Figure 4.17 (a) Comparison of simulated collapse to perspective 1; (b) comparison of simulated collapse to perspective 2

from University of Alaska Building 7 Report

2.7 Summary and Conclusion

(a) Perspective 1

(b) Perspective 2

Figure 4.17 (a) Comparison of simulated collapse to perspective 1; (b) comparison of simulated collapse to perspective 2.

Based on this analysis, we found that the simultaneous failure of all core columns followed by the simultaneous failure of all exterior columns produces almost exactly the behavior observed in videos of the collapse. The computer time history model accounted for mass and acceleration during collapse in which an acceleration time dependent function accounted for impact resistance over time. Specifically, the simulated velocity and acceleration of the building in our SAP2000 model, shown in Figure 4.18, matches almost exactly with the motion measured by David Chandler (Chandler, 2010), including the approximately 2.5 seconds of free fall, shown in Figures 4.19 and 4.20 below.

Figure 4.17 (a) Comparison of simulated collapse to perspective 1; (b) comparison of simulated collapse to perspective 2

Next Article

2.7 Summary and Conclusion

More articles from this publication:

2.7 Summary and Conclusion

3.2.2 Girder A2001 Web Stiffeners Prevent Flange Failure and Girder Walk-off

Table 2.3 Comparison of UAF and NIST Modeling

4.6 Results of Core Column/Exterior Column Failure Analysis

2.6.2 ABAQUS Analysis

3.2.3 Lateral Support Beams Prevent Beam Buckling

2.6.1 SAP2000 Thermal Deformation Analysis

REFERENCES

Figure 4.20 Velocity comparison between Chandler measurement (green plotted line) and UAF simulation (red plotted line). Bold green trend line illustrates free fall

This article is from:

University of Alaska Building 7 Report