Industrial and Civil Engineering magazine's home page

BUILDING STRUCTURES, BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Tests of Damaged Flat Trusses
UDC 624.014.2.072.2:691:620.17 DOI: 10.33622/0869-7019.2019.10.12-19
Alexander R. TUSNIN, e-mail: tusninar@mgsu.ru
Maria P. BERGER, e-mail: marieberger@yandex.ru
Moscow State University of Civil Engineering (National Research University), Yaroslavskoe shosse, 26, Moscow 129337, Russian Federation
Abstract. The destruction of individual structural elements is accompanied by the development of vibrations in it and the emergence of forces and displacements which have greater values than with static loading. In design practice, static calculations in which the dynamic nature of the damaged structure is taken into account when increasing the load with the help of dynamic coefficients are widely used. The dynamic factors of damage of the structure depend on the failure time of the element, i. e. time during which the resistance of the damaged element is reduced to zero. The article presents the results of experimental studies of flat trusses in case of damage to individual truss rods. Three experiments were carried out: in the first, the work of a compressed belt was studied with a loss of flexibility, in the second and third, the redistribution of efforts in the truss when the element of the lower and upper zones was damaged, respectively. According to the data obtained, the time of failure of the damaged rod in the system (time of exclusion) and the redistribution of efforts to neighboring elements of the farm were calculated. In accordance with the calculated exclusion time, recommendations were given to reduce the dynamic coefficient used in the static calculation, depending on the options for damage to the truss.
Key words: truss, damage, bearing capacity, dynamic coefficient, time of exclusion.
REFERENCES
1. Report of the inquiry into the collapse of flats at Ronan Point, Canning Town. London, 1968. 86 p.
2. Lashenko M. N. Avarii metallicheskih konstrukziy zdaniy i sooruzheniy [Accidents of metal structures of buildings]. Leningrad, Stroyizdat Publ., 1969. 183 p. (In Russian).
3. Bogdanova E. N. Analiz prichin obrusheniya zdaniy i sooruzheniy [Crash analysis ob buildings and structures]. Moscow, VNIINTPI Publ., 1991. 72 p. (In Russian).
4. MDS 20-2.2008. Temporary recommendations for ensuring the safety of large-span structures from avalanche-like (progressive) collapse during accidental impacts.
5. DBN V.1.2-14-2009. General principles for ensuring the reliability and structural safety of buildings, structures, building structures and foundations.
6. TKP EN 1991-1-7-2009 (02250). Eurocode 1. Actions on structures. Part 1-7: General actions. Accidental actions.
7. UFC 4-023-03. Design of buildings to resist progressive collapse.
8. ASCE/SEI 7-10. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.
9. Code of practice for the structural use of steel.
10. NISTIR 7396. Best practices for reducing the potential for progressive collapse in buildings.
11. AS/NZS 1170.0:2002. Structural design actions. Part 0: General principles.
12. Yeremeyev P. G. Prevention of avalanche-like (progressive) collapse of load-bearing structures of unique long-span structures during emergency operations. Stroitel'naya mekhanika i raschet sooruzheniy, 2006, no. 2, pр. 65-72. (In Russian).
13. Almazov V. O., Plotnikov A. I., Rastorguyev B. S. Problems of building resistance to progressive collapse. Vestnik MGSU, 2011, no. 2, pp. 16-20. (In Russian).
14. Tamrazyan A. G. The structural robustness is the main criterion for making high-rise buildings. Zhilishchnoye stroitel'stvo, 2010, no. 1, pp. 15-18. (In Russian).
15. Kudishin Yu. I. Conceptual problems of robustness of building structures. Vestnik MGSU, 2009, no. 2 (spec.), pp. 28-36. (In Russian).
16. Strugatskiy Yu. M., Shapiro G. I. Security of Moscow residential buildings of mass series in emergency situations. Promyshlennoe i grazhdanskoe stroitel'stvo, 1998, no. 8, pp. 37-41. (In Russian).
17. Almazov V. O., Belov S. A., Nabatnikov A. M. Prevention of progressive collapse. Gorodskoy stroitel'nyy kompleks i bezopasnost' zhizneobespecheniya grazhdan [City building complex and the security of life support of citizens (scientific and practical conference)]. Moscow, MGSU Publ., 2004. 11 p. (In Russian).
18. Berger M. P. Stability of a damaged large-span truss in the spatial structure. Vestnik Belgorodskogo gosudarstvennogo tekhnologicheskogo universiteta im. V. G. Shukhova, 2018, no. 2, pp. 27-33. (In Russian).
19. Kudishin Yu. I., Drobot D. Yu. Stability of structures in emergency situations. Metallicheskiye zdaniya, 2008, no. 4[8], pp. 20-22. (In Russian).
20. Kudishin Yu. I., Drobot D. Yu. To the question of the robustness of building structures. Stroitel'naya mekhanika i raschet sooruzheniy, 2008, no. 2(217), pp. 36-43. (In Russian).
21. Berger M. P., Tusnin A. R. Experimental justification of the dynamic coefficient. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 2018, no. 365. DOI: 10.1088/1757-899x/365/5/052020.
For citation: Tusnin A. R., Berger M. P. Tests of Damaged Flat Trusses. Promyshlennoe i grazhdanskoe stroitel'stvo [Industrial and Civil Engineering], 2019, no. 10, pp. 12-19. (In Russian). DOI: 10.33622/0869-7019.2019.10.12-19.

BACK