# Fragility Curves for RC Structure under Blast Load Considering the Influence of Seismic Demand
## 6 Results and Discussion
### Fragility Curves  
The fragility curves for the structures designed in the four locations are presented in Figures 10-12. In this case the TNT mass has been varied considering a Lognormal distribution with different mean values: 200, 300, 400, and 500 kg. The three damage thresholds have been considered: slight (Figure 10), moderate (Figure 11) and severe (Figure 12). Instead, the stand-off distance has been varied in a deterministic way in order to analyze all the scaled distance values. Figure 10: Fragility curves for slight damage condition for each structure location. Figure 9: Maximum drift for the structure under blast load for each location, 500 kg TNT. Figure 11: Fragility curves for moderate damage condition for each structure location. Figure 12: Fragility curves for severe damage condition for each structure location. As a representative case, the COV of the maximum displacement for the severe damage threshold in case of 500 kg bomb for each structure location has been shown in Figure 13. Also, the other cases present similar trends. In Figures 10-13, the curves corresponding to 500 kg are the ones placed on the far right of each figure highlighting that this is the most severe condition in each case. Instead, if the structure designed in the site with less seismic demand (Cagliari) is compared to the one with the highest (L'Aquila) it is possible to note how the curves are shifted to the left in the latter case and to the right in the former one. This is another proof of the better structural performance of the structure designed in L'Aquila. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **200 Kg** & **300 Kg** & **400 Kg** & **500 Kg** \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**R = 20 m**} \\ \hline slight & 100 & 100 & 100 & 100 \\ moderate & 93.88 & 100 & 100 & 100 \\ severe & 64.92 & 99.8 & 100 & 100 \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**R = 25 m**} \\ \hline slight & 100 & 100 & 100 & 100 \\ moderate & 10.72 & 98.68 & 100 & 100 \\ severe & 0.02 & 42.96 & 98.78 & 100 \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**R = 30 m**} \\ \hline slight & 100 & 100 & 100 & 100 \\ moderate & 0.02 & 41.82 & 96.52 & 100 \\ severe & 0 & 0.76 & 48.38 & 96.78 \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**R = 35 m**} \\ \hline slight & 100 & 100 & 100 & 100 \\ moderate & 0 & 0.42 & 37.62 & 94.18 \\ severe & 0 & 0 & 2.9 & 44.6 \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**R = 40 m**} \\ \hline slight & 100 & 100 & 100 & 100 \\ moderate & 0 & 0 & 1.88 & 44.42 \\ severe & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1.82 \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**R = 45 m**} \\ \hline slight & 100 & 100 & 100 & 100 \\ moderate & 0 & 0 & 0.06 & 4.74 \\ severe & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0.02 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Percentage probability of thresholds exceedance for L’Aquila location. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **200 Kg** & **300 Kg** & **400 Kg** & **500 Kg** \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**R = 20 m**} \\ \hline slight & 100 & 100 & 100 & 100 \\ moderate & 98.54 & 100 & 100 & 100 \\ severe & 65.48 & 99.96 & 100 & 100 \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**R = 25 m**} \\ \hline slight & 100 & 100 & 100 & 100 \\ moderate & 25.68 & 99.74 & 100 & 100 \\ severe & 0.14 & 66.32 & 99.74 & 100 \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**R = 30 m**} \\ \hline slight & 100 & 100 & 100 & 100 \\ moderate & 0.14 & 52.68 & 98.58 & 100 \\ severe & 0 & 2.48 & 69.86 & 99.4 \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**R = 35 m**} \\ \hline slight & 100 & 100 & 100 & 100 \\ moderate & 0 & 1.48 & 59.22 & 98.5 \\ severe & 0 & 0 & 7.62 & 61.02 \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**R = 40 m**} \\ \hline slight & 100 & 100 & 100 & 100 \\ moderate & 0 & 0 & 6.82 & 66.26 \\ severe & 0 & 0 & 0.1 & 3.86 \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**R = 45 m**} \\ \hline slight & 100 & 100 & 100 & 100 \\ moderate & 0 & 0 & 0.18 & 13.7 \\ severe & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0.08 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Percentage probability of thresholds exceedance for Catania location.