International Journal of Steel Structures

, Volume 18, Issue 5, pp 1684–1698 | Cite as

Blast Fragility and Sensitivity Analyses of Steel Moment Frames with Plan Irregularities

  • Anil Kumar
  • Vasant MatsagarEmail author


Fragility functions are determined for braced steel moment frames (SMFs) with plans such as square-, T-, L-, U-, trapezoidal-, and semicircular-shaped, subjected to blast. The frames are designed for gravity and seismic loads, but not necessarily for the blast loads. The blast load is computed for a wide range of scenarios involving different parameters, viz. charge weight, standoff distance, and blast location relative to plan of the structure followed by nonlinear dynamic analysis of the frames. The members failing in rotation lead to partial collapse due to plastic mechanism formation. The probabilities of partial collapse of the SMFs, with and without bracing system, due to the blast loading are computed to plot fragility curves. The charge weight and standoff distance are taken as Gaussian random input variables. The extent of propagation of the uncertainties in the input parameters onto the response quantities and fragility of the SMFs is assessed by computing Sobol sensitivity indices. The probabilistic analysis is conducted using Monte Carlo simulations. The frames have least failure probability for blasts occurring in front of their corners or convex face. Further, the unbraced frames are observed to have higher fragility as compared to counterpart braced frames for far-off detonations.


Blast fragility Steel moment frames Progressive collapse Sobol sensitivity analysis 


  1. Alrudaini, T. M. S. (2011). A new mitigation scheme to resist the progressive collapse of reinforced concrete buildings. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.Google Scholar
  2. ASCE 7-05. (2005). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ASCE 41-06. (2007). Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asprone, D., Jalayer, F., Prota, A., & Manfredi, G. (2010). Proposal of a probabilistic model for multi-hazard risk assessment of structures subjected to blast loads for the limit state of collapse. In 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, China.Google Scholar
  5. Bandyopadhyay, M., Banik, A. K., & Datta, T. K. (2015). Progressive collapse of three-dimensional semi-rigid jointed steel frames. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities. Scholar
  6. Barakat, M. A., & Hetherington, J. G. (1998). New architectural forms to reduce the effects of blast waves and fragments on structures. In WIT Transactions on the built environment: Structures Under shock and impact (Vol. 32, pp. 53–62).
  7. Barakat, M. A., & Hetherington, J. G. (1999). Architectural approach to reducing blast effects on structures. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Structures and Buildings, 134(4), 333–343.Google Scholar
  8. Bažant, Z., & Verdure, M. (2007). Mechanics of progressive collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and building demolitions. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 133, 308–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bilal, N. (2014). Implementation of Sobol’s method of global sensitivity analysis to a compressor simulation model. In 22nd international compressor engineering conference, Purdue, USA (pp. 1–10).Google Scholar
  10. Byfield, M., & Paramasivam, S. (2012). Murrah building collapse: Reassessment of the transfer girder. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 26(4), 371–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. CSI (Computers and Structures, Inc.). (2016). SAP2000: Integrated solution for structural analysis and design, version 16. Berkeley, CA: CSI Analysis Reference Manual.Google Scholar
  12. Dat, P. X., & Tan, K. H. (2013). Membrane actions of RC slabs in mitigating progressive collapse of building structures. Engineering Structures, 55, 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. FEMA 356. (2000). Pre-standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings., Risk management series Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).Google Scholar
  14. Fortner, B. (2004). Symbol of strength. Civil Engineering, 74(10), 36–45.Google Scholar
  15. Gebbeken, N., & Döge, T. (2010). Explosive protection—Architectural design, urban planning and landscape planning. International Journal of Protective Structures, 1(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goel, M. D., Matsagar, V. A., Gupta, A. K., & Marburg, S. (2012). An abridged review of blast wave parameters. Defense Science Journal, 62(5), 300–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grierson, D. E., Xu, L., & Liu, Y. (2005). Progressive failure analysis of buildings subjected to abnormal loadings. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 20, 155–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. GSA. (2013). Alternate path analysis & design guidelines for progressive collapse resistance. Washington, DC: General Services Administration (GSA).Google Scholar
  19. Hamburger, R., & Whittaker, A. (2004). Design of steel structures for blast related progressive collapse resistance. In North American steel construction conference, USA (pp. 41–53).Google Scholar
  20. Khan, S., Saha, S. K., Matsagar, V. A., & Hoffmeister, B. (2017). Fragility of steel frame buildings under blast load. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities. Scholar
  21. Kinney, G. F., & Graham, K. J. (1985). Explosive shocks in air. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liew, R. J. Y. (2007). Survivability of steel frame structures subject to blast and fire. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 64, 854–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mathworks, Inc. (2013). MATLAB ® version R2013b [Computer software], Natick, MA.Google Scholar
  24. Netherton, M. D., & Stewart, M. G. (2009). Probabilistic modeling of safety and damage blast risks for window glazing. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 36(8), 1321–1331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Parisi, F. (2015). Blast fragility and performance-based pressure-impulse diagrams of European reinforced concrete columns. Engineering Structures, 103, 285–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sobol, I. M. (1993). Sensitivity analysis for nonlinear mathematical models. Mathematical Modeling and Computational Experiment, 1, 407–414.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Sobol, I. M. (2001). Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo. Mathematics and Computers in Simulations, 55, 271–280.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sudret, B. (2008). Global sensitivity analysis using polynomial chaos expansions. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 93, 964–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Szyniszewski, S., & Krauthammer, T. (2012). Energy flow in progressive collapse of steel framed buildings. Engineering Structures, 42, 142–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. UFC 3-340-02. (2008). Structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions. Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency, USA.Google Scholar
  31. Vasilis, K., Solomos, G., & Viaccoz, B. (2013). Calculation of blast loads for application to structural components. LB-NA-26456-EN-N, JRC Technical Reports, Joint Research Centre (JRC), European Union (EU), Italy.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Steel Construction 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology (IIT) DelhiHauz Khas, New DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations