Layout of cross braces on progressive collapse analysis of 3-D 12-story steel composite frame structures

  • Yi Hu
  • Junhai Zhao
Keywords: Progressive collapse, Steel frame, Cross brace, Layout, Dynamic increase factor

Abstract

In this paper, cross braces are implemented to mitigate the dynamic responses caused by column-remove scenarios of steel composite frames. To evaluate the effective of cross braces with different layout on enhancing the progressive collapse resisting capacity of the structures, alternative path method (APM) is performed on structural nonlinear dynamic history analysis. Firstly, a three-dimensional finite element model for 12-story steel composite frame structure is built with considering the contribution of the composite behavior of the floor system. Then, the FEM modeling method is verified by a progressive collapse test. Finally, a series of progressive collapse analyses on such model with different column-remove scenarios and layout of cross braces. The results show that the cross braces could mitigate the dynamic response caused by column failure in the affected bay, but no obvious mitigation were observed in the other bays. Cross braces blocked the horizontal development of structural progressive collapse for the structure with vertical layout of cross braces (SF-VB), which might aggravate the dynamic response of the affected bay though protected the residual structure. Cross braces layout at the top layer (TB) decreased the peak displacement of corner column failure mode above 50%, and was about 30% for the side column failure mode. The dynamic increase factor (DIF) of the most models was about 1.5, which demonstrated that the value given by the standards might result in some conservatism, but the DIF might closely to the given value for SF-VB. Such results provided basis information for progressive collapse prevention designs of such structural systems.

References

Department of Defense, DoD. 2010. Design of structures to resist progressive collapse. Washington, D. C.

General Services Administration, GSA. 2003. Progressive collapse analysis and design guidelines for new federal office buildings and major modernization project. Washington, D. C.

CECS 392. 2014. Code for anti-collapse design of building structures. Beijing: China Planning Press.

Kim, J., & Kim, T. 2009. Assessment of progressive collapse-resisting capacity of steel moment frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 65(1): 169-179.

Feng, F. 2010. 3-D nonlinear dynamic progressive collapse analysis of multi-storey steel composite frame buildings- Parametric study. Engineering Structures, 32(9): 3974-3980.

Song, B., & Sezen, H. 2013. Experimental and analytical progressive collapse assessment of a steel frame building. Engineering Structures, 56(5): 664-672.

Ye, J. H., Jiang, L. Q. & Wang, X. X. 2017. Seismic failure mechanism of reinforced cold-formed steel shear wall based on structural vulnerability analysis. Applied Sciences, 7(2): 182-191.

Ye, J. H., & Jiang, L. Q. 2018. Collapse mechanism analysis of a steel moment frame based on structural vulnerability theory. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2018.01.001. (Online).

Yang, B., & Tan, K. H. 2013. Experimental tests of different types of bolted steel beam-column joints under a central-column removal scenario. Engineering Structures, 54(9): 112-130.

Liu, C., Fung, T. C., & Tan, K. H. 2015. Dynamic Performance of Flush End-Plate Beam-Column Connections and Design Applications in Progressive Collapse. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 2015, 10.1061/ (ASCE)ST. 1943-541X. 0001329, 04015074.

Kim, S., Lee, C. H., & Lee, K. 2015. Effects of floor slab on progressive collapse resistance of steel moment frames. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 110(2): 182-190.

Tsai, M. H. 2012. A performance-based design approach for retrofitting regular building frames with steel braces against sudden column loss. Journal of Constructional Steel Research,77(4): 1-11.

Zoghi, M. A., & Mirtaheria, M. 2016. Progressive collapse analysis of steel building considering effects of infill panels. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 59(1): 59-82.

Rezvani, F. H., Taghizadeh, M. A. M., & Ronagh, H. R. 2017. Effect of inverted-V bracing on retrofitting against progressive collapse of steel moment resisting frames. International Journal of Steel Structures, 17(3). 1103-1113.

Salmasi, A. C., & Sheidaii, M. R. 2017. Assessment of eccentrically braced frames strength against progressive collapse. International Journal of Steel Structures, 17(2): 543-551.

Stevens, D. J., Crowder, B., Hall, B., & Marchand, K. 2008. Unified Progressive Collapse Design Requirements for DoD and GSA, Structures Congress, Vancouver Canada.

Liu, M. 2013. A new dynamic increase factor for nonlinear static alternate path analysis of building frames against progressive collapse. Engineering Structures, 48: 666-673.

Mashhadi, J., & Saffari, H. 2017. Modification of dynamic increase factor to assess progressive collapse potential of structures. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 138: 72-78.

GB 50009. 2012. Load code for the design of building structures. Beijing: China Building Industry Press.

Guo, L. H., Gao, S., Fu, F., & Wang, Y. 2013. Experimental study and numerical analysis of progressive collapse resistance of composite frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 85(9): 236-251.

Stevens, D., Crowder, B., Sunshine, D., & Waggoner M. 2011. DoD research and criteria for the design of buildings to resist progressive collapse. Journal of Structural Engineering, 137(9): 870-880.

Ruth, P., Marchand, K. A., & Williamson, E. B. 2006. Static equivalency in progressive collapse alternate path analysis: reducing conservatism while retaining structure integrity. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 20 (4): 349-364.

Published
2020-05-23
Section
Civil Engineering (1)