> 2008

[29] Lind N C. A measure of vulnerability and damage tolerance. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 1995, 48(1): 1-6

[30] Maes M A, Fritzsons K E, Glowienka S. Structural robustness in the light of risk and consequence analysis. IABSE, Structural Engineering International, 2006, 16(2): 101-107

[31] Baker J W, Schubert M, Faber M H. On the assessment of robustness. Structural Safety, 2008, 30(3): 253-267

[32] Haselton C B. Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern reinforced concrete frame buildings. <DissertationTip/> Stanford University; 2006.

[33] Ibarra L F, Krawinkler H. Global collapse of deteriorating MDOF systems. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, <month>August</month><day>1-6</day> 2004

[34] Liel A. Assessing the collapse risk of California’s existing reinforced concrete frame structures: Metrics for seismic safety decisions. <DissertationTip/> Stanford University; 2008.

[35] Menegotto M, Pinto P E. Method of analysis of cyclically loaded RC plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behavior of elements under normal force and bending. Preliminary Report, IABSE, 1973, 13: 15-22

[36] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell C A. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2002, 31(3): 491-514

[37] Wada A, Saeki E, Takeuchi T, Watanabe A. Development of unbonded brace. Nippon Steel’s Unbonded Braces (promotional document), Nippon Steel Corporation: Building Construction and Urban Development Division, Tokyo, Japan, 1998, pp. 1-16

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg