| ISSN: 2429-5396 (e) | www.american-jiras.com|| | Web Site Form: v 0.1.05 | JF 22 Cours, Wellington le Clairval, Lillebonne | France |
ResearchBib, Google Scholar, SIS database, i.f.s.i.j, Scribd, IISJ, Eurasian Scientific Journal Index (ESJI),Indianscience.in, arastirmax, Directory of Research Journals Indexing, Pak Academic Sesearch, AcademicKeays, CiteSeerX, UDL Library, CAS Abstracts, J-Gate, WorldCat, Scirus, IET Inspec Direct, and getCited
Tishreen University | department of structural engineering | Lattakia | Syria |
This article is made freely available as part of this journal's Open Access: ID| Khudr-Ref.2-ajira190320 |
ABSTRACT Background: In the context of progressive collapse, robustness is broadly defined as a measure of the ability of a building system to carry most of its usual functions in the presence of local component failures. Specifically, structural robustness is a measure of the capacity of a building system to withstand loss of local load carrying capacity. Objectives: The objective of this study is to evaluating the robustness of building systems that have lost critical members By focusing on the residual capacity and associated collapse modes, particularly for seismically designed buildings. Methods: This paper presents a technique termed ‘pushdown analysis’ that can be used to investigate the robustness of building systems by computing residual capacity and establishing collapse modes of a damaged structure. The proposed method is inspired by the pushover method commonly used in earthquake engineering. Three variants of the technique, termed uniform pushdown, bay pushdown and incremental dynamic pushdown, are suggested and exercised using nonlinear analysis on 9-story steel moment frames designed for low and high levels of seismic risk. Conclusions: Simulation results show that the frame designed for high seismic risk is more robust than the corresponding one designed for moderate seismic risk. The improved performance is attributed to the influence of seismic detailing, specifically, the presence of reduced beam sections and stronger columns. It is shown that the dynamic impact factors associated with column removal are significantly lower than the commonly used value of 2.0 and are in line with lower values in the guidelines recently proposed by the US Department of Defense. Keywords: Progressive collapse, column loss, Beam-to–column joints, Catenary action, Dynamic increased factor
Sciences are the property of Atlantic Center Research Sciences, and is protected by copyright laws CC-BY. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
