Defence Science Journal, Vol. 60, No. 5, September 2010, pp.

491-496 2010, DESIDOC

Assessing Expected Fractional Damage of Above-ground Buildings from Air-to-surface Weapons based on Indirect Fire Concept
Jong Yil Park
Agency for Defense Development, Jochiowongil 462, Yuseong, Daejeon, Korea E-mail: jongyilpark@[Link]
ABSTRACT For the expected fractional damage of building targets from air-to-surface weapons, the US has used the JMEM/AS method, which is based on the direct-fire concept. However, the damage redistribution assumption in the direct-fire concept could induce serious errors in damage estimation of building targets. In this paper, a method for the expected fractional damage of building targets is proposed based on the indirect-fire concept. From the proposed model, it is shown that the joint munitions effectiveness manuals/air-to-surface (JMEM/ AS) method is not appropriate for building targets, especially for attacks with multiple aiming points. It is recommended that the indirect-fire concept should be adopted for weaponeering even for air-to-surface weapons. Keywords: Weaponeering, air-to-surface, joint munitions effectiveness manuals, expected fractional damage, air-tosurface weapons

1.

INTRODUCTION The main purpose of weapon system is to achieve a required level of damage to a given target. Since there are various weapon types and operation methods, it is important to determine which weapon among the available weapons is the most effective for the mission and how to operate it. Weaponeering is this decision-making process by estimating and comparing the quantities of different weapons required for the desired level of damage. For weaponeering, two major inputs are required: weapon delivery accuracy and the effectiveness index (EI). Weapon delivery accuracy is a statistic measure of capability to place a weapon system on an intended point, which includes human performance factors, aiming error, and ballistic dispersion. Effectiveness index is a numerical value that represents the amount of a given degree of damage level, and has different values depending on target, weapon system, and damage level. For above-ground buildings, building mean area of effectiveness (MAE bldg) is adopted as the EI type. MAE bldg is the circular- or rectangular-shaped area with the origin as impact point of the weapon within which building components (e.g., slab and wall) suffer structural damage. Although numerical values of MAE bldg for air-to-surface weapons can be obtained from the Joint Munitions Effectiveness Manual Air-to-surface Weaponeering system (JAWS)1, which is maintained by the Joint Technical Coordinating Group for Munitions Effectiveness (JTCG/ME), US, those data are classified as high security. With given delivery errors and MAEbldg, the damage to a building target can be estimated by the Windows version of Joint Munitions Effectiveness
Received 2 June 2009, Revised 8 February 2010

Manuals (WINJMEM), which is the Window-based program for the damage calculation. When JAWS is not available, MAE bldg can be determined analytically from following procedures: Blast load calculation, Damage assessment of local structural components, such as columns and girders, Damage assessment from progressive collapse. Pressure history from detonation can be simply calculated when explosive amount is given 2. However, it should be noted that weight of explosive in a warhead cannot be used directly for blast load calculation. Since most warheads consist of explosive and covering case, part of energy from explosion should be consumed to break up covering case and accelerate resulted fragments. This casing effect can be considered by various empirical or analytical methods3-7. With estimated blast loads, local damages of critical structural components can be assessed by pressure-impulse(P-I) diagrams8-10. P-I diagrams represent combinations of peak pressure and impulse, which cause a predetermined level of structural response 11. P-I diagrams can be prepared by numerical analysis, such as finite element method and single-degree of freedom model 12-19. Once local damage is assessed, damage from progressive collapse should be considered. When local structural components fail, the damaged building structure should seek alternative load paths to withstand the remaining loads. As a result, additional structural component failures can occur 20-23. Based on this procedure, the global damage of building from warhead explosion can be analysed, of which average value can be considered as MAE bldg

491

DEF SCI J, VOL. 60, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 2010

To calculate the damage from air-to-surface weapons, WINJMEM uses the open-end method based on the directfire24. The basic concept of the direct-fire is that the damaged target elements in an area target are redistributed uniformly within the total target area after each attack. This concept could be an appropriate approach when the area target consists of multiple individual targets, and surviving targets line up uniformly within the target area after an attack. However, it does not seem to be appropriate to assume that the damaged portion of a building moves or damage is redistributed within a building area. Thus, the indirectfire concept should be adopted for building targets, even if air-to-surface weapons are used. The indirect-fire concept, which is used generally for surface-to-surface weapons, does not allow redistribution of damaged portions to the whole target area. In this paper, a new damage calculation method based on the indirect-fire concept is proposed for air-to-surface weapons, and the expected fractional damages from the new method and traditional JMEM/AS method are compared. 2. JMEM/AS METHOD FOR ABOVE-GROUND BUILDING TARGETS Here, the JMEM/AS weaponeering method for aboveground building targets is reviewed based on Morris Driels book25, which is currently being used by US Military Forces. The basic concept of weaponeering is to calculate expected damage to a given target from a specific weapon system by accounting for delivery accuracy and lethality of the weapon. To account for the lethality of the weapon on building targets, a rectangular-shaped MAE bldg is used, which can be represented by effective target length L ET and width WET :

lethal area, and P CD is the damage probability inside the lethal area. The expected fractional damage can be given by:
EFD = E( FR ) E( FD ) P CR (6) CD where, CR is reliability, E ( FR ) and E ( FD ) are expected damage in range and deflection directions, respectively. The range direction expected damage can be given by: E ( FR ) =
+ -

FR ( x) g R ( x) dx

(7)

where g R ( x) is probability that the weapon hits at x , representing delivery error in range direction and can be assumed as following normal distribution function:

g R ( x) =

1 sR

-x2 exp 2 2p 2s R

(8)

where, s R is standard deviation in range direction. In Eqn. (7), F R(x) is the area ratio of the overlapping area between target and lethal areas to the target area when the weapon detonates at x, and can be given by:

1 LEP + LA + x 2 LA LA FR ( x) = LEP + LA - x 2 LA LA 0
where s =

when - t < x < t when - s x -t when t x s otherwise

LET = MAEbldg ,
when

WET = WA + MAEbldg - LA
(1)

LEP - L A LEP + LA , and t = 2 2 Thus, the expected fractional damage can be determined by Eqn. (6).

MAEbldg > LA MAEbldg LA

3.

LET = LA , WET = WA , when

(2)

where, WA is target width, and L A is target length. For mathematical simplification [(Eqn. (6)] in combining lethality and delivery accuracy, the effective lengths should always be larger than target dimensions (length and width). Thus, when one of the target dimensions is larger than the lethal area, the size of the lethal area is enlarged and the damage probability inside the lethal area is reduced. This is done by adopting the following effective pattern dimensions:

LEP = max ( LET , LA ) WEP = max (WET , WA ) PCD = LET WET LEPWEP

(3) (4) (5)

where, L EP and W EP are effective pattern length and width, respectively, which represent the dimensions of the enlarged 492

PROPOSED METHOD FOR ASSESSING THE DAMAGE TO GROUND BUILDING TARGETS JMEM/AS adopted the methodology for area targets directly to building target cases. This is based on the direct-fire method, which can be represented by uniform redistribution of all surviving target elements within the target area after a single attack. This direct-fire concept has been adopted for all air-to-surface weapons regardless target types in JMEM/AS. However, when a building is damaged by a single attack, the damaged area can not be redistributed. Thus, the indirect-fire concept, which does not allow the damage redistribution, should be adopted for building targets, even if the weapon is air-to-surface type. A new damage calculation method for building targets is proposed based on this indirect-fire concept. Figure 1 shows building target area and delivery grids. The total grid size can be determined by target size and MAE bldg. When the shortest distance between the target edge and detonation point is longer than lethal radius Rlethal , which is MAEbldg / p , there is no damage to the target. Thus, the grids only within target edge plus Rlethal need

PARK: ASSESSING EXPECTED FRACTIONAL DAMAGE OF ABOVE-GROUND BUILDINGS FROM AIR-TO-SURFACE WEAPONS

LA
(i,j)

y WA x dn

where, Atarget represents (i, j) in which cell target is located, Ntarget is total number of grids overlapping with target area. When N weapon1 and N weapon 2 are used at two different aiming points (m x1 , m y1 ) and (m x 2 , m y 2 ) , respectively, the expected fractional damage can be calculated by:
EFD =
i , jAt arg et

1 - (1 - S1 (i, j ))

Nweapon1

(1 - S2 (i, j ))

Nweapon 2

N t arg et

*100(%)

Rlethal

(14) where, S 1 and S 2 are damage probabilities of cells calculated from Eqns (10) and (11) by adopting aiming points (m x1 , m y1 ) and (m x 2 , m y 2 ) , respectively. 4. COMPARISON OF EXPECTED FRACTIONAL DAMAGES FROM JMEM/AS AND THE PROPOSED METHOD Expected fractional damages were calculated in various situations to check the amount of error from the redistribution concept of the JMEM/AS method by comparing results from the proposed method. For the proposed method, a computer program using MATLAB 26 was prepared. 4.1 Single Aiming Case With a fixed aiming point at the centre of a target, which is a 50 m 50 m square building, the expected fractional damages at different attack numbers were calculated, as shown in Figs 2, 3, and 4. Weapons with 100 m 2, 500m 2, and 1000 m2 as MAEbldg, and 5 m, 10 m, and 15 m as circular error probabilities (CEPs), were considered. In these cases, it was shown that the JMEM/AS method underestimates the expected fractional damage by a maximum of 29 per cent and overestimates by a maximum of 35 per cent compared to the results from the proposed method. The main purpose of weaponeering is to choose the most effective weapon system for a given target. Thus, the calculated expected fractional damage should be at least either conservative or non-conservative to compare the effectiveness of various weapons, even if the calculated values are not very accurate.
80

dm

Rlethal

: GRID WHERE TARGET IS LOCATED

Figure 1. Delivery grids and target area.

to be considered, as shown in Fig. 1. The probability that the weapon hits within cell (i, j), I(i, j) can be given by:
I (i , j ) =
X ( i , j ) + dm/ 2 Y( i , j ) + dn / 2 X ( i, j ) - dm / 2 Y( i, j ) - dn / 2

( x - m R ) 2 ( y - m D )2 exp dydx 2ps R s D 2 s2 2 s2 R D 1

(10) where, X (i , j ) is the x-coordinate of cell (i, j), Y( i, j ) is the y-coordinate of cell (i, j), dm is the x-direction (or range direction) size of the cell, dn is the y-direction (or deflection direction) size of the cell, s R and s D are standard deviations in range and deflection directions, respectively, m R and m D are the range and deflection coordinates of aiming point, respectively. Then, the damage probability of cell (i,j) can be given by:

S (i, j ) = ( CR * I (k , l ) * D( k , l , i, j) )
k =1 l =1

(11)

EXPECTED FRACTIONAL DAMAGE (%)

where, m and n are the total number of cells in range and deflection directions, respectively, and D is:
1 if ( X ( k ,l ) - X (i , j ) ) + (Y( k ,l ) - Y(i , j ) ) < Rlethal D( k , l , i, j ) = 0 elsewhere (12) where, X ( k , l ) and Y( k ,l ) are x and y locations of cell (k,l), respectively.
2 2 2

70 60 50 40 30 20 10

PROPOSED METHOD JMEM / AS METHOD

MAEbldg=1000 m

When the number of weapons is N weapon with a constant aiming point, the expected fractional damage EFD can be given by:
i , j At arg et

MAEbldg=500 m

1 - (1 - S (i, j)) Nt arg et

N weapon

MAEbldg=100 m2
0

1 NO. OF WEAPONS

EFD =

*100(%)
(13)

Figure 2. Expected fractional damage when CEP is 5 m.

493

DEF SCI J, VOL. 60, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 2010

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0

PROPOSED METHOD JMEM / AS METHOD

MAEbldg =1000 m 2

MAEbldg =500 m MAEbldg=100 m

1
NO. OF WEAPONS

Figure 3. Expected fractional damage when CEP is 10 m.

PROPOSED METHOD JMEM / AS METHOD

based on the JMEM/AS and the proposed method, as shown in Figs. 6 and 7. In these cases, four different CEPs (1 m, 5 m, 10 m, and 15 m) were considered. The redistribution of the damage in the JMEM/AS induces 23-29 per cent more in the expected fractional damages compared to those from the proposed model. The results from 1m CEP case can be used for validation of the proposed method. 1m CEP represents that there is almost no delivery error compared to the target size. For 1000 m2 MAEbldg and no delivery error, the solution for the expected fractional damage is [{21000 m2/(150 m50 m)} 100]per cent 26.7per cent, which shows only 0.3 per cent difference with the result from the proposed model (Fig. 6). This 0.3 per cent difference may come from the 1m CEP or the cell size. Fig. 8 shows the comparison of calculated damage from the JMEM/AS and the proposed method when MAE bldg is 1000 m 2 and CEP is 15 m. It can be shown that the proposed method can show the different damage probabilities depending on location, although the JMEM/AS shows the constant damage within the building area.
60.0

MAE bldg=1000 m

EXPECTED FRACTIONAL DAMAGE (%)

PROPOSED METHOD 50.0 JMEM AS METHOD

MAEbldg=500 m

40.0

30.0

27.0 20.7

27.0 19.6

25.9 18.3

1 NO. OF WEAPONS

23.7 16.9

20.0

Figure 4. Expected fractional damage when CEP is 15 m.

Thus, it can be said that the JMEM/AS method is not appropriate for weaponeering on building targets with a single aiming point since it could induce both conservative and non-conservative expected fractional damages. 4.2 Multiple Aiming Case When a target is not square, as shown in Fig. 5, using more than one aiming point could be more efficient rather than adopting one aiming point. The expected fractional damages from a total of two weapons (one for each aiming point) with 1000 m2 and 2000 m2 as MAEbldg were calculated

10.0

0.0
1 5 CEP (m) 10 15

Figure 6. Expected fractional damage when MAEbldg is 1000 m2.

EXPECTED FRACTIONAL DAMAGE (%)

51.4 47.5 39.0

PROPOSED METHOD JMEM AS METHOD

50.0

40.0

37.1

34.7

32.2

30.0

RA NGE DIRECTION

50 m 25 m 25 m

20.0

10.0

50 m

50 m

50 m
: AIMING POINT

0.0

5 CEP (m)

10

15

Figure 5. Two aiming points.

Figure 7. Expected fractional damage when MAEbldg is 2000 m2.

494

PARK: ASSESSING EXPECTED FRACTIONAL DAMAGE OF ABOVE-GROUND BUILDINGS FROM AIR-TO-SURFACE WEAPONS

DAMAGE PROBABILITY (01)

5. 6.

7. 8. 9.

(a)
> y

> x

10.

11. 12. 13. 14.

(b)

>x

Figure 8. Comparison of expected fractional damages from: (a) the proposed method (23.7 per cent), and (b) JMEM/ AS methods (16.9 per cent).

5.

CONCLUSIONS A model to calculate expected fractional damage for building targets was developed based on the indirect fire concept. It has been shown that the conventional JMEM/ AS method could not be an appropriate tool for the damage calculation of building targets in both single and multiple aiming point cases. Since recently developed weapon systems have smaller warheads and have more accuracy compared to past weapons, the main purpose could be a precise destruction of a certain part of building rather than the demolition of the whole building. In that case, the proposed model could be a good approach. REFERENCES 1. Joint Technical Coordinating Group for Munitions Effectiveness. JMEM basic effectiveness manual. Army Material Analysis, 1996. 2. Structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions. Department of Defense, Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), Report No. 3-340-02, 2008. 9 p. 3. Fisher, E.M. The effect of the steel case on the air blast from high explosives. Naval Ordnance Laboratory. Report No. AD-009708, 1953. 29 p. 4. Grime, G. & Sheard, H. The experimental study of blast

15.

16. 17.

18.

19.

20.

from bombs and bare charges. Proc. Royal Soc. Med., 1946, 187(1010 Ser A), 357-80. Heinemann, R.; Snook, R. & Stein, S. The effects of casing materials and explosive compositions on blast. Picattiny Arsenal Technical Report, DR-TR 1-60, 1961. Filler, W.S. The influence of inert cases on air blast: An experimental study. In Proceedings of the 6 th Detonation Symposium, Coronado, California, USA, August 1976. pp. 777-85. Hutchinson, M.D. The escape of blast from fragmenting munitions casings. Int. J. Impact Engg., 2009, 36(2), 185-92. Krauthammer, T. Modern protective structures. CRC Press, 2008. 528 p. Krauthammer, T.; Astarlioglu, S. & Blasko, J.R. Pressureimpulse diagrams for the behaviour assessment of structural components. Int. J. Impact Engg., 2008, 35(8), 771-83. Soh, T. B. & Krauthammer, T. Load-impulse diagrams of reinforced concrete beams subjected to concentrated transient loading. Final Report to US Army, ERDC. Report No. PTCTR-006-2004, 2004. Single degree of freedom structural response limits for anti-terrorism design. US Army Corps of Engineers. Report No. PDC-TR 06-08, 2006. Oswald, C.J. & Sherkut, D. FACEDAP theory manual, Version 1.2. Omaha, US Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Nebraska, 1994. Biggs, J.M. Introduction to structural dynamics. McGrawHill, New York, 1964. Krauthammer, T. Blast mitigation technologies: Development and numerical considerations for behaviour assessment and design. In 5th International Conference on Structures Under Shock and Impact, Thessaloniki, Greece, 24-26 June 1998. Rhijnsburger, M.P.M.; van Deursen, J.R. & van Doormaal, J.C.A.M. Development of a toolbox suitable for dynamic response analysis of simplified structures. In 30th DoD Explosives Safety Seminar, Atlanta, GA, 2002. Ph, N.G. & Krauthammer, T. Pressure-impulse diagrams for reinforced concrete slabs. US Army, ERDC. Technical Report No. PTC-TR-007-2004, 2004. Blasko, J.R.; Krauthammer, T. & Astarlioglu, S. Pressureimpulse diagrams for structural elements subjected to dynamic loads. US Army, ERDC. Technical Report No. PTC-TR-002-2007, 2007. Shi, Y.; Hao, H. & Li, Z. X. Numerical derivation of pressure-impulse diagrams for prediction of reinforced concrete column damage to blast loads. Int. J. Impact Engg., 2008, 35(11), 1213-227. Fallah, A.S. & Louca, L.A. Pressure-impulse diagrams for elastic-plastic-hardening and softening single-degreeof-freedom models subjected to blast loading. Int. J. Impact Engg., 2007, 34(4), 823-42. Allen, D. & Schriever, W.R. Progressive collapse, abnormal loads and building codes. In Structural failures: Modes, causes, responsibilities. American Society of Civil 495

> y

DAMAGE PROBABILITY (01)

DEF SCI J, VOL. 60, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 2010

Engineers, 1973. 21. Breen, J.E. & Siess, C.P. Progressive collapseSymposium Summary. ACI Journal, 1979, 76(9), 997-1004. 22. Design of buildings to resist progressive collapse. Department of Defense, Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC). Report No. 4-023-03, 2003. 23. Progressive collapse analysis and design guidelines for new federal office buildings and major modernisation projects. General Services Administration (GSA) Washington DC, 2003. 24. JTCG/ME, Derivation of JMEM/AS open-end methods. Army Material System Analysis, 1983. 25. Driels, Morris. Weaponeering: Conventional weapon system effectiveness. AIAA Educational Series, AIAA

Inc., 2004. 26. MATLAB user guides. [Link].

496