Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 208

Blast/Explosion Resistant Analysis of Composite

Steel Girder Bridge System

By

Fang Zhou

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of

The College of Engineering and Computer Science

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Science

Florida Atlantic University

Boca Raton, Florida

August 2009
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor, Dr.M.Arockiasamy,

Professor of Civil Engineering, and Director of the Center of Infrastructure and

Constructed Facilities, Florida Atlantic University, for all his help in preparing this

thesis, for his excellent guidance, unique suggestions and advice, for his tireless

editing efforts.

I would like to thank Dr Yang Young and Dr. D.V.Reddy for serving on the

supervisory committee and going through my work, in spite of a busy schedule.

A special thanks is given to Dr. K. Sobhan, Dr. Fred Bloetscher, Department of

Civil Engineering, and Dr. Chi-Tay Tsai, Department of Mechanical Engineering,

Florida Atlantic University, for their valuable suggestions, encouragement, and

support. Thanks are extended to Dr. Pete Scarlatos, Professor and Chair

Department of Civil Engineering, Florida Atlantic University. Special thanks are

extended to Digna Mejia, Jessica Meith, and Sue Courtade for their supports.

I would like to thank my family especially my wife. I appreciate their support and

encouragement during my pursuit of a Master’s degree.

iii
ABSTRACT

Author: Fang Zhou

Title: Blast/Explosion Resistant Analysis of Composite Steel Girder


Bridge System

Institution: Florida Atlantic University

Thesis Advisor: Dr. M. Arockiasamy

Degree: Master of Science

Year: 2009

The design of bridge structures to resist explosive loads has become more of a

concern to the engineering community. This thesis proposes a method to

evaluate the effects of conventional blast loads on a two span continuous

composite steel girder bridge system. The bridge design is based on AASHTO

LRFD method. Resistance capacities of bridge deck and composite steel girder

are calculated according to AASHTO specifications. Equivalent blast pressures

on the bridge components are obtained. Response and performance of concrete

deck, steel girders, and supporting piers are evaluated under typical blast loads.

The blast induced force in the bridge components are computed in the static

analyses for varying amounts of TNT. The blast effects in the supporting pier are

determined using both static and dynamic analyses. Further research needs to

be done in the dynamic analysis of the bridge system subjected to blast loads.

iv
Blast/Explosion Resistant Analysis of Composite Steel Girder

Bridge System

LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………..…..…....ix

LIST OF FIGURES………...………………………………………………..….…..…xv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………...…..1

1.1 Background……………………………………………………..…………1

1.2 Objective………………………………………………………………..….1

1.3 Thesis Overview………………………………………………………..…3

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………..…………………4

2.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………..4

2.2 Blast/Explosion Waves…………………………………………………..4

2.3 Blast Load……………………………………………………………..…..5

2.4 Modeling of Blast Pressure………………………………………..…….7

2.5 Blast/Damage to Structures……………………………………………11

CHAPTER 3: COMPOSITE STEEL GIRDER BRIDGE: ANALYSIS AND

DESIGN…………………………...…...……………………….…..…22

3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………...….22

3.2 General Information…………………………………………………….22

3.3 Concrete Deck Design………………………………….………………26

3.4 Steel Girder Design……………………………………………………..38

v
CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF BLAST PRESSURES

IN THE BRIDGE DECK…………………………………….……..….67

4.1 Model Bridge Capacity…………………………….……………………67

4.1.1. Bridge Deck Moment Capacity………………………….……………67

4.1.2. Bridge Deck Shear Capacity…………………………………..……..69

4.1.3. Steel Girder Plastic Moment Capacity………………………………69

4.1.3.1 Compute Plastic Moment Capacity-Positive (Composite)..…...69

4.1.3.2 Negative Plastic Moment Capacity………………………………72

4.1.3.3 Positive and Negative Plastic Moment Capacities

(Non-Composite)………….…………………………………...…..79

4.1.4 Bridge Steel Girder Shear Capacity……………………………..….82

4.2 Typical Blast Load…………………………………………………...….82

4.3 Equivalent Blast Pressure……………………………………………...84

4.4 500lb TNT Blast Pressure on The Bridge……………………….….…89

4.5 Application of Blast Loads………………………………………………93

4.6 Analysis for Pressures on the Deck…………………….…..…………96

4.7 Bridge Modeling Using ANSYS Program…………………..………..101

4.8 Blast Load Cases………………………………………………...…….104

4.8.1 Load Case 1……………………………………………………….…105

4.8.2 Load Case 2……….……………….………………………………...106

4.8.3 Load Case 3…………………………………………………….……107

4.8.4 Load Case 4………………………………………………………….108

4.8.5 Load Case 5…………………………………………….……………108

vi
4.9 Blast Pressure Distribution on the Bridge Components………..….110

CHAPTER 5: RESPONSE AND PERFORMANCE OF COMPOSITE

STEEL GIRDER BRIDGE TO BLAST LOAD……………………..115

5.1 General Failure Modes of Bridge Structure Due To Blast Load….115

5.1.1 Global Response…………………………………………………….116

5.1.2 Local Response………………………………………….……….….118

5.2 Bridge Failure…………………………………….…………………….119

5.3 Moment and Shear Capacities of The Bridge……………………...120

5.4 Bridge Performance under Typical Blast Load……………………..122

5.4.1 Performance for Blast Load Case 1………………………..……..122

5.4.2 Performance for Blast Load Case 2………………………..……..132

5.4.3 Performance for Blast Load Case 3………………………..……..133

5.4.4 Performance for Blast Load Case 4………………………...……..139

5.4.5 Performance for Blast Load Case 1………………………...……..147

5.5 Blast Induced Forces in Bridge Components Due to

Varying Amount of TNT……………………………………………….153

5.6 Comparison of Static and Dynamic Analyses………………….…..165

5.6.1 Multi-degree-of-freedom System…………………………..………166

5.6.2 ANSYS Program Transient Dynamic Analysis………...…………167

5.7 Limitations of Analyses………………………………………………..179

CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS......181

6.1 Summary………………………………………………………..………181

6.2 Conclusions…………………………………………………………….182

vii
6.3 Recommendations for Future Research………………………..…..183

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………...…..184

viii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Peak reflected overpressures Pr (in MPa) with different W-R

combinations (T. Ngo, 2007)…………..………………………..………....9

Table 2.2 Damage Approximations (FEMA 428)…………………………………..21

Table 3.1 Load combination and load factors (Stable 3.41-1 & 3.41-2)…………24

Table 3.2 Resistance factors (S5.5.4.2 & S6.5.4.2)……………………………..…25

Table3.3 Multiple Presence factors (STable 3.6.1.1.2-1)………………………….25

Table 3.4 Dynamic Load Allowance (Stable 3.6.2.1-1)……………………..……..25

Table 3.5 Unfactored dead load moment (kip-ft / ft)………….………………..….27

Table 3.6 Equivalent primary width of strip…………………………………..……..30

Table 3.7 Unfactored live load moments (kip-ft)…………………………………...31

Table 3.8 Maximum live load moments per unit width. kip -ft/ft…………………..33

Table 3.9 Load factors: ( STable 3.4.1-1 &STable 3.4.1-2)………………………40

Table 3.10 Resistance factors……………………………………………………..…41

Table 3.11 Dynamic load allowance…………………………………………….…..41

Table 3.12 Positive moment region section properties………………………..…..44

Table 3.13 Negative moment region section properties…………………………..45

Table 3.14 Dead load components……………………………………………….….46

Table 3.15 Dead load moment…………………………………………………….....48

Table 3.16 Dead load shears (kips)…………………………………………..……..49

ix
Table 3-17 Longitudinal stiffness parameter…………………………….………….50

Table 3.18 Live load effects (Interior Beam)………………………………………..54

Table 3-19 Combined effects at location of maximum positive moment……..….57

Table 3-20 Combined effects at location of maximum negative moment……….58

Table 3-21 Combined effects at location of maximum shear………………..……59

Table 4.1 Vehicle bomb explosion effects --Federal Alcohol, Tobacco

and Firearms (ATF) Agency………..…………………………………….83

Table 4.2 Magnitude of threats (Recommendations for Bridge and Tunnel

Security -The Blue Ribbon Panel on Bridge and Tunnel Security)...…83

Table 4.3 Equivalent parameters for 500 lb of TNT explosion…………………....85

Table 4.4 Pressure and arrival time on the deck (Y = 0 ft)………………………..90

Table 4.5 Pressure and arrival time on the deck (Y = 5 ft)…………………….….90

Table 4.6 Pressure and arrival time on the deck (Y = 10 ft)………………………90

Table 4.7 Pressure and arrival time on the deck (Y = 15 ft)………………………91

Table 4.8 Pressure and arrival time on the deck (Y = 20 ft)……………………....91

Table 4.9 Pressure and arrival time on the deck (Y = 25 ft)………………...…….91

Table 4.10 Pressure and arrival time on the deck (Y = 30 ft)……………………..92

Table 4.11 Pressure and arrival time on the girder 1 and girder 5……………….92

Table 4.12 Pressure and arrival time on the girders 2 and 4……………………..93

Table 4.13 Pressure and arrival time on the girder 3……………………………...93

Table 4.14 Blast Load Cases……………………………………….………...…….104

Table 4.15 Peak blast pressure Pv and arrival time on the bridge

component ………………………………..………………………….…112

x
Table 5.1 Shear in the concrete bridge deck (Y=0, 15 ft) for blast load

case 1……..…………………………………………………………....…126

Table 5.2 Moment in the concrete bridge deck (Y=0 ft) for blast load

case 1……………………………………………………………………...126

Table 5.3 Moment in the concrete bridge deck (Y=15 ft) for blast load case 1..127

Table 5.4 Moment in the concrete bridge deck (Y=20 ft) for blast load case 1..127

Table 4.13 Blast pressures and arrival times on the girder 3…………………...128

Table 5.5 Moment in the steel girder 3 for blast load case 1……………………130

Table 5.6 Moment in the steel girders 1 and 5 for blast load case 1………..….131

Table 5.7 Moment in the steel bridge girder 3 for blast load case 2……………133

Table 5.8 Moment in the concrete bridge deck (Y=0 ft) for blast load case 3…135

Table 5.9 Shear in the concrete bridge deck (Y=0, 15 ft) for blast load

case 3…………………………………………………...…………………136

Table 5.10 Moment in the concrete bridge deck (Y=15 ft) for blast load

case 3…………………………………………………………………….136

Table 5.11 Moment in the steel bridge girder 1 and girder 2 for blast load

case 3……………………………………………………………….……137

Table 5.12 Moment in the steel bridge girders 1 and 2 for blast load case 3….138

Table 5.13 Moment in the steel bridge girder 4 for blast load case 3…………..139

Table 5.14 Pressure and arrival time on the deck (Y = 0 ft) for load case 4…..140

Table 5.15 Pressure and arrival time on the deck (Y = 15 ft) for load case 4…140

Table 5.16 Pressure and arrival time on the girder 3 (H = 10 ft) for load

case 4……………………………………………………………….……141

xi
Table 5.17 Pressure and arrival time on the girder 2 (H = 10 ft) for load

case 4………………………………………………………………….…142

Table 5.18 Shear in the concrete bridge deck (Y=0, 15 ft) for blast load

case 4…………………………………………………………………….143

Table 5.19 Moment in the concrete bridge deck (Y=0 ft) for blast load

case 4…………………………………………………………….………144

Table 5.20 Moment in the concrete bridge deck (Y=15 ft) for blast load

case 4………………………………………………………………….…145

Table 5.21 Moment in the steel bridge girder 3 for blast load case 4………..…146

Table 5.22 Moment in the steel bridge girders 2 and 4 for blast load case 4….146

Table 5.23 Moment and shear in the pier column for blast load case 5………..153

Table 5.24 3 lb TNT load case 1 blast peak pressure and arrival time

on the concrete bridge deck (Y= 0 ft)……..…………………………154

Table 5.25 Shear in the concrete bridge deck (Y=0 ft) for 3lb TNT

blast load case1………….……………………………………………..154

Table 5.26 Moment in the concrete bridge deck for 3lb TNT blast load

case …………….………………………………………………….……..155

Table 5.27 3lb TNT load case 1 blast peak pressures and arrival times

on the concrete bridge deck (Y= 5 ft)………………………………..156

Table 5.28 3lb TNT load case 1 blast peak pressure and arrival time

on the girder 3……………….……………………………………...…156

Table 5.29 Moment in the steel girder 3 for 3lb TNT blast load case 1…..……157

xii
Table 5.30 5lb TNT load case 3 blast peak pressure and arrival time

on the concrete bridge deck (Y= 0 ft)………………………..…..…..159

Table 5.31 5lb TNT blast peak pressure and arrival time on the concrete

bridge deck (Y= 5 ft)…… …………………………………………….159

Table 5.32 Shear in the concrete bridge deck (Y=0 and 5 ft) for 3lb

TNT blast load case 3……………..……………………………………159

Table 5.33 Moment in the concrete bridge deck for 5lb TNT blast load

case 3………………………………………………………………..…..160

Table 5.34 Moment in the concrete bridge deck (Y = 5 ft) for 5lb TNT load

case 3…………………………………………………………………....160

Table 5.35 Moment in the girders 1 and 2 for 5lb TNT blast load case 3……...161

Table 5.36 Pressure and arrival time on the deck (Y = 15 ft)……………………162

Table 5.37 Pressure and arrival time on the girder 3 (H = 10 ft)………………..163

Table 5.38 Moment in the bridge steel girder 3 for 100lb TNT blast load

case 4…………………………………………………………………….163

Table 5.39 125 lb TNT blast peak pressure and arrival time on the bridge

pier ………………….………………………………………………….…165

Table 5.40 Moment in the bridge pier column for 125 lb TNT blast load

case 5………………………………………………………………..…..165

Table 5.41 ANSYS Time (ms) history: Moment (MZ kip-ft) at location h = 0 .…171

Table 5.42 ANSYS Time (ms) history: Shear force (FX kips) at location

h = 0 ft…………………………………………………………………....172

xiii
Table 5.43 ANSYS Dynamic Analysis: Shear in the bridge pier column for

500 lb TNT blast load case 5………………………………..…………173

Table 5.44 ANSYS Dynamic Analysis: Shear in the bridge pier column for

500lb TNT blast load case 5………………….………………..………173

Table 5.45 ANSYS Time (ms) History: Moment (MZ kip-ft) at location h = 0 ft

………………………………………………………………………………………….175

Table 5.46 ANSYS Time (ms) History: Shear force (FX kips) at location

h = 0 ft…………...…………………………………………………….…176

Table 5.47 ANSYS Dynamic Analysis: Shear in the bridge pier column for

125 lb TNT blast load case 5……………………….…………………..177

Table 5.48 ANSYS Dynamic Analysis: Moment in the bridge pier column

for 125lb TNT blast load case 5……………………..…………..…….178

xiv
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Blast wave pressure-time history………………………………………....6

Figure 2.2 Blast pressure traces for at different times…………………………..…..6

Figure 2.3 Equivalent triangular pulse………………………………………….…..…7

Figure 2.4 Response Spectrum Solutions for Blast Loading

(Nelson Lam, Priyan Mendis, Tuan Ngo 2007)……….………...……..10

Figure 2.5 Blast loads on a building (FEMA 427)…………………………………..12

Figure 2.6 Roadway to Bay Bridge collapses after tanker explosion

(San Francisco)……………………………………………………………14

Figure 2.7 Oil-Tanker Burned on Interstate 95, March 2004……………..……….15

Figure 2.8 ATBlast software program output……………………………………….19

Figure 2.9 Incident overpressure measured in pounds per square inch,

as a function of stand-off distance and net explosive weight

(Pounds-TNT) (FEMA 428)…..…………………………………………..20

Figure 2.10 Distribution of blast pressure on building facade

(Mendis & Ngo, 2002)………………………………….……………..…21

Figure 3.1a Two-span continuous bridge…………………………………………...23

Figure 3.1b Cross section of composite steel bridge……………………………...23

Figure 3.2 Equivalent strips…………………………………………………………..29

Figure 3.3 Crack control for positive reinforcement under live loads………...…..34

xv
Figure 3.4 Reinforcing steel for negative bending in deck………………………...34

Figure 3.5 Crack control for negative reinforcement under live loads……………35

Figure 3.6 Deck overhang dimensions and live load……………………………....36

Figure 3.7 Superstructure positive and negative moment deck reinforcement…37

Figure 3.8 Framing plan……………………………………………………………....39

Figure 3.9 Plate girder elevation……………………………………………………..42

Figure 3.10 Lever Rule…………………………………………………………….….52

Figure 3.11 Envelope of Strength I moments……………………………………....60

Figure 3.12 Envelope of Strength I shears………………………………………….60

Figure 3.13 Location of maximum positive moment……………………………….61

Figure 3.14 Computation of plastic moment capacity for positive bending

sections……………………………………………………………….…..64

Figure 3.15 Final plate girder elevation…………………………………………….66

Figure 4.1 Girder cross section……………………………………………………....70

Figure 4.2 Girder cross section with steel reinforcements in the concrete

deck………………………………………………………………………...74

Figure 4.3 Girder cross section (non-composite)………………………………….79

Figure 4.4 Pressure vs. range curve (ATBlast)…………………………………….86

Figure 4.5 Explosion location above the bridge deck…………………………..….87

Figure 4.6 Blast pressure distribution on bridge deck (Plan)……………………..87

Figure 4.7 Blast pressure distribution on bridge deck (Elevation)………………..88

Figure 4.8 Blast pressure vertical components…………………………………….88

Figure 4.9 500 TNT explosion location above the bridge deck……………….….89

xvi
Figure 4.10 Standard pressure vs. time curve for an explosion at a point

(Robert, 2007)…………………...…………………………………….…94

Figure 4.11 Nonlinear decay of actual blast loading at different

(McClendon, 2007)………..…………………………………………….94

Figure 4.12 Linear decay of trial positive phase pressures

(McClendon, 2007)...……………………………………………..…….95

Figure 4.13 Impulse comparison (McClendon, 2007)……………………....……..95

Figure 4.14 Peak pressures decay on the bridge deck (Y= 0 ft)…………………97

Figure 4.15 Peak pressure and arrival time on the deck (Y=0 ft)………………...97

Figure 4.16 Pressure on the deck (Y= 0 ft, Time = 0.59 ms)……………………..97

Figure 4.17 Pressure on the deck (Y=0 ft, Time = 0.66 ms)………………………98

Figure 4.18 Pressure on the deck (Y=0 ft, Time = 0.1.094 ms)………………..…98

Figure 4.19 Pressure on the deck (Y=5 ft, Time = 0.769 ms)…………………….98

Figure 4.20 Pressure on the deck (Y=5 ft, Time = 0.902 ms)…………………….99

Figure 4.21 Pressure on the deck (Y=15 ft, Time = 2.105 ms). ………………….99

Figure 4.22 Pressure on the deck (Y=15 ft, Time = 2.575 ms)…………………...99

Figure 4.23 Pressure on the deck (Y=15 ft, Time = 3.135 ms)………………….100

Figure 4.24 Pressure on the deck (Y=30 ft, Time = 6.404 ms)……………….…100

Figure 4.25 Pressure on the deck (Y=30 ft, Time = 6.806ms)…………………..100

Figure 4.26 Pressure on the deck (Y=30 ft, Time = 7.606 ms)………………….101

Figure 4.27. Modeling of concrete bridge deck for analysis using ANSYS…….103

Figure 4.28 Modeling of bridge steel girder for analysis using ANSYS………...103

Figure 4.29 Uniformly distributed blast loads on the bridge……………………..105

xvii
Figure 4.30 Uniformly distributed blast loads on the bridge steel girder……….105

Figure 4.31 Load case 1…………………………………………………………….106

Figure 4.32 Load case 2…………………………………………………………….107

Figure 4.33 Load case 3…………………………………………………………….107

Figure 4.34 Load case 4……………………………………………….……………108

Figure 4.35 Load case 5………………………………………………………...…..109

Figure 4.36 Distribution of peak blast pressure (Pv) on bridge structural

component as a function of radial distance r, from the force

centroid on the component surface……………………………….….113

Figure 4.37 Peak blast pressure Pv vs duration time (td)…………………….…..114

Figure 4.38 Peak blast pressure Pv vs radial distance (r).……………………....114

Figure 5.1Global damage of reinforced concrete beam (NYSTRÖM, 2008)…..117

Figure 5.2 Schematic illustration of the relation between load and

response time for an impulsive load (Magnusson, 2007)…………...118

Figure 5.3 Local damage caused by close-in explosion (NYSTRÖM, 2008) …119

Figure 5.4 Breaching failures due to a close-in explosion of 6000 kg TNT

equivalent (Photograph by T.Nao)……………………………………..119

Figure 5.5 Load case 1 uniform distribution of blast loads on the bridge………124

Figure 5.6 Modeling of concrete composite bridge deck (Y=0 ft) for

load case 1 analysis using ANSYS……...………………………….…124

Figure 5.7 Deck shear (Y=0 ft)………………………………………………….…125

Figure 5.8 Deck shear (Y=15 ft) ……………………………………………….….125

xviii
Figure 5.9 Modeling of concrete bridge deck (Y=15 ft) for load case 1

analysis using ANSYS……………………………………………….....125

Figure 5.10 Moment in the concrete bridge deck (Y=0 ft) for blast load

case1…………………………………………………………………….128

Figure 5.11 Modeling of bridge steel girder 3 for load case 1 analysis

using ANSYS…………………………………………………………...129

Figure 5.12 Moment in the steel bridge girder 3 for blast load case 1…..…..…129

Figure 5.13 Moment in the steel bridge girders 1 and 5 for blast load case 1…132

Figure 5.14 Modeling of bridge steel girder 3 for load case 2 analysis

using ANSYS…………………………………………………………...132

Figure 5.15 Load case 3 peak pressures decay on the bridge deck (Y= 0 ft)…134

Figure 5.16 Modeling and analysis of concrete bridge deck (Y=0 ft) for

load case 3 using ANSYS.…………………………………………….135

Figure 5.17 Modeling of concrete bridge deck (Y=0 ft) for load case 4

analysis using ANSYS………………………………………………...143

Figure 5.18 Modeling and analysis of bridge steel girder 3 for load case 4

using ANSYS…………………………...………………………….…...144

Figure 5.19 Load case 5…………………………………………………………….147

Figure 5.20 Peak pressures decay on the pier column…………………………..148

Figure 5.21 Pressures on pier column (Arrival Time = 0.597ms)…...…………..149

Figure 5.22 Modeling and analysis of bridge pier column for load case 5

using ANSYS……………………...…………………………….…..….150

Figure 5.23 Final pier design…………………………………………………….….151

xix
Figure 5.24 Moment in the concrete bridge deck for 3lb TNT blast load

case 1…………………………………………………...……………....155

Figure 5.25 Moment in the steel bridge girder 3 for 3lb TNT blast load

case 1. ………………………………………………………………….157

Figure 5.26 Peak pressures decay on the bridge deck (Y= 0 ft, 5TNT)

for load case 3……….………………………………………..………..158

Figure 5.27 Pressure on pier column (Time = 0.78ms, 125 lbTNT)…………….164

Figure 5.28 Multi-degree-of-freedom system……………………………………..166

Figure 5.29 MDOF system subjected to a triangular load…………………….....168

Figure 5.30 Pressures on pier column (Arrival Time = 0.597ms)…………...…..169

Figure 5.31 Load case 5: Modeling of the supporting pier for ANSYS

transient dynamic analysis……………..……………………………..170

Figure 5.32 500TNT triangular blast load………………………………………..170

Figure 5.34 ANSYS Time history: Moment (MZ kip-ft) at location h = 0 ft……..171

Figure 5.35 ANSYS Time (ms) history: Shear force (FX kips) at

location h = 0 ft………………………..………………………………..172

Figure 5.36 Static moment in the bridge pier column for

500lb TNT blast load………………………………………………….173

Figure 5.37 Pressure on pier column (Time = 0.78ms, 125 lb TNT)………..….174

Figure 5.38 125 lb TNT triangular blast load……………………………………..175

Figure 5.39 Static moment in the bridge pier column for

125lb TNT blast load…………………….…………………………….175

Figure 5.40 ANSYS time history: Moment (MZ kip-ft) at location h = 0 ft…..….176

xx
Figure 5.41 ANSYS time history: Shear force (FX) at location h = 0 ft………...177

Figure 5.42 Response of a beam to a dynamic step-load…………………….…178

xxi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The nation's roads, highways and bridge are the backbone of the U.S.

transportation system, providing Americans with approximately 3 trillion miles of

travel annually. The citizens depend on good roads for traveling to work, people

driving to stores, church or the doctor's office and businesses shipping goods to

customers throughout the nation and around the globe, There are more than

600,000 bridges in the United States and, more than 11,000 in the State of

Florida (Bureau of Transportation Statistics). None of these bridges have been

designed to resist impact of explosion. American Association of State Highways

and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) have design methodologies for the ship

impact, vehicular collisions, and seismic events coefficients. But there are no

definite structural design criteria for bridges to withstand typical blast loadings.

1.2 Objective

Blast-resistant design has traditionally been considered only for essential

government buildings, military structures, and petrochemical facilities. Bridge

engineers, however, have not typically considered the blast effects in the design

1
process, and most of the current state of knowledge of the design structures

subjected to blast effects are based on the performance of buildings rather than

bridges. Bridge engineers need to develop an understanding of the principles of

blast wave propagation and its potential effects on bridge structures. The

objective of this study is to develop a blast/explosion analysis procedure for a two

span continuous composite steel girder bridge system.

1.3 Thesis Overview

Chapter 2 covers a literature review of the available search on explosives and

blast waves. This chapter contains an explanation detailing the current

knowledge of explosives, blast load, and blast waves. Methods for estimating the

blast load and structural responses are discussed.

Chapter 3 presents a summary of the analysis and design of a typical two span

composite bridge. The dead and live load effects are considered in the concrete

deck and steel girder design (LRFD Design FHWA, 2003).

Chapter 4 presents the details of the equivalent blast load on the composite

bridge to different blast load cases. Typical amount of blast loads are converted

into equivalent static loads using the ATBlast software.

Chapter 5 presents finite element analysis for the response and performance of

composite steel girder bridge to blast loads. The static loads are applied on the

bridge model at selected critical locations for different load cases. The responses

of the components of the bridge system are evaluated to determine the

performance of the bridge. A dynamic analysis of typical supporting pier has


2
been carried out using the ANSYS program and the results compared with those

from the static analysis.

Chapter 6 summarizes the results of the analyses and presents the conclusions

along with the recommendations for future work.

3
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

An explosive is defined as large-scale, rapid and sudden release of energy.

Explosion can be categorized on the basis of their nature as physical, nuclear, or

chemical events. In physical explosives, energy is released from the catastrophic

failure of a cylinder of compressed gas, volcanic eruptions, or even the mix of

two liquids at different temperatures. This chapter presents a literature review

including past research and blast loads and blast effects on structures.

2.2 Blast/Explosion Waves

The rapid expansion of hot gases resulting from the detonation of an explosive

charge gives rise to a compression wave called a shock wave, which propagates

through the air. The shock wave consists of highly compressed air that reflects

off the ground surface to produce a hemispherical propagation of the wave

traveling outward from the source at supersonic velocities. The front of the shock

wave can be considered infinitely steep, for all practical purposes. That is, the

time required for compression of the undisturbed air just ahead of the wave to full

pressure just behind the wave is essentially zero. (Figure2-1). As the shock wave

expands, the incident or over-pressures decrease. When it encounters a surface

4
that is in its line-of-sight of the explosion, the wave is reflected, resulting in a

tremendous amplification of pressure. The pressures decay rapidly with time (i.e.,

exponentially), measured typically in thousandths of a second (milliseconds).

During the positive phase, the overpressure rises vary rapidly from ambient to

peak value and then subsides more slowly to ambient. After a short time, the

pressure behind the front may drop below the ambient pressure. During such a

negative phase, a partial vacuum is created and air is sucked in rather than being

pushed away, as when the over pressure is positive. As consequently, the wind

blows toward the point of detonation during the negative phase. Peak values of

the underpressure during the negative phase rarely exceed 4 or 5 psi below

ambient. During the negative phase, peak values of both dynamic pressure and

underpressure are typically much smaller than during the positive phase.

2.3 Blast Load

The threat for a conventional bomb is defined by two equally important elements,

the bomb size, or charge weight W, and the standoff distance R between the

blast source and the target.

The peak overpressure is related to a factor called the scaled distance, Z (Eqn.

2.1). This is proportional to the distance from the charge and inversely

proportional to the cube root of the charge mass. Typically the charge mass is

measured in terms of TNT, and other types of explosives are converted to this

mass type. As the distance increases, the maximum pressure of the shock wave

decreases. The total duration of the shock burst actually increases. It should
5
also be noted that at any particular range, the peak overpressure of the blast

wave decays exponentially to the atmospheric pressure (Biggs, 1967). The

scaled distance, Z is given by

R
Z= (2-1)
W 1/ 3

Where R = distance from blast source

W = mass of charge in term of TNT

Figure 2.1a Blast wave pressure-time history

Figure 2.1b Overpressure and dynamic pressure with time

6
Figure 2.2 Blast pressure traces for at different times

Figure 2.3 Equivalent triangular pulse

2.4 Modeling of Blast Pressure

Many researchers have studied blast overpressure and shock wave propagation

in air. Many empirical formulae are available to predict maximum blast

overpressure in free air.

T. Ngo (2007) introduced different methods to estimate blast loads and structural

response. Blast wave parameters for conventional high explosive materials have

been the focus of a number of studies during the 1950’s and 1960’s. Estimations

7
of peak overpressure due to spherical blast based on scaled distance Z = R/W 1/3

were introduced by Brode (1955). The overpressures are given by

(2.2)

Newmark and Hansen (1961) introduced a relationship to calculate the maximum

blast overpressure, Pso, in bars, for a high explosive charge that detonates at the

ground surface as:

(2.3)

Another expression of the peak overpressure in kPa is introduced by Mills

(1987), in which W is expressed as the equivalent charge weight in kilograms of

TNT, and Z is the scaled distance:

(2.4)

As the blast wave propagates through the atmosphere, the air behind the shock

front is moving outward at lower velocity. The velocity of the air particles, and

hence the wind pressure, depends on the peak overpressure of the blast wave.

This velocity of the air is associated with the dynamic pressure, q(t).

The maximum value, qs is given by

8
(2.5)

If the blast wave encounters an obstacle perpendicular to the direction of

propagation, reflection increases the overpressure to a maximum reflected

pressure as:

(2.6)

A full discussion and extensive charts for predicting blast pressures and blast

durations are given by Mays and Smith (1995) and TM5-1300 (1990). Some

representative numerical values of peak reflected overpressure are given in

Table 2. 1.

Table 2.1. Peak reflected overpressures Pr (in MPa) with different W-R
combinations (T. Ngo, 2007)

Brode developed the correlation between Psmax and Z based on numerical

modeling (Fig 2.2). This correlation was subsequently reviewed by Smith (1994)

who compared Bride’s model with results obtained from more recent

9
experimental studies. The comparison shows excellent consistency between the

models in the far field while the Brode's model tends to be conservative in the

near field (Z<<1). The model is considered valid within the range of z = 0.2 - 2.

The over-pressure varies by about three orders of magnitude within this range of

Z (1-1000 bar). An amplification factor of 1.8 has been applied to account for the

effects of waves reflecting from the ground surface in the common

“hemispherical” blast scenarios.

Previous investigations have also identified a significant negative (suction)

pressure, which develops shortly after the subsidence of the positive

(compressive) over-pressure. The absolute value of this "minimum" pressure

(denoted Psmin) is presented in Figure 1 along with the maximum (positive) over-

pressure.

Figure 2.4 Response Spectrum Solutions for Blast Loading (Nelson Lam, Priyan
Mendis, Tuan Ngo 2007)

10
2.5 Blast/Damage to Structures

The emphasis on the design of critical infrastructure has changed since the

events of September 11, 2001, Effects of blast loads on buildings and military

structures have been studied for many years. Listed below are some of the

existing protective design criteria prepared by the federal government using the

damage-limiting approach.

FEMA 427 Primer introduces a series of concepts that can help building

designers, owners, and state and local governments mitigate the threat of

hazards resulting from terrorist attacks on new buildings (Figure 2.5). FEMA 427

specifically addresses four high-population, private sector building types:

commercial office, retail, and multi-family residential, and light industrial. This

manual contains extensive qualitative design guidance for limiting or mitigating

the effects of terrorist attacks, focusing primarily on explosions, but also

addressing chemical biological, and radiological attacks.

A Blue Ribbon Panel (BRP) of bridge and tunnel experts from professional

practice, academia, federal and state agencies, and toll authorities convened to

examine bridge and tunnel security and to develop strategies and practices for

deterring, disrupting, and mitigating potential attacks. The BRP, sponsored jointly

by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the American Association of

State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), acknowledges that the

nation's bridges and tunnels are vulnerable to terrorist attacks. The intent of this

paper is to recommend policies and actions to reduce the probability of

11
catastrophic structural damage that could result in substantial human casualties,

economic losses, and socio-political damage.

Figure 2.5 Blast loads on a building (FEMA 427)

Protective Construction Design Manual (ESL-TR-87-57, 1989) provide

procedures for the analysis and design of protective structures exposed to the

effects of conventional (non-nuclear) weapons and is intended for use by

engineers with basic knowledge of weapons effects, structural dynamics, and

hardened protective structures. The Manual covers topics such as uncertainties

in protective design, air-blast effects, fragment protection, loads on structures,

resistance of structural elements, and dynamic responses of structures.

Fundamentals of Protective Design for Conventional Weapons (TM 5-855-1,

1986) provide procedures for the design and analysis of protective structures

subjected to the effects of conventional weapons. It is intended for use by

12
engineers involved in designing hardened facilities. It includes chapters on air-

blast effects, fire, incendiary and chemical agents, loads on structures, and

auxiliary systems (piping, air ducting, and electrical cable).

TM 5-1300 Manual (1990) presents methods for protective construction used in

facilities for the development, testing, production, storage, maintenance,

modification, inspection, demilitarization, and disposal of explosive materials.

This manual was used as the standard for explosive effects for about thirty years.

By using this manual, engineers could design structures to resist the effects of

blast waves and fragments preventing the propagation of explosive effects from

one structure to the next, or to prevent the mass detonation of explosives and

provide protection to personnel and valuable equipment. Instrumental to this

approach was a well-developed understanding of:

• the blast load parameters

• the response of structures to blast loads

• how to establish proper details for construction to develop the proper structural

response

• establishing guidelines for sitting explosives facilities.

Guidelines for Blast-Resistant Buildings in Petrochemical Facilities (ASCE,

1997) provides for the structural design of blast resistant petrochemical facilities.

Informational coverage is provided for OSHA requirements, design objectives,

siting considerations, and load determination with references


13
mentioned for more detailed information. More detailed coverage is provided for

types of construction, dynamic material strengths, allowable response criteria,

analysis methods, and design procedures. Typical details and ancillary

considerations, such as doors and windows, are also included. A "how to"

discussion on the upgrade of existing buildings is provided for older facilities

which may not meet current needs. Three example calculations are included to

illustrate design procedures.

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, increased attention has been given to

bridges, which are crucial to our nation’s transportation infrastructure. A

strategically placed truck bomb or accident on a critical bridge could result in

significant loss of life and significant structural damage.

Some of the recent bridge failures due to blast loadings are presented in the

following:

i). On April 2007, a section of San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in the State of

California collapsed after a gasoline tanker crashed and burst into flames. The

fire created such intense heat that a stretch of highway melted and collapsed.

Figure 2.6 Roadway to Bay Bridge collapses after tanker explosion (San
Francisco)
14
ii). On March 2004, a bridge on I-95 Bridgeport, Connecticut was partly damaged

by the explosion of a tanker truck carrying over 9000 gallons of heating oil.

Figure 2.7 Oil-Tanker Burned on Interstate 95, March 2004

There is a need to protect the nation's bridges from intentional or accidental

explosions. But design for resistance to explosive effects is a new area for bridge

engineers. Bridge and highway engineers are required to assess the vulnerability

of structures and to identify means for reducing this vulnerability.

AASHTO has specified probability-based design methodology and load factors

for designing bridge piers against ship impact and vehicular collision. Currently,

no specific AASHTO design guideline exists for bridges against blast loading.

T.D. Ngo (2007) presents the analytical investigation conducted at the University

of Melbourne on the behavior of high-strength concrete (HSC) columns subjected

to severe blast loadings. The variables considered were the magnitude of the

blast, the concrete strength (40 Mpa for normal strength concrete and 80
15
MPa for HSC). A constitutive law is proposed to model the strain-rate-dependent

engineering properties of HSC. Dynamic stress-strain relations, which differ

considerably from corresponding static relations are derived for the load histories

and are modeled with the proposed dynamic constitutive law. The effects of

reinforcement detailing, geometry, and loading conditions on the dynamic

behavior of high-strength concrete columns were investigated by the Finite

Element Explicit code LS-DYNA3D. A case study was carried out to assess the

performance of a ground floor RC column of a typical office building under a

bomb blast. It was found that HSC columns perform better than NSC (normal

strength concrete) columns (with the same axial load capacity) when subjected to

extreme impulsive loading.

Crawford (2006) presented methods for designing and implementing protective

technologies for improving the blast and impact resistance of building. The paper

describes the broad aspects to resist blast and impact threats. Some aspects of

protective design related to the structural design of perimeter devices were

focused along with building components for the purpose of the protecting the

building’s occupants and functionality against explosive treats.

Longinow (1996) presented A Primer on Blast Effects. This presentation begins

by identifying general military and most commonly used commercial explosives.

The manner in which explosives release their energy is described and the

primary blast parameters for explosions in air are identified. The


16
emphasis is on blast from surface explosions. This is followed by a brief

discussion of the interaction of the blast wave with building structures. Strength

of buildings subjected to blast effects of high yield (nuclear) explosions is

quantified. This is followed by a brief discussion of internal explosions. A brief

presentation of results is made from the studies dealing with casualties in

buildings produced by external blast.

A.K.M. Anwarul Islam (2005) investigated the most common types of concrete

bridges on interstate highways and assessed the capacities of the critical

elements. A 2-span 2-lane bridge with Type III AASHTO girders was considered

for modeling. AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design methods were used

in the bridge design. The girders, pier caps and columns were analyzed under

blast loading to determine their capacities. This study determined the blast

capacities of the AASHTO girders, pier caps and the columns, and the required

stand off distance of explosion from the columns that may possibly protect the

bridge from failure. Performance of AASHTO girders, piers, and columns under

typical blast loading were analyzed and documented for future use in blast

resistant design of concrete bridges. The model bridge failed under typical blast

loads applied over and underneath the bridge. The research findings concluded

that the AASHTO girders, pier cap, and columns could not resist typical blast

loads. The amount of blast loads, which the individual members can resist before

failure, was determined. The model bridge columns were capable of resisting

typical blast loads, if the explosion occurs at a minimum standoff distance.


17
Suthar (2007) provides a basic guideline for using the blast load analysis on the

suspension bridge. A three-dimensional finite analysis model under dynamic load

has been established for the suspension bridge part (West-bound side) of the

Chesapeake Bay Bridge for determining the effect of live load, which was used

for cost allocation studies. For carrying out the impact of blast loading, the bridge

was modeled using the SAP2000 system. The modeling of the suspension part

of the bay bridge was done on the SAP2000 for carrying out the non-linear

analysis of the blast loads. The behavior of each element under the effect of the

blasts was studied from the output generated by the SAP2000. The output of the

software presents results including moments, axial loads, and displacements.

Moreover, moments, and axial load at each node and at any point within the

element, can be easily obtained from the software output. The “progressive

collapse” approach of the bridge was also carried out to know the exact behavior

with the formation of the plastic hinges under the impact of blast loadings. Also,

the blast loads with and without the application of initial stress were compared in

the study. This shows the importance of the initial stress in the analysis of a

suspension bridge

ATBlast software

ATBlast is a software program that estimates the blast loads that develop during

an open-air explosion. AT-Blast developed by Applied Research Associates for

GSA (http://www.oca.gsa.gov/software/atblast.php). The program allows the user

to input minimum and maximum range, explosive charge weight, and


18
angle of incidence. Based on this information, ATBlast calculates the following

values: Shock Front Velocity (V), Time of Arrival (TOA), Pressure (P), Impulse (I),

and duration (td). The results are displayed on screen in a tabular format and

may be printed. In addition, the resulting pressure and impulse curves may be

displayed graphically. ATBlast is a proprietary computer program developed by

Applied Research Associates Inc. and is provided at no cost to the government

and to authorized users.

Input: Minimum and maximum standoff distances, size of explosive, TNT

equivalence factor, angle of incidence.

Output: Airblast velocity, time of arrival, peak pressure, total impulse, effective

load duration.

Figure 2.8 ATBlast software program output

19
FEMA 428 (Primer to Design Safe School Projects in Case of Terrorist

Attacks) provides a quick method for predicting the expected overpressure

(expressed in pounds per square inch or psi) on a building for a specific

explosive weight and stand-off distance. Enter the x-axis with the estimated

explosive weight a terrorist might use and the y-axis with a known stand-off

distance from a building. By correlating the resultant effects of overpressure with

other data, the degree of damage that the various components of a building

might receive can be estimated. The vehicle icons in Figure 4-6 indicate the

relative size of the vehicles that might be used to transport various quantities of

explosives.

Figure 2.9 Incident overpressure measured in pounds per square inch, as a


function of stand-off distance and net explosive weight (pounds-TNT) (FEMA 428)

20
Table 2.2 Damage Approximations (FEMA 428)

Mendis and Ngo (2002) analyzed a typical tall building subjected to a bomb

blast detonated at different stand-off distances from the ground level. The peak

overpressure is 4.1Mpa at the ground level and reduces rapidly up the height of

the building. The average duration of loading was adopted as 15 milliseconds.

Façade damage at different levels was assessed based on the blast pressure

distribution.

Figure 2.10 Distribution of blast pressure on building facade (Mendis & Ngo,
2002)

21
CHAPTER 3: COMPOSITE STEEL GIRDER BRIDGE:

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents a summary of the analysis and design of a typical two

span composite bridge (FHWA NHI-04-041, LRFD Design Example). The dead

load and live load effects are considered in the concrete deck and steel girder

design (LRFD Design FHWA, 2003). The following are the design parameters:

i. Two span, continuous structure configuration

ii. Bridge width 44 feet curb to curb (two 12-foot lanes and two 10-foot

shoulders)

iii. Reinforced concrete deck with overhangs

iv. F-shape barriers (standard design)

v. Grade 50 steel

3.2 General Information

Design Step 1.1 - Obtain Design Criteria

Design Step 1.2 - Obtain Geometry Requirements

Design Step 1.3 - Perform Span Arrangement Study

Design Step 1.4 - Obtain Geotechnical Recommendations

Design Step 1.5 - Perform Type, Size, and Location Study

Design Step 1.6 - Plan for Bridge Aestheti


22
Figure 3.1a Two-span continuous bridge

Figure 3.1b Cross section of composite steel bridge

The first step for any bridge design is to establish the design criteria. For this

design example, the following is a summary of the primary design criteria:

Design Criteria

Governing specifications: AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications

(Second Edition, 1998,including interims for 1999 through 2002)

Design methodology: Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)

Live load requirements: HL-93 S3.6


23
Deck width: W deck = 46.875ft

Roadway width: W roadway = 44.0ft

Bridge length: Ltotal = 240⋅ft

Skew angle: Skew = 0 deg

Structural steel yield strength: Fy = 50ksi

Structural steel tensile strength: Fu = 65ksi

Concrete 28-day compressive strength: f'c = 4.0ksi S5.4.2.1

Reinforcement strength: f y = 60ksi S5.4.3 & S6.10.3.7

Steel density: W s = 0.490kcf STable 3.5.1-1

Concrete density: W c = 0.150kcf STable 3.5.1-1

Parapet weight (each): W par = 0.53 K/ft STable 3.5.1-1

Future wearing surface: W fws = 0.140kcf STable 3.5.1-1

Future wearing surface thickness: t fws = 2.5in (assumed)

Table 3.1 Load combination and load factors (Stable 3.41-1 & 3.41-2)

24
Table 3.2 Resistance factors (S5.5.4.2 & S6.5.4.2)

Table3.3 Multiple Presence factors (STable 3.6.1.1.2-1)

Table 3.4 Dynamic Load Allowance (Stable 3.6.2.1-1)

25
3.3 Concrete Deck Design

Step 2.1. - Select Slab and Overhang Thicknesses

The slab and overhang thicknesses will be assumed for this design example:

ts = 8.5 in and to = 9 in

Step 2.2. - Compute Dead Load Effects

Dead loads represent a small fraction of the deck loads. Using a simplified

approach to determine the deck dead load effects will result in a negligible

difference in the total (DL+ LL) load effects. Traditionally, dead load positive and

negative moments in the deck, except for the overhang, for a unit width strip of

the deck are calculated using the following approach:

M = w l2/ c

where: M = dead load positive or negative moment in the deck for a unit width

strip (kip-ft/ft)

For this example, the dead load moments due to the self weight and future

wearing surface are calculated assuming c = 10.

Self weight

Factored positive dead load moment:

Based on Table 3-5, the maximum unfactored slab, parapet, and future wearing

surface positive dead load moment occurs in Bay 2 at a distance of 0.4S. The

maximum factored positive dead load moment is as follows:

Muposdead = γpDCmax *(0.38 k-ft / ft) + γpDCmax *(0.19 k-ft /ft)

+ γpDWmax *(0.09 k-ft /ft)

= 0.85 kip - ft /ft


26
Unfactored Muposdead = 0.38 + 0.19 + 0.09 = 0.66 kip-ft /ft = 8 kip-in / ft

Factored negative dead load moment:

From Table 3.5, the maximum unfactored negative dead load moment occurs in

Bay 4 at a distance of 1.0S. The maximum factored negative dead load moment

is as follows:

Munegdead = γpDcmax * (−0.74 k-ft / ft)+ γpDcmax *(−1.66 k-ft /ft)

+ γpDwmax *(−0.06 k-ft /ft)

= −3.09 k-ft /ft

Unfactored Munegdead = (-0.74) + (-1.66) + (-0.06) = -2.46 kip-ft /ft = -29 kip-in / ft

Table 3.5 Unfactored dead load moment (1-foot strip, kip-ft / ft)

27
Step 2.3 – Compute Live Load Effects

The following are the basic parameters in the computation of live load effects:

The minimum distance from the center of design vehicle wheel to the inside face

of parapet = 1 foot

The minimum distance between the wheels of two adjacent design vehicles = 4

feet

Dynamic load allowance, IM IM = 0.33

Load factor for live load - Strength I γLL = 1.75

Multiple presence factor, m: STable 3.6.1.1.2-1(AASHTO LRFD)

With one lane loaded, m = 1.20

With two lanes loaded, m = 1.00

With three lanes loaded, m = 0.85

Resistance factors for flexure:

Strength limit state φstr = 0.90

Service limit state φserv = 1.00

Extreme event limit state φext = 1.00

For this example, the design moments will be computed using two different

methods.

Method A:

The live load portion of the factored design moments is computed based on the

values presented in Table 3.7. Table 3.7 represents a continuous beam analysis

of the example deck using a finite element analysis program.

28
Method B:

The live load portion of the factored design moments is computed using STable

A4.1-1 (AASHTO LRFD). In STable A4.1-1, moments per unit width include

dynamic load allowance and multiple presence factors. The values are tabulated

using the equivalent strip method for various bridge cross sections. The values in

STable A4.1-1 may be slightly higher than the values from a deck analysis based

on the actual number of beams and the actual overhang length. The maximum

live load moment is obtained from the table based on the girder spacing. For

girder spacing between the values listed in the table, interpolation can may be

used to get the moment.

Method A Compute Equivalent Strip Live Load Moment

The positive, negative, and overhang moment equivalent strip equations are

presented in Figure 3.2 below.

Figure 3.2 Equivalent strips

29
Table 3.6 Equivalent primary width of strip

Step 2. 4 Compute Factored Positive and Negative Design Moments

Factored Positive Live Load Moment:

The width of the equivalent strip for positive moment is:

Wposstripa = 26.0 + 6.6S S = 9.75 ft

Wposstripa = 90.35 in or W posstripa = 7.53 ft

Based on Table 3.7, the maximum unfactored positive live load moment is 36.76

K-ft, located at 0.4S in Bay 1 for a single truck. The maximum factored positive

live load moment is:

MuposliveA = γLL(1+IM) *(36.76 kip -ft) / W posstripa =11.36 kip-ft/ft

Unfactored MuposliveA = 36.76 kip- ft) / W posstripa = 4.88 kip-ft /ft = 59 kip-in / ft

The total factored positive design moment for Method A is:

MupostotalA = MuposliveA + Muposdead = 12.21 kip-ft/ft

30
Table 3.7 Unfactored live load moments (excluding dynamic load allowance) (kip-
ft)

Factored Negative Live Load Moment:

The deck design section for steel beam for negative moments and shear forces

is taken as one-quarter of the top flange width from the centerline of the web.

Assume bf = 1.0 ft bf 1/4 = 0.25 ft

The width of the equivalent strip for negative moment is:

Wnegstripa = 48.0 + 3.0S = 77.25 in or W negstripa = 6.44 ft

Based on Table 3-7, the maximum unfactored negative live load moment is -

29.40 K-ft, located at 0.0S in Bay 4 for two trucks. The maximum factored

negative live load moment is:

MunegliveA = γLL(1+IM) *(-29.40 kip-ft) / W negstripa = -10.63 kip-ft/ft

Unfactored MunegliveA = -29.4 kip- ft / W negstripa = -4.56 kip-ft /ft = -55 kip-in / ft

31
The total factored negative design moment for Method A is:

MunegtotalA = MunegliveA + Munegdead = -13.72 kip-ft/ft

Method B: Using Stable A4.1-1

Factored Positive Live Load Moment:

For a girder spacing of 9'-9", the maximum unfactored positive live load moment

is 6.74 K-ft/ft.

This moment is calculated on the basis per foot and includes dynamic load

allowance. The maximum factored positive live load moment is:

MuposliveB =γLL *(6.74 kip-ft/ ft) = 11.80 kip-ft/ ft γLL = 1.75

Factored negative live load moment:

For a girder spacing of 9'-9" and a 3" distance from the centerline of girder to the

design section, the maximum unfactored negative live load moment is 6.65K-ft/ft.

The maximum factored negative live load moment is:

MunegliveB =γLL *(6.65 kip-ft/ ft) = 11.64 kip-ft/ ft

Step 2.5 Design for Positive Bending in Deck

Assume #5 bars: bar_diam = 0.625 in bar_area = 0.31 in2

Effective depth, de = total slab thickness - bottom cover - 1/2 bar diameter - top

integral wearing surface

de = ts - Coverb - bar diam/2 - 0.5 in = 8.5 – 1 – 0.625/2 -0.5 = 6.69 in

Solve for the required amount of reinforcing steel, as follows:

φf = 0.90 b = 12 in
32
Table 3.8 Maximum live load moments per unit width. kip -ft/ft

ρ = 0.00530

Required bar spacing = bar_area/ As = 8.7 in

Use #5 bars @ bar_space = 8.0 in


33
Figure 3.3 Crack control for positive reinforcement under live loads

Step 5 Design for Negative Bending in Deck

Figure 3.4 Reinforcing steel for negative bending in deck

Assume # 5 bars:

Effective depth, de = ts − Covert − bar diam/2 = 5.69 in

Solve for the required amount of reinforcing steel, as follows:

φf = 0.90 b=12 in

34
Required bar spacing = bar_area/ As = 6.4 in

Use # 5 bars @ bar_space = 6.0 in

Figure 3.5 Crack control for negative reinforcement under live loads

Step 2.6 - Design for Bending in Deck Overhang (SA13.4.1)

Bridge deck overhangs must be designed to satisfy three different design cases.

In the first design case, the overhang must be designed for horizontal (transverse

and longitudinal) vehicular collision forces.

35
For the second design case, the overhang must be designed to resist the vertical

collision force. Finally, for the third design case, the overhang must be designed

for dead and live loads.

For Design Cases 1 and 2, the design forces are for the extreme event limit

state. For Design Case 3, the design forces are for the strength limit state.

Also, the deck overhang region must be designed to have a resistance larger

than the actual resistance of the concrete parapet.

Figure 3.6 Deck overhang dimensions and live load

Design Case 1 - Design Overhang for Horizontal Vehicular Collision Force

Case 1A - Check at Inside Face of Parapet

Case 1B - Check at Design Section in Overhang

Case 1C - Check at Design Section in First Span

36
Design Case 2 - Design Overhang for Vertical Collision Force

Design Case 3 - Design Overhang for Dead and Live Load

Case 3A - Check at Design Section in Overhang

Case 3B - Check at Design Section in First Span

The required area of reinforcing steel in the overhang is the largest of that

required for Cases 1A, 1B, 1C, 3A, and 3B.

Case 1A controls with: As = 1.24 in2 / ft

Bundle one #5 bar to each negative flexure-reinforcing bar in the overhang area.

Use 2 # 5 bars @ bar_space = 6.0 in

Figure 3.7 Superstructure positive and negative moment deck reinforcement

37
3.4 Steel Girder Design

Design Step 3.1 - Obtain Design Criteria

Figure 3.1a Two-span continuous bridge

Span Configuration

Figure 3.1b Cross section of composite steel bridge

38
Figure 3.8 Framing Plan

Design Data:

Number of spans: N spans = 2

Span length: Lspan = 120 ft

Skew angle: Skew = 0 deg

Number of girders: N girders = 5

Girder spacing: S = 9.75 ft

Deck overhang: Soverhang = 3.9375 ft

Cross-frame spacing: L b = 20 ft S6.7.4

Web yield strength: F yw = 50 ksi STable 6.4.1-1

Flange yield strength: Fyf = 50ksi STable 6.4.1-1

Concrete 28-day compressive strength:

f' c = 4.0ksi S5.4.2.1 & STable C5.4.2.1-1

Reinforcement strength: f y = 60ksi S5.4.3

39
Total deck thickness: t deck = 8.5 in

Effective deck thickness: t effdeck = 8.0 in

Total overhang thickness: t overhang = 9.0in

Effective overhang thickness: t effoverhang = 8.5in

Steel density: W s = 0.490kcf STable 3.5.1-1

Concrete density: W c = 0.150kcf STable 3.5.1-1

Additional miscellaneous dead load (per girder): Wmisc 0.015 K/ ft

Stay-in-place deck form weight: W deckforms = 0.015ksf

Parapet weight (each): W par = 0.53 K/ft

Future wearing surface: W fws = 0.140kcf STable 3.5.1-1

Future wearing surface thickness: tfws = 2.5in

Deck width: w deck = 46.875 ft

Roadway width: wroadway = 44.0 ft

Haunch depth (from top of web): dhaunch = 3.5 in

Average Daily Truck Traffic (Single-Lane): ADTTSL = 3000

Design Factors from AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications:

Table 3.9 Load factors: ( STable 3.4.1-1 &STable 3.4.1-2)

40
Table 3.10 Resistance factors

Table 3.11 Dynamic load allowance

Design Step 3.2 – Selection of Trial Girder Section

Before the dead load effects can be computed, a trial girder section must be

selected. This trial girder section is selected based on previous experience and

preliminary design.

41
Figure 3.9 Plate girder elevation

For this design example, the interior girder controls. In general, both the exterior

and interior girders must be considered, and the controlling design is used for all

girders, both interior and exterior.

Step 3.3 - Compute Section Properties

Modular Ratio

As specified in S6.10.3.1.1b, the slab area shall be transformed by using a

modular ratio of 3n or n, whichever gives the higher stresses, in the steel section

and concrete deck.

Using a modular ratio of 3n for the superimposed dead loads always gives higher

stresses in the steel section. Using a modular ratio of n typically gives higher

stresses in the concrete deck, except in the moment reversal regions where the

selection of 3n vs. n can become an issue in determining the maximum stress in

the deck.
42
The modular ratio is computed as follows:

Wc = 0.150 kcf f' c = 4.0 ksi

Ec = 33000( W c1.5) ⋅f'c0.5 = 3834 ksi

Es = 29000 ksi

n = Es/Ec = 7.6

Therefore, use n = 8.

The effective flange width is computed as follows:

For interior beams, the effective flange width is taken as the least of:

1. One-quarter of the effective span length:

Assume that the minimum, controlling effective span length equals approximately

60 feet (over the pier).

Spaneff = 60 ft W eff1 = Spaneff / 4 = 15.00 ft

2. 12.0 times the average thickness of the slab, plus the greater of web thickness

or one-half the width of the top flange of the girder:

W eff2 = 12⋅teffdeck +14 in/2 = 8.58 ft

3. The average spacing of adjacent beams:

W effflange = min(W eff1 ,W eff2 ,W eff3)

W effflange = 8.58 ft or W effflange = 103.0 in

Based on the concrete deck design example, the total area of longitudinal deck

reinforcing steel in the negative moment region is computed as follows:

Adeckreinf = 2 × 0.31⋅in2 Weffflange/5 in = 12.772 in2

43
Slab Haunch

For this design example, the slab haunch is 3.5 inches throughout the length of

the bridge. That is, the bottom of the slab is located 3.5 inches above the top of

the web. For this design example, this distance is used in computing the location

of the centroid of the slab. However, the area of the haunch is not considered in

the section properties.

Based on the trial plate sizes shown in Figure 3-4, the noncomposite and

composite section properties for the positive moment region are computed as

shown in the following table. The distance to the centroid is measured from the

bottom of the girder.

Table 3.12 Positive moment region section properties

44
Similarly, the noncomposite and composite section properties for the negative

moment region are computed as shown in the following table. The distance to the

centroid is measured from the bottom of the girder. For the strength limit state,

since the deck concrete is in tension in the negative moment region, the deck

reinforcing steel contributes to the composite section properties and the deck

concrete does not. The concrete slab will be assumed to be fully effective for

both positive and negative flexure for service and fatigue limit states.

Table 3.13 Negative moment region section properties

45
Step 3.4 - Compute Dead Load Effects

The girder must be designed to resist the dead load effects, as well as the other

load effects. The dead load components consist of some dead loads that are

resisted by the noncomposite section, as well as other dead loads that are

resisted by the composite section.

In addition, some dead loads are factored with the DC load factor and other dead

loads are factored with the DW load factor. The following table summarizes the

various dead load components that must be included in the design of a steel

girder.

Table 3.14 Dead load components

For the steel girder, the dead load per unit length varies due to the change in

plate sizes. The moments and shears due to the weight of the steel girder can be

computed using readily available analysis software. Since the actual plate sizes

are entered as input, the moments and shears are computed based on the

actual, varying plate sizes.


46
For the concrete deck, the dead load per unit length for an interior girder is

computed as follows:

W c = 0.150 kips / ft3 S = 9.8 ft t deck = 8.5 in

DLdeck = W c⋅S⋅tdeck/12 in/ft =1.036 kips / ft

For the concrete haunch, the dead load per unit length varies due to the change

in top flange plate sizes. The moments and shears due to the weight of the

concrete haunch can be computed using readily available analysis software.

Since the top flange plate sizes are entered as input, the moments and shears

due to the concrete haunch are computed based on the actual, varying haunch

thickness.

For the stay-in-place forms, the dead load per unit length is computed as follows:

W deckforms = 0.015 ksf S = 9.8 ft W topflange = 14 in

DLdeckforms = W deckforms⋅(S−W topflange)= 0.129 kips / ft

For the miscellaneous dead load (including cross-frames, stiffeners, and other

miscellaneous structural steel), the dead load per unit length is assumed to be as

follows:

DLmisc = 0.015 kips/ft

For the concrete parapets, the dead load per unit length is computed as follows,

assuming that the superimposed dead load of the two parapets is distributed

uniformly among all of the girders:

W fws = 0.140 kcf tfws = 2.5 in

wroadway = 44.0 ft Ngirders = 5

47
DLfws=0.257 kips / ft

The following two tables present the unfactored dead load moments and shears,

as computed by an analysis computer program (AASHTO Opis software). Since

the bridge is symmetrical, the moments and shears in Span 2 are symmetrical to

those in Span 1.

Table 3.15 Dead load moment

Unfactored Dead Moment:

Mu = 1593 (1/4span), 1908 (1/2span), 1162 (3/4span), 983 (centre) kip-ft

Step 3.5 - Compute Live Load Effects

LRFD Consideration for Live Load

The basic live load designation is HL-93. The load consists of a design truck or

tandem, combined with a lane load. In LRFD, 90% of the effect of two design
48
trucks at a specified distance is combined with 90% of the lane load to compute

the maximum negative live load moment. Dynamic load allowance is applied only

to the design truck and design tandem.

Table 3.16 Dead load shears (kips)

The girder must also be designed to resist the live load effects. The live load

consists of an HL-93 loading. Similar to the dead load, the live load moments and

shears for an HL-93 loading can be obtained from an analysis computer

program.

Based on Table 3-11, for all limit states other than fatigue and fracture, the

dynamic load allowance, IM, is as follows:

IM = 0.33

The live load distribution factors for moment for an interior girder are computed

as follows: (S4.6.2.2.1)

First, the longitudinal stiffness parameter, Kg, must be computed:

Kg = n ⋅ (I + A ⋅ eg 2)
49
Table 3-17 Longitudinal stiffness parameter

After the longitudinal stiffness parameter is computed, Stable 4.6.2.2.1-1 is used

to find the case for type of superstructure cross section. The case corresponding

with the superstructure cross section in this design example is "a."

Based on cross section "a," STables 4.6.2.2.2b-1 and 4.6.2.2.2.3a-1 are used to

compute the distribution factors for moment and shear, respectively.

Check the range of applicability as follows:

3.5 ≤ S ≤ 16.0 S = 9.75 ft OK

4.5 ≤ ts ≤ 12.0 ts = 8.0 in OK

20 ≤ L ≤ 240 L = 120 ft OK

Nb ≥ 4 N b = 5 OK

10000 ≤ Kg ≤ 7000000 K g = 818611 in4 OK

For one design lane loaded, the distribution of live load per lane for moment in

interior beams is as follows: (STable4.6.2.2.2b-1)

50
For two or more design lane loaded, the distribution of live load per lane:

The live load distribution factors for shear for an interior girder are computed in a

similar manner. The range of applicability is similar to that for moment

For one design lane loaded, the distribution of live load per lane for shear in

interior beams is as follows: (Stable 4.6.2.2.3a-1)

For two or more design lanes loaded, the distribution of live load per lane for

shear in interior beams is as follow: Stable 4.6.2.2.3a-1)

Since this bridge has no skew, the skew correction factor need not be considered

for this design example.

This design example is based on an interior girder. However, for illustrative

purposes, the live load distribution factors for an exterior girder are computed as

shown below:

51
The distance, de, is defined as the distance between the web centerline of the

exterior girder and the interior edge of the curb. For this design example, based

on Figure 3.2:

de = 2.50 ft

Check the range of applicability as follows: (Stable 4.6.2.2.2d-1)

−1.0 ≤ de ≤ 5.5 de = 2.50 ft OK

For one design lane loaded, the distribution of live load per lane for moment in

exterior beams is computed using the lever rule, as follows:

Figure 3.10 Lever Rule

For two or more design lanes loaded, the distribution of live load per lane for

moment in exterior beams is as follows:

52
The live load distribution factors for shear for an exterior girder are computed in a

similar manner. The range of applicability is similar to that for moment.

For one design lane loaded, the distribution of live load per lane for shear in

exterior beams is computed using the lever rule, as illustrated in Figure 3-5 and

as follows: (STable4.6.2.2.3b-1)

For two or more design lanes loaded, the distribution of live load per lane for

shear in exterior beams is as follows:

In beam-slab bridge cross-sections with diaphragms or cross-frames, the

distribution factor for the exterior beam cannot be taken to be less than that

which would be obtained by assuming that the cross-section deflects and rotates

as a rigid cross-section. CEquation 4.6.2.2.2d-1 provides one approximate

53
approach to satisfy this requirement. The multiple presence factor provisions of

S3.6.1.1.2 must be applied when this equation is used.

The following table presents the unfactored maximum positive and negative live

load moments and shears for HL-93 live loading for interior beams, as computed

using an analysis computer program. These values include the live load

distribution factor, and they also include dynamic load allowance. Since the

bridge is symmetrical, the moments and shears in Span 2 are symmetrical to

those in Span 1.

Table 3.18 Live load effects (Interior Beam)

The design live load values for HL-93 loading, as presented in the previous table,

are computed based on the product of the live load effect per lane and live load

distribution factor. These values also include the effects of dynamic load

allowance. However, it is important to note that the dynamic load allowance is

applied only to the design truck or tandem. The dynamic load allowance is not

applied to pedestrian loads or to the design lane load.


54
Unfactored Live Moment:

Mupositive = 1593 (1/4span), 1908 (1/2span), 1162 (3/4span), 983 (centre) kip-ft

Muneglive = 680 (1/4span), 968(1/2span), 1032 (3/4span), 2450 (centre) kip-ft

Step 3.6 - Combine Load Effects

After the load factors and load combinations have been established (see Design

Step 3.1), the section properties have been computed (see Design Step 3.3), and

all of the load effects have been computed (see Design Steps 3.4 and 3.5), the

force effects must be combined for each of the applicable limit states.

For this design example, η equals 1.00. (For more detailed information about η,

refer to Design Step 1.)

Based on the previous design steps, the maximum positive moment (located at

0.4L) for the Strength I Limit State is computed as follows:

LFDC = 1.25

MDC 150.0 kip⋅ft + 922.4 kip⋅ft + 135.8 kip⋅ft + 192.2 kip⋅ft

MDC = 1400.4 kip ⋅ft

LFDW = 1.50

MDW = 232.7 kip⋅ft

LFLL = 1.75

MLL = 1908 kip ⋅ft

Mtotal = LFDC⋅MDC + LFDW ⋅MDW + LFLL⋅MLL

Mtotal = 5439 kip⋅ft

55
Similarly, the maximum stress in the top of the girder due to positive moment

(located at 0.4L) for the Strength I Limit State is computed as follows:

Noncomposite dead load:

Parapet dead load (composite): Parapet dead load (composite):

Future wearing surface dead load (composite):

Live load (HL-93) and dynamic load allowance:

56
Multiplying the above stresses by their respective load factors and adding the

products results in the following combined stress for the Strength I Limit State:

Similarly, all of the combined moments, shears, and flexural stresses can be

computed at the controlling locations. A summary of those combined load effects

for an interior beam is presented in the following three tables, summarizing the

results obtained using the procedures demonstrated in the above computations.

Table 3-19 Combined effects at location of maximum positive moment

As shown in the above table, the Strength I Limit State elastic stress in the

bottom of the girder exceeds the girder yield stress.

However, for this design example, this value is not used because of the local

yielding that occurs at this section.


57
Table 3-20 Combined effects at location of maximum negative moment

Legend:

* Strength I Limit State stresses are based on section properties assuming the

deck concrete is not effective, and fdeck is the stress in the deck reinforcing steel.

** Service II and Fatigue Limit State stresses are based on section properties

assuming the deck concrete is effective, and f deck is the stress in the deck

concrete.

58
Table 3-21 Combined effects at location of maximum shear

Envelopes of the factored Strength I moments and shears are presented in the

following two figures. Maximum and minimum values are presented, and values

for both interior and exterior girders are presented. Based on these envelopes, it

can be seen that the interior girder controls the design, and all remaining design

computations are based on the interior girder.

59
Figure 3.11 Envelope of Strength I moments

Figure 3.12 Envelope of Strength I shears

Design steps consist of verifying the structural adequacy of critical beam

locations using appropriate sections of the Specifications.

60
For this design example, two design sections will be checked for illustrative

purposes. First, all specification checks for Design Steps 3.7 through following

Steps will be performed for the location of maximum positive moment, which is at

0.4L in Span 1. Second, all specification checks for these same design steps will

be performed for the location of maximum negative moment and maximum

shear, which is at the pier.

Specification Check Locations

For steel girder designs, specification checks are generally performed using a

computer program at the following locations:

• Span tenth points

• Locations of plate transitions

• Locations of stiffener spacing transitions

However, it should be noted that the maximum moment within a span may not

necessarily occur at any of the above locations.

The following specification checks are for the location of maximum positive

moment, which is at 0.4L in Span 1, as shown in Figure 3-13.

Figure 3.13 Location of maximum positive moment

61
Step 3.7 - Check Section Proportion Limits – Positive Moment Region

Several checks are required to ensure that the proportions of the trial girder

section are within specified limits. (S6.10.2.)

The first section proportion check relates to the general proportions of the

section. The flexural components must be proportioned such that:

The second section proportion check relates to the web slenderness. For a

section without longitudinal stiffeners, the web must be proportioned such that:

For the Strength I limit state at 0.4L in Span 1 (the location of maximum positive

moment): S6.10.3.1.4a

(See Table 3-19 and Figure 3-9)


62
The third section proportion check relates to the flange proportions. The

compression flanges on fabricated I-sections must be proportioned such that:

According to C6.10.2.3, it is preferable for the flange width to be greater than or

equal to 0.4Dc. In this case, the flange width is greater than both 0.3Dc and

0.4Dc, so this requirement is clearly satisfied. (C6.10.2.3)

In addition to the compression flange check, the tension flanges on fabricated I-

sections must be proportioned such that:( S6.10.2.3)

63
Step 3.8 - Compute Plastic Moment Capacity - Positive Moment Region

Figure 3.14 Computation of plastic moment capacity for positive bending sections

For the tension flange:

For the web:

For the compression flange:

64
For the slab:

Check the location of the plastic neutral axis, as follows:

Therefore, the plastic neutral axis is located within the slab.

Check that the position of the plastic neutral axis, as computed above, results in

an equilibrium condition in which there is no net axial force.

The plastic moment, Mp, is computed as follows, where d is the distance from an

element force (or element neutral axis) to the plastic neutral axis:

65
Figure 3.15 Final plate girder elevation

66
CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF BLAST PRESSURES IN THE

BRIDGE DECK

4.1 Model Bridge Capacity

4.1.1 Bridge Deck Moment Capacity

Deck top cover - The concrete top cover is set at 2.5 inches since the bridge

deck may be exposed to deicing salts and/or tire stud or chain wear. This

includes the required ½ inch integral wearing surface.

Deck bottom cover - The concrete bottom cover is set at 1.0 inch for

reinforcement bar size smaller than a #11 bar. The concrete 28-day compressive

strength for decks shall be not less than 4.0 KSI. Also, type "AE" concrete should

be specified when the deck will be exposed to deicing salts or the freeze-thaw

cycle.

Future wearing surface density - 2.5 in thick future wearing surface with a

density of 0.140 kcf is assumed in the calculations.

Concrete deck slab capacity:

Overhang Negative Moment Capacity:

2 # 5 bar (bundled bar) @ 6 in As = 2x0.31x12 in /6 in = 1.24 in2 /ft

a = Asfy / 0.85fcb = 1.24 x 6000/0.85 x 4000 x 12 = 1.82 in

Mn = Asfy(de-a/2) = 1.24 x 6000x(5.69-1.82/2) =29.6 kip-ft

67
Figure 3.5 Superstructure positive and negative moment deck reinforcement

Negative Moment Capacity:

1#5 bar @6 in As = 1 x 0.31 x 12 in / 6 in = 0.62 in2 /ft

a = Asfy / 0.85fcb = 0. 62 x 6000 / 0.85 x 4000 x 12 = 0.91 in

Mn = Asfy(de-a/2) = 0.62 x 6000 x (5.69-0.91/2) = 16.2 kip-ft

Positive Moment Capacity:

1 # 5 bar @ 8 in As = 1 x 0.31x12 in/8 in = 0.465 in2 /ft

a = Asfy/0.85fcb = 0.465x6000/0.85x4000x12 = 0.684 in

Mn = Asfy(de-a/2) = 0.684x6000x(6.69-0.684/2) =14.8 kip-ft

Concrete Deck Slab Cracking Moment

Ig =12x83/12 = 512 in4 fr = 7.5 f ' =7.5 x 4000 = 474 psi yt = H/2 = 4 in

Mcr = Igfr/yt = 512 x 474 / 4 = 60672 lb-in = 61 kip-in/ft = 5.1 kip-ft/ft

68
4.1.2 Bridge Deck Shear Capacity
For 1 ft width concrete deck, the maximum allowable nominal shear strength Vc:

Vc = 2 f ' b0d = 2 4000 x12x5.69 = 8.6 kips

4.1.3 Steel Girder Plastic Moment Capacity

Figure 3.15 Plate girder elevation

4.1.3.1 Compute Plastic Moment Capacity – Positive (Composite)

For composite sections, the plastic moment, Mp, is calculated as the first moment

of plastic forces about the plastic neutral axis.

Mid Span Section

Top flange 14” x 5/8”, Bottom flange 14” x 7/8”, and web 54” x 1/2”

For the tension flange:

Fyt = 50 ksi bt = 14 in tt = 0.875 in

Pt = Fyt⋅bt⋅tt Pt = 613 kips

69
Figure 4.1 Girder cross section

For the web:

Fyw = 50.0 ksi Dw = 54 in tw = 0.50 in

Pw = Fyw⋅Dw⋅tw Pw = 1350 kips

For the compression flange:

Fyc = 50 ksi bc = 14 in tc = 0.625 in

Pc = Fyc⋅bc⋅tc Pc = 438 kips

For the slab:

f'c = 4.0 ksi bs = 103 in ts = 8.0 in

Ps = 0.85⋅f'c⋅bs⋅ts Ps = 2802 kips

The forces in the longitudinal reinforcement may be conservatively neglected.

Check the location of the plastic neutral axis, as follows:

Pt + Pw = 1963 kips Pc + Ps = 3239 kips

Pt + Pw + Pc = 2400 kips Ps = 2802 kips

70
Therefore, the plastic neutral axis is located within the deck concrete slab.

Pc  Pw  Pt 
Y = (ts)  
 Ps 

Y = 6.85 in

Check whether the position of the plastic neutral axis, as computed above,

results in an equilibrium condition in which there is no net axial force.

Compression = 0.85⋅f'c⋅bs⋅Y

Compression = 2400 kips

Tension = Pt + Pw + Pc

Tension = 2400 kips

dc = -tc/2 + 3.5in + ts – Y dc = 4.33 in

dw = Dw/2+3.5in + ts – Y dw = 31.65 in

dt = tt/2 + Dw + 3.5in +ts –Y dt = 59.08 in

Y 2  Ps
Mp = +(Pc⋅dc + Pw⋅dw + Pt⋅dt)
2 t s

Mp = 7419 kip-ft

3/4 Span Section

Top flange 14” x 1-1/4”, Bottom flange 14” x 1-3/8”, and web 54” x 1/2”

For the tension flange:

Fyt = 50 ksi bt = 14 in tt = 1.375 in

Pt = Fyt⋅bt⋅tt Pt = 962.5 kips

For the web:

Fyw = 50.0 ksi Dw = 54 in tw = 0.50 in


71
Pw = Fyw⋅Dw⋅tw Pw = 1350 kips

For the compression flange:

Fyc = 50 ksi bc = 14 in tc = 1.25 in

Pc = Fyc⋅bc⋅tc Pc = 875 kips

For the slab:

f'c = 4.0 ksi bs = 103 in ts = 8.0 in

Ps = 0.85⋅f'c⋅bs⋅ts Ps = 2802 kips

The forces in the longitudinal reinforcement may be conservatively neglected.

Check the location of the plastic neutral axis, as follows:

Pt + Pw = 2312.5 kips Pc + Ps = 3677 kips

Pt + Pw + Pc = 3187.5 kips Ps = 2802 kips

Therefore, the plastic neutral axis is located top flange.

Y tc - Y
Ps + Pc ( ) = Pc ( tc ) + Pt + Pw
tc

tc  Pt  Pw  Pc - Ps 
Y= 2  Pc 

Y = 0.275 in

Check whether the position of the plastic neutral axis, as computed above,

results in an equilibrium condition in which there is no net axial force.

Concrete Compression = 0.85⋅f'c⋅bs⋅ts = 2802 kips

tc - Y
Mp = Ps ( ts + 3.5 + Y) + ( Y ) Pc ( Y ) + ( tc - Y ) Pc ( )
2 tc 2 tc 2

+ Pw (tc - Y + Dw ) + Pt (tc - Y + Dw + ts )
2 2
72
Mp = 113486 kip-in = 9457 kip-ft

Center Support Section

Top flange 14” x -1/2”, Bottom flange 14” x 2-3/4”, and web 54” x 1/2”

For the tension flange:

Fyt = 50 ksi bt = 14 in tt = 2.75 in

Pt = Fyt⋅bt⋅tt Pt = 1925 kips

For the web:

Fyw = 50.0 ksi Dw = 54 in tw = 0.50 in

Pw = Fyw⋅Dw⋅tw Pw = 1350 kips

For the compression flange:

Fyc = 50 ksi bc = 14 in tc = 2.5 in

Pc = Fyc⋅bc⋅tc Pc = 1750 kips

For the slab:

f'c = 4.0 ksi bs = 103 in ts = 8.0 in

Ps = 0.85⋅f'c⋅bs⋅ts Ps = 2802 kips

The forces in the longitudinal reinforcement may be conservatively neglected.

Check the location of the plastic neutral axis, as follows:

Pt + Pw = 3275 kips Pc + Ps = 4552 kips

Pt + Pw + Pc = 32875 kips Ps = 2802 kips

Therefore, the plastic neutral axis is located top flange.

Ps + Pc ( Y ) = Pc ( tc - Y ) + Pt + Pw
tc tc
73
Pt  Pw  Pc - Ps 
Y = tc  
2  Pc 

Y = 1.59 in

Check that the position of the plastic neutral axis, as computed above, results in

an equilibrium condition in which there is no net axial force.

Concrete Compression = 0.85⋅f'c⋅bs⋅ts = 2802 kips

tc - Y
Mp = Ps ( ts + 3.5 + Y) + ( Y ) Pc ( Y ) + ( tc - Y ) Pc ( )
2 tc 2 tc 2

+ Pw (tc - Y + Dw ) + Pt (tc - Y + Dw + ts )
2 2

Mp = 172672 kip-in = 14389 kip-ft

4.1.3.2 Negative Plastic Moment Capacity

For composite sections, the plastic moment, Mp, is calculated as the first moment

of plastic forces about the plastic neutral axis.

Figure 4.2 Girder cross section with steel reinforcements in the concrete deck

74
Plastic Moment Capacity for Negative Bending

Midspan Section

Top flange 14” x 5/8”, Bottom flange 14” x 7/8”, and web 54” x 1/2”

For the tension flange:

Fyt = 50 ksi bt = 14 in tt = 0.625 in

Pt = Fyt⋅bt⋅tt Pt = 437.5 kips

For the web:

Fyw = 50.0 ksi Dw = 54 in tw = 0.50 in

Pw = Fyw⋅Dw⋅tw Pw = 1350 K

For the compression flange:

Fyc = 50 ksi bc = 14 in tc = 0.875 in

Pc = Fyc⋅bc⋅tc Pc = 612.5 kips

For the longitudinal reinforcing steel in the top layer of the slab:

Fyrt = 60 ksi

Art = 0.31⋅in2 (103 in) / (5 in) Art = 6.39 in2

Prt = Fyrt⋅Art Prt = 383 kips

For the longitudinal reinforcing steel in the bottom layer of the slab:

Fyrb = 60 ksi

Arb = 0.31⋅in2 (103 in) / (5 in) Arb = 6.39 in2

Prb = Fyrt⋅Art Prb = 383 kips

Check the location of the plastic neutral axis, as follows:

Pw + Pc = 1962.5 kips Pt + Pw + Pc = 2400 kips

75
Pt + Prb + Prt = 1204.3 kips

Therefore, the plastic neutral axis is located within the web.

Dw  Pc  Pt  Prt - Prb 
Y=   1
2  Pw 

Y = 15.16 in

t
Mp = Prt (6 + 3.5 + Y) + Prb (1 + 3.5 + Y) + Pt ( t + Y) + Pw ( Y ) ( Y )
2 Dw 2

D w -Y D -Y t
+( ) Pw ( w ) + Pc (Dw + c - Y)
2 Dw 2

Mp = 69932 kip - in = 5828 kip -ft

3/4 Span Section

Top flange 14” x 1-1/4”, Bottom flange 14” x 1-3/8”, and web 54” x 1/2”

For the tension flange:

Fyt = 50 ksi bt = 14 in tt = 1.25 in

Pt = Fyt⋅bt⋅tt Pt = 875 kips

For the web:

Fyw = 50.0 ksi Dw = 54 in tw = 0.50 in

Pw = Fyw⋅Dw⋅tw Pw = 1350 kips

For the compression flange:

Fyc = 50 ksi bc = 14 in tc = 1.375 in

Pc = Fyc⋅bc⋅tc Pc = 962.5 kips

For the longitudinal reinforcing steel in the top layer of the slab:

Fyrt = 60 ksi

76
Art = 0.31⋅in2 (103 in) / (5 in) Art = 6.39in2

Prt = Fyrt⋅Art Prt = 383 kips

For the longitudinal reinforcing steel in the bottom layer of the slab:

Fyrb = 60 ksi

Arb = 0.31 in2 (103 in) / (5 in) Arb = 6.39 in2

Prb = Fyrt⋅Art Prb = 383 kips

Check the location of the plastic neutral axis, as follows:

Pw + Pc = 2312.5 kips Pt + Pw + Pc = 3187.5 kips

Pt + Prb + Prt = 1641 kips

Therefore, the plastic neutral axis is located within the web.

Dw  Pc  Pt  Prt - Prb 
Y=   1
2  Pw 

Y = 13.41 in

t
Mp = Prt (6 + 3.5 + Y) + Prb (1 + 3.5 + Y) + Pt ( t + Y) + Pw ( Y ) ( Y )
2 Dw 2

D w -Y D -Y t
+( ) Pw ( w ) + Pc (Dw + c - Y)
2 Dw 2

Mp = 90503 kip - in = 7542 kip -ft

Center Support Section

Top flange 14” x 5/8”, Bottom flange 14” x 7/8”, and web 54” x 1/2”

For the tension flange:

Fyt = 50 ksi bt = 14 in tt = 2.50 in

77
Pt = Fyt⋅bt⋅tt Pt = 1750 kips

For the web:

Fyw = 50.0 ksi Dw = 54 in tw = 0.50 in

Pw = Fyw⋅Dw⋅tw Pw = 1350 kips

For the compression flange:

Fyc = 50 ksi bc = 14 in tc = 0.875 in

Pc = Fyc⋅bc⋅tc Pc = 1925 kips

For the longitudinal reinforcing steel in the top layer of the slab:

Fyrt = 60 ksi

Art = 0.31 in2 *(103 in) / (5 in) Art = 6.39 in2

Prt = Fyrt⋅Art Prt = 383 kips

For the longitudinal reinforcing steel in the bottom layer of the slab:

Fyrb = 60 ksi

Arb = 0.31⋅in2 (103 in) / (5 in) Arb = 6.39 in2

Prb = Fyrt⋅Art Prb = 383 kips

Check the location of the plastic neutral axis, as follows:

Pw + Pc = 3275 kips Pt + Pw + Pc = 2516 kips

Pt + Pw + Pc = 5025 kips Prb + Prt = 766 kips

Therefore, the plastic neutral axis is located within the web.

Dw  Pc  Pt  Prt - Prb 
Y=   1
2  Pw 

Y = 15.16 in

78
t
Mp = Prt (6 + 3.5 + Y) + Prb (1 + 3.5 + Y) + Pt ( t + Y) + Pw ( Y ) ( Y )
2 Dw 2

D w -Y D -Y t
+( ) Pw ( w ) + Pc (Dw + c - Y)
2 Dw 2

Mp = 157415 kip - in = 13118 kip -ft

4.1.3.3 Positive and Negative Plastic Moment Capacities (Non-

Composite)

For nor-composite sections, the plastic moment, Mp, is calculated as the first

moment of plastic forces about the plastic neutral axis.

Figure 4.3 Girder cross section (non-composite)

Midspan Section

Top flange 14” x 5/8”, Bottom flange 14” x 7/8”, and web 54” x 1/2”

For the top flange:

Fyt = 50 ksi bt = 14 in tt = 0.625 in

Pt = Fyt⋅bt⋅tt Pt = 437.5 kips


79
For the web:

Fyw = 50.0ksi Dw = 54in tw = 0.50 in

Pw = Fyw⋅Dw⋅tw Pw = 1350 kips

For the bottom flange:

Fyc = 50 ksi bc = 14 in tb = 0.875 in

Pc = Fyc⋅bb⋅tb Pb = 612.5 kips

Check the location of the plastic neutral axis, as follows:

Pw + Pt = 11787.5 kips Pw + Pb = 1962.5 kips

Therefore, the plastic neutral axis is located within the web.

Dw  Pb  Pw  Pt 
Y=   1
2  Pw 

Y = 30.5 in

t D - Y D w -Y t
Mp =Pt ( t + Y) + Pw ( Y ) ( Y ) + Pw ( w )( ) + Pb (Dw - Y + b )
2 Dw 2 Dw 2 2

Mp =  46673 kip -in =  3889 kip -ft

3/4 Span Section

Top flange 14” x 1/4”, Bottom flange 14” x 1-3/8”, and web 54” x 1/2”

For the top flange:

Fyt = 50 ksi bt = 14 in tt = 1.25 in

Pt = Fyt⋅bt⋅tt Pt = 875 kips

For the web:

Fyw = 50.0 ksi Dw = 54 in tw = 0.50 in

Pw = Fyw⋅Dw⋅tw Pw = 1350 kips


80
For the bottom flange:

Fyc = 50 ksi bc = 14 in tb = 1.375 in

Pc = Fyc⋅bb⋅tb Pb = 962.5 kips

Check the location of the plastic neutral axis, as follows:

Pw + Pt = 2225 kips Pw + Pb = 2312.5 kips

Therefore, the plastic neutral axis is located within the web.

Dw  Pb  Pw  Pt 
Y=   1
2  Pw 

Y = 28.75 in

t D - Y D w -Y t
Mp =Pt ( t + Y) + Pw ( Y ) ( Y ) + Pw ( w )( ) + Pb (Dw - Y + b )
2 Dw 2 Dw 2 2

Mp =  68970 kip -in =  5748 kip -ft

Center Support Section

Top flange 14” x 2-1/2”, Bottom flange 14” x 2-3/4”, and web 54” x 1/2”

For the top flange:

Fyt = 50 ksi bt = 14 in tt = 2.5 in

Pt = Fyt⋅bt⋅tt Pt = 1750 kips

For the web:

Fyw = 50.0 ksi Dw = 54 in tw = 0.50 in

Pw = Fyw⋅Dw⋅tw Pw = 1350 k

For the bottom flange:

Fyc = 50 ksi bc = 14 in tb = 2.75 in

Pc = Fyc⋅bb⋅tb Pb = 1925 kips


81
Check the location of the plastic neutral axis, as follows:

Pw + Pt = 3100 kips Pw + Pb = 3275 kips

Therefore, the plastic neutral axis is located within the web.

Dw  Pb  Pw  Pt 
Y=   1
2  Pw 

Y = 30.5 in

t D - Y D w -Y t
Mp =Pt ( t + Y) + Pw ( Y ) ( Y ) + Pw ( w )( ) + Pb (Dw - Y + b )
2 Dw 2 Dw 2 2

Mp =  121978 kip-in =  10165 kip-ft

4.1.4 Bridge Steel Girder Shear Capacity


Vn = 0.6 FyAwCv

For left and right support location, girders

Aw = (0.625+0.875+54) x 0.5 = 27.75 in2

Vn = 0.6 FyAwCv = 0.6 x 50 x 27.75 x 1 =833 kips

For centre support location, girders Aw = (0.625+0.875+0.54) x 0.5 = 27.75 in2

Aw = (2.5+2.75+54) x 0.5 = 29.625 in2

Vn = 0.6 FyAwCv = 0.6 x 50 x 29.625 x 1 =889 kips

4.2 Typical Blast Load

The typical amount of TNT explosive, the most likely explosive attack scenarios

and their impacts are shown in Tables 4-1 and 4-2. These are recommended by

the Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) Agency and AASHTO Blue Ribbon Panel and

Federal Alcohol, The highest possibility of a conventional truck bomb is with an

amount of 500 lb of TNT explosive. The Federal Highway Administration


82
estimates that 60% of terrorist attacks use conventional explosives. In this study,

ATBlast software based on 500 lb of TNT is used to generate the equivalent

static loads. The attack scenarios are limited to TNT-equivalent blasts that occur

over the bridge deck (e.g. carried in a vehicle traveling on the bridge).

Table 4.1 Vehicle bomb explosion effects --Federal Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms (ATF) Agency

Table 4.2 Magnitude of threats (Recommendations for Bridge and Tunnel


Security ---The Blue Ribbon Panel on Bridge and Tunnel Security)

* Nuclear weapon yield: Nagasaki's "Fat Man" gravity bomb 20 kt TNT


(thousands of tons of TNT).

83
4.3 Equivalent Blast Pressure

In 1990, the Department of Defense published the TM 5-1300 Manual-Structures

to Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions. The manual contains following

empirical formula to find the scaled distance (Z) of a blast wave.

Z = W/R1/3

Where, R = Distance of target from point of explosion (ft), and W = Equivalent

TNT weight of charge (lb). The TM 5-1300 Manual contains a chart using this

empirical formula. Based on this formula, Applied Research Associates, Inc.

developed AT-Blast, the software program that estimates the equivalent blast

pressure that occurs during an open-air explosion. The ATBlast software is

widely used and recommended by the professionals to determine the equivalent

blast pressure due to an explosion, and is provided at no cost to the government

and to authorized users. Justin Domire of Pennsylvania State University used

ATBlast to determine blast pressure to redesign the Silver Spring District

Courthouse against blast loading (Domire 2003).

The program allows the user to input minimum and maximum range, explosive

charge weight, and angle of incidence. From this information, AT-Blast calculates

Shock Front Velocity (V), Time of Arrival (TOA), Pressure (P), Impulse (I), and

duration (td). The results are displayed on screen in a tabular format and may be

printed. In addition, the resulting pressure and impulse curves may be displayed

graphically. These values are displayed in a tabular and graphical format. Figure

4-5 shows an output copy from AT-Blast with the following inputs: a minimum

range (R) of 6 feet, a maximum range of 45 feet, a 500-pound TNT charge


84
weight, and a 90º angle of alpha (Alpha is the angle of incidence of the shock

wave impacting a target surface).

Table 4.3 Equivalent parameters for 500 lb of TNT explosion


Range Velocity Time of Arrival Pressure Impulse Load Duration
(ft) (ft/msec) (msec) (psi) (psi-msec) (msec)
6 10.11 0.4 1479.55 190.72 0.26
7 9.13 0.5 1198.05 167.31 0.28
8 8.35 0.62 991.01 154.86 0.31
9 7.69 0.74 832.46 148.83 0.36
10 7.13 0.87 707.43 146.93 0.42
11 6.64 1.02 606.72 147.9 0.49
12 6.2 1.17 524.31 151.03 0.58
13 5.81 1.34 456.03 155.85 0.68
14 5.46 1.52 398.93 162.06 0.81
15 5.14 1.71 350.78 169.48 0.97
16 4.85 1.92 309.92 177.97 1.15
17 4.59 2.13 275.04 187.41 1.36
18 4.35 2.36 245.11 197.74 1.61
19 4.13 2.6 219.29 208.89 1.91
20 3.93 2.85 196.94 209.14 2.12
21 3.74 3.11 177.5 205.38 2.31
22 3.58 3.39 160.52 200.61 2.5
23 3.42 3.68 145.65 195.25 2.68
24 3.28 3.98 132.57 189.58 2.86
25 3.15 4.29 121.02 183.79 3.04
26 3.03 4.62 110.8 178.03 3.21
27 2.92 4.95 101.73 172.39 3.39
28 2.82 5.3 93.64 166.94 3.57
29 2.73 5.66 86.42 161.7 3.74
30 2.64 6.03 79.95 156.69 3.92
31 2.56 6.41 74.14 151.93 4.1
32 2.49 6.81 68.91 147.41 4.28
33 2.42 7.21 64.18 143.13 4.46
34 2.36 7.63 59.91 139.08 4.64
35 2.3 8.05 56.02 135.25 4.83
36 2.24 8.49 52.5 131.62 5.01
37 2.19 8.94 49.28 128.19 5.2
38 2.14 9.39 46.34 124.95 5.39
39 2.1 9.86 43.66 121.88 5.58
40 2.05 10.33 41.19 118.97 5.78
41 2.01 10.82 38.93 116.21 5.97
42 1.98 11.32 36.84 113.58 6.17
43 1.94 11.82 34.92 111.09 6.36
44 1.91 12.33 33.15 108.72 6.56
85
Figure 4.4 Pressure vs. range curve (ATBlast)

AT-Blast’s pressure outputs are used to obtain equivalent pressure loads in the

bridge model. The equivalent pressures are applied to the surface of decks and

girders. In order to calculate the distance from the explosion to the bridge surface,

the height of the blast centroid must be defined. Assuming the bomb is carried in

a car trunk or on a truck bed, it is approximated that the explosion centroid

occurs 6 feet above the bridge deck, which is designated as H. The distance in

the plane of the bridge deck of the point of interest from the explosion centroid is

designated as r. Use the Pythagorean theorem; the distance (R) from the

explosion centroid to the point on the bridge deck surface is calculated. Also, the

angle theta (θ) is calculated.

86
Figure 4.5 Explosion location above the bridge deck

Figure 4.6 Blast pressure distribution on bridge deck (Plan)

87
Figure 4.7 Blast pressure distribution on bridge deck (Elevation)

Figure 4.8 Blast pressure vertical components

88
The blast pressure is applied at an angle of θ with horizontal as shown.

Assuming an area of B for the inclined face of the segment, the horizontal face

has an area of B / sin(θ).

A = B / sin(θ)

The blast force is: F = B x P

The blast force vertical components are:

Fv= F x sin(θ) = P x B x sin(θ),

Fv = Pv x A = Pv x B / sin(θ)

Pv x B / sin(θ) = P x B x sin(θ)

The blast pressure vertical components are:

Pv = P x sin2(θ)

R = (r2+H2) ½ = (r +X2 + Y2) 1/2 sin(θ) = H / R

4.4 500lb TNT Blast Pressure on The Bridge

Figure 4.9 500 TNT explosion location above the bridge deck

89
Table 4.4 Pressure and arrival time on the deck (Y = 0 ft)
Blast Pv Arrival Time Load Duration End Time
2
No. Y(ft) H(ft) X (ft) R(ft) sin (θ) (psi) (msec) (msec) (msec)
1 0 6 -23.6 24.35 0.06 7.8 4.089 2.923 7.012
2 0 6 -19.6 20.50 0.09 16.1 2.979 2.215 5.194
3 0 6 -14.7 15.88 0.14 45.0 1.894 1.128 3.022
4 0 6 -9.8 11.49 0.27 154.4 1.094 0.534 1.628
5 0 6 -4.9 7.75 0.60 626.0 0.590 0.302 0.892
6 0 6 0 6.00 1.00 1479.0 0.400 0.260 0.660
7 0 6 4.9 7.75 0.60 626.0 0.590 0.302 0.892
8 0 6 9.8 11.49 0.27 154.4 1.094 0.534 1.628
9 0 6 14.7 15.88 0.14 45.0 1.894 1.128 3.022
10 0 6 19.6 20.50 0.09 16.1 2.979 2.215 5.194
11 0 6 23.6 24.35 0.06 7.8 4.089 2.923 7.012

Table 4.5 Pressure and arrival time on the deck (Y = 5 ft)

Blast Pv Arrival Time Load Duration End Time


2
No. Y(ft) H(ft) X (ft) R(ft) sin (θ) (psi) (msec) (msec) (msec)
1 5 6 -23.6 24.86 0.06 7.1 4.246 3.015 7.261
2 5 6 -19.6 21.10 0.08 14.3 3.138 2.329 5.466
3 5 6 -14.7 16.65 0.13 37.3 2.056 1.286 3.341
4 5 6 -9.8 12.53 0.23 111.8 1.260 0.633 1.894
5 5 6 -4.9 9.22 0.42 340.7 0.769 0.373 1.142
6 5 6 0 7.81 0.59 608.0 0.597 0.304 0.902
7 5 6 4.9 9.22 0.42 340.7 0.769 0.373 1.142
8 5 6 9.8 12.53 0.23 111.8 1.260 0.633 1.894
9 5 6 14.7 16.65 0.13 37.3 2.056 1.286 3.341
10 5 6 19.6 21.10 0.08 14.3 3.138 2.329 5.466
11 5 6 23.6 24.86 0.06 7.1 4.246 3.015 7.261

Table 4.6 Pressure and arrival time on the deck (Y = 10 ft)


Blast Pv Arrival Time Load Duration End Time
2
No. Y(ft) H(ft) X (ft) R(ft) sin (θ) (psi) (msec) (msec) (msec)
1 10 6 -23.6 26.32 0.05 5.6 4.727 3.268 7.995
2 10 6 -19.6 22.81 0.07 10.3 3.624 2.645 6.269
3 10 6 -14.7 18.76 0.10 23.0 2.543 1.839 4.383
4 10 6 -9.8 15.23 0.16 53.0 1.759 1.012 2.771
5 10 6 -4.9 12.65 0.22 108.0 1.280 0.645 1.925
6 10 6 0 11.66 0.26 146.1 1.119 0.550 1.669
7 10 6 4.9 12.65 0.22 108.0 1.280 0.645 1.925
8 10 6 9.8 15.23 0.16 53.0 1.759 1.012 2.771
9 10 6 14.7 18.76 0.10 23.0 2.543 1.839 4.383
10 10 6 19.6 22.81 0.07 10.3 3.624 2.645 6.269
11 10 6 23.6 26.32 0.05 5.6 4.727 3.268 7.995
90
Table 4.7 Pressure and arrival time on the deck (Y = 15 ft)
Blast Pv Arrival Time Load Duration End Time
2
No. Y(ft) H(ft) X (ft) R(ft) sin (θ) (psi) (msec) (msec) (msec)
1 15 6 -23.6 28.60 0.04 3.9 5.516 3.672 9.188
2 15 6 -19.6 25.40 0.06 6.5 4.422 3.108 7.530
3 15 6 -14.7 21.84 0.08 12.3 3.346 2.470 5.816
4 15 6 -9.8 18.90 0.10 22.4 2.575 1.879 4.454
5 15 6 -4.9 16.88 0.13 35.3 2.105 1.335 3.441
6 15 6 0 16.16 0.14 42.0 1.953 1.183 3.135
7 15 6 4.9 16.88 0.13 35.3 2.105 1.335 3.441
8 15 6 9.8 18.90 0.10 22.4 2.575 1.879 4.454
9 15 6 14.7 21.84 0.08 12.3 3.346 2.470 5.816
10 15 6 19.6 25.40 0.06 6.5 4.422 3.108 7.530
11 15 6 23.6 28.60 0.04 3.9 5.516 3.672 9.188

Table 4.8 Pressure and arrival time on the deck (Y = 20 ft)

Blast Pv Arrival Time Load Duration End Time


2
No. Y(ft) H(ft) X (ft) R(ft) sin (θ) (psi) (msec) (msec) (msec)
1 20 6 -23.6 31.51 0.04 2.6 6.615 4.192 10.807
2 20 6 -19.6 28.64 0.04 3.9 5.530 3.679 9.208
3 20 6 -14.7 25.54 0.06 6.4 4.467 3.131 7.598
4 20 6 -9.8 23.07 0.07 9.8 3.700 2.692 6.392
5 20 6 -4.9 21.45 0.08 13.3 3.235 2.395 5.630
6 20 6 0 20.88 0.08 14.9 3.079 2.287 5.366
7 20 6 4.9 21.45 0.08 13.3 3.235 2.395 5.630
8 20 6 9.8 23.07 0.07 9.8 3.700 2.692 6.392
9 20 6 14.7 25.54 0.06 6.4 4.467 3.131 7.598
10 20 6 19.6 28.64 0.04 3.9 5.530 3.679 9.208
11 20 6 23.6 31.51 0.04 2.6 6.615 4.192 10.807

Table 4.9 Pressure and arrival time on the deck (Y = 25 ft)


Blast Pv Arrival Time Load Duration End Time
2
No. Y(ft) H(ft) X (ft) R(ft) sin (θ) (psi) (msec) (msec) (msec)
1 25 6 -23.6 34.90 0.03 1.7 8.008 4.811 12.819
2 25 6 -19.6 32.33 0.03 2.3 6.942 4.339 11.281
3 25 6 -14.7 29.62 0.04 3.4 5.888 3.851 9.739
4 25 6 -9.8 27.51 0.05 4.7 5.130 3.483 8.613
5 25 6 -4.9 26.17 0.05 5.8 4.677 3.241 7.918
6 25 6 0 25.71 0.05 6.2 4.524 3.161 7.685
7 25 6 4.9 26.17 0.05 5.8 4.677 3.241 7.918
8 25 6 9.8 27.51 0.05 4.7 5.130 3.483 8.613
9 25 6 14.7 29.62 0.04 3.4 5.888 3.851 9.739
10 25 6 19.6 32.33 0.03 2.3 6.942 4.339 11.281
11 25 6 23.6 34.90 0.03 1.7 8.008 4.811 12.819
91
Table 4.10 Pressure and arrival time on the deck (Y = 30 ft)

Blast Pv Arrival Time Load Duration End Time


2
No. Y(ft) H(ft) X (ft) R(ft) sin (θ) (psi) (msec) (msec) (msec)
1 30 6 -23.6 38.64 0.02 1.1 9.690 5.511 15.202
2 30 6 -19.6 36.33 0.03 1.4 8.640 5.073 13.714
3 30 6 -14.7 33.94 0.03 1.9 7.606 4.630 12.235
4 30 6 -9.8 32.13 0.03 2.4 6.860 4.303 11.163
5 30 6 -4.9 30.98 0.04 2.8 6.404 4.097 10.501
6 30 6 0 30.59 0.04 2.9 6.256 4.027 10.283
7 30 6 4.9 30.98 0.04 2.8 6.404 4.097 10.501
8 30 6 9.8 32.13 0.03 2.4 6.860 4.303 11.163
9 30 6 14.7 33.94 0.03 1.9 7.606 4.630 12.235
10 30 6 19.6 36.33 0.03 1.4 8.640 5.073 13.714
11 30 6 23.6 38.64 0.02 1.1 9.690 5.511 15.202

Table 4.11 Pressure and arrival time on the girder 1 and girder 5

# 1 Blast # 2 Blast # 3 Blast


Pv Pv Pv Arrival Time at #2 Load Duration End Time
No. Y (ft) psi psi psi (msec) (msec) (msec)
1 -30 1.1 1.4 1.9 8.640 5.073
2 -25 1.7 2.3 3.4 6.942 4.339 11.281
3 -20 2.6 3.9 6.4 5.530 3.679 9.208
4 -15 3.9 6.5 12.3 4.422 3.108 7.530
5 -10 5.6 10.3 23.0 3.624 2.645 6.269
6 -5 7.1 14.3 37.3 3.138 2.329 5.466
7 0 7.8 16.1 45.0 2.979 2.215 5.194
8 5 7.1 14.3 37.3 3.138 2.329 5.466
9 10 5.6 10.3 23.0 3.624 2.645 6.269
10 15 3.9 6.5 12.3 4.422 3.108 7.530
11 20 2.6 3.9 6.4 5.530 3.679 9.208
12 25 1.7 2.3 3.4 6.942 4.339 11.281
13 30 1.1 1.4 1.9 8.640 5.073 13.714

92
Table 4.12 Pressure and arrival time on the girders 2 and 4

# 3 Blast # 4 Blast # 5 Blast


Pv Pv Pv Arrival Time at #4 Load Duration End Time
No. Y (ft) psi psi psi (msec) (msec) (msec)
1 -30 1.9 2.4 2.8 6.860 4.303 11.163
2 -25 3.4 4.7 5.8 5.130 3.483 8.613
3 -20 6.4 9.8 13.3 3.700 2.692 6.392
4 -15 12.3 22.4 35.3 2.575 1.879 4.454
5 -10 23.0 53.0 108.0 1.759 1.012 2.771
6 -5 37.3 111.8 340.7 1.260 0.633 1.894
7 0 45.0 154.4 626.0 1.094 0.534 1.628
8 5 37.3 111.8 340.7 1.260 0.633 1.894
9 10 23.0 53.0 108.0 1.759 1.012 2.771
10 15 12.3 22.4 35.3 2.575 1.879 4.454
11 20 6.4 9.8 13.3 3.700 2.692 6.392
12 25 3.4 4.7 5.8 5.130 3.483 8.613
13 30 1.9 2.4 2.8 6.860 4.303 11.163

Table 4.13 Pressure and arrival time on the girder 3

# 5 Blast #6 Blast #7 Blast


Pv Pv Pv Arrival Time at #6 Load Duration End Time
No. Y (ft) psi psi psi (msec) (msec) (msec)
1 -30 2.8 2.9 2.8 6.256 4.027 10.283
2 -25 5.8 6.2 5.8 4.524 3.161 7.685
3 -20 13.3 14.9 13.3 3.079 2.287 5.366
4 -15 35.3 42.0 35.3 1.953 1.183 3.135
5 -10 108.0 146.1 108.0 1.119 0.550 1.669
6 -5 340.7 608.0 340.7 0.597 0.304 0.902
7 0 626.0 1479.0 626.0 0.400 0.260 0.660
8 5 340.7 608.0 340.7 0.597 0.304 0.902
9 10 108.0 146.1 108.0 1.119 0.550 1.669
10 15 35.3 42.0 108.0 1.953 1.183 3.135
11 20 13.3 14.9 13.3 3.079 2.287 5.366
12 25 5.8 6.2 5.8 4.524 3.161 7.685
13 30 2.8 2.9 2.8 6.256 4.027 10.283

4.5 Application of Blast Loads

The pressures on a structure due to a blast are non-uniform and highly impulsive.

The load impulses on the deck contain a positive downward phase and a

negative suction phase. The peak pressures decay and the load duration

93
increases as the blast wave traverses along the deck length. Different locations

of the deck experience different peak pressures at different times. The positive

pressure phase is idealized using a triangular impulse with an instantaneous rise

time and a time for decay.

Figure 4.10 Standard pressure vs. time curve for an explosion at a point (Robert,
2007)

Figure 4.11 Nonlinear decay of actual blast loading (McClendon, 2007)

94
Figure 4.12 Linear decay of trial positive phase pressures (McClendon, 2007)

In the blast pressures, the peak pressure decays in a nonlinear manner to zero.

The trial positive phase pressures decay linearly over the same length of time.

Mark A McClendon (2007) checks and compares the impulses from the actual

experienced data to the approximate data. It can be shown that the trial impulses

vary from 2 to 7 times that of the actual pulses. To take this variation into account,

the pulses should be modify to a bilinear decay.

Figure 4.13 Impulse comparison (McClendon, 2007)

95
4.6 Analysis for Pressures on the Deck

The different locations on the deck experience different peak loading pressures

at different rise times. The peak pressures decay and the load duration increases

as the blast wave traverses along the deck length. The blast pressures on the

deck vary significantly with time. The maximum loads due to blast pressures at

different locations are determined from a comparison of blast pressure loads and

the associated tributary areas.

Figure 4.5 500 TNT explosion location above the bridge deck

96
Figure 4.14 Peak pressures decay on the bridge deck (Y= 0 ft)

Figure 4.15 Peak pressure and arrival time on the deck (Y=0 ft)

Pressure(Time = 0.59ms )

700.000
600.000
Pressure(psi)

500.000
400.000
Pressure(Time = ms )
300.000
200.000
100.000
0.000
#6 #7 #8 #9
Location

Figure 4.16 Pressure on the deck (Y= 0 ft, Time = 0.59 ms)
97
Pressure(Time = 0.66ms )

600.000
500.000
Pressure (psi) 400.000
300.000 Pressure(Time = ms )
200.000
100.000
0.000
#6 #7 #8 #9
Location

Figure 4.17 Pressure on the deck (Y=0 ft, Time = 0.66 ms)

Figure 4.18 Pressure on the deck (Y=0 ft, Time = 0.1.094 ms)

Y = 5 ft Deck Pressure

Figure 4.19 Pressure on the deck (Y=5 ft, Time = 0.769 ms)

98
Figure 4.20 Pressure on the deck (Y=5 ft, Time = 0.902 ms)

Y =15 ft Deck Pressure

Figure 4.21 Pressure on the deck (Y=15 ft, Time = 2.105 ms)

Figure 4.22 Pressure on the deck (Y=15 ft, Time = 2.575 ms)

99
Figure 4.23 Pressure on the deck (Y=15 ft, Time = 3.135 ms)

Y =30 ft Deck Pressure

Figure 4.24 Pressure on the deck (Y=30 ft, Time = 6.404 ms)

Figure 4.25 Pressure on the deck (Y=30 ft, Time = 6.806ms)

100
Figure 4.26 Pressure on the deck (Y=30 ft, Time = 7.606 ms)

For the bridge deck, the distance (Y) from explosion controid varies from 0 to 15

ft, the maximum pressure loading on the deck is induced when the shock wave

arrives at location #7 (mid-spacing between girders 3 and 4, X = 4.9 ft). For the

distance (Y) from 15 to 30 ft, the maximum pressure is induced when the shock

wave arrives at location # 8 (girder 4 location, X = 9.8 ft).

4.7 Bridge Modeling Using ANSYS Program

The ANSYS program is a general-purpose program, widely used in the industry

including automobiles, aerospace, railways, machinery, electronics, sporting

goods, power generation, power transmission, and biomechanics, The program

has unique capabilities for application in the disciplines in cording engineering,

structural, mechanical, electrical, electromagnetic, electronic, thermal, fluid, and

biomedical. The finite element analysis capabilities range from simple, linear

static analysis to complex, nonlinear transient dynamic analysis. The primary

unknowns (nodal degrees of freedom) in a structural analysis are displacements.

101
Other quantities, such as strains, stresses, and reaction forces, are then derived

from the nodal displacements.

Bridge Modeling

The typical composite bridge has two spans, with five continuous steel girders

and a continuous reinforced concrete deck over the five girders.

Figure 3.1a Two-span continuous bridge configuration

Figure 3.1b Cross section of composite steel girder bridge

102
For the sake of simplicity, the whole bridge structure was modeled using two sets

of components: steel girders and composite decks. The bridge model is

generated using the ANSYS software for analysis, as shown in Fig. 4.27 and Fig

4.28. The deck slab was modeled using 30 BEAM3 elements, with a height of 8

in. and width 12 in. The deck slab is considered continuous over the girders.

Figure 4.27. Modeling of concrete bridge deck for analysis using ANSYS

The steel girders ware modeled using 48 BEAM3 elements. The sectional

properties of girders are: height = 55 in., area = 48 in2, and IZZ =22213 in4.

Figure 4.28 Modeling of bridge steel girder for analysis using ANSYS

103
4.8 Blast Load Cases

The forces from the blast effects were considered as extreme event loads.

According to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO 2003),

the combination of dead and live loads along extreme event load cases is given

as:

Extreme Event II: = 1.25 DL + 0.50LL + 1.00EV

DL = Dead load, LL = Truck live load, and EV = Extreme event load.

Table 4.14: Blast Load Cases

Load Location Members Blast Centroid

Case Affected

Case 1 Over the bridge, over girder 3 Deck slab, girders 6 ft above deck.

and mid-girder 3 span 1.

Case 2 Over the bridge, over girder 3, Deck slab, girders 6 ft above deck.

over pier cap.

Case 3 Over the bridge, at mid-deck Deck slab, girders 6 ft above deck.

span 1 and mid-girder span 1.

Case 4 Under the bridge, below Deck slab, girders 6 ft above ground.

girder 3, under mid-deck slab and pier cap.

Case 5 Under the bridge, at 6 ft away Pier, deck slab, 6 ft above ground.

from supporting pier and girders

104
Analysis of Blast Pressures on Concrete Deck

The blast pressures on one ft width of concrete deck are calculated and the blast

load idealized as uniformly distributed loads.

Figure 4.29 Uniformly distributed blast loads on the bridge

Figure 4.30 Uniformly distributed blast loads on the bridge steel girder

4.8.1 Load Case 1


Load case 1 shown in Figure 4.31, occurs when the explosion takes place 6 ft

above the bridge deck center and mid-span of Girder 3.

105
Figure 4.31 Load case 1

Due to this explosion, the deck experiences a vertical downward pressure. Girder

3 is affected with a maximum blast pressure loading. The pressures are

distributed over the girder- composite slab along the longitudinal centerline of

girder 3.

4.8.2 Load Case 2


Load case 2 shown in Figure 4.32, occurs when the explosion takes place 6 ft

above the bridge deck, over Girder 3 and pier cap.

106
Figure 4.32 Load case 2

4.8.3 Load Case 3


Load case 3 shown in Figure 4.33, occurs when the explosion takes place 6 ft

above the bridge deck, between Girder 1 and 2, at the middle of span 1 and at

girder mid-span. Due to this explosion, bridge deck slab and girder experience a

vertical downward pressure.

Figure 4.33 Load case 3

107
4.8.4 Load Case 4
Load case 4 shown in Figure 4.34, occurs when the explosion takes place under

the bridge at mid-span of Girder 3. According to AASHTO Design Standards, the

minimum vertical clearance under overhead structures (including the paved

shoulders) is 16 ft in for rural areas and 14 ft for urban areas,

Figure 4.34 Load case 4

4.8.5 Load Case 5


Load case 5 shown in Figure 4.35, occurs when the explosion takes place under

the bridge at 6 ft above the ground, and at a standoff distance of 6 ft from the pier

column face. This load case induces horizontal pressure on the column and

pressures on the girders and deck. The main purpose of this load case was to

108
determine the performance of the pier column. The girder and deck were

excluded in this load case.

Figure 4.35 Load case 5

109
4.9 Blast Pressure Distribution on the Bridge Components

No guidelines are available in the literature on distribution of blast pressure on

bridge. The ATBlast (GSA) software is widely used and recommended by the

professionals to determine the equivalent blast pressure due to an explosion. In

following section, ATBlast software is used to generate the equivalent distribution

of blast pressure on bridge components based on 500 lb of TNT.

Figure 4.5 Explosion location above the bridge deck

Assuming the bomb is carried in a car trunk or on a truck bed, explosion centroid

is approximated to occur at 6 feet above the bridge deck, which is defined by H

(figure 4.), The distance in the plane of the bridge deck to the point of interest

from the explosion force centroid is designated as r. Using the Pythagorean

theorem, the distance (R) from the explosion centroid to the point on the bridge

deck surface and the angle theta (θ) are calculated.

110
Figure 4.6 Blast pressure distribution on bridge deck (Plan)

Figure 4.7 Blast pressure distribution on bridge deck (elevation)

111
Figure 4.8 Blast pressure vertical components

Blast pressures, P for variable value of Range(R, 6 ft ~ 45 ft), obtain in Table 4.3.

The peak blast pressures (Pv) are calculated from the following:

Pv = P x sin2(θ) R = (r2+H2) ½ sin(θ) = H / R

Table 4.15 shows the peak blast pressure (Pv) and arrival time on the Bridge

component.

Table 4.15 Peak blast pressure Pv and arrival time on the bridge component

Arrival Load
Blast Pv Time Duration End Time
No. r (ft) H (ft) R(ft) sin2 (θ) (psi) (msec) (msec) (msec)
1 0 6 6 1 1479 0.4 0.26 0.66
2 5 6 7.81 0.59 608.0 0.597 0.304 0.902
3 10 6 12.65 0.22 146.1 1.119 0.55 1.669
4 15 6 16.16 0.14 42.0 1.953 1.183 3.135
5 20 6 20.88 0.08 14.9 3.079 2.287 5.366
6 25 6 25.71 0.05 6.2 4.524 3.161 7.685
7 30 6 30.59 0.04 2.9 6.256 4.027 10.283

112
The distributions of blast peak pressure on bridge component are shown in

Figure 4.36.

Figure 4.36 Distribution of peak blast pressure (Pv) on bridge structural


component as a function of radial distance r, from the force centroid on the
component surface.

113
Increases in duration time (td), the blast peak pressure rapidly decreases (Figure

4.37).

Peak Blast Pressure vs Duration Time

1600
1400
Peak Pressure, (psi)

1200
1000
800 Peak Blast Pressure vs
600 Duration Time
400
200
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Duration of Blast Pressure, td (ms)

Figure 4.37 Peak blast pressure Pv vs duration time td

Also, initially, the blast peak pressure decreases fast with the radial distance,

then become asymptotic with the radial distance (Figure 4.38).

Peak Pressure vs Distance

1600
1400
Peak Pressure (psi)

Peak Pressure vs Distance


1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance from Explosion, r (ft)

Figure 4.38 Peak blast pressure Pv vs radial distance (r)

114
CHAPTER 5: RESPONSE AND PERFORMANCE OF

COMPOSITE STEEL GIRDER BRIDGE TO BLAST LOADS

5.1 General Failure Modes of Bridge Structure Due To Blast Load

Damage due to the blast load may be divided into direct blast effects and

progressive collapse. Direct blasts effects include damage caused by the high-

intensity pressures of the blast close to the explosion site and may induce the

localized failure of deck and girders.

Blast loading effects on structural members may produce both local and global

responses associated with different failure modes (T.Ngo, 2007). The type of

structural response depends mainly on the loading rate, the orientation of the

target with respect to the direction of the blast wave propagation and boundary

conditions. The general failure modes associated with blast loading can be

flexure, direct shear or punching shear. Local responses are characterized by

localized bleaching and spalling, and generally result from the close-in effects of

explosions, while global responses are typically manifested as flexural failure. In

the case of blast loading at relatively large stand-off distances, with uniform

loading over the element, the response will be global and for close-in blast

loading and small stand-off distances the resulting damage is localized.

115
5.1.1 Global Response

The global behavior of a structure can be generalized to membrane, flexural and

shear failure (ASCE 1999). The global response of structural elements is

generally a consequence of transverse (out-of-plane) loads with long exposure

time (quasi-static loading), and is usually associated with global membrane

(bending) and shear response .The global response of above ground reinforced

concrete structures subjected to blast loading is referred to as bending failure.

The second global failure mode to be considered is shear failure. Direct

(dynamic) shear failure mode is primarily associated with transient short duration

dynamic loads that result from blast effects, and it depends mainly on the

intensity of the pressure waves. The associated shear force is many times higher

than the shear force associated with flexural failure modes. The high shear

stresses may lead to direct global shear failure and it may occur very early

(within a few milliseconds of shock wave arrival to the frontal surface of the

structure), which can be prior to any occurrence of significant bending

deformations.

Reinforced concrete beams and one-way concrete slabs subjected to air blast

loading can fail in a variety of mechanisms (Magnusson, 2007). They can fail in

flexure where plastic hinges form at locations where the ultimate bending

moment capacity is attained, i.e. at mid-span for a simply supported beam where

a symmetric load is applied. This failure mode is characterized by initial cracking

of the concrete, subsequent yielding of the tensile reinforcement and, ultimately,

compression failure of the concrete. The nature of the flexural failure is


116
normally ductile and energy absorbing. The flexural shear failure mode, on the

other hand, is abrupt and brittle in nature, which severely limits the capacity of

the element. The flexural shear mode is characterized by initial flexural cracks

that develop where the maximum bending moment is obtained and then,

ultimately, the formations of an inclined diagonal tension crack close to one or

both supports. Thus, this is a premature failure mode where the element is

unable to develop its ultimate bending moment with corresponding deformation

and therefore undesirable.

Figure 5.1Global damage of reinforced concrete beam (NYSTRÖM, 2008)

Beams and slabs can also fail in a direct shear mode under the action of a

uniformly distributed impulsive load (Ross, 1983). Shear failures generally occur

at locations near the supports or at the joints of elements that comprise the

structure where the maximum shear stresses occur and are possible even in

elements designed for flexural shear. Direct shear failure of an element is

characterized by the rapid propagation of a vertical crack through the depth of

the element. According to Ross (1983), shear failures can occur at times soon

after the transmitted part of the shock wave has propagated through the
117
thickness of the structural element. As a comparison, the flexural response of the

element is not initiated until much later when the element has attained some

momentum. Flexural failure occurs after formation of plastic hinges, resulting in a

mechanism or when the in-plane deformations are large enough to make the

beam slip of the supports. Thus, a direct shear failure mode is a premature

failure mechanism where the element has had no time to deflect and therefore it

is a very brittle response.

Figure 5.2 Schematic illustration of the relation between load and response time
for an impulsive load (Magnusson, 2007)

5.1.2 Local Response


The close-in effect of explosion may cause localized shear or flexural failure in

the closest structural elements. This depends mainly on the distance between

the source of the explosion and the target, and the relative strength/ductility of

the structural elements. The localized shear failure takes place in the form of

localized punching and spalling, which produces low and high-speed fragments.

The punching effect is frequently referred to as bleaching, which is well known in

high velocity impact applications and the case of explosions close to the surface

of structural members.
118
Figure 5.3 Local damage caused by close-in explosion (NYSTRÖM, 2008)

Figure 5.4 Breaching failures due to a close-in explosion of 6000 kg TNT


equivalent (Photograph by T.Nao)

5.2 Bridge Failure

Depending on the amount of component damage, bridge failure can be classified

as partial or total failure. Partial failure will most likely cause the bridge to be put

partially out of service, while total failure will definitely put the bridge completely

out of service. Failure may be caused due to damage on any one of the critical

components of a bridge, such as girders, deck slab, pier cap or columns. Column

or pier cap failure may initiate total collapse of the bridge, while girder or deck

slab failure may not cause complete collapse. The bridge component failure may

be categorized as shear failure, flexural failure and deflection flexural. If the

119
applied force effect exceeds the capacity of the section, then the component

fails.

5.3 Moment and Shear Capacities of The Bridge

Bridge Deck Moment Capacity

Overhang

Negative Moment Capacity:  = 0.9

Mn =0.9x29.6 k-ft = 0.9x356 kips-in =320 kip -in

Positive Moment Capacity: Mn = 0.9x14.8 kips-ft = 160 kip -in

Deck

Negative Moment Capacity: Mn =0.9x16.2 kips -ft = 0.9x195 kip-in =176 kip-in

Positive Moment Capacity: Mn =0.9x14.8 kips-ft = 0.9x178 kips-in =160 kip-ft

Bridge Deck Shear Capacity

For 1 ft width concrete deck, the maximum allowable nominal shear strength Vn :

Vn = 8.6 kips,  = 0.85  Vn = 7.3 kips

Steel Girder Plastic Moment Capacity

Plastic Moment Capacity – Positive (Composite)

Mid Span Section

Top flange 14” x 5/8”, Bottom flange 14” x 7/8”, and web 54” x 1/2”

Mp = 0.9 x 7419 kip-ft =6,677 kip-ft

¾ Span Section

Top flange 14” x 5/8”, Bottom flange 14” x 7/8”, and web 54” x 1/2”

120
Mp = 0.9 x 113486 kips-in = 0.9 x 9457 kip-ft = 8,511 kip-ft

Center Support Section

Top flange 14” x 2-1/2”, Bottom flange 14” x 2-3/4”, and web 54” x 1/2”

Mp = 0.9 x 14389 kip-ft =12,950 kip-ft

Plastic Moment Capacity – Negative (Composite)

Mid Span Section

Mp = 0.9 x69932 kip- in = 0.9x5828 kip-ft = 5,245 kip-ft

¾ Span Section

Mp = 0.9 x7542 kip-ft =6,790 kip-ft

Center Support Section

Mp = 0.9 x13118 kip-ft = 11,806 kip-ft

Plastic Moment Capacity – Positive and Negative (Non-Composite)

Mid Span Section

Therefore, the plastic neutral axis is located within the web.

Mp = 0.9 x (  3889) kip-ft = 3,500 kip-ft

¾ Span Section

Mp = 0.9 x (  5748 kip-ft) =  5,173 kip-ft

Center Support Section

Mp = 0.9 x (  10165 kips-ft) =  9,149 kips-ft

Steel Girder Shear Capacity

Left and right support location

 = 0.85 Vn = 0.85x833 kips = 709 kips

121
Centre support location

Vn =0.85 x 889 kips = 756 kips

5.4 Bridge Performance under Typical Blast Load

From the ANSYS Program General Postproc output, the applied moments and

shear forces on the critical sections of the bridge components were determined,

and compared with their respective capacities to assess their performance. The

performance was evaluated by comparing the applied moments and shear forces

with the respective capacities of the components. If the applied blast load

exceeds bridge component capacity, then the component under consideration

can be considered to have reached the failure stage.

After determining the effect of 500 lb of TNT explosion on the structure, further

analyses of the model bridge were performed for varying amounts of TNT to

determine the amount of TNT the respective members could resist before failure.

The amount varied depending on the stand off distance of the explosion, member

type and the location of the explosion. The maximum amount of blast loads,

which the girder, the pier cap, and the column can resist before failure, was

determined by using trial and error method. Several scenarios of blast loading

were considered to find the loads for each individual component and case.

5.4.1 Performance for Blast Load Case 1


Blast load case 1 is considered the explosion at 6 ft above the middle of bridge

deck center and at mid-span of Girder 3 (Figure 4.31). The results are shown in

Table 5.1

122
For the deck wherein the distance (Y) form the explosion force controid is 0 ft,

blast pressure is 626 psi at location # 7. At the same time, the blast pressure at

station # 6 decreases from a peak pressure 1479 psi to 401 psi. This value of

401 psi is calculated based on a linear variation of the peak pressure decay to

zero. In the actual blast pressures, the peak pressure decays nonlinearly over

the same length of time. According to McClendon’ impulse comparison (2007), it

can be shown that the linear trial impulses vary from 2 to 7 times that of the

actual impulses. In the study, the trial pressures are taken as 2-3 times of the

actual pressure. So, blast pressure at location # 6 decreases from the peak

pressure value of 1479 psi to 134 psi. The average blast pressure is 380 psi over

deck between locations # 5 and # 7. The uniform blast distribution loading is

calculated as 380 psi x 12 in = 4560 lb/in.

Figure 4.14 Peak pressures decay on the bridge deck (Y= 0 ft)

123
For the deck at which the distance (Y) from explosion force controid is 15 ft, the

arrival blast pressure is 22.4 psi at location #8. At the same time, the blast

pressure decreases from peak pressure of 42 psi to 20 psi at #6 location and the

corrected value is 10 psi. The average blast pressure is 16.2 psi over the deck

between locations #4 and #8. The uniform blast distribution loading is calculated

as shown for the case of Y = 0 ft and is equal to 195 lb/in (16.2 psix12 in).

Figure 5.5 Load case 1 uniform distribution of blast loads on the bridge

Figure 5.6 Modeling of concrete composite bridge deck (Y=0 ft) for load case 1
analysis using ANSYS

124
Figure 5.7 Deck shear (Y=0 ft)

Figure 5.8 Deck shear (Y=15 ft)

Figure 5.9 Modeling of concrete bridge deck (Y=15 ft) for load case 1 analysis
using ANSY

125
Table 5.1 Shear in the concrete bridge deck (Y=0, 15 ft) for blast load case 1
Deck Shear Blast Applied Blast Applied
Capacity (kips) Deck Shear Deck Shear
Location Vn (Y=0 ft) Comment (Y=15 ft) Comment
Girder 1 Left 7.3 0 0
Girder 1 Right 7.3 6 0.8
Girder 2 Left 7.3 6 0.8
Girder 2 Right 7.3 38 Shear Failure 9.8 Shear Failure
Girder 3 Left 7.3 229 Shear Failure 13 Shear Failure
Girder 3 Right 7.3 229 Shear Failure 13 Shear Failure
Girder 4 Left 7.3 38 Shear Failure 9.8 Shear Failure
Girder 4 Right 7.3 6 0.8
Girder 5 Left 7.3 6 0.8
Girder 5 Right 7.3 0 0

Table 5.2 Moment in the concrete bridge deck (Y=0 ft) for blast load case 1
500 TNT Load Case 1 Concrete Bridge Deck Bending Moment(kip-in/ft)

1.25DL
Moment Capacity Dead Load Live Load +0.5LL
Mn Y = 0 ft +1.0EL Comment
Unfactored Unfactored

Blast Load
Dead Load Max Live Load Combination
No.Location Negative Positive Effects Load Effects Moment Moment
1Overhang 1. -320 160 0 0 0 0
2Girder 1 -320 160 -29 -55 0 -64
Moment
3Mid Span 1 -176 160 8 59 -348 -309 Failure
Moment
4Girder 2 -176 160 -29 -55 -697 -761 Failure
Moment
5Mid Span 2 -176 160 8 59 1533 1573 Failure
Moment
6Girder 3 -176 160 -29 -55 -4041 -4105 Failure
Moment
7Mid Span 3 -176 160 8 59 1533 1573 Failure
Moment
8Girder 4 -176 160 -29 -55 -697 -761 Failure
Moment
9Mid Span 4 -176 160 8 59 -348 -309 Failure
10Girder 5 -320 160 -29 -55 0 -64
11Overhang 2 -320 160 0 0 0 0

126
Table 5.3 Moment in the concrete bridge deck (Y=15 ft) for blast load case 1

500 TNT Case 1 Concrete Bridge Deck Bending Moment(kip-in/ft)

1.25DL
Moment Capacity Dead Load Live Load +0.5LL
Mn Y = 15 ft +1.0EL Comment

Unfactored Unfactored

Max Live Blast Load


Dead Load Load Load Combination
No.Location Negative Positive Effects Effects Moment Moment
1Overhang 1. -320 160 0 0 0 0
2Girder 1 -320 160 -29 -55 0 -64
3Mid Span 1 -176 160 8 59 -13 27
4Girder 2 -176 160 -29 -55 -26 -90
5Mid Span 2 -176 160 8 59 58 98
Moment
6Girder 3 -176 160 -29 -55 -152 -216 Failure
7Mid Span 3 -176 160 8 59 58 98
8Girder 4 -176 160 -29 -55 -26 -90
9Mid Span 4 -176 160 8 59 -13 27
10Girder 5 -320 160 -29 -55 0 -64
11Overhang 2 -320 160 0 0 0 0

Table 5.4 Moment in the concrete bridge deck (Y=20 ft) for blast load case 1
500 TNT Case 1 Concrete Bridge Deck Bending Moment (kip-in/ft)
1.25DL
Moment Capacity Dead Load Live Load +0.5LL
Mn Y = 20 ft +1.0EL Comment
Unfactored Unfactored
Max Live Blast Load
Dead Load Load Load Combination
No.Location Negative Positive Effects Effects Moment Moment
1Overhang 1. -320 160 0 0 0 0
2Girder 1 -320 160 -29 -55 0 -64
3Mid Span 1 -176 160 8 59 -6 34
4Girder 2 -176 160 -29 -55 -12 -76
5Mid Span 2 -176 160 8 59 26 66
6Girder -176 160 -29 -55 -69 -133
7Mid Span 3 -176 160 8 59 26 66
8Girder 4 -176 160 -29 -55 -12 -76
9Mid Span 4 -176 160 8 59 -6 34
10Girder 5 -320 160 -29 -55 0 -64
11Overhang 2 -320 160 0 0 0 0

127
Load Combination Moment

2000
1000 Positive Capacity
0
Moment (k-in)

Suport(Girder3)
Support(Girder

Support(Girder

Support(Girder

Support(Girder
-1000 Negative
Moment
-2000 1) Capacity

2)

4)

5)
-3000
-4000
-5000
Location on Deck

Figure 5.10 Moment in the concrete bridge deck (Y=0 ft) for blast load case 1

The bridge deck section, at corresponding to the distance Y= -15 ~ 15 ft from

explosion controid, fails in direct shear and flexure.

Table 4.13 Blast pressures and arrival times on the girder 3

#5 Blast #6 Blast #7 Blast


Pv Pv Pv Arrival Time at #6 Load Duration End Time
No. Y (ft) psi psi psi (msec) (msec) (msec)
1 -30 2.8 2.9 2.8 6.256 4.027 10.283
2 -25 5.8 6.2 5.8 4.524 3.161 7.685
3 -20 13.3 14.9 13.3 3.079 2.287 5.366
4 -15 35.3 42.0 35.3 1.953 1.183 3.135
5 -10 108.0 146.1 108.0 1.119 0.550 1.669
6 -5 340.7 608.0 340.7 0.597 0.304 0.902
7 0 626.0 1479.0 626.0 0.400 0.260 0.660
8 5 340.7 608.0 340.7 0.597 0.304 0.902
9 10 108.0 146.1 108.0 1.119 0.550 1.669
10 15 35.3 42.0 108.0 1.953 1.183 3.135
11 20 13.3 14.9 13.3 3.079 2.287 5.366
12 25 5.8 6.2 5.8 4.524 3.161 7.685
13 30 2.8 2.9 2.8 6.256 4.027 10.283

The arrival blast pressure in girder 3 at #8 location (Y = 5 ft) is 608 psi. At the

same time, the blast pressure in girder 3 at #7 location (Y = 0 ft) decreases from

128
peak pressure 1479 psi to 358 psi. This value of 358 psi is calculated based on a

linear variation of the peak pressure decay to zero. The linearly varying trial

pressures are taken to be 3 times the actual pressure. So, at #7 location blast

pressure decreases from peak value of 1479 psi to 120 psi. The average blast

pressure is taken as (608 + 120)/2 = 364 psi over girder 3 between locations #6

and #8 (Y= -5 ft ~ 5 ft). Because of the deck (Y= -15~15 ft) failure due to direct

shear and bending first, the girders are affected due to the blast pressure loading

over a tributary area of 10 ft by 2.5 ft (girder flange width 14 in + deck height 8 in

x 2). The uniform blast distribution loading is 10,920 lb / in (364 psi x 30 in).

Figure 5.11 Modeling of bridge steel girder 3 for load case 1 analysis using
ANSYS
Load Combination Moment(kip-ft)

40000

30000

20000
Moment (k-ft)

10000 Positive Capacity


Moment(K-ft)
0
Support Negative Support Support
-10000 ( Left) Capacity (Centre) (Right)
-20000

-30000
Location

Figure 5.12 Moment in the steel bridge girder 3 for blast load case 1

129
Table 5.5 Moment in the steel girder 3 for blast load case 1
500 TNT Load Case 1 Girder 3 Bending Moment kip-ft
Blast Load
load Combi-
Applied nation
Girder Moment Girder Moment
Capacity Capacity Unfactored Unfactored Blast 1.25xDL
Dead Load Max Live Load
(Composite) (Non-Composite) Effects Effects load +0.5xLL
  +1.0xEV Comment
Location Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative
Support
(Left) 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 0 0 0 0 0
Moment
1/4 Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1500 1593 -680 15979 18651 Failure
Moment
Mid Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1633 1908 -968 30320 33315 Failure
Moment
3/4 Span 8511 -6790 5173 -5173 -550 1162 -1032 8625 8519 Failure
Support Moment
(Centre) 12950 -11806 9149 -9149 -4161 983 -2450 -14708 -21134 Failure
Moment
3/4 Span 8511 -6790 5173 -5173 -550 1162 -1032 -11031 -12235 Failure
Moment
Mid Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1633 1908 -968 -7354 -5797 Failure
Moment
1/4 Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1500 1593 -680 -3677 -2142 Failure
Support
(Right) 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 0 0 0 0 0

The arrival blast pressure in girder 1 at #9 location (Y = 10 ft) is 10.3 psi. At the

same time, the blast pressure in girder 1 at #7 location (Y = 0 ft) decreases from

peak pressure 16.1 psi to 11.3 psi. This value of 11.3 psi is calculated based on

a linear variation of the peak pressure decay to zero. The linearly varying trial

pressures are taken to be 2 times the actual pressure. So, at #7 location blast

pressure decreases from a peak value of 16.1 psi to 5.7 psi. The average blast

pressure is taken as (10.3 + 5.7) / 2 = 8 psi over girder 1 between locations #5

and #9. The uniform blast distribution loading is 240 lb / in (8 psi x 30 in).

130
Table 4.11 Pressures and arrival times on the girders 1 and 5

#1Blast #2 Blast # 3Blast


Pv Pv Pv Arrival Time at #2 Load Duration End Time
No. Y (ft) psi psi psi (msec) (msec) (msec)
1 -30 1.1 1.4 1.9 8.640 5.073
2 -25 1.7 2.3 3.4 6.942 4.339 11.281
3 -20 2.6 3.9 6.4 5.530 3.679 9.208
4 -15 3.9 6.5 12.3 4.422 3.108 7.530
5 -10 5.6 10.3 23.0 3.624 2.645 6.269
6 -5 7.1 14.3 37.3 3.138 2.329 5.466
7 0 7.8 16.1 45.0 2.979 2.215 5.194
8 5 7.1 14.3 37.3 3.138 2.329 5.466
9 10 5.6 10.3 23.0 3.624 2.645 6.269
10 15 3.9 6.5 12.3 4.422 3.108 7.530
11 20 2.6 3.9 6.4 5.530 3.679 9.208
12 25 1.7 2.3 3.4 6.942 4.339 11.281
13 30 1.1 1.4 1.9 8.640 5.073 13.714

Table 5.6 Moment in the steel girders 1 and 5 for blast load case 1

500 TNT Load Case 1 Girders 1 and 5 Bending Moment kips-ft


Load
Blast Combi-
Applied load nation
Girder Moment Girder Moment
Capacity Capacity Unfactored Unfactored 1.25xDL
(Composite) (Non-Composite) Dead Load Max Live Load Blast +0.5xLL
Mp Mp Effects Effects load +1.0xEVComment
Location Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative
Support
(Left) 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 0 0 0 0 0
1/4 Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1500 1593 -680 704 3376
Moment
Mid Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1633 1908 -968 1263 4258 Failure
3/4 Span 8511 -6790 5173 -5173 -550 1162 -1032 383 277
Support
(Centre) 12950 -11806 9149 -9149 -4161 983 -2450 -642 -7068
3/4 Span 8511 -6790 5173 -5173 -550 1162 -1032 -482 -1686
Mid Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1633 1908 -968 -321 1236
1/4 Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1500 1593 -680 -161 1374
Support
(Right) 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 0 0 0 0 0

131
Load Combination Moment

6000

4000

2000
Moment(k-ft)

0
Support Support Support
-2000 Moment
( Left) (Centre) (Right)
-4000

-6000

-8000
Location

Figure 5.13 Moment in the steel bridge girders 1 and 5 for blast load case 1

As a result of Load Case 1, the bridge will completely collapse.

5.4.2 Performance Under Blast Load Case 2


Blast Load Case 2 occurs when the explosion takes place 6 ft above the bridge

deck, at Girder 3 pier cap (Figure 4.32). The moment and shear in the deck is

same as those corresponding to load case1.

Figure 5.14 Modeling of bridge steel girder 3 for load case 2 analysis using
ANSYS

132
Table 5.7 Moment in the steel bridge girder 3 for blast load case 2

500 TNT Load Case 2 Girder 3 Bending Moment kip-ft


Load
Blast Combi-
Applied load nation
Girder Moment
Girder Moment Capacity
Capacity (Non- Unfactored Unfactored 1.25xDL
(Composite) Composite) Dead Load Max Live Load Blast +0.5xLL
Mp Mp Effects Effects load +1.0xEVComment
Location PositiveNegativePositiveNegative PositiveNegative
Support
(Left) 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 0 0 0 0 0
1/4 Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1500 1593 -680 17 2689
Mid Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1633 1908 -968 34 3029
3/4 Span 8511 -6790 5173 -5173 -550 1162 -1032 51 -1153
Support
(Centre) 12950 -11806 9149 -9149 -4161 983 -2450 -1571 -7997 Survived
3/4 Span 8511 -6790 5173 -5173 -550 1162 -1032 51 -1153
Mid Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1633 1908 -968 34 3029
1/4 Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1500 1593 -680 17 2689
Support
(Right) 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 0 0 0 0 0

The deck components fail since the blast induced shear force and moment

exceed the corresponding shear and flexural capacity of the deck. Five girders in

each span are structurally functional during this explosion.

5.4.3 Performance under Blast Load Case 3


Table 5.8 shows the blast induced moment in the bridge components for Load

Case 3 explosion at 6 ft height above the bridge deck mid-span1, between

Girders 1 and 2, at girder mid-span (Figure 4.33).

The deck wherein the distance (Y) from the explosion force controid is 0 ft, arrival

blast pressure is 626 psi at location # 4. At the same time, the blast pressure at

station # 3 decreases from a peak pressure value of 1479 psi to 401 psi.

133
This value of 401 psi is calculated based on a linear variation of the peak

pressure decay to zero. In the actual blast pressures, the peak pressure decays

nonlinearly over the same period of time. The linearly varying trial pressures are

taken to be 3 times of the actual pressure. So, #3 location blast pressure

decreases from the peak pressure value of 1479 psi to 134 psi. The average

blast pressure is taken as (626 + 134) / 2 = 380 psi over deck between locations

#2 and #4. The uniform blast distribution loading is calculated as 380 psi x 12 in

= 4,560 lb / in.

For the deck at which the distance (Y) from explosion controid is 15 ft, the arrival

blast pressure is 22.4 psi at location #5. At the same time, the blast pressure

decreases from a peak pressure of 42 psi to 20 psi at #3 location and the

corrected value is 10 psi. The average blast pressure is 16.2 psi over the deck

between locations #2 and #4. The uniform blast distribution loading is calculated

as shown for the case of Y = 0 ft and is equal to 195 lb / in (16.2 psix12 in).

Figure 5.15 Load case 3 peak pressures decay on the bridge deck (Y= 0 ft)

134
Figure 5.16 Modeling and analysis of concrete bridge deck (Y=0 ft) for load case
3 using ANSYS

Table 5.8 Moment in the concrete bridge deck (Y=0 ft) for blast load case 3

500 TNT Case 3 Concrete Bridge Deck Bending Moment (kip-in/ft)

1.25DL
Moment Capacity Dead Load Live Load +0.5LL
Mn Applied Applied Y = 0 ft +1.0EL Comment
Unfactored Unfactored

Max Live Blast Load


Dead Load Load Load Combination
No.Location Negative Positive Effects Effects Moment Moment
1Overhang1. -320 160 0 0 0 0
2Girder1 -320 160 -29 -55 0 -64
Moment
3Mid Span1 -176 160 8 59 476 516 Failure
Moment
4Girder2 -176 160 -29 -55 -348 -412 Failure
5Mid Span2 -176 160 8 59 -128 -89
6Girder3 -176 160 -29 -55 93 29
7Mid Span3 -176 160 8 59 35 75
8Girder4 -176 160 -29 -55 -23 -87
9Mid Span4 -176 160 8 59 -12 28
10Girder5 -320 160 -29 -55 0 -64
11Overhang2 -320 160 0 0 0 0

135
Table 5.9 Shear in the concrete bridge deck (Y=0, 15 ft) for blast load case 3
500TNT Case 3 Concrete Deck Shear kips/ft
Blast Applied Blast Applied
Deck Shear Deck Shear Deck Shear
Location Capacity(kips) (Y=0 ft) Comment (Y=15 ft) Comment
Girder 1 Left 7.3 0 0
Girder 1 Right 7.3 231 Shear Failure 8 Shear Failure
Girder 2 Left 7.3 302 Shear Failure 11 Shear Failure
Girder 2 Right 7.3 45 Shear Failure 2
Girder 3 Left 7.3 45 Shear Failure 2
Girder 3 Right 7.3 12 Shear Failure 0.5
Girder 4 Left 7.3 2 0.5
Girder 4 Right 7.3 2 0.1
Girder 5 Left 7.3 2 0.1
Girder 5 Right 7.3 0 0

Table 5.10 Moment in the concrete bridge deck (Y=15 ft) for blast load case 3
500 TNT Case 3 Concrete Bridge Deck Bending Moment (kip-in/ft)
1.25DL
Moment Capacity Dead Load Live Load +0.5LL
Mn Applied Applied Y = 15 ft +1.0EL Comment
Unfactored Unfactored
Max Live Blast Load
Dead Load Load Load Combination
No. Location Negative Positive Effects Effects Moment Moment
1 Overhang1. -320 160 0 0 0 0
2 Girder1 -320 160 -29 -55 0 -64
Moment
3 Mid Span1 -176 160 8 59 215 255 Failure
Moment
4 Girder2 -176 160 -29 -55 -157 -221 Failure
Moment
5 Mid Span2 -176 160 8 59 143 183 Failure
6 Girder3 -176 160 -29 -55 -58 -122
7 Mid Span3 -176 160 8 59 16 56
8 Girder4 -176 160 -29 -55 -11 -75
9 Mid Span4 -176 160 8 59 -5 35
10 Girder5 -320 160 -29 -55 0 -64
11 Overhang2 -320 160 0 0 0 0

Because of the deck failure due to direct shear and bending, the girders are

affected due to the blast pressure loading over a tributary area of 10 ft by 2 ft and

6 in (girder flange width 14 in + deck height 8 in x 2).


136
The arrival blast pressure in girders 1 and 2 at #8 location (Y = 5 ft) is 340 psi. At

the same time, the blast pressure in girders 1 and 2 at #7 location (Y = 0 ft)

decreases from a peak pressure of 626 psi to 225 psi. This value of 225 psi is

calculated based on a linear variation of the peak pressure decay to zero. The

linearly varying trial pressures are taken to be 3 times the actual pressure. So, at

#7 location blast pressure decreases from a peak value of 1479 psi to 85 psi.

The average blast pressure is taken as 340+ 85)/2 = 213 psi over girders 1 and 2

between locations #6 and #8. The uniform blast distribution loading is 6,390 lb /

in (213 psi x 30 in).

Table 5.11 Moment in the steel bridge girder 1 and girder 2 for blast load case 3

500 TNT Load Case 3 Girders 1 and 2 Bending Moment kip-ft


Load
Blast Combi-
Applied load nation
Girder Moment
Girder Moment Capacity
Capacity (Non- Unfactored Unfactored 1.25xDL
(Composite) Composite) Dead Load Max Live Load Blast +0.5xLL
Mp Mp Effects Effects load +1.0xEV Comment
Location PositiveNegativePositiveNegative PositiveNegative
Support
(Left) 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 0 0 0 0 0
Moment
1/4 Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1500 1593 -680 9350 12022 Failure
Moment
Mid Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1633 1908 -968 17743 20738 Failure
3/4 Span 8511 -6790 5173 -5173 -550 1162 -1032 5047 4941
Support Moment
(Centre) 12950 -11806 9149 -9149 -4161 983 -2450 -8607 -15033 Failure
Moment
3/4 Span 8511 -6790 5173 -5173 -550 1162 -1032 -6455 -7659 Failure
Mid Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1633 1908 -968 4303 5860
1/4 Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1500 1593 -680 2152 3687
Support
(Right) 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 0 0 0 0 0
137
The arrival blast pressure in girder 4 at #9 location (Y = 10 ft) is 5.6 psi. At the

same time, the blast pressure in girder 4 at #7 location (Y = 0 ft) decreases from

a peak pressure 7.8 psi to 6.1 psi. This value of 6.1 psi is calculated based on a

linear variation of the peak pressure decay to zero. The linearly varying trial

pressures are taken to be 2 times the actual pressure. So, at #7 location blast

pressure decreases from a peak value of 7.8 psi to 3.1psi. The average blast

pressure is taken as (5.6+ 3.1)/2 = 4.4 psi over girder 4 between locations #6 and

#8. The uniform blast distribution loading is 132 lb / in (4.4 psi x 30 in).

The average blast pressure is 1.1 psi over girder 5 between #5 and #9 locations.

The uniform blast distribution loading is 33 lb / in (1.1 psi x 30 in).

Table 5.12 Moment in the steel bridge girders 1 and 2 for blast load case 3

500 TNT Load Case 3 Girder 4 Bending Moment kip-ft


Load
Blast Combi-
Applied load nation
Girder Moment
Girder Moment Capacity
Capacity (Non- Unfactored Unfactored 1.25xDL
(Composite) Composite) Dead Load Max Live Load Blast +0.5xLL
Mp Mp Effects Effects load +1.0xEV Comment
Location PositiveNegativePositiveNegative PositiveNegative
Support
(Left) 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 0 0 0 0 0
Moment
1/4 Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1500 1593 -680 3867 6539 Failure
Moment
Mid Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1633 1908 -968 695 3690 Failure
3/4 Span 8511 -6790 5173 -5173 -550 1162 -1032 210 104
Support
(Centre) 12950 -11806 9149 -9149 -4161 983 -2450 -353 -6779
3/4 Span 8511 -6790 5173 -5173 -550 1162 -1032 -265 -1469
Mid Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1633 1908 -968 -177 1380
1/4 Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1500 1593 -680 -88 1447
Support
(Right) 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 0 0 0 0 0

138
Table 5.13 Moment in the steel bridge girder 4 for blast load case 3

500 TNT Load Case 3 Girder 4 Bending Moment kip-ft


Load
Blast Combi-
Applied load nation
Girder Moment
Girder Moment Capacity
Capacity (Non- Unfactored Unfactored 1.25xDL
(Composite) Composite) Dead Load Max Live Load Blast +0.5xLL
Mp Mp Effects Effects load +1.0xEV Comment
Location PositiveNegativePositiveNegative PositiveNegative
Support
(Left) 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 0 0 0 0 0
Moment
1/4 Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1500 1593 -680 3867 6539 Failure
Moment
Mid Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1633 1908 -968 695 3690 Failure
3/4 Span 8511 -6790 5173 -5173 -550 1162 -1032 210 104
Support
(Centre) 12950 -11806 9149 -9149 -4161 983 -2450 -353 -6779
3/4 Span 8511 -6790 5173 -5173 -550 1162 -1032 -265 -1469
Mid Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1633 1908 -968 -177 1380
1/4 Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1500 1593 -680 -88 1447
Support
(Right) 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 0 0 0 0 0

The bridge decks and girders 1, 2, 3, and 4 failed due to shear and bending

strengths exceeding the capacity. But girder 5 is structurally safe and functional.

5.4.4 Performance under Blast Load Case 4


Load case 4 occurs when the explosion takes place at 10 feet below the bridge

girder bottom flange and 14.5 feet below deck slab at Girder 3 mid-span (Figure

4.34).

For the deck wherein the distance (Y) from the explosion force controid is 0 ft,

arrival blast pressure is 304 psi at location #7. At the same time, the blast

pressure at station #6 decreases from a peak pressure of 375 psi to 330 psi.

139
This value of 330 psi is calculated based linear variation of the peak pressure

decay to zero. In the actual blast pressures, the peak pressure decays

nonlinearly over the same length of time. The linearly varying trial pressures are

taken to be 2 times the actual pressure. So, #6 location blast pressure decreases

from a peak pressure value of 375 psi to 165 psi. The average blast pressure is

taken as (304+ 165) / 2 = 235 psi over deck between locations #2 and #4. The

uniform blast distribution loading is calculated as 2814 lb / in (235 psi x 12 in).

Table 5.14 Pressure and arrival time on the deck (Y = 0 ft) for load case 4

Blast Pv Arrival Time Load Duration End Time


2
No. Y(ft) H(ft) X (ft) R(ft) sin (θ) (psi) (msec) (msec) (msec)
1 0 14.5 -23.6 27.70 0.27 26.42 5.19 2.06 7.25
2 0 14.5 -19.6 24.38 0.35 45.21 4.10 1.72 5.82
3 0 14.5 -14.7 20.65 0.49 91.08 3.02 1.52 4.54
4 0 14.5 -9.8 17.50 0.69 178.45 2.25 1.26 3.50
5 0 14.5 -4.9 15.31 0.90 303.78 1.77 1.02 2.80
6 0 14.5 0 14.50 1.00 375.00 1.62 0.89 2.51
7 0 14.5 4.9 15.31 0.90 303.78 1.77 1.02 2.80
8 0 14.5 9.8 17.50 0.69 178.45 2.25 1.26 3.50
9 0 14.5 14.7 20.65 0.49 91.08 3.02 1.52 4.54
10 0 14.5 19.6 24.38 0.35 45.21 4.10 1.72 5.82
11 0 14.5 23.6 27.70 0.27 26.42 5.19 2.06 7.25

Table 5.15 Pressure and arrival time on the deck (Y = 15 ft) for load case 4

Blast Pv Arrival Time Load Duration End Time


2
No. Y(ft) H(ft) X (ft) R(ft) sin (θ) (psi) (msec) (msec) (msec)
1 15 14.5 -23.6 24.35 0.21 15.15 6.61 4.19 10.80
2 15 14.5 -19.6 20.50 0.26 22.84 5.53 3.68 9.20
3 15 14.5 -14.7 15.88 0.32 37.38 4.46 3.13 7.59
4 15 14.5 -9.8 11.49 0.40 57.50 3.69 2.69 6.38
5 15 14.5 -4.9 7.75 0.46 77.94 3.23 2.39 5.62
6 15 14.5 0 6.00 0.48 87.24 3.07 2.28 5.36
7 15 14.5 4.9 7.75 0.46 77.94 3.23 2.39 5.62
8 15 14.5 9.8 11.49 0.40 57.50 3.69 2.69 6.38
9 15 14.5 14.7 15.88 0.32 37.38 4.46 3.13 7.59
10 15 14.5 19.6 20.50 0.26 22.84 5.53 3.68 9.20
11 15 14.5 23.6 24.35 0.21 15.15 6.61 4.19 10.80

140
For the deck at which the distance (Y) from explosion controid is 15 ft, the arrival

blast pressure is 57.5 psi at location #8. At the same time, the blast pressure

decreases from a peak pressure of 87 psi to 64 psi at #6 location and the

corrected value is 22 psi. The average blast pressure is 40 psi over the deck

between locations #4 and #8. The uniform blast distribution loading is calculated

as 480 lb/in (40 psix12 in).

Table 5.16 Pressure and arrival time on the girder 3 (H = 10 ft) for load case 4

# 5 Blast #6 Blast #7 Blast


Pv Pv Pv Arrival Time at #6 Load Duration End Time
No. Y (ft) psi psi psi (msec) (msec) (msec)
1 -30 6.64 7.03 6.64 6.647 4.212 10.859
2 -25 13.18 14.03 13.18 4.926 3.367 8.293
3 -20 27.47 30.43 27.47 3.464 2.569 6.032
4 -15 65.12 75.16 65.12 2.367 1.618 3.985
5 -10 157.40 196.09 157.40 1.547 0.833 2.380
6 -5 342.21 473.63 342.21 1.047 0.506 1.553
7 0 498.58 707.00 498.58 0.870 0.420 1.290
8 5 342.21 473.63 342.21 1.047 0.506 1.553
9 10 157.40 196.09 157.40 1.547 0.833 2.380
10 15 65.12 75.16 157.40 2.367 1.618 3.985
11 20 27.47 30.43 27.47 3.464 2.569 6.032
12 25 13.18 14.03 13.18 4.926 3.367 8.293
13 30 6.64 7.03 6.64 6.647 4.212 10.859

The arrival blast pressure in girder 3 at #8 location (Y = 5 ft) is 474 psi. At the

same time, the blast pressure in girder 3 at #7 location (Y = 0 ft) decreases from

peak pressure 707 psi to 409 psi. This value of 409 psi is calculated based on a

linear variation of the peak pressure decay to zero. The linearly varying trial

pressures are taken to be 3 times the actual pressure. So, at #7 location blast

pressure decreases from a peak value of 707 psi to 136 psi. The average blast

141
pressure is taken as (474 + 136)/2 = 305 psi over girder 3 between locations #6

and #8. The uniform blast distribution loading is 4,270 lb / in (305 psi x girder

bottom flange width 14 in).

Table 5.17 Pressure and arrival time on the girder 2 (H = 10 ft) for load case 4

# 3 Blast # 4Blast # 5Blast


Pv Pv Pv Arrival Time at #6 Load Duration End Time
No. Y (ft) psi psi psi (msec) (msec) (msec)
1 -30 4.65 5.79 6.64 7.253 4.479 11.732
2 -25 8.07 10.81 13.18 5.529 3.688 9.217
3 -20 14.44 21.17 27.47 4.104 2.935 7.039
4 -15 54.08 44.45 65.12 2.985 2.219 5.204
5 -10 45.53 90.81 157.40 2.177 1.411 3.589
6 -5 68.26 161.67 342.21 1.685 1.287 2.972
7 0 94.39 203.56 498.58 1.520 0.810 2.330
8 5 68.26 161.67 342.21 1.685 1.287 2.972
9 10 45.53 90.81 157.40 2.177 1.411 3.589
10 15 54.08 44.45 65.12 2.985 2.219 5.204
11 20 14.44 21.17 27.47 4.104 2.935 7.039
12 25 8.07 10.81 13.18 5.529 3.688 9.217
13 30 4.65 5.79 6.64 7.253 4.479 11.732

The arrival blast pressure in girder 2 at #8 location (Y = 5 ft) is 162 psi. At the

same time, the blast pressure in girder 3 at #7 location (Y = 0 ft) decreases from

a peak pressure of 204 psi to 162 psi. This value of 162 psi is calculated based

on a linear variation of the peak pressure decay to zero. The linearly varying trial

pressures are taken to be 3 times of the actual pressure. So, at #7 location blast

pressure decreases from peak value of 204 psi to 54 psi. The average blast

pressure is taken as (162 + 54)/2 = 108 psi over girder 3 between location #6

and #8. The uniformly blast distribution loading is 1,512 lb / in (305 psi x girder

bottom flange width 14 in).


142
Figure 5.17 Modeling of concrete bridge deck (Y=0 ft) for load case 4 analysis
using ANSYS

Table 5.18 Shear in the concrete bridge deck (Y=0, 15 ft) for blast load case 4

500TNT Case 4 Concrete Deck Shear kips/ft


Deck Shear Blast Applied Blast Applied
Capacity (k) Deck Shear Deck Shear
Location Vn (Y=0 ft) Comment (Y=15 ft) Comment
Girder 1 Left 7.3 0 0
Girder 1 Right 7.3 4.2 2
Girder 2 Left 7.3 4.2 2
Girder 2 Right 7.3 27 Shear Failure 24 Shear Failure
Girder 3 Left 7.3 162 Shear Failure 32 Shear Failure
Girder 3 Right 7.3 162 Shear Failure 32 Shear Failure
Girder 4 Left 7.3 27 Shear Failure 24 Shear Failure
Girder 4 Right 7.3 4.2 2
Girder 5 Left 7.3 4.2 2
Girder 5 Right 7.3 0 0

143
Table 5.19 Moment in the concrete bridge deck (Y=0 ft) for blast load case 4
500 TNT Case 4 Concrete Bridge Deck Bending Moment (kip-in/ft)
1.25DL
Moment Capacity Dead Load Live Load +0.5LL
Mn Applied Applied Y = 0 ft +1.0EL Comment
Unfactored Unfactored
Max Live Blast Load
Dead Load Load Load Combination
No.Location Negative Positive Effects Effects Moment Moment
1Overhang1. -320 160 0 0 0 0
2Girder1 -320 160 -29 -55 0 -36
Moment
3Mid Span1 -176 160 8 59 247 256 Failure
Moment
4Girder2 -176 160 -29 -55 459 423 Failure
Moment
5Mid Span2 -176 160 8 59 -1089 -1080 Failure
Moment
6Girder3 -176 160 -29 -55 2871 2835 Failure
Moment
7Mid Span3 -176 160 8 59 -1089 -1080 Failure
Moment
8Girder4 -176 160 -29 -55 459 423 Failure
Moment
9Mid Span4 -176 160 8 59 247 256 Failure
10Girder5 -320 160 -29 -55 0 -36
11Overhang2 -320 160 0 0 0 0

Figure 5.18 Modeling and analysis of bridge steel girder 3 for load case 4 using
ANSYS
144
Table 5.20 Moment in the concrete bridge deck (Y=15 ft) for blast load case 4

500 TNT Case 3 Concrete Bridge Deck Bending Moment (kip-in/ft)

1.25DL
Moment Capacity Dead Load Live Load +0.5LL
Mn Applied Applied Y = 15 ft +1.0EL Comment

Unfactored Unfactored
Max Live Blast Load
Dead Load Load Load Combination
No.Location Negative Positive Effects Effects Moment Moment
1Overhang1. -320 160 0 0 0 0
2Girder1 -320 160 -29 -55 0 -36
3Mid Span1 -176 160 8 59 117 126
Moment
4Girder2 -176 160 -29 -55 235 199 Failure
Moment
5Mid Span2 -176 160 8 59 -352 -343 Failure
Moment
6Girder3 -176 160 -29 -55 704 668 Failure
Moment
7Mid Span3 -176 160 8 59 -352 -343 Failure
Moment
8Girder4 -176 160 -29 -55 235 199 Failure
9Mid Span4 -176 160 8 59 117 126
10Girder5 -320 160 -29 -55 0 -36
11Overhang2 -320 160 0 0 0 0

First, the deck components (Y = -15 ft to Y = 15 ft) fail since the blast induced

forces exceed shear and bending capacities of the deck. Girder 3 in span 1 fails

due to high negative moment. Then, the deck in girder span 1 collapses,

whereas girder 3 in span 2 and the other four girders in each span are

structurally functional and safe.

145
Table 5.21 Moment in the steel bridge girder 3 for blast load case 4
500 TNT Load Case 4 Girder 3 Bending Moment kip-ft
Load
Blast Combi-
Applied load nation

Girder Moment Girder Moment


Capacity Capacity Unfactored Unfactored 1.25xDL
(Composite) (Non-Composite) Dead Load Max Live Load Blast +0.5xLL
Mp Mp Effects Effects load +1.0xEV Comment
Location Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative
Support
(Left) 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 0 0 0 0 0
Moment
1/4 Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1500 1593 -680 -6371 -4836 Failure
Moment
Mid Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1633 1908 -968 -12089 -10532 Failure
Moment
3/4 Span 8511 -6790 5173 -5173 -550 1162 -1032 -3439 -4643 Failure
Support
(Centre) 12950 -11806 9149 -9149 -4161 983 -2450 5864 1154
3/4 Span 8511 -6790 5173 -5173 -550 1162 -1032 4398 4292
Mid Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1633 1908 -968 2932 5927
1/4 Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1500 1593 -680 1466 4138
Support
(Right) 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 0 0 0 0

Table 5.22 Moment in the steel bridge girders 2 and 4 for blast load case 4
500 TNT Case 4 Girders 2 and 4 Bending Moment kip -ft
Load
Blast Combi-
Applied load nation

Girder Moment Girder Moment


Capacity Capacity Unfactored Unfactored 1.25xDL
(Composite) (Non-Composite) Dead Load Max Live Load Blast +0.5xLL
Mp Mp Effects Effects load +1.0xEV Comment
Location Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative
Support
(Left) 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 0 0 0 0 0
1/4 Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1500 1593 -680 -2212 -677
Mid Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1633 1908 -968 -4198 -2641
3/4 Span 8511 -6790 5173 -5173 -550 1162 -1032 -1194 -2398
Support
(Centre) 12950 -11806 9149 -9149 -4161 983 -2450 2036 -2674 Survived
3/4 Span 8511 -6790 5173 -5173 -550 1162 -1032 1527 1421
Mid Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1633 1908 -968 1018 4013
1/4 Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1500 1593 -680 509 3181
Support
(Right) 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 0 0 0 0
146
5.4.5 Performance under Blast Load Case 5
Blast Load case 5, shown in Figure 4.35 and 5.19, occurs when the explosion

takes place under the bridge at 6 ft above the ground, and at a standoff distance

of 6 ft from the supporting pier. This load case considers horizontal blast

pressures on the pier.

Figure 5.19 Load case 5

147
Although the decks and girders are affected due to this explosion, this effect was

excluded from consideration in this load case, because the main focus of this

load case was to on studying the performance of the pier column only.

The arrival blast pressure at the location of supporting pier surface, where the

distance (r) from the explosion force controid on the pier surface is 5 ft, is 608

psi. At same time, the blast pressure at the explosion force controid location on

the pier surface decreases from a peak value of 1479 psi to 358 psi. This value

of 358 psi is calculated bared on a linear variation of the peak pressure decay to

zero. The linearly varying trial pressures are taken to be 3 times the actual

pressure. So, the blast pressure decreases from peak value of 1479 psi to 120

psi. The average uniform blast distribution loading is 503 kips/ft over pier column

surface between 1 ft and 11 ft above ground.

Figure 5.20 Peak pressures decay on the pier column

148
Figure 5.21 Pressures on pier column (Arrival Time = 0.597ms)

Total blast force:

Q = q1r2 – (q1- q2)r2 /3 = 608x3.14x(5x12)2 – (608-120)x3.14x(5x12)2 /3

= 5034 kips

The average blast distribution loading:

w = Q/2r = 5034/2x5 = 503 kips/ft

The supporting pier was modeled using 26 BEAM3 elements with a height of 4.5

ft. Section area A = 69.75 ft2, and IZZ =117.7 ft4.

Consider the supporting pier to be fixed at the bottom and hinged at the top.

149
Figure 5.22 Modeling and analysis of bridge pier column for load case 5 using
ANSYS

150
Pier Column Moment Capacity

Material Properties:

Concrete density: Wc = 0.150 kcf

Concrete 28-day compressive strength: fc 4.0 ksi

Reinforcement strength: fy = 60.0 ksi

Reinforcing steel cover requirements:

Pier column: Cover = 2.5 in

Total #10 steel bars =76

Numbers of bars in one face = 76x15.5/(2x15.5+2x4.5) = 29

Figure 5.23 Final pier design

151
Moment Capacity:

29 #10 bar A s = 29x1.27 in2 = 36.83 in2

a = Asfy/0.85fcb = 36.83x60000/0.85x4000x15.5x12 = 3.494 in

Mn = Asfy(de-a/2) = 0.684x60000x(51.5-3.494/2) =109943k-in = 9162 kip-ft

 Mn = 0.9 x 9162 = 8246 kip-ft

Shear Capacity

The maximum allowable nominal shear strength

Vn = 4 f ' b0d = 4 4000 x15.5x12x51.5 = 2423 kips

 Vn = 0.85 x 2423 = 2060 kips

Check pier column allowable slenderness ratio klu /r

Radius of gyration r2 = Iz /A =117.7/69.75 2.55, r = 1.69 ft

or r = 0.3h = 0.3x4.5 = 1.35 ft

klu /r = 0.8 x 26 /1.35 = 15.4  22

The pier is short or non-slender column. The moment magnification effects can

be disregarded.

Table 5.23 shows the moment and shear of the pier column considering blast

load case 5. As a result of this explosion, the pier column fails since the blast-

induced forces exceed shear and bending capacities at bottom location. The pier

column failure, leads to the collapse the whole bridge.

152
Table 5.23 Moment and shear in the pier column for blast load case 5

500lbTNT Case 5 Pier Column


Bending Moment Shear
Location (kip-ft) Comment (kips) Comment
Moment Blast Shear Blast
H(ft) Above Capacity Induced Strength Induced
Ground  Mn Moment Vn Shear
Moment Shear
0 8246 -18676 Failure 2060 4858 Failure

1 8246 -14089 2060 4858

6 8246 2561 2060 2073

11 8246 6637 2060 -422


16 8246 4425 2060 -422

26 8246 0 2060 -422

5.5 Blast Induced Forces in Bridge Components Due to Varying Amount of

TNT

Bridges designed for blast-resistance against an explosion should be designed to

prevent progressive collapse of any span. It is necessary to determine the actual

capacity of the bridge components based on the blast resistance design. The

blast induced force in the bridge components are calculated and presented in the

following sections.

Load Case 1

When the explosion occurred at 6 ft above the bridge deck for Load Case 1

location, the bridge deck and girders can resist 3 lb TNT blast load.

For 3 lb TNT blast load, at the location corresponding to the explosion controid

deck, arrival blast pressure at location #7 is 21.7 psi (arrival time 2.116 ms).
153
At the same time, blast pressure at location #6 decreases from a peak pressure

of 64.1 psi to 0 psi (end time 2.120ms). The average blast pressure is 11 psi over

deck between locations #5 and #7. The uniform blast distribution loading is 132

lb / in (11 psix12 in).

Table 5.24 3lb TNT load case 1 blast peak pressure and arrival time on the
concrete bridge deck (Y= 0 ft)

Blast Pv Arrival Time Load Duration End Time


No. Y(ft) H(ft) X (ft) R(ft) sin2(θ) psi (msec) (msec) (ms)
1 0 6 -23.6 24.4 0.061 0.2 14.048 3.775 17.823
2 0 6 -19.6 20.5 0.086 0.4 10.953 3.350 14.303
3 0 6 -14.7 15.9 0.143 1.1 7.389 2.689 10.078
4 0 6 -9.8 11.5 0.273 4.1 4.309 1.893 6.202
5 0 6 -4.9 7.7 0.600 21.7 2.116 1.142 3.258
6 0 6 0 6.0 1.000 64.1 1.310 0.810 2.120
7 0 6 4.9 7.7 0.600 21.7 2.116 1.142 3.258
8 0 6 9.8 11.5 0.273 4.1 4.309 1.893 6.202
9 0 6 14.7 15.9 0.143 1.1 7.389 2.689 10.078
10 0 6 19.6 20.5 0.086 0.4 10.953 3.350 14.303
11 0 6 23.6 24.4 0.061 0.2 14.048 3.775 17.823

Table 5.25 Shear in the concrete bridge deck (Y=0 ft) for 3lb TNT blast load
case1

3 lb TNT Load Case1 Concrete Deck Shear kips/ft


Blast Applied
Deck Shear Deck Shear
Location Capacity(k) (Y=0 ft) Comment
Girder 1 Left 7.3 0
Girder 1 Right 7.3 0.2
Girder 2 Left 7.3 0.2
Girder 2 Right 7.3 1
Girder 3 Left 7.3 6 Survived
Girder 3 Right 7.3 6 Survived
Girder 4 Left 7.3 1
Girder 4 Right 7.3 0.2
Girder 5 Left 7.3 0.2
Girder 5 Right 7.3 0

154
Table 5.26 Moment in the concrete bridge deck for 3lb TNT blast load case 1

3 lb TNT Case1 Concrete Bridge Deck Bending Moment (k-in/ft)

1.25DL
Dead Load Live Load +0.5LL
Moment Capacity Applied Applied Y = 0 ft +1.0EL Comment

Unfactored Unfactored

Max Live Blast Load


Dead Load Load Load Combination
No.Location Negative Positive Effects Effects Moment Moment
1Overhang1. -320 160 0 0 0 0
2Girder1 -320 160 -29 -55 0 -64
3Mid Span1 -176 160 8 59 -9 31
4Girder2 -176 160 -29 -55 -18 -82
5Mid Span2 -176 160 8 59 40 80
6Girder3 -176 160 -29 -55 -106 -170 Survived
7Mid Span3 -176 160 8 59 40 80
8Girder4 -176 160 -29 -55 -18 -82
9Mid Span4 -176 160 8 59 -9 31
10Girder5 -320 160 -29 -55 0 -64
11Overhang2 -320 160 0 0 0 0

3lbTNT Load Combination Moment

Positive Capacity
100

50
Moment (k-in)

0
Suport(Girder3)
Support(Girder1)

Support(Girder2)

Support(Girder4)

Support(Girder5)

-50 Moment

-100

-150

-200
Negative
Location on Deck
Capacity

Figure 5.24 Moment in the concrete bridge deck for 3lb TNT blast load case 1

155
Table 5.27 3lb TNT load case 1 blast peak pressures and arrival times on the
concrete bridge deck (Y= 5 ft)

Blast Pv Arrival Time Load Duration End Time


No. Y(ft) H(ft) X (ft) R(ft) sin2(θ) psi (msec) (msec) (msec)
1 5 6 -23.6 24.9 0.058 0.2 14.464 3.826 18.290
2 5 6 -19.6 21.1 0.081 0.4 11.429 3.422 14.851
3 5 6 -14.7 16.6 0.130 1.0 9.980 3.162 13.142
4 5 6 -9.8 12.5 0.229 2.9 5.001 2.091 7.092
5 5 6 -4.9 9.2 0.423 10.3 2.910 1.434 4.344
6 5 6 0 7.8 0.590 20.9 2.147 1.154 3.301
7 5 6 4.9 9.2 0.423 10.3 2.910 1.434 4.344
8 5 6 9.8 12.5 0.229 2.9 5.001 2.091 7.092
9 5 6 14.7 16.6 0.130 1.0 9.980 3.162 13.142
10 5 6 19.6 21.1 0.081 0.4 11.429 3.422 14.851
11 5 6 23.6 24.9 0.058 0.2 14.464 3.826 18.290

Table 5.28 3lb TNT load case 1 blast peak pressure and arrival time on the
girder 3

# 5 Blast # 6 Blast # 7 Blast


Pv Pv Pv Arriva Time at #6 Load Duration End Time
No. Y (ft) psi psi psi (msec) (msec) (msec)
1 -30 0.1 0.1 0.1 19.173 4.292 23.465
2 -25 0.2 0.2 0.2 15.155 3.904 19.059
3 -20 0.4 0.4 0.4 11.256 3.396 14.651
4 -15 0.9 1.1 0.9 7.597 2.735 10.331
5 -10 2.8 3.9 2.8 4.420 1.926 6.346
6 -5 10.3 20.9 10.3 2.147 1.154 3.301
7 0 21.7 64.1 21.7 1.310 0.810 2.120
8 5 10.3 20.9 10.3 2.147 1.154 3.301
9 10 2.8 3.9 2.8 4.420 1.926 6.346
10 15 0.9 1.1 2.8 7.597 2.735 10.331
11 20 0.4 0.4 0.4 11.256 3.396 14.651
12 25 0.2 0.2 0.2 15.155 3.904 19.059
13 30 0.1 0.1 0.1 19.173 4.292 23.465

The bridge deck is structurally functional and does not fail. Girder 3 is affected as

the blast pressure loading tributary area of 10 feet by 9.8 feet.

The blast arrival pressure at girder 3 in location #8 (Y=5 ft) is 20.9 psi (arrival

time 2.147ms). At same time, girder 3 in location #7 (Y=0 ft) blast pressure

156
decreases from peak pressure of 64.1psi to 0 psi (end time 1.12ms). The

average blast pressure is 10 psi over girder 3 between locations # 6 and #8. The

loading due blast pressure distribution is 1176 lb/in (10 psi x 9.8 x 12 in).

Table 5.29 Moment in the steel girder 3 for 3lb TNT blast load case 1
3 lb TNT Load Case 1 Girder 3 Bending Moment kip-ft
Load
Blast Combi-
Applied load nation
Girder Moment Girder Moment Unfactored Unfactored 1.25xDL
Capacity Capacity Dead Load Max Live Load Blast +0.5xLL
(Composite) (Non-Composite) Effects Effects load +1.0xEVComment
Location PositiveNegativePositiveNegative PositiveNegative Survived
Support
(Left) 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 0 0 0 0 0
1/4 Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1500 1593 -680 1756 4428
Mid Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1633 1908 -968 3265 6260 Survived
3/4 Span 8511 -6790 5173 -5173 -550 1162 -1032 948 842
Support
(Centre) 12950 -11806 9149 -9149 -4161 983 -2450 -1180 -7606
3/4 Span 8511 -6790 5173 -5173 -550 1162 -1032 1212 1106
Mid Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1633 1908 -968 -808 749
1/4 Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1500 1593 -680 -396 2276
Support
(Right) 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 0 0 0 0 0

3lb TNT Load Combination Moment(kip-ft)

Positive Capacity
8000
6000
4000
Moment (k-ft)

2000
0
Moment(K-ft)
-2000 Support Support Support
-4000 ( Left) (Centre) (Right)
-6000
Negative Capacity
-8000
-10000
Location on Girder 3

Figure 5.25 Moment in the steel bridge girder 3 for 3lb TNT blast load case 1

157
Load Case 3

The bridge girders can resist 5 lb TNT blast load. Part of the deck fails when the

explosion occurs at 6 ft above the bridge deck mid-span. A portion of the deck

reaches the failures state.

Figure 5.26 Peak pressures decay on the bridge deck (Y= 0 ft, 5TNT) for load
case 3

For 5 lb TNT blast load, on the explosion force controid of the deck, arrival blast

pressure at 4# location is 32 psi (arrival time1.831ms). At same time, blast

pressure at #3 location decreases from a peak pressure of 94.8 psi to near 0 psi

(end time 1.890ms). The average blast pressure is 16 psi over deck between

location at #2 and #4. The loading distribution due to blast pressure is 192 lb/in

(16 psix12 in).

For the deck at which distance (Y) from explosion force controid is 5 ft, average

blast pressure is 9 psi over the deck between location #5 and #7. The loading

distribution due to blast pressure is 108 lb/in (9 psix12 in).

158
Table 5.30 5lb TNT load case 3 blast peak pressure and arrival time on the
concrete bridge deck (Y= 0 ft)
Blast Arrival Load
Pv Time Duration End Time
No. Y(ft) H(ft) X (ft) R(ft) sin2(θ) psi (msec) (msec) (ms)
1 0 6 -9.8 11.5 0.273 5.9 3.78 1.818 5.598
2 0 6 -4.9 7.7 0.6 32 1.831 1.082 2.913
3 0 6 0 6 1 94.8 1.13 0.76 1.89
4 0 6 4.9 7.7 0.6 32 1.831 1.082 2.913
5 0 6 9.8 11.5 0.273 5.9 3.78 1.818 5.598
6 0 6 14.7 15.9 0.143 1.6 6.625 2.677 9.302
7 0 6 19.6 20.5 0.086 0.6 10.023 3.45 13.473
8 0 6 23.6 24.4 0.061 0.3 13.027 3.976 17.003

Table 5.31 5lb TNT blast peak pressure and arrival time on the concrete bridge
deck (Y= 5 ft)
Blast Arrival Load
Pv Time Duration End Time
No. Y(ft) H(ft) X (ft) R(ft) sin2(θ) psi (msec) (msec) (ms)
1 5 6 -9.8 12.5 0.229 4.1 4.41 2.026 6.436
2 5 6 -4.9 9.2 0.423 15.1 2.524 1.364 3.888
3 5 6 0 7.8 0.59 30.8 1.858 1.094 2.952
4 5 6 4.9 9.2 0.423 15.1 2.524 1.364 3.888
5 5 6 9.8 12.5 0.229 4.1 4.41 2.026 6.436
6 5 6 14.7 16.6 0.13 1.3 9.1 3.236 12.336
7 5 6 19.6 21.1 0.081 0.5 10.486 3.544 14.03
8 5 6 23.6 24.9 0.058 0.3 13.428 4.042 17.47

Table 5.32 Shear in the concrete bridge deck (Y=0 and 5 ft) for 3lb TNT blast
load case 3

5 lb TNT Load Case 3 Concrete Deck Shear kips/ft


Blast Applied Blast Applied
Deck Shear Deck Shear Deck Shear
Location Capacity(k) (Y=0 ft) Comment ( Y=5ft) Comment
Girder 1 Left 7.3 0 0
Girder 1 Right 7.3 10 Shear Failure 5
Girder 2 Left 7.3 13 Shear Failure 7
Girder 2 Right 7.3 2 1
Girder 3 Left 7.3 2 1
Girder 3 Right 7.3 0.5 0.2
Girder 4 Left 7.3 0.5 0.2
Girder 4 Right 7.3 0.1 0
Girder 5 Left 7.3 0.1 0
Girder 5 Right 7.3 0 0
159
Table 5.33 Moment in the concrete bridge deck for 5lb TNT blast load case 3
5 TNT Load Case3 Concrete Bridge Deck Bending Moment(kip-in/ft)
1.25DL
Dead Load Live Load +0.5LL
Moment Capacity Applied Applied Y = 0 ft +1.0EL Comment
Unfactored Unfactored
Max Live Blast Load
Dead Load Load Load Combination
No. Location Negative Positive Effects Effects Moment Moment
1 Overhang1. -320 160 0 0 0 0
2 Girder1 -320 160 -29 -55 0 -64
Moment
3 Mid Span1 -176 160 8 59 241 281 Failure
Moment
4 Girder2 -176 160 -29 -55 -176 -240 Failure
5 Mid Span2 -176 160 8 59 -65 -26
6 Girder3 -176 160 -29 -55 47 -17
7 Mid Span3 -176 160 8 59 18 58
8 Girder4 -176 160 -29 -55 -12 -76
9 Mid Span4 -176 160 8 59 -6 34
10 Girder5 -320 160 -29 -55 0 -64
11 Overhang2 -320 160 0 0 0 0

Table 5.34 Moment in the concrete bridge deck (Y = 5 ft) for 5lb TNT load case 3
5 TNT Load Case3 Concrete Bridge Deck Bending Moment(kip-in/ft)
1.25DL
Dead Load Live Load +0.5LL
Moment Capacity Applied Applied Y = 5 ft +1.0EL Comment
Unfactored Unfactored
Max Live Blast Load
Dead Load Load Load Combination
No.Location Negative Positive Effects Effects Moment Moment
1Overhang1. -320 160 0 0 0 0
2Girder1 -320 160 -29 -55 0 -64
Moment
3Mid Span1 -176 160 8 59 135 175 Failure
4Girder2 -176 160 -29 -55 -95 -159
5Mid Span2 -176 160 8 59 -36 4
6Girder3 -176 160 -29 -55 26 -38
7Mid Span3 -176 160 8 59 10 50
8Girder4 -176 160 -29 -55 -7 -71
9Mid Span4 -176 160 8 59 -4 36
10Girder5 -320 160 -29 -55 0 -64
11Overhang2 -320 160 0 0 0 0

160
The arrival blast pressure at location #8 in girders 1 and 2 (Y=5 ft) is 15.1 psi

(arrival time 2.524ms). At the same time, the blast pressure at location #7 (Y=0

ft) in girders 1 and 2 decreases from a peak pressure of 32 psi (end time

2.913ms) to 7 psi. The average blast pressure is 11 psi over girders 1 and 2

between locations #6 and #8.

The bridge deck between girders 1 and 2 fails due to direct shear and bending.

Girders 1 and 2 are affected due to the blast pressure loading from a tributary

area of 10 feet by 4.9 feet (half deck span). The average blast pressure of

loading tributary area should be smaller than 11psi. Here assume average blast

pressure is 11 psi. The blast distribution loading is 647 lb/in (11psix4.9x12 in).

The moment capacity of girders 1 and 2 is considered half span composite

section.

Table 5.35 Moment in the girders 1 and 2 for 5lb TNT blast load case 3

5 TNT Case 3 Girders 1 and 2 Bending Moment kip-ft


Load
Blast Combi-
Applied load nation
Girder Moment Girder Moment Unfactored Unfactored 1.25xDL
Capacity Capacity Dead Load Max Live Load Blast +0.5xLL
(Composite) (Non-Composite) Effects Effects load +1.0xEV Comment
Location Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative
Support
(Left) 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 0 0 0 0 0
1/4 Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1500 1593 -680 945 3617
Moment
Mid Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1633 1908 -968 1796 4791 Failure
3/4 Span 8511 -6790 5173 -5173 -550 1162 -1032 511 405
Support
(Centre) 12950 -11806 9149 -9149 -4161 983 -2450 -871 -7297
3/4 Span 8511 -6790 5173 -5173 -550 1162 -1032 -654 -761
Mid Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1633 1908 -968 -436 1121
1/4 Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1500 1593 -680 -218 2454
Support
(Right) 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 0 0 0 0 0
161
Load Case 4

The steel girders can resist 100 lb TNT blast load when the explosion occurs

under the bridge at load case 4 location. Whereas a part of deck (Y = -15ft ~15ft)

reaches a failure state due to direct shear and bending.

Table 5.36 Pressure and arrival time on the deck (Y = 15 ft)

Blast Pv Arrival Time Load Duration End Time


2
No. Y(ft) H(ft) X (ft) R(ft) sin (θ) (psi) (msec) (msec) (msec)
1 15 14.5 -23.6 24.35 0.21 15.15 11.28 5.29 16.58
2 15 14.5 -19.6 20.50 0.26 22.84 3.15 1.61 4.76
3 15 14.5 -14.7 15.88 0.32 37.38 6.60 3.60 10.20
4 15 14.5 -9.8 11.49 0.40 57.50 5.88 3.31 9.19
5 15 14.5 -4.9 7.75 0.46 77.94 5.32 3.08 8.40
6 15 14.5 0 6.00 0.48 87.24 4.88 2.90 7.78
7 15 14.5 4.9 7.75 0.46 77.94 5.32 3.08 8.40
8 15 14.5 9.8 11.49 0.40 57.50 5.88 3.31 9.19
9 15 14.5 14.7 15.88 0.32 37.38 6.60 3.60 10.20
10 15 14.5 19.6 20.50 0.26 22.84 3.15 1.61 4.76
11 15 14.5 23.6 24.35 0.21 15.15 11.28 5.29 16.58

The arrival blast pressure in girder 3 at #8 location (Y = 5 ft) is 174 psi. At the

same time, the blast pressure in girder 3 at #7 location (Y = 0 ft) decreases from

peak pressure 272 psi to 179 psi. This value of 179 psi is calculated based on a

linear variation of the peak pressure decay to zero. The linearly varying trial

pressures are taken to be 3 times the actual pressure. So, at #7 location blast

pressure decreases from a peak value of 272 psi to 60 psi. The average blast

pressure is taken as (174 + 60)/2 = 117 psi over girder 3 between locations #6

and #8. The uniform blast distribution loading is 1,368 lb / in (117 psi x girder

bottom flange width 14 in).

162
Table 5.37 Pressure and arrival time on the girder 3 (H = 10 ft)

# 5 Blast #6 Blast #7 Blast


Pv Pv Pv Arrival Time at #6 Load Duration End Time
No. Y (ft) psi psi psi (msec) (msec) (msec)
1 -30 1.98 2.09 1.98 10.491 5.015 15.506
2 -25 3.84 4.08 3.84 7.822 4.075 11.897
3 -20 8.14 8.85 8.14 5.525 3.165 8.690
4 -15 19.87 23.12 19.87 3.711 2.375 6.086
5 -10 51.28 65.30 51.28 2.364 1.694 4.058
6 -5 121.05 173.74 121.05 1.537 1.120 2.657
7 0 184.67 271.85 184.67 1.260 0.810 2.070
8 5 121.05 173.74 121.05 1.537 1.120 2.657
9 10 51.28 65.30 51.28 2.364 1.694 4.058
10 15 19.87 23.12 51.28 3.711 2.375 6.086
11 20 8.14 8.85 8.14 5.525 3.165 8.690
12 25 3.84 4.08 3.84 7.822 4.075 11.897
13 30 1.98 2.09 1.98 10.491 5.015 15.506

Table 5.38 Moment in the bridge steel girder 3 for 100lb TNT blast load case 4

100TNT Load Case 4 Girder 3 Bending Moment (kip-ft)


Load
Blast Combi-
Applied load nation
Girder Moment
Girder Moment Capacity Unfactored Unfactored 1.25xDL
Capacity (Non- Dead Load Max Live Load Blast +0.5xLL
(Composite) Composite) Effects Effects load +1.0xEV Comment
Location PositiveNegativePositiveNegative PositiveNegative
Support
(Left) 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 0 0 0 0 0
1/4 Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1500 1593 -680 -2397 -862
Mid Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1633 1908 -968 -4548 -2991 Survived
3/4 Span 8511 -6790 5173 -5173 -550 1162 -1032 -1294 -2498
Support
(Centre) 12950 -11806 9149 -9149 -4161 983 -2450 2206 -2504
3/4 Span 8511 -6790 5173 -5173 -550 1162 -1032 1655 1549
Mid Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1633 1908 -968 1003 3998
1/4 Span 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 1500 1593 -680 552 3224
Support
(Right) 6677 -5245 3500 -3500 0 0 0 0 0

163
Load Case 5

The bridge pier column can resist 125 lb TNT blast load, if the explosion were to

occur under the bridge at load case 5 location (Figure 4.35).

The arrival blast pressure at the location of the supporting pier surface, where the

distance (r) to the explosion force controid on the pier surface is 5 ft, is 294 psi

(arrival time 0.78 ms). At same time, the blast pressure at the explosion force

controid location on the pier surface decreases from a peak value of 763 psi to 0

psi (end time 0.75 ms).

Total blast force:

Q = q1r2 – q1r2 /3 = 294x3.14x (5x12) 2 – 294x3.14x(5x12)2 /3 = 2216 kips

The average distribution blast loading:

w = Q/2r = 2216/2x5 = 222 kips/ft

The average uniform distribution blast loading is 222 kips/ft over supporting pier

surface between 1 ft above ground and 11 ft above ground.

Figure 5.27 Pressure on pier column (Time = 0.78ms, 125 lb TNT)

164
Table 5.39 125 lb TNT blast peak pressure and arrival time on the bridge pier
Arrival Time Load Duration End Time
Y(ft) H(ft) X (ft) R(ft) sin2(θ) Blast Pv psi (msec) (msec) (msec)
0 6 -15 16.2 0.138 15.8 2.726 1.988 4.714
0 6 -10 11.7 0.265 61.5 1.562 1.115 2.678
0 6 -5 7.8 0.590 294.1 0.780 0.391 1.171
0 6 0 6.0 1.000 763.4 0.510 0.240 0.750
0 6 5 7.8 0.590 294.1 0.780 0.391 1.171
0 6 10 11.7 0.265 61.5 1.562 1.115 2.678
0 6 15 16.2 0.138 15.8 2.726 1.988 4.714

Table 5.40 Moment in the bridge pier column for 125 lb TNT blast load case 5
125 lbTNT Case 5 Supporting Pier
Bending Moment Shear
Location (kip-ft) Comment (kips) Comment
Moment Blast Shear Blast
H(ft) Above Capacity Induced Strength Induced
Ground  Mn Moment Vn Shear

0 8246 -8242 Survived 2060 2025 Survived


Extensive damage
1 8246 -6218 2060 2025 and cracking
6 8246 1130 2060 915
11 8246 2929 2060 -195
16 8246 1952 2060 -195
26 8246 0 2060 -195
*Concrete Pier Cracking Moment: Ig =12x15.5 /4.5 = 117.7 ft4 = 117.7x124 in4
3

fr = 7.5 f ' =7.5 x 4000 = 474 psi yt = H/2 = 27 in

Mcr = Igfr/yt = 117.7 x 124 x474 / 27 = 42874823 lb-in = 3574 kip-in

5.6 Comparison of Static and Dynamic Analyses

The results presented in this chapter are based on the equivalent static load

rather than the dynamic loading on the bridge. The static analysis methods

convert the time-pressure variations of a highly impulsive blast load into a single

one-time force applied to a structure. However, it is very difficult to determine the

165
static design load conservatively because magnitudes and locations of the blast

pressures can vary significantly. Furthermore, this type of analysis neglects the

inertial effects in motion (Bounds 1998).

A structure subjected to dynamic loading may exhibit a different behavior

compared to a structure loaded statically, especially if the applied blast load has

a high peak value and of short duration. The dynamic load will bring about a

certain degree of deformation rate in different parts of the structural elements as

they deform.

5.6.1 Multi-degree-of-freedom System

The basic differences between structures under static and dynamic loads are the

presence of inertia in the equation of motion and that of kinetic energy. A multi-

degree-of freedom structure system considers a structure consisting of many

masses connected together by elements of known stiffnesses (Figure 5.28). The

masses can move independently with displacements x1, x2, etc.


mn
Pn xn

m3 x3
P3
P2 m2 x2

P1 x1
m1

Figure 5.28 Multi-degree-of-freedom system.

166
The equation of motion of a multi-degree-of freedom structure system is giver by

mx k x  p(t)


(5.1a)

Where:

[m] = Mass matrix

[k] = Stiffness matrix

{p(t)} = vector of external forces and a function of time.

5.6.2 ANSYS Program Transient Dynamic Analysis

ANSYS program has the capability for transient dynamic analysis to determine

the dynamic response of a structure under the action of any general time-

dependent loads. This type of analysis can be used to determine the time-varying

displacements, strains, stresses, and forces in a structure as it responds to any

combination of static, transient, and harmonic loads. The time scale of the

loading is such that the inertia or damping effects are considered to be important.

The basic equation of motion for a transient dynamic analysis is given by

(5.1b)

where:

[M] = mass matrix

[C] = damping matrix

[K] = stiffness matrix

= nodal acceleration vector

= nodal velocity vector


167
{u} = nodal displacement vector

{F(t)} = load vector

The ANSYS program uses the Newmark time integration method to solve these

equations at discrete time points. The time increment between successive time

points is called the time step integration.

Idealization of Blast Load

An air blast load on a structure is essentially a single pulse and can usually be

idealized by a simple geometric shape that gives a good resemblance of the

actual blast wave. The type of load considered here is the triangular load with

zero rise time. Thus, the system is subjected to an initial suddenly applied load

P1, which then decreases linearly to zero at time td (Figure 5.29).

Figure 5.29 MDOF system subjected to a triangular load

168
Load Case 5: 500 lb TNT

Figure 5.30 Pressures on pier column (Arrival Time = 0.597ms)

The blast pressures on the supporting pier are shown in Figure 5.30. Figures

5.31 shows the uniformly distributed blast pressures on the column, with a load

duration of td = 0.305 ms.

Total blast force:

Q = q1r2 – (q1- q2)r2 /3 = 608x3.14x(5x12)2 – (608-120)x3.14x(5x12)2 /3

= 5034 kips

The average loading due blast pressure:

w = Q/2r = 5034/2x5 = 503 kips/ft

This distributed load is acting at a height of 1 ft above over a length of 10 ft.

Concrete Young's modulus: Ec = 33000 x (W c1.5) x 1.5


f ' =33000x0.15 x 4

= 3834 kips/in2 = 552,133 kips/ft2

3
Poisson’s ratio PRXY = 0.2 Concrete density = 0.150 kips/ft

169
Section area: A = 69.75 ft2, and IZZ =117.7 ft4.

Figure 5.31 Load case 5: Modeling of the supporting pier for ANSYS transient
dynamic analysis

Load duration = 0.305 ms

Load step 1: Time at end of loadstep = 0.001 ms, Load = 503 kip/ft

Load step 2: Time at end of loadstep = 0.306 ms, Load = 0 kips/ft

Load step 3: Time at end of loadstep = 5 ms, Load = 0 kips/ft

Triangular Blast Load (kip/ft)

600
500
Load (kips/ft)

400
300 Series1
200
100
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Tim e ( td=0.305 m s)

Figure 5.32 500TNT triangular blast load

170
Table 5.41 ANSYS Time (ms) history: Moment (MZ kip-ft) at location h = 0

TIME 1M Z TIME 1M Z

0.10000E-03 -3.07096 0.27550 219.375


0.20000E-03 -12.1688 0.30600 -2399.97
0.50000E-03 -90.2109 0.77540 1792.14
0.10000E-02 -456.630 1.2448 -1107.50
0.31500E-01 -12294.1 1.7142 366.642
0.62000E-01 -8.70999 2.1836 409.192
0.92500E-01 972.701 2.6530 -1198.30
0.12300 4418.85 3.1224 1979.02
0.15350 3167.01 3.5918 -2730.24
0.18400 -9943.41 4.0612 3431.88
0.21450 -142.741 4.5306 -4065.36
0.24500 7481.69 5.0000 4613.96

Figure 5.34 ANSYS Time history: Moment (MZ kip-ft) at location h = 0 ft

171
Table 5.42 ANSYS Time (ms) history: Shear force (FX kips) at location h = 0 ft

TIME 1F X TIME 1F X

0.10000E-03 17.8893 0.27550 342.410


0.20000E-03 55.8716 0.30600 49.5687
0.50000E-03 183.239 0.77540 21.7183
0.10000E-02 560.762 1.2448 -105.954
0.31500E-01 3250.92 1.7142 198.133
0.62000E-01 -1160.52 2.1836 -295.146
0.92500E-01 548.520 2.6530 393.814
0.12300 -875.166 3.1224 -490.964
0.15350 -556.222 3.5918 583.504
0.18400 1614.56 4.0612 -668.498
0.21450 44.8233 4.5306 743.227
0.24500 -1362.01 5.0000 -805.257

Figure 5.35 ANSYS Time (ms) history: Shear force (FX kips) at location h = 0 ft

172
Moment Diagram

30
25
20
15 Moment Diagram
10

Pier (h)
5
0
-20000 -15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000

Moment (kip-ft)

Figure 5.36 Static moment in the bridge pier column for 500lb TNT blast load

Table 5.43 ANSYS Dynamic Analysis: Shear in the bridge pier column for 500 lb
TNT blast load case 5

Load Case 5: 500 lb TNT Blast Load


Bending Moment
Location (kip-ft) Comment
h(ft) Moment Static Dynamic Analysis
Above Capacity Analysis Max Moment
Ground  Mn Moment
0 8246 -18676 -12294 Failure
1 8246 -14089 -9012
6 8246 2561 -3223
11 8246 6637 -4893
16 8246 4425 -5230
26 8246 0 0

Table 5.44 ANSYS Dynamic Analysis: Shear in the bridge pier column for 500lb
TNT blast load case 5
Load Case 5: 500lb TNT Blast Load
Shear (kips)
Location (kip-ft) Comment

h(ft) Shear Static Dynamic


Above Strength Analysis Analysis
Ground Vn Shear Max Shear
0 2060 4858 3250 Failure
1 2060 4858 3307
6 2060 2073 1449
11 2060 -422 1275
16 2060 -422 1118
26 2060 -422 1173

173
Load Case 5: 125 lb TNT

Figure 5.37 Pressure on pier column (Time = 0.78 ms, 125 lb TNT)

Total blast force:

Q = q1r2 – q1r2 /3 = 294x3.14x (5 x 12)2 – 294x3.14x(5x12)2 /3 = 2216 kips

The average loading due blast pressure:

w = Q/2r = 2216/2x5 = 222 kips/ft

This distributed load is acting at a height of 1 ft above over a length of 10 ft.

Concrete Young's modulus Ec = 3834 kips/in2 = 552,133 kips/ft2

Poisson’s ratio PRXY = 0.2

Concrete density = 0.150 kips/ft 3

Section area: A = 69.75 ft2. and IZZ =117.7 ft4.

Load Duration = 0.390 ms

Load Step 1: Time at end of load step = 0.001 ms, Load = 222 kip/ft

Load Step 2: Time at end of load step = 0.391 ms, Load = 0 kips/ft

Load Step 3: Time at end of load step = 5 ms, Load = 0 kips/ft

174
Triangular Blast Load (kip/ft)

250

Load (kips/ft)
200
150
Series1
100
50
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Time (td =0.390 ms)

Figure 5.38 125 lb TNT triangular blast load

Moment Diagram

30
25
20
15 Moment Diagram
10
Pier (h)

5
0
-10000 -5000 0 5000
Moment (kip-ft)

Figure 5.39 Static moment in the bridge pier column for 125lb TNT blast load

Table 5.45 ANSYS time (ms) history: Moment (MZ kip-ft) at location h = 0 ft

TIME 1M Z TIME 1M Z

0.10000E-03 -1.35538 0.35200 -2979.93


0.20000E-03 -5.37072 0.39100 954.638
0.50000E-03 -39.8147 0.85190 -520.958
0.10000E-02 -201.535 1.3128 98.8743
0.40000E-01 -6025.81 1.7737 300.769
0.79000E-01 934.374 2.2346 -667.971
0.11800 1159.34 2.6955 993.776
0.15700 1657.78 3.1564 -1270.47
0.19600 -2053.52 3.6173 1491.75
0.23500 -2538.64 4.0782 -1652.81
0.27400 4830.38 4.5391 1750.47
0.31300 -788.893 5.0000 -1783.21

175
Figure 5.40 ANSYS time history: Moment (MZ kip-ft) at location h = 0 ft

Table 5.46 ANSYS Time (ms) History: Shear force (FX kips) at location h = 0 ft

TIME 1F X TIME 1F X

0.10000E-03 7.89547 0.35200 481.846


0.20000E-03 24.6590 0.39100 -258.130
0.50000E-03 80.8728 0.85190 197.256
0.10000E-02 247.493 1.3128 -137.569
0.40000E-01 1529.70 1.7737 80.8799
0.79000E-01 - 698.563 2.2346 -28.6712
0.11800 240.610 2.6955 -17.7275
0.15700 -483.044 3.1564 57.1705
0.19600 381.611 3.6173 -88.7198
0.23500 409.075 4.0782 111.663
0.27400 -786.042 4.5391 -125.525
0.31300 152.904 5.0000 130.076

176
Figure 5.41 ANSYS time history: Shear force (FX) at location h = 0 ft

Table 5.47 ANSYS Dynamic Analysis: Shear in the bridge pier column for 125 lb
TNT blast load case 5

Load Case 5:125lb TNT Blast Load


Shear (kips)
Location (kip-ft) Comment

h(ft) Shear Static Dynamic


Above Strength Analysis Analysis
Ground Vn Shear (Maximum)

0 2060 1929 1538 Survived


Extensive damage
1 2060 1929 1538 and cracking
6 2060 1041 905
11 2060 290 523
16 2060 -290 468
26 2060 -290 735

177
Table 5.48 ANSYS Dynamic Analysis: Moment in the bridge pier column for
125lb TNT blast load case 5

Load Case 5: 125 lb TNT Blast Load (222 kip/ft)


Bending Moment
Location
Static Dynamic Moment Ratio
Moment
h(ft) Above Capacity Analysis Analysis Static /Dynamic
Ground  Mn (Maximum )
0 8246 -8242 -6025 1.368
1 8246 -6218 -4482
6 8246 1130 1558
11 8246 2929 2492
16 8246 1952 -2494
26 8246 0 0

Figure 5.42 Response of a beam to a dynamic step-load (ACI)

ACI (1970) presented the design criteria for reinforced-concrete beams and slabs

to resist static or blast loads. The influence of dynamic peak load and load

178
duration (td) are discussed; In addition to the resistance, the response of a beam

depends on the characteristics of the applied load, particularly the peak load, and

the load duration. The response of a simply supported beam with a static yield

load of Qc to a step-load, P, concentrated at mid-span has been observed from

tests. Figure 5.42 shows the behavior of a beam until the ultimate defection is

reached. The peak dynamic resistance equals 1.35Qc, but the dynamic load to

induce yielding equals 0.8Qc.

In the ANSYS analysis for load case 5, consider the supporting pier to be fixed at

the bottom and hinged at the top. Based on ANSYS static analysis, the

supporting pier resists 125 lb TNT (static distributed load wstatic = 222 kips/ft) blast

load to reach ultimate flexural capacity. The resulting blast induced moment from

the ANSYS dynamic analysis (peak dynamic distributed load wdynamic = 222

kips/ft) is smaller than that from the static analysis. The moment from the static

analysis equals 1.37 times the moment from the dynamic analysis for the same

distributed load of w =222 kips/ft (Table 5.48). For the supporting pier to develop

the ultimate flexural capacity, the peak dynamic distributed load wdynamic would be

1.368 times static load wstatic. This result is similar to that reported by the ACI

(1970).

5.7 Limitations of Analyses

Although blast load is a dynamic load and it impacts the structure for a very short

duration, equivalent static loads due to explosion are used in this study to

evaluate the structural performance. There may be some variation in the


179
results between equivalent static and dynamic analyses of the bridge because of

impact and effect of sustained loading. Therefore, performance of bridge

component elements under equivalent static loads can be considered as

reasonably similar to that under the original dynamic blast loads. The results

based on the equivalent static load analysis are conservative. The ultimate

resistances of bridge component based on the dynamic load analysis are larger

than the ultimate resistances based on static load analysis. The peak dynamic

load is larger than static load applied to any component member with a given

flexural capacity.

180
CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Summary

Blast-resistance of bridge has not traditionally been considered in the design.

Very limited studies are available on blast resistant design, behavior, and

performance of bridge structures under blast load. Location, magnitude, standoff

distance of the explosion from the structure and angle of incident of blast

pressure to the structure surface influence the bridge response to blast loads.

The two span continuous composite steel girder system is modeled considering

material and geometrical linearity and analyzed using ANASYS finite element

analysis software. The effects of blast pressure is converted into equivalent static

load and used in the static analysis.

Both bridge deck and girder fail since the moments due to the blast load of 500 lb

TNT explosion applied over or under the bridge at girder mid-span exceed the

flexural and shear strength. The concrete bridge deck fails for the case of 500 lb

TNT explosion applied over the interior-supporting pier; however, the steel girder

is still structurally functional. The blast induced moment and shear resulting from

a typical 500 lb TNT applied under the bridge and a stand off distance of 6 ft from

the supporting pier are greater than the member capacities and hence
181
failure of the pier.

Parametric studies are made to evaluate the performance of the bridge

components for varying amounts of TNT. The blast loads due to 3 lb TNT are

applied 6 ft over the bridge deck at mid-span of girder 3. The resulting average

blast pressure is only 11 psi and the composite concrete deck under cracking.

But the maximum moment in the concrete deck and steel girder due to the

combination DL, LL, and EX (extreme event load) is smaller than the positive and

negative moment capacity.

For under the bridge blast explosion with a standoff distance of 6ft from the

supporting pier, the supporting pier could resist a distributed load of 222 kips/ft

due to an explosion of 125 lb of TNT. For an explosion underneath the bridge, at

6 ft above ground and a standoff distance of 10 ft from the girder, bridge girders

could resist as much as 100 lb of TNT explosion (117 psi at the girder bottom

over 14 in wide flange). The part of deck (Y = -15 ft to15 ft) reaches a failure

state due to direct shear and bending.

6.2 Conclusions

Based on the results from the present study, the following conclusions are made:

i. The blast loads on a composite steel bridge system can be estimated based

on the principles of blast wave propagation.

ii. Peak pressures on the deck resulting from the blast at any given location vary

at different rise times. The peck pressures decay with increases in time

duration (td), as the blast wave traverses along the bridge deck.
182
iii. The overall bridge performance depends on the flexural/shear strength of a

given bridge component members, blast load magnitude, location of

explosion controid, standoff distances, and incident angle of blast pressures

to the structure surface.

6.3 Recommendations for Future Research

Further research needs to be done to take into consideration blast loads due to a

dynamic pressure. Under the dynamic loading condition, the results may vary for

the same bridge if member strength, the magnitude and location of explosion

remain the same.

Based on this research, the following recommendations may be made:

More studies on the equivalent uniform blast load procedure are necessary for

prediction of bridge response. This can be accomplished by performing an array

of numerical solutions using various bridge and blast parameters.

Further research may focus on dynamic analysis to evaluate the performance of

bridge components under blast loads. The combined effects of flexure, shear,

and a potential loss of seating from local failures may lead to the collapse of one

or more bridge girders.

The present study considers only the first peak deflection in the dynamic

analysis. However, engineering analysis and design should consider the first

peak deflections as well as the subsequent maximum deflections. Additional

field tests should be conducted to evaluate engineering analysis and design of

bridge system for blast loads.


183
REFERENCES

1. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), National Bridge Inventory (NBI),

December 2003.

2. American Association of State Highway and Officials (AASHTO), Load

and Resistant Factor Design, Bridge Design Specifications, 2003.

3. FHWA NHI-04-041, “LRFD Design Example for Steel Girder

Superstructure Bridge”, FHWA / National Highway Institute, 2003

4. Florida Department of Transportation, Structures Design Guidelines, 2004.

5. TM 5-1300, Structures to Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions,

Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. 1990

6. Guidelines for Blast-Resistant Buildings in Petrochemical Facilities, ASCE

1997

7. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, “Blast Resistant Structures”, 1986

8. FEMA 427- Primer for Design of Commercial Buildings to Mitigate

Terrorist Attacks, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2003

9. Kirk A. Marchand, Farid Alfawakhiri, “ Blast and Progressive Collapse ”,

AISC

10. Florida Department of Transportation, LRFD Prestressed Beam Program,

English v1.85, February 2001.

184
11. T. Ngo, P. Mendis, A. Gupta & J. Ramsay. “Blast Loading and Blast

Effects on Structures – An Overview”, The University of Melbourne,

Australia, 2007

12. Johan Magnusson, “Structural Concrete Elements Subjected to Air Blast

Loading”, 2007

13. ULRIKA NYSTRÖM, “Concrete Structures Subjected to Blast and

Fragment Impacts”. CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY,

Sweden 2008

14. David G. Winget; Kirk A. Marchand; and Eric B. Williamson. “Analysis and

Design of Critical Bridges Subjected to Blast Loads”

15. John Crawford, “Protective Designs for Blast and Impact Effects”

16. Longinow, A. and Alfawakhiri, F., “Blast Resistant Design with Structural

Steel – Common Questions Answered”, Modern Steel Construction, AISC,

2003

17. Islam, A.K.M. Anwarul, “Performance of AASHTO girder bridges under

blast loading”, Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee,

FL, 2005.

18. Mark A McClendon, “Blast Resistant Design for Roof Systems”. University

of Missouri – Columbia, 2007

19. ATBlast Software, Developed by Applied Research Associates (ARA), Inc.

20. ASCE Task Committee on Blast Resistant Design, Design of Blast

Resistant Buildings in Petrochemical Facilities, 1997.

185
21. OSHA, Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals, May

1992.

22. National Center for Explosion Resistant Design (NCERD), Department of

Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Missouri-Columbia.

23. International Conference of Building Officials, Uniform Building Code

(UBC), 1997.

24. AASHTO Blue Ribbon Panel on Bridge and Tunnel Security,

Recommendation for Bridge and Tunnel Security, September 2003.

25. K. Marchand, E.B. Williamson & D.G. Winget, Analysis of Blast Load on

Bridge Substructures, Structures Under Shock and Impact VIII, Wessex

Institute of Technology Press (WIT Press), 2004.

26. Department of Defense (DOD), Increasing Blast and Fire Resistance in

Buildings: Design Techniques for Combined Nuclear Weapon Effects.

27. Defense Civil Preparedness Agency, TR-62, May 1976.

28. Dr. Alex Remennikov, “Evaluation of Blast Loads on Commercial

Buildings: From Hand Calculations to GIS-Based Numerical Simulations”,

Second National Engineering & Security Research Forum, Australia,

29. Florida Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications for Roads

and Bridges Construction, 2004.

30. Air Force Engineering and Services Center. Protective Construction

Design Manual, ESL-TR-87-57. Prepared for Engineering and Services

Laboratory, Tyndall Air Force Base, FL. 1989.

186
31. ACI, American Concrete Institute Monograph Series No.5, “ Design of

Flexural Members for Static and Blast Loading”, 1970

187