Robustness of Reinforced Concrete Framed Buildings: A Comparison between Different Numerical Models

Abstract:

According to Eurocode, robustness is the ability of a structure to withstand events like fire, explosions, impact or the consequences of human error, without being damaged to an extent disproportionate to the original cause.Avoiding the progressive collapse of a building in presence of accidental loading conditions is one of the challenges for the designers.The tie-force method is actually one of the most used design techniques for resisting progressive collapse, whereby a statically indeterminate structure is designed with reference to local simplified models determined in accordance to the failure mode considered.In this work a computational study of a reinforced concrete frame is presented. The beam-column assembly represents a portion of the structural framing system of a ten-story reinforced concrete frame building and is subjected to monotonically increasing vertical displacement of the center column to simulate a column removal scenario.Two different finite element models, with distinct levels of modeling, are used in order to compare the numerical results with the experimental ones coming from a full-scale test, and evaluate the ability of the models to simulate the structural behavior of the frame.

• Periodical: Key Engineering Materials (Volume 711)
• Pages: 814-821
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.711.814
• Online since: September 2016
• Authors: Gabriele Bertagnoli*, Diego Gino, Luca Giordano, Dario La Mazza, Giuseppe Mancini
• Keywords: Progressive Collapse, Reinforced Concrete, Structural Robustness, Tie-Force Method

References

[1] Comitè Europèen de Normalisation, EN1991-1-7 Eurocode 1: Action on Structures – Part 1-7: General actions – Accidental Actions.

[2] Joint Committee of Structural Safety (JCSS), Risk Assessment in Engineering. Principles, System Representation and Risk Criteria, Zurich, Switzerland, (2008).

[3] T. D. G. Canisius et al., Structural robustness design for practising engineers, COST Action TU0601 Robustness of Structures, (2011).

[4] B. R. Ellingwood, R. Smilowitz, D. O. Dusenberry, D. Duthinh, H. S. Lew, N. J. Carino, Best Practises for Reducing the Potential fot Progressive Collapse in Buildings, NISTIR 7396, (2007).

DOI: 10.6028/nist.ir.7396

[5] General Service Administration, Progressive collapse analysis and design guidelines for new federal office buildings and major modernization projects. GSA, (2003).

[6] Department of Defense, United States of America, Design of buildings to resist progressive collapse, Unified Facilities Criteria 4-023-03 Including Change 2 – 1 June (2013).

[7] Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, Review of international research on structural robustness and disproportionate collapse, CPNI, (2011).

[8] SeismoStruct Version 7. 0. 0, Seismosoft Ltd., Chalkida, Greece, (2014).

[9] ATENA 2D v5, Cervenka Consulting s. r. o. , Prague, Czech Republic, (2014).

[10] H. S. Lew, Y. Bao, F. Sadek, J. A. Main, S. Pujol, M. Sozen, An Experimental and Computational Study of Reinforced Concrete Assemblies under a Column Removal Scenario, NIST Technical Note – 1720, (2011).

DOI: 10.6028/nist.tn.1720

[11] J. B. Mander, M. J. N. Priestly, R. Park, Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 114, No. 8, pp.1804-1826, (1988).

DOI: 10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804)

[12] G. A. Chang, J. B. Mander, Seismic Energy Based Fatigue Damage Analysis of Bridge Columns: Part 1 – Evaluation of Seismic Capacity, NCEER Technical Report No. NCEER-94-0006, State University of New York, Buffalo, N. Y., (1994).

[13] H. B. Kupfer, H. K. Gerstle, Behavior of Concrete under Biaxial Stresses, Journal Engineering Mechanics Division, Vol. 99, No. 4, (1973).

DOI: 10.1061/jmcea3.0001789

[14] CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, First Draft, Committee Euro-International du Beton, Bulletin d'information No. 195, 196.

DOI: 10.1680/ceb-fipmc1990.35430