PennState
Short-Duration
Dynamics
EXPLOSION DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
PROF. TED KRAUTHAMMER
The Pennsylvania State University
First Structural Forensic Engineering Seminar on
STRUCTURAL FAILURE INVESTIGATIONS
University of Toronto
11-12 January 1999
OUTLINE
PROBLEM DEFINITION
BACKGROUND
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES
COMPUTATIONAL SUPPORT
EXAMPLES
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
PROBLEM DEFINITION
HOW TO USE EXISTING KNOWLEDGE IN SUPPORT
OF:
EFFECTIVE EXPLOSION DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS.
CORRELATING DAMAGE WITH POSSIBLE CAUSES.
ASSESSING THE REMAINING STRUCTURAL CAPACITY.
PROBLEM (Cont.)
TERRORISM
ACCIDENTS
MODERN EXPLOSION DAMAGE
ASSESSMENT - HALIFAX 1917
6 DEC. 1917: SHIP COLLISION WITH
A FRENCH MUNITIONS CARRIER IN
HALIFAX HARBOUR.
2766 T OF VARIOUS EXPLOSIVES.
OVER 2.5 KM_ OF HALIFAX'S
INDUSTRIAL N END WAS TOTALLY
LEVELLED. THE BLAST SHATTERED
WINDOWS 100 KM AWAY, AND WAS
HEARD IN PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.
1600+ PEOPLE DIED, 9000 INJURED,
200 BLINDED BY FLYING GLASS.
1600
BUILDINGS
DESTROYED,
12,000 DAMAGED. TOTAL DAMAGE
US$35 M.
PROBLEM (Cont.)
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
U.S.A. CRIMINAL INCIDENTS DATA
1989 - 1993
1991 - 1995
BOMBING INCIDENTS
(ATTEMPTED)
7,716
(1,705)
8,506
(2,078)
INCENDIARY BOMBING
(ATTEMPTED)
2,242
(557)
2,468
(782)
DAMAGE (M US$)
641.3
1,257.3
BACKGROUND
BLACK POWDER HAS BEEN USED FOR
SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS.
HIGH EXPLOSIVES HAVE BEEN USED FOR
ABOUT ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS.
NITROGLYCERINE (1862) - IMMANUEL NOBEL.
DYNAMITE (1875) - ALFRED NOBEL.
NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVES (1945).
BACKGROUND (Cont.)
EXPERIENCE:
ACCIDENTS, MILITARY
CONFLICTS AND TERRORISM.
CIVIL WAR, 1861 - 1865
RUSSIA - JAPAN, 1905
WWI, 1914 - 1918
WWII, 1939 - 1945
KOREA, 1950 - 1953
VIETNAM, 1964 - 1975
MIDDLE EAST, 1947 -
INT. TERRORISM, 1960s -
EXPLOSIVE LOAD SOURCES
(MILITARY AND CIVILIAN)
CONVENTIONAL
NUCLEAR
CHEMICALS AND FUELS.
VAPORS.
COMBUSTIBLE DUSTS.
PRESSURE VESSELS.
EXPLOSIVES.
HIGH EXPLOSIVES.
NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
EXPLOSIVE LOAD SOURCES (Cont.)
NUCLEAR DEVICESS
YIELDS: KILOTONS (TACTICAL), OR MEGATONS
(STRATEGIC) OF TNT EQUIVALENT.
RELEASE LARGE AMOUNTS OF ENERGY
(RADIATION, THERMAL, BLAST, EMP, ETC.) IN
~1sec, AFFECTING VAST AREAS.
CONVENTIONAL EXPLOSIVE DEVICES
YIELDS: ~<1 KG TO ~>15 TONS OF TNT QUIVALENT.
RELEASE SMALLER AMOUNTS OF ENERGY
(BLAST, FRAGMENTS, ETC.) IN ~ 2sec AFFECTING
SMALLER AREAS.
EXPLOSIVE LOADS (Cont.)
EXPLOSIVE LOADS (Cont.)
EXPLOSIVE LOADS (Cont.)
EXPLOSIVE LOADS (Cont.)
EXPLOSIVE LOADS (Cont.)
EXPLOSIVE LOADS (Cont.)
EXPLOSIVE LOADS (Cont.)
LOAD COMPARISONS FOR TYPICAL WEAPONS
3000
PRESSURE (kPa)
2500
Mk 84 100m - INCIDENT
Mk 84 100m - REFLECTED
15 KT - INCIDENT
15 KT - REFLECTED
1 MT - INCIDENT
1 MT - REFLECTED
2000
1500
1000
500
0
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
TIME (ms)
900 1000 1100 1200
EXPLOSIVE LOADS (Cont.)
LOAD COMPARISONS FOR TYPICAL WEAPONS
PRESSURE (kPa)
30
20
Mk 84 100m - INCIDENT
Mk 84 100m - REFLECTED
10
0
200
220
240
260
280
300
TIME (ms)
320
340
360
380
400
TECHNICAL RESOURCES
CONVENTIONAL AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS
EFFECTS ARE WELL DOCUMENTED.
NUCLEAR
CONVENTIONAL
EARLY:
DOD, 1957
NDRC, 1946
RECENT:
ASCE, 1985
Schuster et al., 1987
TM 5-855-1, 1986
ESL-TR-87-57, 1989
TM 5-1300, 1990
CONWEP, 1992
TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES
LOAD DEFINITION: P(x,y,z,t) .
MEDIUM - STRUCTURE INTERACTION.
NONLINEAR DYNAMIC STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR:
GEOMETRIC.
MATERIAL.
STRUCTURE - CONTENTS INTERACTIONS.
CONTENTS SURVIVABILITY (OR FRAGILITY).
DAMAGE DEFINITIONS.
MANY OF THESE ISSUES ARE NOT WELL DEFINED !
COMPUTATIONAL SUPPORT FOR
DESIGN AND ASSESSMENT
WEAPON EFFECTS CALCULATIONS.
CLOSED-FORM SOLUTIONS.
SDOF, MDOF (SIMPLE AND ADVANCED).
STRUCTURAL MODELS (BEAM, PLATE, ETC.).
ADVANCED TOOLS (FE, FD, HYBRID, ETC.).
SYMBOLIC AND SYMBOLIC-NUMERIC TOOLS.
SDOF RESPONSE CALCULATIONS
F(t)
M
C
K or R(x)
SDOF RESPONSE CALCULATIONS
Figure 3-54. Maximum deflection of elasto-plastic,
one-degree-of-freedom system for triangular load
100
0.1
0.2
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Xm / Xe
10
1.2
1.5
1.0
2.0
Numbers next to curves are Ru/P
0.1
0.1
1.0
10
T / Tn
100
PRESSURE - IMPULSE DIAGRAM
STRUCTURAL RESPONSE DEPENDS ON td/T
td = DURATION OF THE APPLIED LOAD
T = NATURAL PERIOD OF THE ELEMENT:
T = 2PI/OMEGA, OMEGA = (K/M)0.5
THREE BEHAVIORAL DOMAINS:
td >> T
td << T
td ~ T
2F / (KXMAX)
PRESSURE - IMPULSE DIAGRAM
1/[XMAX (KM)0.5]
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AND
SCALED RANGE
DIFFERENT EXPLOSIVE EVENTS CAN BE COMPARED WHEN
USING THE CONCEPT OF SCALED RANGE:
1/ 3
8 =
SCALED RANGE.
R=
DISTANCE IN FEET OR METERS.
W=
EQUIVALENT TNT EXPLOSIVE WEIGHT, IN POUNDS
OR KG.
DAMAGE CAN BE RELATED TO SCALED RANGE.
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT FOR FRAMES
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT FOR SLABS
DAMAGE CRITERIA
ELEMENT
TYPE
Beams
MATERIAL
TYPE
Reinforced
Concrete
(>1/2%/face)
TYPE OF
FAILURE
CRITERIA
LIGHT
DAMAGE
MODERATE
DAMAGE
SEVERE
DAMAGE
Global
Bending/
Membrane
Response
Ratios of
Centerline
Deflection to
Span, /L
4%
8%
15%
Shear
Average Shear
Strain across
Section, v
1%
2%
3%
Bending/
Membrane
/L
5%
12%
25%
Shear
/L
2%
4%
8%
Bending/
Membrane
/L
4%
8%
15%
Shear
1%
2%
3%
Reinforced
Concrete
(>1/2%/face)
Compression
Shortening/
Height
1%
2%
4%
Steel
Compression
Shortening/
Height
2%
4%
8%
oad Bearing
Walls
Reinforced
Concrete
(>1/2%/face)
Compression
Shortening/
Height
1%
2%
4%
Shear Walls
Reinforced
Concrete
(>1/2%/face)
Shear
Average Shear
Strain Across
Section
1%
2%
3%
Steel
Slabs
Columns
Reinforced
Concrete
(>1/2%/face)
ADDITIONAL DAMAGE CRITERIA
DAMAGE VS. SUPPORT ROTATIONS
FOR BEAMS AND SLABS
SUPPORT ROTATION
(DEGREES)
DAMAGE
<2
LIGHT
2 TO 5
MODERATE
5 TO 12
SEVERE
OBSERVED STRUCTURAL DAMAGE
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
BACKRAOUND
DATA
SITE
CONDITIONS
EXPERT
ASSESSMENT
POSSIBLE
CAUSE
MEASUREMENTS
POSSIBLE
CAUSE
NUMERICAL
ANALYSIS
POSSIBLE
CAUSE
DETERMINE
CAUSE
POSSIBLE
EFFECTS
POSSIBLE
EFFECTS
POSSIBLE
EFFECTS
DETERMINE
EFFECT
ADVANCED DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
TO
A
EXPERT SYSTEM
INTELLIGENT INTERFACE
INVESTIGATOR
DESIGN
MANUALS
AND
SUPPORT TOOLS
SIGNAL ANALYSIS
NUMERIC FACILITIES
AND
COMPUTER CODES
TEST AND
OPERATIONS
DATA BASE
SENSOR
DATA
THE OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING
19 APRIL 1995
THE EXPLOSIVE CHARGE
WAS ESTIMATED BASED ON
CRATER DIMENSIONS.
~4000 lbs. TNT EQUIVALENT
PLACED ~14 ft. FROM THE
BUILDING, 4.5 ft. ABOVE
AN 18-in.-THICK PAVEMENT.
EXTENSIVE DAMAGE, FAR
EXCEEDING WHAT WAS
SHOWN IN TYPICAL NEWS
REPORTS.
THE OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING
BLAST LOADING ON COLUMN G24
DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF COLUMN G24 AT MIDHEIGHT
1.1
PRESSURE (PSI)
1200
LATERAL DEFLECTION (IN.)
1400
FRONT
1000
800
600
400
FAILURE
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
200
05
0.1
REAR
6
8
TIME (MS)
10
0.0
10
TIME (MS)
DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE BETWEEN THE FRON AND REAR OF
COLUMN G24 CAUSED ITS FAILURE 3.75 MILLISECONDS
AFTER THE BLAST ARRIVAL.
THE OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING
BLAST LOADING ON 5TH FLOOR SLAB
BETWEEN COLUMNS 20 AND 22
BOTTOM
PRESSURE (PSI)
PEAK DEFLECTION AT 284 MS (9.3 IN.)
10
140
120
100
12
TOP
80
60
DEFLECTION (IN.)
160
5TH FLOOR SLAB RESPONSE
BETWEEN COLUMNS 20 AND 22
SLAB FAILURE AT 183 MS (8.4 IN.)
40
2
20
0
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
TIME (MS)
100
200
TIME (MS)
DIFFERETIAL UPWARD PRESSURE ON 5TH FLOOR SLAB CAUSED
ITS FAILURE LONG AFTER THE BLAST LOADS DIMINISHED.
300
THE OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING
NUMERICALLY SIMULATED EFFECT OF RAPID COLUMN REMOVAL
ON BUILDING BEHAVIOR (Crawford, 1996)
KHOBAR TOWERS - SAUDI ARABIA
EXTENSIVE DAMAGE TO
PRECAST APARTMENT
BUILDING.
EXPLOSIVE CHARGE WAS
ESTIMATED BASED ON
CRATER DIMENSIONS,
GLASS BREAKAGE, AND
ADVANCED SIMULATIONS.
KHOBAR TOWERS - SAUDI ARABIA
KENYA AND TANZANIA, 1998
PETROCHEMICAL EXPLOSIONS
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
EXPLOSIVE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT IS DIFFICULT.
EXPERIENCE: EXPLOSION MECHANICS AND EFFECTS
STRUCTURAL MECHANICS AND DYNAMICS
COMPUTATIONAL MECHANICS.
USE DATA TO DERIVE POSSIBLE CAUSE-AND-EFFECT
RELATIONSHIPS, AND VALIDATE WITH NUMERICAL
SIMULATIONS.
ACTIVITIES COULD BE VERY TIME CONSUMING.
URGENT NEED TO DEVELOP INTELLIGENT EXPLOSION
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT TOOLS.