Progressive Collapse Resistance Assessment of a Multi-Column Frame Tube Structure with an Assembled Truss Beam Composite Floor under Different Column Removal Conditions-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Progressive Collapse Resistance Assessment of a Multi-Column Frame Tube Structure with an Assembled Truss Beam Composite Floor under Different Column Removal Conditions

Published:2023-12-31 Issue:1 Volume:14 Page:111
ISSN:2075-5309
Container-title:Buildings
language:en
Short-container-title:Buildings

Author:

Zhao Rongguo¹²,Chen Guangfei¹³^ORCID,Zhang Zaihua⁴⁵,Luo Wei¹³

Affiliation:

1. Key Laboratory of Dynamics and Reliability of Engineering Structures of College of Hunan Province, Xiangtan University, Xiangtan 411105, China

2. School of Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics, Xiangtan University, Xiangtan 411105, China

3. College of Civil Engineering, Xiangtan University, Xiangtan 411105, China

4. Civil Engineering College, Hunan City University, Yiyang 413000, China

5. Hunan Engineering Research Center of Development and Application of Ceramsite Concrete Technology, Hunan City University, Yiyang 413000, China

Abstract

To estimate the progressive collapse resistance capacity of a multi-column frame tube structure with an assembled truss beam composite floor (ATBCF), pushdown analysis and nonlinear dynamic analysis are conducted for such a structure using the alternate load path (ALP) method. The bearing capacities of the remaining structures under three different work conditions, which are the side middle column removal, the edge middle column removal, and the corner column removal, are individually studied, and the collapse mechanism of the remaining structures is analyzed based on the aspects of the internal force redistribution and the failure mode of the second defense line. Simultaneously, the influence of the column failure time on the dynamic response of the remaining structure and the dynamic amplification coefficient is discussed. The results indicate that the residual bearing capacity of the remaining structure following the bottom corner column removal is higher than that of the one following the side or edge middle column removal, while the latter has a stronger plastic deformation capacity. When the ALP method is adopted to operate the progressive collapse analysis, it is reasonable to take the column failure time as 0.1 times the period of the first-order vertical vibration mode of the remaining structure, and it is suitable to set the dynamic amplification coefficient as 2.0, which is the ratio of the maximum dynamic displacement to the static displacement of the remaining structure under the transient loading condition.

Funder

Education Department of Hunan Province

Publisher

MDPI AG

Subject

Building and Construction,Civil and Structural Engineering,Architecture

Link

https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/14/1/111/pdf

Reference34 articles.

1. ASCE 7 (2010). American Society of Civil Engineers Standard 7 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers.

2. Load resisting mechanism of RC spatial beam-column substructures with unequal spans in the loss of a corner column scenario;Li;J. Vib. Shock,2023

3. Moore, D. (2002). Workshop on Prevention of Progressive Collapse, National Institute of Building Sciences.

4. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2004). The Building Regulations 2000, Part A, Schedule 1: A3. Disproportionate Collapse, The Stationery Office.

5. Standard, B. (1997). Structural Use of Concrete, Part 1: Code of Practice for Design and Construction, British Standards Institution.