Analysis of temporary steel grandstand with different bracing systems exposed to crowd load

Abstract

Grandstands are structures which are regularly subjected to dynamic loads generated by crowd motions. It is a dangerous situation when spectators induce rhythmic jumping, dancing, stamping, etc. If the synchronized movement of spectators excites a natural frequency of the structure, resonant response might occur. To avoid such situations, temporary steel grandstands are commonly strengthened using additional elements that create bracing system which is selected depending on the size of the structure, type of the event, acting load, etc. It was proved that not only the use but also the arrangement of such structural members is crucial for the dynamic structural resistance. The aim of the present study is to determine the most effective arrangement of bracing system for a typical example of the temporary steel grandstand which is exposed to dynamic load induced by spectators. Three different arrangements of bracing systems have been analysed using five criteria recommended in the literature. The results of the study clearly show that the dynamic parameters of the grandstand are substantially different for various types of bracing systems. The largest improvement in the structural behaviour has been obtained for the grandstand equipped with the bracing system satisfying all proposed criteria. The peak accelerations for this case have been found to be nearly twice as low as for structures with other bracing arrangements. The application of such a system for the grandstand which is exposed to human-induced vibrations allows for safe use of the structure as well as improves comfort of spectators.

Numerical investigation on dynamic response of a steel lattice tower under various seismic events

“…Dynamic response of a structure may be modified by a number of different factors (see, for example, , Falborski, Sołtysik, & Jankowski, 2018. The most common contributors, however, are incorporation of additional bracing systems in steel structures (see, for example, , utilizing active or passive structural control devices (see, for example, Naderpour, Naji, Burkacki, & Jankowski, 2019;Lasowicz, Falborski, & Jankowski, 2018a;Lasowicz, Kwiecień, & Jankowski, 2018b;Lasowicz & Jankowski, 2016, possible pounding between the adjacent buildings (see, for example, Miari, Choong, & Jankowski, 2019;Sołtysik, Falborski, & Jankowski, 2017, and finally soil-structure interaction effects (see, for example, Lasowicz & Falborski, 2018b;Gazetas, 1991;Wolf, 1985). Neglecting either one of these aspects may significantly alter the dynamic response, and eventually result in incorrect interpretation of the actual structural behaviour due to strong dynamic excitations (see, for example, Mylonakis & Gazetas, 2000;Wong, Trifunac, & Luco, 1988;Stewart & Fenves, 1998).…”