Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1Associate Vice President, AECOM USA, Inc. 125 Broad Street, New York, NY.
Yousef.Alostaz@aecom.com, (212) 377-8422.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 65.170.57.34 on 05/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
One of the greatest challenges blast engineers face is securing enough standoff for
facilities that need to be protected against attacks by vehicle-borne bombs. One solution
might require the use of a perimeter blast wall. Depending on their location relative to the
protected facility and the standoff distance to the bomb, perimeter blast walls might reduce
the blast pressure and impulse from a vehicle bomb. Generally, erecting a blast wall at some
distance from the building might provide no appreciable increase in protection for the
majority of buildings. However, constructing a blast wall immediately in front of the building
might provide significant protection. The blast wall effectively reduces the pressure from a
reflected pulse to an incident pulse, permitting reduced safe standoff distances. Additionally,
a properly designed perimeter blast walls will stop the effects of fragmentation.
Empirical equations, developed by military researchers, might be used to predict the
blast pressure and impulse reduction capabilities of a perimeter wall. However, the
application of such equations is severely limited by the test parameters used in the equation
development. Some design guidelines require that blast walls have a height equal to 1.5 times
the protected structure height, and a width equal to twice the protected structure width.
Furthermore, the wall must be constructed no further than one story height from the protected
face of the building. Hence, blast walls can be massive and aesthetically not pleasant
This paper will examine the effectiveness of blast walls in reducing blast pressures
and impulses behind the walls. Three-dimensional, Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD)
simulations will be used to calculate the blast pressures for various blast environments.
Where applicable, the calculated blast loads will be compared with those obtained using the
empirical approach.
INTRODUCTION
Providing the required standoff between the target and the threat is a challenging task,
especially in urban environments. For such situations, engineers might elect to provide a
blast wall in order to reduce the blast pressure to a manageable level at the location of the
protected facility. Blast walls reduce pressures by reflecting part of the incident pressure
towards the explosion source, and diffracting the blast wave over the barrier. It should be
noted that the diffracted pressure is reduced for some distance behind the wall before the
shock wave reforms to its original intensity. A properly designed blast wall can arrest
airborne debris, generated by the explosive threat, and hence providing further protection to
the protected building.
Experiments conducted on blast walls are the main source for information on blast
pressures behind the walls. Typically, those experiments address a limited range of
parameters. The Army and Air Force Security Engineering Manual (TM 5-853, AFM 88-56)
provides a methodology to calculate blast pressures behind blast walls which is based on
small-scale tests. The methodology was not validated using full-scale tests and is limited to
certain geometries. Generally, the blast wall effectiveness increases as the wall is placed
close to the protected target or the explosive threat. The peak blast pressure is reduced
significantly behind the wall, but gradually approach the free-filed blast values at large
distances.
It should be noted that an improperly designed blast wall might increase the blast
pressures and/or impulses on the building. For example, this scenario might occur for some
combination of large standoff from the blast wall and short standoff between the building and
the blast wall. The current data indicates that blast wall is most effective when the explosive
charge is placed within one wall height (1H) from the blast wall and within ten wall heights
(10H) from the protected facility. For buildings located at more than twenty wall heights
(20H), the blast pressure approaches its free-field values [2010].
This paper will examine the effectiveness of blast walls in reducing blast pressures
and impulses behind the walls. Three-dimensional, Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD)
simulations will be used to calculate the blast pressures for various blast environments.
Where applicable, the calculated blast loads will be compared with those obtained using the
empirical approach.
ANALYTICAL SIMULATIONS
explosives include rocket propellants, pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails. Because of their
low reaction rate, low order explosives do not form a shock wave.
High order explosives posses a fast chemical reaction rate that converts the charge
mass into an expanding gas pressure wave accompanied by sound and heat. The leading tip
of the pressure wave is known as the shock front, and it typically has the highest pressure at
any time. The blast gasses expand as they travel away from the blast source; a void might be
created where the pressure is below the ambient atmospheric pressure.
The complex destruction effect of the blast is the main driving factor behind the need
to perform field physical testing on large scale prototype, unfortunately, it is that same effect
that makes field testing expensive and time consuming. Numerical simulation might be used
to identify the most crucial parameters in a specific blast scenario. Once those parameters are
identified, field testing of limited number of prototypes might be needed to confirm and
calibrate the blast performance of the structural element in question.
The blast phenomenon generates extreme pressure gradients and impulsive loading
that cannot properly be treated by conventional implicit finite element formulation. Explicit
finite element formulation is more suited to handle such extreme loading conditions.
Commercially available explicit finite element software include LSDYNA, AUTODYN,
ABAQUS, NASTRAN, ALIGRO… etc. We used LSDYNA for the simulations presented in
this paper.
Typically the explicit finite element software generates a set of differential equations
that incorporate Equations of State (EOS) that describes the variation of a volumetric
material property, such as volumetric strain, with pressure. Using the principles of
conservation of mass, energy and momentum, the explicit finite element algorithm advances
the solution of the differential equations over short periods of time, commonly known as time
steps. This time step indicates the time that is required for the speed of sound to travel
through the smallest element within the finite element grid. Hence, finer grid would yield
smaller time step, and softer material would yield larger time step. Most explicit software has
built-in algorithms that automatically calculate the time step and impose a cap, with user
override, on the maximum time step. The imposed cap is necessary in order to keep the time
step value within limits that most likely would yield a stable, converged solution.
The finite element software might utilize a Lagrange solver, an Euler solver, or a
combination of both of these solvers, known as an Arbitrary Lagrange-Euler solver (ALE).
The basic characteristic of the Lagrange solver is that the finite element grid distorts with the
material. The solver tries to impose distortion compatibility at the finite element nodes. The
Lagrange solver is not suitable for problems that produce excessive distortions of the finite
element grid, such as the modeling of fluid movements. Unlike the Lagrange solver, the finite
element grid in the Euler solver is stationary. However, the material is allowed to flow
between the finite element grids in order to satisfy pressure compatibility at the finite element
nodes. The Euler solver is not suitable for tracking the deformations of a material in its solid
state. The ALE solver combines the benefits of both solvers, and most likely would capture
the Fluid-Structure-Interaction (FSI).
Geometry and Discretization
The three-dimensional (3D)
finite element model is shown in
Figure 2. The height and width of
the blast wall were selected to be 8
ft and 3 ft, respectively. The
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 65.170.57.34 on 05/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ω ω E
peos = A(1 − )e − R1V + B(1 − )e − R2V + ω (1)
R1V R2V V
The blast pressure at specific time is given by this equation:
P = F . peos (2)
Where:
A, B, R1, R2 and ω: are material specific parameters
peos: is the pressure
V: is the ratio between initial and current densities
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 65.170.57.34 on 05/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The explosive material parameters used in our analyses are presented in Table 2. It is
assumed that the explosive device is rectangular in shape, and located at 2 ft above ground
level.
Table 2. TNT parameters
Density Detonation Velocity A B R1
(cm/μsec)
(g/cm3) (Mbar) (Mbar)
1.63 0.693 3.712 0.03231 4.15
R2 ω E0/V0 Chapman-Jouget Pressure
3 3
(Mbar cm / cm ) (Mbar)
0.95 0.3 0.07 0.21
Air
The air is modeled as an ideal gas material using a linear polynomial form of the equation
of state:
(
p = C0 + C1 μ + C2 μ 2 + C3 μ 3 + C4 + C5 μ + C6 μ 2 E (3) )
Ideal gas behavior is achieved by setting
C 0 = C1 = C 2 = C3 = C 6 = 0 and C 4 = C5 = γ − 1
Where:
γ: is the ratio of specific heat = 1.4
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Our past experience with similar blast analyses indicated that the accuracy of the
predicted blast response was highly dependent on the resolution of the finite element mesh.
Several analyses were performed with various element sizes that resulted in number of nodes
ranging between about 300k to about 4.5m. It was found that while the peak blast pressure
was somehow sensitive to the size of the finite element mesh, the peak blast pressure ratio
showed less sensitivity to the finite element size. The peak blast pressure ratio was calculated
as the ratio of the peak blast pressure with blast wall to the peak blast pressure without the
wall. The pressure is monitored at the face of the protected building. The impulse ratio was
calculated in a similar manner. Figure 3 shows sample results from the sensitivity analysis
performed at two locations on the façade of the protected building. Generally, it was
observed that coarser models resulted in more conservative assessment of the blast loads
behind blast walls. With more reduction in the finite element size, the change in the blast
load ratio was almost negligible and would
not justify the extra computational time. 0.7%
Ratio
0.3%
0.2%
ANALYSIS RESULTS Pressure
0.1%
0.0%
Obstacles, such as blast walls, placed in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 65.170.57.34 on 05/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Ratio
2.0%
wave exhibited similar characteristics to
1.5% Pressure
those shown by Smith [2010].
1.0%
This article is focused on examining
the reduction of the blast loads due to the 0.5%
detonated at 4 ft from the face of the wall. As expected, when the threat standoff to the blast
wall increases, the effectiveness of the blast wall diminishes. For example, the peak blast
pressure ratio is about 20% at a façade height of 22 ft when a 100 lb TNT device is detonated
at 8 ft from the blast wall. The larger threat, 4000 lb TNT equivalent, detonated at 8 ft from
the wall, is anticipate to retain the majority of its peak blast pressure at top of the protected
building. In other words, the blast wall is not efficient in reducing the blast loads at the face
of the protected building.
When the same device is detonated at closer distance from the wall, the reduction in the
blast pressure at the building façade is larger. It is interesting to note that the closer the threat
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 65.170.57.34 on 05/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
45 45
40 40
35 35
30 30 Threat size, lb
TNT equivalent
Height, ft
Height, ft
25 25
4000
20 20
UFC 2000
15 15
Threat at 4 ft Threat at 8 ft 1000
10 from wall 10 from wall 500
5 250
5
100
0 0
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
Peak Pressure Ratio, % Peak Pressure Ratio, %
Figure 5. Blast Pressure Ratio – Threat at 4ft (left) and 8 ft (right) from wall
to the blast wall, the more dependent the blast pressure ratio on the size of the threat.
The Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) prediction for the blast pressures behind blast walls
is shown in Figure 5. Note that the UFC calculations are based on empirical formulas that
have many limitations and restrictions. Generally, the empirical formulas are more
conservative than the analytical results, but both approaches exhibited similar characteristics.
For example, analytical and empirical approaches indicated that the largest reduction in the
blast loading occurs at heights below the top of the blast wall. Blast wave reflected from the
ground surface, and the interior corner effects are likely to be the main driver behind the
increased blast loads at façade elements close to the ground level.
The impulse ratios as calculated from the numerical simulations are shown in Figure 6.
This figure indicates that the blast impulse values across the height of the façade exhibit
similar trends as the peak blast pressure. However, the overall reduction in the blast impulse
is larger than that observed for the blast peak pressure.
It is interesting to note that when smaller threats are detonated at larger distance from the
blast wall, the reduction in the blast impulse was smaller than the case for larger threat
detonated at the same standoff from the blast wall. Such behavior will require further
investigation. However, it is possible that this behavior is due to the way the results are
presented. Note that the impulse ratio is calculated as the blast impulse in the presence of
blast wall divided by the blast impulse without the blast wall. For smaller threats at larger
standoffs, the blast impulse without the wall is much smaller. The smaller denominator might
be resulting in larger impulse ratios in the case of smaller threats.
45 45
Threat at 4 ft from wall Threat at 8 ft from wall
40 40
35 35
30 30
Height, ft
Height, ft
25
equivalent
20 20 4000
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 65.170.57.34 on 05/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
2000
15 15
1000
10 10 500
5 250
5
100
0 0
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%
Impulse Ratio, % Impulse Ratio, %
Figure 6. Impulse Ratio - Threat at 4ft (left) and 8 ft (right) from wall
CONCLUSIONS
This paper investigated the effectiveness of blast walls in reducing blast pressures and
impulses behind the walls. Three-dimensional, Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD)
simulations were used to calculate the blast pressures for various blast environments. The
flow of the blast wave around blast wall is a complex phenomenon that depends on many
parameters that might include the scaled standoff between the wall and the threat, the wall
height, and the distance between the wall and the protected building. Only limited number of
parameters were numerically investigated and presented in this article. Further investigation
will be required to fully understand the blast wave propagation in the vicinity of blast wall.
As anticipated, the effectiveness of the blast wall diminishes as the standoff between the
wall and the explosive device increases.
At smaller standoffs between the blast wall and the threat, the reduction of the peak blast
pressure was inversely proportional to the size of the threat.
REFERENCES
Handbook for Blast Resistant Design of Buildings (2010), John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Blast Mitigation for Structures: 1999 Status Report on the DTRA/TSWG program, National
Academy Press, Washington DC.
Smith, P.D (2010), “Blast walls for structural protection against high explosive threats: a
review”, International journal of protective structures, Volume 1, Number 1.