You are on page 1of 63

References 1

11
PROBABILISTIC CAPACITY MODEL FOR RC-MEMBERS
(COLUMNS & BEAMS) SUBJECT TO BLAST LOADING

M. Tech. Project Report

Submitted
By

Katchalla Bala Kishore


(Roll No: 134104016)

Under the Guidance of

Dr. Hrishikesh Sharma

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING


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.

Date: 19th June 2015


Dr. Hrishikesh Sharma
Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati
References 3
33

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The satisfaction and euphoria on the successful completion of


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.

Katchalla Bala Kishore

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

1.5. Scope of Work............................................................................................................3

1.6. Organisation of the Report.........................................................................................3

Chapter 2. State of Practice................................................................................................4


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

2.1.1. Blast Loading and its Behaviour........................................................................4

2.1.2. Blast Wave Scaling Law....................................................................................6

2.1.3. Types of Blast Loading......................................................................................7

2.1.4. Quantifying the Blast.........................................................................................7

2.1.5. Duration of Blast Loading.................................................................................9

2.1.6. Effect of Blast Loading......................................................................................9

2.2. Review on Analysis Techniques..............................................................................12

Chapter 3. Blast Analysis..................................................................................................14


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

3.2. Method of Analysis..................................................................................................14

3.2.1. Equivalent Static Load Method.......................................................................16

3.2.2. Equivalent Single Degree of Freedom (SDOF) method..................................17

3.2.3. Finite Element Approach.................................................................................24

Chapter 4. Numerical Capacity of RC Members Subject to Blast Loading................25


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

4.2. Experimental Design for FE Simulations................................................................25

4.3. D-OPtimal Point Selection Scheme.........................................................................26

4.4. Finite Element Simulations......................................................................................29


References 6
66
4.4.1. Structural Configuration and Material Models................................................29

4.4.2. Boundary Conditions.......................................................................................29

4.4.3. Blast Application..............................................................................................30

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

Chapter 5. Probabilistic Capacity Model and Validation..............................................36


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

5.2. Probabilistic Capacity Model of RC Column..........................................................38

5.2.1. Mechanical Model for Deflection Capacity.....................................................38

5.2.2. Model Correction.............................................................................................38

5.2.3. Paramter estimation.........................................................................................39

5.3. Model Validation of RC Column.............................................................................40

5.4. Probabilistic Capacity Model of RC Beam..............................................................42

5.4.1. Mechanical Model for Deflection Capacity.....................................................42

5.4.2. Model Correction.............................................................................................42

5.4.3. Paramter estimation.........................................................................................43

5.5. Model Validation of RC Beam.................................................................................44

Chapter 6. Concluding Remarks.....................................................................................46


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

The Hindu News, March 12, 1993)................................................................................1

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

Fig. 2.2 An idealized shock wave from an explosion.................................................................5

Fig. 2.3 A Simplified shock wave assuming linearly decreasing pressure.................................6

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

Fig. 3.1 A Typical Dynamic Force...........................................................................................14

Fig. 3.2 Normalised Pressure Time duration of a blast wave................................................15

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

Fig. 3.4 Maximum Response of Elastic, SDOF for Triangular load........................................21

Fig. 3.5 Maximum Response of Elasto-Plastic, SDOF for Triangular load.............................23

Fig. 4.1 Schematic view of Blast Loading on FE model of RC Column/Beam.......................30

Fig. 4.2 FE model of RC Column at different stages of evolution of Blast Loading...............31

Fig. 4.3 Variation of Energy with Time for an example RC Column.......................................32

Fig. 4.4 Displacement at mid-height of an example RC Column............................................33

Fig. 4.5 Numerical Deflection vs Analytical Deflection capacity of RC Column...................33

Fig. 4.6 Variation of Energy with Time for an example RC Beam..........................................34

Fig. 4.7 Displacement at mid-height of an example RC Beam................................................35

Fig. 4.8 Numerical Deflection vs Analytical Deflection capacity of RC Beam.......................35

Fig. 5.1 Probabilistic Deflection vs Numerical Deflection capacity of RC Column...............40

Fig. 5.2 Cross-Section of example RC Column.......................................................................40

Fig. 5.3 Probabilistic Deflection vs Numerical Deflection capacity of RC Column...............44

Fig. 5.4 Cross-Section of example RC Beam...........................................................................44


References 8
88

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Dynamic Increase Factor (DIF) for design of RC Elements....................................11

Table 3.1 Transformation factors for One Way Elements........................................................19

Table 3.2 Unit Resistances for One Way Elements..................................................................19

Table 3.3 Stiffnesses for One Way Elements...........................................................................19

Table 4.1 Range of Basic Variables of Columns considered in this research..........................27

Table 4.2 Expression and Range of Derived Variables of Columns........................................27

Table 4.3 Range of Basic Variables of Beams considered in this research..............................28

Table 4.4 Expression and Range of Derived Variables of Beams............................................28

Table 5.1 Posterior Statistics of Model Parameters of RC Column.........................................39

Table 5.2 Posterior Statistics of Model Parameters of RC Beam.............................................43

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.

The number of occurrences of blast loading to the structures has increased


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.

1.2. MOTIVATION OF RESEARCH


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.

1.6. ORGANISATION OF THE REPORT


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.

CHAPTER 2. STATE OF PRACTICE

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.

To develop a probabilistic capacity model of RC members subject to blast loading, it


is necessary to understand the theoretical background and relevant analysis techniques. Those
are discussed in the following sections.

2.1. REVIEW ON THEORITICAL BACKGROUND


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).

As a consequence of detonation of an explosive charge, a compression wave called


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).

An explosion of ideal form has an overpressure phase (above the standard


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.

Fig. 2.3 An idealized shock wave from an explosion

where, ta is the arrival time of shock wave


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).

Fig. 2.4 A Simplified shock wave assuming linearly decreasing pressure

2.1.2. BLAST WAVE SCALING LAW

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)

Q is the explosive charge in equivalence of Tri-Nitro-toluene (kg-TNT).

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.

2.1.3. TYPES OF BLAST LOADING

An external blast wave can be categorized as an air blast or an underground blast


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).

2.1.4. QUANTIFYING THE BLAST

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

0.975 1.455 5.85


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

Newmark et al., (1961), introduced a relationship to calculate the maximum blast


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

Q Q 0.5
Pm = 6784 + 93 ( 3 ) (bar)
R3 R

Q is the Charge in tonne-TNT and R is the stand-off distance (m)

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:

0.085 0.3 0.8


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

Where X = log 10 Z and Pm is in kPa.

2.1.5. DURATION OF BLAST LOADING

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)

[ 0.02 ] [ 0.74 ] [ 6.9 ) ]


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:

td = Q1/3 (-64.86 Z4 + 52.32 Z3 - 15.68 Z2 + 1.794 Z + 0.1034) ; Z < 0.37

td = Q1/3 (4.64 Z2 3.86 Z + 0.854) ; 0.37 < Z < 0.82

td = Q1/3 (-2.7 X3 + 6.27 X2 + 0.358 X + 0.763) ; 0.82 < Z < 2.5

td = Q1/3 (0.608 X3 2.38 X2 + 5.62 X 0.22) ; Z > 2.5

Where X = log 10 Z and td is in millisecond.

2.1.6. EFFECT OF BLAST LOADING

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.

Effect of rate of loading on Strength enhancement

During an explosion or an impact event, structural materials experience very high


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)]

The rate of loading has a significant influence on the response of visco-plastic


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.

According to Marlvar (1998), DIF for steel is given as:


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.

According to Mander (1998), DIF for concrete is given as:


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.

Table 2.1 Dynamic Increase Factor (DIF) for design of RC Elements

Types of Stress Steel Concrete

Bending 1.17 1.19

Diagonal Tension 1.00 1.00

Direct Shear 1.10 1.10

Bond 1.17 1.00

Compression 1.10 1.12

2.2. REVIEW ON ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES


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).

Winget et al., (2005), developed performance-based blast design standards especially


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).

Tai et al., (2011), conducted a study on dynamic responses of an RC slab by


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

CHAPTER 3. BLAST ANALYSIS

3.1. INTRODUTION TO DYNAMIC LOADING


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.

Fig. 3.6 A Typical Dynamic Force


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.

Fig. 3.7 Normalised Pressure Time duration of a blast wave


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:

(a) The characteristics of the blast wave must be determined.

(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:

(a) Equivalent Static load method

(b) Equivalent Single Degree of Freedom (SDOF) method

(c) Finite Element approach

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.

3.2.1. EQUIVALENT STATIC LOAD METHOD

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

where k = structural stiffness and xe = elastic displacement.

External energy (E) can be expressed as:

k x 2e F2 I2
E= = =
2 2k 2m
References 26
2626
t1

Where I is Impulse and given by I = F ( t ) dt


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.

So, External energy can be expressed as:


2
I
E=R m x p=F x p =
2m

where xp = plastic displacement.

I2
Hence, F =
2mxp

3.2.2. EQUIVALENT SINGLE DEGREE OF FREEDOM (SDOF) METHOD

Analysing the dynamic response of a structure subject to blast-loading involves a


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.

A Single Degree of Freedom (SDOF) system is a mathematical model, where its


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

The equation of motion of an elastic SDOF system is given as:

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.

Transformation or equivalent factors can be calculated for different structures with


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

Load Mass Load-Mass


Loading Strain range Factor Factor Factor
KL KM KLM
Elastic 0.58 0.45 0.78

Elasto-Plastic 0.64 0.50 0.78

Plastic 0.50 0.33 0.66


Elastic 0.53 0.41 0.77

Elasto-Plastic 0.64 0.50 0.78

Plastic 0.50 0.33 0.66

Table 3.3 Unit Resistances for One Way Elements

Loading Elastic Resistance Ultimate Resistance

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

Table 3.4 Stiffnesses for One Way Elements

Elastic Elasto-Plastic Equivalent


Loading Stiffness Stiffness Elastic Stiffness
Ke Kep KE

185 EI 384 EI 160 E I


L4 5 L4 L4
References 30
3030

384 EI 384 EI
307 E I
L4 5 L4
L4

Where, MP is span moment and MN is support moment;

E is modulus of elasticity of Concrete;

I is Moment of Inertia;

1 4
I* (average cracked Moment of Inertia) = Ig+ Ic (Magnusson, 2007);
5 5

Ig is gross moment of inertia and

Ic is crack moment of inertia.

Elastic SDOF system

The modified equation of motion for equivalent SDOF system for a time ranging from
0 to the positive phase duration, td is given as:

m x + k x ( tt ) (0 < t < t : Forced Vibration state)


= Fm 1
d
d

m x + k x = 0. (t > td: Free Vibration state)

Where, m = equivalent lumped mass = KM * mass (m)

k = equivalent stiffness = KL * stiffness (k)

t = time of loading

The general solution of response in the elastic stage is:

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

plastic) when the peak load is applied statically.

xm = maximum dynamic deflection.

Fig. 3.4 shows the Maximum Response of Elastic, One-Degree-of-Freedom system


for Triangular Load [Source: UFC 3-340-02].
References 32
3232

Fig. 3.9 Maximum Response of Elastic, SDOF for Triangular load

Elasto-Plastic SDOF system

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

Therefore, the equivalent maximum elasto-plastic displacement (XE), can be


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

Fig. 3.10 Maximum Response of Elasto-Plastic, SDOF for Triangular load


Blast Analysis 35

3.2.3. FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH

The methods provided above demonstrates the significance of the characteristics of


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

CHAPTER 4. NUMERICAL CAPACITY


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.

4.2. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN FOR FE SIMULATIONS


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.

4.3. D-OPTIMAL POINT SELECTION SCHEME


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

Table 4.5 Range of Basic Variables of Columns considered in this research

Variable Symbol Range

Column Height (m) H 38

Column Depth (m) D 0.351.00


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

Table 4.6 Expression and Range of Derived Variables of Columns

Variable Symbol Expression/Range

Diameter of longitudinal bar 25.4, 28.575, 31.75, 34.925, 44.45, 57.15


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

Number of longitudinal bar nl l BD /100 ( 4 d )


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

Table 4.7 Range of Basic Variables of Beams considered in this research

Variable Symbol Expression/Range

Beam Length (m) L 315

Beam Depth (m) D 0.351.00

Beam Breadth (m) b 0.210.84

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 left of the beam BT Fixed

Boundary condition at right of the beam BB Fixed

Blast Charge (kg-TNT) Q 10.00500.00

Stand-off distance (m) R 1.0015.00

Table 4.8 Expression and Range of Derived Variables of Beams

Variable Symbol Expression/Range

Diameter of longitudinal bar


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

Number of longitudinal bars nl


l BD /100 ( 4 d )
2
l

(60% Tension + 40%Compression)

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 40
Blast Analysis 41

4.4. FINITE ELEMENT SIMULATIONS


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.

4.4.1. STRUCTURAL CONFIGURATION AND MATERIAL MODELS

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.

4.4.2. BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

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.

4.4.3. BLAST APPLICATION

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

Fig. 4.11 Schematic view of Blast Loading on FE model of RC Column/Beam

4.4.4. ASSESSMENT

To assess the capacity of the RC column/beam, the displacement is recorded at the


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

Fig. 4.12 FE model of RC Column at different stages of evolution of Blast Loading

Numerical Deflection Assessment of RC Column

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

Fig. 4.13 Variation of Energy with Time for an example RC Column

Fig. 4.14 Displacement at mid-height of an example RC Column


Blast Analysis 46

Figure 4.5 shows the comparison between analytical deflection capacity and Numerical
deflection capacity of RC Columns subject to Blast loading.

Fig. 4.15 Numerical Deflection vs Analytical Deflection capacity of RC Column


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).

Fig. 4.16 Variation of Energy with Time for an example RC Beam


Blast Analysis 48

Fig. 4.17 Displacement at mid-height of an example RC Beam


Figure 4.8 shows the comparison between analytical deflection capacity and
Numerical deflection capacity of RC Columns subject to Blast loading.

Fig. 4.18 Numerical Deflection vs Analytical Deflection capacity of RC Beam

CHAPTER 5. PROBABILISTIC
CAPACITY MODEL AND VALIDATION

5.1. PROBABILISTIC CAPACITY MODELS


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

the serviceability requirements. A general methodology to construct probabilistic capacity


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.

The probabilistic models are constructed by adding correction terms to mechanical


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

Where Pi = Probabilistic Capacity of RC Column/Beam for i = Deflection; pi

= Mechanical Capacity of RC Column/Beam for i=Deflection; P ( x , P )


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

Where h P ( x) , j = 1,,n = explanatory function (or regressors) defined as


i, j

functions of x, P , j , j=1,,n are the parameters associated with explanatory functions,


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

parameters in which P =( P , 1 ,K, P , k ).


i i i
Blast Analysis 51

5.2. PROBABILISTIC CAPACITY MODEL OF RC COLUMN


Using the results in FE simulations of 50 Columns, this section develops probabilistic
models for predicting the deflection capacity.

5.2.1. MECHANICAL MODEL FOR 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

XE is the equivalent maximum elasto-plastic deflection and can be calculated


using the following relation:

ru
X E=
KE

For calculating the maximum deflection ( X m from Newmark equation, is


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

Xm td
XE
1+ ( )
6

5.2.2. MODEL CORRECTION

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 ) .

5.2.3. PARAMTER ESTIMATION

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.

Table 5.9 Posterior Statistics of Model Parameters of RC Column

Standard Correlation Coefficient


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

The following equation is proposed to estimate the Probabilistic Deflection ( X p )


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

X p =xme (0.601 h 23.134h 0.97 h + 2.646h 1.462 h +1.987 h + e X)


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

The standard deviation of this model is 0.29.

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.

Fig. 5.19 Probabilistic Deflection vs Numerical Deflection capacity of RC Column


Blast Analysis 54

5.3. MODEL VALIDATION OF RC COLUMN


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.

Fig. 5.20 Cross-Section of example RC Column

Height (H) = 5500 mm


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

Ultimate resistance, r u=4(M n +2 M p) /L2 = 628.08 N/mm


160 E I
Equivalent elastic stiffness, KE= = 37.23 N/mm2
L4
ru
Equivalent elastic deflection, X E= = 16.87
KE

Maximum analytical deflection, ( ( ))


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,

Analytical Deflection = 30.19 mm

Numerical Deflection = 44.50 mm

Probabilistic Deflection = 39.39 mm

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

5.4. PROBABILISTIC CAPACITY MODEL OF RC BEAM


Using the results in FE simulations of 50 Beams, this section develops probabilistic
models for predicting the deflection capacity.

5.4.1. MECHANICAL MODEL FOR 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

XE is the equivalent maximum elasto-plastic deflection and can be calculated


using the following relation:

ru
X E=
KE

For calculating the maximum deflection ( X m from Newmark equation, is


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

Xm td
XE
1+ ( )
6

5.4.2. MODEL CORRECTION

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 ) .

5.4.3. PARAMTER ESTIMATION

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.

Table 5.10 Posterior Statistics of Model Parameters of RC Beam

Standard Correlation Coefficient


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

The following equation is proposed to estimate the Probabilistic Deflection ( X p )


of a RC column subject to blast loading, under ultimate performance level.
Blast Analysis 58

X p =xme (25.758 h 0.548 h + 1.624h 0.679h +1.719h + e X)


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

The standard deviation of this model is 0.50.

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.

Fig. 5.21 Probabilistic Deflection vs Numerical Deflection capacity of RC Column

5.5. MODEL VALIDATION OF RC BEAM


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.


Blast Analysis 59

Fig. 5.22 Cross-Section of example RC Beam

Length (L) = 11000 mm


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

Ultimate resistance, r u=8(M n+ M p )/ L2 = 59.56 N/mm



307 E I
Equivalent elastic stiffness, K E= 4 = 1.94 N/mm2
L
ru
Equivalent elastic deflection, X E= = 30.77 mm
KE

Maximum analytical deflection, ( ( ))


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,

Analytical Deflection = 31.46 mm

Numerical Deflection = 52.00 mm

Probabilistic Deflection = 50.13 mm

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

6.1. SUMMARY OF THE REPORT


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.

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.

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

Byfield, M. P. (2006), Behavior and Design of Commercial Multistory Buildings Subjected


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.