Hindawi

Advances in Civil Engineering

Volume 2019, Article ID 5129274, 13 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5129274

Research Article
A Predictive Model for Damage Assessment and Deformation in
Blast Walls Resulted by Hydrocarbon Explosions

Majid Aleyaasin
Lecturer School of Engineering, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3UE, UK

Correspondence should be addressed to Majid Aleyaasin; [email protected]

Received 18 February 2019; Revised 7 May 2019; Accepted 10 June 2019; Published 4 July 2019

Academic Editor: Chiara Bedon

Copyright © 2019 Majid Aleyaasin. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

In this paper, a new method is developed to find the ductility ratio in blast walls, resulted by hydrocarbon explosions. In this
method, only the explosion energy and distance from the centre of explosion are required to find the damage by using simple
predictive models in terms of empirical-type formulas. The explosion model herein is a TNO multiphysic method. This provides
the maximum overpressure and pulse duration in terms of the explosion length and distance from explosion centre. Thereafter,
the obtained results are combined with the SDOF model of the blast wall to determine the ductility ratio and the damage. By using
advanced optimisation techniques, two types of predictive models are found. In the first model, the formula is found in terms of 2
parameters of explosion length and distance from explosion centre. However, the 2nd model has 3 parameters of explosion length,
distance, and also the natural period of the blast wall. These predictive models are then used to find explosion damages and
ductility ratio. The results are compared with FEM analysis and pressure-impulse (P-I) method. It is shown that both types of
models fit well with the outputs of the simulation. Moreover, results of both models are close to FEM analysis. The comparison
tables provided in this paper show that, in the asymptotic region of P-I diagrams, results are not accurate. Therefore, this new
method is superior to classical pressure-impulse (P-I) diagrams in the literature. Advantage of the new method is the easy damage
assessment by using simple empirical-type formulas. Therefore, the researchers can use the method in this paper, for damage
assessment in other types of blast resistive structures.

1. Introduction well-known book [8] but originated from the initial at-
tempt by Newmark [9]. This SDOF method enables the
Blast walls are sacrificial barriers to protect offshore struc- famous pressure-impulse (P-I) diagrams which was first
tures when subjected to hydrocarbon explosions. Substantial introduced in [9] to be constructed [1–3].
research has been performed to develop a code of practice These P-I diagrams strongly depend on pressure versus
for design of such structures [1]. The theoretical foundations time expression (pulse shape) of the explosion [10], and
for designing blast-resistive structures and blast walls can be together with SDOF modelling, they are used to find the
found in [2, 3]. blast response of complex of structures, such as cable-
An analytical method based on plate theory for blast supported facades [11]. Both SDOF-type model [12] and
wall design [4] is rarely used in the literature since the continuous beam model [13] are used for developing P-I
results of those studies cannot be used directly as a design diagrams. Recently, it is shown that batch finite element
code. However, linear and nonlinear finite elements have simulations [14] cannot lead to P-I diagram unless pre-
been used significantly (for example, [5, 6]). They are liminary information regarding SDOF parameters is
applicable in cases where batch simulations enable cost- available.
benefit analysis [7]. Regardless of importance of the P-I diagrams in the
Presently, the dominant approach is a single degree Of damage assessment, they are not straightforward and the
freedom (SDOF) method [1–3] and leads to some design designer needs substantial information about the calculation
curves known as Bigg’s chart. They appeared first in a of the explosive loads and pulse shape to be able to use P-I
2 Advances in Civil Engineering

diagrams in damage assessment. There is not any attempt (or designated by the level of the explosion. The charts are
new method) that directly connects intensity of explosion to developed from computer simulations performed in
the resulted damage and deflection in the blast walls. Re- eighties and are strongly applicable to hydrocarbon ex-
cently, the author looked at this important issue where, in plosions. Due to the importance of the TNO charts, re-
the vicinity of box girders [15], TNT explosions may occur. searchers produced curve fitted formulas for the data in
Since the possibility of hydrocarbon explosions are much those charts. These formulas are given in [17] via the
higher than any terrorist activities, blast walls are used in following equation:
many offshore structures. Therefore, any research regarding 0.6 ≤ R ≤ 30 pmax � 0.0605R
−0.99
pmax t+ � 0.0605R
−0.99
Level 3,
this topic is justifiable. −1.11 −1.03
In this article, the explosive physics known as the 0.6 ≤ R ≤ 100 pmax � 0.301R pmax t+ � 0.114R Level 6,
−1.13 −1.03
multienergy method known as TNO [16], and further 2 ≤ R ≤ 100 pmax � 0.318R pmax t+ � 0.114R Level 9.
models fitted into it [17], is combined with the SDOF (3)
method for deformation of the blast walls. Thereafter, the
deformation and ductility, for both rigid plastic models and It should be reminded that another valuable software is
elastic-plastic models, are determined in each distance and provided for blast waves (for example, [18, 19]) but not
explosion length. Then outcomes of the batch simulations reformulated for designers yet (such as (3)). In the above
are exported to advanced optimisation programs to develop expressions, t+ is dimensionless overpressure pulse duration
two types of predictive models expressed by using simple given in [16]:
empirical-type formulas. t C
Using any of the models in this paper, the designer can t+ � d 0 , (4)
R0
find the deformation (or ductility) from the intensity of
explosions (explosion length), distance of the blast wall from where td is the overpressure duration in sec and C0 is the
explosion centre, and natural period of the blast wall. As far sound velocity at atmospheric conditions in m/sec. Majority
as the author is aware, this new method is the easiest one for of explosions will fall into all of the three levels in (3). It is
predicting the damage in the blast wall, thereby declaring the recommended that the overpressure and duration should be
explosion resistance. The knowledge about explosion physics computed in each level and the average value should be
is embedded in the formulas. Therefore, it is an excellent tool taken into consideration [17].
for preliminary analysis of the blast wall. The author herein produced the overpressure contours
In a case study, in the asymptotic region of the P-I in terms of R0 and Rs which are two important parameters in
diagram, it is shown that, while P-I provides inaccurate any explosions. They are shown in Figure 1 and are used in
results, this method leads to accurate results, when it is the next part of the paper, for developing the new method.
compared with FEM simulation of the blast wall. Therefore,
the approach herein can be extended to other types of
structures in future to replace P-I diagrams (or FEM) for 3. SDOF Model for Blast Walls
predicting the damage. The typical geometry of the cross section of a blast wall [1] is
similar to (a) in Figure 2.
2. Overpressure History in Explosions The finite element analysis shows [5] the deformation
pattern resulted by an explosion by using shell elements
When hydrocarbon mass mc (in kg) with heat energy ΔHc
which is similar to Figure 3.
(Joule/kg) causes an explosion with efficiency η, the resulted
The front view of a typical blast wall [1] is shown in (b) in
explosive energy E0 will be
Figure 2. The main parameter is the pitch p that is shown in
E0 � ηmc ΔHc . (1) (a). The wall is connected to the structure by upper and lower
supports shown in (c). When overpressure pmax is applied to
In the TNO multienergy method [16], an explosion the wall with uniform distribution, the upper and lower
length is defined by supports with thicknesses tU and tL (in m) (see (c) in
1/3 Figure 2) have equivalent lengths LU and LL shown in
E0
R0 � 􏼠 􏼡 , (2a) (Figure 15). They will yield since they have limited yield
p0
stress f∗y (Pa). The total length is L (in m), and (Mc,Rd )U and
where p0 is the atmospheric pressure (in Pa); therefore, R0 (Mc,Rd )L are the yield moments (per length, i.e., in N) of the
truly has units of the length (m). If Rs is the distance from the upper and lower supports and are given by the following
explosion centre (m), dimensionless R will be defined by equations [1–3]:
−1/3
t2U f∗y
Rs E 􏼐Mc,Rd 􏼑U � ,
R� � 􏼠 0􏼡 Rs . (2b) 4
R0 p0 (5)
t2L f∗y
Then, the overpressure pmax (in bar, i.e., dimensionless) 􏼐Mc,Rd 􏼑L � .
4
and explosion pulse duration t+ (dimensionless) can be
found from TNO charts [16]. In those charts, the over- Mc,Rd or the plastic bending moment (per unit length) of
pressure and duration can be found from the curves the main wall is given by (6). It depends on the details of the
Advances in Civil Engineering 3

50

1.8 81
45

1.67498
1.49 16
2.02

33
15
367
1.3
3

1 .1
40

2.5
35
Explosion length R0 (m)

Overpressure in bar
2
30 19
60 1.5
0.
46
58

25 1
0.9
18

62
23
80

0.5
0.4
0.7

20

0
15 50
534
0.24 15
10

R0
10
)

(m
(m

)
5 Rs
5 10 15 0 5
Distance Rs (m)
(a) (b)

Figure 1: Overpressure in the TNO model for explosion. (a) Overpressure contours in bar. (b) Average value of levels 3, 6, and 9.

cross section in (a) in Figure 2, which are designated by two [1–3]. However, for the detail of the buckling pattern similar
parameters, Wpl,y (plastic section modulus) and f∗y (material to Figure 3, the beam model simplification is not appro-
yield stress) of the cross section: priate. According to rigid plastic theory in structures, the
Wpl,y f∗y KF KVM maximum resistance of a beam cross section Rm [2, 3] is
Mc,Rd  . (6) given by
p
8Mc,Rd
KF and KVM in (6) are flattening and shear correction Rm  . (10)
LE
factors described in [1]. The equivalent length of the blast
wall LE is less than the total length L and can be found by This Rm is defined for finding maximum elastic de-
formation of the wall yel [1–3] by using the following
LE   .
2L
formula:
1 + Mc,Rd L/Mc,Rd  + 1 + Mc,Rd U/Mc,Rd 
8Mc,Rd
(7) yel  . (11)
kR LE
Derivation of (7) is shown in Appendix A, and instead of However, if the maximum blast load F1 given by the
total length, LE will be used in all calculations, regarding the following equation exceeds Rm , the wall deforms plastically:
blast wall. For example, the stiffness per unit length will be
given as shown in [1–3] as follows: F1  As pmax . (12)
384EI
k . (8) In (12), As is the projected blast area per pitch in Figure 4.
5L3E p For further clarification, this area with the pressure pmax
The corrected stiffness of wall kR is recommended in [1] applied to it is shown in Figure 4.
to correct (8) resulted from beam theory which is The deformation is allowed up to the ductility limit. The
ductility μ is very important in design of structures under
kLE extreme and blast loading [2, 3, 8] and is the ratio of
kR  . (9)
1.6L − 0.6LE maximum plastic deformation to the elastic limit yel given
by
Equations (8), (9), and others that follow are true when
the SDOF method is chosen as a route of the analysis, where y
μ  max . (13)
the beam simplification and can be justified. This is also yel
current practice for the preliminary design of blast walls
4 Advances in Civil Engineering

Plate thickness tu

y pmax L
Ф Neutral axis

p
tL
(a)

(c)

Top girder

Corrugated profile

Lower deck
(b)
Figure 2: (a) Cross section of the (b) blast wall (front view) and (c) upper and lower supports.

Pmax
Pmax Pmax

Pmax
Pmax
φ
Figure 4: Applied pressure on the wall surface.


MKLM
T  2π . (14)
pkR

In (14), M is the blast wall mass (for one pitch) and KLM
Figure 3: Deformation pattern from FEM analysis. is the correction factor for the distributed mass. In Ap-
pendix B, it shows that for rigid plastic theory based on
The backbone of the SDOF model relies on the natural plastic hinge assumption [2, 3], we find that KLM  0.333.
period of free structural vibration T, [2, 3, 8] of the blast wall However, in the current practice [1], designers use higher
which will be given by values without any justification. Part of this article
Advances in Civil Engineering 5

investigates how this apparent inconsistency can affect the 200 mm 200 mm 400 mm 200 mm 200 mm
ductility results.
The SDOF modelling is well known by Biggs’ chart since
it appeared in a famous book [8]. However, the initial re-
search is done by Newmark who is one of the pioneers in 300 mm
structural dynamic. He summarised Bigg’s chart a decade
before it is seen in [8], in his famous paper [9] by using the 56.31°
following formula:

F1 2μ − 1 (1 −(1/2μ)) td /T t = 5 mm pitch = 1200 mm
 + (15)
Rm  td /Tπ  td /T + 0.7
.
Figure 5: A typical cross section (one pitch) of a blast wall [1].
All the parameters in (15) are described in previous
formulas. When an explosion with length R0 occurs at related parameters are used. Three parameter models will be
distance Rs , one can find the preliminary ductility curves. discussed as well.
For a particular blast wall that is designed by a manufacturer,
geometrical and material details are available. Therefore, the
ductility contour can be constructed easily from (15), 6. Rigid Plastic Modelling
without using the pressure-impulse diagram of the blast Rigid plastic theory [2, 3] assumes plastic hinge at the
wall. midlength of the blast wall. In appendix B, it is shown that,
in such situation, the equivalent mass Me  M/3 and
4. Numerical Example KLM  0.333. The damage calculation will be straightfor-
ward because the calculations regarding overpressure and
For a steel blast wall with pitch p  1.2 meter, the cross- duration remain the same as the ones used for producing
sectional dimensions are shown in Figure 5. It is one of the Figure 7. Obviously if we assume KLM  0.333, the results
existing profiles of the blast wall that is described in [1]. will change which is shown in Figure 8. The region in which
The second moment of the cross section I  ductility ratio is below 1 remains elastic, and by producing
8.767 × 10−5 m4 , the section modulus Wpl,y  4.37× 10−4 m3 , such contour maps, the pressure-impulse diagram is not
mass per pitch M  410 kg, thicknesses of the upper and lower required. If we compare Figure 6 in which peak de-
supports tU  12 mm and tL  10 mm, and Young’s modulus formation ymax  3.75yel with Figure 8 in which
E  210 GPa, and yield stress f∗y  400 MPa, the length ymax  5.03yel , we can conclude that considering KLM 
L  3 m, and the correction factors [1] KF  0.9 and 0.333 (rigid plastic model) provides conservative estima-
KVM  0.95. In Figure 6, the ductility is shown, which is the tion for ductility.
result of substantial simulations of the SDOF model for this
blast wall. 7. Model with Three Parameters
Figure 6 is prepared for KLM  0.85 as recommended in
[1] and is not the result of rigid plastic theory. Figure 6 is A nonlinear predictive model with three parameters R0 , Rs
drawn in range 15 < R0 < 25 and 5 < Rs < 10, and the con- (explosion related), and T in (14) which are blast wall related
tours seem linear and visible. However, for higher ranges, can be suggested as in the following form:
visibility and linearity cannot be observed.
μ  Cμ3 Rα0 Rβs Tc . (18)

5. Model with Two Parameters The parameters Cμ3 , α, β, and c in (18) can be found by
taking the logarithm for that expression that will change it
A nonlinear predictive model of Figure 6 with two pa- into
rameters R0 and Rs (both explosion related) can be suggested
in this form: log(μ)  logCμ3  + α log R0  + β log Rs  + c log(T).

μ  Cμ2 Rα0 Rβs . (16) (19)

The above expression enables the linear regression
For example, the higher range estimation of ductility for techniques to be implemented for finding the parameters
can be replaced by the following approximate expression: Cμ3 , α , β, and c. These parameters can be found by using
μ  1.0008R4.2434
0 R−6.2520
s , 20 < R0 < 50, 10 < Rs < 15. nonlinear regression analysis. Moreover, the powerful
(17) Nelder–Mead algorithm [20] which is built in MATLAB is
also used, to find the fractional powers α, β, and c in (18).
In Figure 7, the computed ductility ratio and the esti- Finally, the numerical expression of (18) when KLM  0.333
mated ductility ratio in (17) are drawn together. It can be (rigid plastic modelling) will be in the following form:
concluded that, in higher ductility ratios, where severe
plastic deformation occurs, the estimated ductility is very μ  1.0008R4.4483
0 R−6.1082
s T02698 , 20 < R0 < 50, 10 < Rs < 15.
close to the computed ductility. In (17), only explosion- (20)
6 Advances in Civil Engineering

Ductility ratio for mass factor 0.85

25
456 65

Explosion length R0 (m)

74 2
2.1 1.91 1.68 1.458

20
291
1.2

15
5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
Distance Rs (m)
(a)
Ductility ratio for mass factor 0.85

4
Ductility ratio

0
25 10
8 9
20 7
R0 (m) 6
15 5 R s (m)

(b)

Figure 6: Contours for the ductility ratio.

Estimated (two parameters) versus computed surface

12

10

8
Ductility ratio

0
50
15
40 14
Exp
losi 13
o n le (m)
ngt 30 12
c entre
h (m 11 f r o m
e
) 20 10 Distanc

Figure 7: Computed versus estimated ductility ratio.

In Figure 9, the computed ductility ratio and the estimated [20], and so far, he has not found better forms than (20) for
ductility ratio in (20) are drawn together. It can be concluded the 3-parameter-type model and (17) for the 2-parameter-
that, in higher ductility ratios, where severe plastic de- type model. It is quite possible that some other forms with
formation occurs, the estimated ductility is very close to the closest fit may be found by further research.
computed ductility. In (20), explosion-related parameters plus
blast wall natural period are used. Three-parameter models 8. Comparison of the Results
use KLM  0.333 (rigid plastic modelling) because of its
conservativeness in estimation of the maximum ductility. Consider that an explosion with effective energy
The author has suggested many other forms for the E0  9500 MJ occurs at distance Rs  12 m from the ex-
regression analysis, using advanced optimisation techniques plosion centre. According to parameters (2a), (2b) and (3).
Advances in Civil Engineering 7

Ductility ratio for mass factor 0.333

25
581 65 9 16

Explosion length R0 (m)

2.2 2.00 1.754 .5033 1.25
1

20
16
1.25

15
5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
Distance Rs (m)
(a)
Ductility ratio for mass factor 0.333

10
Ductility ratio

0
25
9 10
20 7 8
R0 (m) 6
15 5 R s (m)

(b)

Figure 8: Contours for the ductility ratio in the rigid plastic model.

Estimated (three parameters) versus computed surface natural period of the blast wall herein which is given by using
(14) is T  16.1 msec.
The pressure-impulse curve that introduced before is still
used for damage assessment for many structures. They are a
12
series of the asymptotic curves inscribed in the vertical and
10 horizontal asymptotes. To find the points on the curves, either
Ductility ratio

8 we use analytical methods [21, 22] or numerical methods [23]

6 and sometimes FEM analysis [24]. In the x-y plane, the vertical
4 
axis displays Fmax /Ke yel , whereas horizontal axis displays
x  I/yel Ke Me , I is the impulse, and Fmax is the maximum
2
explosion forces. With uniform overpressure, they are
0
50 Fmax  Aeff pmax ,
15
Exp 40 14 (22)
losi 13 I  0.5Fmax td .
12
on 30 e (m)
len
gth
11 centr
(m) 20 10 nce from In [2, 3], it can be shown that the equations of the vertical
Dista
and horizontal asymptotes are in terms of the ductility ratio
Figure 9: Computed versus estimated ductility ratio. μ that is defined in (13), i.e.,

  2μ − 1,
I
The overpressure is the average value of the explosion levels yel Ke Me
3 and 9 and 6, in (3). (23)
Fmax 2μ − 1
 .
R0  45.629 m, Ke yel 2μ
R  0.263, (21) Typical curves for elastic-plastic structures are shown in
pmax  0997 bar. Figure 10 in which the ductility ratio can be found via in-
 designated by the point shows the
terpolation. The snapshot
The elastic deformation from (11) is yel  7.8 mm, coordinates I/yel Ke Me  13.622 and Fmax /Ke yel  1.03
whereas the maximum deflection at the middle section, ymax , that correspond to this particular explosion, and we can find
in (12) can be found by knowing about the ductility ratio. the ductility μ  7.24 as a result of this explosion.
Since the velocity of sound in the room temperature However, the direct simulation in this paper shows that
condition is C0  340 m/sec, from formula (4), we have μ  2.414. It shows that the P-I method particularly in as-
duration of the explosion pulse td  74 msec, whereas the ymptotic ends are significantly inaccurate. The two
8 Advances in Civil Engineering

1.4
10
1.2
9
1

8 0.8

0.6
7
0.4
6
0.2
Fmax/Ke yel

5 0
11 12 13 14 15 16

0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
I/yel KeMe
µ=1 µ=4 µ=7
µ=2 µ=5 µ=8
µ=3 µ=6
Figure 10: Pressure-impulse diagram for elastic-plastic structures.

approximated models in this paper that are expressed by (17) Table 1: Comparison of the results (ductility ratio).
and (20) to replace the P-I method give much closer results. The method used Ductility ratio
The comparison is shown in Table 1.
TNO + SDOF simulation μ  2.414
Further comparison can be done by using FEM tech- Pressure-impulse curves μ  7.24
nique via ABAQUS modelling [25] of the blast wall in this Two-parameter empirical formula (17) μ  1.968
example. The meshing is shown by a snapshot in Figure 11. Three-parameter empirical formula (20) μ  2.019
In this model 6500-shell-type S4R elements, each with nine
internal integration point are used. Obviously substantial
FEM outputs, including the local buckling details in bottom also required. The history of the Mises stress and also the
flanges are available. However, the one that can be compared maximum principal strain can be found from the element
with ymax in (12) has been extracted. Since ductility ratio is file. To do this, the shell element corresponding to middle
not defined in ABAQUS, Table 2 is provided to compare the of the top flange of the blast wall is chosen. The history file
ymax (maximum deflection) in each approach. for stress and stain for that location is shown in Figure 14. It
The last row of Table 2 is found from history of the is obvious that stress does not exceed 400 MPa. However,
displacement of the middle of the top flange of the blast wall. for strain after quick jump at the beginning of the ex-
This history for U, V, and A is shown in Figure 12. It is plosion, the fluctuations are not significant. From the
obvious that velocity in mm/s and acceleration in m/s2 are model in this paper, we can check and verify the dis-
big numbers since T in (14) is very low. placement as shown in Table 2. This suits the purpose of
Figure 12 is prepared by using history of nodes. this paper in developing a simple and accurate model for
However, the history of stress and strain in any location of checking high-fidelity FEM analysis.
the blast wall can be prepared by element output files. In Table 3, the material properties and also maximum
Similar to Figure 11, Figure 13 shows the Mises stress map velocity, acceleration, and stress and strain are shown. The
that is scaled in Pa. maximum displacement is shown in Table 2 for the com-
Obviously, the yield stress is f∗y  400 MPa, and the parison purposes. The maximum stress in Table 3 exceeded
material is assumed elastic-perfectly plastic (E-P-P); all slightly above 400 MPa because the E-P-P material model is
similar to the SDOF model. Since the blast wall is modelled ABAQUS, which is expressed via a very low plastic Young’s
with shell elements, Poisson’s ratio of the material υ  0.3 is modulus (not zero).
Advances in Civil Engineering 9

U, magnitude
+8.333e – 02

+7.638e – 02

+6.944e – 02

+6.249e – 02

+5.555e – 02

+4.861e – 02

+4.166e – 02

+3.472e – 02

+2.778e – 02

+2.083e – 02

+1.389e – 02
Y
+6.944e – 03
Z X
+0.000e + 00

Figure 11: FEM meshing of the blast wall (displacement map in m).

Table 2: Comparison of the results (maximum deflection).

The method used Maximum deflection
TNO + SDOF simulation ymax  18.9 mm
Pressure-impulse curves ymax  56.7 mm
Empirical formula (17) ymax  13.2 mm
Empirical formula (20) ymax  15.8 mm
FEM analysis via ABAQUS ymax  19.5 mm

×104
0 1
V (mm/sec)
U (mm)

–10 0

–20 –1
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Time (sec) Time (sec)

(a) (b)
×104
2
A (m/sec2)

0
–2
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Time (sec)

(c)

Figure 12: (a) Displacement (deflection), (b) velocity, and (c) acceleration history of the top flange.

The outcomes of this section are shown in Table 4. This 9. Conclusions and Remarks
table compares the advantages and disadvantage of each
method that is discussed. It can be seen that there are many It this paper, a new method for damage assessments in blast
advantages of using the method in this paper, particularly walls are developed. It is much easier than the classical method
when we compare with the pressure-impulse diagram. of the pressure-impulse diagram and FEM analysis. As shown
However, it should be used together with high-fidelity FEM in [21–24], and also in this paper, the high-fidelity analytical or
analysis to achieve more details about the response of the FEM models cannot predict explosion response without
blast wall to the explosion. knowledge about explosion overpressure and pulse duration.
10 Advances in Civil Engineering

U, mises
SNEG,
(fraction = –1.0)
(avg: 75%)
+3.777e + 08

+3.464e + 08

+3.150e + 08

+2.837e + 08

+2.524e + 08

+2.210e + 08

+1.897e + 08

+1.583e + 08

+1.270e + 08

+9.568e + 07

+6.434e + 07
Y
+3.301e + 07
Z X
+1.672e + 06

Figure 13: Mises stress map scaled in Pa.

Maximum principal strain

600 0.01
Mises stress (MPa)

0.005
400
0
200
–0.005

0 –0.01
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Time (sec) Time (sec)

(a) (b)

Figure 14: History of (a) Mises stress and (b) maximum plastic strain of the middle of top flange.

Table 3: Summary of FEM analysis (results are for middle of the top flange).
Young’s modulus for E-P-P steel E  210 GPa
Poisson’s ratio υ  0.3
Maximum velocity vmax  6456 mm/s
Maximum acceleration amax  15001 m/s2
Maximum Mises stress σ max  400810000 Pa
Maximum principal strain εp  00059

Table 4: Comparison table for methods discussed.

The method used Advantages Disadvantages
(1) Reliable source for checking FEM (deflection) (1) Low fidelity compared to FEM analysis
TNO + SDOF simulation
(2) Simple compared to FEM (2) Includes the model for history of overpressure
(1) Inaccuracy in asymptotic region
Pressure-impulse curves (1) Simple to find the ductility and displacement (2) Needs overpressure history
(3) Low fidelity compared to FEM analysis
(1) No need for history of overpressure
Empirical formulas (17) and (20)
(2) Simple to find the ductility and displacement (1) Low fidelity compared to FEM analysis
in this paper
(3) Reliable source for checking FEM (deflection)
(1) High fidelity of the model (1) Needs overpressure history
FEM analysis via ABAQUS (2) Availability of results in any location (2) Meshing difficulties and model complexity
(3) Local buckling details (3) Verification of the results by another method

The inaccuracy of the P-I diagram in the asymptotic for blast-resistive structure as seen in recent publications
region is clearly shown in this paper via Tables 1 and 2. [22–24]. Therefore, an alternative method is required to re-
Regardless of that, the P-I diagram is an active field of research place the P-I diagram in asymptotic region. This approach
Advances in Civil Engineering 11

should be much easier than FEM analysis and can produce a

result accurate enough to be compared with FEM. The author
believes that he has found an alternative in this paper.
(MC,Rd)U
When overpressure-time history is not available, both LU
of the SDOF and FEM cannot predict the damage. The ad-
vantage of this new method is the combination of SDOF
method and overpressure-time history of explosion. Herein
the TNO method (that provides overpressure history) with
SDOF (that provides deflection) has been combined together.
Thereafter approximate formulas have been produced that L LE
easily predicts the ductility ratio without using P-I diagrams
MC,Rd
or doing SDOF calculations or FEM analysis. Therefore, it will
be very useful for preliminary design applications.

Symbols
As : Cross-sectional area
A, B, C: Constants of the parabolic function
Aeff : Effective overpressured area
C0 : Velocity of sound
E0 , E: Explosive energy and modulus of elasticity
(MC,Rd)L
f∗y , F1 : Steel yield stress and total applied force
Fmax : The maximum explosion force LL
I: Second moment of cross section
(in bending) Figure 15: Parabolic bending moment distribution.
I: Impulse of the explosion pulse
k, kR : Stiffness and reduced stiffness (in bending) Appendix
KF , KVM : Flattening and shear correction factors
KLM : Mass correction factor A. Equivalent Lengths and Bending
L, LE : Total length and equivalent length
LU , L L : Lengths of the upper and lower supports Moment Distribution
M, Me : Mass and equivalent mass of the blast wall According to Figure 15, the total length of the blast wall
mc : Hydrocarbon mass consist of 3 parts:
(Mc,Rd )U, Yield bending moment in the upper and
(Mc,Rd )L: lower supports L � L E + LU + L L . (A.1)
Mc,Rd : Yield bending moment in the blast wall
The overpressure as a result of explosion produces a
pmax : Maximum overpressure
uniform load that results a parabolic type of bending mo-
p, p0 : Projected blast area per pitch and
ment as follows:
atmospheric pressure
R0 , R: Explosion length and dimensionless M(x) � Ax2 + Bx + C. (A.2)
explosion length
Rm : Maximum elastic resistance of beam cross When we place the origin of the coordinate system at the
section middle of the wall, then we have
Rs : Distance from explosion centre M(0) � A × 02 + B × 0x + C � Mc,Rd ⟹ C � Mc,Rd .
t+ , td : Dimensionless pulse duration and pulse
(A.3)
duration
tU and tL : Thicknesses of the upper and lower Moreover, the shear force at maximum bending moment
supports is zero, i.e.,
T: Natural period of the structure
Wpl,y : Plastic section modulus dM
� 2Ax + B,
W0 : Maximum deflection of the midspan dx
(A.4)
yel , ymax : Maximum elastic and maximum plastic dM
deformation (0) � 2A × 0 + B � 0 ⟹ B � 0.
ΔHc : Heat energy dx
α, β, c: Constants in the predictive model The segment with length LE < L acts as the simply
μ: Ductility ratio supported beam such that, in its two ends, the bending
η: Efficiency of explosion. moment is zero such that
12 Advances in Civil Engineering

LE L 2 L −4Mc,Rd
􏼒 􏼓 � A × 􏼒 E 􏼓 + 0 × E + Mc,Rd � 0 ⟹ A � .
2 2 2 L2E
(A.5)
x W0
Then, (A.2) can simplified into
4x2 y
M(x) � Mc,Rd 􏼠1 − 􏼡. (A.6)
L2E
Figure 16: Plastic hinge in the simply supported beam.
The upper and lower supports of the blast wall act as
cantilevers such that maximum bending moments of the
supports occur at the corners such that Then, considering the form in (B.1), the overall kinetic
2 energy of the beam will be
4 0.5LE + LU 􏼁
M 0.5LE + LU 􏼁 � Mc,Rd 􏼠1 − 􏼡 L1 L x _ 2
L2E KE � 2 􏽚 _
ρA(W(x)) 2
dx � ρA 􏽚 􏼒 W 0 􏼓 dx
02 0 L/2
2 (B.2)
4 0.5LE + LU 􏼁
� −􏼐Mc,Rd 􏼑U ⟹ (A.7) 4ρAW _ 20 L/2 2 4ρAW_ 20 L3 1
L2E � 􏽚 x dx � _ 20 .
� MW
L2 0 24L 2 6
􏼐Mc,Rd 􏼑U The equivalent mass Me located at the plastic hinge
�1+ , position should possess the same kinetic energy in (B.2), i.e.,
Mc,Rd
1 _ 20 .
2 KE � Me W (B.3)
4 0.5LE + LL 􏼁 2
M 0.5LE + LL 􏼁 � Mc,Rd 􏼠1 − 􏼡
L2E Comparing (B.2) with (B.3) will result
2
4 0.5LE + LL 􏼁 1 _ 20 � 1 MW_ 20 ⟹ Me � 1 M.
� −􏼐Mc,Rd 􏼑L ⟹ (A.8) Me W (B.4)
L2E 2 6 3
􏼐Mc,Rd 􏼑L
�1+ . Data Availability
Mc,Rd

The expressions (A.7) and (A.8) can be simplified into The data used to support the findings of this study are
􏽶����������� available from the corresponding author upon request.
􏽴
⎜
LE ⎛
⎜ 􏼐Mc,Rd 􏼑U ⎟
⎞
⎟
LU � ⎜ ⎜
⎜
⎝ 1+ − 1⎟
⎟
⎠,
⎟ Conflicts of Interest
2 Mc,Rd
The author declares no conflicts of interest.
􏽶����������� (A.9)
􏽴
⎜
LE ⎛
⎜ 􏼐Mc,Rd 􏼑L ⎟
⎞
⎟ Acknowledgments
LL � ⎜ ⎜ 1+ − 1⎟
⎟
⎠.
⎟
2 ⎝ Mc,Rd The author appreciates Aberdeen University for the time
provided to him for doing independent research as part of
Substituting (A.9) into (A.1), and after simplification, we his duties of an academic post.
have equation (7):
2L References
LE � 􏽱����������������� 􏽱�����������������.
1 + 􏼐􏼐Mc,Rd 􏼑U/Mc,Rd 􏼑 + 1 + 􏼐􏼐Mc,Rd 􏼑L/Mc,Rd 􏼑 [1] Fire and Blast Information Group (FABIG), “Design guide for
stainless steel blast walls,” Technical Note 5, Fire and Blast
(A.10) Information Group Berkshire (UK), Berkshire, UK, 1999.
[2] M. Y. H. Bangash and T. Bangash, Explosion-Resistant Build-
ings: Design, Analysis, and Case Studies, Springer, New York,
B. Rigid-Plastic Beam Model NY, USA, 2006.
[3] T. Krauthammer, Modern Protective Structures, CRC Press,
In rigid plastic type of modelling, the plastic hinge occurs at Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2008.
the middle of the beam where the maximum lateral de- [4] J. Q. Fang, P. Chung, and R. W. Wolfe, “Analysis of a blast-
flection W0 will occur (Figure 16). loaded protective wall for bridge columns,” Bridge Structures,
Obviously, the lateral deformation and velocity pattern vol. 4, no. 3-4, pp. 135–141, 2008.
will be linear and are given by [5] L. A. Louca, M. Punjani, and J. E. Harding, “Non-linear
analysis of blast walls and stiffened panels subjected to hy-
W0 _ � W0 x. drocarbon explosions,” Journal of Constructional Steel Re-
W� x⟹W _ (B.1)
(L/2) (L/2) search, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 93–113, 1996.
Advances in Civil Engineering 13

[6] G. K. Schleyer, T. H. Kewaisy, J. W. Wesevich, and [24] S. Chen, X. Xing Chen, G. Q. Li, and Y. Lu, “Development of
G. S. Langdon, “Validated finite element analysis model of pressure-impulse diagrams for framed PVB-laminated glass
blast wall panels under shock pressure loading,” Ships and windows,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 145, no. 3,
Offshore Structures, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 257–271, 2006. article 04018263, 2019.
[7] H. Y. Lei, J. C. Lee, C. B. Lia et al., “Cost–benefit analysis of [25] A. Khennane, Introduction to Finite Element Analysis Using
corrugated blast walls,” Ships and Offshore Structures, vol. 10, MATLAB and ABAQUS, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA,
no. 5, pp. 565–574, 2015. 2013.
[8] J. M. Biggs, Introduction to Structural Dynamics, McGraw-
Hill, New York, NY, USA, 1964.
[9] N. M. Newmark, An Engineering Approach to Blast Resistance
Design, Vol. 121, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL, USA, 1956.
[10] Q. M. Li and H. Meng, “Pulse loading shape effects on
pressure-impulse diagram of an elastic-plastic, single-degree-
of-freedom structural model,” International Journal of Me-
chanical Sciences, vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 1985–1998, 2002.
[11] C. Amadio and C. Bedon, “Viscoelastic spider connectors for
the mitigation of cable-supported façades subjected to air blast
loading,” Engineering Structures, vol. 42, pp. 190–200, 2012.
[12] J. Dragos, C. Wu, and K. Vugts, “Pressure-impulse diagrams
for an elastic-plastic member under confined blasts,” In-
ternational Journal of Protective Structures, vol. 4, no. 2,
pp. 143–162, 2013.
[13] A. S. Fallah, E. Nwankwo, and L. A. Louca, “Pressure-impulse
diagrams for blast loaded continuous beams based on di-
mensional analysis,” Journal of Applied Mechanics, vol. 80,
no. 5, article 051011, 2013.
[14] M. H. Hedayati, S. Sriramula, and R. D. Neilson, “Dynamic
behaviour of unstiffened stainless steel profiled barrier blast walls,”
Ships and Offshore Structures, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 403–411, 2018.
[15] M. Aleyaasin, “Protective and blast resistive design of post-
tensioned box girders using computational geometry,” Advances
in Civil Engineering, vol. 2018, Article ID 4932987, 7 pages, 2018.
[16] A. C. Van den Berg, “The multi-energy method: a framework
for vapour cloud explosion blast prediction,” Journal of
Hazardous Materials, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 1985.
[17] F. D. Alonso, E. G. Ferradás, J. F. S. Pérez, A. M. Aznar,
J. R. Gimeno, and J. M. Alonso, “Characteristic overpressure-
impulse-distance curves for vapour cloud explosions using the
TNO multi-energy model,” Journal of Hazardous Materials,
vol. 137, no. 2, pp. 734–741, 2006.
[18] P. W. Sielicki and M. Stachowski, “Implementation of sapper-
blast-module, a rapid prediction software for blast wave
properties,” Central European Journal of Energetic Materials,
vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 473–486, 2015.
[19] A. Alia and M. Souli, “High explosive simulation using multi-
material formulations,” Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 26,
no. 10, pp. 1032–1042, 2006.
[20] J. C. Lagarias, J. A. Reeds, M. H. Wright, and P. E. Wright,
“Convergence properties of the nelder--mead simplex method
in low dimensions,” SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 9,
no. 1, pp. 112–147, 1998.
[21] V. R. Feldgun, D. Z. Yankelevsky, and Y. S. Karinski, “A
nonlinear SDOF model for blast response simulation of elastic
thin rectangular plates,” International Journal of Impact
Engineering, vol. 88, pp. 172–188, 2016.
[22] Y. Ye, L. Zhu, X. Bai, T. X. Yu, Y. Li, and P. J. Tan,
“Pressure–impulse diagrams for elastoplastic beams subjected
to pulse-pressure loading,” International Journal of Solids and
Structures, vol. 160, pp. 148–157, 2019.
[23] R. Yu, D. Zhang, L. Chen, and H. Yan, “Non-dimensional
pressure-impulse diagrams for blast-loaded reinforced con-
crete beam columns referred to different failure modes,”
Advances in Structural Engineering, vol. 21, no. 14,
pp. 2114–2129, 2018.
 International Journal of

Rotating Advances in
Machinery Multimedia

The Scientific
Engineering
Journal of
Journal of

Hindawi
World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi
Sensors
Hindawi Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 http://www.hindawi.com
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018
2013 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Journal of

Control Science
and Engineering

Advances in
Civil Engineering
Hindawi Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Submit your manuscripts at

www.hindawi.com

Journal of
Journal of Electrical and Computer
Robotics
Hindawi
Engineering
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

VLSI Design
Advances in
OptoElectronics
International Journal of

International Journal of
Modelling &
Simulation
Aerospace
Hindawi Volume 2018
Navigation and
Observation
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018
in Engineering
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018
Engineering
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

International Journal of
International Journal of Antennas and Active and Passive Advances in
Chemical Engineering Propagation Electronic Components Shock and Vibration Acoustics and Vibration
Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018