robustness assessment for multiple column loss scenarios
DESCRIPTION
Robustness assessment for multiple column loss scenarios. M. Pereira and B. A. Izzuddin Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Robustness assessment framework. Robustness Assessment. Damage Scenarios. Single Damage Scenario. Multiple Damage Scenarios. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Robustness assessment for multiple column loss scenarios](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/5681427e550346895daea773/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Robustness assessment for multiple column loss scenarios
M. Pereira and B. A. Izzuddin
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
![Page 2: Robustness assessment for multiple column loss scenarios](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/5681427e550346895daea773/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Multiple Damage Scenarios
Robustness assessment framework
Robustness Assessment
Damage Scenarios
Single Damage Scenario
Sudden single column loss
Sudden single column loss
Sudden two adjacent column loss
![Page 3: Robustness assessment for multiple column loss scenarios](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/5681427e550346895daea773/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Column loss scenario – Main Stages
(i) Nonlinear static response of the damaged structure under gravity loading
(ii) Simplified dynamic assessment to establish the maximum dynamic response under column loss scenarios
(iii)Ductility assessment of the connections/structure
![Page 4: Robustness assessment for multiple column loss scenarios](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/5681427e550346895daea773/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Dynamic response of a SDOF system – Point Load
-
=
M u + K u = P
![Page 5: Robustness assessment for multiple column loss scenarios](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/5681427e550346895daea773/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Dynamic response of a SDOF system – UDL
M u + K u = wL
-
=
![Page 6: Robustness assessment for multiple column loss scenarios](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/5681427e550346895daea773/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Dynamic response of a MDOF system – UDL
-
=
![Page 7: Robustness assessment for multiple column loss scenarios](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/5681427e550346895daea773/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Pseudo-static response of a MDOF system
, ,
,01
dd n k
N u
n k s kk
U P u
, , , 0, , ,1 1
N N
n n k d n k n k d n kk k
W P u P u
, ,
,01
,
0, , ,1
dd n k
N u
k s kk
n k n n N
k d n kk
P uW U
P u
![Page 8: Robustness assessment for multiple column loss scenarios](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/5681427e550346895daea773/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Simplified Dynamic Assessment – Case Study
Floor system Service Load
Edge: 406UB38 (Floor), 305UB28 (Roof)Internal: 305UB25 (Floor), 152UB16 (Roof)Transverse: 356UC153 (Floor), 254UC107 (Roof)
Floor Dead Load: 4.2 kN/m2 (factored 1)Floor Live Load: 5.0 kN/m2 (factored 0.25)Edge Floor (Facade) Dead Load: 8.3 kN/mRoof Loads : ½ of Floor Loads
![Page 9: Robustness assessment for multiple column loss scenarios](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/5681427e550346895daea773/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Individual beam level – Longitudinal edge beam
Rigid Column
Flexible Column
![Page 10: Robustness assessment for multiple column loss scenarios](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/5681427e550346895daea773/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Longitudinal edge beam - Rigid Column
2 Point Load Uniformly Distributed Load
• Accurate approximation of the dynamic response for both loading cases• Slight overestimation as expected in the static analysis more visible for 2 point load (concentrated masses)
• High frequencies excitation for uniformly distributed mass case
![Page 11: Robustness assessment for multiple column loss scenarios](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/5681427e550346895daea773/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Longitudinal edge beam - Flexible Column
Uniformly Distributed Load
• Good approximation of the dynamic response for a case with variable deformation mode during loading• Slight overestimation in the static analysis
• High frequencies excitation
![Page 12: Robustness assessment for multiple column loss scenarios](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/5681427e550346895daea773/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Individual floor level
Detailed Floor Grillage Model Simplified Floor Grillage Model
, ,
,01
,
0, , ,1
dd n k
N u
k s kk
k n n Nn
k d n kk
P uW U
P u
Compatibility between members assuming a governing mode
and
![Page 13: Robustness assessment for multiple column loss scenarios](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/5681427e550346895daea773/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
• Vertical displacement point of zero system acceleration (maximum static displacement) corresponds to point of exact vertical reaction prediction as expected
• Under/overestimation of vertical support reaction is observed for total down/upwards acceleration
Individual floor
(Pseudo) Static vs. Dynamic Detailed Model
(Pseudo) Static Detailed vs. Simplified Models
• Accurate approximation of the dynamic response
• Dominant trapezoidal mode of deformation for floor system
• Additional rotational restraint given by transverse beams torsional stiffness
• Better approximation of structural response from assembling individual beams with rigid columns, rather than flexible columns
• Use of longitudinal edge beam for governing member and imposed compatibility in remaining floor members
• Good approximation of floor vertical support reaction from individual beams (rigid columns) vertical reaction profiles
![Page 14: Robustness assessment for multiple column loss scenarios](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/5681427e550346895daea773/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Conclusions
• Successful extension of the multi-level simplified dynamic assessment to structures subjected to two adjacent columns loss
• Dominant trapezoidal mode observed even for asymmetric load/structural configuration
• Consideration of reaction transmitted to surrounding structure for alternate load path assessment (including column resistance / connection shear failure)
• Further studies on effect of high frequency excitation in instantaneous system failure
![Page 15: Robustness assessment for multiple column loss scenarios](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/5681427e550346895daea773/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Conclusions
Comparing the dynamic and pseudo-static responses:
• Validity of the assumption of zero kinetic energy at maximum dynamic displacement for MDOF system;
• Conservative assumption of the inertial forces distribution for determination of dynamic vertical support reaction.
Comparing detailed and simplified assembly models responses:
• Simplified models are feasible for structures exhibiting constant deformation mode during loading.
![Page 16: Robustness assessment for multiple column loss scenarios](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/5681427e550346895daea773/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Multiple floors level
Detailed Multiple Floors Model
, ,
,01
,
0, , ,1
dd n k
N u
k s kk
k n n Nn
k d n kk
P uW U
P u
Compatibility between members assuming a governing mode
and
Simplified Multiple Floor Model
![Page 17: Robustness assessment for multiple column loss scenarios](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062301/5681427e550346895daea773/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Multiple floors
(Pseudo) Static vs. Dynamic Detailed Model
(Pseudo) Static Detailed vs. Simplified Models
• Accurate approximation of the dynamic response
• Dominant trapezoidal mode of deformation for multiple floor system
• Vertical displacement point of zero system acceleration (maximum static displacement) corresponds to point of exact vertical reaction prediction as expected
• Under/overestimation of vertical support reaction is observed for total down/upwards acceleration
• Good approximation of structural response either using detailed floors assembly or starting from individual beams assembly.
• Equally satisfactory approximation using either 1st Floor or Roof longitudinal edge beams as governing members
• Satisfactory approximation of floor vertical support reaction from individual beams (rigid columns) vertical reaction profiles taking into account moderate load redistribution between floors