Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Abstract
This paper investigates the structural response of RC framed buildings subjected to
accidental/abnormal loads (explosion, impact and other hazards). Several existing
national or international design codes (GSA 2003, DoD 2009, 2013) provide limited
guidelines for the assessment of progressive collapse resistance in the design process
and the alternate load path method is widely used in current structural design codes.
Since the progressive collapse is a dynamic and nonlinear event as it takes place in a
very short time frame and the structural components undergo nonlinear deformations
before failure, in this study the nonlinear dynamic analysis (NDA) is used. As it is
known, the NDA implies significant computational power and time costs. Thus, the
first objective of this paper is to determine the influence on the accuracy of results
when the number of structures bays is successively reduced and which is the
efficiency in saving run-time costs when simplified sub-structures are considered. In
order to resist abnormal loads, the structures could be able to develop resistance
mechanisms beyond the flexural behavior. The second objective of this paper is to
numerically identify the presence and contributions of such supplementary resisting
mechanisms. Important time savings, without affecting the results accuracy, are
obtained and compressive arch action supplementary resisting mechanism is
identified.
Keywords: progressive collapse, nonlinear, dynamic, accuracy, collapse resisting
mechanisms.
Introduction
the attention of the research community after the catastrophic event that took place
in 1968 at Ronan Point apartment building. Due to an explosion generated by a gas
leak at 18th floor, a significant part (entire south-east corner) of a 22 story apartment
building collapsed. The domain still captures the interest of the researchers, mainly
due to the relatively recent progressive collapse events: A. Murrah Federal Building
in Oklahoma City, U.S. - 1995, World Trade Centre in New York City, U.S. - 2001
(Figure 1.a), Windsor Tower in Madrid, Spain - 2005 (Figure 1.b)
cracking and yielding, Catenary Action (CA) acting only under very large
displacements and deformations and finally, Vierendeel Frame Action (VFA)
characterized by double curvature deformations of beams, slabs and columns.
Advanced analyses should consider not only the main (classic) progressive collapse
resisting mechanism (FA) but also the contribution of certain supplementary
mechanisms that can be mobilized sequentially to mitigate progressive collapse:
CAA, CA, VFA. These three mechanisms are still not incorporated in the current
design codes or guidelines and are not familiar to structural engineers.
This paper investigates the structural response of RC framed buildings subjected
to accidental/abnormal loads (explosion, impact, terrorist attack, and other hazards).
Based on the previous remarks the present study has two main objectives. The first
objective to determine the influence on the accuracy of results when the number of
structures bays is successively reduced and which is the efficiency in saving runtime costs when simplified sub-structures are considered in the NDA. The second
objective is to identify the presence and contributions of possible supplementary
resisting mechanisms (CAA, CA) acting beyond the beam flexural capacity.
In order to maximize the results accuracy, in this paper only nonlinear dynamic
analyses (NDA) are carried out and not the other accepted procedures (LS-linear
static and NS-nonlinear static), since the general opinion expressed in the technical
literature is that NDA provides the most accurate results [7, 8, 9].
Numerical models
The typical configuration for both analyzed RC structures (3 and 9 stories) consists
of three spans and five bays of 6.0m each, with a story height of 3.15m. The design
is made according to the provisions of the Romanian seismic code P100/1-2006 [10]
which are similar to those of Eurocode 8 [11], for a low seismic zone (ag = 0.08g).
Since the positive influence of the seismic design is reduced, the most unfavorable
response of the buildings will be obtained. The cross-sectional dimensions of the
linear structural elements (beams and columns) are summarized in Table 1. The slab
influence is considered by modeling the beams as T, respectively L - shaped cross
sections, according to the provisions of ACI318 [12].
Table 1: Cross-sectional dimensions of structural elements
Beam [mm]
Column
Structure
[mm]
Interior ( T )
Exterior ( L )
3story
9story
The structures are designed using a concrete class of C25/30 (fck = 25 N/mm2),
respectively a steel class of S500 (fyk = 500 N/mm2) for both longitudinal and
transverse reinforcement.
Analysis methods
In this study, the provisions of DoD(2009) [2] regarding the progressive collapse
risk assessment of RC framed structures are applied. According to these Guidelines
the verdict is obtained by applying several missing columns scenarios. Thus, an
exterior column from the short side, an exterior column from the long side, an
interior column or corner column is successively eliminated. These scenarios must
be studied for the ground floor, for a mid-height floor, respectively for the top floor.
This paper presents only the damage case of an exterior column from the building
short side, located at the ground floor.
DoD(2009) [2] specifies a strength increase factor of 1.25 for steel, respectively
1.50 for concrete, in accordance with ASCE-41 provisions [13]. The amplified
stress-strain curves (-) are presented in Figure 2.
(1)
where: D represents the dead load (D=3.5 kN/m2, self-weight not included);
L represents the live load (L=2.0 kN/m2).
In order to induce the dynamic effect, the vertical support is removed in less than
1/10 of the period associated with the structural response mode for the vertical
motion of the bays above the removed column, as determined from the analytical
model with the column removed [2]. Thus, a removal time of 0.005 seconds is
specified. This period also correspond to the step size. In order to allow the structure
to reach an equilibrium state, a total time of 3 seconds is considered for the analyses
along with a 5% damping factor [7, 14].
Two structural analysis software (SAP2000 and Abaqus) based on the FE method
are used in order to achieve the assumed objectives for this study.
(2)
4.b) and then to a sub-model with three spans and one bay (Figure 4.c). The stiffness
of the part removed from the model is simulated by imposing boundary conditions
to the translational degrees of freedom. This technique is applied for both three and
nine-story analyzed structures.
Figure 5. Time-displacement curves (NDA) and analyses time for the 3-story models
Figure 6. Time-displacement curves (NDA) and analyses time for the 9-story models
Figure 7. Time-displacement curves for 3-story structure: MPH vs. FPH vs. DP
4.2.2 9-story structure
For the second analyzed structure, all three plasticity models (MPH, FPH and DP)
used in the nonlinear dynamic analysis lead to a similar verdict:
Figure 8. Time-displacement curves for 9-story structure: MPH vs. FPH vs. DP
10
Figure 9. Time-displacement curves for 9-story structure: MPH vs. FPH vs. DP
Conclusions
11
the accuracy of results when the number of structures bays is successively reduced.
Secondly, the presence and contributions of the CAA resisting mechanism is
evaluated. The conclusions drawn for the two main objectives previously described
are summarized as follows.
Objective 1:
Both analyzed structures (3 and 9-story) are successively reduced with respect to the
longitudinal number of bays (3x2 bays and 3x1 bays) and the exterior short side
column is eliminated. The results are compared with those obtained based on the
original model (3x5 bays).
For the 3-story structure the maximum vertical displacement obtained for the first
reduced model (3x2 bays) and for the second reduced model (3x1 bays) differ with
1.7 %, respectively with 5.6 % compared to the original (3x5 bays) model. A 43.2%,
respectively 28.8% from the run-time analysis for the unreduced model is necessary
in order to obtain the structural response of the reduced models (3x2 bays and 3x1
bays).
The maximum vertical displacement, for the 9-story structure, changes with 0.3%
for the first reduced model (3x2 bays), respectively with 0.6% for the second
reduced model (3x2 bays) compared to the original model. The analysis time
decreases with 82.4% and 90.5 % for 3x2 bays model, respectively 3x1 bays model
compared to the analysis time necessary for the 3x5 bays model.
Based on the differences obtained regarding the time costs of both analyzed
structures it may be stated that the significance of the run-time analysis economy
increases with the number of floors/bays augmentation while a good accuracy level
of the progressive collapse verdict is preserved (max. 5.6% differences).
Objective 2:
In this study, three different concepts of modeling the plastic behavior during
progressive collapse phenomenon are used: Moment Plastic Hinges (MPH) of M3
type, Fiber Plastic Hinges (FPH) of P-M2-M3 fiber type, respectively Distributed
Plasticity (DP).
As may be seen in Figure 7, a major difference regarding the progressive collapse
verdict of the 3-story structure under the DoD(2009) loading level is reported. The
MPH based model indicates that the structure is not able to resist progressive
collapse. On the other hand, the FPH and DP based models indicate the opposite
conclusion. For the 9-story structure, all plastic concepts used with the NDA lead to
the same verdict.
12
The enhanced resisting capacity of the structures revealed by the FPH and DP based
models is a consequence of the CAA mechanism due to the fact that these models
(FPH and DP) are capable to consider the axial forces developed over the cross
section of the beams. In order to emphasize the CAA mechanism effect, four
supplementary analyses have been performed.
For the 3-story structure, the MPH model reveals that the ultimate resisting
capacity, based only on the flexural capacity (FA) of beams, corresponds to 85% of
the DoD (2009) loading level (Figure 7). The FPH and DP models which may also
consider the CAA, show that the structure is capable to reach an equilibrium state
for the DoD (2009) standard loading level.
Similarly, for the 9-story structure, the MPH model shows that the ultimate
capacity is reached for 112% of the DoD (2009) loading level, while the FPH and
DP models indicate that the structure is able to reach an equilibrium state for an
increased loading level (130%).
Another significant mechanism that influences the progressive collapse resistance of
the RC structure is Catenary Action (CA) mechanism. Studies in progress
investigate the parameters (reinforcement ration, number of stories, etc.) that
influence the appearance and effect of such mechanism.
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
13
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
14