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

net/publication/278022074

ISO-DAMAGE DIAGRAMS FOR BLAST RESISTANT DESIGN

Article · April 2005

CITATION READS

1 774

1 author:

Sirous Yasseri
Brunel University London
118 PUBLICATIONS   111 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Remaining useful life prediction of subsea equipment for prognosis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sirous Yasseri on 11 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Research and Development
R541 ISO-DAMAGE DIAGRAMS FOR BLAST RESISTANT DESIGN
Abstract
The Force-Impulse, F - I, chart combines dynamic analysis and
design evaluation into a single diagram, which can be used for
a rapid assessment of potential damage levels for commonly
used structures. The basic concept of the F - I diagram and its
application is detailed in this paper. An approximate method of
constructing the F - I diagram is also detailed. The information
can be re-organised using different axes to improve its usefulness.
All forms of the F - I diagram, provide a tool for quick appraisal
of structures subjected to a number of blast overpressures and
with differing durations or impulse.
Introduction
Force-Impulse diagrams show damage levels as a function of
peak load and impulse for a specific structure. Alternatively it
can be normalised for a particular structural type, e.g. beams.
The level of deformation is used as a measure of damage. The
various levels of deformation are expressed in terms of ductility
demand, which can be represented by the displacement ductility
factor, µ [1 and 8]. Figure 541.1 shows a typical Force-Impulse
diagram for an inelastic single-degree-of-freedom system under
explosion loading. Figure 541.1 shows that the F - I diagram
can approximately be divided into a number of regions, each
representing a certain damage level. The existence of both quasi-
static (right hand side) and impulsive (left hand side) loading
regimes is apparent for the four iso-damage contours shown in
Figure 541.1. This figure also shows that the level of damage
increases as the pressure and impulse increase. In a single-
degree-of-freedom idealisation the total blast load is represented
as a force, which is the peak pressure multiplied by the tributary
area. The symbol F in this article denotes force, while the
symbols P and p represent pressure. In some of references sited
in this paper the symbol P* is used for F.
The Force-Impulse diagram of Figure 541.1 is plotted in a
normalised form. This enables such a diagram to be used for
a given type of structural element with different sizes, end
conditions, tributary areas and blast loading. The construction
of such a diagram is detailed at the end of this paper and its
various forms are also explored.
It is worth noting that although some authors (e.g. 4) refer to
diagrams such as that shown in Figure 541.1 as a Pressure-
Impulse diagram, in the form shown in Figure 541.1 this is really
a Force-Impulse diagram. The normalisation requires that the
total force be divided by the member resistance. However, for
a given single member, it is possible to plot a Pressure-Impulse
diagram as shown in Figure 541.16.
Each state of damage is associated with a particular ductility.
For instance, a ductility of unity implies no structural damage
to the load bearing system, though some minor damage to the
non-structural systems should be expected. A ductility demand
in excess of four for the horizontal and vertical structural sub-
systems [8] implies the possibility of imminent collapse for some
types of construction. Varying levels of damage can be expected
Page 6
when the ductility demand lies between 1 and 4. A complete sub-
system, such as a floor or the vertical load bearing elements, which
collectively carry the loads, may offer an achievable ductility
level of around 4. The ductility of such a system is limited by
the existence of compression members for which buckling may
intervene before yielding. Individual structural elements may
possess larger ductility; for example a beam may have a ductility
factor of up to 12- See Section 7. Any mention of ductility in this
paper refers to the ductility of the structural element made of
ductile material, not the material ductility on its own. A detailed
discussion of the ductility can be found in Reference [8].
A gaseous explosion may often be represented as an isosceles
triangle with a rise time equal to half the duration, while a high
explosive ‘shock’ load may be represented by a right-angle
triangle with a zero rise time. These two types of loading are
often assumed to be equivalent, provided they are of short
duration and have the same impulse magnitude. Consequently,
the explosion load is often characterised by a peak positive
overpressure and duration (Figure 541.2). This is accurate only
for short duration impulses.
The third contributing factor is the structure’s resistance and
its dynamic properties. The first natural period is taken to be
enough for a structure which can be represented by a single-
degree-of-freedom oscillator. The resistance is based on the
inelastic capacity in this paper.
Limits on Response
Consider the simple structure of Figure 541.3(a), which is
subjected to a quasi-static load pulse as shown in Figure 541.3(b).
In the elastic range the work done on the system is converted
into strain energy. If this work causes a maximum displacement
of Xmax, then:
Work Done = FX (1)
And the strain energy, U, is:
2
U = KXmax 2 (Elastic response) (2)
Equating Equations (1) and (2) gives:
Xmax ( F/K )=2 (3)
This implies, Xmax Xst=2, i.e. the dynamic displacement is
twice the static displacement for the same load magnitude. This
represents an upper bound on response and is known as the
quasi-static asymptote.
If the load is of short duration, i.e. impulsive, then from the
momentum equation it produces an instantaneous velocity
change, i.e.:
X=I/M (4)
As a result the structure gains kinetic energy given by:
2 2
Kinetic Energy = MX0 2 = I 2M (5)
When the structure deforms by Xmax, it stores all the energy, U,
as strain energy. Equating the two energies gives:
Issue 42 - April 2005
 Research and Development

2 2
I 2M = KXmax 2 Or, criterion), the use of this curve identifies the combination of load
Xmax Ftd/2 ωt and impulse that would cause response to exceed the acceptable
= I = = d
F/K √ KM ( F/K ) √ KM ( F/K ) 2 (6) level, which is termed failure in this context.

Where ω (= √ K/M ) is the fundamental natural circular The response of single-degree-of freedom system made of rigid-
frequency of the structure and td is the load duration. plastic material can be found in a similar manner (4).

This is the impulsive asymptote of response. The same procedure can be used to establish upper and lower
bounds of response for a rigid plastic oscillator. The work done
These two asymptotes are drawn on a response curve with an by a constant blast load F causing a displacement of Xmax is
abscissa of ωtd and an ordinate of Xmax ( F/K ). The actual equated to the energy dissipated by the structure, i.e.
response can be approximately sketched using these two FXmax = RXmax
asymptotes as shown in Figure 541.4. Figure 541.4 also shows F/R = 1 (10)
the three response regimes, which are known as quasi-static,
dynamic, and impulsive regimes. Due to the idealisation, the quasi-static asymptote is also the zero
displacement asymptote. When the force exceeds the resistance
The three regions of response shown in Figures 541.4 have the then a large deformation will ensue.
following approximate limits [5]:
ωtd < 0.4 Impulsive By equating the kinetic energy due to impulse to the energy
ωtd > 40 Quasi-static dissipated in the system we get:
0.4 < ωtd < 40 Dynamic I2 (11)
2M =RXmax I2/Xmax MR = 2
The subject of explosion is discussed in NORSOK-N-004- I/√Xmax MR = √2 (12)
Annex A. This code classifies the structural response into three
regimes according to the ratio of the duration, td, of the explosion Figure 541.6 shows the Force-Impulse diagram for a rigid-plastic
pressure and the fundamental period of vibration, T, which leads single-degree-of-freedom system.
to slightly different regime boundaries compared with those
given in Section 2. NORSOK boundaries are: Elastic-plastic Single-degree-of-freedom Oscillator
• Implosive domain td / T < 0.3
• Quasi-static domain 3 < td / T Energy dissipation due to structural damping is negligible
• Dynamic domain 0.3 < td / T < 3 compared to the energy dissipated by plastic deformations.
The energy balance for a suddenly applied constant load may
Earlier it was shown that the response curve has a quasi-static be written as:
X
M 2
∫
asymptote that has an ordinate of 2. Thus, X + R(X)dX = FX
Xmax ( F/K ) = KXmax F = ’2 (7) 2 (13)
0

Inverting this gives: Here R(X) is the resistance function. For a linear elastic system
2F Maximum load
= = ’1 (Elastic response) (8) R(X) = KX and the integral reduces to KX2/2.
KXmax Maximum resistance
When a structure undergoes plastic deformation as shown
This is the equation of the modified quasi-static asymptote in Figure 541.7, the integral of resistance in Equation (13)
and may be plotted on a graph with ordinate 2F/KXmax. The becomes:
X

∫ R(X)dX = RX /2 + R(X-X )
abscissa in Figure 541.4 is ωtd. If this is divided by the ordinates
el el
of Figure 541.4, and noting that ω (= √ K/M ) we get: 0
(14)
Ftd K 2I
= (9) where R is the resistance and Xel is the displacement at which
KXmax √ M Xmax√KM
the elastic limit is reached, namely R/K.
This is the non-dimensional form of the impulse given by
Equation (6). The energy balance equation then becomes:
M 2 RXel
X + + R(X - Xel ) = FX
The response curve may be re-plotted using axes 2F/KXmax and 2 2 (15)
I/Xmax√KM as in Figure 541.5. Note that Figure 541.5 is the same
diagram as Figure 541.4, but normalised differently. Again three The maximum value of X caused by F is obtained when X is zero,
different regions are clearly observable and marked for clarity. namely when the kinetic energy is momentarily zero, thus:
Note also that the equations for the asymptotes in this coordinate RXel
system have a different form. + R(Xmax - Xel ) = FXmax (16)
2

This form of the plot is more suitable for the re-assessment Rearranging this, and denoting Xmax / Xel=μ , gives:
work. Assuming a maximum acceptable deformation (damage R/F = 2μ /(2μ - 1) (17)

Issue 42 - April 2005 Page 7

Research and Development

Figure 541.1: Typical pressure-impulse diagram for an Figure 541.5: Force-impulse diagram for elastic single-
inelastic single degree-of-freedom system degree-of-freedom
(not to scale)

Figure 541.2: Idealiazed equivalent shock load

Figure 541.3a: Asingle-degree-of-freedom

oscillator subjected to
blast loading

Figure 541.6: Force-impulse diagram for a rigid-plastic

Figure 541.3b: Idealised quasi-static single-degree-of-freedom system
load pulse

Figure 541.4: Response of elastic single-degree-of-freedom Figure 541.7: Elastic-perfectly plastic behaviour
system

Page 8 Issue 42 - April 2005

 Research and Development

At the other extreme (impulsive loading) a suddenly applied load But R = KXel , thus:
of considerable magnitude but very short duration is considered.
Xmax
The impulse, which is the load integrated with respect to time, is I√K/M KXel = √(2μ - 1)/μ , or
useful for blast loading. While Equation (14) is applicable for a Xel
uniform load of relatively long duration compared to the natural I/√KM Xmax = √(2μ - 1)/μ (26)
period, the treatment of impulse loading is more general. If the
duration is short compared to the natural period, we can write: This is the impulsive asymptote.
.. dX
∫ FdX = MX
∫ dt
dt =
M
2 ∫
d(X)2 =
MX2
2 (18) Equation (17) applies when td is very short and Equation (26)
when td is very long. The following empirical equation is generally
Thus,
. for an impulse I, that gives rise to an initial velocity applicable for all ranges of td - See Ref. 8 for more details.
X=I / M the kinetic energy transmitted to the system almost Fmax T 1-1/(2µ)
= . √2µ - 1 +
instantly can. be written as: (27)
R πtd 1 = 2T/(̟td)
∫
MX2 I2
FdX = = (19) This equation errs less than 10% over the whole range of values
2 2M
of td , from zero to infinity and μ from 1 to infinity. The error is
At the time of maximum displacement, all the above kinetic less than 5% for the practical range of μ<12.
energy is changed into elastic strain energy and plastic
dissipation. Thus: Equation (27) can be used to plot iso-damage curves using a
I2 1 2Xmax
﴾ ﴿
spreadsheet or a hand-held calculator. When using the iso-damage
= RXel -1 (20) chart, an engineer should first decide on the level of acceptable
2M 2 Xel
deformation, which is identified with a given μ. The capacity of each
where R is the resistance function. element is then adjusted to limit the maximum deformation.

If a simple structure can be idealised as a single-degree-of- Using the axes I/Xmax√KM, F/R and Equation (27), the iso-
freedom system with mass, M, and stiffness, K, the equation of damage curve may be plotted as shown in Figure 541.8.
motion
.. for free undamped vibration is given by: Figure 541.8 shows a number of iso-damage curves and the
MX ..+ KX = 0 corresponding ductility factors. The plotting procedure of such
or, X + ω2X = 0 (21) curves is explained later in this paper.

where ω2 = K/M is the circular frequency of the system. Figure 541.8 is an F-I diagram for an elastic-perfectly-plastic,
single-degree-of freedom system. It is seen that the general
Introducing μ = Xmax / Xel , as the ductility factor, and substituting shape of F-I diagram is observable, and the existence of all three
M = K /ω2 into Equation (20) gives: regimes is apparent. The impulse loading regime asymptote is
I2ω2 still a vertical line, and the quasi-static loading regime asymptote
= RXel (2μ -1)
K is still a horizontal line as before.

Then inversing this and noting that R = KXel , gives: Force-impluse Diagram for Structures
R2 1
= As discussed earlier, the dynamic response depends on the load
(Iω)2 (2μ-1)
duration as well as its time-history (the pulse shape). However,
R 1 as the duration, compared to the natural period gets shorter, then
=
Iω √(2μ-1) (22) the shape loses its importance. Figures 541.9 and 541.10 are the
graphical representation of the dynamic response of an oscillator
To determine the quasi-static asymptote and impulsive to two types of pulse shapes. These figures are commonly
asymptote, equations (17) and (22) can be normalised. First used for evaluating the behaviour of single-degree-of-freedom
inverting equation (17): systems, see Reference [4].
F/R = (2μ - 1)/2μ (23)
The graphical solution of Figures 541.9 and 541.10 (from Ref. [1]) can
Similarly, equation (22) can be put into a suitable non- be re-plotted as a Force-Impulse or, F-I diagram. Figures 541.11
dimensional form. First invert Equation (22), i.e. and 541.12 show the F-I diagrams for the corresponding two
√(2μ - 1) idealised loadings. These figures are obtained by first inverting
Iω/R =
1 (24) the ordinate in Figure 541.9 (and 541.10) and re-plotting it as the
new abscissa in Figure 541.11 (and 541.12) respectively. Next,
Noting that ω = √K/M , divide both sides of the above equation the old abscissa in Figure 541.9 (and 541.10) is multiplied by the
by μ as before: new ordinate in Figure 541.11 (and 541.12) to obtain the product
X ( F × td / 2 ) or I, divided by R × T / 2. This new and scaled impulse
I√K/M R max = √(2μ - 1)
Xel μ (25) is plotted as the ordinate in Figure 541.11 (and 541.12).

Issue 42 - April 2005 Page 9

Research and Development
The information in a F-I diagram is exactly the same as that
presented by the response curves of Figures 541.9 and 541.10,
and no additional assumptions have been introduced. The
major difference is that the original response plot emphasises
the deformation or stress as functions of scaled time, whereas,
F-I diagram emphasises the combination of applied load and
impulse for defining the thresholds.
For a specific structure (with known values of K and M ) and
a chosen threshold of damage, Xmax, the rectangular hyperbolic
curves of Figures 541.11 and 541.12 are iso-damage curves.
The iso-damage curve defines what combination of peak applied
load, F, and impulse, I, results in the specified damage. When an
iso-damage curve is chosen as an acceptable damage level, then
the region above the curve is considered to have an unacceptable
deformation, while below the curve is the acceptable region for
the given damage threshold.
Experimentally Derived F-I Diagrams
Jarrett [6] presented one of the most extensive data bases
for plotting Pressure-Impulse diagrams. Jarrett’s data relates
to typical home and factory buildings in the UK, and comes
from bomb damage during World War II. Jarrett has plotted
side-on peak pressure against side-on impulse as shown in
Figure 541.13. The levels of damage are less accurate than
those calculated using analytical methods. The damage levels
are defined in the footnote to Figure 541.13. It can be seen that
this is a fuzzy definition of damage, but it serves the purpose of
evaluating a large number of a particular structural type with
different details.
Jarrett [6] used the following equation to fit the curves:
kW11/3
R= (28)
1/6
( )
2
3175
1+ W which determines the level of acceptable damage. The damage
This expression represents brick houses with constant levels
of damage related to explosive charge weight, W, and standoff
distance, R. The constant, k, in Equation (27) changes with
various levels of damage. The value of k in Equation (20) for
level 3 is 5.6, for level 2 is 1.74 and finally for the level 1 is
0.675 (see Ref. [4]). Equation (28) has been used in the past to
overlay range weight ( R - W ) curves on the P-I diagrams to
assess the damage potential for a specific threat to the target. The
general form of the overlay curves is shown in Figure 541.14.
Wilton and Gabrielson [7] conducted explosion tests on
four types of houses. It should be remembered that building
construction differs in different countries, but their results
have some qualitative value. The types of houses they have
tested are listed in Table 541.1. For determining the percentage
of damage, they used the repair cost or the replacement cost,
whichever was more appropriate. The cost of construction
was broken down into costs of specific components, e.g. roof,
walls, doors, and so on. After each test they established the
percentage of damage to each component. The foundation cost
Page 10
is about 20%. Table 541.2 gives results of their calculations. A
damage percentage of less than 10% relates to broken windows,
dislodged door or slight damage to roofing. For damage
percentages around 80%, the foundation was lightly damaged.
Consequently, the building was considered a total loss.
These test results are plotted on Jarrett’s diagram. It should be
noted that Jarrett’s diagram is for brick buildings of various
construction (types). All test results lie within the pressure range
of the diagram. Figure 541.15 shows reasonable agreement
between test results and the Jarrett diagram.
Damage States
Various limit (or damage) states corresponding to different
levels of damage of the structure may be defined according to
the functional requirements of the structure. These limit states
may be defined in deterministic terms as physical quantities or
in fuzzy terms as a subjective gradation. Noting the uncertainty
of the structural strength, the capacity corresponding to any limit
or damage state should be given in probabilistic terms.
The ductility ratio µ = Xmax / Xel is a measure of the degree of
deformation, i.e. level of damage. The higher µ is, the higher
the damage will be. Some care should be exercised in choosing
appropriate values for ductility ratios. Table 541.1 proposes five
limit states of damage. Limit states are delineated by each of the
damage ductility factors defining the boundaries between limit
states. This is a convenient description of damage.
In decision making, it is necessary to have an understanding
of the possible risk to the structure during the design life for
various design choices, e.g. various level of protection, so that an
optimal solution can be obtained. Two factors govern explosion
resistant design, the dynamic response of the structure, L ( also
known as the load demand), and the acceptable response, R,
state is thus defined by L and R. For explosion resistant design
the controlling quantity is usually the deformation. This is
the response L which is controlled by the explosion pressure
time-history and the dynamic properties of the structure.
The acceptable deformation is determined by the capacity of
structural members as well as the ability of deck-supported
equipment to withstand the structural deformation.
The concept of controlled damage is an accepted practice for
most abnormal loading with a low probability of occurrence,
such as explosion. If some level of damage is permitted, provided
the resulting deformations and strains are not unacceptably large,
then a less substantial structure is required. The designer can set
the level of acceptable damage for a particular case.
Plotting the ISO-Damage Curves
Equation (26), reproduced below, can be used to plot the iso-
damage curves.
Fmax T 1-1/(2µ)
= . √2µ - 1 + (27 - Repeated)
R πtd 1 = 2T/(̟td)
Issue 42 - April 2005
 Research and Development

Figure 541.8: Schematic F-I diagram for an elastic-plastic Figure 541.11: F-I diagram for a pressure wave loading of
system Figure 541.9

Figure 541.9: Maxmimum response of an elasto-plastic Figure 541.12: F-I diagram for a shock wave loading of
single-degree-of-freedom system for a Figure 541.10
pressure wave loading

Figure 541.10: Maximum response of an elasto-plastic Figure 541.13: Jarrett’s pressure-impulse diagram and
single-degree-of-freedom system for a damage states
shock wave loading

Issue 42 - April 2005 Page 11

Research and Development

Figure 541.14: Pressure-impulse diagrams with range- Figure 541.15: Plot of Wilton and Gabrielsen on the ISO-
weight overlay (After Ref [4]) damage curves (Ref [7])

Type 1 Two-storey wooden house with ground area of

10×7.5m2, with clearance under the whole house.
Saddle type roof.
Type 2 Two-storey brick house, 1-brick supporting walls,
with ground area of 12×75m2. Cellar extended
under the whole house. Saddle type roof.
Type 3 One-storey wooden house with concrete floor.
The bathroom was built with 20cm thick
reinfored concrete walls.
Type 4 Two-storey brick walls with supporting walls.
Ground area 12×9m2; height 11m. Sloping roof.
No windows in the side wall. Figure 541.16: Pressure-Impulse (not normalised) for a
specific member
Table 541.1: Types of houses subjected to explosion
loading by Wilton and Gabrielsen (Ref [7])

Type Pressure Ps (kPa) Impulse Is (Pas) Damage (%)

1 12.4 6.200 13.7
34.0 12.000 81.6
27.6 11.000 35.6
17.9 7.900 17.7
0.9 3.24 5.2 Figure 541.17: An example of Normalised Force-Duration
0.8 300 6.5 ISO-damage diagram
0.76 1.276 5.6
11.0 1.110 10.8
18.6 2.340 25.2
2 11.7 5.790 10.9
35.2 12.760 81.4
3 13.11 5.790 11.7
35.2 12.800 81.6
4 24.8 3..585 23
59.3 6.340 53

Table 541.2: Test results of Wilton and Gabrielsen Figure 541.18: DAF for an elastic system subjected to
(Ref [7]) shock wave.

Page 12 Issue 42 - April 2005


Table 541.4 gives a procedure for plotting the iso-damage curve
based on Equation (27) using a spreadsheet or a hand-held
calculator. Column (1), is a list of all td /T of interest ranging
from 0.01 to, say, 20. In the next column, values of Fmax / R are
calculated for each row for a given level of damage, measured
in µ. In the third column the normalised impulse is calculated.
Plot of Column 1 against Column 3 is the normalised iso-damage
diagram, for the given µ. The single iso-damage curve µ = 1 for
divides the complete response into damaged and non-damaged
regions. The scaled value of force and impulse are:
Fmax
and I/(R √ M / K) (28)
R
The scaled value of impulse, I/(R √M/K) = (Fmax × td)π / (R × T)
is generally recast in the following form:
I/R (√M/K) = I/(KXmax)(√M/K) = I/Xmax√KM;
noting that T=2π/ω and ω = √K/M. Readers should note that
various authors have used various scaling factors to normalise the
force-impulse diagram.
As shown for the single-degree-of-freedom system of Figure 541.3,
the maximum explosion load, Fmax, is calculated by multiplying the
tributary area and the peak explosion pressure. The resistance, R, is
the static capacity (see Ref. [1]). If the material dimension and the
end conditions of the system are known, then R = KXmax.
The iso-damage diagram for a given structure and pressure can be
plotted in a non-normalised form which is specific to that structure,
See Figure 541.16. Column 2 of Table 541.2, i.e. Fmax/R is multiplied
by R/A to obtain pressure, P where A is the beams tributary area.
Next, the impulse was calculated I = (Col.1)×(Col.2)×(TR/2) from
Table 541.4 entries. This gives a plot of pressure (not force) against
impulse for a given member.
In Figure 541.16 various design explosion levels are plotted
against impulse to show the ease of comparing the effect of
various design loads on a given structure.
On the lower right-hand side of Figure 541.16, where lines of
equal peak loading have a horizontal tangent, the loading is
effectively very long, and the required resistance of the structure
is very nearly equal to the peak loading. If duration is more
than about four times the period of vibration, the required yield
resistance of the structure is approximately equal to the peak
pressure applied to the structure, within less than 30 percent
error. For a range of ductility ratio between 2 and 10, for the
same minimum error of 30 percent the duration of loading need
be only 2.5 times the period, or longer.
Note that all design points for beams commonly used on topside
structures fall within the knee of the curves, i.e. the dynamic
regime, where these curves are less accurate.
The effect of rise time of the blast overpressure on the structure
may be large on the deflections produced by a given loading,
but it is relatively small in terms of the required resistance to
withstand a given loading without exceeding a certain deflection.
If the rise time is longer than about three times the period, then
Issue 42 - April 2005
Research and Development
the load acts essentially almost as a static load, and the required
resistance is equal to the magnitude of the peak static loading.
For shorter rise times, the required resistance is, as compared
with an abrupt rise, only slightly affected (less than 10%) by
the rise time when the ductility factor is greater than 2, if the
rise time is less than about half the required period T; and is
affected by less than 30% for all values of rise time. In general
the required resistance is greater for an abrupt rise than for a
delayed rise in the applied pressure.
Results of Table 541.4 can be plotted differently. Figure 541.16
gives pressure-impulse diagram for a given member, but one can
plot force (Fmax = peak pressure time the tributary area) against
impulse from Column 3 and then the force-impulse diagram of
that member is obtained as shown. It is also possible to plot the
normalised force against the normalised blast duration using
values given in Table 541.4 as shown in Figure 541.17.
It is worth noting that the exact impulse asymptote for a shock wave
as well as for a pressure wave is given by (see Equation 22):
2I/RT = √2µ -1
The exact force asymptotes for the two types of waves are
different. For the shock wave we have:
F/R = (2μ -1)/μ
and for the pressure wave:
F/R = 1
By varying td /T to its limits it can be seen that the approximate
solution of Table 541.4 gives the same asymptotes.
It is also worth noting that the pressure asymptote gives the
Dynamic Amplification Factor (DAF) when td /T tends to infinity,
see Figures 541.18 and 541.19. As can be seen, the pressure
asymptote for a pressure wave is 1.0 (DAF=1), whereas the
pressure asymptote for a shock wave is 0.5 (DAF=2).
Concluding Remarks
The force-impulse diagrams have been derived for a single-degree-
of-freedom system. However, real structures are continuous and
have many natural frequencies. Using the single-degree-of-freedom
chart for continuous systems implies that their response is dominated
by their first natural frequency. In fact the actual response departs
from the single-degree-of-freedom idealisation, but it can be used
as a first approximation. The present derivation did not add more
assumptions than implied in Figures 541.9 and 541.10 adopted from
Ref. [1]. Figures 541.9 and 541.10 are derived considering plasticity,
but assuming that changes to geometry are small, i.e. linear equation
of equilibrium applies. Changes to geometry in beams increase their
capacity by enabling them to carry their loads by membrane action.
Ignoring changes to geometry generally, but not always, leads to
under-estimation of the capacity for a given level of deformation.
The exception being members prone to buckling where changes
to geometry have a detrimental effect, though this is compensated
for by assuming a low ductility level. The effect of pulse shape is
also investigated in Ref. [9] using an elastic-plastic single-degree-
of-freedom system.
Page 13
Research and Development

Ranking of Acceptable Description of Loss

Damage Level Limit
Damage Level Ductility Ratio Economical Loss Safety Implication
H (High) µ≥6 Beyond repair, probably total loss. Multiple injuries, life threatening situation,
probably some fatality
S (Substantial) 4≤µ<6 Damage to the main load bearing system Some injuries which require medical attention.
is repairable, but major equipment is Loss of limb.
lost. Serious disruption to production.
M (Moderate) 2≤µ<4 Repairable damage. Production can be Minor injuries, which can be treated on the spot.
resumed after inspection and repair or
replacement of equipment.
L (Light) 1≤µ<2 Minor repairs are needed without No or negligible injuires.
disrupting production.
N (Negligible) µ<1 No or negligible repair. None.

Table 541.3: Ranking and description of five state damage criteria

For a given ductility ratio, µ

Col.1 Col.2 Col.3 = (Col.3) × (Col.3) × ̟
Fmax T
td/T
= . √2µ -1 + 1-1/(2µ) Fmax × td ×̟/( R × T ) = ( I/R √ M/K )
R ̟td 1 + 2T/(̟td)
0.01
0.02
0.03

20

Table 541.4: Routine for plotting force-impulse diagram

Figure 541.19: DAF for an elastic system subjected to a

pressure wave (isosceles triangle)

Figure 541.21: Effect of plasticity on F-I diagram

Figure 541.20: (Left) Response of an elastic Oscillator to

pulses of vairous histories

Page 14 Issue 42 - April 2005

 Research and Development

The inability of this method to predict the actual capacity can be
approximately allowed for by dividing the ordinate (the impulse
value) by a suitable factor. The average value of this factor,
which represents the modelling error, is about 1.4 - derived by
comparing results obtained from the above method and those
obtained using non-linear time-domain finite element analysis.
Applying this factor will bring the results of Table 541.4 into line
with the results obtained using the finite element method.
Acknowledgements
This paper draws on the work of many authors. Credits are
given to the original authors wherever their works were referred
to. The author would like to acknowledge Steve Walker and
Bijan Djahansuzi for their many helpful comments. The
views of the author do not purport to reflect the position of his
employer or the reviewers.

As the plot of design points in Figure 541.16 shows, most References

design values fall within the dynamic regime as explained in
Section 2. This regime is sensitive to both material behaviour [1]
Biggs, J.M., Introduction to Structural Dynamics.
and the loading time history. Figure 541.20 shows the effect [2]
Baker, W.E, et all, Explosion Hazards and Evaluation, Elsevier
of load history on an elastic oscillator. It can be seen that the Scientific Publication Company, Amsterdam, 1983.
quasi-static regime of pressure asymptote for a finite rise time [3]
TM5-1300 Design of Strictures to Resist the Effects of
load history is 1.0, which is equivalent to a static loading, and Accidental Explosions, US Department of the Army
the pressure asymptote for loading with zero rise time is 0.5, Technical Manual, 1991.
which is equivalent to a dynamic load factor of 2. [4]
Smith, P.D., Hetherington, J.G., Blast and Ballistic Loading
of Structures, Butter-Heinemann, Oxford, 1994.
In the region 1.15 < I/Xmax√KM < 5.5, the loading with finite [5]
TNO, Methods for the Determination of Possible Damage,
rise time is more severe than loading with zero rise time. This is CPR 16E, The Hague, 1992.
due to resonance between the loading rate and the structure. [6]
Jarrett, D.E, Derivation of British Explosive Safety
Distances, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
In the impulsive loading regime, both type of loading have the Vol. 152, Art, 1, PP 18-35, 1968.
same asymptote. [7]
Wilton, C, and Gabrielson, B., House Damage Assessment,
14th Annual Explosives Safety Seminar, 1972.
The effect of adding plasticity to the oscillator is shown [8]
Yasseri, S. F., An Approximate method for blast resistant
in Figure 541.21. In this case the rise time is finite (gaseous design, FABIG Newsletter, spring 2002.
explosion). In one case the ductility ratio was limited to one, i.e. [9]
Li, Q.M. and Meg, H., Pulse loading shape effects on
the material remained elastic. In the second case the ductility pressure-impulse diagram of an elastic-plastic single-
ratio was allowed to increase to 3. The plasticity damps out degree-of-freedom structural model, International Journal
the dynamic behaviour in the elbow of the curve and shifts the of Mechanical Sciences, 44, pp1985-1998, 20002.
threshold curve to the right of the impulsive loading regime. The
shift observed in the impulsive loading regime occurs because Further Information
more energy will be absorbed due to plastic deformation. In the
quasi-static loading regime, the work done on the structure and For further details, please contact:
the strain energy stored both increase linearly - the net result is
no change in the quasi-static threshold. Dr Sirous Yasseri
Technical Advisor
A simplified approach for plotting Force-Impulse diagram Kellogg Brown & Root
is described in this paper. It is also possible to derive these 51 St. Mary’s Road
diagrams with finite element analysis more accurately. It is also Ditton Hill
possible to use a non-linear analysis to account for the effect of Surbiton
large deformation. An elastic-plastic single-degree-of freedom Surrey
system was used in Ref. [1] to derive Figures 541.9 and 541.10. KT6 5HB UK
Naturally the same procedure can be used for plotting Force-
Impulse diagram. Authors of Ref. [9] have done exactly this. Tel: + 44 (0) 1372 865226
Except for using non-linear finite element analysis, any other Fax: + 44 (0) 1372 865114
approach offers the same order of accuracy. Email: sirous.yasseri@halliburton.com
Web: www.halliburton.com

Issue 42 - April 2005 Page 15

View publication stats