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

doi:10.1007/s11709-012-0168-4

Front Struc Civil Eng

2012, Vol. 6

Issue (3) : 199-209 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-012-0168-4

RESEARCH ARTICLE

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

Linjia BAI, Yunfeng ZHANG(

)

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA

Download: PDF(551 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

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

Corresponding Author(s): ZHANG Yunfeng,Email:zyf@umd.edu

Issue Date: 05 September 2012

Cite this article:

Linjia BAI,Yunfeng ZHANG. Collapse fragility assessment of steel roof framings with force limiting devices under transient wind loading[J]. Front Struc Civil Eng, 2012, 6(3): 199-209.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-012-0168-4
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2012/V6/I3/199

Fig.1 Hysteresis model of buckled steel axial member and force limiting device (FLD)

Fig.2 Transient wind speed record from a downburst event

Fig.3 Planar joist roof frame model for numerical study (SJI K series No. 9 joist)
(a) Elevation view (Case 1: No FLD); (b) Section A-A; (c) planar joist roof frame with FLDs

Fig.4 Frame response to transient wind load
(a) Node L3 displacement time history; (b) reaction force (in vertical direction) at support node L1; (c) global hysteresis behavior

Fig.5 Hysteresis loops of element U1L1

Fig.6 Locations of sample and verification points of response surface (solid dots: sample points; circle: verification points)

Tab.1 Accuracy estimation for collapse capacity response surface (±)

Tab.2 Accuracy estimation for collapse capacity response surface (±2)

Tab.3 Sample points used to construct response surface

Fig.7 Response surface for collapse capacity (Case of No FLDs)

Fig.8 Response surface for collapse capacity (Case w/ FLDs)

Fig.9 Histograms of roof collapse for two cases

Fig.10 Collapse fragility curves for two cases (No FLD and w/ FLD)

1	El-Sheikh A E. Effect of force limiting devices on behaviour of space trusses. Engineering Structures , 1999, 21(1): 34-44 doi: 10.1016/S0141-0296(97)00136-3
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 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8667.2005.00387.x
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 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:7(958)
6	Spacone E, Ciampi V, Filippou F C. Mixed formulation of nonlinear beam finite element. Computers & Structures , 1996, 58(1): 71-83 doi: 10.1016/0045-7949(95)00103-N
7	Neuenhofer A, Filippou F C. A geometrically nonlinear flexibility-based frame finite element model. Journal of Structural Engineering , 1998, 124(6): 704-711 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1998)124:6(704)
8	De Souza R M. Force-based finite element for large displacement inelastic analysis of frames. , 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 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000143
11	Val D V, Val V E G. Robustness of frame structures. Structural Engineering International , 2006, 16(2): 108-112 doi: 10.2749/101686606777962413
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 doi: 10.1016/S0141-0296(00)00045-6
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 doi: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2008.06.002
21	Faravelli L. Response surface approach for reliability analysis. Journal of Engineering Mechanics , 1989, 115(12): 2763-2781 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1989)115:12(2763)
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 doi: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2006.10.003
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 doi: 10.1016/S0167-4730(03)00021-3
26	Bucher C G, Bourgund U. A fast and efficient response surface approach for structural reliability problems. Structural Safety , 1990, 7(1): 57-66 doi: 10.1016/0167-4730(90)90012-E
27	Rajashekhar M, Ellingwood B. A new look at the response surface approach for reliability analysis. Structural Safety , 1993, 12(3): 205-220 doi: 10.1016/0167-4730(93)90003-J
28	Starossek U, Haberland M. Measures of structural robustness - requirements & applications. ASCE SEI 2008 Structures Congress, Vancouver, Canada , April24-26, 2008
29	Lind N C. A measure of vulnerability and damage tolerance. Reliability Engineering & System Safety , 1995, 48(1): 1-6 doi: 10.1016/0951-8320(95)00007-O
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 doi: 10.2749/101686606777962468
31	Baker J W, Schubert M, Faber M H. On the assessment of robustness. Structural Safety , 2008, 30(3): 253-267 doi: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2006.11.004
32	Haselton C B. Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern reinforced concrete frame buildings. , 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 , August1-6, 2004
34	Liel A. Assessing the collapse risk of California’s existing reinforced concrete frame structures: Metrics for seismic safety decisions. , 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 doi: 10.1002/eqe.141
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

[1]	Jianling HOU, Weibing XU, Yanjiang CHEN, Kaida ZHANG, Hang SUN, Yan LI. Typical diseases of a long-span concrete-filled steel tubular arch bridge and their effects on vehicle-induced dynamic response[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(4): 867-887.
[2]	Adam HAMROUNI, Daniel DIAS, Badreddine SBARTAI. Soil spatial variability impact on the behavior of a reinforced earth wall[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(2): 518-531.
[3]	Zhijie HUANG, Xiaodan REN, Zuyu CHEN, Daosheng LING. Centrifuge experiment and numerical analysis of an air-backed plate subjected to underwater shock loading[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(6): 1350-1362.
[4]	Behrouz BEHNAM, Fahimeh SHOJAEI, Hamid Reza RONAGH. Seismic progressive-failure analysis of tall steel structures under beam-removal scenarios[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(4): 904-917.
[5]	Zhitian ZHANG. Mean wind load induced incompatibility in nonlinear aeroelastic simulations of bridge spans[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(3): 605-617.
[6]	Tian ZHANG, He XIA, Weiwei GUO. Analysis on running safety of train on the bridge considering sudden change of wind load caused by wind barriers[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2018, 12(4): 558-567.
[7]	Gholamreza ABDOLLAHZADEH, Hadi FAGHIHMALEKI. Proposal of a probabilistic assessment of structural collapse concomitantly subject to earthquake and gas explosion[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2018, 12(3): 425-437.
[8]	Peng HUANG, Ling TAO, Ming GU, Yong QUAN. Experimental study of wind loads on gable roofs of low-rise buildings with overhangs[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2018, 12(3): 300-317.
[9]	Pengfei LIU, Dawei WANG, Frédéric OTTO, Markus OESER. Application of semi-analytical finite element method to analyze the bearing capacity of asphalt pavements under moving loads[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2018, 12(2): 215-221.
[10]	P. ZAKIAN. An efficient stochastic dynamic analysis of soil media using radial basis function artificial neural network[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2017, 11(4): 470-479.
[11]	Tony T. Y. YANG,Yuanjie LI. Performance assessment of innovative seismic resilient steel knee braced frame[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2016, 10(3): 291-302.
[12]	Dae Kun KWON,Ahsan KAREEM,Deepak KUMAR,Yukio TAMURA. A prototype online database-enabled design framework for wind analysis/design of low-rise buildings[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2016, 10(1): 121-130.
[13]	B. R. JAYALEKSHMI,S.V. JISHA,R. SHIVASHANKAR. Response in piled raft foundation of tall chimneys under along-wind load incorporating flexibility of soil[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2015, 9(3): 307-322.
[14]	Mehmet Bar?? Can üLKER. Modeling of dynamic response of poroelastic soil layers under wave loading[J]. Front Struc Civil Eng, 2014, 8(1): 1-18.
[15]	Yaojun GE, Shuyang CAO, Xinyang JIN. Comparison and harmonization of building wind loading codes among the Asia-Pacific Economies[J]. Front Struc Civil Eng, 2013, 7(4): 402-410.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed