BLAST RESISTANT DESIGN OF OFFSHORE LIVING QUARTERS

Sirous F. Yasseri, Jake Prager and David S Williams: KBR

AUTHORS BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

Sirous F. Yasseri is a senior consultant with KBR. He is currently involved in reliability and risk-
based design of petrochemical and offshore installations for normal and abnormal loads. He is
involved in research and design against accidental load such as seismic, collision, blast and fire. These
works culminated in more than 50 technical publications.

Jake Prager is a project manger with KBR. He is currently involved in managing the design of fixed
offshore installations.

David S Williams is a safety lead with KBR. He is currently involved in the safety assessment of
both offshore and onshore installations. His special interest is design against accidental loads such as
seismic, collision, blast and fire.

Abstract
Offshore Living Quarters (LQ) are typically designated to be or to contain the Temporary Refuge
(TR), including the installation’s Central Control Room (CCR) and as such are required to withstand
both direct and indirect effects of explosion. Living quarters are generally located as far as practicable
from areas where significant explosion hazards exist. However, there is a possibility of living quarters
being exposed to some residual effects of blast overpressure from an event originating elsewhere on
the installation. This paper provides guidance on the calculation method used for distribution of
external blast overpressure on the living quarters. It also gives advice on the application of non-linear
finite element analysis methods. But the emphasis of this paper is on the aspects of a manual method,
which can be used with or without the design software.

1. Introduction
The Living Quarters (LQ) of offshore installations are typically designated in part or in whole as the
Temporary Refuge (TR) and may be required to withstand some level of external, or free field blast
loading caused by an explosion event elsewhere on the installation. In principle, LQs are located away
from the hazardous areas, consequently the blast loading, in general, should not be substantial.
However, owing to the modern lightweight design of such structures that is gaining popularity,
provision of adequate blast resistance becomes a difficult and possibly a critical part of the design
process.

The LQ can be idealised as a cube, where it is assumed one of its sides, faces toward the explosion. It
is further assumed that the LQ is a rigid structure and also rigidly fixed to its foundation. The side
facing towards the explosion is normal to the direction of propagation of the blast wave. When the
blast wave strikes the front of the LQ, reflection occurs producing pressure, which may be two or
more times greater than the incident wave (see Section 3). The blast wave then bends (or diffracts)
around the LQ exerting pressure on the sides and top, and finally on its back face. The pressure on the
sides and top of the LQ build up when the blast front arrives at the point in question. This is followed
with a short period of low pressure caused by a vortex formed at the front edge during the diffraction
process and which travels along or near the surface behind the wave front. When the blast wave
reaches the rear of the LQ, it diffracts around the edges, and travels down the back face. Loading on
the LQ during this process is a function of position as well as time. The blast wave attenuates as it
propagates outward from the explosion epicentre. Consequently, the value of peak overpressure and
impulse decreases with distance, while the duration tends to increase.

6.1
2. The basic parameters
It is assumed that the distance to the explosion and the length of the LQ are such that the overpressure
and duration do not change significantly over the length of the LQ. This is a conservative assumption
for the present case. It is further assumed that there is no glass breakage, so the possibility of
developing overpressure inside the structure can be ignored. The main dimensions of the LQ are noted
in Figure 1. The relative position of the example LQ is such that the long face is facing the oncoming
blast wave.
Rear Pressure
Wall

Side
Wall
Height P so
H=15.4 m

P0
Blast
Width td Time
Length L=53.55 m B=11.2m

Figure1 Main dimensions and LQ Figure 2 Incident free field explosion

position with respect to incident blast overpressure time-history
wave.

The principal parameters of the blast wave required to define the blast loading on an LQ module are:

 Peak side-on positive pressure, Pso , positive phase duration, t d , and the corresponding positive
impulse. This is shown in Figure 2.
 Peak side-on negative pressure (suction), negative phase duration and the associated negative
impulse are negligible.

The negative phase peak side-on pressure is assumed to be zero. The parameters of the positive peak
side-on pressures are as follows (see Figure 2):
Pso  30 KPa , with assumed duration t d  0.18 sec. , and P0 = Atmospheric pressure.
This blast load is assumed to act normal to the long side of the LQ. These calculations should be
repeated for cases when blast wave is normal to the shorter side and when it is normal to the bottom.

3. The Nature of External Blast on Structures

Figure 3 shows three extreme cases of the relative size of the incident blast wave and the obstruction
in its path. In case A the blast wave strikes a large surface, without impediment and the load on this
surface is then equal to the overpressure of the incident wave. In case B the blast wave collides
perpendicularly with a surface of very large dimension, so that the low pressure wave around the
edges (the rarefaction wave) does not play any role. In this case the load on the surface is equal to the
overpressure in the reflected blast wave. In case C we are dealing with an object with small
dimensions. The rarefaction then progresses so quickly that it does not have to be considered.
Furthermore the difference between the pressure on the front and on the back part is so small that the
load only consists of the dynamic pressure.

The Living Quarters, which are generally rectangular in shape, are a combination of the first two
cases. Furthermore, existences of other obstacles complicate the matter. A major assumption is the
size of the blast wave, which is assumed to be comparable with the LQ size. Thus, when the blast
wave reaches the front surface, it engulfs the LQ. Strictly speaking loads on the LQ are both position
and time dependent. But the speed of the blast wave is quite high in comparison with the LQ

6.2
dimension, so that the time lag of loads between faces can be neglected. For the same reason the
variation of load on any surface can also be ignored.

In order to simplify the blast resistant design process, the blast wave profile (figure 4) is idealised. As
shown in Figure 4, the original blast wave is represented by its equivalent shock wave with the same
peak overpressure and impulse.
Pressure Equivalent shock
loading

P so
Blast
loading

A B C td Time

Figure 3 Extreme Load Conditions Figure 4 Idealiazed equivalent shock load

In this work it is further assumed that the LQ is completely enclosed. However, any opening would
cause the inside pressure to rise and thus partially compensate the external pressure. There is no
opening in the front wall, the blast cannot traverse the structure, and thus the back wall will not
experience the reflected pressure loading.

The total loading on the accommodation consists of three main parts:

1. The initial reflected overpressure
2. The general overpressure
3. The drag loading.

The drag loading includes the effects of the drag pressure that is related to the dynamic pressure and
the drag coefficient. The drag coefficient can be either positive or negative and is dependent on the
size, shape, and the orientation of the structure [Ref. 1 and 2].

When the blast wave meets a surface or an obstacle, then such blast wave is locally disturbed. Due to
this disturbance, the loading on the obstacle is not equal to the time-pressure path of the undisturbed
blast. Behaviour of a shock wave upon striking a closed rectangular structure is shown in Figure 5a to
c. This figure shows the position of the shock front and the behaviour of the reflected and diffracted
wave over the centre portion of the structure. As the shock wave strikes the front face of the building,
a reflected shock wave is formed, and the overpressure on this face is raised to a value in excess of the
peak overpressure in the incident shock wave. This increased overpressure is called the incident shock
front and is a function of the peak overpressure in the incident shock front. The angle of incidence of
the shock front with the front wall is zero degrees in this case. At the instant the reflected shock front
is formed, the lower overpressure existing in the incident blast wave and adjacent to the top edge of
the front face initiates a wave of lower overpressure than that which exists in the reflected shock wave
(This is known as rarefaction wave, Figure 5b). This rarefaction wave travels with speed of sound in
the reflected shock wave towards the bottom of the front face. Within a short time, called the clearing
time, the rarefaction wave causes the reflected shock wave to disintegrate and reduce the overpressure
existing on the front face to a value which is in equilibrium with the high velocity air stream
associated with the incident wave.
At some time after the shock wave strikes the front wall of the structure, a time equal to the length of
the structure divided by the shock front velocity [Refs. 4 and 5], the shock front reaches the rear edge
of the structure and starts spilling down toward the bottom of the back wall (Figure 5c). The back wall
begins to experience increased pressures as soon as the shock front has passed beyond it. The

6.3
 maximum back-wall overpressure develops slowly as a result of vortex shedding and the time
required for the back wall to be enveloped by the blast wave. As the shock front passes beyond the
front wall the overpressure exerted on the roof of the structure is initially raised to a value nearly
equal to the overpressure existing in the incident shock wave.

Vortex
Blast wave front Blast wave front
Blast wave front
Rarefaction
wave
Reflected
shock front

Figure 5a Blast wave Figure 5c Blast wave

Figure 5(b) Blast wave
approaching a cube rigidly Moving down rear of the
Moving over sides and top
attached to its foundation cube
of the cube

Reflected Pressure
Vortices

Side
Elevation
Plan

Figure 6 Diffraction of blast wave round the

LQ

t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 Time

If a horizontal section through the structure is examined, it is evident that the effect of these
phenomena on the roof of the structure is similar to that which the sidewalls experience (Figure 6).

4. Blast wave Parameters for Blast Loading

In addition to peak overpressure and impulse, other blast wave parameters that are necessary for the
determination of the blast loads on the accommodation include [Ref. 4]:
 Peak reflected pressure, Pr
 Peak dynamic blast wind pressure, q 0
 Shock front velocity, U
 Blast wave length, Lw
These items are discussed individually.

4.1 Shock Front Velocity, U

In the free field, the blast wave from an explosion travels at or above the acoustic speed for the
propagating medium. Within the typical pressure range, and for normal atmospheric conditions, the
shock/pressure front velocity in air can be approximated using the following relationship (See Ref. 3):

 3451  0.0083 30.0  386m / sec

0 .5
U  345 1  0.0083P so 
0.5

6.4
4.2 Blast wave Length, Lw
The propagating blast wave at any time extends over a limited radial distance as the shock/pressure
front travels outward from the explosion. The pressure is largest at the front and tails off at a point
over a distance Lw , blast wavelength. Values of Lw for low pressure range can be approximated by:
Lw  Ut d  386  0.18  69m

4.3 Dynamic (Blast Wind) Pressure q 0

This blast effect is due to air movement as the blast wave propagates through the atmosphere. The
velocity of the air particles, and hence the wind pressure, depends on the peak overpressure of the
blast wave. In the lower overpressure range with normal atmospheric condition, the peak dynamic
pressure can be calculated using the following empirical formula [Ref. 2}. For this example:
q  0.0032 P 2 ( P in kPa)
0 s0 so  0.0032  30.0  2.88 kPa
2

The net dynamic pressure on a structure is the product of the dynamic pressure and the drag
coefficient, C d . The drag coefficient depends on the shape and orientation of the obstructing surface.
For a rectangular building, the drag coefficient may be taken =1.0 for the front wall, and –0.4 for the
side and rear walls, and the roof [Ref. 2].

The dynamic pressure exerts the dominant blast effect on open frame structures, framed structures
with frangible cladding, and on small structures or components, such as masts, poles, etc. This
statement is not relevant to the LQ, which is a closed box, but any critical attachment should be
designed for the dynamic pressure.

4.4 Peak Reflected Pressure, Pr

When the free field blast wave from an explosion strikes a surface, it is reflected. The effect of this
blast wave reflection is that the surface will experience a pressure much more than the incident side-
on wave value. The magnitude of the reflected pressure is usually determined as an amplifying ratio
of the incident pressure:
Pr  C r Pso , where C r = reflection coefficient.
The reflection coefficient depends on the peak overpressure, the incident angle of the wave front to
the reflecting surface, and on the type of blast wave, See References 1, 2 and 4 for the reflection
coefficient for shock waves and pressure waves, for various incidence angles.

There is a simple expression for peak overpressure up to 140kPa, the expected range for most
accidental vapour cloud explosions for the blast wave reflection coefficient at normal conditions [Ref.
4]:

C r  Pr Pso   2  0.0073Ps 0  , ( Pso in kPa)

Pr  C r Pso   2  0.0073Ps 0  Pso   2  0.0073 30.0    30.0  66.6kPa
The duration of the reflected pressure depends on the dimension of the reflecting surface, up to a
maximum time approximately equal to the positive phase duration of the incident blast wave. This
upper limit corresponds to the total reflection of the entire blast wave without any diffraction around
the edges of the reflecting surface. See References 1 to 4 for further details.

5. DETAILS OF BLAST LOADING ON THE LQ

5.1 Front Wall Loading
The walls facing the explosion source will experience a reflected overpressure, Figure 5a. The
reflected overpressure depends on the incidence angle and the rise-time of the side-on overpressure.
For design purposes, the normal shock reflected condition should be assumed unless the specified
design explosion scenario dictates otherwise.

6.5
The reflected overpressure decays to the stagnation pressure, Ps , in the clearing time, t c as defined
below and illustrated in Figure 7.
Ps  Pso  C d q 0 , tc  3S / U  td Pressur
where,
S= clearing distance, smaller of H, or B/2
P
r
e
Equivalent
Clearing distance, Loading
S= minimum of H=15.4 m, and B/2=27.3.
s P
Thus, S=15.4 m
Reflected overpressure clearing time, Time
tc  3S / U  t d  3(15.4 / 386 m/sec)
 0.12 sec  0.18 sec tc te t d
Drag coefficient C d  1.0 [Ref. 2]
Figure 7: Schematic representation of the
Stagnation pressure,
time-history diagram for a reflective surface
Ps  Pso  C d q 0 
(30.0 kPa )  (1.0)( 2.88 kPa)  32.9 kPa

In order to use the dynamic response charts based on a triangular shaped load, the bilinear pressure-
time shown in Figure 7 can be simplified to an equivalent triangle. This equivalent load is computed
by equating the impulse for each load shape and using the same peak pressure Pr . The impulse, I w
, under the bilinear pressure-time curve is:
I w  0.5( Pr  Ps )t c  0.5Ps t d
 0.5( 66.6  32.9 )  0.12  0.5  32.9  0.18  4.983 kPa  sec
The effective duration, t e of the equivalent triangle is determined from the following equation:
te  2 I w / Pr  2  4.983 / 66.6  0.15sec
The front wall load is shown in Figure 8:
Average side and
Pressure roof overpressure
66.6
kPa P 
a 24.34 kPa

Time
Time LW
 0.04 t d  LW U  0.22 Sec
0.15 Sec U
Figure 9: Average side and roof
Figure 8 Front Wall’s Pressure pressure versus time
Time-history
5.2 Side Walls Loading
Sidewalls are defined relative to the explosion source. These walls will experience less blast loading
than the front wall, due to lack of overpressure reflection and attenuation of the blast wave with
distance from the explosion source.

As a blast wave travels along the length of a structural element, the peak side-on overpressure will not
be applied uniformly. It varies with both time and distance. A reduction factor C e is used to account
for this effect in design. Values of C e (Figure10) are dependent on the length of the structural
element, in the direction of travelling blast wave. The sidewall is spanning from the foundation to the
roof. The front wall sees the highest load, the side wall load calculation is only necessary to check the
side walls themselves to account for interaction of in-plane and out of plane forces.
The equation for sidewalls is:

6.6
Pa  Effective Side - on Overpressure  Ce Pso  Cd q0
Drag coefficient C d  0.4 [Ref. 2]

Equivalent load coefficient,

LW / L1  69 15.4  4.5
For the average overpressure over the entire side wall
This gives a reduction factor C e  0.85 (Figure10)
Equivalent peak overpressure,
Pa  C e Pso  C d q0  (0.85)( 30)  ( 0.4)( 2.88)  24.34 kPa
The side wall load has a rise time equal to the time it takes for the blast wave to travel across the
component under consideration, Figure 11. The overall duration is equal to this rise time plus the
duration of the free field side-on overpressure.
Effective duration,
te  L / U  15.4 386  0.04sec
tc  td  0.04  0.18  0.22 Sec
Pressure
16.85
kPa
0.319 Sec

0.139 0.18 Time

Sec Sec

Figure 11: Roof Pressure Time-history

Figure 10 Effective overpressure values [Ref. 4]

The above calculations give the average pressure on the sidewalls. If we require local pressure, then
we need to use one metre wide plate strip, which gives C e  1.0 , and the rise time becomes very
small.

5.3 Roof Loading

For the LQ that has a flat roof, one can assume that the reflection does not occur when the blast wave
travels horizontally. Consequently, the roof will experience the side-on overpressure combined with
the dynamic wind pressure, the same as the sidewalls. The dynamic wind force on the roof acts
upward which is the opposite direction to the overpressure. The blast load varies as it travels over the
roof and is a function of distance and time.

Loads on the roof and the bottom of the LQ are the same and their calculation is similar to the
sidewalls.
If an average pressure over the entire roof were needed, the value of L1 would be the length of the
LQ.
Again the equivalent load coefficient,
LW / L1  69 53.55  1.3
This gives a reduction factor Ce  0.6 . Then, the equivalent peak overpressure,
Pa  Ce Pso  Cd q0  (0.6)(30)  ( 0.4)( 2.88)  16.85 kPa
Effective duration,

6.7
t e  L / U  53.55 386  0.139
Duration t c  t d  0.139  0.18  0.319 Sec
The time variation of the blast load on the roof is shown in Figure 11. It can be seen that the blast
loads on the roof and sidewalls are the same.

The roof is a plate spanning between roof beams. For the local pressure on the roof, take a section of 1
metre wide and 2.8 m (=11.2/4) long. This would increase the C e value to one and reduce the rise
time. If the roof were spanning in the opposite direction, the value of L1 would be one metre.

5.4 Rear Wall Loading

Rear wall load is conservatively ignored, as it is in the opposite direction to the front wall. It is only
used to determine the net overall loading.

The shape of the rear wall loading is similar to that for the side wall and roof loads. The rear wall
loading lags that of the front wall by L U , the time for the blast wave to travel the length, L , of
the LQ.
The rear wall is proportioned in the same way as the front wall and sidewalls.
The net loading on the rear wall should be calculated. Pressure
The drag coefficient C d  0.4 [Ref. 2]
Equivalent load coefficient 16.85
LW / S  69 / 15.4  4.5 . kPa 0.22 Sec.

This gives a reduction factor C e  0.85 (Fig. 10)

Pa  C e Pso  C d q 0  0.0 4
(0.85)(30)  ( 0.4)( 2.88)  24.3kPa Sec 0.18 Sec Time
Time of arrival,
t a  L / U  (11.2 / 386)  0.029 Sec Figure 12: Rear Wall Pressure Time-
0.222 Sec
Rise time history
t r  S / U  (15.4 / 386)  0.040 Sec Pressure
Duration: t d  0.18 Sec
Total positive phase duration:
t r  t d  0.040  0.18  0.22Sec .
P r
Front Wall
loading Loading

Figure 12 shows the time variation P s

tc
on Back
Wall
of blast loading on the rear wall.
24.3kPa
0.22 Sec
The net effective blast loading on the
accommodation is shown in Figure 13.
Such load may be used to size the connection Time
between the accommodation and the topside. 0.029
Sec
0.040
Sec
td
Figure 13: Net Lateral Loads on the LQ
6. NEGATIVE PRESSURE AND REBOUND LOADING
The components of the LQ will also experience blast load effect which is opposite to the direction of
the primary blast load effect. This is due to the negative phase (suction) of the blast wave together
with the rebound of the structural components from the inertial effect of the overpressure loading. The
negative pressure forces are small and unquantified for a vapour cloud explosion, and can be ignored.
However, the structural components of the building should be adequately detailed considering
dynamic analysis of the structural components.

7. STRUCTURAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

6.8
Blast loading is an accidental loading condition for which the requirements of normal design practice
can be substantially relaxed. Fairly large inelastic deformations are acceptable provided that the LQ
shell maintains protection of internal systems and personnel. Design requirements are:

1. That deformations should not exceed prescribed limits, chosen so that mechanical damage to
piping, fire doors and other internal components does not occur. Permanent deformation of 200
mm may be acceptable for the external walls that see the blast first. (Naturally, it is preferable
that there are no external doorways in this face of the LQ).
2. That the LQ remains attached to its supporting structure and is not ruptured. This requires
assurance that the welded connections are capable of withstanding inelastic strains associated with
allowable deformations and are not subject to brittle fracture or ductile tearing.
In the case of steel it is appropriate to use a high percentage of material ultimate strain may be used as
the design failure criteria. In addition deformations should also be limited.

Side wall Proof  t  Rear wall

Pside  t 
Roof

Front wall
H
Pr  t  L

B
Vd  t 
B
BLAST

Front wall strip

Pr  t 
L
H

Side wall H

Figure 14 Transmission of blast loads through the structure

Using manual design methods, it is generally assumed inelastic deformations associated with each of
the above responses are uncoupled, with evaluation of coupled response as possible refinement. That
is, the dynamic reaction of the element under consideration is applied to the next elements in the
second level of the structural hierarchy, Figure 14. The effect of structural coupling can be
investigated using non-linear finite element method.

8. NON-LINEAR FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

Evaluation of the response of a structure subjected to blast pressure requires that structural
components be modelled with an adequate number of elements to capture the extent of plasticity. The
spread of cross-sectional plastification in software that uses the distributed plasticity theory is
determined by the number of integration points through the section. A refined mesh is important when
the plastic strain is used as a measure of rupture. The plastic strain converges very slowly. In such
software, materials are defined using the "true" stress and strain curve. The effect of strain rate can be
approximately accounted for by the Cowper-Symond expression. However, stiff element formulation
may partially compensate for the rate effect [Ref.7].

6.9
Plating of a light structure is usually very slender, with breadth/thickness ratio typical greater than
100. The strength and stiffness of such plating are much reduced by local buckling under
compressive stress. As a result of initial weld-induced distortions and lack of straightness, the
effectiveness of slender plating can be low. Such effect is commonly accounted for by
implementing some nominal imperfection, which is commensurate with fabrication
tolerances.

9. A SIMPLIFIED METHOD
Economic considerations require that some of the energy input to a structural system during explosion
be dissipated by inelastic deformations. Because of uncertainties regarding the nature of an explosion
and the dynamic behavioural characteristics of actual structure-foundation systems, the LQ must be
capable of dissipating substantial energy. While large inelastic deformations may be tolerated for
explosion events that occur infrequently, these deformations must be controlled to prevent loss of
strength which could lead to structural collapse.

It has been a common practice in inelastic structural analyses to express maximum tolerable
deformations in terms of ductility factors [Ref. 6]. Ductility factors are useful comparative indices of
severity of inelastic deformations. Ductility factors may be applied to nearly any response parameters
including displacements, rotations, curvatures and strain. However, the ductility based on
displacement has gained popularity in the field of explosion resistant design.

External walls of the LQ transmit the blast loading by bending action (Figure 15). The wall reactions
are transmitted to the internal walls (or framing) via floor diaphragms. Therefore the total systems
can be broken down into two sub-systems, namely, external walls, which see load first and transmit
their loads by bending and membrane action to the combined internal walls and floor diaphragms.
The transmitted blast later sub-system could cause buckling, consequently its ability to counteract
blast load is much reduced. This is fully described in Ref. 5.

In Reference 5 it is shown that the proportion of blast load transmitted to the next sub-system can be
estimated using an energy balance.

S
Pmax T 1  1 (2 )
  2  1  (5)
RS
 td 1  2T ( t d )
where, t d is the blast duration,  the ductility ratio, T the fundamental period of the system, Pmax
S

is the peak of the blast load, and R the reduced blast load associated with the ductility ratio  .
S

The same Equation (5) can be used to determine the reduced load, for the lateral load bearing system
(the next sub-system in the structural hierarchy, see Ref. 5 for details)

In using the above equation for calculating the load transmitted to the second sub-system, a ductility
factor of 3 to 6 for the external wall can be assumed. Values above 2 would lead to a substantial
deformation of the external walls. A wall at high ductility transmits loads mainly by membrane action.
Support restraints should be adequate for such membrane action to develop.

The strain rate experienced by the structural elements varies throughout the structure and with respect
to time. Such variation can be easily accounted for in finite element transient dynamic analysis. Such
effect can be approximately accounted for by estimating an average strain rate. It is generally
accepted that an enhancement of 1.3 for mild steel, 1.2 for medium strength steel and 1.1 for high
strength steel (Ref. 8), which corresponds to strain rates of 0.1 to 10 /sec, are realistic.

6.10
The sides, end and decks of a light LQ are commonly formed by panels of plating with unidirectional
corrugations (or stiffeners with attached strip of plating). Thus a single stiffener or
corrugation can be examined as a beam to evaluate the blast response effect.

This approach requires an estimate of the first natural period, T , where for a clamped beam,
T  1 f , and frequency f is given by:
12
11 .2  EI 
f    (7)
b 2  m 
in which b is the beam length, EI is the elastic flexural rigidity, and m is the mass per unit length.
The lowest frequency of a long rectangular plate is given by the same expression if the flexural
rigidity per unit width D  Et 3 [12(1   2 )] is the substitute for EI and m is taken as the mass per
unit area. The period T for plate ranges between 4 to 200 milliseconds. For gaseous explosions the
effective duration of blast loading is generally greater than T .

Roof Rear wall

16.85 kPa 24.3 kPa
5m
Side
wall 5m
Front 66.6 kPa
16.84
kPa wall
5.4m

17.85m 17.85m 17.85m

 20.6kPa    5 / 2 m   51.5 kPa/m

 20.6kPa    5  5 m   103.0 kPa/m
 2 
 20.6kPa    5  5.4 m   107.12 kPa/m
 2 
 20.6kPa    5.4 m   55.62 kPa/m
 2 
51.5 kPa/m

107.12 kPa/m

107.12 kPa/m

55.62 kPa/m

Figure 15 An example of blast load calculation on the lateral load bearing system

6.11
The overall lateral deformation of the LQ under blast pressure is resisted primarily by the shear
rigidity of the decks and transverse walls (or framing) and the LQ bottom structure. Large
deformation could occur mainly due to shear buckling of slender plating.

A major design requirement is to ensure (on the basis of calculations or testing) that joint strength is
adequate for the plate panel strength to fully develop.

Consider the multi-storey block shown in Figure 15. The differential pressure on the lateral load
bearing system is:
s
Pmax  ( 66.6  24.3)  42.3 kPa

The reduction factor for the external wall is calculated using Equation (5), i.e.
1  1 ( 2   4  )
S
Pmax T  0.312
  2(   4 )  1   1.848
S
R    t e  0.15 1  2 T  0.312     t e  0.15 
The load transmitted to the lateral load bearing system by external walls is
P
Pmax  RS  42.3 1.848  22.93 kPa
Allowing some plastic deformation of the lateral load bearing system will reduce this load by the
following factor:
1  1  2    3 
P
Pmax T  0.17
  2(   3)  1   1.11
P
R    t e  0.15 1  2 T  0.17    t e  0.15 
The reduced load is:
RP  22.3 1.11  20.6 kPa
The rest of the calculations are shown in Figure 17.

10. CONCLUSIONS
It is demonstrated in some detail how the effect of external blast on a typical LQ can be determined.
Furthermore two methods of calculating the response of the LQ to the blast loading are outlined. It
was shown that both the simplified method and the more rigorous non-linear finite element transient
dynamic analyses could be utilised to account for inelastic deformations and large displacements.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge authors’ colleagues Peter Menhennett, Ken Paterson and
Samer Bachir for their helpful comments. The views of the authors do not purport to reflect the
position of their employer or the reviewers. The reader is cautioned to exercise professional
judgement when using this method. Anyone making use of this document assumes all liability arising
from such use.

11. REFERENCES
1. AISC Manual 42, Design of Structures to Resist Nuclear Weapons Effects, Committee on
Dynamic Effects, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY 1985.
2. Baker et al, Explosion Hazards and Evaluation, W.E. Baker, Elsvier Scientific Publishing
Company, New York, NY, 1983.
3. Newmark 1956, “An engineering Approach to Blast Resistant Design”, Nathan M. Newmark,
ASCE Transactions, Vol. 121, Paper 2786, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY
1956, pp45-64.
4. TM 5-1300, Structures to Resist the Effect of Accidental Explosion, Technical Manual TM-5-
1300, Department of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Washington, DC, 1990.
5. Yasseri, S., An Approximate Method for Blast Resistant Design, FABIG newsletter, No. 31, 2002.
6. Yasseri, S., Non-linear Finite Element Analysis of Stiffened Plates, No. 25, 1997.

6.12
7. Soroushian, P. and Choi, K., Steel Mechanical Properties at Different Strain Rates, J Structural
Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 113, Issue 4, PP663, 1987.

6.13