Collapse fragility assessment of steel roof framings with force limiting devices under transient wind loading

Steel structural frame is a popular structural form to cover large-span roof space and under high winds. Either part of the roof enclosure or the entire roof structure can be lifted off a building, particularly for low sloped roofs subject to wind-induced suction force. Collapse of roof could cause severe economic loss and poses safety risk to residents in the building. The buckling of members in a steel roof frame structure, which may lead to progressive collapse, may be dynamic in nature. This paper presents a fragility analysis of the collapse of steel roof frame structures under combined static and transient wind loading. Uncertainties associated with wind load change rate and member imperfections are taken into account in this study. A numerical example based on a Steel Joist Institute (SJI) K series joist was used to demonstrate the use of force limiting devices for collapse risk mitigation. For the presented fragility assessment of steel roof collapse, a Monte Carlo method combined with response surface approach was adopted, which greatly reduces the computation time and makes the Monte Carlo simulation feasible for probabilistic collapse analysis of steel roof frame structures.

[1]  M. Menegotto,et al.  Method of analysis of cyclically loaded RC plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behavior of elements under normal force and bending , 1973 .

[2]  T. Fujita.  The Downburst: Microburst and Macroburst , 1985 .

[3]  George E. Blandford,et al.  Review of Progressive Failure Analyses for Truss Structures , 1997 .

[4]  Jack W. Baker,et al.  Incorporating modeling uncertainties in the assessment of seismic collapse risk of buildings , 2009 .

[5]  Filip C. Filippou,et al.  Evaluation of Nonlinear Frame Finite-Element Models , 1997 .

[6]  F. Filippou,et al.  Mixed formulation of nonlinear beam finite element , 1996 .

[7]  Bruce R. Ellingwood,et al.  A new look at the response surface approach for reliability analysis , 1993 .

[8]  Donald O. Dusenberry,et al.  Building Design for Abnormal Loads and Progressive Collapse , 2005 .

[9]  Niels C. Lind.  A measure of vulnerability and damage tolerance , 1995 .

[10]  Michael H. Scott,et al.  Krylov Subspace Accelerated Newton Algorithm: Application to Dynamic Progressive Collapse Simulation of Frames , 2010 .

[11]  Y. K. Lin,et al.  Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural and Geotechnical Reliability , 1992 .

[12]  Ahmed Elsheikh,et al.  Effect of force limiting devices on behaviour of space trusses , 1999 .

[13]  Peter W. Clark,et al.  Large-Scale Testing of Steel Unbonded Braces for Energy Dissipation , 2000 .

[14]  L. Faravelli.  Response‐Surface Approach for Reliability Analysis , 1989 .

[15]  M. Menegotto.  Method of Analysis for Cyclically Loaded R. C. Plane Frames Including Changes in Geometry and Non-Elastic Behavior of Elements under Combined Normal Force and Bending , 1973 .

[16]  R. M. Souza.  Force-based Finite Element for Large Displacement Inelastic Analysis of Frames , 2000 .

[17]  C. Bucher,et al.  A fast and efficient response surface approach for structural reliability problems , 1990 .

[18]  Henri P. Gavin,et al.  High-order limit state functions in the response surface method for structural reliability analysis , 2008 .

[19]  Jack W. Baker,et al.  On the assessment of robustness , 2008 .

[20]  Curt B. Haselton,et al.  Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern reinforced concrete moment frame buildings , 2006 .

[21]  Dimitri V. Val,et al.  Robustness of Frame Structures , 2006 .

[22]  G. Volta,et al.  Synthesis and analysis methods for safety and reliability studies , 1980 .

[23]  R. Rackwitz,et al.  A benchmark study on importance sampling techniques in structural reliability , 1993 .

[24]  Uwe Starossek,et al.  Measures of Structural Robustness — Requirements and Applications , 2008 .

[25]  R. Rackwitz,et al.  Experiences with Experimental Design Schemes for Failure Surface Estimation and Reliability , 1992 .

[26]  Stewart M. Verhulst,et al.  The Source Of the Problem , 2007 .

[27]  Curt B. Haselton,et al.  Seismic Collapse Safety and Behavior of Modern Reinforced Concrete Moment Frame Buildings , 2007 .

[28]  Dimitrios Vamvatsikos,et al.  Incremental dynamic analysis , 2002 .

[29]  Abbie B. Liel,et al.  Assessing the collapse risk of California's existing reinforced concrete frame structures: Metrics for seismic safety decisions , 2008 .

[30]  C. S. Manohar,et al.  An improved response surface method for the determination of failure probability and importance measures , 2004 .

[31]  P Disney,et al.  Modelling of tornado and microburst-induced wind loading and failure of a lattice transmission tower , 2001 .

[32]  F. Filippou,et al.  Geometrically Nonlinear Flexibility-Based Frame Finite Element , 1998 .

[33]  Gian Paolo Cimellaro,et al.  Retrofit of Structures: Strength Reduction with Damping Enhancement , 2005 .

[34]  Marc A. Maes,et al.  Structural Robustness in the Light of Risk and Consequence Analysis , 2006 .

[35]  L. Olivi,et al.  RESPONSE SURFACE METHODOLOGY IN RISK ANALYSIS , 1980 .

[36]  Curt B. Haselton,et al.  Comparing Seismic Collapse Safety of Modern and Existing Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures in California , 2008 .

[37]  Gian Paolo Cimellaro,et al.  Retrofit of a hospital through strength reduction and enhanced damping , 2006 .