Post-earthquake fire resistance of steel buildings

Jelinek, T.; Zania, Varvara; Giuliani, Luisa

doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.08.021

Cited by 22 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(3) The similarity in the performance in PEF and FO scenarios may be due to small seismic residual deformation (22 mm-91 mm) observed for the selected earthquake records. Jelinek et al (2017) andElhami Khorasani et al (2016) while investigating the performance of five and nine-story unprotected steel moment frames in a uniform fire environment observed a similar behavior. The authors reasoned that the SMRFs have sufficiently large cross-sections and have reserve strength after an earthquake as their design is usually governed by the inter-story drift limits.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…A significant number of studies on the response of structures in the PEF have adopted simplified 2D models (Behnam and Ronagh, 2014;Della et al, 2003;Elhami Khorasani et al, 2016;Faggiano and Mazzolani, 2011;Jelinek et al, 2017). These studies primarily investigated the effect of seismic residual deformation on its performance in the ensuing fire considering unprotected frames.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The study concluded that the PEF resistance of the damaged frame was not significantly reduced than in the FO event because of the frame's sufficient reserve strength after the considered earthquake. Jelinek et al (2017) investigated the response of a five-story unprotected SMRF in a uniform PEF environment. The study considered two different earthquakes, and several location-based fire scenarios were simulated using the ISO 834 standard fire curve.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Performance of steel moment-resisting frames in post-earthquake horizontally traveling fire

Chandra

Bhowmick

Bagchi

2021

JSFE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe study investigates the performance of a three-story unprotected steel moment-resisting frame (SMRF) designed for high seismic demand in the fire-only (FO) and post-earthquake uniform and traveling fires (PEF). The primary objective is to investigate the effects of seismic residual deformation on the structure's performance in horizontally traveling fires. The traveling fire methodology, unlike conventional fire models, considers a spatially varying temperature environment.Design/methodology/approachMulti-step finite element simulations were carried out on undamaged and damaged frames to provide insight into the effects of the earthquake-initiated fires on the local and global behavior of SMRF. The earthquake simulations were conducted using nonlinear time history analysis, whereas the structure in the fire was investigated by sequential thermal-structural analysis procedure in ABAQUS. The frame was subjected to a suite of seven ground motions. In total, four horizontal traveling fire sizes were considered along with the Eurocode (EC) parametric fire for a comparison. The deformation history, axial force and moment variation in the critical beams and columns of affected compartments in the fire heating and cooling regimes were examined. The global structural performance in terms of inter-story drifts in FO and PEF scenarios was investigated.FindingsIt was observed that the larger traveling fires (25 and 48%) are more detrimental to the case study frame than the uniform EC parametric fire. Besides, no appreciable difference was observed in time and modes of failure of the structure in FO and PEF scenarios within the study's parameters.Originality/valueThe present study considers improved traveling fire methodology as an alternate design fire for the first time for the PEF performance of SMRF. The analysis results add to the much needed database on structures' performance in a wide range of fire scenarios.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Performance of steel moment-resisting frames in post-earthquake horizontally traveling fire

Chandra

Bhowmick

Bagchi

2021

JSFE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is clear that an accurate evaluation of a structure's response following an earthquake, which serves as the input data in the fire analysis for a PEF event, is critically important. Its response is influenced by many factors including the level of certainty of the material properties and the mechanical behaviour of the structural components as well as the intensity of the seismic action (e.g., [19]). These difficulties and uncertainties have led researchers to adopt simplified approaches for assessing the seismic structural behaviour and damage in PEF analyses [20,21].…”

Section: Basis Of the Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonlinear Analysis of a Steel Frame Structure Exposed to Post-Earthquake Fire

Alisawi

Collins

Cashell

2021

Fire

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The probability of extreme events such as an earthquake, fire or blast occurring during the lifetime of a structure is relatively low but these events can cause serious damage to the structure as well as to human life. Due to the significant consequences for occupant and structural safety, an accurate analysis of the response of structures exposed to these events is required for their design. Some extreme events may occur as a consequence of another hazard, for example, a fire may occur due to the failure of the electrical system of a structure following an earthquake. In such circumstances, the structure is subjected to a multi-hazard loading scenario. A post-earthquake fire (PEF) is one of the major multi-hazard events that is reasonably likely to occur but has been the subject of relatively little research in the available literature. In most international design codes, structures exposed to multi-hazards scenarios such as earthquakes, which are then followed by fires are only analysed and designed for as separate events, even though structures subjected to an earthquake may experience partial damage resulting in a more severe response to a subsequent fire. Most available analysis procedures and design codes do not address the association of the two hazards. Thus, the design of structures based on existing standards may contribute to a significant risk of structural failure. Indeed, a suitable method of analysis is required to investigate the behaviour of structures when exposed to sequential hazards. In this paper, a multi-hazard analysis approach is developed, which considers the damage caused to structures during and after an earthquake through a subsequent thermal analysis. A methodology is developed and employed to study the nonlinear behaviour of a steel framed structure under post-earthquake fire conditions. A three-dimensional nonlinear finite element model of an unprotected steel frame is developed and outlined.

show abstract

“…|= Q@ nQR@ Q]N l} xrRrR R= TB |RwUVD; [7] "CiQo Q_v QO O=}R |r=tDL= ?k=wa uQk QO xrRrR R= Oa@ |RwUVD;`wkw [8] "OwW|t ?wULt O=}R sm = QD =@ |=yu=mt QO |a}Uw C=k}kLD [9] "CU= xOW xDN=vW O}OW w ?QNt |wQ}v l} u=wvax@ Q}N= QYDNt CQwYx@ VywSB u}= QO "CU= xOW s=Hv= xrRrR R= TB |RwUVD; |xv}tR |UQQ@ x@ 2010 u= Q=mty w 2 w}r "CU= xOW xQ=W= =yu; R= |OwOLt O=OaD x@ [10] "OvDN=OQB xtQ;uD@ |WQ@ |=yQ=w}O QO |}xNQJ Q=@ R= TB VD; |Q=PoQ=@ Q=DiQ = Q xtQ;uD@ |xO}O? }U; ?=k R= |y=oW}=tR; |xvwtv 2011 u= Q=mty w 3 Vtw= [11] "OvOQm |UQQ@ |DQ=QL |Q=PoQ=@ CLD R= TB |RwUVD; |w}Q=vU QO = Q xtQ;uD@ |=y?=k Q=DiQ 2012 u} wQ= Q@=Q@ QO = Q |Oqwi |=yxR=U Ctw=kt 2017 lv}rH [12] "CU= xOQm |UQQ@ xrRrR OQmrta 2018 u= Q=mty w |@r=] [13] "CU= xOQm |UQQ@ xrRrR R= TB |RwUVD; wOvwU [14] "Ov= xOQm |UQQ@ |Q=PoQ=@ u}= CLD = Q ?mQt`]kt =@ |Oqwi |=yuwDU R= TB |RwUVD; CLD = Q ?mQt hm =@ |}=yxR=U OQmrta 2018 u= Q=mty w QO = Q |WwH Cq=YD= Q=DiQ 2016 u= Q=mty w nvwU [15] "OvOQm |UQQ@ xrRrR =@ [16] [1] "Ovvm|t O}OyD = Q xR=U |vt}= [2] "OvwW xR=U QO Ea=@ Ov=wD|t xrRrR [3] "CU= xrRrR R= |W=v xR=U x@ OQ=w Q=@ OwW|t xDiQo Q_v QO xwqa Ov=wD|t xrRrR =t= [4] "OwW xR=U QO |Oa@ |=yQ=@ Q@=Q@ QO Ctw=kt Vy=m u}= "OW=@ xDW=O p=@vO x@ , =@k=aDt R}v = Q |D=Q]N 'OQw;|t O}OB OwN xm |D=Q]N Q@ 'OQ=wt u}= Q@ xwqa "OW=@ |t=vwU w u}tR Vv=Q pt=W Ov=wD|t Ca}@] QO C= Q]N x@ xrRrR R= |W=v C= Q=UN [5] "OQ=O p=@vO x@ xR=U OwN [21] "OwW|t xDiQo Q_v QO O= Qo|Dv=U xHQO 300 "CU= QDtm uD@ QO w QDW}@ Oqwi QO |}=tQo C}=Oy "OwW|t s}UkD |}=tQo C}=Oy QD`} QU Oqwi QO CQ= QL p=kDv= u}=Q@=v@ &CU= QDtm uD@ x@ C@Uv Oqwi QO xS}w |=tQo [22] "OwW|t s=Hv= uD@ R= QD [28] 10 p=tQvoq QwD=tQ; xD}U}DUq= pwOt E 2e5 MP a [30'29] 5 p=tQv uD@ Ctw=kt Fc 21 MP a [30] 10 p=tQvoq xOQt Q=@ 3000 kg=m [29] 10 p=tQv xOvR Q=@ 1000 kg=m [29]…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%