Influence of Staggered Truss on Progressive Collapse-Resistant Behavior of Steel Frame Structures
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Model Parameters
2.2. Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis Methods
2.3. Robustness Analysis Methods
2.4. Failure Criteria for Components
3. Results
3.1. Removal of Single Column at Ground Floor Level
3.1.1. Displacement of the Tops of Failed Columns
3.1.2. Axial Forces in Adjacent Columns of Failed Columns
3.2. Removal of Upper Single Column Conditions
3.2.1. Displacement of the Tops of Failed Columns
3.2.2. Axial Forces in Adjacent Columns of Failed Columns
3.3. Removal of Multiple Columns
3.4. Discussion
4. Robustness Analysis Results
5. Conclusions
- (1)
- The staggered truss system can effectively reduce the vertical displacements and vibration amplitudes at the failure point after column failure, and the peak displacements at the failure point can be reduced by 84% at most and 41% at least compared with the pure frame structure.
- (2)
- The staggered truss system reduces the peak axial force in some of the columns adjacent to the failed column.
- (3)
- The staggered truss system is more effective in enhancing the structural resistance to progressive collapse in case of failure of corner columns and long-side center columns of steel frame structures.
- (4)
- Designing a structure with braced members can increase the critical members’ load-carrying capacities while increasing the column members’ load-carrying capacities in the same plane as the trusses above them.
- (5)
- The structural robustness coefficients of Model A, Scheme 1 braced frame, Scheme 2 braced frame, Scheme 3 braced frame, and Scheme 4 braced frame are 1.144, 1.339, 1.306, 1.584, and 1.176, respectively, indicating that enhancing the redundancy of the structure can effectively improve the structural robustness, and a reasonable bracing arrangement can make the structure have better redundancy and thus better resistance to progressive collapse. The structure has better resistance to progressive collapse.
- (6)
- The amounts of steel used in the four models are equal, only the form of bracing is varied, and overall, Scheme 1 is better optimized for the structure’s performance against progressive collapse than the other three schemes.
- (7)
- The appearance of the staggered truss system is beautiful and changeable, and the progressive collapse resistance of the structure is also significantly improved. However, due to the limitation of the site, it is not possible to experimentally study the progressive collapse resistance of steel frame staggered truss systems, and it is hoped that some researchers can experimentally study the progressive collapse resistance of staggered truss systems in the future. This study does not consider the effect of floor slabs on the progressive collapse resistance of this structure. It is hoped that some researchers will consider studying the effect of floor slabs on the progressive collapse resistance of this frame structure in the future.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kiakojouri, F.; De Biagi, V.; Chiaia, B.; Sheidaii, M.R. Strengthening and retrofitting techniques to mitigate progressive collapse: A critical review and future research agenda. Eng. Struct. 2022, 262, 114274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ke, C.; Liu, Q. Application of sensitivity analysis to progressive collapse resistance of planar truss structures. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, R.; Chen, G.; Zhang, Z.; Luo, W. Progressive collapse resistance assessment of a multi-column frame tube structure with an assembled truss beam composite floor under different column removal conditions. Buildings 2023, 14, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anas, S.M.; Alam, M.; Umair, M. Experimental and numerical investigations on performance of reinforced concrete slabs under explosive-induced air-blast loading: A state-of-the-art review. Structures 2021, 31, 428–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masoomzadeh, M.; Basim, M.C.; Chenaghlou, M.R.; Khajehsaeid, H. Probabilistic performance assessment of eccentric braced frames using artificial neural networks combined with correlation latin hypercube sampling. Structures 2023, 240, 48226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hammad, A.; Moustafa, A.M. Shake table tests of special concentric braced frames under short and long duration earthquakes. Eng. Struct. 2019, 200, 109695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansen, R.J.; Messurier, W.J.; Paul, P.J. New steel framing system promises major savings in high-rise apartments. Archit. Rec. 1966, 139, 191–196. [Google Scholar]
- Bakke, H.P.; Kloiber, L.A.; Nuhn, A.C. Staggered truss building system. Civ. Eng. ASCE 1969, 39, 56–59. [Google Scholar]
- Goel, S.C.; Itani, A.M. Seismic behavior of open-web truss-moment frames. J. Struct. Eng. 1994, 120, 1763–1780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wahyuni, E.; Tethool, Y. Effect of Vierendeel panel width and vertical truss spacing ratio in staggered truss framing system under earthquake loads. Int. J. Civ. Eng. 2014, 13, 213–221. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, J.; Lee, J. Seismic retrofit schemes for staggered truss structures. Eng. Struct. 2015, 102, 93–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, H.; Zhou, X. Analysis of Global Ductility of Staggered Truss Steel Frame in Severe Earthquake; Hunan University: Changsha, China, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, X.; Huang, W.; Zhou, Q.; Zhou, Z.; Guo, W. Pseudo-dynamic test and numerical analyses of staggered truss framing systems. Structures 2022, 522, 45509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, X.; Zhou, Z.; Zhou, Q.; Huang, W.; Guo, W. Hysteretic behavior and design considerations of staggered truss framing systems. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 72, 106696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, X.; Zhou, Q.; Huang, X. Calculation of internal forces of staggered truss structures subjected to vertical loads. Eng. Mech. 2004, 21, 25–30. [Google Scholar]
- Zong, Z. Plastic Design of Special Staggered Truss Based on Energy Balance; Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology: Xi’an, China, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Soo, Y.H.; Jong, E.Y.; Soon, C.R. Seismic performance evaluation of staggered truss system by the shape of truss. J. Comput. Struct. Eng. Inst. Korea 2017, 30, 397–404. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Q.; Liao, T.; Peng, X.; Xu, S. Analysis of seismic performance of assembled steel structure staggered truss system. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2021; Volume 783. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Y.; Ke, K.; Yi, J.; Liu, Z.; Ye, D.; Xu, G.; Yuan, S. Seismic performance of steel staggered truss frame equipped with brace-type hybrid dampers with multiple nonlinear stages. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2023, 18, e02158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, P. Progressive Collapse Analysis and Robustness Research of Prestressed Fabricated Concrete Frame; Hunan University: Changsha, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Zang, X.; Lv, C.; Dong, L.; Zhou, N. Effect of bracing on the resistance of progressive collapse of prefabricated steel frame structures. Steel Struct. 2018, 33, 1620+82. [Google Scholar]
- UFC 4-023-03; Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Collapse. Department of Defense: Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
- GB50010-2010; Code for Design of Concrete Structure. China Architecture and Building Press: Beijing, China, 2010.
- Diao, Y.; Sun, Y.; Cao, Y. Effect of eccentric braces on progressive collapse resistance of high-rise steel frame structures. Steel Struct. 2016, 31, 53–59. [Google Scholar]
- Nanci, B.; Shalva, M. SDOF Model for Progressive Collapse Analysis. In Proceedings of the Structures Congress and Exposition, New York, NY, USA, 20–24 April 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Clough, R.; Penzzien, J. Dynamics of Structures, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- GB 50017-2003; Code for Design of Steel Structures. Architecture & Building Press: Beijing, China, 2003.
- Gong, Y.; Yan, Y.; Li, Z. Analyze of eccentrically web members influence on the seismic performance of staggered-truss system. J. Liaoning Univ. Eng. Technol. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 2016, 35, 1122–1125. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Fang, Z.; Li, H. Structural robustness, and risk mitigation. Eng. Mech. 2007, 24, 79–82. [Google Scholar]
- GSA. Alternate Path Analysis and Design Guidelines for Progressive Collapse Resistance; U.S. General Service Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
- Ge, S.; Lai, W. Analysis of steel staggered Vierendeel truss frame based on the progressive collapse. Steel Struct. 2015, 30, 19–23. [Google Scholar]
Structural Member | Ductility Ratio | Plastic Hinge Rotation |
---|---|---|
Beams | 20 | 0.21 |
Column (tensile control) | 20 | 0.21 |
Column (pressure control) | 1 | - |
Case | Failure Column | Model A | Scheme 1 | Scheme 2 | Scheme 3 | Scheme 4 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
YD | PD | YD | PD | YD | PD | YD | PD | YD | PD | ||
1 | A1 | 19.52 | 45.03 | 7.00 | 11.20 | 15.11 | 17.43 | 15.08 | 17.51 | 7.01 | 11.00 |
2 | A3 | 24.35 | 51.78 | 4.62 | 8.26 | 14.41 | 15.34 | 4.61 | 8.21 | 14.40 | 15.35 |
3 | B1 | 17.85 | 50.99 | 11.62 | 18.86 | 26.41 | 32.85 | 26.40 | 32.85 | 11.59 | 18.79 |
4 | B3 | 37.10 | 71.51 | 9.11 | 16.58 | 38.41 | 42.12 | 9.12 | 16.54 | 38.40 | 42.10 |
Case | Failure Column | Neighboring Column | Model A | Scheme 1 | Scheme 2 | |||
Before Column Removal | After Column Removal | Before Column Removal | After Column Removal | Before Column Removal | After Column Removal | |||
1 | A1 | A2 | 522.32 | 827.70 | 497.33 | 1098.35 | 530.79 | 975.68 |
B1 | 516.76 | 808.35 | 550.37 | 619.64 | 530.54 | 634.02 | ||
2 | A3 | A2 (A4) | 522.32 | 892.95 | 497.33 | 1018.99 | 530.79 | 988.74 |
B3 | 972.71 | 1308.15 | 1000.80 | 1069.93 | 957.84 | 1040.56 | ||
3 | B1 | C1 | 516.76 | 870.54 | 550.37 | 686.50 | 530.54 | 742.95 |
B2 | 971.98 | 1319.49 | 929.66 | 1893.41 | 891.74 | 1650.53 | ||
A1 | 288.25 | 619.13 | 497.33 | 512.95 | 296.71 | 494.58 | ||
4 | B3 | B2 (B4) | 971.98 | 1454.90 | 896.72 | 1862.90 | 926.49 | 1548.41 |
C3 | 972.71 | 1454.11 | 1004.64 | 1116.02 | 957.84 | 1202.00 | ||
A3 | 522.73 | 978.20 | 549.06 | 639.98 | 509.72 | 738.79 | ||
Case | Failure Column | Neighboring Column | Model A | Scheme 3 | Scheme 4 | |||
Before Column Removal | After Column Removal | Before Column Removal | After Column Removal | Before Column Removal | After Column Removal | |||
1 | A1 | A2 | 522.32 | 827.70 | 510.70 | 965.35 | 517.46 | 1119.04 |
B1 | 516.76 | 808.35 | 531.83 | 636.94 | 549.54 | 618.05 | ||
2 | A3 | A2 (A4) | 522.32 | 892.95 | 500.75 | 1051.14 | 517.46 | 876.71 |
B3 | 972.71 | 1308.15 | 1000.10 | 1069.10 | 958.39 | 1041.11 | ||
3 | B1 | C1 | 516.76 | 870.54 | 531.83 | 748.02 | 549.54 | 683.21 |
B2 | 971.98 | 1319.49 | 848.86 | 1609.75 | 956.73 | 1914.39 | ||
A1 | 288.25 | 619.13 | 510.70 | 533.98 | 309.71 | 425.14 | ||
4 | B3 | B2 (B4) | 971.98 | 1454.90 | 876.73 | 1923.03 | 856.77 | 1886.97 |
C3 | 972.71 | 1454.11 | 1004.53 | 1115.22 | 951.36 | 1052.71 | ||
A3 | 522.73 | 978.20 | 547.75 | 638.68 | 592.38 | 510.34 |
Case | Failure Column | Model A | Scheme 1 | Scheme 2 | Scheme 3 | Scheme 4 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
YD | PD | YD | PD | YD | PD | YD | PD | YD | PD | ||
1 | 1-A1 | 19.52 | 45.03 | 7.00 | 11.20 | 15.11 | 17.43 | 15.08 | 17.51 | 7.01 | 11.00 |
5 | 2-A1 | 28.44 | 45.19 | 9.57 | 15.58 | 11.07 | 12.68 | 11.09 | 12.95 | 9.55 | 15.63 |
6 | 3-A1 | 59.23 | 113.35 | 8.26 | 13.68 | 19.08 | 21.52 | 19.09 | 21.79 | 8.25 | 13.61 |
Case | Failure Column | Neighboring Column | Model A | Scheme 1 | Scheme 2 | |||
Before Column Removal | After Column Removal | Before Column Removal | After Column Removal | Before Column Removal | After Column Removal | |||
5 | 2-A1 | B1 | 413.27 | 639.82 | 447.14 | 521.84 | 427.59 | 486.37 |
A2 | 416.33 | 652.65 | 390.82 | 813.27 | 415.71 | 677.76 | ||
6 | 3-A1 | B1 | 310.61 | 482.86 | 322.53 | 370.53 | 323.27 | 397.71 |
A2 | 313.88 | 495.92 | 302.86 | 663.67 | 311.84 | 608.98 | ||
Case | Failure Column | Neighboring Column | Model A | Scheme 3 | Scheme 4 | |||
Before Column Removal | After Column Removal | Before Column Removal | After Column Removal | Before Column Removal | After Column Removal | |||
5 | 2-A1 | B1 | 413.27 | 639.82 | 428.41 | 488.16 | 445.92 | 521.02 |
A2 | 416.33 | 652.65 | 404.08 | 722.45 | 404.08 | 618.05 | ||
6 | 3-A1 | B1 | 310.61 | 482.86 | 324.90 | 398.04 | 322.53 | 370.04 |
A2 | 313.88 | 495.92 | 306.12 | 593.88 | 310.20 | 681.63 |
Case | Failure Column | Model A | Scheme 1 | Scheme 2 | Scheme 3 | Scheme 4 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
YD | PD | YD | PD | YD | PD | YD | PD | YD | PD | ||
7 | A1 | 66.19 | 112.62 | 62.69 | 76.07 | 38.84 | 55.42 | 65.27 | 77.54 | 30.26 | 47.46 |
A2 | 53.38 | 84.71 | 58.37 | 66.46 | 20.57 | 30.30 | 59.77 | 67.23 | 18.56 | 28.16 | |
8 | A2 | 46.59 | 80.62 | 22.77 | 35.15 | 18.93 | 21.14 | 8.73 | 16.70 | 8.74 | 16.07 |
A3 | 46.44 | 80.63 | 18.08 | 20.04 | 33.54 | 35.31 | 8.86 | 16.82 | 8.84 | 16.19 |
Model A | Scheme 1 | Scheme 2 | Scheme 3 | Scheme 4 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A1 | 1.172 | 1.329 | 1.361 | 1.360 | 1.223 |
A2 | 1.129 | 1.355 | 1.355 | 1.812 | 1.145 |
A3 | 1.130 | 1.333 | 1.333 | 1.577 | 1.162 |
Entirety | 1.144 | 1.339 | 1.306 | 1.584 | 1.176 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ke, C.; Fan, Y.; Jiang, J. Influence of Staggered Truss on Progressive Collapse-Resistant Behavior of Steel Frame Structures. Buildings 2024, 14, 931. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14040931
Ke C, Fan Y, Jiang J. Influence of Staggered Truss on Progressive Collapse-Resistant Behavior of Steel Frame Structures. Buildings. 2024; 14(4):931. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14040931
Chicago/Turabian StyleKe, Changren, Yihui Fan, and Junling Jiang. 2024. "Influence of Staggered Truss on Progressive Collapse-Resistant Behavior of Steel Frame Structures" Buildings 14, no. 4: 931. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14040931