You are on page 1of 49

Case study: Design of a multi-storey steel structure to

prevent progressive collapse

Florea Dinu
Lecture 20: 11/04/2014
European Erasmus Mundus Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazards and Catastrophic Events
520121-1-2011-1-CZ-ERA MUNDUS-EMMC
Case study :
Tower Center International
Bucharest
Main data
Analysis and design of structure
Progressive collapse resistance
Building main data
Plan 25,5m x 41,5m
Span 7,5m
Bay 7,5m
Storey height 4,0m
Total height 106,3m
Nr. stories 3B + 26S
Foundations Mat foundations + piles, Top-down method
Main structure Partially encased steel columns, steel beams and
bracings, composite slabs
Location The building neighbors the
city centre of Bucharest
Erection March - November 2006
Completion May, 2007
Building main data
Typical floor

3D view

Foundation system
Preliminary study
Constraints: Structural
Infrastructure existing, designed for other structural
system
Bucharest European Capital with the highest seismic risk
Architectural
Interior open space
Bracings position and configuration
Maximum columns size,

Several structural configurations were analysed

Frames with centric braces (X and inverted V)


Frames with steel shear walls
Frames with centric braces + strong link beams + Belt trusses
Romania implemented new seismic code EN1998-1 aligned, starting in
January 2007. Structure was design to fulfill the requirements of both
old and new codes.
Configuration 1 Configuration 2 Configuration 3
Description of the frame system
Dual frame structure, (rigid frames + centrically brace frames)
In order to increase the lateral stiffness against wind and
earthquake actions, outrigger and truss systems at top and
midheight)
Description of the structural system
Outrigger and belt Outrigger system main core connected to the
truss system: exterior columns by stiff horizontal members
Belt truss trusses around the structure at the level
of outrigger

Main benefits Increase the lateral stiffness


Improve global behavior under seismic motion
Improve robustness against unexpected progressive
collapse

belt trusses

Strong beams
Description of the structural system
Columns Cruciform cross sections columns from hot rolled
profiles
MRF bays: cross section columns of 800x800mm
CBF bays: cross section columns of 1000x500mm
Columns were partially encased in reinforced
concrete
S355 steel

MRF bays CBF bays


Description of the structural system
Beams IPE 450 to IPE 550 hot rolled profiles for regular beams
HEB 800 profiles for link beams, beams connected to inverted V
braces
IPE O 300 secondary beams
Composite action of beams and concrete slab - headed stud
connectors
S355 steel

Braces Centric X braces made of hot rolled profiles


X-braces - sections varying from HEB 450 (bottom) to HEA 340 (top)
V braces - sections varying from HEM 450 (bottom) to HEB 400 (top)
Lower yield steel grade S235
Description of the structural system
Connections High-strength bolted connections
easy assembly
good quality control
Analysis and design of structure
Static and dynamic 3D analysis
Wind tunnel test
Response spectra approach
Design of steel structure: Romanian codes + European
codes: EN 1993, EN1994, EN 1998
Performance based seismic evaluation
Fire analysis
Column loss scenario (alternate load path approach)
Wind design
High demands from wind load
Top lateral deflection - H/500
Centrical bracing in X and V very effective

Wind lateral deflection

ET25

ET23

ET21

ET19

ET17

ET15
longitudinal
Etaj

ET13 transversal
ET11

ET9

ET7

ET5

ET3

ET1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Deplasare [m]
Wind design
Wind tunnel tests
Rigid model to evaluate the distribution of
pressure coefficients
Aeroelastic model to evaluate the aerodynamic
coefficients
Boundary layer wind tunnel
Reasons
Unusual Shapes
Complex Surroundings (dense constructed area)
To optimize safety of project
Wind design
Wind tunnel tests - Rigid model
Length scale 1:100
Davenports law zg
U ( zg ) G

1.2

1
Experimental

0.8 Alfa=0.23

h/hmax
0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
v/vmax

Mean wind profile


Wind design
Wind tunnel tests - Rigid model
Wind design
Wind tunnel tests - Aeroelastic model
Turbulence generators Turbulence intensity profile
1200

1000

800

Cota [mm]
600

400

200

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Aeroelastic model IT [-}


Seimic design
Seismic design based on the envelope of P100/92 and
P100/2006 demands
Based on the structural regularity in plan and in elevation
design based on the response spectra approach
Mode 1: 2,86 sec Mode 2: 2,68 sec Mode 3: 1,76 sec

3.5

3 =2.75 T3 T2 T1
4.4/T
2.5

2
2
8.8/T
1.5

0.5
T B =0.16 T C =1.6s T D =2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Perioada
Period TT,, ssec
Performance based evaluation
Reasons
Code requirement for important buildings
There are some design requirements that are very difficult to
achieve in practice to verify design assumptions
In the design code there are not direct verifications for CPLS
Goals
to evaluate the behaviour of the structure
to verify the plastic mechanism incremental nonlinear
time-history analysis were preformed Incremental
nonlinear time-history analyses were carried out
to validate the seismic performance of the dual-steel
structural system
Three performance objectives (three performance levels
and corresponding hazard levels)
Incremental nonlinear time-history analyses
Performance based evaluation
Three performance levels (limit states) were considered:
serviceability limit state (SLS) Tr = 30 yrs
ultimate limit state (ULS) Tr = 100 yrs
collapse prevention limit state (CPLS) Tr = 475 years
Intensity of earthquake action at the ULS is equal to the
design one (intensity factor = 1.0).
Ground motion intensity at the SLS is reduced to = 0.5
For the CPLS limit state was increased to = 1.5
A set of seven ground motions were used in the analysis,
scaled to match the target (P100-1/2006) spectrum
10
2

8
Spectral Acceleration, m/s

0
0 1 2 3 4
T, s
Performance based evaluation
Plastic hinge distribution for different acceleration levels
ag = 0,08g ag = 0,12g ag = 0,16g ag = 0,20g ag = 0,24g ag = 0,36g

SLS ULS CPLS


Plastic rotations in elements
Global plastic mechanism
Braces Beams (rad) Columns(rad)
SLS 0.002 0.002 - Reserve against collapse
(ag = 0,24g design acceleration)
ULS 0.006 0.01 0.002
CPLS 0.009 0.015 0.0035
Fire analysis
60 170 540 170 60 Model of column cross section
Column HEB1000*HEB500

0.09
Conectori 13
52) 0.08

0.07

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

Temperature distribution on the cross Time [sec]

Time-deflection at column midheight,


section after 21/2 hrs. (ISO fire)
first storey-column
Safir program (thermal and structural analysis under fire conditions)
Fire resistance exceeded for columns of the first level supplementary protection required
The upper columns fulfil the fire resistance demands and do not require other protection
Column loss scenario
Investigation of collapse
Due to their destination, many high-rise buildings can be
subjected to exceptional situations (eg. terrorist attacks).
As the external loads generated by impact and blast cannot
be clearly assumed, the loss of vertical members was
assumed.
The progressive collapse assessment of seismic resistant
building frames in case of accidental column loss scenario and
its application to evaluate the robustness of a steel frame
multi-storey building due to loss of structural members.
Different hazard scenarios:
Loss of interior columns
Loss of corner columns
Location: 1st storey, 13th storey
Columns are removed one by one
3d static and dynamic nonlinear analysis
Column loss scenario
Scenario 1: 4 columns, 1st storey
Scenario 2: 4 columns, 13th storey

Columns to be lost
1 2 3 4
Column loss scenario

Plastic hinges in the structure, 1st


scenario: a) 3 columns loss; b) 4
columns loss
110
0.007rad

105

100

95

Plastic hinges in the structure,


2nd scenario: a) 3 columns
loss; b) 4 columns loss 0.004rad
Column loss scenario
Plastic hinge in the structure, 1st scenario
a) 3 columns loss;
b) 4 columns loss 0.008rad 0.012rad
No belt trusses
Non linear dynamic analysis

Load C6 C5 C4 C3 C2

C1

(1/20)T 10 Time (sec)

Application of vertical load on the Column removal locations


model with lost column in the
dynamic analysis
0
-20
Displacement (mm)

-40
Linear response
C3
-60
C4-5
-80
Nonlinear response
-100
-120
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Time (sec)
Vertical displacement for C3 and C4-5
scenarios

Plastic hinge formation and axial


force diagram for loss of two columns
at a time case C4-5
Plastic rotation and vertical
displacement for C3 and C4-5
scenarios

Vertical Plastic Plastic Plastic


Scenario displacement, rotation in deformation in deformation in
mm beams, [rad] braces [rad] columns [rad]

C3 35 - - -
C4-5 80 0.008 0.012 -
Veiws during construction
Quality control during erection
Quality control during erection
Due to its height,
building construction
tolerances had to be
strictly controlled
Horizontal structural
tolerances were limited
to H/500 (interstory
deviation)
Accurate GPS system to
control the position of
columns

GPS system to control the


position
Quality control during erection

Steel building
GPS system to control the
position