Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279904142
CITATIONS READS
2 42
1 author:
Hong Hao
Curtin University
485 PUBLICATIONS 5,605 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Hong Hao
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 22 November 2016
37
H Hao
School of Civil and Resource Engineering, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA
SUMMARY: Masonry walls are commonly used in both residential and office buildings as either
load-carrying structural components or partition walls. Failure of a load-carrying masonry wall to
terrorist bombing attack or accidental gas explosion could result in collapse of the structure. The
debris generated from the failed masonry wall will also impose great threats to the building occupants.
Therefore dynamic response and failure of masonry walls to blast loads must be evaluated for safety
assessment of building structures. In this study, a recently developed homogenised orthotropic
masonry material model with strain rate effect is used to model masonry material damage. The model
consists of a pressure-sensitive strength envelope, an equation of state and a double exponential
damage model. In addition, an innovative approach based on the combined facture mechanics and
continuum damage mechanics theory is used to estimate the masonry fragment size distributions.
The method estimates masonry wall fragmentation process in two steps to avoid eroding away the
masonry material. Numerical simulations of a 2.88 2.82 m masonry wall to blast loads generated
from TNT explosions of different weights and at different standoff distances are carried out. The
material strain rate effects on masonry wall dynamic responses are discussed. The numerically
predicted masonry fragment size distributions are also presented.
1 INTRODUCTION only limited test data are available and they are
not recommended to being extrapolated to model
Masonry is a common construction material. It the masonry wall behaviour under blast loadings
is often used to build load-carrying or non-load- because of many uncertainties involved in wall
carrying partition walls in residential and office structural design, material properties and explosion
buildings. Masonry wall damage to blast load may conditions, as compared to the testing conditions.
lead to collapse of building structures. The debris The analytical approach usually simplifies the
generated from the failing masonry wall also imposes masonry wall to a single degree-of-freedom (SDOF)
great hazards to building occupants. Many studies system and the wall behaviour under blast loading is
of masonry wall response and damage to blast predicted by analysing the dynamic responses of the
loads have been reported. In general there are three SDOF system (Moradi et al, 2009). Some computer
approaches, namely experimental, analytical and programs have been developed based on the SDOF
numerical. The most common and direct approach simplification to analyse wall responses (Slawson,
to study masonry wall damage is to collect field 1995). Many pressure-impulse (P-I) diagrams for
data and/or conduct laboratory and field blast wall panels were also generated by performing
tests to develop empirical relations of masonry wall SDOF analyses (Oswald & Skerhut, 1993; Jones,
damage and blast loading conditions (Davidson et 1989; Mayrhofer, 2002; Salim et al, 2005). It has been
al, 2004; 2005; Knock et al, 2004; Baylot et al, 2005; proven that analysing a properly derived equivalent
Zapata & Weggel, 2008). However, conducting field SDOF system can yield reasonable predictions of
and laboratory tests is often prohibitive because of the wall responses (Forsen, 1985). However, it is
their high cost and safety consideration. Usually still a research topic and a challenge to derive a
reliable resistance function and load-mass factor
* Paper S08-001 submitted 12/11/08; accepted for for simplifying the wall system to a SDOF system
publication after review and revision 15/04/09. (Luyten et al, 2007). This is because under high-
Published in AJSE Online 2009, pp. 37-52. speed loading, the wall damage may be caused by
Corresponding author Prof Hong Hao can be stress wave propagation in the wall, or primarily by
contacted at hao@civil.uwa.edu.au. shear failure mode or combined shear and flexural
failure mode. Moreover, a SDOF system is unable homogenised elastic moduli, strength and damage
to model local failure of the wall and cannot predict model of masonry through numerical simulations.
fragmentation process of the wall. Cluni & Gusella (2004) used a homogenisation
approach to analyse non-periodic masonry structures
With the increased computer power, finite element
and deduced the homogenised medium stiffness
model and numerical analysis of masonry wall
tensor. Zucchini & Lourenco (2004) developed an
responses to blast loads become possible. Dorn et
isotropic damage model for masonry based on a
al (2000) used an Eulerian finite difference code
micro-mechanical homogenisation model. Wu &
GRIM and DYNA3D to analyse the damage and
Hao (2006) derived a 3D homogenisation model for
collapse of a two-storey masonry structure subjected
masonry including orthotropic elastic properties, a
to an internal explosion. To reduce the required
damage evolution model and a pressure-sensitive
computational time and computer memory, in that
strength envelope.
study, the bricks were assumed to be rigid and only
mortar was subjected to failure. To further reduce All the above numerical studies, as well as the
the model size, mortar joints in the vertical direction homogenised masonry material models, are based on
of the wall were assumed to be continuous from static masonry material properties, ie. static strength
the bottom to the top of the wall. All the mortar and modulus of mortar and brick. This is because
joints were modelled with slideline elements with a of the lack of dynamic masonry material properties
prescribed failure criterion. To obtain stable results in the literature. Recently some dynamic tests were
and failure of bricks under blast loads, more slideline conducted at the University of Western Australia
elements were used than the actual mortar joints by (UWA) on clay brick and mortar materials (Hao &
dividing each brick into four blocks. Comparable Tarasov, 2008). The empirical relations of dynamic
numerical predictions of the wall failure patterns increase factor (DIF), which is defined as the ratio
with the field blast test results were observed. Dennis of the dynamic material property to the respective
et al (2002) and Eamon et al (2004) also used DYNA3D static material property at different strain rates, for
to model concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall to blast clay brick and mortar were derived from the testing
loads. Davidson et al (2005) used LS-DYNA to model results. Using these dynamic material properties,
polymer reinforced concrete masonry wall response. homogenised masonry material properties with
Moreland et al (2005) used LS-DYNA to model the strain rate effect have also been derived numerically
responses of a clay brick masonry wall strengthened (Wei & Hao, 2009). These homogenised masonry
with various fibre-reinforced polymers (FRPs) to material properties will be used in this study.
study the efficiency of FRP strengthening to resist
Debris generated from the damaged masonry
blast loads. Zhou et al (2006) used AUTODYN with
wall under blast loading imposes a great threat to
user-defined subroutines to define the detailed clay
occupants. There are in general four approaches,
brick and mortar properties to predict response and
namely experimental, theoretical, analytical and
damage of masonry wall to blast loads. All the above
numerical, to study the fragmentation process and
numerical simulations give reasonable predictions of
estimate the fragment size distribution and launching
masonry wall damage to blast loads. However, using
velocity. Gronsten et al (2006; 2007) conducted 28
detailed numerical modelling of the distinctive brick
field blast tests to study the debris distribution and
and mortar materials is extremely time consuming
launching velocity from concrete cubicles subjected
and requires enormous computer memory.
to an internal explosion. Wu et al (2008) tested a few
One approach to reduce the computational demand concrete slabs with or without carbon fibre-reinforced
is to use the homogenised masonry material model. polymer (CFRP) strengthening and conducted a
Pande et al (1989) derived the equivalent elastic statistical analysis of the test data to determine the
moduli for brick masonry from the elastic properties fragment size distributions. Because the inherent
of individual components. Pietruszczak & Niu (1992) structural conditions and surrounding environments,
assumed the masonry material as an orthotropic which greatly influence the blast wave propagation,
elastic-brittle material and derived the homogenised vary from structure to structure and are usually
mechanical properties of masonry. Anthoine (1995) different from the model structures tested in the
derived the global elastic coefficients of masonry field, these test results do not necessarily reflect the
through numerical method, taking into account the true phenomenon of the blast debris in an explosion
finite thickness of masonry. A homogenised model event. Some theoretical and analytical models have
for the limit analysis of masonry wall was presented been developed from the theory of continuum
by de Buhan & de Felice (1997). In the latter study, damage mechanics and/or fracture mechanics, and
the brick units were assumed as infinitely resistant energy and momentum balance principles (Grady,
and the joints were modelled as interfaces of zero 1988; Yew & Taylor, 1993; Liu & Katsabanis, 1997;
thickness with a frictional failure surface. Luciano Zhang et al, 2003). In these derivations, materials
& Sacco (1997) proposed a brittle damage model for are assumed as homogeneous and isotropic. They
old masonries, characterised by an elementary cell usually give reasonable predictions of the mean
composed by units, mortar and a finite number of fragment size, but not the fragment size distributions
fractures on the interfaces. Ma et al (2001) derived the and launching velocity. Numerical models have also
been reported to predict fragment size distributions mechanics of micro-crack development is used
and launching velocities. These include finite to simulate masonry wall fragmentation process
element model, finite element model with interface (Wang et al, 2009). The fragmentation is modelled
constraints, discrete element model, mesh-free according to the crack initiation and propagation,
model, lattice model, applied element method, which depend on the material damage levels and
generalised particle algorithm (GPA), and material are estimated using continuum damage mechanics.
point method (MPM). Hao et al (2008) conducted a A finite element model is used to estimate the
review of the various methods in predicting the blast material damage and fragment size distribution. This
fragmentation process and debris size distributions, method avoids using erosion technique and avoids
launching velocities and launching distances. discretising the structure into particles or predefined
Because the dynamic fragmentation process of weak sections, therefore overcomes the difficulties in
construction materials such as masonry and concrete the other numerical methods for reliable prediction
under blast loading is very complex, all these models of fragment sizes. The numerical results of masonry
have intrinsic difficulties for practical application to damage are comparable to some available empirical
reliably predict blast generated debris. criterion (USACE, 2006) and other studies (Zapata
Debris impacts may cause damage to structures & Weggel, 2008). The masonry wall fragment size
and injure occupants. Various criteria are available distributions are found to be better described by the
for human protection from debris impact. For generalised extreme value distribution, although
example, the US Armed Services Explosives Safety Weibull distribution also well represents those
Board gives the criteria for various human injury generated by blast loads of certain scaled distances.
levels in terms of the fragment mass and velocity
at impact (Ahlers, 1969). These criteria had been 2 HOMOGENISED MASONRY
widely accepted by US Department of Defence MATERIAL MODEL
(DoD) and the US Department of Energy (DoE) (US
DoE, 1981). In general, a fragment of larger mass Homogenised masonry material properties with
and higher impact velocity imposes a greater threat strain rate effect were derived numerically in a
to humans. According to these criteria, a fragment previous study (Wei & Hao, 2009). The numerical
of 0.02 kg with an impact velocity of 150 m/s has homogenisation process is to use numerical
a lethality probability of about 90%. For the same calculations to simulate physical tests. The
lethality probability, the impact velocity reduces to 15 homogenised masonry material properties were
m/s if the fragment mass is 2 kg. More recently, the obtained by analysing a representative volume
Integrated Security Committee (ISC, 2001), FEMA element (RVE) in detail with distinctive brick and
Premier for design of commercial buildings to mitigate mortar properties and strain rate effect. Responses
terrorist attacks (FEMA, 2003a) and FEMA Reference of the RVE under different stress states at different
manual to mitigate potential terrorist attacks against loading rates were numerically simulated. All the
buildings (FEMA, 2003b) use flying distance and possible stress states including uniaxial tension
height of glass fragments above the floor or ground and compression, biaxial and triaxial tension and
level to assess the protection levels of building compression, various combinations of tension and
structures from fragments impact. Other codes, such compression, tension or compression and shear
as the NATO Safety Principles for storage of military were considered. Non-linear material properties
ammunition and explosives (NATO, 2003), use debris of brick and mortar including post-failure region
density (number of debris/area) to estimate the in tension and compression were modelled in the
lethality probability. To use these criteria in assessing simulation with a double exponential damage model
the blast fragment threats to building occupants, it is (Mazars, 1986). The static material properties of
critical to have a reliable prediction of fragment size brick and mortar are listed in table 1, which were
(mass), velocity and flying distance. determined from the test data (Hao & Tarasov,
In this study, damage of a masonry wall to blast 2008), in which is Poissons ratio, st0 is the uniaxial
loads at different scaled distances (R/W1/3; R is the tensile strength, sc0 is the uniaxial compressive
stand-off distance of explosion centre, and W is the strength, sttt0 is the triaxial tensile strength, and
equivalent TNT charge weight), and the generated represents the corresponding strain. The triaxial
fragment size distributions are numerically simulated tensile strength is assumed to be about one-third
using the computer software AUTODYN with the of the uniaxial tensile strength because no triaxial
user-defined subroutines. The blast loads were tensile test data is available. The strain rate effects
estimated according to the charts given in TM5- on brick and mortar material properties, including
1300 (US DoD, 1990). Only the positive phase of strength, modulus and Poissons ratio obtained from
blast pressure is considered in the simulation. The impact tests (Hao & Tarasov 2008), were used in the
homogenised masonry properties with or without simulation. The brick size is 230 110 76 mm and
strain rate effect are used in the simulation (Wei the mortar thickness is 10 mm. The homogenised
& Hao, 2009). A two-step approach based on the masonry material properties were extracted from
theories of continuum damage mechanics and the numerical results. More detailed information on
the static and dynamic brick and mortar material The DIF for the uniaxial strength and elastic modulus
properties are given in Hao & Tarasov (2008), are given in equations (2) to (13), next page.
and the detailed descriptions on derivation of the
The tensile threshold strains that correspond to the
homogenised masonry material properties are given
in Wei & Hao (2009). These homogenised masonry ultimate stresses in the three directions at strain rate
material properties are used in the present paper to 0.001 s1 are, respectively, 2.10 104, 2.30 104 and
model the masonry materials as it has been proven 2.59 104. The equivalent threshold tensile strain
that using homogenised material properties in the at strain rate 0.001 s1 for the homogenised material,
simulation is computationally more efficient than (H xx
2
H yy
2
H zz2 )/ 3 , is 2.34 104. The DIF of the
equivalent threshold tensile strain, H t , is in equation
0
using the distinctive modelling of brick and mortar
materials (Wang et al, 2009). The following briefly (14).
introduces the numerically derived homogenised
masonry material properties. 1.0200 0.0067 log 10 H H d 8.75
DIF of H t0
Masonry is an orthotropic material. The compliance 0.7010 0.3454 log 10 H H ! 8.75
matrix can be expressed as: (14)
1 Q yx Q zx The strength envelope for the homogenised masonry
0 0 0
Ex Ey Ez material is derived and expressed in I1 J 2 plane,
1 Q zy as shown in figure 1. Because masonry is also likely
0 0 0
Ey Ez to fail under triaxial compression, a yield cap is
proposed. This strength envelope is divided into four
1
0 0 0 parts. The functional forms for these four parts are:
Ez
[C] [S]1
1
0 0 F1 = I1 T = 0 (15)
2Gxy
Fi D i I 1 J 2 ci 0 i 2, 3 (16)
1
Sym. 0
2Gyz F4 = (I1 p2)2 + R2J2 (p2 p3)2 = 0 (17)
1
2Gzx
where I1 and J2 are the first invariant of stress tensor
and the second invariant of deviatoric stress tensor.
(1) The function F1 indicates the tension cut-off zone,
where [C] is the compliance matrix and [S] is with T denoting the materials tension limit. The yield
the stiffness matrix. The elastic moduli of the surface Fi (i = 2,3) is Drucker-Prager functions. i and
equivalent material at strain rate H = 0.001 are ci are material constants. The cap yield surface F4 is an
Ex = 3.67 GPa, Ey = 3.92 GPa, Ez = 3.47 GPa; shear elliptical function, with R denoting the ratio of major
moduli Gxy=1.86GPa, Gyz = 1.58 GPa, Gxz = 1.50 GPa; to minor axis of elliptic cap and R = (p2 p3)/b2. The
and Poissons ratio yx = 0.16, zx = 0.15, zy = 0.15, constants p2, b2 and p3 determine the position of the cap
where y is the horizontal out-of-plane direction, x is surface. p2, b2 and p3 also increase with the strain rate.
the horizontal in-plane direction and z is the vertical
The yield surface F1 is determined under triaxial tensile
direction. These parameters under other strain rates
stress state. The hydro-tensile strength is assumed to
can be obtained by multiplying these values with
be one-third of the uniaxial tensile strength in the
the respective DIF.
z direction, ie. ttt = 1/3zt because the z direction
The DIF for the homogenised masonry material has the smallest tensile strength. Considering the
properties were derived in the strain rate region state of stress when I1 is equal to zt, this will lead to
of 0.001-200 s1 (Wei & Hao, 2009). The strain rate T = zt. The smallest tensile strength zt and compressive
0.001s1 is taken as the reference static strain rate. strength zc are used to evaluate the parameters for
The static uniaxial compression strengths are: F2 and F3. Considering the uniaxial tensile stress state
xc=9.0MPa, yc = 12.0 MPa and zc = 8.5 MPa. The
(I1 = zt, J 2 1/ 3V zt) and uniaxial compressive
uniaxial tensile strength of the homogenised masonry
is 10% of the corresponding compressive strength. stress state (p1 = I1 = zc, b1 J2 1/ 3V zc), it has:
w ^V ` w ^V `
Both Ni and Ai are related with the overstress time
duration, and the crack growth variable Ci can be
where [E]ep is the elastoplastic incremental matrix; F is defined as:
the yield function; M is the plastic potential function
t
that is identical to the yield function if an associated
flow rule is applied; H is the stiffness hardening
Ci (t) N i (W )Ai (t W )dW (27)
tcri
factor; and [E]D is the damaged elastic matrix, which
e
can be expressed as: where ticr is the duration needed for fracture to take
place in direction i. Let denote the time instant for
[E]De (1 D)[E]0 (24) the initiation of a crack, the crack growth depends on
the elapsed time, t , and the strain (t). Under blast
where [E]0 is the initial homogenised anisotropic loading condition, it is reasonable to assume fracture
elastic modulus matrix. D is the damage scalar, growth velocity quickly approaches to the limiting
defined as: crack propagation velocity cig after activation, then
the penny-shaped fracture region can be expressed as:
D 1 exp( E (H H 0t )/ H 0t ) (25)
Ai(t ) = cig2(t )2 (28)
in which H is the equivalent tensile strain of
masonry; and E is a damage parameter, it is set to According to many previous researches (eg.
0.5 based on a previous study (Ma et al, 2001). These Kanninen & Popelar, 1985), cig for brittle materials
masonry material models are programmed and can be expressed as:
linked to AUTODYN as its user-defined subroutines
in the study to calculate the masonry wall response c ig 0.38 Ei / U (29)
where and are material constants, and icr is the in which if = tif Si/2cig. With the average strain rate
dynamic threshold strain, and t is the time duration. Hi in equation (33), F(Si) becomes:
In equation (30), the angular bracket denotes a
SD Si2 E
function defined as x (|x| x )/ 2 . The increase F(Si ) Hi t if tcri Si /(2cgi ) (41)
rate of crack number N i is given by: 8c ig
N i D H i H cri
E wF(Si )
(31) When 0, F(Si) reaches its maximum value.
wSi
Substituting equations (28) and (31) into equation This gives the most probable fragment size Sim as:
(27) gives: 4c ig
Sim (t if tcri ) (42)
t
E E 2
Ci (t) DSc Hi H (t W ) dW
i2 i 2
g cr (32)
tcri
The final fragment size is approximately estimated
Considering cracks grow very fast in brittle materials, as the square root of the summation of squares of the
and assume an average strain rate Hi as: fragment size in every principal direction as:
t
L (Sim )2 (43)
H i (s)ds i 1 3
Hi tcri
(33)
t tcri The above formulae are used to estimate fragment
size distribution in this study. It should be noted that
Then equation (32) can be rewritten as: using this approach, erosion is not necessary in the
t calculation of fragment sizes. Erosion is a numerical
E
Ci (t) DSc gi 2Hi E W tcri (t W )2 dW (34) technique that is commonly used in finite element
tcri model as a remedial action to extend the Lagrange
formulation to highly distorted domain. Because
and the crack dimension can be estimated by: of the losses of internal energy and mass caused
by erosion, using erosion technique may result in
r = cig(t ) (35)
inaccurate prediction of fragment distributions. More
Substituting equation (35) into equation (32) gives detailed information regarding the blast fragment
another expression of crack growth variable as: prediction can be found in Wang et al (2009).
ccri ( t tcri )
Ci (t) 0 Zi (r , t)dr (36)
4 NUMERICAL RESULTS
SD r 2 E AND DISCUSSION
Zi ( r , t ) H i (W ) H cri (37)
c ig
The above models and homogenised material
properties are programmed and linked to AUTODYN
where = t r/cig, and i(r, t) is the crack size to calculate the masonry wall damage and fragment
distribution function in the i th direction. When
hazards subjected to blast loads. In numerical
the cracks are completely developed (Ci(t) = 1),
simulations, the material stress and strain at each
fragments form up. Let tif denote the instant when
time increment are calculated using the continuum
Ci(t) = 1, and assume the fragment size is twice of the
damage mechanics theory and damage model
corresponding crack length because crack propagates
presented in section 2. The fragment size is estimated
in opposite directions (Grady & Olsen, 2003), ie. the
using those described in section 3. The blast loads are
fragment size in the ith direction is Si = 2r, equation
estimated using TM5-1300 (US DoD, 1990). Only the
(36) becomes:
positive phase of the blast pressure is considered.
2 ccri ( t tcri ) 1 Si A masonry wall of 2.88 m width and 2.82 m height
Ci (t) 0 2
Zi ( , t)dSi
2
(38) is used as an example in this study. The wall is
assumed to consist of only one brick layer. The brick
The fragment size distribution function can be dimension is 230 110 76 mm, and the mortar
expressed as (Grady & Kipp, 1980): layer is 10 mm thick. Both bed and head joints are
considered having the same material properties. The cannot be reliably modelled if erosion technique is
boundary conditions between the masonry wall and used in the simulation. As shown, the wall clearly
surrounding frame are very complex. In structural suffers brittle shear failure without significant
analysis of reinforced masonry wall with dowels flexural deflections. This failure mode is expected for
extended into the surrounding frame, the boundary a wall subjected to a blast load of such a short scaled
conditions can be approximately modelled as fixed. distance. In general, when a structure is subjected to
For unreinforced masonry wall, the boundary a large amplitude and short duration load, it intends
conditions are usually assumed as pinned. In the to fail primarily by brittle shear mode. On the other
present study, because detailed material properties hand, a structure will most likely to fail by primarily
are considered in the analysis, all the four sides of the the flexural failure mode when the blast load has a
wall are modelled as fixed with a weak 10 mm mortar relatively small amplitude and long duration.
layer between the fixed boundary and the wall with
the homogenised material properties. This mortar Figure 3 shows the corresponding displacement
layer is used to represent the connections between and velocity time histories at the centre point of the
the masonry wall and the surrounding frame. wall. As shown, both the displacement and velocity
responses obtained with or without considering the
Because of the lack of the information on strain rate strain rate effect are very similar. This is because
effect on masonry material properties, most of the the wall is completely destroyed by the blast loads
previous numerical simulations of masonry wall in this case. As shown, at about 0.003 s, the velocity
response to blast loads neglected the strain rate effect. response becomes almost a constant, implying the
In this study, the strain rate effect on responses of wall loses its load-carrying capacity or collapses at
masonry wall to blast loads is investigated first by this time instant, and the velocity depends only on
conducting numerical simulations with or without the impulse of the blast loads and the mass of the
including the strain rate effect. Figure 2 shows the wall. At this instant, the displacement response is
damage contours of the wall obtained with or without about 110 mm, which is close to the thickness of the
considering the strain rate effect and subjected to masonry wall model, ie. 110 mm. The US Army Corps
the blast load of scaled distance approximately of Engineers recommends that the extreme deflection
1.0 m/kg 1/3 (TNT equivalent explosive weight of the infill wall is close to its thickness, which can
2000kg and standoff distance 13 m). The strain rate be used as a simple criterion to assess the collapse
of the masonry wall in this case is about 200 to 250s1. state of an unreinforced masonry wall under blast
As shown, the simulated damage contours for the load (USACE, 2006). Zapata & Weggel (2008) also
two cases are very similar, considering the strain found that the collapse deflection of the unreinforced
rate effect results in slightly less number of cracks
masonry wall under blast loading approximately
in the masonry wall. It should be noted that in this
equals to its thickness. The current simulation result
simulation erosion technique is used. Therefore the
is consistent with those criterion and observations.
damage occurs near the four boundaries of the wall,
which are assumed to be fixed with a weaker mortar Figure 4 shows the damage contours of the wall
layer, because the largest stresses build up near the subjected to the blast load of scaled distance
wall boundary very quickly. The centre portion of the approximately 3.0 m/kg 1/3 (TNT equivalent
wall flies out as a single piece after the damage of the explosive weight 2000 kg and standoff distance
wall near the boundary. This observation indicates 38m). The corresponding displacement and velocity
that the masonry wall fragment size distribution response time histories are shown in figure 5. Similar
(a) (b)
Figure 2: Damage contours of the masonry wall to blast load of scaled distance 1.0 m/kg1/3
(a) no strain rate effect, and (b) with strain rate effect.
(a) (b)
Figure 3: Displacement (a) and velocity (b) response time histories of the masonry
wall centre to blast load of scaled distance 1 m/kg1/3.
(a) (b)
Figure 4: Damage contours of the masonry wall to blast load of scaled distance 3 m/kg1/3
(a) no strain rate effect, and (b) with strain rate effect.
(a) (b)
Figure 5: Displacement (a) and velocity (b) response time histories of the masonry
wall centre to blast load of scaled distance 3 m/kg1/3.
observations can also be made as in the case of the strain rate, the masonry wall fails under this blast
scaled distance 1.0 m/kg1/3, ie. considering the strain load. The failure mode is still predominantly shear
rate effect results in less damage in the masonry failure. However, unlike the previous case with the
wall, although with or without considering the scaled distance 1.0 m/kg1/3, the flexural displacement
is very prominent in this case because the loading in more number of cracks (eroded areas) and more
amplitude is substantially smaller and duration intensive cracks in the masonry wall; and causes
longer as compared to the previous loading case. about 22% overestimation of the displacement
It should be noted that the strain rate in this case is response, and 30% overestimation of the velocity
approximately in the range between 16 and 40 s1. response, as compared to those obtained with strain
It can be seen again that when the displacement is rate effect. This observation indicates the importance
about 110 mm at about 0.015 s, the velocity becomes of considering the material strain rate effect. As
relatively a constant, indicating the collapse of the shown, unlike the previous two cases the response
wall. This collapse displacement is again consistent mode in this case is predominantly flexural and
with the empirical criterion (USACE, 2006) and therefore damage is mainly tensile cracks behind the
observations by Zapata & Weggel (2008). wall near the wall centre.
The damage contours, and displacement and velocity To further investigate the material strain rate effect on
response time histories of the wall subjected to the wall responses, the responses to the blast load of
the blast load of scaled distance 5 m/kg1/3 (TNT scaled distance 7 m/kg1/3 (TNT equivalent explosive
equivalent explosive weight 350 kg, standoff distance weight 200 kg and standoff distance 41m) are also
35 m) are shown in figures 6 and 7, respectively. As calculated and the results are shown in figures 8
shown, the wall suffers extensive damage, but does and 9. As shown, at this scaled distance, the wall
not collapse. At this scaled distance, the strain rate suffers minor damages only at its centre, but no
of masonry wall response is approximately between crack is observed. The influence of the strain rate
6 and 15 s1. Although the strain rate is relatively effect on wall responses reduces, although it is still
small as compared to the cases with smaller scaled obvious. This is because the wall response strain rate
distances, the strain rate effect on wall responses is at this scaled distance is rather small, only about 1.3
prominent. Neglecting the strain rate effect results to 2.0 s1. At this strain rate, the DIF is close to 1.0,
(a) (b)
Figure 6: Damage contours of the masonry wall to blast load of scaled distance 5 m/kg1/3
(a) no strain rate effect, and (b) with strain rate effect.
(a) (b)
Figure 7: Displacement (a) and velocity (b) response time histories of the masonry
wall centre to blast load of scaled distance 5 m/kg1/3.
(a) (b)
Figure 8: Damage contours of the masonry wall to blast load of scaled distance 7 m/kg1/3
(a) no strain rate effect, and (b) with strain rate effect.
(a) (b)
Figure 9: Displacement (a) and velocity (b) response time histories of the masonry
wall centre to blast load of scaled distance 7 m/kg1/3.
therefore the strain rate effect is not prominent. It and the equivalent TNT explosive weight of 200 to
should be noted that this strain rate is comparable 2000 kg.
to that of a structure under earthquake loadings.
Erosion technique is commonly used in continuum
Under this strain rate the structure response mode is
finite element modelling to delete elements with large
predominantly flexural, as clearly shown in figure 8.
deformation to avoid computation overflow due to
The above observations indicate the importance of element tangling. It is a computational manipulation
material strain rate effect on masonry wall responses that violates the physical laws of conservation of
to blast loads. At small scaled distances, the blast load energy and conversation of mass. Therefore, erosion
is very large as compared to the masonry material should be avoided in numerical simulations whenever
strength. The wall will be completely destroyed possible. Usually, a large strain or stress is used as
immediately by brittle shear failure irrespective of the erosion criterion. When the strain or stress of
the inclusion of the material strain rate effect. In such the element is larger than the erosion criterion, the
cases, it is not important to include the material strain element is deleted in the finite element model. Many
rate effect in numerical calculations. On the other researchers have used erosion technique in numerical
hand, when the scaled distance is relatively large, the simulation of structure damage to blast loads. It is
response strain rate becomes small, then the strain concluded that with a proper erosion criterion, the
rate effect is not significant either. The strain rate structure damage can be reliably simulated. However,
effect is critical in numerical simulation when the as observed above, using the erosion technique
scaled distance is about 5 m/kg1/3, where the wall is cannot give a reasonable prediction of the fragment
at a stage of collapse or non-collapse. Neglecting the size distributions. In this paper, fracture mechanics
material strain rate may substantially overestimate theory is used to model the fragmentation process, as
the wall damage. It should be noted that these results described in section 3. This approach avoids deleting
are based on the standoff distance from 13 to 41 m any element because for brittle materials like masonry
crack initiates and propagates before the element 1000 kg TNT equivalent, but the standoff distance
experiences large deformation. varies from 5 to 40 m. Figure 10 shows the fragments
The fragments of the same masonry wall under blast (cracks) pattern of the wall under blast loads of
loads of different scaled distances are simulated. It different scaled distances. As shown, the smaller the
should be noted that, unlike the previous cases, in scaled distance, the smaller the dominant fragment
these simulations the explosive weight is fixed at size. This is because the blast load acts very fast with
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
(g) (h)
Figure 10: Fragment (cracks) distribution of the masonry wall under blast loads of different
scaled distances (explosive weight 1000 kg TNT equivalent) (a) 0.5 m/kg1/3,
(b) 1.0 m/kg1/3, (c) 1.5 m/kg1/3, (d) 2.0 m/kg1/3, (e) 2.5 m/kg1/3, (f) 3.0 m/kg1/3,
(g) 3.5 m/kg1/3, and (h) 4.0 m/kg1/3.
PVk
V
the scaled distance and then the dominant fragment k
size increases. These observations are consistent with P=-0.001404+0.02724z
0.2 V=0.0003796+0.01015z
results in many previous studies. k=0.4209+0.9561z-1.84z 2+1.182z 3-0.3158z 4+0.02995z 5
may yield unreasonable predictions of masonry wall Dorn, M., Nash, M., Anderson, G. & Anderson,
fragment distribution. The fragmentation process G. 2000, Computer prediction of the damage to
and fragment distributions can be estimated using and collapse of complex masonry structures from
the fracture mechanics approach, which avoids explosions, Structures Under Shock and Impact VI,
eroding any element. Numerical simulation results WIT press, pp. 277-286.
indicate that Weibull distribution represents well the
fragment size distributions when the blast scaled Eamon, C. D., Baylot, J. T. & ODaniel, J. L. 2004,
distance is small. However, the generalised extreme Modelling concrete masonry walls subjected to
value distribution gives a better representation of explosive loads, Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
the fragment size distributions over the entire scaled ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 9, pp. 1098-1106.
distance range considered in this study. The best
fitted parameters for the fragment size distribution FEMA, 2003a, Premier for design of commercial buildings
function corresponding to the different scaled to mitigate terrorist attacks.
distances are also derived and presented.
FEMA, 2003b, Reference manual to mitigate potential
terrorist attacks against buildings.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Forsen, R. 1985, Airblast loading of wall panels,
The author wishes to acknowledge the financial FOA Rep No. C20586-D6, National Defence Research
support from ARC under grant No. DP0774061. Institute, Sweden.
Ahlers, E. B. 1969, Fragment hazard study, Minutes Grady, D. E. & Kipp, M. E. 1985, Geometric statistics
of the Eleventh Explosive Safety Seminar, Vol. 1, Armed and dynamic fragmentation, J. Appl. Physics, Vol.
Services Explosives Safety Board, Washington, DC. 58, pp. 1210-1222.
Anthoine, A. 1995, Derivation of the in-plane elastic Grady, D. E. & Olsen, M. L. 2003, A statistics and
characteristics of masonry through homogenisation energy based theory of dynamic fragmentation, Int
theory, International Journal of Solids and Structures, J Impact Engng, Vol. 29, pp. 293-306.
Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 137-163.
Gronsten, G. A., Forsen, R., Oiom, H. & Langberg, H.
Baylot, J. T., Bullock, B., Slawson, T. R. & Woodson, S. 2006, Debris throw from overloaded concrete storage
C. 2005, Blast response of lightly attached concrete magazines, 32nd DDESB Explosive Safety Seminar.
masonry unit walls, Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 31, No. 8, pp. 1186-1193. Gronsten, G. A., Forsen, R. & Berglund, R. 2007,
Debris launch velocity from overloaded concrete
Cluni, F. & Gusella, V. 2004, Homogenisation of non- cubicles, Int. Sym. Interaction Munition with
periodic masonry structures, International Journal of Structures, September, Florida.
Solids and Structures, Vol. 41, pp. 1911-1923.
Hao, H. & Tarasov, B. G. 2008, Experimental study
Davidson, J. S., Porter, J. R., Dinan, R. J., Hammons, of dynamic material properties of clay brick and
M. I. & Connell, J. D. 2004, Explosive testing mortar at different strain rates, Australian Journal of
of polymer retrofit masonry walls, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 2.
Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, Vol. 18,
No. 2, pp. 100-106. Hao, H., Li, Z. X., Zhou, X. Q. & Wang, M. 2008,
Blast fragments prediction Current approaches
Davidson, J. S., Fisher, J. W., Hammons, M. I., Porter, and challenges, Keynote paper, Proceedings of the
J. R. & Dinan, R. J. 2005, Failure mechanism of 10th International Symposium on Structural Engineering
polymer-reinforced concrete masonry walls subjected for Young Experts, 19-21 October, Changsha, China.
to blast, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 131, No. 8, pp. 1194-1205. Interagency Security Committee (ISC), 2001, ISC
security criteria for new federal office buildings and major
de Buhan, P. & de Felice, G. 1997, A homogenisation modernization projects.
approach to ultimate strength of brick masonry,
Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 45, No. Jones, P. A. S. 1989, WAC, an analysis program
7, pp. 1085-1104. for dynamic loadings on masonry and reinforced
concrete walls, MS Thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Dennis, S. T., Baylot, J. T. & Woodson, S. C. 2002, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, USA.
Response of scale concrete masonry unit (CMU)
walls to blast, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Kanninen, M. F. & Popelar, C. H. 1985, Advanced Fracture
ASCE, Vol. 128, No. 2, pp. 134-142. Mechanics, Oxford University Press, New York.
Knock, C., Horsfall, I., Champion, S. M. & Harrod, systems under blast loading, Journal of Structural
I. C. 2004, The bounce and roll of masonry debris, Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 131, No. 8, pp. 1216-1225.
International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 30,
pp. 1-16. Slawson, T. R. 1995, Wall response to airblast loads:
The wall analysis code (WAC), ARA-TR-95-5208, US
Liu, L.-Q. & Katsabanis, P. D. 1997, Development of Army ERDC, Vicksburg, Miss.
a continuum damage model for blasting analysis,
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr, Vol. 34, No. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2006, SBEDS
2, pp. 217-231. user guide, PDC TR 06-01, Washington, DC.
Luciano, R. & Sacco, E. 1997, Homogenisation US Department of Defense (US DoD), 1990, TM5-
technique and damage model for old masonry 1300, Explosive Safety Board, USA.
material, International Journal of Solids and Structures,
Vol. 34, No. 24, pp. 3191-3208. US Department of Energy (US DoE), 1981, A manual for
the prediction of blast and fragment loadings on structures,
Luyten, J. M., Weerhejjm, A. & van Doormaal, J. 2007, Albuquerque Operations Office, Amarillo, Texas, USA.
Resistance of a blast loaded prestressed masonry
walls, Proceedings, International Symposium on Wang, M., Hao, H., Ding, Y. & Li, Z.-X. 2009,
Interaction of the effect of Munitions with Structures, Prediction of fragment size and ejection distance of
September, Florida. masonry wall under blast loading using homogenised
masonry material properties, International Journal of
Ma, G. W., Hao, H. & Lu, Y. 2001, Homogenisation Impact Engineering, Vol. 36, pp. 808-820.
of masonry using numerical simulations, Journal
of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 127, No. 5, pp. Wei, X. Y. & Hao, H. 2009, Numerical derivation of
421-431. homogenised dynamic masonry material properties
with strain rate effect, International Journal of Impact
Mazars, J. 1986, A description of micro- and Engineering, Vol. 36, pp. 522-536.
macroscale damage of concrete structures, J Eng
Fract Mech, Vol. 25, pp. 729-737. Wu, C. Q. & Hao, H. 2006, Derivation of 3D
masonry properties using numerical homogenization
Mayrhofer, C. 2002, Reinforced masonry walls technique, International Journal of Numerical Methods
under blast loading, Journal of Mechanical Sciences, in Engineering, Vol. 66, pp. 1717-1737.
Vol. 44, pp. 1067-1080.
Wu, C. Q., Nurwidayati, R. & Oehlers, D. J. 2007,
Moradi, L. C., Davidson, J. S. & Dinan, R. J. 2009, Statistical analysis of fragment size distribution
Response of bonded membrane retrofit concrete from spallation of RC slabs under airblast loads,
masonry walls to dynamic pressure, Journal of Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Shock and
Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, pp. 72-80. Impact Loads on Structures, 17-19 October, Beijing,
Moreland, C., Hao, H. & Wu, C. Q. 2005, Response China, pp. 655-660.
of retrofitted masonry walls to blast loading,
Yew, C. H. & Taylor, P. A. 1994, A thermodynamic
Proceedings of the 6th Asia-Pacific Conference on Shock
theory of dynamic fragmentation, Int J Impact Eng,
and Impact Loads on Structures, Perth, Western
Vol. 15, pp. 385-394.
Australia, 7-9 December, pp. 405-412.
Zapata, B. J. & Weggel, D. C. 2008, Collapse study
NATO, 2003, Manual of NATO safety principles
of an unreinforced masonry bearing wall building
for storage of military ammunition and explosives
subjected to internal blast loading, Journal of
AASTP-1, NATO AC258.
Performance of Constructed Facility, ASCE, Vol. 22,
Oswald, C. J. & Skerhut, D. 1993, FACDDAP theory No. 2, pp. 92-100.
manual, US Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha
District, Neb, USA. Zhang, Y.-Q., Hao, H. & Lu, Y. 2003, Anisotropic
dynamic damage and fragmentation of rock
Pande, G. N., Liang, J. X. & Middleton, J. 1989, materials under explosive loading, Int J Engng Sci,
Equivalent elastic moduli for brick masonry, Vol. 41, No. 9, pp. 917-929.
Computers and Geotechniques, Vol. 8, pp. 243-265.
Zhou, X. Q., Hao, H. & Deeks, A. J. 2006, Numerical
Pietruszczak, S. & Niu, X. 1992, A mathematical modeling of response and damage of masonry walls
description of macroscopic behaviour of brick to blast loading, Transactions of Tianjin University,
masonry, International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 12 (suppl.), pp. 132-137.
Vol. 29, No. 5, pp. 531-546.
Zucchini, A. & Lourenco, P. B. 2004, A coupled
Salim, H., Dinan, R. & Townsend, P. T. 2005, Analysis homogenisation-damage model for masonry cracking,
and experimental evaluation of in-fill steel-stud wall Computers and Structures, Vol. 82, pp. 917-929.
HONG HAO