Influence of seismic design rules on the robustness of steel moment resisting frames
Source abstract
Abstract
Seismic design criteria allow enhancing the structural ductility and controlling the damage distribution. Therefore, detailing rules and design requirements given by current seismic codes might be also beneficial to improve the structural robustness. In this paper a comprehensive parametric study devoted to quantifying the effectiveness of seismic detailing for steel Moment Resisting Frames (MRF) in limiting the progressive collapse under column loss scenarios is presented and discussed. The overall structural performance was analysed through nonlinear static and dynamic analyses. With this regard the following cases were examined: (i) MRF structures designed for wind actions according to Eurocode 1; (ii) MRF structures designed for seismic actions according to Eurocode 8. The investigated parameters were (i) the number of storeys; (ii) the interstorey height; (iii) the span length; (iv) the building plan layout; and (v) the column loss scenario. Results show that structures designed according to capacity design principles are less robust than wind designed ones, provided that the connections have the same capacity threshold in both cases. In addition, the numerical outcomes show that both the number of elements above the removed column and stiffness of beams are the key parameters in arresting progressive collapse.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Structural Response to Dynamic Loads · Seismic Performance and Analysis · Fire effects on concrete materials
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (25)
Show source-provided references
1. J. Struct. Eng. · 2011 · 137 · 91410.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000452 ↗
2. Struct. Safety · 2008 · 30 · 25310.1016/j.strusafe.2006.11.004 ↗
3. J. Const. Steel Res. · 2012 · 78 · 14410.1016/j.jcsr.2012.07.003 ↗
4. Thin-Wall. Struct. · 2014 · 77 · 14110.1016/j.tws.2013.09.015 ↗
5. Thin-Wall. Struct. · 2015 · 94 · 6710.1016/j.tws.2015.03.020 ↗
6. J. Const. Steel Res. · 2013 · 82 · 1910.1016/j.jcsr.2012.11.013 ↗
7. Struct. Infrastr. Eng. · 2015 · 11 · 102810.1080/15732479.2014.927509 ↗
8. J. Struct. Eng. · 2014 · 140 · 216
9. Comput. Struct. · 2015 · 147 · 21610.1016/j.compstruc.2014.09.010 ↗
10. Eng. Struct. · 2010 · 32 · 397410.1016/j.engstruct.2010.09.008 ↗
11. J. Const. Steel Res. · 2014 · 95 · 110.1016/j.jcsr.2013.11.012 ↗
12. Stahlbau · 2015 · 84 · 32410.1002/stab.201510261 ↗
13. Struct. Infrastr. Eng. · 2014 · 11 · 334
14. J. Const. Steel Res. · 2004 · 60 · 73910.1016/S0143-974X(03)00140-8 ↗
15. J. Const. Steel Res. · 2013 · 90 · 6010.1016/j.jcsr.2013.07.022 ↗
16. Steel Compos. Struct., Int. J. · 2014 · 17 · 21510.12989/scs.2014.17.3.215 ↗
17. J. Struct. Eng. · 2005 · 131 · 115710.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:8(1157) ↗
18. Eng. Struct. · 2008 · 30 · 130810.1016/j.engstruct.2007.07.011 ↗
19. J. Struct. Eng. · 2008 · 137 · 1070
20. J. Const. Steel Res. · 2009 · 65 · 131610.1016/j.jcsr.2008.11.006 ↗
21. Int. J. Reliab. Saf. · 2012 · 6 · 1510.1504/IJRS.2012.044293 ↗
22. J. Perf. Constr. Fac. · 2006 · 20 · 34910.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2006)20:4(349) ↗
23. Struct. Des. Tall Sp. Build. · 2009 · 18 · 46910.1002/tal.449 ↗
24. J. Const. Steel Res. · 2014 · 101 · 43710.1016/j.jcsr.2014.06.007 ↗
25. J. Struct. Eng. · 2011 · 137 · 92510.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000403 ↗