0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)

17 vues13 pagesFundamental concepts in blast resistance evaluation of structures

Fundamental concepts in blast resistance evaluation of structures

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

Fundamental concepts in blast resistance evaluation of structures

© All Rights Reserved

0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)

17 vues13 pagesFundamental concepts in blast resistance evaluation of structures

Fundamental concepts in blast resistance evaluation of structures

© All Rights Reserved

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 13

evaluation of structures1

G. Razaqpur, Waleed Mekky, and S. Foo

Abstract: This study critically discusses the fundamental concepts used for evaluating the flexural and axial resistance of

structures under blast. Simplified methods based on single degree of freedom are emphasized. The paper begins with how

to estimate the blast parameters for a given charge size and standoff distance. These parameters include side-on and reflected pressures, positive phase duration, and side-on and reflected impulses. Subsequently, blast damage criteria are defined in accordance with prevailing guidelines and some of their short comings are discussed. To assess the impact of

blast on the flexural safety and performance of structures, some simple methods are presented. The methods are either empirical or are based on the principles of energy and momentum conservation. The analytical results are in closed-form or

in the form of pressureimpulse (PI) diagrams. The effect of strain rate on both blast-induced flexural deflection and

strength of structures, with particular emphasis on reinforced concrete structures, is discussed.

Key words: blast, beam, column, concrete, pressure, impulse, strain rate.

Resume : Cette etude analyse les concepts fondamentaux utilises pour evaluer la resistance en flexion et axiale des structures soumises a` un souffle dune explosion. Laccent est mis sur des methodes simplifiees basees sur un seul degre de liberte. Cet article debute en expliquant comment estimer les parame`tres du souffle pour une charge et une distance de

lexplosion donnees. Ces parame`tres comprennent les pressions laterales et reflechies, la duree de la phase positive ainsi

que les impulsions laterales et reflechies. Par la suite les crite`res de dommages causes par le souffle sont definis selon des

lignes directrices applicables et quelques inconvenients sont abordes. Certaines methodes simples sont presentees afin

devaluer limpact du souffle sur la securite et le comportement en flexion des structures. Les methodes sont soit empiriques ou basees sur les principes de conservation de lenergie et du moment. Les resultats sont sous forme analytique ou

sous forme de diagrammes pression-impulsion (PI). Leffet du taux de contraintes sur la flexion induite par le souffle et

sur la resistance des structures est aborde, avec une attention speciale aux structures en beton arme.

Mots-cles : souffle, poutre, colonne, beton, pression, impulsion, taux de contraintes.

[Traduit par la Redaction]

Introduction

Recent events have created concern about the vulnerability of buildings and other structures to blast loads. The effect of blast on a building depends on the amount and

location of the explosive charge from the building and on

the strength and geometry of the building structure. Detonation of high explosive materials may produce severe overpressures, primary and secondary fragments, fire, heat,

ground shock, vibrations, etc. The explosion may occur inside or outside a building and may cause damage to structural and nonstructural elements, to the building contents,

such as equipment, services, and facilities and may cause

human fatalities inside or outside the building. Although

from the security point of view, knowledge and assessment

present study is limited to the structure.

The purpose of this study is to present relatively simple

methods for assessing the effect of external blast on building

structures and their components. These methods are intended

for individuals with an appreciation for their scope and limitations and knowledge of building design and structural engineering. The study focuses principally on the flexural and

axial behaviour of structural elements and is concerned with

bending failure only. Although in some cases other modes

of failure may be dominant, e.g., the ones associated with

shear, torsion, and buckling, or maybe related to local failure mechanisms such as spalling, breaching, debonding,

etc., these are not addressed in this paper. With the preceding caveat in mind, the results could be used for assessing

Received 11 November 2007. Revision accepted 16 February 2009. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at cjce.nrc.ca on

22 August 2009.

G. Razaqpur2 and W. Mekky. Centre for Effective Design of Structures, McMaster University, Department of Civil Engineering JHE301, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L7, Canada.

S. Foo. Public Works and Government Services, Gatineau, QC K1A 0S5, Canada.

Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be received by the Editor until 31 December 2009.

1This

article is one of a selection of papers published in the Special Issue on Blast Engineering.

author (e-mail: razaqpu@mcmaster.ca).

2Corresponding

doi:10.1139/L09-032

Razaqpur et al.

structure. Finally, although the emphasis is on reinforced

concrete structures, the presented methods can be adapted

for other types of materials.

There is a wide variety of high explosives available and

each has its own destructive power, depending upon its

mass specific energy. Some common explosives are TNT,

RDX, ANFO, Dynamite, HMX, and PETN. We will use

TNT as the reference explosive and all other chemical explosives can be converted to their TNT equivalent (Zukas

and Walters 1997).

The explosion creates a spherical shock wave or front (a

layer of highly compressed air) associated with high transient pressure that decays rapidly in the case of average size

charges (i.e., 2000 kg or less). The peak value and the positive phase duration of the blast pressuretime curve characterize the potential destructive effects of an explosion and

are of primary interest to structural designers. A typical

pressuretime curve is illustrated in Fig. 1a. In this figure,

Ps is the peak overpressure, which is the amount in excess

of the atmospheric pressure and is also known as side-on

pressure. It decays to zero in time td after which negative

pressure (suction) develops. When the shock front strikes a

surface at an angle, the pressure wave is reflected, causing

an increase in pressure on the reflecting surface. The reflected pressure is denoted by Pr. The shock front is followed by the moving compressed air, which creates blast

wind and dynamic pressure Pd, resulting in drag forces. The

dynamic pressure is related to the air particles velocity and

the resulting wind pressure is relatively small and is often

ignored.

Although the actual pressure variation with time is relatively complex, it is common practice (Biggs 1964; Baker

et al. 1983; U.S. Army 1990) to assume for the positive

phase of the pressure a linear pressuretime relation, with

zero rise time,as indicated in Fig. 1a. In analytical work,

sometime an exponential pressuretime variation is also assumed, but in practice it is common to assume a linear pressure pulse.

For assessing blast damage potential, one must first determine the magnitude of the peak side-on pressure, Ps, the

peak reflected pressure, Pr, and the positive phase duration

of the pressure, td. These quantities can be calculated by using theoretical expressions as given by Biggs (1964), the

charts given by Baker et al. (1983) and TM 5-1300 (U.S.

Army 1990), specialized computer programs, such as ConWep (1990), or computational fluid dynamics and blast

physics. The latter two approaches are often in the research

realm rather than common practice. Figure 1b from TM 51300 (U.S. Army 1990) shows a typical chart. Observe that

the abscissa of the chart is the scaled distance Z, which is

defined as

1

R

W 1=3

equivalent charge weight (kg). The quantity Z is referred to

as the scaled distance, which reflects the combined effects

1293

side-on overpressure Ps, the normal reflected pressure Pr,

the scaled incident impulse Is/W1/3, the scaled normal reflected impulse Ir/W1/3, and the scaled positive phase duration td/W1/3 of the blast can be determined. Equation [1]

indicates that the variation of blast pressure on a building

will depend on the distance of the various points on the

building from the explosion source. It is the scaled distance

Z that determines the intensity of the pressure and scaled

impulse at a point rather than the charge size or the standoff

distance alone.

Statistical analyses show that the different approaches

used to estimate blast parameters including software, such

as CONWEP, can predict the reflected pressure and impulse

relatively well. Figure 2a compares experimental reflected

pressure values for typical scaled distances with their corresponding predicted values calculated by a number of available software (Bogosian et al. 2002). While most of the

predicted values are reasonable, CONWEP predicts the results better than the other available software. To gauge the

relative accuracy of CONWEP predictions, Fig. 2b shows

typical measured reflected pressure values as a function of

scale distance and the mean and plusminus two standard

deviation (two sigma) of the predicted values of CONWEP.

It is clear that CONWEP predicts pressure values relatively

well. A higher degree of accuracy may be unwarranted because in reality for the same scaled distance, the reflected

pressure can vary significantly, depending upon the surrounding ground features including the presence of buildings, trees, etc.

Depending on the time of maximum response of the structure tm and the positive phase duration td of the blast pressure, (or as an approximate alternative depending on utd,

where u is the natural circular frequency of the structure

modeled as a single degree of freedom (SDOF) oscillator)

the structure is assumed to be subjected to one of the three

loading regimes; namely, impulsive, dynamic, or pressure.

The time of maximum response depends on whether the

structure behaves elastically or plastically when maximum

response is reached. The time to maximum response is a

function of the ratio of the positive phase duration of pressure to the fundamental period of the structure (td/T), as

given by Biggs (1964).

For a response that is governed by impulse, utd 0.4, the

response does not depend on either the maximum pressure

or the shape of the pressuretime curve. Therefore, the magnitude of the pressure, which may be many times higher

than any static pressure that a structure can safely resist, is

basically irrelevant because the structure does not have adequate time to deform under this transient pressure. From

the basic mechanics point of view, for the pressure to be

felt by the structure, the structure must have the time to deform under the applied load, and the work done by the pressure would be converted to strain energy. But if the time of

application of the load is too short, in comparison to the

fundamental period of the structure, the structure would not

have adequate time to deform and the pressure cannot do

any work. Hence, in this case the structure strength is less

Published by NRC Research Press

1294

Fig. 1. (a) Typical high explosive blast pressure profile and (b) surface blast parameters as function of scaled distance (modified from U.S.

Army 1990).

important than its ductility to resist the blast energy. Structures that respond in this way have relatively long vibration

period compared with the positive phase duration of the

blast, which may be a few milliseconds. On the other hand,

structures with short period of vibration subjected to long

duration pressure profiles, i.e., utd > 40, respond in the

quasi-static or pressure regime, which means that they must

be able to resist the maximum blast pressure. Structures that

fall between these two limits respond to a dynamic load re-

gime, which means that both the maximum pressure and its

time variation affect the response of the structure.

Although responses due to impulsive and quasi-static

loads can be estimated by relatively simple procedures based

on conservation of energy and momentum, the determination

of response within the dynamic load regime requires full dynamic analysis. For single degree of freedom systems

(SDOF) it is not difficult to perform full dynamic analysis,

but for systems with many degrees of freedom it is more

Published by NRC Research Press

Razaqpur et al.

1295

Fig. 2. (a) Measured and predicted reflected positive pressure. (b) Measured and predicted reflected positive pressure (modified from Bogosian et al. 2002).

complex, particularly when one needs to consider inelasticity and strain rate effect. In practice, for preliminary evaluation one could approximate the dynamic response without

recourse to full dynamic analysis, as shown later, but one

must be aware of the limitations of such methods.

member

The key to accurate determination of the blast resistance

of structural members is the response of their constituent

materials to the high strain rates imposed by a blast load. It

is generally known that materials exhibit significantly higher

strength than their static strength when they are subjected to

higher strain rates. Bischoff and Perry (1991) introduced approximate ranges of strain rates for different loading conditions. It was stated that ordinary static strain rate ranges

from 106 to 105 s1, while blast imposed strain rate ranges

from 102 to 104 s1. These ranges agree with the values

specified in the U.S. Defence Special Weapons Agency

(DSWA) report (Malvar and Ross 1998).

Properties of concrete under high strain rate

According to Fu et al. (1991), the earliest dynamic tests

on concrete in compression were conducted by Abrams

(1917) to investigate the effect of strain rate on the compressive strength of plain concrete. The main conclusion of this

pioneer work was that the higher the rate of straining, the

Published by NRC Research Press

1296

Fig. 3. Strain rate effect on the stressstrain curve of concrete in

compression (Yong and Xu 2004).

higher the compressive strength of concrete. Figure 3 illustrates the strain rate effect on the stressstrain curve of concrete in compression (Malvar and Ross 1998), where one

can observe a significant increase in both its strength and

energy absorption capacity with higher strain rate. Note that

the strain rate does not have a noticeable effect on the elastic modulus, but the maximum or failure strain, Fig. 3, is almost an order of magnitude larger than the typical static

failure strain of 0.0035. Based on Fig. 3, for strain rates of

500 s1 or higher, it may be reasonable to use at least a

strain of 0.02 at failure, a value that is almost six times the

conventional static failure strain.

Scott et al. (1982) conducted an extensive series of tests

on concrete samples subjected to concentric and eccentric

loads at strain rates varying from 3.3 106 to 0.0167 s1.

Test results indicated an increase of about 25% in both the

stress and the strain at failure due to the increase in the

strain rate. Also, the shape of the stressstrain curve of confined concrete was found to be strongly affected by the

change in the loading rate. As a result, and as shown by

others (Dilger et al. 1984; Soroushian et al. 1986), both the

secant and the rupture moduli significantly increased with

increasing loading rate.

The U.S. Defence Special Weapons Agency (DSWA)

sponsored a recent numerical study to investigate the response of reinforced concrete structures under the effect of

high strain rates ranging from 10 to 103 s1, resulting from

internal explosion. Complete results of the study were not released for publication, but some of these results are discussed

by Malvar and Ross (1998), in which the apparent strength

remarkably increased, by more than 50% for reinforcing steel

and by more than 100% and 600% for concrete in compression and tension, respectively. Consequently, the latter investigators proposed the following expressions for the effect of

high strain rates on the tensile strength of concrete,

d

ftd

3_

; 3_ 1 s1

2

DIF

fts

3_ s

13

3_

;

3_ s

3

ftd

DIF b

fts

4

log b 6 d 2

5

3_ > 1

s1

1

1 8 fc0 =fco0

where ftd and fts are the dynamic and static tensile strengths

of concrete, respectively, DIF is the dynamic increase factor

for tensile strength, 3_ and 3_ s are the high strain rate (up to

0

is the

104 s1) and static strain rate (106 *105 s1) and fco

0

fraction of the compressive strength, fc , of concrete ( fc0 can

be assumed 10 MPa).

It was concluded that under strain rate greater than 200 s1,

the dynamic increase factor could reach up to 6. The magnitude of dynamic increase is dependent upon several factors

including static strength of material under consideration and

rate of applied load. In general, the higher the static strength

of a material the lower the increase in its dynamic strength

(lower strain rate sensitivity). Figures 4a and 4b illustrate the

relationship between strain rate and the DIF for concrete in

tension and compression, respectively. In the figures, experimental data collected by Bischoff and Perry (1991) from

many different authors are compared with predictions of the

CEB (1985) expressions and the Malvar and Ross (1998)

modified form of that expression. In addition to the increase

in the tensile and compressive strength of concrete, the strain

corresponding to the peak strength in tension and compression and the concrete ultimate strain are believed to be

shifted to higher values with the increase in strain rate. Tedesco and Ross (1998) discuss and suggest specific relations

that can be used to quantify the extent of the increase in the

values of the above parameters.

Properties of steel

Becuase of the isotropic properties of steel, its elastic and

inelastic response to dynamic loading can be more easily

monitored and assessed (Scott et al. 1982). Norris et al.

(1959) tested two types of steel with static yield strength of

330 and 278 MPa under tension at strain rates ranging from

105 to 0.1 s1. Strength increase of 9% * 21% and

10% * 23% was observed for the two steel types, respectively. Dowling and Harding (1967) conducted tensile experiments using the tensile version of Split-Hopkinton

Pressure Bar (SHPB) on mild steel using strain rates varying

between 103 and 2000 s1. It was concluded from this test

series that materials of body-centred cubic (BCC) structure,

such as mild steel, show the greatest strain rate sensitivity,

their lower tensile yield strength almost doubled, their ultimate tensile stress increased by about 50%, their upper yield

tensile strength considerably increased, and the ultimate tensile strain decreased by different percentages depending on

the strain rate. Figures 5a and 5b illustrate the stressstrain

relationships of mild steel under the effect of strain rates

varying from 103 to 1750 s1.

Malvar (1998) also studied strength enhancement of steel

Published by NRC Research Press

Razaqpur et al.

1297

factor (DIF) for concrete under (a) tension and (b) compression.

different strain rates (Dowling and Harding 1967).

was again described in terms of the DIF, which can be evaluated for different steel grades and for yield stresses fy ,

ranging from 290 to 710 MPa as

rates. Assume a 500 500 mm square column with reinforcement ratio of 3.2%, fc0 = 35 MPa, and fy = 400 MPa.

For the sake of simplicity, the effect of confinement is

ignored and the longitudinal steel is assumed to be uniformly distributed around the column. Also, perfect bond

between reinforcing bars and concrete is assumed.

6

DIF _3 104 a

7

8

strain rate of 100 s1, eq. [6] gives DIF = 1.63.

Section response

To illustrate the influence of the strain rate on a member

response to fast dynamically applied axial load and (or)

bending moment, let us consider a typical reinforced con-

Momentcurvature relation

The response of a column under an axial load and a bending moment can be conveniently represented by its moment

curvature diagram. Using first principles, based on strain

compatibility and equilibrium requirements, the moment

curvature diagrams in Fig. 6 are constructed. Each diagram

is constructed by assuming a certain strain profile (extreme

fibers strain) and determining the stresses in concrete and

steel, using their stressstrain relations, corresponding to

that profile. Next the force resultant of the stresses, which

are generally an axial force and a moment, are determined.

Meanwhile, the curvature is given by the slope of the strain

profile. This process yields one point on the momentcurvature diagram. By assuming another strain profile and repeatPublished by NRC Research Press

1298

Fig. 6. Momentcurvature response of a typical column subjected to an axial load and a dynamic moment applied at four different strain

rates: (a) quasi-static, (b) 1 s1, (c) 10 s1, and (d) 1000 s1).

ing the same process, another point is found and this process

is continued until the complete range of strain in the extreme fibres is covered. In the construction of the diagrams

in Fig. 6, stressstrain relationships similar to those in

Figs. 3 and 5 were used. Figures 6a to 6c show the typical

behaviour of a column under a constant axial load but increasing moment. For the sake of simplicity, the diagrams

in Fig. 6 do not include the tension-stiffening effect, i.e., it

is assumed that cracked concrete carries zero tension. The

strain rate values are assumed to be constant over the cross

section for any momentcurvature diagram, ranging from

107 to 1000 s1, where the slowest rate corresponds to

quasi-static conditions, and the moment is assumed to be induced by loads applied at different strain rates. The applied

axial load is assumed to vary from 5% to 60% of the static

axial load capacity of the column.

As expected, the maximum moment capacity of the column increases with strain rate. For instance, for a column

subjected to an axial load that is 40% of its static axial load

capacity, its ultimate moment capacity increases almost

250% and its energy absorption capacity 350% when the

strain rate increases from 1 107 to 1000 s1. Similarly,

its ductility and deformation capacity also increases notice-

mention because the level of blast damage in a member is

often defined in terms of its deformation capacity, as we

will see in the following sections. The response of the column in Fig. 6a is dominated by the axial load due to the

large magnitude of the applied axial load, while that of the

column in Fig. 6d is dominated by the moment because the

axial load is small. In both cases, substantial increase in

both strength and energy absorption can be observed. It is

also important to observe that in each case under the 100 s1

or higher strain rate, the column behaves essentially elastically up to a moment equal to at least twice its static ultimate moment capacity. It is noticed in Fig. 6d that the

cracking moment of the column subjected to strain rate of

100 s1 or higher is much greater than the ultimate strength

of the same column under static conditions.

Based on Fig. 6, the current practice of assuming the concrete and steel dynamic increase factor to be 1.25, as suggested by the U.S. Army Manual TM 5-1300 (U.S. Army

1990), seems highly conservative. This level of increase is

achieved under strain rate of 1.0 s1, which is well below

the strain-rate range specified for blast (Bischoff and Perry

1991). This analysis may indicate substantial increase in rePublished by NRC Research Press

Razaqpur et al.

Fig. 7. (a) Interaction diagram for a typical column under different

strain rates and (b) balanced moment and axial load variation in a

column with strain rate (normalized to balanced moment and axial

load statically applied).

1299

Under high strain rates, the yield stress and concrete compressive strength increase, as discussed earlier, causing a tremendous increase in the compressive axial capacity of the

column. In the case of the column tensile capacity, it is

mainly a function of the reinforcement yield stress, which

has a limiting increase factor of only two. The balanced failure point is characterized by initial yielding in reinforcement. As the yield stress increases with strain rate, the

corresponding yielding strain also increases, allowing the

maximum moment capacity of the column to increase and

causing the failure envelop to almost triple in size. It is clear

that substantial increase in strain rate increases the column

capacity several folds. Consequently, the prevailing practice

of increasing concrete and steel strengths by 25% may be

grossly conservative depending on the strain rate. New and

appropriate methods of design need to be developed that

guarantee structural safety within the same limits as those

under other types of extreme loads, such as high wind and

seismic loads.

Let us study the variation of the balanced moment and

balanced axial load with strain rate for the preceding column. Figure 7b shows the variation of the balanced moment

and balanced axial load with strain rate normalized by their

quasi static values. A consistent increase in these quantities

is noticed with the normalized axial load and moment reaching values of 2.4 and 2.67 at strain rate of 1000 s1. Charts

of this kind can be developed for a range of column sizes,

reinforcement ratios, and geometries similar to axial load

moment interaction diagrams given in existing design handbooks (CAC 2006). Once charts are available, designers can

estimate the strain rate and then find the dynamic increase

factor for the moment and axial load to more realistically assess the strength of beams and columns.

strength, and this may diminish the need for retrofit in

some cases.

Interaction diagram

Interaction diagrams are commonly used to assess the

strength of a column under combinations of an applied axial

load and a moment. For the square column described earlier,

considering the effect of strain rate on concrete and steel

properties and using first principles, interaction diagrams, as

illustrated in Fig. 7a, are constructed. In compliance with

current practice for static loads, when constructing such diagrams, once the section is cracked, the tensile strength of

concrete is neglected. However, recalling the high strain

rate sensitivity of concrete in tension, it may be appropriate

to consider the contribution of tensile stresses in the uncracked tensile zone in the case of very high strain rates.

Ignoring confinement effect, the pure axial compression capacity of a column depends on its reinforcement ratio and

yield stress and on the compressive strength of concrete.

building is establishment of damage limit states. To reduce

the risk of an event to an acceptable level, it is useful to define performance-based damage criteria, or limit states,

which correspond to certain levels of protection. In the case

of a building, the following may be some of the damage

limit states:

protection of building occupants from severe injury or

death;

avoidance of damage to important equipment and facilities within the building;

avoidance of damage to other building contents, for example, documents, furniture, etc.;

avoidance of damage to nonstructural elements, for example doors, walls, and partitions;

avoidance of damage to structural elements;

avoidance of building collapse; and

avoidance of harm to people and damage to other structures in the vicinity of the target structure.

It is clear that the above limit states can be avoided by a

number of measures, without necessarily strengthening or altering the building structure. The most effective way of reducing blast damage to structure is to increase the standoff

distance. Theoretically, a 1 kg bomb at 1 m from a target

yields the same peak side-on overpressure as a 1000 kg

Published by NRC Research Press

1300

Table 1. Effect of charge size and standoff distance on level of protection attainable in

conventionally constructed buildings.

Charge size

(kg)

25

100

25

450

028 (N)

2835

045 (N)

4555

058 (N)

5873

0 73 (N)

7391

(L)

(L)

(L)

(L)

3547 (M)

4573 (M)

7397 (M)

91122 (M)

4779 (H)

7397 (H)

97128 (H)

122152 (H)

Note: N, no protection; L, low level of protection; M, medium level of protection; H, high level of

protection.

bomb at 10 m from the same target. This clearly demonstrates the advantage of increased standoff distance. As a

quick and highly conservative guide adapted from the U.S.

Army Manual TM 5-1300 (U.S. Army 1990), Table 1 provides some guidelines for the level of protection that can be

afforded by conventionally designed buildings against certain charge sizes at specified standoff distances. The various

protection categories in Table 1 are defined as

N represents no protection: possible collapse of building,

major damage to equipment and facilities, and death and

severe injuries;

L represents low level of protection: moderate to heavy

damage to building, 50% to 75% of the walls being severely damaged, occupants of exposed structure may suffer temporary hearing loss and injury from blast wave

and flying debris, and equipment will get damaged;

M represents medium level of protection: building will

sustain light to moderate damage, including destruction

of the roof and loss of an external wall, occupants of exposed structure may suffer minor injuries from flying

debris, and equipment may suffer light damage due to

flying debris;

H represents high level of protection: building may suffer

cosmetic damage, including broken glass, cracking, and

damage to building face and damaged partition walls,

broken joists and studs, occupants may suffer superficial

injuries, and equipment may be scratched and dented by

debris. Baker et al. (1983) assume that these protection

categories correspond to complete collapse, partial collapse, major structural damage, and minor structural damage scenarios, respectively.

While as a quick guide Table 1 may be useful, it is highly

empirical in nature because it assumes that all buildings, regardless of their form and materials of construction, provide

the same level of protection. In fact, that assumption has

been made to establish damage criteria and provide simple

design guidelines. More recently, this deficiency has been

addressed in some publications (Task Committee on Blast

Resistant Design 1997), where different response criteria

are given for several reinforced concrete, reinforced masonry, and steel structures. Nevertheless, as most of the

stated criteria are based on static or low speed dynamic

tests, they need to be verified by field or laboratory tests

under blast conditions. For more improved assessment, one

must perform proper structural analysis and evaluation with

due consideration of the dynamic nature of the blast load

and the response of structures to high strain rate.

Because of the ductile response of steel and reinforced

concrete members, damage to them can be assessed in terms

of their deformations. The deformation criterion may be expressed either in terms of maximum deflection, maximum

support rotation, maximum strain, or maximum ductility ratio. These quantities are interrelated and in many cases one

can derive closed-form expressions to relate them to each

other.

The damage in steel members can be classified, as given

in Table 2 (U.S. Army 1990), and is expressed in terms of

support rotation, q, or displacement ratio, m, where m is the

ratio of the maximum displacement experienced to the maximum elastic displacement. The table lists common structural members and their governing damage criteria. The

protection categories 1 to 4 correspond to higher to no protection limits as defined earlier.

These categories were originally defined for military facilities, but they were interpreted by the writers to suit the

purpose of this study. Whitney et al. (1989) give other set

of criteria for steel beams. To determine m for a member,

its momentcurvature relation can be established in the

same manner as for static loads, but one must include the

effect of strain rate on the yield and ultimate strength of

steel, as discussed earlier. For reinforced concrete structures,

damage criteria are defined in the document TM 5-1300

(U.S. Army 1990) in terms of the member end rotation, q,

similarly to the steel members. For minor damage q < 18,

for major damage q < 48 and for collapse q > 48.

Notice that reinforced concrete members that are designed

according to conventional design methods, e.g., based on

CSA standard A23.3 (CSA 2004), are assumed to reach generally the limit of their utility and will collapse if q > 48.

However, greater rotations can be achieved in structures

with special reinforcement (laced diagonal reinforcement)

designed specifically to resist blast loads or structures designed against progressive collapse. Continuous members

with adequate and properly detailed reinforcement in the

positive and negative moment regions may undergo substantial deformations and resist large loads through membrane

action (Nielsen 1984).

A number of issues related to the blast resistance of reinforced concrete members are not clear at this juncture. This

includes the method of calculation of the member end rotations, which depend on the length of the plastic hinge,

bond-slip relation of the reinforcing bars under high strain

rates, tension stiffening, and the momentcurvature response

of the member. Unfortunately, none of the above recommendations explicitly state how the structure deformations

must be calculated. As we noticed in Fig. 6, strain rate

greatly affects both the strength and energy absorption capacity of a member. Furthermore, as in Fig. 6a and 6b

Published by NRC Research Press

Razaqpur et al.

1301

Maximum deformation

(whichever governs)

Member type

Beams, spandrels,

girts or purlins

Frame structures

Cold-formed steel floor

and wall panels

Highest level of

protection*

1

2

1

1

Open-web joists

Plates

1

2

Additional consideration

None

None

None

Without tensile membrane action

q (8)

2

12

2{

1.25

Ductility ratio

m = Xm/Xy

10

20

(H/25)/Xy{

1.75

Not controlled by maximum end reaction

Controlled by maximum end reaction

None

None

4

2

1

2

12

6

4

1

10

20

{

Applies to members only.

{

Applies to structure with height H.

q is the maximum member end rotation measured from chord joining the member ends

Baker et al. 1983).

strain rate can also significantly affect the ultimate curvature of a member. Since both member joint rotations and

maximum deflection are functions of its momentcurvature

response, it is important to establish proper procedures for

calculating the actual deformation experienced by a member.

There is little experimental data currently available in the

open literature to verify the validity of the current recommendations such as those in TM 5-1300 (U.S. Army 1990).

Theoretical and empirical analyses, similar to those illustrated in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively, indicate that structures

under blast can resist, depending on the strain rate, very

high forces and can undergo large deformations without

complete loss of strength and sudden collapse.

Several methods exist for quantitatively evaluating blast

damage. In addition to refined methods of dynamic analysis,

such as those in LS-DYNA (Livermore Software Technology Corp. 2007), which are not discussed here, blast damage

methods based on energy and momentum conservation, or

response spectrum analysis of single degree of freedom

(SDOF) systems. Alternatively, the so-called pressureimpulse (PI) diagrams can be used, which are based on conservation of energy and momentum. We will discuss some

of the simple approaches in the following sections. For the

response spectrum method, reference can be made to Biggs

(1964).

Evaluating damage using pressureimpulse diagrams

The level of damage to low-rise wood, unreinforced masonry, and light industrial structures can be estimated by

means of empirical pressure impulse (PI) diagrams, as

given in Fig. 8, plotted by Baker et al. (1983) based on Jarrett (1968) damage criterion. Each PI curve is the locus of

pressure and impulse combinations that produce a defined

level of damage in a member. Thus, PI curves are also

called isodamage curves. To use a PI diagram, one must

first determine the pressure and impulse for a given charge

size and standoff distance, e.g., using charts similar to

Fig. 1b. Next, one must plot the calculated pressure and impulse in Fig. 8 and determine the level of damage caused by

the particular combination of pressure and impulse based on

the position of the plotted point with respect to the isodamage curves. The PI diagrams can be theoretically constructed for various types of members and for various limits

states as described later.

Since Jarretts method is empirical and is derived from

bomb damage to low-rise wood and masonry construction,

it may not be suitable for application to modern ductile steel

and reinforced concrete structures. In the case of these structures, the basic principles of structural dynamics can be

used, in conjunction with their forcedeformation behaviour

to estimate their maximum response. Two relatively simple

analytical methods are available for this purpose. Baker et

al. (1983) state that the estimated responses based on these

methods are reasonably accurate and are in fair agreement

with experimental data from actual blast tests.

Before we describe these methods, let us first generically

Published by NRC Research Press

1302

plastic member. Let Rm, K and Xy denote the ultimate resistance, elastic stiffness, and the elastic deformation limit of

the member. The deformation Xy may correspond to the deformation at yield. The resistance may be in terms of axial

resistance, Nr, flexural resistance, Mr, etc. with the corresponding deformations being axial elongation / shortening,

curvature, etc. In preliminary evaluation, we normally deal

with axial and flexural deformations. To check possible

shear failure, one needs to calculate the maximum shear corresponding to the maximum moment and then compare the

calculated value with the shear capacity of the member. For

steel structures, lateral-torsional interaction and buckling

may also be important.

Based on fundamental mechanics, the maximum deflection of the structure Xmax depends on the structure mass M,

stiffness K, ultimate resistance Rm, duration td, and maximum value of the applied pressure load, Fm. Let Xc be the

characteristic deflection associated with a specified damage

level or limit state. The deflection Xc can be related (Baker

et al. 1983) to two dimensionless quantities given by the following;

9

10

Fig. 9. Effect of (a) ductility and (b) strain rate on a pressure-impulse (PI) diagram.

Fm

Xc K

Xc

I

p

M=K

Thus, the PI diagram can be plotted in a Cartesian plane

with eq. [9] as the abscissa and eq. [10] as the ordinate.

The impulse I for any pulse shape can be determined by integrating the area under the pressuretime curve.

The PI diagrams can be constructed for a single degree

of freedom spring-mass system for specified displacements

corresponding to each limit state. As seen in Fig. 8, the

complete range of pressure and impulse that a structure can

be subjected to is covered by the PI plane.

To construct a PI diagram, given a pulse shape, we start

by assuming a very high value for impulse to approximate

the asymptotic or lowest pressure corresponding to this impulse that would cause failure. Using the assumed impulse

and the maximum pressure, the SDOF system is analyzed

dynamically to calculate its maximum deflection. The calculated deflection is compared with the specified deflection,

and if it is found to be different, the pressure is revised and

the analysis is repeated until the calculated deflection is approximately equal to the specified deflection. The combination of pressure and impulse that produce a deflection equal

to the specified deflection constitute one point on the PI

diagram. This process is continued by assuming another

value of I and repeating the preceding procedure. In this

manner, the complete PI diagram is established.

Since the response of the SDOF spring-mass system is dependent on the stiffness and strength of the spring, it is important to clarify how these quantities are calculated. In the

case of columns or beams, one could establish the axial

loaddeformation or momentcurvature response of the

member, as illustrated in Fig. 6. According to Fig. 6, both

the stiffness and the strength of the member are functions

of the strain rate. Consequently, unless the strain rate is established for a specified deflection, one cannot produce a

unique PI diagram for a structural member.

Using the aforementioned procedure, the PI diagram corresponding to different levels of damage are plotted in

Fig. 9a by assuming a constant strain rate. It can be seen

that the blast resistance of a member is greatly dependent

on its ductility. Each PI diagram in Fig. 9a corresponds to

a certain ductility ratio. The effect of ductility on the ability

of a member to resist both higher pressure and impulse is

clear.

To investigate the effect of strain rate on the PI diagram

of a member, Fig. 9b illustrates the PI diagram of a SDOF

system corresponding to different amounts of specified maximum displacement and two strain rates. It can be observed

in this figure, that if the member is to remain elastic, even a

10-fold increase in the strain rate does not have a significant

effect on its blast resistance. On the other hand, if the member is allowed to undergo plastic deformation, e.g., Xmax =

4Xy or when m = 4, the increase of strain rate nearly doubles

the resistance of the member in the pressure regime. Of

course, higher strain rate than those in Fig. 9a are encountered under blast loads, and the effect of strain rate on the

Published by NRC Research Press

Razaqpur et al.

PI diagram at higher strain rates would be even more dramatic. Tolba (2001) measured average strain rates in the

steel reinforcement in concrete slabs, which varied from as

low as 2 s1 to as high as 120 s1.

Evaluating damage using analytical expressions

For elasticplastic systems, we can use the laws of conservation of energy and momentum to determine a relationship between the energy absorbed by the structure and the

energy or impulse imparted to it by the blast load. In this

case, full dynamic analysis is avoided and the response is

approximated as being either in the impulse or quasi static

regime. Using these concepts, we can show that for a one

degree of freedom system the following relationships hold

(Biggs 1964).

For a member with a much smaller fundamental period

than the positive phase duration of the pressure utd 4

and with a specified displacement ratio m, its required ultimate capacity Rr is

2m

11

Rr Fm

2m 1

Alternatively, for a member with available capacity Ra, its

required maximum displacement ratio mr is given by

12

1

mr

21 Fm =Ra

load, m is the specified displacement ratio, and mr is the required displacement ratio. Note that m cannot exceed the

ductility ratio of a member.

It is evident from the above equations that Ra must be

greater than Fm, regardless of the ductility ratio, otherwise

the member will fail immediately upon application of Fm. If

the member is to remain elastic under the blast load, its resistance must be equal or greater than twice the maximum blast

force. Clearly, a member remaining elastic will not experience appreciable damage. Alternatively, eq. [11] indicates

that a member with theoretically infinite ductility must still

have a resistance exceeding the maximum applied blast load,

if collapse is to be prevented. For preliminary evaluation,

under blast loads, a 25% increase in steel and concrete

strengths may be conservatively assumed, but, as pointed earlier, the member strength may be significantly higher because

of the actual strain rate. According to eq. [11], for maximum

displacement ratio of 5, the required resistance is 1.11 times

the maximum applied load. Equations [11] and [12] apply to

members with elasticplastic behaviour that are responding in

pressure regime. Equation [11] is useful for design purposes,

while eq. [12] is suitable for analysis or evaluation purposes.

For elasticplastic members with relatively long period of

vibration than the positive phase duration of the blast pressure, (utd > 40), which respond in the impulse regime, the

required strength and ductility are given by eqs. [13] and

[14], respectively.

13

Iu

Rr p

2m 1

1303

14

1 I 2 u2

1

2 R2a

the structure and I is the total impulse imparted to the structure. Once again, eq. [14] is appropriate for evaluation,

while eq. [13] is suitable for design. Observe that in this

case not only the impulse, but also the structure natural frequency and ultimate strength affect the maximum deformation of the structure. For a purely elastic response, i.e., m =

1, the required ultimate strength of the member must equal I

u, while for a more ductile response, that is, m > 1 the

strength can be less than I u. For instance, for available ductility ratio of 5, the required resistance would be 0.33 I u.

The latter two equations show that it is not the magnitude

of the maximum pressure but rather the impulse that determines the potential severity of the damage in a structure.

Hence, in such cases, blast pressures several orders of magnitude larger than the static pressure capacity can be resisted

by a structure without experiencing failure.

Based on the results of this study, the following conclusions can be reached:

(1) The blast load parameters for a given charge size and

standoff distance can be calculated with a reasonable degree of accuracy using existing methods and design aids.

(2) The structure response to a blast event cannot be determined accurately using single degree of freedom models.

The structure response is a function of a number of interacting parameters, including the stiffness and ductility of

the structure and blast wave parameters. Since structural

nonlinearities and strain rate can alter the structure stiffness, strength, and ductility dramatically, the results of

single degree of freedom models that do not consider

these parameters have to be used cautiously.

(3) Member strength and energy absorption capacity increases several fold under very high strain rates compared with its corresponding static strength and energy

absorption capacity.

(4) Currently, no simple method is available to establish the

strain rates experienced by a structure during a blast

event. The development of such a method will improve

greatly existing blast evaluation methods.

(5) The PI diagram is a convenient tool for assessing the

blast resistance of a tool corresponding to specified limit

states of damage. Such diagrams can be developed for

different structural members made of concrete, steel,

etc., but realistic diagrams must include the strain rate

effect.

(6) There is need for detailed experimental data to validate

both current simplified and advanced methods of blast

analysis. The data should include both load and structural response parameters, including strain rates, pressure, impulse, and extent of damage.

References

Abrams, D.A. 1917. Effect of rate of application of load on the

compressive strength of concrete. ASTM Bulletin, 17: 364377.

Baker, W.E., Cox, P.A., Westine, P.S., Kulesz, J.J., and Strehlow,

Published by NRC Research Press

1304

R.A. 1983. Explosion hazards and evaluation. Elsevier Scientific

Publishing Co., New York.

Biggs, J.M. 1964. Introduction to structural dynamics. McGrawHill, New York.

Bischoff, P.H., and Perry, S.H. 1991. Compressive behaviour of

concrete at high strain rates. Materials and Structures, 24: 425

450. doi:10.1007/BF02472016.

Bogosian, D., Ferritto, J., and Shi, Y. 2002. Measuring uncertainty

and conservatism in simplified blast models. In 30th Explosives

Safety Seminar, Atlanta, Georgia, 1315 August 2002. Available

from

http://www.kcse.com/resources2.

php?page=resources_uncertainty. [accessed 20 January 2009].

CAC. 2006. Concrete design handbook. 3rd ed. Cement Association of Canada (CAC), Ottawa, Ont.

CEB. 1985. CEB design manual on cracking and deformation.

Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Switzerland.

ConWep. 1990. Conventional weapons effect. U.S. Army Engineer

Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Available from

http://pdc.usace.army.mil/software/conwep/ [accessed 20 January

2009].

CSA. 2004. Design of concrete structures. CSA Standard CAN/

CSA-A23.394. Canadian Standards Association (CSA), Toronto, Ont.

Dilger, W., Koch, R., and Kowalczyk, R. 1984. Ductility of plain

and confined concrete under different strain rates. ACI Structural Journal, 81(1): 7381.

Dowling, A.R., and Harding, J. 1967. Tensile properties of mild

steel under high strain rates. In Proceedings of the 1st HERF

Conference, University of Denver, Denver, Colo.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2003. Reference manual

to mitigate potential terrorist attacks. FEMA 426, Washington,

D.C.

Fu, H.C., Erki, M.A., and Seckin, M. 1991. Review of effects of

loading rate on concrete in compression. Journal of Structural

Engineering, 117(12): 36453659. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)07339445(1991)117:12(3645).

Jarrett, D.E. 1968. Derivation of British explosives safety distances.

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 152(1): 1835.

doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1968.tb11963.x. PMID:5257530.

Livermore Software Technology Corp. 2007. LSDYNA 971 user

manual. Livermore, Calif.

Malvar, L.J. 1998. Review of static and dynamic properties of steel

reinforcing bars. ACI Materials Journal, 95(5): 609616.

Malvar, L.J., and Ross, C.A. 1998. Review of strain rate effects for

concrete in tension. ACI Materials Journal, 95(6): 735739.

Nielsen, M.P. 1984. Limit analysis and concrete plasticity. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

Norris, G.H., Hansen, R.J., Holly, M.J., Biggs, J.M., Namyet, S.,

and Minami, J.K. 1959. Structural design for dynamic loads.

McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York

Scott, B.D., Park, R., and Priestley, M.J.N. 1982. Stress strain behaviour of concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low and

high strain rates. ACI Structural Journal, 79(1): 1327.

Soroushian, P., Choi, K.B., and Alhamad, A. 1986. Dynamic constitutive behaviour of concrete. ACI Structural Journal, 83(2):

251259.

Task Committee on Blast Resistant Design. 1997. Design of blast

resistant buildings in petrochemical facilities. American Society

of Civil Engineers Publications, New York.

Tedesco, J.W., and Ross, C.A. 1998. Strain-rate-dependent constitutive equations for concrete. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology-Transactions of the ASME, 120: 398405. doi:10.1115/

1.2842350.

Tolba, A.F. 2001. Response of FRP-retrofitted reinforced concrete

panels to blast loading. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil and

Environmental Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ont.

U.S. Army.1990. Structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions, TM 5-1300. U.S. Department of the Army Technical

Manual, Washington, D.C.

Whitney, M.G., Oswald, C.J., and Poleny, M.A. 1989. Blast damage to typical structural elements. In Structures for Enhanced

Safety and Physical Security. In Proceedings of the Specialty

Conference sponsored by the Structural Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Arlington, Virginia, March

1989. Edited by T. Krauthammer. ASCE, New York, pp 389

411.

L. U. V., and Xu, K. 2004. Modeling of dynamic behaviour of concrete materials under blast loading. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 41: 131143. doi:10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2003.09.

019.

Zukas, J.A., and Walters, W.P. 1997. Explosive effects and applications. Springer-Verlag, Inc., New York.