Rehabilitation in Simple Steel Connections against Progressive Collapse due to Column Removal
- 26 Downloads
Strengthening of the structures against progressive collapse is very essential. Structural frames with simple connections are of highest potential in progressive collapse; therefore, rehabilitation of such structural system for both existing and new structures is vital. The available simple connections consist of double web angles and one seat angle which are assessed numerically, leading to the proposal of some effective techniques in order to reduce destruction due to this phenomenon. The proposed methods do not increase hardness and rigidity of the connections, and they hardly change the size or type of the loads of the other members, but, they are very beneficial in existing strategic structures. Eight models with both bolted and welded connections are considered in this study. The effect of damper in control of this phenomenon is assessed. The obtained results indicate that applying tendons in details improve performance of the models to considerable extent, because the proposed techniques reduce the vertical displacement of the connection up to 70%. Applying of damper in some of the models leads to a 20% reduction in vertical displacement.
Keywordsprogressive collapse dynamic analysis finite element method steel connection
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- ABAQUS (2014). Theory manual (Version 6.14), ABAQUS Inc., USA.Google Scholar
- Astaneh-Asl, A. (2007). “Progressive collapse prevention of steel frames with shear connections.” Technical information & product service. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
- Astaneh-Asl, A., Call, S. M., and McMullin, K. M. (1989). “Design of single plate shear connections.” Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel Construction, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 21–32.Google Scholar
- Astaneh-Asl, A. Jones, B., Zhao A., and Hwa, R. (2001). Progressive collapse resistance of steel building floors, Report Number UCB/CEE-Steel, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
- Bayfield, M., Mudalige, W., Moris, C., and Stoddart, E. (2013). “A review of progressive collapse research and regulations.” Journal of Structural and Building, Vol. 167, No. SB8, pp. 447–456, DOI: 10.1680/stbu.12.00023.Google Scholar
- Corley, W. G., Sr Mlakar, P. F., Sozen, M. A., and Thornton, C. H. (1998). “The Oklahoma city bombing: Summary and recommendation for multihazard mitigation.” Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 113–119, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(1998)12:3(100).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ellingwood, B. R., Smilowitz, R., Dusenberry, D. O., Duthinh, D., Lew, H. S., and Carino, N. J. (2007). “Best practices for reducing the potential for progressive collapse in buildings.” National Institute of Standards and Technology, NISTIR 7396, USA.Google Scholar
- Payne, T. (2000). Nonlinear response of steel beams, Dam Safety Office, United States Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior.Google Scholar
- TM51300 (1990). Structure to resist the effects of accidental explosions, USA Army.Google Scholar
- UFC 4-023-03 (2010). Design of buildings to resist progressive collapse, Department of Defense, USA.Google Scholar