Numerical Evaluation of Dynamic Responses of Steel

applied
sciences
Article
Numerical Evaluation of Dynamic Responses of Steel
Frame Structures with Different Types of Haunch
Connection Under Blast Load
Mustafasanie M. Yussof 1, *, Jordan Halomoan Silalahi 2, *, Mohd Khairul Kamarudin 3 ,
Pei-Shan Chen 4 and Gerard A. R. Parke 5
1 School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Nibong Tebal 14300, Malaysia
2 Damit Worley Parsons Engineering Sdn. Bhd, Kuala Belait KA1131, Brunei
3 Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam 40450, Selangor, Malaysia;
mkhairul3965@uitm.edu.my
4 Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Kyushu Institute of Technology, Fukuoka 804-8550,
Japan; chen@civil.kyutech.ac.jp
5 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK;
g.parke@surrey.ac.uk
* Correspondence: cemustafa@usm.my (M.M.Y.); Jordan.silalahi@worleyparsons.com (J.H.S.)

Received: 16 December 2019; Accepted: 12 February 2020; Published: 6 March 2020
Abstract: This research is aimed at investigating the dynamic behaviour of, and to analyse the
dynamic response and dynamic performance of steel frames strengthened with welded haunches
subjected to a typical hydrocarbon blast loading. The structural dynamic analysis was carried
out incorporating the selected blast load, the validated 3D model of the structures with different
welded haunch configurations, steel dynamic material properties, and non-linear dynamic analysis of
multiple degree of freedom (MDOF) structural systems. The dynamic responses and effectiveness of
the reinforced connections were examined using ABAQUS finite element software. Results showed
that the presence of the welded haunch reinforcement decreased the maximum frame ductility ratio.
Based on the evaluation of the results, the haunch reinforcements strengthened the selected steel
frame and improved the dynamic performance compared to the frame with unreinforced connections
under blast loading, and the biggest haunch configuration is the “best” type.
Keywords: blast loading; welded haunch connection; steel frame structures; non-linear dynamic
analysis; ABAQUS; multiple degree of freedom (MDOF); frame ductility ratio
1. Introduction
The record of oil and gas industry accidental events shows that the historical offshore disasters
have generally caused very significant losses in term of human lives, economy, and environmental
pollution. Steel frames, as shown in Figure 1, are typical structures used in the offshore industry.
The main functions of these frames is to support mechanical equipment, electrical and instrument
cables, and hydrocarbon pipelines. Its function as a pipe rack is one of the reasons for selecting
the frame because a ruptured pipeline which contains hydrocarbon liquid or gases may escalate the
damage in a blast accident by intensifying the fire from the explosion. Therefore, this frame type was
considered in our research.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1815; doi:10.3390/app10051815 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 20
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1815 2 of 20
(a)
(a) (b)(b)
Figure
Figure
Figure 1. 1. Typical
1. Typical
Typical steel
steel
steel frames
frames
frames usedin
used
used inoffshore
in offshore structures.
offshore structures.
structures.(a)
(a)Pipe
(a) rack;
Pipe
Pipe (b)(b)
rack;
rack; Mechanical
(b) Equipment
Mechanical
Mechanical Equipment
Equipment
Support.
Support.
Support.
During During the period from 1993–2013, the worldwide

worldwide petroleum and chemical insurance market
During the the period
period from from 1993–2013,
1993–2013, the the worldwide petroleum petroleum and and chemical
chemical insurance
insurance market market
reported that about 1100 insurance claims on major incidents were made [1]. Among these accidents,
reported
reported that about 1100 insurance claims on major incidents were
that about 1100 insurance claims on major incidents were made [1]. Among these accidents, made [1]. Among these accidents,
hydrocarbon explosions are the most hazardous events. Although a hydrocarbon explosion is a very
hydrocarbon
hydrocarbon explosions are
explosions arethethemost
mosthazardous
hazardousevents. events. Although
Although a hydrocarbon
a hydrocarbon explosion
explosion is a
is a very
rare accidental event, totally eliminating such incidents is difficult. Therefore, efforts should be made
very rare
rare to accidental
accidental
keep the event,
event,
risk astotally
totally
low aseliminating
eliminating
possible andsuch reduce
such
incidentsincidents
the amount
is difficult.
is difficult. Therefore,
Therefore,
of structural damage efforts efforts
if anshould
should
explosion be made be
made
to keep to keep
incident the
the occurs. risk
risk asOne as low as
lowofasthepossiblepossible
approaches and
andtoreducereduce
minimize the
thethe amount
amount of structural
of structural
risk to people damage
and the damage
facility is if if an
to an explosion
explosion
utilize a
incident
blastoccurs.
incident resistantOne
occurs. design
One of
of orthe approaches
thestructural
approaches to
to minimize
strengthening.
minimize The the the risk
frames to
riskmustto people and
and the
have adequate
people facility
thestiffness, is
is to
facilitystrength, to utilize
utilize aa
blast resistant
blastand
resistant design
ductility capacity
design or
or structural strengthening.
to resist blast
structural loading. The The
strengthening. frames
frames must
connections
The have
of the have
must adequate
structural stiffness,
component
adequate stiffness,needstrength,
to
strength,
and provide a significant contribution to maintain the integrity of the
and ductility capacity to resist blast loading. The connections of the structural component need to
ductility capacity to resist blast loading. The connections structural
of the system.
structural In many
component cases,
need to
connection strengthening can be implemented
provide
provide aa significant
significant contribution
contribution to maintain to
to maintain the
theenhance
integrity
integrity the of
structural
of the dynamicsystem.
the structural
structural performance.
system. In
In many
many cases,
cases,
connection In recent years, a few studies [2–7] were conducted on thestructural
investigation of the steel connection
connection strengthening
strengthening can canbe beimplemented
implementedto toenhance
enhancethe the structuraldynamic dynamicperformance.
performance.
performance subjected to blast loading. Several steel joint reinforcement methods which strengthen
In
In recent
recent years,
years, aa fewfew studies
studies [2–7][2–7] were
wereconducted
conducted on on the
the investigation
investigation of of the
the steel
steel connection
connection
and provide a better performance were proposed. An additional plate attached to beam flanges can
performance
performance subjected
subjected to
to blast
blast loading.
loading. Several
Several steel
steel joint
joint reinforcement
reinforcement methods
methods which
which strengthen
strengthen
improve the connection performance under blast loading [3]. Blast events are dynamic phenomena
and provide
and which
provide a better
areasimilar
performance
bettertoperformance
earthquakes. Both
were proposed.
wereblast
proposed.
resistantAn
An additional
additional
structure design
plate
plate attached
attached
and seismic
to beam
to beam
design involve
flanges
flanges can
the can
improve
improve
ductile the
the connection
connection
behaviour of theperformance
performance
structures. Underunder blast
underseismic loading
blast loading [3].
loading, [3]. Blast events
Blast eventsof
the performance are
are dynamic
thedynamic
welded haunchphenomena
phenomena
which
which are
aresimilar
connectionsimilar to
to earthquakes.
reinforcements
earthquakes. was Both
Both blast
studied by resistant
blast many
resistant structure
researchers
structure design
[8–11].
design In and seismic
seismic
and design,
seismic design involve
involve the
the welded
design the
ductile behaviour
triangular haunch,of the
as structures.
shown in Under
Figure 2, isseismic
one of loading,
the steel the performance
connection
ductile behaviour of the structures. Under seismic loading, the performance of the welded haunch of
reinforcement the welded
methods haunch
that
has been
connection
connection effectively implemented
reinforcements
reinforcements was studiedfor
was studied byenhancing
by many
many researchers steel moment
researchers [8–11].connection
[8–11]. In seismicperformance
In seismic design,
design, the as
the welded
welded
recommended
triangular haunch, by
as several
shown in seismic
Figure design
2, is one guidelines
of the steel[12–14].
connectionSince seismic
reinforcementand blast
methods loading that has
triangular haunch, as shown in Figure 2, is one of the steel connection reinforcement methods that
been characteristics
effectively are different,for
implemented design for seismic
enhancing steel load doesconnection
moment not guarantee adequate performance
performance as recommended for by
has been effectively implemented for enhancing steel moment connection performance as
blast loading. Therefore, seismic design recommendations on connection reinforcement, and using
several seismic design
recommended by severalguidelinesseismic [12–14].
design Since seismic and
guidelines blast loading
[12–14]. characteristics
Since seismic and blast are different,
loading
welded haunches, cannot be directly implemented in blast design.
design for seismic
characteristics areload does not
different, guarantee
design adequate
for seismic loadperformance for blast loading.
does not guarantee adequateTherefore, seismic
performance for
design recommendations on connection reinforcement, and using welded haunches, cannot be
blast loading. Therefore, seismic design recommendations on connection reinforcement, and using directly
implemented in blast
welded haunches, design.
cannot be directly implemented in blast design.
Figure 2. Typical sketch of a haunch connection configuration.
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Typical
Typical sketch
sketch of
of aa haunch
haunch connection
connection configuration.
configuration.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1815 3 of 20
This study investigates the dynamic behaviour of a simple single-bay two-storey steel frame
structure subjected to blast loading caused by hydrocarbon explosions. To achieve these objectives,
a typical hydrocarbon explosion dynamic pressure was considered and the selected structural
configuration including the connection details were modelled by numerical simulation using the
finite element analysis (FEA) computer program ABAQUS/Explicit. To facilitate the model validation,
a single-bay two-storey steel frame configuration from Chan and Chui [15] was adopted and developed
as a 3D model. Before modifying the model for further analysis, a validation exercise was performed by
comparing the numerical simulation responses with the responses as reported by Chan and Chui [15].
The model linear response was also compared with the theoretical approach/method computed using
MATLAB Toolbox.
2. Non-Linear Finite Element Analysis

An explosion event typically happens in a very short duration of less than 1 s which indicates that
the loading is time-dependent and requires a dynamic approach in the structural analysis. To solve the
dynamic problem, a few techniques for structural dynamic analysis for blast resistant design have
been developed; namely, the conventional equivalent static load or an elastic approach, a single degree
of freedom (SDOF), and non-linear FEA. Offshore steel structures or petrochemical facility structures
are generally constructed as a structural module with complex configurations and highly occupied
by equipment and pipelines. This complexity leads to the classification of the structure as a multiple
degree of freedom (MDOF) system and requires the non-linear MDOF analysis to provide the most
comprehensive approach in the structural response computation.
The basic concepts and problem-solving techniques for MDOF systems can be found in many
references [16–19]. A simple structure consisting of a MDOF system with the general dynamic equation
of motion given in Equation (1).
.. .
Mu(t) + Cu(t) + Fint (t) = Fext (t) (1)
M is the mass matrix, C is the damping matrix, u, ú, ü are the displacement, velocity, and acceleration
vectors, respectively, Fint is the internal forces vector, and Fext is the external forces vector. For dynamic
events like the explosion case with a very high loading rate within short duration, the calculation
requires small time increments to obtain a high-resolution for accurate solutions. Additionally,
this technique is stable for small-time increment steps and requires relatively small computational
cost per increment [20]. Therefore, the explicit method is efficient and suitable to be used in transient
dynamic cases such as blasts, explosions, and impacts [21].
2.1. Finite Element Modeling
2.1.1. Geometry
Pipe rack framings are usually symmetric with uniformly distributed loadings. The braces support
any lateral loadings in the longitudinal direction and restrain lateral movements whereby relatively
small deflections will be experienced in this direction. This is a reasonable assumption to simplify the
model by considering only a single-bay two-storey moment frame in the analysis.
To provide sufficient space for an access walkway and escape route, a minimum clear space
of 1.0m width and 2.1 m height must be included within the structure [22]. Therefore, a column
distance of 4 m that represents a typical offshore steel pipe racks framing configuration is considered
sufficient. Regarding the requirement for vertical space between beams, the first author found no
restrictions as long as the space for pipelines is sufficient in accordance with the piping engineers design,
and the structural integrity can fulfil the design criteria. Therefore, a single-bay two-storey frame [15]
was adopted and modified. The selected frame configuration is shown in Figure 3. This selected
configuration facilitates the final model development after conducting the validation.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1815 4 of 20
Figure 3. The
The steel
steel frame
frame model
model description.
description.
Figure 3. The steel frame model description.
The haunch
The haunch length,
length, a,
a, and
and angle,
angle, θ,
θ, were dimensioned in accordance with the provision given
The haunch length, a, and angle, θ, were dimensioned in accordance with the provision given
in Gross et al. [13]. The haunch
haunch is usually fabricated
fabricated by
by cutting
cutting a structural beam sections
sections or plates
in Gross et al. [13]. The haunch is usually fabricated by cutting a structural beam sections or plates
with standard thickness. In In this
this research,
research, plates with
with aa standard
standard thickness
thickness ofof 10
10 mm
mm were
were considered
considered
with standard thickness. In this research, plates with a standard thickness of 10 mm were considered
for the haunch and stiffener plates. The The thickness
thickness was
was selected
selected because
because it
it is the maximum standard
for the haunch and stiffener plates. The thickness was selected because it is the maximum standard
beam and
plate thickness that is less than the beam and column
column web/flange
web/flange thicknesses. The The haunch
haunch flanges
flanges are
are
plate thickness that is less than the beam and column web/flange thicknesses. The haunch flanges are
attached to the beam and column flanges by groove welding, and the webs are then fillet
the beam and column flanges by groove welding, and the webs are then fillet welded to welded to the
attached to the beam and column flanges by groove welding, and the webs are then fillet welded to
beam
the and and
beam column flanges
column as described
flanges in Figure
as described 4. The4.haunches
in Figure are placed
The haunches only on
are placed the on
only lower
the side
lowerof
the beam and column flanges as described in Figure 4. The haunches are placed only on the lower
the beams
side of the to avoid
beams toobstruction for the for
avoid obstruction pipelines on the top
the pipelines of the
on the topbeams.
of the beams.
side of the beams to avoid obstruction for the pipelines on the top of the beams.
Figure
Figure 4. The
The welded
welded triangular
triangular haunch
haunch configuration.
configuration.
Figure 4. The welded triangular haunch configuration.
Varying details of beam-column connectionsconnections were were considered
considered in in this study. In In addition
addition to the
joint Varying
type based details
on the of beam-column
configuration connections
shown in Figurewere
4, aconsidered
connection in this study.
without In additionandto the
joint type based configuration shown reinforcement and a
reinforcement
joint type
connection with based on the
with aa haunch configuration
haunch slopeslope angle shown
angle of in
45◦ were
of 45° Figure
were also 4, a connection
also considered without
considered in the analyses, reinforcement
presentedand
analyses, as presented a
connection in
connection
Figure 5.The with
Thelatter a is
latteris haunch slope
a typical angle of 45°
connection that were also considered
is usually used in the
in many analyses,
offshore as presented
frame structures. in
Figure 5. a typical connection that is usually used in many offshore frame structures. The
Figure
Themodel 5.
FE model The latter
of the is a
steel typical
frame connection
was that
developedusingis usually used in many
usingABAQUS/Explicit.
ABAQUS/Explicit.The offshore
Themodelframe structures.
model geometry
geometry was The
FE of the steel frame was developed
FE model of the steel frame was developed using ABAQUS/Explicit. The model geometry was
modelled in accordance with the single-bay two-storey frame configuration, as depicted in Figure 3.
The cross section of W8 × 48 was modelled and assigned to both the beams and columns.
The cross section of W8 × 48 was modelled and assigned to both the beams and columns.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1815 5 of 20
The
Appl.cross
Appl. Sci. section
Sci.2020,
2020, of W8
10,xxFOR
10, FOR ×REVIEW
PEER
PEER 48 was modelled and assigned to both the beams and columns.
REVIEW 55ofof2020
(a)
(a) (b)
(b) (c)
(c) (d)
(d)
Figure5.5.Different
Figure Differentdetails
Different detailsofofjoint
jointconfigurations
configurationswith
configurations withreinforcement.
with reinforcement.(a)
reinforcement. (a)Case
Case1—Beam-column
1—Beam-column
1—Beam-column
connection without
connection
connection without haunch;
without haunch; (b)(b) Case
(b) Case 2—Haunch_01
2—Haunch_01 Beam-column
2—Haunch_01 Beam-column connection
Beam-column connection with
connection with haunch
with haunch by
haunch by
Chopra [16]
Chopra [16] but
[16] but no
but no web
noweb stiffener
webstiffener plate
stiffenerplate on the
plateononthe beam
thebeam
beam and
andand no
nono continuity
continuity plates
plates
continuity for haunch
for for
plates haunch
haunch flange;
flange; (c)
(c)
flange;
Case
Case 3—Haunch_02
3—Haunch_02
(c) Case 3—Haunch_02 Beam-column
Beam-column
Beam-column connection
connection with haunch
withwith
connection haunch by Chopra
by Chopra
haunch [16]. Web
[16].[16].
by Chopra WebWeb stiffener
stiffener plates
plates
stiffener and
and
plates
haunch
haunch
and continuity
continuity
haunch plates
plates
continuity were
were
plates provided
provided
were onthe
on
provided the beam
on beam
the andand
and
beam column,
column, respectively;
respectively;
column, andand
and
respectively; (d)Case
(d) Case
(d) 4—
4—
Case
Haunch_03Beam-column
4—Haunch_03
Haunch_03 Beam-column
Beam-column connection
connection
connection with
withwithhaunch
haunch
haunch but
but
but the haunch
thehaunch
the configuration
haunchconfiguration
configurationisis ismodified
modifiedby
modified by
providing the slope angle of 45
providing the slope angle of 45 °..◦ °.
2.1.2. Constraint
2.1.2.Constraint and
Constraintand Boundary
andBoundary Conditions
BoundaryConditions
Conditions
2.1.2.
The beams-columns,
Thebeams-columns, plates,
beams-columns,plates, and
plates,and haunches
andhaunches
hauncheswere were connected
wereconnected using
connectedusing the
usingthe tie
thetie constraint
tieconstraint that
constraintthat connects
thatconnects
connects
The
two surfaces
twosurfaces regardless
surfacesregardless of the
regardlessofofthe mesh
themesh size
meshsize of each
sizeofofeach surface.
eachsurface. The
surface.The tie
Thetie constraint
tieconstraint is equivalent
constraintisisequivalent to a welded
equivalenttotoaaweldedwelded
two
joint
joint that
that prevents
prevents penetration,
penetration, separating
separating ororsliding
sliding in
inthe
theinteraction
interaction between
between the
the modelled
modelled surface
surface
joint that prevents penetration, separating or sliding in the interaction between the modelled surface
relative
relative totoanother
another surface
surface [20]. The
[20]. The application
application ofofthis constraint
this constraint inin
thethe
model
model is illustrated
is illustrated in in
Figure 6.
Figure
relative to another surface [20]. The application of this constraint in the model is illustrated in Figure
The column bases were considered as fixed supports which were created by restraining all the degrees
6.6.The
Thecolumn
columnbases
baseswere
wereconsidered
consideredas asfixed
fixedsupports
supportswhich
whichwere werecreated
createdby byrestraining
restrainingall allthe
the
of freedom
degrees of of the nodal
freedom of points
the concerned
nodal points in the model
concerned in boundary
the model conditions.
boundary conditions.
degrees of freedom of the nodal points concerned in the model boundary conditions.
Figure6.6.Typical
Figure Typicaltie
Typical tieconstraint
constraintatatbeam-column
beam-columnconnection.
connection.
2.1.3. Material
2.1.3.Material Properties
MaterialProperties
Properties
2.1.3.
For large
largedeformation
For large cases,
deformation cases, the
cases, the cross-sectional
the cross-sectional area
cross-sectional area undergoes
undergoes aaa significant
area undergoes reduction
significant reduction and
reduction and
and
For deformation significant
therefore
therefore true
true stress-strain
stress-strainindicating
indicating true
truematerial
material deformation
deformation must
must be
beconsidered.
considered. The
Thefollowing
following
therefore true stress-strain indicating true material deformation must be considered. The following
Equations
Equations(2)(2) and
(2)and (3)
(3)are
and(3) arethe
thenominal
nominalstress-strain
stress-strainand
andtruetruestress-strain
stress-strainrelationships
relationships[23].
[23].
Equations are the nominal stress-strain and true stress-strain relationships [23].
𝐴A𝐴= =𝜋𝑟
𝜋𝑟2𝜎σ𝜎true ==𝜎
σ𝜎eng 111+++ε𝜀eng
𝜀

= πr (2)
(2)
(2)
𝜀𝜀 ==𝑙𝑛𝑙𝑛 11++𝜀𝜀 (3)
(3)
εtrue = ln 1 + εeng (3)
where σσtrue
where true is the true stress, σeng is the engineering stress, εtrue is the true strain and εeng is the
is the true stress, σeng is the engineering stress, εtrue is the true strain and εeng is the
where σtrue isstrain.
engineering the true stress, σeng is the engineering
materialstress, εtrue is
forthe true strain εeng
and is is the
engineering strain. ItItisisrecommended
recommended that
that thematerial
the properties
properties for nonlinear
nonlinear analysis
analysis based
is based onon
engineering
the actual strain.
test It
results. is recommended
However, in many that the
cases material
this data isproperties
unavailable. forInnonlinear
the analysis
absence of is
actual based
tensile
the actual test results. However, in many cases this data is unavailable. In the absence of actual tensile
on the
test actual Det
results, test Norske
results. Veritas
However, in many
(DNV) cases this data
[23]established
established is unavailable.
idealized In the absence
materialcurves
curves of actual
according
test results, Det Norske Veritas (DNV) [23] idealized material according totothe
the
European Standards. The elasto-plastic material properties for steel
European Standards. The elasto-plastic material properties for steel grade S235 with isotropicgrade S235 with isotropic
hardening was
hardening was selected
selected for for the
the non-linear
non-linear properties
properties ofof steel
steel [23].
[23]. ABAQUS
ABAQUS defines
defines the
the rate-
rate-
dependentbehaviour
behaviourininterm termofofplastic
plasticstrain
strainrate ̅
rate 𝜀𝜀̅ expressed
expressedas: as:
dependent
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1815 6 of 20
tensile test results, Det Norske Veritas (DNV) [23] established idealized material curves according
to the European Standards. The elasto-plastic material properties for steel grade S235 with isotropic
hardening was selected for the non-linear properties of steel [23]. ABAQUS defines the rate-dependent
. pl
Appl.behaviour
Sci. 2020, 10, in term
x FOR of plastic
PEER REVIEWstrain rate ε expressed as: 6 of 20
. pl
𝜀̅ ε 𝐷=𝑅D−(R1 − 1)q
= (4) (4)
where R is R
where the
is ratio of the
the ratio of dynamic
the dynamicyieldyield
stress to the
stress tostatic yieldyield
the static stress, D and
stress, D qand
areqmaterial constants.
are material constants.
To match the Cowper-Symonds constitutive equation, the material constants
To match the Cowper-Symonds constitutive equation, the material constants for structural for structural steelsteel
in in
Equation (4) were specified as D = 40.4 s −1 and q = 5 [24] which were included in the power law rate
Equation (4) were specified as D = 40.4 s−1 and q = 5 [24] which were included in the power law rate
dependence
dependence definition
definitioninput.
input.
Typically, Gurson’s
Typically, Gurson’s porous
porousmodel is considered
model is consideredto model material
to model withwith
material relative density
relative greater
density greater
thanthan
0.9. 0.9.
Amadio et al. [25] considered Gurson’s porous model in the material attributes
Amadio et al. [25] considered Gurson’s porous model in the material attributes to overcome to overcome
the the
limitation of the
limitation VonVon
of the Mises constitutive
Mises constitutive law.law.
However,
However,Gurson’s damage
Gurson’s damage model on material
model on material
plasticity
plasticity is not considered in this study. The study is more concentrated on the structuralstructural
is not considered in this study. The study is more concentrated on the performance
performance based response
based on global on globalwithout
response without investigation
investigation of the materialof the material constitutional
constitutional law,
law, sensitivity of the
sensitivity of the
local effect in local effect in the beam-column
the beam-column connections, and connections, and mechanism.
detail failure detail failure mechanism.
2.1.4. Element
2.1.4. TypeType
Element andand
Mesh
Mesh
TheThe required numerical
required numericalresults obtain
results fromfrom
obtain the the
FE analysis
FE analysis are are
depending
dependingon the selection
on the of of
selection
element type for the FE model. The accuracy of FE results is relatively influenced
element type for the FE model. The accuracy of FE results is relatively influenced by the type by the type of of
elements
elementsdefined ontoonto
defined the the
FE model
FE model [26].[26].
Solid element
Solid is significantly
element useful
is significantly to obtain
useful to obtainnumerical
numerical
stress components of the FE model. However, in this study, only the displacement
stress components of the FE model. However, in this study, only the displacement component component of the of
FE model
the FEismodel
required to estimate
is required the dynamic
to estimate behaviour
the dynamic of the structure
behaviour considered
of the structure under blast
considered load.blast
under
Bothload.
solidBoth
andsolid
shellandelements can significantly produce the same results of the
shell elements can significantly produce the same results of the displacement displacement
component
component of the
of element
the element under static
under andand
static eveneven
extreme loadload
extreme suchsuch
as blast loadload
as blast [26,27]. All structural
[26,27]. All structural
components
components wereweremodelled
modelledusing deformable
using deformable four-node
four-nodedoubly curved
doubly curvedwithwith
reduced
reduced integration
integration
S4RS4R
shellshell
element. The S4R element is suitable for large-rotation problems because
element. The S4R element is suitable for large-rotation problems because it includes it includes finite
finite
membrane
membrane strains and arbitrarily large rotations [20]. A fine mesh size of 25 mm was usedthe
strains and arbitrarily large rotations [20]. A fine mesh size of 25 mm was used in in the
connection
connectionregion and and
region a coarse mesh
a coarse sizesize
mesh of 100 mmmm
of 100 for the regions
for the other
regions thanthan
other the the
connection
connectionareaarea
were selected as shown in Figure
were selected as shown in Figure 7. 7.
Figure 7. Finer mesh size at used in the connection region.

Figure 7. Finer mesh size at used in the connection region.
2.1.5. Loadings
2.1.5. Loadings
All loadings associated with in-place actions that contribute to the dynamic masses must be
All loadings
included in theassociated with in-place
dynamic analysis actions
[28]. The that contribute
dead loads to thetodynamic
not contributing masses
the overall muststiffness
structural be
included in the dynamic analysis [28]. The dead loads not contributing to the overall structural
were incorporated as inertia masses input because these masses, including the weight of all pipes,
stiffness were incorporated as inertia masses input because these masses, including the weight of all
pipes, contribute to the inertia mass in the dynamic behaviour of the overall structure. The inertia
mass of pipes was determined by assuming all pipe size as 400 mm diameter × 12.7 mm thickness
with a span length of 5 m. The weight of each pipe was 1.2 tonnes. At the same time, the miscellaneous
dead loads such as smaller pipes, cable tray, electrical lines, grating, and handrails were included in
the model. A total inertia mass of 10.2 tonne (100 kN) at each pipe location were assumed and
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1815 7 of 20
contribute to the inertia mass in the dynamic behaviour of the overall structure. The inertia mass of
pipes was determined by assuming all pipe size as 400 mm diameter × 12.7 mm thickness with a span
length of 5 m. The weight of each pipe was 1.2 tonnes. At the same time, the miscellaneous dead
loads such as smaller pipes, cable tray, electrical lines, grating, and handrails were included in the
model. A total inertia mass of 10.2 tonne (100 kN) at each pipe location were assumed and included
Appl.
in theSci. 2020, 10,The
model. x FOR PEERmass
total REVIEW 7 of 20
based on the assumed inertia masses gives a conservative scenario,
besides maintaining the same total mass as in the original steel frame presented by Chan and Chui [15].
and Chui [15]. The weight of the pipes on the rack was modelled by applying mass inertia at four
The weight of the pipes on the rack was modelled by applying mass inertia at four prescribed locations
prescribed locations as shown in Figure 8.
as shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8. Pipe inertia masses and locations.

Figure 8. Pipe inertia masses and locations.
During the gas explosion process, the atmospheric pressure increases dramatically to a maximum
During the gas explosion process, the atmospheric pressure increases dramatically to a
pressure with the propagation of the blast wave, and then it slowly decreases to a negative value
maximum pressure with the propagation of the blast wave, and then it slowly decreases to a negative
with respect to the standard atmospheric pressure. The negative phase pressure occurs because the
value with respect to the standard atmospheric pressure. The negative phase pressure occurs because
shockwave forces the air to move as it spreads outward from the explosion centre and creates a lack of
the shockwave forces the air to move as it spreads outward from the explosion centre and creates a
air behind, causing a partial vacuum or negative pressure phase. This negative phase can be ignored
lack of air behind, causing a partial vacuum or negative pressure phase. This negative phase can be
in structural design [29]. However, the negative phase of the blast pressure is important in order to
ignored in structural design [29]. However, the negative phase of the blast pressure is important
accurately predict the responses of blast loading on structures [30], and it is unconservative if the
in order to accurately predict the responses of blast loading on structures [30], and it is
negative phase is ignored [31]. The original pressure-time history output of blast simulation is not
unconservative if the negative phase is ignored [31]. The original pressure-time history output of
practicable to be used in structural dynamic analysis and needs to be idealized [32]. Mohamed et al.
blast simulation is not practicable to be used in structural dynamic analysis and needs to be idealized
reference [30] summarised typical nominal blast overpressures for offshore structure according to
[32]. Mohamed et al. reference [30] summarised typical nominal blast overpressures for offshore
industrial standard guidelines. The durations of these loads were reported to be between 50 and
structure according to industrial standard guidelines. The durations of these loads were reported to
200 msec and considered to be close to typical offshore structure natural periods (between 300 to
be between 50 and 200 msec and considered to be close to typical offshore structure natural periods
1100 msec). Yasseri et al. [33] also proposed an overpressure load of 0.9 bar and 2.25 bar as the lower
(between 300 to 1100 msec). Yasseri et al. [33] also proposed an overpressure load of 0.9 bar and 2.25
and upper level events for hydrocarbon explosions, respectively.
bar as the lower and upper level events for hydrocarbon explosions, respectively.
During an explosion event, the following three fundamental consequences can occur; namely,
During an explosion event, the following three fundamental consequences can occur; namely,
the blast overpressures, dynamic pressures (drag loads) and projectiles, missiles, and shrapnel. Among
the blast overpressures, dynamic pressures (drag loads) and projectiles, missiles, and shrapnel.
these consequences, the explosion overpressures are generally considered to be the most critical
Among these consequences, the explosion overpressures are generally considered to be the most
measurement. In the absence of project-specific data, it has been suggested in a Chevron Engineering
critical measurement. In the absence of project-specific data, it has been suggested in a Chevron
Standard that a load equal to one-third of the positive phase load can be considered for the negative
Engineering Standard that a load equal to one-third of the positive phase load can be considered for
phase pressure. The negative pressures are usually within the range 10–30% of the maximum
the negative phase pressure. The negative pressures are usually within the range 10–30% of the
pressure [34].
maximum pressure [34].
The explosion loads on open frame structures, structural components, equipment items and
The explosion loads on open frame structures, structural components, equipment items and
pipework are usually caused by dynamic pressure loads [35] containing drag loads, inertia loads, and
pipework are usually caused by dynamic pressure loads [35] containing drag loads, inertia loads, and
a pressure difference load. The first two loadings are similar to the fluid force terms in the Morrison
equations (refer Equation (5)) [36].
𝜋 𝜕𝑈 1
𝐹 = 𝐶 𝜌𝐷 + 𝜌𝑣 𝐶 𝐴 (5)
4 𝜕𝑡 2
FD is the drag force, Cm and CD are the inertial and drag coefficients. For small objects and typical
gas velocities, the contribution of the inertia load is less than 1% of the force hence it may be neglected
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1815 8 of 20
a pressure difference load. The first two loadings are similar to the fluid force terms in the Morrison
equations (refer Equation (5)) [36].
π ∂U 1 2
FD = Cm ρD2 + ρv gas CD A (5)
4 ∂t 2
FD is the drag force, Cm and CD are the inertial and drag coefficients. For small objects and
typical gas velocities, the contribution of the inertia load is less than 1% of the force hence it may be
Appl. Sci. 2020,
neglected 10, xTherefore,
[37]. FOR PEER REVIEW
the Morrison’s equation can be reduced and the magnitude of the 8drag of 20
forces on the steelwork elements can be calculated using Equation (6).

1
𝐹 = 1 𝜌𝑣2 𝐶 𝐴 (6)
FD = 2ρv gas CD A (6)
2
where CD is the drag coefficient of the object which is dependent on the shape of the structure
where CD isarea),
(projected the drag
ρ iscoefficient
density ofofgas the(kg/m
object3),which
vgas isisvelocity
dependent on unburned
of the the shape of themixture
gas structure (projected
(m/s) and A
area), ρ is density
is structures of gasarea
projected (kg/m 3
2 vgas isthe
(m ).), Since velocity of theofunburned
prediction gasand
gas density mixture (m/s)
velocity in and A is structures
an explosion event
projected area (m2 ).Mohamed
are very difficult, Since the etprediction of gas[30]
al. Reference density and velocity
reported that the in an explosion
dynamic event
pressure are load)
(drag very
difficult, Mohamed et al. Reference [30] reported that the dynamic pressure (drag load)
calculation in Equation (6) can be simplified to the following empirical expression given by Equation calculation in
Equation
(6). (6) can be simplified to the following empirical expression given by Equation (6).
q𝑞D (t𝑡) =
= C𝐶D × p𝑝(t𝑡) × OD
𝑂𝐷 (7)
(7)
where qD(t) is the line load on a pipe function with respect to time, p(t) is maximum overpressure
where qD (t) isand
time-history theOD
lineisload
outeronpipe
a pipe function
diameter. with respect
According p(t)the
to time,(7),
to Equation is dynamic
maximum overpressure
pressure can be
time-history OD
calculated by using the maximum overpressure values. The maximum dynamic pressure Pmax ofcan
and is outer pipe diameter. According to Equation (7), the dynamic pressure 2.5
be
barcalculated
was selected by using
basedthe on maximum
Mohamed overpressure values.
et al. [30] whereas theThe maximum
peak negativedynamic
pressure pressure Pmaxbar
Pmin of −0.83 of
2.5 bar was selected based on Mohamed et al. [30] whereas the peak negative
was taken as one-third of the maximum dynamic pressure as suggested by inminthe Chevron pressure P of −0.83 bar
was taken as one-third
Engineering Standard of andtheHansen
maximumet al.dynamic
[34]. Thepressure
pressureasduration
suggested of by in the
0.136 s forChevron
pressuresEngineering
Pmax of 2.5
Standard and Hansen et al. [34]. The pressure duration of 0.136 s for pressures
bar and the duration of 0.24 s for Pmin of −0.83 bar were determined using the curve in Figure P max of 2.5 bar and
9. the
duration of 0.24 s for Pmin of −0.83 bar were determined using the curve in Figure 9.
Figure 9. Pressure durations relationship based on API RP 2FB [24].

The dynamic pressure wave profile can be developed using the pressures and durations
The dynamic
information. pressure triangular
The idealized wave profile can be shown
waveform developed using10the
in Figure waspressures andtodurations
considered describe
information. The idealized triangular waveform shown in Figure
the dynamic pressure history that was applied in the FE models. 10 was considered to describe the
dynamic pressure history that was applied in the FE models.
The dynamic pressure wave profile can be developed using the pressures and durations
information. The idealized triangular waveform shown in Figure 10 was considered to describe the
Appl. Sci. 2020,
dynamic 10, 1815history that was applied in the FE models.
pressure 9 of 20
Figure 10. Dynamic pressure history.

Figure 10. Dynamic pressure history.
In the analyses, a uniform distributed pressure of 2.5 bar was applied on the column flanges.
To simplify the problem, the drag loads on the unmodeled pipes and non-structural items on the frame
were ignored. Since the blast direction and the beam longitudinal direction are parallel, the beams are
to be minimally affected by the lateral pressures, and thus no blast loads were applied to the beams.
In a blast event, the structures might buckle and undergo large geometry changes, hence the
necessity to also consider geometric non-linearity [20]. In the initial step, initial conditions, boundary
conditions, and predefined fields that are applicable with the analysis can be specified. In addition to
the initial step, three steps were specified to simulate the blast analysis, namely; self-weight (quasi-static
analysis with structural weight and dead load), blast (dynamic analysis using dynamic pressure history
with self-weight propagation) and post-blast (only dead load is set active, no propagation of blast load
from previous analysis step). In each analysis step, the incrementation settings were set to automatic
incrementation so that ABAQUS automatically adjusts the time increment size depending on the
numerical stability limit [20].
Before applying dynamic pressure, the initial condition of the structure was in a static condition
under self-weight consisting of structural dead load and piping masses. Unfortunately, ABAQUS cannot
directly combine static analysis with dynamic explicit analysis in the same model. When dynamic
explicit analysis is being used, all the following analysis in the next steps must also be in the dynamic
explicit mode. Therefore, the self-weight member forces also need to be analysed using dynamic
explicit analysis. When the self-weight is applied instantaneously in the dynamic analysis, oscillatory
vertical reaction force occur as shown in Figure 11. This oscillation does not represent the correct static
condition in which the structure should be before the blast is initiated. This oscillation will create
incorrect stress variations during and after the actual blast dynamic analysis. To overcome this problem,
the ramp loading was implemented in the self-weight dynamic analysis whereby the load was applied
slowly to avoid the dynamic effect. The basis of this method is related to the concept of the dynamic
case of “step force with finite rise time” [16–18] in which if the rising time of the self-weight dynamic
loading is relatively long and greater than three times the structural natural period, the dynamic
response is quasi-static or like a static force. Therefore, a rise time of 2.15 s (=3 × 0.717 sec) was used in
the self-weight dynamic step as shown in Figure 12. The result of ramp loading implementation in
the self-weight step is presented in Figure 13 whereby no oscillation has occurred in the self-weight
dynamic step.
of the dynamic case of “step force with finite rise time” [16–18] in which if the rising time of the self-
weight dynamic loading is relatively long and greater than three times the structural natural period,
the dynamic response is quasi-static or like a static force. Therefore, a rise time of 2.15 s (=3 × 0.717
sec) was used in the self-weight dynamic step as shown in Figure 12. The result of ramp loading
implementation in the self-weight step is presented in Figure 13 whereby no oscillation has occurred
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1815 10 of 20
in the self-weight dynamic step.

Figure 11. Vertical reaction force for instantaneously applied self-weight.
Figure 11. Vertical reaction force for instantaneously applied self-weight.
Figure 12.12.
Figure Dynamic analysis
Dynamic steps
analysis andand
steps durations.
durations.
Figure 12. Dynamic analysis steps and durations.
Figure 13. Vertical reaction force after ramp loading implementation in the self-weight step.
In the “blast” analysis step, the dynamic pressure was introduced. The duration of the blast
In
analysisthestep
“blast”
was analysis
specified step, the dynamic pressure was the
introduced. The duration of the0.376
blastsec.
In the “blast” analysisinstep,
line with the total
the dynamic duration
pressureofwas blast amplitude
introduced. Thedefinition
duration as of the blast
analysis
During step was specified
step,inthe
line with the total duration from of the blast amplitude definition as 0.376
analysisthis stepanalysis
was specified in self-weight
line with thepropagating
total duration of thethe previous self-weight
blast amplitude analysis
definition step
as 0.376
sec. During
was includedthis analysis
in the step,
analysis.the self-weight
After the propagating
blast analysis from
step, the
the lastprevious
analysis self-weight
step, called analysis
the step
post blast,
sec. During this analysis step, the self-weight propagating from the previous self-weight analysis step
waswasincluded in thethe
analysis. After the blasttheanalysis step,response
the last analysis step, called the post blast,
wascreated
included with purpose
in the analysis. of studying
After the blast post-blast
analysis step, the last of the structure.
analysis step, No load
called thewas applied
post blast,
wasin created
this step with
except the purpose
the of
self-weight studying
propagationthe post-blast
from the response
previous of the
step. structure.
Since the No
transient load was
dynamic
was created with the purpose of studying the post-blast response of the structure. No load was
applied
response in this step
is this
the exceptinterest
primary the self-weight propagation
of the study, from the
a step duration previous step. Sinceinthe transient
applied in step except the self-weight propagation fromofthe 2 sprevious
was considered
step. Sincethe thepost-blast
transient
dynamic
analysis. response is the primary interest of the study, a stepdynamic
duration of 2 s was considered inwithin
the
dynamic In the explosion
response dynamic
is the primary analysis,
interest ofthe
themaximum
study, a step duration response
of 2 usually occurred
s was considered in the
post-blast analysis. In the explosion dynamic analysis, the maximum dynamic response usually
post-blast analysis. In the explosion dynamic analysis, the maximum dynamic response usually
occurred within the transient response duration. Therefore, the duration of 2 s is considered adequate
occurred within the transient response duration. Therefore, the duration of 2 s is considered adequate
to describe the steady state response of the structure. Moreover, a longer duration needs to be avoided
to describe the steady state response of the structure. Moreover, a longer duration needs to be avoided
to minimize the total computation duration.
to minimize the total computation duration.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1815 11 of 20
the transient response duration. Therefore, the duration of 2 s is considered adequate to describe the
steady state response of the structure. Moreover, a longer duration needs to be avoided to minimize
the total computation duration.
2.2. Structural Assessment
2.2.1. Ductility Ratio of the Steel Frame

The level of structural performance can be measured by quantifying its stresses, strains,
displacements, ductility, functionality, and similar parameters. Like seismic design, blast resistant
structural design also considers inelastic response under dynamic load. In terms of the structural
response, the impulsive blast load yields higher response frequency than the response due to seismic
load [38] and the inter-story drifts due to the blast loading on a building are generally higher than the
drifts due to earthquakes [39]. In the case of blast loading, the design is based on the member’s plastic
behaviour and the structural component is governed by its ductility and rotation [40]. The ductility is
defined as the structural capability of plastic deformation without fracturing. The maximum plastic
displacement of a structure can be measured by the ductility ratio (µ) relative to first yield [41] as given
in Equation (8).
δu
µ= (8)
δy
where δu is the maximum plastic displacement, and δy is the displacement at first yield.
The displacement at first yield is not obvious for most material. It can be determined by using
graphical methods with several alternative definitions [41]. The method based on initial yielding, also
called the Tangent Method, is usually implemented to approximate the yield point which is defined as
the intersection between the tangential lines of elastic and plastic behaviour [42].
In design practice, ductility ratio values and rotation criteria are used for designing structure
particularly topside offshore structures. The ductility ratio and the plastic strain are related, and the
failure of the structure is assumed to occur when the plastic strain approaches the material failure
strain [43]. The allowable range of the structural member’s plastic deformations is measured based
on the calculated ductility ratio, whereas the limit on the support rotation makes sure that tension
membrane action, that may develop in a member, will be in a safe range where no connection
failures occur.
2.2.2. Evaluation Criteria

In industrial practice, various design codes and guidelines [24,31,40,44–46] are used for blast
design evaluation criteria. Specifically, for a petroleum facility, API RP 2FB [24] defines two important
levels of assessment namely ductility level blast (DLB) and the strength level blast (SLB). These levels are
associated with the explosion loading risks by analogy with earthquake assessment. A low-probability
high-consequence event representing the extreme design event may be assessed using DLB. While a
higher-probability lower-consequence event, such an explosion case with low overpressure, can be
assessed using SLB.
Louca et al. [6] summarised the ductility values that were used in the offshore structure design
practice. By correlating the ductility ratio and damage levels, Yasseri [47] proposed the ductility ratio
criteria. Several design guidelines in the industry present the response criteria [40,46].
3. Results
3.1. Model Validations Results

A single-bay two-storey steel framing configuration as presented in Figure 14 was chosen to
develop the model. The selected steel frame was considered appropriate for the object in the study
because a simple and small structure does not require excessive computation resources. Chan and
<isbn>9781466553583 1466553588; 9781466553552 1466553553</isbn>
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1815 12 of 20
Chui [15] investigated the<mml:mtrtransient dynamic response of 替换成<mml:mtr>

nonumber="true">会报错 the inelastic steel frames with nonlinear
connections. Geometric imperfections and residual stress with a maximum magnitude of 50% of yield
stress were
Appl. Sci. 2020,included in their
10, x FOR PEER study.
REVIEW 12 of 20
Figure 14.
Figure 14. A
A two-storey
two-storey steel
steel frame
frame under dynamic loading
under dynamic loading [15].
[15].
The model
The model of of the
the selected
selected steel
steel frame
frame was
was developed
developed in in ABAQUS.
ABAQUS. Before
Before starting
starting the
the simulations
simulations
for the
for theresearch,
research,two twodifferent analyses
different analysesnamely
namelyelastic andand
elastic elastic-perfectly-plastic analyses
elastic-perfectly-plastic were were
analyses used
for validating the model by comparing the dynamic responses from numerical analyses
used for validating the model by comparing the dynamic responses from numerical analyses against against the
dynamic
the dynamicresponses
responsespresented
presentedby by
Bathe [19].
Bathe ToTodifferentiate
[19]. differentiatethe
theanalysis,
analysis,two
two different material
different material
properties were created representing the elastic and elastic-perfectly plastic with a
properties were created representing the elastic and elastic-perfectly plastic with a yield stressyield stress of 235
of
MPa. The elastic and elastoplastic analyses were carried out. To verify the dynamic characteristic
235 MPa. The elastic and elastoplastic analyses were carried out. To verify the dynamic characteristic of of
the frame
the frame using
using theoretical calculations, elastic
theoretical calculations, elastic dynamic
dynamic analysis
analysis was
was also
also carried
carried out
out using
using CALFEM
CALFEM
which is a MATLAB computational toolbox for teaching FEM developed
which is a MATLAB computational toolbox for teaching FEM developed at Lund University at Lund University [48]. [48].
The
structural lateral displacement responses are presented in Figures 15
The structural lateral displacement responses are presented in Figures 15 and 16. and 16.
8
Figure
Figure 15. Elastic analysis
15. Elastic analysis dynamic
dynamic response
response ABAQUS,
ABAQUS, Chan
Chan and
and Chui
Chui [15]
[15] and
and CALFEM/MATLAB.
CALFEM/MATLAB.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1815 13 of 20
Appl.
Appl.Sci.
Sci.2020,
2020,10,
10,xxFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 13
13of
of20
20
Figure
Figure16.
16.Elastoplastic
Elastoplasticanalysis
analysisdynamic
dynamicresponse
responseABAQUS
ABAQUSand
andChan
Chan and
and Chui
Chui [15].
[15].
Since
Since
Since the theresponse
responsebased
response basedon
based on
on CALFEM
CALFEM
CALFEM calculation
calculation
calculation matches
matches
matches the the
elastic response
the elastic
elastic presented
response
response by Chan
presented
presented by
by
and
Chan Chui
and [15],
Chui their
[15], dynamic
their characteristics
dynamic are
characteristics considerably
are identical.
considerably
Chan and Chui [15], their dynamic characteristics are considerably identical. This implies that the This implies
identical. This that
impliesthe dynamic
that the
characteristic
dynamic
dynamiccharacteristicbased onbased
characteristic CALFEM
based on
onCALFEM calculations
CALFEM represents
calculations
calculations the similar
represents
represents the dynamic
thesimilar
similar characteristic
dynamic
dynamic of the
characteristic
characteristic
frame
ofofthe presented
theframe
frame presentedby Chan
presented by
byChanand Chui
Chan and
andChui [15]. [15].
Chui According
[15]. According
According to the todynamic
to the
thedynamic
dynamicresponse
response
responsein Figures
in
inFigures
Figures15 and
15
15and 16,
and
the
16, maximum
the maximum response
response from the
from ABAQUS
the ABAQUS analysis is
analysis 42%
16, the maximum response from the ABAQUS analysis is 42% higher than the maximum response is higher
42% than
higher the
than maximum
the maximum response given
response
by
given Chan
given byand
by Chan
Chan Chui and[15].
and Chui
Chui In[15].
addition
[15]. In to this, the
In addition
addition to displacement
to this,
this, the responseresponse
the displacement
displacement wave period
response wave
wave ofperiod
the
periodABAQUS
of
of the
the
results
ABAQUS are shorter
results arethan the
shorter results
than from
the Chan
results
ABAQUS results are shorter than the results from Chan and Chui [15]. and
from Chui
Chan [15].
and Chui [15].
To
Toinvestigate
To investigate
investigate these
these discrepancies,
these discrepancies,
discrepancies, the natural
the frequencies
the natural
natural that represent
frequencies
frequencies that the
that dynamicthe
represent
represent characteristic
the dynamic
dynamic
of the framesof
characteristic
characteristic were
of thecalculated
the frames
frames were using
were ABAQUS
calculated
calculated using
usingandABAQUS
CALFEM.
ABAQUS and AsCALFEM.
and shown in As
CALFEM. Figure
As shown
shown17, inthe structure
in Figure
Figure 17,
17,
natural
the frequency
structure natural of 1.4978
frequency Hz extracted
of 1.4978 from
Hz ABAQUS
extracted
the structure natural frequency of 1.4978 Hz extracted from ABAQUS is 5.4% higher than the is
from 5.4% higher
ABAQUS than
is 5.4%the CALFEM
higher than result
the
(1.4214
CALFEM
CALFEM Hz). Tedesco
result
result (1.4214
(1.4214et Hz).
al.
Hz).[18] showed
Tedesco
Tedesco etthat
et al.
al.[18]theshowed
[18] effect ofthat
showed mass
that the
theand loadof
effect
effect ofdistribution
mass
massand andload on the
load dynamic
distribution
distribution
response
ononthe
thedynamicof a structural
dynamic response
responseof system in which
ofaastructural
structural a structural
system
system in whichsystem
inwhich with system
aastructural
structural distributed
systemwith withmass is stiffer
distributed
distributed mass
massthan
isis
astiffer
system
stiffer than where
a system the entire
where mass
the is
entire concentrated
mass is at midspan
concentrated at
than a system where the entire mass is concentrated at midspan points. Unlike beam finite points.
midspan Unlike
points. beam
Unlike finite
beam element
finite
formulation,
element the structural
element formulation,
formulation, the masses in masses
the structural
structural the ABAQUS
masses in themodel
in the ABAQUS
ABAQUS is distributed
model isisthroughout
model distributedthe
distributed structure and
throughout
throughout the
the
not concentrated
structure and not at points.
concentrated Thisat implies
points. that
This the ABAQUS
implies that model
the
structure and not concentrated at points. This implies that the ABAQUS model should be stiffer than should
ABAQUS be
modelstiffer than
should bethe CALFEM
stiffer than
calculation,
the
theCALFEM
CALFEM hence it will have
calculation,
calculation, hence
hencea higher
ititwill natural
willhave
have frequency.
aahigher
higher natural
naturalfrequency.
frequency.
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure
Figure17.
Figure 17.Structural
17. Structuralnatural
Structural naturalfrequency
natural frequencyfrom
frequency from(a)
from (a)ABAQUS
(a) ABAQUSand
ABAQUS and(b)
and (b)CALFEM/MATLAB.
(b) CALFEM/MATLAB.
CALFEM/MATLAB.
The
The effect of
The effect
effect ofthe
of thenonlinearity
the nonlinearityof
nonlinearity ofofthethesystem
the system
system waswas
was also
also
also investigated.
investigated.
investigated. As As shown
As shown
shown in in Figure
in Figure
Figure 18, 18,
18, the
the
the
VonVon
Von Mises
Mises
Mises stress
stress
stress reaches
reaches
reaches the the yield
theyield
yield stress
stressstress value.
value.
value. ThisThis
This situation
situation
situation is considered
isisconsidered
considered overstress,
overstress,
overstress, in in which
inwhich
which the
the
validated
validated model
model undergoes
undergoes yielding
yielding andand buckling.
buckling. In
In this
this case,
case, analysis
analysis using
using ABAQUS
ABAQUS does does have
have
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1815 14 of 20

the validated model undergoes yielding and buckling. In this case, analysis using ABAQUS does
capability
have to consider
capability inelastic
to consider moment
inelastic redistribution
moment [49] [49]
redistribution andand
P-delta effects
P-delta by by
effects activating the
activating
geometric
the geometricnon-linearity
non-linearityoption
optionininthe
thedynamic
dynamicanalysis.
analysis. These
These features allow the
features allow the analysis
analysisusing
using
ABAQUS to capture the more realistic dynamic behaviour of the
ABAQUS to capture the more realistic dynamic behaviour of the structure.structure.
Figure 18. Yielding and buckling in the validated model.

Figure 18. Yielding and buckling in the validated model.
The preceding section explained possible factors affecting the higher dynamic responses obtained
The preceding
from ABAQUS compared section
to theexplained possible presented
dynamic response factors affectingby Chanthe andhigher dynamic responses
Chui [15].
obtained from ABAQUS compared to the dynamic response presented by Chan and Chui [15].
3.2. Eigenmodes and Eigenvalues
3.2. Eigenmodes and Eigenvalues
The natural period of the structure was obtained by eigenvalue analysis. To perform this,
The natural
the analysis modelperiod of the and
was copied structure was obtained
modified by removing by eigenvalue analysis.and
the blast loading To maintaining
perform this,the the
analysis model was copied and modified by removing the blast
structural and piping masses. The dynamic analysis step was replaced by linear perturbation frequency loading and maintaining the
structural
analysis type. andTenpiping
valuesmasses. The dynamic
of the eigenvalues wereanalysis
requested step
for was replaced
the analysis by linear
output. perturbation
The mode shape
frequency
which analysis
is parallel withtype. Ten values
the direction of theloading
of blast eigenvalues were requested
was selected for the analysis
as the representation of the output.
dynamicThe
characteristics of the structure. Therefore, the structural natural period associated with this modeof
mode shape which is parallel with the direction of blast loading was selected as the representation
the dynamic
shape was usedcharacteristics of the structure.
in the step duration Therefore,
of self-weight dynamic theanalysis.
structural Bynatural
relatingperiod associated
the structural with
natural
this mode
period to theshape
dynamic wasloading
used in the step
duration, theduration
structural ofdynamic
self-weight dynamic
response was analysis.
classified By intorelating
impulsive the
/Tn < 0.3, dynamic
tdstructural 0.3 < tdto
natural period /Tnthe
< 3, dynamic loading3 <
or quasi-static td /Tn categories
duration, the structural
[50]. Wheredynamic td is response
the dynamic was
classified
load duration intoandimpulsive
Tn is the td/Tstructural
n < 0.3, dynamic
natural0.3 < td/TnThe
period. < 3, structural
or quasi-static
dynamic3 < tdcharacteristic
/Tn categorieswas [50].
Where td is
identified bythe dynamic load
undertaking the duration
eigenvalue andanalysis.
Tn is the Four
structural
modenaturalshapesperiod. The structural
considered to to be the dynamic
most
characteristic
important shapeswasareidentified
presented by undertaking
in Figure 19. the The eigenvalue
first modeanalysis. Four mode
as the highest shapes considered
eigenvalue is usually
to to be the
considered most
as the important
critical shapes are
case. However, modepresented
shapes in Figure
1 and 2 in 19.
thisThe
study first
weremode as the highest
considered not to
be the critical cases because the columns, bracings, and lateral beams provide lateral restrains instudy
eigenvalue is usually considered as the critical case. However, mode shapes 1 and 2 in this the
were considered
longitudinal not toofbe
direction thethe critical
actual cases because
structure. The mode the columns,
shape-3 bracings,
that deflects andinlateral
the samebeams provide
direction
aslateral restrains
the blast in theloading
excitation longitudinal direction
was selected of the actual
to represent thestructure. The mode shape-3
dynamic characteristic for the that deflects
structure.
in the same the
Subsequently, direction
eigenvalueas the basedblaston excitation
mode shape-3 loadingwas was used selected to represent
in all calculations that the dynamic
are relevant
characteristic
with the structural for the structure.
dynamic Subsequently, the eigenvalue based on mode shape-3 was used in all
characteristics.
calculations
By consideringthat aretherelevant
dynamic withloadthe duration
structuralof td = 0.376
dynamic characteristics.
s and the structural natural period of
0.717 s,Bythe considering
ratio of thethe dynamic
dynamic load duration to
loading of the
td =natural
0.376 speriod
and the is structural
determined as td /Tperiod
natural n = 0.52.
of
0.717
The s, the
ratio ratio ofthan
is greater the 0.3
dynamic
and less loading
than 3,duration
hence falls to into
the natural
the dynamicperiodcategory.
is determined
Therefore,as tddynamic
/Tn = 0.52.
The ratio
analysis was is greater than 0.3
solved using and lessintegration
numerical than 3, hence falls
of the into theequations
dynamic dynamic of category. Therefore,
equilibrium that is dynamic
already
analysis wasinsolved
implemented using numerical
the ABAQUS numericalintegration
computational of the dynamic equations of equilibrium that is
technique.
already implemented in the ABAQUS numerical computational technique.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1815 15 of 20
Mode shape 1 Mode shape 2 Mode shape 3 Mode shape 4
Frquency: 0.39967
Mode shape 1 Hz Frquency: 0.82096
Mode shape 2 Hz Frquency: 1.39523 Hz
Mode shape Frquency: 1.97424 Hz
Mode shape
Natural period:
Frquency: 2.502
0.39967 Hz Natural period:
Frquency: 1.218
0.82096 Hz Natural period:
Frquency: 1.39520.717
Hz Natural period:
Frquency: 1.97420.507
Hz
Naturalsecond
period: 2.502 Naturalsecond
period: 0.507
second second second second
(a) (b) (c) (d)

(a) (b) (c) (d)
Figure 19. Structural eigen modes and eigen periods. (a) Mode shape 1; (b) Mode shape 2; (c) Mode
Figure
shape 3;19.
andStructural
(d) Modeeigen modes
shape 4. and eigen periods. (a) Mode shape 1; (b) Mode shape 2; (c) Mode
shape 3; and (d) Mode shape 4.
3.3. Lateral Displacement Response and Ductility Ratio
Structural ductility was calculated using Equation 8 and the value of structural displacement at
Structural ductility was calculated using Equation 8 and the value of structural displacement at
Structural
first yield ductility was
was determined calculated
using usingorEquation
initial yield 8 and
the tangent the value
method of new
[41]. A structural
modeldisplacement
was developed at
first yield was determined using initial yield or the tangent method [41]. A new model was developed
firstmodifying
by yield was determined
the analysisusing initial
model. Theyield or the
static tangentanalysis
pushover method was[41]. performed
A new model wasonly
with developed
lateral
by modifying the analysis model. The static pushover analysis was performed with only lateral loading
by modifying
loading appliedthe analysis
at the model.
top corner of The static considered.
the frame pushover analysis was performed with only lateral
applied at the top corner of the frame considered.
loading
Theapplied at the top corner
force-displacement of thefrom
resulting frame
theconsidered.
analysis is presented in Figure 20. By using the curve,
The force-displacement resulting from the analysis is presented in Figure 20. By using the curve,
The force-displacement
the structural displacement atresulting from
first yield wasthe analysis isby
determined presented
estimatingin the
Figure 20.point
yield By using the which
location curve,
the structural displacement at first yield was determined by estimating the yield point location which
thedefined
is structural displacement
as the intersectionatbetween
first yield was
the determined
tangential linesby
ofestimating
elastic andthe yieldbehaviour,
plastic point location which
where the
is defined as the intersection between the tangential lines of elastic and plastic behaviour, where the
displacement at first yield is 71 mm. Subsequently, the structural ductility ratio was calculated as the
is defined as the intersection between the tangential lines of elastic and plastic behaviour, where
displacement at first yield is 71 mm. Subsequently, the structural ductility ratio was calculated as the
displacement
ratio at first yield isunder
of peak displacement 71 mm. Subsequently,
blast the structuralatductility
load to the displacement ratio was calculated as the
first yield.
ratio of peak displacement under blast load to the displacement at first yield.
ratio of peak displacement under blast load to the displacement at first yield.
Figure 20. Structural displacement at first yield approximation.

Figure 20. Structural displacement at first yield approximation.
Figure
Figure 21 describes the 20. Structural
general displacement
displacement at first yield
direction of theapproximation.
frame swaying horizontally in the
sameFigure 21 describes
direction theexcitation
as the blast general displacement direction
load. Two different of the
points frame swaying
depicted horizontally
in the figure in the
that represents
same Figure 21
direction describes
as the the
blast general
excitation displacement
load. Two direction
different of
pointsthe frame
depicted swaying
in the horizontally
figure that
structural height and beam elevations were selected as the node locations to extract the global lateral in the
represents
same direction
structural
displacement asand
height the blast
beam
responses. excitation
The lateral load.
elevations wereTwo different
selected
displacement atasthepoints
the node
top depicted
cornerinto
locations
right the figure
extract
(Point that
A)the
was represents
global lateral
considered
structural height
displacement and beam
responses. The elevations
lateral were selected
displacement at as
thethe
topnode
right locations
corner to
(Pointextract
as a good measurement point for the frame system deformation, whereby the maximum lateral A) the
was global lateral
considered as
displacement responses.
a good measurement
displacements The
at Point Bpoint lateral
were for displacement
usedthe frame system
in structural at the top right
deformation,
ductility corner (Point A) was considered
whereby the maximum lateral
ratio calculation. as
a good measurement
displacements at Point Bpoint
wereforusedthe
in frame system
structural deformation,
ductility whereby the maximum lateral
ratio calculation.
displacements at Point B were used in structural ductility ratio calculation.
Appl. Sci. 2020,
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10,
10, 1815
x FOR PEER REVIEW 16
16 of
of 20
20
Selected
Selected
points
points
21. Selected
Figure21.
Figure points for structural displacement location.
Figure 21.Selected
Selectedpoints
pointsforfor
structural displacement
structural location.
displacement location.
The sway histories
The sway
historiesfor
forthese
thesetwo
two observation
observation
points
points
are
areare
presented
presented
in Figure
in Figures 22a,b
22a,b forframe
for all
all frame
The
analysis sway histories for these two observation points presented in Figures 22a,b for all upper
frame
analysis with different beam-column
with different beam-columnconnection.
connection. The
The maximum
maximum sway
sway responses
responses at lower
at lower and and
upper
analysis
beam with different beam-column connection. The maximum sway responses at lower and upper
beam elevations,
elevations, points
points AA and
and B,
B, were
were observed
observedduring
duringthe
theblast
blastduration.
duration.TheThemaximum
maximum responses of
responses
beam
the elevations,
frame without points A and
reinforcementB, were observed during the blast duration. The maximum responses
of the frame without reinforcementare
arehigher
higherthan
thanthe
theframes
frames that
that are reinforced with
are reinforced withhaunches.
haunches.
of the frame without reinforcement are higher than the frames that are reinforced with haunches.
(a) (b)
Figure 22. (a)
(a) (b) (b) Lateral
Figure (a)Lateral
Lateraldisplacement
displacementresponse history
response at top
history right
at top corner
right of the
corner frame;
of the frame; (b) Lateral
displacement
Figure 22. (a)response
displacement Lateral history
response historyatatright
displacement rightend
endofof
responsethe lower
the beam.
lower
history beam.
at top right corner of the frame; (b) Lateral
displacement response history at right end of the lower beam.
Tomeasure
To measurethe theframes
frames dynamic
dynamic performance
performance based based on sway
on the the sway responses,
responses, the extracted
the extracted maximum
maximum
swayTo sway
displacements displacements
measure theatframes at
the topdynamicthe top elevation
elevationperformance for
for each frame each
based frame
during
on the during
blast blast and
and responses,
sway post
post blast are blast
the are
presented
extracted
presented
in Table 1 and
maximum in Table
sway Figure1 and
displacementsFigure at
23. Subsequently23.the
Subsequently
these
top these
maximum
elevation for maximum
swayframe
each sway
responses responses
during were used
blast were
and used
topost to the
calculate
blast are
calculate
ductility the ductility ratios as tabulated in Table 1. The maximum lateral displacement of 94.6 mm
presentedratios as tabulated
in Table in Table
1 and Figure 23.1.Subsequently
The maximum lateral
these displacement
maximum of 94.6 mm
sway responses occurred
were used in
to
occurred
the frame in the frame
without without
haunch haunch reinforcement.
reinforcement. Since the Since the ductility
ductility ratio is ratio is proportional
proportional with with
the the
maximum
calculate the ductility ratios as tabulated in Table 1. The maximum lateral displacement of 94.6 mm
maximum displacement,
displacement, the maximum ductility ratioalso
of 1.33 also occurred
in the in the same frame without
occurred in thethe maximum
frame withoutductility ratio of 1.33
haunch reinforcement. occurred
Since the ductility same
ratio isframe without
proportional haunch.
with the
haunch. The calculated results as presented in Table 1 show that all maximum sway responses and
The calculated
maximum results as presented
displacement, the maximum in Table 1 show
ductility ratiothatofall
1.33maximum swayin
also occurred responses
the sameand framemaximum
without
maximum ductility ratios are less than the maximum criteria recommended [40,46]. The allowable
ductility
haunch. ratioscalculated
The are less than the maximum
results as presented criteria
inare recommended
Table 1 show that[40,46]. The allowable
all maximum deflection and
sway responses
deflection and ductility ratio of frame structures 1.5 and 240 mm (Height/25), respectively [40,46]. and
ductility
maximum ratio of frame
ductility structures
ratios are lessare 1.5 the
than andmaximum
240 mm (Height/25), respectively [40,46].
criteria recommended [40,46]. The allowable
deflection
Table and ductility
1. Summary ratio of frame
of maximum structures
displacement at allare 1.5elevations
beam and 240 mm (Height/25),
for connection typesrespectively
of all cases [40,46].
considered in this study.
Table 1. Summary of maximum displacement at all beam elevations for connection types of all cases
Maximum Displacement, u (mm) Ductility µ 1
considered
Casein this study.
Location
Blast Post-Blast Blast Post-Blast
No haunch Upper beam Maximum
94.6 Displacement,
61.4 u (mm)1.33 Ductility
0.86 µ 1
Case Location
Lower beam Blast
34.9 Post-Blast
29.6 - Blast Post-Blast
-
Haunch_01
No haunch Upper
Upperbeam
beam 91.1
94.6 60.0
61.4 1.281.33 0.840.86
Lower beam 34.9 29.6 - -
Haunch_01 Upper beam 91.1 60.0 1.28 0.84
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1815 17 of 20
Table 1. Summary of maximum displacement at all beam elevations for connection types of all cases
considered in this study.
Maximum Displacement, u (mm) Ductility µ 1

Case Location
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW Blast Post-Blast Blast Post-Blast 17 of 20
Appl. Sci. No
2020, 10, x FOR PEER
haunch REVIEW
Upper beam 94.6 61.4 1.33 0.86 17 of 20
Lower beam
Lower beam
33.1
34.9
29.6
29.6 -
- - -
Haunch_02
Haunch_01 Upper
Lower beam
Upper beam 90.2
33.1
91.1 60.6
29.6
60.0 1.27
-
1.28 0.85
-0.84
Haunch_02 Lower
Upper beam
Lower beam
beam 32.7
33.1
90.2 30.0
29.6
60.6 --
1.27 - -
0.85
Haunch_02
Haunch_03 Upper beam
Upper
Lower beam 90.2
83.7
32.7 60.6
62.4
30.0 1.27
1.18
- -0.85
0.88
Lower beam
Lower beam 32.7
31.4 30.0
31.7 -- - -
Haunch_03
Haunch_03
Upper
Upper beam
83.7 83.7
62.4
62.4
1.18
1.18
0.88
0.88
1 From Equation (8).
Lower beam
Lower beam 31.4
31.4 31.7
31.7 -- - -
11From
From Equation (8).
Equation (8).
Figure 23. Maximum lateral displacement response.

To evaluate
To evaluate the the relative
relativedifferences
differencesbetween
betweenframes frames performance
performance using
usingductility criteria,
ductility the
criteria,
ductility
the ratios
To evaluate
ductility arethe
ratios presented
arerelative indifferences
presented Figure 24. between
in Figure The24.trends show
frames
The trends that the frames
performance
show with
that using
the haunches
ductility
frames performed
withcriteria,
haunchesthe
better compared
ductility ratios are to the frame
presented inwithout
Figure haunches.
24. The Qualitatively,
trends show that the
the Haunch_03
frames
performed better compared to the frame without haunches. Qualitatively, the Haunch_03 impact with impact
haunches on the frame
performed
sway
on theresponse
better compared
frame sway is to
the highest
the frameis
response among
without allhaunches.
the highesttheamong
haunch types. The Haunch_03
Qualitatively,
all the haunch the connection
Haunch_03
types. The impactreinforcement
Haunch_03 onconnection
the frame
reduced
sway the
response ductility
is the ratio
highest by 12%
among against
all the the
haunch frame
types. without
The haunches,
Haunch_03
reinforcement reduced the ductility ratio by 12% against the frame without haunches, while in the while
connectionin the case ofcase
reinforcement the
Haunch_02
reduced
of the reduction
the ductility
the Haunch_02 is 5%
ratio by is
the reduction and
12% for
5%against the
and for theHaunch_01
frame without
the Haunch_01 is 4%.
is 4%. The results
haunches, demonstrated
while
The results in the casethat
demonstrated that the
of the
Haunch_03
Haunch_02 provides
the a
reduction enhanced
is 5% dynamic
and for performance.
the Haunch_01 It was
is 4%.alsoTheobserved
results
Haunch_03 provides a enhanced dynamic performance. It was also observed that the plate stiffeners that the
demonstratedplate stiffeners
that the
on beam-column
Haunch_03 provides joints
a (Haunch_02)
enhanced dynamicprovided slightly
performance. Itbetter
was ductility
also ratio
observed
on beam-column joints (Haunch_02) provided slightly better ductility ratio than the case of the haunch than
that the the
platecase of the
stiffeners
haunch
without without
on beam-column the plate stiffeners
joints (Haunch_02)
the plate stiffeners (Haunch_01). (Haunch_01).
provided In
slightly
In general, general, the
better ductility
the biggest biggest haunch configuration
ratio than theprovided
haunch configuration case of the
the
provided
haunch the
without best theframe
plate dynamic
stiffeners performance.
(Haunch_01). This
In finding
general, is relevant
the biggest
best frame dynamic performance. This finding is relevant to the beam-to-column connections flexibilityto the
haunch beam-to-column
configuration
connections
provided
whereby theflexibility
best frame
connection whereby
dynamic
strengthening connection strengthening
performance.
increases ofincreases
This finding
the stiffness the stiffness
is relevant
the frame. to theof the frame.
beam-to-column
connections flexibility whereby connection strengthening increases the stiffness of the frame.
Figure 24. Frames ductility.

4. Discussion
4. Discussion
The results of this research are limited and cannot be extrapolated to cover the structural
dynamic
The performance
results of thisofresearch
steel frames with connection
are limited haunch
and cannot reinforcement
be extrapolated to because thisstructural
cover the research
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1815 18 of 20
4. Discussion
The results of this research are limited and cannot be extrapolated to cover the structural dynamic
performance of steel frames with connection haunch reinforcement because this research considered
only four cases of frames with different joint haunch configurations. To further understand the
dynamic performance aspects of typical steel frame subjected to blast loading, the following points are
recommended to be undertaken:
• In this research, the blast loadings were applied on the columns of a typical steel frame structure,
whereas in actual structures, the blast pressure are also applied onto unmodeled items such as
pipelines and equipment located on the structure. Further study is recommended to investigate
the effect of blast loading on the pipelines and additional equipment attached to the structures,
both with and without haunch reinforcement.
• The Gurson porous model has an important local effect in the beam-column connection. Therefore,
further sensitivity study comparing the effects of using material constitutive law of Von Mises
versus Gurson model on material plasticity is suggested to investigate the stresses evolution in
joint area. In addition to the material model aspect, a solid element is to be included in the study
as element selection plays major impact in the analysis result as shown in the study
• Generally, the analysis results demonstrated an enhanced performance when the haunches with
a size greater than the size recommended by AISC [14] was used. To investigate the optimum
haunch size, it is recommended to carry out parametric study on haunch sizes and stiffener plate
thicknesses. A parametric study on the beam and column sizes are also suggested to understand
the effect of a combination of haunches and frame configurations.
• In the absence of actual blast loading data, it is also recommended that a parametric study on
pressure time histories is carried out.
5. Conclusions
The structural eigenvalue was extracted and compared to the dynamic loading duration in
order to characterize the dynamic response. The obtained ratio of 0.52 that is greater than 0.3 and
less than 3 has classified the dynamic response under the influence of dynamic category. Therefore,
the dynamic analysis was solved using numerical integration of dynamic equations of equilibrium
that is already implemented in ABAQUS. The structural maximum ductility ratio achieved using
haunches was 1.33 and less than the allowable criteria of 1.5. Generally, the structural ductility
ratios decreased due to the presence of the haunch reinforcement. The ductility ratio of the frame
with Haunch_03 reinforcement was reduced by 12% compared with the frame without haunches,
while in the case of the Haunch_02 the reduction was 5% and for Haunch_01 was 4%. According
to the evaluation results, the haunch reinforcements have strengthened the selected steel frame and
improved dynamic performance compared to the frame with unreinforced connections under blast
loading. The Haunch_03 as the biggest reinforcement configuration performed better compared to
other connection configurations.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, supervision, project administration, visualization, M.M.Y;

methodology, software, validation, resources, data curation, writing—original draft preparation, M.Y. and
J.S; formal analysis, investigation, J.H.S.; supervision, project administration M.M.Y.; writing—review and editing,
M.M.Y., M.K.K., P.-S.C. and G.A.R.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by the Universiti Sains Malaysia bridging grant (304/PAWAM/6316571).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Nolan, D.P. Handbook of Fire and Explosion Protection Engineering Principles: In For Oil, Gas, Chemical and Related
Facilities, 3rd ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1815 19 of 20
2. Krauthammer, T. Blast-resistant structural concrete and steel connections. Int. J. Impact Eng. 1999, 22, 887–910.
[CrossRef]
3. Sabuwala, T.; Linzell, D.; Krauthammer, T. Finite element analysis of steel beam to column connections
subjected to blast loads. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2005, 31, 861–876. [CrossRef]
4. Krauthammer, T.; Yim, H.C.; Astarlioglu, S.; Starr, C.; Lim, J. Blast-Induced Response of Moment Connections.
In Structural Engineering Research Frontiers; Wallace, J.W., Ed.; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston,
VA, USA, 2007; pp. 1–15.
5. Yim, H.C.; Krauthammer, T. Mechanical properties of single-plate shear connections under monotonic, cyclic,
and blast loads. Eng. Struct. 2012, 37, 24–35. [CrossRef]
6. Louca, L.A.; Mohamed Ali, R.M. Improving the Ductile Behaviour of Offshore Topside Structures Under
Extreme Loads. Eng. Struct. 2008, 30, 506–521. [CrossRef]
7. Urgessa, G.S.; Arciszewski, T. Blast response comparison of multiple steel frame connections. Finite Elem.
Anal. Des. 2011, 47, 668–675. [CrossRef]
8. Yu, Q.S.K.; Uang, C.-M.; Gross, J. Seismic Rehabilitation Design of Steel Moment Connection with Welded
Haunch. J. Struct. Eng. 2000, 126, 69–78. [CrossRef]
9. Valente, M. Welded Triangular Haunch for the Seismic Improvement of Steel Beam-to-column Connections.
In Design, Fabrication and Economy of Welded Structures; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008;
pp. 245–252.
10. Jiang, L.Y.; Liu, G.J.; Sun, X.D. Mechanic Behavior Analysis of Connection with Haunch under Single and
Cyclic Load. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2011, 105–107, 848–852. [CrossRef]
11. Liu, Y.J.; Wang, Y. The Study on Mechanical Property for Welded Haunch-Reinforced Seismic Connections of
Steel Frame. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2014, 501–504, 485–494. [CrossRef]
12. FEMA-351. Recommended Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade Criteria for Existing Welded Steel Moment-Frame
Buildings; Federal Emergency Management Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
13. Gross, J.L.; Engelhardt, M.D.; Uang, C.-M.; Kasai, K.; Iwankiw, N. Steel Design Guide Series 12: Modification of
Existing Welded Steel Moment Frame Connections for Seismic Resistance; American Institute of Steel Construction:
Chicago, IL, USA, 1999.
14. AISC. Seismic Design Manual, 2nd ed.; American Institute of Steel Construction: Chicago, IL, USA, 2012.
15. Chan, S.L.; Chui, P.P.T. Nonlinear Static and Cyclic Analysis of Steel Frames with Semi-Rigid Connections; Elsevier:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2000.
16. Chopra, A.K. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering, 4th ed.; Prentice Hall:
Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2012.
17. Craig, R.R.; Kurdila, A. Fundamentals of Structural Dynamics, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ,
USA, 2006.
18. Tedesco, J.W.; McDougal, W.G.; Ross, C.A. Structural Dynamics: Theory and Applications; Addison Wesley
Longman: Menlo Park Calif, CA, USA, 1999.
19. Bathe, K.J. Finite Element Procedures; Prentice Hall, Pearson Education, Inc.: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2006.
20. ABAQUS 6.14. Documentation: Getting Started with Abaqus-Interactive Edition. 2014. Available online:
http://130.149.89.49:2080/v6.14/pdf_books/GET_STARTED.pdf (accessed on 16 December 2019).
21. Kang, K.-Y.; Choi, K.-H.; Choi, J.W.; Ryu, Y.H.; Lee, J.-M. Explosion Induced Dynamic Responses of Blast
Wall on FPSO Topside: Blast Loading Application Methods. Int. J. Nav. Archit. Ocean. Eng. 2017, 9, 135–148.
[CrossRef]
22. S-DP-001. Desing Principles Technical Safety; Norwegian Technology Standards Institution: Oslo, Norway, 1994.
23. DNV. DNV-RP-C208: Determination of Structural Capacity by Non-linear FE Analysis Methods; Det
Norske Veritas; DNV: Oslo, Norway, 2013. Available online: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9051/
79af16102318a837f9f2315f2b1064c777ee.pdf (accessed on 16 December 2019).
24. API RP 2FB. Recommended Practice for the Design of Offshore Facilities Against Fire and Blast Loading; API:
Washington, DC, USA, 2006.
25. Amadio, C.; Bedon, C.; Fasan, M.; Pecce, M.R. Refined numerical modelling for the structural assessment
of steel-concrete composite beam-to-column joints under seismic loads. Eng. Struct. 2017, 138, 394–409.
[CrossRef]
26. Peeters, M.; Santo, G.; Degroote, J.; Van Paepegem, W. Comparison of shell and solid finite element models
for the static certification tests of a 43 m wind turbine blade. Energies 2018, 11, 1346. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1815 20 of 20
27. Momeni, M.; Hadianfard, M.A.; Bedon, C.; Baghlani, A. Numerical damage evaluation assessment of blast
loaded steel columns with similar section properties. In Structures; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019.
28. ISO 19901-3. Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries-Specific Requirements for Offshore Structures Part 3: Topsides
Structure; BSI: London, UK, 2010.
29. Biggs, J.M. Introduction to Structural Dynamics; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1964.
30. Mohamed Ali, R.M.; Louca, L.A. Performance based design of blast resistant offshore topsides, Part I:
Philosophy. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2008, 64, 1030–1045. [CrossRef]
31. Gilsanz, R.; Hamburger, R.; Barker, D.; Smith, J.L.; Rahimian, A. Steel Design Guide 26: Design of Blast Resistant
Structures; American Institute of Steel Construction: Chicago, IL, USA, 2013.
32. Burgan, B.A.; Hamdan, F.H.; Burgan, B.A.; Hamdan, F.H. Response of topside structures to fires and
explosions: Design considerations. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX,
USA, 6–9 May 2002.
33. Yasseri, S.F. Performance Based Blast Resistant Design. In FABIG Newsletter Sept 2002; FABIG Newsletter:
Ascot, UK, 2002.
34. Hansen, O.R.; Kjellander, M.T.; Pappas, J.A. Explosion Loading on Equipment from CFD Simulations. J. Loss
Prev. Proces. Ind. 2016, 44, 601–613. [CrossRef]
35. Walker, S.; Bleach, R.; Carney, S.; Fairlie, G.; Louca, L.A. New Guidance on the Design of Offshore Structures
to Resist the Explosion Hazard. In Proceedings of the ASME 2003 22nd International Conference on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Cancun, Mexico, 8–13 June 2003; pp. 111–117.
36. Zhang, D.; Paterson, E.G. A study of wave forces on an offshore platform by direct CFD and Morison
equation. E3S Web Conf. 2015, 5, 04002. [CrossRef]
37. Corr, R.B.; Tam, V.H.Y. Gas Explosion Generated Drag Loads in Offshore Installations. J. Loss Prev. Process.
Ind. 1998, 11, 43–48. [CrossRef]
38. Dusenberry, D.O. Handbook for Blast-Resistant Design of Buildings; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010.
39. ASCE. Design of Blast-Resistant Buildings in Petrochemical Facilities, 2nd ed.; American Society of Civil Engineers:
Reston, VA, USA, 2010.
40. Nourzadeh, D.; Humar, J.; Braimah, A. Comparison of Response of Building Structures to Blast Loading and
Seismic Excitations. Procedia Eng. 2017, 210, 320–325. [CrossRef]
41. Yasseri, S.F. An Approximate Method for Blast Resistant Design; FABIG Newsletter: Ascot, UK, 2002.
42. Mohamed Ali, R.M.; Louca, L.A. Performance-based design of blast resistant offshore topsides, Part II:
Modelling and design. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2008, 64, 1046–1058. [CrossRef]
43. Goel, M.D.; Matsagar, V.A. Blast-Resistant Design of Structures. Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2014, 19,
4014007. [CrossRef]
44. DNV. Design against Accidental Loads. In DNV-RP-C204; Det Norske Veritas; DNV: Oslo, Norway, 2010.
Available online: https://rules.dnvgl.com/docs/pdf/DNV/codes/docs/2010-10/RP-C204.pdf (accessed on 16
December 2019).
45. Bowerman, H.; Owen, G.W.; Rumley, J.H.; Tolloczko, J.A. Interim Guidance Notes for the Design and Protection of
Topside Structures Against Explosion and Fire; SCI-P-112/299UK; Steel Construction Institute: Ascot, UK, 1992.
46. Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 3-340-02. Structures to Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions. In US
Department of the Army, Navy and Air Force Technical Manual; U.S. Department of Defense: Washington, DC,
USA, 2008.
47. Yasseri, S.F. Iso-Damage Diagrams for Blast Resistant Design. In FABIG Newsletter April 2005; FABIG
Newsletter: Ascot, UK, 2005.
48. Austrell, P.E.; Dahlblom, O.; Lindemann, J.; Olsson, A.; Olsson, K.G.; Persson, K.; Wernberg, P.A. CALFEM:
A Finite Element Toolbox Version 3.4; Division of Structural Mechanics, LTH: Lund, Sweden, 2004.
49. Kim, S.E.; Lee, D.H. Second-Order Distributed Plasticity Analysis of Space Steel Frames. Eng. Struct. 2002,
24, 735–744. [CrossRef]
50. N-004. Design of Steel Structures, No. N-004, Rev. 2. In NORSOK Standard; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY,
USA, 2004.
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Numerical Evaluation of Dynamic Responses of Steel

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Numerical Evaluation of Dynamic Responses of Steel

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

applied

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1815; doi:10.3390/app10051815 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

During During the period from 1993–2013, the worldwide

Figure 2. Typical sketch of a haunch connection configuration.

2. Non-Linear Finite Element Analysis

2.1. Finite Element Modeling

Figure 7. Finer mesh size at used in the connection region.

Figure 8. Pipe inertia masses and locations.

forces on the steelwork elements can be calculated using Equation (6).

Figure 9. Pressure durations relationship based on API RP 2FB [24].

Figure 10. Dynamic pressure history.

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 20

2.2. Structural Assessment

2.2.1. Ductility Ratio of the Steel Frame

2.2.2. Evaluation Criteria

3.1. Model Validations Results

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1815 12 of 20

Chui [15] investigated the<mml:mtrtransient dynamic response of 替换成<mml:mtr>

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 20

Figure 18. Yielding and buckling in the validated model.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 20. Structural displacement at first yield approximation.

Maximum Displacement, u (mm) Ductility µ 1

Figure 23. Maximum lateral displacement response.

Figure 24. Frames ductility.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, supervision, project administration, visualization, M.M.Y;

You might also like