See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279904142

Numerical modelling of masonry wall response

to blast loads

Article in Australian Journal of Structural Engineering January 2009

CITATIONS READS

2 42

1 author:

Hong Hao
Curtin University
485 PUBLICATIONS 5,605 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Hong Hao
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 22 November 2016
 37

Numerical modelling of masonry

wall response to blast loads *

H Hao
School of Civil and Resource Engineering, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA

SUMMARY: Masonry walls are commonly used in both residential and office buildings as either
load-carrying structural components or partition walls. Failure of a load-carrying masonry wall to
terrorist bombing attack or accidental gas explosion could result in collapse of the structure. The
debris generated from the failed masonry wall will also impose great threats to the building occupants.
Therefore dynamic response and failure of masonry walls to blast loads must be evaluated for safety
assessment of building structures. In this study, a recently developed homogenised orthotropic
masonry material model with strain rate effect is used to model masonry material damage. The model
consists of a pressure-sensitive strength envelope, an equation of state and a double exponential
damage model. In addition, an innovative approach based on the combined facture mechanics and
continuum damage mechanics theory is used to estimate the masonry fragment size distributions.
The method estimates masonry wall fragmentation process in two steps to avoid eroding away the
masonry material. Numerical simulations of a 2.88 2.82 m masonry wall to blast loads generated
from TNT explosions of different weights and at different standoff distances are carried out. The
material strain rate effects on masonry wall dynamic responses are discussed. The numerically
predicted masonry fragment size distributions are also presented.

1 INTRODUCTION
Masonry is a common construction material. It
is often used to build load-carrying or non-load-
carrying partition walls in residential and office
buildings. Masonry wall damage to blast load may
lead to collapse of building structures. The debris
generated from the failing masonry wall also imposes
great hazards to building occupants. Many studies
of masonry wall response and damage to blast
loads have been reported. In general there are three
approaches, namely experimental, analytical and
numerical. The most common and direct approach
to study masonry wall damage is to collect field
data and/or conduct laboratory and field blast
tests to develop empirical relations of masonry wall
damage and blast loading conditions (Davidson et
al, 2004; 2005; Knock et al, 2004; Baylot et al, 2005;
Zapata & Weggel, 2008). However, conducting field
and laboratory tests is often prohibitive because of
their high cost and safety consideration. Usually
* Paper S08-001 submitted 12/11/08; accepted for
publication after review and revision 15/04/09.
Published in AJSE Online 2009, pp. 37-52.
Corresponding author Prof Hong Hao can be
contacted at hao@civil.uwa.edu.au.
only limited test data are available and they are
not recommended to being extrapolated to model
the masonry wall behaviour under blast loadings
because of many uncertainties involved in wall
structural design, material properties and explosion
conditions, as compared to the testing conditions.
The analytical approach usually simplifies the
masonry wall to a single degree-of-freedom (SDOF)
system and the wall behaviour under blast loading is
predicted by analysing the dynamic responses of the
SDOF system (Moradi et al, 2009). Some computer
programs have been developed based on the SDOF
simplification to analyse wall responses (Slawson,
1995). Many pressure-impulse (P-I) diagrams for
wall panels were also generated by performing
SDOF analyses (Oswald & Skerhut, 1993; Jones,
1989; Mayrhofer, 2002; Salim et al, 2005). It has been
proven that analysing a properly derived equivalent
SDOF system can yield reasonable predictions of
the wall responses (Forsen, 1985). However, it is
still a research topic and a challenge to derive a
reliable resistance function and load-mass factor
for simplifying the wall system to a SDOF system
(Luyten et al, 2007). This is because under high-
speed loading, the wall damage may be caused by
stress wave propagation in the wall, or primarily by
shear failure mode or combined shear and flexural

Institution of Engineers Australia, 2009 Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol 10 No 1

S08-001 Hao.indd 37 23/07/09 10:20 AM

 38 Numerical modelling of masonry wall response to blast loads Hao
failure mode. Moreover, a SDOF system is unable
to model local failure of the wall and cannot predict
fragmentation process of the wall.
With the increased computer power, finite element
model and numerical analysis of masonry wall
responses to blast loads become possible. Dorn et
al (2000) used an Eulerian finite difference code
GRIM and DYNA3D to analyse the damage and
collapse of a two-storey masonry structure subjected
to an internal explosion. To reduce the required
computational time and computer memory, in that
study, the bricks were assumed to be rigid and only
mortar was subjected to failure. To further reduce
the model size, mortar joints in the vertical direction
of the wall were assumed to be continuous from
the bottom to the top of the wall. All the mortar
joints were modelled with slideline elements with a
prescribed failure criterion. To obtain stable results
and failure of bricks under blast loads, more slideline
elements were used than the actual mortar joints by
dividing each brick into four blocks. Comparable
numerical predictions of the wall failure patterns
with the field blast test results were observed. Dennis
et al (2002) and Eamon et al (2004) also used DYNA3D
to model concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall to blast
loads. Davidson et al (2005) used LS-DYNA to model
polymer reinforced concrete masonry wall response.
Moreland et al (2005) used LS-DYNA to model the
responses of a clay brick masonry wall strengthened
with various fibre-reinforced polymers (FRPs) to
study the efficiency of FRP strengthening to resist
blast loads. Zhou et al (2006) used AUTODYN with
user-defined subroutines to define the detailed clay
brick and mortar properties to predict response and
damage of masonry wall to blast loads. All the above
numerical simulations give reasonable predictions of
masonry wall damage to blast loads. However, using
detailed numerical modelling of the distinctive brick
and mortar materials is extremely time consuming
and requires enormous computer memory.
One approach to reduce the computational demand
is to use the homogenised masonry material model.
Pande et al (1989) derived the equivalent elastic
moduli for brick masonry from the elastic properties
of individual components. Pietruszczak & Niu (1992)
assumed the masonry material as an orthotropic
elastic-brittle material and derived the homogenised
mechanical properties of masonry. Anthoine (1995)
derived the global elastic coefficients of masonry
through numerical method, taking into account the
finite thickness of masonry. A homogenised model
for the limit analysis of masonry wall was presented
by de Buhan & de Felice (1997). In the latter study,
the brick units were assumed as infinitely resistant
and the joints were modelled as interfaces of zero
thickness with a frictional failure surface. Luciano
& Sacco (1997) proposed a brittle damage model for
old masonries, characterised by an elementary cell
composed by units, mortar and a finite number of
fractures on the interfaces. Ma et al (2001) derived the
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
S08-001 Hao.indd 38
homogenised elastic moduli, strength and damage
model of masonry through numerical simulations.
Cluni & Gusella (2004) used a homogenisation
approach to analyse non-periodic masonry structures
and deduced the homogenised medium stiffness
tensor. Zucchini & Lourenco (2004) developed an
isotropic damage model for masonry based on a
micro-mechanical homogenisation model. Wu &
Hao (2006) derived a 3D homogenisation model for
masonry including orthotropic elastic properties, a
damage evolution model and a pressure-sensitive
strength envelope.
All the above numerical studies, as well as the
homogenised masonry material models, are based on
static masonry material properties, ie. static strength
and modulus of mortar and brick. This is because
of the lack of dynamic masonry material properties
in the literature. Recently some dynamic tests were
conducted at the University of Western Australia
(UWA) on clay brick and mortar materials (Hao &
Tarasov, 2008). The empirical relations of dynamic
increase factor (DIF), which is defined as the ratio
of the dynamic material property to the respective
static material property at different strain rates, for
clay brick and mortar were derived from the testing
results. Using these dynamic material properties,
homogenised masonry material properties with
strain rate effect have also been derived numerically
(Wei & Hao, 2009). These homogenised masonry
material properties will be used in this study.
Debris generated from the damaged masonry
wall under blast loading imposes a great threat to
occupants. There are in general four approaches,
namely experimental, theoretical, analytical and
numerical, to study the fragmentation process and
estimate the fragment size distribution and launching
velocity. Gronsten et al (2006; 2007) conducted 28
field blast tests to study the debris distribution and
launching velocity from concrete cubicles subjected
to an internal explosion. Wu et al (2008) tested a few
concrete slabs with or without carbon fibre-reinforced
polymer (CFRP) strengthening and conducted a
statistical analysis of the test data to determine the
fragment size distributions. Because the inherent
structural conditions and surrounding environments,
which greatly influence the blast wave propagation,
vary from structure to structure and are usually
different from the model structures tested in the
field, these test results do not necessarily reflect the
true phenomenon of the blast debris in an explosion
event. Some theoretical and analytical models have
been developed from the theory of continuum
damage mechanics and/or fracture mechanics, and
energy and momentum balance principles (Grady,
1988; Yew & Taylor, 1993; Liu & Katsabanis, 1997;
Zhang et al, 2003). In these derivations, materials
are assumed as homogeneous and isotropic. They
usually give reasonable predictions of the mean
fragment size, but not the fragment size distributions
and launching velocity. Numerical models have also
Vol 10 No 1
23/07/09 10:20 AM
 Numerical modelling of masonry wall response to blast loads Hao
been reported to predict fragment size distributions
and launching velocities. These include finite
element model, finite element model with interface
constraints, discrete element model, mesh-free
model, lattice model, applied element method,
generalised particle algorithm (GPA), and material
point method (MPM). Hao et al (2008) conducted a
review of the various methods in predicting the blast
fragmentation process and debris size distributions,
launching velocities and launching distances.
Because the dynamic fragmentation process of
construction materials such as masonry and concrete
under blast loading is very complex, all these models
have intrinsic difficulties for practical application to
reliably predict blast generated debris.
Debris impacts may cause damage to structures
and injure occupants. Various criteria are available
for human protection from debris impact. For
example, the US Armed Services Explosives Safety
Board gives the criteria for various human injury
levels in terms of the fragment mass and velocity
at impact (Ahlers, 1969). These criteria had been
widely accepted by US Department of Defence
(DoD) and the US Department of Energy (DoE) (US
DoE, 1981). In general, a fragment of larger mass
and higher impact velocity imposes a greater threat
to humans. According to these criteria, a fragment
of 0.02 kg with an impact velocity of 150 m/s has
a lethality probability of about 90%. For the same
lethality probability, the impact velocity reduces to 15
m/s if the fragment mass is 2 kg. More recently, the
Integrated Security Committee (ISC, 2001), FEMA
Premier for design of commercial buildings to mitigate
terrorist attacks (FEMA, 2003a) and FEMA Reference
manual to mitigate potential terrorist attacks against
buildings (FEMA, 2003b) use flying distance and
height of glass fragments above the floor or ground
level to assess the protection levels of building
structures from fragments impact. Other codes, such
as the NATO Safety Principles for storage of military
ammunition and explosives (NATO, 2003), use debris
density (number of debris/area) to estimate the
lethality probability. To use these criteria in assessing
the blast fragment threats to building occupants, it is
critical to have a reliable prediction of fragment size
(mass), velocity and flying distance.
In this study, damage of a masonry wall to blast
loads at different scaled distances (R/W1/3; R is the
stand-off distance of explosion centre, and W is the
equivalent TNT charge weight), and the generated
fragment size distributions are numerically simulated
using the computer software AUTODYN with the
user-defined subroutines. The blast loads were
estimated according to the charts given in TM5-
1300 (US DoD, 1990). Only the positive phase of
blast pressure is considered in the simulation. The
homogenised masonry properties with or without
strain rate effect are used in the simulation (Wei
& Hao, 2009). A two-step approach based on the
theories of continuum damage mechanics and
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
S08-001 Hao.indd 39
39
mechanics of micro-crack development is used
to simulate masonry wall fragmentation process
(Wang et al, 2009). The fragmentation is modelled
according to the crack initiation and propagation,
which depend on the material damage levels and
are estimated using continuum damage mechanics.
A finite element model is used to estimate the
material damage and fragment size distribution. This
method avoids using erosion technique and avoids
discretising the structure into particles or predefined
weak sections, therefore overcomes the difficulties in
the other numerical methods for reliable prediction
of fragment sizes. The numerical results of masonry
damage are comparable to some available empirical
criterion (USACE, 2006) and other studies (Zapata
& Weggel, 2008). The masonry wall fragment size
distributions are found to be better described by the
generalised extreme value distribution, although
Weibull distribution also well represents those
generated by blast loads of certain scaled distances.
2 HOMOGENISED MASONRY
MATERIAL MODEL
Homogenised masonry material properties with
strain rate effect were derived numerically in a
previous study (Wei & Hao, 2009). The numerical
homogenisation process is to use numerical
calculations to simulate physical tests. The
homogenised masonry material properties were
obtained by analysing a representative volume
element (RVE) in detail with distinctive brick and
mortar properties and strain rate effect. Responses
of the RVE under different stress states at different
loading rates were numerically simulated. All the
possible stress states including uniaxial tension
and compression, biaxial and triaxial tension and
compression, various combinations of tension and
compression, tension or compression and shear
were considered. Non-linear material properties
of brick and mortar including post-failure region
in tension and compression were modelled in the
simulation with a double exponential damage model
(Mazars, 1986). The static material properties of
brick and mortar are listed in table 1, which were
determined from the test data (Hao & Tarasov,
2008), in which is Poissons ratio, st0 is the uniaxial
tensile strength, sc0 is the uniaxial compressive
strength, sttt0 is the triaxial tensile strength, and
represents the corresponding strain. The triaxial
tensile strength is assumed to be about one-third
of the uniaxial tensile strength because no triaxial
tensile test data is available. The strain rate effects
on brick and mortar material properties, including
strength, modulus and Poissons ratio obtained from
impact tests (Hao & Tarasov 2008), were used in the
simulation. The brick size is 230 110 76 mm and
the mortar thickness is 10 mm. The homogenised
masonry material properties were extracted from
the numerical results. More detailed information on
Vol 10 No 1
23/07/09 10:20 AM
 40 Numerical modelling of masonry wall response to blast loads Hao

Table 1: Material parameters for brick and mortar.

st0 (MPa) sc0 (MPa) sttt0 (MPa) st0 sc0

Brick 0.12 2.60 41.28 1.00 0.00024 0.0050
Mortar 0.2 1.00 5.88 0.40 0.00045 0.00267

the static and dynamic brick and mortar material
properties are given in Hao & Tarasov (2008),
and the detailed descriptions on derivation of the
homogenised masonry material properties are given
in Wei & Hao (2009). These homogenised masonry
material properties are used in the present paper to
model the masonry materials as it has been proven
that using homogenised material properties in the
simulation is computationally more efficient than
using the distinctive modelling of brick and mortar
materials (Wang et al, 2009). The following briefly
introduces the numerically derived homogenised
The DIF for the uniaxial strength and elastic modulus
are given in equations (2) to (13), next page.
The tensile threshold strains that correspond to the
ultimate stresses in the three directions at strain rate
0.001 s1 are, respectively, 2.10 104, 2.30 104 and
2.59 104. The equivalent threshold tensile strain
at strain rate 0.001 s1 for the homogenised material,
(H xx
2
 H yy
2
 H zz2 )/ 3 , is 2.34 104. The DIF of the
equivalent threshold tensile strain, H t , is in equation
0
(14).
masonry material properties. 1.0200  0.0067 log 10  H  H d 8.75
DIF of H t0
Masonry is an orthotropic material. The compliance
matrix can be expressed as:
1 Q yx Q zx
  0 0
Ex Ey Ez
1 Q zy
 0
Ey Ez
1
0 0
Ez
[C] [S]1
1
2Gxy
1
Sym.
2Gyz
where [C] is the compliance matrix and [S] is
the stiffness matrix. The elastic moduli of the
equivalent material at strain rate H = 0.001 are
Ex = 3.67 GPa, Ey = 3.92 GPa, Ez = 3.47 GPa; shear
moduli Gxy=1.86GPa, Gyz = 1.58 GPa, Gxz = 1.50 GPa;
and Poissons ratio yx = 0.16, zx = 0.15, zy = 0.15,
where y is the horizontal out-of-plane direction, x is
the horizontal in-plane direction and z is the vertical
direction. These parameters under other strain rates
can be obtained by multiplying these values with
the respective DIF.
The DIF for the homogenised masonry material
properties were derived in the strain rate region
of 0.001-200 s1 (Wei & Hao, 2009). The strain rate
0.001s1 is taken as the reference static strain rate.
The static uniaxial compression strengths are:
xc=9.0MPa, yc = 12.0 MPa and zc = 8.5 MPa. The
uniaxial tensile strength of the homogenised masonry
is 10% of the corresponding compressive strength.
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
S08-001 Hao.indd 40
0.7010  0.3454 log 10  H  H ! 8.75
(14)
The strength envelope for the homogenised masonry
0
material is derived and expressed in I1  J 2 plane,
as shown in figure 1. Because masonry is also likely
0 0
to fail under triaxial compression, a yield cap is
proposed. This strength envelope is divided into four
0 parts. The functional forms for these four parts are:
0 0 F1 = I1 T = 0 (15)
Fi D i I 1  J 2  ci 0 i 2, 3 (16)
0
F4 = (I1 p2)2 + R2J2 (p2 p3)2 = 0 (17)
1
2Gzx
where I1 and J2 are the first invariant of stress tensor
and the second invariant of deviatoric stress tensor.
(1) The function F1 indicates the tension cut-off zone,
with T denoting the materials tension limit. The yield
surface Fi (i = 2,3) is Drucker-Prager functions. i and
ci are material constants. The cap yield surface F4 is an
elliptical function, with R denoting the ratio of major
to minor axis of elliptic cap and R = (p2 p3)/b2. The
constants p2, b2 and p3 determine the position of the cap
surface. p2, b2 and p3 also increase with the strain rate.
The yield surface F1 is determined under triaxial tensile
stress state. The hydro-tensile strength is assumed to
be one-third of the uniaxial tensile strength in the
z direction, ie. ttt = 1/3zt because the z direction
has the smallest tensile strength. Considering the
state of stress when I1 is equal to zt, this will lead to
T = zt. The smallest tensile strength zt and compressive
strength zc are used to evaluate the parameters for
F2 and F3. Considering the uniaxial tensile stress state
(I1 = zt, J 2 1/ 3V zt) and uniaxial compressive
stress state (p1 = I1 = zc, b1 J2 1/ 3V zc), it has:
Vol 10 No 1
23/07/09 10:20 AM
 Numerical modelling of masonry wall response to blast loads Hao 41

1.1140  0.0380 log 10  H  H d 3.55

DIF of V zc (2)
1.1338  0.3417 log 10  H   0.6247  log 10  H   H ! 3.55
2

1.1240  0.0413 log10  H  H d 4.26

DIF of V xc (3)
1.1550  0.5325log 10  H   0.8340  log10  H   H ! 4.26
2

1.2500  0.0833 log10  H  H d 0.96

DIF of V yc (4)
1.2707  0.1343 log 10  H   0.6078  log 10  H   H ! 0.96
2

1.0600  0.0200 log 10  H  H d 1.21

DIF of V zt (5)
1.0275  0.3751log 10  H   0.3872  log10  H   H ! 1.21
2

1.2200  0.0733 log10  H  H d 1.27

DIF of V xt (6)
1.2132  0.0796 log 10  H   0.5663  log 10  H   H ! 1.27
2

1.2500  0.0833 log10  H  H d 1.23

DIF of V yt (7)
1.2146  0.4304 log10  H   0.4574  log 10  H   H ! 1.23
2

1.0100  0.0033 log 10  H  H d 3.08

DIF of Ez (8)
1.0266  0.2196 log 10  H   0.3854  log 10  H   H ! 3.08
2

1.0460  0.0153 log 10  H  H d 1.05

DIF of Ex (9)
1.0447  0.0709log10  H   0.3339  log 10  H   H ! 1.05
2

1.1050  0.0350 log10  H  H d 1.00

DIF of Ey (10)
1.1078  0.0495 log 10  H   0.4099  log 10  H   H ! 1.00
2

1.1100  0.0367 log 10  H  H d 1.14

DIF of Gzx (11)
1.1216  0.0336 log 10  H   0.1749  log10  H   H ! 1.14
2

1.1300  0.0433 log 10  H  H d 1.10

DIF of Gyz (12)
1.1229  0.2152log 10  H   0.1222  log10  H   H ! 1.10
2

1.1800  0.0600 log 10  H  H d 1.49

DIF of Gxy (13)
1.1885  0.0137 log 10  H   0.3087  log 10  H   H ! 1.49
2

Figure 1: Strength envelop of the homogenised masonry material.

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 10 No 1

S08-001 Hao.indd 41 23/07/09 10:20 AM

 42 Numerical modelling of masonry wall response to blast loads Hao

1/ 3(V zc  V zt ) and damage to blast loads. More detailed information

D2 regarding the homogenised masonry material
V zt  V zc (18)
properties can be found in Wei & Hao (2009).
c2 (D 2  1/ 3)V zt

The values of p2, b2 and p3 depend on the confined 3 MODELLING OF

compression. At strain rate 0.001 s1, p20 = 23.57 MPa, FRAGMENTATION PROCESS
b20 = 8.10 MPa and p30 = 55.0 MPa, thus the DIF of p2,
b2 and p3 are as given in equations (19) to (21), below. Fragmentation of brittle materials is caused by time-
dependent tensile fractures. When the applied load
The parameter 3 and c3 are: exceeds the dynamic strength, pre-existing flaws
or induced damage begin to crack, and the crack
b2  1/ 3V zc
D3 will propagate further under the dynamic loads.
 p2  V zc (22) Fragments form when the main cracks coalesce with
c3 D 3 p2  b2 others. A crack growth variable tensor Ci is defined
to describe the anisotropic fracture state (Grady &
The cap yield surface F 4 can be determined by Kipp 1980):
substituting p2, p3 and R = (p2 p3)/b2 in equation (17).
Ci = NiAi i = 1, 2, 3 (26)
The rate-dependent plastic damage constitutive
relation of the homogenised masonry material in the where Ni is the number of idealised penny-shaped
macrolevel can be derived as: cracks per unit area in the principal direction i; and Ai
is the fracture region surrounding the penny-shaped
wM wF
[E]De [E]De flaw, which approximates the area of stress-relieved
w ^V ` w ^V `T material due to the presence of the traction-free
[E]ep [E]De  (23)
wF wM boundary of the crack.
H  T [E]D
e

w ^V ` w ^V `
Both Ni and Ai are related with the overstress time
duration, and the crack growth variable Ci can be
where [E]ep is the elastoplastic incremental matrix; F is defined as:
the yield function; M is the plastic potential function
t
that is identical to the yield function if an associated
flow rule is applied; H is the stiffness hardening
Ci (t) N i (W )Ai (t  W )dW (27)
tcri
factor; and [E]D is the damaged elastic matrix, which
e

can be expressed as: where ticr is the duration needed for fracture to take
place in direction i. Let denote the time instant for
[E]De (1  D)[E]0 (24) the initiation of a crack, the crack growth depends on
the elapsed time, t , and the strain (t). Under blast
where [E]0 is the initial homogenised anisotropic loading condition, it is reasonable to assume fracture
elastic modulus matrix. D is the damage scalar, growth velocity quickly approaches to the limiting
defined as: crack propagation velocity cig after activation, then
the penny-shaped fracture region can be expressed as:
D 1  exp( E (H   H 0t )/ H 0t ) (25)
Ai(t ) = cig2(t )2 (28)
in which H is the equivalent tensile strain of


masonry; and E is a damage parameter, it is set to According to many previous researches (eg.
0.5 based on a previous study (Ma et al, 2001). These Kanninen & Popelar, 1985), cig for brittle materials
masonry material models are programmed and can be expressed as:
linked to AUTODYN as its user-defined subroutines
in the study to calculate the masonry wall response c ig 0.38 Ei / U (29)

1.0500  0.0167 log 10  H  H d 2.91

DIF of p2 (19)
1.0358  0.0203 log 10  H   0.1458  log 10  H   H ! 2.91
2

1.0500  0.0167 log 10  H  H d 1.25

DIF of b2 (20)
1.0591  0.1217 log10  H   0.1400  log 10  H   H ! 1.25
2

1.0900  0.0300 log 10  H  H d 1.11

DIF of p3 (21)
1.0790  0.2828 log 10  H   0.0556  log 10  H   H ! 1.11
2

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 10 No 1

S08-001 Hao.indd 42 23/07/09 10:20 AM

 Numerical modelling of masonry wall response to blast loads Hao 43

where Ei is the elastic modulus in the ith principal 1 Si i

direction, and is the material density. The
F(Si ) Z( , t f ) (39)
2 2
total number of cracks per unit area in the plane
perpendicular to the ith direction is represented by Substituting equation (37) into equation (39) gives:
Ni, which can be expressed as:
SD Si2 E
i E
F(Si ) H i (W if )  H cri (40)
Ni D Hi  H cr t (30) 8c ig

where and are material constants, and icr is the in which if = tif Si/2cig. With the average strain rate
dynamic threshold strain, and t is the time duration. Hi in equation (33), F(Si) becomes:
In equation (30), the angular bracket denotes a
SD Si2 E
function defined as x (|x| x )/ 2 . The increase F(Si ) Hi t if  tcri  Si /(2cgi ) (41)
rate of crack number N i is given by: 8c ig

N i D H i  H cri
E wF(Si )
(31) When 0, F(Si) reaches its maximum value.
wSi
Substituting equations (28) and (31) into equation This gives the most probable fragment size Sim as:
(27) gives: 4c ig
Sim (t if  tcri ) (42)
t
E E 2
Ci (t) DSc Hi  H (t  W ) dW
i2 i 2
g cr (32)
tcri
The final fragment size is approximately estimated
Considering cracks grow very fast in brittle materials, as the square root of the summation of squares of the
and assume an average strain rate Hi as: fragment size in every principal direction as:
t
L (Sim )2 (43)
H i (s)ds i 1 3

Hi tcri
(33)
t  tcri The above formulae are used to estimate fragment
size distribution in this study. It should be noted that
Then equation (32) can be rewritten as: using this approach, erosion is not necessary in the
t calculation of fragment sizes. Erosion is a numerical
E
Ci (t) DSc gi 2Hi E W  tcri (t  W )2 dW (34) technique that is commonly used in finite element
tcri model as a remedial action to extend the Lagrange
formulation to highly distorted domain. Because
and the crack dimension can be estimated by: of the losses of internal energy and mass caused
by erosion, using erosion technique may result in
r = cig(t ) (35)
inaccurate prediction of fragment distributions. More
Substituting equation (35) into equation (32) gives detailed information regarding the blast fragment
another expression of crack growth variable as: prediction can be found in Wang et al (2009).
ccri ( t tcri )
Ci (t) 0 Zi (r , t)dr (36)
4 NUMERICAL RESULTS
SD r 2 E AND DISCUSSION
Zi ( r , t ) H i (W )  H cri (37)
c ig
The above models and homogenised material
properties are programmed and linked to AUTODYN
where = t r/cig, and i(r, t) is the crack size to calculate the masonry wall damage and fragment
distribution function in the i th direction. When
hazards subjected to blast loads. In numerical
the cracks are completely developed (Ci(t) = 1),
simulations, the material stress and strain at each
fragments form up. Let tif denote the instant when
time increment are calculated using the continuum
Ci(t) = 1, and assume the fragment size is twice of the
damage mechanics theory and damage model
corresponding crack length because crack propagates
presented in section 2. The fragment size is estimated
in opposite directions (Grady & Olsen, 2003), ie. the
using those described in section 3. The blast loads are
fragment size in the ith direction is Si = 2r, equation
estimated using TM5-1300 (US DoD, 1990). Only the
(36) becomes:
positive phase of the blast pressure is considered.
2 ccri ( t tcri ) 1 Si A masonry wall of 2.88 m width and 2.82 m height
Ci (t) 0 2
Zi ( , t)dSi
2
(38) is used as an example in this study. The wall is
assumed to consist of only one brick layer. The brick
The fragment size distribution function can be dimension is 230 110 76 mm, and the mortar
expressed as (Grady & Kipp, 1980): layer is 10 mm thick. Both bed and head joints are

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 10 No 1

S08-001 Hao.indd 43 23/07/09 10:20 AM

 44 Numerical modelling of masonry wall response to blast loads Hao
considered having the same material properties. The
boundary conditions between the masonry wall and
surrounding frame are very complex. In structural
analysis of reinforced masonry wall with dowels
extended into the surrounding frame, the boundary
conditions can be approximately modelled as fixed.
For unreinforced masonry wall, the boundary
conditions are usually assumed as pinned. In the
present study, because detailed material properties
are considered in the analysis, all the four sides of the
wall are modelled as fixed with a weak 10 mm mortar
layer between the fixed boundary and the wall with
the homogenised material properties. This mortar
layer is used to represent the connections between
the masonry wall and the surrounding frame.
Because of the lack of the information on strain rate
effect on masonry material properties, most of the
previous numerical simulations of masonry wall
response to blast loads neglected the strain rate effect.
In this study, the strain rate effect on responses of
masonry wall to blast loads is investigated first by
conducting numerical simulations with or without
including the strain rate effect. Figure 2 shows the
damage contours of the wall obtained with or without
considering the strain rate effect and subjected to
the blast load of scaled distance approximately
1.0 m/kg 1/3 (TNT equivalent explosive weight
2000kg and standoff distance 13 m). The strain rate
of the masonry wall in this case is about 200 to 250s1.
As shown, the simulated damage contours for the
two cases are very similar, considering the strain
rate effect results in slightly less number of cracks
in the masonry wall. It should be noted that in this
simulation erosion technique is used. Therefore the
damage occurs near the four boundaries of the wall,
which are assumed to be fixed with a weaker mortar
layer, because the largest stresses build up near the
wall boundary very quickly. The centre portion of the
wall flies out as a single piece after the damage of the
wall near the boundary. This observation indicates
that the masonry wall fragment size distribution
(a)
Figure 2: Damage contours of the masonry wall to blast load of scaled distance 1.0 m/kg1/3
(a) no strain rate effect, and (b) with strain rate effect.
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
S08-001 Hao.indd 44
cannot be reliably modelled if erosion technique is
used in the simulation. As shown, the wall clearly
suffers brittle shear failure without significant
flexural deflections. This failure mode is expected for
a wall subjected to a blast load of such a short scaled
distance. In general, when a structure is subjected to
a large amplitude and short duration load, it intends
to fail primarily by brittle shear mode. On the other
hand, a structure will most likely to fail by primarily
the flexural failure mode when the blast load has a
relatively small amplitude and long duration.
Figure 3 shows the corresponding displacement
and velocity time histories at the centre point of the
wall. As shown, both the displacement and velocity
responses obtained with or without considering the
strain rate effect are very similar. This is because
the wall is completely destroyed by the blast loads
in this case. As shown, at about 0.003 s, the velocity
response becomes almost a constant, implying the
wall loses its load-carrying capacity or collapses at
this time instant, and the velocity depends only on
the impulse of the blast loads and the mass of the
wall. At this instant, the displacement response is
about 110 mm, which is close to the thickness of the
masonry wall model, ie. 110 mm. The US Army Corps
of Engineers recommends that the extreme deflection
of the infill wall is close to its thickness, which can
be used as a simple criterion to assess the collapse
state of an unreinforced masonry wall under blast
load (USACE, 2006). Zapata & Weggel (2008) also
found that the collapse deflection of the unreinforced
masonry wall under blast loading approximately
equals to its thickness. The current simulation result
is consistent with those criterion and observations.
Figure 4 shows the damage contours of the wall
subjected to the blast load of scaled distance
approximately 3.0 m/kg 1/3 (TNT equivalent
explosive weight 2000 kg and standoff distance
38m). The corresponding displacement and velocity
response time histories are shown in figure 5. Similar
(b)
Vol 10 No 1
23/07/09 10:20 AM
 Numerical modelling of masonry wall response to blast loads Hao 45

(a) (b)

Figure 3: Displacement (a) and velocity (b) response time histories of the masonry
wall centre to blast load of scaled distance 1 m/kg1/3.

(a) (b)

Figure 4: Damage contours of the masonry wall to blast load of scaled distance 3 m/kg1/3
(a) no strain rate effect, and (b) with strain rate effect.

(a) (b)

Figure 5: Displacement (a) and velocity (b) response time histories of the masonry
wall centre to blast load of scaled distance 3 m/kg1/3.

observations can also be made as in the case of the strain rate, the masonry wall fails under this blast
scaled distance 1.0 m/kg1/3, ie. considering the strain load. The failure mode is still predominantly shear
rate effect results in less damage in the masonry failure. However, unlike the previous case with the
wall, although with or without considering the scaled distance 1.0 m/kg1/3, the flexural displacement

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 10 No 1

S08-001 Hao.indd 45 23/07/09 10:20 AM

 46 Numerical modelling of masonry wall response to blast loads Hao

is very prominent in this case because the loading
amplitude is substantially smaller and duration
longer as compared to the previous loading case.
It should be noted that the strain rate in this case is
approximately in the range between 16 and 40 s1.
It can be seen again that when the displacement is
about 110 mm at about 0.015 s, the velocity becomes
relatively a constant, indicating the collapse of the
wall. This collapse displacement is again consistent
with the empirical criterion (USACE, 2006) and
observations by Zapata & Weggel (2008).
The damage contours, and displacement and velocity
response time histories of the wall subjected to
the blast load of scaled distance 5 m/kg1/3 (TNT
equivalent explosive weight 350 kg, standoff distance
35 m) are shown in figures 6 and 7, respectively. As
shown, the wall suffers extensive damage, but does
not collapse. At this scaled distance, the strain rate
of masonry wall response is approximately between
6 and 15 s1. Although the strain rate is relatively
small as compared to the cases with smaller scaled
distances, the strain rate effect on wall responses is
prominent. Neglecting the strain rate effect results
in more number of cracks (eroded areas) and more
intensive cracks in the masonry wall; and causes
about 22% overestimation of the displacement
response, and 30% overestimation of the velocity
response, as compared to those obtained with strain
rate effect. This observation indicates the importance
of considering the material strain rate effect. As
shown, unlike the previous two cases the response
mode in this case is predominantly flexural and
therefore damage is mainly tensile cracks behind the
wall near the wall centre.
To further investigate the material strain rate effect on
the wall responses, the responses to the blast load of
scaled distance 7 m/kg1/3 (TNT equivalent explosive
weight 200 kg and standoff distance 41m) are also
calculated and the results are shown in figures 8
and 9. As shown, at this scaled distance, the wall
suffers minor damages only at its centre, but no
crack is observed. The influence of the strain rate
effect on wall responses reduces, although it is still
obvious. This is because the wall response strain rate
at this scaled distance is rather small, only about 1.3
to 2.0 s1. At this strain rate, the DIF is close to 1.0,

(a) (b)

Figure 6: Damage contours of the masonry wall to blast load of scaled distance 5 m/kg1/3
(a) no strain rate effect, and (b) with strain rate effect.

(a) (b)

Figure 7: Displacement (a) and velocity (b) response time histories of the masonry
wall centre to blast load of scaled distance 5 m/kg1/3.

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 10 No 1

S08-001 Hao.indd 46 23/07/09 10:20 AM

 Numerical modelling of masonry wall response to blast loads Hao 47

(a) (b)

Figure 8: Damage contours of the masonry wall to blast load of scaled distance 7 m/kg1/3
(a) no strain rate effect, and (b) with strain rate effect.

(a) (b)

Figure 9: Displacement (a) and velocity (b) response time histories of the masonry
wall centre to blast load of scaled distance 7 m/kg1/3.

therefore the strain rate effect is not prominent. It
should be noted that this strain rate is comparable
to that of a structure under earthquake loadings.
Under this strain rate the structure response mode is
predominantly flexural, as clearly shown in figure 8.
The above observations indicate the importance of
material strain rate effect on masonry wall responses
to blast loads. At small scaled distances, the blast load
is very large as compared to the masonry material
strength. The wall will be completely destroyed
immediately by brittle shear failure irrespective of
the inclusion of the material strain rate effect. In such
cases, it is not important to include the material strain
rate effect in numerical calculations. On the other
hand, when the scaled distance is relatively large, the
response strain rate becomes small, then the strain
rate effect is not significant either. The strain rate
effect is critical in numerical simulation when the
scaled distance is about 5 m/kg1/3, where the wall is
at a stage of collapse or non-collapse. Neglecting the
material strain rate may substantially overestimate
the wall damage. It should be noted that these results
are based on the standoff distance from 13 to 41 m
and the equivalent TNT explosive weight of 200 to
2000 kg.
Erosion technique is commonly used in continuum
finite element modelling to delete elements with large
deformation to avoid computation overflow due to
element tangling. It is a computational manipulation
that violates the physical laws of conservation of
energy and conversation of mass. Therefore, erosion
should be avoided in numerical simulations whenever
possible. Usually, a large strain or stress is used as
the erosion criterion. When the strain or stress of
the element is larger than the erosion criterion, the
element is deleted in the finite element model. Many
researchers have used erosion technique in numerical
simulation of structure damage to blast loads. It is
concluded that with a proper erosion criterion, the
structure damage can be reliably simulated. However,
as observed above, using the erosion technique
cannot give a reasonable prediction of the fragment
size distributions. In this paper, fracture mechanics
theory is used to model the fragmentation process, as
described in section 3. This approach avoids deleting
any element because for brittle materials like masonry

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 10 No 1

S08-001 Hao.indd 47 23/07/09 10:20 AM

 48 Numerical modelling of masonry wall response to blast loads Hao

crack initiates and propagates before the element
experiences large deformation.
The fragments of the same masonry wall under blast
loads of different scaled distances are simulated. It
should be noted that, unlike the previous cases, in
these simulations the explosive weight is fixed at
1000 kg TNT equivalent, but the standoff distance
varies from 5 to 40 m. Figure 10 shows the fragments
(cracks) pattern of the wall under blast loads of
different scaled distances. As shown, the smaller the
scaled distance, the smaller the dominant fragment
size. This is because the blast load acts very fast with

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)

Figure 10: Fragment (cracks) distribution of the masonry wall under blast loads of different
scaled distances (explosive weight 1000 kg TNT equivalent) (a) 0.5 m/kg1/3,
(b) 1.0 m/kg1/3, (c) 1.5 m/kg1/3, (d) 2.0 m/kg1/3, (e) 2.5 m/kg1/3, (f) 3.0 m/kg1/3,
(g) 3.5 m/kg1/3, and (h) 4.0 m/kg1/3.

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 10 No 1

S08-001 Hao.indd 48 23/07/09 10:20 AM

 Numerical modelling of masonry wall response to blast loads Hao
Figure 11: Fragment size distribution.
a large peak pressure and short duration when the
scaled distance is small. Increase the standoff distance
or scaled distance results in a decrease in the peak
blast load but an increase in the loading duration.
The masonry wall response strain rate decreases with
the scaled distance and then the dominant fragment
size increases. These observations are consistent with
results in many previous studies.
Figure 11 shows the fragment size distributions
corresponding to the cases with blast loads of
scaled distance 1.0 and 4.0 m/kg1/3, respectively.
The fragment size distributions corresponding to
the other scaled distances also have similar shape. It
can be seen that the dominant fragment size is about
0.03 m when the scaled distance is 1.0 m/kg1/3, and it
becomes about 0.1 m at scaled distance 4.0 m/kg1/3.
Many previous studies found that the fragments of
brittle materials generated by blast loads usually
have a Weibull distribution. The current results also
indicated that Weibull distribution can be used to
reliably describe the fragment size distributions,
especially when the scaled distance is small.
With the increase of the scaled distance, however,
the numerical results diverge from the Weibull
distribution. It is found that the generalised extreme
value distribution better represents the fragment size
distributions of all the cases considered in this study.
Therefore the generalised extreme value distribution
is used to represent the fragment size distribution in
this study. The corresponding generalised extreme
value distribution is also shown in figure 11. As
shown, it represents well the numerically simulated
fragment size distributions.
The probability density function of the generalised
extreme value distribution is:
1/k 1
1 xP
f (x; P ,V , k) 1  k( )
V V
(44)
x  P
1/k
u exp  1  k ( ) distance is between 4 and 7 m/kg1/3. In this scaled
V distance range, neglecting the strain rate effect in
where , and k are three parameters controlling
the distribution shape. The best fitted data and
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
S08-001 Hao.indd 49
49
0.6
0.4
P
PVk
V
k
P=-0.001404+0.02724z
0.2 V=0.0003796+0.01015z
k=0.4209+0.9561z-1.84z 2+1.182z 3-0.3158z 4+0.02995z 5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Scaled Distance Z (m/kg 1/3
)
Figure 12: The best fitted parameters for the
fragment size distributions at different
scaled distances.
the corresponding best fitted curves of the three
parameters for the eight cases considered in this
study are shown in figure 12. As shown, the mean
and standard deviation of the fragment size can be
respectively well represented by a linear function
of the scaled distance z, whereas the k value varies
non-linearly with the scaled distance z.
5 CONCLUSION
This paper performs numerical simulations of
masonry wall responses to blast loads. The recently
developed homogenised material models for clay
brick masonry walls with strain rate effect are
used in the study. It is found that when the scaled
distance is less than 4 m/kg1/3, the masonry wall
is completely blown off. The strain rate effect is
not critical in numerical simulations in this scaled
distance range. When the scaled distance is more
than 7 m/kg1/3, no crack is generated on the wall.
The strain rate effect is not important either in this
range because the wall response strain rate is small.
Strain rate effect is prominent when the scaled
numerical simulation may significantly overestimate
the masonry wall damage to blast load. It is also
found that using erosion technique in the simulation
Vol 10 No 1
23/07/09 10:20 AM
 50 Numerical modelling of masonry wall response to blast loads Hao
may yield unreasonable predictions of masonry wall
fragment distribution. The fragmentation process
and fragment distributions can be estimated using
the fracture mechanics approach, which avoids
eroding any element. Numerical simulation results
indicate that Weibull distribution represents well the
fragment size distributions when the blast scaled
distance is small. However, the generalised extreme
value distribution gives a better representation of
the fragment size distributions over the entire scaled
distance range considered in this study. The best
fitted parameters for the fragment size distribution
function corresponding to the different scaled
distances are also derived and presented.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author wishes to acknowledge the financial
support from ARC under grant No. DP0774061.
REFERENCES
Ahlers, E. B. 1969, Fragment hazard study, Minutes
of the Eleventh Explosive Safety Seminar, Vol. 1, Armed
Services Explosives Safety Board, Washington, DC.
Anthoine, A. 1995, Derivation of the in-plane elastic
characteristics of masonry through homogenisation
theory, International Journal of Solids and Structures,
Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 137-163.
Baylot, J. T., Bullock, B., Slawson, T. R. & Woodson, S.
C. 2005, Blast response of lightly attached concrete
masonry unit walls, Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 31, No. 8, pp. 1186-1193.
Cluni, F. & Gusella, V. 2004, Homogenisation of non-
periodic masonry structures, International Journal of
Solids and Structures, Vol. 41, pp. 1911-1923.
Davidson, J. S., Porter, J. R., Dinan, R. J., Hammons,
M. I. & Connell, J. D. 2004, Explosive testing
of polymer retrofit masonry walls, Journal of
Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, Vol. 18,
No. 2, pp. 100-106.
Davidson, J. S., Fisher, J. W., Hammons, M. I., Porter,
J. R. & Dinan, R. J. 2005, Failure mechanism of
polymer-reinforced concrete masonry walls subjected
to blast, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 131, No. 8, pp. 1194-1205.
de Buhan, P. & de Felice, G. 1997, A homogenisation
approach to ultimate strength of brick masonry,
Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 45, No.
7, pp. 1085-1104.
Dennis, S. T., Baylot, J. T. & Woodson, S. C. 2002,
Response of scale concrete masonry unit (CMU)
walls to blast, Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
ASCE, Vol. 128, No. 2, pp. 134-142.
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
S08-001 Hao.indd 50
Dorn, M., Nash, M., Anderson, G. & Anderson,
G. 2000, Computer prediction of the damage to
and collapse of complex masonry structures from
explosions, Structures Under Shock and Impact VI,
WIT press, pp. 277-286.
Eamon, C. D., Baylot, J. T. & ODaniel, J. L. 2004,
Modelling concrete masonry walls subjected to
explosive loads, Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 9, pp. 1098-1106.
FEMA, 2003a, Premier for design of commercial buildings
to mitigate terrorist attacks.
FEMA, 2003b, Reference manual to mitigate potential
terrorist attacks against buildings.
Forsen, R. 1985, Airblast loading of wall panels,
FOA Rep No. C20586-D6, National Defence Research
Institute, Sweden.
Grady, D. E. 1988, The spall strength of condensed
matter, J Mech Phys Solids, Vol. 36, pp. 353-384.
Grady, D. E. & Kipp, M. E. 1985, Geometric statistics
and dynamic fragmentation, J. Appl. Physics, Vol.
58, pp. 1210-1222.
Grady, D. E. & Olsen, M. L. 2003, A statistics and
energy based theory of dynamic fragmentation, Int
J Impact Engng, Vol. 29, pp. 293-306.
Gronsten, G. A., Forsen, R., Oiom, H. & Langberg, H.
2006, Debris throw from overloaded concrete storage
magazines, 32nd DDESB Explosive Safety Seminar.
Gronsten, G. A., Forsen, R. & Berglund, R. 2007,
Debris launch velocity from overloaded concrete
cubicles, Int. Sym. Interaction Munition with
Structures, September, Florida.
Hao, H. & Tarasov, B. G. 2008, Experimental study
of dynamic material properties of clay brick and
mortar at different strain rates, Australian Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 2.
Hao, H., Li, Z. X., Zhou, X. Q. & Wang, M. 2008,
Blast fragments prediction Current approaches
and challenges, Keynote paper, Proceedings of the
10th International Symposium on Structural Engineering
for Young Experts, 19-21 October, Changsha, China.
Interagency Security Committee (ISC), 2001, ISC
security criteria for new federal office buildings and major
modernization projects.
Jones, P. A. S. 1989, WAC, an analysis program
for dynamic loadings on masonry and reinforced
concrete walls, MS Thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Mississippi State University, Mississippi, USA.
Kanninen, M. F. & Popelar, C. H. 1985, Advanced Fracture
Mechanics, Oxford University Press, New York.
Vol 10 No 1
23/07/09 10:20 AM
 Numerical modelling of masonry wall response to blast loads Hao
Knock, C., Horsfall, I., Champion, S. M. & Harrod,
I. C. 2004, The bounce and roll of masonry debris,
International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 30,
pp. 1-16.
Liu, L.-Q. & Katsabanis, P. D. 1997, Development of
a continuum damage model for blasting analysis,
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr, Vol. 34, No.
2, pp. 217-231.
Luciano, R. & Sacco, E. 1997, Homogenisation
technique and damage model for old masonry
material, International Journal of Solids and Structures,
Vol. 34, No. 24, pp. 3191-3208.
Luyten, J. M., Weerhejjm, A. & van Doormaal, J. 2007,
Resistance of a blast loaded prestressed masonry
walls, Proceedings, International Symposium on
Interaction of the effect of Munitions with Structures,
September, Florida.
Ma, G. W., Hao, H. & Lu, Y. 2001, Homogenisation
of masonry using numerical simulations, Journal
of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 127, No. 5, pp.
421-431.
Mazars, J. 1986, A description of micro- and
macroscale damage of concrete structures, J Eng
Fract Mech, Vol. 25, pp. 729-737.
Mayrhofer, C. 2002, Reinforced masonry walls
under blast loading, Journal of Mechanical Sciences,
Vol. 44, pp. 1067-1080.
Moradi, L. C., Davidson, J. S. & Dinan, R. J. 2009,
Response of bonded membrane retrofit concrete
masonry walls to dynamic pressure, Journal of
Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, pp. 72-80.
Moreland, C., Hao, H. & Wu, C. Q. 2005, Response
of retrofitted masonry walls to blast loading,
Proceedings of the 6th Asia-Pacific Conference on Shock
and Impact Loads on Structures, Perth, Western
Australia, 7-9 December, pp. 405-412.
NATO, 2003, Manual of NATO safety principles
for storage of military ammunition and explosives
AASTP-1, NATO AC258.
Oswald, C. J. & Skerhut, D. 1993, FACDDAP theory
manual, US Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha
District, Neb, USA.
Pande, G. N., Liang, J. X. & Middleton, J. 1989,
Equivalent elastic moduli for brick masonry,
Computers and Geotechniques, Vol. 8, pp. 243-265.
Pietruszczak, S. & Niu, X. 1992, A mathematical
description of macroscopic behaviour of brick
masonry, International Journal of Solids and Structures,
Vol. 29, No. 5, pp. 531-546.
Salim, H., Dinan, R. & Townsend, P. T. 2005, Analysis
and experimental evaluation of in-fill steel-stud wall
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
S08-001 Hao.indd 51
51
systems under blast loading, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 131, No. 8, pp. 1216-1225.
Slawson, T. R. 1995, Wall response to airblast loads:
The wall analysis code (WAC), ARA-TR-95-5208, US
Army ERDC, Vicksburg, Miss.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2006, SBEDS
user guide, PDC TR 06-01, Washington, DC.
US Department of Defense (US DoD), 1990, TM5-
1300, Explosive Safety Board, USA.
US Department of Energy (US DoE), 1981, A manual for
the prediction of blast and fragment loadings on structures,
Albuquerque Operations Office, Amarillo, Texas, USA.
Wang, M., Hao, H., Ding, Y. & Li, Z.-X. 2009,
Prediction of fragment size and ejection distance of
masonry wall under blast loading using homogenised
masonry material properties, International Journal of
Impact Engineering, Vol. 36, pp. 808-820.
Wei, X. Y. & Hao, H. 2009, Numerical derivation of
homogenised dynamic masonry material properties
with strain rate effect, International Journal of Impact
Engineering, Vol. 36, pp. 522-536.
Wu, C. Q. & Hao, H. 2006, Derivation of 3D
masonry properties using numerical homogenization
technique, International Journal of Numerical Methods
in Engineering, Vol. 66, pp. 1717-1737.
Wu, C. Q., Nurwidayati, R. & Oehlers, D. J. 2007,
Statistical analysis of fragment size distribution
from spallation of RC slabs under airblast loads,
Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Shock and
Impact Loads on Structures, 17-19 October, Beijing,
China, pp. 655-660.
Yew, C. H. & Taylor, P. A. 1994, A thermodynamic
theory of dynamic fragmentation, Int J Impact Eng,
Vol. 15, pp. 385-394.
Zapata, B. J. & Weggel, D. C. 2008, Collapse study
of an unreinforced masonry bearing wall building
subjected to internal blast loading, Journal of
Performance of Constructed Facility, ASCE, Vol. 22,
No. 2, pp. 92-100.
Zhang, Y.-Q., Hao, H. & Lu, Y. 2003, Anisotropic
dynamic damage and fragmentation of rock
materials under explosive loading, Int J Engng Sci,
Vol. 41, No. 9, pp. 917-929.
Zhou, X. Q., Hao, H. & Deeks, A. J. 2006, Numerical
modeling of response and damage of masonry walls
to blast loading, Transactions of Tianjin University,
Vol. 12 (suppl.), pp. 132-137.
Zucchini, A. & Lourenco, P. B. 2004, A coupled
homogenisation-damage model for masonry cracking,
Computers and Structures, Vol. 82, pp. 917-929.
Vol 10 No 1
23/07/09 10:20 AM
 52 Numerical modelling of masonry wall response to blast loads Hao

HONG HAO

Hong Hao is Professor of Structural Dynamics and chair of structural

engineering discipline group at the University of Western Australia. He received
his BS degree from Tianjin University, China, and MSc and PhD degrees from
the University of California at Berkeley, USA, with a structural engineering
major, and mathematics and strong motion seismology minors. He worked
in Seismographic Station in UC Berkeley as a postdoctoral researcher, and in
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. His research interests are in the
areas of structural dynamics and its applications to earthquake engineering,
blast engineering and structural condition monitoring. He has published
intensively in these areas. His research publications have been included in
structural dynamics textbooks, in NATO safety principles for storage of military
ammunition and explosives, and are distributed as informal working papers in
the US DoD Explosive Safety Board and in NATO committee AC258. He serves
in the editorial board of four international journals, and has been members of
the scientific and advisory committee of many international conferences.

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 10 No 1

S08-001 Hao.indd 52 23/07/09 10:20 AM