Robustness of Structures

Introduction
The robustness of a structure is a special
characteristic which involves aspects
concerning: the presence of an overstrength
of the elements, structure redundancy,
ductility of materials, appropriate shear
resistance and connections capable to
overtake the stresses resulted after the
failure of a structural element.
The robustness assesment of a structure is
important to check if a local failure of a
structural element causes or not the failure of
other structural elements which are not
directly influenced by the failure of the first
structural element.
Project presentation
Structural characteristics
No. of spans 3
No. of bays: 4
Length of spans and bays: 7.5m
No. of stories: 6
Height of storey: 4m
Steel grade: S355
Location: Cluj
Ductility class: H
Loads

Dead load: 5kN/m
2

Live load: 4kN/m
2
Wind load: on one direction only
Seismic action: a
g
= 0.08g
Tc= 0.7s

Structural type: Moment Resisting Frame
Columns cross-section: cruciform sections
HEA 450
Columns are fixed to the foundation
Principal beams are IPE 400
Secondary beams are IPE 360


Load combinations
Fundamental load combinations:
ULS 1: 1,35 P + 1,5 L + 1, 05 W
ULS 2: 1,35 P + 1,5 W + 1,05 L
SLS 1: 1,0 P + 1,0 L + 0,7W
SLS 2: 1,0 P + 1,0 W + 0,7 L
Accidental seismic load combinations:
Seism D: 1,0 P + 1,0 Eq + 0,4 L +0.4S
Seism ND: 1,0 P + 3 Eq + 0,4 L+0.4S
+5 static equivalent load combinations for each scenario
+1 dynamic load combination for each scenario
Structure design
Strength and stability check of the elements
- the verifications performed by SAP
programme were considered enough for this
project
- the buckling length coefficient for the bottom
columns was defined 0.7 and for the other
colums 1
- the beams (main and secondary) were
considered fixed to the floor, restraied to
lateral torsional buckling and the response of
the element is given only by the resistance of
the section (this was modeled by introducing
the value 0.001 at the buckling length)
Robustness evaluation
4 possible scenarios were subjected to analysis. These
correspond to the accidental situations in which a column
can't overtake any loads.


Scenario 1: Corner column loss
Scenario 2: Corner and adjacent perimetral column loss
Scenario 3: Interior column loss
Scenario 4: Perimetral column loss
SCENARIO 3
SCENARIO 4
SCENARIO 1
SCENARIO 2
For robustness assesment 2 types of analysis
will be performed:
- equivalent non-linear static analysis
- non-linear dynamic analysis

Equivalent non-linear static analysis
- the dynamic effect produced when a column is removed is
applied to the structure by supplementary static loads applied
on the floor parts corresponding to the missing column, as
shown in the following figures:

SCENARIO 1
SCENARIO 2
SCENARIO 3
SCENARIO 4
In this way, 5 more load combinations are obtained, for each scenario
PushD_2 1,0 P + 1,0 PD + 0,5 L + 0,5 LD + 0,2 W (coefficient 2.0)
PushD_1.8 1,0 P + 0,8 PD + 0,5 L + 0,4 LD + 0,2 W (coefficient 1.8)
PushD_1.6 1,0 P + 0,6 PD + 0,5 L + 0,3 LD + 0,2 W (coefficient 1.6)
PushD_1.4 1,0 P + 0,4 PD + 0,5 L + 0,2 LD + 0,2 W (coefficient 1.4)
PushD_1.2 1,0 P + 0,2 PD + 0,5 L + 0,1 LD + 0,2 W (coefficient 1.2)


The analysis non-linearity is given by the development of plastic hinges
after the capacity of the section is exceeded and by considering P- effects.

Non-linear dynamic analysis
The analysis non-linearity is given by the development of
plastic hinges (automatically defined in SAP) after the
capacity of the section is exceeded and by considering P-
effects.
On the complete structure the following load combination is
introduced:
Combination 1: 1,0 P + 0,5 L + 0,2 WT,
From this combination the value of the axial force at the top of
the bottom level column is taken.
Two ramp functions are created:
R1: responsible for applying the DEAD, LIVE, WIND and
SUPPORT loads as load case Gravity_TH_NL.
R2: responsible for removing the load SUPPORT contained
in load case REMOVAL, simulating the failure of the column
in reality.

Ramp: R1 Ramp: R2
The response of the structure was recorded for 3 seconds from the
moment in which the column was removed, by 3000 steps at 0.001 s. The small
step is used for a precise modeling.
The following graphs present the displacement in time, on the vertical
direction of the point corresponding to the column removed from the structure,
from both static and dynamic actions.
Scenario 1
In this scenario a corner column is removed.
Maximum dynamic displacement is 64.7mm, no plastic hinges form
From PushD_1.2 and PushD_1.4 nonlinear static loads no plastic hinges form
Some plastic hinges in B region of performance, corresponding to steel
yielding, form from the last three nonlinear static loads.
The structure performs well from the point of view of rubustness.

Scenario 2

Scenario 2
In this scenario, a corner column (joint 2) and the adjacent column (joint 37)
were removed.
We can observe large displacement even at relative lower levels of loadings
Plastic hinges form at PushD_1.2 but do not reach the IO level of performance
PushD_1.4 load forms 17 hinges in the IO region
Increasing the loads to PushD_1.6 or more will result in collapse. These
displacements were not represented as they are extremely large.
Loss of two columns proves to be very damaging for the structure. The intensity
of the effects could be reduced by increasing the cross section of the beams.

Scenario 3
In this scenario an interior column is removed
Maximum dynamic displacement is 124.1 mm
Plastic hinges start to form at PushD_1.2 load level but do not reach IO limit state
PushD_1.4 static load forms plastic hinges in the IO limit state
PushD_1.6 forms plastic hinges beyond CP limit state
Beyond this load collapse is observed.
Another factor responsible for the poor behaviour is the fact that the interior column
undertakes two to four times the load the perimeter columns take.
The robustness of the structure should be increased by increasing the cross section
of the beams

Scenario 4
In this case a perimetral column is taken
Load PushD_1.2 and load PushD_1.4 form 6 plastic hinges
corresponding to the yield of the beams not reaching IO limit
More plastic hinges form in PushD_1.6 not reaching IO limit
Plastic hinges in the IO limit form at PushD_1.8 and PushD_2
Overall good robustness behaviour in this scenario
Maximum dynamic displacement is 78.1 mm

Conclusions
Due to the fact that the structure is designed for a relatively
small seismic action, the requirement for ductility and lateral
deflections are not that stringent.
From the strength and stability point of view, a lighter structure,
with smaller beam and column cross sections are enough, as
opposed by a structure designed for a larger seismic action.
From the robustness point of view this may be detrimental as
can be observed from the behaviour of the structure in the four
scenarios.
To increase the buildings performance and resist localised
damage and prevent disproportionate collapse, as shown as
possibilities in scenarios 2 and 3, an increase in the main beams
cross section must be taken.
The connections have to be designed with enough rotation
capacity to overtake the entire capacity of beam deformation.
The buildings should be designed with structural redundancy
and material overstrength in order to be able to transfer load to
nearby members in the case a structural member fails or is removed
from the structure. This redistribution of loads allows the building to
keep standing if a column or set of columns are taken out in an
explosion, terrorist attack or a failure due to a large loading.
Thank you!