Design Guide 26 Design of Blast Resistant Structures

26 Steel Design Guide
Design of Blast
Resistant Structures
Exterior Gauges
Pressure
Impulse
Impulse (psi-msec)
Pressure (psi)
Time (msec)
26Steel Design Guide
Design of Blast
Resistant Structures
RAMON GILSANZ, Lead Author
Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP
New York, New York & Los Angeles, California
RONALD HAMBURGER
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc.
San Francisco, California
DARRELL BARKER
ABS Consulting
San Antonio, Texas
JOSEPH L. SMITH
Applied Research Associates, Inc.
Vicksburg, Mississippi
AHMAD RAHIMIAN
WSP Cantor Seinuk
New York, New York
A MERICAN INS TI TU T E O F S T EEL CO NS T R UCT ION

AISC © 2013
by
American Institute of Steel Construction
All rights reserved. This book or any part

thereof must not be reproduced in any form
without the written permission of the publisher.
The AISC logo is a registered trademark of AISC.
The information presented in this publication has been prepared in accordance with recognized
engineering principles. While it is believed to be accurate, this information should not be used
or relied upon for any specific application without competent professional examination and
verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by a licensed professional
engineer, designer or architect. The publication of the material contained herein is not
intended as a representation or warranty on the part of the American Institute of Steel
Construction or of any other person named herein, that this information is suitable for any general
or particular use or of freedom from infringement of any patent or patents. Anyone making use of
this information assumes all liability arising from such use.
Caution must be exercised when relying upon other specifications and codes developed by other
bodies and incorporated by reference herein since such material may be modified or amended
from time to time subsequent to the printing of this edition. The Institute bears no responsibility
for such material other than to refer to it and incorporate it by reference at the time of the initial
publication of this edition.
Printed in the United States of America
Revision: March 2015

Authors
Ramon Gilsanz, P.E., S.E., is a partner at Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP. He is a member of AISC Task
Committee 3, Loads, Analysis and Systems, and was a member of the AISC Adhoc Task Group on Structural
Integrity and of the NCSEA’s Ad Hoc Joint Industry Advisory Committee. He also chaired the Department
of Buildings panel that wrote the New York City structural integrity code recommendations.
Ronald Hamburger, P.E., S.E., is a senior principal at Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc. He chairs the
ASCE 7 Committee and the AISC Connection Prequalification Review Panel, and is a member of AISC Task
Committee 9 on Seismic Design. He also chaired the NCSEA Ad Hoc Joint Industry Advisory Committee
that developed the structural integrity provisions contained in the International Building Code.
Darrell Barker, P.E., is vice president for Extreme Loads and Structural Risk at ABS Consulting. He is a
member of ASCE, ACI, ASIS, ASME and PGCI. He contributed to the Handbook for Blast Resistant Design
of Buildings and to ASCE/SEI 59-11, Blast Protection of Buildings, and CSA 850-12, Design and Assess-
ment of Buildings Subjected to Blast Loads.
Joseph L. Smith, PSP, is a director and senior vice president of Applied Research Associates, Inc. He is an
active member of ASCE, SAME, SARMA, PGCI and the ASIS International participating on several profes-
sional committees. He is member of the Department of Homeland Security Explosives Standards Working
Group and past Co-Chair of the Explosives Hardening and Mitigation Subgroup, and also contributed to
ASCE/SEI 59-11, Blast Protection of Buildings, and the Handbook for Blast Resistant Design of Buildings.
Ahmad Rahimian, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., is chief executive of WSP Cantor Seinuk in New York. He is an active
member of ASCE, AISC and chairs ACI committee 375. He was a member of the Department of Buildings
panel that wrote the New York City structural integrity code recommendations.
Acknowledgments
The authors appreciate the input and ongoing guidance during the development of this design guide provided
by the following:
David Holgado, ABS Consulting Anders Carlson, Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP
James T. Brokaw, Applied Research Associates, Inc. David Chlebus, Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP
Larry M. Bryant, Applied Research Associates, Inc. Thibaut Dehove, Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP
Kenneth W. Herrle, Applied Research Associates, Inc. Karim Ezzeldin, Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP
Charles C. Ellison, Applied Research Associates, Inc. Wenjun Guo, Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP
J. Mikhael Erekson, Applied Research Associates, Inc. Eugene Kim, Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP
Karl Rubenacker, Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP Arturo Montalva, Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP
Brett Benowitz, Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP Andrew Sparn, Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP
Preface
This Design Guide provides guidance for the design of blast resistant structures and progressive collapse
mitigation. Background information and some basic principles are reviewed, as well as the presentation of
design examples. The goal of this Design Guide is to provide enough information for a structural engineer to
effectively interact with a security or blast consultant.
i
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 CHAPTER 4 STRUCTURAL RESPONSE
TO BLAST LOADS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
1.1 HISTORY OF INCIDENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
1.1.1 Blast Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 4.1 REPRESENTATION OF BLAST LOADING. . .36
1.1.2 Progressive Collapse Incidents. . . . . . . . .2 4.2 SINGLE DEGREE OF FREEDOM SYSTEMS . .36
1.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF 4.3 BLAST RESPONSE OF ELASTIC SINGLE
BLAST EFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 DEGREE OF FREEDOM SYSTEMS. . . . . . . .37
1.3 BLAST EFFECTS VERSUS 4.3.1 Time-History Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
SEISMIC EFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 4.3.2 Graphical Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
Example 4.1—Determination of the Peak
CHAPTER 2 BLAST LOADS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Dynamic Force and Displacement . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.3.3 Energy Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.1 EXPLOSION PARAMETERS . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
4.4 ANALYSIS OF NONLINEAR SINGLE
2.2 EXPLOSIVE THREAT SCENARIOS. . . . . . . . .8
DEGREE OF FREEDOM RESPONSE . . . . . . .40
2.3 BLAST PHENOMENA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
4.4.1 Time-History Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.3.1 Key Parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
4.4.2 Graphical Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.4 BLAST LOAD PREDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Example 4.2—Determination of
2.4.1 Empirical Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Ductility Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.4.2 External Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4.3 Energy Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2.4.3 Internal Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.5 MULTIPLE DEGREE OF FREEDOM
2.4.4 Analytical Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
STRUCTURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
2.5 LOADS ON STRUCTURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.6 SOFTWARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
2.5.1 Equivalent Load Shapes . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5.2 Drag Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
CHAPTER 5 BLAST RESISTANT DESIGN OF
2.5.3 Nonreflected Surface Loads . . . . . . . . . 14
STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47
2.5.4 Shielding and Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.5.5 Net Lateral Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.1 ENERGY METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.5.6 Negative Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.2 SIMPLIFICATIONS BASED ON DYNAMIC
2.5.7 Interior Loads Due to Leakage. . . . . . . . 15 PARAMETERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
2.6 RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.3 DESIGN EXAMPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.7 DESIGN EXAMPLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Example 5.1—Blast Resistance
Example 2.1—Preliminary Evaluation of Blast of a One-Story Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Resistance of a One-Story Building . . . . . . . . . 16 Example 5.2—Blast Resistance
of a Three-Story Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
CHAPTER 3 DESIGN CRITERIA
FOR BUILDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 CHAPTER 6 BLAST RESISTANT ANALYSIS
AND DESIGN OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS . . . .69
3.1 THREAT ASSESSMENT METHODS . . . . . . . 31
3.1.1 DOJ Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6.1 MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF STEEL
3.1.2 GSA Security Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 FOR BLAST DESIGN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3.1.3 ISC Security Design Criteria . . . . . . . . 31 6.1.1 Strength Increase Factor (SIF) . . . . . . . .69
3.1.4 Unified Facilities Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . 32 6.1.2 Dynamic Increase Factor (DIF) . . . . . . . 69
3.1.5 Department of State Criteria . . . . . . . . . 32 6.1.3 Dynamic Design Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3.1.6 Additional Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6.2 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR BLAST DESIGN . . .71
3.2 GOOD PRACTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6.2.1 Load Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3.2.1 Exterior Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6.2.2 Ultimate Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3.2.2 Interior Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6.2.3 Deformation Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
iii
6.3 FAILURE MODES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 CHAPTER 8 RESISTANCE TO PROGRESSIVE
6.3.1 Breaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 COLLAPSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
6.3.2 Tension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
8.1 OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
6.3.3 Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
8.1.1 Progressive Collapse Definition . . . . . . 117
6.3.4 Shear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
8.1.2 Brief Explanation of the
6.3.5 Flexure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Design/Analysis Problem . . . . . . . . . . 117
6.3.6 Combined Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
8.1.3 Basic Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
6.4 DESIGN EXAMPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
8.2 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN CODES
Example 6.1—Design of Structural Elements
AND GUIDELINES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Subject to Indirect Blast Loading . . . . . . . . . . . 77
8.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
8.2.2 U.S. General Services Administration
Subject to Direct Blast Loading: Façade Girt
Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
and Column . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
8.2.3 Department of Defense Criteria . . . . . . 119
8.2.4 British Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Subject to Direct Blast Loading: Composite
8.2.5 Eurocode. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Roof Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
8.3 ANALYTICAL APPROACHES TO
PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
CHAPTER 7 DESIGN OF CONNECTIONS FOR
8.3.1 Analysis Concepts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
BLAST RESISTANT STRUCTURES . . . . . . . . . . 113
8.3.2 Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis:
7.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. . . . . . . . . . 113 Energy Balance Approach. . . . . . . . . . 125
7.2 DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 8.3.3 Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis:
7.3 CONNECTION DUCTILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Time-History Approach . . . . . . . . . . . 127
7.4 CONNECTION STRENGTH . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 8.4 RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
7.4.1 Required Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 8.4.1 Prescriptive Recommendations . . . . . . 129
7.4.2 Available Strength. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 8.4.2 General Design Recommendations . . . . 130
7.5 BOLTED CONNECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 8.4.3 Analytical Design Recommendations . . 131
7.5.1 Shear Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 8.5 DESIGN EXAMPLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
7.5.2 Tension Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Example 8.1—Analysis of Structural System
7.6 WELDED CONNECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 with Removal of an Interior Column . . . . . . . . 131
7.6.1 Filler Metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 8.6 EXAMPLE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
7.6.2 Quality Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
7.6.3 Tension Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 SYMBOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
7.6.4 Flexural Applications. . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
7.7 BRACING AND MOMENT-RESISTING
CONNECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
iv
Chapter 1
Introduction
The purpose of this guide is to disseminate knowledge of Chapter 8 addresses basic progressive collapse concepts.
blast resistance and progressive collapse mitigation to the Progressive collapse design is independent of blast design
structural engineering community, presenting basic the- because progressive collapse may be caused by other pos-
ory with design examples so engineers and architects can sible events such as fire, accident, impact, etc. Examples
achieve simple and effective designs. demonstrating the determination of the structural response
Presently, security consultants with the assistance of the to progressive collapse are included.
owner evaluate the particular vulnerabilities of a given facil- The guide addresses only the behavior of structural steel
ity and determine the appropriate and acceptable level of under blast loading. It does not cover doors, windows, or any
security risk. The risk assessment study determines the loca- other structural material.
tion and the size of the explosive threat. The blast consul-
tants then calculate the blast pressures and review the design 1.1 HISTORY OF INCIDENTS
produced by the engineer of record. If the design is found
In years past, blast resistant design was typically only used
to be insufficient, the blast consultant recommends upgrad-
for facilities that either housed (or were in close proximity
ing the design and these revisions are incorporated into the
to) explosive material or were known as potential targets for
construction drawings. It is advisable to involve the security
attack. Munitions plants and storage facilities, strategic mili-
consultant and blast consultant as early as possible in the
tary and government facilities, and natural gas and petro-
planning and design process.
leum refineries are a few examples of facilities that might
There is enough information provided in this guide to
have been designed specifically to resist blasts. However,
allow practicing structural engineers with a background
the threat of bombings has increased in recent years. The
in structural dynamics to interact with blast consultants to
incidents described in the following are closely associated
produce effective designs. The engineer of record can then
with the evolution of the different security design criteria
proceed with the structural design based on the blast pres-
described in Chapter 3.
sures given by the blast consultant. As it is with any unusual
design, a peer review is a good idea and it is suggested that
1.1.1 Blast Incidents
the final design be reviewed by a qualified blast consultant
with experience in the design of blast resistant structures. While numerous bombing events have occurred throughout
This guide is divided into the following chapters: the world, a small number of these events over the past three
Chapter 2 addresses external blast explosions and is decades has had the largest impact on how the U.S. prepares
focused on the shock wave—not on fragment or projectile for, and responds to, such events.
loading. The chapter does not cover the loads generated by a Notable events include:
large blast in close proximity to the structure. • April 18, 1983—A suicide car bomber attacked the
Chapter 3 addresses the evolution of documents related to U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 63 people,
the design of buildings for blast loading and provides guid- 17 of whom were Americans.
ance on the relevant factors in protective building design.
• October 23, 1983—The U.S. Marine barracks in Bei-
Chapter 4 addresses methods of dynamic analysis, sim-
rut, Lebanon, were attacked by a suicide truck bomb
plifying multiple degrees of freedom into single degree of
killing 241 American military personnel.
freedom systems, and determining the dynamic response to
defined loads. It also explains the use of general structural • December 1983—Suicide truck bombers attacked
engineering software to solve simple multiple degree of free- the U.S. and French embassies in Kuwait killing 5
dom problems. and injuring 86.
Chapter 5 addresses the overall response of a building’s • September 20, 1984—The annex of the U.S. embassy
structural system to blast loading. in Beirut, Lebanon, was attacked with a truck bomb
Chapter 6 addresses member design, failure modes killing 24 and injuring the ambassador.
and design criteria including breaching, shear failure and
• December 21, 1988—A terrorist bomb destroyed
bending.
Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing
Chapter 7 addresses steel connection design for blast
270 people.
loading.
AISC DESIGN GUIDE 26/ DESIGN OF BLAST RESISTANT STRUCTURES / 1

• February 26, 1993—The car bombing of the World Notable progressive collapse events include:
Trade Center in New York, NY, resulted in the deaths • Quebec River Bridge, 1907. Bridge collapsed during
of six and injuries to over 1,000. construction killing 82 workers; compression mem-
• April 19, 1995—The A.P. Murrah Federal Building bers were observed to be distorted by up to 2¼ in.,
in Oklahoma City, OK, was attacked using a truck indicating incipient buckling. Improper design of lat-
bomb, killing 168 people and injuring more than 500 tice compression braces caused total failure of the
others. partially constructed bridge.
• June 25, 1996—Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi • Ronan Point, 1968, UK. Small kitchen explosion
Arabia, was truck-bombed, killing 19 airmen. caused partial collapse of 20 stories of a corner of an
apartment building.
• July 27, 1996—Pipe bombing of Centennial Olym-
pic Park in Atlanta, GA, during the 1996 Olympic • Hartford Coliseum, 1978, Hartford, CT. Long-span
Games. space frame collapsed under a moderate snow load
(less than 20 psf). Compression members had been
• January 16, 1997—Double pipe-bombing at the
improperly designed and the failure propagated
Sandy Springs Professional Building in Atlanta, GA.
through the entire arena.
• February 21, 1997—Double pipe-bombing at the
• L’Ambiance Plaza, 1987, Bridgeport, CT. Collapse
Otherside Lounge in Atlanta, GA.
of two adjoining buildings that were under construc-
• January 29, 1998—Pipe-bombing of the New Woman tion using the lift slab method. Triggered by loss of
All Women Health Care Clinic in Birmingham, AL. support of a slab at a column. 28 workers killed. Col-
• August 7, 1998—Truck bombing of the U.S. Embas- lapse propagated because final connections had not
sies in both Kenya and Tanzania. 224 people were yet been made.
killed in the two events, while nearly 5,000 sustained • Hyatt Regency Walkway, 1981, Kansas City, MO.
injuries. Revised connection of hanger rods to framing had
• October 12, 2000—The USS Cole was attacked by not been designed by a structural engineer. One con-
a suicide boat while docked in the port of Aden, nection failed and the lack of redundancy caused the
Yemen. complete collapse of both levels of walkways. Killed
114 people.
• September 11, 2001—Attacks on both the Pentagon
in Washington, DC, and the World Trade Center in • World Trade Center 6, September 11, 2001, New
New York, NY, killed thousands and injured many York, NY. Several floors collapsed due to fire. The
thousands more. While these attacks did not involve collapse was arrested by floors that were not on fire.
the use of explosives, the airplanes involved were • World Trade Center 7, September 11, 2001, New
used as guided missiles that had explosive effects York, NY. A fire caused the failure of a key structural
upon their targets (impact, deflagration and fire). member that resulted in the collapse of the entire
• May 12, 2003—Suicide bomb attacks on housing building.
killed 34 people in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Progressive collapse failures may be due, in part, to con-
Similar significant attacks in England, Russia, Spain, the crete punching shear. Concrete codes now have structural
Middle East, and other countries could be added to this list. integrity reinforcement that addresses this type of failure.
Examples of concrete structures that have collapsed are:
1.1.2 Progressive Collapse Incidents • 200 Commonwealth Avenue, 1971, Boston, MA. A
17-story concrete high-rise under construction. Four
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) standard
workers were killed and 20 injured.
ASCE/SEI 7-10 (ASCE, 2010a), Commentary Section C1.4
defines “progressive collapse” as “the spread of an initial • Skyline Plaza apartment building, 1973, Fairfax
local failure from element to element, resulting eventually County, VA. Collapsed during construction killing
in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportion- 14 workers; 34 others were injured.
ately large part of it.” Although some experts may disagree, • Cocoa Beach Condominium, 1981, FL. Collapsed
the following events are generally regarded as progressive during construction, killing 11 workers, and injuring
collapse failures. Some are also examples of improperly 23 others.
designed or built structures that failed completely.
2 / DESIGN OF BLAST RESISTANT STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 26

1.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF BLAST EFFECTS event, buildings up to 800 ft away from the charge expe-
rienced varying levels of structural collapse, largely due to
An air blast creates a supersonic shock wave, increases the
the lack of robustness. Damage varied significantly based on
ambient air pressure in the environment, and may generate
the building construction and the distance from the blast. In
high velocity fragments due to the destruction of the con-
addition, windows were broken in many buildings through-
tainer that holds the charge. The explosion can happen in
out the downtown area within a 1½-mile radius from the
an enclosed or open space. In the open there is no confine-
charge. The occurrence of breakage decreased, in general,
ment of the explosives; therefore, there is no increase of
with increased distance from the blast.
air pressure due to confinement and venting is not relevant.
There are many different types of explosives, but 1 lb of
In an enclosed space, venting the explosion byproducts is
trinitrotoluene (TNT) is universally used as a standard mea-
important.
sure of effectiveness of explosive materials. Homemade
Blast loads are different from the typical loads familiar
explosives such as ammonium nitrate with fuel oil (ANFO)
to structural engineers due to their large magnitude and
are less powerful than TNT, and thus equivalent weights of
short duration. The speed with which a blast load is applied
other explosive materials would have less effect than TNT.
exceeds the loading rate of an earthquake by several orders
Some military grade explosives, such as C-4 and pentolite,
of magnitude. Blast pressure may exceed hundreds and even
produce more powerful effects using the same weight of
thousands of pounds per square inch, but last only a hun-
material. TNT equivalence is a commonly used metric due
dredth or even a thousandth of a second. The structure is
to the lack of detailed information available for other materi-
designed to absorb the energy from the blast. Designers use
als. TNT weighs about 100 lb/ft3. This means that the vol-
plastic design with ultimate dynamic strengths without load
ume of TNT corresponding to 10,000 lb is 100 ft3, which can
factors, capacity reduction factors, or safety factors. Due
be visualized as a 6-ft by 2-ft closet in the average home ≈
to the nonlinear nature of the response, member failure is
(6 ft)(2 ft)(8 ft) = 96 ft3.
characterized by large deformations and/or rotation. Further,
When an explosive device is located very close to a struc-
the engineer must ensure that failure of members closest to
ture, both localized and global damage to the structure may
the blast will not cause a failure that propagates to elements
occur. Localized damage may consist of flexural deforma-
outside the area directly affected by the air blast loading. If
tion, breaching (e.g., the pulverization of the material), and
members outside the area fail, a progressive collapse of the
collapse of primary structural elements and wall systems in
structure may be generated. To prevent progressive collapse,
the immediate vicinity of the blast. As the distance from the
the structure should be sufficiently redundant to allow for
blast increases, localized damage transitions to more wide-
load redistribution or members must have sufficient strength
spread damage consisting primarily of broken windows and
to preclude failure.
failure of weaker building components comprising the build-
The patterns of blast damage on a particular structure will
ing envelope.
vary greatly due to several factors:
Varying levels of damage to a structure may also be seen
• Type/variety of construction, including materials, as the orientation of the charge to the structure changes. In
mass and stiffness a uniformly constructed building, the side of the building
• Type of explosive directly facing the blast will experience a higher load and
• Standoff distance between the charge and the more damage than the sides which are not facing the blast.
structure The sides not facing the blast will experience an incidental
loading from the blast, which will be lower than the direct
• Orientation of the charge to the structure reflected loading applied to the side facing the blast.
• Orientation of other structures surrounding the tar- Structures in the vicinity of the targeted structure may also
geted structure affect blast patterns but to a lesser extent than the items listed
Structural damage from a blast varies significantly with above. A structure located between the explosive charge and
distance from the charge, robustness of the structure, and the targeted structure will reduce the peak reflected pressure
characteristics of the material. Blast pressure drops signifi- on the target structure. However, it should be noted that only
cantly with increased distance and the resulting response is under ideal circumstances will the reduction be significant.
correspondingly decreased. Structural damage also lessens In many cases, the shock wave will re-form (almost to its
with increased robustness and increased material ductility. original strength) over the distance between the structures.
An example of these effects is the bombing of the Mur- In certain instances, surrounding structures may even reflect
rah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, OK, where many and amplify the loads seen by the targeted structure. In gen-
nontargeted buildings in the vicinity of the targeted build- eral, however, the first shock loading (not subsequent reflec-
ing sustained significant damage from the blast. During the tions) will control the level of damage.

1.3 BLAST EFFECTS VERSUS SEISMIC deformation without loss of load carrying ability. Since
EFFECTS structural steel can withstand large inelastic deformations, it
is frequently used in the design of primary structural systems
There are many similarities between the effects of blasts on
for buildings designed either to resist blast or seismic loads.
structures and the effects of earthquakes. Both phenomena
Although there are many similarities between design for
are dynamic in nature and as a result, the amount of force
seismic resistance and design for blast resistance, there are
and deformation experienced by a structure depends sig-
also a number of differences. Earthquake loads are transmit-
nificantly on the dynamic characteristics of the structure.
ted to the structure via ground shaking and blast loads are
Designs for both blast resistance and seismic resistance
transmitted through a pressure wave that hits the envelope
usually anticipate that the structure will undergo substan-
of a building first and subsequently is transmitted through
tial nonlinear response under design loading and that some
load resisting members of the building to the foundation.
structural elements will be damaged, perhaps to the point
Seismic response involves a global response of the structural
of failure. Due to the infrequency and magnitude of both
system originating in the foundation and blast begins as a
types of loading, extensive damage is usually considered
local response of a few structural elements. The response
acceptable as long as the building response does not result
of seismic loads is measured by stresses and displacement,
in extensive endangerment of life safety. Because substan-
while the response of blast loads is measured by ductility
tial nonlinear response is anticipated for both phenomena,
and rotation. The duration of blast loading is much shorter
good design practice often entails the use of materials and
than the duration of seismic loading. Typical pressure waves
detailing practices that are capable of developing the yield
produced by blasts will have durations on the order of tens
strength of the structure and experiencing extensive inelastic
of milliseconds, while typical seismic loading of a structure
Fig. 1-1. Pressure gauge trace from high-energy explosive detonation.

will have a duration extending from seconds to several min- elements and, depending on the design criteria, may permit
utes. Blast impulses typically produce one phase of signifi- collapse of limited areas of a building.
cant positive loading and one phase of negative loading that Following the blast-induced collapse of the Murrah Fed-
may or may not be significant. Seismic loading will typically eral Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, investigators sug-
include many cycles of loading, making low-cycle fatigue gested that if the more ductile detailing practices commonly
a more significant factor. For comparison, Figure 1-1 and used in regions of high seismicity had been incorporated in
Figure 1-2 illustrate a load history for blast and earthquake the design the building may have been substantially more
effects, respectively. Note the difference in the time scales. resistant to collapse and there may have been fewer fatalities.
Design for seismic loading typically attempts to preclude While this may be true in the case of that particular build-
failure of primary vertical load carrying elements and avoids ing, design for seismic resistance alone will not, in general,
any type of collapse. Design for blast resistance often antici- provide sufficient resistance to arrest progressive collapse or
pates failure of one or more primary vertical load carrying ensure acceptable response under blast loads.
Fig. 1-2. El Centro earthquake ground accelerations.

Chapter 2
Blast Loads
This chapter provides an overview of key characteristics of experimentally for the configuration used. The selection of
blast loads, including types of explosion hazards and meth- effective charge weights, safety factors on blast loads, and
ods for predicting magnitude and duration. Methodology allowable response criteria is discussed in DOD (2008) and
for load prediction is reviewed along with the types of tools Baker (1983).
and data typically used. Guidelines are included for appli- Fireworks, other pyrotechnics, propellants and blasting
cation of loads to structures, key parameters required, and agents are broadly classed as low energy explosives due to
limitations. This chapter will give the structural engineer the their relatively low reaction rate and blast pressure output.
background necessary to specify blast prediction require- These materials typically exhibit lower overpressures than
ments and apply the results but it is not intended to be a high energy explosive materials resulting from a slower
comprehensive methodology for complex problems. Exte- energy release rate. The designer should consult an expert
rior and interior blast loads are addressed as well as leakage for prediction of low energy explosive blast loads. In the far
pressures into a structure due to openings in or failure of the field, the low energy explosive blast loads can be similar to
building envelope. A detailed example problem is included those caused by high energy explosives as the initial and sec-
to guide the user through the load prediction process for a ondary shocks coalesce. In the near field, overpressures are
simple building. less than those produced by high energy explosives and use
This chapter provides an overview of the types of explo- of TNT equivalent prediction procedures will overestimate
sions that may be encountered by the designer and the meth- pressure.
odologies used to define blast loads. Development of design Vapor cloud explosions involve the release of a flammable
basis loads for blast resistant construction is a key element material which, when mixed in the proper proportions with
of the design development phase of a project. The most air, forms a combustible material. Vapor cloud explosions
important factors in blast design are explosive type and size, typically produce relatively low pressure, long duration blast
location of the explosion relative to the building, and the loads. A burst vessel can produce a short duration blast load.
building geometry. Blast loads vary spatially and decrease Release of flammable contents from the vessel may result in
rapidly with distance, even over the surface of a wall. Loads a follow-on explosion when the contents mix with air.
are influenced by geometric configuration, which provides Charges detonated in a confined area generate gas pres-
shielding and reflection. References are provided for more sures in addition to the shock waves. The degree of confine-
detailed explanations of methods and design aids. Some ment has a pronounced influence on the magnitude of blast
projects have project-specific predefined blast loads (pres- loads produced. Confinement promotes buildup of gas pres-
sure and impulse). sures due to the rapid heating of air in the confined areas.
Confinement can also promote faster reaction fronts in def-
2.1 EXPLOSION PARAMETERS lagrations, which produce a high blast output.
Elevated gas pressures are typically much longer in dura-
Blast loads from high energy explosives may occur due to
tion than shock loads and can be more damaging to structural
accidental or intentional detonations. Accidents involving
components. Elevated gas pressure duration may be much
high energy explosives can include explosives processing
longer than the natural period of the key structural compo-
and handling events. Intentional detonations can include
nents and are effectively a static load. Venting of a confined
controlled demolition, explosives testing, military weap-
explosion can be effective in reducing the buildup of gas
ons and terrorist threats. In the case of intentional detona-
pressures and minimizing the total effective load. Venting
tions, structures may be required to withstand multiple
may occur due to material failure or preplanned mechani-
events, such as with a test structure. These events produce
cal vents. Preplanned venting may result from planned weak
supersonic reaction fronts. For convenience in predicting
points or blow-out panels specifically sized and installed in
blast pressures, the energy release of a high energy explo-
the structure. The weight or mass of the preplanned vent
sive is equated to trinitrotoluene (TNT). TNT equivalence
as well as its structural attachment determines the speed at
values for peak pressure and impulse are reported for many
which the vent opens to allow pressure reduction. For terror-
explosive compounds. TNT equivalencies for many com-
ist threats, mailrooms and loading docks represent common
pounds are published in Unified Facilities Criteria 3-340-
confined areas for which gas pressures must be considered.
02, Structures to Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions
As a general rule, spaces adjacent to these areas should be
(DOD, 2008), but in some cases they must be determined
unoccupied, or preferably, these areas should be adjacent to

the outside. This will permit venting into these areas or to the decreases and the duration of the shock increases. Overex-
outside, which will reduce the peak gas pressure and result- pansion at the center of the explosion creates a vacuum which
ing demand on the structure. generates a negative pressure. This negative pressure wave,
which trails the positive pressure, is lower in magnitude but
2.2 EXPLOSIVE THREAT SCENARIOS longer in duration than the positive pulse. A pressure-time
Terrorist threats involving explosives can be carried out with history recorded during a high energy explosives detonation
a variety of delivery modes and configurations. Perhaps is shown in Figure 2-1. Expansion of the explosion causes
one of the most recognized is a vehicle-borne improvised air particles to move creating a dynamic pressure. This pres-
explosive device (VBIED). Vehicles perform an important sure is lower in magnitude than the shock or pressure wave
function by allowing the terrorist to move a relatively large and imparts a drag load on objects in its path, similar to wind
amount of explosives material close to the target, often with- loads.
out arousing suspicion. The vehicle also produces fragments, As the shock wave or pressure wave strikes a wall or
many of which generate significant hazard to personnel due other object, a reflection occurs which increases the effec-
to their high velocity impact energy. Hand carried weapons tive pressure on the surface. This reflected pressure may
produce much less energy output than larger weapons but be considerably higher than the incident pressure wave. At
are still hazardous due to their proximity to the target. the free edges of a reflecting surface, relief of the reflected
The most important parameters to define in the initial pressure creates a rarefaction wave which travels across the
stages of blast assessment and design are explosive energy face of the reflecting surface. This rarefaction wave relieves
and standoff distance. As discussed previously, explosive the positive reflected pressure down to the stagnation pres-
energy is typically related to an equivalent weight of TNT. sure (free-field pressure plus dynamic pressure). The time
Equivalency is determined by comparing the blast pressure required for the rarefaction wave to travel from the free edge
and impulse produced by the explosive to loads produced to a particular point on the surface is termed clearing time. If
by the equivalent weight of TNT. Because both values are the clearing time exceeds the free-field blast wave duration,
compared, it is evident that the TNT equivalency of a mate- clearing does not occur.
rial may be different for pressure and impulse. TNT equiva-
lencies are determined by tests, many of which have been 2.3.1 Key Parameters
prepared under government research programs. Results are
An idealized pressure-time history is shown in Figure 2-2.
available in Department of Defense technical manuals with
This figure describes the key parameters of a blast load. U.S.
limited distribution, such as The Joint Services Manual for
customary units for these parameters are psi for pressure,
the Design and Analysis of Hardened Structures to Conven-
millisecond (ms) for duration and time of arrival, and psi-ms
tional Weapons Effects that is also distributed as Unified
for impulse. SI units are kPa for pressure, ms for duration
Facilities Criteria 3-340-01, Design and Analysis of Hard-
and kPa-ms for impulse. Note that the pressures shown are
ened Structures to Conventional Weapons Effects (DOD,
in addition to ambient atmospheric pressure—thus the term
2002). Blast loads decrease exponentially with distance,
“overpressure.”
making standoff distance a key parameter for determina-
Peak overpressure is the peak pressure value which occurs
tion of blast loads. Increasing standoff distance is also a key
instantaneously upon arrival of the blast wave or after a short
method to mitigating blast damage by reducing peak blast
rise time. Positive phase duration is the time for the blast
pressure. For close-in blasts, a standoff increase of a few feet
pressure to decay to ambient. Positive impulse is the total
significantly changes the loads. Measures that defend facil-
pressure-time energy applied during the positive duration
ity perimeters are critical for maintaining intended standoff
and is equal to the area under the pressure-time curve. Nega-
distances and thus reducing blast hazards.
tive phase pressure, duration, and impulse follow the posi-
tive phase.
2.3 BLAST PHENOMENA
Reflected blast loads are produced when a blast wave
Blast loads resulting from an explosion are created by a strikes a surface at an angle of incidence other than paral-
rapid expansion of material creating a pressure disturbance lel to the surface. Blast pressures applied where the shock
or blast wave which radiates away from the explosion. This wave travels parallel to a surface are side-on or incident,
blast wave may be termed a shock wave or pressure wave also known as free-field. All other blast load impingement
depending on the amplitude and rate of pressure rise. A shock involves a reflection. The reflection coefficient, Cr, the ratio
wave, characteristic of a detonation, is an instantaneous rise of reflected pressure to free-field pressure, is a function of
in pressure which expands in all directions. Pressure waves, angle of incidence and free-field pressure. Reflected pres-
characteristic of slower speed deflagrations, have finite rise sure, Pr , is computed by:
times and lower peak values than shock waves. As the shock
wave travels away from the explosion center, its amplitude Pr = Cr Pso (2-1)

Fig. 2-1. Pressure gauge trace from high energy explosives detonation.
Fig. 2-2. Pressure-time history for shock load.

where explosion energy, standoff distance, and blast load quantities
Pso = free-field pressure, psi are typically used in this initial load prediction step. These
curves are readily available for high energy explosives and
The reflection coefficient ranges from 2 to more than 30. In
vapor cloud explosions. The free-field loads are then trans-
the range of loads most commonly encountered, the reflec-
lated into applied loads for the structure or component of
tion coefficient ranges from 2 to 5. It does not drop below 2
interest by consideration of component location and orienta-
until the angle of incidence is greater than 50°. Reflection
tion with respect to the detonation. The selection of analysis
coefficient as a function of angle of incidence is shown in
method and complexity should be based on specific project
Figure 2-3. For a blast wave striking two intersecting sur-
requirements and type of component being considered. The
faces, such as a cornering load, both surfaces will be sub-
applied loads are used in a dynamic structural analysis of the
jected to reflected loads.
building and its components.
Free-field loads are those produced by a blast wave
sweeping over a surface, unimpeded by any objects in its
2.4.1 Empirical Relationships
path. This incident load is also referred to as side-on which,
as the term implies, traverses a wall, flat roof, or other object A significant amount of data exists that quantifies the rela-
parallel to its travel direction. Free-field pressure terms have tionship between charge weight, standoff distance and
an “so” subscript in the figures in this chapter as well as in blast parameters. Several technical manuals produced by
most references. Figure 2-4 depicts the relationship between the Department of Defense contain the relationships in the
reflected pressure-time histories (indicated by the solid form of scaled distance curves. UFC 3-340-02 (DOD, 2008)
curve) and free-field (incident) pressure-time histories (indi- and UFC 3-340-01 (DOD, 2002) are perhaps the most well-
cated by the dashed curve). known sources of this information. Both of these documents
are available electronically to aid in the use of figures and
2.4 BLAST LOAD PREDICTION tables. Other manuals, charts and calculation tools are used
by blast consultants to estimate blast loading.
Prediction of blast loads on structures typically requires the
following basic steps:
2.4.2 External Loads
1. Threat definition, accounting for charge size,
explosive type and charge location The empirical blast parameter curves are provided in UFC
3-340-02 (DOD, 2008), UFC 3-340-01 (DOD, 2002), and
2. Free-field (incident) loads determination
other manuals plot air blast parameters versus scaled dis-
3. Applied loads on structure determination tance for both spherical air burst configurations and hemi-
spherical surface burst configurations. A charge detonated
Determination of appropriate design level threats or explo-
on the ground will produce higher blast loads than an air
sion energy requires knowledge of both the process and the
burst due to the reflection of the initial shock by the ground
consequences. Threat levels and locations may be deter-
surface. For unyielding surfaces with the charge located
mined from a risk assessment or may be specified by a
on the surface, the effect is equivalent to a doubling of the
governing standard such as the Minimum Antiterrorism Stan-
charge weight since the energy of the blast directed to the
dards for Buildings (DOD, 2007), the Interagency Security
ground is fully reflected. For soft soils or charges located
Committee Security Design Criteria for New Federal Office
above the surface, the reflection factor is less. Guidance for
Buildings and Major Modernization Projects (ISC, 2004),
selecting the reflection factor is given in various government
or the Interagency Security Committee Physical Security
technical manuals but it is conservative to assume a fully
Criteria for Federal Facilities (ISC, 2010). Chapter 3 of this
reflecting surface.
Design Guide describes these criteria. In some cases, explo-
The key to the empirical relationships is the use of Hop-
sive quantities are mandated by government regulations.
kinson scaling (cube-root scaling). Since the shock wave
Vapor cloud explosions require estimation of the quantity
expands as a sphere, scaling of explosive effects is volu-
of material participating in an explosion which may entail
metric and leads to the use of cube-root scaling. Cube-root
dispersion analysis. Although the blast threat is determined
scaling allows a limited number of empirical curves to
by either specified criteria or project-specific threat assess-
define airblast parameters for an infinite variety of explosion
ments, structural engineers should be aware of the factors
parameters. To use these empirical curves, one computes the
involved in calculating the explosion energy in order to help
scaled distance by dividing the standoff distance from the
guide decisions that are made about structural performance
charge to the point of interest by the cube root of the charge
during the structural analysis and design process. Selection
weight. Standard empirical curves for high energy explo-
of the threat and the response criteria should be consistent.
sives are based on conditions at sea level. Sachs scaling can
The basic approach involves predicting free-field loads
be used to account for the effects of altitude.
using empirical or semi-empirical methods. Curves that relate

Fig. 2-3. Reflection coefficients (DOD, 2002).
Fig. 2-4. Relationship of reflected and free-field (side-on) pressure-time histories (Pr = reflected pressure; Pso = side-on pressure).

Parameters that are a function of time, such as load dura- in BLASTX, which is capable of modeling shock and gas
tion and impulse, are reported in scaled terms to account for pressure propagation through multiple rooms. These codes
scaling effects. Users are cautioned to read the correct axis are not generally available to the public but the calculations
and to unscale the parameters prior to application. These can be accomplished in spreadsheets or other math modeling
curves are based on a unit weight of TNT. Equivalence tables tools using the methods discussed here. Hydrodynamic and
are provided for various materials in UFC 3-340-01 (DOD, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) codes can also be used
2002) and other technical manuals. One of the more com- to develop these loads.
mon tools for predicting basic blast loads for bomb threats
are the surface burst curves in UFC 3-340-02 (DOD, 2008) 2.4.4 Analytical Methods
and similar documents. These curves are reproduced in Fig-
Methods have been developed to analytically predict blast
ure 2-5.
loads. These methods fall into two groups: semi-empirical
and hydrocode. The semi-empirical approach uses a physics-
2.4.3 Internal Loads
based model that is tuned to match test data. These models
Blast design sometimes involves containment of explosion are limited to configurations and charge weight ratios for
effects such as for mailrooms and loading docks. Shock which data is available but offer the advantage of quick run-
waves emanate from the charge surface, strike wall and roof times compared with more detailed techniques. BLASTX is
components, and reflect to impact other surfaces. Each sur- an example of this approach. The codes offer limited abil-
face is subjected to multiple shock waves which combine ity to model shock diffraction, shielding and reflection.
to form the applied load. Typically the peak pressure of the Semi-empirical methods have been developed primarily by
initial reflected wave is taken for the combined load, and the defense related agencies and are restricted in distribution to
reflected impulse values are combined to determine the total government agencies and contractors.
impulse. Accounting for the reflections requires specialized Hydrocodes utilize a grid of computational cells to track
software to track the response of venting surfaces and the shock wave propagation through a medium based on mate-
combination of the reflected waves. rial models, relating kinetics of the combustion to pres-
Internal explosions also produce gas and heat which cause sure, density and other key parameters. Hydrocodes have
a pressure increase within the confined space. The peak gas been developed by both government agencies and private
pressure is a function of the charge-weight-to-free-volume industries and are available to analysts developing loads for
ratio in confined areas. Empirical relationships for gas load commercial projects. This type of analysis is much more
prediction are covered in UFC 3-340-02 (DOD, 2008) and complex and expensive than the use of empirical relation-
UFC 3-340-01 (DOD, 2002). This pressure buildup is rela- ships. Some of the available tools have user interfaces which
tively slow compared with the load duration associated with greatly simplify the analysis, especially for standard mate-
shock waves. For simplicity, the peak gas pressure or quasi- rials; however, considerable effort is required to conduct a
static pressure is assumed to rise instantaneously to the peak competent analysis.
gas pressure but is not additive to shock pressures.
Duration of the gas pressures is a function of the vent area 2.5 LOADS ON STRUCTURES
and volume available and the rate at which temperatures
Free-field blast parameters obtained from the empirical rela-
decay in the confined area. UFC 3-340-02 (DOD, 2008)
tionships must be modified to account for interaction with
contains predictive methods for gas impulses based on vent
building surfaces before they are used in analysis. Addition-
area and vent weight. Equivalent gas load duration is com-
ally, other parameters which may become important include
puted from the peak gas pressure and the predicted impulse
drag pressures, clearing times, and blast wave length.
assuming a right triangle load shape. Gas pressure loads can
Blast loads can change significantly over the surface of a
be quite important to the response of structural components,
building because of differences in distance from the explo-
especially for very long duration loads. For load durations
sion center and angle of incidence. Multistory buildings will
significantly exceeding the fundamental period, the compo-
experience substantially smaller loads at upper floors from
nent blast resistance must be slightly higher than the peak
an explosion near grade. Prediction of the blast load varia-
gas pressure to provide adequate response.
tion over a surface can be computed accurately with complex
Two codes have been developed by the Department of
analysis methodologies; however, simplified approaches
the Navy to compute interior loads. SHOCK computes
may be acceptable, especially for preliminary evaluation or
shock pressures on a wall or roof surface including effects
design. Simplified approaches typically involve dividing a
of reflections. FRANG determines gas pressure duration by
surface into a grid and computing the pressure and impulse
modeling venting and pressure decay. The Department of the
at the center of the grid point, taking into account the angle
Army and Defense Special Weapons Agency has developed
of incidence for surfaces with a line of sight to the charge.
a series of codes for internal load prediction culminating

Greater accuracy can be achieved by creating a higher reso- waveform is shown in Figure 2-6. Peak pressure and impulse
lution grid but even with this approach, loads are averaged are preserved from the actual shock parameters and a fic-
over selected areas corresponding to the tributary areas of titious duration, te, is taken as te = 2(I/P). This simplified
components of interest. For tall structures, these areas may time-history is readily applied to simple structural models to
be the equivalent of one or more floors. quickly determine response. A similar approach can be taken
with pressure waves which have an increasing-decreasing
2.5.1 Equivalent Load Shapes shape. If pressure and impulse are known, an isosceles tri-
angle may be used with an equivalent duration, te, taken as
The load time-history from a shock wave is of a shape simi-
2(I/P) and a rise time to peak pressure, tr , equal to te /2.
lar to that shown in Figure 2-2. For design, this time-his-
The negative phase of the blast load is ignored in this
tory is normally simplified to a triangular distribution with
equivalent load. This is typical for many blast analysis
an instantaneous rise and a linear decay. This simplified
Fig. 2-5. Positive phase parameters for surface burst TNT explosions (DOD, 2008).

problems because the negative phase load often does not 2.5.3 Nonreflected Surface Loads
significantly affect the response of structural components.
As a blast wave sweeps across a side or rear wall (not fac-
Negative phase loads can become important when the com-
ing the blast) or roof, the surface is subjected to a nonuni-
ponents are significantly weaker in the reverse loading direc-
form load due to time of arrival of the load and blast pressure
tion, especially with high rebound forces.
decay. Depending on the span and width, all portions of a
Clearing effects, which reduce blast loads near the edges,
component may receive the peak load at the same time. If
are also often neglected. Clearing typically affects a small
the blast wavelength is long compared with the span, the
portion of the structure and neglecting this effect is conser-
effective pressure on the component will be high. If the
vative. The structural engineer should consider these factors
wavelength is short relative to the span, the effect of the load
when developing the design loads.
will be small. In design, we typically consider full incident
(side-on) pressure for nonreflecting walls and roofs. In some
2.5.2 Drag Loads
cases, the analyst may use the side-on loads computed at the
Air particle movement produces a dynamic pressure which center of each nonreflected face rather than using the load
results in a drag load on a structure similar to a wind load. averaging techniques described in UFC 3-340-02 (DOD,
Relationships between free-field pressures and drag loads 2008).
have been established as shown in Figure 2-7. An equa-
tion for dynamic pressure, qo, was developed by Newmark 2.5.4 Shielding and Reflection
(1956):
Urban environments with multistory buildings present some
unique challenges for blast load prediction, especially when
qo = 2.5Pso2/ ( 7 Po + Pso) (2-2)
the explosive threat is some distance from the structure being
analyzed. Buildings provide shielding to adjacent structures
where that are not in the line of sight. In many cases, this shielding
Po = atmospheric pressure can be significant, reducing peak blast pressures to a frac-
Pso = free-field pressure tion of the loads that would occur without intervening struc-
tures. Conversely, adjacent buildings can produce reflections
The drag load is a function of dynamic pressure and a drag
that can amplify loads above those produced by the incident
coefficient. For surfaces facing the blast, the drag coeffi-
wave acting on the building of interest. Due to the increased
cient is typically 1.0. For all other surfaces, the drag coef-
travel distance to the reflecting surface, the peak pressure on
ficient is −0.4. For reflected surfaces, drag load contribution
the target building will not be affected, but the impulse from
is included in the reflection factor data. For side walls,
the reflection will add to the incident wave load. For many
rear walls and roof surfaces, the negative value of the drag
practical situations, this additional impulse is low enough
coefficient (suction) reduces the applied blast load and is
to be ignored. However, the engineer should perform some
often neglected, but the engineer should be aware of the
preliminary calculations using an image charge approach to
phenomenon.
see if the impulse contribution should be included.
Most of the tools available to government agencies and
commercial consultants ignore these reflection and shield-
ing effects because they are fast-running tools that rely on
empirical relationships between scaled distance and blast
loads. Often this assumption is conservative, but the more
accurate answers offered by advanced analysis using hydro-
code or CFD can result in lower costs for blast resistant con-
struction for large facilities.
2.5.5 Net Lateral Loads

Differences in front and rear wall loads create a net lateral
load in the direction of the blast wave travel. Phasing due
to delayed blast wave arrival at the rear wall increases the
net lateral load. Negative phase loads complicate the net
load computation. This phasing can be important for flex-
ible frame-type structures but is less important for shear wall
systems. Rear wall loads are often conservatively ignored for
net lateral load computation.
Fig. 2-6. Simplified pressure-time history.

2.5.6 Negative Phase interior damage and the potential effects of overpressure on
personnel. As exterior blast loads are constricted at the open-
Negative phase loads typically reduce the peak response
ing and then expand into the free volume of the interior, the
and in most cases are ignored. However, components with
peak pressure is significantly reduced. Methods are provided
a short fundamental period with respect to the load duration
in UFC 3-340-02 (DOD, 2008) for predicting leakage loads
may be rebounding as the negative wave arrives. In this case,
for simple configurations. More complex situations require
ignoring the negative phase is unconservative. This situa-
hydrocodes to model the propagation of the blast wave in
tion is the exception, rather than the rule, but the response of
and around the structure.
the component should be examined to determine if negative
phase loads should be included.
2.6 RESOURCES
2.5.7 Interior Loads Due to Leakage Technical manuals developed for the Department of Defense
and other government agencies provide a wealth of infor-
Openings in structures may allow blast loads to enter the
mation and guidance on prediction of blast loads. These
structure. For large openings, this interior pressure load may
manuals cover a range of threats and hazards including high
reduce the effective net load on the walls. For smaller open-
and low energy explosives as well as bursting vessels. Many
ings, the reduction in net load is minimal and is typically
of these manuals have electronic versions and supporting
ignored. Interior loads are most important for evaluation of
Fig. 2-7. Dynamic pressure (DOD, 2002).

software to aid implementation of the methods; however, industry associations and technical manuals developed by
they are not readily available to the public. these groups. These documents are widely available and are
FEMA 426 (FEMA, 2003a) and FEMA 427 (FEMA, included in the list of references. Examples include Guide-
2003b) provide guidance on predicting and mitigating the lines for Evaluating the Characteristics of Vapor Cloud
effects of terrorist attacks on commercial structures. These Explosions, Flash Fires, and BLEVEs (Center for Chemical
two documents provide the most readily available sources of Process Safety, 1994) and Understanding Explosions (Cen-
information for selection of threats, prediction of blast loads, ter for Chemical Process Safety, 2003).
response of buildings and components, and structural design Several commercial software codes have been developed
to mitigate blast effects. for load prediction for solid, liquid and gas explosions. These
Prediction methods for vapor cloud explosions and vessel tools represent the state of the art in blast load prediction for
bursts are well documented in proceedings of safety-related industrial explosions.
2.7 DESIGN EXAMPLE
Example 2.1—Preliminary Evaluation of Blast Resistance of a One-Story Building
Given:
Evaluate the one-story steel building shown in Figure 2-8, Figure 2-9 and Figure 2-10 for a blast caused by a charge with W =
500 lb located just above ground level at the location shown in Figure 2-8. The building is 50 ft by 70 ft in plan and has a 15-ft
story height. The lateral force resisting system consists of rigid frames in the long dimension and braced frames on the exterior
walls in the short dimension. The roof is metal decking over structural steel purlins with a 0% slope.
Fig. 2-8. Steel building—isometric view.

Solution:
Scaled Distance
For a stand-off distance of R = 50 ft and a TNT equivalent charge weight of 500 lb, the scaled distance is:
R
Z=
3
W
50.0 ft
=
3
500 lb
3
= 6.30 ft/lb
Since the explosive is located just above ground, the charge is considered to be a hemispherical surface burst explosion.
Fig. 2-9. Steel building—plan view.
Fig. 2-10. Steel building—elevation.

Parameters for Blast Loading
From Figure 2-11, using the scaled distance (Z = 6.30 ft/lb3), the following data is obtained for the positive phase:
Blast Loading Parameters From Figure 2-11 Calculated

Reflected peak pressure (positive phase) Pr = 79.5 psi –
Side-on peak pressure (positive phase) Pso = 24.9 psi –
3
Reflected impulse (positive phase) Ir = 31.0W Ir = 246 psi ms
Side-on impulse (positive phase) Iso = 12.1W3 Iso = 96.0 psi ms
3
Time of arrival ta = 1.96W ta = 15.6 ms
3
Exponential load duration (positive phase) td = 1.77W td = 14.0 ms
Shock front velocity U = 1.75 ft/ms –
Fig. 2-11. Positive phase shock parameters for hemispherical TNT explosion on the surface at sea level (DOD, 2008).

For design response calculations, the loading function is converted to an equivalent triangular shape in which the peak pressure
and impulse of the more complex pressure time-history are preserved and an equivalent load duration is computed. Thus, the
equivalent load duration, te, is:
2I
te = (2-3)
P
Because the area under the two curves for equivalent reflected pressure in Figure 2-12 and Figure 2-13 must be equal, with the
area representing the impulse, the equivalent load duration is always less than the actual duration.
Fig. 2-12. Reflected pressure and impulse.

The equivalent duration of positive phase blast load for reflected pressure is:
2 Ir
te,r =
Pr
2(246 psi ms)
=
79.5 psi
= 6.19 ms
Fig. 2-13. Side-on pressure and impulse.

The equivalent duration of positive phase blast load for side-on pressure is:
2 I so
t e,so =
Pso
2(96.0 psi ms)
=
24.9 psi
= 7.71 ms
Figure 2-12 and Figure 2-13 show the predicted pressure time-history loading function and the equivalent triangular loading
function for reflected pressure and side-on pressure.
Front Wall
The typical blast load on a front wall is shown in Figure 2-14.
Determine Blast Load Parameters at the Closest Point to the Charge

The equivalent reflected pressure from Figure 2-12 is used for designing the entire front wall. A more detailed calculation could
be used which considers the reduction in pressure and impulse across the wall for overall lateral loading on the building. Figure
2-15 shows the equivalent blast pressure load versus time for the front wall.
Side Walls
The typical blast load on a side wall is shown in Figure 2-16 as a plot of pressure versus time.
The blast load on the side wall is computed near the front corner of the building. For simplicity, the blast parameters (Pso, Iso,
qo, U) are computed using the scaled distance Z computed at the front wall on the centerline. The sidewall blast parameters are
given in Figure 2-13. A more detailed calculation would consider the reduction of blast pressure and impulse over the wall mov-
ing toward the rear.
Roof
Similar to the side walls, the blast load on the roof is computed near the corner of the building. For simplicity, the blast param-
eters (Pso, Iso, qo, U) are computed using the scaled distance Z computed at the front wall on the centerline. Thus, the roof param-
eters are the same as those for the sidewall and shown in Figure 2-13.
Fig. 2-14. Typical blast load with clearing effect.

Fig. 2-15. Equivalent blast pressure load for front wall.

Rear Wall
The typical blast load on a rear wall is shown in Figure 2-17 as a plot of pressure versus time.
The blast parameters for the rear wall are computed using the scaled distance to the front and rear of the building as shown in
Figure 2-18. The closest distance from the charge to the rear wall is:
R = 50.0 ft + 70.0 ft
= 120 ft
and the TNT charge weight is again 500 lb. Thus, the scaled distance is:
R
Z=
W3
120 ft
=
( 500 lb ) 3
= 15.1 ft/lb 3
Fig. 2-16. Typical side wall blast loading. Fig. 2-17. Typical rear wall blast loading.
Fig. 2-18. Scaled distances at front and rear walls.

Using Figure 2-11 with a charge weight of 500 lb and the scaled distance, Z = 15.1 ft/lb3, the following values are determined:
Side-on peak pressure (positive phase) Pso = 4.60 psi
Side-on impulse (positive phase) Iso = 44.0 psi ms
Time of arrival ta = 66.0 ms
Exponential load duration (positive phase) td = 24.7 ms
Shock front velocity U = 1.26 ft/ms
2I so
Equivalent side-on load duration (positive phase) te,so =
Pso
2 ( 44.0 psi ms )
=
4.60 psi
= 19.1 ms
Peak dynamic pressure qo = 2.5 Pso2 / (7 Po + Pso )
= 0.500 psi
Po = 14.7 psi
Based on these parameters, the side-on blast pressure loads at the top of the rear wall are as shown in Figure 2-19.
Computation of the rear wall load is completed by evaluating the rise time and total duration as the blast wave sweeps down the
wall. The combined load is shown in Figure 2-20. In this figure, the equivalent positive phase load duration is used. The negative
phase of the load is not shown in this example. The negative phase is often ignored for simplicity and this is typically a conser-
vative approach. The span of the element parallel to the traveling wave is the building height, L1 = 15 ft. The free-field pressure
at the top of the wall is 4.60 psi with a time of arrival, ta = 66.0 ms. Thus, the time to peak pressure, t2, is the rise time plus the
time of arrival:
L
t2 = 1 + t a
U
15.0 ft
= + 66.0 ms
1.26 ft/ms
= 77.9 ms
The time at the end of the blast load (positive phase), tf, is the time to peak pressure plus the side-on load duration. In the follow-
ing calculation, the equivalent linear decay duration is used:
t f = t2 + te,so
= 77.9 ms + 19.1 ms
= 97.0 ms
Frame Loads
To establish the lateral response of the framing system, blast loads on the front wall and on the rear wall may be computed sepa-
rately to get the net combined load. The time of arrival of the loads to the walls must be taken into account. The results from the
computation of the loading for the frame along gridline B are shown in Figure 2-23.
The positive phase loading on the front (reflected) wall is often conservatively used alone for design for lateral response rather
than the net loading calculation results shown in this example.

Front Wall
The pressure load applied to the front wall is the same as previously computed. Figure 2-21 shows the positive phase pressure load
incorporating time of arrival and equivalent linear decay load duration computed by dividing the impulse by the peak pressure.
Rear Wall
The pressure load applied to the rear wall is the side-on pressure applied to the rear wall which was shown in Figure 2-19. The
interaction of the pressure loading applied in each face of the frame is shown in Figure 2-22. Figure 2-23 shows the superposi-
tion to scale of the blast loads for the front and rear walls, accounting for time phasing. Note that positive pressure for the rear
wall is shown as a negative value in the graph because this load is in the opposite direction to that applied to the front wall load.
Fig. 2-19. Side-on pressure at top of rear wall.

Summary of Blast Loads
A summary of blast loading ignoring the dynamic pressure and also the negative phase of shock wave is shown in Table 2-1.
These positive phase, equivalent loads would typically be used for design. For simplicity, the side load is calculated using the
same distance and arrival time as the reflected pressure on the front wall; therefore, the side wall loading shape is similar to the
front wall loading shape.
Chapters 5 and 6 will present typical design examples using this information.
5
t= 77.9 ms, P= 4.6 psi
3
Pressure (psi)
t= 97.0 ms
t= 66 ms
-1
-2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Time (ms)
Fig. 2-20. Rear wall load.

100
90
P= 79.5 psi
80
70
60
Pressure (psi)
50
40
30
ta = 15.6 ms
20
10
t= 21.8 ms
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Time (ms)
Positive impulse at the front wall:

I = 246 psi ms
Negative impulse at the front wall:
I = 193 psi ms
Fig. 2-21. Pressure load for front wall.

Table 2-1. Summary of Blast Loading per Component
for W = 500 lb TNT Charge
Charge Equivalent
Distance, Pressure, P, Impulse, I, Duration, te, Loading
Location Component ft psi psi ms ms Shape
Front wall Wall panel 50.0 79.5 246 6.19
Front wall Girt 50.0 79.5 246 6.19
Side wall Wall panel 50.0 24.9 96.0 7.71
Roof Purlin 50.0 24.9 96.0 7.71
Rear wall Wall panel 120 4.60 44.0 19.1
Rear Wall
Front Wall
Charge
50ft 70ft
Frame B - Elevation
Direction of pressure
applied against wall
Fig. 2-22. Schematic of loading pressure interaction on Frame B.

90
80
70
60
50
Pressure (psi)
40
Pressure load from Front wall
Pressure load from Rear wall
30
20
10
-10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Time (ms)
Fig. 2-23. Superposition of pressure loading on Frame B.

Chapter 3
Design Criteria For Buildings
Proper attention to blast design can minimize potential loss 3.1.2 GSA Security Criteria
from an explosive attack. Protective design can also help to
In response to the DOJ report and subsequent presidential
minimize collateral damage stemming from an explosive
directives (Executive Order 12977 and PDD 39, 62, and 63),
attack on a nearby building. A number of federal agencies
and as part of the General Services Administration’s (GSA)
have developed criteria for incorporating protective design
mission to ensure excellence in development and delivery of
into their facilities; there are also a number of general
public facilities, the GSA developed detailed security crite-
methods that can be used to help protect facilities and their
ria (USGSA, 1997). The goal of the GSA criteria was to pro-
occupants. Attention to the site layout and location of criti-
vide performance-based guidance to designers and to ensure
cal building functions can reduce the amount of hardening
that security became an integral part of the planning, design
required. Architects and engineers should be familiar with
and construction of new federal facilities and major modern-
blast design criteria to minimize the amount of hardening
ization projects. The GSA Security Criteria (USGSA, 1997)
required.
covers requirements for blast resistant design and blast haz-
ard mitigation measures in both new construction and the
3.1 THREAT ASSESSMENT METHODS
renovation of existing facilities. The GSA Security Criteria
In light of recent terrorist events, much attention has been lists four potential levels of protection: Level A, Level B,
directed toward protecting the public from explosions. The Level C and Level D. This document was superseded by the
U.S. Government has been especially active in this area. Security Design Criteria for New Federal Office Buildings
Several government agencies have conducted research in and Major Modernization Projects (ISC, 2004).
the areas of blast effects and protective design. A variety
of detailed security criteria have been developed and have 3.1.3 ISC Security Design Criteria
incorporated much of this research. Several of the most
The ISC Security Design Criteria, developed by the Inter-
widely used criteria developed for this purpose are described
agency Security Committee (ISC), was signed and approved
in the following sections.
by the GSA on May 28, 2001 and was updated on September
29, 2004. The ISC Security Design Criteria was developed
3.1.1 DOJ Report
by revising and updating the GSA Security Criteria. The ISC
In the wake of the 1995 terrorist bombing and progres- Security Design Criteria takes into consideration technol-
sive collapse of the A.P. Murrah Federal Building in Okla- ogy developments, new cost considerations, the experience
homa City, the President of the United States responded to of practitioners applying the GSA Security Criteria, and the
the threat of global terrorism by directing the Department need to balance security requirements with public building
of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Marshals Service to conduct a environments that remain lively, open and accessible. These
vulnerability assessment of federal facilities. The resulting criteria affect all aspects of security of a facility from opera-
report, Vulnerability Assessment of Federal Facilities, was tional measures, to site planning, landscaping and exterior
issued by the Department of Justice within 60 days of the approach, to construction types and hardening methods. The
Oklahoma City bombing (DOJ, 1995). The DOJ Report, intent of the criteria is to reduce (not necessarily eliminate)
as it has become known, was published on June 28, 1995 the potential hazards, recognizing that not all walls and win-
and consists of classifying federal facilities by five levels of dows will survive a bombing attack, especially in an open
importance which include occupancy and square footage. public facility.
The DOJ report was the catalyst for development of secu- The ISC document directs users to make security deci-
rity criteria in many areas of the federal government. Many sions about individual aspects of the design. Tables identify-
refer to the DOJ report as minimum standards; however, they ing design issues to be addressed are meant to be completed
should more appropriately be thought of as general recom- by a team that includes users, security professionals and
mendations. In order to actually implement these recom- budget representation. The ISC states that a “blast engineer
mendations, additional criteria are required. must be included as a member of the design team if a blast
analysis is required.”

The ISC Security Design Criteria lists four possible levels In 2008 and 2010, ISC released three new ISC Standards
of protection: Minimal, Low, Medium and High. These levels that have replaced the 2004 ISC Security Design Criteria.
correspond to the four levels discussed in the GSA Security These three documents are Facility Security Level Deter-
Criteria. Minimal and Low Levels of Protection are typi- minations, February 21, 2008 (ISC, 2008); Design-Basis
cally used for small facilities with a very low potential for Threat, April 2012 (ISC, 2012); and Physical Security Crite-
attack. For these two levels of protection, few true require- ria for Federal Facilities, April 12, 2010 (ISC, 2010). These
ments are listed, but prudent measures to reduce the risk of new ISC criteria represent a significant evolution of the 2004
injury and death are discussed and encouraged. A Medium ISC Security Design Criteria.
Level of Protection is generally provided for larger, more
visible facilities and a High Level of Protection is generally 3.1.4 Unified Facilities Criteria
applied to facilities that are considered more likely to be tar-
The Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) Minimum Antiterror-
geted or that provide unique services. For federal buildings,
ism Standards for Buildings, UFC 4-010-01, was initially
the ISC states that the level of protection should be applied
released on October 8, 2003, with an update on January
to each element and sub-element. Thus the designer may or
22, 2007 (DOD, 2007). The intent of these standards is to
may not apply a single level of protection to the entire facil-
minimize the possibility of mass casualties in buildings or
ity for each type of threat discussed (e.g., low ballistic pro-
portions of buildings owned, leased, privatized, or otherwise
tection with medium blast protection).
occupied, managed, or controlled by or for the Department
A Medium or High Level of Protection requires the facil-
of Defense (DOD). These standards provide appropriate,
ity to have a defended site perimeter capable of stopping
executable and enforceable measures to establish a level of
a defined moving vehicular threat. In addition, the facility
protection against terrorist attacks for all inhabited DOD
should be hardened to prevent failure of the primary struc-
buildings where no known threat of terrorist activity cur-
tural members for a defined threat located at the site perim-
rently exists. Facilities with known threats should develop
eter and a set of internal threats located in the mailroom,
additional site specific requirements. The Unified Facili-
loading dock, parking garage, and any uncontrolled public
ties Criteria provides a recommended standoff distance for
areas. The threat vehicle size/speed, explosive device size,
facilities from the site perimeter, from any onsite roadways
and maximum design load for a High Level of Protection is
and parking, and from other facilities. Assuming these
larger than that required for a Medium Level of Protection.
standoff distances are met, the criteria allow for standard
The exterior walls and windows for a Medium Level of
construction methods with a few prescriptive requirements.
Protection and the windows for a High Level of Protection
This document provides minimum standoff distances and
should be hardened for the defined threats up to a maximum
design threats, benefitting from testing performed by the
design load listed in the criteria. This approach allows for
DOD. Clear descriptions of structural behavior are linked
hazardous nonstructural damage in areas close to the explo-
to specific rotation criteria. These standards also require the
sive device, but attempts to limit the amount of collateral
mitigation of progressive collapse which includes minimum
damage. The walls and frame for the High Level of Protec-
uplift requirements on all slabs. UFC 4-010-01 was revised
tion should be designed for actual loads.
and released on February 9, 2012, with significant changes
Balanced design is discussed in the ISC Security Design
from the previous version (DOD, 2012).
Criteria and considers the load path. The goal is to ensure
The DOD establishes progressive collapse criteria in its
that each supporting element does not fail due to the reac-
publication, Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Col-
tion of the element it supports. Thus, joists supporting a roof
lapse (DOD, 2010). This document has been released to the
deck would be designed to support the capacity of the deck
public and is available from the National Institute of Build-
and the girders would support the capacity of the joists. Bal-
ing Sciences at www.wbdg.org.
anced design enhances the structural behavior in response
to a blast event as it follows the load path through the entire
3.1.5 Department of State Criteria
structure.
To achieve a Medium or High Level of Protection, the The Department of State (DOS) has also developed a set of
facility should also be designed to resist progressive collapse requirements for their overseas facilities. These requirements
depending on factors that include the function of the facility offer a much higher level of protection than is typically used
and the value of the construction. The ISC Security Design for facilities located in this country. Instead of an approach
Criteria refers the user to the GSA’s Progressive Collapse designed to limit the extent of damage like the GSA, ISC and
Analysis and Design Guidelines for New Federal Office UFC, the DOS standards call for a facility that has been fully
Buildings and Major Modernization Projects (USGSA, hardened for a large credible device. As a result, these facili-
2003) and Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other ties are expensive to build and their exterior appearance is
Structures (ASCE, 1995). affected by the hardening measures. A facility constructed in

a manner consistent with the DOS criteria should be capable • Provide as much standoff distance as practically
of quick recovery after a design level blast event. possible since the effects of an explosion diminish
rapidly with distance. Normally, no less than 20 ft
3.1.6 Additional Criteria should ever be acceptable for vehicular threats. Col-
lapse is likely for a facility this close to a large explo-
Several other organizations have also developed their own
sive device.
independent criteria. While some criteria, such as Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 1600.69B, provide • Selectively use terrain features to maintain standoff
protective design guidelines/criteria for use in FAA facilities, distance and in effect reducing the effect of the blast.
other criteria, such as the Transportation Security Adminis- • Ensure good quality construction, which has some
tration’s Bomb Incident Protection Plan (BIPP), outline the inherent resistance to abnormal loadings. For exam-
use of blast envelopes. ple, details such as structural connection design can
A useful starting point for addressing blast and progres- greatly affect blast resistance.
sive collapse issues is the AISC Facts for Steel Buildings:
• Use structural hardening and ductile detailing to
Blast and Progressive Collapse (Marchand and Alfawakh-
increase the resistance against high levels of load.
iri, 2005). The development of guides abroad is reflected,
among others, in the British Standards (BSI, 1996) and the • Provide system and location redundancy so that the
Eurocodes (CEN, 2006a) and the recently released standard entire operation is not at risk to an attack on a single
ASCE/SEI 59-11, Blast Protection of Buildings (ASCE, critical area.
2011). • Use operational security to enforce the standoff,
Additional sources of information can be found on the reduce the risk of an event occurring, or to miti-
website of the National Institute of Building Sciences: Whole gate the consequences. Operational security can be
Building Design Guide (www.wbdg.org), where FEMA, improved through awareness, response and readiness
DOD, GSA and other references can be downloaded, and training. Security and emergency response personnel
on the website of the Health and Safety Executive (www. should have adequate emergency procedures, com-
hse.gov.uk). The Federal Emergency Management Agency munication and response equipment with a regular
has published a series of documents related to blast and pro- verification program in place.
gressive collapse: FEMA 426, Reference Manual to Miti-
• Employ full-scale arena explosive testing to qualify
gate Potential Terrorist Attacks Against Buildings (FEMA,
performance under blast loads in lieu of blast design
2003a); FEMA 427, Primer for Design of Commercial
calculations. All explosive testing should be per-
Buildings to Mitigate Terrorist Attacks (FEMA, 2003b); and
formed by a qualified test provider. Qualification is
FEMA 452, Risk Assessment: A How-To Guide to Mitigate
typically recognized as having experience in con-
Potential Terrorist Attacks (FEMA, 2005). In blast design,
ducting such tests for the military, U.S. government
an important reference is the publication of the Department
agencies, or similar experience.
of Defense UFC 3-340-02, Structures to Resist the Effects
of Accidental Explosions (DOD, 2008), available at www. • Design for blast should be done with the help of a
wbdg.org. qualified blast consultant. Qualification typically is
recognized as experience in the design of blast resis-
3.2 GOOD PRACTICE tant structures, typically for military or government
agencies, as there is little guidance in the private
Although a variety of existing criteria are currently used sector.
throughout the country, they all share recurring general
themes that can be applied to improving the protective
3.2.1 Exterior Considerations
design of most any facility. The level of protective design
will vary from facility to facility depending upon the unique- There are a number of exterior considerations that should be
ness, function, architectural features, and level of protection addressed. These are focused on explosive threats delivered
selected for each facility. outside of the building envelope and include:
The general methods of improving site and facility secu- • Perimeter protection (defended standoff distance,
rity and survivability can vary greatly depending upon the vehicle barriers, and surveillance)
particular asset, the design criteria applied to that asset cat-
• Structural response (walls, roof, frame and
egory, and the constraints of the project. Improved surviv-
foundation)
ability and protection from blast can be achieved by a variety
of means, such as: • Progressive collapse (local and global)

• Windows (glazing, frames and anchorage) • Structural response (walls, slab and framing adjacent
• Fragments (primary and secondary) to affected areas)
• Progressive collapse (local and global)
3.2.2 Interior Considerations • Proximity to critical systems and occupied space
Interior considerations are focused on explosive threats • Damage due to fragments, fire and smoke
delivered inside of the building envelope and include:
• Threat location (mail room, loading dock, under-
ground parking, and uncontrolled areas)

Chapter 4
Structural Response to Blast Loads
This chapter presents a brief introduction to structural of the magnitude of these forces, most structures subjected
dynamics with emphasis on particular strategies currently to blast loading will experience significant inelastic behav-
used in blast resistant design. References of particular note ior. The acceptability of structural response is judged based
due to their importance in guiding the practices of contempo- on the flexure and shear induced in the elements. Flexure is
rary blast design are the works of John M. Biggs in Introduc- generally a ductile mode of behavior, and many elements are
tion to Structural Dynamics (Biggs, 1964) and Charles H. capable of exhibiting significant inelastic flexural behavior.
Norris et al. in Structural Design for Dynamic Loads (Norris Acceptability is measured in terms of rotations induced at
et al., 1959). Several other general references on structural supports and other points of hinging and the amount of duc-
dynamics may be useful, including Chopra (1980), Clough tility the element can sustain. Most structures do not gener-
and Penzien (1993), and Hurty and Rubenstein (1964). ally have the ability to exhibit significant inelastic behavior,
A blast creates two important and distinct effects that are and some inelastic failure tends to be brittle, resulting in
important to structures. The first of these is known as bri- sudden failure. Generally, structures designed for blast resis-
sance. Brisance is the shattering effect of an explosion on tance are designed to undergo ductile flexural behavior.
objects that are in direct proximity to the source of the explo- Also, because explosion-induced pressures can cause fail-
sion and can occur only where the energy from the explosion ure of exterior building elements, these pressures may act
is sufficiently concentrated. The effect of brisance depends on interior building elements as well. Fortunately, except
on the size of the weapon, type of explosive, distance to in the case of unvented internal explosions, the duration of
the target, geometry of the target, construction quality, and these pressure waves tends to be very brief—on the order of
materials. Brisance is the effect relied upon in explosive a few hundredths to several tenths of a second. As a result,
demolition and can be used to damage critical structural loading on structural elements often dissipates to low lev-
load-carrying elements. Analysis for the brisance effect, fre- els before the typical structural element can fully respond
quently referred to as breeching, is most commonly based on to the loading so that the effective forces and deformations
experimental data available through U.S. Army publications experienced by the element are much smaller than those
and other sources. Protection against brisance is generally that would occur if the pressure loading were applied stati-
provided in several forms. These include employing secu- cally. Analysis of these effects requires consideration of the
rity measures intended to prevent explosive sources from dynamic characteristics—both of the pressure loading and of
being placed in direct proximity to key load-carrying struc- the exposed structure itself. Analysis of the pressure loading
tural elements, constructing structural elements with suffi- effects is described in Chapter 2 and the structural response
cient robustness to resist the brisance effects of anticipated is described in this chapter.
charges, and designing structures with sufficient robustness Structural response to short duration loading is a function
to safely redistribute loads from destroyed elements while of the natural period of response of the structural system,
resisting the development of unacceptable propagation of which depends on the mass and stiffness of the structure, and
collapse. Chapter 8 of this Design Guide addresses the latter the magnitude and duration of the loading function. Gener-
of these three design approaches—resistance to progressive ally, if the natural period of vibration of a structural element
collapse. is much larger than the duration of the load, the response
This chapter addresses the second effect of blasts, the of the structure will be impulse-controlled and the effec-
response of structures to blast pressure waves. This sec- tive forces imparted to the structure will be much less than
ond important effect occurs when blasts are at sufficiently the peak force. On the other hand, if the natural period of
large distances from a structure or element making brisance vibration of the structural element is similar to or shorter
unlikely. Similar to wind loads, these pressure waves pro- than the pulse duration, effective forces can approach or
duce forces normal to the surface of all exposed structural exceed the peak force. Since the natural period of vibration
elements. Depending on the size of the explosion, its dis- of most structural elements tends to be larger than the dura-
tance from the exposed surface, and the presence, position tion of typical blast loads, the addition of mass to a struc-
and geometry of reflecting surfaces, the pressures induced by ture can often be an effective design strategy as it can result
explosions on exposed surfaces of a structure can be several in lengthening of the element’s natural period of vibration
orders of magnitude larger than typical wind loads, and well and a reduction in the effective forces experienced by the
in excess of typical design loads for most buildings. Because element. Strengthening and stiffening a structure is often an

unproductive strategy because it can result in a reduction the surface, and the angle of incidence of the wave front on
in the element’s natural period of vibration, increasing the the surface. Chapter 2 provides information on methods for
effective forces the element must resist. calculating these pressures, their duration, and their travel
Because most structures must rely on inelastic behavior velocity as functions of these factors.
to resist the large loadings produced by blasts, ductility is For many applications, it is possible to represent the blast
an important structural property for blast resistant structures. loading on a building in the form of an equivalent trian-
Ductility is a measure of how far beyond the elastic range of gular load acting normal to the exposed surfaces having a
behavior the response of the structural element can be taken peak pressure, Po , and a duration, td. Figure 4-1 illustrates
before loss of load-carrying capability will occur. It is calcu- the time-pressure characteristics of such a load, similar to
lated as the ratio of the maximum deflection, including both those shown in Chapter 2. Loading functions of this type are
elastic and plastic behavior, to the maximum elastic deflec- commonly used to evaluate the response of elements that are
tion. If an element remains elastic, it will return to its origi- directly loaded by the blast pressure wave. The loading expe-
nal position once it is unloaded. When deflections exceed rienced by secondary elements that are not directly exposed
the elastic range, residual plastic deformation will remain in to the blast pressure wave (providing support to elements
the member after unloading. Steel is a ductile material that that are directly exposed to the wave) is more correctly rep-
exhibits a predictable elastic-plastic behavior with a well- resented by a triangular pulse with separate build-up and
defined inelastic range of behavior. tail-down phases, as illustrated in Figure 4-2 and in Chap-
ter 2. The duration and magnitude of the pulse in this type of
4.1 REPRESENTATION OF BLAST LOADING loading will be a function of the characteristics of the blast
pressure wave and of the dynamic properties and strength of
Section 2.3 describes the pressure waves generated by a blast.
the primary elements loaded by the pressure wave.
A surface that is exposed to such a pressure wave will first
Regardless of which form of load function is used, the
experience a large positive pressure as the zone of increased
total applied load can be represented as an impulse, I, given
pressure passes the surface, followed by a negative pressure
by the equation:
as the zone of suction behind the wave front passes. The
duration of the positive pressure loading against the surface Po td
I= A (4-1)
tends to be very short—on the order of a few hundredths of 2
milliseconds to a few tens of milliseconds. The duration of
the negative phase tends to be somewhat longer, but gener- where
ally has greatly reduced intensity. The magnitude of the peak Po = peak pressure
positive and negative pressures experienced and the duration td = load duration
of each phase of loading depends primarily on the energy A = surface area exposed to the pressure wave
released by the blast and the distance of the exposed surface
from the blast source. Other factors that can significantly 4.2 SINGLE DEGREE OF FREEDOM SYSTEMS
affect the characteristics of this pressure loading include the The response of many structures and elements of structures
presence of reflecting surfaces in the vicinity of the blast or to blast loading can be adequately evaluated by treating the
Fig. 4-1. Typical triangular loading function used to represent Fig. 4-2. Triangular load function with separate build-up and
blast pressure loading on structures. tail-down phases.

structure as an equivalent single degree of freedom (SDOF) convenient to use the inverse, known as the structural nat-
system. SDOF systems are characterized by having all of ural period, T. The period represents the time, in seconds,
their mass, m, concentrated at a single point, which is con- required for a structure in free vibration to undergo one com-
strained to move along a single axis, x. In classical structural plete cycle of motion and is given by:
dynamics, resistance to movement of the mass is provided
1 m
by the stiffness of the structure, K, and by viscous damp- T= = 2π (4-7)
ing, c. A detailed discussion of the dynamic behavior of f K
SDOF systems is beyond the scope of this Design Guide. Structural damping is often expressed as a fraction of the
An extended explanation of the response of single degree of critical damping of the structure, cc. The critical damping, cc,
freedom can be found in Biggs (1964) as well as many other for an SDOF structure is the minimum amount of damping
texts on structural dynamics. that is sufficient to completely prevent free vibration, when a
The equation of motion for an SDOF structure undergoing structure is displaced and then released. It is given by:
free vibration is:
c c = 4K m (4-8)
mx ʹʹ(t ) + cx ʹ(t ) + Kx(t ) = 0 (4-2)
Most real structures have finite damping that is substantially
where
less than the critical damping. The effects of damping on
x(t) = displacement of the structure, at any time t, rela-
peak structural response to blast is typically small due to the
tive to its at-rest position
short duration of the loading and it is generally neglected.
x ′(t) = velocity at time t
However, if damping is used in blast analyses, it should
x ′′(t) = acceleration at time t
not be taken as greater than 2% of the critical value for the
m = mass of the structure
structure.
c = viscous damping
K = structure stiffness
4.3 BLAST RESPONSE OF ELASTIC SINGLE
Solution of this equation for the condition when the structure DEGREE OF FREEDOM SYSTEMS
is displaced to an arbitrary displacement, xo, and released is
For design purposes, engineers are usually interested in
given by:
−c
predicting the peak forces and displacements experienced
t ⎛ c ⎞
x(t ) = xo e 2 m ⎜ sin ωd t + cos ω d t ⎟ (4-3) by a structure when subjected to blast loading. There are
⎝ 2 mω d ⎠ three primary methods of estimating the peak blast response
of a structure: time-history analysis, graphical methods,
where and energy techniques. Each of these is described in the
ωd = damped natural frequency for the structure, in following.
units of radians per unit of time
4.3.1 Time-History Analysis
K c2
= − (4-4) The most direct way of determining the response of a struc-
m 4m 2
ture to a dynamic load function is time-history analysis.
For most structures, the effect of damping on natural fre- Time-history analysis consists of a numerical integration of
quency is negligibly small and the damped natural frequency the equation of motion for the structure, subjected to a time
is closely approximated by the undamped natural frequency, varying forcing function, f(t). In this form, the equation of
given by: motion becomes:
K mx ʹʹ(t ) + cx ʹ(t ) + Kx(t ) = f (t )
ω= (4-5) (4-9)
m
This is more commonly expressed in the form of cyclic fre- This single degree of freedom equation can be solved by
quency, f, in units of cycles per second or Hz, where f is numerical integration, sometimes performed using a spread-
given by: sheet program and algorithms available in a number of texts
on structural dynamics, such as Wang (1967). More com-
1 K monly, any of several structural analysis software programs
f = (4-6)
2π m can be used to perform this analysis directly. Regardless, it is
important to select an appropriate time increment over which
Rather than using natural frequency to characterize dynamic the integration is performed. The time increment needs to be
structural behavior, structural engineers often find it more short enough to provide an accurate solution yet long enough

to lead to an efficient solution. As a rule of thumb, the time relationship between the dynamic characteristics and the
increment used to solve the equation of motion should not peak response quantities of the structure to the load. One of
be larger than 1/10 of the pulse duration, td, or 1/20 of the natu- the first publications of plots of this type was in a U.S. Army
ral period of the structure, T. The key results to be obtained Corps of Engineers technical manual, Design of Structures
from the analysis are the peak structural displacement and to Resist the Effects of Atomic Weapons (USACE, 1957).
resisting force. The timing of these peak response quantities Figure 4-3 is a plot of the elastic response of single degree of
varies as a function of the structure’s natural period, T, and freedom structures to the simple triangular loading of Figure
the duration of the positive loading, td. If the period of the 4-1. To use this figure, first compute the ratio of the period of
structure is greater than twice the pulse duration, the analysis the structure, T, to the load duration, td. Enter the figure with
need only be continued through a duration equal to one-half this ratio and read across to obtain a dynamic load factor, or
the structural period, as this will be sufficient to capture the DLF. The DLF is the ratio of the peak displacement experi-
peak response. When the structural period is shorter than enced by the structure in response to the impulsive loading
this, the integration should be continued for several cycles to the peak displacement that the structure would experience
(at least one full cycle beyond the load duration) to ensure if the peak loading were applied statically. For elastic struc-
that the peak response has been determined. tures, the DLF also provides the ratio of the peak dynamic
stress developed in the structure to the static stress. Figure
4.3.2 Graphical Solution 4-4 is a similar DLF diagram plotted for the case of the tri-
angular impulsive loading of Figure 4-2. It should be noted
Many researchers have developed solutions for the peak
that the maximum dynamic load factor for the load shape
response of SDOF structures of varying structural periods
in Figure 4-1 is 2.0 and the load factor for the load shape in
to impulsive loading of varying shapes and duration. These
Figure 4-2 is slightly greater than 1.5.
solutions have been plotted for reference to obtain a quick
Fig. 4-3. Dynamic load factor and triangular impulse loading for elastic response.

Example 4.1—Determination of the Peak Dynamic Force and Displacement
Given:
Consider a structure with a stiffness of 1,000 kip/in. and a natural period of vibration of 0.5 s. It is subjected to a simple triangular
impulsive loading, like that of Figure 4-1, with a peak force on the structure of 10,000 kips and a duration, td, of 0.05 s. Using
Figure 4-3 or Figure 4-4, as appropriate, determine the peak displacement and force in the structure.
Solution:
Step 1: Compute the force and displacement under statically applied peak loading:
Fstatic = 10, 000 kips

Fstatic
Δ static =
K
10, 000 kips
=
1, 000 kip/in.
= 10.0 in.
Step 2: Compute the ratio of structural period, T, to pulse duration, td:
T 0.5 s
=
td 0.05 s
= 10
Step 3: Enter Figure 4-3 for the pulse of Figure 4-1 with T/td = 10, the DLF is:
DLF = 0.280
Fig. 4-4. Dynamic load factor, triangular impulse loading, loading and unloading phases for elastic response.

Step 4: Find the peak dynamic force and displacements: 4.4 ANALYSIS OF NONLINEAR SINGLE
DEGREE OF FREEDOM RESPONSE
Fdynamic = DLF ( Fstatic )
All of the analysis procedures discussed in Section 4.3 pre-
= 0.280 (10, 000 kips ) sume that the structure is strong enough to remain elastic.
= 2, 800 kips Most real structures are not designed with sufficient strength
Δ dynamic = DLF ( Δ static ) to behave in this manner. Such structures will yield and
experience inelastic straining. The ability of a structure to
= 0.280 (10.0 in. ) undergo inelastic straining is typically gauged by the ductil-
= 2.80 in. ity, μ, equal to the ratio of the peak displacement under load,
Δmax, to the displacement at yield, Δyield, given by:
4.3.3 Energy Solution Δ max

μ= (4-13)
Δ yield
If the duration of the load is short relative to the period of
response of the structure, energy methods can be used to The effect of inelastic straining is that for a given displace-
approximately determine the peak response of the structure ment, Δ, that is greater than the yield displacement, Δyield, the
based solely on the impulse of the load. amount of strain energy stored will be less than if the struc-
In this approach, outlined in Biggs (1964), the load is ture remained elastic. This is illustrated in Figure 4-5, which
assumed to be essentially instantaneous in nature and to shows the force-displacement diagram for two structures
impart an initial velocity to the mass of the structure. The that are strained to the same deflection, Δmax. Figure 4-5(a)
initial velocity, vi, is given by the impulse momentum law as: illustrates the force-displacement response of a structure
that remains elastic and Figure 4-5(b) illustrates the force-
I (4-10)
vi = displacement response of a structure that yields at an applied
m force, Fyield, before the maximum displacement is reached.
where The strain energy that accumulates in the structure is the
I = impulse, found from Equation 4-1 area under the force-displacement plot. For an elastic struc-
m = mass of the structure ture, the strain energy is:
The velocity imparted to the structure by the impulse pro- Fmax Δ max KΔ 2max
vides it with kinetic energy (WK). As the mass moves away WS,el = = (4-14)
2 2
from its at-rest position, it will strain the structure, dissipat-
ing the kinetic energy into stored strain energy (WS,el). When The strain energy that accumulates in the inelastic structure
the stored strain energy identically equals the imparted is:
kinetic energy, the structure will have reached its maximum
response. This condition is solved as follows: Fyield Δ yield
WS,inelastic = + Fyield ( Δ max − Δ )
WS,el = WK 2
= Fyield Δ yield ( μ − 1 2 ) (4-15)
Kxmax2 mv i2
=
2 2
m I Substituting Fyield = KΔyield and KΔmax2/ 2 = WS,el into Equa-
x max = vi = (4-11)
K Km tion 4-15, and rearranging, it can be shown that at maximum
displacement, Δmax, the strain energy stored by the elastic-
K plastic structure is related to the strain energy stored by the
Fmax = Kx max = I (4-12) elastic structure as follows:
m
2 (μ − 1 2 )
WS,elastic-plastic = WS,el (4-16)
where, xmax and Fmax are, respectively, the peak displacement μ2
and resisting force in the structure. This energy solution is
not exact, as it neglects the initial movement of the struc- At a ductility of 2, the elastic-plastic structure will store only
ture while the impulse is being applied. For structures in 75% of the strain energy stored by the elastic structure. At a
which the ratio of the structural period to the load duration is ductility of 4, the elastic-plastic structure will store only 44%
greater than about 10, this effect is negligible, and the energy of the strain energy stored by an elastic structure. Therefore,
solution is sufficiently accurate.

in order to arrest the motion imparted to a structure by an should be carried out for a duration that is at least equal to
impulse, a structure that yields under impulsive loading must the elastic period of the structure, T. When the period of the
move a greater distance than one that does not yield. structure is less than twice the pulse duration, the integration
As with elastic, single degree of freedom response, there should be continued for several cycles (and at least one full
are three methods of solving for the maximum displacement cycle after the load dissipates) to verify that the maximum
of an inelastic structure subjected to impulsive loading: response has been found.
time-history methods, graphical solutions, and energy solu-
tions. These are described in the following. 4.4.2 Graphical Solutions
Just as researchers have represented the results of many anal-
4.4.1 Time-History Methods
yses of elastic structures in graphical form, similar graphs
Time-history methods used for inelastic structures are simi- have been developed to represent the results of inelastic
lar to those previously described for elastic structures. The behavior on maximum displacement demand. Figure 4-6
primary difference is that for inelastic structures, the struc- presents such a plot. In the figure, the strength ratio, SR, is
tural stiffness, K, in the equation of motion, rather than given by:
being constant, is a function of the displacement history of
Fmax
the structure. Usually, an elastic-plastic representation of SR = (4-17)
the stiffness is used. As with elastic solutions, either spread- Fyield
sheets or structural analysis software can be used to solve where
the equation of motion using numerical integration. Because Fmax = maximum resisting force the structure would
an inelastic structure will take longer to reach its maximum experience if it were capable of remaining elastic,
displacement than an elastic structure, it will be necessary obtained using the DLF of Figure 4-3 or Figure
to continue the integration for a longer duration than if the 4-4, kips
structure remained elastic. When the elastic period of the Fyield = force that would cause the structure to yield, kips
structure is at least double the pulse duration, the integration
Example 4.2—Determination of Ductility Demand
Given:
Determine the ductility demand for the structure of Example 4.1 if Fyield is 1,400 kips. From Example 4.1, the structure has a
stiffness of 1,000 kip/in. and a natural period of vibration of 0.5 s. It is subjected to a simple triangular impulsive loading, like
that of Figure 4-1, with a peak force on the structure of 10,000 kips and a duration, td, of 0.05 s. Find the peak displacement and
force in the structure, as well as the strength ratio and ductility demand.
Solution:
Step 1: Find the displacement and force in the structure if it remains elastic. Referring to Example 4.1, the maximum force for
elastic response is Fmax = 2,800 kips and the maximum displacement for elastic response is Δmax = 2.80 in.
(a) Elastic (b) Elastic-plastic
Fig. 4-5. Force-displacement diagram for (a) elastic response and (b) elastic-plastic response.

Step 2: Determine the strength ratio:
Fmax
SR = (4-17)
Fyield
2, 800 kips
=
1, 400 kips
= 2.00
Step 3: Find the ductility demand from Figure 4-6, at a strength ratio of 2.0:
μ ≈ 2.50
4.4.3 Energy Methods As with the elastic energy methods, this solution provides
sufficient accuracy when the ratio of structural period to
Energy methods for nonlinear structures are similar to those
impulse duration is 10 or greater.
for linear structures. However, the term for strain energy is
modified to account for the nonlinear behavior. Assuming
4.5 MULTIPLE DEGREE OF FREEDOM
elastic-plastic behavior, the ductility demand, μ, is deter-
STRUCTURES
mined as follows based on previous derivations:
Real structures do not have mass concentrated at a single
WS,elastic-plastic = WK point, but instead have mass distributed throughout the struc-
ture. Such real structures tend to have multiple modes of
mv 2i I2
K Δ 2yield ( μ − 1 2) = = vibration, each characterized by a unique shape and a unique
2 2m natural frequency or period. Figure 4-7 illustrates this con-
1⎛ ⎞ cept with modes of vibration for a structure with mass con-
I2
μ = ⎜1 + ⎟ (4-18) centrated at three points. Such structures are termed multiple
2 ⎜ KmΔ 2yield ⎟ degree of freedom (MDOF) structures.
⎝ ⎠
Fig. 4 6. Graphical solution for ductility as a function of strength ratio.

When time-history analysis methods are used to evaluate fraction of the total mass of the structure that is effective in
the response of an MDOF structure to blast response, the single degree of freedom response; the load factor, KL, is
distribution of mass and stiffness throughout the structure the fraction of the load and the stiffness on the real struc-
can be directly modeled and the important response modes ture that is provided by a single degree of freedom solution.
for the structure determined. Most structural analysis soft- The dynamic reactions are the peak forces at the supports.
ware used in engineering design offices today provides the With these tables, it is possible to convert the structure into
capability to do this, as well as the capability to determine a simple SDOF equivalent, compute the blast response using
the response of such structures through numerical integra- the methods of the previous sections, then convert back to
tion of the equation of motion. Section 4.6 summarizes the the real structure.
present capability of common structural analysis software Although the SDOF equivalents given in Table 4-1 can
packages in this regard. be useful, they are only applicable to single span framing
It is possible to obtain reasonably accurate solutions of the with unyielding supports. In real structures, beams and wall
blast response of many multiple degree of freedom structures panels will often span to other structural elements, such as
by considering the first mode of response only and analyzing girders or columns as illustrated in Figure 4-8. Depending
the structure as an equivalent single degree of freedom sys- on the flexibility and mass distribution along the beams and
tem. This approach is most accurate if the deformed shape of girders, it may be feasible to evaluate each of the framing
the applied load is similar to the first mode, as explained in elements as an individual SDOF structure, or alternatively, it
Biggs (1964). When this approach is taken, it must be recog- may be necessary to evaluate the entire system as an MDOF
nized that only a portion of the actual mass of the structure structure, using structural analysis software and time-history
will be mobilized in the first mode, and therefore, transfor- methods.
mation factors must be used to relate the response of the ide- In order to determine if it is possible to evaluate the
alized single degree of freedom system to that of the real response of the primary framing (beam in Figure 4-8) and
multiple degree of freedom structure. secondary framing (girder in Figure 4-8) as individual SDOF
Table 4-1, obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- structures, the following procedure should be followed.
neers Manual EM 1110-345-415 (USACE, 1957) and rep- Determine the period for the primary framing element
licated by Biggs (1964), provides transformation factors for (beam), assuming it is supported by unyielding supports.
common single-beam framing systems that can be used to Determine the period for the secondary framing element
convert real MDOF structures to single degree of freedom (girder), including the effective mass distributed along the
(SDOF) systems. In this table, the mass factor, KM, is the primary element (beam). If the period of the primary element
Fig. 4-7. Free vibration modes for three degrees of freedom.

Table 4-1. Conversion Factors for Simply Supported Beams and One-Way Slabs (Biggs, 1964)
Load-mass
Mass factor, KM
factor, KLM
Con- Con-
Load cen- cen- Maximum Spring Dynamic
Loading Strain Factor, trated Uniform trated Uniform Resistance, Constant, Reaction,
Diagram Range KL Mass* Mass Mass* Mass Rm K V
8Mp 384EI
Elastic 0.64 — 0.50 — 0.78 0.39R + 0.11F
L 5L3
8Mp
Plastic 0.50 — 0.33 — 0.66 0 0.38Rm + 0.12F
L
4Mp 48EI
Elastic 1.0 1.0 0.49 1.0 0.49 0.78R – 0.28F
L L3
4Mp
Plastic 1.0 1.0 0.33 1.0 0.33 0 0.75Rm – 0.25F
L
6Mp 56.4EI
Elastic 0.87 0.76 0.52 0.87 0.60 0.525R – 0.025F
L L3
6Mp
Plastic 1.0 1.0 0.56 1.0 0.56 0 0.52Rm – 0.02F
L
*Equal parts of the concentrated mass are lumped at each concentrated load.
Source: Design of Structures to Resist the Effects of Atomic Weapons, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EM 1110-345-415 (USACE, 1957).
Fig. 4-8. Complex framing in which one flexural element is supported by other flexural elements.

TABLE 4-2. Commercially Available Software Packages
Static Linear Linear Dynamic Nonlinear Dynamic
Software Analysis Modal Analysis Analysis Analysis
ABAQUS X X X X
ALGOR X X X X
ANSYS X X X X
CSI-ETABS X X X X
CSI-PERFORM X X X X
CSI-SAP X X X X
LARSA X X X X
LARSA 4D X X X X
LS-DYNA X X X X
NASTRAN X X X X
RISA-3D X X X
STAAD X X X X
(beam) differs by a factor of 2 from the period of the second- 4.6 SOFTWARE
ary element (girder), they can be treated as individual SDOF A number of common structural engineering software prod-
structures. One degree of freedom is the primary element ucts can be used to assist in the evaluation of structures and
(beam) analyzed with the blast load and unyielding supports structural elements for blast loads. Table 4-2 lists some of
and the other degree of freedom is the secondary element the more popular structural analysis software found in
(girder) loaded with the reactions from the primary element design offices and their ability to perform the various types
analysis. If the periods are within a factor of 2 of each other, of analyses described previously, as applicable to blast
more exact methods of analysis must be used. response evaluation. The types of elements available and the
flexibility of each of these software packages vary consider-
ably. Engineers should consult the software documentation,
available from the licensors, prior to using the software for
specific applications.

Chapter 5
Blast Resistant Design of Structural Systems
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the implications for simplicity, this load path is assumed rigid. This is a con-
of blast loading on the design of the lateral load resisting servative approach for checking the lateral system because
systems of buildings. unless it fails, the lateral system is assumed to absorb all of
In this chapter, simple linear and nonlinear procedures are the energy produced by the impulsive load. A more accurate
applied to the design of the lateral load resisting system to design would follow the blast load from structural element to
support blast loads. The procedures allow blast loads to be structural element until it reached the building’s lateral load
compared with wind and earthquake lateral loads, develop- resisting system, applying the resultant reactions of one ele-
ing an understanding of the magnitude of the blast load and ment on the next supporting elements. This procedure would
demonstrating why plastic design is desirable in blast design. consider the energy dissipated within each element through
Two examples are included in this chapter. The first exam- the blast load path. This approach would give a more accu-
ple is the one-story building defined in Chapter 2 and the rate indication of structural response but it is not necessary
second is a three-story building introduced here. Although in most cases. Design of individual elements to resist blast
the examples are different in structural behavior, in both loading will be introduced in Chapter 6.
buildings the lateral load resisting systems, as designed for Different programming tools and commercial software
wind, are able to resist the blast loading. Therefore, no addi- packages can be used to model and analyze the examples
tional structure is necessary for blast resistance. For these developed in this chapter. Table 4-2 lists many of the com-
examples, the general lateral system behavior is checked, mercially available software packages that might be used.
columns are modeled as linearly elastic, and beams and
bracing are modeled as elastic-plastic. To reduce the extent 5.1 ENERGY METHOD
of failure in a structure, it is good practice to prevent the
Based on the principle of conservation of energy, all of
formation of plastic hinges in columns.
the external work done by the external load is transformed
Both lateral design examples illustrate that global lateral
into damping, kinetic and strain energy. This equilibrium
response rarely controls building design for blast. Element
is expressed in Equation 5-1. Damping does not play an
and connection design will be introduced in Chapters 6
important role in blast design because most of the damage
and 7, respectively. Blast loads rarely affect the lateral load
happens in the first cycle; as a conservative approximation,
resisting system but frequently affect the design of individ-
the energy absorbed by damping is neglected. The following
ual loaded elements and their connections.
derivation is for a single mass system. Similar results are
As discussed in Chapter 2, blast loading produces a shock
true for continuous or discrete mass systems.
wave with short duration and elevated peak pressure. For
high energy explosives, the blast load duration is usually
around 10 to 30 ms, while the fundamental period of build- WP = WK + WS (5-1)
ings is generally on the order of 0.1 to 3.0 s. For a fundamen-
tal period greater than 10 times the load duration, the load where
can be assumed impulsive. Therefore, the global response meV 2
WK = = kinetic energy associated with the
of most buildings designed for blast can be analyzed under 2
movement of the system
impulsive loads. Impulsive loads are characterized by the WP = energy produced by the load pulse
area under the load-time curve, independent of the shape of WS = strain energy absorbed by the system
this curve. V = velocity of the system
The path that the blast load follows through the structure me = mass of the system
is similar to that for wind loads. From the exterior skin or
cladding, the pressure is transferred to girts that transfer the Initially, the system is at rest. Immediately after the impulse
loads to beams or columns, after which it is finally dissi- load, all of the impulse energy becomes kinetic energy and
pated through the slab to the lateral system and foundations. the strain energy can be neglected. Therefore, the energy
Generally this path is flexible and behaves plastically, dis- produced is:
sipating most of the load energy before it can impact the me V 2max
lateral load resisting system of the building. As will be dem- WP = WK = (5-2)
2
onstrated in Chapter 6, the façade can absorb on the order of
80% of the load, depending on its flexibility. In this chapter,

The maximum deflection and support reactions of the sys- become strain energy in the structure. From the principle
tem generally appear after the applied load has ended (Fig- of conservation of energy, the strain energy at this time is
ure 5-1). As there are no other external forces acting on the equal to the initial kinetic energy in the system just after the
structure, the energy in the system remains constant after the impulse load and is expressed as follows:
impulse load is finished. Because impulse is defined as the
change in momentum, and the system is initially at rest, the I2
WS = WP = (5-4)
impulse can be written as I = meV. Substituting this impulse 2 me
into Equation 5-2 yields:
The strain energy absorbed by a structural system is
2
meV max I2 defined as the area under the force-displacement curve (Fig-
WP = = (5-3) ure 5-2).
2 2 me
For linear elastic behavior, the strain energy is:
As the displacement increases, the velocity decreases. As 1 I2
the structure reaches maximum displacement, the velocity WS,el = K Δ el2 = (5-5)
2 2 me
becomes zero. At this point, all of the impulse energy has
Fig. 5-1. Time-history of impulse loading.

where
K = stiffness of the structure 1 1
W S,el,max = K Δ 2el,max = Fyield Δ el,max (5-8)
Δel = elastic displacement 2 2
and the elastic displacement results in the following (see also
and the plastic displacement can be represented as:
Section 4.3.3):
I 1 ⎛ I2 ⎞
Δ el = (5-6) Δ pl = ⎜⎜ + WS,el,max ⎟⎟ (5-9)
me K Fyield ⎝ 2me ⎠
where
For linear elastic-perfectly plastic behavior (Figure 5-2), the
Fyield = force that would cause the structure to yield
strain energy is:
In accordance with UFC 3-340-02 Table 5-8 (DOD, 2008),
I2 for blast response designed to avoid imminent collapse, the
WS,pl = Fyield Δ pl − W S,el,max = (5-7)
2m e deflection criteria used for frames limits the interstory drift
to H/25 (where H is the height between stories), and the
The maximum elastic strain energy occurs when the system maximum member end rotation (measured from the chord
yields:
LINEAR ELASTIC BEHAVIOR

FORCE
1 2
WS,el = K Δ el
2
DISPLACEMENT
LINEAR ELASTIC-PLASTIC BEHAVIOR

FORCE
Fyield
WS,el =
1
Fyield × Δel ,max WS,pl = Fyield Δ pl − WS,el ,max
2
∆ el,max ∆ pl
DISPLACEMENT
Fig. 5-2. Linear elastic and elastic-plastic strain energy.

joining the member ends) to 2°. These criteria are discussed triangular impulse. For a triangular time-history curve (Fig-
in Chapter 6, Section 6.2.3, along with criteria for the design ure 5-3), the impulse is:
of individual elements.
Fpeak t d
I= (5-12)
5.2 SIMPLIFICATIONS BASED ON DYNAMIC 2
PARAMETERS
where
Section 5.1 introduced the energy method used to derive the Fpeak = peak blast load
elastic and elastic-plastic displacement. In this section, those td = load duration
results will be expressed with variables commonly used in
structural dynamics. For linear elastic behavior, the displacement was obtained in
The period of a structure, previously defined in Chapter 4, Equation 5-6 as:
is defined as:
I
Δ el = (5-6)
me me K
T = 2π (5-10)
K
Combining the definition of period given by Equation 5-10
For a multi-story frame, the fundamental natural period with the expression of elastic displacement given by Equa-
may be determined using Rayleigh’s approximation (Biggs, tion 5-6, the displacement can be expressed as:
1964) which is stated as:
2π I
Δ el = (5-13)
KT
T = 2π
∑ wi Δ 2i
(5-11)
g ∑ fi Δ i Including the definition of impulse from Equation 5-12, the
displacement is:
where
ƒi = force per floor used to obtain the displacement per ⎛ π ⎞
π Fpeak ⎜⎝ T td ⎟⎠
floor Fpeak
kDRF Fpeak
g = acceleration due to gravity = 386 in./s2 Δ el = = = (5-14)
wi = weight per floor K T td K K
Δ i = displacement per floor where
This approach to calculation of the fundamental period will kDRF = dynamic reduction factor for impulsive loads
be used in Example 5.2. where T > td
The impulse, defined in Chapter 2, is the area under the
π
time-history curve. Blast loads are commonly simplified to a = (5-15)
T td
Based on linear elastic behavior, the relationship between

force and displacement is:
F = KΔ (5-16)
Therefore, the equivalent force that produces the same elas-

tic displacement is:
π Fpeak
Feq,el = = k DRF Fpeak (5-17)
T td
To develop an understanding of the magnitude of the blast

force, this equivalent force can be compared with the wind
and earthquake base shears. The following examples show
that although this number can be much greater than the wind
load, the lateral system may still have capacity to prevent
Fig. 5-3. Impulse time-history curve. collapse using its plastic and dynamic properties.

5.3 DESIGN EXAMPLES
Example 5.1—Blast Resistance of a One-Story Building
Given:
In this example, the one-story building from Chapter 2, shown in Figure 5-4, is initially designed to support a 25 psf wind load
and to deflect less than H/400 under the design wind load. It is then designed for a 500-lb TNT equivalent blast load located 50 ft
away from the short façade. The blast load is assumed uniform on the front façade and any blast pressure on the rear façade is
ignored. The W-shapes are ASTM A992 steel and the rod braces are ASTM A572 Grade 50 steel. The gravity loads used in this
example are a 30 psf roof dead load and 40 psf façade dead load.
Simplifying assumptions include that the response of the building is predominantly in the first mode of vibration and that the load
path from the façade subjected to the blast, back to the lateral force resisting system, is completely rigid. This second assumption
is conservative because it implies that there is no energy dissipation along the load path.
Hand calculations are performed to determine the behavior of the system based on the equivalent blast pressure and the lateral
capacity of the building. An elastic-perfectly plastic equivalent system is used to obtain the plastic deflection of the system.
Secondly, a computer analysis is used to determine the behavior of the structure under blast load. A nonlinear time-history
dynamic analysis is performed for the triangular blast load shown in Figure 5-5 (see Chapter 2 for details). Nonlinear material
properties are modeled for the diagonal rods through the use of elastic-plastic axial hinges (see Chapter 6 for details).
For this example, SAP2000 was used. There are many other commercially available software packages that would perform this
analysis as well. See Chapter 4 for a discussion of available computer programs; in particular, Table 4-2 shows these packages
and their capabilities, including nonlinear dynamic analyses.
The results will show that the system is able to safely withstand the blast load if footings and connections are designed for the
overload. Design of columns, beams and connections will be introduced in Chapters 6 and 7.
The building dimensions are shown in Figure 5-4. The load used in the example is shown in Figure 5-5.
Solution:
Design for Lateral Loads

Two lateral braces are located along both long sides of the building. These braces, shown in Figure 5-6, are diagonal rods. The
diagonal rods are modeled as tension-only elements with no compression strength. The rods are assumed to be upset rods, not
conventional threaded rods where the minimum section is at the thread root, so that the full rod area can be used to resist the
Fig. 5-4. Steel building for Example 5-1—isometric view.

force. It is assumed that the elastic behavior is a result of the tension brace only; the effect of the compression brace is neglected.
The base shear due to wind for a 25 psf wind pressure in the long direction can be computed as:
Vwind = (wind pressure)(tributary facade area)
= ( 25.0 psf 1,000 lb/kip ) [(50.0 ft)(15.0 ft 2)]
= 9.40 kips
Each of the braced frames takes only half of this load, hence the load modeled is 4.70 kips. Figure 5-6 shows the design and the
load used for wind design. Beams are modeled as rigid elements to capture the diaphragm behavior. All members are assumed
to be pinned at their ends.
Under wind load, the deflection is H/900 = 0.200 in. This is less than the H/400 limit set in the design statement. This system has
a stiffness of 4.70 kips/0.200 in. = 23.5 kip/in. The tension in the rod under wind loading is determined as follows:
Fig. 5-5. Equivalent reflected pressure and impulse.

4.70 kips
T wind =
cos α
= 5.11 kips
where
α = tan −1 (15.0 ft 35.0 ft )
= 23.2°
The yield strength should be increased by a factor of 1.30 as discussed in Chapter 6, Equation 6-5. Hence, the available tensile
strength of the rod due to yielding is (tensile rupture will not control):
Tmax = 1.30 Fy Ag
⎡ ⎛ 3 4 in. ⎞2 ⎤
= 1.30 ( 50 ksi ) ⎢ π ⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎥⎦
= 28.7 kips
For this maximum tension, the maximum lateral load that the system can carry is:
⎛ T max ⎞
Fyield = ⎜ ⎟ ( applied wind load )
⎝ T wind ⎠
⎛ 28.7 kips ⎞
=⎜ ⎟ (4.70 kips)
⎝ 5.11 kips ⎠
= 26.4 kips
The maximum elastic displacement is:

⎛T ⎞
Δ el,max = ⎜ max ⎟ (wind load deflection)
⎝ Twind ⎠
⎛ 28.7 kips ⎞
=⎜ ⎟ (0.200 in.)
⎝ 5.11 kips ⎠
= 1.12 in.
Fig. 5-6. Wind load design.

Equivalent Blast Force and Blast Pressure
Solving for K in Equation 5-16, the lateral stiffness of the structure is:
Fyield
K=
Δ el,max
26.4 kips
=
1.12 in.
= 23.6 kip/in.
Considering a 30 psf roof dead load and a 40 psf façade dead load using the tributary area of the façade assuming half is carried
by the roof, the total weight involved in the movement of the bracing on one side is:
we = roof dead load + façade dead load
( 30.0 psf )( 50.0 ft ) ( 70.0 ft ) /2 ( 40.0 psf )(50.0 ft + 70.0 ft) (15.0 ft/2 )
= +
1, 000 ft/kip 1, 000 ft/kip
= 88.5 kips
According to Equation 5-10, the fundamental period of this single degree of freedom system is:
me
T = 2π
K
we
= 2π
gK
88.5 kips
= 2π
(386 in./s2 )(23.6 kip/in.)
= 0.619 s
The period of 0.619 s is approximately 100 times the duration of the load, te = 0.00620 s, as given in Figure 5-5; therefore, impul-
sive behavior is assumed.
The peak blast force applied per brace, Fpeak, correlating to the peak pressure (Pr from Figure 5-5), is half of the total blast pres-
sure, and is determined as follows:
Fpeak = (peak blast pressure)(tributary facade area)
⎡ (50.0 ft/2)(12 in./ft)(15.0 ft/2)(12 in./ft) ⎤
= 79.5 psi ⎢ ⎥
⎣ 1, 000 lb/kip ⎦
= 2,150 kips
Note that using only half of the story height (15.0 ft /2) is a departure from UFC 3-340-02 (DOD, 2008), which conservatively
uses the full façade area in calculating this force. This guide will follow the more conventional method used in wind design.
Based on Equation 5-12, the impulse is:
Fpeak t d
I=
2
( 2,150 kips ) ( 6.20 × 10− 3 s )
=
2
= 6.67 kip-s

Using Equation 5-17, the equivalent force results in the following:
π Fpeak
Feq,el =
T td
π (2,150 kips)
=
( 0.619 s ) (6.20 ×10 s)
−3
= 67.7 kipss
This force is equivalent to a uniform pressure on the façade of:

Feq,el
Peq =
tributary facade area
67.7 kips(1, 000 lb/kip)
=
[(50.0 ft) 2][(15.0 ft) 2]
= 361 psf > 25.0 psf
The equivalent blast pressure is 14 times greater than the wind pressure. The maximum lateral force that the system can carry,
determined previously, is Fyield = 26.4 kips. The equivalent blast load is 67.7 kips, approximately 2.5 times larger than the actual
elastic capacity. Hence, the assumption that the structure remains elastic is not appropriate and plastic considerations are neces-
sary for design.
Plastic Deflection
Considering an elastic-plastic behavior of the building with the lateral capacity previously defined, Equation 5-9 gives the plastic
displacement as:
1 ⎛ I2 ⎞
Δ pl = ⎜⎜ + WS,el,max ⎟⎟
Fyield (5-9)
⎝ 2me ⎠
where
I = 6.67 kip-s (as determined previously)
me = we /g
From Equation 4-14, the maximum elastic energy is:
Fyield Δ el,max
WS,el,max =
2
( 26. 4 kips )(1.12 in. )
=
2
= 14.8 kip-in.
Therefore, the plastic displacement is:
1 ⎛ I2 ⎞
Δ pl = ⎜⎜ + WS,el,max ⎟⎟ (5-9)
Fyield ⎝ 2me ⎠
1 ⎡ ( 6.67 kip-s )2 ⎤
= ⎢ + 14.8 kip-in.⎥
26.4 kips ⎢ 2 ( 88.5 kips 386 in./s ) ⎥
⎣ ⎦
= 4.24 in.

To avoid imminent collapse, the deflection criterion of H/25, as discussed in Section 5.1, gives:
Δ pl = 4.24 in.
H 15.0 ft(12 in./ft)
< =
25 25
< 7.20 in.
Thus, the plastic displacement complies with this criterion.

Based on this deflection, the ductility, Δpl/Δel, as discussed in Section 4.4, is:
Δ pl
μ=
Δ el
4.24 in.
=
1.12 in.
= 3.79
The structure as designed for wind is able to resist the blast pressure with an acceptable deflection and ductility ratio provided
that the connection has enough strength to allow the member to reach its yield strength. Chapter 6 will introduce resistance and
ductility criteria to design and check the structural elements.
Computer Analysis
The structure shown in Figure 5-6 is modeled for computer analysis (using SAP 2000) with both rods included to capture the
behavior of the structure on rebound. The rods are modeled as tension-only elements with nonlinear axial hinges (see Chapter 6
for further discussion). The beams are modeled as rigid to approximate rigid diaphragm behavior and a rigid path to the lateral
system. As discussed earlier, this is a conservative assumption that neglects energy dissipation.
The maximum tensile strength of the rod was computed previously to be 28.7 kips. It is assumed to have no compressive strength.
The total weight of the system was computed as 88.5 kips. This weight is distributed linearly over the beams in the frame.
The blast load applied on the structure is given in Figure 5-7. A general material nonlinear time-history analysis was performed.
The structure was analyzed for the effect of the blast load alone, excluding dead load. From the computer modal analysis, the
period of the first elastic mode is 0.620 s. This is the same as the value obtained by the hand calculations performed previously.
However, the period of the blast response (T ≈ 1 s) is much longer than the calculated elastic period of 0.619 s due to plastic
behavior.
Time dependent displacement results are shown in Figure 5-8. The maximum displacement is 4.24 in., which is less than H/25 =
7.20 in. This is the same value obtained previously. The structure deforms plastically. The displacement past the maximum elastic
displacement is permanent plastic deformation of Rod 1.
The axial forces in the rods are shown in Figure 5-9. Note that Rod 2, which was initially inactive, is activated in the rebound of
the structure. The energy absorbed by Rod 1 includes both an elastic and a plastic component. The energy absorbed during the
rebound by Rod 2 is elastic and is equal to the elastic energy released by Rod 1 as it unloads. As shown in Figure 5-9, from 0.430
to 0.700 s neither rod is active. Due to the permanent plastic deformation shown in Figure 5-8, both rods are in compression at
this time. Rod 2 is compressed because the structure has not reached the original elastic equilibrium point. Rod 1 has been per-
manently elongated and thus is compressed before reaching the original elastic equilibrium point.
Figure 5-10 shows the axial force in Column 1 and Column 2. Figure 5-11 shows the reactions at the supports. For comparison,
the elastic reactions under wind load are ±2 kips. The foundation reaction under blast load is 12 kips, 6 times greater than the
wind reaction, but with less than 0.6 s of duration. Note that the foundations are subject to both downward and upward load. In
Chapter 6, the columns are designed to remain elastic to avoid the failure of the structure.
The ductility in the system, μ, can be computed as the ratio between the plastic and the elastic yield displacement as determined
previously. Chapter 6 defines criteria to classify the blast behavior of the structural system based on ductility ratios.

Fig. 5-7. Application of blast load.
Fig. 5-8. Displacement results for the movement of the roof under blast load.

Fig. 5-9. Axial force in rods.
Fig. 5-10. Axial force in columns.

As mentioned at the beginning of this example, the results show that the system is able to safely withstand the blast load if foot-
ings and connections are designed for the overload. Due to the simplicity of this example, the computer calculations and the hand
calculations yielded the same results. It should be noted that this will not often occur in actual practice. However, even with more
complicated structures, these calculations should be within a reasonable margin of each other.
Example 5.2—Blast Resistance of a Three-Story Building
Given:
The three-story building shown in Figure 5-12 is designed for blast loading. The lateral system of the building is formed by a
chevron braced frame on each of the 150-ft sides of the building. This building is designed for 25 psf wind load with a deflection
limited to H/400. The resulting structural design is shown in Figure 5-13. The blast load affects the 120-ft-wide façade and has
the same triangular time-history blast pressure used in Example 5.1. The HSS diagonal braces are ASTM A500 Grade C material.
All of the floors are modeled as rigid diaphragms. This neglects the axial load in the beams that can affect the beam design.
The façade and the load path to the lateral system are assumed rigid. As described earlier, this is a conservative assumption as it
neglects the energy absorbed by the façade and the load path.
Lumping the building’s mass at each floor, the mass moving with each frame per floor is:
Roof = 450 kips (50 psf)
3rd Floor = 900 kips (100 psf)
2nd Floor = 900 kips (100 psf)
Fig. 5-11. Support reactions.

A linear elastic simplification is used to obtain the equivalent blast load. This equivalent load is used to compare the blast effect
with the wind load. Due to sudden failure under buckling, an elastic-perfectly plastic simplification cannot be used in this exam-
ple. A nonlinear dynamic analysis is carried out by computer analysis. In this particular example, SAP2000 was used.
Solution:
Equivalent Blast Force and Blast Pressure

Based on the masses, wind loads and deflections given, the fundamental period of the building, using Rayleigh’s approximation,
as provided in Equation 5-11, is:
T = 2π
∑ wi Δ2i
g ∑ fi Δ i
( 450 kips )( 0.120 in.)2 + ( 900 kips )( 0.100 in. )2 + ( 900 kips )( 0.0600 in.) 2
= 2π
( 386 in./s ) ⎡⎣( 9.00 kips )( 0.120 in.) + (18.0 kips )( 0.100 in.) + (18.0 kips )( 0.0600 in.) ⎤⎦
= 0.695 s
Using the same impulse time history function as Example 5.1, using Figure 5-5, the total peak load in this three-story braced
frame is:
Fpeak = ( peak blast pressure )( tributary façade area )

⎡ ⎛ 120 ft ⎞ ⎛ 12.0 ft ⎞ ⎤
⎢ ⎜ 2 ⎟ (12 in./ft ) ⎜ 12.0 ft + 12.0 ft + 2 ⎟ (12 in./ft ) ⎥
= 79.5 psi ⎢ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎥
⎢ 1, 000 lb/kip ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
= 20, 600 kips
According to Equation 5-17, the equivalent force is:

π Fpeak
Feq = (5-17)
T td
π ( 20, 600 kips )
=
( 0.695 s ) (6.20 ×10−3 s)
= 577 kips
This force is equivalent to a uniform pressure on the façade for each braced frame of:
( 577 kips )(1, 000 lb/kip )

Pressure =
⎛ 120 ft ⎞
⎜ ⎟ (12.0 ft + 12.0 ft + 12.0 ft 2 )
⎝ 2 ⎠
= 321 psf > 25.0 psf
As with the previous example, the equivalent blast pressure is much greater than the design wind pressure of 25 psf. The elastic
yield point is identified as the total load that makes the first diagonal fail in compression. In Figure 5-13, the force in the bottom-
most diagonal is 32 kips and the total wind shear is 45 kips. Assuming a blast compressive strength for a 17-ft-long HSS6×6×¼
of 165 kips (see Chapter 6 for discussion of dynamic element strength), the lateral strength is:

Fig. 5-12. Isometric view of Example 5.2 building.
Fig. 5-13. Results of wind analysis and design.

Table 5-1. Maximum Story Deflections
Story Total Drift, Δ Interstory Drift, δ Interstory Drift Angle
3rd to Roof 3.34 in. δ = 0.24 in. = H/600 0.09° = 0.002 rad
2nd to 3rd Floor 3.17 in. δ = 0.36 in. = H/400 0.14° = 0.002 rad
Ground to 2nd Floor 3.11 in. δ = 3.11 in. = H/46 1.24° = 0.022 rad
⎛ blast compressive strength ⎞

Fyield = ⎜ ⎟ ( total wind shear )
⎝ force due to wind in diagoonal member ⎠
⎛ 165 kips ⎞
=⎜ ⎟ ( 45.0 kips )
⎝ 32.0 kips ⎠
= 232 kips
Feq 577 kips

=
Fyield 232 kips
= 2.49
The equivalent blast force is 2.5 times larger than the actual elastic strength of the system; therefore, a plastic analysis is required.
As the braces are behaving plastically, design the system as a special concentrically braced frame (SCBF) as defined in the AISC
Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC, 2010b). Therefore, as an SCBF, the post-buckling and post-yielding
strength of the braces is explicitly modeled and considered through the use of nonlinear axial hinges in the next section. Note
that, however, the structure is not subject to high seismic loading.
Computer Analysis
The structure shown in Figure 5-13 is modeled as a multiple degree of freedom system in a structural software package (SAP2000)
to carry out the nonlinear time-history analysis. The strength and ductility properties for the different elements are calculated in
Chapter 6. Columns are assumed to remain elastic and are designed as such in Chapter 6.
Using the dynamic strength of the members to be defined in Chapter 6, the HSS6×6×¼ diagonals have 340 kips of tensile
strength and 165 kips of compressive strength (see Example 6.1). The W12×35 beams have 262 kip-ft of flexural strength. The
diagonals are modeled in the computer analysis with nonlinear axial hinges at their centers and the beams with nonlinear moment
hinges at their midspan. The hinge properties are in accordance with FEMA 356 (FEMA, 2000b). See Example 6.1 for the deriva-
tion of these hinge properties. Member ends are assumed pinned.
Figure 5-14 shows the time-history load applied for the nonlinear time-history analysis. The total peak pressure is distributed to
the different floors by tributary façade area. For modeling purposes, a leaning column is added to the side of the building and the
floor mass is lumped at these nodes, as shown in Figure 5-14. This will prevent high frequency axial modes from developing in
the results.
Figure 5-15 shows the nonlinear time-history displacement at each floor of the building. The structure goes from an original
elastic period of 0.695 s to an apparent period of roughly 3 s.
The maximum deflections are shown in Table 5-1, where Δ is the total deflection, δ is the interstory deflection, and H is the
story-to-story height. The deflection between the 1st (ground) floor and 2nd floor is the most critical. With δ = H/46 < H/25 and
a maximum end rotation of θ = 1.2° < 2.0° (based on a maximum beam deflection of 3 in.), it meets the deflection and rotation
criteria, as stated in Section 5.1. Hence, this structure, as designed for wind, safely withstands the blast load.
Figure 5-16, Figure 5-17, Figure 5-18 and Figure 5-19 show the response of the different elements that either start to yield or
completely fail. Figure 5-20 shows the deflection of the second floor beam at midspan. Figure 5-21 shows a key elevation locating
these elements. Figure 5-16 shows that the first floor compressed diagonal fails in compression. After this diagonal loses all of
its strength, the other elements remain elastic or start to yield without considerable ductility. Hence, the permanent deformation

in the overall structure is small. Even though other diagonals yield, only one diagonal fails completely because the others are not
exposed to as high of a ductility demand. In other terms, the maximum load and deformation that they experience lands some-
where along the strain hardening slope in the plastic region of their axial hinges.
Note that in Figure 5-16 and Figure 5-17 First Floor denotes the diagonal that spans from the first (ground) floor up to the sec-
ond floor. Similarly, Second Floor denotes the diagonal that spans from the second to the third floor, and third floor denotes the
diagonal spanning from the third floor up to the roof, as shown in Figure 5-21.
Figure 5-18 and Figure 5-20 refer to the beam in the second floor, as shown in Figure 5-14 or Figure 5-21. Note that positive is
indicative of upward deflection and negative is downward in Figure 5-20.
Figure 5-19 shows the flexural strength in Column 2. The peak bending moment is 262 kip-ft, which would correspond to a stress
of 35.8 ksi. The maximum compressive stress in the column is 10 ksi. The column was modeled without any hinges for simplic-
ity, but it can be seen that the column remains elastic.
Fig. 5-14. Time-history of blast loading.

Fig. 5-15. Blast displacement.
Fig. 5-16. Force at Diagonal 1.

Fig. 5-17. Force at Diagonal 2.
Fig. 5-18. Flexural strength of beam at second floor.

Fig. 5-19. Column 2 flexural strength.
Fig. 5-20. Second floor midspan beam deflection.

Fig. 5-21. Element response.

Chapter 6
Blast Resistant Analysis and Design
of Structural Members
The purpose of this chapter is to define the structural proper- be used to model and analyze the structures used as exam-
ties used for nonlinear dynamic models, to understand the ples in this chapter. Table 4-2 shows a list of some of this
analysis results, and to classify or design the structural ele- software.
ment for the desired criteria. Failure modes will be explained
to determine the mechanism of collapse for the structural 6.1 MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF STEEL
element. Deformation criteria will be established to classify FOR BLAST DESIGN
the response of the element. The primary failure modes used
to design structural elements are breaching, tension-com- 6.1.1 Strength Increase Factor (SIF)
pression, bending, shear, and axial-bending interaction. The
For steel grades of 50 ksi or less, the average yield stress of
secondary modes of failure such as brittle failure caused by
steels currently produced is approximately 10% larger than
local stress concentrations, welding, low temperatures, etc.
the stress specified by ASTM; therefore, for blast design the
are beyond the scope of this guide.
specified minimum yield stress should be multiplied by a
Member failure is defined through support rotation and
strength increase factor, SIF, of 1.10. For higher grades this
ductility ratio. This definition is intended for the single
average is smaller than 5%; therefore, no factor is used on
degree of freedom systems (SDOF) and simplified multiple
those grades. Ultimate strength is not factored in any case.
degree of freedom systems (MDOF). Strain based failure
criteria may also be justified if strains are calculated using
6.1.2 Dynamic Increase Factor (DIF)
finite element methods that characterize the material prop-
erties, the details of construction, and many of the pos- Steel mechanical properties vary with the time rate of strain.
sible failure mechanisms. As used in this guide, ductility is As compared with the static values normally used in design,
defined as the ratio between the maximum deflection and the properties vary for dynamic loading as follows:
the maximum elastic deflection. This parameter is smaller • The yield point increases substantially.
than one if the behavior is elastic and larger than one if the
• The ultimate tensile strength increases slightly.
behavior is plastic.
The blast design of several building elements is exempli- • Modulus of elasticity does not vary and the elonga-
fied in this chapter. The examples follow the load path from tion at rupture either remains constant or is slightly
the façade to the lateral load resisting system. Examples reduced.
include the design of a façade girt, façade column, perimeter The factor used to modify the static stress due to dynamic
beam, and some elements of the lateral load resisting sys- load is the dynamic increase factor, DIF. These factors are
tems designed in Chapter 5. defined in Design of Blast Resistant Buildings in Petrochem-
This chapter does not consider the energy dissipated along ical Facilities (ASCE, 2010b), UFC 3-340-02, and PDC
the load path and assumes that the elements are absorbing TR-06-01 (USACE, 2008).
all of the energy, which is a conservative assumption. The The values summarized in Table 6-1 are based on an aver-
designer should give attention to the reactions and the con- age strain rate of 0.10 in./in./s which is characteristic of low
nections along the load path from one member to another as pressure explosions. These values are appropriate for most
these will be required to transfer the full energy of the sys- conventional explosive load environments. Higher values of
tem. It will be shown that on the order of 80% of the energy strain rate give larger values of DIF. UFC 3-340-02 provides
from a blast load can be dissipated along the load path. values of DIF for different average strain rates.
Blast mitigation design should be integrated with the
overall structural design, not left to some later stage in 6.1.3 Dynamic Design Stress
design, as it may increase the stiffness or the mass of the
Based on the expected ductility ratio and/or the damage
structure which would affect the response of the structure to
allowed in the structural element, different dynamic yield
other loads.
points are defined by UFC 3-340-02. If the ductility ratio
Various programming tools or commercial software can
is smaller than or equal to 10, the dynamic design stress is:

Table 6-1. Dynamic Increase Factors (DIF) for Structural Steel and Aluminum
DIF (Low Pressure)
ASTM Material Yield Stress Ultimate
Specification Bending/Shear Tension/Compression Strength
A36 (36 ksi) 1.29 1.19 1.10
A588 (50 ksi) 1.19 1.12 1.05
A514 (90–100 ksi) 1.09 1.05 1.00
A446/A653 (40 ksi) 1.10 1.10 1.00
A572 (42–65 ksi) 1.19 1.10 1.00
A992 (50–65 ksi) 1.19 1.10 1.00
Stainless Steel Type 304/
1.18 1.15 1.00
AMS5501
Aluminum, 6061-T6/
1.02 1.00 1.00
AMS4113
The dynamic design stress for shear is:

fds = fdy = SIF ( DIF ) Fy (6-1)
fdv = 0.55 fds (6-4)
If the ductility ratio is greater than 10, the dynamic design
stress is:
UFC 3-340-02 Figure 5-4 defines the blast criteria and the
fdu − fdy
fds = fdy + (6-2) structural properties used in Figure 6-1. This figure depicts
4 how the dynamic design stresses relate to the deformation
where (shown on the bottom line of the figure). The design section
modulus is also dependent on the deformation in the mem-
fdu = DIF ( Fu ) (6-3)
ber as well, and will be discussed in Section 6.3.5.
ELASTIC ULTIMATE TOTAL FAILURE

RESISTANCE
XE X(μ = 3) X(θ = 2deg or μ = 10) X(θ = 12deg or μ = 20)
DEFLECTION
DESIGN SECTION
MODULUS S (S+ Z)/2 Z
DESIGN STRESS
< fdy fdy fdy +(fdu-fdy )/4
Fig. 6-1. UFC 3-340-02 criteria (DOD, 2008).

For typical design, unless governed by more detailed Local Buckling
requirements, such as ASCE (2010b), UFC 3-340-02, or
Blast design is based on the ultimate strength of the elements
other established criteria discussed in Chapter 3, a simpli-
and the ductility of the system. Structural members subject
fied value may be used as follows:
to blast loads should be capable of undergoing plastic defor-
mation. To allow hinges to form in the elements, sections
fds = 1.30 Fy (6-5)
must be compact in accordance with criteria in Appendix
fdu = 1.05Fu (6-6) 1 of the AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings
(AISC, 2010a), hereafter referred to as the AISC Specifica-
tion, as this is an inelastic analysis and design procedure.
6.2 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR BLAST DESIGN The dynamic design stress, ƒds, should be used in place of the
specified minimum yield stress, Fy, in the calculation of the
Due to the nature of blast loading, plastic design is required limiting slenderness to establish the local buckling criteria.
and is measured by support rotations and ductility. Different
codes can be used to define the strength of the elements but Flexural and Lateral-Torsional Buckling
no safety factor should be used in those calculations. Local
and global stability should be guaranteed in those elements Flexural members should be sufficiently braced to permit
where plasticity must be achieved and ductility criteria must plastic hinge formation. For these elements, lateral brac-
be used. Design and failure criteria are based on the results ing as specified by the AISC Specification should be suffi-
of explosive tests conducted by the U.S. government and cient to remove lateral-torsional buckling as the controlling
reported in publications like UFC 3-340-02, and the Protec- limit state. For elements designed to remain elastic, such as
tive Construction Design Manual (AFESC, 1989). columns, transfer elements, etc., AISC Specification crite-
The designer should determine, at the beginning of the ria should be applied in a way that ensures the stability of
project, the acceptance criteria to be used based on the level the member under the blast load combination based on the
of protection desired for the building. Most projects have dynamic design stress neglecting any strength factor.
predefined criteria that must be used.
6.2.3 Deformation Criteria
6.2.1 Load Combinations Support Rotation
In the absence of other governing criteria, the following load Support rotation is defined as the tangent angle at the sup-
combination should be used: port formed by the maximum beam deflection. In the plastic
range, this value, neglecting the elastic deformation, can be
1.0 D + 0.25L + 1.0 B (6-7) related to the plastic hinge rotation. Note that if the hinge is
not formed at the center of the beam, the support rotations
where are different on each side and the maximum rotation should
D = dead load be considered as shown in Figure 6-2.
L = live load
Ductility
B = blast load
Ductility, μ, as used in blast design is defined as the ratio
6.2.2 Ultimate Strength between the maximum displacement, Δm, and the elastic dis-
placement, Δel, as follows:
Strength Factor
Δm
According to Section 6.1, the material properties for steel μ= (6-8)
are increased for blast design based on the high strain rate Δ el
produced by blast loading. Also, independent of the method
used for design, any material or safety factor should be where the type of displacement is based on the element being
removed. Thus, for load and resistance factor design the considered. For example, an axially loaded element will be
resistance factor used in blast design is ϕ = 1.00 and for defined by its elongation, while an element in bending will
allowable strength design the safety factor used in blast be defined by rotation and/or deflection.
design is Ω = 1.00. Thus, the design strength is taken equal
to the nominal strength, without reduction. Deformation Response Range
Design of Blast Resistant Buildings in Petrochemical Facili-
ties (ASCE, 2010b) classifies the deformation range in three
different damaged stages: low, medium and high response

Table 6-2. Response Criteria for Structural Steel
(NYCBC, 2008)
Maximum θ,
Element Maximum μ degrees
Open web steel joists1 2 6
Steel beams 20 10
Steel columns 5 6
1
Response ratio (ductility) controlled by downward loading and rotation controlled by upward loading
Table 6-3. Design of Blast Resistant Buildings in Petrochemical Facilities,

Response Criteria, Low Response (ASCE, 2010b)
Maximum θ,
Element Maximum μ degrees
Beams, girts, purlins 3 2
Frame members 1.5 1
Cold-formed panels 1.75 1.25
Open-web joists 1 1
Plates 5 3
as a function of the damage in the building. UFC 3-340-02 members, as the connections between members may have
also classifies the response as a function of the protection different criteria. The ductility limits are linked to a given
provided by the structural elements. This guide uses a low mode of response. A flexural ductility is different from shear
level of protection that implies a high response because the or tension.
intent is to provide a design that avoids imminent collapse There are several other sources for response criteria in
but allows substantial damage. addition to the NYC Building Code. It is up to the designer
For different structural elements, this guide follows the to determine which criteria are most applicable and should
response criteria shown in Table 6-2, which conforms to be used. Tables from UFC 3-340-02, Design of Blast Resis-
Table 1626.9.3 of the New York City (NYC) Building Code tant Buildings in Petrochemical Facilities (ASCE, 2010b),
(NYCBC, 2008). The rotation criteria in Table 6-2 refer to and FEMA 356 (FEMA, 2000b) are included in this guide
support rotations. The criteria are defined for the behavior as Table 6-3, Table 6-4 and Table 6-5. The 2010 edition
of a single element. These criteria apply to the design of of Design of Blast Resistant Buildings in Petrochemical
Fig. 6-2. Relationship of hinge rotation to support rotation.

Table 6-4. UFC 3-340-02 Response Criteria (DOD, 2008)
Deformation Maximum
Element Type Deformation
Beams, purlins, θ 12°
—
spandrels or girts μ 20
δ H/25
Frame structures —
θ 2°
Without tension- θ 1.25°
Cold-formed steel membrane action μ 1.75
floor and wall panels With tension- θ 4°
membrane action μ 6
θ 2°
Open-web joists —
μ 4
θ 12°
Plates —
μ 20
θ = rotation
μ = ductility
δ = deflection
Table 6-5. FEMA 356 Tension Response Criteria (FEMA, 2000b)

Acceptance Criteria
Plastic Deformation
Primary Members Secondary Members
IO
Element LS CP LS CP
Braces in tension 0.25ΔT 7ΔT 9ΔT 11ΔT 13ΔT
CP = collapse prevention
LS = life safety
IO = immediate occupancy
Facilities (ASCE, 2010b) also has medium response and (15.0 ft)(12 in./ft)(tan10°) = 31.7 in.
high response criteria in addition to the low response criteria
A ductility of 1 implies a deflection of 4 in. Thus, a ductility
included in Table 6-3. It is recommended that these sources
of 20, again taken from Table 6-2, would require a deflection
be consulted for more information in determining design
of 80 in. Obviously, this level of ductility is not achievable
criteria.
and the support rotation controls. These, and values for the
In Table 6-5, ΔT refers to the axial deformation at expected
other criteria sources, are tabulated in Table 6-6.
yielding load. It is important to note that FEMA is the only
Other criteria exist, such as U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
reference to have criteria for a tension member. This guide
Protective Design Center (USACE PDC) criteria, which are
will therefore use these criteria for tension elements. Because
more restrictive and are usually used in commercial and
this guide is concerned with a low level of security and pre-
governmental buildings. In Chapter 5, the maximum lateral
vention of collapse, it is recommended that the collapse
displacement was limited to H/25 and a maximum plastic
prevention (CP) values be used. For information on distin-
rotation of 2° was imposed to the overall behavior of the
guishing between primary and secondary members, see the
lateral system.
discussion in FEMA 356 (FEMA, 2000b). FEMA 356 also
includes acceptance criteria for other element types.
6.3 FAILURE MODES
To help put these criteria in perspective, examine the val-
ues for a beam with a 30-ft-long span that starts to yield at 6.3.1 Breaching
midspan when the deflection is 4 in. A support rotation of For blast loads in contact (or in very close proximity) to an
10°, as indicated in Table 6-2 as the maximum rotation for element, the element will be breached before responding in
steel beams, implies a deflection of: a flexural manner due to the high pressure produced by the

Table 6-6. Example Deformation Response
Criteria μ-controlled θ-controlled
NYCBC 20(4.00 in.) = 80.0 in. (15.0 ft)(12 in./ft)(tan 10°) = 31.7 in.
ASCE 3(4.00 in.) = 12.0 in. (15.0 ft)(12 in./ft)(tan 2°) = 6.29 in.
UFC 20(4.00 in.) = 80.0 in. (15.0 ft)(12 in./ft)(tan 12°) = 38.3 in.
explosion. If the scaled distance as defined in Chapter 2 is Axial hinge properties for these elements are elastic-plastic.
below 2, it is possible for the element to breach before the If necessary, for computational stability, a hardening slope
overall response of the structural element starts. of 0.1% can be used in the plastic area. Examples of these
For very close charges, temperature and the shock wave hinges will be shown later in this chapter.
are important, in addition to the airblast. An explosion in
direct contact, with a wall will interact directly with it and 6.3.3 Compression
will induce a shock wave inside the wall. The speed and
The available strength of compression elements, based on
magnitude of the shock waves can cause the wall to crack
AISC Specification Chapter E is governed by the following
internally. For example, when the shock wave reaches the
equation:
opposite face of a concrete wall, a section of concrete may
scab or separate from the wall due to the energy of the shock ϕPn = ϕFcr Ag (6-10)
wave exceeding the tensile strength of the material.
For the preliminary design of the slab thickness, this where
Design Guide uses an experimental graphic found in UFC Ag = gross area of the element
3-340-02 and shown in Figure 6-3. The input for this graph is Fcr = critical stress
the thickness (T, feet), the stand-off (R, feet) and the charge ϕ = 0.90
(W, equivalent pounds of TNT). Depending on the perfor-
For blast loading:
mance requirements, the slab may be designed to allow a
Fcr = critical stress determined in accordance with AISC
local breach in the bay closest to the blast, yet withstand the
Specification Chapter E substituting ƒds for Fy
blast in adjacent bays. Typically, the stand-off and charge
ϕ = 1.00, the resistance factor defined in Section 6.2.2.1
weight is specified in the data provided by the blast consul-
tant. Other breaching curves can be found in UFC 3-340-01 For a tension-compression hinge, the recommendations of
(DOD, 2002), however, this document is export controlled FEMA 356 (FEMA, 2000b) can be used, if no other proper
and not available to the public. criteria are defined.
6.3.2 Tension 6.3.4 Shear

According to AISC Specification Section D2, the available For I-shapes it is assumed that flexure is carried primarily
strength for elements under tension based on yielding of the by the flanges while shear is carried primarily by the web.
member on the gross section is defined by: Thus, moment-shear interaction is neglected. The available
strength of elements in shear, based on AISC Specification
ϕPn = ϕFy Ag (6-9) Chapter G, is governed by the following equation:
where
Ag = gross area of the element ϕVn = ϕfv Aw (6-11)
Fy = specified minimum yield stress of the material where
ϕ = resistance factor, 0.90 Aw = area of the web
Available strength due to the limit state of tension rupture ƒv = 0.6Fy
through the net section should also be checked using AISC ϕ = 1.00 for most W-shapes
Specification Section D2, as applicable. For blast loading:
For blast loading: Aw = area of the web. Note that in UFC 3-340-02, Aw is
Fy = ƒds, the dynamic design stress defined in Equations defined as only the area between the flange plates.
6-1 and 6-2 (or Equation 6-5) However, in normal design practice the AISC
Fu = ƒdu, the dynamic design stress defined in Equation Specification definition of Aw equal to the overall
6-3 (or Equation 6-6)
ϕ = 1.00, the resistance factor defined in Section 6.2.2.1

depth times the web thickness is used. This guide is smaller than 3, the full plastic moment cannot be devel-
uses the AISC definition. oped by the section. Thus, an average between the elastic
ƒv = ƒdv = dynamic design stress for shear (ƒv = 0.55ƒds and plastic section modulus is used when 1 < μ < 3 [Figure
from Section 6.1.3) 6-4(b) and Figure 6-5]. The available flexural strength is:
ϕ = 1.00 = resistance factor defined in Section 6.2.2
⎛S+Z ⎞
Connection strength is, in most cases, more critical than the ϕM n = ϕM ʹp = ϕ fds ⎜ ⎟ (6-12)
⎝ 2 ⎠
shear strength of the beam.
where
6.3.5 Flexure S = elastic section modulus
Based on the plastic response allowed for blast design, a Z = plastic section modulus
plastic hinge will be allowed to form in the structural ele- ϕ = 1.00
ment. The assumption that the plastic hinge is concentrated If the ductility ratio expected is larger than 3, the full
at a section will be taken as adequate for practical purposes, plastic moment can be developed (Figure 6-4(c)). Thus, the
even though deflection values may not be accurate. available flexural strength is:
The definition of plastic moment is a function of the duc-
tility ratio expected in the structural element, as was shown ϕ Mn = ϕ Mp = ϕfds Z (6-13)
in Figure 6-1. Based on Figure 6-4(a), if the ductility ratio
Fig. 6-3. UFC 3-340-02 breach chart (DOD, 2008).

For hand calculations, the behavior of the section is 6.3.6 Combined Forces
assumed elastic-perfectly plastic. For hand calculations in
Provisions for combined axial force and flexure are pre-
this guide, the plastic flexural strength of the section is given
sented in AISC Specification Chapter H. The strength and
by Equation 6-13. To avoid computational instabilities,
resistance factors defined previously are used in the appro-
the hinge properties used for computer calculations should
priate interaction equations. If the designer wants to design
include plastic hardening, where the yield moment is defined
an element to behave plastically, the member must be braced
by Equation 6-12 and the ultimate moment is defined by
sufficiently in order to develop the full plastic moment. To
Equation 6-13 as recommended in UFC 3-340-02.
dissipate the maximum energy, plastic design is recom-
Provisions for lateral bracing are also given in UFC 3-340-
mended for all members (with the exception of columns and
02, although they are not discussed here.
transfer beams which should remain elastic).
Fig. 6-4. Design section modulus (DOD, 2008).
Fig. 6-5. Design moment for beams with moderate ductility (DOD, 2008).

6.4 DESIGN EXAMPLES
Example 6.1—Design of Structural Elements Subject to Indirect Blast Loading

Given:
In this example, the structural elements analyzed in the examples of Chapter 5 are checked for strength, including blast loading
as necessary. Specifically, the following elements are designed:
(a) The tension rod used in Example 5.1
(b) The diagonal braces used in Example 5.2
(c) Columns from Example 5.1.
(d) The second floor beam from Example 5.2
The elastic-plastic behavior for each element used in Chapter 5 is defined in the following. The elements designed in this section
all carry blast load, but are not subject to direct pressure from the blast. Example 6.2 will examine the effects of elements directly
subject to blast pressure. The criteria used in this example to define the strength of the elements is based on UFC 3-340-02,
unless otherwise noted. For element design, assume that there is no energy dissipation along the load path. A more accurate and
less conservative procedure is to use the effect of the dynamic reactions of one member on another member along the load path.
When using member reactions to load adjacent members, natural frequencies should be compared. If the natural frequencies are
close, a simultaneous solution is required to account for the interaction between the two members. If the period of the primary
element (i.e., beam) is at least twice the period of the secondary element (i.e., girder), they can be treated as individual single
degree of freedom (SDOF) structures on unyielding supports. If not, a multiple degree of freedom (MDOF) solution of the same
system is required similar to what was discussed in Section 4.5.
The tension rods are ASTM A572 Grade 50 steel, the W-shapes are ASTM A992 steel, and the HSS shapes are ASTM A500
Grade C.
Solution:
From Table 2-4 of the AISC Steel Construction Manual (AISC, 2011a), hereafter referred to as the AISC Manual, the material
properties are:
ASTM A572 Grade 50
Fy = 50 ksi
Fu = 65 ksi
ASTM A992
Fy = 50 ksi
Fu = 65 ksi
ASTM A500 Grade C
Fy = 50 ksi
Fu = 62 ksi
From AISC Manual Table 1-1 and Table 1-12, the geometric properties are:
HSS6×6×¼
Ag = 5.24 in.2
r = 2.34 in.
W12×53
Ag = 15.6 in.2
ry = 2.48 in.
W12×35
Ix = 285 in.2
Sx = 45.6 in.3
Zx = 51.2 in.3

(a) Tension Rod of Example 5.1
The tension rod used in Example 5.1 is checked and the tension behavior is defined. The 38-ft-long rod is ¾ in. in diameter.
Because the rod is upset, use the full cross-sectional area.
For a ductility ratio μ ≤ 10, the dynamic design stress for tension, as defined in Equation 6-1, is:
fds = fdy (6-1)

= ( SIF )( DIF ) Fy
= 1.10 (1.10 )( 50 ksi )
= 60.5 ksi
For a ductility ratio μ > 10, the dynamic design stress, defined in Equation 6-2, is:
⎛ fdu − fdy ⎞
fds = fdy + ⎜ ⎟⎟ (6-2)
⎜ 4
⎝ ⎠
⎡1.05 ( 65 ksi ) − 60.5 kssi ⎤
= 60.5 ksi + ⎢ ⎥
⎣ 4 ⎦
= 62.4 ksi
where
fdu = 1.05Fu from Equation 6-6
Comparing these dynamic design stresses to the simplified value given by Equation 6-5:
fds = fdy (6-5)

= 1.30 Fy
= 1.30 ( 50 ksi )
= 65.0 ksi
Note that the simplified value is slightly less conservative. The remainder of the calculations throughout this chapter will utilize
the simplified expression of Equation 6-5.
The dynamic design shear stress defined in Equation 6-4, for a ductility ratio μ = 10, is:
fdv = 0.55 fds (6-4)

= 0.55 ( 65 ksi )
= 35.8 ksi
The available tensile strength of the rod is determined from Equation 6-9, as follows:
ϕPn = ϕFy Ag (6-9)

For blast loading:
ϕPn = ϕ fds Ag
⎡ ⎛ w in. ⎞2 ⎤
= 1.00 ( 65.0 ksi ) ⎢ π ⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎥⎦
= 28.7 kips
The hinge properties used in Example 5.1 for this rod follows the elastic-plastic curve shown in Figure 6-6. A slight slope is
included in the plastic region for computational convergence purposes.
The maximum horizontal displacement obtained in Example 5.1, Figure 5-8, is 4.24 in. This is less than the horizontal deflection
limit of H/25 = 7.20 in. for frame structures. The maximum rotation at the base of the column for this displacement is:
⎛Δ⎞
α = tan −1 ⎜ ⎟
⎝H⎠
⎡ 4.24 in. ⎤⎥
= tan −1 ⎢
⎢⎣ (15.0 ft) (12 in./ft)⎥⎦
= 1.34° < 2°
For small displacement formulation, the elongation in the rod can be determined. First, the angle of the diagonal is determined as:
Fig. 6-6. Tension hinge properties.

⎛H⎞
θ = tan −1 ⎜ ⎟
⎝L⎠
⎛ 15.0 ft ⎞
= tan −1 ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 35.0 ft ⎠
= 23.2°
Then, the elongation, assuming the top of the column moves horizontally is:
Δ L = Δ cos θ
= ( 4.24 in.) ( cos 23.2°)
= 3.90 in.
Thus, the elastic displacement of the 38-ft-long rod is:
fds L
Δ el =
E
( .0 ksi )( 38.0 ft )(12 in./ft )
65
=
29, 000 ksi
= 1.02 in..
Therefore, the ductility demand in the rod is:
3.86 in.
μ=
1.02 in.
= 3.78
This is the same value as the one obtained for the whole lateral system in Example 5.1. From Table 6-5, the allowable defor-
mation is 9ΔT. This is analogous to a response ratio of μ = 9. With a ductility of 3.78, the demand is less than the capacity and
therefore acceptable.
(b) Diagonal Brace of Example 5.2

The diagonal brace used in Example 5.2 is checked and the tension-compression behavior is defined in the following. The brace
is a 17-ft-long HSS6×6×¼.
UFC 3-340-02 defines a maximum slenderness for compression elements as:
2π 2 E
Cc =
fds
2 π 2 ( 29, 000 ksi )

=
65.0 ksi
= 93.8
This can be compared to the AISC Specification Section E3 limit for inelastic behavior of:
KL E
≤ 4.71
r Fy
For blast loading, Fy = fds = 65.0 ksi and ϕ = 1.00, and the limit is:

29, 000 ksi
4.71 = 99.5
65.0 ksi
Note that this limit is significantly less than the suggested maximum slenderness of 200 given in the User Note in Section E2 of
the AISC Specification. Assuming K = 1.0, the slenderness of this element is:
KL 1.0 (17.0 ft )(12 in./ft )

=
r 2.34 in.
= 87.2 < 93.8
The buckling stress is determined from AISC Specification Section E3 as:
π2 E
Fe = (Spec. Eq. E3-4)
( KL / r )2
π 2 ( 29, 000 ksi )
=
(87.2 )2
= 37.6 kssi
The critical stress is:
⎛ Fy ⎞
⎜ F ⎟
Fcr = ⎜0.658 e ⎟ Fy (Spec. Eq. E3-2)
⎝ ⎠
For blast loading, Fy = fds = 65.0 ksi, and the critical stress is:
⎛ fds ⎞
⎜ ⎟
Fcr = ⎜ 0.658 Fe ⎟ fds
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
⎛ 65.0 ksi ⎞
= ⎜ 0.658 37.6 ksi ⎟ ( 65.0 ksi )
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
= 31.5 ksi
Note that the buckling stress used here corresponds to the AISC Specification. This differs from UFC 3-340-02 which uses a
buckling stress corresponding to the 1989 Specification (AISC, 1989).
Hence, for blast loading, with ϕ = 1.00, the available compressive strength of the diagonal brace is:
ϕPn = ϕFcr Ag (6-10)
(
= 1.00 ( 31.5 ksi ) 5.24 in.2 )
= 165 kips
The available tensile yielding strength of the diagonal brace, from AISC Specification Section D2, is:

Table 6-7. Tension-Compression Hinge Parameters
Loading a b c
T 11ΔT 14ΔT 0.8Pn
C 0.5Δc 4.1Δc 0.3Fcr
For blast loading, Fy = fds = 65.0 ksi and ϕ = 1.00, and the available tensile strength is:
ϕPn = ϕ fds Ag
(
= 1.00 ( 65.0 ksi ) 5.24 in.2 )
= 341 kips
With these tensile and compressive capacities, the tension-compression hinge properties used in Example 5.2 are derived as put
forth in Figure 6-7, Table 5-6 and Table 5-7 of FEMA 356 (FEMA, 2000b). These hinge properties are used to model plastic
hinges in the braces to allow for a nonlinear plastic analysis of the structure, as shown in Chapter 5.
From Table 5-7 of FEMA 356, the HSS section has the modeling parameters shown in Table 6-7 for tension and compression. ΔT
refers to the axial deformation at expected tensile yielding load, and Δc is the axial deformation at expected buckling load. Based
on E = 29,000 ksi, its relationship to stress and strain, i.e., ε = σ/E and the definition of strain, i.e., ε = ΔL/L, the values of ΔT and
Δc can be determined. Setting these two equations for ε equal to each other and solving for ΔL results in:
σL
ΔL =
E
For tension:
σL
ΔT =
E
( 65.0 ksi )(17.0 ft )(12 in./ft )
=
29, 000 ksi
= 0.457 in.
Fig. 6-7. FEMA 356 hinge parameters (FEMA, 2000b).

For compression:
σL
Δc =
E
( 31.5 ksi )(17.0 ft )(12 in./ft )
=
29, 000 ksi
= 0.222
Using the allowable strain-hardening slope of 1.5% of the elastic slope for tension produces a maximum stress of approximately
1.15 of the yield stress (Fell et al., 2006). For compression, to avoid computational instabilities, use a 0.1% hardening slope. With
this information, the hinge is compiled as Figure 6-8.
Results from Section 5.3, Example 5.2, indicate that only one diagonal at the first floor fails in compression while the others only
started yielding. The structure remains stable despite the failure of one brace in compression due to its redundancy.
(c) Columns of Example 5.1

Columns 1 and 2 used in Example 5.1 are checked and designed to remain elastic. The column section used is a W12×53 with
an effective length, KL = 15 ft.
For compression elements, the maximum slenderness and buckling load are checked. The UFC 3-340-02 maximum slenderness
described previously is calculated to be:
2π 2 E
Cc =
fds
2 π 2 ( 29, 000 ksi )

=
65.0 ksi
= 93.8
Fig. 6-8. Tension-compression hinge properties.

This can be compared to the AISC Specification Section E3 limit for inelastic behavior:
KL E
≤ 4.71
r Fy
As determined previously, for blast loading, Fy = fds = 65.0 ksi, and the limit becomes:
E 29, 000 ksi

4.71 = 4.71
f ds 65.0 ksi
= 99.5
Assuming K = 1.0, the slenderness of the W12×53 is:
KL 1.0 (15.0 ft )(12 in./ft )

=
ry 2.48 in.
= 72.6 < 93.8
The buckling stress is defined in Equation 6-14 and for this case is:
π2E
( KL / r )2
π 2 ( 29, 000 ksi )
=
(72.6 in.) 2
= 54.3 kssi
The critical stress is:
⎛ Fy ⎞ (Spec. Eq. E3-2)

⎜ F ⎟
Fcr = ⎜0.658 e ⎟ Fy
⎝ ⎠
For blast loading, Fy = fds = 65.0 ksi, and the critical stress is:
⎛ fds ⎞
⎜ ⎟
Fcr = ⎜ 0.658 Fe ⎟ fds
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
⎛ 65.0 ksi ⎞
= ⎜ 0.658 54.3 ksi ⎟ 65.0 ksi
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
= 39.4 ksi
For blast loading, ϕ = 1.00, and the available compressive strength is:
ϕPn = ϕ Ag Fcr
= 1.00 (15.6 in.2 ) ( 39.4 ksi )

= 615 kips

The available tensile yielding strength of the W12×53 columns from AISC Specification Section D2 is:
ϕPn = ϕFy Ag
For blast loading, Fy = fds = 65.0 ksi and ϕ = 1.00, and the available tensile strength is:
ϕ Pn = ϕ fds Ag
= 1.00 ( 65.0 ksi )(15.6 in.2 )

= 1, 010 kips
The maximum axial compressive load in Column 1 due to the blast load is 11.5 kips, as shown in Figure 5-10. Considering a
17.5 ft by 12.5 ft tributary area, a dead load of 50 psf, a live load of 30 psf, and the load combination given by Equation 6-7, the
total column load is:
Pu = 1.0D + 0.25L + 1.0B
= 1.0 (17.5 ft )(12.5 ft )( 0.050 ksf ) + 0.25 (17.5 ft )(12.5 ft ) ( 0.030 ksf ) + 1.0 (11.5 kips )
= 24.1 kips < ϕPn
The maximum axial compressive load in Column 2 due to the blast load is 11.5 kips, also shown in Figure 5-10. Considering a
35 ft × 12.5 ft tributary area, the total axial compressive load for this column is:
Pu = 1.0D + 0.25L + 1.0B
= 1.0 ( 35 ft )(12.5 ft )( 0.050 ksf ) + 0.25 ( 35 ft )(12.5 ft ) ( 0.030 ksf ) + 1.0 (11.5 kips )
= 36.7 kips < ϕPn
The maximum compression is 24.1 kips in Column 1 and 36.7 kips in Column 2. These are significantly below the buckling
load of the column (ϕPn = 615 kips). The maximum stresses in the columns are 1.5 ksi and 2.4 ksi, respectively, therefore, the
columns remain elastic.
(d) Second Floor Beam of Example 5.2

The second floor beam in Example 5.2, which is part of the braced frame, is checked next and its behavior is determined. The
W12×35 beam has a length, L = 24 ft. It is modeled as a simply supported beam with a concentrated load at midspan where the
braces meet.
For a starting point, it is initially assumed that the element has a ductility ratio smaller than 3. From Section 6.3.5 it is seen that
for ductility ratios smaller than 3, the elastic-plastic flexural strength is given by:
⎛S+Z ⎞
M pʹ = fds ⎜ ⎟ (6-12)
⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ 65.0 ksi ⎞ ⎛ 45.6 in. + 51.2 in. ⎞
3 3
=⎜ ⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ 12 in./ft ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
= 262 kip-ft
where fds was determined previously as 65.0 ksi for blast loading using the simplified Equation 6-5.

From AISC Manual Table 3-23, the elastic deflection for this moment due to the concentrated load at midspan is:
M ʹp L2
Δ=
12 EI
( 262 kip-ft )(12 in./ft )( 24 ft )2 (12 in./ft )2
=
12 ( 29, 000 ksi ) ( 285 in.4 )
= 2.63 in.
This deflection gives an elastic rotation of:
⎛ Δ ⎞
θ = tan − 1 ⎜ ⎟
⎝L/2⎠
⎡ 2.63 in. ⎤
= tan − 1 ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ ( ft )( in./ft ) ⎥⎦
24 12 / 2
= 1.05°
Note that the hinge rotation is double this support rotation (see Figure 6-2). These parameters define an elastic-perfectly plastic
moment-rotation curve. Since many programs have convergence problems with a perfectly plastic zone, a sloped line should be
introduced in this plastic region. This slope shown in Figure 6-9 is based on fds determined from Figure 6-1 and Equation 6-2 for
ductility greater than 10. Therefore, the dynamic design stress is:
fdu − fdy
fds = fdy + (6-2)
4
where
fdy = SIF ( DIF ) Fy (6-1)

= 1.10(1.19)(50 ksi)
= 65.5 ksi
fdu = DIF ( Fu ) (6-3)
= 1.19(65 ksi)
= 77.4 ksi
and
77.4 ksi − 65.5 ksi

fds = 65.5 ksi +
4
= 68.5 ksi
The ultimate bending moment is:
Mult = fds Z x
( 68.5 ksi ) ( 51.2 in.3 )

=
12
= 292 kip-ft

The maximum rotation, determined from Table 6-2 is:
(
θult = min 10°, 20 θ )
= min (10°, 21°)
= 10°
Again, note that hinge rotation is double this support rotation. The moment-rotation diagram for the beam hinge is given in
Figure 6-9.
Figure 5-20 shows the time-history deflection at midspan for the second-floor beam. The maximum deflection results in the first
cycle with a value of 3 in. For this deflection the ductility is smaller than the maximum value defined in Table 6-2 for beams:
3.00 in.
μ=
2.63 in.
= 1.14 < 20
Note, also, that the ductility ratio is smaller than 3, indicating that the initial assumption was valid. If, conversely, the ratio was
larger than 3 this process would have to be repeated with the correct Mp.
Example 6.2—Design of Structural Elements Subject to Direct Blast Loading: Façade Girt and Column
Given:
In the previous examples, the element behaviors were defined and included in the structural models used in Examples 5.1 and
5.2. The results from these examples were used in this chapter to check the adequacy of the members to support the loads defined
in Chapter 5. These particular elements were not directly exposed to blast loads. In this example, the elements are designed and
analyzed based on the blast load applied directly to them. Elements designed in Example 5.1 are simplified into an SDOF model
and will be redesigned according to the requirements defined in this chapter. All steel is ASTM A992 material. Specifically, the
following elements are designed:
(a) Façade Girt Design: Design an 8-in.-deep section. This element has been designed for wind as a MC8×20 of ASTM A992
material, with a deflection limitation of L/260.
Fig. 6-9. Beam hinge moment-rotation curve.

(b) Façade Column Design: This element has been designed for wind as a W12×53 of ASTM A992 material, with a deflec-
tion limitation of L/240.
An introduction to the MDOF-to-SDOF simplification method was presented in Chapter 4. Figure 6-10 provides an overview of
this method.
Note that the sample procedure equations given in Figure 6-10 are based on a simply supported beam with load and mass uni-
formly distributed. Equations for other boundary conditions were defined in Chapter 4. The same transformation as shown in
Figure 6-10 can be performed by multiplying only the mass by the load-mass factor (Biggs, 1964). Figure 6-11 summarizes the
SDOF solution.
KM
MSDOF = MK LM = M (6-14)
KL
This can be seen by starting from the simple force equilibrium equation, and applying the transformation shown in Figure 6-10.
The simple force equilibrium equations are:
F = ku + Mu (6-15)
KL F = kKL u + MKM
u (6-16)
This can then be simplified to show:

KM
F = ku + M u (6-17)
KL
The KLM approach is simpler because it only uses one transformation factor and is standard practice in blast analysis/design.
Here, the load factor, KL, and the mass factor, KM, are used because they have a more physical interpretation.
Fig. 6-10. MDOF-to-SDOF simplification.

Solution:
From AISC Manual Table 2-4, the material properties are:
ASTM A992
Fy = 50 ksi
Fu = 65 ksi
(a) Façade Girt Design

The girt shown in Figure 6-12 is designed to support the blast load calculated in Chapter 2. The blast deflection criteria given in
Table 6-2 shows that the ductility should be less than 20 and the support rotation should be less than 10°. As a preliminary design,
the support rotation criterion is used because it does not assume the knowledge of the actual section used. Rigid-perfectly plastic
behavior is assumed and the element is assumed sufficiently braced against lateral-torsional buckling.
Fig. 6-11. SDOF solution.

For this rotation criterion, the maximum deflection allowed is:
⎡ (25.0 ft ) (12 in./ft) ⎤

Δ max = ⎢ ⎥ sin10
⎣ 2 ⎦
= 26.0 in.
The connection should be detailed for this high rotational capacity. Connection design will be discussed in Chapter 7.
In this example, the process shown in Figure 6-10 and Figure 6-11 will be followed. Begin by converting the mass and load from
the MDOF system to an equivalent SDOF system that is easy to solve. Within this equivalent SDOF system, find the necessary
yield force from the total energy and maximum deflection in the system. Next, convert this yield force back to the MDOF system
and find the maximum moment. With this moment, design a section with the required plastic section modulus using the AISC
Specification.
The self-weight of the façade is 40 psf. Therefore, the weight of the façade supported by the system is:
w = ( 40.0 psf )( 25.0 ft )( 5.00 ft ) (1, 000 lb/kip )

= 5.00 kips
The self-weight is important for the calculation of the mass involved in the movement of the system. The girt is included in
the dynamic and modal calculations; however, it provides only lateral resistance to the wind loading and supports only its own
weight.
From Example 2.1, the blast lasts for a duration of 6.19 ms and peaks at a pressure of 79.5 psi. The load associated with this blast
pressure spread about the tributary area of the girt is given as:
( )
Fpeak = ( 79.5 psi ) 144 in.2 ft 2 ( 5.00 ft )( 25.0 ft ) (1,000 lb/kip )
= 1, 430 kips
Based on the SDOF simplification used for mass and loads uniformly distributed in the plastic range, the load and the stiffness
are multiplied by the load factor, KL = 0.50, and the mass is multiplied by the mass factor, KM = 0.33, as found in Table 4-1.
Therefore, the load and mass parameters used in the discrete system are:
Fig. 6-12. Façade girt location.

Fpeak,SDOF = K L Fpeak
= 0.50 (1,430 kips )
= 715 kips
wSDOF = KM w
= 0.33 ( 5.00 kips )
= 1.65 kips
The equivalent impulse due to the 6.19 ms blast in this SDOF system is determined from Equation 5-12 as follows:
Fpeak,SDOF td
I SDOF =
2
( 715 kips ) (6.19 × 10− 3 s)
=
2
= 2.21 kip-s
The total energy produced by the blast load in the SDOF system is determined from Equation 5-3:
2
I SDOF
WP,SDOF =
2 m SDOF
( 2.21 kip-s )2
=
⎛ 1.65 kips ⎞
2⎜ ⎟
⎝ 386 in./s2 ⎠
= 571 kip-in.
To limit the maximum displacement (determined previously) to comply with the support rotation criteria, the SDOF yield
force is:
WP,SDOF
R yield,SDOF =
Δ max
571 kip-in.
=
26.0 in.
= 22.0 kips
The yield force for the continuous system is:
R yield,SDOF
Ryield =
KL
22.0 kips
=
0.50
= 44.0 kips
The maximum moment can be found using the equation for the maximum resistance given in Table 4-1:

R yield L
Mp =
8
( 44.0 kips )( 25.0 ft )
=
8
= 138 kip-ft
Assuming the full plastic moment is developed, the minimum plastic section modulus can be determined from Equation 6-13,
with fds = 1.30Fy, as follows:
Mp
Z min =
fds
(138 kip-ft )(12 in./ft )
=
1.30 ( 50 ksi )
= 25.5 in.3
Based on this preliminary design, there is no MC8 strong enough to support the blast. There are several possible modifications to
improve the behavior of the system: increase the excited mass, increase the strength-stiffness of the system, or decrease the blast
load by integrating a variable blast pressure that is a function of the distance to the charge along the girt. In this example, increase
the steel section to an ASTM A992 W8×28.
For the W8×28, from AISC Manual Table 1-1, the geometric properties are:
d = 8.06 in.
tw = 0.285 in.
Zx = 27.2 in.
Ix = 98.0 in.4
The plastic moment is:
M p = fds Z (6-13)
=
(
1.30 ( 50 ksi ) 27.2 in.3 )
12 in./ft
= 147 kip-ft
From AISC Manual Table 3-23, using the equation for maximum deflection for a uniformly distributed load on a simply sup-
ported beam, the elastic displacement is:
2
5 Mpl L
Δ el =
48 EI
⎡ ⎤
5 ⎢ (147 kip-ft )(12 in. ft )( 25.0 ft ) (12 in. ft )
2 2
= ⎥
48 ⎢ ( 29, 000 ksi ) (98.0 in.4 ) ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
= 5.82 in.
The strength parameters to use in the dynamic calculation are determined in the following. From Table 4-1, the maximum resis-
tance is:

8 Mp
R yield =
L
8 (147 kip-ft )
=
25.0 ft
= 47.0 kips
Using the load factor, KL, from Table 4-1, the SDOF yield force is:
R yield,SDOF = KL R yield
= 0.50 ( 47.0 kips )
= 23.5 kips
Solving for K in Equation 5-16, the required structure stiffness is:
R yield
K=
Δ el
47.0 kips
=
5.82 in.
= 8.08 kip/in.
Using the load factor, KL, from Table 4-1, the SDOF stiffness is:
K SDOF = KL K
= 0.50 ( 8.08 kip/in. )
= 4.04 kip/in.
The mass and load do not change from the previous calculations.
The period of the system, based on the SDOF mass determined previously, is:
m SDOF
T = 2π
K SDOF
1.65 kips
= 2π
(386 in./s2 ) ( 4.04 kip/in.)
= 0.204 s
The structural period (0.204 s) is more than 10 times longer than the load duration (0.00619 s), hence the assumption of impulsive
load is correct.
Figure 6-13 shows the displacement computed using SDOF software. As can be seen from this plot, no damping was introduced
into the system. The maximum deflection is 28.4 in. > 26.0 in., hence the rotation criterion is not met by a slight margin. The
elastic displacement for this beam is 5.82 in., therefore the ductility ratio for this system is:
28.4 in.
μ=
5.82 in.
= 4.88 < 20

The maximum reaction occurs at the time of the maximum displacement. In the response from an impulse load, the maximum
response occurs when the load is zero (i.e., after the load has finished). For a longer blast duration, the reaction is a combination
of the direct load and the capacity of the resisting element. See Biggs (1964) for more information. Table 4-1 gives the following
expression for the dynamic reaction:
V = 0.38 R yield + 0.12 F

= 0.38(47.0 kips) + 0.12 ( 0 kips )
= 18.2 kips
where
F = load applied at the time of maximum response
The dynamic available shear strength, from Equation 6-11, is:
ϕVn = ϕfdvAw
where
fdv = 0.55fds (6-4)
= 0.55(SIF)(DIF)fds
Aw = dtw
Fig. 6-13. SDOF displacement for façade girt in Example 6.2— determined by computer modeling.

Therefore:
ϕVn = ϕ fdv Aw
= 1.00 ( 0.55 )(1.10 )(1.19 )( 50 ksi )( 8.06 in. ) ( 0.285 in.)
= 82.7 kips > 18.2 kips
Hence, the section can support the shear. The connection should be designed for this capacity.
(b) Façade Column Design

The column shown in Figure 6-14 is designed to support the blast load calculated in Chapter 2. From AISC Manual Table 1-1,
the geometric properties of the W12×53 are:
W12×53
A = 15.6 in.
Ix = 425 in.4
Sx = 70.6 in.3
rx = 5.23 in.
ry = 2.48 in.
rts = 2.79 in.
ho = 11.5 in.
J = 1.58 in.4
As mentioned in Section 6.3.6, columns are designed to remain elastic; therefore, the maximum flexural strength should not be
reached. For the preliminary design, the column will be designed without axial compression. For the final design, combined axial
compression and bending strength will be checked to determine the adequacy of this element.
For preliminary design, the girt is assumed infinitely rigid and all of the blast pressure is absorbed by the column; this is the same
assumption used in Chapter 5. This being highly conservative, a more accurate approach would be to design for the girt reactions.
Fig. 6-14. Column location.

The self-weight of the façade is 40 psf. Therefore, the weight of the façade supported by the system is:
( 40.0 psf )( 25.0 ft )(15.0 ft )

w=
1, 000 lb/kip
= 15.0 kips
From Example 2.1, the blast lasts for a duration of 6.19 ms and peaks at a pressure of 79.5 psi. The load associated with this blast
pressure spread about the tributary area of the column is given as:
( 79.5 psi ) (144 in.2/ft 2 ) (15.0 ft )( 25.0 ft )

Fpeak =
1, 000 lb/kipp
= 4, 290 kips
Following a similar procedure to the girt design example previously solved, convert the MDOF system to an equivalent SDOF
system to solve. Based on the SDOF simplification used for mass and loads uniformly distributed in the plastic range, the load
and the stiffness are multiplied by the load factor, KL = 0.50, and the mass is multiplied by the mass factor, KM = 0.33, as found
in Table 4-1. Therefore, the load and mass parameters used in the discrete system are:
Fpeak,SDOF = 0.50 ( 4, 290 kips )

= 2,150 kips
wSDOF = 0.33 (15.0 kips )

= 4.95 kips
The equivalent impulse due to the 6.19 ms blast in this SDOF system is determined from Equation 5-12 as follows:
Fpeak,SDOF td
I SDOF =
2
( 2,150 kips )( 6.19 × 10− 3 s)
=
2
= 6.65 kip-s
The total energy produced by the blast load in the SDOF system is determined from Equation 5-3:
2
I SDOF
WP,SDOF =
2 mSDOF
( 6.65 kip-s )2
=
⎛ 4.95 kips ⎞
2⎜ ⎟
⎝ 386 in./s2 ⎠
= 1, 720 kip-in.
For the W12×53, assuming a uniformly distributed load, the following properties define the structural behavior:
Mp = fds Z (6-13)
=
(
1.3 ( 50 ksi ) 77.9 in.3 )
12 in./ft
= 422 kip-ft

From AISC Manual Table 3-23, using the equation for maximum deflection for a uniformly distributed load on a simply sup-
ported beam, the elastic displacement is:
2
5 Mp L
Δ el =
48 EI
⎡ ⎤
5 ⎢ ( 422 kip-ft )(12 in./ft )(15 ft ) (12 in. )
2 2
= ⎥
48 ⎢
⎢⎣ (
( 29, 000 ksi ) 425 in.4 ) ⎥
⎥⎦
= 1.39 in.
The strength parameters to use in the dynamic calculation are determined in the following. From Table 4-1, the maximum resis-
tance is:
8 M pl
R yield =
L
8 ( 422 kip-ft )
=
15.0 ft
= 225 kips
Using the load factor, KL, from Table 4-1, the SDOF yield force is:
R yield,SDOF = K L R yield
= 0.50 ( 225 kips )
= 113 kips
Solving for K in Equation 5-16, the required structure stiffness is:
Ryield
K=
Δ el
225 kips
=
1.39 in.
= 162 kip/in.
Using the load factor, KL, from Table 4-1, the SDOF stiffness is:
K SDOF = K L K
= 0.50 (162 kip/in. )
= 81.0 kip/in.
The period of the system is:
mSDOF
T = 2π
K SDOF
4.95 kips
= 2π
(386 in./s2 ) (81.0 kip/s )
= 0.0791 s

The column period (0.0791 s) is more than 10 times the load duration (0.00619 s), hence the assumption of impulsive load is
correct. The period of the column is smaller than half of the beam period [0.0791 s < (0.204 s)/2 = 0.102 s]; therefore, the system
is uncoupled and can be modeled separately.
Assuming elastic behavior, the maximum elastic energy that can be adsorbed by the SDOF system is given by the following,
which can be derived from Equation 5-8 and Equation 5-16:
R 2yield,SDOF
WS,el,max =
2 K SDOF
(113 kips )2
=
2 ( 81.0 kip/in. )
= 78.8 kip-in. < 1, 720 kip-in.
The maximum elastic energy is smaller than the energy induced by the impulse. Therefore, this element will achieve plastic
behavior. As stated earlier, the intent is for columns to remain elastic. For the tributary blast load directly applied to the column,
there is not an economical solution for this column to remain elastic. But the preliminary assumption of rigid behavior of the girt
is highly conservative; the maximum load that this element is carrying comes from the reaction in the girt, not the blast pressure
on the tributary area of the column. Assuming this reaction is static, the system to solve is defined in Figure 6-15, where the 23.5-
kip end reactions from the girt are shown, calculated as half of Ryield. Note that this is different than the dynamic end reaction of
18.2 kips. The 23.5-kip load is used for redundancy and to be conservative.
The maximum bending moment for this configuration is:
MB = 2 ( 23.5 kips )(15.0 ft 3 )

= 235 kip-ft
The factored or required flexural strength is 1.0MB = 1.0(2,820 kip-in.) = 2,820 kip-in.
The axial load on the column, based on a roof dead load of 30 psf, is:
⎛ 50 ft ⎞ ⎛ 70 ft ⎞
PD = ( 30.0 psf ) ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ 1, 000 lb/kip
⎝ 2 ⎠⎝ 4 ⎠
= 13.1 kipss
The factored or required compressive strength is 1.0PD = 1.0(13.1 kips) = 13.1 kips based on Equation 6-7.
Next, the axial compressive and flexural available strength of this element are determined and checked using the combined com-
pression and flexure interaction equations. For buckling about the weak axis, the column is assumed not to be braced by the girts.
The buckling length is Ky L = 1.0(15.0 ft) = 15.0 ft, therefore, the slenderness is:
Ky L (15.0 ft )(12 in./ft )

=
ry 2.48 in.
= 72.6
For buckling about the strong axis, the column is also unbraced. The buckling length is KxL = 1.0(15.0 ft) = 15.0 ft; therefore,
the slenderness is:
Kx L (15.0 ft )(12 in./ft )

=
rx 5.23 in.
= 34.4

Because the weak axis slenderness ratio is larger, the available compressive strength will be based on that ratio.
Based on UFC 3-340-02, the maximum slenderness permitted for this element is:
2π 2E
Cc =
fds
2 π 2 ( 29, 000 ksi )

=
1.3 ( 50 ksi )
= 93.8
This compares to the AISC Specification limit for inelastic behavior of:
KL E
< 4.71
r Fy
With Fy = fds = 1.3(50 ksi) = 65 ksi:
29, 000 ksi

4.71 = 99.5
65 ksi
Fig. 6-15. Equivalent static reaction system.

Note that this is significantly lower than the value of 200 recommended in the AISC Specification Section E2 User Note. The
buckling and critical stresses are determined from AISC Specification Section E3. The weak axis buckling stress is:
π2E
( KL / r )2
π 2 ( 29, 000 ksi )
=
(72.6 in.) 2
= 54.3 kssi
Because KL/ry = 72.6 < 99.5, the critical stress is:
⎛ Fy ⎞
⎜ F ⎟ (Spec. Eq. E3-2)
Fcr = ⎜0.658 e ⎟ Fy
⎝ ⎠
From Equation 6-5, Fy = fds = 1.30(50 ksi) = 65 ksi, and the critical stress is:
⎛ 65 ksi ⎞
⎜
Fcr = 0.658 54.3 ksi ⎟ ( 65 ksi )
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
= 39.4 ksi
The available compressive strength is:
ϕPn = ϕ Fcr Ag (6-10)
= 1.00 ( 39.4 ksi ) (15.6 in.2 )

= 615 kips
The available tensile strength of the section is:

For blast loading, with Fy = fds :
ϕPn = 1.00 ( 65 ksi ) (15.6 in.2 )

= 1, 010 kips
Determine the available flexural strength, assuming that this beam is laterally unsupported because the girts cannot carry any
axial load after the blast. Therefore, the unbraced flexural strength is determined as follows from AISC Specification Section F2,
with Fy = fds :

E
L p = 1.76ry (from Spec Eq. F2-5)
fds
29, 000 ksi
= 1.76(2.48 in.) ( 1 12 in./fft )
65 ksi
= 7.68 ft
2 2
E Jc ⎛ Jc ⎞ ⎛ 0.7 fds ⎞
L r = 1.95rts + ⎜ ⎟ + 6.76 ⎜ ⎟ (from Spec Eq. F2-6)
0.7 fds Sx ho ⎝ Sx ho ⎠ ⎝ E ⎠
⎧ ⎡ 29, 000 ksi ⎤ ⎫
⎪1.95 ( 2.79 in. ) ⎢ ⎥ ⎪
⎪ ⎢⎣ 0.7 ( 65 ksi ) ⎥⎦ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
=⎨ ⎬
( ) ( )
2
1.58 in.4 1.00 ⎡ 1.58 in.4 1.00 ⎤
⎡ 0.7 ( 65 ksi ) ⎤
2
⎪ ⎪
⎪× + ⎢ ⎥ + 6.76 ⎢ ⎪
⎥
⎪
⎩
( )
70.6 in.3 (11.5 in. )
⎢
⎣⎢
70 (
.6 in.3
(11 )
.5 in. ) ⎥
⎥⎦ ⎣ 29, 000 ksi ⎦ ⎪
⎭
× (1 12 in./ft )
= 23.2 ft
The unbraced length of the column, Lb = 15 ft, falls between Lp and Lr. Therefore, the available flexural strength is given by:
⎡ ⎛ Lb − Lp ⎞⎤
⎢⎣
(
ϕ Mn = ϕ Cb ⎢ Mp − Mp − 0.7 fds Sx ⎜ ) ⎟ ⎥ ≤ ϕMp
⎜ Lr − L p ⎟⎥
(from Spec. Eq. F2-2)
⎝ ⎠⎦
⎧⎪ ⎞ ⎤ ⎛ 15.0 ft − 7.68 ft ⎞ ⎪⎫
⎡
(
⎛
= 1.00 (1.0 ) ⎨422 kip-ft − ⎢ 422 kip-ft − 0.7 ( 65 ksi ) 70.6 in.3 ⎜
⎩⎪ ⎣
1
) ⎟⎥ ⎜ ⎟⎬
⎝ 12 in./ft ⎠ ⎦ ⎝ 23.2 ft − 7.68 ft ⎠ ⎭⎪
≤ 1.00 ( 422 kip-ft )
= 349 kip-ft ≤ 422 kip-ft
where Cb is assumed to be 1.0.

Pr 13.1 kips
Because = = 0.02 < 0.2, use AISC Specification Equation H1-1b to check the interaction of combined flexure and
Pc 615 kips
axial compression:
Pr ⎛ Mrx ⎞ 13.1 kips ⎛ 235 kip-ft ⎞

+⎜ ⎟= +⎜ ⎟
2 Pc ⎝ Mcx ⎠ 2(615 kips) ⎝ 349 kip-fft ⎠
= 0.684 ≤ 1.0 o.k.
We can compare the moment from the girt reactions to the maximum moment if subjected to full blast pressure as an indication
of the energy dissipated by the façade. The maximum moment in the column due to the girt reactions was found above to be 235
kip-ft. Determine the moment due to the full blast pressure, as follows. The natural period of the column is:
me
T = 2π (5-10)
K
15.0 kips
= 2π
(386 in./s )162 kip/in.
2
= 0.0973 s

Therefore the dynamic reduction factor is:
π
k DRF = (5-15)
T td
π
=
0.0973 s 6.19 × 10 −3 in.
= 0.200
The equivalent linear load on the column is:
qeq = kDRF ( Peak Pressure )( Tributary Width )
(
⎡ ( 79.5 psi ) 144 in.2 /ft 2
= 0.200 ⎢
) ⎤⎥ ( 25 ft )
⎢ 1, 000 lb/kip ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
= 57.2 kip/ft
The maximum moment due to this linear load is then:
qeq L2
Mmax =
8
( 57.2 kip/ft )(15.0 ft )2
=
8
= 1,610 kip-ft
The moment from the girt reactions is:
⎛ 235 kip-ft ⎞
⎜ ⎟ = 14.6%
⎝ 1, 610 kip-ft ⎠
Therefore, the girts absorb approximately 85% of the blast energy.
Example 6.3—Design of Structural Elements Subject to Direct Blast Loading: Composite Roof Beam
Given:
The composite beam shown in Figure 6-16 will be designed for the roof blast load defined in Figure 6-17. Note that this analy-
sis is not based on the previous building. The structure consists of a 25-ft-long composite beam, consisting of a W14×22 with
a 5½-in.-thick slab with a 3-in. metal deck. The beams are spaced at 6 ft on-center. The steel material is ASTM A992 and the
concrete is normal weight with a specified compressive strength of 3 ksi. For blast design, the strength of concrete in compres-
sion is multiplied by 1.12 (dynamic increase factor from UFC 3-340-02). The composite beam is assumed to be fully braced at
both flanges.
As shown in Figure 6-16, the effective flange width is 6 ft. There is 2.5 in. of concrete above the metal deck. The center of this
concrete area is 11 in. from the center of the steel beam.
Solution:
From AISC Manual Table 2-4, the material properties are:
ASTM A992
Fy = 50 ksi
Fu = 65 ksi

From AISC Manual Table 1-1, the geometric properties of a W14×22 are:
W14×22
A = 6.49 in.2
d = 13.7 in.
tw = 0.230 in.
h/tw = 53.3
Ix = 199 in.4
Zx = 33.2 in.3
The composite section properties, based on the blast strength for the concrete and the steel and AISC Specification Chapter I, are
determined in the following.
To find the moment of inertia of the composite section, first transform the section into a uniform material of steel. The modulus
of elasticity of the concrete is:
Ec = 57, 000 f cʹ
⎛ 1 ksi ⎞
= 57, 000 3, 000 psi ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 1, 000 psi ⎠
= 3,120 ksi
Therefore:
Es
n=
Ec
29, 000 ksi
=
3,120 ksi
= 9.29
( 6.00 ft )(12 in./ft )
From this, the 6 ft width of the composite section becomes = 7.75 in. in the transformed uniform section.
9.29
The elastic neutral axis of the composite section is found by taking the first moments of area about the top of the concrete deck
as follows:
Fig. 6-16. Composite beam section

y=
∑ Ai yi
∑ Ai
( 7.75 in. )( 2.50 in. ) ⎛⎜
⎝
2.50 in. ⎞
2
( )2 ⎛ 2.50 in.
⎟ + 6.49 in. ⎜ 2
⎠ ⎝
⎞
+ 11.0 in. ⎟
⎠
=
( 7. 75 in. )( 2. 50 in. ) + 6. 49 in.2
= 4.01 in.
where y is the distance to the elastic neutral axis from the top of the concrete deck. Then, taking the second moments of area
about the elastic neutral axis:
( 7.75 in.)( 2.50 in. ) 3 ⎛ 2.50 in. ⎞

2
I conc = + ( 7.75 in. )( 2.50 in. ) ⎜ 4.01 in. − ⎟
12 ⎝ 2 ⎠
4
= 158 in.
Fig. 6-17. Roof blast load.

2
( ⎛
)
I steel = 199 in.3 + 6.49 in.2 ⎜ 11.0 in. +
⎝
2.50 in.
2
⎞
− 4.01 in. ⎟
⎠
= 640 in.4
Therefore, I tr = 798 in.4
Determine the available flexural strength

Determine from AISC Specification Section I3.2a whether the available flexural strength is based on the plastic stress distribution
on the composite section or the superposition of elastic stresses for the limit state of yielding. For a W14×22:
h E
= 53.3 ≤ 3.76
tw fds
E 29, 000 ksi
3.76 = 3.76
fds 1.3 ( 50 ksi )
= 79.4
Therefore, because h/tw = 53.3 < 79.4, the available flexural strength is determined from the plastic stress distribution on the
composite section, and Mn = Mp. To find Mp, the concrete compression area is first found by force balance using the dynamic
strength of concrete, f ′dc = 1.12(3.00 ksi) = 3.36 ksi and fds = 1.30(50 ksi) = 65 ksi from Equation 6-5. The depth of the compres-
sion block is:
As fds
a=
0.85 fdcʹ beff
=
(6.49 in. ) (65 ksi )
2
0.85 ( 3.36 ksi ) ( 6.00 ft )(12 in./ft )

= 2.05 in.
Therefore:
⎛d a⎞
Mp = As fds ⎜ + t − ⎟
⎝ 2 2⎠
(
= 6.49 in.2 ) (65 ksi ) ⎛⎜⎝ 13.72 in. + 5.50 in.. − 2.052 in. ⎞⎟⎠ ⎛⎜⎝ 121 ftin. ⎞⎟⎠
= 398 kip-ft
And the available flexural strength is:
ϕMn = 1.00(398 kip-ft)

= 398 kip-ft
During the rebound, there is no composite action; however, the bottom flange is assumed to be fully braced. Thus, in the upward
direction, the available flexural strength of the steel (using Zx = 33.2 in.3 for the bare steel) is determined as follows, using Equa-
tion 6-5 for fdy:
ϕMp,steel = ϕ Z fdy
( )
⎡ 33.2 in.3 (1.30 )( 50 ksi ) ⎤
= 1.00 ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 12 in./ft ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
= 180 kip-ft

The load used for this example is shown in Figure 6-17.
The existing dead load from the concrete and deck is 60 psf, hence the total dead load on the beam is:
( 60.0 psf )( 25.0 ft )( 6.00 ft )

w=
1, 000 lb/kip
= 9.00 kips
The peak load for the 12.2 psi peak blast pressure is:
(12.2 psi ) (144 in.2 /ft 2 )

Fpeak = ( 6.00 ft ) ( 25.0 ft )
1, 000 lb/kip
= 264 kips
Based on the SDOF simplification used for mass and loads uniformly distributed in the plastic range, the load and the stiffness
are multiplied by the load factor, KL = 0.50, and the mass is multiplied by the mass factor, KM = 0.33, as found in Table 4-1.
Therefore, the parameters used in the discrete system are determined as defined in Figure 6-9. The equivalent load is:
Fpeak,SDOF = ( 264 kips )( 0.50 )

= 132 kips
The equivalent weight is:
wSDOF = ( 9.00 kips )( 0.33 )

= 2.97 kips
From AISC Manual Table 3-23, the maximum elastic deflection for a uniformly distributed load is:
5 M p L2
Δ el =
48 EI tr
5 ( 398 kip-ft )(12 in./ft )( 25 ft ) (12 in./ft )
2 2
=
48 ( 29, 000 ksi )( 798 in.4 )
= 1.93 in.
From Table 4-1, the maximum resistance to use in the dynamic calculation is:
8Mp
R yield =
L
8 ( 398 kip-ft )
=
25 ft
= 127 kips
For the design of this beam, the existing dead load is applied simultaneously with the blast load and will reduce the beam strength.
R yield,reduced = 127 kips − 9.00 kips

= 118 kips
From Table 4-1 and Figure 6-9, for the SDOF system, the equivalent load is:

R yield,SDOF = (118 kips )( 0.50 )
= 59.0 kips
The stiffness is:
R yield
K=
Δ el
127 kips
=
1.93 in.
= 65.8 kip/in.
The SDOF stiffness is:
K SDOF = ( 65.8 kip/in. )( 0.50 )

= 32.9 kip/in.
From Equation 5-10, the period of the structure is:
mSDOF
T = 2π
K SDOF
wSDOF
= 2π
gK SDOF
2.97 kips
= 2π
(386 in./s2 ) ( 32.9 kiip/in.)
= 0.0961 s
For this example, the beam period is less than 10 times the load duration, 0.0961 s < 10(0.0144 s) = 0.144 s; therefore, the impulse
formulation cannot be used. For the rebound in the upward direction, where Mp,steel was determined previously, the force is deter-
mined from the expression in Table 4-1:
8 M p,steel
R yield,steel =
L
8 (180 kip-ft )
=
25 ft
= 57.6 kips
Again, the dead load is applied simultaneously with the blast load and therefore, for the rebound, the available strength is
increased.
R yield,steel = 57.6 kips + 9.00 kips

= 66.6 kips
The elastic deflection for the noncomposite steel beam is:

5 M p,steel L2
Δ el,steel =
48 EI steel
5 (180 kip-ft )(12 in./ft ) ( 25 ft ) (12 in./ft )
2 2
=
48 ( 29, 000 ksi ) (199 in.4 )
= 3.51 in.
The maximum negative force is:
R Rebound,SDOF = ( 66.6 kips )( 0.50 )

= 33.3 kips
Therefore, the elastic stiffness at the rebound is:
R Rebound,SDOF
K Rebound,SDOF =
Δ el,steel
33.3 kips
=
3.51 in.
= 9.49 kip/in.
From Equation 5-10, the period at the rebound is:
m SDOF
T = 2π
KRebound,SDOF
2.97 kips
= 2π
(386 in./s2 ) ( 9.49 kip/in. )
= 0.179 s
For the rebound, the beam period is greater than 10 times the load duration, 0.179 s > 10(0.0144 s) = 0.144 s; therefore, the
impulse formulation can be used for the rebound response.
Graphical Solution
This system can be solved graphically using the approach presented in Chapter 4. Using Figure 4-4, the dynamic amplification
factor is obtained based on the ratio between the structural period and the load duration:
T 0.0961 s
=
td 0.0144 s
= 6.67
From Figure 4-4, the dynamic load factor, DLF, is found to be 0.4. Dynamic load applied to the beam is:
Feq = DLF Fpeak ( )

= 0.4 ( 264 kips )
= 106 kips
This is less than the strength of the beam, Ryield,reduced = 118 kips, hence the system remains elastic in the first cycle.

Because no damping is considered and the system remains elastic in the first cycle, the rebound in the second cycle needs
to absorb the total energy developed by the impulse. This energy procedure results in the following strain energy, where the
impulse, I, is determined from Equation 4-1:
2
I SDOF
WImpulse,SDOF = (from Eq. 5-7)
2 mSDOF
⎡ (132 kips ) ( 0.0144 s ) ⎤

2
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 2 ⎦
=
⎛ 2.97 kips ⎞
2⎜ ⎟
⎝ 386 in./s2 ⎠
= 58.7 kip-in.
The plastic displacement due to the rebound is determined as follows, where WRebound,el,max is determined from Equation 5-8:
Δ Rebound,pl =
(WImpulse,SDOF + WRebound,el,max ) (from Eq. 5-9)
R Rebound,SDOF
1 ⎡ ( 9.49 kip/in.) ( 3.51 in.) 2 ⎤

= ⎢58.7 kip/in. + ⎥
33.3 kips ⎢ 2 ⎥
⎣ ⎦
= 3.52 in.
Therefore, the ductility obtained at the rebound is:
3.52 in.
μ=
3.51 in.
= 1.00 < 20
which is acceptable.
Computer Calculations
As an alternative, a software program may be used to evaluate the composite beam for blast loading, using an SDOF simplifica-
tion. The parameters for the load used in the analysis were previously calculated:
wSDOF = 2.97 kips Fpeak,SDOF = 132 kips
The load applied follows the time history shown in Figure 6-17. The yield force and stiffness were obtained previously as:
R yield,SDOF = 59.0 kips K SDOF = 32.9 kip/in.
And the rebound properties are:
R Rebound,SDOF = 33.3 kips K Rebound,SDOF = 9.49 kip/in.
For this particular example, SAP2000 was used. However, any of the software packages or programming tools mentioned in
Chapter 4 would suffice. To solve, an SDOF model was constructed of two tension-only elements with the appropriate stiffness,
as shown in Figure 6-18. Plastic hinges according to FEMA 356 (FEMA, 2000b) are introduced in both elements to account for
any plastic behavior. These are derived in the same manner as those used in previous examples and in the modeling of Chapter 5.
The mass and peak blast forces were both applied to the node at which the tension elements connect.

In order to account for the nonlinearity of the system and to get accurate deflections, the dead load should be included in the
time-history analysis. Using nonlinear direct integration time-history analysis, the maximum displacement (see Figure 6-19) is:
Δ SDOF = 1.98 in. Δ SDOF,Rebound = 2.87 in.
Note that these values include the deflection from the dead load.
Hence, the ductility is:
Δ max
μ=
Δ el
1.98 in.
=
1.93 in.
= 1.03
For the rebound, the ductility is:
2.87 in.
μ=
3.51 in.
= 0.818
Note that, as the composite action is not utilized in the rebound, the beam is much more flexible in this direction. As a result, the
beam deflects considerably more upwards (during the rebound) than it does downwards.
For the SDOF solution, the element just starts to yield as a composite beam but not during the rebound. Figure 6-20 shows the
force resultant from the SDOF system. Note that this plot, again, includes the dead load.
The maximum shear force corresponds to the maximum end reaction. Using the equation from Table 4-1 again, with F = 0 at the
time of maximum response, we get:
V = 0.38 R yield + 0.12 F

= 0.38 (127 kips ) + 0.12 ( 0 kips )
= 48.3 kips
The available shear strength for blast loading is determined in accordance with Section 6.3.4:
ϕVn = ϕ fdv Aw
= 1.00 ⎡⎣0.55 (1.30 )( 50 ksi ) ⎤⎦ ( 13.7 in. )( 0.230 in. )
= 113 kips > 48.3 kips
where
fdv = dynamic design stress for shear defined in Section 6.1.3
Aw = area of the web
Hence, the section can support the shear. The connection should be designed for this available strength.

Fig. 6-18. SDOF model.
Fig. 6-19. SDOF displacement (including dead load).

Fig. 6-20. SDOF force (including dead load).

Chapter 7
Design of Connections for Blast Resistant Structures
This chapter discusses the design of connections for blast determine the maximum connection loads in both
resistant buildings, including general considerations and positive and negative loading applications.
design procedures. Design of connections should, as a minimum, comply in
General connection design to transfer forces between all respects with the requirements of Chapter J of the AISC
members of the structural system is introduced in this chap- Specification, except as specifically modified herein.
ter. Other considerations, like direct blast acting on large
connection plates, are beyond the scope of this Design Guide 7.2 DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY
and a finite element analysis should be used to determine the
response of these connections. Design of connections for structural elements intended to
resist blast forces should be completed by the engineer of
7.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS record. The design considerations associated with design of
connections for blast resistant construction are beyond those
Failure in steel structures often initiates at the connections of normally considered by fabricators when selecting stan-
members, as opposed to the members themselves. There are dard connections from the AISC Steel Construction Manual
a number of reasons for this, including: (AISC, 2011a).
• The design of many members is controlled by con-
siderations other than strength, including deflection, 7.3 CONNECTION DUCTILITY
vibration control and architectural requirements.
In the previous chapters of this Design Guide, it has been
Such members are often substantially stronger than
emphasized that resistance to blast effects requires duc-
required to resist the design forces. Connections,
tile behavior which can be assured through plastic design.
however, are typically designed based only on con-
FEMA 350 (FEMA, 2000a) provides valuable information
siderations of strength and therefore, often have little
on the available ductility and rotation capacity for several
overstrength or reserve capacity to match the over-
common types of steel connections.
strength of the members.
• Connections are often controlled by sudden modes of 7.4 CONNECTION STRENGTH
failure such as tensile rupture at bolt holes or block
shear rupture. These brittle modes of failure preclude Connections should be designed to develop the full plas-
redistribution of forces and the mobilization of duc- tic capacity of the supported members, so that the plastic
tile behavior. response of the structure can be mobilized in resisting blast-
induced stresses. It should be noted that the dynamic plastic
• Connections tend to be of limited size and therefore, capacity of an element, loaded briefly by impulsive loading,
even when exhibiting ductile behavior, can only is often greater than the static plastic capacity. When nonlin-
accommodate limited plastic deformation before ear dynamic analysis of structures and structural elements
reaching their ultimate capacities. under blast loading is performed, the connections should be
It is important in the design of blast resistant structures, designed for the peak forces obtained from the analysis.
particularly those expected to be loaded into their inelastic
range of behavior, that sudden failure modes be avoided so 7.4.1 Required Strength
that the plastic response of the structure can be mobilized.
It is also important to remember that blast loading may also The required strength of connections should be determined
result in load reversal, sometimes in the form of rebound. according to the load combination discussed in Section 6.2.1:
Connections should be designed with equal strength under
load reversal unless the following apply: Ru = 1.0 D + 0.25L + 1.0 B (6-7)
1. Member strength is limited in one direction of load where
application, by consideration of buckling as will B = blast load
occur for braces in compression and flexural mem- D = dead load
bers with one flange braced and the other unbraced. L = live load
2. A nonlinear dynamic analysis is performed to Note that when this combination is used, live load reductions

otherwise permitted by ASCE/SEI 7 (ASCE, 2010a) should consideration. Block shear rupture should not be a control-
not be taken. ling limit state.
For shear connections of flexural members with simple
7.4.2 Available Strength spans, consideration should be given to the use of short-
slotted holes perpendicular to the line of force transfer to
The available strength of connections, ϕRn, should be deter-
facilitate development of large connection rotations under
mined using the LRFD method in accordance with the AISC
load.
Specification, as modified herein. When computing the
available strength of connections, ϕRn, the value of the resis-
7.5.2 Tension Connections
tance factor, ϕ, may be taken as unity. This is a conceptual
departure from the AISC Specification, in which different In general, tensile strength of connections should be con-
failure modes and member types have varying resistance fac- trolled by yielding of the connected elements rather than by
tors based on a reliability analysis. In this guide, all failure the tensile strength of the bolts or tensile rupture of the con-
modes and member types are treated uniformly with regard nected parts.
to the resistance factor. The specified minimum yield stress
and ultimate tensile strength of the connection material, as 7.6 WELDED CONNECTIONS
well as bolt and weld strength, may be increased to account
for the dynamic increase factor, DIF, noted in Section 6.1.2. 7.6.1 Filler Metals
Note that strength increase factors, SIF, discussed in Section
As required by the AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural
6.1.1, permitted for the design of members, are not used in
Steel Buildings (AISC, 2010b), weld filler metals should be
the design of connections as an additional means of assuring
rated for a minimum Charpy V-notch toughness of 20 ft-lb
that connections will be capable of developing the strength
at 0 °F. Additionally, filler metals should have a toughness of
of the member.
40 ft-lb at a temperature not less than 20 °F above the lowest
For typical connection design, unless governed by more
anticipated service temperature.
detailed requirements such as DOD (2008) or other estab-
lished criteria discussed in Chapter 3, a simplified value may
7.6.2 Quality Assurance
be used:
Visual inspection should be provided for all welds designed
fds = 1.20Fy (7-1) to resist blast loading. Complete-joint-penetration groove
welds should be subjected to 100% ultrasonic testing
fdu = 1.05Fu (7-2)
or radiographic testing. Acceptance criteria for flaws in
complete-joint-penetration groove welds subjected to
This is in accordance with the simplified values of Chapter 6 ultrasonic testing following the procedures contained in
(Equations 6-5 and 6-6), where fds = 1.30Fy and fdu = 1.05Fu. AWS D1.1, Clause 6, Part F (Ultrasonic Testing (UT) of
Removing the effect of SIF from Section 6.1.1 of 1.10 on Fy Groove Welds) (AWS, 2010) should be in accordance with
and 1.00 on Fu results in Equations 7-1 and 7-2. AWS D1.1, Table 6.2 (UT Acceptance-Rejection Criteria,
Statically Loaded Nontubular Connections). A suitable
7.5 BOLTED CONNECTIONS alternative is to treat the groove welds as part of a dynami-
cally loaded structure and use Table 6.3 (UT Acceptance-
7.5.1 Shear Connections Rejection Criteria, Cyclically Loaded Nontubular Connec-
High-strength bolted connections in shear should be proportions) or use the procedures of Annex S (UT Examination
tioned such that bolt bearing is the controlling limit state. of Welds by Alternative Techniques). Acceptance criteria for
Bolts may be pretensioned as required for slip-critical con- these latter two methods are to be in accordance with AWS
nections and must be pretensioned when required by AISC D1.1 Table S.1 (Acceptance-Rejection Criteria), cyclically
Specification Section J1; however, slip resistance should not loaded structures (weld class D) (AWS, 2010).
be relied upon.
The size of fasteners and connected elements should 7.6.3 Tension Applications
be selected such that connection strength is controlled by Single-sided fillet welds and single-sided partial-joint-
bearing of the bolt against the connected elements rather penetration groove welds should not be used in tension
than shearing of the bolts. Except for connections employ- applications. Backing should be removed from all complete-
ing long-slotted holes, with the slot oriented perpendicular joint-penetration groove welds in tension applications, with
to the direction of applied force, bearing strength may be the root pass of the weld backgouged and repaired in accor-
determined using Equation J3-6b of the AISC Specifica- dance with AWS D1.1 requirements (AWS, 2010) or in
tion, assuming deformation at service load is not a design

accordance with the AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural 7.7 BRACING AND MOMENT-RESISTING
Steel Buildings (AISC, 2010b). Backing bars can remain CONNECTIONS
where their presence is not detrimental to the performance of
In addition to the modifications required for available
the connection. An example of this is at the top flange weld
strength discussed previously, bracing and moment-
in many moment connections that are prequalified per AISC
resisting connections should be designed in accordance with
Prequalified Connections for Special and Intermediate Steel
the AISC Seismic Design Manual (AISC, 2012).
Moment Frames for Seismic Applications (AISC, 2010c).
Moment-resisting connections should be of a type that
T-joints in which material thicker than 12 in. will be sub-
provides sufficient strength and ductility to meet the demand.
jected to through-thickness tension should be ultrasonically
Where the design concept requires the development of a
tested for lamellar tearing subsequent to welding.
plastic hinge, connections prequalified in accordance with
AISC Seismic Provisions Chapter K are recommended.
7.6.4 Flexural Applications
Single-sided fillet welds and single-sided partial-joint-
penetration groove welds should not be used in applications
where significant flexural tensile stresses will be developed
in the weld.

Chapter 8
Resistance to Progressive Collapse
This chapter provides engineering guidance for analysis and All of these factors must be considered when formulating
design of structures to resist progressive collapse. The cur- parameters for a progressive collapse design problem.
rent state of the art for progressive collapse design in the
United States and Europe is presented, followed by new 8.1.3 Basic Concepts
proposals for step-by-step procedures. Analysis examples
The following terminology and concepts are consistently
are provided at the end of the chapter for each of the pro-
used when discussing progressive collapse:
posed solution procedures. Given that progressive collapse
is driven in large part by the self-weight of the structure, Load Path: The intended gravity load path utilized in struc-
steel structures, with their relatively light weight, can be par- tural design. In most steel construction, the load path flows
ticularly well suited for design against progressive collapse. from the slab, to the beams, to the girders, to the columns, to
Recommendations are provided to the engineer for design- the footings, and to the soil.
ing redundant, progressive collapse resistant systems.
Element Collapse: The failure of any element such that it
can no longer support vertical load.
8.1 OVERVIEW
Local Collapse: A collapse limited to a single bay on a
8.1.1 Progressive Collapse Definition single floor. Larger collapse areas could be considered a
progressive collapse, or a disproportionate collapse. Vari-
Although there is no single, uniform definition of progressive
ous guidelines or standards may describe local collapse
collapse in the structural engineering design community, the
differently.
American Society of Civil Engineers standard ASCE/SEI
7-10 (ASCE, 2010a) Section C1.4 defines “progressive col- Alternate Load Path: Any redundant load path avail-
lapse” as “the spread of an initial local failure from element able to the gravity load. The alternate load path is provided
to element, resulting eventually in the collapse of an entire by designing into the structure the ability to bridge across
structure or a disproportionately large part of it.” potential key element failures.
Key Element: Any element for which failure would result
8.1.2 Brief Explanation of the
in more than a local collapse. In the load path described
Design/Analysis Problem
above, a failure of the slab, beams, or girders normally
Once a structural member has failed, its load is distributed results in a failure localized to that bay. A failure of the col-
to the surrounding members. If the surrounding members umn may result in the collapse of an entire bay along with
can support this additional load, then any further failure is the corresponding bay in any other floor supported by the
arrested. If the surrounding members cannot carry this addi- column. The large area of collapse categorizes the column as
tional load, failure can extend vertically or horizontally as a key element. Other key elements may be trusses, transfer
the surrounding members also fail. Once the cause of failure girders, etc.
(fire, blast, impact, etc.) has dissipated, the loading is pre-
Specific Local Resistance: A design methodology that
dominately due to gravity. The failure typically extends ver-
attempts to protect individual key elements from collapse
tically through the structure until the failing members reach
by increasing the element strength. This is accomplished by
the ground or a portion of the structure is strong and ductile
designing the element for specific additional applied loads
enough to arrest the collapse. If the failure reaches an area of
that are meant to simulate accidental loading.
the structure with stiffness discontinuity, it may redirect the
failure propagation horizontally across the structure further Threat-Independent Approach: A design approach that
extending the collapse. does not assume any specific abnormal load on the struc-
As a design problem, progressive collapse is particularly ture. It may not be feasible to rationally examine all potential
challenging. It is difficult to identify the load case to be exam- sources of collapse initiation. Instead of assuming a load,
ined. Typical design is normally limited to linear behavior individual columns or key elements are removed as a “load
of the elements and associated structural response, whereas initiator.” The goal of using a threat-independent approach
progressive collapse is highly nonlinear in both mate- is not to prevent collapse from a specific threat, but to con-
rial response and geometric formulation. Finally, dynamic trol and contain the spread of damage once localized dam-
effects play a large role in progressive collapse response. age or collapse has occurred. The strategy places a premium

on well-designed structural continuity, post-event capacity, interpretation required by the engineer/analyst when work-
ductility, and robustness as compared with the use of a spe- ing on government facilities, the GSA developed a compre-
cific load for the design of key elements. hensive, threat-independent guideline for the consideration
of progressive collapse—Progressive Collapse Analysis and
8.2 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN CODES Design Guidelines for New Federal Office Buildings and
AND GUIDELINES Major Modernization Projects, issued in November 2000.
These guidelines were the first of their kind to provide an
8.2.1 Introduction explicit process that any structural engineer could use to
evaluate the progressive collapse potential of a multi-story
In response to terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities, both
facility. The original guidelines focused primarily on rein-
domestic and abroad, several U.S. Government agencies,
forced concrete structures. The GSA subsequently identi-
including the General Services Administration (GSA) and
fied the need to update the original guidelines to address the
the Department of Defense (DOD), have developed indepen-
progressive collapse potential of steel frame structures. As a
dent security criteria to be used in the design of each of these
result, the GSA guidelines were revised and re-released in
agency’s unique facilities. In Europe, progressive collapse
June 2003 (USGSA, 2003).
design is not limited to government facilities; rather, it is
addressed for all buildings in the British Code and Eurocode.
Design Approach
Current U.S. codes and standards vary in their treatment
of progressive collapse. The International Building Code The GSA guidelines take an alternate-load-path approach
(ICC, 2012) mentions progressive collapse. ACI 318 (ACI, to threat-independent scenarios. There are no prescriptive
2011) has prescriptive detailing requirements for structural requirements or specific element design forces within this
integrity for concrete structures. ASCE/SEI 7-05 (ASCE, standard. Although a threat-independent approach is utilized,
2005) requires that “buildings and other structures shall be the GSA guidelines allow the engineer to limit the number
designed to sustain local damage with the structural system of column locations which must be considered for removal.
as a whole remaining stable and not being damaged to an Within this framework, only exterior columns and areas
extent disproportionate to the original local damage.” ASCE/ affected by uncontrolled pedestrian space, underground
SEI 7-10 (ASCE, 2010a) and certain local building codes parking, or atypical structural features need be considered.
also contain requirements for structural integrity against pro- Each location should be considered in an independent analy-
gressive collapse. sis (i.e., only one vertical support element is removed during
In contrast to dedicated progressive collapse standards, the analysis, etc.).
which provide instructions for progressive collapse analy- When using the guidelines, an established analysis tech-
sis and design, the guidance provided in most of the exist- nique should be selected. Techniques that can be applied in
ing codes is vague in defining the key issues that must be the determination of the potential for progressive collapse
addressed in performing a progressive collapse analysis and consist of a combination of the following:
design. The key issues are: • Linear or nonlinear analysis
• Providing a quantifiable definition of progressive • Static or dynamic analysis
collapse
• Two-dimensional or three-dimensional analysis
• Presenting a specific analysis approach and proce-
A three-dimensional, linear-static analysis procedure is pre-
dure to be used in the assessment of progressive col-
ferred by the GSA. More sophisticated analysis techniques
lapse potential
(e.g., nonlinear, dynamic procedures) are permitted. How-
• Providing guidance as to what analysis scenarios ever, caution must be exercised due to potential numeri-
should be considered cal convergence problems that may be encountered during
•Providing design procedures to mitigate progressive execution of the analysis; sensitivities to assumptions for
collapse potential boundary conditions, geometry and material models; and
The lack of guidance provided by the existing building other complications due to the size of the structure.
codes has resulted in conflicting interpretations as to how
one should approach progressive collapse design and/or Loading
analysis. Downward loading required in the GSA guidelines for
assessing progressive collapse potential consists of the esti-
8.2.2 U.S. General Services Administration Guidelines mated dead load, potential live load, and potential increases
The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) provides caused by the dynamics of the problem.
facilities to federal agencies. To minimize the amount of For static analysis, the recommended downward loading
of the structure is:

Load = 2 ( D + 0.25L ) (8-1) The acceptance criteria for nonlinear analysis differ from
the linear analysis acceptance criteria. Nonlinear acceptance
where criteria are based upon the ductility and rotation limits of
D = dead load specific components rather than DCR values. A table provid-
L = live load ing nonlinear acceptance criteria is also provided in the GSA
guidelines. It should be noted that the use of a linear proce-
In this load combination, the live load is reduced to 25%
dure, as provided for in the GSA guidelines, is not intended
of the design load to account for the difference between
for and not capable of predicting the detailed response or
the actual live load present in a building and the design
damage state that a building may experience when subjected
load used. The factor of 2 is used to approximate dynamic
to the instantaneous removal of a primary vertical element.
amplification of the load when a support is instantaneously
However, a linear procedure, albeit a simplified methodol-
removed.
ogy, may, with proper judgment, be used for determining the
For dynamic analysis, the load factor of 2 is removed from
potential for progressive collapse (i.e., a high or low poten-
the load combination.
tial for progressive collapse), provided the acceptance crite-
ria accounts for the uncertainties in behavior in the form of
Linear Static Procedure
appropriate demand-to-capacity ratios.
The procedure presented in the GSA guidelines recom-
mends a linear static analysis. This procedure approximates 8.2.3 Department of Defense Criteria
dynamic effects when used in conjunction with the load com-
The Department of Defense (DOD) currently requires that
bination specified in Equation 8-1. It approximates nonlinear
all new and existing buildings of three stories or more be
material properties and element ductility through the use of
designed to avoid progressive collapse. These design require-
demand-to-capacity ratios (DCR). DCR for the primary and
ments can be found in Unified Facilities Criteria 4-023-03,
secondary structural components are determined as:
Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Collapse (DOD,
QUD 2010).
DCR = (8-2) While there are some similarities to the GSA progressive
QCE
collapse design guidelines, this Unified Facilities Criteria
(UFC) was developed independently due to the uniqueness
where of the types of structures in the DOD building inventory
QUD = acting force (demand) determined in the compo- and the difference between civilian and military approaches
nent and/or connection/joint (moment, axial force, to protection levels. In addition to reinforced concrete and
shear, and possible combined forces) structural steel, this UFC also addresses masonry, wood, and
QCE = expected ultimate, unfactored capacity of the cold-formed steel construction.
component and/or connection/joint (moment,
axial force, shear and possible combined forces) Design Approach
The linear static analysis procedure consists of removing The DOD progressive collapse design requirements are
a vertical support from the structure with the appropriate threat independent. They incorporate both direct and indi-
load applied, and then determining which members or con- rect design approaches and, in overall philosophy, draw
nections exceed the acceptance criteria. For members that heavily upon the existing British design requirements. Both
exceed the allowable DCR values in flexure, the ends of the approaches are defined within the context of the load and
member are released and replaced with moments applied to resistance factor design (LRFD) philosophy. This enables
the joint equal to the member capacity, which approximate the use of existing, material-specific LRFD design codes and
the plastic portion of the element response. This process should facilitate the transfer of some or all of the require-
is continued until no allowable DCR values are exceeded. ments to the civilian design community.
Allowable DCR values are provided in the GSA guidelines In indirect design, resistance to progressive collapse is
for various structural forces and connection types. considered implicitly “through the provision of minimum
If alternate load paths are available for effectively redis- levels of strength, continuity and ductility.” This design
tributing loads that were originally supported by the removed methodology uses “tie forces” and establishes ductility
structural element, the structure has a low potential for pro- requirements. Direct design resistance to progressive col-
gressive collapse. Conversely, if alternate load paths are not lapse uses alternate load paths.
available for effectively redistributing loads that were origi- Structural progressive collapse design is correlated to
nally supported by the removed structural element, the struc- building occupancies similar to those presented in ASCE/
ture has a high potential for progressive collapse. The extent SEI 7-10 (ASCE, 2010a) and IBC 2006 (ICC, 2006). At the
of allowable collapse is defined in the GSA guidelines. lower levels of protection, either indirect design (tie forces)

or direct design (alternate load path) is employed. For Alternate Load Path
higher levels of protection, the alternate load path method
The alternate load path method is used when a vertical struc-
is required in addition to the tie forces. Additional ductility
tural element cannot provide the required tie strength or for
requirements are specified for higher levels of protection.
structures that require medium or high levels of protection.
There are three allowable analytical formulations:
Tie Forces
• Linear Static: The geometric formulation is based on
In the tie-force approach, the building is mechanically tied small deformations and the material is treated as lin-
together to enhance continuity and ductility and to develop ear elastic, with the exception of discrete hinges that
alternate load paths. Tie forces are typically provided by may be inserted. The full load is applied at one time
the existing structural elements and connections that are to the structure from which a vertical load-bearing
designed using conventional design procedures to carry the element has been removed.
standard loads imposed upon the structure.
• Nonlinear Static: The material and geometry are
Depending upon the construction type, there are several
treated as nonlinear. A load history from zero load to
horizontal ties that must be provided: internal, peripheral,
the full factored load is applied to the structure with
and ties to edge columns, corner columns and walls. Vertical
a vertical load-bearing element removed.
ties are required in columns and load-bearing walls. Figure
8-1 illustrates these ties for typical frame construction. Note • Nonlinear Dynamic: The material and geometry are
that these tie forces are not synonymous with “reinforcement treated as nonlinear. A dynamic analysis is performed
ties” as defined for reinforced concrete design. by instantaneously removing a vertical load-bearing
Fig. 8-1. Schematic of tie forces in a frame structure.

element from the fully loaded structure and analyz- possibility that a ground floor perimeter wall or column will
ing the resulting motion. fail in a brittle failure mode (shear) when subjected to lat-
eral load. This requires the engineer to harden or upgrade
The alternate load path method follows the LRFD philoso- the ground floor columns or walls which would be the likely
phy by employing load combinations for extreme loading locations of the largest blast loads or vehicle impact. In the
and resistance factors to define design strengths. While UFC 4-023-03 (DOD, 2010), Additional Ductility Require-
different loads are used for the static and dynamic analy- ments have been replaced with Enhanced Local Resistance,
ses, both load combinations are based on ASCE/SEI 7-10, which is required for Occupancy Categories III and IV.
Section 2.5, Load Combinations for Extraordinary Events
(ASCE, 2010a): 8.2.4 British Standards
Load = ( 0.9 or 1.2 ) D British Standards (BSI, 1997; BSI, 2000; BSI, 2005a; BSI,
(ASCE/SEI 7 Eq. 2.5-1)
+ Ak + 0.5L + 0.2S 2005b) require consideration of progressive collapse for all
buildings taller than four stories and provide three differ-
where ent methods for avoiding disproportionate collapse: tying,
Ak = load or load effect resulting from extraordinary bridging and key elements.
event A The first design option, tying, is intended to provide effec-
D = dead load tive horizontal and vertical ties to increase structural continu-
L = live load ity and increase the level of redundancy. BSI (2000) requires
S = snow load all buildings to be effectively tied together at each principal
For the removal of a wall or column on the external envelope floor level. From BSI (2000), Section 2.4.5.3, all the ties and
of a building, the damage limits in an earlier edition of UFC their end connections should be designed to resist the fol-
4-023-03 required that the predicted collapsed area of the lowing factored tensile forces:
floor directly above the removed element be less than the For internal ties
smaller of 750 ft2 (70 m2) or 15% of the total area of that
floor, and the floor directly beneath the removed element 0.5 (1.4 gk + 1.6qk ) st L ≥ 17 kips (75 kN)
should not fail. In addition, any collapse must not extend
beyond the influence area for the removed element. Updated For edge ties
criteria in DOD (2010) allow no damage to the floor. 0.25 (1.4 g k + 1.6qk ) st L ≥ 17 kips (75 kN)
The acceptability criteria for the structural elements and
connections in the alternate load path method consist of where
strength requirements and deformation limits. The moments, gk = specified dead load per unit area of the floor or roof
axial forces and shears that are calculated for the elements qk = specified imposed load (live load) per unit area of the
and connections in each alternate load path analysis are the floor or roof
required strengths based on the factored load combination. st = mean transverse spacing of the ties
These required strengths must be compared to the design L = span
strengths of each element and connection. In addition, the
deflection and rotations that are calculated in the alternate BSI (2000) considers “ties” to include steel members and
load path model must be compared against the deformation their connections, steel bar reinforcement anchored to the
limits that are specific to each material type. If any struc- steel frame, and steel mesh reinforcement in a composite
tural element or connection violates an acceptability crite- slab with profiled steel sheeting—or any combination of the
rion (strength or deformation), modifications must be made three. Compliance with these standards in the U.K. usually
to the structure before it is reanalyzed, as discussed in detail requires little or no extra costs. Where tying is not feasible,
in UFC 4-023-03 (DOD, 2010). it is recommended that the structure be able to bridge over
the loss of an untied member and the area of collapse be
Additional Ductility Requirements limited and localized. This is usually achieved by removing
each untied element, one at a time, and checking that on its
According to the UFC 4-023-03 (DOD, 2005), for medium removal the area of the structure at risk of collapse is limited
and high levels of protection for structures, all perim- to the smaller of 15% of the story area or 750 ft2 (70 m2).
eter ground floor columns and load-bearing walls must be BSI (2000) Section 2 also gives the following load
designed such that the lateral uniform load, which defines combination:
the shear capacity, is greater than the load associated with
the flexural capacity including compression membrane 1 1
Load = D + L + W (8-4)
effects where appropriate. This requirement reduces the 3 3

where 8.2.5 Eurocode
W = wind load
Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures, General Actions, Acci-
In these checks for notional removal of members, only one- dental Actions, EN 1991-1-7:2006 (CEN, 2006a) includes
third of the ordinary wind load and one-third of the ordi- progressive collapse requirements that are based upon and
nary imposed load are included, together with the dead load. similar to those in the British Standard.
In the case of buildings used predominantly for storage, or
where the imposed load is of a permanent nature, the full 8.3 ANALYTICAL APPROACHES TO
imposed load should be used. PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE
Finally, if it is not possible to bridge over the removed
Several existing standards discussed previously address pro-
member, this member should be designed as a protected or
gressive collapse design. This chapter is intended to provide
key element. Key elements are designed to be capable of
guidance for the analysis of steel structures for resistance to
sustaining additional loads derived from a pressure of 5 psi
progressive collapse beyond what is provided in the current
(34 kN/m2) applied to the surface of the structural member
codes and government standards. This section proposes the
in any direction.
use of nonlinear pushover analysis (energy balance method)
In 2010, the British Standards discussed in this section
as a tool to address progressive collapse analysis and design.
were replaced by the following Eurocode documents and
This section also discusses nonlinear dynamic analysis, an
UK Eurocode amendments:
approach adopted in the latest editions of the GSA and UFC
Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures, General Rules progressive collapse guidelines.
and Rules for Buildings, EN 1993-1-1:2005 (CEN,
2005a) 8.3.1 Analysis Concepts
Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures, Plated Struc- Selection of Collapse Phase for Analysis/Design
tural Elements, EN 1993-1-5:2006 (CEN, 2006b)
For the purpose of analysis and design, a collapse progres-
Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures, Material Tough- sion can be separated into three phases: the initiating event,
ness and Through-Thickness Properties, EN 1993-1- the local collapse, and the progression. In terms of blast
10:2005 (CEN, 2005b) design, after the explosion the load from the blast pressure
travels through the load path to the lateral system. If an
Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures, Piling, EN 1993-
element along the load path does not possess the required
5:2007 (CEN, 2007a)
strength and ductility, there will be an initial element failure;
Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures, Crane Support- this is the first phase, or initiating event. After this initial
ing Structures, EN 1993-6:2007 (CEN, 2007b) element failure, the elements surrounding the failed mem-
ber become overstressed due to the redistribution of the load
Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures, Design of Joints, that was previously in the failed element. If these elements
EN 1993-1-8:2005 (CEN, 2005c) are not able to sustain the newly added load, there will be a
local collapse, or the second phase. Finally, after the local
Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures, General
collapse, the collapse will progress to surrounding elements,
Rules and Rules for Buildings, EN 1992-1-1:2004 (CEN,
perhaps indefinitely. Any of these phases could be addressed
2004)
in a progressive collapse resistant design. However, this
Recommendations for the Design of Masonry Structures chapter of the Design Guide focuses on the second phase, as
to EN 1996-1-1 and EN 1996-2, PD 6697:2010 (CEN, the previous seven chapters demonstrate that steel structures
2010) can also be designed to be quite effective at resisting an ini-
tiating event due to blast. The intent here is to eliminate the
Eurocode 6: Design of Masonry Structures, General local collapse, not prevent the initiating event.
Rules for Reinforced and Unreinforced Masonry Struc- The first phase is the initial element failure. Typically,
tures, EN 1996-1-1:2005 (CEN, 2005d) this is assumed to be the failure of a column or other key
element. Designing for this phase of the collapse requires
Eurocode 6: Design of Masonry Structures, Simplified
knowledge of the applied load. This phase was dealt with in
Calculation Methods for Unreinforced Masonry Struc-
Chapters 5, 6 and 7. Due to the numerous potential sources
tures, EN 1996-3:2006 (CEN, 2006c)
of element overload (blast, impact, fire, etc.), the scale of
Eurocode 6: Design of Masonry Structures, Design the unknown load may vary substantially. For this reason,
Considerations, Selection of Materials and Execution of a threat-independent approach is usually preferred, which
Masonry, EN 1996-2:2006 (CEN, 2006d) assumes initial failure and attempts to arrest the collapse in

another phase. The second phase is the collapse of the struc- height will result in amplification factors larger than 2 as
ture immediately affected by the element failure. To arrest shown in Figure 8-3.
the collapse in this phase, the affected area must be able to For a system that is permitted to yield, the dynamic ampli-
bridge across the failure. The third phase is the progression fication is much less than for a system that remains elastic.
of the collapse outside the immediate failure zone. However, However, for the same assumptions described in Figure 8-3,
as the collapse region grows, the energy required to arrest a plastic hinge still requires an axial yield strength of 4.6mg
the collapse grows. For example, the calculations in Figure to absorb the energy of the falling mass, as shown in Fig-
8-2 and Figure 8-3 show that it is exceedingly difficult to ure 8-4, where m is the mass of the structure and g is the
arrest the collapse once one floor falls on the floor below. acceleration due to gravity. This is much larger than a typi-
Although typical design problems use a dynamic amplifica- cal design force. These simplistic analyses do not account
tion of 2 as shown in Figure 8-2, a mass falling from any for more complicated scenarios like yielding, rupture, falling
Fig. 8-2. Dynamic effects of falling mass (h=0).
Fig. 8-3. Dynamic effects of falling mass (assume story height).

debris, etc., but do provide a general sense of the relative of the loading and the nonlinear nature of the resistance.
behaviors. The GSA guidelines (USGSA, 2003) present a simple lin-
The following procedures and recommendations are ear elastic static analysis procedure that approximates these
directed at eliminating local collapse, which, if unchecked, through the use of load amplification factors and demand-
leads to a progressive collapse. This allows for a threat inde- to-capacity ratios. However, these are approximations which
pendent methodology without forces that are unreasonably can be improved upon with the more accurate analytical
large for design. methods currently available. Another more accurate, yet still
relatively simple, option is to use the principle of conserva-
Selection of Analysis Approach tion of energy to account for the dynamic effects as shown in
To produce representative results, any progressive collapse Figure 8-2. A third, potentially more accurate, yet relatively
analysis methodology must deal with both the dynamic nature complex, option is the use of a nonlinear dynamic analysis
Internal Energy is Area Under P-K Curve for Spring
For a Rigid-Plastic Spring

EEXT EINT
2mgG mgh PyG
2mgG mgh
Py
G
Best case: h=0
Py 2mg
The system must have twice the design load to
arrest the collapse.
For a more realistic assumption of h:
h 0.5L
Assume the spring designed for deflection:
G Design L h mg
240 120 k
h 120 mg
k
Assume the spring ductility:
Py
GUlt 10 G y 10 k
Solve for required strength:
Py
2mg (10 ) mg (120 mg )
Py k k
10 Py k
Py 4.6 mg
System must have strength of 4.6 times

design load to arrest collapse.
Fig. 8-4. Required yield strength of plastic hinge.

to be discussed in Section 8.3.3. As mentioned previously, When using the metal deck and slab to provide the alter-
the latest editions of both the GSA and UFC progressive nate load path, the bay sizes are critical. Whereas a typi-
collapse guidelines allow for nonlinear dynamic analysis cal slab construction may be adequate for smaller bays,
methods. The GSA guidelines also provide corresponding the thickness and reinforcing of the slab may need to be
acceptance criteria. The accuracy of any method used will increased for larger bays. The slab will use membrane action
be limited by uncertainty in the actual material properties to arrest the collapse, so nonlinear geometry will be required
present, as well as the necessary idealization of member and in the analysis. Corner and perimeter bays, due to their
connection behavior. geometry, cannot develop the membrane action that an inte-
For a linear static system, the deflection calculated by rior bay develops; hence other engineering approaches are
balancing the work for a mass falling from zero height is necessary to account for the partial loss of membrane action.
twice the static deformation for the same load. This is the The amount of damping present in progressive collapse
same amplification factor that is used for many dynamic load analyses is not well known. Seismic analyses use 5% criti-
analyses. However, this “amplification” is a transient effect; cal damping; seismic events have multiple oscillations and
it is not necessary for the structure to have capacity to with- accelerations less than gravity. Progressive collapse events
stand twice the static load, only that it be able to accommo- have fewer oscillations and accelerations equal to grav-
date the larger deflection. For a yielding system, the resistive ity. Energy analysis methods ignore damping and are con-
force function is a nonlinear function of the displacement, servative, while nonlinear time-history analysis methods
and must be calculated with a nonlinear pushover analysis. incorporate damping and are more exact. Some engineers
believe the 5% critical damping is conservative when used
Structural Behavior in progressive collapse analyses and use a 1% to 3% critical
damping. Other values can be used at the discretion of the
Because there are different approaches to modeling and ana-
engineer. Nevertheless, due to the noncyclic character of the
lyzing progressive collapse, it is important for the engineer
loading event, the damping does not influence the behavior
to identify the structural behavior modes to be examined
of the system. It is the inelastic energy absorption of the con-
before beginning the study. This behavior should be kept in
nections in combination with the threshold capacity of the
mind while making modeling decisions and while analyzing
system (members and connections) that defines the outcome
results. If a collapse is to be arrested by the floor system,
of the alternate load path analysis.
the alternate load path can be provided by several possible
modes of behavior. The possible modes of behavior gener-
8.3.2 Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis:
ally available in steel-framed structures are flexural action
Energy Balance Approach
in the steel framing, flexural action in the composite steel
beam-concrete slab system, catenary action in the steel The energy balance approach to progressive collapse analy-
framing, membrane action in the slab, or a combination of sis is advantageous in that it provides a means to account
the above. Arching action in the composite system may also for nonlinear dynamic effects through the use of the push-
be initially present. over analysis. The energy method assumes a conservative
When using the steel framing to provide the alternate system and does not account for assumed building damping
load path, the connection types are important. If the fram- (viscous or modal). This is a good approximation because
ing includes moment connections, their bending strength can little energy is lost through classical damping up to the maxi-
be used to arrest the collapse. If it includes shear connec- mum displacement. If the elements resisting progressive col-
tions, catenary action will be required and the connections lapse undergo nonlinear deformations, the amount of energy
designed for axial load. This means that nonlinear geometry that could have been dissipated through damping would be
must be included in the analysis, and the system must allow marginal in comparison. The energy method captures only
for large displacements. the modal behavior proportional to the loading and does
To develop catenary action, tension forces are transferred not describe the behavior of a collapse that excites several
from the beams connected to the failed column to the rest modes. For key element removal, the pushover basis is a rea-
of the structure. The forces may be transferred via the shear sonable approach.
studs in a composite slab to the concrete slab, which then
develops a compression ring or may be transferred to the rest Modeling
of the structure via the connections at the end of the beams.
To utilize the energy balance approach, a numerical model
Depending on how the bays are built, both mechanisms can
of the building must be created which can accommodate
work simultaneously. Consideration of axial force through
nonlinear pushover analyses. To model the initiating event,
the steel beam shear connections and development of con-
a single support or key element is removed from the model.
crete reinforcement at bay edges is essential for the catenary
Nonlinear material properties are necessary to capture the
action to be developed.

post-yield behavior and load redistribution of the system. steel catenaries and slab diaphragm, or slab membrane, etc).
Default FEMA 356 (FEMA, 2000b) hinges are one option Once the model has been created and loaded, the analysis
to approximate nonlinear section behavior. Other section procedure is as follows and as shown in Figure 8-5 and Fig-
behavior models can be used, but they must capture the lin- ure 8-6:
ear, plastic and plastic limit regions of the section behavior. 1. Load the entire structure with the design load pre-
Appropriate hinge properties for the various connections scribed in Equation 8-5. Compute the reaction,
or materials (i.e., composite beams), is a topic which requires PDesign, of the key element to be removed.
further research. Unless the hinge properties used are reli-
2. Remove the column or key element for the current
ably known, the sensitivity of analysis results to hinge uncer-
study and replace it with a load equal and opposite to
tainty should be explored and any solution bracketed within
the element force removed; typically, the axial force,
likely bounds. If catenary or membrane action is expected to
PDesign.
contribute, nonlinear geometry (large displacement) solution
methods are required. Both axial and rotational nonlinear 3. Apply a point load to the model opposite to the reac-
deformations of the connections are important for catenary tion applied in Step 2 (PPush). This load will serve
action. as the reference load pattern for a static pushover
analysis.
Loading 4. Perform the pushover analysis for the increasing
The design load combination should be the expected load: point load.
5. Calculate the external work of the system as the
Load = D + 0.25L (8-5) product of the applied load and the resulting dis-
placement. Calculate the internal work of the system
where as the area under the force versus displacement push-
D = dead and superimposed dead load over curve.
L = live load
Δ
This load combination is intended to represent the actual WEXT = ∫ PDesign d Δ = PDesign Δ (8-6)
load on the system, as opposed to the more conservative 0
loads used for typical design. For certain occupancies, such
as storage, the 0.25 factor on the live load should be adjusted δ
to reflect the actual expected load. WINT = ∫ PPush (δ)d δ
0
(8-7)
Procedure = area under pushover curve
Discretion is left to the engineer to determine what structural
6. Plot the capacity curve with the applied load.
behavior is desired (i.e., elastic or plastic frame analysis,
Fig. 8-5. Frame example of energy balance procedure.

WINT (Δ) strength degradation before achieving the balanced energy
Capacity(Δ) = (8-8) condition, the curves will not intersect, and the system is
Δ
shown to lack resistance to progressive collapse.
The external work is the sum of the potential and kinetic It is also important to verify that the structure is detailed
energy. At the point of the maximum displacement, just to accommodate the level of displacement calculated by the
before there is an elastic reversal, the kinetic energy is zero. intersection of the design force and the capacity curve. Spe-
cial attention should be paid to connections to avoid rup-
Acceptability Criterion ture and to bracing of flexural and axial members to avoid
buckling.
The ability of the system to arrest a progressive collapse can
be seen in either the work plot or the capacity curve plot. 8.3.3 Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis:
If the system has sufficient post-yield ductility to dissipate Time-History Approach
the energy from the falling floor, there will be a point where
the external work done on the system will equal the internal The energy-balance approach deals explicitly with the non-
work done by the system. This can be seen as the intersec- linear material and geometric properties of the progressive
tion point between the internal and external work shown in collapse response and indirectly addresses the dynamic
Step 5 of Figure 8-6 or in the intersection between the capac- effects. Another analysis option is a nonlinear dynamic anal-
ity curve and the applied load shown in Step 6 of Figure ysis. This approach is computationally intensive, but deals
8-6. Conversely, if the system fails through brittle fracture or explicitly with the dynamic effects.
Fig. 8-6. Typical energy balance results.

Modeling instantaneous loss of the supporting element, this load must
ramp up from zero to PDesign within a time period equal to or
The finite element modeling of the system is similar to
less than 1/10 the natural period of the response. For accuracy
that used in the energy-balance approach described in Sec-
and calculation stability, a smaller time step may be required.
tion 8.3.2. For the dynamic analysis, however, the engineer
should determine if hysteretic hinge elements are required.
Procedure
Unlike pushover analysis, it is likely there will be load rever-
sal during the time-history response, which will require lin- As stated above, the engineer has the option to decide what
ear unloading of elements after they have yielded. structural behavior is modeled. Once the model has been
created and loaded, the analysis procedure is as follows:
Loading 1. Load the entire structure, as shown in Figure 8-7,
The loading for the dynamic analysis is similar to that used with the design load prescribed in Equation 8-5.
in the energy-balance approach described in Section 8.3.2. 2. Remove the column or key element for the current
The design combination, PDesign, is D + 0.25L, as seen study, and replace it with a load equal and opposite
in Equation 8-5. The mass corresponding to the design to the element force removed, typically, axial force,
load must also be applied to the model to achieve the cor- PDesign (see Figure 8-7).
rect dynamic response. The point load for time-history 3. Apply a point load to the model opposite to the reac-
analysis, PLoad Function, must be time-dependent. To simulate tion applied in Step 2 (PLoad Function) (see Figure 8-8).
This load will serve as the reference load pattern for
the time-dependent load function.
4. Perform the nonlinear dynamic time-history analysis.
5. Plot the structural response and responses of any
critical elements.
6. Calculate the following key system parameters
shown in Figure 8-9:
ΔMAX, maximum system displacement
ΔPL, permanent deformation of the system
td, natural period of the system with the column
removed
Verify that the loading function applied the load in a time less
than or equal to 0.1td. To be conservative, the natural period
of the undamaged structure can be used. As the nonlinearity
of the system’s response increases, the difference between
Fig. 8-7. Time-history modeling. the maximum and final displacements decreases. To shorten
Fig. 8-8. Time-history loading.

the computer analysis, ΔPL can be calculated by averaging to all key elements of a structure. They are based on a threat
ΔMAX with the deflection at the first trough in Figure 8-9. independent methodology and are focused on creating a
quantifiable alternate load path in which each floor is capa-
Acceptability Criteria ble of bridging across the failed key element in case of the
loss of the key element. This bridging can be accomplished
For the structural design to be considered adequate for
within the steel framing or within the concrete slab or with
arresting the collapse, it must meet two criteria:
a combination of both. The benefit derived from the analysis
1. The structure must be detailed to accommodate ΔMAX and design is quantifiable.
for the structure and for each of the elements.
2. The analysis must run to completion without the 8.4.1 Prescriptive Recommendations
structure becoming unstable. Care should be taken
In any structural design, there are means for increasing
when interpreting the results of an incomplete anal-
toughness and redundancy without additional analysis.
ysis as this may be caused by a local or numerical
When required, these recommendations are applied to all
instability which may be a modeling problem or by a
designs without regard to the actual forces.
structural instability which would indicate a collapse
progression.
Steel Detailing
8.4 RECOMMENDATIONS There are currently two sets of building code requirements
intended to address structural integrity—the New York City
The following recommendations are grouped into prescrip- Building Code (NYCBC, 2008) and the International Build-
tive detailing, general design and analytical methods. The ing Code (ICC, 2012). The New York City Building Code
prescriptive detailing recommendations are applicable to all requires all bolted connections to have a minimum of two
of the members of the structure and are intended to increase bolts and that bolted connections of all columns, beams,
the toughness and redundancy without additional analysis. braces, and other structural elements that are part of the lat-
This is similar in concept to detailing requirements in high eral load resisting system be designed as bearing connections
seismic zones. These requirements are applied to all designs, with pretensioned bolts or as slip-critical connections. All
without regard to the actual forces. The benefit derived from end connections of beams and girders must have a minimum
prescriptive detailing has not been quantified. Future test- available axial tensile strength equal to the larger of the pro-
ing could quantify the benefit of these prescriptive detailing vided vertical shear strength of the connections at either end,
requirements. The general design recommendations should but not less than 10 kips. Elements and their connections that
apply to the building as a whole and should make the engi- brace compression elements should have an available axial
neer aware of the significance of bay size, key elements, tensile strength of at least 2% of the required strength of the
column location, beam size, and metal deck slabs. The ana- compression element being braced but not less than 10 kips.
lytical design and analysis recommendations are applicable
Fig. 8-9. Example time-history result.

If more than one element braces a compression element, the • The connection of permanent metal decking to
strength can be shared but all braces should have an avail- the steel should have, as a minimum, a 36/3 pat-
able tensile strength equal to at least 1% of the column load, tern. Side-lap connections should have a minimum
but not less than 10 kips. Column splices should have an strength equal to the strength of a button punch every
available tensile strength at least equal to the largest design 24 in. on center.
gravity load reaction applied to the column at any floor level • Connections at the discontinuous edges of metal
located within four floors below the splice. decking to supporting members should have a mini-
The 2012 International Building Code has provisions mum connection strength equal to the strength of a
that require all beam connections to have a nominal tensile w-in. puddle weld every 12 in. on center.
strength at least equal to q the required shear strength for
the connection for design by LRFD, but not less than 10 • Additional reinforcing bars should be placed in the
kips. It also requires that column splices have a minimum metal deck slab to develop a minimum force per unit
design strength in tension to transfer the design dead and length of 50% of the tensile strength of the decking.
live load tributary to the column between the splice and the • Metal deck should be arranged such that the deck
splice or base below. panels do not end at column lines, providing deck
In progressive collapse design, when considering catenary continuity at the probable location of maximum
action, connections often have very high demand in both ten- demand.
sion and rotation. As an example, the detail in Figure 8-10 • Shear studs should not be less than 2 in. in diameter.
uses a plate at the bottom of the beam in addition to a shear Shear stud spacing should not be greater than one
tab. If the shear tab fails due to rotation, the plate will pro- stud per foot averaged over the length of the beam.
vide axial capacity while allowing the beam to rotate around
the point of connection of the plate. Engineers should be
8.4.2 General Design Recommendations
aware of the depth-to-span ratio of the beam when consider-
ing catenary action. Large beams can be designed elastically
Bay Size
or through traditional plastic methods, while smaller beams
must have connections with high rotational and axial defor- The capability of typical structures to bridge across a failed
mation capacity. column is strongly correlated to the size of the bay; the
larger the bay, the more prone the structure is to progressive
Structural Slab Detailing collapse. As the size of the bay increases, steel sizes increase
but the slab typically does not. This generates a slab that
To improve the integrity of the structural slab, the following
is not proportional to the bay size. As the slab is an impor-
details should be considered:
tant part of the resistance due to action of the compression
• Welded wire fabric reinforcement in concrete slabs ring and the tension reinforcing, the relationship of the slab
should be continuous over all supports and in all thickness and reinforcing to the column spacing should be
spans. The minimum area of continuous reinforce- considered. Therefore, special attention should be given to
ment should be 0.0015 times the total area of con- structures with bays in excess of 30 ft or with irregularly
crete. The mesh should have tension splices and be sized bays.
developed at discontinuous edges.
Key Elements
The engineer must determine which structural elements
would cause extensive collapse if lost. These are referred
to as key elements. Key elements include major columns,
transfer girders or trusses, and structural elements that brace
key elements and whose failure would result in failure of the
key element. Elements that brace secondary elements need
not be considered key elements. If key elements are present
in a structure, the structure should be designed to account for
their potential loss one at a time, by the alternate load path
method. Alternatively, the key elements should be strength-
ened to resist specific threat-dependent loads. By adding
sufficient redundancy, the removal of elements will not lead
to a global collapse. Hence, the element is no longer a key
element. The goal of the engineer should be to increase the
Fig. 8-10. Schematic beam connection detail.

redundancy of structures by providing alternate load paths. Beam Size
Where alternate load paths cannot be provided, key ele-
To develop catenary action and dissipate a large amount
ments should be designed for specific local resistance using
of energy, the beams should be capable of reaching their
threat-dependent loads. If specific threat dependent loads are
plastic strength. The larger the beam, the larger the connec-
unknown, the following specific local loads may be used:
tion required to produce the beam plasticity. Therefore, the
• Each key compression element should be designed smallest possible beam size which meets all serviceability
for a concentrated load equal to 2% of its axial load and strength requirements, along with connections capable
but not less than 15 kips, applied at mid-length in any of developing the tension capacity of the beam, should be
direction, perpendicular to its longitudinal axis. For considered.
large columns, this provision can be considerable but
it has been part of the New York City Building Code Metal Deck/Concrete Slab
for decades. This load should be applied in combina-
If catenary action develops, significant anchoring forces are
tion with the full dead load and 25% of the live load
resisted primarily by a compression ring forming in the slab,
in the column.
as will be demonstrated in Section 8.5.4. Additionally, the
• Each bending element should be designed for a slab has three components in place to resist tensile stresses,
combination of the principal applied moments and which will be explored in Section 8.5.5. Significant tensile
an additional moment equal to 10% of the principal strength is available through the wire mesh reinforcing, the
applied moment applied in the perpendicular plane. steel beams that are attached to the concrete through the
By reducing the buckling tendency, this provision shear studs, and the metal deck that is made effectively con-
adds stability to the element. tinuous through bars placed in the slab.
• Connections of each tension element should be
designed to develop the smaller of the ultimate ten- 8.4.3 Analytical Design Recommendations
sile capacity of the member or three times the force To minimize the impact of the unknowns inherent in the acci-
in the member. dental loading assumptions in progressive collapse analysis,
• All structural elements should be designed for a a threat-independent methodology should be considered. For
reversal of load equal to 10% of the design load. each key element assumed to be removed, an alternate load
path should be provided in which each floor is capable of
Column Location bridging across the failed key element. This bridging can be
accomplished within the steel framing or within the concrete
The engineer should individually consider the corner col- slab or through a combination of the two.
umns, the perimeter columns and the interior columns. The analytical approach should deal explicitly with non-
Corner columns are made redundant by the steel members linear material properties and large displacements. It is
framing into them. Perimeter columns with framing only on advantageous to address the dynamic effects with an anal-
three sides are made redundant by the steel framing and slab. ysis that is more accurate than simply applying dynamic
Interior columns are made redundant by the steel floor fram- amplification factors. The energy balance method described
ing alone, the metal deck slab alone, or by a combination of in Section 8.3.2 or the nonlinear dynamic analysis method
both. described in Section 8.3.3 are recommended.
8.5 DESIGN EXAMPLE
Example 8.1—Analysis of Structural System with Removal of an Interior Column

This section presents the analyses of typical composite concrete slab and steel beam/girder floor systems with an interior column
removed. It considers bay sizes of 24 ft by 24 ft (Model A) and 36 ft by 36 ft (Model B). There are several available modes of
structural behavior that may be considered, including catenary action in the steel framing, flexural action in the steel framing,
flexural action in the composite steel-concrete slab system, membrane action in the slab, or a combination thereof. There are
also different analytical procedures available, including the linear elastic static procedure presented in the GSA documents, the
energy balance approach discussed in Section 8.3.2, and the nonlinear dynamic approach. The examples presented here illustrate
the use of a small subset of the possible behaviors and methods. The following three analyses are performed for each structural
system and are designated as Parts (a), (b) and (c) of this example:

(a) Steel Pushover Approach
(b) Reinforced Slab Solution
(c) Steel Nonlinear Dynamic Approach
Part (a), the steel pushover approach, considers catenary action in the steel framing alone. Assuming large displacements, the
pushover and capacity curves are computed using the energy balance approach. The results from the energy balance analysis are
then compared to the results of a time-history analysis of the same structural system. The concept of catenary action of the steel
members is then explored and through a parametric study it is shown that the smaller a steel member is, the larger the deflection
and the less demand on the connection. The idea that the slab can develop membrane action and the presence of a compression
ring is also discussed. Using the energy balance method, this example demonstrates that when the steel beams are treated as
cables in tension, a solution can be found, although significant tension forces develop. The connections required to resist these
axial forces may likely have significant flexural capacity. Consideration of the flexural as well as axial capacity of the framing
connections, along with the use of composite behavior with the concrete in the slab, will lead to a more economical design. This
is left for the reader to explore.
In Part (b), the purpose of the reinforced slab solution is to present a rational and economical method to design for collapse pre-
vention by considering membrane action in the slab. Based on the testing of slabs, an energy balance method is used to analyze
the membrane strength of a slab. The pushover curve for the tensile membrane capacity of the slab is computed based on the
simplified iterative method reported by Mitchell and Cook (1984). The reinforcement in the slab is assumed to be continuous in
order to develop the membrane capacity. For many projects, the slab membrane solution may be the simplest and most economi-
cal method available.
Part (c) uses the steel nonlinear dynamic approach and explores the results using a highly detailed computer model that incorpo-
rates nonlinear material properties and large displacements. The gravity load is applied and then the center column is removed.
This method includes all structural components and is time intensive. In the end, the observed deflection is similar to the results
from the steel pushover and slab membrane approaches demonstrated in Parts (a) and (b).
Given:
Figure 8-11 gives the geometry of a floor system with a 24-ft by 24-ft bay size (Model A). The composite floor consists of a
52-in. composite slab consisting of 3-in. metal deck and 22-in. normal weight concrete. The wire mesh is 6×6 W1.4×W1.4
WWF (Fy = 60 ksi) and the metal deck is 20 gage (Fy = 33 ksi) with the ribs perpendicular to the beams. The composite beams
are ASTM A992 W12×19 spaced 8 ft on center, with (24) w-in.-diameter steel headed stud anchors. The beam shear connections
consist of a w-in.-thick ASTM A36 single plate with three w-in.-diameter ASTM A325 bolts. The composite girders are ASTM
A992 W16×31, with (27) w-in.-diameter steel headed stud anchors. The girder shear connections consist of a 4-in.-thick ASTM
A36 single plate with four w-in.-diameter ASTM A325 bolts. The specified compressive strength of the concrete is 3.5 ksi, and
the modulus of elasticity is:
( ) (33 )
1.5
Ec = 145 lb/ft 3 3, 500 psi 1, 000 lb/kip
= 3, 410 ksi
The floor framing and slab are continuous on all sides of the framing plan shown. The floor system will be analyzed for the
removal of the center column. At collapse initiation, the uniform service load is 87.5 psf (dead load = 50 psf, sustained dead
load = 25 psf, 25% of live load = 12.5 psf).
For the 36-ft by 36-ft floor system (Model B), the geometry, distributed loading (87.5 psf), and materials are equivalent to those
of the 24-ft by 24-ft model; however, the bays are 36-ft square, with 12-ft spacing between beams. There is also more reinforce-
ment and the girders, beams shear studs, and connections are slightly more robust. The wire mesh is 6×6 W2.9×W2.9 WWF
(Fy = 60 ksi). The composite beams are ASTM A992 W12×50 spaced 12 ft on center, with (36) 1-in.-diameter steel headed stud
anchors. The beam shear connections consist of a 4-in.-thick ASTM A36 single plate with (3) w-in.-diameter ASTM A325 bolts.
The composite girders are ASTM A992 W18×97, with (42) 1-in.-diameter steel headed stud anchors. The girder shear connec-
tions consist of a 4-in.-thick ASTM A36 single plate with four w-in.-diameter ASTM A325 bolts.

The slab mode is based on its reinforcement. Model A uses 6×6 W1.4×W1.4 WWF, which provides 0.028 in.2/ft. Model B has
6×6 W2.9×W2.9 WWF, which provides 0.058 in.2/ft. The yield strain for both models is:
60 ksi
ε yield =
29, 000 ksi
= 0.00207
Fig. 8-11. Test composite floor system (Model A)

The elongation of typical wire sizes is on the order of 7% [Manual of Standard Practice—Structural Welded Wire Reinforcement,
Wire Reinforcement Institute, page 9, Table 3(b) and Table 3(c) (WRI, 2010)]. This corresponds to a ductility of 35, which is well
beyond the range of deflection considered in this example. The material behavior model for these calculations is elastic perfectly-
plastic. The effective span length, after removal of the column, for the elements in Model A are L x = L y = 2 ( 24 ft ) = 48.0 ft. The
effective span length, after removal of the column, for the elements in Model B are L x = L y = 2 ( 36 ft ) = 72.0 ft.
Solution:
From AISC Steel Construction Manual (AISC, 2011a), Table 2-4, the material properties are:
ASTM A36
Fy = 36 ksi
Fu = 58 ksi
ASTM A992
Fy = 50 ksi
Fu = 65 ksi
From AISC Manual Table 1-1, the geometric properties are:
W12×19
Ag = 5.57 in.2
W16×31
Ag = 9.13 in.2
W12×50
Ag = 14.6 in.2
W18×97
Ag = 28.5 in.2
Nonlinear geometry and nonlinear material properties are necessary to capture load redistribution for the vertical collapse pro-
gression scenarios. To look at the axial forces developed through catenary action in the beams, large displacements must be
considered. Nonlinear material properties are included for all failure scenarios. Discrete plastic hinges are used in the steel frame
elements to model these effects based on FEMA 356 (FEMA, 2000b). The axial hinges are simply a modeling concept that allows
the beams to yield axially. For this example, the only hinge modeled is the axial tensile yielding capacity of the beams. Figure
8-12 shows this generic hinge property. From AISC Specification Section D2(a), with ϕ = 1.00, the available axial tensile yield-
ing strength is:
For Model A
W12×19
φ Pn = φ Fy Ag
= 1.00 ( 50 ksi )( 5.57 in.2 )

= 279 kips
W16×31
ϕPn = ϕ Fy Ag
= 1.00 ( 50 ksi )( 9.13 in.2 )

= 457 kips
For Model B
W12×50
ϕ Pn = ϕ Fy Ag
= 1.00 ( 50 ksi )(14.6 in.2 )

= 730 kips

W18×97
ϕPn = ϕFy Ag
(
= 1.00 ( 50 ksi ) 28.5 in.2 )
= 1,430 kips
(a) Steel Pushover Approach

For the purposes of this example, only the steel beams are modeled. For Model A (Figure 8-13), the beams framing into the
W16×31 and their hinge properties are included. For Model B (Figure 8-14), the beams framing into the W18×97 and their hinge
properties are included. For both models, the tensile yield strength of these elements is included as a hinge property in the center
of the span as discussed previously.
The connections are designed to carry the full gravity load. All of the elements are assumed pinned at the boundaries; hence
their reactions must be distributed through the compression ring that is formed in the slab surrounding the collapse. It is initially
assumed that the compression ring is effectively rigid and provides sufficient anchorage. After computing the pushover and
capacity curves for both models, the assumption of rigid anchorage provided by the compression in the perimeter of the slab is
checked.
Both Models A and B assume rigid supports to guarantee sufficient horizontal restraint. The anchorage is provided by the con-
crete compression ring in the slab, allowing the beams to develop the necessary tensile forces for catenary action. The tension
forces are transferred to the rest of the structure via the connections at the supports and to the concrete through the steel headed
stud anchors present in the composite beams. A simplified model of the compression in the slab that enables the beams to develop
catenary forces is presented later. Catenary behavior will be observed for large displacements.
Both Models A and B assume that the beam sections develop their yield strengths in tension. The engineer should ensure that
the axial deformation capacity of a connection is not exceeded before the required catenary strength is developed. The tie-force
method outlined in the UFC requires connections to be capable of rotating 0.2 rad (11.4°). Possible localized connection failure
Fig. 8-12. Generic hinge diagram.

mechanisms are failure of the studs, tearing of the web of the beam, tearing of the column web, and/or tearing of the single plate.
Localized yielding at the connections is also likely.
To prevent tear out of the single plate, designing the connection to allow up to an inch of deformation in the connection is
desirable. For this deformation and the corresponding rotation, the edge distance may need to be increased beyond what would
normally be used. Increasing the edge distance may enhance the strength in tension and the rotation capacity of the connection.
In this example, analysis of both models neglects the strength of the reinforced concrete and relies exclusively on the strength
provided by the steel beams. Therefore, these examples are a simplification of the actual behavior and give an indication to the
engineer of the strength and redundancy of the structure.
Procedure
The procedure to obtain the pushover curve for this structure is based on the following assumptions:
• The structure is symmetric; no horizontal displacement is expected at the center node.
• The beams act as truss elements; no bending deflection is assumed. Therefore, the deflection between the girder and the
beam is directly related.
• The material behavior of the structure is elastic perfectly-plastic.
Fig. 8-13. Model A.

The procedure for two beams framing into one single node is indeterminate with nonlinear large displacements and material
properties are included. For both Models A and B, this particular problem includes the three beams framing into the girder and
the girder itself. The procedure to obtain the pushover and capacity curves is outlined in the following and shown in Figure 8-15:
1. Impose a vertical deflection, Δ.
2. Compute the angle, θ, of the element for this vertical deflection as:
⎛Δ⎞
θ = tan − 1 ⎜ ⎟ (8-9)
⎝L⎠
3. For this rotation, the actual length of the beam is:
Δ
L +ΔL = (8-10)
sin θ
4. And the increment in length can be computed as:
Fig. 8-14. Model B.

Δ
ΔL = −L (8-11)
sin θ
5. Hence the axial load in the beam is:
EA
N= Δ L ≤ AFy (8-12)
L
6. And the vertical force associated with the vertical deflection for only one beam is:
F = N sin θ (8-13)
The pushover curve for one beam can be plotted as F versus Δ. For more beams framing into the same node, the forces for each
one can be added. For beams framing into the girder, the vertical deflection is associated with the control displacement, Δ. For
this problem there are two beams framing into the girder and the vertical displacement associated with each beam is qΔ and 3Δ
as shown in Figure 8-16. The sum of the vertical forces from the two beams framing into the girder and the vertical force from
the girder give the total vertical force. This approach assumes that the deflections along the girder vary linearly with the distance
to the point of maximum deflection. If the bending deformation of the girder is included, the solution is more accurate. When
bending is not considered, as in this example, the result is conservative.
Capacity Curve
The theory presented in the previous section and Section 8.3.2 is used to compute the pushover and capacity curves for both
models. Figure 8-17 and Figure 8-19 show the pushover curve and the capacity curve for Model A and Model B, respectively,
and Figure 8-18 and Figure 8-20 show the tensile force for Model A and Model B, respectively. The area below the pushover
curve is the energy that the structure can absorb. The area below the pushover curve divided by the corresponding displacement
yields the capacity curve of the structure.
Fig. 8-15. Procedure for obtaining pushover and capacity curves.

Fig. 8-16. Linear displacement (neglecting bending of girder).
Fig. 8-17. Pushover curve, capacity curve and load for Model A.

For Model A, Figure 8-17 shows that for the 50-kip load, the vertical deflection is 22.0 in. when an energy balance is reached.
Figure 8-18 shows the axial force in the beams versus the vertical deflection of the system. For the maximum deflection obtained,
the two girders and two beams framing into the removed column have yielded, and will develop tensile forces of 457 kips and 279
kips, respectively. At the maximum deflection, the connections should be able to develop a rotation of 4.4° (0.077 rad) based on
Equation 8-9. The four beams represented by W12×19-2 in Figure 8-13 are subjected to a tension force of 205 kips, a deflection
of 14.7 in., and hence the connection for these elements should be designed to rotate 2.9° (0.051 rad). The four beams represented
by W12×19-3 are subjected to a tension force of 50 kips, a deflection of 7.33 in., and must be able to rotate 1.5° (0.026 rad).
For Model B, Figure 8-19 shows that the vertical deflection is 29.4 in. when an energy balance is reached. Figure 8-19 shows
the axial force in the beams versus the vertical deflection of the system. For the maximum deflection, the two girders and two
beams framing into the removed column have yielded. The axial force of the beams is transferred into the compression ring of
the slab through the shear stud connections. The girder will develop 1,430 kips, while the beams framing into the central node
will develop 730 kips. At the maximum deflection, these connections should be able to tolerate a rotation of 3.9° (0.068 rad). The
four beams represented by W12×50-2 are subjected to a tension force of 435 kips, and the connection for these elements should
be designed to rotate 2.6° (0.045 rad). The four beams represented by W12×50-3 are subjected to a tension force of 110 kips, and
must be able to rotate at least 1.3° (0.023 rad).
The observed rotations are all below the rotation limits outlined in Chapter 6. Table 6-2 sets the rotation limit of the steel beams
and girders at 10°. Model A shows rotations of 4.4° (0.077 rad), 2.9° (0.051 rad), and 1.5° (0.026 rad), which are all well under
the allowable rotation. Similarly, the beams in Model B are observed to rotate 3.9° (0.068 rad), 2.6° (0.045 rad), and 1.3° (0.023
rad) and remain below the limits presented in Chapter 6 for member design. It is important to recognize that the connections must
have the capacity for this rotation as well. From FEMA 356 (FEMA, 2000b), the rotational capacity of a single-plate connection
Fig. 8-18. Beam tensile force for Model A.

can be found as θ = 0.15 − 0.0036dbg, where dbg is the depth of the bolt group. Therefore, assuming a 3-in. spacing between bolts,
the rotational capacities for the W16×31 and W12×19 are 6.7° (0.12 rad) and 7.4° (0.13 rad), respectively.
Parametric Study
A parametric study of Model A is presented in this section. The area of the elements is varied from 0.5 to 2 times the initial
area. The element capacities remain proportional to the element areas. All other parameters in the system remain constant. The
pushover and capacity curves for each case have been determined. The results are shown in Figure 8-21. Note that the behavior
of this system is nonlinear for each load due to geometric and material nonlinearities. Therefore, twice the deflection does not
result in twice the force.
As beam size is increased, vertical deflection decreases. The whole assembly has to absorb the same amount of energy, but with
a larger beam the connections must be able to carry more of the load because the beam absorbs less energy in bending. As beam
size decreases, vertical deflection increases and thereby the axial force in the beams and connections is reduced. However, the
larger the deflection the more longitudinal and rotational ductility must be absorbed by the beams and connections.
Table 8-1 shows the axial load in the different elements in Model A. Note that the stiffer the system, the bigger the axial load
needed to be supported by the connection. These values are higher than the axial capacity from a regular shear connection which
would require significant strengthening. A more economical approach may be to account for the tensile strength developed in the
slab reinforcing, which will be checked in part (b) of this example. Based on this parametric study, elements with greater axial
stiffness result in smaller vertical deflections, greater axial force, and smaller ductility demand in the connection. The resulting
connection is strong and expensive. To reduce the cost of the connection, the engineer should consider using as small a member
as possible.
Fig. 8-19. Pushover curve, capacity curve and load for Model B.

Table 8-1. Axial Load/Connection Capacity for Parametric Study of Model A
2A A 0.5A
Location N Nyield N Nyield N Nyield
W16 867 912 456 456 228 228
W12 530 558 279 279 140 140
W12-2 235 558 205 279 140 140
W12-3 59 558 50 279 54 140
Nonlinear Dynamic Comparison: Time-History Approach

Model A (24-ft by 24-ft bays) is analyzed using a nonlinear dynamic approach and the results are compared to the deflections
calculated by the pushover method. For this analysis the load of the column is applied as a step load. The mass of the system is
uniformly applied over the W12×19 beams. No damping is used. The boundary conditions are as follows:
• Pin supports at the base of the columns
• Horizontal restraints at the top of the columns
• Torsional restraint at the top of the center column to stabilize the top portion of the column when the lower portion is
removed
Fig. 8-20. Beam tensile force for Model B.

• Horizontal restraints along the south and west sides of the slab to model the continuity of the floor system on at least two
sides. The horizontal restraints are placed where the beams or girders on the adjacent spans would be.
Figure 8-22 presents the vertical deflection versus time results from the time-history analysis. For Model A, the maximum
deflection is 22.5 in. Comparing the nonlinear dynamic approach (time-history method) to the nonlinear static approach (energy
balance/steel pushover method), it is seen that both methods produce similar results. The energy balance method gives a maxi-
mum deflection of 22.0 in. (Figure 8-17). Based on the time-history analysis, the W16×31 and W12×19-1 framed to the removed
column have yielded (Figure 8-23). Beam W12×19-2 has a tensile force of 227 kips and beam W12×19-3 has a tensile force of
59 kips (Figure 8-23). These axial forces are slightly higher than those calculated by way of the energy balance method (Figure
8-18). It is important to note that the nonlinear dynamic approach is substantially more time consuming and complex than the
simplified pushover method. In both models the axial forces in the beams and girders are substantial at large deflections. Connec-
tions sufficient to develop these axial forces, while exhibiting the necessary rotational ductility, would be necessary.
Compression Ring
The boundary conditions modeled in these problems assume pinned connections at the edge of the collapsed span. This assump-
tion requires that the reaction be distributed to the slab using continuity in the reinforcement or compression in the slab (Figure
8-24). For composite floor systems with sufficient horizontal restraint (i.e., interior bays) this is a reasonable assumption. Based
on testing by Allam et al. (2000), simply supported slabs will self-equilibrate at large deflections through tension in the central
regions and a compression ring along the perimeter zones. The amount of catenary action to resist collapse is dependent on the
stiffness of the anchorage. The following examples will verify that the compression ring induced in the slab provides sufficient
anchorage. For a more accurate assessment, a finite element analysis or other comparable analysis could be used.
Fig. 8-21. Pushover and capacity curves for parametric study.

The following outlines a simplified procedure to estimate the strength of the compression ring for the idealized system depicted
in Figure 8-24 and geometry shown in Figure 8-25. It is recommended that the engineer make similar calculations or use finite
element methods to check that the assumption of anchorage due to the compression ring is valid. Although generally a small
effect, flexibility/deformation of the compression ring can affect the results by increasing the vertical deflection. The following
calculations include consideration of slippage in the steel-concrete interface through the steel headed stud anchors.
To find the deflection in the compression ring, use the maximum tensile force (available tensile yield strength) from Model A
determined previously:
FCompression = FTensile cos 45°

= ( 457 kips ) (0.707)
= 323 kips
Determine the width, w, of the idealized compression ring:
FComp
w=
0.85 fconc t
323 kips
=
0.85(3.5 ksi)(2.50 in.)
= 43.4 in.
Fig. 8-22. Vertical deflection—Model A.

where
t = thickness of the slab
fconc = specified compressive strength of the concrete
The strut length of the compression ring is:
LStrut = L Beam sin 45° − w

= [ 24.0 ft (12 in./ft )] 0.707 − 43.4 in.
= 364 in.
The compressive force causes axial deformation in the compression ring which results in a radial displacement at the perimeter
beam-column joints (Figure 8-26):
Fig. 8-23. Axial load in the beams for Model A.

⎛δ ⎞
Δ r = 2 ⎜ axial ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ Fc L strut ⎞
= 2⎜ ⎟
⎝ 2 Ec A ⎠
⎡ ( 323 kips ) ( 364 in.) ⎤
= (1.41) ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 2 ( 3, 410 ksi )( 43.4 in. )( 2.5 in. ) ⎥
⎣ ⎦
= 0.224 in.
To check the slippage of the steel headed stud anchors and the capacity of each stud, refer to Grant et al. (1977) and Easterling
et al. (1993). According to Easterling et al. (1993), the nominal strength of each steel headed stud anchor is 24 kips and the slip-
page is 8 in. To develop the full strength of the beam, 19 shear studs are required. Because the design is conservatively using
more than one steel headed stud anchor per foot (27 studs on the girder and 24 on the beam), the actual slip should be less than
that calculated.
The total displacement due to the flexibility of the compression ring (0.224 in.) plus the slippage of the steel headed stud anchors
(8 in.) is 0.349 in. Using the procedure discussed previously, the extended length of the beam in Model A due to the central
vertical deflection of 22.0 in. is:
Fig. 8-24. Concrete compression ring.

L e = L 2o + Δ2
= ( 288 in.)2 + ( 22.0 in. ) 2

= 289 in.
Adding the 0.349 in. to the elongated length as shown in Figure 8-27, the total vertical deflection is:
Δ TOT = ( L e + 0.349 )2 − ( 288 in.) 2

= ( 289 in. + 0.349 in. )2 − ( 288 in. )2
= 27.9 in.
The resulting vertical deflection, ΔTOT, is 20% greater than the calculated deflection, Δ, when complete anchorage was assumed.
This derivation is conservative and the additional displacement is within an acceptable range.
Fig. 8-26. Radial displacement, Δ,

Fig. 8-25. Geometry of concrete compression ring. due to compressive deformation, δ.
Fig. 8-27. Additional deflection due to anchorage flexibility and stud slippage.

When the same check is performed for Model B, the width of the compression ring is over half the bay width and the percent
increase in vertical deflection is 16%. The deflected shape of the concrete slab forms a bowl, similar in many ways to an inverted
dome. The width of the compression ring illustrated in the previous calculations is consistent with the known compressive stress
region in domes. In an inverted dome, there are two types of stresses—compressive and tensile along the parallels and tensile
stresses along the meridians. Near the base or support, the hoop stresses are compressive and become tensile lower in the inverted
dome. In a half-dome spherical shell, the hoop stresses are tensile below 50° latitude and compressive above 50° latitude. In the
bays, the area of concrete in the compression ring is substantial and the engineer should verify that there is enough compression
capacity in the concrete and sufficient tension capacity in the reinforcement.
Conclusions
In this part of Example 8.1, the energy method was used to develop the pushover and capacity curves. The results were compared
to the results of a time-history analysis and found to be similar. This example has explored the concept of catenary action of the
steel beams and girders and has determined that the axial demand on the connections, in many instances, requires the develop-
ment of the axial yield strength of the beams and girders. Without test data or complex analytical models, it is difficult to ascertain
if the connection design is adequate. By design, connections that achieve the tension capacity of the steel member, while main-
taining a level of longitudinal and rotational ductility, become ductile moment connections that resist bending behavior in addi-
tion to tensile forces. Increasing the shear tab thickness and/or directly welding the beam web to the column will also enhance
the connection strength and ductility as shown by Khandelwal and El-Tawil (2007). Through a parametric study, the idea was
introduced that smaller steel members increase the deflections and decrease the demands on the connections.
In addition, the idea was introduced that it is superior to rely on the concrete slab rather than to rely on the adjacent structural
bays to provide the axial restraint for the catenary forces. The slab can develop a compression ring that produces the required
beam restraint. The tension in the member can be transferred through the steel headed stud anchors to the concrete, creating a
compression ring around the perimeter of the bay that contains the removed column. In this case, the connections do not develop
the full tensile capacity of the member. However, because the transfer of the beam tensile force to the slab is critical, the spac-
ing of the steel headed stud anchors should not exceed one stud anchor per foot of beam. A simplified method for checking the
strength of the compression ring in the concrete was presented. If the concrete compression ring is not considered, perimeter
connection forces become quite large.
When designing to resist progressive collapse, it would generally not be economical for the engineer to exclusively consider
catenary action of the structural steel. In this example, cable action or catenary action in the steel beams redistributed vertical
loads and assisted in reaching a new equilibrium. However, the axial forces necessary to redistribute the vertical loads are large.
Inclusion of the flexural behavior of the steel connections, or of the composite steel-slab action at connections, will give a more
economical design. Moment connections resist forces in bending, thus generating a plastic hinge mechanism that dissipates
energy and resists the collapse of the structural bay. The analytical concepts introduced in this example are also valid for hinges
in bending. If the engineer wants to use moment connections, the procedure will be similar, with replacement of the axial hinges
with moment-rotation hinges. Further still, the engineer may take advantage of membrane action of the slab, considering the
tensile strength of the steel reinforcing within the slab and the compression capacity of the concrete in the slab to achieve a more
economical design. This will be further explored in Part b of this example.
(b) Reinforced Slab Solution

Mitchell and Cook (1984) reported on a simplified method to determine the tensile membrane response of slabs that have in-
plane restraints at their edges. The method assumes that the membrane takes on a circular deformed shape and that concrete
carries no tension. The complete load-deflection response can be predicted by using the following equations combined with the
stress-strain relationship of the reinforcement:
2Tx sin 6 εx 2Ty sin 6ε y

w= + (8-14)
Lx Ly
where
w = predicted distributed load

Lx, Ly = clear span in the long and short direction respectively (Note that these spans are calculated after removal of the
column.)
Tx = force in the reinforcement in the x-direction corresponding to the strain, εx
Ty = force in the reinforcement in the y-direction corresponding to the strain, εy
εx = strain in the x-direction
εy (
= strain in the y-direction assumed to be equal to ε x L2x L2y )
The resulting load-deflection relationship is a pushover curve because the equation was empirically derived from tests of slowly
loaded slabs.
The relationship between the central deflection, the geometry of the panel, and the strain in the reinforcement is:
3L x ε x
δ= (8-15)
2 sin 6ε x
The complete load versus central deflection response can be obtained by using the following solution procedure:
1. Choose a value of εx.
2. Calculate εy.
3. Determine Tx and Ty corresponding to εx and εy using the stress-strain relationship.
4. Calculate the load, w.
5. Calculate the defection, δ.
See Table 8-2 for the calculations.
Model Results
The parameters used here are those defined in Part (a) of this example. Following the procedure derived from Mitchell and Cook
(1984) from the previous section, the pushover curve and capacity curve are plotted and shown in Figure 8-28 for Model A and
Figure 8-29 for Model B. The capacity curve is obtained by the same procedure utilized in Part (a) of this example.
Considering only the strength of the steel reinforcement in the slab, the total vertical deflection is 48.5 in. for Model A (wire mesh
reinforcement 6×6-W1.4×W1.4 WWF which is the equivalent of No. 3 bars spaced at 48 in. on center) and 54.5 in. for Model B
(wire mesh reinforcement 6×6-W2.9×W2.9 WWF which is approximately the equivalent of No. 3 bars spaced at 24 in. on cen-
ter). The deflections calculated for Model A and Model B are equivalent to rotations of 9.6° and 7.2°, respectively.
Increasing the area of reinforcement reduces the deflection in the slab. For example, if the reinforcement in Model A is increased
to 6×6-W2.9×W2.9 WWF, the deflection is reduced to 26.5 in. or 5.26°. Similarly, if the reinforcement in Model B is increased
to 6×6-W5×W5 WWF, the deflection is reduced to 36.3 in. or 4.8°. Figure 8-28 and Figure 8-29 show the pushover and capacity
curves for Model A reinforced with 0.028 in.2/ft and Model B reinforced with 0.058 in.2/ft, respectively. Table 8-3 shows the
deflection and corresponding rotation for various areas of steel slab reinforcement for both models.
Conclusions
In this part of Example 8.1, it was shown that slab structures could develop secondary load carrying mechanisms and exhibit a
degree of membrane action. The deflections in Model A and Model B for this formulation are within reason when considering
only the strength of the slab reinforcement. The deflection calculations neglected any contribution of the steel in the metal deck.
If continuity of the metal deck can be guaranteed, the capacity of the system increases. Additionally, only the tension capacity
was checked because in compression there is concrete in addition to the reinforcing providing strength; thus, tension controls.
The performance of this system can be further improved by combining the capacity curve of the steel and the slab. Increasing the
slab reinforcement reduces the impact of the collapse on the beam connections and reduces the rotation and axial load demand.
In this example, the slab’s resistance to collapse was investigated with respect to the individual bay. Horizontal restraint was not
considered because the tests by Mitchell and Cook (1984) show that, with large deformations, the response of a simply supported
slab is essentially the same as a fully restrained slab. This result is due to the ability of the slab to form its own in-plane edge

Table 8-2. Reinforced Slab Calculations

Table 8-3. Slab Reinforcement & Resulting Deflection/Rotation
Area of Steel
Bay Size, ft Reinforcement, in.2 Deflection, in. Rotation, deg
0.028 48.5 9.56
24
0.058 26.5 5.26
0.037 82.3 10.8
36 0.058 54.5 7.19
0.100 36.3 4.80
Fig. 8-28. Pushover and capacity curve for the slab for Model A.

restraint by forming a compression ring around its perimeter. Engineers should investigate the significance of these assumptions
for their particular structure. Vertical support is provided by the steel beams and girders framing the perimeter of the failing
bay, and the capacity of those supporting members should also be confirmed. Additionally, the bottom reinforcement should be
anchored to the column to provide post punching shear resistance.
(c) Steel Nonlinear Dynamic Approach

In this part of Example 8.1, the composite floor system consists of the same components as described for Model A in the intro-
duction to Example 8.1. The purpose of this example is to illustrate what occurs when all of the components of the composite
steel floor system are accounted for.
Nonlinear Analysis Model

The model is intended to be used in the analysis of the composite floor system described above, when the middle column is
removed. CSI Perform-Collapse (Computers & Structures, Inc.) is used to model the composite floor system with the modeling
assumptions given in the following and shown in Figure 8-30. The analysis procedure is equally applicable to other software with
nonlinear shell elements and dynamic analysis capabilities.
Boundary Conditions
The following boundary conditions are assumed:
• Pin supports at the base of the columns (Restraints = Ux, Uy and Uz).
• Horizontal restraints at the top of the columns (Restraints = Ux and Uy).
Fig. 8-29. Pushover and capacity curve for the slab for Model B.

• Torsional restraint at the top of the center column to stabilize the top portion of the column when the lower portion is
removed (Restraint = Rz).
• Horizontal restraints along the south and the west sides of the slab to model the continuity of the floor system on at least
two sides. The horizontal restraints are placed where the beams or girders on the adjacent spans would most likely be
(Restraints = Ux or Uy).
Loads
The total service load of 87.5 psf is applied uniformly as point loads at the nodes of the shell elements.
Composite Floor Slab

The slab was modeled as five concrete layers, two wire mesh layers (one layer in each direction), and one deck layer, using
nonlinear shell elements (2 ft by 3 ft). The slab layers are connected at the nodes. There is no bond slip between the steel and the
concrete layers. The slab was modeled above the centroid of the steel beams and girders (top of slab elevation is 11.5 in. above
the centroid of the beams and girders). The slab elements are not connected to the columns. They are only connected to the beams
through the steel headed stud anchor elements.
The concrete slab was modeled with a constant thickness of 4.0 in. as five layers. The top and bottom layers are 2 in. thick and
the other layers are 1 in. thick. The concrete material was modeled as an inelastic concrete material with brittle strength having
the following material properties: concrete modulus, Ec = 3,410 ksi; specified compressive strength, f ′c = 3.5 ksi; and tensile
strength, ft = 0 ksi (no tensile strength). The concrete starts losing strength at a strain = 0.003 in./in., and it loses all of its com-
pressive strength at a strain = 0.0035 in./in. This is illustrated in Figure 8-31.
The metal deck was modeled as a steel layer in the east-west direction (x-direction) with an effective thickness of 0.0508 in. It
was placed 4.0 in. below the top of the concrete slab. The deck was assumed to have no strength in the perpendicular direction.
The metal deck material was modeled as an inelastic steel material. The deck has a modulus of elasticity, E = 29,000 ksi, a speci-
fied minimum yield strength, Fy = 33 ksi, and a ductility ratio of 10. The stress-strain relationship for the metal deck is shown in
Figure 8-32.
The wire mesh was modeled as two steel layers, one in the east-west direction (x-direction) and another in the north-south direc-
tion (y-direction) with an effective thickness of 0.00233 in. It was placed 1.0 in. below the top of the concrete slab. The wire mesh
material was modeled as an inelastic steel material. The wire material has a modulus of elasticity, E = 29,000 ksi, a specified
minimum yield strength, Fy = 60 ksi, and a ductility ratio of 10. The wire mesh stress-strain relationship is shown in Figure 8-33.
Fig. 8-30. CSI Perform-Collapse model for the composite floor system.

Fig. 8-31. Nonlinear concrete slab stress-strain relationship.
Fig. 8-32. Nonlinear deck material stress-strain relationship.
Fig. 8-33. Nonlinear wire mesh stress-strain relationship.

Columns
The columns were modeled as elastic steel columns that span from the mid-height of the lower floor to the mid-height of the
upper floor. Each column consists of two elements. The first spans from the mid-height of the lower floor to the beam node
and the other spans from the beam node to the mid-height of the upper floor. The column elements are ASTM A992 W14×193
sections.
Composite Beams
The composite beams were modeled as elastic steel beams with moment releases and nonlinear axial connections at the ends. The
beams are ASTM A992 W12×19 sections.
Composite Girders
The composite girders were modeled as elastic steel beams with moment releases and nonlinear axial connections at the ends.
The girders are ASTM A992 W16×31 sections with Fy = 50 ksi.
Beam and Girder Connections

The beam and girder connections were modeled as shear connections with moment releases and nonlinear axial capacity. Because
the connections, during the cable action behavior, are primarily controlled by the axial force, they were modeled with nonlinear
axial hinges. No shear hinges or interactions between the axial force and shear force were introduced at this point. The axial
capacity of the beam end connections is controlled by the tear-out of the single plate. This failure mode was modeled using an
inelastic fiber section. One fiber was used to model each w-in.-diameter bolt. An arbitrary area of 1.0 in.2 was used for each fiber.
The fiber coordinates correspond to the bolt locations. An arbitrary length of 1.0 in. was used for the inelastic section of the beam,
which represents the axial hinge at each end. From AISC Specification Section J3.10, with the dynamic increase factor applied,
the available bearing strength of the single plate is determined as follows:
ϕRn = ϕ1.5lc t (1.05Fu ) ≤ ϕ3.0 dt (1.05Fu )

= 1.00 (1.5 ) ⎡⎣1.25 − (m in. 2 ) ⎤⎦ (4 in.) (1.05 )( 58 ksi )
= 19.3 kips
ϕ3.0 dt (1.05Fu ) = 1.00 ( 3.0 )( w in. )(4 in.)(1.05 )( 58 ksi )
= 34.3 kips
19.3 kips ≤ 34.3 kips
where the edge distance is 1.25 in. The bolt holes were assumed to be standard holes (m in.). Tearout is shown to control and
the stress-strain relationship of the single-plate tear-out was assumed as shown in Figure 8-34.
Fig. 8-34. Stress-strain relationship of single-plate tear-out.

Steel Headed Stud Anchors
The steel headed stud anchors were modeled using vertical beam elements that connect the slab nodes to the beams and girders.
Shear hinges are used in the vertical elements to model the inelastic behavior of the stud anchors. The stud anchors of the beams
and girders are lumped at the nodes. Depending on the number of stud anchors, each vertical element may represent more than
one stud anchor. From AISC Manual Table 3-21, for deck perpendicular, assuming one stud per rib in the weak condition, the
nominal horizontal shear strength of a single w-in.-diameter steel headed stud anchor is 17.2 kips. With ϕ = 1.00 and the dynamic
increase factor of 1.05, the available horizontal shear strength is 18.1 kips. In this model, each vertical element at the beam repre-
sents 1.14 stud anchors and each vertical element at the girder represents 2.45 stud anchors. The vertical elements were assigned
the same cross sections as the beams or girders they connect to. The length of the vertical elements is 9.5 in. from the centroid
of the beam to the centroid of the slab. The force-displacement relationship of the shear hinge in the stud elements at the beams
and girders was assumed as shown in Figure 8-35 and Figure 8-36.
Metal Deck Splice

The deck is assumed to be continuous except at the center. A row of shell elements was modeled without the metal deck (concrete
and wire mesh layers only) to represent a possible splice located at the center of the floor. The splice is assumed to be continuous
as shown in Figure 8-37.
Fig. 8-35. Force-displacement relationship of stud anchor elements at beams.
Fig. 8-36. Force-displacement of stud anchor elements at girders.

Analysis Results
The analysis was done in two phases. First, the gravity load was applied with the center column in place and the model was
analyzed using nonlinear analysis with large displacements. Then the column was removed and the floor was analyzed using a
static nonlinear analysis with large displacements. An impact factor of 3 was used in the column removal load case to force the
analysis to proceed beyond the displacement of the full static load. The analysis kept running until an energy balance was reached
at twice the static load.
Deformed Shape
The deformed shapes for both phases are shown in Figure 8-38 and Figure 8-39. The deformation increased almost linearly with
the load during phase 1. During phase 2, the deformation at the center point, where the column was removed, kept increasing
gradually with the load to 2.7 in., and then it increased suddenly from 2.7 in. at 42% of the load to 14.8 in. at 60% of the load.
After the sudden increase, the deformation increased gradually again until it reached a maximum of 20 in. at the full static load.
The deformation continued to increase gradually until an energy balance was reached at 200% of the static load and a deforma-
tion of 33.6 in. The pattern of displacement is shown in Figure 8-40.
Beam and Girder Connections

The sudden increase in the deflection of the floor system appears to be a result of the failure of the beam and girder connections.
The axial capacity of the girder connection, shown in Figure 8-41, drops suddenly after reaching its capacity at 42% of the load
(the same load step at which the sudden increase in deflection was observed).
Steel Layers in the Composite Slab

As expected, the deck behavior was linear for phase 1. The metal deck started yielding at the center in phase 2. Yielding was also
observed in the wire mesh where the deck splice was modeled and at the shell elements where the slab was modeled without the
metal deck as seen in Figure 8-42. It was observed that the load rapidly shifted to the slab at 42%; the same load step at which
the beam and girder connections started failing. The steel layers of the slab kept yielding to a maximum strain that is 15.5 times
their initial yield strain at the point of energy balance. The strain in the steel layers exceeded 10 times their yield strain (i.e., it
exceeded the maximum assigned ductility in the steel layers) at 157% of the load as illustrated in Figure 8-43. This means that
the steel layers of some slab elements at the center started breaking before the energy balance was reached. However, the overall
floor system, with the assumed material ductility, seemed to have sufficient capacity to arrest the floor collapse.
Fig. 8-37. Metal deck is discontinued to model a possible splice.

Conclusion
The following conclusions are drawn from this analysis:
• The removal of the center column is contained by the composite floor system. The floor does not collapse.
• Once the column is removed, the load is first resisted by coupled forces. At the center, where the column is removed,
tension develops in the beam-to-girder connections and compression develops in the slab. At the perimeter columns,
compression develops in the beam-to-girder connections and tension develops in the steel layers of the slab.
• Once the beam-to-girder connections at the center start failing, the load near the center shifts to the slab. The steel layers
of the slab start yielding and a large deformation is observed.
• The bolted connections of the beams and girders failed progressively by tearing out the shear tab, starting with the bottom
bolt and progressing up.
Fig. 8-38. Deformed shape for phase 1 (gravity load with column in place).
Fig. 8-39. Deformed shape for phase 2 (center column removed).

• Although the beams lost their axial continuity with the failure of the middle connections, they continued to play a signifi-
cant role by working compositely with the slab.
• The wire mesh provided tensile continuity in the slab where the deck splice was modeled.
8.6 EXAMPLE SUMMARY • If a more sophisticated analysis is employed that

incorporates the contribution of all the structural ele-
Based on the example presented in this chapter, the follow-
ments present—beams, studs, deck, concrete and
ing conclusions can be drawn:
reinforcement—the engineer may obtain a more eco-
• The steel framing acting alone as tension members in nomical design. The engineer does not need to resort
catenary action can provide a solution but may not be to a full nonlinear dynamic analysis, but can utilize
reasonable due to the large connection and restraint the nonlinear static pushover method coupled with the
forces required. energy balance approach to compute the pushover and
• Steel framing action in tension and bending, in concert capacity curves. Additionally, the engineer should try
with the concrete slab acting in compression, provides to use the smallest steel beams possible thus creating
a reasonable solution. The steel headed stud anchors more demand on the concrete and causing the stresses
tie the two materials together. in the concrete to be significant. Progressive collapse
is avoided if the initial collapse is prevented.
• The concrete/metal deck slab, properly reinforced, can
be designed as a membrane to span across the failing The examples discussed in this chapter are only applicable
bay on its own. This method is simple and efficient. to the floors that are not directly affected by the blast that
Fig. 8-40. Maximum deformation at the center (location of column removal).

Fig. 8-41. Axial force in girder connection.
Fig. 8-42. Yielded steel layers at the energy balance stage (200% static load).

breaches the column. The floors that have not suffered dam- the capability of this slab to subsequently develop membrane
age will support themselves after the removal of the column action. Corner and perimeter columns, due to their geometry,
preventing the failure of all the slabs that are supported by cannot develop the membrane action that an interior column
the column removed. The blast that breaches the column will develops; hence, other engineering approaches are necessary to
produce uplift, damage the slab above the column, and limit account for the partial loss of membrane action.
Fig. 8-43. Steel tension strain in composite slab: steel layers start yielding at 44% of the load.

SYMBOLS
(Note: ms = milliseconds) QUD Acting force (demand) determined in component or

connection/joint (moment, axial force, shear, and
A Surface area exposed to the pressure wave, in.2
possible combined forces)
Ag Gross area of the element, in.2
QCE Expected ultimate, unfactored capacity of the com-
Ak Load or load effect resulting from an extraordinary ponent and/or connection/joint (moment, axial force,
event A, kips shear and possible combined forces)
Aw Area of the web, in.2 R Stand-off distance, ft
B Blast load, kips Rgpu Shear rupture capacity of the gusset plate underneath
the weld, kip/in.
Cr Ratio of reflected pressure to free-field pressure
Rgpy Shear yield capacity of the gusset plate underneath
D Dead load, kips
the weld, kip/in.
DCR Demand-to-capacity ratios
Rm Maximum resistance, kips
DIF Dynamic increase factor
Rtu Tube rupture capacity under conventional shear, kip/
DLF Dynamic load factor in.
Ec Modulus of elasticity of concrete, ksi Rtvu Shear rupture capacity of the tube underneath the
weld, kip/in.
Fcr Critical stress, ksi
Rtvy Shear yield capacity of the tube underneath the weld,
Fmax Maximum resisting force the structure would experi-
kip/in.
ence if it were capable of remaining elastic, kips
Rty Tube yield capacity under conventional shear,
Fpeak Peak blast load, kips
kip/in.
Fu Specified minimum tensile strength, ksi
Rw Shear capacity of the weld material, kip/in.
Fy Specified minimum yield stress, ksi
S Elastic section modulus, in.3
Fyield Force that would cause the structure to yield, kips
S Snow load, kips
I Impulse, psi-ms
SIF Strength increase factor
Ir Reflected impulse, psi-ms
SR Strength ratio
Iso Side-on impulse, psi-ms
T Natural period of structure, s
K Structure stiffness, kip/in.
Tx Force in the reinforcement in the x-direction corre-
KL Load factor sponding to the strain, εx, kips
KLM Load mass factor Ty Force in the reinforcement in the y-direction corre-
sponding to the strain, εy, kips
KM Mass factor
U Shock front velocity, ft/ms
L Span, in.
V Velocity of the system, ft/ms
L Live load, kips
W TNT equivalent charge weight, lb
Mp Plastic moment, kip-in.
Wk Kinetic energy, joule
P Pressure, psi
WP Energy produced by the load pulse, joule
Po Atmospheric pressure; peak pressure, psi
WS Strain energy absorbed by the system, joule
Pr Reflected pressure, psi
WS,el Strain energy for linear elastic behavior, joule
Pso Free-field pressure, psi; side-on peak pressure, psi

Z Plastic section modulus, in.3 td Load duration, ms
1/3
Z Scaled distance, ft/lb te Load duration, ms
c Viscous damping tr Rise time to peak pressure, ms
cc Critical damping us Particle velocity, ft/ms
dbg Depth of the bolt group, in. vi Initial velocity, ft/ms
f Cyclic frequency, cycles per second w Distributed load, kips
f ′c Minimum compressive strength of concrete, ksi wi Weight per floor, kips
fconc Compressive strength of the concrete, ksi xmax Peak displacement, in.
fi Force per floor used to obtain the displacement per xo Arbitrary displacement, in.
floor, kips
Δ Displacement, in.
f ′dc Dynamic strength of concrete, ksi
ΔPL Permanent deformation of the system, in.
fds Dynamic design stress, ksi
ΔT Axial deformation at expected yielding load, in.
fdv Dynamic design stress for shear, ksi
Δc Axial deformation at expected critical stress, in.
g Acceleration due to gravity, 386 in./s2
Δel Elastic displacement, in.
gk Specified dead load for the floor or roof, kips
Δi Displacement per floor, in.
kDRF Dynamic reduction factor for impulsive loads where
Δm Maximum displacement, in.
T > td
Δmax Peak displacement, in.
m Mass of the structure, lb
Δyield Yield displacement, in.
me Mass of the system, lb
εx Strain in the x-direction
ps Density of air behind shock front, lb/ft3
εy Strain in the y-direction assumed to be equal to
( )
qk Specified imposed load (live load) for the floor or
roof, kips ε x L2x L 2y
qo Peak dynamic pressure, psi μ Ductility

st Mean transverse spacing between ties, in. ϕ Resistance factor
t Thickness of the slab, in. ω Undamped natural frequency, rad per unit of time
t2 Time to peak pressure, ms ωd Damped natural frequency for the structure, rad per
unit of time
ta Time of arrival, ms

REFERENCES
ACI (2011), Building Code Requirements for the Structural Baker, W.E. (1983), Explosion Hazards and Evaluation,
Concrete and Commentary, ACI 318-11, American Con- Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, New York, NY.
crete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI. Biggs, J.M. (1964), Introduction to Structural Dynamics,
AFESC (1989), Protective Construction Design Manual, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
ESL-TR-87-57, Prepared for Engineering Services Labo- BSI (1996), Loading for Buildings: Code of Practice for
ratory, Air Force Engineering and Services Center, Tyn- Dead and Imposed Loads, BS 6399-1, British Standards
dall Air Force Base, FL. Institution, London.
AISC (1989), Specification for Structural Steel Buildings— BSI (1997), Structural Use of Concrete—Part 1: Code of
Allowable Stress Design and Plastic Design, American Practice for Design and Construction, BS 8110-1, British
Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL. Standards Institution, London.
AISC (2010a), Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, BSI (2000), Structural Use of Steelwork in Buildings—Part
ANSI/AISC 360-10, American Institute of Steel Con- 1: Code of Practice for Design—Rolled and Welded Sec-
struction, Chicago, IL. tions, BS 5950-1, British Standards Institution, London.
AISC (2010b), Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Build- BSI (2005a), Code of Practice for the Use of Masonry—Part
ings, ANSI/AISC 341-10, American Institute of Steel 1: Structural Use of Unreinforced Masonry, BS 5628-1,
Construction, Chicago, IL. British Standards Institution, London.
AISC (2010c), Prequalified Connections for Special and BSI (2005b), Code of Practice for the Use of Masonry—Part
Intermediate Steel Moment Frames for Seismic Applica- 1: Structural Use of Reinforced and Prestressed Masonry,
tions, ANSI/AISC 358-10, American Institute of Steel BS 5628-2, British Standards Institution, London.
Construction, Chicago, IL.
BSI (2010), Recommendations for the Design of Masonry
AISC (2011a), Steel Construction Manual, 14th Ed., Ameri- Structures to BS EN 1996-1-1 and BS EN 1996-2, PD
can Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL. 6697:2010, British Standards Institution, London.
AISC (2012), Seismic Design Manual, 2nd Ed., American CEN (2004), Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures,
Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL. General Rules and Rules for Buildings, EN 1992-1-
Allam, A.M., Burgess, I.W. and Plank, R.J. (2000), “Simple 1:2004, Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels,
Investigations of Tensile Membrane Action in Composite Belgium.
Slabs in Fire,” Paper 03.02, Proceedings of International CEN (2005a), Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures, Gen-
Conference on Steel Structures of the 2000s, Istanbul, pp. eral Rules and Rules for Buildings, EN 1993-1-1:2005,
327–332. Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium.
ASCE (1995), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and CEN (2005b), Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures,
Other Structures, ASCE 7-95, American Society of Civil Material Toughness and Through-Thickness Properties,
Engineers, New York, NY. EN 1993-1-10:2005, Comité Européen de Normalisation,
ASCE (2005), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Brussels, Belgium.
Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-05, American Society of CEN (2005c), Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures,
Civil Engineers, New York, NY. Design of Joints, EN 1993-1-8:2005, Comité Européen de
ASCE (2010a), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium.
Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-10, American Society of CEN (2005d), Eurocode 6: Design of Masonry Structures,
Civil Engineers, New York, NY. General Rules for Reinforced and Unreinforced Masonry
ASCE (2010b), Design of Blast Resistant Buildings in Petro- Structures, EN 1996-1-1:2005, Comité Européen de Nor-
chemical Facilities, American Society of Civil Engineers, malisation, Brussels, Belgium.
New York, NY. CEN (2006a), Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures, General
ASCE (2011), Blast Protection of Buildings, ASCE/SEI Actions, Accidental Actions, EN 1991-1-7: 2006, Comité
59-11, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium.
NY. CEN (2006b), Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures,
AWS (2010), Structural Welding Code—Steel, AWS D1.1/ Plated Structural Elements, EN 1993-1-5:2006, Comité
D1.1M, American Welding Society, Miami, FL. Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium.

CEN (2006c), Eurocode 6: Design of Masonry Struc- Easterling, W.S., Gibbings, D.R. and Murray, T.M. (1993),
tures, Simplified Calculation Methods for Unreinforced “Strength of Shear Studs in Steel Deck on Composite
Masonry Structures, EN 1996-3:2006, Comité Européen Beams and Joists,” Engineering Journal, AISC, Vol. 30,
de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium. No. 2, 2nd Quarter, pp. 44–55.
CEN (2006d), Eurocode 6: Design of Masonry Structures, Fell, B.V., Kanvinde, A.M., Deierlein, G.G., Myers, A.T.
Design Considerations, Selection of Materials and Execu- and Fu, X. (2006), “Buckling and Fracture of Concentric
tion of Masonry, EN 1996-2:2006, Comité Européen de Braces Under Inelastic Cyclic Loading,” Steel Tips, Struc-
Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium. tural Steel Educational Council.
CEN (2007a), Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures, Pil- FEMA (2000a), Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for
ing, EN 1993-5:2007, Comité Européen de Normalisa- New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings, FEMA 350, Federal
tion, Brussels, Belgium. Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC
CEN (2007b), Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures, FEMA (2000b), Prestandard and Commentary for the Seis-
Crane Supporting Structures, EN 1993-6:2007, Comité mic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 356, Building
Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium. Seismic Safety Council, Federal Emergency Management
Center for Chemical Process Safety (1994), Guidelines for Agency, Washington, DC.
Evaluating the Characteristics of Vapor Cloud Explo- FEMA (2003a), Reference Manual to Mitigate Potential
sions, Flash Fires, and BLEVEs, American Institute of Terrorist Attacks Against Buildings, FEMA 426, Federal
Chemical Engineers, New York, NY. Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
Center for Chemical Process Safety (2003), Understanding FEMA (2003b), Primer for Design of Commercial Buildings
Explosions, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, to Mitigate Terrorist Attacks, FEMA 427, Federal Emer-
New York, NY. gency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
Chopra, A.K. (1980), Earthquake Dynamics of Structures— FEMA (2005), Risk Assessment: A How-To Guide to Miti-
A Primer, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, gate Potential Terrorist Attacks, Risk Management Series,
Oakland, CA. FEMA 452, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Clough, R.W. and Penzien, J. (1993), Dynamics of Struc- Washington, DC.
tures, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Grant, J.A., Fisher, J.W. and Slutter, R.G. (1977), “Compos-
DOD (2002), Design and Analysis of Hardened Structures ite Beams with Formed Steel Deck,” Engineering Jour-
to Conventional Weapons Effects, UFC 3-340-01, Depart- nal, AISC, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1st Quarter, pp. 24–43.
ment of Defense, Washington, DC. Hurty, W.C. and Rubenstein, M.F. (1964), Dynamics of
DOD (2005), Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Col- Structures, Prentice-Hall.
lapse, UFC 4-023-03, Department of Defense, Washing- ICC (2006), International Building Code, International
ton, DC. Code Council, Washington DC.
DOD (2007), Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Build- ICC (2012), International Building Code, International
ings, UFC 4-010-01, Department of Defense, Washing- Code Council, Washington DC.
ton, DC. ISC (2004), Security Design Criteria for New Federal Office
DOD (2008), Structures to Resist the Effects of Acciden- Buildings and Major Modernization Projects, Interagency
tal Explosions, UFC 3-340-02, Department of Defense, Security Committee, Washington, DC.
Washington, DC. ISC (2008), Facility Security Level Determinations, Inter-
DOD (2010), Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Col- agency Security Committee, Washington, DC.
lapse, UFC 4-023-03, Department of Defense, Washing- ISC (2010), Physical Security Criteria for Federal Facili-
ton, DC. ties, Interagency Security Committee, Washington, DC.
DOD (2012), Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Build- ISC (2012), Design Basis Threat, Interagency Security
ings, UFC 4-010-01, Department of Defense, Washing- Committee, Washington, DC.
ton, DC.
Khandelwal, K. and El-Tawil, S. (2007), “Collapse Behavior
DOJ (1995), Vulnerability Assessment of Federal Facilities, of Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame Connections,”
U.S. Marshals Service, Department of Justice, Washing- Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 133, pp.
ton, DC. 646–655.

Marchand, K.A. and Alfawakhiri, F. (2005), Facts for Steel USACE (2008), PDC TR-06-01 Rev 1 Methodology Manual
Buildings: Blast and Progressive Collapse, American for the Single-Degree-of-Freedom Blast Effects Design
Institute of Steel Construction, April. Spreadsheets, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washing-
Mitchell, D. and Cook, W.D. (1984), “Preventing Progres- ton, DC.
sive Collapse of Slab Structures,” Journal of Structural USGSA (1997), GSA Security Criteria, U.S. General Ser-
Engineering, Vol. 110, No. 7, pp. 1,513–1,532. vices Administration, Washington, D.C.
Newmark, N.M. (1956), “An Engineering Approach to Blast USGSA (2003), Progressive Collapse Analysis and Design
Resistant Design,” ASCE Transactions, Vol. 121, Paper Guideline for New Federal Office Buildings and Major
2786, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, Modernization Projects, U.S. General Services Adminis-
NY. tration, Washington, DC.
Norris, C.H., Hansen, R.J., Holley, M.J., Biggs, J.M., Wang, P.C. (1967), Numerical and Matrix Methods in Struc-
Namyet, S. and Minami, J.K. (1959), Structural Design tural Analysis, John Wiley & Sons.
for Dynamic Loads, McGraw-Hill. WRI (2010), Manual of Standard Practice—Structural
NYCBC (2008), Building Code of the City of New York, New Welded Wire Reinforcement, WWR-500, Wire Reinforce-
York City Building Code, New York, NY. ment Institute, Hartford, CT.
USACE (1957), Design of Structures to Resist the Effects
of Atomic Weapons, Report No. EM 1110-345-415, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.


Design Guide 26 Design of Blast Resistant Structures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design Guide 26 Design of Blast Resistant Structures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design Guide 26 Design of Blast Resistant Structures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the purpose of the document?

What is the purpose of the document?

What authors contributed to writing the document?

What authors contributed to writing the document?

26 Steel Design Guide

A MERICAN INS TI TU T E O F S T EEL CO NS T R UCT ION

American Institute of Steel Construction

All rights reserved. This book or any part

Printed in the United States of America

Revision: March 2015

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 26/ DESIGN OF BLAST RESISTANT STRUCTURES / 1

2 / DESIGN OF BLAST RESISTANT STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 26

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 26/ DESIGN OF BLAST RESISTANT STRUCTURES / 3

Fig. 1-1. Pressure gauge trace from high-energy explosive detonation.

4 / DESIGN OF BLAST RESISTANT STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 26

Fig. 1-2. El Centro earthquake ground accelerations.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 26/ DESIGN OF BLAST RESISTANT STRUCTURES / 5

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 26/ DESIGN OF BLAST RESISTANT STRUCTURES / 7

8 / DESIGN OF BLAST RESISTANT STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 26

Fig. 2-2. Pressure-time history for shock load.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 26/ DESIGN OF BLAST RESISTANT STRUCTURES / 9

10 / DESIGN OF BLAST RESISTANT STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 26

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 26/ DESIGN OF BLAST RESISTANT STRUCTURES / 11

12 / DESIGN OF BLAST RESISTANT STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 26

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 26/ DESIGN OF BLAST RESISTANT STRUCTURES / 13

2.5.5 Net Lateral Loads

14 / DESIGN OF BLAST RESISTANT STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 26

Fig. 2-7. Dynamic pressure (DOD, 2002).

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 26/ DESIGN OF BLAST RESISTANT STRUCTURES / 15

2.7 DESIGN EXAMPLE

Example 2.1—Preliminary Evaluation of Blast Resistance of a One-Story Building

Fig. 2-8. Steel building—isometric view.

16 / DESIGN OF BLAST RESISTANT STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 26

Fig. 2-9. Steel building—plan view.

Fig. 2-10. Steel building—elevation.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 26/ DESIGN OF BLAST RESISTANT STRUCTURES / 17

Blast Loading Parameters From Figure 2-11 Calculated

18 / DESIGN OF BLAST RESISTANT STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 26

Fig. 2-12. Reflected pressure and impulse.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 26/ DESIGN OF BLAST RESISTANT STRUCTURES / 19

Fig. 2-13. Side-on pressure and impulse.

20 / DESIGN OF BLAST RESISTANT STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 26

Determine Blast Load Parameters at the Closest Point to the Charge

Fig. 2-14. Typical blast load with clearing effect.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 26/ DESIGN OF BLAST RESISTANT STRUCTURES / 21

22 / DESIGN OF BLAST RESISTANT STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 26

Fig. 2-18. Scaled distances at front and rear walls.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 26/ DESIGN OF BLAST RESISTANT STRUCTURES / 23

24 / DESIGN OF BLAST RESISTANT STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 26

Fig. 2-19. Side-on pressure at top of rear wall.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 26/ DESIGN OF BLAST RESISTANT STRUCTURES / 25

Fig. 2-20. Rear wall load.

26 / DESIGN OF BLAST RESISTANT STRUCTURES / AISC DESIGN GUIDE 26

Positive impulse at the front wall:

Fig. 2-21. Pressure load for front wall.

AISC DESIGN GUIDE 26/ DESIGN OF BLAST RESISTANT STRUCTURES / 27

Front wall Wall panel 50.0 79.5 246 6.19

Front wall Girt 50.0 79.5 246 6.19

Side wall Wall panel 50.0 24.9 96.0 7.71