Influence of nonstructural components on roof diaphragm stiffness and fundamental periods of single-storey steel buildings

Mastrogiuseppe, S.; Rogers, C.; Tremblay, Robert; Nedisan, C.D.

doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2007.06.003

Cited by 15 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The shear flexibility of such deck diaphragm is not negligible, generally leading to an increase of the building period of vibration with respect to a model based on rigid diaphragm assumption [9]. However, it has also been proved that nonstructural components may reduce appreciably the period of vibration with respect to predictions based on a model including the steel deck only [10]. It is noted that the contribution of nonstructural components may be difficult to be quantified in practice.…”

Section: D Vs 2d Modelsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Structural Modelling Issues in Seismic Performance Assessment of Industrial Steel Buildings

Corte¹,

Iervolino²,

Petruzzelli³

2014

Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering (COM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: D Vs 2d Modelsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Structural Modelling Issues in Seismic Performance Assessment of Industrial Steel Buildings

Corte¹,

Iervolino²,

Petruzzelli³

2014

Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering (COM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The frame is also pinned at all of its corners so that the bending moment occurring at each corner is not resisted. The use of picture frame test to obtain shear stiffness of gypsum, fiberboards and combinations of other nonstructural roofing system by Mastrogiuseppe et al [9] led to the understanding that the picture frame test can be applied to many types of thin panel of various materials. Such fixture, also called a shear testing rig, is also used in other references such as [3,[10][11][12] as to acquire the in-plane characteristics of the composite walling system and the profiled steel sheeting.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental study on in-plane capacities of composite steel-concrete floor

Heng

Somja

2018

Proceedings 12th International Conference on Advances in Steel-Concrete Composite Structures - ASCCS 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In steel frame structures, composite floor is an important element that plays a significant role in contributing to lateral stability. Its working role in the in-plane action is to transfer lateral loads, such as wind loads and seismic loads, to vertical load-resisting members. Such load transferring process depends on the in-plane capacities of the floor, which can be reduced after being subjected to explosion. However, the remaining capacities have not been previously studied yet in the literature. This paper presents an experimental investigation on the initial and residual in-plane capacities of the composite steel-concrete floor after being subjected to explosion, which was made within the RFCS research project BASIS:"Blast Action on Structures In Steel". Large-scale experimental tests on four composite floor specimens, consisting of a reinforced concrete panel casted on a profile steel sheet Comflor, are performed to determine the in-plane capacities. The initial damaging of the composite floor caused by the explosion is reproduced by a flexural test using a quasi-static loading. In the in-plane shear tests, special connections between the rigid frames of the shear rig and the embedded bolts in the concrete are used to ensure a good transferring of the applied load. The results from this experimental study are the first insights on the behavior of the composite floor with and without initial predamaging. They can also be useful for a preliminary recommendation to estimate residual in-plane capacities (stiffness and resistance) of the composite floor after being subjected explosion.

show abstract

“…• an underestimation of the vertical load-bearing capacity of the MS, as in reinforced concrete bridges when barriers, sidewalks or diaphragms are excluded from the model [3], or in masonry bridges when fill material and pavement are neglected [4], or in metal roof deck diaphragms of building structures when non-structural roofing components are omitted [5]; • an underestimation of the horizontal load-bearing capacity of the MS, or an inaccurate estimation of its expected response under code-conforming seismic [6] or wind [7] loads, as in moment resisting frame structures where masonry infills are excluded from the model; • a bias in the outcome of vibration-based model calibration, as for a variety of non-structural and secondary structural elements in bridges (barriers, sidewalks and pavement [8], transverse bracings [9]), in footbridges (deck and handrails [10,11], asphalt pavement [12]), in buildings (cladding and internal partitions [13], stairs and elevators [14]), in wharves (non-structural steel frames and piping systems [15]), and in stadia (precast seating deck units [16]). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%