Robust structure by joint ductility

Kuhlmann, Ulrike; Jaspart, Jean‐Pierre; Vassart, Olivier; Weynand, Klaus; Zandonini, Riccardo

doi:10.2749/222137806796185328

Cited by 18 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The proposed analytical method has also been validated against the results of an experimental study performed at the University of Liège as part of the collaborative research project on structural robustness reported in [11]. The study adopted the concept of column removal to examine the behaviour of a composite frame building designed according to the provisions of EC4.…”

Section: Validation Against Experimental Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…20. The same joint configurations were also tested in isolation against combined loading at the University of Stuttgart [11]. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 22 The mechanical approach for modelling connection behaviour derived by Stylianidis and Nethercot [20] was validated against the results of the joint tests performed at the University of Stuttgart.…”

Section: Validation Against Experimental Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 22 The mechanical approach for modelling connection behaviour derived by Stylianidis and Nethercot [20] was validated against the results of the joint tests performed at the University of Stuttgart. In that validation study, the mechanical properties of the various components have been defined based on the actual material properties given in [11]. The properties of the tensile components are given in Table 5.…”

Section: Validation Against Experimental Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…the axial stiffness of the beam and the connection on the opposite side of the support connections [8] and/or the flexural stiffness of the intact column sections that support the double-span beam [12]. Alternatively, it may be assessed based on the force-deformation ratio obtained from a linear elastic analysis of the neighbouring structure loaded by axial forces applied in the direction of the double-span beam [11]. '…”

Section: Responsementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Depending on the position of the removed column within the frame, a degree of axial restraint may be provided to simulate interaction with the surrounding structure. The double-span beam approach has been adopted in several recent numerical and experimental studies of progressive collapse where nonlinear static applications were employed [11,12,[21][22][23][24][25][26].…”

Section: Key Features Of Beam Response Following Column Removalmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Modelling of beam response for progressive collapse analysis

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A fundamental aspect of the progressive collapse behaviour of building structures is the response of axially restrained beams following partial or total loss of the loadbearing capacity of a supporting member. Owing to the various complex effects involved such as material and geometric nonlinearity, advanced numerical approaches tend to be the most effective tools for modelling performance. Such approaches, however, lack the simplicity needed for common use and may provide only limited capability for understanding structural behaviour. For such purposes, more limited analysis approaches that can address adequately the basic features of performance are likely to be more productive. One such method for modelling the response of axially restrained steel and composite beams following column loss is presented in this paper. The method involves explicit modelling of the connection behaviour and employs conventional structural analysis principles to describe beam performance using accessible spreadsheet calculations. Following careful verification against detailed numerical analyses and validation against available experimental results, the proposed method is deemed capable of modelling the various complex features of response with excellent accuracy. Therefore, it may form a promising advance in studying and understanding the basic mechanics of the problem.

show abstract

Section: Validation Against Experimental Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Validation Against Experimental Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Validation Against Experimental Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Responsementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Key Features Of Beam Response Following Column Removalmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Modelling of beam response for progressive collapse analysis

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The FAILNOMORE project – Practice‐oriented design recommendations against progressive collapse in steel and steel‐concrete buildings

Demonceau,

Golea,

Elghazouli

et al. 2023

ce papers

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Structural robustness is a specific safety consideration which is currently addressed in modern codes and standards, including the Eurocodes. It requires particular care from all professionals involved in the construction industry. The need for practical guidelines to mitigate the risk of progressive collapse has been emphasised by recent catastrophic events such as the 9/11 terrorist attack in New‐York. The lack of consistent design rules for practitioners is however clearly identified in existing normative documents and literature. Accordingly, various research projects were launched, particularly in Europe through RFCS research projects. Thanks to these research activities, significant scientific background has been developed, with the aim of understanding and characterising the behaviour of steel and composite structures subjected to exceptional events such as impact, explosion, or loss of a bearing member. Nevertheless, there was a need to consolidate the available scientific knowledge and to transform it into a consistent set of practical recommendations in order to facilitate the design of steel and composite structures for robustness. This was the purpose of a recent RFCS project “FAILNOMORE” (grant No 899371) which was concluded in June 2022. A brief summary and discussion of the main outcomes of this project are provided in the present paper.

show abstract

14.06: Beam‐to‐column joints, column bases and joint components under impact loading

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent events such as natural catastrophes or terrorist attacks have highlighted the necessity to ensure the structural integrity of buildings under exceptional events. For more than 10 years, the University of Liege is strongly involved in researches on the response of structures further to such exceptional events through participations to national or European research projects. In particular, the University of Liege has contributed very recently to a European research project entitled ROBUSTIMPACT investigating the behaviour of steel or steel-concrete composite building structures subjected to impact loading and proposing simplified procedures to predict the response of such structures under the considered scenario. As a contribution to this research project, an experimental test campaign was realised in Liège; the objective was to study the behaviour of beam-to-column joints, of column bases and of most of their constitutive components under impact loading and, in particular, to highlight the influence of the strain rate effects on the response of the studied joints and components. The proposed paper first describes the conducted test campaign with all the required details about the tested specimens and the testing setup; then the analysis of the so-obtained experimental results is presented. Finally authors' views on how to account for the strain rate effects in analytical approaches for joint design is briefly expressed. .

show abstract

Robust structure by joint ductility

Cited by 18 publications

References 0 publications

Modelling of beam response for progressive collapse analysis

Modelling of beam response for progressive collapse analysis

The FAILNOMORE project – Practice‐oriented design recommendations against progressive collapse in steel and steel‐concrete buildings

14.06: Beam‐to‐column joints, column bases and joint components under impact loading

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About