PennState

Short-Duration
Dynamics

EXPLOSION DAMAGE ASSESSMENT

PROF. TED KRAUTHAMMER
The Pennsylvania State University

First Structural Forensic Engineering Seminar on

STRUCTURAL FAILURE INVESTIGATIONS

University of Toronto
11-12 January 1999

OUTLINE

PROBLEM DEFINITION
BACKGROUND
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES
COMPUTATIONAL SUPPORT
EXAMPLES
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

PROBLEM DEFINITION

HOW TO USE EXISTING KNOWLEDGE IN SUPPORT

OF:
EFFECTIVE EXPLOSION DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS.
CORRELATING DAMAGE WITH POSSIBLE CAUSES.
ASSESSING THE REMAINING STRUCTURAL CAPACITY.

PROBLEM (Cont.)

TERRORISM

ACCIDENTS

MODERN EXPLOSION DAMAGE

ASSESSMENT - HALIFAX 1917
6 DEC. 1917: SHIP COLLISION WITH
A FRENCH MUNITIONS CARRIER IN
HALIFAX HARBOUR.
2766 T OF VARIOUS EXPLOSIVES.
OVER 2.5 KM_ OF HALIFAX'S
INDUSTRIAL N END WAS TOTALLY
LEVELLED. THE BLAST SHATTERED
WINDOWS 100 KM AWAY, AND WAS
HEARD IN PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.
1600+ PEOPLE DIED, 9000 INJURED,
200 BLINDED BY FLYING GLASS.
1600
BUILDINGS
DESTROYED,
12,000 DAMAGED. TOTAL DAMAGE
US$35 M.

PROBLEM (Cont.)
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
U.S.A. CRIMINAL INCIDENTS DATA

1989 - 1993

1991 - 1995

BOMBING INCIDENTS
(ATTEMPTED)

7,716
(1,705)

8,506
(2,078)

INCENDIARY BOMBING
(ATTEMPTED)

2,242
(557)

2,468
(782)

DAMAGE (M US$)

641.3

1,257.3

BACKGROUND
BLACK POWDER HAS BEEN USED FOR
SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS.
HIGH EXPLOSIVES HAVE BEEN USED FOR
ABOUT ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS.
NITROGLYCERINE (1862) - IMMANUEL NOBEL.
DYNAMITE (1875) - ALFRED NOBEL.
NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVES (1945).

BACKGROUND (Cont.)
EXPERIENCE:

ACCIDENTS, MILITARY
CONFLICTS AND TERRORISM.

CIVIL WAR, 1861 - 1865

RUSSIA - JAPAN, 1905

WWI, 1914 - 1918

WWII, 1939 - 1945

KOREA, 1950 - 1953

VIETNAM, 1964 - 1975

MIDDLE EAST, 1947 -

INT. TERRORISM, 1960s -

EXPLOSIVE LOAD SOURCES

(MILITARY AND CIVILIAN)

CONVENTIONAL

NUCLEAR

CHEMICALS AND FUELS.

VAPORS.
COMBUSTIBLE DUSTS.
PRESSURE VESSELS.
EXPLOSIVES.
HIGH EXPLOSIVES.

NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

EXPLOSIVE LOAD SOURCES (Cont.)

NUCLEAR DEVICESS
YIELDS: KILOTONS (TACTICAL), OR MEGATONS
(STRATEGIC) OF TNT EQUIVALENT.
RELEASE LARGE AMOUNTS OF ENERGY
(RADIATION, THERMAL, BLAST, EMP, ETC.) IN
~1sec, AFFECTING VAST AREAS.
CONVENTIONAL EXPLOSIVE DEVICES
YIELDS: ~<1 KG TO ~>15 TONS OF TNT QUIVALENT.
RELEASE SMALLER AMOUNTS OF ENERGY
(BLAST, FRAGMENTS, ETC.) IN ~ 2sec AFFECTING
SMALLER AREAS.

EXPLOSIVE LOADS (Cont.)

EXPLOSIVE LOADS (Cont.)

EXPLOSIVE LOADS (Cont.)

EXPLOSIVE LOADS (Cont.)

EXPLOSIVE LOADS (Cont.)

EXPLOSIVE LOADS (Cont.)

EXPLOSIVE LOADS (Cont.)

LOAD COMPARISONS FOR TYPICAL WEAPONS
3000

PRESSURE (kPa)

2500

Mk 84 100m - INCIDENT
Mk 84 100m - REFLECTED
15 KT - INCIDENT
15 KT - REFLECTED
1 MT - INCIDENT
1 MT - REFLECTED

2000
1500
1000
500
0
200

300

400

500

600

700

800

TIME (ms)

900 1000 1100 1200

EXPLOSIVE LOADS (Cont.)

LOAD COMPARISONS FOR TYPICAL WEAPONS

PRESSURE (kPa)

30

20

Mk 84 100m - INCIDENT
Mk 84 100m - REFLECTED

10

0
200

220

240

260

280

300

TIME (ms)

320

340

360

380

400

TECHNICAL RESOURCES
CONVENTIONAL AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS
EFFECTS ARE WELL DOCUMENTED.
NUCLEAR

CONVENTIONAL

EARLY:

DOD, 1957

NDRC, 1946

RECENT:

ASCE, 1985
Schuster et al., 1987

TM 5-855-1, 1986
ESL-TR-87-57, 1989
TM 5-1300, 1990
CONWEP, 1992

TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES
LOAD DEFINITION: P(x,y,z,t) .
MEDIUM - STRUCTURE INTERACTION.
NONLINEAR DYNAMIC STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR:
GEOMETRIC.
MATERIAL.
STRUCTURE - CONTENTS INTERACTIONS.
CONTENTS SURVIVABILITY (OR FRAGILITY).
DAMAGE DEFINITIONS.

MANY OF THESE ISSUES ARE NOT WELL DEFINED !

COMPUTATIONAL SUPPORT FOR

DESIGN AND ASSESSMENT

WEAPON EFFECTS CALCULATIONS.

CLOSED-FORM SOLUTIONS.

SDOF, MDOF (SIMPLE AND ADVANCED).

STRUCTURAL MODELS (BEAM, PLATE, ETC.).

ADVANCED TOOLS (FE, FD, HYBRID, ETC.).

SYMBOLIC AND SYMBOLIC-NUMERIC TOOLS.

SDOF RESPONSE CALCULATIONS

F(t)

M
C

K or R(x)

SDOF RESPONSE CALCULATIONS

Figure 3-54. Maximum deflection of elasto-plastic,
one-degree-of-freedom system for triangular load
100

0.1

0.2

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Xm / Xe

10

1.2
1.5
1.0

2.0

Numbers next to curves are Ru/P

0.1
0.1

1.0

10

T / Tn

100

PRESSURE - IMPULSE DIAGRAM

STRUCTURAL RESPONSE DEPENDS ON td/T
td = DURATION OF THE APPLIED LOAD
T = NATURAL PERIOD OF THE ELEMENT:
T = 2PI/OMEGA, OMEGA = (K/M)0.5

THREE BEHAVIORAL DOMAINS:

td >> T

td << T

td ~ T

2F / (KXMAX)

PRESSURE - IMPULSE DIAGRAM

1/[XMAX (KM)0.5]

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AND

SCALED RANGE
DIFFERENT EXPLOSIVE EVENTS CAN BE COMPARED WHEN
USING THE CONCEPT OF SCALED RANGE:

1/ 3

8 =

SCALED RANGE.

R=

DISTANCE IN FEET OR METERS.

W=

EQUIVALENT TNT EXPLOSIVE WEIGHT, IN POUNDS

OR KG.
DAMAGE CAN BE RELATED TO SCALED RANGE.

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT FOR FRAMES

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT FOR SLABS

DAMAGE CRITERIA
ELEMENT
TYPE
Beams

MATERIAL
TYPE
Reinforced
Concrete
(>1/2%/face)

TYPE OF
FAILURE

CRITERIA

LIGHT
DAMAGE

MODERATE
DAMAGE

SEVERE
DAMAGE

Global
Bending/
Membrane
Response

Ratios of
Centerline
Deflection to
Span, /L

4%

8%

15%

Shear

Average Shear
Strain across
Section, v

1%

2%

3%

Bending/
Membrane

/L

5%

12%

25%

Shear

/L

2%

4%

8%

Bending/
Membrane

/L

4%

8%

15%

Shear

1%

2%

3%

Reinforced
Concrete
(>1/2%/face)

Compression

Shortening/
Height

1%

2%

4%

Steel

Compression

Shortening/
Height

2%

4%

8%

oad Bearing
Walls

Reinforced
Concrete
(>1/2%/face)

Compression

Shortening/
Height

1%

2%

4%

Shear Walls

Reinforced
Concrete
(>1/2%/face)

Shear

Average Shear
Strain Across
Section

1%

2%

3%

Steel

Slabs

Columns

Reinforced
Concrete
(>1/2%/face)

ADDITIONAL DAMAGE CRITERIA

DAMAGE VS. SUPPORT ROTATIONS

FOR BEAMS AND SLABS
SUPPORT ROTATION
(DEGREES)

DAMAGE

<2

LIGHT

2 TO 5

MODERATE

5 TO 12

SEVERE

OBSERVED STRUCTURAL DAMAGE

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
BACKRAOUND
DATA

SITE
CONDITIONS

EXPERT
ASSESSMENT

POSSIBLE
CAUSE

MEASUREMENTS

POSSIBLE
CAUSE

NUMERICAL
ANALYSIS

POSSIBLE
CAUSE

DETERMINE
CAUSE
POSSIBLE
EFFECTS

POSSIBLE
EFFECTS

POSSIBLE
EFFECTS

DETERMINE
EFFECT

ADVANCED DAMAGE ASSESSMENT

TO
A

EXPERT SYSTEM

INTELLIGENT INTERFACE

INVESTIGATOR

DESIGN
MANUALS
AND
SUPPORT TOOLS

SIGNAL ANALYSIS

NUMERIC FACILITIES
AND
COMPUTER CODES

TEST AND
OPERATIONS
DATA BASE

SENSOR
DATA

THE OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING

19 APRIL 1995
THE EXPLOSIVE CHARGE
WAS ESTIMATED BASED ON
CRATER DIMENSIONS.
~4000 lbs. TNT EQUIVALENT
PLACED ~14 ft. FROM THE
BUILDING, 4.5 ft. ABOVE
AN 18-in.-THICK PAVEMENT.
EXTENSIVE DAMAGE, FAR
EXCEEDING WHAT WAS
SHOWN IN TYPICAL NEWS
REPORTS.

THE OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING

BLAST LOADING ON COLUMN G24

DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF COLUMN G24 AT MIDHEIGHT

1.1

PRESSURE (PSI)

1200

LATERAL DEFLECTION (IN.)

1400

FRONT

1000
800
600
400

FAILURE

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

200
05

0.1

REAR
6

8
TIME (MS)

10

0.0

10

TIME (MS)

DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE BETWEEN THE FRON AND REAR OF

COLUMN G24 CAUSED ITS FAILURE 3.75 MILLISECONDS
AFTER THE BLAST ARRIVAL.

THE OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING

BLAST LOADING ON 5TH FLOOR SLAB
BETWEEN COLUMNS 20 AND 22
BOTTOM

PRESSURE (PSI)

PEAK DEFLECTION AT 284 MS (9.3 IN.)

10

140
120
100

12

TOP

80
60

DEFLECTION (IN.)

160

5TH FLOOR SLAB RESPONSE

BETWEEN COLUMNS 20 AND 22

SLAB FAILURE AT 183 MS (8.4 IN.)

40
2

20
0

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
TIME (MS)

100

200
TIME (MS)

DIFFERETIAL UPWARD PRESSURE ON 5TH FLOOR SLAB CAUSED

ITS FAILURE LONG AFTER THE BLAST LOADS DIMINISHED.

300

THE OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING

NUMERICALLY SIMULATED EFFECT OF RAPID COLUMN REMOVAL

ON BUILDING BEHAVIOR (Crawford, 1996)

KHOBAR TOWERS - SAUDI ARABIA

EXTENSIVE DAMAGE TO
PRECAST APARTMENT
BUILDING.
EXPLOSIVE CHARGE WAS
ESTIMATED BASED ON
CRATER DIMENSIONS,
GLASS BREAKAGE, AND
ADVANCED SIMULATIONS.

KHOBAR TOWERS - SAUDI ARABIA

KENYA AND TANZANIA, 1998

PETROCHEMICAL EXPLOSIONS

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

EXPLOSIVE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT IS DIFFICULT.
EXPERIENCE: EXPLOSION MECHANICS AND EFFECTS
STRUCTURAL MECHANICS AND DYNAMICS
COMPUTATIONAL MECHANICS.
USE DATA TO DERIVE POSSIBLE CAUSE-AND-EFFECT
RELATIONSHIPS, AND VALIDATE WITH NUMERICAL
SIMULATIONS.
ACTIVITIES COULD BE VERY TIME CONSUMING.
URGENT NEED TO DEVELOP INTELLIGENT EXPLOSION
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT TOOLS.