Sielicki Piotr W Masonry Failure Under Unusual Impulse Loading

Poznan University of Technology
Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering
PhD Dissertation
Masonry Failure under Unusual

Impulse Loading
Thesis by Piotr W. Sielicki
Supervisor: Prof. Tomasz odygowski
Pozna 2013
Contents
Preface
Conversion of the measure units
vii
1 Introduction
1.1 Motivation and aim of the work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.1 Phenomenon of explosion: experimental and numerical
1.2.2 Material behavior under dynamic loading . . . . . . .
1.2.3 Theoretical models for masonry . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 Main goal formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
1
3
3
6
8
10
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
approach
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
2 Material behavior under dynamic loading

13
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2 Material under different strain rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3 Engineering design of masonry under explosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3 Explosion and blast waves action
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Explosion and blast wave features . . . . . . . . . .
3.3 Thermal effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4 Basic concepts of thermodynamics for explosion . . .
3.4.1 Introduction and governing equations . . . .
3.4.2 Empirical prediction of explosive loading . . .
3.5 Numerical modeling of explosion . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5.1 ALE and CEL approaches . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5.2 Mesh size vs. the results . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5.3 Comparison of numerical results with reality
3.6 Loading distribution on structure . . . . . . . . . . .
3.7 Concept of safety for structural design . . . . . . . .
iii
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
27
27
28
31
32
33
41
53
58
68
76
77
80
iv
CONTENTS
4 Modeling of masonry behavior under blast

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Description of failure for CMU . . . . . . .
4.3 Numeric validation of FE model behavior .
4.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.2 Mesh refinement study . . . . . . . .
4.3.3 FE masonry wall: job formulation .
4.3.4 FE masonry wall: results . . . . . .
4.4 Analyses due to engineer approach . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
85
85
85
90
90
92
94
97
100
5 Reinforcing masonry to resist explosions

103
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.2 Job formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
6 Conclusions
109
6.1 Final Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6.2 Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
A Blast and explosive properties
113
B Safety criteria and protection levels
127
Bibliography
131
Preface
Extremely high pace of development force engineers to handle complicated and unusual
problems. Commonly accepted design methodologies very often must undergo severe
changes and improvements exceeding widely accepted standards to deliver the reliable
results. The author of this dissertation handles complex problem of explosive loading
also known as high velocity impulse loading which occurs during an impact. The class
of such problems very often refers to the unusual impulse which, in particular, can
be subjected to the masonry structures. These commonly used long structures can
be characterized as composite material composed of two distinct sections: bricks and
mortar. Moreover, this material is commonly used to construct supporting element
such as walls, vaults and pillars. The wide range of possible dynamic loading acting on
masonry causes the recognition of dynamic material properties, which are important
for the accurate prediction of failure or fragmentation phenomena. That is why the
dynamic material model of masonry, both in discrete and homogeneous approach, is of
a crucial importance to handle complex unusual loading problems. The development
of pioneering material model not yet present in the literature provides exact physical
explanation of fast loading dynamic processes. The overall emphasis of this dissertation
is to study the problems of the blast wave and impulse loading on a masonry wall
structures ultimately leading to its complete failure.
The dissertation consists of six chapters, preceded by a list of symbols and conversion of the measure units, bibliography and two appendices. The detailed aim of the
work and actual state of the art on the masonry behavior are described in Chapter 1.
Chapter 2 treats the overview of the established failure criteria under dynamic loading
for brittle materials. The blast wave propagation in the air and its action on any
obstacle structure can be found in Chapter 3. Moreover, this chapter contains the
allowable security criteria for structural elements as well as the whole structures.
The investigation on the new failure model for masonry under unusual impulse
loading is presented in Chapter 4. The considerations comes partially from the author laboratory results showed in the Chapter 2. Following Chapter 5 deals with the
full scale numerical examples verifying the assumptions formulated in the previous
v
vi
PREFACE
chapters. The results show the effects of the explosive forces on the brittle walls.
Moreover, Chapter 5 contains the reinforcing and retrofitting methods introduced to
masonry structural elements. The studies show the preliminary tests to the real fields
experiment. The dissertation is concluded in Chapter 6 with the final remarks and
perspectives. Moreover, there are two appendices in addition to the above presented
chapters which include useful data for designers.
Concluding this preface, author would like to express grateful acknowledgements
to all who have assisted along the long way towards successful finishing on the dissertation. The author wishes to thank in particular Professor Tomasz odygowski for his
stimulating suggestions, wise guidance, numerous productive discussions and patience
in reading and correcting the manuscript. Without him this work would not reach such
a level of excellence. My deepest words of appreciation to my university colleagues for
their friendship and will to sophisticated discussions. Very special thanks to my family
for their patience and understanding.
All presented tables, photos and figures come from the own author1 database.
Piotr W. SIELICKI
The support of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education under the
grant O (N506) R00 0097 12 The System of Passive Safety of the Critical Infrastructure (polish title: Bezpieczestwo Infrastruktury Krytycznej
poprzez System Ochrony Pasywnej) is kindly acknowledged.
piotr.sielicki@put.poznan.pl, www.cad.put.poznan.pl
Conversion of the measure units
Distance and Length

1 m = 102 cm = 103 mm = 106 m
1 m = 3.281 foot = 39.37 inch
1 foot = 0.3048 m
1 inch = 0.0254 m
Mass
1 kg = 103 gram = 2.2046 lb
1 lb = 0.4535924 kg
Pressure
1 Pa = 0.00001 bar = 0.000009869 atm = 1 N/m2 = 0.000001 N/mm2 = 0.0001 lb/in2
1 bar = 100000 Pa
1 atm = 101325 Pa
1 PSI = 6894.757 Pa
1 MPa = 145.04 PSI
vii
viii
CONVERSION OF THE MEASURE UNITS
Pressure Impulse (US to SI, and SI to US)

1 Pa s = 6.895 PSI ms
1 PSI ms = 0.145 Pa s
Scaled Distance (US to SI, and SI to US)

1
1
1 m/kg 3 = 0.367 foot/lb 3
1
1 foot/lb 3 = 2.520 m/kg 3
Scaled Impulse (US to SI, and SI to US)

1
1
1 Pa s/kg 3 = 8.974 PSI ms/lb 3
1
1 PSI ms/lb 3 = 0.111 Pa s/kg 3
Time
1 s = 1000 ms = 1000000 s
Work (Energy)
1 Joule = 0.001 kJ = 0.102 KGm = 8.8507 in lb
Abbreviations
ALE Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian
CEL Coupled Eulerian Lagrangian
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
CMU Concrete Masonry Unit
DIF Dynamic Increasing Factor
GPA Generalized Particle Hydrodynamics
SPH Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics
SHPB Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar
TNT Trinitrotoluene
UFC Unified Facility Criteria
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1
Motivation and aim of the work
Numerical simulations are extensively used for solving vast variety of dynamic problems
associated with the explosions, such as the gaseous detonations followed by the pressure wave propagation. Utilizing these sophisticated methods it is possible to evaluate
the propagation direction of this pressure wave and its affect on different construction
structures. For many decades researchers conducted and presented numerous real life
experiments along with the numerical explosive simulations for different types of materials trying to capture the detailed mechanism of blast phenomenon and to obtain
a credible numerical modeling method to predict the failure of the obstacles.
It is obvious that the behavior of structure subjected to the explosion depends on
the type and power of the charge. Varying these two elements can cause fundamentally different results. The current Chapter encloses the motivation of undertaking the
topic of this dissertation and presents the actual state of the art in the area of interest.
Furthermore, it shows the path of conducted research and subsequently explains where
the presented dissertation should be sited in sequence of thematic literature.
Current design procedures are gradually improved by various governmental agencies considering not only the simulation of the entire structures but also structures with
missing structural element (i.e. column, wall etc.). The application of this approach
may be useful in case of buildings particularly exposed to the possibility of explosion
or blast loading. Among many others, objects such as embassies, banks, skyscrapers,
hotels, airports and other objects of intense public use have the high level of risk of
experiencing unexpected terrorist actions.
Nowadays, the fundamental threat is due to terrorist activities and may involve
a combination of thermal, impact and explosive loads. The list of this unfortunately
growing terrorist activities in this millennium may start with the spectacular event
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
from September 11 in 2001. This particular tragedy serves to highlight the vulnerability of existing structures toward terrorist activities not only in the United States.
The awareness among the politicians and governmental authorities rises making them
aware of the consequences of an effective attacks on governmental facilities or other
alike targets. Many of these buildings are historical, with ornate meaning, constructed
using traditional techniques with masonry elevations, like an attacked in 2008 on the
Bombay hotel, therefore their improvement requires additional attention.
The primary goal of the dissertation is obtaining the reliable material model of
masonry structure which reflects the behavior of a real brick structure subjected to
different types of the high stain rate impact loading. In order to obtain the proper
description of the pressure wave propagation traveling in the air and acting on the
structure, it is necessary to consider the explosion and the wave motion as an impact
loading problem. There are numerous recent papers which reflect the state of the art
in the analysis and simulations of blast as well as the propagation of blast waves in
the air. These materials are closely presented in second part of Chapter 1. In most
of these articles the main attention circles only around plane examples which may be
treated as the preliminary studies and can serve as a good introduction to the topic of
high velocity dynamic loadings.
The entire process of the blast simulation and its influence on any kind of obstacle
is uncoupled into two phases that should be treated separately. The first one is the
propagation of the blast wave in three-dimensional air space with the crucial information on the pressure distribution on the all surfaces of the obstacle structure which
varies in time and space. The second step considers the analysis of the stress wave
propagation in the masonry material finally leading to its failure due to fast dynamic
loadings.
This dissertation will also focus on some available methods of the strengthening existing masonry structures providing increased resistance to the effects of a blast attack.
Furthermore, the retrofitting existing buildings to increase their explosive resistance is
additionally a great challenge for the engineers. For nearly sixty years, many companies
(Baker Engineering and Risk Consultants Inc.1 , Karagozian and Case2 , Cintec International Ltd.3 , any others) manufactured specialized elements providing additional
reinforcement, strengthening and repairing of all types of existing structures around
the world. The dissertation gives also some examples of new retrofitting methods
which, in particular, increase masonry explosive resistance, see Chapter 5.
1
2
3
www.bakerrisk.com
www.kcse.com
www.cintec.com
1.2. LITERATURE REVIEW
1.2
Literature review
1.2.1
Phenomenon of explosion: experimental and numerical approach
The history of research concerning explosions dates back to the 10th century. This
event deals with the military purpose of a explosive gunpowder in China. The first
explosion used for industrial application was recorded about six hundred years later,
that is in XVII century, where the explosives were used for rock blasting in Hungary
ore mines.
The change of application from military to the industrial of the much stronger
charges, such as the nuclear ones, was transferred much faster than in case of chemical
explosives. Half a century after the first nuclear explosion in Hiroshima and Nagasaki
in 1945, there exist about five hundred nuclear power plants in the world. Nowadays,
the explosive energy is widely used for many industrial fields, such as rock blasting,
sheet-metal forming, fast coupling of composites phases or electricity production. For
each of these fields the safety of the structures under explosion is a major concerned.
This section consists of the papers with crucial meaning for further explosive vulnerability assessment of structures in the mechanical and blast analysis sense. Explosion
term is commonly used to describe a rapid release of energy established in various
forms. The terms like detonation and resulting wave propagation are strongly correlated to the explosion phenomenon.
The first tests of nuclear weapon, as a result of the Manhattan Engineering District4 , were led by the helm of the project R.J. Oppenheimer. As the power of explosion was increasing exponentially by far bypassing all expectations, the governments
strongly supported the expansion of this investigation. Arising interest followed by fast
development of the explosion phenomenon continued mainly during the World War II,
where the US government intercepted the greatest achievements and scientists working
on the military improvement of the explosions. The mathematical formulation of the
explosions and following wave propagation as well as the estimation of the mechanical
effects on the surroundings and various structures were strongly investigated. Due to
lack of any technical literature, the brightest minds in the field of applied mathematics and physics joined their intellectual abilities to analyze and address the problem.
The first papers [133, 134] were elaborated by Taylor and published for Civil Defence
Research Committee in UK (1941). His work was concerned with the blast wave formation and propagation after explosion. Another valuable studies [126, 142] were carried
out by Von Neumann (1941) and Sedov (1946).
At that time the only available reference point, crucial for further research, was the
pioneering paper prepared by Rankine (1870) on the Rankine-Hugonit conditions [114].
He first presented the front wave parameters for explosion in the air assuming it to be
an ideal gas. Further, the equations for blast wave velocity, air density and maximum
4 The
full name for the US governments secret project to create a nuclear weapon (1942).
dynamic pressure were presented. Each of these equations are obtained for the case of
atmospheric pressure, sound velocity and peak static overpressure functions.
Taylor observed that the shock is the small discontinuity in the front surface of
the wave, while the blast wave means the entire part of distributed gas behind the
shock wave. Furthermore, Taylor noted that at a certain level of pressure the nuclear
blast produce much more heat energy in comparison to the conventional bomb. This
assumption allowed to formulate analytic shock theory [17] by Brinkley and Kirkwood
(1947) and by Sachdev (1972) [120]. In 1950 Taylor obtained the numerical solution
of nonlinear shock theory, transformed from partial differential equations (PDE) in
eulerian coordinates notation [134]. Although this approach gained significant scientific value, the following researchers like Zeldovich and Raizer [155] proposed the
lagrangian formulation for the blast phenomenon which turned out to be as convenient
as the eulerian (1967). Following this strong World War II research trend, in his independent studies, Von Neumann obtained an analytic solution of the point explosion
in lagrangian coordinates [142] (1941). This approach presented more explicit solution
then those suggested by Taylor or Sedov. However, some strict parameter simplifications were left without any physical interpretation at that time. In 1969 Laumbach
and Probestein found an explicit analytic solution of the point explosion [80]. Trying
to obtain the more realistic behavior of the blast wave, without investigation of another model, which considered the attenuation of a spherical blast at the large distance
from the centre of the explosion [146] (1950). In the same decade, McFadden proved
the considerable advantage for full spherical approach [99]. Furthermore, in 1958 he
deliberately pointed out the differences with respect to the plane model, which was
previously investigated by Brode (1955) [18]. The continuation of McFadden work was
research performed by Friedman [46] which led to the phenomenon of secondary shock
after explosion of high compressed charges (1961). Another author who transferred
the blast analysis to more specialized field was Chisnell who considered channeling the
moving pressure waves [29] and derived a relation between shock strength and area
of the channel (1957). Later on, Hayes considered a powerful explosions in the atmosphere [56] for a different altitude of detonation (1968).
Nevertheless, there is vast number of possible solutions and models predicting the
most important blast wave parameter i.e. the peak of static overpressure. The variation of peak value for a free air explosion is often presented as a function of scaled
distance, static pressure and velocity of sound. The simplified approaches for obtaining this peak were presented by Brode (1955) [18], TM-5 1900 technical manual (1969)
[140], Henrych (1979) [57], Baker (1983) [6] or Kinney-Graham (1985) [73] and are
closer discussed in the Chapter 3.
Nowadays, scientific research presented in great number of relevant publications
deals also with more sophisticated examples of detonation, blast wave propagation or
explosion effect. The research shows the tendency of increasing the virtual analysis
utilizing different numerical codes. Nevertheless, the real life experiments of a smaller
complexity are still performed to compare with the numerous approach. In 1994 Champan et al. [27] analysed the effect of using the blast wall. Authors experimented on
1:10 scale model of the cantilever beam obstacle located just behind protected structure. They analyzed various scenarios for different size of charges, obstacle location
and geometry. The resulting derivations and obtained relations serve significantly in
the upgrade of safety of the structure elevation. Alia and Souli proved the accuracy of
the combined Arbitrary Lagrangian eulerian approach [3] by showing their results of
real field explosion of C4 charge and comparing them with the numerical solution. At
the same time Schleyer et al. investigated the blast wall panels under shock pressure
loading [8]. The authors obtained pressure values for different points on the panel in
a shock tube device on 1:4 scale model. Another example performed on the scaled
example is presented by Baylot and Bevins [7]. Authors, in the numerical fashion,
simulated behavior of RC frame filled with masonry with use of Autodyn code and
compared obtained results to the real experiment of 1:4 scale model. The advantage
of such approach is provided by including ground interaction with a structure. Remennikov and Rose analyzed pressure loading on different building faces situated in
highly concentrated urban area [118]. They presented varying values of pressure as
a function of building highs. Furthermore, they perform the simulations for different
values of a scaled distance where the numerical models includes significantly more then
107 number of finite elements.
Another approach connected with the complex analysis of a highly urbanized downtown area was presented by Luccioni et al. [93]. Authors simulated numerically the
3D explosive event which occurred in the past in Buenos Aires (1994). They analyzed
building resistance against different weight of TNT charges and varied distances from
the explosion centre. The obtained results based on Autodyn code and compared with
the well known consequences. Furthermore, they performed detailed FE analysis of
pressure propagation based on the empirical formula of Friedlander equation or Kinney and Graham tables. The study concerning higher level of details of any structure
are presented in Wei et al. [145]. Authors proved that the short time of shearing significantly affects the behavior of laminated glazing under blast. In this case the numerical
analysis were performed with use of LS-DYNA and Abaqus codes. Furthermore, numerical simulation of blast wave interaction with structure columns is presented by
Shi et al. [152]. Once more with the use Autodyn code the numerical experiments of
pressure acting on a structure are performed. The task was connected with the vortex
propagation during action of a blast wave in vicinity to column faces. In this worth
mentioning experiment performed for a lower scale model authors successfully verified
the numerical approach and obtained a pressure functions for a different column faces
as a function of scaled distance.
1.2.2
Material behavior under dynamic loading
The material behavior differs considerably with the variation of the strain rates. This
principle was observed and intensely studied by Hopkinson [60] in (1914). The general
attention of this dissertation is focused on masonry structures under unique dynamic
loading. Hence, author finds it crucial to present short references considering the
dynamic behavior of brittle materials.
Definition 1.1. Dynamic Loading for the need of this dissertation is going to be
considered as a blast kind of loading. The ratio of the duration of the load phase to
the characteristic response time is lower than 0.25 for impact (e.g. for blast loads) and
equals 106 for shock loads (e.g. for high energy explosion5 ). Nevertheless, the strain
rate is higher than 102 s1 for each loading scheme. Furthermore, it could happen
that is higher than 105 s1 for a special case, when an equation of the state is really
necessary to characterize material behavior [128].
Hopkinsons work inspired other researchers, such as Naunton and Waring (1938)
and further Alexandrov and Lazurkin (1940) who carried out an experimental investigation of the rate sensitivity of copper and lead. They submitted materials to very
high stresses which were maintained only for few microseconds. Kolsky was successfully introduced the measurement method of the stress-strain behavior in strain rates
of the order of 2105 s1 [76]. Furthermore, he considered the theory of relaxation and
memory effects in the materials for different specimen sizes (1949). In 1992 Hanchak
et al. [55] carried out triaxial pressure-shear experiments. In addition, he performed
ballistic perforation measurements for reinforced concrete slabs. The steel projectile
had initial velocity from 150 to 1000 m s1 for different tests. The following year,
Holmquist et al. [59] developed a constitutive model where the failure criterion was
based on cumulative strain measures. This approach is primarily based on the work
of Johnson and Cook [69]. Grote et al. used split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB)
for uniaxial and plate impact tests to measure rate dependent strength of the concrete
and mortar. The considered strain rates were between 250 and 1700 s1 with compressive stress up to 1300 MPa for the mortar. Following the experiments the numerical
analysis performed with the extended Drucker-Prager theory showed good agreement
of both approaches. In 2008 Clayton described in details a fragmentation phenomenon
observed in high-speed photographs produced during impact crushing [31]. He employed a generalized particle algorithm (GPA) to perform numerical observations. Due
to possibilities of choosing a smoothing functions the GPA is more efficient then popular smooth particle hydrodynamics (SPH). Furthermore, the GPA enables to associate
the particle velocities and trajectories directly to the free fragments. Nowadays, the
laboratory experiments allow to investigate the behavior of materials under the strain
rate up to 5106 s1 [32]. Gilbert et al. [49] studied a response of a masonry barriers to low velocity impact. They obtained numerically and experimentally critical
5 Explosions
are measured in EMT that is equivalent megatons.
displacement values for different schemes of destruction mechanism. For wide range
of analyzes there are considered vertical cracks and non-fracture sliding mechanism as
well.
Among other dynamic loading topics many researchers have taken into consideration also masonry elements. The vast majority utilizes the SHPB technique e.g. Shih
et al. (2000) [127], Serva and Nemat-Nasser (2001) [122] or plate impacts e.g. Grady
(1997) [50] or Bourne et al. (1998) [14]. It is generally considered that the failure modes
in ceramic materials highly depend not only on material type but also on strain-rate
regions. The failure schemes are significantly influenced by the occurring microscopic
defects. There are also other methods used by Ravivhandran and Subhash (1995)
[115] and by Bhattacharya et al. (1998) [13]. These authors developed two material
models based on experimental observations. The micro-crack-nucleation-growth and
energy diffusion models mathematically describe the failure process in ceramics. In the
Ravichandran model, the source of damage represented by micro-cracks in a confined
cell is investigated. The failure of the material is defined when the damage density
reaches limit value. The energy model of Bhattacharya et al. describes the reduction
of elastic energy from the initial state to the split state, where it must overcome surface
energy associated with new surface. Furthermore, the observations of dependency of
the failure strength and loading pressure are explained.
Due to the fact that the description of the ceramics behavior under high speed
impacts is to complex for theoretical formulation [158], many authors have developed
type of stochastic formulations from the numerical point of view. These considerations
are base on the intrinsic defects in the initial state of brittle material. The model of
Camacho and Ortiz (1996) [24] describes this phenomenon where the failure process is
described by the growth of micro cracks, which are simulated by cohesive elements [2].
The cohesive zone follows the concept of cohesive zone introduced by Dugdale (1960)
[41]. This crack formulation is adopted in the finite element methods in a concept of
a cohesive finite element. The similar approaches have been presented by many other
authors [43, 100, 154].
Above mentioned authors have presented two dimensional problem. Three dimensional numerical simulation with employed fracture was validated by Zhou and Molinari
(2001) [157]. Another group of researchers have considered unique dynamic loading i.e.
explosive loading and penetration directly for masonry. One of this work is performed
by Wong and Karamanoglu (1999) [149], where the authors obtained numerical solution for masonry subjected to explosion of gas mixture. The presented results were in
a good agreement with the full scale experiment. Baylot and Bavins (2007) [9] obtained
the result of a structural response of non full scale building under explosion of condensed charge. Their model represents reinforced concrete frame filled with masonry
walls. Furthermore, they suggested a retrofit techniques. Davidson et al. (2005) [37]
and Buchan and Chan (2007) [20] analysed a polymer fibres as an reinforcement of the
pure masonry under explosion. They performed few real scale tests and confirmed the
experiments through numerical solutions in LS-Dyna code. Su et al. (2008) [131] performed some numerical calculations for the mitigation of blast effect on unreinforced
masonry wall. In 2010 Cullis et al. [36] described an influence of explosion on different infrastructure. In particular during the last decade the development of building
and structure vulnerability under blast loading occurred extensively. The masonry
material is one of these materials which, near concrete and steel, has been taken into
consideration in design codes [140].
1.2.3
Theoretical models for masonry
A masonry is a complex material composed from evenly aligned bricks and mortar. In
most general approach there exist two different ways to analyze the masonry. The first
one is a discrete method, where each of materials is taken into account individually
with actual physical and geometrical properties. In this method additional attention
must be payed to describe the contact between phases. This approach is often verified
in laboratory tests for static and dynamic loading. However, due to very expensive
computational requirements even for relatively small specimens [113] it has a serious
limitations in computational research. The second approach considers the structure as
continuous i.e. the heterogeneous brick structure is replaced by homogenized masonry.
Definition 1.2. Homogenization is the process of uniforming the global material
properties by considering representative volume inhomogeneous elements (RVE) consisting of bricks and mortar. Utilizing homogenization techniques it becomes possible
to uniform the properties of the RVE. From the global point of view material can be
treated as homogeneous and is described by homogenized material parameters. This
process allows the global behavior of composite to be derived from separate properties
of different components.
Several methods are used to derive a homogeneous masonry material properties.
Pande et al. [110] in their work derived the equivalent elastic modulus (1989). They
showed expression for obtaining elastic properties of equivalent material and verified
it with a brick panel subjected to uniaxial loading.
Pietruszczak and Niu [113] adopted two steps homogenization procedure, which is
based on the Mori-Tanaka method (material obtained by neglecting the presence of
the horizontal beds of mortar), and the lamination theory. They fully described the
homogenized orthotropic elastic material (1991), provided the three dimensional formulation to average macroscopic properties of masonry and investigate the conditions
of failure. The above mentioned studies are extended and supported by extensive numerical study. In 1995 Anthoine [4, 5] proposed a global elastic coefficient for masonry
based on elementary cell and with the use of numerical methods. He has taken into
account a finite thickness of the masonry and subjected both brick and mortar to the
isotropic damage. He proved that the approach is good for the elastic behavior of
masonry but may be significantly affected by the mode of failure.
Lourenco [90] proposed another direct homogenization method (1996). His approach allowed to obtain the average constitutive relation for periodically layered
composite by proceeding the proposed process for each of three general directions
of masonry. Luciano and Sacco [94] introduce the brittle damage model for old brick
structure (1997). The theory of homogenized material with periodic microstructure
is used to derive the moduli of uncracked and cracked masonry. They also developed
a numerical procedure to obtain elastic properties for two dimensional undamaged and
damaged brick structure as well as energy and local strength criteria for mortar.
In 2001 Ma et al. [95] obtained the elastic moduli and damage behavior through
finite elements (FE) analyses. The average properties for a composite structure are
derived numerically. The representative volume element (RVE) is modeled under different stress conditions. Author applied a varied displacement boundary conditions
on RVE faces. The model allows to obtain three different types of failure. The first
one is connected with mortar tension. The second one is based on the shear failure of
mortar or combined shear failure of brick and mortar. The last one arises from simple
compressive failure of bricks. The model found its biggest utilization in analyzing large
scale masonry.
A non periodic masonry is homogenized by Cluni and Gusella [33] (2004). They
came up with the medium stiffness tensor for masonry. The authors also replaced the
concept of periodic cell with the RVE. This volume is found by employing a finite size
test-windows technique. The tensor of homogenized stiffness is derived by considering
the hierarchy of estimates relative to essential and natural boundary conditions. A numerical application elucidates the effectiveness of the approach.
Another homogenization method is introduced in 2004 by Zuccini and Lourenco
[160]. The cracking process is responsible for nonlinear behavior of masonry, due to
the low tensile strength. Authors proposed a composite fracture energy approach which
is in a good agreement with the discrete FE approach. Their study accomplished the
coupling of the elastic micro-mechanical model with a scalar damage model for joints
and units leading to the damage coefficients computations.
Brasile et al. (2007) introduced a multilevel, quasi-homogeneous approach for masonry [44, 16]. Authors described a nonlinear behavior of masonry including damage
evolution and friction toughness phenomenon. They performed two dimensional numerical tests for both simple walls and large scale structure. They assembled masonry
of rigid bricks linked to one another by mortar interface. The authors represent the
wall as a discrete Lagrange system in which fractures and all constitutive aspects localize in the interface phase only.
Massart et al. developed another computational homogenization technique [98]
for structural masonry (2007). This approach is more complex because it uses the
anisotropy evolution and localization induced by mesostructural damage. The technique includes a damage orientations which are strongly connected to periodic structure
of the material. The results discussion is based on the computational example which
10
shows the cracking evolution and anisotropic damage. The FE experiment is performed
on a two dimensional masonry wall under vertical static loading.
There also exists another group of homogenization methods which are able to describe the structures behavior under dynamic loading. Wu and Hao [151] used a homogenization approach for three dimensional model of masonry (2006). They included
orthotropic elastic properties and obtained a strength envelope. Authors characterized damage parameter as scalar. The behavior of composite is described by tensile,
shear and compressive failure, and additionally by high pressure failure. Finally, they
subjected two different kinds of walls (continuum and homogenized) to the blast. The
three dimensional experiment is performed numerically with use of LS-Dyna code. Wei
and Hao [144] investigated a behavior of masonry panels under strain rates up to
200 s1 (2008). Authors used a modified Drucker-Prager strength criterion and performed a few numerical tests for orthotropic RVE. The obtained results were found
to be in a good agreement with the discrete approach. Additionally, new concept of
failure bond values for stresses and strains for RVE of masonry was presented based on
the dynamically increasing factor (DIF) which is obtained in laboratory experiments.
1.3
Main goal formulation
Motivation to undertake this study is significant usage of masonry structures. The

prevalence of masonry in high occupancy structures [54] is proved in Figure 1.1. Author
Figure 1.1: Construction summary shows the prevalence of masonry in military buildings
formulates the fundamental concept of this dissertation, which is confirmed in the next
sections. It reads as follows:
1.3. MAIN GOAL FORMULATION
11
There are reinforcing or retrofitting methods that allow to greatly increase the strength of masonry exposed to blast waves. These approaches
apply to newly constructed and existing facilities in both.
The main interest of this research circles around the word: failure. The above
statement during high speed dynamic loading, where the quality of the results (i.e.
failure initiation and propagation) depends directly on the number of degree of freedom.
Due to above assumption which should be reached, author achieves the secondary goals.
There are in particular:
engineering simplification for prediction of blast pressure features

obtaining safety threshold for non-reinforcement CMU structure under explosion
increasing of CMU safety trough introducing some reinforcement method
obtaining the critical FE size for valuable results
introducing material behavior in strain rate effect functions into subroutine procedure
introduction to numerical design of explosion phenomenon

coupling of complex engineering problem in one FE numerical example
Chapter 2
Material behavior under dynamic

loading
2.1
Introduction
Structural materials under specific rate of loading exhibit hardening or softening which
usually forerun the failure and fracture phenomena. This process may be very rapid
for both quasi-static as well as dynamic loadings. Considering such material behavior
one has to define mathematical formulation followed by the computational solution
of various applications with extraordinary care. Particularly important is the correct
definition of the solved problem; any discrepancies from the definition of well posed
problem may result in serious consequences especially in the system of the governing
equations. As an example one may refer to the static cases usually governed by elliptic
equations. It is well known that with such approach softening results in not positively
definite constitutive matrices and changes the type of equations into hyperbolic ones.
Such changes have further severe impact on the exactness of the numerical solution
hence it is crucial to address them at the earliest stage of theoretical definition. Lack
of mathematical knowledge on correct problem definition through the initial boundary
value problem leads to therefore called pathological mesh dependency. It simply means
that the obtained results are meaningless and by no means should not be presented
nor discussed.
There are several ways to avoid the change of equation type during the computations. In general such procedure is called regularization process. The motivation
behind the regularization process may have various backgrounds. One of them is physical, e.g. viscoplasticity or higher order media for soil mechanics. Another one comes
from artificial manipulations, also on the level of numerical discretization, that simply
keeps the type of governing equation unchanged during the entire incremental pro13
14
CHAPTER 2. MATERIAL BEHAVIOR UNDER DYNAMIC LOADING
Table 2.1: Speed of deformation for specific physical phenomena [84]
Type of phenomenon
Creep
Creep beyond the yield criteria
Hot drawing
High speed drawing
Machining
Drawing with use of explosion
Type of loading
Earthquake
Car crash
Plane crash
Hard hit
Projectile hitting
Explosive loading
Type of deformation
Geological movements
Creeping
One axial tension test
Drilling, rolling, drawing
Test with Hopkinsons bar
High velocity impacts
Velocity of deformation [s1 ]

from 1010 to 105
from 105 to 101
from 101 to 101
from 101 to 103
from 103 to 105
> 105
from 103 to 101
from 102 to 100
from 5102 to 2100
from 100 to 5101
from 102 to 106
from 106 to ...
1010
106
104
100
103
106
cess. For static problems the system remains elliptic whereas for dynamic ones its
hyperbolic. Discussion around the type of loading, quasi-static or dynamic, should be
balanced based on own experience compared with particular rates of deformation for
typical processes, see Table 2.1. [84].
The scope of this work focuses on fast dynamic processes such as explosions or
blasts which generate the structural rate of deformations of an order between 103 up
to 106 s1 . Furthermore, especially for the static cases, the computations require any
kind of imperfections, such as missing element or slightly changed plastic strain localization, in order to enforce the fracture initiation. With such a setup the first signs of
fracture occur in those places hence using the specific failure criterion is of fundamental
importance. In this part the author decided to concentrate the attention on the description and analysis of particular types of loadings. The subsequent consideration on
the analysis accuracy of the brittle-like structures subjected to an impact or explosive
loading, employ the knowledge of crack initiation and its evolution. Furthermore, lack
of experimental verification rises the complexity of considered problems. Difficulties
with performing and obtaining some experimental results are due to several reasons.
The most common issues are economical and practical i.e. the physical impossibility to
measure some desired values. In such circumstances the support of numerical analysis
becomes crucial. This Chapter contains separate criteria for failure of the material
2.2. MATERIAL UNDER DIFFERENT STRAIN RATES
15
Table 2.2: Load classification [140]
Load classification
Quasi-static
Quasi-static
Impact
Shock
>4
1
<0.25
<106
Type of the load

Conventional testing
Transient loading on structures
Kinetic energy, blasts pressure
High energy explosives
Figure 2.1: Fracture modes for solid brick for different strain rate under quasi-static compression
under dynamic loading, in agreement with phenomenon specified above. The explanation of these criteria is necessary to understand calculations, performed in the following
part of this work. The criteria for static and quasi-static loading, for range of strain
rates equal 104 up to 100 s1 , see [58, 44], are not taken into consideration.
2.2
Material under different strain rates
Materials reveal hidden properties when stresses are applied rapidly in very short time
frame of the order of 20 microseconds [76]. Furthermore, the type of loading strongly
depends on the duration of loading , and response time of imposed stresses T . This
interesting observation was analyzed by Sierakowski [128]. The results are showed in
Table 2.2.
Bricks, as well as mortars (concrete) follow the same behavior patterns with respect
to the high rate loading [51] which may be already observed in the typical compression
tests.
The behavior of single brick was showed using an Instron 8500 equipment, available
in the Institute of the Structural Engineering1 at Poznan University of Technology.
One of the features of the Instron allows the application of loading with different
velocities. The fracture scheme of the three different type of bricks for quasi-static
loading velocities are presented in Figure 2.1.
1 www.ikb.poznan.pl
16
Generally, the author considers solid bricks with dimensions of 0.25 m by 0.125 m
by 0.06 m, typical hollow ceramic brick 0.37 m by 0.25 m by 0.24 m, and silicate
unit 0.33 m by 0.24 m by 0.2 m. Figure 2.1 shows different failure scenarios of bricks
caused by variously applied compression force. The presented cases show where the
compressible boundary were loaded with various velocities. In initial setup the loading
velocity equals to 0.001 m per second, whereas the final one equals 0.01 m per second.
The average loading strain rates were 0.02 and 0.17 s1 , respectively what is an example of quasi-static study. Nevertheless, increase of the value of the critical strength
in comparison to the static loading was observed. This behavior is even more evident
when the strain rate becomes higher and equals to 100 or 1000 s1 . High strain rates
require particular experimental approach such as split Hopkinson pressure bar technique (SPHB) [28, 51, 60, 76, 92, 119]. In general, this system consists of two different
bars. The first one is the incident and the second one the transmitter bar, where the
material specimen sandwiched between them. This is widely used to characterise the
dynamic behavior under rapid compression of brittle materials.
Furthermore, the author performed some residual dynamic test for solid, hollow
and silicate specimen using SPHB technique. In general ca. 20 cylindrical specimens
were tested, in order to perform further dynamic analysis of whole masonry wall. The
shapes of these elements were obtained using jet machining system. The diameter was
about 12 mm, while the thickness was in range 8 to 13 mm. The test were performed
for solid and silicate materials in general. The outcomes allow for prediction of DIFs
under constant rate of the strain fixed to ca. 600 s1 , see Figure 2.6. This constant
boundary value is able to found using small mass projectile in SPHB system, because
of the fact that all specimens are brittle. The laboratory place2 and the specimens
are presented in Figure 2.2. Author presents an exampled results data for solid brick
specimen during the dynamic test, see Figure 2.3. This graph shows two curves i.e.
the rate of the strain (black) and true stress (grey) in true strain function in both.
This is a lucid study, which shows the strong dependency between the results and
specimen quality. The vertical arrow shows the region necessary for alignment of both
extreme specimen surfaces. This inaccuracy is caused by incorrect machining the initial material. Nevertheless, the result are clear, and proves the dynamic increase effect.
Additionally, there is used the high speed camera to catch the fracture steps during
the process. The used frame rate was about 20k (20 000) frames per second, and the
results are showed in Figure 2.5. Nevertheless, partial of experimental results utilized
in this work are taken mainly from [51, 102, 91, 92] and further used by the author
to approximate the behavior of masonry. The framework of this approximation is
explained and discussed in Chapter 4 in detail.
The average stress evolution during quasi-static compression made by the author
is presented in Figure 2.4. They represents the dynamic increasing factors in time
2 Institute
of the Structural Engineering.
Figure 2.2: SPHB laboratory and the tested specimens
Figure 2.3: Finall output data: SPHB test for solid brick unit, = 600 s1
17
18
Figure 2.4: Stress evolution in time function for solid (dashed), hollow (dark grey), and
silicate (light grey) bricks during quasi-static compression; d is tensor of strain rates
Figure 2.5: Fracture mode of solid and silicate brick under rapid compressive loading
function, for three types of brick unit. These curves rise rapidly reaching the limit
values. After the failure curves stopped rising and decreased simultaneously. Complete
results data are presented in legend of Figure 2.4. It is well established that equivalent
value of the strain rate d comes directly from tensorial measure d, and it means the
scalar measure. There is equivalent measure to which denotes for the small strains.
Furthermore, d can be reduced to the ratio of boundary velocity and unit dimension.
The peak value of the force divided by the initial area of masonry unit shows the
critical stress. Furthermore, the failure mode corresponds to the critical strain. Finally,
the maximum impulse value is obtained as an area beneath the curves, before failure
occurs. Furthermore, the main results of critical stresses were generated based on
different authors and information from Figure 2.6. The general conclusion is that the
dynamic increasing factors (DIFs) due to different values of the loading velocities are
19
Figure 2.6: Critical stresses from experiments for different state, material and strain rate
significantly different for tension and compression.

Based on the study conducted in the area of concrete [75, 77] the same comparable
values of dynamic increasing factor exist for tension and compression under strain rate
of = 102 s1 and = 103 s1 , respectively. Such big discrepancies clearly imply that
the description of material must be combined from two independent states, i.e. the
tension and compression.
Let us focus on the strain rate of the process. The simplest way to consider dynamics
is recommended by standard approaches. In this case, however, some simplifications
are used by introducing the safety factors. In order to provide safety these factors must
be set to, or be greater than one. For example the Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC)
standards for concrete [140, 139] distinguish the different loading states, see Figure 2.6,
and additionally the type of the stresses, see Table 2.3. Furthermore, the first column
represents the dynamic- to the static yield ratios, while the second one the ratios of
the dynamic- to the static ultimate strength of reinforcing bars in both. In the third
one columns, as for far design- as for close-in ranges, the bold values show the ratio of
the dynamic- to the static ultimate strength of concrete.
Furthermore, the UFC safety factors are designed particularly for explosive loading.
In that sense the stand-off distance is also taken into consideration. This feature
increases the standard of designing in agreement with UFC rules [140]. Furthermore,
these standards provide the outline for basic properties such as global compressive
strength value for concrete masonry units (CMU) ranging from 9.3 to 12.4 MPa, and
the modulus of elasticity equals to Em = 1000 fm . Any kind of increasing factors are
20
Table 2.3: Dynamic increase factors for design of reinforced concrete [139],[140],[141]
Type of Stress
Bending
Diagonal Tension
Direct Shear
Bond
Compression
Far Design
1.17 / 1.05
1.00 / 1.10 / 1.00
1.17 / 1.05
1.10 / -
Range
1.19
1.00
1.10
1.00
1.12
Close-In Design Range

1.23 / 1.05 1.25
1.10 / 1.00 1.00
1.10 / 1.00 1.10
1.23 / 1.05 1.00
1.13 / 1.16
not taken into account particularly for bricks.

Similar approach is presented by Comite Euro-International du Beton (CEB). It
recommends independent utilization of the safety factors, TDIF for tension and CDIF
for compression. All of the presented approaches are gathered and presented in Figure 2.6. The dashed curves represent the CEB approach. It is important to mention
that current research [65, 75] show that the CEB values, especially in tension, are underestimated for strain rates above 100 s1 . On the other hand, value = 1000 s1
is assumed as maximal and all potentially greater values are matched to it preventing
overestimation of the results.
The masonry structures under blast action are not verified despite frequent utilization of this material in constructing walls, see Figure 2.7. In other civil engineering
structures masonry may be used in reinforced concrete frames or frontal elevations.
During unexpected incidents like explosions, the masonry fragmentation influences
directly the safety of personnel inside the building. Due to lack of information regarding masonry under explosive loading in the technical literature, author assumed
this material as a two-phases composite. The first phase i.e. mortar behaves similar
as a concrete, and the second one i.e. brick unit, is described with the similar equations hence, different material properties. The crucial problem of realistic and reliable
description of the behavior of masonry under blast phenomenon requires extensive
research and sophisticated numerical simulations. Chapter 4 addresses this issue by
providing innovatory solution to the stated problem.
Among large variety of equations describing various material behaviors for quasistatic loading there are also those describing brittle behavior. One of them is the
formula proposed by Geers [98], as presented in Equation 2.1, which is directly derived
from Burzyski (1928) approach [23].
eqv
1
k1
I1 +
=
2k(1 2)
2k
s
k1
I1
1 2
2
+
6k
J2
(1 )2
(2.1)
Equation 2.1 introduces two invariants: I1 and J2 which represent the first and the second invariants of stress and deviatoric stress tensors, respectively. Let us assume, that
Aij is the second-order stress tensor. A unique property of the second-order tensors is
the possibility to uncouple it into two parts. The first part is the isotropic component
21
Figure 2.7: Masonry usage in typical construction structures
D
AO
ik , and the second one is the stress deviator Aij , as presented in Equation 2.2.
AO
ik =
1
1
App ij , and AD
ij = Aij App ij ,
3
3
(2.2)
where, App is the sum of all diagonal terms of tensor Aij . Here, I1 = Aii , and
J2 = det(AD
ij ). The formula presented by Geers in Equation 2.1, was initially used to
obtain the strength properties for concrete. In this case, however, parameter k is of the
crucial importance, which is responsible for shape of a failure surface in the principal
stresses space. Completing the description of Equation 2.1 represents the Poisson
ratio.
Based on provided discussion, the author presents the evolution of parameter k for
different data, in aspect of the strain rate function. In order to perform analysis of
masonry for blast and explosion this kind of study must be performed independently
for each phase of the composite i.e. mortar and unit. The detailed description of such
research and obtained results are presented in Chapter 4.
Let us move our consideration into the mortar which is equivalent to concrete. The
experimental studies provide data of critical values for uniaxial stresses which from
obvious reasons are different for tension and compression. The graphical representation
of the above formula is presented by Jankowiak [65] for concrete under quasi-static
loading.
22
Figure 2.8: Impulse vs. loading under dynamic process
Considering the strength of materials in aspect of rapid dynamics, very important

factor is the time of loading action. It is therefore called impulse. The loading pressures
I,II,III , may be significantly different, however, on the other hand the impulse gives
the same values. This situation is presented in Figure 2.8. This approach allows
utilization of different limits for the strength values under the same loading but for
different loading time action. The strength of material increases while the load duration
decreases. It is directly linked to the strain rate. The higher the d the higher the
ultimate strength, which could exists in the material point. Hence in order to maximize
the material resistance the load duration in this point should be decreased. With
respect to Figure 2.8, the area under the pressure-impulse (P-I) curve, where pressure
means exactly the force, represent the safe region. For selected combination of pressure
and impulse values, in some material points, the pressure value is above the limiting
curve and hence the critical strength is reached.
While introducing the impulse into Burzynski equations, it is assumed that the
structures can carry any kind of loading. The crucial question that needs to be
answered is about the duration of occurrence of such a loading. In that sense the
dynamic strength of structural elements must be considered at least in aspect of force
and impulse.
Similar approach was realized through cumulative criterion which is utilized for
concrete and introduced by Campbell [25], Klepaczko [75], and numerically adopted in
[65] by Jankowiak.
This criterion exists also in the US codes, which deal with the blast resistance of
glass, doors, windows [109], as well as other references. Besides, the pressure-impulse
relation is introduced to improve the public safety, see Figure 3.33 in addition.
2.3. ENGINEERING DESIGN OF MASONRY UNDER EXPLOSION
23
Figure 2.9: Behavior of non-reinforced masonry exposed to blast action
2.3
Engineering design of masonry under explosion
During last years masonry gained a lot of popularity particularly as a building material for walls in civil engineering applications. Base on the UFC [140] the masonry is
very unique material with fireproof properties, good acoustical and thermal insulation,
structural mass and resistance to flying debris. Due to circumstances of its utilization
it may also be exposed to exterior and interior blasts. Nevertheless, it is shown by author, that the approach to the description of the masonry behavior under explosion as
a complete structure is not taken into consideration in the standard manner. Furthermore, properly designed masonry walls can provide economical resistance to relatively
low blast over pressures. Meaning of the term: low blast can be extended, when
masonry is properly designed. In order to increase the blast resistance of masonry the
reduction of tensile cracking along with the introduction e.g. the steel reinforcement
must be provided.
Let us concentrate on non-reinforced masonry wall. The UFC presents the study
on the singular example of brick wall under lateral dynamic pressure loading. This
resistance is a function of three features as follows: wall deflection x, the compressive
strength of the mortar fm , and the equivalent of the supports stiffness h = h0 h.
These parameters are presented in Figure 2.9.
For the symmetrically supported wall, the blast action causes the cracks in the
centre of the wall. As a result two parts of the wall move as two separate yet rigid
bodies. Due to explosive action the m point of the wall, where the crack appears
undergoes lateral motion x. This motion occurs while the point o moves towards the
24
upper support. This condition corresponds to the deflection value denoted by xc which
is derived from the geometry of the wall, according to Equation 2.3, as follows:
2
(t xc ) = L2
h h0 h
+
2
2
2
(2.3)
Furthermore, the value L could be derived from the initial state for the unloaded wall.
It is worth mentioning that there exists also the maximum deflection value xmax , when
compressive stress f 0 m occurs in points m and o. This value can be computed, see
Equation 2.5, as a function of fm corresponding to the strain m . These parameters
are shown together in Figure 2.9. Due to presented approach the resistance of the
wall ru to the lateral force, firstly introduced in Equation 2.4, appears as a function
of displacement x. First, the resistance is a linear function, starting from the xc . The
maximum resistance occurs when x reaches xmax , and the above mentioned value of
the resistance function decreases according to Equation 2.8.
ru =
8 Mu
h2
f 0m
f 0m
xmax xc
=
=
,
t xc
fm
E m
(2.4)
(2.5)
where E stands for the elasticity modulus of the mortar. Additionally, the unit strain
in the wall caused by the shortening will be described by Equation 2.6, while the
interpretation of the Mu presents Equation 2.7.
m =
L h0 /2
L
Mu = 0.25 f 0 m (t x)
(2.6)
(2.7)
2 0
2
f (t x)
(2.8)
h2 m
The presented solution comes directly from the UFC [140], where more detailed
description can be found. In agreement with the presented equations the resistance
function for one type of solid unit was calculated. For practical design the blast resistance of the masonry could be also determined from the [63]. Where, the ultimate
resistance is the function of the wall deflection, compressive strength fd , and the supports stiffness of the masonry. Author tries to show the sensitivity of engineering
considerations in function of input parameters. Due to this assumption the studies are
conducted for different values of four separate features, which are: hight, thickness of
the wall, support stiffness, and the compressive strength of the mortar. The results
are obtained using developed Matlab procedure, and are presented in Figure 2.10.
Initial resistance for typical properties of brick unit wall is represented by the black
and continuous curve. In this case, this curve represents the one-layer solid unit wall.
ru =
2.3. ENGINEERING DESIGN OF MASONRY UNDER EXPLOSION
25
Figure 2.10: Elastic range of resistance function of masonry wall for different properties
It is 2 meters high and 0.125 meters thick. The support stiffness is fixed at h and
equals to 0.01 m. The fm parameter is fixed to be 10 MPa. All other curves plotted
in Figure 2.10 represent the sensitivity of the resistance function and changes of all
initial data. These changes are multiplied by fixed factors of 0.9 and 1.1 of initial
parameters. Thickness of the wall is the most sensitive parameter. During the increase
of thickness by 10% the wall resistance increases more than 100%. On the other hand,
slight changes of the wall resistance cause the increase of mortar strength.
Main damage criteria for any kind of brick walls, which are presented in UFC,
concern the angle of the support rotation. This support rotation critical angle is in the
range from 0.5 to 1.0 degree [141]. Author presented obtained results using the rigid
boundaries and the non-reinforced wall. This approach allowed for the amount decrease
of parameters during the preliminary computations. However, the UFC approach is
fully verified with the use of FEM in the Chapter 4.
Despite that one has to take into account the different boundaries, the resistant is
the function on the stiffness of the supports.
Furthermore, simply supported wall, without the top boundary against vertical
motion must be checked as a simply supported beam, and the maximum moment is
determined via the rupture value function of the mortar. The above considerations are
crucial for the further description of the masonry behavior, particularly while employing FEM approach.
Chapter 3
Explosion and blast waves action on

structures
3.1
Introduction
In order to provide a credibly performing numerical model addressing structures failure, it is necessary to properly define the loading conditions. The research presented
in this work is mainly focused on the topic of external pressure generated by the blast.
The topics such as perforation of the structure which results from the internal explosion are not included in details. Nevertheless, in order to understand the further
research on masonry failure and damage evolution imposed by stress wave action inside
the brick structure it is particularly required to introduce to explosion phenomenon
and blast wave propagation in the surrounding air. The intense study of these effects
allowed author to obtain the alternative loading schemes, which come from the blast
and are further used in Chapter 4, as a primary objective of the dissertation. The
conclusions regarding the structure loading under stress wave are presented in this
Chapter. Furthermore, this study is extended to consider the energy and detonated
product which are severely affecting the surrounding air. The general aspects of explosions are discussed, however, the theory of ignition and detonation phases are not
addressed in detail. The gas dynamics, chemistry of gaseous detonations and analysis of reaction mechanisms including comprehensive set of reaction rates attempting
to represent all chemical processes within a given system are described in details in
[30, 34, 123, 124, 125].
27
28
3.2
CHAPTER 3. EXPLOSION AND BLAST WAVES ACTION
Explosion and blast wave features
In order to understand further description regarding the structures safety under the
blast wave action, there is necessity for description and definition of basic and relevant
concepts.
Definition 3.1. Explosion describes a rapid phenomenon of physical, chemical or
nuclear conservation where the change of potential energy to mechanical and thermal
work is inseparable. This work is carried out by expanded gases, which before were in
compressed state, or were formed during the phenomenon [121].
Expanding the provided definition, the explosion concept can be described as the
sudden release of large amounts of energy within a limited space during the detonation
process of the charge. In this case the detonation means a type of reaction generated as
a result of explosion, i.e. a high intensity shock wave. During such process the generated wave begins to travel with the initial velocity of 103 104 meters per second. The
good example of physical conversion is a fast disruption of tank infield with gas. Explosions are also accompanied by chemical phenomenon. Their duration is calculated in
microseconds and the usual cause is the exothermic reaction in charges, which initially
were in solid or liquid state, or were already initiated in the gas mixture. The last
concept given in the definition, i.e. nuclear conservation concerns the high influence
of thermal and nuclear radiation. The thermal radiation involves the wide range of
the electromagnetic spectrum including infrared, visible and ultraviolet light. The nuclear radiation can be described with the initial ionizing and further residual radiation
consisting mainly of neutrons and gamma rays emitted within the first minute after
detonation. It is noteworthy, that the power of nuclear explosion is a few order higher
than the conventional condensed explosion. This reaction is measured in nanoseconds
which generates huge amount of energy in addition. This view is permanent since 1938,
where the first nuclear fission was performed by Hahn and Strassmann [52]. The short
draft shows the instruction scheme for all explosive processes:
Explosive + Heat source = Energy + Detonation products
In most of the cases the heat source is delivered typically to condense or liquid explosives and is starting the process of transmutation or conversion. The right hand site
of the above draft is the product of detonation which is important for the obstacle
loading. The author neglects any kind of nuclear loading in the further consideration and focuses only on the conventional phenomenon. In the conventional charge
term, meaning thermodynamically metastable configuration there are exist rapid and
self-sustaining processes. There are initiated by heat, electrical or mechanical influences.The high-condensed gases or vapours are connected directly with the process
which are capable of performing a mechanical work. They are so-called detonation
products. These products are highly compressed at the initial step. Right after the
detonation there is rapid change of pressure, e.g. 10 GPa, on the medium boundaries
3.2. EXPLOSION AND BLAST WAVE FEATURES
29
(charge-surrounding). The detonation products are called high pressure carriers base
on Wodarczyk [147].
The important property for each explosive is its exothermic. This feature is responsible for the self-sustainability independently on external factors, like e.g. atmospheric conditions. The general parameter connected with exothermic property is
specif ic heat or capacity. This term means precisely the amount of energy formed during explosion of 1kg of any explosive material. This term rapidly deals with the time
of conversion, and there are fundamentals for quality of the explosion. The specific
heat for the conventional condensed charges equals up to 10 MJ per kilogram. The
exact values for the different charges are obviously well known, and are presented by
various authors in tabular forms, e.g. see [57, 58, 147]. Furthermore, author collected
this data in Appendix A, see Tables A.4 and A.5.
Due to the fact that the primary aim of this work deals with the structural engineering response the considerations are reduced only to one explosive charge, i.e.
the well known pure TNT (trinitrotoluene) compound. The properties of any other
compounds are recalculate if necessary, based on the T N T equivalence. This term
is usually stated in the units of kilotons or even megatons, particularly for nuclear
explosions. The equivalent base is that the explosion of one ton of TNT is assumed to
release 4.5 MJ of energy. For any other material the properties are translated including specific heat ratios. The energy released during the explosion is expressed in term
of the mass of trinitrotoluene, which would release the same amount of energy when
exploded.
There are couple of general processes accompanying the first milliseconds of explosion. The first one is visual fireball; the expansion rapidly compresses the surrounding
air and as a result produces a powerful blast waves. The radius of the bright fireball is
of a crucial importance during the field measurements and must be taken into account
to neglect the overexposure of the visual recording. The second process is the rapid
temperature changes which is transmitted on the front of the pressure wave. On the
other hand the density of the front of the shock wave is also important. It can reach
the values exceeding 2500 kg/m3 having the properties similar to a solid body [147].
However, for the most examples the density of the air increases to be 8 times higher
then initially.
Definition 3.2. Shock Wave is a continuously propagated pressure wave in the surrounding medium which may be air, water or earth and it can be initiated by the
expansion of hot gases produced by e.g. a nuclear explosion [121].
The most important shock wave parameters were published in 1870 by Rankine
and Hugoniot [114]. For loading purpose of any structural obstacle very important is
pressure evolution in space and time. The typical scheme for some point in the free
space is presented in Figure 3.1. This point is separated from the charge center with
a particular distance called stand of f distance. Furthermore, the blast pressure
30
Figure 3.1: Typical pressure-time history of an airblast in free point of air space
consists of two significantly different phases called: positive and negative. When the
process is initiated, following the explosion at the time of arrival tA , the pressure
suddenly increases to a peak value PSO (or pSO ) which exceeds the ambient pressure
equals to P0 . Hence, the pressure decays to P0 in time t0 , and again reaches P
SO
pressure in order to finally reach again the barometric value, at time t
.
The
sum
of
0
times of over and under pressures is called the time of duration T. The value of PSO is
usually referred to as the peak side on overpressure or incident peak overpressure
and remains in accord with the established rules [140, 141].
Definition 3.3. Overpressure is a transient pressure, usually expressed in Pascals,
exceeding the ambient pressure, manifested in the shock wave from an explosion. The
peak overpressure is the maximum value of the overpressure at a given location and is
generally experienced at the instant the shock wave reaches that location.
The integral form of positive pressure is called positive impulse iS and i
S is a
negative impulse. These values are usually important both for further failure analysis
of any obstacle. Furthermore, the impulse of overpressure could be more dangerous
than the underpressure especially for typical civil engineering structures. On the other
hand, the experimental tests which allow to measure the real pressure in the certain
distance from the ignition point are relatively rare and very costly. In addition to that,
3.3. THERMAL EFFECT
31
they often end with the damage of the gauges and cannot be repeated under the same
conditions.
Nevertheless, many authors based on numerous experiments, e.g. [19, 81, 71, 130,
138], have elaborated some simplifications for predicting the pressure values, which
may be crucial for rapid assessment of blast loading effect. Part of these values are
collected in Figure 3.15 in the further part of this Chapter.
3.3
Thermal effect
The energy value released during explosion is proportional to the difference between the
total binding energy contained within the initial and unstable system and the energy
contained within the final and stable state. This net energy release is often described
as the heat of explosion. The idea of the thermal energy comes directly form the
nuclear explosion analysis, where the increasing heat effect is crucial for the damage
phenomenon. Let us consider the following definition:
Definition 3.4. Thermal Energy The energy emitted from the fireball as thermal
radiation. It is usually expressed in terms of calories per square meter and describes
the total amount of thermal energy received per the unit area at a specified distance
from the explosion.
In addition to that, the pressure-thermal ratio strongly depends on the type of
explosion. Basing on the literature research [35] these dependencies are gathered in
Figure 3.2. Furthermore, several authors investigate the results of the thermal effect on
the engineering structure after typical (mixture and condensed) charge explosions. In
1963 Mader [97] presented the results of his research regarding the thermal properties
for different condensed explosives. The author presented the simplified method for
predicting the heat value as a function of charge mass and the distance. Nguyen et al.
[105] analyzed the impact of the heat action due to the fire on masonry barriers. They
obtained critical displacement values for hollow burnt-clay bricks under 103 Celsius
degree. Leiva et al. [83] obtained experimentally mechanical properties of mortar
cylinder specimens. The loading conditions were introduced by heating the mortar up
to 103 Celsius degree.
In papers presented above, the authors have analyzed long duration heating which
is not directly comparable with the heat effect during explosion. In this case the gradients of temperature field are extremely high. Due to lack of any real experimental data
for failure of masonry under rapid thermal radiation release and staying in the agreement with Figure 3.2, the reliable consideration of this effect is neglected by author
in dissertation. Furthermore, the thermal wave transmits considerably longer through
the medium than the pressure wave and usually reaches the obstacle after the failure,
see [117, 121]. The interpretation of the last sentence is graphically represented in
Figure 3.3 where shock against heat fronts are compared with respect to time and
32
Figure 3.2: Influence types after explosion [35]
distance function. These fronts intersect at a finite time t = t1 and at some distance
r = r1 . The presented result is obtained for a Taylor-Sedov solution of point explosion
[134, 126], for a sharply fronted spherical wave, which moves supersonically, i.e. considerably faster than typical hydrodynamic flow.
Furthermore, there is a slight influence under thermal wave propagation for structure failure in comparison to the rapid pressure changes. For further consideration of
conventional explosives the thermal effect is ignored.
3.4
Basic concepts of thermodynamics for explosion
One of the basic laws of thermodynamics provides the conservation of energy which
requires that energy must be released in case of converting system to another one with
greater stability and lover amount of entire energy. When we consider non-nuclear
charges, the molecules of commonly used explosives are considered to be in highly
energetic and unstable state. In case of reaction of such compound the products of
greater stability are formed consequentially releasing the energy. For the conventional
explosives the energy is released through rapid and violent chemical or physical reaction.
Further investigation considering blasts requires brief introduction to the basic explosion process and commonly used terminology. Let us first consider the detonation.
Definition 3.5. Detonation is a reaction on explosive where the high intensity shock
3.4. BASIC CONCEPTS OF THERMODYNAMICS FOR EXPLOSION
33
Figure 3.3: Trajectories of shock and heat fronts for strong explosion [134]
wave is produced [58].

In general, there are two types of detonation. The non-stationary detonation where
the explosion propagates with various velocities and the classic detonation with the constant velocity (velocity D range is from 2100 up to 8000 ms1 for condensed explosives
[147]). During this research author concentrates on the primary effects of explosion
hence chemical details of detonation are neglected.
3.4.1
Introduction and governing equations
The methods for deriving the value of the blast pressure fall under three different
categories [34]. According to the conducted studies and literature reviews the most
accurate are the f irst principle methods, which represent the numerical solution of
the system of partial differential equations. They usually engage Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD) models. Hence, the fluid represents the medium (usually air or
liquid) throughout the propagation of the blast pressure. There are three fundamental
equations governing the flow of the fluid [159]. These are therefore called Navier-Stokes
equations:
Conservation of the mass
The mass stays constant within the given system, however, the density can vary
34
across the fluid field. In this work we consider as density and ui as velocity:
+
(ui ) = 0.
t
xi
(3.1)
Conservation of momentum
The equation describing this law is the direct result of the Newtons second law.
The change rate of the forces acting on the fluid III is equal to the change rate
of the momentum with respect to time I and distance II :

ui
t
I

+
II
III
ij
p
= 0.
(ui uj )
+
fi
xi
xi
xi
(3.2)
Conservation of energy
This law obviously implies that the total energy of the system remains constant.
While considering fluids the form of energy is mainly expressed by pressure,
however, there are also other types of energies such as kinetic k or heat energy
qH which in case of explosions are usually driven by the chemical reactions.
Mechanical energy fi ui could be expressed by work being done by external
forces.

E +
(ui H)
k
+
(ij ui ) fi ui qH = 0
(3.3)
t
xi
xi
xi
xi
Where H is heat content (enthalpy), see Equation 3.4.
p
H=E+ ,
(3.4)
where E is a total energy per unit mass Equation 3.5, and there is a sum of intrinsic energy e = e(T, p). Furthermore, it depends on the temperature, pressure
of the fluid, and the kinetic energy k.
1
E = e + ui 2 .
2
(3.5)
Solving the above equations for the entire domain is very tedious and difficult. Due
to the pressure, the velocity and density fields vary spatially, hence the entire domain
must be discretized into equations that apply to smaller volumes of fluid. This kind of
approach is commonly called control volumes.
The system of equations 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 are well known Navier-Stokes equations.
Let us assume that there exists a particular case of above equations which corresponds
to the the inviscid fluid. That directly implies that the viscosity is equal to zero, hence
the shear stresses ij and heat conduction do not exist. For such case we are considering the Euler equations. After the explosion, the shock wave propagates through the
medium in completely inviscid style [21, 34]. Beyond the fuel mixture, especially for
35
condensed charges, there is no combustion during this propagation. For this particular
situation the Euler equations seems to be a most suitable approximation of the problem.
The solution of the one-dimensional Euler equation Equation 3.6 is a solid basis
for further investigation and analysis of one-, two-, and three-dimensional systems of
spherically-, radially-symmetrical, and spatial implementation of the explosion phenomena, respectively. An interesting approach of solution is performed by Wada and
Liu [143] (1997). They based their analysis on the flux splitting scheme utilizing the improved Advection Upstream Splitting Method (AUSMDV). However, their approach
require additional time integration for producing a second-order implementation in
space and time, following MUSCL-Hancock [138].
U F
+
=0
t
x
(3.6)
Relatively large number of sophisticated codes for analyzing blast effects, see Table 3.7,
utilize this method to obtain solution. In case of spherically symmetrical analysis i.e.
one-dimensional case, the first-order accuracy is sufficient only if the space discretization, i.e. between the explosion center and the nearest obstacle surface, is fine enough
to get demanded peak pressure. In such case, the partial differentiation equation Equation 3.7 remains almost unchanged, apart from an extra term S(U ). For each time
step U is being updated and hence the S term is recalculated and added to the entire
flux term.
U F
+
+ S(U) = 0
(3.7)
t
x
The detailed parts of Equation 3.7 present as follows:
u
2
2
2
U = u F =
S =
(3.8)
u 2
u +2 p
2
r
u e + V2 pu
e + V2
u e + V2 + pu
where the parameters such as source energy are available to be released as a heat e,
detonation velocity is denoted as V , and initial density as . The initial density represents the feature which is constant for each type of condensed explosive. The symbol r
reflects the radial distance from the charge center and u is the one component velocity.
The typical scheme for solving one-dimensional problem can be presented as follows. We assume that the space must be discretised into radial parts r, and each
part is equivalent to the scaled distance having constant charge weight. It should
consist of roughly fifty computational cells through the thickness of the charge in order to produce very accurate blast parameters. The initial density, internal energy,
and the speed of the detonation wave are defined as initial conditions. Furthermore,
the replacing radius of the charge is calculated based on the mass of the charge W ,
explained further as in Equation 3.34, in order to obtain the starting time t0 . Hence,
the time is the ratio of charge radius and detonation velocity. The total number of
36
computational cells, presented above and represented by integer number, comes from
dividing the largest radius rmax by r. The first computational cell is filled by explosive properties, whereas the remaining cells are filled by the surrounding medium
i.e. the air. All other necessary parameters are calculated base on specific heat of the
air at constant volume accounting for the specific heat ratios. These properties are
discussed at a later stage in details. The calculations are performed as long as either
the initially specified time is reached or the velocity in the final computational cell
is greater then zero. The obtained data are used as an input data to the two- and
three-dimensional approach. This algorithm is widely utilized in many sophisticated
industrial implementation such as the Air3d code, developed at Cranfield University
in the UK.
The radially symmetrical solution of Euler equations, requires implementation of
two-dimensional problem. It basically relies on the symmetry conditions about the
vertical axis (coordinate h). Now, the coordinate r is a radial distance from the axis of
symmetry. The existing velocity has radial u(r, h) as well as the axial v(r, h) components. Hence, the Euler form is extended with a geometric source term G and presents
as follows:
U F(U) G(U)
+
+
+ S(U) = 0,
t
r
h
(3.9)
and the separate elements there are:
U=
G=
u2 + p
F=
,
,
uv

2
u e + V2 + pu
v
u
vu
u2
1
,
S
=
.
2
r
v
uv
+
p

2
2
V
V
v e + 2 + pv
u e + 2 pu
u
v 2
e + V2
U F(U) G(U) H(U)

+
+
+
=0
t
x
y
z
(3.10)
(3.11)
U=
G=
u
v
w

2
e + V2
F=
v
vu
v 2 + p
vw2
v e + V2 + pv
, H =
u2 + p
uv
,
uw

2
u e + V2 + pu
wu
wv
.
2
w
+
p

2
V
w e + 2 pw
37
(3.12)
Very interesting study on the blast pressure evolution was performed and presented
by Krzewiski [78]. Author evaluates parameters which are of a significant importance
to the front of the shock wave for spherical charges. These are: blast front velocity,
pressure and density. If one assumes that the differential equation system is similar to
the ones presented in Equations 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 than the blast model in gas medium
can be described as presented in Equation 3.13:

u
u
=0
t + u r + r + ( 1) r
u + u u + 1 p
=0
t
r
r

(3.13)
p
p
u
1
+
u
+
p
+
u
=
0
t
r
r
r

= rrc (t)
c
where the first two formulas represent the mathematical formulation of mass and momentum conservation laws (as previously), the third part is responsible for the adiabatic conditions and the last one for the density distribution in disturbed medium.
Furthermore, the boundary conditions for above equations are presented for the explosive centre Equations 3.14, and 3.15 for the wave front. In such setup, crucial role is
played by the starting condition stated in Equation 3.16.
u (0, t) = 0
(3.14)
u (r0 , t) = uc = f1 (r0 ) = 1 (t)

p (r0 , t) = pc = f2 (r0 ) = 2 (t)
(r0 , t) = 0 = f3 (r0 ) = 3 (t)
r (0) = 0
(3.15)
(3.16)
These formulae are directly connected to the dynamic agreement conditions Equation 3.17 [147].

1
dr0
u
=
1
c
0
dt
pc p1
E0 E1 +
pc +p1
2
1
0
1
1
0
= 1 uc dr
dt
=0
(3.17)
38
Figure 3.4: Blast wave front in different time instants
The last part of the first two lines of equation Equation 3.17 are representing the same
value i.e. the velocity of the front of the wave D, see Equation 3.18, which can be
derived directly from Figure 3.4a.
dr0
D=
(3.18)
dt
Figure 3.4b shows a small part of the cylinder representing subsequent positions of
the disturbed front and describing the material state for times t and t + dt. The front
of the wave is going to move from the section I, in time t, to the section I in time dt.
During this process some of the particles are translated to a new state pc and c under
velocity uc .
This move is formed as a consequence of the rapid energy release Q0 . The front
of the wave travels with velocity D in time dt. Afterward, it arrives to section II,
following path Ddt. At this moment particles move from the surface I to I, following
path uc dt. In the framework of the conservation of mass law the explosive mass, within
the range I-II and I-II should remind the same as presented in Equation 3.19.
0 F Ddt = c F (D uc ) dt
after mutual reduction of area F the uc can be expressed as follows:

0
,
uc = 1
c
(3.19)
(3.20)
also including [147]:

pc p1 = 0 uc D.
(3.21)
The last element of Equation 3.17 is an integral form of the energy conservation law,
which is necessary to start the explosion phenomenon. Hence, we obtain the system
39
of equations, i.e. Equation 3.13 and 3.17, with boundary conditions presented in
3.14, 3.15 and 3.16. In order to make this formulation complete one has to consider
the general medium equation (Equation 3.22) along with the internal energy description
of gas Equation 3.23.
p = RT
(3.22)
E = c T
(3.23)
Where R represents a gas constant and all other variables can be derived directly from
Figure 3.4. For further consideration it is necessary to introduce the representation of
the specific heat c variable. This important thermodynamic parameter characterises
the ratio between heat absorbed by the unit mass and temperature increase. In agreement with the first law of thermodynamics, the change of the internal energy q can
be described as:
q = de + pdv
(3.24)
where, v is a specific volume. Furthermore, let us assume that the specific energy e is
a function of two variables v and T . Staying in agreement with Equation 3.24 quantity
c can be expressed as follows:

q
e
e
v
cr =
=
+
+p
,
(3.25)
dT r
T v
v T
T r
where index r describes the direction of the process. The quantity cr multiplied by
mass is known as heat capacity and is denoted by Cr . The above Equation 3.25 looks
very similar with the term cp , which denotes the specific heat for constant pressure.
The measurement of this value in the laboratory is relatively straightforward. There
exist also a specific heat for constant volume cv , and it is defined with the following
Equation 3.26:

e
cv =
,
(3.26)
T v
for dv = 0. Very clear conclusion can be drawn from above discussion and the Maxwell
equations that cp > cv . Those results are described in details in [147].
At that point it is important to introduce a specific heat ratio denoted by , Equation 3.27, which is also called adiabatic exponent:
cp
.
cv
(3.27)
p
.
( 1)
(3.28)
=
Finally, Equation 3.23 can be expressed as
E=
The integral form of the energy conservation law is the last part of the equation system
Equation 3.17. Therefore it is necessary to take into consideration the explosion energy
0 . Lets assume that the energy emission takes place in moment t = 0 in some
40
symmetric environment (i.e. straight line or planar surface). Then, the total energy
equals to the sum of 0 and internal energy of the unit of the mass E1 , multiplied by
volume of the disturb medium V . The same energy can be represented by the sum of
the kinetic and potential energies. The comparison of the above mentioned quantities
is presented in Equation 3.29 and provides the last equation necessary to calculate the
system of equations Equation 3.17.

Z rc 2
u
V
0 + 1 E1 rc =
+ E r1 dr
(3.29)
2
0
where V = rcV , and = 2( 1) + ( 2)( 3).
Due to practical reasons we are interested in the parameters at particular point
of the space. Furthermore, Equation 3.17 could be simplified to Equation 3.30 by
employing Equation 3.23. The detailed transformation is presented in [78]:

a2
uc
2
= +1
1 D12

a21
pc p1
2
=
(3.30)
1
2
2
1 D
+1
D
2
1
1 1 =
c
+1 1 D 2
Krzewiski presented the new dimensionless term i.e. intensity rate q, see Equation 3.31:
a1
q= ,
(3.31)
D
The new equation system which employs Equation 3.32 is derived as the expansion of
the wave front motion Equation 3.18. Finally, we obtain the equation system Equation 3.33, where wave coordinates must be changed for any point of interest into the
three dimensional space.
1

+2
2
0
t( +2 )
(3.32)
rc =
1

uc
2
1
a1
+1 q
2
1
pc p1
=
1
2
p1
+1 q
(3.33)
0
+1
1+2q 2
1

2
q
rr
= cos q
0
( 2 )
This point is placed in stand-off distance, the distance from the charge centre.
Let us assume, that we want to obtain all important parameters on the wave front.
We base on the presented equations for stand off distance r and spherical explosion
conditions. The radius of the spherical charge is calculated as follows:
s
3W
,
(3.34)
r0 = 3
40
41
where the mass of the explosive is noted by W and 0 , which means the initial charge
density. The dividing of the assigned distance (stand-off distance) by r0 , it names
reduced radius. It gives the possibility to obtain the angle factor of the straight
line. Another important step there is to calculate intensity rate q 1 , following the
equation system Equation 3.33, but it is not possible in an explicit way. Here, the
graph representation in Figure 3.5 is very useful, after the transformation of the last
formula Equation 3.33 to 3.35.

q
q
cos
(3.35)
=
2
2
r
r0
The characterises a specific energy and the symmetry of the explosion. It exactly
depends on the specific heat c, and e.g for TNT it equals to dimensionless value 185,
kg
there is for full spherical explosion ( = 3). Furthermore, using the density = 1630 m
3
for TNT, ambient pressure p1 = 101325 Pa and speed of sound at ambient conditions
a1 = 340 ms , there could be found: the wave front velocity D (Equation 3.31), particle
velocity uc , density c and peak pressure pso , Equation 3.33. Figure 3.5 represents
two solutions of intensity rate. The first one is prepared for 5 kg TNT charge (doted
line), and the second one (dashed line) for the 24 kg in 6 m stand-off distances. Due
to above assumptions the solution of the blast pressure wave properties, for 5 kg TNT
charge, presents the system of Equations 3.36.
D
= aq1
uc
pc
c
=
=
=

2
1
+1 q
2
1
+1 ( q 2
+1
1+2q 2
q a1
1) p1 p1
=
=
340
0.82

2
1
1.4+1 0.82 0.82 340
21.4
1
1.4+1 ( 0.822 1) 0.1 0.1
1.4+1
1.4+1+20.822
= 415
= 114
m
s
m
s
= 0.16e6 Pa
kg
= 1.37 m
3
(3.36)
Nevertheless, this solution has some restrictions, which presented [78, 79] in detail.
The another one method is the phenomenological approach. It shows only the
essential physic of the problem, and uses relationships from the field test data. In
agreement with Cormie [34], these methods are more useful for prediction of vapour
clouds action, and for partially vented objects. The FRED [26] and CIRRUS [15] tools
use this approach.
The third one is the empirical method, which includes a correlation against the experiments and physics. There are therefore popular in typical use, that the author devotes
the subsequent Section only for that approaches.
3.4.2
Empirical prediction of explosive loading
There exist many empirical models constructed based on the experimental results and
numerical simplifications allowing the prediction of pressure changes, and capable of
1 The author prepared a Scilab code for calculating q in agreement with presented consideration
e-mail: piotr.sielicki@put.poznan.pl
42
Figure 3.5: Graphic representation of the intensity rate q parameter for blast wave
handling free air spherical and hemispherical explosions. These type of model typically
use the scaled distance curves, presented in e.g. Figure 3.7 and Figure 3.8. Most of
the existing models of such type are briefly introduced in this Section.
It was Sadowski, described in [78], who in 1970 elaborated the experimental formula,
Equation 3.37, for spherical wave.
1
pso p1
W3
W3
W
= 0.76
+ 2.55 2 + 6.5 3
p1
r
r
r
(3.37)
Following this idea it was Brode [18] described in [58] Equation 3.39, who presented
his results very similar to Sadowski approach Equation 3.37, however, obtaining them
directly from the numeric calculations [18]. The final result of this formula is delivered
with the use of bar units. In this formula new term denoted as scaled distance Z is
introduced. It shows that the effect of the pressure could be similar for the same Z
and is based on the distance and the mass of the charge staying in agreement with
Figure 3.6 and Equation 3.38.
Z = R1
(3.38)
3
W
43
Figure 3.6: Scaled distance effect [86]
pso
pso
=
=
6.7
Z3 + 1
0.975
1.455
Z + Z2
5.85
Z3
0.019
pso > 10
0.1 < pso < 10
(3.39)
Another research published in 1961 by Newmark and Hansen [104] introduced relationship to calculate maximum overpressure induced by blast. It is prepared to capture
the overpressure due to high explosives detonated at the ground surface Equation 3.40.
This formula, similarly to the previous one, also represents the pressure in units of
bars. The obtained values, however, are higher due to the free air burst as an result of
the ground reflection. The initial description of the reflection term is introduce below
whereas the entire phenomenon of reflected wave is discussed in details in the following
sections.
r
W
W
(3.40)
pso = 6784 3 + 93
r
r3
Another expression relevant to this research comes from 1987, where Mills [101] described experimentally the overpressure peaks Equation 3.41 in kPa. Similarly to the
previous case Mills also performed his experimental work utilizing the surface blast.
pso =
1772 114 108

2+
Z3
Z
Z
(3.41)
Another result strongly basing on Brodes approach was presented by Henrych in 1979
[57] Equation 3.42.
pso =
pso =
pso =
14.072
5.540
0.357
Z1 + Z2 Z3
6.194
0.326
2.132
Z1 Z2 + Z3
0.662
4.05
3.288
Z1 + Z2 + Z3
0.00625
Z4
0.05 Z < 0.3

0.3 Z < 1
1 Z 10
(3.42)
In 1985 Kinney and Graham [73] proposed empirical equation for obtaining the overpressure Equation 3.43. Their final result was expressed in the SI units.
h
i
Z 2
pc 1 + 4.5
808
pso = r
(3.43)

2

Z
Z 2
Z 2
1 + 0.048
1 + 0.32
1 + 1.35
44
Most of the above mentioned research is for purely academical purposes. Research team
working for the US Army suggested that experiments are not convergent for most of
the above solutions therefore they proposed more accurate equations for wide range
of explosions, particularly surface explosion. They published the solution in Technical
Manual [136] in 1965. For the imperial units the equation took the following form:
pso =
4120 105 39.5

2+
.
Z3
Z
Z1
(3.44)
In 1984 Kingery and Bulmash [72] elaborated polynomial equations of the 9th order
for the incident and reflected pressure, including ground reflection for hemispherical
explosions of TNT explosives. These equations ware initially implemented in the computer code Conwep [62] and further on in 2008 in the UFC codes [139, 140, 141].
Nowadays, their results are widely used for determining blast loading on any type of
obstacle. This tool contains implementation of the pressure-time exponential decay.
This form of the pressure-time history of blast wave evolution could be most precisely
be presented based on the exponential Friedlander function [45], see Equation 3.45
or Equation 3.48. Both equations additionally allow the prediction of the duration
of overpressure. Initially, they were derived particularly for explosions, measured in
mega-tones of TNT (e.g. nuclear explosion), to simplify an impulse value.

t
bt
p(t) = pso 1
(3.45)
e t0
t0
In this case, the parameters are fixed in order to align with Figure 3.1. t describes the
starting time when the waves pressure reaches some point of interest, t0 is the time
of the positive phase duration, and b is called a wavef orm parameter and depending
strictly on the Z or pso [58]. b is dimensionless parameter in ranging between 0.50
(for Z=100 SI units) and 8.50 (for Z=0.4 SI). Author of this dissertation additionally
developed Matlab code, which allows the prediction of the b parameter2 .According to
Krzewiski [78], the simplified formula of the above stated equation can be expressed
in the follwoing manner:

n
t
p(t) = pso 1
.
(3.46)
t0
In this case the exponent is replaced by the dimensionless parameter n of the form:
r
pso
n = 1.9
,
(3.47)
p1
and the positive phase duration t0 is obtained with Equation 3.48.
9r0
r
r0 < 25
a1 q rr0
1.8 a2
25 rr0 < 150
t0 =
1
q
4.2 3 rr20 150 r

r0
a
1
2 www.cad.put.poznan.pl
(3.48)
45
The importance of the time phenomenon should not be neglected. It directly influences
the value of the impulse and is utilized in each regulatory standards associated with
the strength of the obstacle. Furthermore, there are some simplifications for the time
prediction in agreement with pressure-time relation presented in Figure 3.1.
The following relationships show the characteristic steps for the blast action which
are: the arrival time tA , positive t0 and negative t
0 duration times. Following Henrych [57] the positive duration time is expressed in Z function and gives the results
(expressed in milliseconds) in Equation 3.49.
1
t0 = (0.107 + 0.444Z + 0.264Z 2 0.129Z 3 + 0.0335Z 4 )W 3 for 0.05 Z 3 (3.49)

Smith [58], however, shows the time of negative phase also in milliseconds Equation 3.50.
1
3
t
(3.50)
0 = 1.25W
Furthermore, the arrival time of the blast wave may be calculated at least in several
ways. Since only few of them are introduced by the author in numerical procedures,
the author quotes only two of them. The first method developed by Wu and Hao
[150] is expressed in seconds. In this approach R means the stand-off distance, expressed in meters, a1 is the speed of sound in the air, see Equation 3.51. The second
method, introduced by Yanchao [153] is expressed in milliseconds for the free air blasts,
Equation 3.52.
0.34R1.4 W 0.2
tA =
(3.51)
a1
1
tA = e0.834+1.753ln(Z) W 3 for 0.5 Z 10
(3.52)
Finally, the impulse is is presented and evaluated as the last yet very important explosion property. The is parameter is directly described by the integral form the positive
phase Equation 3.53. However, the negative impulse can also be reached by using another simplifications Equation 3.54. The main property of the i
s is the long duration
with respect to is . Complying with rules of damage mechanics the dynamic failure
in strictly connected with the rapidly moving stress waves. Furthermore, the general
failure is often obtained before the positive phase is finished, see [96, 107, 106].
tA
Z+t0
is =
p(t), dt
(3.53)

1
is 1
2Z
(3.54)
tA
i
s
Due to that fact, the negative impulse is very often neglected in slightly more robust
engineering calculations. However, the crucial use of under pressure action is considered
in the nuclear blasts [35, 56, 126]. In addition to the above features many estimations
46
are introduced among the researchers. Nevertheless, majority of them are neglected by
the author as this is not the major concernt of this dissertation. If the reader wishes
to study above mentioned simplifications along with respective formulas aothor kindly
suggests the following references [21, 57, 58, 78, 79].
It can be generally concluded that the accuracy of predictions with the use of empirical formulas is significantly lower in the near field than in the far field. This is most
probably due to the complexity of the blast phenomenon in the close action. However, from the perspective of commercial engineering the most commonly used tools
to evaluate the explosion phenomenon are the explosive tables [140, 141], containing
most the explosive results and parameters i.e. overpressure, duration times etc. given
in the function of different parameters e.g. scaled distance. The exemplary tables fully
complying with the U.S. codes [141] are presented. Data provided by the US. codes are
transformed to the SI units and illustrate ideally spherical explosion, Figure 3.7 and
hemispherical explosion in Figure 3.8. These data is presented by the author in Appendix A: Tables A.1-A.4 in addition. The interpretation of the presented curves is as
follows. The free air blast wave, with peak positive incident pressure PSO and impulse
iS , reaches the obstacle rapidly after detonation in arrival time ta , see [85]. Since the
reflection phenomenon occurs, the initial wave is reinforced. Hence, the properties of
the reflected wave are described by peak reflected pressure Pr with duration of overpressure phase t0 , and impulse Ir . The wave velocity before the reflection is equal to
U and corresponds to the wave length of the positive pressure Lw . In agreement with
the readers intuition, the above graphs must be different, since the ground reflection
effectively doubles the energy of the explosion. This relatively simple assumption of
doubling the charge is often used for simplification of the blast effect, which includes
the ground reflection, see [108, 141]. Additionally this simplification is also based by
the scaled distance Z, which is elucidated by Equation 3.38.
The technical literature often presents the solution of the explosion phenomenon
by utilizing the Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) based purely on the eulerian
equations system Equation 3.6, Equation 3.9, and Equation 3.11. Therefore, a lot of
numerical codes are based on this approach, see Table 3.7. Next, author presents the
results of the above system for one- two- and three-dimensional space in comparison
with the empirical formula e.g. Equation 3.39 or Equation 3.37 and U.S. codes [141].
The solution of the eulerian equation system comes directly from Matlab3 code. This
solution is also supported by the Propagation of Shocks in Air i.e. ProsAir4 code. For
better understanding of the explosive loading the spatial graphs of the typical blast
features are further presented.
Figure 3.9 represents the overpressure p as a function of two variables; the distance
from the explosion centre and explosive mass represented by TNT charge. This results
is an outcome of authors intense investigation employing Equation 3.6 for roughly
3 The
online documentation is free under the page www.mathworks.com

package developed by Cranfield University, www.cranfield.ac.uk
4 CFD
47
Figure 3.7: Positive Phase Shock Wave Parameters for a Spherical TNT Explosion in Free
Air at Sea Level [141]
hundred combinations of distance and charge points. The distance range is between
1 and 10 meters and the charge mass range varies from 1 to 100000 kg. The above
mentioned assumption allows to obtain scaled distance Z range from 0.4 to 40 values in
SI units. The very similar data are obtained basing on the experimental data presented
in Ref. [140], see Figure 3.10 for spherical explosion without any ground reflection.
Another crucial feature of blast loading is positive impulse denoted by i+ . Along with
the overpressure, the coupling of those two properties allows good prediction of various
types of blast loadings acting on the obstacle. The impulse values are presented using
the same methodology as in case of already introduced overpressure i.e. as a function
of two variable parameters: the distance and the charge mass. Those relations are
presented in Figure 3.11 and Figure 3.12.
For rapid assessment of main value of
explosion phenomenon author introduces his own empirical formula. It is based on the
presented graphs and other approaches mentioned above allowing for prediction of peak
overpressure under spherical Equation 3.55 explosion of TNT charge. Additionally,
the ground reflection rises the complexity of the process. Due to such large number
of issues that need to be addressed author also introduced the empirical equation for
hemispherical blast overpressure, Equation 3.56. The influence of the reflection angle,
however, is discussed in detail in the following Chapter 3.7. The following relations are
presented in the Megapascal.
2
pspherical
= 0.9 (Z)
so
1.5
spherical
pso
= 0.45 (Z)
for 1.4 Z < 6.4

for 6.4 Z
phemispherical
= pspherical
(0.002Z + 1.3)
so
so
(3.55)
(3.56)
48
Figure 3.8: Positive Phase Shock Wave Parameters for a Hemispherical TNT Explosion on
the Surface at Sea Level [141]
Figure 3.9: Overpressure results basing on 1D Euler equation system, Equation 3.6
49
Figure 3.10: Overpressure results basing on UFC code
The solutions stated in Equation 3.55 and Equation 3.56 give the error which overestimates the results by up to 20 percent.
However, similar level of error is introduced by the creators of the UFC code [140]
utilizing safety factor. This factor is introduced by the TNT equivalent weight, which
initially must be increased by 20 percent. The major goal of authors research is to
generate a scenario represented by a set of simple equations with is capable of estimating the error and complying with the engineering requirement of staying on the safe
side, i.e. the computational overpressure values must be higher than in reality. Furthermore, the obtained values are higher while comparing with the UFC as presented
in Figure 3.10. The solution of the one dimensional Euler equation, Equation 3.6 and
Equation 3.7, is also close to the solution presented by UFC, see Figure 3.11. The
error distribution according to the UFC code is presented in Figure 3.13 as a function Z, with range between 0.1 and 40 expressed in the SI units. Table 3.1 contains
the minimum, maximum and average percentage deviations for all empirical equations
mentioned above. Furthermore, the deviation for the spherical blast is compared with
the presented before and well known solutions for overpressure values. This collection
presented in Figure 3.14 features also the UFC results. The general conclusion drawn
from the above discussion provides the reader with the solution that is fully accurate
with respect to results safety in aspect of the utilization of the safety factor. The peak
50
Figure 3.11: Positive impulse results basing on 1D Euler equation system
pressure values are compared with the empirical formula mentioned above. The results of this comparison are presented in Figure 3.15. Logarithmic scale on the vertical
axis allows to picture the entire phenomenon whereas entire graph is capturing the
overpressure in the Pascal units.
Previously mentioned graph represents the real field experimental data, based on
numerous investigation and research [18, 19, 71, 81, 130]. The values other experimental results come from the individual experiments performed by [3, 58, 93, 152]. These
values are crucial for successive consideration of the dissertation and for further analyses of failure with the use of the FE approaches. The continuously blue line represents
the UFC values obtained from [140] and transferred into SI units. All of these values
may be represented while utilizing the logarithmic scale. The detailed study shows
that the deviation of the experimental study is higher than expected. Additionally,
the orange line shows the solution suggested by the author for spherical blast. Lets
assume that there exist some restrictions for using particular formula introduced by
researchers. The analysis of the presented data leads to the determination of the true
range for prediction of pressure values using relief methods. The UFC result corresponds with the eulerian, however, the experimental data is not convergent enough,
even when 20% safety threshold is preserved. The author presents the Table 3.1 with
the comparative collection of the empirical approaches. More restrictions on using
51
Figure 3.12: Positive impulse results basing on UFC code

Table 3.1: Accuracy of empirical solutions for peak pressure under spherical explosion
Author
Sadowski
Henrych
Kinney-Graham
Brode
Sielicki
Constrain (SI)
0.4 < Z 40
0.05 < Z 10
0 < Z 40
0.3 < Z 40
1.4 Z < 40
Error (min.,max.,avg.)
-5%, +111%, +10%
-25%, +32%,-1%
-10%, +22%, +2%
-25%, +84%, -11%
+1%, +33%, +16%
Error 0% to 20%
18 Z 40
3.7 Z 9.3, 23 Z
0 < Z 3.2, 21 Z
dont exist
1.6 Z 6.4, 15 Z
particular formulas are presented in the following table. In addition to the above
discussion the positive impulse value has also been derived, see Equation 3.57.
The impulse curve expressed by a function of scaled distance presented in the SI
units was determined empirically. The simple power function was used to fit the curve
to the experimental results presented in the UFC [140]. This simplification allows for
rapid assessment of the positive impulse which is valid for wide range of Z. Along with
the pressure values obtained from e.g. Equation 3.55 this function could be sufficient
to be adopted in the design process.
0.9
iW
s = 100(Z)
for 0.8 Z < 40
(3.57)
However, the above impulse value must be still multiplied by the scaled charge weight
52
Figure 3.13: Error distribution of Equation 3.55 and Equation 3.56 due to UFC data
Figure 3.14: Error distribution for estimated solutions for spherical blast compared to UFC
3.5. NUMERICAL MODELING OF EXPLOSION
53
Figure 3.15: Comparison of peak pressure results
W 3 in order to obtain the SI Pascals per seconds units. The comparison with the
experimental data [140] is presented in details on the logarithmic horizontal scale in
Figure 3.16. The red line represents the UFC values, whereas the green one is the
authors solution. The grey curve shows the accuracy for both solutions. It can be
assumed that for Z higher than 0.8 the accuracy is sufficient from the engineering
safety factor view and is maximally equal to +15%.
3.5
Numerical modeling of explosion and pressure wave propagation
Since it is not possible to obtain the analytical solution of spatial explosion phenomena, researchers turn towards the numerical approach, i.e. finite elements modeling
as a highly elaborated tool for solving blast problems. In addition, such problems
frequently incorporate the analysis of the obstacle response. Various approaches were
introduced along the years leading to generation of widely tested and commercial codes
such as those presented in Table 3.6.
The numerical analysis, presented in the next part of this work, is performed with
the use of Abaqus Explicit FE software. The primary study assumed the propagation
of the explosive pressure through the pure medium like an ambient air. The preliminary analysis was performed for the pure lagrangian system, however providing poor
efficiency. Utilizing the set of equations [10, 70, 74, 96], it is possible to evaluate the
54
Figure 3.16: Prediction of positive impulse values
problem using the following system of equations:

Equation of motion
Geometric equation
Constitutive equation
Equation of the state
Stress boundary conditions
Displacement boundary conditions
Initial conditions
kl,l + fk =
uk ,
kl = 0.5(uk,l + ul,k ),
kl = Cklmn mn ,
p = p(, Ee ),
kl nl = tk ,
uk = u
k ,
k ,
uk = u
0k , u k = u
(3.58)
where: kl,l - stress tensor component; kl , mn - strain tensor components; uk,l derivative component of displacement; nl - the direction; tk - stress vector; Cklmn stiffness tensor; uk , u k - displacement and velocity components on the edge of the
body; - density and Ee - specific energy. Nevertheless, Equation 3.58 allows to
solve the linear dynamic problem. The nonlinear dynamic problems, which include the
explosion phenomenon, must be solved with some additional modifications introduced
to the set of equations. These are described in subsequent sections of this Chapter.
The solution to the Equation 3.58 is obtained using finite element method. This
work focuses exactly on the dynamic problem hence the FEM needs to perform two
dimensional step discretization: in space and time [10]. The space discretization leads
to the following equation of motion:
M
u = f ext f int ,
(3.59)
where, M denotes the mass matrix, u

accelerations in element nodes, the f ext and f int
55
are the external nodal forces and internal nodal forces respectively.
To solve this system of second-order ordinary differential equations Equation 3.59,
the explicit central-difference time integration rule is required, with additional use
of the diagonal element mass matrices. This type of discretization in time provides
a simple solution to the problem [2]. For increment i the nodal accelerations are
expressed as follows:
(i)
(i)
u
(i) = M1 (f ext f int ).
(3.60)
The nodal velocities u are of the form:
1
u (i+ 2 ) = u (i 2 ) +
t(i+1) + t(i) (i)

u
,
2
(3.61)
and finally nodal displacements u, which define new configuration of the body
1
u(i+1) = u(i) + t(i+1) u (i+ 2 ) ,
(3.62)
t denotes time increment.

The discussed explicit approach does not require any iterations or computation of
the tangent stiffness matrix [10, 132]. Since the internal force vector is assembled from
contributions of the individual elements the global stiffness matrix need not be formed.
It is also important to mention that the central-difference operator used in the procedure is conditionally stable. Due to that reason, the allowable time increment is
limited by the following condition5
t
2
h
max
(3.63)
h
where max
denotes the highest frequency of the system regardless of the spatial discretization h. The approximation of the stability limit (3.63) is often written as

Le
t min
,
(3.64)
cd
where, Le is the smallest element dimension and cd means the dilatational wave speed
(the Courant-Friedrisch-Lewy stability condition) [132].
Utilization of the linear finite element computations enforces the necessity of the
very fine mesh in order to capture the wave nature of the problem. Therefore the
time increment is very short and hence the entire process must be divided into a large
number of increments. Time increment is changing automatically during the analysis
regardless of the instantaneous smallest Le providing the optimal total time duration
5 For
linear finite element
56
[132]. The real constitutive behavior of explosive material and air should be applied
into the simulation. In order to achieve that the air is modeled by the equation of the
state. The pressure is determined by a function of the specific energy and the relative
specific volume. The polytrophic form of the equation is related to the Ideal Gas (I-G)
Equation 3.65 law:
p 0 = RT.
(3.65)
This relation further depends on the specific internal energy. In order to most accurately reflect the reality the air must be initialized with both: greater than zero internal
energy as well as initial ambient pressure. The following equations, with = 1.4, are
used for the ideal diatomic gas modeling:
2
p = ( 1) 0 Em0 ,
p + pa = R(T T z ),
(3.66)
where pa is the ambient pressure, is initial air density, R is the universal gas constant,
and T z is the absolute zero temperature. The value of the atmospheric pressure is represented by the mean sea level pressure, for example latitude of Paris in France. Such
condition are widely accepted as a meaningful part of experiments and are considered
to represent the perfect laboratory conditions. The ambient pressure on Earth ranges
from 0.15 106 Pa in the East Rand Proprietary Mines in Johannesburg, with the depth
of 3585 m, to the value of 31.5 103 Pa at the top of Mt Everest (8848 m above sea
level). However, many researchers simplify this value to normal, ground-based conditions and round it off to 0.1 106 Pa. The important material parameter associated
with the air is specific energy, as presented in Equation 3.67, which changes depending
on the temperature and can be expressed as the following integral:
TZ
T z
Em = Em0 +
T0
cv (T )dT.
(3.67)
T z
Where, Em0 is the initial specific energy at room temperature T0 and cv is the specific
heat at constant volume, which according to ideal gas equations depends only on the
temperature and can by obtained with Equation 3.68.
TZ
T z
Em0 =
cv (T )dT
(3.68)
The presented earlier empirical equations allow the estimation of the characteristic
parameters of the explosion. Nevertheless, based on the real experiments considering
the ground reflection the pressure values could be eight, and sometimes even up to
twenty times higher then for free air blast. More detailed analysis of the proper pressure evolution requires introduction of additional equations which would be capable
of handling various boundary problems such as traveling of the detonation product
57
through the vacuum, air, soil of other medium and reflection of the detonation wave
on the obstacle. In case of detonation wave the equations of state (EOS) are most
crucial for this research to describe the initial detonation and the structure of the blast
wave. The methods of constructing the EOS [147] are as follows:
equation is assumed to be based on experimental approach,

behavior of elementary components provides behavior for overall mixture,
mixed method, which employs both experimental as well as analytical approach.
The most popular equations, adopted in the FE codes, describing the behavior of
explosives are the Mie-Gruneisen Equation 3.69, 3.70 and Jones-Wilkins-Lee terms,
Equation 3.71. The computational models that belong to the third of above mentioned
groups consist both types of equations. The Gruneisen formula ([47, 53, 64, 129, 147])
uses a cubic shock particle velocity to define the pressure for compressed and expanded
materials in details. It can be presents in two flavors: for compression ( > 0):
p=
0
a2
2 ) 2 ]
2
3
2
S2 1+
S3 (1+)
2]
0 C02 [1 + (1
[1 (S1 1)
+ (0 + a)E,
(3.69)
and for tension ( < 0):

p = 0 C02 + (0 + a)E.
(3.70)
Where: E is an internal specific volumetric energy, 0 is a Gruneisen coefficient,

denotes the density, a is the first order correction coefficient for 0 , C0 , S1 , S2 , S3
0)
(the experimental properties), = (vv
and v = 1 ([53] ). However, the explov
sive behavior is also reflected by the Jones-Wilkins-Lee (J-W-L) equation of state
[147, 2, 53, 64, 129, 47] as presented in Equation 3.71. It describes the pressure generated by chemical energy of condensed explosive, as:

0
0
w
2
w
exp(R1 ) + B 1
exp(R2 ) +
Em0 ,
(3.71)
p=A 1
R1 0
R2 0
0
where A, B, R1 , R2 , are material constants obtainable in the laboratory testing [147,
38, 148]. Em0 is the internal specific energy per unit mass, 0 is the initial density of
explosive material and is the current density of detonation product.
In order to consider the FE approach on the explosive phenomena author shows the
complexity of numerical solution for detonation and blast wave propagation, while using
of pure lagrangian description [66]. The preliminary example attempts to replicate the
free-field experiments performed by Alia et al. [3] in a numerical way.
The numerical model consists of symmetrical one-eights part of the sphere. The
simulation includes two phases i.e. the ambient air and the C4 charge. The space
discteristation is presented in Figure 3.17.
The air behavior is described by I-G and the C4 charge behavior by J-W-L equations
58
Figure 3.17: Discretization of the model, initial mesh according the experiment by Alia et
al. [3]
of the state. The properties of the different medium are presented in Table 3.2.
Despite the fact if one considers the interaction of the product of explosion with
the obstacle, the mesh deformation are still too large. This is driven by two factors:
extremely high velocity of the process and the complexity of the process itself. In
general, the incorrect solutions utilizing the lagrangian approach are mainly driven by
extreme deformation of the FE mesh. The potential mesh degradation is presented
in Figure 3.18. In the following section another algorithms for obtaining the correct
solution of blast propagation and for further interaction between the pressure wave
and the obstacle are presented. They are of a crucial importance for further study of
the blast processes.
3.5.1
ALE and CEL approaches
As mentioned before, there also exist different computational formulations, as an alternative to the lagrangian one, which allow relatively good prediction of blast phenomenon utilizing computer codes. One of them is the Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian
(ALE) approach. This concept joins the two types of motion formulations, i.e. lagrangian and eulerian. In essence, it takes the best part of both reference frames and
combines them into one. The first concept assumes mesh moves with the material,
however, it allows the mesh to be distort in the range of large deformation. The second concept assumes the movement of the material through fixed mesh. Finally, the
ALE formulation assumes the mesh motion dependent on the material motion at free
59
Table 3.2: Material property for C4 and air mediums
J-W-L for C4 Explosive

A
5.98 1011 Pa
B
0.13 1011 Pa
4.5
R1
R2
1.5
J
Em0 5.43 106
kg
0.32
m
8040
vd
s
kg
0
1800
m3
Ideal Gas for Ambient Air
J
R
287
kg K
kg
1.293
m3
101325
Pa
pa
J
Em0 0.193 106 kg
Tz
0
K
T0
288.4
K
J
cp
1003.5
kg K
Figure 3.18: Mesh degradation on the charge-air bond for lagrangian mesh [66]
boundaries and in other cases the material and mesh are independent. This type of
meshing allows to maintain a high-quality meshing throughout the analysis, even when
large deformations or losses of material occur, by allowing the mesh to move indepen-
60
dently of the material. Adaptive meshing moves only nodes and the mesh topology
remains unchanged. This approach is used mostly in the fluid-structure interactions.
Generally, it is not necessary to use ALE formulation to analyze the structure or fluids
motions if strain rate of the medium is neglected, however, it is indispensable when analyzing structural motion in which the material is severely deformed, such as dynamic
impact or blast problems.
Abaqus software provides series of parameters to control the ALE mesh procedure
[2]. The most crucial ones is the frequency and sweeps number per time increment.
The default values are usually adequate for low-rate dynamic problems and quasistatic processes with occurrence of moderate deformations. If the first parameter, i.e.
frequency, or the second one, i.e. the number of mesh sweeps, is too low, excess element
distortion may cause the analysis to interrupt before the mesh will be adapted. Even if
it is possible to obtain the solution, it may not be as accurate as the solution that could
be obtained with a higher quality mesh. In any case, however, the performance of the
adaptive meshing at any frequency will significantly reduce the distortion of elements
compared to a pure lagrangian analysis.
For the high-rate impact problems undergoing large deformations, it may be necessary to increase the frequency of adaptive meshing or the number of mesh sweeps. The
operation of slight increase of the number of mesh sweeps before increasing the frequency is time wise less expensive, as long as the number of advection sweeps remains
small [82]. For problems involving explosions taking place over just a few thousands of
increments, adaptive meshing is usually required at each and every increment. It may
be necessary to increase the frequency of the adaptive meshing for quasi-static process
simulations that involve large amounts of flow per increment. For problems in which
the deformation per increment is small, a high-quality mesh can be maintained by
performing adaptive meshing only every 20-80 increments [2]. For these problems the
additional cost of adaptive meshing might be or is negligible. During each mesh sweep,
nodes in the domain are relocated on the current positions of neighboring nodes and
elements to reduce elements distortions. In a typical sweep a node is moved a fraction
of the characteristic length of any element surrounding the node. Increasing the number of sweeps, increases the intensity of adaptive meshing in each adaptive meshing
increment. The default value for mesh sweeps is one. The ALE differential form of the
conservation equations of mass, momentum, and energy are readily obtained from the
corresponding forms Equations 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5, which were presented earlier.
The most interesting part of ALE domain is the mesh motion independent with respect
to the domain. The domain motion represents Equation 3.72
x = (X, t),
(3.72)
where X is the material coordinate system [10]. The function (X, t) describes the
move of the domain from the initial configuration 0 to the actual spatial configuration
. This function is similar with the function describing the move in the Lagrange
61
is used in addition, which corresponds to

coordinate system. The reference system
the ALE space. The initial values of the particles arrangement are signed by :
= (X, 0).
(3.73)
This is the ALE coordinate system, where for almost cases the Equation 3.74 is
required.
(X, 0) = 0 7 (X, 0) = X
(3.74)
is used for initial mesh configuration and for the description of
The reference space
the mesh and domain motion independently. The mesh moves with the Equation 3.75.
t)
x = (,
(3.75)
the points are transferred by the function to the x points.

In ALE system ,
The ALE and domain coordinate system dependency is showed as a composition of
following functions Equation 3.76:
= 1 (x, t) = 1 ((X, t), t) = (X, t) or = 1 ,
(3.76)
and the domain motion is presented as a motion of the mesh and mapping function :
x = (X, t) = ((X,
t), t) or = .
(3.77)
Finally, the motion, velocity and acceleration of the mesh are described by Equations 3.78, 3.79, and 3.80 dependencies:
t) ,
u
(, t) = x = (,
(3.78)
u
(, t)
u
,t[] ,
(3.79)
t
v (, t)
2u
(, t)
a
(, t) =
=
u
,tt[] .
(3.80)
t
t2
In the above equations, the coordinate is not moving with ALE system. The velocity
is described by Equation 3.79. The corresponding coordinate system X is also not
moving. Occasionally, when the variables are given explicitly, the coordinate system
is also fixed in time. We are considering such system. Furthermore, new term, t is
introduced. In ALE approach, from the physical point of view, the mesh velocity and
acceleration does not matter. The situation is quite opposite under Lagrange system
where the v and a
are directly connected with the domain particles. Furthermore,
during the numerical consideration with the use of FE codes, it is possible to choose only
one domain to be the ALEs defined mesh, however in case of the explosion phenomena
where distortion of the elements may occur during the numerical simulations it is very
advisable to use both domains i.e. air and charge. Authors initial study presented
in [66] illustrate the ability of the complex description to accommodate significant
v(, t) =
62
Figure 3.19: ALE vs. lagrangian mesh distortion: a) Initial FE mesh, b) ALE mesh at time
0.1 ms, c) Lagrangian mesh at time 0.1 ms, d) Zoomed mesh for lagrangian description at
time 0.1 ms
distortions of the computational mesh, see Figure 3.19. Summarizing, the difficulties
with using the ALE approach mainly lie in defining the acceptable amount of grid
deformation as well as amount of allowed flux. This problem is usually handled by
setting a limit value on distortion of a segment of a grid and once it deforms past that
limit then that part of the grid is remeshed. Nevertheless, the ALE incorrect settings
may lengthen the process of arriving to corrected results. The most powerful feature
[2] of ALE approach are collected below:
maintains a high-quality mesh under severe material deformation by allowing the

mesh to move independently of the underlying material
maintains topologically similar mesh throughout the analysis (i.e. elements are
not created or removed)
applicable to analyze lagrangian problems (in which no material leaves the mesh)
and eulerian problems (in which material flows through the mesh)
applicable as a continuous adaptive meshing tool for transient analysis problems

undergoing large deformations (such as dynamic impact, penetration, and forging
problems)
applicable as a solution technique to model steady-state processes (such as extrusion or rolling)
63
applicable as a tool to analyze the transient phase in a steady-state process

applicable in explicit dynamics (including adiabatic thermal analysis) and fully
coupled thermal-stress procedures
Belytschko et al. [10] collected the equations system and initial boundary conditions
for ALE formulation. This system is presented in the flowchart Box 3.1. Where all
equations are given in non-conservative form, however, the energy transfer is included.
According to previously formulation the main goal is to find the following dependent
variables: u(, t) material displacement, (, t) Cauchy stress tensor, (, t) thermodynamic temperature, u
(, t) mesh displacement, and (, t) density. Furthermore,
the internal variables for the constitutive model such that they satisfy the equations
of the state must be found.
64
Box 3.1 - ALE governing equations [10]
I. Continuity equation:
+ vk,k = 0 or ,t[] + ,i ci + vk,k
II. Momentum equations:
v i = (vi,t[]+vi,j cj ) = ji,j + bi
III. Energy equation:
(E,t[] + E,i ci ) = ij Dij + bi vi + (kij ,j ),i + s
IV. Equations of state according to 3.65 and 3.71
V. Natural boundary conditions:
ti (, t) = nj (, t)ij (, t) on ti
qi (, t) = kij (, , t),j (, t) + i (, t)( 0 ) on q
VI. Essential boundary conditions:
ui (, t) = ui (, t) on ui and (, t) = (, t) on u
VII. Initial conditions:
(X, 0) = 0 (X) and (X, 0) = 0 (X)
VIII. Mesh motion:
u
(, t)
Additional extended description of ALE approach according to the FE methods is

presented by Hughes et al. [40, 61] and [11, 96] in detail.
Nowadays, the FEM codes allow the use of very large number of degrees of freedom
and variables, e.g. for flow analyzes. These codes often base on the pure eulerian
approach which take into account Equations 3.6, 3.9, and 3.11. In the eulerian analysis
nodes are fixed in space and material flows through elements that do not deform. The
eulerian elements may not always be filled by material and they may be partially or
completely void. The boundary of the eulerian material must be computed during
65
Figure 3.20: The operator split for CEL formulation [11, 12]
each time increment and generally does not correspond to the elements boundary.
Furthermore, the mesh is typically a simple rectangular grid of elements which gives
the material space in which to move and deform. If any eulerian material moves outside
the eulerian mesh it is automatically dropped from the simulation [2]. Occasionally material can interact with deformable bodies through eulerian-lagrangian contact. This
feature enables fully coupled multi-physic simulation such as fluid-structure interaction
and is called Coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian (CEL) approach. Finally, the eulerian analysis allows materials to undergo extreme strains without mesh distortion limitations of
the lagrangian analysis. Therefore it is crucial to define the material behavior through
the entire strain range which often requires definition of a failure behavior as well.
A brief overview of the CEL approach including the contact method is presented
by Benson et al. [12]. This description mixes langrangian and eulerian formulations on
the different steps respectively, see Figure 3.20. This description is adopted partially
in the Abaqus code.
+=S
(3.81)
t
The eulerian governing equations system following the Equations 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 have
the general form according to Equation 3.81, where is the flux function and S the
source term. Furthermore, the splitting algorithm uncouples Equation 3.81 into two:
= S langrangian,
t
(3.82)
+ = 0 eulerian,
(3.83)
t
which are solved sequentially. The difference between Equation 3.82 with the standard
langrangian approach is the type of time derivative. The spatial time derivative is
66
replaced by the material time derivative on the fixed mesh. Further, to solve Equation refBenson15, the previously deformed mesh is moved to the initial fixed configuration, and volume of material transported between FE is recalculated. The lagrangian
solution variables: mass, energy, momentum, and stress are then adjusted to account
for the flow of the material between adjacent elements by the transport algorithms
[12]. This transport algorithm is covered in a black box for each and every FE code.
Due to this fact it is not described in detail.
Nevertheless, the eulerian analyzes have some important limitations. Some of these
features are presented as follows:
its not possible to apply mass scaling [2]

eulerian material may penetrate through the lagrangian contact surface near
corners. This penetration should be limited to an area equal to the local eulerian
element size
its not possible to apply lagrangian constraints to eulerian nodes

its not possible to apply prescribed nonzero displacement boundary conditions
to eulerian nodes
rectangular elements forces use of well defined mesh

The fundamental approach for the fluid dynamics problems is to solve Equation 3.6,
Equation 3.9, and Equation 3.11 in a numerical fashion. Additionally, there exist
alternative methods of solving the above statements, however, these methods are not
considered by the author. The presentation of those methods can be found in literature
e.g. [2, 138, 143]. Author focuses on the most powerful approaches i.e. ALE and CEL.
This power comes directly from the possibility of coupling between the blast action
and the deformation and subsequent failure of the structures.
Table 3.3: Kinematic quantities collection due to reference systems [10, 96]
Quantity Description
Motion
Matter
Mesh
Displacement Matter
Mesh
Velocity
Matter
Mesh
Acceleration
Matter
Mesh
ALE
x = (X, t)
x = (,
t)
u=xX
u
=x
v = u,t[X]
v = u
,t[X]
a = v,t[X]
a
= v,t[]
Lagrangian
x = (X, t)
x = (X, t)
u=xX
u
=xX =u
v = u,t[X]
v = u
,t[X] = v
a = v,t[X]
a
= v,t[X] = a
Eulerian
x = (X, t)
x = I(x)
u=xX
u
=xx=0
v = u,t[X]
v = u
,t[X] = 0
a = v,t[X]
a
= v,t[X] = 0
The one-dimensional example of lagrangian, eulerian and ALE mesh and particle
motion is presented in Figure 3.21, where the continuous line represents the particle
motion and dotted line introduces the mesh. Furthermore, the red triangles reflect
67
Figure 3.21: Comparison of particle4 and mesh motion for 1D example: a) Lagrangian
description, b) Eulerian description, c) ALE description
the material points whereas the blues circles mean the mesh nodes. Furthermore, the
comparison of the explosion numerical analysis is performed by the author for various
class of the problems. Furthermore, the detonation of the cubic TNT charge has been
analyzed. The mass of the explosive has been assumed to be 1630kg of TNT, and
equals to 1 m3 volumetric charge. The results are obtained for surrounding air.
The ambient medium air was assumed for 1000 m3 cubic cell. The comparison
of ALE vs. CEL approaches is performed based on the general time of computation
for different size of the FE meshes. In Figure 3.22 the continuous line represents the
ALE and the dashed curve the CEL approach, respectively. The horizontal axis shows
logarithmic scale representing the number of finite elements which were used during
the analyzes. This element number corresponds to the length of the separate element
and equals: 0.500, 0.400, 0.300, 0.250, 0.200, 0.125, 0.100, 0.075, 0.050 meters,
respectively. The computational time is presented in logarithmic scale in seconds on
the vertical axis. The analyzed event corresponds to 0.003s of the real time. This time
allows the front wave of overpressure to reached the boundaries. The solutions were
obtained on the 8 CPUs Intel XEON 3.6GHz 64bit machine. The results accuracy,
in the sense of the overpressure comparison, is below 10% for both approaches: ALE
(frequency: 15) and CEL. The brief observation of the above graph Figure 3.22 reveals
that the ALE approach is almost 10 times more time consuming than CEL. Based on
this conclusion the further analyzes are performed with the use of the CEL approach.
Nevertheless, there exist some important numerical restrictions for using above FE
techniques in both cases. According to the numerical analyzes performed by the author,
the main issue occurs in the size of the problem. Modeling of ambient air and the
68
Figure 3.22: Computational time vs. mesh density
charge may enforce the use of the same size of the finite elements. The FE mesh
refinement must be maintained in aspect of the mass of the explosive. Due to this fact
and employing the scaled distance rule the considered geometry region will be finite.
Lets assume that we perform a virtual consideration of 0.001 m3 , (1.63 kg) of TNT
explosive. This mass is fitted to a cubical element, which is centrally oriented in the
three-dimensional space. The cubical ambient space is fixed to 1000 m3 . Due to this
fact and according to explosive volume the edge of the FE must be at most 0.001 m.
The scaled distance rule elucidates that the problem may be performed before the value
Z reaches the 4.25 in SI units (L=5.0 m, W=1.63 kg). Another parameter is the size
of the FE as for some dimensions of FE the result may be ineffective. For the purpose
of our virtual study we divide the space into 1M FE. The improvement of the mesh
density exponentially increases the size of the problem. The study on this problem has
been showed in next section.
3.5.2
Mesh size vs. the results
The quality of the mesh is really important when we consider the shock waves. Furthermore, author presents that the different meshes give different results for explosive
features, e.g. the overpressure and impulse values. The author has performed the
studies for different mesh refinements, with the size of the FE edges in a range 0.0050.500 m. The boundary conditions, as well as the mesh size, may strongly influence
the quality and precision of the results. When the pressure wave reaches the bound-
69
aries the reflection occurs. In number of different codes there exist a kind of eulerian
boundary which neglects this perturbation. Author introduced some of them based
on own research and experience. Therefore, in all following numerical analysis the
eulerian f ree, non ref lection boundaries are used. This approach provides stable
and rapid solution of the explosive phenomenon and is employed in many commercial
FE codes.
The spherical nature of the explosion would suggest that at the same distance from
the charge the results would be similar. However, it is important to point out that
utilization of the FE approach determines the regular (non-spherical) finite elements
for discretization of the space. Due to this fact, only the dense mesh may give a proper
result. Otherwise, the results in diagonal and horizontal directions may be different
despite the same distance from the charge. The further study gives a critical value of
the FE size to show this effect.
The most crucial conclusions resulting from this section come from two examples
presented below. The first example where the spherical blasts appear in the free spatial space, without any kind of reflections. This part is uncoupled into two separate
sub-examples for close- (1.63 kg TNT in 13 m3 air space) and far-field (1630 kg TNT
in 103 m3 air space) explosion. The second examples goal is the assessment of the
overpressure evolution in the complex geometry inside a rigid structure. The geometry
of the first scenario is presented in Figure 3.23. The explosive is centrally oriented
in the spatial air space. The existence of the symmetry surfaces is neglected. The
behavior of the separate phases, TNT and air, are described by equations of the states
presented before. The J-W-L Equation 3.71 is assumed for the purpose of modeling of
the charge, and I-G Equation 3.66 for the ambient air. The properties of both those
phases are presented in Table 3.4. The ignition time has been assumed as 1ns, and
the arrival time on the frontier boundaries equals to 0.1 s and 1.1 s respectively, according to Equation 3.52. In Figure 3.23 the red color on the left hand side represents
the smaller (1.63 kg, 1 m3 ) volume of TNT charge, and the right one represents the
volume equals to 1630 kg (10 m3 ) of TNT explosive. The cubical surrounding space
is divided into a number of FE, from 1k (1000) to 8kk (8000000). In order to show
the influence of using the cubic FE, author initially received the bigger volume of FE.
The all analyses are subjected to the mesh size study, there are collected in Table 3.5.
The several mesh refinements are performed in order to obtain the convergent results
without the influence of FE type. This refinement is obtained for two different TNT
charges. The values which are given in parentheses reflect the same distance from the
charge however for the diagonal directions.
The peak pressures reflect the maximum values of overpressure in the air, and reflect the state of the selected FE from Figure 3.23. The example pressure maps for
centred cross sections of the air space, under explosion of 1.63 kg of TNT, are collected
in Figure 3.24. They are presented for standoff distance in the range 0.1-5.0 meters.
The maps showed for different times equal to 2.5, 5.0, 7.5 and 10 ms, respectively.
70
Table 3.4: Material property for TNT and air mediums
J-W-L for TNT Explosive [147]

A
3.74 1011 Pa
B
3.75 109
Pa
4.15
R1
R2
0.9
J
Em0 4.5 106
kg
0.35
m
vd
6930
s
kg
0
1630
m3
Ideal Gas for Ambient Air
J
R
287
kg K
kg
1.297
m3
101325
Pa
pa
J
Em0 0.193 106 kg
Tz
0
K
T0
288.4
K
J
cv
717.6
kg K
Figure 3.23: Geometry scheme for free spherical blast
Based on the authors study and experience indicates that for close distances i.e. below 0.5 m the correct value of FE size, in sense of obtaining convergent results, must
be below 0.01 m for separate FE edge. Nevertheless, this research shows that in range
between 0.005 and 0.01 meters for FE edge the results are convergent without the
direction effect. For analyzing the far-field explosions and subsequent wave pressure
action author performs the simulations using FE edge size of 0.05 m. Considering the
above mentioned arguments and authors wide experience in the blast numerical simulations (about 400 numerical examples of spherical blast for different charges, space
71
Table 3.5: Properties for selected spherical examples [SI]
Charge
1.63
1.63
1.63
1.63
1.63
1.63
1.63
1.63
1.63
1.63
1.63
1.63
1.63
1.63
1.63
1630
1630
1630
1630
1630
1630
1630
1630
1630
Distance
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
4.8
4.8
4.8
Scaled Distance
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.68
0.68
0.68
1.27
1.27
1.27
2.12
2.12
2.12
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.41
0.41
0.41
FE size
0.100
0.075
0.050
0.100
0.075
0.050
0.100
0.075
0.050
0.100
0.075
0.050
0.025
0.010
0.005
0.500
0.250
0.050
0.500
0.250
0.050
0.500
0.250
0.050
FE
1000
2370
8000
1000
2370
8000
1000
2370
8000
1000
2370
8000
64k
1kk
8kk
8k
64k
8kk
8k
64k
8kk
8k
64k
8kk
Peak Pressure
1.4e6(0.9e6)
0.48e6(0.75e6)
3.97e6(5.01e6)
0.53e6(0.60e6)
0.64e6(0.65e6)
0.95e6(1.01e6)
0.35e6(0.34e6)
0.41e6(0.38e6)
0.47e6(0.48e6)
0.23e6(0.24e6)
0.25e6(0.25e6)
0.26e6(0.26e6)
4.55e6(4.4e6)
5.2e6(5.1e6)
5.3e6(5.3e6)
42e6(23e6)
84e6(30e6)
116e6(42e6)
2.1e6(2.0e6)
7.5e6(7.2e6)
16e6(15e6)
0.98e6(-)
6.05e6(-)
5.90e6(-)
and mesh refinements were performed for this research) it was decided to uncouple
the problem into two different ranges. The first one, for the scaled distance Z<1.5 or
standoff distance L<0.5. In this case the size of the FE edge must be below 5 mm.
For the second, all other ranges, the size of the edge of the FE must be equal to 5 cm.
Following those specifications yields to the convergence error less than 20%. Obviously,
the use of the typical CFD codes provides significantly faster convergence. Nevertheless, the great advantage of most commercial FE codes is the ability to simultaneously
analyze the obstacle failure as well as the blast wave action, including the eulerian and
lagrangian description in the same analysis. Therefore the numbers of used FEs must
be sufficiently large.
The second illustrative example deals with the pressure wave propagation inside
a civil structure, and partially refers to the issues discussed in the next sections. The
six stores concrete structure includes pillars and the ceiling slabs and is subjected to
the outside explosion. The ground floor area is 30 by 30 square meters. The CAD
geometry was generated in the Abaqus CAE environment and further transferred to
the FE analysis. For the sake of analysis of the wave evolution inside the pillar-slab
72
Figure 3.24: Pressure maps for different mesh refinements (0.1, 0.075 and 0.050 m)
73
system, the main structure remains rigid, hence its potential deformation or even destruction is not considered in this case. The loading is 1000 kg of cubical TNT charge,
which is placed in 2 m standoff distance from the frontal facade of the building and
1 m above the ground. The main concentration here is to study the mesh refinement
dependencies. The geometry of analyzed system is presented in Figure 3.25.
For this approach the ground reflection is also taken into consideration. The ground
Figure 3.25: Reference building geometry (A-E pressure gauges)
surface is defined as a rigid boundary to provide maximum reflection effect. The primary objective of this analysis is to obtain the optimal FE size to provide best possible
convergence in the simulation of wave propagation through the complex geometry. In
order to achieve this, author fixes five measurement points A-E, Figure 3.25, located inside the building in the middle section of the construction. In those reference points the
pressure-time relations are obtained for subsequent mesh refinements. The behavior of
the explosive and surrounding medium are taken as in previous case. The interesting
computational feature of this consideration is the coupling of lagrangian mesh (structure) embedded inside a pure eulerian medium (40x36x22 cubic meters of air) and its
mutual interaction.The study consists of four different meshes for surrounded air, with
different size of the FE edges i.e. 1.0, 0.5, 0.25 and 0.15 m. Those various approaches
provide the number of eulerian FE in the range from 30k to 9kk for the air medium.
The initiation of the explosion is delayed by 1ns. One millisecond after the detonation
the shock wave reaches the facade and in next 10 ms the middle part of the ground
floor where the elevator core is located. The subsequent time steps i.e. 1, 5, 10, 20
and 50 ms and various mesh refinements are showed in Figure 3.26. The red color on
the pressure map represents the overpressure value greater than 50% of the ambient
pressure whereas the dark gray color show the negative pressure area. The results for
the sizes of the FE edge size less than 0.25 m are neglected in those maps as such
results must be compared on the curve level.
74
It should be noted that with the improvement of the quality of FE mesh the
Figure 3.26: Shock wave action exposed by 1 ton TNT charge, for different FE meshes (1,
0.5 and 0.25 m)
convergence of the presented results increases rapidly. This is performed with the
non-linear increase of the computation time. Obtained pressure results may also have
a valuable input in the further analysis and safety structure safety training of potential personnel within the structure of for predicting the structure failure. Therefore,
despite potential severe increases in computational time, properly defined loading and
more precise the pressure loading, is particularly valuable. The most important results
are the overpressure curves for all of the mesh refinements which are summarized in
Figure 3.27. The colored lines present the pressures during the first blast wave action
on the reference points: A-E. The dotted lines represent the FEs where the edge size
equals to 1 m; the dashed lines correspond to 0.5 m edges, and the continues ones to the
0.25 m edges. For all mesh sizes the air medium elements are considered. Points A and
D are located 11 and 22 meters from the charge centre, respectively. Judging from Fig-
75
ure 3.27 one could assess that the results in the measurement points are convergent.
Furthermore, the pressure values may be slightly misplaced what cannot be proved
even considering other experiments or subsequent numerical improvements. In order
to exclude possible computational error author performs another mesh refinement. In
this approach the ambient air is divided into 30kk and 240kk FEs, as a response to the
conclusion from the first approach presented above. The edge sizes have been changed
to 0.1 and 0.05 meters respectively. Due to significance of the computational problem
only crucial parts of the geometry are subjected to the analysis. Furthermore, the total
time for analysis is decreased to 0.02 s, and observations only in A and B reference
points performed (black dotted curves).
The obtained results, see in Figure 3.27, indicate that the change between the last
two mesh refinements improved the results by ca. 3%. Concerning the safety factor,
which equals to 20%, in agreement with [136], and only the initial compression phase
of blast wave action, the pressure evolution is valuable for analyzing of complex, large
structures when the FE edge size is below 0.25 m for ambient medium for the individual group of examples.
Figure 3.28 additionally presents the dependency between the overpressure and scaled
Figure 3.27: Overpressure evolution in gauges points A-E, inside the building
distance function for different mesh refinements, according to ALE and CEL approach.
The presented conclusions come directly from numeric considerations performed by
author of this paper. The correction of mesh refinement study is showed. Nevertheless, author suggests that for any new consideration on the explosion inside civil
engineering structure the presented assumptions must be repeated according to the
mesh refinement study.
76
Figure 3.28: Overpressure values for different meshes in scaled distance function
3.5.3
Comparison of numerical results with reality
The credible blast pressure evolution is primarily important for numerical design.
Therefore, the experimental studies provide the results which must be comparable
with the numerical ones.
In order to provide more comprehensive analysis, author collected some short summary of experimental results from various overpressure courses. Furthermore, author
reproduced those experimental results in the numerical fashion. The comparison which
is based on the spatial numerical modeling of the free air blast is presented in Figure 3.29. The field results come from the Grant R00 0097 12. These data is obtained by
the author during the project and employing the pencil blast pressure gauges from the
ISE. The experimental data is presented by the black curves. The outcomes are compared with the FE results in agreement with the previously presented assumptions 3.5.
The numerical curves are presented by the grey color. The presented experimental
data partially reflect the peak pressure from Figure 3.15, as well as the pressure evolution from the literature mentioned before. Furthermore, the numerical consideration
performed by the author come from the benchmark example of cubic box, filled with
the free air. This benchmark study base on the same assumptions study elucidated by
Figure 3.23. The lack of data for the overpressure peak in the first experiment (6 kg of
TNT) for the field results, is caused by the incorrect outcomes range. This misplaced
interpretation prevented to obtain the pressure peak. However, this peak is reached by
3.6. LOADING DISTRIBUTION ON STRUCTURE
77
Figure 3.29: Comparison of field experiments vs. numerical author examples
the numerical consideration. Furthermore, the other shape of the pressure-time curve,
for the first experiment, allows for predicting the crucial blast pressure evolution in
time function. In the first case the maximum peak pressure reaches the c.a. 1.4 MPa,
while for the another case author catch the reflected pressure equals the 0.5 MPa.
3.6
Loading distribution on structure
The real blast loading which occurs on any obstacle is significantly higher than the
pressure in free air space. The general aim of this section is to present these differences. The incident wave generates the load which depends on the properties of the
wave itself and also the properties of the obstacle. The mainly considered properties
are the stiffness and the orientation of loading direction. In order to derive the main
parameter of the reflected wave we assume the rigid obstacle. There exist four kinds
of pressure wave action on civil structures. These are: sliding motion, flow around,
reflection and interference wave accumulation, see Figure 3.30.
In sliding motion mode the wave acts on the ground surface uniformly. The underground structure is loaded only with the free air pressure, as presented in Figure 3.30a.
The pressure properties are described using Equation 3.33. The second mode, Figure 3.30b, refers mainly to slim structures such as chimneys, masts or columns. The
pressure results are obtained in some boundary example. In the third scenario, Figure 3.30c, the pressure increases as a result of reflection from the front surface of the
obstacle. This mode is typically used for structural analysis and it is included in stan-
78
Figure 3.30: Loading action on obstacles
dards and regulations [141]. The last variant, Figure 3.30d, is a special example of
reflection, where the wave reflects many times inside the system of structures such
as within corridors. In this dissertation, author focuses only on typical loading also
considering reflection mode. Lets consider simple example with the plane pressure
wave acting on the rigid surface, Figure 3.31, in order to specify the loading difference
ratio compared to the free air values. Let Dr , pr , r , ur and Tr be the reflected wave
parameters.
The normal component of the particle velocity on the obstacle, including surface
Figure 3.31: Wave reflection from the obstacle
rigidity equals to zero u1 = 0. In agreement with Equation 3.35, the velocity of the
front wave particles is presents as follows:
r

uc + u1 = (pc p1 ) 11
1
c
(3.84)
3.6. LOADING DISTRIBUTION ON STRUCTURE
79
The same relationship exists after the reflection Equation 3.85, where the velocity on
the obstacle also equals zero ur = 0.
r

(3.85)
ur + uc = (pr pc ) 1c 1r
Furthermore, the comparison of the right hand side of Equation 3.84 and Equation 3.85
results in Equation 3.86.
pr pc
pc p1
r
1
r
c
1
1
(3.86)
Based on the third section of Equation 3.30, Equation 3.87 is written. Next, the right
hand side of the above equation can be translated into Equation 3.88 as:
c
1
r
c
=
=
pr
pc
(+1)pc +(1)p1
(1)pc +(+1)p1
(+1)pr +(1)pc
(1)pr +(+1)pc
=2+
+1
1 pc
2
pc + 1
p1
(3.87)
(3.88)
where pr = pr p1 and pc = pc p1 . Krzewinski [78] specified that for pc p1

and for low amplitude pressure waves the pressure on the obstacle doubles the ambient
pressure. However, for pc the pressure is eight times higher as clearly visible in
Figure 3.32.
Figure 3.32: Increasing of pressure after regular reflection
In the Equation 3.89 the remaining properties for reflected wave are collected
r
pc
= (1)p
c +p1
c
q
Dr = 1 [(+1)pc2+(1)p1 ] [( 1)pc + p1 ]
(3.89)
pr c
Tr
=
Tc
pc r
80
Additionally, author performed the study concerning the blast wave reflection from
the rigid surface. The obstacle is fixed inside the ambient air. The numerical foundation
is the same as previously mentioned. The general aim is to obtain the reflectedto incident-wave ratio in function of the incident function. Due to this assumptions
there are prepared the FE study. The results of this job is presented in Figure 3.33.
Where the pressure maps of the cross sectional surface are showed. The color grey
represents the pressure wave, two times or more, higher then incident pressure wave.
This consideration is obtained for the constant value of scaled distance, however, for
incident angle in range from 0 to 90 degrees. Furthermore, the reflected pressure
coefficient is comparable with the UFC data. This study successfully proves for further
predicting of blast wave reflections from rigid obstacles.
Figure 3.33: Reflected wave coefficient in incident angle function
3.7
Concept of safety for structural design
This section elucidates different technical manuals for blast resistant design purpose.
Most of them are associated with the high impact and military area, where much higher
strain rates are taken into account. The most popular manual is TM 5-1300/UFC3340-02 [140] which is is widely quoted and used in research and publications. The
manual includes detailed description for designing structures, equipment and particularly instructions for personnel in order to minimize potential explosion effects. Apart
from presentation of pressure values for different combinations of surrounding area
i.e. free field, ground reflection, obstacles etc., the manual also provides the principals
on the dynamic analysis as well as steel and concrete tolerances. Nearly two thousand page manuscript provides also a guideline in aspect of explosions for windows
and doors. In addition to above mentioned manual there also exists UFC3-340-01
3.7. CONCEPT OF SAFETY FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN
81
[139] version, however its availability is restricted only to government agencies and
contractors. Another manual, DOE/TIC-11268 [39], provides designer guidance for
the prediction of the air blast, ground shocks and fragment loadings on structures as
a result of accidental explosions in close vicinity or within these structures. The next
manual ESL-87-57 [42] presents full structural protection methods against usage of
non-nuclear weapons. This document requires from the reader the basic engineering
knowledge of explosion and structural dynamics. The information regarding material
hardening are also included. Another document TM 5-855-1 [137] presents general information for protective buildings. The Design and Analysis of Hardened Structures to
Conventional Weapons Effects [108] is written by more than two hundred experts, and
includes the same design area such as [137]. The report Structural Design for Physical
Security [1] is prepared especially for civilian architects, who attempt to obtain the
most safe urbanized arrangement. The specifications for any building under terrorist
threats are presented in [109]. Tables contained in this document present wide range
of restrictions such as minimum building distances, and damage levels for different
structures.
The proper design process for predicting the explosion effect demands the use of the
above principles. Those codes propagate simple methods of single degree of freedom
(SDIF) and more complex ones utilizing multi degree of freedom (MDOF). Nevertheless, for many cases the solutions are simply under- or over-estimated. Since the failure
due to explosion of particular structures is of the crucial importance, many computer
codes based on the finite element method are developed providing additional support
to the standard structural calculations. Among the others there are some sophisticated
commercial codes such as Abaqus Explicit, Autodyn or LS-Dyna as well as more simplistic ones. The tools most relevant to the authors field of interest are collected in
Table 3.7. Most of the above mentioned software uses the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) approach and are extremely useful in predicting the blast effects.
For real analysis of any structural element or personnel safety, the design codes
suggest the preparation of the pressure-impulse (P-I) curves. The typical ideology of
P-I curves is presented in Figure 3.34 where the regions with different sensitivity are
signed.
This approach is typically used for each blast resistant element such as doors or
windows. Single graph is an straightforward way to relate simplified damage level and
combination of blast and impulse values. Based on many real life or numerical tests
the different damage scenarios are presented in the diagram. In general, there are two
separate regions. The first one with the minor damage is located below the curve and
the second one, where the damage is much higher, is located above.
One interesting example, among many other, which lies in agreement with [140],
was selected by author and is presented in Figure 3.35. In this case peoples resistance under the blast wave action is presented in SI unit system. Those values are
obtained based on many laboratory tests and there are generally prepared for a lung
82
Table 3.6: Software examples for blast design purpose
Software
AIR3D
ALE3D
Analysis Type
blast prediction, CFD
couple analysis
AUTODYN
BLASTX
CEBBAM
structural response, CFD

CONWEP
blast prediction, empirical
CTH
DYNA3D

structural response, CFD
FEFLO
FOIL
OURANOS
PROSAIR
SHAMRC
blast
blast
blast
blast
blast
prediction,
prediction,
prediction,
prediction,
prediction,
CFD
CFD
CFD
CFD
CFD
Author
Royal Military of Science College
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Century Dynamics
SAIC
Analytical and Computational Engineering
US Army Waterways Experiment
Solutions
Sandia National Laboratories
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
SAIC
Applied Research Associates
Centre dEtudes de Gramat
Cranfield University
Applied Research Associates
part of a human body. The vertical axis represents the increase of the pressure above
the ambient pressure, in Pascal units, whereas horizontal axis represents the pressure
impulse.
In Figure 3.35 the values on impulse axis are divided by cube root of human body
1
weight W 3 . The second one criterion which may cause an disability i.e. eardrum
rupture is described in [87, 140]. The thin continuous line represents the threshold of
50% wounded.
Additionally, a short description of different damage levels for new and existing
buildings is collected in Appendix B, in agreement with UFC code [109]. The changes
in the values of pressure, which are presented in the left column in Pascals, are taken
directly from the Federal Emergency Management Agency6 .
The values for very low level of protection mean total minimum for inhabited buildings. To better understand the general aspect and view another restrictions e.g. for
temporary structures, see [109] in detail. Author collects the boundary values of critical blast loading in function of the type of the structure, there are presented in the
Appendix A: Pressure Tables.
www.fema.gov
3.7. CONCEPT OF SAFETY FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN
Figure 3.34: Idea of pressure-impulse curve diagram
Figure 3.35: Survival curves for personnel safety [139]
83
Chapter 4
Modeling of masonry behavior

under blast
4.1
Introduction
The process of computing the dynamic problems is complex. This part of the dissertation shows the behavior of the concrete masonry unit (CMU) employing the FE
method. Therefore, many assumptions must be taken into consideration. Author
shows that the masonry behaves like in very same fashion as a brittle composite. It
is composed of two different phases i.e. bricks and the mortar. These materials have
very different properties and have different behaviors, however, they are connected
with each other and hence must be considered jointly. It is quite common in nowadays research to replaced this connection with the cohesive zones or cohesive elements
e.g. [102, 158]. Author undertakes the effort to describe this composite in a full three
dimensional fashion with the possibility to designate the cohesive element zones in
the future study. Morover, the presented approach is based on the strain rate effect
approach. This method allows the prediction of the failure for both, bricks as well as
the mortar. Nevertheless, some finite elements may be deleted causing overall mass
decrease hence such elements must be under users control in order to prevent incorrect
results.
4.2
Description of failure for CMU
Chapter 2 showed the impact of the failure for different kind of units and how they
affect the strain rate effect. These results are taken into consideration for failure prediction under blast. The user defined subroutine is developed and used for describing
the behavior of the masonry phases. This method provides significant computational
85
86
CHAPTER 4. MODELING OF MASONRY BEHAVIOR UNDER BLAST
control particularly when additional material features, such as failure or fracture, are
considered. Such approach is widely available in many commercial FE numeric codes,
in particular as a VUMAT subroutine in Abaqus Explicit [2].
It utilizes Fortran programming language which is widely used for describing the
mathematical behavior in the numerical calculations. The developed procedure is presented further in the flowchart Box 4.1. In the general approach the programmed
material phases show the elasto-plastic behavior. However, there are two questions
that need to be answered: primary one regarding the strain rate effect and secondary,
regarding the failure. Introducing equivalent stress, e.g. Equation 2.1 is the key factor
to approach dynamical the problem and find those answers. This equation shows the
modified Burzyski [23, 48] criterion, described in Chapter 2. The main idea is to define the parameter k and critical value of eqv in strain rate function. These functions
must be approximated at least in aspect of experimental results.
Author will direct his attention on values k and eqv which previously were described in Equation 2.1. The k was responsible for shifting of the yield surface in the
principal stresses space, while the value eqv is equivalent stress bases on the limit
stress values under compression and tension regarding to the strain rate. In this part
of the study, these quantities come directly from the data which is sorted in Table 4.1.
The first rows of those sub-tables present the values of the strain rate. These values
are reflection of the d which occurs in the virtual pieces of the material.
Table 4.1: Parameter evolution (Equation 2.1) for compression [51, 92, 119, 135] and tension
[67, 116] (Fig. 2.6), in strain rate function
3
Concrete Masonry Unit E = 30 GPa, v = 0.2, = 2000 kg/m

d[s ]
0.00001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
1500
38
41.8
45.6
47.5
53.2
76
133
190
fcdyn [MPa]
dyn
3.8
4.56
6.84
7.6
15.2
26.6
30.4
30.4
ft
[MPa]
k [-]
4.03
3.79
3.03
2.9
2.01
1.78
2.3
2.9
eqv [MPa]
5.29
6.27
8.97
9.86 17.73 29.79 37.05 39.45
Mortar E = 20GP a, v = 0.2, = 1800kg/m3
1
d[s ]
0.00001
1
50
141
355
620
1050
1500
fcdyn [MPa]
44
46
62
77
95
119
145
233
ftdyn [MPa] 10%fcdyn
8.8
17.6
26.4
28.6
30.8
35.2
35.2
4.03
2.58
2.02
1.8
1.95
2.13
2.22
3.01
k [-]
eqv [MPa]
6.16
11.07 20.54 29.70 32.99 36.67 42.38 46.14
Solid Unit E = 11GP a, v = 0.25, = 2200kg/m3
1
d[s ]
0.017
0.1
0.2
500
600
fcdyn [MPa]
38
56
61
72
91
dyn
ft
[MPa]
3.8
5.6
6.1
7.2
9.1
k [-]
3.51
3.51
3.51
3.51
3.51
eqv [MPa]
6.1
8.94
9.67
11.5
14.5
1
Furthermore, the maximum critical stresses for tension and compression are pre-
4.2. DESCRIPTION OF FAILURE FOR CMU
87
sented in the following two rows. Some critical compressive values come from quasistatic and dynamic laboratory experiments performed by the author and presented in
Chapter 2. The experimental approach for tensile stresses is not performed, however,
for analyzed material it is well established in the literature that they are approximately
ten times lower than compressive stresses. The proof of the above statement along with
the additional values of stresses and resulting strain rates can be found in the following
references [51, 75, 77, 92, 119, 135] in addition.
Table 4.2: Approximate of k and eqv for concrete unit phase
0 < d 0.001
0.001 < d < 10
10 d < 2000
2000 d
0 < d 0.001
0.001 < d < 1
1 d < 2000
2000 d
k[]
4.0
2.6478(d)0.045
6 107 (d)2 0.0003(d) + 1.9146
6 107 (2000)2 0.0003(2000) + 1.9146 = 3.7
eqv [MPa]
5.3
9.4799(d)0.055
4.0799ln(d) + 9.5421
4.0799ln(2000) + 9.5421 = 40.6
Table 4.3: Approximate of k and eqv for mortar phase
k[]
0 < d 0.00001
0.00001 < d < 141
141 d < 1500
1500 d
0 < d 0.00001
0.00001 < d < 141
141 d < 2000
2000 d
4.1
2.4039(d)0.047
6 107 (d)2 1 104 (d) + 1.8722
3.1
eqv [MPa]
6.1
0.001(d)2 + 0.295(d) + 8.4197
3 106 (d)2 + 0.0178(d) + 27.152
50.8
Based on the extended study of Equation 2.1, the pairs of adequate k and eqv must
be found, using critical stress values, under different strain rates. This is performed
by a simple incremental procedure developed by the author1 in Matlab programming
language [89]. These parameters are presented in two subsequent rows. Finally, the
evolution of the failure surface may be described as a function of the strain rate d. The
second question, regarding the method of calculation of d, should also be addressed.
1 piotr.sielicki@put.poznan.pl
88
Figure 4.1: Approximation of parameters k and eqv
Equations 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 show the description of the spatial rate of deformation tensor d
is described implemented in the VUMAT routine within Abaqus/Explicit environment
[132]. Furthermore, d |i bases on the gradients of deformation F |i and F |i+1 .
|i = F |i+1 F |i ,
F
4t
(4.1)
|i F1 |i ,
l |i = F
(4.2)
d |i =
1
(l |i +lT |i ).
2
(4.3)
Let assume that the experimental results presented in Table 4.1 are sufficient to determine the approximate functions for parameters k and eqv for the concrete brick
units. The polynomially approximated formulas are presented in Tables 4.2 and 4.3.
Furthermore, they reflect the real values of critical tension and compression stresses
under various strain rates. The same course may be obtained for another units such
as full/hollow or silicate bricks, however, it is out of scope of this study.
Due to lack of possibility to setup and conduct the experiments validating mortars
behavior under blast action, the strength of this phase is approximated and aligned
with the experimental results available in the literature e.g. [20, 51, 119]. Nevertheless,
the tensile strength is fixed ten times lower than compressive strength. The approximation of k and eqv for the mortar is presented in Table 4.3.
4.2. DESCRIPTION OF FAILURE FOR CMU
89
Figure 4.2: Approximated failure surface under different strain rates (Concrete Mortar)
Figure 4.3: Approximated failure surface under different strain rates (Concrete Unit)
90
Figure 4.4: Approximated failure surface under different strain rates (Solid Brick)
The proposition of the approximated curves of parameters under consideration are

collected in Figure 4.1. Additional curves, resulting from authors previous studies regard solid, hollow, and silicate bricks. They are suggested for the residual experimental
results performed for quasi-static and dynamic (SPHB), and presented in Chapter 2.
For better understanding and additional illustrative purposes the resistance curves
for state of tension and compression are presented for other material in Figures 4.2, 4.3,
and 4.4. The above criteria are verified with the literature and are applied into all further FE analysis.
4.3
4.3.1
Numeric validation of FE model behavior

Introduction
In this section several numerical analyzes of CMU wall under explosive action are
presented. The analysis applies different material behaviors for particular components,
as previously presented in Chapter 2, and follows the algorithm presented in Box 4.1.
Finally, the effect of using the laboratory data, implemented into VUMAT procedure,
in order to describe the failure of the brick wall structure is also presented.
One of the major points is to define the reference geometry of the wall. Typically,
for wide range of building types, the perimeter walls are constructed of the concrete
or silicate units fixed into the RC rigid frames. The structural core of these walls is
4.3. NUMERIC VALIDATION OF FE MODEL BEHAVIOR
91
0.24-0.4 m thick while the high is ca 2.5-3.0 m. Furthermore, the global market of
brick unit materials is also extremely diversified. However, author concentrates only
on one type of unit for the sake of the numerical analyzes i.e. the concrete unit.
The considered unit is widely used for construction of the underground floors and the
outside walls of the buildings. The joining phase called mortar is also made on concrete
mixture. The area of the entire wall structure is fixed to be 2.35 m by 3.52 m, whereas
the thickness is 0.24 m. The other possible phases of the wall construction such as
insulation, roughcast etc. are not taken into consideration. The steel rebars embedded
within the classic walls are also neglected for the purpose of the initial calculation of
the wall resistance under blast action. The typical scheme of RC frame fulfilled with
masonry is presented in Figure 4.5.
Figure 4.5: Virtual view of RC frame filled with different types of masonry [89]
92
Box 4.1 - The flow chart procedure for simulating the behavior of the CMU
phases employing Abaqus/Explicit VUMAT user subroutine
I. Initial data properties for different strain rates:

Em , m , km , eqv,m , where m = 1, 2.
II. Choose initial data package:
m = 1 for mortar and m = 2 for unit.
III. Finding (Starting n-loop over quadrature points):
[En , n ] = f (dn1 ), dn , I1,n = Aii , J2,n = det(AD
ij ).
IV. Finding material feature in the strain rate function:
crit
kn (dn ) and eqv,n
(dn ) according to Tables 4.2 and 4.3,
V. Finding actual value of equivalent stress (Equation 2.1):

eqv,n = f (kn , I1,n , J2,n ).
VI. Calculate damage for separate CMU phase:
D=1
eqv,n
.
crit
eqv,n
VII. Define FE failure (end n-loop):

f inite element deletion : NO if D < 1, YES if D 1.
4.3.2
Mesh refinement study
Since considering the complete wall structure is very complex problem it is necessary
to make some basic assumptions prior the analysis. The prelude of the calculation
of the entire wall structure must concern the mesh refinement studies. This analysis
relies on the identification of a representative size of finite element, which allows to
characterize macroscopic behavior of the entire structure. It is important to mention
that numerical design process should deliver the convergent results. This assumption
is verified on the one unit thick masonry column submitted to the frontal face rapid
explosion.
93
Figure 4.6: Job scheme for the purpose of the mesh refinement analyzes
Next step of this complex analysis is the preparation of the FE analysis considering
a cell of two materials within the air medium. Further, the blast pressure travels
through the ambient and loads the outer boundary of the column. Finally, the reaction
forces are measured on the response boundary. The graphic scheme of such analysis,
where the mesh refinement study is performed for the masonry column, is presented
in Figure 4.6.
The CMU column is made of ten concrete units placed on on top of another.
Between the units there are mortar joints with the phase thickness of exactly one centimeter. The general aim is to compare the boundary reactions, kinetics and strain
energy dependencies on the FE size. This CMU structure is fixed on the both boundaries. Furthermore, it is surrounded by the ambient air. The explosion is simulated
by the EOS, as previously mentioned in Chapter 3. This charge represents 0.05 kg of
TNT explosive, placed 0.1 m in the front of the obstacle. Finally applied load causes
the collapse of the column. The mesh refinement study deals with the different sizes of
FE. The refinement analysis starts from the edge size of 3cm and decreases to 0.5 mm,
employing 3D, 8-node stress elements with reduced integration. In Figure 4.7 eight
94
Figure 4.7: Energy comparison in mesh refinement function
curves are presented. The black curve represents the change of the kinetic energy in
CMU whereas the gray curve shows the stain. The continuous lines are fixed to 0.5 and
1 cm edge size of the element. Both curves present good convergence. This observation
indicates that use of FE of 1 cm edge size or smaller for all further analyzes of the
entire CMU walls is appropriate.
4.3.3
FE masonry wall: job formulation
In order to perform numerical computations on the CMU walls and conduct meaningful comparison of FE approach with the real-field conditions it is necessary to precisely
describe all assumptions.
The numerical simulations are performed in the Abaqus Explicit environment. The
material behavior, however, is calculated according to the proposed theory which is
implemented in the VUMAT subroutine as explained in Box 4.1. Problem under consideration illustrates the explosive loading on the one-layer CMU wall. Loading is
strongly time dependent. Additionally, the propagation of the blast wave through the
air medium is analyzed.
95
Geometry
The spatial geometry is created in Abaqus CAE module. The wall dimensions equal
to 3.52 m by 2.35 m and the thickness is set to 0.24 m, see Figure 4.8. Furthermore,
the wall part has been partitioned into two phases i.e. the mortar and the unit. The
unit reflects the popular CMU with the dimensions equal to 0.38 by 0.12 by 0.24 m3 .
The boundary units are matched to establish the wall dimensions. The thickness of
the mortar phase is fixed to 0.01 m for bed and head joints. This wall fills the rigid
frame which simulates the real field conditions where the masonry fills the RC main
structures. Since the general aim of this work is the behavior of the masonry hence
the RC frames is defined as rigid reflecting only the support behavior.
Material Description
For the purpose of the coupled analyzes varied material descriptions are used. Two
elastic behaviors including the strain rate effect with damage and further element
deletion, see Box 4.1, for the masonry are also applied. The ambient air is simulated
by the equation of the state, see Equation 3.65. Additionally, the explosive material
is described by another equation of the state Equation 3.71. The complexity of the
problem is high due to solid and gas environments interacting within one phenomenon.
Loading Steps
The single analysis is divided into four different steps, which subsequently take place
one after another. The first one, called the gravity step defines the structure subjected
to the gravity loading. Further, the explosion simulates the detonation and combustion
of the charge, up to the pressure loading propagation in the explosive as well as the
air volume. Another step, the ld (loading and damage step), simulates the crucial
behavior of the structure under blast loads and its damage. The last step- output
shows the collapse of the wall. Introducing all these steps is important since for each
of them the time and outputs are different. Furthermore, while the gravity step is the
implicit problem, the another steps are explicit. The explosion step shows the behavior
in the condensed charge and product of detonation transferring through the air until
reaching the frontal face of the obstacle. This stage lasts ca. 0.1 ms and the standoff
distance equals to 1m. Subsequently, in the ld step the pressure loads the FE which
reflect the wall phases. The crucial damage occurs in next ca. 10 milliseconds. The FE
reflecting the structure are submerged inside the ambient air experiencing the failure
phenomenon. Finally, the output step shows the effect of the process. The full time is
in range from 20 to 1000 milliseconds, and additionally depends on the charge weight.
96
Boundary and Initial Conditions

The boundary and initial conditions depend on the type of FEs which are applied. The
wall structure described by the 3D stress finite elements is attached to the rigid RC
frame using the external top - bottom and side - faces which are joined with the rigid
frame. Furthermore, the initial stress caused by the gravity loading remains from the
gravity step. The existing stress in FE is additionally stabilized by the external constant
pressure. Initially, the ambient pressure remains constant and equals to 0.101325 MPa.
The surrounding air and the charge are described by the equations of the state.
Hence, the eulerian FE are employed. The crucial BC reflects the behavior on the
boundaries of the ambient volume. They simulate the free inflow of the air, however, non-reflecting outflow plays a key role during the numerical approach. The nonreflecting boundaries eliminate the disruption when the blast wave reaches the boundary faces of the air or charge volume. Additionally, the initial temperature is fixed to
20 Celsius degrees. The initial stress is added to the eulerian element and is the same
for the entire masonry. The most important property, however, in the EOS description
is the specific energy. In this work the initial initial energies for both materials are
fixed. The specific energy for air volume or one kilogram of the TNT charge equals to
ca. 0.2 and 4 MJ, respectively.
Another important property is the possibilities of material assignment. It allows the
interaction of the pressure wave with the structure. It means that initially not all of
the eulerian FEs are filled with the ambient medium, see Chapter 3. These eulerian
FE which initially penetrate the 3D stress element remain empty. The possibility of
the flow of the medium air - pressure wave - through these elements arises only when
the crack is opening.
Interactions
It is very important to explain the way of transferring the blast loading pressure,
flowing through the eulerian medium into the 3D stress obstacle. This is done by the
general contact algorithm [2].
In this research the following manner was employed for interaction analysis. The
immediate delivery of the specific energy to the different charge volume initiates the
explosion. The following steps allow the prediction of the blast pressure and consequently the stresses inside the wall structure as well as its failure. The analyzes are
performed for different charge volumes and standoff distances. The explosives are fixed
to TNT with the varied mass i.e. 1 to 20 kg, while the standoff distance remains 1 to 2
m. This dimension is measured from the charge centre to frontal face of the obstacle.
It is noteworthy that the single numerical approach employs ca. 2kk 3D stress elements
and 18kk eulerian finite elements. This impressive amount of FE is obtained for the
constant FE size of 0.01 m by 0.01 m by 0.01 m for structure and ambient.
97
Figure 4.8: Scheme of the CMU wall under analysis in FE code
4.3.4
FE masonry wall: results
The FE results may be presented in various ways. In this section the output maps for
most relevant quantities are presented. Following maps show the results for consecutive
time steps obtained for the different values of scaled distance. These sequences allow
for understanding of crack evolution of the CMU wall during the blast. Furthermore,
they assess the moment of the failure of the obstacle. Due to the fact that the results
are obtained with the FE code, the phenomenon may be presented for a wide range
of views. For example, in Figure 4.9 the spatial view of the blast wave evolution is
presented. The gray color represents the front of the blast wave for the pressure greater
than 1 MPa.
The cross sections presented in Figure 4.10 show the consistent evolution of the
blast wave up to the damage of the obstacle. The first example presents the case
of 2 kg TNT cubical charge with 1m standoff distance. Another examples show the
detonation of 5, 10 and 20 kg TNT charges. Blast wave pressure above 1 MPa is
represented by gray color. The right hand side part of the figure shows the frontal wall
surface 20 ms after detonation. 10 and 20 kg of TNT caused global failure of the wall.
Therefore, the entire CMU structure cracks on all boundaries completely disassembling
from the RC frame.
In addition to above observations the peak overpressure values just before the wavefront
reaches the obstacle (bold text) are found in the numerical fashion. Those pressure
values are compared with the analytical results obtained from formula presented in
98
Figure 4.9: Spatial view of blast wave acting on the CMU wall
Equation 3.55 (underlined text). Additionally, the UFC (UFC 3-340-02 Fig.2.7) results
are presented in italic text.
Concluding, author carried out more than 150 numerical analyzes of non-reinforced,
one-layer CMU wall. These results allow the prediction of the wall safety under incidental loading. The assessment of structural safety are obtained by observations and by
the stabilization analysis of the kinetic energy. The second approach is performed for
CMU parts which stay in the area of RC frame. These outcomes are presented in the
P-I curve graph, showed in Figure 4.11. The values of the overpressure (vertical axis)
and impulse (horizontal axis) are presented in SI units. Furthermore, they are obtained
based on the scaled distance and in agreement with the UFC Standard (UFC 3-34002 Fig.2.7). One marker represents single numerical case. The filled marker implies
that the CMU wall stays safely while the empty one points the destruction area. Author proposes a formula for demarcation of two zones i.e. safety and destruction. It is
performed by the straight line named threshold, and approximated by the author by
Equation 4.4.
P = 0.004(I) + 1.7
(4.4)
Additionally, based on the UFC [140] the guidelines are obtained for the average value
of critical average support rotations (described by the letter B in the Figure 4.11)
and scaled distance (Z). This critical angle for non-reinforcement walls is represented
by the value of 0.5 degree [139, 39]. Furthermore, the angle is obtained using the
tangential function of the maximum deflection to the half high of the wall ratio. These
both values are interpreted for the middle point of the structure. Due to the fact
that the failure of the wall occurs the average angle value is obtained only for selected
examples. Furthermore, when the standoff distance was increased to more than the
half of the obstacles smaller dimension it was necessary to include the phenomenon of
reflection. Author consciously omitted this additional loading showing the results of
scaled distance, pressure and impulse values for spherical blast wave in order to provide
Figure 4.10: Blast wave propagation on the CMU wall and its failure
99
100
Figure 4.11: One-layer CMU wall safety threshold in P-I space
crucial information and fulfill the assumption of the grant R00 0097 12, dealing with the
close explosions. Presented results show that the value of scaled distance c.a. 1.0 in SI
units is the significant threshold for the non-reinforced CMU wall safety. Furthermore,
the critical average support rotation angles agreed with the commonly used guidelines
Table 6-2 in the [140].
4.4
Analyses due to engineer approach
Previously presented discussion proved that non-reinforced CMU structures characterize relatively low resistant under the blast action. Therefore, they are not recommended
for use in the environment with potential explosive threats. Essential guidelines for designers are presented in previous chapter, however, they may be simplified particularly
by one assumption presented below.
Definition 4.1. Blast Resistance Threshold for the one-layer CMU walls, where
high of the wall is below 2.3 m and thickness 0.24 m, is characterized by the charge
4.4. ANALYSES DUE TO ENGINEER APPROACH
101
mass and standoff distance replaced by scaled distance value. This safety value deals
with the scaled distance equals by above 1.0 in SI units (2.5 in US units).
Furthermore, the presented scaled distance threshold is obtained for spherical incident. Nevertheless, this assumption must be extended, since the reflected wave plays a
significant role. The non-reinforced CMU walls are rarely used in practical engineering.
However, author additionally calculates the resistance limit according to the UFC recommendations Equation 2.8 and properties for the same setup as previously analyzed
one-layer CMU wall. The elastic ranges of resistance function equal to 0.34 MPa, and
the deflection is 3.5 cm. Nevertheless, the obtained results for explosive loading are far
away to the FE calculations, presented preciously in P-I space (Fig. 4.11). Therefore,
they are not recommended in practice.
Chapter 5
Reinforcing masonry to resist

explosions
5.1
Introduction
Previous Chapters presented solutions which allowed to predict the blast pressure evolution including the effects of explosion as well as the post-behavior of the brittle
obstacles. Base on such assumption author performed many numerical studies, which
can serve as a good representation for designers during the practical studies. Nevertheless, the primary aim of this dissertation deals with the brick and masonry structure.
Author increases the blast resistant threshold as presented in Figure 4.11. Some of the
selected results considering the CMU wall are presented below.
It can be assumed that non-reinforced brick walls are rather rarely used in practical
engineering particularly in the environment exposed to hazardous loadings. Furthermore, DoD Standards [109] do not allow unreinforced masonry for new constructions.
Therefore, author approaches to increase walls safety through introduction of potential
reinforcing methods. One of them is using the steel bars embedded horizontally inside
the mortar phase joining the wall with the boundary e.g. the RC column. Furthermore, the hollow bricks are connected by vertical rebars before they are filled with the
concrete. Other common reinforcing approach are the stirrups bars, as presented in
Figure 5.1, submerged in the head mortar phase. However, this approach is known
and well described in the UFC Standard (Example 6A-1). Nevertheless, the dynamic
loading like the blast pressure acts rapidly on the entire surface of the obstacle. Hence,
it needs to be intercepted by the surface-system of the reinforcement. It needs to be
intercept by the surface-system of the reinforcement.
103
104
CHAPTER 5. REINFORCING MASONRY TO RESIST EXPLOSIONS
Figure 5.1: Proposed stirrup shape for predicting failure of masonry under explosion
5.2
Job formulation
In this part author concentrates on the reinforcement methods which could as well be
applied to already existing structures often without necessity of the inner intervention.
The general aim is to predict the failure of the structure and additionally limit the
range of flaying debris. The proposed reinforcing materials, apart from the simple
steel sections, bars etc., are presented in Figure 5.2, i.e. a steel welded wire mesh and
composite fabric bases on the kevlar and aramid fibbers. Since these materials are
designed to intercept the debris they are placed on the back surface of the obstacle
under explosive loading. The first material has to be attached to the entire wall surface
whereas the second one is fixed to the wall on the boundary edges working in the
membrane state. Furthermore, these materials are characterized by very high tensile
strength. For the steel wire mesh it equals c.a. 400 MPa, while for the composite it is
roughly ten times higher. That is the reason why the rear side of the wall experiencing
extreme tensile stresses under explosive loadings should be reinforced.
Author suggests to apply the membrane structure on the back side of the obstacle
structure. The general aim of such approach is to eliminate the flying debris (which
are great threat by themselves) after wall failure. In such case, however, the failure
of the reinforcing membrane must be considered. It was obtained by introducing the
built-in VUMAT user subroutine, which was initially implemented by Johnson and
Simon [68]. This model is currently supported only by some types of finite elements
analysis, such as plane stress, continuum shells, and membranes. It is also employed
in order to simulate the constitutive behavior for fabric materials. Furthermore, the
fiber directions are assumed to be orthogonal. The reinforced structure is modeled
as a homogeneous and orhtotropic elastic material. However, it includes the potential
to sustain progressive degradation of stiffness due to fiber-matrix cracking and plastic
deformation under shear loading. Furthermore, it allows to uncouple the material
behavior and treat the compression and tension separately. This approach is possible
by introducing a large number of initial properties, as clearly seen in the last columns
5.3. RESULTS
105
Figure 5.2: Reinforcement materials: welded steel wire mesh and composite fabric
of Table 5.1. The features of presented material are used in further FE simulations for
composite fabric and for the wire mesh material, respectively. The detailed aspects of
the above assumptions are presented in [2, 68]. The reinforced structures are subjected
to the same loading schemes as the non-reinforced CMU walls. Furthermore, the two
different attachment methods are analyzed. The first one includes the connection on
the entire surface also for the composite fabric. During the computational process it
was found that fixing the entire surface neglects the possibilities to use the complete
high tension strength of the fibres. Nevertheless, performed analyzes include these two
types of fixing methods.
Figure 5.3 presents the subsequent time steps after explosive loading and following
behavior of the fabric reinforcements.
5.3
Results
These considerations deal with the improvement of the reinforcement system provided
that the dynamic resistance of the masonry could be significantly increased. Nevertheless, the assessment of the reliable effect of the implemented method must be
confirmed by series of experiments. However, proper calibration of the input data and
employing the FE strategy allows the limitation of the number of the real-field events.
Author prepared the numerical models in the environment of Abaqus Explicit code for
further calibration according to the real-field experiment. The geometry of the field
testing structures1 is fully presented in Figure 5.3. Furthermore, as mentioned before,
the method of interaction between the reinforcement and the wall structure is also of
a significant importance. Therefore, during the preliminary real test, the indication to
use the quick installations pins or widely available glues is assumed. Such constraint
1 Experiment
performed in the grant R00 0097 12.
106
Table 5.1: Used user material constants for reinforced materials [22, 103, 156]
Density
Thickness
Youngs modulus, fiber direction 1, tension
Youngs modulus, fiber direction 2, tension
Poisson ratio under tension
Shear modulus
Youngs modulus, fiber direction 1, compression
Youngs modulus, fiber direction 2, compression
Poisson ratio under compression
Tensile strength, fiber direction 1
Compressive strength, fiber direction 1
Tensile strength, fiber direction 2
Compressive strength, fiber direction 2
Shear damage
Tensile fracture energy, fiber direction 1
Compressive fracture energy, fiber direction 1
Tensile fracture energy, fiber direction 2
Compressive fracture energy, fiber direction 2
Shear damage parameter
Maximum shear damage
Initial effective shear yield stress
[kg/m3 ]
t [m]
E1+ [GPa]
E2+ [GPa]
12+ []
G12 [GPa]
E1 [GPa]
E2 [GPa]
12 []
X1+ [GPa]
X1 [MPa]
X2+ [GPa]
X2 [MPa]
S [GPa]
2
Gf1+ [J/m ]
2
f
G1 [J/m ]
2
Gf2+ [J/m ]
2
f
G2 [J/m ]
12 []
dmax
[]
12
y0 [GPa]
1440
0.00028
124
124
0.36
45
124
124
0.36
3.6
1.6
3.6
1.6
0.5
280
10
280
10
0.9
1
0.6
7850
0.001
205
205
0.3
80
205
205
0.3
0.35
0.2
0.35
0.2
0.186
2750
275
2750
275
0.95
1
0.15
could be simple implemented in the FE work, however, in order to enhance the fixing
method further studies must be performed.
It is assumed by the author that the points to fix the fabric surface should be located
on the rigid parts of the structure. These points lie on the RC elements i.e. beams,
floor or on the columns. Only for the welded wire meshes which are much weaker
then the composite fabrics, the glue phase should join the reinforcing mesh with the
masonry.
In Figure 5.3 the results of explosion of 2 kg cubical TNT charge are showed. The left
hand side presents the failure mode for using the welded wire mesh reinforcement, and
the right one represents the high strength fabric composite composed with the kevlar
and aramid fibres. The left parts of both graphs present the symmetrical parts of the
brick walls. Additionally, there are showed the failure modes of used reinforcements.
Considering the above figures it is clear that the wire mesh cracks rapidly after the
blast wave reaches the obstacle, while the composite fibre stays safety. For the purpose
of comparison of both reinforcing systems the surfaces are modeled to be fixed with
the obstacle surface.
These reinforcing methods allowed significant reduction of the flying debris. Additionally, the fabric which is fixed on the entire surface increased the walls resistance
against explosions. Similar results are obtained using wired meshes. Although this
5.3. RESULTS
107
Figure 5.3: Welded Mesh- vs. Fabric-reinforcement 0.02 s after detonation of 2 kg of TNT
charge from the one meter distance
approach is slightly less effective, it is in practice considerably cheaper. Due to very

good improvement of the wall blast resistance author presents those results on the P-I
curve in Figure 5.4. These results base on the same approach as previously described
in Figure 4.10, where the hundreds of FE analyzes are performed to assess the CMU
structure safety.
Based on the authors study indicates that the wall resistance under explosion
could be significantly increased. It was done by introducing the reinforcement systems
in general by composite fabric layer. The safety threshold can be simplified by straight
lines. The Equation 5.1 represents the increasing the CMU wall safety through the
welded wire mesh embedded on the rear side of the obstacle. Nevertheless, the much
more relevant outcomes are obtained with use of the composite fibre system. This
advantageous results are limited by the line according to the Equation 5.2. Furthermore, in Figure 5.4 the range of the scaled distances data below the thick black line
reflects the safety range for the one layer CMU structure. This study consists to the
wall dimension presented in the Chapter 4, and the material properties showed in the
Tables 4.2 and 4.3 for the masonry phases. The fibre reinforcement system employs
the properties presented in the last but on column of Table 5.1.
P = 0.004(I) + 1.9
(5.1)
P = 0.004(I) + 2.5
(5.2)
One of the interesting features resulting from the performed studies is the effect of
joining the reinforcement with the structure. The influence of the boundary conditions
i.e. fixing the fabrics on the outer edges or on the entire surface show very different
effect. At the beginning the outer edges are fixed and the surface freely cover the wall.
108
Figure 5.4: CMU blast resistant for different system of reinforcement
This type of connection decreases the range of debris action. Nevertheless, it is not
reinforcing wall itself. In order to increase directly the strength of the wall exposed
to the explosive pressure the coupling of the reinforcement with the wall is necessary.
The outcomes presented in Figure 5.4 consist only of the studies where reinforcement
fabrics were fully connected with the wall on the entire surfaces.
Furthermore, the efficiency of the wire mesh depends on the strength of the applied
steel and additionally on mesh size. Author concentrates on one mesh size which equals
to 1cm. However, the strength of the composite fabric depends also on the amount of
used layers. For the purpose of this study the fabric has two layers in order to closely
imitate the Kevlar 49 material [111].
Chapter 6
Conclusions
6.1
Final Remarks
In the current political and economical circumstances the problem of blast resistant
structures is of a crucial importance for peoples safety as well as for designers. Since
the masonry plays an important role in the military engineering structures [54], author
takes into consideration the problem of brick walls subjected to the explosive pressure.
In this work author considers the numerical safety of brick structures and proposes
some reinforcing methods based on the finite elements method analyzes.
The study of blast phenomena, including the effect on the structure, is extremely
complex. Therefore, the entire study is uncoupled into few stages. Firstly, author introduces the basics of detonation followed by the interaction of the blast wave with the
obstacle. Additionally, the system of the thermodynamic governing equations, including FEM approaches, is presented. Furthermore, this problem is showed for ALE and
CEL approaches, and the computational time and accuracy of the results are compared
in both. Furthermore, author presents many numerical examples where the advantage
of the considered approaches caused the huge computational problems, e.g. the propagation of the blast wave through the reinforced-concrete (RC), few storey building
including its failure [88], or the evolution of the explosive pressure inside a office building [87] etc.
Secondly, the empirical simplifications for the crucial blast parameters are obtained
and compared with the numerical approach. The proposed formulae are interesting in
meaning of the rapid assessment of the blast wave effect in the air medium.
Finally, the numerical analyzes on the blast resistant structures are performed using
the Abaqus Explicit code. These analyzes characterize an unusual complex scheme.
They include detonation of the explosive, propagation of the blast wave through the
ambient space, contact with the obstacle and finally the failure evolution of the anal109
110
CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSIONS
ysed structure. Due to this fact the different description are used. The most advanced
numerical problem, presented by the author, mixes the eulerian spatial medium, where
the material transport is described by the equation of the state (one for charge and
another one for the air). Nevertheless, the lagrangian description reflects the behavior
of the structure. Furthermore, this behavior is uncoupled into two separate materials (bricks, mortar) which are introduced, by the author, in the Fortran VUMAT
subroutines in the Abaqus Explicit code. Roughly speaking, these considerations allow to obtain the thresholds for the masonry wall imposed to explosion, including the
proposition of reinforcing method in addition. These results are presented clearly, in
the graphs for selected geometry and experimentally compared in addition. The originally presented concept of this dissertation, described in the Chapter 1 in details, is
confirmed by several results. The most significant and major achievements completed
within this research are collected in the following points:
Primary results
Author introduces the engineering simplification for prediction of blast pressure
loading (Equations 3.55, 3.56, and 3.57). These simplifications are obtained
in function of equivalent TNT explosive mass and distance from the obstacle.
Furthermore, they could be useful for engineers.
The significant aim of this work was obtaining the safety threshold curves for nonreinforced concrete masonry unit structure (CMU) under explosion (Figure 4.11).
These results are clearly presented in peak pressure and pressure impulse space
in both. They show the safety of the one-layer thick masonry wall.
Author increases the concrete masonry unit structure (CMU) safety trough introducing the reinforcement system. He proposed two different kind of these
system. They use the wire-steel and aramid fabrics (Figure 5.4).
Author introduced the FE sizes for correct results in special range of charge
weight and distance functions (Chapter 3.5.2). This results bases on the hundreds
of computations and comparisons with the real-field outcomes and standards.
Furthermore, author obtained the peak pressure evolution from the real-field
experiments. These results compared successfully with the numerical studies
(Figure 3.29).
There was done an implementation of brittle material behavior, including strain

rate effect functions. This behavior is described into Fortran subroutine procedure according to (Box 4.1). Finally, the computational studies are performed
for many configuration of charge mass and standoff distance.
6.2. PERSPECTIVES
111
Secondary results
Preparing the state of art in blast and blast resistant area (Chapter 1.1).
Introduction to the basis of brittle materials including strain rate effects (Chapter 2.2), and experimental considerations.
Introduction to numerical design features of explosion phenomenon in FE code

(Chapter 3.5).
Performing the mesh refinement studies on blast wave propagation using FE code
(Figure 3.27).
Obtaining the laboratory results for behavior of bricks under different strain rate
(Chapter 2.2, Chapter 4.2).
Solution of complex engineering problem in one FE numerical example (Figure 3.26).
The method of blast resistance prediction for wide range of the masonry structures is
obtained utilizing pressure-impulse space. Furthermore, the reinforcement method increased the threshold limit. Furthermore, assumptions presented in this dissertation allow the future planing of the real-field experiment according to the Grant R00 0097 12.
6.2
Perspectives
Let us assume that presented in this work numerical approaches allow the prediction of
the brick walls failure under explosion. Furthermore, the threshold curves obtained for
concrete masonry unit structure safety in scaled distance functions (Chapter 5) should
be fitted to the hyperbolic shape to be more suitable with reality. Therefore, author
tries to repeat this study for a real-field conditions. Furthermore, author neglect the
dependency between the modulus of elasticity versus the strain rate function. This
dependency may be important from mechanical point of view. However, coded subroutines allow the introduction of such behavior, and they have not been considered
yet due to lack of reliable experimental data.
Finalizing, there is substantial need for the reinforcement system that would increase the safety of the masonry. Author would like to describe in details the introduction to the reinforcement for the real structures such as brick walls and columns.
In general, the following step of this research is the preparation of the special stirrups,
made of steel or composite and fixed on the mortar phase, see in Figure 5.1. Furthermore, there is really important the real cost of the reinforcement system deals with the
increasing of structure safety.
Appendix A
Blast and explosive properties
The UFC [141] and other US standards provide wide range of information dealing with
the blast properties. This data is very useful for the blast resistant research as well
as for the designers. Author presents selected data in the following tables, e.g. in the
Table A.1 where the blast features are expressed as a Peak Incident Pressure (Pso )
function. These valuable properties are presented in the SI unit system.
Table A.1: Free Air Burst Features in Peak Incident Pressure function
Peak
Incident
Pressure
[Pa]
Peak
Incident
Pressure
[PSI]
Particle
Velocity
[m/s]
Density of Air
Behind Shock
Front[kg/m3 ]
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
450000
500000
550000
600000
7
15
22
29
36
44
51
58
65
73
80
87
100
171
230
282
329
372
412
450
485
519
551
581
1.80
2.28
2.68
3.02
3.32
3.59
3.84
4.07
4.28
4.48
4.66
4.83
113
Reflected
vs. Incident
Pressure
Ratio [-]
2.4
2.8
3.1
3.3
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.1
4.3
4.4
4.6
4.7
Peak Dynamic
Pressure
[Pa]
8332
30737
64495
107813
159409
218238
283512
354517
430677
511538
596634
685627
114
650000
700000
750000
800000
850000
900000
950000
1000000
1050000
1100000
1150000
1200000
1250000
1300000
1350000
1400000
1450000
1500000
1550000
1600000
1650000
1700000
1750000
1800000
1850000
1900000
1950000
2000000
2050000
2100000
2150000
2200000
2250000
2300000
2350000
2400000
2450000
2500000
2550000
2600000
2650000
APPENDIX A. BLAST AND EXPLOSIVE PROPERTIES
94
102
109
116
123
131
138
145
152
160
167
174
181
189
196
203
210
218
225
232
239
247
254
261
268
276
283
290
297
305
312
319
326
334
341
348
355
363
370
377
384
611
639
666
692
717
741
764
787
809
830
851
871
890
909
928
946
963
981
997
1014
1030
1045
1060
1075
1090
1104
1118
1132
1145
1158
1171
1184
1196
1208
1220
1231
1243
1254
1265
1276
1286
4.99
5.15
5.29
5.42
5.55
5.68
5.79
5.90
6.01
6.11
6.20
6.29
6.38
6.46
6.54
6.62
6.69
6.76
6.83
6.90
6.96
7.02
7.07
7.13
7.18
7.23
7.28
7.33
7.37
7.41
7.45
7.49
7.53
7.57
7.60
7.64
7.67
7.70
7.73
7.76
7.79
4.8
4.9
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.8
5.9
6.0
6.0
6.1
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.3
6.4
6.4
6.5
6.5
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.7
6.7
6.8
6.8
6.9
6.9
6.9
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.1
7.1
7.1
778152
873898
972698
1074164
1178265
1284677
1393245
1503804
1616190
1730385
1846135
1963300
2081938
2201747
2322800
2444925
2567999
2692064
2817004
2942713
3069142
3196239
3323956
3452244
3581054
3710341
3840059
3970167
4100624
4231389
4362425
4493699
4625182
4756869
4888724
5020697
5152764
5284914
5417140
5549392
5681662
115
2700000
2750000
2800000
2850000
2900000
2950000
3000000
3050000
3100000
3150000
3200000
3250000
3300000
3350000
3400000
392
399
406
413
421
428
435
442
450
457
464
471
479
486
493
1297
1307
1317
1327
1336
1346
1355
1364
1373
1382
1391
1399
1408
1416
1424
7.81
7.84
7.86
7.89
7.91
7.93
7.95
7.97
7.99
8.01
8.02
8.04
8.06
8.07
8.09
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.6
5813931
5946172
6078386
6210538
6342609
6474626
6606497
6738273
6869944
7001616
7133288
7264959
7396631
7528302
7659974
Another data, see Table A.2 and Table A.3, are presented based on Figure 3.7
and similarly to the previous cases translated to the SI units form the UFC. In this
approach the crucial blast features are presented for the free air blast neglecting the
reflection from the ground or other obstacles. These features are presented as a scaled
distance function, see Equation 3.38. This relation must also be introduced in the SI
units i.e. m/kg1/3 . Tables A.4 and A.5 present the same features, however for the
hemispherical explosive events.
Table A.2: Shock Wave Primary Parameters for Spherical TNT Explosion in Free Air at Sea Level in SI units
Scaled
Distance
1
[m/kg 3 ]
Scaled
Distance
1
[foot/lb 3 ]
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
1.3
2.5
3.8
5.0
6.3
7.6
8.8
Peak
Reflected
Pressure
[Pa]
30415482
5017599
1507165
646831
346328
215775
148583
Peak Incident Pressure [Pa]
Reflected
Impulse
1
[Pas/kg 3 ]
Incident
Impulse
1
[Pas/kg 3 ]
3886747
935751
373408
194850
119499
81666
60018
1454.7
559.3
334.2
235.8
181.4
147.1
123.6
141.4
174.5
120.4
92.2
75.5
64.4
56.1
116
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
11.0
11.5
12.0
12.5
13.0
13.5
14.0
14.5
15.0
15.5
16.0
16.5
17.0
17.5
18.0
18.5
19.0
19.5
20.0
20.5
21.0
21.5
22.0
22.5
23.0
23.5
24.0
10.1
11.3
12.6
13.9
15.1
16.4
17.6
18.9
20.2
21.4
22.7
23.9
25.2
26.5
27.7
29.0
30.2
31.5
32.8
34.0
35.3
36.6
37.8
39.1
40.3
41.6
42.9
44.1
45.4
46.6
47.9
49.2
50.4
51.7
52.9
54.2
55.5
56.7
58.0
59.2
60.5
110137
86117
70071
58788
50499
44192
39238
35276
32028
29327
27027
25038
23324
21805
20469
19267
18185
17212
16325
15513
14766
14079
13443
12856
12310
11802
11326
10882
10465
10073
9705
9362
9037
8728
8437
8165
7905
7656
7425
7204
6992
46562
37611
31309
26708
23217
20497
18319
16549
15084
13853
12801
11887
11096
10394
9777
9220
8720
8269
7858
7482
7136
6817
6522
6248
5994
5756
5534
5326
5130
4945
4771
4608
4453
4306
4166
4035
3910
3789
3677
3569
3465
106.5
93.5
83.3
75.1
68.4
62.8
57.9
53.9
50.3
47.2
44.4
42.0
39.7
37.8
36.0
34.3
32.8
31.4
30.1
29.0
27.9
26.9
26.0
25.1
24.2
23.5
22.8
22.1
21.4
20.8
20.3
19.7
19.2
18.7
18.3
17.8
17.3
16.9
16.5
16.2
15.8
49.8
44.8
40.6
37.2
34.3
31.8
29.7
27.8
26.1
24.7
23.4
22.2
21.2
20.1
19.3
18.5
17.7
17.0
16.4
15.8
15.2
14.8
14.3
13.8
13.4
13.0
12.6
12.2
11.9
11.7
11.3
11.0
10.8
10.5
10.2
10.0
9.8
9.6
9.3
9.1
8.9
117
24.5
25.0
25.5
26.0
26.5
27.0
27.5
28.0
28.5
29.0
29.5
30.0
30.5
31.0
31.5
32.0
32.5
33.0
33.5
34.0
34.5
35.0
35.5
36.0
36.5
37.0
37.5
38.0
38.5
39.0
39.5
40.0
61.8
63.0
64.3
65.5
66.8
68.1
69.3
70.6
71.8
73.1
74.4
75.6
76.9
78.1
79.4
80.7
81.9
83.2
84.4
85.7
87.0
88.2
89.5
90.7
92.0
93.3
94.5
95.8
97.1
98.3
99.6
100.8
6794
6602
6422
6249
6084
5928
5776
5635
5496
5367
5240
5121
5004
4895
4788
4688
4588
4496
4404
4318
4233
4153
4075
3999
3927
3856
3789
3723
3659
3598
3538
3477
3368
3273
3184
3099
3017
2939
2863
2793
2723
2658
2594
2535
2476
2421
2367
2316
2266
2220
2174
2131
2088
2048
2010
1972
1937
1901
1869
1837
1806
1777
1748
1719
15.5
15.1
14.8
14.5
14.3
14.0
13.7
13.4
13.2
13.0
12.7
12.5
12.3
12.1
11.9
11.7
11.5
11.3
11.1
11.0
10.8
10.6
10.4
10.3
10.1
9.9
9.8
9.7
9.6
9.4
9.3
9.1
8.7
8.6
8.5
8.3
8.1
8.0
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.1
6.9
6.8
6.7
6.6
6.5
6.4
6.3
6.2
6.2
6.1
6.0
5.9
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.5
5.5
5.4
5.4
118
Table A.3: Shock Wave Secondary Parameters for Spherical TNT Explosion in Free Air at Sea Level in SI units
Scaled
Distance
1
[m/kg 3 ]
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
11.0
11.5
12.0
12.5
13.0
13.5
14.0
14.5
15.0
15.5
16.0
16.5
17.0
17.5
Scaled
Distance
1
[foot/lb 3 ]
1.3
2.5
3.8
5.0
6.3
7.6
8.8
10.1
11.3
12.6
13.9
15.1
16.4
17.6
18.9
20.2
21.4
22.7
23.9
25.2
26.5
27.7
29.0
30.2
31.5
32.8
34.0
35.3
36.6
37.8
39.1
40.3
41.6
42.9
44.1
Arrival
Time
1
[ms/kg 3 ]
0.15
0.53
1.14
1.94
2.91
3.99
5.16
6.40
7.68
9.00
10.34
11.69
13.06
14.43
15.81
17.19
18.57
19.95
21.34
22.72
24.11
25.49
26.88
28.27
29.66
31.06
32.45
33.85
35.26
36.66
38.07
39.49
40.91
42.33
43.76
Positive
Phase
Duration
1
[ms/kg 3 ]
1.79
1.72
2.36
2.77
3.02
3.20
3.36
3.50
3.62
3.73
3.83
3.92
4.01
4.09
4.16
4.23
4.30
4.36
4.42
4.48
4.53
4.58
4.63
4.68
4.73
4.78
4.82
4.86
4.91
4.95
4.99
5.02
5.06
5.10
5.13
Shock
Front Velocity [m/s]
Wave
Length
1
[m/kg 3 ]
1953
1012
692
554
483
442
417
402
391
383
377
372
369
366
363
361
359
359
357
355
355
354
353
352
352
351
351
350
350
349
349
349
348
348
348
0.203
0.463
0.647
0.781
0.884
0.966
1.034
1.092
1.141
1.185
1.225
1.260
1.292
1.322
1.349
1.375
1.399
1.421
1.442
1.462
1.481
1.499
1.517
1.533
1.549
1.564
1.579
1.593
1.606
1.620
1.632
1.645
1.656
1.668
1.679
119
18.0
18.5
19.0
19.5
20.0
20.5
21.0
21.5
22.0
22.5
23.0
23.5
24.0
24.5
25.0
25.5
26.0
26.5
27.0
27.5
28.0
28.5
29.0
29.5
30.0
30.5
31.0
31.5
32.0
32.5
33.0
33.5
34.0
34.5
35.0
35.5
36.0
36.5
37.0
37.5
38.0
45.4
46.6
47.9
49.2
50.4
51.7
52.9
54.2
55.5
56.7
58.0
59.2
60.5
61.8
63.0
64.3
65.5
66.8
68.1
69.3
70.6
71.8
73.1
74.4
75.6
76.9
78.1
79.4
80.7
81.9
83.2
84.4
85.7
87.0
88.2
89.5
90.7
92.0
93.3
94.5
95.8
45.19
46.63
48.07
49.52
50.97
52.42
53.88
55.35
56.82
58.29
59.76
61.24
62.72
64.21
65.69
67.18
68.67
70.16
71.66
73.15
74.65
76.14
77.63
79.13
80.62
82.11
83.60
85.08
86.57
88.05
89.52
90.99
92.45
93.92
95.37
96.82
98.26
99.69
101.12
102.53
103.94
5.17
5.20
5.24
5.27
5.30
5.33
5.36
5.39
5.42
5.44
5.47
5.50
5.52
5.55
5.57
5.60
5.62
5.64
5.67
5.69
5.71
5.73
5.75
5.77
5.79
5.81
5.83
5.85
5.87
5.89
5.91
5.93
5.95
5.96
5.98
6.00
6.02
6.04
6.05
6.07
6.09
348
348
347
347
347
347
346
346
346
346
346
346
345
345
345
345
345
344
344
344
344
344
344
344
344
344
343
343
343
343
343
343
343
343
343
343
343
343
343
343
343
1.690
1.701
1.711
1.721
1.731
1.740
1.750
1.758
1.767
1.776
1.784
1.793
1.801
1.808
1.816
1.824
1.831
1.838
1.845
1.852
1.859
1.866
1.872
1.878
1.885
1.891
1.897
1.903
1.908
1.914
1.919
1.925
1.930
1.936
1.941
1.946
1.951
1.956
1.960
1.965
1.970
120
38.5
39.0
39.5
40.0
97.1
98.3
99.6
100.8
105.35
106.73
108.11
109.50
6.11
6.13
6.14
6.16
343
343
343
343
1.974
1.979
1.983
1.988
Table A.4: Shock Wave Primary Parameters for Hemispherical TNT

Explosion in Free Air at Sea Level in SI units
Scaled
Distance
1
[m/kg 3 ]
Scaled
Distance
1
[foot/lb 3 ]
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
11.0
11.5
12.0
12.5
13.0
1.3
2.5
3.8
5.0
6.3
7.6
8.8
10.1
11.3
12.6
13.9
15.1
16.4
17.6
18.9
20.2
21.4
22.7
23.9
25.2
26.5
27.7
29.0
30.2
31.5
32.8
Peak
Reflected
Pressure
[Pa]
39502660
8154221
2530130
1056630
547595
331141
222995
162383
125197
100775
83759
71352
62001
54684
48878
44128
40173
36852
34017
31551
29417
27525
25866
24375
23037
21841
Peak Incident Pressure [Pa]
Reflected
Impulse
1
[Pas/kg 3 ]
Incident
Impulse
1
[Pas/kg 3 ]
4875439
1357772
550933
283797
171528
115766
84333
64957
52145
43214
36695
31763
27936
24874
22400
20348
18623
17162
15907
14810
13857
13009
12263
11590
10985
10442
2371.3
885.2
520.8
363.9
278.0
224.4
187.8
161.3
141.2
125.6
113.1
102.8
94.2
86.9
80.7
75.3
70.5
66.4
62.7
59.3
56.4
53.6
51.2
48.9
46.9
45.0
166.1
232.2
175.2
133.5
108.7
92.5
80.9
72.1
65.0
59.2
54.4
50.3
46.7
43.6
40.8
38.4
36.2
34.3
32.6
31.0
29.6
28.2
27.1
26.0
24.9
24.0
121
13.5
14.0
14.5
15.0
15.5
16.0
16.5
17.0
17.5
18.0
18.5
19.0
19.5
20.0
20.5
21.0
21.5
22.0
22.5
23.0
23.5
24.0
24.5
25.0
25.5
26.0
26.5
27.0
27.5
28.0
28.5
29.0
29.5
30.0
30.5
31.0
31.5
32.0
32.5
33.0
33.5
34.0
35.3
36.6
37.8
39.1
40.3
41.6
42.9
44.1
45.4
46.6
47.9
49.2
50.4
51.7
52.9
54.2
55.5
56.7
58.0
59.2
60.5
61.8
63.0
64.3
65.5
66.8
68.1
69.3
70.6
71.8
73.1
74.4
75.6
76.9
78.1
79.4
80.7
81.9
83.2
84.4
20754
19763
18858
18027
17264
16560
15908
15303
14739
14212
13718
13253
12818
12411
12024
11655
11306
10978
10663
10360
10076
9803
9537
9289
9047
8814
8592
8375
8170
7970
7778
7592
7412
7239
7070
6909
6752
6601
6454
6312
6175
9948
9495
9081
8699
8347
8021
7718
7436
7172
6925
6692
6471
6265
6070
5885
5709
5540
5382
5230
5083
4945
4812
4683
4562
4444
4330
4222
4115
4015
3917
3824
3733
3645
3560
3478
3400
3323
3250
3178
3110
3043
43.3
41.6
40.1
38.7
37.4
36.2
35.1
34.0
33.0
32.0
31.1
30.2
29.4
28.7
27.9
27.3
26.6
26.0
25.4
24.8
24.2
23.7
23.2
22.7
22.2
21.8
21.4
21.0
20.6
20.2
19.8
19.4
19.1
18.8
18.4
18.1
17.8
17.5
17.3
17.0
16.7
23.1
22.3
21.6
20.9
20.2
19.6
19.0
18.5
18.0
17.5
17.0
16.6
16.2
15.8
15.4
15.0
14.7
14.4
14.0
13.7
13.4
13.2
12.9
12.6
12.4
12.1
11.9
11.7
11.5
11.3
11.1
10.9
10.7
10.5
10.3
10.2
10.0
9.8
9.7
9.5
9.4
122
34.0
34.5
35.0
35.5
36.0
36.5
37.0
37.5
38.0
38.5
39.0
39.5
40.0
85.7
87.0
88.2
89.5
90.7
92.0
93.3
94.5
95.8
97.1
98.3
99.6
100.8
6042
5915
5789
5672
5554
5445
5336
5233
5134
5036
4946
4855
4765
2979
2917
2857
2800
2743
2690
2638
2588
2540
2492
2449
2405
2361
16.5
16.2
16.0
15.7
15.5
15.3
15.0
14.8
14.6
14.4
14.2
14.0
13.9
9.2
9.1
9.0
8.8
8.7
8.6
8.4
8.3
8.2
8.1
8.0
7.9
7.8
Table A.5: Shock Wave Secondary Parameters for Hemispherical TNT

Explosion in Free Air at Sea Level in SI units
Scaled
Distance
1
[m/kg 3 ]
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
Scaled
Distance
1
[foot/lb 3 ]
1.3
2.5
3.8
5.0
6.3
7.6
8.8
10.1
11.3
12.6
13.9
15.1
16.4
17.6
18.9
20.2
21.4
22.7
23.9
Arrival
Time
1
[ms/kg 3 ]
0.14
0.47
0.99
1.70
2.56
3.55
4.63
5.78
6.99
8.25
9.53
10.83
12.15
13.48
14.83
16.18
17.53
18.90
20.26
Positive
Phase
Duration
1
[ms/kg 3 ]
0.28
1.72
2.16
2.05
2.31
2.83
3.17
3.42
3.62
3.79
3.93
4.05
4.16
4.26
4.36
4.45
4.54
4.63
4.71
Shock
Front Velocity [m/s]
Wave
Length
1
[m/kg 3 ]
2173
1197
805
626
533
479
446
424
409
398
389
383
378
374
371
368
366
364
362
0.210
0.208
0.350
0.524
0.658
0.771
0.866
0.948
1.019
1.081
1.137
1.186
1.230
1.270
1.307
1.340
1.371
1.399
1.426
123
10.0
10.5
11.0
11.5
12.0
12.5
13.0
13.5
14.0
14.5
15.0
15.5
16.0
16.5
17.0
17.5
18.0
18.5
19.0
19.5
20.0
20.5
21.0
21.5
22.0
22.5
23.0
23.5
24.0
24.5
25.0
25.5
26.0
26.5
27.0
27.5
28.0
28.5
29.0
29.5
30.0
25.2
26.5
27.7
29.0
30.2
31.5
32.8
34.0
35.3
36.6
37.8
39.1
40.3
41.6
42.9
44.1
45.4
46.6
47.9
49.2
50.4
51.7
52.9
54.2
55.5
56.7
58.0
59.2
60.5
61.8
63.0
64.3
65.5
66.8
68.1
69.3
70.6
71.8
73.1
74.4
75.6
21.64
23.01
24.39
25.78
27.16
28.56
29.95
31.35
32.76
34.16
35.57
36.99
38.41
39.83
41.26
42.69
44.12
45.56
46.99
48.43
49.88
51.32
52.77
54.22
55.67
57.12
58.57
60.02
61.48
62.93
64.39
65.84
67.29
68.75
70.20
71.65
73.10
74.56
76.01
77.45
78.90
4.79
4.86
4.94
5.01
5.08
5.15
5.21
5.27
5.33
5.39
5.45
5.50
5.56
5.61
5.66
5.71
5.76
5.80
5.85
5.89
5.94
5.98
6.02
6.06
6.09
6.13
6.17
6.20
6.24
6.27
6.31
6.34
6.37
6.40
6.43
6.46
6.49
6.52
6.55
6.58
6.61
361
360
359
358
357
356
355
354
354
353
353
352
352
351
351
350
350
350
349
349
349
348
348
348
348
348
347
347
347
347
347
346
346
346
346
346
346
346
346
345
345
1.451
1.474
1.496
1.516
1.535
1.553
1.571
1.587
1.602
1.617
1.631
1.645
1.657
1.670
1.681
1.693
1.703
1.714
1.723
1.733
1.742
1.751
1.759
1.767
1.775
1.783
1.790
1.797
1.804
1.810
1.816
1.822
1.828
1.834
1.839
1.844
1.849
1.854
1.858
1.863
1.867
124
30.5
31.0
31.5
32.0
32.5
33.0
33.5
34.0
34.5
35.0
35.5
36.0
36.5
37.0
37.5
38.0
38.5
76.9
78.1
79.4
80.7
81.9
83.2
84.4
85.7
87.0
88.2
89.5
90.7
92.0
93.3
94.5
95.8
97.1
80.35
81.79
83.24
84.68
86.12
87.56
88.99
90.43
91.86
93.30
94.73
96.16
97.59
99.01
100.44
101.86
103.29
6.64
6.66
6.69
6.72
6.75
6.77
6.80
6.83
6.85
6.88
6.91
6.93
6.96
6.99
7.01
7.04
7.07
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
344
344
344
344
344
344
344
344
344
344
1.871
1.875
1.879
1.882
1.886
1.889
1.892
1.895
1.898
1.901
1.903
1.906
1.908
1.910
1.913
1.915
1.917
Numerical design of the explosion process for different charges then popular TNT
must be conduced with introduction of the real properties of these materials [147].
Therefore, author collected the properties for different condensed charges (see Table A6) witch describe the behavior employing the JWL equation of the state, see
Equation 3.71. In Table A7 the data for other charges are presented as a TNT equivalent functions.
Table A.6: JWL properties for condensed explosives
Explosive
R1
R2
ANFO
C-4
Compound B
HMX
Pentolite
TNT
42.0
609.8
524.2
778.3
491.1
373.8
0.04
12.95
7.68
7.07
9.06
3.75
0.9491
1.043
1.082
0.643
0.88
0.73
3.55
4.50
4.20
4.20
4.40
4.15
0.16
1.40
1.10
1.00
1.10
0.90
0.41
0.25
0.34
0.30
0.30
0.35
Detonation
Velocity
4550
8190
7980
9110
7470
6930
125
Table A.7: TNT conversion factors for explosives
Explosive
Equivalent
TNT
ANFO
C-4
Compound B
Dynamite
HMX
Nitroglycerin
Semtex
TNT
Pentolite
0.8
1.08
1.5
0.6
1.256
1.5
1.25
1.0
1.4
Pressure
Equivalent
0.8
1.3
1.2
0.9
1.25
1.25
1.0
1.4
Impulse
Equivalent
0.8
1.5
1.3
0.9
1.25
1.25
1.0
1.4
Density
Specific
Energy
820
1600
1650
1700
1910
1592
1470
1630
1670
3932
4870
5190
2710
5680
6700
5660
4520
5950
Appendix B
Safety criteria and protection levels
Tables presented below i.e. B.1 and B.2 show the exemplary data presenting the threshold pressure values for different type of buildings. These values are collected based on
the wide range of publication and standards [139, 140, 21, 39, 58, 57]. Moreover, the
Table B.3 represent the protection standards for building introduced in the [109].
Table B.1: Failure overpressure under blast for categories of buildings collected from different
sources[112]
Free field overpressure [Pa]

140
210
280
700
1000
2100
2800
5200
6300
7000
7000
35000
49000
Type of the damage

Annoying Noise (137 dB), if of low frequency.
Occasional Breakage of large glass windows already under
strain.
Loud Noise (143 dB). Sonic boom glass failure.
Breakage of small windows under strain.
Typical pressure for glass failure.
Some damage to ceilings, limit of missiles.
Limited minor structural damage.
Minor damage to house structures; 20-50
Roof damage to oil storage tanks.
Partial demolition of houses, made uninhabitable.
Large and small windows shattered, occasional damage to
window frames.
Wooden utility poles damaged.
Rail cars overturned.
127
128
APPENDIX B. SAFETY CRITERIA AND PROTECTION LEVELS
56000
63000
70000
63000
70000
70000
91000
490000
Brick panels (8-12), not reinforced, fail by flexure.

Collapse of steel girder framed building.
Cars severely crushed.
Collapse of steel truss type bridges; loaded train waggons
demolished.
Brick walls completely demolished.
Complete destruction of all un-reinforced buildings.
18 brick walls completely destroyed.
Collapse of heavy masonry or concrete bridges.
Table B.2: Failure overpressure under blast for categories of buildings [112]
Free field
overpressure [Pa]
20000
27500
20500
27500
33700
34400
70300/46800
Type of the building
Failure type
Single story framed residences,

with or without basements.
Single story masonry load bearing residences with or without
basements.
Two or three story framed residences, row houses, motels, etc.,
with or without basements.
Roof
ment,
Roof
ment,
Two or three story masonry,

load-bearing wall residences,
apartments, motels, etc., with or
without basements.
One and two story store front
and small commercial masonry
load bearing wall buildings.
Two to four story commercial,
residential and office masonry
load bearing wall buildings.
Multistory steel framed apartment buildings (two to ten stories). Heavy exterior walls /
Light exterior walls
collapse, gross displacecollapse of walls.

collapse, gross displacecollapse of walls.
Roof collapse, gross displacement, collapse of walls, large portion of siding removed, gross deflection from vertical.
Roof collapse, gross displacement, collapse of walls.

Exterior walls and interior partitions blown out. Severe distortion of frame. Severe distortion
of interior core.
129
68900/46800
71700/55100
70300/55100
70300/46800
Multistory reinforced concrete

frame apartment buildings, (four
to ten stories). Heavy exterior
walls / Light exterior walls
Multistory steel framed office
buildings (four to ten stories).
Heavy exterior walls / Light exterior walls
Multistory reinforced concrete
framed office buildings (four to
ten stories). Heavy exterior walls
/ Light exterior walls
Steel framed office buildings,
more than ten stories. Heavy exterior walls / Light exterior walls
82700/44800
Reinforced concrete framed office

buildings. Heavy exterior walls /
Light exterior walls.
31700
One story masonry load bearing

wall buildings (such as schools,
libraries, etc).
Monumental masonry buildings,
two to five stories, with or without structural frames
Masonry load bearing wall industrial buildings, one story
Light steel frame industrial
buildings, one story
Heavy steel frame industrial
buildings, one story.
74400
26200
44100
68900
of interior core.
of interior core.
of interior core.
of interior core.
of interior core.
Roof collapse, gross displacement, collapse of exterior walls.
Failure of structural frame.
Failure of structural frame.
130
APPENDIX B. SAFETY CRITERIA AND PROTECTION LEVELS
Table B.3: Levels of Protection for Buildings Structures [39]
Level of
Protection
Below AT
standards
Very Low
Potential
Damage
Building
Potential Door and

Glazing Hazards
Potential Injury
Severe damage. Progressive collapse likely.

Space in and around
damaged area will be
unusable.
Heavy damage - Onset
of structural collapse,
but progressive collapse is unlikely. Space
in and around damaged area will be unusable.
Doors and windows

will fail catastrophically and result in
lethal hazards. (High
hazard rating)
Glazing will fracture,
come out of the frame,
and is likely to be propelled into the building, with the potential to cause serious injuries. (Low hazard
rating).
potentially come out
of the frame, but at
a reduced velocity,
does not present a
significant injury hazard. (Very low hazard
rating) Doors may fail,
but they will rebound
out of their frames,
presenting
minimal
hazards.
remain in the frame
and results in a minimal hazard consisting
of glass dust and slivers. (Minimal hazard
rating) Doors will stay
in frames, but will not
be reusable.
Glazing will not break.
(No hazard rating)
Doors will be reusable.
Majority of personnel
in collapse region suffer
fatalities. Potential fatalities in areas outside
of collapsed area likely.
in damaged area suffer serious injuries with
a potential for fatalities. Personnel in areas
outside damaged area
will experience minor
to moderate injuries.
in damaged area suffer minor to moderate
injuries with the potential for a few serious injuries, but fatalities are unlikely.. Personnel in areas outside
damaged areas will potentially experience a
minor to moderate injuries.
Personnel in damaged
area potentially suffer
minor to moderate injuries, , but fatalities
are unlikely. Personnel
in areas outside damaged areas will potentially experience superficial injuries.
Only superficial injuries are likely.
Low
Moderate damage
Building damage will
not be economically repairable. Progressive
collapse will not occur.
Space in and around
damaged area will be
unusable.
Medium
Minor
damage
Building damage will

be economically repairable. Space in and
around damaged area
can be used and will be
fully functional after
cleanup and repairs.
High
Minimal damage. No
permanent deformations.
Bibliography
[1]
Structural Design for Physical Security, State of the Practise Report. American Society
of Civil Engineers, 1995. [cited at p. 81]
[2]
6.9 Extended Functionality Abaqus. Documentation Collection. 2009.
[cited at p. 7, 55,
57, 60, 62, 65, 66, 86, 96, 105]
[3]
A. Alia and M. Souli. High explosive simulation using multi-material formulations,

volume 26. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2006. [cited at p. 5, 50, 57, 58]
[4]
A. Anthoine. Derivation of the in-plane elastic characteristics of masonry through homogenization theory. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 1995. [cited at p. 8]
[5]
A. Anthoine. Homogenization of periodic masonry: Plane stress, generalized plane

Strain or 3d modelling? Communications In Numerical Methods In Engineering, 1997.
[cited at p. 8]
[6]
H.L. Baker, P.A. Cox, P.S. Wesine, and R.A. Kulesz, J.J. andStrehlow. Explosions
Hazards and Evaluation. Elsevier Publication, Amsterdam, 1983. [cited at p. 4]
[7]
J.T. Baylot and B.L. Bevins. Effect of responding and failing structural components on
the airblast pressures and loads on and inside of the structure, volume 85. Computers
and Structures, 2007. [cited at p. 5]
[8]
J.T. Baylot and B.L. Bevins. Experimental investigation of blast wall panels under shock
pressure loading. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2007. [cited at p. 5]
[9]
T.B. Baylot and T.L. Bevins. Effect of responding and failing structural components on
the airblast pressures and loads on an inside of the structure, volume 85. Computers
and Structures, 2007. [cited at p. 7]
[10]
T. Belytschko, W.K. Liu, and B. Moran. Nonlinear finite elements for continua and
structures. John Wiley and Sons, England, 2000. [cited at p. 53, 54, 55, 60, 63, 64, 66]
[11]
D.J. Benson. A mixture theory for contact in multi-material eulerian formulations,

volume 140. Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., 1997. [cited at p. 64, 65]
[12]
D.J. Benson and S. Okazawa. Contact in a multi-material Eulerian finite element formulation, volume 193. Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engrg., 2004. [cited at p. 65, 66]
131
132
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[13]
K. Bhattacharya, M. Ortiz, and G. Ravichandran. Energy-based model of compressive

splitting in heterogeneous brittle solids, volume 46. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics
of Solids, 1998. [cited at p. 7]
[14]
N. Bourne, J. Millett, Z. Rosenberg, and N. Murray. On the shock induced failure

of brittle solids, volume 46. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 1998.
[cited at p. 7]
[15]
BP.
CIRRUS suite of consequence modelling tools.
Sunbury-on-Thames UK.
[cited at p. 41]
[16]
S. Brasile, R. Casciaro, and G. Formica. Part I: A numerical strategy for the nonlinear
analysis. Multilevel approach for brick masonry walls. Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering, 2007. [cited at p. 9]
[17]
S.R. Brinkley and J.G. Kirkwood. Theory of propagation of shock waves. Physical
Review, 1947. [cited at p. 4]
[18]
H.L. Brode. Numerical solutions of spherical blast waves. Journal of Applied Physics,
1955. [cited at p. 4, 42, 50]
[19]
H.L. Brode.
Blast wave from a spherical charge.
The Physics of Fluids, 1959.
[cited at p. 31, 50]
[20]
P.A. Buchan and J.F. Chen. Blast resistance of FRP composites and polymer strengthened concrete and masonry structures, volume 38. Composites Part B-Engineering,
2007. [cited at p. 7, 88]
[21]
P.S. Bulson. Explosive Loading of Engineering Structures. Taylor and Francis Group,
New York, 1997. [cited at p. 34, 46, 127]
[22]
A.R. Bunsell. Tensile and fatigue behaviour of Kevlar-49 (PRD-49) fibre, volume 10.
Journal of Materials Science, 1975. [cited at p. 106]
[23]
W.T Burzyski. Studium nad hipotezami wytenia. Technical Science Academy, Lviv,
1928. [cited at p. 20, 86]
[24]
G.T. Camacho and M. Ortiz. Computational modelling of impact damage in brittle

materials, volume 33. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 1996. [cited at p. 7]
[25]
J. Campbell. The dynamic yielding of mild steel. Acta Metall., 1953.
[26]
A.T. Cates and B. Samuels. A simple assessment methodology for vented explosion,
volume 4. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 1991. [cited at p. 41]
[27]
T.C. Champan, T.A. Rose, and P.D. Smith. Reflected blast wave resultant behind cantilever walls: a new prediction technique, volume 16. International Journal of Impact
Engineering, 1994. [cited at p. 5]
[28]
W.W. Chen and B. Song. Split Hopkinson (Kolsky) Bar - Design, Testing and Applications. Springer, Mechanical Engineering Series, 2011. [cited at p. 16]
[29]
R.F. Chisnell. The motion of a shock wave in a channel, with application to cylindrical
and spherical shock waves. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 1957. [cited at p. 4]
[cited at p. 22]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
133
[30]
P.D. Church, B.D. Goldthorpe, and T. Andrews. A review of constitutive model development within DERA. ASME PVP/K-PVP Conference, 1999. [cited at p. 27]
[31]
J.D. Clayton. A model for deformation and fragmentation in crushable brittle solids.
International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2008. [cited at p. 6]
[32]
R.J. Clifton. Response of materials under dynamic loading. International Journal of

Solids and Structures, 2000. [cited at p. 6]
[33]
F. Cluni and V. Gusella. Homogenization of non-periodic masonry structures. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 2004. [cited at p. 9]
[34]
D. Cormie, G. Mays, and P. Smith. Blast effects on buildings. Thomas Telford, London,
2009. [cited at p. 27, 33, 34, 41]
[35]
P.P. Craig and J.A. Jungerman. The Nuclear Arms Race: Technology and Society.
McGraw-Hill Companies, 1990. [cited at p. 31, 32, 45]
[36]
I.G. Cullis, J. Schofield, and A. Whitby. Assessment of blast loading effects e Types of
explosion and loading effects, volume 87. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and
Piping, 2010. [cited at p. 8]
[37]
J.S. Davidson. Failure mechanisms of polymer-reinforced concrete masonry walls subjected to blast. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2005. [cited at p. 7]
[38]
B.M. Dobratz. Explosive Handbook. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore CA, 1981. [cited at p. 57]
[39]
DOE/TIC-11268. A manual for the prediction of blast and fragmentation loadings on

structures. US Department of Energy, 1992. [cited at p. 81, 98, 127, 130]
[40]
J. Donea, A. Huerta, J. Ponthot, and A. Rodriquez-Ferran. Encyclopedia of Computational Mechanics: Arbitrary LagrangianEulerian Methods, volume 1. John Wiley and
Sons, 2004. [cited at p. 64]
[41]
D.S. Dugdale. Yielding of steel sheets containing slits, volume 8. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 1960. [cited at p. 7]
[42]
ESL-TR-87-57. Protective Construction Design Manual. Air Force Engineering and

Services Center, 1989. [cited at p. 81]
[43]
H.D. Espinosa, P.D. Zavattieri, and S.K. Dwivedi. A finite deformation continuum/discrete model for the description of fragmentation and damage brittle materials,
volume 46. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 1998. [cited at p. 7]
[44]
G. Formica, V. Sansalone, and R. Casciaro. A mixed solution strategy for the nonlinear analysis of brick masonry walls. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, 2002. [cited at p. 9, 15]
[45]
F.G. Friedlander. Note on the Diffraction of Blast Waves by a Wall. Home Office ARP
Dept, 1939. [cited at p. 44]
[46]
M.P. Friedmann. A simplified analysis of spherical or cylindrical blast waves. Journal

of Fluid Mechanics, 1961. [cited at p. 4]
134
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[47]
G.R. Gathers. Shock Wave Physics and Equation of State Modelling. World Scientific
Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd, Singapore, 1994. [cited at p. 57]
[48]
M.G.D. Geers, R. de Borst, and R.H.J. Peerlings. Damage and crack modeling in
single-edge and double- edge notched concrete beams, volume 65. Engineering Fracture
Mechanics, 2000. [cited at p. 86]
[49]
M. Gilbert, B. Hobbs, and T.C.K. Molyneaux. The performance of unreinforced masonry

walls subjected to low-velocity impacts: mechanism analysis. International Journal of
Impact Engineering, 2002. [cited at p. 6]
[50]
D.E. Grady. Shock-wave compression of brittle solids, volume 29. Mechanics of Materials,
1997. [cited at p. 7]
[51]
D.L. Grote, S.W. Park, and M. Zhou. Dynamic behavior of concrete at high strain rates
and pressures: I. experimental characterization, volume 25. International Journal of
Impact Engineering, 2001. [cited at p. 15, 16, 86, 87, 88]
[52]
O. Hahn and F. Strassmann. On the detection and characteristics of the alkaline earth
metals formed by irradiation of uranium with neutrons, volume 27. Naturwissenschaften,
1939. [cited at p. 28]
[53]
J.O. Hallquist. LS-Dyna, Theoretical Manual. California Livermore Software Technology

Corporation, Livermore CA, 2008. [cited at p. 57]
[54]
M.I. Hammons. Baseline Study of Typical Construction Types for High-Occupancy Facilities on Military Installations. Final Report prepared by Air force Research laboratory
for Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency, 1999. [cited at p. 10, 109]
[55]
S.J. Hanchak, M.J. Forrestal, E.R. Young, and J.Q. Ehrgott. Perforation of concrete
slabs with 48 MPa (7 ksi) and 140 MPa (20 ksi) unconfined compressive strengths.
International Journal of Impact Engineering, 1992. [cited at p. 6]
[56]
W.D. Hayes. The propagation upward of the shock wave from a strong explosion in the
atmosphere. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 32, 317, 1968. [cited at p. 4, 45]
[57]
J. Henrych. The Dynamics of Explosion and Its Use. Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences.
Academia, Prague, 1979. [cited at p. 4, 29, 43, 45, 46, 127]
[58]
J.G. Hetherington and P.D. Smith. Blast and Ballistic Loading of Structures. Elsevier
Science Ltd. Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford, 1994. [cited at p. 15, 29, 33, 42, 44, 45, 46,
50, 127]
[59]
T.J. Holmquist, G.R. Johnson, and W.H. Cook. A computational constitutive model for
concrete to large strain, high strain rate, and high pressure. Proceedings of the 14th
international symposium on ballistics, Canada, 1993. [cited at p. 6]
[60]
B. Hopkinson. A Method of Measuring the Pressure Produced in the Detonation of High

Explosives or by the Impact of Bullets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society,
1914. [cited at p. 6, 16]
[61]
T.J.R. Hughes, W.U. Liu, and T.K. Zimmerman. Lagrangian Eulerian finite element
formulation for viscous flows, volume 21. J. Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., 1981.
[cited at p. 64]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
135
[62]
D. Hyde. ConWep Application. Fundamentals of protective design for conventional

weapons. USACE Waterways Experiment Station. [cited at p. 44]
[63]
British Standards Institution. Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures - Part 1-1:

General rules for reinforced and unreinforced masonry structures. B EN 1996-1-1. BSI
London, 2005. [cited at p. 24]
[64]
K. Jach. Komputerowe modelowanie dynamicznych oddziaywa cia metod punktw

swobodnych. PWN, Warsaw, 2000. [cited at p. 57]
[65]
T Jankowiak. Kryteria zniszczenia betonu poddanego obciazeniom quasi-statycznym i

dynamicznym. Wydawnictwo Politechniki Poznanskiej, 2011. [cited at p. 20, 21, 22]
[66]
T. Jankowiak, T. Lodygowski, and P.W. Sielicki. Modelling of pressure distribution

after explosion using Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian formulation. 17th International
Conference On Computer Methods In Mechanics, d, 2007. [cited at p. 57, 59, 61]
[67]
R. John, S.P. Shah, and Y.S. Jeng. A fracture mechanics model to predict the rate
sensitivity of Mode I fracture of concrete. Northwestern University, Evanston, 1986.
[cited at p. 86]
[68]
F. Johnson and J. Simon. Modeling fabric reinforced composites under impact loads.
Impact and Damage Tolerance of Composites Material and Struct., 1999. [cited at p. 104,
105]
[69]
G.R. Johnson and W.H. Cook. Fracture characteristics of three metals subjected to a
various strains, strain rates, temperatures, and pressures. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 1985. [cited at p. 6]
[70]
S. Kaliski. Drgania i fale w ciaach staych. PWN, Warszawa, 1966.
[71]
W.D. Kennedy. Explosions and explosives in air. In Effects of Impact and Explosion,
1946. [cited at p. 31, 50]
[72]
C.N. Kingery and G. Bulmash. Airblast parameters from TNT spherical air burst and
hemispherical surface burst. Ballistic Research Laboratory, 1984. [cited at p. 44]
[73]
G.F. Kinney and K.J. Graham. Explosives Shocks in Air. Springer Verlag, 1985.
[cited at p. 53]
[cited at p. 4, 43]
[74]
M. Kleiber. Metoda elementw skoczonych w nieliniowej mechanice kontinuum. PWN,

Warszawa/Pozna, 1985. [cited at p. 53]
[75]
J. Klepaczko and A. Brara. An experimental method for dynamic tensile of concrete by

spalling, volume 25. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2001. [cited at p. 19,
20, 22, 87]
[76]
H. Kolsky. An Investigation of the Mechanical Properties of Materials at very High

Rates of Loading. Proceedings of the Physical Society, Section B, 1914. [cited at p. 6, 15,
16]
[77]
L. Kruszka, W.K. Nowacki, and W. Oliferuk. Badania Dynamiczne Materialow

Kruchych na rozciaganie przy duzych predkosciach odksztalcenia, volume 34. IFTR
Reports, Warsaw, 1995. [cited at p. 19, 87]
136
[78]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
R. Krzewiski. Dziaanie Wybuchu w Orodkach Inercyjnych, volume 2 of Dynamika

Wybuchu. Wydzia Wydawczniczy WAT, Warszawa, 1982. (in polish). [cited at p. 37, 40,
41, 42, 44, 46, 79]
[79]
R. Krzewiski. Metody Okrelania Obcie, volume 1 of Dynamika Wybuchu. Wydzia

Wydawczniczy WAT, Warszawa, 1982. (in polish). [cited at p. 41, 46]
[80]
V.P. Laumbach and R.F. Probstein. A point explosion in a cold exponential atmosphere.
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 1969. [cited at p. 4]
[81]
L. Lavoie.
Fuel-air explosives, weapons and effects.
Military Technology 9, 1989.
[cited at p. 31, 50]
[82]
P.D. Lax and B. Wendorff. Systems of Conservations Laws, volume 13. Communications
on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 1960. [cited at p. 60]
[83]
C. Leiva, L.F. Vilches, J. Vale, J. Olivares, and C. Fern

andez-Pereira. Effect of carbonaceous matter contents on the fire resistance and mechanical properties of coal fly
ash enriched mortars, volume 87. Fuel, 2007. [cited at p. 31]
[84]
T. Lodygowski, T. Jankowiak, and P.W. Sielicki. Safety of Concrete and Masonry

Structures under Unusual Loadings. CISM Courses and Lectures vol.525. Damage Mechanics and Micromechanics of Localized Fracture Phenomena in Inelastic Solids, 2011.
[cited at p. 14]
[85]
T. Lodygowski and P.W. Sielicki. Failure of the masonry structure under blast loading.
Workshop on Dynamic fracture and damage of brittle and ductile materials and its
industrial applications, 2008. [cited at p. 46]
[86]
T. Lodygowski and P.W. Sielicki. The protection of structures against explosive loadings.
Modern Repair Methods in Buildings and Constructions. Dolnolskie Wydawnictwo
Edukacyjne, 2009. [cited at p. 43]
[87]
T. Lodygowski and P.W. Sielicki. Estimation of building safety under explosion (full
text and conference materials). Durability and Repair of Building Structures. DWE,
2010. [cited at p. 82, 109]
[88]
T. Lodygowski and P.W. Sielicki. Komputerowe modelowanie budynkw obcionych

cinieniem, powstaym w wyniku wybuchu. XII Konferencja Naukowo-Techniczna, Techniki Komputerowe w Inynierii (conference presentation), 2011. [cited at p. 109]
[89]
T. Lodygowski and P.W. Sielicki. The reinforcement of masonry walls under blast action.
12th Pan American Congress of Applied Mechanics, 2012. [cited at p. 87, 91]
[90]
P.B. Lourenco. Conputational Strategies for Masonry Structures. Delft University Press,
Delft, 1996. [cited at p. 9]
[91]
Y. Lu and K. Xu. Modelling of dynamic behaviour of concrete materials under blast

loading, volume 41. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 2004. [cited at p. 16]
[92]
Y.B. Lu and Q.M. Li. A Correction Methodology to Determine the Strain-rate Effect
on the Compressive Strength of Brittle Materials Based on SHPB Testing, volume 2.
International Journal of Protective Structures, 2011. [cited at p. 16, 86, 87]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
137
[93]
B. Luccioni, D. Ambrosini, and R. Danesi. Blast load assessment using hydrocodes,

volume 28. Engineering Structures, 2006. [cited at p. 5, 50]
[94]
R. Luciano and E. Sacco. Homogenization technique and damage model for old masonry
material. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 1997. [cited at p. 9]
[95]
G. Ma, H. Hao, and Y. Lu. Homogenization of masonry using numerical simulations.

Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 2001. [cited at p. 9]
[96]
J. Maachowski. Modelowanie i badania interakcji ciao stae-gaz przy oddziaywaniu

impulsu cinienia na elementy konstrukcji rurocigu. BEL Studio Sp. z o.o., Warszawa,
2010. [cited at p. 45, 53, 64, 66]
[97]
C.L. Mader. Detonation Properties of Condensed Explosives Computed using the

BeckerKistiakoskyWilson Equation of State. Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Report LA-2900, 1963. [cited at p. 31]
[98]
T.J. Massart, R.H.J. Preelings, and M.G.D. Geers. Structural Damage Analysis of
Masonry Walls using Computational Homogenization, volume 16. International Journal
of Damage Mechanics, 2007. [cited at p. 9, 20]
[99]
J.A. McFadden. Initial behaviour of a spherical blast. J. of Applied Physics, 1952.

[cited at p. 4]
[100] O. Miller, L.B. Freund, and A. Needleman. Modeling and simulation of dynamic fragmentation in brittle materials, volume 96. International Journal of Fracture, 1999.
[cited at p. 7]
[101] C.A. Mills. The design of concrete structure to resist explosions and weapon effects. Proceedings of the 1st Int. Conference on concrete for hazard protections, 1987. [cited at p. 43]
[102] J.F. Molinari and F. Zhou. Stochastic fracture of ceramics under dynamic tensile loading,
volume 41. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 2004. [cited at p. 16, 85]
[103] R.B. Nath and D.N. Fenner. Elasto-plastic finite element modelling of interfacial failure
in model Kevlar 49 fibre-epoxy composites. Composites: Part A, 1996. [cited at p. 106]
[104] N.M. Newmark and R.J. Hansen. Design of blast resistant structures. Shock and Vibration Handbook, 1961. [cited at p. 43]
[105] T.D. Nguyen, F. Meftah, R. Chammas, and A. Mebarki. The behaviourofmasonrywallssubjectedtofire:Modellingandparametrical studies inthecaseofhollowburnt-claybricks,
volume 44. Fire Safety Journal, 2009. [cited at p. 31]
[106] T. Niezgoda and W. Barnat. Analysis of protective structures made of various composite
materials subjected to impact. Materials Science and Engineering, 2008. [cited at p. 45]
[107] T. Niezgoda and J. Maachowski. Research of elastomeric protective layers subjected to
blast wave, volume 82. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 2011. [cited at p. 45]
[108] US Army Corps of Engineers. The Design and Analysis of Hardened Structures to
Conventional Weapons Effects. 1998. [cited at p. 46, 81]
138
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[109] US Army Corps of Engineers. DOD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings.
UFC 4-010-01, 2005. [cited at p. 22, 81, 82, 103, 127]
[110] G. Pande, J. Liang, and J. Middleton. Equivalent elastic moduli for brick masonry.
Computers and Geotechnics, 1989. [cited at p. 8]
[111] M.J. Pereira and D.M. Revilock. Ballistic Impact Response of Kevlar 49 and Zylon
Under Conditions Representing Jet Engine Fan Containment. NASA Glenn Research
Center, 2009. [cited at p. 108]
[112] E. E. Pickering and J. L. Bockholt. Probabilistic Air Blast Failure Criteria for Urban
Structures. DAHC20-67-C-0136 for Office of Civil Defence, 1971. [cited at p. 127, 128]
[113] S. Pietruszczak and X. Niu. A mathematical description of macroscopic behavior of
brick masonry. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 1991. [cited at p. 8]
[114] W.J.M. Rankine. On the thermodynamic theory of waves of finite longitudinal disturbance. Philosophy Translations. 1870. [cited at p. 3, 29]
[115] G. Ravichandran and G. Subhash. A micromechanical model for high strain rate behavior of ceramics, volume 32. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 1995.
[cited at p. 7]
[116] H.W. Reinhardt, P. Rossi, and J.G.M. Mier. Joint investigation of concrete at high rates
of loading. Materials Research Bulletin, 1990. [cited at p. 86]
[117] P. Reinicke and J. Meyer-ter Vehn. The point explosion with heat conduction, volume 3.
Physics of Fluids A, 1991. [cited at p. 31]
[118] A.M. Remennikov and A.R. Timothy. Modelling blast loads on buildings in complex city
geometries, volume 83. Computers and Structures, 2005. [cited at p. 5]
[119] C.A. Ross, P.Y. Thompson, and J.W. Tedesco. Split Hopkinson pressure bar tests on
concrete and mortar in tension and compression. ACI Materials Journal, p.475-481,
1989. [cited at p. 16, 86, 87, 88]
[120] P.L Sachdev. Propagation of a blast wave in uniform or nonuniform media: a uniformly
valid analytic solution. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 1972. [cited at p. 4]
[121] P.L. Sachdev. Shock Waves and Explosions. Monographs and Surveys in Pure and
Applied Mathematics. Chapman and Hall (CRC Press), London, 2004. [cited at p. 28, 29,
31]
[122] S. Sarva and S. Nemat-Nasser. Dynamic compressive strength of silicon carbide under
uniaxial compression. Materials Science and Engineering, 2001. [cited at p. 7]
[123] E. Schultz and J. Shepherd. Detonation analysis using detailed reaction mechanisms.
Explosion Dynamics Laboratory Report FM00-1. 22nd International Symposium on
Shock Waves, Imperial College, London, UK, 1999. [cited at p. 27]
[124] E. Schultz and J. Shepherd. Validation of Detailed Reaction Mechanisms for Detonation
Simulation. Explosion Dynamics Laboratory Report FM99-5. Graduate Aeronautical
Laboratories, California Institute of Technology Pasadena, 1999. [cited at p. 27]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
139
[125] E. Schultz and J. Shepherd. Detonation Diffraction Through a Mixture Gradient. Explosion Dynamics Laboratory Report FM00-1. Graduate Aeronautical Laboratories,
California Institute of Technology Pasadena, 2000. [cited at p. 27]
[126] L.I. Sedov. Propagation of intense blast wave. Applied Mathematics and Mechanics 10,
1946. [cited at p. 3, 32, 45]
[127] C.J. Shih, M.A. Meyers, V.F. Nesterenko, and S.J. Chen. Damage evolution in dynamic
deformation of silicon carbide, volume 48. Acta Materialia, 2000. [cited at p. 7]
[128] R.L. Sierakowski and H. Adeli. The Dynamic Behaviour of Concrete Materials p. C5-81.
Le Journal de Physique Colloques, 1985. [cited at p. 6, 15]
[129] D.J. Stenberg. Spherical explosions and the equation of state of water. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore CA, 1978. [cited at p. 57]
[130] R.G. Stoner and W. Bleakney. The attenuation of spherical shock waves in air. J. of
Applied Physics, 1948. [cited at p. 31, 50]
[131] Y. Su, C. Wu, and M. Griffith. Mitigation of Blast Effects on Aluminum Foam Protected
Masonry Walls, volume 14. Tianjin University and Springer-Verlag, 2008. [cited at p. 8]
[132] W. Sumelka. The Constitutive Model of the Anisotropy Evolution for Metals with Microstructural Defects. Publishing House of Poznan University of Technology, 2009.
[cited at p. 55, 56, 88]
[133] G.I. Taylor. The air wave surrounding an expanding sphere. Proceedings of the Royal
Society A, 1946. [cited at p. 3]
[134] G.I. Taylor. The formation of a blast wave by a very intense explosion. Proceedings of
the Royal Society A, 1950. [cited at p. 3, 4, 32, 33]
[135] J.W. Tedesco and C.A. Ross. A strain-rate-dependent concrete material model for ADINA. ASME Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, p.398-405, 1989. [cited at p. 86,
87]
[136] TM5-855-01. Fundamentals of Protective Design (Non-nuclear). US Department of the

Army, 1965. [cited at p. 44, 75]
[137] TM5-855-01. Fundamentals of Protective Design for Conventional Weapons. US Department of the Army, 1986. [cited at p. 81]
[138] E.F. Toro. Riemann Solvers and Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics, A Practical
Introduction. Springer-Verlag, 1997. [cited at p. 31, 35, 66]
[139] Navy US Army Manual, Departments of the army. Design and Analysis of Hardened
Structures to Conventional Weapons Effects. UFC 3-340-01, 1990. [cited at p. 19, 20, 44,
81, 83, 98, 127]
[140] Navy US Army Manual, Departments of the army. Structures to resist the effect of
accidental explosions. TM 5-1300/UFC 3-340-02, 1990. [cited at p. 4, 8, 15, 19, 20, 23, 24,
30, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 53, 80, 81, 82, 98, 100, 127]
140
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[141] Navy US Army Manual, Departments of the army. Structures to resist the Effects of
accidental Explosions. UFC 3-340-02, 2008. [cited at p. 20, 25, 30, 44, 46, 47, 48, 78, 113]
[142] J. Von Neumann. The point source solution. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1941.
[cited at p. 3,
4]
[143] Y. Wada and M.S. Liu. An accurate and robust flux splitting scheme for shock and
contact discontinuities, volume 18. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
Journal of Scientific Computing, 1997. [cited at p. 35, 66]
[144] H. Wei and H. Hao. Numerical derivation of homogenized dynamic masonry material
properties with strain rate effects. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2008.
[cited at p. 10]
[145] J. Wei, M.S. Shetty, and Dharani L.R. Stress characteristics of a laminated architectural glazing subjected to blast loading, volume 84. Computers and Structures, 2006.
[cited at p. 5]
[146] G.B. Whitham. The propagation of spherical blast. Proceedings of the Royal Society A,
1950. [cited at p. 4]
[147] E. Wodarczyk. Wstp do Mechaniki Wybuchu. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN,
Warszawa, 1994. (in polish). [cited at p. 29, 33, 37, 38, 39, 57, 70, 124]
[148] E. Wodarczyk and J. Janiszewski. Konstrukcja dynamicznego wykresu naprenieodksztacenie na podstawie trwaych odksztace prta obcizonego udarowo. Biuletyn
WAT, Warsaw, 2006. [cited at p. 57]
[149] C.W. Wong and M. Karamanoglu. Modelling the response of masonry structures to
gas explosions, volume 12. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 1999.
[cited at p. 7]
[150] C. Wu and H. Hao. Modelling of simultaneous ground shock and air blast pressure on
nearby structures from surface explosions, volume 31. International Journal Impacting
Engineering, 2005. [cited at p. 45]
[151] C. Wu and H. Hao. Derivation of 3D masonry properties using numerical homogenization technique. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2006.
[cited at p. 10]
[152] C. Wu and H. Hao. Numerical simulation of structural response and damage to simultaneous ground shock and airblast loads, volume 34. International Journal of Impact
Engineering, 2007. [cited at p. 5, 50]
[153] S. Yanchao, H. Hong, and L. Zhong-Xian. Numerical simulation of blast wave interaction
with structure columns, volume 17. Shock Waves, 2007. [cited at p. 45]
[154] P.D. Zavattieri, P.V. Raghuram, and H.D. Espinosa. A computational model of ceramic
microstructures subjected to multi-axial dynamic loading, volume 49. Journal of the
Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 2001. [cited at p. 7]
[155] Ya.B. Zeldowich and Yu. P. Raizer. Physics of Shock Waves and High-Temperature
Hydrodynamic Phenomena, volume 2. New York Academic Press, 1967. [cited at p. 4]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
141
[156] D. Zhaoxu and C.T. Sun. Testing and modeling of yarn pull-out in plain woven Kevlar
fabrics. Composites: Part A, 2009. [cited at p. 106]
[157] F. Zhou and J.F. Molinari. 3D finite element analysis of impact damage in metallic and
ceramic targets. Symposium on Ceramic Armor Materials by Design, PACRIM 4, 2001.
[cited at p. 7]
[158] F. Zhou and J.F. Molinari. Dynamic crack propagation with cohesive elements: a
methodology to address mesh dependency, volume 54. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2004. [cited at p. 7, 85]
[159] O.C. Zienkiewicz, R.L. Tylor, and P. Nithiarasu. The finite element method, volume 3
of The finite element method for fluid dynamics. Butterworth-Heinemann, 6th edition,
2006. [cited at p. 33]
[160] A. Zucchini and P.B. Lourenco. A coupled homogenization-damage model for masonry
cracking. Computers and Structures, 2004. [cited at p. 9]

Sielicki Piotr W Masonry Failure Under Unusual Impulse Loading

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sielicki Piotr W Masonry Failure Under Unusual Impulse Loading

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Poznan University of Technology

Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Masonry Failure under Unusual

Thesis by Piotr W. Sielicki

Supervisor: Prof. Tomasz odygowski

Conversion of the measure units

2 Material behavior under dynamic loading

4 Modeling of masonry behavior under blast

5 Reinforcing masonry to resist explosions

B Safety criteria and protection levels

Conversion of the measure units

Distance and Length

CONVERSION OF THE MEASURE UNITS

Pressure Impulse (US to SI, and SI to US)

Scaled Distance (US to SI, and SI to US)

1 foot/lb 3 = 2.520 m/kg 3

Scaled Impulse (US to SI, and SI to US)

1 PSI ms/lb 3 = 0.111 Pa s/kg 3

Motivation and aim of the work

1.2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Phenomenon of explosion: experimental and numerical approach

1.2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Material behavior under dynamic loading

are measured in EMT that is equivalent megatons.

1.2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Theoretical models for masonry

1.2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Main goal formulation

Motivation to undertake this study is significant usage of masonry structures. The

1.3. MAIN GOAL FORMULATION

engineering simplification for prediction of blast pressure features

introduction to numerical design of explosion phenomenon

Material behavior under dynamic

CHAPTER 2. MATERIAL BEHAVIOR UNDER DYNAMIC LOADING

Table 2.1: Speed of deformation for specific physical phenomena [84]

Velocity of deformation [s1 ]

2.2. MATERIAL UNDER DIFFERENT STRAIN RATES

Table 2.2: Load classification [140]

Type of the load

Material under different strain rates

CHAPTER 2. MATERIAL BEHAVIOR UNDER DYNAMIC LOADING

of the Structural Engineering.

2.2. MATERIAL UNDER DIFFERENT STRAIN RATES

Figure 2.2: SPHB laboratory and the tested specimens

CHAPTER 2. MATERIAL BEHAVIOR UNDER DYNAMIC LOADING

2.2. MATERIAL UNDER DIFFERENT STRAIN RATES

significantly different for tension and compression.

CHAPTER 2. MATERIAL BEHAVIOR UNDER DYNAMIC LOADING

Close-In Design Range

not taken into account particularly for bricks.

2.2. MATERIAL UNDER DIFFERENT STRAIN RATES

Figure 2.7: Masonry usage in typical construction structures

CHAPTER 2. MATERIAL BEHAVIOR UNDER DYNAMIC LOADING

Figure 2.8: Impulse vs. loading under dynamic process

Considering the strength of materials in aspect of rapid dynamics, very important

2.3. ENGINEERING DESIGN OF MASONRY UNDER EXPLOSION

Figure 2.9: Behavior of non-reinforced masonry exposed to blast action

Engineering design of masonry under explosion

CHAPTER 2. MATERIAL BEHAVIOR UNDER DYNAMIC LOADING

2.3. ENGINEERING DESIGN OF MASONRY UNDER EXPLOSION

Explosion and blast waves action on

CHAPTER 3. EXPLOSION AND BLAST WAVES ACTION

Explosion and blast wave features