Methods of structural analysis for resistance to progressive collapse
https://doi.org/10.22227/2305-5502.2023.2.3
Abstract
Introduction. Calculation methods and current normative documents used in the calculation of buildings for resistance to progressive collapse are considered. The key methods of analysis are listed and fundamenta.rules of each of them are stated. The advantages and disadvantages of these methods are analyzed.
Materials and methods. The calculations of stability to progressive collapse have been carried out for a multi-span flat frame at the failure of the middle post of the ground floor. The software complex LIRA-SAPR 2021 R1.2 was used to perform calculations. The task was solved by several methods: the static calculation, quasi-static calculation and dynamic calculation. The nonlinear functioning of construction and material was considered by step-methods with using the flow curve from SP 16.13330.2017. Quasistatic calculation was performed in two variants: pulldown and pushdown analysis. The dynamic calculation was carried out by direct integration of the equations of motion using the module “Dynamics in Time”. Two variants with different element elimination time were considered.
Results. The results are analyzed and summarized in Table 2. The static calculation yields force and displacement values that are clearly underestimated as compared to other methods. Forces and displacements obtained by quasistatic analysis are greater than those obtained by dynamic analysis. The results obtained in the pulldown and pushdown analyses are close in value.
Conclusions. Quasistatic calculations give higher forces and displacements than dynamic calculations. The results of pushdown analysis correlate better with the results of calculations in the dynamic formulation. In order to determine forces more accurately when using quasi-static calculation, a justification of the dynamical coefficient is necessary.
About the Authors
Andrey D. Semashkin
Moscow State University of Civil Engineering (National Research University) (MGSU)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
postgraduate student of the Institute of Industrial and Civil Engineering
Alexander R. Tusnin
Moscow State University of Civil Engineering (National Research University) (MGSU)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Doctor of Technical Sciences, Associate Professor, Professor of the Department of Metal and Wooden Structures, Director of the Institute of Industrial and Civil Engineering
- Scopus: 6507367654
Maria P. Berger
Moscow State University of Civil Engineering (National Research University) (MGSU)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Candidate of Technical Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Metal and Wooden Structures
- Scopus: 57192100982
- ResearcherID: AAG-2520-2022
References
1. Berger M.P. The strength of steel trusses depends on the time of local destruction : dissertation … candidate of technical sciences. Moscow, 2020; 186. (rus.).
2. Tusnina O.A. The choice of emergency situations when calculating the progressive collapse of an industrial building. Industrial and Civil Engineering. 2021; 9:60-65. DOI: 10.33622/0869-7019.2021.09.60-65 (rus.).
3. Nazarov Y.P., Gorodetsky A.S., Simbirkin V.N. About a problem of survivability support of building structures subjected to emergency actions. Structural Mechanics and Analysis of Constructions. 2009; 4(225):5-9. (rus.).
4. Drobot D.Yu. Possible methods of analysis for progressive collapse : tutorial. Moscow, 2020; 264. (rus.).
5. Perelmuter A.V., Kabantsev O.V. On methods of computational analysis in case of sudden failure of a carrier system element : report. Seminar SCAD-Soft.2019. (rus.).
6. Bondarev Yu.V., Talantov I.S. Approaches to solving the problem of a sudden elements removal from the bar system. Bulletin of Civil Engineers. 2014; 2(43):48-52. (rus.).
7. Grachev V.Yu., Vershinina T.A., Puzatkin A.A. Disproportionate destruction. Comparison of calculation methods. Yekaterinburg, Azhur, 2010; 81. (rus.).
8. Tusnin A.R., Berger M.P. Dynamic coefficients for calculating a damaged farm. Theory and practice of calculation of buildings, structures and structural elements. Analytical and numerical methods : collection of reports and abstracts of the International Scientific and Practical Conference dedicated to the 90th anniversary of the birth of Professor N.N. Leontiev and the 110th anniversary of the birth of Professor V.Z. Vlasov. 2017; 87-89. (rus.).
9. Tusnin A. Analysis of dynamic coefficients for damage to the middle support of two-span and three-span continuous beams. MATEC Web of Conferences. 2017; 117:00173. DOI: 10.1051/matecconf/201711700173
10. Geniev G.A. On the evaluation of dynamic effects in rod systems made of brittle materials. Concrete and Reinforced Concrete. 1992; 9:25-27. (rus.).
11. Kolchunov V., Fedorova N. Current problems of reinforced concrete structural systems survivability at emergency impacts. Bulletin of Science and Research Center Construction. 2018; 1(16):115-119. (rus.).
12. Krasnoschekov Yu.V., Melnikova S.O., Ekimov A.A. Vitality high-rise building with svjaseva frames. The sRussian Automobile and Highway Industry Journal. 2016; 2(48):100-104. DOI: 10.26518/2071-7296-2016-2(48)-100-104 (rus.).
13. Krasnoshchekov Yu.V. Calculation of a frame building for progressive collapse in case of an emergency failure of a column. Structural Mechanics and Analysis of Constructions. 2017; 1(270):54-58. (rus.).
14. Yeremeyev P.G., Lebedeva I.V. Monitoring and analysis of regulatory documents on the design of structures with due regard for the progressive collapse. Industrial and Civil Engineering. 2021; 12:15-21. DOI: 10.33622/0869-7019.2021.12.15-21 (rus.).
15. Vedyakov I.I., Eremeev P.G., Odesskiy P.D., Popov N.A., Solovyev D.V. Regulatory requirements for the design of building structures for progressive collapse. Industrial and Civil Engineering. 2019; 4:16-24. DOI: 10.33622/0869-7019.2019.04.16-24 (rus.).
16. Perel’muter A.V. Structural reliability requirements. Vestnik of Tomsk state university of architecture and building. 2015; 1:81-101. (rus.).
17. Ellingwood B.R., Smilowitz R., Dusenberry D.O., Duthinh D., Lew H.S., Carino N.J. Best practices for reducing the potential for progressive collapse in buildings. USA, NISTIR, 2007. DOI: 10.6028/nist.ir.7396
18. Kudishin Yu.I. Conceptual problems of survivability of building structures. Vestnik MGSU [Monthly Journal on Construction and Architecture]. 2009; 2(spec.):28-36. (rus.).
19. Travush V.I., Kolchunov V.I., Klyueva N.V. Some directions of development of survivability theory of structural systems of buildings and structures. Industrial and Civil Engineering. 2015; 3:4-11. (rus.).
20. Danilov A.I. The concept of managing the process of destruction of a construction object. Industrial and Civil Engineering. 2014; 8:74-77. (rus.).
21. Travush V.I., Kolchunov V.I., Leont’yev E.V. Protection of buildings and structures against progressive collapse within the framework of legislative and regulatory requirements. Industrial and Civil Engineering. 2019; 2:46-54. DOI: 10.33622/0869-7019.2019.02.46-54 (rus.).
22. Kandil K.S., Ellobody E.A.E.F., Eldehemy H. Progressive collapse of steel frames. World Journal of Engineering and Technology. 2013; 01(03):39-48. DOI: 10.4236/wjet.2013.13007
23. Kolchunov V.I., Emal’yanov S.G. et al. Designing measures to protect buildings and structures from progressive collapse : methodological guide. Moscow, 2018. (rus.).
24. Kelasyev N.G., Trekin N.N., Kodysh E.N. et al. Handbook on the design of measures to protect buildings and structures from progressive collapse. Part 2. Moscow, 2020. (rus.).
Review
For citations:
Semashkin A.D., Tusnin A.R., Berger M.P. Methods of structural analysis for resistance to progressive collapse. Construction: Science and Education. 2023;13(2):31-50. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22227/2305-5502.2023.2.3
Views:
1465
Email this article 
