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

net/publication/278656284

Blast: Characteristics, Loading and Computation—An Overview

Chapter · January 2015

DOI: 10.1007/978-81-322-2190-6_36

CITATIONS READS

7 10,376

1 author:

Manmohan Dass Goel

Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology
90 PUBLICATIONS   1,496 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

IMPRINT: Security and Defence View project

International Journal of Structural Glass and Advanced Materials Research View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Manmohan Dass Goel on 07 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Blast: Characteristics, Loading
and Computation—An Overview

M.D. Goel

Abstract This paper presents the state of the art for blast load characterization,
loading pattern and its computation for the analysis of engineering structures.
Various empirical relations available for computation of blast load in the form of
pressure-time function are presented in concise form for easier understanding.
Based on this study, functions are suggested for computing the pressure-time load
history for a structural response. Explanation is presented for empirical, semi-
empirical and numerical methods for prediction of the blast load. Different
numerical simulation techniques for modelling the blast load are presented. Various
material models available in hydrocodes are also discussed for modelling advanced
structural materials to be used in blast response mitigation.

Keywords Blast wave
Empirical relations
Friedlander wave equation
Peak

pressure Impulse

1 Introduction

In last 20 years, majority of terrorist attacks on civil buildings and structures are
carried out using high explosive devices. The reason is that, high explosives results
in devastating effects and meagre survivability of structure and its occupants. It is
September 11, 2001 attack, which lead to change in focus of research in particular
to analysis, design and protection of buildings against blast. More and more
research emphasis is put towards making building/structures safe against such
manmade devastating attacks.

M.D. Goel (&)

CSIR-Advanced Materials and Processes Research Institute (AMPRI),
Bhopal 462026, India
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© Springer India 2015 417

V. Matsagar (ed.), Advances in Structural Engineering,
DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-2190-6_36
418 M.D. Goel

Explosion is categorized into three main categories i.e. physical, nuclear and
chemical explosion. Example of physical explosion include failure of gas cylin-
der, eruption of volcano or mixing of two liquids at different temperature or the
mixing of a hot particulate material with a cool liquid. In nuclear explosion,
energy is released from formation of different atomic nuclei by redistribution of
protons and neutrons within the interacting nuclei. Whereas, a chemical explosion
involves rapid oxidation of fuel elements (carbon and hydrogen atoms) contained
within the explosive compound. Chemical explosion is major source of terrorist
attacks all over the world. Most of explosives are condensed, which means that
these are either solid or liquid. There are two terms associated with the explosion
(a) detonation and (b) deflagration. When explosive material decomposes at a rate
much below the speed of sound in material, process is known as deflagration,
whereas, detonation is the form of reaction of explosive which produces a high
intensity shock wave and is the main characteristics of high explosives. Explo-
sives are classified on the basis of their sensitivity to ignition and named as
primary or secondary explosives. Primary explosives like mercury fulminate and
lead azide can be easily detonated by simple ignition from spark, flame or impact.
Secondary explosives such as TriNitroToluene (TNT) and Ammonium Nitrate
Fuel Oxide (ANFO) when detonated create blast/shock waves and result in large
scale damage to the surrounding [1].

1.1 Reference Explosive

There exist wide range of explosives and energy release after the explosion for each
type of explosive is different. TNT is referred as standard explosive and all other
explosives are expressed in ‘Equivalent TNT’ by using a conversion factor based on
their mass specific energy. These factors are presented in Table 1 for some of the
commercially available explosives and can be used for conversion to reference
explosive for analysis purpose [2]. Explosion results in very high pressure blast
wave propagating away from the centre of explosive source. This blast wave will
load the structures or any obstruction to a very high magnitude of loading. The
major characteristic of blast wave is short duration and high magnitude. In order to
safeguard the structure against such loading, first requirement is to isolate the
structure and secondly, structure should be designed to resist such high magnitude
and short duration loading. This can be only be achieved by understanding the
loading pattern and behaviour of structure in this complex situation. Hence, it is of
prime importance for a structural designer to understand the blast and blast loading.
This is the main focus of present paper to explain in a very simple way about the
blast and blast loading.
Blast: Characteristics, Loading and Computation—An Overview 419

Table 1 TNT equivalence of commercially available explosives [2]

S. No. Explosive Mass specific TNT equivalent
energy Qx (kJ/kg) (Qx/QTNT)
1 Torpex (42 % RDX, 40 % TNT, 7,540 1.667
18 % aluminium)
2 Nitroglycerin (liquid) 6,700 1.481
3 PETN 5,800 1.282
4 HMX 5,680 1.256
5 Semtex 5,650 1.250
6 RDX (Cyclonite) 5,360 1.185
7 Compound B (60 % RDX, 40 % TNT) 5,190 1.148
8 Pentolilte 50/50 (50 % PETN 50 % TNT) 5,110 1.129
9 TNT 4,520 1.000
10 Tetryl 4,520 1.000
11 Blasting gelatin (91 % nitroglycerin, 7.9 % 4,520 1.000
nitrocellulose, 0.9 % antacid, 0.2 % water)
12 60 % Nitroglycerin dynamite 2,710 0.600
13 Amatol (80 % ammonium nitrate 20 % TNT) 2,650 0.586
14 Mercury fulminate 1,790 0.395
15 Lead azide 1,540 0.340

2 Brief History of Blast Analysis

Herein focus is on high intensity blast waves which are the characteristics of high
explosives. Their characterization in free air by experimental methods has a long
history dating back to World War II [3]. Stoner and Bleakney [4] reported results of
free air experiments conducted with small TNT and Pentolite charges of various
shapes. Goodman [5] compiled the free air blast measurement conducted after World
War II. Baker [6] provides an excellent historical summary of the blast experiments.
Kingery [7] complied and analysed the blast wave properties from ground burst of
large hemispherical TNT charges. Dewey et al. [8], Jack [9], Wenzel and Esparza
[10] measured normally reflected pressure and proposed their relationships with the
incident blast pressure. A good description of the characteristics of blast wave has
been provided by Baker [6], Swisdak [11], and Glassstone and Dolan [12].
U.S. Army conducted several such experiments and presented a standard document,
which was having a set of standard curves for free-air detonation and surface det-
onation [1]. These curves are based partly on experiments, and partly on the analyses
and computer code computation. However, all these documents were for the defence
purpose mainly and were not easily accessible to structural designers.
Later on, Brode [13], Henrych [14], Kingery and Bulmash [15] and Smith and
Hetherington [16] based on modelling and experimental results recommended
expression for blast generated peak overpressure for free air explosion for a given
standoff distance and TNT equivalence. Formby and Wharton [17] conducted
420 M.D. Goel

experiments for various explosives detonated at ground level and reported the
results. Chapman et al. [18] carried out blast wave simulation using commercially
available hydorcodes and results were compared with those obtained with experi-
ments conducted by earlier researchers. Remennikov and Rose [19] carried of
numerical simulation by modelling blast loads on buildings in complex city
geometries and studied the effect of adjacent buildings on shadowing or enhance-
ment of the blast. Jankowiak et al. [20] modelled pressure distribution after
explosion using commercially available code. Similarly, many researchers
throughout the world, particularly in academia, are using commercially available
codes for simulation of blast in order to reduce the experimental load and for deep
understanding of the complex physics involved in blast phenomenon. The various
relationships proposed by these researchers have already been reported in detail by
the author in his earlier paper [21]. Therefore, in the present manuscript emphasis is
on the most commonly used relations for blast loading and their numerical mod-
elling and simulation using available codes.

3 Blast Wave

After the explosion, there is sudden release of large amount of energy and it moves
outward from the centre of explosion. This outward movement of energy causes the
surrounding air to get compressed and move forward with a velocity front. This
wave profile experienced by any object is dependent on type of explosive and its
distance from source. Generally, most of high explosives results in ideal blast wave
profile as shown in Fig. 1 [21]. Blast wave is characterized by instantaneous
increase in pressure from ambient atmospheric pressure (P0) to a peak incident
overpressure (Ps0). The peak incident overpressure decays exponentially with time
and return back to ambient air pressure in time t0, which is known as positive phase
duration. This is followed by a negative pressure wave with duration, t0 , which is
approximately 2–5 times of the positive phase in duration. In most of the hardened
structure design, this negative phase is ignored being very small. The blast wave
profile is described by Friedlander’s equation as follow for spherical charge deto-
nated in free air:



t A  ðt  ta Þ
PðtÞ ¼ Pso 1  exp ð1Þ
t0 t0

where, P(t) is the pressure at time, t (kPa); Ps0 is the peak incident pressure (kPa);
t0 is the positive phase duration (ms); and A is the wave decay coefficient
(dimensionless). In order to account for hemispherical blast, above equation is
multiplied by a factor of 1.8 to take into account the reflection from ground [16].
The impulse of incident pressures associated with blast wave is obtained by inte-
grating area under pressure-time curve as follow:
Blast: Characteristics, Loading and Computation—An Overview 421

P (t)

PS0+

Area, is

ta t
Po
PS0-
t0

Positive duration Negative duration

Fig. 1 Blast wave pressure—time history from ideal explosion (i.e. blast wave profile) [21]

tZ
a þt0

i¼ PðtÞdt ð2Þ
ta

here, ta is the arrival time (ms).

3.1 Blast Wave Scaling Law

According to this law “self-similar blast waves are produced at identical scaled
distances when two explosive charges of similar geometry and of the same
explosive but of different sizes are detonated in the same atmosphere”. Most
commonly used scaling laws are those proposed independently by Hopkinson [22]
and Cranz [23]. Hopkinson and Cranz scaling law is commonly described as cube
root scaling law. Figure 2 shows concept of this scaling law. Scaled distance,
Z (=R/W1/3) is commonly used for expressing the distance in equivalent form,
where, R is expressed as distance from charge centre in ‘m’, and W is the charge
weight in ‘kg’ of TNT.
422 M.D. Goel

Fig. 2 Hopkinson-Cranz scaling laws [22, 23]

Blast: Characteristics, Loading and Computation—An Overview 423

4 Blast Load Calculation

Blast wave parameters for conventional high explosive materials had been focus of
a number of research studies during 1950 and 1960. Several researchers put forward
their analysis during this period based of experimental work carried out by them
[1–20]. These methods are divided into three basic categories for prediction of the
blast effects on a structure:
(a) Empirical (or analytical) methods
(b) Semi-empirical methods, and
(c) Numerical methods.

4.1 Empirical Methods

These are essentially correlations with experimental data and are treated as outcome
of the experimental work. Most of these approaches are limited by extent of
underlying experimental database. The accuracy of all empirical equations dimin-
ishes in case of near field explosion. In this paper, most commonly used empirical
method is presented in later section.

4.1.1 TM-5-1300 [1]

This manual was one of the most widely used documents available for both military
and civilian sector for designing structures to provide protection against blast effects
of an explosion before the UFC’s manuals (Unified Facility Criteria). This manual
presented the methods of design for protective construction used in facilities for
development, testing, production, storage, maintenance, modification, inspection,
demilitarization and disposal of explosive materials. The main objective of this
manual was to establish design procedures and construction techniques whereby
propagation of explosion or mass detonation can be prevented along with the
protection for personnel and valuable equipments. Its secondary objective was the
establishment of blast load parameters for design of protective structures, methods
for calculating dynamic response of structural elements, constructional details and
guidelines to obtain cost effectiveness in both planning and structural arrangements
of blast resistant structures. It contained step-by-step analysis and design procedures
including information on (i) blast loading; (ii) principles of non-linear dynamic
analysis; and (iii) reinforced concrete and structural steel design.
The design techniques presented in this manual were outcome of the numerous
full and small-scale structural response and explosive tests (of various materials)
conducted. Several computer programs were included in this manual, which later
formed the base of other related design manuals or programs. There exist total four
424 M.D. Goel

categories of protection as per this manual namely protection category 1–4. The
design curves presented in the manual give the blast wave parameters as a function
of scaled distance for three burst environments: (i) free air burst; (ii) air burst; and
(iii) surface burst. Figure 3a, b show the scaling chart for the positive phase blast
wave parameters for a surface burst of spherical and hemispherical TNT explosion
in free air at sea level [1]. Such scaling charts provide blast load pressures at a
distance R (called the standoff distance) along the ground from a specific explosive.
Using these charts blast load pressures and duration can be computed. To compute
blast loads at points above the ground, a simplified approach is presented later in
this paper.

4.1.2 TM 5-855-1 [24]

This manual presented the procedure for design and analysis of protective structures
subjected to effects of conventional weapons. It was intended for structural engi-
neers involved in design of hardened facilities. It includes air blast effects, blast
loads on structures, and auxiliary systems (air ducting, piping, etc.). The manual
provides closed-form equations to generate predicted air blast pressure-time
histories.
This manual can also be used to evaluate blast loading on multi-storey buildings.
Load-time histories for buildings and building components located at some height
above the ground can be calculated according to the methodology presented in
TM5-855-1. The basic steps are outlined as below:
1. Divide a surface into sub-sections and evaluate a pressure-time history and
impulse for each small zone.
2. The total impulse applied to the surface is then obtained by summing up the
impulses for each sub-section.
3. The total load-time history is then defined to have an exponential form with a
peak calculated assuming an average peak pressure applied over all the surfaces.
Major limitations of this simplified method lies in neglecting the true physics of
the blast wave-structure interaction phenomena. It assumes that load-time history is
applied to all parts of surface at the same time which is not experimentally true.
This assumption provides a poor approximation particularly for near field blast. To
overcome the above limitation, another algorithm has been developed in which total
load on a surface at a particular time is computed by summing up load on each sub-
surface at that time. Thus, calculation predicts a load-time history that has same
total impulse as estimated by TM5-855-1 procedure, but with a different load versus
time relationship.
Blast: Characteristics, Loading and Computation—An Overview 425

Positive phase blast wave parameters for

(a) a surface burst spherical TNT charge
6
10
Ps0, psi
5 Pr0, psi
10
is/w1/3, psi-ms/lb1/3
4
10 ir/w1/3, psi-ms/lb1/3
t0/w1/3, ms/lb1/3
3
Blast Parameters

10 ta/w1/3, ms/lb1/3
U, ft/ms
2
10 Lw/W1/3, ft/lb1/3

1
10

0
10

-1
10

-2
10

-3
10
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Scaled Distance, Z

(b) Positive phase blast wave parameters for

a surface burst hemispherical TNT charge
6
10
Pr, kPa
5 Pso, kPa
10
Ir, kPa-ms/kg1/3
Is,kPa-ms/kg1/3
4
10 ta, ms/kg1/3
t0, ms/kg1/3
Blast Parameters

3 Us,m/ms
10

2
10

1
10

0
10

-1
10

-2
10
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Scaled Distance, Z (m/kg1/3)

Fig. 3 Blast wave parameter. a Surface burst spherical charge. b Surface burst hemispherical
charge [1]
426 M.D. Goel

4.1.3 CONWEP Airblast Load Model [25]

Kingery and Bulmash [15] developed equations to predict the air blast parameters
from spherical air bursts and hemispherical surface bursts. These equations are
widely accepted as engineering predictions for determining free-field pressures and
loads on the structures. The Kingery-Bulmash equations have been automated in
the computer program CONWEP [25]. Their report [15] contains a compilation of
data from explosive tests using charge weights from less than 1 kg to over
400,000 kg. They used curve-fitting techniques to represent the data with high-
order polynomial equations, which were incorporated in CONWEP program. These
equations can also be found in TM5-855-1 but in graphical form only.
Unlike TM5-855-1, where an approximate equivalent triangular pulse is pro-
posed to represent the decay of the incident and reflected pressure, CONWEP takes
a more realistic approach assuming an exponential decay of the pressure with time
using Friedlander’ wave equation. The airblast parameters in above equation (peak
incident and impulse, positive phase duration, and time of arrival) are calculated
using the equations proposed by Kingery and Bulmash [15]. Using the peak
pressure, impulse and duration, the program iterates to find the wave decay coef-
ficient. The program then uses the Friedlander’s wave equation to find blast pres-
sure values at various time steps. Thus, finally a pressure-time history is applied on
the structure directly using this model.

4.1.4 UFC 3-340-02 (Unified Facility Criteria) [26]

This document presents methods of design for protective construction used in

facilities for development, testing, production, storage, maintenance, modification,
inspection, demilitarization, and disposal of explosive materials. Further, it provides
design procedures and construction techniques whereby propagation of explosion
(from one structure or part of a structure to another) or mass detonation can be
prevented and personnel and valuable equipment can be protected. This document
is revised version of TM 5-1300.

4.2 Semi-empirical Methods

These are based on simplified models of physical phenomena. Herein, attempt is

made to model the underlying important physical processes in a simplified way.
These methods rely on extensive data and case studies. Their accuracy is generally
better than that provided by the empirical methods.
Blast: Characteristics, Loading and Computation—An Overview 427

4.3 Numerical Methods

These methods are based on the mathematical equations that describe basic laws of
physics of the problem. These principles include conservation of mass, momentum,
and energy. The physical behaviour of materials is described by constitutive rela-
tionships. These models are commonly used in Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
coupled with computational fluid dynamics (CFD) approaches. FEA has capability
of predicting distribution of internal stresses and strains that are difficult to be
measured experimentally. Also, FEA can be employed to understand how structures
fail and to identify critical parameters. With the advancement in computational
techniques finite element offers possibility to evaluate response of impulsive
loading on structure using commercially available software packages as it is very
difficult to conduct the field test. Some of the commonly used such packages are
presented in Table 2. In the next section most commonly and widely accepted
relation for computing the blast time history is presented.

4.4 Blast Pressure Calculation

Based on numbers of experiments and analysis carried out, several researchers

proposed various empirical relationships as reported by author elsewhere in detail
[21]. However, most commonly accepted relations are those proposed by Kinney
and Graham due to their close proximity with the experimental results [27]. The
peak positive overpressure and positive phase duration are computed using the
following relations:

Table 2 Examples of computer programs used to simulate blast effects

S. No. Name Purpose and type of analysis
1 BLASTX Blast prediction, CFD code
2 CTH Blast prediction, CFD code
3 FEFLO Blast prediction, CFD code
4 FOIL Blast prediction, CFD code
5 SHARC Blast prediction, CFD code
6 DYNA3D Structure response with CFD (coupled analysis)
7 ALE3D Coupled analysis
8 LS-DYNA Structure response with CFD (coupled analysis)
9 Air3D Blast prediction, CFD code
10 CONWEP Blast prediction (empirical)
11 AUTO-DYN Structure response with CFD (coupled analysis)
12 ABAQUS Structure response with CFD (coupled analysis)
13 SHOCK Blast prediction (empirical)
428 M.D. Goel

  Z 2 
Ps 808 1 þ 4:5
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
¼ r rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi ð3Þ
P0  Z 2    Z 2   Z 2 
1 þ 0:048  1 þ 0:32  1 þ 1:35

h  Z 10 i
ts 980 1 þ 0:54
¼h i h rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi ð4Þ
W 1 =3  Z 3
   i
Z 6
h  Z 2 i
1 þ 0:02  1 þ 0:74  1 þ 6:9

Once, peak positive overpressure, positive phase duration is known blast wave
front parameters are computed using following relations [28],
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
6PS þ 7P0
US ¼  a0 ð5Þ
7P0

6PS þ 7P0
P0 ¼  q0 ð6Þ
PS þ 7P0

5P2S
qS ¼ ð7Þ
2ðPS þ 7P0 Þ

7P0 þ 4Ps
Pr ¼ 2Ps ð8Þ
7P0 þ P

where, a0 is the speed of sound in air at ambient pressure, ρ0 is the density of air at
ambient pressure ahead of blast wave, ρs is the air density behind wave front, Us is
the blast wave front velocity, and qs is the maximum dynamic pressure.
Based on these parameters following IS 4991-1968, pressure profile at different
sides of structure can be computed and then structural analysis can be carried out [29].

5 Numerical Modelling and Simulation in Blast Analysis

In numerical simulation of blast load due to explosion and its effects on structures,
analysis consists of basically two major parts,
(a) Modelling the blast load, and
(b) Modelling the material.
Blast: Characteristics, Loading and Computation—An Overview 429

5.1 Modelling the Blast Load

The load that is being generated due to an explosion using numerical techniques can
be modelled by following methodology:

5.1.1 Defining Pulse-Time Curve

The process of directly defining pulse-time curve is quite straightforward and is one
of the easiest ways to model blast loads. Pressure-time history can be obtained
using different models available as discussed already. However, coupling effects of
loads and structures (such as the change of structural curvature and shock wave
reflections) are not easy to consider in such modelling. Therefore, sometimes
simulation results of this method are not satisfactory. But still this method provides
the basic behaviour of the structures under such complex loading.

5.1.2 Defining Blast Loads Using Blast Pressure Functions

Blast loads can be conveniently calculated using blast pressure functions such as
CONWEP [25]. CONWEP function produces non-uniform loads exerted on
exposed surface of the structure. This blast function is used for two cases i.e. free air
detonation of a spherical charge, and ground surface detonation of a hemispherical
charge. The input parameters include equivalent TNT mass, type of blast (surface or
air), detonation location, and surface identification for which pressure is applied. It
takes into account the reflection from surface and then apply total blast pressure as
computed based on the following equation,

PðtÞ ¼ Pr
cos2 h þ Pi ð1 þ cos2 h  2 cos hÞ ð9Þ

where, θ is the angle of incidence, defined by the tangent to the wave front and the
target’s surface, Pr is reflected pressure, and Pi is incident pressure. It can be seen
that CONWEP calculates reflected pressure values and applies these to designated
surfaces by taking into account angle of incidence of blast wave. It updates angle of
incidence incrementally and thus account for the effect of surface rotation on
pressure load during a blast event. The major drawback of CONWEP is that it
cannot be used to simulate purely localized impulsive loads produced by explosive
flakes or prisms.

5.1.3 Modelling Explosive as a Material

In this method, explosive is modelled as a material using equation of state (EOS) of

explosives with help of CFD codes. When explosive is detonated, its volume
430 M.D. Goel

expands significantly and interacts with the structure. Contact force between
expanded explosive product and structure is then calculated. Expansion of explo-
sive is defined by three parameters i.e. position of detonation point, burn speed of
explosive and geometry of the explosive. Explosive materials are usually simulated
by using Jones-Wilkins-Lee (JWL) high explosive equation of state, which
describes pressure of detonation [30]. JWL equation is written as,
   
xq q
R1 q0 xq q0 xq2
P¼A 1 e þB 1 eR2 q þ Emo ð10Þ
R1 q0 R2 q0 q0

where, P is the blast pressure, ρ is the explosive density, ρ0 is the explosive density
at the beginning of detonation process, A, B, R1, R2, ω and Emo are material
constants, which are related to the type of explosive and can be found in explosive
handbook [30].

5.2 Modelling of Materials

Blast loads typically produce very high strain rates in the range of 102–104/s. This
high loading rate would alter dynamic mechanical properties of target structures
and, accordingly, expected damage mechanisms for various structural elements. For
reinforced concrete structures subjected to blast, strength of concrete and steel
reinforcing bars increases significantly due to strain rate effects. Figure 4 shows
approximate ranges of expected strain rates for different loading conditions. It can
be seen that ordinary static strain rate is located in the range: 10−6–10−5/s, while
blast pressures normally yield loads associated with strain rates in the range:
102–104/s [31]. Commonly used material models for metals and concrete are dis-
cussed here in brief.

10 6 10 4 10 2 10 0 10 -2 10 -4 10 -6 10-8

10-6 10-4 10-2 100 102 104 106 10 8

Fig. 4 Strain rate associated with different types of loading [30]

Blast: Characteristics, Loading and Computation—An Overview 431

(a) The Johnson-Cook material model is a widely used constitutive relation, which
describes plasticity in metals under strain, strain rate, and temperature condi-
tions [32].

ry ¼ ðA þ Bep Þð1 þ c ln e_  Þð1  T mÞ

n
ð11Þ

where A, B, C, m and n are used defined material constants; ep is effective

plastic strain; e_  , being effective plastic strain rate, for e_ 0 = 1 s−1; and
T* = (T–Troom)/(Tmelt–Troom). The constants for a variety of materials are found
in a book by Johnson and Cook [32].
(b) If only the strain rate effect is considered, the above model is equivalent to
another famous material model i.e. Cowper-Symonds model, in which strain
rate is calculated for time duration from start to the point, where strain is nearly
constant from the equivalent plastic strain time history [33]. In Cowper-Sy-
monds model, dynamic yield stress (σdy) is computed by,

1=n !
e_
rdy ¼ ry 1 þ ð12Þ
D

where σdy is the static yield stress and D and n are material constants.
(c) Concrete can be modelled using concrete damaged plasticity model available in
various computer codes. The damage plasticity constitutive model is based on
the following stress-strain relationship,

r ¼ ð1  xt Þ
rt þ ð1  xc Þ
rc ð13Þ

where, rt and rc are the positive and negative parts of the effective stress
, respectively, and xt and xc are two scalar damage variables, ranging
tensor, r
from 0 (undamaged) to 1 (fully damaged) [34].

6 Computer Simulation

Computational methods in the area of blast effects mitigation are generally divided
into two major streams i.e. (a) for prediction of blast loads on the structure, and (b)
for calculation of structural response to loads. Computational programs for blast
prediction and structural response use both first-principle and semi-empirical
methods. Programs using first principle method can be categorized into uncoupled
and coupled analyses. Uncoupled analysis calculates blast loads as if the structure
(and its components) are rigid and then applying these loads to a responding model
432 M.D. Goel

of structure. Shortcoming of this procedure is that when blast field is obtained with
a rigid model of structure, loads on structure are often over-predicted, particularly if
significant motion or failure of structure occurs during loading period. For a cou-
pled analysis, blast simulation module is linked with structural response module. In
this type of analysis, computational fluid mechanics (CFD) model for blast load
prediction is solved simultaneously with computational solid mechanics (CSM)
model for structural response. By accounting for the motion of structure while blast
calculation proceeds, pressures that arise due to motion and failure of the structure
can be predicted more accurately. Examples of this type of computer codes are LS
DYNA, ABAQUS AUTODYN, and DYNA3D [30, 34–36]. Table 2 summarizes a
listing of computer programs that are currently being used to model blast-effects on
structures. Prediction of blast induced pressure field on a structure and its response
involves highly nonlinear behaviour. Comparing calculations to experiments must
therefore validate computational methods for blast-response prediction. Consider-
able skill is required to evaluate output of computer code, both as to its correctness
and its appropriateness to situation modelled; without such judgment, it is possible
through a combination of modelling errors and poor interpretation to obtain erro-
neous or meaningless results. Therefore, successful computational modelling of
specific blast scenarios by engineers unfamiliar with these programs is difficult, if
not impossible and should be used carefully.

7 Conclusions

Kinney and Grahm’s equations are most commonly used by researchers due to their
close agreement with the experiments. The blast profile is exponentially decaying
wave profile computed using Friedlander’s wave equation. Using this profile
reflected and dynamic pressure can be computed as suggested and used in the
analysis. For detailed structural analysis use of coupled FE software is recommended.

References

1. TM5-1300 (1969) Structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions. Department of Army
technical manual TM 5-1300, USA
2. Baker WE, Cox PA, Westine PS, Kulesz JJ, Strehlow RA (1983) Explosion hazards and
evaluation. Elsevier, Amsterdam
3. Keneedy WD (1946) Explosion and explosives in air. In: White MT (ed) Effects of impact and
explosions summary. Technical report of Div. 2, NDRC, vol 1. Washington, DC (AD 221 586)
4. Stoner RG, Bleakney W (1948) The attenuation of spherical shock wave in air. J Appl Phys
19:670
5. Goodman HJ (1960) Compiled free air blast data on bare spherical pentolite. BRL Report
1092, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
6. Baker WE (1973) Explosions in air. University of Texas Press, Austin
Blast: Characteristics, Loading and Computation—An Overview 433

7. Kingery CN (1966) Air blast parameters versus distance for hemispherical TNT surface burst.
BRL Report No. 1344, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
8. Dewey JM, Johnson OT, Patterson JD (1962) Mechanical impulse measurements close to
explosive charges. BRL Report No. 1182, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
9. Jack Jr WH (1963) Measurement of normally reflected shock waves from explosive charges.
BRM Meorandum Report No. 1499, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
10. Wenzel AB, Esparza ED (1972) Measurements of pressures and impulses at close distance
from explosive charges buried and in air. Final report on contract no. DAAK 02-71-C-0393
with U.S. Army MERDC, Ft Belvoir, VA
11. Swisdak Jr MM (1975) Explosion effects and properties: Part I—explosion effects in air.
NSWC/WOL/TR/75-116, Naval surface weapon center, White Oak, Silver Spring, MD
12. Glasstone S, Dolan PJ (1977) The effects of nuclear weapons. United States Department of
Defence and U.S. Department of Energy, USA
13. Brode HL (1955) Numerical solution of spherical blast waves. J Appl Phys 26:766
14. Henrych J (1979) The dynamics of explosion and its use. Elsevier Science Publisher, USA
15. Kingery CN, Bulmash G (1984) Airblast parameters from TNT spherical air blast and
hemispherical surface blast. Technical Report ARBRL-TR-02555. US Armament Research
and Development Centre, Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
16. Smith PD, Hetherington JG (1994) Blast and ballistic loading of structures. Butterworth-
Heinemann, Oxford
17. Formby SA, Wharton RK (1996) Blast characteristics and TNT equivalence values for some
commercial explosives detonated at ground level. J Hazard Mater 50:183–198
18. Chapman TC, Rose TA, Smith PD (1995) Reflected blast wave resultants behind cantilever
walls: a new prediction technique. Int J Impact Eng 16(3):397–403
19. Remennikov AM, Rose TA (2005) Modelling blast loads on buildings in complex city
geometries. Comput Struct 83:2197–2205
20. Jankowiak T, Łodygowski T, Sielicki PW (2007) Modelling of pressure distribution after
explosion. CMM-2007-Computer Methods in Mechanics, 19–22 June, Łódź–Spała, Poland
21. Goel MD, Matsagar VA, Gupta AK, Marburg S (2012) An abridged review of blast wave
parameters. Def Sci J 62(5):300–306
22. Hopkinson B (1915) British ordnance board minutes. 13565, UK
23. Cranz C (1926) Lehrbuch der Ballistik. Springer, Berlin
24. TM 5-855-1 (1986) Fundamentals of protective design for conventional weapons. U.S.
Department of the Army, Technical Manual, USA
25. CONWEP (1991) Conventional weapons effects program, Version 2.00. US Army Engineer
Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, MS, USA
26. UFC 3-340-02 (2008) Structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions. Department of
Defence, USA
27. Kinney G, Graham K (1985) Explosive shocks in air. Springer, New York
28. Rankine WJM (1870) On the thermodynamic theory of waves of finite longitudinal
disturbance. Philos Trans R Soc 160:277–288
29. IS 4991 (1968) Criteria for blast resistant design of structures for explosions above ground.
BIS, India
30. Hallquist JO (1998) LS-DYNA theory manual. Livermore software Technology Co.,
Livermore, CA, USA
31. Goel MD, Matsagar VA (2013) Blast resistant design of structures. Pract Periodical Struct Des
Constr 19(2). doi:10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000188. (American Society of Civil Engi-
neers (ASCE))
32. Johnson GR, Cook WH (1983) A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large
strains, high strain rates and high temperatures. In: Proceedings of the 7th international
symposium on ballistics, The Hague, The Netherlands
33. Cowper GR, Symonds PS (1958) Strain hardening and strain rate effect in the impact loading
of cantilever beams. Brown University, Applied Mathematics Report, p 28
 434 M.D. Goel

34. ABAQUS/Explicit (2011) User’s Manual, Version 6.11. Dassault Systèmes Simulia
Corporation, Providence, Rhode Island, USA
35. ANSYS (2014) Autodyn manual. ANSYS, Inc. Southpointe, Canonsburg, PA, USA
36. DYNA3D (1991) LS-DYNA3D theory manual. LSTC, USA

View publication stats