Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Post-tensioned (PT) steel frames, in which beams are connected to columns through high-strength PT
Received 19 April 2016 strands, have been successfully developed in the past decade as a novel earthquake-resistant structural
Revised 13 June 2016 system. Compared to conventional steel moment frames, a PT steel frame demonstrates superior seismic
Accepted 3 August 2016
performance, notably the minimum damages in main structural components and the self-centering capa-
bility under a design basis earthquake. Despite the abundant research on the seismic behavior of PT steel
frames, there is an apparent lack of study on their load-redistribution behavior upon the notional removal
Keywords:
of critical load-bearing columns, a commonly used threat-independent local structural damage scenario
Progressive collapse
Steel frame
that potentially triggers the progressive collapse of the column-removed frame. This paper presents a
Post-tensioned connection first-of-its-kind numerical investigation on the unique structural behavior of PT steel connections and
Finite element frames in redistributing the unbalanced gravity loads due to column removal. High-fidelity finite element
Column removal structural models are constructed and validated using the available experimental data in the literature.
Load redistribution The capacity of PT steel frames subjected to a gradually increasing vertical displacement along the
Structural capacity removed column line is systematically studied. It is found that, besides the resistance of energy-
Arching action dissipating elements, beam arching action and strand catenary action are the major sources of structural
Catenary action
capacity of a PT steel frame against progressive collapse. The corresponding failure modes are identified
Failure mode
and the design implications are suggested.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.08.005
0141-0296/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Pirmoz, M. Liu / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 446456 447
2. Benchmark PT structures
e d cosh D d D 2
where L and d are the original clear length and depth of the beam,
respectively. Accordingly, the vertical force Varch acting on the right-
hand-side column by the beam is upward and equal in value to the
afore-mentioned V exerted by the column. This vertical beam for-
ce Varch contributes to the frame capacity against the applied ver-
tical force G along the removed column line, as long as the line of
application of the horizontal force F at the right end of the beam Fig. 9. Illustration of the beam arching action in a PT steel frame.
is above that of the horizontal force at the left end of the beam
Force [kN]
Note that in the above introduction to the beam arching action,
an infinitely rigid beam is assumed to simplify the equation devel- 150
opment and improve the concept understanding. Under this
assumption, the gap between the beam and column opens imme- 100
diately when a vertical displacement is applied, and all forces
apply only at the top/bottom edges of the beam ends. In reality, Vertical
50 beam force
however, the gap starts to open (i.e., the beam end separates from
the column face on the tension flange side) only when a decom- Varch
pression moment capacity (provided by the initial PT forces) is 0
exhausted by the vertical force-induced flexural demand. There-
fore, before gap opens (i.e., when the vertical displacement is very -50
small), the vertical beam force is in the form of beam end shear 0 200 400 600 800 1000
associated with the beam flexural demand (up to the decompres- Vertical Displacement [mm]
sion moment) and thus should not be calculated by Eqs. (1) and
(2). After the gap opens, the vertical beam force is contributed by 2000
both the shear resistance of energy-dissipating elements (if exist-
(b )
ing) and the beam arching action. At this stage, the vertical beam
force Varch due to the arching action can be approximately calcu- Horizontal
lated by Eqs. (1) and (2) while keeping in mind that the horizontal beam force
reaction force is distributed over a finite contact surface at each 1500
F
beam end.
Fig. 10 presents the changes in the overall vertical force capacity
Force [kN]
Fig. 11. Distribution of von Mises stresses in the beam of the one-story frame at a vertical displacement of 69 mm.
Fig. 10(a) shows that at a vertical displacement of 600 mm, the far less than the typical fracture strain of 0.05 [31], indicating that
positive (i.e., upward) vertical beam force Varch reduces to zero, the strands still possess considerable reserve capacity although
suggesting the ending of beneficial beam arching action. In fact, they have already yielded at a vertical displacement of 760 mm
Eq. (2) suggests that, when the vertical displacement D is equal (Fig. 10(b)).
to the beam depth d, the vertical offset e is close to zero and hence
V (which is equal in value to Varch) calculated by Eq. (1) is zero. Note 4.3. Study of the tested three-story PT frame
that the depth of the beam W24X62 used in the one-story PT frame
is about 610 mm, a value practically equal to 600 mm considering We compare in Fig. 13 the vertical force vs. displacement curves
the approximation made in Eq. (2). As the vertical displacement generated from the tested three-story frame (Fig. 3) and its FE
goes beyond 600 mm, the vertical beam force switches its direction model (Fig. 5), respectively. In general, the two sets of data agree
by acting downward along the removed column line (i.e., its value well. For example, the gap opening forces are 176 kN and 167 kN
becomes negative in Fig. 10(a)), thereby reducing the vertical force from the test and FE simulation, respectively. The peak vertical
capacity of the frame. At the same time, the horizontal beam force force capacities of the frame are 497 kN and 502 kN from the test
(acting on the column) decreases due to the significantly inclined and FE simulation, respectively. Note that the FE model exhibits
position of the beam. At a vertical displacement of 950 mm, both a slightly higher initial stiffness than that of the tested frame. As
horizontal and vertical beam forces drop to zero (Fig. 10), indicat- will be discussed in detail later, the actual lower-than-reported
ing that the beam totally separates from the column face (Fig. 12). axial stiffness of strands in the tested frame, along with other
At this stage, the beam completely loses its gravity load-carrying
capacity. The corresponding strain of the strands is calculated to
be 0.018, a value slightly more than the yield strain of 0.012 but
500
Loading FE results
400
300 nd
2 - floor strand
200 rd
3 - floor strand
100
Roof strand
0
0 50 100 150 200
Vertical Displacement [mm]
Fig. 12. Deformation of the PT connection of the one-story frame at a vertical Fig. 13. Comparison of tested and simulated vertical force vs. displacement curves
displacement of 950 mm. of the three-story frame. Simulated axial forces of individual strands also shown.
A. Pirmoz, M. Liu / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 446456 453
various experimental uncertainties, can be a plausible reason for are compared in Fig. 14. It is clearly seen that both the overall
such a relatively stiffer FE model, which is originally built by deflection patterns and the member deformation details (e.g.,
assuming a defect-free strand assembly. beam local buckling locations and gap opening sizes) match satis-
It is observed in Fig. 13 that the peak capacity of the FE model factorily, confirming the high accuracy of the FE model in predict-
occurs shortly after the second-floor strands yield but slightly ing the nonlinear behavior of a column-removed PT frame.
before the vertical displacement reaches 89 mm, when the tested The overall discrepancy between the tested and simulated
frame was reported to gradually lose PT forces due to the succes- responses of the three-story PT frame could be attributed to ignor-
sive fracture (failure) of wires in its second-floor strands [24]. ing in the FE model miscellaneous experimental errors, for exam-
We calculate the strain of the second-floor strands at this displace- ple, the inherent imperfection and residual stresses in structural
ment to be 0.014, a value far below a typical ultimate (i.e., fracture) members, out-of-plumbness of columns, deviation of beam axes
strain of 0.05 [31]. Such a considerable strain difference implies with respect to one another, inherent flexibility at column bases,
that the strand fracture was unlikely to be the true cause of PT and non-uniform beam-to-column contact surfaces, as well as
force loss in the tested frame. Accordingly, it is not possible to potential defects of the steel materials and/or strand anchorage.
determine whether a tested strand failed or not based on its strain Indeed, because the tested three-story frame is more complex than
level. In order to simulate the successive wire failures, we decide to the tested connection, more experimental uncertainty and errors
model each wire of the second-floor strand using a LINK180 ele- can be expected. As a side note, such factors could also be respon-
ment, and sequentially remove each element using the KILL ELE- sible for the irregular fluctuation in the test data (Fig. 13). In the
MENT option, leading to a stepped decrease in the second-floor following subsection, the effect of possible strand defects (as an
strand force (Fig. 13). It was also reported [24] that the gradual fail- illustration of such experimental errors) on the performance of
ure of second-floor strands, along with the beam local buckling and the three-story PT frame is investigated.
energy-dissipating rod failure, caused the third-floor strands of the
tested frame to yield, a phenomenon clearly captured by the FE
model, as observed in Fig. 13. Note that as the second-floor strands
4.4. Effect of strand defects on the capacity of the three-story PT frame
gradually fail, an increase in the vertical displacement is accompa-
nied by a decrease in the overall frame capacity (Fig. 13). This
As already discussed, the strain associated with the reported
decrease is contributed not only by the reduced cross-sectional
failure of the second-floor strand wires is 0.014, which is much less
area of strands due to successive wire failure but also by the weak-
than the typical ultimate strand strain of 0.05. Besides, it was
ened beam arching action, the latter similarly observed in Fig. 10
reported that at a vertical displacement of 239 mm, the third-
(a) for the one-story frame case.
floor strands of the tested frame began to lose their PT forces
Besides, it was reported [24] that at a vertical displacement of
[24]. We calculate the corresponding strain of the third-floor
239 mm, the third-floor strands of the tested frame lost their PT
strands to be 0.024, again far below a typical ultimate strain of
forces, causing another major decrease in the vertical force capac-
0.05. The calculated strains at which the second and third-floor
ity of the frame. The corresponding deformed shapes of the three-
strands reportedly lost their PT forces would have been similar
story frame obtained from the test and predicted by the FE model
and both close to the ultimate strain of typical strand materials,
if the strand fracture were indeed the true cause of the PT force
losses during the test. In other words, the existence of such a con-
siderable difference in the strains of failed strands implies that the
loss of PT forces in the tested three-story frame might not neces-
sarily be contributed by PT strand rupture. Therefore, it is interest-
ing to explore probable reasons for the strands to lose their PT
forces at such a low strain level.
250
Load cell
capacity [24]
200
Axial Force [kN]
FE results
100
50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Vertical Displacement [mm]
Fig. 14. (a) Tested [24] and (b) simulated deformed shapes of the three-story frame. Fig. 15. Tested and simulated second-floor strand forces of the three-story frame.
454 A. Pirmoz, M. Liu / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 446456
Fig. 15 compares the tested and simulated PT forces of a second- 4.5. Capacity analysis of the three-story PT frame with defect-free
floor strand in the three-story frame. It is observed that at the strands
beginning, both strand forces are equal to the initial pre-
tensioning force of 88.9 kN. As the vertical displacement increases, So far we have demonstrated that an impaired strand assembly
the axial stiffness of the tested strand is lower than that of the sim- could noticeably reduce the PT frame capacity against progressive
ulated strand. At a vertical displacement of 52 mm, the simulated collapse due to the premature loss of PT forces. Therefore, it is
strand yields at an axial force of 233 kN, which well exceeds the important to ensure that every component of a strand assembly
load cell capacity of 204.6 kN in the test [24]. For this reason, it works properly in order to prevent the gradual or sudden loss of
is unclear whether the tested strand indeed yielded or not. Since PT forces. In the following discussion, we report the results from
it is unlikely that major mechanical properties (e.g., elastic modu- a re-analysis of the three-story frame while assuming that the
lus and cross-sectional area) of the tested strands were consider- strands would possess their ideal stiffness as the vertical displace-
ably less than the reported values [24], we hypothesize that the ment increases. Under this assumption, a strand would rigorously
following two issues cause the relatively low axial stiffness of a follow the assigned bilinear stress-strain relationship, that is, it
strand in the actual test. First, because the wires of a tested strand would yield at a strain of 0.008 (which is calculated by dividing
were reported to rupture one by one as the vertical displacement the strand yield stress by its elastic modulus) and fracture (and
increased gradually [24], it is reasonable to infer that the wires thus completely loses its PT force) at an ultimate strain of 0.05.
of the tested strand also prematurely yielded one by one at a low We statically push the FE frame model down along the middle
strain level. Thus, such successive yielding of strand wires gradu- column until reaching a vertical displacement of 100 mm. The
ally reduced the overall axial stiffness of the tested strand. Second, resulting forces (including the vertical force capacity of the frame
it is also possible that the strand anchorage gradually slipped, thus and the axial forces of individual strands) vs. displacement curves
relaxing the strand and decreasing the overall axial stiffness of the are plotted in Fig. 17. It is observed that at a vertical displacement
strand assembly that can be viewed as a series system. of 42 mm the second-floor strands yield first. Then, as the middle
To test this hypothesis, we numerically adjust the axial stiffness column continues to be pushed down, the third-floor strands yield
of strands to reflect the effects of one or both of the above strand at a vertical displacement of 66 mm, and almost simultaneously
defect issues (i.e., premature wire yielding and anchorage slip- the overall force capacity of the frame reaches a peak value of
page). A trial-and-error approach is used to reduce the elastic mod- 497 kN. Then, there are slight drops in the forces of the frame
uli of individual strands in the FE model to equivalently albeit and third-floor strands, likely due to the initiation of local buckling
approximately account for such discrepancy in strand stiffness, at the bottom flange of the third-floor beam (Fig. 18). Note that the
until the simulated axial force vs. displacement curves of individ- roof strands remain elastic during this process. Similarly, the
ual strands satisfactorily match those from the test, respectively, decrease in the axial force of the roof strands after a vertical dis-
up to a vertical displacement of 89 mm. The curves obtained from placement of 88 mm is likely due to the initiation of local buckling
the test and the FE model using the properly reduced strand mod- at the bottom flange of the roof beam and the inward flexural
uli are compared in Fig. 16. It is observed that such curves of all deflection of columns, both factors relaxing the PT strands at the
individual strands match very well, respectively. However, the ver- roof level. Because the strands at the second and third-floor levels
tical force vs. displacement curve of the overall frame obtained have already yielded or nearly so, the gradual decrease in the PT
from the FE model exhibits a somehow lower post-gap-opening force of roof strands causes the vertical force capacity of the frame
stiffness than that from the test. Such discrepancy could be attrib- to drop accordingly.
uted, at least in part, to the miscellaneous sources of structural We also perform a parametric analysis to examine the effect of
restraining (e.g., friction between the column end and the sliding strand numbers on the response of the three-story PT frame
support plates) in the actual assembly of the tested frame. against column removal, using the same FE model except that
the number of defect-free strands is doubled (i.e., from the original
500 500
Frame
Force [kN]
Force [kN]
300 300
nd
2nd-floor strand
2 -floor strand
200 200
3rd-floor strand
strands in place, the strands are partially relaxed and thus unable
to fully stretch to reach their desired strength. Therefore, doubling
the number of strands alone does not cost-effectively increase the
overall force capacity of this particular frame. In order to fully
engage the strands, beams should be strengthened to increase their
yield and local buckling capacities. In the meantime, columns
should not only have adequate flexural capacity to avoid excessive
inward deflection but also possess enough axial strength to resist
the elevated axial compression due to the increased PT forces.
5. Concluding remarks
verse structural elements. Research in this direction is warranted [13] ASCE. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures (ASCE/SEI 7
10); 2010.
but out of the scope of the present study.
[14] Liu J, Tian Y, Orton S. Resistance of flat-plate buildings against progressive
collapse. II: System response. J Struct Eng 2015;141(12):04015054.
Acknowledgment [15] Liu M, Pirmoz A. Energy-based pulldown analysis for assessing the progressive
collapse potential of steel frame buildings. Eng Struct 2016;123:3728.
[16] Janssens VO, ODwyer DW, Chryssanthopoulos MK. Assessing the
The material is based on work supported in part by the Grant- consequences of building failures. Struct Eng Int 2012;22(1):99104.
in-Aid fund of The Catholic University of America. The financial [17] Corley WG. Applicability of seismic design in mitigating progressive collapse.
support is gratefully acknowledged. The opinions expressed herein, In: Proceedings of national workshop on prevention of progressive collapse. p.
101.
however, are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect [18] Ellingwood B. Mitigating risk from abnormal loads and progressive collapse. J
those of the sponsor. Perform Constr Facil 2006;20(4):31523.
[19] Khandelwal K, El-Tawil S, Sadek F. Progressive collapse analysis of seismically
designed steel braced frames. J Constr Steel Res 2009;65(3):699708.
References [20] Liu M. Progressive collapse design of seismic steel frames using structural
optimization. J Constr Steel Res 2011;67(3):32232.
[1] Ricles J, Sause R, Garlock M, Zhao C. Posttensioned seismic-resistant [21] Pirmoz A. Performance of bolted angle connections in progressive collapse of
connections for steel frames. J Struct Eng 2001;127(2):11321. steel frames. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 2011;20(3):34970.
[2] Christopoulos C, Filiatrault A, Uang C, Folz B. Posttensioned energy dissipating [22] DoD. United facilities criteria design of buildings to resist progressive collapse
connections for moment-resisting steel frames. J Struct Eng 2002;128 (UFC 4-023-03). Washington, DC: Department of Defense; 2013.
(9):111120. [23] GSA. Alternate path analysis & design guidelines for progressive collapse
[3] Chancellor N, Eatherton M, Roke D, Akbas T. Self-centering seismic lateral force resistance. Washington, DC: US General Services Adminstration; 2013.
resisting systems: high performance structures for the city of tomorrow. [24] Tsitos A, Mosqueda G, Filiatrault A, Reinhorn AM. Experimental investigation
Buildings 2014;4(3):520. of progressive collapse of steel frames under multi-hazard extreme loading. In:
[4] Garlock M, Sause R, Ricles J. Behavior and design of posttensioned steel frame The 14th world conference on earthquake engineering.
systems. J Struct Eng 2007;133(3):38999. [25] Tsitos A, Mosqueda G, Filiatrault A, Reinhorn AM. Experimental investigation
[5] Ricles J, Sause R, Peng S, Lu L. Experimental evaluation of earthquake resistant of the progressive collapse of a steel post-tensioned energy dissipating frame.
posttensioned steel connections. J Struct Eng 2002;128(7):8509. In: 9th US national and 10th Canadian conference on earthquake engineering.
[6] Lin Y, Sause R, Ricles J. Seismic performance of steel self-centering, moment- [26] Tsitos A, Mosqueda G. Experimental investigation of the progressive collapse
resisting frame: hybrid simulations under design basis earthquake. J Struct Eng of a steel special moment-resisting frame and a post-tensioned energy-
2013;139(11):182332. dissipating frame. In: Fardis MN, Rakicevic ZT, editors. Role of seismic testing
[7] Moradi S, Alam M. Finite-element simulation of posttensioned steel facilities in performance-based earthquake engineering. Geotechnical,
connections with bolted angles under cyclic loading. J Struct Eng 2016;142 geological, and earthquake engineering, vol. 22. Springer; 2011. p. 36782.
(1):04015075. [27] Wang D. Numerical and experimental studies of self-centering post-tensioned
[8] Guo T, Song L-L, Zhang G-D. Numerical simulation and seismic fragility steel frames PhD Thesis. State University of New York at Buffalo; 2007.
analysis of a self-centering steel MRF with web friction devices. J Earthquake [28] Sadek F, Main J, Lew H, El-Tawil S. Performance of steel moment connections
Eng 2015;19(5):73151. under a column removal scenario. II: Analysis. J Struct Eng 2012;139
[9] ANSYS. ANSYS mechanical 16.2. Canonsburg, PA; 2015. (1):10819.
[10] Chou CC, Chen JH. Analytical model validation and influence of column bases [29] AISC. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings (ANSI/AISC 341-
for seismic responses of steel post-tensioned self-centering MRF systems. Eng 05). Chicago, IL: American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc; 2005.
Struct 2011;33:262843. [30] Izzuddin BA, Vlassis AG, Elghazouli AY, Nethercot DA. Progressive collapse of
[11] Tzimas AS, Dimopoulos AI, Karavasilis TL. EC8-based seismic design and multi-storey buildings due to sudden column loss Part I: Simplified
assessment of self-centering post-tensioned steel frames with viscous assessment framework. Eng Struct 2008;30(5):130818.
dampers. J Constr Steel Res 2015;105:6073. [31] Devalapura RK, Tadros MK. Stress-strain modeling of 270 ksi low-relaxation
[12] Shiravand MR, Mahboubi S. Behavior of post-tensioned connections with prestressing strands. PCI J 1992;37(2):1006.
stiffened angles under cyclic loading. J Constr Steel Res 2016;116:18392.