8 views

Original Title: MTP_Bala

Uploaded by Anonymous w8tjcvmym

MTP_Bala

good

© All Rights Reserved

- Strength of Materials - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia
- Steel Structures
- Seismic Effect on Bridges
- ASME III Design by Analysis - 2006
- perform3d
- lab4
- Punching of Concrete Slabs Without Shear Reinforcement_Guandalini
- Strenght of material explanation
- Investigating high strain rate effect on FRHSC of Steel and Polyethelene
- Infograph Brochure
- drdpresentationgatjmfkfm2018-06-04-180613071447.pdf
- MIL-STD-401B.PDF
- Chapter 2
- Backcalculation of Residual Tensile Strength
- 3_4point Bend Flexural AppNote Nov11
- Distribution of Damage in Plan of Dual Steel Frames.pdf
- Taucer2010 Article HollowBridge-pierPropertiesFor(1)
- 04 Material Prop 2 Allowable Stresses FS (1)
- 02_Eigelssr, E.M
- Effect of Age on Concrete Properties

You are on page 1of 63

11

PROBABILISTIC CAPACITY MODEL FOR RC-MEMBERS

(COLUMNS & BEAMS) SUBJECT TO BLAST LOADING

Submitted

By

(Roll No: 134104016)

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI

GUWAHATI 781039

June 2015

References 2

22

CERTIFICATE

It is certified that the work contained in the project report entitled Probabilistic Capacity

Model for RC-Members (Columns & Beams) Subject to Blast Loading, by Katchalla

Bala Kishore (134104016) has been carried out under my supervision and that this work has

not been submitted elsewhere for the award of a degree or diploma.

Dr. Hrishikesh Sharma

Assistant Professor

Department of Civil Engineering

Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati

References 3

33

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

any task would be incomplete without mentioning the people who

made it possible and; whose constant guidance and encouragement

crowned my effort with success.

First of all, I would like to express my sincere thanks and heart

full gratitude towards my Project guide Dr. Hrishikesh Sharma for his

co-operation, suggestions and esteemed guidance throughout my

project execution.

Submitting this thesis would have been a herculean job,

without the encouragement, support and suggestions from my

friends Akhil and Saran Srikanth. I would like to thank them for their

invaluable help. I would also like to express my thanks to my juniors

Mukesh, Jaswanth, Bharath and Anjani for their valuable support.

Lastly I would like to thank my Parents, who taught me the

value of hard work. They have constantly given me enormous

support throughout the tenure of my stay at IIT Guwahati.

ABSTRACT

The failure of Reinforced Concrete (RC) structures is increasing by the day, all over

the world due to natural as well as man-made events, blast loading being one of the prime

causes in case of man-made disasters. The number of occurrences of blast loading on the

structures has noticeably increased all over as a part of anti-social/terror activities, accidental

References 4

44

explosions and similar causes due to negligence. As a result, in addition to injuries to the

mankind and habitations, the structural components like column, beam and slab sustain

damage and eventual failure of the system they are part of. So examining the response of RC

components becomes an important issue at present time.

This research aims to develop the probabilistic model for estimating the deflection

capacity of RC-Column and RC-Beam which are integral and vital component of structural

system subject to blast loading. A parametric analysis of different dimensioned (ranges in

practice) RC columns and RC beams subject to blast loading are carried out. The deflection

capacity of the RC column and RC beam are estimated under ultimate limit state, subject to

blast loading. Detailed Finite Element (FE) models of RC column and RC beam subject to

different blast loading scenarios are simulated and a statistical analysis of FE simulated data

has revealed a high level of variability of deflection capacity; where variability would be

expected to be minimum. Hence a probabilistic capacity model for RC column and RC beam

subject to blast loading is then developed for estimating the deflection capacity that considers

variability and/or model error.

The developed probabilistic capacity models account the realistic aspects such as

multi-modal response of the structure, the interaction among the different components and the

inherent uncertainty associated with the modeling, configuration and material properties of

the concrete structure. Hence the current research will facilitate the provisions for

improvement and modifications in existing codal provisions for blast resistant design of

structures.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract .i

Table of Contents.....ii

List of Figures......iv

List of Tables....vi

Chapter 1. Introduction......................................................................................................1

1.1. Intoduction.................................................................................................................1

References 5

55

1.2. Motivation of Research..............................................................................................2

1.3. Objective....................................................................................................................2

1.4. Methodology..............................................................................................................3

2.1. Review on Theoritical Background...........................................................................4

3.1. Introdution to Dynamic Loading.............................................................................14

4.1. Introduction..............................................................................................................25

References 6

66

4.4.1. Structural Configuration and Material Models................................................29

4.4.4. Assessment.......................................................................................................31

5.1. Probabilistic Capacity Models.................................................................................36

6.1. Summary of the Report............................................................................................46

6.2. Conclusions..............................................................................................................46

References ..49

LIST OF FIGURES

References 7

77

Fig. 1.1 Collapse of Yichang Bridge in China when a truck carrying fireworks exploded (left)

and Building damage in India due to blast (right). (BBC News, February 1, 2013 and

Fig. 2.1 Decay of Pressure with distance and time [Ngo et al. (2007)].....................................5

Fig. 2.4 Strain rates exhibited by different types of loading [Ngo et al. (2007)].....................10

Fig. 3.3 Schematic view of (a) SDOF system and (b) Blast loading.......................................17

References 8

88

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. INTODUCTION

As a part of the urban environment or infrastructure and as a part of different types of

civilian and military facilities, a large number of Reinforced concrete (RC) structures exist. It

is known that tremendous strides have been made on technologies meant to improve the state

of human life. However, often such technologies have come with new threat for damage or

collapse of structures in the form of Explosions and Blast detonations. Explosions due to

different civilian accidents or intentional events, detonations of high explosives or weapons

result in extreme loading conditions on all objects nearby. It may cause a non-recoverable

References 9

99

damage to the infrastructure and also loss of life within its proximity, thereby leading to great

consequences on regional, national, economic, socioeconomic and security. Thus, the safety

of life and infrastructure against the blast effects got an increased attention.

exponentially. India ranks among the top three in the world with about 1,300 reported

instance of blast (Bangash and Bangash, 2006). In essence, each aspect of life has been

affected by the occurrence of blasts. Figure 1 shows the instances of damage caused by blast

to different facilities across the world.

Fig. 1.1 Collapse of Yichang Bridge in China when a truck carrying fireworks exploded (left)

and Building damage in India due to blast (right). (BBC News, February 1, 2013 and The

Hindu News, March 12, 1993)

In this sense, Structural Engineers are receiving the renewed attention and challenge

for designing a structure resisting the blast load. In the design of RC Building to resist the

blast load or any severe dynamic load, it is not economical to only consider the elastic

response of the structural element. Therefore, the structural elements should be allowed for

certain plastic deformations, which better utilizes their energy absorbing capabilities if

exposed to any dynamic loads. It is also important to design for ductile response of the

member, so that the partial or total collapse of the structure can be prevented due to local

failure of the structural elements.

The following are some of the important limitations of the current code provisions or

design guidelines used in the design such as US PDC TR-06-01 Rev 1 used by the US Army

Corps of Engineers, UFC 3-340-02 (2008), Euro code 1 (1998), IS 4991-1968 are as follows:

References 10

1010

These documents assume equivalent single degree of freedom response system for

blast-loaded components. This assumption leads to incorrect response estimation as

the contribution from other mode can be significant or even predominant.

These documents assume decoupled response of the components with rigid

boundaries. This approach does not account for the component interactions which can

be significant.

The limitation associated with the modeling of blast loading using single degree of

freedom analysis causes the response to deviate from the actual behavior of concrete

structure.

The documents do not account for the inherent uncertainty associated with the blast

loading, geometric and material uncertainty of concrete structure, and the uncertainty

in the interaction of blast loading with the concrete structure.

The justification for this project is that the key issues discussed above need to be

addressed in order to achieve a realistic blast resistant design.

1.3. OBJECTIVE

This research is mainly aimed at developing probabilistic models for estimating the

deflection capacity of RC members subject to blast loading. This research also aimed at to

make the design philosophy handy with the developed model. The predicted values of the

model will account the following:

Multi-modal response of the structure

Interaction among the different components and inherent uncertainty associated with

the modeling, configuration and material properties of the concrete structure.

1.4. METHODOLOGY

A total of 50 columns and 50 beams of different sizes and reinforcement ratios in

realistic ranges are selected and subjected to blast loading of varying charge and stand-off

distance. Then the deflection capacity of these columns and beams at ultimate performance

level will be estimated. Also, their numerical deflection capacities are to be obtained and

depending the level of damage, the FE data should be segregated into equality and lower

bound data. Then, for all the members in the equality data, corresponding analytical results

are integrated with the FE results to develop the model.

References 11

1111

1.5. SCOPE OF WORK

The analysis assumes air-blast on the structural components. Fragments and their

effects are neglected.

The blast loading is chosen as uniformly distributed load on member for mechanical

model calculations.

No other material than reinforced concrete (RC) was used. Hence the methodology is

valid only for RC elements.

Research is limited to beams and columns in flexure with propped-cantilever and

fixed boundary conditions.

This research is limited to ultimate performance level only.

The report is organized into six chapters. First chapter gives the introduction to this

research. Second chapter is on the state of art of blast loading on structures which discusses

about the current literature review. Third chapter briefs the basics of blast loading on

structures and blast analysis. Fourth chapter discuss the method of obtaining the numerical

capacities of RC members. Fifth chapter provides a step wise procedure of developing

probabilistic capacity model for RC columns and RC beams subject to blast loading. Finally

this report ends with the summary and conclusion of this research.

Review of Literature

For the past few decades, considerable researches are going on to understand the

explosion science and emphasis has been given to study its effect on the strength and stability

of structural members and to design for its safety. Due to the nature of blast and its effect on

human mankind, most of the available literature on blast characteristics and its experimental

response are restricted. This led to a confinement of literature in this review. However, the

information about the development in this field is made available mostly through the

publication of the US Army Corps of Engineers, Departments of The Army, The Navy and

References 12

1212

The Air Force and other government offices and public institutes. The following reviews

some of the work done in this area.

is necessary to understand the theoretical background and relevant analysis techniques. Those

are discussed in the following sections.

2.1.1. BLAST LOADING AND ITS BEHAVIOUR

An explosion or blast is the sudden release of energy within a limited volume, leading

to an increase of light and temperature; but above all an enormous increase in pressure. In

general, an explosion in air generates a pressure bulb that grows in size at supersonic

velocity, where some part of energy is released as flash (thermal radiation), some part into air

and some part into ground, as radially expanding shock waves.

An external blast wave is created when the atmosphere surrounding the explosion is

pushed back due to a compressive pulse travelling outward from the center of the explosion

(Kinney et. al., 1985).

shock wave (layer of compressed air) is formed in the front of gas volume carrying the most

of the energy released by the explosion. The front of the wave, known as the shock front, has

a pressure (overpressure) much greater than the region behind it and thus immediately begins

to decay as the shock propagates outward (Beshara, 1994).

atmospheric pressure Po), called the positive phase and an under pressure phase known as the

negative phase with an assumed exponential form as shown in Figure 2.1.

References 13

1313

Fig. 2.2 Decay of Pressure with distance and time [Ngo et al. (2007)]

This development of both positive phase and negative phase can be described with a

pressure-time relationship, as schematically shown in Figure 2.2. The overpressure in the

positive phase is considerably higher than in the negative phase. Also, the duration in the

positive phase is shorter than in the negative phase, resulting in an impulse of the negative

phase that is somewhat larger than in the positive phase.

As the amplitude is higher in positive phase than in the negative phase, the pressure-

time relationship can be often simplified with a linear decreasing pressure and the negative

References 14

1414

phase neglected due to its minor influence, as shown in Figure 2.3. In view of many

uncertainties involved in evaluating blast loads and their interaction with structures, it is

recommended that the pressure-time profiles be approximated by equivalent triangular pulses

(Baker, 1983; TM 5-1300, 1990; Newmark, 1963).

The most commonly used blast wave scaling is the cube root scaling law otherwise

known as Hopkinsons Law (Baker, 1973). The blast wave scaling law defined by Hopkins

(1915) states two different weights of the same explosive have same blast characteristics at

some scaled distances in similar atmospheric conditions. The Hopkins scaling distance is:

R

Scaled distance (or) Proximity factor ( Z )= (m/kg1/3)

Q1 /3

R is the Stand-off distance (m)-(distance between center of explosion and the

structure)

For example, to produce a given blast overpressure at twice given distance, it requires

eight times the explosive energy release.

Another scaling law known as Sachs scaling law (1944), attempts to correct for

changes in atmospheric pressure (Baker, 1973).

References 15

1515

1/ 3

R Po

Scaled distance ( R )= 1 /3

E

E is the energy of the charge and Sachs law assumes air behaves as perfect gas.

depending on whether the point of detonation of the explosive is above or below the ground

surface (Dharaneepathy et al., 1995).

Air blasts can be further subdivided into air bursts or surface bursts, depending on the

height above ground of the detonation. Free-air bursts are a special case of air bursts where

the detonation occurs directly above the structure such that no interference takes place with

the blast wave before reaching the structure (TM 5-1300, 1990).

Air burst environment is produced by the detonations that occur above the ground

surface and at a distance away from the protective structure, so that the initial shock wave,

propagating away from the center of explosion, impinges on the ground surface prior to

arrival at the structure, however depends on the stand-off. Similar to that, the same happens

with the surface burst, but the detonations that occur will be very close to the ground surface

or all most on the ground surface. But when the charge is close to the ground, the blast wave

will be reflected (mirrored) and reinforced by the ground. In this case, incident and reflected

wave merge to form a single wave and travel hemi-spherically, whereas the airburst waves

initially have a spherical wave front. Theoretically, the merged blast wave is more powerful

and its effect is equivalent to an explosive of twice the charge in free air. However in real,

due to some ground movement and cratering, equivalent increase in the explosive charge is

given a factor 1.8 (Goel et al., 2012).

After the detonation of charge, enormous energy will be released in the form of

waves, which has a pressure on very higher side of ambient air pressure, which is referred to

as positive phase; followed by negative phase. However, considering the impulse of both the

phases, the load is normalized to a triangular load accounting only positive phase of an

explosion.

References 16

1616

Several authors have recommended their formulations for predicting the peak

overpressure from conventional explosives. Following are the most widely used formulations.

Brode (1955), analyzed the differential equation of gas motion in Lagrangian form

and presented the analytical solution for the peak positive over-pressure (P m) in near-field and

medium to far-field conditions as:

6.7

Pm = +1 bar (Pm > 10 bar)

Z3

Pm = + 2 + 3 0.019 bar (0.1 < Pm < 10 bar)

Z Z Z

overpressure, for a high explosive charge detonations at the ground surface as:

Q Q 0.5

Pm = 6784 + 93 ( 3 ) (bar)

R3 R

Kinney et al., (1985), based on the experimental analysis of large explosion data;

presented the following equation to compute the peak positive over pressure:

[ ( )]

2

Z

808 1+

4.5

Pm = (bar)

[ ( ) ][ ( ) ][ ( ) ]

2 2 2

Z Z Z

1+ 1+ 1+

0.048 0.32 1.35

Held (1983), based on the experimental analysis of explosion data; presented the

following equation to compute the peak positive over pressure:

2

Pm = (MPa)

Z2

Sadovskiy (2004), based on explosion data analysis; presented the following equation

to compute peak positive over pressure:

Pm = + 2+ 3 (MPa)

Z Z Z

References 17

1717

Izadifard et al., (2010), based on numerical simulations; presented the following

equation to compute peak positive over pressure (made a close accurate match with TM5-

1300 which is derived from field experiment results and good match with Brodes equation):

Pm

log 10

log 10

For analyzing the loading, the explosion is taken into ideal form having only the

overpressure phase (positive phase) and several authors have recommended their

formulations for predicting is the time between decay of the shock front from peak pressure

to zero over pressure of the positive phase of explosion, i.e., the positive overpressure

duration (td).

Henrych (1979), presented the following equation to compute the positive over

pressure duration:

1/ 3

Q

2.75+ 0.27 log Z +log

td = (millisecond)

e

Kinney et al., (1985), presented the following equation to compute the positive over

pressure duration:

10

Z

( )]

980[1+

0.54

td = Q1/3 (millisecond)

3 6 2

Z Z Z

1+ ( ) x 1+ ( ) x 1+ (

Sadovskiy (2004), presented the following equation to compute the positive over

pressure duration:

td = 1.2 6 Q 2 R (millisecond)

References 18

1818

Izadifard et al., (2010), presented the following equation to compute the positive over

pressure duration:

During an explosion, a pressure bulb is formed and pressure waves gets expanded

with a spherical wave front. These waves strike with the ground surface and reflects back

reinforcing with the incident waves and then travels parallel to earths surface with an

enhanced pressure, velocity and duration. This shock front generated with the interaction of

incident and reflected wave is known as Mach front or Mach stem and the pressure field

under it is very critical with cylindrical shock front. From the analytical studies, tall structures

should be designed for critical ground-zero distance (the horizontal distance between the

location of ground-zero point and Mach stem origin, where the point on ground vertically

below explosion is ground-zero) in the case of surface blast (Dharaneepathy et al., 1995).

For the cases of blasts under bridge deck, severity of blast effect depends on the

bridge geometry and the clearance under the deck. In many cases, for the bridges with deep

girders, due to confinement effect the blast pressure got enhanced and resulted in more

damage than predicted. Therefore, higher clearances should be provided for reducing the

confinement effect and average loads on piers can be expected when the detonation takes

place at increased average stand-off distance to the pier (Winget et al., 2005).

Byfield in 2006, from a case study on the behavior of non-military building that are

damaged by vehicle bombs during the World War II, most of the buildings exhibited an

impressive resistance against the damage from the blast effects due to their closely spaced

column standards. Whereas many modern commercial buildings are more susceptible to

progressive collapse due to the wider column centerlines. The progressive collapses are due

to poor connection of beam to column and he conventional design standards creates over-

References 19

1919

strong beams followed by weak and brittle connections which are incapable of carrying

higher rate loading of vehicle bombs.

pressure in a very short period of time. This type of loading subjects the structural materials

to very high rates of loading. Due to this, the dynamic mechanical properties of the materials

are altered. Here, the dynamic stiffness doesnt vary great with the static stiffness; but the

stresses that are sustained for a certain period under dynamic loading gain values that are

remarkably greater than under static conditions.

Fig. 2.5 Strain rates exhibited by different types of loading [Ngo et al. (2007)]

structural materials including concrete. High strain rate loading affect the material properties

including compressive and tensile strength, modulus of elasticity, ductility, and Poissons

ratio (Bischoff et al., 1991).

Based on the work performed by Curione (1958) and ASCE (1985) referenced in

Bischoff et al., (1991), the design compressive strength of concrete can increase about 25 to

30% percent during dynamic loading of concrete.

In analysis and design of blast resistant structures, materials enhanced strength due to

high rate of loading is taken into account by using Dynamic Increase factor (DIF), which is

the ratio of dynamic to static strength.

fy

(0.0074 )

DIF steel=( s /10

4

) 414

fy is the yield stress of steel in MPa and s is the strain rate of steel.

References 20

2020

c

2

0.035 f c

0.00001

0.035 f 2c

1+

1+ /

DI F steel=

fc is the yield stress of steel in MPa and s is the strain rate of concrete.

TM 5-1300 (1990) and UFC 3-340-02 (2008), introduced DIF values for steel and

concrete which can be directly used in the design of blast resisting structures.

The equivalent SDOF method is the regular technique used in blast analysis and

design field. Blast loads are dynamic, and ductility is a key parameter in material response

(Marchand et al., 2005).

for bridges and exposed that simple SDOF analysis cannot provide the reliable security as

they dont account for higher order failure modes and the accuracy can be increased by

adding more degrees of freedom to the model.

References 21

2121

The United States Army Corps of Engineers Protective Design Center distributes a

program called SBEDS (Single-degree-of-freedom Blast Effects Design Spreadsheet). This

excel spreadsheet is based on the theory presented by Biggs dynamics and the documentary

of TM 5-1300. This spreadsheet is a norm in the industry as a SDOF analysis tool for

component behavior due to blast.

Dynamic nonlinear Finite Element analysis is the most accurate method available for

studying the response of structure under blast loading (Krauthammer, 1998; and Conrath et

al., 1999). The finite element (FE) method can capture local effects, and can allow the analyst

to model a component response to match response observed through experiments. The FE

method requires more time and expertise, and is often reserved for research, forensics, and

for complex configurations that cant be modeled as SDOF systems.

Considering the problem into account that cost of actual RC building and performing

realistic blast is almost impracticable; Luccioni et al. (2003), analyzed the failure of an RC

building caused by a blast load using the hydrocodes that are integrated in software

AUTODYN. The numerical results made an accurate match with the photographs of original

damaged building by analyzing for the same magnitude and location of the explosion which

took place earlier and so, the numerical models are reliable to represent the behavior of a

structure when subject to blast, by some simplified assumptions made for structure and

material.

Based on the work done by Yaramada (2010), three material models are selected from

the library of LS-DYNA (Finite Element Modeling Software), in order to study the response

of concrete to high strain rate loading. They are material Type 159 (Continuous Surface Cap

Model, CSCM), material Type 84 (Winfrith Concrete) and material Type 72R3 (Concrete

Damage REL3).

employing the non-linear finite element software LS-DYNA. The model that built upon

Lagrangian elements, the finite element mesh instantly distorts resulting either the increased

overall computation time or the diverged computation process. If the model that built upon

Eulerian elements, even the mesh remains unmoved, a numerous elements are required to

trace the dynamic response of the structure which may result in error due to the complexity in

interface. Therefore, the ALE method (Arbitrary Eulerian Lagrangian method) is adopted

References 22

2222

which integrates the advantages of both Lagrangian and Eulerian elements. In this

computation, the time step size maintained a scale factor of 0.6 with the characteristic mesh

length to ensure convergence. The bonding of reinforcement and concrete is coupled through

the CONSTRAINED_LAGRANGE_IN_SOLID command so that there will be no sliding

between them under the instantaneous impulse external force. Finally the validation of the

analysis results are done by conducting free field explosion and comparing its results. The

empirical equation resulted a peak pressure of 15.48 MPa whereas numerical result is of

13.20MPa for 10 cm mesh, 9.0MPa for 20 cm mesh and 3.85 MPa for 40 cm mesh. It is

observed that 10 cm and 20 cm meshes are consistent with the empirical results, leading to

the conclusion that simulation results are close to the actual situation when the mesh division

is as fine as possible.

2.3.

References 23

2323

In general there are two types of loading that may likely act on structures, namely

static and dynamic loading. Static loads are those that are either independent of time or very

less dependent of time and are applied gradually, also these loads remain in place for a longer

duration. For example, Live loads and moving loads on structures can be treated as static

loads as they usually vary gradually in magnitude and position. Dynamic loads are those that

are very much dependent of time and these either act for small interval of time or quickly

change in magnitude or direction. Figure 3.1 shows a typical dynamic force that is time

dependent. Machinery vibrations, earthquake forces and blast loadings are few examples of

dynamic forces.

In case of dynamic loading, the structural response is also time-dependent and hence

varies with time. Dynamic response of the structure is usually measured in terms of

deformations (displacements or rotations), velocity and acceleration.

References 24

2424

3.2. METHOD OF ANALYSIS

Blast load is a short duration load, hence also called impulsive load. Under theoretical

assumptions, by neglecting the negative phase and only considering the positive phase, blast

loading can be treated as triangular loading, shown in Figure 3.2.

From the Literature, ductility and natural period of vibration of a structure governs its

response to an explosion. Hence it is important to find ductility and natural period to know

the structural response to an explosion.

In the investigation of the dynamic response of a structure subject to a blast load, the

following approach is to be made:

(b) The natural period of response of the structure/structural element must be determined.

(c) The positive phase duration of the blast wave is then compared with the natural period

of response of the structure.

Based on the above comparisons (c), the response of the structure can be described as

follows:

(a) If the positive phase duration of the blast pressure is shorter than the natural period of

vibration of the structure, the response is described as impulsive. In this case, most of

the deformation of the structure will occur after the blast loading has diminished.

References 25

2525

(b) If the positive phase duration of the blast pressure is longer than the natural period of

vibration of the structure, the response is described as quasi-static. In this case, the

structural deformation occurs whilst the blast loading is still being applied

(c) If the positive phase duration of the blast pressure is close to the natural period of

vibration of the structure, then the response is described as dynamic. In this case, the

deformation of the structure is a function of time and the response is determined by

solving the equation of motion of the structural system

In order to evaluate the dynamic structural response subject to blast load, the

following methods are in state of practice:

However, structural response can also be analysed by Multi Degree Freedom (MDOF)

method and Continuous System method; but due to their complexity in calculations and

consumption in time, they are of not in the research interest.

In this method, the approach is based on a statement that, the maximum potential

energy from the static load should be equal to the maximum potential energy from the

dynamic load. Since the total energy of an un-damped system is constant over time, it is fair

to assume that the maximum kinetic energy is reached when the potential energy is zero.

Therefore, potential energy in static case is equal to maximum kinetic energy in dynamic

case.

For the elastic case, the equivalent static load (F) can be expressed as:

F=k x e

k x 2e F2 I2

E= = =

2 2k 2m

References 26

2626

t1

t0

here (t0 , t1) = time-interval and F(t) is forcing function; and m = mass.

Hence, F = I

k

m

For the plastic case, the maximum static load (F) is determined by the maximum

resistance, Rm.

2

I

E=R m x p=F x p =

2m

I2

Hence, F =

2mxp

mere complexity due to the effect of uncertainties of blast load calculations, high strain rate

loading, the non-linear inelastic material behaviour and the time-dependent deformations.

Therefore, to simplify the analysis, a number of assumptions related to the response of

structures and the loads has been proposed and widely accepted. For the purpose of analysis,

the structure is idealized as a single degree of freedom (SDOF) system and the blast load is

idealised as a simple triangular loading considering only the positive phase duration of the

regimes.

component can only move along one axis. The actual structure can be replaced by an

equivalent system of one concentrated mass and one weightless spring representing the

resistance of the structure against deformation. Figure 3.3 shows a schematic view of

idealised SDOF system and idealised blast loading.

References 27

2727

Fig. 3.8 Schematic view of (a) SDOF system and (b) Blast loading

References 28

2828

From the idealised triangular pulse having a peak force Fm and positive phase duration

td as shown in Figure 3.3 (b), the forcing function can be given as:

( tt )

F ( t )=F m 1

d

The blast impulse can be approximated as the area under the force-time curve, and is

given as:

1

I = Fm t d

2

m x +c x + kx=F (t)

where m is the structural mass; c is the structural damping; and k is the structural

stiffness.

As the structural damping has a very little effect on the structures undergoing larger

deflections, the effect of damping can be neglected. Hence, the equation of motion can be

reduced to:

m x +kx =F (t )

The values of mass, stiffness and external force values used in the equation of motion

are actual values only if all the elements of the mass of the structure experience the same

force and consequently move as a single unit, in which the entire mas may be assumed to be

concentrated at its centre of gravity. In the case of blast loading, the motion of particles of

mass varies along the length of the member; hence, the assumption of uniform motion of

entire mass cannot be made and transformation factors are required for the structure to be

represented as an equivalent SDOF system.

different boundary and loading conditions. These factors are used to obtain the effective

mass, force and resistance terms; and to make the SDOF system response equivalent to that

of the real system. In Table3.1, Table 3.2, Table 3.3 [Source: TM5-1300 and UFC 3-340-02],

some examples are shown of the value of transformation factors and other parameters of

equivalent SDOF for propped-cantilever and fixed supported beams.

References 29

2929

Table 3.2 Transformation factors for One Way Elements

Loading Strain range Factor Factor Factor

KL KM KLM

Elastic 0.58 0.45 0.78

Elastic 0.53 0.41 0.77

8 MN 4 (M N +2 M P)

re= r u=

L 2

L2

12 M N 8( M N + M P )

re= r u=

L2 L2

Loading Stiffness Stiffness Elastic Stiffness

Ke Kep KE

L4 5 L4 L4

References 30

3030

384 EI 384 EI

307 E I

L4 5 L4

L4

I is Moment of Inertia;

1 4

I* (average cracked Moment of Inertia) = Ig+ Ic (Magnusson, 2007);

5 5

The modified equation of motion for equivalent SDOF system for a time ranging from

0 to the positive phase duration, td is given as:

= Fm 1

d

d

t = time of loading

Fm F m sin ( t )

x=

k (1cos ( t ))+

k td (

t )

Where, x is the displacement of the structure; is the natural frequency, given as

=

k

m

and Natural Time period, T N =

2

On solving the displacement equation for maximum response by equation the velocity

to zero, i.e., dx/dt = 0, the maximum elastic displacement (xe) is obtained as (Biggs, 1964):

References 31

3131

Fm F

( 1cos ( 2 tan t d ) ) ) m ( sin ( 2 tan1 ( t d ) )2 tan 1 ( t d ) )

1

xe= (

k k td

The maximum elastic response in an elastic state, can also be obtained from DLF

plots that are presented in TM5-1300 manual or in UFC 3-340-02 manual. Where DLF is the

Dynamic Load Factor and is defined as the ratio of the maximum dynamic deflection to the

deflection which would have resulted from the static application of peak load.

xm

Thus the Dynamic load factor (DLF) is given by: DLF =

xs

where, xs = static deflection or, the displacement produced in the system (elastic or

for Triangular Load [Source: UFC 3-340-02].

References 32

3232

Under high velocity impact or blast loading, structural elements are expected to

undergo large deflections; and hence these elements are also analysed beyond the elastic limit

i.e., elasto-plastic state, after which structure completely transforms into plastic state, forming

a condition of mechanism.

References 33

3333

The equation of motion for equivalent SDOF system for a time ranging from 0 to the

positive phase duration, td in elastic stage is:

m x +

k x = Fm 1 ( tt ) d

and the solution for response in elastic stage is: (Biggs, 1964)

Fm F m sin ( t )

x=

k

(1cos ( t ))+

k td ( t )

The equation of motion in plastic stage is:

t

m x + r u = Fm 1 ( ) td

and the solution for response in plastic stage is: (Biggs, 1964)

t d t m

()

( 1 )

cos

r F

x p=x e + u m

k

where xp is the maximum plastic displacement; t m being the time at maximum elastic

displacement; and xe is the maximum elastic displacement, given as:

Fm F

( 1cos ( 2 tan t d ) ) ) m ( sin ( 2 tan1 ( t d ) )2 tan 1 ( t d ) )

1

xe= (

k k td

expressed by the following equation:

re

X E=x e +x p 1( ) ru

The maximum elasto-plastic response can also be obtained from the plots that are

presented in TM5-1300 manual or in UFC 3-340-02 manual. Figure 3.5 shows the Maximum

Response of Elastic-Plastic, One-Degree-of-Freedom system for Triangular Load.

References 34

3434

Blast Analysis 35

the blast wave (peak positive over pressure, positive phase duration) and of the structure

(natural period, resistance, deformation ratio, or ductility) in evaluating the structural

response to blast pressure loadings. These characteristics are applicable for both the

approximate response evaluation methods as well as for more rigorous finite element

response evaluation methods utilizing computer programs. Finite element programs such as

ABAQUS, AUTODYN, LS-DYNA, etc., are the available softwares for such computational

simulations. Using the finite element method, the structural mass is typically represented as

lumped concentrations at node points, with the structural stiffness or resistance represented as

the elements connecting the node points. Node points are assigned to locations throughout a

structure where deformation or response of the structure is to be computed. Certain node

points are used to describe the boundary conditions for the structure (i.e., translation or

rotation fixity in particular directions). The loadings are applied at one or more degrees of

freedom depending on the physical characteristics of the problem, which varies as a function

of time (for triangular pulse loading). Then, solutions are obtained by numerical integration

in which the response from the previous time step is used as the initial condition for the

current time and in addition, the load function is updated at each time step. For nonlinear

resistance functions, the element properties also need be modeled at each time step to

simulate inelastic behavior.

However, a detailed review of Finite Element (FE) simulations are provided in the

fore coming chapter.

Blast Analysis 36

OF RC MEMBERS SUBJECT TO BLAST

LOADING

4.1. INTRODUCTION

Estimating the response or maximum deflection of an RC member through a simple

SDOF analysis is erroneous, as they doesnt include other modes and it is also practical that

any member can fail in any higher mode. In this sense, the present research aims to develop

probabilistic models for estimating the capacity of Reinforced Concrete column which are

integral and vital component of structural system subject to blast loading. A parametric

analysis of RC columns and RC beams subject to blast loading are carried out. The ultimate

deflection capacity of the RC column is estimated due to blast loading. Detailed Finite

Element (FE) models of RC column subject to different blast loading scenarios are simulated.

Using the results of the FE models, probabilistic models for estimating the deflection capacity

are developed for Ultimate/Plastic Performance level.

For the FE simulations, a regular column/beam subject to blast load or any explosion

is considered. The validity of a probabilistic model is only within the range of the data used

for the model, which are presented in Table 4.1 Table 4.4. Therefore, an appropriate

probabilistic model requires representative data that cover the entire range of the input

variables. Also there should be a sufficiently large amount of data to minimize the statistical

uncertainty. Therefore, a large number of full-scale experiments would be needed to generate

the required data. However, the number of full-scale experiments on RC column subject to

different blast loading scenarios is currently limited. The ranges of the geometric and material

properties for RC columns are obtained using a number of sources such as Padgett et al.,

(2008), AASHTO-LRFD (2007) and common design practice. This has been done to ensure

that the ranges of the properties of both new and existing RC Columns/RC Beams are

covered in the experimental design. The ranges of blast charge (Q) and its stand-off distance

(R) used in this research are confined to a level of protection required to prevent a building

from collapsing or minimize injuries and deaths. However, this research aims to contribute a

Blast Analysis 37

low to medium level blast protection and so, a blast threat level from a bomb or any explosive

which can be carried by luggage, automobile and van (FEMA 428) are accounted.

The experimental design is split into design of column/beam and design of load cases.

The experimental design considers 50 RC columns and 50 RC beams subject to various blast

pressures by varying the blast charge and its stand-off distance. The load cases are separately

designed to create cases of all combinations during a Blast detonation. In case the

experimental design considered the column variables and load cases together, there could

have been cases when some columns do not experience the blast events to impractical

scenarios. This is avoided by splitting the experimental design into basic and dependent

variables and then performing a realistic combination of the RC column parameters as well as

blast loading parameters.

In the design of experiments for estimating statistical models, optimal designs allow

parameters to be estimated without bias and with minimum-variance. A non-optimal design

requires a greater number of experimental runs to estimate the parameters with the same

precision as an optimal design. In practical terms, optimal experiments can reduce the costs

of experimentation

The D-optimal point selection scheme (Myers et. al., 1995) is used for the selection of

the best set of cases from a given range. The D-optimal scheme is chosen because it has the

flexibility of allowing any number of designs to be placed appropriately in a design space

with an irregular boundary. The D-optimal scheme is also the recommended point selection

scheme for polynomial response surfaces (Livermore Software Technology Corporation

2006). Overall 50 cases of Columns and 50 cases of beams are simulated to access the

probabilistic deflection capacity under blast loading at ultimate performance level. Table 4.1

and Table 4.3 show the range of basic variables considered in this research; and Table 4.2 and

Table 4.4 show the range of dependent variables. FE models of the 50 combinations of RC

columns and RC beams with the blast loading scenarios are made in the next section.

Blast Analysis 38

Column Breadth (m) b 0.230.77

Longitudinal reinforcement ratio (%) l 15

Volumetric transverse reinforcement ratio (%) s 0.52.8

Compressive strength of concrete (MPa) f 'c 2055

Yield strength of longitudinal and transverse

f y , f yh 250550

reinforcement (MPa)

Boundary condition at top of the column BT Pinned (Simply Supported)

Boundary condition at bottom of the column BB Fixed

Blast Charge (kg-TNT) Q 10.00500.00

Stand-off distance (m) R 1.0012.00

dl

(mm)

Diameter of transverse bar (mm) ds 9.525, 12.7, 15.875, 19.05, 22.225, 25.4

2

l

2

Spacing of Transverse Bar s (100 d 2 ( B+ D ) )/(BD s)

4 l

Clear cover (mm) c ( 0.050.1 ) D

Blast Analysis 39

f y , f yh 250550

reinforcement (MPa)

dl 25.4, 28.575, 31.75, 34.925, 44.45, 57.15

(mm)

Diameter of transverse bar (mm) ds 9.525, 12.7, 15.875, 19.05, 22.225, 25.4

l BD /100 ( 4 d )

2

l

2

Spacing of Transverse Bar s (100 d 2 ( B+ D ) )/(BD s)

4 l

Blast Analysis 40

Blast Analysis 41

A detailed Finite Element (FE) model of the RC columns and RC beams are made

using HyperMesh (Altair) and the commercial FE program LS-DYNA (Altair 2003, LSTC

2006) are used for the FE analysis. An ALE formulation is used to simulate RC column/beam

subject to various blast loading scenarios depending on the strength of the explosive and

standoff distance.

A three dimensional solid model is used for modeling the RC column/beam subject to

blast loading. The RC column/beam is modeled by a fully integrated quadratic eight node

element with nodal rotations. A rate dependent material model is used for all the materials

due to the sensitivity of material properties. Concrete is modeled as 3D-solid elements with

the formulation of continuous surface cap model (CSCM) available in the software LS-

DYNA. This is a cap model with a smooth intersection between the shear yield surface and

hardening cap; and this model contributes for erosion in concrete and also takes into account

the strain rate dependency of the concrete strength. The reinforcement bars are modeled

explicitly as one dimensional element with the formulation of an elasto-plastic material as it

accounts for strain rate dependency and also failure based on plastic strain. The contact

between the concrete and reinforcement is modeled using the Lagrangian coupling method.

This method provides the coupling mechanism for steel and concrete interaction by allowing

the coupling between edges of each part and saves the effort of matching the nodes of the

reinforcement and the concrete which might be very difficult in some cases. Mesh refinement

is done and a convergence is achieved at 25 mm mesh size and minimization of the hourglass

energy is ensured.

The end restraints selected for these FE simulations of columns are those of a

propped-cantilever. These boundary conditions are a fixed condition at bottom of the column

and a pinned condition (simply supported) at top of the column. Here, the pinned condition at

top of the column models the superstructure, which is assumed to be axially stiff along its

primary axis, though capable of allowing rotations to occur because of its limited flexural

rigidity. The fixed condition at the base of the column models the column foundation. It is

assumed that the axial loads experienced by the any column in its service typically do not

Blast Analysis 42

exceed the balance point of the column, and any applied axial load only improves the shear

and flexural capacity of the members. Thus, simulating the columns as propped-cantilevers

with no applied axial load is expected to be conservative.The end restraints selected for these

FE simulations of beams are those of a fixed boundary conditioned, where both left and right

sides of the beam are restricted from any sort of translations and rotations.

A spherical-free air burst at the mid height of the column/beam is simulated with

variation of blast charge (Q) and its stand-off distance (R) as obtained from the experimental

design done in the previous section. To overcome the current limitations of conventional

approach in blast load simulations, an approach similar to Slavik (2009) and Agrawal et al.

(2008) is adopted. In this approach, an Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian (ALE) formulation is

used. A single element layer of ambient formulation makes up the exterior surface of the air

domain which faces the blast. Its function is to receive information from the blast loading as

provided by ConWep formulation (LSTC, 2006), which is then converted to thermodynamic

state data and subsequently applied as a source to adjoining ALE air elements. The air mesh

interacts with Lagrangian structural elements to apply the load on the elements. Figure 4.1

shows a schematic view of blast loading on FE model of RC Column/Beam.

Blast Analysis 43

4.4.4. ASSESSMENT

ultimate limit state (i.e. just at the onset of collapse), as defined in the previous section

(Sharma et al. 2012). For the Ultimate performance level, the values are recorded as equality

data if the RC column/beam reaches the prescribed damage. The values are referred as lower

bound datum if the RC column/beam does not meet the specifications that are mentioned

above. The FE model takes into account the strain rate effect, the multi modal response and

the interaction of the RC column/beam with the varying pressure field during the blast

loading.

The following sections illustrate the numerical capacity assessment for RC column

and RC beam subject to blast loading. Figure 4.2 shows an example FE model of RC Column

at different stages of evolution of blast loading.

Blast Analysis 44

For obtaining the deflection capacity at desired performance level, time at first crack

(tc) and time at ultimate capacity (tu) are to be known to find crack deflection and ultimate

deflection. Time at first crack is the time at which plots of internal energy and total internal

energy gets separated. The time at which the internal energy reaches its peak, is the time (t u)

that accounts for ultimate capacity. As the current research interest is for ultimate limit state,

time corresponding to peak of internal energy plot (t u) is noted and for that tu corresponding

value of displacement can be obtained, i.e., its ultimate deflection capacity.

Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4 shows the variation of Energy and Deflection with time, at

mid height of the RC column (example).

Blast Analysis 45

Blast Analysis 46

Figure 4.5 shows the comparison between analytical deflection capacity and Numerical

deflection capacity of RC Columns subject to Blast loading.

Numerical Deflection Assessment of RC Beam

For obtaining the deflection capacity at desired performance level, time at first crack

(tc) and time at ultimate capacity (tu) are to be known to find crack deflection and ultimate

deflection. Time at first crack is the time at which plots of internal energy and total internal

energy gets separated. The time at which the internal energy reaches its peak, is the time (t u)

that accounts for ultimate capacity. As the current research interest is for ultimate limit state,

time corresponding to peak of internal energy plot (t u) is noted and for that tu corresponding

value of displacement can be obtained, i.e., its ultimate deflection capacity.

Blast Analysis 47

Figure 4.6 and Figure 4.7 shows the variation of Energy and Deflection with time, at

mid height of the RC beam (example).

Blast Analysis 48

Figure 4.8 shows the comparison between analytical deflection capacity and

Numerical deflection capacity of RC Columns subject to Blast loading.

CHAPTER 5. PROBABILISTIC

CAPACITY MODEL AND VALIDATION

Probabilistic models are formulated in this research for estimating the capacity of RC

members like beam and column. The probabilistic models account for the uncertainty in

material modeling, mathematical approximation in the behavior of RC column, boundary

condition, strain rate, and other aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty. The probabilistic models

developed in this research is for ultimate/plastic limit state. The ultimate limit state is defined

as the stage after which the incipient collapse of the RC member will occur marked by the

loss of axial load capacity, and longitudinal bar fracture (Sharma et al., 2012). The

displacement is chosen as the physical quantities for which the probabilistic models are

developed, as displacement is a directly measurable quantity. It can also be used to estimate

Blast Analysis 49

models of structural components has been proposed by Gardoni et al., (2002), which is

followed in this research. In order to develop the models, a set of experimental or simulated

data is required. In absence of the significant amount of experimental results, FE simulation

is used to generate the data. This has been done by the Design of Experiments (DOE). The

data is then used to calibrate probabilistic model.

Using the results in FE simulations, the probabilistic models are developed for

estimating the probabilistic deflection capacity of a RC column and RC beam subject to blast

loading under ultimate performance level. The calculated 50 values of the ultimate deflection

from the FE models are used to formulate the probabilistic models for RC column and RC

beam. The estimated probabilistic capacity models takes into account the multi-modal

response of the structure, the interaction among the different components and the inherent

uncertainty associated with the modeling, configuration and material properties of the

concrete structure. The equality data as well as lower bound data are used to construct the

probabilistic models.

models. Because the data used for the model assessment come from FE simulations, it is

assumed that there is no measurement error in the data. The following equation shows the

model form where a transformation of the quantity of interest is written as the sum of (in

order from left to right) a mechanical model, a correction term to account for the bias in the

mechanical model, and model error (Gardoni et al., 2002). Following the general formulation

for probabilistic models, the deflection capacity for ultimate limit state, is formulated as

ln [ Pi ( x , P ) ]=ln [ pi ( x ) ]+ P ( x , P ) + P e P

i i i i i

i i

= correction

term for the bias inherent in the mechanical model defined as

n

( x , P ) = P , j h P (x )

i i i, j

j=1

i, j

i

Blast Analysis 50

P e P = model error,

i i

e P =Gaussian error and

i

P = P = set of unknowns model

i i

i i i

Blast Analysis 51

Using the results in FE simulations of 50 Columns, this section develops probabilistic

models for predicting the deflection capacity.

For a RC column under ultimate performance level, analytical model for deflection

developed by Newmark is used in this research (Brooks et al., 1953).

Xm td

XE

1+ ( )( 12 13 )

ru

is explained as the ratio of yield strength to average applied load, =

P

using the following relation:

ru

X E=

KE

kept 1; as capacity is independent of applied load. Hence, the Newmark equation can be

reduced to:

Xm td

XE

1+ ( )

6

The model correction terms are used to capture the physical phenomena that are not

accounted for in the mechanical model. The first explanatory function, h 1 accounts for the

contribution of neutral axis (NA) depth and limiting NA depth ( x x ) . The second

limit

explanatory function, h2 accounts for the contribution of the longitudinal reinforcement ratio

( bDA ) . The third explanatory function, h accounts for the contribution of the slenderness

s

3

Blast Analysis 52

ratio ( Hr ) ; where r is the radius of gyration. The fourth explanatory function, h 4 accounts

for the contribution of the cross section ( Db ) . The fifth explanatory function, h5 accounts

td

for the contribution of positive blast duration and natural period of structure ( ) TN

. The

sixth explanatory function, h6 account for the contribution of dynamic increase factors of

DI F steel

steel and concrete ( DI F concrete ) .

A step-wise deletion process is used to arrive at the posterior statistics for the capacity

model. The deletion process is stopped when the standard deviation of the model increases.

The following parameters correct for, the contribution of neutral axis (NA) depth and limiting

NA depth (1), the contribution of the longitudinal reinforcement ratio ( 2), the contribution

of the slenderness ratio (3), the contribution of the cross section ( 4), the contribution of

positive blast duration and natural period of structure ( 5), the contribution of dynamic

increase factors of steel and concrete ( 6) respectively. Table 5.1 shows the posterior statistics

of model parameters in estimating Probabilistic Deflection.

Parameter Mean

deviation 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 0.601 0.593 1.00

2 -23.134 7.363 0.60 1.00

3 -0.970 0.568 0.11 0.16 1.00

4 2.646 0.706 -0.01 -0.01 -0.34 1.00

5 -1.462 0.386 -0.08 0.00 -0.77 0.10 1.00

6 1.987 1.737 -0.51 0.22 -0.07 0.02 0.21 1.00

Blast Analysis 53

of a RC column subject to blast loading, under ultimate performance level.

1 2 3 4 5 6 X

i.e.,

x lim

x

A t DIF steel

( )

0.601 ( 23.134 s 0.97

bD

H

r

2.646

D

b

( ) 1.462 d 1.987

Tn ( )

DIF concrete ( )

+ X e X ]

( )

X p =x me

Figure 5.1 shows the comparison between FE obtained results and predicted values of

Probabilistic deflection capacity model. The median value is plotted for the probabilistic

model.

Blast Analysis 54

In this section, the proposed model will be validated with analytical and numerical

results. For this purpose, an example RC Column is considered as illustrated below.

Figure 5.2 shows the cross-sectional view of an example RC Column.

Breadth (b) = 670 mm

Depth (D) = 700 mm

Cover = 70 mm

Compressive strength of Concrete (fc) = 20 N/mm2

Yield strength of Steel (fy) = 250 N/mm2

The values of Mn and Mp are calculated using iteration process; and the values are

obtained as:

Support Moment, M n = 1583281311.28 Nmm

Span Moment, M p = 1583281311.28 Nmm

160 E I

Equivalent elastic stiffness, KE= = 37.23 N/mm2

L4

ru

Equivalent elastic deflection, X E= = 16.87

KE

X m X E 1+

td

6

= 30.19 mm

Blast Analysis 55

Procedure for determining the Numerical deflection is explained in the section 4.4.4.

Figure 4.3 and figure 4.4 are the FE results of the above considered example. From those

plots the maximum numerical deflection is obtained as 44.50 mm

From the proposed model, the probabilistic deflection capacity is obtained as 39.39

mm.

On a summary,

From the above summary, the probabilistic deflection matched well with the

numerical deflection and this indicates that the proposed model predicted well. Also, figure

5.1 shows that the proposed model is capable of predicting the displacement value with a

greater accuracy as all the equality data lies within the one standard error ( X ) bin as

shown by the dotted lines. The lower bound data are above the 1:1 equality line.

Blast Analysis 56

Using the results in FE simulations of 50 Beams, this section develops probabilistic

models for predicting the deflection capacity.

For a RC beam under ultimate performance level, analytical model for deflection

developed by Newmark is used in this research (Brooks et al., 1953).

Xm td

XE

1+ ( )( 12 13 )

ru

is explained as the ratio of yield strength to average applied load, =

P

using the following relation:

ru

X E=

KE

kept 1; as capacity is independent of applied load. Hence, the Newmark equation can be

reduced to:

Xm td

XE

1+ ( )

6

The model correction terms are used to capture the physical phenomena that are not

accounted for in the mechanical model. The first explanatory function, h 1 accounts for the

contribution of neutral axis (NA) depth and limiting NA depth ( x x ) . The second

limit

explanatory function, h2 accounts for the contribution of the longitudinal reinforcement ratio

( bDA ) . The third explanatory function, h accounts for the contribution of the slenderness

s

3

Blast Analysis 57

ratio ( Hr ) ; where r is the radius of gyration. The fourth explanatory function, h 4 accounts

for the contribution of the cross section ( Db ) . The fifth explanatory function, h5 accounts

td

for the contribution of positive blast duration and natural period of structure ( )

TN

. The

sixth explanatory function, h6 account for the contribution of dynamic increase factors of

DI F steel

steel and concrete ( DI F concrete ) .

A step-wise deletion process is used to arrive at the posterior statistics for the capacity

model. The deletion process is stopped when the standard deviation of the model increases.

The following parameters correct for, the contribution of neutral axis (NA) depth and limiting

NA depth (1), the contribution of the longitudinal reinforcement ratio ( 2), the contribution

of the slenderness ratio (3), the contribution of the cross section ( 4), the contribution of

positive blast duration and natural period of structure ( 5), the contribution of dynamic

increase factors of steel and concrete ( 6) respectively. Table 5.2 shows the posterior statistics

of model parameters in estimating Probabilistic Deflection.

Parameter Mean

deviation 2 3 4 5 6

2 -25.758 8.837 1.00

3 -0.548 0.685 -0.36 1.00

4 1.624 1.477 0.00 0.06 1.00

5 -0.679 0.987 0.54 -0.68 0.12 1.00

6 1.719 1.938 0.20 -0.01 0.01 0.30 1.00

of a RC column subject to blast loading, under ultimate performance level.

Blast Analysis 58

2 3 4 5 6 X

i.e.,

X =x e

p

[m

25.758 ( bDA )0.548( Hr )+1.624 ( Db )0.679 ( Tt )1.719( DIFDIF )+ e ]

s d

n

steel

concrete

X X

Figure 5.3 shows the comparison between FE obtained results and predicted values of

Probabilistic deflection capacity model. The median value is plotted for the probabilistic

model.

In this section, the proposed model will be validated with analytical and numerical

results. For this purpose, an example RC Column is considered as illustrated below.

Blast Analysis 59

Breadth (b) = 410 mm

Depth (D) = 710 mm

Cover = 70 mm

Compressive strength of Concrete (fc) = 32 N/mm2

Yield strength of Steel (fy) = 440 N/mm2

The values of Mn and Mp are calculated using iteration process; and the values are

obtained as:

Support Moment, M n = 507363446.3 Nmm

Span Moment, M p = 393469470.23 Nmm

307 E I

Equivalent elastic stiffness, K E= 4 = 1.94 N/mm2

L

ru

Equivalent elastic deflection, X E= = 30.77 mm

KE

X m X E 1+

td

6

= 31.46 mm

Procedure for determining the Numerical deflection is explained in the section 4.4.4.

Figure 4.6 and figure 4.7 are the FE results of the above considered example. From those

plots the maximum numerical deflection is obtained as 52 mm

Blast Analysis 60

From the proposed model, the probabilistic deflection capacity is obtained as 50.13

mm.

On a summary,

From the above summary, the probabilistic deflection matched well with the

numerical displacement and this indicates that the proposed model predicted well. Also,

figure 5.3 shows that the proposed model is capable of predicting the displacement value with

a greater accuracy as all the equality data lies within the one standard error ( X ) bin as

shown by the dotted lines. The lower bound data are above the 1:1 equality line.

CHAPTER 6. CONCLUDING

REMARKS

Several methods are in practice to predict the response of structure when subjected to

blast load, like equivalent SDOF analysis and FE simulations. In this research, probabilistic

capacity models are developed for RC members such as columns and beams that are subject

to blast loading. The models developed are valid only for prescribed boundary conditions

under ultimate limit state performance level. These models captures the following realistic

aspects which are not accounted in the present blast codes.

Interaction among the different components and inherent uncertainty associated with

the modeling, configuration and material properties of the concrete structure.

6.2. CONCLUSIONS

In this research, it is observed that predicting the actual response or realistic capacity

of structural elements is very important for the safety and economy concern. Therefore, this

research aimed to develop capacity model considering all the statistical uncertainties for

Blast Analysis 61

predicting the actual response. The developed probabilistic capacity model is realistic, easy to

use and also comforts in avoiding tedious FE simulations or experiments.

From this laid foundation, in future the work can be focused on improvising the

current proposed model for higher accuracies by increasing the number of data sets. In this

research, probabilistic capacity models are developed only for predicting the deflection, so it

is suggested to focus further in developing models for the internal strain energy, which will

be helpful for energy based design. As these models are valid only for prescribed boundary

conditions, it is suggested to expand this work further for other boundary conditions that are

in current practice. The models developed in this research account for ultimate limit state

performance level only, so developing the models for different performance levels such as

crack limit state, post blast scenario etc., is recommended. Thus a performance based capacity

model of RC members can be developed; which leads to further improvement of current blast

codal provisions.

REFERENCES

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 2007, Loading and General information.

Agrawal, A. K. and Yi, Z. (2008), High Precision Analysis of Blast Events on Highway

Bridges, University Transportation Research Center, CCNY, New York, NY 10031.

Altair Computing (2003). HyperMesh Ver. 6.0 Basic Tutorial, Altair Engineering Inc., 1820

E. Big Beaver, Troy, MI 48083.

Baker, W. E. (1973), Explosions in Air. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas.

Baker, W. E., Cox, P. A., Westine, P. S., Kulesz J. J. and Strehlow, R. A. (1983), Explosion

Hazards and Evaluation. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Bangash, M. Y. H., and Bangash, T. (2006), Explosion-resistant buildings: Design, Analysis

and Case Studies, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, New York.

Beshara, F. B. A. (1994), Modelling of Blast Loading on Aboveground Structures-I. General

Phenomology and External Blast, Computers and Structures, Vo. 51. No. 5, pp. 585-

596.

Brooks, N. B. and Newmark, N. M. (1953), The Response of Simple Structures to Dynamic

Loads, Technical Report, Office of Naval Research.

Biggs, J. M. (1964), Introduction to Structural Dynamics, McGraw-Hill, New York.Brode,

H. L. (1955), Numerical Solutions of Spherical Blast Waves, Journal of Applied

Physics, 26(6), 766 75.

Bischoff, P. and Perry, S. (1991), "Compressive Behaviour of Concrete at High Strain Rates."

Materials and Structures 24(6): 425-450.

Blast Analysis 62

to Blast, Journal of Performance of Construction Facilities, ASCE.

Dharaneepathy, M. V., Rao, M. N. K. and Santhakumar, A. R. (1995), Critical Distance for

Blast-Resistant Design, Computers & Structures, Vol. 54.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 428, Primer to Design Safe School

Projects in Case of Terrorist Attacks

Goel, M. D., Matsagar, V. A., Gupta, A. K. and Marburg, S. (2012), An Abridged Review of

Blast Wave Parameters, Defence Science Journal, Vol. 62, No. 5.

Held, M. (1983), Blast Waves in Free Air, Propellants Explosives Pyrotechnics, 8(1), 1 8.

Henrych, J. (1979), The Dynamics of Explosion and its use, Elsevier, Amsterdam.

IABSE, 1998, Eurocode 1: Basis of design and actions on structures Part 2-7: Actions on

structures accidental actions due to impact of explosions. Brussels, CEN (IABSE

Report 78).

IS 456-2000, Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced Concrete - Code of Practice (Fourth

Revision), Bureau of Indian Standards.

IS 4991-1968, Criteria for blast-resistant design of structure for explosions above ground,

Bureau of Indian Standards.

Izadifard, R. A. and Foroutan, M. (2010), Blast Wave Parameters Assessment at Different

Altitude using Numerical Simulation, Turkish J. Eng. Env. Sci. 34, Tubitak.

Kinney, G. F. and Grahm, K. J. (1985), Explosive Shocks in Air, 2 nd Edition, Springer-

Verlag, New York Inc.

Krauthammer, T. (1998), Blast Mitigation Technologies: Developments and Numerical

Considerations for Behavior Assessment and Design, Structures under Shock and

Impact.

Livermore Software Technology Corporation (2006), LS-OPT User's Manual, Version 3.2,

Livermore, CA.

Luccioni, B. M., Ambrosini, R. D. and Danesi, R. F. (2003), Analysis of Building Collapse

under Blast Loads, Engineering Structures.

Marlvar, L.J. (1998), Review of static and dynamic properties of steel reinforcing bars, ACI

Materials Journal, 95(5): 609-616.

Magnusson, J. (2007), Structural Concrete Elements Subjected to Air Blast Loadings,

Licentiate Thesis, TRITA-BKN.

Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N. and Park, R. (1988), Theoretical Stress-Strain Model for

Confined Concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE.

Marchand, K. A. and Alfawakhiri, F. (2005), Facts for Steel Buildings: Blast and Progressive

Collapse, USA: American Institute of Steel Construction.

Blast Analysis 63

Mario Paz (2004), Structural Dynamics Theory and Computation, 5 th edition, Kluwer

Academic Publishers, London.

Myers, R. H., & Montgomery, D. C. (1995). Response Surface Methodology. Process and

Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments, Wiley, New York, USA.

Ngo, T., Mendis, P., Gupta, A. and Ramsay, J. (2007), Blast Loading and Blast Effects on

Structures An Overview, EJSE Special Issue: Loading on Structures.

Newmark, N. M. (1963), Design of Structures for Dynamic Loads Including the Effects of

Vibration and Ground Shock. In Symposium on Scientific Problems of Protective

Construction, pp. 148-248. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich.

Padgett, J. E., Nielson, B. G. and DesRoches, R. (2008), Selection of optimal intensity

measures in probabilistic seismic demand models of highway bridge portfolios,

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 37(5), pp: 711-725.

Sadovskiy, M. A. (2004), Mechanical Effects of Air Shock Waves from Explosions

according to Experiments (1952), in: Sadovskiy, M. A. selected works: Geophysics and

Physics of Explosion, Nauka Press, Moscow.

Sharma, H., Hurlebaus, S. and Gardoni, P. (2012). Performance-based Response Evaluation

of RC Columns Subjected to Vehicle Impact, International Journal of Impact

Engineering, 43, 52-62.

Slavik, T. (2009), A Coupling of Empirical Explosive Blast loads to ALE Air Domains in

LS-DYNA, 7th European LS-DYNA Conferences Salzburg Austria.

Tai, Y.S., Chu, T.L., Hu, H.T. and Wu, J.Y. (2011), Dynamic Response of a Reinforced

Concrete Slab Subjected to Air Blast Load, Theoretical and Applied Fracture

Mechanics.

TM 5-1300 (1990). "Structures to Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions", Departments

of the Army, The Navy and The Air Force.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2008, Users guide for the Single-Degree-of-Freedom Blast

Effects Design Spreadsheets (SBEDS), Report PDC TR-06-02 Rev 1.Luccioni, B.M.,

Ambrosini, R.D. and Danesi, R.F. (2003), Analysis of Building Collapse under Blast

Loads, Engineering Structures, Volume 26, Issue 1.

UFC 3-340-02 (2008), Structures to Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions,

Departments of The Army, The Navy and The Air force.

Winget, D. G., Marchand, K. A. and Williamson, E. B. (2005), Analysis and Design of

Critical Bridges Subjected to Blast Loads, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE.

Yaramada, V. K. R. (2010), Numerical Response of Steel Reinforced Concrete Slab

Subjected to Blast and Pressure Loadings in LSDYNA, M.S, University of Missouri

Kansas City.

- Strength of Materials - Wikipedia, The Free EncyclopediaUploaded byjoe smoe
- Steel StructuresUploaded byAwais Safder Malik
- Seismic Effect on BridgesUploaded byeliasjamhour
- ASME III Design by Analysis - 2006Uploaded byTimothy Hull
- perform3dUploaded byMatriks Huwae
- lab4Uploaded bystillyslalom
- Punching of Concrete Slabs Without Shear Reinforcement_GuandaliniUploaded byAnonymous YAHRBwSYn
- Strenght of material explanationUploaded byMohamed Mostafa
- Investigating high strain rate effect on FRHSC of Steel and PolyetheleneUploaded byVance Kang
- Infograph BrochureUploaded byMarian Dragos
- drdpresentationgatjmfkfm2018-06-04-180613071447.pdfUploaded byDang Bao Tran
- MIL-STD-401B.PDFUploaded bytrotello
- Chapter 2Uploaded byFaizan Kedoo
- Backcalculation of Residual Tensile StrengthUploaded byMehdi Bakhshi
- 3_4point Bend Flexural AppNote Nov11Uploaded byطه اللوذعي
- Distribution of Damage in Plan of Dual Steel Frames.pdfUploaded byAbderrahmane Said
- Taucer2010 Article HollowBridge-pierPropertiesFor(1)Uploaded byGAyalaM
- 04 Material Prop 2 Allowable Stresses FS (1)Uploaded byMark Reyes
- 02_Eigelssr, E.MUploaded byVijay Vittal Kv
- Effect of Age on Concrete PropertiesUploaded byyasirkazmi856
- 2004-4052S1_12_MorrisUploaded byNoor hossain
- Tension_Test.pdfUploaded byarthoz
- Distribution of Forces in Weld GroupsUploaded byMarco Gomes
- 32666_fmUploaded bylotanna
- Concerning Concrete E-modulus. Tepfers RTU-paperUploaded byM Mirza Abdillah Pratama
- SMAT ConceptsUploaded byMarlo Aristorenas
- 28 - Forged Steel Cast Aluminum and Cast Iron in Safety Critical Automotive ComponentsUploaded byAndy
- CAE REPORT.docxUploaded bySahil Choudhury
- mw2000_825Uploaded byshailesh216
- Lecture-02 Introduction to Shearing, Bearing and Maximum StressesUploaded byHusnain Sikandar

- The Benefits of Attending Community College a Review of the EvidenceUploaded byChristopher Conzen
- Romeo and Juliet Sample ScriptUploaded bywamu885
- Canine Brucellosis Antibody Test Kit D-tec CbUploaded byEdson Riberio
- Father GoriotUploaded byDavid Potter
- final se business plan-1Uploaded byapi-300844791
- Plant BreedingUploaded byLatiftraders
- BAST Form ATS-F01 ReplacementUploaded byYunitarahmat Sutoyo
- Of Service to the Eastern PanhandleUploaded byCoolerAds
- The Concept of Transport Capacity in GeomorphologyUploaded bymarcopumas
- Manual Cos2010Uploaded byRyan Rawlings
- Robbins Fom9 Ppt02Uploaded byYamin Zou
- Class Work 1Uploaded bynycgirlee86
- Asprin, Robert - Myth 01 - Another Fine MythUploaded byalley_l
- Paper - Stator Life of a Positive Displacement Down-hole Drilling Motor - Por Majid s. Delpassand r&m Energy SystemsUploaded byJuan
- Annual Supervisory Plan1Uploaded byIsaiah Samuel De Gracia
- SIG en saludUploaded byMarvin Osli Kafaty
- socialservices 000Uploaded byapi-417822696
- Dsp Notes B.techUploaded byChristopher Garcia
- Imrad FormatUploaded byAlvin De Perio
- Revised Whitemanual 2013Uploaded byneelesh2k5
- A Critical Analysis of Krashen’s Monitor TheoryUploaded byEudora Priscilla
- Kelly Youth-At-RiskUploaded byBlythe Tom
- Textual Analysis BookletUploaded byAnjana Agnihotri
- Chapter 1Uploaded bypowerpointpresentations
- Bhutan Road Trip ItineraryUploaded byAyush53
- 2008 Consultation on Changes to the HGCRA 1996Uploaded bygmmmwj
- Introducing Nanotechnology to Mechanical AndUploaded byAzghar Ali
- Bill of Rights Pol Law 1 - Atty BukoUploaded byKD
- Jeffrey Tagaro CV Final Version DOC 2018Uploaded byJeffrey Tagaro
- Texto de inglésUploaded byEstefanía Belén