00 голосов за00 голосов против

8 просмотров208 стр.Steel Girder Bridge System

Apr 10, 2018

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

Steel Girder Bridge System

© All Rights Reserved

8 просмотров

00 голосов за00 голосов против

Steel Girder Bridge System

© All Rights Reserved

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 208

By

Fang Zhou

Master of Science

August 2009

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

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

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

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

iii

ABSTRACT

Bridge System

Year: 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

v

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF BLAST PRESSURES

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

vi

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

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

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

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

ix

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

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 4.15 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 5.38 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

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

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

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

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

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

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

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

Figure 4.2 Girder cross section with steel reinforcements in the concrete

deck………………………………………………………………………...74

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

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

(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 4.26 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

xvii

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

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

xviii

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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 5.40 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

xxi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2

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

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

3

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

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

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

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

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.,

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.

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

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

R

Z= (2-1)

W 1/ 3

6

Figure 2.2 Blast pressure traces for at different times

Many researchers have studied blast overpressure and shock wave propagation

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

(2.2)

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

(2.3)

(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).

8

(2.5)

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

Table 2. 1.

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

combinations (T. Ngo, 2007)

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

(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

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

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

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

11

catastrophic structural damage that could result in substantial human casualties,

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

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

12

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

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

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

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

response

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

13

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

considerably from corresponding static relations are derived for the load histories

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

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

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

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

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

The manner in which explosives release their energy is described and 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

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

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

17

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

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

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

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

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

load duration.

19

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

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

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.

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

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:

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:

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

shoulders)

v. Grade 50 steel

22

Figure 3.1a Two-span continuous bridge

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

Design Criteria

23

Deck width: W deck = 46.875ft

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

3.3 Concrete Deck Design

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

ts = 8.5 in and to = 9 in

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

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

Self weight

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

26

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

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:

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

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

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

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

29

Table 3.6 Equivalent primary width of strip

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

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

30

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

ft)

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.

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

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:

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

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.

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

φf = 0.90 b = 12 in

32

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

ρ = 0.00530

33

Figure 3.3 Crack control for positive reinforcement under live loads

Assume # 5 bars:

φf = 0.90 b=12 in

34

Required bar spacing = bar_area/ As = 6.4 in

Figure 3.5 Crack control for negative reinforcement under live loads

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

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 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

36

Design Case 2 - Design Overhang for Vertical Collision Force

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

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

37

3.4 Steel Girder Design

Span Configuration

38

Figure 3.8 Framing Plan

Design Data:

39

Total deck thickness: t deck = 8.5 in

40

Table 3.10 Resistance factors

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

Modular Ratio

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

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

the deck.

42

The modular ratio is computed as follows:

Es = 29000 ksi

n = Es/Ec = 7.6

Therefore, use n = 8.

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

Assume that the minimum, controlling effective span length equals approximately

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

46

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

computed as follows:

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

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:

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:

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

47

DLfws=0.257 kips / ft

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

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

those in Span 1.

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

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

program.

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

IM = 0.33

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

as follows: (S4.6.2.2.1)

Kg = n ⋅ (I + A ⋅ eg 2)

49

Table 3-17 Longitudinal stiffness parameter

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

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

20 ≤ L ≤ 240 L = 120 ft OK

Nb ≥ 4 N b = 5 OK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

52

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

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

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

53

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

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

those in Span 1.

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

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

54

Unfactored Live Moment:

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

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,

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

LFDC = 1.25

LFDW = 1.50

LFLL = 1.75

55

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

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

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

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

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

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

59

Figure 3.11 Envelope of Strength I moments

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

For steel girder designs, specification checks are generally performed using a

However, it should be noted that the maximum moment within a span may not

The following specification checks are for the location of maximum positive

61

Step 3.7 - Check Section Proportion Limits – Positive Moment Region

Several checks are required to ensure that the proportions of the trial girder

The first section proportion check relates to the general proportions of the

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

62

The third section proportion check relates to the flange proportions. The

equal to 0.4Dc. In this case, the flange width is greater than both 0.3Dc and

63

Step 3.8 - Compute Plastic Moment Capacity - Positive Moment Region

Figure 3.14 Computation of plastic moment capacity for positive bending sections

64

For the slab:

Check that the position of the plastic neutral axis, as computed above, results in

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

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

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

67

Figure 3.5 Superstructure positive and negative moment deck reinforcement

Ig =12x83/12 = 512 in4 fr = 7.5 f ' =7.5 x 4000 = 474 psi yt = H/2 = 4 in

68

4.1.2 Bridge Deck Shear Capacity

For 1 ft width concrete deck, the maximum allowable nominal shear strength Vc:

For composite sections, the plastic moment, Mp, is calculated as the first moment

Top flange 14” x 5/8”, Bottom flange 14” x 7/8”, and web 54” x 1/2”

69

Figure 4.1 Girder cross section

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,

Compression = 0.85⋅f'c⋅bs⋅Y

Tension = Pt + Pw + Pc

dw = Dw/2+3.5in + ts – Y dw = 31.65 in

Y 2 Ps

Mp = +(Pc⋅dc + Pw⋅dw + Pt⋅dt)

2 t s

Mp = 7419 kip-ft

Top flange 14” x 1-1/4”, Bottom flange 14” x 1-3/8”, and web 54” x 1/2”

71

Pw = Fyw⋅Dw⋅tw Pw = 1350 kips

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,

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

Top flange 14” x -1/2”, Bottom flange 14” x 2-3/4”, and web 54” x 1/2”

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

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

For composite sections, the plastic moment, Mp, is calculated as the first moment

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”

Pw = Fyw⋅Dw⋅tw Pw = 1350 K

For the longitudinal reinforcing steel in the top layer of the slab:

Fyrt = 60 ksi

For the longitudinal reinforcing steel in the bottom layer of the slab:

Fyrb = 60 ksi

75

Pt + Prb + Prt = 1204.3 kips

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

Top flange 14” x 1-1/4”, Bottom flange 14” x 1-3/8”, and web 54” x 1/2”

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

For the longitudinal reinforcing steel in the bottom layer of the slab:

Fyrb = 60 ksi

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

Top flange 14” x 5/8”, Bottom flange 14” x 7/8”, and web 54” x 1/2”

77

Pt = Fyt⋅bt⋅tt Pt = 1750 kips

For the longitudinal reinforcing steel in the top layer of the slab:

Fyrt = 60 ksi

For the longitudinal reinforcing steel in the bottom layer of the slab:

Fyrb = 60 ksi

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

Composite)

For nor-composite sections, the plastic moment, Mp, is calculated as the first

Midspan Section

Top flange 14” x 5/8”, Bottom flange 14” x 7/8”, and web 54” x 1/2”

79

For 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

Top flange 14” x 1/4”, Bottom flange 14” x 1-3/8”, and web 54” x 1/2”

80

For the bottom flange:

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

Top flange 14” x 2-1/2”, Bottom flange 14” x 2-3/4”, and web 54” x 1/2”

Pw = Fyw⋅Dw⋅tw Pw = 1350 k

81

Check the location of the plastic neutral axis, as follows:

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

Vn = 0.6 FyAwCv

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

82

estimates that 60% of terrorist attacks use conventional explosives. In this study,

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

Security ---The Blue Ribbon Panel on Bridge and Tunnel Security)

(thousands of tons of TNT).

83

4.3 Equivalent Blast Pressure

Z = W/R1/3

TNT weight of charge (lb). The TM 5-1300 Manual contains a chart using this

developed AT-Blast, the software program that estimates the equivalent blast

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

84

weight, and a 90º angle of alpha (Alpha is the angle of incidence of the shock

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

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

86

Figure 4.5 Explosion location above the bridge deck

87

Figure 4.7 Blast pressure distribution on bridge deck (Elevation)

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

A = B / sin(θ)

Fv = Pv x A = Pv x B / sin(θ)

Pv x B / sin(θ) = P x B x sin(θ)

Pv = P x sin2(θ)

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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 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

Figure 4.10 Standard pressure vs. time curve for an explosion at a point (Robert,

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,

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

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)

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)

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

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

biomedical. The finite element analysis capabilities range from simple, linear

101

Other quantities, such as strains, stresses, and reaction forces, are then derived

Bridge Modeling

The typical composite bridge has two spans, with five continuous steel girders

102

For the sake of simplicity, the whole bridge structure was modeled using two sets

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.

the combination of dead and live loads along extreme event load cases is given

as:

Case Affected

Case 1 Over the bridge, over girder 3 Deck slab, girders 6 ft above deck.

Case 2 Over the bridge, over girder 3, Deck slab, girders 6 ft above deck.

Case 3 Over the bridge, at mid-deck Deck slab, girders 6 ft above deck.

Case 4 Under the bridge, below Deck slab, girders 6 ft above ground.

Case 5 Under the bridge, at 6 ft away Pier, deck slab, 6 ft above ground.

104

Analysis of Blast Pressures on Concrete Deck

The blast pressures on one ft width of concrete deck are calculated and the blast

Figure 4.30 Uniformly distributed blast loads on the bridge steel girder

Load case 1 shown in Figure 4.31, occurs when the explosion takes place 6 ft

105

Figure 4.31 Load case 1

Due to this explosion, the deck experiences a vertical downward pressure. Girder

distributed over the girder- composite slab along the longitudinal centerline of

girder 3.

Load case 2 shown in Figure 4.32, occurs when the explosion takes place 6 ft

106

Figure 4.32 Load case 2

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

107

4.8.4 Load Case 4

Load case 4 shown in Figure 4.34, occurs when the explosion takes place under

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

109

4.9 Blast Pressure Distribution on the Bridge Components

bridge. The ATBlast (GSA) software is widely used and recommended by the

Assuming the bomb is carried in a car trunk or on a truck bed, explosion centroid

(figure 4.), The distance in the plane of the bridge deck to the point of interest

theorem, the distance (R) from the explosion centroid to the point on the bridge

110

Figure 4.6 Blast pressure distribution on bridge deck (Plan)

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:

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.

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).

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)

Also, initially, the blast peak pressure decreases fast with the radial distance,

1600

1400

Peak Pressure (psi)

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Distance from Explosion, r (ft)

114

CHAPTER 5: RESPONSE AND PERFORMANCE OF

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

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

localized bleaching and spalling, and generally result from the close-in effects of

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

115

5.1.1 Global Response

(bending) and shear response .The global response of above ground reinforced

(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

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

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,

both supports. Thus, this is a premature failure mode where the element is

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

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

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

Figure 5.2 Schematic illustration of the relation between load and response time

for an impulsive load (Magnusson, 2007)

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.

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)

equivalent (Photograph by T.Nao)

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

119

applied force effect exceeds the capacity of the section, then the component

fails.

Overhang

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

For 1 ft width concrete deck, the maximum allowable nominal shear strength Vn :

Top flange 14” x 5/8”, Bottom flange 14” x 7/8”, and web 54” x 1/2”

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

Top flange 14” x 2-1/2”, Bottom flange 14” x 2-3/4”, and web 54” x 1/2”

¾ Span Section

¾ Span Section

121

Centre support location

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

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.

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

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

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 5.9 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

1.25DL

Moment Capacity Dead Load Live Load +0.5LL

Mn Y = 15 ft +1.0EL Comment

Unfactored Unfactored

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 5.8 shows the blast induced moment in the bridge components for Load

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

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

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

1.25DL

Moment Capacity Dead Load Live Load +0.5LL

Mn Applied Applied Y = 0 ft +1.0EL Comment

Unfactored Unfactored

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

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 /

Table 5.11 Moment in the steel bridge girder 1 and girder 2 for blast load case 3

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Table 5.16 Pressure and arrival time on the girder 3 (H = 10 ft) for load case 4

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

Table 5.17 Pressure and arrival time on the girder 2 (H = 10 ft) for load case 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

148

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

= 5034 kips

The supporting pier was modeled using 26 BEAM3 elements with a height of 4.5

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:

151

Moment Capacity:

Shear Capacity

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

152

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

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

16 8246 4425 2060 -422

TNT

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

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

concrete bridge deck (Y= 0 ft)

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

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

1.25DL

Dead Load Live Load +0.5LL

Moment Capacity Applied Applied Y = 0 ft +1.0EL Comment

Unfactored Unfactored

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

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)

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

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 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

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

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 #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

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

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

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

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).

section.

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

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)

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

162

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

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

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

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

The average uniform distribution blast loading is 222 kips/ft over supporting pier

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

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

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

165

static design load conservatively because magnitudes and locations of the blast

pressures can vary significantly. Furthermore, this type of analysis neglects the

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

they deform.

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-

mn

Pn xn

m3 x3

P3

P2 m2 x2

P1 x1

m1

166

The equation of motion of a multi-degree-of freedom structure system is giver by

(5.1a)

Where:

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

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.

(5.1b)

where:

167

{u} = nodal displacement vector

The ANSYS program uses the Newmark time integration method to solve these

equations at discrete time points. The time increment between successive time

An air blast load on a structure is essentially a single pulse and can usually be

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

168

Load Case 5: 500 lb TNT

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

= 5034 kips

f ' =33000x0.15 x 4

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 step 1: Time at end of loadstep = 0.001 ms, Load = 503 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)

170

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

TIME 1M Z TIME 1M Z

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

171

Table 5.42 ANSYS Time (ms) history: Shear force (FX kips) at location h = 0 ft

TIME 1F X TIME 1F X

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

0.20000E-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

0.20000E-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

Shear (kips)

Location (kip-ft) Comment

Above Strength Analysis Analysis

Ground Vn Shear (Maximum)

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

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

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

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

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).

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

179

results between equivalent static and dynamic analyses of the bridge because of

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

Very limited studies are available on blast resistant design, behavior, and

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

More studies on the equivalent uniform blast load procedure are necessary for

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

The present study considers only the first peak deflection in the dynamic

analysis. However, engineering analysis and design should consider the first

183

REFERENCES

December 2003.

1997

AISC

184

11. T. Ngo, P. Mendis, A. Gupta & J. Ramsay. “Blast Loading and Blast

Australia, 2007

Loading”, 2007

Sweden 2008

14. David G. Winget; Kirk A. Marchand; and Eric B. Williamson. “Analysis and

15. John Crawford, “Protective Designs for Blast and Impact Effects”

16. Longinow, A. and Alfawakhiri, F., “Blast Resistant Design with Structural

2003

FL, 2005.

18. Mark A McClendon, “Blast Resistant Design for Roof Systems”. University

185

21. OSHA, Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals, May

1992.

(UBC), 1997.

25. K. Marchand, E.B. Williamson & D.G. Winget, Analysis of Blast Load on

186

31. ACI, American Concrete Institute Monograph Series No.5, “ Design of

187

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.